Shared Governance

Shared Governance 

Shared Governance Discussions Menu 

November 30, 2018 (Pilot)

December 12, 2018 - 11:30 AM -1:00 PM

December 12, 2018 - 3:30 - 5:00 PM

 Participant Responses – Shared Governance Discussion Groups

November 30, 2018 / Pilot / 19 participants

What is shared governance today at the University?

• Multifaceted it: occurs locally at the college level and occurs broadly across the University in a variety of governance structures, such as SGA and faculty senate.
• Is more geared toward faculty input. Staff and untenured faculty are more of a buy-in situation.
• Collaboration between faculty, UP and USS senates, along with PET and any specific stakeholders to make various decisions.
• Academic processes embrace SG at dept/college level with participation from faculty. Non-academic decisions are often made centrally with little communication – this reduces trust. Affected parties that can help are not always committed.
• Reaching out to the senates for policy reviews and seeing that all decisions affect many, not individuals.
• Clear cut expectations to be met by all at the President’s direction.
• Unclear but seems to include admin and faculty.
• If it means who makes decisions, I think it is department heads, Asst/Assoc VPs, VPs, PET.
• Collaboration in decision making b/w leadership/faculty/staff.
• Solicitation of input/recommendations from relevant stakeholders to inform decision making.
• Unclear at this time what shared governance is at WSU.
• Currently feel there is very little to no shared governance. Decisions about the university seem to be made byh higher-ups-executive team, then shared – sometimes – with the rest of the University.
• The senates and SGA recommendations to executive team who also gets input from other administrative leads.
  USS, UP and faculty senates.
• 1-information sharing (transparency), 2-input on key policy decision, 3-decisions made by faculty related to curriculum/program, 4-decision made by admin on operations/policy with input from staff/faculty.
• Shared governance at WSU has – by necessity – changed from a Laise’ Faire’ paradigm to one that is more (?). I.E.-crucial decisions going at a faster pace – too fast for relaxed contemplation.
• Administration seeking input on how decisions may ipact the University. Input is sought out depending on topic (not all groups always involved). Grput asked for feedback/input is Faculty Senate, UP Senate, USS Senate, Student Gov, legal counsel.

Is it clear who makes decisions?

• Clear – president and his leadership/executive team.
• PET makes decisions.
• Senates may recommendations and PET makes decisions.
• Not really, at what level outside of faculty decisions should be?
• Yes, but not always the person(s) who should be make these decisions.
• No, not on all issues. Not always sure who gets the final say.
• It is clear to some but very unclear to others.
• Yes, it is pretty clear that admin makes most decisions. This is different from asking who ought to make decisions.
• Yes, mid-level administration.
• President and PET.
• Yes. Faculty – related to curriculum/program. Adm-related to operations/budget.
• Appears to be clear. President does and faculty and staff are to follow thru.
• The “perception” is clear – a small group surrounding the president. Prior to our current president, the perception was different, but the reality was the same.
• No, it is not clear.
• Yes, as it goes up the list of Dir-> Assoc/Asst VP ->VP ->PET. Each step can veto.
• Not always, feel most times a certain (1 individual) is making the decisions.
• No.
• No exactly.
• Clear approval.

Is it clear who is consulted on decisions?

• No, I have often been surprised when decisions are communicated.
• It is not always clear who should be consulted. This should be those who are impacted.
• No
• Yes, but not always, followed through on consultation (i.e. adm->others).
• No, and I don’t believe it is consistent.
• No it is not or only specific people have a say in the matter.
• No
• Not clear on who makes decisions.
• Yes
• No it is not clear.
• Faculty is consulted via the senate.
• No, not in all situations, not sure how it is identified on who should be consulted.
• It varies based on the decision.
• No. Consulted outside of faculty decisions – don’t know. Outside of my VP’s area – don’t know.
• No, it is not clear. Even though there is more consultation than before.
• Sometimes, such as on policies for employment, but not for all other decisions.
• It is not clear who is asked for input on decisions.
• Fuzzy. Decisions made but when vetoed not sure upper mgt consult who brought idea.
• No, not who is consulted.
• Yes, but not everyone.

Is it clear who must approve decisions?

• Yes, final PET.
• Yes
• Yes
• Yes, it is clear.
• PET
• Yes, clear. President and PET and appropriate leadership.
• No not clear who must approve.
• No
• It is not clear who must approve the decisions.
• No
• President, all goes thru him.
• Yes, if not clear, easy to find out.
• Admin-Pres-generally.
• Approval in my area-yes; other areas-no.
• No, I think it may be different depending on topic…but maybe not.
• This is the fuzziest of these questions. It is not clear who has final authority to make decisions, particularly on devisive issueswhere consensus is not present.
• No
• Yes, General Council and Executive Team.

How do you participate in shared governance at the University?

I participate more than I used to, but not as much as I would like to.

Involved in leadership role requires me to communicate up and down-do my best to accomplish this.

Fac – curriculum/programs.

Only in the last 6 mo. – new mgmt. have I been able to join dept meetings. I speak up and give my opinion. Prior to now, I felt I wasn’t supposed to speak up.

I facilitate shared governance participation in my current role.

When asked as HR, UP Senate.

Participate when asked by someone.

I don’t as I see it. Just within my department.

UP Senate.

Yes, on committees, open forums, send emails, look at news.

USS Senate President-facilitate recommendations and input from USS Staff/Senators.

Don’t feel as if most USS employees have a chance to participate.

I read and respond to what my UP Senator sends me. I try to attend open meetings and be informed. I help draft policy changes that go thru shared gov. I try to encourage others to attend.

Participate, discussions w/admin team.

Regularly solicit input from dept leaders, faculty and staff via regularly scheduled mtgs. Student voices are generally heard by hosting events where they interact with college leaders.

Varies depending on who is leading the project. Sometimes no input is requested.

Voice for UP staff, voice for First Gen students, help evaluate policy decisions.

My role is to seek input/feedback before making decisions, and to provide useful information to those who are giving input so they understand the issue on the gable.

Through appropriate senate and expressing opinions to my leadership.

Shared governance statement from each group:

• Shared governance at WSU is dialogue reflecting the professional and formal authority of a diverse/variety group of University stakeholders. Shared governance recognizes our responsibility to raise the univ. while at the same time protect it.
• Creating a consistent culture of trust through a process of transparent, proactive, inclusive, and two-way communication.
• Opportunity to provide informed input on issues that impact your unit for the betterment of the institution. Decisions made in a transparent manner.
• Partnership/participation, accountability/responsibility, ownership – acceptance of responsibility. Aim for consensus with backup plan, including of input, facilitative not directive, flexibility within boundaries.
• Most important: input, recommendations, best outcome/decision, informed perspectives, transparency.

Shared governance statement from full group discussion:

• Creating a consistent culture of trust through a process of transparent, proactive, inclusive, and two-way communication.

Discussion included following points:

• Stakeholders share a responsibility
• Discretion/confidentiality
• Trust/culture of trust
• Transparency
• Consistency
• Candid
• Fear of retaliation
• Ownership/responsibility
• Formal and informal opportunity to share input that affects stakeholder
• Expertise needed relevant to topic discussed
• Information-sharing
• Visibility of input in outcomes

Suggestions/requests by participants:

• Follow-up climate survey in 6 months/1 year to check on gaps being addressed, positive change, and transition.
• In addition to the discussion groups, provide a website with an option for employees to submit additional input. Have the option to leave comments anonymously but viewable by public.
• Provide a process or additional discussion groups focused more on which processes are problematic, issues on campus, ideas for improvement, include specific details – who, when, etc.

Return to Discussions Menu

Shared Governance Discussion Group Notes

12/12/18 – 11:30am-1pm

Mid-introduction:

Was not made 100% clear that we are not re-defining SG, and this seemed to trigger an emotional response from one of the participants.

• University already has a definition of shared governance, why are we talking about it as though there isn’t a definition or history. If we’re starting a discussion about what it is, should be starting with what it is, not what campus perceptions are.
  • We need to come to an understanding of how it works on campus and why, not to re-define what it is. We are seeking an understanding of how participation occurs on campus, and who is involved. We’re seeking an understanding of how we communicate and do we need to improve that communication.
• Doesn’t address the fundamental question: that we’re discussing something a-historically and without recognizing the history of academic shared governance. Pretending that history doesn’t exist and just asking how we’re seeing it is a false framework. “I reject this framework.”
• If I knew there was a definition, I would have looked into it before attending.
  • This feedback is exactly part of what we’re trying to gain from these discussion groups. Many people are not aware that there is an existing definition.
  • Staff and faculty perceive shared governance very differently, so we’re looking into bringing those inputs together for consolidation.

Prior to first discussion question:

The facilitator notes under “Ownership” weren’t read verbatim, which lead to the next discussion about ownership and the definition of it.

• Sorry to be negative, but ownership doesn’t work. Using the US government as an example, most people won’t accept the government.
• Don’t anticipate that ownership is for everything, but rather for your role in your unit. Faculty owns curriculum, so ownership isn’t just that it’s done, but that it falls into the rights or responsibilities of each area. Overlapping voices is where we’re talking about shared ownership. It’s not “I was outvoted, so I own this decision,” but about the fact that Faculty is responsible for taking over.
  • Part of it is recognizing the ownership and part is accepting responsibility.
• Where does the line of ownership fall, for example, in the class size? Classes are determined by academic impact. For a faculty member to say that they have specific needs for class size, classroom space, or other requests, they need to show that it impacts their ability to teach the course as written.
  • Point of clarification: HR doesn’t manage shared governance, we’re just facilitating the discussions and gathering feedback.
• Many units of admin don’t have higher education background, so shared governance is a novel idea and don’t understand that you can’t make blanket decisions.
  • Even at WSU, what we do and how it is practiced is at least a little different from other universities. Our goal is to get everyone on the same page as to how it is practiced.

Group Discussion

Note: The two groups of three elected to work together as a group of 6 for one large group discussion and crafting the group statement. Following are notes of the table discussion.

