ON THE APPORTIONMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE GOVERNANCE FUNCTIONS WITHIN MULTI-CAMPUS UNIVERSITIES AND UNIVERSITY SYSTEMS

Research & Occasional Paper Series: CSHE.16.13 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY http://cshe.berkeley.edu/ ON THE APPORTIONMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE GOVERNANCE FUNCTIONS WITHIN MULTI-CAMPUS UNIVERSITIES AND UNIVERSITY SYSTEMS December 2013 C. Judson King University of California Berkeley ABSTRACT Copyright C. JUDSON KING, all rights reserved Most public universities in the United States are formed into systems, containing more than one university or campus. There are clear rationales for these systems, including overall planning and coordination, budgeting efficiency, and effectiveness of dealings with the state government. The distribution of internal governance functions between the system level and the individual-campus level has, however, been a source of continual tension for understandable reasons. Although there can be no hard and fast rules for the division of administrative functions between the system-wide level and the component campuses, a number of governance principles can be laid out. What is done in a particular instance should recognize commonalities and differences in mission among and within systems, the histories and the maturities of the campuses composing the system, state government constraints, governing board structures, and changing conditions, among other circumstances and needs. Keywords: University Governance, University Systems, Subsidiarity, Decision Processes INTRODUCTION Most public universities in the United States are formed into university systems of one sort or another (Lane & Johnstone, 2013; NASH, 2013; Lee & Bowen, 1971). The origins and natures of these systems vary widely, and their histories often have substantial political components (McGuinness, 2013a). The functional purposes of university systems are typically to provide planning and coordination across the system, to provide a single interface with the state government, and to propose, receive and administer a single state budget for the system. The single state interface and budget should largely preclude political contention among the individual components of the university system at the state-government level. In these important respects, the formation of public universities into systems has been generally very successful. However, this success has not come without tension and struggles within the university systems themselves. It is inherent in the nature and environment of public university systems that there will be pressures and contention with regard to the relative statuses of the component universities and campuses 1 and over the respective roles of system-level and campus-level governance. The system-wide administration works directly with the state government and is thereby more directly influenced by, and subject to, the political process of the state. Many of the interactions between the system leadership and the state government play out in the public sector and the media. These roles of the system-wide administration should shield the individual campuses within the system from direct political influence, which is a considerable benefit. However, those on the campuses tend not to recognize this sheltering, but instead place the “blame” for results of government and political actions on the system-wide administration itself. This often, and perhaps even always, leads to a situation with a degree of misunderstanding and mistrust between the campuses and the system-level administration. That mistrust is intensified on the campuses by seeming remoteness of the system-wide administration and Board of Regents or Trustees. Mistrust can occur in the other direction as well. 1 Some systems are composed of multiple universities and/or colleges, while others are single, multi-campus universities. For convenience I will denote components of systems as “campuses”, including both individual universities or colleges and also campuses that are parts of multi- campus, single-university systems.