Resolution Concerning Campus Committees

December 7, 2001

Many faculty members have expressed concern with regard to our newly-formed "Campus Committees." These concerns might be summarized as follows:

1. These "long-range planning" committees appear to be a complete substitute for the Strategic Planning process that we have already completed. Not only have each of these issues been addressed, but an enormous amount of work was accomplished in a very short period of time. To quote the strategic plan as issued on April 28, 2000, "Virtually all faculty and staff at RGC participated in the work on one of these committees." Again according to the plan, "On March 24, 2000, the SPC (Strategic Planning Committee) presided over the largest gathering of faculty and staff in the history of Rio Grande College; the faculty and staff discussed and reviewed strategic issues." When the strategic plan was completed, it was unanimously endorsed by a resolution of the faculty senate; it was not the work of only a few.

2. It would appear that once again, we are simply being asked to revise and resubmit our previous work. Not only is this a great burden in terms of time and energy, the work of these new committees might inappropriately be interpreted as a revision of our original suggestions. It is understandable that the faculty be asked to exclude recommendations of separation from Sul Ross; however, there were 11 other strategic objectives discussed in the strategic plan which the administration has completely rejected, despite their assurances that we may use those objectives as a starting point in the new committee structure. There is no reason to believe that the new committees will come up with issues substantially different from those covered in the aborted Strategic Plan.

3. It seems inappropriate that only 14 of our 22 faculty members have been asked to participate on one of the new committees. Many of our senior faculty members, some of whom served on the strategic planning committee, have been excluded. How can we develop yet another vision of our future if we exclude the opinions of 36 percent of our faculty. In addition, without the participation of senior faculty, untenured faculty members might believe that they cannot fully express their opinions on a variety of matters crucial to the future of RGC.

4. The faculty and staff of Rio Grande College were asked to develop a strategic plan using a broad-based "collegial" model, as outlined in the presentation of a consultant, Dr. Shirley. We expended a great deal of effort to do precisely that. An alternative to the collegial model, according to Dr. Shirley, is the "top-down" or administrative model of strategic planning. Given that our collegial strategic plan was rejected "in toto," it would seem more appropriate to adopt the administrative model.

Therefore these new committees, which have been charged with developing an "alternative" to our strategic plan, should be comprised solely of administrative staff. The faculty of RGC would be glad to have the opportunity to review and comment on any documents produced by such committees.

Following a discussion of the preceding issues, the Faculty Senate of RGC adopted the following resolution:

Be it resolved that the following represents the sense of the RGC Faculty Senate:

"Since it is apparent that the new 'campus committee' long-range planning process will go forward as proposed, and in light of the issues outlined above, the ultimate product of these new committees will not represent the collective and collegial views of the faculty of SRSU-Rio Grande College."