GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY
MINUTES OF THE FACULTY SENATE
APRIL 2, 2008
Senators
Present: David Anderson, Ernest Barreto, Sheryl Beach, Jim Bennett, Alok Berry,
Lorraine Brown, Phil Buchanan, Frieda Butler, Elizabeth Chong, Rick
Coffinberger, Jose Cortina, Lloyd Griffiths, Karen Hallows, Allison Hayward,
Mark Houck, Jim Kozlowski, David Kuebrich, Alan Merten, Linda Monson, Jean
Moore, Patricia Moyer-Packenham, Janette Muir, Paula Petrik, Larry Rockwood,
Jim Sanford, Joe Scimecca, Suzanne Slayden, Ray Sommer, June Tangney, Shirley
Travis, Susan Trencher, Phil Wiest, James Willett, Mary Williams, Michael
Wolf-Branigin, John Zenelis, Stanley Zoltek.
Senators Absent: Kristine Bell, Rei Berroa, Deborah Boehm-Davis, Jack Censer, Vikas Chandhoke, Sandra Cheldelin, Julie Christensen, Sara Cobb, Lloyd Cohen, Sharon deMonsabert, Rutledge Dennis, Penelope Earley, Allison Frendak, Jeffrey Gorrell, Kingsley Haynes, Dimitrios Ioannou, Matthew Karush, Richard Klimoski, Howard Kurtz, Daniel Polsby, Jane Razeghi, William Reeder, Peter Stearns, Ellen Todd, Iosif Vaisman, Peter Winant.
Visitors Present: Eileen Chandhoke, Librarians’ Council, University Libraries; Rick Davis, Associate Provost for Undergraduate Education; Pat Donini, Deputy Director, HR/Payroll and Employee Relations Director; Robert Ehrlich, Chair, Dept. of Physics and Astronomy; Kathy Gillette, Director, Classroom Technologies, DoIT; 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; Della Patrick, Vice Chair, Staff Senate; Linda Schwartzstein, Vice President for Academic Affairs & Vice President for Enrollment Services.
I. Call to Order: The
meeting was called to order at 3:04 p.m.
A quorum was present.
Chair Suzanne
Slayden welcomed President Merten.
President Merten’s
Remarks:
Budget
The General Assembly
has not finished the 2008 session.
There are two main issues at stake:
(1) the Capital Bond Bill (projects included are the renovation of
Science and Tech II, the Finley Building, Fine Arts Building, and the Krasnow
Institute, among other projects.) There
are questions about how will the Commonwealth of Virginia fund higher education
buildings in the next several years if there is going to be a general
obligation bond in 2008? GMU is
fighting for its piece of capital projects. (2) Tuition – There is an economic
downturn in Virginia as well as across the U.S. We want to raise tuition to support salary increases. Most Virginia universities want to raise
tuition 10%, around 6% is needed to cover unfunded federal and state
mandates. The legislature has proposed
a lower cap of 3-4% .GMU and other schools are fighting to allow the BOV to do
what they are supposed to do, which is set tuition. The legislature says if you don't raise tuition, we'll give you
money. The President wrote a letter to
Governor Kaine explaining why we had to raise tuition and then followed this up
when he bumped into the Governor at a Capitals Hockey game. (For more
information about the budget, see Budget Forum (March 31, 2008)
presented by Provost Stearns and Senior Vice President Maurice Scherrens).
GMU Academic and
Administrative Plan 2010 (see posting on the Provost Office website)
The President
described this as a “a botttom-up process.
Each school, college, and administrative unit has been asked “what would
you like to see changed?” Assessment
should be sent forward by April 30th: so that they get an evaluation
of how close they are to the goals in 2010 Plan (set forth in 2005). The Capital Campaign, BOV initiatives, and
SACS accreditation form part of the next phase of plan. (School/college plans listed in
appendices).
The Faculty Senate
should consider its role in the Plan 2010; e.g. are there issues not
addressed? In August, the BOV will
begin discussion for the 2014/2016 Plan. The role of the Faculty Senate is to
put issues in front of the administration.
