GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY
AGENDA FOR THE FACULTY SENATE
MEETING
Robinson Hall B113, 3:00 -
4:15 p.m.
I.
Call to Order
II. Announcements
Dean Vikas Chandhoke, College of Science
III.
Unfinished Business and General Orders
General Education – Professor Rick Davis, Associate Provost of Undergraduate Education
Election of Faculty Senate Chair 2011-12
IV.
New Business - Committee Reports
A. Senate Standing Committees
Executive
Committee
Academic Policies
Three Year Calendar with
tentative 4th year Attachment
A
Budget & Resources
Faculty Matters
Nominations
Organization & Operations
B.
Other Committees
Report from the Faculty Senate Task Force to
Examine Agreements between GMU and Private Donors Attachment
B
C.
Other Committees:
Annual Reports
Senate Standing Committees Attachment
C
University Standing Committees Attachment
D
Senate Ad Hoc Committees Attachment
E
V.
Other New Business
Term Limits for BOV Faculty Representatives Attachment F
Resolution Recommending the Establishment of an Ombudsman or a Committee to Collect Information on Complaints and Concerns Regarding Campus Police Actions Attachment G
VI. Remarks for the
Good of the General Faculty
VIII.
Adjournment
ATTACHMENT
A
George Mason University Three Year Calendar – with tentative 4th year (SHJ 7.27.10)
|
FALL
SEMESTER |
Fall 2010 |
Fall 2011 |
Fall 2012 |
Fall 2013 (tentative 4th
year) |
|
First day
of classes |
Mon Aug 30 |
Mon Aug 29 |
Mon Aug 27 |
Mon
Aug 26 |
|
Labor Day
(University closed) |
Mon Sept 6 |
Mon Sept 5 |
Mon Sept 3 |
Mon
Sept 2 |
|
Last Day
to Add (Census) |
Tues Sept
14 |
Tues Sept
6 * |
Tues Sept
5 * |
Tues
Sept 4 |
|
Last Day
to Drop |
Fri Oct 1 |
Fri Sept
30 |
Fri Sept
28 |
Fri
Sept 27 |
|
Saturday
Classes in session |
Sat Oct 9 |
Sat Oct 8 |
Sat Oct 6 |
Sat
Oct 5 |
|
Columbus
Day Recess |
Mon Oct 11 |
Mon Oct 10 |
Mon Oct 8 |
Mon
Oct 7 |
|
Mon
classes meet instead of Tues classes this day only |
Tues Oct
12 |
Tues Oct
11 |
Tues Oct 9 |
Tues
Oct 8 |
|
Mid-term
evaluation period for full-semester 100-200 level classes |
Mon Sept
27 – |
Mon Sept
26 – |
Mon Sept
24 - |
Mon
Sept 23 - |
|
Selective
Withdrawal Period – undergraduate |
Mon Oct 4 – Fri Oct 29 |
Mon Oct 3 – Fri Oct 28 |
Mon Oct 1 – Fri Oct 26 |
Mon Sept 30 – Fri Oct
25 |
|
Thanksgiving
(No classes Wed; Recess Thurs - Sun) |
Wed Nov 24 - Sun Nov 28 |
Wed Nov 23 - Sun Nov 27 |
Wed Nov 21
– Sun Nov 25 |
Wed
Nov 20 – Sun Nov 24 |
|
Dissertation/Thesis
Deadline |
Fri Dec 10 |
Fri Dec 9 |
Fri Dec 7 |
Fri
Dec 6 |
|
Last Day
of Class |
Sat Dec 11 |
Sat Dec 10 |
Sat Dec 8 |
Sat
Dec 7 |
|
Reading
Day(s) |
Mon Dec 13
|
Mon Dec 12 |
Mon Dec 10
– Tues Dec 11, 4:30 pm |
Mon Dec 9 – Tues Dec 10, 4:30 pm |
|
Examination
Period |
Tues Dec
14, 7:30 am – Tues Dec 21, 10:15 pm |
Tues Dec
13, 7:30 am – Tues Dec 20, 10:15 pm |
Tues Dec
11, 4:30 pm – Wed Dec 19, 10:15 pm |
Tues
Dec 10, 4:30 pm – Wed Dec 18, 10:15 pm |
|
Winter Degree Date (2nd Sat before
classes) |
Sat Jan
15, 2011 |
Sat Jan
14, 2012 |
Sat, Jan
12, 2013 |
Sat,
Jan 11, 2014 |
|
SPRING SEMESTER |
Spring
2011 |
Spring
2012 |
Spring
2013 |
Spring
2014 |
|
January 1
Day of Week |
Saturday |
Sunday |
Tuesday |
Wednesday |
|
MLK Day -
(no classes) |
Mon Jan 17 |
Mon Jan 16 |
Mon Jan 21 |
Mon
Jan 20 |
|
First Day
of Spring Classes |
Mon Jan 24
|
Mon Jan 23 |
Tues Jan
22 |
Tues
Jan 21 |
|
Last Day
to Add (Census) |
Tues Feb
8 |
Tues Jan
31 * |
Tues Jan
29 * |
Tues
Jan 28 |
|
Last Day
to Drop |
Fri Feb 25 |
Fri Feb 24 |
Fri Feb 22 |
Fri
Feb 21 |
|
Saturday
Classes in session |
Sat Mar 12 |
Sat Mar 10 |
Sat Mar 9 |
Sat
Mar 8 |
|
Spring
Recess |
Mon Mar 14 -Sun Mar 20 |
Mon Mar 12 - Sun Mar 18 |
Mon Mar 11
– Sun Mar 17 |
Mon
Mar 10 – Sun Mar 16 |
|
Mid-term
evaluation period for full- semester 100-200 level classes |
Mon Feb 21
– |
Mon Feb 20
- |
Mon Feb 18
- |
Mon
Feb 17 - |
|
Selective
Withdrawal Period – undergraduate |
Mon Feb 28
– Fri Apr 1 |
Mon Feb 27
– Fri Mar 30 |
Mon Feb 25
– Fri Mar 29 |
Mon
Feb 24 – Fri Mar 28 |
|
Dissertation/Thesis
Deadline |
Fri May 6 |
Fri May 4 |
Fri May 3 |
Fri
May 2 |
|
Last Day
of Class |
Sat May 7 |
Sat May 5 |
Mon May 6 |
Mon
May 5 |
|
Reading
Day(s) |
Mon &
Tues May 9 & 10 |
Mon &
Tues May 7 & 8 |
Tues May 7 |
Tues
May 6 |
|
Examination Period |
Wed May
11, 7:30 am - Wed May 18, 10:15 pm |
Wed May 9,
7:30 am - Wed May 16, 10:15 pm |
Wed May 8,
7:30 am – Wed May 15, 10:15 pm |
Wed
May 7, 7:30 am – Wed May 14, 10:15 pm |
|
Commencement
|
Sat May 21 |
Sat May 19 |
Sat May 18 |
Sat
May 17 |
|
Summer Term Dates |
Mon May 23 – Fri Aug 12 |
Mon May 21 – Fri Aug 10 |
Mon May 20
– Fri Aug 9 |
Mon
May 19 – Fri Aug 8 |
Approved by Faculty Senate: October 22, 2008 * Change to Last Day to Add approved by Faculty
Senate: March 3, 2010
ATTACHMENT B
Report from the
Faculty Senate Task Force to Examine Agreements between GMU and Private
Donors Members: Bob Ehrlich,
Esther Elstun, Dave Kuebrich (chair), Earle Reybold, Rich Rubenstein, and Matt
Zingraff (ex officio)
Since its creation (February 9, 2011), the Task Force has met four times, and it will likely meet two more times this semester. Two of its meetings have been intra-committee; one has been with Marc Broderick, VP of Development and Alumni Affairs, at which we discussed the process by which gifts are sought and approved; and one with Associate Dean Nance Lucas, to discuss the relationship between the Center for Consciousness and Transformation and the de Laski Family, which is its primary benefactor. On April 28, the Committee will have a similar meeting with the Mercatus Center’s Tyler Cowen (General Director) and Brian Hooks (Chief Operating Office) and Daniel Houser (Chair, Economics) to discuss these units relationship to the Koch, Charitable Foundation.
