Board Orientation eBinder_Peggy Farnham_2023-03-06_FINAL

Board Member Orientation
PEGGY FARNHAM, Ph.D.
March 6, 2023

Board Member Orientation
Dr. Peggy Farnham
March 6, 2023 (via Zoom)
led by
- Steve Triezenberg (President and Dean of VAI Graduate School – VAIGS)
- Juan Olivarez (Member and Chair of the VAIGS Board of Directors)
- Thomas Curran, Jr. (VAI General Counsel and Corporate Secretary to the VAIGS Board of Directors)
1. Organizational structure:
a. VAI, VARI, VAEI and VAIGS
i. *Organizational Chart
ii. *VAI leadership team
b. Nature of “charitable trust” for VARI and VAEI, VAI as supporting organization
c. Relationship of VAIGS as “member” to VAEI, and operationally to VARI
d. *Articles of incorporation (rev. 2017) / *bylaws / *corporate governance guidelines
(also available on Board portal)
2. Board members, duties, and expectations:
a. *Directors’ Biographies
b. *Board members terms of service
c. *AGB Statement on Fiduciary Duties of Governing Board Members [J. Olivarez]
d. *AGB Statement on Board Responsibility for the Oversight of Educational Quality [J. Olivarez]
e. Liability and indemnification [T. Curran]
f. *Form 990 disclosure questionnaire [T. Curran]
g. *Schedule of meetings and remuneration
h. Key contacts: Susanne Miller-Schachinger, Laurie Beardsley
3. History of program development and implementation:
a. Mission, vision, philosophy, values
b. Student recruitment, instructional model, completion rate, time to degree, placement
c. *Strategic Plan 2019-2025
d. *Faculty roster, *Student roster, *VAIGS Staff members
e. Accreditation status, process; access to accreditation reports on Board portal
4. Discussion of individual skills, knowledge, and experience, as applied to Board [J. Olivarez]
5. Web portal for Board access and archives
a. *Web portal reference guide (sent via email)
* Attachments included in eBinder

BYLAWS
OF
VAN ANDEL INSTITUTE GRADUATE SCHOOL
(the "School")
A Michigan Nonprofit Corporation
ARTICLE I. OFFICES
1.1 Registered Office. The registered office of the School shall be located at the
address specified in the Articles of Incorporation or at such other place as may be determined by
the Board of Directors if notice thereof is filed with the State of Michigan.
1.2 Other Offices. The business of the School may be transacted at such locations
other than the registered office, within or outside the State of Michigan, as the Board of Directors
may from time to time determine, or as the business of the School may require.
ARTICLE II. MEMBER
2.1 Composition. The sole Member of the School shall be the Van Andel Education
Institute, a Michigan charitable trust u/a/d October 16, 1996, Jay Van Andel, Granter (the
"Trust").
2.2 Transferability. Membership in the School shall be freely transferable only by
action of the Member.
2.3 Place of Meetings. Meetings of the Member shall be held at the registered office
of the School or at such other place, within or outside the State of Michigan, as may be
determined from time to time by the Board of Directors; provided, however, if the Member's
meeting is to be held at a place other than the registered office, the notice of the meeting shall
designate such place.
2.4 Annual Meeting. Annual meetings of the Member for the purpose of electing
Directors, appointing officers and for such business as may come before the meeting shall be
held at such time as may be fixed by the Board of Directors, or at such other time within the four
(4) months succeeding the end of the School's fiscal year as may be designated by the Board of
Directors and stated in the notice of the meeting. If the annual meeting is not held at the time
specified, the Board of Directors shall cause the meeting to be held as soon thereafter as is
convenient.
2.5 Special Meetings. Special meetings of the Member may be called by the
President or the Secretary and shall be called by one of them pursuant to resolution therefor by
the Board of Directors, or upon receipt of a request in writing, stating the purpose or purposes
thereof, and signed by the Member.

2.6 Action by Member Without a Meeting. Any action which is required to be taken
or which may be taken at any annual or special Member meeting may be taken without a
meeting, without prior notice, and without a vote if the Member consents thereto in writing.
ARTICLE III. DIRECTORS
3.1 Board of Directors. The business and affairs of the School shall be managed
exclusively by a Board of Directors. The number of Directors shall be not less than four ( 4) nor
more than twelve ( 12) as specified by the Member from time to time. Directors shall be elected
for three (3) year terms with approximately one-third of the Board being elected each year.
Directors shall be elected by the Member at each annual Member meeting. Directors shall serve
until their respective terms expire and until their .successors are appointed or until their earlier
resignation or removal.
3.2 Chairperson and Vice Chairperson. The Chairperson shall preside at all meetings
of the Board of Directors and shall perform such other duties as are determined by resolution of
the Board. The Vice Chairperson shall preside at meetings of the Board and shall perform the
duties of the Chairperson in the event of the Chairperson's inability or refusal to act. The Vice
Chairperson shall also perform such other duties as from time to time may be assigned by the
Board. The Chairperson and Vice Chairperson shall be elected by the Member at each annual
Member meeting.
3.3 Resignation and Removal. A Director may resign by written notice to the
Secretary of the School, which resignation shall be effective upon receipt by the School or at a
subsequent time as set forth in the notice. Any Director(s) or the entire Board of Directors may
be removed, at any time with or without cause, by action of the Member acting with or without a
meeting.
3.4 Vacancies and Increase in Number. Vacancies on the Board of Directors
occurring for any reason, including an increase in the number of Directors, may be (but is not
required to be) filled by the Member. A Director elected to fill a vacancy occurring for any
reason, including an increase in the number of Directors, shall hold office until the next election
of Directors or until his or her earlier resignation or removal.
3.5 Place of Meetings and Records. The Directors shall hold their meetings, maintain
the minutes of the proceedings of meetings of the Member, the Board of Directors, and
committees of the Board of Directors and keep the books and records of account for the School,
in such place or places, within or outside the State of Michigan, as the Board of Directors may
from time to time determine.
3.6 Annual Meetings. The annual meeting of the Board of Directors shall be held at a
place and time to be determined by the Member. If such meeting is not so held, whether because
a quorum is not present or for any other reason, or if the Directors were elected by written
consent without a meeting, the annual meeting of the Board of Directors shall be called in the
same manner as hereinafter provided for special meetings of the Board of Directors.
3.7 Regular Meetings. Regular meetings of the Board of Directors may be held
without notice at such time and place as shall from time to time be determined by the Board of
2

Directors. Any notice given of a regular meeting need not specify the business to be transacted
or the purpose of the meeting.
3.8 Special Meetings. Special meetings of the Board of Directors may be called by
President or the Secretary and shall be called by one of them on the written request of the
Member or any Director, upon at least two (2) days written or e-mail notice to each Director, or
twenty-four (24) hours notice, given personally or by telephone. The notice does not need to
specify the business to be transacted or the purpose of the special meeting. Attendance of a
Director at a special meeting constitutes a waiver of notice of the meeting, except where a
Director attends the meeting for the express purpose of objecting at the beginning of the meeting
to the transaction of any business because the meeting was not lawfully called or convened.
3.9 Quorum and Vote. A majority of the members of the Board of Directors then in
office constitutes a quorum for the transaction of business, and the vote of a majority of the
Directors present at any meeting at which a quorum is present constitutes the action of the Board
of Directors unless the vote of a larger number is specifically required by the Articles of
Incorporation or these Bylaws. If a quorum is not present, the Directors present may adjourn the
meeting from time to time and to another place, without notice other than announcement at the
meeting, until a quorum is present.
3.10 Report to the Member. The Board of Directors shall cause a financial report of
the School for the preceding fiscal year to be available for distribution to the Member within four
(4) months after the end of each fiscal year. The report shall include the School's statement of
income, its year-end balance sheet and such other statements or reports as the Board of Directors
shall deem appropriate from time to time.
3.11 Corporate Seal. The Board of Directors may authorize a suitable corporate seal,
which seal shall be kept in the custody of the Secretary and used by the Secretary.
3.12 Compensation of Directors. Directors as such shall not receive any salaries for
their services, but by resolution of the Board of Directors a fixed sum and expenses of attendance
may be allowed for attendance at each regular or special meeting of the Board of Directors.
Nothing herein contained shall preclude any Director from serving the School in any other
capacity and receiving reasonable compensation therefor.
3.13 Committees. The Board of Directors may designate an executive committee
consisting of one or more members of the Board of Directors. At all meetings of the executive
committee, a majority of the members of the committee shall constitute a quorum and the act of a
majority of the members present at any executive committee meeting at which there is a quorum
present shall be the act of the executive committee. The executive committee, to the extent
provided in said resolution, shall have and may exercise the powers of the Board of Directors in
the management of the business and affairs of the School, and may authorize the seal of the
School to be affixed to all papers which may require it.
The Board of Directors may designate one or more additional committees which shall
have such powers and duties as may be determined by the Board of Directors. All committees
shall keep regular minutes of their proceedings and report to the Board of Directors when
required.
3

3 .14 Meeting by Communication Equipment. Members of the Board of Directors, or
of any committee designated by the Board of Directors, may participate in a meeting of the
Board of Directors or committee, as the case may be, by using a conference telephone or similar
communications equipment by means of which all persons participating in the meeting can
communicate with each other. Participation in a meeting pursuant to this section shall constitute
presence at the meeting.
3.15 Action Without a Meeting. Any action required or permitted to be taken pursuant
to authorization voted at a meeting of the Board of Directors, or any committee thereof, may be
taken without a meetiQg if, before or after the action, all members of the Board of Directors, or
such committee, consent thereto in writing. The written consent shall be filed with the minutes
of the proceedings of the Board of Directors or co .. :;nittee and the consent shall have the same
effect as a vote of the Board of Directors or committee for all purposes.
ARTICLE rv. OFFICERS
4.1 Officers. The officers of the School shall be a President and Chief Executive
Officer (herein referred to as the "President"), a Treasurer, and a Secretary, all of whom shall be
elected by the Member. Each officer shall hold office until his or her successor is elected and
qualified or until his or her earlier resignation or removal.
4.2 Appointment of Officers. The Member shall, at its annual meeting, appoint the
President, Treasurer, Secretary and any other office designated by Member. The Member shall
select such officers from a list of candidates provided by the Board of Directors to the Secretary
no less than thirty (30) days before the date of the Member annual meeting. The Board of
Directors shall nominate at least one candidate for each office. If the Board of Directors does not
provide a listing of candidates to Member as provided above, or if Member elects not to appoint
any of the listed candidates for a given office, M~mber shall make such appointment after
consultation with the Chairperson of the Board.
4.2 Other Officers and Agents. The Member or Board of Directors may appoint such
other subordinate officers and agents as it may deem advisable, who shall hold their offices for
such terms and shall exercise such powers and perform such duties as shall be determined from
time to time by the Member or Board of Directors. The Member and Board of Directors may, by
specific resolution by each, empower the President or the executive committee, if such a
committee has been designated by the Board of Directors, to appoint such subordinate officers or
agents and to determine their powers and duties.
4.3 Removal. The President, the Secretary and the Treasurer may be removed at any
time, with or without cause, but only by the affirmative vote of the Member. Any Assistant
Secretary or Assistant Treasurer, or subordinate officer or agent appointed pursuant to Section
4.2, may be removed at any time, with or without cause, by action of the Board of Directors or
by the Member or by the committee or officer, if any, empowered to appoint such Assistant
Secretary or Assistant Treasurer or subordinate officer or agent.
4.4 Compensation of Officers. Compensation to be paid to the officers for services
rendered to the School shall be reviewed and approved by the Board of Directors. Nothing
4

contained in this section shall be construed to preclude any officer from serving the School in
any other capacity and receiving additional compensation therefor.
4.5 President. Unless the Member shall determine otherwise, the President shall be
the chief executive officer as well as the chief operating officer of the School and shall have
general supervision, direction and control of the business of the School as well as the duty and
responsibility to implement and accomplish the objectives of the School. In the absence of the
Chairperson and the Vice Chairperson, the President shall preside at all meetings of the Board of
Directors. The President shall perform such other duties as may be assigned by the Board of
Directors.
4.6 Treasurer. The Treasurer shall have custody of the School's funds and securities
and shall keep full arid accurate account of receipts and disbursements in books belonging to the
School. The Treasurer shall deposit all money and other valuables in the name and to the credit
of the School in such depositories as may be selected by the Board of Directors. The Treasurer
shall disburse the funds of the School as may be ordered by the Board of Directors, or the chief
executive officer, taking proper vouchers for such disbursements. In general, the Treasurer shall
perform all duties incident to the office of Treasurer and such other duties as may be assigned by
the Board of Directors.
4.7 Secretarv. The Secretary shall give or cause to be given notice of all meetings of
the Member and of the Directors and all other notices required by law or by these Bylaws;
provided, however, that in the case of the Secretary's absence or refusal or neglect to do so, any
such notice may be given by any person so directed by the President or by the Directors, or by
the Member upon whose requisition the meeting is called, as provided in these Bylaws. The
Secretary shall record all the proceedings of the meetings of the Member and of the Directors in
one or more books provided for that purpose, and shall perform all duties incident to the office of
Secretary and such other duties as may be designated by the Board of Directors.
4.8 Assistant Treasurers and Assistant Secretaries. Assistant Treasurers and Assistant
Secretaries, if any shall be appointed, shall have such powers and shall perform such duties as
shall be assigned to them by the Board of Directors or by the officer or committee who shall
have appointed such Assistant Treasurer or Assistant Secretary.
4.9 Bonds. If the Board of Directors shall require, the Treasurer, Assistant Treasurer
or any other officer or agent of the School shall give bond to the School in such amount and with
such surety as the Board of Directors may deem sufficient, conditioned upon the faithful
performance of his or her respective duties and offices.
ARTICLE V. CONTRACTS, LOANS. CHECKS AND LEGAL ACTION
5.1 Contracts. The Board of Directors may authorize any officer or officers, agent or
agents to enter into any contract or execute and deliver any instrument in the name of and on
behalf of the School, and such authority may be general or confined to specific instances.
5.2 Loans. No loans shall be contracted on behalf of the School, and no evidences of
indebtedness shall be issued in its name, unless authorized by a resolution of the Board of
Directors. Such authorization may be general or confined to specific instances.
5

5.3 Checks. All checks, drafts or other orders for the payment of money, notes or
other evidences of indebtedness issued in the name of the School shalJ be signed by such officer
or officers, agent or agents of the School and in such manner as shall from time to time be
determined by resolution of the Board of Dfrectors.
5.4 Deposits. All funds of the School. not otherwise employed, shall be deposited to
the credit of the School in such banks, trust companies or other depositories as the Board of
Directors may select.
ARTICLE VI. MISCELLANEOUS
6.1 Fiscal Year. The fiscal year of the School shall be fixed by resolution of the
Board of Directors.
6.2 Notices. Whenever any written notice is required to be given under the provisions
of any law, the Articles of Incorporation or by these Bylaws, it shall not be construed or
interpreted to mean personal notice, unless expressly so stated, and any notice so required shall
be deemed to be sufficient if given in writing by mail, by depositing the same in a post office
box, postage prepaid, addressed to the person entitled thereto at his or her address as it appears in
the records of the School, and such notice shall be deemed to have been given at the time and on
the day of such mailing.
6.3 Waiver of Notice. Whenever any notice is required to be given under the
provisions of any law, or the Articles of Incorporation or these Bylaws, a waiver thereof in
writing, signed by the person or persons entitled to said notice, whether before or after the time
stated therein, shall be deemed equivalent thereto.
6.4 Voting of Securities. Securities of another corporation, foreign or domestic,
standing in the name of the School, which are entitled to vote may be voted, in person or by
proxy, by the President of this School or by such other or additional persons as may be
designated by the Board of Directors.
ARTICLE VII. AMENDMENTS
These Bylaws may be amended or repealed or new Bylaws adopted onJy by action of the
Member.
Effective as of
October Zb , 2010.
WNJDMS4807457-3
6

VAN ANDEL INSTITUTE GRADUATE SCHOOL
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE GUIDELINES
Van Andel Institute Graduate School (VAIGS) is incorporated with the State of Michigan as the
wholly-owned, non-profit subsidiary of Van Andel Education Institute (VAEI). VAIGS operates
under the authority of VAEI which delegates the governance of the Graduate School to the VAIGS
Board of Directors.
The following Corporate Governance Guidelines (Guidelines) set out the rights and responsibilities
of VAEI, as the sole member of VAIGS, and of the VAIGS Board of Directors and its officers.
These Guidelines are intended to supplement and not supplant the VAIGS articles of incorporation
and bylaws (collectively, the “Governing Documents”). To the extent there is a conflict between
these Guidelines and the Governing Documents, the Governing Documents will control.
The paramount concern of the Member and the Board of Directors in adopting these Guidelines is
that clear and effective governance of the organization will advance the ability of VAIGS to fulfill
its mission of preparing biomedical research scholars through a graduate program in cell and
molecular genetics with emphasis on translation of this knowledge and technology to improve
human health and well-being.
Member
Van Andel Education Institute (“VAEI”) is the sole member of VAIGS.
A. Rights and Responsibilities. VAEI holds the membership interest in the corporation. The
business and affairs of VAIGS shall be managed exclusively by the VAIGS Board of Directors.
B. Member Representative. One member of the VAIGS Board of Directors shall be a Trustee of
VAEI and shall represent VAEI as the Member of VAIGS.
C. Member Actions. The following require action of the Member:
1. amending the articles of incorporation or bylaws;
2. electing directors as provided in the Bylaws;
3. removing a director, if the Member deems necessary;
4. electing officers including the Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, President, Treasurer and
Secretary.
Board of Directors
A. Board Responsibilities. The business and affairs of VAIGS are managed exclusively by its
Board of Directors. The Board of Directors of the Graduate School shall have charge, control

and management of the business, property, personnel, affairs and funds of the School and shall
have the power and authority to do and perform all acts and functions permitted to an
organization described in Section 501(c)(3) of the Code. The Board of Directors ensures that the
corporation serves the public good and exclusively operates for the charitable and educational
purposes. Further, the Board fulfills its duties by performing the following acts either directly or
through assignment to Board committees with Board oversight.
The Board of Directors is the governing body and “holds the future and mission [of the school]
in trust.” (Max De Pree in “Called to Serve: Creating and Nurturing the Effective Volunteer
Board). In order to hold this trust, Directors should have a passion for the mission of the
graduate school and its excellence. Directors will shape the vision for the Graduate School, plan
for a successful future, ensure excellence, monitor the progress of students and encourage the
staff and students in their study. The Board is expected to bring understanding of biomedical
education and research and be advocates for the school in the various communities of the
School.
The specific expectations of the Board of Directors are as follows:
1. Strategic
a. set the mission and affirm the vision for the Graduate School;
b. review and approve the strategic and operational plans, which requires that the Board
develop a depth of knowledge of scientific academia; understand and critically evaluate
the assumptions upon which such plans are based; and reach an independent judgment as
to the probability that the plans can be realized;
c. monitor the performance of the Graduate School against the strategic and operational
plans, including oversight of the operating results on a regular basis to evaluate whether
the organization is being properly managed;
d. ensure the quality of the educational experience, and that the structures, policies, and
resources of the Graduate School are sufficient to sustain that quality;
e. make any substantial changes in the organization structure of the corporation;
f. comply with the Bylaws, which set forth the primary rights and duties of the Directors
and provide the procedural framework for the operations of the Board;
2. Procedural
a. meet regularly (at least once annually) as provided in the Bylaws. Directors may
participate in meetings in person or by electronic means (e.g., video conference or
teleconference). Actions may be taken by the Board outside of a regular or special
meeting only through unanimous written consent, which may be obtained by
videoconference, telephone, or email. Such actions will be recorded with the minutes of
the subsequent regular or special meeting of the Board of Directors.
b. provide a comprehensive written and oral annual report to the VAEI Trustees;
c. regularly (at least monthly) inform and advise the VARI Trustees and/or executive staff
to ensure effective collaboration and governance.
3. Employment
a. select and appoint the Dean (as President and Chief Executive Officer of the school),
contingent on ratification by the Member
b. approve the Dean’s selection of other senior officers
VAIGS Corp Govenance Guidelines 2017 clean Page 2

c. monitor and evaluate the performance of the Dean, and recommend appropriate
compensation (including annual bonus incentive plan targets and outcomes, if any)
d. as necessary, replace the Dean (on ratification by the Member) and other senior
executives and ensure ensuring management succession
4. Financial oversight
a. review and approve the financial objectives, plans, and actions of VAIGS, including
significant capital allocations and expenditures
b. approve draft and final audited financial statements and tax returns;
c. review and approve material transactions in the ordinary course of operations, including
but not limited to incurring indebtedness, giving a guarantee, a letter of credit, mortgage,
security interest, and/or pledge, and otherwise incurring or assuming a contingent or
non-contingent liability
5. Intellectual Property
a. approve any change in the logo or trade name of the Graduate School;
b. establish and uphold policies governing the registration and protection of patents and
other intellectual property, and approve the content of the procedures for filing any
necessary application, in a manner congruent with the intellectual property policies of
Van Andel Institute
c. assign, license, or limit the corporation’s right to any intellectual property owned or
possessed by VAIGS in a manner congruent with the intellectual property policies of
Van Andel Institute;
6. Ethical and Other
a. ensure ethical behavior of the Graduate School and its executive leadership, including
compliance with laws and regulations, auditing and accounting principles, the
corporation’s own governing documents and all accreditation standards
b. assure that the Board makes decisions based upon adequate information and free from
conflicts of interest
c. approve any transaction involving a material conflict of interest on the part of a Board
Member or Officer of the Graduate School
d. assess the Board’s own effectiveness in serving its governance oversight role and
fulfilling these and other board responsibilities
e. provide a comprehensive written and verbal annual report to the Member
f. perform such other functions as are prescribed by law or assigned to the Board in the
corporation’s governing documents
B. Board Composition and Terms. Member of the Board of Directors are appointed by the VAEI
Board of Trustees for three year terms. The terms of the Directors shall be staggered to ensure
continuity on the Board. Typically, the Board comprises seven members representing different
interests and bringing different gifts as follows:
1. One representative from VAEI Board of Trustees
2. One representative from Van Andel Research Institute (VARI) Board of Trustees
3. One representative from West Michigan colleges and universities
4. One clinician from the local medical community
5. One representative of the national biomedical research and graduate education community
VAIGS Corp Govenance Guidelines 2017 clean Page 3

