GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY
MINUTES OF THE FACULTY SENATE
NOVEMBER 1, 2006
Senators Present: Ernest Barreto, Sheryl Beach, Kristine Bell, James Bennett, Deborah Boehm-Davis, Lorraine Brown, Phillip Buchanan, Julie Christensen, Jose Cortina, Warren Decker, Jeffrey Gorrell, Karen Hallows, Dan Joyce, Matthew Karush, Jim Kozlowski, David Kuebrich, Howard Kurtz, Alan Merten, Linda Monson, Jean Moore, Patricia Moyer-Packenham, Robert Nadeau, Peter Pober, Jane Razeghi, Larry Rockwood, Jim Sanford, Suzanne Slayden, Ray Sommer, Peter Stearns, Cliff Sutton, Susan Trencher, Mary Williams, Jennie Wu, John Zenelis, Stanley Zoltek.
Senators Absent: Alok
Berry, Russ Brayley, Frieda Butler, Jack Censer, Vikas Chandhoke, Sara Cobb,
Rick Coffinberger, Lloyd Cohen, Jane Flinn, Allison Frendak, Lloyd Griffiths,
Kingsley Haines, Susan Hirsch, Mark Houck, Menas Kafatos, Richard Klimoski,
Jane McDonald, Ami Motro, Paula Petrik, Daniel Polsby, William Reeder, Joe
Scimecca, Ilya Somin, June Tangney, Ellen Todd, Shirley Travis, Iosif Vaisman,
Phil Wiest, James Willett.
Visitors
Present: Don Boileau, Communication Dept.; Jessica Bowdoin, Librarian – Fenwick
Library; Marion Deshmukh, Chair – History and Art History; Pat Donini, Deputy
Director/Human Resources/Payroll and Employee Relations Director; Dolores
Gomez-Roman, Ombudsman – Academic Affairs;
Linda Harber, Associate Vice President – Human Resources/Payroll; Robin
Herron, Creative Services; Susan Jones, Registrar; Marilyn Mobley, Associate
Provost.
I. Call to Order: The meeting was
called to order at 3:00 p.m.
II. Approval of the Minutes of October 18,
2006: The minutes were approved as distributed.
Howard Kurtz is the
new Senator from the College of
Visual and Performing Arts.
Eulogy for Lawrence Levine
– Marion Deshmukh, Chair, History and Art History
Professor Lawrence
Levine, Professor of History and Art History, passed away last week. A pioneering cultural historian of the 20th
century, his work Opening of the American Mind: Canons, Culture and History countered
Alan Bloom’s The Closing of the American
Mind. Among his many books were Highbrow/Lowbrow:
The Emergence of Cultural Hierarchy in American and Black
Consciousness: Afro-American Folk
Thought from Slavery to Freedom. A moment of silence was observed in his
memory.
President Merten thanked Senators for the time and energy they put into
the Faculty Senate as well as, as faculty members at GMU. He acknowledged the loss to the GMU community
of historian Larry Levine, and of Bob Krug, President of GMU (1977-78), a
position to which he was appointed after serving as a faculty member, Chair of
the Chemistry department, Dean of the Faculty and Graduate School, and Provost.
Organization and restructuring: In his remarks the President highlighted
continuing change in the units previously known as the College of Arts and
Sciences (CAS) and School of Computational Sciences (SCS), as a timely and important move as well as
the expanded scope of the College of Health and Human Services which enables
GMU to be more responsive to broad issues in the health and human services
areas.
Facilities: The President described GMU as in the early phases of a major
construction boom. Ground will soon be
broken at the Arlington campus; minor changes to Prince William campus are
taking place in preparation for a scheduled new town center; there is on-going
construction on the Loudoun County and United Arab Emirates (UAE) campuses. New housing for 1,000 students in the
northeast sector of the Fairfax Campus is currently under construction and
thinking has begun about an additional 1,000 rooms. Plans are moving ahead on the hotel/conference center and
assisted living/retirement community.
