CALL TO ARMS
BY  George Holmes, President

 As America moves from the industrial to the information age, schools have become society’s most vital institution. Our educational system must perform at top efficiency if America is to remain preeminent in science, business and the arts. The alternative is to become second-rate or worst. Who will create the future of higher education: corporate executives, lawyers, politicians, Microsoft or the academy?

 Through the  American  Association of University Professors (AAUP), professors can seize the initiative in leading higher education into the 21st century. Just as the American Medical Association advocates for the medical profession and the
American Bar Association advocates for the legal profession, the AAUP represents the collective wisdom and interests of university professors. Through the AAUP, professors build the foundation on which educational standards are achieved. They do so by championing academic freedom and tenure, shared-governance and due-process.

The AAUP was founded in the early part of the twentieth century by John Dewey and Arthur Lovejoy. It has grown since that time to include a membership of more than 44,000 and extends from coast to coast. From the beginning, AAUP was an activist organization. Lovejoy, on his Easter vacation in 1915, heard about a challenge to academic freedom at the University of Utah and immediately hopped onto a train to give battle in Utah. Eighty-five years later, the voice of the profession  remains a highly visible advocate for academic standards and principles.

Today’s professors must remain true to the activist tradition established by Dewey and Lovejoy. Institutes of higher education are “fatted cows” which many outsiders wish to control and gut for their own purposes. Look at the recent history of University of the District of Columbia  (UDC) and Mount Vernon College; consider the marginalization of the profession by part-time hiring practices; beware of the virtual universities at University of Maryland University College and Jones International University. We can be the masters of our fate or hand over the keys of the academy to others. Complacency is an active choice. Not choosing is choosing.

Membership in the AAUP is an educational experience, with a sharp learning curve. Through its numerous publications, workshops, educational forums, public debates and meeting, members learn where the profession has been, where it is going and how to avoid  major and minor strategic mistakes as their institution are brought into the twenty-first century. Active participants acquire the necessary skills, knowledge and networking connections to create the future of higher education in the U.S.

 The AAUP does much more than supply advice, counsel and “aerial bombing” in faculty grievance cases. For example, AAUP's Government Relations Office became aware of dangerous legislation that was inserted at the last minute into the 1999 appropriations bill. This 11th hour addition allows anyone to use the Freedom of Information Act to request details of faculty research, possibly including confidential interviews and trade secrets, if the work is supported by federal funds.   As a result of AAUP sounding the alarm, universities, hospitals, and research and other higher education associations have formed a coalition to get the law repealed.

On another front, AAUP is the leader in protecting intellectual property rights of faculty members in the era of distance learning.  As more and more colleges and universities enter the distance learning race, faculty members find their course work and research viewed as market commodities.  How can faculty ensure that their intellectual endeavors are not being misappropriated and, equally as important, how can faculty ensure or citizens know that the quality of education being offered to students meets professional standards? One way is to refer to AAUP's Website (www.aaup.org) where you can find the AAUP's Statement on Distance Education  and its Statement on Copyright, which offer guidance for campus regulations and practice.

One final example comes from our own backyard.  When the cutbacks and faculty firing took place at UDC, faculty members contacted the national office and AAUP colleagues at other District universities. The Howard University chapter lent support to their colleagues and the national AAUP sent an investigating team to the campus.   The investigative report was published in the May-June 1998 issue of ACADEME and UDC was placed on the censure list at the Annual Meeting in June 1998.

A strong AAUP presence on campus and at  the state/district levels are the best safeguards for ensuring and maintaining the rights of faculty and the standards of education. When selecting an institution for education or employment, one should determine if the AAUP has a presence. Certainly, one should give pause before investing in an education or a career at an institution that has been censured by the AAUP. You own it to yourself, your profession and country to become a full and active participant in the AAUP at the local, state and national levels.
 

BUSINESS CONTROLS US COLLEGES
BY James S. Wilson, Editor

Businessmen are the controlling interest group at most colleges and universities. The leadership of universities and colleges passed to the business community when their numbers came to dominate the governing boards of institutions of higher education.

Governing boards represent the final authority for academic institutions. The board insures that the institute survives, stays true to its mission and provides the best quality education possible. The board also selects and/or approves the top managers of the university, including the president.

