HUM 106 – Assignments and RubricsCOURSE DESCRIPTIONDiscuss

HUM 106 – Assignments and Rubrics
COURSE DESCRIPTION
Discusses aesthetic theory and provides critical analysis of
examples from modern art in poetry, painting and music. Also
discusses the arts of photography, dance, architecture,
sculpture, theater, and film.
INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS
Required Resources
1. Sam Hunter. 2005. Modern art 3rd ed. Pearson. HUM106
textbook.
Supplemental Resources
1. Museum of Contemporary Art Chicago. No date.
https://mcachicago.org/Home
2. Museum of Contemporary Art Sydney Australia. 2004.
http://www.mca.com.au/
3. San Francisco Museum of Modern Art. 2011.
http://www.sfmoma.org/
4. Tate Modern. No date. http://www.tate.org.uk/modern/
5. The Museum of Modern Art. 2011.http://www.moma.org/
COURSE LEARNING OUTCOMES
1. Discuss the value of visual art for an individual and society.
2. Analyze the essential relationship between any work of art
and the various kinds of influences on the artist and audience
that shape the interpretation of the art.
3. Compare and contrast artists and their works in the context of
their styles and their historical periods, while distinguishing
their styles one another and using the proper terminology.
4. Explain the formal elements of various styles of modern art
both in general and in specific works.
5. Describe the relationship between individual artistic
expression and the cultural, social, political, and historical

forces which give rise to these expressions.
6. Summarize the diverse artistic trends in modern art in
designated time periods.
7. Classify key artists and styles in the visual arts from the
Impressionist period to the present.
8. Explain the cultural and stylistic developments in modern
arts.
9. Analyze the diversity of opinions and perspectives about art,
artistic styles, and developments.
10. Summarize significant contributions in modern art from
women, ethnic minorities, non-western cultures and in various
time periods.
11. Explain various terms, qualities, and themes of visual art
from the late 1800s to the present.
12. Use technology and information resources to research issues
in modern art.
13. Write clearly and concisely about modern art, using proper
writing mechanics.
WEEKLY COURSE SCHEDULE
The standard requirement for a 4.5 credit hour course is for
students to spend 13.5 hours in weekly work. This includes
preparation, activities, and evaluation regardless of delivery
mode.
Week
Preparation, Activities, and Evaluation
Points
1
Preparation
· Reading(s)
· Chapter 1: Modernism and Its Origins in the 19th Century
· Chapter 2: Seurat, Cezanne, and the Language of Structure
Activities
· Discussions
Evaluation
· None

20
2
Preparation
· Reading(s)
· Chapter 3: Gauguin, van Gogh, and the Language of Vision
· Chapter 4: Art Nouveau in Painting and Design
· e-Activity
· Visit one of these Art Nouveau Websites and explore the
history, styles, and works of representative Art Nouveau artists
highlighted. Be prepared to discuss.
· National Gallery of Art “Anatomy of an Exhibition,” located
at http://www.nga.gov/feature/nouvea u/exhibit_city.shtm
· Art Nouveau, located at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Nouveau
· Art Lex, located at
http://www.artlex.com/ArtLex/a/artnouveau.html
Activities
· Discussions
Evaluation
· Reflective Journal 1: My Experience with Art

20
40
3
Preparation
· Reading(s)
· Chapter 5: Early Modern Sculpture: From Rodin to Brancusi
· Chapter 6: Tradition and Innovation in Architecture: 1880 -
1914
· e-Activity
· Visit the Great Buildings Website, located at
http://www.greatbuildings.com/architects/Frank_Lloyd_Wright.
html, and view five of the buildings (different from the ones in
the text) designed by Frank Lloyd Wright. Be prepared to
discuss. (Note: If this site is not available, locate another
Website that shows Frank Lloyd Wright’s buildings.)
Activities
· Discussions
Evaluation
· Assignment 1: The Critic’s Choice
20

120
4
Preparation
· Reading(s)
· Chapter 7: Expressionism in France: Matisse and the Fauves
· Chapter 8: Expressionism in Germany: The Bridge and the
Blue Rider
Activities
· Discussions
Evaluation
· Reflective Journal 2: Social Influences on Artists
20
40
5
Preparation
· Reading(s)
· Chapter 9: The Cubist Revolution: Braque and Picasso
· Chapter 10: From Cubism to Abstract Art: Futurism,
Suprematism, De Stijl
Activities
· Discussions
Evaluation
· Reflective Journal 3: Proposed Cultural Event
Note: If you believe that you have a legitimate reason for
attending a “virtual” activity, you must contact the instructor no
later than Week 5 for your request to be considered.

20
40
6
Preparation
· Reading(s)
· Chapter 11: Dada and Fantastic Art
· Chapter 12: Surrealism: The Resolution of Dream and Reality
· Chapter 13: The Shaping of the New Architecture: 1918-40
Activities
· Discussions
Evaluation
· Assignment 2: My Work – My Vision
30
140
7
Preparation
· Reading(s)
· Chapter 14: The School of Paris Between the Wars
· Chapter 15: International Abstraction: Constructivism and the
Brauhaus
· Chapter 16: American Art in the Wake of the Armory Show
Activities
· Discussions
Evaluation

· Reflective Journal 4: Art in Everyday Life
30
40
8
Preparation
· Reading(s)
· Chapter 17: The New York School: Abstract Expressionism
· Chapter 18: The Postwar European School: L′Art Informel,
Expressionist Figuration, Welded Sculpture
· Chapter 19: American Art of the Sixties: Pop Art and
Minimalism
Activities
· Discussions
Evaluation
· Assignment 3: My Personal Artwork or Discovery
30
110
9
Preparation
· Reading(s)
· Chapter 20: Europe’s New Realism, Pop Art, and Abstraction

· Chapter 21: The Diffusion of the New Architecture: 1954-75
· Chapter 22: The Post-Minimal/Post-Modern Seventies: From
Conceptual Art to New Image
· e-Activity
· Go to the Sydney Opera House Website, located at
http://www.sydneyoperahouse.com/About/Venues.aspx. Select
and review the information and pictures found in these three
areas: Building Program, History & Heritage, and Venues. Be
prepared to discuss.
Activities
· Discussions
Evaluation
· None
30
10
Preparation
· Reading(s)
· Chapter 23: The Post-Modern Eighties: From Neo-
Expressionism to Neo-Conceptualism
· Chapter 24: A New Fin de Siecle / A New Century
· Chapter 25: Post- and Neo-Modernism in Architecture
Activities
· Discussions
Evaluation

· Assignment 4: Impressions of Museum or Gallery Exhibit
30
200
11
Preparation
· Reading(s): None
Activities
· Discussions
Evaluation
· None
20
GRADING SCALE – UNDERGRADUATE
Assignment
Total Points
% of
Grade
Assignment 1: The Critic’s Choice
120
12%
Assignment 2: My Work – My Vision
140
14%
Assignment 3: My Personal Artwork or Discovery
110

11%
Assignment 4: Impressions of Museum or Gallery Exhibit
200
20%
Reflective Journals (4 journals worth 40 points apiece)
160
16%
Participation (27 discussions worth 10 points apiece)
270
27%
Totals
1,000
100%
Points
Percentage
Grade
900 – 1,000
90% – 100%
A
800 – 899
80% – 89%
B
700 – 799
70% – 79%
C
600 – 699
60% – 69%
D
Below 600
Below 60%
F

HUM 106 – Experience of Modern Art
©2019 Strayer University. All Rights Reserved. This document
contains Strayer University Confidential and Proprietary
information and may not be copied, further distributed, or
otherwise disclosed in whole or in part, without the expressed
written permission of Strayer University.
HUM106 Student Version 1194 (03-04-2019) Final Page 1 of 3
Due Week 3 and worth 120 points
Imagine you are an art critic who has just seen a specific
artwork for the first time at an art gallery opening. Select a
specific piece of art from Chapters 1-4, and research the
background of the artists and the movement that it represents.
Write a critique for the city newspaper.
Write a two to three (2-3) page paper in which you:
1. Describe the artwork in terms of subject, medium,
composition, and use of color.
2. Classify the work of art, highlighting the style, movement,
and any innovation the artist displayed.
3. Analyze the relationship between the work of art and the
influences on the artist that shape the interpretation of the art.
4. Explain your personal view of the work and make a
recommendation for or against the public viewing the work.
5. Include three (3) references to support your claims. (The text
may be used as one (1) reference.)
Your assignment must follow these formatting requirements:
· This course requires use of new Strayer Writing Standards
(SWS). The format is different from other Strayer University

courses. Please take a moment to review the SWS
documentation for details.
· Be typed, double spaced, using Times New Roman font (size
12), with one-inch margins on all sides; citations and references
must follow SWS or school-specific format. Check with your
professor for any additional instructions.
· Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, the
student’s name, the professor’s name, the course title, and the
date. The cover page and the reference page are not included in
the required assignment page length. Include the name of the
artist and title of the art piece being discussed under the title of
the paper.
The specific course learning outcomes associated with this
assignment are:
· Analyze the essential relationship between any work of art and
the various kinds of influences on the artist and audience that
shape the interpretation of the art.
· Explain the formal elements of various styles of modern art
· Classify key artists and styles in the visual arts from the
· Use technology and information resources to research issues in
modern art
· Write clearly and concisely about modern art using proper
writing mechanics.
Grading for this assignment will be based on answer quality,
logic/organization of the paper, and language and writing skills,
using the following rubric.
Points: 120
Criteria
Unacceptable
Below 60% F

