Skip to main content

Full text of "Outlook / the University of Maryland, College Park (1991)"

See other formats

S P E C I 

I T I O N 

jt&& LLrv^-f G I ^*" ti M I £ *t ; ^ |v 6 ty 



UP us %-?■ oo2- 



Campus Senate to Act on 
Governance Report 

The Campus Senate will consid- 
er endorsement of the Report of the 
Task Forces on Campus Gover- 
nance at its meeting at 3:30 p.m. on 
April 11 in Room 0126, Reckord 

The report results from a pro- 
cess begun by President William E. 
Kirwan with the appointment of an 
Ad Hoc Committee on Faculty 
Governance, chaired by Robert 
Birnbaum, in September 1989. The 
Bimbaum Committee visited 
numerous campuses throughout 
the country investigating campus 
governance structures, conducted 
hearings on the College Park cam- 
pus, and submitted its report to 
Kirwan in February 1990. Kirwan 
forwarded the report to the Senate, 
and the Senate Executive Commit- 
tee charged two task forces with 
preparing the Bimbaum Report for 
consideration by the Senate. After 
additional hearings, the task forces 
issued the following report, which 
will be considered by the Senate. 

The Senate invites comments to 
your Campus Senate representa- 
tive. Campus Senate meetings are 
open to all members of the campus 
community. Members of the cam- 
pus community who wish to 
address the Senate on this or any 
other matter should speak with 
their representative, and have him 
or her request the permission of the 

Other items on the Campus Sen- 
ate agenda for the April 1 1 meeting 
include action on an amendment to 
the Code of Academic Integrity 
and information reports on the use 
of SATs in admission and the ques- 
tion of D grades in majors. Shalia 
Aery, Secretary of the Maryland 
Higher Education Commission, is 
scheduled to address the meeting. 

The following is the complete text 
of the report to be discussed. 


To enable the University of 
Maryland at College Park to devel- 
op a more effective system of facul- 
ty governance, the Ad-Hoc Com- 
mittee on Faculty Governance, 
chaired by Robert Birnbaum, was 
established in September 1989 by 
President Kirwan, in cooperation 
with the Senate Executive Commit- 

tee, to review the role of the faculty 
in College Park governance and 
compare it with the role of faculty 
in governance at other leading 
institutions. After considerable 
deliberation including visits to 
several universities, a poll of the 
faculty, and public hearings, the 
Ad Hoc Committee submitted its 
report on February 28, 1990. That 
report is included as an appendix 
to this review. 

The Executive Committee of the 
Senate decided during the summer 
of 1990 to facilitate work toward 
the implementation of the report by 
appointing two task forces, one to 
review recommendations 3-11, 
another to review recommenda- 
tions 12-33. The first two recom- 
mendations were not included in 
the charge to either of the task for- 
ces, but their substance, converting 
the existing Campus Senate to a 
Faculty Senate or increasing faculty 
representation on the Campus Sen- 
ate, was the subject of considerable 
testimony during the task forces' 
hearings and will be addressed by 
this report. 

The two task forces, chaired by 
Andrew Wolvin and Ralph 
Bennett, have studied the recom- 
mendations of the Birnbaum Com- 
mittee. Faculty and administrative 
reactions have been solicited 
through correspondence, informal 
conversations, meetings, and in 
campus hearings on the issues and 
suggestions offered in the 
Bimbaum Report. 

The task forces met separately 
and held separate hearings, but the 
issues raised during these delibera- 
tions invariably touched issues 
common to the interests of both 
task forces. So persistent was this 
congruity that the combination of 
the two task forces and their 
recommendations seemed increas- 
ingly appropriate and has pro- 
duced this joint document. 