Of the over 23,490 trustees who sit on boards of U.S. colleges and universities, most board members are business executives (41.7%) or professionals (21.4%) such as lawyers or physicians according the Composition of Governing Boards of independent Colleges and Universities released by Association of Governing Boards (AGB) in 1997. Only 10.8% of trustees fall under the general occupational grouping of educator or student .

Even though most trustees lack an understanding of, or experience in, academia, few schools provide a formal orientation to achieve this essential background of information. Some governing boards do not have formal principles of good practice to evaluate trustees periodically and to assure that they are working for the best interest of the academic mission of the institution.

Governing boards, dominated by people from the business community, are more and more frequently selecting university presidents who are best characterized as professional managers and fundraisers and not as educators, scholars, or researchers. This is not surprising considering that businessmen, like most people, identify and associate with others who share common values and experiences.

Less than 30% of current university and college presidents hold tenured faculty positions according to the American Council on Education's 1998 publication, The American College President. Prior to becoming presidents, internal and external candidates held tenured faculty positions 43.1 % and 26.3% of time, respectively. The numbers have decreased when compared to 1986. These are very low numbers considering that appointment to chair and dean (the traditional pathway to president) often include automatic tenure without review of academic credentials. Unlike the four star general who is a soldier first, how many university presidents truly identify with teachers?

When symbiotic, academia has benefitted enormously though its relationship with business leaders. In fact, quality education and research depend upon sound business practices. However, business, being an organic (human) based system, naturally seeks to self-perpetuate. If growing influence of business is left unchecked, a symbiotic relationship can become pathological.

As boards are moving beyond their fund-raising functions and are becoming involved in the micro-management of the university, these practices are as lubricious and dangerous as to suggest that the joint chiefs of staff or corporate boards should be filled by the ranks of teachers.

Having selected the academy over the military, law, business and other professions, academicians are the natural trustees of our educational institutions. Let the story of Goethe's Faust inform us. Be wary of losing sight of our mission. Maintain our core values and do not relinquish our souls for a pot of gold. The academy must create its own future, not others.
 

ROME MOVES ON US SCHOOLS
Identity Crisis at Historically Catholic Colleges & Universities

BY  James S. Wilson,  Editor

Seismic waves have spread through academia as the Vatican maneuvers to strengthen its control over Catholic universities and colleges. During the last 30 years,  these schools in the U.S. have evolved away from  ‘model’ Catholic institutes of higher learning and into what could be called “ Historically Catholic Colleges and Universities (HCCU),  by analogy to the Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Symbolic of HCCUs’ modern identity is the education at Georgetown University, a Jesuit school, of William Jefferson Clinton, an ardent Methodist.

Ultimately, the Pope’s challenge will have profound effects on higher education in the U.S. The questions to be resolved: “Can any college or university, offering an unique ‘Catholic’, ‘woman’, ‘man’, ‘black’, ‘Irish’, ‘gay’ or similar experience, survive in U.S. society?” “Is there value in society supporting (with public funds) a pluralistic educational system offering separate but unequal (i.e., discriminatory) educational experiences?” “What are the advantages/disadvantages of society’s institutes being all things to all people?”

In 1990, Rome published Ex Corde Ecclesiae (ECE, From the Heart of the Church) which declares that "a model Catholic university informs and carries out its research, teachings and all other activities with Catholic ideals, principles and attitudes.”

When applied to the U.S., ECE attempts to reverse the last several decades during which the leadership of Catholic institutions has passed from the sponsoring religious institutes (controlled by canon law) to independent and primarily secular boards of trustees (controlled by civil law). With this change in governance, HCCUs have flourished as they gained increased access to students and to private and public funding available to independent Catholic institutions. ECE, in effect, is attempting to bring the unmatched resources of these rich but errant HCCUs back into the Catholic fold.

As directed by Rome, U.S. bishops are preparing a policy statement, Ex Corde Ecclesiae: Application to the United States, that will deliver HCCUs  into the juridical control of canon law. The Application takes the principles and norms of ECE and clarifies how they can be adopted by Catholic colleges and universities in the U.S. in practical and effective ways. If approved this November, the Application will have important ramifications for the 235 Catholic universities and colleges in the USA, including Georgetown and Catholic Universities.

In its current form, the Application presents serious challenges to academic freedom, accreditation standards, and separation of church and state. It will jeopardize the legal and financial status of HCCUs. In a November editorial, America, a Jesuit weekly magazine, characterized the new norms for Catholic higher education as “unworkable and dangerous”.

