GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY
MINUTES OF THE FACULTY SENATE
MARCH 5, 2008
Senators Present: David Anderson, Ernest Barreto, Andrea Bartoli, Sheryl Beach, Kristine Bell, Jim Bennett, Alok Berry, Deborah Boehm-Davis, Lorraine Brown, Phillip Buchanan, Frieda Butler, Elizabeth Chong, Rick Coffinberger, Rutledge Dennis, Penelope Earley, Allison Frendak, Lloyd Griffiths, Karen Hallows, Mark Houck, Dimitrios Ioannou, Matthew Karush, Jim Kozlowski, David Kuebrich, Linda Monson, Jean Moore, Patricia Moyer-Packenham, Janette Muir, Paula Petrik, Larry Rockwood, Jim Sanford, Joe Scimecca, Suzanne Slayden, Ray Sommer, Peter Stearns, June Tangney, Ellen Todd, Susan Trencher, Phil Wiest, James Willett, Mary Williams, Peter Winant, Michael Wolf-Branigin, Stanley Zoltek.
Senators Absent: Rei Berroa, Jack Censer, Vikas Chandhoke, Julie Christensen, Sara Cobb, Lloyd Cohen, Jose Cortina, Sharon deMonsabert, Jeffrey Gorrell, Kingsley Haynes, Allison Hayward, Richard Klimoski, Howard Kurtz, Alan Merten, Daniel Polsby, Jane Razeghi, William Reeder, Shirley Travis, Iosif Vaisman, John Zenelis.
Visitors Present: Eileen Chandhoke, Librarians’ Council, University Libraries; Pat
Donini, Deputy Director, HR/Payroll and Employee Relations Director; Esther Elstun, Professor Emerita, Modern
and Classical Languages; Dolores Gomez-Moran, University Ombudsperson;
Linda Harber, Associate Vice President for Human Resources and Payroll; Robin
Herron, Editor, Daily Gazette, Media Relations; Susan Jones, University
Registrar; Jennifer Korjus, Director, Learning Support Services, Chuck Mills,
III, GMU Board of Visitors; Sharon Pitt, Executive Director, Division of
Institutional Technology (DoIT); Christoph Stahel, Assistant Professor of
Finance, SOM; Dr. Ernst Volgenau, Rector of George Mason University.
I.
Call to Order: The
meeting was called to order at 3:02 p.m.
A quorum was present.
II. Approval of the Minutes of January 23, 2008,
February 6, 2008, and February 13, 2008:
The minutes were approved as
distributed.
III. Announcements
Chair Suzanne
Slayden expressed her thanks to Allison Hayward of the School of Law who has
agreed to serve as parliamentarian.
Motions from the Academic Policies Committee
concerning incomplete grade policy
Please refer to Faculty Senate
Minutes February 13, 2008 discussion:
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.”
The motion was approved.
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.
An amendment was proposed to substitute “Local Academic Unit
(LAU)” for “Registrar.” The
amendment was approved (appears
below):
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 Local Academic Unit’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.
The amended motion was approved.
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.
See sample contract below.
-DRAFT-
George Mason University
Incomplete Grade Contract
Student’s Name
___________________________________________________________________________
Last First Middle
Initial
GNumber___________________________________________ Day Phone
__________________________
Course #
__________________ Section #_________
Title ________________________________________
Semester: _____ Fall
Year ________
_____ Spring
_____ Summer
UNIVERSITY DEADLINE |
Students submit work to instructor by end
of the 9th week of next fall or spring semester |
Instructor reports grade to Office of the
Registrar one week later |
SPECIAL DEADLINE FOR THIS STUDENT (no later than University Deadline) |
Student submits work to instructor by: ____________________ Date |
Instructor reports grade to Office of the
Registrar one week later |
List the remaining requirements below:
1.
____________________________________________
2.
____________________________________________
3.
____________________________________________
4.
____________________________________________
Student’s Grade at
this point: ___________________
Other pertinent information which will be of help in accurately
evaluating this student in absence of instructor:________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Signatures:
Student____________________________ Date______________________________
Instructor__________________________ Date______________________________
Motion to approve the contract proposal for a
Faculty Practice Plan:
Please refer to Faculty Senate
Minutes February 13, 2008 discussion:
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
via 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
The motion was approved and will be presented to the Board of Visitors for approval at its March 19, 2008 meeting.