In addition to these meetings, the Task Force has also been in communication with the AAUP National Office as well as with faculty at the University of North Carolina, Cornell University, and the University of California—Los Angeles.
All of Task Force’s meetings and communications with external parties have proven productive. However, a major obstacle has been the Foundation’s refusal to give the Task Force access to donor agreements. Marc Broderick has informed us that these are confidential, that this is explicitly stated in the Virginia Code, that these agreements are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act, and that all VA public colleges and universities keep these agreements confidential. Subsequently, in response to our request, University Counsel Thomas M. Moncure, Jr., has provided the Task Force with citations to relevant parts of the Virginia Code. The Task Force plans to pursue this issue further. Among other possible steps, the Task Force may ask to review only those parts of the agreements, if any, that specifically pertain to teaching, curriculum and research.
The Task Force is willing to (in fact, it expects
to) present a more extensive preliminary report to the Senate at its May
meeting. And it will make a final report early in the Fall Semester. David Kuebrich
ATTACHMENT C
ANNUAL REPORTS OF THE FACULTY SENATE STANDING COMMITTEES 2010-11
1. ACADEMIC POLICIES –
Janette Muir (CHSS), Chair
Committee Members: Sheryl Beach (COS), Jose Cortina (CHSS), Fran Harbour (CHSS), Harry Wechsler (VSE)
During the
2010-2011 academic year the Academic Policies committee focused a great deal on
information gathering rather than on bringing issues to the Senate for debate.
Below summarizes the issues brought to the Senate, as well as on-going work the
committee is currently addressing.
1)Addition to
Catalog regarding Final Exams
Motion passed that approved addition after
section on absences, pg. 36
Added: Students who have more than one examination scheduled at the same
time or more than two examinations scheduled on the same day should consult
their instructors to explore whether they can make other arrangements.
2)Change inCatalog Requirements for Degrees
Motion
passed to change the catalog copy to address major and minor degrees listed
under different catalogs. The change was made to allow Bachelor’s degree
candidates to choose to graduate under the terms of any catalog in effect
during their enrollment in degree status.
Additional issues that the committee has
reviewed this year:
1. Change to Spring Academic Calendar – data has been
gathered and reviewed regarding this issue. While some faculty and students are
interested in having more time at the end of the spring semester, the
compelling evidence provided by international programs, CVPA, the Degree
Compliance Office, and other units support keeping the status quo. After
reviewing the pros and cons of changing the calendar, the committee has voted
to NOT change the spring academic calendar at this time.
2.
Non-traditional credits
brought into Mason
– discussion continues regarding all credit that Mason allows students to bring
in and the potential challenges the University faces with this credit. More discussion will continue on this issue
with the goal to provide some limitations/guidelines on the total amount
students might be allowed to have on their transcript. This topic is
particularly relevant in light of Mason’s commitment to a Governor’s School in
Prince William County.
3.
Honor Code changes – the AP committee is
in the process of determining what, if any, role faculty might play in revising
the Honor Code by-laws. This issue comes from faculty who are concerned about
some of the Honor Code language and faculty expectations with the process.
4.
Cross-listing issues – some concerns have
been brought to the committee regarding challenges one department is having
with cross-listing honors students in a senior level class. Based on feedback
from the Registrar’s Office, the recommendation has been made for the
department to deal directly with that office regarding the issue.
5.
AP Representation on the
Graduate Council –
concern was raised this year that the Graduate Council acts as an independent
governing body, outside of the Faculty Senate. The question was where, in the
formal structure, is there a role for the AP committee. Through consultation
with the Associate Provost for Graduate Studies, the decision was made to have
an AP member sit on the Council and that, on occasion, the Assoc Provost will
make a presentation to the AP committee.
6.
Guidelines for 100, 200,
300, 400-level classes – based on discussions with Academic Deans, it seems a
useful exercise to develop guidelines on what denotes different academic
levels. This is an issue that we will explore more during the next academic
year.
2. BUDGET AND RESOURCES –
June Tangney (CHSS), Chair
Committee Members: Alok Berry (VSE), Ernest Barreto (COS), Rick Coffinberger (SOM), Phil Wiest (CHSS)
This year, the Budget and Resources Committee provided an annual Faculty and Administrative Salary Update which is posted on the Faculty Senate website. In response to a request from the BOV, we conducted a survey of suggestions on how the University might improve the quality of life of faculty, excluding raises. A report was sent to the BOV and also posted on the Faculty Senate website. Members of the committee regularly attend and participate in the Provost’s Budget Planning Team meetings, held every two weeks throughout the year. With the assistance of staff from the Provost’s office, the committee has examined nature of “direct” funding from extramural sources and in the coming year will examine the ways in which “indirect” recovered costs are spent. The committee has requested updated information from the Registrar on the number of individualized course credits generated by department and college. Upon receipt of these data, we will survey Chairs, Deans, and Directors regarding current practices for recognizing faculty contributions in this area as well as the disposition of funds generated. In addition, the committee is evaluating the nature of summer salary concerns across departments and colleges.
3. FACULTY MATTERS – Doris
Bitler (CHSS), Chair
Committee Members: John
Cantiello (CHHS), Mark Houck (VSE), Jim Sanford (CHSS), Joe Scimecca (CHSS).
4. NOMINATIONS – Jim Bennett
(CHSS), Chair
Committee Members: Dmitrios
Ioannou (VSE), David Kuebrich (CHSS), Howard Kurtz (CVPA), Pierre Rodgers
(CEHD)
The Faculty Senate Nominations Committee has conscientiously filled every vacancy on every Senate Standing Committee, every University Committee, and every ad hoc committee and task force where Faculty representation was required.
5. ORGANIZATION AND
OPERATIONS – Star Muir (CHSS), Chair
Committee Members: Bob Dudley (CHSS), Kelly Dunne (CHSS), Jack
Goldstone (SPP), Jean Moore (CHHS)
ATTACHMENT D
ANNUAL REPORTS OF THE UNIVERSITY STANDING COMMITTEES 2010-11
1. ACADEMIC APPEALS – Betsy
DeMulder (CEHD), Chair
Committee Members: Martin
DeNys (CHSS), Michael Hurley (CHSS), Miriam Raskin (CHHS), Carmen Rioux-Bailey
(CEHD), Eva Thorp (CEHD)
The Academic Appeals Committee had one case during the 2010-2011 academic year in which the committee considered a student termination case. After review of the case, the committee’s decision was to uphold the university's decision to terminate the student. The only other item of business conducted was to elect a chair.
2. ACADEMIC INITIATIVES –
Thomas Speller (VSE), Chair
Committee Members: Elizabeth Chong (CHHS), Wayne Froman (Apr.
