George Mason University
Approved Minutes of the Faculty Senate
May 7, 2003
Senators Present: J. Bennett, A. Berry, P. Black, E. Blaisten-Barojas,
D. Boileau, D. Boehm-Davis, B. Brown, L. Brown, P. Buchanan, Y. D. Chung, R.
Coffinberger, M. De Nys, R. Diecchio, B. Ehrlich, E. Elstun, M. Ferri, J. Gorrell,
H. Gortner, L. Griffiths, J. High, H.W. Jeong, J. Kozlowski, D. Kuebrich, W.
Kurkul, J. Metcalf, L. Monson, J. Moore, R. Nadeau, L. Pawloski, D. Polsby,
P. Regan, L. Rockwood, S. Ruth, J. Sanford, J. Scimecca, F. Shahrokhi, S. Slayden,
A. Sofer, D. Sprague, P. Stearns, C. Sutton, S. Trencher, S. Zoltek
Senators Absent: S. Cobb, S. deMonsabert, M. Deshmukh, M. Grady,
K. Haynes, M. Kafatos, C. Kaffenberger, R. Klimoski, C. Lerner, P.J. Maddox,
B. Manchester, C. Mattusch, A. Merten, W. Reeder, E. Roman-Mendoza, R. Smith,
D. Struppa, E. Sturtevant, I. Vaisman, J. Zenelis
Guests Present: N. Dickerson, J. Garritano, S. Godlewski, S.
Greenfeld, D. Haines, R. Herron, S. Jones, B. Jordan, K. Simons, B. Sutton,
D. Van Wagner
I. Call to Order
Chair Jim Bennett called the meeting to order at 3:02 p.m. The Minutes of the
April 9, 2003 meeting were approved as distributed.
II. Announcements
The Chair announced that the Executive Committee meeting minutes are now on
the Faculty Senate website.
The Chair noted that our professors emeriti/emeritae are an asset to the University
and deserve rights and responsibilities, such as e-mail access, library and
parking privileges, etc. Therefore, a Task Force will be established to develop
an official policy for these professors with Hale Tongren as Chair. The Task
Force will be an informal group composed of retired faculty that answers to
the Faculty Matters Committee.
Dean Jeff Gorrell eulogized Professor Larry Bowen, Dean Emeritus of the Graduate
School of Education (GSE), who died April 14, 2003 of pulmonary lymphoma. Dr.
Bowen had a long and distinguished career in educational policy and instruction
and published extensively. Dean Gorrell noted that Larry Bowen will be greatly
missed as “a man of good humor and serious purpose, humane,...engaging
in his insights, and deeply concerned for the welfare of underrepresented people
in our society.”
III. Old Business
A. Research at GMU – Chris Hill
Jim Bennett presented IRR research showing that GMU ranks 21st out of 25 in
research budget among its SCHEV peer group, and its research budget is $55,921,578
lower than the group average. The research also showed that George Mason ranked
last among Virginia public research institutions in “Research and Public
Service Expenditures per Full-time Faculty.”
Dr. Chris Hill, Vice Provost for Research, prefaced his presentation by explaining
that research funding for universities is classified and reported in various
ways, and that this can easily lead to misunderstanding. For instance, statistics
regarding funding sometimes distinguish between monies for research and monies
for scholarship; sometimes they distinguish between all research and separately
budgeted research; sometimes between sponsored programs and sponsored research;
or internally and externally funded research; federally funded and all-funded
research; and expenditures and obligations. Attempting to review and compare
the research funding of GMU in relation to other universities is further complicated
by the fact that reporting is done differently to NSF and SCHEV, and the federal
and state fiscal years do not necessarily correspond with GMU’s fiscal
year or the calendar year.
Regarding research funding at GMU, Dr. Hill presented the following data: Sponsored
programs expenditures totaled $52 million in FY 2002, and are anticipated to
be $60 million in 2003. From 1992 through 2003, there has been a 230% increase
in sponsored programs expenditures and a 58% growth in expenditures in “real”
dollars per FTE. The 2002 budget is comprised of 71% federal funding, 15% foundation
funding, 3% state funding, and 11% from miscellaneous sources. Institutionally,
there was approximately $7 million in indirect cost recovery supports for such
things as faculty study leaves, summer research funds for tenure-track faculty,
interdisciplinary GRAs, initiatory/seed research grants for tenured faculty,
and matching funds for grants.
According to NSF data, GMU ranked #162 nationally in research funding for FY2002,
up from #173 in 2001. In federal research dollars, GMU moved up from #151 to
#140. Dr. Hill noted that sixteen of the twenty-five SCHEV-approved peer institutions
have medical schools, which dramatically increase the amount of research dollars
received and spent. He also remarked that in terms of research expenditures
from 1997 to 2001, GMU has had a growth rate of 72%, far outstripping other
Virginia public institutions, as well as the national average of 34%.
IV. Committee Reports and Action Items
A. Executive Committee – Jim Bennett
No report.
B. Academic Policies – Esther Elstun
1. Motion on Minors
Background information: Last year, after extensive research
and study under the direction of Professor Patrick Wilkie, the Academic Policies
Committee recommended to the Senate that 12 of the 15 hours required for a minor
be applied only to that minor, and not to any other major, minor, or concentration.
The matter was referred back to the Committee without specific instructions.
At the invitation of the committee, the Office of the Provost suggested a modified
proposal that reduced from 12 to 9 the number of discrete hours in a minor.