V. New Business: Committee Reports
A. Senate
Standing Committees
Executive Committee – no report.
Academic Policies – no report.
A survey has been sent to department chairs asking them about non-financial resources. Professor Buchanan has a list of departments who have not yet responded to the survey, and asked Senators to remind department chairs to respond.
Faculty Matters – Larry Rockwood, Chair
Motion from the Committee: Tenure Clock Extension for Serious Illness
Last year, the Faculty Senate approved a motion for Tenure Clock Extension for New Parents (May 2, 2007). At our January meeting we approved an extension of probationary period after being called up for Military Service. We now propose an extension of the probationary period (stoppage of tenure clock) for serious personal or family illness.
Extension of
Probationary Period for Serious Illness
Extension of the probationary period for tenure track faculty member will be approved for circumstances that have a significant impact on the faculty member’s productivity, such as serious personal illness or a major illness of a member of the faculty member’s immediate family, under the following conditions and definitions. Serious personal illness or illness within the immediate family will be defined according to the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), already used by the university. The FMLA act requires certification of the illness by a physician and is handled by Human Resources. Once certification of the illness has been approved by Human Resources, the faculty member can delay the tenure clock (extension of the probationary period) by notifying, in writing, the chair of the department or the dean/director of the college, school or institute in which the faculty member serves. The request must be made within three months of certification of sick or family leave by Human Resources. Probationary period extensions will be granted in one-year increments, with the maximum probationary period extension being a cumulative total of two years. An extension beyond one year will require discussion with the appropriate department chair and Dean. At the time of tenure consideration, a faculty member will be considered using the same criteria as those applied to other faculty in the college school or institute.
Proposed Amendment
Move to amend the
motion by substituting:
the Family and
Medical Leave Act (FMLA), already used by the university. The
FMLA act requires certification of the illness by a physician and is handled by
Human Resources.
with :
the Department of
Labor’s criteria for family and medical leave, already used by the
university. Certification of illness by
a physician is required and will be handled by Human Resources.
Explanation
The
State of Virginia Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) defines family in the
most traditional way, while many states and the federal government use an
expanded definition that includes not only an employee’s “spouse” but also a “spousal equivalent.”
According to the
State of Virginia, FMLA may be requested for the following reasons:
a) To care for the
employee’s child after birth, or placement for adoption or foster care.
b) To care for the
employee’s spouse, son or daughter, or parent, who has a serious health
condition
c) For a serious
health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the employee’s job
The Department of
Labor’s criteria is similar but expands the category as follows:
a) an employee’s
own serious health condition (including conditions related to pregnancy and
childbirth);
b) the birth and
care of the employee’s newborn child (leave must be completed within 12 months
of the date of birth);
c) the placement of
a child with the employee for adoption or foster care (leave must be completed
within 12 months of the date of placement); or
d) the serious
health condition of the employee’s child, parent, or spouse or spousal
equivalent requiring the employee’s participation in care.
In past motions,
the Faculty Senate has used language similar to the Department of Labor’s
criteria. The university’s funeral
leave policy also includes the expanded definition of family.
Discussion: The proposed amendment was suggested by Professor Erica Lin
of the English Department. Linda
Harber, Associate Vice President for Human Resources and Payroll noted that an
expert opinion would be needed to determine whether the Commonwealth of
Virginia would recognize partners. The motion to amend was approved. The motion as amended was approved and
appears below (amended text in bold):
Extension of
Probationary Period for Serious Illness
Extension of the probationary period for
tenure track faculty member will be approved for circumstances that have a
significant impact on the faculty member’s productivity, such as serious
personal illness or a major illness of a member of the faculty member’s
immediate family, under the following conditions and definitions. Serious
personal illness or illness within the immediate family will be defined
according to the Department of Labor’s
criteria for family and medical leave, already used by the university. Certification of illness by a physician is
required and will handled
by Human Resources. Once
certification of the illness has been approved by Human Resources, the faculty
member can delay the tenure clock (extension of the probationary period) by
notifying, in writing, the chair of the department or the dean/director of the
college, school or institute in which the faculty member serves. The request
must be made within three months of certification of sick or family leave by
Human Resources. Probationary period extensions will be granted in one-year
increments, with the maximum probationary period extension being a cumulative
total of two years. An extension beyond one year will require discussion
with the appropriate department chair and Dean. At the time of tenure consideration,
a faculty member will be considered using the same criteria as those applied to
other faculty in the college school or institute.
