UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE
GOVERNANCE HANDBOOK
Prepared by the Governance Committee
of the
University Faculty Senate
2007-2008
June 2008
STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
The University Faculty Senate
GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE
2007-2008
Committee Members Campus/A ffiliation Role
Sharon Cramer Buffalo State College Chair
Tom Barthel Herkimer County Community College
Susan Camp SUNY Oswego Campus Govemance
Leaders Convener
Enik D’Aquino University at Buffalo
Marti Ellermann SUNY System Administration Liaison
Fred Hildebrand SUNY System Administration Liaison
Joe Hildreth SUNY Potsdam Past President,
University Faculty
Senate
Y oav Kaddar SUNY New Paltz
Larry Labinski University at Buffalo
Joe Petrick Alfred State College
R. Michael Range University at Albany
Ron Samer SUNY IT Immediate Past
Chair, Governance
Committee
Handbook design by Carol Donato
University Faculty Senate
2008
Preface by Carl Wiezalis, President, University Faculty Senate 0.0... eeeseeseesesseesseese
Introduction: A Focus on Faculty Governance on SUNY Campuses.
Ill.
V.
VI.
VIL.
VIII.
Conclusion
TABLE OF CONTENTS
University Faculty Senate
College Faculty and Professional Staff Governance Bodies ...........scesseseeseeseene
Faculty Govemance: General Areas of Involvement.
A. Academic Programs and Policies
B. Mission Review
C. Budget and Planning
D. Calendar
E. Web Presence of Governance
F. Governance and Students
Governance and College Councils/Boards of Trustees
nc
Academic Freedom and Governance
1. Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action
11
13
15
23
Searches: Presidents, Provosts, Vice Presidents, Deans
Support, Evaluations and Reviews of Administrative Officers and Functions .....
27
29
Campus Govemance Leaders
Campus Consultation & Visitation Procedures
31
37
Governance Committee of the SUNY Faculty Senate
39
TABLE OF APPENDICES
Page
Appendix 1 43
Joint Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities, AAUP Policy Documents
and Reports, originally ratified by the three groups in 1966-7; updated in 1990
Appendix 2 52
Guidelines for University Faculty Senators
2008 Edition
Appendix 3 53
Resolution on Faculty Consultation
January 2000
2008 Edition
Appendix 4 54
Statement of Professional Responsibilities and Rights and Guidelines for Adjudicating
Allegations of Unprofessional Conduct in Violation of That Statement
(1995 Edition Handbook)
Appendix 5 59
Academic Governance in the State University of New York: Precepts for Campus
Presidents and Faculty, Chancellor Johnstone, 1991
(Unchanged from 1991 Edition Handbook)
Appendix 6 63
Chancellor's Statement on Campus Governance, 1973, reissued 1982
(Unchanged from 1991 Handbook)
Appendix 7 65
Presidential Searches
Presidential Search, Guidelines for Conducting Presidential Searches
Document Number: 8400
2008 Edition
Appendix 8 71
Resolution on Orienting and Mentoring New Campus Presidents, passed by the SUNY
University Faculty Senate, October 2006
Appendix 9 72
Resolution in Support of Faculty Evaluation of Administrators, passed by the SUNY
University Faculty Senate, April 2005
Appendix 10 73
Revised Guidelines for the Evaluation of Campus Presidents (1986)
(Replaced material from 1991 Handbook with original documents)
1991 Edition
Appendix 11 wih
Resolution on Guidelines for Campus Govermance Involvement in Presidential Reviews,
passed by the SUNY University Faculty Senate, April, 1991
(1995 Edition Handbook)
Appendix 12 79
Report of the Task Force on the Relationship of the Campus
Governance Leaders to the University Faculty Senate
Appendix 13 85
Common Parliamentary Procedures
Recommended Readings. 89
Supplemental Readings 92
#1 Quality and Higher Education: Defining Our Stance (Amended June 1998)
Faculty Governance in Higher Education
http://www2.nea.org/he/policy.html (#6)
#2 Statement on Community College Governance
http://www2.nea.org/he/policy-cc.html
Preface to the 2008 Edition of the Governance Handbook
“Faculty Govemance” is the name commonly given to the processes by which the faculty
and staff express and exercise their authority and responsibility in support of the State University
of New Y ork.
While pedagogy and scholarship partly characterize the scope of individual faculty
activity, civic service to the university at the campus level or at the State-wide level are critical to
the collective thought, collective effort and common cause of democratic participation.
Democratic governance is critical to the sustenance and development of public higher education
over time. Dedicated investment by faculty and staff to shared governance balances the equation
of responsibility with the administration of the University.
SUNY was founded in 1948, and we now find the University in its 60" birthday
anniversary year. For most of these 60 years, System-wide faculty governance, in the form of
the University Faculty Senate, has worked with the Chancellor’ s Office, the Provost's Office and
the Board of Trustees to study issues important to the improvement of our structure and
operations. While curriculum is seen as the exclusive domain of the academy, all issues
affecting the planning and operation of our colleges and universities are within the scope of
faculty/staff consideration.
This Governance Handbook was last edited in 1995. As time changes, policies, practices
and priorities may also change. The absence of internet options when the last edition was
published illustrates that the means of communication about governance documents has also
changed. Both in terms of content and types of availability, it is important that all significant and
comprehensive documents be revisited regularly. The charge to the Governance Committee has
been amended, so that on a regular four year cycle the handbook will be updated.
While all Senators involved in the formal operations of the Faculty Senate are engaged
daily in our governance work, the Chair and members of our Governance Committee have first-
order responsibilities for monitoring governance and advising the body relative to “better
practices.” Optimizing shared govemance is part of the continuous quality improvement of the
University Faculty Senate. The Governance Handbook is a primer for inexperienced Senators
and campus-level faculty, and it is a reference text for mature faculty seeking guidance. The
Governance Handbook should be required reading for new campus presidents, System
administrators and members of the Board of Trustees in the fashion of the Policies of the Board
of Trustees. Understanding the subtle differences in perspectives between and among these
bodies better assures an effective working relationship.
Tremendous effort has gone into this 2008 edition of the Governance Handbook,
stretching back to 2005, when the Governance Committee was chaired by Ron Samer. Under his
leadership, sections of this document were brought before, and ratified by, the entire University
Faculty Senate. Other parts must be attributed to past committee members who selected and
drafted the foundational documents contained within the Handbook. Contemporary adjustments
and additions are the work of the current members of the Governance Committee. Chair Sharon
8
Cramer was also the chair of the sub-committee of the 1995 Governance Committee which was
responsible for the last edit of the Handbook. Dr. Cramer and the members of the Govemance
Committee deserve our recognition and appreciation for their product. Without the care,
patience and talents of Carol Donato, Administrative Assistant to the University Faculty Senate,
whose work ethic, hours of dedication, and attention to detail rival all others, we would not have
an updated Governance Handbook.
Any guidance document or handbook becomes valuable when it is periodically reviewed
and operationalized to the maximum. Our Governance Handbook should be a template for
similar texts at the campus level. While exact congruence is not essential, conceptual and
philosophic harmony between campus and University Faculty Senate documents is beneficial.
Sincere thanks to the members of the Governance Committees, past and present, for an
outstanding and timely achievement.
Professor Carl P. Wiezalis, President
University Faculty Senate — 2008
Welcome
The goal of the Governance Handbook is to provide a resource for existing governance
representatives, and an orientation guide for individuals new to governance responsibilities. This
hard copy edition of the Handbook is also posted on the web site of the University Faculty
Senate, with links available throughout the document. The document has been designed to assist
all individuals whose questions and dedication to different campus and SUNY System-wide
governance roles leads them to the University Faculty Senate.
Introduction: A Focus on Faculty Governance on SUNY Campuses
No other participatory governing system has as long a history as governance by
academic faculties.
Today, participatory governance is a key element in American higher education. It is a
necessary condition for the maintenance and improvement of this critical sector of democratic
societies. College and campus presidents and other administrators responsible for the
management of their institutions recognize that the health and vigor of the college or university
depend fundamentally upon the vitality, creativity, intelligence, and commitment of academic
and professional staff.
The seminal document on govemance is the 1966 Statement on Government of Colleges
and Universities
(http://www.aaup.org/A A UP/pubsres/policydocs/contents/governancestatement.htm) 1 (see
Appendix 1) that was jointly formulated by the A merican Association of University Professors
(AAUP) , the American Council on Education (ACE), and the Association of Governing Boards
of Universities and Colleges (AGB). The document survives today in essentially the same form,
except that AAUP made the language gender-neutral in 1990. Those interested in campus
governance are well advised to study this document carefully because it represents an agreement
among most, but not all (students are notably absent) stakeholders.
A key element of the 1966 statement is that it identifies faculty as having “primary
responsibility for such fundamental areas as curriculum, subject matter and methods of
instruction, research, faculty status, and those aspects of student life which relate to the
educational process.”
Very similar language is found in Section 52.2(b)(3) of the Regulations of the New Y ork
State Commissioner of Education, “For each curriculum the institution shall designate a body of
faculty who, with the academic officers of the institution, shall be responsible for setting
curricular objectives, for determining the means by which achievement of objectives is
measured, for evaluating the achievement of curricular objectives and for providing
academic advice to students.”
Links are accurate at the time of publication. Readers are cautioned that web locations are subject to change.
10
Within SUNY Article X, Section 4, of the Policies of the Board of Trustees (2006)
operationalizes this mandate by stating the “faculty of each college shall have the obligation to
participate significantly in the initiation, development, and implementation of the educational
program.”
The SUNY University Faculty Senate re-established its Govemance Committee as a
standing committee in 1988. The Committee began its work that year with two major
assignments: preparing a Governance Handbook and conducting a survey of campus governance
leaders to determine the status of governance in the constituent SUNY units. The Committee
distributed a detailed analysis of the survey's findings to the 35 campus governance leader
respondents, to all senators and others concemed with governance in SUNY, and to every
campus library. References to survey responses may be found in several passages in this
Handbook.
The Governance Handbook reflects a culmination of efforts by the Governance
Committee and the entire SUNY University Faculty Senate to provide information on the main
areas that comprise governance. The authors of this reference guide see it as an aid to increasing
the effectiveness of faculty and professional staff participation in academic and institutional
planning and decision-making at all SUNY units. The authors of this guide also point the
readers to the approved resolutions of the University Faculty Senate, posted on the University
Faculty Senate web site.
Beginning in 2008, the Govemance Committee will review the Governance Handbook
and make updates in the hard copy guide and on the University Faculty web site every four
years.
I
University Faculty Senate
Article VII of the Policies of the Board of Trustees (2006) of the State University of New
York is the authority upon which the University Faculty Senate, also called the SUNY
University Faculty Senate, is established.
Title A of Article VII states that the Senate "shall be the official agency through which
the University Faculty engages in the governance of the University. The Senate shall be
concerned with effective educational policies and other professional matters within the
University." Article VII also outlines the Faculty Senate's membership, which includes the
Chancellor and representatives from each State operated unit and each contract college, its terms
of office and officers, its meeting schedule, and its committee structure. Finally, the Policies
delegate to the Faculty Senate the right to adopt, amend, and repeal Bylaws that must be
consistent with Article VII.
Changes to Article VII of the Policies (as opposed to the Senate’s own Bylaws) is a four-
step process requiring a majority vote in the Faculty Senate, a recommendation of adoption from
the Chancellor to the Board of Trustees, subsequent approval by the Board of Trustees, and
finally ratification by the professional staff at a majority of the State operated and contract
colleges. In part because of the cumbersome process of amending Article VII, change to that
language is very rare. To make the process more complex, the Board of Trustee’s approval is
part of the State’s rulemaking process which requires publication in the State Register and a
forty-five day public comment period.
The University Faculty Senate is the successor of a previous organization, the State
Teachers College Faculties Association, which in 1950 began the process of creating a genuine
University-wide governance structure. Following the preparation of a constitution in the spring
of 1953, which was ratified the following fall, the Faculty Senate held its inaugural meeting in
Albany in December 1953. (For a fuller account, please see University Faculty Senate Bylaws
and Procedures, January 2007) (http://www.suny.edu/facultysenate/Bylaws2007.cfm). The
Senate has periodically approved amendments to the Bylaws.
The Faculty Senate meets in Plenary session three times a year. The Senate's presiding
officer is the President, who serves a two-year term. As of July 1, 2007, the President is an ex
officio, non-voting member of the Board of Trustees. The Senate's work is guided by a ten
member Executive Committee, which prepares the Senate's agenda, acts for the Senate when
necessary, and responds to issues submitted by the Chancellor and individual campuses (See
Appendix 2, Guidelines for University Faculty Senators). The Executive Committee convenes in
advance of each Plenary meeting-and occasionally in the summer as well.
The Faculty Senate has established six standing committees: Governance, Graduate
Academic Programs and Research, Student Life, Undergraduate A cademic Programs and
12
Policies, University Operations, and University Programs and Awards. Committee
charges are available in the Senate’s Bylaws and Procedures Handbook. The size of each
committee is fixed by the Executive Committee, depending upon workload and budgetary
constraints. Ad-hoc committees are established by the Executive Committee, with specific
charges, when needed. Some members of the committees may be University Faculty Senators.
The University Faculty Senate President is an ex officio member of every committee; one or
more representatives of the Chancellor serve as liaison to the Senate and each of the committees.
In addition to the Plenary meetings, the University Faculty Senate convenes an annual
Fall Planning Meeting to facilitate communication within and among its six standing
committees; all travel costs for all attending this meeting (and the three meetings of each
standing committee) are paid for by the University Faculty Senate. Beginning in approximately
1999, Campus Governance Leaders of SUNY institutions have been brought together at each
Plenary meeting; their participation is financially supported by the UFS. (See Section VI of the
Handbook for more discussion about the meetings and the work of the Campus Governance
Leaders.) Periodically, the University Faculty Senate sponsors topical events - these range from
half-day programs (e.g., conflict resolution) to a three day conference open to the public with a
focus on sustainability (co-sponsored by the University Faculty Senate and public organizations),
as well as a faculty development conference. Materials (including tapes) are made available to
all within SUNY. The decisions to sponsor such events are made by the President of the
University Faculty Senate, in consultation with the Executive Committee.
The Faculty Senate has been responsible for sponsoring the publication of useful reports
and other documents produced by the various committees. Among these are the Faculty
Evaluation of Administrators, Guide for the Evaluation of Undergraduate Academic Programs,
Guide to Faculty Orientation Programs, this Governance Handbook, and numerous other reports
published since 1990. Reports available in digital format are listed on the UFS web site.
The office of the University Faculty Senate is located at SUNY Plaza in Albany with
staff provided by the State. Funding for Faculty Senate operations is derived from an assessment
contributed by each member campus according to a simple formula. Expenses of persons
attending the various meetings are paid either by the Faculty Senate office or by the home
campus according to rules explained in the Handbook: Bylaws, Procedures.
II
College Faculty and Professional Staff G overnance Bodies
Article X of the Policies of the Board of Trustees requires that the faculty of each
member college of the State University of New Y ork prepare and adopt Bylaws. This document
establishes a campus faculty governance body to play an active role in decision making, as an
informed advisor to the campus president. Effective consultation, as referenced in Appendix 3,
is essential.
Each set of Bylaws contains common elements. The Bylaws have a preamble and name
the organization. They define membership; special faculty groups, such as a graduate faculty,
where this is necessary; and governance powers and responsibilities, such as the meaning and
modes of consultation. Bylaws also ordinarily specify frequency of meetings and elections,
name key officers, state their duties and terms, outline amendment procedures, give simple rules
for keeping minutes and other records, stipulate the mode for conducting business meetings, and
sometimes allow recall.
Article X of the Policies of the Board of Trustees also defines faculty membership in
Section 1, "College Faculty":
The faculty of each college shall be comprised of the Chancellor, the chief
administrative officer and other members of the voting faculty of the college,
other members of the academic staff of the college, and such nonvoting
administrative officers and professional staff as may be designated by the faculty
Bylaws of the college.
A survey conducted by the Campus Governance Leaders (CGL) in 2007 indicates a
variety of configurations of the campus governance bodies. A few units have two sets of
Bylaws, one for professional staff and one for faculty.? Others have one set of Bylaws with a
variety of structures (all-campus, representative etc.). Electronic copies of campus Bylaws can
be found at each campus website, as well as on the University Faculty Senate website, at
http://g333.com/governance/B ylaws.html.
4 Definitions are provided In Article Il! DEFINITIONS of the Policies of the Board of Trustees
Ill
Faculty Governance: General Areas of Involvement
A. Academic Programs and Policies
The 1966 Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities jointly developed by
the American Council on Education, the American Association of University Professors, and the
Association of Goveming Boards of Universities and Colleges (See Appendix 1) defines the
basic principles of governance and areas of primary responsibility for each of the major
stakeholders that it identifies (a notable omission in the 1966 Statement is students). Faculty, it
declares, “has primary responsibility for such fundamental areas as curriculum, subject matter
and methods of instruction, research, faculty status, and those aspects of student life which relate
to the educational process.” Similar language is found in Section 52.2(b)(3) of the Regulations
of the New York State Commissioner of Education (applicable to all institutions of higher
education in New Y ork, public and private), “For each curriculum the institution shall designate
a body of faculty who, with the academic officers of the institution, shall be responsible for
setting curricular objectives, for determining the means by which achievement of objectives is
measured, for evaluating the achievement of curricular objectives and for providing academic
advice to students.” For SUNY, the principles derived from the 1966 Statement and from the
Commissioner’ s Regulations are put into operation in Article X, Section 4 of the Policies of the
Board of Trustees (2006) by stating that the “faculty of each college shall have the obligation to
participate significantly in the initiation, development, and implementation of the educational
program.”
Campus presidents and academic administration are statutorily responsible for the quality
of academic programs and policies. However, the presidents and administrations cannot develop
and implement curricula without the active participation of the faculty. Scholars must
periodically review their work and its contexts. They must set and uphold quality standards for
teaching and scholarship, maintain and improve academic performance, and be accountable
themselves for academic honesty and equality of treatment for students and others. (See
Appendix 4 for amplification of this idea.)
Some academic functions are best performed at the level of departments, some in
divisions, and some at college-wide levels. The departmental structures that deal with curricular
and teaching matters may vary within a campus, depending on the size and complexity of the
individual unit. A small department may function as a committee of the whole. A large
department may organize itself so that, for example, members of an undergraduate committee
perform this function as their primary contribution to the department.
College-wide academic functions include such matters as setting admission requirements
and participating in admitting of students; setting academic standards for measuring satisfactory
progress toward a degree; advising the administration on graduation requirements; and reviewing
departmental curricular proposals to assure that general college guidelines are followed. These
tasks are usually the obligation of one or more standing committees of faculty governance. Such
committees may be responsible only for developing and proposing academic policy, which in
16
turn is recommended to the administration for implementation, or they may also make decisions
in individual cases. The latter means more work for committee members, but it keeps the faculty
in touch with the effects of faculty-generated legislation and provides an excellent basis for
policy review.
Most campus procedures mandate that regular governance channels be utilized to deal
with issues of academic program and policy. Ad hoc committees are formed only in rare
circumstances, and they should have the approval of the faculty.
B. Mission Review
Since the late 1990s SUNY has engaged in two rounds of “Mission Review,” a process
designed to clarify campus missions and the place of each campus in the SUNY System and to
establish measurable goals and objectives with respect to areas such as, but not limited to,
enrollment and enrollment profile, programmatic offerings, articulation and intercampus
cooperation, sponsored research, student life, development, and infrastructure.
