Standort in Deutschland, wo man günstige und qualitativ hochwertige Kamagra Ohne Rezept Lieferung in jedem Teil der Welt zu kaufen.

Kaufen priligy im Online-Shop. Wirkung ist gut, kommt sehr schnell, innerhalb von 5-7 Minuten. cialis was nur nicht versucht, verbrachte eine Menge Geld und Nerven, und geholfen hat mir nur dieses Tool.

Reforming academic governance at aau

ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY
Framework Document
Reforming Academic Governance
February 2011
I. Introduction

In the academic arena, the reform process at AAU has now reached a stage where the
following have been successfully accomplished:
1. Definition of the university-wide structure for academic administration 2. Establishment of all academic units and university-wide academic offices 3. Selection and appointment of academic officers at all levels
What remains to be done to pave the way for a full-scale implementation of the reform is to
establish the institutions of academic governance and define their mode of operation
internally and with each other. “Academic governance”, as used in this document, refers
both to academic administration by the executive and to the participation in academic
decision making of academic staff through their representative bodies. It encompasses not
just the institutions in both branches but also the ways in which they come together to
conduct business. The document identifies these bodies and describes how they will be
constituted and made operational. It begins with a reiteration of the principles that underpin
good academic governance and a description of the legal and practical considerations that
inform the ways in which institutions of governance are expected to take form and operate at
AAU. It then outlines the assemblies, committees, councils and executive offices that
constitute the sum-total of the institutions, defines their membership, and determines the
ways in which they will conduct business. This is done from the bottom up, beginning with
the basic units of the academic system such as departments and program units, culminating
with those that function at the University level.
This is a basic framework document. It is prepared to provide basic definitions and describe
the major elements of the structure of governance. It has been revised and improved on
the basis of reactions to an earlier draft circulated to the University Community and the
suggestions made by representatives of the community at a one-day workshop that took
place on 28 January 2011
. As originally envisioned, and also emphatically suggested at the
workshop, it will shortly be supplemented by detailed guidelines and procedures that will
more fully describe the roles, functions and responsibilities of the various governance bodies.
II. Background and Rationale

University academic structures determine and reflect the distribution of responsibility and
decision-making powers in the conduct of academic business. Unlike conventional
bureaucracies, academic institutions are not governed top down through chains of command
that cascade decisions from higher to lower echelons. Central to the governing of universities
and colleges is the principle of self-governance, by which is meant that all major academic
decisions are made by academics sitting as peers. Institutions differ, of course, in the range
and scope of decision-making powers that they allow their faculty members to enjoy; they
also differ in the relative distribution of authority and responsibility between executive
offices on the one hand and the organs and bodies in which the faculty are represented, on the
other. However, a managerial-bureaucratic approach to university governance is generally an
exception rather than the rule.
Addis Ababa University has had a long tradition of participatory academic governance that gave a wide room for self-governance to its faculty members. The faculty, on their part, actively participated in all the governing organs of the University not just because they perceived it to be their duty and obligation as academics but also because they were empowered by it and felt themselves to be active agents in the growth and development of the Institution. It can also be said that, periodic difficulties and upsets notwithstanding, the institutional arrangement at AAU successfully maintained a fairly healthy balance between its executive, legislative and regulatory bodies. The main organs of institutional decision-making were positioned and connected to each other in ways that provided for checks and balances while avoiding duplication of functions and confusion of authority. In part because its system of governance gave room for broadly-based participation by both the faculty and support staff, and in part because generations of academics and support personnel gave it their very best, the University has produced the largest majority of Ethiopia’s educated elite and continues to be a lead institution and a pace-setter in higher education in the nation. Thanks to hundreds of dedicated faculty members, both Ethiopian and expatriate, who have devoted their time, energy and wisdom as much to the building of the institution as they did to their scholarship, the University has been a setting in which democratic governance was not only preached but also practiced. However, over the last few decades, the system has been exhibiting signs of corrosion and malfunction. Partly due to external influence and partly due to internal failures, university governance increasingly came to give primacy to control, expediency, and quick results over institutional work and participatory decision-making. One consequence of this state of affairs has been the over-centralization of the academic structure in general and the steady growth of the executive in particular. From the Senate and its standing committees all the way down to department/faculty assemblies and their committees, the bodies and organs through which faculty members participated and influenced academic decision-making have gradually been losing their influence, if not their form. The centralization of academic administration at the University level appears to have also encouraged a tendency towards centralization of decision-making in the academic units as well, so that, at least in some units, deans and department chairs came to regard their offices as dominions of power from where they could make decisions willfully and at times whimsically. In some places conditions have deteriorated to the extent that department or academic commission meetings do not take place for months; or, even worse, bogus meetings take place (sometimes “documented” with fictional minutes) while, in fact, decisions are being made independently by individuals or by small cliques. The result is a decline in accountability of academic officers to their colleagues and a growing culture of rule by executive fiat. There is now a disturbing tendency in the community to believe that academic decisions emanate from mere personal predilections of office holders rather than from rules and regulations that were formulated to guide responsible decision-making. What makes these tendencies alarming is that they are attended by a visible decline in the motivation of the faculty to take part in academic self-governance. This decline in participation has in some places reached a level of total apathy and withdrawal, leading to a widespread practice of reluctance to take responsibility, of risk aversion, and of mechanical paper pushing. Still another manifestation of malfunction in our system of decision-making is the poor state of faculty-student relationship at both the undergraduate and graduate levels of the academic system. It is painfully apparent that a large body of our student population today does not exhibit as much confidence in the professional and ethical rectitude of their instructors as they did in the past. Many in fact believe that instructors tend to disparage and dismiss students rather than encourage and help them and that grades are determined by the adversarial or affective considerations of instructors rather than by professional judgment of student work. A clear evidence of the latter criticism is the growing frequency and volume of student protest about grades at the end of each semester and the increasingly negative tone that student portrayals of faculty behavior are taking in these protests. Standing side by side with the growing mistrust of faculty on the part of students, and in part reinforcing it, is a growing evidence of faculty indiscipline at the work place. There are now many instructors in our system, both junior and senior, for whom it is neither unethical nor immoral to fail to appear for most of the classes in the semester. There are also faculty members who hold one or more fulltime jobs elsewhere; about instructors who “teach” by abridging or unloading course material in ways that confuse and confound their students; about those who do not at all tolerate students who want to ask questions; about teachers who habitually “forget” to conduct scheduled exams or consider it an affront to their integrity when asked to return exam papers or provide explanations of their marking schemes. In actual fact, the number of people who do these kinds of things is very small. The greatest majority of AAU faculty members are highly dutiful professionals who do their work with very high sense of responsibility, often at great cost to their material wellbeing. But the damage that the few irresponsible individuals do to the reputation of the institution and to our image as a community of scholars is disproportionate to their small numbers. The sad thing is that we all know who these people are in our respective places of work and each one of us individually curses and grumbles about the “bad apples among us”. But by failing to expose and sanction them, or, even worse, by concealing their crimes and trying to protect them in the name of some grossly distorted notion of collegiality, we end up being accessories to their crime and allow our names to be tarnished as well. At the end of the day, the image that they create becomes the image of all of us, without exception. The present situation, if allowed to continue, is fraught with dangers that will bring into question the very survival of the institution as a viable academic community. The less the system is geared towards addressing the legitimate concerns of our students and colleagues, the greater will be the tendency for them to seek recourse elsewhere; the more we allow irresponsible behavior to turn into routine practice, the greater the chances will be for confrontation and disputes that will invite corrective interventions from external bodies that we cannot dispute as illegitimate or illegal. Given the fact that we are a public institution, we should not harbor any illusions about the legitimacy of government authorities to oversee and monitor the operations of the institution. The implication of this for the degree of autonomy that we can demand or enjoy as a scholastic community is not difficult for anyone to see. It is already evident that the failure of our institutions of governance to self-correct errors and provide recourse is inexorably taking us in the wrong direction. One needs only see the growing tendency, among both faculty and students, of disputing or trying to push through decisions by petitioning and supplication of higher authorities both inside and outside the University; of threats and ultimatums in verbal or written communications; or, even more unsettling, the incidence (albeit rare) of both physical and verbal violence by way of settling scores or remedying alleged violation of rights.
Needless to say, AAU cannot continue along this route of decline. In order to achieve the
goals that we have set ourselves as an institution and to make a valid argument for our
autonomous existence as an academic community, it is imperative that we bring order to the
way we operate internally. Indeed, it is incumbent upon us that we ensure good governance
if we are to continue as the leading institution of higher learning in Ethiopia.
The reform effort that the University has embarked upon over the last 7 years, beginning with
the formulation of the five-year strategic plan has envisioned the reversal of these trends and
the establishment of AAU on a firm institutional footing. The BPR exercise, which followed
in the footsteps of the Strategic Plan, sought to provide mechanisms and structures that would
enable the implementation of the Plan. As we get into the implementation phase, we all have
to be reminded of the problems that have prompted the reform effort and understand the ways
in which the mechanisms and structures provided for aim at overcoming them.
Fortunately, we don’t have to establish good governance for AAU ex nihilo. In many areas,
we have most of the elements still in place. All we need to do is revitalize these elements,
cleanse them of the corrosion that have attenuated or perverted them over the years, and adapt
them to our new mission of developing into a premiere research university. In some areas, of
course, the system of governance has to add new elements in order to respond to new needs.
AAU is now too large and too diverse an institution for the same set of decision-making
arrangements to apply in all places and areas of activity. As we introduce new elements into
our institutional function, we need to be able to come up with the most workable arrangement
that would make them contribute to institutional growth and development. In short, reforming
our system of governance involves both selective regeneration of what exists and creative
adaptation of new elements.
Yet, when all is said and done, nothing will work or repair the system as expected without a
renewed commitment by all of us. Neither the publication of a new body of rules and
guidelines, nor repeated and insistent demands for autonomy or freedom will redeem our
institution unless and until each one of us commits to do their part in the effort for renewal.
We have reached the end of the road with the old way of doing things. That is why a mode of
governance that is participatory and responsive is indispensable.
III. Fundamental Principles

