Minutes
Faculty Senate
September 29, 2005, Special Meeting
(Sounding of gavel.)
TONY AHRENS: I call this meeting to order. I will begin by circulating the roll calls. Welcome to all, particularly those who are new to the Senate. Before we begin deliberation of the issues before us, I need to make a few remarks.
First, I wish to note that we are permitting the media to attend. Senate rules state that recording devices are not permitted at Senate proceedings, and I am upholding that regulation. Thank you.
Members of the media, this meeting is being held to conduct university Senate business, and so any questions you have of anyone may be asked, but only after the meeting concludes.
Please note that the microphones are sensitive, so any conversations you are having are likely to be picked up and become part of the record.
I am happy to remain after the meeting to discuss the proceedings with anyone who wishes to do so.
This is a most difficult time for our community. I am convinced that it’s also a time upon which we will look back with pride. Conversations on campus have been civil, thoughtful and thorough, even in the midst of deep passion arising from the ideals that give its identity. I am confident that it will remain so.
We have continued with all of those things that make this a great university – for the faculty, the staff and the students are the university. That business goes on as usual does not make the news, but our goal is not to be in the news, but rather to increase and to disseminate knowledge and wisdom. I am confident that I can rely upon you to continue with your civility, your thoughtfulness, and most especially with your love of AU as we discuss matters today.
We’re gathered to discuss matters about which we could speak for days. We have little more than an hour. Because of the number of people present who may wish to comment upon the matters and to accommodate as many voices as possible, I will entertain motions concerning the rules for today’s discussion. If there are no motions, I would propose that we limit comments to one minute apiece from senators, with no senators speaking a second time until all have had an opportunity to speak, at which point I would open the floor to comments of up to one minute by non-senators for up to 15 minutes. Then senators would once more be allowed to comment for up to a minute. Is there any objection to proceeding this way? Thank you.
Hearing no objection, I ask the body’s leave to have John Douglass, the most recent past chair of the Senate, serve as a timekeeper and parliamentarian for this meeting. Is there any objection?
John.

We now move to the discussion of the investigation pertaining to President Ladner.
Phil.
PHILIP JACOBY: While some expenditures and technicalities are disputed, the essential facts of the current crisis are indisputable, at least to me. The essential facts as I see them are that
American University has made great advances during the past decade, and Ben Ladner deserves credit for his leadership during this period of unprecedented university progress.
Secondly, and sadly, Ben Ladner no longer has the moral authority to continue serving as president of American University. Just as the Board of Trustees, deans, faculty, student, staff, and the greater university community deserve to share credit for the advancement of this great institution, we also share responsibility for resolving the current crisis.
I was honored to be among the group of faculty colleagues who met with several members of the
Board of Trustees yesterday afternoon. I left the meeting with renewed respect for the board, assurance that they are indeed very dedicated to the best interests of the university, and confident that they will appropriately resolve the crisis not later than their meeting scheduled for early
October.
Having expressed confidence in the board, I must also emphasize that I think they need our support and help in fulfilling their fiduciary responsibilities. We the faculty, as well as the entire university community, must continue to share with them, in no uncertain terms, our concerns about the seriousness of the current situation and the need to resolve it promptly by terminating the Ladner presidency.
In this era of Enron, WorldCom, Tyco and other instances of shameful corporate executive behavior, the faculty of the Kogod School of Business has a special responsibility to reaffirm our institutional values and ethical ideals. I am very proud that earlier this week, in a near-unanimous vote, the Kogod faculty conveyed not only its unequivocal no confidence in Ben Ladner, but also that his departure should not be accompanied by a golden parachute or extraordinary severance pay.
At Kogod we teach our students that organizations and executives have moral and social responsibilities, that honesty and truthfulness should not be compromised, that insider deals are unjust and wrong, that no one is above the laws or ethical standards of our society, that a true leader just exhibit an unswerving commitment to honorable behavior, even at the sacrifice of personal advantage, that excellence in leadership does not require obscene levels of executive compensation, and that you can become a highly successful executive without becoming a liar, a thief, or a greedy hypocrite.
My colleagues, we are now in the midst of a teachable moment, and we teach best by our example. I urge you to unite in approving the motion of no confidence that I am about to present, and in so doing to send a clear message not only to the Board of Trustees and the media, but most importantly to our students, that the ideals and values of this great university are not empty platitudes but uncompromised benchmarks for measuring our collective purpose and our

