Log on

Contents Page

Introduction

The University Senate

The Faculty Affairs Committee

The Faculty Council

The Association of American University Professors

Conclusions and Recommendations

Appendix 1 - Analysis of Committee Motions, 1982/83 through 1986/1987.

- University Senate

- Faculty Affairs Committee

- Faculty Council

- American Association of University Professors

Appendix 2 - Excerpt from the Joint Statement on Government of Colleges and

Universities - The Academic Institution: The Faculty.

INTRODUCTION

Charge to Committee:

To analyze and investigate the functional adequacy and appropriateness of the Senate as a vehicle for faculty service and leadership in governance, and to compare this structuring of the faculty role with that established in a select list of similar institutions such as Boston College, Fordham, Georgetown and Notre Dame.

Committee and charge initiated by the Executive Committee of the Faculty Council (1/29/87) with the composition of the committee established by one member each being named by the Chairman of the Faculty Council, the Chairman of the Faculty Affairs Committee and the President of the Villanova Chapter of the American Association of University Professors.

Committee interpretation of Charge.

Professor Kaya-Carton in her recent evaluation of governance at Villanova University. specified three meanings of the word, governance:

1. assuming the responsibility for guiding and maintaining the institution and securing its financial viability.

2. legislation of academic policy to enable the effective organization and functioning of the institution and its members.

3. caring, facilitation and providing for the members of the institution to guarantee compliance with their rights and privileges as well as responsibilities.

The Joint statement on Government of Colleges and Universities calls for appropriately shared responsibility and cooperative action among the components of an academic institution, including the participation of faculty in decisions on physical resources, budgeting and the appointment of the top academic administrators. This statement also details the substantial input that faculty would be expected to have in the second and third of the processes listed by Professor Kaya-Carton (See appendix 2).

The present study is based on these definitions of university governance and the appropriaterole for faculty in governance. In the light of these definitions, we decided that we had to examine the faculty role, not only in the Senate but also in the major bodies in which the faculty make decisions or significantly influence governance. In other words we found it necessary to examine the faculty contribution as represented in the Senate, the Faculty Affairs Committee (FAC) the Faculty Council and the American Association of University Professors (AAUP). We could then attempt to assess whether faculty was playing a sufficient and appropriate role and further, the appropriateness and effectiveness of the division of labor among the various structures. We do not claim that this study is exhaustive. Time permitting, we could well have examined the structure and functions of further committees, both Senate standing committees and others which involve aspects of faculty governance. We could also have analyzed, or analyzed more fully, important current faculty governance issues such as the need to

have a faculty majority on the Rank and Tenure committee, the need to increase the role of faculty in the selection of deans and the need to respect a Departmental Faculty veto over the hiring of a new faculty member. Future consideration of these issues would add to the findings

in this report.

The part of the charge asking for comparisons with other universities was problematical. The

ad hoc committee eventually decided that a useful comparison of the faculty role in governance at Villanova University with that in other universities, could not be carried out without some evaluation of the effectiveness of the different structures and procedures used. Some differences can certainly be specified. For example, none of the four universities mentioned in the charge, Fordham, Georgetown, Notre Dame and Boston College has a tri-partite senate like Villanova's. The first three have University-wide faculty senates and Boston College has a faculty senate in the College of Arts and Sciences. The ad hoc committee holds some, if not complete material on the governance of the four universities but any explanatory material received from the senders warns against deducing anything definitive from the documents. It would seem that if the comparison is to be carried out it should be based on more than written descriptions of, and rules for, governance committees on which faculty are represented.

Committee Procedures

The minutes of the meetings of the selected bodies for the past five academic years (1982/3 to 1986/7) were reviewed. Analyses were made of the substantive motions broughtforward in the Senate and the motions passed in the FAC and the Faculty Council. The following analytical scheme was used.

1. University Community-wide concerns

a. priorities-policy

b. expenditures-budget

c. conditions and services

2. Academic Concerns

a. teaching

b. research

c. physical facilities

3. Faculty Group interests

a. benefits

b. conditions

4. Operations of Faculty Governance

a. internal (between faculty groups)

b. external (with administration and Board)

To assess the effectiveness of these structures an attempt was made to discover whether the actions specified in the motions were implemented and, to the extent possible, the part played by the faculty body, or the faculty represented on a body, in the success/failure of the motion (see appendix 1). Analyses of the minutes were backed up by interviews with some members of the various committees and by the personal experiences of the members of the ad hoc committee in serving on these governance structures.

THE UNIVERSITY SENATE

The purpose of the University Senate can best be discerned by examining its Constitution which outlines the roles, powers, and responsibilities. Essentially, the Senate has the authority to legislate in the following areas:

1. academic matters affecting more than one college of the University.

2. areas of faculty concern, including: rank and tenure policy, participation in departmental and collegiate government, policy on sabbaticals and leaves of absences, compensation, fringe benefits, social and working conditions, and faculty duties and obligations to the University.

3. all areas of student life.

In addition, the Senate has authority for final review and approval of the University budget before submission to the President or Board of Trustees. It also has authority to recommend long-range institutional planning and goals for the University as a whole and to recommend and review priorities for: the construction of buildings and fund-raising and to recommend changes in policies dealing with athletics and matters of social concern and sensitivity.

Although in the foregoing outline, the verbs "to legislate" and "to recommend" are used with respect to various responsibilities, in essence, the University Senate is strictly advisory to the President and Board of Trustees, who hold final, effective power. The Board may revoke unilaterally any authority delegated to the Senate and the Board retains unimpaired independent power to legislate when and as it deems advisable. Even though there is provision for the Senate "to reconsider" legislation vetoed by the President and send it directly to the Board of Trustees, it does not appear that this option has been used in recent years. There is no appeal from a veto of the Board of Trustees.

