↓ Download PDF ← Back to Library
Cx>2-ih-
OFFICE OF THE CHANCELLOR
A*’ *> ecp
l’ I V F. R S I T V
f
150 E. South College
Yellow Springs, Ohio 45387
TEL: 513-767-6494
FAX: 513-767-6493
January 25, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: UPC and Board of Trustees
FROM: Al Guskin U{
RE: Background Material for the Chancellor’s Report to the Board
The following is presented in our continuing need to understand the dynamics of
our new organizational design and forms the background for my presentation at the Board
meeting. I hope you will find it helpful.
The text that follows this introduction-beginning with “Role of the Chancellor”–is
verbatim from the Ad Hoc Committee report; in a few places the order of presentation has
been changed for clarity. As I’ve said on a number of occasions, I believe that this
federation model is a good one for Antioch but it can be ambiguous and messy. To quote
from a recent article by OToole and Bennis:
In essence, federalism allows nations and corporations to have
their organizational cake and eat it, too. Given proper
leadersSp, the new federalism… illustrates that it is possible
to pursue innovation, self-governance, and autonomy,
while at the same time enjoying the advantages of effective
coordination, economies-of-scale, and the protection of
cherished freedoms that only pluralism can provide. Even
granting that federalism is a difficult structural form to
manage ~ perhaps the most difficult ~ it might still recommend
itself on the grounds that, like democracy, it is simply better than the
alternatives.
Following the presentation of the material from the Ad Hoc Committee report, I’ve
made some general comments about the implications of some key phrases in the report.
This is followed by an integration of the diagram the committee used to describe the
relationship between the Board, Chancellor and campus CEOs with the duties outlined in
the report. Finally, I’ve also enclosed some other quotes on federal models from ®T®«le
and Bennis. It should be noted that the Ad Hoc Committee report was accepted by the
Board in June, 1993 as part of the leadership reorganization of the University
Antioch College Antioch New England Graduate School Antioch Southern California Antioch Seattle The McGregor School
ROLE OF THE UNIVERSITY CHANCELLOR
The Chancellor would be the Chief Executive Officer of the University, delegated
by the Board to implement all Board policies and plans. The Chancellor would be
responsible for recommending to the Board new University-wide policies and plans. The
Chancellor would be responsible for monitoring the implementation of all Board policies.
The primary role of the Chancellor would be planning for the future of the University and
monitoring the implementation of Board policies, especially in the financial area.
a. Responsible for recommending new University policies to Board
In carrying out these duties the Chancellor would
develop University-wide policies by working closely
with the campus chief executive officers, especially
through the University Policy Council.
b. Responsible for recommending to the Board the annual budget
for the entire University, including each campus and for maintaining
the fiscal integrity of the University.
Each campus chief executive officer would be
responsible for reaching agreement with the Chancellor
regarding the campus’ annual budget within the context
of Board policy.
By placing this responsibility with the University
Chancellor, and through him/her the Chief Financial
Officer of the University, the Board would, in effect,
require that the budget of each campus be reviewed at
the UPC and then discussed and approved by the
Chancellor, prior to submission to the Board. This
gives the Board assurance that their policies are being
carried out in the development and implementation of
the annual budget. This process assumes that the budget
for each campus would be formally recommended by
the University Chancellor and that each chief executive
officer would be expected to present to the Board the
budget for his particular campus.
The Chancellor and Chief Fiscal Officer of the
University would be responsible for maintaining the
fiscal integrity of the University by monitoring and
auditing the fiscal activity of each campus within the
context of Board policies.
c. Chair of the University Policy Council
d. Responsible for developing and maintaining Universitv-wide
systems for integrating the University
e. Represent the University on each campus at important
celebrations, e.g.. commencements and when appropriate with
local advisory committees or boards of visitors.
f. Represent the University to the higher education community, to
foundations, and to appropriate consortia of which the
University is a member.
This would mean representation to such organizations as
NCA, American Council on Education, National
Association of Independent Colleges and Universities.
g. Responsible for developing and coordinating University-wide
fund raising activities
This would probably be oriented to university-wide
grants as well as providing support where helpful to the
College President or Provosts in their campus specific
fund raising activities.
ROLE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COLLEGE AND THE
PROVOSTS
The President of the College and each Provost is the Chief Executive Officer of
their respective campuses. Within the context of Board policy and the Board approved
mission for each campus, the Board delegates to the President of the College and each
Provost the responsibility for leading and managing their respective campuses and
representing the campus to all external groups and constituencies directly related to the
campus. This is a broad responsibility of a chief executive officer and it is generally
understood in higher education. It includes responsibility for:
a. overall academic and administrative leadership of the
campus;
b. promoting a campus climate and quality of life consistent
with the mission and policies of each campus
c. proposing and managing the annual budget within Board
policies
d. recommending new degree programs and significant
changes in existing programs to the Board;
e. making all personnel decisions on the campus and make
recommendations to the Board for all personnel
decisions requiring Board action; e.g. tenure and
promotion decisions for faculty, hiring of new Deans;
f. all campus fund raising activities;
g. leading the governance apparatus on each campus.
h. representing the campus to the University Policy Council
and Board of Trustees
i. representing the campus to all appropriate external groups
and constituencies directly related to the campus, e.g.,
The College President would represent the College to
the Great Lakes College Association and the Association
of American Colleges, each Provost would represent
their respective campus to regional higher education
groups.
