Shared Governance Handbook. Board of Trustee s Approval

Similar documents
CONSTITUTION COLLEGE OF LIBERAL ARTS

BY-LAWS THE COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND COMPUTER SCIENCE THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE AT CHATTANOOGA

Raj Soin College of Business Bylaws

REVIEW CYCLES: FACULTY AND LIBRARIANS** CANDIDATES HIRED ON OR AFTER JULY 14, 2014 SERVICE WHO REVIEWS WHEN CONTRACT

REVIEW CYCLES: FACULTY AND LIBRARIANS** CANDIDATES HIRED PRIOR TO JULY 14, 2014 SERVICE WHO REVIEWS WHEN CONTRACT

UCB Administrative Guidelines for Endowed Chairs

BYLAWS of the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan

USC VITERBI SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING

College of Business University of South Florida St. Petersburg Governance Document As Amended by the College Faculty on February 10, 2014

APPENDIX A-13 PERIODIC MULTI-YEAR REVIEW OF FACULTY & LIBRARIANS (PMYR) UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS LOWELL

Chapter 2. University Committee Structure

TABLE OF CONTENTS. By-Law 1: The Faculty Council...3

VI-1.12 Librarian Policy on Promotion and Permanent Status

POLITECNICO DI MILANO

College of Arts and Science Procedures for the Third-Year Review of Faculty in Tenure-Track Positions

St. Mary Cathedral Parish & School

Code of Practice on Freedom of Speech

Reference to Tenure track faculty in this document includes tenured faculty, unless otherwise noted.

Hamline University. College of Liberal Arts POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL

IUPUI Office of Student Conduct Disciplinary Procedures for Alleged Violations of Personal Misconduct

LaGrange College. Faculty Handbook

Duke University FACULTY HANDBOOK THE

Nova Scotia School Advisory Council Handbook

Instructions and Guidelines for Promotion and Tenure Review of IUB Librarians

Approved Academic Titles

ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES WITHIN ACADEMIC PROGRAMS AT WEST CHESTER UNIVERSITY

Article 15 TENURE. A. Definition

Academic Teaching Staff (ATS) Agreement Implementation Information Document May 25, 2017

Policy for Hiring, Evaluation, and Promotion of Full-time, Ranked, Non-Regular Faculty Department of Philosophy

University of Toronto

Application for Fellowship Leave

ARKANSAS TECH UNIVERSITY

1) AS /AA (Rev): Recognizing the Integration of Sustainability into California State University (CSU) Academic Endeavors

Faculty Voice Task Force 5: Fixed Term Faculty. November 1, 2006

Oklahoma State University Policy and Procedures

MASINDE MULIRO UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ACT

University of Toronto

Art Department Bylaws and Policies Approved 4/24/02

Pattern of Administration, Department of Art. Pattern of Administration Department of Art Revised: Autumn 2016 OAA Approved December 11, 2016

July 17, 2017 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL. John Tafaro, President Chatfield College State Route 251 St. Martin, OH Dear President Tafaro:

Florida A&M University Graduate Policies and Procedures

ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE

Academic Affairs Policy #1

b) Allegation means information in any form forwarded to a Dean relating to possible Misconduct in Scholarly Activity.

2. Related Documents (refer to policies.rutgers.edu for additional information)

Definitions for KRS to Committee for Mathematics Achievement -- Membership, purposes, organization, staffing, and duties

Sacramento State Degree Revocation Policy and Procedure

Intervention in Struggling Schools Through Receivership New York State. May 2015

Graduate Handbook Linguistics Program For Students Admitted Prior to Academic Year Academic year Last Revised March 16, 2015

UNIVERSITY OF DAR-ES-SALAAM OFFICE OF VICE CHANCELLOR-ACADEMIC DIRECTORATE OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIUES

THE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG WORKING PARTY ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE REVIEW PANEL ON UNIVERSITY GOVERNANCE. Report of the Working Party

with Specific Procedures for UT Extension Searches

CURRICULUM PROCEDURES REFERENCE MANUAL. Section 3. Curriculum Program Application for Existing Program Titles (Procedures and Accountability Report)

