GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY
MINUTES OF THE FACULTY SENATE
NOVEMBER 29, 2006
Senators Present: Kristine Bell, James Bennett, Alok Berry, Deborah Boehm-Davis, Phillip Buchanan, Frieda Butler, Julie Christensen, Sara Cobb, Rick Coffinberger, Jose Cortina, Warren Decker, Jane Flinn, Allison Frendak, Jeffrey Gorrell, Karen Hallows, Mark Houck, Dan Joyce, Jim Kozlowski, David Kuebrich, Howard Kurtz, Linda Monson, Ami Motro, Patricia Moyer-Packenham, Robert Nadeau, Paula Petrik, Peter Pober, Jane Razeghi, Larry Rockwood, Jim Sanford, Joe Scimecca, Suzanne Slayden, Ilya Somin, Ray Sommer, Cliff Sutton, June Tangney, Ellen Todd, Susan Trencher, Iosif Vaisman, Phil Wiest, James Willett, Mary Williams, Jennie Wu, Stanley Zoltek.
Senators Absent: Ernest
Barreto, Sheryl Beach, Russ Brayley, Lorraine Brown, Jack Censer, Vikas
Chandhoke, Lloyd Cohen, Lloyd Griffiths, Kingsley Haynes, Susan Hirsch, Menas
Kafatos, Matthew Karush, Richard Klimoski, Jane McDonald, Alan Merten, Jean
Moore, Daniel Polsby, William Reeder, Shirley Travis, John Zenelis.
Visitors Present: Dave Andrews (PR Coordinator/Communications), Jessica Bowdoin (University Libraries – Librarians’ Council), Robin Herron (Editor, Mason Gazette), Susan Jones (University Registrar), Carrie Meyer (Associate Professor, Economics), Della Patrick (Vice Chairperson, Staff Senate), Brian Selinsky (Director of IT Services, Registrar’s Office).
I. Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 3:05 p.m.
II. Approval of the Minutes of November 1, 2006: The minutes were approved as amended (See Appendix A).
III. Announcements - none
IV. Old Business – none.
V. New Business – Committee Reports
A. Senate
Standing Committees
Executive Committee – no report.
Academic Policies – Cliff Sutton, Chair
Professor Sutton presented the following motions for revisions to guidelines for retention of good academic standards.
Motions:
1. Attempted hours, instead of earned hours, should be used to determine GPA retention levels for warnings, probations, and suspensions for undergraduate students. On page 39 of the 2006-2007 catalog, under Requirements for Retention, the definition of credit level will be changed by replacing the paragraph
Academic retention is based solely on the cumulative GPA. The significance of the cumulative GPA varies according to the credit level, or cumulative earned credits, which is a combination of GPA credits earned at the university plus credits transferred from other institutions or obtained by testing.
by
Academic retention is based solely on the cumulative GPA. The significance of the cumulative GPA varies according to the credit level, or attempted credit hours, which is a combination of all credits attempted at the university plus credits transferred from other institutions or obtained by testing.
(Note: The use of italics above is just to make it easier to see where the paragraphs differ --- italics are not used in the actual paragraph in the catalog.) Furthermore, the table used to specify the GPA ranges for student retention categories (see p. 40 of the 2006-2007 catalog, under Student Retention Categories) will be replaced by the simpler table shown below. (This table has only five categories for credit level, as opposed to the eight categories currently in use. In merging the categories to create the new table, the GPA ranges used reflect slightly higher standards.)
2. The table used to specify the GPA ranges for student retention categories (see p. 40 of the 2006-2007 catalog, under Student Retention Categories) will be replaced by the table shown below.
|
|
Warning |
Probation |
Suspension |
|
7-16 |
0.000-1.999 |
|
|
|
17-29 |
1.750-1.999 |
1.000-1.749 |
0.000-0.999 |
|
30-59 |
1.850-1.999 |
1.250-1.849 |
0.000-1.249 |
|
60-89 |
1.950-1.999 |
1.550-1.949 |
0.000-1.549 |
|
90+ |
|
1.850-1.999 |
0.000-1.849 |
On January 21, 2004, the Faculty Senate approved the current
system for determining when students get warnings, go on probation, and get
suspended, and this system was implemented in Fall 2004. At the time, there did
not seem to be a desire to create a system which would be more lenient --- the
system was changed from what it was before in order to make it easier to
understand and to be more compatible with the system used for graduation. It
was generally agreed upon that the new system (the system currently being used)
would be evaluated after it had been in place for a few semesters.
