We spent most of yesterday poring over documents received from the University of Louisville that followers of the Robert Felner debacle will find quite interesting.
Here’s a report from the Ad Hoc Administrative Policies for Collegial Governance Committee that… well, just read Provost Shirley Willihnganz’s letter to President Jim Ramsey introducing the report:
January 6, 2009
Dr. James Ramsey
President
University of LouisvilleDear Jim:
Attached hereto is the “Report from the Ad Hoc Administrative Policies for Collegial Governance Committee” prepared upon the directive of the Board of Trustees in response to a request from the Faculty and Staff Trustees. The Committee was asked to “initiate a meaningful review of managerial and administrative practices that affect collegial governance within units.”
The report is very thorough and well-thought out. It contains 19 recommendations covering the following areas: governance education; appointment and review of deans and chairs; central oversight of unit governance (academic, personnel, and governance); and the principle of dissent. I am pleased to submit this report to you with my full concurrence of the recommendations, and, if approved, will work diligently to see that the proper steps are taken to carry out the recommendations.
Sincerely,
Shirley C. Willihnganz
Executive Vice President and University ProvostAtt.
cc: Beth Boehm, Chair, Ad Hoc Administrative Policies for Collegial Governance Committee
Read highlights from the report and recommendations after the jump…
One highlight from the report:
E) The Principle of Dissent
We end by emphasizing the importance of respect for the diversity of opinion in the university. The Board of Trustees, administrators, faculty, staff and students will not always be of one voice on matters of policy and practice, and dissent from the majority view must be respected by all involved. No stakeholder should fear retaliation for expressing dissent from the majority opinion or from the opinion of a superior.
Therefore, we recommend that Chapter 2 of The Redbook be amended to include a statement indicating that the expression of dissent from the majority opinion or from the opinion of a superior may not result in any form of harassment or retaliation.
And from the Ad Hoc Administrative Policies for Collegial Governance Committee Summary of Recommendations:
B) Recommendations for Appointment and Review of Deans and Chairs
1) It should go without saying that all appointments must be made according to the procedures specified in The Redbook. In the case of external candidates for deans or departmental officers, we recommend that reference checks be extensive and include questions regarding the candidate’s commitments to the principles of shared governance.
3) We recommend a) that the Provost’s annual review of each unit dean include input from the unit’s faculty and staff (and that all faculty and staff within the unit have an opportunity to provide such input), and b) that an assessment of the dean’s commitment to the principles of shared governance be included in this review.
Click here to read the entire report. Share your thoughts in the comments. It’s an 8.5MB PDF file, so consider yourself warned. Only download it if you’ve got the time and desire to read it.
12 responses so far ↓
1 Novena // Jan 30, 2009 at 3:05 pm
“Who Judges the Judges?”
Admittedly, I haven’t read the whole governance document (my neourons and synapeses would burst if I did). But my first look at its highlights indicates that it is a masterpiece of boilerplate pablum. To oppose the new policies would be akin to denouncing motherhood.
The major problem is translating policy into practice. So long as UofL has incompetent, uncaring (sometimes even sociopathic) administrators applying the policies, documentary language means little. It is nice that it is there for possibile enforcement purposes, but people with wisdom and moral backbone still need to do the enforcing. Unfortunately, there still appears to be a huge hole in those “departments” at UofL. Granted, Felner was an extrreme case; but more caring, conscience-filled administrators would have made toast of him years ago. And they would now be trying to make things right in the CEHD and other injured places on campus.
2 Novena // Jan 30, 2009 at 3:10 pm
“My Apologies to the Biologists and Chemists”
Sorry I made grievous typos on nomenclature for little bitty things in the brain in my first sentence above. I took science (very little of it) for non-science majors as an undergraduate.
P.S. And I typed too, too fast that time, dm.
3 Novena // Jan 31, 2009 at 4:51 pm
“A Small Head of Cattle Can Still Decide”
Even given the important caveats in my initial comment, I’m glad that “The Principle of Dissent” has been included. It is a critical addition. But it will be difficult to implement. For example, Felner’s “leadership” turned into a cult of personality, especially for his losership team and some others who went along for the reward ride–yet they, as a group, were the minority, not the majority, opinion in the CEHD (e.g., remember the no-confidence vote?). The point is that protection from the majority opinion (sometimes a herd mentality) is not always enough. “Retaliation” can also be applied in subtle forms, e.g., a chairperson giving one a lousy course schedule, less discretionary travel, etc., if you do not go along with the opinion of the leadership team. As for the section on “Appointment & Review of Deans & Chairs,” it is astounding that those recommendations were never included previously. They should be part and parcel of the common sense of anyone who calls him/herself an “academic leader.”
P.S. I can’t get to the entire report (PDF), perhaps because of the electrical problem.
4 Novena // Feb 1, 2009 at 5:49 am
“We’d All Want to Change the World”
Tom Jefferson: “Jim, whatcha think of the new Redbook recommendations?”
Jim Madison: “Dolly likes them fine–me, too, I guess. We like baseball and apple pie, too. They’re tryin’ to protect a sufferin’ minority from an evil majority.”
Tom Jefferson: “But, my friend, what if the minority is worse than the majority?”
