Table Of Content

THE GEORGE WASHINGTON I.'NIVERSITY \-, Washington, D.C" MINUTES OF TI{E REGULAR MEETING OF THE FACULTY SENATE HELD ON APRIL 8.2005 IN THE ALUMNI HOUSE Present President Trachtenberg, Vice President Lehman, Registmt Amundson, and A,cting Patliamentadan Johnson; Deans Ftawley, Futtelt and Toog; Professots Biles, Briscoe, Castleberry, Delaney, Englandet, Friedenthal, Gallo, Garis, Granger, Griffith, Gupta, Helgert, Klat6n, Lee, Muellet, Packet, Robin, Robinsoq Shambaugh, Shen, Simon, Vergata, Wilrnarth, and Wirtz Absen* Deans Harding, Kqu, Phillifs, Scotq Trangsrud and Whitakeq Professots Cotdes, Marotta, and Watson The meeting was called to order by Ptesident Trachtenbeng at 2:10 p.m. As Patlia- rnefltarian Pagel was ulxable to attend the meeting, the Ptesident inttoduced Ftofessor David M" Johnson of the GW Law School, who agteed to senre as Acting Parliamentadan for the meeting. A short adiournment was declared in order to have the antual photogtaph <lf the Senate taken. APPROITAL OF TFIE MINUTES Dea* Trrg asked that line 6 on Page 6 of the March minutes be aaoended to substitute the wotd "part-time" for "conttacfl in the phmse "1{X) contmct faculty.t' Fotlowing discussion of whether or not the wotd'!art-time' should also be substituted fot { the wotd uucontracf' elsewhere in the prnrgt"pn, Dean Toog offeted to provide a cladficatioa to the Secretary" Upon motion made and seconded, the minutes of the regular meeting of Match X.1, 2005 were approved pendiag teceipt of the cladfication &om Dean Toog. CHANGE IN THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA Professor Wilmarh asked for and received gll2nirnous consent to change the otdet of the agenda so that Executive Vice President and Tteasutet Louis H. Katz's lJpdate ore Square 54 development could be consideted as the next item of business" UPDATE OI{ SQUARE 54 DEVELOPMENT Vice President Katz distributed a copy of his presentation to the Senate entitled, .,Square 54, a Uaique Oppornnity." Before the update cornmenced, Ptofessot Griffith said he had heard from a nuaber of factrlty who werc vely intetested in leaming more about the report in the ptevious dafs Hatchet article, in which Vice Ptesideat Kqtz announced that \- faculty eaises qrould be put of,r an 18 month cycBe [rathea than a 12 month cycl4. Ptofessor Facr.dty Seaate Minutes,,Apdt 8, 2005 Page2 GrifiEth asked if Vice Ftesident Katz could reserve a portion of his time to address ttris issue 1 and offer an explanation to the faculty, andYice President Yr-alz agreed to do so. Vice Ptesident Katz began by sayrng that it is impossible to look at Squate 54 (the old GW Hospital site) without considering its futue in the context of slvetall University space aseeds" CW needs to underctand what its academic and housing needs are, and plan how best to accommodate fotecasted growth on its Foggy Bottom campus" The University also needs to develop an underctanding of the opportunities fot deriving value ftom Squate 54 and engagiag the District and the Foggg Bottom Commuaity in assisting GW to reach its goals" Yice Fresident Katz moved tapidS through his ptesentation, t.r-safizing the forccast of GW's growth tequitements ovet the next ten yearc, the identification and analysis of sorne potential future campus development sites to accommodate this gtowth, performance of financial analyses, and selection of a developet for the site. Key stakeholdet groups - the Board of Trustees, the Senate Physical Facilities Committee, ffid two faculry representatives of the Senate, Prcfessors Gallo and Chedan, have beet invohed in the ptogress, process thus far and these groups have been updated on ptoiect updates and feedback at key points in the process. A community-based planaing process has also been devetoped with the D.C. Office of Planning, to engage key stakeholders in conversations aboart GW's campus development ira the context of the suuounding reeighbothood. G\['s ten year growth tequirement is based on a forccast of two millio* squarc feet (s.f.) of space, which would be prcdominantly for academic trlu{poses, but would also include some additional student housing over and above that undet construction at the Ixesent time. Thrce priorities have been identified thtough nrunetous forurns on campus for the approximately 1.5 tnillion s.f. of academic, medical, and administrative facilities: a Scieace Centet (300,000 - 500,000 s.f.), a building for the School of Public Elealth alrd F{ealth Senrices (100,000 - 200,000 s.f.