• Diversity of opinions is critical; if allowed to be expressed, give the best version of shared governance
• Diverse ideas don’t always result in a better decision, but it’s common that more opinions bring up better results
• Generally, shared ideas and shared opinions lead to the best decisions. That is the philosophy behind SG – rights and responsibilities are taken on, and certain protections are given in exchange
• An example of failed shared governance is faculty not being consulted on Innovation campus and use of University funds
• Don’t want to be part of a University where admin tells faculty what books they can use or what is taught. Faculty say over the curriculum is not something that should be evolved over time.
• The financial aspect is typically what controls most of the changes. If there is financial need, that’s where admin and upper decision makers have to become part of the process.
  • One aspect that whoever controls the purse-strings has control; in order to retain authority over a unit’s realm, there has to be a commitment to real shared governance.
  • May be necessary to keep the University in business, and if it is necessary, part of the reason should be communicated. Part of the SG model is bringing transparency and communication to decision-making, explaining how decisions are made and why.

(Note: The group had several tangent discussions on shared governance related to decision-making for class size and curriculum, university parking, and US government/history).

• Going back to diversity of thoughts, this is how all parties are truly involved and are coming from several perspectives.
• Department chair has certain roles that are spelled out, then usurping those rights is a case of faculty overstepping.
• Deans are appointed by admin, but faculty are involved in the hiring process and have real impact, but don’t have the final say. They have influence; that’s shared governance.
• Influence isn’t influence unless it’s real, based on what they perceive of consequences of giving or not giving support.
• Real empowerment, people don’t always feel that you’re giving them real authority to make a decision. Having a decision that doesn’t matter isn’t real empowerment. May also lead to breaking down the barriers and questioning who is responsible for different areas and stepping into other areas.
• When a decision is made that unpopular, that’s when people say they need more SG.
  • It seems like what’s driving this unrest is where dollars are being spent – innovation campus
  • SG would sometimes say that some units should have been consulted on innovation campus, but were not, so it leads to a culture where individuals and units felt like their opinions didn’t matter, so why bother?
• All units have, not just symbolic, but a contributing role to a shared decision in areas that require shared decision-making.
• Discussion of “areas that require shared decision-making” according to who? That is a crux of SG, might not be from one part of the University.
  Different sections have input into sections, can’t be everyone, but who decides who the areas belong to and where they overlap?
• Many areas are clear, but many are difficult to define, especially when finances are involved. This is where fighting happens, who gets what money.

How would we do it?

• The vehicle would be through the senates. These are issues that should be brought before them for confirmation of the statements. Meet with admin reps for feedback. The senates are supposed to be reps of all units, so it’s their job to take the messages to their constituents, which is a way to ensure that every member of the unit has a representative with whom to share their opinions. These venues are already in place, rather than reinventing the wheel to get shared decision-making done.

Do you feel that communication from senate to constituent is effective here at WSU?

• It’s never been discussed in the Faculty senate, partly because many people know what it is, and so it is treated perhaps as a foregone conclusions.

Return to Discussions Menu

Participant Responses - Shared Governance Discussion Groups

December 12, 2018 / 11:30am-1pm / 6 participants

What is shared governance today at the University?

• Shared Governance is part of the rights & obligations of all units of the university.
• Collective, agreed decision making taking into consideration diverse opinions.
• Set of policies & procedures that identify where and how non-administrative university personnel participate or have a role in what decisions are made and how.
• People are consulted before decisions are made. They have input to decisions.
• No one owns WSU, like a person owns a private company. As a result there is no single authority to make and to who to appeal decisions. Therefore, everyone has a claim to the governance, e.g. decision making of the university.

Is it clear who makes decisions?

• It is clear to me who should make decisions.
• Not completely. At times it appears Administration (KBOR) Top Down. This may be resisted by faculty but closed to business approach.
• Not always clear, and not always in accordance with shared governance. i.e. sometimes administrators have an outside role in decisions.
• Yes, administration & vice presidents make decisions as in any organization.
• Unclear. The provost, the VP of research.
• No

Is it clear who is consulted on decisions?

• Clear to me who has the obligation and right.
• Not always.
• Most frequently not.
• No
• Sometimes it seems to be after the fact.
• No

Is it clear who must approve decisions?

• Clear to me.
• Yes, clear – bottom up. Channel of sign-offs/approvals.
• Generally yes, usually the administrative chair. i.e. what Academic Senate decides is not always respected by the administration.
• Yes, administration must approve.
• No
• No

How do you participate in shared governance at the university?

• Accept my role at the university.
• Consulting faculty and staff on decisions and communicating to the deans.

What is the most important thing about shared governance at the university from your perspective?

• That the precepts are both not well understood and not being followed.
• Decisions have to be made. When results are communicated it should be clear who was consulted and hot it influenced the decision.
• Accountability

Shared governance statement from each group:

• No statements created in this group. See discussion notes.

Shared governance statement from full group discussion:

What do you think or hope will be different as a result of the university undertaking this exercise?

• Shared Governance will be more widely understood and practiced at the university now and going forward.
• Open (better) communication. Start process of changing perspectives (mindsets) through communication so all sectors feel part of decision making – team.
• I would like the university administration to fully embrace their responsibilities to ensure shared governance is fully implemented and not simply given lip service or performed without measure. I would also like to see the idea that it is “whatever everyone thinks it is” dropped.
• Administration and faculty would at least have a better understanding of each other’s opinion.
• More transparency, available (proof) statements on who was asked to provide input and how that input influenced the decision.
• I think overall there will be a little more interest in shared governance. For some individuals, there will be more increased interest. Overall it is a good step in the right direction.

Return to Discussions Menu

Shared Governance Discussion Group Notes

12/12/18 – 3:30-5pm

What is shared governance at the University?

• Having set of communication with all stakeholders
• Faculty staff, UP, USS, everyone working together to make the institution better
• Faculty has primary responsibility for curriculum and academic decision

Do you participate in shared governance at the University?

• Not always
• It depends.
• Yes it is defined and no it is not widely understood.
• It depends on the decision being made. Some are made at department level and some are made at executive level.
• I represent an outside group. I try to be a voice of the alumni. People share things with me and I share with group.
• There are some specific groups that should make decisions. I’m a member of specific group and they have more of a shared governance feel to them and include folks from across campus.

What is the most important factor for shared governance at the university from your perspective?

• I struggle with the concept of shared governance. Not from Higher Ed. Sometimes you can take shared governance to the extreme.
• Hard to make decisions by committee
• Listen to different opinions.
• Don’t have a preset outcome
• Be honest about it
• Timely communication
• Interest
• Faculty – differing opinion or voice/stakeholder
• Not self-serving in the decision
• Faculty rights and responsibilities
• Staff thinks they need to give their opinion on things. 
• Traditional was more faculty/academics/curriculum, but now it’s more like a business
• People feel entitled to shared governance. If things happen, it’s still the “CEO” or whoever is in charge that suffers the consequences
• Involved but not responsible
• Words to avoid – entitlement, earned
• If you participate, you must take ownership
• Sometimes people don’t want to make the decision because they don’t want to take ownership
• Do people want to be empowered with self-governance?

Impactful words: open communication, engagement, accountability, communication, interest in the process, opinions, voices, expectations

 Words to avoid: let the executive make the decision, entitlement

Shared Governance Statement:

Group 1

All WSU Constituents are invited to engage in shaping the future of the university.

Group 2

Wichita State University will make the best decisions for the entire WSU community by embracing shared governance with no predetermined outcomes in mind. This includes timely and open communication and inclusion of all appropriate groups.

 Outcome Discussion:

• De-mystification of the process
• If transparency is provided, then it should help with conflict management with the different pillars. Folks can be myopic. Governance is long term best result for the most people. My best interest might have to take a back-seat at this time, but decision should be best for the largest group.
• Not an echo chamber for grievances
• People feel empowered to share their voice. Not all the same people.
• Hope people think of WSU first and not their own department or area. Think of the university as a single unit and need to support the betterment of the entire university.
• We should be better positioned to make the best decisions.

Return to Discussions Menu

Participant Responses - Shared Governance Discussion Groups 

December 12, 2018 / 3:30-5pm / 8 Participants

What is shared governance today at the University?

• The exchange of information between various stakeholder groups within the university. This allows each stakeholder group to weigh and consider the initiative at hand. This is not a micromanagement organization, so there is a lot of freedom for individuals/leaders to make their own decisions. 
• Having a set plan of collaboration and communication between all stakeholders. 
• Exec members and constituent heads; specific groups such as SEM; Faculty for curriculum.
• Model that empowers key stakeholders to participate; often slow, sometimes messy; exact nature of who participates and how and who is responsible, varies based on topic; lends to confusion.
• The opportunity to set goals and mechanisms to reach those goals in order to benefit faculty, staff, students, communities, and other key constituencies. 
• USS/UP senate, PET, SGA; faculty/staff, SGA & university administrators working together to lead the institution. 
• Faculty has primary responsibility for curriculum, instruction – the academic functions; staff & administration has responsibility for business functions of administration. 
• Faculty/staff input to key decisions/processes/procedures, ownership if key decisions in individual areas – for big decisions that affect entire university Administration team makes final decisions with input from constituencies. 

Is it clear who makes decisions?

• Yes
• No
• Not always; sometimes Pres/Provost/VP, other authorities/empowered.
• Yes it is defined. No it is not widely understood or sometimes easily understood. 
• No-just not sure.
• Sometimes: PET, President, Provost, USS/UP senates.
• Yes, in Kansas public universities the president or chancellor is the final decision maker. 
• Clear to me – administrative lead of each unit has final decision of their area or exec team if effects whole institution. Individual dean/department head makes decisions that affect their area and helps communicate. 

Is it clear who is consulted on decisions?

• I think it is clear, with the senates and student government, tons of information and engagement occurs. 
• Academics – faculty senate, deans, provost; University management – UP/USS senates, SGA, President?
• Not always – mostly PET on biggies; sometimes if I am or announcement or process details about it.
• Some misperception contributes to conflict. 
• I am just not sure – globally speaking. 
• Not always, I don’t think all stakeholders are always consulted. 
• Yes, the constituent senates are consulted when appropriate. 
• Yes-depending on decision.

Is it clear who must approve decisions?

• Not always, because so many have the authority to make decisions relevant to their area, this can occasionally be blurred.
• SGA and president – students; Provost – academics.
• Not always/depends. 
• Most of the time.
• I believe so – generally speaking there is a clear chain of command. 
• It depends on decision, might be dept head, dean, VP or president. 
• VP/head of area or President (PET). Smaller decisions affecting just one area – dept head/dean. 

