shared governance at umass
according to a paper on university governance written by chancellor lombardi before he came to umass, democracy is "charming" and "well-intentioned", though "ineffective because it doesn't start with the measurable things" and should be set aside.
governance policy at umass is one of shared governance. that means that different administrative areas are governed by different university constituencies, subject to overall control by the board of trustees. in general terms, students govern student affairs, faculty govern academic affairs, and the administration governs administrative affairs. in addition, both students and faculty are entitled "when appropriate" to be consulted in long-term planning and budget issues, as well as other matters affecting the university as a whole. these policies are set out in the trustee document known as the wellman document.
the policy of joint governance at umass dates from the 1970s, and is rooted in principles articulated by the american association of university professors. it is of note that the wellman document gives quite a bit more power to students than AAUP's formulation does. the massachusetts legislature, as well, has enacted laws intended to give students a fair degree of voice in university matters. chapter 75, section 14b of the massachusetts general laws, which requires the board of trustees to pay attention to broadly-constituted campus councils, is a good example of university policy that respects the voices of the different stakeholders.
the benefits of the governance model are clear. the wellman document recognizes that
examples of successful organizational initiatives by umass students, faculty and staff abound. the committee for the collegiate education of black and other minority students was founded not by an administrative effort, but through the work of a few faculty members who observed that the lack of support for black students was a major reason for the virtual absence of black students on campus. the program was so successful that it spawned similar support programs for latin@, asian, and native american students. the office of ALANA affairs, originally called the office of third world affairs, was created by students to advocate and provide services for students of color in response to administrative inattention. it remained funded by student government and under student programmatic control until this past july, when it was hijacked by the student affairs office. similarly, the commuter services and housing resource center was created by student governments in response to the administration's unwillingness or inability to provide resources for commuters, and the student legal services office (originally the legal services office) was created by students to respond to students' need for legal services. unions were organized by different groups of campus workers to improve wages and working conditions across campus.
contrast university policy with the vision of chancellor lombardi, articulated in his paper "university improvement: the permanent challenge":
there is a contradiction between the stated commitment of the university to shared governance, as formulated in trustee policy, and lombardi's hostility to democratic governance, which the trustees have effectively endorsed by hiring him. if there is going to be investment in the university from students, parents, staff, and other communities in which an accessible university education is seen as a socially desirable goal, this contradiction needs to be resolved in favor of governance, not lombardi-style management.
governance policy at umass is one of shared governance. that means that different administrative areas are governed by different university constituencies, subject to overall control by the board of trustees. in general terms, students govern student affairs, faculty govern academic affairs, and the administration governs administrative affairs. in addition, both students and faculty are entitled "when appropriate" to be consulted in long-term planning and budget issues, as well as other matters affecting the university as a whole. these policies are set out in the trustee document known as the wellman document.
the policy of joint governance at umass dates from the 1970s, and is rooted in principles articulated by the american association of university professors. it is of note that the wellman document gives quite a bit more power to students than AAUP's formulation does. the massachusetts legislature, as well, has enacted laws intended to give students a fair degree of voice in university matters. chapter 75, section 14b of the massachusetts general laws, which requires the board of trustees to pay attention to broadly-constituted campus councils, is a good example of university policy that respects the voices of the different stakeholders.
the benefits of the governance model are clear. the wellman document recognizes that
the variety and complexity of (the university's) tasks require and ensure the interdependence of the governing board, the administration, the faculty, and the students, as well as other groups.and that
not mentioned by the trustees, but equally valid, is that vesting power in multiple constituencies is an antidote to the shortsightedness, narrow vision and slavish devotion to trends that often characterize administrative bureaucracies.
certain components of the University, such as the President’s Office, the campus administrations, and the representative and administrative governing bodies of the faculty and the students have, by virtue of interest, training, and experience, a special concern and competence in certain areas.
examples of successful organizational initiatives by umass students, faculty and staff abound. the committee for the collegiate education of black and other minority students was founded not by an administrative effort, but through the work of a few faculty members who observed that the lack of support for black students was a major reason for the virtual absence of black students on campus. the program was so successful that it spawned similar support programs for latin@, asian, and native american students. the office of ALANA affairs, originally called the office of third world affairs, was created by students to advocate and provide services for students of color in response to administrative inattention. it remained funded by student government and under student programmatic control until this past july, when it was hijacked by the student affairs office. similarly, the commuter services and housing resource center was created by student governments in response to the administration's unwillingness or inability to provide resources for commuters, and the student legal services office (originally the legal services office) was created by students to respond to students' need for legal services. unions were organized by different groups of campus workers to improve wages and working conditions across campus.
contrast university policy with the vision of chancellor lombardi, articulated in his paper "university improvement: the permanent challenge":
Universities for the most part do not have management; they have governance. Governance is the political process that balances the various competing interests of the institution though a complicated and lengthy process. The characteristic of university governance is consensus. Consensus for a university normally results in modest and superficial change in the general operations of the institution, especially in terms of money and incentives... To improve, the university must have management. It must have direction. The institution must consult, it must meet, it must listen, and it must respond to all the information, opinion, and advice from its many constituencies, but it must nonetheless act, and it often must act without complete consensus.these lines are quoted approvingly in the lazare report, the final document produced by a trustee-appointed task force on the future of umass amherst, a landmark report that set out the path down which the campus is now being led. in the same paper, lombardi belittles the notions of accountability and (democratic) governance:
Much public conversation turns on elaborate discussions of accountability and governance. Most of this is charming, well intentioned, but ultimately ineffective because it does not start with the measurable things.lombardi doesn't explain why governance and accountability are at odds with measurement, nor does any reason spring to mind. what is fairly obvious is that different campus constituencies have different priorities, which might be promoted by use of different sorts of measures. lombardi's concerns might be measured in federal research dollars and average SAT scores, while the concerns of employees might be measured in salaries and dollar values of benefits, and the concerns of students might be measured in the dollar values of tuition and fees, or in percentages expressing diversity benchmarks.
there is a contradiction between the stated commitment of the university to shared governance, as formulated in trustee policy, and lombardi's hostility to democratic governance, which the trustees have effectively endorsed by hiring him. if there is going to be investment in the university from students, parents, staff, and other communities in which an accessible university education is seen as a socially desirable goal, this contradiction needs to be resolved in favor of governance, not lombardi-style management.
posted by Uri at 2:41 PM
<< Home