|
|
|
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
|
|
STANDARD 3: ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNANCE
|
|
IntroductionDescription Yale Corporation Faculty Governance Student Goverance Appraisal/Projection |
IntroductionWithout exception in this century, the Yale Corporation has selected as the president of the University an academic—a senior member of a faculty at Yale or another institution who holds either a Yale undergraduate or graduate degree. There has also been a continuation of the distinctive tradition of having the provost, the dean of Yale College and the dean of the Graduate School come from the Yale faculty, and return to it, after undertaking a stint of Cincinnatus-like service to the institution’s administration. As a former dean remarked to the Reaccreditation Committee, “Deans of the Schools at Yale are seen as agents of their academic colleagues as much as permanent officers of the University.” The positions they hold are intertwined with their positions as members of the Yale faculty, and the relationship between their faculty and administrative positions continues to be reinforced. The efforts to maintain the sense of academic community in the institution’s governance as well as its programs are reflected in the president’s involvement in recruiting senior faculty; his consistent participation in the reviews of schools by the University Council; his attendance at meetings of the Yale College Faculty; and his regular interaction with students. It is reinforced by the fact that the provost and the senior deans generally continue their academic research during their administrative terms, and that many of the senior administrators at Yale continue to teach. The quality of Yale's academic leadership is further sustained by the rather distinctive and unusual organizational structure for the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS), where the deans of the College and the Graduate School share leadership responsibility for untenured faculty reviews, and, with the provost, for senior appointments and recruitment. This shared responsibility allows Yale, in effect, to double the decanal attention to faculty appointment matters, while assuring the most senior leadership for both the College and the Graduate School. We remain convinced after much consideration that the absence of a dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences ultimately results in stronger service rendered to both the College and Graduate School. Every structure has advantages and disadvantages. But the willingness of the most accomplished Yale faculty to undertake these major deanships, and their united efforts in the appointment and recruitment process, are strong advantages in our organization. In this last decade, as Yale has worked to reinforce the academic leadership of the institution it has also built out--and built up--an increasingly sophisticated set of support units. There is growing professionalism throughout the staff and a new insistence on the need to hire only first-rate administrators. To achieve excellence in this area, competitive salary and benefit programs have been adopted for most administrative areas, although there is still the sense that in the middle managerial ranks that some degree of “psychological compensation” is relied on to compensate for the higher salary levels offered by some sister institutions. The twice-weekly meetings of the University’s seven officers, a practice instituted in the late 1970s, continues to bring together the senior administrative leaders for attention to University-wide issues of particular concern. The disinclination to publish a University-wide organizational chart at Yale may reflect a long-held resistance to define an individual’s role simply within a specific “box” of responsibility. As a part of tradition and culture, senior academic and administrative leaders are encouraged to assume a sense of responsibility for the whole University, a habit of mind which is increasingly cultivated. Even in the “self-support” schools, there is the ready acceptance of assignments in support of the central University. In such a context it is unsurprising that the faculty members of a professional school such as Yale's graduate School of Art spend 40 percent of their teaching time instructing undergraduates. The chapter below does not endeavor to recite the complete panoply of governing boards or organizational structures at Yale. Rather, it emphasizes the major changes that have been initiated since the last decennial reaccreditation review in the operations of the Yale Corporation, the academic leadership of the institution and its administrative support. |
| Introduction Description Yale Corporation Faculty Governance Student Goverance Appraisal/Projection
|
DescriptionThe Yale Corporation—The Governing BodyThe Yale Corporation is the governing body of the institution and its nineteen members are entrusted through the Charter and the By-Laws with the authority necessary to exercise the responsibilities of governance required in Standard 3. No changes or amendments have been required in the last decade to satisfy any aspect of Standard 3. When the Yale Corporation confronted the responsibility in 1992-93 of searching for Yale’s next president, the trustees decided to use the occasion to consult with the University’s multiple constituencies about directions for Yale’s future, to review the operations of the Corporation itself and to make sure that the trustees themselves were doing all that they could to support Yale. Soon after the Corporation appointed Richard C. Levin as president, it turned to reviewing its own practices and procedures. During 1993-94, an Ad Hoc Committee on Trusteeship worked to conduct a self-study of the Corporation’s own practices. The study was engendered in part by the