GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY
MINUTES OF
THE FACULTY SENATE
MARCH 23, 2005
Senators present: Kevin Avruch, Jim Bennett, Alok Berry, Lorraine Brown, Phillip Buchanan, Richard Carver, Rick Coffinberger, Charlene Douglas, Bob Ehrlich, Esther Elstun, Michael Ferri, Kristin Johnsen-Neshati, Dan Joyce, Carol Kaffenberger, Jim Kozlowski, Jim Metcalf, Linda Monson, Patricia Moyer-Packenham, Robert Nadeau, Peter Pober, Jane Razeghi, Priscilla Regan, Larry Rockwood, James Sanford, Suzanne Slayden, Christine Smith, Cliff Sutton, June Tangney, Tojo Thatchenkery, Susan Trencher, Iosif Vaisman, Phil Wiest, Stanley Zoltek.
Senators absent:
Rei Berroa, Michelle Boardman, Deborah Boehm-Davis, Russ Brayley, Sara
Cobb, Warren Decker, Martin De Nys, Jeff Gorrell, Lloyd Griffiths, Kingsley
Haynes, Mark Houck, Bruce Johnsen, Menas Kafatos, Rich Klimoski, David
Kuebrich, Julie Mahler, Jane McDonald, Alan Merten, Jean Moore, Ami Motro,
Daniel Polsby, William Reeder, Esperanza Roman-Mendoza, Joseph Scimecca, Peter
Stearns, Daniele Struppa, Shirley Travis, John Zenelis.
Guests present: Dan Faxon (CCS/AES), Susan Jones (Registrar), Bill Sutton (ECE), Mike Terry (Library).
I. Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 3:03 p.m.
II. Approval of Minutes: The minutes of February 16, 2005 and March 9, 2005 were approved as distributed.
Lorraine Brown will take the minutes on behalf of Secretary David Kuebrich who is unable to attend today.
A motion to establish a Senate Task Force to prepare for the next Phi Beta Kappa application cycle was unanimously passed at our meeting on February 16, 2005. Cathy Rudder and Marion Deshmukh have recommended that the Task Force wait until Fall 2006 to begin its work as the application process works on a three-year cycle. The Board of Visitors has also expressed interest in facilitating a future application for a Phi Beta Kappa chapter and will discuss this with President Merten.
|
The Executive Committee moves that Section 2.4 of the 1994 Faculty Handbook be amended as
follows:
In response to a question raised
regarding procedures for amending the Faculty Handbook, Esther Elstun
explained that amendments may be proposed by the three signatories to the Handbook: the Board of Visitors, the Faculty Senate
and the central administration. All
amendments require the formal approval of the Board. The motion was passed
unanimously. The chair directed the
Secretary of the Senate to send copies of the motion to each member of the
Board of Visitors, President Merten, and Provost Stearns. B.
Academic Policies – Cliff Sutton Cliff
explained that the AP Committee had three related motions, all of which
followed from some changes adopted by the Senate in recent years. Several years ago the Senate passed some
motions to clarify the distinctions between minors, concentrations, and
undergraduate certificates, and specifically, created a policy that
stipulates that each minor be satisfied with at least eight credits which are
not used to satisfy the requirements for a major or another minor. (Such credits are often referred to as
“unique” credits.) Given that policy, it was posible that a student would be
prevented in majoring in A and minoring in B, but it would
still be okay, with the same set of coursework, to earn a double major in A
and B, because currently there are no restrictions on how much overlap
can occur in satisfying the requirements for two majors in a double
major. This is the type of
inconsistency which today’s motions from the AP Committee address. In addition to dealing with minors and
double majors, the motions create a unique credit requirement for an
undergraduate certificate. First
motion: Beginning with the Fall 2006
semester, the requirement for a double major is changed from “A student who
desires to graduate with a BA degree or BS degree in two or more subjects
must meet departmental requirements for the major in each field” (which
appears on p. 39 of the 2004-2005 Catalog)
to “A student who desires to graduate with a BA degree in two or more
subjects or a BS degree in two or more subjects must meet departmental
requirements for the major in each field.
