Running head: GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE PAPER 1

Governance Structure Paper

IDSL: 895 Policy and Governance

Group 5

October 6, 2019
GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE PAPER 2

Governance Structure Paper

Background

King Louis XVI Community College (KLCC) was founded in 1976 in Westford,

Massachusetts. The College is accredited by the New England Association of Schools and

Colleges through its Commission on Institutions of Higher Education. It is a nationally

recognized two-year community and technical college that provides a gateway to higher

education and workforce training to the residents of the greater Westford area. King Louis XVI

Community College serves 5,600 students annually and utilizes a shared governance model

which helps advance the mission, goals, and values of the College through appropriate

collaboration.

In this rapidly changing world, where competition exists with not only the college district

in the next county, but also beyond the shores of the country, it is important for institutions of

higher education to have the capacity to be not just responsive but proactive. To this end, King

Louis XVI Community College utilizes a shared governance model which is aligned with the

Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges recommendation of being not

only inclusive, but also nimble and flexible (AGB, 2017). Through this shared governance

model, various constituencies (faculty, staff, students, administration, Board of Trustees, etc.) are

provided with a voice in regards to decision-making matters and have a collective role in

ensuring the continued success of King Louis XVI Community College.

Governance Model

King Louis XVI Community College’s Governance System is an internal process

approved by the Board of Trustees of KLCC. It was developed to provide designated

stakeholders the opportunity to work collectively to make profound, proper, and timely
GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE PAPER 3

recommendations to the college administration on matters associated to policies and procedures

and programs to support the mission (Olson, 2009) of KLCC.

The shared governance consists of decision-making processes that include trustees,

administrators, faculty, staff, and students. The Governance System makes recommendations to

the college administration in regard to programs, planning, policies and procedures (Olson,

2009). These are defined as follows:

● Programs: refers to matters related to KLCC academic programs or other key initiatives
on campus.
● Planning: is the process of identifying and strategically planning out priorities and
initiatives for the College. A structure of committees or councils that include trustees,
college administrators, faculty, staff, and students of KLCC.
● Policies and Procedures: The policies are guides created upon the mission and guiding
declarations of KLCC that influences the decision-making process of individuals or
groups. The procedures include a list of steps and rules and regulations that are used to
employ policies within the shared governance system.

Shared governance at KLCC:

▪ means various people or groups of people have a variety of roles from regular
policy review to having regular meetings to reflect policy implementation. In this
process, the participants will not only feel a sense of authority but also a sense of
accountability for the outcomes (AGB, 2017).
▪ will hold themselves accountable to ensuring that shared governance supports
core academic values and institutional progress (AGB, 2017).
▪ will intentionally create opportunities for social interaction between board
members and faculty and staff to interact outside the formal governance structure
in an effort to promote closer understanding of each other. “All faculty can be
more effective institutional citizens if they understand the fundamental role of the
board. Board members can serve more effectively if they understand the essential
work of the faculty” (AGB, 2017, p.7).
▪ is committed to trust, collaboration, communication, transparency, inclusiveness,
honesty, and integrity.
▪ will relentlessly focus on the institution’s strategic goals, aspirations, and
challenges (AGB, 2017).
▪ will recognize that important decisions are often difficult and contentious, “but
that the preservation of relationships is vital to sustained effectiveness in
governance” (AGB White Paper, 2017, p.12) and cultivate a sense of collective
ownership and accountability of the college’s present and future. This
collaborative effort in shared governance will help decision-making processes and
help implement decisions more quickly and effectively (AGB, 2017).
GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE PAPER 4

Charges of Stakeholders

According to the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (2017),

shared governance is one of the central principles of higher education, and is not well understood

by its primary participants, which consists of faculty and staff members, presidents, and

members of the boards of trustees. Each representative of the shared governance plays a vital

role and can impact the performance of the College and how they serve students. To this end,

KLCC has established the following charges and expectations of stakeholders:

● All representatives understand that the Board of Trustees, which are elective
representatives of the community, is the final voice of KLCC. The Board can reject or
modify proposed recommendations through its designee.
● The President serves as the official designee of the Board. All recommendations
developed through the governance processes are delivered to the President. The President
also chairs the College Senate, consisting of elected representatives that will represent
diverse constituencies within the institution such as the faculty, staff and students and
will be chaired by the college president (Cowen, 2018). The senate members will boldly
deliberate on issues with rational arguments.
● Administrators lead, plan, supervise, and maintain the shared responsibility in the
academic area because it impacts curricula and how the College serves students overall.
● The faculty, full-time and part-time, makes recommendations to the administration
of the College regarding academic and professional matters. It is also noted that an
adjunct faculty serves as a representative in the shared governance.
● The staff also make recommendations to the College’s administration regarding
matters that significantly impact staff. The Board cannot make decisions or
recommendations on staff matters until every reasonable consideration is given. Issues
affecting staff sometimes impact the quality of student services (Kubota, 2017).
● Therefore, the students also play a role in the shared governance of the College. A
student representative can be the student president of the Student Government
Association or an elected student ambassador. The student representative communicates
the needs of the students to respective groups of the shared governance and keeps
students informed on student-related matters.

Relevant Policies

King Louis XVI Community College upholds college policies that are created by the

Board to establish best practices, resolve conflicts, ensure accountability and compliance, and

foster a safe and productive environment for students and employees. Although the Board sets
GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE PAPER 5

widely-scoped district/board policies that inform the operating policies, the Massachusetts

Community College Council (MCCC) (The Commonwealth of Massachusetts) facilitates the

approval and overall development of new college policies. Some of the most relevant policies for

KLCC include:

● College-Wide Policies: as they relate to copyright, accessible technology,

communication, smoking, closure, safety, and other policies that impact the entire
College.
● Human Resources Policies: these policies relate to employee leave, ethics, professional
behavior standards, nondiscrimination and non-harassment Policy, etc.
● Academic Policies: are policies referencing academic matters, including degree
requirements, articulation agreements, enrollment, admissions, etc.
● Student Policies: Student privacy policies, including The Family Educational Rights and
Privacy Act (FERPA), rights and responsibilities, and student conduct.
● Information Technology Policies: relate to information security, wireless
communication, etc.

Operating Principles

KLCC’s standard model of shared governance is strengthened by including all

stakeholders in the decision-making and recommendations process in regards to policy and

planning decisions for the College. The Board acknowledges the benefits of stakeholders' input

and their role and responsibility in achieving the mission of KLCC. It also recognizes that KLCC

is supported by a broader vision of shared governance that is defined by the following relevant

operating principles:

● The College-wide Governance System should provide designated stakeholders the

opportunity to work collectively to make profound, proper, and timely recommendations
to the college administration on matters associated to policies and procedures and
programs to support the mission of KLCC.
● The governance system should support and embody KLCC’s vision, mission, core values,
and strategic directions.
● The Board, KLCC’s president and college administrators, faculty, staff, and students all
have a role in college governance.
● Stakeholders should be provided full participation in the decision-making process by the
governance system in a timely manner.
● Stakeholders have a right to representation on KLCC’s governance committees.
GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE PAPER 6

● The president is an official designee of the Board and is responsible for identifying and
establishing KLCC’s governance system.
● The governance system should clearly define and align responsibilities and among the
Board and stakeholders.
● All designated stakeholders in the governance system should have access to relevant data
to fulfill their role in governance to help guide decisions.

By leaning on—and building upon—these policies and principles, KLCC has created an

environment where spirited dialogue can continue throughout the year through initiatives that

engender reflection on roles and responsibilities (Hussung, 2017). These reflection gatherings

also provide opportunities to continue the conversation on all issues that impact the college’s

present as well as its future.

Decision-Making Process

The Board of Trustees is vested with power by the owners to make important decisions.