The reform of academic governance at AAU shall be premised on the following principles,
derived from the vision, mission and value statements of AAU, international best practice,
and the findings and recommendations of the Business Process Re-engineering (BPR)
exercises:
1. Vertical Decentralization: Decision-making bodies and organs in academic units,
from program units and departments all the way to the University Senate, should be established and empowered in such a way as to support and enable the devolution of authority from higher to lower levels of university government. This is believed to be necessary in order to empower units in which most academic work is initiated and completed and reduce process time significantly. It is also believed that it would lighten the burden on higher levels of management, freeing them from routine administrative matters so that they could concentrate on strategic and policy-related matters. However, we should not lose sight of the fact that certain academic processes, like admissions and enrolment management, can only be done at the level of the University by university-wide offices; there are also certain aspects of academic decision-making, such as employment of faculty above a certain rank, that require the endorsement of the Senate and the University Board. Ultimately, therefore, the question is one of delineating what can and should be decentralized from what ought to be done centrally or decided upon collectively and making sure that there is healthy balance thereof.
2. Horizontal Decentralization: In order for vertical decentralization to produce the
desired result, it has to be accompanied by horizontal decentralization. Decision making at the faculty/school/institute and department/program unit levels should also be decentralized in ways that would increase the participation of faculty members and diminish the chances for authoritarian control by the executive. If this is not done, the effect of vertical decentralization could be merely replacing one form of authoritarianism by another. In fact, there is no guarantee that authoritarianism will be any less pernicious because it is localized or brought closer to where the work is done. Chances are, in fact, that localized authoritarianism will be more directly biting and more grievous than distantly located power because it operates in circumscribed perimeters that permit fewer alternatives and relatively limited room for flexibility and maneuver. 3. Effectiveness: The decision-making system should be able to operate smoothly
enough so as to respond quickly and effectively to existing needs and situations. There should be a system of reaching decisions that makes for fast workflows and effective delivery of services. A system that is too focused on the distribution of powers and overlooks effectiveness and delivery causes the dissipation of authority to a point that nothing gets done effectively. 4. Efficiency: Economy of time and resources is a central consideration in the crafting
and conduct of the governance of an academic institution not just because most work can indeed be done with less time and resources if responsibilities and roles and clearly defined and temporally specified but also because the opportunity cost of time spent on decision-making process is extremely high for academics. An efficient system is also one that minimizes wastage by putting in place a mechanism that prevents or reduces disagreements and disputes among decision makers as well as those to whom decisions apply.
5. Self-governance: For academic work to be organized and conduced to required
standards, both decision-making and responsibility in major academic matters should rest with academics themselves. It is also conventional practice in higher institutions of learning that academics determine the terms and conditions under which the three elements that constitute the academic equation (namely, faculty, academic programs and students) come together. A peer-based system of governance also goes beyond the teaching-learning processes per se to include the planning and implementation of staff development. As such, it puts the burden of promoting as well as monitoring the ethical conduct of faculty on academics themselves. 6. Inclusiveness: The principle of self-governance by academics, as stated above, is not
antithetical to the inclusion in the decision-making process of other stakeholders in the academic enterprise. This typically includes staff whose work relates directly to the teaching and learning process but also students who will be directly affected by most academic decisions. The involvement of these stakeholders is useful not only because it facilitates the implementation of decisions but also because it makes it possible for expressions of viewpoints that can help make decisions informed, reasonable and balanced. 7. Transparency: It is fundamental that academic decisions be made and communicated
in the most transparent manner so that no doubt is left as to their legality and fairness in the minds of both those who participate in the decision-making process as well as those to whom decisions apply. Information, both solicited and unsolicited, should be provided on the particulars of decisions and how they were reached. 8. Accountability: There are two forms or types of accountability that an healthy
academic institution should ensure. One is the accountability of academic staff to their students and the other is their accountability to each other. It is particularly important to keep in mind that the principal purpose of the university is to provide academic services to students who are also its principal stakeholders. A healthy university environment is therefore one in which academic staff are imbued with a very high sense of accountability to their students. Accountability of staff to each other is mediated through the bodies and organs of academic decision-making in which they participate. Institutions of governance at a given level should be accountable to those organized at the next higher level of university government. Likewise, individuals who serve in executive offices, committees or councils, shall be accountable both to the collective and to the elected officers of the organs. Accountability shall be both regular and situational. Regular accountability takes the form of regular or occasional reporting as provided in the law while situational accountability takes the form of answering to specific requests for information or explanation on a given matter or decision. 9. Recourse: A functional academic system needs a mechanism for handling complaints
that arise from the decisions of its governing bodies. Students, staff or faculty who disagree with the rulings of any of the decision-making organs should benefit from a review process that includes consideration by the next highest organ or authority in the system. Review of a case by the same body that had passed the original decision would be inherently prejudicial against the subject of a decision and will be incongruent with the principle of separation of powers. 10. Responsiveness: For an academic institution to be relevant to its environment, it is
imperative that it is in tune with the national and local needs and priorities as well as to the needs of its student population. Its responsiveness to its surroundings should be measured not only in terms of how much it takes heed of the expressed needs of stakeholders but also in terms of how much it helps in the identification and definition of these needs.
IV. Legislative Authority and Basic Documents

