Section II:  Colleges and Departments
   

FS-CoUG recommends that College and Department By-Laws contain and subsequently implement a minimum set of governance standards as proposed in this report.          

The following are examples of areas to be addressed.

The Executive Committee recommends that College and Departmental Bylaws meet these criteria.

FS-CoUG recommends that College and Department By-Laws contain and subsequently implement a minimum set of governance standards as proposed in this report.          
The following are examples of areas to be addressed.

procedures for the selection, tenure, review, and retention of Department Chairs (See http://wwwuh.edulprovost/fac/Policychairs.html) and Deans;

FS-CoUG recommends that Faculty Senators from every College, in consultation with their Dean,
will provide an annual report  by May 31 of the implementation of the above 17 recommendations
to the Faculty Senate.

FS-CoUG recommends that, using a Faculty Senate governance template, Faculty Senators  from every College, in consultation with their Dean, will provide by May 31 an annual governance report  signed by May 31of the implementation of the above 17 recommendations to the Faculty Senate by the senators.
Passed by Faculty Senate at January 25, 2006 meeting

Section III:  FS-CoUG Recommends:  A University Coordinating Commission (UCC)

Definition of UCC:  A Group that Coordinates and Expedites Communication among University Stakeholders in the Development of Policies and Procedures
   

FS-CoUG recommends that UCC does not create policy but rather facilitates discussion among existing groups regarding policy during its formative stages.

University Coordinating Commission Operations

FS-CoUG recommends the UCC would consist of 13 members: including the Faculty Senate President, President-Elect, and Chairs from the following:  Committee on Committees, Faculty Affairs, Graduate and Professional Studies Council, Research Council, Undergraduate Council, Staff Council, Deans’ Council, Student Senate, Graduate Student body, and from the President/Provost’s Office and a member from Named and Endowed Professors and Chairs.

The FS-CoUG recommends that the UCC will elect its own chair annually from among the faculty members.

The FS-CoUG recommends the UCC will provide an annual report to the Faculty Senate Executive Committee and the Executive Committee will provide a report to the Faculty Senate members and the larger campus community on the UCC’s activities and effectiveness by September 1 of the fall semester.

FS-CoUG recommends the:

• UCC use an expedited procedure for listing non-policymaking items

• Provost’s Office determines incentives for serving on the UCC.

• Provost’s Office provides adequate resources (including I or 2 full-time staff, space and equipment) to enable the UCC to operate at an effective level. The UCC staff would be housed with the Senate Staff

• Provost’s Office provides adequate resources (including I or 2 dedicated full-time staff, space and equipment) to enable the UCC to operate at an effective level. The UCC staff would be housed integrated with the Senate Staff.

FS-CoUG recommends the UCC certify that communication has occurred (or not) across interested groups prior to and during the development of policies and procedures, with attached minority reports (if appropriate) provided and considered during all stages of the decision-making process.

FS-CoUG recommends the University of Houston administration request that governance groups’ activities be vetted through the UCC prior to the University making a final procedural or policy decision.

FS-CoUG recommends that wherever possible, newly approved policies and procedures shall be implemented at the start of the academic year.

FS-CoUG recommends that proposed policies and procedures be reviewed and discussed during the previous academic year with a May 31 cutoff for all proposed policies and procedures.

FS-CoUG recommends if the necessity arises for implementation of a policy during an emergency such implementation should be justified to the affected constituencies as an emergency policy by the decision-maker.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

  UCC Intake/Output/Feedback

UCC Procedures

     The UCC serves as a communications link to explain the implications of new policies to faculty, staff; and students. This would be achieved through a website, linked to the Faculty Senate website, as a primary means of communicating with the campus community. The output from the UCC will include, but is not limited to:

•    information regarding policies that are in the process of formulation,

•    opportunities for unsolicited feedback regarding those policies,

•    notice of new policies that have been adopted, and

•    timetables for the implementation of new policies.

•    FS-CoUG recommends the:

•    UCC use an expedited procedure for listing non-policymaking items.

•    Provost’s Office determines incentives for serving on the UCC.

•    Provost’s Office provides adequate resources (including I or 2 full-time staff, space and equipment) to enable the UCC to operate at an effective level. The UCC staff would be housed with the Senate Staff.

   Consent Agenda

        The UCC maintains a Consent Calendar for listing non-policymaking issues for informational purposes only.  Members of UCC who identify an item that has policymaking implications, may shift it to the Consent Agenda.

The UCC maintains a Consent Agenda in order to:

•    coordinate information pertinent to a particular issue; provide regular updates to the status of a policy under consideration, including any proposed dates for implementation and;

•    communicate the rationale for new or revised policies to the campus community.

        Additionally, The UCC receives annual agendas from Councils, UH central administration, Task Forces, Ad Hoc and Standing Committees, regarding issues to be considered, where items on these agendas potentially impact major policy decisions.

