Faculty Senate

New
on this site

Agenda of next meeting

2004-2005 Senate Members

Faculty Governance Committee

Links to sites of other senates

Faculty Senate Charter

Charter Changes

2004-2005 Calendar

Minutes of past senate meetings

2004-2005 Committees

Faculty Handbook Page

1998-99 Committee Reports

2000-2001 Faculty Salary Study

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Observations About Local Governance
2. Faculty Governance in a Decentralized University
3. Recommendation on Faculty Handbook Revision
4. Recommendations on Faculty Roles in Searches and Reviews
5. Summary of Recommendations

Introduction

The charge of this committee was to "explore ways in which the faculty could cooperate with the administration and Board of Trustees in making decisions about the future of the University." We believe this cooperation can be enhanced by increased communication by the faculty with the administration and board. Our first report suggested ways of doing this by strengthening the Faculty Senate and its relations with the Board.

During discussion of our first report, the president and provost asked us to consider the role of faculty governance in a decentralized university and the relationship between departmental, divisional and central governance. What, for example, are the minimum responsibilities incurred by faculty members? How should faculty governance proceed on the divisional and university levels? These issues become more salient as the university shifts more decisions from central administration to the departments and divisions.

In the past year we have been studying faculty governance practices at the various schools within the University of Rochester. We have interviewed deans and faculty from most of them and drawn on our own experiences as faculty in those schools. In this report we make recommendations about strengthening the faculty/administration partnership further through local faculty governance.

1. Observations about local governance at the University of Rochester

There are six schools within the University. In order of size, they are:

• The School of Medicine and Dentistry
• The College of Arts and Sciences, including the School of Engineering and Applied Science, which was a separate entity prior to 1994
• The Eastman School of Music
• The Simon School of Business Administration
• The School of Nursing
• The Warner Graduate School of Education and Human Development

The first two of these have representative faculty councils, both of which have elected steering committees that set agendas for their meetings. The Nursing School has an elected Faculty Governance Committee. The Warner School has a three member elected steering committee.

The College Faculty Council meets monthly with the Dean of the Faculty presiding, whereas the Medical Faculty Council meets every two months, usually without any representative of the administration. The prestige of the two faculty councils is limited, as evidenced by the fact that in many departments a faculty member with junior status is given the job of serving on the council. It is rare but not unheard of for department chairs to serve on them. The Nursing School's Faculty Governance Committee meets monthly to set agendas for faculty meetings and deal with a range of other matters concerning faculty. They oversee changes in Faculty Bylaws and the Faculty Handbook.

The Medical School and College also have appointed advisory boards consisting of department chairs and other school officials. The Nursing School's Leadership Council contains faculty representatives as well as administrators. These groups meet once a month to discuss various nonbudgetary policy matters. The agendas for these meetings are set by the chief administrators, i.e., the Dean of the Faculty in the case of the College, the Vice Provost for Health Affairs in the case of the Medical School, and the Dean of the Nursing School. The Eastman School has a similar advisory board of department chairs that meets regularly with the Director. In the Warner School there are program chairs that meet regularly with the dean.

Faculty governance in the Medical School is complicated by the broad range of the faculty there. There are several hundred clinical faculty who spend large amounts of time treating patients, and a smaller number of preclinical (basic science) faculty, typically Ph.D.s rather than M.D.s, whose activities are similar to those of College faculty. The level of interest in governance issues among the clinical faculty varies widely.

The Simon, Nursing and Warner Schools each have less than one hundred faculty. Instead of departments they have programs led by professors appointed by the dean or director. When faculty are consulted in policy decisions it is through meetings of the faculty as a whole.

In most cases (with the exception of Nursing) the administration appears to be more satisfied than the faculty with current faculty governance. It is not our purpose to take sides in these differences, but merely to point out that they exist and should not be ignored. The deanships of Medicine and Warner changed hands while we were doing our work, and we have not had a chance to meet with the new deans.

2. Faculty governance in a decentralized university

Faculty participation in governance promotes diversity of ideas, shared responsibility, collaboration, collegiality, and institutional excellence. Furthermore, it is the right of all faculty members to participate in governance without fear of retaliation in subsequent decisions on promotion, salary, and conditions of employment. It is the responsibility of the central administration, deans and department chairs to protect these rights.

Every academic unit (including departments) should have a set of written rules and procedures for its governance, with copies available to each faculty member. The governing faculty of each academic unit should establish the operating procedures of its academic unit governance entities including, but not limited to, procedures for agenda setting, establishment of a quorum, determination of membership and voting rights, qualification of attendance by persons other than members, appointment of a faculty secretary, distribution of minutes and the retention/filing of minutes.