6. One life sciences investigator from a research-intensive university in the state of Michigan
7. The chief scientific officer of VARI
C. Individual Director Duties
1. Rights and Responsibilities -- The primary rights and duties of Directors are set forth in the
corporation’s bylaws. Individual Directors do not have the authority to bind the corporation
in their role as Directors.
2. Fiduciary Duties -- Under common law for directors of Michigan nonprofit corporations,
and congruent with best practices for governing boards of institutions of higher education,
individual directors owe to the corporation and its shareholders, Member and fellow
Directors the fiduciary duties of due care, loyalty, and obedience.
a. The duty of due care requires that a director carry out his or her obligations to the
Graduate School with the same degree of diligence, care and skill that an ordinarily
prudent person would exercise under similar circumstances, acting in a manner he or she
believes to be in the best interest of the corporation.
b. The duty of loyalty requires that a director exercise his or her duties in a manner which
best serves the interests of the Graduate School rather than the personal interests of the
director.
c. The duty of obedience requires that a director fulfills his or her role in such a way as to
ensure that the Graduate School operates in furtherance of its stated mission and
operates in compliance with relevant law.
3. State Law—Under State law, directors of nonprofit corporations must discharge their duties
in good faith and with that degree of diligence, care, and skill which an ordinarily prudent
person would exercise under similar circumstances in a like position. Thus, each director
must act as a reasonable person, charged with overall responsibility for the corporation,
would act under similar circumstances. All actions of a director are guided by the underlying
principle of acting in good faith and in the best interests of the corporation.
D. Board Officers and Committees
1. Officers -- The Member will appoint a Chairperson, a Vice Chairperson, a President and
Chief Executive Officer, a Treasurer, and a Secretary. The Board will provide the Member
with a list of candidates for officer positions.
2. Rights and Responsibilities – The officers are required to implement the policies set by the
Board. The chief executive officer is the President (also the Graduate Dean) who also
serves as the chief operating officer of VAIGS. The President provides general supervision,
direction, and control of the operations of VAIGS and has the duty and responsibility to
implement and accomplish the mission and objectives of the organization. The rights and
duties of corporate officers are set forth, and limited by what is set forth, in the Bylaws.
3. Executive Committee – The officers will constitute an Executive Committee and have the
authority to appoint committees of the Board as needed. The Executive Committee will be
the only standing committee; all others will be appointed for specific purposes and time.
VAIGS Corp Govenance Guidelines 2017 clean Page 4

Approval and ratification
1. The Board of Directors Mandate (Mandate) was initially approved by the VAIGS Board of
Directors on May 4, 2005. The original Corporate Governance Guidelines were adopted on
May 16, 2006.
2. These Corporate Governance Guidelines combine the Mandate and original Guidelines into
a single, revised document that have been acknowledged and accepted by the VAIGS Board
of Directors in March 2017.
VAIGS Corp Govenance Guidelines 2017 clean Page 5

VAIGS BOARD OF DIRECTORS
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES
James B. Fahner, M.D.
Dr. James B. Fahner is medical director of philanthropy education and provider
well-being at Helen DeVos Children’s Hospital in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Dr. Fahner previously served as the founding Division Chief of Pediatric
Hematology/Oncology and Senior Administrative Physician for Philanthropy and
Community Relations at HDVCH. He also holds appointments as Associate
Professor in the Department of Pediatrics/Human Development at Michigan
State University and Clinical Assistant Professor in the Department of Pediatrics
and Communicable Diseases at the University of Michigan.
Dr. Fahner completed his undergraduate degree, M.D., pediatric residency,
and pediatric hematology/oncology fellowship at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.
His deep commitment to community and agency service includes the Board of Directors of the Helen
DeVos Children’s Hospital Foundation, the Spectrum Health Board Committee for Helen DeVos Children’s
Hospital, Chairman of the Hospice of Michigan Foundation Board, the Van Andel Research Institute Board
of Trustees, and Board Chairman of the Make-A-Wish Foundation of Michigan. Prior activities include the
Michigan Community Blood Center Foundation, the West Michigan Ronald McDonald House, and
President of the Board of Education for Forest Hills Public Schools. Dr. Fahner is Past Chairman of the
Board of Hospice of Michigan and serves on the Executive Committee of the Grand Rapids Clinical
Oncology Program.
Dr. Fahner is the recipient of the Children’s Miracle Network Miracle Maker Award, the Philip McCorkle
Child Advocacy Award, the Hillman Award and the Crystal Rose Award from Hospice of Michigan.
Mary X.D. O‘Riordan, Ph.D., Vice Chair
Dr. Mary O’ Riordan is the Associate Dean for graduate and postdoctoral
studies at University of Michigan Medical School. She also serves as the
Frederick C. Neidhardt Collegiate Professor and professor of microbiology and
immunology. Dr. O’Riordan oversees graduate education and postdoctoral
training in the Medical School and works with the Office of Medical Student
Education to explore opportunities for graduate and medical student program
coordination. She also represents the Medical School in its interactions with the
Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studies and provides guidance and
support to student and postdoctoral organizations such as the Graduate
Student Council and the Association of Multicultural Scientists.
She received a Master of Arts in molecular biology from Princeton University and her doctorate in
immunology from the University of California, San Francisco. After completing a postdoctoral fellowship
at the University of California, Berkeley, she joined the faculty at the University of Michigan in
2003.Throughout her years on the faculty, Dr. O’Riordan has been active in the educational mission of
the Medical School. She was inducted into the Medical School’s League of Educational Excellence in 2013
and was selected as a National Academy of Sciences Kavli Fellow in 2014.
Page 1 of 3

Peter Jones, Ph.D., D.Sc. (hon)
Dr. Peter Jones was born in Cape Town, South Africa, and raised and
attended college in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) and received his Ph.D. from
the University of London. Dr. Jones joined the University of Southern
California in 1977 and served as Director of the USC Norris Comprehensive
Cancer Center between 1993 and 2011. He became Chief Scientific Officer
of Van Andel Research Institute (VARI) in Grand Rapids, Michigan in 2014.
Dr. Jones helped pioneer the field of epigenetics, particularly its role in
cancer, and helped develop novel therapies for cancer. His laboratory
discovered the effects of 5-azacytidine on cytosine methylation and linked
processes of DNA methylation, gene expression and differentiation.
Dr. Jones has published more than 300 scientific papers and received several honors, including an
Outstanding Investigator Award from the National Cancer Institute. He and his colleague Stephen Baylin
shared the Kirk Landon Award for Basic Cancer Research from the AACR in 2009 and the Medal of Honor
from the American Cancer Society in 2011. Dr. Jones is a Past President of the American Association for
Cancer Research and was elected a Fellow of the AAAS in 2009 and a Fellow of the Academy of the
AACR in 2013. He was elected a member of the National Academy of Sciences in 2016 and the American
Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2017.
Candace Smith-King, M.D.
Dr. Candace Smith-King serves as vice president of academic affairs for
Spectrum Health System and as a pediatrician at Spectrum Health Helen
DeVos Children’s Hospital. Dr. Smith-King joined the academic general
pediatrics practice at Helen DeVos Children’s Hospital in 2009, and in 2012
became the program director for the pediatric residency program at Helen
DeVos Children’s Hospital. Additionally, she serves as the designated
institutional official for residency and fellowship programs through the
Spectrum Health/Michigan State University College of Human Medicine. She is
an assistant professor at Michigan State University College of Human Medicine
Department of Pediatrics and Human Development.
Dr. Smith-King is a native of New Orleans, Louisiana, and completed her middle and high school
years in Grand Rapids. She received her Bachelor of Science in Biology from the University of Michigan
and her medical degree from Michigan State University College of Human Medicine.
Her training continued at the Spectrum Health/Michigan State University College of Human Medicine
Pediatric Residency Program at Helen DeVos Children’s Hospital. Dr. Smith-King serves on the board of
NIA Centre Board of Directors.
Maria Cimitile, Ph.D.
Maria C. Cimitile is a Professor of Philosophy in the Honors College and
Academic Consultant at Grand Valley State University. She served GVSU as
served as Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic and Student
Affairs from 2017 to 2021, and prior to that as Associate VP for Academic
Affairs. She earned her Ph.D. in Philosophy from the University of Memphis,
M.A. from Villanova University, and A.B. from the College of the Holy Cross.
She joined Grand Valley State University in 1999. Dr. Cimitile has received a
number of teaching awards. She created the Latino Student Initiative at Grand
Valley State University, reflecting her deep commitment to committed to equity
and excellence in education.
Page 2 of 3

Juan R. Olivarez, Ph.D., Chair
Juan R. Olivarez recently completed a term as interim President of Grand
Rapids Community College, where he also served as President from 1999 to
2008. He is also President Emeritus of Aquinas College, and the past
President and CEO of Kalamazoo Foundation. He was an educator in the
Grand Rapids Public Schools for more than 20 years. In 1991, he became
Dean of Institutional Research at Grand Rapids Community College and was
promoted to Chief Executive Officer of the Community Learning Enterprise in
1996. He served as distinguished scholar in residence at Grand Valley State
University from 2018 to 2021. He earned his Ph.D. in Family & Child Ecology
from Michigan State University, M.A. in Educational Psychology from Wayne State University, and his B.A.
from Aquinas College.
Among numerous honors, President Olivarez was named Aquinas College Distinguished Alumnus for
2005. He has also received the Faith in Humanity Award from the Hugh Michael Beahan Foundation, the
Communicator of the Year Award from the Association of West Michigan Communication Professionals,
the Distinguished Community Trustee Award from Leadership Grand Rapids, and the Whitney M. Young
Jr. Award, from the Boy Scouts of America for service to youth.
He serves on many local, state and national educational and civic organizations including Van Andel
Education Institute, National Institute For Literacy, First Steps Kent, the Council of Independent Colleges,
Educational Testing Services, and Higher Education Research & Development Institute.
Peggy Farnham, Ph.D.
Dr. Farnham is the Vice Dean for Health and Biomedical Science Education
and Professor and Chair of the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular
Biology at the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern
California. Dr. Farnham received her Ph.D. from Yale University and
performed her post-doctoral training at Stanford University. Dr. Farnham
previously held Professorships at the McArdle Laboratory for Cancer Research
at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and at the University of California-
Davis (as Associate Director of the UC Davis Genome Center). Dr. Farnham is
an international leader in the study of chromatin regulation. She is a member
of an international consortia of genomic scientists working on the ENCODE
(Encyclopedia of DNA elements) Project and a member of an NIH Roadmap Reference Epigenome
Mapping Center. Based on her contributions to biomedical research, she was elected as a fellow of AAAS
in 2010 and in 2012 she received the ASBMB Herbert A Sober Award, which recognizes outstanding
biochemical and molecular biological research with particular emphasis on the development of methods
and techniques to aid in research.
Page 3 of 3

AGB Board of Directors’ Statement on the
Fiduciary Duties
of Governing Board Members

This statement was approved
on July 24, 2015, by the Board of
Directors of the Association of
Governing Boards of Universities and
Colleges. The following principles
are intended to educate board
members about the elements of their
fiduciary responsibilities and how
to translate their fulfillment of those
responsibilities into effective board
conduct and oversight
The “AGB Statement on the
Fiduciary Duties of Governing
Board Members” encourages all
governing boards and chief executives
to remember that governance
is significantly improved when
board members and presidents
share a mutual understanding
of the standards that define their
fiduciary obligations.
© 2015 Association of Governing Boards of
Universities and Colleges
www.agb.org.
All rights reserved.

Preface
AGB Board of
Directors’ Statement on the
Fiduciary Duties
of Governing Board Members
Governance of American colleges and
universities is at a crossroads. The
governing bodies of these institutions
face critical challenges to methods
of operation and oversight that have
been in common use for decades, but which are underperforming in satisfying current
stakeholders and protecting future generations. At the same time, they are under greater
scrutiny than ever before, with their members increasingly held accountable for the
success or failure of their institutions. These members hold a unique position with regard
to stewardship of the institutions they serve, a position not shared with students, faculty,
alumni, donors, regulators, or others in the community. They are fiduciaries.
The concept and practice of being a fiduciary cannot and should not be reduced to
a legal principle with no real-world impact on a board member’s behavior. Fiduciary
principles and duties are at the heart of effective governance and AGB’s work with its
members. The fiduciary duties described in this statement can seem, at first glance, to be
a matter of common sense. What could be more essential for a board member than to act
with good-faith and care, with loyalty to the institution, and in compliance with its mission
and the law? And yet, behind nearly every failure of governance and leadership at higher
education institutions is a breach of the principles of fiduciary duty.
While governing boards act as a body, the fiduciary duties applied by law and best
practice fall on individual board members. Each has a personal responsibility to ensure
that he or she is up to the task and fulfilling his or her obligations. Effective board members
must be more than names on a masthead. They must be fully engaged. They must
attend meetings, read and evaluate the materials, ask questions and get answers, honor
confidentiality, avoid conflicts of interest, demonstrate loyalty, understand and uphold
mission, and ensure legal and ethical compliance. Those who cannot do so must step down
and allow others to take their place. The success and sustainability of the institution and the
protection of board members from personal liability require nothing less.
This AGB board statement is designed as a tool to orient board members to the
elements of fiduciary duty and to recommend proven practices for translating those duties
into effective board conduct. It comprises a discussion of governing board members and
officers as fiduciaries of their institutions, an explanation of the three fiduciary duties that
apply to them, and principles for translating these duties into effective board conduct.
Integrated throughout the statement are illustrative questions for members of governing
boards to consider.
1

Principles of Fiduciary Duty
FIDUCIARY DUTIES IN GENERAL
Under state statutory and
common law, officers and board
members of corporations (including
nonprofit corporations and public
bodies that operate colleges and
universities) are fiduciaries and
must act in accordance with the
fiduciary duties of care, loyalty, and
obedience. What is a fiduciary?
Legally, a fiduciary relationship is
one of trust or confidence between
parties. A fiduciary is someone
1.
2.
ILLUSTRATIVE QUESTIONS FOR
GOVERNING BOARDS TO CONSIDER
Does the board understand the elements
of the duty of care, the duty of loyalty,
and the duty of obedience? How is our
board educated on these principles?
Do board members understand how their
fiduciary duties relate to their particular
responsibilities in overseeing the college
who has special responsibilities in
or university? How does our board
connection with the administration,
discuss these matters?
investment, monitoring, and
distribution of property—in this
3. Do board members understand the
ways in which they could be exposed
to personal liability for breaching their
case, the charitable or public assets
fiduciary duties? What areas of liability
of the institution. These assets
exposure are of greatest concern to our
include not just the buildings and
board members?
grounds and endowment, but also
intangibles, such as the reputation
of the institution and its role in the
community. A college or university board member or officer has duties to the institution
under the law that a faculty member, a student, or an administrator does not.
A fiduciary owes particular duties to the institution he or she serves. They are
commonly known, as described above, as the fiduciary duties of care, loyalty, and
obedience. Taken together, they require board members to make careful, good-faith
decisions in the best interest of the institution consistent with its public or charitable
mission, independent of undue influence from any party or from financial interests. These
duties may be described in and imposed by a college or university’s bylaws, governing
board policies, standards of conduct, or code of ethics. In the case of a public institution,
state law may describe or apply these standards of conduct differently (for example,
under particular rules applicable to regents or public bodies); however, adherence to
these principles remains a key governance best practice at both independent and public
colleges and universities.
2

Good governance practice mandates that all board members be informed of the
legal meaning and obligations of their fiduciary role and provided practical examples of
issues that the board is likely to face and that require careful attention to the balancing of
interests necessary to carry out the fiduciary role. In addition, board members and officers
must understand that while they hold fiduciary duties individually, they act collectively as
a board. Absent a particular designation of authority by the board to an individual board
member or officer (such as the authorization of a board chair to enter into an employment
agreement with the president on behalf of the institution), no single board member or
officer has authority to bind the institution or determine its course of action, even those
who may be appointed by a state governor or through a political process.
A question that often arises is: To whom are fiduciary duties owed? By law, these
duties are owed by governing body members and officers to the institution. However,
in the court of political and public opinion, fiduciary duties are commonly extended
(erroneously) to other beneficiaries: students (and those who may pay the tuition for
them), faculty, alumni, donors, and the community at large, particularly where the
institution has a direct and material impact on the livelihood of its community and the
beneficiaries of its research and scholarship. In a given case, governing board members
may comply faithfully and with integrity with their legal fiduciary duties in overseeing
their institutions and yet still run afoul of regulators, politicians, and stakeholders who
believe a different result should ensue. It may even cost a board member his or her seat.
Still, fidelity by board members and officers to their legal fiduciary duties is the essence of
good governance.
FIDUCIARIES WITHIN A SHARED GOVERNANCE SYSTEM
In the American higher education system of shared governance, governing boards
share governance duties with the president and the faculty, while respecting academic
freedom and soliciting input from a broad campus constituency. However, under
the law, only governing board members and officers hold fiduciary responsibility.
Nevertheless, the governance principles ingrained in the fiduciary duties discussed in
this statement have clear application to the efforts of the administration and faculty, as
well. All participants in the system of shared governance would do well to adhere to these
principles and practices.
3

The Three Duties
The following three duties of governing board members and officers, which are
established by law and are well-accepted principles of good governance, are set forth for
board members to thoughtfully consider and apply.
THE DUTY OF CARE
The duty of care generally requires officers and governing board members to carry out
their responsibilities in good-faith and using that degree of diligence, care, and skill which
ordinarily prudent persons would reasonably exercise under similar circumstances in like
positions. Accordingly, a board member must act in a manner that he or she reasonably
believes to be in the best interests of the institution.
Determining what is in the best interests of the institution is left to the governing
board’s sound judgment under the duty of care. It will necessarily involve a balancing
of interests and priorities appropriate to the institution’s mission and consistent with
its strategic priorities. This should include explicit attention to the tradeoffs inherent in
achieving balance among employees’ interests (maintaining quality of education and
protecting the institution’s assets), student interests (maintaining affordability), physical
assets (buildings and grounds), fiscal assets (endowments and fund balances), consumer
value of the degree (cost of degree attainment versus future job earnings), and community
interests in the institution (jobs, economic development).
Under the duty of care, governing bodies of colleges and universities are responsible
for both the short- and long-term financial health of the institution and achievement of the
goal of preserving the institution and its resources for future generations. At the same time,
governing boards have the obligation to develop and protect the quality of the institution’s
academic programs and to become appropriately engaged in the oversight thereof.
There can be no single, succinct statement of specific actions required by the duty
of care, since different circumstances will inevitably require different acts. However,
the proper exercise of the duty of care requires a board member to regularly attend
meetings; to read and evaluate the meeting materials prepared for the board in advance
of the meeting; to ask questions and participate actively in board discussions; and to be
knowledgeable of the institution’s purposes, operations, and environment.
Also interwoven in the duty of care is the responsibility of board members to
maintain the confidentiality of matters brought before the board, both during and after
their board service. This is particularly the case with respect to personnel concerns and
sensitive business matters. In some cases, board members may be asked to sign an oath
of confidentiality or a binding agreement that sets forth their duties and responsibilities
4

to the institution. Such instruments may be useful, but they may also seem heavy-handed
to some, and the duties will apply to board members who have been duly elected and
have consented to service whether or not an oath or agreement exists. At the same
time, board members must balance their obligation to maintain confidentiality with the
core governance principle and public-policy objective of promoting transparency in
board operations.
The duty of care does not require professional expertise, extensive consideration, or
full knowledge of the matter at hand by every board member. Instead, the duty generally
requires board members to be reasonably well informed of the relevant issues. Officers
and board members may rely upon expert advice in making their determinations. For
example, a board member may rely on information, opinions, reports, or statements,
including financial statements
and other financial data, that are
prepared or presented by: (a) one
or more officers or employees of
the institution whom the board
reasonably believes to be reliable
and competent in the matters
ILLUSTRATIVE QUESTIONS FOR
presented; (b) legal counsel, public
GOVERNING BOARDS TO CONSIDER
accountants, or other persons as
1. Does the board invite discussion and
questions regarding matters before it?
to matters the board reasonably
believes are within the person’s
2. How does the board encourage full
engagement by board members and
professional or expert competence;
enforce attendance requirements?
or (c) a committee of the governing
3. How does the board involve
board of which he or she is not
experts to facilitate and enhance its
a member if the board member
understanding of matters before it?
reasonably believes the committee’s 4. How does the board assess its
report merits confidence. Any
own performance in fulfilling its
fiduciary duties?
reliance on information provided
by others must be reasonable under
the circumstances, considering such
factors as the source from which the information was obtained, whether the information
relied upon is a brief summary or an extensive analysis, whether the matter is routine or
exceptional, and the time frame in which a decision must be made.
5