The committee conducted an election among the general faculty for four candidates to serve on the Provost Review Committees. Those elected are: Robert Dudley, CHSS, Helen Frederick (CVPA), Richard Rubenstein (ICAR), and Bob Smith (CHSS).
Motion:
Irene Bruno
(IT&E) is nominated to fill a vacancy on the Writing Across the Curriculum
Committee.
No
further nominations were made from the floor, nominations were thus closed and
a unanimous ballot cast to elect the candidate.
Chair
Suzanne Slayden welcomed
Rector Volgenau and Visitor Chuck Mills.
Comments: Rector Volgenau
Rector Volgenau began his remarks by
elaborating on the perspective of the BOV.
He noted that all members of the Board of Visitors are volunteers and do
not get paid for time spent on university committees and business. He further noted that all members of the BOV
have had some degree of success in professional life and are motivated by the
opportunity to serve the university community.
As Visitors serve staggered terms, about 10-20% of the membership of the
BOV changes each year. This turnover
presents advantages as new blood comes in but also disadvantages as there is
also some lack of continuity and the need to bring new Visitors “up to speed”
(on issues). The Rector introduced
Visitor Chuck Mills, who was in attendance.
An Annapolis graduate and a retired naval officer who heads the Finance
and Resource Development Committee, Rector Volgenau described Visitor Mills as
a dedicated member of the BOV who volunteers to “jump in to give a hand” as
needed.
Further describing the activities of the BOV,
the Rector stated that the BOV sets policy, hires and oversees the President,
and provides oversight to the entire university. The committees of the BOV are working committees. For example, the Budget and Resources
Committee looks at (and approves) the budget. The Facilities Committees looks
at all new construction. The university's operating budget is approximately
$650 million; the capital budget approximately $750 million. Rector Volgenau once chaired the Faculty and
Academic Standards Committee – which approves and reviews new degree programs;
votes on tenure (and faculty appointments).
He made the point that members of the BOV have a limited amount of time
due to their other professional obligations.
Committee meeting agendas are very full and there are frequently other
forms of communication and meetings necessary “on the side.” The Commonwealth of Virginia has provisions
for meetings with advance announcements, as well as whether meetings can be
closed.
The Rector noted that the faculty
compensation issue is now firmly “on the mind of the BOV.”* The BOV tries to
have a strategic approach to fulfill its fiduciary responsibility, including
looking at GMU’s fee structure and tuition. Three years ago the concept of “World
Class University” caught on but has not resulted in the neglect of other
priorities as members of the BOV work to leave the university better than when
they arrived.
The Rector addressed a question received in
advance of the meeting about the United Arab Emirates' (UAE) campus regarding
its financial cost and whether there are difficulties there. He reported that without going into detail
there have been some administrative problems, and that construction of new
buildings has been delayed until next June.
There are 85 students enrolled this year and there is an anticipated
enrollment of 200-250 for next year.
The campus is not a “loss leader” as GMU received $300K to handle costs.
Most important are the academic accomplishments of the campus, which the
Provost can brief the faculty on at another time.
*The Faculty Senate has repeatedly raised the
issue of faculty salaries at GMU for 7 years and during that time formed a Task
Force on Faculty Salaries (now the Task Force on Compensation) to research relevant
issues.
Senator
comment: The Senator thanked the Rector for the
important role he played in the recent approval by the BOV of a non-voting
faculty representative to the BOV.
(Members of the Faculty Senate applauded the Rector.
