Shared Governance in Higher Education, Volume 2

New Paradigms, Evolving Perspectives

Sharon F. Cramer

• Publisher: SUNY Press
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781438467443
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Higher Education

Shared Governance in Higher Education Set (Volumes 1, 2 and 3) Building on the resources offered in the first volume of this series, this second volume offers governance members, leaders, and other academics valuable insights into the governance process in higher education. In a chapter drawn from his keynote address at the March 2015 SUNY Voices conference, Steven Bahls, president of Augustana College, provides a critical study of institutions of higher education. Nine additional chapters offer a thorough analysis of academic processes that are usually hidden from view, including development of a sexual assault policy, faculty review of administrators, and successful use of task forces. Contributors describe subtle considerations and compromises, which effective governance leaders can incorporate into collaborations leading to effective outcomes. Readers of this volume will better understand how to avoid pitfalls of their own, as contributors illustrate hard-earned wisdom and lessons learned. Practical insights and guidelines on leadership development, budget development involving governance leaders, and mentoring are provided. This volume will provide readers— faculty, staff, students, and administrators—with the pragmatic resources they need to recognize and resolve governance challenges on their own campuses.

Part I

Evolving a Collaborative Approach
Regarding Shared Governance

1

Empowering Faculty

A Shared Governance Model

Erin Severs and Ronald Labuz

This chapter focuses on a paradigm of shared governance, which emerged via the deliberative processes of a Design Team of faculty at Mohawk Valley Community College. This group had been tasked with developing a new system for the distribution of funds for off-campus professional development. Research associated with implementation is also presented. The authors examine the background and context of both the team and its tasks. The resulting recommendations are also presented.

While unintended, the result of this implementation was the establishment of a faculty-run system that models some of the best features of shared governance. The new system involved faculty at all levels of shared decision-making and has led to faculty empowerment. This chapter, written after the conclusion of the system’s first year of implementation, provides perspective, both on the complete roll out of the new system as well as on plans the All-Campus Committee has for future professional development.

Introduction

In 2012, a group of faculty was empowered to develop a strategy to allocate professional development funds at Mohawk Valley Community College (MVCC). The team was formed by Vice President for Learning and Academic Affairs Dr. Maryrose Eannace, and it was charged with (1) investigating best practices regarding professional development (and associated budgeting) and (2) delivering a proposal to change the existing professional development budget allocations process regarding external professional development. Assistant Professor Erin Severs and Distinguished Teaching Professor Ronald Labuz agreed to co-chair the team (henceforth referred to as the “Work Group”).

Professional development had always been handled with a separation between the budgets for internal and external professional development. Internal professional development was (and continues to be) handled through the programs offered by the Office of Organizational Development. This office sponsors faculty/staff institutes (scheduled three times each year), annual Core Workshops, the New Faculty Institute, and the Leadership Academy. These initiatives were not under the purview of the aforementioned Work Group. It was expected that the internal professional development would remain unchanged. The Work Group was specifically looking at the funding process for external professional development opportunities.

The existing allocations process (reflecting a change six years previous, as is explained herein) was simple: all external professional development funds for faculty were allocated to a single line in the vice president for learning and academic affairs’ annual budget. However, empowering a single individual to make all such budgetary decisions does not reflect the institutional history at Mohawk Valley.

For at least three decades before the college’s reorganization from departments into centers, external professional development funds had been available from three sources: departmental budgets, the Staff Development Committee budget, and (when travel or staff development impacted the college as a whole) the budget of the vice president for learning and academic affairs. The three external professional development budgets were controlled, respectively, by department heads, by a committee of the college senate elected by the college community, and by the vice president.

Several years earlier, in 2008–2009, the college’s academic structure had been reorganized around individual disciplines chaired by department heads with faculty who reported directly to the vice president. In the reorganization, it was decided to change to more broadly organized centers headed by deans, with the support of assistant deans, associate deans, and academic coordinators. These centers introduced a more interdisciplinary approach to the college’s programs, by grouping subject matters and faculty in new and more expansive ways.

There are now six centers:

•The Center for Language and Learning Design, which houses developmental courses, the English as a Second Language program, the honors program, the education programs, and the foreign language programs.

•The Center for Arts and Humanities, which houses literature courses and the arts and humanities programs.

•The Center for Life and Health Sciences, which houses biology, medical, and human-service programs.

•The STEM Center, which houses math and chemistry courses and all engineering and trade programs.

•The Center for Social Sciences, Business, and Information Sciences, which houses all computer science, service industry, and business-related programs.

This new organization allows for greater teamwork across the disciplines and stronger coherence among faculty as a whole.

When the reorganization into centers took place, there was no reduction in available professional development. However, it was decided that distribution of the funds previously contained in the departmental travel budgets and the Staff Development Committee budget would be deferred. All three budgets were combined into one budget line, controlled by the vice president. Three years after the reorganization, our Work Group was charged to evaluate alternatives and make recommendations regarding how Mohawk Valley should allocate the academic professional development funds.

The Work Group began with an investigation of best practices at six different colleges and universities. After spending several months completing this exploration, we discovered that none of the practices reflected the culture of Mohawk Valley.

This culture is the culmination of nearly 70 years of serving the communities of the Mohawk Valley region of upstate New York. MVCC became the first community college in the state of New York in 1953, and it has kept this tradition of innovation and progress ever since. “Building community” and “fostering collegiality” are core principles that are at the foundation of every aspect of the college. Our values statement is: “I believe in you so that you can believe in yourself.” Though primarily about students, this statement can be applied (in a more general sense) to all levels of the college, in that our community works as a team, believing in, and supporting, one another.