How do you participate in shared governance at the university?

• Sharing of information. Engaging stakeholders on decisions before they are made. 
• I’m heavily involved in the communication to the university, but I’m not sure that counts as “governance”. I am part of the UP senate, so I help make some decisions. 
• SEM; consulted if my area – nothing broader; have been on the senate. 
• Both encourage and facilitate engagement from faculty & staff; engage myself to the degree possible. 
• Participation in student involvement, curricular, professional development @ dept, college, and university levels; volunteer for traditional and non-traditional governance opportunities. 
• Hearing multiple voices and listening to differing opinions. 
• With the teams that I’m a member of. 
• Through constituency head/PET. 

What is the most important thing about shared governance at the university from your perspective?

• Mgmt by committee often doesn’t work. Decisions aren’t timely and too much compromise can dilute the solution and often folds bring their own self-interest to the table. Regardless, others (stakeholders) must be engaged and their thoughts/concerns explored. Those engagements will often change/impact the final decision. 
• Timely and open communication.
• Involve, inclusive, honest, come without preset outcome we must achieve. 
• Educate to inform expectations; encourage engagement; act to meet informed expectations. 
• Beneficial outcome for multiple groups. 
• The faculty’s role in curriculum, hiring and promotion. 
• Communication, ability to participate if interested. 

Shared governance statement from each group:

• Wichita State University will make the best decisions for the entire WSU community by embracing shared governance with no predetermined outcomes in mind. This includes timely and open communication and inclusion of all appropriate groups.
• All WSU constituents are invited to engage in shaping the future of the university.

Shared governance statement from full group discussion:

• No final statement but points identified to include:
  • “No pre-determined outcomes”
  • Entire WSU community with inclusion of appropriate groups; genuine and inclusive
  • Belief in the process / transparent
  • Invite to participate
  • Value statement / mesh with mission, vision, values
  • Term “governance” – people may think “that isn’t me”

What do you think or hope will be different as a result of the university undertaking this exercise?

• De-mystification of the process
• If transparency is provided, then it should help with conflict management with the different pillars. Folks can be myopic. Governance is long term best result for the most people. My best interest might have to take a back-seat at this time, but decision should be best for the largest group.
• Not an echo chamber for grievances
• People feel empowered to share their voice. Not all the same people.
• Hope people think of WSU first and not their own department or area. Think of the university as a single unit and need to support the betterment of the entire university.
• We should be better positioned to make the best decisions.
  
  

Return to Discussions Menu

Shared Governance Discussion Group Notes

12/13/18 – 9:30-11am

What is shared governance today at WSU?

• Related to how we make decisions and communicating it to others involving stakeholders.
• Department wise – I give information to my boss, and then it is taken to the top folks who then make the decision.

Is it clear who is consulted on decisions?

• Maybe not always clear – depending on decision
• Stakeholders who are affected are usually consulted

Is it clear who approves decisions?

• There are clear decisions and who needs to make them i.e. Executive Team, Directors

(Small groups and spoke very quietly at the tables. Could not hear to take notes on discussion)

 
Shared Governance Statements:

Group 1

We live this by providing opportunities for faculty, staff and students to participate in activities and decision making.

 This is important because it is the foundation for overall retention and recruitment of faculty, staff and students at our university.

Success is when you can speak up and feel like your voice is heard and acknowledged. Also there is consistency in decision making while embracing change and new ideas.

Group 2

Shared Governance at WSU is a collegial approach allowing all stakeholders (faculty, staff, students, alumni, ICT community, Fairmount neighborhood, etc.) to exercise their input and insights into planning and decision making process that helps impact the university helping to move it forward positioning the University for the future.

Return to Discussions Menu

Participant Responses - Shared Governance Discussion Groups

December 13, 2018 / 9:30-11am / 5 participants

What is shared governance today at the University?

• Input from all stakeholders (a feeling of being heard); strive to listen to all perspectives; partnership, accountability, ownership with all decisions.
• Report to my AVP who reports to our VP. After that not sure how it goes.
• Not sure there is a “shared” governance yet. I believe the university is working towards a balance between faculty & staff in planning decision making with administration accountable with those plans.
• I think it is related to how we make decisions and communicate to others, involving stakeholders.
• Ability of all employees (faculty & staff) to participate in committees (some decision-making, some review, some bring forth ideas). Work with internal and external stakeholders.
  
  

Is it clear who makes decisions?

• President and his executive team make the decisions – but consider input from all stakeholders who are relevantly tied to that decision.
• Not clear, but perception is Tomblin, Schlapp & Bardo; PET members may also.
• Yes. The president, Andy S. and John T. & others on his (president’s) executive team.
• No-varies according to the situation. No one person handles all because we deal with so many issues daily.
• The leadership – those holding leadership title/roles (leading to a lot of “we”/”they”).
  
  

Is it clear who is consulted on decisions?

• Not always clear.
• No but it does seem several people are involved.
• Yes/no – depends on the level of the decisions. The executive team (however it depends on the area then direct reports to the executive team members).
• No
• Sometimes committees, depends on issue- may be college students, faculty, etc.
  
  
  

Is it clear who must approve decisions?

• Depends on decision needing to be made – some decisions can be made based on established WSU policy & procedures, others must be made by the president and his executive team.
• A little more clear depending on the decision to be made, may be AA, may be PET, etc.
• Yes, WSU executive team & the president. College dean and/or directors may be consulted just depends.
• Usually clear but again varies on who approves depending on circumstances.
• Always leadership, or sometimes someone they choose.
  
  
  

How do you participate in shared governance at the university?

• Attend town hall; provide input to my Dean for when she represents our college at university level meetings where deans are allowed feedback; provide feedback in my participation @ academic forums.
• Haven’t ever looked at it that way. I communicate within a staff, to my AVP, etc. But beyond them, feel that what I contribute doesn’t carry much weight up top.
• Maintain communication and relationship with direct supervisor; volunteer in WSU activities outside of my department; provide feedback in surveys.
• I try to have an open mind when evaluating decision options, involve stakeholders and communicate to those impacted by the decision.
• Provide ideas, suggestions to Chair/Director of program; participate on committees-school, college & university.

What is the most important thing about shared governance at the university from your perspective?

• A feeling of being heard and included in the opportunity to share feedback when a decision directly impacts my work at WSU.
• Transparency – it’s important to know what’s what to communicate accurately internally & externally.
• Communication and transparency
• To elicit participation and acknowledge suggestions/recommendations/ideas in order to provide action to specific initiatives.

Shared governance statement from each group:

• We live this by providing opportunities for faculty, staff and students to participate in activities and decision making. This is important because it is the foundation for overall retention and recruitment of faculty, staff and students to our university. Success is when you can speak up and feel like your voice is heard and acknowledged. Also there is consistency in decision making while embracing change and new ideas.
• Shared governance at WSU is a collegial approach allowing all stakeholders (faculty, staff, students, alumni, Wichita community, Fairmount neighborhood, etc.) to exercise their input and insights into planning and decision making process that helps impact the university helping to move it forward and positioning the university for the future.
  
  

Shared governance statement from full group discussion:

• No final statement but points identified to include:
  • Retention and recruitment
  • Inclusive - Stakeholders can be more than university
  • Challenge to be transparent / transparency is key
    
    

What do you think or hope will be different as a result of the university undertaking this exercise?

• Coming forward with a shared governance statement for the University on what it means at WSU. Policy/procedures around this – as faculty don’t see the boundaries between shared governance, and student rights, ferpa, and personnel matters. They believe with shared governance they should have all info now and when they don’t or aren’t allowed the info, administration are not exercising shared governance.
• Action: that our voices are heard, insights considered, to affect change so when people ask “what is going on up there?” I’ll be able to answer them. Brief videos with Rick or others send to internal/external about a topic.
• My hope is that the implementation of shared governance will bring a shift of energy for WSU’s continued innovation on campus within our campus & city as a whole. That folks will feel like it’s “my WSU”, excitement and appreciation.
• Hopefully we will be more thoughtful about how decisions ae made and their impacts.
• By soliciting input related to SG, the university should read(listen) to the participants in order to gain a clear understanding of where we need to improve in making decisions and communicate (and to who), changes that are needed and that are occurring @ WSU. Increase participation because voices heard, increase communication, increase transparency.
  
  

Return to Discussions Menu

Shared Governance Discussion Group Notes

12/13/18 – 11:30am-1pm

What is shared governance today at the university?

• Upper management make teams that research answers. Leaders then take those answers to next level management, who then takes it to KBOR.
• Genuine interest in it, but that’s not what is working.
• Employee’s consulted, but the opinion does not matter. “Dictatorship”
• Attempt at transparency, but does not always happen. Doesn’t complete the circle.
  
  

Who makes the decisions?

• Yes; depends on the level of the decision. Managers at dept level, dean at college level, or KBOR/VP/President/PET at university level
• PET makes ALL of the decisions. Chain of command eb and flows based on the topic/decision
  
  

Who is consulted on decisions?

• Not always. Hear about university changes on “Channel 12” before it’s known by employees.
• Depends on topic/level of severity; higher level means more input
• No change of command because everyone is their own island. Aspire to get to the silo level.

Who approves the decisions?

• Structure is a contributing factor. Decentralized, due to islands. Policies impact different orgs. HR and University policies differ.
• Depends on the decision that needs to be approved.
• Org structure at university is very different than a corporate company. University has a lot of “microorganisms” functioning. Each “microorganism” functions differently. Focus on more transparency. Shared Governance is wishy-washy

How do you participate in shared governance?

• Progress through the chain of command.
• Give input as much as possible. Form relationships with other people/departments on campus (even though this is difficult at times). Asking input from students about the MBA program to improve the program and to figure out what should change and what is getting better. Give students the opportunity to voice their opinions.
• Be in conversations with faculty senate. This is perceived to be a waste of time by other employees at the University

Thoughts regarding final statement:

• Shared governances is as much of an art as it is a science. Needs more of an environment to live and breathe more so than a set definition or law/rule. Having conversations like this meeting helps start the fruition of shared governance.
• People need to know why they are providing feedback. It’s good to give opportunity to give feedback and being involved, but they also need to know why they are providing it and what is going to happen. Keep people involved.
• Transparency is needed for the community. University makes decisions to help the school grow, but community does not know the reasons resulting in a negative light shining on WSU.
• Transparency, involvement, and communication are crucial.
  