Meets Minimum Expectations
60-69% D
Fair
70-79% C
Proficient
80-89% B
Exemplary
90-100% A
1. Describe the artwork in terms of subject, medium,
Weight: 30%
Did not submit or incompletely described the artwork in terms
of subject, medium, composition, and use of color.
Insufficiently described the artwork in terms of subject,
medium, composition, and use of color.
Partially described the artwork in terms of subject, medium,
Satisfactorily described the artwork in terms of subject,
medium, composition, and use of color.
Thoroughly described the artwork in terms of subject, medium,
2. Classify the work of art, highlighting the style, movement,
and any innovation the artist displayed.
Weight: 20%
Did not submit or incompletely classified the work of art,
highlighting the style, movement, and any innovation the artist
displayed.
Insufficiently classified the work of art, highlighting the style,
movement, and any innovation the artist displayed.
Partially classified the work of art, highlighting the style,
Satisfactorily classified the work of art, highlighting the style,

Thoroughly classified the work of art, highlighting the style,
3. Analyze the relationship between the work of art and the
influences on the artist that shape the interpretation of the art.
Weight: 20%
Did not submit or incompletely analyzed the relationship
between the work of art and the influences on the artist that
Insufficiently analyzed the relationship between the work of art
and the influences on the artist that shape the interpretation of
the art.
Partially analyzed the relationship between the work of art and
the influences on the artist that shape the interpretatio n of the
art.
Satisfactorily analyzed the relationship between the work of art
the art.
Thoroughly analyzed the relationship between the work of art
the art.
4. Explain your personal view of the work and make a
Weight: 15%
Did not submit or incompletely explained your personal view of
the work and made a recommendation for or against the public
viewing the work.
Insufficiently explained your personal view of the work and
made a recommendation for or against the public viewing the
work.
Partially explained your personal view of the work and made a
Satisfactorily explained your personal view of the work and
made a recommendation for or against the public viewing the
work.
Thoroughly explained your personal view of the work and made
a recommendation for or against the public viewing the work.

6. Include 3 references to support your claims. (The text may be
used as one reference.)
Weight: 5%
No references provided
Does not meet the required number of references; all references
poor quality choices.
Does not meet the required number of references; some
references poor quality choices.
Meets number of required references; all references high quality
choices.
Exceeds number of required references; all references high
quality choices.
7. Clarity, writing mechanics, and formatting requirements
Weight: 10%
More than 8 errors present
7-8 errors present
5-6 errors present
3-4 errors present
0-2 errors present
Create a dialogue between two artists discussing their work(s)
with an interviewer asking questions in front of an audience at
an art gallery (much like a panel discussion format). Have Gris
or Picasso dialogue with Matisse, Cezanne Gauguin, or van
Gogh. Each one should explain his work(s), influences,
philosophy, style, themes, and meaning, highlighting the reason
for the work(s)’ importance to and impact on the world of art.
Use the style of dialogue used in a play. For example:
Interviewer: Senor Picasso and Monsieur Matisse, which work
do you consider your most significant accomplishment and why
do you think so?
Picasso: (Confidently) I have so many that are significant, but
one that I think is truly a work of genius and innovation is
[insert the Title of the Artwork]. This work shows the

innovation the art world refers to as Cubism. I was the founder
of that movement and perfected the style. No other artist has
had that type of influence in the world of art.
Matisse: (Somewhat insulted). If I may be so bold, Senor
Picasso, but I think my work has had a greater influence. My
[insert the Title of the Artwork] has had a lasting impression, if
you excuse the term, on thousands of artists. For example, …
1. Create dialogue for selected artist #1 that refl ects his
influences, philosophy, style, themes, and meaning of his
work(s).
2. Create dialogue for selected artist #2 that reflected his
work(s).
3. Create dialogue for selected artist #1 that highlights the
reason for work(s)’s importance and impact on the world of art.
5. Create appropriate interview questions that facilitate the
dialogue and highlighted the comparison between the two (2)
artists.
6. Include three (3) references that help support the artists’
comments. (The text may be used as one (1) reference.)
12), with one-inch margins on all sides; references must follow
SWS or school-specific format. Check with your professor for
any additional instructions.

the required page length.
assignment are:
· Discuss the value of visual art for an individual and soci ety.
· Describe the relationship between individual artistic
modern art.
writing mechanics.
Points: 140
Criteria
Unacceptable
Below 60% F
60-69% D
Fair
70-79% C
Proficient
80-89% B

Exemplary
90-100% A
1. Create dialogue for selected artist #1 that reflects his
work(s).
Weight: 20%
Did not submit or incompletely created dialogue for selected
artist #1 that reflected his influences, philosophy, style, themes,
and meaning of his work(s).
Insufficiently created dialogue for selected artist #1 that
reflected his influences, philosophy, style, themes, and meaning
of his work(s).
Partially created dialogue for selected artist #1 that reflected his
work(s).
Satisfactorily created dialogue for selected artist #1 that
of his work(s).
Thoroughly created dialogue for selected artist #1 that reflected
his influences, philosophy, style, themes, and meaning of his
work(s).
2. Create dialogue for selected artist #2 that reflects his
work(s).
Weight: 20%
artist #2 that reflected his influences, philosophy, style, themes,
and meaning of his work(s).
of his work(s).
Partially created dialogue for selected artist #2 that reflected his
work(s).

of his work(s).
Thoroughly created dialogue for selected artist #2 that reflected
his influences, philosophy, style, themes, and meaning of his
work(s).
Weight: 15%
artist #1 that highlights the reason for work(s)’s importance and
impact on the world of art.
highlights the reason for work(s)’s importance and impact on
the world of art.
Partially created dialogue for selected artist #1 that highlights
the reason for work(s)’s importance and impact on the world of
art.
the world of art.
Thoroughly created dialogue for selected artist #1 that
the world of art.
Weight: 15%
artist #2 that highlights the reason for work(s)’s importance and
impact on the world of art.
the world of art.
Partially created dialogue for selected artist #2 that highlights
the reason for work(s)’s importance and impact on the world of
art.

the world of art.
Thoroughly created dialogue for selected artist #2 that
the world of art.
5. Create appropriate interview questions that facilitate the
dialogue and highlighted the comparison between the two (2)
artists.
Weight: 15%
Did not submit or incompletely created appropriate interview
questions that facilitated the dialogue and highlighted the
comparison between the two (2) artists.
Insufficiently created appropriate interview questions that
facilitated the dialogue and highlighted the comparison between
the two (2) artists.
Partially created appropriate interview questions that facilitated
the dialogue and highlighted the comparison between the two
(2) artists.
Satisfactorily created appropriate interview questions that
Thoroughly created appropriate interview questions that
6. Include 3 references that help support the artists’ comments.
(The text may be used as one reference.)
Weight: 5%
choices.
quality choices.

Weight: 10%
7-8 errors present
5-6 errors present
3-4 errors present
0-2 errors present
Imagine you are trying to sell a work of art to a wealthy art
collector. Describe a painting or watercolor that you have
created or discovered from the 20th or 21st Century that has
special meaning to you. Describe it in terms of content, style,
color, composition, theme or intent, highlighting how this
artwork makes you (or the viewer) feel.
1. Provide a copy of the painting or water color, and describe
the piece in terms of content, style, color, and composition.
2. Explain the artwork’s theme and intent.
3. Classify the artwork within the modern art movements and
explain why it belongs there.
4. Explain how this artwork makes you (or the viewer) feel. (If
you created the work, explain why you did so and your feelings
toward the process and the completed work.)
5. Include two (2) references that help support your claims.
(The text may be used as one (1) reference.)

12), with one-inch margins on all sides; references must follow
SWS or school-specific format. Check with your professor for
the required page length. Identify the artwork and artists under
the title of your paper.
assignment are:
modern art.
writing mechanics.
Points: 110
Criteria
Unacceptable
Below 60% F
60-69% D
Fair

70-79% C
Proficient
80-89% B
Exemplary
90-100% A
1. Provide a copy of the painting or water color, and describe
the artwork in terms of content, style, color, and composition.
Weight: 30%
Did not submit or incompletely provided a copy of the painting
or water color, and incompletely described the artwork in terms
of content, style, color, and composition.
Insufficiently provided a copy of the painting or water color,
and insufficiently described the artwork in terms of content,
style, color, and composition.
Partially provided a copy of the painting or water color, and
partially described the artwork in terms of content, style, color,
and composition.
Satisfactorily provided a copy of the painting or water color,
and satisfactorily described the artwork in terms of content,
style, color, and composition.
Thoroughly provided a copy of the painting or water color, and
thoroughly described the artwork in terms of content, style,
color, and composition.
2. Explain the artwork’s theme and intent.
Weight: 20%
Did not submit or explain the artwork’s theme and intent.
Insufficiently explained the artwork’s theme and intent.
Partially explained the artwork’s theme and intent.
Satisfactorily explained the artwork’s theme and intent.
Thoroughly explained the artwork’s theme and intent.
3. Classify the artwork within the modern art movements and
explain why it belongs there.
Weight: 20%
Did not submit or incompletely classified the artwork within the

modern art movements and did not explain why it belongs there.
Insufficiently classified the artwork within the modern art
movements and insufficiently explained why it belongs there.
Partially classified the artwork within the modern art
movements and partially explained why it belongs there.
Satisfactorily classified the artwork within the modern art
movements and satisfactorily explained why it belongs there.
Thoroughly classified the artwork within the modern art
movements and thoroughly explained why it belongs there.
4. Explain how this artwork makes you (or the viewer) feel. (If
you created the work, explain why you did so and your feelings
toward the process and the completed work.)
Weight: 15%
Did not submit or incompletely explained how this artwork
makes you (or the viewer) feel. (If you created the work, did not
explain why you did so and your feelings toward the process
and the completed work.)
Insufficiently explained how this artwork makes you (or the
viewer) feel. (If you created the work, insufficiently explained
why you did so and your feelings toward the process and the
completed work.)
Partially explained how this artwork makes you (or the viewer)
feel. (If you created the work, partially explained why you did
so and your feelings toward the process and the completed
work.)
Satisfactorily explained how this artwork makes you (or the
viewer) feel. (If you created the work, satisfactorily explained
completed work.)
Thoroughly explained how this artwork makes you (or the
viewer) feel. (If you created the work, thoroughly explained
completed work.)
5. Include 2 references that help support your claims. (The text
may be used as one reference.)
Weight: 5%

