Governance Manual Archive - Central Christian College of Kansas Skip to content

Governance Manual Development

In November of 2020, an ad hoc committee of the Faculty Senate presented their observations concerning the role of the Faculty in shared governance. This was an internal document, created and reviewed by the Faculty. While no formal response was requested, it became apparent that the perceptions contained therein revealed a need for the Institution to memorialize and define the function and structure of governance for the College.

While the College has celebrated a long and rich heritage of shared governance, supporting the efficacy of collaborative decision-making built on open and transparent communication and mutual respect, as lifers have retired, the absence of institutional memory and experiences fragmented the assumed familial nature of shared governance.  In other words, the absence of a codified structure, a former advantage to the historical system of shared governance, now was serving as a detriment to trust and collaboration.

In December 2020, the President, working with the Chief Officers, began the process of assessing and codifying governance at CCCK. This process included an investigation into some of the concerns identified by the faculty, as well as codifying historical structures and assessing their effectiveness. A series of drafts, outlining a governance structure were considered.

In early 2021, the Office of the President presented a draft version of a Governance Manual (Draft 06) to the faculty and staff. The intent of which was to provide a common reference document from which the campus community could engage in a collaborative process. The goal of this process was to identify a governance system that could be mutually ratified by the campus community. Using public forums, web meetings, surveys, and discussion venues members of the campus community were invited to provide counsel, wisdom, and input. Feedback and questions were used to revise contents, with new drafts presented as significant modifications were incorporated.

In addition to a number of informal conversations and interactions, the following formal venues were held to allow stakeholders to interact:

  • January 27, 2021 – Executive Team Meeting
  • February 24, 2021 – Cabinet Meeting
  • March 12, 2021 – Zoom: Open Meeting (All Staff)
  • March 19, 2021 – Zoom: Open Meeting (All Staff)
  • March 22, 2021 – Faculty Senate
  • March 24, 2021 – Cabinet Meeting
  • March 30, 2021 – Townhall Meeting (All Staff)
  • March 31, 2021 [9:00 AM] – Townhall Meeting (All Staff)
  • April 1, 2021 [3:00 PM] – Townhall Meeting (All Staff)
  • April 6, 2021 [11:00 AM] – Townhall Meeting (All Staff)
  • April 6, 2021 [4:00 PM] – Townhall Meeting (All Staff)
  • April 7, 2021 [10:00 AM] – Faculty Strategic Planning Discussion
  • April 7, 2021 [12:00 Noon] – Townhall Meeting (All Staff)
  • April 9, 2021 [10:00 AM] – Zoom Meeting (All Staff)
  • April 14, 2021 – Executive Team Meeting
  • April 16, 2021 [10:00 AM] – Zoom Meeting (All Staff)
  • May 10, 2021 [1:00 PM] – Faculty Assembly

In addition, a web page was maintained, which provided a means through which members of the campus community could anonymously pose questions and comments. This process is archived below.

No comments or questions were submitted in response to Draft X, which was the last public draft utilized on this page. Following Draft X, two external readers were engaged to review the document and provide feedback. The College Council reviewed this input, which was incorporated into the manual. Faculty were given copies of the comments made by the reader specifically identified by the Faculty Senate. A revised draft was presented in August 2022 for consideration of the full campus constiguency.


The following section archives the FAQs that were created in response to specific inquires submitted through the web page or through the Office of the President.

No comments or questions were received in response to Draft 09.

Draft 10 - FAQs

On page 21-22, the decision making process, we have not been following the correct language. We have been using the words "affirm and refer" for College Council instead of Endorse and Append. Do we need to reconsider using affirm and refer for College Council? Or just change the way we communicate in College Council and how the minutes are written?

Thus the adage – Practice defines Policy or Policy defines Practice?

Based on this comment, two adjustments were made to pages 21-22:

  1. The word “Endorse” was modified “Affirm”. Two different words were originally chosen to help reduce confusion between Council actions and Presidential actions. However, practice has demonstrated that the concern may be unfounded.
  2. The statement related to “Refer” was modified in an effort to provide further clarity

Refer: This action is specifically reserved for 10+1 decisions or recommendations that emerge through the Faculty Senate (FAC), but of which the College Council has some concern or alternate perspective. Recognizing the primacy of the faculty voice in these areas, the College Council may choose to attach statements of dissent or perspective before sending the item on to the College President.