This power rests with the board as a corporate body. Individual members have no authority to

speak for the board unless the board as a corporate body delegated that authority to that

individual member to speak on its behalf (GDP Consulting, 2012; The Carver Guide, 2005). The

Board of Trustees should speak with authority for the owners (The Carver Guide, 2005). The

“owners” in the case of KLCC is the community that has elected the board.

Diversity of viewpoints should be encouraged and respected. In a democracy, divergent

viewpoints are celebrated—through the clashing of ideas the spark of truth should emerge (Theis

& Fagan, 2017). But the time for robust debate is when an issue is being deliberated upon.

Disagreements should not be stifled. Any individual board member should express his or her

disagreements and those disagreements should be weighed by all members before the final

decision is made. In fact, a unanimous vote on every decision should be suspect; people will

disagree on important issues. It is incumbent upon each member to consider an issue from all

angles in order to attain the best possible decision (Theis & Fagan, 2017).
GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE PAPER 7

The idea is for a unanimous consensus to emerge after a robust deliberation by all

members; members should not rubber-stamp the most powerful voice in the room (Theis &

Fagan, 2017). Rarely are decisions unanimous; however, when all deliberation has been

exhausted, and the final vote is taken, the majority decision is the decision of the entire board.

Even trustees who did not vote in favor of a decision have an obligation to accept the decision of

the majority (The Carver Guide, 2005). Hence, the board speaks with one voice. The board’s

agenda should be truly the board’s agenda, not the CEO’s or the president’s agenda. The board

will proactively develop its agenda that is strategic for KLCC (The Carver Guide, 2005; Carver

and Carver, 2013) and include relevant topics that are provided and covered by the President.

It is expected that the Board members respect each other’s time and perspectives. It will

be considered a sabotage when a board member attempts to “end run” the board. It is normal for

a board member to disagree with other board members, even passionately. However, an attempt

by a board member to undermine the board’s decision will be considered sabotage (Carver and

Carver, 2013) and will not be within the best practices of a shared governance. These

expectations of the Board is also applicable to their interaction with all stakeholders, including

the President.

Scholarly Basis and Expanded Rationale for Governance Structure

The governance structure aims to enhance the ability to actualize the mission and vision

of the college and increase the odds of best ideas helping shape the institution to meet challenges

(AGB, 2017). However, community colleges are widely viewed as nimble, or agile, institutions

because they are able to change program offerings and degree pathways far more quickly and

easily than their four-year-institution counterparts. This is, of course, a structural issue. While

over eighty percent of King Louis XVI Community College’s expenses are attributable to
GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE PAPER 8

salaries and benefits, most of the institution’s faculty work on a contingent basis, most

commonly as adjunct faculty. This, quite bluntly, affords the board and president the discretion

to “pivot” very quickly in response to workforce or student demand, even abandoning entire

programs to launch new ones within very short timeframes.

Another structural phenomenaphenomenon in which the community college sector

contrasts dramatically with “traditional” four-year institutions is research. While the flagship

state institution, the University of Massachusetts, might be a prominent research institution, King

Louis XVI Community College is a teaching institution in which most faculty are working in

industry and where little research is done (especially at the institutional level). This distinction is

important: KLCC recognizes that while it doesn’t conduct research it needs to maintain a literacy

in research; the board and president should understand best practice, decisions should be data

driven, and a teaching-and-learning center should foster research-based innovation in teaching.

While many faculty members at KLCC are adjuncts and working in industry the

institution does hold them to the expectation of scholarship, if not in research in teaching. The

theories and principles of essentialism, pragmatism, realism, idealism, andragogy, meritocracy,

diversity, equity, free speech, self-realization, behaviorism, and positivism have as important a

place in technical and vocational education (TVET) as they do on a liberal arts pathway. This

philosophy also impacts the structure KLCC and plays a role in both the president’s and board’s

vision driving the institution's mission.

