Findings from May 11, 2011 Meeting on Governance

Bristol Community College

Joint Senate/Administration Event on Governance

May 11, 2011

Participant Responses

On May 11, 2011, 40 BCC colleagues, 23 members of the faculty and professional staff, and 17 members of college administration participated in a structured 90-minute activity designed to engage BCC educators in a conversation of issues related to academic decision making.  The purpose of the activity was to think, share, discover, and come to a better understanding of issues involved and of how other educators at the college think about these issues. 

In addition to generating constructive conversation, the activity also generated a list of responses to four prompts made by each of the participants.  This document is an unedited list of those comments, broken down only by whether the participant was a member of faculty/professional staff, or college administration.  Transcription occasionally required deciphering of handwriting, with varied levels of success.  The comment (illeg) indicates that there was some illegible writing that was excluded from the transcription.  Barring transcription error, all other comments were transcribed verbatim.  Comments are given in bulleted form.  When comments change from one style bullet to another, that indicates change to a different participant.

Prompt #1

What are the essential roles of faculty and professional staff in academic decision making?

Faculty/Professional Staff Responses

• At the present time, these roles appear to be limited in practice although on paper the opposite may be indicated.
• Faculty should play a major role in academic decisions beyond an occasional request for input.
• Faculty have direct contact with students and are in the best position to make recommendations regarding what is in their best interests.

• Faculty and PSUM’s should have multiple key roles in decision making because they work most closely with students to implement the college mission/ i.e. (illeg) students.  As such, in these roles as educators and support professionals they should be the key to (illeg) overseeing, and (given them related educated/exp.) implementing curriculum
• Should work closely with assessment/outcomes to determine strengths/weaknesses (illeg)
• Should be involved with development and monitoring of academic support and student intervention (illeg) progress to promote student success.

ü  Faculty and Professional Staff bring:  Knowing students

ü  their close relationships with students – all kinds of students, those who are engages and particularly (illeg “relevant”?), and those who are not.

ü  their classroom/office experience – what is working, and not, and why

ü  their collegial relationships with colleagues – other faculty and staff

ü  their expertise in their fields and relationships with faculty at other institutions speaks to the curriculum and pedagogy and modalities and resources that work and don’t work.

ü  Responsibility for academic honesty and rigor in their classroom and departments.

v  Clarify specific needs for instructor – time/space/tech

v  Advise on Curriculum needs – changes.

v  Provide specific academic expertise in area

v  Advise on role of developmental education courses: outcomes/prerequisites

v  Develop new/revised courses

v  Policies – Apply and report impact

Ø  Report the impact of academic policies as they manifest in our: classroom, programs, depts., divisions, areas

Ø  Recommend new policies based on experiences in our classroom, programs, depts., divisions, areas

Ø  Recommend edits to existing policies

Ø  Pilot academic decisions, policies…

Ø  Participate/engage in decision making as allowed

Ø  Uphold – report to students

Ø  Integral stakeholders

• Learning Outcomes
• Curriculum
• Pedagogy
• Assessment
• Grades
• Standards
• Course delivery systems (elearning, locations for course delivery)
• Program creation, maintenance, review

Ø  Especially when it comes to things related to students, faculty and staff are the “brains to pick”. They know best student needs and (sometimes this is also appropriate) wants.

Ø  “Have the responsibility”

Ø  “Academic decisions non-negotiable”, like this:  In their own areas (disciplines, careers, support-LRC, tutoring, etc.), they are the experts.  They are the ones who can help with projected changes in programs and courses.

Ø  Not so much about leadership as cooperation – consensus

ü  Bring expertise to the discussions

ü  Raise issues of concern to be considered by those..

v  I think that decisions about curriculum (academic matters) should originate with faculty and professional staff and be modified as necessary by standards set by administration.  I do think that the responsibility for the integrity of curriculumshould reside with faculty.

      Depends on the decision… in terms of policy-setting, faculty and staff should be consulted on all academic policies & should be allowed to contribute to the development of policies as much as possible.  When issues are not negotiable, that needs to be clear and transparent to all from the start.

1. Engage students in discovering reason/purpose of courses
2. Work with other faculty in course development
3. To do further research in higher areas
4. Input from faculty (illeg?)

• To work in concert in arriving at a modus which will effect the most good for all constituents in the college community (family)
• All constituents should be open to the commonly held goals and open (transparent) (to the) (and with the) information developed during the time of analysis and decision-making.

Ø  Two-pronged

o   Assist in decision-making issues pertaining to academic areas – development of – “ground up”

o   To be a central part of the discussion of it (academic decisions) – does start with administration – “top down”

Ø  Either way, fac/prof staff should have a voice/place at the table

Ø  Particulars

o   Curriculum development / changes

o   Implementation of programs

o   Policies/procedures

o   Best practices

o   Prog. Dev / $ to that –

ü  Their essential roles are:

o   Defining academic programs (objectives, outcomes, etc.)

o   Defining necessary resources to support these programs {LAB, academic resources, media/ software/IT

o   Providing a well-educated resource to the rest of the college in their particular discipline

v  I believe opinions of faculty and professional staff are important to solicit individually or part of the committee process when it comes to academic decisions. 

v  We are on the front lines, so to speak, and that experience is valuable. 

v  At the same time, as a faculty member I am focused on teaching and I don’t/can’t take responsibility for a bird’s eye view. 

v  I trust that many people in administrative roles have…. (ran out of time!)