I think there should be a clause that gives the Chair of an Affairs Committee the ability to request a different representative from a constituent group, when that representative consistently is not in attendance or is unable act as a representative,

Good suggestion:

Let’s consider the following:

Committee Chairs may petition that a constituent body modify an appointment if in the view of the committee the assigned individual is unable to fulfill the intent of his or her representative role (i.e. inconsistent attendance, conflicting roles, meeting conflicts, etc.).

Draft 07 - FAQs

What's New

A few highlights:

  1. A Governance Resolution was added (Page 24).
  2. Greater specificity concerning the interplay between the Faculty enate and College Council was added.
  3. Additional language concerning guiding principles was added.
  4. Based on feedback, a few modifications were made to membership on councils and committees. These continue to be fluid as feedback is considered.
  5. As requested – the Faculty Senate By-Laws have been added as an appendix. Currently, they are included for illustrative purposes.
  6. A number of syntax errors were addressed.
  7. Responses to Draft 06 FAQs were incorporated, such as President’s Cabinet, committee membership, clarification about At-Large members, etc.

On page 4 it says "Full ratification of this document occurred on MONTH, YEAR." What is the plan for the stakeholders to vote on this? It seems like we are moving forward without any data to back up the decision besides anecdotal evidence or a sense of how people are feeling. Since the Board approved (?) this, does that mean the on campus stakeholders do not have a voice in this? An anonymous vote seems the only way to provide real feedback when people may feel reticent to voice an opinion contrary to the president when they are reliant on getting a contract for their job. If we do vote, what would be necessary to pass? A majority? Of all employed people on campus? Who determines that?

The inclusion of the statement “Full ratification of this document occurred on MONTH, YEAR.” Has been included to specifically denote that the document has not yet been ratified.

While it is true that the process is moving forward, the current process is focused on ensuring that the campus community has had the time and space needed to collaboratively shape the document. That is currently being assessed through the volume of input and contribution. As the stream of contributions dwindles and direct discourse confirms that concerns and questions have been addressed, we can begin evaluating if the time is right to consider ratification.

The Board did not approve the document but did affirm the process – providing their support both for the collaborative nature of the process and the intended goal of enhancing governance at the College. As for the voice of the campus community, this entire process has sought to garner input and wisdom from the campus community, which has included avenues such as these FAQs, which have allowed for the anonymous posting of questions and concerns, in a public setting.

In response to the ratification process, the plan is to seek endorsement from each constituent party. There has been some ongoing discussion concerning the best method to do this. One would be through an electronic vote (anonymously) whereby individuals can cast a vote and designate their constituent relationship. Another might be through a meeting of each constituent body, whereby each constituent party can decide a methodology that suits their preference. As such, no specific number has been identified to describe the necessary votes to pass.

Any ideas are welcome.

If you are aware of any pressure or coercion by the President or any other campus leader, you should file a complaint using the Staff Resources page at

Can there be a definition of terms added to this? Where we can see which committees and positions have rights of approval, ratification, or are simply informational? Perhaps a chart would be more helpful? Do all decisions ultimately need ratification by the president?

This suggestion recently was brought forward and is being considered in the next draft. There was a chart in an earlier draft but it was too simplistic to truly capture all the nuances. However, some sort of chart would be helpful.

This might help illustrate where presidential authority has been delegated.

If this is a new model of shared governance, how are the various stakeholders involved in decisions about the implementation?

Currently, this is only a proposed model for CCCK. However, a significant aspect of this proposed model is the collaborative nature of its design. The Association of Community College Trustees provided a basic outline to follow, which included:

  • Board encouragement of collegiality
  • Presidential leadership through broad college-wide involvement in shaping the system (structure)
  • Faculty, staff, and student participation

Additionally, we have attempted to remain faithful to:

  • Openness: Ensuring that the status and the content of the proposal remained available through the approval process.
  • Notification: Ensuring that constituencies are provided with sufficient opportunities for discussion and participation prior to making final recommendations.
  • Responsiveness: Ensuring that recommendations are incorporated and ready for review in a timely and appropriate manner.