It should be recognized that 
specific recommendations concern- 
ing academic decision-making and 
administrative review, addressed in 
the Birnbaum Report, arc already 
in place in university documents 
approved by the Campus Senate. 
The "Procedures for the Review of 
the Performance of the Academic 
Units and Their Administrators on 
the College Park Campus of the 
University of Maryland," devel- 
oped by a committee chaired by 
Allen Plotkin in 1973, spells out the 
procedures for administrative 
reviews. The "Report of the Senate- 
Chancellor Task Force on Academic 
Decision Making," created by a 
committee chaired by Gerald Miller 
in 1979, offers detailed procedures 
to create the structures for effective 
decision making at all levels on the 

campus. Likewise, the Plan for 
Academic Reorganization, present- 
ed by a committee chaired by 
Andrew Wolvin in 1985, reaffirms 
the principles stipulated in these 
earlier reports. 

What follows, then, is a legisla- 
tive report for action by the College 
Park Campus Senate. The two task 
forces have joined their study and 
their proposals to facilitate a thor- 
ough look at both the Senate and 
the non-Senate governance struc- 
tures, and at the recommendations 
offered by the Birnbaum 

The task forces wish this report 
to be seen as an effort to render the 
efforts of the Ad Hoc Committee 
workable and capable of incorpora- 
tion into the Plan of Organization 
of the campus and into the life of 
the campus community. 


The Ad Hoc Committee listed 17 
principles from which its recom- 
mendations flowed. The task forces 
felt that 1) principles, to be clear 
and to effectively guide a commit- 
ment to shared governance, should 
be few and comprehensive and that 
2) several of the principles were so 
specific and detailed as to be better 
placed among the recommenda- 
tions. Accordingly, we offer four 
principles which we feel should 
guide shared governance. It will be 
noted that these principles apply to 
the overall governance of the cam- 
pus of which faculty governance is 
a vital and pre-eminent part. 

1. A commitment to develop 
knowledge and bring the fruits of 
knowledge into the lives of its 
students compels a university to 
construct an academic community 
which exemplifies free and open 
participation in the forces that 
affect the lives of its members. 
The commitment to shared gover- 
nance is, thus, central to academic 
life. In the classroom and in the 
administration of the university, 
commitment to principles of 
meaningful participation in gover- 
nance must be acknowledged by 
all in the community, taught in its 
classrooms, facilitated and reward- 
ed by those in positions of 
responsibility and made a part of 
the active pursuit of education. To 
affirm commitments to the 
breadth of participation, gover- 
nance must be inclusive, coales- 
cing the broad diversity of the 
campus community. In short, the 
campus must commit itself to a 
climate of informed and active 
participation in governance by all 
in its community. 

APRIL 5, 1991 


O F 


A T 



2. Shared governance at the Uni- 
versity of Maryland at College 
Park means governance shared 
among administration, faculty, 
staff, and students. Among these, 
the faculty have a fundamental 
role in the governance of the 
institution. The administration is 
responsible for seeking advice, 
initiating action, making decisions 
and implementing policy and for 
maintaining accountability for its 
actions. Administrative accounta- 
bility means active accounting to 
the other constituents with whom 
governance is shared on policies 
recommended by those constitu- 
ents. The faculty have the respon- 
sibility for informed and regular 
participation in governance activi- 
ties related to all aspects of the 
academic mission of the campus. 
Staff have a vital role in support 
of the campus mission and have 
the responsibility for informed 
and regular participation in gover- 
nance activities. Undergraduate 
and graduate students have the 
responsibility for informed and 
regular participation in gover- 
nance activities which have speci- 
fic impact on their areas of 

3. All principles of shared gover- 
nance should be actively imple- 
mented at every administrative 
level including program, depart- 
ment, college and campus. Shared 
governance requires establishing a 
structure parallel to the admini- 
strative lines of authority through 
which faculty, staff and students 
can participate. 

4. Communication is fundamental 
to shared governance. Formal com- 
munication involves policies relat- 
ed to accountability and campus 
publications. Informal communi- 
cation requires physical facilities 
which encourage collegiality and 
opportunities for contact A com- 
mitment by the administration to 
shared governance must include 
allocation of sufficient resources 
to construct an environment for 
formal and informal communica- 
tion that will make informed gov- 
ernance a reality. 


1. The establishment and 
maintenance of a climate suppor- 
tive of, and encouraging to, par- 
ticipation in governance should be 
a principal purpose for all mem- 
bers of the campus community. 