THE DUTY OF LOYALTY
The duty of loyalty requires
officers and board members to act
in good-faith and in a manner that
is reasonably believed to be in the
interests of the college or university
and its nonprofit or public purposes
rather than their own interests or
the interests of another person or
organization. The fiduciary must
not act out of expedience, avarice,
or self-interest. The requirement
that officers and board members
discharge their duties in goodfaith
is a subjective one that
will vary depending on the facts
and circumstances.
ILLUSTRATIVE QUESTIONS FOR
GOVERNING BOARDS TO CONSIDER
1. Does the board have a robust
conflict-of-interest policy that also
addresses dualities of interest?
How do board members disclose
conflicts and dualities and to whom?
2. Whose responsibility is it to
review board conflict-of-interest
disclosures and to report on
potential conflicts to the board?
3. What does the board do when
a conflict is identified?
Under this duty, a college or
4. How does the board determine
university board member must be
what matters before it are
confidential, and how does it enforce
loyal to the institution and not use
confidentiality by board members?
the position of authority to obtain,
directly or indirectly, a benefit
for him or herself or for another
organization in which the board member has an interest. Accordingly, when evaluating
a board member’s conduct, the duty of loyalty considers both a board member’s
financial interests and the governance or leadership positions he or she holds with
other organizations.
Board member independence is increasingly sought after by regulators and key
stakeholders to ensure adherence to the duty of loyalty. In this context, independence
means that the board member is not employed by and does not do material business
with the college or university. This information is reported on IRS Form 990 and in other
public record filings. In addition, the board member acts independently of any personal
relationship he or she may have with the president or senior leaders of the college or
university or with other board members. It is not required that every member of the
board be independent (for example, some ex officio board members may not be), but,
ideally, a majority of the board members should be independent.
6

In addition, it is incumbent on board members to retain their independence
from external and internal stakeholders in the conduct of their oversight and policy
responsibilities. This applies to boards of independent institutions and especially to public
boards whose members are most often selected for their service through some form of
political appointment. It also applies in cases in which board members are appointed
or elected by internal constituent groups such as faculty or staff. Public and internally
appointed board members may be respectful of the views of appointing authorities but must
not allow such influence to be determinative of board action. Governing board members of
public institutions, while serving the public interest, must still adhere to the fiduciary duty
of loyalty to the institution and, in so doing, must prioritize the interests of the institution
over any other. It is essential that board members avoid a conflict of loyalty in meeting their
fiduciary responsibilities to act on behalf of the institution(s) they hold in trust.
The most critical implementation of the duty of loyalty comes in a college or
university’s conflict-of-interest policy. Such a policy, when adhering to state law and best
governance practices, requires board members to fully disclose financial interests and
dual organizational relationships (“dualities of interest”) that may affect their decision
making on behalf of the institution. The policy will prohibit board members from
participating in or unduly influencing decisions in which they have a material financial
conflict of interest or an adverse duality of interest (“recusal”) and may require the board
member to eliminate the duality of interest. The 2013 “AGB Board of Directors’ Statement
on Conflict of Interest with Guidelines on Compelling Benefit” offers clarifying guidance
on best practices for boards to consider in managing conflicts of interest within the board.
7

THE DUTY OF OBEDIENCE
A third fiduciary duty, which is
arguably an element of the duties
of care and loyalty, is the duty
of obedience. This is the duty of
board members to ensure that the
college or university is operating in
furtherance of its stated purposes (as
set forth in its governing documents)
and is operating in compliance
with the law. The board should also
periodically re-evaluate its purposes
and mission and must be prepared
to amend or change them when it is
necessary and appropriate to do so
under the law and the institution’s
governing documents. A governing
body of a college or university must
make reasonable efforts to ensure
that the institution is both legally
and ethically compliant with the law
and applicable internal and external
rules (for example, accreditation,
environmental, research, labor, or
athletics requirements) and that
it has instituted effective internal
controls to achieve compliance and
to identify and address problems.
1. Has the board been impeded in
fulfilling its fiduciary responsibilities by
external influences such as government,
corporate, political, social, athletic, or
religious interests? How should the board
respond under these circumstances?
2. Do our appointed public board
members understand and abide by
their fiduciary obligation to objectively
evaluate the matters before them
and to maintain their independent
judgment, notwithstanding any
potential effort by the appointing
authority to influence their decisions?
3. By what process does the board
determine whether proposed
board action is consistent with the
institution’s mission and purposes?
4. How does the board oversee legal
compliance in the institution?
5. What internal controls are applied
to prevent legal violations such
as fraud, theft of intellectual
property, embezzlement, athletics
infractions, use of gifts in violation
of donor intent, and employment
discrimination? Are they effective?
8

Translating Fiduciary Duty into
Effective Board Conduct
In order to ensure that college and university board members are well prepared to
effectively carry out their roles as fiduciaries, good governance tools may be developed
to provide clarity as to expectations and strategies for action. Fiduciary duties will apply
by law even if an institution does nothing more to implement them, but governance is
improved when board members and presidents share a mutual understanding of the
standards that define the fiduciary role, including the balancing of interests necessary to
carry out the institution’s mission and strategic priorities.
CORE PRINCIPLES FOR EFFECTIVE BOARD CONDUCT AS FIDUCIARIES
1. FULFILL THE FIDUCIARY DUTY OF CARE BY:
Acting at all times in good-faith and with the appropriate diligence, care, and skill
required under the circumstances.
Acting in a manner reasonably believed to be in the best interests of the institution.
Actively attending and participating in all board and committee meetings, reading
and evaluating the materials presented, and asking questions about unexplained
results and unfamiliar issues.
Retiring from board service (or declining nominations) if one is no longer able to
satisfy the time, effort, and attendance expectations for the institution’s governing
body members.
Relying, when appropriate, on experts who serve the board by evaluating
complex matters, while questioning their reports when their advice is inconsistent
with expectations.
2. FULFILL THE FIDUCIARY DUTY OF LOYALTY BY:
Faithfully pursuing the interests of the college or university and its charitable or
public purposes rather than one’s own interests or the interests of another person
or organization.
Actively disclosing existing or potential financial conflicts of interest and dual
interests, and recusing oneself from board discussions and votes on transactions or
policy matters, in accordance with the institution’s conflict-of-interest policy.
9

Maintaining complete confidentiality about any matters presented to the governing
board at all times, unless otherwise directed by the board and subject to state
transparency laws applicable to public institutions.
Retaining the governing board’s independence from external and internal
stakeholders in the conduct of its oversight and policy responsibilities.
3. FULFILL THE FIDUCIARY DUTY OF OBEDIENCE BY:
Ensuring that the institution is acting at all times in accordance with its mission
and purposes.
Ensuring that the college or university, in all of its activities, is acting in legal and
ethical compliance with the law and applicable internal and external rules.
Instituting effective internal controls to achieve compliance and to identify
and address problems.
EFFECTIVE GUIDELINES FOR PUTTING THESE PRINCIPLES INTO PRACTICE
Implement a year-round director-recruitment program in which a pool of prospective
candidates is developed and vetted, and in which candidates have an opportunity to
learn more about the institution and are educated as to the needs and expectations of
the institution for their board service, and their prospective fiduciary responsibilities.
Engage in thoughtful and advance planning regarding board development and
composition to avoid conflicts of interest, ensure adequate independence of
board members, and secure an appropriate balance of skills and experience
among board members.
Establish meaningful orientation programs for new board members (and a refresher
for long-serving members) that include: an explanation of fiduciary duties; a
discussion of the institution’s mission, vision, and strategic plan; an explanation of
related board policies, such as conflict of interest and confidentiality; an explanation
of relevant portions of the college or university bylaws that pertain to board members’
conduct; the expectations of board members as to active participation on the board
and in board committees; an explanation of the potential for personal liability for
board members in the event of a breach of fiduciary duty; and the identification of
resources for further study.
10

Develop and implement an up-to-date conflict-of-interest policy that: makes
the disclosure and recusal process clear; identifies standards for materiality and
compelling benefit; explains and addresses financial interests, dualities of interest,
and rules of conduct when the interest is adverse; and includes an effective form
for disclosing material financial and dual interests. The governing board or a board
committee will establish a process for review of disclosures of interest and forwarding
of identified conflicts to the board for appropriate action.
Ensure appropriate communication between the governing board and college or
university legal compliance officers and programs and provide orientation for all
board members regarding their role in such programs, including whistleblower
policies, investigations of allegations, and complaint resolution.
Secure on a timely basis the advice of knowledgeable experts who can increase
the level of understanding and competence of board members on key issues,
which may include compensation of the president, strategic planning, academic
quality, construction of new facilities and development of property, marketing
and communications, advocacy, legal compliance, fundraising and endowment
management, and risk management.
Commission board committees to regularly assess, through self-evaluation and review
of board-member conduct, the effectiveness of the board in adhering to its fiduciary
duties. Such committees may include the executive committee, the governance
committee, and the audit committee.
11

AGB Board Of Directors, 2015–2016
Chair
Yvonne R. Jackson
Simmons College
Spelman College, life trustee
Vice Chair
Clifford M. Kendall
University System of Maryland
Foundation
University of Maryland College
Park Foundation
Wesley Theological Seminary
Juliet V. Garcia
(public member)
Joanne Harrell
University of Washington
Mary K. Hughes
University of Alaska System
Willamette College
Jeffrey L. Humber, Jr.
Gallaudet University
Vice Chair
David Miles
Drake University
Secretary
Charles R. Pruitt
University of Wisconsin System
Elizabeth Ballantine
American University of Paris
Grinnell College, life trustee
Karen Bearden
Kentucky State University
Richard A. Beyer
Olivet College, trustee emeritus
Rita Bornstein, Ph.D.
(public member)
Nelson Carbonell
George Washington University
Helen Aguirre Ferré
Miami Dade College
Angel Mendez
Lafayette College
Joyce M. Roché
Dillard University
Verne O. Sedlacek
(public member)
Charles A. Shorter
City University of New York
James C. Stalder
Carnegie Mellon University
Jeffrey B. Trammell
College of William and Mary,
rector emeritus
William and Mary Annual Fund
William E. Trueheart
Johnson and Wales University
Jacqueline F. Woods
Muskingum University
Our Mission
The Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges strengthens and
protects this country’s unique form of institutional governance through its research,
services, and advocacy. AGB is committed to citizen trusteeship of American higher
education. For more information, visit www.agb.org.
12

1133 20th St. N.W., Suite 300 • Washington, D.C. 20036
www.agb.org

AGB Statement on
Board Responsibility
for the Oversight of
Educational Quality

This statement was approved on March 17, 2011, by the Board of Directors of the Association of Governing Boards
of Universities and Colleges. The following principles are intended to guide boards in the governance of colleges,
universities, and systems, inform them of their roles and responsibilities, and clarify their relationships with presidents,
administration, faculty, and others involved in the governance process.
AGB Board Statements are intended to affirm and clarify specific core principles of board governance. As with all AGB
Board Statements, this Statement on Board Responsibility for the Oversight of Educational Quality is not limited to any
one sector of higher education or type of institution, and it is not intended to be prescriptive. It presents principles and
recommendations for boards and institutional leaders to consider and to adapt to their own unique institutional
circumstances.
Acknowledgments
The Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB) and its board of directors are grateful to
the many people who have added their insights to the development of this statement. We are especially grateful to
AGB Senior Fellow Tom Longin who wrote the initial draft and contributed much to the statement’s direction and
content. AGB also extends its appreciation to those institutional presidents, board leaders, and other academic leaders,
too numerous to name here, who added substantially to the quality of the final statement. In addition, AGB’s Council
of Presidents and Council of Board Chairs offered their support and wisdom at critical points, as did the general AGB
membership, which provided additional comments to strengthen the statement. This statement was supported by
Lumina Foundation for Education as part of AGB’s project, “Governance for Student Success.”
About AGB
For 90 years, the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB) has had one mission:
to strengthen and protect this country’s unique form of institutional governance through its research, services, and
advocacy. Serving more than 1,200 member boards and 36,000 individuals, AGB is the only national organization
providing university and college presidents, board chairs, trustees, and board professionals of both public and private
institutions with resources that enhance their effectiveness.
In accordance with its mission, AGB has designed programs and services to strengthen the partnership between the president
and governing board; provide guidance to regents and trustees; identify issues that affect tomorrow’s decision making;
and foster cooperation among all constituencies in higher education. For more information, visit www.agb.org.
Board Responsibility for the Oversight of Educational Quality
Copyright ©2011
Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges,
1133 20th St. N.W., Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20036.
Printed and bound in the United States of America.
PDF copies of this statement are available online at no charge: www.agb.org.

table of contents
Introduction ............................................................... 1
Principles ................................................................. 3
Recommendations to Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
The Academic Affairs Committee of the Board: An Illustrative Charge . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Resources ................................................................. 9
AGB Board of Directors ..................................................... 10

Introduction
A governing board is the steward of the institution 1 it
serves. As a fundamental part of its stewardship, the board
is responsible for assuring the larger community and
stakeholders to whom it is accountable that the education
offered by the institution is of the highest possible quality.
Yet AGB’s 2010 survey on the engagement of boards in
educational quality revealed that board members often are
not sure how to provide stewardship in this area, and
some even doubt that they should.
In Making the Grade: How Boards Can Ensure Academic
Quality (AGB, 2006), Peter T. Ewell affirms that the
oversight of educational quality “is as much a part of our
role as board members as ensuring that the institution has
sufficient resources and is spending them wisely.” The
educational mission of colleges, universities, and systems
makes this a primary obligation for their boards, and the
significant fiscal investments made by these institutions,
by their students and donors, and by state and federal
governments underscore its importance. Governing
boards should recognize that assuring educational quality
is at the heart of demonstrating institutional success and
that they are accountable for that assurance.
The current environment makes this responsibility
more pressing. Today’s technological, pedagogical, and
economic forces, along with increasing public skepticism
about the value and cost of education, make board
accountability for quality crucial. And with only 38
percent of America’s adult population now holding a
degree from a college or university, it is clear that much
more needs to be done if we are to ensure the country’s
economic and civic future.
Our efforts to confront that contemporary reality
for higher education are complicated by a number of
formidable challenges, including:
• A significantly older and more ethnically and
racially diverse student body;
• Increasing numbers of contingent faculty members;
• Revenues that have not kept pace with
institutional need;
• Dramatic escalation in demand for admission
while certain fixed costs are skyrocketing, straining
institutional capacity;
• Competition for students, faculty members,
and resources that diverts available funding away from
educational quality and toward less critical functions;
• Tension between issues of workforce preparation
and intellectual development;
• Large numbers of students needing remedial
courses; and
• Declining confidence that higher education is
capable of meeting its commitment to students and
its obligation to serve the public good.
Some of these challenges directly affect educational
quality; others intensify the need for institutions to
demonstrate quality. If we are to effectively broaden
opportunity and increase success among our students,
then we will need to address these challenges head-on
and with some urgency.
Board Accountability
AGB’s “Statement on Board Accountability” asserts,
“[A governing] board broadly defines the educational
mission of the institution, determines generally the types
of academic programs the institution shall offer to students,
and is ultimately accountable for the quality of the
learning experience.” While academic administrators and
faculty members are responsible for setting learning goals,
developing and offering academic courses and programs,
and assessing the quality of those courses and programs,
boards cannot delegate away their governance responsibilities
for educational quality. The board’s responsibility
in this area is to recognize and support faculty’s leadership
in continuously improving academic programs and
outcomes, while also holding them—through institutional
administrators—accountable for educational quality.
1
Throughout this document, references to institutions are intended to include
colleges, universities, and systems.
1 | Board Responsibility for the Oversight of Educational Quality

In fulfilling this responsibility, the board should work
within the governance structure of the institution.
For some boards, significant change may be required
in how they interact with academic administrators and
faculty members on matters of educational quality.
AGB’s “Statement on Institutional Governance” stresses
that “Governance documents should state who has the
authority for specific decisions—that is, to which persons
or bodies authority has been delegated and whether that
which has been delegated is subject to board review.”
Governing boards should make a conscious effort to
minimize ambiguous or overlapping areas in which
more than one governance participant has authority,
particularly in the area of educational quality, where
faculty members, administrators, and the board all
have important responsibilities.
This “Statement on Board Responsibility for the
Oversight of Educational Quality,” approved by the Board
of Directors of the Association of Governing Boards
(AGB) in March 2011, urges institutional administrators
and governing boards to engage fully in this area of board
responsibility. The following seven principles offer
suggestions to promote and guide that engagement.
2 | agb statement

Principles
1. The governing board should commit
To developing its capacity for ensuring
educational quality.
According to AGB’s survey on boards and educational
quality, a little more than one-third of board members
receive information related to oversight of educational
quality during their board-orientation program.
Additionally, while most have experience on boards of
either corporate or nonprofit organizations, they are
less familiar with academic trusteeship. To fulfill this
specific area of oversight responsibility, a board should
commit to a strategy for educating itself.
Board leadership and senior administrators should
intentionally incorporate discussions of educational
quality in new-trustee orientation programs, board
education programs, and the annual agendas of the
board and its various committees. Structured discussions
with faculty members, key administrators, and
outside experts on learning goals, as well as reviews
of the institution’s current student-learning assessment
practices, student retention and graduation rates, and
information about program and institutional accreditation,
can help develop the board’s understanding of
these issues.
Both the board and its appropriate committees
(for instance, the Academic Affairs or Education
Committee and the Committee on Student Affairs)
must make understanding the elements of educational
quality a central feature of their agendas. Adding
regular reports on student-learning outcomes to those
that the board already receives on finances and endowments
will round out the board’s understanding of its
essential oversight responsibilities.
2. The board should ensure that policies
and practices are in place and effectively
implemented to promote educational
quality.
The board is ultimately responsible for the currency
of policies and their implementation, including policies
related to teaching and learning. With the president
and chief academic officer, the board, either through
an appropriate committee or as a body, should ensure
that institutional practices for defining and assessing
educational quality are current, well communicated,
and used for continuous improvement of students’
educational experience. The board should receive
reports—annually, if not more often—on the appropriateness
of these practices, their results, and any changes
needed.
Because faculty members are responsible for the
important work of setting standards for educational
quality, creating and implementing processes for
assessment, and responding to the findings, the board
should encourage a focus on these responsibilities in
new faculty orientation and through faculty development
programs. Additionally, the board should ensure
that faculty work on learning assessment is recognized
and rewarded.
3. The board should charge the president
and chief academic officer with ensuring
That student learning is assessed, data
about outcomes are gathered, results are
shared with the board and all involved
constituents, and deficiencies and
improvements are tracked.
Practices in assessing student learning differ from
institution to institution based on mission and experience.
A board needs to understand how assessment is
done at its institution, what the educational goals are,
whether the goals align with the institutional mission,
and how well the institution performs against those
goals. And the board should understand the challenges
associated with measuring learning, especially those
dimensions of education that are less easily quantified.
3 | Board Responsibility for the Oversight of Educational Quality