11-) (CHSS), Tom Kiley (COS), David Wilsford (Sept. 10-March 11)
(CHSS), Terry Zawacki (CHSS)
3. ADMISSIONS – Dan Joyce
(CVPA), Chair
Committee Members: Nicole Sealey (VSE), Suzanne Slayden (COS), Eddie
Tallent, (Associate Dean/ Executive Director of Admissions), Charles Thomas
(CEHD), Jason Warren (CHSS)
REPORT FROM THE ADMISSIONS COMMITTEE April 20, 2011
Committee Members: Dan Joyce (CVPA), Nicole Sealey (VSITE), Suzanne Slayden (COS), Eddie Tallent (Assistant Dean and Executive Director of Admissions), Charles Thomas (CEHD), Jason Warren (CHSS)
A.On April 7, 2011, the University Admissions committee met. There was no old business pending, and no new business was presented. Assistant Dean Tallent shared with us the statistical information that follows in letter heading B.
B. Assistant Dean Tallent released statistics and information to the committee pertaining to undergraduate applications and admissions to George Mason University. As of April 19, 2011:
1) More than 18,000 freshman applications were submitted this year, an increase of almost 500 over last year (marking the largest freshman applicant pool ever for Mason).
2) 9,200 were admitted; up from 8,900 at end of cycle last year.
3) The class target is 2600; there is a healthy waitlist to make sure that number is attained. The confirmation deadline for freshmen is May 1, 2011.
4) The criteria for Honors College selection was elevated for this admissions cycle to reflect the higher profile of applications being received and to help limit Honors College enrollment.
5) We have received a 5% increase in transfer applications. Since these students do not have to respond until July 1, it is too early to predict enrollment outcomes for transfers.
6) The transfer articulation agreement with NVCC expired
February 23, 2011. The new Guaranteed Admission Agreement (GAA) became
effective for fall on February 23. The new GAA has a graduated increase
in the minimum GPA (2.75 to 3.0) required for admission by fall 2013. If
all coursework is not completed at NVCC,
the same minimum GPA is required at all other institutions within the last five
years. Additionally, two English composition courses and one general
education math course are required at NVCC with grades of C or better.
GAA's are specific to each community college. We have also signed with Germanna CC, Lord Fairfax CC and Blue Ridge CC
4. ATHLETIC COUNCIL – Linda
Miller, Chair and Faculty Athletic Representative
Committee Members: Robert Baker (CEHD), Steve Klein (CHSS), Guiseppina Kysar-Mattieti (COS), Phil Wiest (CHSS)
2011 Report to the Faculty Senate by the Faculty Athletic Representative
The Athletic Council met in
September to complete its work for the NCAA Certification process before the
NCAA site visit in October. On March 3, 2011 President Merten was informed that the NCAA Division I Committee
determined that George Mason University has been certified. As a “certified”
institution, Mason has earned the NCAA’s highest designation and shown that its athletics program “operates” in
substantial conformity with operating principles adopted by the Division I
membership.
The November meeting was chaired during my absence by Bob Baker and introduced new members, and elected chairs for the sub-committees. In February, the council met to propose the sub-committee work to be completed before the final meeting. The sub-committees met separately to conduct business relative to the council’s work.
The committee reviewed all violations and waivers reported
by the Compliance Office for 2010-11.
Paul Bowden, Associate AD for Compliance attended the April meeting to
give an overview of Compliance and answer any questions from the council. The Athletic department continues to do an
excellent job of oversight of Rules Compliance through meetings with coaches,
the student-athlete handbook, and the Compliance website (GoMason.com). Rogers reported the NCAA recently introduced
legislation that will assist many student-athletes receiving Federal and State
Need- Based Financial Aid. (Governance and Commitment to Rules
Compliance Sub-committee 2011 Report)
Academic Integrity
Sub-committee (Chair, Eddie Tallent)
Associate Athletic Director for Academic Services Debbie Wilson gave a tour of the computer lab and facilities for student-athletes. Wilson stressed the importance of student-athletes receiving a meaningful mid-term evaluation by faculty. Since Academic Services was very thoroughly reviewed during the just completed self-study, no further action by the committee is needed at this time.
The 2009-10 NCAA Division I Academic Progress Rate
(APR) indicates that all George Mason athletic teams were above the required
925 cut point. (Academic Integrity
Sub-committee 2011 Report).
Gender, Diversity and
Student Well-Being Sub-committee (Chair, Phil Hunt)
The committee reviewed all seven areas of the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act (EADA) report submitted each year by the university (complete report available at GoMason.com under the Student-Athlete tab and then under Compliance) and determined the university was in compliance
The Faculty Athletic Representative met with the Student
Athlete Advisory Council to promote the distribution and completion of the 2011
Exit Surveys. In person interviews with graduating students are being conducted
by the Faculty Athletic Representative and are ongoing until the end of
term. (Gender, Diversity and Student Well-Being Sub-committee 2011 Report)
2009-10
Student-Athlete Statistics
In the 2009-2010 academic year student-athletes were compared with the general student body with the following results:
Student
Athletes Students
Generally
2.99 2.98
* All GPA statistics computed by the Office of the Registrar
In conclusion, I would like to thank each member for their commitment to excellence and invaluable guidance and support.
Linda Miller
Faculty Athletic Representative
April 21, 2011
Cc: President Alan Merten
Senior Vice-President Maurice Scherrens
Assistant Vice President/Director of Athletics Tom O’Connor
Senior Associate Athletics Director Sue Collins
5. EFFECTIVE TEACHING – Paula
Petrik (CHSS), Chair
Committee Members: Rodger
Smith (CHSS), Suzanne Smith (CHSS), Cliff Sutton (VSE), Mary Williams (CEHD)
The Teaching Excellence Committee met on November 17, 2010, with Kris Smith and staff from the Office of Research regarding electronic teaching evaluations. The status of the teaching electronic teaching evaluation program is: 1) the staff did not realize at the outset how large and complex moving from atoms to bits would be, and the program has been slow in its realization; 2) the principle problem with the electronic evaluations is student participation--which hovers around the 20 percent mark and which is far lower than the paper evaluation participation rates; 2) the research group is working on a number of fronts to increase student participation and modify the evaluation form for distance education courses; and 3) despite low participation rates, the Colleges of Science and Business have implemented the electronic evaluation program across the board. These results were reported to the Faculty Senate on December 8, 2010. No further business came before the committee.
6. EXTERNAL ACADEMIC
RELATIONS– Debbie Boehm-Davis (CHSS), Chair
Committee Members: Kelly
Dunne (CHSS), Penny Earley (CEHD), Stephen Farnsworth (CHSS), Karl Fryxell
(COS), Frank Philpot (SOM)
Report
from the Committee on External Academic Relations (CEAR)
April
2011
Committee Membership
Deborah Boehm-Davis (Committee Chair, CHSS, 2011)
Frank Allen Philpot (Senator, SOM, 2012)
Penny Earley (Provost Appointee, 2011)
Stephen Farnsworth (CHSS, 2012)
Kelly Dunne (Senator, CHSS, 2011)
Karl Fryxell (COS, 2012)
Summary of Activities (2010-2011 Academic
Year)
State Government Relations. The Committee on External Academic Relations (CEAR) met once in the fall semester and once in the spring semester. In both meetings, the committee met with the State Government Relations Director (Betty Jolly). Ms. Jolly provided the committee with an update on legislative activities in Richmond. In the fall, this included information on a Higher Education Committee chaired by Tom Farrell and Kurt Cox. In the spring, this included information about bills that had passed, how Mason had fared in Richmond in this session, and projects she has planned for the summer.
In the fall, she asked for faculty feedback on the state government relations website: https://mymasonportal.gmu.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp. In the spring meeting, she stated that she finds that the site needs to be re-organized and designed. She asked for suggestions on how to improve communications with faculty. The committee suggested a daily blog during the legislative session focusing on issues relevant to Mason. The committee will ask the Faculty Senate to provide a link to this blog (and the general web site) from somewhere on the senate page to facilitate faculty getting access to this information.