Budget and funding priorities: The
President stated that GMU had a good year last year with the biannual
budget. In 2006, the General Assembly
authorized a 4.0% faculty salary increase which was 50% funded
institutionally. Mason increased that
by 1.5% to allow for at least a 5.5% increase for faculty salaries. It is
anticipated that GMU would supplement any appropriated salary increase in 2007,
although the General Assembly has not appropriated any funds for salary
increases in 2007. The Cost of Living
Allowance (COLA) was GMU’s #1 priority during the 2006 General Assembly and
although members agreed it was important the $24 million cost precluded its
consideration in committee. The President stated that the COLA will again be
the #1 priority in 2007 however, in his view the failure of the General
Assembly to address the transportation issue and the fact that this is a
“short” session makes it less likely that any funds will be made available for
this purpose. Members of the Board of
Visitors will be meeting with the Governor to, among other things, make sure
that Governor Kaine knows what Mason’s priorities are for the budget. A high priority in higher education is the
unified budget amendment which addresses base budget adequacy and student
financial assistance (access). While
the COLA will, again, be the #1 priority in 2008 and the President expects that
it will be part of the Governor’s budget proposal, the likelihood of being in
the final budget will be determined by what other budget priorities are on the
table for the General Assembly. Other
high priorities for GMU include research, graduate student support, capital
improvements, and base budget funding.
Currently GMU is staging a “ full-court press on governor and General
Assembly now for modification of biennial budget” and working with other
schools. President Merten stressed the
significance of the 2008 budget year (the budget is published in 2007) as the
only budget which the governor submits and implements in its entirety during
his term. Governor Kaine has already
made specific statements in support of pre-kindergarten and K-12
education.
Summary of funding priorities for short session:
-1- faculty/staff salary increases, COLA
-2- undergraduate need-based financial aid
-3- graduate student fellowships/financial aid
-4- research funding.
Other Areas of Budget and Construction
GMU intends to construct a building for the Volgenau School of
Information Technology and Engineering that will cost in excess of $50
million. Funding will be provided by
$25 million from the state, $15 million contributed from grant overhead, and a
$10 million gift. Ernst Volgenau
provided the $10 million for student support in non-endowment monies; the
university needed to provide $25 million.
Part of that amount will be provided by designing the building to
include space for corporations to rent.
Funding for the building was accomplished by getting state money to
match federal/private capital money.
A Performing Arts Center will be constructed at the Prince William
campus with money from the city, county, state and private sector. A $4 million gift from the deLaskis and an
additional $4 million from the state will be used to
renovate the Performing Arts building. This model of packaging funds by
leveraging private and federal funding to get state dollars in order to build
facilities will be the model from now on.
GMU received $3 million for this year; $3 million for next year; and $3
million spread over two years for research equipment focused on the biological sciences; the first time the state has
provided a 3:3:3 amount.
GMU was unable to obtain financial resources adequate for increased
need-based financial aid for undergraduate students. We received significant
dollars in base adequacy money to catch up on enrollment growth part of which
was used to hire more faculty and staff and to faculty salary increases.
Comments, Questions and Responses
Senator’s comment and question: Glad
that the university has set the COLA as its number one funding priority and
asked if this was the first time that the university has identified the COLA as
the number one funding/budget priority to state legislators?
President Merten’s Response: It would not be a good idea to give any
legislator the idea that the COLA is the university’s first priority, so the
COLA will be packaged with the four identified areas of importance to GMU
(COLA, undergraduate and graduate assistance, research funding). Citing his
experience with legislators the President’s intention is to approach the issue
by making it clear that if we don’t get more support for need and merit-based
scholarships we will be unable to take the next step which includes support for
graduate fellowships and research funding.
If we can get base adequacy dollars based on the list of four priorities,
GMU is likely to receive undesignated money which while not showing up as
faculty salary increases would fund them. President Merten expects these
increases to be funded because it’s an election year, rather than in the
present case when current requests fall in a non-election part of the
cycle. While last year GMU raised the
COLA issue on its own, the President stated that we have to get faculty senates
from all state universities in Virginia as well as go to other entities in
Northern Virginia (such as NOVA) who have state employees. President Merten
cited a statement by Bob McDonnell, VA Attorney General, that he had had
trouble hiring attorneys in northern Virginia as
evidence of inadequate state salaries.
Senator’s question: What is
the status of the Loudoun campus.
President Merten: GMU wants
a significant campus presence in Loudoun County: 2010-11 time frame for
development of a 128 acre land parcel off Route 50 for CEHD and
Biological/Health Sciences orientation.
CEHD and several other departments are currently renting space in that
area. President Merten stated that we will not build a campus at Loudoun at all
costs; we must have enough built around us, such as condos/homes; if zoning
allows the right things to be there.
Tom Hennessey testified in front of the Loudoun Board for 90 minutes the
other night in support of construction of these facilities as well as adequate
roads.*
Senator’s comment and questions: A Senator thanked President Merten for
putting the COLA on top of list but noted that while 5.5% was made available
for faculty salaries, monies taken off the top before reaching the department
meant that most faculty in his department received a top raise of 4.1%. The gap
in this figure between the 5.5% available means that no progress is being made
by the faculty in the salary gap between their salaries and those of top
central administrators.