choices.
quality choices.
Weight: 10%
7-8 errors present
5-6 errors present
3-4 errors present
0-2 errors present
As a way of experiencing the Humanities beyond your
classroom, computer, and textbook, you are asked to attend a
“cultural event” and report on your experience. This assignment
requires the following:
· Submit your cultural event choice to the instructor for
approval before the end of Week 5.
· Visit a museum or gallery exhibition of modern art before the
end of Week 9.
· Write a report of the visit.
· Summarize the report in a PowerPoint presentation.
Write a three to four (3-4) page paper (750-1,000 words) in
which you:
1. Identify the date visited, location, name, and background of

the museum or specific exhibition. (If virtual, identify the
Website along with the other information.)
2. Describe three (3) works, noting the artist, title, subject, and
the time period of each work.
3. Compare the style, influences, and meaning or intent of each
piece, highlighting any changes (if any) from the first to last
piece.
4. Explain your reasons for selecting the pieces in a discussion
of the reasons for the artist’s popularity and / or impact on the
art world.
5. Summarize the main points of three (3) works discussed in
your paper in a PowerPoint presentation of at least three (3)
slides. Each of the slides should have three to four (3-4) short
bullet points and notes about the works in the slide notes
section. Include a cover page for the PowerPoint. Add the slides
with notes to your paper.
6. Include four (4) references that help support your claims.
(The text may be used as one (1) reference.)
Visiting a Museum
· It makes sense to approach a museum the way a seasoned
traveler approaches visiting a city for the first time. Find out
what is available to see. In the museum, find out what sort of
exhibitions are currently housed in the museum and start with
the exhibits that interest you. If there is a travelling exhibition,
it’s always a good idea to see it while you have the chance.
Then, if you have time, you can look at other things in the
museum.
· Make notes as you go through the museum and accept any
handouts or pamphlets that the museum provides free. Whil e
you should not quote anything from the printed material when
you do your report, the handouts may help to refresh your
memory later.
· The quality of your experience is not measured by the amount
of time you spend in the galleries or the number of works of art
that you actually see. The most rewarding experiences can come

from finding three (3) pieces of art or exhibits which intrigue
you and then considering those works in leisurely
contemplation. Most museums even have benches where you can
sit and study a particular piece.
· If you are having a difficult time deciding which pieces to
write about, ask yourself these questions: (1) If the museum you
are visiting suddenly caught fire, which three (3) pieces of art
or exhibits would you most want to see saved from the fire? (2)
Why would you choose those two (2) particular pieces?
Note:If a student is unable to attend a cultural event in person
due to circumstances beyond the student’s control, then the
instructor will recommend an alternate event/activity for the
student to “attend” online. The “virtual” event/activity is
usually only for students who, due to their physical location,
cannot possibly attend an event/activity in person; typically,
these students are stationed overseas or have no means of
transportation. If you believe that you have a legitimate reason
for attending a “virtual” activity, you must contact the
instructor no later than Week 5 for your request to be
considered.
12), with one-inch margins on all sides; citations and references
must follow SWS Style format. Check with your professor for
· Include a cover page containing the tile of the assignment, the
the required assignment page length.
· Include a PowerPoint presentation. The PowerPoint

presentation is not included in the page count.
assignment are:
· Discuss the value of visual art for an individual and society.
· Explain various terms, qualities, and themes of visual art from
the late 1800s to the present.
the study of modern art.
writing mechanics.
Points: 200
Criteria
Unacceptable
Below 60% F
60-69% D
Fair
70-79% C

Proficient
80-89% B
Exemplary
90-100% A
1. Identify the date visited, location, name, and background of
the museum or specific exhibition. (If virtual, identify the
Website along with the other information.)
Weight: 5%
Did not submit or incompletely identified the date visited,
location, name, and background of the museum or specific
exhibition. (If virtual, incompletely identified the Website
along with the other information.)
Insufficiently identified the date visited, location, name, and
background of the museum or specific exhibition. (If virtual,
insufficiently identified the Website along with the other
information.)
Partially identified the date visited, location, name, and
partially identified the Website along with the other
information.)
Satisfactorily identified the date visited, location, name, and
satisfactorily identified the Website along with the other
information.)
Thoroughly identified the date visited, location, name, and
thoroughly identified the Website along with the other
information.)
2. Describe three (3) works, noting the artist, title, subject, and
the time period of each work.
Weight: 15%
Did not submit or incompletely described three (3) works,
incompletely noted the artist, title, subject, and the time period
of each work.

Insufficiently described three (3) works, insufficiently noted the
artist, title, subject, and the time period of each work.
Partially described three (3) works, partially noted the artist,
title, subject, and the time period of each work.
Satisfactorily described three (3) works, satisfactorily noted the
Thoroughly described three (3) works, thoroughly noted the
3. Compare the style, influences, and meaning or intent of each
piece, highlighting any changes (if any) from the first to last
piece.
Weight: 30%
Did not submit or incompletely compared the style, influences,
and meaning or intent of each piece, highlighting any changes
(if any) from the first to last piece.
Insufficiently compared the style, influences, and meaning or
intent of each piece, highlighting any changes (if any) from the
first to last piece.
Partially compared the style, influences, and meaning or intent
of each piece, highlighting any changes (if any) from the first to
last piece.
Satisfactorily compared the style, influences, and meaning or
Thoroughly compared the style, influences, and meaning or
4. Explain your reasons for selecting the pieces in a discussion
of the reasons for the artist’s popularity and / or impact on the
art world.
Weight: 15%
Did not submit or incompletely explained your reasons for
selecting the pieces in a discussion of the reasons for the
artist’s popularity and / or impact on the art world.
Insufficiently explained your reasons for selecting the pieces in
a discussion of the reasons for the artist’s popularity and / or

impact on the art world.
Partially explained your reasons for selecting the pieces in a
discussion of the reasons for the artist’s popularity and / or
Satisfactorily explained your reasons for selecting the pieces in
a discussion of the reasons for the artist’s popularity and / or
Thoroughly explained your reasons for selecting the pieces in a
discussion of the reasons for the artist’s popularity and / or
5. Summarize the main points of three (3) works discussed in
your paper in a PowerPoint presentation of at least three (3)
slides. Each of the slides should have three to four (3-4) short
bullet points and notes about the works in the slide notes
section. Include a cover page for the PowerPoint. Add the slides
and with notes to your paper.
Weight: 20%
Did not submit or incompletely summarized the main points of
three (3) works discussed in your paper in a PowerPoint
presentation of at least three (3) slides. Each of the slides
should have three to four (3-4) short bullet points and notes
about the works in the slide notes section. Did not submit or
incompletely included a cover page for the PowerPoint. Added
the slides and with notes to your paper.
Insufficiently summarized the main points of three (3) works
discussed in your paper in a PowerPoint presentation of at least
three (3) slides. Each of the slides should have three to four (3-
4) short bullet points and notes about the works in the slide
notes section. Insufficiently included a cover page for the
PowerPoint. Added the slides and with notes to your paper.
Partially summarized the main points of three (3) works
notes section. Partially included a cover page for the

Satisfactorily summarized the main points of three (3) works
notes section. Satisfactorily included a cover page for the
Thoroughly summarized the main points of three (3) works
notes section. Thoroughly included a cover page for the
6. Include 4 references that help support your claims. (The text
may be used as one reference.)
Weight: 5%
choices.
quality choices.
Weight: 10%
7-8 errors present
5-6 errors present
3-4 errors present
0-2 errors present
Reflective Journals
Journals should be ¾ to 1 page or 2 to 3 developed paragraphs.
assignment are:

· Discuss the value of visual art for an individual and society.
writing mechanics.
-----
Reflective Journal 1: My Experience with Art
Address these points:
1. Describe your experience with art before taking this class.
2. Explain your feelings about art in general and modern art in
specific.
3. Explain your reasons for taking this course.
-----
Reflective Journal 2: Social Influences on Artists
1. Explain how social influences have an impact on many artists
and their works. Use examples from movements and examples
explored in the chapters up to this point.
2. Explain how current events have been influencing art in such
areas as movies and music. Use examples to illustrate your
views.
-----

Reflective Journal 3: Proposed Cultural Event
1. Identify the site that you plan to visit for Assignment 4:
Impressions of Museum or Gallery Exhibit.
2. Identify your goals of the visit.
3. Explain your reasons for the selection. (If you select a virtual
site, explain your reasons.)
Note:If a student is unable to attend a cultural event in person
due to circumstances beyond the student’s control, then the
instructor will recommend an alternate event/activity for the
student to “attend” online. The “virtual” event/activity is
usually only for students who, due to their physical location,
cannot possibly attend an event/activity in person; typically,
these students are stationed overseas or have no means of
transportation. If you believe that you have a legitimate reason
for attending a “virtual” activity, you must contact the
instructor no later than Week 5 for your request to be
considered.
Reflective Journal 4: Art in Everyday Life
1. Describe the places you see art (sculpture, architecture,
photography) in everyday life.
2. Comment on the importance of art in everyday life.
3. Discuss the importance of art to you personally.
Grading for Reflective Journal assignments will be based on
answer quality, logic/organization of the paper, and language
and writing skills, using the following rubric.
Points: 40
Assignment: Reflective Journal
Criteria

Unacceptable
Below 60% F
60-69% D
Fair
70-79% C
Proficient
80-89% B
Exemplary
90-100% A
1. Discuss points assigned.
Weight: 60%
Did not submit or incompletely discussed points assigned.
Insufficiently discussed points assigned.
Partially discussed points assigned.
Satisfactorily discussed points assigned.
Thoroughly discussed points assigned.
2. Complete page requirement.
Weight: 30%
Did not submit or incompletely completed page requirement.
Insufficiently completed page requirement.
Partially completed page requirement.
Satisfactorily completed page requirement.
Thoroughly completed page requirement.
Weight: 10%
7-8 errors present
5-6 errors present
3-4 errors present
0-2 errors present

HUM 106 – Assignments and Rubrics
CHAPTER 9
Lessons from the Academy
ERM Implementation in the University Setting
ANNE E. LUNDQUIST
Western Michigan University
T
he tragedy at Virginia Tech, infrastructure devastation at
colleges and uni-
versities in the New Orleans area in the aftermath of Hurricane
Katrina,
the sexual abuse scandal at Penn State, the governance crisis at
the Uni-
versity of Virginia, American University expense-account
abuse, and other high-
profile university situations have created heightened awareness
of the potentially
destructive influence of risk and crisis for higher education
administrators.1 The
recent Risk Analysis Standard for Natural and Man-Made
Hazards to Higher Educa-
tion Institutions (American Society of Mechanical Engineers –
Innovative Technolo-
gies Institute 2010) notes that “resilience of our country’s
higher education insti-
tutions has become a pressing national priority” (p. vi).

