University of Arizona: A Growing Dispute Over Shared Governance
The University of Arizona (UA) is facing a growing internal conflict regarding shared governance, a principle enshrined in state law requiring collaboration between administration, faculty, and staff. Faculty leaders are expressing concerns that President Suresh Garimella is undermining this collaborative process by declining to formalize the mechanisms for it.
The Core of the Issue: A Refusal to Formalize Collaboration
Mona Hymel, chair of the UA Shared Governance Review Committee, stated that President Garimella is the first UA president to refuse signing a memorandum of understanding (MOU) detailing how shared governance should function. “If you don’t sign anything, you can’t be held to account,” Hymel explained, emphasizing that the lack of a signed document “has absolutely hindered shared governance” by leading to unilateral decision-making.
UA Faculty Chair Leila Hudson echoed these concerns, noting dissatisfaction among professors due to their exclusion from key hiring decisions during Garimella’s first year. The university spokesperson, Mitch Zak, declined to comment on the president’s reasoning for not signing the MOU or his views on the importance of shared governance.
Historical Context and the Existing MOU
The current MOU, previously signed by former UA President Robert Robbins, was last revised between 2020 and 2022. While considered “quite good” by Hudson, its full commitments aren’t consistently followed. Hymel clarified that the state law mandates collaborative governance, but lacks specific details, necessitating the MOU to define roles and procedures.
The MOU typically outlines processes for hiring, searches, grievances, and other critical areas, specifying faculty involvement – for example, requiring three faculty senators chosen by the faculty chair to participate in vice president hiring committees.
Arizona State Law and UA Guidelines on Shared Governance
Arizona Revised Statute (ARS) 15-1601B, passed in 1992, explicitly states that faculty members, through their elected representatives, “shall share responsibility for academic and education activities and matters related to faculty personnel” and “shall participate in the governance of their respective Universities.”
UA’s own guidelines, established in 2005, recognize that the “success of the University and the positive morale of the faculty and administration are dependent upon continued use of the collective intelligence of the University community in planning and decision-making.”
A Glimmer of Collaboration: The White House Compact
Despite the ongoing dispute, there have been instances of collaboration. The administration listened to faculty concerns and ultimately rejected the White House’s “higher education compact” last year, a decision Hudson praised as demonstrating the value of faculty input. President Garimella actively sought faculty counsel during this challenge to the university’s independence.
The Importance of Trust and Public Accountability
Faculty Chair Hudson emphasized that effective shared governance requires trust and accountability, particularly as a public university receiving significant funding from Arizona taxpayers. She views shared governance as a crucial “watchdog” ensuring responsible stewardship of public funds.
The situation highlights the delicate balance between presidential authority and the principles of collaborative governance at the University of Arizona. The outcome of this dispute will likely shape the future of decision-making at the institution.
Source: Arizona Daily Star