Rector
Volgenau: The Rector stated that he could not take
personal credit for this decision by the entire BOV, but that he did support
it. He noted that the possibility of
such a representative (requested of the BOV by representatives of the Faculty
Senate) was a subject of substantial discussion when he joined the BOV in 2006,
but it was not a clear cut issue. At
that time, the BOV (did not approve a non-voting representative) but did
approve faculty representatives to BOV's committees. Virginia law requires a (non-voting) student representative on
the BOV (2 students were serving as representatives in 2006) the BOV has no
such mandate to approve a non-voting faculty member, but it did so at its
meeting on January, 30 2008 (effective at the next BOV meeting March 19, 2008).
Rector Volgenau noted that among major universities in Virginia, GMU now has
far more faculty representatives to the BOV than others. He added that while the faculty does not
elect a member to the Audit Committee, there is an appointed faculty member who
serves in that position.
Senator
Comment and question: Rick
Coffinberger, Chair of Faculty Senate Task Force on Compensation: A Special Meeting of the Faculty Senate was held on February 6,
2008 to discuss issues related to compensation. Based on relevant data it was concluded that our president is
well paid relative to other presidents when comparing presidential
compensation, not just salary.
President Merten’s compensation falls as second highest among our
fifteen new SCHEV peers. In looking at
presidential compensation at other public research universities, President
Merten’s compensation falls in the top 10%.
In looking at the four most prestigious public research universities as
defined by US News and World Report, President Merten’s compensation is
third among five. GMU remains in the third tier, a position which has not
changed since President Merten arrived here. Fundraising efforts undertaken
have not been good. How does the BOV
determine the President's compensation, particularly bonuses? According to the Chronicle of Higher
Education (November 4, 2007), President Merten received a $100K bonus
while the presidents of UVA and VCU received $20K, $21K, and the president of
ODU received none.
Response,
Rector Volgenau: “Let me point out that annual detailed
review of presidential performance is not by the same pool each year and is
governed by the employment agreement signed in 2006. Most executives have such agreements. A certain degree of
compensation is embodied in that contract.
We don't have a bunch of cronies in a smoke-filled room; the group
changes, and has changed almost every year. (The Rector noted that he was one
of the reviewers last year). We need a
well-compensated leader to move the university ahead. We must be careful about compensation. There are many factors involved and it is hard to get good data.
The compensation of faculty is lower because of no COLA. Is President Merten well compensated? Yes, but if we zero it into faculty
salaries, we cannot measure the effect.
Does President Merten know fundraising is important? You bet he does. The heritage (of GMU) has changed so much in the last thirty
years. The President does many things beyond
fundraising. He manages a $650 million
budget, a $750 million capital budget.
He is a leader of the community that transcends the university. The President is expected to raise
money. The endowment has increased from
$30 million to $55 million.” The Rector guaranteed that the BOV is looking at
all aspects of fundraising. He
contrasted GMU with the University of California at Irvine which had a lot of
land in southern California which it found clever ways to exploit to raise
money. The President and the BOV look at profit-making initiatives. Grants are
another avenue. Rector Volgenau noted
that he received his PhD from UCLA, which has a huge grant-getting
machine. The Rector stated that he was
not making apologies for GMU's lack of progress – the President’s evaluation
includes funds and operating the facility efficiently and effectively. The Rector stated that we need to agree on
the facts and asked that he be provided with the article in the Chronicle of
Higher Education (referred to in remarks by the Chair of the Task Force on
Salary compensation) as he did not have all the facts at hand. The Rector stated that the BOV is not
defensive, there are plenty of ways to improve and that he wanted the faculty’s
help and to hear faculty voices. The Rector went on to say that “… (we) need to
turn this into a win-win situation, working together for the good of
university. If we cannot get along, how
does that look to prospective contributors, to state of Virginia? This community has not done nearly what it
needs to do. Mark Broderick (new VP for University Development and Alumni
Affairs) has been hired to help, all must contribute to the effort. We're not
going to get anywhere without raising money, (we cannot focus) on arguing fuzzy
data.”
Senator
Comment: We are happy to send data. (This is) not a
matter of debate. Presidential
fundraising (at GMU) is atypical.
