- Discontinue the practice of voting on issues brought to the Senate that have already been voted on by faculty colleagues within the Faculty Curriculum Committee, General Education Committee and the Graduate Curriculum Committee. Instead, Heath suggests that these committee approved changes be included in a consent agenda for the Faculty Senate. (New programs, Heath suggested, might be something that the Senate should still vote on).
- Instead of committees bringing delivering 15-30 minutes reports to the Senate, require that PowerPoint presentations and/or written reports be given to the Faculty Senate to review before the Senate meeting. It is the responsibility of Senators to read those reports and then, at the Faculty Senate meeting, a representative of those committees can be present for 5-10 minute question and answer period.
- End "wordsmithing" on the Senate floor. Too much time is spent, Heath argued, bickering over insignificant stylistic changes in non-binding resolutions or amendments that have little impact on the College's well-being or the lives of faculty. Unless the substance of a resolution or amendment is being discussed, the Speaker of the Faculty should have the discretion to note and limit "wordsmithing" which could be addressed by the By-Laws committee to polish the language.
A number of Senators and other faculty expressed an interested in continuing this discussion to facilitate positive changes to the Faculty Senate with the goal of making it a more pro-active force that addresses substantive issues of important to the College, faculty, staff and students. This blog is one tool to facilitate our work to "reinvision" and improve the Faculty Senate.
So, what are your thoughts on the problems with the Faculty Senate and how, from your perspective, might we advocate change in and to the Senate to make it a more effective body, symbolizing faculty initiative, leadership and proactive shared governance?
So, what are your thoughts on the problems with the Faculty Senate and how, from your perspective, might we advocate change in and to the Senate to make it a more effective body, symbolizing faculty initiative, leadership and proactive shared governance?
Thanks for initiating this debate, Heath. As FCC chair, I'm definitely in favor of revising our approval process. Currently, all proposals are reviewed by the department (and sometimes a departmental curriculum committee), the chair, all other affected departments, the school (in some cases), the Dean, the Provost's Office, the Registrar's Office, the FCC, other committees as appropriate, and finally the Senate. The entire sequence takes months--the Senate approval alone takes two weeks--and the same process is used for everything from the new BPS degree to English's decision to rename "Modern American Literature" to "American Literature since 1945."
ReplyDeleteThis level of review often seems excessive. I respect my colleagues on the Senate, but it's hard to believe that their time is best spent conducting the (count 'em) eighth, ninth, tenth, or *eleventh* review of a simple proposal.
I haven't discussed this with the Committee yet (we might get to it tomorrow), so I don't want to propose too many specifics right now. I agree that each new program should get a Senate vote. Same for program terminations--both are rare (we had about a half-dozen total last year), but they seem important enough to warrant the Senate's time. Not sure about the preponderance of the proposals, but I'll discuss all of this with my colleagues.
ReplyDeleteNot too many years ago, the College of Charleston faculty improved the senate structure by making it smaller, with the expectation that additional productivity and agility would necessarily emerge. It has not, as Heath has pointed out and I too have observed. I would like to join Lynn, Heath and other colleagues to focus on deliberate process and culture changes to leverage the smaller senate structure.
A more proactive and strategically attuned senate will likely earn a more significant position in shared governance. While the Senate still needs to tend to its tactical duties, I suggest that the Senate deliberately and strategically position itself around academic issues and opportunities that face the institution. It’s currently too easy or tempting for senators to dive into the minutia – a behavior that has inadvertently marginalized the Senate’s ability to effectively participate in shared governance.
Suggestions
1) Consider introducing a consent agenda.
2) Consider intentionally including discussions regarding strategic issues.
3) Consider moving to a venue designed for discussions.
It's time to improve the Senate again. Let's seize that opportunity together.
Thank you, Heath, and other bloggers, for beginning and sustaining this important discussion. I am eager to hear more and to learn more.
ReplyDeleteMoore Quinn