Some of the recommendations of the Application that have generated concern include:

• Presidents of HCCUs should be Catholic and sign a loyalty oath to the magisterium (teaching authority of the church).
• The “majority of board of trustees should be faithful Catholics--clergy, religious, lay.”
• “The university should recruit and appoint faithful Catholics as professors so that those committed to the witness of the faith will constitute a majority of the faculty.” All professors, especially of theology, should demonstrate “integrity of doctrine.”
• Teachers of theology  must be certified by the local bishop and could be dismissed if this certification were lost.

This developing identity crisis at HCCUs could have been avoided if the Vatican had listened to the U.S. bishops. In 1996, the bishops approved, by an unprecedented vote of 224-6, a non-juridical, cooperative and pastoral approach to the implementation of ECE in the U.S. The U.S. bishops’ “final document” in response to ECE was politely returned as a “first draft” with directions to incorporate “the necessary juridical elements” in 1997.

Given that most U.S. bishops have been selected by John Paul II since his coming to power in 1978, it is surprising that the Vatican rejected the considered opinion of its chosen representatives.  These actions led many loyal Catholics to wondered if Rome appreciated the academic and civic world in which Catholic colleges and universities pursued their mission in the U.S.

The implication of ECE is that if a university actively chooses not to follow the teachings of the Holy Father and the church, it would be better for it not to bear the name "Catholic" and disappoint those students and professors seeking a vibrant religious community. Students and professors who seek a vibrant community of Baptists, males,  females, blacks, gays or any other special interest group, will be watching the outcome if the two giants, Rome and Washington, square off to define higher education in the U.S.
 

TOP PERFORMING ORGANIZATIONS OF THE 21ST CENTURY
Army Teaches Class

BY James S. Wilson, Editor

Institutions of higher education will undergo tremendous change in the next millennium. Change will be mandated by a rapidly evolving society that demands to be served by institutions of the twenty-first century. The challenge that colleges and universities face is to remain true to their mission and core values while undergoing major transformations. Academia must create its future and not simply react to the latest fad.  To create its future, academia could learn a great deal from the military.  Since the end of Vietnam and Cold Wars, the military has gained practical experience in building and maintaining a first rate organization
of the 21st century while undergoing extensive reorganization.

At the end of the cold war, the army was like many universities and colleges of today. It was a highly bureaucratic organization, the legacy of the industrial age and “scientific management" practices. Its hierarchal, top-down command structure was designed to force people to conform and to stifle initiative and idiosyncratic behaviors. Built on the ideas of the great industrialist, people were requisitioned” as if they were interchangeable parts, hence, the phrase, “G.I. or  government issue.”

After the Soviet Union collapsed, the military was confronted with a serious identity crisis: “What were its mission and justification for existence?”  Dramatic budget cuts and manpower reductions of over 60% compelled the military to “create their future” or cease to exist as an effective institution.

With reality staring it in the face, the military was forced to see that America had evolved from the industrial to the information age. The past “command and control” model of management was outdated and ineffectual. During this humbling period of great challenge and vulnerability, the military discovered “people.”

For 85 years, the AAUP has argued that top performing organizations are built on humanistic principles. Hope Is Not a Method describes the Army’s discovery of these principles. The book is written by two of the major architects of the Army’s transformation: Gen. Gordon R. Sullivan, (ret.), former Army Chief of Staff and Col. Michael V. Harper.

Hope outlines how the army created an institutional environment that motivates, develops, and engages the full potential of its people towards a common mission while undergoing fundamental transformation:
 

• People and organization are inseparable: you cannot value your organization without valuing the people in it... How we (the military) value people shows in how we hire and fire them, our commitment to training and development, equal opportunity, pay, benefits, all the usual components of the human resource scorecard.

The AAUP has long recognized the importance of ‘valuing people’ and ‘shared values’ in building a strong academy. Tenure is a time-proven practice to achieve these ends. Individuals who seek advanced degrees and become academicians are generally idealistic, self-directing, highly motivated and goal-oriented. The awarding of tenure is an effective practice to honor, retain, and cultivate individuals who have demonstrated a consistent record of productivity and a commitment to the values of the school and profession.