Faculty Role in the University Senate

Faculty hold 32 percent of the seats in the Senate (the administration and students hold 32 percent each and the alumni 5 percent). The faculty constitute a majority on the Graduate and Faculty Affairs Committees and a plurality on the Academic Policy and University Planning and Priorities Committees. Although not legally mandated, the chairman of the Senate always has been, in practice, a faculty member (note: this practice has diminished the faculty voice in one sense as the chairman rarely, if ever, engages in debate, making motions, and usually abstains from voting unless there is a tie vote).

The Faculty Council may express faculty opinion on any matter of interest to the faculty, and may convey these opinions directly to the Faculty Affairs Committee or to the Executive Committee of the Senate. The Chairman of Faculty Council is ex-officio a member of the Senate (note: similar arrangements also exist for the students).

Within the Senate there is an ad hoc, informal faculty caucus. No officers are elected. Meetings have usually been called by the Senate Chairman and are held a few minutes before the conveningof the Senate. Votes have been taken only to determine faculty nominees to Senate offices and the Executive Committee.

Effectiveness

The effectiveness of the internal operations of the Senate is not within the purview of this report and hence will not be analyzed. The Kaya-Carton Report and the Rules and Review Committee's evaluation reports of the Senate contain much useful information on this topic. However, one item which should be noted here is the gradual, but steady, rise in the absentee rate for all senators over the period 1978-1986. While the administration absentee rate consistently led all constituencies, the

faculty mean absence rate per meeting increased from 1.45 in the 1978-79 period to 2.53 in the 1983-86 period. It is not unusual for Senate meetings to have nearly one-third of the membership absent and one meeting in 1985 failed to obtain even a quorum.

It is difficult to measure the effectiveness of the Senate as a legislative body as explicit criteria do not exist against which to make judgments. The approval rate for resolutions sent to the President and the Board of Trustees is only slightly over one-half (1974-80= 54%; 1980-87= 53%.). Of concern are the several examples of legislation which languished in the President's Office for seven or eight months before action was taken (note: the President is obliged under the Senate Constitution to respond within thirty davs after receiving Senate legislation). Of even greater concern are the several resolutions which have been responded to by stating that they were "acknowledged" or "under study" - options which the President, under the Senate Constitution, does not have (note: the President has three options: approval, veto, return legislation to Senate for reconsideration). Thus important legislation dealing with establishment of an honor code (passed February 1985) and a day-care center (passed February 1984) seem to have "gone into limbo."

Also, it seems that, at times, motions are phrased and parameters of debate (dealing with, for example, provision of information and timing) are established which makes strong, effective action unlikely in the Senate while preserving the fiction of serious and meaningful consultation between the administration, on one hand, and the facultv and students, on the other hand. A good example was the presentation of the Program Evaluation Committee (PEC) Report at the meeting of April 1, 1988. The essence of the motion was that the Senate recommends that the PEC Report be given serious consideration by the President and Board of Trustees and that they also should consider reactions to the Report. Rather than debating the merits of the Report in whole or in part and

the methodology of PEC, debate centered around the wording of the motion: should the Board "seriously" consider or "carefully" consider; should "consideration" be replaced by "scrutiny"; should "implementation" be replaced with "action"; etc., etc. It was argued that to debate the merits of the Report would take too much time. One solution would be to call a series of extraordinary meetings of the Senate. However, all senators' terms expired on May 1 and besides, the process could not be delayed too long as the President had to have his final report to the Board of Trustees in July. Interestingly, at the same meeting a motion was presented from Faculty Council to request that certain responses to the PEC Report be published and distributed along with the Report itself. This resolution was passed by the Senate; it was rejected by the President.

Similar stories could be recounted about other issues. For example, did the Senate explicitly approve the return of the intercollegiate football program to Villanova? With or without qualifications? (See resolution #US 8283-4-5). Many senators facing the annual debate over the University budget have argued that they did not have enough information to cast an informed vote.

With respect to the effectiveness of the faculty in the Senate, some points are clear. On controversial issues, the faculty are often badly divided. As noted above, the faculty caucus meets informally on an ad hoc basis immediately before the Senate meeting. It is poorly attended, there is little debate, and no votes are taken on issues. Therefore. no attempt can be made to bind senators to the majority will of the caucus. Faculty senators rarely attempt to coordinate their views with representatives of Faculty Council or Faculty Affairs Committee. Faculty senators do not effectively inquire as to the views of their constituents and it is doubtful whether any systematic, meaningful communication takes place between senator and constituency. Some faculty senators rarely, if ever, take part in Senate debate. Some seem to vote with the administration senators automatically. Moreover, it is difficult to see how constituents could hold their senators accountable given the lack of communication. One way might be if there were active political campaigns conducted for faculty Senate seats. However, there seems to be, among some faculty senators, a disdain for "acting political" either inside or outside the Senate; there is a general desire to avoid conflict and confrontation and to encourage compromise almost at any cost. However. these people, like all senators, are politicians sitting in a political body which debates political issues - and conflict is the essence of politics!

