As new faculty join our ranks this fall, and with a formal meeting of the entire University faculty scheduled for 4:30 p.m. Sept. 20 at Rackham Auditorium, this is a time to review faculty governance and the duties we share to make it function properly.

At the University of Michigan, faculty governance has a multi-tiered structure. The University Senate, the highest legislative body of the faculty, consists of all professorial ranks, research scientists with full-time appointments, and certain designated librarians and curators. The University Senate is authorized to consider any subject pertaining to the interests of the University, and to make recommendations to the Board of Regents. Decisions of the Senate constitute the binding action of the University faculties. A regular meeting of the Senate must be held at least once per year.

The Senate has delegated its routine legislative business to a Senate Assembly, meeting monthly during the academic year. The Assembly has at least 72 members, elected by the governing faculties of the various schools and colleges under apportionment rules ensuring that all units are represented. The Senate Advisory Committee on University Affairs (SACUA) serves as an executive committee of the Assembly and typically meets weekly.

SACUA consists of nine members, each serving a three-year term, elected by Senate Assembly under rules ensuring some breadth of representation of the units.

Faculty governance also consists of 17 committees on special areas (e.g. finances, academic affairs, research policies) whose members are appointed by the Senate Assembly on the basis of interest expressed.

SACUA elects its own chair and vice-chair; the chair presides over meetings of Senate Assembly and of SACUA. The Secretary of the Faculty is elected by the University Senate, to record on its behalf the business of both Senate Assembly and SACUA, and to manage communications.

The Regents’ Bylaws provide guidance on how these bodies operate. As the title SACUA indicates, in general their functions are advisory. However, strongly expressed views can have a major influence on University policy. By tradition, SACUA has an informal meeting with the Regents each year, and more regular meetings with both president and provost.

The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) is a national organization, founded in 1915, and it has chapters at most universities. The University of Michigan chapter, one of the oldest, is not part of the formal University structure, but it serves as a watchdog and in advisory capacity to the faculty and administration. In particular, it tries to ensure that AAUP principles and standards are maintained; these concern tenure, appointments, economic matters and many other areas, all described in the AAUP Red Book (“Policy Documents and Reports”).

The AAUP chapter Executive Committee meets biweekly. At its meetings a standing agenda topic is faculty governance. Recent actions at Senate Assembly and by SACUA are reviewed.

As one who was for many years an officer of the AAUP chapter, I attend the Executive Committee meetings. Having also served terms in Senate Assembly and on SACUA, I have a special interest in the discussion of faculty governance.

It is a fundamental goal of AAUP to make faculty governance function well. Recent developments in this area have raised concerns in our committee as to whether SACUA and Senate Assembly are doing all they can for the faculty. I here review these concerns and suggest possible action to address them.

The first concern is the way SACUA has handled the action of the University Senate last March to establish an Administration Evaluation Committee. This action was a grass-roots effort from within the faculty itself to achieve a degree of accountability of administrators vis-à-vis the faculty (see http://www.umich.edu/~urecord/0304/Jan12_04/15.shtml). It was a hugely popular initiative with great potential to empower faculty relationships and to improve administration quality.

A majority of SACUA members has opposed the simple and direct orders issued by the Senate for implementation of an evaluation process by the end of Fall Term 2004. In fact, there are indications that SACUA will propose abandonment of the whole idea because some fear “it would destroy the special relationship that SACUA has with the executive officers.”

U-M faculty may be facing the undesirable situation of an executive committee (here, SACUA) in opposition to the expressed will of the body it ultimately serves (the University Senate). If the opposition is deep-seated, then normal democratic standards require those SACUA members in opposition to the Senate’s will either to accede to the Senate’s will or to resign from SACUA. For SACUA to make efforts to subvert the action of the Senate would be destructive of faculty governance.

The second concern relates to the position of secretary of the faculty. The bylaws of the University Senate, Senate Assembly and SACUA give few details about this office. By tradition of at least 30 years, the person holding the office has been a faculty member and the same person has served as secretary at SACUA meetings. However, with no notice or open discussion, SACUA last spring designated a staff person to serve as secretary of the faculty. Here there are two aspects of concern: whether it is appropriate for a staff person to hold this office, and whether the action should have been discussed at Senate Assembly.

About the first aspect, one may have a few qualms when it becomes known that a majority of SACUA members have voted to declare large parts of their meetings “executive session” retroactively, thereby denying university senators and assembly members access to their deliberation. About the second aspect, it appears highly improper to act without discussion. Therefore, I urge a review of the action at Senate Assembly. At that time, it would be useful to thoroughly codify the matter: who can serve, how selected, duties, etc.

The third concern is the absence of meetings of SACUA over this summer. Bylaws require SACUA to meet “as frequently as it deems desirable.” In practice it meets once a week during the academic year and, by recent tradition, a few times over the summer. If there is no meeting over the summer, there is a gap of about three months with no meeting.

In view of the many serious problems now confronted by the University (of which a major shortage of operating funds is one), it appears to be unfortunate that SACUA has not been meeting since early June. The AAUP Executive Committee always meets at least once a month during the summer. Often the University administration has proposed important new policy in July or August, and it is essential that faculty representatives discuss this and make a response. In the present case, some members of SACUA repeatedly have requested meetings, but the chair has refused to act. Instead, the chair appears to be operating autonomously, assisted by paid administrative and clerical staff. We learn that, in response to the refusal, several SACUA members have been meeting informally over the summer.

The AAUP has warned repeatedly that the University administration’s appetite for corporate design and corporate function has eroded democratic process and the legitimate voice of faculty in university affairs. Now this corporate model is threatening a key element of central faculty governance in the same way it has overwhelmed so much of unit faculty governance. Reform is needed, and quickly. Improvement is certainly possible, but faculty must recognize that modern university administrators no longer necessarily share their values, and that democratic process at the university, as in the nation at large, requires vigilance and continual engagement.

The entire University faculty—the University Senate—will meet at the Rackham Auditorium following President Coleman’s address this afternoon (Sept. 20). This is one of the few times each year when faculty have the grand opportunity to raise their collective voice. The agenda this year includes presentation of a plan for evaluation of University administrators by the faculty that was ordered by the Senate itself last March.

The Faculty Perspectives page is an outlet for faculty expression provided by the Senate Assembly. The opinions expressed in Faculty Perspectives are the views of individual faculty members and do not represent the official position of U-M nor the faculty governance system. Prospective contributors are invited to contact the Faculty Perspectives Page Committee at faculty.perspectives.page@
umich.edu. Submissions are accepted in electronic form and are subject to review by the committee. Essay lengths are restricted to one full printed page in The University Record, or about 1,500 words.