IN THE SPRING

Questions of academic governance a

and responsibility at Grinnell have
been persistent issues for a number
oi years:

Most recently, the issue became
a pressing one in the Spring, when
decisions concerning divisional
EPC, independent proyects, and
practica credit caused studentleade
ers to demand a complete examinae
tion of the governmental structure.

In early May, the faculty voted to‘

cut in half the amount of practi-
cum credit students can count to»
wards satisfyingthe 124 creditgrad»
uation requirement.

At the same meeting, upon a rec-
ommendation of the iaculty organ—
ization committee, faculty meme
bers voted to abolish Educational
Policy Committees at the divisions
al level. Power which had been
vested in these studentefaculty
committees was transferred to
members of divisional faculties.
Earlier in the year, Dean Waldo
Walker had issued a memorandum
to the Campus outlining restrictions

which were being placed onthe num»
ber of independent projects an ins
dividual iaculty member could acc-
ebt. .
Student leaders cited all three
actions, in addition to ~the disestar
blishment 0f the Department of C07
mmunicatlons, as deciding factors
in their call for a new system of
governance. ,
Members of the SGA Cabinet used
the threat of sending a letter “ex-
pos(ing) the :alse premises that
Grinnell presents through its ad-
missions material" as a lever to
try and move the faculty to up-
grade the powers oi the All-Coll-
ege EPC and establish a Commb
ssion on governance to examine
broader structural changes,
Members of both the faculty and
the Executive Council reacted
strongly to the SGA action, rejecte
ing the demands outright. Even a
writte apology from the members
oi the cabinet did not allow mean-
ingiul negotiations to begin, and the
semester ended with nothing re-
solved,

During the summer months, the
cabinet members continued to work
on the issue by mail, with consider-
able correspondence between cable
net members and from the cabinet
to Walker and President Glenn Leggr
ett.

in August, the cabinet mailed their
now~fam0us three page letter to all
members of the student body out-
lining their views on the issue,
and their goals ior the coming
year.

This letter began the new round
of discussions on the issue of go-
vernance.

IN THE FALL

The return of student leaders inthe
fall signified a new period oi ac-
tivity around the issue oi campus
governance. in contrast to their
conirontation politics of the spring,
the student leaders opted in iavor
of commencing discussions in ear
nest in the existing structural fra-
mework. (See summary ofoperative
structure),

D .

‘Academic Governance Simplified

Academic governance at Grinnell
can involve as many as seven le-
vels, in many combinations, Some
combinations which are possible in
theory are, impossible given the
political realities of Grinnell.

Perhaps the best way to under-
stand the current structure is to
follow a theoretical academic res
form, which we shall Call kybit,
through the process.

SUB-COMMITTEEON
GOVERNANCE (ADHOC)

Ll Durkee

Luther Erickson
Robert Grey

Philip Kintuei‘
Sandy Moiiett

Don Smith

Dean Waldo Walker
Dean James Hamilton
Sheilia Cochran
Larry Cohen
Leonard Kurz
Diane Lipsky
Robert Ruhl

Scott Weil

SGA CABINET

Scott Weil
Ellen Yacknin

John Potts

Bob Ruhl

Joe Genereux

Wall-Submits Proposal ‘

by Brent Schondelmeyer
Under discussion at Monday’s fac-
ulty meeting will be a proposal
by Joseph Wall, Parker Professor
of History, The proposal will deal
with the controversial issue of es»
tablishing a commission oi gover-
nance.
The proposal reads in full: That——
"The faculty authorize the crea»
tion of a special ad Commission
to study and make recommenda-
tionS On the role of students in
the academic governance of the
College, This Commission, con-
sisting oi two faculty members and
two students with the Dean of the
College serving as Chairman, shall
be appointed by the President of
the College after consulting With
the appropriate organizations and
persons, i.e., the Student Govern-
ment Association officers, the Fac-
ulty Organization Committee and

l

FACU LTY

| \

EXECUTIVE
COUNCIL

L. Durkee

Luther Erickson
Robert Grey

Philip Kintner
William McKibben
Sandy Moffett
Helen Shipley‘

Don Smith

Robert Voertman
Dean Waldo Walker
Dean James Hamilton

sun-COMMITTEE to CONSIDER
PROCEDURES RELATED to
COLLEGE GOVERNANCE

L. Durkee
Robert Grey
Sandy Moffett
Don Smith

Kybit began as an idea in the
English Department EPC. From th—
ere, it moved to the All Campus
EPC, oliicially known as the Exe—
cutive Council Sub»C0mmittee on
Educational Policy.

Following that body’s recommendr
ation, the matter oi kybit was cons
Sidered by the Executive Council
and then by the full faculty,

the Chairman of the Faculty.

”The Commission shallbe changed
to consider proposals and guide»
lines regarding student participa-
tion in the academic governance oi
the College, including the govern.
mental structures oi other
Colleges, to evaluate theeffeclive-
ness of the presentSubrCommittee
on Educational policies of the Ex.
ecutive Council, and make its re-
port and recommendations to the
President and to the Faculty no
later than 31 January 1974.“

KNITS. ,,
”custom-blocked.
DIIV ELEANH‘IS

,
W itiuunzntns

FACULTY
ORGANIZATION

COMMITTEE

aeryl Cluttelter
Jack Dawson
David Jordan
Gerald Lalonde
Gene Wubhels

After consideration and a recom»
mendation from the faculty, theiinal
recommendation was made by the
president and clean of the College,
and kyblt was approved by the bo-
ard of trustees.

Being a major change, kybit moved
through all levels of the academic
governance structure. However, ch-
anges can be decreed by the pres-
ident of the college without consul-
tation below, and, in many cases,
without the necessity of trustee
approval.