Discussion: Current campus atti- 
tudes and policies tend to discour- 
age participation in shared gover- 
nance, especially by faculty and 
staff. Certain administrators view 
those active in shared governance 
as "professional politicians," and 
some faculty members view gover- 
nance as the responsibility of 
others. Participation in governance 
activities is not seen as important 
in consideration for tenure, promo- 
tion, or merit decisions. Staff have 
described active discouragement of 
their participation, such as denial 

of permission to attend Senate 
meetings. This negative climate has 
led to a circular negative percep- 
tion of participation in shared 
governance activities at College 
Park as reflected in the findings of 
the Ad Hoc Committee. 

The task forces feel that partici- 
pation in shared governance 
should be seen as a high obligation 
of citizenship in the campus com- 
munity. Faculty, especially, should 
see their role in shared governance 
as described in these recommenda- 
tions as constituting a special obli- 
gation to participate in shared gov- 
ernance. This obligation to partici- 
pate should be especially strongly 
felt by tenured and senior faculty 
to whom the institution has made a 
unique, long-term commitment. 

The Ad Hoc Committee's Report 
and these recommendations 
address structural and procedural 
reforms of governance at College 
Park, but none of these ideas will 
succeed without broad agreement 
and support for participation in the 
activities which will make shared 
governance a reality. 

2. The principles of governance 
should be constituted in Plans of 
Organization developed and 
approved by the faculty and 
implemented by all university 
academic units.' 

Discussion: It became clear in the 
process of reviewing the Ad Hoc 
Committee Report that some facul- 
ty members are functioning in 
units with no clear structure for 
governance, particularly at the 
departmental level. It also became 
clear that the departmental plans of 
organization are not a formal part 
of the college and campus plans. 
Consequently, it is further recom- 
mended that: 

3. Each unit Plan of Organization 
should be reviewed and approved 
at the college level and be 
attached to a Plan of Organization 
which should be reviewed and 
approved at the university level 
by the Campus Senate for consis- 
tency with the principles of gover- 
nance. All departmental and col- 
lege plans will be filed with the 
campus Plan of Organization of 
the Campus Senate. 

DiscMssioH. - The process of incor- 
porating ail Plans of Organization 
ultimately with the university plan 
will ensure that each academic unit 
within each of the colleges will 
have an approved Plan of Organi- 
zation that is recognized as a viable 
part of the governance of the entire 

4. Each Plan of Organization must 
contain provisions for faculty 
involvement in all decisions 
which affect academic matters 
within the particular unit includ- 
ing, but not limited to, budgets, 
curriculum, facilities, salaries, 
appointments, promotion, and 

Discussion: To provide for the nec- 
essary structure to involve faculty 
in governance of a unit, it is impor- 
tant that the precise role of faculty 
in the critical issues be clearly 

spelled out in the document, so 
that there can be no question as to 
how shared governance is to be 

5. The Plans of Organization must 
clearly establish and delineate the 
governance structure to accom- 
plish the objectives of participa- 
tory decision-making. This struc- 
ture should include, but should 
not be limited to: a unit- wide fac- 
ulty council; a faculty advisory 
committee to offer guidance to the 
unit's administrator, composed of 
both elected and appointed mem- 
bers (where desirable and appro- 
priate to the size of the unit); and 
the requisite budget, salary, cur- 
riculum, facilities, and appoint- 
ments/promotion/tenure commit- 
tees. Procedures for the selection 
of members for these committees 
shall be a part of each unit's plan 
of organization. Membership of 
these committees should include 
staff and students as appropriate. 

Discussion: The specific committee 
structure will necessarily differ 
according to the size and mission 
of the academic unit. It is clear, 
however, that stipulating the basic 
committee structure and process in 
the Plans of Organization will 
ensure that such a structure is in 
place for full faculty participation 
at every level. 

6. At the university level, the pres- 
ident and provost should continue 
to address the state of the campus 
at an open Campus Senate meet- 
ing. The meeting should be wide- 
ly publicized to offer the oppor- 
tunity for all members of the cam- 
pus community to attend. 