Tenure is the confirmation of institutional citizenship. As such, a college/university with a strong tradition of tenure has a built-in failsafe against straying from its values and/or mission. Protecting tenure is the first step in maintaining  standards of educational excellence that are critical to achieving decisive victories in the arts, science and medicine. Parents who are paying top dollar to give their children a competitive-edge need to pay attention to the tenure practices of the schools they select.

Motivating, developing and engaging people is the function of management and leadership. In selecting the management style for the twenty-first century, the army realized that many management systems tend to focus on control and reward where:
 

• people are liabilities versus people as assets.  People are assets, and like other assets, they can be developed for a higher return or depleted to yield less and less...We can value our people as a replaceable ‘factor of production’or as a ‘renewable asset’ to be developed and cultivated (a distinction critical to the part-time/tenure faculty debate).

In contrast to the military, the current trend in higher education regards teachers as replaceable factors of production. This is retrogressive.

Today, 47% of all faculty are in part-time and non-tenure-track positions and the numbers are increasing daily. Only 25% of all those who teach and do research in higher education have tenure. Jones International University has set up a "virtual" online university with only 2 full-time faulty. The University of Maryland University College advertises in major newspapers and magazines that students can receive a degree by “never seeing our campus, never meeting our professors, and never attending graduations.” Even at prestigious Yale University, non-tenure-track faculty (e.g. part-time and graduate students) provide 70% of the undergraduate teaching even though it has an endowment of $6.6 billion.

 Financial, not educational, considerations are the primary force driving schools to replace full-time with part-time faculty. In contrast, the army has realized that:
 

• Shared values express the essence of an organization...The reality is that companies with a strong sense of values are the most successful over time.

One cannot deny the qualifications or professionalism of the mercenary who could form an extremely effective fighting force. However, only the citizen-warrior, not the journey-man soldier, embraces  the institutional core values and shared-commitment essential in achieving a preeminent army. By analogy, tenured faculty are the citizen-warriors of academic centers of excellence.

The District Conference of the AAUP is steadfastly against exploitation and marginalization of our professors to a status of part-time, non-tenure-track workers. Until part-timers and adjuncts are given protections and adequate compensation, it is a divisive practice that can produce apartheid in the institution.

Because of the possible “conflict of interests” between assigning grades and securing next year’s employment contract, we are deeply concerned about the unnecessary pressures put on part-time faculty who wish to deliver a quality educational product while worrying about the conditions, circumstances, and source of their next pay check. It is unreasonable to expect individuals to commit to institutions that will not commit to them.

The army has learned that valuing its people is only the first step in building a quality organization:

• Even more important, however, is how we delegate and share responsibility, how we distribute leadership.

To achieve distributed leadership, the army as developed a climate, as described in Hope, of “shared awareness of the battlefield.” Through endless maneuvers, modeling and experiments, the army discovered that an empowered  soldier who had increased access to (battlefield) information was superior to a marginalized soldier whose function was reduced to taking orders and shooting a rifle.

By analogy, a tenured teacher who is given an operational awareness of his/her unit and school through shared governance is going to perform superior to a part-time teacher whose institutional awareness is limited to the bare walls of a few classrooms.

Unfortunately, most academic institutions make only token gestures to build a culture of shared governance between faculty, administration and trustees.

In final analysis, it is essential that the military and academia learn and borrow from each other. Society sanctions both institutions to be strategic forces capable of decisive victories in the field of battle in the case of the army and in the fields of science, art, and economics in the case of academia. It behooves Americans to keep the U.S. at the center of the global community, even if there is a loss in short-term profits. Society will be placed in a perilous position if either institution fails to fulfill its vital mission.

The military has evolved progressive management practices because they work and not because of any moral imperative. Our colleges and universities could do worst than emulate the operational style of the Air Force Combat Command as displayed in their officer’s club at Langley Air Force Base in Virginia:
 

• Give everyone a stake in our mission and its outcome.
• Create a working climate that inspires trust, teamwork and continuous improvement.Push responsibility and authority down (to the lower ranks).
• Be accountable.

AAUP TO ISSUE GRAD STUDENT BILL OF RIGHTS
 BY Wendi Maloney,  Managing Editor of ACADEME

The AAUP has formed a committee to draft a national Bill of Rights for graduate students.  The aim is to produce a detailed document for national distribution and publication in the AAUP’s Redbook, the book-length compilation of our statement of principles and good practice.  People on campuses across the country would then be able to use this statement to help improve local practices.