Perhaps the task of faculty senators could be made a bit easier if campus-wide poll of faculty could be conducted three or four times a year on important issues which are scheduled to be debated in the Senate. To raise faculty awareness of issues, frequent mailings of "position papers" to faculty might help. Perhaps holding occasional open meetings for the faculty with speakers debating various issues would also help. These polls, mailings, and meetings could be arranged under the auspices of Faculty Council. It would be a big task. However, it is certain that unless issue awareness and concern among the faculty, as a whole, is increased, unless their representatives in the Senate become more unified as a group, and unless greater coordination is achieved among the various groups representing faculty, the faculty role in the governance of Villanova University will remain minimal.

Faculty Attitudes and Perceptions of the Senate

An important question which may be asked is: "Has the Senate, by its actions, inspired confidence in itself among the faculty of Villanova University?" While there has been no campus-wide, methodologically -sound survey of faculty attitudes toward the Senate, there is much impressionistic evidence collected over the years which seems to demonstrate that the above question must be answered in the negative.

The 1980 Villanova University Institutional Self-Study prepared for the Commission on Higher Education Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools dealt with the issue of faculty perception of the Senate (excerpt may be found in appendix to this report). In short, the Study concluded that "the Senate is frequently dismissed as impotent, dominated by the Administration, and subject to presidential vetoes as well as vetoes by the Board of Trustees." A questionnaire was sent to all faculty in 1979 which resulted in 236 responses. Of those responding, 41.5 percent perceived the Senate as doing an unsatisfactory job; 32.2 percent considered the Senate's performance neither satisfactory nor unsatisfactory; and 26.3 percent perceived it as doing a satisfactory job.

Another study was done for the Program Evaluation Committee (PEC) in 1986 which surveyed the University community's assessment of the importance of various goals and the community's assessment of how important the goals ought to be. This is impressionistic evidence as the sample was not random (respondents self-selected by returning a questionnaire with their answers indicated) and the response rate was rather low (excerpt may be found in appendix to this report). In short,

the results indicated a consistent pattern: faculty (as well as the other groups surveyed) perceived the Senate as having low to medium importance while believing it should have medium to high importance.

An indirect, but possibly relevant, indicator of faculty attitudes toward the Senate is the apparent disinterest, reluctance, or apathy on the part of the faculty to contest seats for the Senate and for the committees of the Senate (with the exception of Rank and Tenure Committee).

Senate

1977-79 1979-81 1981-83 1984-86

Seats open 11 11 15 18

Contested 4 3 4 1

% Contested 36% 27% 27% 6%

Senate Committees

1977-79 1979-81 1981-83 1984-86

Seats open 19 21 31 31

Contested 5 0 2 4

% Conteste 26% 00% 6% 13%

It might be argued that faculty are simply reluctant to risk defeat inelections. However, it

should be noted that Senate elections were regularly contested in earlier years (prior to 1977) and Rank and Tenure Committee seats are regularly contested.

After reviewing the kind of evidence presented above - as well as other evidence such as

the slow, but steady increase in the absentee rate of senators - two Rules and Review Committee evaluations of the Senate released in 1981 and 1988 covering nine years of Senate operation

(1978-1986), conclude that "it may be time to reassess and reevaluate the original structure and function of the Senate as it was formulated nearly two decades ago."

Given all the above evidence, certainly, at least there ought to be a methodologically sophisticated survey done to assess current faculty perceptions of the Senate.

Conclusion

There is no single formal faculty voice in University governance. University Senate action is the result of joint deliberation and vote among administrators, faculty, students, and alumni. Faculty are successful in promoting their interests only in so far as they can induce significant support from the other constituencies. This holds true as well for matters which have traditionally been recognized in higher education as being within the special competence of the faculty, for example, academic and curriculum issues. An ASHE-ERIC 1985 Higher Education Report notes that most higher education institutions have an academic Senate in which faculty members hold a majority of the seats and further notes that faculty remain uncomfortable about the involvement of nonfaculty constituencies in deliberations on many academic matters (Floyd, pp. 19, 27). A Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching 1987 report urges faculty to support a representative, campus-wide faculty Senate capable of handling all matters relating to the institution's academic core (Bover, p. 246).

In this context an issue which may be raised is that between two models or philosophies of governance: shared authority versus separate jurisdiction. To examine and debate this issue is beyond the scope of this report (although such an examination may have to take place at some

level as the structures of University governance are reexamined at Villanova).

Another issue which may be raised is the diminutive role of the faculty within the context of the "shared authority" model illustrated by the fact that the faculty are only allocated thirteen (13) of forty-one (41) seats. There is nothing inherent in the "shared authority" model or even in the concept of a "tripartite" Senate which requires equality of vote between the constituencies. Indeed, the Kaya-Carton Report strongly implies that the administration vote should be reduced by having their ex-officio members serve without a vote. The Report explicitly recommends "the modification of administrative representation and voting." Professor Kaya-Carton discerned difficulties with the tripartite composition which allows Deans and Vice Presidents a "double or triple dip into the process of making policy." Deans make some decisions within their units and 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. Interestingly, some administrative officers serving on the Senate were described by Kaya-Carton as being "not completely comfortable about voting at the Senate" (Kaya-Carton, pp. 4-5).

Reinforcement for the reduction of administrative seats on the University Senate also may be found in one of the recommendations of the Institutional Self-Study Villanova University (prepared for the Commission on Higher Education Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools -February 1980):

The university Senate should be reformed by reducing the number of

administrative senators, increasing the number of faculty senators, and

clearly giving power to the Senate to establish guidelines in procedural

matters. Alternatively, a Faculty Senate might be established. (p. 62)

Additionally, there may be good reason to reduce the number of student seats on the Senate. There is no comparison between faculty and students regarding length of tenure at the University, experience in higher education, commitment to the goals of the institution, maturity of judgment, etc. To suggest equality of influence in governance by equality of number of votes may not be warranted. The "bottom-line" recommendation is that if a tripartite Senate is to continue, it is essential and appropriate that the faculty have at most a majority of seats or at least a plurality of seats. Until that happens, the University Senate must be regarded as being an extremely limited vehicle for faculty participation in University governance.