FS-CoUG MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS

FS-CoUG recommends that the selection process for membership of Councils should be determined within each College and endorsed by its faculty.  Procedures for selecting Council members should be adopted and explicitly agreed to by the faculty of each college.  Colleges should decide whether and how Council members are selected by election or appointment.  However, the procedure adopted should be subject to endorsement by College faculties and should be incorporated into College By-Laws.  In addition, the By-Laws of each Council should be amended to reflect this selection policy.

FS-CoUG recommends that each of the three academic Councils (Graduate and Professional Studies, Research and Undergraduate) add one voting position for a Senator, who is selected by the Senate.  This will complete the circle of interactions with Council Chairs’ membership on the UCC and Council Chairs-Elect membership on the Senate.

Additionally, FS-CoUG recommends that the Faculty Senate Executive Committee and the Council Chairs (or other representatives from these bodies) begin discussions to foster greater interactions and identify other opportunities between the Faculty Senate and the academic Councils relating to university-wide governance.

THE UNIVERSITY COUNCILS

            FS-CoUG believes that the bond between the academic Councils and the Faculty Senate should be strengthened as a step toward achieving a more integrated and responsive governance processes. The Graduate (GPSC), Research and Undergraduate Councils have long carried out essential tasks in its respective areas of responsibility.  The Councils have furnished valuable advice to the administrators to whom they report.  Moreover, there is now a link between Council Chairs and the Senate Executive Committee. Currently, Council chairs attend the first part of the monthly Faculty Senate Executive Committee meetings.

The current reporting lines of Councils, which are exclusively to a senior University administrator, limit representative University Governance and thus the voices of the faculty.  The following are concerns identified by the Commission with subsequent recommendations:

• The selection of Council members from colleges currently occurs either by election or by appointment.  FS-CoUG acknowledges that there is a need to balance fair representation with provision of expertise in Council membership.  To achieve this goal and to make the process as transparent as possible:

FS-CoUG recommends that the selection process for membership of Councils should be determined within each College and endorsed by its faculty.  Procedures for selecting Council members should be adopted and explicitly agreed to by the faculty of each college.  Colleges should decide whether and how Council members are selected by election or appointment.  However, the procedure adopted should be subject to endorsement by College faculties and should be incorporated into College By-Laws.  In addition, the By-Laws of each Council should be amended to reflect this selection policy. (included in chart above)

The following observations have been made by FS-CoUG members:

•     The present structure, in which the Councils are essentially separate from the Senate, diffuses the overall effect of faculty input into University community decision-making.  Closer coordination and cooperation or Senate and Councils will create a stronger governance structure designed to promote faculty unity and enable better development of coherent faculty positions on critical campus issues.

•     By reporting only to central administrators, the Councils facilitate the vertical flow of information and decision-making, but do little to assure the horizontal discussion and dissemination of issues with affected faculty groups on campus. As a consequence the President, Provost and Vice President for Finance interact with the Faculty Senate; however the other high-level administrators interact only with the Councils.

•     There is a tendency toward duplication in Council and Senate activities. For example, both the Educational Policies and Student Affairs Committee of the Senate and the Graduate Studies and Professional Council respond to many of the same issues.

•     FS-CoUG recommends that each of the three academic Councils (Graduate and Professional Studies, Research and Undergraduate) add one voting position for a Senator, who is selected by the Senate.  This will complete the circle of interactions with Council Chairs’ membership on the UCC and Council Chairs-Elect membership on the Senate. (included in chart above)

•     The operations of the UCC and joint participation of Council Chairs and Senators will foster greater cooperation between and among the Faculty Senate and the three Councils.

•     Additionally, FS-CoUG recommends that the Faculty Senate Executive Committee and the Council Chairs (or other representatives from these bodies) begin discussions to foster greater interactions and identify other opportunities between the Faculty Senate and the academic Councils relating to university-wide governance. (included in chart above)

A.  Faculty Senate Changes:

FS-CoUG recommends that the Faculty Senate take steps to give the faculty a stronger and more cohesive voice throughout the academy.  FS-CoUG’s review of strong research and teaching universities identified one common factor: a highly engaged faculty with a cohesive voice working through its Faculty Senate. To this end, the following modifications are proposed, most of which are part of the structures of other Faculty Senates we have investigated (see Section 1 above and the Fs-CoUG Interim Report Appendix 2).

The Faculty Senate should add three At-Large Senators.  In addition to the current proportional representation system based on the size of individual Colleges and the library, FS-CoUG recommends that a small number (3) of At-Large Senators be added to the membership of the Faculty Senate. This change will potentially provide a group of Senators with a campus-wide perspective and without specific affiliation to an academic unit, yet will not greatly enlarge the Senate. The manner of selection for at-large Senators should be decided by the Faculty Senate: 1) election (via campus email) by the entire tenure track UH faculty in a process managed by the Senate Executive Committee or its designee; or 2) appointment by the UI-I President or Provost in consultation with Faculty Senate President.

