The Future of the Faculty Senate at the University of Toledo

1. The Future of the Faculty Senate at the University of Toledo Five Scenarios

2. New UT Senate Organizational Options • Cultural, Historical and Shared Governance (CHSG) FaST Subcommittee • Charged with examining self Governance at the new UT • Making suggestions for the new UT Senate structure

3. New UT Senate Organizational Options • Issues for Consideration • Integration vs. Independence • Ability to represent Faculty of new UT in a unified fashion, i.e. “one voice,” as necessary. • Ability to deal with specialized missions of different colleges as necessary. • Adequate representation of different College Faculties

4. New UT Senate Organizational Options • Issues for Consideration (Continued) • Efficiency and Coordination of Effort • Maintenance of level of interest and commitment of Senators • Travel Time and Meeting Frequency • Organizational models at other universities

5. New UT Senate Organizational Options • Issues for Consideration (Continued) • Senate Functions • Operations • Example: curriculum planning • Envisioning • Example: Formulating university-based plans to address community issues

6. New UT Senate Organizational Options: Five Scenarios • Complete Unification • Unification Incorporating Divisions by Primary Mission • Unification Incorporating Divisions by Geographic Location • Separation by Location with Coordination • Complete Independence by Geographic Location

7. New UT Senate Organizational Options Five Scenarios Level of Integration Maximum • Complete Unification • Unification Incorporating Divisions • By primary mission • By geographic location • Separation by Location with Coordination • Complete Independence by Geographic Location Minimum

8. New UT Senate Organizational Options • Scenario One: Complete Unification • One Senate • One Set of officers • Proportional Representation by College • Meetings alternate between Main and Health Science Campuses • Interacts with University President

9. New UT Senate Organizational Options • Scenario One: Complete Unification • Pros • Maximum integration and coordination • Ability to speak with one voice • Simple design • A “tried and true” design (prevailing design at other universities)

10. New UT Senate Organizational Options • Scenario One: Complete Unification • Cons • Risk of under-representation of specialized interests and missions • Risk of low efficiency • Possible loss of senator interest and commitment

11. New UT Senate Organizational Options • Scenario Two : Unification Incorporating Divisions by Primary Mission • One Senate • Interacts with University President • Two Divisions • Undergraduate Division • Graduate/Professional School Division

12. New UT Senate Organizational Options • Scenario Two : Unification Incorporating Divisions by Primary Mission (Continued) • One Senate Chair (or President) and Two Vice-Chairs or Vice Presidents • Alternating Divisional and Whole Senate meetings • Proportional representation by College and Division

13. New UT Senate Organizational Options Scenario Two : Unification Incorporating Divisions by Primary Mission Pros Flexibility – Can act as one body and deal with specialized interests as necessary. Allows colleges on both campuses with comparable missions to address issues of common interest.

14. New UT Senate Organizational Options • Scenario Two: Unification Incorporating Divisions by Primary Mission • Cons • Some colleges have both undergraduate and graduate/professional missions • A somewhat complex design

15. New UT Senate Organizational Options • Scenario Three: Unification Incorporating Divisions by Geographic Location • One Senate • Two Divisions • Main Campus Division • Health Science Campus Division • One Senate Chair (or President) and Two Vice-Chairs (or Vice Presidents)

16. New UT Senate Organizational Options • Scenario Three: Unification Incorporating Divisions by Geographic Location (Cont.) • Interaction with President (Whole Senate) and Provosts (Divisions) • Alternating Divisional and Whole Senate meetings • Proportional representation by College and Division

17. New UT Senate Organizational Options • Scenario Three: Unification Incorporating Divisions by Geographic Location • Pros • Flexibility – Can act as one body and deal with specialized interests of each campus as necessary • Can interact with level of administration (President vs. Provost) as issues dictate • Reduced travel time

18. New UT Senate Organizational Options • Scenario Three: Unification Incorporating Divisions by Geographic Location • Cons • Separation by campuses reduces coordination and interaction of faculty members with common missions • Some faculty members and departments have roles in more than one campus • Somewhat complex design

