Log on

SUMMARY OF THE EVALUATION OF GOVERNANCE AT VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY

The tripartite structure of governance at VillanovaUniversity is excellently suited to the needs of the University. It should be continued and strengthened where possible. The University Senate is and should be the forum for the tripartite philosophy to be implemented. Legislation of policy is in the purview of the University Senate which recommends to the President and the Board. Self-interest groups such as the Faculty Council and the Student Government Organization should retain direct communication with the University Administration on matters that do not necessitate the tripartite involvement; but these groups should become an integral part of the University Senate in order to effect policy and legislation.

The Constitution and Bylaws of the University Senate need some changes in order to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the Senate's internal organization and functioning. Recommendations for such change are summarized below. However it is understood that such changes are the responsibility of the tripartite University Senate and can only be accepted as suggestions to initiate Senate action. It is recommended that the Senate Executive Committee coordinate future action on the improvement of the Senate in consultation with the President and that the full Senate make the final recommendation to the President and the Board of Trustees.

The internal organization of the Senate needs some streamlining. It is recommended that some committees be combined with others and that some standing committees be eliminated since they have already accomplished their purposes. Figure 2 attached to the report summarizes the recommended revised organization. Functions which are needed on an ad hoc basis may be assigned to ad hoc committees

Although the principle of subsidiarity should be maintained it is recommended that Article IV Section I of the Senate Constitution be modified to require the different schools or units to inform the Senate of all curricular decisions and actions. Such reporting of information is necessary to assure compliance with existing standards to eliminate possible conflict among units and to provide exchange of ideas.

It is recommended that either the Executive Committee or the Rules and ReviewCommittee institute a mechanism to follow up the degree to which the recommendations of the University Senate are carried out and to report back to the Senate further action that may be necessitated. This is to assure that the effectiveness of Senate actions are continuously monitored by the Senate itself.

It is recommended that new senators be oriented to the organization and functioning of the University Senate to improve the efficiency of the governance process. Such orientation needs to be in three main areas: (a) Previous actions of the Senate and its committees; (b) political implications of pending matters; and (c) parliamentary procedure and the functions of fact-finding, legislating, and carrying out of policy.

REPORT ON THE EVALUATION OF GOVERNANCE AT VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY

Introduction

This report was prepared by Dr Esin Kaya-Carton, Chair of Hofstra University Senate Executive Committee. The evaluation of university governance was conducted at the request of Villanova University. Dr. Kaya-Carton served as a consultant to the Program Evaluation Committee of the University.

The charge for the consultant was to evaluate the University Senate and to prepare a final report focusing on but not limited to three areas deemed critical by the University: (a) Quality of staff; (b) need for service; and (c) extent of satisfaction of need. The role of the evaluator was described to

be: "To point out what works well and what does not."

This evaluation report focuses on the structure, organization.and functioning of the University Senate, analyzes its effectiveness with regard to the objectives of governance, and its efficiency in meeting the needs of its constituencies.

Preliminary remarks.

First, I must express my gratitude to everyone at Villanova University with whom I had any contact. The generosity in time and the excellent cooperation and candor I encountered on everyone's part was most impressive. Father President Driscoll's gracious welcome and candid response at our initial interview seemed to echo everywhere else I visited on campus. No one showed the slightest hesitation in accepting the evaluation as a constructive endeavor. Undoubtedly the Program Evaluation Committee had set a very positive tone for the evaluation. Special thanks are due Dr, Angelo Armenti Jr., Chair of that committee, and Mrs. Carolyn Lea, Secretary to the University Senate, for facilitatingthis evaluation in a manner that went beyond the simple call of duty.

The assessment process.

The assessment process included observing a University Senate meeting, examining a variety of documents, and interviewing key administrators, faculty, and students who had experience with the University Senate. The materials that were reviewed are listed below.

The Constitution and Bylaws of The Villanova University Senate

Faculty Handbook

The Blue book: Villanova University 1986-87 Student Handbook

Synopsis of the Senate Office Procedures.

Minutes of the University Senate from 1983 to 1987.

Rules And Review Committee's evaluations of the University Senate for years 1970-71, 1974-75, 1978-80.

Rules and Review Committee reports on the evaluations of various

Senate Standing Committees during the period of 1980-84.

Tenure: Report of the Faculty Affairs Committee, I979.