The process typically begins with a call to the campuses for information and plans for the
next five year period. A dialog, including a campus visit, ensues between the campus and SUNY
System Administration, culminating in a Memorandum of Understanding, or MOU, that serves
as the campus blueprint. By the very design of the process, faculty and staff have a very
important role to play in the development of the campus response and in the follow-up dialogue.
Governance leaders should he attentive to insuring faculty participation throughout the process.
c, Budget and Planning
About half of the SUNY campuses have proactive planning committees that work with
administrators to develop the budget. The majority of the members of these committees are
usually administrators. However, active standing governance budget committees in some units
of SUNY both create policy and respond to the budget provided by the administration via
reactive governance committees.
The most critical phase of the campus budget cycle occurs during the summer months
when many faculty members are not present. Some schools have adapted to this schedule by
creating special governance committees, which attend to budgetary concems, as well as to other
matters, during the summer.
The Budget Handbook prepared by the SUNY University Faculty Senate (Spring 2004)
fully and succinctly covers the budgetary process in the SUNY system, including the Budget
Allocation Process (BAP). The Budget Handbook also details the best practices that a budget
committee would exhibit during the campus budget cycle, including a timeline for completion of
the budget.
17
D. Calendar
The academic calendar impacts on teaching in a variety of ways. It can be a source of
widespread faculty complaint if no regular mechanism exists for administrative consultation with
the faculty to consider the positive and negative features of calendar alternatives. Experience
teaches that no other topic can so engage the faculty in debate; in practice, calendar issues can
appear critical and solutions to them are often not at all obvious. The governance executive
committee or some other assigned governance group should routinely review the academic
calendar and propose changes on behalf of the faculty. In this manner legitimate concems
related to teaching can be debated and the faculty will become aware of non-curricular issues
related to the calendar that must also be considered. The final calendar, of course, is often a
compromise of various purposes and interests.
While developing a calendar, some minimum requirements must be kept in mind. The
Commissioner's Regulations dictate in section 145-2.1 that “For State student financial aid
programs, except the supplemental tuition assistance program (STAP), full-time study, where
required by law, shall mean enrollment for at least 12 semester hours for a semester of not less
than 15 weeks, inclusive of examination periods; or eight semester hours a quarter; or, in
programs not organized on a semester or quarter basis, 24 semester hours for an academic year
of not more than 12 months or the equivalent, as determined by the Commissioner”
<http://www.highered.nysed.gov/ocue/SFA Subpart145.htm>. The Commissioner’s Regulations
in section 50.1 define a “Semester hour means a credit, point, or other unit granted for the
satisfactory completion of a course which requires at least 15 hours (of 50 minutes each) of
instruction and at least 30 hours of supplementary assignments, except as otherwise provided
pursuant to section 52.2(c)(4) of this Subchapter. This basic measure shall be adjusted
proportionately to translate the value of other academic calendars and formats of study in relation
to the credit granted for study during the two semesters that comprise an academic year’<
http://www.highered.nysed.gov/ocue/title 8 chapter ii regulations o.htm>. Helpful examples
of the proportionate adjustment of the basic measure can be found in the SUNY Credit/Contact
hour policy <http://www.suny.edu/sunypp/documents.cfm?doc_id=168>.
adjustment of the basic measure can be found in the SUNY Credit/Contact hour policy
<http://www.suny.edu/sunypp/documents.cfm?doc _id=168>.
E. Web Presence of Governance:
Recommendations for SUNY Campus Governance Web Sites
The site for governance on the campus should be easily found through the search engine
posted on the institution’s web site, using words like “governance” “senate” or “faculty
assembly” or it should explicitly be listed on the institution’s web site. We strongly urge that the
site be available to all, not just campus members.
The governance site should include these items:
e Bylaws
e Committees (description of each standing committee and current members)
e Contact information, including location of offices, phone number, e-mail address
e Election information (at relevant times of the year)
18
e Meeting information (upcoming/for the current academic year), including date,
time, location
e Minutes (current year) of the govemance unit
e Officers
e Roster of senators (including, if relevant, Executive committee or Agenda
committee)
e Information about the University Faculty Senate, including links to the UFS site,
and up-to-date plenary minutes
e Approved resolutions
The site may also include:
= Agendas for meetings and associated materials shared at meetings (upcoming,
past)
= Annual reports of Senate committees from previous years
= Description of the purpose of the senate (including narrative, roles,
responsibilities, duties)
Documents pertaining to the work of the governance unit
Forms (e.g., curriculum proposal forms)
Frequently Asked Questions
Information about officers (e.g., pictures, contact information, personal web sites)
Link to the SUNY University Senate
Link to Robert's Rules or other resource used for meeting procedures
Link to other governance units on campus
List of past presiding officers of the governance unit
Minutes of standing committees of the governance unit
Orientation for new senators
Relevant documents (e.g., handbooks)
F. Governance and Students
Standing faculty governance committees normally invite students to serve on them.
Student members of such committees participate in discussion, and occasionally preside. On
some campuses, student representatives also are voting members of the governance body itself.
At a few units, an overarching governance structure includes all campus constituencies in a
campus-wide organization.
Some SUNY units seat students as observers at faculty senate meetings. Students
reciprocate by inviting faculty observers to student government sessions. When actions by either
group impact the other, observers are asked to enter the debate, but generally they do not vote.
Student participation is likely to be improved if information about the rights and responsibilities
of students in college governance is clearly specified and widely disseminated.
19
Faculty Bylaws should stipulate the numbers of students authorized to be members of the
governance body, standing committees, and ad hoc committees that may be formed. Meeting
times of the campus governance committee should be arranged to accommodate the sometimes
complex schedules and other commitments which student participants may encounter. The
SUNY-wide student goverment organization is called the Student Assembly,
http://www.studentassembly.org/
G. Governance and College C ouncils/Boards of Trustees
The Governor appoints members of each college council, which has limited and carefully
defined authority. College councils are required by the Policies of the Board of Trustees to
invite a faculty representative to attend their meetings. Each college council or board of trustees
includes a student member who has full voting privileges. College councils normally invite a
faculty representative to attend their meetings. Thus the campus governance leader or designee
often sits with the college council and enters freely into the discussion, but does not vote. The
faculty representative often reports on faculty concerns and business, such participation being
governed by rules made by each board or council. Unless specifically invited, the governance
leaders do not attend the college councils' executive sessions. However the New Y ork State
Open Meetings Law (1976) guarantees that sessions of college councils and university trustees
be open; any faculty member who so desires may attend. Beginning on July 1, 2007, all College
Council meetings are required to be broadcast on the Internet; documents made available to the
public during the meeting should be available for download to viewers.
H. Academic Freedom and Governance
The principles of academic freedom are a foundation for all scholarly pursuits. The
Policies of the Board of Trustees (2006) provide the following commentary: “It is the policy of
the University to maintain and encourage full freedom, within the law, of inquiry, teaching and
research. In the exercise of this freedom faculty members may, without limitation, discuss their
own subject in the classroom; they may not, however, claim as their right the privilege of
discussing in their classroom controversial matter which has no relation to their subject. The
principle of academic freedom shall be accompanied by a corresponding principle of
responsibility. In their role as citizens, employees have the same freedoms as other citizens.
However, in their extramural utterances employees have an obligation to indicate that they are
not institutional spokespersons.” .°
3 This language is identical to the language of academic freedom in Article 9 of the Agreement for the 08
Bargaining Unit
20
These principles also constitute good reason for strong faculty govemance. The SUNY
University Faculty Senate adopted the original Statement of Professional Rights and
Responsibilities and Guidelines for Adjudicating Allegations of Unprofessional Conduct in
Violation of the SUNY Statement of Professional Rights and Responsibilities in 1973. In 1986,
the Senate, out of concern about assaults upon the independence of scholars and scholarly work
then in evidence, reaffirmed its 1973 Statement on Professional Rights and Responsibilities, and
the accompanying Guidelines for Adjudicating Allegations of that statement. This statement was
revised for the 1995 edition of the Governance Handbook (see Appendix 4). Academic
governance precepts for campus presidents and faculty were articulated by Chancellor Johnstone
in 1991 (see Appendix 5). Apparently the most current statement on campus governance appears
in the 1982 Policies manual (see A ppendix 6)
lL Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action
(http://www.suny.edu/SUNY PP/pdf.cfm?doc_id=533)
The Board of Trustees of SUNY, the SUNY System Administration, and the
administrations of the individual campuses each have a deep commitment to the principles and
practices of equal opportunity and affirmative action for students and faculty. Each campus has
an Affirmative Action Officer, reporting to the President either directly or as a part of an
administrative office, who is responsible for monitoring compliance with state and federal
guidelines as well as locally developed policies and programs.
Federal laws prohibit the denial of equal educational opportunity or equal employment
opportunity on the basis race, religion, sex, color, national origin, age, disability, marital status,
or status as a disabled or Vietnam era veteran. The State of New York also prohibits
discrimination due to sexual orientation. In addition, federal law provides for and SUNY System
Administration and the individual campuses have instituted affirmative action programs to help
overcome existing barriers to equality of opportunity.
The SUNY University Faculty Senate, in its charge to the Operations Committee assigns
special responsibility for "the effective participation of the professional staff in University
personnel policies including equal employment practices and affirmative action." The charges to
the other SUNY University Faculty Senate Committees do not specifically spell out a concern
for equality of opportunity and affirmative action to overcome the effects of past inequality.
However, all University Faculty Senate committees have considered the enhancement of access
and the diversity of students and faculty as important components of the quality of campus life.
Campus governance bodies have a responsibility to assure the support of faculty and
other members of the professional staff for SUNY and local efforts to promote equal opportunity
and affirmative action. Where the campus appears to lag in these efforts, the campus governance
leader may recommend local campus policy or changes in procedure to enhance campus efforts.
The faculty's commitment to the principles and practices of equal opportunity and affirmative
action may be spelled out in the introductory statement of its governance document.
Responsibility for monitoring campus progress can be assigned to the executive committee
21
and/or to other appropriate governance committees, such as those concemed with student life and
personnel policies.
In the area of curriculum, the SUNY University Faculty Senate takes the position that the
SUNY faculty has a special responsibility for assuring that courses and academic programs
reflect the growing diversity of persons on campus, in the state and nation.
22
23
IV
Searches for Presidents, Provosts, Vice-Presidents, Deans
A. Presidents
A major responsibility of a faculty is to participate in the search for and selection of a
college president. This section describes relevant New York State and SUNY policies and
guidelines that regulate such faculty participation.
The Policies of the Board of Trustees, Article IX, Title A, Section 1, stipulates that "The
chief administrative officer shall be appointed by the Board of Trustees, after receipt of
recommendations of the college council and also of the Chancellor... Before making its
recommendations the college council shall consult with the committee of the college faculty
designated for such purpose by the faculty and with representatives of the administrative staff
and student body."
Further, Section 356 of the New Y ork State Education Law provides that "in accordance
with mules established by the state university trustees, the council... shall...recommend to the state
university trustees candidates for appointment by the state university trustees as head of such
institution."
On December 12, 1991, the Board of Trustees approved revised Guidelines for the
Selection of a President When a Vacancy Occurs at a State Operated Campus of the State
University of New York. These guidelines specify that the council shall appoint a committee
from the council's membership to serve as its official Presidential Search Committee. The
guidelines also require consultation with faculty, students, and staff, as stated in the Policies.
Effective September 23, 1997, “consultation with faculty” in presidential searches has
been defined more precisely in new SUNY “Guidelines for Conducting Presidential Searches”
http://www.suny.edu/sunypp/documents.cfm?doc_id=573) (See Appendix 7). Section 2 of the
Preliminary Steps in the Search Process states the following:
“Unless otherwise agreed upon in advance by the chancellor and the college council
chair, the search committee shall consist of four members of the council (including the chair), six
members of the full-time teaching faculty of the campus, one student, one alumni
representative, one campus-related foundation representative, one academic dean, and one
professional or support staff member.” (Emphasis added)
Furthermore, Section 4 of the 1997 guidelines specifies:
“Taking care to assure that faculty representation on the search committee speaks for a
broad spectrum of faculty opinion, the faculty shall elect its representatives to the search
committee by secret ballot at an open session of the faculty governance group, at which a
quorum of the teaching faculty are present.”
24
While implementation of these guidelines has not always been optimal, college
governance leaders should contact the chair of the college council at the earliest opportunity once
it becomes known that a new college president needs to be chosen, in order to ensure that the
search committee is constituted according to these guidelines. In case the chancellor and the
council chair agree to any deviations in teaching faculty representation, such changes should be
fully discussed with the college governance leaders, with the goal to ensure the agreement of
college governance as well. Any changes from these guidelines that affect teaching faculty
representation shall be reported to the UFS Governance Committee. The faculty governance
group (college senate or other, as determined by college faculty Bylaws) shall work out the
details of nomination and election procedures to ensure a broad spectrum of teaching faculty
representation on the search committee. These procedures should be included in the college
faculty Bylaws.
The SUNY guidelines also call for public visits to the campus of all finalists chosen by
the search committee. Faculty representatives on the search committee shall work diligently to
ensure that a large number of campus members are given the opportunity to meet and hear from
each candidate.
The UFS October 2004 resolution recommends that committees be empowered, at their
sole discretion, to visit the campuses of finalists who are academics.
After the campus visits of the finalists, the search committee deliberates the merits of the
candidates, taking into account any feed-back received. The SUNY guidelines urge the
committee to forward as many acceptable names as possible to the college council. The
deliberations and recommendations of the search committee shall remain confidential.
B. Provosts, Vice-Presidents, Deans:
The president of the college or university is the final authority for selection of senior
level personnel. Article IX, Title B, Section 2 of the Policies of the Board of Trustees mandates
that the “appointment of academic officers such as vice-president for academic affairs, academic
deans and others with similar responsibilities shall be made after consultation with the faculty.”
Section 3 of the same article extends the mandate for faculty consultation to the appointment of
acting or interim academic administrators. In almost every SUNY college or university, the
president appoints a committee to make a search to fill vacant positions at higher administrative
levels. The local senate/governance executive committee is asked to propose Academic and
Professional staff representation. The A ffirmative A ction Officer is consulted at each stage of the
selection process to determine whether the search is compatible with affirmative action
guidelines.
Different search committee structures exist for various positions and units generally
structure the committees to fit local conditions. Search committee structure and procedures
should be included in the Bylaws approved by the Academic and Professional staff and the
president. Preliminary investigations, campus visitations, and local arrangements to meet
affected constituencies are under the directions of the search committee. For the offices of
provost, academic vice-president and deans, the committee probably will be formed with
25
significant participation from teaching Academic and Professional staff; students may be invited
to join the committee and vote. Searches do cost money, and committees should have a clear
understanding of their budget before the search proper begins.
The search committee for a vice-president for student affairs may have a proportionately
higher number of professional staff members from the student affairs area. Several students may
also join the committee. A committee to search for a vice-president for administration will
probably be comprised by a majority of professional staff members; faculty and students should
be represented.
Search committees for deans are usually selected from the Academic and Professional
staff of the schools or divisions in which vacancies occur. Students and Academic and
Professional staff from outside the division may be invited to serve on them.
Each unit has its own method for making the selection of the candidate or slate of
finalists to be recommended to the president.
26
Dt
Vv
Support, Evaluations and Reviews of Administrative Officers and Functions
Some campuses have established time frames and procedures for the systematic review of
administrators. However, on many SUNY campuses, no policy, or no consistent policy, on this
review exists. Where policies exist, the evaluation and review processes for administrative
officers and management functions vary from campus to campus. Ongoing support to campus
presidents is encouraged. (See Appendix 9 - Resolution in Support of Faculty Evaluation of
Administrators.) Generally, administrative processes that involve faculty are initiated by the
faculty according to a planned cycle and carried out by a committee, which reports outcomes to
the faculty and to the person who is under review and to that individual’s supervisor. In some
cases, outcomes are also reported to an oversight group, such as a Senate Executive Committee.
In rare cases, the outcomes or a summary are provided to the entire faculty.
Evaluations of administrators should include the systematic collection of information
from faculty and students on a regular basis. Data about administrators should include
competency, leadership ability, soundness of judgment and effectiveness. SUNY governance
leaders, at their 1986 conference, identified criteria for local assessment of the effectiveness of
the chief administrative officer in areas such as: demonstration of academic responsibility;
consultation and interaction with relevant constituencies; adherence to the college's mission
statement; budget preparation; teaching climate; quality of relationships with students; and the
public image of the college. The review policy on each campus should provide for peer review
and the solicitation of comments from appropriate campus constituencies.
A report by the Governance Committee of the University Faculty Senate entitled “Faculty
Evaluation of Administrators” was presented at the Winter Plenary 2005 and is available on the
UFS website at www.suny.edu/facultysenate. A resolution from the Governance Committee,
passed by the SUNY Senate at the same plenary can be found in Appendix 9 and is also available
at www.suny.edu/facultySenate/files/FacultyEvaluation.pdf. The resolution encourages faculty
evaluation of administrators, and recommends including evaluation in the bylaws of the
governance body.
The Office of the Chancellor has continued the practice of regular review of campus
presidents. The Chancellor’s review is described in “Guidelines for the Evaluation of Campus
Presidents-1986” (See Appendix 10). This document describes an annual review process that
does not require a faculty role and a periodic full-scale formal evaluation, typically at the three-
year point (new presidents) or at five years (continuing presidents), which does solicit faculty
involvement. The “Guidelines” do not stipulate campus-wide faculty input, though in practice
this does seem to have occurred at most campuses where the formal review has taken place.
A resolution from the Governance Committee, passed by the SUNY Senate in 1991 (See
Appendix 11) may be of assistance to campuses engaged in this process.
28
29
VI
Campus Governance L eaders
It has been the experience of the members of the Governance Committee that local
governance leaders benefit greatly from an opportunity to share concerns and discuss common
problems. Based upon the belief that campus governance leaders should have a more visible
interactive line of communication with the Senate, the Task Force on the relationship of the
campus governance leaders to the University Faculty Senate (See Appendix 12) led to the
following:
e The governance leaders of the various SUNY campuses are invited to attend each
Plenary. They usually gather on Thursday evening prior to the SUNY University Faculty
Senate Fall, Winter, and Spring Plenary meetings. In addition, the Campus Governance
Leaders convene as a group during the SUNY University Faculty Senate Plenary sector
sessions to discuss topics of concern.
e A Convener is nominated from the local governance leaders at the Winter Plenary session
and elected at the Spring Plenary of the SUNY University Faculty Senate. The Convener
notifies the Campus Governance Leaders of the time, place, and agenda for the Thursday
Evening meetings. The Convener should be appointed to the University Faculty Senate
Governance Committee .
e In addition, the Convener will engage with the Campus Governance Leaders to develop a
list of concerns to discuss with the Chancellor and will issue a report to the SUNY
University Faculty Senate expressing concems.
e The President of the SUNY University Faculty Senate, the Convener, and the Chair of the
Governance Committee coordinate sessions at which the Chancellor and other SUNY
System personnel meet with the SUNY University Faculty Senate to discuss complexities
of the SUNY system and its relationship with the Executive and Legislative branches of
state government. Time is provided at the Plenary meetings for SUNY System officials to
answer questions on such matters as budget, programs, academic policy, and personnel,
among other issues.
e The Campus Governance Leaders, both formally and informally, discuss both common
and unique problems that occur on their campuses. They also explore possible solutions.
The Convener, as a member of the Senate Governance Committee and the Executive
Committee, keeps the Campus Governance Leaders aware of the University Faculty
Senate agenda.