  

Return to Discussions Menu

Participant Responses - Shared Governance Discussion Groups

December 13, 2018 / 11:30am-1pm / 6 participants

What is shared governance today at the University?

• It’s an idea in which we are striving for to help all stakeholders understand their responsibility piece of Shocker Nation. Idea that we are all Shockers and we all have a responsibility.
• Ability to shape, change and even stop decisions not just asked. Ideal is participating – reality is lip service.
• A dictatorship - Those in “upper” mgmt. positions create teams who internally research the “answers” and bring back to leader who then takes info to higher level mgmt.-a VP or president who in turn takes to KBOR for approval.
• I believe there is an attempt at transparency and inclusion at WSU. This doesn’t always happen but it’s a step towards a shared governance.
• Formal process of listening, formal process to proposals by constituents and feedback.
• SG is doing the right thing because it’s the right thing to do, and although it can be guided by processes and rules, it is only obtained through people using sound judgement and high moral standards. In a sense SG is an ecosystem that encourages, empowers, and nurtures integrity, honesty and transparency.

Is it clear who makes decisions?

• President and deans – VPs - upper management – KBOR
• Yes – PET.
• BOs, VPs, and president of university or/and KBOR
• Dept > School/Dean > Morrison Hall > Univ > KBOR
• It should depends on the situation.
• No it isn’t clear. In fact, from an outsider’s perspective, there seem to be several COI.

Is it clear who is consulted on decisions?

• No
• Call for volunteers, small focus groups who may or may not have ties to others, not constituents.
• Decentralized several mini units. Depends on the topic and the level of “severity” of the decision – the higher the level the more input is requested. Ex. IT is consulted when it affects the “security” of the end result.
• Not always, often learn about decisions that affect by job after they are made (boss and dean are very open).
• Yes, it is up to the decision maker or one making recommendation and initiates feedback from those stakeholders or SMO’s.
• Not at all.

Is it clear who must approve decisions?

• Depends on level.
• Not always. Decentralized - can follow rules and still get it wrong.
• Yes, budget officers, VPs and President – is it communicated anywhere – not really.
• Mostly – typically MH or KBOR; at college level – dean.
• It will and should depend based on risk, resources, legal, impact and accountability. If we lack trust or empowerment, it must be a top down approach.
• Dave Murfin, chair of KBOR also developer of the Flats. Flats low occupancy then decision to vacate Fairmount Towers.

How do you participate in shared governance at the university?

• Show up here; aware of who I’m speaking to and where I am at when speaking about Shocker Nation.
• Up and down info.
• Bring issues to my supervisor – he then goes to his, so on and so on – chain of command. Share with others info on how to retrieve info on decisions that are made.
• Give my input as much as possible, form relationships w/faculty, advocate on behalf of others (students, ESP), feedback sessions.
• Make sure you are heard if you hold key information.
• Starts with these sessions, voicing thoughts and opinions; don’t feel powerless.

What is the most important thing about shared governance at the university from your perspective?

• My voice is being heard, my concerns are being addressed, and communicated back to me.
• It’s an idea.
• Ability to actually change, initiate, or stop a policy or effort.
• Transparency & inclusion at all levels, include community.
• Trust
• Managing public funds and public property in a manner that is in the best interest of all stakeholders, with taxpayers and student’s best interests weighted fairly.

Shared governance statement from each group:

• Encourage inclusion and participation from a holistic view among all of the entities impacted by WSU shared governance. This is accomplished by facilitating a process that prompts communication and understanding responsibility by providing opportunities.
• To reduce role confusion, build trust, create community, and empower others, the students, faculty, staff and other stakeholders must be equipped and enabled to shape, guide, and provide feedback on what happens as we move forward on both critical and everyday matters.

Shared governance statement from full group discussion:

• No final statement but points identified to include:
  • Transparency, involvement, and communication are crucial

What do you think or hope will be different as a result of the university undertaking this exercise?

• Culture of inclusion continues to grow; communication about decisions made more transparent; more opportunities to express.
• Skeptical, we will see; help understand how decisions are made. Whose exercise is this? To whom are they connected?
• Encourage more participation, involvement, input and transparency.
• More involvement at all levels of Shocker Nation. Everyone has a voice but also the trust in other if decisions are made they may not agree with.
• Conversations
  
  

Return to Discussions Menu

Shared Governance Discussion Group Notes

12/13/18 – 1:30-3pm

Individual questions

• These questions are difficult to answer, because who makes decisions and is consulted on decisions depends on the decisions.
• Perception from one participant that we do not have a shared governance, and that these focus groups are because we’re looking to start one.
  • Note from another participant that “the party line would tell you that we already have one”
• One participant is concerned with the data being made public, even if there is no name attached, because just being on a list of participants would lead someone to identify their particular input.
• None of the participants elected to share their individual responses with the room

Individual Statements

• “appearance of a unified front”
• Dissention is quickly addressed
• must be belief in the system, show it is happening as stated
• allowing people the chance to be involved, and feeling that they matter
• sometimes works at the top level, but stops before filtering down through the university
• often hearing news after the fact that you could have participated in a change, communication is too little, too late
• appreciate the fact that sometimes you can’t involve everyone; someone has to make the final decision, but that doesn’t mean you should make the decision without other input
• as a dean, people assume way more power than is really there
• there is an expectation that you either know everything or don’t need to know anything, with no middle ground
• idea that if you lay out your case, you may get shut down immediately if it doesn’t line up with
• illusion of having a say without meaningful impact – not, “do you think we should put retail at Innovation Campus?” but “which shops should be there?” after the larger decision has already been made
• making decisions about students and res life and fees and rebranding without really letting them into the decision
• Students
  • Only the students who are already predisposed to agreeing with university (i.e. already seeking out information and being involved on campus) are involved with student government
  • Students on campus are told they have a voice, but they know perfectly well they don’t have a real voice
  • Recent student fee increases were not from students, but admin is trying to spin it like a grassroots student support effort
• Faculty in general have enormous power over curriculum and campus policies
  • When I think of shared governance, I think of faculty
  • Faculty coworker told staff member not to come today because it wasn’t for non-faculty
• Should be an opportunity for all affected constituents to have their voices heard
  • Not everyone’s opinion needs to be called for in all circumstances – necessary to still communicate in these situations
  • Something to say that voices will be taken seriously – viewpoints to be valued, not just given a forum
  • Occurs early in the decision-making process, not a call for input after the decision has already been made
• Space for respectful disagreement without fear of retribution
• Serve students best when we are in agreement and working toward a common goal
• Sometimes having to work toward something you don’t agree with and wouldn’t choose that path, but it’s what has been determined by the senate, and must go through the proper channels for reconsideration
• Some people choose not to be informed, but then complain about not getting information
  • Participation is a two-way street, but the university needs to at least present the opportunity for people to participate 

Discussion at tables on Group Statements

• Common thread that constituents need to be heard and valued
• Still unclear – do we actually have this, or are we looking into getting it?
• Some people get the information and it stops with them, so the info isn’t flowing in all directions because it stops at different points in different areas.
• Key and repeating points that communication on campus is an issue that needs to be addressed.
• Used to be a process where several people from unrelated areas came together to work on common goals and tasks.
• There are so many policy urban legends. Can ask five people the same policy or procedural question and get five different answers.
• Overall, would like to see an increase in communication and involvement
• The concept of value is also a consistent thread, that you can say something and feel that you’re truly making a contribution to the process and don’t fear retaliation 

Group Statement

1. All voices at the University should be heard, particularly before decisions are made (active participation). Community members should feel they can voice their opinion without fear of retaliation. We best serve students when we’re in agreement and working toward collective goals.

• Part of the implementation would be if there are budget cuts, communicating the reasons why, and not just the numbers. Shared the factors of the decision and future state solutions.
• Lots of SG in current state within some departments, and having that support within a department, can carry confidence and freedom to speak their voice in other contexts. Still need to “stay in my own lane,” where appropriate.
• People are more likely to be open when they don’t feel like they’ll be punished for questioning decisions or offering other solutions. Community as in WSU, though Wichita is a stakeholder in the future of WSU.
• Appreciate the inclusion of serving students, especially since they have not been included in this process.
• Particularly like the phrase, “We best serve students”

2. Provide opportunities for all affected constituents to be heard and their viewpoints to be valued. These discussions should happen at relevant times in the process.

• Speaking to a lot of the decision-making process, with just a touch of the accountability.
• “Affected constituents” recognizes that not everyone needs to be involved in every decision, but when an area is affected, a representative should be involved in the decision
• Recent sudden decision to close a residential hall and relocate all students without being given tools to communicate to students beyond what Strat Comm provided.
• Any changes in the finances or something that will affect budget or staffing options, the departments should be involved in the decision, particularly if they’re being given responsibility for the execution.
• As a faculty member, could voice opinion freely and walk away, but as a dept chair, don’t feel as able to voice their personal opinion, but rather must get everyone’s input to create a shared decision
• Staff in multiple places on and off campus makes it extra hard to consider all input and helping all of them understand that not all input is acted upon
• Gathering information doesn’t necessarily mean that all input will inform the decision – this is why it’s important to have the discussion at relevant points of the process, so that when input is requested, those offering their insight understand why it’s being requested if/how it will be used
• How you navigate the process is important in weighing the input and output of information and decision – it’s hard to defend unpopular decisions that you had no role in making – politics – very different, depending on what your role is
• Being brought to the party after the decision has been made, so that it looks like you’re part of the process, but you aren’t actually impacting the outcome. Particularly problematic when you’re the “worker bee” and have to execute the decision
  • Everyone sees through it and just says what they know the admin wants to hear. Just smile, agree, and understand your voice isn’t valued.

Return to Discussions Menu 

Participant Responses - Shared Governance Discussion Groups

December 13, 2018 / 1:30-3pm / 7 participants

What is shared governance today at the University?

