Williams College
Self-Study for Accreditation
Organization and Governance
College governance has long been open and collaborative, even more so since the last self study. The strategic planning process, which resulted in many of the changes described in this report, involved virtually every part of the governance structure. The same was true for the Diversity Initiatives process of 2004 to 2006, the results of which also emerge throughout this document. At the same time, as the College has become more diverse, so has its leadership, bringing new perspectives to policy making.
Board of Trustees
The College Laws vest the government and direction of the College in the President and Trustees. The President is the presiding officer of the Board of Trustees and an ex officio member of all its committees, and is a member and the presiding officer of the faculty. There are currently 25 trustees: the President; 14 regular trustees, elected by the Board and serving up to 15 years but not beyond their 70th birthday; five alumni trustees, elected by the alumni body for five-year terms; and five term trustees elected by the Board for five-year terms. The Assistant to the President serves as the Secretary of the College and the Secretary to the Board. The list of current trustees, including biographies, can be found in the Team Room.
The trustees are a diverse body representing many parts of society, including business and finance, medicine, academia, law, communications, and the arts. There are currently 20 men, five women, and five people of color. Twenty per cent people of color compares with the national average of 11.8 per cent reported in 2004 by the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges.
The intent of meetings of the trustees and the work done between those gatherings is to advance the College’s mission and purposes. Trustees meet four times a year, and faculty, staff, and students join discussions in the Board’s committees that lead to trustee decisions. There is also a conference call of all trustees during the months they do not meet in person.
The authority, responsibilities, and relationships among trustees, faculty, students, and staff are outlined in a series of College documents (in Team Room): the Charter and Laws of the College; the Faculty, Student, and Staff Handbooks; and the College Catalog. In addition to their regular meetings, trustees stay informed of the College’s fiscal health through the Provost’s “Quarterly Financial Report” and through an abbreviated financial update the President gives in the monthly conference call. Members of the Board’s Budget and Financial Planning Committee and Finance Committee review the College’s operating budget and investments in detail. These discussions are informed by counsel from staff of the Provost’s Office and Investment Office, and from the faculty, students, and staff who are members of the Committee on Priorities and Resources and Committee on Shareholder Responsibility.
The Board approves major College initiatives, including determination of the levels of spending, fundraising, and personnel necessary to achieve institutional goals. All major initiatives described in the Self Study were approved by the Board following faculty and staff discourse and planning, along with trustee committee review. One recent example is the Board’s resolution in January 2007 that environmental sustainability and greenhouse gas emissions reductions are now institutional priorities — a decision made in response to the work of the Climate Action Committee, made up of faculty, students, and staff, which the President had created in response to a student-led petition to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Every trustee reports on an annual basis any real or perceived conflicts of interest regarding his or her Williams duties through the College’s conflict of interest statement (in Team Room). Each year we produce a summary of all trustees’ conflicts and distribute it to the Chairs of the Executive, Governance, and Audit Committees; the President; and the law firm that assists us with trustee-related matters when needed. By completing the conflict statement annually, trustees are reminded to abstain from discussions and votes during Board meetings when appropriate.
The Executive Committee of the Board has three active subcommittees: Nominating, Governance, and Compensation. A fourth, Legal Affairs, meets when needed.
The Nominating Committee is made up of trustees, past trustees, the President and Vice President of the Society of Alumni, and staff, including the Vice President for Strategic Planning and Institutional Diversity, the Vice President for Alumni Relations and Development, the Secretary to the Board of Trustees, and the Director of Alumni Relations. This group identifies trustee candidates with varied backgrounds and experience who can represent the diverse College community and presents a slate each year, first for the Executive Committee’s review and approval and then for a full Board vote. In addition, the Society of Alumni, 25,000 strong, selects each year an alumni trustee to serve a five-year term. Candidates for that position are identified by the Society of Alumni’s Nominating Committee and, according to the College Laws the full Board then approves the one selected by alumni.