growing national debate about corporate governance, and by recent publications of the Association of Governing Boards (AGB) advocating self-studies and partially by the interest of the trustees in determining how they might better serve the institution. The Ad Hoc Committee developed a set of recommendations which largely followed those advanced by the AGB for better institutional stewardship in The Effective Board of Trustees. While the Yale Corporation had long been viewed as a source of extraordinary stewardship for the institution, there were few formal procedures to involve the Fellows in the agenda setting for the Corporation or to ensure that the Corporation’s attention was directed to major institutional issues. The Ad Hoc Committee recommended, and the Corporation endorsed, new proposals to adopt formal annual Corporation committee agendas, and to discuss each September, as a committee of the whole, those issues that require the Corporation’s collective attention in the coming year. There was a conscious decision made to focus more regularly on the work of schools of the University and the educational and the academic program as part of an “educational series” for all the trustees, and not simply those serving on the Educational Policy Committee. To that end, the format of Corporation weekends was revised to include at least one session for the entire Corporation devoted to the work of a school or academic unit. The Friday night meetings of the Corporation were converted to “educational sessions,” where a dean or faculty members share their views about important issues facing the academy generally, and acquaint the trustees in greater depth with the academic programs of many units. The Ad Hoc Committee also, at the Corporation’s suggestion, prepared the first “job descriptions” for members of the Corporation, its Senior Fellow and the president of the University, to assist particularly in the orientation of new members. In the course of that exercise, the role of the president of the University as presiding officer of the Corporation was affirmed. The Corporation devoted two meetings to considering the nature of trusteeship required for the years ahead. Emanating from these conversations were the following additional recommendations which have been implemented:
The Corporation and the president also worked to introduce a much more formal program whereby the president would present his annual objectives in the fall to the Corporation, and his progress in meeting those objectives would be assessed in Executive Session the following June. At the time of his appointment in 1993, President Levin had expressed his interest in having a more formal review of his performance undertaken every five years. Rather than focusing solely on the president’s work, the Corporation decided to expand the concept of a five-year review to conduct an institutional assessment that would review the institution’s progress as well as the work of the president. The first such evaluation was undertaken in the spring of 1998 when over sixty members of the community were interviewed, including all of the Corporation members and Officers, as well as twenty- five faculty, seven students and twelve deans and administrators. The institutional assessment showed support for President Levin and reinforced a number of issues to be addressed in the University’s future, including clarification of its aspirations to broaden the international dimensions of the University and to assure access to undergraduates of all financial means. In the course of the Ad Hoc Committee debates the Corporation discussed the need to be more conscientious in communicating with alumni. To that end, they introduced twice yearly meetings where Corporation members meet with the leadership of the Association of Yale Alumni for free-wheeling sessions, with the principal aim of introducing issues on the minds of alumni gathered from throughout the country. In the last decade the Corporation has also been attentive to its own fiduciary responsibilities: it adopted in 1995 a policy statement on conflict of interest for its members, which requires explicit trustee acknowledgment of potential conflicts. Subsequently, there was serious work to focus on the specific conflict of interest issues relating to the work of the Investment Committee. The administration has instituted a standing stewardship committee that focuses on gifts to Yale, and that committee makes regular reports to the Corporation’s Committee on Development and Alumni Affairs, in order to identify any gifts where particular attention to fulfilling the donors’ terms is required. Finally, policies relating to the naming of professorships and fellowships were adopted by the Corporation in 1998. In the last decade, the practices of the Yale Corporation have not only been improved; so too have been the procedures for the University Council. The Council serves as an advisory body to the president and its subcommittees function as a form of visiting committees for units of the University. Many of the subjects studied by the University Council in recent years have focused on matters of importance to the College and the FAS. For example, the study of the School of Music by the University Council is giving conscientious attention to the performance space needed by the undergraduate music groups; and the work of the University Council subcommittee on information technology and the subcommittee reviewing the Library offered insight directly applicable to the FAS and to the College. The organization and operation have been improved in recent years to make it a more robust source of advice to the president and officers about issues of significance. |
| Introduction Description Yale Corporation Faculty Governance Student Goverance Appraisal/Projection
|