• There are two traditional models in the history of H.E.  the first is one in which the faculty as a whole (illeg, ‘they’re representative body’?) make the essential decisions for the institution. The role of the administrator is to help carry out decisionsoften in earlier times with smaller institutions the administration came from the faculty, i.e. they were academics.
• The other model was one that (illeg?) top down. The president charged by the board of trustees had a great deal of power hiring/firing – the faculty provided input especially with the (illeg?)

      Faculty: to understand and apply best ideas and practices for benefit of students, school, and faculty

      Staff: to support and facilitate best policies and processes needed to promote above.

Ø  Evaluate needs for student success

Ø  Create an environment for success

Ø  Collaborate with all to implement successful college experience.

ü  Faculty begin making decisions by planning their courses, selecting materials

ü  Faculty collaborate in department meetings about textbooks, trends in their discipline, course offerings

ü  In department and divisional meetings various goals and strategies of the college are discussed and decisions are made according to how to implement them

ü  Initiate + Evaluate + Communicate + Collaborate

v  I would think it a collegial and collaborative process, with plenty of back and forth happening. 

v  Faculty may offer perspectives from the classroom, their understanding of students’ challenges and achievements. 

v  Administration can offer support to meet those challenges and sustain those achievements. 

v  Faculty/staff need to recognize administration expertise as to what resources are available. 

v  Administration can acknowledge faculty/staff understanding of student academic needs.

v  Policy

o   Faculty/staff offen initiate (illeg?) individual cares (?), learner styles of students

o   Admin – often large scale initiate

• Collegiality –
• A college is a cooperative venture.    
• The faculty and prof staff deal directly with students on a daily basis. 
• Therefore they know more about the reality of the classroom and the needs and requirements of the students. 
• The administration needs to draw upon that knowledge when making decisions that directly affect the learning environment. 
• The admin has perhaps a longer (wider) view but all viewpoints are essential to make the college work.

      They are the initiators, developers and decision makers in academics and their policies should be adhered to unless the policies would have a negative impact on the institution in the eye of the administration –

      In this light, administrative guidance is important, but not the last word.

Administration Responses

Ø  Research, data, voice/expertise: Respected voice – equality of opinions [- cannot necessarily be final word – Admin needs to be accountable; & the person to sift through the data

Ø  Recommenders based on expertise, knowledge

Ø  Responsible for paying attention to current issues on-campus, new dev., etc.  Read email; Read Buzz, etc.

Ø  Responsible for evidence-based decisions/ideas.

Ø  Responsible for generating ideas as well as debating/discussing new proposals

v  This should be a team effort.  The entire community has student success as its number one priority and all areas, either directly or indirectly, contribute to this mission.  Each area of the institution should bring their unique perspective in the development of decisions but all need to respect each other’s views during the process.  Realistic expectations should be understood and accepted by all.

ü  Advisory

o   boots on the ground reality check

o   visionary and aspirational

o   to be involved, informed, positive, and constructive

• they are essential.  Faculty and professional staff participation is central to guide all decisions – and should not just be as “window-dressing” to endorse something in the end or to ‘appear’ consultative.  They are on the front lines, most of the time, in the area about which a decision is being made + can best provide the “boots on the ground” data + perspective.  Nothing can be done in isolation from that connection.

      Determining which academic programs to recommend (curriculum)

      Comply with policy + procedures

      Implement decisions that are made

      Evaluate and recommend if existing policies are working

      Evaluate and recommend if existing programs are working

      Advise, recommend, implement

• Faculty and professional staff must provide the expertise, background, and support for effective academic decision making.  In this way, their role is one of “leader”.

• Faculty are the experts and professionals from which curricular proposals should stem.
• Advisory
• Professional staff – essential to identifying resources to enhance and support student engagement and learning
• Faculty and professional staff provide key insights into dev.  academic vision for their disciplines + where prog should dev/
• All provide insight

Ø  Key partners

Ø  Bring academic/classroom/theoretical perspective

Ø  Consider “big picture” impact of academic decisions

Ø  Help to define academic decisions

ü  Make well-thought out decisions that are often times data driven.

ü  Decisions are not made in a tunnel.