The principal sources of authority for the establishment and mode of operation of institutions
of academic governance at AAU are the Higher Education Proclamation of 2009
(Proclamation no. 650) and the Revised Proclamation for the Re-establishment of Addis Ababa University (forthcoming). In both proclamations there are some governance bodies that are provided for in some detail and others for which only general stipulations are made, with the particulars left to the University Community itself to determine. Accordingly, these proposals are directly in line with the legal instruments in those cases where the provisions of the law are specific as to the form and function of governance bodies. In those cases where no detailed stipulations are made, they suggest arrangements that are considered to be workable and meaningful in the context of AAU. In the determination of what is workable and meaningful, guidance was sought from the following documents: ¾ AAU’s Strategic Plan (2007-2011) ¾ The Senate Legislation of June 2007 ¾ “Institutional Arrangement and Governance Structure of AAU” approved by the AAU ¾ The new BPR design for the Teaching-Learning Core Process ¾ The new BPR design for the Research Core Process.
It is particularly noteworthy that the institutions of governance that this document elaborates
are essentially those that have been stated in the document mentioned under the third bullet
above and duly approved by the University Board in 2009. In many ways this document
could be taken to be a means of facilitating the implementation of the provisions of that
document.
V. Institutions of Governance

There are three categories of institutions that engage in decision-making in the academic
arena, depending on whether their function in the system is executive, legislative or
consultative. Each of these institutions is distinct from the other in terms of the nature of the
decisions it makes and the extent to which its decisions influence or compel action at various
levels in the system. Moreover, each category of institutions has subcategories consisting of
committees or councils that operate in advisory or regulatory capacities. To help understand
the location and function of the institutions in the system, a tabulated representation is
provided at the end of the document
In what follows, an outline of provisions is offered for reforming the major institutions of
governance in each category, with the exception of the executive branch at the level of the
University Management (the membership and terms of tenure of which are defined by
national legislation). The provisions describe in brief the duties and responsibilities, the
membership, and the leadership of each institution, as well as its relationship to other
institutions in the system.
5.1. Institutions of Governance at Department/Program Unit Level

5.1.1. Department/Program Unit Staff Assembly (DSA/PSA)

5.1.1.1. Department Staff Assembly (DSA)

Duties and responsibilities
The DSA shall be the highest academic governing body at the level of a department with
powers to formulate procedures that emanate from faculty/school/institute and/or university-
wide policies/legislation. It shall also establish the Department Academic Committee (DAC)
that shall work on its behalf when it is not in session and the standing committees (see section
5.1.3. below for standing committees) that will function as regulatory bodies in academic
matters under their mandate. It shall meet for a minimum of four times in each academic
year; at least twice a semester.
Membership:
This shall be a gathering of all core academic staff of the department with the rank of
Assistant Lecturer and above. Graduate Assistants and Technical Assistants with the rank of
Senior Technical Assistant-I and above shall be non-voting members of the DSA.
Leadership:
The Assembly shall appoint, and where it deems necessary, depose its chairperson whose
single uninterrupted term shall not exceed two years. The Chairperson of the department shall
serve as its secretary and his/her responsibilities are primarily to enforce its decisions and to
maintain the accuracy, proper management, and dissemination of its records and
correspondences.
Reporting relationship:
The DSA shall continuously and in a timely manner report to the Staff Assembly of the
Faculty/School/Institute that houses the Department through the minutes of its proceedings
and a comprehensive formal report at the end of each academic year.
5.1.1. 2. Program Unit Staff Assembly (PSA)
In those cases where program units are comparable in size to an average department (where
the number of voting core staff members in the assembly is 12), the organization of their
governing bodies shall in all respects be similar to those of Departments. However, because
the majority of program units are commonly smaller in size than the average department, it is
suggested that they correspondingly have a less elaborate governance structure in the form of
a PSA with manifold responsibilities. The PSA shall meet at least four times in each
academic year; at least twice a semester.
Duties and Responsibilities:
The PSA shall be the highest academic governing body at the level of Program Unit with
powers to formulate procedures that emanate from faculty/school/institute and/or university-
wide policies/legislation. It shall also establish the Program Unit Academic Committee

1 Core academic staff refers to fulltime staff of the unit/department/center and those members for whom the
unit/department/center is the primary home base even though they may hold joint appointment positions
elsewhere in the university. For the latter category of core staff, the home base shall be the unit to which they
will be primarily responsible and where they are represented on governance institutions.
(PAC) that shall work on its behalf when it is not in session and the standing committees (see
section 5.1.3 below for standing committees) that will function as regulatory bodies in
academic matters under their mandate. Where the size of the Program Unit is smaller than the
average department, the Program Unit Academic Committee shall include all the functions of
the Standing Committees. In those cases where the program unit runs a graduate program, it
shall establish the Program Unit Graduate Committee. The PSA shall meet for a minimum of
four times in each academic year; at least twice a semester.
Membership:
The membership of the PSA shall be limited to the gathering of the core academic staff of the
Program Unit with the rank of Assistant Lecturer and above. Graduate Assistants and
Technical Assistants with the rank of Senior Technical Assistant-I and above shall be non-
voting members of the PSA. Where the Program Unit only runs a graduate program, the
membership of the PSA shall be limited to core academic staff with the rank of Lecturer and
above.
Reporting relationship:
Program Unit Staff Assembly will have a reporting relationship with the Staff Assembly of
the Center or Faculty/School/Institute that houses the unit. The reporting shall be continuous
and in a timely manner through minutes of its proceedings, and formally through
comprehensive report once at the end of each academic year.
Leadership:
The Assembly shall appoint, and where it deems it necessary, remove its chairperson whose
single uninterrupted term shall not exceed two years. The Chairperson of the program unit
shall serve as its secretary and his/her responsibilities are primarily to enforce its decisions
and maintain the accuracy, proper management and dissemination of its records and
correspondences.
5.1.2. Department/Program Unit Academic Committee

Duties and Responsibilities:
The Department/Program Unit Academic Committee will be the body that functions on
behalf of the Department/Program Unit Staff Assembly when the latter is not in session. The
Academic Committee shall meet at least once a month or more frequently as necessary. The
Academic Committee mimics the Academic Commission at the Faculty/School/Institute level
and to some extent the Executive Committee of the University Senate. It is by far the most
important organ that embodies the regular and active participation of academic staff in the
governance of the department/program unit.
Membership and term of service:
The Academic Committee shall have five to seven members, including the
department/program unit chairperson; the remaining members shall be elected by the
DSA/PSA amongst its voting members. The membership of the Committee shall be
representative of the staff of the Department/Program Unit in terms of specialization and
rank. In cases where a Program Unit cannot constitute a student affairs standing committee,
two student representatives shall sit in the Program Unit Academic Committee. The term of
service of the academic committee shall be 2 years for elected members and coterminous to
the term office of the chairperson of the department/program unit.
Reporting relationship:
DAC/PAC will report to the DSA/PSA and is also expected to formally inform the Academic
Commission of the Faculty/School/Institute that houses the Department/Program Unit of its
activities. The reporting to the DSA/PSA shall be continuous and in a timely manner through
the minutes of its proceedings, and through a formal comprehensive report at the end of each
semester. The informing of the Academic Commission of the faculty/school/institute shall be
continuously and in a timely manner through the minutes of its proceedings.
Leadership:
The Department Staff Assembly shall elect the Chairperson of DAC. The chairperson of the
Department shall serve as secretary of the Academic Committee and will be primarily
responsible for enforcing its decisions and maintaining the accuracy, proper management and
dissemination of its records and correspondences.