Resolutions passed by the Campus Governance Leaders are sent to the Executive
Committee and are introduced at the SUNY University Faculty Senate Plenary for action. The
exchange of information and experience that occurs among the Campus Governance Leaders is
of great value to the Campus Governance Leaders. They return to their campuses with increased
knowledge of SUNY -wide issues and concerns as well as of those of their own institutions.
30
When possible, resources are provided to enable the Campus Governance Leaders to become
more familiar with resources (e.g., Appendix 13, commonly used parliamentary procedures, and
Appendix 14, resources for CGLs developed by Edward A ]fonsin.)
VII
Campus Consultation and Visitation Procedures’
Occasionally, governance and administration on a campus experience conflict as they
carry on their efforts to foster responsible participation and consultation on college affairs.
When a situation of conflict arises between faculty and administration, it rarely begins as
an intense, unsolvable problem. Initially, some minor disagreement between administration and
faculty can, if not addressed and resolved, escalate to a more serious conflict. The University
Faculty Senate has two separate procedures which may be undertaken to address and find
resolution to this conflict. In the instance of a serious, but not major conflict, the informal
"Consultation" should be considered. Where a major, severe conflict exists, which may lead to a
vote of no confidence, the more formal "Campus Visitation" should be used.
When a situation of conflict arises and efforts to resolve the issue on campus have not
been successful, there is a sequence of steps that may be undertaken to address and find
resolution to the conflict.
I. Consultation
A consultation is a somewhat informal process that leverages faculty governance
expertise within the university to assist a campus experiencing significant governance issues. It
should be viewed as a faculty to faculty process that can be utilized proactively to prevent a
major breakdown between faculty and campus administration, or between groups of faculty, or
between faculty and other campus constituencies.
A consultation is recommended in situations where there is a serious conflict in which
there have been repeated unsuccessful efforts to address and resolve the situation, but where
there is not a likelihood of an imminent crisis such as a vote of no-confidence.
In appropriate circumstances, the consultation has several distinct advantages over a
visitation: (a) it is far less costly to the Senate, (b) it may be of assistance in solving problems
before a crisis is reached, (c) the process is much less visible than a visitation, and is far less
likely to be noticed in the public media, (d) it can be arranged quickly and quietly.
A. Process
A request for a consultation should be directed to the President of the University Faculty
Senate by the local governance leader, the campus senator(s), or preferably, both, and with
concurrence of the campus executive committee. The request may be either written or oral,
providing the President of the Senate with sufficient detail to permit the drafting of a charge to
the consultants.
4 This section of the Handbook was presented to the University Faculty Senate at the October 2007 147" University
Faculty Senate Plenary meeting, and approved by the body: Resolution 147-03-1.
32:
The President, with the advice and counsel of the UFS Executive Committee, prepares a
charge to the consultants, and delivers the charge to the Chair of the Govemance Committee.
The charge should include the scope of the problem(s) to be examined, an expected completion
date, and a budget. The President, after discussions with the UFS Executive Committee and the
Chair of the Govemance Committee, appoints a team of two or three consultants, naming one as
the chair. In identifying possible consultants, the President should give preference to members
of the Governance Committee.
The Senate office will assist the consultants in making travel arrangements and in
scheduling appointments with persons identified by the chair. Costs of the consultation will be
paid by the University Faculty Senate. The chair of the consultants will take care to insure that
consultant's expenses remain within budget and adhere to state travel guidelines.
The consultants will accept such oral, written, and electronic submissions that are
provided to them, except that un-attributed documents or statements shall not be accepted nor
considered. Contributors may seek confidentiality with respect to their submissions, and the
consultants will maintain the confidentiality of all documents to the extent allowed by law.
The chair of the consultants shall keep the President of the University Faculty Senate
apprised of the progress of the consultants and any difficulties that may arise with respect to
either the charge or the budget. Any communication with the press that might arise should be
channeled through the chair, whose public comments should be limited to process, not substance.
Materials received by the consultants will be delivered to the President of the University
Faculty Senate who will maintain their confidentiality as required by law and will archive them
for the length of time required by SUNY policy.
II. Visitation
In the event of a serious, prolonged conflict about faculty governance between faculty
governance and administration, and where there is serious consideration of a vote of "no
confidence" it is strongly recommended that the campus president and the campus faculty
governance leader(s) jointly request the help of the University Faculty Senate in resolving the
dispute. They should make this request in the form of a letter of invitation to the President of the
University Faculty Senate asking the Senate President to render assistance by appointing a
Visitation Committee to come to the campus.
A. Function and Charge
The Visitation committee will serve in the capacity of making an inquiry, in cooperation
with the campus governance leader and the campus president, and of submitting a report. The
report may include suggestions and recommendations to the local governance body and
administration. [Copies of sample letters of invitation are on file in the University Faculty Senate
Office in Albany.]
33
The President of University Faculty Senate appoints the Visitation Committee, names its
chair, convenes it for its first meeting, and prepares a carefully developed charge.
B. Membership
Before forming the committee, the Senate President will consult with the University
Faculty Senate's Executive Committee, past Senate presidents, persons who have previously
chaired such committees, and possibly the faculty senator(s) from the campus in question.
For Visitation Committee membership, the Senate President will seek people with broad
governance experience. They should be distinguished by reputations for reasonableness and
integrity, and for their capacity to avoid being either advocates or adversaries in their dealings
with administrators and faculty. The Senate President will also aim to establish a committee that
is representative of the diversity of the "SUNY family."
The Visitation Committee's membership will always include a person from SUNY
System Administration. This individual will act as a member of the committee for the Senate
and not in an official capacity as a SUNY System administrator. Such a person will often have
had prior service on the Senate and/or served as a SUNY System liaison to the University
Faculty Senate.
It is not required that current members of the University Faculty Senate be appointed to
the Visitation Committee. Experience in govemance is the most important qualification. It is
however, recommended that the Visitation Committee include the current Chair of the
Governance committee or his/her designee.
34
Cc. Materials and Documentation
The Senate President or Visitation Committee Chair solicits all relevant campus
documents from the campus governance leader and the college president. Both the college
president and the faculty governance leader may send materials independently; however they are
obligated to share with one another the materials they transmit. The Visitation Committee will
accept all documents and materials that are provided, as long as they have appropriate attribution
of source. No anonymous materials will be accepted. Contributors may seek confidentiality
with respect to their submissions, and the Visitation Committee will seek to maintain the
confidentiality of all documents provided to the extent provided by law. Members of the campus
community or other relevant persons may choose to talk to the Visitation Committee orally,
either in person, or by phone. Again, while the confidentiality of the source will be maintained
to the extent possible by the Visitation Committee, such sources must identify themselves to the
Visitation Committee.
In every instance, the Senate President and the Visitation Committee will be careful to
respect the authority, prerogatives, and responsibilities of the campus president and the campus
governance leader.
D. Campus Visitation
During the collation and review of materials from the campus, the Chair of the Visitation
Committee in consultation with the President of the University Faculty Senate, will schedule a
visit to the campus. During this Campus Visitation, the Committee will expect to meet with the
President, the Campus Governance Leader, key people in the administration, faculty, staff, and
students, as well as others in the larger campus community that may ask to meet with Visitation
Committee. The scheduling of such meetings may occur on-campus or off-campus (in order to
protect confidentiality) and will be done in consultation with the Chair of the Visitation
Committee. In every instance, the Senate President and the Visitation Committee will be careful
to respect the authority, prerogatives, and responsibilities of the campus president and the
campus governance leader.
After the campus visit, the President of the University Faculty Senate, or designee of the
President, will write the report with recommendations that represent the Visitation Committee's
findings. It is most fitting that this final report be delivered to the campus in person by the
President of the University Faculty Senate and the Chair of the Visitation Committee, and two
members of the Visitation Committee, and that they present it to the campus governance leader
and the college president in a meeting with both parties present.
It should be understood that the Visitation Report, once handed to the president of the
campus and the president (or chair) of the local governance body, becomes the property of the
two parties, who then have independent authority over its distribution. While decisions about the
specific distribution of this report do not lie with the Visitation Committee, and must rest on the
parties concemed, it is urged that both parties recognize the sensitivity of the content of the
report, and give careful consideration to the scope of the distribution.
35
The two groups (1) the president of the campus (and members of his/her cabinet or
council) as well as (2) the president (or chair) of the campus governance body (and his/her
executive committee) will have one week from the date of the presentation of the Visitation
Report to respond to the report. If there are errors or omissions of fact in the Visitation Report,
notification of such errors should be sent in written form to the Chair of the Visitation
Committee. The Chair of the Visitation Committee may choose to convene the Visitation
Committee to consider these responses, and any subsequent corrections that may be made to the
Visitation Report. The Chair of the Visitation Committee will send the Final Report of the
Visitation Committee to the President of the University Faculty Senate who will submit the Final
Report to the president of the campus and to the campus governance leader and to the
Chancellor. A copy of the Final Report should be archived in the Office of the Faculty Senate.
Materials developed by the Visitation Committee should be turned over to the President of the
University Faculty Senate, who shall maintain their confidentiality to the extent allowed by law,
and shall archive them for the period of time prescribed by SUNY policy.
The Chair of the Visitation Committee or the President of the University Faculty Senate
may be asked, and may choose to comment on the visitation process, to the University Faculty
Senate, the campus community, or the public about the visitation process. Members of the
Visitation Committee should recognize that the substance of the deliberations, the content of the
Report and its recommendations are sensitive issues, and should exercise care in maintaining the
confidentiality of these issues.
The Committee members may also at this time discuss with the two campus officials
steps that they might take to review and respond to the recommendations. [Sample copies of
Visitation Committee materials are on file in the University Faculty Senate Office in Albany.]
E. Timeline for Visitation Process
1. Joint letter of request for Campus Visitation from the president of the campus and the
campus governance leader is sent to the President of the University Faculty Senate.
2: President of the UFS assembles Visitation Committee.
3 Campus president and campus governance leader assemble documentation for Visitation
Committee. Documentation is exchanged between parties on campus, and is then
forwarded to University Faculty Senate office.
4. Documentation is forwarded by UFS office to Chair of Visitation Committee and
committee members.
5; Committee meetings and scheduling of Campus Visitation takes place.
6. Schedule of meetings for Campus Visitation is sent to Chair of Visitation Committee.
7. Campus Visitation.
36
8. Committee convenes for writing of Report.
9. Report is submitted to President of the University Faculty Senate; President of UFS and
Chair of Visitation Committee schedule joint meeting with campus president and campus
governance leader.
10. Report is simultaneously given to campus president and campus governance leader.
11. | Within one week written responses to Visitation Report are sent to the Chair of the
Visitation Committee.
12. Final Report sent to UFS President who sends it to campus president, campus governance
leader, and Chancellor.
It is anticipated that the total time for all steps should not exceed three calendar months.
VIII
The Governance Committee of the SUNY University Faculty Senate
A. Establishment of the Committee
When the SUNY University Faculty Senate reformed its committee structure in 1980, the
Governance Committee was consolidated under the authority of the University Operations
Committee. It remained a subcommittee until 1988, when it became a Standing Committee.
The Committee is responsible for being attentive to issues relevant to specific to UFS
issues, as well as topics relevant to the Campus Govermance Leaders. The Committee’s
deliverables include resolutions that pertain to governance, updated sections of the Handbook,
and other governance resources for use by either the UFS or the Campus Governance Leaders.
In addition, the Committee is responsible for considering the broader issues of governance, and
pro-actively identifying how to inspire and enable the governance process to move forward
productively. The annual goals of the Committee are a combination of carry-over items assigned
by groups or individuals outside the Committee, and interests of the Committee members or
chair.
The participation of the Convenor of the Campus Governance Leaders on the Governance
Committee was designed to bridge the gap between the UFS and the Campus Govemance
Leaders. Issues raised by the Campus Governance Leaders would thereby have greater
likelihood of getting integrated into the annual work of the Governance Committee.
B. The Committee's Charge
The Committee shall concem itself with University-wide governance and shall provide
guidance on matters of campus governance. The Committee shall interact with local governance
leaders of the University.
The committee is responsible for the publication of the Governance Handbook and will
review and update it every four years.
Cc. Composition of the Committee
Committee members are appointed by the Executive Committee of the SUNY University
Faculty Senate. Recognizing that occasionally one person can properly and constructively serve
in more than one role, and with the requirement that least one member must be a SUNY Faculty
Senator, the committee is to be composed as follows:
e Six members from SUNY units; the Executive Committee of the SUNY Senate shall choose
the chairperson from this representation.
e One observer from a community college, who will also be a voting member with all rights.
e One student representative.
> Added to charge in Fall 2007.
38
e One liaison representing SUNY System.
e The current convenor of the State University Campus Governance Leaders' Conference, ex
officio.
e The President of the SUNY University Faculty Senate, ex officio.
Guidelines for all SUNY University Faculty Senate committees appear in the University Faculty
Senate Handbook: Bylaws, Procedures (revised A pril 2007).
Conclusion
“You are here to enable the world to live more amply, with greater vision, and with a
finer spirit of hope and achievement. You are here to enrich the world.”
Woodrow Wilson's charge to the newly formed “League of Nations” was an academic’ s
vision for a world traumatized by the devastation of World War I. Wilson’s empowering words
to the world’s representatives were designed to inspire them and clarify their roles in relation to
each other and to their constituents.
Governance within the State University of New York often appears to be far from
empowering: it can become mired in process and structure. Governance within the University
Faculty Senate and on constituent campuses must maintain focus, not getting sidelined through
politics, and not becoming a paper tiger. Instead, governance must energize members, clarify
issues, and enable campuses to sort the wheat from the chaff of a myriad of e-mails, memos and
resolutions. If the Constitution of the United States had been crafted under the conditions of
today’s academic climate, it likely would have been developed with less depth. The challenge
for the Governance Committee of the University Faculty Senate, and those using this Handbook,
is to go back to the reflective, clear-minded work of governance at its best. Encouraging the
governance novices to become governance leaders is the role of every governance member and
echoes Barbara Lifton’s reminder to the University Faculty Senate Plenary in Cortland, October
2007: “In the world, there is nothing more powerful than a tenured professor.”
It is the hope of the 2007-8 University Faculty Senate Governance Committee that this
Handbook will enable the governance vision to emerge as a guiding force. Kegan and Lahey’s
remarkable 2001 book about the need to inquire into our internal and external dialogues includes
a description of work that can be adapted to our governance process, the work of the committees
of all the University Faculty Senate, and on constituent campuses:
We need a ‘holding environment,’ a place in which to participate safely in the types of
conversations that help us fully engage our investigation of the... force[s] within us.
The motive to disturb our own pattern of thinking is important but still just a spark; the
first glimpses of our...[ governance understandings] are, at best, tinder. In order to carry
on the work, the spark must become a flame... [We need] a steady supply of oxygen to
keep the flame burning for as long as our learning may need. °
° Kegan, R., and Lahey, L. L., 2001. How the Way We Talk Can Change the Way We Work: Seven
Languages for Transformation. San Francisco: J ossey-Bass, p. 185.
40
Appendices
41
42
43
APPENDIX 1
AAUP Policy Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities
The statement that follows is directed to governing board members, administrators, faculty
members, students, and other persons in the belief that the colleges and universities of the United
States have reached a stage calling for appropriately shared responsibility and cooperative
action among the components of the academic institution. The is ii ded to foster
constructive joint thought and action, both within the institutional structure and in protection of
its integrity against improper intrusions. It is not intended that the statement serve as a blueprint
for governance on a specific campus or as a manual for the regulation of controversy among the
components of an academic institution, although it is to be hoped that the principles asserted will
lead to the correction of existing weaknesses and assist in the establishment of sound structures
and procedures. The statement does not attempt to cover relations with those outside agencies
that increasingly are controlling the resources and influencing the patterns of education in our
institutions of higher learning: for example, the United States government, state legislatures,
state commissions, interstate associations or compacts, and other interinstitutional
arrangements. However, it is hoped that the statement will be helpful to these agencies in their
consideration of educational matters.
Students are referred to in this as an institutional comy coordinate in importance
with trustees, administrators, and faculty. There is, however, no main section on students. The
omission has two causes: (1) the changes now occurring in the status of American students have
plainly outdistanced the analysis by the educational community, and an attempt to define the
situation without thorough study might prove unfair to student interests, and (2) students do not
in fact at present have a significant voice in the government of colleges and universities; it would
be unseemly to obscure, by superficial equality of length of statement, what may be a serious lag
entitled to separate and full confrontation.
The concern for student status felt by the organizations issuing this statement is embodied in a
note, “On Student Status,” intended to stimulate the educational c ity to turn its
to an important need.
This statement was jointly formulated by the American Association of University Professors, the
American Council on Education (ACE), and the Association of Governing Boards of Universities
and Colleges (AGB). In October 1966, the board of directors of the ACE took action by which its
council “recognizes the statement as a significant step forward in the clarification of the
respective roles of governing boards, faculties, and administrations,“ and “commends it to the
institutions which are members of the Council.” The Council of the AAUP adopted the statement
in October 1966, and the Fifty-third Annual Meeting endorsed it in April 1967. In November
1966, the executive committee of the AGB took action by which that organization also
“recognizes the statement as a significant step forward in the clarification of the respective roles
of governing boards, faculties, and administrations,” and “commends it to the governing boards
which are members of the Association.” (In April 1990, the Council of the AAUP adopted
44
(Appendix 1 continued)
several changes in language in order to remove gender-specific references from the original
text.)
1. Introduction
This statement is a call to mutual understanding regarding the government of colleges and
universities. Understanding, based on community of interest and producing joint effort, is
essential for at least three reasons. First, the academic institution, public or private, often has
become less autonomous; buildings, research, and student tuition are supported by funds over
which the college or university exercises a diminishing control. Legislative and executive
governmental authorities, at all levels, play a part in the making of important decisions in
academic policy. If these voices and forces are to be successfully heard and integrated, the
academic institution must be in a position to meet them with its own generally unified view.
Second, regard for the welfare of the institution remains important despite the mobility and
interchange of scholars. Third, a college or university in which all the components are aware of
their interdependence, of the usefulness of communication among themselves, and of the force of
joint action will enjoy increased capacity to solve educational problems.
2. The Academic Institution: Joint Effort
a. Preliminary Considerations
The variety and complexity of the tasks performed by institutions of higher education produce an
inescapable interdependence among governing board, administration, faculty, students, and
others. The relationship calls for adequate communication among these components, and full
opportunity for appropriate joint planning and effort.
Joint effort in an academic institution will take a variety of forms appropriate to the kinds of
situations encountered. In some instances, an initial exploration or recommendation will be made
by the president with consideration by the faculty at a later stage; in other instances, a first and
essentially definitive recommendation will be made by the faculty, subject to the endorsement of
the president and the governing board. In still others, a substantive contribution can be made
when student leaders are responsibly involved in the process. Although the variety of such
approaches may be wide, at least two general conclusions regarding joint effort seem clearly
warranted: (1) important areas of action involve at one time or another the initiating capacity and
decision-making participation of all the institutional components, and (2) differences in the
weight of each voice, from one point to the next, should be determined by reference to the
responsibility of each component for the particular matter at hand, as developed hereinafter.
b. Determination of General Educational Policy
The general educational policy, i.e., the objectives of an institution and the nature, range, and
pace of its efforts, is shaped by the institutional charter or by law, by tradition and historical
development, by the present needs of the community of the institution, and by the professional
aspirations and standards of those directly involved in its work. Every board will wish to go
beyond its formal trustee obligation to conserve the accomplishment of the past and to engage
45
(Appendix 1 continued)
seriously with the future; every faculty will seek to conduct an operation worthy of scholarly
standards of learning; every administrative officer will strive to meet his or her charge and to
attain the goals of the institution. The interests of all are coordinate and related, and unilateral
effort can lead to confusion or conflict. Essential to a solution is a reasonably explicit statement
on general educational policy. Operating responsibility and authority, and procedures for
continuing review, should be clearly defined in official regulations.