The Academic Procedures Advisory Committee (APAC) (a group of Assistant and
Associate Deans and administrators chaired by Susan Jones) and the Academic
Policies Committee have noted that the current system has resulted in
appreciably fewer warnings, probations, and suspensions than what occurred
prior to the changes in policy. Nevertheless, there are currently a lot of
students who are doing very poorly in their coursework and not making good
progress toward a degree. This is due to the fact that the current system is
rather lenient for students who have only a small number of earned hours, and
so some students who fail a lot of courses and accumulate only a small number
of earned hours can continue to register for courses semester after semester
because their numbers of earned hours remain low and suspensions are not
triggered by their very low GPAs.
It can also be noted that the current system, based on earned hours, allows
students to retake courses (even those they passed) in an attempt to raise
their GPA and avoid suspension. (Students who retake courses that they pass do
not get closer to a degree by accumulating more earned hours --- they just
attempt to raise their GPA while keeping their earned hours constant (and it's
possible that their earned hours can go down if they fail a course they had
previously passed).)
All in all, the current system seems too lenient, and allows students to
flounder and exploit certain loopholes. The Academic Policies Committee thinks
that it will be better to have a system which will be better at identifying
problem students earlier, so that such students can reflect on their situations
and make some changes before they reach a point at which it will be very hard
for them to raise their GPAs to the level required for graduation. At a time
when admission to GMU is becoming more competitive, and it is desirable to have
a higher graduation rate, it is not good to continue with a retention system
that allows very weak students, who are not making reasonable progress towards
a degree, to occupy space in classes while continuing to flounder in their
studies.
The statistics below were provided by the Registrar’s Office and displayed on an overhead projector at the meeting.
|
Academic
Standing |
Fall 2003 |
Spring 2004 |
Fall 2004 |
Spring 2005 |
Fall 2005 |
Spring 2006 |
|
System
Used |
Previous |
Previous |
Earned |
Earned |
Earned |
Earned |
|
Total
Enrolled |
16,662 |
16,224 |
16,830 |
16,525 |
17,380 |
16,874 |
|
Warning |
1,420 |
1,148 |
730 |
503 |
833 |
520 |
|
Probation |
619 |
560 |
887 |
710 |
780 |
809 |
|
First
Suspension |
304 |
507 |
305 |
198 |
202 |
167 |
|
Second
Suspension |
24 |
37 |
74 |
52 |
79 |
57 |
|
Dismissal |
94 |
105 |
2 |
5 |
3 |
8 |
|
Final
Dismissal |
5 |
4 |
10 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good
Standing |
14,196 |
13,863 |
14,822 |
15,056 |
15,481 |
15,312 |
|
Percentage
Good |
85.20% |
85.45% |
88.07% |
91.11% |
89.07% |
90.74% |
Professor Sutton
also noted the revised chart above would simplify the Catalog. In response to a
question raised regarding how this would be applied in the future, University
Registrar Susan Jones responded that the catalog year sets in place
requirements for a degree and that this change would be implemented for
December 2007 grades, allowing time to communicate these changes to students.
A question arose
as to a “grace period” or adjustment phase.
The Registrar responded there would be no formal “grace period” or
adjustment phase other than the time frame between this December and next,
during which time changes would be communicated to students. Associate Deans will become busier as
student appeals will be left to their professional judgment.
In response to a
question asking if a course can be repeated for a higher grade, the Registrar responded that doing so increases the number of
“attempted” hours.
A Senator raised a concern about difficulties freshman have
when trying to recover from below average grades in their first year and
expressed the view that including attempted hours will mean that students get
in trouble more quickly, thus introducing more draconian measures from which it
will be harder for these students to recover.
Another Senator
asked “Are people looking at this? If you fail everything your first semester,
how (can the student) get on track?” The
Registrar responded that under present policy, when students failed everything,
the transcript message would say “in good standing”. People who keep taking courses and get a warning automatically
receive a letter from the Registrar telling them to meet with their advisor and
avail themselves of the learning and academic skills services of the Counseling
Center.
There was a
complaint that the new policy effective Fall 2004 went into effect at the end
of the semester instead of the beginning.