Assuming that this question is more focused on implementation (final-decision-making processes) over design, the current process concerning implementation is following the general practice to have each constituent body ratify or reject the final draft of what might become the CCCK Governance Manual. That ensures that each group is given the opportunity to articulate support. In turn, rejection forces the structure to continue the collaborative process until such time as all groups are ready to approve, making this a truly shared process.

As is true of our current structure, which supports shared governance, any individual or body (committee) can provide recommendations. This includes recommendations concerning structure, language, membership, implementation, etc.

It may be appropriate to note that even when (and if) ratification occurs, the process remains ongoing, especially during the initial stages of the actual implementation. Again, borrowing from some work done by the Association of Community College Trustees Leadership Congress, the initial months would find the College:

  • Learning/discovering the new system
  • Fine-tuning of the Manual
  • Formal college-wide policy & procedure review
  • Council/Committee related issues
  • Clarifying (and negotiating) decision-making & oversight responsibilities
  • Mid-year and Year-end evaluation of system

Draft 06 - FAQs

Why is the President's Cabinet illustrated in the structure and what does it do? [Updated 4-2-21]

A description of the President’s Cabinet is included, toward the end of the Governance Document. The primary intent of including that circle was to adhere to the desire for full transparency. The entire governance system is built on the concept of ensuring that the decisions of the College are receiving the full counsel of wisdom that is available within the constituency. Administrators, and perhaps more specifically the Vice Presidents serve a unique role in that system.

The reader will notice that the Vice Presidents, who are responsible for the day-to-day management of the institution, do not hold primary leadership roles in the governance structure. Chairing the College Council, which is currently a placeholder position in the proposed system, is a non-voting appointment. Administrators share the same level of input into the governance structure, being represented on the different councils and committees therein.

While the President is an ex offico of all committees, the exercise of that privilege is rarely enacted. While the decision to remain distant from committee business may enhance the ability of committees to share without fear of presidential oversight, it also may inadvertently undermine another value upon which shared governance is built. , Since the President will not be familiar with all the rich discussion and input that has informed the process., she or he will need to rely on a source to help interpret actions that are prepared for presidential consideration. Outside of issues related to day-to-day management, the job of serving as a sounding board, providing insight, and helping to keep the president informed – falls to the Cabinet.

Furthermore, as articulated in the Governance Structure, the President’s Cabinet serves as the management team. Therefore, the President’s Cabinet represents the regular meeting of senior staff related to their day-to-day job responsibilities. Primarily a deliberative body, the Cabinet does not necessarily engage in the same type of legislative work assigned to the Councils, except for times of emergency, exigency, or other extraordinary circumstances.

Should athletics have its own oversight council?

This is still a point of discussion and feedback is appreciated. As this process has advanced, that very question has been a consistent point of consideration.

As of today (March 20, 2020), the structure has chosen to recognize the culture of the campus to help define how coaches influence the system. Recognizing that the student population is currently largely defined by athletes, the proposed structure assumes that coaches need representative authority throughout the institution. The proposed structure also formalizes the meetings of the coaching staff as a Standing Committee under the Enrollment Affairs Oversight Committee.

There is some concern that by defining a specific Athletic Affairs Oversight Committee, it would force coaches into another level of legislative burden, keeping them away from their primary role as educators.

More input is invited.

Under this governance structure, what is the strategy for managing Title IX, Residence Life, and Student Life? What is the vision for disciplinary affairs, counseling services? [Updated 4/2/21]

In the broadest term, many of these functions would not change much from the way it is managed today. Meaning, that the current structure and the proposed structure recognize the need for both programmatic management (The Student Life Staff) and institutional management (Committees and Councils).

The current committee governance structure and the proposed are both intended to provide avenues for input and deliberation as it relates to general policy and procedures. Neither is necessarily intended to address functional operations that occur at the divisional or office level. So, generally speaking, day-to-day operational management of the things like residence life, Title IX, and student life, are largely the outcome of how the members of the Student Life team manage those operations. The proposed structure would not change that reality.