ü  Seek feedback from all appropriate sources.

v  The essential roles of faculty and prof staff are many.  First, they teach students – help students to develop their education both academic and character development.

v  Faculty and professional staff should develop themselves professionally and make contributions in their fields: research, writing, etc.

o   Curriculum

o   Resources – for students, comm..

o   Best practices

• Bring forth knowledge about best practices in teaching
• Share this information and describe how knowledge can be used to assist in decision-making.
• Educated person – what are the elements
• (illeg?) the things that define the educated person

      The roles should be combined.  Administration and professional staff should work together, they must collaborate to get both sides of the situation.  If both sides are willing to discuss and to compromise then the best possible decision can be rendered.

Ø  Collaborative discussion on current academic policy changes/updates

Ø  Initiation of “new” academic policies

Ø  Implementation of decisions once made

Ø  Thoughtful evaluation of how effective current academic programs are doing

Ø  Communication of academic regulations to student and community as appropriate

1. To be the initial reviewers of proposals
2. To evaluate the proposals against the mission, strategic plan, history and core values of the college.
3. To judge the workability and process of the proposals
4. To be one of initiate proposals

ü  Roles

o   Leaders

o   Facilitators

o   Providers of a perspective – faculty – professional staff

o   Active participants at multiple levels (Division, Dept, Program, Committee)

o   Skeptics

o   Cooperators?

o   Negotiators

ü  Each group should play an active role in facilitating productive discussion & democratic debate on academic decisions.

v  Fully engage all students in the learning process.

v  Collaborate with colleagues and administrators in the development of course materials and curriculum

v  Be available for colleagues, students and administrators

v  Comm across the board

v  Guest speaker and share exp. in other classes.

Prompt #2

What are the essential roles of administration in academic decision making?

Faculty/Professional Staff Responses

• Knowing the pitfalls – budget, legal, space
• Celebrating excellence and use it as a model to have more
• Supporting new faculty/staff and faculty/staff in new roles
• Helping staff with challenges
• Evaluating their direct reports
• Supporting grants, new projects and professional development
• Help students with issues learn and navigate the proper ways to complain
• Managing schedules, calendars and other critical deadlines
• Always asking for input and not making assumptions

Ø  Support, promote and ensure academic integrity

Ø  Role model for systems approach

Ø  Role model life long learning

v  Be informed

v  Gather/listen to input from faculty and staff

v  Develop/set/impl. academic policy in coll with faculty and staff

v  Develop/oversee admin dist. of resources for fac/staff to carry out prog and instruction (space allocation – time allocation – schedule) - $

v  Direct dev/sub of grants for outside resources based on collab with faculty and staff

v  Eval “efficiency” – paper flow, etc.

ü  Develop policies that : align with our mission, promote success, graduation, retention

ü  Work with fac/prof to identify, create, edit policy

ü  Hear from varied constituents

ü  Spread the “wealth” of responsibility

ü  Be consistent with systems in place and willing to create/edit systemsthat do not aid efficient decision making. Parity

ü  Identify, create and uphold efficient systems policies that align with our mission and promote

• To listen to the voices of fac and prof staff and allow for their voices to carry weight
• To be informed about the multiple facts (forces?) internal and external that affect the academic environment – might affect student success
• To work collaboratively with educators (fac and prof staff) toward consensus
• To educate/inform fac prof staff about these issues

• Support faculty endeavors regarding:
• Curriculum development
• Professional growth
• Implementation of academic policies
• Technical support (training and equipment)
• Adequate teaching and learning spaces
• Laboratory upgrades

      Leadership – ability to bring together diverse interests, listen to all, and lead people to a decision that seems at least in part shared.  This is a very difficulty task.  Also, the role should include an ability to change direction is the situation warrants and lead in a new direction.  For this to work, input has to be welcomed from faculty and prof staff.

ü  Administrators should be able to provide information & guidance regarding resources, budgetary issues & logistics.

ü  Administrators should also be well-versed in models of success outside (and inside the college) as a way to guide others in considering innovations and new ways of doing things that have been successful elsewhere.

ü  Administrators must be good listeners and open to ideas they hadn’t considered before since they are likely making the final decision.

• College (illeg.) community and collegiality.  Every one needs to work to an overall consensus of goals of college (?)  and the diversity of ways to realize those goals.
• Encourage forward looking (constructive ways of doing things)

v  Responsible for leading – which includes involving fac/PS in discussions and deliberations

v  Inform about issues so transparency exists

v  Consider big picture

      This is the “global” part – administration understands the “bigger picture” – the rules and regs of the Commonwealth and community college system, etc., the political ramifications, the space and financial issueas, etc.  

      That said, if it’s a reasonable request and PEDAGOGICALLY sound, it’s admin’s responsibility to make it happen.  Just as it is faculty and staff’s responsibility to stay abreast of their fields and use their expertise to make solid pedagogical  recommendations.

      Other comments with I agree:

o   “prioritize”

o   “best outcome for most constituents”

o   “administration’s responsibility to form the consensus”

o   “to provide the information and resources to come to that consensus”

o   “when administration must be responsible ultimately, they must be clear”

o   “get us to be involved and feel invested”

v  Administrators are catalysts to effective discussion strategies that amalgamate the ideas of all constituents to effect action that is the best outcome for most constituents

v  Transparency and collegial respect are essential for all parties involved in the discussion

      To solicit and gather information from the faculty and professional staff related to “academic decision making” (whatever that may mean).

