Ad Hoc University-Wide Governance CommitteeAd Hoc University-Wide
Governance
Committee
Aug. 25, 2004
Minutes
Present: J. Acker, J. Bartow, B. Carlson, P. Eppard, M. Fogelman, R.
Geer, G.
Goatley
(substituting for R. Bangert-Drowns), J. Pipkin, L. Schell, G. Singh, B.
Via, J.
Wyckoff
Minutes: The revised minutes of Aug. 11 were approved, as additionally
revised
by the inclusion of two more institutions (Florida State and Rutgers)
consulted
by the Graduate Curriculum Subcommittee. The minutes of the Aug. 18
minutes were
not considered because they had been distributed only shortly before the
meeting; those minutes will be considered for approval at the next
scheduled
meeting. Professor Carlson offered clarification about two issues in
those
minutes relating to the Institutional Review Board (IRB). She noted that
the
IRB aspired to have a membership reflecting a generally proportional
representation of academic units based both on fairness and the desire
for
relevant expertise. The number of proposals from the School of Education
suggested that increased representation on IRB from that School would be
desirable. With respect to the reference in the minutes about faculty
being
“deputized” to review students’ research proposals, she explained present
and
proposed procedures governing IRB review of in-class research assignments
that
rely on particular sources of data.
Discussion then ensued about whether the committee’s minutes should be
publicized. It was pointed out that the invited guests who had appeared
before
the committee had not had a chance to review minutes relevant to their
appearance, and it was suggested that it would be appropriate to allow
those
individuals to review the minutes for accuracy if the minutes are to be
made
public. It also was pointed out that individual committee members might
have
been operating under different understandings about whether the minutes
would be
publicly available, since there had not been prior agreement about this
matter.
It was agreed that individual committee members would be polled and that
the
minutes would not be distributed publicly if any member objected to their
dissemination. No committee member present at the meeting expressed
objections
about having the minutes publicized. Members not in attendance at the
meeting
will be consulted before action is taken. It additionally was agreed
that the
minutes of all committee meetings would be compiled and distributed to
all
committee members for further review before action is taken. Jayne will
be
asked to collect and distribute the collection of minutes. It was agreed
that
the invited guests should be given the chance to check minutes relevant
to their
appearances for accuracy before action might be taken to distribute the
minutes
publicly. It was contemplated that the minutes would be posted on the
Senate
web site if no objections are raised.
Anticipated Committee Report. Professor Acker expressed his opinion
that time
constraints almost certainly will not allow the committee to issue a
draft
report, circulate it for review and comment, and then issue a final
report after
considering feedback, by October 1. He suggested that the committee
should
attempt to have its draft report prepared by Oct. 1, and thereafter have
the
draft report distributed for review and comment. He additionally
suggested that
the committee meet on Friday mornings after the academic semester begins,
assuming all members remain available at that time, and inquired whether
extending committee meetings beyond two hours duration would be
productive and
feasible.
Committee members agreed that meetings should be scheduled to begin
Fridays at
10:30, starting Sept. 3. There also was agreement that meetings could
extend
beyond two hours, and that the first meeting tentatively would be of
three hours
duration (if necessary).
More extensive discussion then ensued about the process and timing for
developing a committee report. It was noted that the committee’s charge
contemplates that the committee’s report should be delivered to the
Senate
rather than the Senate Executive Committee (or its equivalent).
Committee
members agreed that a draft or preliminary report should be distributed
to
faculty, deans, department chairs, and other constituencies for review
and
comment before the committee prepares a final report and submits such
report to
the Senate. Members also agreed that it was unrealistic to complete that
process in advance of Oct. 1. It was suggested that October 1 be
established as
the target date for the committee to complete its draft report, which
then would
be circulated to faculty, deans, department chairs, and others for review
and
comment. It additionally was suggested that a faculty forum might be
scheduled
for discussion of the committee’s draft report. Professor Acker was
encouraged
to confer with Professor Carolyn MacDonald in her capacity as the Chair
of the
University Senate regarding such plans.
Different formats for the committee’s report were discussed. One style
involves
listing alternative models or approaches with respect to the issues and
sub-issues considered, without expressing views about which
model/approach a
majority of the committee prefers. The other style involves listing
alternative
models or approaches, along with the committee’s recommendations or
preferences
(majority and minority viewpoints). Preliminary sentiment appeared to
favor
identifying majority and minority views about issues, although it was
considered
prudent to withhold judgment about a specific style or format pending
preparation of the subcommittee reports and the draft report. It was
anticipated that different approaches might be appropriate for different
issues.
Research Subcommittee. As anticipated, the Research subcommittee had not
completed a written draft report. Brief discussion ensued about the
scope of
the committee’s charge within the general area of Research. In response
to a
question, Professor Geer reported that the College of Nanoscale Science
and
Engineering had been especially interested in research-related issues
including
oversight and review of research centers and institutes. In contrast,
other
issues related to research (e.g., human subjects review, FRAP awards,
Indirect
Cost Return funds) had not been contemplated within the context of
increased
autonomy in faculty governance. Other committee members expressed their
opinion
that Faculty Bylaws and Senate Charter provisions relevant to research
issues
would be useful to help define the scope of issues relevant to the
committee’s
charge concerning “Research.”
