Standard Three: University Organization and Governance

Board of Trustees

Description

Wesleyan University was established in 1831 under the Special Laws of Connecticut, with all corporate powers to be exercised by the authority of the Board of Trustees (See Charter and By-Laws). The Board is composed of no more than 33 members. Nine members of the Board are elected by the alumni and members of the senior class, and serve a three-year term. The remaining trustees are elected by the Board and serve a six-year term. Since March of 2003 it has been the expectation that Board-elected trustees will serve a single term; occasionally, a trustee will serve a second term if there are compelling institutional reasons to do so.ⁱ Newly elected trustees participate in an intensive, one-day orientation program about roles and responsibilities. All trustees are annually provided with a Conflict of Interest Policy and an opportunity to identify potential conflicts of interest.

The standing committees of the Board are: Audit, Campus Affairs, Finance, Governance, Investment, and University Relations.ⁱⁱ The by-laws afford members of the faculty and the student body the right and responsibility to serve as representatives to the Board, with voice but not vote at the formal Board meetings, and with voice and voting privileges on the Campus Affairs, Finance, and University Relations committees, except with respect to personnel matters. Faculty and student by-laws stipulate which representatives sit on which Board committees.ⁱⁱⁱ

The President and the Board take responsibility for strategic planning, with input from faculty, students, and staff. With the Vice President for Finance and Administration (VPFA), the President presents a budget for consideration and adoption, as required by the University’s by-laws, to the Board of Trustees each May. An annual endowment performance report is given to the Board and interim reports are presented at each Board meeting. The Audit Committee reviews (and annually communicates to the Board) the report of the auditors and advises the Board on the University’s risk profile and on the adequacy and effectiveness of the University’s risk management policies, accounting procedures, systems, and controls. The Board receives regular updates from the President and VPFA on the University budget, long-range planning, and the endowment.

Board materials—including archival information on policies and past decisions, Board and committee minutes and resolutions, and general information about the role and responsibilities of trustees – are provided through a secure server to all trustees and emeriti. The President communicates with the Board through regularly scheduled conference calls and conversation with individual trustees and emeriti.

Appraisal

In 2009–10, Board Chair Joshua Boger instituted Board “working groups,” smaller subcommittees of the standing committees that take on particular tasks (e.g., faculty diversity, creation of internships, etc.). These are designed to encourage Board members to “get their hands dirty,” bringing their skills and energy directly to bear on issues of importance to the University.

In recent years, the manner in which committee meetings of the full Board are conducted has also changed. In the past, lengthy reports by staff left little time for trustees to be involved in discussions. Now agendas have fewer items, and the emphasis has shifted from staff reports to eliciting input from the trustees in the room. Open discussions have been particularly lively. One to two weeks before each meeting, a difficult question of special interest to the University is submitted to the trustees, and toward the end of the meeting the question is opened for discussion. These questions have included “What makes Wesleyan distinctive?” “What is a liberal arts education today?” “Wesleyan 2020,” “The relevance of the arts and humanities,” “Inspiring and sustaining innovation,” “Centralization or decentralization,” and in February 2012, “Reaccreditation – assessment of our education’s impact on life after graduation.” More active participation by trustees is not only giving the University the benefit of their expertise and experience, it is also increasing their sense that their time at these meetings is being well spent.

The work of the Board (at Board and Board committee meetings and between meetings) has become more defined and focused by Wesleyan 2020, which provides a framework for evaluating whatever issues arise. In considering the distinctive character of Wesleyan’s educational experience, for example, trustees were addressing the first overarching goal of Wesleyan 2020, and their discussions led to the idea of “intellectual cross-training” – the development of a fluid intelligence marked by adaptability and creativity. In regard to Wesleyan 2020’s second goal of enhanced recognition, the Board developed a vision of the trustees as ambassadors of the University who help to get the word out about the exciting things students, faculty, and alumni are doing. Naturally, the third goal of Wesleyan 2020 – to work within a sustainable economic model while retaining core values – has received attention at every Board meeting. President Roth and the Board Chair have challenged the Board to take on a more significant role in leading the University through this period of dislocation in our economy. While cuts to capital and annual expenditures have been made, serious reflection continues to be needed on how to generate the necessary revenue to run an educational program at the highest level.