Discussion: While some campuses 
do have faculty assemblies, the 
Task Force believes that the present 
Campus Senate meeting structure 
can serve this same useful purpose 
without requiring additional meet- 
ings and arrangements. The key to 
setting up Special Orders of the 
Day for campus-wide discussion, 
however, is to publicize the meet- 
ing widely and to allow opportun- 
ity for a question /answer session 
with the administrators. 

7. The university president (and 
other unit administrators) should 
conduct periodic informal meet- 
ings with various groups to 
enhance familiarity with campus 
issues and climate. 

Discussion: The task forces were 
persuaded that the Ad Hoc Com- 
mittee Report's recommendation 
for a presidential Faculty Advisory 
Committee was problematic and 
essentially duplicates the current 
practice of breakfast meetings with 
the Campus Senate Executive Com- 
mittee. Further, it was noted by 
several faculty members that form- 
er Chancellor Gluckstern's practice 
of inviting various faculty members 
for informal conversations about 
the campus served a similar pur- 
pose, allowing the administrator to 
gauge campus sentiment and to 
stay in touch with the campus fac- 
ulty, staff, and students. 

8. The initial appointment to an 
administrative position of chair or 

Academic Unit refers to 
all levels including 
departments, programs, 
centers, institutes, schools, 
colleges, and campus-wide ad- 


dean should be for a five-year 
term. A chair or dean may be 
appointed to a second term of up 
to five years. Appointment 
beyond ten years shall be 
regarded as unusual and shall 
require a full review and 

Discussion: The requirement for a 
review at the end of five years is 
reasonable, and reappointment or 
retention for one to five additional 
years offers flexibility. At ten years, 
any further extension would 
require careful scrutiny and signifi- 
cantly greater justification. 

9. All administrators, including 
the chief administrative officer 
and those assistant and associate 
administrators in a unit, should 
receive periodic performance 
reviews which include input from 
the faculty, staff, and students in 
the administrator's unit. 

Discussion: It became apparent to 
the task force that faculty members 
believe that there is little or no 
sense of two-way accountability in 
the present governance structure. 
While faculty performance is 
accountable to the key administra- 
tors, there appears to be little 
accountability of administrators to 
those they administer. Thus, peri- 
odic reviews of all campus admin- 
istrators should be established as 
both policy and procedure. 

10. Administrators should be 
expected to provide leadership as 
well as management of a unit. 

Discussion: It is clear from both the 
Ad Hoc Committee Report and the 
task forces' hearings that some fac- 
ulty concerns about governance on 
this campus stemmed from dissat- 
isfaction with present administra- 
tive leadership in certain units. The 
task forces urge that chief admini- 
strative officers develop job des- 
criptions that provide for academic 
leadership as well as day-to-day 
management of unit functions. 

11. Shared governance should be 
characterized by two-way informa- 
tion flow between committees and 
the bodies or administrators 
appointing them. The goal of this 
recommendation is to ensure (1) 
that committees have sufficient 
information on which to make 
reasoned decisions and (2) that 
administrators respond in writing 
to the committee recommenda- 
tions, offering an indication (and 
rationale) as to acceptance or 
rejection of the recommendations. 
When committees request specific 
information, committee members 
should be appraised of the dispo- 
sition and results of these 

Discussion: Consultation without 
full and independent access to 
information becomes ineffective 
and meaningless. Among the pow- 
ers of those who share governance 
must be the power to be provided, 
as a matter of courtesy and by 
specific request, information con- 
cerning the issues facing the unit 
Following consultation, fully effec- 
tive shared governance requires 

that administrators respond to 
recommendations of consulting 
committees, acknowledging their 
acceptance or non-acceptance of the 
recommendations and providing 
reasons for this judgement. Testi- 
mony before the task forces indicat- 
ed that current university practice 
offers too little two-way communi- 
cation between committees and the 
persons to whom they report. 
Information is often provided to 
committees on a "need to know" 
basis. Too often, those participating 
in governance feel that their hard 
work receives little or no response, 
diminishing interest in serving on 

12, The College Park campus must 
develop a more responsive and 
responsible communication clim- 
ate. The campus communication 
climate can be enhanced through 
specific recommendations: 

Discussion: The focus of much fac- 
ulty reaction to the Ad Hoc Com- 
mittee Report centered on the need 
for creating a strong climate of 
communication that will further the 
principles and goals of shared gov- 
ernance. Faculty dissatisfaction 
with the present communication 
process was expressed at every 
unit level. 