Now, there are occasions where the concerns of a committee might seek to inform or influence the work of an office. That is true of the current structure, as well as the proposed structure. A good example would be related to mental health. The Office of Student Life oversees the functional reality of such offerings. However, a campus committee might want to make some recommendations or purpose some policy. In our current system of governance, they are free to do so. Here again, the new structure does not seek to change that. However, the proposed structure creates an avenue for that discussion to be heard by a wider audience, fostering greater transparency and collaboration – allowing for more input so that recommendations and decisions are considered by representatives of the entire campus BEFORE they are enacted. In the end, recommendations or decisions that are endorsed by the College Council will be considered for implementation.

In summary – there are no proposed changes (in this document) concerning day-to-day operations. Related to our current governance system, the key differences in the proposed structure include:

  • Defined membership, ensuring stakeholder representation
  • The addition of a College Council to serve as a clearinghouse for institutional decisions and a sounding board for concerns that exist at the institutional level.

The term Faculty Senate is used on page 6, but is not included in the chart on the last page.

Yes – Thank you for catching that. As we work through the drafts some aspects might be missed. Thankfully, we are working through this together. Perhaps with all our eyes, the final draft will be clean! Keep pointing our issues as you see them, please.

With my current teaching load and the time of year, none of the scheduled meeting times have worked for me and I have not been able to spend time looking over the documents. Changes of this magnitude deserve careful consideration over time rather than a few hasty meetings crammed in during the busiest month of the school year.

We are sorry that you have not been able to attend any of the sessions. We have purposefully scheduled them at differing times and days to help alleviate conflicts. Additionally, the First-hand Friday sessions have been recorded, to allow for consumption at a time and place of your choosing. However, we will continue to make every attempt to accommodate schedules. Let the Office of the President know of a time that works for you and we will see what we can do.

This is one reason we have been hesitant to articulate a specific timeline, favoring a collaborative approach to define the process. The desire is to have an agreed-upon working structure in place as we close out the spring semester (mid-May). This would provide time over the summer to adjust, train, and prepare.  If we get into mid-May and it seems that more time is needed, we will schedule more time in order to ensure that all input has been considered and processed. Additionally, any final draft will recognize the possibility that the structure will need points of revision, clarification, and polishing. These could be agreed upon points, added to the document, to ensure compliance.

Page 7 of the College Governance Mock-Up says that coaches are “considered members of the educational staff.” What does that mean? Is that including coaches as faculty?

From a purely College perspective, Coaches are not members of the Faculty. Faculty describe a specific category of individuals that are credentialed as instructors; having the primary task of overseeing the curriculum of the College (associated with divisions and departments).

Recognizing the significant role that the mission imposes on the campus community, the role of co-curricular programming becomes amplified. Athletics and Residential Life play a vital role as co-educators, though they are not Faculty. The job description for coaches highlights that 51% of their job is dedicated to providing instruction, mentoring, and discipleship.  Duties include:

  • Instruct, coach, mentor, and minister to student-athletes.
  • Assess performance and provide practical instruction.
  • Provide instruction and experiential training related to the CORE4.
  • Conduct analysis and instruction on individual and team performance.
  • Plan practices in alignment with competitive strategies.
  • Provide direction and guidance related to pre-game, game, and post-game collaboration
  • Provide spiritual instruction and experiences designed to foster faith development.
  • Instruct at least one lecture-based, practicum, or activity course.
  • Promote academic success through partnerships with faculty and other academic resources.
  • Promote community outreach and service by organizing, overseeing, and participating in team community service initiatives. At least one annually.
  • Participate in Chapel, Convocations, Colloquia, and, as appropriate, other spiritual formation activities, offerings, and events.

Given that the HLC makes the statement (2.C.5) that the governing board “expects the institution’s faculty to oversee academic matters” is there a reflection in this structure that the Faculty/Faculty Senate report directly on such matters to the governing board? If not, do we need to make such an adjustment as the faculty are seen as having direct oversight by the board?