ACADEMIC AFFAIRS POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL

BY-LAWS of the Air Academy High School NATIONAL HONOR SOCIETY

SORORITY AND FRATERNITY AFFAIRS POLICY ON EXPANSION FOR SOCIAL SORORITIES AND FRATERNITIES

PATTERNS OF ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT OF BIOMEDICAL EDUCATION & ANATOMY THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY

New Graduate Program Proposal Review Process. Development of the Preliminary Proposal

Redeployment Arrangements at Primary Level for Surplus Permanent & CID Holding Teachers

Frequently Asked Questions Archdiocesan Collaborative Schools (ACS)

Hiring Procedures for Faculty. Table of Contents

POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY M. J. NEELEY SCHOOL OF BUSINESS CRITERIA FOR PROMOTION & TENURE AND FACULTY EVALUATION GUIDELINES 9/16/85*

Post-16 transport to education and training. Statutory guidance for local authorities

Pittsburgh Theological Seminary Faculty Handbook Faculty Rules and Regulations

MMU/MAN: MASINDE MULIRO UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

EXPANSION PROCEDURES AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

GENERAL UNIVERSITY POLICY APM REGARDING ACADEMIC APPOINTEES Limitation on Total Period of Service with Certain Academic Titles

Program Change Proposal:

Delaware Performance Appraisal System Building greater skills and knowledge for educators

IRB-FLINT Standard Operating Procedures May Institutional Review Board (IRB-FLINT) Standard Operating Procedures. May 2012

PUTRA BUSINESS SCHOOL (GRADUATE STUDIES RULES) NO. CONTENT PAGE. 1. Citation and Commencement 4 2. Definitions and Interpretations 4

Procedures for Academic Program Review. Office of Institutional Effectiveness, Academic Planning and Review

University of Michigan - Flint POLICY ON STAFF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND CONFLICTS OF COMMITMENT

GUIDE TO EVALUATING DISTANCE EDUCATION AND CORRESPONDENCE EDUCATION

The Department of Physics and Astronomy The University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Departmental Bylaws

Navitas UK Holdings Ltd Embedded College Review for Educational Oversight by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education

Promotion and Tenure Guidelines. School of Social Work

Academic Affairs Policy #1

Office of the Provost

Higher Education Review (Embedded Colleges) of Navitas UK Holdings Ltd. Hertfordshire International College

OAKLAND UNIVERSITY CONTRACT TO CHARTER A PUBLIC SCHOOL ACADEMY AND RELATED DOCUMENTS ISSUED TO: (A PUBLIC SCHOOL ACADEMY)

Anthropology Graduate Student Handbook (revised 5/15)

Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis Chief Academic Officer s Guidelines For Preparing and Reviewing Promotion and Tenure Dossiers

Utica College Web Policies and Guidelines

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY BOARD PhD PROGRAM REVIEW PROTOCOL

INDEPENDENT STATE OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA.

SPORTS POLICIES AND GUIDELINES

REGULATIONS FOR POSTGRADUATE RESEARCH STUDY. September i -

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS SUPERINTENDENT SEARCH CONSULTANT

Pennsylvania Association of Councils of Trustees THE ROLE OF TRUSTEE IN PENNSYLVANIA S STATE SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION

London School of Economics and Political Science. Disciplinary Procedure for Students

RECRUITMENT AND EXAMINATIONS

Student Organization Handbook

Pattern of Administration. For the Department of Civil, Environmental and Geodetic Engineering The Ohio State University Revised: 6/15/2012

August 22, Materials are due on the first workday after the deadline.

