Drawing lines between faculty and administration

The Academic Senate's course correction ~

As you know, the Academic Senate represents faculty with regard to academic issues. (Contractual issues are the purview of the Faculty Association, aka the union.)

The Academic Senate, like the faculty union, is a “shared governance” group. It is not to be confused with college administration, yet another “shared governance” group.

• • • • •

You’ll recall that the agenda for the Sept. 24 meeting of the IVC Academic Senate included an item announcing VPI Craig Justice’s solicitation for volunteers for a “workgroup” concerning the college’s “Early College” (EC) program.

This struck some senators as odd. Why was Craig, an administrator, organizing this committee? Last spring, Bio faculty had sought to bring problems with the EC program to the attention of the Senate, but, for some reason, the matter was never agendized for any Senate meeting. Now, months later, during the semester’s first Senate meeting, the formation of this workgroup was being announced, and the workgroup appeared not to be an Academic Senate entity. (Blur!)

Nevertheless, on the 24th, four faculty volunteered to serve on the workgroup. Among them was Chris R, who had recently requested that the EC matter be agendized and discussed on the Senate floor.

A week later (Oct. 1 or 2), Chris received an email from the chair of the Senate’s Academic Affairs (AA) committee (one of the Senate’s two standing committees), informing him that he (Chris) would be the chair of a group concerning the EC program. Evidently, the group would operate under the aegis of AA—and thus under the aegis of the Academic Senate.

Chris was puzzled. How did this group relate to the “workgroup” formed on the 24th? Chris and other Senators were under the impression that that workgroup was not an Academic Senate entity, what with an administrator calling for volunteers. (Blur, blur, blur.)

At today’s meeting, the Senate Council explained that, at its Oct. 1 meeting, citing past practice, it had decided to pursue the EC matter by assigning it to the AA committee, which would direct a group of faculty to investigate any problems or issues there.

Hence the email to Chris.

Today, several faculty sought clarification. The agenda for the meeting of the 24th seemed to suggest that the EC workgroup was somehow associated with VPI Craig Justice. Was the Senate Cabinet assuming that this AA group was the same as the group formed back on the 24th?

In the end, Senate leadership made clear that the EC group associated with AA was most definitely a Senate workgroup. Senate leadership, evidently oblivious to any confusion that it had inspired, had assumed that those who volunteered on the 24th (for what appeared to be a Craig Justice-affiliated workgroup) would be the membership of the Senate workgroup.

One wonders why this assumption would be natural for them.

The Senate cabinet appears to be having difficulty comprehending a concern among some, perhaps many, senators and faculty: that the lines between faculty and administration seem to have become uncomfortably blurred.

Here’s how things now stand: the EC workgroup, chaired by Chris and now under the aegis of AA, is a Senate entity not affiliated with the VPI or his office. It will investigate any EC issues and bring back a report and recommendations to the Senate. That will be the basis of a Senate discussion.

The Senate is not the Administration. Administration is not the Senate. Everything is what it is and not another thing.

Whew.

Wendy G, Craig’s new "Instructional Coordinator of Academic Programs," did not attend today’s Senate meeting. Craig did attend the meeting, though his participation in discussion was minimal.

P.S.: This morning, I wish to add that we at DtB value cooperation and collaboration between the Academic Senate (i.e., the faculty) and college administration (Craig Justice, et al.). We have long supported the Senate/VPI partnership. As I said a few days ago, that alliance has been a “positive” in the shadow of the great Mathurian/Board negative.

But DtB also values openness, the observance of regular processes, and shared governance—as opposed to private, informal, and unilateral decision-making.

In view of the inevitable difficulties of group decision-making and consensus building, it is understandable, I suppose, that bright and energetic people sometimes seek to be the de facto “deciders.” But our college and district have a dark past of micromanagement, autocracy, and folly. So it is especially important for us to maintain rules and traditions that have been devised to maintain and allow shared governance/collegial consultation.