      Administration – (by def.) focuses on all aspects of the college – making sure the college remains focused on meeting its mission.

      Need to allow for academic freedom to faculty w/in the classroom

      Support and encourage the faculty

ü  Provide leadership and expertise in areas that faculty and staff may not be as well informed of –

o   Financial

o   Governing bodies

o   The big picture

ü  Attempt to factor in (equally value) all aspects/perspectives in final decisions –

o   Academic

o   Institutional

o   Etc.

ü  Respect input from all levels of college community – students, staff, faculty, admin, governing bodies/agencies

Ø  The administration is made up of a variety of functions.

Ø  It should be the job of the administration to carry out those functions. 

Ø  Decisions which should be made by those who are directly involved.

Ø  Can be coordinated by administration. 

Ø  All decisions should re..(illeg).. benefit to all individual students. 

Ø  There is a distinction between function and decision-making. 

Ø  The administration should not have sole power over decision-making.

• To understand the academic and institutional needs and capabilities of the school and staff.
• To support, facilitate, lead in the operation and development of all institutional levels.
• Define everyone’s role and responsibility clearly in collaboration with faculty/staff.

      Listening, gathering info, comparing across the institution and across institutions – testing ideas out – soliciting feedback – making sure communication is a top priority –

      Making sure decisions are in best interests of as many “stakeholders” as possible

Ø  Facilitating – finding ways to include everyone in the process

Ø  Discussing – creating a variety of platforms for discussion

Ø  Expediting – having gathered data finding ways to communicate

ü  The administration should support, guide and administer academic decision making, but should not be the decider… unless policies could negatively affect the institution

v  To support the learning/teaching process.

v  Listen to the needs of students/faculty/staff and provide resources to answer the needs.

v  Establish an environment that supports

o   Congeniality

o   Communication

o   Openness

o   Student success

• To encourage, support faulty/staff initiatives, provide resources when possible
• To work with fac/staff [initiates] to administer academic policy
• To bridge differences among various depts./disciplines –
• Schedules
• Meaningful opportunities for cross-campus conversation

      Admin has the bigger picture in mind – they fit all the pieces and recommendations from faculty, staff into a larger whole.

      Integration and cohesiveness are admin’s most important roles.

      Admin also has the role of initiating new ideas to the faculty, staff for analysis and feedback.

Administration Responses

ü  To bring together the faculty and the appropriate deans, adm., etc. to discuss and formulate all decisions affecting the students and teachers.

ü  To guide and support where appropriate.

• Good of the institution
• Making the institution better
• Keeping the institution true to its mission
• Big picture
• Allow discussion, debate
• Encourage
• Enable decision-making
• To sometime say no or not yet, but say why

v  Team effort – again student success

v  To support academic decisions – help with procedural items along the way

v  Guidance on implementation as well

v  Understand needs to better academic environment

v  Work as a team in the research and development of new/amended policies

Ø  Accountability

Ø  Expert reviewers/listeners of all data, voices, stakeholders, etc.

Ø  Explaining decisions and processes

Ø  Having the “whole college” in mind with all decisions

Ø  Respect the rights of students, faculty, staff in all decision-making

Ø  Be an example of ethical decision-making, especially in keeping confidentiality when appropriate.

Ø  Ask for input before not after (a decision)

Ø  Morale boosters/support/champions for fac/staff/students

      To provide an overview of “other” relevant issues for the college that might impact the academic decision – and to provide accurate information about “external” factors, such as resources available, with which to execute the academic decision, if necessary.

      It is not to be a barrier, or to fight for control, or to drive the decision, but it is also to participate in it from a different, and valuable, lens.

      Sometimes, it is to say “no” – but rarely, I hope.

      Sometimes it is to start a process - + schedule when, where, how….

• Administration in collaboration with faculty prof staff needs to determine if a program or proposal can be effectively implemented – e.g. adequate resources and sustainability and weigh which of potentially many meritous proposals should be moved forward – timelines, alignment with
• Vision/strategic goals of institution
• Implement/enforce academic policies

ü  Admin must provide support – including financial - + encouragement and help prioritize, manage and communicate.

ü  Their role is probably more of manager – in the sense of ensuring  the decisions are implemented consistently

v  Support academic programs – facilities, $, support services, staffing

v  Be clear about goals of decision process

v  Ensuring policies and procedures that exist are adhered to

v  Communicate reasons for position on decisions made

v  Provide information helpful to decision making process

v  If ultimately accountable for decision made, be clear about it.

Ø  Bring the big picture to the table

Ø  Ensure all segment have opportunity

      Essential roles of administration include viewing decisions in the context of the best situation for the college as a whole. 

      Administration must focus on evaluation to make decisions – based on data, faculty and prof staff input and best practices in similar organizations.

