DEBATE OVER SOUTHEAST MISSOURI STATE UNIVERSITY GOVERNANCE: ATCHLEY REPLY TO FACULTY SENATE

From President Bill L. Atchley

To the Southeast Missouri State University Faculuty:

Dated November 9, 1995

I recently sent to the entire faculty community and administrative staff a letter asking for input from each individual in regard to the "Common Hour" proposed by Student Government in October. I felt it would be most beneficial to ask each of you for your thoughts on this subject, and many of you have sent in good constructive remarks and suggested questions that need to be asked before implementation of such a proposal. I appreciate that input.

However, today's mail brought from a letter from the Chair of the Faculty Senate, expressing the Senate's view that we were wrong this "direct" approach, stating that the Faculty Senate "should at least be consulted" on such an issue, and arguing that "governance procedures were being circumvented." I do not agree that governance procedures were circumvented. As I see it, the Senate represents the faculty collectively, but asking each of you individually for input represents the ultimate in collegial governance.

And in fact the Senate was consulted on this matter as were other campus advisory bodies. The "Common Hour" proposal was made at a meeting of the most broadly representative body on the campus -- the Administrative Council -- and all members, including the Faculty Senate representative, were invited to provide comment and advice about the idea It was my assumption that this request for comment would be shared with the various bodies, such as the Faculty Senate, Professional Staff Council, College Councils, and others, whose representatives are members of the Administrative Council, but in addition, I decided to seek advice directly from individual members of the campus community.

I acknowledge that it is necessary to have a representative body to address major policy issues on behalf of the faculty, but it is my belief that too many times we work through representatives when we could as easily get direct input from those most directly affected by a proposal.

The negative reaction from the Senate in this instance demonstrates what I see as a serious flaw in the University's governance structure, and illustrates the need for all of us to rethink that structure during this transition year. We need to move away from a structure which emphasizes protection of turf and leads to territorial battles, and toward a structure which emphasizes the good of the whole, mutual trust, and "getting the job done."

It is important for each of you, individually and collectively, to review the type of governance structure we have, and determine if it is the best structure to serve the needs of the University. I realize that I have not detailed these ideas, and that more in-depth discussions will be needed to develop those details.

How this might be done is as follows: I recently indicated to the Board of Regents that it needs to look at its own governing structure and by-laws, to see if it serves the University's needs. It is equally important that the president, administrators, faculty and students study and evaluate the internal governance structures of the institution. The faculty should start at the grass roots level and decide on what structure best serves the University from the faculty point of view. The students need to look at their structures in the same way. And the same is true of the administration and Board of Regents.

The structures we finally develop should be compatible with the idea that all of us work together for the benefit of Southeast Missouri State University. The structures should be unique to this campus, should allow for trust in each other, and should result in all groups working together easily toward common goals.

I look forward to working with all of you to see that this happens.