INSIDE DOUGLAS COLLEGE / MARCH 7, 1989

 

 

authority problems can best be
solved where the authority is -
in the disciplines and depart-
ments, In particular,
departmental governance com-
mittees would make curricular
decisions in respect of discipline
areas within it.

We read it that such
departmental focus and em-
phasis would result in
considerable freedom for depart-
ments - a desirable feature of a
good working governance sys-
tem. Departments would, under
the proposed new approach, be
able to create courses they
desire provided they are ap-
proved by the department.

A list of these courses would
be forwarded to the senate
(proposal 2) for its information
but further consideration of
them would be taken only where
a problem was perceived by the
department from which it came
and the opinion of the senate
was sought (where, for example,
inter-departmental concerns
might come into play), or upon
appeal of curriculum rejected by
departments.

2) COLLEGE SENATE

We believe that a college
senate should be the governance
body which would formulate
general college governance
policy and to which departmen-
tal governance decisions would
go for adjudication relative to
inter-departmental and overall
college governance concerns.
General college governance
policy would include: 1) overall
college philosophy; 2) college
priorities, including the Five

 

10

 

Year Plan; 3) educational
policies. It would deal with
these areas as they are dealt with
also by departments but would
be the overall coordinating and
decision-making body whose
concern is dictated by college-
wide considerations.

A college senate would
simplify the present governance
structure by telescoping
divisional and college gover-
nance committees into one
body. It would thereby reduce
one whole level of governance
structure, enabling concerns to
move freely, smoothly, and
rapidly directly from depart-
ments. Possible confusion of
function between divisional and
college committees would be
removed and the timetable for
routing the system reduced sig-
nificantly. As mentioned
previously, professional
authority remains where profes-
sional competence resides,
namely at the department and
discipline levels.

The senate would be com-
posed mainly of faculty - one
elected representative from each
department - with one member
of the college board, one student
elected through the Student
Society, one staff person, the
college president and one dean
(ex officio) and one middle
management person (also ex of-
ficio). The senate would choose
its own chairperson preferably
for a two-year period to estab-
lish continuity. Meetings would
be open to the entire college
community any of whom would
always be welcome to attend
and to speak. The senate would,

 

AAA DS AME 02 ARP ha BT Te RT a

Governance System Continued

thereby, serve as an overall
democratic forum for the col-
lege.

The interface between ad-
ministration and faculty would
occur at the departmental level
through the ex officio presence
of director or chairperson and,
at the senate level, of the presi-
dent, a dean and a middle
manager. The administration
retains its structure separate
from governance, which is
placed in the hands mainly of
faculty. The 4C’s Committee
remains in place to advise with
respect to facilities concerns
relating to proposed new cour-
ses. The decisions of the senate
will go back down to depart-
ments and disciplines for
comment and, when once final-
ized, will then go on to
Management Committee where

ultimate decisions will be taken.

Governance remains, therefore,
advisory but decisions of
management rejecting recom-
mendations of governance will
require rationalization to the
senate.

Please see page 11 for
questionnaire results.

Rc he it 5 PE AES SCR