With leadership from chief academic officers, board
committees—where they exist—should delve more
deeply into student-learning assessment practices and
findings. Involving faculty leaders in these discussions
is critical in conveying the board’s support for the
endeavor and its commitment to quality.
A board committee, such as the Academic Affairs or
Education Committee, should provide the board with
policy-level, strategic summaries of the assessment
information it receives. It should report regularly to
the full board on the learning-assessment data collected,
the significance of the data, institutional responses
to those findings, and improvements over time.
4. The board is responsible for approving
and monitoring the financial resources
committed to support a high-quality
educational experience.
Ordinarily, the delivery of educational programs is the
largest institutional expense. Also, because an institution’s
finances are directly tied to enrollment, retention,
endowment, and external support of its programs,
boards should monitor regularly the connections
between academic programs and financial sustainability.
The board should advocate for sufficient resources
in support of educational priorities. It also should monitor
the cost effectiveness of financial commitments to
these priorities and be certain that the investments are
consistent with institutional mission, plans, and overall
financial trends. Boards of public institutions, which
may lack the authority to determine overall institutional
funding levels, should help make the case for
sufficient state support of educational quality.
Although improved educational quality is not necessarily
the result of increased spending, the board
should consider the allocation of new funding or the
reallocation of existing funding to address academic
needs identified through learning assessment, program
review, or reaccreditation. Additionally, the board
should encourage and be prepared to invest in
academic innovation, including the development of
new delivery models, to advance the institution’s
educational mission. Institution-wide efforts to contain
expenses can help to facilitate investment in academicprogram
priorities. On occasions when a board is
required to make decisions about academic programs
based on financial circumstances, it is best done with
candor and consultation with stakeholders.
To be fully accountable, the board needs information
about the institution’s educational outcomes to assure
the public, students, parents, donors, and other funders
of the return on their investment of tuition dollars, philanthropy,
and state and federal aid. The board should
ensure transparency in reporting this information to
stakeholders.
5. The board should develop an
understanding of the institution’s
academic programs—undergraduate,
graduate, and professional programs.
An institution fulfills its mission primarily through
its academic offerings—its general education program,
academic majors, and degree programs. To ensure
that the mission is being met, board members need
to understand the broad structure of these offerings.
Orientation for new board members should include an
overview of undergraduate, graduate, and professional
degree programs. Boards should be aware of how the
mix of programs reflects the institution’s history, is
suited to its mission and student profile, and compares
to those of peers and competitors. The board should
also be aware of the learning goals the institution has
established for students.
Also, because an institution’s finances are directly
tied to enrollment, endowment, and external support
of its programs, boards should monitor regularly the
connections between academic programs and financial
sustainability.
4 | agb statement

6. The board should ensure that the
institution’s programs and resources
are focused on the total educational
experience, not just traditional
classroom activity.
With few exceptions, a student’s education involves
more than classroom experience and the formal
curriculum. It also includes a range of learning experiences
and academic-support activities outside class
that have proved to have significant effect on student
development, education, retention, and graduation. An
understanding of an institution’s educational quality
includes an appreciation for the value added by such
experiences beyond the classroom.
The board should develop a holistic understanding
of the opportunities and services that the institution
provides to complete students’ educational experience.
Some of these—for instance, internships, learning
communities, student-faculty research opportunities,
and service learning—can be among the most distinguishing
features of an institution. Boards should be
informed about the quality of these experiences and
other support activities, and their effect on students’
learning as well as on recruitment and retention.
7. The board should develop a working
knowledge of accreditation—what it is,
what process it employs, and what role
The board plays in that process.
Accreditation—the periodic, peer-based system
of review of higher-education institutions and
programs—is designed to assure the public of an
institution’s commitment to academic quality and
fiscal integrity. It also serves to stimulate continuous
improvement by the institution.
As part of its attention to educational quality, the
board should become familiar with how accreditation
works at the institution. The board’s own ongoing
educational program should include an overview of
the accreditation process, the various types of accreditation
that the institution holds, and the key findings
from accreditation processes. The board should also
be clear about its role in the institutional accreditation
process. Most regional accreditors require contact with
members of the board, and some include standards for
the effectiveness of board governance.
The board should require from senior administrators
a timely preview of forthcoming re-accreditation
processes and periodic progress reports on the required
self-studies. It should review key elements of the
accreditation self-study, the visiting team’s report, and
formal action and decision letters from the accrediting
organization, and it should consider their implications
for the institution’s strategic goals, mission, and
resources.
5 | Board Responsibility for the Oversight of Educational Quality

Recommendations to Stakeholders
For Institutional and System Chief Executives
• Work with board leadership to ensure that educational
quality and student-learning assessment are part of the
agendas of the board and its appropriate committees,
and that sufficient time is provided for discussion.
• Be sure that orientation programs for new board
members include a conversation about educational
goals and student-learning trends and challenges.
• Encourage the chief academic officer to foster full
board engagement in discussions of matters related
to educational quality; assist him or her in understanding
board governance responsibilities.
• Working with the chief academic officer, establish
goals related to educational quality and learning
outcomes to serve as benchmarks for the institution
and for the chief executive officer’s performance.
• Include the board in the accreditation process in
appropriate ways; be certain that the board remains
informed as to current accreditations held by the
institution as well as the status of anticipated
accreditation reviews.
• Remain transparent with the board as to risks
and opportunities facing the institution related to
educational quality and outcomes, including the link
between fiscal and educational decisions.
• Provide regular opportunities for discussion with the
board on how the campus defines educational quality.
For Board Members
• Become informed about the board’s responsibility
for overseeing educational quality.
• Expect to receive strategic-level information and
evidence on student-learning outcomes at least
annually, including longitudinal data from the
institution and, where appropriate, periodic
comparisons with peer institutions.
• Hold institutional administrators appropriately
responsible for goals that were mutually established
for educational quality.
• Use information from the accreditation processes,
program reviews, and the assessment of student
learning to inform decision making, including
financial decisions.
• As appropriate in board and committee meetings,
ask strategic questions related to educational
quality—goals, processes, outcomes, improvements,
trends, and any adjustments needed to improve results.
• Recognize that faculty members and academic
administrators shape the approaches to assess the
outcomes of student learning, and that boards should
not micromanage this work, but that the board is
ultimately responsible for ensuring that assessment
takes place and that results lead to action for
improvement.
• Make service on your board’s Academic Affairs
Committee part of a regular committee rotation for
board members.
• Include the chair of the Academic Affairs Committee
as a member of the board’s Executive Committee.
• Where possible, consider including one or more
academic experts, such as former presidents,
administrators, or faculty members from other
institutions as ex officio members of the committee
charged with oversight of educational quality.
• Schedule opportunities for the Academic Affairs
Committee and the full board to discuss educational
quality and learning outcomes.
6 | agb statement

For Chief Academic Officers
• Contribute to the orientation and continuing education
of board members regarding academic programs,
student-learning goals, assessment practices, and
educational quality.
• Working with the board or relevant committee, create
a board-level set of dashboard indicators related to
educational quality. Update it regularly and present it
to the board for discussion annually.
• Work collaboratively with the chair of the Academic
Affairs Committee to set a committee agenda that
emphasizes institution-specific academic questions and
concerns, as well as a review of important academic
policies and procedures.
• Ensure that academically related information for
the board is clear, concise, free of jargon, and at a
strategic level.
• As appropriate, include representatives from the
faculty and academic administration in board and
committee discussions of the institution’s educational
goals, approaches for measuring student learning,
and progress against goals over time.
Questions For Boards to Ask
• How does this institution define educational quality? In addition to measures of student learning,
what is considered in answering questions about educational quality?
• Does the institution say what and how much students should learn? Where is this said?
• What kinds of evidence does the institution collect about learning?
• Is the institution benchmarking performance against external standards as well as tracking institutional
performance over time?
• How are assessment results used?
• What do students and alumni say about the quality of their educational experience?
• How do the institution’s retention and graduation rates look over time, and how do they compare to
those of other institutions?
• What does success look like for the types of students enrolled at this institution?
• Does the institution define college readiness, that is, the skills and knowledge that students must possess
to be successful at the institution?
• How do faculty members and administrators keep abreast of innovative ideas for curriculum redesign and teaching?
• What progress has been made in addressing recommendations from the last accreditation review?
• What can the institution learn from its engagement with accreditation?
• Do financial allocations reinforce academic priorities as necessary and appropriate?
• In meeting its oversight responsibility for educational quality, is the board functioning at the policy level
or trying to micromanage specific educational programs?
7 | Board Responsibility for the Oversight of Educational Quality

The Academic Affairs Committee of the Board:
An Illustrative Charge
Boards with standing committees should have a committee charged with oversight of educational quality. Such committees
have traditionally been called the Academic Affairs Committee, but they go by other names as well, such as the
Education Committee, the Educational Excellence Committee, and a range of others. They may or may not be combined
with student life or student development committees.
Each board committee needs a charge that clearly identifies the scope of its responsibilities. For the purpose of simplicity,
this illustrative charge is for an Academic Affairs Committee.
Illustrative Charge
The Academic Affairs Committee facilitates the
governing board’s ultimate responsibility for educational
quality. It does this by working closely with academic
leadership and by regularly monitoring the following:
• learning goals and outcomes;
• program quality, institutional and program
accreditation, and program review;
• student retention, graduation rates, graduate school
acceptances, and job placements;
• policies and procedures related to faculty
compensation, appointment, tenure, and promotion—
and when appropriate, the committee makes
recommendations for action;
• academic planning;
• the structure of the academic programs—and when
appropriate, the committee reviews proposals for
adding, modifying and deleting programs; and
• budgets for academic programs and services.
The committee should report regularly to the board and
frame recommendations on matters of policy, quality, and
funding that require the board’s consideration and action.
The committee must receive appropriate and timely
information and data to meet its responsibilities. Working
at the nexus between board oversight and academic prerogative,
the committee should recognize and respect the
central role of the academic administration and faculty
in academic planning, curriculum development, faculty
development, the evaluation and academic advising of
students, and recommendations for faculty appointment,
tenure and promotion. However, the committee must
also be mindful that, in its oversight role, the board is
ultimately accountable for ensuring educational quality.
8 | agb statement

esources
Allen, Jo. “Ask the Right Questions About Student
Assessment.” Trusteeship, May-June 2007.
Association of Governing Boards of Universities
and Colleges. “Statement on Board Responsibility for
Institutional Governance.” Washington, D.C.: Association
of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, 2010.
Association of Governing Boards of Universities and
Colleges. Faculty, Governing Boards, and Institutional
Governance. Washington, D.C.: Association of Governing
Boards of Universities and Colleges, 2009.
Bacow, Lawrence S. “How Competition Whipsaws
Our Colleges and Universities.” Trusteeship, January-
February 2008.
Baldwin, Roger G. “Tresspassers in the Groves of
Academe?” Trusteeship, January-February 2005.
Bok, Derek C. “The Seizing Initiative For Quality
Education.” Trusteeship, March-April 2006.
Erwin, Dary. “The ABCs of Assessment.” Trusteeship,
March-April 2003.
Ewell, Peter. “Do We Make the Grade?” Trusteeship,
November-December 2006.
Ewell, Peter T. Making the Grade: How Boards Can
Ensure Academic Quality. Washington, D.C.: Association
of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, 2006.
Ingram Center for Public Trusteeship and Governance
of the Association of Governing Boards of Universities
and Colleges and the Texas Higher Education
Coordinating Board. Closing the Gaps by 2015:Texas
Strategies for Improving Student Participation and Success.
Washington, D.C.: Association of Governing Boards of
Universities and Colleges, 2008.
Johnston, Susan Whealler and Kyle Long. How
Boards Oversee Educational Quality: A Report on a
Survey on Boards and the Assessment of Student Learning.
Washington, D.C.: Association of Governing Boards of
Universities and Colleges, 2010.
Kazin, Cathrael and David G. Payne. “Ensuring
Educational Quality Means Assessing Learning.”
Trusteeship, March-April 2009.
Klein, Stephen and Steve Uhlfelder. “Should College
Students Be Tested to Hold Institutions Accountable for
Student Learning?” Trusteeship, May-June 2006.
Loughry, Andrea. “So Many Rankings, So Few
Measures of Student Learning.” Trusteeship, January-
February 2008.
Massy, William F., Steven W. Graham, and Paula
Myrick Short. “Getting a Handle on Academic Quality.”
Trusteeship, September-October 2007.
Morrill, Richard L. Strategic Leadership in Academic
Affairs: Clarifying the Board’s Responsibilities. Washington,
D.C.: Association of Governing Boards of Universities
and Colleges, 2002.
Morrill, Richard L. The Board’s Responsibilities for
Academic Affairs. Board Basics. Washington, D.C.:
Association of Governing Boards of Universities and
Colleges, 2003.
Morrill, Richard L. “The Overlapping
Worlds of Academic Governance.” Trusteeship,
January-February 2003.
These resources can be found at:
http://agb.org/resources-boards-and-educational-quality.
9 | Board Responsibility for the Oversight of Educational Quality

agb Board of Directors *
Chair
James M. Weaver
Vice Chair
Honorable Jim Geringer
Secretary
Yvonne R. Jackson
Treasurer
Honorable Jack B. Jewett
Honorable Cynthia A. Baldwin
Duquesne University, trustee emerita
Elizabeth Ballantine
American University of Paris
Grinnell College, life trustee
Richard Beyer
American University
Rita Bornstein
(public member)
Helen Aguirre Ferré
Miami Dade College
Honorable Jim Geringer
Western Governors University
Marilyn French Hubbard
Central Michigan University
Yvonne R. Jackson
Spelman College
Honorable Jack B. Jewett
University of Arizona Foundation
Clifford M. Kendall
University System of Maryland
W. Austin Ligon
University of Virginia
Andrea Loughry
University of Tennessee System
Charles H. McTier
Emory University
James J. Mitchell, III
Roosevelt University
Constance L. Proctor
University of Washington
David H. Roberts
Thunderbird School of Global Management
Occidental College
Joyce Roché
Dillard University
Verne O. Sedlacek
(public member)
Charles Shorter
City University of New York
James C. Stalder
Carnegie Mellon University
James M. Weaver
Gettysburg College
Former board chair and trustee
Jacqueline F. Woods
Kent State University
Muskingum College
*
As of March 17, 2011
10 | agb statement

1133 20th Street NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20036
t 202.296.8400 f 202.223.7053 www.agb.org

Form 990 Disclosure Questionnaire / Van Andel Institute Graduate School
Tax Year: 2021
Fiscal Year: 2022
Page 1
Form 990 Disclosure Questionnaire by Persons of Interest
For Board Members, Officers, Key Employees, and Highest Compensated Employees
Instructions: Please respond to all questions to the best of your ability. For any reportable transaction, report
only in one section. Click within text boxes to enter your responses.
Once completed, please sign, date, and return an executed copy of this questionnaire to Yah-Sheba Jenkins,
Accountant I (YahSheba.Jenkins@vai.org) by March 31 st , 2023.
Name of Exempt Organization:
Van Andel Institute Graduate School (“VAIGS”)
Tax year Ended November 30, 2022
Name of person completing this questionnaire (print/type):
Please insert an “x” in the appropriate box:
Role Current Former Portion to complete
Trustee / Director
Please complete the entire disclosure
Officer
Please complete the entire disclosure
I HEREBY CONFIRM that I have read and understand the definitions and instructions included in this questionnaire and
that my responses to the above questions are complete and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I agree that if
I become aware of any information that might indicate that this disclosure is inaccurate, I will contact the person listed on
the instructions accompanying this letter, immediately.
Signature: ________________________________________
Date: ____________________________
Phone: Daytime: Evening: E-mail: E-mail:

Form 990 Disclosure Questionnaire / Van Andel Institute Graduate School
Tax Year: 2021
Fiscal Year: 2022
Page 2
Part I: Excess Benefit Transactions
1. Are you (or a family member or a controlled entity) a disqualified person?
• This includes voting members of the governing body, and persons holding the power of presidents, chief
executive officers, chief operating officers, treasurers and chief financial officers.
• See Appendix A for a summary of facts and circumstances provided by the IRS that assist in determining whether
a person is a disqualified person (in a position to exercise substantial influence over an exempt organization).
No:
Yes:
2. If yes, have you (or a party related to you as noted above) been directly/indirectly benefited by VAIGS from an excess
benefit transaction?
No:
Yes:
If Yes, please describe:
Part II: Business Transactions Involving Interested Persons (All Trustees/ Directors/ Officers are
“Interested Persons”)
Reporting thresholds for business transactions with VAIGS:
• All payments (direct and indirect) during the tax year between the interested person and VAIGS exceeded
$100,000.
• Compensation payments made by VAIGS or a related party (see Exhibit A) to you or a family member exceeds
$10,000.
NOTE: This disclosure is quite complex. Please read the IRS provided definition and examples in Appendix B.
1. Aside from payments for services as Trustee / Director/ Officer, did you or a family member receive (direct or indirect)
any payments for a business transaction with VAIGS, including compensation for services?
• Compensation directly from VAIGS to you in your capacity as an officer, director, trustee, or key employee
will be obtained from our payroll records and are not to be reported by you here.
No:
Yes:
If yes, please describe who, what and how much:

Form 990 Disclosure Questionnaire / Van Andel Institute Graduate School
Tax Year: 2021
Fiscal Year: 2022
Page 3
PART III: Relationships
1. Did you have a family relationship with any other officer, director, trustee, or key employee at any time during the
tax year of VAIGS? (See Exhibit A)
No:
Yes:
If yes, indicate with whom and nature of relationship:
2. Did you have a business relationship 1 (direct or indirect) with any other officer, trustee, or key employee (see
Exhibit A) at any time during the tax year of VAIGS?
No:
Yes:
If yes, indicate with whom and nature of relationship:
3. Do you have any obligations that conflict or could be perceived to conflict with your obligations as a Director of
VAIGS?
4. Do you have any business or financial interests that could be perceived to conflict with interests of VAIGS?
5. Is there any other disclosure you desire to make to VAIGS?
1
Please note that the definition of a business relationship is different than for purposes of business transactions. Do
not report any relationships eligible for the privileged relationship exception (attorney and client; medical professional
and patient; or priest / clergy and penitent / communicant).

2023 Board Meeting Dates
Monday, March 20
Monday, August 21
2024 Board Meeting Dates
Monday, March 25
Monday, August 19
2025 Board Meeting Dates
Monday, March 24
Monday, August 25

August 15 – 26: Orientation
22: Convocation
29: Classes begin
Academic Calendar
2022-2023
Approved by Graduate Program Committee 2020-09-15
Fall Semester: August 29 – December 16, 2022 (16 weeks)
Strategic Approaches to Biomedical Research Modules (SABR)
SABR Module 1 August 29 – September 23
Laboratory Rotation 1 September 26 – October 21
SABR Module 2 October 24 – November 18
SABR Module 3 November 21 – December 16
[First-year student Winter Break: Dec. 17 – Jan. 8 (three weeks)]
Winter Semester: January 9 – May 5, 2023 (17 weeks, including exams)
Laboratory Rotation 2 January 9 – February 3
SABR Module 4 February 6 – March 3
Laboratory Rotation 3 March 6 – March 31
SABR Module 5 April 3 – April 28
Exams May 3 – 5
[First-year student Spring Break: May 6 – May 14 (one week)]
Summer Semester: May 15 – August 18, 2023 (14 weeks)
Final week of semester overlaps with first week of orientation
Thesis Lab Integration Week: May 15-19
VAI Scientific Retreat: TBD
[Summer Break: Aug. 19 – Aug. 27 (one week)]
Revised 2022-08-01 (st)

Van Andel Institute Graduate School
Strategic Plan for 2019-2025
Adopted by the VAIGS Board of Directors
September 23, 2019
The mission of Van Andel Institute Graduate School is to develop biomedical research leaders.
Although the phrasing has been slightly modified since the last iteration of the strategic plan
in 2015, the fundamental goal remains the same: preparing the scientists who will lead biomedical
research for years and decades to come. The primary focus of this mission is on the students who
come to VAIGS for doctoral education, training, and experience. The mission statement also fittingly
applies to our faculty, in that VAIGS can enhance their capabilities as biomedical research leaders.
Vision: VAIGS operates a PhD program in molecular and cell biology, with an emphasis on human
disease to benefit human health and well-being. In 2025, VAIGS will be nationally known and
respected as an innovative and effective leader in biomedical doctoral education. By 2025, VAIGS
will increase its impact within the institute and within the biomedical research community by
expanding the number of students and alumni.
VAIGS operates within the context of Van Andel Research Institute (VARI), which has profound
implications for the scope and focus of the graduate school. The faculty of the school are also the
research leaders of VARI, hired to lead innovative and productive research laboratories. Thus, the
principal focus of their time and energy is conceiving and directing those research programs,
including securing the necessary grant support and publishing the outcomes in journals. The
participation of faculty in the work of VAIGS is an inherent component of their appointment in VARI;
the particular ways in which they participate reflect the faculty member’s interests and capabilities.
VAIGS grants degrees in molecular and cell biology, which obliges the school to ensure that
our graduates have knowledge and skill broad enough and deep enough to warrant that designation.
PhD degrees are awarded based on evidence that the student has the stature of a professional in this
discipline, evidence captured in the dissertation that summarizes their work addressing some
interesting and unsolved problem in the field. The PhD program, including the dissertation, show that
each graduate can think, write, speak, and act like a research leader in this field.
With that in mind, the scientific scope of the students’ dissertation research is inherently
bounded by the research interests and programs of the VARI faculty, which can be considered in
three dimensions. The first dimension represents the diseases that give rise to the important
questions of our research, including cancer, neurodegenerative disease, and metabolic disorders.
The second dimension comprises the scientific approaches applied to those questions (e.g.,
epigenetics, structural biology, mouse models, and bioinformatics). The third dimension reflects the
balance of basic science and translational research as defined by VARI in pursuit of its mission to
improve human health and well-being. The VAIGS curriculum and training scope has been and will be
aligned with the scientific vision set by the VARI Chief Scientific Officer.

