100%

Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue

Share

Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

January 29, 1975 - Image 6

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1975-01-29

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

Page Six

THE MICHIGAN DAILY

Wednesday, Janugry 29, 1975

Page Six THE MICHIGAN DAILY Wednesday, January 29, 'I 975
U

M

The Report of the Committee

ADVERTISEMENT
To Study Student Governance

Submitted to the Regents, Students, Faculty, and Staff of the University of Michigan - December, 197
CONTINUED FROM PAGE 5

4

ment is the need for clear and giate committees will be the
continued support by the faculty goal. We particularly urge fa-
culty/student parity on those
2. The student government in committees which have the
the school / college (each one greatest impact on student life
now has an operativeeschool! (i.e., ;urriculum committees,
college government) should also bodies dealing with academic
take an active part in the de- counseling, and groups handling
velopment of student associa- academic misconduct cases).
tions in those departments with- C.'-These recommendations are
in their units which are without directed to the students, Re-
sach organizations. The capabil- (gents, faculty, and staff of the
ities and energies of the school/ University, with special atten-
college governments should be tion directed to the present Stu-
channeled into modes of con- dent Government Council.
structive contributions and co-
oneration with department fa- For clarity and understanding
cilty members and chairper- it will help the reader if we de-
sons. fine a few terms. The entire stu-
3. Once departmental associa- dent governance system we
tions are operative, they would have outlined can be thought of
have the exclusive appointive j as the Michigan Student Govern-
ment. The part of this govern-
power of students on the depart- ment which will deal with al-
ment committees and governing mpus isu w tat ithe
body campus issues - that is, the
agency of the Michigan Student
4. We urge department faculty Government which will corres-
members and students to make j pond in its functions to the pre-
student participation on all com- sent SGC - will be referred to1
mittees their goal. But we are as the Michigan Student Assem-
also aware that this objective bly (MSA).
will require time for most de-^

partments. Energy should then
be focused on the more import-
ant committees, especially those
dealing with curriculum and
Academic policy, where faculty-
student cooperation is necessary
and where parity is strongly fa-
vored.
5. To accomplish the previous
recommendation, it is essential
that departmental associations
and department faculty begin
discussions quickly on the seat-
ing of students on committees.
6. We support the idea of stu-
dents as full voting members of
committees, not in advisory or
non-voting roles. Not only does
an advisory role sidestep the is-
sue of participation, but also, as
we have shown earlier, it des-
troys the meaning and effective-
ness of student involvement in
University governance.
7. The strongest and most res-
ponsible departmental associa-
tions will exist in those areas
where the faculty and students
are committed to student invol-
vement in the departments' gov-
erning bodies (where they ex-
ist), as well as on committees.
(For clarity in this report, these
bodies shall hereafter be refer-
red to as "Departmental Coun-
cils.") Students already serving
on departmental committees
would be logical choices for
membership on the depart-
ment's governing body because
they possess valuable experi-
ence. Consistent with our prev-
ious recommendations, the ex-
act number of voting students
on such Departmental Councils
would be a matter to be nego-
tiated between a department's
faculty members and its student
association..
B. The following recommenda-
tions are directed to the facul-
ties, administrations, and stu-
dents in the University's schools
and colleges.
8. A critical first step in the
creation of our recommended
student governance system is
the support and commitment of
school/college deans, faculty
members, and student govern-
ments. We urge these three par-
ties to begin discussions on the
seating of full voting. student
members on their respective
school/college governing bodies.
(For purposes of clarity in this
report, we shall hereafter refer
to these entities as "College
Senates.")
9. T insure that departmental
concerns be represented and
that a wide range of student in-
terests and concerns be repre-
sented, we feel that the student'
members of a College Senate
should be selected in two ways.
One half :,could be elected at-
large by the students of the
school / college to provide a
broad spectrum of student con-
cerns and support. The other
half should be chosen directly
from the various departmental
student associations within the
particular school or college to
insure stronger accountability
and representation of special de-
partmental needs. Of course, in
some cases, the number of de-
partments will exceed the num-
ber of student seats on a College
Senate. Where this situation oc-
curs the departmental associa-
tions would have to decide col-
lectively on a fair and satis-
factory ssytem of apportion-
ment. This might occasionally
necessitate a joint meeting of all
departmental associations with-
in a school/college or might sim-
ply be decided once.
10. Once chosen, students ser-
ving on College Senates should
join the school/college dean, fa-
culty and student government in
discussions of the placement

