November 2004

 

Faculty Representation on the UC Board of Regents

 

Each fall, the Chair and Vice Chair of the Academic Council brief Council members on their role as Faculty Representatives on the Board of Regents. The issue is revisited again in the spring to assess the effectiveness of faculty engagement with the Regents in decision-making.

 

As Faculty Representatives to the Regents, the Council Chair and Vice do not have voting rights, but do enjoy a significant degree of access to regental business. A series of changes in policy and practice over the years has progressively strengthened the role of the faculty on the Regents and, as a result, the Chair and Vice Chair attend all Regents’ committee meetings as active discussants, presenters and formal advisors, and participate as well in the Regents’ critical long-range planning meetings. In addition, the Senate Chair is invited to make a regular formal report to the Regents at meetings of the Committee of the Whole.        

 

It used to be that Senate representatives attended Regents meetings as observers, in a role similar to that of senior administrators. Then in 1974, the California State Constitution (Article IX, Section 9) was amended to allow the Regents, at their discretion, to “appoint either or both a faculty and a student member to the Board,” an act that in ensuing years opened broad discussion among UC faculty on the pros and cons of having a faculty representative on the Board with full regental status (i.e., a vote). Considerations that attend the question of a Faculty Regent include: the role of trusteeship and possible conflict of interest; who the appointee would be; the impact of a vote; and how such a change might affect the influence of the faculty voice with administration and on matters before the Regents. Although no Senate recommendation was ultimately made for the appointment of a voting Faculty Regent, Regents’ policy has progressively been modified to allow fuller integration of the faculty representatives in Regents’ activities. In the wake of the ‘74 constitutional amendment and the debate it gave rise to, the Chairman of the UC Senate was invited to attend “all meetings of the Board and of its committees and “to be seated at the meeting table with full participation in discussion and debate.” Later amendments to policy permitted the faculty representative to attend “regents only” sessions and expanded faculty representation to include both the Chair and Vice Chair of the Academic Council. In November 2002, the Regents again amended policy to allow the Chair and Vice Chair of the Senate to serve formally as Advisory Members of standing and/or special committees of the Regents, an arrangement that fosters free flow of information and ideas between the UC Academic Senate and the Board of Regents and enhances the effectiveness of the faculty voice. (See the Regents Policy on the Faculty Representative to the Board of Regents.)

 

A history of earlier Senate discussions of this issue is outlined in remarks by former Chair of the Academic Council Marjorie Caserio, made to the UC Board of Regents at its meeting of July 1986. Her comments are reprinted here from the November 1986 issue of Notice:

 

COMMENTARY: FACULTY AND THE REGENTS

A question frequently asked is why the faculty, unlike students and alumni, do not have voting membership on the Board of Regents. Two years ago, I asked the same question and was told that it was by faculty choice. I have since discovered that this is only partly true. With your indulgence, I would like briefly to trace the history of this matter which, I believe, is worth understanding and which reflects very positively on the governance structure of the University of California.

 

A constitutional amendment approved by the voters in 1974 allowed that “The Regents may, at their discretion, appoint either or both a faculty and a student member to the Board.” This is now Bylaw Five, which further provides for a faculty regent who may be on the UC faculty or from another institution of higher education. At the time of this amendment, the chair and vice chair of the Senate’s Academic Council attended all Regents’ meetings, as they do now, but as spectators only. They sat with the chancellors and university executives and had the privilege of “coming to

the table” to address the board by pre-arrangement with the president.

 

The Academic Council discussed at length the role the faculty might have as members of the Board. The concern was not whether there should be a faculty regent, but rather who that person should be. There was no support whatever for a faculty regent from another institution. Moreover, the Council felt strongly that the selection should be made by the Academic Senate – for it to be otherwise might compromise the authority of the Academic Senate, as delegated by the Regents, to speak for the faculty, and could lead to unpalatable situations in which judgments of the faculty regent and the Academic Senate might be in conflict. The 1975 Academic Council therefore recommended that the chair of the Academic Council be appointed to the Board, but the Council could not reach a consensus as to whether the appointment should carry full regental status or nonvoting membership.

 

The argument against full regental status, which ultimately prevailed, rested on the issue of trusteeship versus advocacy. President Hitch was forthright in expressing his view that having a faculty member as a regent would compromise the principle of regency as trusteeship. He felt, as did many faculty, that the trusteeship concept ruled out concurrent service as a regent and as an officer of the Academic Senate. A faculty regent could not function both as a trustee of the institution as a whole and as a representative or advocate of faculty interests. A faculty regent would have to withdraw from participating in matters where there is a conflict of interest, such as compensation, workload, promotion and tenure polities – indeed the very issues on which faculty would wish to see their representative exert strong leadership and influence. These arguments were persuasive, and in February 1987, the Regents adopted the recommendation of the Council to seat the chair of the Council on the Board of Regents as a nonvoting member.

 

The story does not end quite there, however. Ambiguity over whether nonvoting status removed the right to move or second motions was resolved with an amendment adopted in March 1975 which states that the privileges of the faculty representative include and are limited to being “seated at the meeting table with full participation in discussion and debate.” A further change in 1976 permitted the faculty representative to attend “Regents only” sessions. In September 1977, a further amendment was adopted to include both chair and vice chair of the Academic Council as faculty representatives to the Board.

 

The Academic Senate continued to discuss the pros and cons of regency versus representation for two years after the Regents had voted to continue the arrangement of faculty representation. The matter was referred to the senate divisions which, after protracted debate, voted 6-2 in favor of full regental status for the chair of the Academic Council. Late in 1978, the Academic Council proposed this change in status to President Saxon, and the ensuing consultation with the president evoked compelling arguments against such an arrangement, based again on the principle of trusteeship, and on limited effectiveness of a faculty regent. The outcome was a reaffirmation of faculty representation and recognition that voting status would undermine the principle of trusteeship; would reduce the effectiveness of the faculty voice on the Board; would inevitably raise the specter of conflict of interest; and would draw drumfires of criticism from faculty colleagues, students and administrators on voting issues of all kinds.

 

So be it. What, then, is the value of faculty representation on the Board without voting rights? The important arguments are not always appropriately recognized. Faculty representatives are resource persons to the Board. They fill a need in the governance of the University to bring to the attention of the Regents, in a somewhat informal manner, the views of the Academic Senate on matters of concern to the faculty. Issues of importance for the University can be discussed from a faculty perspective.

 

The benefits are reciprocal. The Regents provide the faculty, through their representatives to the Board, with perspective and insight into the governance of the University that could not be obtained in other ways. This strengthens communication and understanding between the Regents and the faculty that extends through the Academic Council, the Assembly, and the Divisions of the Academic Senate. ♦