GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY
MINUTES OF THE FACULTY SENATE
February 13, 2008
Senators Present: David Anderson, Sheryl Beach,
Kristine Bell, Jim Bennett, Alok Berry, Deborah Boehm-Davis, Lorraine Brown,
Phil Buchanan, Rick Coffinberger, Jose Cortina, Penelope Earley, Allison
Frendak, Karen Hallows, Allison Hayward, Mark Houck, David Kuebrich, Patricia
Moyer-Packenham, Janette Muir, Paula Petrik, Larry Rockwood, Jim Sanford, Joe
Scimecca, Suzanne Slayden, Peter Stearns, Ellen Todd, Shirley Travis, Phil Wiest,
John Zenelis, Stanley Zoltek.
Senators Absent: Ernest
Barreto, Rei Berroa, Frieda Butler, Jack Censer, Vikas Chandhoke, Sandra
Cheldelin, Elizabeth Chong, Julie Christensen, Sara Cobb, Lloyd Cohen, Sharon
deMonsabert, Rutledge Dennis, Jeffrey Gorrell, Lloyd Griffiths, Kingsley
Haynes, Dimitrios Ioannou, Matthew Karush, Richard Klimoski, Jim Kozlowski,
Howard Kurtz, Alan Merten, Linda Monson, Jean Moore, Daniel Polsby, Jane
Razeghi, William Reeder, Ray Sommer, June Tangney, Iosif Vaisman, James Willett,
Mary Williams, Peter Winant, Michael Wolf-Branigin.
Visitors Present:
Marc Broderick, Vice President for University Development and Alumni
Relations; Rick Davis, Associate Provost for Undergraduate Education, Pat
Donini, Deputy Director, HR/Payroll and Employee Relations Director; Kathy
Gillette, Director, Classroom Technologies, DoIT; Dolores Gomez-Moran,
University Ombudsperson; Robin Herron, Editor, Daily Gazette, Media
Relations; Susan Jones, University Registrar; Jennifer Korjus,
Director, Learning Support Services, DoIT; Della Patrick, Vice Chair, Staff
Senate; Sharon Pitt, Executive Director, Division of Institutional Technology
(DoIT); Walt Sevon, Executive Director, Technology Systems Division, ITU.
I. Call
to Order: The meeting was
called to order at 3:08 p.m.
Chair Suzanne Slayden welcomed Marc Broderick, Vice
President for University Development and Alumni Affairs. Before coming to George Mason Mr. Broderick
was Associate Vice President for Institutional Advancement at Temple University
(2002-2007) and at Emory University before that. He earned a BA from George Washington University in 1993 in
sociology and criminal justice.
Vice President Broderick thanked the Faculty Senate for the
opportunity and asked for questions from the floor before his prepared remarks.
Senator
question: The Senator asked why the
Development Office does not send thank-you notes noting that she has given “a
lot” to the university over the past three years and has received a
confirmation note but no thank you note.
The Senator also noted that the donors’ party takes place at a time when
faculty members are generally in class.
Senator comment: The Senator noted that he “received a
fairly decent thank-you note last semester.”
He also noted that Vice President Broderick “has done a fantastic job
(in his report) to the BOV Finance and Resources Committee (as requested by
Rector Volgenau).” The Senator noted
that he has raised funds in the past and called Mr. Broderick a critical person
at this university, especially since Governor Kaine has proposed to cut the
budget another 2%, making the private sector even more important. The Senator was deeply concerned about GMU’s
dismal record of fundraising in the past, relative to our size, age, and peer
group, stating “candidly our endowment is pathetic and the strategy we're using
didn't seem to be producing results.” Of particular concern was that records
show that within a twelve-month period, President Merten made 19 fundraising
visits; and in the past 6 months (July- December 2007), he made a total of four
efforts. The Senator characterized
these efforts as “a lot of smoke and not a lot of fire.”
