Round Table: On the Implications of the 19th Chinese Communist Party Congress 3 November 2017 With Global Access Via MediaSite

 

 

We will be hosting a Round Table on the Implications of the 19th Chinese Communist Party Congress this Friday, November 3, from 10 AM through Noon.  It is sponsored by Penn State Law, Penn State School of International Affairs, the Coalition for Peace & Ethics, and the Foundation for Law and International Affairs along with its Research Career Development Network of Law and International Affairs.

The Round Table brings together a group of scholars from the U.S., Europe and China.  The Round Table will be held at Pennsylvania State University, Katz Building Room 241.  For those unable to attend the Round Table will also be live streamed globally (accessible through Penn State's Mediasite: http://mediasite.dsl.psu.edu/mediasite/Play/4d93fb185798486e9742e197aac8685e1d). A recording of the Round Table will be posted after the event.

 

 

You are all welcome to attend and participate.  Remote access participants will be able to send their questions and comments online.  

More information, including Concept Note and Participant List may be accessed HERE. 

Relevant primary source materials in English and Chinese may be accessed HERE.

Rule By Administrative Task Force--End Running the Institutional Voice of the Faculty and Undermining Shared Governance

(Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2014)

One of the most interesting issues facing universities, as institutional actors, is the future of shared governance, especially in the effectiveness of shared governance with the institutional voice of the faculty. Universities have sometimes succumbed to the temptation of invoking formal institutional structures to mask efforts (deliberate or unconscious) to undercut the role of faculty in university governance. (Backer, Larry Catá, Between Faculty, Administration, Board, State, and Students: On the Relevance of a Faculty Senate in the Modern U.S. University (February 10, 2013)). 

The increasing resort to university task forces, in lieu of engagement with shared governance partners provides a case in point. These task forces, usually composed of administrative functionaries or their representatives, reporting directly to the highest levels of university administration, and including specially designated faculty, chosen for their expertise or from a stable of "usual suspects", have tended to produce recommendations and action plans that avoid the need to engage faculty representatives in those key areas of policy formulation and implementation at the core of shared governance.  Though task forces serve a useful purpose, the composition and deployment of this specific form fo task force ought to cause concern. 

This post considers the way this may occur by positing a hypothetical decision by a university administration in a "conventional"  public university to establish two task forces--a sexual assault and harassment task force and a health care and benefits advisory task force--and their potential consequences for faculty shared governance at the institutional level.  These task forces can be used to co-opt internal discussions of institutional responses to internal governance matters as well as to short circuit internal engagement with external pressures for institutional change. The former is exemplified by "benefits" task forces; the latter by sexual assault task forces. 

The bottom line is simple enough to grasp--the more an administration "engages" its stakeholders through task forces, the less likely there will be an appropriate engagement by the institutional voice of the faculty in those areas now pre-empted by task force mandates. Where administrations seek to govern through task forces, they maintain the appearance of shared governance but eliminate its effect precisely because they control access to membership, the scope of their mandates, and the framework of debate.   Though task forces serve useful purposes, they ought not to be substituted for engagement with the representatives of the faculty and faculty voices that administrations (and boards) may not think to hear. 

Implementing the Affordable Care Act at Penn State--Employer Responsibility Provisions and the Part Time Employee

 (Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2014)

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) ― also known as the Affordable CareAct or ACA ― is the health reform legislation passed by the 111th Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama in March 2010. The so-called employer responsibility provision of ACA (ACA § 1511 et seq.) must be implemented by all large employers, including Penn State, in 2014. The employer responsibility provisions primarily affect part-time faculty and staff. Employer penalties will be assessed if Penn State does not offer affordable health care to 95% of its employee population who meet the "full time" employee criteria of ACA.

But this requires defining part time employees. This is a straightforward exercise for hourly employees (assuming hours are fairly and completely counted, something of an open question in some institutions given working time assumptions). It becomes more difficult where hours are not counted directly, especially for example for teaching staff. As such, the determination of part time employment may in reality involve policy choices, and produce consequences, well beyond the extent to which the university is compelled by law, or obliged through the constraints of the social norms within which it operates, to provide benefits. And as an "industry leader", the choices Penn State makes will have some substantial influence of the approach generally adopted by other universities. As such, consideration of Penn State's ACA requirements has national dimensions.