The committee also suggested that the Faculty Senate host a forum after the legislative session each year (somewhat akin to the budget forums done by Drs. Scherrens and Stearns). This would allow faculty to get a summary of the actions in Richmond that affect us.
Ms. Jolly also provided information the Higher Education Bill; she will provide the committee with a powerpoint presentation highlighting the contents of this bill. She also talked about the Higher Education Advisory Council which has been established (as a result of this bill) to look at a number of higher education issues. At this time, the council has four members, one of whom is Dr. Merten. There is also a Research Bill that was passed which focuses on industry-university partnerships.
Finally, Ms. Jolly informed the committee that she intends to hold training sessions on how the legislature works, how best to provide briefings and information to members of the legislature, and Mason priorities for the upcoming session. She plans to hold two training sessions this summer and one in the fall before the new legislative session. She will reach out to faculty who have been involved in Richmond already and ask that others who are interested sign up for this training.
Faculty Senate of Virginia. One member of this committee serves as the official Mason representative to the Faculty Senate of Virginia. Ms. Earley, who is that representative, and Ms. Boehm-Davis, committee chair, have kept informed of the activities sponsored by this organization through information sent out by the organization. There is no information of note to report from that organization in this academic year.
Other Activities. Committee members were invited to attend a Legislative Round Table reception where several local legislators were invited to come and hear about the university. Two members of the committee were able to attend this meeting and discuss exciting work being done by faculty within the university. Finally, members of the committee coordinated questions being posed to Chap Peterson and David Bulova, who attended a special faculty meeting on April 20. Committee members collected questions from faculty members and coordinated the Q&A session at the April meeting.
7. GENERAL EDUCATION Members:– Rick Davis
(Associate Provost for Undergraduate Education, CVPA), Chair. Don Boileau (CHSS), Rick Diecchio (COS), Kim Eby (Associate Provost/Center for
Teaching Excellence, CHSS), Douglas Eyman (CHSS), Frank Allen Philpot (SOM),
Kamaljeet Sanghera (VSE), R. Claire Snyder-Hall (CHSS), Hugh Sockett (CHSS),
Karen Studd (CVPA), Cliff Sutton (VSE), Carol Urban (CHHS), and Peter Winant
(CVPA). Student representative:
vacant. Staff support: Marcy Glover.
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE
UNIVERSITY GENERAL EDUCATION COMMITTEE
April 19, 2011
The University General Education Committee
worked vigorously this academic year on the following items, all of which were
continued from last year and, with modifications, will continue next year:
What follows will expand a bit on each of the
bullets above, but first there are a couple of compulsory reporting points
included in our committee’s charge from the Senate.
1. Proficiency/placement exams:
Statistics are characteristically incomplete as of this date; we will submit an
addendum early in the fall semester with these data.
2. Changes in the criteria for general
education: There were no substantive changes in overall criteria.
SACS, Gen Ed learning outcomes, and assessment
process
We are pleased to note that the SACS off-site
review team found the general education program and its assessment protocol to
be acceptable, with no comments, suggestions, or the dread
recommendations. Hats off to the faculty
who design and deliver the curriculum, the GE committee, and the assessment
staff; this is no small achievement.
Because the assessment process is dedicated to
meaningful quality improvement as well as compliance and accountability, we are
continuing the process beyond the SACS reaffirmation, albeit at a somewhat more
deliberate pace. Currently, the IT
category is undergoing the course portfolio process and the review will be
conducted this summer by interdisciplinary teams including GE committee
members.
The College of Science has been engaged in a
spirited discussion this year around revising SLOs in Natural Science area, and
we anticipate committee action on these in the fall, with a portfolio cycle to
follow. Quantitative Reasoning, Written
Comm, and Oral Comm will complete the revision of SLOs over the next two
years.
Portfolio reviews of the Global,
Social/Behavioral Sciences, and Synthesis areas this year showed evidence of
strong teaching and learning across the three areas, along with many examples
of innovative assignments and course designs.
As with the first three areas assessed, a general finding emerged around
the broad theme of intentionality. In most cases, the only recommended action
was to highlight more prominently the ways in which the course connects to the
larger aims of a liberal education, whether in syllabus language or
lecture/discussion time, or both.
A second emergent theme, especially in the Global and SBS areas that contain
some large-section courses, was the difficulty of assessing student work vis-à-vis
alignment with gen ed SLOs when the only assignments or evaluative instruments
were multiple choice exams. The
committee is discussing how to handle such courses in future. Meanwhile, one aspect of the
currently-pending SEGUE grants has to do with encouraging innovative approaches
to student work product in large classes—a happy instance of an assessment
finding generating a positive response with resources attached.
As we noted last year in this space, this work
has been labor-and-thought-intensive for the general education committee (as
well as for the chairs and faculty in the affected units and the Provost’s
Office), and we owe them a special word of thanks. The results continue to be
very useful to us as we go about the essential work of ensuring a sound liberal
education for our undergraduates.
Complete Inventory Review
Unfinished business from the year includes a
100% coverage syllabus review of the existing gen ed inventory for currency
regarding alignment with new SLOs where they exist. The committee delegated this task to the
staff, and it is planned for summer 2011.
Course Proposals
The committee considered 28 and approved 11 new
courses for the general education inventory, with the others being sent back
for revision or clarification. We expect
resubmission of the majority of the returned courses. This compares to last year’s total of 26
considered, 22 approved. The course
approval process, while still occasionally taking longer than desirable,
continues to become more straightforward, consistent, and rigorous. The committee has also made a sincere effort
to reduce paper consumption by using a portal for posting proposals and
minutes, and a projector during meetings for their consideration.
Strategic Thinking about General Education
The committee continued its lively discussion of
the aims and purposes of general and liberal education, and the committee’s
role in advancing Mason’s program. A
particularly interesting theme has emerged this year around the concept of
interdisciplinarity in the Synthesis requirement: how is it defined, how do we
know it when we see it, are certain disciplines inherently interdisciplinary by
virtue of their creation out of a merging of preexisting fields?
Role of the Committee vis-à-vis faculty and unit
prerogatives (We repeat this section from last year’s report
not because of any specific issue during the year but because it is an
important reminder)
Any time an academically polyglot committee
standing outside of a department, college, or school reviews the work of a
faculty member or a discipline-based curriculum committee, the possibility of
blurring roles and lines of demarcation exists, and misunderstandings may
ensue. Such is sometimes the case when
the gen ed committee refers a course back to the submitting unit with
recommended changes prior to approval for inclusion in the gen ed program.
The committee wishes the general faculty to know
that it is always respectful of the disciplinary expertise and pedagogical
autonomy of the faculty member submitting the course, as well as the integrity
of the various levels of unit review that precede submission to the gen ed
program. When courses are returned for
further review, this is always a subject of open discussion, and it is never
the committee’s intention to become involved with disciplinary matters that
properly belong to the department, college, or school. Rather, the committee takes its charge as one
of evaluating alignment of a given course with the general education mission of
the university, a mission that necessarily transcends unit lines. Courses that are returned for revision are
typically exemplary in their discipline but, in the committee’s judgment, are
incompletely aligned with some aspect of general education, and so with all
appropriate caution and deference, the committee feels obligated to suggest
and/or request adjustments prior to approval.
To do less would be to deprive the university of broad-based,
faculty-driven stewardship of the general education program. The committee appreciates the creativity and
energy of the faculty in developing new courses for general education and
simply wishes to make its principles known to lessen the possibility of
discomfort and misunderstanding in those cases where a course is not approved,
or is returned for revision.
