MINUTES
OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF
THE FACULTY SENATE
Monday, April 19, 2010
Mason Hall, room D5,
3:30-5:00p.m.
Present: Jim Bennett, Doris Bitler, Rick Coffinberger, David Kuebrich, Janette Muir, Peter Pober, Peter Stearns, Susan Trencher. Visitor: Anne Schiller, Associate Provost for International Projects
I. Approval of Minutes of March 26, 2010 – the minutes were approved as distributed.
II. Announcements
Dean Vikas Chandhoke
will offer brief remarks at the next meeting (April 28th).
III. Progress
reports, business, and agenda items from Senate Standing Committees
A. Academic
Policies – Janette Muir
New Business: AP/IB Course Credits – a complicated issue, we will focus on this next year.
B. Budget and
Resources – Rick Coffinberger
We have a BPT meeting
with Donna Kidd tomorrow; sometimes Provost Stearns and Morrie Scherrens join
us. The resolution of appreciation to
the GMU administration about furloughs is in progress.
C. Faculty Matters – Doris Bitler
Mike Wolf-Branigin will present a brief report on domestic partner
benefits at the next meeting. Linda
Schwartzstein has someone working on
teaching contribution of administrative faculty. Jim Sanford will report on cost of recreation
for faculty at our next meeting. The Faculty Evaluation of Administrators
Survey continues.
Summer School:
Concerns remain about inadequate funding for summer school teaching per
the Faculty Handbook. Schedulers are
frustrated. Enrollments are down. Nor do
central advertisements about summer school appear on the (main) GMU website as
in the past, you have to dig into the website to find topic. The Provost will ask Cathy Evans to address
this. Funding is allocated to big units
on basis of enrollment targets, not on the basis of the number of professors
who want to teach. There are plans to
close some CHSS classes with fewer than ten students, even if (tuition) revenue
exceeds salary of professor. Why would
you cancel a course if tuition revenue exceeded cost of professor’s
salary? Money from cancelled classes
goes back to college to renegotiate for classes with wait lists. Sometimes classes cancelled in the first
session may be rescheduled to the second or third sections. Courses (in a school) overall must show a
profit collectively, if not individually.
Would faculty consider teaching classes for less? Some faculty also offer independent studies
pro bono. Clearly there are residual
costs as well, such as the Registrar’s Office.
Should faculty be paid more to teach summer courses that are overenrolled? Some issues need to be resolved at the
college-level. A suggestion was made to
create an ad hoc committee in the fall to consider benefits and problems during
summer 2010 term.
Faculty Practice Plan: We await additional
feedback from a faculty member, who may be hesitant to continue the discussion.
Adjunct Faculty Contract Errors: We met with the parties
involved, recommending that the individuals go to their Grievance Committee. The broader policy issue involves being paid
incorrectly. Linda Harber has also
provided feedback. The issue is not
close to resolution, but need to (pursue) process.
Proposed Changes to Health Care Benefits: More
information pending from Human Resources.
Impact of Attorney General of Virginia’s lawsuit to deny state
participation in Federal Health Care law unknown.
We are looking for a faculty member to serve on the Fenwick Fellows
Review Board.
E. Organization
and Operations – Susan Trencher
Motion to Establish a University Standing Committee to Review Faculty
Handbook will be included on next meeting agenda. The committee charge should
specify membership, as well as administration selectees. We will ask faculty who previously served on
the Handbook Committee if they wish to serve.
Review of Charter and By-Laws: to work on next year, a long term project.
University Code of Ethics Proposal from Tom Hennessey: we reviewed this and decided we were not the
right group to review this. The proposal
will be sent to the Executive Committee for feedback.
Continuation of Faculty Presidential Review Committee – not to establish
as a standing committee, but to constitute a new (ad hoc) committee in the
future as needed.
A. University Standing Committees continue to notify us of election of chairs.
Pending: Salary Equity Study Committee. They did submit an annual report.
B. Teaching
Effectiveness Committee: Report on
On-Line Course Evaluations. Kris Smith
will continue discussion from April 7th FS Meeting. Issues
and questions discussed include:
·
Who has
access to evaluation results, particularly qualitative results (comments)? Since 1978, the Faculty Senate has supported
limiting access to individual faculty member alone. Concern expressed about impact on faculty
with small classes, particularly if a few negative comments appear. Chairs
should have a sense of how faculty are doing.
