University Council Committee on Committees |
|
, |
University Council Committee on Committees
Report on the Functioning of Council Committees
during Academic Year 2014-2015
Executive Summary
This report summarizes the general functioning and procedures of University Council Committees during the 2014-2015 academic year. These committees are: the Committee on Academic and Related Affairs (CARA), Committee on Campus and Community Life, Committee on Facilities, Committee on Personnel Benefits, and Committee on Diversity and Equity. Suggestions for enhancing the functioning of these committees typically covered these areas: (1) committee chairs should attempt to explain duties to new members with greater clarity, especially to student members, and to identify committee members’ roles more clearly; (2) meetings need to be scheduled more carefully to accommodate the schedules of all members; (3) charges among committees with overlapping responsibilities, including committees of the Faculty Senate, need to be identified and a way found to enhance communication among such committees; and (4) there was a general sentiment to provide for each committee meeting beverages and snacks from funds of the Central Administration.
Mechanism of Evaluation
Each faculty member on the Committee on Committees was assigned to review a Council committee. Each review consisted of in-person, phone, and/or email interviews, typically conducted with the Committee Chair, Administrative Liaison, and staff support person, using the questions below. Committee members were encouraged to speak with members of the various committees in order to explain the nature of the review in greater detail. In some cases other members of the committees were asked for responses to these questions as well. Other University constituencies were asked to provide information on committee performance via their members who serve on the committees. All committee members then reported their findings to the Committee on Committees in March for discussion. This report provides an overview of the general findings, as well as specific comments on the functioning and procedures of each committee. Steering is nevertheless encouraged to look at the individual committee reports to gain a complete view of how the committees are performing.
Questions Posed to Each Committee Chair
1. Was the committee’s specific charge for this year clear and appropriate?
2. What changes, if any, do you think need to be made in the committee’s general charge? Do you feel the scope of the committee is appropriate?
3. What issues were addressed this year and were they resolved, or will they likely be resolved by the end of the academic year?
4. How many times did the full committee meet? If subcommittees were created, how many were created, how often did they meet, and what was their purpose?
5. Based on the charges for this year, and the discussions to date, was the committee able to satisfactorily resolve the issues discussed, and what do you see as issues emerging for consideration next year?
6. Which members would you recommend to serve on the committee next year? Is there anyone on the current committee who is the logical successor as chair, either now or in the future?
7. Is the membership of the committee well suited to the committee’s charge? (Expertise, representation of interests, etc.) Does the chair demonstrate sufficient leadership?
8. What was the role of the Administrative Liaison in your committee? (The liaison is an appropriate administrative person who can provide relevant information for a committee charge or connect the committee with others on campus with relevant information.)
9. Did someone from the Administration provide explicit feedback on last year’s recommendations? Was the feedback satisfactory? Were there any remaining aspects that have not been resolved or a path developed?
10. What problems did the committee encounter, e.g., access to necessary resources?
11. Did the committee structure work involving opportunities for oversight, opportunities to work with your Administrative Liaison to resolve specific issues, and opportunities to generate larger recommendations?
Each committee has been charged to operate with three approaches: 1) Perform general oversight reviews of their area of concern, which may not turn up any specific problems to deal with; 2) where there are specific issues that they want to address (or they have been charged to address) to try and resolve them working through their Administrative Liaison; 3) where the intra-committee level effort is not able to resolve issues to move towards generating fully elaborated recommendations to be addressed outside of the committee (as formal proposals to be forwarded to the Administration, or for the Council to consider). Was this how the committee worked? Was it an effective structure of tasks for accomplishing the committees’ charges?
12. What recommendations about the committee’s process and organization would you make going forward?
13. Is there any question that should have been asked about process that was not included?
14. Students only: Do the student members feel their voices are heard? Was there a primary and an alternate student representative on each committee?
General Comments
Each University Council (UC) committee has two major roles:
1. Broad review in its area(s) of interest, as well as monitoring to determine whether there are any issues requiring deeper exploration. Sometimes no recommendations emerge from this process, but the University is well served by having a representative body tracking important institutional and community matters on a consistent basis. Additionally, each committee performs a more in-depth consideration of a small number (typically three to five) of issues that arise from last year’s agenda and its recommendations, or new information relating to the work of the previous year’s committee. These issues might be examined by the committee as a whole, or by subcommittees, and will likely involve multiple meetings and conversations with people around the University engaged with the issue. Most can be resolved by working directly with the administrators responsible in the focus area to clarify issues and consider policy modifications. In the absence of a resolution of a given matter, the relevant committee may request that Council Steering reexamine the issue. Committees and Council Steering should nevertheless bear in mind the importance of closure on matters addressed by the various committees.
2. In order to be effective in fulfilling the above two roles, the most important factors are: the clarity of the chairs in explaining the purpose of the committee; delineation of the roles of the various members of the committee; scheduling meetings so that as many as possible of the members can attend; and beginning to meet as soon as feasible in the fall semester. In the UC Committee on Committees’ review, many University Council committee members, especially students, asked for more orientation and a better explanation of their role in the committee, and the committee’s role in the University as a whole. They also asked for more opportunities to interact informally with other committee members. Some committees felt they did not get enough information in order to formulate recommendations and follow-up about whether their recommendations were implemented and what the outcomes were.
