Here is a statement about shared governance from one of our newsletters as well as a link to the 1966 statement on shared governance by the AAUP, of which we are a chapter. Also included is a statement on Adversarial Relations between administration and faculty that may be of some interest.
The BGSU-FA is committed to the principles of good shared governance as outlined in the AAUP's 1966 Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities (
http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/policy ... tement.htm). Interestingly, this statement was jointly produced by the AAUP, the American Council on Education and the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. Far from promoting an adversarial relationship among faculty, administrators and boards of trustees, the principles of joint effort, exchange of information and respect outlined in this document promote collective action for the good of the whole institution.
A major way in which collective bargaining has been shown to improve shared governance is through better communication between faculty and central administrations. Central administrators cannot take faculty concerns into consideration in decision-making if it isn't clear what faculty preferences on a particular subject are, or if they have not been communicated clearly. Likewise, faculty cannot form good judgments about university policy if key information, such as budget assumptions, are kept from them.
Adversarial Relationship?
Does collective bargaining lead to an excessively adversarial relationship between faculty and administrators? The BGSU-FA does not believe so. In fact, we would suggest that exactly the opposite is true. By reducing uncertainty, frustration and fear collective bargaining can strengthen collegiality and respect between faculty and administrators at BGSU.
Frustration and fear are significant causes of conflict. Because of lagging salaries, BGSU faculty members feel underappreciated. But, perhaps even more importantly, we feel frustrated because it seems like we can't do anything about it. For too many years our salaries have ranked near the bottom for public universities in Ohio. Committees make recommendations that administrators politely ignore (or promise to do something about before departing from BGSU), and the situation remains the same or worsens.
During our hundreds of conversations, colleagues have shared with us many fears about the future of BGSU. What is going to happen to our health care benefits? Will class sizes increase? Will departments, programs, schools and colleges be consolidated or eliminated? These (and many more) are the legitimate fears of faculty members who are committing themselves to a career at BGSU. Conflict is only increased when faculty members are made to feel like their concerns don't matter, and that our ideas are not to be taken seriously.
While we all want what is best for the university, faculty and central administrators see BGSU from different perspectives. Even with good hearts and sincere wishes to do what each believes is best for the university, because of the different places from which we view the institution, faculty and administrators are not always going to agree on exactly what is best, nor how to achieve it. These differences are only natural. So, the real question is how to manage the conflicts that arise from these differences of perspective, not how to eliminate them.
Collective bargaining provides a transparent and democratic process for solving these conflicts. Frustration dissipates as we gain actual power to negotiate our salaries, benefits and teaching conditions. Conflict based on fear of the future subsides when we all look realistically at the problems we face, and work together to solve them in an atmosphere of respect that is only achieved when our goal is to negotiate a contract, not engage in a never-ending conversation.
By reducing uncertainty, fear and frustration, collective bargaining will greatly improve the relationship between faculty and the central administration at BGSU.