This strategic plan lays the framework for fulfilling this vision with an operational target of
2025 which will represent the 20th anniversary of the founding of the school. This strategic plan is
ambitious in its goals and thoughtful in its approaches to achieve those goals. The VAIGS strategic
plan is inherently integrated with that of VARI, the context in which the graduate school operates.
The associated and collaborative effort of faculty and institutional leadership will be essential to
committing to these goals and to devoting the resources of time, money, and space to achieve them.
In addition to articulating the mission and vision of the organization, this strategic plan lays
out specific goals to direct our efforts and hold us accountable so that progress towards fulfilling that
vision can be monitored. The goals and pathways defined herein will certainly be modified along the
way as some steps are accomplished and as new circumstances come into play. The strategic plan will
be dynamic in adapting to new information and new ideas as those arise. The Board and the faculty
will share responsibility for frequently revisiting this plan to assess progress towards that vision and
to make appropriate and nimble adjustments to new needs and
opportunities.
Values:
VAI has established six core values that, when working at our
best, describe and direct our efforts towards accomplishing our
mission. These values were presented to the VAI community in March
2019 along with short statements elaborating on what each value
means and how it applies across the institute.
As elaborated below, these core values apply in specific and
focused ways to VAIGS faculty, students and staff. These values foster
a culture of learning and discovery that is essential for fulfilling our mission with excellence.
1. Be curious. We thrive in the pursuit of discovery. We strive to equip emerging scientists
with the knowledge, skills, and motivation to identify new questions and to find new
answers. We continually explore new and better ways to develop biomedical leaders.
2. Take risks. We do things that other graduate schools don’t, in ways that they can’t. We
guide students to practice taking risks and to learn from the results. We create and test
new ways to better develop young scientists.
3. Collaborate. We foster collaboration among students so that all learn better. We foster
collaboration among faculty to help each other teach and mentor. We work with local and
peer institutions to enhance the overall intellectual communities of which we are part. We
learn from what others do well and share with them what we do well.
4. Respect everyone. VAIGS students are regarded as colleagues and as the future stewards
of our scientific disciplines. We foster the balanced well-being of faculty, students, and
staff. We provide opportunities for students from a wide range of backgrounds.
5. Work with urgency. Our work matters, in the laboratory and in the classroom. We help
our students and faculty achieve their goals of student success in an efficient, effective,
and timely manner.
6. Do the right thing. The school holds the students’ best interest as its primary focus. We
exceed expectations for best practices and for standards of performance. We look
carefully at our work and its outcomes and we seek ways to do things better.
VAIGS Strategic Plan 2025 Page 2

Context of this Strategic Plan: Trends Affecting Biomedical Higher Education:
This strategic plan was developed in the context of internal and external parameters that
inherently or subtly influence the vision for biomedical education and for VAIGS specifically.
Several notable publications have reflected on the state of graduate education in the US
generally and in biomedical research education specifically, with recommendations that are worth
considering in our planning. The Formation of Scholars was published in 2008 (just after VAIGS
welcomed its first students) as the product of a five-year study of US doctoral education, conducted
by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Many of the principles developed in
that study echo the philosophy underpinning the creation of VAIGS, including recognition that a
primary function of graduate school is the development of the student to be a “steward of the
discipline”. The “formation” of such scholars brings expectations of scholarly integration, of
participation in an intellectual community, and on the responsible use of the resources for the benefit
of future generations and not simply for the benefit of the individual or current setting. The VAIGS
program and culture also reflects a number of practical or operational aspects recommended by this
study, including a continuous assessment and devotion to improvement.
Last year, as our strategic planning process was taking shape, the National Academies Press
published an insightful whitepaper on the state of biomedical graduate education (Leshner and
Scherer, Graduate STEM Education for the 21 st Century, 2018). While recognizing that the US system
may be the “gold standard” for graduate STEM education, serious questions arise regarding how well
this system meets the needs of students and society in current times. The report calls strongly for a
shift to give primary emphasis in doctoral education on student-centered need rather than on
institutional or research enterprises. Specific recommendations include greater transparency to the
public regarding student outcomes; greater institutional support and relevant reward mechanisms for
effective teachers and mentors; regular review and revision of curricula and degree requirements;
stronger support for student well-being including mental health; definition of core competencies for
PhD education; and better preparation for a wider range of career opportunities for graduates.
VAIGS students and faculty also reflected on external factors and internal factors in setting the
context for this plan. External factors included political, economic, social, and technological trends or
forces that impinge on graduate education, the biomedical research enterprise, and the VAI mission
and setting. Political trends include globalization of science, both in collaboration and in competition;
an increasingly anti-science culture that places less inherent trust on research activities and results;
and greater expectations for accountability for the process and consequences of scientific discoveries
and technological advances. Economic trends include strong current economic growth balanced by
fears of impending recession and significant increases in federal deficit and debt; and a solid base of
support for continued growth in NIH and NSF research budgets. Social factors include a diminishing
pool of college-age students; strong employment statistics but relatively few academic positions for
STEM graduates; the impact of social media on interpersonal communication; and the rise of openaccess
movements for scientific publications. Technological trends include the rise of big-data
science in multiple fields (genomics, structural biology) and the use of online learning platforms.
VAIGS Board members, faculty, and students reflected on internal factors using a SOAR
analysis (Strengths, Opportunities, Aspirations, Resources) with a particular emphasis on aspirations:
what do we want VAIGS to achieve? Not surprisingly given the diversity of the participants, a wide
VAIGS Strategic Plan 2025 Page 3

ange of views were expressed, ranging from philosophical to tactical. Themes emerging from faculty
and Board discussion include catalytic collaboration in both research and teaching; developing in
students a way of thinking as much as a collection of facts or technical skills; broadening the scope of
concepts to reflect the research directions of VARI; providing training plans that fit the needs of
individual students; and building in students professional skills that will apply to many future career
positions. Students emphasized the value of translational research opportunities and of connections
to clinical problems, and effective preparation for a wide range of future career paths and positions.
These factors, forces, trends, and characteristics have all shaped the development of the
strategic plan whose major themes are mapped out below.
Major Themes of the VAIGS Vision for 2025:
The vision we have in mind for VAIGS over the next six years (2019-2025) will be accomplished
through the following ten major threads or themes. These themes identify the goals that we hope to
accomplish during this period and the timelines by which we hope to achieve those goals, and less
often prescribe the manner in which those goals will be attained. Although these themes are
articulated separately, they have many intersecting and connected components that should be
considered as specific operational plans are developed and implemented.
The ten themes include:
Growth
Degrees and Programs
Scientific and curricular scope and structure
Finances
Faculty recruitment, effort, and development
Student support programming
Student outcomes
Assessment and accreditation
Undergrad and internship programs
Governance, Staff, and Space
I. Growth: VAIGS will grow to a student body of approximately 80 students.
A. The VARI strategic plan “VARI 3.0” anticipates the growth of the institute to a steadystate
number of about 40 faculty who direct research laboratories. At this writing
(September 2019), the VARI faculty number is 35, with several open positions still in
the search stage. These faculty hold the major responsibility for the design,
implementation, and assessment of the graduate school (teaching, mentoring, and
faculty governance).
Given the dynamic nature of this field, we anticipate ongoing transitions as
some of our faculty find new opportunities elsewhere. For purposes of this plan, we
project an annual change of 5% of the faculty (i.e., two positions) each year.
In addition to the research faculty, VAIGS utilizes the skills and experience of
other members of the VAI community who contribute to the teaching, mentoring, and
management of the VAIGS program. These persons are elected to faculty status as
allowed by the VAIGS Faculty Bylaws. Six persons presently hold such positions; others
may be invited to participate based on the capabilities and interests of those staff
members match the opportunities within VAIGS.
VAIGS Strategic Plan 2025 Page 4

Moreover, from time to time persons from outside the VAI community may
provide important contributions (typically as course directors or key instructors).
These persons are appointed as adjunct faculty as per the Faculty Bylaws. We do not
anticipate a substantial increase in the use of adjunct faculty for core VAIGS functions.
B. In 2018, a faculty initiative resulted in a commitment to significantly expand the
number of graduate students relative to the number of faculty. Since 2006, our
objective had been to match the number of students and number of faculty. Our new
and ambitious vision is to double the student:faculty ratio, for an enrollment goal of
approximately 80 students by 2025. Given that we strive to enable students to
complete the PhD degree within five years, this target forecasts an annual recruitment
of 16-20 students per year (assuming some attrition). Thus, the cohorts will grow from
an average of six new students per year to three times that number.
To meet this goal, we will gradually increase the enrollment targets each year,
beginning with a cohort goal of 12 students for Fall 2019 and progressing to 16-20
students by Fall 2021. Each fall, the faculty will be polled to identify the number of
student positions that they might be interested and able to support, given their space,
money, and time resources. The enrollment target will be set as half of the number of
potential positions identified, to ensure that the incoming students have an adequate
selection of thesis mentors and laboratories to choose from. This plan is likely to be
affected by at least two factors: the willingness of faculty to support students on their
own research funds (see Theme IV: Finance) and the degree of interest that
prospective students will have in the laboratories that seek to host new students in
any given year.
The following table presents a simple projection of the growth of the student
body over the next six years. This projection presumes that the new funding model for
laboratories hosting more than one graduate student (see Theme IV) does not
diminish our enrollment targets. The number of graduating students through 2023 is
based on current enrollments and what we know about their likely time to degrees;
thereafter, this model presumes an average of five years to degree completion.
Year
Prior Year
Enrollment
Graduating
Students (by Sept 1) Attrition
New cohort
(on Sept 1)
Total
Enrollment
2019 28 3 1 10 34
2020 34 6 1 14 41
2021 41 5 2 18 52
2022 52 8 2 18 60
2023 60 7 2 18 69
2024 69 9 2 18 76
2025 76 12 2 18 80
C. The significant growth in the number of students (tripling the size of incoming cohorts)
will require significant expansion of the recruiting and admissions efforts. The
enrollment strategy must encompass the populations from which prospective
VAIGS Strategic Plan 2025 Page 5

applicants will be drawn; the approaches used to reach and attract applicants from
each of those populations; and the materials and expertise to carry out those
approaches.
1. The key target populations from which VAIGS draws applicants can be
considered in several dimensions. For some of these, we can set specific goals
for the composition of our applicants and of our student body.
a. Geographic considerations: applicants and enrollees may come from
local, national, or international institutions. To broaden the impact of
the school, our GOAL for 2025 will be to enroll 20-30% of our students
from local institutions, 30-50% from US national institutions, and 30-
50% from international institutions. Particular focus might be placed on
Canada, given the geographic proximity and the professional networks
available through faculty members with Canadian backgrounds.
b. Our students come from a range of prior educational and work
experiences; some directly from undergraduate education, some with
master’s degrees, and some from the research workforce. We will
continue to seek students from each of these sectors without setting
specific goals. Given the institute’s translational mission to improve
human health and well-being, we have established collaborative
programs for developing physician-scientists. Our GOAL for 2025 is that
10% of the student body will be engaged in dual-degree (MD-PhD)
and/or residency-PhD programs.
c. The research at VARI is increasingly diverse, as new areas of focus (e.g,
metabolism and nutrition) are added to the portfolio and as new
research approaches (e.g., structural and computational biology) are
brought to bear. These research areas may attract students from a
broader range of prior disciplinary training and experience, including
mathematics, data science, computer science, chemistry,
pharmacology, and the like. No specific goals will be set for broadening
the range of disciplines for students drawn to VAIGS, but certain tactical
approaches might be needed to reach students not presently within our
“broadcast” zone.
d. The goal of increasing the student:faculty ratio was conceived in part to
broaden the distribution of graduate students among VARI laboratories.
Recruitment efforts and the admissions process should consider not
only how many faculty are interested in mentoring students, but which
faculty those are in any given year. This process should promote
enrollment of students with particular interest in the research programs
of faculty new to VARI, junior faculty, women faculty, and faculty who
(despite their interest in mentoring) presently have no students.
e. Certain demographic sectors are substantially underrepresented in US
biomedical science, including some ethnic/racial groups, socioeconomic
groups, and groups with limited family experience in higher
education. Institutions such as VAIGS face multiple challenges in
VAIGS Strategic Plan 2025 Page 6

attracting, welcoming, and supporting students from diverse
populations. Addressing those challenges will require concerted and
committed effort from across the institution. One GOAL is to develop
and implement a specific plan for diversity, equity, and inclusion for
VAIGS by December 2021. A more concrete GOAL is to enroll and
support to successful completion students from underrepresented
populations as 20% of our enrolled and graduating cohorts, which will
exceed national benchmarks but still fall short of equivalent
representation from the population as a whole.
2. The goal of tripling the size of our incoming cohorts from an average of
6 to an average of 16-20 will require significant effort in expanding awareness
of and respect for the institute and the graduate school; increasing the number
of prospects and applicants; interviewing top applicants; enhancing the yield
rate from those to whom offers are extended. The various populations from
which we seek to recruit students will require specific recruiting approaches.
a. Given that VAIGS has only one staff person directing and implementing
all recruitment and admissions activities (along with all registrar
functions), additional faculty effort in early-stage promotion and
recruitment activities will be essential. This might take the form of
presence at undergraduate research conferences; social media postings
that may reach new audiences; and mentioning the graduate school as
an integral part of seminars presented at other institutions or
conferences. Our GOAL is that at least one faculty member and one
student will accompany VAIGS staff to at least four undergraduate
research conferences every year. An ALTERNATIVE strategy is to hire an
additional VAIGS staff person so as to minimize the impact on faculty
research activities.
b. Many prospective graduate students rely on their undergraduate
faculty professors and mentors to guide them in their search for
graduate school opportunities. Relationships of our faculty with their
peers in other institutions should be leveraged to promote the PhD
program opportunity at VAIGS. Our GOAL is that every faculty member
will report at least FIVE peer contacts per year in which they have
explicitly promoted VAIGS, with an average of TEN such contacts per
faculty member.
c. The broadcast recruiting efforts of advertising, social media, mailings to
universities, and grad school fairs could be complemented by a limited
number of focused, long-term institutional relationships based on
faculty relationships with those institutions. These might include
institutions where our faculty were training, or where they held
previous positions, or where they have deeply rooted research
collaborations. Some of these are geographically close to VAIGS
(Aquinas, Calvin, GVSU, Hope, Kalamazoo, MSU, U Michigan, etc.)
where faculty and/or students could visit each year. Others will be
VAIGS Strategic Plan 2025 Page 7

more geographically dispersed, particularly given the internationallydiverse
origins of our faculty. This approach may be particularly
important for enhancing our recruiting efforts for students from
underrepresented populations.
d. The large disciplinary conferences (AACR, ASBMB, ASCB, SfN, etc.) often
offer venues for graduate recruiting. For many of these, the number of
prospective students (undergrad or master’s level) attending the
conference will be relatively low. But faculty from many other
institutions attend these conferences and may be convinced to bring
the message of our program back to their students.
e. On-campus grad school fairs at many universities have become less
fruitful in soliciting interest and applications. New approaches including
on-line “virtual” grad school recruiting events are and can be
coordinated with like-minded peer institutions.
f. Social media approaches may be more effective in reaching target
audiences than print, website, or on-site means. This effort has been
engaged seriously as of Summer 2019. The success of these efforts
should be tracked carefully and where possible these tools must be
continually refined and adjusted for maximum impact. Collaboration
with the institute’s communications and marketing team will be
essential for conveying a unified and coherent message.
II.
Degrees and Programs
VAIGS is chartered by the State of Michigan to grant both doctoral (PhD) and master’s
(MS) degrees in molecular and cellular biology. Since its inception, VAIGS has recruited
students only to the PhD program, given that other local institutions offer MS degrees
in this and related disciplines. We do not envision that this priority will change in the
next five years. Nor do we envision expanding the formal fields in which the PhD
degree is conferred (e.g., neuroscience, biochemistry, etc.). Nonetheless, several
opportunities will arise in these years that are consistent with the mission of VAIGS
and VAI.
A. We will expand our participation in the development of physician-scientists. Several
such mechanisms are already in place and several new mechanisms will be explored.
1. We have established dual-degree (MD-PhD) programs with Michigan
State University’s College of Human Medicine and the Stryker School of
Medicine at Western Michigan University. As of this writing, we have one MD-
PhD graduate and three students enrolled in PhD studies, with an additional
three slated to begin their medical training in Fall 2019 and their VAIGS
research training in 2021. GOALS: (a) renew the MSUCHM MOU in 2020. (b)
sustain dual-degree enrollment with MSUCHM at average of 2 students/year
through 2025. (c) enhance recruitment through MD-PhD program of WMed to
include at least two students (total) by 2025.
VAIGS Strategic Plan 2025 Page 8

2. In 2019, a pioneering student completed her PhD in association with
the Pediatric Hematology-Oncology Fellowship program at Helen DeVos
Children’s Hospital. We intend to keep this option open for the rare trainee
who seeks to augment advanced clinical training with the VAIGS research
training. Enhanced efforts to recruit trainees to this joint program will be
conducted in concert with the Fellowship Program staff. Our GOAL is to enroll
one or two trainees in this dual-training program by 2025.
3. In its very first year, VAIGS established a relationship with the
organization that oversaw the medical residency programs (e.g., Internal
Medicine, Surgery, Pathology) in Grand Rapids (GRMEP) whereby medical
school graduates could combine their medical specialty training with the PhD
program at VAIGS. The key advantage of this approach is that trainees
complete advanced medical and research training more synchronously, which
is expected to enhance their success in combining both aspects in the
subsequent career positions. Over the years, several trainees have expressed
considerable interest (and one enrolled) in this route of physician-scientist
training, but to date none have completed the PhD program of VAIGS. The
residency programs are now overseen directly by the hospital systems
(Spectrum and Mercy Health St. Mary’s). Efforts to re-establish effective and
robust co-training programs that conjoin VAIGS doctoral degrees with
residency training have not yet gained significant traction under this new
regime. Our GOAL is to re-establish working relationships with two Grand
Rapids-based residency programs by 2021, and to enroll two to four trainees in
these programs by 2025.
4. The time required to complete the full PhD training program is a
disincentive for some trainees interested in careers as physician-scientists. To
address this issue, we will consider whether to design and offer a master’s
degree in biomedical research specifically for students enrolled in medical
school or engaged in residency training. Bioinformatics might be a suitable
discipline for such a master’s program. Our GOAL is to assess the feasibility and
value of such a program by the end of 2020, and if that assessment is
affirmative to design and implement such a program for the entering class of
2021.
B. Higher education in the US is increasingly making use of “micro-credentials” that
indicate some degree of expertise that does not rise to the level of a formal degree.
Certificate programs are prominent examples of this trend, in which students take a
set of courses and/or demonstrate mastery of a specified set of technical skills.
Although the VAIGS PhD will remain focused on a single discipline (molecular and cell
biology), opportunities to document specific focused areas of training should be
considered. In particular, certificates documenting expertise in Bioinformatics or in
Structural Biology should be considered and, if the value and cost:benefit ratios are
deemed appropriate, should be designed and implemented. Our GOAL is to consider
the benefits of certificate programs in bioinformatics, structural biology, or other fields
VAIGS Strategic Plan 2025 Page 9

deemed relevant and appropriate by VAIGS faculty by June 2021, and if so, implement
the programs and recruit students with this goal in mind for the entering class of 2022.
C. MSU doctoral students enrolled in certain East-Lansing based graduate programs can
pursue their dissertation research in VARI laboratories, provided that the VARI faculty
member obtains an adjunct appointment with a cognizant MSU college or department.
This relationship was first established in 2002 and has been renewed every five years
since. The relationship has been managed through VAIGS since 2007. To date, 16 MSU
doctoral students and one MS student have successfully completed their degrees
based on research in VARI laboratories. GOAL: By June 2021, determine whether VARI
faculty continue to be interested in this relationship and in mentoring MSU doctoral
students in their dissertation research. If sufficient interest exists (i.e., five or more
VARI faculty are actively engaged), then a renewal of the MOU will be completed by
April 2022.
D. The reputation of VARI science in its areas of specialization is growing worldwide. This
growing international reputation is evident in the international composition of VARI
faculty and the increasing number of international students to VAIGS. This
international reputation and impact could be further expanded by design and
operation of PhD programs jointly with institutions in other countries, who share with
VARI similar missions and a common scope of scientific interests. We propose to
explore the value and potential structure of such a co-degree (or cotutelle) degree
programs with the Helmholtz institute in Germany and the Garvan Institute in
Australia. Students admitted to these joint programs would take some courses at each
site and would conduct some portions of their dissertation research at each site. The
administrative, governance, and accreditation aspects of such programs are
formidable. Our GOAL is to assess in 2019-2020 whether the pursuit of such programs
is justified, and then to build the necessary structures and to obtain necessary
approvals by the end of 2020, for implementation in Fall 2021.
III.
Scientific and curricular scope and structure
The VAIGS curriculum is intended to support the mission of the graduate school to
develop biomedical research leaders. The primary goal of any curriculum is to meet the
educational needs of the students. For VAIGS, the curriculum must be broad to justify the
PhD degree in the field of “molecular and cell biology” while also being deep enough to
prepare students with the foundation necessary and suitable for their dissertation
research in VARI laboratories. A key value in implementing this goal is to exercise good
stewardship in the use both of student time (towards timely completion of their degree)
and of faculty effort (given their primary obligations as research leaders).
A core principle of the graduate school is a commitment to innovation in teaching and
training. Our intention is to implement or develop the best practices for student learning.
The best practices are developed in the context of a research institute, where it is
VAIGS Strategic Plan 2025 Page 10

