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.

 

IV.  Unfinished Business

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 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

 

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.

 

Budget and Resources – Phil Buchanan, Chair

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. 

 

Nominations – Jim Bennett, Chair

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.

 

VI.              Address to the Faculty Senate – Rector Ernst Volgenau

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