Agenda for the Faculty Senate
Meeting
April 7, 2010
Room B113, Robinson Hall
3:00 - 4:15 p m
II.
Approval of the Minutes of February
17, 2010 and March 3, 2010
III.
Announcements
President Alan Merten
Motion on Non-Discrimination Attachment A
Budget and
Resources
Request for Faculty Senate recommendation to Emeritus/Emerita rank Attachment B
Organization and
Operations
Teaching
Effectiveness Committee
Report: On-Line Course Evaluations – Kris Smith
Committee on External Academic Relations
Non-Discrimination Policies Attachment C
Final Report: Faculty Views of President Merten’s Request for Contract Extension
Attachment D
Update: Faculty Lounge – Susan
Trencher
ATTACHMENT A
FACULTY
SENATE RESOLUTION TO SUPPORT NON-DISCRIMINATION
Sponsored by the Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate
Whereas the Graduate and Professional Student Association has unanimously
adopted a Resolution to Support Non-Discrimination at George Mason University;
Whereas the Student Senate of George Mason University has unanimously passed a
Bill to Support Non-Discrimination at George Mason University;
Whereas the Board of Visitors of George Mason University has adopted a
resolution in which it remains deeply committed to equal treatment of all
persons in their dealings with the university in any and all contexts;
Whereas the American Association of University Professors has vigorously
advocated its support for non-discrimination policies, especially the Virginia
Conference of the AAUP and the AAUP Committee on Sexual Diversity and Gender
Identity;
Whereas the Faculty Senate of GMU continues to support University Policy 1201
that promotes a culture of inclusivity and non-discrimination;
Therefore, be it resolved that the Faculty Senate of George Mason University
encourages the Virginia General Assembly to add "sexual orientation"
and "gender identity" to Section 2.2-3900 B.1. of the Virginia Human
Rights Act.
ATTACHMENT B1
The Faculty
Senate recommends conferral of the honorary rank of Emerita to Assistant
Professor Lucille Boland as recommended by the Promotion and Tenure Review
Committee and Dean Travis of the College of Health and Human Services.
October 15,
2009
Robin
Remsburg, PhD, RN, FAAN
Associate Dean, School of Nursing
College of
Health and Human Services
George Mason University
4400 University Drive, MS 3C4
Fairfax, VA 22030
Dear Dr.
Remsburg:
This letter
is written in support of the nomination of Assistant Professor M. Lucille
Boland to the honorable title of Professor Emerita, College of Health and Human
Services (CHHS), School of Nursing.
For the past
30 years, Ms. Boland has supported the teaching mission of our College. She is widely recognized as a compassionate
and caring instructor who holds her students to high standards in the areas of
critical thinking, patient safety, and ethical practice. She has taught thousands of nursing students
who now provide quality health care for individuals and families in the
Northern Virginia community and around the globe. While the full impact of her teaching
effectiveness is difficult to measure, faculty members who have worked with her
know her work has been a powerful force for the good.
In addition
to her teaching role in classroom and hospital settings, Ms. Boland has advanced
the quality of education in our School through her hard work and leadership in
the developing the Toups Simulation Laboratory.
Beginning in 2002, she worked with designers to determine the best
layout and equipment to create a state-of-the-art lab for students to practice
nursing skills until they reached sufficient proficiency and confidence for
actual patient care applications. Her
own experience in both teaching and clinical practice informed the excellent
decisions she made in designing the lab that continues to serve the School well
while technological advances in patient care change rapidly. In addition to her foundational work for this
facility, Ms. Boland has established an endowment for the Toups Simulation
Laboratory to ensure that future students will be afforded the same level of
excellent preparation for clinical practice that our current students have
experienced.
Further,
Ms.Boland has had a leadership role in the development of the Dimensions magazine, a periodical that
showcases the achievements of the College.
In this effort, she has written original articles, collected and
processed writings from College members, and worked with the University
Creative Services to design a layout that appeals to a broad spectrum of target
audiences including Alumni, Donors, Friends of the College, other Schools of
Nursing, and participants at local, national, and international conferences.
In addition
to all of her accomplishments in the School and College, Ms. Boland has been an
outstanding member of our University community during her time here at
Mason. For the past four years she has
been the faculty representative to the CHHS Alumni Chapter Board of the
University Alumni Association. In that
role she has served as the liaison between faculty members and alumni. As the faculty representative, she also sits
on the Scholarship and Awards Committee that is responsible for selecting
recipients of the Marie Gillman Scholarship Award and the CHHS Distinguished
Alumni Award. A testament to her
excellent work on behalf of our alumni is a recent vote by the Board of the
Alumni Chapter to award her Honorary Alumna status. She will be one of only three people in the
history of the College to receive this recognition.
Since 1996,
Ms. Boland has served on the University Task Force for the Annual Health and
Fitness Day. Here she coordinated the
participation of Nursing students and numerous community groups (e.g., Lion’s
Club, Inova Blood Donor Services). She
also assisted with marketing and advertising for the event. In addition, she has served as our faculty
liaison to the Catholic Campus Ministry since 1988.
Ms. Boland
belongs to numerous professional organizations.
Most noteworthy are her contributions to the Association of Women’s
Health Obstetrics and Neonatal Nurses.
Since 1984, she has held a wide array of local, state, district and
national offices in the organization.
