REPORT TO THE FACULTY, PART TWO
May 22, 2003
Noel Byrne, Chair of the Faculty
I submit this report as a kind of “summing up” of certain matters that currently prevail with respect to Sonoma State University and its faculty. As I have stated previously (cf. “Report to the Faculty, Part One,” of 12/17/02), I entered faculty governance because of my strong concerns for the welfare of this institution and the declining state of shared governance at Sonoma State University. Those concerns have not abated.
In this report I wish to communicate to the faculty concerns that I believe warrant continued attention now that my year of effort is at an end. I also wish to offer some comments about views held by junior faculty senators on the Academic Senate of this university. My concerns focus on several matters: 1) The current state of shared governance at Sonoma State University; 2) The enduring heritage of a decade of organizational restructuring at this institution; 3) Efforts to reframe university processes in terms of a corporate model. 4) Finally, I wish to provide a report of concerns about faculty governance processes held by junior faculty senators.
The principle of shared governance on the part of university faculty and administration has been a central value at the levels of both the California State University Statewide Academic Senate and at Sonoma State University. However, the last year has witnessed a number of serious threats to this principle.1 A series of events chronicled in my Report to the Faculty of 12/17/02 signaled important difficulties of this order. These included a troubling report from one of the top administrators at this university that my hope for a more consultative relation with the faculty by the president was doomed.2 They also included the president’s e-mail communication to me about his disregard for the views held by faculty representatives to the Vice President’s Budget Advisory Committee (VPBAC). 3 That is, in his e-mail communication to me about this matter, he wrote that he did not consider the views of faculty representatives on the VPBAC according to their “employment category.” In addition, at the Executive Committee the president has argued that representative processes are undeserving of significant recognition or attention in the making of important decisions. 4 In light of these events, it was no surprise that the president rejected out of hand the Academic Senate’s Spring ’03 resolution 5 requesting that the members of the Provost Search Committee be permitted to elect its chair, in accordance with established tradition and practice in searches for academic deans and provosts. 6 Most disturbingly, however, priorto the Academic Senate’s deliberations of this resolution the president announced at the 12/12/02 meeting of the Executive Committee that he would reject the resolution without consideration, regardless of any action by the Academic Senate.
In these and other ways the president has demonstrated by action and expression that he regards the principle of shared governance to be an unwelcome encumbrance at best, one to be weakened as the opportunity arises. This view and such actions warrant great concern on the part of the faculty of this university as well as by the California State University Statewide Academic Senate. 7
Over seven decades of systematic social science research addressing the nature of effective leadership has clearly demonstrated that being a leader is not the same as being a boss. As illustrated by the saying that “the leader is that person following out front,” the effectiveness of a leader hinges inevitably on his or her ability to articulate a vision that is held and embraced by the “followers”. Resort to bossism and decision by directive is a seductive if crippling tactic. In the long run, a reliance on fear or force (the standard stance of the “boss”) expresses a failure of leadership, an expression typically in the voice of frustration and even anger. 8
In my Convocation remarks of 1/27/03, I provided data regarding important changes in the structure of this university that had been engineered during the decade of the ‘90s which have significant consequences for our current circumstance. I referred to longitudinal data with respect to student enrollment on the one hand and organizational charts of this university on the other hand. The longitudinal data on enrollment provide a quantitative measure of the “work” 9 to be done by this university --- the education of students --- and its change over time. The longitudinal data presented by the organizational charts provides a broad depiction of the organization of means to those educational ends.
As I noted, this small set of data summarizes a large story. The beginning of the 1990s to the year 2000 was a period when the “work” of the university was no greater at the end than at the beginning. That is, SSU enrollments for academic year 1991-92 were at 6006 Full Time Equivalent Students (FTES) while SSU enrollments for the 1999-00 academic year were at 5978 FTES. Enrollments did not exceed either of these figures in any of the intervening academic years. Yet, an examination of the organizational charts demonstrates that this was a time of significant increases in organizational hierarchy, administrative expansion and administrative layering, all of which are implicated with increased organizational overhead. This is the period in which the number of vice presidents doubled from two to four, the quantity of associate vice presidents increased from zero to five, and the number of janitors plummeted from forty to twenty. 10
The heightening of organizational structure by the increased elevation of positions (and correspondingly elevated salaries) held by persons who serve at the pleasure of the president leads to a consolidation of power in the highest reaches of the structure. It also brings about an increased redirection of fiscal resources to those higher reaches.