On 2 April the committee sent to the directors of all minor programs an email
message soliciting their reactions to the proposal. Since the committee wished
to reach closure on this item of business at its scheduled meeting of 23 April
and to present a recommendation to the Senate at its May meeting, the directors
were asked to respond no later than 22 April. Two responses were received by
the requested date. These expressed no concern about the proposed number of
hours but only about the clarity of the proposal. (A third response was received,
but not until 25 April.) The Committee invited the Office of the Provost to
refine the language. That occurred, and at its meeting of 23 April the Committee
voted unanimously to recommend to the Senate that
Motion: Of the courses presented for the minor, at least nine credit
hours must be applied only to that minor and may not be used to fulfill requirements
of the student’s major, concentration, or another minor.
If approved by the Senate, the foregoing sentence will be added to the
section entitled “Minor” under “Definition of Degree Components”
(Catalog, 2002-03, p. 34), and to the section entitled “Minors”
under “The Undergraduate Academic Program” (Catalog, p. 37).
A motion to amend was offered and seconded for the motion to
strike the words “the minor” and insert the words “a minor
program consisting of fewer than 24 credit hours.”
A substitute friendly amendment was made by the Provost to
replace the number “nine” by the number “eight” for
the motion to read: Of the courses presented for the minor, at least
eight credit hours must be applied only to that minor and may not be used to
fulfill requirements of the student’s major, concentration, or another
minor.
It was agreed that the second amendment was more straightforward and avoided
setting a University policy based on one department’s needs. The amendment
was voted on and accepted unanimously. The main motion was
then voted on and passed unanimously.
2. Report on Changes in Catalog Copy Concerning Prerequisites
Jack High reported that the Committee had agreed on the following language concerning
course pre- and co-requisites for the next issue of the Catalog. (For the current
text, see Catalog (2002-03, p. 30.)
Course Prerequisites and Co-requisites
Course prerequisites or co-requisites state requirements for student entry into
courses and reflect necessary preparation for attempting the course. It is the
student’s responsibility to be aware of pre- and co-requisites as stated
in the catalog, and to have taken prerequisites recently enough to be of value.
The administrator of the academic unit in which the course is taught or the
instructor of the course may summarily drop students who have enrolled in a
course for which they have not met the prerequisites. Graduate course prerequisites
are normally met with a grade of B- or better; undergraduate course prerequisites
are normally met with a grade of C or better. Questions about pre- or co-requisites
should be addressed to the academic department or to the instructor of the course.
3. Report on Cross-listing of International Internships
Jim Metcalf reported that the Provost asked the Committee to study the feasibility
and propriety of offering Global Internships as a UNIV course. The course might
be modeled after CAS 485 or cross-listed as CAS 485/UNIV 485. The proposal for
cross-listing was intended to foster increased enrollment of students outside
of CAS and to facilitate participation of teaching faculty from outside of CAS.
The Senior Associate Dean of CAS saw no need to offer the course with a UNIV
prefix, as CAS 485 is currently open and available to students from all academic
units. Therefore, the Committee notes that the mutual agreement necessary for
cross-listing is not evident and proposes no action in this matter.
C. Facilities & Support Services & Library – Lorraine
Brown
No report.
D. Faculty Matters – Marty De Nys
1. Motion on Compensation for Summer School Labs
Background: In Spring, 2001 when the Faculty Senate prepared
its “Memorandum of Understanding” on the Summer Session, the rate
of compensation for laboratory instructors was not explicitly defined. At the
Faculty Senate meeting of May 9, 2001, the following motion
was passed:
Summer School Teaching Motion 5:
Rationale: At present there is no
uniform policy regarding summer school compensation for laboratory courses.
Moved that in the case of courses,
which carry noncredit laboratories, since there is no uniform, university-wide
summer
compensation policy, until such a policy is negotiated,
those full-time faculty teaching laboratory sections in the summer of
2001 will be paid at the rate of 10%.
Nevertheless, in the summers of 2001 and 2002, laboratory instructors were paid
at the rate of 6.7%.
History of Laboratory Compensation in Summer Session: In addition
to defying the Senate motion, the summer session administrators broke with longstanding
tradition when they changed laboratory compensation to 6.7%. When GMU began
offering summer session courses with laboratories in the 1970s, faculty teaching
lab sections were compensated at 10% in Biology, Chemistry, and Geology. In
Physics, a four-credit course typically includes not only three hours of lecture
and two or three hours of lab, but also a one-hour recitation section. At some
point, it was decided to compensate the lab at 6.7% per cent and the recitation
at 3.3%. Usually the same individual taught the laboratory and the recitation,
and was paid 10% in total.
In the 1980s, the Dean of Summer Session initiated a discussion of summer laboratory
compensation, and the science chairs negotiated an agreement in which full-time
faculty teaching laboratory sections were compensated at 9%. The rationale at
that time was that the lecture met ten hours per week and the laboratory met
for nine hours per week during summer session. This was a rather simplistic
way of looking at the problem, but it was nevertheless implemented.
When Daniele Struppa became Dean of CAS in 1997, he initiated a type of free-market
approach, with department chairs receiving dollar budgets. The amount any full-time
faculty could be paid for a given summer session was capped, but chairs were
free to pay lab instructors 10% as long as the amount was within the cap and
the department was within its dollar budget. Subsequently, the Faculty Senate
“Memorandum of Understanding” eliminated the dollar caps. Lab instructors
were paid as much as 10% through the summer of 2000. The move to pay lab instructors
6.7% was initiated for the summer of 2001, which led to the Faculty Senate resolution
quoted above. However, only faculty teaching laboratories in CAS were paid at
6.7%. In the College of Nursing and Health Sciences, full-faculty teaching 300-
and 400-level laboratory courses were paid 10%.
