Role of Faculty in Budgetary Matters – YCP Differences

YCP’s board in 1977 approved the adoption of a modified version of the “Statement on the Government of Colleges and Universities.” The original statement was approved by the AAUP’s Committee on College and University Governance in May 1972, and endorsed by the AAUP at the Fifty-eighth Annual Meeting in the summer of 1972.

There are a number of small differences between the original statement and the YCP version. Many of these are typographical (i.e. the capitalization of President). Others perhaps reflect a sense of the board at the time (the replacement of the gender-neutral “president” with the gendered “his”).   Throughout the document the headings of sections are titled in slightly different manners, though they run parallel. These minor differences are not highlighted here as they appear to be merely editorial rather than policy differences.

The significant differences between the version of the Statement are offered below without interpretation as to the motivation of changes or the impact such changes has on shared governance or relations between the various members of the academic institution.

In Section I, General Principles, the first sentence has been altered. The original sentence’s reference to the “principle of shared authority” has been replaced with “principles”. In addition, the YCP version explicitly points to the YCP modification of the Statement. The original sentence is “The purpose of this statement is to define the role of the faculty in decisions as to the allocation of financial resources according to the principle of shared authority set forth in the 1966 State­ment on Government of Colleges and Universities, and to offer some principles and derivative guidelines for faculty participation in this area.” The revised sentence is “The purpose of this statement is to define the role of the faculty in decisions as to the allocation of financial resources according to the principles set forth in the 1966 Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities (modified York College 1978), and to offer some principles and derivative guidelines for faculty participation in this area.” (The labeling of the modified statement as 1978 differs from the date given in the revised statement itself. This may be a simple typographic error which has persisted.)

 

In Section II, Faculty Participation in Budgeting, the concluding phrase “and governing board” in the third sentence and the entirety of the fourth sentence has been omitted. The original third and fourth sentences are “This committee should be given access to all information that it requires to perform its task effectively, and it should have the opportunity to confer periodically with representatives of the administration and governing board. Such an institution­ level body, representative of the entire faculty, can play an important part in mediating the financial needs and the demands of different groups within the faculty and can be of significant assistance to the administration in resolving impass­es that may arise when a large variety of demands are made on necessarily limited resources.”

 

In Section II, Faculty Participation in Budgeting, in the third paragraph, the third and fourth sentences have been omitted. The original sentences are “In other areas, such as faculty research programs or the total library and laboratory budget, recommendations as to the desirable fund­ing levels for the ensuing fiscal period and decisions on the allocation of university funds with­in the current budget levels should be made by the university ­level, all ­faculty committee as well as by the faculty agencies directly concerned.2 The question of faculty salaries, as an aspect of faculty status, is treated separately below.”   An imbedded note following the first omitted sentence was similarly omitted. That note reads “For obvious reasons, the focus here is on funding from the resources of the institution, and not from external agencies such as private contractors or the federal government. Even in these cases, however, it may be possible in certain circumstances for the faculty to play a part in deciding further on the allocation of a particular grant to various purposes related to the project within the institution. There should be care­ful faculty and administrative scrutiny as to the methods by which these funds are to be employed under the particular contract.”

 

In Section II, Faculty Participation in Budgeting, in the fourth paragraph the description of the faculty’s role in responsibility for determining faculty status has changed. The original language is “The faculty, employing accepted standards of due process, should assume primary responsibility for determining the status of individual faculty members.” The revised language is “The faculty should participate in determining the status of individual faculty members.” The note following this sentence has not been changed.

 

In Section III, Faculty Participation in Decisions Relating to Salary Policies and Procedures, the second sentence has been changed. The original sentence reads “Salaries, of course, are part of the total budgetary picture; and, as indicated above, the faculty should participate in the decision as to the proportion of the budget to be devoted to that purpose.” The revised sentence reads “Salaries, of course, are part of the total budgetary picture; and, as indicated above, the faculty should participate in the decision-making process as to the proportion of budget to be devoted to that purpose.”   The edit is a change from “participate in the decision” to “participate in the decision-making process”.

 

In Section III: Faculty Participation in Decisions Relating to Salary Policies and Procedures, the second paragraph of subsection 1 has been changed. The original paragraph read “Once the procedures are established, the person or group that submits the initial salary recommendation (usually the department chair, alone or in conjunction with an elected executive committee of the department) should be informed of its status at each further stage of the salary­ determination process. As the Statement on Government points out, the chief competence for the judgment of a colleague rests in the department, school, or pro­gram (whichever is the smallest applicable unit of faculty government within the insti­tution), and in most cases the salary recommendation presumably derives from its judg­ment. The recommending officer should have the opportunity to defend that recommen­dation at a later stage in the event of a serious challenge to it.” The revised paragraph reads “Once the procedures are established, the chairman, who submits the initial recommendation, should be informed of its status at each further state of the process.  The chairman should have the opportunity to defend that recommendation at a later stage in the event of a serious challenge to it.” The revision removes the reference to chief judge of competence and salary recommendation resting with the smallest applicable unit of faculty governance.

 

In Section III: Faculty Participation in Decisions Relating to Salary Policies and Procedures, the second subsection “Levels of Decision Making” has been omitted. The deleted language is

2. Levels of Decision Making. Not all institutions provide for an initial salary recommenda­tion by the department chair or the equivalent officer; the Association regards it as desir­able, for the reasons already mentioned, that the recommendation normally originate at the departmental level. Further review is normally conducted by the appropriate admin­istrative officers; they should, when they have occasion to question or inquire further regarding the departmental recommendation, solicit informed faculty advice by meeting with the department head or chair and, if feasible, the elected body of the faculty. It is also desirable that a mechanism exist for review of a salary recommendation, or of a final salary decision, by a representative elected committee of the faculty above the depart­ment level in cases involving a complaint. Such a committee should have access to infor­mation on faculty salary levels. Another faculty committee, likewise at a broader level than that of the department, may be charged with the review of routine recommenda­tions.

“Of the role of the governing board in college and university government, the Statement on Government says: “The governing board of an institution of higher education, while maintaining a general overview, entrusts the conduct of administration to the adminis­trative officers, the president and the deans, and the conduct of teaching and research to the faculty. The board should undertake appropriate self-­limitation.” The Statement adds that “in the broadest sense of the term” the board “should pay attention to personnel pol­icy.” The thrust of these remarks is that it is inadvisable for a governing board to make decisions on individual salaries, except those of the chief administrative officers of the institution. Not only do such decisions take time that should be devoted to the board’s functions of overview and long­-range planning, but such decisions also are in most cases beyond the competence of the board.

“When financial exigency leads to a reduction in the overall salary budget for teaching and research, the governing board, while assuming final responsibility for setting the limits imposed by the resources available to the institution, should delegate to the facul­ty and administration concurrently any further review of the implication of the situation for individual salaries, and the faculty should be given the opportunity to minimize the hardship to its individual members by careful examination of whatever alternatives to termination of services are feasible.”

 

A note in the first omitted paragraph occurred following the third sentence. That note is “See Regulation 15 of the “Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure,” Policy Documents and Reports, 88.”

 

 

 

Note:

The modified version of the Role of Faculty, in note 3 refers to AAUP Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure, regulation 4. This regulation refers to the process for termination of faculty without cause, including for financial exigency.  This regulation is not elsewhere listed as endorsed by the College, but perhaps is guiding as to the college’s processes in such actions given the Board endorsement of this customized document.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s