In
recognition of all of Ms. Boland’s outstanding contributions to the School,
College and University, the Promotion, Tenure, and Reappointment Committee of
the School of Nursing has unanimously voted to support the awarding of the
title of Professor Emerita to M. Lucille Boland.
Sincerely,
Kathleen F.
Gaffney, PhD, RN-CS, F/PNP - Chair, PTR Committee
Charlene
Douglas, PhD, RN - Member, PTR Committee
Pamela Cangelosi, PhD, RN, CNE - Member, PTR Committee
Loretta Normile, PhD, RN - Member,
PTR Committee
ATTACHMENT
B2
To: Peter N. Stearns, Provost
Alan G. Merten,
President
From: Shirley S. Travis, Dean
College of Health and Human
Services
Date: December
16, 2009
I
am pleased to recommend Ms. Lucile Boland, Assistant Professor in the School of
Nursing, for Emeritus Status upon her resignation and retirement from George
Mason University on February 1, 2010. Ms. Boland has been an important member
of the Mason faculty for 30 years. She was here during the early days of
developing the nursing program with Dr. Evelyn Cohelan, has been a steadfast
supporter of the growth and expansion of what is now the College of Health and
Human Services, and was Chairperson of the Naming Committee for the new
college.
During
her years at Mason, Ms. Boland interacted with hundreds of our future alumni.
She is one of our most versatile faculty members who carries her passion for
the profession into each and every class she teaches. The success of her
students is her passion. In her decades at Mason, Ms. Boland has done more for
community relations than most of us could ever hope to accomplish. She is
trusted, valued, and sought after by community organizations and our own
university operations. She delivers on promises and commitments. Our college
alumni chapter is in the process of making her an honorary alumna in
recognition of her many extraordinary contributions to the college alumni
association.
We
respectfully recommend the title of Professor Emerita of Nursing for Ms. Boland
to be effective March 1, 2010.
ATTACHMENT C
TO: Faculty Senate
FROM: Committee on External Academic Relations
DATE: March 30, 2010
RE: Non-Discrimination Policies
This memorandum is in response to the issues surrounding non-discrimination language in Virginia code. After some discussion, the committee recommends three actions.
1. We recommend a resolution by the Faculty Senate supporting the BOV resolution that was sent to the legislature. The full text of the BOV resolution is contained at the end of this memo. Specifically, our resolution would read,
Whereas the Board of Visitors of George Mason University has issued a resolution on March 24, 2010 concerning discrimination against all persons in their dealings with the university; and
Whereas the Faculty of George Mason University believes that all employees and
students of the Commonwealth deserve statutory protection against
discrimination;
Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Faculty of George Mason University support the full resolution of the Board of Visitors of George Mason University in their deep commitment to equal treatment of all persons in their dealings with the university in any and all contexts.
2. We recommend that any faculty member who would like to do so sign the online petition developed by Equality Virginia (the most organized and powerful voice for non-discrimination in Virginia). A link to the online petition can be found at: http://www.equalityvirginia.org/advocacy/legislative-advocacy-center.html.
3. We recommend that faculty members write their senators and delegates in support of non-discrimination. A potential letter follows for your consideration. If you do not have the information for your senator/delegate, you can get information about who your senators and delegates are by going to http://www.equalityvirginia.org/advocacy/at-the-general-assembly.html. Please note that letters should not be sent on university stationery; they should come from you as a private individual, although it is perfectly fine to indicate that you are a member of the faculty at George Mason (as in the suggested letter).
We should note that the committee recommends support of the BOV resolution rather than the development of an alternative resolution on the part of the Faculty Senate. The committee feels that support of the existing resolution provides a sense of unity within the University community. Further, the committee is concerned that explicitly including language regarding specific classes of individuals may dilute our message. A bill went before the legislature this year that explicitly contained language such as that which we believe will be proposed by the Executive Committee of the Senate. Although this bill passed in the Senate, it failed in the House. If we proposed this language again, some lawmakers may believe that we have not done our homework and don't realize the House of Delegates will not be supportive. We believe that even friendly delegates don't like to be asked to spearhead something that has little or no chance of success. Thus, we support the broader statement that may have more of a chance of influencing legislators.
The committee also wanted to pass along two
additional pieces of information. The first is from the American Association of
State Colleges and Universities. AASCU has a general phrase in its mission
statement regarding a commitment to access and opportunity. In 2009, the
American Council on Education and The College Board drafted a statement on
diversity. One section, on defining diversity seems germane and useful. It
reads:
“An expanded definition of “diversity.” Federal legal issues associated with
campus diversity tend to center on issues of race and ethnicity (with some
corresponding focus on issues of gender, as well as on
policies affecting undocumented students). Coupled with the “social justice”
access and diversity goals that have shaped the recent history of so many
higher education institutions (where issues of race have
been predominant), the term “diversity” in campus dialogues has often served as
a literal substitute for an institutional race/ethnicity focus — and mistakenly
so. One of the few definitive bright lines to emerge from federal case law —
that educational diversity cannot be limited to issues of race and ethnicity
(or else, it is little more than racial balancing) — is an important principle
for guiding higher education discussions about how institutions value and
define diversity, with attention to the rich array of student backgrounds and
characteristics that can (and should) shape the makeup of a robust learning
environment. Thus, important conversations on campus should include not only a
focus on the role of race and ethnic diversity as part of the educational
enterprise, but also real attention to issues of socioeconomic status (with
obvious implications for institutional financial aid policies), family
educational background, geographic diversity, multicultural factors, sexual
orientation, religious background, life experiences (e.g., military
experience), unique skills and talents, and much more.”