personal integrity.
And so I move the Faculty Senate has lost confidence in the leadership of Benjamin Ladner and urges him to resign as president of American University. If his resignation is not forthcoming shortly, we recommend that the university Board of Trustees remove Dr. Ladner from office immediately. Thank you.
MR. AHRENS: Is there a second.
MR. : Second.
MR. AHRENS: Discussion of the motion.
Barlow.
BARLOW BURKE: As the law school representative I represent the unanimous opinion of the law faculty, the law library faculty, and many members of the staff when I say we have no confidence in Ben Ladner. And I support Phil’s motion doing several things.
First, I think that there are ongoing legal matters between members of the board and the board and Dr. Ladner. I don’t believe that Phil’s motion speaks to those, and the law faculty does not speak to those. We wouldn’t want to pre-judge them and the outcome of any disputes that are relevant to them in any way. But I would highlight for you the ethical considerations that Phil raised, which, no matter what the contract says and no matter what Ben Ladner’s agreement, off record or on record, was with the board, there is just a terrible lack of judgment about how university presidents present themselves and should live.
And beyond that, there is the question – and again, this is regardless of any of the legal disputes
– there is the question of his ongoing effectiveness, conceding that for 10 to12 years he has brought the university to good places. Still, we have to be cognizant of the future of the university and any role that Ben Ladner can play in that future. And I believe that the lack of judgment, the lack of ethical standards renders him ineffective to continue his presidency.
And with that, I will say that I will vote for the motion.
MR. AHRENS: Thank you.
John.
JOHN RICHARDSON: First of all, the SIS faculty passed a motion with virtual unanimity that was close enough to Phil’s motion that I will vote for the motion and see no reason to amend it. I would just add two things. First of all, I spoke to Faith Leonard and I said that AU students should receive a collective special reward for the way that they have dealt with this situation throughout yesterday’s meeting, and I want to make sure that the Senate rises to the standard and follows the example that has been set by our students.

Secondly, my father – one of my father’s law partners at Cahill Gordon was, for a long time, the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and he required at Cahill Gordon two criteria. He said, first of all, a given deal and given behavior needs to be legal. But, he says, there is a second criterion – it needs to pass what I call the stink test. If it doesn’t pass the stink test, we don’t endorse it at Cahill Gordon. In my opinion, legalities aside, President Ladner’s behavior does not pass the stink test.
MR. AHRENS: Wendell.
WENDELL COCHRAN: (Clears throat.) Excuse me. The School of Communication faculty also on Monday voted a very similar resolution on the grounds that the president does not hold the moral and ethical authority. We ask him to resign, and barring that, the trustees dismiss him immediately.
There is no need to repeat things that have been said. I think that we all know what the situation seems to be.
We had, in our school, a second element – and I won’t move it as an amendment but I do think it’s something that the Senate should consider at a later time, and that is that we don’t believe that the trustees have – that the trustees have managed this situation for a very long time in an appropriate manner and that there needs to be some not just reorganization of the trustees, but some move for us a Senate, for students, faculty and others, to have more participation and for there to be more transparency in the governance of this university.
And so, as a secondary item, once this issue has been resolved – and I won’t hesitate to say that I pray that’s very soon. I think that we have other urgent business to attend to.
MR. AHRENS: Thank you.
I seem to be looking over on this side. Robert.
ROBERT DURANT: Thank you, Tony. The faculty of the School of Public Affairs met on
Monday in the Ward Circle Building. We had members of our student body, our faculty representatives, our adjuncts, our staff. We had a thorough and a candid and a far-ranging discussion of the allegations made against President Ladner – the due process issues that were involved, the ongoing disputes within the Board of Trustees over his actions, the concern of students, and strong concern of students, in the SPA on the inconsistency of President Ladner’s actions with the values, the traditions, and the goals of American University. Concerns were also voiced about a lack of confidence in the board, in the board’s handling of the issue, about a lack of transparency by the board, and for the need to revisit governance structures in light of what has happened.
Ultimately, and without a necessary quorum, we passed a sense of the meeting resolution that was approved overwhelmingly that is consistent with Professor Jacoby’s initiative. Since that time we have polled the entire faculty and that near unanimity in favor of resolution has, if anything, grown in the interim. This as charges and countercharges of intrigue, misfeasance, and