LODI UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT. Eliminate Rule Instruction

COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS DEPARTMENT OF MARKETING CLINICAL FACULTY POLICY AND PROCEDURES

Promotion and Tenure Policy

CONTINUUM OF SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICES FOR SCHOOL AGE STUDENTS

Transcription:

Shared Governance Handbook Board of Trustee s Approval September 15, 2017 1

Arkansas State University- Jonesboro Shared Governance Handbook Preamble The concept of shared governance is unique to institutions of higher learning. It is based in the belief that since the faculty, staff, students, and administration of a college or university have a shared responsibility in the fulfillment of the institution s mission, they should also have an appropriate role in its governance. This document sets out the mode of operation for shared governance at Arkansas State University. The institution should never forget that the spirit of successful shared governance does not live in a document. It draws its breath from a commitment from the entire university community for it to work; it requires that shared governance be an essential part of the institutional cultural fabric. In order to have shared successful shared governance that will well serve the institution s mission two imperatives must exist. One is that every constituency group have an appropriate voice through true representation in the process. The other is that the Chancellor must be the ultimate champion for governance at Arkansas State University and dedicated to honoring the process. This document or the shared governance process will be preserved within the Chancellor s office and can only be edited, changed, or corrected by the Arkansas State University Board of Trustees following an appropriate vetting via the shared governance process. 2

Table of Contents Preamble... 2 I. Shared Governance Handbook... 4 II. Stakeholders and SGOC Membership... 5 II.A. Stakeholders... 5 II.A.1. Stake Holders in the Shared Governance Process... 5 II.B. Membership and Responsibilities... 5 II.B.1. Membership of the SGOC... 5 II.B.2. Responsibilities of the SGOC... 6 II.C. Issues/Proposals... 6 II.D. Shared Governance Principles... 7 II.E. Shared Governance Process... 7 II.E.1. Establishing the Proposal s Disposition... 7 II.E.2. The Review Process... 7 II.E.3. Timetable and Routing for Proposal Review... 8 II.F Shared Governance Committees... 8 Appendix A... 10 3

I. Shared Governance Handbook The university operates on the basis of a shared governance system in which administrators, faculty, staff, and students participate in the governance of the institution. Shared governance consists of a defined role for administration, faculty, staff, and students in proposing or influencing important policy and other decisions that affect the institution. Because all constituent groups depend on each other to advance the goals of the university, this participation must be real and based on the principle that each group has the largest influence in matters that concern it most. For example, faculty should be involved in areas of strategic and budget planning, faculty and staff welfare, creation and elimination of academic programs, selection of academic and administrative officers, campus planning and development, and organizational accountability. These functions are exercised primarily through stake holders and shared governance committees. The following shared governance guidelines in this Shared Governance Handbook are intended to elaborate details in the way that stakeholders address certain issues and make recommendations to the Chancellor, the System President, and the ASU Board of Trustees concerning university policies and practices. Stakeholders include faculty, staff, students, administration, and the Board of Trustees. The spirit and intent of shared governance principles shall govern all persons participating in the process. The Board of Trustees is charged by the Constitution of the State of Arkansas to manage and control the university and has ultimate responsibility for the institution. The Board of Trustees sets university policy. Nothing in this Shared Governance Handbook or in any other policy document of the university is intended, nor shall it be construed, to waive or change any of the Board of Trustees governing board authority. The provisions of this handbook shall not be interpreted to change the rights of the Board of Trustees as an employer under Arkansas employment law. Ordinarily, the trustees do not involve themselves in the day-to-day operations of the university. Rather, operating responsibilities and the authority to act are delegated to the President of the Arkansas State University System, who is selected by the Board. It is primarily through the President that the trustees monitor the university activities. The President in turn delegates the chief executive officer duties to the Chancellor. The Board of Trustees retains the right to make any decisions regarding any activities on any campus of the Arkansas State University System or to delegate decision-making authority to others who are responsible to the Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees does not delegate its fiduciary responsibility for the academic integrity and the financial health of the Arkansas State University System. Committees of the Board of Trustees are not part of the shared governance system. 4

