Dome Room of the Rotunda 11AM to 1PM
Start of Meeting/Call to Order — 11:05 am
- Chair Ellen Bassett called the meeting to order and directed the Senators to look over the minutes.
- Introduction of Rick Willis
- Willis will be providing administrative support and is attached to Louis Nelson Vice Provost of Academic Outreach.
By a count, a quorum was established. There was no discussion of the minutes from the Sept. 2019 full-Senate meeting which were previously sent by email to all Senate members. Charlotte Patterson and Rob Patterson moved to accept minutes.
- Minutes are passed by acclaim.
The Chair recognized UVA President Jim Ryan to give an update.
- Major contractors are setting minimum wage of $15 for all full-time employees. While there are still some contract employees making less than $15 per hour, the move by contractors is an important milestone.
JJ Davis worked over the summer to get this done with our contractors and the process is complicated for legal and logistical reasons.- Health Care System Bill Collection is improving already and is still early in the process. UVA remains committed to making changes to policies that have been around for decades. An action committee of health system workers and members of the community will work to look at policy changes.
- Public phase of the capital campaign.
- $5B is the goal of which $2.57B is what has been raised.
- A $100M dollar gift to go towards first generation students; endowed professorships at Darden and fellowships.
- UVA Community Working Group.
- Jim Ryan’s working group that focused on key issues is now a council at UVA, Community Partnerships, with smaller working groups focusing on specific issues:
- Pipeline for jobs between community members and the university will be one such group;
- Small businesses in Charlottesville learning to work with UVA in the procurement process;
- Affordable housing with new community member additions;
- Childcare;
- Other key issues that come up.
The Chair recognized Provost Liz Magill to give an update.
Magill introduced members from the Provost Office in attendance before beginning her update.
- The New College Curriculum was adopted and passed by the college faculty.
- The Health Affairs VP Search is still proceeding, and she is optimistic about the pool of candidates. It’s a hard, complicated process.
- The McIntire School Dean search committee has been announced and will be working to replace Dean Carl Zeithaml. The committee make-up was well reviewed by the Foundation and the formulation for the goals in searching for a candidate.
- Admissions and Financial Aid Search Committee will begin soon.
- WorkDay – An academic workgroup with members from each school and members from HR will be looking to aid in the challenges of basic issue within that system and will hopefully have a report by next spring with policy recommendations for major changes to the system.
The Chair recognized Gene Schutt, Assoc. Dean for Development College of Arts & Sciences; President College Foundation of the University of Virginia.
- The College Foundation is one of the 17 fundraising foundations at UVA. It is a separate 501c3 to support the college accepting restricted and unrestricted gifts.
- Currently has a staff of 35 with a research team, stewardship, marketing, events, frontline fundraisers. Alumni and parents are key but there are people beyond that, but that’s generally the corporate foundation purview.
- The Foundation has 240 volunteers in a board capacity and those who serve on various committees; largest region in the US where most UVA alumni are; have one in London, one in Asia soon.
- Priorities: entirely come from the Dean, the Foundation seek gifts based upon established priorities.
- Gift acceptance policy — foundation policy is to comply with the university policy, which is on the desk of everyone who interacts with gifts.
- This past year there were 75 major gift agreements, average has been less than that, but the capital campaign has helped raise the level.
- Templates are used from the university and followed very carefully when drafting a gift agreement; but can vary slightly with each gift. Schutt is involved with every one of those agreements. Second layer of review goes to the Dean’s office and senior associate dean of finances.
- The Dean first decides if he needs the gift and wants it, office looks to see if the College can use it — third layer means it is close to approval and channeled through University Advancement.
- After that, Susan Harris reviews it and if approved, goes to the Dean.
- Finalize gift once all the signatures are done and acknowledge it with thanks.
The Chair recognized Senator Jeri Seidman who announced the Board of Colonnade Club is working to create a space for faculty to meet. She invited all the new hires to the faculty happy hour at the Garden Club in order to welcome new faculty.
The Chair discussed points of procedures for the meeting. Points of procedure:
- Use the microphone;
- Ensure the most robust conversations;
- Holds to Robert's Rule;
- One comment per Senator until everyone who wants to speak has spoken.
Topic of Donor Agreements and FOIA/Public Disclosure
The Chair addressed the Senate about the issue of donor agreements with universities. The Senate does not have a full understanding of the existing rules around gift giving and in August the Chair of the Senate received a letter from the AAUP which was addressed to the President, the Rector of the Board of Visitors, and the Chair about gift giving with regards to the Koch Brothers with George Mason University donation lawsuit relative to agreements being FOIA-able and if private foundation agreements with donors being kept secret.