As stated in the proposed governance manual, there are multiple HLC criteria that speak to the governance of the Board, Faculty, and other constituents of the College. These include:

  • 2.C.5. The governing board delegates day-to-day management of the institution to the institutions’ administration and expects the institution’s faculty to oversee academic matters.
  • 5.A.1. Shared governance at the institution engages its internal constituencies—including its governing board, administration, faculty, staff and students—through planning, policies, and procedures.
  • 5.A.3. The institution’s administration ensures that faculty and when appropriate, staff and students are involved in setting academic requirements, policy and processes through effective collaborative structures.
  • 5.B.3. The planning processes encompasses the institution as a whole and considers the perspectives of internal and external constituent groups.

Criterion 2.C.5. is part of Criterion 2, which is focused on ethical and responsible conduct. More specifically 2.C is focused on ensuring that the Board is acting with integrity, in alignment with the guiding values of the Commission. Sub-component 2.C.5. is specifically focused on constraining the role of the board in operational and academic aspects of the institution.

The key issue we need to ensure is that our adopted governance structure recognizes this need for the division of responsibilities, within the context of shared governance. Our primary concerns in creating this structure have been:

  • To reinforce the Board’s commitment to remain focused on its fiduciary role, leaving the operations of the College in the hands of its administration.
  • To ensure that the faculty continue to have a significant role in the currency and sufficiency of the curriculum, expectations for student performance, qualifications of instructional staff, and adequacy of resources for instructional support.\
  • To recognize that when appropriate, staff and students should be involved in setting academic requirements, policy, and processes through effective collaborative structures.
  • To enhance the role of different members of the campus community in overall planning and assessment.

The final draft will include a provision that will allow each Oversight Council, which includes the Faculty Senate) the opportunity to submit a report to the Board.

Who is chairing the oversight councils? A VP? Or is it elected from within the committee? If that person is not a VP will their loads be adjusted?

Currently, the proposed structure assumes that VP’s are members of the Oversight Councils, but not ex offico Chair. Discussions to date have varied on this perspective. It may be that such decisions are best left to the individual Oversight Committees. However, the intent was to ensure that each oversight committee did not just become a working committee of a VP, but a self-governing entity, free to pursue those agenda items recognized by a duly elected Chair.

As service to the College (i.e. serving on a committee) is an aspect of our current job descriptions, compensation for service has not been included in this draft of the model. That may be an issue that needs further investigation and discussion.

In this structure what happens to Divisions/division meetings/ smaller committees not listed? Will the work of those committees be absorbed into the larger councils? Is there a chart showing the information flow that will exist? Is there an overall chart showing where the current decision-making (re: some smaller committees) will now end up (if they are being absorbed)?

The term division has multiple connotations in the College. On one aspect, divisions represent an aspect of the academic structure, aligning departments under different divisions. Divisions are also sometimes used to describe operational offices (e.g. student life, financial aid, business office, etc.)

From an academic perspective, the status of such decisions is primarily the work of the Academic Dean and the Faculty Senate. In alignment with the proposed model, deference is given to the Dean and the Faculty Senate to define, administrate, and assess, faculty-related structures. While the current version of the Faculty Senate does recognize the ability of the Faculty Senate to establish ad hoc committees, they do not specifically state that the Faculty Senate can establish Standing Committees. However, such rights are assumed in the proposed structure for all Oversight Councils. Therefore, Faculty Senate, being synonymous with ACAOC, would also be afforded that privilege.

From an operational perspective, yes – the current proposed structure assumes that some (not necessarily all) of the current committees are initially absorbed, allowing the individual Oversight Councils the opportunity to establish standing and/or ad hoc committees as provided by the agreed-upon structure.

The Original Draft Proposal includes three illustrations. The Transitionary Model specifically lists the current committees and how each might relate to the proposed structure. The Proposed Model (also in the Mock-Up), illustrates suggested areas of responsibility and possible ongoing committee work.

Is the Academic Affairs Oversight Council the same as the Faculty Senate? Is it layered on top of Faculty Senate? Is this a request to have non voting positions of a coach, student, SGA VP, Staff persons on Faculty Senate? Will those non voting positions outside of faculty have to sign a waiver/non disclosure form for when we bring up sensitive issues re: particular students? Will they need FERPA training?