5.1.3. Department/Program Unit Standing Committees

There shall be four standing committees of the Staff Assembly at a Department/Program Unit
level (notwithstanding the exception cited above in section 5.1.1.2). The four standing
committees shall be the Staff Affairs Committee (DSAC/PSAC), Student Affairs Committee
(DSTAC/PSTAC), Curriculum and Standards Committee (CSC) and the Plan and Budget
Committee (DPBC/PPBC). A fifth standing committee, namely, the Department/Program
Unit Graduate Committee (DGC/PGC) shall also be constituted in those
departments/program units that have graduate programs.
Duties and Responsibilities:
Except the DPBC/PPBC, all other Standing Committees will function as the regulatory arms
of the Staff Assembly in the areas of their respective mandate. They carry out their
regulatory functions both by examining and approving proposals submitted to them by the
department/program unit chairperson and by reviewing the decisions of the latter upon the
request or petition of interested parties. The DBPC/PPBC shall be vested with reviewing,
approving and follow-up of the plan and budget of the Department/Program Unit proposed by
the office of the Department/Program Unit chairperson.
The standing committees shall meet as frequently as necessary. They shall be akin to the
standing committees of the faculty/school/institute.
Membership and term of service:
The DSA/PSA shall determine the membership of all the standing committees of the
department/program unit. Membership in any of the standing committees shall be composed
of voting members of the Department/Program Unit staff assembly and representative in
terms of specialization and rank. Department Student Affairs Committee shall also include
non-voting student representatives in ways that reflect the enrolment level and diversity of
the student body. The Department/Program Unit chairperson cannot serve as a member of
any of the standing committees, with the exception of the Plan and Budget Committee. The
term of service of a given standing committee member shall be 2 years with the possibility of
re-election.
Reporting relationship:
Standing Committees of a Department/Program Unit report to their respective Staff
Assembly and in parallel also apprise the corresponding standing committees of the
Faculty/School/Institute of their activities. The informing of the standing committees of the
Faculty/School/Institute shall be done continuously through the minutes of their proceedings.
The reporting to Department/Program Unit Staff Assembly shall be continuous through
minutes of their proceedings and formally through a comprehensive report two times a year,
at the end of each semester.
Leadership:
The Department/Program Unit Staff Assembly shall elect the Chairpersons of the standing
committees; with the exception of the Plan and Budget Committee where the
Department/Program Unit Chairperson shall serve as the Chairperson of the Committee. The
chairperson of the department/program unit shall not be chair or member of any of the
standing committees, except the Plan and Budget Committee. The committees shall elect
their own secretaries from among their members.
5.1.4. Department/Program Unit Chair

Appointment and term of office
The Chair of the Department/Program Unit is an executive who holds office upon
appointment by the Dean/Director of the Faculty/School/Institute through nomination by a
Search and Screen Committee (SSC) that the Faculty/School/Institute staff assembly
establishes. The Chair cannot be appointed from among faculty members who are students,
are on study or research leave or have retired. S/he holds office for a period of 3 years that
can be renewed once if re-nominated by a duly constituted SSC.
The Department/Program Unit Chairperson may leave office before the end of his/her term of
office through resignation or removal.
Duties and Responsibilities
The Chairperson makes decisions on academic matters that do not require presentation to
Department/Program Unit Academic Committee or to the standing committees. S/he
facilitates collective decision-making by timely referring of cases to committees and by
endorsing and forwarding their decisions to the office of the Dean/Director. The chair is also
responsible for planning the overall academic activities of the Department/Program Unit and
taking all initiatives and measures for the implementation of the plan. To this end, the
Chairperson may establish ad hoc committees when s/he deems it necessary. S/he is
responsible for all records and documents and handles all correspondence in the name of the
Department/Program unit.
Reporting relationship
The Chairperson reports to the Dean/Director of the Faculty/School/Institute. S/he reports
operationally regularly through written communication and formally through a quarterly
report on activities as against the plan that has been accepted and funded by the
faculty/school/institute.
5.2. Institutions of Governance in the Centers

5.2.1. Center Staff Assembly (CSA)

Duties and responsibilities
The CSA shall be the highest academic governing body at the level of the Center with powers
to formulate procedures that emanate from the Institute and/or university-wide
policies/legislation. It shall also establish the Center Academic Committee (CAC) that shall
work on its behalf when it is not in session and the standing committees that will function as
regulatory bodies. The CSA shall meet for a minimum of four times in each academic year;
at least twice a semester.
Membership:
The CSA shall be a gathering of all core academic staff of the Center with the rank of
Lecturer and above, and technical assistants with the rank of Senior Technical Assistant-I and
above shall also be non-voting members.
Leadership:
The Assembly shall appoint and/or replace its chairperson whose single uninterrupted term
shall not exceed two years. The Head of the Center shall serve as its secretary and his/her
responsibilities are primarily to enforce its decisions and to maintain the accuracy, proper
management and dissemination of its records and correspondences.
Reporting relationship:
The CSA shall continuously and in a timely manner report to the Staff Assembly of the
Institute/Faculty/School in which it is located through the minutes of its proceedings and a
comprehensive formal report at the end of each academic year. If a Center is not located in
an Institute, it shall report directly to the University Senate.
5.2.2. Center Academic Committee (CAC)

Duties and Responsibilities:
The Center Academic Committee will be the body that functions on behalf of the Center Staff
Assembly when the latter is not in session. The Academic Committee shall meet at least
once a month or more frequently as necessary. The Academic Committee mimics the
Academic Commission at the Faculty/School/Institute level and to some extent the Executive
Committee of the University Senate. It is by far the most important organ that embodies the
regular and active participation of academic staff in the governance of the Center.
Membership and term of service:
The Center Academic Committee shall have five to seven members, including the Center
Head; the remaining members shall be elected by the CSA from amongst its voting members.
The membership of the Committee shall be representative of the staff of the Center in terms
of specialization and rank.
The term of service of the Center Academic Committee shall be 2 years for elected members
and coterminous to the term office of the head of the Center.
Reporting relationship:
CAC will report to the CSA and is also expected to formally inform the Academic
Commission of the Institute/Faculty/School that houses the Center of its activities. The
reporting to the CSA shall be continuously and in a timely manner through the minutes of its
proceedings, and through a formal comprehensive report at the end of each semester. The
informing of the Academic Commission of the Institute/faculty/school shall be continuously
and in a timely manner through the minutes of its proceedings.
Leadership:
The Center Staff Assembly shall appoint the Chairperson of CAC from among its voting
members. The Head of the Center shall serve as secretary of the Center Academic Committee
and is primarily responsible for enforcing its decisions and maintaining the accuracy, proper
management and dissemination of its records and correspondences.