- The Chair asked policy committee to review the AAUP document and to see if the Senate should take a policy position — a statement was subsequently drafted by the Policy Committee.
- The ExCo committee tabled motion to send the statement to the Full Senate and asked the Policy committee to go back to committee and rework language to not reference GMU and to learn more within context from last month’s meeting.
- The Chair recognized addition guests who came to the meeting to educate the Senate with respect to broader relationships with private foundations and gift giving at UVA.
The Chair Recognized President Ryan
- Ryan said he spends about a third of his time on advancement with major gifts as his Focus and meets with John Jeffries (Senior Vice President for Advancement, University of Virginia, David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law) to discuss gift prospects and alumni gifts. Most of the donors are very well known to the university given their past giving, prominence, and the gift size.
- He said he never imagined he’d enjoy fundraising — helping others to have the opportunity to do their best work — fundraising is a tangible way to do that and he takes the job seriously. He has not seen gifts or issues that have given him pause. As he works with Advancement, his key question and goal in mind is ways to generate the resources that allow faculty and students to do their best work.
- He mentioned the David and Jane Walentas $100 million gift for first generation students; as well as gifts to the engineering school, Darden; a $10 million gift for Curry; a $20 million Architecture gift; and a student and wellness center gift.
The Chair recognized John Jeffries to speak about the College’s gift acceptance policies.
- Policies are spelled out in a manual about 30 pages long and quite technical.
- Most requirements are common sense.
- Any use of funds must be made clear by all parties involved, much trouble results if a donor expects something in personal benefit or something that the university can give to the donor — must be spelled out in front.
- Is more complicated since the BOV has established new language.
- It is not Advancement’s job to decide what should get a match, but to see what falls in line.
- Not all restrictions are accepted, racial or gender limitation would cause issue and would not be allowed.
- A limitation with a very limited use would not be allowed — professorship in a very narrow field, Advancement usually encourage the donor to put it as a preference, not an official request, but if too narrow, it can be turned down.
- Once the gift is finalized, it can only be changed with approval from all parties.
- Any deviations from normal practice that involve finances of the university go to a policy committee, but with the $100M commitment to low income/first generation students, he allowed the gift to exceed a 10-year requirement for payments, to 13 years. Jeffries approved it because it was necessary for the financing of the gift, and an imperative for UVA to make the announcement as a whole.
- Another example of a deviation was an annuity gift: Elderly couple to give to a charitable institution, gift annuity, previously given one and received a 7% payout, they gave another one, but the rate had changed — based on age and outside organization — 5.6% was the new payout, but the donors did not want it.
- Academic Freedom Issues — haven't seen anything that would raise issues of academic freedom in my time, but will not say that that cannot occur.
- Jeffries mentioned a large gift to the law school for an environmental law professor, but a broad field; took the gift; had prospects for hires, but the professor under consideration was controversial to the donor, so Jeffries put the matter on hold for a few months. Ultimately, Jeffries hired the professor against the wishes of the donor. The issues had nothing to do with gift receiving or agreement. Gift agreements create resources, inevitably, that are under the reins of the academic realm.
The Chair recognized Provost Magill
- Magill said academic directors and deans are involved in fundraising for the academic division and are in partnership with Advancement.
- Magill said the Provost is the champion of the academic mission, and she views as a guardian of that mission when needed. She’s seen nothing across her desk that has worried her. Her point was advancement is in service of the academic mission, it is not defining it. Dean and such define it, but advancement is a tool to help.
- Provost does not typically sign a gift agreement at UVA; Deans and President can sign such an agreement, but she asked Advancement if she could sign if needed, welcomed with enthusiasm for her to now take on that role.
- An example of a donor’s request for a chair is the Dean’s Chair of McIntyre.
- A donor wanted to endow the position so the current Dean would be the first to hold the chair endowed (named) for him. The chair of the foundation board moved forward with the endowment as the in a very short amount of time.
The Chair recognized Gene Schutt, Assoc. Dean for Development College of Arts & Sciences; President College Foundation of the University of Virginia.
- The College Foundation is one of the 17 fundraising foundations at UVA. It is a separate 501c3 to support the college accepting restricted and unrestricted gifts.
- Currently has a staff of 35 with a research team, stewardship, marketing, events, frontline fundraisers. Alumni and parents are key but there are people beyond that, but that’s generally the corporate foundation purview.
