The University of Akron trustees will not include faculty members on a select number of board committees. The decision, announced the Friday afternoon before Christmas in a letter from Roland Bauer, the board president, to Matt Wilson, the university president, goes against the recommendation of the Tiger Team put together in the aftermath of Scott Scarborough stepping down as UA president last spring. The team included faculty members and administrators with the task of finding ways to heal wounds, come together and move the university forward.
The idea in placing faculty members on board committees involves improving communication and decision-making, drawing on the expertise of faculty, especially for board members who as political appointees often bring little knowledge about higher education. That shortfall was most evident as the trustees struggled through the tumultuous two years of the Scarborough presidency.
If Matt Wilson has been more open and engaged as president, the trustees could do their part to signal lessons learned. Such a move would advance the image and substance of the school, helping to attract faculty and students, addressing the acute problem of a decline in enrollment.
No Tiger Team recommendation was more important. Now the opportunity appears lost.
The five-page Bauer letter largely sets forth how the trustees already include faculty in governing the university. True enough, there is a collective bargaining agreement, a Faculty Senate and University Council. Trustees have reached out in other ways, for instance, Bauer attending recent Faculty Senate meetings.
The Bauer letter adds proposals for “trustee liaisons” to the faculty and “information sessions” with the faculty. These are improvements, though the information sessions carry the risk of violating the state public meetings law, unless they are just social gatherings, which would defeat the purpose.
None of this matches the value for the university, and the community, of committee positions for faculty. Actually, the Tiger Team proposal is modest. It limits the committees to those where faculty would be most helpful such as academic matters and student affairs. Faculty would be non-voting members. Thus, all authority would remain with the trustees.
As committee members, faculty would contribute to the discussions leading to real decisions, trustees aided by the expanded knowledge and experience. A board that has appeared out of touch would be better connected to the institution it leads. If such a faculty presence isn’t common at universities, it has happened, and it makes sense here because of the turmoil, suspicion, distrust and steep challenges.
Here is a tool for building the consensus required if the university is going to boost its enrollment, let alone bolster strengths and achieve distinction.
The university already has the attention of the Higher Learning Council for its shortcomings in shared governance. Adding faculty to board committees would reassure. Instead, the Bauer letter suggests that faculty members are more the adversary. It fails to see how such a change in the committee structure would make the promising yet inexperienced Matt Wilson a better president.
Imagine the sense of collective purpose that would have greeted inclusion of faculty on board committees. Now that the door has been closed, the task for the trustees has become all the harder.