George Mason University
Approved Minutes of the Faculty Senate
February 12, 2003
Senators Present: J. Bennett, A. Berry, E. Blaisten-Barojas,
D. Boileau, D. Boehm-Davis, B. Brown, L. Brown, P. Buchanan, Y. D. Chung, R.
Coffinberger, R. Diecchio, E. Elstun, M. Ferri, H. Gortner, J. High, M. Kafatos,
D. Kuebrich, W. Kurkul, C. Mattusch, J. Metcalf, L. Monson, J. Moore, R. Nadeau,
L. Rockwood, S. Ruth, J. Sanford, F. Shahrokhi, S. Slayden, D. Sprague, P. Stearns,
E. Sturtevant, C. Sutton, I. Vaisman, J. Zenelis, S. Zoltek
Senators Absent: P. Black, S. Cobb, S. deMonsabert, M. De Nys,
M. Deshmukh, T. Friesz, J. Gorrell, M. Grady, L. Griffiths, K. Haynes, C. Kaffenberger,
H.W. Jeong, R. Klimoski, J. Kozlowski, C. Lerner, P.J. Maddox, B. Manchester,
A. Merten, L. Pawloski, P. Regan, W. Reeder, J. Scimecca, R. Smith, A. Sofer,
M. Stearns, D. Struppa, S. Trencher
Guests Present: S. Beach, D. Bitler, J. de Freitas, J. Flinn,
D. Fox, A. Frederiksen, S. Greenfeld, R. Herron, J. Jobbitt, S. Jones, W. Rankin,
W. Sutton, M. Zamon
I. Call to Order
Chair Jim Bennett called the meeting to order at 3:02 p.m. The Minutes of the
January 22, 2003 meeting were approved as distributed.
II. Announcements
A. Remarks to the Senate by Rector Meese
The Chair introduced Edwin Meese, Rector of the GMU Board of Visitors. Mr. Meese
began by thanking the faculty on behalf of the BOV for doing a superior job
under the current fiscal stringencies. During his travels, he has been pleased
to hear people remark on GMU’s growing national reputation.
Reporting on the work of the Board, Mr. Meese stated that it is becoming more
proactive. They now have an annual two-day meeting with the President’s
Council to plan priorities and goals for the year. Their goal is to develop
a long-range strategy. At present, the Board has formulated a “2007 Plan,”
which attempts to integrate all major aspects of university planning, including
budget and facilities.
Regarding budget planning, Mr. Meese pointed out that in the past the Board
had simply responded to the GMU budget process, but in an effort to be more
involved in planning, the Board created a primer (subsequently adopted by various
other Virginia schools) that outlines the budget process in a month-by-month
calendar. This is used to educate new Board members and to allow the Board to
anticipate budget issues and help shape the University’s response.
Mr. Meese expressed disappointment with the state legislature’s handling
of the higher education budget, noting that GMU has always been underfunded
compared to other doctorate-granting universities in Virginia. Accordingly,
it is most severely impacted by recent budget cuts. The funding crisis may be
further exacerbated by bills passed in the House and Senate that put a cap on
tuition increases. Rector Meese promised that the BOV and the Administration
will continue to lobby the state government and Governor Warner to support higher
education.
In answer to a question concerning faculty representation on the BOV, Mr. Meese
responded that a faculty member on the Board might institute a conflict of interest,
and the faculty member would have to recuse him/herself often. He considers
an active and participatory faculty liaison to the BOV a better idea. He agreed
that a non-voting faculty seat on the Faculty and Academic Standards Committee
would be a good idea and something he would support. He affirmed that he wants
to increase communication between the faculty and the Board, and he encouraged
the Senate leadership to let him know of faculty questions and concerns.
Another question was raised about fundraising by the BOV. Rector Meese replied
that this is the official responsibility of the Foundation. However, all Board
members contribute to the Foundation on an annual basis and are committed to
raising funds for the University.
B. Special Meeting of the Faculty Senate : February 26, 2003
The Chair announced that he has received a memo from the President’s Office
with recent changes proposed by the BOV (1/30/03) to the Faculty Handbook regarding
the importance of teaching as a criterion for tenure. The Provost added that
the new language is a serious effort at a compromise intended to please all
parties. The new wording highlights the University’s traditional emphasis
upon teaching excellence without substantially modifying existing Handbook criteria
for tenure. The Faculty Senate has 21 days to review the proposed changes. Accordingly,
the Faculty Matters Committee will expeditiously review the changes and write
a report with recommendation(s) for the Senate. There will be a special meeting
of the Senate on February 26, 2003 to discuss and vote on these recommendations.
III. Old Business
A. Update and Assessment of the “Comprehensive Campaign”—Mike
Ferri
Mike Ferri thanked the GMU Foundation staff and Board for his warm welcome as
the first Faculty Senate representative to the GMU Foundation. He believes the
experience has improved understanding and communication between the faculty
and the GMU Foundation.
