|
STANDARD
3- ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNANCE
Introduction
| Description | Appraisal
| Projection
The central fact about this institution since the last self-study
for continuing accreditation is its incorporation in the re-organized
University of Massachusetts system in 1991. Some of the consequences
of the transition from Southeastern Massachusetts University
(SMU) to the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth can be
inferred, in part, from the name change itself. The campus
is less autonomous, at the same time that its resources and
visibility have been enhanced by inclusion in the State's
University System. Its identity is now shaped more explicitly
both in terms of its commonalities and its distinctiveness
within the System. On balance, becoming one of the four comprehensive
universities in the UMass System has been positive for UMass
Dartmouth, and appears to bode well for the future.
In the 1990s, UMass Dartmouth has been faced with new issues
of organization and governance, both internally and between
itself and the System. In both arenas, the tension remains
between the need for central coordination and oversight, and
the equally important need to permit and encourage genuine
input from those closest to the issues; in short, the creative
tension between participatory and authoritarian approaches.
Both internally, and in its relationship within the System,
the campus reaffirms its long commitment, sometimes observed
in the breach, to shared governance and consensus as appropriate
models for informed decision-making.
The reorganization of higher education in Massachusetts in
1991 brought into being a comprehensive public university
system and new or expanded central governing. The University
of Massachusetts expanded from three to five campuses and
the Board of Regents was replaced by a Board of Trustees for
the University and a Board of Higher Education (originally,
the Higher Education Coordinating Council) charged with oversight
of all public higher education in Massachusetts. The University
President's Office was expanded and re-located in separate
offices in Boston.
Reorganization has meant an entirely new set of relationships
between Dartmouth, the other campuses, and the state. UMass
Dartmouth is no longer a free-standing state institution with
minimal linkages to other public institutions; it is an integral
part of a larger system with an evolving network of interrelationships.
The Board of Trustees sees the Dartmouth campus as one of
five and, while mindful of its discrete mission and role within
the system, is inclined to measure its progress against that
of the other campuses, particularly Lowell and Boston. The
new budgetary system under reorganization has meant closer
financial supervision for the campus, which has furthered
the UMass Dartmouth mission to manage its resources effectively.
The System leadership has also pushed the campuses to explore
common projects, and share experiences and expertise.
Board of Higher Education
The eleven-member Board of Higher Education is charged with
both the oversight of public higher education in Massachusetts
and fostering coordination among the three tiers, the University,
the state colleges, and community colleges. The Board of Higher
Education has four primary responsibilities: to coordinate
the budgets, programs and missions of the three segments and
ensure collaboration among them; foster quality in state educational
institutions and allocate the resources to carry out their
missions; ensure that diversity in enrollment, retention and
workforce is fostered through appropriate policies and practices;
and guarantee accessibility to higher education. The statutory
authority for the Board of Higher Education is ambiguous in
distinguishing its jurisdiction from that of the University's
Board of Trustees, thus questions of jurisdiction are sometimes
subject to political resolution between them.
The Board of Higher Education impacts the operation of the
University directly through its power to set tuition for the
University and the public colleges and its authority to approve
all new degree programs. The Board has also been active in
other areas of its responsibilities, for example, it has adopted
standards for admission and placement testing with the intention
of raising "admissions standards and student performance
expectations in Massachusetts public four-year institutions."
It has also adopted a tuition reduction program for transfer
students from the community colleges who achieved a B average
during their first two years.
Board of Trustees
The Board of Trustees is responsible for governing the University
and for ensuring public accountability. Seventeen of the nineteen
members are appointed by the governor, while two voting and
three ex-officio trustees are students elected by their peers
from the five campuses. A minimum of five trustees must be
alumni and one member represents the labor movement; no member
may serve longer than ten years.
The Board creates general policy for the University, decides
applications for tenure and honorary degrees, and delegates
broad authority to the President. Through the President, discretion
is granted to the campus for management of its continuing
operations and for policy-making consistent with system-wide
mandates. Campus administrators and the President's office
are accountable to the Trustees and report to them on administrative
practices, financial management, and implementation of Trustee
policies.
The Board of Trustees deliberates through its standing committees
and in quarterly meetings rotated among the campuses. The
Committees on Audit and on Administration and Finance develop
policies governing budget allocations and financial oversight.