Rationale: The primary rationale given by summer session administrators
(and the former Associate Dean of CAS) for paying lab instructors 6.7% is that
parttime faculty are usually compensated at the rate of two didactic hours for
a lab section, as opposed to three didactic hours for a lecture section. It
is true that, although science students spend three hours in a laboratory, they
receive only one additional course credit. The result is that students in most
science courses earn four credits instead of the traditional three, and part-time
faculty are paid at the rate of two didactic hours on the matrix per laboratory
section. This new salary policy fails to recognize that laboratories do not
just happen. A full-time member of the faculty must provide leadership, planning,
troubleshooting, didactic content, and administrative oversight. Such efforts
are not required of part-time faculty or graduate assistants, and are not necessary
in lecture-only courses. Especially in the summer, laboratories must be planned
that can be set up, executed, and dismantled on a daily basis, while still bearing
some relationship to the lecture content of the course. Data analysis, writing,
and homework assignments must be graded and returned within 24 hours in most
cases. Prior to the summer session, a course coordinator must make sure all
supplies have been organized, computer labs reserved, field trips planned (including
van reservations), and any long-term experiments have been set up. In addition,
the summer laboratory manual must be prepared by the end of spring break. Compensating
a full-time faculty member who is responsible for the laboratories in a summer
session course at 6.7% completely ignores the time and effort it takes to organize
and execute fourteen different laboratories during a fiveweek period.
During the academic year, the administrative and organizational roles necessary
for smoothly functioning laboratories are recognized through course release.
In Biology courses, for example, each multi-section course has a “course
coordinator” who receives one-course of release time per semester. This
person supervises part-time faculty and teaching assistants and holds regular
staff meetings to discuss pedagogical issues and how to improve the laboratories.
In Psychology, a full-time faculty member who supervises teaching assistants
is also given a reduced teaching load during the academic year. In what appears
to be a glaring inconsistency, the Summer School recognizes this and pays Psychology
faculty who supervise teaching assistants 12.5% in the summer. Finally, it should
be noted that in at least two science departments, full-time faculty teaching
a laboratory section receive three, not two, didactic credits toward their teaching
load. A full teaching load is often a lecture section and two laboratory sections.
The following factors should be considered when determining how faculty teaching
labs should be paid during the summer session:
1) Is the laboratory prepared by a staff member, or does the faculty member
have to do the preparation? Does a staff member order supplies, or it is the
responsibility of the faculty?
2) Is there only one laboratory section, or are there other sections which require
supervision of teaching assistants or staff?
3) Are there field trips that require logistical arrangements and which require
knowledge of the local terrain or other specialized knowledge?
4) Do the laboratories require extensive data analysis or writing of laboratory
reports (to fulfill the Senate writing-across-the-curriculum requirement, for
example)?
5) What is the course level? Upper level and graduate courses become increasingly
complex and specialized, requiring full-time faculty involvement.
If any of the above conditions pertain, then the amount of work required to
teach a laboratory section is often as much—or more than—that required
to teach the lecture. A 6.7% compensation rate does not begin to fulfill the
spirit of the agreement the Faculty Senate concluded with regard to the Summer
Session. On the other hand, if a laboratory instructor is able to simply walk
into a laboratory which has been prepared by someone else, teach a laboratory
that requires no special expertise, and walk out again, with no supervisory
requirements and no special out-of-class grading, then perhaps this person should
be compensated at 6.7%. As was the case in the past, a department chair (or
the equivalent) who is familiar with the curriculum and already determines teaching
assignments is in the best position to determine the compensation rate. The
basic message is that not all laboratories and all courses are the same. Laboratories
that require extensive supervision, coordination, administration, or expertise,
should be compensated at a level above a one-rate-fits-all 6.7%
Therefore it is moved that: The compensation for full-time
faculty teaching laboratories in the summer session will be from 6.7% to 10%
of the academic year salary. The department chair or his/her equivalent will
determine the rate of compensation. This compensation rate will be based on
the course level and the amount of supervision, coordination, administration,
or other
efforts needed to maximize the academic content and smooth functioning of the
laboratory.
Guidelines:
1) A compensation rate of 6.7% per laboratory section will be for 100- and 200-
level courses in which the faculty has no involvement in the planning, administration,
or preparation of the laboratory.
2) A compensation rate of 9% per laboratory section will be for 100- and 200-
level courses in which the faculty member teaching the laboratory is also heavily
involved in the planning, administration, or preparation of the laboratory.
3) A compensation rate of 9% per laboratory section will be for 300- and 400-
level courses in which the faculty member has no involvement in the planning,
administration, or preparation of the laboratory.
4) A compensation rate of 10% per laboratory section will be for 300- and 400-
level courses in which the faculty member teaching the laboratory is also heavily
involved in the planning, administration, or preparation of the laboratory.
5) A compensation rate of 10% per laboratory section will be applied to all
faculty teaching graduate (500- level or above) laboratory sections.
6) If these compensation guidelines are not implemented in an academic unit,
the responsible person must provide an explanation in writing to the Faculty
Senate.