necessary to use student and faculty time efficiently and to maximize student
effectiveness in research.
A second principle guiding the graduate school is a commitment to continual
evaluation and improvement. This commitment covers the entire program and particularly
the curriculum. Section 4 of our accreditation assurance argument states that “VAIGS
demonstrates its responsibility for the quality of its educational programs through a
regular and rigorous review of its programs, including evaluation of courses, expectations
for student learning, and subsequent success of its graduates.” Assessment occurs on an
annual basis for each course, followed by alterations as needed. But on a less regular
basis, we evaluate the entire structure of the curriculum. The next round of complete
review will begin in the first year of the new strategic plan (Fall 2019).
The impetus for substantial review of the VAIGS curriculum is driven by the expanded
scope of research directed by VARI faculty. Whereas the initial curriculum was developed
when cancer biology was the predominant focus of research at VARI and signal
transduction was a primary conceptual theme, both the diseases under study and the
approaches employed at VARI have dramatically changed in the past five years. The
curriculum revision should result in better alignment with the present and anticipated
research directions of the Institute. This Strategic Plan dictates neither the form nor the
content of that new curriculum, but sets out a process by which both form and content
revision should take place.
Our GOAL is to review the current curriculum during the 2019-2020 academic year and
propose revisions to be implemented beginning in the Fall of 2021. The overall process will
involve the following steps: 1) assessment of the current curriculum; 2) development and
evaluation of proposed improvements; 3) discussion and approval of changes; and 4)
implementation.
The tasks of assessment, evaluation, and recommendation will be led by a task force
appointed by the Dean for that purpose. Faculty members with an interest in contributing
will be invited to participate. The task force will include representation from interested
parties such as:
• Chair of the Curriculum Committee
• Faculty (some experienced in teaching at VAIGS and others new to the program).
• At least one member of the Research Advisory Council
• Evaluation Specialist (or successor) from the graduate school staff
• Students from a range of levels in the program
We will seek participation from at least 4 faculty members and 3 students, giving an
approximate membership of seven or eight.
A. Assessment: The assessment step will require reviewing the goals of the curriculum
and assessing how well each component of the curriculum and the overall structure of
the curriculum is contributing to the goals.
The first step of the task force will be to define the standards against which we
compare the current curriculum. The standards will be defined for the skills and
capabilities we are trying to achieve and for the specific concept areas we want to
VAIGS Strategic Plan 2025 Page 11

cover. For the skills and capabilities, a useful guide will be the “core competencies”
rubric developed by VAIGS to describe the levels of development for scientists being
trained in our program. The core competencies emphasize skills and capabilities over
specific concepts because the specific concepts needed by our students likely will
change considerably over time, whereas the skills and capabilities will have longer
value. To define the concept areas that will be relevant for our students over the next
five years, the task force will identify the concepts that are important for the research
at the institute as well as emerging areas that are predicted to impact biomedical
research in general.
The task force will then assess how well the curriculum as a whole and each
component in particular contributes to the core competencies and to the targeted
concept areas. The method of assessment will include, among other tools, surveys of
faculty and students with a particular emphasis on the contribution of the core
curriculum to student growth in the core competencies. The task force will develop
and use additional modes of assessment as necessary, such as evaluations of success in
achieving learning objectives in particular courses and assessments of faculty teaching
preparedness and effectiveness.
The task force in particular will assess: the number of courses and length of
semester; the content and scope of each of the core courses; the content and credit
requirements of the ancillary courses including the professional development and
special topics courses; means and processes for independent study courses or credits;
opportunities for collaboration with local universities (particularly MSU); and
opportunities such as teaching, internships, or clinical connections. The task force will
also examine how well current faculty are prepared to lead courses or teach topics
that are important for student development as biomedical research leaders.
The result of the assessment will be a summary report of the findings. The
report will include an evaluation of contribution to the goals of VAIGS of the individual
components of the curriculum and the structure of the curriculum as a whole,
addressing each of the topics mentioned above. The task force will highlight areas of
strength and areas of deficiency. The report will detail the aspects that should be
retained, strengthened, or modified, and also areas that should be revamped. These
results will be used in evaluating proposals for curriculum changes
B. Development of a Proposal of Revisions: The development of a proposal of revisions
will involve discussions and analysis of various options for modifications. The goal will
be to address any deficiencies or areas for improvement that were identified in the
assessment.
Proposed changes to the components or structure of the curriculum could be
small or large, depending on the findings from the assessment stage. Proposed
changes will be solicited from the faculty and gathered from evaluations of graduate
schools at similar institutions. The proposals will be discussed and evaluated by the
task force, using the core competencies summary as a guideline for the outcomes that
are intended. Broad themes to be considered may include translational vs. basic vs.
biomedical; PBL vs other styles of teaching; balancing course load vs. lab time; timing
VAIGS Strategic Plan 2025 Page 12

as it relates to rotations and choosing labs; written or oral exams or none (how to
assess the skills learned); means and processes for independent study courses or
credits; opportunities for collaboration with local universities (particularly MSU); and
opportunities such as teaching, internships, or clinical connections.
The task force will produce a proposal of changes to the curriculum structure or
components. Recommendations for further development of teaching skills and topica
areas for faculty may also be included. The proposal will provide enough detail to allow
full consideration by institute leadership and to enable implementation in a timely
manner.
C. Approval of Proposed Changes: The proposal will go to the Curriculum Committee, the
Graduate Program, and the faculty as a whole. Opportunities for review, discussion,
and evaluation of alternate proposals will be provided as needed. The task force,
Curriculum Committee, Dean, and Graduate Program will evaluate all comments and
alternate proposals in light of the assessment report and the objectives of the
program. A final proposal or alternate proposals will be put forward to the entire
faculty for approval by vote. The approved plan will be provided to the Board.
D. Implementation Timeline: The implementation plan will cover various timelines and
practical matters depending on the scope of the alterations. The process will begin
with the appointment of the task force in October of 2019. The assessment report will
be due in the early spring of 2020. The proposal review and revision will be completed
and approved by September or October of 2020, which will allow time to develop and
provide full descriptions of the new curriculum to prospective students for the 2021
incoming class. The changes will be implemented beginning with the 2021-2022
academic year.
IV.
Finances
The substantial increase in the number of students directly implies the need for
increased financial resources for direct support of the students (stipends, insurance,
travel funds), for operational expenses (e.g, curriculum, textbooks, thesis committees,
orientation, student affairs, and supplies) and for VAIGS staff. Since its inception, the
graduate school has been supported almost exclusively through very generous
allocations from Van Andel Institute and the endowment that it holds. This section
includes goals for diversifying mechanisms for financial support.
A. The direct costs for supporting students (i.e., stipends, benefits, and travel) will
obviously increase in direct proportion to the number of students. From 2019 to 2025,
those student numbers and costs will nearly triple. Operational and staff costs are
projected to increase at a much lower rate of approximately 55%. Some of these
increases will be offset by infusions from laboratory funds, individual fellowships, and
philanthropy (see following sections). The investment from VAI is projected to
increase by approximately two-fold in current dollars (see table below).
VAIGS Strategic Plan 2025 Page 13

Category Basis FY2019 Changes FY2025
(in 2019 $)
FY2025
(if 3% / y)
Student support $40k x 28 $1.23 M $45K x 80 $3.6 M $4.3 M
Staff salary/ben 7.2 FTE $0.85 M 11.2 FTE $1.4 M $1.6 M
Operations: $0.45 M (55% increase) $0.7 M $0.84
TOTAL $2.53 M $5.7 M $6.7 M
Lab $, fell’ships 3 students $0.12 Labs: 16 Fell: 12 $1.1 M $1.3 M
Philanthropy (mostly
$0.46 M $0.4 M $0.5 M
/Other
carryforward)
VAI contribution 25 students $1.95 M 52 students $4.2 M $4.9 M
B. When the faculty adopted the new vision of doubling the student: faculty ratio, they
also endorsed a plan for broadening the number of faculty who serve as thesis
advisers. In this plan, VAIGS will cover the fellowship costs for all first-year students.
VAIGS will continue to support fellowships for the first student in any laboratory;
VAIGS and the lab will split evenly the costs for the second student; and the lab will
cover the costs for the third (or more) student. We expect that faculty will be
somewhat less likely to take on a second or third (or more) student because of the
associated costs. Based on initial polls of faculty, our working model posits that 100%
of faculty with no student will be willing to take a student in the coming year; that 75%
of the faculty with one student will be willing to take a second; and that 50% of the
faculty with two or more students will be willing to take an additional student.
C. VAI support: A simple projection of this enrollment and funding model suggests that
by 2025, VAI support will be needed to fund approximately 52 student fellowships
each year (18 first-year students and 28 continuing students). Operational support,
including staff salaries, will also continue to rely primarily on VAI funding. The current
practice of providing partial support for research supply costs ($8,000/student/year)
will be discontinued for all students enrolling in 2019 and beyond, eventually trimming
approximately $212,000/year from the current VAIGS commitment by 2025.
D. Laboratory research funds: The lab-specific costs for student fellowship support are
expected to cover approximately 16 continuing students each year. Student fellowship
support will draw on internal or unrestricted funds, not directly on research grants,
since students are not considered employees at VARI. In addition, laboratories will be
expected to cover all equipment, reagent and supply costs for students’ dissertation
research.
E. Individual fellowships: All VAIGS graduate students are expected to apply for external
individual fellowships (from NSF, NIH, or other sources). As an ambitious target, we set
a GOAL that by 2025, 20% of students beyond the first year (i.e., roughly 12 students)
will be supported by external fellowships. Some of these fellowships will include costs
for tuition or other education-related expenses (e.g., health insurance or research
VAIGS Strategic Plan 2025 Page 14

materials). These ancillary funds will offset some of the VAI institutional commitment
for VAIGS operational costs.
F. Training Grant: Training grants represent another mechanism for supporting student
stipends. Both NIH and NSF offer various options for training grants. Given the healthrelated
focus of VARI research, NIH T32 training grants are likely a better fit for VAIGS
than are NSF programs. Training grants from various NIH institutes have particular
structures or restrictions; for instance, T32 grants from National Cancer Institute
require a trainee ratio of three postdocs for one predoctoral position. Our GOAL is to
submit the first T32 training grant application by 2025. The choice of training focus and
NIH institute will depend on the research and training strengths of the various VARI
centers and programs at that time. We anticipate that a small fraction of VAIGS
students (perhaps 3-5) will be supported on the initial training grants.
G. Philanthropic support: Beyond the exceptionally generous support from VAI for
operational support, the primary philanthropic support specifically for VAIGS to date
has been modest. We are very grateful for the long-standing underwriting by the
Meijer Foundation of the summer undergraduate internship program (currently
$140K/y through 2023); those funds are channeled through VARI to be used primarily
to support intern wages. A bequest to VAEI in 2016 has been held as an endowment
that generates approximately $65K/year for VAIGS (and a comparable amount for VAEI
K-12 programs). In addition, VAIGS receives $25,000/year from unrestricted donations
to VAI from the previous year. Annual giving directly to VAIGS has typically been less
than $5,000. Thus, the current annual philanthropic support for VAIGS per se is
$95,000.
Multiple opportunities for specific donor interests remain open for investment.
Cultivation of the donor base will require more time and attention from both the
VAIGS Dean and the VAI Development team than previously. Additional opportunities
could include naming rights for positions or facilities.
Opportunity
Target
Endowment of the Dean / President position
$ 5M
Endowed individual student fellowships
$ 1M
Individual student fellowships (annual)
$50K/student/y
Fellowships for students from underrepresented pops $50K/student/y
Graduate student travel funds (X 80 students) $2k/student/y
MD-PhD fellowships (for med school training years) $30K/student/y
Expanding summer undergrad internship $5k / intern/y x 7
Internship for students from underrep populations $10k/intern/y
Med student summer research internships $8K/intern/y x 4
VAIGS office / teaching space renovations
(pending)
Excellence in Grad Education award (endow)
$3k/y, $60K to endow
Recruiting scholarships / supplements $3.5K /y
VAIGS Strategic Plan 2025 Page 15

Our ambitious GOAL for 2025 is to secure annual philanthropic support in the amount
of $400,000/y (including the Jabury bequest and VAI unrestricted funds as well as
major gifts for specific opportunities. An additional GOAL will be the renewal of the
Meijer Foundation gift in support of summer internship programs in 2023.
V. Faculty effort and development
Whereas this school, as any school, has as its primary mission the education of students,
the faculty are the engine by which the school achieves its mission. The dedication by
faculty to the mission takes form in their commitment of time and effort to the various
functions that must be fulfilled, including recruiting and admitting students, teaching
courses, advising dissertation research, serving on thesis advisory committees and faculty
standing committees, and promoting the reputation of the school and institute.
Given that VAIGS operates within the context of VARI as a research institute, the
primary priority of the faculty is to design, conduct, and communicate innovative and
impactful research programs (and to secure the funding to support those programs).
Relative to typical universities, the fraction of VARI faculty effort committed to graduate
school functions will be significantly lower.
A. Faculty Effort Commitments: The standard workweek in the US comprises 40 hours for
a total of 2000 h/y. Those in professional fields (medicine, law, higher education),
particularly in entrepreneurial settings that depend on individual initiative, often work
longer hours. The following estimates of faculty effort are based on a rough rule of
thumb that faculty members work an average of 50 hours per week for 50 weeks, or
2500 hours per year.
Faculty effort in pursuit of the mission of VAIGS takes place in several
functions. Some of these functions (e.g, thesis advising / TAC committees,
recruiting/admissions) scale directly with the number of students; other functions can
be accomplished with some degree of economy (teaching, faculty meetings, some
faculty committees).
1. Teaching: The present VAIGS curriculum (encompassing first-year,
special topics, and professional development courses) comprises approximately
500 hours/year of class time. The curriculum revision anticipated in Theme III
will certainly change this total, which will revise the following estimates of
teaching effort.
With the expanded cohorts of 16-20 students, courses taught in smallgroup
format (5-10 students) will need more than one instructor for each
scheduled hour of class time. In the present curriculum, that additional
instructional time would represent about 250 hours (e.g., SABR, RECR, and
some special-topic courses). Three approaches will be considered for fulfilling
the anticipated teaching effort. VARI faculty may take on some of this effort. A
Teaching Specialist could be added to the in the VAIGS staff. Postdoctoral
associates or research scientists (with approval of their research supervisor and
with adequate preparation and oversight) may also find this a valuable
opportunity.
VAIGS Strategic Plan 2025 Page 16

Using the current curriculum model, the total annual teaching effort is
estimated to be about 750 h. Instructors typically spend an average of three
hours of preparation and assessment time for each hour of class (2250 h), for a
total teaching effort of about 3000 h/y. We envision that the Teaching
Specialist, postdocs and research scientists will fulfill one third of that effort.
For VARI faculty, we anticipate an average of 12 h/y in class time and 36 h of
preparation time for a total of 50 h/y, or approximately 2% of total effort.
These averages will range widely among faculty in any given year (likely from 2
to 30 class hours/y), and for any given faculty member may vary significantly
from year to year (for classes that are not offered every year).
2. Thesis advising; mentoring doctoral students (in rotations and in
dissertation research) encompasses both explicit educational and professional
growth as well as directing research activity per se. We estimate that faculty
devote about 75 h/y in mentoring the educational growth of a doctoral
student. At the targeted student:faculty ratio of 2, the average faculty member
will commit about 150 h/y or about 6% effort to thesis advising.
3. Thesis advisory committee: With 80 students and 3 VARI members per
committee, 240 committee-member slots will be needed. Assuming 40 faculty,
the average faculty member will serve on 6 TACs in any given year. Each TAC
meets twice a year for 2 h, with an estimated 2 h of faculty prep time (reading
reports, comprehensive exam proposals, or dissertations, and compiling
evaluative comments). Thus, the typical faculty member will commit about 50
h/year (2% effort) to TACs.
4. Faculty committees: the work of some faculty committees will scale
directly with student numbers (e.g., Admissions, Comprehensive Exams, and
Student Performance Review). Others will see larger workload but not directly
proportional to student numbers (Grad Program, Curriculum). Faculty meetings
will likely continue at the current frequency of 6-8/year. Faculty effort for
these administrative functions will likely range from 25 h/year to 50 h/y (i.e., 1-
2% effort) depending on the committee and role.
5. Other faculty activities not formally enumerated include participation in
faculty development workshops, attending grad student seminars, and
promoting the reputation of VAIGS and VARI among external colleagues and
communities.
6. The average fraction of faculty effort devoted to VAIGS activities overall
in recent years has been about 6%. Doubling the student:faculty ratio will
inherently mean a substantial increase in average faculty effort on educational
activities (and concomitant reduction in research and/or service activities).
Based on the estimates of given above, we anticipate that faculty members
will commit on average 10% of their professional effort to VAIGS activities.
Specific commitments will vary among the faculty (i.e., may range from 2% to
20%). For any given faculty member, the commitment will vary from year to
year depending on teaching and committee assignments, and on the number of
graduate students in that laboratory.
VAIGS Strategic Plan 2025 Page 17

B. Faculty Development: VAI is committed to enhancing the capabilities, productivity,
effectiveness, success, and sense of satisfaction for all its employees through ongoing
professional development. This commitment applies no less to the VARI faculty.
1. Faculty development in the general area of scientific project design,
grantsmanship, and publication is primarily the responsibility of the Chief
Scientific Officer. This responsibility is delegated at least in part to specific
Center directors. Mechanisms for this area include mentoring teams for
individual faculty members (particularly assistant professors); grant preview
processes; and editorial assistance by the Scientific Editor.
2. Faculty development in the general areas of leadership and
management is primarily the responsibility of the Chief Scientific Officer. This
responsibility is delegated at least in part to specific Center directors. Some
aspects of the Good to Great initiative led by the Chief Strategy Officer are
relevant for VARI faculty. An external faculty coach (Dr. M-F. Chesselet) has
been retained by the CSO for long-term advising, particularly for woment
faculty. External leadership workshops and programs may also be useful
experiences for developing leadership and management capabilities in VARI
faculty.
3. Faculty development in teaching (planning, preparation, pedagogy,
assessment) is largely the responsibility of VAIGS. Mechanisms include
occasional workshops on pedagogical principles and practices, and individual
coaching for course directors and instructors. The Assistant Dean for curriculum
holds lead responsibility for designing and running these development
activities. Postdoctoral associates and research scientists who participate as
instructors in VAIGS courses will also need and benefit from appropriate
preparation and practice to ensure an excellent quality of instruction for VAIGS
students.
4. Given the broad diversity of prior experiences and training, and the
wide-ranging needs and desires of faculty to expand their capabilities, we set
no specific goal for faculty to participate in development activities. Specific
recommendations or mandates may arise during the annual performance
review process in which the Dean and cognizant Center Director participate.
C. Diversity in faculty ranks: The faculty of VAIGS are formally hired by VARI,
appropriately given that their primary priority is to conduct and direct innovative and
impactful research programs. The institute has expressed its long-standing
commitment to a diverse workforce and to equal opportunity employment practices.
The VARI faculty now is exceptionally diverse with respect to country of origin; roughly
75% were raised, educated, or recently employed outside the US. However, the VARI
faculty do not have significant representation by members of populations
underrepresented in biomedical sciences (using NIH definition); we presently have no
African American, Hispanic/Latino, Native American, or Hawaiian-Pacific Islander
VAIGS Strategic Plan 2025 Page 18

faculty. Nearly a third of VARI faculty are women, but none of them are among the 18
full professors.
VAIGS recognizes that graduate students often seek and thrive in environments
where they see models among the faculty that reflect the student’s origins (whether
that be nationality, race, ethnicity, first-generation, socio-economic status, and the
like). The authority and responsibility for hiring faculty falls to VARI led by the Chief
Scientific Officer, who is strongly committed to providing equal opportunities for those
from wide-ranging backgrounds. To enhance the school’s effectiveness in recruiting
and developing young scientists from diverse and underrepresented populations,
VAIGS is committed to supporting VARI efforts to recruit, support, and retain faculty
from an even richer diversity than at present. The challenges in this effort should not
be taken lightly; the roots of this matter are deep and complex.
D. Faculty review, reward, recognition: The increased effort in VAIGS activities by faculty
should be appropriately recognized and rewarded within the VAI faculty appointment,
review, compensation, reappointment and promotion processes. Given the priority of
faculty expectations in the research realm, reappointment and promotion depend
almost exclusively on evidence of research productivity and excellence. Faculty
contributions to VAIGS are recognized in the annual performance review process,
which is a component of the annual merit pay consideration. VAIGS has recently
established an Excellence in Graduate Education award as a way to recognize and
celebrate superlative work in teaching, mentoring, and service to the school.
Additional mechanisms should be established to acknowledge and to encourage the
excellent work that faculty do in supporting the mission and students of VAIGS.
VI.
Student support programming
VAIGS is committed to supporting student success in ways that maximize effective and
efficient development of their capabilities as biomedical research leaders. Support for
non-academic aspects of their development are as essential to that as their academic
preparation. In many ways, the functions of student support will grow in direct proportion
to the number of students. For the next six years, the following areas will get particular
attention and effort:
A. Orientation and on-boarding: As the size and complexity of the incoming cohorts
increases, dedicated efforts in support of the on-boarding and orientation of VAIGS
students must be a high priority.
1. We expect that the fraction of our student body that comes from
national or international origins will increase. Assisting their relocation to
Grand Rapids and their adjustment to life in this country and community will be
essential to get them off to a good start in the graduate school. Partial financial
support for relocation costs will be a standard part of the offer of admissions.
Assistance in finding housing, getting Social Security numbers, procuring drivers
licenses, and the like are vital steps in that adjustment.
VAIGS Strategic Plan 2025 Page 19