The Governance Committee has focused recently on the results of an internal and self-directed survey on governance-related issues in the Summer of 2005. Trustees retained the services of Richard Chait, Professor of Education at Harvard and an experienced consultant on board governance, to review the structures of meetings and the process used to identify and select members to serve in leadership roles, such as Chair of the Executive Committee. As a result of these discussions, the Board broadened the process for selecting a new Executive Committee Chair, adjusted the meeting schedule during each Board weekend to facilitate communication, inaugurated post-weekend surveys to provide immediate feedback to organizers, and changed some committee reports from oral to written form in order to free time for more in-depth discussions.
The Compensation Committee reviews annually the President’s goals and objectives, which are then discussed with the Executive Committee prior to review by the full Board. The President, in turn, discusses with the Board the performance and responsibilities of members of Senior Staff.
The Executive Committee meets annually with the Faculty Steering Committee to discuss matters related to the President’s service to the College and other matters of concern to faculty.
Senior Staff
The President’s main assistants form the Senior Staff. Three members are faculty: the Dean of the College, Provost and Treasurer, and Dean of the Faculty. Others are the Vice President for Alumni Relations and Development, Vice President for Operations, Chief Investment Officer, Vice President for Strategic Planning and Institutional Diversity, Assistant to the President for Public Affairs, and Assistant to the President and Secretary to the Board. Like trustees, members of Senior Staff report on real or perceived conflicts of interest. Based on its consultations with other groups in the governance structure, Senior Staff at their weekly meetings set matters of short- and long-term policy and decide issues that require timely resolution. In addition, the President’s Administrative Group, made up of director-level administrators, such as the Director of Alumni Relations, Director of Conferences, Registrar, Athletic Director, and Director of Institutional Research, meets bimonthly to discuss topics of importance to staff. Board communication with the larger staff of the College takes place through the representation of Senior Staff and the President’s Administrative Group.
Role of Faculty in College Governance
The President and members of Senior Staff also work closely with the faculty in the governance of the College. Reflecting a long-established tradition that has served the College well, this collaborative approach to governance is expressed institutionally in three ways. First, as noted, three members of Senior Staff — Dean of the Faculty, Provost, and Dean of the College — are appointed from the faculty after consultation by the President with the Faculty Steering Committee and then normally return to the faculty ranks after the completion of their terms (typically three to six years). While the resulting frequency of turnover entails some drawbacks, the arrangement improves communication and understanding between the administration and the faculty, not least because the people appointed to those three senior administrative positions remain members of the faculty and already have considerable experience working with their colleagues in a variety of ways. As a result, there is much less of a perception of separation between faculty and administration at Williams than at other colleges and universities (Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) Faculty Survey for 2004-2005, pp. 25-6, in Team Room), which in turn enhances their ability to work collaboratively. This arrangement for filling senior administrative positions also benefits the College by creating a pool of experienced faculty leaders who can continue to serve their departments and the College as a whole after the completion of their administrative terms. Indeed, the significant number of former deans and provosts from Williams who over the past few decades have become presidents of liberal arts colleges attests to the effectiveness of this system of developing faculty leadership.
The structure of standing committees provides a second institutional means to realize and preserve our collaborative approach to governance. Much of the actual work of governance takes place in these committees, which are made up of faculty, administrative staff, and, in most cases, students. For example, the Committee on Appointments and Promotions (CAP), made up of the President, Dean of the Faculty, Provost, and three full professors elected by the faculty as a whole, oversees a wide range of policies relating to faculty and helps to shape the curriculum through the allocation of faculty positions; the Committee on Educational Policy (CEP), which includes elected faculty members, students, Dean of the Faculty, and Dean of the College, oversees the curriculum; the Committee on Priorities and Resources (CPR), made up of faculty, students, Provost, Vice President for Alumni Relations and Development, and Vice President for Operations, reviews and provides advice on our financial operations and on specific proposals entailing the use of College resources; the Committee on Undergraduate Life (CUL), composed of faculty, students, and Dean of the College, oversees policies relating to student life; the Committee on Diversity and Community (CDC), including faculty, students, and Vice President for Strategic Planning and Institutional Diversity, reviews, initiates, and coordinates policies relating to our diversity initiatives (a full list of standing committees and description of their composition are in the Faculty Handbook).
