Scribd
Upload
81K views3 pages

U. President Taylor Randall Memo

The memorandum outlines the implications of Utah's SB 192, which clarifies the roles of university presidents and faculty in higher education, specifically limiting faculty jurisdiction to academic requirements and curriculum. It details a compliance process for reviewing and revising university regulations to align with the new law, emphasizing the need for careful assessment and potential revisions of over 300 policies. The president expresses commitment to shared governance and faculty input throughout this process.

Uploaded by

Courtney
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
81K views3 pages

U. President Taylor Randall Memo

The memorandum outlines the implications of Utah's SB 192, which clarifies the roles of university presidents and faculty in higher education, specifically limiting faculty jurisdiction to academic requirements and curriculum. It details a compliance process for reviewing and revising university regulations to align with the new law, emphasizing the need for careful assessment and potential revisions of over 300 policies. The president expresses commitment to shared governance and faculty input throughout this process.

Uploaded by

Courtney
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Office of the President

201 Presidents Circle, Room 203 · Salt Lake City, Utah 84112-9007 · 801-581-5701

Memorandum

To: Academic Senate

From: Taylor Randall

Date: March 24, 2025

Re: SB 192 and Faculty Jurisdiction

Introduction and Background


In the 2024 Legislative General Session, the Utah Legislature enacted SB 192 which amended
Utah Code Section 53B-2-106 to delineate the roles of the presidents and faculties within
higher education institutions. i The Utah Legislature has directed Presidents through SB 192 to
enact regulations that define the boundaries of the faculty’s jurisdiction over University
matters. As a policy matter, I must “ensur[e] that the faculty may only have jurisdiction over . .
. academic requirements for admission, degrees and certifications [and] course curriculum and
instruction.” Utah Code 53B-2-106(6)(b)(i).
The legislature has made it clear that if the Board of Trustees or I wish to expand the
jurisdiction of the faculty, this must be done by express authorization or delegation. Therefore,
we must conduct a careful review of all University regulations that currently purport to grant
faculty jurisdiction over the administration of University matters outside the faculty’s purview
set by SB 192. Each of those regulations will need to be reviewed and then either reaffirmed or
revised as appropriate. As always, all such regulations must be approved by me and potentially
the Trustees.

Steps to Compliance with SB 192


I will be asking each policy officer to work with their policy owners, supported by the University
Regulations Office and the Office of General Counsel, to conduct this careful review of the
University’s regulations and help bring the University into full compliance with SB 192. Here are
the steps I envision for this process:
Step 1: Update Policies that specially address the general authority of the president and the
faculty to closely mirror the responsibilities/authority dictated by S.B. 192. These may include,
Policy 2-003: The President of the University; Policy 6-001 Section III.B.3.b (on the authority of
the university faculty); and Policy 6-002: The Academic Senate.
Step 2: Compliance Review of Other Policies for Alignment with Requirements in S.B. 192
Review other university regulations that grant jurisdiction to the faculty for alignment with
requirements in S.B. 192 and propose revisions as necessary. For each regulation that currently
grants faculty jurisdiction, I will work with the policy officer to determine whether that
jurisdiction falls within the areas described in S.B. 192. If the jurisdiction granted in policy falls
outside of the areas described in S.B. 192, I will work with the policy officer to determine if
either of the following is appropriate:
• an express grant of jurisdiction to the faculty; or
• an acknowledgement that faculty recommendation or input is appropriate in the
process described
We will then revise each policy as necessary based in this assessment.
We will prioritize this policy review and revision as follows:
1. Review Policy 1-001: Policy on University Regulations for compliance with SB 192 and
revise as necessary. S.B. 192 will likely require changes to the university’s current
regulation approval process for policies.
2. Review regulations in Part 6: Academics, of the Regulations Library
3. Review regulations in all other parts of the Regulations Library

I recognize that there are over 300 policies and rules in the Regulations Library, so this will be a
significant undertaking. Step 1 of the process is critical and must be completed quickly and
there is some urgency to Steps 2.

Conclusion
The Utah legislature is requiring that we undergo this process. I know and acknowledge that
this understandably causes angst for many of the faculty regarding both SB 192 and the process
outlined in this memorandum. Please know that I am committed to the concept of shared
governance and will continue to seek input from the faculty through the Academic Senate in
matters that are important to the institution.

i
Section 53B-2-106 states (6) Subject to the approval of the institution’s board of trustees, a president:
(a) shall establish a budgetary policy, such as policy regarding benefits and endowment investments;
(b) shall provide for the constitution, government, and organization of the faculty an administration, including:
(i) enacting and implementing rules;
(ii) ensuring that the faculty may only have jurisdiction over:
(A) academic requirements for admission, degrees, and certificates; and
(B) course curriculum and instruction

2
(iii) permitting faculty to have jurisdiction over a matter other than a matter described in Subsection (6)(b)(ii) only
if the following entities expressly authorize or delegate such power:
(A) the Legislature;
(B) the board;
(C) the institution’s board of trustee’s; or
(D) the institution’s president.
In addition to these provisions that relate directly to the role of the faculty in institution decision-making, the
section includes many things that a president “shall” or “may” do, including:
• “the president may establish policies for the administration an operation of the institution that are
consistent with the institution’s role that the board establishes, rules which the board establishes, and the laws of
the state”: and
• “the president of each institution may exercise grants of power and authority as the board delegates, as
well as the necessary and proper exercise of powers and authority not denied to the institution or the institution’s
administration, faculty or students by the board or by law, to ensure the effective and efficient administration and
operation of the institution consistent with the statewide strategic plan for higher education.”
And finally, the revisions state (9) “In performing any of the acts described in this section, a president may, in the
president’s sole discretion, seek input form the institution’s faculty, staff, or students.”

You might also like