malfeasance at AU’s highest governance levels, and we feel profoundly embarrassed and dispirited – this campus, its alumni and its friends.
As such, I have now sadly concluded with the overwhelming majority of my colleagues in the
School of Public Affairs, that the faculty Senate has no choice but to call for the resignation of
President Ladner, and absent that resignation, his removal by the Board of Trustees.
MR. AHRENS: Thank you.
Janice.
JANICE FLUG: I'm the representative from the Senate Committee on Instructional Budget and
Benefits, and so my remarks will be more focused on budget issues as pertaining to this, and I have been in touch with the committee.
First, it would appear that there are two standards by which we develop budgets at AU: the administrative standard and the academic standard. The president and the Board of Trustees have in recent years supported raising faculty salaries to AAUP level one, and have funded many of the academic priorities. It is the scale of support that is the major difference. The committee and the Senate are very concerned about recommending a reasonable tuition increase that will fund necessary academic priorities, all of which are in support of the academic mission of the university. Academic units continually look for efficiencies and remain underfunded in many categories. It appears that some administrative budgets are constructed with a very different standard as a guide.
Secondly, the transparency of the budget process is a major concern to the committee and to the faculty at large. Until 2002, when the Senate was reconstituted, faculty members of the Senate
Finance Committee were also members of the University Budget Committee. We had the opportunity and the responsibility to ask questions about the entire university budget. The
University Budget Committee was dissolved, and in its place is an advisory group that spends about 90 minutes reviewing the budget just prior to the submission of the Board of Trustees.
There is no guarantee that a faculty member with knowledge of the budget serves on the advisory group.
Under the current structure the Senate Instructional Budget and Benefits Committee is supposed to be only concerned with the academic budget. Transparency in the budget process must be a high priority for the Senate, and this is an issue that the committee is addressing.
The committee also, through discussion and stuff, does not – as Phil pointed out, does not favor a large buyout and I think would recommend that I would vote in favor of the resolution.
MR. AHRENS: Thank you.
Gail.
GAIL MARDIROSIAN: After respectful discussion and with remarkable harmony, the College

of Arts and Science faculty earlier this week returned an overwhelming majority vote of no confidence. We view this issue as one of conduct, not contract, and as a faculty at a private institution with a strong sense of public responsibility, there is no other option for us but to vote no confidence.
MR. AHRENS: Thank you.
Other comments? Melissa.
MELISSA BECHER: I’m representing the library faculty of American University. The library faculty, a majority of us, also voted no confidence in President Ladner’s ability to provide the ethical and effective leadership to which American University is entitled, and called on the
Board of Trustees to sever our relationship with Dr. Benjamin Ladner immediately. The library faculty feels that his conduct has placed at risk our efforts to attract high-quality students and faculty and endangers the long-standing commitment of our alumni and affects our fundraising and our relationship with our potential donors.
In accordance with the motion that has been raised, I believe that I will – I will vote for the motion.
MR. AHRENS: Thank you.
Tony.
TONY RILEY: I would just like to say that there was some additional resolutions passed in the
College of Arts and Sciences regarding the transparencies of the board’s activities. So I want to reinforce Wendell’s comment as well as Robert’s comments about openness and transparency, that we can act as a group here suggesting and recommending that – amending Phil’s resolution, and also that there be some evaluation of faculty representation and input to the board different than what’s going on now. This is a resolution – it was the second resolution passed by the college.
MR. AHRENS: I don’t know if you were suggesting an amendment. It’s possible that we could consider other issues after we have considered the current –
MR. RILEY: That’s what I would like to have, as opposed to making an amendment to Phil’s resolution, if we could discuss that.
MR. AHRENS: Thank you. For the moment, though, we are discussing Phil’s resolution concerning no confidence.
MR. COCHRAN: Actually, it hasn’t circulated all the way – the exact wording hasn’t circulated all the way.
MR. AHRENS: Other comments? Cathy?

