Accountability: Who Is Watching the Watchers? Part 4: The illusion of governance (#584)

Governance is everywhere.

Committees convene.

Agendas are circulated.

Minutes are recorded.

Votes are taken.

From the outside, the structure appears intact - reassuringly so.

There are layers of oversight, clearly defined processes, and a visible architecture of accountability.

And yet, there are moments when a quiet doubt emerges:

If governance is present, why does it sometimes feel absent?

This is not a question of whether governance exists.

It does.

The question is whether it is functioning in the way we believe it is.

At the heart of any governance system is a simple idea:

That decisions, particularly those with broad and lasting impact, should be subject to meaningful review, informed input, and, where appropriate, challenge.

Not obstruction.

Not delay.

But scrutiny.

In academic institutions, this idea is often expressed through shared governance.

Faculty contribute their expertise.

Administrators provide leadership.

Committees serve as points of intersection.

Committees provide a place where perspectives meet, where proposals are examined, and where assumptions can be tested.

At least, that is the intention.

But shared governance is not defined by structure alone.

Shared governance is defined by agency.

Do participants have the ability to influence outcomes?

Or are they simply present within a process that has already moved forward?

This distinction is subtle, but critical.

Because there is a difference between being consulted and being heard.

Because there is a difference between being informed and being empowered.

Because there is a difference between governance as a mechanism of decision-making and governance as a performance of inclusion.

Consider how decisions of consequence often unfold.

A proposal emerges, sometimes from external opportunity, sometimes from internal initiative.

The proposal is developed, refined, and advanced through administrative channels.

By the time it reaches a committee, it is no longer an idea.

It is a plan.

It carries momentum.

It carries expectation.

It often carries implicit urgency.

At that stage, what is the role of shared governance?

Is the committee being asked to evaluate the proposal in a meaningful way?

Or is the committee being asked to endorse something that has already been set in motion?

The language surrounding these moments is revealing.

We are seeking input.

We are providing an update.

We are sharing this with the committee.

These phrases suggest openness.

But they do not necessarily indicate influence.

And so, a quiet recalibration occurs.

Committees become places where information is received rather than decisions are shaped.

Questions may be asked of committees, but within boundaries that are rarely made explicit.

Dissent, when it appears, is often softened, and absorbed into the process rather than altering its direction.

Not because dissent is unwelcome.

But because the trajectory has already been established.

This is what creates the illusion.

From the outside, governance is visible.

From the inside, its impact can feel limited.

The forms are preserved.

The functions begin to shift.

It is important to be clear: this is not necessarily the result of deliberate manipulation.

In many cases, it reflects practical realities.

Opportunities arise quickly.

Negotiations require confidentiality.

Decisions carry financial or strategic weight.

Leaders act, often with the best of intentions, to position their institutions effectively.

And in doing so, they may unintentionally compress the space in which governance can operate.

But accountability depends not only on intention.

It also depends on process integrity.

If governance structures are present but do not meaningfully shape outcomes, then their role becomes symbolic rather than substantive.

And symbolism, while powerful, is not the same as oversight.

There is also the question of information asymmetry.

Those closest to a decision - administrators, negotiators, external partners - often hold far more information than those asked to review it.

By the time a proposal reaches a committee, key elements may already be fixed:

Financial terms.

Strategic commitments.

External expectations.

What remains open for discussion may be relatively narrow.

In such cases, even a well-functioning committee faces constraints.

It cannot evaluate what it cannot fully see.

It cannot reshape what has already been agreed.

And so, shared governance becomes bounded not by policy, but by timing and access.

Over time, this dynamic can become normalized.

Faculty and committee members learn, often implicitly, where influence is possible and where it is not.

Energy is directed toward areas where input feels consequential.

Other areas are acknowledged, but not pressed.

Not out of apathy.

But out of realism.

And this is where accountability becomes most fragile.

Not in moments of overt conflict.

But in moments of quiet acceptance.

When the system continues to function - meetings held, reports filed, approvals recorded - but the underlying sense of agency has diminished.

So, we return to the central question:

If governance exists, but does not meaningfully alter outcomes, what role is it playing?

Is it a safeguard?

A sounding board?

A formality?

Or something more complex - a structure that provides legitimacy to decisions that have largely been made elsewhere?

These are not easy questions.

They challenge assumptions that many of us rely on - that the presence of process equates to the presence of accountability.

But the two are not the same.

True accountability requires more than structure.

True accountability requires space - for questions, for dissent, for reconsideration.

True accountability requires timing - engagement early enough to influence direction, not just respond to it.

And true accountability requires trust - trust that participation is not merely procedural, but meaningful.

Without these elements, shared governance can begin to resemble something else.

Not a mechanism of oversight, but a stage on which oversight is performed.

In Part 5, we will step back one final time.

Not to examine a single structure or decision, but to consider the broader landscape.

If lines are blurred, systems exert pressure, philanthropy shapes identity, and shared governance becomes constrained:

What does accountability look like now?

And perhaps more importantly:

Who, in the end, is responsible for ensuring that it still exists?

#bunyipsbooksbeyond