On the one hand, such a change inevitably leads to increased overhead. More disturbing is the circumstance that such a structural consolidation of power can have social psychological consequences. The more readily available the reins of power, the more enticing their appeal. 11 At the same time, such consequences can include a diminished appreciation for the merits of shared governance.
During the same span of time as the principle of shared governance has become increasingly threatened, the structure of the university heightened, and organizational power concentrated, we have witnessed an effort to import into this university a corporate model of operations and presumptions. This is a mistake and a bad fit. 12
At this institution, the effort to ground the university in the corporate model has been expressed in a number of ways. The notion of “student as customer” has been encouraged at the highest level of administration. (Among its corresponding implications is that of “professor as merchant.”) A “Customer Service Center” has become a central element of the university for students, faculty and staff. A couple of years ago, an effort to elicit data from faculty took the form of a “Customer Satisfaction Survey.” 13
A number of regrettable consequences accompany the effort to implement this model.
FACULTY GOVERNANCE PROCESSES: VIEWS OF JUNIOR FACULTY SENATORS
Early in this semester, a senior faculty member asserted that senior members of the senate intimidate junior faculty members of the Academic Senate. He and I exchanged a series of communications about these matters. Although I had not observed actions that suggested intimidation, I felt it would be inappropriate to simply discount such a serious allegation. I resolved to seek further information from the senators. Accordingly, I discussed this matter with Scott Miller, an untenured faculty member of the Academic Senate whom I judge to be generally viewed with respect and trust by other members of the senate. I asked if he would consult with junior faculty senators and provide a report. To his great credit and in spite of his extraordinarily large commitments he agreed to take on this large task. After interviewing a large majority of the junior faculty senators, he compiled his findings in a report, which is attached. This report is of great value, since I believe that it provides useful information otherwise unavailable to those involved in faculty governance processes and that should be taken into account with respect to processes in the Academic Senate.
I invite the members of the Academic Senate to read this report with close attention. I will offer no interpretive comments at this time, as I believe that its substance merits reflection and discussion at the next meeting of the Academic Senate.
Of the matters addressed in this report, I regard the place of shared governance at Sonoma State University to be of greatest relevance to the Academic Senate. Also extremely important is the issue of the views about Academic Senate processes held by junior faculty senators, available in the report generously contributed by Scott Miller and which accompanies this document. The other issues touched on above --- altered organizational structure and the place of the corporate model in this academic setting --- are also significant. However, I discuss these not as matters to be directly and immediately addressed by the Academic Senate but rather as aspects of the academic environment to which the faculty should be critically attentive, with decisions about possible responses requiring reflection and deliberation.
1. The principle of shared governance on the part of university faculty and administration has been a central value at the levels of both the California State University Statewide Academic Senate and at Sonoma State University.
2. From that report (p. 2): I discussed with an administrator near the pinnacle of SSU administration my hope for improved relations between the faculty and the president. “I noted my belief that a very large part of the difficulties would be ameliorated if the president were to adopt a more consultative approach with the faculty with the making of decisions that have the largest impact on this institution. This highly placed administrator expressed his agreement with my points, and said that he would discuss this with the president. At our next meeting, the administrator announced that he had spoken to the president about this, who had responded, ‘Impossible!’”
3. Also noted in the earlier report: At a time of dire budgetary difficulties --- including the Governor’s mid-year reduction of the ‘01-’02 fiscal year budget, amounting to a loss for SSU of $737,820, as well as the added burden of $6,100,000 in increased costs for the renovation of Salazar Hall --- all five of the elected faculty members to the VPBAC during its 10/30/02 deliberations spoke against a proposal to allocate $100,000 to the search for a new Vice President of Development. In this, they were joined by the President of Associated Students, Remy Heng. The president chose to fully expend the entire $100,000 toward this search.
4. From the Report of 12/17/02, p. 3: Faculty members of the Executive Committee expressed concern to the president “that he did not appear to display much regard for the positions taken by elected faculty representatives. The president responded that putatively representative processes were actually the expression of contending parties, each of which was guided only by the narrow concerns of small subsets of interest groups.”
5. After lengthy and affirmative discussion, passed with no objection, one abstention, and the rest affirmative.
6. The single prior exception to this practice occurred with a dean search committee in the School of Education. In this instance, the president appointed the search committee’s chair, an action that was not widely known outside of the School of Education, and therefore not known by the rest of the faculty. Subsequently, the president’s appointment of a chair to the more recent dean search committee in the School of Social Sciences was protested by committee members as a violation of established tradition and practice. In response the president assented to an election of the committee’s chair by the committee members, an action for which the committee members thanked the president.