By providing multiple venues for collaborative work and the sharing of views between faculty members and administrators, this committee structure ensures that the faculty has extensive input into the formulation and implementation of policies in all areas of College life and that it plays an important role in the management and oversight of College affairs. The strategic planning process that President Schapiro initiated earlier this decade, which involved the collaborative work of numerous standing committees and administrative offices and resulted in significant curricular reforms, a substantial reconstruction of student residential life, and several major building projects, demonstrates how our governance structure promotes cooperation between faculty and administration in the review, development, and implementation of College policies. Finally, monthly faculty meetings provide a third institutional means to ensure extensive faculty involvement in governance. After being reviewed and refined by appropriate standing committees, proposals requiring faculty action are discussed and voted on by the faculty as a whole at one of its monthly meetings. At these meetings faculty also discusses many issues not subject to a vote. Indeed, no major program or policy initiative can be adopted without first having been discussed at a faculty meeting. The President, members of Senior Staff, and other administrative officers — such as the Librarian and the Director of the Office of Information Technology — report regularly at the meetings on current developments, issues, and initiatives. In addition, elections for the faculty positions on several standing committees — the CAP, CEP, Faculty Steering Committee, Faculty Compensation Committee, and Faculty Review Panel — take place at faculty meetings.
Staff
Staff members are committed to the College’s mission and are focused on making the student experience a positive one. As of the Spring of 2007, there were 780 administrative and support staff employees, about 55.5 per cent of them women, and more than 170 employees had over 20 years of service. Our employee turnover rate is relatively low — six to seven per cent over the past three years for administrative and support staff.
The President and other key administrators meet with the entire staff annually to discuss campus developments and future plans. For example, a meeting in February 2007 included talks by the President, who offered his thoughts on the current state of the College; the Vice President for Strategic Planning and Institutional Diversity, who presented ideas on ways to make the community more diverse and inclusive; and the Vice President for Operations, who outlined plans for physical improvements to the campus and addressed the importance of staff members’ contributions to the community. The Vice President for Operations has built on this annual meeting with an inaugural “brown bag” lunch conversation in May of 2007, which was open to all employees and intended as an open forum for wide-ranging conversation. Staff in our Human Resources Office host regular lunches to bring together people from across campus to share experiences, enhance cross-campus communication, and assess the general level of employee satisfaction.
A more formal mechanism for staff discourse is the work of Staff Council, a group of both hourly and salaried staff, which meets with the Director of Human Resources to discuss issues related to employment at the College. The Council selects its members based on a campus-wide nomination process, which is managed by the Director of Human Resources. The Council has addressed issues relating to communications, policy development and implementation, and handbook review and publication. Four of its members also serve on the Benefits Committee, which includes two faculty members as well as members from the Provost’s Office and Human Resources Office. For several years, training courses designed to improve job-related skills such as conflict resolution, time management, and writing have been offered to all employees and been well attended. We are also in our third year of participation in the Management Development Series, initiated by UC-Santa Barbara and designed to enhance and expand the skills of mid-level managers. We select eight to ten managers to participate each year.
Since adopting an affirmative action program in 1972, we have made concerted efforts to increase the number of women and minorities among administrative and support staff. As of June 30, 2007 administrative and support staff included 41 people in these four ethnic groups: Asian/Pacific Islander, Black (not of Hispanic origin), Hispanic, and Native American or Alaskan Native. Recently, the Vice President for Strategic Planning and Institutional Diversity and Director of Human Resources have worked together to expand our employee candidate pool by posting vacancies on such Websites as www.diversityjobs.com and www.diversityweb.org, and including printed advertisements in Diverse Issues in Higher Education and Hispanic Outlook for Higher Education. We have also used our alumni of color networks to share news about employment opportunities.