Following the decision of the Faculty to recognize a working set of By-Laws, Draft VI and future drafts will clearly identify that the Academic Affairs Oversight Council (ACAOC) and the Faculty Senate are synonymous unless otherwise advised by the Faculty Senate.

The membership of the ACAOC/Senate is a negotiated aspect of this document. As the proposed structure seeks to ensure that each constituency group has a voice in the different structures of the College, the Faculty Senate will need to determine to what level it desires to hear and consider the input of other members of the campus community when deliberating an action. As of yet [4/7/2021], no one group has submitted a concrete resolution or recommendation. Therefore, the document awaits input. If adhering to the newly adopted Faculty Senate By-Laws, with no further recommendations, membership of the ACAOC/Senate include: “Voting membership includes full-time and half-time faculty members, Director of Student Success, Registrar, and Library Director. Non-voting members include part-time (adjunct), chief academic officer, and other invited guests.

Non-Disclosure/FERPA: Good question – This will be an issue that needs some clarification as we move forward. All employees of the College undergo FERPA training, so we would need to investigate possible training SGA. In many ways, this may be incorporated into how we address student workers assigned to faculty members. Current student employees are supposed to be signing a confidentiality statement. We could expand this to include SGA members. Another consideration would be to address general business and then move to an executive session to address specific concerns.

Ability to possibly meet after graduation as a faculty to discuss further when other items are off our plates.


There is no plan to try and complete this process prior to commencement. The goal is to have major revisions completed so that a solid draft can be made available prior to commencement, opening the door for work on a possible final document in May.

[Seeking] Some clarification in regards to cabinet structure and accessibility to Board

Cabinet: There is an additional FAQ on Cabinet, so be sure to check that out. As things stand right now (4/8/2021) the proposed role of the Cabinet is to function as the central coordinating committee for college operations. Members advise the President, assist with the day-to-day operation of the College within established policies and regulations, and review progress on strategic initiatives. Initially, membership included all vice presidents, with an acknowledgment that other individuals might be included in accordance with the operational needs of the institution

Accessibility to the Board: Currently, the Board seeks collaborative input through regular evaluation of the President (which includes comments from the campus community), conversations at established opportunities for engagement (i.e. receptions, meals, etc.), Ownership interviews, review of documents and reports submitted through the President, and Whistleblower Alerts.  This proposed model does seek to implement additional avenues to ensure that the governance structure allows for opportunities through which the Board can remain informed of decisions, recommendations, and concerns.

By Laws entered into the document to see how they fit into the structure.

More context would help in addressing this question.

A major modification moving into Draft VI and beyond is the inclusion of by-laws (governing rules) as we move from philosophical discussion toward implementation. Draft VI (available above) includes these governing rules, as they pertain to the College Council and the individual Oversight Councils. If this is addressing the recent by-laws approved by the faculty – yes – at some point those will need to be added to the document. Currently, aspects of the Faculty By-Laws have already been included, as the development of the Oversight Councils sought to rely on the Faculty by-Laws as a possible model.

Be looking for the inclusion of the Faculty By-Laws in a future draft, with some specific references to them peppered throughout the main document, demonstrating deference to the Faculty By-Laws, when appropriate.

This is happening at a time when we have WAY to much going on and it is very difficult to find the time needed to digest all the information. The days and times for live meetings conflict with other duties so have only been able to listen in once. I do not see the rush for putting this in place. NEED MORE TIME!

Please feel free to suggest specific times that work for you or the group you may represent. Other members of the campus community have appreciated the interaction and found it helpful. In turn, the feedback received has been extremely influential and will be used in the formation of a new draft, which again will be followed by opportunities for comment.  Please do not assume that the end of this open comment period also serves as the end of the process. The comments and insights collected will be used to complete a new draft, which in turn, will be presented for another public comment period. The goal is to continue that process until an informed final draft can be produced and considered.

The intent of the process is to promote discussion and feedback while fostering transparency and collaborative interactions.

Is Registrar included as part of the "faculty"?

Currently, the Registrar is included as a formal, voting member of the Faculty Senate, as stated in the Faculty Senate By-laws. Therefore, is a member of the ACAOC.

I would add the Academic Services Manager as the recording secretary for that committee [ACAOC].

