Bob Barber Site Admin Joined: 21 Oct 2003 Posts: 11 PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2003 6:25 am Post subject: Welcome to the discussion on shared governance Reply with quote Colleagues, Welcome to the discussion on governance. Your thoughts and comments on the following questions will help guide the faculty representatives on the governance task force. Please use this discussion board to share your thoughts and discuss with others. Each of the the first four posts is a discussion question to help start the dialogue. Feel free to discuss these questions and/or start your own topic. Faculty representatives to the Governance Task Force Fall 2003: Faculty Council: Bob Barber (CIT) and Karen Louise White (Math) LCCEA: Jim Salt (Social Science) and Stan Taylor (Social Science) Bob Barber Site Admin Joined: 21 Oct 2003 Posts: 11 PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2003 6:56 am Post subject: Question: Meaning of Shared Governance Reply with quote Does the concept of Òshared governanceÓ have a particular meaning to you? What is that meaning? How important is this concept to you? Back to top View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Judy Mikesch McKenzie Joined: 31 Oct 2003 Posts: 1 PostPosted: Fri Oct 31, 2003 8:41 am Post subject: Reply with quote I think it's important to distinguish between "shared governance," "consensus governance" and "collective governance" and to recognize that these are NOT the same concept. A shared governance system is inclusive, open, and has strong lines of communication, with a clear understanding of where authority rests for any given decision. It does not mean that concensus is necessary for every decision or that the system somehow fails if there is not collective and/or consensual process for every decision. _________________ Judith Mikesch McKenzie, M.A. ALS Faculty Lane Community College Bob Barber Site Admin Joined: 21 Oct 2003 Posts: 11 PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2003 6:32 am Post subject: Question: Important Elements of Shared Governance Reply with quote What do you think are the most important elements the governance system must embody or contain? Back to top View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail kenz Joined: 29 Oct 2003 Posts: 2 PostPosted: Wed Oct 29, 2003 3:54 pm Post subject: Reply with quote A governance system must have decision making as one of its important elements. Mechanisms for decision making, and distinctions between different types of decisions, should be part of a governance system. Back to top View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Bob Barber Site Admin Joined: 21 Oct 2003 Posts: 11 PostPosted: Thu Oct 30, 2003 12:13 pm Post subject: Reply with quote kenz wrote: A governance system must have decision making as one of its important elements. Mechanisms for decision making, and distinctions between different types of decisions, should be part of a governance system. Ken, would you give some examples of what you mean by "different types of decisions"? Thanks! Bob Barber Site Admin Joined: 21 Oct 2003 Posts: 11 PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2003 7:02 am Post subject: Question: Decisions on Representation Reply with quote Faculty participants in the governance committee are taking the position that constituencies such as the faculty should be able to choose their own representatives to governance bodies. For example, instead of the administration deciding that a certain issue merits faculty union involvement, and another issue merits Faculty Council involvement, the system should be designed so that both the faculty union and faculty council are entitled to participation, and each decides whether participating is important or appropriate relative to its mandate and responsibilities. Do you agree with this viewpoint? Or have a different idea? Bob Barber Site Admin Joined: 21 Oct 2003 Posts: 11 PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2003 6:58 am Post subject: Question: Faculty Realm of Authority Reply with quote One way of describing facultyÕs role in shared governance is in the context of Òrealms of authority.Ó One way of describing the facultyÕs Òrealm of authorityÓ is to identify it as pertaining to student learning and the academic program through such mechanisms as degrees, curricula, the creation of learning environments, and related budgetary and technology matters. What do you think of these ideas? What are faculty accountable for in this realm? Would you describe facultyÕs role differently? How? Why? kenz Joined: 29 Oct 2003 Posts: 2 PostPosted: Thu Nov 06, 2003 2:49 pm Post subject: A radical notion: Democracy Reply with quote After attending a number of discussions on the governance issue, and pondering over my own ideas, I realized that I had heard no mention of democracy as a value or as a possible process for decision-making. It struck me as quite amazing that the notion hadn't even entered into our considerations. Isn't this America, the home of democracy, after all? With that in mind, I wrote the following, which was posted to the faculty email list by Bill Griffiths, along with a number of other comments by faculty members. I'd be interested to hear responses to my general idea, and perhaps some practical suggestions about how to implement a more democratic governance structure at Lane. I'll also post any new thinking about this model I have on this board. Models of Shared Governance Governance is decision-making. Shared governance, then, allows the stake-holders in a particular decision to participate in the making of that decision. I want to suggest that there are 3 quite different models of shared governance, and to offer some critiques of each one. First is the "input" model, which allows interest groups to offer input to the decision-makers, but leaves the actual decision-making power in the hands of an individual or small group. Input may come from the community at large, or from a selected group of experts on the issue. I believe this is the common model at Lane. Committees or work teams are formed to investigate an issue or set of issues. The work team puts forward to the decision-makers a set of suggestions, and then a decision is made, presumably based on these recommendations. Such a system often hides the real basis for decisions, and the interest groups who have participated can be left wondering how their input was actually used by the decision-makers. In this model, input can be selectively used or ignored by the decision-makers, with little accountability back to the college as a whole as to the reasons for the particular decision. A second type of system, the "republic", or representative model of shared governance selects representatives of various interest groups to actually make the decisions, trusting that these representatives are fully aware of their interest group's views and will put those perspectives forward into the decision-making process. This model is also used at Lane, though most often in combination with the "input" model above. Thus a committee is formed, "representative" members of various groups are appointed to the committee, and the committee provides input and makes recommendations to the decision-makers, who use that input to whatever degree they see fit. Representational systems have some advantages but also some problems. The biggest problem is the degree to which the selected representatives actually do represent their group. When representatives are appointed, rather than elected, this problem is compounded. When representatives of the various groups are limited to giving recommendations or input, rather than actually having decision-making authority, such a system falls doubly short of truly shared governance. Finally, there is the democratic model of shared governance, in which all stake-holders participate in the actual decision-making process, usually through voting, or in smaller groups, through consensus. Obviously, the US government is intended to combine this model with the representative model mentioned above. We vote for representatives who then become the decision-makers. Lane could adopt such a system, where stake-holders elect their representatives to the decision-making bodies, rather than the appointment model we currently use. Or Lane could go even further, allowing actual democratic decision-making in many areas of the college. This idea may seem ridiculous to some. Fear of truly democratic decision-making is deeply embedded in our culture, and with some reason. The difficulties of fully informing a large group about the issues involved in a particular decision, and the difficulties of identifying who the real stake-holders are for a particular decision, can hamper effective democratic processes. I'd offer that electronic communication tools can help overcome some of these difficulties, providing mechanisms both for dispersing information required to make informed decisions, and for accomplishing the voting on those decisions. To be effective, a democratic system at Lane would first have to clearly delineate realms of authority, so that those participating in a particular decision are truly stake-holders in that decision. More importantly, any movement toward democratic decision-making would have to involve a real trust in the collective wisdom of our community, and a letting go of entrenched power structures and a generalized distrust of the "unwashed masses". It would also require a commitment and interest in participating in the life of the college by all members of the community. I believe that the further Lane can move toward a truly democratic governance structure the more rich our work lives here will be, the better we will be able to serve the learning needs of our students, and the better a model Lane will be for the broader communities of which it is a part. Ken Zimmerman