MINUTES OF THE FIRST MEETING
OF THE
FACULTY HANDBOOK REVISION COMMITTEE
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Mason Hall, room D1 – 3:00 – 4:30 p.m.
Present: Rick
Coffinberger, Associate Professor of Business and Legal Studies, School of
Management, Chair; Lorraine Brown, Professor of English (CAS) and
President of the AAUP Chapter of George Mason University; Martin Ford, Senior
Associate Dean, College of Education and Human Development; David Harr, Senior
Associate Dean, School of Management; Marilyn Mobley, Associate Provost for
Education Programs; David Rossell, Associate Provost for Personnel and Budget, ex-officio;
Suzanne Slayden, Associate Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry (CAS)
Absent: Kevin
Avruch, Professor of Conflict Resolution and Anthropology, ICAR (conducting
research abroad)
Chair Rick Coffinberger welcomed committee members to our first
meeting. As introductions were made
around the table, it was noted that committee members’ combined years of
service to George Mason University spans many decades. David Rossell serves in a unique capacity on
the committee as he, probably more than anyone else at the university, has
dealt with issues contained in the Faculty Handbook during the tenure of
five Provosts.
In addition to the text of the Handbook (copies distributed at
the meeting), there are a number of additional documents found in front of some
copies of the Handbook to be distributed to all members of the committee
by university mail. David Rossell will
identify whether additional policy documents germane to the work of the
committee exist; these will also be distributed as needed. Copies of several Handbooks from
other doctoral-granting institutions in Virginia are also available in the
Faculty Senate Office for review.
Committee members agreed to review the text of the Handbook to
identify areas in need of revision for our next meeting. In addition, copies of the Administrative/Professional
Faculty Handbook, GMU Research Personnel Policies and Procedures, and the Part-Time
Faculty Guide (which contains some similar appendices) will be examined as
well. It was noted that some material
applicable to full-time instructional faculty would not apply to part-time
faculty.
Rick noted that the Faculty Handbook governs important
relationships both for instructional faculty as well as administrative faculty
as it impacts upon the Handbook. There
are four key groups which will be informed as much as possible as our work
progresses: first; the Board of
Visitors (which has final approval of the Handbook); second, President
Merten and Provost Stearns; third, the Faculty Senate, and fourth, faculty
members to include both instructional and administrative faculty.
Rick outlined his view for four major stages of the committee’s work,
adding that it is very much a work in progress and he welcome suggestions from
committee members on procedures:
1. Information Gathering: we all bring unique perspectives to the table. The President and Provost have suggested that we have open forums/meetings at each campus in which all interested parties may participate. The Committee would like to commence the open forums as soon as possible in February. A review of the basics about the Handbook would precede opening up the floor to questions and suggestions. Rick requested that the schedule be coordinated so that David Rossell be available to answer questions from the audience; Rick will attend also as chair, other members of the committee may attend as their schedules permit. Minutes of the open forums/meetings will be written and distributed for review. In announcements of the meetings, the link to the Faculty Handbook on the university website will be included; faculty who are unable to attend but wish to participate will be encouraged to do so by email/mail. Additional meetings may be scheduled as needed.
2.
Drafting and Debate
3. Presentation of Revised Handbook to the Board of Visitors. As the Handbook is a contractual document, it was agreed that it will be submitted for review to the Office of the University Counsel prior to its presentation to the Board; whether the revised document should be reviewed by counsel in sections or in its entirety has not yet been determined.
4.
Timetable: President
Merten would like to see this completed by Fall 2006/Spring 2007. It remains to be seen whether this time
frame would be sufficient; the group will need to decide whether to continue
meetings over the summer.
Other procedural matters included the definition of a quorum as four of
the total seven members of the committee; excluding David Rossell as ex-officio. While it is not reasonable to expect
unanimity, we hope to achieve consensus where the vast majority would
agree. Rick acknowledged potential
issues where consensus may not emerge but noted that it is not in the interest
of the committee that this should occur often, if at all. In between meetings
of the full committee, we may break into subgroups as needed; conclusions
presented to the full committee for review.
The question was raised whether the present Handbook reflects
the point-of-view of the current Provost.
David Rossell responded that, in general, the Handbook is
applicable in some cases but does not reflect the institution as it exists
today. Some areas need to be addressed,
but not all. He cited the example of
bureaucratic procedures for the severance of a tenured faculty member no longer
be able to perform his duties.
University Counsel (recently deceased) Jeff Brandwine and David Rossell
flowcharted the process; a minimum of eighteen months was required to terminate
a tenured faculty member. Other areas,
such as the exclusion of a faculty member from the classroom, would seem to
fall into gray areas, however the procedures as currently written are “all or
nothing”. A better way needs to be
devised to the benefit of both faculty and administration.
Should the revised version include research faculty? Should its definition of types of faculty
appointments be streamlined for consistency between units? Terms such as
clinical faculty apply to the College of Nursing; field faculty to the College
of Education. How to better define
visiting faculty? A lot of new policy regarding term faculty, who used to be
called restricted faculty, needs to be addressed. Should a distinction be made between administrative and
professional faculty? The use of the
term contract faculty to define part-time faculty includes those who advise and
do research. Full-time instructional
faculty and full-time research faculty are a rapidly growing group. Should term and multi-year term faculty also
include a primary focus on instruction or research? Whether 9 month or 12 month seems a less critical point. A goal
of simplification as much as possible was urged. It was further noted that some faculty use titles to obtain more
salary. In the domain beyond types of appointments, how to better address
appointments within or between units – “clean appointment” vs. “joint
appointment”; the latter becomes a little murky. Other terms used such as courtesy appointment (similar to an
affiliate appointment) – does this exist? When we invite someone to become an
affiliate faculty, what are their rights in terms of governance? Can they vote in meetings? Should research faculty be allowed to vote
(presently limited to instructional FTE)?
Full-time research faculty has grown significantly, from approximately
100 in 2001 to between 300-400 today.
As a contractual agreement, should parts of the Faculty Information
Guide also be included? Reference
to practices at other doctoral granting institutions will be examined. The inconsistent use of terminology on the
website also needs to be cleaned up.
Various opinions were raised whether part-time faculty should be
included within the revised Handbook.
One view maintained that part-time faculty do not have the same
contractual rights as full-time faculty; necessitating a separate
document. Should “best practices” be
used as a benchmark? Twenty-percent of
classroom delivery is performed by part time faculty; should they be covered
somewhere within the document, possibly in an appendix? Recent legislation passed last summer gave
benefit rights to those employees who work at least .5 FTE. If an employee is defined as “faculty,” then
should they not be covered? Who would
be responsible for creation of a revised Part-Time Faculty Guide? There are different types of part-time faculty in different
units. The world has changed
dramatically from “Adjunct” to .3 FTE, .5 FTE, and non-FTE.
The need to clarify terms such as Academic Units and Institutes also
needs to be addressed. Let us try to
simplify, to not use so many terms; not to reduce flexibility or limit ability
of faculty working across the university.
Previous revisions may have used ambiguous language to achieve
consensus.
Our next meeting will take place on Monday, January 30, 2006 from 3:00
– 4:30 p.m. in Mason Hall, room B5.
Respectfully submitted,
Meg Caniano
Clerk, Faculty Senate