This assignment is reflected in the current version of the Faculty By-laws.

Will there be any policy that does not allow "at-large" spots to be taken by the same coach, staff or faculty member for each council? Maybe it's already addressed and I missed it.

Very good catch. It was an assumption that individuals assuming an at-large spot would be new. However, that was not articulated specifically. The next draft will include additional language defining this aspect.

With the latest rendition, I'm curious if it would be advantageous to have a second coach sitting on the Academic Affairs Oversight Council, so then there are two athletic voices, not just one?

That might be true. Keep in mind that the one coach will not be the only athletic voice, as the FAR (Faculty Athletics Representative), a faculty member, also serves on the Coaches Council. This will ensure that there are at least two perspectives that share an athletic focus. Additionally, a faculty member will be serving on each of the other Oversight Committees, so they too will be privy to athletic concerns, shared by coaches on those other committees. However, it may well be that this suggestion should be considered, both by the faculty and the coaches.

Under the Administrative Affairs Oversight Council, the Foundation is listed twice.

Great catch. Please see if that gets fixed on the next draft (Draft VII).

Either add the AD onto the Operational Affairs Oversight Council or do one coach and the AD?

Good suggestion. We will seek the counsel of the AD and athletic staff to determine their perspective on this.

With the standing committees under the purview of each council, can the Oversight Council ensure full staff engagement into committees?

Yes – at least as currently proposed. The language below is in the working By-Laws of the Oversight Committees:

Membership on a Standing Committee need not be representative of the membership of the Oversight Council. Membership should be relative to the needs of the committee and represent constituent bodies that might have an interest in the outcome of said deliberations. At the beginning of each year, the membership of Standing Committees is to be affirmed by the College Council to ensure representation.

However, this is not specifically restated under the duties of the College Council. Draft VI will address this omission. Thanks for finding it.

Draft History

The following tabs will access archived information related to each draft.

  • Draft 10 – Governance Manual Update

    In May of 2021, recognizing that the faculty were entering summer break, the Governance Manual feedback process was paused. However, relying on multiple points of discovery and discussion, aspects of the developing Governance Manual (Draft IX), were incorporated into the governance structure, as outlined in the 2021-2022 Policy and Procedures Manual. This is the first time in the history of the College that an official governance structure was codified, beyond the traditional listing of committees.

    Our goal remains the development of an actual Governance Manual that can serve as a reference point for the campus community. The fall of 2021 allowed the campus community to test-drive some of the concepts being considered for inclusion in the Governance Manual. As we move into the spring of 2020, all members of the campus community are being asked to once again review and engage the process, as we continue this collaborative process toward final ratification.

    The big changes from Draft IX to Draft X:

    • The most significant change is related to the membership of the committees. A considerable amount of feedback from Draft IX focused on this issue.
  • Draft 09

    Draft 09 – Governance Manual Update

    June 18, 2021

    Welcome to Draft IX – I am not sure what happened with Draft 08, but after reviewing Draft 08 it was clear that we just needed to move to Draft 09. So, here is Draft 09!

    So, what’s new…

    1. Added an Integrated Planning and Budgeting section, which is an essential component of our governance. This will provide every member of the community the ability to understand where we are at in the process related to assessment, budgeting, and planning – providing greater levels of accountability for every level.
    2. Developed some illustrative tables related to decision-influencing
    3. Reformatted sections for better flow and readability
    4. Added as a section on assessment development
    5. Integrated ideas and comments collected through earlier review processes
    6. Provided a Table addressing specific faculty related concerns

    Like we have before, feel free to use the tool below to make comments and recommendations, ask questions, seek clarity or propose additional ideas for consideration.

    Draft 09

    Thank you for your input and investment in this process. What a fantastic illustration of the Body of Christ working together to honor our shared values and mission. 

  • Draft 08

    Draft 08 – Governance Manual Update

    May 13, 2021

    The review of Draft 07 has produced a few suggestions that are currently being added to the document. These include a glossary, an illustrative chart concerning processes and permission, budget and strategic planning flows, and a few other enhancements that will provide greater clarity to the document. Once they are done, we will be able to present Draft 8. While not a specific timeline, a basic flow of the process includes the following.

