Running head: FIELD OBSERVATION

Field Observation

University Senate of Georgia College Meeting

Jessica L. Gore

EDLD 7431-02F

Dr. Don Stumpf

April 21, 2014

J Gore

FIELD OBSERVATION

Introduction

As an aspiring higher education administrator, it is of utmost importance to study and

learn how an institution functions behind the scenes. By attending a Georgia College University

Senate Meeting on February 14, 2014, I was able to broaden my perspectives and thus gain a

better understanding of how each entity of an institution works together to function as a whole.

Through this field observation, I was able to witness the University Senate fulfill its vision as an

“effective system of governance in which information is widely shared and understood, where

every voice in the university is heard and honored, and that actively involves all affected

individuals in the decision-making process” (The University Senate of Georgia College, 2004).

The University Senate illustrates the concept of shared governance in that the faculty and staff

are able to participate and provide valuable input in the planning and decision making process

while also promoting administrative responsibility and accountability. As Olson (2009)

explains, it is through shared governance that there is an attempt to “balance maximum

participation in decision-making with clear accountability” (para. 17). As administrators, we

must advocate for shared governance for it is communication between the various groups of

people on our campus that will help us to prosper and grow as an institution.

The University Senate is comprised of 50 members including the President, the Chief

Academic Officer or Provost, 37 elected faculty senators, four staff members, two student

members and five Presidential appointees; there are only 48 voting members as the Provost and

University President hold ex officio non-voting positions. The meetings are open and anyone

may attend, however only senators may speak and vote on the various topics at hand. The

University Senate is also made up of seven committees who have an opportunity to speak and

present their reports. The seven committees are as follows: Academic Policy (APC), Curriculum

J Gore

2

FIELD OBSERVATION

and Assessment Policy (CAPC), Executive Committee (EC), Faculty Affairs Policy (FAPC),

Resources, Planning and Institutional Policy (RPIPC), Student Affairs Policy (SAPC) and

Subcommittee on Core Curriculum (SoCC). This particular University Senate Meeting was low

in attendance as it occurred the day after a winter storm closed down the campus. In preparation

for the storm, the campus closed early to allow for faculty, staff and students to drive home

safely and prepare for the impending weather. The winter weather was in the form of ice, which

caused many problems around the Milledgeville and Baldwin area, however, the campus did

ensure the safety of its employees and students. Everyone was well informed about the closures

of campus through the use of the Georgia College Emergency Plan and GC Alert system; I

myself, received an email, phone call and text message. But even with several Senators absent,

the meeting was quite informative and covered many topics that have been discussed in this

course.

Major Issues Discussed

The structure of the University Senate Meetings follows very strict guidelines, which

allows for an effective system of governance. Even with strict guidelines though, information is

shared and understood in a manner that involves all those who are affected, to participate in the

decision-making process. Although each committee had very important information to report on,

I will be highlighting only a few of the major topics and concepts (in order of discussion at the

University Senate Meeting) as they relate to this course.

Diversity Action Plan

As the newest president of Georgia College, Dr. Steve Dorman, has begun to make his

mark by instituting a Diversity Action Plan. This plan is still in its beginning stages, but Dr.

Dorman hopes that it will emphasize our ‘action’ to address changes in policy and practices that

J Gore

3

FIELD OBSERVATION

will enhance Georgia College’s efforts to promote a more diverse academic and cultural

experience for all at the institution (Institutional Equity, 2014). At this time, a draft copy of the

plan has been developed and presented to Dr. Dorman by Dr. Womack, who is the chair of the

Diversity Action Plan committee. As a recruiter for Georgia College, I was asked some

questions about how we currently recruit diverse students and how I believe we could change

and develop more efficient practices. At the time, I was unaware that this information was being

collected to aid in the creation of our Diversity Action Plan, but I am glad that I can be a

valuable resource to the institution. I predict that as we continue to develop and implement our

Diversity Action Plan over the next three to five years, the Office of Admissions will continue to

play a vital role as a stakeholder and resource.

Hiring Procedures

I have heard that there can be a significant amount of turnover at institutions of higher

education, and Georgia College is a prime example of this. From this University Senate meeting,

I discovered that Georgia College is trying to fill several new and old positions on campus

through searches for the following: Community-Based Engaged Learning Director, J. Whitney

Bunting College of Business Dean, John H. Lounsbury College of Education Dean, Assistance

Vice president for Institutional Research and the Assistant Vice President of International

Education and Director of the International Education Center. Each of these positions are quite

important to the functioning of Georgia College and therefore it is imperative to establish

qualified and diverse committees for each search that understand the position to be filled and the

role of that position on the campus. After having served on several search committees, I

understand the importance that each individual can play on a committee. By including faculty,

staff and students on a committee, we can ensure that everyone has a voice in the hiring process.

J Gore

4

FIELD OBSERVATION

Most searches proceed quite well through each of the four steps in the hiring process;

however, it can be quite frustrating to serve on a search that seems to be at a stand still. At the

present time, the Assistant Vice President of International Education and Director of the

International Education Center Search has been placed on hold as they try to determine the best

way to proceed forward. The difficulty with not being able to fill a position by using a campus

search committee is that often times extra funding is required to hire a search firm.

