Ad Hoc University-Wide Governance CommitteeAd Hoc University-Wide
Governance
Committee
July 28, 2004
Minutes
Present: J. Acker, R. Bangert-Drowns, J. Bartow, B. Carlson, P. Eppard,
M.
Fogelman
R. Geer, J. Pipkin, L. Schell, G. Singh, B. Via, J.
Wyckoff
Guest: Interim President John Ryan
Professor Acker proposed that the Committee attempt to adhere to the
following
timeline for completion of its business:
· Aug. 4—consider subcommittee issues and alternative models
· Aug. 11—additional discussion of subcommittee issues and models;
attempt to
achieve consensus
· Aug. 18—presentation and consideration of subcommittee draft
reports
· Aug. 25—presentation and consideration of proposed committee
report;
attempt to
achieve consensus about “final” committee report
· Mid-September—presentation and discussion of committee report
with
academic
units and constituencies
· Late September—reconvening of committee, discussion of feedback
from
academic
units and constituencies, preparation of final report
· Oct. 1—submission of final report to University Senate
Some committee members expressed reservations about the proposed
schedule. It
was pointed out that several committee members would be unavailable for
meetings
during the upcoming weeks. Questions also were raised about whether the
committee would be able to move sufficiently rapidly to comply with the
proposed
schedule. In particular, some members suggested that additional time
could be
needed to contact peer and other comparison institutions, and to invite
potential guests (from other institutions and perhaps also from UAlbany)
to
discuss the operation of alternative governance models and other issues.
It was
suggested that Jayne Van Denburgh be requested to assist the committee by
contacting peer institutions to attempt to ascertain whom committee
members
might contact to discuss relevant issues. It was agreed that the
subcommittees
should attempt to collect information from at least the following
institutions:
Florida State University, Rutgers University, SUNY-Binghamton, SUNY-
Buffalo,
SUNY-Stony Brook, the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, and the
University
of South Carolina. All of those institutions were included on the
earlier-distributed list of peer and aspirational peer institutions, and
they
were selected to provide a somewhat diverse mix from that list.
Questions were raised about what matters should be included in
subcommittee
reports, and in particular whether the reports should address the
specific
Faculty Bylaw and Senate Charter provisions implicated by any
recommendations.
It was suggested that primary focus should be on (1) identifying
alternative
models or approaches to address the discrete issues considered by the
respective
subcommittees, and (2) identifying the preferred model or approach with
respect
to each issue, accompanied by an explanation or justification of those
preferences. However, in addition to addressing those primary factors,
it was
suggested that it would be useful for the reports to identify the
specific Bylaw
and Charter provisions that might be affected if recommended changes were
enacted.
Interim President Ryan then appeared before the committee in response to
the
invitation the committee had previously extended. He indicated that the
University presently had an opportunity to evaluate whether schools and
colleges
would benefit from more local autonomy in matters of governance under the
general umbrella of a University Senate. He suggested that it was
reasonable to
inquire whether increased autonomy would involve faculty in more decision
making
at local levels in ways that would be healthy and productive for those
units as
well as the University as a whole. He stated that he recently had
received a
copy of the proposed Bylaws developed by the College of Nanoscale Science
and
Engineering and anticipated asking University legal counsel to review the
proposal. In response to questions and ensuing discussion, he indicated
that
the Board of Trustees’ creation of the College of Nanoscale Science and
Engineering had given impetus to the present inquiry concerning whether
there is
room to have enhanced autonomy in areas of governance more generally
throughout
the University.
President Ryan indicated that new administrative challenges would
certainly be
presented with increasing local autonomy in areas such as research. He
suggested that the committee would benefit by conferring with Interim
Provost
Mumpower and representatives from other institutions, such as SUNY-Stony
Brook,
to consider their insights and perspectives. He stated that he would be
willing
to locate resources that might be necessary to bring in visitors for such
purposes.
Drawing on prior experience, President Ryan reflected that precipitating
events
frequently require organizations to change in reaction, and that such
events can
produce positive changes when otherwise maintenance of the status quo
would have
been likely. He indicated that different degrees of autonomy in
different areas
almost certainly would be appropriate, and would likely be consistent
with the
retention of key governance committees. He reiterated that the committee
would
likely find it useful to invite representatives of other institutions to
its
meetings, as well as to invite the perspectives of others at UAlbany.
Following President Ryan’s departure, the committee resumed discussion of
issues
including the College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering’s progress in
drafting proposed bylaws. Professor Geer indicated that those bylaws
were not
presently ready for public distribution, but that he would be happy to
bring
them to the attention of interested committee members when they are ready
for
release.
At the conclusion of the meeting, it was agreed that the committee would
next
meet on Aug. 11 and that subcommittees would meet in the interim. The
subcommittees are to continue their business of identifying the important
issues
to be addressed, collecting information from other institutions about
those
issues, identifying alternative governance models with respect to those
issues,
and then making preliminary recommendations with rationale. It generally
was
agreed that a system should be created for contacting individuals at
other
institutions, to avoid duplication of effort and to avoid unduly
burdening the
representatives of other universities.
The three subcommittees met for brief discussion following the meeting’s
conclusion.