There has been great growth in external grants to GMU as the result of
the faculty's work. The Senator stated
that she has been working on the final stage of $1.5 million grant – including
$600K indirect costs and has been told that the Associate Dean for research
cannot agree to the square footage nor the number of computers necessary to get
the grant. Procedures were needed to
accomplish these things smoothly. The
Senator commented that she is very grateful that Rector shares the same
objectives and further noted that the tensions experienced are not just about
the faculty not getting along with upper level administrators.
Response,
Rector Volgenau: The Rector wished there was time to address
all the points (made by the last speaker).
He agreed that “…all of us are not doing as well as we need to in
fundraising, whether grants or private funds.
The President is well compensated; the faculty are
under-compensated.” The Rector noted
that “In 2004 discussion of faculty compensation took place once a year, now it
is addressed in every session. We
cannot make changes overnight.” In the
Rector’s view “President Merten is doing a good job; and (administrators like)
Dean Griffiths are still a good investment.
(Donors) want to see funds leveraged, not just a personal thing, but the
ideal of being part of something that is truly different. What we may disagree on is tactics – you may
want to replace him tomorrow. He is not
without his deficiencies, but I think he's pretty good.” The Rector stated that changes take time.
Senator
comment and question: A Senator thanked the Rector and Visitor
Mills for their time attending the meeting and asked if it was possible for
them to remain for the rest of the meeting to participate in a discussion of
new motions to be made by the Task Force on Compensation Issues (see below).
Response,
Rector Volgenau: The Rector agreed to remain and further noted
that dialog and disagreement are fine, as long as done with dignity, respect,
and logic.
VII. New Business: Motions from the Task
Force on Compensation Issues
Motion 1. The Faculty Senate requests the creation
of a Committee for Consolidation and Compensation (CCC). Its charge will
be to develop a four-year plan, effective as of July 1, 2008, for eliminating
the longstanding disparity (in terms of real purchasing power) between the
salaries of GMU faculty and staff and their counterparts in other colleges and
universities in the Commonwealth. This plan will include aggressive efforts to
persuade the General Assembly to address our need for COLA funding, but it will
place primary emphasis on the reallocation of existing GMU resources as well as
increases in student tuition and/or fees. The Committee will consist of 2
representatives from the Board of Visitors, 2 representatives from the Central
Administration, and 3 tenured Faculty elected by the Faculty Senate.
Classified Staff will be invited to elect 2 non-voting members.
Explanation:
It has now been 7 years since the Senate raised the issue of low faculty
salaries and the need for a COLA. Since that time, faculty and staff earning
power has decreased, and present prospects for significant state-based
assistance in addressing low salaries and a COLA are unlikely in light of a
projected budget shortfall for FY2009-2010 and a temporary freeze on the
salaries of public employees.
Throughout this time, GMU has continued to
grow, creating new campuses and programs and allowing for a marked increase in
student enrollment, despite low per-student funding from the State. It is
now time for the University to enter a new stage in which it dramatically slows
growth, consolidates its existing programs, and addresses the salary needs of
its employees.
Raising tuition is an unpleasant but
justifiable necessity in light of the failure of the state to improve faculty
and staff salaries. The additional tuition monies will be used to fund
need-based scholarships as well as to improve faculty and staff salaries. GMU
students also have the option of reducing the cost of higher education by
choosing to attend NOVA for their freshman and sophomore years. It should
also be noted that compared to most students of national research universities,
GMU students graduate with a relatively low amount of debt.
Recently, it has been the State’s policy to
provide a small but significant financial contribution to colleges and
universities if they agree to not raise tuition above a specified amount.
If this State policy is proposed for the upcoming fiscal year, it should be a
top priority of GMU’s lobbying efforts to convince the Legislature that the
need for a cost-of-living-adjustment for GMU employees should make GMU an exception:
GMU should be allowed to receive its full share of public funding and also
raise tuition as it sees fit.
The composition of the Consolidation and
Compensation Committee is meant to provide adequate representation from the
Board, Administration, and Faculty as well as representation from the Staff if
it so chooses.
If passed, this Resolution will be sent by the
Senate Chair to the Rector of the Board of Visitors and to President Merten
with a request for immediate action.
