Share the message or stifle the messenger?

The following statement appears near the top of the web page for the TMCC Planning Council: 

Planning Council members are responsible to share information from the Council to their constituents and to solicit input from their constituents to share with the Planning Council.

In this spirit, TMCC-NFA's representative on the Planning Council, Mark Maynard, provided to TMCC-NFA members his detailed notes from the September Planning Council meeting, which was held on September 18 in RDMT 256. Similar to the notes from he provided from the council's August meeting, Mark's notes were thorough, but concise and captured the proceedings with little, if any, editorial bias. This is the first time in recent memory where I recall actually receiving information about proceedings in the Planning Council. 

So, I was a bit taken aback when Mark notified me that a member of the President's staff emailed all the council members and asked them to submit their notes to him. When I questioned other members from the Council, not to mention my own participation on the Council in years past, this was the first time anyone could recall that such a request was made by the President's office. The reasons for the request aren't entirely clear. Does the President want to see the notes before they are shared with constituents? If so, why? To edit them? Perhaps I'm reading too much into this, but when individuals know they will have to share their notes with the chief officer, they will certainly temper what they write for an audience of one.

As I've mentioned in previous messages, the Planning Council is touted as "a representative internal shared governance team," but its composition calls into question its ability to truly function as "shared governance." The website hasn't been updated since last year, but the overall composition probably hasn't changed significantly. There are 32 to 34 members on the Planning Council, divided into two groups. 

The Standing/Function Members consist of 16 members on the Website, but the new VPFG was in attendance at the last meeting, increasing this count to 17. They are all administrators at the Director's level or higher and serve on the Council by dint of their position. 

The other group is called the Constituent Members. The website lists 16 members, but the inclusion of Mark Maynard as the NFA rep brings the number to 17. Based on the admittedly outdated information on the website, the current composition of the group is as follows:

• Seven academic faculty*
• One part-time faculty
• One non-managerial administrative faculty
• Two classified
• One student
• Five administrators

The title Constituent Members would lead one to believe that the members are actually selected by the constituents that they represent. That is only minimally true. Of these 17 individuals, only six were actually chosen by their constituents, either directly or indirectly:

• Faculty Senate chair*
• Classified Council president
• Classified Council representative
• Student Association president
• DRC Program Committee representative*
• NFA representative

So, out of 34 members, about 15 are administrators who essentially serve at the pleasure of one of the six or seven executive administrators seated at the head of the table. Currently, four academic faculty members and the part-time instructor were invited to the Council by the President, not chosen by any constituents.

*Both, the current Faculty Senate chair and the representative from DRC are academic faculty members. It is possible for administrative faculty to assume these roles, which would reduce academic faculty representation to five members, four of whom were invited by the administration. 

Here is a summary table of the Planning Council's composition: 

This is not a stellar example of shared governance, and yet the Planning Council is the final step for nearly all policies that govern college operations and impact such critical areas as academic freedom and due process. The meetings are not held at a time that is convenient for teaching faculty to attend, let alone participate. Frequently, members don't see the agenda until they arrive at the meeting so there is not time to prepare for upcoming discussions, let alone notify their constituents and gather input. And, despite the existence of a Planning Council listserv, for which I have signed up - twice, it has not been used once to notify subscribers of anything, let alone share important information from the Council's proceedings.

So, back to the original question, why would the President's Office want to see the notes taken by members of this group. TMCC-NFA inquired about the legality of this request and, it turns out, notes taken in the course of employment in a public entity, such as the college, are considered public documents and can be requested. But, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Before long will we all be demanding to see everyone's notes from every meeting? Of course the simple solution is to stop taking notes altogether. Not a recipe for an effective and successful organization. 

Since TMCC-NFA widely shares the notes Mark takes at the Planning Council, the President's Office will have free access to them. We wonder if the same will be true of the other members of the Council.