A friendly amendment to the guidelines was offered to substitute
“little or no involvement” for “no involvement” in Guidelines
#1 and #3. The friendly amendment was accepted.
A second friendly amendment was offered, seconded,
and accepted to change the motion to: The
compensation for full-time faculty teaching three-hour laboratories in the summer
session will be from 6.7% to 10% of the academic year salary. The department
chair or his/her equivalent will determine the rate of compensation. This compensation
rate will be based on the course level and the amount of supervision, coordination,
administration, or other efforts needed to maximize the academic content and
smooth functioning of the laboratory.
The motion, as amended, passed unanimously. The Secretary was
instructed to send the approved motion to the Summer Term Supervisor and the
Provost.
2. Motion on 2003 Salary Increases
The Faculty Matters Committee submitted the following motion:
WHEREAS, the George Mason University Faculty Handbook (Section
3.2) specifies that factors such as the prevailing rate on inflation and the
cost of living in the service region of the University are factors that the
University is to take into account in determining salary increases; and,
WHEREAS, cost of living increased 2.60% in 2001, and 2.36%
in 2002, and 3.57% between March, 2002, and March, 2003 in the Washington, DC/Baltimore
area (source: Bureau of Labor Statistics/Bureau of Economic Analysis); and,
WHEREAS, the Faculty Handbook has been approved by the Board
of Visitors as a legal document governing policies and procedures related to
faculty employment; and,
WHEREAS, faculty have received no salary increases since December,
2000, and,
WHEREAS, the proposed salary increase in Virginia is designated
for all Virginia state employees and is not specifically targeted to University
Faculty,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Faculty Senate strongly
urges that a minimum of 90% of all money available for salary increases at George
Mason University in 2003 be allocated so that faculty receive an equal percentage
increase, provided that one’s performance has been judged satisfactory
for the last three academic years.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that salary increases for faculty whose
performance has not been judged satisfactory for each of the last three academic
years reflect the proportion of satisfactory/unsatisfactory judgments.
The Secretary of the Senate is instructed, if this motion passes, to forward
the motion to the President of the University and the Provost.
A friendly amendment was offered, seconded, and accepted
that the word “faculty” be added in the first “Be It Resolved”
to read, “a minimum of 90% of all money available for faculty salary increases.”
There was much debate on the motion. Some Senators felt the motion was unfair
to those faculty who have “gone the extra mile,” working hard to
develop new courses and further their scholarship and publishing. Committee
members responded that they had considered various factors before concluding
that 90% of the money should be given in equal percentage raises, leaving only
10% for “catch up” and exceptional merit. If the faculty had received
cost-of-living raises over the last three years, then the Committee would have
recommended more of the money for merit raises. However, since no one has received
a raise in three years, and there is so little money to be divided up, the Committee
favored the position stated in its motion.
A substitute amendment was offered, asking that the raise be
given across the board, but half as a percentage and half as an equal sum. The
intent of this motion was to make the raises for all faculty more equal in absolute
terms. The substitute motion was voted on, and a division of the house was called
by the Chair due to the close voice vote. By hand count, there were 16 votes
for and 19 opposed. The substitute motion failed.
The original motion was voted on, and a division of the house was called by
the Chair due to the close voice vote. By hand count, there were 16 votes for
and 19 opposed. The original motion failed.
3. Resolution on the Effective Date of Salary Increases
The following resolutions were submitted by the Faculty Matters Committee:
BE IT RESOLVED that the George Mason University Faculty Senate
recommends that the Faculty Senate of Virginia examine the effective date of
salary increases for University Faculty in the Commonwealth, with the goal of
re-implementing a 1 September date.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that until the 1 September date is reimplemented,
reports of salary increases from Universities in the Commonwealth be reduced
by the proportion of the academic year for which those raises are not effective.
Without debate, both resolutions passed unanimously.
E. Organization & Operations – Phil Buchanan
No report.
V. New Business
A. Election of Faculty Senate Chair for AY2003-2004
Due to time restraints, the Chair called for a change in agenda to make sure
a Faculty Senate Chair was elected for the next academic year. Professor James
Bennett was nominated from the floor, and Chair Pro Tem Ariela Sofer took over.
A motion was made and seconded to close the nominations and
cast a unanimous ballot. James Bennett was unanimously elected
for the 2003-2004 term as Chair of the Faculty Senate. Dr. Bennett then returned
to Chair the reminder of the meeting.
F. Nominations – Rick Coffinberger
The Committee submitted a slate of nominees for the Task Force on Midterm Grading:
Carol Mattusch, Cliff Sutton, Tom Kiley, Susan Trencher, Robert Ehrlich, and
Connie Hylton. A motion was made and seconded to accept the
slate. It passed unanimously. The Provost announced that his
appointee for this committee is Stephen Greenfeld. Robert Ehrlich was instructed
by the Chair to convene the Task Force’s first meeting to elect a Chair
and begin work.
G. Ad Hoc Budget Committee – Rick Coffinberger
No report.
H. Senate Standing Committee Reports
1. Academic Policies
Submitted by: Esther Elstun, Chair
Committee Members: Esther Elstun, Jack High, Carol Kaffenberger,
Jim Metcalf, Suzanne Slayden.