A. Outlook should be enhanced 
and expanded to incorporate more 
coverage of Campus Senate meet- 
ings. College meetings, APAC, 
major committees, etc. 

Discussion: It is clear that the cam- 
pus should not create new, addi- 
tional newsletters and publications. 
Rather, the excellent format of 
Outlook can serve as the basis for 
expanded coverage. 

B. A meeting place should be 
created where faculty can truly 
come together both formally and 
informally to talk with each other. 

Discussion: Several of our respon- 
dents noted the serious lack of any 
central space for faculty to interact. 
The present location of the Campus 
Senate in the Armory basement is 
perceived to be problematic; the 
Rossborough does not adequately 
meet our informal needs; and the 
lack of a central space mitigates 
against much faculty 

C. The administration should 
develop an effective system for 
the timely publication of general 
campus information. 

Discussion: The publication of cam- 
pus-wide information is uneven in 
its timing and its coverage. There is 
no unified campus calendar; the 
campus telephone directory has 
recently appeared after nearly half 
of the year has passed; there is no 
single summary of the status of 
committee activity on campus. This 
leads to general ignorance of even 
the most basic information, and 
prevents informed participation in 
shared governance. 

13, Policies relating to the basic 
organization of the university 
should be reviewed, brought up 

to date and implemented accord- 
ing to the principles of shared 

Discussion: Two examples illustrate 
this problem. The 1985 reorganiza- 
tion of the College Park mandated 
a review of the structure it 
produced within five years; this . 
review should be undertaken. The 
establishment of the college /dean 
system was based on the under- 
standing that the entire structure 
would be reviewed in a timely 
fashion to ensure that the princi- 
ples on which it was based (e.g. 
"strong" deans as academic leaders; 
closer access of colleges to the deci- 
sion making in Academic Affairs; 
closer relationship of faculty in 
individual units to the college deci- 
sion-making process; forceful artic- 
ulation of individual unit needs 
and response to those needs via the 
college deans) are indeed 

The policy concerning the elimi- 
nation of academic units, "Reduc- 
tion, Consolidation, Transfer, or 
Discontinuance of Programs and 
Termination of Faculty Positions 
During a Financial Emergency," 
was sent from the Senate to the 
administration in April, 1989. The 
policy was never implemented and 
current discussions of the elimina- 
tion of academic units are being 
conducted without benefit of this 


14. The resources necessary for the 
operation of the Campus Senate 
in full implementation of the 
recommendations following 
should be provided by admini- 
stration at all levels. 

Discussion: While many of the 
recommendations of this Joint Task 
Force Report can be implemented 
as improved governance within the 
units with no great additional cost, 
the recommendations related to the 
Senate will require resources not 
now allocated. At the unit level, 
this will include administrative 
support for participation in Senate 
and campus committee activity. At 
the campus level, this may include 
release time and summer compen- 
sation for the Senate chair and 
chair-elect, staff support for the 
Subcommittee on Committees and 
the Senate Committees, and resour- 
ces to improve communications 
within the campus community 
regarding governance. 

The Senate has operated in 
extreme poverty from its inception. 
Only the existence of a diligent and 
committed staff willing to work far 
beyond their assigned tasks has 
made the Senate what it is today. 
What it is today, while impressive, 
falls short in many areas according 
to the Report of the Ad Hoc Com- 
mittee on Faculty Governance, and 
will require additional resources to 
implement the recommendations of 
this report. Effective governance 
will require such resources; none of 
these recommendations can reason- 
ably be added to the Senate's 
already over-burdened staff with- 
out such additional support. 


