GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY
APPROVED MINUTES OF THE FACULTY SENATE
APRIL 26, 2000
Senators Present: K. Avruch, A. Berry, E. Blaisten-Barojas,
T. Brawley, B. Brown, L. Brown, S. Cheldelin, R. Coffinberger, J. Crockett,
R. Davis, M. DeNys, R. Ehrlich, E. Elstun, J. Flinn, K. Gaffney, D. Gantz, H.
Gortner, M. Holt, C. Jones, D. Kuebrich, M. LeBaron, B. Manchester, J. Metcalf,
L. Rigsby, L. Rikard, L. Rockwood, J. Sanford, J. Scimecca, A. Sofer, P. Stearns,
C. Sutton, E. Thorp, P. Wilkie, J. Zenelis, S. Zoltek
Senators Absent: K. Alligood, D. Boileau, L. Bowen, R. Carty,
J. Censer, S. deMonsabert, T. Domzal, T. Friesz, G. Galluzzo, M. Grady, L. Griffiths,
E. Gunn, J. Hale, A. Kolker, M. Krauss, L. Lederman, A. Merten, J. Muir, J.
Reid, L. Seligmann, P. So, D. Struppa, C. Thomas, H. Tongren, S. Weinberger,
H. Williams
Guests Present: K. Ahrens (Student, CAS), J. Arnold (Student
Government), J. Bullock (Student Government), S. Jones (Registrar), R. Sachs
(Math), E. Verheyen (Robinson Professor)
I. Call to Order
Chair Pro Tem H. Gortner called the meeting to order at 3:02 pm.
II. Approval of Minutes
The Minutes of the April 5, 2000 Faculty Senate Meeting were approved as distributed.
III. Announcements
H. Gortner announced that Chair D. Boileau was unavoidably out of town today
and would not be Chairing this meeting, but that he would be back for the May
3 Meeting of the Faculty Senate.
H. Gortner announced that the Moments of Silence would be postponed until the
May 3, 2000 Faculty Senate Meeting.
H. Gortner reported that the Executive Committee met this morning and decided
to put the General Education Report as the first item of business under announcements
at the May 3 Faculty Senate Meeting.
H. Gortner announced that A. Sofer would report on the Board of Visitors Committee
actions last Wednesday. He indicated that the report being distributed was a
Senate Report and not the action as approved by the Board’s Faculty &
Academic
Standards Committee. The Board of Visitors approved information will be provided
for the May 3 Faculty Senate Meeting.
H. Gortner announced that R. Sachs, Chair of the General Education Committee,
has come to the meeting today to answer questions. It was noted that most of
the Faculty Senate recommendations were approved, and that negotiations continue
regarding implementation strategies.
H. Gortner announced that the Provost has begun implementation of the General
Education process as follows: 1) a request for applications for the Vice-Provost
for General Education has been posted, with a May 15 closing date; 2) a request
for support
to develop proposals for specific classes will be coming soon. These actions
ARE consistent with the recommendations of the Faculty Senate.
IV. Unfinished Business
Academic Policies Committee
E. Elstun reported that during the April 5, 2000 Faculty Senate Meeting, the
Committee addressed all of its action items, and had an informational item left
to report. E. Elstun reported that the Committee received a request from R.
Ehrlich to reconsider the grades of A+ and C-. Following a review of the subject, the Committee agreed
not to bring the item to the Senate.
V. New Business
Senate Committee Reports
Facilities & Support Services Committee
S. Zoltek reported that the Committee had contacted departments via e-mail to
identify facility problems. The Committee, at the direction of the Executive
Committee, will distribute a memo to Department Chairs during the third week
of each semester to identify problems. S. Zoltek stressed that the Committee
would not be attempting to rectify individual complaints, but would try to identify
general problems and expedite the maintenance and repair process through cooperation
with the appropriate University Services. Additionally, S. Zoltek reported that
the Committee supports the Organization & Operations Committee’s proposal
to merge the Library Committee with the Facilities & Support Services Committee.
Faculty Matters Committee
J. Scimecca reported that the Committee would have a written report at the next
meeting, and that there was nothing further to report at this time.
Nominations Committee
There was nothing to report at this time.
Organization & Operations Committee
E. Blaisten-Barojas presented Motion One: Modification of Section
I. B. of the Charter of the Faculty Senate, and identified the Committee’s
rationale for the proposed changes – especially in light of the increased
role of part-time faculty in faculty
governance. The motion was then opened to the floor for discussion. Several
people expressed concern over the insertion of the word “state”
with regards to appropriated funds. Further explanation failed to dissuade the
concern, and a friendly amendment was made to strike the “state”
insertion. The Committee accepted the amendment.
Discussion turned to the paragraph regarding unit representation and re-establishing
a limit on the number of Senate representatives a single academic unit may possess.