The Board and the administration have expanded their oversight of the Chief Investment Officer (CIO) and the University’s portfolio investment policies. The former Portfolio Subcommittee of the Board’s Finance Committee has become an independent standing body (the Investment Committee), all its members are now encouraged to raise concerns about the University’s investment practices as they see fit, and both the President and the VPFA are now more involved in deliberations of the Committee and in overseeing the work of the CIO.

The Governance Committee (aided by the Office of Institutional Research) conducts a survey evaluating trustee engagement, the structure and functioning of the Board and its committees, communications, and leadership. The Committee then reports to the Board on the survey results and submits recommendations to enhance Board performance. In the 2011 survey, participation was strong, with 35 of 38 current and recently retired trustees taking part. There was considerable satisfaction with Board communication and leadership, somewhat less satisfaction with the effectiveness of the working groups and the accessibility of trustees to other campus constituencies during Board weekends. In response, Board leadership reconfigured the weekend schedule to allow for increased trustee engagement with students and faculty^iv and reshaped the working groups – reducing their number and making the focus of each more actionable and more closely related to the agenda of the standing committee with which it is associated.

Projection

Administration

DESCRIPTION

The President is ultimately responsible for all aspects of the University: including oversight of staff, policies governing student conduct, and affirmative action laws; accepting or denying recommendations of student and faculty committees; presiding over meetings of the Academic Council; submitting a budget for Board approval; and recommending to the Board tenure and promotion of faculty. The President is advised by Cabinet, which meets regularly and consists of the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, the Vice President for Finance and Administration, the Vice President for Student Affairs, the Vice President for Institutional Partnerships and Chief Diversity Officer, the Vice President for University Relations, the Secretary of the University, the Dean of Admission and Financial Aid, the Director of Strategic Initiatives, and the President’s Chief of Staff. Cabinet members develop goals for areas of the University for which they are responsible, present these goals to the Board each fall, and report on progress at the annual meeting in May. Goal-setting for all administrative staff members is required; these goals must be in alignment with Wesleyan 2020 and are part of the University’s annual performance review process.

The President speaks at the beginning of each semester to all staff on the “state of the University” and meets later with the senior administrative staff. The President and Cabinet attend regularly scheduled faculty meetings, and the President and Provost meet monthly with the Faculty Executive Committee (See Faculty Governance, below). The President also meets monthly with the leadership of the WSA, briefs the student representatives to the Board prior to each Board Meeting, and afterwards attends the next WSA meeting.

Faculty, students, and staff consult directly with members of Cabinet through standing committees, such as the Educational Policyand Student Life Committees, and on ad hoc committees or task forces convened to examine particular campus issues (e.g., Making Excellence Inclusive and the Sexual Violence Task Force). Reports and recommendations from these task forces are made to the President and Cabinet. Open fora for faculty, students, and staff are held when significant issues affecting the general welfare of the institution are being considered to ensure that decisions are informed by views from across the community.

Appraisal

The financial meltdown beginning in 2008 tested the willingness and ability of groups to work collectively. Faced with difficult decisions, President Roth declared a policy of complete transparency: information necessary for decision-making would be available to all. Thus, rather than restricting discussions of reducing expenditures to senior administrators, the University embraced a broad, collective process.

Transparent and collective decision-making, however, requires reliable data on which everyone can agree. Over the past few years the administration has endeavored to develop more complete data than had been available previously and to centralize information in a “data warehouse” accessible to all groups. This turns out to be a formidable logistical and technological challenge, but as of the spring of 2012, one close to being met.

There is, of course, a balance that needs to be found between broad participation and efficiency in decision-making. In the fall of 2011, for example, the library and administration announced a policy of weeding 60,000 volumes from Olin Library. Faculty protested they had not been consulted sufficiently in what they perceived as a fundamental change in library policy, while the library and administration felt this was an administrative procedure rather than a policy change. In this case, the weeding was postponed and a faculty-library committee established to examine the issue. Differences between faculty and administration will doubtless continue to arise, but the commitment to consultation and collective decision-making whenever possible seems genuine on both sides.