15. The Plan of Organization 
Review Committee should formal- 
ize a faculty caucus within the 
Campus Senate structure and 
define issues for which the faculty 
have primary responsibility. 

Discussion: The Ad Hoc Committee 
Report contains several recommen- 
dations relating to campus-wide 
representative faculty groups. 
White such groups have histori- 
cally experienced difficulty in stim- 
ulating interest, the task forces 
believe that there is merit to these 
ideas, and recommends that a cau- 
cus of faculty senators could serve 
this purpose. The importance of 
such a group is underscored by 
recent University of Maryland Sys- 
tem governance procedures which 
require campus delegates to sys- 
tem- and state- wide entities. The 
proposed caucus will be an appro- 
priate forum from which to elect 
such representatives. 

16, The Senate Executive Commit- 
tee should be reorganized to 
become a senior advisory panel to 
the administration, and the chief 
agency for implementing and 
overseeing the operations of 
shared governance on the College 
Park campus, including enhance- 
ment of the Campus and Senate 
Committee structures and facilita- 
tion of Senate consideration of 
policy issues. 

A. Membership on the Executive 
Committee should include both 
members of the Senate and no 
more than five faculty members 
who are not members of the Sen- 
ate. Members should be selected 
by the Campus Senate from slates 
provided by the Subcommittee on 
Committees. Non-senate members 
of the Executive Committee shall 
be exempt from service on Execu- 
tive Committee subcommittees. 

B. A subcommittee of the Execu- 
tive Committee should be estab- 
lished called the Subcommittee on 
Committees with principal 
responsibility for the Campus and 
Senate committees. The subcom- 
mittee shall be chaired by the 
Chair-Elect of the Senate. Its 
responsibilities will include iden- 
tification of individuals for 
service on Campus and Senate 
committees based on matches 
between the tasks of the various 
committees and the skills and 
experience of the candidates, over- 
sight of operations, and ongoing 
assessment of the effectiveness of 

C. A subcommittee of the Execu- 
tive Committee should be estab- 
lished called the Subcommittee on 
the Agenda. The subcommittee 
shall be chaired by the Chair of 
the Senate. The subcommittee's 
responsibilities shall include pre- 
paring the Senate's meeting agen- 
das, defining rules to govern 
debate of the Senate's business, 
tracking Senate business through 
Senate committees, and review of 
the content of such aspects of the 
Senate's business as it may deem 

Discussion; It is envisioned that the 
Executive Committee be available 
as a whole or in part for consulta- 
tion with the administration and 
that it be seen as a resource for the 
administration. The Ad Hoc Com- 
mittee Report observes that 
eminent members of the faculty 
who may not wish to devote the 
time required for day-to-day work 
in governance but whose counsel is 
valuable to the campus could be 
encouraged to serve on several 
kinds of advisory committees. The 
Task Forces believe that this pur- 
pose can be served by opening 
membership on the Exeuctive Com- 
mittee to a limited number of non- 
senate members who would be 
exempt from subcommittee work. 

17. The campus and senate com- 
mittee structure should be 
enhanced as the primary vehicle 
for involvement by the campus 
community in campus-wide gover- 

Discussion: The Ad Hoc Committee 
on Faculty Governance made sev- 
eral recommendations about the 
operation of the Campus Senate. 
The task forces agree with these 
recommendations and suggest 
these specific changes to improve 
continuity in the execution of Cam- 
pus Senate business, 

A. The chair-elect of the Senate 
should assume primary adminis- 
trative responsibility for the oper- 
ation of the committee structure. 

B. The ability of the Senate office 
to provide support for committee 
work should be enhanced. This 
enhancement shall include the 
hiring of an additional staff mem- 
ber for the office with primary 
responsibility to support commit- 
tee work. A system for mainte- 
nance of committee records in the 
Senate office should be instituted. 
Physical facilities to provide meet- 
ing space for committees and to 
facilitate use of the Senate office 
for support of committee work 
should be provided. 

C. The terms of members of 
Senate committees should be 
extended to two years to ensure 
greater continuity in the work of 
the committees. Half the members 
of the committees shall be 
appointed each year. 