Correspondence of the Senate Executive Committee with Standing

Committees and with the University Administration.

University Planning and Priorities Committee report on priorities for

the 1987-88 budgets

Minutes of the University Planning and Priorities Committee 1984-present,

Minutes of the Academic Policy Committee and of the Graduate Committee for 1986 and 1987.

The Constitution of the Faculty Council.

Various records concerning the election of members to both the

University Senate And the Faculty Council.

Some copies of The Villanovan.

Composition of the Senate Standing Committees.

An article by Catherine Taylor, "Sharing the Responsibility for

Governance," The Spires, Oct., I978.

Copies of some agenda for meetings between the Board of Trustees Executive Committee and the Senate Executive Committee.

Copies of Student Government inter-office communications.

Miscellaneous forms and correspondence relevant to the functioning of the Senate and its committees.

Interviews were conducted with over 30 individuals. These included: Father President Driscoll, Vice Presidents in charge of Academic Affairs and Financial Affairs, Deans of various schools, current and past chairs of Senate Standing Committees (except Athletic, Advisory and Social Action Committees), individual members of various Senate committees, faculty and student subgroups of the Senate Executive Committee, the Executive Committee of the Faculty Council, Director of the Library, and the Recording Secretary of the University Senate.

The information obtained from the readings, observations, and interviews was analyzedwithin a systems analysis framework keeping in mind the objectives of governance. Issues that emerged from the assessment process are discussed in different sections given below. In each case, the criteria for assessing the effectiveness and/or efficiency of the University Senate are specified and recommendations are provided to improve the existing condition where needed. The fundamental criterion for the total assessment process lies in the evaluator's view of the meaning of governance in academic institutions. The next section provides an elaboration of this basic criterion.

Definition of governance used in this assessment.

Academic governance has at least three meanings: First, it refers to assuming the responsibility for directing, guiding, and maintaining the institution and securing its financial viability. Decisions in carrying out such responsibility are normally entrusted to the Board of Trustees and to the President of the University as its chief executive officer. All decisions are ultimately the responsibility of the President and the Board, and Villanova University is no exception to this rule.

The second meaning refers to the legislation of academic policy to enable the effective organization and functioning of the institution and of its members. In democratic organizations those who are governed participate in formulating the policies that govern them. The Villanova University Senate has been delegated this legislative responsibility by the Board of Trustees, and is viewed as the instrument to provide for the participatory policy-making,

The third meaning of governance refers to the caring, facilitating, and providing for the members of the institution to guarantee compliance with their rights and privileges as well as their responsibilities. Although the final decisions concerning this aspect of governance still lie with the Board, in academic institutions self-interest groups exist and have a voice in specifying the nature of the rights and responsibilities they are willing to accept. On some campuses these self-interest groups may form unions that become bargaining agents. On other campuses where these groups have not unionized there still exist formal or informal organizations each with a leadership that voices the interests of its constituency. In Villanova University, the Faculty Council and the Student Government Organization have become formally accepted self-interest groups whose functioning in governance-related issues would best fit the third definition of governance.

It should be understood that all three types of governance are necessary for the smooth functioning of an academic institution. On the other hand, it is equally necessary to clarify the role of the participants in the University Senate with regard to these three definitions in order to maintain a University Senate that serves several purposes at once.

The tripartite composition of Villanova University Senate.

The tripartite composition of Villanova University Senate is designed to provide a forum BOTHfor carrying out the legislative policy-making functions delegated to it, and for voicing the interests of the self-interest groups. The effectiveness and efficiency of the tripartite composition must be assessed separately for these two functions.

As a legislative, policy-recommending, university-wide body, the tripartite Senate is admirably balanced with equal numbers of students, administrators, and faculty. It certainly achieves the.objective of providing a forum where the three groups can hear each others' academic objectives, concerns and experiences. However, there are two issues that deserve further examination if the tripartite composition is to serve its objective, and if the University Senate is to represent and serve the total University.

The first issue concerns the role of the individual school or unit vis a vis the University Senate. In accordance with Article IV of the Senate Constitution, "Principle of Subsidiarity in University Governance," most units, and especially the professional schools make curricular decisions independently of the University Senate. Such independence is undoubtedly necessary and desirable. The University Senate is, and should be, the body that establishes common criteria for curricular standards and honors, common core programs, or grading practices, and the like. The Senate meeting I observed appropriately dealt with the issue of grading practices at the University. However, curricular decisions made in one unit may deserve reporting to the Senate as information items. An exchange of ideas and practices among units often proves useful in stimulating further improvement of the academic endeavor across the university. Also, the Senate should assure that actions of an individual unit are not in conflict with University standards or with the responsibilities of other units on campus. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that the academic decisions made in the individual units reflect a tripartite involvement as they would in the Senate.