Though it already appears to have moved to implement these provisions as it sees fit, Penn State has also nodded, if only as a matter of empty courtesy, in the direction of consultation with affected stakeholders, including the university faculty Senate. Originally that "transparency" effort was to be presented in the form of an "informational report" funneled through the Senate Faculty Benefits Committee. After sustained discussion about its form and content, I agreed to sponsor, in its place, a forensic discussion about the university's approach to ACA compliance (at least in this respect) as originally set out in that draft report.

This post includes the Forensic materials: Implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) at Penn State: Employer Responsibility Provisions; Part Time Benefits and High Deductible Plans.
Feedback and comments on the university's implementation approaches as described below would be most welcome. 

Statement and White Paper From Penn State Faculty--"Assessing the Evidence for Penn State University’s “Take Care of Your Health” Benefits Program"

 (Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2013)

In the run up to the September 10, 2013 University Faculty Senate meeting to be held on the Penn State University Park campus (agenda HERE) and discussion about the new Penn State Wellness Program, some faculty have issued a statement and a report that might be of interest to those who are interested in the wider debate about changes to benefit structures in American enterprises, including universities.  This debate will likely have repercussions not just within the industry of the university but also influence the way that businesses may approach benefits and wellness programs for their own employees.  For that reason alone, this debate between faculty, university administrators and the health benefit provider industry may be useful for students of American industry and health policy and administration. One hopes that university administrators, like the faculty at Penn State will profit from a careful reading and consideration of these contributions ot the debate.   

This post includes: (1)  Statement of Jim Ruiz, Associate Professor of Criminal Justice and Matthew Woessner, Associate Professor of Political Science, to the Members of the Penn State University Faculty Senate dated Sept. 8, 2013; and (2)  Dennis Scanlon and Dennis Shea, "Assessing the Evidence for Penn State University's 'Take Care of Your Health' Benefits Program," Sept. 9, 2013 (the authors are professors in the Department of Health Policy & Administration, Penn Sate University).

Upcoming Senate Forensic Session--"Search for the Next University President--Senate Input"

I am happy to announce that at the last Senate Council meeting there was a consensus for formal Senate participation in the recent efforts by the outside consulting firm Isaacson Miller to gather information from important stakeholders at the university about what the Presidential search committees ought to be looking for in reviewing candidates for the next president of Penn State.  

(Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2013)

The forensic session will take place at the last Senate meeting of the Spring Term, April 23, 2013 at Kern Hall at Penn State. All faculty are encouraged to send their thoughts to their Senate representatives and all Senators are encouraged to speak up during the forensic.  The session is as important for whatever insights our executive search firm may choose to draw form it as it for the faculty's discussion of its sense of the appropriate relationships between faculty and high administrative officials and the character consequentially, of those who are fit to hold that position.  It is, in this sense, an important marker of faculty thinking about the character of shared governance and its expression in the person and office of president.  I am looking forward to a lively and informative session.  

Statement of Senate Chair Made at the March 12, 2013 Penn State University Faculty Senate Meeting: Restructuring the Way We Operate

The Penn State University Faculty Senate held its fourth meeting of this academic year on Tuesday January 29, 2013 (e.g. Faculty Senate March 12, 2013 Meeting Agenda).

(Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2013)

 I used the occasion to speak to the important reports of the Special Committee on University Governance, and those relating to faculty salaries, tenure flows, and informational reporting.  

I am pleased to report that at the meeting the University Faculty Senate endorsed the Report of the Special Committee for University Governance,   "Improving the Governance of Penn State, Revising the Structure of its Board of Trustees, and Furthering the Academic Mission of the University:  Report and Recommendations of the Special Committee on University Governance."  That endorsement will be conveyed to the Penn State University Board of Trustees.

