George Mason University
Approved
Minutes of the Faculty Senate
October 4, 2000
Senators
Present: K. Alligood, K. Avruch, E.
Blaisten-Barojas, D. Boileau, B. Brown, L. Brown, P. Buchanan, R. Coffinberger,
R. Conti, S. deMonsabert, E. Elstun, K. Gaffney, R. Ehrlich, P. Feerick, D.
Gantz, H. Gortner, E. Gunn, M. Holt, D. Kuebrich, C. Mattusch, J. Moore, R.
Nadeau, E. Price, L. Rigsby, L. Rickard, S. Ruth, J. Scimecca, L. Seligmann,
P. So, A. Sofer, P. Stearns, C. Sutton, C. Thomas, J. Zenelis, S. Zoltek
Senators
Absent: W. M. Black, L. Bowen, R. Carty,
J. Censer, S. Cheldelin, M. DeNys, R. Dieccio, T. Domzal, J. Flinn, M. Ford,
T. Friesz,
M.
Grady, L. Griffiths, G. Hanweck, K. Haynes, R. C. Jones, A. Kolker, M. Krauss,
L. Lederman, R. Rubenstein, L. Rockwood, A. Merten, J. Sanford, P. Story,
D. Struppa, P. Wilkie
Guests
Present: Hiroko Iguch, Susan Jones,
Jennifer Sherwin, Rick Davis, Carrie Secondo
I.
Call to Order
Chair,
Don Boileau called the meeting to order at 3:08 pm.
The minutes of the September 13, 2000 Faculty Senate
Meeting were
III.
Announcements
Joe Kanyan
conducted a eulogy for Joe Shirk, former Chair, Music Dept.
A moment of silence was observed by the Faculty Senate in his memory.
D. Boileau will write a letter of condolence from the
Faculty Senate
D. Boileau informed the Senate of the status of the
Institutional Performance Agreement. This
is a six-year funding agreement with
IV.
Unfinished Business
It was moved and seconded that the Faculty Senate dismiss
and express its appreciation via a letter from the Faculty Senate Chair to
the members of the University Ad HocCommittee on General Education. The motion passed.
It was moved and seconded to adopt the Faculty Senate
meeting schedule, which was distributed at the meeting. The April 11 meeting will be held at the Prince
William Campus in the Verizon Conference Room. The motion passed.
V.
New Business
D. Boileau
reported the Faculty Senate has endorsed the Proposal of the College of Visual
and Performing Arts with one modification.
References to Schools in the document should be changed
to Departments.
Committee
Reports
Academic
Policies Committee
The Committee invited the Provost to inform the Academic
Policies Committee of any issues or problems of university-wide academic policy
that he would like them to address this year.
Last spring, in renewing the Honors Program in General
Education, the Senate suggested that the program’s executive committee participate
with the director in the selection of faculty who teach in the program.
Prof. Mack Holt, Director of the Program, has confirmed that the program’s
bylaws have been amended to reflect that suggestion.
Senate action last spring also included two recommendations to the
provost concerning the program’s funding.
A request from the Director of Air Force ROTC at the
U of MD concerning credit for the 400 level courses in that program has been
logged in by the O & O Committee and referred to us. Committee member, Chris Jones will supervise
that item of business.
The Faculty Matters Committee reported working on an
Administrative Survey. Results are
expected to be out by March or April.
Organization
and Operations Committee
Technology
Committee
A. The Technology
Committee reported of its 7 members, at least 2 must be senators, and one
an exofficio faculty member designated by the Provost. The composition should reflect that most academic
units are represented.
Charge: The
committee will actively advise the Vice President of Information Technology
and other administrators in investments and in implementation of computer-based
technologies that impact the educational techniques in the University. The committee will advise on the development
of new computer-based educational techniques and research capacities within
the University.
The committee will work cooperatively with the central administration to formulate the technology budget of the University. These actions will ensure that the recommendations issued by the committee reflect the views of the faculty concerning allocations to programs and/or individuals.
The committee will work with the administration to review and maintain a clear and equitable policy pertaining to intellectual property rights of the faculty.
B. E. Blaisten
Barojas recommended the Faculty Senate By-laws not be modified until the usual
5 years revision takes place.
C. E. Blaisten-Barojas
encouraged all Committees to meet and elected a Chair.
D. A letter was sent to P. Stearns, Provost from the O & O Committee on appointments of exofficio members.
Nominations Committee
Chairman’s prefatory
remarks concerning BOV meeting held September 20:
A.
Accreditation
B.
Intellectual Property
C.
