4.2.b Board/administrative distinction

The governing board ensures a clear and appropriate distinction between the policy-making function of the board and the responsibility of the administration and faculty to administer and implement policy.

Judgment

x Compliance o Non-Compliance o Partial Compliance

Narrative

UL Lafayette has a coordinating board, the Louisiana Board of Regents (BOR), and a governing board, the University of Louisiana System Board of Supervisors (BOS). The BOR is the policy-making coordinating board for all higher education institutions in the State, while the BOS determines broad administrative and educational policies and procedures. The BOS approves institutional budgets, hiring and termination of employees, contracts for purchase or sale of land, and construction of buildings and facilities. The BOS also directly hires and evaluates institutional presidents, approves an institution’s degree programs, and authorizes the conferral of degrees. (See Standard 4.1 for further information on UL Lafayette’s governance structure.)

The BOS Bylaws explicitly separate the Board’s responsibility for establishing institutional policy and the responsibility of institution presidents for their execution:

General Statement of Administrative Policy. The Board shall determine broad administrative and educational policies for the conduct of all Board, System, and institutional affairs and it shall provide for the execution of its policies by the System President and by the institution Presidents.

The specific duties and powers of the BOS are delineated in the Board’s Bylaws, Part 1, Section V, entitled “Duties, Powers, and Functions.” These focus on the Board’s fiduciary and budgetary duties, approval of programs, rules for governance, student discipline and the conferral of degrees, and election of the heads of institutions. The Bylaws also empower the Board to “adopt, amend, or repeal rules and regulations necessary or proper for the business of the Board and for the governance of the institutions under its jurisdiction.” The regulations of the Board broadly establish rules for staff and academic appointments, financial procedures, receipt of gifts, intellectual property, and affiliated organizations. These duties and powers clearly circumscribe the authority of the Board and delineate its policy-making function, while leaving responsibility for implementing policy to the institution’s administration and faculty.

The Rules assign specific responsibility for the University’s administration to its president and, through him or her, to the University’s administration and faculty. As these duties demonstrate, the President’s office is responsible for ensuring that the University administration and faculty administer and implement policy. The President delegates this responsibility to the Vice Presidents according to their respective areas, as delineated in their job descriptions in Table 4.2.b – 1.

Table 4.2.b – 1: Senior Administrators’ job descriptions

Position	Administrative Officer	Position Description
President	Dr. E. Joseph Savoie	Description
Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs	Dr. Jaimie Hebert	Description
Vice President for Administration and Finance	Jerry Luke LeBlanc	Description
Vice President for University Advancement	John Blohm	Description
Senior Advisor to the President	Dr. David Danahar	Description
Director of Athletics	Dr. Bryan Maggard	Description
Director of Equity, Diversity, and Community Engagement	Dr. Taniecea Arceneaux-Mallery	Description

Part 2, Chapter III, section I of the BOS Rules is devoted to Rights, Duties, and Responsibilities of the Academic Staff. This document begins with a statement of the principle of academic freedom, thus relegating decisions about appropriate academic content to the faculty and not the Board. The policy goes on to state that “Those members of the academic staff who comprise the faculty of the System are charged to determine the educational policy of the System through deliberative action in their respective units and divisions,” thus specifying that educational policy is the realm of the faculty and not the Board.

To further define policy, the BOS and its staff periodically issue “Policy and Procedures Memoranda.” These memoranda address more narrowly focused issues such as access to student records, course articulation among institutions, and outside employment restrictions. “Policy and Procedures Memoranda” are posted on the UL System website.

As indicated in the BOS Rules, the University, on the other hand, has authority and responsibility for the implementation of Board policies. For example, while the Board ratifies faculty and staff hired by the University, the latter conducts the employment search and chooses the candidate. Similarly, while the Board approves new degree programs, those degree programs are originally designed and proposed by the faculty of the University. For example, UL Lafayette was the sole author of a proposal for an MS in Informatics, which was then approved by the BOS and the BOR.

UL Lafayette implements Board policies in its own policy documents and procedures, published in the Faculty Handbook, the Staff Handbook, the Student Handbook, and the University online Catalog. Specific explanation of the responsibilities and governance of the various administrative units at UL Lafayette can be found in the University’s Organizational Chart and Faculty Handbook.

In summary, the respective roles of the University’s administrators and faculty are:

· The President, as the chief executive officer of the institution, is responsible for the execution of the administrative and educational policies of the Board of Regents and the Board of Supervisors.