The Provost does not want to dispute the Faculty Senate itself, but
feels we should continue changing it for two reasons: What would student reaction be if they think
the results (comments) are only seen by faculty member? Need to have another pair of eyes to review,
should recommendations need to be made.
Many students do not write any comments, only the happiest and deeply
unhappy share things. Some students may
save up ammunition to write on evaluation.
The views of student government will be solicited.
·
Some
faculty feel evaluation forms deeply flawed – most helpful comments often
things like “this book is difficult.” To
ask Kris Smith about statistical deviance for students far off track. Is the statistical formula a punitive
one? Should the highest and lowest 5% be
dropped?
·
Recent
discussion (in CHE) about how to motivate students to fill out
evaluations. If you threaten to withhold
grades, they could “mash” professor, even if this is not individual professor’s
policy.
·
Is
evaluation data on peer institutions, as well as local institutions, available?
·
How much
money is saved using on-line evaluations?
C. Committee on External Academic Relations: draft message circulated for review before
distribution to all faculty distributed, based on motion presented at April 7,
2010 FS meeting. After some discussion,
the EXC committee recommended it be shortened, using links to the Senate
website, as well as a catchy subject line.
V. Agenda Items for April 28, 2010
VI. New Business and Discussion
Proposed Korea initiative – Anne Schiller, Assoc. Provost for International Projects provided the following update –copied from the Annual/Spring 2010 report of the Academic Initiatives Committee:
A Mason delegation traveled to Korea in February, 2010 to join representatives of other Global University Alliance Institutions for meetings with IFEZ administrators, representatives of the Ministry of Knowledge Economy, and the Mayor of Incheon. Among the issues discussed were schedules for facilities construction, various forms of support for Alliance Institutions, and general campus management. A follow‑up letter sent on behalf of Alliance Institutions requested additional information relevant to the evaluation process. Alliance Institutions are aware that personnel changes in IFEZ offices have delayed a full response and expect to learn more shortly.
While in Korea members of the Mason delegation carried out a
focus group discussion and distributed questionnaires to students at a local
high school. Data collected were helpful
to understanding some priorities of Korean students. In early April, a RFP was circulated that
will lead to selection of a professional research firm to conduct a market
study on Mason’s behalf. That study will
focus on the relative popularity among Korean and Chinese high school students
of the various academic programs that may be proposed by Mason. Six proposals were received and are currently
under evaluation. The results of the
market study will be useful in future curricula planning efforts. Among
the programs of interest are Economics, PIA, ES&P, Global Affairs, and
ICAR.
Significant progress has been made toward forming collaborations with universities in Korea that will serve as resources for Mason faculty and students. These institutions include Korea University, Kyonggi University, and Seoul National University.
Next steps will include informal faculty discussion groups that will help identify the opportunities and challenges that faculty envision with regard to their own participation in international teaching opportunities. The first discussion group will be comprised of members of the Faculty Matters Subcommittee headed by Dr. Doris Bitler.
Questions/Discussion:
Courses will be taught in English.
In Korean culture, great importance placed on building good
relationships with other institutions, particularly neighbors. Faculty housing will be provided as well as
student dorms – idea that an alliance institution would share this (cost).
What is the financial incentive for GMU and individual
participation? Dr. Schiller: We have a $1 million budget – part will pay
for market survey, some used for student recruitment. We need to know how much support is there.
Korean students will also have opportunity to come here - Global Affairs has an accelerated B.A.
program. Who pays faculty if they go
there? If they are our own faculty, they
would be paid through GMU and reimbursement channeled from Korea.
How would faculty access health care, etc?
As we go forward, will have that kind of information. There are new hospital facilities
(nearby). Two GMU faculty who have
taught in Korea found it a very positive experience, and are enthusiastic about
it.
Consenting Sexual Relationships between
Employees and Students –
presented by Corey Jackson and Brian Walther at end of April 7, 2010
meeting. There seemed to be a lot of
concerns about it, to refer to Faculty Matters Committee. Does this exclude same-sex couples?
Respectfully
submitted,
Meg Caniano
Clerk, Faculty Senate