APPENDICES

(a) From the section of the 1980 Villanova University Institutional Self-Studv entitled: Faculty Perception of the University

The Senate is frequently dismissed as impotent, dominated by the Administration, and subject to residential vetoes as well as vetoes by the Board of Trustees. Interestingly, those faculty who served during 1978/79 in the Senate, the Rank and Tenure Committee, the Faculty Affairs Committee, or as elected officers of the Faculty Assembly are nearly unanimous in this view of Senate weakness. In the faculty as a whole, 41.5% perceive the Senate as doing an unsatisfactory job and 26.3% perceive it as doing a satisfactory job; 32.2% of the 236 faculty members who responded consider the Senate's performance neither satisfactory or unsatisfactory. On the basis of the above data, it appears that the more involved one gets with the Senate, the more dissatisfied one becomes. The faculty (and some administrators) see either a large increase in faculty representation or a faculty senate as possible remedies, although some faculty see collective bargaining by the faculty as the only solution. A few faculty membershope for a greater role for the Faculty Assembly. (p. 57)

From the Appendixes to the Institutional Self-Study, it is clear that the faculty senators (9 of 11 interviewed) are dissatisfied with the structure of the Senate not with the procedures of the Senate. (p. 6)

Source: Analysis in this section is based on responses to the study faculty questionnaire and interviews with the faculty members of the University Senate, Rank and Tenure, and Faculty Affairs committees, and with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Faculty Assembly for Spring 1979.

(b) From the study of Institutional Goals, prepared for the Program Evaluation Committee in 1986.

Goal Statement: To support the role of the Senate in the governance structure of the University.

Group A: Faculty of Arts & Sciences, part-time faculty, Board of Trustees. Group response rate: 25.9 percent (167 of 644).

CODE IS SHOIJLD BE

1 no importance 4% 4%

2 low importance 23% 7%

3 medium importance 50% 26%

4 high importance 17% 46%

5 extremely high importance 1% 13%

mean = 2.18 mean = 3.61

Group B: Faculty of Commerce & Finance, Engineering, Nursing, Law. Group response rate: 36.6 percent (91/246).

CODE IS SHOULD BE

1 no importance 7% 7%

2 low importance 34% 14%

3 medium importance 41% 21%

4 high importance 13% 40%

5 extremely high importance 3% 13%

mean = 2.72 mean = 3.41

Group C: Staff, Administrative & Professional staff, undergraduate students, graduate students (inc. Law), alumnus/a. Group response rate: 22.2 percent (489/2200).

CODE IS SHOULD BE

1 no importance 3% 3%

2 low importance 20% 7%

3 medium importance 48% 36%

4 high importance 20% 39%

5 extremely high importance 2% 10%

mean - 2.97 mean = 3.50

Summary Table: All groups combined. Group resonse rate: 24.2 percent (747/3090).

CODE IS SHOULD BE

1 no importance 4% 4%

2 low importance 22% 8%

3 medium importance 48% 32%

4 high importance 18% 41%

5 extremely high importance 2% 11%

mean = 2.92 mean = 3.50

Sources

Boyer, Ernest L. College: The Undergraduate Experience in America. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1987.

Floyd, Carol E. Faculty Participation in Decision Making: Necessity or Luxury? ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports, 1985.

Kaya-Carton. Esin. "Report on the Evaluation of Governance at Villanova University." March 1987 (Report prepared for the Program Evaluation Committee).

THE FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

Although the FAC was in existence before the University Senate, it now functions largely as a Senate Standing Committee. As stated in the Constitution and By-laws of the Villanova University Senate:-

It has authority to formulate Senate policies regarding 1) minimal faculty participation in departmental and collegiate and government, 2) University policies on faculty sabbaticals and leaves of absence and 3) it is responsible for the preparation of the Faculty Handbook.

Also it can recommend to the Senate, through its executive committee, standards for faculty compensation, fringe benefits, faculty social and working conditions and faculty duties and obligations to the University. It may also express faculty opinion on any matters of faculty concern. The work of the FAC during the academic years 1982/3 to 1986/7 is considered in the light of the above. Looking first at the 15 motions passed during that period, we would classify them as fol-lows:-

5 were successful in introducing new policy

2 reaffirmed existing policy

2 were successful in initiating procedures but outcomes, if any are not known.

2 were statements of opinion not directly calling for action

4 were unsuccessful in influencing policy.

Those successful in influencing policy were almost all in the area of operations of faculty governance. A draft protocol for the evaluation of Academic Deans was forwarded for the consideration of the Council of Deans (who approved it), the concept of a faculty grievance policy was approved, a grievance policy document was accepted and a version forwarded to the Vice President for Academic Affairs, and the liaison with the Faculty Council was strengthened through the ruling that there should be a representative of the Faculty Council at each FAC meeting. The other successful motion was the adoption and forwarding of procedures to be used in appointment of retirees to Emeritus Professor status, again a faculty matter. The motions with unsuccessful outcomes have varied in nature. One, a University-wide concern, was a motion that if football was re-installed it should not be above the Division 3 level. Unsuccessful motions related to teaching concerns were that University sponsored and financed course/teacher evaluations be discontinued and that a two-tier voting system for the Lindback award be reintroduced. Another motion, unsuccessful in producing favorable results was an expression of faculty disapproval of the 60%increase in parking fees for faculty.