The Senate’s Academic Policies Committee met regularly throughout the
academic year, and copies of the minutes of its meetings will be on file in
the Senate office (Mason D109) beginning May 19. The Committee completed work
on the following twelve items of business:
1. International dual degrees
2. Teacher/Course Evaluation Task Force recommendations
3. Attendance policy
4. Three-year academic calendar
5. Semester-hour limit for Extended Studies students
6. Annual review, “Academic Policies” section of the Catalog
7. C- grade issues
8. Residence requirement/policies concerning courses taken elsewhere
9. Latin nomenclature for graduation with honors
10. Student-proposed extension of drop and withdrawal periods
11. Minors program issues
12. Cross-listing of international internship courses
In creating the Academic Standards Task Force, the Senate directed that it make
progress reports at specified intervals to the Academic Policies Committee of
the Senate. Those reports have been received, and the Committee will continue
to interact with the Task Force until it makes its final report to the Senate
during the academic year 2003-04. “Graduation with distinction and [departmental]
recognition” is another item on which preliminary work was done this spring;
it will continue in Fall 2003. Finally, the Committee reports the referral of
two items of business which have not yet been addressed and will therefore be
carried over to next year: (1) recommendations from the Provost’s Task
Force on Academic Integrity; and (2) recommendations from the University Academic
Appeals Committee concerning academic standing and dismissal policies.
2. Facilities/Support Services/Library
Submitted by: Lorraine Brown, Chair
Committee Members: Lorraine Brown, Alok Berry Linda Monson,
Jean Moore, Stanley Zoltek .
The Facilities & Support Services & Library Committee began the year
with discussions of the Bookstore, parking, and space problems—all on-going
issues from the previous year. This academic year, O&O assigned to the Committee
the task of evaluating the policy of the Director of the Library reporting to
the Vice President for Technology rather than the Provost.
Currently, all but two of our SCHEV peer institutions’ libraries report
to the Provost. The Committee met at least monthly, and sometimes more, to garner
information on these assignments. Aware that other university administrative
entities were addressing the problems of the Bookstore, parking, and space,
the Committee focused on data concerning the current reporting procedures of
the Director of the Library. Our motion to the Faculty Senate in April speaks
to our conclusions. As a Committee we have gathered, read, and evaluated a body
of research which we urge the Senate to consider in any future deliberations
on this issue.
3. Faculty Matters
Submitted by: Marty De Nys, Chair
Committee Members: Marty De Nys, Bruce Manchester, Lisa Pawloski,
Larry Rockwood, Jim Sanford.
The following presents a summary of the activities of the Faculty Matters Committee
of the GMU Faculty Senate during the 2002-2003 academic year.
I. Matters Considered and Actions Taken by the Committee:
1. The Committee examined the issue of students enrolled in contract courses
that are added to existing GMU courses and brought a motion to the Senate that
faculty teaching such courses be informed of the addition of these students
on the first occasion on which faculty are assigned to or offered the course.
2. The Committee brought a motion to the Senate recommending that administrators
subject to the annual Faculty Evaluation of Administrators be asked to prepare
a summary of their individual activities and achievements during the evaluation
period, and that these activity reports be made available to faculty participating
in the evaluation process.
3. The Committee began and completed a radical revision of the instrument used
in the Faculty Evaluation of Administrators.
4. The Committee supervised the Faculty Evaluation of Administrators.
5. The Committee examined the policy of using 1 December as the effective date
for pay raises at the University.
6. The Committee examined the possibility of institutional contributions to
retirements funds based on summer school salaries.
7. The Committee reviewed and made recommendations on the policy concerning
“Procedures for Appointment and Reappointment of Term Faculty” produced
by the Office of the Provost and approved by the Board of Visitors.
8. The Committee examined and made recommendations to the Senate regarding items
referred to the Committee from the recommendations of the Honor Committee Task
Force (2001-2002) and the Academic Integrity Task Force (2000-2001).
9. The Committee considered the issue of compensation for teaching laboratory
sections in summer school and will bring a motion on the issue to the Senate
at the May meeting.
II. Matters Remaining for Consideration.
Items 5 and 6 in the list presented above need further consideration by the
Committee. In addition, the Committee needs to consider issues that have been
referred to it in connection with the following matters: severance packages
for faculty; faculty study leaves; and recommendations from the Effective Teaching
Committee concerning student evaluations of teachers and courses.
4. Nominations
Submitted by: Rick Coffinberger, Chair
Committee Members: Rick Coffinberger, Ho-Won Jeong, David Kuebrich,
Stephen Ruth, Ariela Sofer.
In late August of 2002 the Committee developed a slate of nominees for all standing
Senate and University Committees. This slate was presented at the September
meeting of the Senate. This is the major task of the Nominations Committee each
year. The Committee was also called upon several times throughout the year to
prepare slates of nominees for ad hoc committees and/or task forces,
as well as to fill standing committee vacancies as they occurred.
5. Organization & Operations
Submitted by: Phil Buchanan, Chair
Committee Members: Phillip Buchanan, Chair, Kevin Avruch, Estela
Blaisten-Barojas, Brack Brown, Hal Gortner
During the academic year the Committee met twice in face-to-face settings and
several other times virtually. The primary activity was referring recommendations
and other items to other Senate committees. In that regard, a total of twenty-three
requests for action were referred to the Committee from the university community.
Of those items, eight were referred to the Faculty Matters Committee, eleven
to the Academic Policies Committee, and three to Facilities Support Services
and Library Committee. In addition, the Committee proposed and had approved
by the Senate an amendment to the University Grievance Committee charge and
initiated the establishment of an ad hoc committee to review the Senate
Bylaws.