Projection

As data continue to be made available in the service of transparency in decision-making, it is to be hoped that the spirit of cooperation that allowed various constituencies to come together in time of crisis will not be lost to the suspiciousness of entrenched interests so common in university politics.

Faculty

Description

University by-laws define the faculty as the “professors, associate professors, assistant professors, lecturers and instructors, and the President of the University, together with such others as may be constituted members thereof by vote of the Board of Trustees. The faculty includes the full- and part-time teaching staff (including emeriti given appointments as per course visitors) but not those staff who teach in addition to their primary duties. There are currently 375 members of the faculty, 339 of whom are counted as full-time Wesleyan employees. These members are collectively responsible for faculty governance, which chiefly involves matters pertaining to educational policy and practice on one hand and faculty tenure and promotion procedures and decisions on the other. The structure and procedures of faculty governance are articulated in the by-laws of the faculty and the Faculty Handbook, available in individual faculty electronic portfolios. 

The faculty carries out its governance duties primarily through two legislative assemblies:

THE FACULTY AS A WHOLE addresses matters relating to the educational policies and practices. It conducts its business primarily through formal faculty meetings, which take place at least three times a semester and are also attended by representatives of the administration and the WSA. Faculty meetings are open to all faculty members – all of whom have voting privileges. Faculty meetings are run by the Faculty Chair or by the Vice Chair in the Chair’s absence, with the Vice Chair automatically becoming Chair in the subsequent academic year. Faculty meeting agendas and minutes are available in faculty members’ electronic portfolios.

The faculty has four standing committees: the Educational Policy Committee (EPC), the Faculty Committee on Rights and Responsibilities, the Committee on Honors and the Compensation and Benefits Committee (CBC). Each committee reports on its work at least once a year at the faculty meeting, with the EPC and the CBC typically reporting more frequently. Four other faculty committees – the Merit Committee, the Academic Review Committee, the Library Committee, and the Graduate Council – have narrower purviews and are not required to report to the faculty on a regular basis.

The Faculty Chair and Vice Chair, the chairs of the four standing committees, the faculty representatives to the Finance and Campus Affairs Committees of the Board of Trustees, the three academic deans and three elected representatives of the untenured faculty together make up the Faculty Executive Committee (FEC). The FEC, which meets regularly (sometimes with the President and Provost) serves as the Faculty Chair’s “cabinet” and represents the faculty as a whole in working with the administration. 

Action items for faculty vote in the form of motions are brought to the faculty meeting by the standing committees or the FEC. In addition, matters pertaining to educational policy and practice and to University governance in general are discussed with the administration at the faculty meeting.

THE ACADEMIC COUNCIL, composed of the tenured faculty and three elected tenure-track assistant professors, addresses matters relating to faculty tenure, promotion, and evaluation. Meetings of the Council are chaired by the University President. There are currently 187 members of Academic Council.

The Academic Council has two standing committees: the Advisory Committee and the Review and Appeals Board (RAB). The Advisory Committee, which meets once a week during the academic year, evaluates recommendations for tenure and promotion brought by individual departments, reviews negative departmental votes on such cases, and makes recommendations on individual tenure and promotion cases to the President. Advisory also sets guidelines to departments for constructing and presenting cases for tenure and promotion, and can remand cases back to departments if it determines that its guidelines have not been met. 

The RAB, which consists of 30 members drawn equally from the three primary academic divisions (arts and humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences and mathematics), reviews the recommendations made by Advisory, and hears appeals of negative decisions by Advisory. It has the power to remand cases to Advisory for further consideration or, under certain conditions specified in the Faculty Handbook, to reverse Advisory recommendations.