Kybit happened to be a reform re
quiring no new committees and n
modifications of the faculty as a
organization,

Had such changes been involved
an eighth level of the decision ma
king process, the Faculty organi
zation Committee, would have com
into the picture.

It would have dealt with kybit be
fore it was considered by the tul

tarultv. _
As mentioned earlier. however

political reality has dictated tha
most issues follow the full struc
tural path,

THE GRINNELL SCARLET AND BLACK OCTOBER 12, 1973 PAGE

History of the SGA. and Governance

caninet members, President Glenn
Leggett Dean Waldo Walker in the
early weeks oi the school vear.

From these discussions Walker sub
mitted a proposal to the Executive
Council to initiate discussion on the
issue. The Executive Council acted
iavorably on this proposal andform-
ed the ad hoc SubsCommittee to Cone
sider Procedures Regarding Consl»
deration of Questions onGovernance
on September 3,

The subcommittee charge was
twofold.

First it was to “define the issues
related to a general consideration
of governance at the College." And
second, it was to “discuss’with the
SGA cabinet possible machinery
which the (Executive) Council may
Wish to establish to initiate convere
sations with the students concerns
ing the substance of the issue re
lated to governance at the College.”

The topic was discussed at various
times by the ad hoc subecommittr
ee and in the Executive Council
during the following three Weeks.
The SGA cabinet at this time ex
pressed their concern to the Exe
cutive Council that they were not
being consulted in these prellmr
inary discussions as consistentwith
the second charge to the ad hOC
sub-committee.

In a memorandum to the Executive
Council dated September 26, the
SGA cabinet Stated its desire to have
an independent agency iormed to
resolve questions concerning go-
vernance. The agency wouldbe com-
posed of members irom the various
official governing bodies within the
present structure.

As a rationale, the letter Stated:
”We feel that it would be inappro-
priate for any one agency Within a
structure under consideration to su-
pervise a serious evaluation of that
structure. it would be difficult to
obtain an objective selirevaluation
under such a procedure”

John Dawson, chairman ofthe Fac-
ulty Organization Committee, in a—
ddition to the SGA cabinet letter
presented a document to the Execu-
tive Council meeting of September
26 for its consideration. Copies of
this document have been unavail—
able.

The SGA cabinet forwarded their
letter to faculty October 3.

The following 'day Walker sent a
memorandum to all the faculty ex~
planning the actions taken by the
Executive Council the previous night
on the question of governance.

The Executive Council declined to
suspend existing “rules which
charged the Faculty Organization
Committee with receiving and con
sidering proposals ior the modify—
ing the means through which the
faculty executes its responsi-
bi ties.”ilt stated its belief that
it was the duty of the Faculty
Organization Committee to consider
all “serious" proposals by either
faculty or students "who seek to
improve structures and procedures
for dealing with issues related to
academic policy,”

The afternoon that Walker sent his

memorandum to theiaculty, October

4, there was a meeting of the Sub—
Committee of the Executive Council
on Educational Policies. Scott Wei],
SGA president asked if the rules
of the sub-committee could be sus-
pended to allow discussion by the
SGA cabinet and student members
of the All-Campus EPC On his
memorandum to the faculty of that
day.

Well felt that the sub—committee
on governance had not acted in good
faith by failing to talk with the SGA
cabinet before making its recomm-
endations t0 the Executive Council

Joe Genereux, student co-ordi-
nator, ielt that by referring the
matter to the Faculty Organization
Committee it established a machir
nery that so inhibited discussion that
it made any real Consideration of
governance a political unreality.
This was the same committee, he
noted, that abolished divisional
EPCs and wanted to close student-
faculty committees to everybody
except the members themselves.

Chairman of the Faculty, Philip
Kintner, deemed the present struc-
ture of governance as adequate
though acknowledge there existed
deficiencies. Referring the ques—
tion or governance to the Faculty
Organization Kintner believed would '
not prejudice any discussions though ,
they might limit the scope.

A willingness was expressed byDon
Smith on behalfofthe subcommittee
on governance to talk with the SGA}
cabinet and subsequently talked to
members of the Joint Boards on
Wednesday October in.

Smith encouraged the SGA to for-
mally go through the proper commi—
ttee process and take the issue to
the Faculty Organization Commi-
ttee, The setting up of an indepen-
dent commission to study gover-
nance, Smith felt, would impede
rather than -hasten the assimila-
tion of students as a recognized
part ofthe decisionrmakingprocess,

Smith commented that this could .
seriously jeapordize the ad hoc
standing oi the Ali~Lampus anu
Departmental Educational Policies
Committees and make a tabla rasa
of student involvement in govern-
ment structure.

Smith emphasized, “Remember,
it’s going to be the same people '
working together no matter what
the system IS.” An independent ',
commission would be one Where
“deliberation, in my opinion is not
apt to be productive."

Students should consolidate thepr-
ogress that they made so far and,
then proceed to evaluate the pre—1
sent system, Smith believed.

SGA cabinet members have been
meeting with individual halls to ,
discuss the issue with students.

A faculty meeting is scheduled
at 4:15 Monday in AR}! Auditor—

ium where a proposal by Profe—
ssor wall will be considered on
forming an independent commiss—
ion on governance. _ -

 

 

 

1019»l/2 Broad St.

VISIT OUR DELI AND BAKERY

A Helpful Smile In Every Aisle!

WE HAVE THE FRESHEST FRUIT AND VEGETABLES IN TOWN.

Hours: 7 a.l-n. t011p.m.
Hwy. 6 West, Grinnell

 

 

 

