______________________________

Re: Revised Statement on Shared Governance

Date: March 7, 2010

Background:

In FS 08-45A, the faculty Senate took the following action:

The Faculty Senate approves the designation of 8 faculty members as their representatives to the Faculty – Administration Team on Consultation, Shared Governance and Leadership. The 8 faculty representatives will work collaboratively with the Administration on the “inter‐related issues of how decisions are made, consultation, shared governance and leadership” as described in the Collaborative Assessment Report on Campus Governance, Culture and Climate-Goals and Recommendations.

The product/deliverable called for in the Report (C-1, p. 28) dealing with this matter was stated as follows:

A written policy statement addressing Administration - Faculty Consultation, Shared Governance and Leadership, approved by the President and the Faculty Senate. If there are parts of the statement that directly affect more than the faculty and administration – the students, staff and alumni – those parts should be preliminarily adopted, pending a larger campus discussion.

Team Consultation with the Senate:

On April 24, 2009 the Faculty-Administration Team on Consultation, Shared Governance and Leadership (hereafter, the Team) submitted to the Faculty Senate a “Statement on Shared Governance and Consultation at California State University, Sacramento.” The Faculty Senate received the Team’s report on May 7, 2009. The Executive Committee then solicited feedback on the statement through discussion at the Senate’s October 29, 2009 meeting and by requesting written responses from faculty members. Through the Executive Committee the Team received three written comments (included as attachments). On February 26, 2010 the Team met to review the written comments.

Results of Team Review of Comments Received on the Team's April 34 Report:

The team found that, with the exception of the specific recommendation from Senate Chair Sheppard (to include the Academic Affairs Budget Advisory Committee as a group authorized by the Faculty Senate to serve as a the vehicle for consultation with the faculty on fiscal matters affecting the instructional program), the comments raised issues that were beyond the scope of the document at hand. Specifically, the document is designed to serve as a values document about shared governance and consultation, the general scope of the matters which the President and the Senate agree should be the subject of consultation with the faculty, and which bodies are authorized to serve as the primary bodies for consultation with the faculty. In this regard, the document sets a context for going forward with the development of processes that will give effect to the values expressed in the document, and thereby address the concerns raised by Senators Dillon, Koegel and Buckley in their comments. Therefore, the only revision to the document adopted by the Team, in response to comments received, was to revise the statement to acknowledge explicitly that Senate consultation on fiscal matters is currently achieved primarily, albeit not solely, through representation on the University Budget Advisory Committee and the Academic Affairs Budget Advisory Committee.

Team Recommendation:

The attached policy statement constitutes the Team’s final product and has been approved by the President, in its entirety. Therefore, we now respectfully request that the Faculty Senate take similar action though its adoption of the statement in its entirety to serve as the framework for deciding which matters fall clearly within the purview of shared governance and whether the Faculty Senate and Administration are engaging in meaningful and effective consultation on these matters.

Attachments:

(1) Revised “Statement on Shared Governance and Consultation”

(2) Written comments on the “Statement” that was received by the Senate on May 7, 2009.

11/9/09

Responses to Statement:

The Faculty Senate Executive Committee established a comment period for feedback on the Statement “received” by the Faculty Senate last Academic Year. There was a brief discussion in the October 29 meeting, with a notable comment from Dr. Dillon that it is in the area where the jurisdiction of the faculty is less clear (less explicit) that renders the statement vulnerable. Reza and others at that meeting may be better able to express his sentiments.

There were 3 additional comments received during this comment period and they are reproduced below.

Feedback regarding the “Statement on Shared Governance and Consultation at

California State University, Sacramento”

At the beginning of the “statement” there is reference to joint decision making applying to “matters that affect the instructional program”. As stated, the scope of such “matters” is quite broad, not merely limited to the prescribed areas noted in various documents.

The identification of the Senate as the representative body serving as the primary consultative body does not preclude faculty involvement in other matters on campus as evidenced by the faculty involvement in a wide variety of University Committees.

Faculty consultation on fiscal matters affecting the instructional program is NOT achieved solely by representation on UBAC. Currently there is limited representation, little consultation and little transparency related to “fiscal matters”/decisions affecting the Division of Academic Affairs as well as the colleges and the library.

Faculty involvement in enrollment management decisions, which clearly affect the instructional program, currently involve negligible consultation.

Research on the concept of consultation does define it in relationship to the process of decision making – how the decisions are made. It is not merely a promise to “consult” before implementing a decision.

Merely informing various faculty bodies (Senate/Chairs/Executive & other Senate committees) of the decisions being made or merely soliciting feedback on decisions that have been made is not evidence of shared governance. Shared governance involves the engagement of faculty, staff and administration in the analysis of problems, the identification of possible solutions, and decisions about the best approaches to take.

The benefits associated with effective consultative processes are also well-documented. Effective consultation provides for informed decision making – evidence based-debates over which solutions best solve the problem under consideration. The process itself involves stakeholders in the decision “making”, which can create a culture of stakeholder ownership and buy-in to the decisions being made.

Given the enormity of the decisions that will need to be made over the next few semesters (and possibly years); developing this type of culture would seem to be necessary. At this point in time, consultation is still quite limited. The statement, as it now reads and is interpreted, does not appear to be facilitative of this type of consultation.

At the end of each academic year, designated representatives of the faculty and administration might engage in an assessment of the effectiveness of that year’s consultation/shared governance with the intent of making recommendations for improvements in the coming academic year.

Respectfully submitted

Bob Buckley

Dear Janet,

Thank you for all your hard work on this document. I support the current document. If you and your group believe that Senator Dillon's comments about the jurisdictional limitations of the Senate have merit, then I suggest that you insert the adjective string "operational, administrative, and fiscal" into the last sentence of the first paragraph of the section entitled
"shared governance". This sentence would then read: "The faculty also is to be consulted on operational, administrative, and fiscal matters that affect the instructional program of the University".

The second paragraph of the shared governance section specifies the appropriate bodies through which consultation will take place.

I suppose that the paragraph might need to be modified so that there is a parallel process described for operational and administrative consultation (i.e. just as UBAC is named as the appropriate body for fiscal consultation). However, I have purposively insulated myself from the myriad of overlapping committee's that exist on campus and have no constructive suggestions in this area.

Finally, I offer this note simply as a suggestion as to how to implement another's concern.

Thanks again with all your work. This is an extremely useful document and I am happy to support the expeditious adoption of the document.

Best,
Ray

Janet and colleagues,

My concern with the statement on shared governance has been expressed by others also in the Exec Committee and pertains to the statement “Consultation between the Faculty Senate and the administration regarding fiscal matters that affect the instructional program currently is achieved through Faculty Senate representation on the University Budget Advisory Committee.”

This skips over the involvement of the Academic Affairs Budget Advisory Committee, which also has Faculty Senate representation, and which also is geared even more towards the instructional program.

Furthermore the expression “…is achieved by…” makes it sound as though this engagement is sufficient in and of itself to satisfy such consultation which is proven to be inaccurate by the current and ongoing budget discussion in the Senate, for example.

I would suggest the following:

“…is achieved in part through Faculty Senate representation on the University Budget Advisory Committee and the Academic Affairs Budget Advisory Committee.”

Tony Sheppard
Senate_Chair@csus.edu