GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY
MINUTES OF THE FACULTY SENATE
MARCH 7, 2007
Senators Present: Ernest Barreto, Kristine Bell, Jim Bennett, Alok Berry, Deborah Boehm-Davis, Russ Brayley, Lorraine Brown, Phillip Buchanan, Julie Christensen, Rick Coffinberger, Jose Cortina, Warren Decker, Jane Flinn, Dimitrios Ioannou, Dan Joyce, Jim Kozlowski, David Kuebrich, Ljnda Monson, Jean Moore, Paula Petrik, Peter Pober, Jane Razeghi, Larry Rockwood, Jim Sanford, Suzanne Slayden, Cliff Sutton, June Tangney, Ellen Todd, Susan Trencher, Iosif Vaisman, Phil Wiest, James Willett, John Zenelis, Stanley Zoltek.
Senators Absent: Sheryl Beach, Frieda Butler, Jack Censer, Vikas Chandhoke, Sandra Cheldelin, Sara Cobb, Lloyd Cohen, Allison Frendak, Jeffrey Gorrell, Lloyd Griffiths, Karen Hallows, Kingsley Haynes, Mark Houck, Menas Kafatos, Matthew Karush, Richard Klimoski, Howard Kurtz, Jane McDonald, Alan Merten, Patricia Moyer-Packenham, Robert Nadeau, Daniel Polsby, William Reeder, Joe Scimecca, Ilya Somin, Ray Sommer, Peter Stearns, Shirley Travis, Mary Williams, Jennie Wu.
Guests Present: Jessica Bowdoin, Vice-Chair, Librarian's Council; Rector Sidney Dewberry, Board of Visitors; Pat Donini, Deputy Director, Human Resources and Payroll; Dolores Gomez-Roman, Students' Ombudsman; Linda Harber, AssociateVice President, Human Resources and Payroll; Tom Hennessey, Chief of Staff, Office of the President; Robin Herron, Editor, Mason Gazette; Susan Jones, University Registrar; Carrie Meyer, Associate Professor of Economics and Member, Green Campus Task Force; Marilyn Mobley, Associate Provost, Education Programs; Della Patrick, Vice-Chair, Staff Senate; Barry Stevens, Director of Research Policy Development, Office of the Provost; Dr. Ernst Volgenau, Board of Visitors.
I. Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 3:03 p.m.
II. Approval of the Minutes: The minutes of February 21, 2007 were approved as distributed.
Rector Sidney Dewberry and Ernst Volgenau of the Board of Visitors: Chair Suzanne Slayden welcomed Rector Dewberry and Dr. Volgenau. Consistent with term limits, this is Rector Dewberry’s final year as Rector. Rector Dewberry stated that he has been extremely proud to be associated with George Mason University over the past 26 years. He discussed the Board of Visitors’ initiative to define a course of action to GMU “a world class university,” both in teaching and in research. This concept had been presented to the BOV by Dr. Ernst Volgenau who Rector Dewberry stated has made a significant difference to the university and has been an excellent addition to the BOV. He then asked Visitor Volgenau to lead the presentation and discussion of details surrounding the definition of a “great university” and steps that the BOV is undertaking to move toward meeting this definition.
Summary of
Visitor Volgenau’s remarks:
George Mason University has achieved a lot in the last 40 years so it may be asked why we need a world-class university initiative. There is a large opportunity for George Mason in which a little more directed energy can produce substantial results. Northern Virginia continues to experience great economic growth, driven by technological advances, the Federal government, and other factors. A world-class university is needed to support this emerging center. Mason’s location and capabilities present a large opportunity to be that university. It is important to exploit that opportunity; (not to let) others absorb some functions GMU could be doing and recalled the situation a few years ago to set up another world-class university in the northern Virginia area (governor’s secretary). Dr. Volgenau defined a potential addition to the George Mason University Vision (statement) as “The vision of George Mason University is to be a world-class teaching and research institution: an administration, faculty, and student body that are dedicated to scholarship, ethics, and service to the community, the nation, and world society.” Dr. Volgenau cited the US News and World Report Survey in which GMU placed in third tier. While he has problems with (U.S. News and World Report’s) methodology he recognizes that the survey can be seen as significant. The BOV decided to establish criteria for themselves and to work with staff, faculty, students and other friends of the university. This is not an initiative the BOV wants to execute in a vacuum, but rather to do so collaborative. One identified problem: GMU is under-funded as a PhD-granting institution compared to other public universities in the Commonwealth of Virginia. More money must be obtained for the university in part because of the high cost of living in this area. Student aid is also under-funded; including affecting the quality of graduate/undergraduate students we attract.