Senator Question: The Faculty Handbook is (over) ten years old and the Handbook Committee has been actively working for the past two years – all this is coming to fruition stage by the end of the summer. The Senator proposed a resolution from the Faculty Senate to the BOV to thank the Handbook Committee for work done and to plan some compensation for their work (carried out) over the summer.
President Merten: I didn't know where we were in the process until recently. President or Provost should meet with the Faculty Senate to see what's involved, what efforts have been made and to look at compensation.
Senator Follow-up comment: These people have put in an immense amount of time.
President Merten: The President said he was interested to know what the initiative is and asked Senate Chair Suzanne Slayden to contact Sharon Cullen to schedule a time. Some sections needed little change, some medium, some a total change. The President noted that the Faculty Handbook is an important contractual document.
Senator Follow-up comment: In principle, you're sympathetic.
President Merten: Yes, I'm a sympathetic person.
Senator Question: There are still questions about the state of finances. There are different pots of money available/not available. There are external funds. We do not know what happens to millions of dollars that come in for research – indirect payments. We know how it is distributed; the question is “How is it spent?”
President Merten: Hopefully it becomes more of an issue as more funding becomes available. Sometimes we get agency money only supporting direct costs. We have to cover costs for those with no indirect (funding).
Senator Follow-up: To submit a new proposal for $600 million direct funding takes two weeks of deliberation. There is no clear way for allocating indirect funding.
President Merten: Other activities such as student fees -historically to support functions directly of benefit to students. We apply 85 cents of each dollar to this function and 15 cents applied to other university improvements. There has been some discussion on leveraging land and other assets. Where should money go? The President thought that Linda Schwartzstein (Vice Provost for Academic Affairs) had been asked for a report on continuing education. The same questions arise about executive education. We are charging fees for one-day short course, we have some direct costs to cover including how much does the faculty member earn?
Senator Follow-up: I am talking about funding now available, not future funding.
Chair of the Faculty Senate Suzanne Slayden: The Chair said that she had received an advance copy of a report on indirect costs that had been prepared by the Budget Office for the special meeting of the Faculty Senate on February 6. It had not been distributed because questions about it had not been raised at the meeting. She agreed to make her copy available.
II. Approval of the Minutes of March 5, 2008: The
minutes were approved as distributed.
Executive Committee – Suzanne
Slayden, Chair
Request to the
Faculty Senate for exceptions to the current requirements for conferral of
Emeritus/Emerita rank
The existing requirements in the Faculty Handbook for conferral of honorary Emeritus rank are: tenured Associate Professors and Professors with ten or more years of service. The recommendation from the peer faculty is accompanied by recommendations from the Dean, Provost and President.
The Faculty Handbook Revision Committee will propose changes to the requirements as part of the revision process. The key change proposed is to eliminate the requirement for tenure so that full-time Term Associate Professors and Professors with ten or more years of continuous academic service also qualify. All recommendations are “in recognition of outstanding dedication to the university”.
This year there has been a cluster of Term faculty retiring from the university with 20 or more years of service who would qualify for the honor were the new Faculty Handbook in effect. The opinion of the Faculty Handbook Revision Committee is that long and loyal service with demonstrated dedication should be recognized with this conferral of honorary status. That these individuals all were part of Mason’s institution-building and that they did so as untenured faculty is notable. In addition, there are three Assistant Professors (one tenured) who retired from GMU this year after many years of service for whom the same honor is requested.
Motion:
The Faculty Senate
recommends conferral of the honorary rank of Emeritus/Emerita to the Term
Assistant Professors, the tenured Assistant Professor, the Term Associate
Professor and the Term Professor who have been recommended by their respective
Deans.
Recommendations for emeritus designation were distributed at the meeting for Professors Jennifer Isbister (Molecular and Microbiology), Christena Langley (College of Health and Human Services), Beverly Boyd (College of Health and Human Services), Rose Brenkus (College of Health and Human Services), Robert Hawkes (History and Art History). In response to a question raised, Professor Slayden confirmed that requests do not include change of rank, just address the title emeritus.
