Governance Retreat – Wednesday, January 24, 9:00-4:00

Pre-retreat homework: AAUP statement on shared governance (

9:00 – arrival; bagels, fruit, coffee

9:15 – Introductory matters

  • Welcome; outline for the day
  • Ground rules for the day
  • E.g., proposal on confidentiality: (a) conversations - who said what - are confidential; (b) facts and the content recommendations are only confidential if explicitly made confidential; (c) that a decision/recommendation has been made is basically never confidential

9:30 – Opening discussion: AAUP’s statement on shared governance and shared governance at Saint Mary’s, including the particular topic of BARC

Goals:

  1. Identification of shared principles / goals that faculty leadership wishes to emphasize in its own work (internal) and in work with the administration/board (external)
  2. Identification of specific next steps we wish to take (e.g., faculty advisory committee to board of trustees)
  3. Debrief on the President’s remarks about BARC at the Jan 17 Senate meeting

10:35 – Break

10:45 – Overview of specific issues that need to be addressed(see below)

11:00 – Sub-groups (4) discussing and proposing solutions to these specific issues

12:30 – Lunch

12:45 – (still eating lunch) Reports of sub-groups on proposals to large group, including Q&A

1:30 – Return to subgroups to craft FH language to propose to the Senate

Conclusion – when FH language is complete (no later than 4:00, probably earlier)

************************************************************************************

Specific issues that need to be addressed (followed by questions to be answered):

  1. Lines of authority and specific responsibilities of CCC and CCC Chair, Dean of the Core, and the Senate re: matters of the Core
  2. What are the specific responsibilities of the CCC and CCC Chair?
  3. What are the specific responsibilities of the Dean of the Core, with respect to Core Curriculum decision-making?
  4. In what ways does the CCC Chair report to the Senate? In what ways to the Dean of the Core?
  5. Who reviews petitions / makes exceptions to Core requirements?
  6. Who has the authority to pull designations, (dis)approve individual faculty teaching in the Core?
  7. The CCC is the only committee that the Senate keeps tabs on. For example, the Working Groups are (formally) to be appointed by the Senate not the CoC. The Chair of the CCC is appointed in the odd combo way by the Senate, rather than being elected (e.g. Senate Chair), selected from membership (R&T, FWC), or appointed by Dean (Jan Term, Seminar). JT and CS seem to function ok with (largely) elected faculty governing boards and chair appointed by the Dean with consultation of the governing boards. Should the CCC be the same? Should the Senate continue to control Working Group appointments?
  8. Demarcation of authority over educational policy between UEPC/GPSEPC, CCC, and AARC
  9. What areas of educational policy belong to each group?
  10. Which group(s) should include the directors of Seminar and Jan Term in their membership?
  11. Who has authority over undergraduate “professional” courses, esp. in light of the shift of much of the education curriculum to the undergraduate level?
  12. Who decides how “redesignation” of Core courses should proceed?
  13. Committee workload balance, elections, appointments, and reassigned time
  14. Should all/some faculty positions be elected? Appointed?
  15. Who has authority to appoint faculty to committees?
  16. How can we balance community service workload among the faculty?
  17. How should reassigned times for service on Senate committees be allocated?
  18. Building structures to foster a culture of deliberation
  19. Should there be a standing meeting of all chairs of elected committees?
  20. Should we restore the EPB?
  21. Should we have a regular time/space for campus-wide discussions of major issues?
  22. What do we want to do with community time?