}, and a Cancet Center (100,000 s.f.), Xn addition, approximate$ 500,000 s"f" of student housing (an additional L,000 beds) will be aeeded. Unforternate}, the constuctior of these four proiects will exceed GWts pteseilt allowable density, which is approximately 800,000 s.f. of allowable development snder the existing Campus Plan. This 800,000 s.f figure includes 400,00t) s.f. of allowable development orr Square 54. Without Square 54, the Univetsity only has 4001000 s.f. of allowable development on camprur unless existing campus density, or the Campus Plan FAR limit of 3"5, is increased. Ftofessot Eaglander asked if Vice Prcsident Katz could e><plaie allowable carnpus '\at deasity. Yice Ptesident Katz tesponded GW presently is allowed a 3"5 overall F,{R (floor-area ratio, or the gross floot area divided by the total land atea of the campus), even though the surounding area, with the exception of the Foggy Bottom Flistoric Disttict, is allowed a 6 to 10 FAR. The University is allowed far less density tha& the immediate surrounding atea atrd carffirot meet foteseeable demand unless density is incteased" I Ptofessor Muellet asked Yice Fresident Kata how the pdorities listed on page 6 of his Update wete determiaed. Vice Fresident Katz tesponded that a Science Centet had been Faculty Senate Mirultes, Aptit 8r 2005 Page 3 named by Faculty Senate Resolution as a fitst priodty; the School of Public Health and \-, Flealth Sciences (SPHHS) does not at prcsent have a building of its own; the possibility of building a Cancer Center at the Warwick Buildiog site has been a priodty at the School of Medicine and Flealth Sciences fot quite some time, and cleady, the Univetsity needs to provide more student housing" These priodties ate not only important to the Univetsity but they are irnportaat to the Disuict of Columbia as well. Professor Englandet observed that the ptiotities listed oo page 6 do not account for the remaini*g 8001000 s"f. (of the 2 rnillion s.f. fotecast), and so thete could be aaothet category of proiects, deemed "othet'' developed fot this temaining space. Vice Ptesident I{au agreed with this point. Ptesident Ttachtenbetg noted that both the School of Engineeting and Applied Science and the Columbian College of Arts and Sciences need additional cpace, and he said he thought "othet''was a goodway to think about it. Ptofessor Griffith echoed Frofessos Muellet's question, sayiag he thought that quite a nurnber of people have been wondeting exactly hovr this ptanning process wotks and how priodties ate identified" Yice Ptesident Katz eesponded that this has been discussed in seniot staff meetings a loq taking into considetation the Senate's stated desite for a Science Centet. Professor Mueller said he tecalled that the Senate had voted on the Science Centet, but the othet pdotities had not come thtough the Faculty Senate. Fresident Trachtenberg observed -trat the tequitement fot housrng studeats ernanates ftom the District of Columbia, which leaves two ptiotities about which decisions have been made, the SPHHS buildiag, and the Cancet Center. He rcpeated that the \-, SPHF{S has no buildiog of its ourn and it looks as if the University is seeking to obtain funding to assist constnrction of the Caacet Centet" Frofessor Mueller observed that quite a rrumbet of the faculty of the Graduate School of Education and f{r"t''ram Development are scattered and this School is also in need of additionat space. Fresident Trachtenberg noted that GSEFID rcceived new facilities eady in his tenute, and to some extent, Schools who have received buildings go to the back of the queue for new space as a result" To some extent it is an equity issue, but anothet factot is cost. Siace the University is ruftdng very close to the matgin ora debq the fundmising ability of Schools has become an increasingty inopo*ant factoc' in any decision olr ptoviding irnproved facilities. Vice President Katz moved on to page 8 of his presentation, which lists some f,ourteen potential development sites on campus to meet the Univerciq/s space needs in the future" He then descdbed some of the possibilities for these sites in detait notably Squate 55 (the Univercity Pa*ing Garage site actoss ftom Squate 54 and adiacent to the Medical Centet) aad Square 80, next to the GSEI{D. He eeiterated that everythirg depends utr}on the outcome of the deosity question, as thete is not a lot mote that can be built undet existing 26ning" If the crurent FAR cap caorot be incrcased alternative stmtegies must he found to accommodate GW's growtfo, with the use of Square 54 for University pu{poses a possibiliqy. Yice Prcsident Katz them eeviewed key otrategies for shaping GW's future (page 10 of \- t&e Update), which center on developing a metfood of campus development that engages Faculty Senate