With this culture and history in mind, the Work Group, consisting of faculty and administrators from several centers and the library, decided to recommend something completely different from the existing budget allocation process. We decided to make a recommendation to create a distinctive process for budgeting, to uniquely respond to the values and governance structure at Mohawk Valley.

In this chapter, we describe our deliberative process and share our recommendations. We also illustrate the support we received when we decided to recommend a radical shared governance approach, and the progress made thus far in the development of a process that empowers faculty.

Research and Deliberations

The Professional Design Work Group met in the spring and fall semesters of 2012 to develop ideas to create a comprehensive approach to providing external professional development at the college. The charter of the Work Group called for us to complete the following tasks:

1.Research exemplary programs and best practices at other institutions.

2.Define professional development in terms of external opportunities.

3.Inventory existing components and assets related to professional development.

4.Identify key components of comprehensive professional development for faculty and staff at MVCC in relationship to strategic and professional growth.

5.Develop preliminary recommendations to present to the academic deans and college senate for feedback.

6.Develop final recommendations, with preliminary programs and budget needs, to present to the cabinet.

We started the work by examining best practices at five colleges and universities. After discussions with colleagues at other institutions and our internal research, we decided to examine practices at Broward Community College, Clinton Community College, Monroe Community College, SUNY Cortland, and the University of Florida. During several meetings, we discussed how the research would be done and what answers we needed to find. We developed a series of questions to use in interviews with colleagues at these five colleges and universities. Different members of the group were assigned specific institutions. Key questions were:

•How does your institution define professional development?

•How are decisions made regarding funding? Is there a rubric or scoring methodology used to determine fund eligibility? How are conflicts of interest handled?

•What requirements are in place to return value to the institution, for instance, do participants have to deliver a seminar? How is that controlled?

•How is off-campus professional development tied to on-campus development initiatives?

The individual members of the group conducted the research through phone interviews and electronic mail. After the results were compiled, we reported to the group as a whole. Because the five institutions studied differed in size, mission, and state mandates, the research was both interesting and, at times, inapplicable. Some states, for example, require professional development of faculty; New York does not.

Each member of the group discovered specific features that we believed were valuable and instructive in this research. Ideas that were adopted from other institutions include the development of a matrix to evaluate proposals, the requirement that faculty share results with their colleagues, and the recognition that faculty should be encouraged to use professional development funds in creative ways. Despite these specific features, it was discovered that no one model would suit the goals and needs of Mohawk Valley Community College. Rather, after learning about best practices and discussing them, the Work Group decided to frame a unique model for our college. This was largely because the colleges researched were, in many ways, quite different from Mohawk Valley Community College.

Research institutions such as the University of Florida emphasize the ability to foster research opportunities. Smaller community colleges, such as Clinton Community College, do not have sufficient resources to develop a broad-based initiative. Some institutions, such as Broward Community College, have tied professional development tightly to collective bargaining agreements. Other institutions have a very broad-based approach, combining, under the auspices of one office, many different factors related to professional development, including teacher awards, new faculty institutes, external travel, and internal faculty seminars.

Although none of these particular models suited MVCC precisely, the group learned from the practices of each college and university that was studied; as a result of the research, members of the group were in a better position to start envisioning a system that would meet the needs of Mohawk Valley Community College.

After completing this research (point 1 of the charter for the group, “Research exemplary programs and best practices at other institutions”), available resources at the college were discussed (point 3 of the charter, “Inventory existing components and assets related to professional development”). These included the travel and professional funds controlled by the office of the vice president for learning and academic affairs. Additional funds are available through the programs offered by the Office of Organizational Development; these include faculty/staff institutes scheduled three times each year, annual core workshops, the New Faculty Institute, and the Leadership Academy. These initiatives were not under the purview of the work group. However, we discussed ways in which external professional development initiatives and external professional development should be coordinated.

Discussions with college officers and committees directing these different programs were both informative and positive. This support was incredibly important, particularly when it came to the freedom the group had in brainstorming. Though initially there was no intention of a shared governance plan, the fact that the group was founded with the goal of getting away from a single-person top-down approach suggested that there was the potential for broader cross-campus/faculty empowerment.

Next, a working definition of “professional development” was developed (point 2 of the charter, “Define professional development in terms of external opportunities”), as well as methods of how external professional development initiatives and external professional development funding should be coordinated (point 4 of the charter, “Identify key components of comprehensive professional development for faculty and staff at MVCC in relationship to strategic and professional growth”).

Professional development was defined, within the context of the reorganization, as “an external opportunity for faculty and staff to learn and grow personally and professionally, both individually and from each other.” Then the Work Group discussed how to frame a plan that would accomplish two specific purposes: 1) to closely tie professional development to strategic planning; and 2) to create a plan that empowers faculty in the centers in which they teach. The Work Group was now ready to address point 5 of the charter, “Develop preliminary recommendations and present to the Academic Deans and College Senate for feedback.”

Recommendations

Because the teaching professi...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Preface: The State of Shared Governance in the State University of New York
• Introduction
• Editor’s Note: Shared Governance in Higher Education Redefines Community
• Part I. Evolving a Collaborative Approach Regarding Shared Governance
• Part II. Critical Analysis of Shared Governance and Associated Issues
• Part III. Lessons Learned: Governance Leaders Reflect on Their Experiences
• Contributors
• Index
• Back Cover