|
|
Shared governance is
supposed to function at the department and college level. It seems to
work well enough in most departments and the smaller colleges but there
are problems with some of the big colleges where deans have developed the
practice of consulting with department chairs instead of dealing with
properly constituted College Councils.
College of Arts and Science
Until recently the College Council in Arts and Sciences played no
role in budgeting and concerned itself only with promotion and tenure.
Happily the dean has agreed to expand the arena of consultation and is
now discussing the budget and other matters with the Council. We remain
concerned about election procedures for the A&S College Council.
Instead of a transparent process, the final stage of the election is
advisory. Only the Dean knows the tally and he reserves the right to
select someone other than the highest vote getter. Reportedly this is
never actually done. Still, it needs to be straightened out.
School of Medicine
Shared governance appears to be a foreign concept in the School of
Medicine. The feeling is widespread that deans, chairs, and division
chiefs operate without effective faculty consultation. This is true in
some departments and divisions, where chairs sometimes exercise
unilateral authority on a scale that would be scandalous in other parts
of the campus. Effective consultation is also difficult at the College
level. On paper there is an appropriate governance structure: 20
committees and four faculty councils. However the deans control the
appointment/election process and it is not clear whether the councils
have real influence. The problems go beyond structure. Access to
information in the School of Medicine is controlled in a way that is
unhealthy for an academic institution. Faculty members learn little about
the budget, have no sense of how funds are used or how decisions are
made. This has a deleterious effect on morale, which was bad even before
the recent billing scandals and the Dean's unilateral decision about a
multi-million dollar buyout. It is time to bring this large and critical
unit into compliance with university regulations.
Tacoma and Bothell Campuses
All three campuses are currently served by a unitary governance
system that utilizes the Faculty Senate and council structure of the
Seattle campus. Tacoma and Bothell faculty have representation in this
system, but because of the size disparities of the campuses, this is far
from adequate. The pressure for some sort of "home rule"
adjustment is growing and needs to be addressed. The two smaller campuses
should have more control over curriculum, student affairs, and other
issues than the current structure allows. At the same time, it is
important to preserve the integrity of the University Handbook and not
allow its time-proven mechanisms and protections to be shattered in a
confusion of rule making by three different Faculty Senates. Working out
a new structure should be a priority for all three campuses.
|
|