Colleges and universities
are facing increased scrutiny from stakeholders regarding issues
such as invest-
ments and spending, privacy, conflicts of interest, information
technology (IT)
availability and security, fraud, research compliance, and
transparency (Willson,
Negoi, and Bhatnagar 2010). A statement from the review
committee assembled to
examine athletics controversies at Rutgers University is not
unique to that situa-
tion; the committee found that “the University operated with
inadequate internal
controls, insufficient inter-departmental and hierarchical
communications, an
uninformed board on some specific important issues, and
limited presidential
leadership” (Grasgreen 2013).
The situation at Penn State may be one of the clearest signals
that risk man-
agement (or lack thereof) has entered the university
environment and is here to
stay. In a statement regarding the report, Louis Freeh, chair of
the independent
investigation by his law firm, Freeh Sporkin & Sullivan, LLP,
into the facts and
circumstances of the actions of Pennsylvania State University,
said the following:
In our investigation, we sought to clarify what occurred . . . and
to examine the Uni-
versity’s policies, procedures, compliance and internal controls
relating to identi-
fying and reporting sexual abuse of children. Specifically, we
worked to identify

any failures or gaps in the University’s control environment,
compliance programs
and culture which may have enabled these crimes against
children to occur on
the Penn State campus, and go undetected and unreported for at
least these past
14 years.
143
www.it-ebooks.info
144 Implementing Enterprise Risk Management
The chair of Penn State’s board of trustees summed it up
succinctly after the
release of the Freeh Report (Freeh and Sullivan 2012) regarding
the university’s
handling of the sexual abuse scandal: “We should have been
risk managers in a
more active way” (Stripling 2012).
The variety, type, and volume of risks affecting higher
education are numer-
ous, and the public is taking notice of how those risks are
managed. Accreditation
agencies are increasingly requiring that institutions of higher
education (IHEs)
demonstrate effective integrated planning and decision making,
including using
information gained from comprehensive risk management as a
part of the gover-
nance and management process.2 Credit rating agencies now
demand evidence of

comprehensive and integrated risk management plans to ensure
a positive credit
rating, including demonstration that the board of trustees is
aware of, and involved
in, risk management as a part of its decision making.3 Through
its Colleges and
Universities Compliance Project, the Internal Revenue Service
(IRS) is considering
how to hold IHEs responsible for board oversight of risk,
investment decisions,
and other risk management matters.4 The news media has a
heightened focus on
financial, governance, and ethical matters at IHEs, holding them
accountable for
poor decisions and thus negatively affecting IHE reputations. In
response to this,
many IHEs have implemented some form of enterprise risk
management (ERM)
program to help them identify and respond to risk.
THE HIGHER EDUCATION ENVIRONMENT
Colleges and universities have often perceived themselves as
substantially differ-
ent and separate from other for-profit and not-for-profit entities,
and the outside
world has historically viewed and treated them as such.
Colleges and universities
have been viewed as ivory towers, secluded and separated from
the corporate (and
thus the federal regulatory and, often, legal) world. Higher
education was largely a
self-created, self-perpetuating, insular, isolated, and self-
regulating environment.
In this culture, higher education institutions were generally
governed under the
traditional, independent “silos of power and silence”

management model, with
the right hand in one administrative area or unit often unaware
of the left hand’s
mission, objectives, programs, practices, and contributions in
another area.
John Nelson (2012), managing director for the Public Finance
Group (Health-
care, Higher Education, Not-for-Profits) for Moody’s Investors
Service, observed
that higher education culture is somewhat of a contradiction in
that colleges and
universities are often perceived as “liberal,” whereas
organizationally they tend
to be “conservative and inward-looking.”5 Citing recent
examples at Penn State
and Harvard, he noted that colleges and universities can be
“victims of their own
success”; a past positive reputation can prevent boards from
asking critical ques-
tions, and senior leadership from sharing troubling information
with boards, and
this can perpetuate a culture that isn’t self-reflective, thus
increasing the likelihood
for a systemic risk management or compliance failure. The
Freeh Report (2012)
is instructive regarding not only the Penn State situation, but
the hands-off and
rubber-stamp culture of university boards and senior leaders
more broadly. The
Freeh Report found that the Penn State board failed in its duty
to make reason-
able inquiry and to demand action from the president, and that
the president,
a senior vice president, and the general counsel did not perform
their duties.

www.it-ebooks.info
LESSONS FROM THE ACADEMY 145
The report calls these inactions a “failure of governance,”
noting that the “board
did not have regular reporting procedures or committee
structure to ensure dis-
closure of major risks to the University” and that “Penn State’s
‘Tone at the Top’
for transparency, compliance, police reporting, and child
protection was com-
pletely wrong, as shown by the inaction and concealment on the
part of its most
senior leaders, and followed by those at the bottom of the
University’s pyramid of
power.”
In his text regarding organizational structures in higher
education, How Col-
leges Work, Birnbaum (1988) notes that, organizationally and
culturally, colleges
and universities differ in many ways from other organizations.
He attributes this
difference to several factors: the “dualistic” decision-making
structure (comprised
of faculty “shared governance” and administrative hierarchy);
the lack of metrics
to measure progress and assess accountability; and the lack of
clarity and agree-
ment within the academic organization on institutional goals
(based, in part, on
the often competing threefold mission of most academic

organizations of teaching,
research, and service). Because of these organizational
differences, Birnbaum notes
that the “processes, structures, and systems for accountability
commonly used in
business firms are not always sensible for [colleges and
universities]” (p. 27).
While noting that colleges and universities are unique
organizations,
Birnbaum also observes that they have begun to adopt more
general business prac-
tices, concluding that “institutions have become more
administratively centralized
because of requirements to rationalize budget formats,
implement procedures that
will pass judicial tests of equitable treatment, and speak with a
single voice to pow-
erful external agencies” (p. 17).
This evolution to a more businesslike culture for IHEs has been
evolving since
the 1960s and has brought significant societal changes while
seeing the federal gov-
ernment, as well as state governments, begin to enact specific
legislation affecting
colleges and universities.6 The proliferation of various laws and
regulations, cou-
pled with the rise of aggressive consumerism toward the end of
the 1990s, has led to
an increased risk of private legal claims against institutions of
higher education—
and their administrators—as well as a proliferation of
regulatory and compliance
requirements. Higher education is now generally treated like
other business enter-

prises by judges, juries, and creative plaintiffs’ attorneys, as
well as by administra-
tive and law enforcement agencies, federal regulators—and the
public.
Mitroff, Diamond, and Alpaslan (2006) point out that despite
their core edu-
cational mission, colleges and universities are really more like
cities in terms of
the number and variety of services they provide and the
“businesses” they are in.
They cite the University of Southern California (USC) as an
example, noting that
USC operates close to 20 different businesses, including food
preparation, health
care, and sporting events, and that each of these activities
presents the university
with different risks. Jean Chang (2012), former ERM director at
Yale University,
observed that IHEs are complicated businesses with millions of
dollars at stake,
but they don’t like to think of themselves as “enterprises.”
Organizational Type Impacts Institutional Culture
While Birnbaum (1988) notes that IHEs differ in important
ways from other orga-
nizational types, especially for-profit businesses, he also
concludes that colleges
www.it-ebooks.info

and universities differ from each other in important ways.
Birnbaum outlines five
models of organizational functioning in higher education:
collegial, bureaucratic,
political, anarchical, and cybernetic. In Bush’s (2011) text on
educational leader-
ship, he groups educational leadership theories into six
categories: formal, colle-
gial, political, subjective, ambiguity, and cultural. In their
discussion of organiza-
tional structure, Bolman and Deal (2008) provide yet another
method for analysis
of organizational culture, identifying four distinctive “frames”
from which people
view their world and that provide a lens for understanding
organizational culture:
structural, human resources, political, and symbolic.
Each of these models can provide a conceptual framework by
which to under-
stand and evaluate the culture of a college or university.
Understanding the orga-
nizational type of a particular institution is imperative when
considering issues
such as the process by which goals are determined, the nature of
the decision-
making process, and the appropriate style of leadership to
accomplish goals and
implement initiatives. What works in one university
organizational type may not
be effective in another. The leadership style of senior
administration may be oper-
ating from one frame or model while the culture of the faculty
may be operating
from another, thus affecting policy and practice in positive or
negative ways.

