1.

At a University Senate meeting last fall, a faculty member asked you for your
perspective on whether there is a difference between being a veteran-friendly
campus and a military-friendly campus. At the time, you said you wanted some
time to think it over. Have you had time to consider that question and, if so, how
do you perceive the difference?

In our view, the focus should be on individuals not on institutions, which is why our
priority is supporting those who have served and are serving, and their families.

As you know, part of our strategic vision for Syracuse University is a distinctive
excellence in providing post-service educational opportunities for veterans and military
families. We have an opportunity and a capacity to continue being nationally recognized
as the best university for veterans, to attract new students with diverse backgrounds and
global experiences, and to grow in stature because of our commitment. We recognize
the special talents and unique contributions of those who have served in the military
(and their families).

2. Relating to the above question, there is concern among some faculty that the
strategic plan incentivizes research/teaching that supports the United States
military and the national security state, and that the seeming prioritization of that
type of research will have the potential to silence anything that would be
perceived as being critical of veterans or dissent as it relates to U.S. military
policies. What would you say to faculty who have expressed that type of concern?

Academic freedom, including freedom to express differing points of view on policy

matters, or to pursue research in a chosen area, is crucial to the mission of an R1
research institution like Syracuse University, and is a right guaranteed by the
University’s Faculty Manual. The research being conducted by the Institute for Veterans
and Military Families provides valuable insight into the post-service educational needs
and professional opportunities for veterans and their families. What we learn from that
kind of research helps to shape effective educational programs and services that
prepare veterans and their families for professional and personal success. That
approach is consistent with our commitment to research and teaching for all students—
to prepare them for professional and personal success.

3. It has been stated that the University's prioritization of veterans programs stems
from its "historical commitment to veterans." How does the University's
admittance of veterans post-WW2 represent a historical commitment to veterans?

With the return of veterans from WWII, this university embraced the spirit and intent of
the GI bill, welcoming 10,000 veterans to the campus, more than doubling the size of the
student body. These GIs had earned an education through their sacrifice, and they
transformed Syracuse University into an even greater place, bringing with them
leadership skills and a hunger for knowledge. Our commitment to these veterans and
their families is a commitment to furthering their education and professional success.

4. What level of influence did Steve Barnes have over the decision to make a
commitment to veterans/military-connected communities a pillar of the strategic
plan?

The short answer is none.

 During my inaugural address in 2014, I shared that being the best place for veterans
would be a strategic priority of mine.

Since then, the Board, including Chairman Barnes, has supported this priority. And, like
all members of the Board of Trustees, Chairman Barnes ensured that the development
of the strategic vision and the Academic Strategic Plan was accomplished through the
principles of shared governance, and that all voices were heard and all suggestions
were considered.

5. In what ways do you believe Steve Barnes' experience as an executive at Bain

Capital has qualified him for the position of chairman of the Board of Trustees?

To be clear, I believe the Board of Trustees unanimously elected Chairman Barnes for
reasons beyond his professional experience.

As a Central New York native, a graduate of Syracuse University, a long-time supporter

and trustee, Chairman Barnes has a unique understanding of and respect for the culture
of Syracuse University. Chairman Barnes brings significant board experience to his
position, having served on six non-profit boards and serving as chair of one. He has
deep appreciation and respect for shared governance. Chairman Barnes is steadfastly
committed to ensuring a high-functioning board that ultimately supports students, faculty
and the University’s academic and strategic priorities as identified collaboratively by our
campus community. He recognizes and appreciates the bright line between his role as
board chair and my role as Chancellor.

6. What has Barnes' role been in the strategic planning process and in the
management of the University over the past 3 years?

Chairman Barnes’ participation in the academic strategic planning process has been
similar to past board chairs. The Board of Trustees is the governing body of the
University, responsible for overseeing the educational mission and fiscal policies of the
institution. As such, the board is ultimately accountable for the education the University
provides to its students. The Academic Strategic Plan is an example of shared
governance at its best.