• Not sure, I think we say we do it but sometimes we don’t and sometimes we don’t’ think we do it but we do. Is there a definition for WSU? It often feels like we don’t have it, but the question may be who is included and did I have a chance to be and chose not to involve myself.
• As a staff member, I don’t see much in the way of shared governance. I suppose I see SG more with faculty who have more input in academic affairs (especially with curriculum).
• Opportunities for constituents to have relevant input (e.g. Fac Senate Open Forums), attempts at transparency related to actions.
• Didn’t really know we had a shared governance at this point. Town hall meetings – discussing important issues that affect faculty/staff/students.
• There is a structure in place to allow all stakeholders to have a voice at the decision making table. This structure includes the senates and SGA.
• UP, USS, Faculty, SGA senate being consulted/notified of upcoming changes. Gathering feedback from focus groups.
• Occurs within faculty, staff and administrative groups but not equitably across these same groups. (Faculty senate, UP senate, USS senate, administration, some colleges may have shared governance groups)

Is it clear who makes decisions?

• Sometimes, faculty senate, the president, PET, “Academic Affairs”, “Morrison Hall”, KBOR.
• Yes and no. I doubt I have a complete picture, but: president and president’s office, VPs, Deans, to a lesser extent chairs and directors.
• The person responsible for the process/task needing the decision.
• All depends on the issue- major decisions are made by (PET) infrastructures.
• PET makes decisions but Tomblin and Schlapp have the final say and ultimately are in charge.
• Yes – Bardo, Tomblin, Schlapp – basically PET.
• Administration and faculty senate make decisions which are put on Ups, USS and some faculty to carry out.

Is it clear who is consulted on decisions?

• Maybe. PET – often with little to no knowledge about what the context of the decision is.
• No, although presumably bodies’ such as SGA, UP senate, and faculty senate are consulted on decisions that impact them.
• Not always.
• Depends on the issue, for the most part NO.
• Occasionally the deans and directors and dept. stakeholders. Often, big donors.
• UP, USS, and faculty senate, SGA, deans, different advisory groups (i.e. budget advisory committee).
• In general, those who have to carry out the mechanics of the decisions are NOT consulted (advisors, support staff). They bear the burden of implementing these decisions, and sometimes without enough time or support.

Is it clear who must approve decisions?

• No. Depending on decision: faculty senate, president, provost, deans and on down. Depends on definition of shared governance.
• Not really, although operating in a departmental/school context, it is clear that everything of importance has to go through the dean’s office.
• Depends on the decision and the impact of the decision.
• Depends on the decision, but major decisions are made by PET.
• Board of Regents, Tomlin, Schlapp, Bardo
• KBOR, PET
• Deans, provost’s office, PET and faculty senate seem to have the most power in approving things.

How do you participate in shared governance at the university?

• I have an excellent relationship with my supervisor, so I think I have or am allowed an unusual amount of impact. I have mentoring relationships with students, push for programming that I think is valuable, and work to develop relationships across campus.
• Trying to stay informed; asking questions; assessing the credibility of sources of information.
• Try to be active/involved in campus forums related to the university.
• Attend town halls, ask questions, speak up when given the opportunity.
• Voting for my senate representative, attending open forums, participating in focus groups like this one.
• I attend senate meetings when possible and the town halls and open forums.

What is the most important thing about shared governance at the university from your perspective?

• When there is a spirit of shared values and partnership, people feel ownership of their jobs and believe that the work they are doing has importance and impact.
• A sense of a “unified front” – trying to assure that all relevant constituencies have a voice.
• All voices heard – however if an individual (faculty/staff/students) do not participate in “shared governance” then they cannot complain if they do not agree on the decision making outcome.
• That people believe it really works and is happening. A structure with no proof that its really being used is useless.
• Disagreement w/o retaliation; feeling like there is an outlet to express opinion before the decision is made; not all top-down initiatives but ideas flowing in both directions.
• All constituencies need to be heard and understood. Staff should have as much weight in decision making as faculty and administrators.

Shared governance statement from each group:

• All voices at the University should be heard, particularly before decisions are made (active participation). Community members should feel they can voice their opinion without fear of retaliation. We best serve students when we’re in agreement and work toward collective goals.
• Provide opportunities for all effected constituents to be heard and their viewpoints to be valued. These discussions should happen at relevant times in the process. 

Shared governance statement from full group discussion:

• Provide opportunities for all effected constituents to be heard and their viewpoints to be valued. We best serve students when we’re in agreement and work toward collective goals.

What do you think or hope will be different as a result of the university undertaking this exercise?

• All members of the WSU community will feel informed and valued every day.
• I hope that we’ll have some clarification around decision making and individual members of the university community will understand how they can participate and make their voice heard – and ideally feel encourages to do so.
• That people on campus will not feel blindsided by decisions that impact their work.
• Consistency in the understanding and practice by all constituencies.
• We are truly engaged in decision making and we can see that our opinion was considered and sometimes resulted in a change happening.
• Additional structured outlets to give your opinions before decisions are reached; ideas flowing both ways.
• I don’t know what to expect. I can hope for improvements (it’s not horrible now, but it could be broader and more inclusive).
  
  

Return to Discussions Menu

Shared Governance Discussion Group Notes

12/14/18 – 9-10:30am

What is shared governance today at the university?

• The dialog, negotiation among faculty, staff, and administration, advancing research and teaching goals
• Process of implementing the mission of the university
• Opportunity to have your perspective and history taken into account when decisions and plans are being made
• Situational, different based on the decision and the groups involved 

Is it clear who make decisions? Is it clear who is consulted on decisions? Is it clear who must approve decisions?

• Not always clear. Some people have a better understanding and know how to get involved, but those who don’t participate in the process just react to a decision, even though they maybe could have been involved in the process. Not sure if this is because it isn’t made clear, or if it’s because people choose not to take the
• At the academic level, the deans make decisions and who they consult isn’t clear. In terms of who must approve is Academic Affairs who approves most dean decisions
• Groups like SGA and senates where there isn’t a person who makes a decision, because the body makes the decision as a whole 

How do you participate in shared governance at the university?

Participating on campus, coming to events like this, staying involved in committees

Involvement in committee work at the college and university levels. Being involved with your own department is part of it.

Staying in communication with your representative and disseminate the information from senate meetings, gathering feedback at the department level and getting it back to the senates. Keeping that communication flow open between representative and constituents keeps everyone in the process. 

Group Discussion of Individual Statements

• Leaders must listen and give thoughtful consideration to input
• Money is sometimes more important to the president, which is important, but not where our short-term goals should be focused – graduation, retention
• Transparency
• Donors are awesome, but that’s not why we exist; we hope that donors also have student graduation and retention in mind
• Not sure students are the focus of the university, when they really should be – inclusivity across the entire university community
• Decisions to be made and communicated in a clear way to all stakeholders – why are some stakeholders given power others don’t
• Need to involve people when things are still vague and early in the process
• When there’s a pattern you can count on, people are more willing to trust the process and engage in it
• Whether it’s faculty, staff, or students, it’s always the same small group involved, and no one else really knows what’s going on
• Decisions are being made that have a huge impact on students, and the process completely excludes students – this has to be part of our attention in this process is recognizing that students aren’t included 

Group Statement Discussion

• Decisions are made at the top without other opportunity for input
• There’s likely to be more trust in the outcome of a decision if all voices are heard in the process. At the end of the day, some decisions just have to be made; not all decisions need to be part of the shared governance model. Requires that leadership have trust on campus when such decisions are made without SG input/process.
• Unpopular decisions have to be made, which will impact trust in the system, undermining that trust makes the problem.
• KBOR is most willing to make changes to benefit students, but those rules come down to the university level and simply must be implemented – this is not true SG
• We can have indirect impact on financial decisions from on high by continuing to work for student retention, increasing enrollment numbers, etc., which all improve the budget situation at the university and college levels
• Does SG in any way ensure continuity as leadership/admin changes. When Bardo came in with the “strategic plan,” it was an expected immediate shift in culture.
  • When SG is done right, it should prevent new admin from coming in and drastically changing the culture. The challenge of SG is getting people involved to be part of the process.
  • How many people on campus are really interested in spending more time at work to be involved in SG
• I’m not going to risk my hide to say something or raise a question when there aren’t protections or any real impact made with my opinion
• The SG structure is too complicated to put into so few words
• A key word in one of the examples is “delicate balance”, “dialogue” is also an important element.
  • To not be fearful of the reaction
• SMART goals for the fiscal year, priorities selected, teams formed, working toward those specific goals
  • Very transparent
  • Inclusive of all stakeholders, including students
  • Decisions don’t need to include everyone; only the stakeholders
  • Participation is voluntary
  • Goals and input need to be relevant
• Told in a committee meeting to “keep your opinions to yourself,” because “you’re here to be informed.” A committee isn’t a body to disseminate information, it’s a task force or decision-making body that is part of the larger conversation.
• Even within the same department, staff and faculty are separated for decision-making. 

Group Statements

1. WSU will consistently communicate using a common language. WSU will include “unusual voices” so that all affected parties invest, engage, and participate in trustworthy shared governance. 

• Common language meaning that the process is known and the terms being used for each step of the process is anticipated.
• Unusual voices meaning those who are affected by the decisions being made, because those people are often not at the table for the decisions
• Invest means getting the buy-in to have more retention for staff and faculty
• Trustworthy is building a relationship of trust between the institution and its stakeholders
• Lots of discussion in how little variation there is in who is involved
• If we spend a lot of time working on a decision that doesn’t help us toward overall goals, we’ve spent a lot of resources toward no movement. Productive is so important, and picking the right decisions to make should be first and foremost. Not sure how to include that into the statement, but there needs to be an overarching mechanism to determine which decisions are being made before those decisions even come to shared governance. What decisions will actually drive the needle to where we want to be.
  • Does that take away from the value of SG, if you’re only allowing certain decisions to be made. That’s getting away from SG and only the fewer, easier, unimportant decisions go out to the SG model.
  • Have to have input that anyone can input into what decisions need to be made, but then have a criteria by which you evaluate whether a decision is looking to move the university forward, to avoid the resources being wasted on a decision that didn’t need to be made.
  • President says you can email concerns to him, but if you never hear back. How many times are you going to keep trying to reach out if you never hear back or see action or response.

2. Shared governance at WSU is a decision-making model that must include cross-functional decision makers and is inclusive, transparently communicated, visible, and productive.

• Love the “productive,” it is super important. We hear a lot about committees being formed, but don’t always hear about the end result or know if they’ve been productive/impactful
• Inclusive and productive are
• Communication was a big part of the discussion, not just at the end, but this is how you can be involved, this is where you can send your input. You often see it in the blast, but it’s today, and that’s not enough time to plan. Communication not only from the top down, but also from the bottom and horizontally.