12. We recommend that Stu-
dent Government Council call a
constitutional convention, a s
provided in their constitution,'
for purposes of reorganizing
the central student government
into the student governance sys-
tem outlined above, and accord-
ing to the particular points enu-
merated below.
13. We hope that all members j
of the University community
will encourage and support
SGC's efforts to accomplish the'
above recommendation.
As we have stated previously,
it is not the function of the Com-
mission to create a constitution
for any part of the Michigan
Student Government, especially
| the MSA. However, we do make'
' the following recommendations
on which a formal constitution
can be based.
Representation:y
14. The MSA should have one
voting member from e a c h
school and college; appointed byl
and responsible to the student'
members of the appropriate Col-
lege Senate.'
The Commission favors a cen-
tral student government partly;
drawn from school/college con- ;
stituencies for several reasons.+
First, the Academic policy deci-
sions of a student's school or
college have a direct and sub-
stantial impact on a student's>
life at the University. Students
involved in Academic decision-;
making units in schools and col-
leges are aware of and acting oni
the fundamental reeds and con-
cerns-the Academic needs and
concerns-of the students. Their
experience with the serious busi-
ness of University governance
and their sense of responsibility
toward students will bring a:
sense of purpose and realism tol
the workings of the MSA. They
are more likely to preserve a;
sense of perspective in attend-
ing to the non-academic con-:
cerns appropriate to the central'
student government. They are
less likely to have involved1
themselves in campus politicsl
without the serious commitment
needed.'
Second, our partial federal
system insures that at least+
part of the central student gov-
ernment's members are drawn
from and directly responsible to
a clearly - defined constituency
with genuine shared interests.-
In this we return to the principle
of direct accountability to an or-
ganized constituency embodied
in the ex-officio representatives
who sat on SGC until 1969. The
weakness of a totally at-large
system is the isolation of the
elected representatives f r o m
their constituencies, which can-
not be consulted or even identi-
fied between elections. The pre-
sence of representatives chosen
by and answerable to the Col-!
lege Senates will make the Mi-
chigan Student Assembly more
responsive to students and less
prone to delusions of self-suffi-
ciency.
Third, the incorporation of
school and college (and through+
them, departmental) representa-
tives in the central student gov-
ernment makes for an integrat-
ed student governance system.,
Students at the less inclusive
levels of governance (i.e., de-
partments, schools and colleges)
will be directly represented at
higher levels, and there will be
a flow of information and opin-
ions, not only between lower lev-
els and all-campus levels, but
between students in different
schools, colleges, and depart-
ments who will work together'
for the first time in the new all-
campus forum. Students from