These Committees have been concerned that the campus meets
its financial obligations, goes to the bond market from a
position of financial strength, and uses appropriate accounting
practices. Fundraising and endowment management are the responsibility
of the Committee on Development, while academic policies and
student affairs are reviewed by the Committee on Academic
and Student Affairs. There is a separate Committee on Athletics
and ad hoc committees are established as needed.
Except for executive sessions as defined by their by-laws,
Trustee meetings are open to the public, and faculty leaders,
student representatives, and administrators are invited to
attend. Before the meetings, agenda and supporting materials
are circulated to the campuses and time is allocated during
the meetings for the Chancellors and their officers to report.
Faculty representatives to the Board may participate in the
discussions. On the day prior to the Board meeting, it has
become the practice of the Trustees to meet as the Committee
of the Whole to consider policies on a single topic, such
as admissions, with the purpose of informing the Board about
campus practices and trends in crucial areas.
President's Office
The President is the chief executive officer of the University
and is responsible for implementing the policies of the Trustees
and providing leadership for the system. The President's Office
is responsible for academic and financial policy-making, over-all
coordination of University activities, and university-wide
operational activities in several areas, including internal
audit, the treasury and controller functions, computer systems,
and human resource policy. The President's senior staff includes
the Executive Vice President, the Vice President and General
Counsel, vice presidents for Academic Affairs, Economic Development,
and Management and Fiscal Affairs, and a Treasurer. The five
campus Chancellors also report directly to the President.
The Vice President for Academic Affairs meets monthly with
the Provosts to discuss issues relating to student and academic
affairs. She works closely with the President and the Trustees
in developing new academic initiatives and reviewing proposals
from the campuses. Recent initiatives of the Vice President
have included campus-wide discussions of general education
reform, technology and learning, and program assessment. Institutional
research is coordinated by the Assistant Vice President for
Academic Affairs, who helps ensure that data collected by
the five institutions are compatible and presented to the
Trustees in usable form. The Assistant Vice President also
assists the campuses in setting their institutional research
agenda and coordinates special projects, such as a recent
alumni survey. The Vice President for Management and Fiscal
Affairs supervises auditing and budget preparation, coordinates
presentations on budget, personnel and other financial issues
to the Board of Trustees, and confers regularly with the campus
Vice Chancellors for Administration and Fiscal Affairs. The
Vice President for Economic Development is responsible for
the Office of Commercial Ventures and Intellectual Property,
develops programs with private enterprise, and develops policy
governing the fruits of university research.
An important function of the President's Office is to develop
inter-campus collaborations. Current system-wide programs
include undergraduate cross-campus transfers, an admissions
initiative, faculty exchanges, and multi-campus courses using
video teleconferencing, including Dartmouth courses offered
to Lowell and Boston students. Other collaborative efforts
include the development of an inter-campus fiber optics highway,
an economic survey of the state, and annual conferences on
the use of classroom technology.
The Foundation
The Foundation of the University of Massachusetts services
the University as a whole. The purpose of the University of
Massachusetts Foundation, a separate legal entity from the
University, is to "foster and promote the growth, progress
and general welfare of the University of Massachusetts."
The Foundation has a Board of Directors and an Executive Director.
From 1997, donations to the campuses of more than $10,000
are 50 percent matched by the Commonwealth and are managed
by the Foundation. The University of Massachusetts Foundation
has, as its objectives:
To promote private support of the University of Massachusetts
and to support campus development initiatives;
To invest and allocate the assets of the University of
Massachusetts in a prudent manner through policies which
foster stability and growth of its resources.
The University of Massachusetts Dartmouth has a separate
Foundation, which manages non-matched gifts and grants, and
acts as the principal fundraising vehicle for the campus.
Its purpose is to render financial assistance and aid in the
development efforts and the educational programs of the University
of Massachusetts Dartmouth. The Dartmouth Foundation has an
executive director and professional staff. The board of 25
consists of ten ex-officio and 15 elected directors. The ex-officio
directors include the Chancellor, two regional trustees from
the Board of Trustees, presidents of the Alumni Association,
Faculty Senate, and Student Senate, the vice chancellors,
and the Executive Director of the Foundation. The elected
directors serve overlapping three-year terms and are elected
by the membership of the Foundation, i.e., persons who have
made a gift of $500 or more in a given year or a lifetime
donation of $10,000 or more.
