The "Best Practice" I would like to recommend today addresses two larger goals that are important to make explicit from the outset. One is improved communication between boards and faculty, the other is faculty input into decisions that affect the institution.

The rationale for these goals is expressed well, I think, in the preamble to a resolution passed this past February by the Faculty Senate of Virginia (FSV). It notes that "faculty participation in the governance of higher education institutions is recognized as an essential element of a rich tradition that has contributed to the greatness of higher education in the United States," that "faculty participation in governance enables institutions to use fully their primary talents and collective wisdom," and that "faculty participation in governance includes those who are most directly and actively engaged in fulfilling the institution=s major missions of teaching and scholarship and who are most familiar with the importance and the implications of policy decisions." The broader goals are also consistent with SCHEV's desire to "locate decision-making as close as possible to those working directly in the delivery of educational programs," as former Director Allen noted earlier this year in a speech at the George Mason BOV Planning Retreat.

The FSV resolution itself stops short of recommending that faculty be made voting members of boards, but it does call for "significant, active, peer-elected representation on boards."

As one way of fulfilling this goal, I would recommend some version of what we might call the "Longwood Model." According to my colleague and FSV Representative Robert May, Longwood has had a nonvoting Faculty Representative to the board for a number of years. This representative is elected annually by the faculty at the first faculty meeting in the fall. The representative can participate as a non-voting member in all regular meetings of the Board, but, unfortunately, not executive sessions. According to Professor May, the representative has been able to speak and present his or her viewpoint with little difficulty. Moreover, at Longwood each standing committee of the board has a member of the Faculty Senate Executive Committee attached as a (nonvoting) member. This faculty member can participate in all discussions of the committee. Finally, the Longwood board has often had a breakfast on campus (before its regular meetings) to which faculty are invited to interact directly with BOV members. This has resulted, according to Professor May, in a situation wherein the faculty have reasonably good channels of communication with the board. May added, in a recent communication to me, "I don't see why other state institutions shouldn't have a setup at least as good as Longwood's."

Unfortunately, this does not always appear to be the case. Recently I canvassed my colleagues in the FSV about faculty-board arrangements at their institutions. These arrangements vary somewhat, as indicated by a spreadsheet I've composed. Most (though not all) 4-yr institutions allow faculty a formal observer status. But this, in and of itself, may only indicate that, like children of old, faculty should be seen but not heard. At some institutions faculty are free to speak, but only under very circumscribed conditions. Several institutions, Longwood among them, allow more full participation on the part of faculty. Some institutions include faculty as nonvoting members of standing committees; others have no formal committee arrangements but allow faculty to participate informally at this level. Faculty involved in these roles are typically ex officio by virtue of their peer-elected position within the faculty governance structure.

The situation at community colleges is similar, with somewhat less faculty participation than at 4-yrs (e.g., no programs here are analogous to Longwood's). One faculty member, for example, provided me with information, but only on condition that I not identify her/him or the institution.

Faculty involvement with boards in not unique to our public institutions. At Sweet Briar College, for example, faculty elect representatives to committees of the board, and, according to Sweet Briar's FSV representative Bill Kershner, "we are treated the same as other members except for voting."

The Longwood Model has much to recommend it. I would encourage you, though, in the spirit of creative thinking that has marked your deliberations about funding formulas, to go further. Faculty should be involved at the point of decision making not just as information suppliers but also as those who reflect on the information and draw conclusions from it about policy and practice at the institution. For this to happen in a fully meaningful way, faculty should be included not just on the board and on standing committees, as at Longwood, but also as nonvoting participants in executive sessions.

I would also urge you to encourage greater faculty involvement at the system-level. This is consistent with SCHEV's recent Virginia Plan, which states, "The Council of Higher Education embraces an expanded commitment to involve faculty at Virginia's colleges and universities in system-wide planning" (Goal 3.1, p. 47). For community colleges, the FSV resolution suggests adding a non-voting, peer-elected faculty member to the state board. For 4-yr institutions, recent innovations for obtaining faculty input at SCHEV, such as a Faculty Advisory Committee and the board liaison program, should be fully implemented

We recognize in making these suggestions that there are multiple legitimate stakeholders in the governance of an institution. In calling for faculty to be more involved, we are in no way implying that board members should be less involved. We support communication from many sources and from many viewpoints because, ultimately, this is how the best decisions are made, in higher education and elsewhere. Our point is simply that faculty - as those who do the teaching, scholarship, and service that constitute the essence of higher education - must play a central role in this governance. Boards will be better boards, and institutions will be better institutions when they take advantage of the unique perspectives that faculty have to offer.

Back to the Main Page

Posted: September 10, 1999
By The Educational Policy Institute of Virginia Tech
sjanosik@vt.edu