The World-Class University initiative is likely to be a campaign that
continues for years in which criteria will be refined and initiatives will
change. The plan is for the entire
university community to benefit from these initiatives.
Question # 1: A Senator
raised the problem of faculty salaries,
noting that, for example, the economics department has been having problems
hiring talent. The problem is so severe
that there is not just salary compression, but salary inversion in the department. Faculty who have been here for a long time
(in Senator’s own case, case for 32 years, currently occupying an endowed
chair), make less money than some newly hired faculty. In Senator’s view the quality of the
university is based on the quality of the faculty.
Dr. Volgenau: We are aware of
the problem and we struggle with it a lot.
Needing more money from the Commonwealth is not an excuse.
Question #2: A Senator
referred to the US News and World Report and
noted that there are multiple rankings
and measures used. At GMU faculty
salaries fall way below our peers. In a
dollar for dollar investment, raising faculty salaries is a good way to invest
since raising faculty salaries to those of their peers would raise the
university by a tier in these rankings.
Dr. Volgenau agreed
that providing these monies for faculty would raise the university by a tier
but this is not currently the plan.
Question #3: Another
Senator raised the US
News and World Report
rankings, noting that of 50-60
research universities ranked by the magazine, graduates rank low (19th)
in debt. Given in his view the unlikely
possibility that the university will be able to get substantial new monies from
the state, he wondered if tuition could be raised to help provide for
need-based scholarships as well as faculty salaries.
Dr. Volgenau: This has been
debated. (Tuition) must be reasonably comparable to other universities,
but there has been some talk about raising rates for graduate students. GMU has a fairly high percentage of part-time
students many of whom work for companies that may help pay for tuition and the
students themselves are employed. He
cited certain ideas that “continue to come back” e.g. concierge service in
residence halls. While some students
are ambivalent about this the question arises as to why not charge varying
rates for residences?
Question #4: A Senator
noted that the Cost of Living (COLA) differential was getting worse. Two years ago the GMU administration
published data that salaries were off by 32 –33%, now it is closer to 40%. The Senator noted that we seem to be going
in the wrong direction. Since money is
unlikely to come from the state and N. Virginia is likely to bear the burden of
building roads etc. Failure to improve faculty and staff salaries is to force
faculty and staff to subsidize the university.
Dr. Volgenau: The BOV
doesn’t want that to happen but noted that there is not enough investment in
the infrastructure of the state overall.
He agreed that if money is taken out of the general funds for road and
other projects, GMU and other educational institutions will get squeezed even
more.
Question #5: I have been at three institutions.
All (have) distressingly the same visions
of world-class; what is not on the list?
Dr. Volgenau: As a business person, you have to say no to some things to get what you
want. We can talk about cutting staff –
indirect costs. Try to talk about
institution as profit-making group – there are analyses. We have not spent a lot of time talking
about what to give up; rather how to do more to raise money; profit-raising
initiatives. (Some) BOV members went to
see Governor (Kaine) to get $10 million from budget to get more research grants
which (would) have a big payoff. The
governor and his staff thought about it; but responded that if we do it (for)
GMU, must give similar amounts to other institutions. But if you can tie it to economic growth, it would make their job
easier.
