Shared Governance Concerns

            In recent months, concerns have been raised by faculty across the College regarding the Administration’s understanding of HFCC’s long standing tradition of shared governance.  At a recent Local 1650 General Membership Meeting, with over 50 members in attendance, faculty from several Divisions again voiced concerns.

            With this in mind, a review of shared governance, as a product and component of HFCC’s culture, appears to be in order.  Having witnessed shared governance in operation at HFCC throughout a 40 year career at the College and having worked with colleagues who authored and implemented the Constitution, I have some knowledge of shared governance at Henry Ford Community College and the institutional culture that it reflects.

            Article II.A. of the Constitution for the College Organization defines the role of the faculty in recommending policies and initiatives relative to the educational mission of the College.  Article II.A.1. states: “The College faculty and the College administrators shall share responsibility for determining the educational policies of the institution, subject to review and approval by the President, by the Board of Trustees, and other appropriate government agencies and officers.” 

            Article III of the Constitution defines the roles of the College Organization and Senate in establishing College policy.   Article III.A. states:  “The College Organization shall be a deliberative body with powers to initiate, approve, or defeat changes in College Policy.”   Article III.B.1. states: “The formal method of initiating or altering action in which the faculty has competence, subject to review and approval by the President and Board of Trustees, shall be by Senate recommendation with adoption in regular College Organization meetings.”

            The listing of areas of educational policy and initiatives in which “the faculty has competence” is found in Article II.A.2: 

1. Subject matter and methods of instruction;

2. Facilities and support for research of faculty members and students;

3. Standards for admission of students, for academic performance, and for the granting of degrees and licenses of proficiency;

4. Those aspects of student life that relate directly to the educational process;

5. Major changes in the size of the student body;

6. The establishment of new schools or divisions;

7. The provision of extension services to the community;

8. Assumption by the institution of research or service obligations to private or public agencies;

9. Planning for additional physical facilities;

10. Curtailing or eliminating programs.

             Whenever policies or initiatives are proposed relative to these areas of competence – whether the source be a faculty member, an administrator, a Division, a College committee, or a Presidential Task Force – they are subject to review and a vote of approval by the Senate and/or College Organization.

            Article II.A.2 defines the role of faculty in “the allocation of resources” within its “areas of competence” and in other budgetary decisions.

            The point too often misunderstood is that shared governance at HFCC entails far more than simply the opportunity for input.  At HFCC, shared governance requires: (1) the opportunity for input, (2) that the Administration report to the Senate and/or College Organization – well in advance of the implementation of a policy or initiative – its recommended disposition of that input and the reasoning underlying such, and (3) that Senate and/or College Organization – well in advance of the implementation of a policy or initiative by the Administration and/or Board of Trustees – have the opportunity to review, express, and forward its approval or disapproval of the policy or initiative.  This process has traditionally applied to a policy or initiative affecting a Division, a component of the College’s governance structure, as well.

            Given the nature of many educational policies and initiatives and given their numbers, a great many of them are never brought to the Board of Trustees for formal action, though all could be.  Some are of such magnitude, however, that they require formal Board action. 

            In recent months, concerns have arisen that, while the opportunity for faculty input at the Divisional, Senate, or College Organization levels has occurred, there has not been an opportunity, or there has not been sufficient opportunity, for these entities to review and formally act upon the Administration’s disposition of their input as reflected in policies and initiatives.  Many faculty believe that policies or initiatives are too often presented for consideration with very tight deadlines, when they could have been presented far earlier and received the consideration and exchange of views that they merit.

            In such cases, a Division, the Senate, or the College Organization should express its procedural dissatisfaction and/or its disapproval of a policy or initiative to the Administration, up to and including the Office of the President.  Should the matter not be satisfactorily resolved in that process, a Division, the Senate, and/or College Organization should address its concerns to the Board of Trustees.

            Lastly, a violation, misinterpretation, or misapplication of the provisions of the Constitution for the College Organization is grievable under the Local 1650 contract.  Should concerns regarding a policy/initiative remain unresolved following appeal to the Board of Trustees, Local 1650 may review the issue to see if it merits pursuit through the contract’s Grievance Procedure.

            Hopefully, the only problem before us is to assure sufficient notice for the shared governance to operate properly.  Despite the contentions of some in administration, the governance process has and does operate in a timely manner.  Moreover, a culture of deliberation is far preferable to a culture of haste.

            HFCC’s culture of shared governance has been defined by the Constitution, by decades of practice, and by decades of sound institutional policies and initiatives deriving therefrom.  Generations of faculty, administrators, and Trustees have fostered HFCC’s culture of shared governance, and our College – as well as our students and community – have been well served by it.

                                                                                                                   John McDonald

                                                                                                                   November, 2009