MINUTES OF THE FACULTY HANDBOOK REVISION COMMITTEE

TUESDAY, MAY 16, 2006

MASON HALL, room D5, 3:00 – 4:30 p.m.

Present: Kevin Avruch, Professor of Conflict Resolution and Anthropology, ICAR; Lorraine Brown, Professor of English (CAS) and President of the AAUP Chapter of George Mason University; 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.

Absent: Marilyn Mobley, Associate Provost for Education Programs; David Rossell, Associate Provost for Personnel and Budget, ex-officio.

Meeting Schedules: Summer meeting schedule locations to be determined and then distributed. A brief discussion of the schedule for the academic year will be continued at our next meeting.

Format/Process for Final Recommendations: Rick asked the committee to think about layout/format for proposed changes to include rationale as well as present and proposed texts. Meg will prepare a mark-up using Summer School for review at our next meeting. We will have more forums and present draft materials with opportunities for questions/comments etc. At least one formal presentation to the BOV and a question/answer session, followed by a subsequent meeting was suggested. Another approach to the BOV suggested was to present it as a package which faculty and administration approve for their endorsement. BOV members will want to know what changes have been made; that proposed changes to the Handbook conform to reality; with focus on clarity and precision.

Revision of Initial Draft (April 21, 2006): LAU Professional Development Leaves presented by Rick Coffinberger

Tenured faculty who have been employed in full-time instructional positions at the university for at least ten years may apply for a LAU Professional Development 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. 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). Faculty who receive these leaves are not eligible to apply for another LAUPD leave for at least seven academic years and must return to the University for a period of one year after completing the LAUPD leave. Faculty who receive the LAUPD leave remain eligible for the Faculty Study Leave program administered by the Provost’s Office.

· This suggests that each LAU must develop a system; not all have process for review/approval of study leave proposals.

· How to handle instances in which a committee reviews proposal it considers unworthy of approval? Departments/schools may also choose to limit the number of faculty who submit proposals per year.

· Other substantive change: to increase pay from ¾ per semester - 3/8 per year to full pay per semester/ ½ per academic year; same terms as Faculty Study Leave.

· Some committee members liked language as basically the same for both Leave programs except whom decides, while others do not feel they are the same as the Provost’s program is competitive, the LAUPD is not; one funded by Provost ($6,000 to pay for two adjunct replacements); LAUPD funded by the department.

· Do faculty who receive LAUPD leave remain eligible for University leave? Parallel language for LAU/departments; use term LAU in lieu of department. Structural aspects to include leave history in prioritizing requests received.

· LAU Professional Development Leaves, Faculty Study Leave (now in FIG), and Educational Leave with Full or Partial Pay (now in FIG) all to be included in Handbook.

· Also to include a paragraph which identifies all the different kinds of leaves (military leave, sick leave, etc.) described in the FIG with links to information. There are many kinds of leave; Only leaves involving research, teaching, and service which involve use of university funds, to be included in Handbook. Effects on stopping of tenure clock also to be included.

· Faculty need to know they must apply early enough so that teaching schedule changes in their absences may be worked out; sometimes a great opportunity to go elsewhere for a year just comes up; specific deadlines not to be included.

INSTITUTES: Second Draft, Version 1 distributed by Kevin Avruch:

1.3.4.2 Institutes

An institute is an organizational unit of the University for interdisciplinary activities that transcend the disciplines based in any single college or school. These activities include research and/or service. Institutes may offer interdisciplinary academic programs that do not duplicate those of other units. Institutes are analogous to schools or colleges without departments.

An institute has a nucleus of full-time faculty appointed directly and specifically to primary affiliation in it. In addition, it may have (i) faculty who are assigned to work in it (full or part-time) but who are affiliated primarily with other local academic units; and (ii) part-time faculty whose work in the University is solely in the institute. Of sufficient size to ensure a sense of community and responsible faculty governance, the faculty of an institute with academic programs establishes degree requirements, authorizes the conferral of degrees; proposes, reviews, and approves courses and programs; and play a primary role in faculty personnel actions.

Administratively, the director of an institute is regarded as the equivalent of a dean, and is therefore expected to possess appropriate academic credentials or their equivalent. Institute directors report directly to the Provost.

An institute 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 academic and/or research programs.

The faculties of institutes define their own voting membership. Together with their directors, they determine the processes and procedures of governance they will employ, but all institutes must act within the guideline listed in Section 1.3.3.

Kevin described the changes he made and will incorporate a few further suggestions into a new version to be distributed to the Committee.

Upcoming Topics:

Rick will forward ideas he received from faculty by email for consideration at our next meeting, to include suggestion of a grievance filed by a faculty member against a dean, that such grievance not be considered by the local grievance committee; but instead by the Faculty Senate grievance committee.

Dave Harr will attend the Deans and Directors meeting tomorrow. The description of University Professors under development will be distributed to the committee for review.

Respectfully submitted,

Meg Caniano

Clerk, Faculty Senate