In addition, hiring trends on college campuses are beginning to change. According to the

‘Labor Intensive or Labor Expensive: Changing Staffing and Compensation Patterns in Higher

Education’ report (2014), “the number of full-time faculty and staff members per professional or

managerial administrator has declined 40 percent, to around 2.5 to 1 (Carlson, para. 3). As

colleges and universities are expected to fulfill more and newer roles outside of the classroom,

the need for student services and student service administrators has increased. In addition, a

change in the makeup of full-time faculty to part-time faculty has occurred over recent years as

more part-time instructors are being hired. At this time, the incentives to higher part-time faculty

may seem like a simple solution to budget and tenure issues, but what implications can be

expected from this hiring practice. How does the hiring of more part-time faculty affect shared

governance, academic rigor and accreditation of a campus?

The issue that Georgia College faces at this time is that these vacancies are for very

prominent and important positions on campus. If the campus is unable to fill these positions, it

can cause administrators, faculty, staff and key stakeholders to question the inability to fill the

position as well as point out negative aspects of the position and maybe even the institution. It is

in Georgia College’s best interest to act quickly on these searches, but in an effective manner.

Curriculum and Assessment

J Gore

5

FIELD OBSERVATION

Just as the nation is experiencing changes in K through 12 curriculum through the

Common Core State Standards Initiative, so is Georgia College. In recent years, Georgia

College has experienced little change in the degrees that it offers, with the most recent change

being that of the addition of the Doctor of Nursing Practice. The main changes in academics

have been in the curriculum of the core course offerings and a few slight name changes to majors

or concentrations. During this University Senate Meeting, the CAPC brought to motion the

addition of a new concentration of Pre-Law for students pursuing a Bachelors of Arts in

Philosophy.

The motion to add a Pre-Law concentration to Philosophy was one of the only topics

discussed at this University Senate Meeting that the Senators had very strong feelings about.

Once the information was presented, different Senators voiced their concerns or support for

adding this concentration. One of the major issues that was presented was that Georgia College

had been reducing the number of programs and majors that had concentrations associated with it.

A few faculty members expressed that adding this new concentration would be a step backwards

from the ideals that our previous President and Provost had established. Others expressed

concern because a Pre-Law student can pursue any major at Georgia College, and that adding the

concentration would confine them to one program and department. I listened and understood

both sides of the argument, but if I had had the opportunity to vote, I would have voted against

the addition of the concentration based on the arguments presented in addition to my knowledge

of how confusing major concentrations can be in the recruitment process.

In addition to the motion for the Pre-Law concentration, another curriculum issue that

was brought forth was that of the Core Curriculum for all students. The issue at hand was the

approval of a new GC2Y section titled History of Global Public Health, and whether the section

J Gore

6

FIELD OBSERVATION

was a history or public health section and how it could be altered. This issue is interesting

because there is no precedent for it to follow. After discussing the issue with the Associate

Provost and the Chair of CAPC, it has been requested that an amendment to the University

Senate Bylaws be considered that would outline an appeals process, or that there be a change to

the operating procedures that would make CAPC the arbiter of any appeals that result from

SoCC decisions. By having this issue surface, The University Senate and appropriate

committees can work together to establish an appeals process, which will create a sense of

accountability amongst the committees as well as set a precedent for other similar issues that

could arise.

Smoking Policy (Board of Regents)

As a member of the University System of Georgia (USG), Georgia College must follow

and adhere to all rules and regulations set forth by the Board of Regents (BoR), as this is the

institutions governing and management authority. At the time of this meeting, the BoR had not

met to vote on the issue of smoking regulations on USG campuses. The new Smoking Policy

would prohibit the use all forms of tobacco on USG campuses. Since this University Senate

Meeting, the BoR has voted to implement this Smoking Policy. Georgia College will have until

July1, 2014 to address this issue on campus and how it plans to take action.

Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP)

Accreditation helps to serve as a common denominator of shared values and practices

among diverse institutions. The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on

Colleges (SACSCOC) is the regional body and accreditation agency for the Southern states,

including Georgia. Every ten years, Georgia College undergoes SACSCOC Accreditation,

which is a lengthy, in-depth and costly process. It is also a necessary process as accreditation

J Gore

7

FIELD OBSERVATION

through SACSCOC indicates that Georgia College meets certain core values and standards and

provides its students with a quality education that meets SACSCOC standards.

As part of the SACSCOC Accreditation process, each institution must develop a Quality

Enhancement Plan (QEP). Georgia College’s completed QEP was presented at the University

Senate Meeting and is entitled ENGAGE. Through ENGAGE, Georgia College wants to build a

culture of engaged learners through the development of structured and assessable community

based engaged learning. It is through our community cohort- based education programs that

potential educators, our students, will have the opportunity to work closely with Georgia College

faculty and local area teachers in order to gain in and beyond the classroom experience to

enhance their awareness of key cognitive strategies and knowledge, academic behaviors and

contextual skills and knowledge to promote college readiness in the classroom (ENGAGE,

2014).

