Par Isabelle Rey-Lefebvre. La démarche n’est pas banale: cinq présidents des conférences des doyens (c'est-à-dire des directeurs) d’UFR - unité de formation et de recherche, appelées avant 1968 les facultés - font cause commune pour réclamer plus de poids dans la conduite des universités.
Dans un communiqué commun du 4 avril signé des doyens des facultés de droit et sciences politiques, des Sciences, des lettres et langues et sciences humaines, des Sciences et techniques, des activités physiques et sportives et des sciences économiques et de gestion, ne manquent à l’appel que les doyens des fac de santé, les directeurs veulent être entendus et associés aux décisions de leur université. "Nous sommes des intermédiaires indispensables entre la direction et les enseignants et étudiants, nous sommes l'échelon efficace pour que l’université fonctionne bien" souligne Jean-Marc Broto, président de la conférence des doyens de fac de sciences, "Le projet de loi de Madame Fioraso comporte des progrès avec la création d’un conseil des directeurs de composantes mais ne va pas assez loin et est trop flou" plaide  Jean Marc Broto président de la conférence des doyens des facultés de sciences « le projet de loi menace l’action des UFR voire leur existence » Suite de l'article...

By John M. Baworowsky. Working with faculty members can lead to better decisions in enrollment management, John M. Baworowsky writes in a guest post today. Such a partnership can be valuable in designing new programs, marketing the institution, and more, says Mr. Baworowsky, vice president for enrollment management at Dominican University of California.
The concept of shared governance is a cornerstone of our decision-making structure. In 1920 the American Association of University Professors issued a statement calling for shared responsibility between faculty members, administrators, and boards. The organization asserted that higher-education institutions cannot adequately prepare students in an environment where faculty members have no input or control. Consequently, governance, or decision making, is shared between the administration and the faculty with the ultimate goal of producing better outcomes for students. Read more...

By Martin Kirk. There is a “right” amount of administration in every organization that provides the appropriate level of support for the core mission of the business. This maxim is true of the administration of research.
At a university, the right level ensures that we comply with regulations and terms of grants and that friction-free systems for managing applications and grants are in place.  At the funding agencies, the right level ensures well-run programs, workable policies and terms, and excellent adjudication processes and support through the application process. In administration, the quality and effectiveness of the people involved add value. Read more...

By Patrick J. Monahan. York University modernized its system for choosing academic administrators based on research about what works. Given the increasing competitive pressures and financial challenges facing universities across North America, most academic administrators recognize that strong and effective leadership is a key ingredient for institutional success. Yet, while there has been a proliferation of writing on the topic of what effective academic leadership entails, relatively little scholarly attention has been paid to the selection process for academic leaders. Are there certain kinds of processes or methodologies that are more likely to result in the selection of more successful academic leaders?
Over the last decade, the procedures governing senior academic searches at York University, where I served as a dean and then as provost from 2003 to 2012, have changed considerably. The key driver behind this evolution has been a widely shared desire at the university to improve the reliability and the validity of the academic search process by imparting a greater sense of discipline and rigour. Read more...