8. GRIEVANCE – Scott Bauer
(CEHD), Chair
Committee Members: Lloyd
Cohen (SOL), Bob Pasnak (CHSS), Johannes Rojahn (CHSS), Sylvia Sanchez (CEHD)
9. MINORITY AND DIVERSITY
ISSUES – David Anderson (CEHD), Chair
Committee Members: Flavia
Colonna (COS), Harold Geller (Spring 2011), (COS), Jennifer
Leeman (Fall 2010) (CHSS), Jeng-Eng Lin (COS), Suzanne Scott
(CHSS).
George Mason University Minority and
Diversity Issues Committee
2010-2011
Report to Faculty Senate
The members
of the Minority and Diversity Issues Committee (MDIC) were David
S. Anderson (chair), Flavia Colonna, Jeng-Eng Lin, Suzanne Scott, Jennifer
Leeman (Fall, 2010) and Harold Geller (Spring, 2011).
The charge of the MDIC is “to work in concert with the Equity Office,
Minority Students Services Office, other pertinent administrators, and campus
organizations in developing and implementing means to ensure nondiscrimination,
tolerance, and protection of the rights of all persons affiliated with the
University; and to facilitate dialogue among those connected with the
University and those in the broader community on matters concerning minority
populations and diversity issues.”
The MDIC was
quite productive throughout the year, with activities involving following up on
various activities from the previous years of accomplishment, to creating a new
initiative. In short, the MDIC members
were interested in obtaining a greater understanding of the quality of the work
place environment, with primary attention to faculty members.
One of the
initial activities of the MDIC was to learn what progress had been made with
the Diversity Statement. During the
previous academic year, the MDIC was successful in obtaining endorsements from
the Faculty Senate, the Staff Senate and the Student Senate. The MDIC learned that this statement would be
presented to the administration’s leadership group, with an aim of having it
more public and available for the Mason community. During the year, however, MDIC members
learned of no progress that had been obtained regarding this effort.
The MDIC
reviewed the status of student enrollment information based
on minority/non-minority status, as well as gender, for each academic
department. This was found on the Office
of Institutional Assessment website.
One suggestion is that a Mason leadership group could summarize and
provide this to each department head. It
was also suggested that departmental information would be helpful with
comparisons with university-based information for these variables.
Another
accomplishment during this year was the review of the items
relevant to diversity issues that had been included on Mason’s Quality of Work
Life Survey, distributed in Spring, 2009. The MDIC reviewed the Executive
Summary, and was successful in having discussions with the Quality of Work Life
Committee regarding the use of these items.
The MDIC also engaged Dr. Lou Buffardi, who oversees the data analysis
functions; he provided additional analysis of the data, beyond the executive
summary report, and met with the MDIC to discuss the findings. Interest was expressed by MDIC members for
further analysis, with specific attention to faculty and their response
patterns; Dr. Buffardi indicated that he would pursue this. However, by the time of this annual report,
this additional analysis had not yet occurred.
The MDIC also determined that, since the next Quality of Work Life
Survey would undoubtedly occur during Spring, 2012, the best approach for
handling new questions regarding minority and diversity issues would be to
incorporate no change for 2012. What is
important is to maintain consistency over time so that comparisons could be
made within the university as a whole as well as within individual units.
The MDIC also
discussed ways in which colleges and organizational units could monitor
progress with minority and diversity issues. Discussions were engaged regarding
activities that would help identify best practices, as well as learn ways in
which organizational units could initiate appropriate action on diversity
issues. The sense of the MDIC was that
Mason’s administrative units should be responsible for further promoting this
effort.
The final
activity of the MDIC was the development of a ‘sense’ of the MDIC members
regarding the status of minority and diversity issues at Mason. This was deemed desirable by MDIC members to
promote further dialog and action regarding diversity issues at the
university. This was prepared through
discussions among MDIC members, and is based on their observations,
experiences, and interactions with others on campus. This is included as an appendix to this
annual report.
Prepared by Minority and Diversity Issues
Committee
University Standing Committee - George Mason
University
April 18, 2011
The
Minority and Diversity Issues Committee (MDIC) is charged “to work in concert with the Equity Office, Minority
Students Services Office, other pertinent administrators, and campus
organizations in developing and implementing means to ensure nondiscrimination,
tolerance, and protection of the rights of all persons affiliated with the
University; and to facilitate dialogue among those connected with the
University and those in the broader community on matters concerning minority
populations and diversity issues.”
During
the 2010-11 academic year, the five-member committee determined that it would
be helpful to prepare some perspectives about minority and diversity issues at
Mason. This is based on the committee members’ years of involvement and
engagement on campus, dialog with other faculty members, participation on the
MDIC, and a commitment to promoting a healthier campus community. These
perspectives are organized within six thematic areas, and offer insights as well
as suggested action items.
1.
Institutional Support
MDIC
members believe that Mason has a significant level of support for multicultural
issues. MDIC members agree that Mason
is engaged in many efforts to promote a healthy institution that supports
people from diverse backgrounds. The university appears to be evolving as new
issues vis-à-vis diversity emerge; Mason leadership appears to be supportive of
“doing the right thing,” whether or not formal policies can be put into place.
For example, the recently-configured LGBTQ Campus Climate Task Force was
established in response to the rash of suicides around the country, which were
apparently a result of campus bullying of people in the LGBTQ communities. In short, Mason appears to follow the
philosophy of the Diversity Statement developed by the MDIC in previous years.
While the support appears present, public statements by university leadership
on diversity issues appear minimal. Further, the composition of the faculty as
a whole, as well as Mason’s administrative leadership, does not reflect the
diversity found within the student body.
Suggestions
include increased public leadership, visibility, vocal pronouncements, and
infusion of diversity and inclusion issues by Mason leadership into the
routine, day-to-day activities. MDIC
members suggest that the highest levels of the administration would also be
well served to recruit and to encourage units to recruit people from diverse
backgrounds at all levels of the university.
2.
Faculty Development
It
is clear that Mason’s student body is highly diverse, and it is also clear that
attention is provided for student training and personal development
opportunities (i.e., Safe Zone training). However, Mason offers few
opportunities for faculty to learn more about diversity and inclusion issues.
MDIC members believe there is no incentive for faculty members to be trained in
such issues. MDIC members are aware of
few discussions about diversity or training on diversity or multi-cultural
issues within units around the university in recent years. Further, it appears that faculty members are
unaware of many issues incorporated in the diversity framework (such as the
concepts of gender identity and expression), and that people in the units do
not generally discuss these diversity issues.
While some reports exist of faculty behavior or comments in the
classroom that are not particularly sensitive or appropriate (from a diversity
and inclusion perspective), educating faculty on these issues does not appear
to be a high priority with the institutional leadership. In many cases, these
insensitive comments do not come from a place of intentional bias or hatred but
may simply spring from a lack of understanding of the issues.
The
MDIC membership believes it would be helpful to have greater institutional
support and leadership, throughout the university, regarding faculty engagement
with diversity issues. Attention to the
intent and spirit of the Diversity Statement, regarding locally-focused
leadership and attention regarding diversity issues should be helpful.
3.
Quality of Work Life Survey
The
Quality of Work Life Survey has been undertaken every three years over the past
decade, with the most recent data collection occurring during Spring, 2009. The
MDIC is particularly appreciative of the attention to minority and diversity
issues with the instrument being used; during the most recent survey
administration, new questions were added and data analyzed. The data analysis process provided information
helpful for the MDIC and institutional leadership, as the questions
incorporated had the data clustered in three thematic areas. While the data
were presented to the MDIC, it appears that the data and information have not
been used to its full potential. The
information was prepared with an executive summary, but it was not widely
distributed; therefore any results which might have been incorporated into
campus initiatives were not shared.
