Governance Task Force/minutes 090925


 * Posted to the intranet on Thursday, October 15, 2009 by Abby Ferguson

Report of the Governance Task Force Meeting September 25, 2009 Hampshire College



The meeting was convened at 12:01 p.m.

Just as it was beginning, the meeting was unexpectedly interrupted by group of students identifying themselves as student group "Re-Rad" at 12:05 p.m. The student group read aloud a list of requests to be considered immediately by the task force (TF). Those requests included two that related to communication and two that voiced the desire for 1) equal representation from all constituent groups, preferably 4 members per group, as stated verbally to the TF, and 2) that the TF be empowered to make binding governance decisions that would not go to the president, only to the Board of Trustees for ratification.

The co-chairs suggested that the TF discuss the list of requests presented by Re-Rad prior to undertaking meeting agenda items. Task force members:

1.	Affirmed that a report outlining the substance of our meetings will be published prior to the next meeting when possible (as per agenda item #3 already listed for today's meeting). This request was already a part of the TF communication plan;

2.	Affirmed that communication with the task force and the community be as transparent as possible, noting that this value already existed as an agenda item for the current meeting since it arose from the formal charge to the TF. It was suggested that the student group (Re-Rad) should be asked to communicate the TF charge to the community at large and to encourage students to participate in the governance review process;

3. Discussed the issue of representation; members stated that the composition of the TF was not decided by the TF members but by the president and approved by the members of the Board of Trustees for the following reasons:



When the board decided we needed to pursue governance review, the board and the president decided to seek assistance from the Association of Governing Boards. Dr. Tom Longin, senior consultant for AGB, outlined the process that AGB has recommended to many institutions throughout the U.S. He offered a series of suggestions and recommendations regarding the governance task force, including its size, composition, and method of member selection. Based on conversations with him, the Executive Committee of the Board and the president decided on a task force of 13 since research shows that larger groups have difficulty working effectively on these kinds of issues; a task force with more faculty than any other constituency because much of the work we have to do concerns faculty governance; three board members because the board will need to evaluate our work, and having board members on the task force will expedite that process and provide guidance; and members who are appointed rather than elected, for the following reasons. First, Dr. Longin suggested that members should put the welfare of Hampshire College first and focus on what is good for governance at Hampshire rather than on what might seem best for their own constituency. Second, elected representatives tend to see themselves as indebted to those who elected them and, therefore, may feel less able to think and act independently, which is the commitment required of the task force. For these reasons, the president selected and charged individual task force members to fill the pattern of slots that had been worked out in consultation with the Executive Committee of the Board.

Since Hampshire is a highly participatory culture and we know we will need extensive input from others in the community, also written into the charge is the opportunity for community members to contribute to the subcommittee work groups led by TF members and augmented with students, staff, and faculty, which will allow others to participate directly in the work of the TF.

While some TF members said that student representation was an issue they might want to think further about, they also agreed that since the issue was not one for the TF to decide and we need to get to our work this year, they could not address the students' second two concerns directly. The first two were already anticipated in the charge to the TF which was communicated to the community in a September 9 memo from Sig Roos, chair of the board, and Ralph Hexter, president of Hampshire College.

Response to the Re-Rad group--The charge to the TF addresses the request for a communication plan that is designed to be as transparent as possible and the need for full community participation. We will be offering a progress report after each meeting. (This is the first of those reports.) We will also be making periodic reports to the Faculty Meeting, to school meetings, to Staff Advocacy Committee, to Community Council, and other bodies as listed below. We are available to answer questions as well. We know that we will need more input from others in the community, which is why the process includes both work groups and opportunities for direct feedback to the TF. With respect to the second two requests made by Re-Rad--equal representation and giving the TF decision-making authority that bypasses the president and allows the Board only to ratify TF decisions--the role of the TF has already been determined by the Board. This issue is not within the purview of the TF to decide and therefore the TF is not the body to hear their requests. The TF affirmed that, according to the charge, the TF is a recommending body only. The Board of Trustees has final authority over College governance changes. The TF decided that the response to the requests from the student group (Re-Rad) will include the following: first, a verbal statement from the co-chairs that the TF agrees with the transparency and accessibility requests. That response was given at the end of the TF meeting. Second, we agreed that we would answer the second two requests in writing, and this report constitutes that response.

The meeting was re-convened at 1:05 p.m.

1.	It was agreed that the TF communication plan would be as follows:
 * emails or postings on the Digest
 * reports at school meetings
 * reports to ECF and SAC
 * reports to Faculty Meeting
 * reports to the Board of Trustees
 * reports to Community Council
 * reports to Administrative Forum

2.	Deadlines were confirmed, with minor changes due to calendaring (dates that fell on a Sunday, for example).

3.	TF began work on the governance audit, as called for in the charge, breaking up into groups. This work will take a few weeks to complete.

4.	TF discussed shared governance, what it is, what its structures are. We agreed that our crucial task will be to create a governance system that works better but still retains what is best about our current system.

5.	One of the ways we can best study governance and how it works at Hampshire is to take individual cases and see how the system works with those specific examples. We will look at issues both within administration and in academic affairs.

The meeting was adjourned at 2:05.