While not true across the board, for-profit organizations tend to
operate from
what Bush as well as Bolman and Deal refer to as the formal or
structural models
and Birnbaum terms bureaucratic. The structural frame
represents a belief in ratio-
nality. Some assumptions of the structural frame are that
“suitable forms of coordi-
nation and control ensure that diverse efforts of individuals and
units mesh” and
that “organizations work best when rationality prevails over
personal agendas”
(Bolman and Deal 2008, p. 47). Understanding this cultural and
framing difference
is important when considering the adoption and implementation
of ERM in the
university environment, and can help to explain why many
university administra-
tors and faculty are skeptical of the more corporate approach
often taken in ERM
implementation outside of higher education.
Bush observes that the collegial model has been adopted by
most universities
and is evidenced, in part, by the extensive committee system.
Collegial institu-
tions have an “emphasis on consensus, shared power, common
commitments and
aspirations, and leadership that emphasizes consultation and
collective responsi-
bilities” (Birnbaum, p. 86). Collegial models assume that
professionals also have a
right to share in the wider decision-making process (Bush 2011,
p. 73). Bush points
out that collegial models assume that members of an

organization agree on orga-
nizational goals, but that often various members within the
institution have differ-
ent ideas about the central purposes of the institution because
most colleges and
universities have vague, ambiguous goals. Birnbaum describes
the collegium (or
university environment) as having the following characteristics:
The right to participate in institutional affairs, membership in a
congenial and sym-
pathetic company of scholars in which friendships, good
conversation, and mutual
aid flourish, and the equal worth of knowledge in various fields
that precludes
preferential treatment of faculty in different disciplines. (p. 87)
ERM (or risk management and compliance initiatives in
general) tend to be
viewed as more corporate functions and to align with formal,
structural, and
bureaucratic aims, goal setting, planning, and decision making.
The chart in
Exhibit 9.1 outlines management practices and how they are
viewed from the
www.it-ebooks.info
E
xh
ib
it

9.
1
D
is
ti
n
ct
io
n
s
b
et
w
ee
n
St
ru
ct
u
ra
la
n
d
C

o
ll
eg
ia
lE
le
m
en
ts
o
f
M
an
ag
em
en
t∗
E
le
m
en
ts
o
f

M
an
ag
em
en
t
F
o
rm
al
/S
tr
u
ct
u
ra
l
C
o
ll
eg
ia
l/
H

u
m
an
R
es
o
u
rc
es
B
o
lm
an
an
d
D
ea
l
B
u
sh
In
st
it

u
ti
o
n
al
B
ir
n
b
au
m
In
st
it
u
ti
o
n
al
B
o
lm
an
an

d
D
ea
l
B
u
sh
B
ir
n
b
au
m
L
ev
el
at
w
h
ic
h
g
o
al

s
ar
e
d
et
er
m
in
ed
In
st
it
u
ti
o
n
al
In
st
it
u
ti
o
n

al
th
ro
u
g
h
ag
re
em
en
t
an
d
co
n
se
n
su
s
P
ro
ce
ss
b

y
w
h
ic
h
g
o
al
s
ar
e
d
et
er
m
in
ed
V
er
ti
ca
la
n
d

la
te
ra
l
p
ro
ce
ss
es
Se
t
b
y
le
ad
er
s
B
as
ed
o
n
o
rg

an
iz
at
io
n
al
st
ru
ct
u
re
an
d
ro
le
s
A
g
re
em
en
t
A
g

re
em
en
t
C
o
n
se
n
su
s
R
el
at
io
n
sh
ip
b
et
w
ee
n

g
o
al
s
an
d
d
ec
is
io
n
s
O
rg
an
iz
at
io
n
s
ex
is
t
to

ac
h
ie
v
e
es
ta
b
li
sh
ed
g
o
al
s
D
ec
is
io
n
s
b
as
ed

o
n
g
o
al
s
C
o
n
sc
io
u
s
at
te
m
p
t
to
li
n
k
m
ea

n
s
to
en
d
s
an
d
re
so
u
rc
es
to
o
b
je
ct
iv
es
Sh
ar
ed
se

n
se
o
f
d
ir
ec
ti
o
n
an
d
co
m
m
it
m
en
t
D
ec
is
io

n
s
b
as
ed
o
n
g
o
al
s
St
ro
n
g
an
d
co
h
er
en
t
cu
lt

u
re
an
d
v
al
u
e
co
n
se
n
su
s
in
fo
rm
s
d
ec
is
io
n
s

N
at
u
re
o
f
th
e
d
ec
is
io
n
p
ro
ce
ss
R
at
io
n
al
;r
u

le
s,
p
o
li
ci
es
,a
n
d
st
an
d
ar
d
o
p
er
at
in
g
p
ro
ce

d
u
re
s
R
at
io
n
al
R
at
io
n
al
;c
o
m
p
li
an
ce
w
it
h

ru
le
s
an
d
re
g
u
la
ti
o
n
s
E
g
al
it
ar
ia
n
is
m
;

te
am
s
C
o
ll
eg
ia
l
D
el
ib
er
at
iv
e
co
n
se
n
su
s
N
at

u
re
o
f
st
ru
ct
u
re
O
rg
an
iz
at
io
n
s
in
cr
ea
se
ef
fi
ci

en
cy
an
d
en
h
an
ce
p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
th
ro
u
g
h
sp
ec
ia
li
za

ti
o
n
an
d
d
iv
is
io
n
o
f
la
b
o
r
O
b
je
ct
iv
e
re
al

it
y
;
h
ie
ra
rc
h
ic
al
D
es
ig
n
ed
to
ac
co
m
p
li
sh
la
rg

e-
sc
al
e
ta
sk
s
b
y
sy
st
em
at
ic
al
ly
co
o
rd
in
at
in
g
th

e
w
o
rk
o
f
m
an
y
in
d
iv
id
u
al
s
O
rg
an
iz
at
io
n
s

ex
is
t
to
se
rv
e
h
u
m
an
n
ee
d
s;
m
u
st
b
e
a
g
o
o

d
fi
t
b
et
w
ee
n
o
rg
an
iz
at
io
n
an
d
p
eo
p
le
L
at
er

al
C
o
ll
eg
iu
m
St
y
le
o
f
le
ad
er
sh
ip
E
st
ab
li
sh
ed
au

th
o
ri
ty
L
ea
d
er
es
ta
b
li
sh
es
g
o
al
s
an
d
in
it
ia
te

s
p
o
li
cy
L
ea
d
er
is
co
n
ce
rn
ed
w
it
h
p
la
n
n
in
g

,
d
ir
ec
ti
n
g
,
o
rg
an
iz
at
io
n
,
st
af
fi
n
g
,a
n
d

ev
al
u
at
in
g
D
o
es
n
’t
co
n
tr
o
lo
r
o
v
er
ly
st
ru
ct

u
re
;
se
n
si
ti
v
e
to
b
o
th
ta
sk
an
d
p
ro
ce
ss
;
u
se

o
f
te
am
s
L
ea
d
er
se
ek
s
to
p
ro
m
o
te
co
n
se
n
su

s
L
ea
d
er
is
“f
ir
st
am
o
n
g
eq
u
al
s,
”
co
n
su
lt
at
io

n
an
d
co
ll
ec
ti
v
e
re
sp
o
n
si
b
il
it
ie
s
∗
A
d
ap
te

d
fr
o
m
B
u
sh
(2
01
1)
,1
99
(F
ig
u
re
9.
1)
.
147
www.it-ebooks.info

formal/structural and collegial/human resources models. As will
become clear
in the University of Washington ERM implementation case
described in this chap-
ter, the culture of higher education in general, and the
institution-specific culture
of the particular organization, cannot be ignored when adopting
or implementing
an ERM program, and may be the most important element when
making ERM
program, framework, and philosophy decisions.
Risks Affecting Higher Education
One way in which colleges and universities are becoming more
like other organi-
zations is the type and variety of risks affecting them. Risk and
crisis in higher edu-
cation may arise from a variety of sources: a failure of
governance or leadership;
a business or consortium relationship; an act of nature; a crisis
related to student
safety or welfare or that of other members of the community; a
violation of federal,
state, or local law; or a myriad of other factors. The University
Risk Management
and Insurance Association (URMIA 2007) cites several drivers
that put increased
pressure and risk on colleges and universities, including
competition for faculty,
students, and staff; increased accountability; external scrutiny
from the govern-
ment, the public, and governing boards; IT changes; competition
in the market-
place; and increased levels of litigation. A comprehensive, yet

not exhaustive, list
of risks affecting higher education is outlined in Exhibit 9.2.
Risks unmitigated at
the unit, department, or college level can quickly lead to high-
profile institutional
risk when attorneys, the media, and the public get involved.
Helsloot and Jong
(2006) observe that higher education has a unique risk as it
relates to the genera-
tion and sharing of its core task: “to gather, develop, and
disseminate knowledge”
(p. 154), noting that the “balance between the unfettered
transfer of knowledge, on
the one hand, and security, on the other, is a precarious one” (p.
155).
EMERGENCE OF ERM IN HIGHER EDUCATION
In the corporate sector, interest in the integrated and more
strategic concept of
enterprise risk management (ERM) has grown significantly in
the past 15 years
(Arena, Arnaboldi, and Azzone 2010). Certain external factors
affected the adop-
tion and implementation of ERM practices in corporations,
including significant
business failures in the late 1980s that occurred as a result of
high-risk financing
strategies (URMIA 2007). Governments in several European
countries took actions
and imposed regulatory requirements regarding risk
management earlier than was
done in the United States, issuing new codes of practice and
regulations such as the
Cadbury Code (1992), the Hampel Report (1998), and the
Turnbull Report (1999). In
2002, the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor

Protection Act (other-
wise known as Sarbanes-Oxley, or SOX) was enacted in the
United States. In 2007,
the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued guidance
placing greater
emphasis on risk assessment and began to develop requirements
for enterprise-
wide evaluation of risk. In February 2010, the SEC imposed
regulations requiring
for-profit corporations to report in depth on how their
organizations identify risk,
set risk tolerances, and manage risk/reward trade-offs
throughout the enterprise.
While widespread in the corporate sector, in large part due to
regulatory com-
pliance, ERM is fairly new in higher education. Gurevitz (2009)
observes that
www.it-ebooks.info
Exhibit 9.2 Risks Affecting Higher Education
Institutional Area Types of Risk
Boards of Trustees and
Regents, President,
Senior Administrators
Accreditation
Board performance assessment
CEO assessment and compensation