Guiding a higher education, in terms of administration as well as in terms of governance,

relies heavily upon organizational theory including the role and nature of teamwork,

organizational structure, human resources, succession, diversity, being a “learning organization”,

and best practice in recruiting/retention/compensation.

GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE PAPER 9

Institutional leadership should also rely heavily upon educational theory. Boards are not

governing, and presidents are not leading, commercial ventures: an understanding of educational

theory is an integral part of a commitment to teaching and learning. Neither boards, nor

presidents, can have one without the other.

Similarly, governance theory is also an indispensable tool in leading higher education

institutions. In Massachusetts, at KLCC, we might not have the luxury of choosing our own

governance model but it is, nevertheless, imperative that we understand the strengths,

weaknesses, opportunities, and vulnerabilities of that model (especially in contrast to other

models). This understanding includes what makes elected and appointed boards different, how

district boards differ from single institution boards, and how today’s short tenure of a college

President impacts long-term performance (and vision/mission).

Shared governance theory, too, has a role in governance. Shared governance allows for

people throughout the organizational structure to feel as though they have a voice; to be able to

feel heard. It is, of course, important to understand that when people refer to shared governance

in higher education they are, overwhelmingly, referencing the administration and faculty side of

the equation, not the board. For shared governance to be successful two things are imperative.

First, all parties involved must understand that shared governance does not mean shared decision

making or shared accountability; colleges need presidents who can be informed by faculty and

staff, and who report to the board, but who can also make difficult (and sometimes unpopular)

decisions (Olson, 2009). Community college president’s success, and job security, rest on the

decisions that they make (and are accountable for); it’s far easier for a faculty member to be “all-

in” on a big idea that only impacts them on the institutional level than for a president to stake

their career and reputation on that decision. Second, shared governance helps presidents, and in
GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE PAPER 10

some ways boards, to form “maps” but it doesn’t steer the institution; the board charts the course

and the president steers the ship; shared governance doesn’t afford others the opportunity to have

their hands on the wheel.

Finally, leadership theory is indispensable to the presidency and the board. Under this

“big tent” we find management theory, professional development, motivational theory, decision

making, entrepreneurship, and intrapreneurship; these are, absolutely, frames of references that

higher education leaders need to have and they are also, importantly, theories which can

transform an institution at a time when that transformation might be critical to the institution's

very survival.

The scholarship that has most shaped the vision and mission of KLCC in recent years has

been the work of Terry O’Banion related to “learning colleges” (O’Banion, 1997; O’Banion &

Wilson, 2011). Jeffrey Selingo’s (2017) work There Is Life After College has also contributed to

the scholarly underpinnings of the niche that KLCC fills; Selingo found that the skills gap in

America was inexplicable and indefensible at a time when more students than ever, were

attending college.

Expectations, Outcomes, Challenges, and Strategies

While the President, faculty, and staff are responsible for executing initiatives to help

improve the success of students, the Board is mainly responsible for providing sound support,

including strengthening external relationships (Price, 2018) within the governance in efforts to

warrant positive outcomes for the College. For example, one of KLCC’s strategic plan initiatives

is to ensure the transferability of courses/programs to four-year universities, yet the Board is

responsible for resolving matters and challenges related to the administration or interpretation of

articulation agreements and has the final say.

GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE PAPER 11

Governance at the state level allows KLCC the opportunity to contribute to strategic

measures that helps students in its service area and across Massachusetts. A prime example is the

MassTransfer transfer program, a collaboration between the Commonwealth's community

colleges, state universities and the University of Massachusetts (Massachusetts Department of

Higher Education, n.d.). System-wide resources and policies allow for students to transfer

seamlessly, stay on track, and earn a bachelor’s degree on time. MassTransfer policies seek to

recognize the time and effort of students by ensuring their credits transfer between public

institutions.