At the end of the fiscal year the UMass Dartmouth Foundation
receives a percentage of the earnings of the endowment managed
by the University Foundation; the balance of earnings, less
a one-percent management fee, are returned to the corpus.
The Foundations are two of the institutions through which
UMass Dartmouth pursues its strategic priority, defined by
the Mission Statement, to wisely manage existing resources
and aggressively develop new sources of revenue to meet operating
and capital needs.
Campus Organization and Governance
The Chancellor is the chief administrative officer of the
University of Massachusetts Dartmouth. Five senior administrators
report directly to the Chancellor: the Vice Chancellor for
Academic Affairs and Provost, the Vice Chancellor for Student
Affairs, the Vice Chancellor for Administrative and Fiscal
Services, the Executive Director of the University of Massachusetts
Dartmouth Foundation, and the Assistant Chancellor for Affirmative
Action, Diversity and Outreach. The Chancellor reports to
the University President and meets regularly with the President
and the other campus chancellors at the President's Council.
The Chancellor meets weekly with the Provost and monthly with
the academic deans, and sees other officers on an as-needed
basis. The Vice Chancellors' Council, chaired by the
Chancellor, meets regularly for information sharing, budgetary
updates, and to review coordination among the Academic, Student
Affairs, and Administration and Finance divisions. In addition
to the three vice chancellors, the Council includes the Executive
Assistant to the Chancellor. The Chancellor's cabinet
meets weekly and is composed of the three vice chancellors,
the Executive Assistant to the Chancellor, the Assistant Chancellor
for Equal Opportunity, Diversity and Outreach, the Executive
Director of News and Publications, and the Executive Director
of the UMass Dartmouth Foundation.
The five colleges of the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth,
listed in order of student enrollment, are: Arts and Sciences,
Business, Engineering, Visual and Performing Arts, and Nursing.
The Chancellor appoints college deans after national searches
by committees of faculty, administrators, and students. The
deans meet regularly with the Provost, both individually and
in the bi-weekly Council of Academic Deans (CAD). During the
past five years there have been changes in the internal structure
of the colleges. The Department of Textile Sciences was moved
from the College of Business to the College of Engineering
and the Departments of Physics and Computer and Information
Sciences were moved from the College of Arts and Sciences
to the College of Engineering. These changes were prompted
by a Trustee-mandated reallocation policy, approved by the
departments and ratified by the whole faculty in Faculty Federation-sponsored
referenda.
The Dean of Continuing Education reports to the Provost and
meets with the Provost's staff. Among other functions,
the Division of Continuing Education (DCE) offers evening,
summer and inter-session courses, courses at satellite locations,
non-credit offerings for personal and professional development,
and special projects. Credit courses offered by the Division
are organized through the academic departments, which staff
and supervise the courses. Under state law, continuing education
must be run at no cost to the Commonwealth, a provision that
has fostered a degree of separation between DCE and the rest
of the campus. A standing Committee on Continuing Education,
as well as outside consultants have recommended the forging
of stronger links between the evening and day schools. Although
these recommendations have generally not been implemented,
some integration has been achieved in student records, scheduling
of courses during the customary hours of the "other"
division, and allowing day-division students enrolled in at
least four courses to take a DCE course for a $25 fee. In
addition, academic departments and college deans retain ultimate
responsibility and control of academic offerings and faculty
hiring in the Division of Continuing Education.
Almost from its inception in the 1960s, UMass Dartmouth has
employed collective bargaining in its governance. There are
separate union agreements between the central administration
and faculty, middle managers, secretaries, janitors and tradespeople,
and campus police. The central operating agreement for academic
governance is the Agreement negotiated between the Faculty
Federation and the Board of Trustees, represented by the UMass
administration acting on behalf of the President's Office.
The Agreement is a comprehensive governance document which
directly represents faculty, librarians, and professional
technicians in academic departments, and is linked in AFT
Local 1895 with the Educational Services Unit representing
middle managers in service departments like Admissions and
Counseling. The Agreement contains official language defining
organizational units from colleges to departments and centers,
standing committees, statements on working conditions, personnel
evaluation procedures, search and screen committees for positions
from Chancellor to faculty, and grievance procedures. It also
contains the operating charter for the Faculty Senate. The
Senate reviews academic policies and programs and recommends
to the Chancellor.
The academic departments are the basic units of campus organization.