The second is an editorial written by two faculty members in the Psychology Department. It was not accepted for publication, but you might find it helpful as background information.
Science Shows Cuccinelli’s Efforts Will Harm Virginia
By Eden B. King, Ph.D. and Jose M. Cortina, Ph.D.
Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s recently encouraged the leaders of Virgina’s public colleges and universities to remove discrimination protections for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered (GLBT). Governor Bob McDonnell responded to criticism about Cuccinelli’s advice by stating that he would not tolerate bias toward gay workers. Unfortunately, such statements are hollow promises: without formal provisions for the protection of GLBT workers, McDonnell would have no standing to prevent such bias from occurring or to punish offenders.
The recommendations of Cucinelli and McDonnell are not only an affront to the spirit of public education, they are inconsistent with the science that these institutions of higher education produce. Indeed, our recent review of scientific evidence on this matter (in the journal Industrial Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice) shows that removing protection for GLBT individuals will have negative implications for the people of, and institutions of higher education in, Virginia.
Objections to GLBT non-discrimination policies typically take one of three forms. First, some argue that GLBT individuals do not need to be protected from discrimination because our society has moved beyond prejudice in the workplace. Research directly contradicts this argument by finding that GLBT workers are less likely to be hired, more likely to be fired, and less likely to be promoted than their heterosexual counterparts. As much as 66 percent of GLBT workers report that they have faced discrimination.
Second, some argue that GLBT individuals should not be protected from discrimination because the costs of maintaining such polices may be too high for organizations. While it is true that organizations, colleges, and universities may pay costs for initiatives such as benefits for same-sex partners, research has also shown that the costs of allowing discrimination to be maintained are substantial. Research from scientists across the country has shown that individuals who encounter discrimination report physical, stress-related symptoms and are at risk for depression. More directly related to the bottom-line, discrimination is associated with outcomes that affect worker productivity and organizational performance: decreased job satisfaction, decreased job commitment, and increased stress and turnover. Institutions that make employment decisions on the basis of sexual orientation will encounter problems not only with employee health and retention, but also with performance. Given that there is no evidence that GLBT workers perform any less well than heterosexual workers, personnel decisions made on the basis of sexual orientation will be inefficient and therefore costly for institutions.
A third objection to GLBT non-discrimination policies is based on a moral argument-- the idea that non-heterosexual people and behaviors are morally or ethically wrong. While we personally emphatically disagree with this belief, we endorse the ideals of academic freedom and welcome respectful debate about ideas and values in institutions of higher learning. In line with the goals of a comprehensive education, we ask students in our classes to think critically about multiple perspectives on given topics and to consider both sides of controversial issues. Science points to the importance of varied perspectives in such discussions- in the absence of diversity, people tend to talk about those things that everyone else is already talking about. It is human nature to conform to the opinions and behaviors of those around us. Policies that, implicitly or explicitly, promote discrimination toward any group suppress discussion of divergent ideas as these ideas might be perceived as socially unacceptable. The implication of discrimination toward GLBT individuals in institutions of higher learning, then, is that students will engage in less critical thinking and will ultimately be unprepared for the real world that awaits them upon graduation.
Academic institutions can't control discrimination in the business world, but we can try to open the eyes of our students to the reality and consequences of discrimination with the hope that those students won't perpetuate it. We can also try to provide a (temporary) home for our LGBT students safe from such discrimination. Indeed, we have a responsibility to do so. Employer-based strategies, such as the ones Cuccinelli wishes to rescind and McDonnell refuses to formalize, are precisely the efforts that have been shown to improve the experiences of GLBT workers. The presence of such policies (particularly when paired with a supportive culture for GLBT workers) is associated with reductions in discrimination, and thus can help to avoid the negative outcomes described above. In the interest of academic freedom, student development, equality, and even the bottom-line, our university leaders and our legislators should recognize that scientific evidence clearly points to the inclusion of GLBT workers in non-discrimination policies.
Eden King and Jose
Cortina are professors in the Department of Psychology at George Mason
University. Dr. King’s research focuses on how businesses can manage equitable
and diverse organizations. Dr. Cortina’s
research focuses on emotion management in the workplace.
Suggested Letter:
HOME ADDRESS
DATE
NAME/ADDRESS OF SENATOR/DELEGATE
Dear Senator/Delegate ______:
I am writing to inform you that I support changing Virginia s laws to protect gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender employees from discrimination in the workplace. Without anti-discrimination protections for its citizens, Virginia will lose many professors, students, citizens and businesses to other states that do not discriminate. Bigotry is not good for education, nor for business.
ADD PERSONAL STORY OR INFORMATION IF YOU WOULD LIKE.
As a member of your district and a faculty member at George Mason University, I encourage you to support non-discrimination legislation that protects all of the Commonwealth’s employees.
