GEORGE MASON
UNIVERSITY
APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE FACULTY SENATE
March 10, 1999
Senators Present: A. Berry, E.
Blaisten-Barojas, D. Boileau, L. Bowen, T. Brawley, J. Censer, R. Coffinberger,
J. Crockett, S. deMonsabert, M. Deshmukh,
R. Ehrlich, D. Gantz, H. Gortner, E. Gunn, J. Hale, M. Holt, D.
Kuebrich, M. LeBaron, J. Metcalf, L. Miller, S. Muir, J. O’Connor, D. Rine, R.
Ruhling, J. Sanford, J. Scimecca, A. Sofer, C. Sutton, H. Tongren, S.
Weinberger
Senators Absent: K. Alligood, L. Brown, R.
Carty, K. Clements, T. Domzal, E. Elstun, J. Flinn, K. Gaffney, G. Galluzzo, M.
Grady, L. Griffiths, L. Lederman, C. Lont, B. Manchester, K. McCrohan, A.
Merten, E. O’Hara, A. Palkovich, D. Potter, J. Reid, L. Rigsby, L. Rockwood, D.
Struppa, A. Taylor, E. Thorp, K. Vaughn, P. Wilkie, H. Williams, S. Zaccaro, J.
Zenelis, S. Zoltek
Guests Present: L. Brehm (AROTC), G. Dunne
(Student Senate), K. Graffius (Student Senate), S. Jones (Registrar’s Office),
D. Rossell (Provost’s Office)
I. Call to Order
Chair Pro Tem Star Muir called the meeting
to order at 3:06PM.
II. Approval of Minutes
The
Minutes of the February 17, 1999 Faculty Senate Meeting were approved as distributed.
III. Announcements
S.
Muir announced that if the Senate did not complete the agenda for this meeting
prior to 4:30 PM, that the meeting would be continued on Wednesday, March
31 at 3:00 PM in Robinson B113.
T.
Brawley announced that the Music Department is holding a Memorial Recital
for Sam di Bonaventura, who died in July 1998, on Sunday, April 11, 1999,
at 4:00 PM in the Bellarmine Chapel just off campus on Roberts Rd.
The Recital features several GMU faculty members.
All faculty are invited and there is no admission charge. For additional information, please contact
the Music Department.
IV. Unfinished Business
There was no unfinished business.
V. New Business
A.
Report from David Rossell, Associate Provost, on Post-Tenure Review
D.
Rossell reported that Post-Tenure Review is State mandated, and that the Faculty
Senate was very involved in the creation of the GMU Post-Tenure Review Policy.
The current policy was approved in the Spring of 1996 and became effective
in the 1996-1997 academic year. Each
university in Virginia was to determine their own policy. Based on the annual review for salary increase
which becomes effective on November 25, a $500 or less increase prompts inclusion
in GMU’s procedure according to policy.
D.
Rossell reported that the 1998 Review process included 866 total faculty members,
with 477 of those being full-time tenured faculty.
Following the 1997 Review, four (4) individuals were identified as
failing to meet the required level of satisfactory review (4 out of 477). As of the December 1, 1998 Review, 10 faculty members failed to
reach a satisfactory review, with five (5) of those falling under the Post-Tenure
Review Policy - four of the five existed the previous year as well.
Thus, this year is the first occurrence of unsatisfactory review for
two consecutive years - this requires a Statement of Actions and Dean or Director
involvement. Next year, there is the potential for three
consecutive years of unsatisfactory review which would require Provost involvement.
D. Rossell stated that the Post-Tenure Review Policy can be a helpful
tool, and that the results thus far (less than one percent inclusion) is a
good sign for the University.
D.
Rossell then answered questions. When
asked what type of actions occur after each level of unsatisfactory review,
D. Rossell replied that after one year, the faculty member receives notification
of the unsatisfactory review; after two years, action is required by the Dean/Director;
and, after three consecutive years (or 3 out of five years) the Provost is
required to take action. D. Rossell
responded to another question by stating that the five current cases fall
under four of the twelve colleges/units.
B. Committee Reports
1. Executive Committee
D.
Gantz reported that the Committee had met with the Provost and discussed the
BOV Academic Standards Committee priorities.
The BOV seems comfortable with the addressing of the General Education
issue at the CAS level. Faculty Senate and Provost cooperation and
understanding on this issue is good, and a second co-sponsored General Education
Forum will take place in the Fall focusing on “content” of General Education.
Other
priority issues, specifically the reviews of the New Century College (NCC)
and Policy Studies, are harder to interpret with regards to the BOV.
The Senate participated in the first step in the review process - the
Faculty Committee on Academic Assessments (FCAA) - which made recommendations
to the Provost. The BOV did not just
accept the FCAA reports but wants another group to examine these issues. The Provost is committed to bringing recommendations
for organizational change through proper channels - including joint Provost/Faculty
Senate involvement in instances of University-wide scope. Additionally, the Executive Committee believes
that there is a real commitment by the Provost to honor the processes that
are prescribed when recommendations for organizational change trigger Faculty
Senate involvement. The Committee
reaffirmed that the main issue is maintaining control of the curriculum and
preserving the principle of faculty governance.
D.
Gantz then reported the details of the NCC and Policy Studies reviews as follows:
The
Policy Studies Task Force is the first step in the consultation process. There will need to be a town meeting on the
work of the Task Force - perhaps in late March.
