GEORGE MASON
UNIVERSITY
APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE FACULTY SENATE
NOVEMBER 17,
1999
Senators Present: K. Alligood, K. Avruch, A. Berry, E.
Blaisten-Barojas, D. Boileau, L. Bowen, T. Brawley, B. Brown, L. Brown, R.
Coffinberger, R. Davis, M. DeNys, R. Ehrlich, E. Elstun, J. Flinn, K. Gaffney,
D. Gantz, H. Gortner, M. Holt, R.C. Jones, A. Kolker, D. Kuebrich, B.
Manchester, J. Metcalf, J. Reid, L. Rikard, J. Sanford, J. Scimecca, A. Sofer,
C. Sutton, H. Williams, J. Wood, J. Zenelis, S. Zoltek
Senators Absent: R. Carty, J. Censer, S.
Cheldelin, J. Crockett, S. deMonsabert, T. Domzal, T. Friesz, G. Galluzzo, M.
Grady, L. Griffiths, E. Gunn, J. Hale, M. Krauss, M. LeBaron, L. Lederman, A.
Merten, J. O’Connor, L. Rigsby, L. Rockwood, L. Seligmann, P. So, D. Struppa,
C. Thomas, E. Thorp, H. Tongren, S. Weinberger, P. Wilkie
Guests Present: M. Black (CSI), J. Finkelstein (TIPP), K. Haynes (TIPP), C.
Herberg (Registrar’s Office), K. Kasmai (Student Senate), M. Vance (Academic
Support & Advising Services)
I. Call to Order
Chair
Don Boileau called the meeting to order at 3:04 PM.
II. Approval of Minutes
The
Minutes of the September 29, 1999 Special Meeting of the Faculty Senate and
the October 20, 1999 Faculty Senate Meeting were approved as distributed.
III. Announcements
D. Boileau announced that in keeping with a recently
started tradition in the Senate, there would be some brief comments and a
moment of silence for William Johnson (CAS, Physics) who passed away on October
17, 1999 at the age of 82. M. Black
spoke about Dr. Johnson’s contributions to George Mason University which included
being the first Chair of the Physics Department, serving as the Dean of Summer
School for thirteen years, integrating honor and compassion into his teaching
and being dedicated to the growth and success of GMU.
The Senate then observed a Moment of Silence in recognition of Dr.
William Johnson. A motion was made, seconded
and passed which directed the Chair to write Professor Johnson’s family,
notifying them of the Senate’s action and unanimous support in recognizing
a departed colleague.
D.
Boileau announced that there was another recent death, that of Douglas Miller
(IT&E, Systems Engineering & Operations Research) and that there would
be comments followed by a moment of silence for Professor Miller.
D. Gantz’s tribute called Professor Miller a tremendous teacher, loved
by and committed to his students, and a wonderful colleague. A. Sofer spoke of first knowing Professor Miller when she was a
student, then as a colleague. Additionally,
A. Sofer spoke of Professor Miller’s academic integrity -- the high standards
to which he held himself and his students. The Senate then observed a Moment of Silence
in recognition of Dr. Douglas Miller. A
motion was made, seconded, and passed which directed the Chair to write Professor
Miller’s family, notifying them of the Senate’s action and unanimous support
in recognizing a departed colleague.
R.
Coffinberger announced that the Committee on General Education met with the
BOV Faculty and Academic Standards Committee.
The General Education Committee gave an overview of its process and
discussed the timetable for progress. A
draft mission statement and objectives for general education have been developed,
but are still being refined. Additionally, the Committee will be reporting
to the Faculty Senate in December (as required by the motion which created
the committee).
D.
Boileau announced that if anyone has any recommendations for a Commencement
Speaker to contact him directly, suggestions are being sought.
D.
Boileau announced that there would be a Public Hearing on the creation of
a School of Computational Sciences (CSI-IB3 merger) at 3:00pm on December
1, in the Front Multi-Purpose Room of the Johnson Center.
The proposal will be made available as soon as possible, and details
regarding its availability will be announced via e-mail.