Mirautes, April S, 2005 Fage 4 appropriate stakeholdeqs ia the planning 3lrocess, possible development of Squares 54 and 1 55, teplacing inefficient facilities, and continuing to move non-ctitical adminisuative functions offthe Foggy Bottom campus. Professot Griffrth asked if the density cap were taised by the District of Columbia, would this mean that the Univetsity would be able to build without seeking the usual permits. Vice Ptesident Katz responded that the Univercity would still leave to go through the standard construction permit process. It is anticipated that the Univemity wilt seek a FAR of apprcximately 4.5, he added rather than the 6 to 10 FAR of most of the sumou:rding atea,. Frof,essoc Fdedenthal asked about administtative opemtions already moved off campus and if that would free up space for building. Vice President Katz said that most of finance, advancernent, and human tesoruces are now off campus, and much of the data centef, is now at the Loudoua campus. Much of the Academic Centet has been made available for acadetr,ic use. There ate also administative spaces in the residence halls which can be moved so that mof,e space fot housing Oeds) can be obtained. Ptofessor Gallo asked about space outside the Academic Center whicla has been fteed up and coavetted to academic pu{poses. Vice Ptesident Katz noted that Gelman Libtary is novE tatge$ used fot libmry pu{poses, whercas before it housed a numbet of othet offices. Vice President Katz rctumed to his ptesentation and discussed the m.,o vatiables 1 which will determine the ultimate financial value to GW from Squate 54 - density achieved, and possible *aix of uses on the site. Frofessot GrifEth said that some are corxcefired that the plaaniog for this site seems to be leacling in the ditection of devoting Square 54 entidy to cormmercial purposes, with no academic use at all Since fosilding on the site will rlot be complete in any case until at least 2fi)8, this would seem to put the academic space needs of the Univercity far into the futute as more development must aqrait receipt of a tevenue stream from the properry" Vice Ptesident Katz then explained that the development agreemert signed and 60 year gtound lease negotiated in February 2005 with Boston Properties and KSI will enable the {Jnivetsity to obtain a revenue stream ftom Square 54 once the Disuict of Columbia incteases Gw's density entitlement, so the Univemity will not have to wait for Eevenues uatil a building is constnrcted. The best case scenario is probably two years for the density question to be tesotved for the entire c4mpus" Presideest Tmchtenbe*g said he thought it was important to note that the mooey obtained &onn the deveEopment pu$uant to the groernd lease would dse as development proceeds. Frof,essor Lee asked if patking would be included in any mixed use development for Squate 54, and Vice Ptesident Katz said this would be rcquited. Additional parking would also be important if Sqerare 55 is developed and the exis"",E Parkiag Garage is demolished. Ptofessot Gdffith noted that the p&an dcsctibed by Yice Ptesident Katz ptovides that GW may recaptrxre all or part of square 54 &om the developers for University use in the event that a sufficient increase in campus density or adequate entitlenaents on Squate 54 a canoot be obtained" I{e asked if this would be a costly exchange if, space were eecaptued ia this maruher and if it would be proportional monetadty to the squate footage obtained. Faculty Senate Minutes, Apdl 8, 2005 Page 5 Vice Prcsident Katz said it was impossible to answer that question with cet'tainqr as it \-, depends, as do maoy other pieces of the puzzle, on the ovetall density achieved and the mix of, uses determiaed fot the site" The ideal tesult wilE be for the University to obtain both space (incteased density) and money ftom the site, and if both ate not achieved, hatd decisions will have to be made in the futue" Professor Englaader asked about the approval tr)rocess for incteasing ovemll density on campus. Vice Fresident Katz rcsponded that this decision would be made thtough the Zoning Cornmissioir" President Trachtenberg obsered that Square 54 u/as odginally zoned fot tesidential use, hut when the Hospital was builq GW obtained a waivet of that 2sning classifrcation. If Once the old Hospital was demolished, the site rcverted to the residential category" Square 54 were developed for academic purposes, he said he thought the Univetsity would be very likety rcsuicted to consfiucting a building roughly the size of the old Hospital, ot one of 5001000 s"f" Incteased densrty would allow a building possibly tnrice that size olg Square 54. Vice