2017 Elections Schedule

In 2017 AAUP-UC will be electing executive council members and representatives to the national AAUP Annual Meeting. Following are timelines and more information. Contact the AAUP Office with questions or for more details.

Executive Council Election:

Seats Up for Election:

• Chair, Political Action Committee
• At-Large Member
• Secretary
• Treasurer

January 9 – Nominations will open (form will be emailed)

February 13 – Nominations close and names are announced.  A second nomination period will begin.

February 27 – Deadline for additional nominations

March 1 – Candidate statements emailed to members

March 3 – Voting begins

March 17 – Voting ends and winners announced

April 1 – New officers take office

Nomination forms must be submitted to the AAUP Chapter Office (ML 0176, 450 Dabney Hall) in hard copy, with the signatures of at least 2 Chapter members in good standing.

All terms are for two years.

Election of Delegates to the National AAUP Annual Meeting:

February 16 – Postcards announcing the election mailed to members’ home addresses

March 1 – Email announcement of the election schedule

March 10 – Nominations open (form will be emailed)

March 29 – Nominations close

March 31 – Candidate statements emailed to members

April 3 – Voting begins

April 11 – Voting ends

June – Delegates attend the meeting

The University of Cincinnati AAUP congratulates Neville Pinto on his appointment as the 30^th president of the University of Cincinnati.

The AAUP voiced repeated concerns about the selection process. President Pinto was not involved in the design or implementation of the search process. Its failings should not reflect poorly on him or otherwise taint his presidency at the outset. The AAUP is eager to begin working with him to maintain and build upon UC’s tradition of excellence as a teaching and research university.

The AAUP is glad that the Board of Trustees heeded the chapter’s warnings about hiring a president without experience in higher education and an academic background. This, combined with the problems with the search, could have proved to be particularly unfortunate.

Still concerns about the search process remain. It was not the “open, transparent, and collaborative” process that was promised. Student and faculty input was severely lacking. It has previously been noted that the University of Iowa was sanctioned by the American Association of University Professors for “substantial non-compliance with standards of academic government” after its deficient presidential search. It appears that the UC presidential was conducted in a more secretive manner and with less student and faculty input than the Iowa search.

AAUP-UC will continue to examine this critical issue and explore alternatives in the upcoming weeks. Ideally, this will include, along with the UC Faculty Senate, a dialogue with President Pinto and the Board of Trustees about the principle of shared governance and its application in future searches, including the upcoming search for provost.

We will keep the faculty informed. Look for future communications on this issue.

The UC Board of Trustees has made a last-minute announcement that it will hold a weekend meeting to announce the next president of the University of Cincinnati.

UC faculty have consistently made it clear that UC’s next president should have experience in higher education, as well as an academic background, in order to fully appreciate the work that happens at a public university. Hiring a president without that experience would be a serious concern to UC faculty. This practice has failed at other institutions, notably and most recently at the University of Iowa and the University of Missouri.

The presidential search process was billed as being “open, transparent, and collaborative.” Regardless of the outcome, this search has not met those criteria. Instead, the process was shrouded in secrecy and required strict confidentiality agreements by search committee members. The Board of Trustees provided no information on candidates who were finalists for the position, and gave no opportunity for input on candidates by the broader University or Cincinnati communities.

Faculty are left with the impression that the UC Board of Trustees has a disregard—if not outright disdain—for well-established practices, principles and contractual agreements on openness and academic governance in a public university.

The University of Iowa was sanctioned by the American Association of University Professors for “substantial non-compliance with standards of academic government” after its deficient presidential search. It appears that UC presidential was conducted in more secretive manner and with less student and faculty input than the Iowa search.

As faculty are aware, the UC Board of Trustees launched the search for former President Santa Ono’s replacement in June of this year. Rob Richardson, Board President and chair of the Presidential Search Committee, promised that the process would be “open, transparent, and collaborative.” Unfortunately, it has been neither open, nor transparent, nor collaborative. To the contrary, the process has been shrouded in secrecy, lacking comprehensive faculty and student input, and in violation of well-established best academic practices.