Senator from the School of Nursing, Professor Jean Moore: Spoke on behalf of Professors Langley, Boyd and Brenkus from the College of Health and Human Services
Senator from the College of Science, Professor Jim Willett: Spoke on behalf of Professor Isbister.
Senator Question: All of these cases sound meritorious but the Senator wondered if other colleagues who left in the last ten years were equally deserving of status and asked if there would be a process to identify/limit those?
Chair of the Senate: The Provost has encouraged the Deans and Directors to identify people for window and to do this once a semester until approval of the revised Faculty Handbook.
Senator Comment: It was very good to hear the recommendations and noted other names that already come to mind.
Senator Question: Is there a ten-year limit? Must these people have been faculty or could they have worked in other capacities?
Chair of the Senate: The wording in the revised Faculty Handbook will say “continuous academic service”.
The motion was approved.
Academic Policies – no
report.
Budget & Resources – Phil
Buchanan, Chair
The salary data will be posted to the Senate website as quickly as possible. There has been an effort to put more information into document. Color coding has been used to indicate changes in status (e.g. from 9 month instructional to 12 month instructional). A new column indicates whether a stipend has been included, although it does not define the amount of stipend. Next year the data will be tagged with G#s so that Human Resources will generate the data, unable to merge this year.
Faculty Matters – Jim Sanford
(Professor Sanford spoke on behalf of Chair Larry Rockwood). Faculty are reminded to respond to the Faculty Evaluation of Administrators survey if you have not yet done so, and please remind faculty in your units as well. A little less than 30% response rate received so far. Another reminder will go out next week.
Nominations – Jim Bennett,
Chair
Carrie Meyer is nominated to serve on the 2009 Celebration Committee. Karen Hallows is nominated to serve on the Student Tuition and Fees Task Force. James Bennett, Esther Elstun, and James Harvey are nominated as candidates for faculty appointee to the GMU Foundation Board of Trustees. Peter Pober is nominated to serve on the Fenwick Fellow Selection Committee.
Professor John Zenelis, University Librarian announced that in consultation with University Life, the Fenwick Fellow program for 2008-09 has been restructured. One $5000 fellowship will be awarded in place of previous practice in which two fellowships of $2000 each had been awarded. A committee of three faculty members and three librarians will review the applications. Applications are due April 30th. The competition is open to all tenured and tenure-track faculty and the winner will be announced at the end of this academic year.
No further nominations were made from the floor, nominations were thus
closed and a unanimous ballot cast to elect the candidates.
Organization & Operations –
Lorraine Brown, Chair
Professor Brown noted that letters to the Deans and Directors have been sent informing them of the allocation, and referred questions to Professor Ernie Barreto, who prepared the allocation document below.
Senator Question: A Senator from the College of Health and Human Services questioned the data presented and that the website said there was more re FTE equivalent.
Professor Barreto: Allocation was based on data received the data from the Office of Institutional Research and Reporting and promised to follow up.
Allocation of senate seats for 2008-2009
1The Senate Charter states in section I.B. that “By March 1st of each academic year, the Senate Committee on Organization and Operations shall establish the representation from each unit….”
2The results are as follows (see next page). Comments follow.
¬Most notable change: The College of Health and Human Services loses one Senator, and the School of Management gains one.
¬As in the previous year, ICAR and Krasnow individually do not meet the threshold requirement as defined in Section I.B.1. of the Charter. Thus, they are pooled into a single collegiate unit for the purposes of allocating senate seats. The result is that ICAR and Krasnow together get one senator to represent them.
3As in the previous year, these results are based on instructional FTE numbers provided to me by Jang Wan Ko (Ph.D.) of Institutional Research and Reporting.
4The data used in the calculation are the official census data as of Fall 2007. These are the latest official instructional FTE data that are available.