Further, the data, and the clusters relevant to minority and diversity
issues, could be examined to a much greater level, both by faculty role as well
as by academic unit. In short, it
appears, from the perspective of the MDIC, that the data have not been used
well.
MDIC
members believe that support must be provided to this ongoing data collection
effort. With the tremendous amount of
time and effort provided by the Quality of Work Life Committee and faculty
members preparing and responding to the survey, it seems most appropriate to
invest in further analysis and use of the data. Support is needed to further
analyze the data at both macro and micro (departmental/college) levels;
distribute its findings; and, publicize ways in which the information is being
used.
4.
Diversity Statement
During
the 2008-2009 academic year, the MDIC drafted a Diversity Statement for Mason,
included as part of the annual report during Spring, 2009. The Diversity
Statement was deemed necessary and appropriate because of the lack of such a
statement; the desire was to more clearly and publicly specify the nature and intent
of diversity at this institution, going beyond the limited statement in the
university’s mission statement. The
2009-2010 MDIC endorsed this statement, and was successful in achieving
endorsements from the Faculty Senate, the Staff Senate, and the Student Senate
during Spring, 2010. This Diversity
Statement has been shared with the Office of Equity and Diversity Services,
with the hope that it would be incorporated into the university’s web site at
some appropriate places. To date, this has not occurred, and the statement,
endorsed by all three Senates, remains as an endorsed statement with no further
public visibility.
The
MDIC believes that this statement should be available through multiple channels
at the university. It reflects a
positive, proactive commitment to diversity and inclusion at the
university. While not a policy per se,
the statement provides an opportunity to demonstrate that the university
promotes leadership in diversity issues and that the university’s priority is
to the whole range of diversity issues.
The MDIC believes that this document can be referred to by a wide
variety of campus groups, as well as to the university leadership.
5.
Resources on Diversity Issues
MDIC
members are aware of several academic and other units engaging in activities
and services on diversity issues. This information appears to be limited and is
not gathered systematically. In short, there is limited knowledge about who is
doing what, who has expertise, and who has interest in the range of diversity
issues. To help promote greater
attention to diversity issues, the MDIC believes it would be helpful to have an
inventory of resources that highlight various resources, services, and
personnel on campus. It would also be helpful to have an inventory of best
practices, upon which academic or other units could learn and build.
The
MDIC specifically recommends the development and promotion of an inventory of
best practices; an expertise database; and a sharing of areas of research and
interest. Within the context of a learning community, diversity could be
promoted and more actively infused throughout the university.
6.
Support for Faculty
The
need for attention to diversity and inclusion at Mason among faculty members
has been identified by the MDIC as a priority.
In addition, the question remains regarding how those faculty members
feel about their engagement, support, and inclusion at the university. This can be at the departmental, college,
and/or university level. Specifically, it is unknown how individuals who are
diverse (through any of the areas that might be classified as “diverse,” by
themselves or others) feel for themselves. Anecdotal information shared among
MDIC members suggests that many individuals are fearful and do not feel
particularly welcomed or supported.
Further, it appears that faculty members are not sure where to turn for
personal support, or for consultation about better dealing with diversity
issues within the university. While
students have an ombudsman for such queries, it does not appear that faculty
has a similar resource or service, other than going through the resources in
Human Resources. The aim should be to
enhance the feeling of being welcomed and supported. In short, while many faculty members do feel
supported, an underlying fear does exist among some members of diverse
backgrounds.
The MDIC strongly recommends that more information be gathered to further understand the nature and scope of concerns among faculty members regarding diversity issues. This query can be undertaken among faculty members. Inquiries should be made regarding their feelings for themselves, and how they perceive others. Further, the MDIC believes that appropriate faculty support services (such as an ombudsman for faculty) would be beneficial.
David S. Anderson College of Education and Human Development
School of Recreation, Health and Tourism
Flavia Colonna College of Science
Department of Mathematical
Sciences Flavia Colonna
Harold Geller College of Science
School of Physics, Astronomy and Computational Science
Jeng-Eng Lin College of Science
Department of Mathematical Sciences
Suzanne Scott College of Humanities and Social Sciences
Women and Gender Studies
10. NON-TRADITIONAL, INTERDISCIPLINARY, AND ADULT LEARNING: John Riskind (CHSS), Chair. Committee Members: Reeshad Dalal (CHSS), Steve Klein (CHSS), Jaime Lester (CHSS), Earle Reybold (CEHD), Amelia Rutledge (CHSS)
Report by Nontraditional, Interdisciplinary, and
Adult Learning Committee (NIAL)
John Riskind,
Earle Rebold, Jaime Lester, Steve Klein, Amelia Rutledge
The NIAL Committee met in January and has identified a need to develop a fuller vision of its goals and functions so that it could move forward. The functions of NIAL used to be out of the Extended Studies program and the committee views distance education and distributed learning as important areas for possible further development. One concern was that GMU will no longer be able to be the affordable alternative for education in the area if it does not respond to new economic realities. These new realities could provide opportunities for GMU but also threats to its future survival. Several committee members agreed that there was a need to adjust to new markets, conditions, and nontraditional players. The Committee has also discussed the goal of speaking to expanded audiences and in nontraditional ways, helping individuals to “reinvent” themselves and move in new careers or directions in their lives. This would include bringing in older adults and reaching returning students. A distributed learning template could be important to implementing such a vision. A related issue was the idea of reaching out to the community. A variety of populations might be served such as retired individuals or individuals seeking additional professional certification. However, the committee had a lively discussion on whether the emphasis of such efforts should mainly be on academic education, not just job certification. The committee also noted the needs of transfer students who make up about 25% of the 2,500 freshman admissions each year, but are an underserved population. It was observed that there are seemingly fewer resources to support them on campus than there are for other freshmen.
There was discussion about how one could control a program that by necessity would cross disciplines? It was suggested that the Interdisciplinary Collaboration Committee group could be a possible partner and that we could meet with them. The committee is seeking to find what is being done in different departments, programs, committees. Collaborative programs, Centers, and minors, might be a way to serve some non-traditional students. The Sport Communication minor across Communication and HR&T is one such example. A member of NIAL has had informal contact with Goodlett McDaniel about some of the distance learning issues we have discussed and the committee is planning to meet with him and others in the near future. These include someone from University Relations because they might be able to “see the forest through the trees,” as well as Dean Flagel at the Admissions office which is in effect the university’s outreach program. Because of schedules, there has been delay in planning additional meetings
11. SALARY EQUITY STUDY –
Margret Hjalmarson (CEHD), Chair
Committee Members: Michelle
Buehl (CEHD), Karen Hallows (SOM), Prosenjit Mazumdar (SOM)
Report
of the Faculty Salary Equity Committee
April 12, 2011
Members: Margret Hjalmarson (Chair,CEHD), Michelle Buehl (CEHD), Karen Hallows (CEHD), Prosenjit Mazumdar (SOM)
Assisted by: Kris Smith (Associate Provost for Institutional Research & Reporting)
The committee has met bi-monthly during the academic year to discuss the development of a data analysis plan to examine equity in faculty salaries on a variety of dimensions. Kris Smith has assisted us by obtaining and conducting preliminary data analysis related to faculty salaries including race, gender, faculty rank, and unit variables. At this stage, data analysis is still under way and we expect a full report regarding the status of faculty salary equity in September 2011. We recently obtained a previous report conducted in 1996 by a previous version of this committee as well as their responses to feedback from the Faculty Senate regarding their process. We are utilizing their methods as a guide to inform our data analysis. We are also examining the methodologies used by other, similar universities when conducting faculty salary equity studies.