The departments are administered by chairpersons elected to
four year terms by the full-time faculty in their departments
in a process governed by the Agreement. Chairpersons meet
regularly with their deans, both individually and in college
meetings of the Council of Chairs. Chairpersons function as
"first among equals" with their faculty colleagues
rather than line administrators, a function performed by the
college deans. Each department has a curriculum committee,
on which students serve with faculty, a faculty evaluation
committee, selected in all but the smallest departments from
its tenured-members, and such other committees as the department
deems appropriate. The Agreement defines a number of responsibilities
for department chairpersons and deans, including a role in
faculty hiring, evaluation, reappointment, promotion and tenure,
as well as faculty teaching assignments.
Faculty have a prescribed role in all areas of governance
through university standing committees. In addition, there
is a faculty committee structure within each college for personnel
evaluation as well as college and university curriculum committees.
The college personnel committees are called Academic Councils
because they represent the faculty in each of the seven academic
areas defined in the Agreement, one for each of the professional
colleges and three for the academic areas in Arts & Sciences:
Humanities, Social Sciences, and Sciences. The curriculum
committees include a college curriculum committee in each
college, the university curriculum committee, and, since 1989,
the General Education Committee, which does not approve new
courses but certifies approved courses which satisfy categories
of the General Education requirements. The curriculum committees
are responsible for reviewing new courses, new program proposals,
program terminations, or major curricular changes, in carrying
out the faculty prerogative of designing and reviewing the
curriculum. Recommendations are then sent to the college dean
and Provost for approval and, in the case of major program
changes, to the President and Board of Higher Education.
Students have various opportunities to be involved in governance
and the formulation and modification of educational policy.
Academic departments use diverse formal and informal mechanisms
to seek student input. Students are represented on departmental,
college and university curriculum committees, as well as on
the Student/Faculty Academic Affairs Committee, which recommends
revisions in academic regulations. The Student Senate is free
to comment on academic policy, and students elect a representative
to the Board of Trustees. They serve on search committees
for academic deans, the vice chancellors, and the Chancellor.
Faculty Evaluation Committees give substantial weight to student
teaching evaluations.
When the Board of Trustees and President of SMU recommended
joining the expanded University of Massachusetts System, it
was hoped that a five-campus system would increase our statewide
visibility and strengthen state support. With the leadership
of President William Bulger and Chancellor Peter Cressy, the
University and the Dartmouth campus have experienced rising
operating budgets, better support for capital repair and investment,
and an improved public image. There is still considerable
ground to make up before we completely recover from the damage
caused by years of budget cuts and public criticism, some
of it from former System officials. However, increased support
has improved campus morale and the Dartmouth campus is now
experiencing a dramatic upsurge in student demand for its
programs.
The University President and Board of Trustees have supported
the mission of the Dartmouth campus on the Board and in their
public statements. The President and regional trustees participate
regularly in the university's ceremonial functions, including
the freshman convocation and commencement, and several Trustees
make regular visits to the campus to meet with students, staff,
and faculty. The President's Office has also worked with the
Board of Higher Education and the campuses to reduce the impact
of measures that some view as inconsistent with our mission,
including arbitrarily-determined admissions standards and
limits on remediation proposed by the Board of Higher Education.
Finally, the President and Chancellors attend Board of Trustees
retreats that provide opportunities for reflection upon institutional
direction and the place of each campus within the larger system.
Consequently, relationships among the Board, the President's
Office, and the campus leadership have been cooperative.
The organization and governance structure of UMass Dartmouth
are appropriate to the institution and are open to those faculty,
staff, and students who choose to participate. The modest
size of the institution allows faculty and students to participate
in campus decision-making in meaningful ways. Like many institutions,
UMass Dartmouth has not always been quick to change its structure
and rules. However, when persons in leadership positions decide
to promote change that is supported at all levels, it can
occur with surprising speed. The decisions to move three departments
to the College of Engineering, for example, were implemented
in a little over a year.
With the arrival of Chancellor Cressy and the inclusion of
UMass Dartmouth in the new university system, the pace of
change has been rapid compared to the previous decade. Since
the prior accreditation, UMass Dartmouth has made substantial
changes in the way it operates. Students now go to a single
office to handle routine registration, billing and financial
aid transactions. The new general education program has meant
a major restructuring of the first-year English component
and a review of curricula in all departments. An integrated
curriculum for entering engineers has been piloted. New-student
orientations have been redesigned to incorporate national
best-practice norms. The delivery of computing services has
been restructured and UMass Dartmouth is about to require
that every entering student have access to a computer.