3. Focused participation in the planning and decision-making process for the benefit of a quality education for our students

• Went with “focused” because it is currently a murky process
• We deal with so many different issues in our daily jobs, that we sometimes forget that our primary focus should be students

Large Group Statement Discussion

• Focused, trustworthy, communication, productive
• Moving toward goals – emphasis on goals of student well-being and student impact
• Really liked the “quality education” piece – really important not to forget that, for everything else, we are a university before all else
• What college does is take the cycle and projects that student and their entire family origin into a new direction, especially for first-gen students
• Community impact should be part of the broader goal
• Double down on productive. Intent from the standpoint that when a decision is being made, input feels like a “check the box” step of the decision-making process. This is different from actually being heard and their input being utilized in the decision-making process
• Cohesiveness
• Openness part is having the opportunity and being able to share an opinion and being respected, even if that opinion isn’t ultimately taken. If the decision is already made, it isn’t really input to ask as a platitude.
• Create an environment where people are comfortable to offer their honest opinion
• Sometimes decision makers have an attitude of “I’ve examined my opinion, and found it to be good”
• While admin has to think about the business side and paying bills and keeping doors open, faculty are more interested in the quality of education and staff are more interested in providing services to students
• Healthy discussion should be encouraged. People are more willing to participate if they feel that the discussion is honest and open and are more willing to participate.
• Different constituents have different ideas of what the priorities are and where money and resources should be allocated

What do you think or hope will be different as a result of this exercise?

• Hope that input will be considered more often before decisions are made
• Hope this shows the university different perspectives to see where priorities differ. Sometimes a student will ask why, and we don’t have an answer, or different ways of doing things without a way to implement improvements
• A general recognition that process matters, and how people experience the process has at least as much to do with their level of investment as the action product of the process

Return to Discussions Menu

Participant Responses - Shared Governance Discussion Groups

December 14, 2018 / 9-10:30am / 12 participants

What is shared governance today at the University?

• The dialog and negotiation among faculty, staff, and administration about enhancing our teaching and research missions.
• Situational – different based on decision & groups involved unknown; finance driven and frequently decided with not enough input.
• I am not sure at the university level. I know there is a senate structure for faculty, classified, unclassified and student constituents. I know the deans meet. I know that groups such as SEM and the President’s Diversity Council meet and seem to influence decisions. I know the president has an executive team. In my center, we are mostly disconnected from these bodies.
• PET, Senates, students, faculty, staff coming together for WSU good.
• SG is the opportunity to have a voice in the decision making process. I would explain it by saying the chance to have your perspective and/or history taken into account when decisions/plans are being made.
• I honestly could not explain how or what makes WSU’s participation of shared governance. So, if I were to be asked to explain it, I would not be able to elaborate one way or the other.
• The process of identifying and implementing decisions and activities pertaining to carrying out the functions and mission of the university.
• SG today includes meetings, forums, transparency, surveys, etc. These things all seek to gain input from stakeholders. One can be involved as much or as little as one wants to be.
• Joint decision making on relevant areas that impact the university as a whole and on the students. Could be through already established consistent representative groups such as elected senates. Feedback in all directions as part of the process laterally and hierarchical up and down.
• It depends on the situation. I believe there are opportunities to give input, but I’m not sure if that input changes much of anyone’s opinion. The perception is that if you disagree with leadership, you are opposed to leadership. Healthy discussion should be valued and not suppressed.
• Identification and sharing of goals, issues of the university; discussion amongst constituents (faculty, staff and administration); ideally all voices are heard before decisions are made.
• SG happens when administration, faculty senate, USS senate and SGA have joint meetings or collaborate on decisions.

Is it clear who makes decisions?

• At the academic level – the Deans.
• No, not always. PET for large ones, frequently deans, directors, and above make vast number of decisions; sometimes the wrong groups – example LMS impacts students the most and they have no say in it.
• No
• PET and HR
• PET, the president and KBOR
• Being this is shared governance, it would be obvious that all parties, faculty, staff, officers, would make decisions. But this is based on assumption.
• It depends at the different unit/university levels; at the University level – no.
• Yes, President Bardo is the clear decision maker from news releases, newsletters, etc.
• Not always. Not necessarily a visible/clean process.
• It depends on the situation. The president and his team set the direction, with input from faculty senate, UP senate, USS senate and SGA.
• Upper administration
• I think President Bardo.

Is it clear who is consulted on decisions?

• Not generally
• No, end users of software are allowed to test, example of consulted. Attorneys on staff for policies or contracts, another example.
• Yes, and it is a pretty wide group depending on the topic. Includes initiative teams such as SEM and President’s Diversity Council, Chairs, Directors. Sometimes is a formal process, sometimes is an informal check-in, sometimes it is an ad hoc group.
• PET, HR (students when they become more vocal).
• No, many times we leave out who all was in the decision making process when issuing changes.
• Faculty, staff, officers should be consulted but based on rumor, that is not truly the case until after the fact.
• Sometimes, mostly ‘no’.
• Not always. Sometimes when a large decision is made, it is noted how it came to be, but I generally feel I do not know.
• Not always and not necessarily clear who is consulted.
• Not always. I supposed the senates have opportunity to provide feedback.
• Faculty and staff senates and committees. Those who want to be involved have the opportunity to do so.
• Sometimes it is clear but not always. It is also sometimes apparent that those consulted feel maligned.

Is it clear who must approve decisions?

• At the academic level – Academic Affairs
• Unknown, if purchases, budget officer and finance; it really depends.
• Most often the provost and/or head of student affairs signs off. Some things go to the president but most don’t. Rick Muma, Teri Hall, John Tomblin have the most approval authority.
• PET
• No, only because it changes so quickly. One month this is the process and then next month it’s a completely different one.
• I honestly don’t know the chain of command procedures for such governance.
• Depends on unit/level of the university. Mostly ‘yes’. (e.g. unit director, chair, dean, provost)
• Yes, financially I know exactly who to go to. As far as larger university-wide decisions, it always seems to come from President Bardo.
• Depending on a person’s role at WSU – there isn’t the option to approve – only follow so not clear or known; typically understood to be administration approving decisions.
• Not always, it can be confusing.
• Not clear – broad question, at times the administration has the final say, sometimes the KBOR makes final approval.
• It is not always clear if a decision should belong to president, provost, SGA, faculty senate, or USS. Most senate decisions are group consensus not the presidents.

How do you participate in shared governance at the university?

• I agree to serve on several committees at the college and university levels.
• Stay informed, request information, volunteer, and participate.
• I try to attend large meetings like the strategic planning ones, I usually respond to surveys. I read the Sunflower and the President’s Newsletter. Sometimes I read the minutes of UP senate and a few times I have asked my rep a question.
• Attend fall and spring UP meetings to hear what has been decided. Attend president events where he gives summaries of what is happening. Read WSU Today.
• By attending faculty senate meetings and by sitting on as many task forces as I can.
• I get acquainted with the shared governance meetings and their objectives to gather an understanding; be proactive with my participating and involved; three remain consistent.
• Department/college meetings, various college/university committee involvement.
• I generally do not participate. I’m far too busy to attend many of the meetings. There are opportunities if I wished to take them or had the time.
• Attend things like this session. Participation in senate academic processes; read and follow social media; discuss relevant topics with peers.
• Currently it is largely in our office and department or I am asked to participate in various meetings.
• Staying well informed and participating on committees at departmental, college and university levels.
• I read the minutes of faculty senate, attend faculty council and department meetings where summaries of dean’s council and faculty senate are shared.

What is the most important thing about shared governance at the university from your perspective?

• It appears to be financial.
• All contingents being asked about issues and info disseminated prior to decisions being made.
• Communication for those interested. As long as you can say it was in WSU Today or we sent an email out about it then the university has completed its task, but detailed communication.
• Staying well informed; participating; committee involvement; disseminate communication.
• Decisions be made and communicated with clear rationale of impact on stakeholders.
• Transparency and communication of items/mtgs is the most important thing.
• Transparency, active, respected, more than a standard phrase, realistic, inclusive, and balanced.
• The opportunity to be involved in the decision making process.
• Ensuring that WSU stays focused on its primary mission of providing a quality education.
• Leaders must listen and give thoughtful consideration to differing opinion, keeping in mind student graduation and retention.
• Process matters to investment in product 

Shared governance statement from each group:

• Focused participation in the planning and decision-making process for the benefit of a quality education for our students.
• WSU will consistently communicate using a common language. WSU will include “unusual voices” so that all affected parties invest, engage, and participate in trustworthy shared governance.
• Shared governance at WSU is a decision-making model that must include cross-functional decision makers and is inclusive, transparently communicated, visible and productive.

Shared governance statement from full group discussion:

• No final statement but points identified to include:
  • Focused trustworthy communication
  • Productive | disparate functions:
    • University goals
    • Student well-being
    • Quality education
    • Community impact
  • Invest and engage

What do you think or hope will be different as a result of the university undertaking this exercise?

• There needs to be a simple but direct description of how it works.
• The right decisions selected and made in a respectful, visible and productive way.
• People would be satisfied with outcomes. There would be more buy-in to the overall direction of the university even if a particular decision doesn’t go your way or benefit our department. Administrators could be more aware of the impact of the decisions that belong to them and are clear about the process they followed.
• People will be engaged, invested and participate – feeling heard – everyone: students, faculty, staff and community.
• Retention of faculty and staff; more buy-in to university development even when the decision is opposite; more university pride.
• People would be satisfied with the outcome; there would be more buy-in with everyone on the same page.
• Different perspectives; better governance; more inclusion.
• A re-evaluation of how WSU practices shared governance. A more transparent process that is open to all who choose to participate and an environment that encourages and supports their participation.
• That our discussion and time will result in a positive step in the process of shared governance.
• Input will be considered before decisions are made more often.
• A single statement would help the provost or whoever identify how SG can/should work when it’s working well in order to facilitate a shared governance.

Return to Discussions Menu

Shared Governance Discussion Group Notes

12/14/18 – 1-2:30pm / 3 participants

What is shared governance today at the university?

• A new way for admin trying to include faculty and staff to make decisions. Finding ways to give faculty and staff to be able to give their opinion.
• A partnership between students, faculty and staff and administrators in leadership rolls.

How do you participate in shared governance at the university?

