Shared governance and the definition of consultation

2. The Board of Trustees, the President, and the Faculty through
the Faculty Senate will begin to implement policies and
procedures that recognize the principles of Shared Governance
on three levels:

a. Determination: The Board of Trustees will recognize
and consider delegating to the Faculty and its
representative body, the Faculty Senate, the authority to
determine certain matters, which will be defined and
agreed upon, relating to academic policy, including
matters of curriculum and tenure and promotion policy;

b. Recommendation: The Board of Trustees will
recognize and consider delegating to the Faculty and its
representative body, the Faculty Senate, the authority to
recommend to the President certain matters and policy
relating to the areas of faculty quality and welfare,
planning, budget and resource allocation, research and
scholarship, and academic facilities and infrastructure.
“To recommend” means to reach a decision jointly, such
decision not to be overturned by the President without
further discussion with the Faculty representatives and an
effort to find a solution satisfactory to all members of the
University of Florida;

c. Consultation: The Board of Trustees will formally
recognize that the Faculty through the Faculty Senate
will have an opportunity to consult with the President (or
designee) on other matters connected with the priorities
and policies of the University and their implementation.
“To consult” is to have input into the decision-making
process, and especially to be informed of the nature and
rationale for decisions before they are made.

From the University of Florida, here.

Tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Shared governance and the definition of consultation

  1. as we always knew says:

    We need this kind of analysis for all the sciences

  2. as we always knew says:

    No, because science research is strongly tied to dollars, which drives dishonesty and questionable research practices.

  3. Dog says:

    right that must be it. Dishonesty positively correlated with grant dollars (and overhead). The helps to explain a lot. Thanks.

  4. as we always knew says:

    You’re welcome. No one claims any correlation. Simple common sense indicates that oversight is required when money is involved. What kind of science to you do where you claim correlations as a substitute for opinion?

    • Anonymous says:

      “…strongly tied to dollars, which drives dishonesty…”
      Where I come from we were taught to interpret “drives” as “causes”. Hence the correlation in Dog’s comment. What kind of scholarship do you do where you write one thing and claim to mean another?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.