Sincerely,
NAME
BOV Resolution
Resolution of the Board of Visitors of George Mason University
Whereas, a diverse and inclusive learning environment that respects and enhances the potential of all members of our community is vitally important to the mission of George Mason University to achieve excellence in teaching, research, and service; and
Whereas, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender faculty, students, administrators and staff make outstanding contributions to the accomplishment of the university mission; and
Whereas, the Governor of the Commonwealth has affirmed that discrimination based upon factors such as one’s sexual orientation or parental status violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution; and
Whereas, all employees and students of the Commonwealth deserve statutory protection against discrimination;
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Board of Visitors of George Mason University that it remains deeply committed to equal treatment of all persons in their dealings with the university in any and all contexts.
Adopted: March 24, 2010
ATTACHMENT D
FINAL REPORT
Faculty Views
of President Merten’s
Request for Contract Extension
Faculty Presidential Review Committee (FPRC)
to the Chair of the Faculty Senate
George Mason University
February 20 2010
Members David
Wilsford (CHSS), Chair
James
Carroll (CVPA)
Robert
Dudley (CHSS)
Mark
Goodale (ICAR)
June Tangney (CHSS)
I.
The
committee’s charge
II. The process
III. Findings of the questionnaire – quantitative and qualitative
IV. Annual evaluations of the president
V. Fundraising record
VI. Views from the deans and directors
VII. The committee’s private meeting with the president
VIII.
Committee statement
IX. Conclusion
X. Appendices – A. Questionnaire Data + B. Fundraising Record
I. The committee’s charge
President Alan Merten has requested that the Board of Visitors
(BOV) extend his contract for an additional two years – from June 30 2011 to
June 30 2013. The Faculty Handbook, in Section 1.2.5 [“Faculty Participation in
the Selection of Certain
Members of the Central Administration”], states that:
“The faculty plays a vital role in the appointment and
reappointment of senior academic administrators and other leadership positions
related to the academic mission of the university. The Board of Visitors
provides for participation on presidential search and reappointment committees
by faculty who are elected by the General Faculty. The search and selection
process must include opportunities for the General Faculty to meet with
candidates who are finalists for the presidency.”
Therefore, through its Nominations Committee, the Faculty Senate
sought nominees from the general faculty to comprise a five-person committee
that would solicit and assess faculty views on the extension of President Merten’s
contract. This Faculty Presidential
Review Committee (FPRC) was charged with reporting to the Chair of the Faculty
Senate, who sits, ex officio, on the Board of Visitors and who is to present
the committee’s findings to the Rector of the Board.
II. The process
As noted in Section I of this report (above),
the Faculty Presidential Review Committee (FPRC), was established by the
Faculty Senate in view of Section 1.2.5 of the Faculty Handbook, in the
circumstance of President Merten's request to the Board of Visitors (BOV)
for a contract extension. The committee is composed of David Wilsford, FPRC
Chair (CHSS,) James Carroll (CVPA), Robert Dudley (CHSS), Mark Goodale (ICAR),
and June Tangney (CHSS).
The committee was charged by the Senate with
soliciting and assessing input from the general faculty and presenting its
report to Dr. Peter Pober, Chair of the Faculty Senate. In order to carry out its charge – within
very narrow time constraints (3 weeks) – the committee: (a) designed and administered an email survey
of all general faculty through a confidentiality-protected, specially created
e-mail in-box and listserv, (b) met with President Merten, and c) conducted a
series of individual meetings with most deans and directors. Data and comments were retrieved and collated
(names removed) from the email surveys, as well as from (d) the “Faculty
Evaluation of Administrators” reports from 2002-2009. In addition, the fundraising record was
provided to the general faculty, as well as the annual reports of the president
to the Faculty Senate, and (e) these records were also reviewed by the
committee.
The committee proceeded by consensus vote and
its findings and this report are adopted and approved unanimously.
III. Findings of the questionnaire – quantitative and qualitative
As a means of assessing the views of the
faculty, the committee created a brief four-question instrument. This questionnaire was sent to all tenure
track faculty, research faculty, and term appointments. The committee did not sample the faculty;
instead, it polled the entire population (census). Still, it should be noted that only 124
faculty members respond to all or any portion of the questionnaire (out of
nearly 1200 addressees).
Faculty were invited to complete the questionnaire
and email it to a confidentiality- protected mailbox established for this
purpose. (Some faculty chose to send the message to a member of the
committee. In that case, the committee
member forwarded these messages to the confidential mailbox.) Messages in the mailbox were combined into a
data base that included all of the responses minus identifying
information. Thus, the data base used in
the analysis is devoid of any identifying information.
1. Desired Qualities of a University President.
As part of the committee’s effort to gauge
faculty views we asked the faculty to describe the qualities that they look for
in a university president. This
question was open-ended (i.e., specific possibilities were not presented). One hundred and one respondents provided an
inventory of qualities that they look for in a university president.
Respondents provided a multitude of answers,
but common themes emerged. Half of those responding specifically mentioned that
one of the qualities they looked for was leadership. Almost half cited the ability to raise funds. More than a quarter specifically
mentioned that they expected a university president to possess a vision for the university. A
similar number expect the president to be an advocate for the university outside the university community. Just under 20% expect a university president
to be accessible to the university
community. Ten percent mentioned management skills.
2. Degree to Which President Merten Fulfills the Identified Qualities.
The survey then asked each respondent to rate
on a scale of 1 (poor) to 5 (very well) the degree to which President Merten
lived up to the qualities that they themselves looked for in a university
president.