CATHY SCHAEFF: I think one of the things that maybe we’re thinking about here is I think that the progress we’ve made over the last 10 years or so has been tremendous, and it’s shown, I think very clearly, that Dr. Ladner understands precisely this institution – the faculty, the staff, and the students, both the alumni and the current students very well. He understands clearly what we value and what we will put our energies behind to support their success. I think his failure with regard to his judgments I think has been – (inaudible) – is particularly troubling given that he does know us so well. He knows the institution very clearly and yet he’s chosen a path which seems to be definitely not in line with – (inaudible) – support the motion.
MR. AHRENS: Thank you.
Sarah.
SARAH IRVINE BELSON: Not to reiterate what a lot of people have already said – and I thank you for the opportunity to speak – I think I and many other faculty take this very personally, and
I wanted to share one of the reasons why. That is our belief that we represent the students and we need to serve as role models for the students.
Although our obligation to serve as role models to the students is not explicitly spelled out in our contracts, the professions we represent and our dedication to serve as teachers and leaders within our disciplines demand that we conduct ourselves at the utmost standards of professional behavior. The alleged behavior of the leaders – and I say leaders – at the highest level of our institution represent at the least poor judgment and the type of behavior we would not stand for in our classrooms, in our research, or in our own professional conduct.
Therefore, it is our responsibility as the faculty to call for immediate disciplinary actions, and those actions must reflect our shared commitment to conducting all university business in line with the behavior we demand of ourselves. We cannot be effective teachers if the students do not believe in our integrity, and we need to believe that as a community we have a shared commitment to a standard of behavior. Thank you.
MR. AHRENS: Thank you.
Are there other comments from senators? Vidya.
VIDYAMALI SAMARASINGHE: I would like to support this motion, and I feel that, you know, I came to this university 22 years ago – (inaudible) – and here I am 17 years later again in pretty much the same situation. But my question is that – my concern is that President Ladner has the responsibility of seeing to it that the standards of what we stand for in this university are maintained. I think it’s a question of responsibility, and I find that he has not kept up that responsibility and that he has valued it down to the students and faculty, who to me are the main stakeholders of this university.
Especially I was completely outraged when I have to learn from the newspapers what was going on in the university, and I think it is the responsibility of the chief operating officer to make us

inclusive of what is happening, and for the last 12 years or 10 years, it has not been the case.
And also, when he gets rewarded for the high ranking of the university – all of us are responsible for that, and we are not rewarded proportionately. I think there is something very wrong in the issue that has been given. So I support this motion enthusiastically.
MR. AHRENS: Thank you.
Are there additional comments from senators? (Pause.) I will then open the floor to comments from the community.
Naomi.
MS. : I can probably speak loudly enough. A question of clarification please on what the resolution entails. There has been a lot of discussion amongst the schools and colleges about the importance of a vote of no confidence and the removal of Dr. Ladner as president of the institution. A question has arisen, at least in informal discussion, about where that leaves things with regard to the tenure question. Could we request clarification – either for the resolution or for the reality of the situation.
MR. JABOBY: The motion does not address that. I think that’s a separate issue that the board would have to –
MS. : (Inaudible) – the board would need to consider that separately.
MR. AHRENS: Are there other comments from the community?
Yes.
MS. : As one of the students who organized the rally yesterday, I would just like to say that we support the faculty 100 percent across the schools who voted no confidence. So I just wanted to say thank you for trying to represent our voice as well.
MR. AHRENS: Thank you.
Yes.
MR. : I would also like to further her sentiments towards – as a student here at American
University, I know we pride ourselves on our integrity. Especially as business student, what we hear every day from the corporate world is to – what we’re being taught is that you cannot lie, you cannot cheat, you cannot steal, you cannot do things under the table. And it’s really very nice to finally see that, you know, all of our faculty is really, truly concerned about us. I’ve now spent three years here and not once felt that Ladner was concerned about myself as he was his own name, and now it’s nice to see that every one of you who are in here are really, truly caring about our own education and where we go from here.