The opportunities and strategies that can be presented through KLCC’s governance

model may also present some challenges. Anticipated challenges, for instance, with the College’s

involvement with statewide initiatives include potential implementation issues due to lack of

communication between institutions, as well as lack of educated advisors to facilitate transfers

between institutions. Yet, there are strategies to address both concerns, including collaboration

among the 29 Massachusetts higher education institutions and the state’s Department of Higher

Education to map and build pathways to assist in the collaborative initiatives in order to align

training, certificate, and degree programs with the workforce needs of the Commonwealth's

growth and emerging industry sectors. Transfer representatives and faculty from all institutions

can work together to build the pathway maps.

In some cases, not all representatives will cooperate, especially when they may have a

different understanding about policies and procedures and perspectives about community

colleges. Although the agreements may allow a smooth transition for students, the process of

establishing the common agreements can be challenging, mainly due to curricula differences at

four-year and two-year institutions. Other challenges include policy alignment and the perception
GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE PAPER 12

that community college courses are not equivalent to four-year courses. These challenges can

lead to inefficiency, confusion, and frustration. KLCC’s administration and faculty recently

reported similar challenges to their Board regarding receiving pushback from four-year

administrators. The Board could not grasp the resistance from those at other institutions because

they viewed some college programs as being the same regardless if they were at a two-year or

four-year institution. As one trustee stated, “Computer Science is Computer Science.” Although

the faculty was involved in helping aligning courses/curricula, the concerns led to the Board

working with the state coordinating Board and Legislators to clear up confusions and resolve the

issues.

One of the primary goals of Massachusetts community college is to enhance economic

and social mobility for all students. However, the anticipated challenges that are mentioned

above can defer these efforts. According to Bautsch (2013), the following strategies can help

address these challenges to ensure successful pathways for students, including the

Commonwealth’s dual enrollment partnership:

● To develop effective state transfer and articulation policies, College Boards and
governing bodies, and Legislators can work together to strengthen the pathway between
community and four-year colleges
● Maintain a shared database/website maintaining to publicize and share information about
the transfer process
● Work with College Administrators to help develop one general education core curriculum
for freshman and sophomore-level college courses
● Establish a reverse transfer policy and continue to create transfer pathways

Some state legislators, community colleges and four-year institutions, and their local governing

boards may have different interests that make it challenging to establish shared transfer and

articulation policies. However, others have found that having common policies can be beneficial

to creating successful pathways for students, which will in turn help will create a shared

responsibility in producing skilled workers for the workforce. Therefore, the anticipated
GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE PAPER 13

outcomes from establishing common policies will increase enrollment for community colleges

and four-year universities, improve completion rates, help meet workforce demands (Bautsch,

2013), decrease student debt, and, most importantly, improve economic and social mobility for

all students. While the governance structure of KLCC provides the opportunity for expectations

and anticipated outcomes to be met through standard and collaborative policies, those policies

and initiatives must also be reviewed and approved by the college’s accrediting body.

Regional Accreditation

King Louis XVI Community College is accredited through the New England

Commission of Higher Education (NECHE). Serving as the accrediting body in the New

England region of the United States, it provides accreditation for colleges and universities in

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Further,

NECHE provides accreditation to a handful of international schools, located in Greece,

Switzerland, Lebanon, Bulgaria, and Morocco (NECHE, 2019). As an oversight body, NECHE

is itself governed by a commission comprising of a minimum of 27 people elected by the

member colleges and universities of the organization (NECHE, 2019).

As a member institution of the New England Commission of Higher Education, King

Louis XVI Community College must operate within the parameters of the accrediting agency’s

standards for all member institutions. This includes providing institutional reports to NECHE on

an annual basis and undergoing comprehensive evaluations at least every 10 years (NECHE,

2019). By maintaining a governance structure that gives voice to its various stakeholders across

the institution, KLCC is able to have in place a framework that makes adhering to the standards

of NECHE, and providing this accrediting body with information as needed, a fairly seamless

task.
GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE PAPER 14

Statewide Governance Structure Considerations

As a college located in Massachusetts, King Louis XVI Community College is a part of a

statewide governance structure which comes from the Massachusetts Board of Higher Education

(BHE). While the University of Massachusetts system has its own governance structure, the

Board of Higher Education provides governance for non-UMass state universities and all

community colleges. Board of Trustees for KLCC and the college’s president to be mindful of

the potential partisan make-up of the state BHE.