      To track decisions to change/revise if things aren’t going well.

      Communication

      Meeting mission

      Need for clarity of roles

• They need to keep others well informed
• They need to explain the impact of the decision
• They need to work hand-in-hand with appropriate partners
• They need to be (illeg?) into the college’s mission/str. Plan.

• Limited resources
• To make sound fiscal decisions – that maximize benefits
• To know what works/doesn’t work – to be (illeg) the faculty about best practices.

ü  Administration is looking at the big picture.

ü  What are the needs of the organization;

ü  what does the budget look like;

ü  how does the decision affect the organization.

ü  In doing this however some of the smaller issues are thrown “under the bus”

v  To insure that the resources are available

v  From their perspective to offer a judgement about whether academic policy is consistent with SP, core values, history of the college.

v  Initiate policy proposals for consideration when appropriate

• Maintain academic standards and integrity
• Ensure adequate resources are available for services for students, faculty + staff

      Active team member

      Facilitators

      Navigators

      Shepards

      Brokers

      Leaders

      Communicators

      Oversight over the “process”

      Integrators

      Advocate

Ø  Listen to “all” sides

Ø  Role models

Ø  Lead the way for academic policies to be developed that impact success

Ø  Support/advocate for $$ to implement decisions

Ø  Negotiate differences of opinion

Ø  Create climate for effective academic decisions

Prompt #3

According to Olsen (2009), true shared governance attempts to balance maximum participation in decision making with clear accountability.  You may agree or disagree with this premise, but given your group’s response/discussion of the previous questions, what challenges might we face in trying to strike this balance?

Faculty/Professional Staff Responses

ü  Current meeting organizational model keeps key constituents @ 2+ degrees of separation + silo fiefdoms are not consistent

ü  Clear with MCCC and contract (new practice = change in workload)

ü  What is accountable needs to be clearly defined + transparent + adhered to by all.

• We must try to convince the troops that shared governance is a true goal of the institution.
• Many are willing to be accountable, but must be given the opportunity to be so.
• Solid, measured efforts to to answer a question or make a recommendation regarding a policy need to be respected and accepted with the expectation of a reasoned explanation  for the response.

v  What does clear accountability mean

v  Defining clear accountability may be challenging in and of itself – but also given different roles, resp. and perspectives of educators vs administrators

v  Concern that spending more time on accountability revealing (?) (illeg.) – a never ending task – takes up time, energy and resources of the college community

v  Comm. – a – (?illeg) all involved to both define accountability and then implement it.

Ø  Admin tendency to make decisions in some cases without staff fac input – (space/resources/time allocation)  apparent – understandable

Ø  Admin tendency to put resource development ahead of academic considerations

Ø  Fac/staff lack of awareness of certain policies/resource restrictions

Ø  Difficult to have shared gov with huge adjunct fac load

Ø  Lack of support for adjunct fac to participate in decision-making

• Need clarity about responsibility, about limits of fac/PS in the process

• Constituent agreement on…
• Route of initiation of action activity
• Areas of primary responsibility in the process (for the various constituent groups)
• Commitment to a transparent, respectful, collegial tone among the various constituent groups
• Agreement to the decision arrived at by the various constituent groups and agreement to effect the agreed upon actions.

      I don’t think we always see a process.  We need a process for decision-making and clarity in reporting out

      Recommendation:

1.      Recommended Problem or Suggestion “RPS” (raised by a faculty or staff member or member of administration

2.      Administration member(s) identify those stakeholders who should be brought to the table to begin discussion of Recommend., prob or suggestion (RPS)

3.      Stakeholders meet and discuss the RPS

4.      If necessary, stakeholders re-identify others to be involved.

5.      There needs to be a “reporting” out to all at college

v  The biggest challenge here is being authentic and honest about where the accountability lies. 

v  Often when people feel that they are not accountable, they do not “buy-in”. 

v  Also, once someone is not held accountable, it is easier to lose sight of the mission or goal.

Ø  I believe this group would support that premise with (?) strange emphasis on maximum participation.

Ø  Clear accountability arises out of those (chosen)? Or supported by the larger group.

Ø  Accountability should rotate and not necessarily be static.

• Challenges include trying to balance scarse resources with multiple demands. 
• Sometimes it would make sense to outline the limits of resources before input is solicited for major academic decisions.
• Once again I think it is important to recognize when a “mistake” in direction has been made and it would be important to have a willingness to turn in a different direction.
• Let people know the limits of their “participation” before they expend a lot of effort trying to reach an impossible goal.

      Who is truly in charge of an institution of higher education?  Is it the faculty – the core of the institution – students – the focus – or administration? Or all 3

      I think the problem/challenge comes from one or more of the above parties thinking they have more power/control than the other groups also involved.

