|
Decision effect. Despite the policy responsibilities of the KCTCS Board of Regents and college boards of directors and their role as advocates for the system and colleges, interview participants differentiated the effects of their decisions as either direct or indirect. Interview participants perceived that the KCTCS Board of Regents was not directly involved in local college decision making. Michael stated that the role of the KCTCS Board of Regents was primarily driven by policy, which did not extend directly to the colleges, saying:
We operate within the board’s guidance and policy responsibility, so that’s how they would be involved [in local college decision making]. I’m not aware of any situation where we’re operating within policy where they would become involved in local decisions.
However, KCTCS Board of Regents’ decisions have a direct and indirect effect on individual colleges within the scope of responsibilities and powers outlined in policy. Moreover, there were decisions that the KCTCS president’s leadership team made for the
system that did not require KCTCS Board of Regents’ approval. Sam explained that while the KCTCS Board of Regents made decisions for the system, the system also made decisions for itself:
You know, there are a lot of system decisions that we make as a system, but some things, for instance, adding student fees, that’s a Board of Regent’s decision. That would certainly be a system effect, but the Board of Regent’s decision. Same with setting tuition, the hiring of the KCTCS president. But then there are many things like for instance, if we were going to develop a statewide crisis management plan. That would be something that we would do as the president’s leadership team, whereby presidents would go back and talk to their college to identify need, come back to the president’s leadership team table and discuss with the other presidents where we go with that. Such an item would not need Board of Regent’s approval, but it would be a KCTCS decision.
The KCTCS Board of Regents exercised authority over particularly important matters, and these decisions affected the system and colleges both directly and indirectly; yet, the system also made decisions that have a direct and indirect effect on the college. The differentiating effect of decisions illustrated the extent to which parts of the system and colleges are connected to one another for a given decision.
Whereas the KCTCS Board of Regents was not involved in local decision making, the college boards of directors were not involved in system decision making. According to KRS 164.600 (2003), the role and authority of the boards of directors are limited to the following: (a) recommend one candidate for college president from three recommendations provided by the KCTCS president, who makes the final appointment
and is not bound by the board’s recommendation; (b) evaluate the college president and provide feedback on performance; (c) approve budget requests for recommendation to KCTCS; (d) adopt and amend an annual operating budget and submit to the KCTCS Board of Regents for approval; and, (e) approve the college strategic plan. Despite the policy role of the college boards that limited their influence on system and college level decision making, the effect of decisions made by the college boards of directors can have a direct and indirect influence on the system. Sam clearly illustrated the indirect system effect of the college boards of directors’ decision to recommend a president for hire:
One of the most direct in my mind is the board of directors at each college approves each college’s strategic plan. Certainly, you know each college’s strategic plan is important to the system as a whole...most of the system wide effects [of the board of directors] are indirect, such as hiring of the president. Well, that president then sits on the [KCTCS] president’s leadership team that does affect a lot of statewide direction, but again, that’s not a direct effect.
Moreover, John illustrated that although the boards of directors were advisory in nature, their evaluation of the president can have an indirect effect on the system, stating: “College board[s] of directors are advisory in nature. The only connection that I would see [to system-level decision making] would be the evaluation of me. And they send that information up to [the KCTCS president].” As illustrated in interview and document analysis, the policy role of the KCTCS Board of Regents can have an indirect effect on the colleges, and similarly, the policy role of the college boards of directors can have an indirect effect on the system. This indirect effect is the result of the scope of
responsibilities and powers of the boards outlined in policy, as well as the limited formal and informal interactions between the boards illustrated by participants.
Moreover, while CPE is not involved in the daily decision making of the system and colleges, CPE maintained power for various decisions that can have direct and indirect effects on the system and colleges. Kentucky statute protected these powers. For instance, CPE must approve new programs in order to eliminate “unnecessary duplication of programs within and among institutions” (KRS 164.020 Powers and Duties of the Council, 2014). Sam explained that the trickledown effect of CPE decision making on the colleges impacted their strategic direction:
One of the roles CPE is supposed to play in higher education is programmatic structure. You know, individual academic program reviews. The reduction of duplication amongst college programming. You know, those types of things have a big influence on where the individual colleges go. They also have to approve new programs. You know, if two colleges are ten miles apart and both want to offer the same program, and CPE determines that the market is not there for two programs, then they don’t have to approve the second program. And that is an effect on the individual college. So, I think any oversight body, such as CPE, does have individual effects on colleges although they are a statewide entity.
In some cases, the presence of a system did not insulate the colleges from the effects of decision making made at the state level. The trickledown effect of these decisions to the colleges was based on the responsibilities and powers of CPE, which date back to the Kentucky Postsecondary Education Improvement Act of 1997 when CPE was created.
Overall, CPE decisions had both direct and indirect effects on the system and colleges depending on the decision at hand.
The decision making of the KCTCS Board of Regents, boards of directors, and CPE had a pervading effect on the system and colleges. KCTCS Board of Regents’ decision making ha both direct and indirect effects on the system, as well as indirect effects on the colleges relative to the particular decision at hand and the extent to which those corresponding parts of the system and colleges were connected to one another. The extent to which college boards of directors’ decision making influenced the system and college was limited because of their advisory role outlined in policy. Finally, CPE decision making had both direct and indirect effects on the system and colleges, as illustrated in the decision to approve programs.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
