Storti, however, was being facetious. He went on to declare that faculty governance is not quite dead yet, rebutting each of the three causes of death:

Storti, president of the UW chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and a mechanical engineering professor, was only one of several speakers at the forum, sponsored by the Faculty Senate as part of the Conversation About the Future. And although they disagreed on many points, the speakers all seemed to agree that the ideal of shared governance - that is, that the faculty should share with the administration in the governing of the University - is currently under threat and something should be done.

Faculty Senate Chair Gerry Philipsen cited many successes of shared governance over the last two years, most prominently revisions to the Faculty Code involving faculty salaries and the promotional process. Working in shared governance’s favor, Philipsen said, is the fact that the administration “has a vested interest that the public not see us as divided.”

Philipsen also noted that under the present system, there are serious limitations to shared governance. It can be difficult, he said, to get the faculty to serve when the rewards for doing so are informal. The Faculty Senate is underfunded and the administration controls its budget. The administration also has control of data and makes overall budgetary decisions. Faculty Senate legislation must be approved by the administration to be binding.

“We have a small share of shared governance,” Philipsen concluded. “We must use all our resources and hope for cooperation from the administration.” While noting that the current president has been collaborative in his dealings with faculty, he wondered what would happen with a less cooperative administration.

Philipsen said he saw two possible means to increase faculty participation - unionization and increasing power and resources to the present system. He preferred the second alternative.

James West, professor of Slavic Languages and Literature, raised questions instead of stating opinions. Chair of the Faculty Senate in 1981-82 when the University was forced to cut its budget by 10 percent because of a state economic crisis, West noted that he is a member of AAUP and favors professional organization in principle, but in practice he sees “complexity and contradictions.”

His first question was, “Who speaks for the faculty?” Noting that professors as a rule “like to speak but insist on speaking for themselves,” he said that faculty are likely to “resist any decisions made on their behalf.” Such a stance clashes with union culture, in which it is clear who speaks - the elected union leader.

West then questioned the politics of cooperation vs. confrontation. Faculty, he said, tend to see unions as being about confrontation while they prefer cooperation. But he argued that the matter is not that clear-cut. Leadership - whether from a union or the Faculty Senate - should be able to adopt cooperation or confrontation as a strategy, depending on what the occasion demands.

Finally, West questioned who would be at a bargaining table for faculty. Would the other side be the administration, the Legislature, or both? Would the faculty side be the AAUP, a UW union, a state faculty union or some other organization?

Three respondents answered the speakers’ prepared remarks. Law Professor Lea Vaughn - who noted she had once practiced labor law on the union side - said the Faculty Senate vs. union dichotomy begs the question and in some sense is ultimately irrelevant. Instead, she believes faculty should look at the larger question of how to share power, whether as a union or as a senate. Vaughn, who is also the secretary of the faculty, said that the percentage of successful first contracts has declined nationwide and that the faculty should place its emphasis on “creating successful first agreements in areas of vital interest.”

Comparing the faculty/administration situation to a marriage, Vaughn said the relationship is “at one of those thorny points. We need to remember,” she said, “that there is always going to be conflict and that’s OK. It’s from conflict that we grow and change.”

President Richard L. McCormick opened his remarks by noting that he believes in shared governance and that his understanding of it is very close to that quoted by Storti in the 1956 statement. After delineating areas of academic authority delegated almost exclusively to the faculty, he listed several areas of shared power: the development of the legislative program, budget allocations, the appointment of deans and the response to changes in the external environment, such as Initiative 200.

“I believe the UW has been successful at shared governance,” McCormick said, “much more so than at the other universities I’ve been involved with - Rutgers and the University of North Carolina.”

Responding to Philipsen’s comments, McCormick said he was willing to discuss greater investments in faculty governance. Then, noting that he would probably be regarded as “chicken” if he didn’t talk about unions, he said he had been a member of AAUP at Rutgers for 13 years before being kicked out when he became a dean.

The last respondent, Regent Cindy Zehnder, noted that she had been a union organizer in the past and believes that workers need to be organized in some form, which may or may not be a union. The question, she said, is what is the most effective organization for a particular group. She cited three important factors to consider when determining if a union is the appropriate form: Is there a commonality of interests among workers, is there a commitment by both members and leaders to sustain the organization and is there something of value to be gained by organizing.

But, from her observations of the political environment for higher education, Zehnder said she thought the current argument about faculty governance was somewhat like fiddling while Rome burns. The entire institution, she said, is being threatened by a lack of financial support and the situation may only get worse after the next election. She cited as an example an initiative that would eliminate the state’s portion of property taxes. “Don’t ignore the other partner in your enterprise - the Legislature and ultimately, the citizens,” she said. “The biggest challenge facing us is to change the opinion of our citizens so that they will want to fund higher education.” ¶

Nancy Wick