Motion 2. The Consolidation and Compensation Committee shall also
consider lesser but important steps that can be taken to improve Faculty and
Staff employment conditions. For instance, to speak to the case of the Faculty:
in recent years there has been serious discussion of expanding the Faculty
Study Leave Program and implementing a policy for phased retirements. It seems
that these improvements, which would be greatly appreciated by the Faculty,
could be implemented at a relatively small cost to the University. This motion
asks that these and similar possibilities that may be proposed be given
immediate consideration by the Central Administration and the BOV. The Staff
Senate should also be asked to propose ways to improve Staff working conditions
and benefits.
Explanation:
It should also be noted that the benefits to Faculty that are suggested in this
motion would improve the University’s ability to recruit and retain Faculty.
If passed, this Resolution will be sent by the
Senate Chair to the Rector of the Board of Visitors and to President Merten
with a request for immediate action.
Motion 3. The Faculty Senate requests that the Board of Visitors create, in consultation with the Faculty Senate and the Central Administration, a new merit- based, transparent performance evaluation policy for academic administrators at the level of Assistant Dean and above. The policy should articulate clearly defined annual performance criteria as well as transparent procedures for evaluating progress toward these criteria. This policy should be developed with significant input from the Faculty Senate and be implemented in conjunction with the next annual evaluation so that future salary increments for these academic administrators are clearly merit-based.
Explanation: As a public
institution receiving significant funding from tax-payers, George Mason
University should conduct itself in accordance with “best practices” in order
to maintain the optimal good will and support of the public. At present there
are clearly defined criteria (teaching, research and service) for faculty
raises. These raises (often quite small) are subject to careful evaluation at
the level of the local academic unit, usually by both a salary committee and a
chair, and they undergo subsequent review by the appropriate Dean as well as
the Provost. Information about both the salaries and the annual raises of
Faculty are easily accessible to all Administrative and Instructional Faculty.
Furthermore, Faculty receive standard benefit packages. While perhaps not
a perfect system, these carefully developed measures insure a significant
degree of integrity and fairness which is supportive of Faculty morale and the
well-being of the institution.
The practice for determining the raises and
benefits of the President, Provost, Deans and Directors, as well as their
upper-level staffs, is seemingly quite different—seemingly because in many cases there is insufficient information
to know. Because of this lack of transparency about performance
standards, salaries and other forms of compensation, it is understandable that
many Faculty question whether best practices are being employed and whether
performance standards comparable to those used for the Faculty also apply to
upper-level Administrators. Faculty concern about these matters and the
attendant erosion of Faculty morale has become acute in recent years as the
average raises of the Faculty have been quite small and those of the
upper-level Administration relatively large (often surprisingly so). The
Faculty, the larger University, and the Public would be well served if this
problem were addressed.
If passed, this Resolution will be sent by the
Senate Chair to the Rector of the Board of Visitors and to President Merten
with a request for immediate action.
Motion 4. The Faculty Senate shall conduct annual evaluations of how effectively the President and Provost as well as their immediate staffs have collaborated with the Faculty Senate in matters pertaining to joint governance of the University. The results of the evaluations will be sent to the Board of Visitors and the General Faculty. In addition, representatives from the Senate Executive Committee and the Faculty Representatives to the Board of Visitors will arrange to discuss the report with the Board of Visitors as deemed necessary. These evaluations should be one important factor in determining the annual raises of the President, Provost and other Administrators discussed in the reports. They should also be given careful consideration when these officers apply for renewal or extension of their contracts. The first evaluation will occur in Spring 2008.
Explanation:
The Faculty Senate currently conducts an annual evaluation in which the Faculty
assess the performance of the President and Provost (as well as the Deans and
Directors). While this assessment is helpful and should be continued, it would
also be useful to have the Senate, given its unique relationship to the Central
Administration, conduct its own evaluation. The General Faculty delegates to
the Faculty Senate “the responsibility for participation in governance at the
university level” (Handbook, 1.3.1), and the Senate interacts regularly
with the President and Provost regarding “all governance issues not internal to
any single school or college” (Handbook, 1.3.2). Given this
mandate, the Senate has both a special need for effective relations with the
chief administrative officers, as well as their immediate staffs, and a unique
perspective upon how well these officers are collaborating with the Senate to
promote joint governance and sound university policies. Accordingly, it is
appropriate that the Senate conduct its own annual evaluation of the President,
Provost and members of their staffs (with whom they have had significant
working relations within the preceding year) and that it share this information
with the General Faculty, which it serves, and with the Board of Visitors, so
the Visitors may have a better understanding of the degree of faculty
satisfaction with the performance of the chief administrative officers of the
University.
