Thus the adage – Practice defines Policy or Policy defines Practice?

Based on this comment, two adjustments were made to pages 21-22:

1. The word “Endorse” was modified “Affirm”. Two different words were originally chosen to help reduce confusion between Council actions and Presidential actions. However, practice has demonstrated that the concern may be unfounded.
2. The statement related to “Refer” was modified in an effort to provide further clarity

Refer: This action is specifically reserved for 10+1 decisions or recommendations that emerge through the Faculty Senate (FAC), but of which the College Council has some concern or alternate perspective. Recognizing the primacy of the faculty voice in these areas, the College Council may choose to attach statements of dissent or perspective before sending the item on to the College President.

Good suggestion:

Let’s consider the following:

Committee Chairs may petition that a constituent body modify an appointment if in the view of the committee the assigned individual is unable to fulfill the intent of his or her representative role (i.e. inconsistent attendance, conflicting roles, meeting conflicts, etc.).

A few highlights:

1. A Governance Resolution was added (Page 24).
2. Greater specificity concerning the interplay between the Faculty enate and College Council was added.
3. Additional language concerning guiding principles was added.
4. Based on feedback, a few modifications were made to membership on councils and committees. These continue to be fluid as feedback is considered.
5. As requested – the Faculty Senate By-Laws have been added as an appendix. Currently, they are included for illustrative purposes.
6. A number of syntax errors were addressed.
7. Responses to Draft 06 FAQs were incorporated, such as President’s Cabinet, committee membership, clarification about At-Large members, etc.

The inclusion of the statement “Full ratification of this document occurred on MONTH, YEAR.” Has been included to specifically denote that the document has not yet been ratified.

While it is true that the process is moving forward, the current process is focused on ensuring that the campus community has had the time and space needed to collaboratively shape the document. That is currently being assessed through the volume of input and contribution. As the stream of contributions dwindles and direct discourse confirms that concerns and questions have been addressed, we can begin evaluating if the time is right to consider ratification.

The Board did not approve the document but did affirm the process – providing their support both for the collaborative nature of the process and the intended goal of enhancing governance at the College. As for the voice of the campus community, this entire process has sought to garner input and wisdom from the campus community, which has included avenues such as these FAQs, which have allowed for the anonymous posting of questions and concerns, in a public setting.

In response to the ratification process, the plan is to seek endorsement from each constituent party. There has been some ongoing discussion concerning the best method to do this. One would be through an electronic vote (anonymously) whereby individuals can cast a vote and designate their constituent relationship. Another might be through a meeting of each constituent body, whereby each constituent party can decide a methodology that suits their preference. As such, no specific number has been identified to describe the necessary votes to pass.

Any ideas are welcome.

If you are aware of any pressure or coercion by the President or any other campus leader, you should file a complaint using the Staff Resources page at www.centralchristian.edu/staff-resources.

This suggestion recently was brought forward and is being considered in the next draft. There was a chart in an earlier draft but it was too simplistic to truly capture all the nuances. However, some sort of chart would be helpful.

This might help illustrate where presidential authority has been delegated.

Currently, this is only a proposed model for CCCK. However, a significant aspect of this proposed model is the collaborative nature of its design. The Association of Community College Trustees provided a basic outline to follow, which included:

• Board encouragement of collegiality
• Presidential leadership through broad college-wide involvement in shaping the system (structure)
• Faculty, staff, and student participation

Additionally, we have attempted to remain faithful to:

• Openness: Ensuring that the status and the content of the proposal remained available through the approval process.
• Notification: Ensuring that constituencies are provided with sufficient opportunities for discussion and participation prior to making final recommendations.
• Responsiveness: Ensuring that recommendations are incorporated and ready for review in a timely and appropriate manner.

Assuming that this question is more focused on implementation (final-decision-making processes) over design, the current process concerning implementation is following the general practice to have each constituent body ratify or reject the final draft of what might become the CCCK Governance Manual. That ensures that each group is given the opportunity to articulate support. In turn, rejection forces the structure to continue the collaborative process until such time as all groups are ready to approve, making this a truly shared process.

As is true of our current structure, which supports shared governance, any individual or body (committee) can provide recommendations. This includes recommendations concerning structure, language, membership, implementation, etc.

It may be appropriate to note that even when (and if) ratification occurs, the process remains ongoing, especially during the initial stages of the actual implementation. Again, borrowing from some work done by the Association of Community College Trustees Leadership Congress, the initial months would find the College:

• Learning/discovering the new system
• Fine-tuning of the Manual
• Formal college-wide policy & procedure review
• Council/Committee related issues
• Clarifying (and negotiating) decision-making & oversight responsibilities
• Mid-year and Year-end evaluation of system

A description of the President’s Cabinet is included, toward the end of the Governance Document. The primary intent of including that circle was to adhere to the desire for full transparency. The entire governance system is built on the concept of ensuring that the decisions of the College are receiving the full counsel of wisdom that is available within the constituency. Administrators, and perhaps more specifically the Vice Presidents serve a unique role in that system.