Rewards for Teaching
Standing Committees
Ariela Sofer presented a written report as the Senate
Liaison to the Board of Visitors. The
BOV held its first meeting of the year on September 21. The Board includes four new appointees: Visitors Edwin Meese and Edwin Fuelner, who
have been reappointed to a second term, and Visitors, Mel Chaskin and Dorothy
(DC) Gray who replaces Visitors DiGennaro and Olson. The Board re-elected Visitor Meese as Rector, Visitor McGeary as
Vice Rector, Visitor Cooper as secretary, and elected Visitors Fuelner and
Dewberry as the two additional members of the Executive Committee. Among the new committee appointments, Visitors
Miller and Herrity were elected Chair and Vice Chair of the Faculty and Academic
Standards Committee, Visitors LaRose and Fink were elected Chair and Vice
Chair of the Student Affairs Committee.
General Education
The Board voted to defer the vote on the request for
exceptions from the new general education requirements following a similar
vote by the Faculty and Academic Standards Committee. Six units have requested exceptions for specific undergraduate programs,
with IT&E, HFRR, Dance, and CNHS requesting a 3-credit reduction, Biology
requesting a 6-credit reduction, and Music requesting a l0-credit reduction.
In the discussion at the Faculty and Academic Standards
Committee, Provost Stearns emphasized that the units throughout the University
have done a responsible job in trying to accommodate the requirements of the
new Gen Ed program, even though this means going from a 27 credit program
to a 40-credit program. The few exceptions
requested are, for the most part, a result of the requirements of accreditation,
which can no longer be met without increasing the number of credits for graduation.
Visitor Miller, the new Committee Chair, expressed
his objection. He was disturbed that
the curriculum approved by the Board in their last meeting was already being
challenged. He dismissed the argument
of accreditation requirements, accusing accreditation boards of having too
much power in running university affairs.
He suggested that if necessary, the number of credit hours for graduation
should be increased. He invited the
representatives of the units present at the meeting to justify their requests.
IT&E, Dean Griffiths explained that when GMU reduced
the number of credits for graduation from 132 to 120, IT&E had to cut
12 credits of technical courses. The
expanded Gen Ed programs now require that Engineering programs further reduce
their technical content by 3 credits, to a level that is insufficient to cover
the technical requirements from graduating engineers.
Increasing the number of credit hours for graduation is not a prerogative
for IT&E, however, since it faces stiff competition from other area schools.
The Acting Chair of Music, Joe Kanyan gave a brief
explanation of his department’s request.
Provost Stearns and Associate Provost for General Education Sheryl
Beach covered the requests of the remaining units. Rick Davis, Institute of the Arts spoke on behalf of
the Dance Department’s request.
Visitor Miller stuck to his position. It would be a bad precedence for the Board
to undermine its decision by granting variances. He proposed a “compromise.” At
the November meeting, the units involved would give a presentation on the
steps they would need to take if the waivers are not granted, and the BOV
vote would be deferred until then.
Visitors Gray and Chaskin also spoke against waivers and in favor of a broad general education
program. Visitor Dewberry disagreed.
As a leader in the engineering industry, he was particularly concerned
with the impositions the new program places on IT&E.
He reminded the Committee that the Board had agreed to consider IT&E’s
request at its May meeting.
Provost Stearns pointed out that deferring the decision
until November would leave the units in limbo, since we are
Visitor Dewberry put forth a motion whereby each of
the units would receive a waiver for three credits. There was no second to the motion. A follow-up motion by Dewberry to grant a three-credit waiver to
IT&E fell to the same fate. The
Committee voted in favor of Visitor Miller’s proposal 3 to 1.
The discussion at the full Board meeting was equally
lengthy. Visitor Miller put for to
the Board the recommendations of the Committee, but also invited Visitor Dewberry
to put forth the motions he had proposed at the committee meeting. These drew a second from Visitor McGeary.
Rector Meese pointed out that the Board had indeed decided to consider
exceptions to the Gen Ed program, so it was indeed appropriate to do so.
Dean Griffiths was called to the podium, and he explained IT&E’s
problems, adding that because of issues of balance, one of the IT&E programs
would actually have to add 6 credits to its curriculum. Visitor Cooper emphasized that IT&E had
already clearly made its case in the spring and he was satisfied to grant
it. Visitor Fuelner was also sympathetic
to IT&E request for the same reason. But Visitor Miller urged the Board to kiss off accreditation.
Provost Stearn’s reiterated the difficulties with postponing the decision,
and Visitor Pomata proposed a provision that would grant the
waivers this year, and review the issues next year.
