Governance Task Force/minutes 091009


 * Posted to the intranet on Thursday, October 29, 2009 by Abby Ferguson

Report of the Meeting of the Governance Task Force Meeting October 9, 2009 Hampshire College

The meeting was called to order at 12:13 p.m.

Prior to addressing agenda items, the following issue was raised: Members reported that a proposed draft of changes to the Faculty Handbook was circulating among the faculty. Members raised concerns about how those efforts relate to the work of the TF. Co-chair MacCurdy offered information about the administration's proposal to revise certain elements of the Faculty Handbook, particularly selected language of the reappointment process, to mitigate potential legal risks identified by legal consultants.

It is important to stress that the process of addressing areas of potential legal risk in College governance documents predated the creation of the Governance Task Force and has nothing to do with the work of the TF, nor did TF members know this potential legal risk review was being conducted. This is because the charge to the GTF is not to re-write specific sections of the Faculty Handbook or any other governance documents but to make recommendations about governance structures and processes that might improve campus governance. Any rewriting of documents will be done by an implementation committee after the TF produces its recommendations and the board has made its decisions about what to move forward. The proposed Faculty Handbook changes are on a separate track because the College's legal consultants had advised the administration to address some sections in the FH that presented enough potential legal risk that the College should not wait the two years or so it would take to address them in the governance review process. In addition--and this is the most important point--the proposed changes to the FH are attempts to mitigate potential legal risks (and in the case of the financial exigency clause to provide some protections for the faculty), not to improve governance.

It was reasserted that the charge of the TF is to look at major parts of the Faculty Handbook and decide what structures and processes should be examined. The focus of the TF is to make recommendations about campus governance policies, structures, and processes. It is not the job of the TF at this time to rewrite specific sections or language of the handbook to mitigate potential legal risk, which was the focus of the current draft of proposed handbook changes. That is for an implementation committee that will follow the work of the TF.

Agenda Items

The TF was updated on Re-Rad concerns; members of Re-Rad took their requests to Chairman Roos and the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees, and their requests were discussed but denied.

The general issue of confidentiality was raised: how does the TF maintain confidentiality while stressing the commitment to transparency? Members suggested that business be conducted as with any other committee on campus so as to not reconfirm the public perception of secrecy/lack of transparency. That means that we will not release reports of the meetings of the task force until after the next meeting when the minutes are approved.

Policies were discussed in relation to meeting minutes and meeting facilitation; minutes were reviewed by TF and it was asked whether the minutes will be voted on or approved by consensus. It was decided that all actions be decided by consensus.

Co-chair MacCurdy reaffirmed that her role on the TF is as a facilitator who provides information, helps with logistics, and enables others to do their jobs. Her role is not to make decisions but to facilitate the work of those who do. It is important that community members are clear about this as well.

The issue of attitudes toward and perception of the use of outside models was discussed. Some in the community might be concerned that the consideration of outside "best practice" models might jeopardize the College's distinctiveness. It will be important to assure the community that information gathering is only that. The task force will be acutely aware of the tension between the need to preserve what makes Hampshire distinctive with what might be appropriate to adapt for our use from other models.

It was suggested that there should be a clear division between principles and practices. Principles should not violate what is determined to be essential to the Hampshire community; the practices can be gleaned from research. The GTF members began a discussion of core principles that make Hampshire distinctive. We agreed that five minutes at the beginning of every TF meeting should be devoted to a "values" discussion to check in on the evolution of the list of core principles.

Issues were raised about the staff's perceptions. Members acknowledged that Hampshire staff members feel increasingly marginalized within the governance process on campus and need ways to more fully connect with other constituents.

The issue of community values and majority democracy was discussed: how do we maintain democratic voice while allowing schools of different size to operate in ways that are most beneficial?

Audit sheets were discussed; a question was raised whether there should be a distinction between what is researched among Hampshire documents and what actually happens and/or is common knowledge. It was recommended that it should be noted whether there are documents to support the way decisions are made; sources should be noted in audit sheets. It was decided that the format should be audit sheets accompanied by written documents. We agreed on the following deadlines:

Deadline: Audit presented to different constituencies by Nov.16th First pass deadline: October 23rd Second pass deadline: November 6

We decided that the TF will discuss core principles with the community and that feedback will be encouraged as part of the TF charge. Our community outreach efforts will begin once we have completed the descriptive part of our work.

The meeting was adjourned at 2:03 p.m.