"Good fences make good neighbors."

That's a line from the poet Robert Frost and a cautionary phrase from a recent Academic Senate report on the "health" of shared governance at UC Davis.

The 89-page report, titled "Mending the Wall," makes a number of recommendations to enhance shared governance between the faculty and administration. Last year, the senate commissioned a special committee to suggest improvements.

"Even where concurrence is not required, a history of disregard of the views of the Academic Senate creates an atmosphere of distrust and bad faith among administrators and faculty that hinders progress in what must, by its nature, be a cooperative enterprise," the report reads.

At UC, the concept of "shared governance" means that no single campus constituency has absolute authority over everything that happens within the university. The faculty makes the final decisions on admissions, courses and curricula, and graduation requirements; the administration has authority over resources. But on everything related to these and other matters, the two entities must consult.

The UC is unique in higher education because of the specific delegation of authority from the Board of Regents to the Academic Senate.

'Both successes and failures'

Kevin Hoover, an economics professor and co-author of the report, said that the senate undertook the report in response to a series of instances in which they perceived the administration had failed to adequately consult with the senate -- such as the transition to Division I athletics, which the senate rejected in an advisory vote.

Hoover said the administration had "never formally referred" the D-I matter to the senate, despite its "implications for instruction, academic personnel, budget and admissions policy."

Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef doesn't share that view. "I remain convinced that the Division I athletics decision was the right one for this campus, and two senate committees who looked carefully at the issue agreed that the decision was not inappropriate."

Hoover said, "While shared governance has both successes and failures, the administration has too often failed to respect the delegated responsibilities of the senate and sought to short-circuit its processes."

At the same time, though, Hoover says, the senate has "not stood up for itself," and that it has at times been "an ineffective partner" in shared governance. Part of the problem, he said, is that its own mechanisms are cumbersome and inefficient, due in part to a lack of resources.

There's work to be done on both sides of the fence, acknowledges Dan Simmons, law professor and chair of the Academic Senate. "Shared governance does not merely mean that the senate is a constituency group that must be consulted on decisions already made," said Simmons. "The senate must be respected as a partner in the governance of the campus. Second, the senate itself must actively engage in developing and promoting its own initiatives in the shared management of the academic enterprise of the campus."

Hoover is hopeful. "There is nothing so bad that it cannot be fixed," he said. "But it is in too big a state of disrepair not to need to go into the shop."

Vanderhoef said, "One can always find problem points in interactive processes as complex as shared governance. There is no doubt that we should always try to improve where those difficulties are identified. However, it is my view that, if one looks at the whole shared governance process on the Davis campus, it continues to have its important successes that outweigh the problems. The senate-administration interaction on the personnel process is the best example."

Looking ahead

As the report details, the senate seeks to expand its role in campus budget decisions, where it currently feels ignored. For example, Hoover says, budget input must begin in the schools and colleges and filter upward on tracks parallel to those in the administration's budget process.

"The object is to develop a coordinated senate position and to have senate members at every level fully informed and able to sit at the table as equals with administrators in budgetary discussions," said Hoover.

Another concern is resources. For instance, the report states that in comparison to staff resources in the "five stories of Mrak Hall" and deans' offices, the current staff of 7.5 FTE in the Academic Senate office is "virtually invisible."

The report also criticizes a lack of faculty involvement. "There has been a slow but inexorable decay in the culture of shared governance among senate members on campus," said Hoover, adding that this is largely the result of a failure of the senate leadership to educate and inform the membership about shared governance and senate workings.

Another problem is that the democratic nature of the senate. "Too much senate work," the report reads, "involves nitpicking small issues with a loss of focus on a broad overview of the academic direction of the campus."

The report urges better coordination among the various faculties of the schools, colleges and committees of the senate. Overall, the document exhorts the administration to pay proper heed to the role of the senate.

"It cannot create its own advisory committees with senate members on them and then claim to have fulfilled its responsibilities under shared governance. It has only consulted with the senate when it engages the senate's own mechanisms on its own terms," said Hoover.

"We have never confused the advice of these committees with the responsibilities of shared governance," responded Vanderhoef. "The membership of Administrative Advisory Committees is usually drawn from all of our campus constituencies, not just the faculty, and they provide highly valuable advice to the campus."

The senate will continue to address the issue in its meetings. The report is online at http://www.mrak.ucdavis.edu/senate.