Report of the Special Committee on University Governance: Improving the Governance of Penn State, Revising the Structure of its Board of Trustees, and Furthering the Academic Mission of the University: Report and Recommendations

The Pennsylvania State University Faculty Senate Committee on University Governance was formed on March 15, 2012 with the following objectives:

--Examine the structure, functions, practices, and responsibilities of the Penn State Board of Trustees vis-à-vis interactions with constituent groups (students, alumni, staff, faculty, and administration);

--Compare and benchmark those attributes with peer institutions;

--I-dentify and recommend ways to improve and enhance interactions, including flow of information, and the interface of the University Faculty Senate, students, staff, and Administration with the Board of Trustees;

--Prepare and submit a report of findings and recommendations to the Faculty Senate officers 

 (Pix Penn State Live)

The  SCUB charge may be accessed here.  SCUB presented its report to the Senate Council on February 19, 2013.

This post presents the executive summary of that report.  The FULL REPORT SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON UNIVERSITY GOVERNANCE Improving the Governance of Penn State, Revising the Structure of its Board of Trustees, and Furthering the Academic Mission of the University: Report and Recommendations of the Special Committee on University Governance (February 2013) MAY BE ACCESSED HERE: SCUG_Final_Report.

Informal Notes and MInutes of the February 19, 2013 Senate Council Meeting

On Tuesday, February 19, 2013, the Penn State Faculty Senate Council held a regularly scheduled meeting.  This post provides an informal summary of the meeting.  In the event of conflict the formal minutes will be regarded as authoritative.  

(Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2012)

I thank to Tram Turner for excellent note taking.

Diversity Awareness Task Force: Statement to the University Faculty Senate January 29, 2013

The Penn State University Faculty Senate held its fourth meeting of this academic year on Tuesday January 29, 2013 (e.g. Faculty Senate January 29 Meeting Agenda).  

(Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2013)

For that meeting I invited representatives from the recently formed Diversity Awareness Task Force. The task force was formed in mid-December following the Chi Omega Mexican theme party and photo. In my capacity as Senate Chair I have spoken to that issue as well. Sadly those comments never made it to our website, but may be found on my Senate Chair blog—The Faculty Voice (Statement From the Penn State University Faculty Senate Chair ).  

 

Speaking on behalf of the task force were graduate student senator Brian Aynardi and Melissa Creely. This post provides a transcipt of their statement. Both the Senate Chair and the University Interim Provost responded positively to the call for a task force and we can hope that it is constituted in short order and begins its work.

 

Official Minutes of the Senate Council Meeting of January 15 2013

The University Faculty Senate Council met on January 15, 2013.  The official minutes are produced below.

(Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2013)

A couple of points are worth emphasizing, principally because they are well buried in the official minutes.  The first touches on my remarks about the role of the Senate Council.  For some time now I have become increasingly concerned about the legitimacy of a Senate structure in which much of the basic decisions  at the highest level are taken without review by a small group of up to five people (Chair, Chair Elect, Immediate Past Chair (sometimes) and the Executive Director), one of whom is neither elected nor accountable directly to the representative body of the Senate.  The process is neither as transparent as it could be nor is it an inclusive as it ought to be.  It furthers the isolation of the leadership group and produces the remoteness and disconnection that was, in large part, an object of severe criticism in the Freeh Group report when considering a similar tendency among senior administrators before November 2011. One way to reduce the potential for and the appearance of an anti-democratic  process is to more intensely involve the Senate Council in the sort of work now routinely undertaken by the smaller group.  It ought to function more like the Penn State President's Council than as a body that is either viewed as an impediment to action or as something that must be managed to a coerced conformity to realities dictated from--views held in the past. I have done what I can to engage the Senate Council more often and more deeply, but I think structural reform is also necessary. It is my hope that the Senate Self Study Committee will take this opinion seriously and seek to restructure our organization to hard wire a more engaged and involved Senate Council.

The second touches on the report expected form the Senate Board of Trustees Committee headed by John Nichols. The work of that Committee in the view of our Board of Trustees has morphed from a tangential consideration of the relationship between the Senate and the Board of Trustees to something like a Senate report and recommendations on Board restructuring.  The confidence of our Board on this Committee is gratefully acknowledged and appreciated.  We hope the Report is taken seriously.  But we also expect that the Report will constitute only one part of what may be a more comprehensive Senate report to the Board of Trustees.  It is possible that once circulated, the Senate may wish to add commentary or recommendations; it is likely that I will in my capacity as Chair. My focus will be on the form of board monitoring of university activities and the autonomous role of the Senate in the fulfillment of that duty.  It is to be hoped that the Board considers all of these as it moves forward.