When an educational goal has been established, it becomes the responsibility primarily of the
faculty to determine the appropriate curriculum and procedures of student instruction.
Special considerations may require particular accommodations: (1) a publicly supported
institution may be regulated by statutory provisions, and (2) a church-controlled institution may
be limited by its charter or Bylaws. When such external requirements influence course content
and the manner of instruction or research, they impair the educational effectiveness of the
institution.
Such matters as major changes in the size or composition of the student body and the relative
emphasis to be given to the various elements of the educational and research program should
involve participation of governing board, administration, and faculty prior to final decision.
c. Internal Operations of the Institution
The framing and execution of long-range plans, one of the most important aspects of institutional
responsibility, should be a central and continuing concern in the academic community.
Effective planning demands that the broadest possible exchange of information and opinion
should be the rule for communication among the components of a college or uni versity. The
channels of communication should be established and maintained by joint endeavor. Distinction
should be observed between the institutional system of communication and the system of
responsibility for the making of decisions.
A second area calling for joint effort in internal operation is that of decisions regarding existing
or prospective physical resources. The board, president, and faculty should all seek agreement on
basic decisions regarding buildings and other facilities to be used in the educational work of the
institution.
A third area is budgeting. The allocation of resources among competing demands is central in the
formal responsibility of the governing board, in the administrative authority of the president, and
in the educational function of the faculty. Each component should therefore have a voice in the
determination of short- and long-range priorities, and each should receive appropriate analyses of
past budgetary experience, reports on current budgets and expenditures, and short- and long-
range budgetary projections. The function of each component in budgetary matters should be
46
(Appendix 1 continued)
understood by all; the allocation of authority will determine the flow of information and the
scope of participation in decisions.
Joint effort of a most critical kind must be taken when an institution chooses a new president.
The selection of a chief administrative officer should follow upon a cooperative search by the
governing board and the faculty, taking into consideration the opinions of others who are
appropriately interested. The president should be equally qualified to serve both as the executive
officer of the governing board and as the chief academic officer of the institution and the faculty.
The president’s dual role requires an ability to interpret to board and faculty the educational
views and concepts of institutional government of the other. The president should have the
confidence of the board and the faculty.
The selection of academic deans and other chief academic officers should be the responsibility of
the president with the advice of, and in consultation with, the appropriate faculty.
Determinations of faculty status, normally based on the recommendations of the faculty groups
involved, are discussed in Part 5 of this statement; but it should here be noted that the building of
a strong faculty requires careful joint effort in such actions as staff selection and promotion and
the granting of tenure. Joint action should also govern dism: ; the applicable principles and
procedures in these matters are well established.
d. External Relations of the Institution
Anyone—a member of the governing board, the president or other member of the administration,
a member of the faculty, or a member of the student body or the alumni—affects the institution
when speaking of it in public. An individual who speaks unofficially should so indicate. An
individual who speaks officially for the institution, the board, the administration, the faculty, or
the student body should be guided by established policy.
It should be noted that only the board speaks legally for the whole institution, although it may
delegate responsibility to an agent. The right of a board member, an administrative officer, a
faculty member, or a student to speak on general educational questions or about the
administration and operations of the individual’s own institution is a part of that person’s right as
a citizen and should not be abridged by the institution.2 There exist, of course, legal bounds
relating to defamation of character, and there are questions of propriety.
3. The Academic Institution: The Governing Board
The governing board has a special obligation to ensure that the history of the college or
university shall serve as a prelude and inspiration to the future. The board helps relate the
institution to its chief community: for example, the community college to serve the educational
needs of a defined population area or group, the church-controlled college to be cognizant of the
announced position of its denomination, and the comprehensive university to discharge the many
duties and to accept the appropriate new challenges which are its concern at the several levels of
higher education.
47
(Appendix 1 continued)
The governing board of an institution of higher education in the United States operates, with few
exceptions, as the final institutional authority. Private institutions are established by charters;
public institutions are established by constitutional or statutory provisions. In private institutions
the board is frequently self-perpetuating; in public colleges and universities the present
membership of a board may be asked to suggest candidates for appointment. As a whole and
individually, when the governing board confronts the problem of succession, serious attention
should be given to obtaining properly qualified persons. Where public law calls for election of
governing board members, means should be found to ensure the nomination of fully suited
persons, and the electorate should be informed of the relevant criteria for board membership.
Since the membership of the board may embrace both individual and collective competence of
recognized weight, its advice or help may be sought through established channels by other
components of the academic community. The governing board of an institution of higher
education, while maintaining a general overview, entrusts the conduct of administration to the
administrative officers—the president and the deans—and the conduct of teaching and research
to the faculty. The board should undertake appropriate self-limitation.
One of the governing board’s important tasks is to ensure the publication of codified statements
that define the overall policies and procedures of the institution under its jurisdiction.
The board plays a central role in relating the likely needs of the future to predictable resources; it
has the responsibility for husbanding the endowment; it is responsible for obtaining needed
capital and operating funds; and in the broadest sense of the term it should pay attention to
personnel policy. In order to fulfill these duties, the board should be aided by, and may insist
upon, the development of long-range planning by the administration and faculty. When
ignorance or ill will threatens the institution or any part of it, the governing board must be
available for support. In grave crises it will be expected to serve as a champion. Although the
action to be taken by it will usually be on behalf of the president, the faculty, or the student body,
the board should make clear that the protection it offers to an individual or a group is, in fact, a
fundamental defense of the vested interests of society in the educational institution.3
4. The Academic Institution: The President
The president, as the chief executive officer of an institution of higher education, is measured
largely by his or her capacity for institutional leadership. The president shares responsibility for
the definition and attainment of goals, for administrative action, and for operating the
communications system that links the components of the academic community. The president
represents the institution to its many publics. The president’s leadership role is supported by
delegated authority from the board and faculty.
As the chief planning officer of an institution, the president has a special obligation to innovate
and initiate. The degree to which a president can envision new horizons for the institution, and
48
(Appendix 1 continued)
can persuade others to see them and to work toward them, will often constitute the chief measure
of the president’s administration.
The president must at times, with or without support, infuse new life into a department; relatedly,
the president may at times be required, working within the concept of tenure, to solve problems
of obsolescence. The president will necessarily utilize the judgments of the faculty but may also,
in the interest of academic standards, seek outside evaluations by scholars of acknowledged
competence.
It is the duty of the president to see to it that the standards and procedures in operational use
within the college or university conform to the policy established by the governing board and to
the standards of sound academic practice. It is also incumbent on the president to ensure that
faculty views, including dissenting views, are presented to the board in those areas and on those
issues where responsibilities are shared. Similarly, the faculty should be informed of the views of
the board and the administration on like issues.
The president is largely responsible for the maintenance of existing institutional resources and
the creation of new resources; has ultimate managerial responsibility for a large area of
nonacademic activities; is responsible for public understanding; and by the nature of the office is
the chief person who speaks for the institution. In these and other areas the president’s work is to
plan, to organize, to direct, and to represent. The presidential function should receive the general
support of board and faculty.
5. The Academic Institution: The Faculty
The faculty has primary responsibility for such fundamental areas as curriculum, subject matter
and methods of instruction, research, faculty status, and those aspects of student life which relate
to the educational process.4 On these matters the power of review or final decision lodged in the
governing board or delegated by it to the president should be exercised adversely only in
exceptional circumstances, and for reasons communicated to the faculty. It is desirable that the
faculty should, following such communication, have opportunity for further consideration and
further transmittal of its views to the president or board. Budgets, personnel limitations, the time
element, and the policies of other groups, bodies, and agencies having jurisdiction over the
institution may set limits to realization of faculty advice.
The faculty sets the requirements for the degrees offered in course, determines when the
requirements have been met, and authorizes the president and board to grant the degrees thus
achieved.
Faculty status and related matters are primarily a faculty responsibility; this area includes
appointments, reappointments, decisions not to reappoint, promotions, the granting of tenure, and
dismissal. The primary responsibility of the faculty for such matters is based upon the fact that
its judgment is central to general educational policy. Furthermore, scholars in a particular field or
activity have the chief competence for judging the work of their colleagues; in such competence
49
(Appendix 1 continued)
it is implicit that responsibility exists for both adverse and favorable judgments. Likewise, there
is the more general competence of experienced faculty personnel committees having a broader
charge. Determinations in these matters should first be by faculty action through established
procedures, reviewed by the chief academic officers with the concurrence of the board. The
governing board and president should, on questions of faculty status, as in other matters where
the faculty has primary responsibility, concur with the faculty judgment except in rare instances
and for compelling reasons which should be stated in detail.
The faculty should actively participate in the determination of policies and procedures governing
salary increases.
The chair or head of a department, who serves as the chief representative of the department
within an institution, should be selected either by departmental election or by appointment
following consultation with members of the department and of related departments;
appointments should normally be in conformity with department members’ judgment. The chair
or department head should not have tenure in office; tenure as a faculty member is a matter of
separate right. The chair or head should serve for a stated term but without prejudice to
reelection or to reappointment by procedures that involve appropriate faculty consultation.
Board, administration, and faculty should all bear in mind that the department chair or head has a
special obligation to build a department strong in scholarship and teaching capacity.
Agencies for faculty participation in the government of the college or university should be
established at each level where faculty responsibility is present. An agency should exist for the
presentation of the views of the whole faculty. The structure and procedures for faculty
participation should be designed, approved, and established by joint action of the components of
the institution. Faculty representatives should be selected by the faculty according to procedures
determined by the faculty.
The agencies may consist of meetings of all faculty members of a department, school, college,
division, or university system, or may take the form of faculty-elected executive committees in
departments and schools and a faculty-elected senate or council for larger divisions or the
institution as a whole.
The means of communication among the faculty, administration, and governing board now in
use include: (1) circulation of memoranda and reports by board committees, the administration,
and faculty committees; (2) joint ad hoc committees; (3) standing liaison committees; (4)
membership of faculty members on administrative bodies; and (5) membership of faculty
members on governing boards. Whatever the channels of communication, they should be clearly
understood and observed.
50
(Appendix 1 continued)
On Student Status
When students in American colleges and universities desire to participate responsibly in the
government of the institution they attend, their wish should be recognized as a claim to
opportunity both for educational experience and for involvement in the affairs of their college or
university. Ways should be found to permit significant student participation within the limits of
attainable effectiveness. The obstacles to such participation are large and should not be
minimized: inexperience, untested capacity, a transitory status which means that present action
does not carry with it subsequent responsibility, and the inescapable fact that the other
components of the institution are in a position of judgment over the students. It is important to
recognize that student needs are strongly related to educational experience, both formal and
informal.
Students expect, and have a right to expect, that the educational process will be structured, that
they will be stimulated by it to become independent adults, and that they will have effectively
transmitted to them the cultural heritage of the larger society. If institutional support is to have its
fullest possible meaning, it should incorporate the strength, freshness of view, and idealism of
the student body.
The respect of students for their college or university can be enhanced if they are given at least
these opportunities: (1) to be listened to in the classroom without fear of institutional reprisal for
the substance of their views, (2) freedom to discuss questions of institutional policy and
operation, (3) the right to academic due process when charged with serious violations of
institutional regulations, and (4) the same right to hear speakers of their own choice as is enjoyed
by other components of the institution.
Notes
1. See the 1940 “Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure,” AAUP, Policy
Documents and Reports, 10th ed. (Washington, D.C., 2006), 3-11, and the 1958 “Statement on
Procedural Standards in Faculty Dismissal Proceedings,” ibid., 12-15. These statements were
jointly adopted by the Association of American Colleges (now the Association of American
Colleges and Universities) and the American Association of University Professors; the 1940
“Statement” has been endorsed by numerous learned and scientific societies and educational
associations.
2. With respect to faculty members, the 1940 “Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom
and Tenure” reads: “College and university teachers are citizens, members of a learned
profession, and officers of an educational institution. When they speak or write as citizens, they
should be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but their special position in the
community imposes special obligations. As scholars and educational officers, they should
remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances.
Hence they should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show
respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they are not
speaking for the institution” (Policy Documents and Reports, 3-4).
51
(Appendix 1 continued)
3. Traditionally, governing boards developed within the context of single-campus institutions. In
more recent times, governing and coordinating boards have increasingly tended to develop at the
multi-campus regional, systemwide, or statewide levels. As influential components of the
academic community, these supra-campus bodies bear particular responsibility for protecting the
autonomy of individual campuses or institutions under their jurisdiction and for implementing
policies of shared responsibility. The American Association of University Professors regards the
objectives and practices recommended in the “Statement on Government” as constituting equally
appropriate guidelines for such supra-campus bodies, and looks toward continued development
of practices that will facilitate application of such guidelines in this new context. [Preceding note
adopted by the AAUP’s Council in June 1978.]
4, With regard to student admissions, the faculty should have a meaningful role in establishing
institutional policies, including the setting of standards for admission, and should be afforded
opportunity for oversight of the entire admissions proc [Preceding note adopted by the
Council in June 2002.] Back to text
5. The American Association of University Professors regards collective bargaining, properly
used, as another means of achieving sound academic government. Where there is faculty
collective bargaining, the parties should seek to ensure appropriate institutional governance
structures which will protect the right of all faculty to participate in institutional governance in
accordance with the “Statement on Government.” [Preceding note adopted by the
Council in June 1978.
52
APPENDIX 2
Guidelines for University Faculty Senators
The primary purpose of the University Faculty Senate is to represent faculty on academic
matters at the System level. In order to do this effectively, we must have Senators who
communicate the activities of the University Faculty Senate to their local campus faculty in a
timely and accurate manner. The Faculty Senator must also communicate the concems of the
local faculty to the Senate in an efficient manner. These guidelines have been developed in order
to facilitate this vital, two-way communication.
1.
2.
The Faculty Senator or his/her alternate must attend all Plenary Meetings of the Senate.
The Faculty Senator should be a member of the local governance executive
committee and attend their meetings.
During local governance meetings the Faculty Senator should give an oral report.
A campus based, electronic distribution list for faculty and professional staff should
be created or accessed by the Faculty Senator on his/her campus and used to
provide each faculty member of the campus with a timely summary of Senate
activities.
During each Plenary Meeting, the President of the University Faculty Senate will
provide each Senator with a report of Senate activities. This information should be
communicated to campus faculty.
Responses to these different forms of communication to the campus via the Faculty
Senator should be the basis for the information shared with the University Faculty Senate.
53
APPENDIX 3
Resolution on Faculty Consultation
TO: University Faculty Senators to Refer to Campus Governance Bodies
FROM: Governance Committee
RE: Faculty Consultation
DATE: January 20, 2000
Rationale
One of the continuing issues or concems for faculty governance is the absence of or
circumvention of faculty consultation on university issues, policies, or decisions which directly
involve or have an impact on faculty. All too often, the administration does not consult the
faculty governance body on important matters which need resolution. Instead, the administrator
speaks with a faculty member and assumes this to be
consultation.
The following statement is designed to identify the kind of communication that would be in
accordance with the Policies of the Board of Trustees (Article X, section 4). The Senate suggests
that local governance organizations include this in their Bylaws. The intent of this is to facilitate
consultation with elected faculty representatives.
Resolution
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the University Faculty Senate urges local campus
governance organizations to include this statement in their governance Bylaws.
Meaningful faculty consultation can only occur when direct communication of the issue needing
resolution exists between the administration and the elected faculty representatives of the faculty
governance organization or the entire faculty. This communication should occur as soon as an
issue is identified in all cases, the faculty representatives should have time to provide a
meaningful response. Normally a minimum of 30 days should be allowed. In special
circumstances, a shorter time for faculty response may be required. Ongoing, complete
communication of important issues between the administration and the faculty govemance body
will help improve decision making in the university.
54
APPENDIX 4
STATEMENT OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES AND RIGHTS
The professors of the State University of New York, in order to define their professional
responsibilities and rights, make the following statement:
(1)
I. OVERVIEW
The responsibilities of professors in the State University of New Y ork derive from their
membership in a learned profession whose members, within a faculty, perform the dual
function of cultivating areas of knowledge as coherently structured intellectual
disciplines, and of educating students in these areas. Professorial responsibilities are thus
dedicated primarily to this profession, to students, and to colleagues. Obligations to the
University and to the society at large are discharged by fulfilling these responsibilities.
The rights of professors in the State University of New York derive, in tum, from
membership in the University. In addition, professors retain all the civil rights belonging
to citizens in general.
II. RESPONSIBILITIES
SCHOLARSHIP
(1) As scholars, professors have the responsibility to learn and to advance
learning by disciplined inquiry.
(2) They should pursue studies in the areas of their own scholarship both to
keep abreast of the work of fellow scholars and to contribute through individual
or collaborative study to the development of knowledge in these areas.
(3) | They should defend scholarly positions which in their judgments are well
founded, and they should modify or abandon positions which in their judgments
have been shown to be faulty or untenable.
(4) | They should allow no subsidiary interests to occupy their time and
energies to the detriment of their scholarly and faculty roles.
(5) They should cooperate with fellow scholars within the University and in
the profession at large to promote learning in their areas of expertise, and they
should help to establish within the University the best conditions for the pursuit of
scholarship.
55
(Appendix 4 continued.)
B. TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS AND STUDENT RELATIONSHIPS
(1) As teachers, professors are responsible for educating students in their area
of knowledge, seeking in the process not to indoctrinate but to enlighten. As
freely and completely as the level of student development permits, professors
should share the knowledge they have verified to their own satisfaction with
students, and they should nurture understanding of the methods by which the
students themselves may in tum become self disciplined scholars.
(2) Professors should distinguish fact from opinion, hypothesis from
conclusion, and critically present varieties of scholarship.
(3) | They should respect the dignity of students as persons, defend their
intellectual freedom and the confidential nature of professional relationships with
them, and evaluate their work in a positive effort to enhance their understanding,
without regard to considerations other than the quality of the work itself.
(4) They should be conscientious in meeting students in class and privately at
their mutual convenience, and should make themselves available to students in a
manner consistent with their other responsibilities.
(5) They should choose teaching materials and structure their courses in a way
that, in their judgment, will best enable them to facilitate student leaning and
related teaching responsibilities.
Cc. COLLEGIALITY
(1) As members of a faculty, professors are responsible for promoting
effective collegiality.
(2) They should collectively ensure that administrative structures, rules, and
regulations of the University, and of their own institution within it, are consistent
with the effective discharge of their scholarly and teaching responsibilities.
Furthermore, while they should not violate existing rules, they should be
constructively critical of them in an effort both to prevent what in their judgment
may hinder their own teaching and scholarship, or that of their colleagues, and to
improve the conditions in which these activities are carried on. They should study
these conditions, participate in decisions respecting them, and counsel
administrative officers candidly in the light of their best professional
judgment, insofar as that may be done without neglecting their other
responsibilities.
56
(Appendix 4 continued)
(3) | They should abide by the rules and regulations arrived at by their
colleagues, even when they disagree, until such time as they may persuade the
others differently, so long as that action does not violate the academic freedom of
any parties involved.
(4) | They should take deliberate and appropriate action in evaluations of
candidates for appointment or reappointment to the faculty of their institution,
basing their judgment only on professional grounds.
