Comments on the Ad Hoc Shared Governance Task Force Draft Mission Statement
received March 2010 from Executive Committee members and Staff Caucus:
From Justine Hernandez Levine:
Suggested changing “How negative stereotypes about the
University Senate have emerged, and how they can be reversed” to “The
perceptions about the University Senate among all of its constituencies, how
those perceptions are formed, and how, if necessary, they can be changed”? That suggests more data-gathering, and would
help us to devise more open-ended and productive survey tools.
Commented on bullet item “How comparable universities
structure their shared governance systems, and which of those systems work best
and may be identified as benchmarks” as follows: This assumes that a single
system works for different places … perhaps something like “how those
institutions evaluate the success of their systems, and what aspects of those
systems may be used as models for Rutgers”
From Harriet Katz:
"My initial thoughts:
I like the proposal, including the name. Using a name that is not tied
to the University Senate makes it clear that the committee will be
examining the concept of governance broadly and is not a
Some may object to the threshold concept of "shared" governance, and
want to examine the issue of "faculty" governance. Does this proposal
permit that perspective to be presented? I think it does.
When an organization wants to take a really fresh look at what it is
doing, it can be helpful to have outsiders involved. I think the
recommendation that members include people with organizational
capacity/development experience be appointed is helpful (I think my
language is a little different from Ken's but I am amenable to whatever
the correct jargon is -- I mean term of art -- among folks with that
kind of expertise.) I take it those members may or may not be Senators,
but can be found in the University. Certainly we have people in Public
Administration, etc., who should be knowledgeable.
"I do think it is potentially a very large assignment, so the initial
task may be for to pare down what the committee will do, or possibly a
chair who is familiar with this kind of task can identify some aspects
that don't have be re-invented. For example, there may already be a
study or survey that provides information about other schools' ways of
providing governance/participation for faculty and students.
I do like the idea of getting out of the box of just "revitalizing" the
existing structure, at least as a thought process."
From Dan McArdle:
"I really think that Dr. Katz is on the right line of thinking with
this. I feel that we do need to solicit other Senators as well as
others not in the Senate, such as, Dr. Katz's suggestion of public
administration, public policy, business administration, law, etc...
should also be invited to help us construct what it is the EC and
Senate will be over the upcoming few years."
From Hank Levinson via the Staff Caucus:
"A little late to the conversation, but this does sound like
a great opportunity as the University looks within to help itself meet the challenges
and opportunities that face us currently and lie ahead.
"I would strongly suggest a facilitator or two. This would
allow all parties to take part and no one to "run" the meeting in a
certain direction. I would also suggest that the sessions start with an education
of sorts - best practices, history, terms, etc. This will get everyone on the
same playing field versus leaving out some of those that might not have as much
experience with this area but have much to offer in the way of advice and
"I am not one for formalities in process and procedure but I have
been swayed especially when the situation is one that will affect so many and
hopefully have long lasting benefits.
Breaking down the "value" perceptions that each individual or
group might have is key so that they can move past that and into possibly a new
value structure that meets more of the needs of the many versus the few. This can only be done through a process of
examining each area into its minutia parts and rebuilding them as appropriate
by the committee members.
"I know there are good facilitators in the HR
department and within some disciplines."