May 31,2013 TO: The New York University Board ofTrustees FROM: The Special Committee ofthe New York University Board ofTrustees RE: Report ofthe Special Committee ofthe New York University Board of Trustees to Consider Improving Constituent Voice The Special Committee ("the Committee") of the New York University Board of Trustees ("the Board") held seventeen separate meetings with constituencies of NYU, with each con­ stituency free to choose who would attend the meetings. The stated purpose of the meet­ ings was to identify better ways for constituent voice to be heard. However, the groups were invited to raise whatever issues they wished to discuss. In addition to the formal sessions, the members of the Committee engaged in informal con­ versations both with representatives who came as part of this process and others who knew of the process and requested conversation. The Committee also requested andre­ ceived submissions from interested individuals and groups. The following constituencies participated in the meetings with the Committee: • Abu Dhabi Faculty Council Steering Committee • Administrative Management Council • College of Nursing Faculty Council, College of Dentistry Faculty Council, Silver School of Social Work Faculty Council, and Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service Faculty Council • Faculty Advisory Committee on Academic Priorities • Faculty Against the Sexton Plan (F ASP) • Faculty Alliance • Faculty of Arts and Science Chairs • Faculty of Arts and Science Senators • Faculty representatives from Polytechnic Institute of NYU and NYU School of Law • Faculty Senators Council (FSC) W/2114525v1 • Gallatin School of Individualized Study Faculty Council, Liberal Studies Program Faculty Assembly Steering Committee, and School of Continuing and Professional Studies faculty representatives • NYU Alumni Association • NYU Chapter, American Association of University Professors (AAUP) • School of Medicine Faculty Council • Stern School of Business Faculty Council • Student Senators Council, Commuter Students Council, and Resident Assistant rep­ resentatives • Tisch Faculty Executive Committee; Steinhardt Faculty Council This report is submitted to the Board for discussion at its June 12 meeting. The Committee recommends that the Administration work with the Committee over the summer with a view to formulating recommendations that will be presented to the University community and then considered by the Board. The meetings with the constituents revealed a wide range of views on the Committee's primary inquiry and on particular areas of University activity that have been widely dis­ cussed. Some participants shared concerns and offered suggestions for improvement; oth­ ers supported some or all of the components of the University's recent directions and de­ velopments. In compiling and distilling this information, it is important to distinguish be­ tween opinions related to the University's policymaking process (specifically consultation, communication, governance) and opinions regarding specific substantive initiatives. In large measure the most critical observations expressed in the individual meetings are subsumed in four communications to the Committee from the NYU FAS Senators (Exhibit A), NYU AAUP (Exhibit B), Faculty Against the Sexton Plan (Exhibit C) and the Stern Faculty Council (Exhibit D). Affirmative views on the University and its leadership are illustrated in the report of the Law School Senators, which was submitted to the Committee (Exhibit E). The degree of concern and the importance of specific concerns differed among the con­ stituencies. Some constituencies rejected one or more of the concerns. In addition to the concerns set forth in the four exhibits, one or more of the constituencies expressed other concerns. The following is a list of the concerns relating to voice, process, and governance: 1. Additional mechanisms for communication among the Board, the Administration and faculty. 2. Increased participation for faculty in governance; particularly in the manner in which faculty members of committees are selected. 3. Assuring appropriate voice for non-tenured faculty in University governance struc­ tures. 4. A faculty role in the process for the selection of the President. 5. The need for reconfigured administrative infrastructure as the University admin­ istration implements our current strategy. 6. A greater role for students in governance. -2- In addition to these procedural issues, the following substantive topics were expressed: 1. Compensation of faculty and the administrative staff. 2. Adequacy of student financial aid and the increased debt of students. 3. Allocation of resources among schools and departments. 4. Funding for alumni programming. 5. The implementation of the Global Network University strategy. 6. Space plans as addressed in NYU 2031. 7. The importance of technology and on-line education. 8. The leadership of John Sexton. The Committee has not fully evaluated the concerns. The Committee has listed the con­ cerns that it believes warrant the attention of the Board so that the Board and the Admin­ istration will be able to consider them and, if the Board deems appropriate, formulate pro­ posals to deal with them. The Committee is of the view that while deficiencies in communi­ cation and process have caused concerns, a portion of such expressed concerns are the product of disagreement with substantive decisions made by the Administration and with the full support of the Board. As a result of its meetings and discussions, and consultation with the Administration, the Committee believes that establishment of a permanent committee consisting of trustees, faculty, students and administrators that would meet regularly to discuss NYU issues should be the first matter to be considered by the Board. -3- Exhibit A New York University A private university in the public service FAS Senators (Faculty of Arts and Science Senators and Alternates to the Faculty Senate Council) 6 Washington Place, Suite 753 New York, NY 10003-6634 212-998-7821 [email protected] May 20,2013 Dear Marty Lipton, other members of the Special Committee of the NYU Board of Trustees who met with us (William Berkley, Daniel Tisch, and Anthony Welters), and other Special Committee members: We appreciate your time and effort spent meeting with us on Saturday, April 13, 2013. We are also, as you lmow, deeply appreciative of your support and service to the University. Our purpose here is to summarize the issues that led to the vote of no confidence in President Sexton's leadership. You recall that in March, 83% of the FAS faculty participated in this vote (52% to 39%) after considerable debate and deliberation. What have we learned from the·· faculty's point of view, and as a result how can we refocus our resources and commitments? 1. The fundamental problem is that this administration institutes academic programs, makes important policy decisions, and otherwise shapes the university without consulting faculty in meaningful ways. Failure to do so has produced constant friction, unnecessary inefficiencies and even hostilities not characteristic of any previous administration's relationship to NYU faculty. The most well recognized and widely reported controversies resulted from the administration's unilateral design and implementation of the Global Network University (GNU) and the footprint expansion plan, NYU 2031. Mutual confidence, respect, and trust between faculty and administration are essential for academic organizations to succeed, particular now as NYU invests in becoming a top university. 2. One symptom of this problem is that the administration persists in appointing ad hoc committees (e.g., on the GNU, or the Working Group on Space Priorities about the 2031 Plan), rather than delegating tasks to elected faculty committees or asking faculty to constitute a committee for a particular purpose or project. These ad hoc committees never have the credibility they should, they are widely perceived among faculty as little more than cynical exercises in publicrelations, and they increase faculty cynicism about the administration's motives as well as interest in genuine, serious, intellectual engagement with the faculty. 3. FAS faculty objected to the selection of Sexton as president without faculty involvement and consideration· Though promises were made,they were not kept when President Sexton was reappointed·to his second term in the same manner. As a result, the faculty's original objection . was only reinforced. 4. The resulting lack ofadministrative accountability to the faculty has undermined its capacity to effectively manage our complex institution. When a University administration feels no accountability to faculty, and looses touch With faculty concerns, it cannot authentically represent faculty views on matters of academic policy. The Board's surprise at the outcome of· recent votes of no confidence, extending beyond the core university faculty (F AS) to many other schools, is a s:Ymptom ofthe widening disconnect between the administration and the faculty. 5. The administration has grown substantially under President Sexton, increasingly becoming a self-reinforcing echo chamber that prizes loyalty to President Sexton above all else. 6. Reform should begin with the Board's recognition that, contrary to corporate practices, the . governance of the best American universities rests on the three legs of a 3-legged stool: the Board of Trustees, the Administration, and the Faculty. Although there