J. Wood announced that he had sent a memo to the
Dean of CAS regarding Salary issues for the Summer Term. J. Wood read the first paragraph of the memo
and emphasized the last sentence. The
paragraph is as follows:
Based on suggestions that we heard from you and our
analysis of Summer term, we continue to improve the resource allocation system
associated with the Summer Term. The
overall enrollment target of 1,600 course FTE for the Summer Term 2000 is
based on the same enrollment target as Summer Term 1999.
The instructional salary budgets, faculty FTE, and enrollment targets
are based on the prior summer’s allocations and individual negotiations with
the units. If the allocation outlined below is not appropriate
to accomplish the units overall goals for the summer, please contact us to
review them or negotiate additional funding.
Replying
to a question, J. Wood stated that the last line of the paragraph indicates
the option of negotiating for additional funding.
In further discussion, he identified that the “review” should begin
with R. Guilford; and, that the attempt was to accomplish the 10% salary for
everybody who wants to teach 3 hours of Summer School.
Some discussion of the Summer School Salary Issue followed, and D.
Boileau indicated that he, Provost Wood, and J. Scimecca (Chair of the Summer
School Salary Committee) would be meeting to further discuss this issue.
IV. Unfinished Business
There
was no unfinished business.
V. New Business
It
was moved and seconded that Agenda item V.B. (Discussion of Recommendations
toward Public Policy) be made an action item of this meeting.
The motion passed. It was then
moved and seconded that the discussion
of Agenda item V.B. be moved up in the agenda to the first item of new business.
The motion passed, and the agenda was reordered to place item B as the
first item of New Business.
B. Discussion of Recommendations toward Public
Policy
Discussion
was held about the proposed creation of a School of Public Policy. There was discussion about the public hearing and the Departmental
stance of the Department of Public and International Affairs (in CAS) toward
the proposal. It was moved and seconded that: the Faculty Senate, through its presiding officer,
request the Board of Visitors to defer action on the proposed creation of
a school of public policy until its January meeting, with the understanding
that the Faculty Senate will in the meantime obtain answers to as yet unresolved
questions and that its Executive Committee will provide the Provost with a
formal recommendation in this matter no later than 10 January 2000. E. Elstun, who introduced the motion, spoke
to the motion providing the following rationale:
I have read the proposal for the establishment of a
School of Public Policy, and I attended the Senate- and Provost-sponsored
forum on this subject last Wednesday. Both
the proposal and the forum have given rise to some concerns that I want to
share with you.
Soon
after the adoption of the current Faculty Handbook, the Senate’s
Executive Committee and then-Provost Frederick Rossini reached agreement about
the procedures to be followed in matters of organizational change, in accordance
with Sec. 1.3.2 of the Handbook. The
proposal now under discussion is in compliance with the established procedures
in most respects, but not in all. It
is conspicuously silent about the proposed new unit’s administrative structure,
and a number of questions arise: would a nationwide search be launched for
an academic administrator to head the unit? Or would only internal candidates
with the appropriate credentials be considered? Or has it already been determined
that the current Director of TIPP would automatically become the dean of this
new school? The proposal also fails to provide some required information about
the structure of the proposed school. Will
it be a school with departments? If
so, what will those departments be? And how will the chairs of those departments
be selected--by a national search, by an internal selection process, or by
the designation of already selected individuals? Or will it be a school without
departments? In this case, too, there
are some questions that the proposal leaves unanswered.
Turning now to the Senate- and Provost-sponsored open hearing on this matter, I must confess that the absence of spokespersons from existing units that would be affected by the creation of this school was very disturbing, very disquieting. This is not the time or place to engage in idle speculation about why the College of Nursing, the School of Information Technology & Engineering, the School of Management and the Law School sent no one to this hearing to tell us what they think of the proposal. But I do not believe the Senate or its Executive Committee should recommend for or against this proposal without knowing what those units think, without ascertaining whether their silence signifies approval of the proposal (one possibility) or a resigned acceptance of it (a second possibility), or a rejection of it (the third possibility that occurs to me).
Another
question I want to raise pertains to the astonishing information--contained
in the proposal--which the University’s many policy-centered or policy-related
programs will remain where they are. If
this is to be the case, then why do we need the proposed school, with the
enormous expense that the proposal acknowledges would be necessary? If the proposed “school” has as its primary
raison d’ętre the task of being a catalyst
for programs throughout the university, then I ask myself: why, in these times
of financial austerity, do we need this school? Why couldn’t TIPP, as TIPP, carry out the catalyst
function described in the proposal?