The Senator expressed concern that with the first suspension you are out
and at the freshman level these students won’t be back. Do we have any responsibility to deal with
these “problem students” or “students with problems?” Illustration of a few extreme cases – if students want to retake
courses; willing to spend money to do so – allow to retake and change grade
from an F to a C. We need to do a
better job – suspension is not the answer, if we are bringing in better students. Another
example: a student leaves GMU
suspended. Could he withdraw and attend
community college? Was told there was
no way the suspension could be omitted from the transcript.
Concern also
expressed about the transition period creating a hole too deep (for some) to
get out of.
Professor Sutton
noted that the motivation here is for students to get warnings/probation sooner
to help them correct situation. Another
Senator reminded the audience there is a lot
of support around – advising as well as counseling center – students need to
take advantage of it.
A Senator (who has
also served as an associate dean) stated that he is not sympathetic to any of
this. Some kids leave and come back and
are successful. There are consequences. What is the difference between dismissal and
final dismissal? Professor Sutton responded that if you’re dismissed, you can
appeal to be reinstated after a period of time (3-5 year period); not automatic
you would get back in. If issues regard
family, health, etc. the option for total withdrawal remains. Two worst-case scenarios were described in
which a student registers for courses in order to remain on parents’ health
insurance policy. For students with
catastrophic medical consequences – school is not their first priority. Need possibility to retroactively withdraw
and reapply – example of student with multiple sclerosis. Medical issues and emergencies must be taken
into consideration.
Two issues emerge
here: (1) standards need reevaluation, and (2) services provided by various
offices.
In situation of
withdrawal, (the course) is not counted toward GPA. Associate and Assistant Deans have handled this – we need
something for the bulk of students.
There are limitations on what you can do within the Banner system which
also play a role. The Associate Deans
support this change.
The first motion
was approved by a divided vote.
The second motion (to adopt the simplified table for the catalog)
was approved unanimously by voice vote.
Budget and
Resources – no report.
Faculty Matters – no report.
Organization
and Operations – no report.
Satellite Campus
Committee – Aimee Flannery (IT&E), Gerald Hanweck (SOM) and Robert Johnston
(SOM) were nominated and elected by unanimous ballot.
Technology Policy
Committee – Stanley Zoltek, Chair
Professor Zoltek read the following announcement from Tracy Holt, Manager, Enterprise Messaging System, ITU: “On Sunday, December 10th, the ITU will upgrade the Mail Frontier system. Mail Frontier is the name of the software package that filters messages that are spam, contain viruses, or have been identified as fraudulent attempts at phishing. This new version of the software will have the ability to read images which is the latest method spammers use to get around systems like Mail Frontier. The new version will have a similar look and feel as the old one but will now be branded SonicWall Email Security to reflect the recent purchase of Mail Frontier Corporation by SonicWall Corporation. No changes to user settings, preferences, or software will be required to take advantage of this upgrade. If you have any questions or need assistance, please contact the ITU Support Center at 3-8870.”
The Faculty Senate of Virginia (FSVA) & AAUP will advocate for the following legislation (in addition to the legislative packages of individual schools):
1)
A 50% tuition waiver for faculty (with 7 years of
service) whose children attend a Virginia public college or university;
In the FSVA, there was a real debate whether to include this motion, as faculty without children would prefer salary increases; also a very helpful inducement in recruiting.
2) The opportunity to change
from an ORP to VRS after 10 years of service; (Faculty had this right
from 1924-74.)
If you are in ORP getting less
than in VRS, hoping they will equalize this by raising contributions to a
higher level.
3) An equal allocation from the State for faculty on ORP or VRS; (Currently, VRS members get 10.76% and ORP members get 10.4%).
One Senator noted
that the number they use for VRS is meaningless because it is a defined benefit
plan; and suggested that the proposal be reworked to focus instead on ORP
contribution. The Senator further noted
that the defined benefit is average of highest three years of income with the
risk in ORP if stocks severely decline in value and that most folks who
remained in ORP are worse off if they remained working at GMU.
4) The right of individual schools to include up to 5 "aspirant" schools in their SCHEV-designated peer institutions.
The claim is that
this would allow schools to be more competitive in hiring relative to more
highly regarded schools with which they aspire to be equal.
5) An amendment to current law regarding
faculty representation on the BOV, so it reads that colleges and
universities "shall" (not "may") have such
representation.
6) A faculty member, appointed by the Governor, to serve as an
advisory, non-voting member of SCHEV.