the advantages of appointive re-
presentation of organized con-,
stituencies with elective rcpre-,
sentation on an at-large bass of;
the students collectively. By
providing for at-large election of
just over half the representa-
tives, we effectively counteract
what would otherwise be sone
overrepresentation of the small
est schools and colleges. Since
the pure at-large system, in
practice, has had the opps te
effect-leading to the overrepre-
sentation of the large schools
like LSA and Rackham-provi-
sion for both methods will hope-
fully lead to roughly equal re-
presentation insofar as electoral
machinery can accomplish this.
There are two reasons for th
"plus-one" clause. We wish to
stress that, despite the import-
ance of Academic policy mak-
ing at lower levels, the Mr-hi-
gan Student Assembly is on all-
campus organization concerned
with campus - wide questicos.
and we wish to render tie votes
unlikely b providing for an dd
number of representatives.
16. The MSA should make a
special effort to consider and,
C r e a t e selection procedures
which insure that minority stu-
dents are represented.
Internal Structure:
The question of how the MSA
should be organized internally
provided the Commission with
its most heated and lengthv de-
bate. Our disagreement center-
ed on two questions: "Should
there be a student body presi-
dent?" and, if so, "Should that
student body president also be
the presiding officer of the
MSA?" This issue provided the
Commission with its only unre-
solved dispute. The final solu-
tion will no doubt come from a
constitutional convention but we1
will attempt to capture some of
the Commission's debate in the:
succeeding paragraphs.
A majority of Commission,
members favored a parliamen-
tary system. A chairperson or
secretariat would be elected
from the membership, and that1
i n d i v i d u a 's responsibilities
would be to preside over meet-
ings and facilitate the working
of the Assembly. His or her
powers would be no greater than,
any other member of the MSA,
and tenure of office would be
contingent on the successful per-
formance of assigned duties.,
Such a system, it was argued,
would, be desirable for several,
reasoils.
First, in recent years much
time and energy has been di-
rected into conflicts between
leaders elected at-large and the
membership elected at-large.
Both could claim a direct man-
date from the electorate, and
this has often led to conflict in- ,
stead of cooperation. This situ-
ation can be contrasted with the
pre-1965 SGC which selected its ,
president internally. Under .hat |
system it was clear that the
SGC membership had received
a mandate from the students:'
and that their president -eceiv-I'
ed his or her mandate from
them. Few internal struggles
between "leader" and "mem-
bers" consumed SGC time.
Second, it was argued that to
make the student governments
credible and responsive to stu-
dent needs required greater ac-
countability on the part of indi-
vidual members. This is true
not only for MSA, but also for
students on College Senates and
in departmental associations. To
create a Student Body President
then would be to vest an inordi-
nate amount of responsibility
and visibility in one individual.
This would be helpful if the per-

son was a dedicated and respec-
ted leader, but it could be disas-
trous for the functioning of the
whole government if he jr she
was not. Those who favored a
chairperson or secretariat felt
that group decisions and per-
formance would prove more po-
sitive and produce more student
support over the long run. They
also felt that the government's
stability would be a product of
its structure and not dependent
on the integrity of a single in-
dividual.
A somewhat smaller number
of Commission members main-
tained that the best student gov-
ernance model would include an
elected at-large president who
would also serve as the formal
head of the Michigan Student
Government and the presiding
officer of its central agency, thet
MSA. Advocates of this concept
based their choice on several
points.

would be especially true if the
Assembly was divided along
parochial school/college or po-
litical lines. The MSA, it was
argued, would necessarily be a
large organization and therefore
need a clearly identified repre-C
sentative of all students to sug-
gest programs and alternatives.
It was also argued that the
chairperson or secretariat sug-
gested by those who favored the
parliamentary system would in-:
evitably assume many of the
powers and responsibilities now
reserved for an elected presi-
dent. In that case, a de facto
president would have been crea-
ted without making that indivi-
dual directly responsible to the
students through a democratic '
election.

# aent concerns.

Recommendation 24 should'
not be confused with the issue
of students running for and ser-
ving as Regents of the Univer-
sity. Although we strongly favor
both student involvement in Re-
gental decision-making and the
ability of students to run for the
office of Regent, these issues
can only be decided by the elec-
torate of the State of Michigan,
either through their representa-
tives in Lansing or by amending
the State Constitution.
It is interesting to note, how-j
ever, that the Governor's Com-
mission on Higher Education
when considering the advisabil-
ity of students serving on gov-
erning boards of Michigan uni-
versities, arrived at conclusions

dibility when working with Uni- as attendance at meetings, aril-
versity faculty members and ad- , ity to participate in delibera-'
ministrators and thereby serve tions, and access to information.
as a more effective spokesper- This student would be appointed
son for student concerns. by the MSA and would both fa-
cilitate the MSA's accountability
Moreover, many rg1t that a toteRgnsreadn ii
president would lend more to the Regents regarding su-
bility and direction to the Mi- dent organizations and keep the
chigan Student Assembly. This Regents intormed of other :tu-
^ ^^n^t-,nr. arnt