• I try to take part in as many strategic planning sessions and provide feedback. Also try to keep up with what’s going on in other areas.
• Being on the USS Senate and attend SGA meetings and townhall meetings.
• Try to stay up to date to what’s happening by attending meetings. I get to hear first hand from the students what they really think. As past president of the USS Senate I’ve been involved.

What is the most important thing about shared governance at the university from your perspective?

• Exists and all voices are heard but students come first.
• Transparency is crucial. List all parties involved. Be notified before media and public.
• Upfront and very clear transparency goes a long ways. Show us the big picture.
• I like the word big picture. Media gets a hold of it and takes a small piece and vilifies us without looking to see how it plays a part in the big picture.
• Students think and say “they are trying to get more money from us” and don’t realize what the fees are for and what they pay for. Paying for technology, more faculty … and then they realize that they are benefiting from it.
• Transparency – if they would break down the big picture then it was like a lightbulb lighting up. Just communicate and explain things.
• Our administration doesn’t explain their decisions.
• Administration just decides to do it, especially with Strategic Communications has to make it short and sweet bullet points, but it leaves too much out if they don’t go in-depth.
• Cooperative effort between administration faculty, staff and students.

Discussion

• You have the directive and told this is what we want you to do. People don’t get involved and then complain about the decision made.
• It’s difficult to make people feel involved when they won’t participate. If you don’t vote you can’t complain.
• They do have town hall meetings and workshops that get people involved if they choose to go.
• In order to get people to buy into it is for them to actually know that someone of the ideas being put in place didn’t come from the administration that they actually came from grassroots groups. To know that that information is being put to use.
• It is frustrating to pay someone $$$ to do something g when they actually have people here that can do it.
• A happier workplace. We are so big and we need to become more of that family feel by participating together. Silos.
• Some people just hold things close to the vest and don’t want to share. There is so much about intellectual property and worried about people stealing it.
• Yes faculty, but also with others. Afraid that if people don’t agree or say something out of line that they are out of a job.
• Talked about priority list or referendum from students. I don’t think they came up with the ideas, but asked if they would be willing to pay for it. Campus improvements and fees.
• Everyone wants to know their voice is heard.
• Partnership, big picture, transparency, ownership.
• A general statement should be wide open.
• Shared governance is a cooperative effort between all parties involved when making improvements to the university environment.
• Partnership (can be a bad word in some situations. They make decision and I follow it)
• That promotes a culture
• SG is a partnership between all stakeholders that promotes a culture of transparency, cooperation, and inclusiveness.
• It results in pride and buy-in. When you have that participation, it radiates out with everything else. Oh, you (lowly person) had a say in that? How can I do that? Might open up for others to be involved.
• We’ve got faculty senate, UP senate, USS senate. We should have joint meetings to include everyone. We have made progress. With USS and UP, there is not such a distinct difference in those groups. When we refer to us it should be “us”, not me and you or them and us.
• Not so much negativity and grumbling. The resilience. Joyful thinking, joyful action. Positivity makes such a difference. There are people who are stuck in their way and in their silo and don’t want to be a part of change. They refuse to participate. You will never please all of the people all of the time, but need to put forth an effort.
• It will result in more people be willing to be involved.
• When there is ownership and you know what is going on, you can take that pride and it comes across to those you interact with. Explain the big picture.
• People being more willing to share their ideas and be involved and not afraid to say something that will be harmful to them (job loss).

Return to Discussions Menu

Participant Responses - Shared Governance Discussion Groups

December 14, 2018 / 1-2:30pm / 3 participants

What is shared governance today at the University?

• A great set of words used to describe how the administration makes policy. I am familiar with how it is supposed to work but have no idea if it really does.
• A new way of administrators trying to include faculty and staff in making important decisions. Then trying to be more transparent in what is happening and at least trying to find ways for faculty/staff to give input; whether we get a vote on it or not but we can be heard.
• SG is a partnership between students, faculty, staff and administrators in leadership roles.

Is it clear who makes decisions?

• Yes. Morrison Hall makes decisions. I’m sure they use lots of data.
• President Bardo – with input from PET.
• Yes, the president has final say but meets with his executive team for input.

Is it clear who is consulted on decisions?

• It depends upon what is being decided. I feel big data is a primary source but I would imagine you would confer with whoever would actually be charged with making it happen.
• PET probably maybe the college dean if applicable, probably KBOR, SGA is applicable more often than not.
• Yes, students, faculty, staff senators and the president’s executive team.

Is it clear who must approve decisions?

• Yes. Morrison Hall or KBOR
• President Bardo and/or KBOR
• Yes, the president.

How do you participate in shared governance at the university?

• I tried to take part in as may strategic plan meetings as possible and provide feedback. I also try to make a point of building relationships with others in all areas of the university to keep up with what is going on.
• USS Senator, attend SGA meetings, attend a town hall meeting.
• I try to stay up to date on what’s happening at the university.

What is the most important thing about shared governance at the university from your perspective?

• Transparency is crucial. List all parties involved. Be notified ahead of the media and public.
• Upfront and very clear transparency can go a long way. Show us the big picture.
• That it exists and all voices are heard but students come first.

Shared governance statement from each group:

• N/A

Shared governance statement from full group discussion:

• Shared governance is a partnership between all stakeholders that promotes a culture of transparency, cooperation and inclusiveness.

What do you think or hope will be different as a result of the university undertaking this exercise?

• Great pride in the university; more involvement throughout the university when they see that their opinions and input really DO make a difference; taking ownership.
• The success of SG will give people involved pride and ownership and hopefully a more joyful attitude in turn of the possibilities our future can hold. The excitement of knowing the big picture will make it easier for people to understand the goals and get more people on board who will not be afraid of participating and being involved.
• That doing this will encourage more people to get involved, participate, and share their ideas without worrying about repercussions. Get rid of fears.
  
  

Return to Discussions Menu

SHARED GOVERNANCE DISCUSSION GROUP NOTES

1/31/19 – 9-10:30am

Introduction

No comments or questions

Elements of SG

No comments or questions

Individual Questions

What is SG today at the U?

• Partnership of silos.
• Hasn’t really existed much beyond higher levels of administrations. Small number of upper admins making decisions, those doing the work is kept in the dark until the mandate was handed down. Shared governance has not really been a thing, only within a small group.
• Currently seems inconsistent. The appropriate people being able to give input, then information is shared, then why.
• Blanket statement. Starts at the top and works its way down to the worker bees. “This is how we’re going to do it.” Would be nice to be included. Go home at night and hear it on tv.

Is it clear who makes decisions?

• I think it IS clear. PET makes decisions. But that’s not a bad thing, that’s why they’re a group. It’s about how they make the decision and share it with us.

Is it clear who is consulted on decisions?

• PET, legal counsel included. No, not exactly. Assumption.

Is it clear who must approve decisions?

• No, it’s not clear.
• Decisions. Who must approve? Who must approve recommendation by consultants? PET. Decisions? Is there a body that holds PET accountable? No.

How do you participate in SG at the university?

• Easier for them bc it’s part of their contract. Expectation that they participate through service. Serving through committees, etc. That’s how faculty would define that. Service Recognition.
• Haven’t taken all opportunities. Participates in advising network and things more directly connected to her job, but also feels excluded to decision that directly affect her job.
• Not being inviting to participate in some of the groups.
• Yes, they have a duty to provide a service and do their jobs which add to governance to the university. To be more aware of the meaning of governance.
• Two fold. Participating now, being involved in groups and committees and the community. Moves up food chain. Things that directly impact you on daily basis, initial responsibility to go directly to who you report to, to tell them how it directly impacts them, so that their direct reports can bring it up the chain so hopefully that makes it go up to where it needs to go.
• There are opportunities, but they aren’t all available to everyone in ways that it would make sense

Group Activity

Statement Sharing

What is the most important factor for shared governance at the university from your perspective?

• Opportunity to be involved vs obligation. We GET to have instead of we HAVE to check off a box on a to-do list.

What do you think or hope will be different as a result of the university undertaking this exercise?

• Those that are affected are consulted and trusted to make decisions.
• You hear that opinion more and more. People struggle whether they should say something or if it’s a waste of time.
• Is it silos? Committees? Staff? Everyone is separated in our silos but we’re supposed to have this shared work ethic. It’s rooted.
• No matter what happens, interactions like this makes a difference. Recognizing that people from different areas care, makes a difference. Knowing who really cares is empowering, and there is a support system there. When we have opportunities that overlap, we get to share resources and support.

Return to Discussions Menu

Participant Responses - Shared Governance Discussion Groups

January 31, 2019 / 9-10:30am / 4 participants

What is shared governance today at the University?

• President, Provost, HR, Staff/faculty. Blanket statement – starts at the top then works its way down.
• Partnership between silos where recommendations for decisions are put together for PET.
• From my perspective, shared governance has not extended much beyond upper-level administration. It has felt like a small number of individuals have made decisions, while many of us who are actually doing the work affected by the decisions have been kept in the dark until a mandate has been handed down.
• Currently it is an inconsistent system which allows input from the stake holders to the decision makers so that they can make informed choices. Thus not just share the choice but also the reasoning.

Is it clear who makes decisions?

• President & Provost; Executive Council
• PET
• Not entirely, but it feels like it is upper-level administration.
• Yes, PET (campus wide and ones that they are involved in)

Is it clear who is consulted on decisions?

• No
• No
• No
• No

Is it clear who must approve decisions?

• President/Executive Council – No?
• PET approves recommendations
• No
• No, often appears it is just PET

How do you participate in shared governance at the university?

• Doing my work duties to the best of my ability. Need to be more award of governance role/services/committees.
• Service on committees, answer calls to action, provide input on recommendations.
• I have not always taken the opportunity to participate, e.g. Senate. I have felt excluded from opportunities which I have felt should have been available to me.
• Being involved in groups like this one. Advocating for my programming & ideas to my supervisor.

What is the most important thing about shared governance at the university from your perspective?

• Understanding that everyone has a voice and every voice matters.
• The people who are directly affected by decisions are included in the decision-making process.
• Belief that input actually contributes to the process. Explanation of decisions.

Shared governance statement from each group:

• Stakeholders believe that they have the opportunity to make meaningful contributions that are valued, and final decisions are explained in a way that builds trust that the University is progressing in a coherent and positive direction.
• Shared governance is an understanding that every voice has an opportunity, and that every voice has value.

