Weekly Read October 15, 2014 October 15, 2014October 18, 2014 aaupncc Weekly Read Faculty Communication with Governing Boards: Best Practices By a subcommittee of, and approved by, the AAUP Committee on College and University Governance Like this:Like Loading...
3 thoughts on “Weekly Read October 15, 2014”
Comments may be submitted by scrolling down until you see the comment box. We invite you to post your thoughts, links to articles, or writings you have authored. Opinions published here do not necessarily represent the policies of either the AAUP or NAAC. This is not a moderated Forum, but we reserve the right to take down comments that lack collegiality or civility, are obscene or vulgar, contain commercial solicitation or advertisements, infringe on intellectual property, encourage illegal activities, violate laws or considerations of privacy.
These recommendations are especially timely for NCC in light of the recent BOT resolution on SUNY Seamless Transfer. Why has it become acceptable for people who know little or nothing about our students to make decisions about academic policy?
Several things strike me about this weekly read, in terms of the situation at NCC. The first is the statement–all too true–that “communication between faculty and board members, when it occurs at all, tends to be ritualized, infrequent, and limited to specific agenda items.” The “Weekly Read” also states that “A recent Committee A report on financial exigency argues that restricting faculty-board communication reduces the capacity of colleges and universities to fulfill their educational missions.” However, in terms of persuading the board of a need to include faculty in their deliberations, there is an implicit assumption that members of the board are first and foremost concerned with the educational mission of the college; at present, there is little evidence from actions of the board that concern about the quality of education is paramount in their decision making process.
I don’t know what–if anything–could be done to implement what the AAUP calls the “conference committee model” at NCC, but it seems a worthwhile objective. Certainly, The Board as an entity is made up of individuals, each of whom has a distinct voice, which is also true of members of the administration and of the Academic Senate Executive Council. Conversation among individuals may facilitate genuine communication, which is, I fear, at present sorely lacking–and without genuine communication, any desire to work collaboratively is obviously moot.