5.2.3. Standing Committees of the Center

There shall be three standing committees of the Staff Assembly in a Center. These are the
Center Graduate Committee (CGC), the Center Research and Outreach Committee (CRAC),
the Center Staff Affairs Committee and Center Plan and Budget Committee (CPBC). The
Center may establish a Student Affairs Committee if it deems it necessary. However because
students in a Center are likely to be graduate students, student matters may be handled
through the CGC or the committees that the latter establishes for each graduate student.
Duties and Responsibilities:
Except the CPBC, all other Standing Committees will function as the regulatory arms of the
Staff Assembly in the areas of their respective mandate. They carry out their regulatory
functions both by examining and approving proposals submitted to them by the Center Head
and by reviewing the decisions of the latter upon the request or petition of interested parties.
The CBPC shall be vested with reviewing, approving and follow-up of the plan and budget of
the Center proposed by the office of the Center Head.
The standing committees shall meet as frequently as necessary. They shall be akin to the
standing committees of the institute.
Membership and term of service:
The CSA shall determine the membership of all the standing committees of the Center.
Membership in any of the standing committees shall be composed of voting members of he
staff assembly and representative of the staff of the Center in terms of specialization and
rank. Center Student Affairs Committee (if found necessary) shall also include student
representatives in ways that reflect the diversity of the student body. The Center Head cannot
serve as a member of any of the standing committees, with the exception of the Plan and
Budget Committee. The term of service of a given standing committee member shall be 2
years with the possibility of re-election.
Reporting relationship:
Standing Committees of a Center report to the Staff Assembly and in parallel also apprise the
corresponding standing committees of the Institute of their activities. The informing of the
standing committees of the Institute shall be done continuously through the minutes of their
proceedings. The reporting to the Center Staff Assembly shall be continuous through minutes
of their proceedings and formally through a comprehensive report two times a year. If a
Center is not located in an Institute, the Standing Committees shall report directly to the
pertinent Standing Committees of the Senate.
Leadership:
The Center Staff Assembly shall elect the Chairpersons of the standing committees; with the
exception of the Plan and Budget Committee where the Center Head shall serve as the
Chairperson of the Committee. The Head of the Center shall not be chair or member of any of
the standing committees, except the Plan and Budget Committee. The committees shall elect
their own secretaries from among their members.
5.2.4. Head of the Center

Appointment and term of office
The Head of the Center is an executive who holds office upon appointment by the
Dean/Director of the Faculty/School/Institute through nomination by a Search and Screen
Committee that the Center Staff Assembly establishes. The Head cannot be appointed from
among faculty members who are students, are on leave or have retired. S/he holds office for
a period of 3 years that can be renewed once if re-nominated by a duly constituted SSC.
The Center Head may leave office before the end of his/her term of office through resignation
or removal.
Duties and Responsibilities
The Head makes decisions on academic matters that do not require presentation to Center
Academic Committee or to the standing committees. S/he facilitates collective decision-
making by timely referring of cases to committees and by endorsing and forwarding their
decisions to the office of the Dean/Director. The Head is also responsible for planning the
overall academic activities of the Center and taking all initiatives and measures for the
implementation of the plan. To this end, the Chairperson may establish ad hoc committees
when s/he deems it necessary. S/he is responsible for all records and documents of the Center
and handles all correspondence in its name.
Reporting relationship
The Head reports to the Dean/Director of the Faculty/School/Institute. S/he reports
operationally regularly through written communication and formally through a quarterly
report on activities as against the plan that has been accepted and funded by the
faculty\school/institute.
5.3. Institutions of Governance at Faculty/School/Institute Level

5.3.1. Faculty/School/Institute - Staff Assembly (SA)

Duties and responsibilities
The SA shall be the highest academic governing body at the level of a
faculty/school/institute. It shall be vested with legislative and regulatory functions including
the formulation of faculty/school/institute bylaws and policies on academic matters in
consonance with the university legislation and policies. It shall establish the
faculty/school/institute Academic Commission that shall work on its behalf when it is not in
session. It shall also establish the three standing committees of the faculty/school/institute
that will function as regulatory bodies in academic matters under their respective mandates. It
shall also be the body that reviews and approves the removal of a Department/Program Unit
Chairperson or the Head of a Center before his/her term of office expires.
Membership:
The SA shall be a congregation of the entire core staff members of the faculty/school/institute
with the rank of Assistant Lecturer and above; while technical assistants with the rank of
Senior Technical Assistant-I and above shall be non-voting members. For those
faculties/schools/institutes organized in a College, the director shall be an ex officio voting
member of the assembly. The SA shall meet three times a year, at the beginning of each
semester and at the end of the academic year.
Leadership:
The Assembly shall appoint, and where it deems necessary, remove its chairperson whose
single uninterrupted term shall not exceed two years. The Dean/Director of the
faculty/school/institute shall serve as its secretary and his/her responsibilities are primarily to
enforce its decisions and maintain the accuracy, proper management and dissemination of its
records and correspondences.
Reporting relationship:
The SA shall report to the University Senate continuously and in a timely manner through the
minutes of its proceedings and once formally at the end of the academic year.
5.3.2. Faculty/School/Institute Academic Commission

Duties and Responsibilities:
The Academic Commission will be the body that functions on behalf of the Staff Assembly
of the school/faculty/institute when the latter is not in session. It mimics the Executive
Committee of the University Senate. It is by far the most important organ that embodies the
regular and active participation of academic staff in the governance of the
faculty/school/institute. It meets at least once a month or more frequently when necessary.
Membership and term of service:
The Faculty Assembly shall elect all members of the Academic Commission from among its
voting members. College Directors shall not be ex-officio members of all the ACs in the
College, but they are eligible for membership in the AC of the faculty to which they belong.
The membership of the AC shall be between 7 and 15 and shall be representative of
departments and program units of the faculty/school/institute, particularly those that have
undergraduate programs. The term of service of elected members on the AC shall be 2 years.

Reporting relationship:
The AC shall report to the faculty assembly through timely and continuous submission of its
minutes and formal comprehensive reports three times a year. The AC shall also in parallel
continuously communicate the minutes of its proceedings to the Senate Executive
Committee.
Leadership:
The Staff Assembly shall appoint the Chairperson of the AC among the members of the
latter. The dean/director of the faculty/school/institute shall serve as secretary of the AC. and
is primarily responsible for enforcing its decisions and maintaining the accuracy, proper
management and dissemination of its records and correspondences.

5.3.3. Faculty/school/institute Standing Committees

There shall be four standing committees of the Faculty Assembly in each
faculty/school/institute. They are: the Staff Affairs Committee (F/S/I/STAC), Student Affairs
Committee (F/S/I/ SAC), Curriculum and Standards Committee (F/S/ICSC) and the
faculty/school/institute Plan and Budget Committee (F/S/I PBC). The faculty standing
committees shall meet as frequently as necessary.

