SAMPSON TAKES AIM AT "DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY" TO ACADEMIC SENATES

Cedric of
SOCCCD

Dissent 45, 2/29/00
From Dissent 45, 2/29/00

[Here's a twisted saga. It begins here, more or less. BP2100.1 concerns "delegation of authority" to the academic senates. Included in BP2100.1 is the following:

This policy is a mutual agreement between the governing board and the academic senates and may be modified upon mutual consent of the parties… Adopted: 05-08-95

To my legally untutored mind, the above clause prohibits the district (trustees) from changing 2100.1 unilaterally. But that's exactly what the board did (later.)]

SAMPSON CONTRA FACULTY: January 24, 2000, Board Meeting

Discussion of item 22:

The Chancellor’s initiative to alter the “delegation of authority” agreement

CHANCELLOR: Yes, this is an item that I have brought to the board’s attention—I have taken to the chancellor’s cabinet the issue of board policy 2100.1….

The reason why I brought this forward is that I believe there’s confusion in the district about what shared governance means, what the law states, and what our board policy means. This was brought to my attention at the meeting at which the board requested a plan from the administration on a soccer program—a potential intercollegiate soccer program—and the response related to this policy, and the response was that the board did not have authority to make such a request. I believe that that is incorrect, but it does stem from this policy and it needs to be reviewed.

I had discussed this with the governance groups at the Chancellor’s Cabinet and have distributed [it?] to the system for review and would like to request that the board authorize me to enter into discussions with the academic units about a potential change in this policy. I would then bring back to the board the results of those conversations and discussions and be able to articulate to you the positions of the academic senate.

I think there are arguments on all sides of this issue, which I would like to explore with the senates and also perhaps with the state chancellor’s office. The issue really relates to the delegation of authority, and that begins with the legislature, which delegates to you responsibility for approving and managing and directing all of the educational programs of the district.

The issue is first of all, whether you can delegate that entire authority to another group, and, secondly, did this policy in fact do that? And we need to explore those.

Trustee Wagner asks why discussions of the shared governance issue should be thought to necessitate a change of policy or discussion of that sort of action.

CHANCELLOR: The problem was, when I tried to discuss this in the Chancellor’s Cabinet, it was as the Chancellor, and the board had not authorized me at the time to do it. And so the discussion was both not on point and I don’t think taken very seriously. The reason for my request, my bringing it to the board and requesting that you ask me to do this is, then, when I go out, I have authority that you have requested that I discuss with the senate these issues, and I believe I could get a better response.

Trustee Padberg asks the two senate presidents to “comment.”

In her remarks, Anne Cox takes issue with the Chancellor’s characterization of the position of the Saddleback Academic Senate. The senate has never stated that the Board does not have the right of final approval of curriculum, programs, etc., says Anne. Further, the senate’s response to the soccer proposal was not a rejection of soccer. Our primary objection, says Anne, was that there is a long-standing process in place concerning curriculum development, and curriculum is among the ten items specified in 2100.1 and in state law that delegate both responsibility and authority to the senates. (See pp. 7-8.) The board approves, but it is the faculty that is to be relied upon primarily.

In his remarks, Peter Morrison states that the IVC Academic Senate has no objection to the request, understood only as a request to discuss the board policy with the object of overcoming differences.

Trustee Frogue alludes to the view of some trustees that the “whole idea” of shared governance is dubious. He accuses someone—unnamed—of hypocrisy. Suddenly, he attacks the academic senates. Senate elections, he says, have been “fraught with irregularities.” He says he wants open hearings concerning shared governance.

Wagner refers to the joint academic senate meetings that occurred earlier in January (see Dissent 41). He says he is having trouble finding the problem with the policy. The issues or problems, he says, do not seem “substantive.” He says he will support the chancellor’s request in view of the need for discussion and the apparent disagreements between the chancellor and the faculty.

Trustee Lang says he can’t support the request. The policy is already fairly clear. By pursuing this matter, we are, he says “destroying the fabric of collegiality.”

Trustee Fortune says she supports the recommendation. She says the policy is “fraught with ambiguity,” and refers to the many instances in which, she says, the senate has tried to tell the board what to do.

Trustee Williams supports the request.

Trustee Milchiker objects to the wording of the request, for it speaks of meetings between the chancellor and the senate “to change” the policy. We need to strike “to change,” she says, since, presumably, we are not proceeding with the idea that 2100.1 will necessarily be changed. She motions to amend the item, and this is 2nded by Lang. The motion to amend fails on a 5/2 vote, with student trustee Kalena supporting the amendment.

