George Mason University
Minutes of the Faculty Senate
April 7, 2004
Senators Present: K. Avruch, J. Bennett, R. Berroa, D. Boehm-Davis,
B. Brown, L. Brown, P. Buchanan, R. Carver, R. Coffinberger, M. DeNys, C. Douglas,
E. Elstun, M. Ferri, H. Gortner, M. Houck, K. Johnsen-Neshati, C. Kaffenberger,
D. Kuebrich, J. Mahler, B. Manchester, L. Monson, A. Motro, P. Moyer-Packenham,
D. Polsby, P. Regan, L. Rockwood, E. Roman-Mendoza, J. Sanford, J. Scimecca,
F. Shahrokhi, R. Smith, P. Stearns, C. Sutton, J. Tangney, S. Trencher, S. Zoltek.
Senators Absent: A. Berry, P. Black, S. Cobb, M. Deshmukh,
J. Gorrell, M. Grady, L. Griffiths, K. Haynes, M. Kafatos, R. Klimoski, J. Kozlowski,
C. Lerner, K. McCrohan, A. Merten, J. Metcalf, R. Nadeau, L. Pawloski, W. Reeder,
S. Ruth, S. Slayden, C. Sluzki, D. Struppa, E. Sturtevant, P. Wiest, B. Willis,
J. Zenelis.
Liaisons Present: L. Fauteux (Staff Senate).
Guests Present: R. Ailinger, N. Dickerson, D. Faxon, B. Fleming,
R. Herron, C. Hill, S. Jones, E. Lehman.
I. Call to Order
Chair Jim Bennett called the meeting to order at 3:03 p.m.
II. Approval of Minutes
The minutes of March 24, 2004 were approved as distributed.
III. Announcements
A. Death of Chris Herlihy, wife of Vice President Reid Herlihy
The Chair instructed the Secretary of the Senate to send a letter of condolence
to Vice President Herlihy on behalf of the Faculty Senate. It was noted that
Mrs. Herlihy had been a faculty member in the Psychology Department a number
of years ago, and the Psychology Department also expressed their condolences
at Mrs. Herlihy’s passing.
B. Faculty Senate’s 30th Anniversary (1974-2004)
This month marks the 30th anniversary of George Mason University’s Faculty Senate.
The Chair thanked the Provost for providing two beautiful cakes and beverages
in celebration of the anniversary.
C. AAUP/Faculty Senate Reception for Rector Meese (May 4)
The AAUP and the Faculty Senate will be hosting a reception for Rector Meese
on May 4, 2004, at 4:00 p.m. in the Mason Hall Atrium. Rector Meese will finish
his term as Rector of the University at the end of this academic year. The Chair
noted that he was the first Rector to address the Faculty Senate, and was of
great assistance in getting a faculty representative on the BOV’s Faculty &
Academic Standards Committee.
D. President Merten’s Address to the Faculty Senate
Unfortunately, President Merten was called out of town to meet with key donors
and, therefore, was unable to address the Faculty Senate as planned.
IV. Old Business
There was no old business.
V. Senate Committee Reports and Action Items
A. Executive Committee – Jim Bennett
No report.
B. Academic Policies – Esther Elstun
The Committee will meet on Wednesday, April 14th, at 11:00 a.m. in D109 Mason
Hall to discuss the Student Senate’s resolution urging the Faculty senate to
adopt a new policy that will allow students to drop courses later in the semester.
The
Committee has received over fifty e-mails from faculty on this issue.
C. Budget & Resources – Rick Coffinberger
1. Proposed Charge for Salary Equity Study Committee
The Committee submitted the following motion to change the University Salary
Equity Study Committee’s charge (revision in bold):
"To systematically study annually the distribution of faculty salaries at all
ranks as identified in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of the Faculty Handbook;
to systematically study salaries by gender, by race/ethnic divisions, and by
local academic unit; to examine frequencies of men/women and of members of different
race/ethnic categories within LAUs; and additionally to investigate
the potential for individual equity measures. The committee shall monitor
the establishment and maintenance of a database of faculty compensation including
all categories and ranks of faculty, and shall report its aggregate findings
on salary and on the status of the database annually to the Faculty Senate and
provide specific data to the Equity Office, the Provost, Deans and Directors,
and to other LAU administrators."
It was questioned as to whether this was a small change or actually a large
one. Elyse Lehman, the Chair of the Salary Equity Study Committee, explained
that the Committee has been asked to investigate equity situations for individual
faculty members, but cannot not do so because 1) its charge allows only broad
review of the University’s equity policy, 2) it would entail a tremendous amount
of time and resources, and 3) such investigations are the responsibility of
the Provost and Equity offices.
