CHARGES TO THE ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE FOR FY-04

CHARGES TO THE ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE FOR FY-06

Approved by SenEx 6/14/05

Standing Charges

1. Review any change under consideration for the administration and organization of the University and how it relates to the University governance system.

2. Consider any proposals forwarded to the Committee from SenEx for codification into the Senate Code or the Rules and Regulations of the University and Faculty Senate and make recommendations for Council action.

3. Submit to SenEx: 1) the approved minutes of each meeting (minutes must be kept), 2) recommendations for actions as they are approved by the committee, and 3) a final report by April 2006. The final report should make clear what was done about each of the charges to the committee and make recommendations to SenEx for action. The report should also provide the names of committee members and include suggestions for charges to, membership in, and the chair of next year’s committee.

Additional Charges

1. Modify the governance revision plan developed by last year’s ad hoc committee on Governance Structure to a) address faculty concerns about broader opportunities for input by the entire faculty on the decisions of the Faculty and University Senates (1), b) define the appropriate number of petition signatures from each representative constituency that would be required to initiate reconsideration of a decision by the University Council, and c) specify a reasonable timeline for appeal of a decision of University Council. Communicate these proposed changes to the University Council and Faculty Council in October, gather input from the Council at this meeting, and prepare a final draft of the proposal for a ‘first reading’ and discussion (2) at the December University Council and Faculty Council meeting, with the resulting modified governance restructuring proposal available for a vote at the January 2006 meeting.

2. Monitor the degree to which University Governance has effectively incorporated the needs of Unclassified Senate and the University Service Staff Senate (3).

____________________________________________________________________________

Notes:

(1) FacEx believes that there are three particular concerns that faculty expressed in last year’s April FacEx meeting. FacEx discussed the following potential strategies for addressing these concerns:

a. Desire to have a plebiscite of faculty that would override faculty voting in University Senate. FacEx believes that since University Senate is a joint deliberative body representing the entire university, it is inappropriate for the entire faculty to hold a ‘veto’ over faculty senator contributions to decision making in this body. Members of University Senate must be free to consider issues as they impact the university community as a whole. Under the revised governance plan, faculty can still express disagreement with University Senate decisions through a majority vote of the Faculty Senate or through the petition and ballot initiative options outlined below. Under the new governance plan, a statement noting the disagreement of either the Faculty Senate or the entire faculty with a decision of University Senate along with an explanation of this objection will automatically be forwarded to the Provost and Chancellor along with the recommendation passed by University Senate.

b. Desire to call for reconsideration of decisions of University Senate. FacEx believes that a majority vote of Faculty Senate or a petition signed by 200 faculty should automatically initiate a one-time reconsideration of an issue passed by University Senate. A statement of rationale for the request to reconsider the decision would be forwarded to University Senate, and this position paper would be discussed during reconsideration. In the event that the original decision is reaffirmed by University Senate, the objection of Faculty Senate or the 200 faculty petitioners along with the rationale for the objection would be forwarded to the Provost and Chancellor along with the reaffirmed University Senate recommendation.

c. Desire to have a ballot initiative of faculty to overrule a decision made solely by Faculty Senate. FacEx proposes that a petition bearing the names of 200 faculty would trigger an email ballot initiative of faculty aimed at overturning a recommendation passed by Faculty Senate. We note that the frequent use of this option would have the effect of nullifying the function of the representative character of shared governance. A ballot initiative has only been used three times during the last 20 years to overrule decisions of Faculty Senate. All of these instances have involved very significant and complex issues where a direct polling to gauge faculty attitudes was necessary. FacEx supports the inclusion of this option in the new governance revision, but notes that, were this to become a common strategy for policy making, it might become necessary to reconsider either this policy as a whole of or the threshold required to initiate a ballot initiative. The primary mechanism for faculty input on policy making in shared governance should remain the selection of a representative body that reflects and accurately represents faculty attitudes in discussions with students, staff and the administration. It is essential that we continue to encourage broad faculty participation in the selection of governance leaders as the primary vehicle for providing input in shared governance.

(2) FacEx and SenEx intend to have major policy statements presented for a ‘first reading’, meaning presented to Faculty Council or University Council for discussion, one meeting prior to formal consideration of the statement for adoption. This will provide governance with the opportunity to discuss and publicize statements prior to formal consideration. We hope to reduce the need to modify policy ‘on the fly’ at such meetings and to provide more opportunity to engage the university community in discussions of these major policy issues prior to their adoption.

(3) This charge stems from recent governance changes that grant unclassified personnel and university service staff (formerly classified staff) new voting roles on university committees. Assuming that this change has not raised any issues that need to be addressed by SenEx, we believe that this charge can be eliminated after the next academic year (2006-2007).