GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY

MINUTES OF THE FACULTY SENATE

March 3, 2010

Room B113, Robinson Hall

3:00 - 4:15 p m

Senators Present: Sheryl Beach, Jim Bennett, Doris Bitler, Phil Buchanan, Lloyd Cohen, Jose Cortina, Sharon deMonsabert, Betsy DeMulder, Rutledge Dennis, Kelly Dunne, Karl Fryxell, Lloyd Griffiths, Jorge Haddock, Frances Harbour, Mark Houck, Dimitrios Ioannou, David Kuebrich, Howard Kurtz, Linda Monson, Jean Moore, Janette Muir, Star Muir, Frank Philpot, Peter Pober, Earle Reybold, Pierre Rodgers, Jim Sanford, Joe Scimecca, Suzanne Scott, Suzanne Slayden, Peter Stearns, June Tangney, Susan Trencher, Iosif Vaisman, Nigel Waters, Phil Wiest.

Senators Absent: David Anderson, Heibatollah Baghi, Rei Berroa, Alok Berry, Jack Censer, Vikas Chandhoke, Rick Coffinberger, Yvonne Demory, Penny Earley, Martin Ford, Jack Goldstone, Kingsley Haynes, Margret Hjalmarson, Bruce Johnsen, Terrence Lyons, Alan Merten, James Olds, Daniel Polsby, William Reeder, Larry Rockwood, Tojo Thatchenkery, Shirley Travis, Harry Wechsler, Peter Winant, Michael Wolf-Branigin, John Zenelis, Stanley Zoltek.

Visitors: Rick Davis, Associate Provost for Undergraduate Education; Pat Donini, Deputy Director, Human Resources/Payroll; Nathan Dorfman, Student Senator and Student Government Liaison; Kim Eby, Associate Provost for Faculty Development and Director, Center for Teaching Excellence; Esther Elstun, Professor Emerita, Modern and Classical Languages; Dolores Gomez- Roman, University Ombudsman; Tom Hennessey, University Chief of Staff; Robin Herron, Associate Director, Media and Public Relations; Rick Holt, Vice President, Staff Senate; Susan Jones, University Registrar; Sharon Pitt, Executive Director, Division of Instructional Technology (DOIT); Bill Sutton, Acting Chair, Electrical and Computer Engineering; Dr. Ernst Volgenau, Rector.

I. Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 3:06 p.m.

II. Announcements

Chair Peter Pober acknowledged a brief instance of impolite behavior at the previous meeting. He stated he was deeply apologetic and wants civility at all times in the Senate. Senators and visitors then warmly and roundly serenaded Provost Stearns on the occasion of his birthday.

The Chair announced that on February 27^th Lorraine Brown lost her battle in hospice. She was the first person, the Chair noted, to welcome him to the Senate-- with open arms and energy and excitement in her voice. A moment of silence was observed in Lorraine’s honor. Information about her memorial service was distributed, courtesy of Esther Elstun.

Welcoming Rector Ernst Volgenau, the Chair read the Resolution of Appreciation approved at our last meeting (February 17, 2010). Rector Volgenau accepted the resolution with thanks and also thanked Professor David Wilsford and the members of the Faculty Presidential Review Committee (Professors James Carroll, Robert Dudley, Mark Goodale, and June Tangney) for their report. The Rector stated that the faculty review process was done efficiently, respectfully, professionally and constructively. He noted that there were moments of disagreement, but that such differences can be accommodated—and even prove helpful—so long as everyone is treated with dignity and respect. The report of the Review Committee will be summarized by Professor Pober at the next BOV meeting (March 24, 2010).

Turning to the issue of declining public support for the University, the Rector pointed out that President Merten is carefully attending to matters in Richmond. However, not much can be hoped for in terms of an immediate turn-around. State finances are in terrible shape, and there is no readily available solution. Nevertheless, the BOV is attempting to create new revenue sources. The BOV has a joint initiative with the GMU Foundation, as well as administrators Morrie Scherrens (Exec. VP), Tom Calhoun (VP for Facilities), and the local business community. In addition, Strategic Committee C seeks to develop profit-making activities that will benefit the University. The Committee is studying the successful examples of the University of California-Irvine and the University of Virginia which leverage economic benefits from services they provide to their communities. Vice Rector Singleton and Visitor Altman, who lead Strategic Committee C, are focusing on two possibilities: real estate development and commercial ventures of various types, particularly in Prince William County.