Response, Vice
President Broderick: The Vice
President duly noted the remarks on the party and the gift acknowledgment
system. He noted that a lot of the report to which the second Senator had
addressed his comments is drawn off a donor database which is a DOS-based
system purchased by GMU in 1990. A new
system, BSR-Advanced, will go on line in April. It has the ability to track activities more easily, and is more
user-friendly. He noted that it was not
his role to talk about the time before his arrival. He stated that there will be greater (fundraising) activity. A new reporting system went into effect on
December 1st. He considers
transparency very important and to that end monthly updates will be sent to the
Director of Development, deans/directors, and fundraisers. The President, Provost, and Chief Financial
Office will receive university-wide reports.
In his view he and others in his office have to be accountable as
professional fundraisers.
Senator comment: The Senator commented that he “likes
what he hears” but is concerned that the focus is “a bit narrow.” In one model there are high expectations for
Deans to raise money, thus the Senator held that they also need to be held
accountable. As part of systemic
changes, the Senator hopes all those who raise money are held accountable and
rewarded accordingly.
Response, Vice
President Broderick: Mr. Broderick
agreed with the notion of transparency but not the awards. He stated that every college will develop an
annual strategic plan put together with the Director of Development in
conjunction with the dean – a 13 page program.
He sees a need to incorporate best business practices at GMU. Present
Gift Acceptance Policy as ratified by the BOV in 2000 now under review;
including topics such as endowed chairs, scholarships, and naming of
facilities.
Senator question: Do
you have a goal for next year regarding the number of buildings to receive
names?
Response, Vice
President Broderick: The Vice
President responded that they take Deans' marching orders when they want to
raise money for buildings to be built and take steps to identify the number
through the Gift Acceptance Policy.
Senator question: Is it your aim to have a goal of one every
two years, every five years?
Response, Vice
President Broderick: Mr. Broderick noted that the Deans are going through
fundraising plans for names to put on some new buildings being built. An example is of one building with three
potential donors which would be appropriated systematically. In his view we have to serve donors as much
as ourselves, and we have to ask what they want? He stated that in central development there is a potential donor
allocation system where donors are identified by academic units, so as not to
go to one donor by several units at the same time. The University-wide comprehensive campaign plan provides an
opportunity to bring on new staff and resources. Two new Associate Vice Presidents have
responsibilities where one serves as the Vice President for schools and
colleges; and the other is to serve as Vice President for the Comprehensive
Campaign. He stated that the backbone
of fundraising is defined as knowing who is in the database, ensuring that we
have the right information re mailing/phone numbers. Over the next three months “we are making aggressive strides to
clean up data, then to go through a wealth identification process – including
parents, staff, alumni, local philanthropists, as well as corporate boards,
real estate, and life estates. A
Committee has been formed to look at school/college/institute strategic plans,
spires of excellence, etc. Part of the
effort is to find out what is influencing the donor community in Northern
Virginia. The Committee is to complete
its review by May 1.
Senator comment: The
Senator noted that part of the problem (for fundraising) is “cleaning up
records” so that within a year after a student graduates their email address is
purged.
Response, Vice
President Broderick: Mr. Broderick agreed that we need to
have lifelong email but not cheap to do.
We need to ask for server capacity.
He stated that the alumni constituency is very young. 40% of alumni contribute which he saw as
“extraordinary” given that we don’t have their email addresses. A feasibility study will take place
Aug-Sept-Oct., to identify the constituency goals/priorities. The effort will include outside
counsel. Recommendations will be
presented to the BOV who will vote to begin the campaign, but the term “campaign” will not be used right away as it
is considered best to raise a lot of money in different stages prior to any
public announcement. Articles in the Chronicle of Higher Education or the New York Times describe a trend in
mega-giving, high 7-, 8-, 9-figures.