Although there is a bi-modal divergence of
views on his job performance (i.e, many scores on both extreme ends of the
scale), President Merten scored an average 3.3 across all responses on the 5
point scale. A little over 30 percent
(the mode) of the respondents rated the
president’s performance a 5 (very well), while 15.5 percent felt that his
accomplishments deserved only 1 (poor) on the scale.
Those who rated the president low were most
likely to express concern about his perceived inability to raise funds. That is not to say that everyone who thinks
fundraising important rates him low. But
it does reveal that the most frequent objection to his performance is the
respondent’s perception of a poor fundraising record.
The president’s perceived accessibility to the
University community (or rather the perceived lack of accessibility) was also a
common justification for a low rating.
However, again, many respondents who gave the president a high rating
mentioned their view that he was indeed accessible to the university
community.
As for those who rate the President’s job
performance highly, most comments attributed Mason’s growth—physically and in
terms of its national reputation—to the leadership provided by the
president. He is often described in
these views as energetic and successful in promoting Mason, and in the process,
he is credited for turning Mason from a regional university into a university
with an international reputation.
3. Should President Merten’s Term be Extended Two Years?
Question 3 of the survey simply asked if the
president’s term should be extended for two years – from June 30 2011 to June
20 2013. Respondents were asked to reply
either Yes or No. Of the 124 who
responded to the question, 61 percent answered Yes, 39 percent answered No.
4. Reasons for Supporting or Rejecting the President’s Request for a
Contract Extension.
The reasons for supporting or rejecting an
extension of the President’s contract are varied. Many of those rejecting the extension cited
what they consider a poor job of fundraising.
Indeed a perceived lack of successful fundraising is the modal response
of those who object to a contract extension, but it is one of only many issues
raised by respondents. Many of those not
supporting the extension point to what they see as an unresponsive and remote
president. Some cited his initial failure to meet with the general faculty over
this matter.
Comments from those who supported the
extension were more varied. Some were as
simple as, “GMU thrives under Merten,.” or “He’s brilliant.” Others were much more nuanced: mini-essays that weighed the president’s
strengths and weaknesses and concluded that the former outweighed the latter. A
few respondents stressed that this was a bad time to be looking for a new
president, especially in view of hard financial times in the general economy.
IV. Annual evaluations of the
president
The annual evaluations of the president are
highly consistent with the results of the contract extension survey just
described.
Data on the Faculty’s annual evaluation of
President Merten were available for the past six academic years – 2002-2003
through 2008-2009. The faculty’s overall
evaluation of the President’s job performance has remained fairly consistent
over the past six years, with means ranging from 3.21 to 3.63 on a 5-point
scale, and considerable variance. There
were no obvious trends across time.
President Merten’s overall job performance rating for 2008-2009 was
3.33, slightly above the midpoint signifying “adequate.”
In the president’s two areas identified in
these surveys as weakness, fundraising and faculty relations, faculty ratings
were similarly stable across time. On a
4-point scale, faculty rated “Effectively obtains resources from the
Commonwealth” between 2.6 and 2.83. (The past year was 2.63). Faculty rated “Effectively obtains funding
and other resources from non-state sources ” between 2.5 and 2.76. (Last year’s item was worded “Effectively
obtains funding from private sources” was rated 2.46). Faculty rated “Effectively addresses the concerns
of faculty” between 2.52 and 2.73. (Last year was 2.52.)
The president’s areas of greatest strength
were captured by the item “Effectively develops relationships between the
university and the larger community including political and business groups and
university alumni,” with ratings between 3.01 and 3.34. (The past year was
3.01).
V. Fundraising record
The weakest element of President Merten’s
record seems to be fundraising, which many parties make explicit note of and
which comes through rather clearly in the attached appendix reporting this
record, using data from the GMU Foundation and the Chronicle of Higher
Education. Taking into account the
recent economic crisis that has adversely affected university endowments
(closely tied to the stock market), as well as people’s willingness to make
charitable contributions, we focused on fundraising data overall from the first
11 years of President Merten’s tenure:
mid 1996-2007. (See sources for
data cited below in the appendix: The fundraising record.)
GMU Foundation contributions from 1997
(President Merten’s first full year in office) to 2007 ranged from $8,324,684
(in 2000) to $26,979,537 (in 2006).
These figures are far below fundraising efforts of other state
university presidents, according to data presented in the Chronicle of Higher
Education. When President Merten arrived
on July 1, 1996, the GMU endowment was $17,890,000, according to the
Chronicle. From 1996-2007, the endowment
grew to $54,720,000, an increase of $36,830,000 total, with an average of
$3,348,000 per year. The GMU endowment
is the lowest by far of GMU’s new SCHEV-Approved Peer Group. As of 2007, other SCHEV-Approved Peer Group
endowments range from a low of $97,684,000 (Georgia State University) to a high
of $1,556,853,000 (Indiana University).
President Merten has cited two factors to explain this fundraising
record. First, in his address to the
Senate (Nov. 28,
2007) (and in his private meeting with our
committee), President Merten observed that GMU fundraising is hampered by its
relative “youth” as an institution.
Without an extensive, mature, and financially well-off alumni,
fundraising is adversely affect. He
stated that GMU is doing well in comparison to other similar young
universities.
However, data gathered from the Chronicle of Higher Education shortly
after his 2007 address do not support this claim. A survey of institutions established in
Florida and California after GMU was established in 1957 shows that only one
(Florida Institute of Technology, established in 1958) had a smaller endowment
($42,916,000) than GMU in 2007.