    1. Incorporate suggestions into a new Draft (Draft 8), which may include a few campus-wide e-votes to clarify desired outcomes
    2. Present and review Draft 8
    3. Revise or recognize Draft 8
    4. Once we recognize a draft requiring no further revisions, a finalized draft will be sent to an external reader(s) for feedback and consideration.
    5. Comments from the external reader will be reviewed and revisions considered, as appropriate.
    6. A final draft will be presented for consideration.

    In the meantime, we will keep Draft 07 accessible, as well as the FAQ forum below.

    Thank you for your input and investment in this process. What a fantastic illustration of the Body of Christ working together to honor our shared values and mission.

     A Draft 08 was never posted, as modifications made in draft 08 initiated other significant considerations over the summer of 2021 (e.g. Integrated Planning). 

  • Draft 07

    Draft 07 – Governance Manual Update

    Thank you so much for the incredible feedback that was generated through the last review process. Besides the comments and questions reflected in the FAQ section below, conversations and interactions have provided valuable insights that were instrumental in the production of the latest draft (Draft 07).

    We are once again seeking feedback and reflection on this latest draft. A new FAQ section has been added to the page, which will allow comments stemming from the different drafts to remain separated for easier review.


    With the delivery of DRAFT 07, another two-week comment window has been opened. This period will span April 26 – May 7 and will include a Board of Trustees review and Faculty Senate interactions. At the end of that time, we will determine the next steps. Assumed in this process will be the delivery of a new draft, which may represent a final working draft or the next review draft. 

    By mid-May, we hope to determine if the campus community is comfortable with the implementation of the governance structure for the 2021-2022 academic year, understanding that an official review will occur in December of 2021 to determine the efficacy of the model, including possible revisions.

    Updated April 22, 2021

    Updated April 22, 2021

    Draft 07

    Thank you again for your partnership.

  • Draft 06

    Draft 06 – Governance Manual Update

    This page has been created to facilitate a transparent and collaborative process through which the stakeholders of the College can engage in the development of a revised governance system.

    Central Christian College of Kansas celebrates a long and rich heritage of shared governance that has supported the integrity of collaborative decision-making with open and transparent communication and mutual respect. A review of archival documents demonstrates that this reality has served as an essential ethos throughout the Colleges existence, and was most recently supported in the 2018 Assurance Argument Report, submitted by the Visiting Team to the Higher Learning Commission, in which the Team recognized that the governance system of the College supported a collaborative partnership within the institution.

    Interestingly, while the practice of shared governance is historically perceptible, enshrined in the committee structure of the Policies and Procedures Manual and Faculty Manual, specificity concerning the process and practice of shared governance is missing.

    This process is designed to help define the role of governance at the College, as well as provide a structure that is understood and affirmed by the entire College Community.

    Below you can access the original document, which initiated the process. In addition, you can view the working document (Mock-up) of the evolving Governance Manual, as it is being prepared for ratification. This document will be updated as input is received.

    Your responses should focus on the mock-up, as that will be the primary document we revise and prepare for ratification. 


    This process seeks to place greater emphasis on gathering input, rather than pursuing an arbitrary target for implementation. Comment, on a process of this nature, should never be cut-off by a time-stamp. At the same time, there is a sense of urgency to respond to the need for a defined governance structure.

    The current goal is to maintain a comment period that would go through April 9, 2021. If at that time, there is a general consensus about the modifications and current state of the proposed structure, the College will seek to ratify the agreed-upon structure through the end of the semester. If further time is needed, then the comment period will be extended.

    We will continue to review the document during First-Hand Fridays, which are recorded for those who are unable to attend. In addition, the President is hosting some open sessions to provide for feedback and input. These will occur in the ADR on:

    • 3/30 – 10:00 AM
    • 3/31 – 9:00 AM
    • 4/1 – 3:30 PM
    • 4/6 – 11:00 AM
    • 4/6 – 4:00 PM
    • 4/7 – 12:00 Noon

    In addition to these times, comments, suggestions, questions, etc. can be submitted through the links below, or dropped by the Office of the President through email ( or by dropping by.

    Draft 06

Back To Top