D.
Gantz reported that he and E. Elstun will be attending a Conference on the
Faculty Role in Governance hosted by the AACU in North Carolina, in April.
D.
Gantz reported that the Forum on Criteria for when the Discontinuation of
Programs has University-wide Impact will take place on March 30, at 3:00PM
in Mason Hall. D. Gantz will moderate the Forum and panelists will have “front-line
experience” in program planning and in faculty governance.
Chair
Pro Tem S. Muir asked if there was any objection to adjusting the agenda to
hear from the Representatives of the Faculty Senate of Virginia.
Given no objections, that report was heard next, and the remainder
of the agenda would follow as distributed.
C.
Other Committee Reports
2. Representatives of the Faculty Senate of Virginia
R.
Bolstein reported that the Faculty Senate of
Virginia met on February 20, 1999.
The report from that meeting is as follows:
E&G has more than tripled since 1983 (to $2.9 billion
in 1999) but the instruction component remained the same at 45%. He feels more should be allocated to instruction.
GMU leads all schools in VA with 58%, up from 45% in 1994.
Non-instructional expenditures include administrative salaries, computers,
etc., as well as construction.
The commission is beginning to focus on General Education.
Even though universities and colleges may have slightly different objectives,
Flippin thinks there should be more commonality in General Ed. Requirements
across schools. He seems to have an alarmist tone about this
and wants it moved to the “front burner.”
Karl Shilling, Deputy Director of SCHEV spoke next.
He has been in this position for five months.
SCHEV is working on a two-year plan with a vision statement.
There will be 3-4 hearings of the draft. Faculty input is wanted, not just President and Provost. He says no one at SCHEV believes the President
speaks for the entire faculty. He
thinks the Provost is closer to faculty viewpoint.
On the General Ed. issue, the SCHEV draft report is
a descriptive study on “What constitutes an educated person.” There is a proposal to give institutions authority
to start/stop programs up to Masters level. Let schools start programs with very small numbers if they want
to: SCHEV wants to get out of micro-management. Legislators and Provosts are nervous about this proposal.
Don Gehring, Vice President and legislative representative
at VCU, spoke next.
Afternoon meeting of Faculty Senate of Virginia:
We had a brief discussion of the new VSDP (disability
plan). There are too many questions
unanswered about faculty. It was noted
that once a faculty member starts on long-term disability, the university
can hire someone else in his/her place, and that tenure has been given up.
There is no requirement to hire you back, and certainly none to hire
back with tenure.
2. Academic Policies Committee
L. Bowen reported that the Committee has been working on several items all of which should be concluded by the end of this semester. He identified that there are two motions from the Committee to be addressed at this meeting, and that he would introduce the first motion regarding “Increasing Military Science Credits to be Counted Toward Graduation” and M. Deshmukh would introduce the second motion regarding “Changing the Academic Calendar and Acknowledging MLK Day.”
L.
Bowen introduced the motion as it was distributed as Attachment A to the Agenda for this meeting.
Further, he read the rationale included with the motion in Attachment
A. He added that an inquiry was made
into the current enrollment in the 400 level courses in question, and that
there have been no students (outside of the ROTC program) who have signed
up for these courses since the 1994 Senate action.
L. Bowen stated that the BOV is very interested in this issue and will
hear from E. Elstun at the Faculty and Academic Standards Committee meeting
on March 24. He further noted that this Committee motion had opposition from
one Committee member.
M.
Deshmukh, a Committee member, spoke against the motion and stated that the
grounds for the objection lie on ROTC being an add on program for students,
and therefore, an increase in credit hours counting toward graduation is not
even necessary.
It was suggested that leaving the increase up
to individual colleges/schools (an element of the motion) could affect the
ROTC involvement in those colleges/schools. Cadets would be less likely to choose majors
in school/colleges where their ROTC course work would not receive credit,
and flock to those who provided credit. Therefore,
the option by schools/colleges to increase credit hours accepted could limit
what ROTC cadets might study. L. Bowen responded to this point, stating that by diversifying (letting
the schools/colleges have the option) each school/college could take the initiative
to accept or not accept ROTC credits.
The
next point raised was that the motion which passed three years ago provided
that six hours could be approved for credit, but that the current motion allows
from 0-10 hours to be approved by individual colleges/schools.
It was further pointed out that the credits would have to fall under
the general electives credits in programs which permitted them. It was further stated that only CAS at this point has room for 6-10
hours of general electives.
It
was moved and seconded to refer
this item to Committee until the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Faculty
Senate (not a continuation of this meeting), and a vote ensued. Following a call of a division of the house,
the motion was referred back to
the Committee by a 17-11 vote.
M.
Deshmukh introduced the second motion from the Committee regarding “Changing
the Academic Calendar and Acknowledging MLK Day” and reiterated the rationale
behind the motion. M. Deshmukh noted that GMU is the only area school which does not
recognize MLK Day as a holiday. It
seems logical to bring the schedule into line with the other schools in the
Consortium.
Following
a brief discussion about the Committee’s motion, it was moved
and seconded to recess until the
Continuation of this meeting on March 31 at 3:00PM. The motion passed, and
the meeting was recessed at 4:30PM.
Respectfully
submitted,
Donald
T. Gantz,
Secretary
of the Faculty Senate