Skip to main content

Editorial: Introduction to The Shared Governance Model

 

(''Court Gavel - Judge's Gavel - Courtroom'' by wp paarz via Flickr)

In my previous articles, I gave a broad overview the university’s governance system and recently introduced the three main stakeholder groups within the university environment: faculty, students and staff. I wrote before about how a student who understands the university governance environment can participate in it to his own benefit. 

To understand how these stakeholder groups interact together, let us now discuss The Shared Governance Model of higher education.     

The Shared Governance Model (or “shared governance”) is a philosophy of university governance in which the university’s governing board (in our case, The Board of Regents) heavily relies upon the advice and counsel of the three stakeholder groups to govern the university. In shared governance, the board gives each group (or constituency) authority to advise the board on matters of the constituency’s expertise. 

For example, the board recognizes the faculty’s competence to advise the board in the area of academics. This includes topics such as general academic policy and welfare, admission and graduation requirements, honors and scholastic performance and other related topics. (Regents’ Rule 40101) Basically, anything to do with academics the board recognizes the faculty as subject matter experts. 

Likewise the board extends the same type of recognition to the staff in relation to university operations, such as financial accounting or business contracts, maintenance of campus grounds or custodial responsibility. (Regents’ Rule 30401) In the same way, the board extend the same recognition to the student body about collective student experience of university policy and operations. (Regents’ Rule 50203) To clarify, the board still makes it own decisions, but when it does, it relies upon the advice and counsel of these three stakeholder groups.

Now on this point, it is important to note that the students’ subject of counsel (the student experience) is exceedingly broad. This means the students have a broad ability to speak to campus topics. From their experience with on-campus parking to their professor's classroom instruction, or from how they feel about the university's investment portfolio to how they feel about the cafeteria food, the scope is practically exhaustive. The students' ability to speak to campus issues is exceedingly broad.

Nevertheless, The Shared Governance Model of internal university governance is the philosophy of university governance in which the university’s governing board relies heavily upon the advice and counsel of the faculty, student body and staff to govern the university. In shared governance, the board defers to each community for advice within its respective scope of competence, and in this setting, these three stakeholder groups have special authority to advise the board in their respective area of expertise. This is the The Shared Governance Model of internal university governance and it is The University of Texas System's governance model for its academic institutions.

Students who understand how shared governance works can cooperate with this system to their benefit.

For more information on shared governance:

For more information on the governing bodies at UT-Tyler

Feature image: ''Court Gavel - Judge's Gavel - Courtroom'' by wp paarz via Flickr

*EDITOR'S NOTE: Updated for flow on July 23nd at 1:11 p.m.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Editorial: Three Types of Campus Activism Work

  (Source:  "Justin Whelan" by Kate Ausburn via Flickr ) Within the university context, there are three communities: students, faculty and staff. However, once one has a basic understanding of how these communities work together to govern the university (a.k.a., the "shared governance" model), then one can still find it difficult to identify how one can participate in shaping the university to reflect his values.  Therefore, this article will introduce three types of activism work that I have noticed in my years observing campus activity. I hope these types will illuminate a path for the reader of greater participation within his campus community and towards influencing the institution for his values. So without further adieu, let us introduce the three basic forms of campus activism.  In my observation of campus advocacy over the years, I have noticed three types of campus activism: compliance work, legislative work and public education work.  An effe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Editorial: An Introduction To University Governance

( Photo : ''Court Gavel - Judge's Gavel - Courtroom'' by wp paarz via Flickr ) In my previous articles, we spoke of our fictional heroine Molly who took the proper steps to advocate for university change successfully. We used her story to illustrate how the policy change process at a university works. Afterwards in the next article, we analyzed how her story illustrated important elements in the policy change process, such as how every stakeholder has a priority list and how a successful advocate will know how to either appeal to or influence this list.  Most recently, we noted how even with all the tactics in the world, it is a cause that gives one’s advocacy meaning. Now in this article, we will explore the university’s internal governance system, which is the context in which a student’s advocacy occurs. At the end of this article, the reader should have a better grasp of the advocacy environment within higher education. Metaphorically speaking, the reader will...
Post a Comment
Read more

Editorial: Understanding The Athletics Fee Increase Referendum

  ("Money - Savings" by 401(K) - 2012 via Flickr) What is the student vote happening from March 20 to March 22? There is a proposal to increase the mandatory Intercollegiate Athletics Fee on the student ballot for the March 20 to March 22 spring 2024 election. There is also an election for student government executive officers.   Why is the athletics program seeking a fee increase? The athletics program is asking the student body to take financial responsibility for its unexpected NCAA Division II expenses after it transitioned to NCAA Division II at the University’s direction without the available funds in 2018. The proposed fee increase is to transfer the financial responsibility to students so the University can spend its current $2.4 million annual subsidy to the athletics program on other priorities. ( Patriot Weekly’s summary.) Why did the athletics program transition to NCAA Division II without a financial plan? Allegedly, the decision to transition the program fro...
Post a Comment
Read more