Beginning in 2014, well before Steve Barnes was chairman, a 27-member academic
strategic plan steering committee, including faculty, staff, administrators and students,
structured and guided the planning and fact-finding process, assessed preliminary
findings, elicited campus input, formulated final recommendations and goals, and
ultimately drafted the plan. The Academic Strategic Plan reflected the findings of several
working groups, comprising 93 faculty, staff and student representatives.

The University developed new vision and mission statements through a collaborative
campus effort guided by the steering committee. The group received hundreds of
comments from the campus community during two open comment periods, and used
those comments to guide revisions. In all, the public review of the Academic Strategic
Plan garnered 1,300 distinct pieces of feedback.
 With Chairman Barnes at the helm, the Board of Trustees unanimously approved the
final version of the mission and vision statements and the draft Strategic Plan in May
2016, without a single change to the version they received from the steering committee.

From May 2016 to the present, Provost Wheatly has worked collaboratively with the
deans, faculty and staff of the University’s schools and colleges to implement priority
initiatives in the six thematic areas around which the academic strategic plan is
structured.

7. In what ways has the Bain & Co. diagnostic report informed the decisions you
have made as chancellor? What specifically was the role of the executive
committee for that report?

The Bain & Co. report, which as you know was commissioned by my predecessor, is just
one of thousands of pieces of input used to inform my decision-making during my four
years here. As a new leader in 2014, it was helpful to understand where we were at the
time as a University.

8. How do you think the Voluntary Separation Incentive Program has affected
campus life?

I know it is not easy to make changes in the way that we operate by reducing staff. I
greatly appreciate the challenging decisions that our leaders and managers made, and
furthermore, I recognize that some of our faculty members remain disappointed in the
process. I must note that given the success of the program and the careful stewardship
of the work force, we were able to avoid institution-wide involuntary terminations. To me,
that is the clear sign that it was a successful, albeit difficult, decision.

Let me remind you of the overall context for why the University offered the program and
why it was considered successful. In April 2014, an independent analysis, which was
shared openly with the University, indicated that the University needed to identify areas
of improvement and efficiency, including staffing levels, to better align with our peers and
our goals.

The most expedient way to do that would have been to institute a series of involuntary
staff terminations across schools, colleges and administrative units. However, working
with many University stakeholders, including deans, faculty, academic leaders and the
Trustees, we chose a more thoughtful alternative path we hoped would result in the least
disruption to operations and a far lower number of separations being necessary.

Ultimately, the voluntary separation incentive program allowed deans and other unit
leaders to have the flexibility in making decisions about appropriate staffing levels in line
with our effort to have resources available to address our academic priorities.

Today, we continue to invest the savings in implementing our academic strategic plan,
better aligning our workforce with our vision and mission and enhancing the student
experience—both inside and outside the classroom.

9. What do you make of the commentary from Syracuse Graduate Student

Employees United that has been critical of the administration's plans to change
their healthcare plan?
 The new health insurance plan for graduate students came out of a truly collaborative
process among faculty, graduate students and administrators that spanned more than
two years. By all accounts, the new plan will offer graduate assistants and fellows better
coverage than they currently have, at a much lower cost. I believe that is why the
Graduate Student Organization (GSO) supported the new plan overwhelmingly and why
GSO leaders worked so fervently over the last several years to advocate on behalf of
their peers.

10. Could you provide any further details on the university's financial crisis that was
described in the Bain & Co. report? I don't have access to the University's budget,
but my records (the University's most recently available 990 and Syverud's public
comments) indicate that the University's endowment has grown pretty steadily
over the past five or six years, from $890 million to now over $1.25 billion.

First, the University’s financial reports are publicly available, as they’re posted on the
Comptroller’s website.

Having reviewed the Bain & Co. report in great detail, I can tell you that nowhere did it
indicate the University was experiencing a financial crisis. What it made clear, though,
was that unless significant changes were made to our day-to-day operations, operating
expenses would outpace our resources.

Additionally, it’s worth noting that the endowment is just one of many indicators of fiscal
health. The prevailing measure of financial distress is a deficit in the annual operating
budget, resulting in decreases in net assets.

I am pleased to say, as I have several times publicly, we are running a genuinely

balanced budget, which in turn allows us to pursue and achieve our ambitious but
attainable goals.