Preliminary Report of the Constitutional Reform Committee (1975)

The Preliminary Report of the Constitutional Reform Committee was issued in 1975.

...In beginning its work, the Committee reviewed the report of the Governance Review Committee and the counter proposals generated during last spring's discussions on Hampshire College governance...In essence, the Committee agreed that the governance system must:


 * have clearly defined responsibilities and authority so that the distinction between the decision-making power of the College administration and governance would be apparent to everyone involved;
 * have clearly delineated lines of communication;
 * involve only those people who have a genuine commitment to and interest in the efficient operation of College governance;
 * avoid the practice of discussion of "trivial" and nebulous issues at the policy-making level;
 * guard against the overburdening of a small number of people with many facets of College governance;
 * provide for advisory bodies for major components of the College's operation (budget-making, academic program, quality of life, etc.);
 * provide for input at the issue identification and policy recommendation level from the entire community;
 * operate so that as little time as possible is lost in bringing major issues before the policy-making bodies and voting and enacting policies;
 * embody a means of linking policy-making with policy-implementation and monitoring and maintaining surveillance over the enactment of approved policies;
 * provide procedures for grievance and appeal of governance and administrative actions;
 * give participants a positive sense of performance.

Overall, the objective governing the Committee's work was seen as the design of a governance structure which would be easy to understand, credible to the College community, and function in a reliable, systematic way. (p.1-3)

Recommended Reforms in Governance at Hampshire College
The Committee advocates the creation of a few strong, reliable, purposeful, and responsible governance bodies. In particular, we recommend a somewhat stratified policy-making structure culminated by a College Senate, chaired by a faculty member and composed of fifteen to twenty-five persons (the President, Vice-President, Dean of the College, and representatives from the faculty, staff, student body, and Houses).

Issues would be deliberated at the "grass-roots" level where some degree of decision-making authority would exist. At this policy-formulation level, we place the four Schools (therefore, the faculty) with primary responsibility for academic policy; a new body representing the collective interests of the six Houses (including off-campus residence) which will be given responsibility for community life issues (each House will continue to operate autonomously with regard to particular matters); and several standing committees representing various aspects of the College's operation (Budget and Academic Affairs, as legislative committees, and Reappointments, Academic Standards, etc. as administrative advisory committees). These bodies will serve an advisory function vis-a-vis the College Senate and will provide the means for screening and clarifying issues to be channeled to the Senate for action. The committees will hold hearings open to the entire community before drafting their policy recommendations. Persons who would be ultimately responsible for implementing a prospective policy (e.g., budget managers) would be called upon to participate in the discussion of issues. In addition, we suggest the creation of an Election Committee to oversee the governance elections.

Major policy recommendations would be channeled to a Senate Agenda Committee, a sub-committee of the College Senate which would be charged with screening the issues presented by the Schools or standing committees to determine their appropriateness and readiness for presentation to the College Senate. At this stage, recommendations could be returned to the various "feeder" bodies if the Agenda Committee believes the issues are not clearly addressed or premature for the Senate's attention.

We recommend the creation of a Faculty Meeting to provide a forum for discussion among the faculty on a College-wide basis. The Faculty Meeting will convene infrequently, perhaps only twice each semester, and will have responsibility for voting degrees, approving curriculum, etc. The Faculty Meeting will additionally be able to make recommendations to the College Senate through the Agenda Committee and will retain the right to override College Senate decisions, although we anticipate activity in either case will be infrequent.

We advocate the retention of the College Council in its present form as a monitoring agent and advisory body to the President. We do, however, recommend that its function as an appeals and advocacy committee be strengthened through the creation of a College ombudsman. This person will serve as an advocate on behalf of any person or group requesting such representation. The College Judicial Board will be retained in its present form to act when called upon.

The model proposed differs most significantly from the present system in establishing logical lines of communication between various interest groups, disseminating some policy-making responsibility among various bodies which represent particular constituencies and interest groups, creating strong advisory committees, providing for full community input into policy formulation and recommendation, and strengthening the appeal mechanism within the College governance system. (p. 3-5)