March 13, 2003
Shared governance essential, faculty tells search committee
The necessity for a good president to collaborate with faculty in administering the institution was the overriding theme expressed during a forum this week on the search for a new president. Sponsored by the Faculty Senate, the forum featured a panel of former chairs of the senate as well as comments from the floor. Representatives of the search committee were present.
Current senate chair Sandra Silberstein set the tone when she noted that the university is a hierarchical institution, yet at the same time its core consists of students learning from faculty. What holds the two poles of that paradox together, she said, is shared governance.
All of the speakers on the panel echoed this theme. Ron Moore of philosophy said that Faculty Senate officers come and go in two years, but “the president and provost abide.” Given that, Moore said, it would be easy for administrators to see the roles of the two groups as adversarial. But he emphasized that it is crucial that the president win and keep the respect and confidence of the faculty.
“Sensible and fair-minded proposals from the faculty ought to get sensible and fair-minded responses from the administration,” Moore said.
Gerry Philipsen of communication went further, noting that when the president and the faculty work together effectively, the work of the faculty prospers and the institution reaps the benefits. Philipsen recommended that the search committee contact the current Faculty Senate chair at a candidate’s present institution, as well as two immediate predecessors and ask four questions:
- Does the candidate share pertinent financial information with the faculty?
- Is the candidate skilled at inviting and using faculty consultation before key decisions and strategies are formulated?
- Has the candidate shown a knowledge of and respect for the rules and regulations of the institution?
- Can you trust the candidate’s word?
Philipsen said a good president should have both the disposition and the competence to work effectively with the faculty. The questions, he said, should separate “the genuine article from the impostor.”
Mary Coney of technical communication used an example to illustrate what she saw as effective collaboration — the review of the University Initiatives Fund two years ago. Noting that former President Richard McCormick had embraced the UIF as a central part of his program, she said he nonetheless agreed to collaborate with the senate on a review of its effectiveness and embraced the conclusions that were reached.
“At the end of our combined efforts,” Coney said, “we had managed to heal a divisive issue and no one’s views remained the same as they had been at the beginning.”
Mark McDermott of physics concentrated on research in his remarks. Noting that the state’s contribution to research is “miniscule,” he said the president needed to repeatedly sell its importance to the public.
“A president from an academic background will understand the research process,” McDermott said. “He’ll know that researchers don’t need management; they need help and facilities.”
McDermott praised McCormick for involving students in research, which he said helped convince the public that research is important.
Miceal Vaughan of English talked about “the vision thing.” A good president, he said, has a vision and works with the faculty to develop their vision. Vaughan also talked about the importance of shared governance at all levels.
“I would like to see the new president open up and validate shared governance at the school and college level too,” Vaughan said.
Speakers from among the 50 or so faculty who attended were varied. Eugene Hunn of anthropology drew applause twice — first when he said the president should make no more than five times the salary of the median faculty income, although bonuses could be doled out for successful fund raising, and second when he said that presidential searches should not be conducted in secret and all candidates should be identified.
Several people commented on the lack of faculty raises last year and its effect on morale. Duane Storti of mechanical engineering noted that the collaboratively formulated faculty salary policy was not followed and that this constituted a broken contract.
David Lovell of nursing agreed with this, but went on to point out the difficulty of competing for scarce dollars with such public goods as mental health services and provisions for the poor and homeless.
Tom Colonnese of American Indian Studies noted that the University is making “no headway” in recruiting faculty of color and that we need to “pick a leader who has a record of addressing these issues.”
Michael Kalton and Carole Kubota, the chairs of faculty groups at Tacoma and Bothell who were watching the forum via teleconference, pointed out that the panel speakers had focused on Seattle and did not seem to recognize that the UW has three campuses. They asked for a president who could see the “possibility and promise” of a three-campus system and maybe had experience with such a system.
Silberstein said the panel was drawn from a larger group of former Faculty Senate chairs whom she had asked to list the necessary characteristics of the next president. Their conclusions are posted on the Web at http://www.washington.edu/faculty/facsenate/Pres-Search.html.
One more forum on the presidential search is planned for 4:30 p.m., Thursday, March 20 in 130 Kane. Sponsored by the Board of Regents, it features a panel of presidents.