The
Senate Charter reads “The number of senators representing each collegiate unit…
shall be determined… based on the [FTE size] on February 1st of each year….”
As in previous years, Dr. Ko advised
against using data as of February 1st because
they are not official, are not complete, and in fact are incorrect. Official
census data are released in November and March (“around the 15th”). Therefore, as in previous years, I interpret the Charter to
mean “the official data available as of February 1”.
5. The Senate Charter also states in Section I.B. that “The directors of the independent institutes shall designate one of their number annually to serve on the Senate.” This is consistent with the description of the ex-officio members listed in Section I.A. Thus, the directors of ICAR and Krasnow can decide between the two of them which one will be the ex-officio member representing both of them.
Apportionment
of Elected Senators for 2008/2009
|
Unit |
Allocation |
Change |
|
College of Humanities and Social Sciences |
17 |
0 |
|
College of Education & Human Development |
6 |
0 |
|
College of Health and Human Services |
3 |
-1 |
|
College of Science |
7 |
0 |
|
College of Visual and Performing Arts |
3 |
0 |
|
Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution/ Krasnow Institute * |
1 |
0 |
|
School of Management |
4 |
+1 |
|
School of Law |
2 |
0 |
|
School of Public Policy |
2 |
0 |
|
Volgenau School of Information Technology and Engineering |
5 |
0 |
|
|
Total: 50 |
0 |
* Neither ICAR nor Krasnow meet the threshold FTE
requirement, so they are pooled for the purpose of allocating senators. The
threshold is [total Univ Instr FTE]/50 rounded up.
Faculty Headcount and FTE, Fall 2007
|
Academic Division/Unit |
Status |
Instructional Faculty |
Research Faculty |
||||
|
2007 HC |
2007 FTE |
2007 HC |
2007 FTE |
|
|||
|
College Humanities and Social Sciences |
FullTime PartTime |
379 259 |
376.1 101.4 |
32 0 |
32.5 0.0 |
|
|
|
|
Total |
638 |
477.5 |
32 |
32.5 |
|
|
|
College of Education and Human Development |
FullTime PartTime |
104 194 |
104.0 57.8 |
1 2 |
1.0 1.7 |
|
|
|
|
Total |
298 |
161.8 |
3 |
2.7 |
|
|
|
College of Health and Human Services |
FullTime PartTime |
74 67 |
73.5 22.1 |
8 1 |
8.0 0.5 |
|
|
|
|
Total |
141 |
95.6 |
9 |
8.5 |
|
|
|
College of Science |
FullTime PartTime |
183 63 |
177.2 23.8 |
86 14 |
83.8 6.7 |
|
|
|
|
Total |
246 |
201.0 |
100 |
90.5 |
|
|
|
College of Visual and Performing Arts |
FullTime PartTime |
55 69 |
55.0 29.7 |
0 0 |
0.0 0.0 |
|
|
|
|
Total |
124 |
84.7 |
0 |
0.0 |
|
|
|
Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution |
FullTime PartTime |
18 14 |
18.0 3.3 |
1 0 |
1.0 0.0 |
|
|
|
|
Total |
32 |
21.3 |
1 |
1.0 |
|
|
|
Krasnow Institute |
FullTime PartTime |
6 3 |
6.0 0.8 |
10 0 |
10 0.0 |
|
|
|
|
Total |
9 |
6.8 |
10 |
10.0 |
|
|
|
School of Management |
FullTime PartTime |
79 53 |
77.8 18.0 |
0 0 |
0.0 0.0 |
|
|
|
|
Total |
132 |
95.8 |
0 |
0.0 |
|
|
|
School of Law |
FullTime PartTime |
32 63 |
32.0 17.3 |
11 3 |
11.0 0.6 |
|
|
|
|
Total |
95 |
49.3 |
14 |
11.6 |
|
|
|
School of Public Policy |
FullTime PartTime |
40 22 |
40.0 5.8 |
29 3 |
29.3 0.6 |
|
|
|
|
Total |
62 |
45.8 |
32 |
29.9 |
|
|
|
Volgenau School of Information Technology and
Engineering |
FullTime PartTime |
111 101 |
111.0 31.8 |
20 5 |
20.0 2.8 |
|
|
|
|
Total |
212 |
142.8 |
25 |
22.8 |
|
|
|
Academic Unit Total |
Full-Time Part-Time |
1,081 908 |
1,070.6 311.8 |
198 28 |
196.6 12.9 |
|
|
|
Total |
1,989 |
1,382.4 |
226 |
209.5 |
|
||
|
Division/unit |
Instructional** %
of total FTE |
X50 |
07-08 Allocation |