Dean Lloyd Griffiths provided a brief overview of the Volgenau School of Information Technology and Engineering. The School has about 4,200 students (10-15% of the University’s students) with 2300 undergraduates and 1900 graduate students. A large number of graduate students (360) are PhD candidates.

The School has grown rapidly: FTE went up about 10% last year. However, unfortunately the School’s budget has not kept pace with enrollment. There are six academic departments, and the School is moving away from a curriculum that focuses chiefly on Information Technology. The explanation for the earlier emphasis on IT is that at the time when the proposal for SITE was developed, other Virginia public universities opposed the creation of a new in-state school of engineering. However, in 1985 they did agree to accept a proposal for a School of Information Technology. There are currently nine research centers in our School, in which the largest two have $9 million in research funding.

The new building, with its open and collaborative spaces, is a major highlight. Part of the building is commercial leased space--for companies who want to work with our students. The School is the first engineering school to have a research park inside its major classroom and research building.

Growth is also a reflection of an extraordinary faculty. Faculty raised $18 million in research money during the last year, and this provides graduate students with crucial research opportunities. The School is also licensing patents and beginning to derive some income from these. The quality of the applicants for faculty openings is extremely high. There is a new bioengineering program, funded by Rector Volgenau, with eight faculty and two additional positions for new hires. There is a B.S. Proposal for Bioengineering before SCHEV as well as links with the Krasnow Institute and a Health Informatics link to the College of Health and Human Services. The School is now in discussion with the College of Science to establish a joint center between Geoinformatics and Information Security.

Dean Griffiths also noted various problems, such as budgetary worries. Faculty and staff morale is not a major issue. No one is happy about the budget, but faculty recognize that the problem is not unique to GMU but a larger national issue. The best response is to focus on getting more research funding. Many classes are too large, and there is a need for more smart classrooms. As the School’s curriculum develops, it will include more distance education. In engineering, this is necessary to be competitive. Everything considered, things are generally going well.

III. New Business – Committee Reports

A. Senate Standing Committees

Executive Committee – Peter Pober, Chair

Chair Pober also thanked Senator June Tangney, a member of the Faculty Presidential Review Committee, for her efforts. The University expects to receive greater clarity on the budget soon. Currently, there is no sense of how the VA House and Senate will reconcile their differences.

Academic Policies – Janette Muir, Chair

Professor Muir presented the following motion

Cross-Level Listing of Graduate/Undergraduate Courses

Academic Policies Committee/Task Force on UG/G Cross-listings

University Policy Recommendation

Rationale for Policy:

In preparation for SACS review it has become apparent that a substantial number of undergraduate and graduate cross-listings exist. It also appears that there is no set University policy about how faculty should articulate the differences when these courses are cross-listed. This policy provides explicit guidelines for faculty and administrators in determining whether or not these listings should occur. It also re-names them “Cross-Level Listings” so that they can be distinguished from cross-listings within a level, e.g. HIST 393/FAVS 399 US Documentaries of China.

In general, undergraduate and graduate cross-level listings should be avoided as much as possible; prerequisites should be made explicit to the extent possible using existing courses. When graduate/undergraduate classes are cross-level listed they should reflect the following guidelines:

1) Specific, unique expectations are provided for each course.

Graduate expectations must be commensurate with the level of the graduate course listed. The central expectation for graduate students is that they will do not only more work, but more difficult work than undergraduate students.

Possible Scenarios:

--Course expectations may be differentiated through assessment measures such as exams, written assignments, computational exercises, etc.

--Graduate expectations may include more advanced learning through additional, more sophisticated reading, research projects, course facilitation or experiential activities.

2) Prerequisites are the same or comparable for both courses, or more significant for the graduate section.

Possible Scenarios:

--A graduate course could require the same prerequisite undergraduate course; hence this guideline would be met.

--A prerequisite might be required only for the cross-level listed graduate course. not be met and the courses could not be cross-listed.

--A graduate course might include the substance of the prerequisite class, in this case the clause “permission of the instructor” would allow for individual instructor discretion regarding a student’s preparation for the course content.

--A graduate student, by virtue of having been admitted to a specific graduate program, may have already met the prerequisite requirement, thus being eligible to take the class.

3) Courses should be close in number designations.

Undergraduate and graduate cross-listing should occur within the context of general expectations about both cross-listing and course numbering. Only upper-level undergraduate courses (3xx and 4xx) and lower level-graduate courses (5xx and 6xx) may be cross-listed.

Possible Scenarios:

--A 700-level graduate course should not be cross-level listed with a 300-level undergraduate course.

--Exceptions to this guideline - may be made for special cases such as colloquia, special seminars, individual research projects, etc. If courses are listed in this manner, the instructor or department must provide additional justification and receive dean's approval.