7) A requirement that the leasing of school property must be authorized by the school's BOV (and not, as now may be the case, by its Foundation)
In response to a
question raised, Professor Kuebrich explained this is a way to have greater
transparency and oversight of the university Foundation; an issue at one
school. Legislators have told faculty
lobbyists that Foundations are not sufficiently transparent. Not sure how visible Foundation activities
and decisions are; faculty are much better informed of BOV decisions. A Senator
raised that issue that when BOV’s go into Executive Session there also a loss
of transparency, noting that recently at GMU the issue of a sale or property or
first rights to property to a high university official has been rumored, an
issue that should be publicly addressed.
8) A prohibition of state funds to
support the cost of university Foundation staff, administrators, or Foundation
board members;
The rationale for this legislation was an effort to make sure Foundations are money-making institutions, not a drain on school resources. Provost Stearns commented while he was not opposed to the idea, this is a bad way to do this since development activities would grind to a halt. Professor Kuebrich asked the Provost to devise better wording which would then be forwarded to the President of FSVA. A Senator raised the question of the position of FSVA representatives from UVA and Virginia Tech on the Foundation questions. Professor Kuebrich reported that there was no representative from Virginia Tech present at the November 11th meeting, and that none of the three representatives present from UVA were opposed to it.
9) A SCHEV study to determine
the State's competitiveness in attracting and retaining faculty for its public
institutions of higher education.
10) A requirement that all new state-funded buildings must be certified as at
or above the LEED silver standard.
Deals with reduction of energy consumption; 20% of energy to be generated from renewable sources.
Professor Kuebrich added that some of the issues addressed above have been ongoing. The principal architects of the proposals are the president of FSVA and the head of VA AAUP, and were voted on by the FSVA membership. In discussion following the presentation of all 10 proposals, a Senator noted that it would be better to focus on two or three issues when talking with legislators; ten is too many. Professor Kuebrich responded that legislators will receive all of the material but that faculty may choose what they wish to emphasize as they meet with them, as well as have the opportunity to focus on issues of local importance.
A Senator argued for raising the issue of Virginia’s lack of a reasonable maternity leave plan, noting that Maternity Leave is classified under “Sick Leave” which was in the Senator’s view is “insulting.” While this issue is under consideration by the GMU Faculty Handbook Revision Committee, Professor Kuebrich stated that it was too late to include this proposal in the upcoming session, but promised to raise this issue with FSVA for the 2007-08 legislative session.
Motions on Environmental Issues – Dave Kuebrich
Background: There
are many greening efforts taking place at GMU.
Green academic programs include Environmental Science and Policy, New
Century College, and the Dept. of Civil, Environmental and Infrastructure
Engineering. Programs such as recycling
and electricity conservation are saving a lot of energy. An Earth Week Planning group composed of
students, faculty, and the Office of University Life has been active since
Fall, 2004. An Environmental Task Force
composed of faculty, students, and representatives form University Life,
Facilities, Dining Services, etc. was initiated in January 2006 in order to
pull diverse efforts together and act in a coordinated way. The Associate Dean for Academic Projects,
Brett Ingram, was hired into this new position in Fall, 2006. Dean Ingram brings great expertise and
energy to this project and is considered easy to work with and a great asset in
this effort. A Faculty Development
Workshop for Infusing Sustainability into the Curriculum will take place in
January 2007. We anticipate 15-20
faculty, some staff, and a few students in attendance. Provost Stearns, Laurie Fathe (Associate
Provost for Educational Improvement and Innovation), and Marilyn Mobley
(Associate Provost for Education Programs) have given much support to this
project, Professor Bob Nadeau (CHSS – English) has conducted research and
written about this for 10 years; Professor Susie Crate (COS - ESP) has promoted
a lot of curricular activities. The
petition attached to the motion below will be distributed by email as well as
by faculty, students, and other groups.
We need to put this in everyone’s consciousness. An important educative task – to distribute
in classes, asking you to circulate to students – want to have every person on
campus sign in. Some campuses have
folks who monitor recycling and (other environmentally sound practices)
addressing the need to develop an adult relationship with the environment.
1.
MOTION: The Faculty Senate endorses
the attached petition to help launch a comprehensive “campus greening” campaign.
To promote the campaign, the Chair
and Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate are asked to:
A) send an
email to all instructional, research and administrative faculty, asking them to
sign the petition;
B)
encourage the faculty to give moral, financial and volunteer-time support to
the students who will be gathering signatures between now and the University’s
2007 Earth Week Program (third week of April);
C)
encourage the Staff Senate to circulate the petition to its constituency.