To add to the consternation caused by this secretive search, The Cincinnati Enquirer recently reported that former Procter and Gamble CEO and the current Secretary of Veterans Affairs Robert MacDonald has emerged as a leading candidate. The leak of information poses two problems for the faculty.  Since we have no other information to work with, we must assume that Secretary MacDonald is the only candidate being seriously considered.  While that may, or may not, be a fair assessment of the situation, it would be unwise for faculty remain silent and not offer our opinions regarding the candidate.  Second, hiring a president without academic credentials is a serious concern for those of us who work in Higher Education.  When the University of Iowa decided it would abandon the accepted standards of shared governance and appointed Bruce Harreld, former IBM senior vice president, it was met with fierce criticism from the faculty and students.  Harreld, one of the four finalists, lacked the qualifications and experience found in the other three candidates and yet the Board of Regents offered him the position due to his success in the private sector.  Faculty questioned not only his academic background but also his the fact that he lacks any experience in public service.  Eventually, the University of Iowa found itself on the American Association of University Professor’s list of sanctioned institutions for “substantial non-compliance with standards of academic government”.

While it is possible that an unconventional candidate could be an appropriate fit for UC, it is imperative that the process be truly open, transparent, and collaborative ensuring that all of the constituents at UC have a voice at the table.  It’s the right thing to do and will ensure that the right candidate is chosen for the job.

Secretary McDonald, if he is truly a candidate, and the other candidates should be made public and come to UC for public interviews with students, faculty, and other stakeholders. This would provide much needed confidence in the hiring process and a solid foundation for the new president to begin his tenure at UC. The process would also benefit the prospective candidates, providing them with the knowledge and confidence that UC is truly the best match for their skillset.

Both the National AAUP and the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB), a national association of university boards of trustees (of which the University of Cincinnati Board of Trustees is a member), have issued policy statements opposing closed-door, secret searches for university presidents.

In 1966, a joint Statement on the Government of Colleges and Universities was developed by the AAUP, the American Council on Education, and the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. Of utmost importance, the joint statement states:

“Joint effort of a most critical kind must be taken when an institution chooses a new president. The selection of a chief administrative officer should follow upon a cooperative search by the governing board and the faculty, taking into consideration the opinions of others who are appropriately interested. The president should be equally qualified to serve both as the executive officer of the governing board and as the chief academic officer of the institution and the faculty. The president’s dual role requires an ability to interpret to board and faculty the educational views and concepts of institutional government of the other. The president should have the confidence of the board and the faculty.”

In November 2015, the National AAUP reaffirmed its policy on secret presidential searches, stating:

“…decisions to forgo public campus visits and public forums by finalists violate longstanding principles of shared governance. Shared governance helps ensure that universities and colleges serve the public interest. Serving this interest is why we have public universities and colleges and why we grant special tax status to nonprofit private universities and colleges.”

The statement concludes:

“The AAUP thus calls upon colleges and universities to resist calls for closed, secretive searches and reaffirm their commitment to transparency and active faculty engagement in the hiring of higher administrative officers. Faculty members should demand that their institutions observe established norms of shared governance by involving faculty representatives in all stages of the search process and by providing the entire faculty and other members of the campus community the opportunity to meet with search finalists in public on campus.”
The full AAUP statement can be read here [https://www.aaup.org/sites/default/files/AAUP_Statement_on_Presidential_Searches_0.pdf].

Thus far the UC presidential search has not been conducted according to either the spirit or letter of the shared governance principles in the AAUP-UC Collective Bargaining Agreement, National AAUP policies, or policy statements of the AGB, of which UC’s Board of Trustees is a member. The hope and expectation is that UC will immediately enter a more open phase of this vital search.

Ron Jones
President, AAUP-UC Chapter

Ron Jones, President, AAUP-UC

Ohio House Bill 48 is being sent to Gov. John Kasich for his signature after passing the House in late 2015 and passing the Senate on December 7, 2016. We are asking Gov. Kasich to veto the bill, and pursue common sense reforms that will keep our campuses safe.

HB 48 has been called the “guns everywhere” bill, as it would allow conceal/carry permit holders to carry in previously restricted areas such as day cares, airports, as well as college and university campuses. It would allow boards of trustees to determine their own “campus carry” policy, while absolving them of any liability resulting from firearms on campus. It would reduce the offense for unlawful carrying in a prohibited zone from a felony to a minor misdemeanor — the equivalent of a minor traffic violation or failure to register a dog.

> CLICK HERE TO SEND A MESSAGE TO GOV. KASICH ASKING HIM TO VETO HB 48.