II. Stakeholders and SGOC Membership II.A. Stakeholders II.A.1. Stake Holders in the Shared Governance Process: Faculty, Staff, Students (both undergraduate and graduate), Departmental chairpersons, Deans, Provost, and Chancellor II.B. Membership and Responsibilities II.B.1. Membership of the SGOC Membership consists of the President of Faculty Senate; the President of Staff Senate; the Chair of the Academic Deans Council; a Co-Chair of the Chairs Council; the President of Student Government Association; and the President of Graduate Student Council; one member of the executive council who possessed tenure in an academic department or college who is selected by the Chancellor and who will serve in an ex-offcio fico non-voting capacity; six senior faculty senators appointed by Faculty Senate in a manner that assures one senior faculty representative from each of the six academic colleges; six staff senators appointed by Staff Senate of which three are representative of classified staff and three are representative of non-classified staff. Members of the SGOC may not serve more than six consecutive years without rotating off the committee for at least one year. The SGOC elects a chair, a vice-chair, and a secretary at the beginning of each academic year. In the event that any officer is unable to serve in that position, a new election for that position will be held. The chair and the vice-chair of the committee may not serve more than two consecutive years in their respective positions without rotating out of the position for at least one year. It is required that at least one faculty member and at least one staff member shall be elected officers of the SGOC each year. In accordance with the guiding principle of shared governance on a university campus that those with the most direct interest in an issue affecting their constituency group should have the most input regarding that issue, the SGOC will defer to the majority view of the members of that group when reviewing or acting on issues primarily affecting that group in the unlikely event there is disagreement among the committee members on how to handle a particular issue. 5

II.B.2. Responsibilities of the SGOC The SGOC manages the shared governance process. It serves as the entry point and the exit point for all shared governance proposals and also serves as the shared governance liaison to the Chancellor. The committee reviews shared governance procedures, insures shared governance committee performance, and responds to possible violations of the shared governance process. Any committee or constituent that experiences a possible violation of shared governance principles or procedures (but not specific actions, decisions, or recommendations by individual committees in the discharge of their duties) may ask the SGOC to review the issue. The SGOC has 21 calendar days after a direct request is received to make a recommendation in writing to the Chancellor. The Chancellor shall render a final decision on the recommendation and communicate that decision in writing to the chair of the SGOC with explanation of support, modification, or non-support within 21 calendar days after receipt of the SGOC s recommendation. The SGOC also functions as a committee on committees. Retention of existing committees, discontinuation of existing committees, and recommendations for new shared governance committees or changes in membership or representation are reviewed by the committee. This committee is responsible for the annual review of the shared governance process and for a survey, to be conducted every three years, to assess campus community satisfaction with the shared governance process and present recommendations to the Chancellor. The SGOC oversees shared governance proposals by establishing the type of review (expedited, full, or extended), assigning tracking numbers, and forwarding the proposal to the appropriate shared governance committee. The determination of expedited, full, and extended review will be made by considering the complexity of the issue, the urgency, and the availability of constituency groups during the summer months or periods when the university is closed for business. II.C. Issues/Proposals Any individual stakeholder is eligible to raise an issue in the form of a proposal. Proposals will be vetted through the shared governance process as long as they have a reasonable justification and are signed by the originating author. In the event the proposal requires a change to the Shared Governance Handbook, it will include the current language and the proposed new language as appropriate. Proposals can be channeled into the shared governance process directly through the shared governance oversight committee (SGOC), the various constituency groups, or via a shared governance committee. 6