Professor Lehman also explained that the wording “investigate the potential”
was purposely vague because the Committee would only review department salary
data for “outliers,” and then pass the data on to the Provost’s Office to make
further determinations regarding the case. She clarified that the reviews would
be for outliers within departments, not between units, since salary differences
between units are normal at any university.
The motion passed with a divided vote.
2. Report on Faculty Salaries for the Period 2000-2004
An e-mail was sent to all faculty members yesterday informing them that the
Faculty Senate has compiled salary reports for Administrative, Research, 9-month
Instructional, and 12-month Instructional Faculty. In the 24-hour period following
the announcement, he Faculty Senate office received over 350 requests for these
reports, so the faculty was asked to be patient while waiting to receive them.
It was asked why the reports were not just posted on the Faculty Senate website,
which would have been easier. Rick Coffinberger reminded the Senators that,
in the resolution they passed concerning this matter, the salary reports were
to be
placed on the website with access restricted to people with GMU “G” and pin
numbers. However, Joy Hughes’ office and the ITU Department said they could
not assist the Senate in setting up such a restricted page because priority
was being given to implementation of the Banner system.
Another Senator asked if the salary data are being protected when sent by e-mail.
Rick Coffinberger responded that the only safeguards are that the e-mail announcement
was only addressed to faculty, and all of the reports have been sent to GMU
e-mail addresses. Because of the Freedom of Information Act, however, the Faculty
Senate office must give out the information to anyone who asks.
Professor Coffinberger also reported that although the Commonwealth did not
provide funding for faculty salary increments for the fiscal years 2001, 2002,
and 2003, a review of the University’s salary data reveals that 171 Instructional
Faculty (20%) and 185 Administrative Faculty (39%) received raises during that
time period. It was pointed out that a large portion of Instructional Faculty
raises were the result of promotion and tenure. It was also noted that 180 (20%)
of GMU’s 9-month Instructional Faculty currently earn less than $40,000
per academic year, which is below the starting salaries for public school teachers
with graduate degrees in the local school systems.
3. University Budget Committee
The Committee member has attended each of the monthly University Budget Committee
meetings. In response to a question, the Committee agreed to determine the best
way to share the information they learn from these meetings with the Senate.
D. Faculty Matters – Marty De Nys
1. Report on Accusations of Scientific Misconduct
On behalf of the Committee, Jim Sanford submitted the following report to the
Senate:
Summary of GMU’s Policies on Scientific Misconduct
GMU has approved multiple and occasionally contradictory policies regarding
scientific misconduct, including the Statement of Professional Ethics and Statement
on Plagiarism of the AAUP (Appendix C of the Faculty Handbook), the
Grievance Policy from the Faculty Handbook (Section 2.12.2), and the
Policy on Scientific Misconduct on the Office of Sponsored Programs (OSP) Website
approved by the Board of Visitors, March, 1990.
The AAUP statement (www.gmu.edu/facstaff/handbook/ac.html) suggests general
policy concerning the necessity for every faculty member to be scrupulous in
his or her work, for incidences of suspected plagiarism to be brought to light,
and for each university and professional society to adopt clear guidelines regarding
plagiarism. It includes the statement, “In the academic profession the individual
institution of higher learning…should normally handle questions concerning propriety
of conduct within its own framework by reference to a faculty group.”
Section 2.12.2 of the Faculty Handbook (www.gmu.edu/facstaff/handbook/c2/s12.html)
includes “(iii) charges of
unprofessional or unethical conduct brought by one faculty member against another”
as one category of grievance. The Handbook is otherwise silent on policies
and procedures related to scientific misconduct. If treated as a grievance and
if the “petitioner [makes] a prima facie case to the [local academic unit
grievance] committee,” the committee reports to the faculty of the college,
school, or institute who then formally vote on the recommendation.
The OSP Policy on Scientific Misconduct (www.gmu.edu/pubs/osp/scimis.html) borrows
heavily from reports of the Executive Council of the Association of American
Medical Colleges and the Association of American Universities, National Association
of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges and Council of Graduate Schools.
The policy is somewhat ambivalent about whether it concerns “research fraud”
or the more general term “scientific misconduct.” The policy is entitled “Policy
on Scientific Misconduct,” but the main body of the policy deals with “research
fraud,” called a “form of scientific misconduct involving deception.” To quote
from the website, research fraud “includes:
1. Falsification of Data – Ranging from fabrication to
deceptively selective reporting, including the purposeful omission of conflicting
data with the intent to falsify results.