Conflict of interest
Executive succession plan
Fiduciary responsibilities
IRS and state law requirements
Risk management role and responsibility
Business and Financial
Affairs
Articulation agreements
Bonds
Budgets
Business ventures
Cash management
Capital campaign
Contracting and purchasing
Credit rating
Debt load/ratio
Endowment
Federal financial aid
Fraud
Gift/naming policies
Insurance
Investments
Loans
Outsourcing
Transportation and travel
Recruitment and admissions model
Compliance with
Federal, State, and
Local Laws, Statutes,
Regulations, and
Ordinances
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)/Section 504

Copyright and fair use
Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of
1996 (HIPAA)
Higher Education Opportunity Act IRS regulations
Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS)
Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and
Campus Crime Statistics Act (Clery Act)
National Collegiate Athletic Association
(NCAA)/National Association of Intercollegiate
Athletics (NAIA) regulations
Record retention and disposal
Tax codes
Whistle-blower policies
Campus Safety and
Security
Emergency alert systems for natural disaster or other
threat
Emergency planning and procedures
Incident response
(continued)
www.it-ebooks.info

Exhibit 9.2 (Continued)
Campus Safety and
Security (continued)
Infectious diseases
Interaction with local, state, and federal authorities
Minors on campus
Terrorism
Theft
Violence on campus
Weapons on campus
Weather
Information Technology Business continuity
Cyber liability
Electronic records
Information security
Network integrity
New technologies
Privacy
System capacity
Web page accuracy
Academic Affairs Academic freedom
Competition for faculty
Faculty governance issues
Grade tampering
Grants
Human subject, animal, and clinical research
Intellectual property
Internship programs
Joint programs/partnerships

Laboratory safety
Online learning
Plagiarism
Quality of academic programs
Student records
Study abroad
Tenure
Student Affairs Admission/retention
Alcohol and drug use
Clubs and organizations
Conduct and disciplinary system
Dismissal procedures
Diversity issues
Fraternities and sororities
Hate crimes
Hazing
International student issues
Psychological disabilities issues
Sexual assault
Student death
Student protest
Suicide
www.it-ebooks.info
Exhibit 9.2 (Continued)
Employment/Human
Resources

Affirmative action
Background checks
Discrimination lawsuits
Employment contracts
Grievances
Labor laws
Performance evaluation
Personnel matters
Sexual harassment
Termination procedures
Unions
Workplace safety
Physical Plant Building and renovation
Fire
Infrastructure damage
Off-site programs
Public-private partnerships
Residence hall and apartment safety
Theft
Other Alumni
Athletics
External relations
Increased competition for students, faculty, and staff
Increased external scrutiny from the public, government,
and media
Medical schools, law schools
Vendors
educational institutions “have been slower to look at ERM as an
integrated busi-
ness tool, as a way to help all the stakeholders—trustees,
presidents, provosts,

CFOs, department heads, and frontline supervisors—identify
early warning signs
of something that could jeopardize a school’s operations or
reputation.” In 2000,
the Higher Education Funding Council of England enacted
legislation requir-
ing all universities in England to implement risk management as
a governance
tool (Huber 2009). In Australia, the Tertiary Education Quality
Standards Agency
(TEQSA 2013) evaluates the performance of higher education
providers against a
set of threshold standards and makes decisions in relation to
their performance
in line with three regulatory principles, including understanding
an institution’s
level of risk.
In the United States, engaging in risk management efforts and
programs for
IHEs is not specifically required by accrediting agencies or the
federal govern-
ment. Perhaps because it is not required, ERM has not been a
top focus for boards
and senior administrators at IHEs. Tufano (2011) points out that
risk management
in the nonprofit realm, including higher education, is
significantly less developed
than in much of the corporate world and often still has a focus
on avoidance of
loss rather than setting strategic direction. Mitroff, Diamond,
and Alpaslan’s (2006)
www.it-ebooks.info

survey assessing the state of crisis management in higher
education revealed that
colleges and universities were generally well prepared for
certain crises, particu-
larly fires, lawsuits, and crimes, in part because certain
regulations impose require-
ments. They were also well prepared for infrequently
experienced but high-profile
situations such as athletics scandals, perhaps based on their
recent prominence in
the media. However, they were least prepared for certain types
of crises that were
frequently experienced such as reputation and ethics issues, as
well as other non-
physical crises such as data loss and sabotage.7 A survey
conducted by the Asso-
ciation of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges and
United Educators
(2009) found that, of 600 institutions completing the survey,
less than half of the
respondents “mostly agreed” that risk management was a
priority at their insti-
tution. Sixty percent stated that their institutions did not use a
comprehensive,
strategic risk assessment to identify major risks to mission
success. Recent high-
profile examples may be beginning to change that. The Freeh
Report regarding
Penn State determined that “the university’s lack of a robust
risk-management sys-
tem contributed to systemic failures in identifying threats to
individuals and the
university and created an environment where key administrators

could ‘actively
conceal’ troubling allegations from the board” (Stripling 2012).
ADOPTING AND IMPLEMENTING ERM IN
COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES
In 2001, PricewaterhouseCoopers and the National Association
of College and
University Business Officers (NACUBO) sponsored a think tank
of higher educa-
tion leaders to discuss the topic of ERM in higher education,
likely in response to
widespread discussion in the for-profit sector and in
anticipation of potential reg-
ulatory implications for higher education. The group included
Janice Abraham,
then president and chief executive officer of United Educators
Insurance, as well
as senior administrators from seven universities.8 The focus of
their discussion
was on the definition of risk; the risk drivers in higher
education; implementa-
tion of risk management programs to effectively assess, manage,
and monitor risk;
and how to proactively engage the campus community in a more
informed dia-
logue regarding ERM. Their conversation produced a white
paper, “Developing
a Strategy to Manage Enterprisewide Risk in Higher Education”
(Cassidy et al.
2001). In 2007, NACUBO and the Association of Governing
Boards of Universities
and Colleges (AGB) published additional guidance in their
white paper, “Meeting
the Challenges of Enterprise Risk Management in Higher
Education.” The Uni-
versity Risk Management and Insurance Association (URMIA)

also weighed in
with its white paper, “ERM in Higher Education” (2007). In
2013, Janice Abraham
wrote a text published by AGB and United Educators, entitled
Risk Management:
An Accountability Guide for University and College Boards.
These documents provide
guidance and information to institutions considering the
implementation of an
ERM program and discuss the unique aspects of the higher
education environment
when considering ERM implementation.
Several authors have discussed the transferability of the ERM
model to higher
education, even with the cultural and organizational differences
that abound
between the for-profit environment and higher education.
URMIA (2007) con-
cluded that “the ERM process is directly applicable to
institutions of higher
www.it-ebooks.info
education, just as it is to any other ‘enterprise’; there is nothing
so unique to the col-
lege or university setting as to make ERM irrelevant or
impossible to implement”
(p. 17). Whitfield (2003) assessed the “feasibility and
transferability of a general
framework to guide the holistic consideration of risk as a
critical component of

college and university strategic planning initiatives” (p. 78) and
concluded that
“the for-profit corporate sector’s enterprise-wide risk
management framework is
transferable to higher education institutions” (p. 79).
National conferences for higher education associations such as
NACUBO,
AGB, URMIA, and others had presentations on ERM. Insurers
of higher educa-
tion, such as United Educators and Aon, as well as consultants
such as Accenture
and Deloitte, among others, provided workshops to institutions
and published
white papers of their own, such as the Gallagher Group’s “Road
to Implemen-
tation: Enterprise Risk Management for Colleges and
Universities” (2009). In the
early 2000s, many IHEs rushed to form committees to examine
ERM and hired risk
officers in senior-level positions, following the for-profit
model.9 However, when
specific regulations such as those imposed by the SEC for for -
profit entities did not
emerge in the higher education sector, interest in highly
developed ERM models at
colleges and universities began to wane. Gurevitz (2009) points
out that the early
ERM frameworks weren’t written with higher education in mind
and were often
presented “in such a complicated format that it made it difficult
to translate the
concepts for many universities.”
Institutions with ERM programs have taken various paths in
their selection

of models and methods and have been innovative and
individualized in their
approaches. There is no comprehensive list of higher education
institutions with
ERM programs, and not all IHEs with integrated models use the
term ERM.
Exhibit 9.3 shows a snapshot of IHEs that have adopted ERM; a
review of their
websites demonstrates the various risk management approaches
adopted by IHEs
and the wide variability in terminology, reporting lines,
structure, and focus. In
many instances, those IHEs with highly developed programs
today had some form
of “sentinel event” (regulatory, compliance, student safety,
financial, or other)
that triggered the need for widespread investigation and,
therefore, the develop-
ment of more coordinated methods for compliance, information
sharing, and deci-
sion making. In other situations, governing board members
brought their business
experience with ERM to higher education, recognizing the
“applicability and rel-
evance of using a holistic approach to risk management in
academic institutions”
(Abraham 2013, p. 6).
Regardless of the impetus, the current focus appears to be on
effectively link-
ing risk management to strategic planning. Abraham points out
that many higher
education institutions are recognizing that an effective ERM
program, with the
full support of the governing board, “will increase a college,
university or system’s

likelihood of achieving its plans, increase transparency, and
allow better allocation
of scarce resources. Good risk management is good governance”
(p. 5). Ken Barnds
(2011), vice president at Augustana College, points out that
“many strategic plan-
ning processes, particularly in higher education, spent an
insufficient amount of
time thinking about threats and weaknesses.” Barnds believes
that “an honest and
thoughtful assessment of the college’s risks . . . would lead
[Augustana] in a pos-
itive, engaged, and proactive direction.” A recent Grant
Thornton (2011) thought
paper urges university leaders to think about more strategic
issues as part of their
risk management, including board governance, IRS scrutiny of
board oversight
www.it-ebooks.info
E
xh
ib
it
9.
3
Sa
m
p