For each major, at least 18 credits used to fulfill its requirements
cannot be used to fulfill the requirements of another major, a minor, or an
undergraduate certificate.” Cliff
noted that 18 credit hours reflected a good balance: the University of
Virginia has the same rule; the College of William and Mary allows only 6
overlapping credits. A senator
questioned what was objectionable about an individual student’s transcript
having many notations? Cliff
responded that there are so many programs with the potential to pile up
notations that the minor should constitute an extra area of study. It may also serve a protective benefit by
avoiding duplicate programs. Other
senators spoke in favor of the motion, stating that it was fine to have
double or even triple minors but that they should have meaning. As
transcripts are viewed by prospective employers and other universities, such
overlapping may not reflect well upon the requirements of individual
programs. The motion was passed
by voice vote. Second motion: Beginning with the Fall 2006 semester, the
stipulation concerning unique credits for a minor is changed from “Minors
normally require between 15 and 21 credits of study, at least 8 of which must
be applied only to that minor and may not be used to fulfill requirements of
the student’s major, concentration, or another minor” (which appears on p. 39
of the 2004-2005 Catalog) to
“Minors normally require between 15 and 21 credits of study, at least 8 of
which must be applied only to that minor and may not be used to fulfill
requirements of the student’s major, concentration, an undergraduate
certificate, or another minor.” Concern was expressed that setting aside 15 credit
hours would put some certification programs (for example, the certification
for coaching) in the Department of Health, Fitness and Recreation Resources
at a distinct disadvantage with other institutions. Sports associations determine the requirements. The motion was
passed with a division of the house. Third motion: Beginning with the Fall 2006 semester, it is required that for
each undergraduate certificate, at least fifteen credits used to fulfill its
requirements cannot be used to fulfill the requirements of a major, a minor,
or another undergraduate certificate.
Again it was asked whether GMU requirements should
be higher than those imposed by professional associations. Susan Jones, Registrar noted that we do
not have a lot of undergraduate certificate programs although the procedure
is similar to a minor. There are
separate rules for graduate certificates.
The motion was passed with a
division of the house. C.
Budget and Resources – Rick Coffinberger: No report this month. D.
Faculty Matters – Jim Sanford 1. Faculty
Evaluation of Administrators surveys:
So far 134 surveys have been returned which constitutes a 14% response
rate. Of those returned, 14% have no
signatures on the envelope. Jim
encouraged senators to remind faculty to complete the survey, sign and return
the envelopes. A second announcement
will go out with a deadline date for return of the surveys. If anyone has lost her/his copy, contact
the Senate Office for another. In a
general discussion, it was noted that the Provost is reluctant to use the
surveys as input for evaluations unless there is a high percentage of faculty
participation. He views a lack of
participation as indicative of a general level of satisfaction. Another faculty member noted that research
in organizational commitment suggests higher rates of participation reflect
higher levels of satisfaction. 2. The
report on the Office of Sponsored Programs is in draft form. 3. It does
not appear that free access to the field house for spouses will happen
because the field house is funded by student fees and Patriot Club
funds. Some other institutions have
limited access. E.
Nominations – Lorraine Brown A motion was made and seconded to vote
on the following slate of nominations to the Senate Task Force to Redefine
the University Resolution to Protect Civil Liberties: David Armor, Rick Coffinberger, Charlene
Douglas, Joe Scimecca, Tojo Thatchenkery.
No further nominations were made from the floor. The motion was
passed unanimously. F.
Organization and Operations – Michael Ferri The Organization and Operations Committee presented the allocations for the Faculty Senate for the 2005-2006 academic year. Mike thanked Linda Schwartzstein and Yan Ko from IRR who compiled the information with the help of Phil Buchanan. Letters will be sent to deans and directors informing them of their schools’ allocations and the terms of individual senators from their respective schools. In response to a question raised, Mike will inquire how the proposed reorganization of CAS and SCS may impact the allocation.
VI.