Milchiker describes the origin of the policy. She says she would support the request if the words “to change” were deleted. She suggests that one must rely on experts in areas in which one has little familiarity. The faculty are the experts regarding curriculum development, etc.

The Chancellor indicates his desire to respond to Milchiker and Lang:

CHANCELLOR: What I’d like to do is respond to that and to trustee Lang because of the apparent misperception that we intend not to rely primarily upon the advice of the academic senates. I presented to you the potential changes that I would like to see in this policy, and the policy is left that we rely primarily on the academic senates in those 10 areas. That would still be exactly what we would do. Our problem is with the delegation of authority, which goes beyond state law, which I would like to align with state law, and secondly that the “rely primarily” areas are wrapped in language that suggest that it’s a mutual agreement.

This is a very complex issue because the state gave authority to you to either rely primarily or reach mutual agreement. And what you did is you said we’ll “rely primarily,” but the whole thing is a mutual agreement—creates confusion about what shared governance really means because what we hear is, “Oh, you can’t change that ‘cuz you delegated that to us; unless we agree, you can’t change it.” But the policy says, “we will rely primarily.”

And so there is no intent to change the status of the academic senate with regard to their advising you and you relying on their advice. There is an attempt to change that little [searches for the right word] flip that creates the imagery that everything is a mutual agreement—not “rely primarily.”

(Fortune calls for the question. The vote is taken; the item passes.)


THE EXISTING POLICY:

BOARD POLICY 2100.1: DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO THE ACADEMIC SENATE

In response to Sections 53200-53205, of Title 5, Calif. Code of Regulations, the governing board delegates to the college academic senates responsibility for and authority over academic and professional matters [53203(a)]. Regarding such matters, the governing board: (1) Recognizes the college academic senates as the representative of the faculties; and (2) Will rely primarily upon the advice and judgment of the academic senates in accordance with processes of collegial consultation as defined below; and (3) Designates the Chancellor of the district as its agent for purposes of implementation.

Scope

Academic and professional matters upon which the governing board will rely primary upon the advice and counsel of the academic senates include [53200]: (1) Curriculum, including established prerequisites and placing courses within disciplines; (2) Degree and certificate requirements; (3) Grading policies; (4) Educational program development; (5) Standards or policies regarding student preparation and success; (6) District and college governance structures, as related to faculty roles; (7) Faculty roles and involvement in accreditation processes, including self-study and annual reports; (8) Policies for faculty professional development activities; (9) Processes for program review; (10) Processes for institutional planning and budget development; and (11) Other matters as mutually agreed upon between the Board of Trustees and the academic senate, or as otherwise provided by statute or regulation.

Process of Collegial Consultation

Primary reliance upon the advice and counsel of the academic senates means that the governing board and/or its designees will accept the recommendations of the academic senates regarding academic and professional matters as itemized above, and will act otherwise only in exceptional circumstances and for compelling reasons. If a recommendation of the senate is not accepted, the governing board or its designee will promptly communicate its reasons in writing [53203(d.1)]. Such explanation will convey the “exceptional circumstances and compelling reasons” that necessitated the action in question….

Status

This policy is a mutual agreement between the governing board and the academic senates and may be modified upon mutual consent of the parties… Adopted: 05-08-95


CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS §53203

From Title 5

§53203. Powers.

(a) The governing board of a community college district shall adopt policies for appropriate delegation of authority and responsibility to its college and/or district academic senate…(d) The governing board of a district shall adopt procedures for responding to recommendations of the academic senate that incorporate the following:

(1) in instances where the governing board elects to rely primarily upon the advice and judgment of the academic senate, the recommendations of the senate will normally be accepted, and only in exceptional circumstances and for compelling reasons will the recommendations not be accepted. If a recommendation is not accepted, the governing board or its designee, upon request of the academic senate, shall promptly communicate its reasons in writing to the academic senate.

(2) in instances where the governing board elects to provide for mutual agreement with the academic senate, and agreement has not been reached, existing policy shall remain in effect unless continuing with such policy exposes the district to legal liability or causes substantial fiscal hardship. In cases where there is no existing policy, or in cases where the exposure to legal liability or substantial fiscal hardship requires existing policy to be changed, the governing board may act, after a good faith effort to reach agreement, only for compelling legal, fiscal, or organizational reasons….