Endowments of other “young” universities are typically much larger than
GMU’s by several orders of magnitude.
For example, the 2007 endowment of the University of South Florida
(established in 1960) was $388,516,000; the endowment of UC, Irvine
(established in 1965) was $234,024,000; the endowment of the University of Central
Florida (established in 1968) was $116,291,000; the endowment of Cal State
Fullerton (established in 1959) was $96,228,000. Each of these institutions in Florida and
California are located in less wealthy communities than Northern Virginia,
which is among the most wealthy regions in the nation.
Second, in his private meeting with our committee, President Merten
also asserted that fundraising in the National Capital Area is complicated by
the fact that many corporations serve as contractors to the Federal
Government. Such corporations would
jeopardize their relations with Federal Agencies, President Merten explained,
if they were to make substantial contributions to GMU, thus signaling
substantial profits made from Federal Contracts. However, other universities in the National
Capital Area have had markedly greater success in fundraising and endowment
growth, relative to GMU.
The committee notes that a very substantial
amount of fundraising at GMU comes not from central administration efforts, but
rather from faculty research and direct contributions from the faculty. For example, in 2007, the “Faculty and
Research” category accounted for more than half of the total (51 percent) in
gifts and pledges to GMU. Of the $22.5 million in gifts and pledges in
2007, this category accounted for $11.478 million
VI. Views from the deans and
directors
The Deans and Directors (DD) of George Mason
University are, in general, very supportive of President Merten’s request for a
two-year contract extension. Their reasons vary as does the degree to which the
DDs feel enthusiasm for President Merten’s performance in relation to what they
believe are the ideal characteristics for a president of this university during
a time in which the economics and politics of higher education are undergoing
rapid changes.
One DD emphasized that the faculty and
department heads in his unit were satisfied with the President’s performance
and that there is no significant dissident view on this matter within the
college. In particular, they appreciated the autonomy the President grants them
in research and teaching, without micromanaging the affairs of the college or
of the faculty. This DD also made the point that the timing is not right
now to begin a search for a new president because of the many projects that
need to be completed. In addition, this DD noted that the President is very
good with the local community.
This DD’s two concerns about the President
were that his imprint on academics was not very strong and that he could be
more effective in representing the university’s interests in Richmond.
Two other DDs were even more supportive of President Merten’s tenure at the
university. They stated that he is an
excellent and effective president and that his contract should “definitely” be
extended. They stressed the autonomy he gave the DDs in contrast to the tight
reins of the previous administration. They both felt that the cooperation that
exists between units in the university was a direct consequence of the President’s
management style and vision for the university. A criticism shared by both
these DDs was that they felt the President could do a better job in
fundraising.
One of these two DDs also had very high praise
for President Merten, although he had some very specific comments regarding
fundraising. He emphasized that the President should be encouraged to ask for
the large, university-wide donations so that the DDs could continue to focus on
the unit-level fundraising.
Two other DDs emphasized both the strengths
and weaknesses in President Merten’s record, but on balance were positive in
their overall assessment. Like other DDs, both expressed appreciation for
the autonomy afforded DDs under President Merten’s administration. They
feel that although President Merten may appear to be somewhat distant and
uninvolved at times, that this is actually a positive feature of the
President’s management style when compared to the possibility of a meddling and
intrusive president. Both felt that the President did a good job
representing the university to wider publics. Both emphasized that the
President was genuinely enthusiastic about the university and has a talent for
communicating the spirit and uniqueness of the institution. Both DDs expressed
disappointment with President Merten’s fundraising record, but noted that it
could have been worse.
Another DD noted the fact that President
Merten had served for 14 years, which was the outer range of what is common
among university presidents in the US. He emphasized that the university’s
physical plant had been transformed under the President’s leadership and that
the reputation of the university has improved significantly. He supported an
extension of the President’s contract for two more years, yet felt that the university
as a community should begin to plan for what will be an across-the-board change
in senior leadership in 2013. This DD appreciated the way President Merten
showed support for innovative and new knowledge areas at the university and was
willing to let a thousand flowers bloom. This DD would like to see the
President more visible around campus and more explicit in articulating his
vision for the university.
Finally, another DD grounded his comments
about President Merten, and his request for a two-year contract extension, in
terms of a broader analysis of the changing nature of higher education in the
US and the particular challenges George Mason University will continue to face
as state funding declines faster than the university’s alumni can coalesce into
a significant source of fundraising. This DD supports a contract extension for
President Merten but, like other DDs, emphasizes the fact that senior
leadership at the university will undergo major changes in 2013. Although he
supports a two-year contract extension for the President, this DD believes that
the university community should think clearly about how to best proceed with a
change in leadership at the end of this extension.
VII. FPRC private meeting with
the president
As specified above, Section 1.2.5 of the
Faculty Handbook, provides that an open meeting be held between the faculty and
any candidate for appointment or reappointment to the presidency. The Faculty Presidential Review Committee
therefore requested of President Merten an open meeting with the general
faculty. Through his chief of staff, the president declined, on the grounds
that an extension of contract is not reappointment. He agreed to meet
with the FPRC privately. While the meeting
was private, therefore not open to the general faculty, there was no provision
that it be “off-the-record”.