Finally, the statements of opinion not specifying direct action included a motion deploring the action of the Council of Deans in making academic decisions unilaterally (rules on student overloads) and one supporting the efforts of policy makers in establishing fair and equitable retirement arrangements for faculty. We found no basis for assessing whether these FAC opinions had any effect or not.

In general it appears that over the past 5 years the FAC has had some success in influencing operations of faculty governance and also in protecting faculty group interests. It has had considerably less success with motions relating to University-wide matters including academic concerns. One reason for failure appears to be a lack of follow-through to the Senate floor where FAC motions need to be considered and passed in order to become Senate policies or recommendations. A second reason is a propensity to express motions in terms of opinions or intermediate procedures rather than in terms of action leading to desired outcomes. A third reason which applies more widely than simply to the FAC is the seeming relative powerlessness of the faculty in decisions on controversial general matters as compared with the other major University constituencies, i.e. administrators and students.

To this point only formal resolutions have been discussed. Much of the work done by the FAC, however, has not been reflected in motions passed. During the 5 year period studied, the Faculty Handbook was revised. Other issues negotiated were the handling of Blue Cross/Blue Shield insurance, exchanges with Big East schools for faculty dependents, early retirement proposals, improvements in audio-visual aids and facilities, smoking policies and the rights and conditions of part-time faculty.

In summary, the FAC agenda has been most heavily focused on the third of the Dr. Kaya-Carton categories, especially on faculty conditions, benefits and responsibilities, but their deliberations have ranged more broadly over academic matters and university-wide issues. While the governance focus is appropriate for a faculty agency and relatively comprehensive, the FAC would probably have had more influence on university policy if it had expressed its resolutions more operationally and employed follow-through procedures more consistently where these were needed to achieve ratification and implementation.

THE FACULTY COUNCIL

The Faculty Council, in its first five years of existence, has proven to be a fairly effective voice for the faculty. It is probably better than anything else at Villanova, but it still has its problems. It succeeded the Faculty Assembly, which although it spoke for the faculty was only able to generate minimal faculty interest. The Faculty Council generates more interest in part because of its representative character, namely its members represent various parts of Villanova rather than simply having a chairperson as did the Assembly. The Assembly's Salary and Fringe Benefits Committee

was absorbed into the Council and continues to do its good work in recommending to the administration the annual increment and other matters. As always, the recommendations are not necessarily accepted by the Board of Trustees in the final budget.

The Council passed 14 motions of some substance during its first five years. One of them involved forwarding a report of a subcommittee which studied the University's Administrative Rank and Tenure Committee, and that matter is still being investigated by other University groups. Two other items have yet to be acted upon by the administration--starting a day care center and giving an outstanding service award annually--which points to a problem in the administration which obviously does not see an urgency in either of these matters and there is no mechanism for the Council to do anything about this. One final item for which there has been no feedback was

a report on Teaching Effectiveness and its relation to service, promotion and merit raises. This was forwarded to the Rank and Tenure Committee.

An item approved with modification was one to have two faculty members serve on the Board of Trustees' Athletic Committee. The Board agreed to one member, and presumably that is being implemented although the Council has not informed the faculty concerning that point.

One motion which was approved was that the Salary and Fringe Benefits Committee should have periodic dialogue with University officials. Again, one presumes it is being done but we are not told about it.

The motions which have been successfully carried out include having the chairpersons of the Faculty Council, the Faculty Affairs Committee. and the Senate meet to discuss better communications among the three groups, opposing Biscayne College becoming St. Thomas of Villanova, granting Elie Wiesel an honorary Doctorate of Humane Letters, and stating that the new field house (DuPont) should not be just for intercollegiate athletics. Of course, it was hard to opposethe first three and the fourth one was reiterating a point already agreed upon when the building was first approved.

As for the unsuccessful Faculty Council efforts, they included recommendations not to revive football above Div. III level, not having Fall break of a week if it meant starting before Labor Day, and having the Arts and Science Dean chosen from the three candidates recommended by the Search Committee. Each of these items had powerful aroups in opposition--football being alumni, athletic, and the Trustees themselves, Fall break being the students with administrative support, and

the Dean's position being the Augustinian order itself led by the President.

This survey of the motions approved by the Council shows that matters of little or no controversy will be carried out but that matters with opposition will not be, which leads to a further conclusion that the faculty carries very little weight at Villanova in matters where there is a concerted opposition to the faculty viewpoint. This is not only sad, it is intolerable, because the faculty is the heart of the University. Students and administrators come and go, Trustee members

come and go, and the alumni are not physically present most of the time. The faculty is the

constant, and yet the best instrument we have to express faculty concerns, the Council, cannot achieve its goals in areas of dispute. The problem does not lie in access to the administration,

as the Council reports to the Academic Vice-President who in turn funnels the motion to the appropriate entity--Faculty Affairs Committee or Senate President. The problem lies in that the faculty is not taken all that seriously when pitted against other elements at Villanova. That is an attitudinal problem and therefore is difficult to overcome. Part of the problem is caused by the faculty themselves as the bulk of them are so complacent that they rely upon a few colleagues to fight their battles for them and they accept the outcome without any thought of trying to change it. True, some might gripe a bit, but that is the extent of it. Thus, until the faculty becomes more organized and involved, few will take it seriously when controversial issues arise. How to make the faculty do this is a question for which there is no set answer, but surely an attempt must be made.