Key to this structure of governance and oversight of the Commonwealth’s community

colleges is the Massachusetts Association of Community Colleges (MACC), which represents

each public two-year college in the state as well as their own local Board of Trustees. The

MACC works closely with the state’s key stakeholders including but not limited to the

Legislative and Executive branches of Government, the BHE and DHE, the MCCTA, private

organizations which include TBF, AIM, and key national partners such as the AACC, AACTA,

ATD and the Chair Academy” (MACC, 2013, para. 5). The MACC itself has its own governance

structure in which the Council of Presidents, consisting of the presidents of each community

college, governs this organization with council members rotating chairpersonship annually.

One notable implication for governance with the Massachusetts structure under which

KLCC must operate is the potential for the state Board of Higher Education to lean in one

direction or another politically since a partisan entity, the state’s governor, appoints trustees to

this board. Regardless of any potential political bias exhibited by those serving on the BHE,

these individuals may potentially make policy that is in the best interest of their own local

communities. What works for the community colleges in and around Boston, for instance, might

not be ideal policy for Westford, Massachusetts and KLCC. While KLCC has no input on who is
GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE PAPER 15

placed on the Massachusetts Board of Higher Education, the inclusion of the College’s president

on the MACC Council allows for the college to have a voice in matters in which the community

colleges of the state are expected to function as a unified whole.

Athletics and Governance

King Louis XVI Community College competes in men’s and women’s division one

soccer within the National Junior College Athletic Association (NJCAA) Region XXI. KLCC’s

athletics is governed under the umbrella of the Massachusetts Board of Higher Education, a

governance-structure which unambiguously encompasses the institution’s athletic programs. The

Massachusetts BHE operates under a policy in which it tasks the community college president as

the institution’s designated athletic officer, a policy that is in line with the recommendations of

The Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB). An AGB survey

found that a full three-fourths of respondent institutions had governance policies in place that

encompassed the school’s athletics and, in these policies ⅔ of respondent institutions delegated

this oversight to the college (or university) president; just over two-thirds of surveyed institutions

shared that the college presidents consulted with the board on athletics governance matters

(AGB, 2019).

Recent national scandals originating within college/university athletic programs, such as

sexual and child abuse scandals at Penn State and Michigan State, as well as widespread

academic fraud, like that documented at the University of North Carolina have raise the profile

of institutional governance of athletics programs across the country. Further, the pressure to

reduce costs and direct institutional resources toward the core mission of teaching and learning

has increasingly become a governance issue. To address these concerns and guide best practices,

AGB (2019) has provided three recommendations:

GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE PAPER 16

▪ The governing board is ultimately accountable for athletics policy and oversight
and should fulfill this fiduciary responsibility.
▪ The board should act decisively to uphold the integrity of the athletics program
and its alignment with the academic mission of the institution.
▪ The board must educate itself about its policy role and oversight of intercollegiate
athletics.

The AGB, in this important work, concluded their study with two strong recommendations for

college presidents and one for system boards. Presidents, AGB says, should convey to their

board the importance of the institution’s presidency being the designated athletics officer for the

institution and the chief executive should also establish how the board will monitor and assess

the president's performance in this area (AGB, 2019). System Boards should place themselves in

a position where they can provide the fiscal and ethical oversight needed to ensure that

individual institution’s athletic programs meet the standards of the system as a whole.

Conclusion

Since its founding 43 years ago, King Louis XVI Community College has focused on

building a sound and diverse support system for its community and the students it serves.