Question #6: A Senator
stated that we are not emphasizing
research students enough. Typical NSF
grants used to support two students now support only one. GMU needs to find
other ways to get money for these students and focus on what we have to do to
attract and keep the research component here.
It is already more expensive for research students (here), if we keep
increasing their fees, we will have fewer and fewer each year.
Dr. Volgenau: Everybody needs to be accountable…to attract and keep top-notch
research faculty. They can get us
grants, to pay for research graduate students’ facilities. A chicken-and-egg proposition. Someone who comes here wants to know if
there will be a cadre of graduate students.
(Research student fees) is a policy issue, we can change them from
within.
Question #7: A Senator
noted that a couple of years ago she
and another Senate colleague made a presentation to the BOV requesting a
non-voting faculty representative on the BOV, which has two non-voting student
members. After the meeting the BOV
decided to invite faculty representatives to all its committees which was wonderful
and very constructive but noted that we are still looking forward to having a
non-voting faculty member on the BOV itself.
Rector Dewberry: We thought it would better to have faculty representatives on BOV committees, not at the Board
level itself. He noted that committee
recommendations are routinely approved (by the BOV), and asked whether we (the
faculty) were still asking for the non-voting representative in addition to
those on the BOV committees.
The Senator responded in the affirmative.
Visitor Volgenau added that meetings can be boring.
Visitor Volgenau presented the following
information on-screen. No
question-answer follow-up.
Faculty Representatives
Better understanding of needs
Well rounded picture of the University
Elected Faculty Representatives
Equal Opportunity:
Toni-Michelle Travis
Finance and Resource Development:
Richard Coffinberger
Land Use and Physical Facilities:
Mark Houck
Faculty and Academic Standards:
Don Boileau
Student Life: Janette Muir
Audit: *Gopal Krishnan (*Board Appointed)
Faculty and Staff Housing
Closing remarks by Rector Dewberry:
Again complimented Dr. Volgenau on his activities on the BOV and his financial donation to what is now known as the Volgenau School. The Rector again noted that “…the university is already a great place in many respects ….(and) has several spires of excellence.” He cited one huge advantage as “our people; so many really talented people working so hard together on the same team…” He noted that GMU is a well-established university with a more than half a billion dollar budget, but most members at GMU are asking for ways to be better: “ (You are) such nice folks, obviously having fun, have a special attachment to work, and an invisible halo around your heads.” Rector Dewberry finished his remarks noting that the # 1 problem is money and noted that nothing makes him angrier as a native Virginian than that (GMU) does not get as much money as other schools.
Report on the Reorganization of the Krasnow Institute. Professor James Olds, Director of the Krasnow Institute, presented the following brief report. About 16 years ago, the Krasnow Institute for Advanced Study was founded initially by five Nobel Laureates in Brain Science. The institute received a funding bequest from Washingtonian Shelley Krasnow. Its new building opened in 1997. Its current faculty includes faculty from the Law School, CHSS, CHHS, etc. so is a “transdisciplinary institution” with interests in how the human brain produces masterpieces, questions of neuroscience, cognitive psychology, computer science. Professor Olds stated that Krasnow is really one of the two or three best places to do integrated neuroscience in the US. The Institute emerged from a separate 501CC3 into GMU in May, 2002 as a research unit under the Provost, not holding academic lines, but has been instrumental in creating the doctoral program in neuroscience, and the undergraduate BA in department of Psychology and Neuroscience. The proposed plan involves becoming analogous to ICAR – an institute as well as an academic unit of university involved in degree-granting and holding its own faculty lines. The Krasnow Institute wants to create a department of Molecular Neuroscience and Social Complexity with its own faculty lines and collaborative with other degrees lines. The Krasnow Institute will play a role in Promotion and Tenure Committees via departments, with ad hoc representatives in all units of university, including those not members of department. A final aspect – university-wide governance of “Neuroscience Advisory Council” to include a self-interested faculty across all units of university: chair of Psychology, Chair of Biological Sciences; Chair of Bioinformatics. These were recommended to Dean Censer, the Deans of the College of Science, and James Olds – with Provost Stearns to have the deciding vote.