Recommendation.

While the principle of subsidiarity should be maintained it should be to free

the individual units to efficiently perform their academic duties, not to bypass

the Senate. It is recommended that the Schools inform the Appropriate Senate Standing Committees of curricular decisions And that Article IV Section I

of the Senate Constitution be modified to require such information to be

presented to the Senate.

The second issue concerns administrative representation on the University Senate. Currently, the Deans and Vice Presidents serve as ex officio Senators, and have a vote in the respective committees or in the Senate. The constituency for academic senators is either undefined or nonexistent. Only one Vice President is regarded as possibly communicating theacademic concerns of some 850 academic support staff who have no direct representation on the Senate.

Inclusion of the administrative and academic support personnel such as the Librarians, Admissions Otficers, Registrars, and the like in the administrative component of the tripartite structure may deserve some consideration. Such inclusion should not interfere with the current adminstrators serving in their ex officio capacity. The participation of Vice Presidents and Deans in the tripartite Senate is a necessity if the Senate is to achieve its objective of serving as a forum for the University Community to discuss problems of wide concern. However, while the administrative vote is also an important aspect of the tripartite composition, some thought should be given to Vice Presidents And Deans serving as ex officio members without a vote but for the academic administrative support staff to serve as administrators with a vote,

The role of administrators in the tripartite composition seems to present some additional difficulties as was discerned in interviewing members of various consituencies. Some faculty and students reported that the tripartite composition allows Deans And Vice Presidents a "double or triple dip into the process of making policy." For example, the perception is that Deans make some decisions within their units ind then have a vote again in the Senate on the same issue. Similarly, some Vice Presidents have a vote at the Senate but then have another chance to provide input to administrative decisions after the issue has passed the Senate. The accuracy of this perception was confirmed, at least by the Vice Presidents interviewed, who reported that on some matters they do, in fact, recommend to the President directly. Furthermore administrators are not completely comfortable about voting at the Senate: some reported that they do not wish to cast a vote on issues that may later be contradicted by the adminstrative decisions although they have no problem discussing the issues and serving as resource persons.

If administrative constituency were expanded to include the academic administrative support staff and the ex officio members were to serve without a vote but as resource persons, the problems described above might be resolved satisfactorily for all concerned. Currently, these problems are perceived as a weakness in the tripartite structure of the Senate. Previous evaluations of the Senate conducted by the Rules And Review Committee (See Evaluation Reports of 1978 and 1981) have also brought out the issue of administrative role in the Senate.Further, the problems lead to claims from both administrators and others that a faculty senate may be more appropriate than the existing tripartite Senate.

Recommendation

In the considered judgment of the evaluator the tripartite

composition should not be destroyed. It should be strengthened.

The existence of such a forum should be valued by all constituencies.

While the reported weaknesses constitute legitimate concerns their

solutions lie in the modification of administrative representation and

voting rather than in the destruction of the tripartite structure. The

actual procedure by which such modification can occur cannot be

recommended by an outside evaluator. It must be determined by the

Senate itself in consultation with the President. It is strongly recommended

that the Senate Executive Committee in consultation with the President,

formulate a modification to the Senate Constitution and Bylaws and bring

the formulated proposal to the full University Senate for discussion and action.

The effectiveness and efficiency of the University Senate.

Criteria for effectiveness and efficiency.

It should be remembered that the objectives of the University Senate are accepted as coinciding with the second and third definitions of governance given earlier. In other words, the Senate is a policy recommending body concerned with the legislation of both academic policy and policy concerning the rights and responsibilities of members of the University. The University Senate is viewed as an operating system with specific components, namely committees that are interrelated in their functioning towards the achievement of these objectives. These interrelations are sometimes hierarchical in responsibility and authority sometimes lateral. The determination of the effectiveness and efficiency of the structure and operation of such a system requires examining the flow of communication among its components, the degree of communication between the system and the ultimate decision-maker, and the impact of the system on its constituencies and on the total institution.