This meeting took place on Friday February 12
2010 with the president in his conference room and was a cordial exchange of
full and frank views about his request to the Board of Visitors (BOV) for a
two-year extension of his contract.
In opening the meeting, the
committee chair expressed regret that the president felt that he had to decline
an open meeting with the general faculty.
The president then stated to the committee that of course he would agree
to meet the full faculty, if the committee thought it important.
To lay out the framework for
common discussion, the committee chair asked the president to address two
specific areas: What are the president’s
goals, objectives and priorities for the university in the next three-to-five
year timeframe? What specific action
steps does the president envision during this timeframe in order to accomplish
the goals, objectives and priorities that he believes most important.
In response, the president began
with his views of where Mason had been in 1996, when he had been named George
Johnson’s successor, and how far it had come in the intervening 14 years.
First, he noted that the most
important needs facing the university in 1996 were to (a) boost the academic
standards of faculty and students in both measurable and immeasurable ways, and
(b) promote the school. (“Tell our story.”)
“The pride that others now have in George Mason is my favorite accomplishment,”
he said.
The second imperative facing him
in 1996, the president noted, was to “make the university more accountable”
against the backdrop of a rather disorganized, deeply entrepreneurial
culture. After consolidating and
reorganizing, he said, “We now have accountability.” While an intellectual and academic
entrepreneurial culture will always be important to the university, the
necessity at the time was to tease and sift “order out of chaos.”
Committee members then turned the
discussion toward matters of program development and why, in the words of one
member, “we haven’t moved out of the third tier.”
In the last 14 years, the
president said, decisions to develop Mason in certain areas have been more a
function of targets of opportunity than of strategic planning. (cf, for example,
bio-informatics). The reason Mason has
yet to move toward the first tier is that “we pay a price for our focus. There are lots of things that we don’t do.” Equally important, the president argued, are
the deficiencies in the amount of external support and resources that Mason
receives.
The president noted the low record
in fundraising, arguing that Mason faces two obstacles on this score: first, its geographic area is dominated by
federal agencies and non-profits; these do not give. Northern Virginia is poor in corporate
largesse. Most are federal
contractors. Mason has done better with
private individuals, although it faces the handicap of being a “young university.”
The president also noted a lack of
success in raising state appropriations for Mason vis-à-vis other large state
universities in Virginia. Along any
index, Mason is still more poorly supported in its state funding than the other
comparable institutions.
The committee chair then brought
the discussion back to the president’s goals, objectives and priorities for the
near and medium-term future. The
president identified three areas: (a) to
keep improving the quality of students and faculty, (b) to increase the level
of federal contracts and grants, and c) the increase private fundraising and
involving of the alumni.
The president closed the meeting
with a number of stories about how Mason has affected the lives of others and
about how Mason and its community has affected his life in the 14 years that he
has been president. In explaining his
desire for a two-year contract extension, the president stated that Mason had
always “exceeded my expectations and is constantly a different place. . . . I
want to do more and more to institutionalize that.” Besides, he added, “our culture is unstable.
Everything has to be reinforced every day.”
VIII. Committee
Statement
Faculty views of President Merten
are mixed, but there is clearly substantial support for the president’s request
for extension, alongside clear areas of disagreement. Faculty hold a strong vision for GMU and are
clearly invested in seeing GMU thrive as the world-class university it could
one day become.
The faculty take longstanding
notions of shared governance in the
academy seriously. This committee strongly urges a complete
re-consideration and re-write of provisions in the Faculty Handbook that govern
faculty participation in administrative appointments, reappointments, and
extensions.
Currently,
Section 1.2.5 is inadequate on two counts. 1. The word-play
of extension v. re-appointment needs to be taken out of play for the future. 2.
The language about addressing the faculty, applying also to the section
on the Provost also, does not actually require that the incumbent in
re-appointment come before the faculty. This provision could be
interpreted by some to apply only in
cases of the initial hire.
Clearly,
these provisions and the language embodiying them are unclear and ambiguous in
important ways. In any case where the
administration and the faculty may be at odds on these points, the advantage
goes to the administration.
Overall, appointments,
reappointments and extensions are just one aspect – a very important one – of
taking reasonable concepts of shared governance seriously in the university.
IX. Conclusion
Members of the Faculty
Presidential Review Committee endorse and approve the contents and findings of
this report, in all of their aspects, unanimously.
David Wilsford, Chair (CHSS) dwilsford@gmu.edu
James Carroll (CVPA) jcarroll@gmu.edu
Robert Dudley (CHSS) rdudley@gmu.edu
Mark Goodale (ICAR) mgoodale@gmu.edu
June Tangney (CHSS) jtangney@gmu.edu
X. Appendices
-
A. Questionnaire
Data (graph of distribution of responses)
B. Fundraising Record
See following pages.
Appendix: X. A.
Questionnaire Data
Graph of Distribution of Responses
Appendix: X. B.
FUNDRAISING SUMMARY
PRESIDENT MERTEN’S TENURE 1996 - 2007
Source: Minutes of Faculty Senate meeting of
February 6, 2008 (available at: http://www3.gmu.edu/resources/facstaff/senate/MINUTES_FS_2007-08/FS_MINUTES_2-6-08.htm
Note: Data
are presented through 2007. Owing to
cataclysmic economic events that have adversely affected university endowments
(closely tied to the stock market) and people’s willingness to make charitable
contributions, data from the past two years are non-representative and
difficult to interpret. Thus, we present
data for the first 11 years of President Merten’s tenure: mid 1996-2007.
