The state of shared governance in colleges and universities, especially that of Saint Louis University, served as the focus of Tuesday’s Faculty Senate meeting.

Mary A. Burgan, general secretary of the American Association of University Presidents, addressed the problems of shared governance and “why we need now, more than ever, to study” it.

In terms of the general state of shared governance, Burgan said that colleges across the country seemed to be following AAUP principles. Those principles were established in 1968 by the AAUP and other organizations who recognized the need to examine shared governance, much as a result of changing campus environments.

The 1968 statement recognized three separate entities-faculty, administration and the board of trustees-and required “extra effort” to include students as a group.

“This seemed a balanced view,” Burgan said. “The board had the final say . the faculty’s limited power [was recognized].”

However, the AAUP principles came under criticism by organizations such as the American Association of Higher Education and the Association of Governing Boards, whose vision of shared governance differed. The AGB “suggested more stakeholders in education [now] more than there were in the 60s,” Burgan said. “The rate of change requires special flexible and nimbleness in decision making.”

The call for change in shared governance-deemed “undersold” and “underdeveloped” by the AGB and other groups-noted several issues of conflict. The first, Burgan said, “is a change in the notion of how we govern ourselves” and how the word “govern” has been replaced by the word “manage.”

“It is a management age,” she said, as some see management as the key to social improvement.

Burgan added that shared governance has also been affected by the changing nature of administration. Shared governance can also be corrupted by a number of reasons, Burgan noted, such as if faculty members become “too self-interested and do not see the whole picture.”

After outlining the concerns with shared governance, Burgan discussed ways in which to address them. Burgan said that cooperation between faculty and administration in approaching the constant changes in technology is a must.

“We can find ourselves spending millions without really understanding what is necessary,” Burgan said.

Burgan also called for increased communication and the assurance that the values of academic freedom will prevail.

“No one wants the death of higher education. We need to understand the real information about our own institutions,” Burgan said. “The problems are real.”

Following Burgan’s speech, Executive Vice President James Kimmey responded with comments about the state of shared governance at Saint Louis University.

“We know we have work to do,” Kimmey said. “It is a shared issue . How do we manage better? How do we find mechanisms to increase input in those decisions?”

Kimmey noted the steps taken by the University towards increasing shared governance since last year’s parking increase and no-confidence vote by the Student Government Association.

These steps included: appointing student, faculty, dean and staff representatives to the President’s Coordinating Council; creating the Task Force For Shared Governance; reinstalling the Budget Advisory Committee; and asking student, faculty and staff representatives to serve on various subcommittees of the Board of Trustees.

“Communication has improved [over the past year],” Kimmey said. “There is a commitment to continue.”

James Gilsinan, dean of the School of Public Service and chairman of the Task Force For Shared Governance, provided an update on the task force’s efforts. The charge of the task force is to present a report to University president Lawrence Biondi, S.J., in April before it dissolves.

“In some way, [the Task Force For Shared Governance] is a task force dealing with rhetoric-contrasting the rhetoric of business with the rhetoric of governance,” Gilsinan said.

Gilsinan said that although governance does exist-for example, 159 faculty representatives currently serve on various University committees-the problem lies with the “shared” notion.

Of the 54 responses to a memorandum sent out earlier this year, Gilsinan said the task force found four consistent themes:

 individuals should have input in the decisions that affect them,

 the administration cannot wait for extensive time periods for input,

 the appearance that decisions are made in a hierarchical fashion, and

 concern that designated representatives do not always truly represent their constituents.

“The problem is not governance, but the shared aspect,” Gilsinan said. “How do you effectively, efficiently . deal with issues of concern to constituencies?”

Gilsinan added that any additional comments on shared governance at SLU can be submitted by email to [email protected]. Gilsinan said that the task force plans to release the draft report online for feedback before submitting its final report.