Recommending faculty drafting of department by-laws where they do not now exist is not intended to stifle folkways, mores and norms developed over the years, but to assure that governance practices conform to the minimum rights and responsibilities expected of all faculty members at the University of Rochester. We encourage the faculties of Eastman and Simon to consider the formation of elected faculty governance bodies.

Cooperation between the Faculty Senate and school faculty governance bodies

A strengthened Faculty Senate will not compromise the authority of strengthened elected local bodies; the elected leaders of departmental, divisional and university-wide bodies should work collaboratively to assure that relevant issues are aired, not neglected or caught in jurisdictional disputes. The question of which issues are appropriate for discussion in a university wide body such as the Faculty Senate in a decentralized university is not easy to resolve. Although schools have become more administratively autonomous in recent years, some of their policies and initiatives have institution-wide implications, and it behooves a conscientious faculty to be aware of them.

To assure awareness and a spirit of collaboration, we propose to add the chair of the elected faculty governance body of each school where such a body exists (e.g., the College and Medical School Faculty Councils, the Faculty Governance Committee of the School of Nursing and the Warner School Steering Committee) to the Senate Executive Committee as an ex officio nonvoting member. Should another school decide to form an elected governance body, similar membership would also be offered to its chair.

3. Recommendation on Faculty Handbook revision

As for future revisions to the University's Faculty Handbook, we recommend:

• That the process begins when the Provost or the Senate Executive Committee inform each other of a proposed amendment
• That the Provost and Senate Executive Committee agree on the proper Senate committee to consider the proposed amendment and that the designated committee report its findings to the Provost and the Senate Executive Committee
• That the academic units of the University be informed of proposed changes to the Handbook and that the authorized governance unit communicate the result of its deliberations to the Senate Executive Committee
• That the Senate Executive Committee report to the Senate and administration about the impact of the proposed changes
• That after completion of the above, the Faculty Senate vote on proposed changes and communicate the result and the accompanying report to the Board of Trustees.

4. Recommendations on faculty roles in searches and reviews of academic administrators

In this section we will recommend that faculty assistance be sought in the recruiting and performance review of senior administrators: the president, the provost, the vice provost for health affairs and the heads of the various schools. In all cases these procedures are meant to facilitate cooperation between faculty and the administration in carrying out these important tasks.

Presidential searches

Our first report recommended more direct communication between the faculty and the Board of Trustees. We heard from numerous sources that the last presidential search was a good example of faculty-board cooperation. A faculty advisory committee was appointed by the chairman of the board, and it worked closely with a board search committee. Off campus interviews often were conducted jointly by one member of each committee, and they often traveled together to the candidate's home institution.

We recommend that a similar procedure be used in future presidential searches. To our knowledge there was little, if any, faculty input into the selection of the faculty advisory committee. In the future we recommend that this committee include the chair of the Faculty Senate and three additional members chosen by the Senate. The four members of the committee so chosen should not all be from the same school. This recommendation (and the one for decanal search committees below) is not meant to preclude other forms of faculty representation.

Decanal searches

When the Dean or Director of a school leaves office for any reason, it is usually desirable to conduct a national search for a successor. It is common for a faculty committee to play a role in this search. We recommend that if the school has an elected faculty governance body, then the search committee should include the chair of same and three additional members chosen by that body.

Although we are not recommending a formal faculty role in the search for a provost or vice provost for health affairs, we believe that under certain circumstances a president may welcome the help of a faculty advisory committee, in which case, we would recommend one having a structure similar to that for a presidential search. However, we will recommend below that faculty participate in reviewing the performance of these administrators.

Faculty participation in these searches would improve faculty confidence and investment in the final appointment decision, and it would lead to better relations between the faculty and the appointee after he/she takes office.

Decanal reviews

School deans and the vice provost for health affairs are typically appointed for five-year terms with the performance of each being reviewed by the provost in the fourth year. The review process includes confidential interviews with numerous faculty of the school in question. We recommend that during this process a similar review be conducted by a committee appointed by the elected faculty body of the school (it it has one) or elected by the school faculty as a whole. It should consist of at least four tenured faculty broadly representative of the school involved.

This committee should be provided with information relevant to evaluating the dean's performance such as strategic planning documents and data about the school success during the dean's tenure. It should coordinate its activities with those of the provost and record its findings in a confidential report that will be shared in a meeting with the provost and president.

