|
Research Questions Three and Four
The purpose of the third and fourth research questions was to guide the exploration of presidential decision making in KCTCS by developing an understanding of how particular state economic, political, and social contexts influence presidential decision making as well as what roles the KCTCS Board of Regents and college boards of directors play in system-level and college-level decision making. The researcher necessarily included consideration of state contexts and the roles of the KCTCS Board of Regents in the previous sections; however, this section will provide further exploration. The themes identified through analysis of interview data and documents included: (a) role, responsibilities, and powers; (b) decision effects; and, (d) feedback and recommendations. Some of these themes overlapped with those identified for research question two in the previous sections, but warranted further analysis and explanation.
Roles, responsibilities, and power. System policy and Kentucky statutes outlined the roles, responsibilities, and powers of multiple internal and external bodies, including the KCTCS Board of Regents, boards of directors, and CPE. These responsibilities and powers date back to the Kentucky Postsecondary Education Improvement Act of 1997, including subsequent Kentucky Revised Statutes. As exemplified in Kentucky statute, CPE has duties and powers reflecting the system as a
whole rather than the individual colleges. When asked about the role of CPE in decision making for the system, interview participants highlighted its role in setting tuition and approving programs while reinforcing that CPE has a statutory role. Although, John spoke strongly about how CPE can be an obstacle for the system and colleges:
I think CPE can be a major hindrance…all they seem to be is a filter and their decision making is sort of like the wind and whatever day it decides to blow. One example is this dual credit scholarship program… [one moment it is] one half tuition, and then we hit this deal yesterday…one third [tuition]. Where did that come from?
Although the scholarship program originated from the Kentucky Governor’s Office, CPE, as a state coordinating agency, is a filter for executive and legislative decision making. In this way, decisions flows from the colleges and system to CPE for approval, or decisions flow in the form of directives from CPE to the system and colleges that guide decision making. This was evidenced in their role in setting tuition and setting the strategic agenda for Kentucky postsecondary education.
In addition to CPE, the KCTCS Board of Regents and college boards of directors had clearly defined responsibilities and powers outlined in statute and reinforced in system and college policy. Whereas the KCTCS Board of Regents guided the system and had authority for decision making, the boards of directors guided the colleges and were advisory in nature (KCTCS Administrative Policies and Procedures, 2015). So, the authority of the KCTCS Board of Regents was more powerful than the boards of directors. Moreover, participants and documents highlighted that there was limited formal
and informal interaction between the boards, seemingly because boards of directors were advisory boards.
As illustrated, document and interview analysis highlighted the statutory role of CPE, KCTCS Board of Regents, and boards of directors, which reinforced the extent and location of authority for decision making pertaining to academic, administrative, and personnel decisions. In addition to the statutory role, interview participants also described an advocacy role for the KCTCS Board of Regents and boards of directors. Sam expressed the intentionality of their role as advocates, which can influence the direction of the colleges:
As long as they have a good understanding of what the mission is, then they can have real good mission-oriented conversations with those [political leaders and business leaders], and then bring all of that information back to the president and to the college. So, I think to me, their most important role is that of engagement and advocacy, and if they can do that, then yes, they do have some influence on college direction. But, again, that’s more of an ancillary function. That’s not written in statue that that’s their job.
While the KCTCS Board of Regents and the boards of directors have statutory responsibilities, participants described an advocacy role for board members that can be leveraged politically. However, this advocacy role depended on board members’ awareness and understanding of the system and colleges.
Similar to the span of powers of the KCTCS Board of Regents, college boards of directors, and CPE, interview participants confirmed that individual legislators and the state legislature impacted multiple decision making processes, including budget and
funding, capital projects, and curriculum. Sam further explained that given the scope of power that legislators have, coupled with the influence of this power on the system and colleges, advocacy is important in influencing their decision making:
KCTCS was formed as an act of legislation…so, when it comes to the rules that define our very existence, those folks matter. And the key in the decision making process is how well every individual legislator, whether it be a representative or senator, understands our colleges and system. Because when they go back and make decisions for us, they’re going to make those decisions whether they know about us or not. They have to. The more they understand us, I think the better we will all be as they make those decisions that define our existence, our budget, and our capital projects.
Despite the importance of legislators in decision making that affected the system and colleges, John explained how powerful local influence can be for legislative decision making and that presidents must advocate for their respective college:
I’m smart enough to know that our appropriation, and policies and procedures that come down that govern KCTCS are driven in bills that take us and put us in one ball, one pot. They aggregate us. And so, when I advocate, I advocate on behalf of the system, but I will also more importantly, advocate on behalf of the institution.
As interview participants explained, the state legislature as a body can influence decision making for the system and colleges. These influences must be mediated through advocacy and awareness not only of the system, but of the individual colleges given their local differences.
The importance of the roles, responsibilities, and powers of the KCTCS Board of Regents, college boards of directors, CPE, and the legislature to presidential decision making emerged in analysis. The KCTCS Board of Regents maintained authority over various academic, administrative, and personnel decisions, the boards of directors served in an advisory capacity for the colleges, and CPE is a funnel for system and college decision making. The involvement of these internal and external agencies in decision making implied a politically driven decision making process affecting the system and colleges. Awareness and advocacy was a tool that presidents used to navigate their influence and involvement.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