Discussion volleyed between the notion of proportionality of representation
and maintenance of a representation that is inclusive of all units. Concern
was also raised about the wording of the paragraph that left some ambiguity
about the manner of calculating representation. C. Jones proposed a friendly
amendment that was accepted by the Committee, the amended section reads:
2. No Collegiate Unit will have more than 25 seats. In the event that one Collegiate
Unit exceeds 50% of the total FTE, that Unit will receive 25 seats and the remaining
seats will be apportioned proportionately to the remaining Units. The threshold
size will be calculated on the total FTE of the remaining Collegiate Units divided
by 25.
The main motion was called, and the motion to modify Section I. B. of the Charter
passed as amended. The complete text of the section of the
Charter, as amended and passed, is included as Attachment A to these Minutes.
Motion Two, the elimination of the University Library Committee
and incorporation of its charge into the Facilities & Support Services Committee,
was made and was opened to discussion. Following several comments regarding
the role of the Library Committee and its potential impact with the proposed
Technology Policy Committee, Chair Pro Tem H. Gortner identified that the Library
portion of the new Committee (Facilities, Support Services, and Libraries Committee)
should be reviewed next year in light of the possible creation of a Technology
Committee given the increasing relationship between technology and the libraries.
The question was called, motion two passed by a voice vote.
Senate Liaisons to the Board of Visitors
A. Sofer indicated that there was no report beyond that which was distributed
regarding the Faculty & Academic Standards Committee meeting that addressed
the General Education issue.
Representatives to the Faculty Senate of Virginia
H. Gortner reported that the Faculty Senate of Virginia will meet on April 29,
and that there was nothing further to report at this time.
Committee on External Academic Relations
A. Sofer stated that there was nothing to report at this time.
VI. Other New Business
A. Motion to create a Technology Policy Committee
S. Zoltek, on behalf of the co-sponsors of the motion, introduced the following
motion: In reestablishing faculty responsibilities regarding
the use of computer-based technologies in “courses and programs,”
the following motion is proposed:
WHEREAS,
1) Administrative decision-making at George Mason University about new information
technologies with potentially large impacts on the classroom has often failed
to involve a substantial proportion of the teaching faculty;
2) Decision-making regarding new educational technologies and educational techniques
and practices should properly require participation and approval by teaching
faculty in accordance with the Faculty Handbook and "Information
Guide;"
3) The most effective implementations of these technologies and techniques are
almost invariably those driven by teaching faculty and widely supported by this
faculty;
4) Adequate protection of intellectual property rights for on-line courses and
in other information technologies that the faculty has continuing opportunity
to articulate and protect their rights to such property;
IT IS MOVED THAT:
The Faculty Senate, in accordance with its rules of governance, create a standing
committee composed of five elected members with the following charge:
Members will work with representative faculty bodies as well as with administrators,
in a spirit of cooperation and good will in an effort to ensure that our students
have access to the best and most cost-effective applications of computer-based
informational technologies for educational purposes;
Members will proactively consult with the Vice-President for Information Technology
and other administrators concerning investments in and development of potential
uses of computer-based technologies that impact educational techniques and practices
in the University;
Members will access the financial data pertaining to investments in and development
of potential uses of computer-based informational technologies, and the manner
in which funds will be allocated to individuals and programs; and will evaluate
the data and represent faculty positions on it;
Members will work with administrators to articulate and implement a clear and
equitable policy that protects intellectual property rights of faculty;
Members will present timely oral and written reports to the Senate on the progress
and results of their work, and make appropriate recommendations.
S. Zoltek further explained that the Committee would give faculty the opportunity
to advise and be involved in the spending and initiatives with regard to technology
issues, including such important issues as distance learning, etc. Discussion
was opened to the floor. One concern addressed the composition of the proposed
committee, and the thought that the committee’s membership should reflect
the diversity of faculty interest. There was concern for access to information
without funding. E. Blaisten-Barojas expressed concern that the motion did not
come through the Organization & Operations Committee, and that if it had,
the charge could have been better prepared to work effectively and efficiently
(without possibly duplicating work of other existing committees) and the committee’s
structure could be more consistent with other university standing committees.
It was moved and seconded to send the motion to the Organization
& Operations Committee for further review and consideration. Discussion
of the motion to refer to committee ensued. After hearing comments for and against
the motion to refer, E. Elstun suggested that the Senate should act on the creation
of the Committee today, but with instructions to include:
1) the principle authors of the motion and the O&O Committee confer and
report to the Senate at a future meeting on the issues of concern;
2) the Nominations Committee address the concerns of diversity of representation
in their filling the composition of the committee.
A comment addressing the differences pointed out in discussion then identified
that the modifications being suggested were more form than substance, and that
the motion should be addressed today. The question was called, the motion
to refer the main motion to the Organization & Operations Committee
failed by voice vote. It was moved that the
composition of the proposed committee include five elected members, with at
least one Senator, and one ex-officio member. A substitute motion was
made and seconded to approve the committee’s creation
in principle with the following instructions:
By March 1st of each academic year, the Senate Committee on Organization and
Operations shall establish the representation from each unit on the basis of
the figures provided by the administration. Elections shall follow by May 1st.
The Directors of the Independent Institutes shall designate one of their number
annually to serve on the Senate.