The Faculty Senate should have representation for benefits-eligible, non tenure- track faculty.  FS-CoUG recommends that benefits-eligible non tenure-track faculty elect three At-Large Senators, using a procedure to be worked out between the Senate and these groups. The Senate should also consider in the future adding representation for faculty emeriti and faculty with voluntary modification of employment status (not included in the proposed expansion to 12 members).

Senate service should incorporate term limits.  The existing Procedures for election of Senators to three-year terms should continue.  FS-CoUG recommends that after two consecutive terms, a Senator’s membership break for at least one year before she or he is eligible to run again.  This 3-year, 2-tern (a total of 6 years), 1 year break system will increase the opportunity for faculty participation; yet will not prevent experienced Senators from frequent and extended service. The term limits should take effect one year from the acceptance of this recommendation.

Committees should seek expert knowledge.  FS-CoUG recommends that Senate Standing Committees should, as appropriate, invites non-voting consultants with special knowledge or expertise to participate in discussions of issues.  Each Committee would determine for itself the term and role of such non-Senators.  The Senate’s Committee on Committees should be asked resolve any internal committee conflicts.

FS-CoUG recommends that the Faculty Senate should establish and enforce standards for meeting attendance and committee participation.  Attendance at Senate meetings and at standing committee meetings should he monitored and must reach a standard to be determined (and subject to certain excusable reasons for absences, such as medical reasons) in order for Senators to remain in good standing. The current attendance provisions in the Senate By-Laws should be reviewed and enforced.

FS-CoUG recommends that the Senate calendar should be altered to conform to the academic and fiscal year. Specifically, the Senate year, which currently begins at the end of January, should be changed to commence on September 1 of the calendar year. This start date is widely used at other institutions and has the advantage of bringing the Senate calendar into congruence with University academic and fiscal calendars.

FS-CoUG further recommends that the new calendar transition process commence in January 2007 and proposes the following timetable to accomplish this:

December 2006:  Elections are held for President, President-elect, Executive Committee and Committee on Committees members. Faculty Senator elections from colleges are completed.

January 2007:  Officers, new and existing Senators begin serving a one-time 20 month period, lasting until August 31, 2008

May 2008:  Elections for officers and elected committee members are held as above. Faculty Senate elections in colleges are completed.  These elections are held in May of each year thereafter.

September 2008:  Officers, new and existing senators begin serving for 12-month terms.

After this time, FS-CoUG recommends that a sunset review of standing Senate Committees be carried out every three years to determine if each committee continues to meet the current needs of faculty and whether new committees are needed.

In particular, the Senate Committee on Committees (COC) should continue to expand and formalize its role as facilitator of faculty voices and issues on University Committees by reviewing the role of faculty on the committees and the extent to which faculty views have influence on final committee decisions or recommendations.  The COC should continue its current practice of meeting with chairs of key committees and should conduct a survey of faculty who are committee members to assess their participation and level of input into decision-making.

FS-CoUG MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS

C.  Other Topics

FS-CoUG MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS

In the course of its study of shared governance, FS-CoUG received communication about other concerns or issues that were beyond the immediate charge of the Commission. The first of these was the status of the Technology and Computing Committee (ITCC). After discussions with the chair and committee members we concluded that the Faculty Senate review the issues with the ITCC and the administration and develop a proposal that clarifies the ITCC role and reporting lines and proposes a plan for future directions.

A second issue arose regarding the participation of Library Faculties who are members of the
Senate however they do not serve on any of the Councils or other non-Senate committees.  The Senate and Councils should discuss this issue.

Conclusions

In order for the shared governance recommendations of this report to work, the Faculty Senate will need to adopt and implement the key provisions recommended and evaluate the impact of those recommendations over a designated period of time.  This is the first time in the history of the University of Houston that a joint faculty-administration Commission (composed of six senior faculty, three deans and an associate vice president/vice chancellor) has been assembled to analyze governance at the University, and to recommend changes in both process and structure.  As the University of Houston advances toward the goal of a leading research and teaching institution, it must also advance its governance infrastructure.  This report matches specific recommendations with the current opportunity for change in order to enhance the process of shared governance and decision-making.

The thirty-six FS-CoUG recommendations are designed to support the necessary conditions to enhance:

•  Input from those members of the academy with sufficient information to understand the ramifications of the decisions;

•  Access to the decision-makers by those members of the academy who may be most affected by the decisions; and

•  Feedback regarding the input provided to the decision-makers and the reasons for the ultimate decision, with attention to the considerations raised by members of the academy.

In crafting our recommendations, the Commission has drawn from governance experiences at other Universities and has also factored in our own unique governance history. In so doing, it has become evident, that creating a workable system that will fit small and large colleges, professional schools and graduate programs will require more than the adoption of a single best practices model from other institutions. Our research shows that successful shared governance requires a level of trust and collegiality that takes both time and experience to evolve. Therefore we strongly encourage all shared governance stakeholders to continue the discussion begun over the last 17 months.  It is the expectation of the Commission that implementation of these recommendations, will propel the UH campus community on a path to more effective and inclusive University governance.

This concludes the work of the Faculty Senate Commission on University Governance.