The reader will notice that the Vice Presidents, who are responsible for the day-to-day management of the institution, do not hold primary leadership roles in the governance structure. Chairing the College Council, which is currently a placeholder position in the proposed system, is a non-voting appointment. Administrators share the same level of input into the governance structure, being represented on the different councils and committees therein.

While the President is an ex offico of all committees, the exercise of that privilege is rarely enacted. While the decision to remain distant from committee business may enhance the ability of committees to share without fear of presidential oversight, it also may inadvertently undermine another value upon which shared governance is built. , Since the President will not be familiar with all the rich discussion and input that has informed the process., she or he will need to rely on a source to help interpret actions that are prepared for presidential consideration. Outside of issues related to day-to-day management, the job of serving as a sounding board, providing insight, and helping to keep the president informed – falls to the Cabinet.

Furthermore, as articulated in the Governance Structure, the President’s Cabinet serves as the management team. Therefore, the President’s Cabinet represents the regular meeting of senior staff related to their day-to-day job responsibilities. Primarily a deliberative body, the Cabinet does not necessarily engage in the same type of legislative work assigned to the Councils, except for times of emergency, exigency, or other extraordinary circumstances.

This is still a point of discussion and feedback is appreciated. As this process has advanced, that very question has been a consistent point of consideration.

As of today (March 20, 2020), the structure has chosen to recognize the culture of the campus to help define how coaches influence the system. Recognizing that the student population is currently largely defined by athletes, the proposed structure assumes that coaches need representative authority throughout the institution. The proposed structure also formalizes the meetings of the coaching staff as a Standing Committee under the Enrollment Affairs Oversight Committee.

There is some concern that by defining a specific Athletic Affairs Oversight Committee, it would force coaches into another level of legislative burden, keeping them away from their primary role as educators.

More input is invited.

In the broadest term, many of these functions would not change much from the way it is managed today. Meaning, that the current structure and the proposed structure recognize the need for both programmatic management (The Student Life Staff) and institutional management (Committees and Councils).

The current committee governance structure and the proposed are both intended to provide avenues for input and deliberation as it relates to general policy and procedures. Neither is necessarily intended to address functional operations that occur at the divisional or office level. So, generally speaking, day-to-day operational management of the things like residence life, Title IX, and student life, are largely the outcome of how the members of the Student Life team manage those operations. The proposed structure would not change that reality.

Now, there are occasions where the concerns of a committee might seek to inform or influence the work of an office. That is true of the current structure, as well as the proposed structure. A good example would be related to mental health. The Office of Student Life oversees the functional reality of such offerings. However, a campus committee might want to make some recommendations or purpose some policy. In our current system of governance, they are free to do so. Here again, the new structure does not seek to change that. However, the proposed structure creates an avenue for that discussion to be heard by a wider audience, fostering greater transparency and collaboration – allowing for more input so that recommendations and decisions are considered by representatives of the entire campus BEFORE they are enacted. In the end, recommendations or decisions that are endorsed by the College Council will be considered for implementation.

In summary – there are no proposed changes (in this document) concerning day-to-day operations. Related to our current governance system, the key differences in the proposed structure include:

• Defined membership, ensuring stakeholder representation
• The addition of a College Council to serve as a clearinghouse for institutional decisions and a sounding board for concerns that exist at the institutional level.

Yes – Thank you for catching that. As we work through the drafts some aspects might be missed. Thankfully, we are working through this together. Perhaps with all our eyes, the final draft will be clean! Keep pointing our issues as you see them, please.

We are sorry that you have not been able to attend any of the sessions. We have purposefully scheduled them at differing times and days to help alleviate conflicts. Additionally, the First-hand Friday sessions have been recorded, to allow for consumption at a time and place of your choosing. However, we will continue to make every attempt to accommodate schedules. Let the Office of the President know of a time that works for you and we will see what we can do.

This is one reason we have been hesitant to articulate a specific timeline, favoring a collaborative approach to define the process. The desire is to have an agreed-upon working structure in place as we close out the spring semester (mid-May). This would provide time over the summer to adjust, train, and prepare.  If we get into mid-May and it seems that more time is needed, we will schedule more time in order to ensure that all input has been considered and processed. Additionally, any final draft will recognize the possibility that the structure will need points of revision, clarification, and polishing. These could be agreed upon points, added to the document, to ensure compliance.

From a purely College perspective, Coaches are not members of the Faculty. Faculty describe a specific category of individuals that are credentialed as instructors; having the primary task of overseeing the curriculum of the College (associated with divisions and departments).