MR. AHRENS: Thank you.
Yes.
MS. : I urge the Senate to pass a resolution that takes into account what would happen should
President Ladner resign or be asked to leave. I think that the Senate should have a voice in what his status would be after his resignation or removal as president. I think the issue of having him as a member of the faculty indefinitely is certainly one that I would not support. And then there are some other matters as to his compensation, which I think the Senate should take a position on and not simply leave it to the Board of Trustees.
MR. AHRENS: Thank you.
Other comments from the community. Yes.
MS. : I suppose I’m a little disappointed that we’re just focusing on the president when the Board of Trustees is the entity which is responsible for giving him a contract that so many of us have trouble with, and I’m wondering if the Senate has any plans to address that larger issue. I for one have lost my confidence in the Board of Trustees.
MR. AHRENS: I can say that I expect there to be further discussion of the university governance, but for the moment, the conversation is about the motion concerning President
Ladner’s – confidence in President Ladner.
Is there further comment on the motion from the community? Yes.
MR. : I just wanted to mention something that everyone read and saw, that President Ladner was quoted that if people don’t like him here he would resign, but not for cause – quote, “not for cause,” which I think is an indication of what he is planning. In other words, if it’s not for cause, there might be something about the severance pay that we might not be – I’m not aware of.
MR. AHRENS: Thank you.
Are there other comments from the community? (Pause.) There being none, I will return to the
Senate. Do any of the senators have further comment at this time?
Gary.
GARY WEAVER: Well, to begin with, I’m going to support the motion. I fully agree with Phil.
I think also when we consider President Ladner, I do think we have to put it in total context.
There are plenty of fingers – it’s like Hurricane Katrina. That is, the Board of Trustees and even we faculty, I mean, went along with dismantling our own authority and oversight over budgetary issues. We allowed our Senate to change dramatically, which has diminished some of our oversight capacity, and we went right along with this.
So, you know, there is plenty of blame to go around, and while I agree with Phil, I hope that

when this is finished we will consider what is the role of the faculty? How can we make the governance more transparent to avoid this from ever happening again?
MR. AHRENS: Thank you.
Wendell.
MR. COCHRAN: On the issue of what the scope of the resolution and the Senate action should be, while I understand the sentiment and some of the reasons behind it, I think it would complicate our discussion and also probably make it more difficult to reach the outcome that we more or less agreed we think is the correct outcome. If we go on record as trying to put certain conditions on how this is to occur, then it’s going to be more difficult for either party to make it happen.
MR. AHRENS: Thank you.
Other comments from senators? Barlow.
MR. BURKE: Has everybody spoken? Well, I concur with Wendell. When we know that the board is split, when we know that they will have trouble reaching their own solution, I don’t think it’s appropriate now for us to get in the middle of their dispute. We could only muck it up at this point.
MR. AHRENS: Okay. Other comment from the Senate?
With that, is there a motion to call the question?
MR. BURKE: I call the question.
MR. AHRENS: Is there a second?
MR. WEAVER: I’ll second it.
MR. AHRENS: There is a second.
Phil, could you please read once more the motion?
MR. JACOBY: The motion reads, quote, “The faculty Senate has lost confidence in the leadership of Benjamin Ladner and urges him to resign as president of American University. If his resignation is not forthcoming shortly, we recommend that the university Board of Trustees remove Dr. Ladner from office immediately.”
MR. AHRENS: John.
JOHN DOUGLASS: There is about a vote to be taken on calling the question unless you feel the
Senate is really ready to vote on – (inaudible).