• Clear definition and agreement of roles and responsibilities
• Emphasize (Exploit) the specific capabilities and resources that each player can contribute and acknowledge these.

v  Clarity regarding: roles and responsibilities

v  Maybe also a connection to committee work

Ø  Lack of well-defined roles and processes (in some cases)

Ø  Historical inertia

o   If it’s not broke, don’t fix it

o   This is the way we always did it

Ø  Change in balance of power

Ø  Inflexible or uneducated participants (on both sides)

ü  Challenges include:

o   Imbalance of power –

o   who has the real power in the institution – can administration make major decisions that are contrary to the to the wishes of the faculty/staff

o   hiring/firing

o   allocation of resources

o   illeg…

o   Choice of academic program

o   Illeg…

v  Faculty and prof staff have to feel that their views and opinions are respected and valued.

v  Admin has to be willing to honestly allow faculty and staff to have serious, ongoing input within the decision making process.

v  Both sides have to work from a position of mutual respect or nothing of any consequence will be possible.

• Bridging the gap between the real and imagined gov’t structure
• Clearly define:
• Who owns expertise (?) in accountability (illeg) 
• Do all parties?
• What forms of accountability are valued?
• How are decisions to be made? The value, transparency, when
• How does a constituent (?) relate to academic quality.. (illeg)

      Majority vs minority (position/need)

      Establishing clear evaluation process

      Trust

      Getting to consensus

Ø  This question relates to more global issues than “academic decision making” in the previous two questions. 

Ø  The greatest challenge is to get the maximum involvement from admin, faculty + staff.

Ø  More Prof. Staff meetings with time for open discussion on suggested topics.

ü  Trust

ü  Risk

ü  Definition of accountability

ü  Perception of who it is that is ultimately making decisions

Administration Responses

ü  (organized in a pyramid chart – top to bottom - difficult to transcribe)

ü  Max Participation = MP (outside force: DHE)                                              

Clear Accountability = CA (outside   force: Fed DOE)

o   Explain – CA

o   Respect - both

o   Set realistic limits (not everything can be shared openly – respect individual’s right to privacy) – both

o   Clear communication - both

o   Clear timeline and time limit

o   Rumour

o   If you want to know something ask someone who knows

o   Make decision making an integral part of our day to day work

o   Outside force: local community

v  Size!  We are much larger than we “used” to be. Difficult to get the word out.

v  Time – we all need to dedicate professional and personal time to make this model successful

v  Commitment – always varying

v  Communication – universally available to all

v  Outside forces – ever-increasing

v  Money – ever-decreasing

v  TIATWWDI

• Lack of resources
• Disagreement w/no (illeg.)
• Being heard yes
• Yes to some means no to others
• Life is not fair
• Distraction

Ø  Time and resources

Ø  Promote more opportunity for formal and informal discussions on policies, procedures, etc.

Ø  Encourage broader participation and voices at the table

Ø  Increase opportunity to inform “college” of decisions pendings – build consensus

Ø  Promote more opportunity for interdisciplinary discussion.

Ø  Time – need to make time, establish mutually agreed upon priorities

Ø  Silos – increase community/college involvement

Ø  Need for more agendas in advance  

v  Time and resources

v  Limited number of required meeting times make max participation difficult

v  People – more involved faculty and prof staff to participate

v  Funds to hire and or compensate – and to provide “tools”

ü  I am concerned that “academics” is sometimes seen as not grasping the “practical”, while “administration” is sometimes seen as not creative, or sensitive or fair.  A challenge in striking a good balance is this lack of real appreciation for the complexities of the other side, and the fact that we don’t deal enough with each other as peers or colleagues to get to know that we do have some skills in the “other skill set”, if you will and more common ground than we know.

ü  Involve those affected directly in a decision – make sure they aren’t marginally involved only.

• If topic being discussed (decided) is contrary to accreditation, contract, laws
• Other information available to one party.
• Balance resources
• Misinformation( as ideas get explored, rumors start)
• Accountability

      Reaching consensus/agreement on definition of shared governance

      i.e.

o   is it a group decision, or

o   does the group provide input (at all levels) and admin makes decision

Ø  True shared governance is when all stakeholders are participating in decision-making.  However, ultimately, someone has to make the final decision after evaluating all input.

Ø  Within groups there can be voting but ultimately a decision for the total organization belongs to one person.

Ø  True participation –

ü  People need to understand the role of accountability.

ü  If you do not participate, do not sit back, criticize

ü  When participating, be informed, ask questions, get involved, weigh “the pros”, cons before making a well-informed decision.

v  Participation ↔ accountability

v  So many ideas/input → accountable difficulty

v  Accountability – pre-defined

• Some administrators may be driven with the power/authority of their positions and as a result will not or do not listen to other opinions or needs.
• On the other side, some faculty may not be aware of what needs to be done they are more followers than leaders.

      Lack of history about accountability for decisions

      Trusting all participants in process.

      Getting everyone to participate.

