Glen A. Jones Ontario Research Chair in Postsecondary Education Policy and Measurement Trends in Academic Governance in Canada

Agenda Overview of university governance in Canada Governing boards Senates Recent findings Key issues

University Governance in Canada Colonial “government” boards made up of members of colonial legislature 19th century experimentation 20th century – bicameralism as the dominant model

Canadian approach Separate act creating university as autonomous, not-for-profit, private corporation Act provides university with broad mission Act creates Governing Board, Senate Many unique arrangements (Quebec, Newfoundland, etc.)

Governing Boards Jones and Skolnik (1997) study of 45 university boards Average size of board = 27 members Internal members = 1/3 of total –Faculty = 17% of total members –Students = 9 % of total members –President = voting member of all boards

Governing Boards External members = 2/3 of total –Lay-members appointed by government or board –90% of universities include alumni members Members – most are mature and well- educated

Governing Boards Occupation of members: –Education sector (37% - includes internal) –Business (26% - frequently executives) –Professions (13% - law, accounting, medicine) –Other sectors (11% - Non-profit, government) –Retired (11%)

Governing Boards Jones/Skolnik study suggested that boards are working reasonably well Members believed they had the information and knowledge they need Boards were viewed as effective with clear roles

University Senates Jones, Shanahan and Goyan (2004) focusing on senior academic decision- making body (senate, general faculties council, academic board) Average size of senate = 61 (considerable variation)

University Senates Internal members = 95% –Faculty = 44% (100% of Universities) –Students = 18% (100%) –VPs/Deans = 12% (76%) –Other senior admin = 11% (83%) –Staff = 6% (54%) –Board members = 3% (49%) –Affiliated colleges = 2% (27%) –Others = 2% (22%) –Alumni = 2% (34%) –President/Rector/Principal = 2% (90%) –Government Appointment = 1% (10%) –Chancellor = 1% (41%)

University Senates Only 44% of members believed it was “effective” 65% believe that it is an important forum for discussion Major differences in the role that senate members believe it SHOULD play compared with those it DOES play

University Senates Play a role in establishing research policy –Should = 78% agree –Does = 44% agree Play a role in determining the future direction of the university –Should = 89% agree –Does = 43% agree Also: fundraising priorities, strategic research directions, budget, quality assessment

University Senates Major findings –Faculty are not a majority of senate members –Important forum for communication, but not an effective governing body –Concerns about the role of the senate in relation to strategic academic decisions –Concerns about the role of the senate in relation to board, administration, and faculty association –Need to reform

University Senates Currently repeating the senate study with Lea Pennock (Saskatchewan) and Jeff Leclerc (Manitoba) Received responses form 48 university secretaries (40 completed responses) and currently surveying senate members

Have there been changes to senate? In legislation? (29% said yes) In constitutional documents (43%) In committee structure (73%)

What are some of these changes? New universities Removing government appointments Representation from contract/part-time faculty Increasing faculty representation (new faculties/departments) Rationalizing committee structure

Some key issues Faculty engagement (with competing priorities) Scope of authority (academic planning, quality, research, fundraising, budget) Size and committee structure (Capable of making decisions? Using faculty time wisely) Orientation and education

Moving forward … Academic governance is key to the future of higher education in Canada We need to rethink academic governance for the 21 st century

Thank you!