19. New UT Senate Organizational Options • Scenario Four: Separation by Location with Coordination • Two Senates with parallel organizations • Main Campus Faculty Senate • Health Science Campus Senate • Each Senate • Meets Independently • Primarily interacts with campus provost • Two Sets of Officers • A Coordinating/Steering Committee of the two Senates meets regularly

20. New UT Senate Organizational Options • Scenario Four: Separation by Location with Coordination • Pros • Each Senate can deal with campus-specific issues as necessary • The two senates can coordinate efforts as necessary

21. New UT Senate Organizational Options • Scenario Four: Separation by Location with Coordination • Cons • Limited ability to “speak as one voice” • Some potential to work at cross purposes (can be reduced by coordinating committee) • Possible duplication of effort • Representation of departments with roles in both campus unclear and can lead to confusion • Limited interaction with highest level of University administration

22. New UT Senate Organizational Options • Scenario Five: Complete Independence by Geographic Location • Two Senates • Main Campus Senate • Health Science Campus Senate • Two sets of officers • Each Senate determines its own structure • Each Senate primarily interacts with campus provost

23. New UT Senate Organizational Options • Scenario Five: Complete Independence by Geographic Location • Pros • Simple and familiar design • Limited or no reorganization necessary • Each Senate can address campus-specific issues as necessary

24. New UT Senate Organizational Options • Scenario Five: Complete Independence by Geographic Location • Cons • Inability to “speak as one voice” • High potential to work at cross purposes • Duplication of effort likely • Limited interaction with highest level of University administration

25. New UT Senate Organizational Options • What model do other Universities use? • Survey of Senate officers and Review of Senate Websites at Seven Ohio and Michigan Universities • Case-Western Reserve University • Ohio State University • Ohio University • University of Cincinnati • University of Michigan • Wayne State University • Wright State University

26. New UT Senate Organizational Options • What model do other Universities use? • Conclusion: All seven universities with colleges of medicine have unified senates with variations on proportional representation by college.

27. New UT Senate Organizational Options • Recommendation of Cultural, Historical and Shared Governance Subcommittee • A Unified Senate

28. New UT Senate Organizational Options • Rationale for a unified senate • One strong voice in faculty representation • Clear communication with administrators • Facilitates unification of faculty cultures and identity • Simple

29. New UT Senate Organizational Options • Rationale for a unified senate (Cont.) • Eliminates potential jurisdictional and representational conflicts • The standard structure in other universities • Recommended by other faculty senate leaders • Specific undergraduate educational issues may be addressed within a new senate structure.

30. New UT Senate Organizational Options • Unified Senate Concept Unanimously Endorsed at Joint Meeting of the Executive Committees of the UT and MUO Faculty Senates on June 30, 2006.

31. New UT Senate Organizational Options • What’s next? In a nutshell: • Construction of a new constitution and bylaws • Approval by Senates and Faculty

32. New UT Senate Organizational Options • What’s next? – A Proposed Process for Merger: • General presentation on merger issue to UT and HSC senates • Development of basic outline for a merged senate, to be drafted by the Cultural, Historical, and Shared Governance subcommittee • Endorsement of basic outline by joint faculty senate executive committees • Proposal sent to the Faculty for comment

33. New UT Senate Organizational Options • What’s next? – A Proposed Process for Merger (continued): 5. After input, prepare resolution on basic outline for merger, to be voted on by both senates 6. Appoint committee to draft new constitution and bylaws for a joint senate 7. Vote by the total Faculty on the new constitution and bylaws

34. New UT Senate Organizational Options • We are citizens of a new University of Toledo • “Fellow citizens, we cannot escape history. ” • A new perspective and flexibility will be required • “As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves …” (Abraham Lincoln, 1862)

36. New UT Senate Organizational Options • We can do it! • After 45 years of physical and political separation, East and West Germany merged and developed one government in 10 months. • The new Germany is now the most powerful economy in Europe and the third most powerful in the World. “Irgendwann fällt jede Mauer"

37. New UT Senate Organizational Options Thank you!