We want, for example, to produce a detailed text that gives specific recommendations for guaranteeing a living wage and full health benefits to graduate students who are compensated for performing research or instructional services.

We want to set out appropriate grievance procedures and ways of implementing them.

We want to set standards for ensuring proper progress through degree programs.

We want to urge access to training programs for graduate students who teach.

In these and other areas, we invite input from all interested parties. We would welcome suggestions about topics to address and specific language that might be used in our document.

Most of the work was scheduled for February, but additional suggestions are welcome.

Please send suggestions to:

Iris Molotsky
AAUP
1012 14th St., N.W.
Suite 500
Washington D.C. 20005-3465
fax 202-737-5526
 imolotsky@aaup.org

DC COLLEGE ACCESS BILL
Davis Proposes Act of Stop Taxpayer’s Exodus
BY Representative Tom Davis, (Republican, Va)

(The following is extracted from a statement given at Eastern High School on March 4)

Higher education is the key that opens the door to the future. That door has been locked too long for too many residents of the nation’s Capitol. Citizens living in the District pay local and state taxes, and should receive equal rights and privileges consistent with the Constitution.

This bill is a giant step in correcting an inequity that presently exists. It is also consistent with all the legislation that has passed through the D.C. Subcommittee since I became chairman over 4 years ago.  Part of resolving the acute crisis we found to exist in 1995 has been an ongoing effort to provide incentives for taxpayers to remain in the city and to relieve the exodus of population that we’ve seen for several decades. By first stopping the bleeding of population, we will encourage families to move into the nation’s Capitol. There is a real and great city that lies just beyond the monuments and federal offices that
most tourists and commuters see almost exclusively.

That is why I worked so hard to pass the Revitalization Act two years ago and, just this month, the Management Restoration Act which is now on the President’s desk. It was why we enacted the $5 thousand first time home-buyers tax credit act, which has been extraordinarily successful.

This bill, the District of Columbia College Access Act, will enable District residents who are high school graduates to attend public institutions at in-state rates. That is the heart and soul of the legislation.

This is a creative new approach to an old problem. That is why I am focusing on the core objective.

I commend the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Eleanor Holmes Norton, for the legislation she has introduced to enhance the University of the District of Columbia (UDC). The legislation we are introducing today also addresses concerns relevant to UDC. I intend to work with the appropriators to add necessary sums in the supplemental budget for UDC.

Since announcing my intention to submit the College Access Bill, I have been gratified by the overwhelming support from the region that the concept has received. Among the many letters from citizens supporting the measure, a few stand out, illustrating from personal experience why the bill is necessary:

The Shaw EcoVillage Project, through its co-director Ondine Wilhelm, wrote me as follows:

 “Mike Sesay was a perfect example of how your bill could make an incredibly positive difference in the
lives of the District’s young people. Mike came to the After School Program at about 12 years old and
quickly applied himself in school, in the community and in photography. A participant in the program for
about five years, Mike quickly rose to the level of staff person during his senior year in highschool. With all
the promise and ambition of a talented young visionary, Mike wanted to pursue aeronautical studies...Had he
been able to attend another state university where he could specialized in his chosen field, I know that both
he and the profession would benefitted greatly.”

Fred Taylor, Executive Director of “For Love of Children” put it this way: “If this bill would pass, it would help these kids with very limited financial resources to have options that other kids in the country have.”

David Cottingham, a D.C. resident, wrote this: “One of the major reasons people in our neighborhood with college-age children have moved from the District to suburban Maryland and Virginia is to enroll their children in the affordable state university systems there.”

One more letter from the many I have received, this one from Michael Smith, another District resident: “I have lived in the District of Columbia for seven years and in the metropolitan area for 23 years. I have two children who attend parochial school...In all candor we have had numerous discussions about moving back to Maryland or Virginia in order to have access to affordable quality higher education. The legislation you propose could directly affect our decision.”

This bill can help D.C. students who study hard and work hard and find out-of-state public colleges out of reach. I would not presume to suggest that this bill solves all of our educational issues. But we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good. This bill is a giant step in the direction of the equal educational opportunity which is our best hope for the future.

Working to achieve the type of educational opportunity this bill would make possible is one of the main reasons I entered public life.