(5) They should participate in the governance of the University and their own
institution, and in the establishment of procedures determined collectively by the
faculty.
(6) They should conduct themselves in the affairs of their campus, and
exercise their rights as scholars and teachers, always with consideration for the
welfare of their students, their colleagues, their institution, and the University as a
whole.
(7) | When speaking outside the University on any matter, professors should
avoid creating the impression that they speak for the University or their institution
within it, except when they are acting as duly appointed agents in that capacity.
Ill. RIGHTS
A. SCHOLARSHIP
(1) As scholars, professors have the right to define the areas of their
scholarship, in accordance with their professional training, abilities and interests;
and to pursue their studies and share their results subject to no restraints save their
own professional integrity and the collective judgment of their work by fellow
scholars. Because only scholarly peers are competent to evaluate such work,
professors have the right to have their intellectual work judged exclusively by
such persons.
(2) Professors have the right both to determine the minimal and to promote
the optimal conditions within the University for the discharge of their scholarly
responsibilities.
57
(Appendix 4 continued)
B. TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS AND STUDENT RELATIONSHIPS
(1) As teachers, professors have the rights and freedom to present the results
of their studies to students, irrespective of who may be offended by such ideas or
knowledge.
(2) Professors have the further right to determine the conditions necessary for
the effective exercise of this right, including among others the selection of
instructional materials, prerequisites and the number of students that can be taught
effectively in each classroom situation. They also have the right to determine the
style in which teaching can best be done, provided always that this right is
exercised in such a way as not to neglect their responsibilities as scholar, teacher,
and colleague.
(3) Professors have the collective right to establish and enforce criteria for the
attainment of academic degrees within their respective disciplines, within the
context of relevant education law or regulations.
C. COLLEGIALITY
(1) | As members of the faculty, professors have the right to speak freely within
the University on all matters ultimately affecting their scholarship and teaching;
they have the right to participate in discussions with colleagues and students on
such matters without fear of overt or covert reprisal, and to be accorded the
dignity of a responsive hearing when they offer counsel.
(2) They have the collective right to evaluate candidates for appointment or
reappointment to institutional positions on their respective campuses, and thereby
to define the membership of the profession within the University.
(3) They have the right to be judged in the discharge of all their
responsibilities by the fellow members of their profession.
58
(Appendix 4 continued)
GUIDELINES FOR ADJ UDICATING ALLEGATIONS
OF UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT IN VIOLATION OF THE
SUNY STATEMENT OF PROFESSIONAL RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
In order to provide a means for professional self-regulation and to assure procedural due process
in proceedings involving charges of unprofessional conduct in violation of the SUNY Statement
of Professional Rights and Responsibilities, a procedure should be established on each SUNY
campus to provide collegial consideration of such allegations. Such procedure should
encompass the following:
1. Judgments of unprofessional behavior should emanate from professional peers.
2. Adherence to the basic concepts of procedural fairness should be required,
including the following provisions:
a. Allegations should be documented.
b. The burden of proof should rest with the complainant.
c. The respondent should have full access to all allegations and
documentation, and ample opportunity to respond.
d. Appropriate and reasonable professional behavior and confidentiality
should be maintained in the proceedings.
e. Provision for appeal should be afforded.
3. The review or hearing body should be empowered to resolve the complaint or
grievance informally, through reasonable conciliation, prior to instituting more
formal proceedings.
4. Several levels of appropriate action (including reprimand and censure), insofar as
may be consistent with contractual agreements in force at the time of review,
should be provided to the review body.
* Tt is understood that, at any given time, there may be in force contractual agreements concerning terms and
conditions of employment of members of the professional staff of the State University of New Y ork. No item in this
of Pr ional Rights and ibilities should be construed as violating or abrogating such
agreements. The Statement is intended rather to assert that, as ici ina I collegiality, professor
in the State University of New Y ork undertake the responsibilities and enjoy the rights set forth herein, quite apart
from such contractual agreements made by them and on their behalf as persons employed by the University.
59
APPENDIX 5
Academic G overnance in the State University of New Y ork:
Precepts for Campus Presidents and Faculty
D. Bruce Johnstone
Chancellor
1991
Presidents, provosts, academic vice-presidents, deans, and other academic officers are charged
by the Trustees and the Chancellor, either directly or by delegation, with ultimate authority and
responsibility for the academic well-being of their campuses. However, SUNY Trustee policy
and the traditions of American academic governance call for a sharing of this responsibility with
the faculty. The faculty role, either collectively or departmentally, should be particularly
substantial in, e.g.:
® The establishment of general and departmental academic requirements and of
standards for admission and for the awarding of degrees;
x The establishment of general criteria for appointment to, and promotion within,
the instructional faculty;
* The evaluation and recommendation of individuals for initial appointment,
renewal of term, promotion, and continuing appointment;
* The establishment and deactivation of new degrees, specialties, or scholarly
orientations; and
* The articulation of the overall mission of the campuses and any substantive
changes pertaining thereto.
Faculty involvement in governance may, and desirably should, occur in a variety of forms and at
a variety of organizational levels. The principal formal mode in SUNY is an elected faculty
senate (or similar body, often including professional staff and possibly students, but always
dominated by the teaching faculty) consistent with Article X of the Policies of the Board of
Trustees. Departmental and school (as in "school" of law or medicine) governance, faculty
membership on college- or university-wide ad hoc committees or task forces, or faculty serving
in part-time advisory or quasi-administrative capacities all constitute important forms of faculty
participation in the formulation of policy. The inclusion of administratively appointed faculty on
various policy-advisory or policy-making bodies is legitimate and useful, but should not be
thought of as substituting for the governance role that can be played by faculty elected or
designated by themselves.
60
(Appendix 5 continued)
Academic governance can be positive or less-than-positive, strong or weak. But "strong" or
"positive," while implying substantial influence to the faculty, does not imply a commensurately
weak administration or a lessened need for presidential leadership. Strong academic governance,
rather, requires strong and effective leadership from both faculty and administration. Strong
academic governance is a mark of strong -- meaning effective and well-regarded -- colleges and
universities. Strong academic governance is marked by:
Extensive deliberation on critical issues and policy formation, maximizing the
wisdom and the perspectives that lie behind the critical decisions that must be
made on all of our campuses;
* A wider ownership of decisions and programs, with faculty and staff more likely
both to generate and to better accept new ways of doing the work of our colleges
and universities.
* More effective communication and a greater level of trust and cooperation, not
only between faculty and administration, but among schools, departments, offices,
and other divisions of the institutions; and
* Better morale...and thus more effective teaching, research, and service.
The following precepts for campus presidents and for faculty are suggestions of ways to
strengthen academic governments toward the goal of more effective campuses. The seven
precepts for faculty participation were first shared with campus governance heads and the
University Faculty Senate Executive Committee at a Faculty Govemance Seminar held in
Saratoga Springs in September 1991. Although I am grateful to those whose advice to me has, I
believe, strengthened the advice that I would pass on to my colleague presidents and faculty, the
"precepts" at this time remain my own and do not purport to carry the authority of the SUNY
trustees, of University policy, or the formal concurrence of either my faculty or presidential
deliberative and advisory bodies.
Seven Precepts for Campus Presidents
1. Respect your elected faculty senate and seek to involve and strengthen it. View it
positively, as a partner and indispensable helper, rather than as a natural adversary or as a
body whose enhanced strength or effectiveness need to diminish yours.
2. Be comfortable with the principle and essence of collegial govemance; a faculty role that
is advisory and therefore limited, yet that can be real and beneficial and powerful. Do not
let honest differences of viewpoint between you and your faculty governance body
become tests of will or strength or credibility, either of you or your faculty governing
6l
(Appendix 5 continued)
body. Be willing to give and to "lose" at times; be willing, at other times, to hear the
faculty and, in the end, to disagree and exercise your necessary authority. Be assured that
faculty governance bodies understand that overwhelmingly advisory role and know that
presidential decisions from time to time will be made that will not please them. But
recognize the faculty's legitimate and strongly felt sense of entitlement to be included in
the deliberations that affect the mission and academic character of the campus.
3: Be generous and slow to anger. Know that men and women of lively intelligence will
differ, perhaps profoundly, even in adherence to similar goals and standards. Do not
allow personal agendas onto the governance table and keep the process of governing on
the highest road.
4, While democratic principles are laudable, and while students, professional staff, and
others can contribute much to the formulation of policies and have voices that need to be
listened to, the historic tradition of University governance accords a special role to the
teaching faculty.
5. Have high expectations of your faculty governing bodies and convey this to them.
Recognize that faculty governance, for a variety of reasons, may not be strong at a
particular campus at a particular time, and that an uninspiring quality of faculty
leadership or a poor quality of reports and official faculty actions may reflect a
widespread lack of faculty interest in the concept of shared governance or in their own
governance body -- which may, in turn, reflect the faculty's perception of your or your
administrative colleagues’ lack of interest in, or esteem for, their advice and counsel. Do
not gratuitously ignore shoddy or mean-spirited actions if you should observe them in
your faculty senate, but demand better -- and know that the best way to strengthen weak
faculty governance may be to take it more seriously.
6. Faculty governance and collective bargaining can co-exist and flourish, even with
overlapping membership, but the differences must be carefully respected. The union
must be the sole representative of the faculty in matters that properly
belong on the bargaining table. By the same token, the faculty, through its governance
bodies, both can, and has an academic responsibility to, engage in deliberations and the
provision of advice on a wide range of policy matters, both academic and financial.
I Insist on a respect for the principles of collegial governance from all of your management
team.
62
(Appendix 5 continued)
Seven Precepts for Faculty
1. Begin with a sense of purpose that is positive, not negative; that strives to make things
happen, rather than to prevent them; that makes the institution a better and stronger place,
rather than merely controls or watches over the administration.
2; Be concerned for the institution as a whole, in its full breadth and depth, rather than for a
single part, particularly a single part that you as a faculty representative may most
narrowly represent. Be concemed for the institution in the long run, not just for the
moment.
3. Be comfortable with the principle and the essence of collegial governance; a faculty role
is advisory and therefore limited, yet it can be real and beneficial and powerful.
Remember that it is the exchange of views and the lively interaction that conveys the
most information and therefore which influences most greatly, not simply a final tally of
votes on a particular resolution. Be confident of your influence and tolerate some
ambiguity in the matter of final authority.
4. Be generous and slow to anger. Know that men and women of lively intelligence will
differ, perhaps profoundly, even in adherence to similar goals and standards. Do not
allow personal agendas onto the governance table and keep the process of governing on
the highest road.
5 Be courageous. Be willing to take difficult stands and to make tough discriminations.
6. Work hard at the tasks of governance. These are part of your job. Take pride in the
product of your work, whether in the form of written or oral augmentation. Demand the
same or higher standards of integrity and of academic quality in governance that you
would demand of colleagues in articles you might review for a juried publication, or the
academic work of your students for which you are expected to give academic credit.
7. Keep governance in perspective. Do not let it crowd out your teaching or your
scholarship. Know when to let go. Be able to tum over the reins of governance when the
time has come, not just to friends or to those necessarily like-minded, but to others, to
new blood.
APPENDIX 6
(Statement by Chancellor, April 9, 1973)
Campus Governance
(page 123 of December, 1982 Policy Manual)
The University reaffirms the validity of governance as the appropriate and organic process for
the involvement of constituent groups in campus decision making. University faculty, staff, and
administration are reminded of the charge contained in the 1972 Master Plan that
the govemance arrangements within the University will be increasingly clarified and
improved methods of consultation will be developed to reflect the need for effective
governance based upon widespread participation... .
Since these challenges go to the very heart of the University, it is appropriate to underscore the
traditional legal framework which establishes and protects University governance.
The Education Law established the Board of Trustees and charges it with the responsibility for
and conduct of the University. The Trustees, in tum, have promulgated Policies that represent a
constitution which provides basic principles of policy and organization. The Policies vest
authority in the Chancellor of the University and in campus Presidents and legally establish
governance as the appropriate vehicle for the involvement of all constituents: faculty, staff,
administration, and students. In this regard, the Policies accord official recognition to the close
interrelation between the exercise of the legal authority of the campus President and his
obligation to accept constituent participation through governance.
Article X of the Policies, among other provisions, empowers and directs the faculty to develop
Bylaws for the conduct of its affairs. Substantive actions taken in the course of that conduct are
advisory upon the campus President and are a recognition of his legal authority. Furthermore,
those provisions of Bylaws conceming consultation -- how, when, and where the campus
President consults with his faculty -- are subject to his approval. It is understood, of course, that
Bylaws often contain certain procedures for consultation among faculty in addition to provisions
for presidential consultation with faculty. The latter is spoken to only in Article X.
When the campus President accepts provisions of local Bylaws concerning consultation, the
Trustees, through Article X, and the Chancellor respect this endorsement and these provisions
become, thereby, part of local policy and must provide a reliable framework for campus
governance. In this regard, a campus President is expected to adhere to policies which he has
accepted for his administration.
(Appendix 6 continued)
Since governance must remain responsive to changing conditions on each campus, the validity of
Bylaws rests firmly upon the continuing confidence in which they are held. Bylaws, once
approved, should not be used to require adherence to outmoded or bad practice by either the
(Appendix III, continued)
faculty or the campus President. The campus community must remain ready to recognize
legitimate objections to practices or procedures which no longer adequately meet the needs for
which they were designed. In order for governance to operate effectively, provisions must exist
in each set of Bylaws to permit the campus President and any constituent included in the
governance vehicle to initiate review and modification when Bylaws fail to command the
confidence of those who are expected to observe them.
Bylaws are the manifestation of the University's commitment to governance. They have their
legal basis in authorization by the Board of Trustees and their effectiveness results, in the most
practical sense, from the confidence they enjoy in the campus community. If governance is to
survive, it must draw strength from its success in meeting the needs for which it was designed. It
must not rely upon external forces. Its validity is adequately supported in the legal recognition
of governance by the Trustees Policies as essential to the proper conduct of a University.
65
APPENDIX 7
Presidential Searches, G
Document Number:
8400
sao.
for Conducting
Summary
The legal authority to appoint the president or chief administrative officer of a state-operated
campus of the State University of New Y ork is vested in the University Board of Trustees by
Section 355(2)(g) of the NYS Education Law. The council of each such campus is given
responsibility for recommending a candidate or candidates to the Board by Section 356(3)(a).
Section 6004 (c) gives this same power to the Trustees of the College of Environmental Science
and Forestry. The Board of Trustees may also appoint a president or chief administrative officer
in the event that no council recommendation is made, or where a council recommendation fails
to comply with the Trustees' standards and procedures.
The Board of Trustees considers the selection of campus presidents to be one of the most
important of its duties. The procedures below are intended to assist the councils of state-operated
campuses in the search for, and nomination of, individuals to fill the position of president. It
should be noted that the term "council" in the following is intended to refer equally to the Board
of Trustees of the State University College of Environmental Science and Forestry.
Process
Preliminary Steps in the Search Process
1. As soon as is practical after it is known that a presidential vacancy will occur, the council
chair shall consult with the chancellor for advice and instructions in planning the search
and the criteria to be used in the selection of a new president.
2 Unless otherwise agreed upon in advance by the chancellor and the council chair, the
search committee shall consist of four members of the council (including the chair), six
members of the full-time teaching faculty of the campus, one student, one alumni
representative, one campus-related foundation representative, one academic dean, and
one professional or support staff member.
3; The council chair shall appoint a chair of the search committee. Generally, the council
chair also serves as the chair of the search committee. If the council chair is unwilling or
unable to serve as chair of the search committee, the council chair shall appoint another
council to serve as chair of the search committee.
66
(Appendix 7 continued)
4.
Taking care to assure that faculty representation on the search committee speaks for a
broad spectrum of faculty opinion, the faculty shall elect its representatives to the search
committee by secret ballot at an open session of the faculty governance group, at which a
quorum of the teaching faculty are present. The council chair shall invite the appropriate
campus and community groups to submit recommendations for all other positions on the
search committee, and shall make the appointments to the remaining positions on the
search committee from the recommendations submitted.
The Chancellor shall designate a liaison representative to serve as a nonvoting member of
the presidential search committee. That representative shall have full access to the files of
the committee, and shall be responsible for reporting at regular intervals to the Chancellor
and the Trustees regarding the progress of the search and the work of the search
committee.
The council chair and the Chancellor, or the Chancellor's representative, shall agree on an
expected timetable for the search and nomination process.
The Chancellor's office shall provide a list of nationally recognized organizations with
established expertise in academic recruitment and screening from which the council shall
select one to assist in its search.
A campus staff liaison shall be appointed to assist the search committee and to coordinate
the clerical work of the committee. A budget for the search should be determined in
conjunction with the chief financial officer of the campus and arrangements made for a
search office and support staff. The budget should be sufficient to cover the cost of hiring
a professional search consultant, advertising the position, travel of candidates to
interviews as well as the usual telephone, postage and duplicating expenses associated
with a search.
Internal Candidates - (if applicable:
Should anyone from inside the campus wish to apply for the presidency, that individual must do
so by way of a formal application prior to the closing date for the receipt of nominations. Any
internal candidate who does not formally apply for the position and participate in the entire
search process will not be considered for the position. Interim or acting presidents may not be
candidates for the presidency unless they have received the written permission of the Chancellor
to participate in the search process.
67
(Appendix 7 continued)
The Search Process
1,
At the first search committee meeting, the search chair, along with the Chancellor's
representative, should acquaint the committee members with the search procedures in
general and with any specific instructions from the council, the Chancellor, and the
Trustees. The search committee should be advised that the council is required to send a
list of no fewer than three names of acceptable candidates to the Chancellor for
consideration, and that the council may submit its opinion on the relative strengths and
weaknesses of each candidate whose name is forwarded for consideration by the
Chancellor. The timetable for the search should be presented to the committee members
and a commitment obtained from each member to attend all meetings and all interviews.
At the first search committee meeting the importance of confidentiality shall be
discussed. All members of the committee must agree to preserve the confidentiality of the
search and the names of all candidates. If at any time throughout the search, there is
evidence that a member of the committee has breached the confidentiality of the search,
that member may be dismissed from the committee by a majority vote of the committee.
The decision of whether or not to replace the dismissed member shall be in the sole
discretion of the committee.
In consultation with the chancellor's representative and the search consultant, the
committee should assess the needs of the institution and the type and style of leadership
desired in a new president. Combining the results of this assessment and the required
criteria set forth by the Chancellor, the search committee shall develop, and submit to the
chancellor (or the chancellor's representative) for approval, the material to be used in the
advertisement of the vacancy and the recruitment of candidates for the position.
The vacancy shall be advertised nationally. The search consultant shall assist the search
committee in recruiting and evaluating candidates.
The members of the search committee shall review all applications and nominations for
the position. Rejection letters should be sent to those who do not meet the minimum
qualifications for the position.
From the remaining pool of candidates, the committee shall select a group of
approximately 20 names which, the members feel on preliminary review, appear to be the
strongest applicants. Reference checks shall be conducted on this group of candidates by
the committee members. It is recommended that these reference checks be done by
telephone. At this stage, only references named by the candidates shall be contacted so
that the candidates’ confidentiality can be preserved.
68
(Appendix 7 continued)
7.
10.
11.
12.
When reference checking has been completed, the committee shall meet to review the
applications of all candidates and to discuss the information obtained during the reference
calls. The committee will then select a group of approximately 12 candidates to be
interviewed at a site convenient to the committee and to the candidates. The site selected
for the interviews must be designed to assure that the confidentiality of the names of the
candidates to be interviewed will be maintained. Prior to the interviews, the search
consultant should conduct a thorough review of each candidate’s credentials, and provide
the search committee with the results of that review.