Recognizing the significant role that the mission imposes on the campus community, the role of co-curricular programming becomes amplified. Athletics and Residential Life play a vital role as co-educators, though they are not Faculty. The job description for coaches highlights that 51% of their job is dedicated to providing instruction, mentoring, and discipleship.  Duties include:

• Instruct, coach, mentor, and minister to student-athletes.
• Assess performance and provide practical instruction.
• Provide instruction and experiential training related to the CORE4.
• Conduct analysis and instruction on individual and team performance.
• Plan practices in alignment with competitive strategies.
• Provide direction and guidance related to pre-game, game, and post-game collaboration
• Provide spiritual instruction and experiences designed to foster faith development.
• Instruct at least one lecture-based, practicum, or activity course.
• Promote academic success through partnerships with faculty and other academic resources.
• Promote community outreach and service by organizing, overseeing, and participating in team community service initiatives. At least one annually.
• Participate in Chapel, Convocations, Colloquia, and, as appropriate, other spiritual formation activities, offerings, and events.

As stated in the proposed governance manual, there are multiple HLC criteria that speak to the governance of the Board, Faculty, and other constituents of the College. These include:

• 2.C.5. The governing board delegates day-to-day management of the institution to the institutions’ administration and expects the institution’s faculty to oversee academic matters.
• 5.A.1. Shared governance at the institution engages its internal constituencies—including its governing board, administration, faculty, staff and students—through planning, policies, and procedures.
• 5.A.3. The institution’s administration ensures that faculty and when appropriate, staff and students are involved in setting academic requirements, policy and processes through effective collaborative structures.
• 5.B.3. The planning processes encompasses the institution as a whole and considers the perspectives of internal and external constituent groups.

Criterion 2.C.5. is part of Criterion 2, which is focused on ethical and responsible conduct. More specifically 2.C is focused on ensuring that the Board is acting with integrity, in alignment with the guiding values of the Commission. Sub-component 2.C.5. is specifically focused on constraining the role of the board in operational and academic aspects of the institution.

The key issue we need to ensure is that our adopted governance structure recognizes this need for the division of responsibilities, within the context of shared governance. Our primary concerns in creating this structure have been:

• To reinforce the Board’s commitment to remain focused on its fiduciary role, leaving the operations of the College in the hands of its administration.
• To ensure that the faculty continue to have a significant role in the currency and sufficiency of the curriculum, expectations for student performance, qualifications of instructional staff, and adequacy of resources for instructional support.\
• To recognize that when appropriate, staff and students should be involved in setting academic requirements, policy, and processes through effective collaborative structures.
• To enhance the role of different members of the campus community in overall planning and assessment.

The final draft will include a provision that will allow each Oversight Council, which includes the Faculty Senate) the opportunity to submit a report to the Board.

Currently, the proposed structure assumes that VP’s are members of the Oversight Councils, but not ex offico Chair. Discussions to date have varied on this perspective. It may be that such decisions are best left to the individual Oversight Committees. However, the intent was to ensure that each oversight committee did not just become a working committee of a VP, but a self-governing entity, free to pursue those agenda items recognized by a duly elected Chair.

As service to the College (i.e. serving on a committee) is an aspect of our current job descriptions, compensation for service has not been included in this draft of the model. That may be an issue that needs further investigation and discussion.

The term division has multiple connotations in the College. On one aspect, divisions represent an aspect of the academic structure, aligning departments under different divisions. Divisions are also sometimes used to describe operational offices (e.g. student life, financial aid, business office, etc.)

From an academic perspective, the status of such decisions is primarily the work of the Academic Dean and the Faculty Senate. In alignment with the proposed model, deference is given to the Dean and the Faculty Senate to define, administrate, and assess, faculty-related structures. While the current version of the Faculty Senate does recognize the ability of the Faculty Senate to establish ad hoc committees, they do not specifically state that the Faculty Senate can establish Standing Committees. However, such rights are assumed in the proposed structure for all Oversight Councils. Therefore, Faculty Senate, being synonymous with ACAOC, would also be afforded that privilege.

From an operational perspective, yes – the current proposed structure assumes that some (not necessarily all) of the current committees are initially absorbed, allowing the individual Oversight Councils the opportunity to establish standing and/or ad hoc committees as provided by the agreed-upon structure.

The Original Draft Proposal includes three illustrations. The Transitionary Model specifically lists the current committees and how each might relate to the proposed structure. The Proposed Model (also in the Mock-Up), illustrates suggested areas of responsibility and possible ongoing committee work.

Following the decision of the Faculty to recognize a working set of By-Laws, Draft VI and future drafts will clearly identify that the Academic Affairs Oversight Council (ACAOC) and the Faculty Senate are synonymous unless otherwise advised by the Faculty Senate.