08-09 Allocation |
Change |
|
College of Humanities and Social Sciences |
0.35 |
17.27 |
17 |
17 |
0 |
|
College of Education and Human Development |
0.12 |
5.85 |
6 |
6 |
0 |
|
College of Health and Human Services* |
0.07 |
3.458 |
4 |
3 |
-1 |
|
College of Science |
0.15 |
7.27 |
7 |
7 |
0 |
|
College of Visual and Performing Arts |
0.06 |
3.06 |
3 |
3 |
0 |
|
Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution** |
0.02 |
0.77 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
Krasnow Institute** |
0.00 |
0.25 |
|
|
|
|
School of Management* |
0.07 |
3.465 |
3 |
4 |
1 |
|
School of Law |
0.04 |
1.78 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
|
School of Public Policy |
0.03 |
1.66 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
|
Volgenau School of Information Technology and
Engineering |
0.10 |
5.16 |
5 |
5 |
0 |
|
Total Faculty |
1.00 |
50.00 |
50 |
50 |
0 |
* Rounding requires that either the College of Health
and Human Services or the School of Management be rounded up; S of M has more
instructional FTE.
**
Neither ICAR nor Krasnow meet the threshold FTE requirement (the threshold is
[total Univ Instr FTE]/50 rounded up = 28), so they are pooled for the purpose
of allocating senators.
Committee on Organization and Operations of the Faculty Senate proposed the following Motion to amend the By-Laws of the Faculty Senate.
The O & O Committee moves to amend the bylaws of the Faculty Senate, ARTICLE IV Section 1 c. by inserting the word “elected” before the word “membership”, so that it reads:
Meetings of the Senate:
c. The quorum for Senate meetings shall consist of a majority of the elected membership. However, the quorum for authorizing conferral of degrees and for considering other matters related thereto shall be a minimum 20 percent of the whole Senate membership.
Rationale:
The membership of the Senate consists of 50 Senators elected from the collegiate units and 13 ex officio members (the President, Provost, Deans/Directors, Director of the Libraries). Most of the ex officio members rarely attend Senate meetings (see, for example, the Faculty Senate Attendance webpage 2006-2007). Therefore, obtaining a quorum is made more difficult than if the quorum were a majority of members who would be expected to attend on a regular basis. Since the Faculty Senate meets only once a month during the Academic Year, the lack of a quorum significantly interferes with the work of the Senate. As stated in Roberts Rules of Order, in the absence of a quorum, any business transacted is null and void.
A change in the quorum in no way affects the voting rights of any member.
According to the bylaws of the Faculty Senate:
“All motions to amend these bylaws shall be read and debated at two successive regular meetings of the George Mason Faculty Senate held in the same academic year. Following the second debate, a vote on the motion to amend shall be taken. A two thirds majority of the voting members of the Senate present and voting shall be required for passage of such an amendment.”
The vote on the motion
to amend the bylaws will take place at the next meeting on April 30, 2008.
Senator Jim Bennett introduced a second motion to amend the bylaws of the Faculty Senate, ARTICLE IV Section 7 a. by inserting the word “elected” before the word “member”, so that it reads:
a. On his or her own initiative the Chair may call a special meeting of
the Senate. In response to any petition signed by 20 percent of the elected
members of the Senate, the Chair must call a special meeting to be convened
within six instructional days.