Fresident Katz noted that the rest of the campus is also zoned tesidentiat and that any development of Square 54 would likeb iaclude a tesidential component. Frofessor Gupta asked if the new buildrng would have the Univetsit's name on iq and Vice President Katz said that temains to be determined. Frofessor Wilmarth asked if a rough tinreline could be outlined for gtoundbteaking on the site. Vice Ptesident Katz said he thought the community planning process would be \- complete by Fatl 2005, following which a prcsentation would be made to the /,6nitng Commission. The best case scenario for completion of the entitlement process is 12 months, but realistical$, it will be morc like 18 months. Followiag teceipt of the entitlement process, t&e Univercity must decide upon the best plan of action. Receipt of any monies due under the ground Eease agrcement will be dependent upon the Univetsiq/s decisiots to use all or part of the entitlement gmnted. Frofessor Robinson asked what sort of tevenue was contemplated &om this arrangement. Vice Ptesident Katz respoaded that the gtound lease provides for payments over 60 years, which includes a built-in CPI inctease and othet adiustments" The total qrotrld be in the millions of dollarc a year, and these funds could be used 1s finance the capitat needs of the University. Thus, even though the Univetsity would have to incur debt f,ot rnore consuuction, thete would be a dedicated source of revenue to fund ttris developmerat" This would also somewhat diverciS the University's reveoue sources, reducing its depeodence on tuition. Professos Eaglander asked if tax revenue from development of Squate 54 would be If attractive to the Disuict of Columbia, and Vice PtesidefrtKau said he thought it would. the University builds on land it already orrns that is ptesently off the to< base, this costs f,).Q. l6thing and it benefits ftom iob cteation. trf the Univetsity buys mote land and builds on it for educational pu{poses, this actually f,emoves propefty from the tax base. Development of Squate 54 could also be attractive to D.C. because it fits ifl with the smart growth plan aod could sefire as a model fot what it hopes to accomplish throughout the \- Disttict. Two other f,easons why Squate 54 developmeilt may appea! to the Disttict ate the Faculty Senate Minutes, APdl 8, 2005 Page 6 1 relief of pressures within the comrrrunity once support is gained for the Univensityts obiectives, and the cteation of new residential units. Professot Lee spoke as Chair of the Univetsity and Urban Affiaits Committee, commendiog Messrs. Betnard Demczuk and Michael Akin [the new Dfuectot of the D.C. Foggy Bottom/West Eod A-ffairs departmentl tot theit work with the Friends Cornmittee. Reportedly therc was a ve{y large turnout for a f,ecent meeting with the City Admiaistrator, ,o4 ,ppar.ntly, not one criticism of the University was mised at that meetinS. Accotding to Vice President Katz, Mr. Akins' office is wotking on becoming a lesouce fot Foggy Bottom residents, and the Univercity Police department is cteating a suppoft aetwork to assist community tesidents in tesolving issues of concetn to them. FACULTY SAI.ARY INCREASES Professor Griffith said that thete was intense intetest in The Hatchet announcement that faculty would be moving to an 18 month cycle fot pay raises" Vice Ptesident Katz responded that he would be meeting with Michael Barnet of The Hatchet dght aftet the Senate meeting, and he added that thete wete a numbet of misrcptesentations in the article, including the fact that he was never intenriewed by the authot. He said he had discussed the Univercity budget with Mr. Barnett, aad genemlly what is tequited to move the institution forward and balance the budget at the same time. Flowevet, his temarks had been taken out of, context, he added. Vice Ptesident Katz said that he is not aurare that any decision has been made by the Board, or anyone else, that an 18 month salary cycle would be permanent. Professor Griffith said that the Fiscal Planning and Budgeting Comneittee had tried very hatd this year to get information on the budget fot next yeat, but it received very little. Professor Griffith said he had asked Associate Yice Ptesident fot the Budget Don Boselovic if there would be money in the Fy '06 budget for faculty taises, and Mr. Boselovic had said that thete would; he did not mention any delay ot shift to an 18 month cycle' Ptof,essor GrifEth noted that the last trme this was done the iustification given was that a falloff in the dtawdown from the Univerciq/s endowment made this move fiecessary, but the stoqy as it appeared in The Flatchet appeared to offet no