The membership of the ACAOC/Senate is a negotiated aspect of this document. As the proposed structure seeks to ensure that each constituency group has a voice in the different structures of the College, the Faculty Senate will need to determine to what level it desires to hear and consider the input of other members of the campus community when deliberating an action. As of yet [4/7/2021], no one group has submitted a concrete resolution or recommendation. Therefore, the document awaits input. If adhering to the newly adopted Faculty Senate By-Laws, with no further recommendations, membership of the ACAOC/Senate include: “Voting membership includes full-time and half-time faculty members, Director of Student Success, Registrar, and Library Director. Non-voting members include part-time (adjunct), chief academic officer, and other invited guests.

Non-Disclosure/FERPA: Good question – This will be an issue that needs some clarification as we move forward. All employees of the College undergo FERPA training, so we would need to investigate possible training SGA. In many ways, this may be incorporated into how we address student workers assigned to faculty members. Current student employees are supposed to be signing a confidentiality statement. We could expand this to include SGA members. Another consideration would be to address general business and then move to an executive session to address specific concerns.

Definitely.

There is no plan to try and complete this process prior to commencement. The goal is to have major revisions completed so that a solid draft can be made available prior to commencement, opening the door for work on a possible final document in May.

Cabinet: There is an additional FAQ on Cabinet, so be sure to check that out. As things stand right now (4/8/2021) the proposed role of the Cabinet is to function as the central coordinating committee for college operations. Members advise the President, assist with the day-to-day operation of the College within established policies and regulations, and review progress on strategic initiatives. Initially, membership included all vice presidents, with an acknowledgment that other individuals might be included in accordance with the operational needs of the institution

Accessibility to the Board: Currently, the Board seeks collaborative input through regular evaluation of the President (which includes comments from the campus community), conversations at established opportunities for engagement (i.e. receptions, meals, etc.), Ownership interviews, review of documents and reports submitted through the President, and Whistleblower Alerts.  This proposed model does seek to implement additional avenues to ensure that the governance structure allows for opportunities through which the Board can remain informed of decisions, recommendations, and concerns.

More context would help in addressing this question.

A major modification moving into Draft VI and beyond is the inclusion of by-laws (governing rules) as we move from philosophical discussion toward implementation. Draft VI (available above) includes these governing rules, as they pertain to the College Council and the individual Oversight Councils. If this is addressing the recent by-laws approved by the faculty – yes – at some point those will need to be added to the document. Currently, aspects of the Faculty By-Laws have already been included, as the development of the Oversight Councils sought to rely on the Faculty by-Laws as a possible model.

Be looking for the inclusion of the Faculty By-Laws in a future draft, with some specific references to them peppered throughout the main document, demonstrating deference to the Faculty By-Laws, when appropriate.

Please feel free to suggest specific times that work for you or the group you may represent. Other members of the campus community have appreciated the interaction and found it helpful. In turn, the feedback received has been extremely influential and will be used in the formation of a new draft, which again will be followed by opportunities for comment.  Please do not assume that the end of this open comment period also serves as the end of the process. The comments and insights collected will be used to complete a new draft, which in turn, will be presented for another public comment period. The goal is to continue that process until an informed final draft can be produced and considered.

The intent of the process is to promote discussion and feedback while fostering transparency and collaborative interactions.

Currently, the Registrar is included as a formal, voting member of the Faculty Senate, as stated in the Faculty Senate By-laws. Therefore, is a member of the ACAOC.

This assignment is reflected in the current version of the Faculty By-laws.

Very good catch. It was an assumption that individuals assuming an at-large spot would be new. However, that was not articulated specifically. The next draft will include additional language defining this aspect.

That might be true. Keep in mind that the one coach will not be the only athletic voice, as the FAR (Faculty Athletics Representative), a faculty member, also serves on the Coaches Council. This will ensure that there are at least two perspectives that share an athletic focus. Additionally, a faculty member will be serving on each of the other Oversight Committees, so they too will be privy to athletic concerns, shared by coaches on those other committees. However, it may well be that this suggestion should be considered, both by the faculty and the coaches.

Great catch. Please see if that gets fixed on the next draft (Draft VII).

Good suggestion. We will seek the counsel of the AD and athletic staff to determine their perspective on this.

Yes – at least as currently proposed. The language below is in the working By-Laws of the Oversight Committees:

Membership on a Standing Committee need not be representative of the membership of the Oversight Council. Membership should be relative to the needs of the committee and represent constituent bodies that might have an interest in the outcome of said deliberations. At the beginning of each year, the membership of Standing Committees is to be affirmed by the College Council to ensure representation.

However, this is not specifically restated under the duties of the College Council. Draft VI will address this omission. Thanks for finding it.