Professor Bennett noted that ex-officio members usually do not attend meetings. The motion was seconded and the vote to amend the bylaws will take place at the next meeting on April 30, 2008.
B. Other Committees
Ad hoc Task Force on Compensation Issues – Rick
Coffinberger, Chair
Motion 1. The Faculty
Senate calls for the prompt creation of an ad hoc Committee for Consolidation
and Compensation (CCC). Its charge will
be to develop a four-year plan, to be presented to the BOV with a request for
immediate implementation, 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 3 tenured Faculty elected by the
Faculty Senate; the President of the Staff Senate or his/her designee; and the
President of the Student Government Association or his/her designee. Senior Vice President Scherrens should
appoint an ex-officio representative to the Committee to provide budgetary data
and analysis as needed. The Committee
will make a preliminary report to the Faculty Senate in September, 2008 and a
final report in November, 2008.
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 and/or fees 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 do not raise tuition above a specified amount. If this State policy is proposed for the upcoming fiscal year, it should be “the highest priority” of our President’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.
If passed, this Resolution will be sent by the Faculty Senate Chair the Presidents of the Staff Senate and Student Government Association as well as to Vice President Scherrens with a request for immediate action. The Senate Nominations Committee will arrange for the election of the three faculty members. The Rector of the BOV and President Merten shall be informed of these actions.
Discussion: The motion was modified since our last meeting to incorporate suggestions made. The gist is to get some movement, additional ideas/suggestions re how to obtain funding for a COLA. We all know the General Assembly may not be able to help. The Provost has also created a Student Tuition and Fees Task Force. Suggestions have been made to change the reporting date to November 2008 to February 2009 in order to allow the group more time and for consistency with the General Assembly calendar. The purpose is not to propose legislation to the General Assembly, rather to make a good, strong lobbying effort.
Senator Comment: The Senator objected to the wording “... but it will place primary emphasis on the reallocation of existing GMU resources as well as increases in student tuition and/or fees.” If you are going to do a study on reallocation of university resources, it could not be done in time frame here. The Senator argued that it is necessary to do, but questions whether the committee can accomplish it. He suggested that the administration hire an independent consulting firm to make recommendations on how to restructure university.
Member of the Task Force: It is not the intention of the Task Force to do the kind of project the question describes but to look for some possible adjustments.
Senator Comment: The Senator noted that without taking a side of this issue, it seemed odd that the motion would have embedded in it the plan's answers – e.g. “the plan will say,” even if answer is abundantly clear.
Senator Comment: The Senator notes that there is a question about membership. We have no authority to set up a committee with non-faculty members unless they agree to be on it.
Senator Comment: The Senator agreed with the previous comment and suggested an amendment to the sentence so that it would end at “universities in the Commonwealth,” and then to place the rest of the motion as part of the explanation.
Senator Comment: The Senator noted that the Senate already has a Task Force on Compensation Issues and that this motion has to do with compensation issues. The Senator feared the creation of a complicated “machine” based on the need for coordination between Task Force on Compensation Issues and proposed Consolidation and Compensation Committee.
Senator Comment: The Senator commented that effectiveness depends greatly on getting information. If someone were appointed to serve from Vice President Scherrens' office, this would be enormously helpful and not be (so) difficult to do.
Chair of the Task Force: The Chair remarked that he believed the data we needed is probably available on the Internet.
Senator Comment: The Senator thought that it was more complicated than that and had also thought that the data was available on the Internet three years ago.
Senator Comment: If Vice President Scherrens' office does not want to participate, it would be possible to get data through the Freedom of Information Act.
Senator Comment: The Senator noted that when asked, the Rector of the BOV saw no reason that the Faculty Senate could not receive the same (financial data) the BOV received which suggested that getting the data should not be an obstacle.
Senator Comment and question: The Senator noted that of course we can not force the administration to do something they do not want to do. He does not feel we are predetermining the outcome, rather what the focus should be – e.g. keep lobbying in Richmond, but given that there is no great expectation of help there, (the question is) what can we do here?