MR. AHRENS: Thank you, sir.
If you are in favor of calling the question, please raise your hand. John, will you count? Okay.
All opposed? Okay. So, all in favor of the motion that Phil made for no confidence please raise your hand. Okay. All opposed? Any abstentions? Thank you. [19 Senators voted in favor of the motion; no Senators voted in opposition or abstained; 2 Senators did not vote.]
I open the floor for further discussion.
MR. WEAVER: The issue was raised about tenure. Do we have anything we want to say about tenure? I mean, what if President Ladner stays around or –. Are we going to – I mean, we’re academic and this is the faculty Senate. What role do we play in that?
MR. AHRENS: Jonathan.
MR. LOESBERG: His contract calls for him to hold tenure, but as some of you read in the
Chronicle, you have certain compensation agreements. I can only say that should he not agree to abandon that privilege, I assume the university could challenge it based on regulations with regard to holding tenure. I don’t know how successful that challenge would be. I know where it will go and I’m not looking forward to it.
Actually, as I understand it – and I’m going to speak under correction here, the CFR was a very early step in such a testing of it. It would ultimately go to – (inaudible) – grievance. But there are means to question someone’s tenure. I mean, we could choose to do that without regard to that contract.
MR. AHRENS: Gary.
MR. WEAVER: My understanding is if you don’t teach every year at least one course you may not be entitled to keep your tenure, number one. Number two, of course moral turpitude is grounds for losing tenure – two very clear stipulations. I would invite the dean of faculty to give her comments as to this issue of tenure for President Ladner.
IVY BRODER: I don’t have the manual in front of me and so I can’t give you the exact wording for the grounds to remove someone’s tenure. But I do know what the process is, and that is that a complaint needs to be filed by the dean of the school in which the person is tenured. There is adjudication through the – informal adjudication through the Committee on Faculty Relations, and if a resolution can’t be reached, then the matter goes to a hearing panel of the university.
So there are many steps there, but first there needs to be a finding of misbehavior, some kind of – what’s the word I’m looking for? – a grievance against a faculty member, but it’s usually initiated by either another faculty member or a dean and must come through the dean’s office. So
I don’t believe the faculty Senate has a role in removing someone’s tenure. It’s only through a hearing panel, which then, depending on the outcome, there is an appeal process to the president of the institution, and I believe – (inaudible) – the board.

Whether Dr. Ladner has tenure at the university, I don’t know how anyone in this room can say.
It’s a contract matter. And I think that there has been some discussion of paperwork that was initiated at the time of his initial appointment, but I don’t think anyone in this – on this body has seen what the initial letter was to him, number one, or, number two, what the 1997 contract says.
So I simply don’t think factually we could establish right now whether he has tenure at the university or not.
MR. AHRENS: Barlow.
MR. BURKE: Even if we could establish it factually, the process is so ornate for denying one tenure that I don’t think really we ought to be prejudging that right now. I mean, a university president has a job that has a hair trigger. I hope that we, the tenured faculty at the university, don’t have such a job. So I think that it’s not properly before us today.
MR. AHRENS: Thank you.
John.
MR. RICHARDSON: Perhaps I’m the only person who was serving as vice chair of the Faculty
Relations Committee when we considered the matter of Professor Berendzen’s tenure. Were you on the committee then – (inaudible)? And I would just add to what Ivy said, that the provisions in the manual are quite clear, unambiguous, easy to follow, good guidance for the Faculty
Relations Committee. And in the case of Professor Berendzen, we did indeed review circumstances in response to a complaint and voted – and reached the judgment that there was no basis for rescinding his tenure in terms of the provisions of the manual.
MR. AHRENS: Wendell.
MR. COCHRAN: I do think, though, that Dean Broder’s statement regarding what the actual status of President Ladner’s tenure is is troubling from another point of view – not that I think that we should be involved at this point in trying to determine what’s right or wrong, but in terms of transparency. It seems – I’m very troubled by the fact that not even the person directly responsible for the granting of tenure over the last 10 years can factually answer the question.
MR. AHRENS: Thank you.
Jonathan?
MR. LOESBERG: I have just drafted on the floor, where you don’t do these things, another resolution, more or less at Tony’s request but I thought it was a proper one, about the situation with the Board of Trustees. It’s largely an innocuous resolution, by which I mean it resolves nothing at this moment but it does resolve that the Senate will turn our attention to the issue, well, at the earliest possible – I’ll read what I’ve written.

