Good morning. I am Edward Hines, University Distinguished Professor of Educational Administration & Foundations. I appreciate having the opportunity to talk with you about the Fisher Report, and, in particular, Governance.
The Fisher Report makes positive points and contributions to our University. Examples include the University having a caring, committed faculty strongly oriented to teaching and the fact that most of our classes are taught by full-time faculty who are accessible to the students; the improved funding of the University in recent years; and an Institutional Advancement operation that is positioned to make major gains.
At the same time, the Fisher Report has numerous inaccuracies that create misimpressions which do not serve us well in presidential recruitment. These include a graying faculty with low morale (this is a national issue and, in fact, is not especially pronounced at ISU); lack of selectivity in student admissions to be remedied by admitting fewer students and becoming a "Public Ivy" institution (whether or not ISU should become a so-called "Public Ivy" should be subject to discussion); a recent history of governance which allegedly has resulted in ISU becoming "a graveyard for Presidents;" and perhaps most damaging, comments without support that identify certain academic programs and activities as "weak." Please do not misunderstand me; there are weak programs at this University, and there are areas where improvements are needed. If we want to move in this direction, however, the University through the leadership of the Provost needs to establish evaluation criteria that make sense for this University (these criteria will NOT be identical to those used at Urbana or Heartland Community College), generate data focused on those criteria, and identify areas that need strengthened.
What I would like to do, briefly, is to focus on governance. My Distinguished Professor Lecture three weeks ago dealt with Governance. What I did was to identify the Five Themes and Nine Conclusions of my review of the national literature on higher education governance. This review of 233 bibliographic entries was part of the work of the Select Committee on Governance and, also, will be published in a national source in 1999. My most important conclusion was to affirm the principle of shared governance, the process of institutional decision making where a Board of Trustees, having the statutory authority for formulating policy for the institution, makes decisions only after reaching out to stakeholder groups, such as students and faculty, and soliciting their views about policy considerations. ·
So, what is different about shared governance in higher education? How does higher education governance differ from decision making by boards in business or industry? The uniqueness of higher education has to do with the mission of the university as a learing community. In this learning community, we work together to create the environment in which learning can take place. The better the environment, the more the learning. Virtually all of us work toward this end. Building service workers improve the physical environment of academic departments. Support staff provide services to help students through the educational process, from library services to counseling to improving study skills to residence halls to job placement. All of these services and the staff who deliver them are focused on students. It's a remarkable congruence of people and services. When it all comes together well, it produces a synergy out of which learners can thrive.
For most of us, learning does not take place in a vacuum. It needs someone with expertise that can guide the student learner and the educational process, and those persons are the faculty. In the governance literature, the expertise of the faculty is recognized widely as qualifying them to makedecisions about academic matters. Yet, it is not the faculty that have statutory authority to formulate policy. It's the Board of Trustees who makes institutional policy even in academic areas. In areas of capital financing, setting tuition price, purchase of equipment, and many areas in which Trustees make decisions, the faculty are informed about the decision but are not consulted prior to decision making. In order to make the best, most informed decision possible, the Trustees consult with key staff through the Office of the President, and on the basis of data and a staff recommendation, the Trustees make an informed decision.
This same decision process also takes place in academic affairs, but with a caveat. On matters dealing with the curriculum, academic standards, faculty hiring and the like, the judgments of faculty are sought by Trustees, and these judgments in the form of recommendations are followed except in those rare instances when the Board of Trustees go in another direction. In so doing, however, the Board provides a full explanation of why the decision was made.
Am I describing an unattainable ideal or an antiquated process that is no longer followed in higher education? That question was uppermost in my mind when I conducted this search of the national literature. It was especially so because of the appearance of articles since 1995 that described "activist trustees" who were becoming more involved in decision making. I wondered if their involvement was coming at the expense of faculty involvement.
Without equivocation, I report to you that shared governance is alive and being practiced actively in the best universities. In the work of the Academic Senate Committee on Shared Governance, you will see specific evidence from institutions such as Indiana University, the University of Toledo, and even Northern Illinois University that both the structure and process of governance are working successfully.
Given that finding in the national literature, we can ask the question, how representative is the work of Jim Fisher?. In my contacts with recognized national scholars on higher education governance, Jim's name and work did not appear. When I examined his work, I realized that his position is not representative of what is going on nationally. In the Washington associations Jim is known as one who advocates "the imperial presidency." Jim Fisher supports a dominant presidency and believes that the presidency has been eroded because of faculty participation in institutional decision making. In order to restore the presidency, Fisher advocates reducing the influence of faculty by making all of their decisions advisory and requiring all communication between the Board and stakeholders to be channeled through the President. What is needed is assurance by the Board that faculty recommendations in appropriate areas will be given significant weight.
How, can shared governance work successfully in areas of academic decision making? First, we need to recognize the authority of the Board as the statutory body for policy decision making in the University. Second, the Board needs to be structured and needs to function by involving key stakeholders prior to decision making. By involving stakeholders in decision making through solicitation of their advice, their participation becomes genuine, and their advice is sought in considering decision alternatives. Third, we are in the position of. having two committees in the University who have devoted much time to governance this year. It will not be long before you receive the advice and recommendations of both the President's Select Committee and the Shared Governance Committee of the Senate regarding specific ways in which we can improve both the climate and structures for governance here at Illinois State University.
Back to list