I look forward to working with my colleagues, the Administration and all interested parties to make this bill a reality in the near future.

TAXPAYER BILL OF RIGHTS
Obtaining 990 Tax Form
BY Donna Euben
 Associate Counsel, AAUP
 
 Private colleges and universities, and some public institutions, file with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) an annual information tax return (the 990form). On July 30, 1996 President Clinton signed into law the "Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2" that imposes on charitable organizations the obligation to provide copies of  their 990 forms on request. On Friday, April 9, 1999 the U.S. Treasury Department issued the final regulations. The new law will go into effect on June 8, 1999 (60 days after the issuance of the final regulations). These new rules should make it even easier for AAUP chapters to receive from private colleges
and universities, and some public institutions, copies of those institutions' annual returns.

Some AAUP chapters have found the information from their institutions' 990forms useful. For example:  The Adelphi University AAUP chapter's efforts to inspect a copy of the University's 990 form and an analysis of its contents ultimately led to there signation of then-President Peter Diamandopoulos and all but one of the trustees for, in part, excessive compensation. In 1993 the chapter decided to inspect copies of the University's 990 forms. After much wrangling and intervention by the IRS, the chapter discovered in 1994 that the University had failed to complete Part V (salaries of officers, directors, and trustees), Part II, Line 25 (compensation of officers and directors) and Part I of Schedule A (compensation of the five highest paid
employees other than officers, directors, and trustees).

The Emerson College AAUP chapter used the college's 990 form to compare its institution to other institutions in Massachusetts, in conjunction with AAUP's annual salary survey, to negotiate higher faculty salaries. The chapter used the 990 form listing of the five highest compensated individuals, who were all administrators, and compared them to comparable institutions. Then it compared the faculty salary survey data among those comparable institutions. The chapter found that the Emerson College administrators were more highly paid than administrators at most of the comparable higher education institutions in Massachusetts, and the faculty were paid less than most of the faculty at those comparable institutions.

In the past, most tax-exempt organizations had to make their three most recent 990 forms "available" for public inspection. You could obtain the forms in two ways. You could either write to the IRS and eventually receive copies, or you could go to the institution and ask to inspect the 990 forms.The institution had to allow you to see the forms during regular business hours, but it was not required to provide copies.

Under the new law, a college or university is now required to provide copies of its three most recent 990 forms upon request. (An organization is not required to disclose the parts of the return that identify names and addresses of contributors to the organization.)

If the request is made in person, the institution must provide the copies immediately. The regulations state, however, that if so doing creates an"undue burden," the organization must provide the return "no later than the next business day following the day the unusual circumstances cease to exist." Such a delay, however, cannot exceed five business days.

If the request is made in writing, the institution must provide copies within 30 days. The institution may charge a "reasonable fee for reproduction and mailing costs" that cannot exceed copying charges at the IRS, which currently are $1 for the first page and 15 cents for each additional page.

The law also increases the penalties for institutions that fail to filec omplete 990 forms or that fail to comply with the public inspection requirements. If an organization fails to make its 990 form available, it will be fined $5,000. The previous fine was $1,000.

An institution may be excused from providing copies for two reasons.

First, an institution need not provide copies of its returns if it can show that it has made the 990 forms "widely available," such as posting them on its webpage. The regulations provide that the return must be posted in "a format which exactly reproduces the image of the original document filed with the IRS," and that the format must allow anyone to view it with software that is readily available to the public free of charge. Then, in response to written requests, the institution can simply provide the Internet address.

Second, an institution may be excused from responding to a request that is"part of a harassment campaign." Such a campaign exists when "the purpose of a group of requests was to disrupt the operations of the tax-exempt organization rather than to obtain information." Requests by the news media, however, are not to be considered harassment.

These rules apply to public disclosure of a charitable organization's application for tax exemption (such as Forms 1023 and 1024), and the application's supporting documents.

NOTE: The above rules apply to all charitable organizations, including those AAUP chapters that file the annual 990 form. Therefore, if you file the annual 990 form, you are under the same obligations, as explained above, to make copies of that return available to the public.Tax-exempt organizations, excluding private foundations, that have annual gross receipts normally equal to or less than $25,000 are not required to file the annual information return. In addition, other organizations, such as certain state and local instrumentalities, like some public universities, are excepted from the annual return filing requirement.

 If you have any questions, please contact me.