The effectiveness of the Senate is a direct function of the degree to which its recommendations are: (a) timely; (b) responsive to the needs of the institution and to the needs of its constituencies; and (c) seriously considered and implemented by those who have ultimate responsibility for governing the institution.

The efficiency of the Senate depends on the degree to which the existing structure facilitates rapid handling of acceptable recommendations. Several characteristics would be considered indicators of such efficiency. These are: (a) rapid information flow among committees; (b) minimal overlap in the functions and responsibilities of the committees; (c) rapid processing of an issue from its conception to its final recommendation and implementation.

The organization of the University Senate.

Figure I presents the components and organization of the University Senate as determined from the examination of documents and interview responses. (See attached Figure 1) The arrows in the figure show the paths of communication and responsibility. Vertical arrows indicate hierarchical paths, horizontal arrows indicate lateral communications.

Several observations may be made concerning the contribution of this organization to the effectiveness and efficiency of the Senate. First, according to Article VII of the Senate Constitution and Bylaws, "Standing committees shall report to the Senate through its Executive Committee." Also, the Executive Committee is given wide ranging powers which include acting for the Senate on those matters requiring attention between Senate meetings. Yet, since committee chairs are not included in its composition, the Executive Committee is highly dependent on the minutes and reports it receives from the standing committees. Such reports may or may not come to its attention in a timely manner, partially because the importance of an issue may not be viewed similarly by the two committees. Often the relatively cryptic committee minutes fail to communicate all the important points raised in the committee's discussions; consequently the Executive Committee may remain unaware of the reasons for the standing committee's recommendations. Such difficulties may well hamper the Executive Committee's effective handling of issues. Some consideration should be given to forming an Executive Committee which includes chairpersons of the standing committees and which meets with relative frequency. Such a change may be brought about only by modifying the bylaws.

The second issue concerns the overlap in the functions of some committees. For example, according to the Constitution, the Rank and Tenure Committee must "consult with the Faculty Affairs Committee in formulating tenure policies and guidelines"but in fact formulates such policy. At the same time, the Faculty Affairs Committee is entrusted with authority to formulate policy in areas of faculty concern, and "may also express faculty opinion on matters offaculty concern." In addition, the Faculty Council is established "...for the purpose of discussing all matters affecting the faculty of Villanova University, and when appropriate passing resolutions expressing the faculty's consensus on such matters..." Clearly, the three groups specified have highly overlapping functions. The fact that different individuals may participate in the actions and recommendations of the three groups may create some serious problems.

One problem concerns the question of which group is the true representative of the faculty. A review of the election procedures and results indicates that very few faculty participate in the election either of the senators or of the members of the Council's Executive Committee. Furthermore, there is no evidence as to whether the same faculty cast their vote for members of these different groups. Therefore, the problem of representation remains unanswered.

Another problem lies in the possibility of a political conflict existing between the Faculty Council and the Faculty representatives of the Senate, each vying to be recognized as the "true" representative of faculty sentiment. Also the role of the Council vis a vis the Senate is not clearly delineated: it is not clear when the Council should communicate with the administration directly, and when the communication should flow through the Senate. Such conflicts among officially recognized faculty groups with overlapping functions can only weaken the effectiveness of the constituency to be represented.

Some consideration may need to be given to merging some groups to eliminate the overlaps in functioning. For example, once the Rank and Tenure Committee established the policies for tenure and promotion, it need not exist further as a standing committee. As these policies need to change, ad hoc committees reporting to the Executive Committee can be formed. Another possibility is to make the Graduate Committee a subcommittee of the Academic Policy Committee. According to the obtained information, the Graduate Committee rarely meets. To the extent the APC should provide input to the UPP concerning priorities related to academic program needs, the Graduate Committee concerns may need to be included in the considerations of the APC. Villanova has few graduate programs outside the professional schools, and the professional schools take care of their own academic needs. On the basis of what the Graduate Committee has accomplished it seems unnecessary to have a separate standing committee for graduate programs.