Process: The Executive Committee in
consultation with the Senate Committees and Faculty Representatives to the BOV
will compose a draft version of the assessment to be presented for discussion
and approval by the full Senate no later than April. The approved report
will then promptly be sent to the Board of Visitors the General Faculty and the
President and Provost.
The assessment will be a narrative report, and
it will include, but not be limited to, the performance of the President and
Provost, as well as their immediate staffs, in the following areas:
--The inclusion of the Senate from the
beginning in discussion of new or altered university-wide policies that have
the potential to significantly affect the future direction, definition, and
operation of the University;
--The demonstration of a knowledge of and respect
for the Faculty Handbook;
--The willingness to meet with the Senate (and its
various committees and task forces) in a timely manner;
--The timely provision of information the Senate
needs to operate effectively.
In Fall, 2008 the Senate will review this
process and make needed changes.
If passed, this Resolution will be sent by the
Senate Chair to the Rector of the Board of Visitors and to President Merten
with a request for immediate action.
Motion 5. The Faculty Senate Task Force on Compensation Issuess shall make a special effort to bring these Senate Motions to the attention of the GMU Faculty and Staff. The Task Force will work with the Senate Clerk to arrange for digital copies of these motions to be sent to all Faculty and for hard copies to be placed in Faculty mailboxes. Faculty will be invited to submit to the Senate Clerk an indication of their support or objection to these motions. Copies of the Motions will also be sent to the Officers of the Staff Senate with a request that they be distributed to all Staff. In addition, the Task Force on Compensation Issues is encouraged, to the extent its time allows, to arrange for these Motions to be discussed in various University for such as meetings of the colleges, of local academic units, and of the AAUP. All Faculty are encouraged to help with this process.
Explanation:
The content of the Motions is of great importance and interest to the Faculty
and Staff. Accordingly, it is essential that the Senate take reasonable
measures, and sometimes even extraordinary steps, to call these Motions to
their attention. To assist in this process, all Senate members will be asked to
volunteer to help with such matters as distributing the hard copies to the
Faculty and arranging for these Resolutions to be discussed in their local
academic units.
Motion 6. The GMU Chapter of the AAUP shall be asked to endorse the above motions and assist in disseminating information about them.
Explanation:
These motions are consistent with the mission of the AAUP, and the proposed
collaboration promises to be beneficial to both parties.
Discussion:
Chair of Task Force on Compensation Issues: The problem of
falling behind in terms of COLA is not really a new one. I have been here almost 30 years. We did get
a COLA differential in the salary pool about 1987-88, but not since. We are now between 25-40% below in
purchasing power compared to other parts of the state. It is not a new problem and it is getting
worse. There is a 3.5-3.6% pool of
raises this year but recent reports
between January 2007-January 2008 identify inflation rate of 4%. The price of gas, groceries, is out of
anybody's control. The idea here is to
get some action. It would be wonderful
if the General Assembly would provide money but we’ve been trying and are not
likely to get any relief. The situation
may get worse so we need to look somewhere else. There is not a lot of leeway on tuition increases.
Senator
comment: A group of student leaders went to the
University Vice President for Student Life and gave a list of needs. They identified improvement in faculty
salaries as the most important item.
The wanted to know why faculty are paid so low here. They asked why the General Assembly is
short-changing GMU?
As set forth in Motion #2, an expanded study
leave program and phased retirement system would cost very little to
implement. There is an ongoing process
that faculty needs and wants are not being addressed. What are the best procedures?
Do the faculty have a voice?
We'd like some action.
Comment,
Rector Volgenau: We're arguing over symptoms of a sick
patient. We agree you are
underpaid. He stated he has a problem
with the Committee for Consolidation and Compensation (CCC) getting into day to
day operations and evaluations with BOV, and acting in partnership with
BOV. The BOV has the responsibility to
set presidential compensation.