All members of the search committee should attend the personal interviews. The
chancellor's representative will also attend these interviews. The interview will last from
between 60 and 90 minutes. The search consultant, in consultation with the chancellor's
representative, will assist the search committee in developing a list of questions to be
asked of all candidates. Time should also be allotted during this interview to allow each
candidate to ask questions of the committee.
Following these interviews, the committee should meet to discuss and review the
qualifications of the candidates interviewed. A group of approximately five candidates
should then be selected to visit the campus. Where appropriate, the candidate's spouse, or
other family members or associates, may also be invited to visit the campus. At this stage,
candidates will be asked to allow the search committee to check references, other than
those names provided by the candidates. Unsuccessful candidates should be notified prior
to the release to the public of the names of candidates to be invited to the campus.
Up to this point in the search process, the names of the candidates have been kept strictly
confidential by the committee. When the finalists are scheduled to visit campus, their
names are released to the public, along with general information about their background
and qualifications. Their names and curriculum vitae shall also be forwarded to the Board
of Trustees at this stage, although Trustees and the Chancellor may - in strictest
confidence - request access to search committee documents, including candidates'
curriculum vitae, at any point in the process. However, all information regarding the
reference checks, committee discussion and voting on the various applicants is still
strictly confidential and may not be divulged at any time.
Campus visits are designed to allow a large number of campus and community members
to meet and hear from each candidate. In planning these visits, the committee should
remember that at this stage of the process they are recruiting the candidates as well as
evaluating them.
All members of the council should actively participate in the interviews of the candidates
who visit the campus.
69
(Appendix 7 continued)
13.
The chancellor shall be given an opportunity to meet with and interview candidates,
either at the semi-finalist interview stage or at the campus visit stage. The timing of such
interviews shall be at the discretion of the chancellor. The chancellor may, at this time,
also require that the candidates be interviewed by the provost or other members of the
chancellor's senior staff.
Prior to any final vote being taken by the search committee or the council, the members
of the Board of Trustees shall also be given an opportunity to meet with and interview all
finalists.
The Selection Process
1.
The search committee meets and deliberates the merits of each candidate who visited the
campus. It is recommended that all council members be invited to join the search
committee at this meeting to hear the search committee's discussions regarding the
relative merits of each candidate. The committee is strongly urged to forward as many
acceptable names as possible to the council for consideration.
The committee shall forward to the council the list of all acceptable candidates, along
with a short (one page) synopsis of the relative strengths and weaknesses of each
candidate.
The council then meets and deliberates the relative merits of each of the candidates
whose names have been forwarded to them by the search committee. While the
recommendation of candidates to the chancellor and the Board of Trustees is the
prerogative of the council alone, consensus between the council and the search committee
should be sought and encouraged. Serious disagreement about the final candidates
recommended by the council, particularly any disagreement that clearly follows major
constituency lines, suggests a potentially serious problem with the search process.
The council shall recommend three acceptable candidates to the chancellor for
consideration. The council may submit its opinion on the relative strengths and
weaknesses of each candidate whose name is forwarded for consideration by the
chancellor.
The chancellor, in compliance with statute, shall provide to the Board of Trustees a copy
of the recommendations made by the council. The chancellor shall then recommend a
candidate to the Board of Trustees for its consideration. It is anticipated that the Trustees,
or a committee of
70
(Appendix 7 continued)
the Board, will meet with the candidate in executive session before a final presentation
and vote. The Board of Trustees, by law, reserves the right to direct that the council
reopen the search if no recommendation is made by the chancellor, or if such
recommendation is made but does not comply with the rules and standards established by
the Board of Trustees, then to make such appointment as is by them deemed necessary.
Reopened Searches - (if applicable)
Should the chancellor or the Board of Trustees decide that the circumstances warrant the
reopening of a search, it is within their discretion to require that the council chair appoint, in
accordance with these guidelines, an entirely new search committee.
Authority
The following links to FindLaw's New Y ork State Laws are provided for users' convenience; it is
not the official site for the State of New Y ork laws.
NYS Education Law §355(2)(g) and 356(3)(a) (Powers and duties of trustees--administrative and
fiscal functions and Councils of state-operated institutions; powers and duties)
NYS Education Law §6004 (College Board of Trustees; powers and duties)
In case of questions, readers are advised to refer to the New Y ork State Legislature site for the
menu of New Y ork State Consolidated.
State University of New Y ork Board of Trustees Resolution 97-127, dated September 23, 1997,
replaces guidelines adopted by Resolution 91-227.
History
Executive Search and Recruitment Service Contracts - Memorandum to community college
presidents/business officers, state-operated campuses business officers/purchasing agents from
the assistant vice chancellor for business services, dated December 17, 2001.
71
APPENDIX 8
University Faculty Senate
Governance Committee
144th Plenary Meeting
Buffalo State C ollege
October 26-28, 2006
Resolution on Orienting and Mentoring New Campus Presidents
Whereas the SUNY system has many complicating factors such as its size, its structure,
the regulatory climate in the State of New York, the nature of state budgeting and
accounting, the scale and scope of collective bargaining, the multiplicity of governing
boards (the SUNY Board of Trustees and the local College Councils) with differing
responsibilities, and
Whereas it is in the best interests of all members of each campus community that new
presidents have a smooth transition into their new offices,
Now therefore be it resolved that the University Faculty Senate respectfully
recommends to the Chancellor the development of an orientation and mentorship
program for new campus presidents to assist them in adapting to the new campus and to
the State University of New York, and to share the wisdom and experience of other
SUNY presidents to facilitate that transition and reduce the isolation of new presidents.
144-01-1 Passed without dissent
72
APPENDIX 9
University Faculty Senate
Governance Committee
140" Plenary Meeting
ESF
April 9, 2005
Resolution in Support of Faculty Evaluation of Administrators
Whereas over the past decade a movement towards greater accountability and transparency has
occurred in higher education as elsewhere, and faculty evaluation of administrators is one
response to this increased expectation, and
Whereas the opportunity to evaluate college administrators is an important faculty prerogative,
which, if pursued carefully, can give faculty a stronger sense of participation in the governance
of the college, and
Whereas evaluation of administrators by faculty works best when all parties involved consider it
an attempt to improve the health and strength of the institution rather than targeting individuals,
Now therefore be it resolved:
That the University Faculty Senate affirms the prerogative of local governance bodies to engage
in evaluation of administrators, in a manner and on a schedule of the body’s own choosing, and
That the University Faculty Senate affirms the value, and endorses the practice of faculty
evaluation of administrators on those campuses of the State University of New Y ork where it is
regularly and systematically practiced, and
That the University Faculty Senate recommends to the govemance body of those campuses of
the State University of New York that do not now regularly and systematically evaluate
administrators that they make provision to exercise their prerogative to do so, and
That the University Faculty Senate recommends to all local governance bodies that their
evaluation process and procedures be designed and reviewed in light of the best practices
identified in the University Faculty Senate's Governance Committee Report, Faculty Evaluation
of Administrators, presented at the Winter 2005 plenary, and
That the University Faculty Senate directs the President of the Senate to send copies of this
resolution, together with the referenced report, to all local governance leaders.
140-02-1 passed without dissent
73
APPENDIX 10
Revised Guidelines for the Evaluation of Campus Presidents
at
April 11, 1986
4s fithetatl fie
State University of New York
Memorandum to Presidents
Date:
From:
Subject:
To:
April 11, 1986 : Vol. 86 No. 4
Office of the Chancellor
Revised Guidelines for the Evaluation a
of Campus Presidents | IVE)
Presidents, State-operated Campuses APR15 soon
ACADEMIC PROGRAMS
POLICY & PLANNING
At the February 19, 1986, meeting of the State University Board
of Trustees, revisions to the Guidelines for the Evaluation of
Campus Presidents were approved. Attached is a copy of the
Guidelines, as revised.
The changes include the following new items:
specification for a three-week advance notice of the Chan-
cellor's visit with the campus Council, and that the period
of notice be coincident with the campus in session;
requirement that the Council meet in executive session;
provision for the Chancellor's invitation of a faculty
observer;
provision for the Chancellor's invitation of a professional
employee representative;
authorization for attendance of an alumni representative,
if there is one who normally attends Council meetings; :
provision for the Chancellor, or designee, to meet sepa-
rately with representatives from one or more constituencies
when there are special circumstances.
14
(Appendix 10 continued)
Memorandum to Presidents No. 86-4
April 11, 1986 Page 2
The changes, with the exception of the requirement for executive
session, generally follow recommendations from the University
Faculty Senate which were transmitted to the Chancellor in Sep-
tember 1985.
— SLi
Clifton R. Wharton, Jr.
Attachment
Copies for information only to:.
Presidents, Community: Colleges
Deans, Statutory Colleges
President Coll
Vice Provost Spencer
Chairs, Cellege Councils
75
(Appendix 10 continued)
Se
State University of New Yor
State University Plaza -
Albany, New York 12246
Guidelines for the Evaluation of Campus Presidents
Purposes of Presidential Evaluation
The basic purpose of Presidential evaluations is to strengthen the
role of the President and to offer to each President a more flex-
ible approach to his or her duties, while emphasizing accountability
in the leadership role. The Presidents are responsible primarily
to the Chancellor and the Trustees. Therefore, a continuing review
process, as provided for in Article IX, Title A, Section 1, of the
Policies of the Trustees (as amended September 24, 1980), requires
the full involvement of the Chancellor so that the President is made
aware of how colleagues perceive his or her service. The process
provides for.constituent input, as required by the Chancellor, and
at his option may. include an on-site evaluation by an outside peer
group. The process is flexible to account for variations among cam-
puses in size, scope, and problems, and to account for differences
among Presidents as to length of service and experiential levels.
Procedures for a Presidential Evaluation
1. At appropriate intervals, the Chancellor will hold a special
extended meeting with each State-operated campus President as part
of the ongoing evaluation process. The meeting should provide an
opportunity for the President to discuss campus problems and SUNY-
wide problems that affect his or her campus, as well as to give
the Chancellor an opportunity to express his views about the ser-
vice of that President. The Chancellor, in preparing for these
periodic evaluation meetings, will depend upon ongoing communica-
tions with campus Councils, and with faculty, students, and other
campus constituent groups, as required.
2. The Chancellor, or his designated representative, will meet
at appropriate intervals with the Council on each State-operated
campus to assess the health of that campus, to review SUNY-wide
concerns, and to review the stewardship of the President. The
following general guidelines shall be applicable:
a) Plans for such a meeting shall be announced at least
three weeks in advance, and those three weeks should be
coincident with the College in session;
b) Since the meeting is one at which the performance of an
individual is to be discussed, the Council would be ex-
pected to move into an executive session;
76
(Appendix 10 continued)
c) The faculty observer who normally attends meetings of
the campus Council shall be invited to the meeting by
the Chancellor;
a) On campuses where there is a separate governance body
for professional employees, the presiding officer of
that body shall be invited by the Chancellor to attend
the meeting. Where such body does not exist, a repre-
sentative can be selected through local governance
procedures;
e) If there is an alumni representative who normally
attends Council meetings as an observer, that person
should be present at such a meeting}
f£) Presence of the representatives from alumni, faculty,
and professional employees at the Council meeting is
preferable. If there are unusual circumstances in
which there are concerns about the ability to raise
sensitive matters within the full Council session of
the discussion, it may be possible for the Chancellor,
or designee, to meet separately with one or more of the
above representatives. Only the duly-selected repre-
sentative from each constituency shall attend such a
separate session, which shall be arranged in advance
of the Chancellor's visit.
3. Whenever possible, the monthly meeting of the Board of Trustees
should set aside a block of time for one or more Presidents to make
presentations on campus activities, highlighting both accomplish-
ments and-problems. A rotational plan should be developed to give
all Presidents such opportunities to appear periodically before
the Board of Trustees.
4. In the judgment of the Chancellor, he will determine the timing
of the above process for each campus, as well as the method of his
personal involvement. This informal. ongoing process would not
preclude the involvement of an outside peer evaluation group, for
example, if the Chancellor deemed that necessary.
5. The Chancellor will report periodically to the Trustees on the
service of campus Presidents. Such reports may or may not coincide
with his meetings with the President, the Council, or campus con-
stituent groups. Such reports will be made by the Chancellor to the
Trustees in complete confidence. The President will be informed by
the Chancellor of the nature of the report, since its purpose would
be to emphasize the strong points to be continued and to pinpoint
problem areas that need attention. Subsequent to his confidential
report to the Trustees and the ensuing interaction with the Presi-
dent, the Chancellor, either directly or through his designee, will
share the major points of the evaluation with the Councils.
February 19, 1986
77
APPENDIX 11
TO: University Faculty Senate
FROM: Governance Committee
SUBJECT: Guidelines for Campus Governance Involvement in Presidential Reviews
RATIONALE
The evaluation of a campus president by the Chancellor is a serious matter of importance to the
entire campus community. While this evaluation is not intended to determine whether a
president should continue in office, it does provide a remarkable opportunity for the campus to
undertake an organized review of the president's performance and to communicate that
assessment to both the president and the Chancellor. This review should be comprehensive and
balanced: it should provide a view of those things a president is judged to be doing well along
with those things for which improvement is desired. The tone of this review should be
constructive, reflecting the goal of providing the president and the Chancellor with the campus'
thoughtful and objective assessment of its administrative head.
The following are suggested guidelines for involving campus governance organization(s) in the
periodic review of the campus president at the time of the Chancellor's review. It is intended to
make this cooperative endeavor a useful, collaborative, and productive activity. The guidelines
are general, having been drawn from the experiences of those campuses where reviews have
recently occurred. It is quite likely that they will have to be adapted to the needs of the
individual campus.
RESOLUTION
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the University Faculty Senate urges the Chancellor to
approve these guidelines for campus involvement in presidential reviews.
1. When the Chancellor decides to review the campus president and officially notifies the
president, the local governance leader(s) should be notified by the Chancellor of the
decision and be given the guidelines that the Chancellor will use in this process.
2 For the review to be maximally beneficial, there should be six to eight weeks (excluding
vacations and intersession) between the Chancellor's notification of the impending review
and the actual visit to the campus for this purpose.
3. The local governance leader(s) should be given a copy of the president's self-evaluation
at the same time that it is transmitted to the Chancellor.
78
(Appendix 11 continued)
4.
The local governance leader(s) should be afforded the opportunity to meet separately
with the Chancellor, as well as to meet jointly with the Chancellor and the college
council.
The Chancellor should forward to the local governance leader(s) a copy of the evaluation
at the same time as a copy is sent to the president of the campus.
The results of the evaluation and the meeting with the Chancellor should be reported to
the faculty governance executive committee and to the campus community.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the University Faculty Senate urges local governance
organizations to incorporate the following guidelines into their procedures for campus
involvement in presidential reviews:
1.
The local governance leader(s) should notify the campus of the forthcoming review of the
president and, in consultation with the faculty governance executive committee and the
University Faculty Senator(s) organize a process to focus the campus effort on
appropriate modes of eliciting from the campus informed views of the performance of its
president.
The local governance leader(s) and the local faculty governance executive committee
should review all the material received in this process, evaluate it, and use it to formulate
a comprehensive response for the Chancellor's review of the president.
The local governance leader(s) should discuss this response (or in the event it takes the
form of a written report, give a copy and discuss the report) with the president prior to the
Chancellor's visit. If desired, the faculty governance executive committee or its
equivalent may participate in these discussions.
Comments on how this process worked and any suggested revisions should be
communicated to the President of the SUNY Faculty Senate.
April 15, 1991
98-4-1
(Passed)
719
APPENDIX 12
REPORT OF THE TASK FORCE ON THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE CAMPUS
GOVERNANCE LEADERS TO THE UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE
PREAMBLE
The Policies of the Board of Trustees of the State University of New York states “The
(University Faculty] Senate shall be the official agency through which the University
Faculty engages in the governance of the University. The Senate shall be concerned
with effective educational policies and other professional matters within the University.”
At the campus level, the 34 Local Campus Governing Bodies fulfill a similar governance
function with the Campus Governance Leaders focusing on local campus matters.
Though not exactly the same, the relationship between the campus governance bodies
and the University-wide governance body is similar to the relationship between the
states and the federal government in our country. Both are essential to an effective,
responsive governance structure.
In order to provide greater communication among the Campus Governance Leaders,
former Chancellor Boyer invited them to meet with him in Albany when he was the
Chancellor. The tradition continued with subsequent Chancellors providing support for
the Campus Governance Leaders to meet at the Fall Planning Meeting and Winter
Plenary Session of the University Faculty Senate. More recently, the Campus
Governance Leaders also have convened during the Fall and Spring Plenary Sessions
as well. This past spring, in an effort to provide greater communication and participation
of the Campus Governance Leaders in the University Faculty Senate, a motion was
passed to increase the membership of Campus Governance Leaders on the
Governance Committee and to include the Convener of the Campus Governance
Leaders as an official observer at all meetings of the University Faculty Senate with full
parliamentary privileges except for the vote. This recent inclusion of the Campus
Governance Leaders in the meetings of the University Faculty Senate has raised a
number of questions about the respective roles, responsibilities, and relationship of the
two governance bodies. Responding to this concern, President Joseph Hildreth created
a special task force of present and former Campus Governance Leaders and Faculty
Senators to examine this issue and to report its findings and recommendations to the
University Faculty Senate (see the Appendix for the specific questions of the Task
Force's charge and a list of Task Force members). This report is the summary of the
deliberations of the Task Force.
DISCUSSION OF QUESTIONS POSED IN THE TASK FORCE’S CHARGE
Relationship of Campus Governance Leaders and the University Faculty Senate
The relationship of Campus Governance Leaders to the University Faculty Senate is an
important element of governance within the State University of New York that requires
80
(Appendix 12 continued)
Campus Governance Leader on her/his own campus, there is ample precedent for
her/him to continue in that position since chairs of the standing committees of the
Senate need not be Senators from their campuses and the President of the University
Faculty Senate is no longer a Senator from her/his campus during her/his tenure in
office
Having the Convenor as an official observer to the Executive Committee of the
University Faculty Senate would facilitate a direct and important relationship between
the Campus Governance Leaders and the University Faculty Senate. It would enable
the Convenor to present resolutions and to be a more active participant in the Plenary
Sessions.
The University Faculty Senate and Local Campus Governance Bodies
By designation of the Board of Trustees, the University Faculty Senate is the official
voice of the University Faculty to and within the State University. It is similarly clear that
Local Campus Governance Bodies are the voices of their respective campus faculties.
The role of the University Faculty Senate is to examine, debate, and represent the
University Faculty with respect to issues at the University level. An example would be
discussions on system-wide planning or on statewide budgeting. The Local Campus
Governance Bodies have analogous roles with respect to issues affecting their local
campuses; for example, standing committees of local campus governance often deal
with curricular decisions, or local planning and budgeting concerns. But in recent times,
issues have surfaced that reflect and impact on the traditional local decision making
processes of local campuses, yet at the same time transcend the level of single local
campuses to produce system-wide effects. A recent such issue is the imposition of a
system-wide framework for general education, an area traditionally left to, and
implemented by, Local Campus Governance Bodies that has now become an issue
system-wide.
Given their system-wide basis and effect, these transcendent issues fall within the
purview and role of the University Faculty Senate. But since they also affect traditional
campus-related decisions and decision processes, they also fall within the purview and
role of the Local Campus Governance Bodies. Such issues are potentially dangerous
and highlight the need for coordination between the University Faculty Senate and Local
Campus Governance Bodies, primarily through their Campus Governance Leaders.