Duties and Responsibilities:
Except the F/S/I PBC, all other standing Committees will function as regulatory bodies in the
areas of their respective mandate. They carry out their regulatory functions both by
examining and approving proposals submitted to them by the faculty/school/institute
Dean/Director leadership and by reviewing the decisions of the latter upon the request or
petition of interested parties. The F/S/I PBC shall be vested with mandate to review,
approve and follow-up of the plan and budget of the faculty/school/institute proposed by the
office of the Dean/Director.
The standing committees shall meet as frequently as necessary. They shall be akin to the
standing committees of the Senate.
Membership and term of service:
The Staff Assembly shall establish and determine the membership of all the standing
committees of the faculty/school/institute from among its members. Membership in any of
the standing committees shall be composed of voting members of the faculty/school/institute
staff assembly and as much as possible be representative of the departments/program units of
the faculty/school/institute. The Dean/Director shall not be a member of the standing
committees, with the exception of the Plan and Budget Committee. The
faculty/school/institute Student Affairs Committee shall also include student representatives
in ways that reflect the enrolment level and diversity of the student body. The term of service
on a given standing committee shall be 2 years.
Reporting relationship:
Standing Committees of a faculty/school/institute report to their respective Staff Assemblies
and in parallel apprise the corresponding standing committees of the University Senate. The
reporting to their respective Staff Assemblies shall be continuous through minutes of its
proceedings and formally two times a year. The parallel communication to the corresponding
standing committees of the University Senate shall be continuously done through minutes of
its proceedings.
Leadership:
The Staff Assembly shall elect the chairpersons of the standing committees, with the
exception of the Plan and Budget Committee where the Dean/Director shall serve as the
Chairperson of the Committee. The committees shall elect their own secretaries from among
their members. The Dean/Director of the faculty/school/institute shall not be chair or
member of any of the other three standing committees. The Asst. Dean/Asst. Director of the
faculty/school/institute shall not be chair of any of the standing committees. 5.3.4. The
Dean/Director of the Faculty/School/Institute
Appointment and Term of Office
The Dean/Director is an executive who holds office upon appointment by the President of the
University through nomination by a Search and Screen Committee that the latter establishes.
The Dean/Director serves for a period of 3 years renewable once if re-nominated. The
Dean/Director cannot be appointed from among faculty members who are students, who are
on research or study leave, or have retired.
Duties and Responsibilities
The Dean/Director makes decisions on academic matters that do not require presentation to
the Faculty/School/Institute Academic Commission or to the various standing committees.
S/he facilitates collective decision-making by referring cases to committees on time and by
endorsing and forwarding their decisions to the offices of the pertinent Vice Presidents. The
Dean/Director is also responsible for planning the overall academic activities of the
Faculty/School/Institute and taking all initiatives and measures for the implementation of the
plan. S/he also chairs the Plan and Budget standing committee of the faculty/school/institute.
S/he is responsible for all records and documents of the Faculty/School/Institute and handles
all correspondence in its name.
Reporting relationship
The Dean/Director reports to the Vice President to whom s/he is structurally connected.
However, depending on the matter at hand the Dean/Director shall also be answerable to the
offices of the other vice presidents. S/he reports operationally regularly through written
communication and formally through quarterly and annual reports on activities as against the
plan that has been accepted and funded by the University.
5.3.5. Faculty/School/Institute Management Council
Duties and Responsibilities
This will primarily be an advisory body analogous to the management council chaired by the
President (see below under section 5.5.3) that advises the Dean/Director of the
faculty/school/institute on matters that s/he wishes counsel on. The management council has
no decision-making powers, the final decision on all matters that are brought before the
management council shall be that of the Dean/Director.
Membership
The faculty/school/institute management council shall be composed of the chairs of
departments/program units, heads of centers and other academic staff and administrative
officers of the faculty/school/institute that the Dean/Director chooses.
Leadership
The Dean/Director of the faculty/school/institute shall chair the management council. S/he
may also appoint a secretary. The minutes of its proceedings shall be for record keeping and
internal consumption only.
5.4. Institutions of Governance at College Level

5.4.1. College Council
Duties and Responsibilities
This body will serve as a broad forum for holding consultations among the academic units
grouped under colleges towards greater academic integration and collective representation in
university bodies, including the Senate and its committees. It brings together not only faculty
but also support staff and students of schools, faculties and institutes that make up a college.
It shall coordinate collective planning and seek to align the academic units and their programs
towards greater interdisciplinary ties and joint operations. It shall meet at least two times a
year and once in a semester.
Membership
The College Council shall bring together all academic officers (Dept/Unit chairs, deans,
directors, assistant deans/directors, etc), support staff (heads of administrative services) and
senior faculty members of the academic units under a college. They will also include student
representatives from both graduate and undergraduate levels.
Leadership
The College Director shall chair the College Council. The council will elect its secretary
from among its members who will be responsible for maintaining a record of its proceedings.
It is incumbent upon the office of the College Director to see through and implement any
agreements reached and resolutions passed by the College Council and discharge any
authority delegated to it by the members of the College Council. The College Council may
establish ad hoc committees for specific tasks to assist the office of the college director.
Reporting relationship
The College Council shall report to the offices of all the Vice-Presidents through the timely
and continuous submission of the minutes of its proceedings and to the Office of the
President through a formal report at the end of each academic year.
5.4.2. The College Permanent Committee (CPC)

Duties and Responsibilities:
The CPC will be the body that functions as a permanent committee of the College Council. It
is an important organ that will be charged with the academic integration and galvanization of
the various academic units leading towards the future autonomy of the College. It meets at
least twice a semester or more frequently when necessary.
Membership:
The CPC shall be composed of all Deans/Directors and Asst. Deans/Directors of
faculty/school/institute, the Chairpersons of the faculty/school/institute Staff Assemblies, the
pertinent Associate Dean for Graduate Studies and 3 to 5 senior faculty members designated
by the College Council.

Reporting relationship:
The CPC shall report to the College Council about its deliberations and activities.
Leadership:
The CPC shall be chaired by the College Director, and it shall elect its own secretary from
among its members. The secretary is responsible for maintaining the accuracy, proper
management and dissemination of its records.
5.4.3 The Director of the College

Appointment and Term of Office
The College Director is a senior academic who holds office upon appointment by the
President of the University through nomination by a Search and Screen Committee that the
latter establishes. The College Director serves for a period of 4 years, renewable once if re-
nominated. S/he cannot be appointed from among faculty members who are students, who
are on leave, or have retired.
Duties and Responsibilities
The duties and responsibilities of college directors vary depending on the status of the college
in the university system. For colleges that have been granted autonomy by the Senate and the
Board, college directors shall have executive decision-making authority on both academic
and administrative matters. For all other colleges, directors will have executive authority
only on administrative matters, not on academic matters.
College directors who do not have executive authority in academic matters will function in
the capacity of leaders and facilitators of academic initiatives, including program integration,
academic reorganization and policy formulation.
The Executive Director of a College operates as the executive officer of a college that has
been granted autonomy by the University. Current examples of such colleges are the College
of Health Sciences and the SB College of Performing and Visual Arts. The Senate and the
University Board shall define the particulars of the authority of the Executive Director at the
time of granting autonomy to the College.
Reporting relationship
The Director reports to the Vice President to whom s/he is structurally connected. However,
depending on the matter at hand, the Director shall also be answerable to the offices of the
other vice presidents. S/he reports operationally regularly through written communication
and formally through quarterly and annual reports on activities as against the action plan that
has been accepted and funded by the University.

5.5. Institutions of Governance at the University Level
5.5.1. The AAU Senate

Membership and Term of Service
Unlike the previous arrangement in which academic officers were predominant, the Senate
shall be constituted essentially as an assembly of the faculty members of AAU. This is in
keeping with the provisions of the law as well as the principles invoked above and
encapsulated in the vision and mission statements of the University. However, there will still
be a significant number of academic officers whose membership in the Senate will be ex
officio
.