Shared governance statement from full group discussion:

• Main points that should be in a statement:
  • Governance is ongoing
  • We have to adapt
    • Constant change
    • Stay relevant
    • Shared governance could be a hindrance for quick adaptability (takes too long)
    • University process vs industry progression
    • If people trusted to process, would they feel the need to be included in everything?
• What do we need to adapt?
  • Needs to be trust in the process
    • Apathy vs hostility – change the climate
  • Decision makers should ask
    • Who will be affected
    • Who should be included/not included?
  • More trust & value
• People affected get a say & is trusted with their input

What do you think or hope will be different as a result of the university undertaking this exercise?

• Why it is important.
• Pay attention to the people who understand there is little convenience in having critical conversations & made the time to participate as you move forward.
• I would like for the decision makers to ask the question, “who is affected by this decision”? and then to consult those people before decisions are made.
• We can build the confidence and trust of the university community as both the people making decisions and the actual decisions.

Return to Discussions Menu

SHARED GOVERNANCE DISCUSSION GROUP NOTES

2/1/19 – 2-3:30pm

Introduction

No comments or questions

Elements of SG

No comments or questions

Individual Questions

What is SG today at the U?

• Senate participate in it
• I don’t know; I have no idea
• Been here 19 years and know process is how things are taken to president, but feel it is very top down. My shared governance is between me and my director.
  • Comment: I agree, this is most true now than ever been before.

Is it clear who makes decisions?

• I know in my own college but not in the university as a whole.
• PET is leadership and President is decision maker. Everything I need goes through PET…everything. Could be where I work.
• For course content – accrediting bodies. SG is internal and external…KBOR, then Pres, then PET, etc.
• Our office is federal regulations – it is not University driven.

Is it clear who is consulted on decisions?

• No, it is not clear
• People in DC trying to make decisions, not consulting local sources. Same should be done locally – who is doing job, e.g. facilities.
• Like to make a show of meeting with senate presidents but it is more of a show.

Is it clear who must approve decisions?

• Depends on what you’re talking about. We may think it is the president but I think it is the legal team…attorneys at WSU…they think they need to have their hand in everything and know everything.
• Depends on the decision. Financial aid, faculty misconduct, dismissing a student…all are different.

How do you participate in SG at the university?

• I do what I’m told to do. Head down and mouth shut.
• Very small. Hate to be negative. Do we really live it? We check a box on it but the support for actual participation…the encouragement to actually participate. What is your point this time to seem to promote SG?
• Meet with my boss weekly. Department meetings. Participate in Senate.

Group Activity

Statement Sharing

What is the most important factor for shared governance at the university from your perspective?

We want everyone included…all levels of employees, students, partners (Spirit, AirBus, SG county, city of Wichita, etc. There is a culture of misunderstanding…a theirs vs ours…and we need to mend that and start to build and include a larger body. When we rolled out Shocker PRIDE…it was a universal adoption – everyone was glad to adopt it and push it. This needs to be the same way…get involvement.

Some confusion on various entities: Several questions about connection with Spirit, Airbus…how are they aligned with us. How is NIAR and Foundation aligned with us? WSU Tech? Explanations were discussed.

External partners…since they have our students in their buildings, they should have a voice and they should have requirements/governance on how they treat our students. Comment from other participant: other businesses in Wichita have WSU students work for them and don’t have to be in our governance.

We do not have open and honest communication at this point.

Flow of communication – what is going on, updates, was something approved/did it fall off/was it discussed

Return to Discussions Menu

Participant Responses - Shared Governance Discussion Groups

February 1, 2019 / 2-3:30pm / 5 participants

What is shared governance today at the University?

• I don’t know the answer to this question, but I’d like to. I question whether or not faculty senate plays a part in this.
• When everyone in the university gets together to help make decisions for the university.
• ??
• Top > down leadership; not transparent decision-making; I don’t feel a part of any shared governance.
• Senates participate in shared governance with input from constituency.

Is it clear who makes decisions?

• No - unsure about university. It is clear how things work to some degree with the senate but still has areas and processes that need clarity.
• President, Provost
• In my department, Budget Officer; Feds for the University.
• KBOR, President of WSU. Again, top down leadership. What is my point of reference? Shared Governance is not only internal, there are external bodies such as KBOR, Licensing, Accrediting, Federal.
• Yes, PET and President – University.

Is it clear who is consulted on decisions?

• No. Committees / schools / college / university?? Not clear the exact route this consultation takes on any level.
• Not the people who should be asked or who will be affected by the decision.
• No. Federal Regulations may tell who to consult.
• Most times consultation does begin at the bottom and move up the chain of command.
• No

Is it clear who must approve decisions?

• Sort of – at college level I believe the Dean has final say within guidelines from President? But truly have no idea what level of approval is elsewhere.
• President, Provost, VPs, HR
• No. Depends on what the subject is.
• No. Depends on urgency or type of level in the University. Depends on decision, maybe my chair, director, or co-workers.
• PET & President, sometimes KBOR

How do you participate in shared governance at the university?

• Committee member for school but otherwise no participation, which is mainly due to know knowing what is out there and what shared governance is.
• Come to meetings, read up, stay on top.
• I do what I’m told to do. Keep head down and mouth shut.
• My participation radius is very small. While the University sends one message – the ability to be participative is another can of worms.
• Senate, one-on-one with boss, staff meetings

What is the most important thing about shared governance at the university from your perspective?

• Follow through of shared governance on all levels of leadership across the university.
• Practice applies across campus from President to lowest paid work and student body; campus partners.
• Using the ideas and inputs given in discussions to the betterment of the university.
• Active participation in shared governance at all levels.
• Honesty & transparency in communication from the top down.

Shared governance statement from each group:

• The practice of shared governance with the follow through of all levels of leadership applied campus wide including our external partners.
• Through a partnership of faculty, staff, and administration, creating an atmosphere of honest, open communication that allows for accountability at all levels of the University for decisions made in governance of the university allowing ownership of future development.

Shared governance statement from full group discussion:

• Through a partnership of faculty, staff, and administration, creating an atmosphere of honest, open communication that allows for accountability at all levels of the University for decisions made in governance of the university allowing ownership of future development.
  • Shared Governance should be as known/positive as Shocker Proud!
  • Better communication on flow of information concerning Shared Governance.
  • All-inclusive definition of Shared Governance or the whole university.
    
    

What do you think or hope will be different as a result of the university undertaking this exercise?

• Hope to see implementation of true shared governance that will allow all voices to be represented.
• Realization of how the lack of communication is affecting the employees. Actually using the thoughts and ideas given.
• That this is not just another exercise in lip service.
• Hope that communication and governance will improve. I don’t think it will happen with the current President.

Return to Discussions Menu

SHARED GOVERNANCE DISCUSSION GROUP NOTES

2/5/19 – 2-3:30pm

Introduction

No comments or questions

Elements

No comments or questions

Individual Questions

What is SG today at the U?

Is it clear who makes decisions?

• Yes, it is clear that leadership makes decisions but may not be always be them. e.g. student fee increases.
• Agree that it is leadership, but isn’t always communicated or those affected are not included.

Is it clear who is consulted on decisions?

• Senates make some decisions or can be consulted.
• Not always clear.
• Sometimes.
• Felt like senate was consulted but not actually had input.

Is it clear who must approve decisions?

• Administration…we want to make senate has an input but after serving on senate, I don’t feel that it made any impact or really had a voice in it.
• Believe much of this is due to the structure of the university is not set up for voices to be heard.

How do you participate in SG at the university?

• Participate in multiple committees on campus.
• I try to understand the “why”, something is announced or discussed and I ask “have you thought about this”?

Return to Discussions Menu

Participant Responses - Shared Governance Discussion Groups

February 5, 2019 / 2-3:30pm / 3 participants

What is shared governance today at the University?

• Designated groups (e.g., faculty senate, unclassified professional senate) have elected representatives, meet and make decisions about how different issues should be handled – make recommendations, forwarded to the Provost? President?
• Executive administration consulting with direct reports on activities, resources, and general business.
• Process in which multiple parties contribute to the decision making process. Parties are often determined by areas that will be effected by decisions.

Is it clear who makes decisions?

• No- faculty Senate / UP make recommendations.
• Yes. In most situations it is likely clear but mostly contingent upon the areas involved. However, it may not always extend to the “primary” level of users and staff.
• Yes, mostly. In many instances I believe administration makes the ultimate decision. However, with items like the current student fee increase – it is clear the students will have the deciding vote.

Is it clear who is consulted on decisions?

• No, representatives ideally talk with or request input from staff in their area…don’t know specifically.
• No. Not always. However, there may be times when it may depend on the leader (and/or leadership style).
• In most cases I think it is assumed the senates are consulted for items related to all faculty/staff, etc. Speaking from experience of being on a senate (UP), I didn’t feel as though we had much power to change items/decisions. Overall I think it depends on the topic/decision.

Is it clear who must approve decisions?

• No, president or designee?
• Yes. There is a good sense of who needs to “sign off” before a proposal can move forward.
• Not always – in most cases I believe administration has the final approval power. Groups are given opportunity to provide feedback, but not necessarily approve or vote against.

How do you participate in shared governance at the university?

• Vote for UPs who serve on the UP senate.
• Ask questions and try to understand the “why”.
• Being a member of councils/committees and previously senate.

What is the most important thing about shared governance at the university from your perspective?

• Being aware of issues pertinent to decisions and providing input to representatives.
• Being recognized as a “partner” in the process from concept, discussion, presentation and decision.
• Affected parties have the ability to learn, provide feedback and know their voices are valued.

Shared governance statement from each group:

• The practice in which individuals or groups affected by decisions are partners in the decision making process. This can include, but is not limited to, accountability of all parties to learn, provide input and know their voice is valued.

Shared governance statement from full group discussion:

• Main points: Partners, Learn, Valued.

What do you think or hope will be different as a result of the university undertaking this exercise?

• Broader awareness of issues/concerns and more input from constituents as decisions are made.
• That groups affected by decisions will be able to be acknowledged, provide input, and have their voices valued.
• That individuals will be more educated on what the process or practice of shared governance is on our campus, and how they can and in some cases already do participate. Also that more people will feel empowered to participate more in the process.

Return to Discussions Menu