The committee formed in September to examine how Ohio University presidents are evaluated did not make any formal decisions at its first meeting yesterday, instead reviewing similar processes at national and geographic peer universities.

Only one of OU’s 10 national peer institutions includes faculty input in the presidential evaluation. In Ohio, only Central State University and Shawnee State University allow faculty to evaluate the president, according to OU’s Office of Institutional Research.

The committee will make a final recommendation on the evaluation process at the OU Board of Trustees meeting in February.

Committee chair Sandra Anderson compared the committee’s efforts to making maple syrup and the background information to sap.

“You need a lot of sap to get one bottle of maple syrup,” Anderson said. “We’re in the sap-gathering phase.”

Anderson’s committee was formed earlier this year after some senates on campus expressed their displeasure with the secretive nature of the current presidential evaluation process. That process calls for the trustees to meet with all six senates but requires the contents of those meetings be kept in confidence.

Last year, following one student vote and two faculty votes of no-confidence against OU President Roderick McDavis, the Board of Trustees returned a positive evaluation.

Graduate Student Senate responded this year by passing a resolution threatening to boycott the evaluation should no changes be made to the process. Student Senate passed a similar resolution, without a boycott. Faculty Senate has yet to vote on a resolution that includes the boycott provision.

Anderson stressed that though recent controversies have centered on McDavis, the work of her committee is much broader. “This is not a McDavis process,” she said. “This is a nameless, faceless presidential process. We’re coming up with a process that will apply no matter who.”

Committee member Ned DeWire said the concept of shared governance also will need to be examined. Although the phrase is commonly used, he said, it has never been specified as to what it doesn’t include.

“At some point, we have to define what it’s not, and I don’t know quite how to do that here,” he said. “There may be things said that have implication that go beyond what shared governance means.”

The Ohio Revised Code provides no direction for Boards of Trustees evaluating presidents.