D. Consultative relationships 
between appropriate administra- 
tors and corresponding Senate 
committees should be defined. 

E. Campus and Senate committees 
should receive a written charge 
formulated in consultation with 
the appropriate administrator and 
the Senate Executive Committee. 

18. The Senate Bylaws should 
define specific responsibilities for 
senators to promote shared gover- 
nance. A principal responsibility 
of each Campus senator shall be 
to seek opinions and communicate 
the actions of the Senate to his or 
her constituents. The senator's 
unit should provide administra- 
tive cooperation in this effort. 
Another principal responsibility 

of each Campus senator shall be 
the identification and recruitment 
of candidates for campus and Sen- 
ate committees. 

19. The Senate should revise its 
calendar to facilitate year round 
participation in governance. Such 
revisions should include: chair 
election date in March, committee 
assignments in April, and two 
year non-coterminous terms for 
members of standing or continu- 
ing committees. 

20. The Senate should develop 
specific improvements in proce- 
dures to facilitate meaningful Sen- 
ate debate. In preparing the agen- 
da, the Subcommittee on the 
Agenda of the Executive Commit- 
tee should be given the power in 
preparing the agenda to limit the 
length of time devoted to specific 
items while preserving the right 
of the Senate in session to extend 
the limit. The Senate should 
actively manage debate by invok- 
ing rules restricting the length of 
speeches and the number of time 
speakers can address the Senate 
on a single issue. 

Discussion: Parliamentary proce- 
dure and the Campus Senate 
Bylaws contain the tools to make 
the Campus Senate's debate more 
efficient. This recommendation is 
meant to encourage the use of 
those tools. 

21. The Senate should improve its 
ability to monitor implementation 
of Senate policy actions. All Sen- 
ate policy reports should contain 
implementation procedures 
including an effective date, the 
Senate or administrative official 
responsible for implementation, 
and a schedule for reports from 
the official on implementation. 

22. A Transition Committee on 
Implementation should be formed 
and charged in so far as possible 
according to these recommenda- 
tions; it will report periodically to 
the Campus Senate Executive 
Committee and to the president 
regarding the status of implemen- 
tation of the recommendations. 
The Transition Committee on 
Implementation should be dis- 
banded at such time as the Execu- 
tive Committee of the Campus 
Senate is reconstituted according 
to these recommendations and is 
able to act accordingly. 

Discussion: The implementation of 
these recommendations can form a 
paradigm of the recommendations 
themselves and the principles 
which accompany them. Implemen- 
tation should be seen as an effort 
involving all elements of the cam- 
pus community. 

These recommendations, once acted 
on by the Campus Senate, will con- 
stitute recommended university 
policy relative to campus gover- 
nance. In accordance with Recom- 
mendation 21, this policy should be 
accompanied by a schedule for 
implementation along with the 
identities of administrators and 
Campus Senate officials who will 
be responsible for its implementa- 


Strengthening a Partnership: 
Shared Governance at the Uni- 
versity of Maryland at Coiieqe 
Park, Tteport of Ihe Ad Hoc 
Committee Report on Faculty 
Governance. Submitted to 
William E. Kirwan, President, 
University ot Maryland at Coi- 
ieqe Park on February 28, 

Members of the Ad Hoc Com- 

Robert Birnbaum (chair), 
Monique Claque, Jane t. Clark, 
Ihe late Richard T. Farrell, 
Raymond L. Johnson, Earlean 
M. WcCarrick Phylis B. Moser- 
Veillort, Alan Pa sen, Ma h Ion 

Members of the Campus 
Governance Task Force: 
Andrew Wolvin (chair), Theresa 
Colletti. Marvin Breslow, Jacob 
Goidhaber, Judith Halleft, 
Martin Johnson 

Members of Ihe Senate Corn- 
mi ttes and Procedures Task 

Ralph Bennett (chair), Janel 
Hunt, Jean Hebeler, Larry 
Lauer, Jay Thomas, James 
Klumpp, Kathleen Smith