le
o
f
C
o
ll
eg
es
an
d
U
n
iv
er
si
ti
es
w
it
h
E
R
M
P

ro
g
ra
m
s
In
st
it
u
ti
o
n
T
it
le
o
f
P
er
so
n
w
it
h

E
R
M
R
es
p
o
n
si
b
il
it
y
W
eb
si
te
D
u
k
e
U
n
iv

er
si
ty
E
xe
cu
ti
v
e
D
ir
ec
to
r
o
f
In
te
rn
al
A
u
d
it

h
tt
p
:/
/
in
te
rn
al
au
d
it
s.
d
u
k
e.
ed
u
/
ri
sk
-a
ss

es
sm
en
t/
in
d
ex
.p
h
p
E
m
o
ry
U
n
iv
er
si
ty
C
h
ie
f

A
u
d
it
O
ff
ic
er
w
w
w
.e
m
o
ry
.e
d
u
/
E
M
O
R
Y

_R
E
P
O
R
T
/
st
o
ri
es
/
20
10
/
04
/
19
/
ri
sk
_
m
an

ag
em
en
t.
h
tm
l
G
eo
rg
ia
St
at
e
U
n
iv
er
si
ty
D
ir
ec
to

r,
E
n
te
rp
ri
se
R
is
k
M
an
ag
em
en
t
w
w
w
.g
su
.e
d
u

/
ac
co
u
n
ti
n
g
/
63
37
0.
h
tm
l
Io
w
a
St
at
e
U
n
iv

er
si
ty
A
ss
o
ci
at
e
V
ic
e
P
re
si
d
en
t
fo
r
B
u
d
g

et
an
d
P
la
n
n
in
g
w
w
w
.p
ro
v
o
st
.ia
st
at
e.
ed
u
/

w
h
at
-w
e-
d
o
/
er
m
Jo
h
n
so
n
&
W
al
es
D
ir
ec
to
r

o
f
C
o
m
p
li
an
ce
,I
n
te
rn
al
A
u
d
it
,a
n
d
R
is
k

M
an
ag
em
en
t
w
w
w
.jw
u
.e
d
u
/
co
n
te
n
t.
as
p
x?
id

=
57
82
5
M
ar
ic
o
p
a
C
o
u
n
ty
C
o
m
m
u
n
it
y
C

o
ll
eg
e
D
is
tr
ic
t
(M
C
C
C
D
)
D
ir
ec
to
r
o
f
E

n
te
rp
ri
se
R
is
k
M
an
ag
em
en
t
w
w
w
.m
ar
ic
o
p
a.
ed

u
/
p
u
b
li
cs
te
w
ar
d
sh
ip
/
g
o
v
er
n
an
ce
/
ad
m

in
re
g
s/
au
xi
li
ar
y
/
4_
16
.p
h
p
O
h
io
U
n
iv
er
si
ty

A
ss
o
ci
at
e
V
ic
e
P
re
si
d
en
t
fo
r
R
is
k
M
an
ag
em

en
t
an
d
Sa
fe
ty
w
w
w
.o
h
io
.e
d
u
/
ri
sk
an
d
sa
fe
ty

/
u
rm
i.h
tm
T
ex
as
A
&
M
U
n
iv
er
si
ty
Sy
st
em
O
ff
ic
e

o
f
R
is
k
M
an
ag
em
en
t
an
d
B
en
ef
it
s
A
d
m
in
is
tr

at
io
n
w
w
w
.t
am
u
s.
ed
u
/
o
ff
ic
es
/
ri
sk
/
ri
sk
m

an
ag
e/
g
u
id
e/
en
te
rp
ri
se
-r
is
k
-
m
an
ag
em
en
t/
U
n

iv
er
si
ty
o
f
A
la
sk
a
Sy
st
em
C
h
ie
f
R
is
k
O
ff
ic
er

w
w
w
.a
la
sk
a.
ed
u
/
ri
sk
sa
fe
ty
/
U
n
iv
er
si
ty
o
f

C
al
if
o
rn
ia
R
is
k
Se
rv
ic
es
,O
ff
ic
e
o
f
th
e
P
re
si

d
en
t
w
w
w
.u
co
p
.e
d
u
/
en
te
rp
ri
se
-r
is
k
-m
an
ag

em
en
t/
U
n
iv
er
si
ty
o
f
D
en
v
er
D
ir
ec
to
r
o
f
E
n

te
rp
ri
se
R
is
k
M
an
ag
em
en
t
w
w
w
.d
u
.e
d
u
/
in
te

rn
al
-a
u
d
it
/
in
te
rn
al
_a
u
d
it
/
fa
q
.h
tm
l
U
n
iv

er
si
ty
o
f
Io
w
a
Se
n
io
r
V
ic
e
P
re
si
d
en
t
o
f
F

in
an
ce
an
d
O
p
er
at
io
n
s
an
d
T
re
as
u
re
r
w
w
w
.u

io
w
a.
ed
u
/
∼
fu
sr
m
/
E
n
te
rp
ri
se
R
is
k
M
an
ag
em

en
t/
in
d
ex
.h
tm
l
U
n
iv
er
si
ty
o
f
M
ar
y
la
n
d
V
ic

e
P
re
si
d
en
t
fo
r
P
la
n
n
in
g
an
d
A
cc
o
u
n
ta
b

il
it
y
w
w
w
.u
m
ar
y
la
n
d
.e
d
u
/
ac
co
u
n
ta
b
il

it
y
-o
ld
/
ri
sk
-m
an
ag
em
en
t/
U
n
iv
er
si
ty
o
f
N
o
tr

e
D
am
e
D
ir
ec
to
r
o
f
R
is
k
M
an
ag
em
en
t
an
d
Sa
fe

ty
h
tt
p
:/
/
ri
sk
m
an
ag
em
en
t.
n
d
.e
d
u
/
ab
o
u
t/

U
n
iv
er
si
ty
o
f
V
er
m
o
n
t
Se
n
io
r
St
ra
te
g
is
t

fo
r
E
n
te
rp
ri
se
R
is
k
an
d
P
la
n
n
in
g
,O
ff
ic
e
o

f
th
e
V
ic
e
P
re
si
d
en
t
fo
r
F
in
an
ce
&
A
d
m
in
is

tr
at
io
n
w
w
w
.u
v
m
.e
d
u
/
∼
er
m
/
U
n
iv
er
si
ty

o
f
M
ar
y
la
n
d
V
ic
e
P
re
si
d
en
t
fo
r
P
la
n
n
in

g
an
d
A
cc
o
u
n
ta
b
il
it
y
w
w
w
.u
m
ar
y
la
n
d
.e

d
u
/
ac
co
u
n
ta
b
il
it
y
-o
ld
/
ri
sk
-m
an
ag
em
en
t/
U

n
iv
er
si
ty
o
f
W
as
h
in
g
to
n
R
is
k
A
n
al
y
st
h
tt

p
:/
/
f2
.w
as
h
in
g
to
n
.e
d
u
/
fm
/
er
m
Y
al
e
U
n

iv
er
si
ty
D
ir
ec
to
r
o
f
E
R
M
h
tt
p
:/
/
o
g
c.
y
al

e.
ed
u
/
ri
sk
m
an
ag
em
en
t
154
www.it-ebooks.info
practices, investment performance in university endowments,
indirect cost rates
in research, changes in employment practices, and outsourcing
arrangements.
Regardless of terminology, there is an increased priority on
taking a more
enterprise-wide approach to risk management and moving from
a compliance-

driven approach to a comprehensive, strategic approach across
and throughout
the organization that is used to positively affect decision
making and impact mis-
sion success and the achievement of strategic goals. Tufano
(2011) points out
that even in the corporate environment, top leaders are not
inclined to work
through a detailed step-by-step risk management process, but
rather take a top-
level approach. In the university environment, this means
asking three fundamen-
tal questions: What is our mission? What is our strategy to
achieve it? What risks
might derail us from achieving our mission? Richard F. Wilson,
president of Illinois
Wesleyan University, may best summarize the current
perspective of senior-level
higher education administrators:
When I first started seeing the phrase “enterprise risk
management” pop up in
higher education literature, my reaction was one of skepticism.
It seemed to me yet
another idea of limited value that someone had created a label
for, to make it seem
more important than it really was. Although some of that
skepticism remains, I find
myself increasingly in sympathy with some of its basic tenets . .
. [especially] the
analysis that goes into decisions about the future. Most
institutions are currently
engaged in some kind of strategic planning effort driven, in
part, by the need to
protect their financial viability and vitality for the foreseeable
future. . . . Bad plans

and bad execution of good ideas can put an institution at risk
fairly quickly in the
current environment. Besides examining what we hope will
happen if a particular
plan is adopted, we should also devote time to the consequences
if the plan does
not work. I still cannot quite get comfortable incorporating
enterprise risk man-
agement into my daily vocabulary, but I have embraced the
underlying principles.
(Wilson 2013)
THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: A JOURNEY
OF DISCOVERY
The University of Washington (UW) has a robust enterprise risk
management
(ERM) program that is moving into its seventh year. The
program began with
what administrators10 at UW call a “sentinel event,” settling a
Medicare and
Medicaid overbilling investigation by paying the largest fine by
a university for a
compliance failure—$35 million. This led the new president,
Mark Emmert, to for-
mally charge senior administrators in 2005 with the task of
identifying best prac-
tices for “managing regulatory affairs at the institutional level
by using efficient
and effective management techniques” (UW ERM Annual
Report 2008, p. 4). At
the outset in 2006, the objective for UW was to “create an
excellent compliance
model built on best practices, while protecting its decentralize d,
collaborative, and
entrepreneurial culture” (Collaborative ERM Report 2006, p.
vi). The ERM pro-

cess at UW has been what Ann Anderson, associate vice
president and controller,
terms “a journey of discovery.” ERM has developed and
evolved at UW, mov-
ing from what UW administrators describe as an early
compliance phase, through
www.it-ebooks.info
a governance phase to a mega-risk phase. Currently, the
University of Washing-
ton is focused on two objectives: (1) strengthening oversight of
top risks, and (2)
enhancing coordination and integration of ERM activities with
decision-making
processes at the university. This case study will describe the
decision-making and
implementation process at UW, as well as outline various tools
and frameworks
that UW adopted and adapted for use not only in the higher
education setting in
general, but to fit specifically within the university’s
decentralized culture.
Institutional Profile
Founded in 1861, the University of Washington is a public
university enrolling
some 48,000 students and awarding approximately 10,000
degrees annually (see
Exhibit 9.4). The institution also serves approximately 47,000
extension students.