such iustification. Vice Ftesident Katz obsered that budgetarily the University is in a position where entollnaents are no longer growrrxE, thete is an increased need fot financial aid, and eirdowment income has not incrcased. Financial demands on the institution have increased: therc is a need to fund the Strategic Plan fotAcademic Excellence, thete arc also needs for increased secudty, including cybet-secutity, and more money is being spent on compliance issues" The Hatchet article's focus should have been on the many different facets of the budget, what has been done in the past to balance it and move GW forwatd, and what is being done now, such as moving ofEces offcampus. Professor Gdffith said he thought that it would be a usefrrl thiag if the aclrninistmtion would address the faculty if it is considedng the option of ptoviding money fot stategic initiatives by cutting back on faculty salary incteases. It is disconcerting to mary, he added, 1 to see this sort of announcement made in the student newspaper. Ptesident Ttachtenbetg said the contents of The Hatchet article were not ao arnnouncemenq howevet, he Faculty Senate Minutes, April S,2005 PageT understood that the faculty would like to know what is gor$g on befote such a decision is \- made, and he would be happy to do thatwhenever he could. Professor Gupta asked if salary letterc would go out on May 1, and Vice President Lehman said that November is the time when these letters are issued. Frofessor Wirtz read the text of Atticle IX of the Faculty Code which concetns the faculty role in univetsity decision making and ptovides as follours: "The rcgulat active- status faculry shate with officers of the Administtation the responsibility for effective operation of the deparments and schools and the Univetsity as a whole." It further provides that the regular active-status faculty also participate in the formulation of policy and planning decisions affecting the quality of education and life at the Univetsity. In that context, he said he had received an Email that motning, which is iust one of a flood of Emails corning ftom his constituents in the School of Business. Ptofessot Wirtz then tead the text of the Email he teceived without identi$ring the sendet. Phit, I thought your memo was eloquent and courageous at the time I first read it. And one that was iustifiable and necessary. I e>ipected an outpouring of supporting messages by othet faculty, but there was none, at least public$" My guess is that the Administtation makes note of, that and goes on with their ttWell, husiness, unconsciously saying, we got away with this one.tt \- f{ow comes the wotd ftom The Hatchet no less, that following shortly after the last such incident the University is agaio 6slling the faculty what they really think of them with another 18 month salary increase pedod. It was on$ two or tlree years ago that they last instituted this same delay. This would be considered an act of astonishing administtative boldness, following upon decades of tr2-month raise tadition at GW, almssl all othet univercities, and rnost othet otganizations. Except for one thing. The last time it was instituted ttwell, the Adrninistration was able to salr we got away with this ooertt sirece there was alrnost no ouq)ouring of indignation. As in the case naade in your memo, a case can be made here that the fiscal situation we find outselves in is one of the Administrationts making, not the facultyrs" But it is the faculty who ate bemg asked to sacrifice. Wilt there be an outpouriog of indignation this time? I fear not. Alrd so the Administtation will again be able to say...Iadeed, Ptesident Ttachtenbetg has noted that not many GW faculty tesign as iustification for the compensation ptactices at GV. tr raise this issue not out of disdain for the Administmtioa but out of loydty and commitrnent to the Univetsity, a place I have now frinvested inil fot a very long time and caie very much about. My [naany] years [iret management ptovided insights into hour delicate the balance is between the fotces affirmitg a hfgh performing ptofessional otganization and the forces that would dirninish it. I doubt many in the Administrration even realize the level of disaffection that has takefi laold among those whose eaergy and cteativity they need to make GW a Faculty Senate Minutes, APdl 8, 2005 Page 8 high perfoming university. The signs of decline gtow steadily mote obvious 1 ,r? tn. Administtation goes about their work appatently oblivious to it aU. As important as the issue regarding ethics 6aining is, for mostly symbolic ..asoo., the matter of faculty competlsation is provably much more