2. Orientation has already expanded to two weeks prior to the start of Fall
semester. During this time, students complete safety training exercises, explore
their strengths and those of their classmates, become aware of institutional
policies and procedures, and meet with faculty members as potential lab
rotation advisers. Continuous review and improvement of orientation plans
will ensure that these activities are effective and as efficient as possible.
3. A Survey of Prior Knowledge (SOPK) was designed as a means to
discern which fundamental concepts were well-understood (or not) by
students in the incoming cohorts. This probe was subsequently modified to be
more of a self-tutorial on those fundamental concepts. Teaching faculty and
academic advisers have not fully and effectively used the insights from SOPK,
nor have student responses been evaluated for whether they do or do not have
the expected foundation. Moreover, the scope of the research at VARI has
changed considerably since SOPK was last substantially overhauled. Our GOAL
is to review and revise the SOPK by Fall 2020 to as to ensure that enrolled
students have a common base of understanding of fundamental concepts
before beginning the VAIGS curriculum.
4. From time to time, VAIGS faculty have considered offering “boot
camps” for incoming students, as a way of ensuring either a common base of
knowledge or a common base of technical skills. To this date, we have not
reached consensus on the highest priority for the goal of such a activity.
Moreover, the logistic questions have not been resolved (when to start, how
long should boot camp last, who would design and lead those experiences).
This notion should be considered along with the curriculum revision project.
B. Student well-being:
1. Mental, emotional health: Numerous recent reports describe the high
frequencies and levels of stress, depression, anxiety, and other concerns with
mental and emotional health among graduate students. Helping students
recognize, respect, and address the significance of these factors will help them
be healthier, happier, and more productive. VAIGS staff assist students in stress
management and in conflict resolution. VAIGS staff do not serve students as
therapists but can help recognize issues that should be addressed with the
support of external professionals. The frequency of these issues among VAIGS
students will likely scale in direct proportion to the number of students, and so
increased staff support will be needed to accommodate these needs. The
capabilities of faculty members to recognize and respond to these needs
should also be more thoroughly developed and regularly enhanced.
2. Financial literacy – for both personal and professional applications. A
concern common among higher education professionals is that students are
often ill-prepared to manage their own personal financial situation. A
professional development concern for VAIGS is that students who become
research leaders will need to know now to plan and manage budgets for
research projects, including personnel, materials and reagents, travel and
VAIGS Strategic Plan 2025 Page 20

publication costs, and grant management. VAIGS has already initiative a small
program to foster financial literacy for personal matters (e.g., budgeting, credit
card debt, student debt, mortgages, and retirement savings). Whether through
Student Support or through a Professional Development course, additional
attention should be given to a program of professional financial literacy.
C. Career planning and preparation: The 2013 NIH Biomedical Workforce Report make
abundantly clear the fact that relatively few PhD graduates would find long-term
positions as faculty in research-active academic institutions. The NIH BEST grant
program helped build examples (at selected institutions) of good practice in supporting
students in considering a broader range of career options and of preparing students to
enter and to succeed in non-academic career placements. For the past several years,
VAIGS has organized a Career Day with guests from a wide range of career paths all
stemming from doctoral programs in disciplines related to molecular and cell biology.
Still, we often find that students delay active preparation and searching for next
positions until later than optimal for a smooth transition from completion of degree
into subsequent position. Concerted partnership between VAIGS student support
staff, Human Resources staff (particularly the Postdoc Program coordinator), and
thesis advisers for VAIGS students will be needed to further enhance students’
planning and preparation for timely transition to excellent subsequent positions.
D. Internships and external opportunities: Effective preparation for careers beyond that
of principal investigator as a faculty member in an academic environment requires that
students have opportunities to gain knowledge, skills, and experience in these areas.
1. Teaching experience: training and practice: Graduate students in many
disciplines and institutions often get some experience in professional activities
outside of the laboratory. For many, these are teaching experiences, most
often as teaching assistants for undergraduate courses. Given that VAI does not
offer undergraduate courses, teaching experiences for VAIGS students will
inherently be in partnership with nearby institutions. Some pathways have
been implemented for particular students in recent years, but we do not yet
have a robust plan for providing the educational foundation and practical
experience needed to give our students sufficient training as teachers. Our
GOAL is to establish a robust and effective program of pedagogical and
educational courses and experiences in partnership with local institutions, with
specific opportunities implemented by Fall 2020 and a regular menu of
opportunities established by Fall 2021.
2. An emerging theme in graduate education, including in biomedical
fields, is that of internships in non-academic settings as a way for students to
discern whether this path is well-suited to their interests and strengths, and for
them to gain relevant experience in those settings. Short-term internships (1 to
6 months) in a partner organization is one way to achieve those goals.
Partnerships based on research collaborations will benefit the faculty (as thesis
adviser) as well as the student. This plan has several complexities, including the
VAIGS Strategic Plan 2025 Page 21

elation of the internship work with that of the dissertation; finding suitable
internship hosts for VAIGS students; building mutually-acceptable models of
the learning outcomes and experiences for such internships; establishing the
financial support for these internships; and evaluating the effectiveness of
individual internship experiences and the internship program overall. Our GOAL
is to establish primary learning outcomes and objectives for internship
programs by Fall 2020; securing commitments from several key partners by
Summer 2021; and initiating such experiences by fall 2021.
3. One key concern with both teaching assistantships and industry
internships is the impact on the time to degree completion, and the resulting
impact on the cost of supporting the student. The implementation of Individual
Development Plans early in graduate training may help plan for the right time
and manner in which to integrate these experiences into the overall education
for a given student. Thesis advisers and advisory committees should actively
engage in discussions of the students’ long-term goals and the means that will
best prepare them for success in achieving those goals, given the standards of
the discipline for the doctoral degree.
E. Assessment plans: Our accreditation requires (and best practices in education expect)
that non-academic goals (as well as academic goals) will be defined clearly; that
achievement of those goals will be assessed regularly; and that such assessments will
result in changes for improving those aspects of the students’ experience. These
assessments must both gauge student growth and program effectiveness. The
academic assessment for VAIGS is well-rounded and robust, as demonstrated in the
2018 Assurance Argument for reaffirmation of accreditation. Our assessment of nonacademic
aspects of student growth and of program effectiveness are not at the level
consistent with best practices. To that end, our multi-step GOAL is to have an nonacademic
assessment plan developed by December 2020; to define outcomes and
standards by Summer 2021; to collect and analyze initial data by August 2021; and to
demonstrate how such data lead to changes in student support design and planning by
August 2022.
VII.
Student outcomes
A. Statistical targets: Some aspects of successful student outcomes can be captured in
cumulative statistics. Indeed, the Higher Learning Commission expects that its
accredited member institutions set specific goals for retention and completion. These
goals help the faculty and program administrators keep a focus on appropriate
indicators of student success, which should be the primary objective of an institution
of higher education. Other indicators of student success are more specific to the field
of biomedical research, including measures of research productivity and impact. To
that end, we will strive to achieve the following GOALS up to and including 2025:
1. Retention (year 1 to year 2): 95%
2. Completion to PhD = 80%, to PhD or MS = 90%
3. Time to degree: 5.2 + 0.2 years
VAIGS Strategic Plan 2025 Page 22

4. Productivity: at least one first-authored paper for every PhD graduate;
an average of two first-authored papers for the collective graduates; and an
average of five authored / coauthored papers per graduate; all assessed at the
date of one year following the dissertation defense.
5. Career placement rate in a relevant scientific position of >95% within 6
months of graduation.
6. Core Competencies surveys: for any given competency, at least 80% of
students in any given cohort will meet the target level as judged by their thesis
adviser. Graduating students will demonstrate heightened to exceptional
competence in at least 90% of the competencies, with no competency assessed
at a level lower than advanced.
B. Alumni outcomes: The real fruits of the graduate school will be evident in the lives and
careers of our alumni. To be sure, their paths and their success will be influenced by a
number of factors beyond the graduate school, and so we cannot claim sole credit or
responsibility for their success or lack thereof. Nonetheless, it is appropriate to set
goals for the long-term impact that our alumni have in biomedical research leadership.
We will strive to achieve the following GOALS up to and including 2025:
1. Initial placement: our GOAL is that at least 95% of VAIGS graduates will
secure a career-advancing position (in research-related setting or further
education) within six months of graduation.
2. For those graduates who progress to postdoctoral positions, our GOAL
at least 25% will be successful in securing individual postdoctoral fellowships or
positions on postdoctoral training grants.
3. Periodic surveys of alumni will not only track their subsequent career
positions but will also assess their retrospective reflections on how well VAIGS
prepared them for their career paths and positions.
4. Five-year: our GOAL is that by their fifth anniversary of graduation, 60%
of our graduates who undertake postdoctoral positions will transition to longterm
stable employment (as faculty in academia or as research leaders in
industry, or comparable positions). Likewise, 60% of our graduates who
initially take non-postdoc positions will have accepted promotions from their
initial placements to positions of higher leadership responsibility.
5. Ten-year: By 2025, seven of our graduates will reach their 10-year
anniversary of graduation. Specific numeric goals are hard to set for such a
small group. We will monitor their record of publications, patents, products,
clinical trials, and other outcomes of their work as evidence of their impact on
the biomedical research community. We expect that some graduates will
progress to leadership positions in their professions and institutions.
6. By 2025, we expect to have an alumni body of approximately 60. We
will continue to serve these alumni through regular communications about the
graduate school, sharing stories of alumni success, and hosting visits and
seminars by alumni. An open question is whether that group will have sufficient
critical mass and initiative to be self-sustaining, or if VAIGS staff will continue to
VAIGS Strategic Plan 2025 Page 23

coordinate these relationships. Obviously, this number will continue to grow
and so the staff effort in supporting the alumni relations will also grow (albeit
not proportionally).
VIII. Assessment and accreditation:
As an institution of higher education, VAIGS has a responsibility not only to design and
execute an appropriate curriculum and training plan for its students, but to assess
whether in fact students have achieved the learning outcomes defined for the program.
VAIGS also has a responsibility to determine whether its activities and operations are
effective. These twin goals of assessing student learning and program effectiveness both
contribute to an overall commitment to continuous improvement. Continuous
improvement is particularly essential for a PhD program in the field of molecular and cell
biology in which concepts, approaches, methods, and models are changing rapidly. Since
its inception, VAIGS has been able to respond nimbly to new opportunities and needs
based on assessments of student learning and of student and faculty satisfaction.
Evidence that VAIGS has done this well in the past ten yearsis noted in the reports
following accreditation site visits. We must ensure that assessment activities provide
sufficient and actionable insight in an efficient manner and must guard against
unnecessary, uninformative, or redundant measures.
A. Assessment of Student Learning:
1. The VAIGS curriculum continuously evolves as the problems underlying
the SABR curriculum change from year to year and as Special Topics courses
explore new concepts and areas of research. Vigilance in defining appropriate
student learning outcomes and in implementing effective means of assessing
the achievement of those outcomes will be important in order to establish
evidence that students actually learn what faculty intend to teach. Our GOAL is
that every VAIGS course will have robust mechanisms of formative assessment
reflecting to each student whether they are achieving the desired outcomes,
and of summative assessment providing evidence of student learning and
justifying the grades given to students. A related GOAL is for the Curriculum
Committee to use the evidence of student learning outcomes to guide the
continuous improvement of course design and executions.
2. Core Competencies: VAIGS has defined and refined a set of 19 core
competencies in the domains of knowledge, research, communication, and
professional practice. We also have a rubric describing the achievement of each
of these competencies at levels of expertise ranging from Beginner to
Exceptional. This rubric is used formatively by thesis advisers and students as
frequently as they deem beneficial. Our GOAL is to sustain our practice of
gathering student and mentor assessments annually so as to demonstrate
overall effectiveness in developing each of these competencies. A related
GOAL is to use evidence of student learning outcomes to guide the
improvement of overall curriculum or program design.
VAIGS Strategic Plan 2025 Page 24

3. Comprehensive exams and dissertation/thesis defenses: These are
critical and summative assessments that determine whether a student
progresses to candidacy status or warrants the doctoral degree. These
judgments should be based on clear and explicit expectations and on sound
evidence as to whether students meet or exceed those expectations. Our GOAL
is that every comprehensive exam report and every thesis or dissertation
defense report will include explicit evidence that justifies the decision made by
the examining committee.
4. Thesis Advisory Committees: the use of Individualized Development
Plans (IDPs) has become widespread in doctoral education and are now
required for recipients of federal predoctoral fellowships. One GOAL is to
incorporate essential elements of IDPs into the TAC committee reports (by Fall
2020), with review and updating of the IDP at least annually. We will sustain
our practice of requiring TAC meetings at least twice a year (every six months).
To ensure that these meetings bear fruit, our GOAL is that every TAC report will
cite explicit evidence of and recommendations for student progress in
academic, research, and professional development activities.
5. Student Performance Review: as the number of students expands
dramatically over the next five years, the effort by faculty and program
leadership in assessing overall progress of each individual student will scale
directly. This annual “big picture” review is important to ensure that each
student is meeting appropriate milestones towards timely completion of their
degree or, if not, that appropriate measures are put in place to address the
factors affecting such progress.
B. Assessment of student growth in non-academic and co-curricular activities, and
assessment of student support programming, are detailed under Theme VI of this plan.
C. Iterative environmental scans: In addition to formal period program reviews (next
section), VAIGS has established a pattern of regular surveys of faculty and student
satisfaction. Faculty surveys have been conducted early in even-numbered years and
student surveys in odd-numbered years. This pattern ensures that VAIGS and VAI
leadership (staff, faculty, executive, and board levels) have timely insight into the
aspects of the program that are working well and into aspects that call for attention or
action. These surveys also provide insight into the culture of the institute and
graduate school that extend beyond formal aspects of program review.
The performance of the VAIGS Dean is evaluated on an annual basis by the
Board of Directors, based largely on the accomplishment of annual goals, information
in reports at Board meetings, and interactions with Board members during those
meetings. In addition, the Dean is reviewed on a periodic basis (typically every 5 years)
using a broader “360 degree” review process that gathers input from students, faculty,
VAIGS staff, and other VAI staff with whom the Dean interacts. This review provides
the Board with additional insight on the effectiveness of the Dean in the broader
environmental context of the institute as a whole.
VAIGS Strategic Plan 2025 Page 25

D. Program Review: 2021. VAIGS has performed an overall program review on a cycle of
approximately every five years. This pattern fits with best practices on most university
campuses for oversight and planning for academic programs. The last review was
done during the 2015-16 academic year, with a report issued in August 2016. That
report includes more than 90 recommendations for sustaining and improving all
aspects of the program. The next cycle of program review is slated for 2020-2021.
1. The last program review cycle was comprehensive, encompassing the
curriculum, degree requirements and activities, faculty, students, staff and
resources. The review was accomplished by a VAIGS staff team (Dean,
Associate Dean, and Evaluation Specialist) with occasional input from the
faculty Graduate Program Committee and data from the Enrollment and
Records Administrator and other faculty committees. Our GOAL is to revise the
program review procedure by Summer 2020 to improve the structure and
process of the review. This committee
2. We note that a review and proposed revision of the curriculum is slated
for the 2019-2020 academic year (see Section III). Given that, the 2020-21
Program Review should incorporate but not repeat the curriculum review.
3. The last Program Review report was conducted internally, with external
(off-site) review of the final report by graduate school deans from two
Michigan universities. For the upcoming Program Review, our GOAL is to enlist
a team of three external reviewers to conduct an on-site review in Spring 2021
which will encompass: (i) a review of the report written by the internal
program review team; (ii) a site visit to determine whether the report summary
and recommendations are supported by available evidence and are consistent
with input from internal constituents; (iii) endorse (or refute)
recommendations incorporated into the internal team report; and (iv) propose
additional recommendations for enhancing the effectiveness of VAIGS in
meeting its mission.
E. Benchmarking: One way to assess the success of the VAIGS program is to compare its
inputs and outcomes with those of similar programs in other institutions. The
Graduate Program Committee has identified doctoral programs in several types of
institutions to which VAIGS should be compared. The Committee also identified a
number of parameters for making those comparisons. Our GOAL for the coming
period is to establish processes for obtaining the data from those comparison
institutions, at a frequency of every three to five years, so that evaluations of our
relative program effectiveness can be based on evidence. A second GOAL is to join the
Coalition for Next Generation Life Scientists, a collection of institutions who have
pledged to post at their home website a set of statistics and program outcomes that
will allow prospective students (and others) make fair and evidenced-based
comparisons. VAIGS and the VAI Postdoc Program will work together to join the
Coalition by the end of 2019 and to post our relevant data on the VAI website in 2020.
VAIGS Strategic Plan 2025 Page 26

F. Accreditation: 2023-24. VAIGS was initially accredited by the Higher Learning
Commission in November 2013. Accreditation was reaffirmed in May 2018 following
submission of an Assurance Argument and a site visit by a team of peer evaluators.
The next formal review for reaffirmation of accreditation is slated for the 2023-2024
academic year. Of the three VAIGS staff who were principally engaged in the
preparation and planning for the last reaffirmation cycle, two are now gone from
VAIGS and the third (Dean) may conclude his service prior to the upcoming cycle.
Therefore, it seems wise to build the capacity among faculty to effectively prepare for
and execute the upcoming review process. Given this essential need, our GOAL is to
establish a new faculty standing committee for Assessment and Accreditation (in 2019-
2020); to educate and equip those faculty (2020-2022); and to guide the development
of the Assurance Argument and the preparations for the site visit (2023-24) in
conjunction with VAIGS executive leadership.
IX.
Undergrad and Internship Programming
The undergraduate and internship programming driven by and through VAIGS
contributes in valuable ways to the life of the school and the institute. These programs
foster the interest of young scientists in biomedical research as a focus for their future
education and career. Many VAIGS students have been drawn to apply to the school
through their internship experiences or through their participation in the regional
undergraduate conference. These programs also fulfill a commitment of VAIGS as a
trusted partner in the local academic community, which benefits the institute overall.
A. Internships:
1. The lead program in our internship portfolio is the summer
undergraduate internship, a large portion of which are supported by a longstanding
and generous gift from the Meijer Foundation. Our GOAL is to expand
the SIP program by 2025 as the number of VARI faculty grow, such that 80% (or
32 of the projected 40 faculty) will host a summer undergrad interns in any
given year. To support this goal, we will seek renewed and expanded funding
from the Meijer Foundation by 2022, augmented by philanthropic support from
other donors. In addition, we anticipate that 20% (or 8 of the 40 faculty) will
host summer interns supported on laboratory funds. Given our mission of
training biomedical research leaders, we now set a GOAL that 75% of the
summer interns will assert a plan to pursue graduate school in a related
discipline following their experience at VARI. To achieve this goal, faculty will
be encouraged to be thoughtful in recruiting and selecting summer interns who
show genuine interest and potential as future scientists. In addition, activities
should be designed and implemented that would further enhance the interest
and inclination of interns to pursue advanced degrees.
2. One avenue to fulfill the mission of developing biomedical research
leaders is to foster the training of physician scientists. To entice and encourage
medical students to pursue research as an active component of their practice,
VAIGS Strategic Plan 2025 Page 27

our GOAL is to support four medical student research internships each summer
(i.e., 10% of the VARI laboratories). We will seek philanthropic support for
these internships, which to this point have been internally funded.
3. Certain US subpopulations have long been underrepresented in
biomedical research training and career paths. The commitment of Van Andel
Institute to equal opportunities impels us to address this issue in part by
supporting the pipeline that leads young people from those populations to
consider, engage, and thrive in their development as research leaders. Prior
efforts by VAIGS have partnered with other organizations (e.g., UNCF) to
promote internship opportunities at VARI. These efforts have had some initial
success and individual impact but the greater goal remains unmet. Our GOAL is
that 20% of the summer interns each year would be drawn from URM
populations, and that 75% of those interns will assert a plan to pursue graduate
school in a related discipline. We will pursue this goal with more locally and
regionally-focused internship recruitment strategies; with more explicit
financial support for travel and housing; and with community mentors that
help prepare a path towards professional positions in biomedical science.
B. Over the past 20 years, VARI has offered and supported internship opportunities for a
small and select population of high school students, initially through the GRAPCEP
program and more recently through the Academy of Science, Technology, Engineering
and Mathematics (ASTEM) in the Grand Rapids Public Schools. Our GOAL is to
evaluate and re-envision the purpose, scope, activities, target population, and funding
mechanism for high school internship opportunities. The approach might include close
partnership with new or current high school programs of Van Andel Education
Institute.
C. For 13 years, VAIGS has coordinated the annual West Michigan Regional
Undergraduate Science Research Conference (WMRUGS). This event now draws more
than 400 faculty and students from more than 20 regional colleges and universities for
a day of scientific discussions including keynote speaker, student speakers, poster
sessions, and grad school / job recruiters. Our GOAL is to sustain this program with
enhanced long-term sponsorship or philanthropic support. Any significant expansion
of this program (in numbers of participants or posters) may require consideration of a
new venue. Expanding the institutions who participate in the organizing team may
broaden the impact of this program and also open up new avenues for financial
support.
X. Governance, Staff, and Physical Space
A. Board of Directors: the VAIGS Board of Directors presently comprises seven members.
Since its inception in 2005, the Board has included one representative each of various
constituencies, including the VAEI Board of Trustees, the VARI Board of Trustees, the
local medical community, the regional higher education community, the state research
universities, and the national biomedical research and education community. The
VAIGS Strategic Plan 2025 Page 28