I. University Standing Committee Annual Reports
1. Committee on Communication with the BOV
Submitted by: Ariela Sofer, Chair
Committee Members: Ariela Sofer, Mary Meixell, Robert Nadeau,
Rich Rubenstein, Toni Travis.
The Committee met twice this year and communicated further via e-mail. We decided
to host an event highlighting faculty achievement for the BOV. Work is ongoing
in this regard.
2. Minority and Diversity Issues Committee
Submitted by: Molly Davis, Chair
Committee Members: Molly Davis, Ellen Fagenson-Eland, Claudia
Kilmer, J.E. Lin, Jim Metcalf.
The Minority and Diversity Committee desires to make a contribution toward making
George Mason a better place for all members of the community. It was recognized
that in order to make recommendations for needed change, the Committee would
have to engage in a fact-finding process to understand the perceptions of those
most crucial in informing any suggestions.
The Minority and Diversity Committee embarked on a process of identifying issues
that are currently critical to the Mason community and might have future implications.
The Committee reviewed the Equity Office’s annual 2002 Diversity Facts
report that describes the University community through statistics on ethnicity,
gender, and disability. The Committee is currently involved in reviewing the
2003 report to identify notable trends.
The Committee discussed ways in which it could obtain information from faculty
and students regarding their perception of George Mason as a community that
supports diversity. Upon learning that the Office of Minority Student Services
collects a great deal of data on students and their perceptions, we invited
Art King to speak to our committee but he had a scheduling conflict. We anticipate
inviting him again. In an effort to provide an opportunity for faculty to share
their perceptions, we sent an “all faculty” e-mail asking them to
share any issues or thoughts they had regarding diversity on our campus. Issues
were raised concerning the need to address gender as it impacts participation
and status in the University community. We received a letter from the African-American
Faculty, Administrators, and Staff campus organization, and a letter from a
female faculty member. These letters identified several concerns:
• Lack of mobility for African-American faculty in moving through the
faculty ranks.
• Lack of people of color in the administration of the University.
• The need for stronger mentorship for minority faculty.
As a part of the fact-finding process, a meeting was held with Earl Ingram,
Vice President of the Office of Equity. The Committee was interested in his
perceptions and the future plans for the office after his retirement. The meeting
was helpful, and we were referred to a recently published document written by
Mr. Ingram’s office describing the state of George Mason to date. We were
also provided a copy of the recommendations made by a special panel that reviewed
Mr. Ingram’s report. These documents will be reviewed and discussed to
determine an agenda for next year. Concerns have been raised about the recent
budget cuts and the implications for continuing George Mason’s progress
in attracting a diverse student population. It has been noted that the faculty
and higher-level administration are much less diverse than the student population.
In conclusion, the work of the Minority and Diversity Committee has been to
engage in fact finding. The Committee believes that there are core issues that
need to be addressed if the George Mason community is going to be able to continue
the progress that has been made. The Committee believes that the process of
seeking to understand key issues this year will result in a more strategic focus
during next year. Several issues bear further review and consideration:
• The special needs of the growing number of Asian students and faculty.
• The impact of recent budget cuts on the enrollment and support services
available to minority students and faculty.
• The changes in the articulation agreement between George Mason and Northern
Virginia Community College: Will these result in reduced numbers of low-income
and minority students?
• The impact of Mr. Earl Ingram’s retirement upon the Office of
Diversity and Equity.
• The lack of diversity among high-level University administrators.
Recommendations:
1. The Committee will meet to determine an agenda for next year based upon the
fact-finding process engaged in during this academic year.
2. The Committee should meet with the new Vice President of Diversity and Equity.
3. The Committee will continue to review reports and data on faculty, students,
and administrative staff to determine trends and issues of concern.
4. The Committee should consider the university-wide impact of decentralizing
diversity initiatives by encouraging the creation of departmental-level diversity
committees.
3. Nontraditional, Interdisciplinary, and Adult Learning
Committee
Submitted: Alok Berry, Chair
Committee Members: Alok Berry, Richard Entrikin, Tracie Good,
Robert Hawkes, James Kozlowski, Doug Mose.
This year the committee had no activity.
4. Salary Equity Study Committee
Submitted by: John Miller, Chair
Committee Members: John Miller, Rick Coffinberger, John Hysom,
Ho-Won Jeong, Elyse Lehyman.
Since there have been no raises given this year, the salary structure remains
virtually the same as it was when our committee last studied it. Therefore,
no further studies have been conducted and the Committee has nothing further
to report.
5. Technology Policy Committee
Submitted by: Stanley Zoltek, Chair
Committee Members: Stanley Zoltek (Chair), J.P. Auffret, Alok
Berry, Richard Carver, Nada Dabbagh, Maria Dworzecka, Andrew Finn.
We met for the first time for the fall semester on September 9. At the meeting
members discussed goals for the academic year and Stanley Zoltek was elected
chair. At our September 23 meeting we received a preliminary report from Dr.
Hughes on the projected impact of budget cuts on ITU services provided to faculty,
staff, and students.
On October 23, the Committee met with the ITU directors to review and make recommendations
on what services to eliminate or reduce. Additionally, the Committee pointed
out areas where support should not be cut since vital components of the University's
mission would be severely impacted. Dr. Hughes again met with the Committee
on November 13. The Committee recommended that Dr. Hughes ask the Deans and
Directors at their next meeting to survey their chairs and faculty to get additional
feedback so that privatization of ITU services will best reflect the needs of
the University as a whole.
