On March 3, faculty members voted to change who leads meetings. Instead of the university president, the Faculty Executive Committee (FEC) chair will now preside. This decision was made quickly, with minimal discussion beforehand. Many faculty members are worried about what this change might mean.
A group of over 60 faculty members from 30 different units has co-signed a motion to restore the president as the presiding officer. This motion has been submitted for the April 7 meeting agenda. While we don’t represent everyone who signed, we believe it’s crucial to discuss this change more thoroughly. Restoring the president’s role could help improve faculty governance.
The process leading to the March 3 vote did not involve enough faculty input. Such important changes need ample discussion. Typically, faculty engage through town hall meetings, but this time it didn’t happen. A planned meeting on December 15 shifted focus due to a tragic shooting. A later meeting on January 26 was moved online because of snow, which left many unable to participate, especially those with children home from school. A third meeting set for February 23 was canceled due to another snowstorm. Only now, a meeting is rescheduled for March 30. This lack of discussion prevented a full examination of the vote.
Additionally, the March 3 vote did not reflect a strong majority. Major governance changes should show clear support, but this one passed by just three votes, with 21 abstentions. This indicates a need for more conversation regarding the implications of this change.
Moving forward without careful consideration could hinder meaningful dialogue about faculty roles in university governance. The FEC’s December report raised important questions that deserve thoughtful discussion. Establishing an ad hoc committee to explore governance structures can help ensure that any changes increase faculty engagement as intended.
Moreover, switching to FEC Chair leadership does not address the real issues around faculty participation; it might even create new challenges. As noted by The Herald’s Editorial Board, reacting quickly could harm the deliberative process we need. We still have time to reconsider this vote so that we can have constructive discussions. Effective governance changes require time and strong faculty backing, not rushed decisions. Thoughtful progress is vital, especially as higher education faces increased scrutiny.
