Selection of Faculty Representatives in Shared Governance
1 TO AS-3160-13/EX/FA (Rev)
2 TO AS-3160-13/EX/FA (Rev)
3 TO AS-3160-13/EX/FA (Rev)
4 TO AS-3160-13/EX/FA (Rev)
RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University (ASCSU) encourage all faculty, students, staff, administration, and executives to adhere to the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities when selecting faculty representatives to serve in shared governance. It states “…Faculty representatives should be selected by the faculty according to procedures determined by the faculty”; and be it further
RESOLVED: That providing a “slate of nominations” from which faculty representatives will be selected by administration or executives violates the principles of the aforementioned AAUP Statement; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the ASCSU distribute this resolution to the CSU Board of Trustees, CSU Chancellor Timothy P. White, CSU campus Presidents, CSU campus Senate Chairs, CSU campus Senate Executive Committees, CSU Provosts/Vice Presidents of Academic Affairs, AAUP President Rudy Fichtenbaum, California Faculty Association President Lillian Taiz, and California State Student Association President, Sarah Couch.
RATIONALE: On the July 2013 Board of Trustees agenda (Item 1, Committee of the Whole), consultation on proposed amendments to the Board of Trustees Policy for the Selection of Presidents was solicited. Existing policy specifies three faculty representatives, including the chair of the campus Senate and two faculty representatives selected by the campus faculty. The proposed policy specifies that faculty nominate “no less than four to six faculty members of which three will be selected” by the Chair of the Board and the Chancellor. Although the stated goal of achieving an Advisory Committee that “reflects the full rich diversity of the campus community including, academic, ethnic, racial, gender and identity differences” is laudable, the proposed change is inconsistent with shared governance principles. Direct faculty selection of their representatives, as the policy currently provides, ensures legitimacy in this important process.
This is but one example challenging a basic tenet of shared governance: faculty selection of their representatives. Administrative requests for “slates of nominees” to identify faculty representatives have been reported by campus senate chairs this year. Campus faculty leaders are encouraged to review campus practices and procedures for adherence to the right and responsibility of faculty to select their own representatives.
The historic decline in the number of tenured/tenure-track faculty may account for some of the difficulties encountered when populating committees, task forces, and other entities requiring faculty collaboration and representation. Ironically, as the ranks of tenured and tenure-track faculty have diminished, the need for faculty consultation on initiatives, policies, procedures, etc., seems to have grown dramatically, both system-wide and on campuses. Faculty are stretched thin to meet these demands. All the more reason to focus attention not only on how faculty are appointed, but also to ensure that the opportunity for service, made available through shared governance, is recognized and affirmed in retention, tenure, and promotion (RTP) processes.
- Board of Trustees Agenda Item 1, Committee of the Whole, July 2013. Policy on the Advisory Committee for the Selection of the President
- AAUP Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities
- Report of the Board of Trustees’ Ad Hoc Committee on Governance, Collegiality, and Responsibility in the California State University
- “CSU Faculty Profile: Proportion of Tenure-Track/Tenured Faculty and Demographic Trends 2001-2009” Report on Commitment 2 of the CSU Access to Excellence Strategic Plan
Approved Without Dissent – March 20-21, 2014