There are nearly 650 student athletes in UW’s 21 Division I
men’s and women’s
teams. There is a faculty/staff of over 40,000, making UW the
third-largest
employer in the state of Washington. The university is
comprised of three cam-
puses with 17 major schools and colleges and 13 registered
operations abroad. It
has a $5.3 billion annual budget, with $1.3 billion in externally
funded research and
$2.6 billion in clinical medical enterprise. UW has been the top
public university
in federal research funding every year since 1974 and has been
among the top five
universities, public and private, in federal funding since 1969.
The university has
an annual $9.0 billion economic impact on the state of
Washington.
Culture at UW
When appointed to serve on the President’s Advisory
Committee on ERM
(PACERM) in 2007, Professor Daniel Luchtel commented, in
the context of talking
about risk assessments, that “the number of issues and their
complexity is stun-
ning. The analogy that comes to mind is trying to get a drink of
water from a fire
hose” (2007 ERM Annual Report, p. 4). As with most higher
education institutions,
especially research universities, along with the core business of
the teaching and
learning of undergraduate and graduate students, the faculty are
focused on the
creation of new knowledge. “The University of Washington is a

decentralized yet
collaborative entity with an energetic, entrepreneurial culture.
The community
members are committed to rigor, integrity, innovation,
collegiality, inclusiveness,
and connectedness” (Collaborative Enterprise Risk Management
Final Report
2006, p. v).
Faculty innovation and the idea of compliance don’t always go
hand in hand
in higher education, and UW is no exception. Research
associate professor David
Lovell, vice-chair of the Faculty Senate in 2007–2008,
expresses it well:
“Compliance” [is] not necessarily a good word for faculty
members. . . . What lies
behind [that] is the high value faculty accord to personal
autonomy. . . . The notion
of a culture of compliance sounds like yet another extension of
impersonal, corpo-
rate control, shrinking the arena of self-expression in favor of
discipline and con-
formity. . . . Over the last ten months, I’ve come to understand
that you’re not here
to get in our way, but to make it possible for us faculty legally
to conduct the work
we came here to do. . . . I hope that working together, we can
try to spread such
understanding further, so that we can make compliance—or
whatever term you
choose—less threatening to faculty and frustrating to staff.
(Annual ERM Report
2008, pp. 6–7)

www.it-ebooks.info
26.3% ASIAN AMERICANS
UNDERGRADUATE
32,291
48,022 students were enrolled at the UW in the fall of 2009
STUDENTS
GRADUATE
11,592
PROFESSIONAL
1,907
11% ASIAN AMERICANS
11.7% UNDERREPRESENTED MINORITIES
5.2% INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS
19.2% ASIAN AMERICANS

WOMEN
55.8%
WOMEN
54%
WOMEN
52.4%
MEN
47.6%
MEN
46%
MEN
44.2%
GATES CAMBRIDGE
SCHOLARS
4MARSHALL
SCHOLARS
7RHODES
SCHOLARS
SCHOLARS

46
35
Exhibit 9.4 University of Washington Student Profile
From University of Washington Fact Book:
http://opb.washington.edu/content/factbook.
Organizationally, the institution is divided into silos, which has
historically
focused risk mitigation within those silos.
Implementation History at UW
On April 22, 2005, President Mark Emmert sent an e-mail to the
deans and cabinet
members in which he said: “With the most recent example of
compliance issues, we
have again been reminded that we have not yet created the
culture of compliance
that we have discussed on many occasions.” He went on to say
that “the creation
of a culture of compliance needs to be driven by our core values
and commitment
to doing things the right way, to being the best at all we do. . . .
We need to know
www.it-ebooks.info
that the manner in which we manage regulatory affairs is
consistent with the best

practices in existence.”
The Sentinel Event: Largest Fine at a Medical School
The Collaborative Enterprise Risk Management Report for the
University of Wash-
ington (2006) began with the following: “Over the past few
years, the UW has
been confronted by a series of problems with institution-wide
implications, includ-
ing research compliance, financial stewardship, privacy matters,
and protection of
vulnerable populations” (p. v). The situation with the highest
impact on the uni-
versity began when Mark Erickson, a UW compliance officer,
filed a complaint
alleging fraud in the UW’s Medicare and Medicaid billing
practices. The 1999 com-
plaint prompted a criminal investigation, guilty pleas from two
doctors, and a
civil lawsuit resulting in the $35 million settlement, the largest
settlement made
by an academic medical center in the nation. The federal
prosecutor claimed that
“many people within the medical centers were aware of the
billing problems”
and that “despite this knowledge, the centers did not take
adequate steps to cor-
rect them” (Chan 2004). UW’s 2006 ERM Annual Report
acknowledges that, in
addition to the direct cost of the fines, there were also indirect
costs in terms of
additional resources for reviews of university procedures,
increased rigor and fre-
quency of audits, and an incalculable damage to the university’s
reputation. The
federal prosecutor acknowledged that UW’s efforts to reform its

compliance pro-
gram have been “outstanding” (Chan 2004). He further noted
that since the law-
suit was filed, the university “has radically restructured their
compliance office.
The government is very pleased with the efforts the UW is
taking to take care of
these errors.”
Leadership from the Top: President Outlines the Charge
At the time of the medical billing scandal, Lee L. Huntsman was
president of
UW. Huntsman had formerly been the acting provost, associate
dean for scien-
tific affairs at the school of medicine, and a professor of
bioengineering. The UW
Board of Regents had appointed Huntsman in a special session
when Richard
McCormick, the incumbent, accepted the presidency at Rutgers.
Huntsman served
for 18 months as president and continued as Special Assistant to
the President and
Provost for Administrative Transition until 2005 and as a senior
adviser to the uni-
versity for several more years. Mark A. Emmert, former
chancellor of Louisiana
State University and a UW alumnus, was appointed as the 30th
president of UW
and professor with tenure at the Evans School on June 14, 2004.
In April 2005, President Emmert charged V’Ella Warren, Vice
President
for Financial Management, and David Hodge, Dean of the
College of Arts and
Sciences, with conducting a preliminary review of best practices

in compliance
and enterprise risk management in corporate and higher
education institutions.
Warren engaged the Executive Director of Risk Management,
Elizabeth Cherry,
and the Executive Director of Internal Audit, Maureen Rhea, to
conduct a literature
search on enterprise risk management, particularly in higher
education. Cherry
and Rhea engaged Andrew Faris, risk management analyst, to
assist, and the three
spent nearly two years (from 2004 to 2006) conducting the
literature search and
finding out how risk management was functioning on other
campuses. As they
www.it-ebooks.info
conducted their research, they continued to report their findings
to Vice President
Warren. They also piloted the risk assessment process with
various departments
at UW.
Based on their findings and discussions with Vice President
Warren, a draft
report was compiled to provide initial guidance of the
development of a UW-
specific framework. The report provided an overview of various
approaches to
compliance, described best practices at four peer universities
(University of Texas

system, University of Minnesota, University of Pennsylvania,
and Stanford Uni-
versity), identified the common problems encountered in several
recent compli-
ance problems at UW, and offered suggestions for actions that
UW might take in
the effective management of compliance and risk. President
Emmert then charged
Warren and Hodge to cochair the recommended Strategic Risk
Initiative Review
Committee (SRIRC). The role of the SRIRC was to continue to
investigate best prac-
tices in university risk management and make recommendations
about a structure
and framework for compliance that would fit the UW culture. In
a memo to the
SRIRC regarding that review, Warren and Hodge noted that they
had “developed
a framework for university-wide risk and compliance
management which builds
on [UW]’s decentralized and collaborative character.” President
Emmert also made
it clear that the proposed model should be driven by UW’s core
values as well as
promote “effective use of people’s time and energy.” In a memo
to the deans and
cabinet members in 2005, President Emmert declared that UW
did not “want or
need another layer of bureaucracy.”
The SRIRC was comprised of broad university representation,
including
the Executive Vice President, the Associate Vice President for
Medical Affairs,
the Senior Assistant Attorney General, the Vice Provost-elect
for Research, the

Vice Provost for Planning and Budgeting, the Chancellor of the
University of
Washington–Tacoma, the Athletic Director, the Dean of the
School of Public Health
and Community Medicine, the Provost and Vice President for
Academic Affairs,
the Dean of the School of Nursing, the Special Assistant to the
President for Exter-
nal Affairs, the Vice President of Student Affairs, two faculty
members, and two
students. Meeting throughout the fall semester, the SRIRC
reviewed the prelim-
inary research material provided by Hodge and Warren and their
team and dis-
cussed a variety of issues, including the structure for risk
management, how risk
assessment has been and could be conducted, communication
issues, methods for
reporting risks, ways to report progress, and others. For each
initiative, they asked
the following three questions: Does this proposal add value?
What obstacles are appar-
ent and how can they be addressed? How could this proposal be
improved?
In addition to formal meetings, Cherry, Rhea, and Faris
conducted one-on-one
meetings with the SRIRC members to gather more information
about how they
viewed implementation at the university. Because one of the
recommenda-
tions was the creation of a Compliance Council, meetings were
also conducted
throughout the campus with director-level personnel to survey
their interests
and suggestions regarding that aspect of the proposed model.

HUM 106 – Assignments and RubricsCOURSE DESCRIPTIONDiscuss

HUM 106 – Assignments and RubricsCOURSE DESCRIPTIONDiscuss

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to HUM 106 – Assignments and RubricsCOURSE DESCRIPTIONDiscuss

Similar to HUM 106 – Assignments and RubricsCOURSE DESCRIPTIONDiscuss (20)

More from LizbethQuinonez813

More from LizbethQuinonez813 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

HUM 106 – Assignments and RubricsCOURSE DESCRIPTIONDiscuss