Otherwise, there is a risk of both wasting energy and resources and the possibility of the
existence, intended or not, of a divide-and-conquer strategy that dilutes the faculty's
voice on system-wide matters. But such transcendent issues also present an
opportunity arising from the potential strength of the combined and coordinated efforts
of both the University Faculty Senate and the Local Campus Governance Bodies. The
key determinant of which eventuality prevails lies in communication, coordination, and
cooperation between the two levels of governance within the State University of New
York.
81
(Appendix 12 continued)
Several structural strategies would facilitate communication, coordination, and
cooperation. One set of strategies needs to be taken at the system level—the level of
the University Faculty Senate. Another set of strategies needs to be taken at the level
of Local Campus Governance. At a system level, local Campus Governance Leaders
need to continue to have opportunities to meet together to discuss common concerns,
whether these concerns are about common local issues or about transcendent issues.
In addition, local Campus Governance Leaders need to have a means for bringing their
concerns to the University Faculty Senate. At the local levels, there need to be
structures in place to allow and facilitate communication from the University Faculty
Senate back to Local Campus Governance Bodies.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Task Force recommends the following actions that incorporate some ideas
mentioned in the discussion above and some additional ideas that emerged from its
deliberations.
A. For the University Faculty Senate:
1. Campus Governance Leaders continue to meet together several times each
year at the three plenary meetings of the University Faculty Senate.
2. At the Plenary Sessions, Campus Governance Leaders meet together at a
time that is independent of meetings of University Faculty Senate committees, sectors,
and plenary sessions, so that they can both participate fully together with one another
and also attend the various segments of the University Faculty Senate Plenary
Sessions.
3. Campus Governance Leaders meet together with their respective sectors at
sector meetings of the University Faculty Senate.
4. Campus Governance Leaders report the results of their deliberations to the
University Faculty Senate through the Convenor independently of the standing
committee and sector reports.
5. The convenor of the Campus Governance Leaders be an official observer to
the University Faculty Senate and its Executive Committee.
6. The Governance Committee consider common local operational concerns
brought to it either by the Campus Governance Leaders or the University Faculty
Senate Executive Committee.
7. Reports and actions of the University Faculty Senate be sent to the Campus
Governance Leaders.
(Appendix 12 continued)
B. Eor Local Campus Governance:
1. The local University Faculty Senators be members of Local Campus
Governance Bodies and their Executive Committees.
2. The local University Faculty Senators routinely provide reports emanating
from the University Faculty Senate Plenary Sessions to Local Campus Governance
Bodies, their Executive Committees, and campus faculty.
3. The Convenor of the Campus Governance Leaders be elected by mail (or e-
mail) ballot for a two-year term at the end of the spring term of the current Convenor.
Re-election to non-consecutive terms may be appropriate in certain circumstances.
82
83
(Appendix 12 continued)
APPENDIX
Charge to the Task Force
In order to strengthen our relationship with the local governance organizations and to
avoid a duplication of effort, this task force is being formed. The group is asked to_
develop a set of guidelines by March 15, 2002 that define and clarify the relationship of
the Campus Governance Leaders to the University Faculty Senate. Suggested
questions for discussion :
{Questions about the Relationship between the University Faculty Senate and the
Campus Governance Leaders]
1) What is the relationship of the local governance leaders to the University Faculty
enate
ate?
2 What is the reason for their attendance at University Faculty Senate meetings?
3 Which meetings should they attend?
4 Which portions of the University Faculty Senate meetings should the Campus
Governance Leaders participate in?
3 When should the Campus Governance Leaders meet separately?
6 What is the purpose of their separate meetings?
[Questions about the the position of the Convenor of the Campus Governance Leaders)
8 How long is the term of the Convenor?
i How and when is the Convenor of the Campus Governance Leaders elected?
9 What is the relationship of the Convenor to the University Faculty Senate?
(Questions about the relationship between the University Faculty Senate and the Local
Campus Governance Bodies]
15) What procedures should be taken in order to avoid redundancy?
1% What is the relationship of the Campus Senate to the University Faculty Senate?
Task Force Members
Vincent Aceto, Albany—Past Senate President; Chair, Public Information Committee;
Co-editor, Faculty Senate Bulletin
Jan Factor, Purchase—Past Convenor of the Campus Governance Leader, former
Campus Governance Leader
Norman Goodman, Stony Brook—Chair of the Task Force; Senator; Co-editor,
faculy Senate Bulletin, Student Life Committee; former Campus Governance
eader
Raymond Guydosh, Plattsburgh—Senate Executive Committee, Senator, Campus
Governance Leader
Eorraine Horner, Delhi—Chair, Student Life Committee; former Campus Governance
eader
David King, Oswego—Campus Governance Leader
(Appendix 12 continued)
Daniel Murphy, Utica/Rome—Chair, Governance Committee; former Campus
Governance Leader
Carl Wiezalis, Syracuse HSC—Senator; former Campus Governance Leader
84
85
APPENDIX 13
Some Common Parliamentary Procedures
Notes: The motions to Adjourn, Recess, Raise Questions of Privilege, and Call for the Orders of the Day
are “privileged” motions under “Robert’s” and must be disposed of before any of the lower-ranked
(“subsidiary”) motions may be made.
If unsure about how to deal with a particular matter, aid may be requested from the chair by saying,
“Parliamentary Inquiry” or “I have a question”; this should be done from a floor microphone if available.
This chart is a reference summary of common parliamentary procedures, based largely on the 2000
edition of “Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised,” in addition to other compilations, and is not a
substitute for any constitution, bylaws, special procedural rules or precedents, outside governing
documents, or the parliamentary authority a group has adopted (such as “Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly
Revised, Tenth Edition,” 2000).
This chart was prepared by E. J. Alfonsin, with the assistance of Carol Donato, University Faculty Senate
Office, SUNY, and may be copied with attribution.
[Interrupt A Vote
Purpose Sample Wording Speaker? Pp INeeded?_|Comments
[Adjourn "T move that we adjourn" [No Yes No INo Majority
Imeeting
[Recess meeting |"I move that we recess [No Yes [Not if Yes Majority
until..." question
pending
[Complain Point of Privilege" Yes. |No INo. INo. INo vote;
(noise, room chair
temperature, decides
personal affront,
letc.)
Object to "Point of Order"; "Icall |Yes INo INo INo. Two- [Demand of one member
deviation from for the Orders of the Day"; thirds vote|for Orders of Day
adopted order of |"I object to consideration Ineeded to |requires attention to
business or to a |of the question" overrule |deviation
specific issue lobjection
[Adopt Order of |"I move that we adopt the [Not Yes Yes Yes (during|Majority [Second not necessary if
[Business lagenda as proposed" lapplicable initial lrecommended by a
ladoption, board
unl
byla
limit this)
86
[Interrupt A Vote
Purpose Sample Wording Speaker? Pp INeeded? |Comments
|Amend Order of |"I move that we amend the |No Yes Yes Yes [Two- [Debate should be
[Business during Jagenda to .. ." or "I move thirds limited to wisdom of
Imeeting or for a special order" changing the agenda
session
Obtain Parliamentary inquiry" or Yes INo INo INo \No vote; |Better not to use
Information "T have a question" or chair "Point of Order" (see
lon appropriate "Point of Order." states "Object..." above)
Imotion, opinion
parliamentary
lsituation, effect
lof motion, etc.
Debate [ Varies; speaker may INo Not Not INot INot \Debate only on issue
Ispecify “for” or “against” i i under dit speak
lor chair may characterize lonce only but second
\to keep balance in debate- time if all
lspeaker may not speak lothers have spoken; not
lagainst own motion] used to respond to
lothers
Introduce "T move that INo Yes Yes Yes \Majority
usiness item
(main or
primary
motion)
[Amend a motion|"I move to amend by..." [No Yes Yes Yes Majority [Proposal must be
germane; may reverse
the intent except for
bylaw amendments.
[Amend "T move to amend by..." [No Yes Yes Yes Majority [As ‘Amend,’ above;
proposed lor Ino further amendments
lamendment to |"I move to modify the until this one is
motion by..." ldisposed of
\Postpone "T move to postpone INo Yes [Only the {Yes \Majority
i i i ion until . "wisdom"
Ito a definite is debatable}
time
87
[Interrupt A Vote
[Purpose Sample Wording Speaker? Pp INeeded?_ |Comments
[Have something |"I move that we refer this |No Yes [Only the Yes \Majority |Amendment may
studied further matter to . . ." a committee, "wisdom" change referee or may
board, officers, other is debatable} ladd instructions
"Commit"
lor "recommit” may be
used
[Suspend "| move that we table this |No Yes INo \No \Majority |Not to be used to
consideration —_|motion" defeat
(temporarily)
[Take up tabled |"I move that we take from [No Yes No INo Majority [Only on same day or
Imatter ithe table the motion to..." Inext day; otherwise falls
ito the floor
|"Friendly IT would like to propose a {No See See See See New in Robert’s 10th.
Amendment" __ friendly amendment" comment |comment |comment {Comment /Original maker has say
lonly before debate has
begun; after, group must
lagree or otherwise is
ltreated as ordinary
lamendment
|Withdraw a T would like to withdraw {No See See See See Original maker has say
Imotion the motion" comment |comment |Comment |comment |only before chair states
Imotion;
unanimous consent or
majority vote
required after motion is
lon floor
[Dispose of a__|"I move that we postpone [No Yes Yes INo Majority [Debate can include
matter without [consideration of this i ion of substance
taking a position|question indefinitely" lof original motion
("kill
i ")
88
[Interrupt A Vote
[Purpose Sample Wording Speaker? lp INeeded?_ |Comments
Vote on ruling "I appeal the ruling of the [Yes; see [Yes See INo Majority |Debatable except for
jof chair chair" (must be done comment jcomment lin speech rules, order of
lbefore next item of Inegative business, or if pending
|Business is taken up) Ito Imotion is not debatable.
loverrule |Motion always stated in
Ichair's positive, "to sustain the
ruling ruling of the chair
IEnd debate "T move that we close INo Yes No INo ITwo-
debate” or "I move the thirds
lprevious question"
Modify previous|“I move that we reconsider|Only Yes Both INo Majority [Motion can only be
laction Or bring |the Motion that...” before “wisdom” Imade by someone on
issue up again Ispeaker land prevailing
(at same begins substance ISide of original vote
Imeeting or on Ito speak \debatable;
Inext day of best
business limited to
Session) “wisdom”
lof
reco:
ng
Modify previous|“I move that we No Yes Both Yes Majority
laction or bring |rescind...” or “wisdom” with prior
lissue up again “I move that we amend and notice;
(at any time but {something previously b: hird:
lusually at later adopted, the motion jare without
time) Ithat...” debatable notice;
but two-
thirds if
Iscope of
prior
notice
lexpanded
89
Recommended Readings
American Association of University Professors, (2006). Policy documents & reports. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press.
The Policy Documents & Reports, also known as the “Redbook,” is an invaluable
resource for those concerned with academic governance issues. The table of contents
of the Redbook (with links to electronic versions of some of the documents within), as
well as ordering information can be found at:
http://www.aaup.org/A A UP/pubsres/policydocs/
Colvin, D. (2005). Policymaking and governance in a multi-campus state university system: The
case of general education reform at the State University of New Y ork. ProQuest Digital
Dissertations, (UMI Number 3235706)
This dissertation completed at the University of Pennsylvania examines the
policymaking process at SUNY and the role that faculty played in reforming general
education policy through the governance process. A case study, the text examines the
relationship between a board of trustees, faculty govemance, and campus leaders
during discussion of academic policy. The work includes a bibliography (pp. 134-
147) that refers to general govemance issues, as well as resources specific to the State
University of New Y ork during the period 1996-2004. Copies are available from
UML, and ProQuest Digital Dissertations.
Flynn, J.G. (n.d.). Traits of effective senates. Retrieved from
http://www.aaup.org/A A UP/issues/governance/effectsen.htm
This is a brief checklist of items for effective governance by faculty senates.
Gerber, L.G. (2001). Inextricably linked: Shared governance and academic freedom. Academe,
87(3), 1-3, 22-24. Retrieved from
http://www.aaup.org/A A UP/pubsres/academe/2001/MJ/Feat/gerb.htm
This article discusses the governance in relationship to the hierarchical model of
management, attacks on liberal education, and academic freedom within the
university.
New Y ork State Education Department (n.d.). Education Law, Regents Rules, and
Commissioner's Regulations Conceming Postsecondary Education Program Registration.
Retrieved from http://www. highered.nysed.gov/ocue/rules.htm
New Y ork State Education Department (n.d). Memos to College and University Presidents.
Retrieved from http://www.highered.nysed.gov/ocue/05/ceomemorandum.htm
Petrick, J. (2007). No confidence in no-confidence votes. Academe, 93(4) 52-55. Retrieved from
http://www.aaup.org/A A UP/pubsres/academe/2007/J A /Feat/petr.htm
90
This article is a brief report of the SUNY University Senate visitation process as
implemented on a SUNY campus.
Poston, L. S., Clough, M.S., Moore, R.K., and Kreiser, B.R. (2006). Faculty evaluation of
administrators. Retrieved from
http://www.aaup.org/A A UP/comm/rep/FacultyEvaluationof+A dmins.htm
This report by a subcommittee of the AAUP’s Committee on College and University
Governance discusses broad principles of administrator evaluation, levels of faculty
participation, evaluative procedures and criteria, report generation, as well as basic
principles regarding evaluation.
Smalling, T. R. (2006). Inextricably inked: Institutional decision-making and rules-shared
governance at a multi-campus state higher education system. Proquest Digital
Dissertations, (UMI Number 3168016)
This dissertation, completed at New Y ork University, discusses governance at the
State University of New Y ork during the period 1995-2005, with particular focus on
activist trustees, and the relationship of University Faculty Senate to other entities
such as System Administration, the SUNY Board of Trustees, and UUP. It describes
SUNY ’s governance process through changes in academic policies, and also examines
the culture of the University through the efforts of entities to influence policy
decisions. The text includes a bibliography (pp. 153-164) on general governance
issues as well as materials specifically related to SUNY during 1995-2005. Copies
are available from UMI, and ProQuest Digital Dissertations.
State University of New Y ork. (n.d.). Memoranda to presidents. Retrieved February 14, 2008
from http://www.suny.edu/provost/MTP/MemorandatoPresidents.htm
State University of New Y ork. (2006). Policies and procedures of the Board of Trustees.
Retrieved February 14, 2008 from
http://www.suny.edu/Board_of_Trustees/PD F/Policies.pdf
State University of New Y ork University Faculty Senate. (1995). Governance handbook.
Albany, N.Y .: SUNY University Faculty Senate.
The previous edition of the present document contains a list of “Suggested A dditional
Readings” (pp. 43-45) that refers to a number of pre-1995 items in print format.
State University of New Y ork University Faculty Senate. (2007). Bibliography:
Faculty/administration governance issues. Retrieved from
http://www.suny.edu/facultySenate/Publications.cfm
Although the 2007 Bibliography was originally intended to refer to materials on
difficulties between administrations and local campuses, many entries refer to more
general issues relating to campus governance and evaluating administrators. It
includes a few case studies dealing with problem presidencies.
Additional Information:
Education Law, Regents Rules, and Commissioner's Regulations
Conceming Postsecondary Education Program Registration
http://www. highered.nysed.gov/ocue/rules.htm
Memoranda to Presidents
http://www.suny.edu/provost/mtp/memorandatopresidents.htm
Policy and College CEO Memoranda
Memos to College and University Presidents
http://www. highered.nysed.gov/ocue/05/ceomemorandum.htm
SUNY University-wide Policies & Procedures
http://www.suny.edu/sunypp/
91
92
Supplemental Reading #1
NEA Policy Statements
Quality and Higher Education: Defining Our Stance
In June 1998, the NEA Executive Committee approved the following amended higher education
policies. These updated policies, amended from the 1987 version, are the result of extensive
deliberations by the Higher Education Subcommittee of the Membership Advisory Committee
and reflect its concerns about the quality of higher education in the United States. In September
2000, the committees approved a policy on the faculty reward structure. In May 2002, the
committee approved a policy on part-time and temporary faculty.
Faculty Governance in Higher Education
Shared governance is critical to the culture and vitality of higher education. Any decline in the
participation of faculty in governance seriously threatens the quality of higher education
institutions.
Faculty members in higher education should have primary responsibility to:
1. Determine the curriculum, subject matter, methods of instruction, and other academic
standards and processes.
2. Establish the requirements for earning degrees and certificates, and authorize the
administration and governing board to grant same.
3. Exercise, where the faculty deems it appropriate, primary responsibility for determining
the status of colleagues, especially appointment, reappointment, and tenure.
4. Establish procedures for awarding promotions, sabbaticals, research support, and other
rewards or perquisites.
The administrations and the governing boards of colleges and universities should accept the
faculty's recommendations in these areas. The faculty should have the right to appeal a decision
it considers flawed by improper reasons or procedure.
In this capacity faculty bodies are essentially making collective recommendations to the
administration and governing board on academic standards and policy, and on faculty status
matters. Such governance activity is a regular part of a faculty member's professional duties and
should not be construed to confer managerial or supervisory status, notwithstanding the U.S.
Supreme Court's decision in the "Yeshiva" case (1980).
93
(Supplemental Reading #1 continued)
Through collective bargaining and other governance procedures, faculty members and academic
staff should also participate in:
1. Determining policies and procedures governing salary structure, pay increases, and fringe
benefit programs.
2. Selecting and evaluating administrators.
3. Reviewing the institution's budget; making recommendations on financial issues with
implications for the academic program, in the short- and long-term.
NEA recognizes that faculty and staff participation in institutional government may take many
forms. Although certain similarities among colleges exist, there is no one type of governance
system appropriate for all. The form of governance adopted should therefore reflect substantially
the desires of the faculty and academic staff as conditioned by state statute. A decision to adopt
collective bargaining as a primary or additional method of participating in institutional
governance should be considered an enhancement of academic quality and the status of the
institution.
NEA affirms that institutional governance is a joint effort among several parties: faculty,
academic staff, administrators, and the governing board. This relationship should be based on
collegiality and mutual respect. It is understood that collective bargaining is a form of legally
mandated collegiality that ensures the integrity of this joint effort.
State and federal government and external agencies should refrain from intervening in the
internal governance of institutions of higher education when they are functioning in accordance
with state and federal law. Government should recognize that conserving the autonomy of these
institutions is essential to protecting academic freedom, the advance of knowledge, and the
pursuit of truth.
" AAUP Red Book.
'' "1966 Statement on Governance of Colleges and Universities.
94
Supplemental Reading #2
NEA Policy Statements
Statement on Community College Governance
This statement is the result of several NEA higher education local affiliates. The statement
originally appeared in a 1987 issue of the "NEA Higher Education Advocate" as a "Statement on
Faculty Governance." In 1989, the NEA Executive C i dopted this on
"Community College Governance" and considered it to be an elaboration of the 1987 faculty
governance statement.
Introduction
In 1987 the National Education Association adopted and published a "Statement on Faculty
Governance" in Higher Education.’ The principles set forth in that statement are explicated in the
following document, which describes a system of academic governance that is equitable,
reasonable, and consistent with the mission and goals of American community, junior, and
technical colleges.”
These educational institutions are established to provide educational and vocational training
opportunities for students, and to advance scholarship and instruction. United by this mission, the
faculty, administration, and governing board establish academic governance to regulate their
relationships, establish policy, and administer their institution.’