Reporting on the current “Comprehensive Campaign,” Professor Ferri
explained that between1998 and December 2002, the Campaign had raised approximately
$87 million in gifts and pledges of the goal of $110 million by June 30, 2005.
From the monies received, however, only $10 million have been added to the endowment,
and the rest has been spent. He also noted that some of the real estate held
by the GMU Foundation may entail large future costs.
Professor Ferri also pointed to a need for improvement in alumni giving. Out
of 85,000 alumni, the University has current addresses for 74,000. Of those
contacted in the campaign, only slightly over 6,000 alumni contributed a total
of about $500,000. Professor Ferri suggested there may be a need to give more
attention to GMU undergraduate programs and alumni relations.
Judy Jobbit, President of the GMU Foundation and Vice President of University
Development and Alumni Affairs, provided a brief update. Since December, the
foundation has raised another $3 million, much of which is earmarked for student
and faculty support.
B. CAS Undergraduate Experience—Mary Zamon
Mary Zamon, Director of the Undergraduate Student Experience, noted that her
position was created about two years ago to connect Academic and University
Life. Ms. Zamon briefly explained that she assists the Admissions and Orientation
Offices, the College of Arts & Sciences, and other GMU colleges and units
with recruitment, orientation, retention, testing and academic activities and
events.
C. C- Grade Issue—Academic Policies Committee
The Academic Policies Committee resubmitted the motion: The C- grade
is “Unsatisfactory.”
The question was again raised as to whether it would be inconsistent to have
“C” considered a satisfactory grade and “C-“ considered
an unsatisfactory grade. There was concern expressed that technology was driving
the way grades are given. It was noted that, due to implementation of the Banner
system, there is no way to change the parallel systems of GPAs and Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory
designations for two more years. The Senate needs to come up with a short-term
solution for the C- at this point because of its numerous discrepancies.
Jane Flinn, one of the two original proposers of the C- grade as satisfactory,
noted that she had wanted the use of the C- grade in order to differentiate
students that were just barely passing from the true C students. Now, recognizing
the difficulties inherent in the “satisfactory” designation, she
favors the current motion.
The motion passed with several abstentions.
The Academic Policies committee presented a second motion as
follow-up:
The GMU Catalog (p. 38) currently states: “An undergraduate may present
all courses in which satisfactory grades have been received and up to 12 credits
of courses in which D grades have been received. A student may not use a grade
of D in BIS 490, however, and may not use more than six credits of D grades
in a major or in the BIS core of study, nor more than three credits of D grades
in a minor. Some programs may have a more restrictive policy regarding the number
of D grades allowable in majors, minors, or certificates.”
The Academic Policies Committee recommends that the policy be changed to:
An undergraduate may present up to 12 credits of courses in which C-
or D grades have been earned. A student may not present more than six credits
of C- or D grades in a major nor more than three credits of C- or D grades in
a minor. Some programs may have a more restrictive policy regarding grades allowable
in majors, minors, or certificates.
Rationale: At present, the system used in determining student
achievement and progress is a “dual track” in which the more recent
determination of GPA is superimposed on the older method of partitioning all
grades into the two categories of Satisfactory/ Unsatisfactory. At this time,
it is not possible under the current system to limit the number of C- and D
grades separately if both are defined as Unsatisfactory. Since both of these
grades are associated with sub-standard Quality Points (1.67 and 1.00, respectively),
continuing the current credit limits will help maintain academic standards.
The information on grades allowable for the BIS degree appears in the BIS section
of the Catalog.
The motion passed unanimously.
IV. Committee Reports and Action Items
A. Executive Committee – Jim Bennett
No report.
B. Academic Policies – Esther Elstun
Jack High presented a report on Credit Earned Elsewhere on behalf of the Committee
(Attachment A). After review of the current policy, the Committee determined
that no action was necessary. The question was raised as to whether the policy
was too restrictive. Jack answered that the Committee has been asked to determine
if the policy was too lenient, not if it was too restrictive. He suggested that
the question should be addressed to the LAU leadership, since the Catalog is
actually lenient on the issue, but the academic units sometimes are not.
The Committee then introduced the following motion:
The GMU student government has submitted a request to the Provost of the University
that in future the traditional Latin terms be used to designate honors. The
Academic Policies Committee favors this change, as does the Provost. No practical
problems of implementation would attach to the change. The Academic Policies
Committee therefore MOVES:
That the Faculty Senate endorse the request of the GMU student government
that honors at George Mason University be designated by the traditional Latin
nomenclature cum laude, magna cum laude and summa cum laude.
The motion passed unanimously.
C. Facilities & Support Services & Library – Lorraine
Brown
No report.
D. Faculty Matters – Marty De Nys
The Committee will be meeting this Friday to discuss the Faculty Handbook changes
proposed by the BOV.