At the December 4 meeting, Dr. Hughes reported on the planned decommissioning
of some “technology supported” classrooms when Academic IV opens.
At our January 22 meeting, Dr. Hughes reported that the Deans and Directors
have developed a plan for cost saving related to ITU support. Committee members
again expressed concern that white boards and projection screens are not being
properly placed to maximize teaching effectiveness in electronic classrooms.
It was reported that, unfortunately, similar misplacements have occurred in
buildings now under construction. Efforts are being made to remedy these misplacements
before the buildings open for classes. Also discussed was the lack of “true”
forwarding on the main GMU mail system and the increasing problem of SPAM. The
ITU mail group will soon be installing a new version of the mail system that
will support forwarding (without leaving a local copy that continues to take
up space). Future releases may include filtering that will remove SPAM. Also
discussed was GMU’s Enterprise Calendar, which can provide faculty and
staff web access to a highly flexible calendar system. The calendar is available
for all faculty who are interested in using it, however, not enough “seats”
are available to provide calendaring for all staff and students.
Our next meeting was on February 12. Dr. Hughes reviewed security issues related
to computing. The need for a dynamic list of web servers and those who administrate
them was pointed out. Providing some degree of security requires, at the least,
knowledge of who can create accounts, provide web space, email accounts, etc.
Next, Dr. Hughes provided a thorough review of the new Banner program including
how and why it was selected and current development issues. She expressed concern
that some view the system as more “problem” than “solution.”
The Committee suggested that Dr. Hughes make a presentation to the Senate on
the need for Banner, its successes and what promises it holds for integrating
information in ways that will expedite our work. (She will be giving her presentation
at the May 7th Senate meeting.) It was also noted that Governor Warner has instructed
Virginia universities presidents to develop “system-wide” computing
solutions. While this can bring about cost savings, committee members expressed
concern that a “one size fits all” approach might not suit our needs.
The final meeting of the committee will be at noon on May 7 in J.C., room 244.
7. Writing Across the Curriculum Committee
Submitted by: Stanley Zoltek, Chair
Committee Members: Stanley Zoltek, Susan Durham, Priscilla
Regan, David Rine, Beth Schneider, Karen Studd.
Ex-Officio members: Terry Zawacki, David Beach, Ruth Fischer,
Kevin Simons.
This academic year the WAC committee has met six times and will hold its year-end
meeting on April 28. Committee activities included:
* Reviewing WAC related responses on the Survey of Graduating Students—we
believe that more data are needed and the Office of Institutional Analysis has
agreed to target writing in its next survey.
* Reviewing enrollment levels in courses designated as satisfying the Senate-mandated
writing-intensive requirement.
* Reviewing how IT&E students meet the Senate-mandated writing-intensive
requirement.
* Contacting the Department of Health Fitness & Recreation Resources to
notify them that current University catalog copy didn't properly detail how
its students are to meet the Senate-mandated writing-intensive requirement.
* Planning a WAC “Recognition and Thank You Reception”—the
School of Nursing will be highlighted for its contributions to student writing.
The Committee agreed that the reception should be held in Fall 2003 since it
would blend nicely with other upcoming events.
* Discussing workshops for WI faculty in the context of:
1) Is there a problem they are trying to solve?
2) If so, how do we determine what the “problem” is? (review of
syllabi perhaps?)
3) If we do want to plan a series of workshops, we will need to find funding.
* Beginning preliminary discussions on creating the position of “WAC Fellow,”
similar to GMU’s “Fenwick Fellow.”
During the 2003-2004 academic year the committee plans to:
1) Review syllabi for all courses that satisfy the Senate-mandated writing requirement;
2) Sponsor and organize the WAC “Recognition and Thank You Reception”;
3) Continue examining the need for workshops for WI faculty; and
4) Continue discussions on creating the position of “WAC Fellow.”
8. The Johnson Center Policy Board
Submitted by: Larry Rockwood, Faculty Senate Representative
This is the first year in which a member of the Senate actively participated
in the meetings of the Johnson Center Policy Board. The Board, chaired by Karen
Rosenblum (Vice Present, University Life), oversees and evaluates space use
in the Johnson Center. Members of the Board include John Spaldo (Operations
Director of the Johnson Center), John Gresock (Director of Space and Facilities
Management), Ruth Kifer (Associate University Librarian), Nancy Murphy (University
Life), Sally Mohle (Business Manager, Johnson Center), Carol Bresnahan (College
of Visual and Performing Arts), Mary-Litton Fowler (student
representative), Rick Davis (Associate Dean, Theater), Karla Posselt (University
Services), Debi Siler and Larry Rockwood (Faculty Senate), Alissa Karton (Johnson
Center and University Life Program Manager), Dee Holisky (Associate Dean, CAS),
and Elizabeth Wright (Library).
The Board met on the following dates: September 5, October 3, November 7, and
December 5, 2002, and January 9 and February 6, 2003. The major activity of
the Board during the academic year was the Johnson Center Space Evaluation project.
On October 7, Karen Rosenblum sent a memo to all tenants of the Johnson Center
requesting a response to five questions. These responses were due by January
17, 2003. A Review Committee is evaluating these responses and their report
is expected by early May.
The Board also sent out an announcement requesting proposals for alternative
uses for space on the ground floor known as the “PIX TV Lounge.”
These proposals are still being evaluated.