Mega-donors may not (give large gifts) to their alma mater, but will
give where they receive a return on investment, to make transformational
change. Mr. Broderick commented “I can’t see a better transformational
environment than GMU. There is a lot
of deep-rooted old DC money not tapped into yet. If you look at a campaign in general, funding is a byproduct; it
is more a marketing issue, towards the future, to send one’s kids here.” In his view GMU should “revamp spirit (and
work on) how we picture ourselves in philanthropic communities.”
Chair of Senate
question: “What can you envision
faculty doing besides giving?”
Response, Vice
President Broderick: Mr. Broderick
noted that the Faculty/Staff campaign begins next year and encouraged the
faculty to go to the Dean to identify something you think should be funded.
“Faculty input is highly encouraged.”
Senator question: What is your relationship to the GMU Foundation?
Response, Vice
President Broderick: Mr. Broderick
noted that he is not the president of the GMU Foundation as was the case in the
past. He is an officer of the
Foundation, working very closely with them and with the BOV.
Senator comment: The Senator stated that he assumed that
Vice President Broderick will pass plans through the Finance and Resource
Development Committee of the BOV, and asked that he distribute information
about Deans and fundraising to the BOV.
The Senator expressed a hope in the spirit of transparency, that the
Faculty Senate will be informed about college/schools’ fundraising. The Senator noted that it has been his
experience that it is easier to raise money for a goal and if fundraisers want faculty to support them it is
best to keep them in the “information loop.”
(Upon learning that Jim Olds, the Director of the Krasnow
Institute, was serving on the (fundraising) committee, the Senator suggested
that a faculty representative also be elected by the Senate).
Response, Vice
President Broderick: The Vice
President didn’t see why this would not be possible. The Deans already have
this and he noted that he is willing to come back to report to the Senate.
General Discussion
and response
In response to several questions raised, Mr. Broderick
further explained the outline of the next University-wide campaign. At this point, he has no idea how long the
Comprehensive Campaign will be. During
the feasibility study stage they may test the market at X amount and raise less
or more than that. He noted that the
timeline is important – it usually lasts for 5 years with 2 years in
between. GMU has a ten-year campaign.
Senator question: What is relationship between Comprehensive
Campaign and annual giving?
Response, Vice President
Broderick: Annual fund gifts count
toward Comprehensive Campaign. Up until
this year, annual fund alumni solicitation occurred four times/year; non-alumni
donors solicited once a year. The plan
is to solicit both groups more than four times/year. Vice President Broderick
stated that we need to be more aggressive with parents, faculty, and staff and
local philanthropic community in order to build habitual giving which
eventually turns into a big drive and we have generations attending the same
university.
Senator comment: “Every year in the fall, I receive a phone
call from an undergraduate student (from the university I attended). They are effective. If students could become part of the process
it would be more effective.”
Response, Vice President
Broderick: We have a whole army of student callers.
Senator comment: The Senator commended an unknown person
in the Development Office as extraordinarily gracious and also commented on the
redesigned website and noted that it is a good idea to enable donations through
the website. The Senator also noted
other ways to involve donors, for example, giving small things, e.g. doorknobs,
enables small donors to give. The Senator
also commented that “If I give $50K to Harvard, who cares? If I give $50K to a land grant university,
it goes further.”
Response, Vice
President Broderick: We are now
using this approach in the Volgenau School, SOL, and the new athletic
facility. He noted that we will go into
this when the public phase of the campaign opens up.
Senator comment and
question: The Senator expressed
concern that GMU is waiting too long to (build) a better endowment
situation. He asked how long it takes
to decide success/failure and further, what would be a failure (in Vice
President Broderick’s view)?
Response, Vice
President Broderick: If we do not
exceed the campaign goal which will be set in the next few months, it would be
a failure.
Senator follow-up: Who sets the bottom line?
Response, Vice
President Broderick: Mr. Broderick
stated that the BOV will hear the results of the feasibility study and will set
the financial goal and the timeline goal.