ory body, addressing its recom-
mendations to the Regents, stu-
dents, and faculty alike. Imple-
mentation of our proposals re-
quires action at every level of
University organization by the
constituencies affected, a n d
it requires that they coordinate'
their efforts in order to provide
for a coherent governance sys-1
tem.
Thus primary responsibility
for creating the new central stu-
dent government rests with the
students, including the present
Student Government Council;
responsibility for creating the
supporting network of collegiate
and departmental units is main-
ly the students', though faculty
support is important here; the
recommendations for increased
student participation in Aca-
demic governance have to be
implemented by the several gov-
erning faculties, hopefully in
close cooperation with the cor-
r e s p onding student govern-
ments; and the proposal for a
Student executive officer, as
well as enabling legislation and
a general policy statement, re-
quire action by the Regents
themselves.
We recommend that the Re-
gents initiate this process of
transformation by taking the
following specific steps:
1. The Regents should adopt a
statement which:
a. accepts and endorses the
Report of the Commission to
Study Student Governance
b. recommends to Student
Government Council that it call
a constitutional c o n v e ution
which would consider and hope-
fully approve the substance of
this report.
c. urges the faculties of the
several schools, colleges, and
departments to open discussions
with representatives of the cor-
responding student governments
to implement our proposals for
increased student participation
in academic decision-making.
A suggested statement is ap-
pended as an appendix.

inception to be a purely advis- cipation in school, college, and

S.01 (3) Amend by adding the s1ueccuntbiity.LIi ll i
following: "For purposes of par-sure accountability.
ticipation in the legislative and 4. The Board of Regents
other decision-making units of a should amend their- Bylaws to
school, college or department, a provide for a Student Executive
governing faculty shall include Officer:
representatives of the corres-
ponding student body. The num- 2.01 Amend the third para-
bers or proportion of student araph to read: "The President,
membership shall be determin- the Chancellors of the Univer-
ed by agreement between the' sitV at Dearborn and Flint, the
governing faculty and the cor-' V i c e Presidents hereinafter
responding s t u d e n t govern- named, the Student Executive
ment." Officer, and the Secretary of

departmental governance. These
changes remove legal impedi-
ments to such participation and
authorize the faculty and stu-a
dents to determine the extent of'
student participation on each:
governance unit. And these'
changes also strengthen and ex-
plicate the existing statement of
Regental policy favoring student
participation.
3. In what follows, sections of
the B y l a w s which require!
change are listed numerically.
Bold face indicates new or ad-
ditional wording, except that:
minor punctuation changes and
deletions are not shown.

Finally, the Commission ex- 1IhdLUOUuvL.
Finll,; heComisionex Ivery similar to our own: a
amined the possibility of inde- ; The Commission (on Higher
pendent legislative and execu- Education) paid special atten-
tive branches. This concept tion to the question of student '
would provide for an elected membership on g o v e r n ing
student body president who boards. It does not believe that
would not serve as the presiding such membership would consti-
officer of any branch of the Mi- tute a substantial conflict of in-
chigan S t u d e n t Government. terest . . . As consumers of the
This organizational plan, how- educational process, students
ever, received very little sup- have a vital interest. As legal
port from Commission members adults, in most cases, they havej
who felt that such a plan would a basic right to participate in
inevitably lead to confrontations the political process. No evi-
between the two agencies with dence exists that students would:
no forum in which to resolve use their authorities as mem-
them. bers of boards with any less in-
The Commission concluded tegrity than other office hold-
that other questions regarding ers. The Commission, therefore,
the internal structure of the recommends the removal of any
MS ieadtoa ies. . barriers prohibiting stu-
committee structure, etc.) could dents, otherwise qualified, from'
be more accurately decided by serving on governing boards.
a constitutional convention. Our (emphasis added).
only exception to that conclu- 25. MSA should also recognize #
sion is outlined in the following I its accountability to students by
recommendation: regularly reporting and publi-
17. The MSA should retain the cizing its activities and publish-
present Student Organizations ing at least once a year an inde-
Board, or a comparable body, to pendent audit of their financial