4) Course titles must be related, but do not have to be identical.

5) Courses not eligible for cross-level listing.

Courses not approved for cross-level listing may not be co-located in the same classroom and taught together.  They must be taught separately.

Policy Implementation:

Once approved by the Faculty Senate, this policy will be distributed to all Schools and Colleges within the University, and posted on the Provost’s Faculty Information Pages. This information will also be included in the scheduling instructions provided by the Office of the Registrar.

Discussion: Faculty inquired whether some exceptions may be granted, using the example of some unique situations in Music, such as opera or ensemble courses. Professor Muir responded that reasonable exceptions would be possible. Other suggestions included the need to clarify that a 300-level course could not be cross-listed with a 700-level course. Professor Muir explained that LAUs may cross-list courses between masters and doctoral levels. SACS is chiefly concerned with establishing proper guidelines for cross-listing undergraduate and graduate courses.

The following amendment was proposed: Under Section 3: first paragraph, to add the phrase “between graduate and undergraduate classes” so that the amended sentence reads: “Only upper-level undergraduate courses (3xx and 4xx) and lower-level graduate courses (5xx and 6xx) may be cross-listed between graduate and undergraduate classes.” The amendment was approved.

It was pointed out that in the Engineering School, there are instances in which different programs have similar content, allowing for two different courses to be co-located in the same classroom. . Students in the differing programs may be given different assignments and exams. It is important that Engineering be able to continue this practice. Otherwise it might be necessary to cancel certain classes because of insufficient enrollment or classroom space. Would the proposed policy allow for this arrangement? University Registrar Susan Jones responded that SACS has become more intrusive and wants more documentation as to why such classes are taught together.

The responsibility for approving such co-located classes is to be determined by each college/school's curriculum committee, with final approval by the dean’s office. It was proposed that the following sentence be added under “Policy Implementation”: “Final approval for cross-level listing of courses should be made by the dean or director of the appropriate school or college.”

Question: We now teach some courses which are cross-level listed, how would a faculty member know they are appropriate? Would we grandfather courses taught this way? Professor Muir responded that the policy would be effective from here on out, and suggested the faculty member direct his question to the school's curriculum committee.

Question: When you receive enrollment numbers two weeks before classes begin, you may not know at that time that you need to cross-list two courses? Will this policy be sufficiently flexible to allow for last-minute cross-listings and co-locations? Local units may need flexibility. It was stated that such decisions should follow the general guidelines and be made by the appropriate office of the dean.

The motion as amended was approved.

Resolution to Shorten Academic Add Period

Catalog copy change:

Change catalog copy from: “The last day for adding a 14-week course is two calendar weeks after and including the first day of classes” to “The last day for adding a 14-week course is eight calendar days after and including the first day of classes.”

Rationale:

Members of APAC have conveyed strong concern that what amounts to a 2 1/2 week add period is disruptive, allowing students to miss too much class, or alternatively causing them to find out that faculty will not let them start during the Add Period.  Some administrators see this as too lengthy and a hindrance to the academic process.

Faculty members voice similar concerns. At the end of the current 2+ weeks, students who add some classes have little chance to excel, given the number of days they’ve already missed.

While there are consequences associated with shortening the Add Period, the change is consistent with the add-period policies of other Universities in Virginia. Shortening the period will also help students by enabling those on Financial Aid to receive their funding more quickly. Ultimately, the Committee believes that students will have a better chance to excel if they are able to more quickly settle into their semester coursework.

The AP Committee recognizes that, at least initially, there may be more late adds as students adjust to the new model.

Implementation Date: Fall 2011.

Discussion and Questions:

Question: Does the add period start on the first day the class meets, or when classes begin?

Professor Muir responded that it starts on the first day school begins.

Question: The proposed policy does not give students much opportunity to add courses that meet only once a week? Professor Muir acknowledged that is a necessary disadvantage. She explained that the proposal uses 8 days instead of 7 in order to take into consideration the Labor Day holiday.

Question What is the projected impact on student performance?

Professor Muir: It is hard to quantify. Sometimes there are grade appeals from students who missed the first two weeks of class, and then they find out that they can get no higher than a B or C in the course.