The law provides also that the majority of the Senate be made up of faculty members selected
by the President for their seniority, reputation and experience.
Accordingly the following scheme shall be followed to constitute the Senate.
Category Number
Faculty members representing faculties, schools and institutes Senior and experienced Faculty (one each from the five colleges) Faculty members appointed by the President (2 from each of the knowledge categories, i.e. social sciences and humanities, natural sciences, health sciences and the professional disciplines) College Directors Senior Management including the President The University Registrar, the University Librarian and the Director of AAU Press Representatives of Student and AAU Teachers’ Union (2 each)
Terms of service of members of the Senate selected by the President shall be three years and
coterminous term of office for ex officio members.
Leadership
As provided by law, the chair of the Senate shall be the President of the University. It will
have a secretary elected by the full assembly.
Mission, term of service and mode of operation
The Senate will have legislative and regulatory powers on all academic matters as provided
by law and envisioned in the reform agenda and stipulated in its legislation.
5.5.2. Committees of the Senate

When it is not in session, the AAU Senate shall operate through the Senate Executive
Committee, and a number of standing committees that undertake regulatory work in various
areas of the academic system. It can also establish as many ad hoc committees as it deems
necessary and determine their terms of reference and modalities of operation.
5.5.2.1. The Senate Executive Committee:

Duties and responsibilities
The Executive Committee (SEC) is a committee of the Senate that has a comprehensive
mission and makes decisions on behalf of the Senate when the latter is not in session.
Membership, term of service, and Leadership
The membership, tenure and leadership of the Senate executive committee shall be as
determined in the revised Senate Legislation of 2007 with only minor amendments necessary
to reflect the new university academic structure. The Executive Committee shall also take
over the duties and responsibilities of the Policy Committee.

5.5.2.2. Standing Committees of the Senate
The following is the list of Standing Committees of the Senate:
1. Academic Standards and Quality Enhancement
2. Undergraduate Admission and Placement
3. Council on Graduate Studies
4. Council on Research and Dissemination
5. Cultural and Social Affairs
6. Ethics and Codes of Conduct
7. Libraries, Computing and Information Technology
8. Staff Appointments, Recognitions and Promotions
9. Undergraduate Council
10. Committee on Academic Freedom and Staff Welfare
11. Committee on Diversity and Equal Opportunity
12. Planning and Budget Committee
13. Community Service

Duties and Responsibilities:
For the first 8 standing committees of the Senate, which more or less already exist, rules of
the revised Senate Legislation of 2007 can be allowed to stand, with all necessary
amendments to reflect the new structure and the proposals about membership and leadership
stated hereunder, if adopted. For the second group of 5 committees, a new set of rules will
have to be developed to define their duties and responsibilities.
Membership, Terms of Service, and Leadership
General Proposals
For all committees of the Senate, the following general rules apply regarding membership:
1. Any given committee, with exception of the Graduate and Undergraduate Councils, shall have a minimum of five and a maximum of 15 members (the maximal number helps avoid the current situation of committees with excessively large memberships). 2. Except in those cases where specific fields of study are pertinent to the mandate of a senate committee, faculty representation on committees should be determined on the basis of at least one person from each of the broad knowledge areas, namely, Natural and Health Sciences, Social Sciences & the Humanities, and the Professional Disciplines (this last category is very broad and includes business, education, engineering & technology, journalism, law and the arts). The fair and balanced representation of major sub-fields in this scheme shall be ensured at the level of overall representation in Senate Committees if not at the level of any one given committee. 3. The chairperson of each standing committee shall be designated by the Senate from among its own members. This is meant to give force to the fact that these committees are the committees of the senate, even though other members may or may not be members of the Senate. 4. University officers who hold executive positions in the areas directly pertinent to the tasks of the committees shall serve as secretaries rather than as chairs of the committees (otherwise, the executive will be in a position to direct the body that is supposed to give it direction). 5. All Standing Committees of the Senate report to the Senate. As per the legislation and other pertinent rules, the decisions of the standing committees may at times require the endorsement of the Senate prior to the decision going into effect.

Membership
The following membership of each committee is made on the basis of the stipulations above.
In all cases, the Senate shall designate a member of a committee who is also a member of
Senate to chair a committee
Academic Standards and Quality Enhancement
A designated member of the Senate (Chair)
The AVP
The VPR & DSGS
CAO-APSA
Director of Undergraduate Programs
CAO-CDE
The Registrar
Director of Center for Academic Standards and Quality Enhancement (secretary)
Director of Center for Teaching-Learning Support and Academic Skills Enhancement
Director of Center for General Education and Honors Program
3 Faculty representatives with the rank of lecturer or above that are not members of the
Senate (1 each from CEBS, CNS, CSSH)
Total membership: 12-13
Undergraduate Admissions and Placement Committee

A designated member of the Senate (Chair)
The AVP
The VP-BD
The CAO-SA
The CAO-APSA
The Director of Undergraduate Admissions and Placement (Secretary)
The Registrar
The Director of Student Services
A Representative of the Student Union
3 Faculty Representatives with the rank of lecturer or above that are not members of the
Senate (1 each from CMIES, CNS and CSSH)
Total membership: 11-12

Council on Graduate Studies
A designated member of the Senate (Chair)
The VPR & DSGS
The AVP
The CAO-GPD&A (Secretary)
The CAO-Research
Associate Deans of Graduate Studies (5)
College Directors (6)
The University Registrar
The University Librarian
11 Faculty Representatives who may or may not be members of the Senate and with the rank
of Assistant Professor and above from units that have graduate programs [1 each from
CMIES, CNS, CHS, CEBS, CSSH 1 representative of the stand-alone schools, i.e. Law,
Journalism, Social Work, and 1 representative of the research institutes that have graduate
programs, i.e. Ethiopian Studies, Governance Studies, Development Studies]
Total membership: 28-29

Council on Research and Dissemination
A designated member of the Senate (Chair)
The VPR
The VPERSPP
The CAO-Research (Secretary)
The Director-Staff Affairs
The Director of AAU Press
The Director of ICT
The University Librarian
The Director of Community Services
5 Faculty representatives who are not members of the Senate (1 from the Institute of
Ethiopian Studies, 1 from Aklilu Lemma Institute of Pathobiology, 1 from Institute of
Development Studies, 1from the Institute of Educational Research, 1 from the Center for
Interdisciplinary Science)
Total membership: 13-14
Cultural and Social Affairs
A designated member of the Senate (Chair)
The CAO-Student Affairs
The Dean of Students
The Director of Institute of Gender Studies
The Director of S. Boghossian College of PVA
The Dean of the Faculty of Humanities
The Dean of Faculty of Life Sciences
The Director of the Intellectual and Cultural Center (Secretary)
Director of Office of Equity and Diversity
One representative of female students
One representative of students with disabilities
One representative of The AAU Student Union
Total membership: 11-12
Ethics and Code of Conduct

A designated member of the Senate (Chair)
CAO-APSA
CAO-SA
CAO-Research
The University Ombudsperson
Director of Community Standards and Security
The Director of Staff Affairs
The Director of Legal Services
The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Officer (Secretary)
2 Student representatives, one graduate and one undergraduate
1 Representative of the Teachers’ Union
3 Faculty Representatives who are not members of the Senate (1 from CNS, 1 from CSSH,
1from CMIES)
Total membership: 14-15