Question #1: A Senator asked if Krasnow is to be analogous
to ICAR will it be degree
granting and will hires go through a Promotion and Tenure committee?
Professor Olds: A Ph.D. in Neuroscience was approved by SCHEV
two years ago.
(The answer left the
issue of which unit will grant the degree unclear).
Question #2: A Senator asked what this will cost.
Professor Olds: No more funds costs, no extra money (needed)
for administrative structure. Two new
departments to be funded by Krasnow Institute: molecular neuroscience and
social complexity.
Green Campus
Committee Report – Carrie Meyer, Faculty Senate Green Campus Task Force
As noted in the
Executive Summary of “The Greening of Higher Education Facilities and
Operations: A Race to Sustainability” many concrete examples include the green
buildings (LEED standard) which includes on-campus renewable energy, renewable
energy purchases, energy efficiency, purchasing and recycling policies, and
sustainable landscapes are included.
(see Attachment B). In the Mason Green Program, the LEED silver standard
will be used for all new buildings – including Academic II (Arlington) and the
Volgenau School of Information Technology and Engineering. There has been a 15% energy-use reduction
since FY 2002 under $12.2 million Siemens contract using energy efficient
lighting and equipment. Energy savings
up to $1.2 million/year used to pay back mortgage. New Parking and Transportation Department won commuter connection
award. Green living/learning in dorms,
bringing the university community together for change; requires cooperation of
university students, faculty, and staff.
See attachment A for
letter from President Merten on this issue.
Questions
and responses
In response to a
about the “green living floor” in
dormitories, Professor Meyer noted that this has been recommended by a student
task force, but location was not desired by upper level “green” students since it was in a largely freshman
dormitory.
Another Senator
asked why there are no recycling bins in the Johnson Center. Professor Meyer responded when you put
recycling bins in convenient spots, they get filled up with trash. The idea is to put these bins in
inconvenient spots so that they won’t fill up with trash, but said that a
campus campaign is needed to raise awareness.
A Senator suggested
that GMU recognize those who have green vehicles.
The Green Committee
advertises its meetings, please send suggestions to [email protected].
A final policy where all parties have agreed has been posted to the Faculty Senate website at http://www3.gmu.edu/facstaff/senate/Copyright_for_Faculty_Senate_March_7,_2007_final.doc . Barry Stevens, a lawyer, was hired to serve as director of research policy development in the Provost’s Office. He represents the Provost’s Office here today.
The copyright policy posted on the website is the product of three years of
work – beginning as a small group in research administration in the Provost’s
Office. About a year ago the policy
document was improved by a significant amount of consultation with faculty,
including James Sanford, of the Senate’s Faculty Matters Committee, as well as
faculty members Sean Luke and Tamara Maddox, who contributed a great deal. Last week a version of the policy was put up
which was not satisfactory to all concerned.
At a meeting last Friday, the remaining issues raised by committee
members were ironed out.
To set out university’s doctrine on copyright ownership of works created by faculty –with four exceptions to provisions (pages 3-4 reproduced below).
II. POLICY
STATEMENT
A. COPYRIGHT OWNERSHIP
1. WORKS
CREATED BY FACULTY
a. General provisions. It is the policy of the university that the
creator of a traditional work holds the copyright in that work, subject to the
exceptions described below.[1]
A traditional work is a pedagogical, scholarly, literary, or aesthetic work
(including computer software) in any medium that is created by the faculty
member within the scope of his or her regular university employment. The university retains a nonexclusive,
nontransferable, paid-up license to use faculty-created traditional works for
the university’s educational and research purposes, except that the license is
revoked if the creator determines that revocation is required by a third party
for publication of the work.
The
university makes no claim of copyright ownership in works created entirely
outside the scope of a faculty member’s employment.