Professor Bill Sutton, Acting Chair of ECE, raised several concerns. Lab offerings are finite. ECE cannot hire more instructors. Some students cannot register early for various reasons, for example, there may be holds on their financial aid. It then becomes difficult for these students to enroll in sections they need for progressing in their majors. Also, some programs have a required sequence of four-courses. If a transfer student cannot get into the appropriate course, s/he cannot complete the program in a timely manner (as we advertise that they can). Another potential problem is that lab sections meet at the beginning and end of the week. If a student justifiably misses a class, day 8 may be the first opportunity she or he will have to receive important information about the course. Thus, for various reasons, this shortened period will not serve students well. Furthermore, part of our responsibility as faculty is to educate students into levels of responsibility. There are consequences to decisions to add in Week 2, and students should learn to recognize this. We shouldn’t coddle students but instead give them opportunities to learn responsibility.

It was noted that faculty can still late-add students. This is not what the University or the Faculty wants, but the new policy does not preclude this option.

It was also noted that it takes time to process the tuition wavers of international students on teaching assistantships and enter the required information on Banner. Shortening the add period would make this worse.

Susan Jones: Technological and administrative limitations should not override good pedagogy. The Registrar’s Office can prepare to make any needed adjustments to Banner by Fall 2011.

A letter opposing the Resolution (see Appendix 1) from Dev Dasgupta, Student Government President, was displayed. In response, Nathan Dorfman, Student Senate Liaison, spoke in favor of the Resolution, stating that it would be appreciated by students who need to receive financial aid more promptly. He also argued that eight days gives students sufficient time to make course decisions.

The motion was approved.

Budget and Resources – June Tangney

Based upon an examination of salary data from this year and last year, it appears that the disparity between the salaries of faculty and upper-level administrators’ salaries is not continuing to grow.

Faculty Matters – Doris Bitler, Chair

We have requested information from Human Resources to see how health benefits have changed over the past five years. Jim Sanford continues his work on the increases in fees for use of athletic facilities, and has met with representatives from the Staff Senate who are also working on this.

Nominations – Jim Bennett, Chair

David Kuebrich is nominated to fill a vacancy on the Student Spaces and Service Advisory Committee. No nominations were made from the floor, and he was unanimously elected.

Organization and Operations – Susan Trencher, Chair

We have received referrals about emerita status, further revisions to the Faculty Handbook, proposed codes of ethics, smoking policy outside buildings, Banner update concerns, availability of Blackboard, and will work on the charter. The allocation of Senate seats for the 2010-11 year was prepared by Mark Houck. (Copies are available as you sign in) and appears as APPENDIX 2.

IV. Other New Business

Report on Sponsored Research – Provost Peter Stearns

Provost Stearns’ report is posted at Office of the Provost, Indirect Budget Review .

V. Adjournment – The meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

David Kuebrich Secretary

APPENDIX 1

LETTER FROM STUDENT GOVERNMENT PRESIDENT IN OPPOSITION TO RESOLUTION TO SHORTEN ADD PERIOD (dated) 3/3/2010

We in Student Government are the advocate for the students and this is very divisive issue. Our leadership disagrees with the assessment in that students cannot succeed or excel in the same way as if they start a class two weeks into the semester. As it is the first two weeks of any class are introductory and more often than not review for the student. They have the rest of the semester to get caught up not mention office hours and weekends. I am a University Scholar and very involved (Greek- Pi Kappa Alpha), S.G., Mason Track Team within the university and still I have maintained over a 3.85 gpa as Electrical Engineering major and theater minor. More often than not I have (and numerous S.G. members have) force added classes as the semester goes on due to the demands of an ever-changing schedule and the rigors of being a student (job, commute, family responsibilities, athletic practice etc). Quite simply the acclimation period for figuring schedules takes time and we should NOT take any more away for the sake of a purported week long period of "hardships for students receiving financial aid. We are missing the problem entirely in that the processes for financial aid should be our focus. Students have long complained about financial aid and the duration it takes to receive money so why not focus our efforts on the financial aid office and the processes instead of manipulating an entire system at the student's cost. For example, Yale's course selection method is renowned and proven to work- students get two weeks to visit any class and after that period after "acclimatin" they sign up. (http://www.yale.edu/yalecol/publications/transfer/general/selection.html) Unfortunately, I cannot be at the Senate meeting but would appreciate my message being sent. Please let me know if I can do anything further.

-Dev Dasgupta

-- 
Devraj Dasgupta
_______________________________________________
OFFICE OF THE STUDENT BODY PRESIDENT
GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY STUDENT GOVERNMENT

George W. Johnson Center, Suite 133C
4400 University Drive, MS 2C3
Fairfax, Virginia 22030-4444

Office: 703.993.2924
Web: http://sg.gmu.edu

APPENDIX 2

Apportionment of Faculty Senate Seats for 2010-2011

Report from the Operations and Organization Committee

March 1, 2010

The process for determining the apportionment of Senators among the various academic units for the next academic year is stipulated in the Charter and is unchanged from last year. Here is a summary of the process and findings:

Process: The Senate Charter, in Section 1.B., provides the rules for apportioning Senators among the academic units. The Committee on Operations and Organization is charged with performing the calculations and determining the allocation of Senate seats.