II. Announcements
The results of the Task Force on Compensation Survey from
last week's special meeting (February 6, 2008) were distributed. Twenty-three
responses were received; a high degree of unanimity was observed. Senators not
present at the last meeting who wish to fill out survey, please return survey
to the Senate clerk at the end of today's meeting. After some discussion, it was agreed that the responses be
recompiled using the standard deviation for inclusion in the Senate
minutes.
III. New Business –
Committee Reports
A. Academic Policies – Janette Muir, Chair
Motions on Incomplete Grade
Policies
Motion 1: (Clarification on Earlier Incomplete
Deadline)
To
insert into the existing catalog statement the phrase “Unless the faculty member has specified an earlier deadline” so
that the catalog would read:
“This grade may be given to students who are passing a
course but who may be unable to complete scheduled course work for a cause
beyond reasonable control. Unless the faculty member has specified an
earlier deadline, the student must then complete all the requirements by
the end of the ninth week of the next semester, not including summer term, and
the instructor must turn in the final grade by the end of the 10th
week. Unless an explicit written
extension is filed with the Registrar’s Office by the faculty deadline, the
grade of IN is changed by the registrar to an F.”
Motion 2: (Require Incomplete
Grade Contract for Earlier Deadline Cases)
To add
the sentence beneath the existing catalog copy:
Faculty members who opt for an earlier incomplete deadline
will be required to file an Incomplete
Grade Contract with the Registrar’s office, detailing the work that remains
to be done, the general reason for the incomplete, and the student’s grade at
the point of receiving the incomplete.
Background:
These
motions originated from the Registrar’s Office, where concerns have been
expressed about the lack of clarification regarding incomplete deadlines and
expectations. The lack of specific
policy regarding earlier deadlines is difficult to defend when a student goes
through a grade appeal process regarding an incomplete. Additionally, there is an apparent lack of
clarity on the part of students as to what work is due and when. The Incomplete Grade Contract would allow
for clarification of academic policy including an earlier deadline for
graduating students. It would also specify
remaining work to be done in the event that a substitute evaluator must
complete the grading process.
An
example of a contract is shown below.
Please note that student required to use contract when not typical
university deadline.
Discussion:
Senator question: Why has the Academic Policies Committee recommended (use of) contract for
all students?
Response, Professor Muir: Initially there was
concern expressed about too much bureaucratization: especially in large classes of 300 in which you may have as many
as 50 incomplete grades. We need to remind
people of the problems which arise with incompletes and how they create
problems in the Registrar’s Office.
Senator comment: It is a book-keeping problem but it is
also the case that the students in large classes who receive incompletes are
likely to be freshmen. Discussion (at
the Executive Committee) on this issue was to provide the faculty with
flexibility, the changes are suggestions, not demands.
.
Senator question: If someone takes an INC in my
course, it’s an F until they finish work.
Do students who fail to make this deadline say, “why don’t we receive a
D? “
Response, Professor Muir: The contract defines a
point-in-time.
Senator follow-up: Consequently if you don’t turn
work in, you will fail the course?
Senator comment: If there is a contract between the faculty
and student – why go to the Registrar?
The Senator suggested that a department level contract was all that was
necessary.
Comment, Registrar Susan Jones: The impetus for the
motion not just from Registrar’s Office but also from the Academic
Procedures Advisory Committee (APAC), a group of Assistant/Associate
Deans and administrators (chaired by Susan Jones as University Registrar)
concerned about the number of people involved.
Senator
comment: We should include
“Special Deadline” in the title of the form.
Chair of the Senate: The Chair noted that in the absence of a
quorum the meeting should not have been called to order but she had made the
decision to do so. However, without a
quorum the Senate cannot vote. The
discussion would be continued at our next meeting (March 5, 2008).