KLCC’s governance system continues to practice a culture of shared responsibility to help

mitigate and overcome barriers that may impact the mission and vision of the College. By

establishing sound policy and defining the duties and charges of stakeholders, King Louis XVI

Community College has found an effective governance structure in which divergent viewpoints

are given voice and the institution is able to capitalize on opportunities for evolution and growth

while serving as a member institution underneath a broader statewide governance structure.

GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE PAPER 17

References

Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. (2017, March). Shared

governance: Changing with the times. Retrieved from

https://agb.org/sites/default/files/report_2017_shared_governance.pdf

Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. (2019, May). Trust,

accountability, and integrity: Board responsibilities for intercollegiate athletics.

Retrieved from https://agb.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/KnightReport.pdf

Bautsch, B. (2013). State policies to improve student transfer. National Conference of State

Legislatures. Retrieved from

The Carver Guide (2005). Non-Profit Policy Governance. Retrieved from

http://www.callipygia600.com/callnugget/lessons/handouts/carver.htm

Carver, J. and Carver, M. (2013). Frequently asked questions: The Board. Retrieved from

http://www.carvergovernance.com/faq3.htm

Commonwealth of Massachusetts (2012). Massachusetts community Colleges presidents and

board of trustees legal resource manual. Retrieved from

https://www.middlesex.mass.edu/neche/Downloads/3trustees.pdf

Cowen, S. (2018). Shared governance does not mean decision making. The Chronicle of Higher

Education. Retrieved from https://www.chronicle.com/article/Shared-Governance-Does-

Not/244257

GDP Consulting. (2012, April 26). Why governance boards speak with one voice. Retrieved

from https://gdpconsulting.ca/why-governance-boards-speak-with-one-voice/

Höglund, L., Mårtensson, M. & Safari, A.J. (2018). Expectations and the performance of

governance functions between a board, management and other stakeholders: The case of
GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE PAPER 18

Robotdalen. Journal of Management and Governance. 22: 805.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-018-9404-1

Kubota, H.T. (2017). Decision Processes, Synergism, and Shared Governance in a California

Community College District. Retrieved from

https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations

Massachusetts Association of Community Colleges. (2013). About MACC. Retrieved from

https://www.masscc.org/about-mcceo/about-macc

Massachusetts Department of Higher Education. (2019). Higher ed authority overview.

Retrieved from https://www.mass.edu/bhe/higheredauthority.asp

Massachusetts Department of Higher Education. (n.d.). MassTransfer pathways. Retrieved from

http://www.mass.edu/strategic/transferpathways.asp

New England Commission of Higher Education (NECHE). (2019). About NECHE. Retrieved

from https://www.neche.org/about-neche/

O'Banion, T. (1997). A learning college for the 21st century. American Association of

Community Colleges.

O'Banion, T., Wilson, C., & League for Innovation in the Community College. (2011). Focus on

learning: A learning college reader. Phoenix, AZ: League for Innovation in the

Community College.

Olson, G. (2009, July 23). Exactly What is 'shared governance'? The Chronicle of Higher

Education. Retrieved from https://www.chronicle.com/article/Exactly-What-Is-

Shared/47065
GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE PAPER 19

Price, N. (2018). The roles and responsibilities of a Board of Directors for a college or

university. BoardEffect. Retrieved from https://www.boardeffect.com/blog/roles-

responsibilities-board-directors-college-university/

Ryan, J. E. (2016, June 23). A strategy session with some of education's top thinkers. Retrieved

from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/23/business/a-strategy-session-with-some-of-

educations-top-thinkers.html.

Selingo, J. J. (2017). There is life after college what parents and students should know about

navigating school to prepare for the jobs of tomorrow. New York, NY: William Morrow.

Theis, J.J. & Forhan, F. (2017). Addressing Wicked Problems through Deliberative Dialogue.

American Association of Universities and Colleges. Retrieved from

https://www.aacu.org/diversitydemocracy/2017/winter/theis