important" The delay in the annual raise sends an rurmistakable message to faculty. Not flrany may leave, but the Univercity inevitably declines it tesponse to the enofrnous sum of the many little instances of d6slining enthusiasm and commitment on the part of individuat faculty. I hope the Senate, md many of our most influential faculty memberc, will take the lead in obiecting strenuous$ to the announced delay in the ttannualtt increase fot faculty and staff" We on the faculty desewe the mess we find outselves in if we ds lothing to ptevent it. Frofessot Wirtz said that it did not seem 1s hitn that Article IX of the Faculty Code which requires faculty paticipation in these sorts of decisions had been adheted to by the administtation, and he asked to be disabused of this notion" Ptesident Tmchtenberg responded that Ptofessor Wirtz's corespondent was rnisinformed ot infotmed by an eror.rrrs article in The Elatchet, and no decision has been made yet. Ptofessot Wirtz asked if faculty have been involved io aoy way in any part of the discussions up to this point. The Ptesident said the facutty would be involved in any decision making and added that the administmtion would be happy to meet with designees of the Chait of the Senate Executive f,smmittee to discuss the matter before a decision is made. Ptofessot Wirtz suggested the involvement of the Appoioment, Salary, and Ptomotion Policies Comrnittee, and Ptofessot GrifEth suggested involving the Fiscal pfunning & Budgetrng Committee. Following this exchange, the President offeted to meet with the Senate as a comrrittee of the whole to discuss the mattet. Professor l-ee echoed the sentiments exptessed by sayrng that the Univetsity and Urban Affaits Cornrnittee (which she Chaits) had met the day before; several faculty memberc had btought The Hatchet aticle to het attention and asked that strenuous obiection be taised at the Senate meeting to an 18 month salary cycle. President Ttachtenberg said the Senate would recall that The Hatchet article ref,etenced a freeze of his own salaqy, and said he wished to ioin the obiections, partic"t"rly since no one had consulted him about it either. Ptofessot Wilmarth said he thought ttre University was crurently at a cycle whete new salary increases would take effect on September 1. Yice President Lehman said this was what was done last yeaq he added that at that time he was very clear that no decision had been made as to whethet the 18 month cycle would remain in place as it depended on the evolution of the etuollrnenrc and how the budget was built. Ptesident Ttachtenberg noted that he could tesolve the ptoceduml issue by saying salary increases would be gmnted on a 7lL month cycle, but those mises could be relatively low. The teal issue is whethet the Univercity can ptovide latget taises by going to the 18 month cycle as opposed to staying with the 12 month cycle. Professor Muellet noted that delayed salary incteases would affect some units of the University more than others. There ate units of the Univetsity that are still below the 60e AAUP petcentile, and he said he was aware of individuals who have aheady left because of I salary issues, and otherc who ate continuing to think about leaving. Faculty Senate Minutes, Aptil 8, 2005 Page 9 Frofessot Gdffith suggested that the Senate accept the President's invitation to hold a special meeting of the Senate to discuss this issue further and there was no obiection to his suggestion. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION (04/9), "A RESOLUTION FOR THE APPROPRT.ATE REGULATION OF HONORS, AWARDS, OR. DISTINCTIONS BY I.]NITS OF THE UNTVERSITT' Frofessor Wilmarth inttoduced Resolution 04/9 on behalf of the Acting Chait of the Flonots and Academic Convocation Committee, Prof,essot Bermarq who could not be present at the areeting" This Resolution, consideted at the March 116 Senate meet'ng, had been rccommitted to the Cotnnrittee for firrther study of changes to the Resolution suggested at that meetiog. Professor Wilrnarth explained that the basic thrust of the Resolution rcmains the same, in that it ptovides a way to reguladze the process of making School awatds, and to utilize the Honots and Academic Convocations Cornrnittee as a resource and a vetting process, much as the Committee does now by participation in the process of tecomrnending honorary degtee tecipients. Professor Wilmarth then briefly rcviewed tnro significant changes made to the \- Resolution by the Committee after Match 11. The first change is a clarification, indicating that the Resolutio* would not appty to honots glven by a School to petsons within its community of faculty, staff, and