Officials significantly reduced the number of staff they expected to lay off ahead of their decision late last month to proceed with the move, compared to earlier projections, Staff Council President Kim Fulmer said at Friday’s governing body meeting.
Fulmer said during her presidential report at a Staff Council meeting Chief People Officer Sabrina Minor told her officials have been working to keep layoffs to a minimum and were able to “significantly” reduce the original number of projected layoffs in the wake of the University letting go of 43 staff members late last month, though she didn’t specify how many people officials initially expected they might lay off. Fulmer declined to comment further in response to a request by The Hatchet for additional information, saying she shared all the information she knew during the meeting and was not part of offiicals’ decision-making process.
Officials on Sept. 30 — the last day of fiscal year 2026’s first quarter — laid off 43 staff members, spanning at least five schools and divisions, which came as officials navigate GW’s growing structural deficit.
“This year, we advocated for no layoffs, and even though there were layoffs, the layoffs were kept to a minimum because of the influence of the Staff Council,” Fulmer said.
Fulmer also said during her presidential address she told Board of Trustees Chair Grace Speights in a meeting ahead of her report at Friday’s Board meeting that staff are “so tired” and want their merit salary increases back. Officials in late April halted merit-based salary increases planned to take place in July in an effort to reduce the University’s expense budget for fiscal year 2026 to combat its structural deficit and higher education “headwinds.”
With about two and a half months left in her term as president, Fulmer reflected on the group’s accomplishments this year, including the University maintaining its hybrid work policy, increasing staff eligibility for reduced parking rates and gaining staff seats on various University-wide committees. She said many of the Staff Council’s goals have been “tough” to implement this year as they’ve being tied to funding, though her refocused future goal is to advocate for officials to separate wage increases from performance reviews.
Fulmer said she’s currently asking officials for a flat 3 percent salary increase for all staff and an additional 1.5 percent merit increase for high performers at the discretion of their divisions. Fulmer said the Staff Council has been advocating for such an increase since April 2024 when they passed a resolution to do so, adding that she’s continuing to advocate for the pay bump.
Staff in April 2024 said the resolution was spurred by a discussion on GW’s merit pay compensation model, which annually awards bonuses to staff who go beyond their duties outlined in their job description. They said at the time merit pay does not account for rising inflation and the model is not a fair analysis of staff performance.
“Our connections to the top administration are really important and I want to say our executive committee representatives and committee members are working hard for you,” Fulmer said. “We do it because we’re passionate about improving the staff experience, and over the past two and a half years, we have found our voice, and I’m so proud of what we’ve accomplished.”
Karen Froslid-Jones, associate provost for academic planning and assessment and the University’s accreditation liaison officer, told the Staff Council that GW’s accreditor, the Middle States Commission on Higher Education — who currently in the process of reaccrediting the University — is revising its standards amid increased scrutiny from the Trump administration over diversity, equity and inclusion practices. She said she does not expect GW will need to change its policies in response to Middle States’ internal policy revisions, in part because they began the process under the old policies.
Middle States announced last week that it will review its accreditation standards in light of federal pressure, following President Donald Trump’s executive order targeting DEI practices in higher education. Froslid-Jones said the commission’s president acknowledged the need to align with federal regulations but noted the current review focuses on areas like student success initiatives, high-impact practices and code of conduct and doesn’t mention DEI.
Froslid-Jones said Middle States advised institutions, shortly after the Trump administration’s executive orders targeting DEI initiatives, to align their accreditation efforts with both federal regulations and commission standards. She said Middle States earlier this month also instructed schools undergoing review to skip DEI-related criteria in their reaccreditation materials.
Middle States serves as GW’s accrediting body and will use its seven standards to verify GW’s quality as an academic institution and ensure its eligibility for Title IV funds, like financial aid grants and other federal support, throughout its review of the University, which is projected to conclude in 2027. Middle States added DEI principles to its standards and criteria when it last revised them in 2023, Froslid-Jones said.
Middle States’ Vice President of Institutional Field Relations and the University’s liaison Michael Bowden said duing a University town hall in April that the body has DEI principles in its standard, adding then that they had “no plans” of removing those principles.
Tricia Greenstein, who leads the Staff Council’s Justice, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Committee, asked Froslid-Jones how GW is addressing recent federal efforts to influence higher education through accreditation.
Froslid-Jones said she had a meeting with the University’s Office of the General Counsel after her presentation to the Staff Council to discuss, in part, GW’s response to federal regulations. She said the University would “typically” not be expected to incorporate Middle States’ new changes because GW began its accreditation process last year under its old standards.
“I can’t honestly say for sure what they’ll do,” Froslid-Jones said. “If they’ll make us do something different or not because of their federal standards, I don’t know.”
She said GW will is not “giving up” its mission as an institution and the University can still be true to itself in the face of federal regulations around accreditation.
Allene David, the Staff Council’s Staff Development & Recognition Committee chair, asked how the University will remain true to itself during the accreditation process, given the uncertainty surrounding changes to Middle States’ standards and potential adjustments to its DEI criteria. David said changes to Middle States’ standards could lead to GW making changes that could affect its mission due to requests from the federal government on accreditors.
Froslid-Jones said she doesn’t expect Middle States to drive GW to change its policies, though the committee writing GW’s self-study — which requires the University to self-evaluate its mission, quality, student success and resources — may have to think about how they’re writing certain aspects of the evaluation. She said she doesn’t see a way in which accreditation bodies are going to force institutions to change their policies, and if they do, GW’s general counsel, president and the Board will navigate it.
“We’ll come to that bridge when we come to it, okay, but I don’t actually see there being any way that accreditation is going to force institutions to change,” Froslid-Jones said.