- The Foundation has 240 volunteers in a board capacity and those who serve on various committees; largest region in the US where most UVA alumni are; have one in London, one in Asia soon.
- Priorities: entirely come from the Dean, the Foundation seek gifts based upon established priorities.
- Gift acceptance policy — foundation policy is to comply with the university policy, which is on the desk of everyone who interacts with gifts.
- This past year there were 75 major gift agreements, average has been less than that, but the capital campaign has helped raise the level.
- Templates are used from the university and followed very carefully when drafting a gift agreement; but can vary slightly with each gift. Schutt is involved with every one of those agreements. Second layer of review goes to the Dean’s office and senior associate dean of finances.
- The Dean first decides if he needs the gift and wants it, office looks to see if the College can use it — third layer means it is close to approval and channeled through University Advancement.
- After that, Susan Harris reviews it and if approved, goes to the Dean.
- Finalize gift once all the signatures are done and acknowledge it with thanks.
The Chair opened the floor to comments/questions of the presenters.
The Chair opened the floor to comments/questions of the presenters.
- Senator Jim Savage: Do any of the processes allow donors to look at faculty selection or the selection of administrators or curriculum?
- Schutt: No, with regards to the college.
- Jeffries: Donor never has the right to appoint anybody.
- Senator Walt Heinecke: Are all commitments associated with gifts, public record? Any that are not knowing the general university?
- Magill: Gift agreements with the University are now FOIA-able.
- Schutt: No, agreements with the Foundation do not go through a public process.
- Jeffries: There are some gifts that we treat as anonymous gifts, but that is regarding the name. Most people are happy to be acknowledged publicly.
- Senator Peter Norton: Presuming no problem with FOIA requests, why would the foundation join an amicus brief supporting in freedom from FOIA laws? Would any people have objections to three faculty members joining a committee(s) for oversight?
- Schutt: All meetings of three or more members of the university are FOIAable, so it would be detrimental to have those meetings open. It would be a tremendous complication.
- Jeffries: Under FOIA, gifts to university are FOIA-able, the most important concern isn’t the foundations, that is an inconvenience, the most important relationship is with the UVA investment company. Many managers of that group do not disclose their relationships. If made public, many of those partners would not be involved.
- Magill: State legislation covers the applicability of FOIA. Applied to VIMCO the immediate loss would be a significant amount of money.
- Jeffries: The loss would be over a billion if you involve this.
- Magill: In 72 hours, they had to estimate the amount, so it could not be accurate. You’re asking what is the problem with adding three faculty members? The gift template is followed to the letter. Two issues have gone to the committee in the past year, so the committee does not meet much, so I wonder why necessarily there is a need for faculty members. I would want to talk to everyone on the committee first.
- Norton: Most important matter we have seen. We are losing sight of what it is. GMU is a very similar situation. Public university where records are subject to FOIA. We benefit from foundations that are not FOIA-able. 99% or so of donations are unproblematic. But we need a policy for the rest of the time. The GMU foundations accepted a gift that had severe conditions. Those conditions gave away some leeway on hiring faculty and it restrains the academic mission. It doesn't matter what party it is. The question is once a university accepts a gift from the foundation, should those gifts be subject to FOIA. GMU has made the allowance to have 3 faculty on their committee. We should be doing that.
- Jeffries: There are no conditions that are not a part of the gift agreement. If they are not in the agreement, they are not a part of it. The gift agreement includes all the conditions attached. If they are not a part of it, they do not exist.
- Magill: I didn't mean to say there was not a problem. I turned down gifts when I was a dean. I don’t deny the existence of a problem. I would not have signed that gift agreement if I had gotten that gift at GMU.
- Senator Peter Brunjes: Everything is freely available and so what happened at GMU, could not happen here?
- Yes
- Senator Charlotte Patterson: Didn’t I hear questions about anonymity?
- Chair: From what I understand, that is for the donors.
- Magill: There are some state laws about anonymity for donors. But I am a lawyer, but not in Virginia.
- C. Patterson: Would there be objection to the last statement of the policy recommendation?
- Magill: I can’t think of a case, so initially I would not object. Speaking today, I have no objection, but I would not be the only person to consult.
- Senator Brian Pusser: Senators might come away from this meeting thinking that there are no strong lines of demarcation between the university and the foundations. A billion is not enough to ignore what the university gets from taxpayers. That is a huge trust that is placed with us. It is more of a question of character that the university has.