Visitor Fink urged the Board to vote no, arguing that it was a bad
precedent to override the decision of a committee. He suggested instead holding a special meeting of the Board to accelerate
the decisions. Mr. Fink’s argument
seemed to be persuasive. Visitor Johnson
concurred with the argument, as did Visitor Cooper. Pointing to the minutes of the May meeting,
Rector Meese commented that the Board had specifically agreed to consider
IT&E’s core at the September meeting.
A voice vote was conducted whether to grant IT&E a single waiver. Visitors Dewberry, LaRose, and Pomata voted
in favor. Visitors Chaskey, Cooper,
Fink, Fuelner, Johnson, Lauterberg, McGeary, and Miller were opposed. The Rector did not have to cast a tie-breaking
vote; the motion was defeated. The
Faculty and Academic Standards Committee will hear presentations from the
units on how they will cope if the waivers are not granted.
Faculty
Incentives
Visitor
Dewberry has asked to look at the issue of faculty incentives and rewards. The issue will be discussed in the November
meeting.
The Board approved the creation of a College of Visual and Performing Arts. The development of the college reflects the rapid growth of enrollment in the arts and the need to consolidate the arts programs within a single unit. Visitor Cooper was the sole dissenting voice in the vote.
The
Board approved a University proposal to establish a nonprofit intellectual
property foundation to be known as Patriot Intellectual Properties, Inc. (PIP).
The foundation will own and commercialize university-based creations
and inventions, and distribute the net income evenly between the inventors
and the University. The University’s
rationale for establishing the foundation is to gain the flexibility to own,
market and commercialize innovations, to allow for the use of legal representation
and business consultants; and to protect University assets.
Other major public research universities in Virginia have established
similar foundations and the GMU models draws heavily on the precedents established,
especially those of UVA, and Virginia Tech.
PIP
will be governed by a Board of Directors.
The Board will be composed of nine members: three ex-officio directors from the University, and three elected
directors from the general public. The
three University officials will include the Vice Provost for Research, the
Controller, and the Chair of the Faculty
Intellectual Property Committee. (This committee is not elected by the Faculty Senate at present.)
In
discussing the foundation, members of the Faculty and Academic Affairs Committee
expressed the hope that it will engage faculty in publicizing GMU, and will
make them more aware of opportunities to help the University. Committee Chair Miller asked the Provost to
create a Task Force involving the Faculty Senate to encourage faculty to participate
in the effort. There was also some
discussion on the ownership of inventions developed at the University or outside
the University, and on who lays the burden of proof. Regarding books, Vice Provost for Research,
Chris Hill noted that traditionally faculty members have owned the copyrights,
and the university has no plans to change that. Exceptions could include digital material developed at GMU studios.
Software, falls into a gray area since it may be patented, copyrighted,
or both.
Institutional
Performance Agreement
Secretary of Education,
Wilbert Bryant informed GMU in late July that it was one of five Virginia
universities selected to submit an institutional performance agreement (IPA).
An IPA, if approved, will provide GMU with a six-year funding commitment,
with some financial autonomy, provided that the University meets certain agreed
upon obligations. Senior Vice President
Maurice Scherrens reported on the University’s proposed (IPA) to the Full
Board. The agreement proposal defines
a set of institutional initiatives as target goals to be met, and defines
a set of performance measures to assess compliance with the goals. The proposal also includes a suggested budget
for the years 2002 through 2007.
The
nine institution initiatives identified by the University are:
1.
Equip all students
to succeed in the information age
2.
Build strong graduate
programs
3.
Strengthen science
education and research
4.
Educate technologically
literate students.
5.
Expand policy research
and education
6.
Meet the educational
needs of the growing region
7.
Integrate students’
academic/experiential life
8.
Leverage all resources
effectively
9.
Enhance excellence
through private giving
There
are 18 proposed performance measures: 6
with academic focus, 6 with a student focus, and 6 with a financial/operational
focus. There was some discussion among
the Board on the performance measures. Visitors
commented that proposed measures such as “Teaching per FTE faculty” should
be optimized rather than maximized. The Board values the quality of the experience brought to GMU by
its adjunct faculty, and would not necessarily want to limit the size of the
adjunct faculty body. Some Board members
also requested that the University place a clearer focus on quality, rather
than student numbers.
In
the discussion that followed, Stanley Zoltek expressed concern that the Faculty
Senate has not been asked for input into the formation of the Intellectual
Property Foundation.
State Senate
of VA
E.
Elstun reported on a proposal to amend the Code of Virginia to have one or
more peer-elected faculty serve on Boards of Visitors. The proposal has been given to Morgan Griffith, Majority Leader
in the House of Delegates, for placement of the General Assembly’s agenda
Respectfully
submitted,
Lorraine
Brown
Secretary
Faculty
Senate