Learning Resources

Abstract: In 2009 the Arizona University System (supporting over 130,000 enrollments) through its Board of Regents directed its board president and the presidents of Arizona State University, University of Arizona, and Northern Arizona University to create an operational plan that reflected the board’s vision, goals, and strategic directions. A primary objective was to transform the system (or enterprise) vision into concrete goals and outcomes that would directly connect to financial decision making at the system and university level. The backdrop for higher education planning and budgeting expectations included the continuation of severe reductions in state funding, rapidly increasing student tuition and fees, and a call for greater accountability. The planning processes were characterized by the integration of board and presidential discussions, inclusion of constituent debate, identification of strategic choices, and approval of outcomes focused on measuring performance. The integration ran across and within three organizations or levels that included the Arizona Board of Regents, its system administration, and the three universities.

Abstract: If faculty senates are to maintain a place in the modern university, then they must be both effective and viewed as such by faculty, administrators, and other campus stakeholders. One way to shape faculty senate efforts is to create and exploit a clearly defined mission statement. In this article, we offer a four-step, committee-driven, technology-assisted process to develop a mission/vision statement that is anchored in the theory. The proposed process is efficient and easy to administer and can be used at other universities. We also discuss our experience with the process and offer recommendations for other university faculty senates.

Abstract: Too often, Boards of Trustees feel that final approval of the institution's Strategic Plan is sufficient. However, most Plans will only be successfully implemented if the Board has complete ownership and a commitment to be actively involved in many areas of the institution (not only fund raising). This article describes a successful process and key strategies to develop Board engagement and ownership of the Strategic Plan and ongoing involvement in the successful implementation of the Plan.

Abstract: Few presidents leave under "normal" expected circumstances. Quite often this void left must be filled with an interim appointment. What the interim is expected to do, length of service, and ramification of the choice of interim are issues a governing body must consider before the need becomes reality.

Abstract: Calls for a reexamination of the way in which higher education institutions select their leaders. The prevalence of the "lame-duck" syndrome, exacerbated by resignations up to a year in advance and the appointment of interim leaders to serve while searches for permanent leaders take place, has repercussions throughout the institution in terms of willingness to take risk and to implement substantive change. Proposes some possible alternatives to the current system of recruitment and replacement as a means of facilitating strong leadership on campus.

Abstract: A review of the monograph “Ensuring Effective Governance,” by William L. Deegan and James F. Gollattscheck (eds.), New Directions for Community Colleges, Number 49 (Volume 13, Number 1). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1985.

Abstract: Consortia, their impact on cooperating institutions, and critical factors in inter-institutional planning were the subject of a recent study for the United States Office of Education, directed by Harold L. Hodgkinson of the Center for Research and Development in Higher Education at the University of California at Berkeley. The critical issues, according to the study findings, are problems of reciprocity and autonomy, coordination of programs among diverse institutions, and strategies for campus involvement and leadership. The following article, by three staff members of the New Hampshire College and University Council—one of the consortia in the Hodgkinson study—is devoted to a discussion of the process of consortium decision-making, touching on the three key issues. The authors are: Lynn G. Johnson, the Council's associate director in charge of academic programs; Dr. William W. Barnard, consultant and coordinator of a two-year Cooperative Curriculum Project, and Douglas W. Lyon, coordinator of January Term Programs and communications coordinator.