Correction appended.

Members of the Ohio University Board of Trustees presented to Faculty Senate on Monday to discuss the university’s search for its next president.

The board’s chair and vice-chair explained how the 21-person search committee compiled a presidential profile to outline expectations for the next president of OU.

“Part of the transparency of what we wanted to offer is for people to come in and exchange their views … we are not the academics, you are,” Board of Trustees Chair David Wolfort said to faculty members in attendance.

The presidential profile is a product of an open forum regarding the search that took place Aug. 30.

Before the Board of Trustees members spoke, OU President Roderick McDavis opened the second Faculty Senate meeting by addressing an effort for cultural awareness in light of the images painted on OU’s graffiti wall last month. McDavis asked Faculty Senate to consider how Cultural Awareness Training for Students can be implemented at OU.

In response to the images and words on OU’s graffiti wall in recent months, several students and groups have voiced the desire to have a required cultural competency class at OU, McDavis said.

At Monday’s meeting, McDavis said though he does not have the power to enforce such a class, he invited faculty members to collaborate with himself and Pam Benoit, executive vice president and provost.

“I come to you tonight to ask if you would participate with the Office of the President and the office of the vice provost for Diversity and Inclusion in putting together a task force … that would come up with some ideas on how we can implement cultural competency classes for our students,” McDavis said. “The more of us that are engaged in activity, the more meaningful it is, because it means so much more over the long term … to come up with something that is integrated into the fabric of Ohio University.”

McDavis said he is proposing that to all governmental bodies at the university.

Faculty Senate Chair Joe McLaughlin also reviewed the university's classroom privacy policy, which addresses the rules for recording students and professors in classrooms and laboratories. Mention of the policy sparked discussion among faculty members, as many are concerned with surveillance technology, such as cameras, and accommodations for students while maintaining their own intellectual property during lectures.

“This is a very old policy. It seems more concerned with tape recorders than it does about certain surveillance cameras,” McLaughlin said. “I think this is going to become a much bigger issue than it has been in the past because we increasingly rely on sometimes expensive technology.”

A resolution about university building naming policies was approved, after Faculty Senate Executive Committee revised the resolution and proposed at least one face-to-face meeting of all parties involved in deliberations.

The first reading of two resolutions about handbook language and dean reviews was presented by Professional Relations Committee Chair Sherrie Gradin. Faculty Senate discussed what separations should be defined for Group I and Group II faculty with regards to annual dean evaluation surveys and comprehensive reviews.

The next Faculty Senate meeting will be held on Nov. 7 in Walter 235.


Correction: A previous version of this article misidentified who revised the building naming resolution and whether a face-to-face meeting was part of a resolution. The article has been updated to reflect the most accurate information.