12. TECHNOLOGY POLICY –
Stanley Zoltek (COS), Chair
Committee Members: Phil
Buchanan (SOM), Melissa Martin (SOM), Goodlet McDaniel (CHHS), Walter Morris
(COS), Star Muir (CHSS), Shahron Williams van Rooij (CEHD)
The Faculty Senate Technology Policy Committee (FSTPC) will
have met six times in the 2010-2011 academic year. The final meeting is
scheduled for May 9, 2011.
October
18, 2010
· Election of Stanley Zoltek as committee chair
Walt Sevon
Review of email migration status:
Sharon Pitt
Review of technology classroom situation
Review of Blackboard/WebCT status
Walt Sevon – Walt
provided the information below based on a request from the committee. The
committee had heard that students could not access Google Docs from MasonLive.
·
Accessing Google Docs from MasonLive-Walt
Sevon
FAQs for MasonLive
http://masonlive.gmu.edu/faqs.html#googleDocs
Can I use Google Docs with MASONLIVE e-mail addresses?
Yes. However, to access materials through Google Docs, you must create an account (register your MASONLIVE e-mail address) with Google Docs.
· Scheduling of electronic classrooms
December 13, 2010Sharon Pitt · Introduction of Joy Taylor, Director of Learning Support Services
· Joy Taylor
Update on current plans on the transition from CEB to Blackboard 9.1Walt Sevon– There was concern from the committee about the name being displayed on student e-mail with MasonLive. There were two concerns. First, that the display name can be changed. That is true and it has always been true for student e-mail if they used a client such as Thunderbird or Outlook. The second concern was the name was not showing up when a faculty member typed in a student’s e-mail address. It will show up on a client such as Thunderbird or Outlook if configured correctly. If it does not the faculty member can contact the ITU Support Center and ask that a e-mail be reconfigured. More information is below.
·
Name displayed when using MasonLive--Walt
Sevon
Walt.Sevon<[email protected]>
The display name is the name that is displayed in quotes before
the actual e-mail address; For example, the display name above is: "Walt.Sevon"
The actual e-mail address is "[email protected]." The first
part of the e-mail address, "wsevon", is
the "NetId" or "username" and is
a unique identifier for Mason faculty, staff, and students. It cannot be
changed by MasonLive users.
Students using MasonLive have the ability to change
their display name but cannot change their NetId. The
NetId is clearly shown on all e-mail addresses. The
ability to change the display name is part of MasonLive
and allowed by Microsoft and cannot be prevented by Mason administrators.
MEMO users who use the MEMO Web Interface or who set up a mail
client like Outlook or Thunderbird have access to the Enterprise directory
(LDAP) and can look up an email address to discover the owner. We do not
allow account owners to change their name information in LDAP. Likewise, MasonLive users can access the Global Address List (GAL) in
MasonLive and match a NetId
to the owner provided the owner has not elected FERPA privacy, in which case
they are concealed from the GAL.
Coordination and clarity of ITU Alerts – The
committee had received complaints that the ITU Alerts were not clear had had too much “tech speak.” Walt took this for action and
said he would coordinate with the ITU Support Center
January 31, 2011
Sharon PittIncreasing the number of technology classrooms on the Fairfax campusBlackboard Collaborate MasonLive Update
As of late November 2010, all student email is on MasonLive. On February
6, student access to the MEMO email accounts will be removed. Students
will no longer have access to emails remaining in that account. Simple
instructions have been provided for migrating any mail from the MEMO accounts
to MasonLive since the rollout began in August 2010. Moving forward, mail
sent to the students at either their "@gmu.edu" address or their
"@masonlive.gmu.edu" address will all be routed to the MasonLive
accounts. As of this time, there are a number of unclaimed accounts on
MasonLive; however, we believe those accounts are dormant based on the number
of times and various methods we have attempted to reach out to the account
owners over the past six months.
Information Technology (IT) Security Training
The Commonwealth of Virginia requires state institutions to provide mandatory
security training for all faculty, staff and students. To reduce the
burden on our users, the Information Technology Unit is fulfilling the training
requirement by implementing an on-line quiz about security. The quiz will
ask the user to respond to a small set of questions. It allows the user
to attempt each question multiple times until he/she answers correctly, thereby
fulfilling the training requirement. The quiz will be administered
as part of the password change process. A pilot group will test the quiz
starting in mid-February with a goal of implementing the quiz by mid-March.
Password Updates
The majority of faculty/staff/students routinely change their
passwords, but some do not. For those users that have not changed their
passwords in the past year, they will need to change their password at some
point, most likely in March 2010. The exact date is uncertain since it
will follow after the online security quiz has been implemented. A
communication strategy is being developed. In order to ensure users
are supported through the process, password expiration will be phased over
three months and not done all at one time.
New Faculty/Staff E-Mail System
During the spring semester we will begin the process of selecting a new e-mail
system for faculty and staff to replace the current MEMO system. The new system
could be a free system hosted off-site, a new system hosted here at Mason and
supported by ITU staff, or a fee-based, e-mail system hosted off-site by a
commercial messaging vendor.
The first step will be to organize a cross-functional team to look at
requirements. This process is already underway. What features should the
new system support and how? Different team members will likely have
requirements based on their own functional perspective (e.g. archiving,
e-discovery, accessibility, security, privacy). We will develop our list of
requirements in two categories: must have features and nice to have features.
The next step will be to determine what hosted e-mail offerings are available
in the marketplace and their associated cost structure. We will survey other
universities, including Virginia institutions, regarding their experiences.
These steps will help the team with the final step which is the development of
a Request for Proposals (RFP). Even if we are interested in a free hosted
solution we will still need to go through an RFP process.
March 7, 2011Walt Sevon· Update - Pilot Training the Information Technology (IT) Security Training Application
We have asked the Staff Senate, student Orientation Leaders, student Resident Technicians, staff members of the Portfolio Evaluation Committee, TSD Managers and the faculty of the Psychology Department to pilot the IT security training application.
As background, the Commonwealth of Virginia requires state institutions to provide mandatory IT security training for all faculty, staff and students. To reduce the burden on our users, the Information Technology Unit is fulfilling the training requirement by implementing an on-line quiz about security. The quiz will ask the user to respond to a small set of questions. It allows the user to attempt each question multiple times until he/she answers correctly, thereby fulfilling the training requirement. The quiz will be administered annually as part of the password change process. The questions will change each year.
Pilot testing includes changing ones password, taking the security quiz, and giving us feedback and suggested improvements. The hardest part is changing the password on a person's Smartphone if they use the Smartphone for email or calendaring. We will give them instructions for changing their passwords. The total time should take between 15 - 30 minutes including feedback. We will send out the instructions early this week and we would like to get the feedback by March 18.
For FSTPC members who would like to participate in pilot testing please send your NetId (NetId is your username on email as [email protected]), or email address to AdheetGaddamanugu at [email protected]. He will then send instructions to each person.
Sharon PittClassWeb· Laura Phelps
Virtual Computing Lab April 11, 2011Walt Sevon · Update - Pilot Training the Information Technology (IT) Security Training Application
The pilot was conducted and excellent
feedback was received from the participants. The feedback was used to update
the application. Starting in May 2011, Mason staff will be the first Mason
group required to complete this annual training with their next scheduled
password change. To minimize the impact
of the change, faculty and students will not be required to complete the annual
training until after the fall semester is underway.
A small number of faculty use MESA,
Mason’s online file sharing system.
Currently, the passwords of MESA users expire and must be renewed
periodically. If the password of a faculty
member who uses MESA expires between now and the fall, the faculty member will
be asked to take the training at the same as the password renewal. The new password will give the user access to
many Mason online systems including Blackboard, Mason e-mail, Patriot Web and other
Banner Services, and Virtual Private Network (VPN).