Also, some thought might be given to having the faculty members of the Faculty Affairs Committee and the Executive Committee of the Faculty Council be the same people. Recommending specific ways in which such a change might be accomplished is not in the purview of this evaluation, since the change would require modifications in the constitution of both the Senate and the Council. However, one alternative that might deserve discussion might be to have the Chair of the Faculty Council serve as the Chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee, and to have the representatives elected to FAC constitute the Executive Committee of the Council. This type of merging would reduce the overlap, would recognize the faculty as one constituency with a unified voice in the Council and in the FAC, and could strengthen both the Senate and the Council. The Chair of the Faculty Council would serve on the Senate Executive Committee as a chairperson of a standing committee anyway. Also the Council's role vis a vis the Senate would be better clarified; because, the Faculty Council would have a role in the faculty issues that need to go through the Senate but still retain direct communication with the President on matters that are of specific interest to the faculty but not to the tripartite Senate.

The third issue concerns the role of the Student Government Organization vis a vis the Senate and is parallel to the role of the Faculty Council vis a vis the Senate. The Student Government Organization represents student interests and provides a forum for student caucusing. There is also a Student Life Committee of the Senate which is given "jurisdiction to formulate policy for the Senate on matters concerning the general social and cultural welfare of all students of the University." Some thought might be given to having this committee be relabeled Student Affairs Committee chaired by the President of the Student Government. Organization with the Executive Committee of the SGO constituting the elected student members of the Committee. Paralleling the recommendations concerning the Faculty Affairs Committee and the Faculty Council, the Student Affairs Committee would be composed mainly of students with administrators serving in ex officio capacity without a vote, and faculty serving in an advisory capacity without a vote. The recommendations of the Student Affairs Committee would be brought to the Senate through its Executive Committee. And the chair of the Student Affairs Committee would also be a voting member of the Executive Committee.

The fourth issue concerns the efficiency and effectiveness of the University Planning and Priorities Committee. Currently the UPP receives information from the Administration about itspriorities, but does not receive any reports from the individual units as to their academic and budgetary priorities. Nor is there much interaction between the UPP and other standing committees such as the Academic Policy Committee. At the same time, the functions of the Budget Committee and of the University Planning and Priorities Committee appear to be interdependent. The evidence suggests that it takes the Budget committee too long to obtain the information it needs from the UPP to make considered recommendations on budget priorities for the year. Some thought might be given to combining the Budget Committee with the UPP in order to eliminate the time disparity and the overlap in the functioning. It should be remembered that if the UPP, (or the Budget Committee), is to work effectively, it must have more information from various sectors of the University than it now receives.

The fifth issue concerns the effectiveness of the hierarchical organization within standing committees. For example, Figure I shows that the Academic Policy Committee has a number of subcommittees that should report to it. Examination of the activities within this structure indicates that, in practice, these subcommittees have had little activity and that the APC has not actively served as their coordinating committee. In order for this substructure to work effectively one would expect the APC to be composed, in part, by the chairs of the subcommittees, or to hold frequent meetings with them. Another alternative might be to eliminate the subcommittees and to form ad hoc committees to perform specific fact-finding duties as needed and to report to the APC.

For example, the grading issue that was discussed at the observed Senate meeting might be delegated to a fact finding ad hoc committee composed of faculty, students, and a representative of student services, such as the admissions office. Such a committee could be charged with researching existing practices in other universites, how grades are interpreted and utilized by other institutions with graduate programs, and what measurement principles apply in different types of grading practices. This committee would give its report to the APC, which in turn would make a recommendation to the Senate through its Executive Committee.

The function of the subcommittees might be viewed as fact-finding and presenting alternatives, and the role of the APC might be viewed as recommending to the Senate an alternative it judges to be most appropriate so that the Senate can benefit from a prior.extensive consideration of the matter. The Executive Committee's role would be to assure that allanticipated questions are answered prior to the issue coming before the Senate so that the Senate can discharge its function swiftly by deciding which of the alternatives in philosophy and practice is to the best advantage of Villanova University.

Recommendations.

The committee structure of the Senate needs some streamlining. Some

committees need not be standing committees since their functions need

not continue after they establish the policies in their purview. Rank And

Tenure Committee is one example.

Others should not be continued as standing committees because their functions

should be to provide factual information to their parent committees. It is not surprising that several of the subcommittees of the Academic Policy Committee

have already been eliminated.

Still others need merging, such as the University Planning and Priorities Committee and the Budget Committee in order to improve the efficiency of the recommendation process. The Faculty Affairs Committee and the Student Life Committee may need to be reorganized to eliminate the overlap of functions between the Senate Committees and the self-interest groups and to maintain the role and integrity of the Senate at the same time as providing the self-interest groups with a direct route of communication with the Administration. Figure 2 is provided as a possible way to achieve the streamlining that is recommended. However, the organization presented in Figure 2 is merely suggested as a starting point in the effort to reorganize. (See Attached Fig.2)

It must be recognized that the University Senate with its tripartite representation must be the body to actually devise and recommend an acceptable reorganization

and that these recommendations are provided merely to start discussions.