- Heinecke: Provost asked what the problem was. The problem is not only faculty oversight on academic freedom, but also with shared governance. The direction and input on large donations with the mission of the University. So this idea of adding faculty members on the policy committee is important. We as faculty should have a say as to how these donations take direction for the University. What kinds of departments are getting money, and which are not?
- Chair: My example from my school is that you can liaise with the Deans to drive the vision. We can work at the school level to set policy.
- Norton: This does not prevent a donor from any kind of influence. It merely says that any discussion has a condition and any resident can request FOIA. If we have a condition that a donor wants to be confidential and not within FOIA, would that be welcome? I do wonder why our foundation joined an amicus brief with GMU’s foundation.
- Magill: You mean the 30-page document? That's a public document.
- Norton: Yes., but GMU’s has a new statement that there is a public record. All that we are asking is that the assurances we were made sure of was made sure of in policy.
- Comment on faculty recommendation: Having faculty reps on the committee is valuable because they may see something from their perspective and that can be brought to the committee. The reps are a good way to broaden discussions that may be difficult with this issue.
- Magill: Suggestion there, the policy committee should discuss this. I want to understand the issues from the Senate. I have no desire to exclude faculty voices. It seems like a very worthy thing for the committee to talk about.
- Discussion by Senators:
- Jeri Seidman asked if the Senate is only voting on part 2, as it sounded like points 1 and 3 are already taken care of.
- Norton: We have heard assertions, but our policy does not provide for that. I see no harm in policy providing that we explicitly have such access. The worst that can happen is that we have one sentence of significant policy.
- Chair: Yes, but it is law.
- Norton: There is ambiguity though.
- Savage: The origins of the Public Policy school were outlined. Normal policy schools don't focus on leadership, but Batten does because of the influence of the donor. I would like to ensure that donors do not determine curriculum and the hiring of faculty and administrators.
- Senator Joel Hockensmith asked if there were objections to a vote to send the resolution back to the policy committee to make suggestions to be brought to a motion in November.
- None observed. The Donor Resolution is remanded to the Policy Committee.
Senate Committee Reports
The Chair recognized Aaron Bloomfield, Chair of the Academic Affairs Committee.
- The AAC approved a Material Sciences and Engineering BS. There was not previously a degree, but a concentration, which hampered graduates from getting jobs in material sciences, because it is not a degree only a concentration.
- Call for a vote; vote passed with 41 yeas, no nays, and no abstentions.
The Chair recognized Natasha Heller, Chair of the Diversity Committee.
- The committee spoke about student evaluations being biased against women and minorities in teaching.
The Chair recognized Carol Manning, Chair of the Grievance Committee.
- What we do? Confidential conversation amongst parties and mediate so it doesn’t have to become a formality; if not successful; a filing is brought to the committee.
- Have been a couple of mediations, but not official grievances.
The Chair recognized Alan Beckenstein, Chair of the FRRRW Committee.
- Large amount of issues to look at.
- Examining whether there can be a new status of faculty emeritus.
- Area of childcare for faculty.
- Acute issue, retention and recruitment issue.
- Start new subcommittee to examine issue.
- Consider makeover in benefits.
- Will be engaging shortly.
- Pay inequality
- COACHE Survey will be run this year.
- Salary Equity study coming up next year.
The Chair recognized Brian Pusser, Chair of the Finance Committee.
- Last year, spent time on hardware costs across university.
- Library costs was a key thing, program to enable faculty to work with librarians to get free or discounted online courses/sources.
- Hope to bring a draft for the process in the next week or so.
- Fair Use is still being reviewed.
The Chair recognized Kevin Lehman, Chair of the Research Teaching Scholarship Committee.
- Regarding HR and issues with hiring people, such as post-docs. Inordinate time delays.
- Will look at if there has been any improvement.
Other Issues/Follow Up on Schmidt Statement — Ad Hoc Committee Formation
- Sent out emails about scope of work questions with faculty handbooks; academic freedom.
- Next meeting: Library System and Open Access Policy with regulations and journal subscriptions.
- Pusser: We should be getting the administration's written remarks before they come to the meeting. Can that occur?
- Chair: I will voice that to the administration.
- Senator: What kind of coordination do we have with faculty on administrators’ committees versus senate committees? We kind of had a shadow of shared government. We never hear from them.
- Chair: What we can do is send out an email asking if you are on any committee with the administrators. I will talk to the Provost about that especially with the number of committees.
The Chair adjourned the meeting at 12:49pm