ROLE OF THE UNIVERSITY POLICY COUNCIL
The University Policy Council, composed of the Chancellor, Chief Fiscal Officer of
the University, and the President of the College and the Provosts, would serve as the
senior administrative policy council of the University. The UPC would be formally
recognized by the Board as responsible for reviewing all major administrative issues and
for recommending all University-wide policies to the Chancellor. The Chancellor would
work with the campus chief executive officers in setting the agenda for these meetings. As
Chair, the Chancellor would be responsible for coordinating the work of the UPC.
University-wide policies developed by the UPC should be forwarded to the Board as a
recommendation of the University Chancellor and the UPC. It is assumed that the UPC,
prior to recommending any policy to the Board, would have consulted with the appropriate
groups on each campus. Any university-wide administrative matter acted upon by the UPC
that is not of a policy nature but which would require implementation on campuses should
be presented to the Board for their information, e.g., university-wide computing systems.
All agenda of the UPC should be shared with the Board or the Executive Cornmittee of the
Board on a timely basis.
This construction of the UPC assumes that the Board would formally recognize its
responsibility in recommending University-wide policies to the Chancellor and from the
Chancellor to the Board. While the Board would have a much closer relationship with each
campus and be more directly involved with the President of the College and each Provost,
they would expect the University Chancellor, working with the College President and
Provosts, to assure them of the implementation of their policies.
With these new relationships to the Board and between the Chancellor, College
President and Provosts, the activities of the UPC would be the following:
• review proposed changes in mission statements and statements of priorities for
each campus and for the University;
• review annual planning documents for each campus and develop and approve
University-level plans;
• review and approve annual budget proposals for each campus and for the
University;
• review prehminary concept papers and full proposals for new degree programs
throughout the University;
• review proposals for significant program changes or additions,
• review proposals for major organizational changes at the campus and University
levels;
• develop, review and approve University-wide policies and implementation plans;
and
• develop and review long-range plans for the University.
On a more informal level, the Council would function as a forum for information exchange,
for mutual consultation and support and, most importantly, for nurturing a shared vision
for the University.
Relationship between College President/Provost
and Board of Trustees
The President of the College and each Provost would report to the
Board through the University Chancellor. This means the Board would delegate
directly to the campus chief executive officer responsibility for leading and managing the
campus but does so within the context of Board policy which would contain the role
specified for the University Chancellor. The Board would instruct the Chancellor
that it is his/her responsibility to develop a collaborative relationship
between the Chancellor and College President/Provosts which
simultaneously respects the responsibility of the College President and
Provosts for leading their respective campuses and the Chancellor for
assuring the implementation of Board policies.
In this arrangement, Board members would be participants on each of the search
committees for choosing the College President and Provosts and the final Board decision
would be based on the recommendation of a search cornmittee. The Board, therefore,
would have a real investment in each of the campus CEOs and, in turn, the College
President and Provosts would have expectations about a significant relationship to the
Board based on the search process and the nature of the final decision. This would be
interpreted to mean that the College President and Provosts would be able to enter into
discussions with the Board about their campuses, especially in areas that would have been
directly delegated to them by the Board. This relationship between the Chancellor and each
campus chief executive officer is inherently more collaborative and, therefore, more
ambiguous.
Some comments and implications of the Ad Hoc Cornmittee report:
The strong expectation of the Board is that the Chancellor and campus CEOs will
work together in a collaborative fashion. As stated in the Ad Hoc report:
The Board would instruct the Chancellor that it is his/her responsibility
to develop a collaborative relationship between the Chancellor and
College President/Provosts which simultaneously respects the
responsibility of the College President and Provosts for leading their
respective campuses and the Chancellor for assuring the
implementation of Board policies.
The implication of this statement is that the Board does not want to (and by practice
does not) deal with management issues, or conflict over management issues between the
campus CEOs. It assumes that these will be resolved by the UPC, and if not there, by the
Chancellor. This is the ultimate meaning of the words ‘The campus CEOs report to the
Board through the Chancellor.” The language of the Ad Hoc Committee report does not
simply say that the campus CEOs and the Chancellor both report to the Board; it adds the
words, “through the Chancellor,” to deal with its concerns that, in this new organizational
structure, the Board does not intend to deal with conflict between the CEOs on management
matters, and that the Chancellor is the University CEO with responsibility for University-
wide issues.
The Ad Hoc Committee also specifically presented a diagram to represent the
different and overlapping responsibilities of the Board, Chancellor, and Campus CEOs.
The following presentation integrates the narrative of the Ad Hoc Committee report with the
diagram.
&<
PS cc L* V
^3 a
V
J
£>
• (•4
ive 0
P