· The Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, the chief academic officer of the University, with the support of the Assistant Vice Presidents for Academic Affairs, coordinates the work of the other University Vice Presidents, and acts as chief administrative officer in the absence of the University President.

· The University Council, chaired by the Provost, is composed of the President, the Vice Presidents, the President of the Faculty Senate, the Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs, the Chief Information Officer, the Chief Communications Officer, the Athletic Director, and the Director of Equity, Diversity, and Community Engagement.

· The Deans of the eight undergraduate colleges and the Graduate School and other high-level academic administrators are responsible to the Provost for the leadership and administration of academic programs within their areas.

· The Directors of Schools, Department Heads, and Coordinators are to the responsible deans of their respective colleges for the academic, personnel, financial, and material needs of their academic units.

· Faculty participate in the University’s decision‐making process principally through their respective departments, through the Faculty Senate, and through other University committees and task forces.

In practice, the University’s signing authority chart details signatures required for different processes. Much of the deliberation and implementation of policy within the University is conducted by standing committees whose members are generally faculty and staff. An open call for volunteers to serve on these committees is conducted each year, and membership lists are public.

Most policies are developed and regularly revised through standing or special committees composed of members of the faculty, administration, and student body.

The faculty is the driving force behind academic policies, and often, the revision of policies is debated in committees formed by the Faculty Senate and occurs as a result of requests made by the Faculty Senate. This process is reflected in the Procedure for Making Changes to the Faculty Handbook. Several examples illustrate the distinction between the policy-making function of the BOS, and the responsibility of the administration and faculty to administer and implement policy.

Example 1. Th e program approval process demonstrates the division of roles of the institution and boards in program creation. This process includes policies on Letters of Intent and New Program Development. The recent creation of the MS in Informatics illustrates the process:

1. February 26, 2015 — Letter of Intent to develop a new program, authored by faculty of the School of Computing and Informatics and the Dean of the College of Sciences, submitted to Office of Academic Affairs

2. May 5, 2015 — Review and approval by Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs

3. May 14, 2015 — Submission of Letter of Intent to BOS

4. June 25, 2015 — Approval of Letter of Intent by BOS

5. August 28, 2015 — Receipt of BOR’s staff request for additional information

6. October 6, 2015 — Response to the BOR’s staff request for additional information and letters of support for program

7. November 12, 2015 — Submission of Revised Letter of Intent and Budget Form to BOR

a. December 10, 2015 – Approval of Letter of Intent by BOR (BOR Minutes, BOR Agenda, UL System Board Action)

8. May 9, 2016 — Submission of Full Proposal to BOS

9. May 11, 2016 — Receipt of additional questions from BOS

10. June 1, 2016 — Submission of revised Full Proposal to BOS

11. June 7, 2016 — Initiation of external review process

12. February 21, 2017 — Receipt of external reviewer’s report

13. March 30, 2017 — Submission of revised Full Proposal to BOS (one new course on Cloud Computing and Big Data Applications was added at the suggestion of the external reviewer)

14. April 20, 2017 — Approval of Full Proposal by BOS

15. May 22, 2017 — Approval of Full Proposal by BOR

16. November 8, 2017 — Approval of MS in Informatics course changes by the Graduate Council’s curriculum committee, for inclusion in the 2017-18 Catalog

17. Spring 2018 — Program implementation

18. August 23, 2018 — Submission of Progress Report on MS in Informatics Program (17 students enrolled)

Example 2. Although the BOS has a broad Tenure Policy that governs tenure at all institutions, each institution is responsible for developing rules and procedures for implementing it. The Office of Faculty Affairs first proposed changes to the University’s tenure clock policies to avoid an unnecessary delay in the official granting of tenure, which were subsequently approved by the Faculty Senate. The Faculty Senate in turn proposed that UL Lafayette revise its policy for requested extensions of the tenure clock, which was subsequently adopted.

Example 3. The BOS lays out the broad procedure for selecting deans, mandating that “A search committee shall be appointed by the President or his designee and contain an appropriate mix of faculty, students, staff, and others relevant to the position of interest. Every effort shall be made to secure diversity in the composition of the search committee.” Within that mandate, the University is responsible for specific implementation of the policy. Recently, UL Lafayette implemented changes to these selection procedures, with Faculty Senate and administration approval. A publicly posted Faculty Handbook Change Log documents all such changes.

Example 4. The BOS publishes a policy on emeritus faculty. UL Lafayette recently established specific guidelines within that policy, and a procedure that follows the chain of authority from faculty member to President for approving individual requests for emeritus status, and specifies the criteria and benefits of the title.