UAS Resolution on Shared Governance

Resolution for Consideration

By the University Academic Senate
Proposed for Consideration on December 14, 2020
Final Amended Version (Approved by UAS on Feb 15th, 2021)

WHEREAS:

1. The Preamble to the Statutes of the University Academic Senate of Marquette University states that the “Board of Trustees, President, Provost and administration endorse shared governance as a process in which the faculty has an essential role as participants in deliberations regarding academic and administrative areas that affect the academic mission of the University. Overall, shared governance improves communication, collegiality, and decision-making about the academic mission and about the effective and efficient use of University resources in keeping with strategic initiatives.”
2. Further, the Preamble states: “In shared governance, administrators consult with such faculty bodies in a timely manner and give serious consideration to their recommendations before decisions and actions are taken. When a decision varies from faculty recommendation, administrators will promptly discuss this with the relevant academic group prior to the decision being implemented. In rare instances when time will not allow a discussion, administrators will provide notification with rationale to the relevant academic group prior to implementation of the decision.”
3. Further, the Preamble states: “The University Academic Senate (UAS) is the primary vehicle for university-wide shared governance and commits itself to fostering a culture of collaboration and participation. As a deliberative body, the shared governance responsibilities of UAS include…academic planning…appraising initiatives and policies relevant to the faculty and the academic mission of the university…[and] responding to faculty, administrative and student concerns.”
4. Section 1.01 of the Statutes states that the Faculty Council (FC) “monitors academic governance issues, provides a forum for discussing and vetting matters of immediate academic and professional importance, and draws upon the collective experience and knowledge of the faculty as a consultative body for the Senate,” as well as “[m]onitors the state of shared governance and the effectiveness of communication and collaboration and various levels of the administration.”
5. The Marquette University Chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP Chapter) is a voluntary association of current and retired Marquette University faculty members and graduate students seeking to advance shared governance within the University. AAUP Statements of Principles have served as the basis for establishing shared governance rules and processes at many institutions of higher education in the United States, including Marquette University. See AAUP Policy Documents and Reports (11th ed. 2015), also known as the “Redbook.”
6. The AAUP Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities states with respect to university budgeting: “The allocation of resources among competing demands is central in the formal responsibility of the governing board, in the administrative authority of the president, and in the educational function of the faculty. Each component should therefore have a voice in the determination of short- and long-range priorities, and each should receive appropriate analyses of past budgetary experience, reports on current budgets and expenditures, and short- and long-range budgetary projections."
7. The AAUP Statement on the Role of the Faculty in the Budgeting Process states in relevant part: “The faculty should participate both in the preparation of the total institutional budget and (within the framework of the total budget) in decisions relevant to the further apportioning of its specific fiscal divisions (salaries, academic programs, tuition, physical plant and grounds, and so on). The soundness of resulting decisions should be enhanced if an elected representative committee of the faculty participates in deciding on the overall allocation of institutional resources and the proportion to be devoted directly to the academic program. The committee should be given access to all information that it requests to perform its task effectively, and it should have the opportunity to confer periodically with representatives of the administration and governing board."
8. University administration has established an “Economic Planning” process, described at www.marquette.edu/economic-planning/, in which it states that Marquette University must “align its strategic plan and its finite resources with the realities that we face at Marquette and in higher education.” This “Economic Planning” process addresses the University’s budget for Fiscal Years 2022, 2023, and 2024.
9. University administration has set an overall budget reduction goal of $45 million. This goal was established during the summer of 2020 and has not been explicitly revised since. University administration has not yet sufficiently identified what portions of these budget reductions reflect the temporary impacts of COVID-19 and what portions reflect permanent and structural reductions resulting from changing demographics or other considerations.
10. To meet budget reduction goals for academic operations set by University administration, the UAS Executive Committee was consulted in establishing six Academic Planning Work Groups, co-chaired by faculty. In addition, academic leaders had undertaken a separate budget reduction process that could allow University administration to implement additional budget reductions beyond those evaluated and recommended by the academic operations workgroups. Meetings to promote cross-dialogue and information sharing between the academic leaders’ groups and the academic workgroups have helped mitigate the inherent conflict of conducting parallel processes in budget planning.
11. Senior University leadership have taken some steps to respond to faculty concerns, including adding Jesuit community and FC members to academic workgroups, having UAS-EC populate the work group membership, twice modifying work group confidentiality forms based on member feedback, adding faculty representation to the non-academic workgroups, inviting UAS-EC and FC-EC to later stage information sharing as workgroups finalized reports, including all UAS-EC, FC and faculty work group members to a retreat to provide feedback on the Provost’s preliminary budget-reduction plans, and including the UAS Chair to a final FY ’22 budget meeting with senior leadership that reviewed both academic and non-academic budget reductions.

RESOLVED:

1. That the structure of University administration’s Economic Planning process falls short of norms of shared governance specifically incorporated into the Preamble of the Statutes of the University Academic Senate. See I, II, VI, and VII above. Meaningful consultation for budget planning for FY ’22, ’23, and ’24 would have invited faculty early in the process so that faculty could provide substantive input on the timeline for the process and the ultimate financial objectives to be achieved. For FY ’22, faculty consultation did not allow sufficient time and consideration for review of final decisions prior to implementation. There is time to address these problems in planning for FY ’23 and FY ’24 (and later years).
2. That the Economic Planning process can be improved through structural changes and information sharing proposed by faculty in collaboration with the administration. Such collaboration would strengthen shared governance in good financial times and in facing any future financially disruptive events. Structural changes will likely require updates to the faculty handbook.

FURTHER RESOLVED:

1. That the President and Provost should explicitly identify those portions of what they have determined are necessary budget reductions that reflect the temporary impacts of COVID-19 and those portions that reflect permanent and structural reductions.
2. That, prior to announcing any additional budget reductions for FY22, and resuming academic leader and academic workgroup tasks for FY ’23 and FY’ 24 budget planning, the President and Provost should advise UAS and FC of the basis for the allocation of budget reductions between non-academic operations and academic operations and consider the responses provided by UAS and FC as required by the Statutes and norms of shared governance. See I, VI, and VII.
3. That, prior to announcing any additional budget reductions for FY22, and resuming academic leader and academic workgroup tasks for FY ’23 and FY ’24 budget planning, the President and the Provost should share with UAS, FC, and faculty as a whole full information concerning its calculation of instructional and administrative expenses as a percentage of total expenses and why publicly reported data are or may be misleading. See I, VI, and VII.
4. That, University financial planning processes should be reformed. UAS and FC will work with the administration and faculty at large to establish a process to identify, evaluate, and implement required changes to the University’s financial planning procedures, including appropriate requests for financial information necessary to propose such procedures consistent with the University’s guiding vision.
5. That the actions by University leadership identified in XI above represent positive steps that work towards alternatives to unilateral decision-making. UAS and FC, in collaboration with faculty at large, will propose improvements in shared governance consistent with II, VI and VII through the UAS deliberation process and present to the President and Board of Trustees no later than June 1st, 2021.