As for the Faculty Council itself, it should formalize its proceedings better; for example, it depends upon the good will of the Academic Vice President for access for its motions, which is fine aslong as that person is receptive. However, an unreceptive person could effectively stymie the Council. Thus, the access to the Academic Vice President should be put in writing, and there should also be a time limit imposed as to when action must be taken on a Council motion. It is intolerablethat some approved motions have no action taken on them whatsoever by the President and/or the Board. Internally, the Council must inform the faculty as to the disposition of the approved motions. We should be told that something has been implemented rather than just presuming it is. One other suggestion in order to give approved motions more weight would be to submit items of major importance to the faculty for a vote. If the overwhelming number of faculty are behind a Council motion it would be more difficult to ignore or reject that motion.

In conclusion, the Faculty Council is good but could be even better given some formalization, but most importantly the attitude of Villanova must change with regard to the faculty, and that change must start with the faculty itself. Complacency is the enemy of progress.

THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS

While the AAUP is not an official governance body in this university, its activities have the potential for influencing policy through its executive's actions and through its information and discussion sessions for faculty on current university issues.

As shown in Appendix 1, its executive committee has attempted to influence some university affairs directly. One attempt consisted of an expression of disagreement with the President's cancellation of an invitation to Dr. Daniel Maguire to give a lecture here. Another attempt was a letter to Fr. Driscoll conveying the results of a faculty poll showing opposition to introducing a week-long break in the Fall semester. These attempts were unsuccessful.

The AAUP chapter organized 9 presentations for faculty over the 1982/3 to 1986/7 academic years, 7 of which were focused on Villanova University policy matters. In the category of university-community wide concerns presentations were made on the role of the Board of trustees in fund-raising, the faculty position on the potential restoration of football, and there was a panel discussion on the 1980 Middle States Self-report findings. In the category of faculty group interests presentations were made on faculty access to their files, faculty evaluation for tenure and promotion, part-time faculty employment policies, and guidelines for new faculty appointments. The category of operations of faculty governance was represented by a panel discussion on the structure and operating procedure of the Rank and Tenure Committee.

These were all controversial issues at the time of the presentation and those attending undoubtedly came to understand the issues better and any input into the decisions that they had achance of making would have been better informed.

To sum up the influence of the AAUP on university governance, there is no showing that its executive's actions have had much influence on university-wide policies. It is however, difficult to estimate the effects of the presentations. They deserve to have had. and may well have had, a significant affect on faculty thinking and voting. On the other hand, their influence would probably have been greater if more faculty had attended the presentations.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In addition to specific recommendations for change, an overall attitudinal change is necessary at Villanova in order to give the faculty a more effective role in governance. That change must start with the faculty itself. In order to be taken seriously by others, the faculty first must take itself seriously; namely it must become aware of the issues affecting the University in general and the faculty in particular, it must act upon those issues as a group and not always rely upon a handful of individuals to do it for them, and it must follow-up on those actions to see that not only are they approved but implemented in a timely manner.

The university has taken steps reflective of a first-class, quality institution of higher learning such as adopting professional management techniques, on-going institutional evaluation, and long-range strategic planning,. among others. This growing professionalism and emphasis on quality has been accompanied by a rise in the expectations of the faculty in such areas as increased standards for rank and tenure, yearly evaluations for merit pay, and increased attention to writing grant proposals, among others. There should be a concomitant rise in the faculty's sense of the important role faculty have at similar quality institutions in the United States. For example, these faculty have primary responsibility for curriculum decisions, play a decisive role in the hiring of colleagues, and have an essential role in university governance.

At Villanova, the administration has tended to take the faculty for granted when it comes to policy-making and often makes decisions without consulting faculty or with only token consultation, and will also either fail to implement policy or will implement it according to their interpretation of the policy. The Board of Trustees, in turn, takes its cue from the administration in the person of the University President, thereby further diluting the role of the faculty. This situation is not consistent with the rightful and proper role the faculty ought to play in a quality institution nor with the "spiritof collegiality" the University Mission Statement emphasizes is important to the achievement of the common goals and objectives of the university community.

As the faculty becomes more involved in policy-making, the administration and the Board will have to work with the faculty in a true partnership. With cooperation a more effective university will evolve. Although it takes many elements to make a university, it is the Faculty who are the constant - students and administrators come and go - but the faculty remain. As has been said before but bears repeating: The faculty is the university.

Recommendations

University Senate

If a tripartite Senate is to continue, the faculty should have a majority, or at the very least, a plurality of seats.

The five ex-officio administrative members of the Senate should not have a vote.

The faculty senators should use the faculty caucus as a means of communication and coordination and should strive for solidarity on issues of faculty concern.

Faculty Affairs Committee

Resolutions should be expressed in terms of actions to be taken in order to achieve the desired outcomes.

The committee should monitor the outcome of any resolutions they pass, and inform the faculty, as a whole, of the outcomes.

Faculty Council

Proceedings should be formalized as follows:-

a) The right of the Council to have access to the Vice President for Academic Affairs should be put in writing.

b) A time limit should be imposed as to when administration should respond to the Council and otherwise take action on a Council motion.

Council should inform faculty as to the disposition of approved motions.

Items of major importance should be submitted to the faculty as a whole, for a vote.

American Association of University Professors

This body should continue its presentations for faculty on current university issues and increased efforts should be made to publicize these events.

General

A liaison committee consisting of representatives from the faculty members of the University, FAC, Faculty Council and the AAUP should be established. The committee's charge would be to provide intergroup communication, coordination and cooperation.