Data: As in previous years, these results are based on Instructional Faculty FTE data provided by Institutional Research and Reporting. Dr. Kris Smith, Associate Provost for IRR, and Mr. John Dooris, Institutional Research Analyst, were instrumental in providing the data. The Senate Charter reads “The number of senators representing each collegiate unit… shall be determined… based on the [FTE size] on February 1^st of each year….” The data used in the calculations are the official census data as of Fall 2009. These are the latest official Instructional Faculty FTE data that were available on February 1, 2010.

Summary of Results: The details of the calculations are provided on page 3. Here is a summary of the results:

· The School of Management loses one elected Senator, moving from four Senators in 2009-10 to three Senators in 2010-11.

· The Volgenau School gains one elected Senator, moving from five Senators in 2009-10 to six Senators in 2010-11.

· The allocation of elected Senators to all other academic units remains unchanged.

· 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 for their own elected Senator. Thus, they are pooled into a single collegiate unit for the purposes of allocating Senate seats. The result is that ICAR and Krasnow together are represented by one elected Senator.

· The Senate Charter 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. Hence, the Directors of ICAR and Krasnow may decide jointly which will be the ex-officio member representing both of them.

Apportionment of Elected Senators for 2010-2011

Academic Unit	2010-11 Allocation	2009-10 Allocation	Change
College of Education and Human Development	6	6	0
College of Health and Human Services	3	3	0
College of Humanities and Social Sciences	17	17	0
College of Science	7	7	0
College of Visual and Performing Arts	3	3	0
Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution	1	1	0
Krasnow Institute
School of Management	3	4	-1
School of Law	2	2	0
School of Public Policy	2	2	0
Volgenau School of Information Technology and Engineering	6	5	1
Academic Unit Total	50	50	0

Instructional Faculty Headcount and FTE, Fall 2009

	Status	Instructional Faculty		Academic Unit	% of total Instructional FTE	x50	2010-11 Allocation	2009-10 Allocation	Change
		2009 HC	2009 FTE
College of Education and Human Development	Full Time	111	111.0	College of Education and Human Development	0.11	5.63	6	6	0
	Part Time	159	49.9
	Total	270	160.9
College of Health and Human Services	Full Time	68	68.0	College of Health and Human Services	0.07	3.46	3	3	0
	Part Time	93	30.9
	Total	161	98.9
College of Humanities and Social Sciences	Full Time	394	394.0	College of Humanities and Social Sciences	0.35	17.39	17	17	0
	Part Time	251	103.2
	Total	645	497.2
College of Science	Full Time	169	169.0	College of Science	0.13	6.65	7	7	0
	Part Time	57	21.0
	Total	226	190.0
College of Visual and Performing Arts	Full Time	65	65.0	College of Visual and Performing Arts	0.07	3.31	3	3	0
	Part Time	66	29.7
	Total	131	94.7
Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution	Full Time	20	20.0	Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution*	0.02	0.80	1	1	0
	Part Time	9	2.8
	Total	29	22.8
Krasnow Institute	Full Time	8	8.0	Krasnow Institute*	0.01	0.28
	Part Time	0	0.0
	Total	8	8.0
School of Management	Full Time	80	80.0	School of Management	0.07	3.42	3	4	-1
	Part Time	55	17.7
	Total	135	97.7
School of Law	Full Time	38	38.0	School of Law	0.04	1.94	2	2	0
	Part Time	63	17.5
	Total	101	55.5
School of Public Policy	Full Time	41	41.0	School of Public Policy	0.03	1.57	2	2	0
	Part Time	14	3.8
	Total	55	44.8
Volgenau School of Information Technology and Engineering	Full Time	122	122.0	Volgenau School of Information Technology and Engineering	0.11	5.57	6	5	1
	Part Time	122	37.1
	Total	244	159.1
Academic Unit Total	Full Time	1116	1116.0	Academic Unit Total	1.00	50.00	50	50	0
	Part Time	889	313.6
	Total	2005	1429.6

*Neither ICAR nor Krasnow meet the minimum threshold FTE requirement for allocation of one Senator, and they are therefore pooled for the purpose of allocating Senators.