Senator Question: Are we calling for creation vs. present wording “prompt creation”?
Member of the Task
Force: The committee is created if the Faculty Senate votes for it.
Senator Comment: What bothers me about all the motions is inattention to what the Faculty Senate controls and does not control. We do not control how administrators are compensated; we need to focus on things we can change/control. Study Leaves should be automatic (see Motion 2); curriculum (we can control). On some things we spin our wheels and waste our energy. To always bring pressure on compensation issues; university administrators love it when faculty are wasting time.
Senator Comment: All issues here are important, but three Task Forces already exist including the new Task Force on Student Tuition and Fees.
Senator Comment: If
we look at the power we have, we might as well not meet. The power of the Faculty Senate here is
negligible at best. Many times we have
had to step in when changes to the few things that are within the faculty
purview have been made with which the Faculty Senate did not agree. There is something to be said for asserting
our power, for instance, the proposed amendment to redefine quorum in our
By-laws. A large percentage of faculty
senators are administrators. We cannot
even have an executive session for faculty only. This is not a university senate, but a faculty senate, why is
this the case? The Senator agreed that
it was important to keep in mind what our powers are, but also to assert our
interest and investment in the institution.
Having some overlap in the powers and charges of different committees is
o.k. if it takes the workload off the backs of the few people who have worked
on it, e.g. the Task Force for Compensation Issues. These colleagues have worked very hard on behalf of the rest of
the faculty for years and the result is that they are sometimes treated like
flies buzzing around the heads of administrators rather than representatives of
the general faculty. Other people should also participate.
Senator Comment: If an administrator came here and gave made
(demeaning comments and gestures) he would call for a vote of no confidence.
Senator Comment: That
we can do, but ALL we can do. We need
to see where we have our power – to consolidate what we do control. Administrators do not want faculty getting
into things yet without us, the university would be nothing. We need to assert that every step of the
way, (including going) to the BOV.
Senator Comment: The important thing is to follow the money. We bring some (money) in, and have very little knowledge of where it goes. There is no rationale provided for large upper level administrative raises. Faculty have very clear evaluation criteria. I am very concerned about the lack of shared governance. We desire or deserve guidelines. I am very concerned that there is a disconnect.
The following amendments to Motion 1 were proposed and seconded: The sentence “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.” was removed and added to the rationale. In the following sentence, “or his/her designee” was removed after “the President of the Staff Senate” and the “President of the Student Senate”, the phrase “are invited to send representatives” inserted. In the next sentence, “should appoint” is removed, and replaced by “is invited to send”. In the last sentence, “September, 2008” is replaced by “November, 2008” and “November, 2008” replaced by “February, 2009”. The motion as amended appears below.
Motion 1. The Faculty
Senate calls for the prompt creation of an ad hoc Committee for Consolidation
and Compensation (CCC). Its charge will
be to develop a four-year plan, to be presented to the BOV with a request for
immediate implementation, 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. The Committee will consist of 3 tenured Faculty
elected by the Faculty Senate; the President of the Staff Senate and the
President of the Student Government are invited to send representatives. Senior Vice President Scherrens is
invited to send an ex-officio representative to the Committee to provide
budgetary data and analysis as needed.
The Committee will make a preliminary report to the Faculty Senate in
November, 2008 and a final report in February, 2009.
The amendments to Motion 1 were approved. A vote on the amended motion was deferred to the next meeting.
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 would be seen by the Faculty as well
deserved recognition of their invaluable contributions to building and
maintaining the University. This motion
asks that these and similar possibilities that may be proposed be reported to
the Faculty Senate at its October 2008 meeting. The Committee’s report will then be forwarded to the President
and the BOV for their approval and implementation. The Staff Senate shall 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 Faculty Senate Chair to Vice President Scherrens and the President of the Staff Senate with a request for immediate action. The Rector of the BOV and President Merten shall be informed of these actions.
VI. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 4:14 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan Trencher
Secretary , Faculty Senate