Discussing his own business experience the Rector noted that he runs a
$1.5 billion company with 6000 employees, listed on the NYSE. In that role he has a lot more authority
than he has as the Rector. (In
business) he has asked directors to leave.
(At GMU) we cannot compromise our position to put two BOV members on
CCC, because it compromises the function of the BOV. In the Rector’s view this would not pass muster with the
BOV. In addition, the BOV reviews the
budget, but does not go into a great deal of detail in doing so.
Senator
comment: We are a rapidly growing university which
includes creating new programs at a time when faculty needs are not being
met. But the Administration's needs are
being met.
Comment,
Rector Volgenau: The Faculty
and Academic Standards Committee asked “Are these programs viable? Not to
become a cash drain on the university?”
These are reviewed every few years.
Yesterday the Executive Committee passed an increase for out-of-state
tuition. However, the Commonwealth of
Virginia gives you an incentive not to increase tuition. There is an implicit threat. The budget is held hostage. People who are unhappy should go see their
(state representatives). We need to
express our concern forcefully and more effectively to Commonwealth of
Virginia.
Senator follow-up: The primary lobbying effort should be to
change this policy (and argue that) GMU deserves to be an exception to the
COLA.
Comment,
Rector Volgenau: The Rector stated that faculty salaries are
a top priority but he “doesn't know the details at 30,000 feet.” (He noted that
his is not a situation he likes.)
Senator
follow-up: In the Senator’s view that members of the
faculty feel that there is need for a better structural means to extend the
dialog with the BOV.
Comment,
Rector: The Rector stated that he did not think the
BOV would object to putting themselves on committees to extend this dialog.
Comment,
Visitor Mills: The Visitor noted that the Rector and the
Chair of the BOV Finance and Resources Committee have been discussing their
concern over faculty salaries and in his view the faculty is making
headway. The Visitor noted that in
regard to serving on a joint committee with faculty (as suggested in earlier
Senate comment) “no one has additional time for committee meetings.” He noted that “(There are) more meetings
than you can imagine on the BOV.” He
recommended that the faculty committees in question get on the BOV meeting
agenda to voice faculty concerns.
Chair
of the Faculty Senate, Suzanne Slayden:
The Chair rose to
note that the time set aside for the
Faculty Senate meeting was almost over and a eulogy for a colleague and friend
was on the agenda.
Rector
Volgenau stated that he had
no further remarks and would like to stay for the eulogy.
Senator
comment: In light of comments by the two Visitors, a
revision of the first motion would be useful.
The feedback has been most helpful.
The Senator noted that since active participation on the committee would
be difficult for a member of the BOV perhaps the BOV could support the idea of
a member of the administration (serving in that role).
Response, Rector Volgenau: The Rector agreed.
Given the preceding discussion with input from
Rector Volgenau and Visitor Mills, Task Force representatives agreed to refer
the motions back to committee for further consideration with no further action
necessary at this time.
Prior to the eulogy
for Egon Verheyen, it was announced that another long time member of the
university community, Bob Hawkes, had passed away.
VIII.
Eulogy for Egon Verheyen
Professor Joe Scimecca announced the death of
Robinson Professor Egon Verheyen on February 25th after a long
struggle with lymphoma. In his remarks
about Professor Verheyen who had served GMU as a Robinson Professor from 1987
until his retirement last year, Professor Scimecca noted that the two words
that best characterize Egon are “academic integrity.” Last year, the GMU chapter of the AAUP awarded Professor Verheyen
its first faculty award “in recognition of his decades of teaching and
scholarship, and for his role in promoting the high levels of intellectual and
academic discourse, crucial to the university and to life itself.” Professor Scimecca noted that many of
Professor Verheyen’s colleagues had become his friends as well and that they
were struggling with both a professional and personal sense of loss at his
passing. A memorial service will be held at the university jointly sponsored by
the Robinson Professors, AAUP, and the History & Art History
Department. A motion was made and
seconded to request the Secretary of the Senate to express our heartfelt
condolences to the family of Egon Verheyen.
The motion was approved.
IX. Adjournment: The
meeting adjourned at 4:17 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan Trencher
Secretary
Faculty Senate