There
are four exceptions to this general rule on ownership of copyright in
traditional works:
i. Directed works. The university holds copyright in a
traditional work that is created by a faculty member at the express written
direction of the university but outside the scope of his or her regular
employment unless the faculty member and the university, prior to the creation
of the work, enter into a written agreement providing that the faculty member
will hold copyright. The Vice President
for Research and Economic Development or that officer’s designee enters into
the agreement on behalf of the university.
ii. Sponsored programs. Copyright ownership in traditional works
created under a contract,
grant, or other agreement between the university and a third party may be
specified in the agreement as the university and the third party
determine. Unless the agreement
requires that the university hold copyright in such a work, the university
treats it as a traditional work.
iii. Substantial use of
significant university resources.
The university holds copyright in a traditional, non-patentable work
that is created with substantial use of significant university resources and
has considerable potential commercial value, except that the university makes
no claim of copyright ownership in a work that is created pursuant to an
agreement between the creator and a third party for the creation of the
work.
Substantial
use of significant university resources occurs when a work is created with the
substantial use of significant university equipment or facilities, the use of
special financial assistance from the university, or the dedicated assistance
of university administrative employees not engaged in teaching or research. The
use of a university computer or servers or of incidental supplies, or the
occasional use of university administrative employees or shared facilities,
would typically not be a basis for university ownership of the copyright.
The
university makes no claim of copyright ownership in a non-patentable work
created with substantial use of significant university resources if (1) the
university does not hold copyright under either of the exceptions in this Part
II (A)(1)(a)(i) or (ii), and (2) all known creators of the work agree to make it available under
either an open content license acceptable to the Vice President (including, but
not limited to, Creative Commons' "Attribution No Derivatives,"
"Attribution Share Alike,” and "Attribution" licenses) or, in
the case of software, an open source license that meets the requirements of The
Open Source Definition, Version 1.9, of the Open Source Initiative. The Vice President may update the
requirements for an open source license under this policy.
iv. Patentable works. The university generally holds copyright in
a traditional work that is also patentable, including patentable software, when
the university has a claim to ownership of the patent. The Vice President or that officer’s
designee claims and disclaims copyright ownership in such a work on behalf of
the university by providing notice to all creators.
The
university makes no claim of ownership of the copyright or the patent in
copyrightable and patentable software if (1) the university does not hold
copyright under either of the exceptions in this Part II (A)(1)(a)(i) or (ii),
and (2) all known creators and inventors of
the software agree to make it available under an open source license
that meets the requirements of The Open Source Definition, Version 1.9, of the
Open Source Initiative. The Vice President may update the requirements for an
open source license under this policy.
The policy has been
vetted and approved by the Deans and Directors, one suggestion they made was to
include a purpose statement, reproduced below:
I. PURPOSE AND SCOPE
George
Mason University is committed to the dissemination of knowledge in works
created by its faculty, staff, and students.
The purpose of this policy is to encourage the free and open exchange of
ideas through copyrighted works and to –
Equitable sharing of
the proceeds defined by Mr. Stevens as 50% to creator, 10% to creator’s unit,
and 40% to GMU Intellectual Property.
The faculty based Intellectual Property Committee is composed of 7
members. The university’s copyright policy conforms to Virginia law as it was
amended last March.
Discussion: Section II. A. I., b. i. (p. 5): under b.
Course Materials:
i. Except for adjunct faculty, a faculty member may not, while employed
by the university, use course materials prepared in connection with his or her
academic responsibilities at the university for teaching purposes in
substantial competition with the university, or make these materials available
to others with the intent that
they be used for those purposes, without the permission of his or her Dean or
Institute Director. A faculty member
may use these materials or make them available to others for short,
not-for-credit courses without obtaining the Dean’s or Director’s permission.
Professor Sanford added the following points – the above paragraph was not changed; to illustrate his concern that many faculty probably consider themselves as employees 24/7/365 and subject to that section even during unpaid summers.
1. A 9-mo. faculty member who does not teach or otherwise earn money from the university is not employed at the time and not subject to this section of the policy.
2. While the term "in substantial competition with the university" is not precisely definable, the following uses of course materials do not constitute violations of copyright.
a. Posting syllabi on line.
b. Sharing syllabi with instructors from other institutions as part of a program by a professional association..
c. Sharing course materials with colleagues at other institutions who are near the beginning of their careers.
d. Presenting talks and symposia regarding innovative teaching methods at conferences or publishing such information in books and journals.
The idea that the provision was intended to reflect is that university resources and time devoted to university responsibilities should not be used in substantive competition with the university. Circumstances could warrant discussion between faculty member and dean – need dean/director’s permission. If not approved, the matter would go to the University Intellectual Property Committee. Example: Employee develops materials for a course during the academic year, employed by the university during the summer and used same materials to teach at a university next door at the same time GMU offered course during the summer.
Chair Suzanne
Slayden noted that we have been asked to approve policy before it is sent on to
the Board of Visitors for approval. If
we wish to change policy, we can only send advice on to the Board of Visitors. A motion was made and seconded to accept the
copyright policy. As the meeting ran
past the normal time of adjournment and some Senators had already departed, a
quorum no longer existed. A vote did
not take place.
Adjournment: The
meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m.
Respectfully
submitted,
Susan Trencher
Secretary
TO INSERT ATTACHMENT A (Letter from Merten)
Attachment B
The Greening of Higher Education
Facilities and Operations:
A Race to Sustainability
Retrieve the entire paper at
http://osf1.gmu.edu/~cmeyer/Green%20Campuses.pdf
Faculty Senate Green Campus Task Force
March 7, 2006
Executive Summary. Colleges and universities are suddenly racing to green their campuses. Within the last few years, green buildings and renewable energy sources are sprouting on college campuses across the country. Campus administrators are using them to grab media attention and promote their schools as “sustainability leaders” to attract students and funding.
LEED certification has become the standard for green building. The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System™ was developed by the U.S. Green Building Council, composed of building industry leaders dedicated to environmentally sound and sustainable buildings. Twenty-one states (including Maryland but not Virginia) are considering initiatives, or already have policies, to require or encourage LEED certification for new public buildings. Sixty-one municipalities, including Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Kansas City, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, and Seattle have adopted or are considering similar policies. In many cases the state policies apply to state schools, but many schools have independently adopted policies that require LEED certification for campus buildings.
College and universities are also racing to reduce energy usage and switching to renewable energy. Midwest colleges are building wind turbines, and solar panels proved power to more than 100 college campuses. Other campuses are saving money and reducing carbon emission by converting fossil-fuel power plants to run on biomass. Purchasing renewable energy is another ready alternative; students across the country have voted to increase their own fees to pay the premium clean energy may still require. Some schools run on 100% clean energy.
Transportation is another key arena where colleges and universities are making changes in the direction of cleaner fuels and fewer cars on campus. Car sharing programs, like “Zipcar” and “Flexcar,” are expanding across college campuses. Campuses are working hard to integrate with local mass transit, promote carpooling, improve bicycling and pedestrian access, and provide better shuttle service. Cleaning up the campus fleet of vehicles with fuel efficient vehicles and vehicles that run on lower emission fuels (like bio-diesel) can contribute significantly to overall campus sustainability.
Those universities that have a comprehensive approach to integrating sustainable practices throughout the operation of the institution also have active programs in recycling, sustainable purchasing, and sustainable landscaping practices.
Financial obstacles to greener campuses have not proved insurmountable. Although some initiatives require up-front costs, saving energy and water also saves money. Because greener campuses attract positive media attention, donors, and students; administrators have recognized that they can’t afford not to invest in a more sustainable future.
[1] Creators are reminded that they bear the responsibility for defending their copyrights against infringement. The university may provide creators with assistance but is not required to do so.