↓ Download PDF ← Back to Library
Report & Recommendations from the Blue Book Commission
February 2008
This “Report and Recommendations from the Blue Book Commission” has been
prepared for distribution to core faculty at the non-residential campuses and to the
University Leadership Council. The report has four parts:
I. Overview of the BBC vision
II. Summary of the major results of the BBC survey
m. Specific actionable recommendations 2008-09
IV. Next steps
I. Overview of the BBC
We present this “Report & Recommendations from the Blue Book Commission” in the
midst of a question none of us thought would be asked: What is Antioch University
without Antioch College? This is not necessarily the frame wanted but it is the one we
have. In many ways, the current crisis presents us with the opportunity to think about
the University of the future, and specific to the BBC mandate, the faculty of the 21″
century Antioch University. The specific recommendations below are proposed as initial
steps within the context and vision of creating and nurturing an Antioch University with
a new compact between faculty and the institution; a robust academic environment built
on our best traditions; a strong, collaborative and supportive academic integrative
center; security and growth for faculty and improved faculty work-life; and, high
expectations for engagement in scholarship, student learning, service and institutional
citizenship. While all of these issues are important for those of us here now – it is also
very important to recognize that over the next 10 years our university will experience a
huge generational faculty turnover. To be competitive in attracting and retaining our
next generation of faculty in order to build a strong university of the future, we must be
able to offer far more attractive contractual arrangements and more appealing growth
opportunities for faculty over their career-span.
II. Summary of the Major Results of the BBC Survey
After a year of conversations among the BBC members and with faculty colleagues on
campuses, we prepared and shared our vision and draft recommendations with the ULC
and with core faculty. We sought comment in the form of the first-ever university-wide
faculty survey, which was sent to all core faculty on the non-residential campuses in the
first two weeks of January 2008. The faculty were asked to review the BBC document
and then respond to the survey questions. Of the 170 core faculty surveyed, 109 (64%)
responded. We believe this technologically enabled way of seeking faculty opinion was
an excellent start.
(Note: The complete set of survey results are posted in the new icon (called Blue Book)
on your FC (faculty) desktop so please feel free to review them at your leisure. As well,
we’re asking each campus to hold an upcoming faculty meeting to discuss the BBC
survey results and most specifically, their own campus responses).
The campus distribution of respondents is below:
Unit Total Core % Total Univ. Responses by % of Campus % of Total
Faculty Core Faculty Campus Univ.
Responses
Antioch Los Angeles 25 14.7% 20 80.0% 18.3%
Antioch McGregor 17 10.0% 13 76.5% 11.9%
Antioch New 55 32.4% 36 65.5% 33.0%
England
Antioch Santa 16 9.4% 9 56.3% 8.3%
Barbara
Antioch Seattle 47 27.6% 18 38.3% 16.5%
PhD in L’ship 10 5.9% 9 90.0% 8.3%
Unidentified 4 3.7%
Total 170 100.0% 109 64.1% 100.0%
At the BBC meeting on February 2-3, 2008, we reviewed all of the survey materials in
depth and the following are some of the highlights of our observations:
There was a very high degree of substantive agreement with the general BBC
directions and draft recommendations. This is highly unusual and it affirmed for
the BBC that the group’s work was in sync with the directions and sentiments of
the faculty across the system. For example, wide support was expressed for
multi-year and less than 12-month contracts. Support was expressed for
redefining faculty work, having the primary site of faculty’s work-plan and
accountability be the unit, and changing faculty work over the course of a career.
There were some exceptions, to be discussed below.
With regard to governance, faculty satisfaction varies greatly in tenns of
department/unit, campus, and the university. A high percentage of the faculty
are satisfied with the current system of shared governance at their
unit/ department level (59% agree-to strongly agree). At the campus level, in
aggregate, 18% agree-to strongly agree that they are satisfied with campus
governance, although there was significant variation by campus. Most telling
was the response to the university level: 45% agree-to strongly agree that they
are dissatisfied with their involvement in governance at the university level.
Adding” somewhat dissatisfied” brings the total to 78% of core faculty who are
dissatisfied with faculty involvement in university governance.
• A large minority of the faculty (41% agree-to strongly agree) would like the
University to consider tenure at the non-residential campuses.
• Approximately 90% of the core faculty want less-than 12 month contracts; 77%
favor a 9-month version and 15% favor a lO-month contract. Fifty-five percent
believe that less-than-12 month contracts should be cost neutral.
• Less than half of the faculty (48%) are familiar with the University’s rank policy.
Twenty-nine percent of core faculty had no awareness of the University’s current
rank policy, and the remaining 23% were only somewhat familiar..
• There were several surprises: We were surprised that there wasn’t more
difference in responses between the responses of “older”(more than 10 years at
Antioch) and “newer” faculty (less than 3 years). We were surprised to find that
some resistance exists about changing work over life-span. We were surprised
about some hesitancy of the role of student learning in performance reviews and
the role of the external reviewer. While these were in the minority, they and
other points of divergence deserve more attention and exploration.
There is much more that could be said, but we want to keep this report a manageable
length and hope that the campus-based discussions will enable faculty to go deep into
the meaning and learning from all of this.
m. Specific Actionable Recommendations 2008-09
Within the context of the larger vision stated at the outset, the BBC believes it is possible
to make initial positive steps forward. In this section of the report, the specific areas
around which we are making concrete recommendations are:
• Re-eonceptualization of Faculty Roles & Responsibilities
• Multiyear Contracts
• Nine-month Contracts
• Faculty Voice
• RECONCEPTUAUZATION OF FACULTYROLES & RESPONSIBILmES
As apparent in the BBC survey, there was widespread support (80% agree-to strongly
agree) for redefining faculty roles in the following four categories: engagement with
student learning; engagement with scholarship; engagement as a university citizen; and,
engagement with practice/service. The BBC believes these categories are consistent
with the range of faculty roles in our non-traditional system and address much of the
current national thinking about faculty roles and responsibilities. Faculty have as their
mission to “nurture in their students the knowledge, skills and habits of reflection to
excel as lifelong learners, democratic leaders and global citizens who live lives of
meaning and purpose” (Antioch University Mission Statement). As faculty engage in
student learning, scholarship, university citizenship, and service they should use this
mission to shape their relationship with and responsibility to the university.
The proposed BBC description of faculty work in these four areas is as follows:
Engagement in student learning
Broadly defined, this role includes a variety of student-focused learning activities,
including but not limited to teaching courses, workshops, and training sessions;
preparing assessments of student work; advising; supervising guided and independent
studies internships, practica, theses and dissertations; staying current with the field of
study; serving on degree committees; reviewing applications, and pre-admission
interviewing, counseling, and recruiting.
Engagement in scholarship
This role reflects the faculty’s responsibility to engage in scholarly and creative work,
and may focus on a) the scholarship of discovery, which includes research as well as
forrns of creative expression in the arts b) the scholarship of integration, which includes
interdisciplinary work, syntheses of knowledge, and the effort to bring knowledge to
wider audiences; and c) the scholarship of engagement, which includes the generation of
knowledge stemming from the interaction of theory and practice, ideas and action. The
key to this role is the critical aspect that faculty’s disciplinary, interdisciplinary, and/ or
professional expertise plays in scholarship, research and other creative work.
Furthermore, the knowledge or practice base of one’s field and applying one’s expertise
to the problems and needs of our local and global societies are all evidence of intimate
engagement in the teaching and learning process.
Engagement as a university citizen
In addition to being citizens of our classrooms and disciplines, Antioch faculty are also
citizens of the university. This responsibility for citizenship dictates that faculty are
intimately involved in the governance and operation of our campuses/ units and the
university as a whole. The principles of shared governance assume that faculty,
administrators and trustees share responsibility and accountability for the operation of
our units, campuses and university with regard to planning, decision making, and
budgeting. Faculty involvement is critical in (1) new program development, curriculum,
degree process and design, methods of instruction, and scholarship; (2) faculty
membership (hiring, appointment, reappointment and separation); and (3) those aspects
of student life that relate to the educational process. Because each of these areas is
affected by financial decisions, the faculty should participate through appropriate
governing bodies in deliberations relating to the preparation of annual budgets.
[Shared governance does not assume, however, that faculty participate in planning and
decision making that is purely administrative, unrelated to the education process, or not
enhanced by the contribution of an academic perspective. In addition, faculty
engagement as a university citizen should not supplant the engagement of
administrative and support personnel in the operations of departments, campuses/ units,
and the university, nor release the university from its obligation to appropriately staff
administrative and operational functions].
• Engagement in service/practice
While engagement as a university citizen is one form of service, shared governance is
such an important component of faculty work that we felt it was important to separate it
from the other understanding of service. In addition to university citizenship, Antioch
faculty are also citizens of their communities (for example, serving on community
boards) and citizens of their disciplines or professions (for example, holding an office in a
professional society). These are distinct from the scholarship of engagement discussed
above but round out the nature of Antioch core faculty work.
The BBC asks the ULC to support this long-term goal:
• To endorse this new articulation offaculty roles as stated above;
• To support the development of HR documents and performance review
practices using these four areas of faculty work so that they could be used to
describe and evaluate faculty work;
• To support the implementation of these documents, criteria and practices no
later than by 2009-10,allowing for experimental pilots before that.
• MULTI-YEAR CONTRACTS
The BBC survey asked a series of questions about multi-year contracts, tiering them in
intervals of one, three, and five/ six years, making performance reviews more
comprehensive a”s contract intervals are met, and the like. The BBC believes that moving
in the direction of multi-year core faculty contracts is the right thing to do for many
reasons, including:
• It demonstrates mutual commitment, which will promote the health of
institution
• It makes AU a more appealing and attractive employer of choice for hiring new
faculty and retain excellent faculty
• It is cost effective because it decreases turnover
• It supports programmatic cohesion and stabilization of campus culture
•
•
•
It enables faculty to secure certain grants that require guarantees of faculty
longevity on the campus
It allows for a greater sense of accountability including more substantive
expectations of scholarship, professional engagement, etc.
It has great symbolic value at this time of institutional upheaval and instability
However, there are so many issues involved – such as developing an effective
performance review system and eligibility requirements, stabilizing institutional
planning while also taking into account the need for flexibility, and furthering the
necessary work on faculty roles and negotiated work plans so that performance reviews
are formative and demonstrable, that the BBC felt it was premature to propose a set of
concrete recommendations regarding multi-year contracts at this point. It is the BBC’s
intent to work diligently during 2008-09 so that a comprehensive proposal could come
forward for action at this time next year.
At the same time, the BBC believes that some progress can be made on this direction.
We ask the ULC to agree to the following:
• To support the BBC in its efforts to create processes and systems to increase
faculty security and growth;
• To endorse the concept of multi-year contracts and authorize the BBC to
move forward in exploring a variety of multi-year options with the goal of
lninging a proposal forward in 2009-10.
More immediately, we submit to the ULC the following two proposals for consideration
this year:
• That the ULC!BoT approve an expansion of the current University policy
that allows presidents to request of the Chancellor approval of a multi-year
contract, from the current 2-year limit to the possibility of a 3-year limit;
• That the ULC!BoT arrive at clarity on the termination language for core
faculty contracts. The BBC requests that for 2008-09 and beyond, regardless
of contract length, if a core faculty contract is not to be renewed, faculty
will receive a terminal one-year contract at the end of the current contract
term regardless of when the notification is given.
• NINE-MONTH CONTRACTS
The BBC survey demonstrated widespread and substantial support for nine-month
contracts for core faculty. The BBC believes it is critical for the future of the University in
its ability to have competitive contracts and attract new and retain talented faculty. We
recognize the valid concerns about cost and are attentive to addressing this, as will be
discussed below. We also must ask about the cost if it is not done in terms of the
inability to attract, retain and nurture excellent faculty. Finally, we also recognize valid
concerns raised about what faculty will do with their three months of non-contract time.