In May 2011, the IT Security Awareness Training (ITSAT) will be generally available for anyone to take on a voluntary basis. If they wish, faculty can take the training at a convenient time before the fall. More information about passwords and ITSAT can be found at http://strongpassword.gmu.edu.
Sharon PittClassWeb
13. WRITING ACROSS THE CURRICULUM - Stanley Zoltek, Chair
Committee Members:
Joan Bristol (Fall 2010)/Paul Rogers (Spring 2011) (CHSS), Susan Durham (CHHS),
Tamara Maddox (VSITE), Nicola Scott (SOM), Tom Owens (CVPA), Ellen Rodgers
(CEHD), Daniel Rothbart (ICAR).
Terry Zawacki ex-officio
(Director, WAC Program); Sarah Baker ex-officio (Assistant Director, WAC
Program)
Consultants to the Committee:
Melissa Allen, Peggy Brouse, Anna Habib (Fall 2010), Peter Farrell, Shelley
Reid, Larry Rockwood, Sia Rose-Robinson, Scott Watkins, Bethany Usher
The committee will meet eight times during the 2010-2011 academic year (the last of those meetings is scheduled for May 3, 2011). The committee’s charge includes: advising the director of “Writing Across the Curriculum,” approval of new writing-intensive (WI) courses, regular review of WI course syllabi, and assisting with activities and events related to Writing Across the Curriculum.
2010-2011 activities include:
Committee
Actions:
§ Reviewed and approved new or modified courses designated to meet the Senate-mandated WI requirement: BENG 304 and 495 (Bioengineering), BIOL 308 (Biology), CEIE 301 (Civil, Environmental, and Infrastructure Engineering), CRIM 495 (Criminology, Law and Society), GEOL 305 (Geology), HAP 465 (Health Administration and Policy), NCLC 334 (Environmental and Sustainability Studies).
§ Each semester checked enrollments in WI courses to assess compliance to the 35-seat requirement. Also, conducted a longitudinal chart compiling the WI course caps and enrollments since 2004.
§ Conducted fourth WI syllabi collection in all fall 2010 WI courses to verify compliance with WI requirements. Collected 72 syllabi, which represented the 47 WI courses offered during the Fall 2010 semester. Completed Report on WI Syllabi Review of Fall 2010 WI Course that was sent to all deans, directors, chairs and the Provost.
§ Conducted a brief review of WI requirements at other universities around the US.
§ Reviewed the types of writing (i.e., formal vs. informal) assigned to students in WI courses.
§ Reviewed the graduating seniors’ writing experiences on the annual graduating senior surveys. Will send results to appropriate departments/units in the beginning of fall 2011.
§ Reviewed the WI course requirements, discussing: whether to divide the requirement between a lower-lever course and an upper-level course, the number of credits of the required WI course, and the overall language of the WI requirement.
§ Reviewed the history of the WI requirement.
§
Discussed
adding the committee’s consultants to the Faculty Senate’s website.
§
Continued
efforts to encourage departments to institute writing awards.
§
Encouraged
faculty to send ESL students to the Writing Center’s Opt-in ESL Support
Program.
§
Produced
the fall 2010 Teaching with Writing
Across the Curriculum newsletter in both print and online formats at http://wac.gmu.edu/program/newsletter/. The spring 2011 newsletter,
focusing on second-language writers, will be out sometime in May 2011.
Other program activities in
consultation with the WAC committee:
§ Developed WIN(ning) initiative for writing-infused programs in collaboration with Social Work, English, Art and Visual Technology (AVT), Philosophy, and Criminology, Law and Society (CLS), and School of Management, Management (SOM). WIN Workshop is set for May 19th.
§ The George Mason Review 2010-2011, a student publication of writing across the disciplines, was published and available to pick up.
ATTACHMENT E
ANNUAL REPORTS OF THE FACULTY SENATE AD HOC
COMMITTEES 2010-11
1. FACULTY HANDBOOK REVISION
COMMITTEE – Rick Coffinberger (SOM), Chair
Committee Members: Jim
Bennett (CHSS), Suzanne Slayden (COS)
Report of the Faculty Senate’s
Faculty Handbook Revision Committee for AY 2010-11
Prepared by
Richard Coffinberger, Committee Chair
The Faculty Handbook Revision Committee was comprised of Jim Bennett (Economics), Suzanne Slayden (Chemistry) and Richard Coffinberger (Management). The Committee met frequently during the Fall semester of 2010 and during the first half-of the Spring semester of 2011. The Committee developed a set of recommended changes to the Faculty Handbook most of which were endorsed by the Provost and his staff and approved by the Faculty Senate at its April meeting. The final recommended changes included recommendations developed by a parallel committee organized by Brian Walther of the University’s Office of General Counsel and vetted by the Handbook Revision Committee. The University’s Board of Visitors will consider the recommended Handbook changes at its May meeting.
2. FACULTY SENATE TASK FORCE
TO EXAMINE THE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY AND PRIVATE DONORS –
Dave Kuebrich (CHSS), Chair
Committee Members: Bob
Ehrlich (COS), Esther Elstun (CHSS-Emerita), Earle Reybold (CEHD), Rich
Rubenstein (ICAR), Matt Zingraff (Associate Dean, CHSS).
See Attachment B (above)
ATTACHMENT F
Term Limits for BOV Faculty Representatives
15B.1 HThe
Rector and Board of Visitors
Responsibility
for the governance of George Mason University is vested by the laws of the
Commonwealth of Virginia in the Rector and Board of Visitors. Members of the
Board of Visitors are appointed by the Governor of the Commonwealth to serve
fixed terms of four years. The Rector is a member of the Board, elected by the
Board to serve as its chair.
Without limiting the generality of
its powers, the Board of Visitors exercises its authority principally in policy
making and oversight. With the exception of meetings convened in executive
session, meetings of the Board of Visitors and its committees are open to the
public. The chair of the Faculty Senate sits as a non-voting representative to
the full Board. The voting membership of the General Faculty (see SUection 1.3.1UH) shall elect a non-voting representative to all standing
committees of the Board, except the Audit Committee (see below). To accomplish
this, the Faculty Senate shall conduct elections biennially. The candidates
will come from the voting membership of the General Faculty. The Faculty Senate
will notify the Rector of the outcome of the election. A separate faculty
member may be selected by the Board to serve as a nonvoting, faculty liaison to
the Audit Committee. No faculty member may serve concurrently on more than one
committee. No faculty member can serve more than three consecutive 2-year
terms, although subsequent reelection is permitted.
Motion: Delete final sentence, paragraph 2 of Section 1.1 of the Faculty Handbook which states: “No
faculty member can serve more than three consecutive 2-year terms, although
subsequent reelection is permitted.”
Rationale: Term limits
are arbitrary and violative of democratic principles of free choice in
electoral process and representation.
ATTACHMENT G
Faculty Senate Resolution Recommending the
Establishment of a Ombudsman or a Committee to Collect Information on
Complaints and Concerns Regarding Campus Police Actions
WHEREAS in response to various actions taken by the Campus Police,
President Merten has convened a “Presidential Task
Force to seek input for members of the Mason community on their interactions
and experiences with the University Police Department”; and
WHEREAS members of the University community have expressed concerns and
complaints at the Task Force’s meetings regarding various Police actions; and
WHEREAS no “voice mechanism” currently exists where complaints about Police
actions can be reported and collected;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Faculty Senate that the Presidential Task Force
be urged to recommend in its final report to the Central Administration that an
Ombudsperson be appointed or that a Committee be established to collect and
document complaints and concerns about the actions of Mason’s Police
Department.