AAUP JMU

JMU Presidential Search: 7 of 11 are BOV members, but only one instructional faculty

The search for JMU’s next president has begun, and the committee has met! As currently constituted the committee has 11 members with 7 BOV members but only 1 instructional faculty member, as reported on the presidential search webpage.

JMU’s faculty senate met over the summer and (by a quorum of 39 senators) unanimously passed a resolution in which they asked that additional faculty members be added to bring our committee more in-line with search compositions at other reputable institutions and to conform with recommendations by both the AAUP and the Association of Governing Boards (AGB, of which JMU is a member). To date, there has been no public statement from the BOV about this resolution.

The JMU chapter of AAUP sent a letter on June 13th, 2024 to Rector-elect Obenshain noting that the formation process and composition of the committee was not in alignment with other national presidential searches, nor with recommendations by the AAUP or the AGB. The incoming Rector’s June 18th reply was not supportive our request.

Press:
Daily News June 19, 2024 article “JMU Faculty Senate Wants More Representation On Search Committee“

(July 9, 2024 : Edit to correct title and content to reflect 11 total committee members, not 12, and 7 from BOV, not 8. There is still only 1 instructional faculty member.)

aaupjmu Avatar

Published by

aaupjmu
Categories:

15 responses to “JMU Presidential Search: 7 of 11 are BOV members, but only one instructional faculty”

  1. Avatar
    Anonymous

    The lack of involvement of the JMU community is concerning. Employee morale has been exceptionally low in recent years as we have seen from the turnover rates among all areas of the university and difficulty filling roles. Staff members at JMU are paid considerably less than their peers at other agencies and universities and attitudes from the administration have not helped. Involving groups like the Faculty Senate and the Employee Advisory Committee should be a part of this process.

    Even the city attempted to be a part of the process given the important partnership between the university and Harrisonburg, but I am given to understand they were told the decision had already been narrowed to two Republican party connected women and there was no point in getting involved because it was a thing decided. Whether this is true or not, this is the impression the community has regarding what is happening at the university.

    These are not the ideals of higher education, and especially not the values James Madison University is supposed to espouse.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. Avatar
      Anonymous

      Wow! I hope this is wrong and that our search isn’t over before it starts.

      But this article about the board at Mason has me worried: https://www.chronicle.com/article/could-george-mason-u-be-republicans-test-case-for-project-2025

      Like

      Reply
  2. adajiatrv Avatar
    adajiatrv

    test

    Like

    Reply
  3. Avatar
    Anonymous

    2011 presidential search committee which hired Jon Alger had 13 members, 3 of them faculty and one the Speaker of Faculty Senate — 3 times as many faculty members as Obenshain’s.

    Like

    Reply
  4. Avatar
    Anonymous

    Actually there were 4 faculty members on that 2011 search committee.

    Like

    Reply
    1. aaupjmu Avatar
      aaupjmu

      Whoops – our old settings blocked a link to info about JMU’s 2011 presidential search that the commenter above included. Here is that link: https://www.jmu.edu/news/2011/01/06-presidential-search.shtml

      And FYI: We flipped some settings and now two links are allowed. 🙂

      Like

      Reply
  5. Avatar
    Anonymous

    The lack of transparency, faculty involvement, and acknowledgement of the faculty’s expertise in all facets of higher education is an affront to our status!

    Like

    Reply
    1. Avatar
      Anonymous

      As a JMU faculty member, it isn’t an affront to my status that I’m not consulted about all facets of higher ed, and by no means would I want to be!

      But there are some higher ed decisions in which faculty should play a role, and I think it is dumb when faculty aren’t allowed to contribute to these decisions.

      The preliminary vetting of candidates and participation in the discussion about who should advance for final consideration IS a place were faculty can and should play a major role.

      I want a president who can work with our faculty AND with our board as we work together to deliver a high quality academic experience. Including more and trusted faculty on the search committee would make this a much more likely outcome.

      Like

      Reply
  6. Avatar
    Anonymous

    This process has all the markings of a political heist. The BoV is doing the governor’s bidding to ensure a system of higher education that resembles his beliefs.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Avatar
      Anonymous

      The immediate, pressing issue is that the rector-elect of the BOV has set up a process for selecting the next president of an academic institution, which process systematically excludes the faculty.

      Faculty shouldn’t waste time speculating about conspiracies or the motivations of the search chair (see comment below).

      The faculty senate, which represents the faculty, might helpfully be urged to make a big row about the facts that (a) the speaker is not on the search committee; (b) the sole faculty member of the committee was not selected by the faculty senate.

      Like

      Reply
  7. Avatar
    Anonymous

    Who thinks that the search chair wants the presidency? She chaired a search team for Heritage that ended up hiring her…quite a Dick Cheney move!

    Like

    Reply
    1. Avatar
      Anonymous

      A puzzling comment. If what matters here is the role that faculty should, by principles of shared governance, be playing in the choice of a new president, then this comment is an irrelevance.

      Like

      Reply
  8. Avatar
    Anonymous

    It will be important to ask visiting candidates to comment on the constitution of the search committee by which they are being considered.

    Like

    Reply
  9. Avatar
    Anonymous

    The search committee is conducting a “listening tour.” This mimics but doesn’t actually amount to paying to the voice of JMU faculty. In addition to the ‘listening tour’ events that have already occurred in Harrisonburg and NOVA, such events are planned in Richmond, Roanoke, and Norfolk.

    Are transcripts of these “listening tour” sessions available?

    Like

    Reply
  10. Avatar
    Anonymous

    The Breeze picked up this story. Check out their excellent Aug 15 article:

    https://www.breezejmu.org/news/faculty-collaboration-to-come-from-presidential-search-committee-upset/article_648cee68-5a94-11ef-9511-0be391fc6247.html

    Like

    Reply

Leave a reply to adajiatrv Cancel reply