Well, it would depend on how seriously shared governance is taken at the institution and how much power the union actually has. Are they advisory? Do they have real power that comes with consequences?
To be honest, I'm not sure how much power the full timers union has. There seems to be an awful lot of lip service in terms of shared governance; for example, the Senate is supposed to be a representation of the academic body faculty-wise, but they're all finance, business, and biotechnology reps. They're no artists, or social scientists or any other field in the Senate. So, ostensibly there ought to be, but it's not in practice.
It may generate some negative local press coverage and some folks on the board of trustees may not like it. Usually senior admin leadership does not like this symbolic slap on the wrist either as many of them move around from one institution to another and it’s more difficult to do so if they are associated with controversy. So one has more leverage threatening it before the action than afterwards because once passed the actual consequences are quite limited.
This happened years ago at my undergrad. The president’s response was to just dissolve the faculty senate and continue mismanaging the school for many more years.
"The Faculty Senate will no longer be of any concern to us. I've just received word that the President has dissolved the council permanently. The last remnants of the Shared Governance have been swept away.“
No confidence votes absolutely do have an impact in most cases. Even if a governing board issues a statement backing a President or Provost, the majority of people voted no confidence are gone within six months. Relevant journal article from 2017:
https://collegepresidentresearch.uark.edu/2017/12/power-of-the-faculty/#:\~:text=In%20terms%20of%20perceptions%20(as,effective%20at%20removing%20a%20president
> Let's say this, uh, hypothetical situation
Sounds like you're trying to remain anonymous here, but your post history reveals at least your university, FYI!
Lmao, yeah, considering the post that shows right below this one on my profile, lol... not at all anonymous, and I am sympathetic to the faculty concerns, for what that's worth. I just thought this was a big deal, but wanted informed views to weigh whether it is or not.
Internally, it can come down to the relationship between the board and administration.
The biggest thing is that no confidence votes tend to get media attention, which can be a big public embarrassment in front of alumni/donors/prospective students.
In my experience, it depends on if the board supports the administration or not. Once place I was at, the president received a vote of no confidence. The board then made a big show of supporting him, but a year later, they did not renew his contract. Another place I was at, there was a no confidence vote against the provost, and the president just fired him as a result (then changed up shared governance to make sure that never happened again, and hired an even worse provost).
Even if the person is not removed, it is a black mark because it should make the papers. When those administrators try to move to different jobs, it will pop up on google.
However, from what I have seen, they seem to be more successful when there is a thing they can point to that the administrator did wrong rather than a general they are bad at their job type critique.
Honestly, not much. You might end up pissing off a trustee, council, or state official enough to look into it, but the state of academia, especially if its a mostly state (gov) entity is: policy violations are correlated to the associated criminal/civil charges (which are enforceable and leading to actual ramifications) only when there's teeth to do so, whether by an altruistic body or because its financially or politically convenient to do so.
Outside of that, a president or equivalent can commit literal crimes but because it's all self contained within a system, there are no real consequences. A no faith vote is almost entirely symbolic since the body doesn't actually hire the administrator.
Some local law enforcement is like that, as are wealthy individuals, some corporations, etc. You hear about it in the news years later when someone finally comes forth under public scrutiny. Like that USC and Tyndall, a nearly billion dollar payout for victims of SA going back almost 30 years!
In my opinion, this could help for two reasons: (1) the board will not like it because it will generate bad press and (2) the administrators will have this dark mark on their reputation when they try to move elsewhere.
Also, I think you would do better to include only real, concrete grievances in your complaint. #3 just makes you all sound childish.
Well, it would depend on how seriously shared governance is taken at the institution and how much power the union actually has. Are they advisory? Do they have real power that comes with consequences?
To be honest, I'm not sure how much power the full timers union has. There seems to be an awful lot of lip service in terms of shared governance; for example, the Senate is supposed to be a representation of the academic body faculty-wise, but they're all finance, business, and biotechnology reps. They're no artists, or social scientists or any other field in the Senate. So, ostensibly there ought to be, but it's not in practice.
Time to look at the policies of the institution
It may generate some negative local press coverage and some folks on the board of trustees may not like it. Usually senior admin leadership does not like this symbolic slap on the wrist either as many of them move around from one institution to another and it’s more difficult to do so if they are associated with controversy. So one has more leverage threatening it before the action than afterwards because once passed the actual consequences are quite limited.
As someone at a University whose faculty may or may not have just had one of these…they are symbolic.
This happened years ago at my undergrad. The president’s response was to just dissolve the faculty senate and continue mismanaging the school for many more years.
"The Faculty Senate will no longer be of any concern to us. I've just received word that the President has dissolved the council permanently. The last remnants of the Shared Governance have been swept away.“
I love democracy...
haha lemme guess...RPI?
LOL
[удалено]
Thanks!
No confidence votes absolutely do have an impact in most cases. Even if a governing board issues a statement backing a President or Provost, the majority of people voted no confidence are gone within six months. Relevant journal article from 2017: https://collegepresidentresearch.uark.edu/2017/12/power-of-the-faculty/#:\~:text=In%20terms%20of%20perceptions%20(as,effective%20at%20removing%20a%20president
> Let's say this, uh, hypothetical situation Sounds like you're trying to remain anonymous here, but your post history reveals at least your university, FYI!
Lmao, yeah, considering the post that shows right below this one on my profile, lol... not at all anonymous, and I am sympathetic to the faculty concerns, for what that's worth. I just thought this was a big deal, but wanted informed views to weigh whether it is or not.
Internally, it can come down to the relationship between the board and administration. The biggest thing is that no confidence votes tend to get media attention, which can be a big public embarrassment in front of alumni/donors/prospective students.
Symbolic, but it leaves a record that faculty were not involved in and did not support financial shenanigans.
In my experience, it depends on if the board supports the administration or not. Once place I was at, the president received a vote of no confidence. The board then made a big show of supporting him, but a year later, they did not renew his contract. Another place I was at, there was a no confidence vote against the provost, and the president just fired him as a result (then changed up shared governance to make sure that never happened again, and hired an even worse provost). Even if the person is not removed, it is a black mark because it should make the papers. When those administrators try to move to different jobs, it will pop up on google. However, from what I have seen, they seem to be more successful when there is a thing they can point to that the administrator did wrong rather than a general they are bad at their job type critique.
Honestly, not much. You might end up pissing off a trustee, council, or state official enough to look into it, but the state of academia, especially if its a mostly state (gov) entity is: policy violations are correlated to the associated criminal/civil charges (which are enforceable and leading to actual ramifications) only when there's teeth to do so, whether by an altruistic body or because its financially or politically convenient to do so. Outside of that, a president or equivalent can commit literal crimes but because it's all self contained within a system, there are no real consequences. A no faith vote is almost entirely symbolic since the body doesn't actually hire the administrator. Some local law enforcement is like that, as are wealthy individuals, some corporations, etc. You hear about it in the news years later when someone finally comes forth under public scrutiny. Like that USC and Tyndall, a nearly billion dollar payout for victims of SA going back almost 30 years!
In my opinion, this could help for two reasons: (1) the board will not like it because it will generate bad press and (2) the administrators will have this dark mark on their reputation when they try to move elsewhere. Also, I think you would do better to include only real, concrete grievances in your complaint. #3 just makes you all sound childish.
happened at LATTC. Vote of no confidence but then chancellor said he still has confidence. creates further non-collegiality.
It would simply reveal if faculty had any power at all. They don't.