Faculty senators said the permanent process for reviewing and implementing community feedback into University policies that officials unveiled earlier this month violates shared governance principles, arguing it lacks substantial faculty input.

Provost Chris Bracey, Chief Financial Officer Bruno Fernandes and Chief of Staff Scott Mory said in an email to community members in mid-May that they had finalized the policy review process, following months of development and no prior permanent process for reviewing and implementing policies. Faculty senators and members of the Professional Ethics & Academic Freedom committee first raised concerns that the process violates shared governance principles at a Faculty Senate meeting earlier this month and said while the process is an improvement from not having a process at all, it does not prioritize faculty input.

The policy review process outlines six steps, including drafting, pre-vetting, community comment, feedback and revision, final review and publish and implement phases. A responsible University office can draft a new policy or offer changes to an existing policy, which is brought to the Policy Approval Board, including Bracey, Fernandes, Mory and General Counsel Charles Barber, for pre-vetting, according to the process’ website. 

Bracey said at a Faculty Senate meeting earlier this month that he understands faculty concerns about not having enough input in the process, but faculty and administration “have a disagreement” on the meaning of shared governance. He said faculty can express their opinions about University decision-making through resolutions or providing feedback during the public commenting period of the new policy review process, which are “formal mechanisms” that align with shared governance principles.

Bracey also said faculty’s ability to provide feedback on a policy during this process is “more inclusive” of faculty’s input than the previous process had been. Faculty can voice their opinions in other ways outside formal mechanisms to “articulate their discomfort” and disapproval of administrative decisions, Bracey said.

“The formal mechanisms are the ones that are recognized in the principles of shared governance,” Bracey said. “But I do think that faculty have the ability to communicate beyond what’s been articulated in the shared principle.”

The Board of Trustees ratified the University’s shared governance principles in May 2022 after a task force of faculty, trustees and administrators found that faculty should play a role in “key decision making” and have primary jurisdiction over “specific areas” of academic policy at the University. The ratification came as the community reckoned with widespread distrust surrounding the University’s faculty consultation policies under former University President Thomas LeBlanc’s tenure.

The principles call for the establishment of “formal mechanisms” to increase collaboration between faculty and administration, including requiring that the Board meet with the Faculty Senate twice a year in an effort to increase transparency between the two bodies.

The new policy review process comes after the University entered a voluntary settlement with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights in January to resolve two Title VI complaints from 2023 that alleged anti-Palestinian discrimination and antisemitism on campus.

The OCR settlement called for the review of four policies by the University, including an equal opportunity, nondiscrimination, anti-harassment and non-retaliation policy, a demonstrations policy, a poster policy and barring people from campus policy. Officials conducted a trial run of the four OCR policies through the new policy review process that officials started to develop in March, officials said in the email.

Dwayne Kwaysee Wright, the co-chair for the 2025-26 PEAF committee and assistant professor of higher education administration, said the PAB does not follow the principles of shared governance because there is a lack of faculty representation on the board, adding that Bracey is the only member with experience as a faculty member. He said the other members of the PAB have separate priorities surrounding what interests they aim to protect, like Fernandes and Barber wanting to protect the University’s finances and legal liabilities. 

Wright said PEAF asked officials to add some forum that would allow faculty input on the PAB, and the committee had a “very good” conversation with Bracey in early April. But Wright said officials ultimately denied their request and did not give a clear reason why a faculty member couldn’t be on the board.

Faculty, alongside staff and students, can review and provide feedback on drafted policies during the process’ third step. There, the Faculty Senate Executive Committee can also refer a policy draft to a standing committee on the Faculty Senate or adopt an official resolution or report about a policy draft, according to the process’ website.

Wright said Bracey told PEAF that the policy review process was a “fluid document” and he was open to modifications of the process. He said he expects the policy process to be revised as the needs of the University evolve. 

“This right now, what it is, is not shared governance,” Wright said.

Faculty Senator Guillermo Orti, a biology professor who chaired PEAF during the 2024-25 academic year, said faculty should have input in the pre-vetting step, which occurs before the community comment step. He said the PAB shouldn’t be the sole group in charge of of draft policies because proposals that relate to academics are directly related to faculty’s role at the University.

He said faculty should have input earlier in the process rather than at the public comment period, where staff and students also can provide feedback, because faculty are responsible for delivering the “academic mission” of the University.

“You may think this is a fair deal, but when the faculty are responsible for delivering the teaching mission, the academic mission, you want to have a little more say than staff and students because it’s not a responsibility to deliver this mission,” Orti said. 

He said “tension” started to develop between the administration and PEAF last summer when officials reached out to the committee requesting them to review policies within two weeks. He said it was before the start of classes while faculty were “scrambling” to prepare for their courses, and two weeks did not give the committee enough time to meet and discuss the policies. 

At a Faculty Senate meeting earlier this month, Orti said the committee provided “critical feedback” to officials in April on the guidelines for the policy review process, and administration sent the Faculty Senate, SGA and Staff Council, a revised document based on their feedback.

He said at the meeting that PEAF is “not ready” to endorse the policy review process, as they remain unconvinced officials’ consultation with the community aligns with the principles of shared governance outlined by the American Association of University Professors. He said the committee views the latest revisions as a “positive development” that improves transparency, but they will reconvene this fall to dedicate “sufficient time” to offering additional feedback.

Arthur Wilson, a faculty senator and the FSEC liaison to PEAF, said at a Faculty Senate meeting earlier this month that there needs to be a provision for faculty that allows them to stop administration from proposing a policy that is “fundamentally unreasonable,” like a veto power. 

He said while he has “full confidence” in the current administration, “previous administrations” did “ridiculous things” where faculty took “strong measures,” like a vote of no confidence. 

Wilson said it “is not adequate” for administration to say they can consult with faculty on decisions in the process because administration can ignore faculty’s input.

“That doesn’t cut it,” Wilson said.