The Senator further noted that GMU and the legislature is being
“pennywise and pound foolish” if there is inadequate funding to enable construction
of green buildings and asked for the President’s view.
President Merten: Agreed that GMU should build public/private
buildings that are sustainable and that he would work to make that happen. He
said that the faculty housing/retirement center would be built right with
adequate level of greenness.”
President Merten also noted
that it would be worthwhile to look at creating something on the academic side
such as a certificate (not degree) program to give students the opportunity to
develop expertise in this area, and invited us to put more pressure on him so
he could put it on the appropriate people about greening the campus, saying
'You have my commitment, let me know what I can do…some information just
recently understood...(gives us an opportunity) to do something in this area
and show off."
At the state level, the
General Assembly is at ground zero on this issue, and the Provost when asked,
provided the information that Virginia cost parameters do not focus on these
matters.
It was suggested that a subset of the Faculty Senate work with the
administration to make the “operating side” work and encourage academic
departments to work on the certificate side.
The Senator stressed that there should be broad university involvement
along with that of the Faculty Senate; the more bottom-up,.the better. Future scenarios include faculty providing
intellectual leadership on this.
* On November 9,2006 the Washington Post
reported that the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors had rejected the
development project specified by President Merton as the anchor for GMU’s 123
acre campus.
Senator’s question and follow-up: Given that the administration has found
creative means to fund physical infrastructure are there similarly creative
efforts being designed to fund the human infrastructure, i.e. staff and faculty
salaries.
President Merten: The first
Capital Campaign finished up last year and GMU is now in a series of
mini-campaigns: for Prince William Center for the Performing Arts, scholarship
dollars, construction of basketball practice and athletic support facility next
to the Patriot Center; and for the Volgenau School. In a few weeks there will
be an announcement to the academic units to get ready for the next campaign
which focuses on departments and the
identification of needs for which they will raise money – both on
dept/facilities side. Monies raised
should include some support for state salaries through educating donors,
something GMU could not do in the first campaign. Further, the President hopes that each school/college when asked
to come up with wish list would ask for private support for faculty salaries.
Follow-up: Having various units seek to
raise their faculty salaries from private funds raises the issue of putting
units in competition with each other for fund raising for salaries and increase
concerns about disparity in faculty salaries between, within and among units at
GMU.
President Merten: When
raising private dollars donors prefer to give designated money more often that
the university might like. There is
rarely negotiation about where donated funds can be spent. The Volgenaus are an example of a
sophisticated donor who provides money not for endowment but without a lot of
specific guidelines. Donor would take a
dim view of this. – donors want to give
to unit – visible and targeted.
Resolution on Satellite Campuses: sponsored by Senator Rick Coffinberger
WHEREAS the Central Administration has established a
campus of George Mason University in the United Arab Emirates from which
students may earn GMU degrees; and
WHEREAS similar operations may be established at other
locations outside Virginia and, indeed, outside the U.S.; and
WHEREAS Faculty should have the primary role in decisions
regarding curriculum and personnel matters;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Faculty Senate establish a Task Force on Satellite Operations to review the content of academic course offerings, to assess the qualifications of the Faculty, and to monitor any and all aspects of the programs, especially financial commitments and enrollments, offered at all satellite campuses. The Task Force shall consist of three GMU Faculty members in Virginia from programs offering degrees or certificates at satellite operations. This Task Force shall report to the Faculty Senate at least once each semester.
Discussion points
included the definition of Satellite campuses as out of state. An amendment was proposed that the Task
Force report at least once a year instead of once a semester. The amendment to the motion passed
unanimously by voice vote. The amended
motion passed unanimously by voice vote.
V. New Business – Committee Reports
A. Senate Standing Committees
Executive Committee – no report.
Academic Policies – Cliff Sutton announced the AP Committee’s next
meeting will be held next week; all are welcome to attend.
Budget and Resources – no report.
Faculty Matters – no report.
Organization and Operations – no report.
Nominations – Jim Bennett
1. Peter Pober is nominated to the Parking Services
Advisory Committee – unanimously elected by voice vote.
2. Report from the Nominations Committee: Trials and Tribulations of University
Service (Attachment B) was circulated in an effort to point out the
difficulties in getting faculty to volunteer or agree to university
service. The document focuses on some
of the reasons for these difficulties, and includes a request to the Faculty
Handbook Revision committee to specify service as a central and rewarded
activity. The Chair of the Nominations
Committee thanked the committee members for their efforts in putting this
document together.
B. Other Committees – none.
VII. Other New
Business – none.