Blog Educpros de Pierre Dubois. Réforme des conseils de l’université: quid de leurs compétences délibératives et/ou consultatives? On note des différences entre les propositions du rapport Le Deaut (pages 18 à 27) et celles de la version du 15 janvier 2013 du projet de loi Fioraso (pages 16 à 25). Ces dernières créent une rupture avec la gouvernance instaurée par la loi LRU. Le problème, c’est qu’on ne comprend pas le pourquoi des modifications, leur fil conducteur. Je doute même qu’elles « instaurent une gouvernance plus efficace, plus démocratique et plus collégiale », comme le souhaite le député de Lorraine.
En matière de gouvernance, les universités auront moins d’autonomie. Dans l’application du principe tant vanté de « subsidiarité », l’État reprend des prérogatives (cf. chronique à venir sur la composition des conseils centraux). Un exemple, c’est le recteur d’Académie qui nommera les personnalités extérieures du Conseil d’administration (article 712-3 modifié, page 19). Ces personnalités participeront désormais à l’élection du président.
1. Le président. Un seul mandat de cinq ans au lieu d’un mandat de quatre ans renouvelable une fois. C’est un retour à la loi de 1984. Pourquoi? Si la loi Fioraso s’applique dès 2014 et si des élections aux conseils centraux s’ensuivent, comme en 2008 après la publication de la loi LRU en 2007, que deviendront les présidents qui exercent aujourd’hui un second mandat? Il serait logique qu’ils ne puissent être « confirmés » dans leurs fonctions car ils auront alors « fait le président » pendant 6 ans (4 + 2). Exeunt en 2014 les présidents réélus en 2012?
2. Deux conseils centraux (conseil d’administration et conseil académique) au lieu de trois (CA, CS, CEVU). Pourquoi? Pour faire mieux interagir la recherche, la formation et la vie étudiante? Hypothèse hardie!
3. Compétences des deux Conseils et du Président (article L 721-1 modifié). « Le président de l’université par ses décisions, le conseil d’administration par ses délibérations et le conseil académique, par ses délibérations et avis, assurent l’administration de l’université » (page 16). Le projet de loi semble donc suivre le rapport Le Déaut: celui-ci propose en effet de doter le CS et le CEVU de compétences délibératives dans le champ de leurs missions, et prévoit un mécanisme de conciliation en cas de décisions du CS et du CEVU que le CA estimerait incompatibles avec la stratégie ou le budget de l’université.
Mais les articles suivants sont beaucoup moins clairs (article  L 719.2) car les verbes utilisés sont flottants. Le Conseil d’administration « approuve », « vote », « adopte », « fixe », « autorise », « délibère », « peut déléguer au président ». Le Conseil académique « adopte », « donne un avis », « est consulté et peut émettre des vœux ». Des conflits de compétences entre le CA et le CA sont prévisibles. Le projet de loi ne prévoit pas d’instance de conciliation!
Le projet de loi (article 712-4 modifié, page 22) prévoit que « le conseil académique adopte les règles relatives aux examens », prérogative actuellement du conseil d’administration. Il pourrait donc décider de modalités de contrôle des connaissances encore plus laxistes que celles instaurées par l’arrêté Wauquiez d’août 2011. Le risque d’un laxisme accru n’est pas nul: en effet, les étudiants et les doctorants constitueraient de 35 à 45% des membres élus de ce conseil.
4. Délégations de compétences: elles vont dans toutes les directions, bref une subsidiarité à géométrie variable, remontante ou descendante. Du conseil d’administration vers les directeurs de composantes ou le conseil académique pour la nomination des différents jurys (page 18). Du Conseil d’administration vers la présidence (page 21): « Le Conseil d’administration peut déléguer au président le pouvoir d’adopter les décisions modificatives du budget ». Le président aurait alors une prérogative financière énorme, gage d’un renforcement de son pouvoir. Du conseil académique vers une de ses sections…
5. Multiplication du nombre d’instances. Conseil académique en formation restreinte aux enseignants-chercheurs: « il est l’organe compétent pour l’examen des questions individuelles relatives au recrutement, à l’affectation, et à la carrières des enseignants-chercheurs et personnels assimilés »… Plus loin: il ne fait que donner son avis sur les mutations des enseignants-chercheurs! Allez comprendre! Qui va décider le nombre, l’affectation et le montant des primes d’excellence scientifique? Le CA ou le CA ?
Création de sections au sein du Conseil académique. « Outre la section disciplinaire (L 712-5 modifié), les statuts de l’université peuvent prévoir la mise en place de sections au sein du conseil académique. Ils précisent leurs compositions et leurs compétences respectives ainsi que les délégations de compétence du conseil aux sections » (page 24). L’article est fort cocasse: les statuts de l’université pourront donc créer deux sections au sein du conseil académique, qui seraient dénommées « conseil scientifique » et « conseil des études et de la vie universitaire ». Vous avez dit « simplification du millefeuille institutionnel »?
6. Un conseil des directeurs de composantes peut être prévu par les statuts (article 713-1 modifié): « le président associe les composantes à la préparation et à la mise en œuvre du contrat pluriannuel d’établissement ». Autre représentation des composantes par une autre voie que le conseil des directeurs : « le conseil académique comprend, pour un quart de ses membres, des représentants des composantes de l’université désignés au sein de leurs conseils, selon des modalités fixées par les statuts de l’université » (article L 712-4, page 22). Cette double voie de représentation des composantes est-elle le moyen d’une collégialité accrue ou une proposition « petit bras »!

Board Governance of Public University Systems: Stresses and Needs by C. Judson King. CSHE 16.12.
Abstract: Modes of board-level governance for public universities and especially public university systems should be re-examined in view of growing major forces that create both challenges and opportunities that are enormous for public higher education. To sustain the public mission and rise to the challenges and opportunities, there is a growing need to enhance funding from a variety of different sources, many of them private, and to map them onto new initiatives, partnerships, and directions of change. Boards of public universities need to develop new dimensions, including several of the characteristics of private-university boards that have been honed over many years. Promising alternatives to consider, alone or in combination, are public boards with mixed public-private membership, delegation of some responsibilities of university-system boards to subsidiary boards for individual campuses, more serious consideration of outsourcing components of public higher education to private universities, and possibly in some cases even conversion of public universities or components of them to private status. Several of the important considerations associated with the establishment of individual campus boards under a main system board are explored in more depth.
A TIME OF CHANGE
As the Morrill Act of 1862 has reached its sesquicentennial year, public universities in the United States are in a time of intense financial stress, large opportunities relating primarily to advances in technology, and consequently difficult but necessary change. The most visible and immediate of these changes comes from diminishing support from state governments, which in the United States are the bodies to which the public universities belong. But there are other major forces as well. Patterns of immigration, historical disadvantage, and diversification create needs to do a still better job of providing higher education to all peoples, so as to provide a vital route for upward mobility and to enable the best and the brightest from all areas of society to accomplish what they are inherently capable of doing. That has been the primary mission of the public university systems. High-speed and broadband communications provide ease of collaboration and partnership across borders and in real time. Because of broadband communication and for other reasons, there has been an immense movement toward in what is loosely called globalization, which has been most notable in the world of business. The forces of globalization have also struck universities and will do so all the more as time goes on. There is also a large potential for internet-based instruction, which is a complex arena that is being explored by nearly all universities and many persons within them in a wide variety of ways. Donwload Board Governance of Public University Systems.

By William Patrick Leonard. There have been recurring comments in America’s higher education press lamenting university governing boards' relative lack of serious institutional engagement. These concerns centre on the perception that boards too often merely rubber-stamp the administration’s recommendations.
Boards’ apparent reliance on prestige and rankings as proxies for underlying institutional quality has also been noted. One could add that many of those filling these positions appear to be more incentivised by perceived prestige and accompanying perks than by a concern for fundamental institutional welfare. In sum, they appear readily to approve proposed tuition and fees increases yet ignore the quality of the teaching and learning process that underlies the value of institutional programming. US tuition and fee increases have consistently outpaced annual increases in the Consumer Price Index for decades. As a result, parents and students have been saddled with increasing debt accompanied by a declining value added return on their investment. Research documents that US graduates’ communication, problem-solving, quantitative and other soft skill proficiencies have steadily waned in recent decades.
Boards appear to have too often approved tuition fee increases in the absence of a serious debate while failing to press institutional executives for evidence of improved learning. Primary institutional stakeholders – parents and students – are paying more, while students and subsequently employers are getting less. Boards appear to be ignoring the fundamental importance of exchanging value added for tuition charged. The growing concern over unchecked tuition charge increases may be reaching a tipping point. Federal and state intervention is on the horizon as public concern rises. Elected officials, who have previously incentivised continuing tuition charge increases with federal and state grants and subsidised loans, have joined the chorus of critics.
If the Iron Law of Social Responsibility applies to higher education, then threats of price controls and other external sanctions are real. If boards do not internally enforce more effective cost containment, while demanding academic quality, who will? External draconian measures are a possibility. Controlling costs is the key to damping tuition charge and fee increases. All institutions bear unavoidable market-driven cost increases in delivering instruction – utilities, insurance, consumables and the like are nearly unavoidable. Aside from research universities, the bulk of institutional expenditure springs from instructional programming. As gatekeepers, boards could be more active in controlling institutions' instructional programming and services, which simultaneously influence the tuition fees they must charge and the cost of delivering quality instruction.
It is far more efficient and humane to reject a proposed programme than to cancel it post-implementation. Approved programmes soon develop many supporters. If nothing changes, draconian external measures await. The prevailing criteria for board membership – political patronage, financial contributions to the institution, or celebrity – is unlikely to change.
I suggest giving the traditionally formed boards a conscience. This could be accomplished by formally reserving and-or adding voting members representing primary stakeholder groups. Many US boards have for decades given a token voice to primary stakeholders through student membership and advisory boards. It is time to take the next step and make a slight augmentation to boards' composition. I suggest giving students, parents and employer representatives a place at the table, with a vote. A voice for graduate and professional schools admitting graduates might also be considered.
Many boards already have student members. They are poster children at best. They tend to be handpicked for their likely sympathies by the administration. Moreover most, if not all, student members are denied the vote on a range of financial matters. Hence, they are hardly more than muted puppets, rather than proactive representatives of a primary stakeholder group. Allowing the student body to elect their voting board representative(s) will help validate that their member speaks for them and not the administration.
Advisory bodies are also said to provide boards with the insights of one or more stakeholder groups. Lacking the weight of a vote their counsel, by definition, is non-binding and may not even be formally memorialised in the record of board deliberations. Employers, as the primary consumers of an institution’s product, its graduates, should have a formal voice and vote on the board. Backed up with a vote, this core group could provide relevant feedback on the proficiencies, hard and soft, exhibited by the institution’s graduates. Academic programming presents an unfamiliar array of problems and opportunities that are far less tangible than building or labour contracts. The accepted dogma presented by the administration, and often supported by the faculty, is that the proposed programme is a necessity and that its productivity and quality are too illusive to be systematically measured.
Too often boards accede to the self-serving interests of institutional leadership, reinforced by faculty governance; after all, they are the experts.
I am not suggesting a major alteration of board membership. Rather, I am saying that representation of a few primary constituencies – students, parents paying the bills and employers hiring the institution’s graduates – could provide a focused conscience to help boards to reconnect tuition charges and value added.
* William Patrick Leonard is vice dean of SolBridge International School of Business in Daejeon, Republic of Korea.