Higher education system governance: an exploratory study of presidential decision making in the kentucky community and technical college system

Governance structures. As illustrated in the previous sections, policy is woven throughout decision making related to faculty teaching loads, salary schedules, granting of faculty promotion and tenure, and strategic planning. More specifically, policy outlines standards and expectations, reinforcing system alignment, and where applicable, policy parameters provide flexibility to address local differences among the colleges. In addition, governance structures emerge in policy, and interview participants highlight distinct academic and administrative governance structures that have a role in presidential decision making.
KCTCS Board of Regents Policies 1.4 Internal Governance Structure: KCTCS Senate, in accordance with KRS 164.580, states that the KCTCS senate “shall have the primary responsibility for determining academic policy and curricula development that shall be recommended to the president of the Kentucky Community and Technical College System.” (p. 123). As such, KCTCS Board of Regents Policies attributes certain decision making to particular governance structures. Moreover, these governance structures are bifurcated such that academic decision making is a function of the academic governance structure and administrative and personnel decision making are a function of the administrative governance structure. Michael explained bluntly that setting admissions standards occurs in academic governance structures:
I think admissions standards are set basically by the KCTCS senate. I know that locally, there are some guidelines and rules, if you will, of our faculty council, but
typically that is the purview of the faculty and so it happens in the faculty governance structure at the system and local colleges.
Sam further confirmed that admissions standards are set by the KCTCS senate; however, all colleges are represented in this group:
Well, admissions standards are pretty well set forth in the rules of the faculty senate. There’s not a lot of leeway...I think that is a function of the rules and the team that is the student dean peer team. Every college has representation on that peer team and I think that is really where a lot of the rules are generated and filtered out to the faculty colleges.
As Sam described decision making about setting admissions standards, all colleges are represented in the KCTCS senate, which establishes admissions standards. These standards are then filtered to the colleges, for implementation by local college faculty through local college policy. As participants illustrated, setting admissions standards is a function of the academic governance structures, which exist at both the system and college levels. For this reason, academic decision making is less shared between the KCTCS president and college presidents than administrative or personnel decision making because of the presence of an academic governance structure.
Furthermore, even though system policy frames college policy, and both express the authority and responsibilities of the KCTCS president and college president, the result is a bifurcated administrative structure. While the KCTCS president “oversees the operation and management of the KCTCS community and technical colleges,” authority and responsibility is delegated to the college presidents for overall administration of their respective college (KCTCS Administrative Policies and Procedures 1.5.1 General
Organization of KCTCS, 2015, p. 125). Bifurcated governance structures of the system and colleges, with assumed and delegated responsibilities of the KCTCS president and college presidents, presents complexities in navigating presidential decision making, whether it occurs at the local college, is shared equally between the college and system, or at the system.
Bifurcated governance structures manifest in two mirrored decision making processes occurring at the system and colleges. This is illustrated in the decision making process for granting faculty promotion and tenure. The promotion and tenure process involves college presidents recommending faculty candidates to the KCTCS chancellor, and the KCTCS president recommending faculty candidates to the Board of Regents.
Both the college presidents and KCTCS president receive recommendations from a faculty advisory committee on promotion and tenure. In this regard, both the college presidents and the KCTCS president have a role in recommending candidates for promotion and tenure; however, what is evident in this process is the KCTCS president has more authority because he or she can choose to accept or ignore the recommendations of college president and the faculty advisory committee.
Policy attributes decision making to particular governance structures, resulting in dual academic and administrative structures, both of which emerged as bifurcated because they exist at the system and college. Additionally, policy attributes authority to either the KCTCS Board of Regents, KCTCS president, KCTCS senate, or college presidents. The divided authority between the system and colleges, with assumed and delegated responsibilities of the KCTCS president and college presidents by the KCTCS Board of Regents, presents complexities in navigating presidential decision making.
These complexities are magnified by presidential interpretation and application of policy and local differences among the colleges that warrant flexibility in decision making.