Ø  Perceived Empowerment or lack of

Ø  Understanding of accountability & consequences of decision

Ø  Climate for participation not fully understood

Ø  Relationship between parties not always clear

Ø  Data Driven decisions

ü  Trust from all parties – Always keep hope alive

ü  Open and honest conversations – we all have diff. roles to play based on our positions

ü  Walk in my shoes exercise (undercover boss)

ü  Insufficient resources

v  Roles?

o   Many of suggestions of essential roles were similar or the same for both constituencies.  Can this type of system exist?  

o   When one group is actively supervising the “other”, how does one set aside those functions or create a culture of accountability without “fear” of reprisal or perceived “fear”. 

o   Change of environment.

v  Participation vs Accountability 

Responses not labeled as Fac/PS or Admin

• Time to have all stakeholders involved
• Multiple campuses/spaces people work
• Fear of change – this is how we always did it
• Using bandaids in lieu of system change
• Mistrust
• Assumptions (illeg)
• Knowledge of technology to make change
• Communication systems – too many, too fast

v  I don’t see problems in shared governance understanding realistically that in the end some issues will have disagreements and decisions will have to be made after many discussions and input from faculty - some will not be totally satisfied

Ø  SGSR is a two-way street

Ø  Accountability inconsistent, personnel-based, not performanced

Prompt #4

Given the varied roles of faculty, professional staff and administration in the decision making process and the challenges discussed in the previous question, what steps could we take moving forward to improve academic decision making at the college?

Faculty/Professional Staff Responses

• time allocated for admin/faculty exchange focused on action/outcomes (more than chat with President)
• clear procedures in development of new programs that includes broader faculty/staff input

ü  simplify the organization/governance structure.  Possibly integrate Academic Senate /+ (illegible)

ü  do our best to be informed beyond our own immediate domain – affect (illegible?) classroom of internal and external factors that influence/affect int./over students (a bit illegible)

ü  listen, respect others: try to enter forums/discussions/meetings with an open mind (haven’t yet arrived (?))

ü  Participate

v  Binding votes for academic policy at Professional Staff meetings

v  Ombudsman

v  Less politics, more consistency

v  Walk a mile

Ø  TRUE VISIBILITY of who/what happened in all decisions – For every decision, list all those involved – In fact, they need to sign that they were heard (if listed).

Ø  Focus on Communication, decision making, etc.   in monthly reports each person tells how they participated.

Ø  More looking ahead and planning a timeline of things that need to happen, who needs to be consulted, how that will happen.

Ø  Ombudsman

Ø  Monday Morning Memo: Comes out every Monday and contain all non-emergency essential info, deadlines, meetings, etc. for the week. – Much better than constant emails from many departments – If it’s in there, all are expected to know about it and can’t complain they didn’t know.

      Ask everyone to make an effort to suppress their egos and work for the general good.  Encourage a greater sense of working together to achieve what we think is best for our students.

Ø  Provide resources

Ø  Work on making info flow about decisions more clear – so the process is transparent + people have buy-in

• Review Committee system
• Recognize Program Coordinators/Chairs as a unique stakeholder cohort/group with needs separate from dept or division housed in.
• Re-invent Professional Staff meeting
• Re-invent Professional Day (pre-semester)
• Data/resources
• Know thyself
• Monthly report sharing
• Pie in the Sky
• A day in his/her shoes

• Communication – resp. to pay attention and read
• Accountability
• Timelines – needs end
• Clear explanations
• Respect mutual – but also ind. Privacy comes with sometimes not knowing
• Opportunity
• Willing to change – re-invent
• Equal – same standards applied to all if accountab. + opp.
• Efficient
• Systems review and engagement with
• Institutionalize decision making by re-creating professional staff meetings

v  Maybe not have every committee meet every month, so that meeting times could be longer and more productive.  For instance, 1 hour dept meetings are not generally able to finish tasks, so they run over meetings that happen after them.

v  Could we get more time by eliminating unnecessary paperwork – do monthly reports really need to be every month, or could they be added to throughout a semester and compiled at the end.

v  Not enough time currently to make the process better.  Something needs to change.

v  This approach was productive!

Ø  More jointly lead committees where decision-making is also shared

Ø  How about an Ombudsman?

Ø  The inclusion of a position like this (ombudsman) might help people to feel like they can be more honest about individual situations.

·         The constituent groups should…

o   Agree to time periods in which to affect descussions and agreed upon implementation

o   Initiate an experimental time period for testing new methodologies

o   Identify a representative Ombudsgroup to discuss and “adjudicate” divergent views

o   Agree “again” to a respectful, transparent, collegial tone.

1. Notification when a decision needs to be made
2. Clear description of the issue
3. Request for input
4. Preliminary decision
5. Final decision

ü  I want a transparent process! and reporting out!  We can do this thing.  We all care about students, but there is a perception that some are left out of decision making.

ü  Let’s have a process that is agreed upon by administration, staff and faculty, is clear, is adhered to, and results in decisions that are transparent + fully communicated.

