Editor鈥檚 Note: This is one of a series of articles by the chairs of Faculty Senate councils and committees. Marcia Killien is chair of the Faculty Council on Tri-Campus Policy.
The 91爆料 evolved from one to three campuses in 1989. However, only recently was this development so recognized in the Faculty Code of the University Handbook. Changes in the code, as the result of recent Executive Orders, became effective this month. They were the result of months of deliberations within the Faculty Council on Tri-Campus Policy, the faculty organizations of all three campuses, and among the campus鈥� administrations.
The Faculty Council on Tri-Campus Policy was established in 2001 for the purpose of coordinating policies that affect faculty of all campuses of the University. Faculty of each campus are equally represented on this council. The need to recognize and clarify relationships and processes among the three 91爆料 campuses has been a major focus of the council鈥檚 work.
The recent changes in the Faculty Code formalize several important structures and processes. First, the three campuses (91爆料 Seattle, 91爆料 Bothell, and 91爆料 Tacoma) are identified as parallel entities rather than the two newest campuses being 鈥渂ranches鈥� of the oldest established campus in Seattle. Additionally, the list of schools and colleges of the Seattle campus is updated to reflect recent changes and provides a structure to allow the recognition of collegiate level units when they established on the Bothell and Tacoma campuses. Relationships and parallels among the campus administrative structures are identified, and language has been updated to acknowledge the potential for male and female leadership within the University.
Importantly, the changes clarify that the Faculty Code applies to all university faculty (of all three campuses) while recognizing the role of separate faculty organizations at 91爆料B and 91爆料T. Revisions incorporate mandated consultation between the chancellors of 91爆料B and 91爆料T with the elected representatives of those faculty organizations, in a manner similar to consultation between the President and the Faculty Senate representatives at Seattle and University-wide. Changes also validate that the voting structures of the faculty appointment, promotion and tenure procedures of the Faculty Code now clearly apply equally to each of the campuses, while recognizing different campus structures.
Faculty at 91爆料B and 91爆料T have urged this recognition and clarification in the Faculty Code for some time, while the Seattle faculty have been less aware of the need for changes in the code. Seattle faculty have perhaps enjoyed the 鈥渟tatus-quo鈥� since the Code was developed when only the Seattle campus existed. However, the need to discuss and clarify relationships among the three campuses has now gained the attention of many within the University community, due, in part, to the recommendations of the 2003 University Accreditation Committee. In its report, the Committee pointed out that while the 91爆料鈥檚 self-study described a 鈥渢ransformation from a university with three campuses to a coordinated multi-campus university,鈥� they found a lack of reconciliation between the clear diversity of the missions of each of the three campuses and the concept of 鈥渙ne university.鈥�
The discussions in the Council on Tri-Campus Policy and the Faculty Senate have highlighted future challenges for each campus to redefine its identity, structure and processes within a three-campus university. Not unlike the changes experienced by all family members as adolescents move into adulthood, the development of the three campuses of the 91爆料 requires renegotiation of roles and relationships for all involved, not just the 鈥渘ew鈥� campuses. Indeed, it may be the Seattle campus that faces the largest challenges.
91爆料B and 91爆料T have their own faculty governance bodies, while the Faculty Senate functions simultaneously as the campus faculty organization for 91爆料 Seattle and the faculty organization for the University as a whole. While 91爆料B and 91爆料T are represented on the Faculty Senate and on its various Councils, they are underrepresented relative to Seattle faculty. As a result, the agendas and discussion of the Senate and Councils tends to be 鈥淪eattle-centric.鈥�
Should this change? Does the Seattle campus need its own faculty organization to focus on campus matters while a separate faculty organization addresses University-wide issues? How can each campus develop with freedom and autonomy to meet unique missions and yet promote coordination and collaboration to optimize the richness of the entire University? Through the Faculty Council on Tri-Campus Policy, faculty have the opportunity to identify and address the matters of most importance to them, to each campus and to the University as a whole.