students. That clatification now appeats ia the thitd \Mhereas Clause, and the first Resol,iring Clause. The second chaage, which appeaffi in the second Resohr.ing Clause, ptovides that a School may app$ to the I{onots and Academic Convocations Committee for the award of modest honors on a genetalized basis in accotdance with ptocedutes that the Cornrnittee determines to be apptopriate, including the approval of, standard criteda to be followed by a School in selecting tecrpients of such aurards. President Trachtenberg said he was troubled by the f,eceflt incident at Hamilton College, where a ptofessoe ftom the lJniverslty of Colotado pnas asked to speak and it was later discovered that he had made controversial statements conceming the 9-11 terotism victims" The tesultant controversy engulfed not only Hamilton College, but also tesulted in the resigaation of the University of Colomdo President follou,ing a dispute with the govemor about the incident. The Ptesident went on to say that he had ao idea hovr to total$ avoid such situations, while at the same time ptotectiag freedom of speec\ and the freedom of an itstitution to invite speakerc of its choice to campus. The Ptesideat added that he did not feel the need fot formal Senate input on this issue, but that he would welcome ttdnldng and inforrnal suggestions on this issue. Ftofessot Briscoe asked how the Senate could be assuted that the Flonots and Academic Convocations Committee could really thotough$r investigate each individual ptoposed to receive an awatd. Ptofessor Wilnaarth noted that the CornEnittee is genetally Facutty Seuate Minutes, April 8, 2005 Page 10 1 tasked with pedorming this function for all honotary degtee candidates, and it is something of an estabUinea gatekeeper in this area. The Committee has done a supetb iob in the n11t two years under Prcfessot Berman's teadetship, he added. It is also more likety that with this icind of teview process, the Schools witl do a nlore careful iob in selecting and vetting prospectrve tecipients. President Trachtenberg said that he thought if a request was denied by the Committee, presumabty thi. decision could be appeated, if not to the Senate, then to himself" Ftofessor Wilmarth said that the Resolution is not leg.b binding, but advisoryr and that it would not preclude such a review upon petition, eithet by the Senate or the President. Pmfessor GrifEth said he agteed with the suggestion that such an appeal be it if incolporated in the ptocedures, and the Ptesident said he would appreciate this ptovision could be included in the legislative history of the Resolution. The question was called, a vote was taken, and Resolution 04/9 wes adopted. (Resolutio 04/9 is attached.) INTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTIONS Ptesident Trachtenberg rcad and ptesented "A Resolution of Appteciation" to Professor Arthur E" Wilmarth, Jr., outgoing Chafu of the Executive Cornrnittee of the Faculty Senate and Ptofessot of Law, fot his distiaguished service. Following the Resolution's adoption by acclamation and a touad of applause, Professot Wilmarth thanked the Senate for the senrimeats expressed in the Resolution. (Resolution 04/tr0 is attached.) 1 GENERAL BUSINESS T. NOMINAIION FOR ELECTION OF MEMBERS OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE FOR THE 2005-06 SESSION Frofessor Philip V. Wirtz, Convener of the Nsrnina.'ng Cornrnittee, thanked all of the Committee members for their hatd wotk in bringiry togethet the slate of oominees fot next yeads Executive Cotnmittee. On behalf of the Nominating Q6mrnitt6s, Ftofessot philip W" Wirtz moved the nomination of Frofessot Lilien F. Robinson (CCAS) as Chait of the Executive Committee. The nornination was approved. Professot Wirtz then moved the :rominations of the following faculty memberc fot election to the Executive Corr,"nittee fot the 2005-06 Session: Brian L. Biles (SPHHS), Etnest J" Englandet (SB), Charles A Garis, Jr. (SEAS), Ralph O. Mueller (GSEHD), Scott Pagel (GWLS), Robert W. Ryctoft (ESIA), Gary L. Simon (SMHS). The entire slate was approved. il" NOMINATION FOR ELECTION OF NOMINEES TO TFIE DISPUTE RESOLUTION COMMITTEE On behalf of the Executive f,srnrni66e, ProfessorVilmarth moved the notnination of Professot K"rt J. Darr as Chair fot a one-year tetno commencing May L, 2005. The nomination was approved. Professor Wilmarth thea moved the norninations fot election of the following faculry membets to the Dispute Resolution Cotnmittee fot thrce-year terrns sstnrnsoging M"y t,2005: Professots RobertJ" Cotttot Kutt I. Dart, Irviog I. Gliclq I Iticholas Kydakopoulos, and Gary L. Simon. The slate was approved.