The Dartmouth campus is likely to undergo additional changes
in its administrative procedures and governance as the University
and Boards continue to redefine the nature of the Massachusetts
system. Changes in personnel in the top tier of the campus
leadership (Chancellor, Provost, and chief financial officer)
are bringing changes in administrative style and reporting
lines, although the basic structures of faculty and student
institutions are less likely to change given their widespread
acceptance and proven utility.
A new budget formation process provides an opportunity to
tie budgeting to academic priorities in an open and more democratic
process. In the past, the budget was written in the Division
of Administration and Finance under the direction of the Chancellor
following consultation with academic administrators. When
the budget was drawn, it went through a pro forma review by
a Budget Review Board mandated by the Faculty Federation Agreement,
but in essence budgeting decisions were closely held by the
upper levels of administration and not given any airing in
conjunction with strategic planning objectives. The budget
process emphasized short-term crises rather than long-term
opportunities and planning, and diverted resources to major
projects around which no consensus had been built and, as
is the case with every budget allocation, to the perceived
advantage of some units and the detriment of others.
The campus is likely to undergo additional changes as a consequence
of the Administrative Redesign Project, which examines administrative
processes, including the delivery of services to students.
Administrative Redesign was mandated by the Board of Trustees
in 1995 and began with a Phase One review of each campus's
culture and processes by a consulting firm, the Pappas Group.
In their analysis, the consultants focused on four streams
of service: student services, human resources, procurement,
and financial accounting and reporting. In Phase Two, UMass
Dartmouth completed several projects as prototypes for institutional
and administrative change: one-stop service for student registration,
payments and financial aid; middle-management training in
human resource issues; and, improved processing of trip reimbursements
and small purchases. Phase Three is discussed under Projection
below.
Key admissions decisions have not been widely discussed with
academic departments. Consequently, issues such as the number
of students admitted into particular programs, or whether
higher standards than those mandated by the Board of Higher
Education should be adopted, have been decided, in isolation,
by the administration. Given the process, it appeared that
budgetary concerns often took precedence over other issues,
including student quality, the adequacy of support staff,
physical facilities, and academic program.
Organization and governance, both internal and external,
have changed radically in this decade. The University of Massachusetts
is a work in progress, and its evolving definition will impact
the Dartmouth campus in important ways. The campus itself
will pay closer attention to its role within the system, as
it reforms its own internal management and governance structures.
Our major areas of attention will be:
1. Establishing the mechanisms and tools needed to create
a revised mission statement, a strategic plan and planning
process, and the refinement of our new budgeting initiative.
The new budgeting plan is a major departure for UMass Dartmouth.
It represents the partial democratization of the budget processes
and presents an opportunity for faculty and staff to consider
the future of the campus in light of its available resources
and planning documents. Implementation of the new process
is planned by the Chancellor and her team for deployment in
FY01, and annually thereafter.
2. Phase Three of Administrative Design began in 1999-2000,
directed by a steering committee of administrators, faculty,
students, and staff, which will solicit projects from the
campus community. In this phase, Administrative Redesign will
focus on specific campus operations with respect to availability,
accessibility, quality of service, and cost. This project
is an effort to institutionalize administrative change and
provide a consensus-building process to support it. One major
issue is the organizational role of the Division of Continuing
Education and its further integration into campus operations.
3. Issues in academic governance include:
a. Program assessment will impact curricular decisions and
may require new governance procedures to implement effectively.
b. Admissions and enrollment policies and targets will receive
more general input from the faculty given their impact on
budgeting and long-range planning.
c. Discussions will be initiated in 1999-2000 between the
administration and appropriate constituencies on the implications
for governance structures involving program assessment and
admissions policy.
Finally, student governance institutions, including election
procedures to the Student Senate, are under review within
the Division of Student Affairs, which has included this issue
in its strategic planning for this academic year.
Home
Page |Institutional
Characteristics| Preface
| Overview
| Mission and Purpose | Planning
and Evaluation | Organization and Governance |
Programs and Instruction | Faculty
| Student Services | Library
and Information Resources | Physical
Resources | Financial Resources
| Public Disclosure | Integrity
|