2. Plagiarism – Representation of another’s work
as one’s own.
3. Misappropriation of Others’ Ideas – The unauthorized
use of privileged information (such as violation of confidentiality in peer
review), however obtained.”
Later in the document, procedures described in the sections of the OSP Policy
regarding the reporting, confidentiality, and inquiry processes use only the
term “research fraud.” “Scientific misconduct” is not
included. However, in the section entitled “Findings,” the OSP Policy
states that “Investigations into allegations of fraud may result in various
outcomes including:
1. a finding of fraud,
2. a findings [sic] of serious scientific misconduct,
3. a finding that no culpable conduct was committed.”
Thus, while the investigative aspects of the policy only refer to “research
fraud,” the outcomes refer to the more general “scientific misconduct.”
Furthermore, the adjective “serious” did not appear in previous
sections of the policy statement and
is not defined in the text. The very next section of the OSP Policy (the Disposition
section) states, “If the Investigative Committee concludes that fraud
or scientific misconduct has taken place, the Provost or his/her designee….”
Note that the word “serious” has now disappeared and that fraud
and scientific misconduct are grouped together. Thus, the OSP Policy is inconsistent
regarding whether it encompasses all types of scientific misconduct or only
research fraud, and it is unclear about what constitutes “serious”
misconduct.
Nevertheless, the Faculty Matters Committee has identified a number of ways
in which a modified OSP Policy is superior to that described in Section 2.12.2
of the Faculty Handbook. First, it includes greater detail regarding
what constitutes scientific misconduct. Second, it provides that the accuser
must be identified to the accused “at least 14 days prior to the hearing.”
Third, it specifies that “the confidentiality of the accused and the informant(s)
must be maintained to the maximum extent possible.” Clearly, a grievance
procedure, since the committee reports to the entire faculty of the college,
school, or institute, is anything but confidential. Fourth, it includes provisions
to deal with frivolous accusations.
Jim Sanford stated that the Committee, after reviewing these three policies
and determining that the OSP was the best overall, recommends that this issue
be considered the next time the Faculty Handbook is reviewed.
Three questions were raised: Does the OSP policy have jurisdiction over all
scientific misconduct, or only over incidents involved in research? Does each
Unit’s Handbook cover this issue adequately? Who will do the “wordsmithing”
for the policy when the Faculty Handbook is revised? It was suggested that the
policy, when written, be fairly general in order to cover all possibilities.
A few Senators noted the importance of the AAUP’s focus on the faculty
“keeping their own house in order” and encouraged retaining the
idea of peer judgment in these cases. It was agreed that there is a need for
creating one coherent university-wide policy that clearly outlines the procedures
and due process in cases of scientific misconduct.
2. Faculty Evaluation of Administrators
Today is the due date for the return of the surveys for the Faculty Evaluation
of Administrators. Senators were again urged to fill out and return their forms
and to encourage other faculty members to do the same. The return rate so far
is at a
very disappointing 21%, a much lower return than for this time last year. The
Committee and the Provost expressed deep concern that fears that have been expressed
by some faculty members that the surveys might not be fully confidential and
that respondents might be subject to retribution. The Office of Institutional
Assessment asked that basic demographic questions (rank and gender) be included
in this year’s survey; however, since that information is no longer being
used in the analysis, the Committee is willing to delete those questions next
year. Marty De Nys emphasized that the Committee would prefer that respondents
simply leave these two questions blank rather not responding at all. It was
suggested that the existence of this fear itself might be considered as a type
of negative judgment some faculty are making of the Administration.
E. Nominations – Lorraine Brown
The Committee submitted the nomination of Lorraine Brown as the faculty representative
to the Staff Compensation Committee. The nomination was unanimously
approved.
F. Organization & Operations – Phillip Buchanan
Letters have been sent to the Deans and Directors concerning Senate seat allocation
for the 2004-2005 academic year. The schools need to submit the names of their
2004-2005 Senators to the Faculty Senate office by May 1, 2004.
V. New Business
There was no new business.
VI. Remarks for the Good of the General Faculty
Stanley Zoltek announced that three vendors who have submitted bids to supply
spam filters for the University’s servers will be returning with more
information.
Faculty members were encouraged to attend the open meetings with the candidates
for the position of Vice President for University Life.
VIII. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 3:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
David Kuebrich
Secretary, Faculty Senate