"All right, so I said faculty should have more of a say in

university governance. But did you have to put me

on that blasted committee?

ilT LI@IRONICLE OF HIGIFER EL)UCATION VIVJAN SCOIT illxson

Appendix I

ANALYSIS OF SUBSTANTIVE MOTIONS FROM UNIVERSITY SENATE, FIVE YEARS:

1982/83 through 1986/87

I. University community-wide concerns Senate Admin.

a. priorities-policy

1. Commitment to increased effort to recruit & retain A A minority students.

2. Monitor university resources to insure resources A A*

do not promote human rights violations.

(*Board passed separate resolution)

b. expenditures-budget

1. Approve 1986-87 budget A OA (Note: annual approval of budget and planning &

priorities report not included unless significant

faculty opposition)

2. Staff should receive same percentage salary increase D

as faculty.

c. conditions and services

1. Increase operating hours of Falvey Library A A

2. Review athletic proaram including football A A

3. Establish fall break of one week A A

4. Establish a Day Care Center A ?

5. Classes not start before Labor Day A O A

6. Establish a fall break of one week even if classes A O A

begin before Labor Day

II. Academic concerns

a. teaching

1. Add"minuses" to grading system D

2. Academic honor code A A*

(*Approved with qualifications-will study)

3. 65-day minimum semester inviolate A A

II. Academic concerns (cond.) Senate Admin.

4. One reading day mandatory, two if possible each A A

semester

5. Add "minuses" to grading system A ?*

(*President said he will approve, 12/4/87)

6. Define meaning of letter grades A ?

b. research

none

c. physical facilities

1. Endorse as highest priority construction of A 0

academic building - classrooms & offices

III. Faculty group interests

a. benefits

1. Income from tuition in excess of targeted figures D

dedicated to increase in faculty salaries & other

areas of importance

2. Amend Priorities report: make it one of "highest A O

priorities" to make faculty salaries competitive

with faculties of similar institutions

3. Make effort to increase faculty & staff salaries A 0

by 7% instead of 6% in 1986/87 budget

4. Approve 1987/88 budget subject to approval of A O*D

"double-bump" approach to faculty contracts

(*double-bump rejected by Board)

b. conditions

1. Emeritus status for professors & associate professors A A

2. Three motions on changes in Tenure policy to A A be incorporated into Faculty Handbook - sent

to Faculty Affairs Committee

Senate Admin.

IV. Operations of faculty governance

a. internal (between faculty groups

1. Change Faculty Assembly to Faculty Council A A in Senate Constitution (F.C. thus recognized)

2. Faculty representation on Senate be increased A A

by one and that shall always be the chairman of

Faculty Council - who shall thus be seated

independently of his college affiliation

b. external ( with administration and Board)

1. Faculty elected to Senate Rank & Tenure Comm. A A shall always be the faculty representatives on

Administrative Rank & Tenure Committee

2. One faculty seat on Senate Rank & Tenure A A Committee allotted to sciences constituency

Code: A = approved

D = disapproved

O = formal action not needed

OA = informal approval

OD = informal disapproval

? = no action or action unknown (as of 12/4/87)

Analysis of Substantive Motions from Faculty Affairs Committee.

5 years, 1982/3 through 1986/7.

All motions mentioned were passed at the FAC level.*

*Unsuccessful = Action/Policy not implemented

Successful = Action/Policy implemented

No Evidence = FAC did not proceed further with this motion or we cannot find evidence that they did so.

University Community - wide concerns

a. priorities - policy

1) If football is to be re-installed it should not be above the Unsuccessful

Division III level (No evidence)

b. conditions and services

1) Security to be asked to investigate campus speeding and Successful

parking conditions.

2) Fr. Gallen requested to ask Fr. Rice to investigate Successful

performance of housekeeping at Mendel Hall.

Academic Concerns

a. Teaching

1) University sponsored and financed course Unsuccessful

and teacher evaluations be discontinued. (No Evidence)

2) To revert to a 2-tier voting system for the Lindback Unsuccessful

award. (No Evidence)

3) FAC deplores action of Council of Deans in making Action not needed.

academic decisions unilaterally (Rules about student overloads)

b. Research

1. To reaffirm existing University policy re Faculty Research with Action not needed.

outside agencies.

2. Any disagreement over the propriety of undertaking a particular Action not needed.

research project, should be adjudicated through the grievance

appeal system.

Faculty Group Interests

a. Benefits.

1) FAC recognizes importance of establishing fair and equitable Action not needed

retirement arrangements and supports efforts of policy makers.

b. Conditions

1) Accepted report on procedures to be used in selecting those for the Successful

Professor Emeritus status - reportto be forwarded to the VPAA.

2) FAC appalled at the 60% increase in parking fees for faculty. Unsuccessful

(No evidence)

Operations of Faculty Governance

a. Internal (between faculty groups)

There should be a representative of the Faculty Council at each Successful

FAC meeting

b. External (with administration and board)

1) Draft protocol for the Evaluation of Academic Deans to be Successful

forwarded from FAC to the VPAA for consideration of the

Council of Deans.