Jim Madison: “That’s possible. Heard of a situation like that at that normal school in Louisville. To make matters worse, suppose the leaders are cruel and repressive?”
Tom Jefferson: “What’s that Beatles number? ‘You say you want a revolution’”?
5 Novena // Feb 1, 2009 at 6:22 am
“Waving Red & Black Flags”
Uncle Sam: “This ill-conceived document will only encourage the dissenters, rebels, and non-conformists.”
Tom Paine: “But, Sam, we cannot just silence voices that oppose us, especially when they’re trying to save our very institutions.”
Uncle Sam: “Bohunk, they’re a pain (pardon me, Tom) in the neck. I’d say “ass” if I weren’t a gentleman. My background in psychology tells me that they’re simply maladjusted fools.”
Tom Paine: “So they make a little noise, cause a bit of trouble. Are we so weak that we can’t stand some dissent?”
Uncle Sam: “You might be right. Perhaps I need to see a shrink and take more gentle care. . . and then go to the bank for solace.”
6 Novena // Feb 1, 2009 at 6:41 am
“Shirley Temple to the Rescue”
JR: “Can you fix me a cocktail?”
SW: “Jim, I thought you didn’t drink.”
JR: “Usually don’t. But I need a stiff one for relief. We might swing the Deasy PR–and even Sam now goes for the new Redbook suggestions.”
SW: “Do I use ginger ale, orange juice, cranberry juice, grenadine, gin, Johnnie Walker black, or what?”
JR: “I’ve forgotten–haven’t been to The Brown since Wednesday. Stick it all in, what the hell–this is our first time to celebrate since last May.”
SW: “But the trial is coming up.”
JR: “Hush, hush, sweet Shirl. Let’s enjoy this Temple while we can.”
7 Novena // Feb 1, 2009 at 8:22 am
“Wait, There Are Judges Here”
Board of Distrust Member #1: “JR and SW are betraying us.”
Board of Distrust Member #2: “What do you mean, Sly?”
Board of Distrust Member #1: “This new Red Book dribble will undermine our power, in theory, to discipline and punish.”
Board of Distrust Member #2: “Indeed, in all my years as a municipal judge, I’ve enjoyed that lonely job. Now, I have transferred it to giving sage advice on education.”
Board of Distrust Member #1: “The damn document sets up an opening for clever faculty and staff to tinker with the system in ways we’ve never imagined.”
Board of Distrust Member #2: “But we have never challenged JR and SW before. How do we justify our intervention?”
Board of Distrust Member #1: “Because we know best. We never distrust our opinions (that would look weak). We are never in doubt (that would seem less than forceful). We speak for the good of the whole state of KY: Let’s keep the status quo–it’s serving us well.”
8 Novena // Feb 1, 2009 at 8:49 am
“Stand Up for Your School”
Redbook Consultant: “These new rules should maximize both our short-term and long-term capabilities to insure greater user-experience strategies in directing dissent in ways that facilitate both institutional and personnel satisfaction.”
Centre College visitor: “I’ve come to the right place, I guess. Passion, clarity, and respect for flesh-and-blood people.”
Redbook Consultant: “Our design manufacturers take pride in the painstaking layout of words and images that can control product achievement.”
Centre College visitor: “Right, you could teach us a thing or two. I wonder why we get so many more individual alumni contributions?’
Redbook Consultant: “Smart ass.”
9 really? // Feb 2, 2009 at 10:09 pm
It’s nice that there is recognition that people suffered from unfair treatment. It’s nice that there is a recognition that principles of fair governance were abridged.
I have yet to hear of any move to compensate victims or set right evils that were committed. The deads of Felner continue, the rich remain rich. Professional, personal, and economic attacks were committed by Felner and by those who remain now in leadership positions. There is no offer to repair the serious social and reputational damage.
It’s hard to believe that the recommendations are for Shirley to review the deans. Heck she failed to head all the signals and in fact claimed them to be irrelevant (the vote of no confidence and the letter from faculty). And Jim “it’s all anonomous crap” is no help. There were multiple layers of cruelty and incompetence. Only one level has changed. Problems remain above and below.
10 Novena // Feb 3, 2009 at 5:17 am
“Anonymous Pain & Pleas”
For really?:
We cannot join the “Forget It” parade . . . the price of cruelty has yet to be recognized or paid. . . and they are “academic adults” who should know better. . . their voices ring mute. . . for what grand purposes? . . So, we cannot be silent. . . it’s so hard to forget: cruelty . . . inequity . . . intolerance . . . harboring fear . . . waiting for the guilty to leave us alone . . . and ultimately to be punished.
11 Flag // Feb 4, 2009 at 8:05 pm
Key point here is comparing what she is saying publicly to what she is actually doing within UofL.
12 Novena // Feb 4, 2009 at 8:41 pm
“While Our Eyes Are Closed”
Flag, good distinction. A key point in moral decisions is what one does when others don’t know what one is doing. SW has failed that test repeatedly and keeps on flunking it. I guess she likes keeping the lights off when making her “moral” judgments and acting upon them.
It is those in the dark who take the regular beating–and it slips by the public eye.
Leave a Comment