Subcommittee on Graduate Curriculum and Academic Standing. Jon Bartow
distributed a handout providing information about a booklet prepared by
the
Council of Graduate Schools: CSG Task Force on Organization and
Administration
of Graduate Education (Washington, DC: Council of Graduate Schools,
2004). He
explained that the report includes a discussion of the role of faculty
governance in graduate curriculum development and oversight. The
committee was
reminded that the Council of Graduate Schools is an organization that
includes
graduate school deans and that the report is likely to reflect
perspectives
shared by those deans.
The Subcommittee on Graduate Curriculum and Academic Standing has
consulted
several institutions and has discovered diverse practices regarding
faculty
governance in matters of graduate curriculum. Institutions with graduate
schools and active graduate deans appear to have somewhat more
centralized
faculty governance structures regarding graduate curriculum issues,
although
there is considerable variation within institutions of this general
nature.
Other institutions have more decentralized, or distributed faculty
governance
approaches. Greater centralization may be more typical of larger
academic
institutions.
Issues of academic standing (and how academic standing relates to
admissions)
appear to be more complex at institutions that do not have graduate
schools and
graduate deans to act on such matters.
A broad spectrum of practices is followed at other universities. For
example,
at Rutgers, in principle, every course proposal is considered and voted
on by
the entire graduate faculty, after having undergone two prior levels of
review.
On the other hand, UMass-Amherst appears to follow a “hold harmless”
policy
whereby a department can offer a class for three years without prior
review by a
graduate school or council.
It was observed that, in practice, GAC review of individual course
proposals at
UAlbany almost never has produced significant problems, with the recent
exception of course proposals made by the School/College of Nanoscale
Sciences.
It was suggested that it might be fruitful to study this situation more
closely
to learn what factors contributed to the more difficult GAC process.
One member posited a hypothetical situation in which three separate
academic
units—e.g., the School of Criminal Justice, the School of Social Welfare,
and
the Sociology Department—all proposed to teach similar courses in an area
such
as deviance, or delinquency, or drug policies. A question was raised
about
problems that might be encountered in such circumstances if no mechanism
existed
for centralized review by a body like GAC. It was suggested that the
hypothetical situation more directly implicated fiscal concerns than
academic
ones. Presumably, each unit would have defensible academic reasons to
make the
respective course offerings. It additionally was suggested that GAC
concerns
itself with curricular rather than fiscal issues. On the other hand, EPC
or the
new UPC is concerned with economic/fiscal matters, as are deans. It was
pointed
out that deans would be positioned to prohibit a course from going
forward if it
taxed scarce resources and duplicated offerings available elsewhere in
the
University. However, it also was suggested that the committee should
point out
that there might be fiscal implications associated with overlapping or
highly
similar courses being offered by more than a single academic unit. Deans
and
others should be alerted to this potential consequence of decentralized
decision-making regarding graduate course approval (although it again was
suggested that GAC has not been charged with considering fiscal, as
opposed to
curricular implications of new course proposals).
From a more “philosophical” perspective, it was suggested that academic
departments could be characterized as discrete silos for purposes of
channeling
resources. In contrast, disciplines intellectually have considerable
overlap
and interconnectedness. The competing models for resource-investment and
intellectual interdisciplinariness present challenges for governance in
curricular matters. It additionally was suggested that issues of
academic
freedom are closely associated with course offerings.
Questions were raised about the implications of moving toward a more
decentralized model of faculty governance in the area of graduate
curriculum
when “major” curriculum and programmatic changes are considered (as
opposed to
individual course proposals and offerings). A reminder was offered that
the
State Education Department (SED) reviews major programmatic changes
following
whatever review occurs at the University level. For example, when a
proposal is
made to create a new program, SED is required to invite comment from
throughout
the SUNY system. On the other hand, it is not likely that “major
changes” in
programs or curricula would receive such consideration by SED. “Major”
curricular issues are presented when a new graduate program is created,
and in
theory by the termination of a program or degree, as well. It was
suggested
that the termination of programs may depend principally on fiscal
considerations, although there also may be substantive implications
regarding
the University’s educational mission, academic freedom, and consequences
for
faculty lines, including those occupied by tenured faculty members.
Other
academic units within the University also could experience curricular
ramifications by the termination of a program—for example, the Philosophy
Department could be directly affected by dissolution of the German
Department.
It was suggested that it is important to define the critical point at
which a
decision that most directly affects one department or school/college also
has
significant implications for other academic units or throughout the
University
generally.
Next Meeting. All subcommittees were encouraged to complete and
circulate their
reports in advance of the committee meeting scheduled for Sept. 3. The
reports
hopefully can be discussed so the committee can progress toward its goals
of (1)
identifying important governance issues within Research, Graduate
Curriculum and
Academic Standing, and Promotions and Continuing Appointments; (2)
identifying
alternative models or approaches with respect to the various issues; (3)
ascertaining whether there are approaches/models that garner
greater/lesser
committee support; (4) identifying specific implications for Faculty
Bylaws and
Senate Charter provisions; and (5) preparing a draft report.