The Johnson Center Policy Board has also spent large chunks of time trying to
mediate a dispute involving space originally assigned as a “Science Gallery.”
Without consulting the Board, the Admissions Office has occupied this space.
The resolution is pending. The Board has also heard presentations on the Mason
Media Lab and the Bistro.
V. New Business
B. Motion to create a Task Force on University Privacy Policy
Robert Nadeau, Peter Black, Lorraine Brown, Michael Ferri, Priscilla Regan,
Joe Scimecca, Susan Trencher, and Stanley Zoltek submitted the following motion:
Background: The Faculty Senate passed the following motion
in Fall 2001:
The “No Expectation of Privacy” provisions
in the “Use of Internet and Electronic Communications Systems” by
all
employees in the Commonwealth of Virginia issued by
the Department of Human Resource Management state: “No user
should have any expectation of privacy in any message,
file, image, or data created, sent, retrieved or received by the use
of the Commonwealth’s equipment or access. Agencies
have a right to monitor any and all aspects of their computer
systems including, but not limited to, sites, instant
message systems, chat groups, or news groups visited by agency users,
material downloaded or uploaded by agency users, and
e-mail sent or received by agency users. Such monitoring may
occur at any time, without notice, and without the
user’s permission.”
WHEREAS said provisions do not recognize
that electronic communications in public colleges and universities between
students and faculty and/or professional staff in the
Commonwealth are different in kind from those in state agencies;
WHEREAS said provisions could undermine
reasonable expectations of privacy in student communications with faculty
and professional staff that are essential to the teaching
and learning process in public colleges and universities;
WHEREAS said provisions are inconsistent
with the mission and purpose of higher education and thereby compromise the
vital interests of the Commonwealth;
BE IT ENACTED by the General Assembly of
Virginia: That electronic communications involving the students, faculty
and/or professional staff of those public colleges
and universities in the Commonwealth that have previously adopted
acceptable use of computing policies approved by the
Attorney General are an exception to the “No Privacy
Expectations”provisions in the “Use of
Internet and Electronic Communications Systems” policy (Policy # 1.75)
issued by
the Department of Human Resource Management.
In spite of attempts by members of the Faculty Senate to convince delegates
from Northern Virginia to introduce the bill in the General Assembly, this did
not occur, and Policy # 1.75 issued by Department of Human Resource Management
pursuant to the authority provided in Chapter 10, Title 2.1 of the Code of Virginia
remains in force.
Since agencies of federal and state governments are now more actively engaged
in electronic surveillance, search, and seizure activities, this raises new
concerns about rights to privacy, freedom of expression, and protection of intellectual
property in public colleges and universities in the State of Virginia. There
are, of course, instances in which unlawful uses of computers and telecommunications
equipment by state employees may require outside intervention and legal action.
And GMU University Administrative Policy Number 60, known as the Responsible
Use of Computing Policy (RUC), details procedures that allow these unlawful
uses to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
This University Policy, which was approved by the Attorney General of the Commonwealth
of Virginia, has functioned well and seems to have provided thus far adequate
protections for rights of privacy and freedom of expression for our students
and faculty. In our present situation, however, it is prudent to review this
policy and determine if new policy guidelines, rules, and procedures are required.
There is also a situation in which representatives of GMU should coordinate
their efforts in this area with those of other state colleges and universities
and work with the Faculty Senate of Virginia to convince representatives to
the General Assembly to pass a bill that recognizes that adequate protections
to rights to privacy in the use of state-owned computers and telecommunications
equipment by students and faculty in institutions of higher learning must be
a primary concern.
Resolution to Create a Senate Task Force
BE IT RESOLVED that the Faculty Senate of GMU create a Task
Force on University Privacy Policy regarding the use of state-owned computers
and telecommunications equipment by students and faculty. Four members will
be elected by the Faculty Senate, and one will be the appointed by the Provost.
The Task Force will be charged with the following tasks:
1) Conduct a thorough review of the GMU Administrative Policy Number 60, the
Responsible Use of Computing Policy, and recommend, if necessary, changes in
this policy;
2) Work with representatives of other public colleges and universities and with
the Faculty Senate of Virginia to introduce a bill in the General Assembly that
would provide adequate privacy protections in the use of state-owned computers
and telecommunication equipment by students and faculty in the legitimate pursuit
of knowledge at public institutions in the Commonwealth of Virginia; and
3) Make a reasonable assessment of the alleged violations of rights to privacy
and freedom of expression in the use of computer-based technologies at American
colleges and universities and the manner in which these institutions have responded
to the alleged violations, and report these findings to a meeting of the Faculty
Senate.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Faculty Senate requests that
the Vice President of Information Technology appoint a representative to meet
with the Task Force on a regular basis and that the Associate Vice President
of Legal Affairs agree to meet with the Task Force when the members feel that
his advice and counsel may be needed.
Both resolutions passed unanimously.
C. Banner System Report – Joy Hughes
Joy Hughes was invited back to the Faculty Senate’s September meeting
to give a more complete report on the Banner System and its implementation.
Dr. Hughes noted that Banner was chosen because it could handle a school the
size of GMU and was in the university’s price range. There were only five
vendors and three were too expensive to be considered and one could only handle
small schools. The Banner System is used by thousands of schools and is more
flexible than the old system since it is Oracle-based.
VI. Adjournment
A motion to adjourn was requested due to time constraints,
and it was so moved and seconded. The meeting adjourned at
4:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
David Kuebrich
Secretary, Faculty Senate