IV. Other New Business
Motion: To
approve the concept proposal for a Faculty Practice Plan for GMU – Shirley
Travis, Dean of the College of Health and Human Services
George
Mason University’s Faculty Practice Plan
DRAFT
Preamble:
The George Mason University Faculty Practice Plan (FPP)
supports the educational mission of the University. The approved plan outlines
policies that: (a) provide a professional practice structure, (b) describe
mechanisms by which individual academic units (colleges, schools, and
institutes) can link to the university practice plan, and (c) foster a sense of
practice plan identity among all participating faculty members.
Purpose:
The FPP will provide formal support for ongoing education,
training, and certification of faculty members and students. Additionally, the
FPP enables the provision of professional services to address both unmet and
specialized needs of the community Virginiavia
collaborations, consultations, and coordination with other agencies and
organizations.
Definition:
“Faculty practice” is any professional service provided by a
faculty member within his or her scope of employment. Practice activities that
are approved for participation in the FPP provide faculty members practical
experiences essential to maintaining and enhancing their skills and knowledge
in fulfillment of the education mission of the University.
Membership: Rights and
Obligations of Members:
Academic Unit
Membership – Individual academic units (colleges, schools, and institutes)
may participate in the FPP with the approval of the Dean or Director of the
unit, the Practice Plan Governing Committee, and the President of the
University. Each Academic Unit
Faculty Practice Plan must be consistent with the goals of the academic unit
and the University. Each Faculty Practice Plan must include:
(1) A description of
the University policies and procedures pertaining to
faculty practice activities and related fees;
(2) Incorporation of
faculty practice activities in the unit’s bylaws;
(3) A designated
fund/account into which all faculty practice fees are to be
transferred, which shall be held and administered by
the respective
Dean or Director of the academic unit;
(4) An operating
budget prepared annually and recommended by the Dean
or Director of the academic unit and submitted to
the Practice Plan
Governing Committee and the President of the
University for review,
approval, and oversight.
Individual
Participation - Any full time faculty member (term, tenured, or
tenure-track) whose academic unit is a member of the Faculty Practice Plan is
eligible to participate in the plan.
Individual exceptions to the above criteria will be considered on a case by
case basis by the Governing Committee.
Faculty Designation -
A new faculty category called “Clinical faculty” shall be available for
fulltime faculty who are employed by the University to support a unit practice
plan. This group of faculty members is the clinical complement to the
University designation of “Research Professor,” in which the individual is
supported on income generated by research grants and contracts. In these cases,
the Clinical Faculty member would be expected to support all or a significant
portion of his or her income by clinical practice.
Regardless of the type of appointment, all individuals in a
faculty practice plan are bound by the general employment requirements at
George Mason University and by the practice conditions set forth in the bylaws of
their respective academic units.
Collection and Disbursement of Funds
All professional fees for direct services generated by an
individual unit’s practice plan are billed and collected by the University or
an approved Billing Vendor on behalf of the FPP. All fees are billed through or on behalf of the FPP and all funds collected are deposited
in a Faculty Practice Fund/Account in the University’s name. Disbursement of
these funds is made to participating academic units according to an agreed upon
revenue split between the academic unit and Central Administration based upon
the approved unit practice plan.
Governance
The University FPP is
administered by a Practice Plan Governing Committee and the University
President, or his designee, on behalf of the Board of Visitors. This governing
committee is responsible for reviewing and approving all unit proposals for
participation in the FPP, monitoring
unit adherence to all governing rules and policies associated with faculty
practice at the University, and providing technical assistance and support to
units that are developing new practice opportunities for their faculty
members.
Elected membership on the
Governing Committee includes a member of the Faculty Senate, and one practicing
faculty member from each participating academic unit.
Ex officio members of the
Governing Committee include the Vice President for Research, the Vice President
for Human Resources, the Senior Vice President of the University (or his
designee), the Assistant Vice President/Chief Safety Officer, and the Dean or
Director of each participating academic unit (or his or her designee, such as
an Associate Dean or Director of Faculty Practice). A Chair of the Governing Committee will elected by the members.
The FPP Governing Committee meets at least quarterly
to review, monitor, and advise faculty practice activities, such as actual or
proposed program components, quality and safety reports, and financial reports.
Individual members also meet regularly with the governing bodies of the
individual academic units to assure compliance with University policies and
procedures and to
Committee
Members
Shirley Travis, Dean, CHHS
Jim Olds, Director, Krasnow Institute
Beth Brock, Associate VP and Controller
Jose Cortina, Associate Professor, CHSS, Faculty Senate
Representative
Lynn Gerber, Professor, CHHS
Linda Harber, Associate VP, Human Resources/Payroll
Matt Kluger, VP, Research & Economic Development
Christena Langley, Acting Associate Dean/Director, CHSS
James Maddux, Professor, CHSS
Goodlett McDaniel, Assoc Dean, CHHS
Ann McGuigan, Director, Research Development
Tom Moncure, University Counsel
Lynn Schrum, Professor, CEHD
Discussion:
Dean Travis noted that
Professor Jim Maddux and Professor Jose Cortina served on the Family Practice
Plan Governing Committee (FPPGC) as faculty representatives. All Deans and Directors were invited to send
a representative to the Committee.
Faculty Practice as broadly defined will touch some colleges (CHHS,
CEHD, Krasnow), as well as new hires in COS, Psychology, and the
humanities. Time was spent identifying
an appropriate faculty practice plan for all Mason faculty, not just for
one college. CHHS is prepared to go
forward with a pilot of some sort but there is no formal proposal as yet; to be
reviewed by the FPPGC. One key element
is the creation of a new category of faculty – clinical faculty, as a parallel
to research faculty. This plan could
potentially support programs across campus.
The Dean invited Professor Maddux to make comments as an advocate for
the Family Practice Plan.
Comments,
Professor Maddux: Attention was paid
so that faculty was not forced into some overarching plan against one’s
will. There is a choice to join to gain
benefits such as malpractice insurance and enhance department programs. Faculty currently engaged in practice may
continue to do what they’ve been doing.
There is a need to bring in non-tenure line faculty such as nurses with
titles so that they may conduct clinical practice.
Senator
question: The faculty in SOM
wondered how this differs from consulting.
Response: Dean Travis: Consulting is seen as a separate issue. We create an environment attractive to
people. What if someone outside the
community who does not know about your faculty but learns of your service? There is a central place as part of FPP.
This can morph into a role in CHHS/CEHD.
There are lots of things possible that would have to be defined by the
school.
Comment, Professor
Maddux: There was an effort to
make it inclusive and allow broad participation.
Senator
question: If I was making my
living doing this, I would be unhappy that my competitors get the benefits
mentioned. Counseling is already extant
in Psychology – Fairfax Community Services with generally sliding fee scale (1/2
– 1/10th what is charged).
Response, Dean
Travis: First and foremost, we
have an educational mission. We have an
opportunity to serve a group of underserved children in Fairfax County schools,
to deliver health care services. We
have the capacity but not the mechanism.
Several people in the university worked on this and GMU is covered by
liability insurance. However, all
practitioners delivering direct services should carry their own liability
insurance.
Senator
question: How does this fit
into the GMU venue?
Response, Dean
Travis: (They fit) under the umbrella of education providing the
opportunity to participate in practice plans in clinics. It also provides more experience for
students; as more students wish to train, we need more clinical faculty to
train them. We are also delivering
important services to the community.
Senator
comment: I like that the
definition is broad, but as a non-clinical practitioner, “clinical” does not
appear until; halfway through document.
Response, Professor
Cortina (member of planning group):
There is a general definition because there is such a diverse group of
faculty who might benefit from it.
Comment: Dean Travis: Our goal would be to get a green light to go
ahead to do a pilot test. Also we want
to leave things broad enough so other units can join – to be as open as
possible, but we could also define things more narrowly.
The Dean thanked the Senate.
V.
Adjournment: The meeting
adjourned at 4:17 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan Trencher
Secretary
George Mason University