Libraries, Computing and Information Technology
A designated member of the Senate (Chair)
The AVP
The VPR&DSGS
The University Librarian (Secretary)
Director of the ICT Center
Dean of the School of Information Sciences
Dean of the Faculty of Computer and Mathematical Science
Director of the AAU Press
3 Faculty Representatives who are not members of the Senate (1 from AAiT, 1 from CNS,
1from CMIES)
Total membership: 10-11

Staff Appointments, Recognitions and Promotions
A designated member of the Senate (Chair)
The CAO-APSA
The Director of Staff Affairs (Secretary)
CAO-Research
Director of Office of Diversity and Equity
7 Faculty representatives who are not (1 from each College and 1 from the School of Law)
Total membership: 11-12

The Undergraduate Council
A designated member of the Senate (Chair)
The AVP
CAO-APSA
CAO-CDE
Director of Undergraduate Programs (Secretary)
CAO-Student Affairs
Director of Center for General Education and Honors Program
Director of Center for Teaching Learning Support and Academic Skills Enhancement
Director of Center of Quality Assurance and Skills Enhancement
The University Registrar
The University Librarian
Director of Undergraduate Admissions and Placement
11 Faculty Representatives who may or may not be members of the Senate 2 from each of the
colleges and one representative each from the stand-alone schools, i.e. law, journalism and
social work)
Total membership: 22-23

Committee on Academic Freedom and Staff Welfare
A designated member of the Senate (Chair)
Representative of Teacher’s Union
8 Faculty Representatives (1 each from the Colleges and 1 each from the Institute of
Governance Studies and the School of Law)
Total membership: 9-10

Diversity and Equal Opportunity Committee
A designated member of the Senate (Chair)
CAO-APSA
CAO-Student Affairs
Director of Undergraduate Admissions and Placement
Director of Staff Affairs
Director of Office of Gender Affairs
Director of the Human Resource Management
Associate Dean of Students for Center for Students with Disabilities
Director of Office of Diversity and Equity (Secretary)
Representative of Student Union
2 Faculty Representatives who are not members of the Senate (1 from the School of Law, 1
from the CSSH)
Total membership: 11-12

Planning and Budget Committee
A designated member of the Senate (Chair)
The VPBD
The VP for ERSPP
Director of Strategic Planning (Secretary)
Director of Infrastructure Development
The CMO for BP&F
The AVP
The VPR&DSGS
College Directors (6)
2 Faculty Representatives (1 each from CMIES & CEBS)
Total membership: 15-16

Community Service Committee
A designated member of the Senate (chair)
The VP-ERSPP
The VPR&DSGS
Director, Community Services (secretary)
General Secretary, Academy of Ethiopian Languages and Cultures
Directors of Colleges (6)
Staff representatives from stand-alone schools/institutes (5)
Total membership: 15-16
5.5.3. The Management Council
The duties, responsibilities, membership and leadership of the Management Council are
defined in the Higher Education Proclamation of 2009. In brief, it is made up of Vice
Presidents and other key academic officers and functions as an advisory body to the
President.

5.5.4. The University Council
The duties, responsibilities, membership and leadership of the University Council are clearly
spelled out in the Higher Education Proclamation of 2009. Accordingly, the University
Council shall be composed of ex-officio members from the core university management,
deans and directors, key academic officers as well as other members that are representative of
faculty members and students.
The following scheme proposes a 110 person-strong University Council:
Constituent body
Deans/Directors of Faculties, Schools and Institutes Designated members of the Senate Executive Committee Heads of support service departments (the CMO and heads of finance, budget, property management and human resources, and infrastructure Key academic officers (College Directors, CAOs, the Registrar, the University Librarian and the Director of AAU Press Representatives of Academic staff that are not members of the Senate and do not hold office (2 teaching staff and 1 technical staff from each of the colleges + 1 faculty member from the stand-alone schools Student representatives (6 undergraduate and 2 graduate, with proportional representation of gender and disability) Representatives of support staff (2 from each campus, one representing professional staff another representing service personnel) Emeriti faculty (representing the major knowledge areas)
5.5.5. University Council Permanent Committee (UCPC)
The University Council shall operate through a Permanent Committee when it is not in
session. The membership of the committee, its leadership and modalities of operation shall
be determined by the full council.
Schematic Description of Governance Bodies
The following is a schematic description of governance bodies and their location and role in the academic system: Location Governance
Department/Program Academic Committee and standing and ad hoc committees when not in session. matters when the Assembly is not in session by ensuring issues that require the decision of the DAC are in line with or follow the rules and regulations of the Senate Legislation and program coordinators (where these exist) and works consultatively through the Department/Program Unit Academic Committee. Academic Committee and standing and ad hoc committees when not in session. make decisions on major academic matters when the Assembly is not in session facilitate academic decision-making by ensuring issues that require the decision of the CAC and the Head are in line with or follow the rules and regulations of the Senate Legislation and established policies and procedures. Center under an institute/faculty/school Makes decisions on matters that do not require presentation to the CAC and works consultatively with the chairs of program units Commission and standing and ad hoc making decisions of legislative and regulatory nature on behalf of the Faculty/School/Institute Academic Assembly Faculty/School/Institute Academic Assembly to facilitate academic decision making and ensure that decisions are made according to the legislation and established procedures Assistant Deans and works consultatively through the faculty/school/institute Management Council departments/programs and administrative heads to function as an advisory body to the Dean/Director Works through College Consultative Committee when not in session Consultative and Works with the College Director on the implementation of decisions of the council and advises the Director on issues of academic integration and common policy. Committee and standing and ad hoc committees when not in session making decisions on behalf of the Senate when the latter is not in session academic decision making and ensure that decisions are made according to the legislation and established procedures Delegates executive authority to vice presidents and works consultatively through the Management Council other officers; provides advise to the President on major administrative and academic matters Delegate executive authority to CAOs/ Directors and work with them in teams operates on behalf of the Council when the latter is not in session Implementation Plan for Governance Reform
The implementation of the new system of governance will pass through stages, some of which have, in fact, already taken place and some of which will take place in the near future. Those activities that need to be undertaken for the establishment of the various governance bodies shall be finalized in the week of 07 - 10 February. The implementation schedule shall be as follows: Bodies/Organs
Responsible body
Timeline
to be set Up
-Identification of members & constitution Standing Committees Faculty/School/Institute Staff -Identification of members & constitution - Elect faculty/school/institute representatives to the University Council 11 Feb. represent the College to various

Source: http://aau.edu.et/downloads/Governance_documentfinal.pdf

sudrail.fr

Fédération des syndicats de travailleurs du rail 17 boulevard de la libération – 93200 – Saint Denis Comité Central d’Entreprise SNCF Séance du 26 mars 2013. Déclaration générale. Monsieur le directeur, Aujourd'hui, à l'appel des syndicats SUD-Rail et CGT, plusieurs centaines de cheminot-e-s vont se mobiliser devant la gare de Metz pour dire "non" à la démar

Microsoft word - wgl_q238_final_e_200114.docx

Working Guidelines Sarah MATHESON and John OSHA, Deputy Reporters General Anne Marie VERSCHUR, Sara ULFSDOTTER and Kazuhiko YOSHIDA Second medical use and other second indication claims Introduction This question seeks to determine the type, scope and enforcement of patent protection for new uses of known chemical compounds when a known substance is found to have a new therapeutic us

Copyright © 2010-2014 Internet pdf articles