ü  Time for admin/staff/fac to get together – can we restructure meeting times, cut down unnecessary paperwork – simplify

ü  Process – several folks suggested this

ü  Agendas up front and limits publicized, if known

ü  Trust built by:

o   Ombuds”group”, or Ombudsperson

o   Transparency

ü  Consensus

v  Understand and “exploit” the intellectual capabilities and resources available at BCC

v  Increase transparency and accountability of decisions and processes.

1. Seek input from all parties that may be potentially impacted by the particular decision, then
2. But understand that someone (or several someones) have to make a final decision – ultimately.  The buck has to stop somewhere., then
3. Then make sure that decisions and rationale are shared with all parties impacted by the decision. Then
4. Close the loop (go back to step 1)

·         Lay out a clear model for decision making that includes maximum input from all stakeholders

·         Be willing to communicate reasons who decisions are made and be ready to accept criticism and make necessary changes.

·         Develop a committee that will be made up of those willing to be a (??) for ideas, practices, etc. that will inform decision making by those empowered to do so.

      Create a full circle reporting system (closed loop)

      Define processes, roles and responsibilities

      Convince all participants to be willing to explain their decisions

      Share information – not just opinions

Ø  Find ways to increase participation

Ø  Find ways to have more interdisciplinary activities/discussions

Ø  Simplify/clarify communication

ü  More openness on part of admin

ü  Faculty and prof staff must believe that their input is valued.

ü  Mutual respect is the core issue.

ü  Admin needs to share their ongoing concerns with faculty and prof staff and encourage faculty and prof staff to contribute.

v  Create opportunity for meaningful cross-campus conversation about student success

v  Aim to produce greater transparency as to how decisions are made at the college

v  Empower all stakeholders as decision-makers

v  Respect the expertise and experience of those stakeholders

v  Scale-up-staff, a simplify

      More opportunities for listening

      College meetings that really FEEL more collaborative and less top-down (no more C-111)

Administration Responses

Ø  More face-to-face communication discussions about the specific decisions that must be made.

• Do Something with today’s data, ideas and time.  In other words, take today and build the next step, rather than Forgetting we did this and start over later.
• Compile answers into general categories
• Share total results in community
• Meet to decide next steps – for example, what activities can be “shared governance”  Online voting system? Simple communication plan?

ü  Better methods of communication

ü  More venues (that are attended by all) to discuss goals and decision-making

ü  Specific GOAL to reach out to all members of community – call out those not apt to be involved.

v  Expect that everyone is doing the best they can –

v  Each of us needs to commit to educating ourselves and making the best decision.  Don’t have time.  Make Time.

• Provide more flexibility in people’s schedules, if possible, so that we can have more connection and interaction.  This would prevent silos, if we meet more often, more “creatively” on tasks, projects, etc.
• Some more ownership , if possible, of decisions to small groups that include academics and administrators
• Avoid top-down approaches
• Prioritize real input from those affected by a decision (illeg. about space choices – being allowed to be made by those moving?), where possible, it would go a long way.
• Agendas posted 48 hours ahead – topics clear
• Ombudsman!  or Ombuds-group!
• Trust

1. Post agendas 48 hours in advance
2. Open meetings to broader constituencies – not necessarily in voting capacity but to expand input/information flow – invite parties potentially affected by groups decisions.
3. Communicate results clearly and concisely
4. Communicate, communicate, communicate
5. Set aside more time from discussion and consensus building

Ø  Have confidence that each other has best interest of students and college in mind

Ø  Identify challenges and time to discuss and develop consensus

Ø  Agendas posted ahead

Ø  Broader consensus

1. Set up more sessions like this to identify steps or improvements
2. Prioritize the improvements
3. More sessions
4. Develop “action steps”
5. Repeat

ü  Define academic decision

ü  Define shared governance

      Make certain meetings mandatory except in cases of emergencies

v  There are a number of them:

o   Get more participation in/from the committee system.

o   Consequences for non-participation

o   Better communication/feedback when comments/suggestions are made

• Be professional.  Be civil!
• Be patient.  Research, collect data
• Listen
• Participate, get involved, keep all parties informed.
• Take some action
• Be accountable

      I think some of the ideas given at this table can answer this –

o   Clarifying roles and responsibilities

o   Provide procedures and processes/protocol

o   Identify who is in charge of particular decision making

o   Better communication

o   Closed loop

o   All participants should be able to explain decisions

o   Share info/facts

o   Communicate in a timely manner

Ø  Broad based discussions

o   Reps can not always communicate everything that their constituents feel

o   We bring “back” – do we bring “to”

ü  Develop a “clear process” for decision making

ü  Empower all to participate (value all)

ü  Re-think how we communicate now and what can be done to improve it.  Research Based

ü  Simplify/focus our goals

v  Facilitate open communication

v  Discuss roles in process → Define.

v  Create, nurture a culture of personal accountability, not only is your perspective “required” but it is valued because it is unique, we all bring different life experiences and perspectives to the “process”

• Develop history of Trust.
• Develop system of acceptable participation + accountability.