This is the question that virtually all colleges and universities face. The answer must be
viewed within the context of negotiated work plans and expectations of faculty
productivity along the four major lines of faculty work (discussed in that section of this
report).
Moving to nine-month contracts must be done carefully and thoughtfully, but we
believe it is the right thing to do. We actually say nine-month “or equivalent” because
we realize that some programs! units cannot have faculty away for three months
because of the nature of the program’s delivery, or the smallness of the program’s
faculty staff or the nature of certain research designs, or other reasons. In such cases, the
BBC understands that the need for nine-month equivalencies – whether counted in
terms of weeks or days – is up to the unit and campus in question.
The BBC asks the ULC to support this long-term goal by approving the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
The standard for corefaculty contracts be 9-month contracts.
That this would be fully implemented by Summer 2011 (in 3 full years).
That each campus would detlelop its own transition plan, which must be
approved by its president. It is understood that any transitional piloting in
2008-09must be absolutely cost-neutral.
That faculty must accept that there will not be substantial (or necessarily any)
funds to off-set this contractual shift; therefore, faculty and departments will be
expected to think creatively about how they do their work and rethink the unit,
campus resources, and even shared university resources.
That core faculty compensation will not be reduced due to the re
conceptualization of these contracts. Core faculty who work more than 9
months of scheduled work would be paid accordingly. This would need to be
worked out consistent with the commitment to be cost-neutral 2008-09, and
limited (if any) additional funds in the future.
The move toward these new contractual aTTangementsis embedded in the notion
of faculty work and performance, not in the accounting of days or weeks. It is
important that we work to develop a clear statement of how faculty work is
conceptualized, based upon the reqUirements/obligation of the unit.
SUPPORTING FACULTY VOICE
As mentioned at the report’s outset, a high percentage of faculty are satisfied with
shared governance at their unit I department level. Depending upon the campus,
faculty felt more or less engaged in campus governance; and across the board nearly
80% of the faculty felt dissatisfied with their involvement in governance at the
university level. Based on the survey results, and the perspectives of academic
leadership, it is clear to the BBC that:
(1) The University must rethink faculty voice in University governance;
(2) The mechanisms of faculty voice must be appropriate and sustainable given
Antioch University philosophy and resources; and
(3) Understandings of shared governance are widely divergent and we must
work to develop our own understanding of what this means at the unit, campus
and University level.
The BBC wants to begin to explore creative and sustainable ways to engage faculty
voice at the University level and sees this as a critical aspect of envisioning our new
University for the 21st century. Toward this end, the BBC recommends (and ALG
endorses) creating a “Faculty Conference Council” under the AU Office of Academic
Affairs that would work with the VC of AA and the ALG to design a Spring-Summer
2009 Faculty Conference on “Awakening the New University” – with threads on
governance, academic IT, disciplinary sharing, etc. We see this as a beginning to think
about faculty voice in University planning – a first step. Over the next year, we hope to
have more discussion about what shared governance means and how we might
imagine creating appropriate and sustainable processes, especially as we envision a
new university.
The BBC encourages the ALG and university leadership to seek and support ways to
build a university-wide community of faculty within the context of a strong academic
core that respects campus autonomy while simultaneously sustaining University
identity and coherence. These ways could include but not be limited to:
• Technologically enabled faculty voice, creating faculty directory and the like;
• More and different ways of cross-campus collaboration
• Faculty conferences and academic forums – on topics such as culture change and how we
envision the unit, etc. – that might not involve everybody from each campus, but could
involve teleconferencing and other technological means to convene faculty.
• Cross-fertilization and relationship building among faculty with special assignments to
assist the VC in coordinating university initiatives such as assessment, IRB, etc.
