How We Make Decisions on Campus

Phil Rouse and I are spearheading the “governance” issue, which is a huge and daunting task. We are defining governance as the collective decision making structures that direct the university and its affairs. This includes committees and key groups of students, staff, faculty and administrators who combine to make decisions, particularly decisions that affect the allocation of resources.

The HSU governance structure and the decisions that come out of that structure affect all aspects of HSU and every single person in our university community. When decision making structures work, people feel a greater sense of mission and common purpose. When decision making structures don’t work, people lose their sense of direction and feel disconnected from contributing to the success of the university.

The WASC and Keeling reports describe HSU as needing urgent action and change to its decision-making processes. The reports noted high levels of distrust and dissonance in our governance systems. But both reports also emphasize that there is a very strong willingness to move forward with positive change in this arena. The most notable areas that both reports recommend for change are in the elimination of redundancy and in an emphasis on clearly defining areas of decision making responsibility.

We can make suggestions for changes in our governance that will address these areas, but we will need your input and perspectives to do so. We will work with all the existing governance committees, groups and individuals so that we recommend structures that are inclusive in perspective, widely understood, and that sustain the success of our university. Thanks for your interest in the cabinet, and for any input you can provide.

Posted by Mary Glenn at 09:07 PM
Filed in: Campus GovernancePermalink


On 03/08 at 10:45 PM, .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) said:

I believe that Undergraduate Research can play a central role in the success of HSU, and as such, should be represented in formal governance. Mary Glenn, Chris Hopper, Guy Alain-Amassou, and Morgan Varner and I recently attended the Council for Undergraduate Research (CUR) in Sacramento along with numerous representatives from other CSU campuses and the Chancellor’s office. It is clear from this meeting that UG research is a big emphasis of the CSU system and vision, and I believe that HSU can excel in this area. I am confident that UG research at HSU will not only enhance immediate concerns like our WASC EER report and institutional assessment, but also enhance student learning, engage faculty, create a research/scholarship culture on campus, bring in funding revenues, and improve recruiting and retention- particularly of underrepresented students. That said, the only way UG research will thrive on HSU’s campus is if it is given the necessary support and governance structure. Currently, our volunteer efforts as an UG Research/Scholarship adhoc committee (I know, ‘committee’ is supposed to be taboo) have already resulted in an expansion of the North Coast Research Conference to include UGs, a UG Research/Scholarship Celebration event in March, an online survey of UG research/scholarship across campus, and the formation of three NSF REU and NIH AREA grant teams to enhance funding for UG research and underrepresented students. All of this work has stemmed from the CUR conference and has thus far been a faculty-led, volunteer initiative. I believe that the sky is the limit with regard to UG research at HSU, particularly if it is supported in the future structure of governance at HSU. I further believe that such governance might ideally be associated with the Office of Research on campus.

On 05/22 at 07:59 AM, .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) said:

I think much of the distrust stems from a president who has not clearly articulated how we reversed our enrollment decline, increased annual giving, diversified our student body, and refurbished much of our physical plant.  These are important and measurable campus improvements, but they came at a cost to other programs. 

Absent these facts and rationale, ideology shapes faculty opinion.  For example, I find administrative salaries appallingly high, but in reality they are further behind the CPEC gap than the faculty.

Page 1 of 1