7.06 This shall consist of the
current 7.05 (2) and (3), re-
numbered (1) and (2).
Finally, we recommend in IV.
C.16 that the Regents create a
student executive officer. The
Commission noticed that a ,ma-
jor problem in the past has been
the lack of clarity in Regental/
SGC communication. The dele-
gation of authority with respect
to student organizations, for in-
stance, has been a source of
confusion. The exact lines of au-
thority and responsibility have
never been entirely clear. We
believe that the Regents need a
direct connection to the Michi-
gan Student Government to im-
nmvpe cmmunication and in-

I
I

P

5.06 Amend by adding the fol- the University constitute the ex-
lowing paragraphs: "W h e r e ecutie officers of the Univer-
these Bylaws specify a number sty
; of faculty, executive faculty, or ' 2.11 New section (with subse-
governing f a c u It y members I qentrenumbering) "T H E
comprising an executive com- STUDENT EXECUTIVE OFFI-
mittee, executive board, or oth- rCER. The Student Executive Of-
er decision-making unit of a ficer shall represent the students
school, college, or department, in the formulation of University
such faculty shall include re- nolicy, and shall be the liaison
presentatives of the correspond- between the Michigan Student
ing student body. The numbers Government and the Board of
or proportion of student mem- Regents. The Student Executive
bership shall be determined by; Officer shall be an ex-officio
agreement between the execu- member of the Board of Re-
| tive committee or other deci- aents serving in a nonvoting ca-
sion-making unit and the cor- naeity. The Student Executive
responding student government. Officer shall be appointed by the
"Where these Bylaws specify Michigan Student Assembly.
the term of office of the mem-
bers of executive committees
or other decision-making units - FOOTNOTES -
of the schools, colleges, or de-
partments, each such committee*Reental Statement on Stdent
or unit is authorized to provide Government
for a shorter term of office fr
,its student members." Thfre are a variety of decisions
mae ntdt the Us.iesity

insure that administration and
services to student organizations
be handled efficiently and thor-
oughly.
External Structure:
18. As previously K:Iated, in
conjunction with ,epartments,
schools, and colleges, we rec-
oinmend that University admin-
istrators and students make,
voting membership the goal for I
?il University committees.
19. The MSA s; ould be the
sole apoointive body for stud.nt
members of University commit-
tees.
Functions:
20. The MSA should continueI
the role of its predecessor, SGC
as the recognizing rd regl{t-
ing ager cy for student organiza-
tions and events. We recom-
mend that the Regents reaffirm
the delegation of their authoriyv
t, the McA and charify the ac-
countability attached to this!
delegation in the manner des-
cribed below in No. 23.
21. To garner support and cre-
dibility, the MSA inould not on-
ly act as gatekeeper to student
organizations, but should als'.
develop a wide ranging programa
of services to these constituent .
Such services might include:
funding, access to office equip-
ment, switch board, and secre-
tarial support; fund-rasing and
publicity workships; advocacy
to appropriate University units;
information dissemination and
inter - group communications;
etc.
22. The MSA has an obligation
not only to disseminate informa-
tion of importance to the stu-
dents but also to ascertain stu-
dent needs and concerns and
m a k e these known, either
through its school/college rep-
resentatives or its University;
committee appointees, to the ap-
propriate University decision-
making unit.
One of the most attractive
features of the student govern-
ance model we are recommend-
ing is that it establishes a com-
munications network for stu-
dents to channel information,
questions and complaints. A
structural framework capable of
actually translating needs into
results is, after all, one of the
essential ingredients in a strong
and credible student govern-
ment.
Accountability:
23. Any delegation of author-

accounts.-

The MSA could easily arrange Even with cooperation and'
to have its "summary of action; good will on all sides, implenten-
taken" printed weekly in at ; tation will be a long and compli-:
least the Michigan Daily. Even cated task. To facilitate the
this small step would help enor- transition to a new governance
mously in keeping students system, we propose an imple-1
more informed as to their gov- mentation Task Force.
ernment's activities and would 2. An Implementation Task'
probably help to keep frivolous
motions to a minimum. Force, appointed by and tes-
ponsible to the Regents, which
The publication of an indepen- could furnish information and
dent audit of the MSA financial support to those implementing
accounts would produce at least the report. The Task rorce
three improvements. Students would report periodically to the
would have an accurate under- Regents on progress toward im-
standing of how their money plementation. Ideally, the Task
was being spent and consequent- Force would consist of a subset
ly could affect that spending of the CSSG membership-per-
through their votes. MSA men:- haps 5 to 8 persons reflecting
bers would probably spend funds the diversity of the Commission
wisely if they knew that expen- itself. The ITF would work
ditures would be widely known through the Vice President for,
among their constituents. And Student Services.
the temptation to misappropri- A number of minor changesI
-ae Fri 40 wuuiu O Q~ ~'(7 ',in «.±J..er ten s 2-ny -_aws _r nr[iC _ 1 .

