Committee on Committees Report on the Functioning of Council Committees during Academic Year 2013-2014 |
|
May 6, 2014, Volume 60, No. 33 |
Executive Summary
This report summarizes the general functioning and procedures of University Council Committees during the 2013-2014 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 one or more of the following four areas: (1) ask committee chairs to enhance orientation and explanation of duties to new members, especially students; (2) encourage more in-depth feedback from the Administration to committee members with regard to committee recommendations; (3) seek clarification of committee members’ roles; and (4) re-examine distribution of charges among committees with overlapping responsibilities.
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?
3. What issues were addressed this year and were they resolved?
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 discussion 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.)
8. What was the role of the Administration’s 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 were not 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 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.
2. More in-depth consideration of a small number (typically one or two) 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.
3. In order to be effective in fulfilling the above two roles, the most important factor appears to be the clarity of the chairs in explaining the purpose of the committee and the role of the various members of the committee. 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 were not satisfied with the Administration’s responses to their recommendations, and some felt they did not get enough information 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.
5. Clarify the roles of committee members, especially the relation between the Chair and the Administrative Liaison.
6. Consolidate campus security matters on a trial basis under the specific charges of the Committee on Facilities in order to lighten the load of the Committee on Campus and Community Life and focus security matters in a single committee.
7. Assemble information regarding staff diversity and gender balance and consider which committee would be best suited to address this data.
Committee on Academic and Related Affairs (CARA)
General comments: The Committee met regularly, and considered the topics of undergraduate research and the reorganization of the bookstore in depth. The Committee formulated recommendations on both of those topics. Several members felt there was not enough orientation for new members, especially students. There was a suggestion to encourage some informal interactions among committee members. Some thought the General Charge for this committee was too broad.
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.
Committee on Campus and Community Life
General Comments: Reports suggested the Committee had difficulty carrying out its specific charges for this year. Members generally regarded the charge concerning the Penn Alexander School insufficiently specific. They were unable to get data or speakers on the issue. Members also voiced the concern that they were unable to get anyone to speak to them on the issue of historic preservation. Members of the Committee were frustrated that several recommendations it had made last year had not been attended to, including recommendations made concerning Counseling and Psychological Services and Dining (Business Services). Committee members also echoed what CARA members said about increasing orientation, especially for students, and encouraging informal interactions among committee members.
The University Council Committee on Committees recommends revising the charge concerning public elementary education to make it more specific. The Committee also recommends considering ways the committees can feel their input is valued, even if their recommendations cannot be implemented.
Committee on Diversity and Equity
General Comments: This Committee focused on two of its specific charges: the role of the Diversity Search Advisors and religious diversity on campus. A Committee member asked to include charges that address staff diversity, not just faculty and students, in the future. Committee members asked for more follow-up from the Administration on the outcomes of the recommendations the Committee made: were the recommendations implemented and what were the results? The Committee also asked for more orientation for students and more informal interactions for committee members.
The University Council Committee on Committees recommends including a future charge for this committee that addresses staff diversity issues.
Committee on Facilities
General Comments: The Committee focused on Penn Connects, the Century Bond program and the planned bike paths. They are continuing to monitor spaces for nursing mothers on campus and feel they received adequate feedback from the Administration regarding the recommendations they made last year on this issue. They started to look at the issue of classroom spaces, but felt they had some difficulty gaining access to data and speakers who could help them address this issue.We note, however, that they did meet with Andy Binns and Michelle Brown-Nevers, among others.
The University Council Committee on Committees suggests that the Facilities Committee’s charges relating to classroom space be clarified in order to identify precisely what information is needed for the Committee to address its charge on this item and to help identify relevant individuals to meet with the Committee moving forward.
Committee on Personnel Benefits
General comments: The Personnel Benefits Committee addressed most of their specific charges. Several members of the Committee called for clarification regarding the roles of individuals within Committee, in particular the relative duties of the Chair and the Administration liaison. The Committee on Committees recommends continuing the discussion of staff maternity leave policy during the 2014-15 academic year in the context of a broader discussion of leaves at Penn. Mental health benefits were also suggested as a possible charge for next year.
The University Council Committee on Committees recommends that the roles of the Committee Chair and the Administrative Liaison be clarified with the current and future holders of these roles. It also recommends continued discussion of leave policy, as per the Committee’s recommendation, and agrees with the recommendation to add mental health benefits to the list of specific charges.
Committee on Committees 2013-2014
Chair: Claire Finkelstein; Staff: Vicki Hewitt and Joseph Gasiewski; Faculty: Eun-Ok Im, Dwight Jaggard, Ian Krantz, Erika Krick, Susan Margulies, Stephen Phipps; PPSA: Emma Grigore; WPPSA: Loretta Hauber; GAPSA: George Maliha; UA: Devin Grossman
The other Council Committee 2013-2014 Year-End Reports were published in
Almanac on April 29, 2014, and are available online at
www.upenn.edu/almanac/volumes/v60/n32/pdf/council.pdf
Related: Council Coverage |