Explanation: The purpose of the petition drive is
three-fold: to raise consciousness about environmental issues, especially the
threat posed by global warming; to ask individual members of the
campus-community to “buy into” the idea of promoting environmental
sustainability at GMU; to provide campus leaders with evidence of widespread
support for greening the GMU campus.
The GMU Environmental Task Force
(EVT)* will invite President Merten to help launch the campaign in early
December or the beginning of the Spring Semester. The Task Force will arrange a
Broadside photo op at which the
President and the chairs of the Faculty, Staff and Student Senates sign the
petition. The campaign will end with a special program during Earth
Week—including a press conference (perhaps arranged by GMU Media
Relations). Also, the EVT will ask Broadside to foreground this year’s
Earth Week and perhaps publish a special issue.
The campaign will be directed by
student leaders in collaboration with a working group of the EVT.
*The Environmental Task Force (ETF)
was created in January 2006 under the auspices of University Life. Susie Crate (ESP), Martha Slover (UL), and
Dave Kuebrich (English) were the original co-facilitators. Provost Stearns has subsequently appointed
Brent Ingram a co-facilitator. The goal
of the Task Force is to bring together representatives of all parts of the
University to share ideas and build a plan for greening the University. The Senate Task Forces will complement the
work of the EVT.
The motion was approved
unanimously by voice vote.
2.
MOTION: The Faculty Senate will appoint
a “Green Education Task Force” to conduct a review of the GMU curriculum as
well as the curricula of selected other schools noted for leadership in
environmental education.
Charge: The Task Force will consider the
desirability and feasibility of
A)
developing new and modified courses to infuse “environmental sustainability”**
into the general education program, undergraduate majors and graduate degree
programs;
B)
developing new undergraduate and graduate certificate and degree programs
emphasizing “environmental sustainability”;
C) developing
a plan, in collaboration with University Life, for systematically promoting
service learning, student internships and co-curricular programming aimed
toward green education and the greening of the campus;
D)
recommending other needed curricular and co-curricular measures.
The Task Force will make an initial
report to the Faculty Senate in March, 2007 and a second report in May, 2007.
Composition:
Four instructional faculty (active or emeriti) of which at least one is
a Senator; Marilyn Mobley (Associate Provost of Education Programs) or a
designated member of the General Education Committee; Brent Ingram (Associate
Dean of Environmental Projects) or another designated administrative faculty
member; and a representative designated
by University Life. Student Government is also invited to designate two student
representatives.
In order for the Task Force to work
effectively and expeditiously, President Merten is requested to provide its
chair with one course of released time in Spring, 2007 and support for two
graduate student assistants.
Provost Stearns is requested to ask
the Chairs, Directors and Deans to respond promptly and fully to the Task
Force’s requests for information and cooperation.
The Task Force is asked to take
special care to advertise its meetings in order to encourage participation by
other members of the GMU community.
** “Environmental sustainability” (or simply “sustainability”): “Sustainability” has been defined as the practice of the “golden rule through time.” The goal of a sustainable community is to organize its material infrastructure and institutional operating practices—especially its use and disposal of natural resources—in a manner that allows it to meet the needs of present users without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Sustainability presumes that some resources are finite and should be used conservatively with a view to providing for the long-term needs of the human race.
The motion was approved
unanimously by voice vote.
3.
MOTION: The Faculty Senate will appoint
a “Green Campus Task Force” to conduct a review of the environmental policies
of the various offices at GMU responsible for buildings and grounds, energy
consumption, and use of resources and materials,* as well as of the policies of
the counterparts to these offices at other schools notable for taking decisive
steps toward creating environmentally sustainable campuses.
Charge: The Task Force will address the following
questions:
A) what
measures to promote sustainability are currently being implemented by each unit?
B) what
additional measures to promote sustainability are being planned and what is the
timeframe for their implementation?
C) what
additional measures to promote sustainability are being implemented and/or
planned by schools noted for their environmental leadership?
D) what
additional measures might be taken at GMU?
E) how
might the Senate, the general faculty and the larger campus community support
the efforts of these units?
F) what
other steps need to be taken to green the GMU campus?
The Task Force should give
particular attention to the issue of green buildings because the decisions
being made and implemented today will impact the natural environment and the
University budget for decades to come.