Academic Governance of the Faculty of Arts and SciencesIn December 1991, the Yale College Faculty passed the following resolution: “Whereas the statutory organization of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences has not been reviewed for two decades, the Faculty of Yale College resolves that a committee be formed to investigate and propose appropriate changes in governance.” During the next sixteen months, the Committee on Governance focused particularly on the subjects of faculty participation in the governance of Yale and the administrative structure for the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. The period of their deliberations coincided with an unusual time of turnover in the university’s academic leadership. From the spring of 1992 until the summer of 1993 there were three presidents, three deans of Yale College and two provosts of the University. One contribution of the Committee was made early in its deliberations when the resignation of President Benno Schmidt, Jr. occasioned a presidential search. Prior presidential searches at Yale had been conducted exclusively by members of the Yale Corporation. At the request of the Committee on Governance, the Corporation considered how faculty might participate in the process. The result was the inclusion of four Yale faculty members who joined Fellows of the Corporation as voting members of the Search Committee. That Committee in turn reported to the full Corporation, which remained the decision-making body for the appointment of Yale’s president. A senior member of the FAS faculty served as a non-voting counselor to the Search Committee, acting as an ombudsperson to listen to individual faculty members’ suggestions of candidates for Yale’s next president. The Committee on Governance rendered its report in May 1993. The Committee did not recommend the introduction of a faculty senate, but rather outlined a number of proposals directed to faculty participation in important academic decisions about the future of the FAS. Its work engendered great discussion on campus, and this discussion was, in itself, salutary. The report of the majority of the Committee rejected the notion of a unified dean of the FAS, and, as the introduction to this chapter notes, Yale continues to rely on the dual structure of a dean of Yale College and a dean of the Graduate School. The appointment in April 1993 of Richard C. Levin, who had been a member of the faculty for two decades, helped to dissipate many community members’ interest in pursuing major structural changes in the organization and governance structure of the FAS. Although few of the actual recommendations of the Committee were adopted, several important changes prompted by the Committee’s deliberations were introduced: the role of the deans of Yale College and the Graduate School in search and appointment matters was expanded and the role of the divisional committees in junior faculty review and tenure matters was underlined and strengthened. The Committee's report also recognized the need for greater faculty inclusion in strategic planning and greater effort to communicate with the faculty more generally. To those ends, faculty participation on a number of existing committees (such as the University Budget Committee) was enhanced and greater reliance has been made on ad hoc committees that involve faculty in major issues facing the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. This has been the case in the recent planning committee to study the future of science facilities as well as other provostial committees studying distance learning and information technology. In terms of more regular communication, the president and provost instituted a “question period” at each Yale College faculty meeting during which the faculty are invited to raise any matter of interest. The provost has also instituted regular meetings with chairs in order to stay closely attuned to their concerns and to garner their point-of-view on current issues and concerns of the community. In terms of academic administrative leadership, the provost has reorganized her office so that a deputy or associate provost is assigned a more coherent constellation of related academic enterprises in which he or she has substantial experience. For example, there is now a deputy provost for the arts, who is a tenured professor of the History of Art and a deputy provost for the sciences who is a member of the National Academy of Sciences. The deputy provost for biomedical and health affairs is a physician who was formerly the Director of the University Health Services. Faculty concern about leadership for Engineering, and skepticism about the institution’s support for this discipline, was addressed by the creation of the position of dean of Engineering within the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. The president recruited to this position one of Yale’s distinguished scientists who had also served in a national role of Science Advisor to President George Bush. His appointment has proven to be a catalyst for much of the recent revitalization of Engineering at Yale. While this report and reaccreditation review focus on Yale College and the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, the topic of governance would be incomplete if it did not cite the organizational changes at the School of Medicine, especially since the School now represents over 40 percent of the annual budget of the institution and over 40 percent of its staff and faculty. The decanal structure of the School has been expanded in response to the dramatic increase in its size: there are now senior faculty in decanal positions devoted to academic and scientific affairs, clinical affairs and medical education. In addition, the recently appointed dean has also recruited a cadre of senior administrators well qualified to join in the leadership of the School.
|
| Introduction Description Yale Corporation Faculty Governance Student Goverance Appraisal/Projection
|
Governance Issues Relating to Students
within the College and the Graduate School
In undergraduate governance, students have long been served by the Yale College Council and by Councils within each residential college which provide a significant set of opportunities for student participation. The dean of Yale College, the dean of Student Affairs, the residential college deans, and all of the assistant and associate deans of Yale College demonstrate extraordinary availability and commitment to students and meet with them often in a multitude of different forums. Nevertheless, to foster additional communication with undergraduates, the president has continued the practice of holding open office hours for students, and he also regularly dines in the undergraduate refectories. Undergraduate students periodically voice an interest in having a position on the Yale Corporation. Although their desire for such representation has not been endorsed by the Fellows, the trustees have adopted the practice of meeting once a semester with members of the Yale College Council, and a Fellow attends at least several Master’s Teas during the course of a year. In 1997, a Graduate Student Assembly was introduced to provide a more formal student government for students in that school. The Assembly is in the process of being reviewed through a referendum process; the results will be known in the fall as to the students’ interest in retaining that particular form of student government. Regardless of the outcome of the referendum, the dean of the Graduate School and the University’s leadership want an effective channel of two-way communication between the student body and the Graduate School Administration. The Corporation and the Administration do not believe that the University or the graduate students would be well-served by the unionization of graduate student teaching assistants. The University will continue to oppose the efforts of a group which denominates itself as the Graduate Employee Student Organization (GESO) to unionize Yale students. A reorganization of the Office of the Dean of the Graduate School is underway to support more fully graduate students and our programs. Over the last three years services for the Graduate School community have increased dramatically. A new position of deputy dean of the Graduate School is being created in 1999 to supplement the leadership of the School, and an educator with a distinguished administrative record has been recruited to the new position. The deputy dean will provide leadership in the integration of the academic and non-academic activities of the School. A further reorganization of the Graduate School Dean's Office will increase the academic support to departments, programs and students. Two associate deans, one for the sciences and one for the humanities and social sciences, will be supported by two assistant deans, replacing the former three associate dean structure, reflecting the approximately equal number of graduate students in the sciences compared to the number in the humanities and social sciences. In the last year alone, there has been expanded attention to a range of activities, including new student orientation, teacher preparation, career counseling, and new opportunities for scholarly exchange. The reorganization will provide better support for ongoing and new initiatives. |
|
Introduction Description Yale Corporation Faculty Governance Student Goverance Appraisal/Projection
|
Appraisal and ProjectionThe institutional self-assessment study, which was instituted by the Yale Corporation in 1998 and described above, will be conducted every five years. It provides a periodic vehicle to assess governance at the University. In the review conducted last year, substantial information about institutional processes was gleaned for the Corporation’s attention. In the next quinquennial review, which will be conducted in 2002-03, the president and Senior Fellow of the Corporation have agreed that institutional governance will be one of the facets of the University explicitly to be reviewed. This will insure that systematic attention will be paid to this issue every five years. Although this report has focused on the organizational issues that are most directly connected to teaching and learning in Yale College, it is worth noting that each administrative area administered by one of Yale’s officers has expanded since the last decennial reaccreditation review. From the dramatic expansion in the last ten years of Information Technology Services (ITS) and the University Police Department to the reinforcement of the administrative support for faculty in the Office of Cooperative Research, to the complete reorganization of Student Financial and Administrative Services and the creation of the new Office of New Haven and State Affairs, changes in the organizational structure have been made to pursue clearly articulated institutional priorities. If the organizational structure and infrastructure of Yale has been made more robust since the last reaccreditation review, a lesson reinforced in that period is the need to think of the institution's administrative and governance structure as works in progress.
LINKS TO STANDARDS: | S1 | S2 | S3 | S4 | S5 | S6 | S7 | S8 | S9 | S10 | S11 | |
| Introduction Description Yale Corporation Faculty Governance Student Goverance Appraisal/Projection
|
|