6.04 Amend the third sentence
to read: "Each department
shall be organized in a manner
as to provide general participa-
tion by staff members and stu-
dent representatives in the man-
agementofedepartmental af-
fairs.
7.05 Amend and abridge to
read in its entirety: "STUDENT
PARTICIPATION I N .DECI-
SION-MAKING. Student partici-'
pation in University decision-
making is important to the ef-
fectiveness of education and the
quality of life at the University.
Student participation at all lev-:
els and in all areas of Univ r-
sity decision-making shall be
continually encouraged.
"Nothing in these Bylaws:
shall be construed to prohibit
student participation, in a votingt
capacity, in the units of gover-
nance of the several schools,
colleges, and departments of the
University."

departments of the University.
Somne, like curriculum,. grading
prctices. budget alocations, ad-
mission practices, budget alloca-
tions, admission policies. etc., also
have a profound impact, albeit
less directly, on a student's class-
room experience. In this report
we have chosen to combine both
types of decisions under the head-
ing "Academic." where this ad-
jective appears in its capitalized
frm, it is intended to connote to
the reader all the concerns, is
sues, and decisions which occur
in the University's schoolslcol-
leges and departments (See Sec-
tion IT of this report for our com-
plete thoughts on "Student Par-
ticipation in Academic Decision
Making.)
*** Regental Statement on Student
Government
***RegentsBy-Law 7.05 reads: (1)
Student participation in Univer-
sity decision-making is important
to the quality of student life at
the University, and shall be en-
couraged.
***** Regental Statement on Stu-
dent Government,

ate tunds would be grearty in in Reg
hibited if an audit was conduct- sary t
ed and publicized regularly.
26. Finally, to inhibit financial
improprieties, the MSA should:
(a) have an independent audit
at least once each year;
(b) maintain open financial,
records, which can be produced
on demand for any student;
(c) require the signature of at
least two MSA members on all
disbursements;
(d) keep all funds which come
from student assessments and
are collected by the University '
in University accounts in accor-
dance with generally accepted
accounting practices.

;ent s Bylaws are' neces-
a allow for student parti-
If you're a w
about to rea

oman, what you're
d could save your life.

V. IMPLEMENTATION
As noted in the Introduction, I
the Commission decided at its
e cr. . CLIP AND SAVE '---5
r r
r I
P hone N umbers ;
r*r
Coculaion
r ,!
r r!
C C aifoed Ad
r r
764-0557
,r r
r I
~Dis-lay A dv
Di - a A y
I I "
764-0554

Once a month, just once a month,
while you're taking a shower,
before you dry or spray or powder
or do any of those little things
to pamper yourself,
do something to take care of yourself
examine your breasts.
That's where you begin.
It's a nothing examination, really.
It isn't complicated, it doesn't hurt,
and it only takes a few minutes.
If you don't know how, ask your
doctor to show you.
Or ask us, the American Cancer Society.
We've got a simple little leaflet
that shows you.
Consider all the years ahead of you.
A few minutes out of your life
once a month
is very cheap insurance, don't you think?
Don't be afraid.
It's what you don't know that can hurt you.
Write or call
your local Unit today.
Please?

A4k

1
t

First, they felt that the whole ity should have an accountabil-
student governance system oiit- ity mechanism. In the case of
lined in our report would tunc- the Regents delegation to the
tion more smoothly with a des- MSA regarding student organi-
a i .ar i a P ations, the Commission recom-

Back to Top

© 2021 Regents of the University of Michigan