Need for orienting new Senators to the University Senate.

Any organization functions as well as the quality of its staff. Although the Villanova University Senate needs some reorganization within the philosophy of the tripartite structure, mere reorganization will not assure its effective functioning unless it is accompanied by an effort to orient new Senators to its objectives, philosophy, organization, past and present functioning, and pending matters. In most instances Senators are elected or appointed to their positions either by virtue of their office or because they are perceived as able and willing to perform the duties they will assume. However, as in other universities, there is the assumption that a new senator is thoroughly familiar with the complex interrelationships of the organization and of functionsdictated not only by the constitution and bylaws but also by rules and regulations that are contained in the past minutes of various committees.

In order to execute the functions entrusted to him/her, a senator needs to use a great deal of informed judgment. Without adequate orientation it usually takes several months or a year to discover the needed information for such judgment. Since many senatorial positions last only one or two years, the efficiency of the Senate can be greatly hampered by leaving new senators to find their own way without any systematic orientation to what preceded their term.

Orientation to the Senate would be useful in three main areas:

(a) Previous actions of the Senate and various committees;

(b) Political implications of pending matters;

(c) Parliamentary procedure especially with regard to legislating vs carrying out policy.

At the observed Senate meeting a long time was spent to pass a resolution to make an existing policy inviolate. To the outside observer the attempt seemed to be an exercise in futility. For, if an existing policy may be violated, there is no assurance that the new policy to prevent its violation will not be violated, The problem seemed to lie not in the nature of the policy, but in its implementation.

Another problem concerning the implementation of legislated policy stems from the fact that the Senate does not seen to have any official mechanism to monitor whether or not a recommendation that has not been rejected by the administration is in fact implemented in a timely manner. An example is the Senate's recommendation to have a day care center. Although this recommendation has not been rejected by the administration it has not yet been acted upon. One possible mechanism would be for the University Planning And Priorities Committee to follow up on the recommended policy to assess the priority it should receive in its implementation. Another alternative may be for the Rules And Review Committee to extend its functions to following up what happens to the policies recommended by the Senate. In any event, a mechanism is needed for such follow up, and should receive some consideration by the full Senate.

The two examples given above concerning the implementation of existing policy point to a need for improved political sophistication on the part of the Senators. The orientation proposed here may be a way in which the incoming Senators can be sensitized to the political implicationsof the legislative recommendations they will formulate.

Recommendation

It is strongly recommended that the Executive Committee take primary

responsibility to institute some kind of orientation program. Currently, the

students have devised a method for their own representatives to get fully

educated by the time they run for office in the Senate. The faculty might

do the same, and the Senate Executive Committee can formalize such activity

to assure its continuation in the future.

Interaction between the Board of Trustees and the Senate.

A major strength of Villanova University governance system lies in the openness of the Board of Trustees to input from the Senate. The fact that the Senate Executive Committee meets with the Executive Committee of the Board is most commendable and indicative of an enlightened Board interested in the affairs of the University. Also there exists a mechanism by which delegates from the Senate may attend Trustee Committee meetings. These efforts to provide direct interaction between the Board and the legislative governance body should be continued.

Concluding remarks.

In general, the tripartite structure of the governance system at Villanova University is very effective and should be continued and strengthened. The organization of the Senate Committees need streamlining to improve both the effectiveness and the efficiency of the Senate. The specific ways to accomplish the needed improvements must be determined by the existing Senate with its tripatite membership although some methods are suggested in the body of this report. All Senate members interviewed and observed impressed the evaluator by their devotion to the University, their commitment to the effective and efficient functioning of the governance system, and their willingness to give of their time to participate in it. Undoubtedly the governance system has functioned well so far, and is likely to continue to function well even without any changes. All assessments and recommendations provided in this report are intended to build upon this excellent foundation that already exists, and to strengthen further the effectiveness and efficiency of the governance system.

Contact Webmaster
Last Modified: Wed Aug 21 01:36:51 GMT-05:00 2002
Privacy Statement
© Copyright 2005 Villanova University