In an effort to build an inclusive community as well as a diverse one, we have initiated training sessions on issues of diversity and inclusion. In 2006-2007 more than 200 employees participated in workshops. We have the goal of providing them for all employees.
Students are full members of many faculty-led committees, including those on Diversity and Community, Educational Policy, Honor System-Discipline, and Priorities and Resources (full list in Team Room). Student views also are expressed through student government and via open lines of communication with faculty, senior administrators, and the President through meetings and e-mail dialogue. A significant number of trustees meet with student leaders of each residential neighborhood over dinner in student dining halls on Board meeting weekends.
Recent Changes in Positions in Financial Affairs
We review periodically the effectiveness of our organizational structure and make changes as called for. In fact, we have made quite a few major changes since the last Self Study. We retained McKinsey and Company to study longstanding tensions within our structure of financial management, which before 2006 was divided between the Provost and a Vice President for Administration. In 2006 we shifted financial responsibilities completely to the Provost, who is now also Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer. We established the new position of Chief Investment Officer, who reports to both the President and the Chair of the Finance Committee of the Board. The Chief Investment Officer and her staff bring to the management of our endowment a level of daily professional operation not possible in an earlier system that relied too heavily on the dedicated, able, but limited involvement of volunteer members of the Finance Committee. We also changed the position of Vice President for Administration to that of Vice President for Operations, with responsibility for facilities (including campus planning and construction as well as operations and maintenance), human resources, dining services, legal affairs (including insurance and risk management), safety and environmental compliance, summer conferences, bookstore, Williams College’s Children’s Center, and liaison with the local business community. The Vice President has implemented many changes in the office’s budgeting procedures, which have both enhanced and simplified planning discussions with Senior Staff and trustees.
New Position of Vice President for Strategic Planning and Institutional Diversity
Also in 2006, we made another major change, creating the position of Vice President for Strategic Planning and Institutional Diversity to coordinate at the highest level of the administration our many initiatives on diversity. (The holder of a previous position, Assistant to the President for Affirmative Action and Government Relations, had an important but narrower mandate, primarily expanding faculty and staff diversity and addressing discrimination and harassment grievances.) The primary objectives in creating this new senior position were to address the issues highlighted in the 2005 Diversity Initiatives Self Study as well as issues that surfaced in two external consultant reports, one by Cambridge Hill Partners and one by Kimberly Goff-Crews of Wellesley and Evelyn Hu-DeHart of Brown (both reports in Team Room) and to establish a central point for coordinating all of our diversity efforts. In 2007 we added another new position, that of Associate Dean for Institutional Diversity, who is a member of the Vice President’s office. The first Associate Dean is a faculty member who has extensive experience with diversity initiatives in the sciences; she will reduce her teaching to part-time while carrying out her administrative duties.
In 2006-07 the Vice President concentrated on gaining a better understanding of how each stakeholder group (trustees, faculty, staff, students, and alumni) functions and the key challenges facing them with respect to diversity and inclusion. He identified the most pressing issues and devised an approach for working with each group. This is an ambitious undertaking, and the strategy for collaborating with each group will be assessed continuously. Use of resources will be an issue in attending to the needs of each group, and priorities will have to be established, with some secondary and tertiary needs being reassigned to attention in subsequent years.
Other major challenges for the Office of the Vice President for Strategic Planning and Institutional Diversity (hereafter, OSPID) will include coordinating our many diversity activities to achieve more common goals and objectives. Historically, individuals and/or departments often have undertaken independent approaches to diversity and inclusion. As an unintended consequence, those attempts often became isolated and fragmented, and resulted in addressing only one aspect of the situation. By providing a focal point for diversity activity, OSPID can design and reorganize activity into strategic approaches, provide greater continuity, and potentially increase the impact of our efforts. To assist with coordination, OSPID has established an oversight committee called LINKS. It is made up of senior administrators, chairs of two academic departments and two academic programs, Director of the Exploring Diversity Initiative (a curricular initiative described at length in the Academic Program section), Director of the Multicultural Center, and representatives of admission, financial aid, athletics, and human resources. LINKS will function as a think tank and assist OSPID in coordinating institutional diversity efforts.