Agenda for Upcoming Senate Council Meeting of Jan 15 2013

The agenda for the Penn State Senate Council meeting scheduled for January 15, 2013 has been finalized. It is set out here.  

(Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2013)

The agenda includes consideration of a number of important informational reports.  In an effort to make our work more transparent I have included many of them here as well.  It would be useful for stakeholders to read these before our meeting and send comments either via this post or directly to the Senate officers (www.senate.psu.edu ).

Senate Forensic on Senate Institutional Reoorganization

As part of my remarks at the October Penn State University Faculty Senate Meeting I mentioned the work of a new Self Study Task Force:

Last, I think the lessons of governance reform ought to be applied to the Senate as well. To that end, I have charged a Senate Self-Study Committee, chaired by Mohamad Ansari. Periodic self-study is a vital part of institutional renewal. It is an exercise that helps maintain an institution’s relevance and connection with its members. It provides a chance for reflection on the large issues of governance and the institutionalization of the faculty voice within the context of university shared governance. Self study also provides the Senate with an opportunity to take a hard and dispassionate view of itself and to reorganize itself so that its organization complements those of the administration (and its operations) and is consistent with the priorities of university strategic planning in ways that most effectively provides voice to issues of greatest concern to faculty. This is expected to be a major task. Everything is on the table: including the current organization of the Senate whose work is now split among 15 standing committees and a Senate Council, the production of altogether too many informational reports, the effectiveness of the Senate processes for engagement with its members and the faculty at large, and the organization of the administrative offices of the Senate—its budget, autonomy, and operations.

(Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2013)

Here is the Committee Charge: Senate Self-Study Committee Charge 9/17/12. The Committee has been hard at work and is preparing a forensic discussion for the January Senate meeting.  I have included here the text of the forensic report.  In subsequent posts I will be discussing my own views about the scope and direction of necessary change for a revitalized Senate institutional structure.  I urge anyone with ideas or suggestions to contact the committee chair before the January meeting so that he may have an opportunity to address your input.

Informal Notes and MInutes of the November 13, 2012 Senate Council Meeting

On November 13, 2012, the Penn State Faculty Senate Council held a regularly scheduled meeting.  This post provides an informal summary of the meeting.  In the event of conflict the formal minutes will be regarded as authoritative.  

(Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2012)

I was unable to attend and Chair Elect Brent Yarnel chaired in my place (my thanks to him!). My Thanks to Tram Turner for excellent note taking.  Most interesting was the discussion on the report by the Intra University Relations Committee on fixed term faculty--a topic that continues to be sensitive.  Most interesting in that regard is how sensitivity appears to affect a willingness toward open discussion of issues. But the issues are important and could profit from a wider engagement by interested people.  Please send in your comments.  If there is sufficient interest I will circulate the report.  

Rulemaking From the Bottom Up--The Student Conduct Code Moves Forward Led By Our Students--And that is a Good Thing

At the Penn State University Faculty Senate second meeting of this academic year (e.g. Faculty Senate October 16 Meeting Agenda) I spoke to the work of the Senate in helping consolidate and make more relevant the Student Conduct Code at the University. See Statement of Senate Chair Made at the October 16, 2012 Penn State University Faculty Senate Meeting.

(Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2012)

Not all members of the administration or of the Senate have welcomed this move.  I am pleased to see, though, that students have been taking the initiative--something that has been long overdue.  As Senate chair I welcome this initiative; if shared governance means anything it should mean that the objects of regulation should have a substantial voice in organizing the rules  which will bind them.  It is time for faculty and administration to show less arrogance and more humility in the face of students who smarter, better directed and more willing to engage in the process of self governance than at any time before.  Like any other group, including faculty, at the university, if we expect students to embrace conduct rules, they ought to feel invested in their construction and operation--and not not as photo opportunities. And because they are students, the rules that ought to bind them  ought to be focused on their needs, rather than on the social engineering or management control agendas of others.

This post  includes parts of a story recently posted to the Penn State Collegian Online about student efforts at participating int he reform of the conduct code (Jess Savarese, CCSG to Talk About Honor Code, Collegian OnLine, Nov. 9, 2012)and the charge to the Student Conduct Code committee. You comments about this Honor Code project is actively solicited!