2) Concept of a Grievance policy approved. Successful

3) Grievance policy document accepted and a version forwarded Successful

to the VPAA

Resolutions from Faculty Council, 1982/3 through 1986/7

University Community-wide concerns

1. Opposed Biscayne becoming St. Thomas of Villanova Successful

2. Grant Elie Wiesel an honorary Doctorate of Humane Letters Successful

3. Field House (DuPont) not just for intercollegiate athletics Successful

4. Revived football should not be above Div. III Unsuccessful

5. Start a day care center No action yet

6. Opposed Fall break of a week if it meant starting before Labor Day Unsuccessful

Academic Concerns

1. Arts & Science Dean should be chosen from the three candidates Unsuccessful

recommended by the Search Committee

2. Give an Outstanding Service Award annually No action yet

3. Recommendations for highest priority, funds for the increase No action yet

of academic space

Faculty group interests

Salary & Fringe Benefits Committee should have periodic dialogue Uncertain

with officials

Operations of Faculty Governance

1. Chairpersons of Faculty Council, FAC, & Senate should meet to discuss Successful

better communications among the three groups

2. Two faculty members should serve on the Board of Trustees' Athletic

Committee -- Decision was that one should serve - do not know if it is

in effect yet

3. Approved report of the subcommittee studying the University's Administrative

Rank and Tenure Committee -- Forwarded it

Analysis of Topics dealt with by the Association of American University Professors 1982/3 to 1986/7

(Executive matters and public events)

University - Community - wide concerns

a. Priorities - policy.

1) Advocated finalization of Protocol for the Evaluation Successful.

2) Presentation - Role of the Board of Trustees in fundraising.

3) Presentation - What should the Faculty position be on the

restoration of Villanova University football?

4) expression of disagreement with President's cancellation of

invitation to lecture extended to Dr. Daniel Maguire

5) Presentation - Panel Discussion on Middle States Self-Report

Findings.

6) Presentation - What is a Catholic University?

Faculty group interests

b. Conditions

1) Presentation - Miriam Gafni on Faculty rights and liability.

2) Presentation - Legal Access to Faculty files by Faculty member (Fr. Gallen) and

Faculty Evaluation for tenure and promotion.

3) Opposed week-long break in Fall semester - faculty poll and letter to Fr. Driscoll.

4) Presentation - Part time faculty employment practices at Villanova University.

5) Presentation - Discussion of guidelines for New Faculty appointments.

Operations of Faculty Governance

a. Internal (between Faculty Groups)

1) Physics Dept. grievance - Advice on Procedure to Physics Dept. Faculty

b. External (with administration and board)

Presentation - Panel Discussion on Structure and Operating procedures of the

Rank and Tenure Committee.

APPENDIX II

Excerpt from:-

JOINT STATEMENT ON GOVERNMENT OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES

V. The Academic Institution: The Faculty

The faculty has primary responsibility for such fundamental areas as curriculum, subject matter and methods of instruction, research, faculty status, and those aspects of student life which relate to the educational process. On these matters the power of review or final decision lodged in the governing board or delegated by it to the president should be exercised adversely only in exceptional circumstances, and for reasons communicated to the faculty. It is desirable that the faculty should, following such communication, have opportunity for further consideration and further transmittal of its views to the president or board. Budgets, manpower limitations, the time element, and the policies of other groups, bodies, and agencies having jurisdiction over the institution may set limits to realization of faculty advice.

The faculty sets the requirements for the degrees offered in course, determines when the requirements have been met, and authorizes the president and board to grant the degrees thus achieved.

Faculty status and related matters are primarily a faculty responsibility; this area includes appointments, reappointments, decisions not to reappoint, promotions, the granting of tenure, and dismissal. The primary responsibility of the faculty for such matters is based upon the fact that its judgment is central to general educational policy. Furthermore, scholars in a particular field or activity have the chief competence for judging the work of their colleagues; in such competence it is implicit that responsibility exists for both adverse and favorable judgments. Likewise there is the more general competence of experienced faculty personnel committees having a broader charge. Determinations in these matters should first be by faculty action through established procedures, reviewed by the chief academic officers with the concurrence of the board. The governing board and president should, on questions of faculty status, as in other matters where the faculty has primary responsibility, concur with the faculty judgment except in rare instances and for compelling reasons which should be stated in detail.

The faculty should actively participate in the determination of policies and proceduresgoverning salary increases.

The chairman or head of a department, who serves as the chief representative of his department within an institution, should be selected either by departmental election or by appointment following consultation with members of the department and of related departments; appointments should normally be in conformity with department members' judgment. The chairman or department head should not have tenure in his office. His tenure as a faculty member is a matter of separate right;. he should serve for a stated term but without prejudice to re-election or to reappointment by procedures which involve appropriate faculty consultation. Board, administration, and faculty should all bear in mind that the department chairman has a special obligation to build a department strong in scholarship and teaching capacity.

Agencies for faculty participation in the government of the college or university should be established at each level where faculty responsibility is present. An agency should exist for the presentation of the views of the whole faculty. The structure and procedures for faculty participation should be designed, approved, and established by joint action of the components of the institution. Faculty representatives should be selected by the faculty according to procedures determined by the faculty.

The agencies may consist of meetings of all faculty members of a department, school, college, division, or university system, or may take the form of faculty-elected executive committees in departments and schools and a faculty-elected senate or council for larger divisions or the institution as a whole.

Among the means of communication among the faculty, administration, and governing board now in use are: (1) circulation of memoranda and reports by board committees, the administration, and faculty committees; (2) joint ad hoc committees; (3) standing liaison committees; (4) membership of faculty members on administrative bodies, and (5) membership of faculty members on governing boards. Whatever the channels of communication, they should be clearly understood and observed.

Contact Webmaster
Last Modified: Wed Aug 21 01:40:59 GMT-05:00 2002
Privacy Statement
© Copyright 2005 Villanova University