Composition: five instructional faculty (active or
emeriti) of which at least one is a Senator; Brent Ingram (Associate Dean of
Environmental Projects) or another designated administrative faculty; Tom
Calhoun, Vice President of Facilities; and John Spaldo, Associate Vice
President of Operations; (or
appropriate staff members designated by them), and a representative designated
by University Life. Student Government is also invited to designate two student
representatives.
The Task Force will make an initial
report to the Faculty Senate in March, 2007 and a second report in May, 2007.
In order for the Task Force to work
effectively and expeditiously, President Merten is requested to provide its
chair with one course of released time in Spring, 2007 and support for two
graduate student assistants.
President Merten is requested to ask
the responsible administrators to respond promptly and fully to the Task
Force’s requests for information and cooperation.
The Task Force is asked to take
special care to advertise its meetings in order to encourage participation by
other members of the GMU community.
The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote.
4.
MOTION: The Faculty Senate will elect
two representatives to the Environmental Task Force. The representatives will
report regularly to the Faculty Senate. This appointment will last
until May, 2007.
Two
faculty members to be elected need not be Senators. A question was raised as to
why appointments would be made only effective until May 2007. A suggestion was made to elect
representatives on a rotating basis? (It was noted, for example, that there are
official representatives from University Life on the Environmental Task Force,
but the faculty there do not represent anyone). The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote.
CLIMATE
CHANGE & OUR RESPONSIBILITY
GMU MUST BE A LEADER
INSIST ON IT BY SIGNING THIS PETITION!
An overwhelming majority of climate
scientists agree that the rapid warming of planet earth threatens large-scale
disruptions in our lifetime and for future generations. Every person,
every organization, and every institution can help to reduce this threat.
Over 300 American colleges and universities have adopted policies to become
green and sustainable campuses. We want GMU to join them. All of
us--students, alumni, staff, faculty, administrators, and board members--must
commit ourselves to making our university a model of energy efficiency, green
education, and environmental leadership.
We call on the leaders of our campus community to put a comprehensive
environmental plan in place by Summer 2007.
Register your agreement by signing this petition. It will be presented to the
Student, Staff, and Faculty Senates, the Provost, President, and Board of
Visitors.
Please join this urgent and important effort!
Motion
Regarding Creation of Ad Hoc Committees
Motion:
Creation of the ad hoc committees “Green Campus Task Force” and “Green
Education Task Force” is of urgent necessity.
Explanation:
According to the Faculty Senate bylaws, declaring the creation of an ad hoc
committee as urgently necessary allows immediate nomination and election of
members to serve on the committee.
Article
V Section 3.
a.
Whenever the Senate shall determine by its vote that the creation of an ad hoc
committee or of a new standing committee is a matter of urgent necessity,
nominations shall be made from the floor following that determination.
These
faculty have agreed to serve on the designated committees (if created) and will
be nominated from the floor. The floor will be open to further nominations.
Green
Campus Task Force
Sharon deMonsabert (Civil, Environmental, & Infrastructure Engineering)Henry Hamburger (Computer Science, Emeritus)Carrie Meyer (Economics)Peter Pober (Communication)Ron Zobel (Civil, Environmental, & Infrastructure Engineering)
Green
Education Task Force
David Brazer (College of Education and Human Development)Susie Crate (Environmental Science and Policy)Greg Guagnano (Sociology and Anthropology)Jim Willett (Molecular and Microbiology) The motion was approved unanimously. The nominees to the Green Campus Task Force and Green Education Task Force were elected unanimously. Additional nominations for the Task Force will be
entertained at the next Faculty Senate meeting (January 24, 2007) so that agreement to serve if elected can be obtained from nominees made from the floor. The size of the Task Force can be expanded. In response to a question, it was agreed that graduate students are warmly welcomed to submit names to the Task Force. VII. Remarks for the Good of the General Faculty
Nearly 1,000 gifted and talented high school students, coaches, and judges will be on campus for the Patriot Games Classic for High School Forensics, the fastest growing high school tournament in the nation. Contact Professor Peter Pober, Director of GMU Forensics Program, [email protected], 3-4119. VIII. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 4:12 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,Susan TrencherSecretary Appendix A The following sentences were accepted as amendments and appropriately inserted in the minutes of 11-1-06: “The President said (that the) faculty housing/retirement center would be built right with adequate level of greenness. The President 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.’”