Finally,
I want to say that I am tired of being stampeded. I am tired of having the Senate presented--belatedly, as a kind
of afterthought--with a proposal that we are then asked to respond to immediately,
because the Board of Visitors is going to act on this matter within a few
weeks. My reaction to that kind of
pressure is to say: if the Board is determined to create this school at its
next meeting, it certainly has the authority to do so. But the Senate is certainly under no obligation
to be a rubber stamp, either before or after the fact. If you share the concerns I have expressed
and the questions I have raised, then I urge you to support the motion.
J.
Wood, responding to some of E. Elstun’s concerns, stated that regarding the
Administrative structure of the school, the Faculty Handbook does not recognize
who or how the administrative leadership is chosen.
He also said that the school is intended to be one without departments.
Further
discussion of the School of Public Policy was concerned with the short time
frame given to the Senate to adequately address the issue, and the idea that
various other policy programs would remain in their current units.
It was pointed out that public policy has been a part of TIPP, CNHS,
CAS, IT&E, ICAR, SOM and that this proposal represents a coming together
of all these units.
A
Senator declared that the Senate needed to separate the issue of whether to
create a School of Public Policy from how the procedures of the creation transpire. It was suggested that a motion be created to show the approval for
the creation of a School of Public Policy, but which expresses the real concerns
brought up in E. Elstun’s rationale. L. Bowen introduced a substitute motion, which was seconded, to establish a Sense of the
Senate Motion which indicates that there is support for a School of Public
Policy. The substitute motion passed by an 18-for and 9-against vote. D. Boileau indicated that the motion now on
the floor was a Sense of the Senate Motion as follows: There
is a Sense of the Senate for the creation of a new School of Public Policy. Discussion of the new motion ensued, and found
both support and opposition. Opposition
focused on the unanswered questions, the varying opinions within the Public
Affairs Department, and the lack of timeliness with which the issue was presented
to the Senate for consideration. D. Boileau indicated that he had been contacted via e-mail by two
groups (one from SOM and one from IT&E) which supported the proposal.
K.
Haynes, Director of TIPP, was asked to speak to the Senate, and address several
questions. He stated that he could understand the Senate’s
interpretation of the process happening too fast, but said that the process
began last October with involvement from Public Affairs, Public Policy, the
Law School, CNHS, and IT&E in a Committee which reported to the then Provost
and the BOV. Discussions began in
May between Dean Struppa and Director Haynes, and the current proposal is
a composite of lengthy discussions, compromises and collaborations across
many academic units. In response to
concerns about the resources, K. Haynes stated that 45% of the resources are
for cross-appointments, that would benefit other units as well as the new
School. And, of the remaining 55%,
much of the needed funds will come from increasing leverage of research and
development, external fundraising, etc. and leaves an approximate $200-300,000
gap which would need to be addressed by the University over a three to five
year period. Finally, K. Haynes addressed
the separation issue by stating that Public Affairs was not included in the
School of Public Policy proposal at the cooperation and interest of Public
Affairs.
J.
Wood indicated that all 11 of the Deans and Directors have been involved in
the proposal, and he indicated that they had been asked for responses/advice
on various drafts of the proposal throughout its creation.
The
vote followed and the Sense of the Senate Motion passed by a vote of 14-for, 4-against,
and 8-abstain. The Chair of the Senate
was instructed to write a letter indicating the Sense of the Senate Motion,
and identifying the four major areas of concern regarding the proposal, and
forward it to the Administration.
A. Nominations Committee - Action Item
It
was moved and seconded to accept the slate of nominees for University
Committee vacancies as distributed in the Agenda for this meeting (Attachment
A) and cast a unanimous ballot for the nominees. The motion passed. John Schmidt (SOM) was elected to the Writing
Across the Curriculum Committee, and Alok Berry (IT&E) was elected to
the Grievance Committee.
VII. Adjournment
The
meeting was adjourned at 4:25pm.
Respectfully
submitted,
Donald
T. Gantz, Secretary
GMU
Faculty Senate