Statement of Senate Chair Made at the October 16, 2012 Penn State University Faculty Senate Meeting

The Penn State University Faculty Senate held its second meeting of this academic year on Tuesday October 16, 2012 (e.g. Faculty Senate October 16 Meeting Agenda).

(Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2012)

I used the occasion to speak to a number of important initiatives that have been commenced by the Senate in furtherance of shared governance.  These include:

Senate Self-Study Committee Charge 9/17/12
Student Conduct Code Task Force Charge 9/17/12  (Academic Integrity/Honor Code Task Force Charge 11/1/11 - Final Report 1/9/12)
Task Force on Student Research Charge 9/17/12
External Matters Subcommittee Charge 9/4/12
Special Senate Council Task Force Charge 8/28/12
Special Committee on University Governance - Charge and Membership 3/15/12

 This post includes the remarks I made at the start of the meeting.

On the Importance of Transparency and the Relentless Pursuit of Knowledge in the Sandusky Affair--Governance in a New Era

The longer I serve as Chair of the Penn State University Senate the more convinced I am of the importance of transparency.  And I do not mean the simpleminded sloganeering that passes for transparency among administrators eager to sound good but change none of their habits, or of faculty who like the word as a fetish but fail to embrace the obligations inherent in the concept.  I mean transparency in its two forms: engagement transparency and communicative transparency.  The former requires the production and dissemination of information necessary for key stakeholders to fully participate in shared governance.  The latter requires the publication of information that clearly provides information justifying or explaining actions taken.  

(Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2012)

It is not enough to speak transparency as some sort of rhetorical trope or to wave it about like a wand that makes everything better.  Transparency is work,.  In stressful times, failures of transparency, especially where such failures go to the legitimacy of decision making and to the legitimacy of the system of governance in place, can make a bad situation worse.  Penn State provides a lesson in the good and bad of movement toward a more transparent governance structure.  Large institutions, in today's world, are constantly monitored by external organizations even if they are successful in reducing the effectiveness of internal monitoring and even as they seek to severely control the flow and content of information.  This post provides examples of the good and bad that is emerging as a result.  There are lessons here for all large organizations.

Statement of Senate Chair Made at the Aug 28, 2012 Meeting

The Penn State University Faculty Senate held its first meeting of this academic year on Tuesday August 28, 2012 (e.g. Faculty Senate August 24 Meeting Agenda).  I have spoken to the forensic discussion requested by one of our Senators to consider the NCAA sanctions and the university's response (e.g. My Thoughts on the Questions Posed for the Senate Forensic Discussion on the NCAA and Big 10 Sanctions).

(Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2012)

This post includes the remarks I made at the start of the meeting,

FAQs About the Accreditation of Penn States--The Word From the Middle States Commission on Higher Education

As can be imagined, the Middle States Commission on Higher Education action against the accreditation status of Penn State, a global 50 university, has raised eyebrows and elevated stress.

(Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2012)

In order to minimize the inflammatory nature of its action, perhaps, the Middle States Commission on Higher Education has issued a FAQs about their action against Penn State.  This is reproduced below.
Traditional information about the accreditation may be accessed HERE.

Informal Notes of August 14, 2012 Senate Council Meeting

On August 14, 2012, the Penn State Faculty Senate Council held a regularly scheduled meeting.  This post provides an informal summary of the meeting.  In the event of conflict the formal minutes will be regarded as authoritative. 

(Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2012))

My thanks to my colleagues for the great job of organizing the informal notes from which this summary was prepared. The slides of the PowerPoint Presentation made by Chair Backer at the meeting may be accessed HERE.

Board of Trustees Meeting Scheduled for Sunday to Discuss NCAA Consent Agreement

It appears that the Penn State Board of Trustees continue to change the shape of their governance habits and are becoming more intimately involved in shaping policy for the university.  

This from the Penn State Alternative Website--Onward State: "The Penn State Board of Trustees will hold a special phone conference Sunday evening at 5 p.m. to discuss the consent decree with the NCAA accepting the sanctions, a board source confirmed to Onward State earlier today."