OSPID has a strategy for working with each stakeholder group. As a member of the Board Nominating Committee, the Vice President will join other committee members to work for the continued diversifying of the Board, including diversity of race and gender. Of particular focus will be an expansion of Hispanic and Latino/a representation. The office also maintains a presence on the trustees’ Long-Range Planning Task Force, and is engaged in examining the sociological factors we will encounter leading to the year 2020, particularly the changing demographics of the student body, such as increases in financial-aid students, first-generation-college students, traditional minority groups, and international students.
The strategy for increasing faculty diversity is to take a collaborative and targeted approach, working especially with five departments and two programs over two to three years. We will pay attention to these three aspects of the faculty: who we are (increasing race, ethnicity, and gender diversity); what we teach (the diversification and/or expansion of the curriculum); and whom we teach (addressing the rapidly changing face of the student body and measuring who is availing themselves of what parts of the curriculum). This effort will help produce a template for work with other departments and programs.
The key diversity challenge regarding staff is talent management. The strategic approach will examine how to educate senior managers to better understand their roles and responsibilities in helping Williams become a more diverse and inclusive institution. Specifically, OSPID will focus on helping managers attract and supervise a more diverse pool of candidates from a demographically shifting county and region, especially among the hourly workforce. Also, OSPID will collaborate with the College’s senior leaders to become more active in creating diverse and talented pools of candidates from which to fill administrative and senior positions. We will examine recruiting and hiring practices to guard against the tendency to hire exclusively and to promote in ways that, unintentionally, tend to retain a racially and culturally homogeneous senior-level workforce.
While we have been successful at increasing the diversity of the student body, we did not anticipate the institutional requirements necessary to support the change in the demographic face and culture of the institution. With respect to diversity and inclusion, the key challenge is how best to educate and support the current level and projected increase in diversity of the student body. An important next step will be to understand the challenges faced by students who differ from the traditional Williams student profile, and the opportunities we have to create an environment that enables them to excel without the characteristics of their differences acting as impediments to their success.
In the Fall of 2007, under the direction of OSPID, we will add additional staff for a year, amounting to one FTE, to identify and examine the challenges facing an increasingly diverse student population, especially the pressures faced by traditional minority and international groups, students with heavy financial need, and first-generation college students.
As part of our effort to add greater continuity to diversity activities, in the Summer of 2007 we shifted two key operations from the office of the Dean of the College to OSPID. They are the Multicultural Center (MCC) and the Office of the Coordinator of Special Academic Programs. With the MCC, the charge is to strengthen the center’s academic scope and function. The Coordinator of Special Academic Programs administers, among other things, the Mellon Mays Undergraduate Fellowship Program and the Williams Undergraduate Research Fellowship Program, and the goal for this office is to find ways to expand the operation and success of those fellowship programs, especially among underrepresented constituents such as African American and Latino men.
The charge for OSPID in working with the Society of Alumni and the alumni relations and development staff who support that group is more easily defined than with other groups, but no less challenging. The focus will be on engaging and working with an increasingly diverse group of alumni, particularly increasing the racial and ethnic diversity of the division staff to better mirror the Society of Alumni as a whole. Additionally, we will focus on moving the coordination of alumni of color activity from an office- to a division-wide responsibility. And more broadly, OSPID will begin to assess the relevance and scope of alumni and development operations to determine if activities of engagement are effective given the demographically different characteristics of alumni, resulting from admission recruitment practices initiated since the early seventies.
Projections: While our overall system of organization and governance has long been well grounded, the above account shows that we have changed it when called for, and we have used external perspectives on several occasions. The recent changes in Board procedures and in the organization of Senior Staff, and the creation of the post of Associate Dean for Institutional Diversity, show signs of increased effectiveness but we will monitor their effects and make further adjustments if necessary. We have already described in detail the specific goals and projected activities of the Office of Strategic Planning and Institutional Diversity, and achieving those goals will be a major priority in the next few years.
top