Board periodically assesses its own effectiveness and processes. GOALS for the
upcoming period include:
1. As part of the 2021 Program Review process, conduct a review of the
Board effectiveness, and consider whether to adjust the size of the Board or
the constituencies that are represented.
2. Orientation of new Board members is typically conducted by the VAIGS
Dean and the Chair of the VAIGS Board in conjunction with the VAI general
counsel. This orientation should continue to use materials from the
Association of Governing Boards of Colleges and Universities in setting forth
the obligations and opportunities for Board members and best practices for
fulfilling their fiduciary role in overseeing the school.
3. Given that most of the VAIGS Directors are external to the institute,
they have relatively few opportunities to interact directly with VAIGS faculty,
staff, and students. The practice of having a meal with selected faculty or
students prior to each Board meeting is beneficial but may not be optimal in
ensuring that Board members have a good sense of the culture and
atmosphere of the school. New mechanisms for fostering such interactions
should be conceived and implemented by 2020.
4. The Dean of VAIGS reports to the VAEI Trustees at their February and
September meetings but does not routinely attend meetings of the combined
Trustees (VAI, VARI, VAEI) in December and June. Reports on VAIGS activities
and plans can be conveyed by the chair of the VAIGS Board of Directors, who is
also a Trustee of VAEI, or by the Chief Scientific Officer who is the
administrative supervisor of the VAIGS Dean.
B. Faculty governance:
1. The VAIGS faculty bylaws authorize six standing committees
(Admissions, Comprehensive Exam Organizing, Curriculum, Graduate Program,
Student Performance Review, and Undergrad / Internship Programs). Whether
these are the right committees, of the right size, with the appropriate mandate,
should be considered during the 2019-2020 academic year. For several faculty
committees (Admissions, CEOC, SPR), the workloads will increase in proportion
to the number of students, and so an increase in the number of members may
help share the workload. A faculty committee focused on Assessment and
Accreditation may be important in conducting the upcoming Program Review
(2021-2022) and in preparing for the next reaffirmation of accreditation (2023-
2024). Our GOAL is to revise the Bylaws to reflect these needs by Fall 2020.
2. The faculty bylaws should also be revised to more clearly define which
actions or decisions are to be made by the faculty body as a whole and which
can be appropriately delegated to standing committees.
C. Staff structure and number: The substantial growth in student numbers
(approximately tripling the number of students from Fall 2018 to Fall 2025) will require
an expansion of the operational support provided by VAIGS staff for students and
VAIGS Strategic Plan 2025 Page 29

faculty. Some functions of the staff will grow in proportion to the number of students,
whereas other functions will not. The principal GOAL is to fulfill the operational and
administrative functions at a level of excellence that enhances student success and the
effectiveness and efficiency of faculty effort. For some functions, that will mean hiring
additional staff members.
1. Enrollment and Records: To admit cohorts of 16-20 students, we will
need to expand the number of applicants (from 70 to 150-200) and the number
of interviews (from ~20 to 50-60). In addition to more effort from faculty in the
recruiting and admissions efforts, staff effort will be expanded to support the
recruiting and admissions efforts by Fall 2022. Given the efficient processes
established for maintaining student records, we do not anticipate the need for
significant new staff effort in that area.
2. Student affairs: The staff effort in the area of student affairs will grow
significantly as the number of students increases. This includes supporting
student transitions to Grand Rapids, orientation, regular one-on-one meetings,
career planning and preparation, promoting student professional development,
and guiding students in stress management and conflict resolution. We
anticipate the need for an additional professional with training and experience
in student affairs / social work.
3. Teaching staff: with the larger first-year cohorts anticipated in this plan,
additional teaching staff or instructors will be needed to support the inherently
small-group based structure of our problem-based learning curriculum. Section
V articulates this need for increased instructional effort in teaching, and also
several ways to address that need. One approach to reduce faculty teaching
load is to hire a VAIGS Teaching Specialist to serve as a preceptor for those
SABR or other course sessions when the class is divided into two discussion
groups. Another option is to develop postdocs and research scientists as
instructors for some courses; this option would bring the additional staff
burden of training these inexperienced teachers to function at the level of
excellence expected for the VAIGS courses .
4. The increase in recruiting/admissions and in student support services is
likely to require additional administrative assistance for calendar scheduling,
event planning, travel arrangements, document preparation, and the like.
5. Senior academic leadership: The VAIGS Dean is the chief executive,
academic, and administrative officer of the school. The Dean’s responsibilities
include strategic vision and planning, budgeting, policy development and
implementation, accreditation, Board reporting, faculty workload and review,
staff management, and external relations. In addition, the Dean holds certain
responsibilities that will increase in proportion to the number of students. The
Dean is the academic adviser for all first-year students, and writes annual
student performance review letters for all students (based on drafts from the
SPR committee). The dean meets with external members of thesis advisory
committees and with external examiners for comprehensive exams and
dissertation defense committees. The Dean addresses issues of academic
VAIGS Strategic Plan 2025 Page 30

performance or professional conduct. Additional senior academic leadership
(as assistant or associate deans) will be needed to help share the increased
workload as the Graduate School triples its student population. This may take
the form of expanding the effort devoted by the current Assistant Dean;
engaging additional faculty as Assistant Deans for specific roles; or hiring VAIGS
staff to fulfill these responsibilities.
6. It is not unreasonable to anticipate that a transition in top leadership
for VAIGS might take place during the next strategic plan period. The present
Dean has served for more than 13 years (since May 2006), more than double
the average tenure for leaders of higher education institutions. The current
Dean is now 62 years old and so is approaching an age when retirement could
be considered. The Dean, as with all VAI employees, holds an at-will
appointment that can be severed at any time with or without cause by the
VAIGS Board of Directors. The Board and senior leadership in the institute are
encouraged to foster both internal leadership development and to
contemplate processes for seeking new leadership from outside VAI in the
event that a transition will take place within the next five years.
D. Physical Space considerations: The graduate school offices, teaching rooms, student
carrels, and storage space presently occupy approximately 1900 ft 2 on level 5 East.
Expansion of the graduate school to approximately 80 students will require additional
teaching, office, study space, and research space. This need is well-illustrated by the
fact that the projected student body of 80 would fully occupy the equivalent of 20
research bays! The Chief Scientific Officer and the Chief Operations Officer, with input
from the Chief Finance Officer and the Director of Facilities, have in mind a capital
expenditure in 2021 to support a substantial revisioning of new facilities for VAIGS.
Our GOAL is to design the facilities in 2020 and to construct the new facilities by
August 2021 for use by the incoming cohort that fall. These new facilities will include
the following considerations:
1. Teaching space: with incoming cohorts of 16-20 students each year, and
with the ongoing commitment to small-group Problem-Based Learning, VAIGS
will need dedicated access to:
a. one teaching room with sufficient seating / table space for 25-40
persons, equipped with suitable IT and AV equipment.
b. three discussion rooms with sufficient seating / table space for 8-12
persons, equipped with suitable IT and AV equipment.
2. Study space: first-year students need individual study carrels through
the second semester, after which they will transition to desk space within their
thesis adviser’s research space. The number of carrels will need to increase
from 9 at present to as many as 16 by 2021 and to 20 by 2025. Additional study
carrels (5-10) are needed for students preparing for comprehensive exams.
3. Research space for dissertation research by VAIGS students will be
derived from the space allocated to their thesis adviser. Given that
computational biology will likely represent an increasing dimension of VARI
VAIGS Strategic Plan 2025 Page 31

esearch, this student research space may not all be contained within the “wetlab”
space of VARI; specific areas may be established to bring computational
scientists into close proximity.
4. The Graduate School offices will need to expand to house the additional
staff who support students and faculty of the larger school (see section XI.C
above). This space will include at least seven offices and six cubicles for VAIGS
staff. The space should also include a small conference room (6-8 persons) for
non-class meetings convened by VAIGS Dean and/or staff. A student wellness
room (presently occupying room 5003) is also important as a location for
private phone calls, quiet meditation and stress relief, or small-group
conference.
E. Grad Student Association
1. Two faculty standing committees (Admissions, Curriculum) each have
one student members. The experience of serving on such a committee has
been deemed valuable and enriching by most of the students who participate.
A proposal to appoint student members to additional standing committees
(Comprehensive Exam Organizing, Graduate Program, Undergrad & Internship
Programs) should be considered during the 2019-2020 academic year.
2. To date, student members of faculty standing committees have been
appointed by the Graduate Program Committee, after securing approval from
the student’s thesis adviser. A proposal to allow the Graduate Student
Association to nominate students to serve as members of standing committees,
pending approval by the Graduate Program Committee, should be considered
during the 2019-2020 academic year.
Reputation, public interaction, and innovation dissemination
Although this section is not set up as a formal theme of the strategic plan, a key factor in the
long-term success of the graduate school will be finding appropriate and effective ways to tell the
story of the remarkable work being accomplished at VAI and to share the innovative approaches and
practices developed at VAIGS for educating biomedical research leaders.
One of the challenges faced by VAIGS in its first dozen years is raising the awareness of its
existence in the minds of prospective students and of the faculty who advise them regarding their
graduate school search. Within the universe of higher education, VAI is a powerful but relatively new
and small institute whose scientific reputation has grown exponentially in recent years. Knowledge of
the graduate school and its innovations must also expand so that more well-qualified students from a
wide range of backgrounds and institutions will consider applying. This effort will depend on strong
collaboration with VAI Communications and Marketing colleagues.
Some aspects of reputation-building are associated with explicit recruiting strategies outlined
in Theme I. These efforts can be augmented by making regular practice of introducing the graduate
school to every seminar speaker that comes to VAI, and by VARI faculty mentioning the graduate
school whenever they given a talk at a university of college. The reputation will also grow as our
graduates take positions and then promotions into leadership roles at institutions around the
country.
VAIGS Strategic Plan 2025 Page 32

Institutional support for promoting awareness and reputation of VAIGS is also essential for
eliciting interest among prospective students and among potential donors or benefactors. Close
collaboration with the VAI Development team will be essential for this effort. The Graduate School
should be included regularly in VAI promotional and advertising campaigns and at informational or
development events to which VAI supporters are invited. VAI representatives, including the VAIGS
dean, should speak often at local or regional organizations such as the Econ Club, Rotary Club, and
the like.
Relationships with regional partners are also important for reputation, recruitment, and
operational reasons. The Dean and other institutional leaders should devote sufficient attention to
building and maintaining relations with key leaders (presidents, provosts, deans, chief academic /
operations / finance officers, …) of local and regional universities and hospital systems.
Finally, the story of educational innovation at VAIGS and the successful outcomes of those
innovations should be told in the professional literature. Perspective pieces should be published in
leading scientific journals, either as initial submissions or in response to papers put forth by others.
Evidence-based reports of the success of our approaches and tools should be published in the
professional education literature for others to examine, critique, and consider for their own use.
These articles can be reflected in seminars presented to educational leaders of biomedical
institutions (e.g., comprehensive cancer centers). VAIGS faculty and staff should take on leadership
roles in organizations (such as CABTRAC, AAMC-GREAT, and the like) that promote thoughtful,
innovative, evidence-based developments in graduate education.
The vision for VAIGS, as with the vision for VAI overall, is not simply to build an attractive and
effective institution of research and higher education, but to have a discernable positive impact on
human health and well-being well beyond our own walls or location. The strategic plan laid out here
provides a blueprint for achieving considerable progress towards that vision in the next six years.
Selected Resources
1. A. Leschner and L Scherer (eds.), 2018. Graduate STEM Education for the 21 st Century.
National Academies Press .
2. Committee on the Next Generation Initiative, 2018. The Next Generation of Biomedical and
Behavioral Sciences Researchers: Breaking Through. National Academies Press.
3. G.E. Walker, et al., 2018. The Formation of Scholars: Rethinking doctoral education for the
twenty-first century. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
4. S. Tilghman et al., 2012. Biomedical Research Workforce Working Group Report. National
Institutes of Health. D. Ginsburg, et al., 2014. Physician-Scientist Workforce Working Group
Report. National Institutes of Health.
5. S.T. Ortega and J.D. Kent, 2018. What is a PhD? Reverse-Engineering our Degree Programs in
the Age of Evidence-Based Change. Change, the Magazine of Higher Learning 50:30-36.
VAIGS Strategic Plan 2025 Page 33

VAIGS Faculty
VAI Research / VAIGS Faculty
VAI Research Faculty
Peter Jones, Ph.D., D.Sc. (hon)
Stephen Baylin, M.D.
José Brás, Ph.D.
Lena Brundin, M.D., Ph.D.
Nick Burton, Ph.D.
Hong-yuan Chu, Ph.D.
Gerry Coetzee, Ph.D.
Juan Du, Ph.D.
Yvonne Fondufe-Mittendorf, Ph.D.
Stephanie Grainger, Ph.D.
Rita Guerreiro, Ph.D.
Brian Haab, Ph.D.
Michael Henderson, Ph.D.
Scott Jewell, Ph.D.
Rusty Jones, Ph.D.
Connie Krawczyk, Ph.D.
Peter Laird, Ph.D.
Heidi Lempradl, Ph.D.
Huilin Li, Ph.D.
Evan Lien, Ph.D.
Wei Lü, Ph.D.
Darren Moore, Ph.D.
Sara Nowinski, Ph.D.
Gerd Pfeifer, Ph.D.
Andrew Pospisilik, Ph.D.
Scott Rothbart, Ph.D.
Hui Shen, Ph.D.
Xiaobing Shi, Ph.D.
Matt Steensma, M.D.
Piroska Szabó, Ph.D.
Tim Triche, Ph.D.
Steve Triezenberg, Ph.D.
Hong Wen, Ph.D.
Bart Williams, Ph.D.
Evan Worden, Ph.D.
Tao Yang, Ph.D.
Qiang Zhu, Ph.D.
VAIGS Faculty
Mary Adams, M.Sc.
Sarah Bodbyl, Ph.D.
Carrie Graveel, Ph.D.
Galen Hostetter, M.D.
Mary Winn, Ph.D.
VAIGS Adjunct Faculty
Paul Stephenson, Ph.D.
SMS, 2023-02-22

VAIGS Graduate Students 2022-2023 Academic Year – By Cohorts
2023-02-21 (TC)
Menusha
Arumugam
(Steensma)
2017-2018
Eric
Cordeiro-
Spinetti
(Rothbart)
2017-2018
Lauren
McGee
(Steensma)
2017-2018
Bailey
Tibben
(Rothbart)
2017-2018
Alix
Booms
(Coetzee)
2018-2019
Shelby
Compton
(R. Jones)
2018-2019
Dylan
Dues
(Moore)
2018-2019
MD/PhD
Joe
Floramo
(Yang)
2018-2019
Rae
House
(Steensma)
2018-2019
Ariana
Kupai
(Rothbart)
2018-2019
Nadia
Dehghani
(Guerreiro/Bras)
2019-2020
Patrick
Dischinger
(Steensma)
2019-2020
Leena
Kariapper
(Worden)
2019-2020
Alysa
Kasen
(Henderson)
2019-2020
Vladimir
Molchanov
(Yang)
2019-2020
Brandon
Oswald
(Laird)
2019-2020
Alfredo
Reyes-
Oliveras
(Haab)
2019-2020
April
Rickle
(Lempradl)
2019-2020
Nathan
Spix
(Laird)
2019-2020
MD/PhD
Elshaimaa
Ali
(Wen)
2020-2021
Lauren
Duimstra
(R. Jones)
2020-2021
Ellen
Griggs
(Lempradl)
2020-2021
Lauren
Harmon
(Triche)
2020-2021
Vanessa
Howland
(Moore)
2020-2021
Mitch
McDonald
(Pospisilik)
2020-2021
Andrea
Parham
(Pospisilik)
2020-2021
Richard
Cassidy
(Fondufe-
Mittendorf)
2021-2022
Svetlana
Djirackor
(Shen)
2021-2022
James
Eapen
(Shen)
2021-2022
Mehrshid
Faraji Zonooz
(Guerreiro/Bras)
2021-2022
Abigail
Godec
(Steensma)
2021-2022
MD/PhD
Thomas
Goralski
(Henderson)
2021-2022
Sofia
Ievleva
(Du)
2021-2022
Yanqing
Liu
(Rothbart)
2021-2022
Paige
Matusiak
(Zhu)
2021-2022

VAIGS Graduate Students 2022-2023 Academic Year – By Cohorts
Shantinique
Miller
(Worden)
2021-2022
Kate
Thurlow
(Rothbart)
2021-2022
Xiao
Wang
(Burton)
2021-2022
Riley
Wedan
(Nowinski)
2021-2022
MD/PhD
Ebenezer
Asiedu
2022-2023
Rafael Bena
de Araujo
2022-2023
Samuel
Daniels
2022-2023
Arkajit De
2022-2023
Cameron
Forton
2022-2023
Jamie Park
2022-2023
Xinyu Ye
2022-2023
Natasha
Zandstra
2022-2023
2023-02-21 (TC)

VAIGS Graduate Students 2022-2023 Academic Year – Alphabetical
Elshaimaa
Ali
(Wen)
2020-2021
Menusha
Arumugam
(Steensma)
2017-2018
Ebenezer
Asiedu
2022-2023
Rafael Bena de
Araujo
2022-2023
Alix
Booms
(Coetzee)
2018-2019
Richard
Cassidy
(Fondufe-
Mittendorf)
2021-2022
Shelby
Compton
(R. Jones)
2018-2019
Eric
Cordeiro-
Spinetti
(Rothbart)
2017-2018
Arkajit De
2022-2023
Nadia
Dehghani
(Guerreiro/Bras)
2019-2020
Patrick
Dischinger
(Steensma)
2019-2020
Svetlana
Djirackor
(Shen)
2021-2022
Dylan
Dues
(Moore)
2018-2019
MD/PhD
Lauren
Duimstra
(R. Jones)
2020-2021
James
Eapen
(Shen)
2021-2022
Mehrshid
Faraji Zonooz
(Guerreiro/Bras)
2021-2022
Joe
Floramo
(Yang)
2018-2019
Cameron Forton
2022-2023
Abigail
Godec
(Steensma)
2021-2022
MD/PhD
Thomas
Goralski
(Henderson)
2021-2022
Ellen
Griggs
(Lempradl)
2020-2021
Lauren
Harmon
(Triche)
2020-2021
Rae
House
(Steensma)
2018-2019
Vanessa
Howland
(Moore)
2020-2021
Sofia
Ievleva
(Du)
2021-2022
Leena
Kariapper
(Worden)
2019-2020
Alysa
Kasen
(Henderson)
2019-2020
Ariana
Kupai
(Rothbart)
2018-2019
Yanqing
Liu
(Rothbart)
2021-2022
Paige
Matusiak
(Zhu)
2021-2022
2023-02-21 (TC)

VAIGS Graduate Students 2022-2023 Academic Year – Alphabetical
Mitch
McDonald
(Pospisilik)
2020-2021
Lauren
McGee
(Steensma)
2017-2018
Shantinique
Miller
(Worden)
2021-2022
Vladimir
Molchanov
(Yang)
2019-2020
Brandon
Oswald
(Laird)
2019-2020
Andrea
Parham
(Pospisilik)
2020-2021
Jamie Park
2022-2023
Alfredo
Reyes-Oliveras
(Haab)
2019-2020
April
Rickle
(Lempradl)
2019-2020
Nathan
Spix
(Laird)
2019-2020
MD/PhD
Kate
Thurlow
(Rothbart)
2021-2022
Bailey
Tibben
(Rothbart)
2017-2018
Xiao
Wang
(Burton)
2021-2022
Riley
Wedan
(Nowinski)
2021-2022
MD/PhD
Xinyu Ye
2022-2023
Natasha
Zandstra
2022-2023
2023-02-21 (TC)