On August 7, Provost Robert Palazzo announced a plan to review and potentially revise the structure of faculty governance at RPI. The plan was developed in order to strengthen the role of tenured and tenure-tracked faculty in the governance process.
The Board of Trustees restated its definition of faculty last December, limiting it to only active tenured and tenure-track faculty for governance purposes. In response to this change, the Board requested modifications to the Faculty Senate’s constitution to comply with that definition. In its spring elections, however, the Senate still allowed faculty members outside of the Board’s definition to vote on important committee members, which sparked questions on the legitimacy of these elections.
The committees that have been deemed as problematic in this situation are the Promotion and Tenure Committee and the Curriculum Committee, which both work closely in an advisory role to the provost. Palazzo said that because the elections were not held with a voting membership in compliance with the Board’s definition of faculty, the faculty advisory process was compromised and needed to be revised.
The structure of faculty governance has not been reviewed in over a decade. “The Institute has changed a great deal over the last number of years, and needs a faculty governance that reflects that,” said Vice President for Communications William Walker.
The plan that Palazzo recommended to implement the Board’s directive from last winter was proposed in a memo to President Shirley Ann Jackson dated July 27. Palazzo suggested a two-stage process: a transitional faculty governance and a review process leading to recommend change in the faculty governance.
The transitional faculty governance involves extending the terms of members of committees that play an advisory role to the provost elected for the 2006-07 academic year. For members who do not wish to continue to hold their positions on these committees, the provost will be allowed to identify and invite members, after discussing possibilities with committee members and other tenured and tenure-track faculty, to serve on committees until the review is complete.
The second part of Palazzo’s plan is to appoint a committee to review the structure of the current faculty governance. Members of a Faculty Governance Review Committee will also be appointed by the president based on recommendations from the provost after discussions with academic deans as well as tenured and tenure-track faculty. According to Palazzo, recommendations for this committee are planned to be chosen by the close of the fall semester, so as to be sent for approval by Jackson and the Board of Trustees at their spring meeting. This committee will be in charge of reviewing the current structure of faculty governance and developing a plan on how best to achieve a structure that both complies with the Board’s definition of faculty and can work with the administration on behalf of the faculty.
The committee’s final recommendation will then be reviewed by current faculty, and a final document will be put forward for a vote among tenured and tenure-track faculty to send to the president for review and decision. The document will then be sent to the Board of Trustees for a final decision.
One of the problems inherent in this review of the governance structure is the fate of the Faculty Senate. As a result of the faculty governance review, the Faculty Senate is not recognized as a formal body and has been “temporarily supplanted,” according to a resolution of the Board of Trustees regarding faculty governance.
The faculty does not support the suspension of the Senate, according to Larry Kagan, president of the Faculty Senate. “The faculty does, however, support a review of governance as long as the members of the review committee are elected by the faculty,” Kagan said. “The faculty also object to a presidential veto power over the individual committee members because it feels that final presidential and trustee approval of the plan are sufficient to guarantee a plan acceptable to everyone.”
“I think everyone agrees the goal is worthy,” Palazzo said. “It’s just a struggle in terms of the process and authority lines.”
Palazzo and Kagan both hope that the review process inspires a greater desire within the faculty to become involved and participate in faculty governance. “Hopefully, the faculty will realize how much of a role it plays and this will reignite enthusiasm among the faculty,” Kagan said.
The outcome of the committee’s review is still up in the air. “What will come as a result of the faculty governance structure review is not predictable at this point,” said Jackson. “Not all universities have a faculty senate; no one can truly know what will happen to the Senate until after the review is completed.”
Palazzo is hopeful about the outcome of the review. “The only way to achieve stability is to get through choosing the committee and completing the review process.”