• Virtual Learning Commons
• Faculty-populated work groups out of the VCAA Office as building blocks to a more
formal representative body to begin to create a thread of faculty voice
Given this, the BBC requests that the ULC approve the following as first steps:
• An Antioch University Faculty Conferencefor Spring-Summer 200 – /IAwakening
the New University”
• The creation of a university-wide Faculty Conference Council to plan the
conference in conjunction with the ALG. Tracks at the conference would include but
not be limited to: Exploration and training in models of shared governance;
visioning (and training) in academic IT; as well as disciplinary and interest group
meetings, and networking.
IV. Next Steps for 2008-09
All of the steps below are predicated on securing ULC/BoT support of the directions
indicated by the BBC, securing lIenabling legislation” as necessary to continue in certain
directions, and obtaining specifit! approval for concrete recommendations.
1. Campus Level
a) Campuses develop transition plans for three-year move to 9-month contracts
for Core Faculty. This must be done in a collaboration between faculty, the
campus CFO, and the president.
b) Campus conversations
• Upon posting of the survey results, BBC recommendations and ULC
decisions, campus faculty hold a conversation to discuss the BBC concrete
recommendations and directions
• In late Spring-early Summer 2008, campuses schedule a half-day faculty
meeting. A BBC faculty member from another campus will participate to
share experiences from that campus; to listen and be ambassador back to own
campus to cross-fertilize; and to build bridges that we are a community of
faculty and can learn from each other.
2. University Level
a) The BBC
•
•
Create ASAP a First Class BBC area on all Core Faculty Desktops and post BBC
documents; survey results; regular updates; and provide an area for email
conferencing on issues of import.
The BBC establishes that its agenda for work in 2008-09 are multi-year contracts
and monitoring the transitions toward 9-month (or equivalent) contracts. We
know that there are many important BBC issues to be addressed in the future
including rank, load, sabbaticals, budget impact, and the like, but the BBC’s top
priority will be the development of a comprehensive multi-year contract
proposal.
Toward this end:
(1) The BBC Performance Review subcommittee develops an internal BBC
Action Plan for our work to refine the multi-year proposal including utilizing
more surveys as one mechanism for gaining internal knowledge of the issues.
(2) The BBC meets (Summer 2008) with an innovative academic HR consultant to
learn options elsewhere, refine our proposals; and develop criteria, training and
infrastructure planning;
b) Create the FacultyConferenceCouncilto plana 2009 UniversityConference
• Campuses choose their representatives, who are formally appointed to the
Council by the VCAA (recognized as institutional citizenship)
• Representatives collaborate with ALG to plan faculty conference for Spring 2009
• Council/reports’ loosely to VCAA
c) ALG
• Discuss academic program review and ways to incorporate redefinitions of the
“work of the unit” and re-conceptualization of faculty roles and responsibilities.
• Actively work together to monitor the budget impact of the contractual changes;
share experiences; and, seek all opportunities to control costs through resource
sharing of all sorts.
• Continue to support and build cross-campus collaboration(s) that support
teaching and learning
• Address the need to assure a university-wide academic perspective and faculty
voice at the university level
d) ULe
Several critical faculty-related policies need to be reviewed in addition to those in this
report:
• Faculty compensation practices across the campuses affect ability to retain and
recruit.
• The aging of faculty means an increase in hiring over next 10 years. This means
we should think about more flexible retirement packages to provide program”
continuity as well as appropriate opportunity for our faculty.
• Overload policies and practices are inconsistent across campuses
• Consulting and external work policies are inconsistent across the campuses
Respectfully submitted by the Blue Book Commission: Laurien Alexandre, AU; Joy Ackerman, ANE;
Michele Briton-Bass, ASB; Betsy Geist, ASea; Steve Guerriero, ANE; MeHee Hyun, ALA; Susan Nero, ALA;
Ann Prouty-Lyness, ANE; Zak Sharif, AM; Ormond Smythe, ASea; Jon Wergin, PhD in L’ship & Change;
his Weisman, AM; Richard Whitney, ASB