VIII. Adjournment – the meeting was adjourned at 3:53 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan Trencher
Secretary, Faculty Senate
Report from the
Nominations Committee
Trials and Tribulations of University Service
The Faculty Senate Nominations Committee wishes to share with you some observations and concerns regarding University service. Our motivation for doing so is the chronic problem of finding faculty members who are willing and able to work on committees and task forces and in the other positions that are essential to the functioning of the University as an academic enterprise. As the official voice of the faculty, the Faculty Senate is tasked with electing and appointing individuals to serve, and the Nominations Committee is tasked with providing a slate.
A “Call for Nominations” sent via e-mail to the entire faculty often produces few or even no responses. Then, it becomes the unenviable task of Nominations Committee members to dragoon, impress, arm twist, plead with, or harass their busy colleagues to accept a nomination to some committee, task force, or position. Rarely is an election contested because there are more candidates than vacancies to be filled. Even a casual review of the Minutes of the Faculty Senate’s (available for several years on the Senate’s webpage) first meeting in September of each year, the meeting at which most vacancies are filled, will show that except in rare circumstances, elections are by unanimous vote. The Faculty Senate Nominations Committee believes that it is fortunate to have even one person for each slot; nominations from the floor in addition to the Nominations Committee’s slate are rare.
This state of affairs is unsatisfactory for several reasons. First, it puts the members of the Nominations Committee in an uncomfortable position: We seem to be “manipulating” who does what in service to the University. And, unfortunately, there is a tendency for some to view those faculty who are willing to serve over and over and actively voice their views as “malcontents” or even “troublemakers.” Second, the Nominations Committee often is in the position of cajoling someone into serving when the most suitable person, i.e., someone with expertise specific to the issues to be addressed, declines to serve. Third, the burden of University service falls disproportionately on a small segment of the Faculty rather than being widely distributed. Fourth, there is a natural tendency to ask those who have been willing to serve in the past to serve again rather than scour lists of faculty for new faces and ideas. Thus, the range of views and ideas is more limited than it should be.
Why does the problem of finding qualified and enthusiastic nominees arise and persist? The Nominations Committee believes that the answer is simple: University service is not adequately rewarded or recognized. The Faculty Handbook states that each faculty member’s University service will be a factor — in addition to research and teaching — in decisions regarding promotion and tenure (Section 2.4.4) and in the annual evaluation of faculty (Section 2.5.4) on which salary increases are based, in years when raises are given. In practice, however, little weight is given to University service by faculty members at the department level, the college or school level, or even at the University level in the salary evaluation process, and especially when tenure decisions are made.
Second, other factors also contribute to the problem. As the institution has grown, the number of full-time faculty has not risen in direct proportion, because adjuncts and contract and term faculty carry a substantial part of the teaching load. These individuals have little incentive to engage in service because their job descriptions typically do not include service work and they suffer — as many of their full-time colleagues do — from inadequate compensation for the work that they already perform. Most are hired solely to teach or to work on grant-supported research projects. So, the service burden on full-time faculty has increased over the years.
A third consideration is that University service benefits primarily the institution, with little recognition or reward given to the faculty member for engaging in service activities. Research and publication benefits the individual faculty member and the institution because research activities make the individual more attractive to other universities; in contrast, service benefits only the “home” institution.
A fourth consideration is that faculty are expected to engage in service throughout the calendar year. Although the typical faculty member is paid for only nine months, there seems to be a growing expectation that faculty will be available for service activities year-round.
Finally, the work of administrative faculty is essentially service to the University. Some administrative faculty may teach and some may do research [the Provost is a notable example of doing both], but such activities are the exception rather than the rule in both the central administration and in the administration of the colleges, schools, and institutes. The faculty members who take administrative positions and go from a 9-month to a 12-month appointment are often given raises that can substantially surpass the amount to compensate them for the additional months. Moreover, an examination of administrative faculty salaries shows that raises have been received by many — sometimes even in years when faculty salaries were frozen. [Interested readers are invited to visit the Senate’s website where salaries may be easily accessed; the link is given below.] Surely, if administrative faculty receive salaries that are typically generous compared to faculty who teach, do research, and are also expected to actively engage in University service, more rewards should be offered for service. We believe that these rewards should include release time and additional compensation.
The Nominations Committee urges the Faculty Handbook Revision Committee to recognize the critical importance of University service and include provisions which mandate that such activity be adequately rewarded. Only then will individuals be willing to contribute enthusiastically to the work so critical to the functioning of our academic enterprise.
Faculty Senate Nominations Committee
Jim Bennett, Mark Houck, Linda Monson, Jane Razeghi, Phil Wiest
Note: Administrative and Faculty salaries may be accessed at the following link: