SHARED GOVERNANCE.

SHARED GOVERNANCE.
(From The Dissenter’s Dictionary, 1999)

     In American universities, the notion that professors (and students) should play a role in the governance of their institutions--which traces back to the American Association of University Professor's widely-embraced 1966 "Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities"--has been a cherished tradition, but, by the 80s, it was under attack by trustees and presidents and was otherwise threatened, owing to political pressures, increasing competition, and increasing reliance on adjunct professors, who, typically, have played no role in governance. By 1991, the assault became so serious that the AAUP began a "blacklist" of institutions that violated shared governance--e.g., those in which the board or the president made unilateral decisions concerning tenure or curriculum.
     In the 80s, Californians finally legislated shared governance for the community colleges there (AB 1725), but this did not prevent the system from suffering the same tensions between partisans of faculty empowerment, on the one hand, and those who wished to run colleges like corporations with obedient "employees," on the other. By late 1997, SOCCCD became the poster child of the system's shared governance wars, though, in many ways, the problems of the district were unique. Indeed, they were bizarre--what with its Holocaust-denying trustee (Frogue), an illiterate and brazenly autocratic college president (Mathur), and its gay-bashing union (the Faculty Association). Adding another bizarre twist, in late '98, owing to support from the faculty union PAC, two trustees joined the board who were affiliated with Education Alliance, a Religious Right group whose leader, Mark Bucher, was the chief advocate and author of Proposition 226, the 1998 initiative that sought to remove unions as players in California politics. (See the CHRISTIAN RIGHT.)
     Generally, in public, the "Board Majority" has claimed to embrace shared governance--while claiming also that the faculty fail to understand their role within it. On occasion, however, Board Majoritarians have explicitly expressed their rejection of shared governance. For instance, during the May '97 Board meeting, Mr. Frogue, then president of the Board, distributed a brief essay of his entitled "Comments on Shared Governance" in which he asserted that shared governance is "dysfunctional" and does not "work." He noted that 200,000 voters cast ballots for the four victorious trustee candidates in November (of '96) and that the Academic Senate presidents were chosen by a handful of faculty. He seemed to suggest that, as a consequence, the Academic Senate presidents should have only a minor role in district and college governance.
     In fact, starting in December of '96, the BM-dominated Board ceased even pretending to consider the advice of faculty as expressed through its agents, the faculty senates, though it seemed often to do the bidding of the union Old Guard, whose members were sometimes appointed as administrators and whose "enemies" among administrators were removed or otherwise encouraged to seek employment elsewhere.
     Meanwhile, the district's "Shared Governance Leadership Handbook" (of Fall '96) stated, "The Saddleback Community College District Board of Trustees fully supports AB 1725 and the spirit of shared governance. Implementation of shared governance in the SCCD is through a structure of councils and governance units designed to ensure all entities the right to participate effectively in district and college policy making."

     Central to the Board's support of shared governance is its adherence to Board Policy 2100.1--"Delegation of Authority to the Academic Senate"--which, in response to Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations, mandates that "the governing board delegates to the college academic senates responsibility for and authority over academic and professional matters." As of writing (1/20/00), that policy is still in effect. Nevertheless, in recent years, the board has failed to delegate authority to the senates, illustrated by its apparent determination to foist upon Saddleback College a soccer program--a curriculum matter--despite the faculty recommendation to the contrary, and the Board's repeated failure to explain in writing its failure to accept Academic Senate recommendations (on matters over which the body is given authority by 2100.1), as per the board policy.
     Perhaps the nadir of SG has now occurred (early 2000), with the initiative to modify BP 2100.1. "The board," said Sampson, "felt it delegated too much authority to the faculties and it needs to clarify and correct some of the policies" (Times, 11/27/99). Hence, Sampson expressed his intention to recommend changing the faculty senates' role from "authority over" academic and professional matters to "responsibility for advising the board" concerning them.
     During the December '99 board meeting, Sampson was asked whether the board was able unilaterally to change the policy in this fashion. His answer: "Yes." In fact, however, BP 2100.1 states that "This policy is a mutual agreement between the governing board and the academic senates and may be modified upon mutual consent of the parties." Nonetheless, it now appears inevitable that the Board will act to change the policy without the consent of the faculty senates.