In light of the foregoing, and other feedback the Committee on Committees received, specific recommendations for next year include the following:
1. Enhance orientation and explanation of duties to new members, especially for students. Provide all of last year’s committee reports to committee members and encourage them to review the charges and outcomes.
2. Invite the members of the previous year’s committee to attend the first half of the first meeting of the new academic year, in order to facilitate continuity from one year to the next.
3. Continue the Administration’s practice of giving verbal feedback at the first meeting of the year to the full Committee regarding recommendations from the previous year.
4. Consider incorporating an informal lunch or reception at the first committee meeting that would give committee members time for informal interaction. Request funding from Central Administration for beverages and snacks at each meeting of full committees.
5. Work to insure as much continuity of the membership year-to-year as possible. Admittedly, this is difficult for the student representatives, who typically serve one-year terms.
6. Each committee should formally re-consider its general committee charges and report annually to the Committee on Committees.
Committee on Academic and Related Affairs (CARA)
General Comments:
The Committee met four times, and considered the topics of the arts, academic integrity, and the library. The committee provided oversight and found no issues to resolve regarding any of those topics. There was a suggestion to encourage some informal interactions among committee members and extend the potential time of each meeting to 1.5 hours. Some thought the General Charge for this committee was too broad; for example, the bookstore focus was superfluous.
The University Council Committee on Committees suggested the possibility of changing the Undergraduate Assembly election process to allow undergraduate members to serve longer terms on the committees, providing more continuity for student members of the committees. The UA representative will bring this to the attention of the UA. Additionally, the Committee on Committees recognizes that the general charges of CARA are quite broad, but at this time, recommended retaining a consolidated committee structure.
Committee on Campus and Community Life (CCL)
General Comments:
Reports suggested the Committee functioned well and that the charges were clear and appropriate. A subcommittee on student housing met in addition to the regular meetings of the Committee. Attendance was good but some members, especially the GAPSA representatives, had difficulty arranging their schedules to attend. The relationship between the Chair and the staff representative, while productive, could be defined better in advance. Some of the student representatives expressed a desire to be more involved in discussions and formulation of recommendations.
The University Council Committee on Committees recognizes how efficiently CCL functioned this academic year. Still, the general comments on initial orientation, scheduling of meetings, and focus on more profound issues pertain to CCL.
Committee on Diversity and Equity
General Comments:
This Committee broadened the diversity of its membership, to good effect. A suggestion was made to improve continuity by requesting a three-year commitment of the faculty and staff representatives, with only one representative in each group rotating off each year. Additionally, the requirement that the current chair serve as past-chair for at least one year was suggested. The Committee met monthly. Much effort was devoted to fact-finding and gathering. Access to data was sometimes difficult, especially regarding diversity among the staff.
The University Council Committee on Committees recommends holding a joint meeting with the Senate Committee on the Economic Status of the Faculty in the fall; the purpose is to compare notes on gender equity. Otherwise, the general comments on continuity of membership pertain.
Committee on Facilities
General Comments:
The Committee focused on Penn Connects, bicycling safety, classroom utilization, conference space, recycling, and energy utilization. A report on Penn Connects is forthcoming. All other issues require on-going study and deliberation. The student representatives felt marginalized, both because of a lack of input on scheduling and a sense that the Committee lacked organization.
The University Council Committee on Committees suggests that the issues surrounding public safety have been adequately addressed for now and that other specific charges be considered for the coming academic year. The general comments on scheduling meetings so all (especially students) can attend pertain.
Committee on Personnel Benefits
General Comments:
The Committee met monthly and addressed most of its specific charges. In particular, the Committee worked with Human Resources to address the short term disability/maternity leave policy and to put a new plan in place. The plan will be implemented over the course of two years, and the Committee recommends that it be charged with monitoring the implementation of the revised short term disability plan. The Committee addressed mental health benefits and expressed concern about the implementation of Penn Behavioral Health administration of out-of-network claims. The Committee recommends that it be charged with addressing the administration of out-of-network mental health benefits. The Committee felt there was a productive working relationship between the Committee and the Administrative Liaisons, Jack Heuer and Sue Sproat.
The University Council Committee on Committees applauds the success of CPB in addressing the issues of Committee leadership and interaction with the Administrative Liaisons this academic year. The members of the Committee were all engaged and valued members. The Committee felt the composition of the Committee was appropriate given its charges, and the Committee was able to address its charges effectively and collaboratively.
Committee on Committees 2014-2015
Chair: Reed Pyeritz; Staff: Vicki Hewitt and Joseph Gasiewski; Faculty: Dwight Jaggard, Claire Finkelstein, Brendan O’Leary, Michael McGarvey, Melissa Wilde; PPSA: Emma Grigore; WPPSA: Loretta Hauber; GAPSA: Alounso Gilzene; UA: David Scollan
Ed. Note: See supplement in this issue for the other University Council Committee 2014-2015 Year-end Reports. |