In addition to presenting the completed QEP, many of the details about Georgia College’s

SACSCOC onsite visit were disclosed. As with any plan or initiative, those persons responsible

for developing the plan feel more of a connection than those who are not included in the process.

The difficulty with creating a QEP is that not everyone can be directly involved, but should be

represented in someway. The other concern with developing a QEP and having an onsite visit

from SACSCOC is how to inform those not involved. Georgia College hosted several

informational sessions for the campus as well as included information on the main website and

around campus. Although many faculty, staff and students did take the effort to familiarize

themselves with ENGAGE, many were still unaware of its existence or purpose.

Despite all the efforts to inform the campus about the new QEP ENGAGE, not everyone

will understand it or its purpose, as many students and staff do not understand the accreditation

J Gore

8

FIELD OBSERVATION

process. However, even if the faculty, staff and students did not understand the QEP when the

SACSCOC were visiting campus, they will be affected by it in the near future. ENGAGE

appears to be more than just words and a fulfillment of a checklist for accreditation, but is a well-

developed plan for producing better learning outcomes for the students of Georgia College. To

ensure that the plan is implemented properly in years to come, the new position of Community-

Based Engaged Learning Director has been created.

The importance of developing a well-defined and achievable QEP will benefit Georgia

College in the SACSCOC accreditation process as well as changes to funding allocations by the

state. With funding allocations to be determined by retention and graduation rates, it is

imperative for institutions to develop efficient and effective ways in which to retain and graduate

their students. The QEP will aid in this process as the “success of a retention strategy hinges on

its ability to address both academic and non-academic factors” (Hanover Research, 2011, p 5).

By engaging students from the start both in and outside of the classroom, they are more likely to

be actively involved in their academics and community. If a campus can retain a student from

their first to second year, they are more likely to graduate them; “attrition rates between students’

first and second years are perhaps the strongest determinants of institutional graduation rates”

(Hanover Research, 2011, p. 5). Thus, if Georgia College is successful in implementing the QEP

ENGAGE, it should be able to increase its retention and graduation rates, which will lead to

more funding.

Conclusion

Attending a Georgia College University Senate Meeting was an eye-opening and

informative experience. I was able to relate the topics being discussed in the meeting to this

course as well as to my current position as an Admissions Counselor. The concept of shared

J Gore

9

FIELD OBSERVATION

governance and its importance to a campus is evident through this meeting, as an attempt to

involve faculty in the decision-making process. As a future administrator within higher

education, it will be imperative that I continue to support the idea of shared governance as well

as involve myself in this process as much as possible. Even if I am not a voting member of the

University Senate, attending such meetings aids in informing one of the going-ons of a campus

and any pressing issues. As an administrator, I cannot rely solely on concepts and ideas of the

past or of my own knowledge, but instead, I must be open to new processes and concepts that

will enhance the campus for all stakeholders and for the years to come.

Really good paper – incorporation of the literature was well-done and did not break the flow of

the product. In the future, be sure to spend a little more time on proofreading to avoid some

simple mistakes, but overall it was a solid assessment. 192 out of 200.

J Gore

10

FIELD OBSERVATION

References

Carlson, S. (2014, February 5). Administrator hiring drove 28% boom in higher-ed work force,

report says. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from

https://chronicle.com/article/Administrator-Hiring-Drove-28-/144519/

Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org

Conley, D.T. (2007). Rethinking College Readiness. New England board of higher education.

(pp. 24-26). Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ794245.pdf

ENGAGE. (2013). Georgia College’s Quality Enhancement Plan: Building a culture of

engaged learning. Retrieved from http://www.gcsu.edu/qep/docs/QEP_2014.pdf

Hanover Research (2011). Improving student retention and graduation rates. Academy

Administration Practice. Retrieved from

http://www.mybrcc.edu/intranet/attachments/article/110/Improving%20Student

%20Retention%20and%20Graduation%20Rates.pdf

Institutional Equity. (2014). Dr. Dorman’s charge to the diversity action planning committee

Retrieved from http://www.gcsu.edu/equity/thecharge.htm

Olson, G.A. (2009, July 23). Exactly what is ‘shared governance’? The Chronicle of Higher

Education. Retrieved from https://chronicle.com/article/Exactly-What-Is-Shared/47065/

Schloss P. J. & Cragg, K. M. (Eds.). (2013). Organization and administration in higher

education. New York, NY: Routledge.

The University Senate of Georgia College (2004). Georgia College Senate. Retrieved from

http://senate.gcsu.edu

J Gore

11

FIELD OBSERVATION

Feedback:

Really good paper – incorporation of the literature was well-done and did not break the flow of

the product. In the future, be sure to spend a little more time on proofreading to avoid some

simple mistakes, but overall it was a solid assessment. 192 out of 200.

J Gore

12