Presidential and Provostial reviews

The provost is also typically appointed for a five year term with a performance review around the fourth year. The board may choose to review the president's performance in depth at similar intervals. To our knowledge this process has been less formal in recent years than that of decanal reviews. We recommend a faculty role in such reviews similar to that described above for deans. A faculty review committee should be appointed by the Faculty Senate consisting of at least four tenured faculty not all from the same school. This committee should interview faculty and other interested parties of its choice. It should coordinate its activities with those of the board and/or the president. Its confidential report should be discussed with the board and (in the case of provostial review) with the president.

Faculty participation in the review of a dean or other academic administrator would be desirable for several reasons.

• It would give the provost greater insight into the dean's performance and a firmer basis for a reappointment decision
• A committee could collect more information than the provost acting alone
• It would promote wider discussion of the goals and priorities of the school
• It could give the dean a better understanding of the ongoing concerns of faculty

5. Summary of recommendations

• That vigorous mechanisms be in place for faculty participation in the governance of each department, school or college
• That every academic unit (including departments) have a set of written rules and procedures for its governance, copies of which are to be available to each faculty member
• That chairs of the elected faculty governance bodies of schools where such bodies exist join the Senate Executive Committee as ex officio nonvoting members
• That revisions to the Faculty Handbook should follow the procedures described in Section 3 of this report
• That faculty participate in searches for and performance reviews of the president and deans as described in Section 4

Appendix A. Amendment to the Faculty Senate Chair

The only recommendation of this report that entails a revision of the Senate Charter is the one concerning expanded membership in the Senate Executive Committee. Thus paragraph 6.2 should be amended to read as follows. (New text is underlined.)

The Executive Committee shall consist of eight members of the Senate who are not administrative officials of the University (viz., deans or associate deans); the President, the Provost, and the past Chair of the Faculty Senate as members ex officio; and the chairs of the elected faculty governance bodies of school (where such bodies exist) as nonvoting members ex officio.

Appendix B. Amendments to the Faculty Handbook

1. The opening paragraph (page 3) of the Faculty Handbook should be amended to read as follows. (New text is underlined.)

This handbook sets forth policies, procedures, and information that, by common consent, are those governing the University faculty as a whole. This handbook may be amended at any time as follows.

• The process begins when the Provost or the Senate Executive Committee inform each other of a proposed amendment
• The Provost and Senate Executive Committee agree on the proper Senate committee to consider the proposed amendment and that the designated committee report its findings to the Provost and the Senate Executive Committee
• The academic units of the University are informed of proposed changes to the Handbook and the authorized governance unit communicates the result of its deliberations to the Senate Executive Committee
• The Senate Executive Committee reports to the Senate and administration about the impact of the proposed changes
• After completion of the above, the Faculty Senate votes on proposed changes and communicates the result and the accompanying report to the Board of Trustees.

Corrections or suggestions for additions should be sent to the Office of the Provost or to the Chair of the Senate Executive Committee. As text is amended, individual pages will be reprinted and given to deans for distribution to faculty members. Pages will be dated.

2. The second paragraph of the Faculty Senate section (page 5) of the Handbook should be amended to read as follows:

The Senate ordinarily meets nine times during the academic year. Meetings are from 4 to 6 p.m. by Charter regulation and on a middle Tuesday of the month by custom. Each meeting is presided over by the chair of Executive Committee or a designated substitute. The agendas for these meetings are prepared by the Executive Committee of the Senate and distributed (along with relevant documents) to senate membership at least one week prior to each meeting. Topics of discussion include reports from the Preside on the state of the University in September and January, a report from the Provost on the state of the faculty in May, occasional reports from deans on the states of the various schools, reports from the standing and ad hoc senate committees, and discussion of the University budget

3. A new section entitled "Faculty Governance" should be added to the Handbook following the Faculty Senate section (page 5) with text identical to the first two paragraphs of Section 2 of this report.

Respectfully submitted,

Ad-Hoc Committee of the Faculty Senate on Faculty Governance

Eldred Chimowitz, Engineering, The College

Donna Brink Fox, Eastman School of Music

Robert Joynt, School of Medicine and Dentistry

Deborah Modak, Arts and Sciences, The College

Douglas Ravenel (Chair), Arts and Sciences, The College

Madeleine Schmitt, School of Nursing

William Simon, School of Medicine and Dentistry

Harold Wechsler, Warner School

Return to top of this page

Copyright by University of Rochester
Faculty Senate site created Monday, June 29, 1998, by William Simon wsimon@biophysics.rochester.edu
Maintained by Lynne Hasman.
This page last revised March 12, 2001.