E. Organization & Operations – Phil Buchanan
The Committee introduced the following motion: The
Organization and Operations Committee moves that the charge of the University
Grievance Committee be modified to read as follows:
TO INVESTIGATE GRIEVANCES OF INSTRUCTIONAL, RESTRICTED, AND RESEARCH FACULTY:
A. which involve faculty matters from more than one local academic unit. Issues
of investigation include alleged infringements of academic freedom, alleged
unfair or inappropriate conditions of employment, and any other due process
issue with the exclusion of retention, promotion and tenure appeals,
B. which are not addressed by, or do not fall within the purview of the grievance
committee of the pertinent local academic unit; and
C. for local academic units that do not have grievance committees established,
or when a grievance committee does not conform to the written procedures of
the local academic unit. Faculty appeals from local academic unit grievance
committees are excluded.
Justification: The current charge and university policy does
not permit Research Faculty members to file grievances as either instructional
faculty or as classified employees except in cases of discrimination. This change
in the University Grievance Committee charge will enable the Committee to hear
grievances from research faculty on matters of infringements of academic freedom,
unfair or inappropriate conditions of employment, and any other due process
issue.
Support was expressed for the motion since this has been a problem in the past,
and there is a constant increase in research faculty since GMU’s goal
is to have 10% of their faculty be research.
The motion passed unanimously.
F. Nominations – Rick Coffinberger
The Committee nominated Priscilla Regan to fill the vacancy on the General Education
University Standing Committee. The nomination passed unanimously.
The Committee announced that Stanley Zoltek has been appointed as the Senate
representative to the Security Review Panel.
G. Ad Hoc Budget Committee – Rick Coffinberger
No report.
H. Ad Hoc Committee on Faculty Senate Bylaws — Bob Nadeau
The Committee has reviewed the Faculty Senate Bylaws, asked for clarification
on certain issues, reviewed past changes of the Bylaws, and determined that
no changes are needed at the present time. The Chair dismissed the Committee
and instructed the Secretary to send a letter of thanks to the Committee members.
V. New Business
A. Task Force to Review the Parallel “Satisfactory Progress” Systems
Currently Existing at GMU — Hal Gortner
Hal Gortner provided a brief overview of the present “dual grading system.”
George Mason University, as a relatively new and fast-growing university, has
had to change its academic policies in order to match the demands of growth
and maturation. During its early years, the lack of a grade point average (GPA)
system required that GMU create a unique procedure (all grades were classified
as satisfactory or unsatisfactory) by which satisfactory progress toward a degree
could be calculated, but GMU later changed from a grading system that did not
calculate grade points to one that does. Not surprisingly, the dual existence
of our “satisfactory/unsatisfactory grade” procedure—which
now operates parallel to the GPA system—causes some serious inconsistencies
in calculating satisfactory progress toward graduating and general confusion
for students (and advisors).
This has become abundantly obvious as the Faculty Senate attempts to develop
some consistency in the calculation of “C-“ when determining the
academic status of students. Undoubtedly there are other places in the Catalog
that also suffer from the presence of dual systems for calculating “satisfactory
progress.”
Professor Gortner suggested that a Task Force be created to deal proactively
with the parallel systems so that, when Banner allows it, a new system can be
implemented quickly. He then submitted the following motion:
The motion passed unanimously I propose the creation of a task force,
composed of not more than seven members—to include the University Registrar,
one other administrator to be appointed by the Provost, and five faculty members
from across the university and selected by the Senate—which shall be charged
with developing, and laying out a time line for implementing, a single system
to determine “satisfactory progress toward graduation.” The report
of that task force shall include (1) a statement of all inconsistencies and
problems generated by the dual system; (2) a carefully prepared plan for solving
the problems; and (3) a time line for implementation that takes into account
the difficulties inherent in such a transition. That report should be presented
to the Faculty Senate no later than the second meeting of the Senate in the
2004-2005 academic year. In the interim, while preparing the report, the task
force shall report on its progress to the Faculty Senate at the end of this
semester and at the second meeting of the Faculty Senate each semester during
the 2003-2004 academic year.
The motion passed unanimously.
VI. Remarks for the Good of the General Faculty
The Chair announced that the Executive Committee met with President Merten to
discuss faculty representation on the BOV. It had been mentioned at the last
President’s Council meeting that a bill in the state legislature on this
matter was on the Administration’s “to kill” list. President
Merten explained that the Administration is neither opposing nor supporting
the bill, that he personally favors faculty representation on the BOV. For consistency
with his position to legislators that tuition should be left to the Boards of
Visitors, he also maintains that the state legislature should leave such matters
to the wisdom of the individual university. The President also told the Executive
Committee that he would welcome the opportunity to address the Senate once every
fall and spring semester.
VI. Adjournment
A motion to adjourn was requested, and it was so moved and seconded. The meeting
adjourned at 4:17 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
David Kuebrich
Secretary, Faculty Senate