The chart below summarizes the major faculty governance bodies and standing committees:

The faculty Vice Chair, the members of standing committees of the faculty and of the Academic Council, and the faculty representatives to the Board are all elected via faculty-wide voting, while the untenured representatives to the Academic Council are elected by the junior faculty.^v The number of elected faculty members serving on formal University committees is about 65. This number does not include membership on ad hoc committees and task forces or overlapping membership on an elected committee and another committee such as the FEC that draws its members from elected committees. In recent years the total number of faculty committee seats has approached 100. 

From time to time, the faculty or the administration initiate ad hoc committees to study specific issues. In 2008 the Academic Council chartered a faculty ad hoc committee to evaluate Wesleyan’s tenure and promotion procedures, and in 2010 it created ad hoc committees to study the evaluation of teaching and non-traditional scholarship. (Their reports are provided as appendices.) These committees recommended a number of changes, many of which have been adopted by the Council.

Faculty governance is supported by the Academic Deans and the Chairs of Departments and Programs.^vi The three Academic Deans, one for each of the primary divisions, are appointed by the Provost and serve on the FEC. Chairs are elected by the members of their departments or programs and typically serve terms of three years. They have primary responsibility within their departments or programs for implementing faculty policies with respect to the construction and evaluation of tenure and promotion cases. 

The Office of Academic Affairs administers faculty policies and provides clerical, research, and statistical support for the faculty as needed. The Deans and the Chair of the EPC meet weekly with the Provost, and the Provost holds several department/program chair meetings a year. The Provost also is the Chair designate of the President to the Advisory Committee with voice but no vote.

Changes in the structures and procedures of faculty governance were instituted around the time of the last NEASC reaccreditation self-study. In particular, in 2001 the Office of the Academic Secretary and the FEC were established, and, in an institutionally historic move, the by-laws of the Academic Council were revised to shift the responsibility of overseeing tenure and promotion cases from the Academic Council to the newly established RAB. (The Academic Council retained its oversight of procedures and by-laws respecting faculty tenure and promotion.) The FEC and RAB were reviewed in the fall of 2006 by a faculty ad hoc committee on governance, which recommended their continuation.

In 2005, then-President Douglas Bennet issued a policy statement defining the excellence standards in scholarship, teaching, and colleagueship for promotion and tenure and the role of the President in that process. His successor, Michael Roth, has affirmed this policy statement. This statement serves as fundamental point of reference for the evaluation of tenure and promotion cases.

Appraisal

Advances in computer technology have enabled more efficient measures for disseminating information pertaining to faculty governance and conducting faculty elections. In 2000 the online faculty portfolio became available, and the faculty governance section of faculty portfolios now contains a number of relevant items: including FEC agendas and policies, EPC annual reports, rosters of faculty committees, faculty meeting archives, and the Faculty Handbook. Electronic online balloting for faculty elections was introduced in 2001, and 12 elections are conducted by this means each spring semester. The average voter participation rate per election was 35% in 2009, 34% in 2009, 32% in 2010, and 31% in 2011.  

THE FACULTY: Of the 62 motions brought to the faculty meeting during the last 10 years, 58 were passed, three were rejected, and one was withdrawn. On average, six action items per year were passed by the faculty. Several of the motions were amended in the meeting by the faculty after discussion and before final vote. A few examples are cited here to illustrate the diversity of issues approved by the faculty: a motion from the EPC to establish a prison education program in 2011, a Certificate in Civic Engagement in 2010 (one of 11 certificate programs approved in the past decade), and a motion brought by the FEC in 2009 to establish an ad hoc committee to advise the President on possible budgetary responses to the economic crisis. This particular ad-hoc committee increased the degree of meaningful consultation with the administration on budgetary matters. Over the last ten years, the University has made increased use of such ad hoc committees and task forces.^vii 

While the faculty as a whole has been actively and effectively engaged in governance, there is a continuing problem with narrow participation. Despite legislation in 2008 to limit years of committee service by any one faculty member (thereby opening up opportunities for others), faculty leadership has tended to be elected from the same pool of “usual suspects.” Attendance at faculty meetings ranges from 25% to 50%. Efforts have been made to encourage greater attendance via repeated reminders of upcoming meetings and making agendas and accompanying materials more readily available online. In addition, in the current academic year the faculty chair and vice chair set up an online “Moodle” page to which all faculty members are invited to submit their comments and concerns about governance issues, but it is too early to determine if such efforts will have a lasting effect on faculty participation. In spring 2012 the Provost, at the request of the Faculty Chair and Vice Chair, convened an ad hoc committee on faculty service and participation, and the report is forthcoming.