II.D. Shared Governance Principles Communication and Accountability Accurate and timely multidirectional communications. Procedural Integrity Complete accountability from all or the proper execution of their roles. II.E. Shared Governance Process The SGOC has two weeks (14 days) from the time the Chair of the SGOC receives a proposal to meet and establish the disposition of a proposal except in those cases where an expedited review is requested. In the event of an expedited review request the Chair of the SGOC will disseminate the proposal electronically to the SGOC within three business days. A majority vote of the SGOC is needed to approve an expedited review which must be completed within an additional four business days. Meetings can be electronic at the discretion of the Chair. II.E.1. Establishing the Proposal s Disposition: The process of establishing a dispositions proposal is a series of decisions to be made by the SGOC regarding the proposal and include the following: Is the proposal a shared governance issue? If yes, will the review be expedited, full or extended? Which shared governance committee will serve as the responsible committee for the proposal? Which constituency group(s) will review the proposal? II.E.2. The Review Process: II.E.2.a) Once the disposition is set, the Chair of the SGOC will disseminate the proposal to the constituency groups opting to review the proposal as well as the Chair of the responsible shared governance committee. A review timeline, as determined by the type of review, will be included in the dissemination. II.E.2.b) Upon receipt of the proposal, the individual responsible for the constituency group will forward the proposal with the review timeline to the members of the constituency group or their elected representatives. II.E.2.c) At a time within the adopted timeline the constituency group(s) will meet to review the proposal. These meetings can be electronic if the 7

constituency group prefers to conduct business electronically and all representative members have electronic access. II.E.2.d) Following review of the proposal the constituency group(s) should report one of three possible outcomes back to the chairs of the SGOC and the responsible committee. Those possible outcomes are 1) support; 2) support with qualifications and 3) failure to support. Support with qualification implies that if the proposal was amended then support would follow and should include the language necessary for the qualified support. In the event a constituency group fails to meet the disposition timeline it will be reported that they were silent on the proposal. Regardless of the option exercised by the constituency group(s) the report of their deliberations should include the vote count. II.E.2.e) In the event all reviewing constituency groups support the proposal, the chair of the responsible committee will report these findings back to the SGOC within the timeline. Likewise, should all reviewing constituency groups fail to support the proposal with no qualifications those results will be reported by the chair of the responsible committee within the timeline. Finally, if there is mixed approval with qualifications, the entire SGOC will meet to decide if the proposal should be edited to include the qualifications. If the decision is no the results will be sent on to the Chancellor. If the SGOC feels the edits will enhance the likelihood of the proposal s acceptance then the chair of the responsible committee will draft an edited proposal and disseminate it back to the various constituency groups for one final up or down vote. Once the SGOC has the results of the up or down vote the chair of the SGOC and the chair of the responsible committee will prepare a final report to the Chancellor. II.E.2.f) Once the Chancellor has received the proposal with its review outcome he will have the option of recommending the proposal to the Board of Trustees for approval should the proposal require an amendment to the Shared Governance Handbook. Regardless of the Chancellor s final decision regarding the proposal he will report his decision, along with his rationale, to the campus community. II.E.3. Timetable and Routing for Proposal Review Please see Appendix A. for flowchart of proposal routing, review and timelines. Shared Governance Oversight Committee Proposal Routing for Extended and Full Review II.F Shared Governance Committees Through the work of committees stakeholders are provided the opportunity for constituent participation in university governance. The spirit and intent of shared governance will guide all committees. The shared governance committee designation 8

implies the committee will perform their assigned duties and responsibilities, provide a vehicle for submission of new policies or proposed changes to existing policies, and may be designated by the SGOC as the responsible committee for ushering proposals through the shared governance process.. Shared governance committees responsibilities relating to the proposals review process are set out in the Book of Committees. 9

Appendix A Proposal Timelines and Routing Flowchart of proposal routing, review and timelines. Shared Governance Oversight Committee Proposal Routing for Extended and Full Review Shared Governance Process SGOC Chairperson convenes SGOC to set disposition SGC Chairperson/SGC Constituency Chair/Constituency Groups Date Received Date Forwarded Type of Action Review (extended or full) 5 or 3 days Establish type of review and forward to SGC 21 or 14 days Forward comments to SGC SGC 21 or 14 days Prepare final draft for voting and forward to SGOC or recommend to SGOC the proposal be Withdrawn SGOC 5 or 3 days Return to Constituency Groups for Up/Down vote Constituency Groups 21 or 14 Vote and notify SGOC of vote days SGOC 5 or 3 days Tally vote results from Constituency Groups and make final report to Chancellor Chancellor 10 days Inform Campus Community of support and forward to President as appropriate or if unsupported, inform Campus Community of rationale for decision 10