New Business – Faculty Senate Committee on Privacy: Resolution on
Privacy in the Use of Computing – Robert Nadeau In presenting the following motion, similar
language will also be incorporated into the Use of Computing Standards. The purpose of the motion is to let users
of the GMU computer system know that all information in the system can be
accessed by authorities. The
suggestion was made to place a warning statement on the computer screen used
by the GMU community so that it would appear whenever individuals logged into
their email accounts. The Registrar
also noted that while we require students to use their email accounts, e.g.,
sending them important information about graduation; their office does not
send personally identifiable information such as grades without its being
encrypted. The Technology Policy
Committee is also very supportive of the idea of placing a statement on the
log-in screen but inquired who would be responsible for updating information
as things change. Faculty Senate Motion on the Use of Computing: Whereas the “No Privacy Expectations” provisions in the “Use of Internet and Electronics Communications” issued by the Department of Human Resources of the Commonwealth of Virginia, which essentially state that information resident on state-owned computers, storage devices, and electronic communications systems at George Mason University can be accessed at any time for any purpose by agencies of the state government, remain in force; Whereas the only federal law that deals with the legal right to privacy in the use of such computers, storage devices, and electronic communications systems, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, allows employers to monitor and access email and other communications for business purposes providing that the employee has been notified that such monitoring is in process; Whereas the USA PATRIOT Act (Public Law 107-156) allows expanded access by law enforcement officials to medical, financial, and academic records of faculty and students without meaningful oversight or judicial review, probable cause, and notification of the person whose records are being searched; Whereas proposed amendments to this Act would remove virtually all of the existing protections of privacy; Be It Resolved: The Faculty Senate approves the following statement on privacy in the use of state-owned computers, storage devices, and electronic communications systems at GMU: Be It Further Resolved: This statement, if approved by the Senate, will be distributed by email and in hard copy if necessary to all faculty and students at GMU as soon as possible: The Faculty Senate at GMU has concluded that it is prudent to inform all faculty and students that existing state and federal laws do not provide adequate protections for rights to privacy in the use of state-owned computers, storage devices, and electronic communications systems. Those who are concerned that these rights might be violated should seriously consider storing sensitive information on privately owned personal computers and external storage devices and using telecommunications systems which are not owned by the Commonwealth of Virginia for all personal or private communications, including email messages. The motion passed. VII. Remarks for the Good of the General Faculty Jim Bennett thanked the Registrar for her assistance in providing statistics on Force Ad slips for Fall 2003 and Fall 2004 as well as for students enrolled by school and department in Independent Study Sections/Internships/Theses and Dissertations from Fall 2001 through Summer 2004. The report “GMU Faculty as Teachers” was distributed yesterday by email. At a recent meeting of the Board of Visitors, a concern was raised that at least in one situation, faculty are being hired, then given academic rank and tenure without any review of their academic credentials by peer faculty. A general discussion about the status of the proposed reorganization of the College of Arts and Sciences and the School of Computational Sciences took place. Not all science departments are enthusiastic about this proposal. The College of Arts and Sciences Council passed a resolution expressing regret that the Provost had not asked for input and commended the two committees for the work they had done thus far. It was further noted that the reports of the two committees are very conceptual and general and do not deal with operational questions such as location, administrative structure, funding, and good governance provisions; indeed, a whole list of very specific items will need to be addressed. Then the proposal would be distributed to all affected departments and specific administrators as well as the Faculty Senate for review. There was some disagreement about the level of consultation in various departments. Some faculty groups remain neutral pending further details; others feel the process has been very democratic; noting that Jack Censer sponsored a number of town halls which were not well attended. Some departments opposed to the proposal fear retaliation or punishment and therefore have not expressed their positions publicly. After their recent meeting, some members of the Board of Visitors expressed surprise upon learning that there was opposition to the proposal. At least one member inquired why have not other options been considered? The Provost wants to have the input of the Faculty Senate prior to the next Board of Visitors meeting in May. Given the heavy work load of faculty as the end of the semester approaches, this does not seem realistic. The Board of Visitors indicated that if the time line proves unrealistic, it would postpone its decision until a later, unspecified time. Senators outside CAS and SCS would also wish to know the views of the faculty directly affected before voting on the proposal. VIII. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 4:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, David Kuebrich Secretary |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||