There is an inherent tension between the individual professor’s investments in scholarship and teaching and in governance inasmuch as both investments require the limited resource of time. Course relief sometimes serves to mediate the tension, as in the case of department chairs or the chairs of some committees, but this takes teachers out of the classroom and thus cannot be used to reward all service. Other forms of reward, such as research funds and merit increases, are under consideration. But clearly there is also some difference in the way individual faculty think about their careers that lends itself to disparities in taking up the tasks of faculty governance.

THE ACADEMIC COUNCIL AND ITS COMMITTEES: Broader inclusion on Advisory has been encouraged by reducing terms of service from three years to two; over the last 10 years, 60 different faculty members have served. In 2006, the composition of Advisory was changed so that only tenured faculty members serve. This has garnered mixed reactions: on one hand, many appreciated that untenured faculty were spared a major time commitment. On the other, some senior faculty regretted losing the different perspectives brought by tenure-track colleagues. Members of Advisory are eligible for one course off over the year, a 25% reduction in teaching, unless their normal teaching load is 1-1, as is the case with many faculty in the sciences. The faculty handbook states that faculty may not have course relief for chair or committee service that results in teaching less than one full credit course each semester.

As noted above, in 2001 the Academic Council delegated its power to vote on Advisory recommendations and to review negative decisions in tenure and promotion cases to the newly-created RAB. Almost all agree that this was a procedural improvement, ensuring more consistent and thorough assessment of Advisory decisions than was provided by the much larger (and often poorly attended) Academic Council.^viii However, the delegation of the Academic Council’s voting power to RAB has led many tenured faculty members to question whether the Council has become irrelevant to decision-making of any importance.

Faculty governance in tenure and promotion serves to advise the President. In tenure cases the President decides whether to bring a case to the Board of Trustees for final vote. In the case of promotion to full professor, the President makes the final decision and informs the Board. In the last 10 years only once has the President not taken to the Board a tenure recommendation of the RAB and the Advisory Committee out of a total of 73 positive recommendations. (During the same period there have been 13 negative recommendations.) In that one case the President did go to Advisory to seek additional input before making the final decision. Nevertheless the negative decision caused consternation among some faculty members.

FACULTY ELECTIONS: Although the institution of online voting has made it easier for faculty to participate in elections, voting rates continue to be highly variable and relatively low overall. Elections of Advisory members and the Vice Chair of the Faculty enjoy the highest average participation rates, about 50% and 40% respectively, with RAB election participation rates close behind at about 37%. The average voter participation rates for elections to standing committees are in the 25% - 35% range. This rate is deemed too low by faculty leadership, and ways to generate more faculty involvement in the election process are under discussion.

Projection

While the structural and procedural changes enacted over the past decade have improved the machinery of faculty governance, increasing faculty attendance at meetings, increasing participation in elections, and broadening committee service remain challenges. In  2012, the faculty met in an “executive session” closed to administrators – the idea being that this might help in generating a more independent agenda and more active participation. At the same time, the desire for close consultation with the administration and transparency in decision-making will doubtless remain strong, especially so when differences arise. One suggestion under consideration is to take a more open, issue-driven approach in Academic Council meetings that would increase the give-and-take between faculty and the President.

Students 

Description

The Wesleyan Student Assembly (WSA) represents undergraduates and advocates for their interests. The WSA is composed of 38 members across four class years, among them a President, Vice President, Coordinator, and five other committee chairs who compose the Executive Committee. Executive Committee members act as the WSA leadership and serve as student representatives to the Wesleyan Board of Trustees. The WSA holds elections every semester, in which students vote for their representatives, and the President and Vice President are elected directly from the student body with a year-long term. The WSA Constitution and by-laws govern the general structure of the assembly and its elections.

