 |
|
|
|
MWC COC-SACS Home > Committees
> Minutes > Faculty
Governance: 2001 Summary
|
|
SACS
Faculty Governance Committee
Year End Summary, 2000-2001
April 23, 2001
|
Notes
from Committee Meeting on 23 April, 2001
- The committee reviewed some of the issues we
had considered at the previous meeting. Three
committee members presented reports. In answer
to the question of what are the areas of jurisdiction
assigned to the faculty at a university, Jo Tyler
presented her findings. Jo summarized areas of
jurisdiction assigned to the faculty in several
analog institutions. (See
footnote1) The committee discussed
these findings, noting that several institutions
give faculty a voice over matters such as budget
allocation, admissions policy, institutional planning/policy,
and fiscal planning/policy.
- Blair Staley prepared a draft of the three
governance models we have identified so far: the
university model, the functional model, and the
proportional model. His report also incorporating
some of the issues we have been considering regarding
faculty representation and how governance might
be structured (See footnote
2) Much discussion about which might be the
best model. Proportional representation would
seem logical at this point, but what about in
10 years? Would we need a transitional form of
governance leading up to the recommendation that
the institution adopt a functional form of governance?
- Wendy Price presented her analysis of faculty
governance structures at some of the institutions
we have studied. She identified each institution
according to its faculty governance model (university/functional/proportional).
|
Fall
2000 Summary
- Questioned and attempted to clarify starting
assumption that the two campuses are to remain
"academically independent of the academic units"
of each. The committee understands that this is
the current state of things. Is this the best
structure for the future?
- Discussed how to come up with a vision of how
the two faculty constituencies would interact
in a university structure. Research needed. Began
looking at other institutions.
- Identified other issues of current faculty
concern: non-tenure at JMC, expectation and retention
of faculty, class size, use of adjuncts, teaching
load, start-up funds for new faculty research,
faculty-student ratio, continuing appointments
at MWC.
|
Spring
2001 Summary
- Drafted research questions for the committee
- Reviewed information collected from other institutions.
Narrowed our list of analogs to a few institutions
we are going to study further.
- Reviewed governance structure of seven institutions.
Decided on two we will visit in the fall. Teleconferencing
as a possibility to seek answers from other institutions
we will not visit.
|
To
do for Fall 2001
- Continue our research of analogs. Focus on
issues of concern to faculty.
- Think of questions we might want to ask the
faculty at both campuses. Draft a survey to faculty
in an attempt to anticipate changes in faculty
issues.
- Focus interview with selected members of the
faculty and administration.
- Finish collecting data on systems of governance.
Decide on a model of governance we will be recommending
for the near future, for the long-term benefit
of the institution
|
| THANKS EVERYONE! |
|
|
This
Page Last Modified on:
April 24, 2002
|
|
|
|
![[MWC Home Page]](../../../images/footer/mwcfooter.jpg)
![[James Monroe Center Home Page]](../../../images/footer/jmcfooter.gif)