7. In a recent (5/17/03) personal communication, Andy Merrifield (Chair of the Faculty, 1999-2000) offered exceedingly useful comments about the importance of shared governance at Sonoma State University. “SSU has had shared governance as more than a mantra or a vague goal. It has been fundamental in our actual operation as a university. The reality is that without the belief, firmly established by actions or specific example, in real shared governance there has been very little that has been done on this campus that has worked. …. Shared governance is fundamental to this campus, because it is too deeply ingrained [for this campus] to work without it. In addition, though most of the first generation faculty have now gone, there is enough overlap between them and the second generation (perhaps you) and the third generation (perhaps me) and the still coming faculty, that the lore/myth/structure [of shared governance] is firmly entrenched. We can certainly hope that the new provost has skills to handle the areas which many of us feel [are vital to this university] and continue to share the belief in the importance of faculty input. If he doesn’t have the first strengths, we will be disappointed. If he doesn’t have the second, he will be disappointed.” Drawing a parallel with shared governance at the national level, Andy observes that “the real power of the President of the United States is the power to persuade. He is essentially a clerk at the head of a giant bureaucracy. He really can’t do much of anything himself, so he must get help. ….” Noting the inevitable disappointment of those with military backgrounds who “simply expected people to jump through hoops when ordered,” Andy comments that “the presidency doesn’t work that way. …. Neither does a university. [The president at this university] can order what he what wants, but the curriculum belongs to the faculty. Academic freedom is not something added on, it is essential --- in the literal sense. Tenure does not protect us if we are incompetent, or if we are dishonest. It doesn’t protect malfeasance, misfeasance, or non-feasance, but it does protect us from harassment for exercising our professional judgment on how to run the university. … Persuasion comes from bargaining. Thus shared governance isn’t a frill. It is the very core of how the university must operate. “ Later in the same communication, Andy states that “persuasion is necessary wherever there are potentially hostile groups or individuals with independent power. That is us. Where the goals and beliefs are together between the faculty and the administration we have no problems. In areas where goals and beliefs may vary, and where the faculty has power, we must be not only consulted with, but bargained with.”
8. Even Machiavelli suggested that the consolidation of power in the hands of a boss is of limited value. In his Discourses on Livy, Machiavelli writes that “people are more prudent, more stable, and have better judgment than a prince.”
9. I use the word, “work,” to refer to the educational mission of this university. (That “work” or the university’s instructional mission both justifies and legitimates the very existence of this institution.)
10. Sonoma State University is now graced with six vice presidents
11. I don’t mean to suggest that the temptation to take advantage of the availability of power is simply a consequence of its availability. To the contrary. Structural changes that consolidate power can be the rational consequence of an intention to set into place the means to more effectively implement desired changes. Unfortunately, such rationally intended changes often occur only at the manifest level of the formal structure of a given organization. They are much less successful in altering the informal and more enduringly deep features of a pre-existing organizational culture, such as that which holds dear the principle of shared governance. Under such circumstances, the stage is set for seemingly intractable and persistent difficulties, disagreements, and tensions within the organization.
12. A brief consideration of the kind of display evident at graduation ceremonies provides some hint of the problems that are encouraged by such an effort. The gowns worn by graduates and faculty are monks’ robes. These are expressive of the monastic origins of the western university. The corporate model does violence to and runs afoul of a whole constellation of values and commitments associated with those origins, including the implicit notion of a calling, a commitment to pursue knowledge (forms of Truth) for “truth’s” sake and a disposition to recognize the intrinsic value of service to others (be they sinners in search of cleansed souls or students in search of personal development).
13. By all indications, faculty rejection of this designation was expressed by the faculty’s massive rejection of the questionnaire itself and the complete failure of the survey effort.
14. In marketing considerable emphasis in placed on “the Four P’s” --- packaging, promotion, placement, and price. None of these refer to substance.
15. Many years ago, a very good friend of mine who was also a professor of marketing in a business school vigorously rejected my suggestion that the marketing discipline encourages an uncomplimentary view of human nature because of its attention to the lower order aspects of human beings. In uncharacteristically great anger and considerable intensity he exclaimed, “What pisses me off is when marketing takes it on the chin just because people are assholes!!”
Back to Historical Records
Back to Senate Home Page