George
Mason University Foundation Contributions by year, as of July 1:
1996
$6,318,083 President Merten Arrives 1 July
1997
14,825,546
1998
19,641,297
1999
9,988,086
2000
8,324,684
2001 23,595,065
2002
13,498,374 April 8, 2002: $110 Million Campaign
Announced
2003
14,352,359
2004
13,348,978
2005
16,553,465 September 26: $142 Million Successful
Campaign Concluded
2006 26,979,537
2007
22,467,591
The sum of GMU
Foundation contributions raised between 2002 ($110 Million Campaign Announced)
and 2005 equals $57.752 million. The sum of foundation contributions
raised between 1996 (President Merten’s arrival) and 2001 (before the
announcement of the $110 Million Campaign) equals $82.693 million. Thus,
the $142 million campaign requires us to include all funds raised since 1996 in
the total.
George Mason University Foundation Endowment by year, as of July 1:
1996
$17,890,000 President Merten Arrives July 1
1997
22,480,000
1998
27,090,000
1999
32,170,000
2000
33,400,000
2001
32,630,000
2002
30,410,000 April 8, 2002: $110 Million Campaign
Announced
2003
32,570,000
2004
37,980,000
2005
40,820,000 September 26: $142 Million Successful
Campaign Concluded
2006
46,520,000
2007
54,720,000
Source: Dave Roe, President, GMU Foundation.
Total increase in University Endowment 1996-2007 = $36,830,000 or, on
average $3,348,000 per year
Endowments of Florida and California Universities that
are “young” like Mason (as of July 1, 2007)
In his address to the Senate (Nov. 28,
2007) President Merten compared GMU fundraising to
other “like institutions” commenting that GMU is doing well in comparison to
other young universities (universities similar in age to GMU). Evidence
to the contrary is presented below:
Florida
Universities
|
Institution |
Opened for Classes |
Current Enrollment |
Endowment ($ Millions) |
|
U South Fla |
1960 |
45,244 |
388.516 |
|
U Central Fla |
1968 |
48,497 |
116.291 |
|
Fla Atlantic U |
1964 |
26,000 |
190.212 |
|
U North Fla |
1972 |
16,000 |
88.785 |
|
U West Fla |
1967 |
9,888 |
64.239 |
|
Fla Internat’l U |
1972 |
38,290 |
91.876 |
|
Fla Institute of Tech |
1958 |
5,118 |
42.916 |
|
|
|
|
|
California Universities
|
Institution |
Opened for Classes |
Current Enrollment |
Endowment ($ Millions) |
|
|
UC - Irvine |
1965 |
27,000 |
234.024 |
|
|
UC - Riverside |
1954 |
16,622 |
80.405 |
|
|
Cal State - Northridge |
1956 |
34,000 |
60.227 |
|
|
Cal State - Fullerton |
1959 |
35,900 |
96.228 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GMU |
1957 |
29,900 |
54.72 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source: Chronicle of Higher Education, February 1, 2008.
There was only one university (Florida Institute of Technology)
on this list of “young universities” with a smaller endowment than that of
GMU. The University of South Florida (endowment $388.516 million) is
three years younger than GMU; the University of Central Florida (endowment
$116.291 million) is eleven years younger than GMU. California and
Florida experienced a lot of growth in the late 1950’s – early 1960’s.
They provide a lot of evidence to demonstrate that young schools can have a
decent endowment. The median income of families in Fairfax County is over
$100,000. Loudoun County has the second-highest median income in the
US.
Endowments in GMU’s New SCHEV-Approved “Peer Group” July 1, 2007:
(thousands of dollars)
GEORGE MASON
UNIVERSITY $57,720
Georgia State Univ.
$97,684
Univ. of Nevada -
Reno
240,328
Univ. of
Memphis
206,976
Wayne State
Univ.
236,659
Univ. of New
Mexico
320,200
Univ. of
Connecticut
337,945
Arizona State
Univ.
478,385
Univ. of
Houston
522,395
SUNY & Univ. of Buffalo
566,362
Univ. of
Louisville
796,812
Univ. of
Maryland
810,374
Univ. of
Arkansas
876,839
Univ. of Missouri
1,097,846
Univ. of
Oklahoma
1,114,426
Univ. of
Cincinnati
1,185,400
Univ. of
Kansas
1,238,695
Univ. of
Nebraska
1,277,169
Indiana
Univ.
1,556,853
Source: Chronicle of Higher Education, February 1, 2008.
Faculty
Involvement in Fundraising at GMU
Marc Broderick (Vice President for University Development and Alumni
Affairs) gave the Board of Visitors a detailed report about fund-raising
performance at the BOV’s meeting on January 30, 2008. Seven broad
categories of giving were shown: Annual Fund, Community/Public Services,
Facilities (e.g., Arts Center in Manassas/Point of View), Students, and
“Other”, along with two categories that are directly related to faculty:
Faculty and Research. In 2007, the Faculty and Research category accounts for
more than half of the total (51%) in gifts and pledges to GMU. Of the
$22.5 million in gifts and pledges in 2007 -- Faculty and Research account for
$11.478 million, more than half the total (51.1%). Faculty members brought more
than half the money to the Foundation in 2007.