“The current situation with regard to President Ladner has clear implications for the present governance structure of the university. Although we do not believe it would be productive to address these issues at the present time, the Senate resolves to turn to them at the earliest possible date.”
And I suggest that as our way of dealing with what we all know is next on the horizon.
MR. RICHARDSON: Could you read the motion again, Jonathan?
MR. LOESBERG: Sure. “The current situation with regard to President Ladner has clear implications for the present governance structure of the university. Although we do not believe it would be productive to address these issues at the present time, the Senate resolves to turn to them at the earliest possible date.” Tony better resolve also to proofread this.
MR. AHRENS: Is there a second?
MR. : Second.
MR. : Second.
MR. AHRENS: Any discussion of the motion? (Pause.) Is there a move to call the question?
MR. BURKE: I call the question.
MR. AHRENS: Is there a second?
MR. : I second.
MR. AHRENS: Okay. All in favor?
MS. : Of calling the question.
MR. AHRENS: Of calling the question. Correct. Thank you. So we’re calling the question now.
Thank you. All opposed. All in favor of Jonathan’s resolution? Could you raise your hands again, please? . [19 Senators voted in favor of the motion; no Senators voted in opposition or abstained; 2 Senators did not vote.]
MR. : (Inaudible.)
MR. AHRENS: Okay, all opposed? With that I’m going to move to the chair’s comments. Given that this is a brief meeting today we’ve only begun the Senate’s consideration of AU’s governance system and this last proposal addressed that particular point. Yesterday a subset of the Board of Trustees came, at our request, to meet with eight representatives of the faculty, including representatives of every school and college, as well as the library. Following that

meeting, I fully support the executive committee’s decision to place President Ladner upon administrative leave.
The trustees were clearly moved by this opportunity to engage in productive dialogue with the faculty. I believe we gave them further reason to be proud of their commitment to American. I was most impressed by their love of this institution, regardless of their views on other issues before them. There will be further discussion of AU’s governance system. Many who have spoken and who have written emphasized this. This has been raised in the meeting today. I fully concur. I promise an extended discussion. I am also confident that the renewal of governance that comes from this episode will ensure that the problems we are experiencing now will not be repeated.
I am proud to be a professor at American today. We should all be proud to be part of the community of AU – faculty, students and staff. Universities are measured by their manner in times of crisis, and we have reacted well by speaking loudly of our values of service, of leadership, and of community. We have reacted well by continuing with our classes, our research, our meetings. We will have disagreements amongst ourselves. If we did not, we would not be a university. As we engage in our discussions, I urge us to look to the future with a sense of challenge and commitment.
Franklin Roosevelt, in his 1934 address on the occasion of the inauguration of Joseph Gray as
American’s chancellor, said of our community, “You have a great future, a great opportunity for initiative, for constructive thinking, for practical idealism, and for national service.” We live that future today. We will live that future in times to come. Thank you.
Is there anything for the good of the order?
PETER BRUSOE: Good afternoon. My name is Peter Brusoe from the graduate student body. I want to commend the Senate for their interaction with us. Dr. Ahrens has been fantastic with communicating with us. We’d like to thank each and every one of you for your school’s interaction with the graduate students. We think it’s important that we’ve had this dialogue and we thank you for your first resolution. Thank you.
MR. AHRENS: Thank you.
Any other comments for the good of the order? Robin.
ROBIN BEADS: Good afternoon. My name is Robin Beads I’m chair of the staff council for the
’05-’06 academic year. I would like to thank Tony for inviting me to be here and keeping me in the loop of this and giving the staff a voice in all of this as well. [Inaudible]. Thank you very much.
MR. AHRENS: Thank you.
Any other comments for the good of the order? Is there a motion to adjourn the meeting.

MR. JACOBY: I so move.
MR. : Second.
MR. : Second.
MR. AHRENS: All in favor? (Chorus of “aye.”) Opposed? The meeting is adjourned.
(END)