MINUTES OF THE FACULTY HANDBOOK REVISION COMMITTEE
Wednesday May 14,
2008
Mason Hall, room
D1; 1:00 – 3:00 p.m.
Present: Kevin Avruch, Associate Director and Professor of Conflict Resolution, Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution; Lorraine Brown, Professor of English, College of Humanities and Social Sciences; Rick Coffinberger, Associate Professor of Business and Legal Studies, School of Management, Chair; Martin Ford, Senior Associate Dean, College of Education and Human Development;. Dave Harr, Senior Associate Dean, School of Management; Suzanne Slayden, Associate Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry, College of Science.
Preamble: The Mission of George Mason University: mission
statement currently under review by BOV.
Preface
to the 2008 Edition – to revisit; contains
segments about revision process to be rewritten and included in a new section 1.4
Amendments and Review of the Faculty Handbook
1.1. The Rector and Board of Visitors – 2008 Revision in Progress
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 Board recognizes as official observers three senators
appointed by the chair of the Faculty Senate to be its liaison representatives.
These senators receive notices of Board meetings, agendas, and other documents
concerning business to be considered by the Board, and report regularly to the
Senate about Board meetings. The voting membership of the General
Faculty (see Section 1.3.1) shall elect a non-voting representative to the
following committees of the Board: the Equity and Diversity Committee, Faculty
and Academic Standards Committee, Finance and Resource Development Committee,
Land Use and Physical Facilities Committee, and University Life Committee. To accomplish this, the Faculty Senate shall
conduct bi-annual elections. The
candidates will come from the voting membership of the General Faculty. The Faculty Senate will notify the Rector. A separate faculty member may be selected to
serve as a nonvoting, faculty liaison to the Audit Committee. The chair of the Faculty Senate sits as a
non-voting member of the full Board. No
faculty member may serve on more than one committee. Faculty may serve more than one term. No faculty member
can serve more than two consecutive 2-year terms, although subsequent
reelection is permitted. A faculty
member can be a candidate for election to only one committee on the ballot.
·
Added “the voting membership of the General Faculty”
with reference to Section 1.3.1 (The General Faculty)
·
Removed second iteration of BOV committee names from
previous revision (April 18, 2008)
·
Faculty Senate chair now serves as non-voting member of
the full Board
·
Statement in Verdana text copied from call for nominations from
last election of Faculty Representatives to BOV (April 2007); needs further
revision.
·
Faculty to notify the Rector, not the President, of
election results.
The Board of Visitors provides for participation on
presidential search committees by faculty who are elected by the
General Faculty. The search and selection process includes opportunities for
the General Faculty to meet with candidates who are finalists for the
presidency.
The President provides for faculty participation on search
committees for a Provost by faculty
who are elected by the General Faculty.
The search and selection process includes opportunities for the
General Faculty to meet with candidates who are finalists for the Provost
position.
The Provost provides for participation on search
committees for college, school, or institute deans and
directors by faculty who are elected from and by the faculty of the
college, school, or institute in which the appointment will occur. The search and selection process includes opportunities for
the college, school, or institute faculty to meet with candidates
who are finalists for the position
The Faculty Senate will assist in conducting elections
by the General Faculty.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.2.5 Faculty Participation in the Selection of
Certain Members of the Central Administration – 1994 Handbook Text
The Board of Visitors provides for the participation of faculty peer-elected by the
General Faculty on
presidential search committees. The search and selection process
includes opportunities for the General Faculty to meet with finalist-candidates
for the presidency.
Faculty peer-elected by the General Faculty also serve on search committees
for a new Provost. Here, too, the process includes opportunities for
the General Faculty to meet with finalist-candidates.
The appointment of collegiate or school deans is likewise preceded by a search and selection process in
which peer-elected faculty of the college or school participate. The
process includes opportunities for the collegiate or school faculty to meet with finalist-candidates
·
President decides how
committee is composed as long as there is faculty representation. Circumstances could change depending on
wishes of individual Presidents/Provosts.
·
One committee member
expressed a strong preference that a majority of search committee members be
elected by the faculty, as faculty have to live with the results of the
hire. Another committee member noted
administrative faculty must live with new hire too.
·
Current Provost Review
Committee contains one faculty member appointed (by President) as chair; four
committee members elected by faculty, others appointed (faculty members). You cannot legislate this – invites all
sorts of delays. Concern about delays
also expressed by other committee members.
·
Goal of hiring process
is to get a great person – need for committee members with skills to (identify)
characteristics. Evolution of role of
university president from academician to focus on external relations; less so
for the Provost. When you drill down to the dean level, also expectation of
expertise in external relations.
Decision left to chance when a majority of committee members are
elected; need to find committee members with good judgment.
·
General consensus to
retain wording as is, not to micromanage committee selection process. Addition of
”institutes” where absent.
The faculty conducts its work business and
participates in institutional governance at the University level, the college,
school, or institute level, and the level of the local academic unit
(defined in Section
1.3.4). The faculty is organized accordingly, to provide for the exercise
of its responsibilities at all three levels, as described in Sections 1.3.1 through
1.3.6 below. In accordance with the best traditions of American
universities, the faculty plays a primary role in two types of determinations: (i) the University's
academic offerings; and (ii)
faculty personnel actions. The faculty also plays a vital role in academic
organization and institutional change and the appointment of senior academic
administrators and other leadership positions related to the academic mission
of the university. Faculty participation in the
decision-making process in these two areas is described in Chapter II of this
Handbook.
·
Replacement of
“business” by “work”, former too entrepreneurial.
·
Need to include
importance of faculty role in academic organization and institutional change;
institutional governance too narrow.
·
Should this section be
placed elsewhere? After some
discussion, decided to retain present position.
·
Faculty Senate is not
the only (faculty) organization with role here.
·
Faculty input in appointment
of senior level academic administrators as well as other university
administrators important.
·
Faculty do not desire
to be involved in all searches for senior level administrators (citing
examples), however interests of academic units affected may be represented by
senior administrative faculty, such as associate deans; who may be frequently
asked to serve on search committees.
·
“other leadership
positions related to the academic mission of the university” – innocuous enough
and sends signal that faculty expect to be involved.
Under powers delegated to it by the General Faculty, the
Faculty Senate is the principal faculty advisory body to the President. It has
particular responsibility for the formulation of university-wide academic
policies and is the principal voice of the faculty in matters affecting the
faculty generally. It advises the President and other members of the central
administration concerning matters that affect the welfare of the University as
a whole.
The
principal function of the Faculty Senate is to represent the faculty on all academic
and governance issues not internal to any single school, college, or
institute. This includes, but is not limited to, curricular matters,
matters concerning terms and conditions of faculty employment, and matters of
academic organization and institutional change. In these matters, the
Provost and Senate will consult during the process of planning and implementing
changes. To ensure timely consultation about these and other matters, the
Provost meets regularly monthly with the Senate's executive committee.
Meetings with the President and/or other members of the central administration
occur as needed.
The
Senate meets at least monthly during the fall and spring semesters. Meetings of
the Senate are open to all members of the university community, who may speak
to any item of business on the agenda. Only members of the Senate, however, may
introduce motions and vote. The Faculty Senate
deliberates in a positive
and open manner, consistent with existing principles of university discourse.
Three members of the
Senate are appointed by its chair to serve as liaison representatives to the
Board of Visitors. They regularly attend meetings of the Board and its committees
and report to the Senate about them
·
After some
discussion, decided to retain statement that Provost meets regularly with the
Executive Committee.
·
Addition of
“academic and “ to governance issues, as well as “institutional change”. Important faculty role in reorganization of
colleges such as recent CAS/SCS into CHSS and COS. CEHD became the first college to contain within it two
schools: GSE and SRHT.
·
Inclusion
of revised statement from 1994 section 1.3.8 Institutional Evolution at end of
last paragraph.
The
schools and colleges of the University are communities of teaching, learning,
scholarship and service established by the faculty and administration and
approved by the Board of Visitors. They house faculties and programs
representing shared educational interests, and may or may not be sub- divided
into departments. Colleges may also be subdivided into schools.
As an organizational
unit the college or school meets four functional criteria: (i) it has a tenured
and tenure-track faculty directly and specifically appointed to it or to
its departments by the Board of Visitors; (ii) its faculty establishes degree
requirements; authorizes the conferral of degrees; proposes, reviews and
approves courses and programs; actively participates in decisions
concerning the creation, reorganization and dissolution of units within the
college or school; and plays a key role in faculty personnel actions such as
hiring, promotion, and entenurement; (iii) it has an instructional budget
that includes FTE-funds for the payment of its faculty's salaries as well as
funds for goods and services in support of its programs; and (iv) its chief
administrative officer is a dean who reports directly to the Provost.
The faculties of
schools and colleges define their own voting membership. Together with their
deans, they determine the processes and procedures of governance they will
employ, but all schools and colleges, and if so sub-divided, their departments,
must act within the following guidelines, which prescribe that they
· To change title (and line 1 in para. 1,2, & 3, line 2 para. 3) to “Colleges, Schools, and Institutes” or to retain as is as Academic Institutes and Research Institutes addressed elsewhere?
The term "local academic unit" refers to an
academic department, to an academic institute, school, or college
without departments. It is to these local academic units that faculty are
directly and specifically appointed to primary affiliation (see Section 2.1.5).
The
local level of governance is the most important in the University for the
faculty's direct exercise of professional and peer judgment. Faculties of local
academic units actively participate in decision-making about
academic matters, matters of faculty status, and organizational and
institutional change. They have
primary responsibility for such academic matters as unit reorganization, the
design of programs, development and alteration of the curriculum, standards for
admission to programs, and requirements in the major. They play a primary role
in such matters of faculty status as the recruitment and initial appointment of
new faculty; the reappointment, promotion and entenurement of members; and in
the case of departments, the selection of the department chair.
Although
tenure is considered to reside in the University as a whole, in recognition of
disciplinary qualifications and for purposes of governance all tenured and tenure-track
probationary
faculty except those
holding the title of university professor are appointed to primary
affiliation in one or more local academic units. The primary affiliation of
tenured and tenure-track probationary faculty in any local academic unit does not
preclude their part-time or full-time activity in other units of the
University.
In
this Handbook the chief administrative officers of local academic units are
generically called "local unit administrators."
·
At college level, COS undergoing many changes which involve
further design/redevelopment of programs; to add “unit reorganization.”
·
To add “and organizational and institutional change”
consistent with Section 1.3.2.
Responsibility
for graduate programs rests with the local academic units which offer them
(with the exception of the Master of Arts in Interdisciplinary Study, which is
offered under the supervision of the Faculty Senate). Graduate faculty
membership is defined by the local academic units and, where applicable, by the
schools or colleges in which they are located.
·
Section deleted; at local level there may still be academic
units who appoint graduate faculty.
The Graduate Council, established by the General Faculty,
oversees the conduct of graduate education. It establishes the general norms
within which local academic units offer graduate degree programs; reviews and
acts upon new graduate degree proposals; authorizes the conferral of graduate degrees;
participates in the periodic evaluation of graduate programs and the periodic
review of academic policy and admissions policies and procedures; and performs
other functions as requested by the office of the Provost.
The
Graduate Council establishes the specific means of conducting its own business.
Like colleges, schools, institutes and departments, however, it must act within
the guidelines listed in Section 1.3.3
·
Does the Graduate Council actually take action on conferring
of degrees? There is no parallel with
undergraduate degrees. Noted search for
Associate Provost for Graduate Education underway. The University General
Education Committee exists; (conferral of degrees) handled at local level. Remove “authorizes the conferral of graduate
degrees”
·
May have been included in 1994 edition because new at that
time; remove “established by the General Faculty”. Renumber as Section 1.3.5.
Most academic programs are offered by local academic
units and are therefore administered and governed by the faculties of the local
academic units.
Some
multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary programs are offered by faculties drawn
from more than a single local unit. These faculty members do not hold primary
affiliation in those programs but rather, in one or more of the local
academic units of the university (see Section 1.3.4). For
purposes of personnel decisions regarding appointment, promotion and tenure,
these faculty members are evaluated primarily by their peers in the local units
of which they are a part, but with the requirement that recommendations from
the multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary program faculty with
which they are associated will be given due consideration.
Academic programs
which are not internal to a single local academic unit are administered by a
program director. This director is regarded as the equivalent of a department
chair and is therefore expected to possess equivalent academic credentials. Such
program directors normally report to a dean or institute director. If the program transcends the boundaries of a
single school, college, or institute, the program director would report to
the Provost.
Program
faculty define their own voting membership. Together with their
directors, they determine the procedures of governance they will employ, but
all program faculties must act within the guidelines listed in Section 1.3.3
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most academic programs are offered by departments or
non-departmentalized colleges or schools and are therefore
administered and governed by the faculties of the departments, colleges or schools of which they are
a part. Certain multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary programs are offered by
institutes and are administered and governed by the faculties of the institutes
of which they are a part.
Other multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary
programs are offered by faculties drawn from more than a single local unit.
These faculty members,
notwithstanding that they are assigned to work part- or full-time in
multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary programs, do not hold primary
affiliation in the
programs in which they
work, but rather, in one or more of the local academic units of the
university (see Section
1.3.4). For purposes of personnel decisions regarding appointment,
promotion and tenure, these faculty members are evaluated primarily by their
peers in the local units of which they are a part, but with the requirement
that recommendations from the program faculties with which they are associated will be
given due consideration.
Programs which are not internal to a
single local academic unit are administered by a program director. This
director is regarded as the equivalent of a department chair and is therefore
expected to possess equivalent academic credentials. A program director normally reports
to a dean or institute director if the program represented is internal to a single school, college, or
institute, or to the Provost's office if the program transcends the
boundaries of a single school, college, or institute.
·
Remove
“Faculties” from title as inconsistent with earlier organization.
·
“Multidisciplinary
or Interdisciplinary” added.
·
Important
distinction that program faculty do not hold primary affiliation in a program;
faculty may only affiliate with a (local academic) unit.
·
Programs
not contained within a single academic unit have a director who reports to the
dean or institute director; if beyond the bounds of a single
college/school/institute, reports to the Provost.
New Section 3.6.1 Study Leave for Tenured Faculty – copied from the Provost Office website
– to be deleted and replaced as renumbered Section 3.6.2 Study Leave for
Tenure-Track Faculty which includes revisions to opening paragraph and
eligibility requirements copied from the Provost Office website; inserting only
final sentence:
3.6.1 Study
Leave for Tenure-Track Faculty
All assistant and or associate
professors appointed to their first tenure-track positions will be granted a
one-semester study leave during the first five years of the tenure-track cycle.
This leave is designed to assist a tenure-track faculty member in advancing his
or her research, scholarly, or creative activities. The timing of this leave
will be subject to approval by both the respective local academic unit head and
the appropriate Dean/Director. The Office of the Provost will provide
one-course matrix replacement funding per granted leave request. This leave
policy is not intended to conflict with an existing local academic unit
practice; rather than reducing a local academic unit's flexibility, its intent
is to enhance and supplement existing practices. During the semester either
prior to or succeeding the faculty member's leave, the local academic unit may
need to ask the recipient to teach one additional course in order to
accommodate this leave. This
policy is retroactively effective to initial hires as of academic year 1999.
Full details and application procedures are available from the Provost
Office’s web page.
Eligibility
·
Full-time faculty members who are Assistant or
Associate Professors in their first five years of their tenure-track cycle.
·
Individuals whose rank is prefixed with Affiliate,
Adjunct, Clinical, Research, Visiting, or Term are not eligible.
New Section 3.6.3 LAU Professional
Development Leaves renumbered and renamed as Section
2.6.2 Professional Development Leaves; including elements from Provost
website “Study Leave for Tenured Faculty” so as to define two types of leave
available to tenured faculty.
Eligibility requirement for tenured administrative faculty removed as
not germane to Faculty Handbook.
3.6.2
Professional
Development Leaves Programs for Tenured Faculty
There
are two leave programs for tenured faculty.
One is administered by the Provost Office. The other is administered at the local academic unit level. The purpose is to provide paid
temporary leave for the support professional development initiatives designed to of advanceing scholarly
research, teaching, and/or creative activity, including the development of
innovative teaching approaches and methods. Leaves are for one semester
at full pay and full benefits or an academic year at half pay with full
benefits (based on 50% of their base salary). Full details and application procedures for each of these
programs are available on from the Provost Office’s web site page.
Eligibility for the Provost Office Study Leave Program for Tenured Faculty:
An
applicant must be a full-time employee of George Mason University who has held
a regular faculty rank for at least four years at the time of application and
who is appointed without term, i.e., with tenure.
·
Individuals whose rank is prefixed with Affiliate, Adjunct,
Clinical, Research, Visiting, or Term are not eligible.
·
A total of seven academic years (which may include time
spent on leave of absence) must elapse between successive Study Leave awards
or Study Leave for Tenured Faculty.
·
A faculty member who receives a study leave must agree to
remain a full-time employee of the University for at least one academic year
after the conclusion of the leave.
·
A faculty member who accepts a study
leave must agree to serve as a reviewer of future applications.
Eligibility for LAU Professional Development
Leaves:
An
applicant must be a full-time employee of George Mason University who has held
a regular faculty rank for at least ten years at the time of application and
who is appointed without term, i.e., with tenure.
·
Individuals whose rank is prefixed with Affiliate, Adjunct,
Clinical, Research, Visiting, or Term are not eligible.
·
A total of seven academic years (which may include time
spent on leave of absence) must elapse between successive professional development leave awards or Study Leave
for Tenured Faculty.
·
A faculty member who receives a professional development study leave must agree
to remain a full-time employee of the University for at least one academic year
after the conclusion of the leave.
Local
academic units are responsible for establishing the procedures, criteria and
deadlines for submission and review of leave proposals. Local academic units are also responsible
for obtaining approval of leave proposals by their Dean/Director and the
Provost. The timing of a leave may be
delayed if in the judgment of the LAU administrator, the faculty member’s
services are needed for a particular semester.
Faculty
who receive an LAUPD leave remain eligible for the competitive study leave
and Research Funding
programs
administered by the Provost’s Office. However, unless there is a clear and
compelling benefit to the University, seven academic years (which may include
time spent on leave of absence) must elapse between successive leave awards of
either type.
General
Discussion: Approval Process for Faculty Handbook
·
Disseminate
to President, Provost, and University Counsel’s Office as soon as
completed (June-July) for their
review.
·
Send email
to faculty mid-late August announcing text available for review on Faculty
Senate website; mandate editorial revisions accepted only in writing for
consideration by the committee
·
To schedule
three Forums (one at each campus) in early fall (beginning third week of
September); important they be attended by all committee members if possible.
·
To schedule
special Faculty Senate Meeting during fall term (before December)
·
Need to set
up ground rules (include in meeting announcements and meeting agenda)
·
Expect
dissenting voices; carefully listen to faculty voices; not to steamroll
approval process balanced with inputs presented in a reasonable period of time.
·
Listen,
listen, listen to feedback; consider changes, report back to Faculty Senate and
then present for vote. Assuming
administration endorsement; then to BOV for vote.
·
To submit
selected sections to AAUP for review as soon as possible.
·
Executive
Committee should also be involved in process.
Further
Topics Identified for Discussion/Inclusion in Faculty Handbook
Conversion
factors: What happens when 9 month instructional
faculty members go to 12 month instructional or administrative positions and
then back to 9 month position? After
correction for 3 months, their salaries still higher than before; in one
department, faculty member returned from administrative position as the highest
paid member of department, but not for scholarly accomplishments.
·
To review
text from Administrative Faculty Handbook (copied below):
3. Conversion Factors – from Administrative
Faculty Handbook, p. 9.
Instructional faculty who convert from a 9 month contract
to a 12 month administrative
contract will receive an administrative stipend based on internal equity and
external market factors. The stipend will remain in effect for the duration of
the appointment. Appropriated salary increases that occur during this
appointment will be based on the teaching base salary plus the administrative
stipend. When the faculty member returns to a 9 month instructional contract,
the new salary will be calculated in the following manner: the administrative
stipend and its associated salary increase(s) will be removed. The base salary
together with all increases associated to the base salary will establish the
new 9 month base. This conversion process became effective simultaneously with
the adoption of the October 2004 edition of the handbook. Conditions in
contracts for administrative appointments that predate the 2004 edition will be
honored.
NOTE: Individuals serving for an extended term in an
administrative/professional faculty position
who were originally on a nine
month faculty appointment may be subject to additional external and internal
equity considerations when they convert back to a nine month contract.
Future
Committee to Monitor Need for Revisions to the Faculty Handbook
·
Since the
Handbook functions as a contractual agreement, any updates or amendments should
be the result of consultation between the faculty and administration. Either the BOV/Administration or the Faculty
may call for revision of entire document.
·
New Section
1.4. Amendments and Review of the
Faculty Handbook (text yet to be written, some issues addressed in
current Preface).
·
Some
policies presented to and passed by the Faculty Senate are not presented to the
BOV for approval. The chair of the Faculty Senate now serves as a non-voting
member of BOV (March 2008); can present policies directly. Nearly all policies fall under purview of
BOV Faculty and Academic Standards Committee – elected faculty representatives
serve on all BOV committees.
·
To review
on annual or bi-annual basis given speed of technological change and many
revisions needed over past 13 years. Or
to do every 4-5 years?
·
Need for
strong obligatory language to require review on biannual, even annual basis.
·
Should
there be annual review, to create a standing committee for this purpose, or
perhaps to charge the Senate Organization and Operations Committee to do
this?
Respectfully
submitted,
Meg
Caniano
Clerk,
Faculty Senate