Apart from the Executive Committee, there are six other permanent standing committees: Finance and Facilities, Community Outreach Committee, Student Affairs Committee, Academic Affairs Committee, Student Budget Committee, and Outreach and External Affairs Committee. Each representative, excepting the President, serves on one of these six standing committees. The standing committees have sub-committees, which include WSA representatives, non-representatives, staff, faculty, and administrators in their composition, varying for each committee.^ix

Funds collected from students through the Student Activities Fees enable the WSA to support student events and programs. The Student Budgetary Committee allocates these funds to student groups on a weekly basis. In addition, the WSA manages a $200,000+ endowment, the first student government endowment in the nation, which is meant to allow the WSA to eventually lower the Student Activities Fee.

The full General Assembly of the WSA meets every Sunday evening to discuss campus issues, activities, and policies. These meetings are open to the public, and often guests from the community are invited to present. The WSA President and Vice President meet every other week with the University President, and the University President visits the General Assembly once a semester to update students on the state of the school and to field questions from community members.

Some recent accomplishments of the WSA include founding a student café, introducing new academic certificates, launching a professor evaluation website, organizing cultural trips, founding a local cheese co-op, reforming the meal plan, and establishing a green projects fund.

Graduate students are represented by the Graduate Student Association (GSA), which considers issues related to international students, housing, benefits and health services, the visibility of graduate students in the community, allocation of student activities funds, green initiatives, and graduate judicial issues. Additionally, the GSA has a representative to the EPC, who can attend faculty meetings.

Appraisal

A WSA survey from December 2011 indicated that 89% of student respondents approved of the work the WSA is doing (190 total respondents). The Assembly has undergone minor structural changes through its constitutional review process and added new committees such as the Financial Aid Committee and the Sustainability Task Force to broaden its scope and influence. Still, the WSA faces some of the same problems of apathy that the faculty encounter, such as low rates of voting and low turnout at meetings.

A recurring complaint from some students through the years has been that the WSA is out of touch with “ordinary” students and not sufficiently accessible. In order to address this complaint, President Zachary Malter ’13 and Vice President Meherazade Sumariwalla ’12 rolled out a number of new initiatives in the 2011-12 academic year. In collaboration with other representatives and concerned students, they created WSA Office Hours, installed a WSA suggestion box, founded a WSA cabinet of non-members, created a user-friendly website, and shored up canvassing efforts. The hope is that increased accessibility will lead to more intensive and diverse student engagement in the WSA’s activities, and ultimately to better policies. The WSA’s move towards greater accessibility will be an on-going effort, and further work, such as the production of WSA-related video content, is planned.

Projection

It is anticipated that the WSA will continue its recent trajectory towards greater accessibility and financial strength. The WSA is well equipped to handle financial instability given its endowment and its fixed operating budget, which is not dependent on or sourced from the endowment. One major financial issue will be the policy governing the WSA endowment, which currently privileges the long-term over the near-term, and whether such a stance should be re-examined.

On the policy front, the WSA will also likely be grappling with issues of financial aid, judicial policy, academic departments, alumni relations, and technology, all of which seem to be on the brink of re-evaluation at the University level. In the near future the WSA will take up the theme of “cultivating community” and work to facilitate and improve collaborations and partnerships among diverse community members in all areas of campus life.

Institutional Effectiveness

Each of Wesleyan’s governance structures—Board, Administration, Faculty, Student Assembly—conducts regular assessments of its own effectiveness. The coordination of these structures is key. The Board recognizes that it must balance its oversight of overarching goals with the efficiency of allowing those on campus to decide how those goals are best pursued on a daily basis. Administration, faculty, and students recognize that making progress on these goals requires embracing shared objectives and not being distracted by “turf” concerns. Effective cooperation during the budget crisis was strengthened by the Administration’s policy of transparency, and while there will always be exceptions (mainly related to confidentiality of individual cases), the policy of transparency will enable the University to make the most of collaborative efforts.

 

---

ⁱ  At the time of writing, for example, five of 33 trustees were in their second board-elected term; two others first elected by alumni were serving a second term as board-elected trustees.