Academic governance requires a cooperative effort by faculty, academic staff, administration,
governing board, and students. Also required is a commitment to the principle of collegiality
between the primary parties: the faculty and administration. Neither created nor sustained to
benefit any individual or particular group, governance must promote academic justice and
excellence.
Governance comprises structures, procedures, standards, and time limits arranged to make
decisions and policy in an orderly and effective manner. Good governance necessitates the
delegation of authority to each party to make decisions appropriate to its responsibility and to
accept the consequences of those decisions.
As observed in the "Statement on Faculty Governance," faculty and staff participation in
institutional governance takes many forms in colleges and universities. Collective bargaining has
been adopted at many institutions as the primary way to delegate authority and responsibility
within the governance system. All employees, including faculty both at public and private
colleges, must be accorded the right by statute or consent arrangements to organize for
bargaining."
95
(Supplemental Reading #2 continued)
Faculty at public institutions are not yet permitted to bargain collectively in many states, while
other faculty have decided not to exercise this option where possible. These faculty depend on
moral suasion, political activity, and other methods to protect their rights and participate in
decision making. This statement has been formulated to address their needs and concerns, as well
as those with collective bargaining.”
Faculty Participation in Governance
Faculty participation in governance is based on individual and collective expertise, credentials,
and experience. Active involvement is justified by the fact that faculty are in daily contact with
students, understand students’ needs, and have the expertise to comprehend and explain what is
necessary to fulfill educational goals. Indeed, this is one of the fundamental competencies for
which they have been appointed.
The level of faculty participation or authority is relative to the issue or topic involved. It ranges
from advice given--when requested by the administration on issues remote from academics--to
the actual determination of educational policy.
Because of their responsibilities faculty are concerned about policies affecting their profession.
They must be a full partner in the establishment, operation, and modification of campus
governance. Effective governance requires processes which are open and encourage faculty
participation by their ability to effectuate change when necessary. Faculty should be given credit
for and, when appropriate, release time for participation in governance.
For good reason faculty claim an appropriate and significant role in decision-making processes.
Studies of institutional effectiveness indicate that they are better teachers when their morale is
high, and morale is higher at institutions where faculty play a major role in governance--where
they have confidence in the system to produce results.°
Collective bargaining has been selected by thousands of community college faculty to ensure
participation in governance and enhance and protect their professional and economic rights.
According to the "Statement on Faculty Governance," collective bargaining is a form of legally
mandated collegiality which ensures the integrity of the joint effort (of governance). 7 When
conducted in good faith, bargaining focuses attention and energy on specific issues, encourages
innovative solutions, and provides deadlines and processes for resolving these
Furthermore, it is recognized that "there is no one type of governance system appropriate for all."
Where faculty deem it appropriate, bargaining and other forms of governance will supplement
and complement each other. Because community colleges are influenced by actions of state
legislatures, commissions, and state governing boards, faculty representation to these bodies is
also critical. Statewide educational and employment policies should not be considered and
implemented without appropriate discussion with faculty. In particular, state programs designed
96
(Supplemental Reading #2 continued)
to improve education or 2
extensive consultation with faculty.
ss what students have learned should only be implemented after
8
Associations, agencies, and boards that accredit or certify programs or award licenses should
include faculty representation or provide adequate opportunity for discussion with faculty.
A member of the faculty, selected according to procedures adopted by the faculty, should be
appointed to the governing board of each community college.
Community colleges are established to provide educational and vocational training to all citizens,
regardless of their economic, social, or ethnic background. "Open admissions" policies are the
rule. Governance here should be even more democratic than at other institutions of higher
education. Unlike universities, these colleges have no academic hierarchy of research directors,
endowed chairs, and graduate faculty. Consequently, they are more egalitarian and democratic,
which should be reflected in their decision making.
Faculty Status Decisions
Determining the status of colleagues is a primary responsibility of faculty because of their
expertise, credentials, and experience. A common characteristic of all professions is the authority
to admit members and to be involved in determining their status.
Faculty must participate in decisions to create new faculty positions and to make appointments to
existing positions. They should also establish the qualifications for appointments to the faculty.
Faculty must be involved in interviewing and recommending candidates for academic
appointment. Search committees will be composed of faculty from the appropriate department or
area, who are selected by their colleagues, and have the primary responsibility of evaluating the
credentials of applicants.
During the appointment process and other phases of determining faculty status, the
administration should accept and implement faculty recommendations. If for compelling reasons
the faculty's recommendation is not accepted, the administrators must explain their reasons and,
if requested, reduce them to writing. Before a final decision is reached, the faculty should be
afforded an opportunity to respond and elaborate upon its recommendation.
Any decision to reappoint, promote, or award tenure must be made only after consideration by
appropriate faculty bodies, according to procedures adopted by the faculty.” Untenured faculty
should be evaluated by their colleagues and administrators before a decision to award
appointment, promotion, or tenure is made. According to NEA policy, such evaluation
97
(Supplemental Reading #2 continued)
procedures and the standards to be applied must be developed by the joint action of faculty and
administration through governance or collective bargaining _processes.'° Faculty
recommendations on the status of their colleagues should be accepted and implemented by the
administration and governing board. Once the administration has accepted the faculty's
recommendation or has made a contrary decision, it must notify the affected faculty member in
writing and in a timely manner.
When the decision is negative, the affected faculty member has a right to be informed of the
reasons for the decision, and if requested, must be given these reasons in writing. The faculty
member must then have the right to appeal to an appropriate committee of colleagues on grounds
of inadequate or unfair consideration. Allegations that there was a violation of academic freedom
or nondiscrimination provisions may require a hearing before another impartial committee.'' In
institutions where faculty bargain collectively, this appeal will normally be made through the
grievance and arbitration system. In all institutions, the burden is on the administration to prove
just cause for the dismissal of tenured faculty members or untenured faculty members before the
end of their contract. For probationary faculty who are not reappointed or denied tenure, the
burden is normally on them to prove that the negative decision should be reversed. All faculty
subject to a serious personnel decision must be given appropriate representation or counsel for
the appeal before peers, an administrator, or arbitrator.
A sincere effort by the administration, the faculty member, and/or the member's representative
must be made to resolve the problem prior to individuals being formally notified that they are
subject to dismissal or serious disciplinary action. The administration may feel within its legal
rights to make and implement a decision to dismiss faculty without consulting or involving other
faculty. However, dismissal of tenured faculty, or untenured faculty in term of contract, raises
serious questions for academic governance, and academic and intellectual freedom. At colleges
with bargaining, faculty usually file grievances, which the faculty union may take to binding,
third-party arbitration. Such procedures are negotiated and are, by definition, the result of joint
action. Where collective bargaining does not exist, faculty must participate in establishing
procedures designed to protect the interests of colleagues who are subject to dismissal or penalty.
Termination of faculty appointments because of serious financial problems constitutes another
threat to governance, academic and intellectual freedom, and institutional quality. Even a
decision to eliminate unfilled faculty positions or otherwise reduce the size of the full-time
faculty will have serious and lasting ramifications.
Tenured faculty appointments must not be terminated except in times of bonafide financial
exigency and only when there exists no viable alternative.'* The institution's existence must be
called into question before tenured faculty are retrenched or placed on unpaid leave or lay-off
status. Prior to such a grave emergency, the faculty and administration should adopt procedures
and standards designed to preclude the elimination of full-time faculty and to help the institution
98
(Supplemental Reading #2 continued)
contend successfully with the situation.'* The basic elements of these standards and procedures
include:
¢ whenever the administration believes that a financial crisis is imminent that might lead to
the reduction of full-time faculty positions, it must confer immediately with the faculty
and discuss all possible solutions to the problem before making decisions to terminate
faculty appointments or to alter significantly the academic program;
¢ if absolutely necessary, single programs should be eliminated in their entirety, rather than
portions of programs or individual faculty members in several programs, since the latter
process is too easily abused;
« timely written notice--normally one-year--with adequate reasons must be given faculty
subject to layoff;
¢ part-time and temporary faculty are subject to layoff before full-time faculty;
« untenured or probationary faculty are subject to layoff before tenured or permanent
faculty;
¢ normally a seniority system is followed in establishing order of layoff; however, in rare
circumstances, this order may be adjusted with the prior agreement of faculty to avoid
serious distortions in academic programs or to satisfy affirmative action goals;
e faculty subject to layoff should have the right to appeal the decision on any grounds,
including the questions of academic freedom, discrimination, or other illegal actions;
« affected faculty should be given fair consideration or retained for other suitable positions
at the institution or other institutions within a multi-campus system; such options may
require the funding of special programs for this purpose which are not unlike faculty
development programs;
«these faculty should have the right to return to or be recalled to their jobs for three years.
The status of part-time and temporary faculty must be determined by policies and
standards established primarily by faculty action or by collective bargaining. Regular
part-time faculty should be included in academic governance at the departmental or
divisional level.'*
Academic Policy
Community college faculty should exercise substantial control over the academic program.
Because of their expertise, credentials, and experience, faculty are best qualified to maintain and
modify academic policy. Their voice in this area must be accorded great weight by the
99
(Supplemental Reading #2 continued)
administration and governing board, while in fundamental areas of pedagogy and course content
faculty should have effective decision-making authority.
Faculty should establish the general curriculum or course of study leading to associate degrees
and certificates. Changes are to be initiated by the faculty and be implemented only with their
prior consent.
Requirements for degrees, certificates, and programs must be determined by faculty. This applies
to the establishment of new academic programs, the determination of admission requirements to
such programs, the development of new courses, and similar academic policy areas. Faculty and
administration must act jointly to create and implement new programs, or to modify or eliminate
existing programs.
Types of degrees offered by the college should be determined by joint action of faculty,
governing board, or state agency. Degrees are only to be awarded as authorized by the faculty.
Faculty must enjoy and exercise control over their classes if academic integrity is to be protected.
This includes the authority for faculty to deny attendance to students for academic or disciplinary
reasons, and the right to evaluate the work of their students and assign grades. Grades will not be
changed over the objections of the faculty member involved; such action would be a violation of
academic freedom and a breech of professional ethics.
Academic workload for faculty must be determined by joint action of the faculty and
administration. This applies to the number of classes normally taught by faculty each term, the
number of different preparations, and the size of classes. Faculty should be consulted before
teaching or other work assignments are made, including the time and location of classes.
Teaching an overload is a decision to be made by individual faculty according to procedures and
policies adopted by the faculty. Overload compensation should be at the individual's regular
annual salary (prorated) rate.
Faculty should determine the amount and schedule of their non-class time on campus and in their
offices. Faculty, full- and part-time, should be provided adequate facilities to confer with
students and colleagues.
Although state law or regulation frequently dictates the minimum number of class days in an
academic year, the actual number may be greater and must be decided by joint action between
faculty and administration. The number of class days or duty days and the academic calendar
should be subjects of collective bargaining. Such important issues should only be resolved after
adequate consultation, discussion, or negotiations between the faculty and the administration.
100
(Supplemental Reading #2 continued)
Structures and Procedures
Structures and procedures providing for faculty participation in overall institutional decision
making must be established, maintained, and modified only by joint action of the faculty,
administration, and governing board.
Within this system and where appropriate, faculty may adopt constitutions or bylaws for self-
governance, i.e., structures and procedures enabling internal faculty decisions to be reached
openly and fairly. Such instruments of government may regulate the relationship of the faculty
with the other components of the governance system.
Where faculty are represented by a collective bargaining agent, the governance system must
recognize the primacy of the bargaining agent, especially in areas within the scope of bargaining.
Every effort should be made to ensure that these two basic forms of faculty governance coexist
and cooperate.
Standing and "ad hoc" departmental committees must be established and elected by faculty.
Faculty should also be able to establish and elect standing and “ad hoc" college wide committees.
Procedures for selecting faculty representatives to all governance bodies must be adopted and
modified only by faculty action. All faculty must be eligible to participate in academic
governance to the fullest extent permitted by law."?
Department chairpersons should be elected by department members to a definite term of office.
Chairs should not be considered managers or supervisors or faculty, but as coordinators and
representatives of the department to the administration. Chairs will be primarily responsible to
the department.
Departments based on academic disciplines are the natural foundation of academic organization.
Academic divisions or larger grouping should be avoided.
Each faculty and institution will develop governance suited for its particular circumstances,
history, and legal environment. Any system must protect the basic legal and professional rights
of the faculty, including part-time and temporary. A representative faculty council or senate may
be created by faculty action. Voting membership in such an organization is limited to faculty,
since academic policy will be its primary concern. Administrators and others may be invited to
attend and participate in its deliberations. This body should elect its own chair, determine its
agenda, and amend its bylaws. Its representatives should meet regularly with the president of the
institution and the governing board.
Fi Planning, and Administration
Faculty have a direct and abiding interest in the administrative and budgetary decisions made at
their institutions. They should have an appropriate role in the allocation of resources within the
101
(Supplemental Reading #2 continued)
institution and guaranteed access to pertinent financial data. They must be consulted prior to the
allocation of resources within the academic program and other areas which would have an
impact on the teaching and learning at their institution.
Faculty should be involved in the development and presentation of budget submissions and
presentations to local and state funding agencies, including the legislature.
Faculty committees should exist to consult with the administration over the condition and use of
campus facilities. Consultation relates to the academic use of these facilities, access to them, and
their repair and safety. Short- and long-range planning will benefit from the direct inclusion of
faculty in the process.
Programs for the continuing development of the expertise, credentials, and experience of faculty
must receive adequate funding. Faculty must agree to the existence and components of such
programs, and may elect to participate. Faculty should allocate faculty development awards and
sabbaticals. Student evaluations of faculty may be included in faculty development programs
when such programs are approved and administered by the faculty and will not be used for
negative personnel actions against them, but are used for the sole purpose of aiding professional
growth and the development of improved instruction. Collective bargaining is well suited to
determining salary and fringe benefit policy. In institutions without bargaining, a faculty
committee on compensation must confer with the administration over these issues prior to final
decisions being made regarding the allocation of resources.
The misuse and abuse of part-time, temporary, and nontenure track faculty appointments has
been addressed at length by NEA.'° Faculty and administrators should work cooperatively to
consolidate part-time positions into full-time positions, while increasing the compensation and
benefits provided to part-time faculty. A special faculty committee, that would include part-
timers, should be created to monitor and regulate the use of part-time faculty. Each institution
should develop, with full- and part-time faculty participation, a policy manual on the status,
rights, and compensation of part-time and temporary faculty. Faculty should participate directly
in the development of procedures for evaluating administrators on a regular basis. Such
procedures should be helpful to those being evaluated and beneficial to the institution.
Faculty should be involved in the selection of administrators, especially those with academic
responsibilities. This involvement should include the development of criteria for the position,
and the selection of candidates for interviews. Selection of key administrators should be a
process that is conducted openly and fairly.
Governance and Students
A community of interest between students and their teachers must be recognized. Appropriate
procedures to involve students in overall institutional policy making will be established by joint
102
(Supplemental Reading #2 continued)
action of the students, faculty, and administration. However, the primary role of the faculty,
because of its expertise, credentials, and experience must also be acknowledged.
Notes
(1) "Statement on Faculty Governance in Higher Education," in "NEA Higher Education
Advocate", January 30, 1987, Special Reprint Edition, p. 11.
(2) The term community college is used to refer to all two-year institutions covered by this
statement. NEA recognizes that some two-year technical institutes are not considered
postsecondary institutions but does not intend to exempt them from coverage by recognizing this
fact. Aspects of this statement may apply to educators at all levels--from preschool to graduate
school.
(3) Attempts to improve or reform education emphasize the need for establishing teaching as a
true profession and including faculty more directly in decision making at their institutions. More
than one study reflects this conclusion; see, for example, Carol E. Floyd, "Faculty Participation
in Decision Making: Necessity or Luxury" (Washington, DC: ASHE-ERIC Higher Education
Reports, No. 8, 1985) .
(4) NEA Legislative Program for the 100th Congress calls for a federal collective bargaining law
that would provide representation rights for all teachers--preschool through graduate school. See
"NEA Handbook, 1987-1988", p. 258.
(5) According to the 1987 "Statement on Faculty Governance in Higher Education," which is
cited in note #1, faculty members involved in peer review decisions are acting collectively to
make recommendations to the administration as part of their professional duties. This action
should not be construed to constitute managerial nor supervisory status under state or federal
labor law. NEA is on record opposing the U.S. Supreme Court's 1980 decision in "Yeshiva
University vs. NLRB" and is working with other groups on seeking a legislative remedy.
(6) See Howard R. Bowen and Jack H. Schuster, "American Professors: A National Resource
Imperiled" (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986) .
(7) "Statement on Faculty Governance," cited in note #1.
(8) "Statement on Student Assessment Programs in Higher Education," in "NEA Higher
Education Advocate", January 30, 1987, Special Reprint Edition, pp. 5-6.
(9) Tenure, permanent status, continuing appointment, and employment security are terms that
mean about the same thing. More than 85 percent of colleges and universities in the country
provide some form of tenure to faculty members, according to reports by the American Council
on Education. Some institutions deny that their faculty have tenure, such as the community
103
(Supplemental Reading #2 continued)
college system of Virginia and the individual community colleges in Texas
security systems of some type exist even in these institutions. Under deci:
Supreme Court, tenure or the expectation of continuing employment is a property right, and an
American citizen can be deprived of their property only by due process. The National Education
Association and the American Association of University Professors have attempted to establish
forms of due process appropriate for institutions of higher education. Tenure and academic due
process, protected by a collective bargaining agreement, are the best protection for academic and
intellectual freedom.
(2) "Entering the Profession: Advice for the Untenured", (Washington, D.C.: National Education
Association, 1988) , gives new and younger faculty candid advice about these procedures and the
social context in which they operate.
(10) "Proposed Statement: Evaluation of Faculty," in "NEA Higher Education Advocate",
January 30, 1987, Special Reprint Edition, p. 6. Peer review and merit pay provisions are viewed
with great skepticism within NEA because of fears that school administrators will use them to
divide teachers and weaken their organizations. However, NEA policy allows such systems
where they are negotiated by, and acceptable to, the faculty bargaining unit. This "proposed"
statement is to be reconsidered after additional study and discussion.
(11) These procedures follow closely with those set forth in the "Recommended Institutional
Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure," "Policy Documents and Reports" (Washington,
D.C.: American Association of University Professors, 1984) , pp. 21-30.
Elaborate dismissal hearing procedures for tenured faculty and untenured faculty who face
dismissal before their contract has expired have also been developed by the AAUP, see
"Statement on Procedural Standards in Faculty Dismissal proceedings," AAUP "Policy
Documents and Reports", p. 10-13.
(12) See AAUP "Policy Documents and Reports", p. 23.
(13) Collective bargaining contracts often incorporate the standards and procedures
recommended by NEA and AAUP. However, some faculty and administrative negotiators have
agreed to follow a policy of no reductions of tenured faculty during the term of the contract as a
way of improving faculty morale and institutional stability. See "University of Detroit and the
University of Detroit Professors' Union, MEA/NEA, Collective Bargaining Agreement, August
16, 1987-August 15, 1990", p. 44.
(14) See "Report and Recommendation on Part-time, Temporary, and Nontenure Track
Appointments", Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1988.
104
(Supplemental Reading #2 continued)
(15) See U.S. Supreme Court decision in "Knight vs. Minnesota Community College Faculty
Association", which held that a faculty member did not have a constitutional right to participate
in governance where a collective bargaining agent has been elected.
(16) See NEA report on part-time, temporary, and nontenure track faculty cited in note #14.
