GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY
MINUTES OF THE FACULTY SENATE
OCTOBER 6, 2010
Robinson Hall B113,
3:00 - 4:15 p.m.
Senators Present: Clayton Austin, Heibatollah Baghi, Ernest Barreto, Sheryl Beach,
Jim Bennett, Alok Berry, Doris Bitler, John Cantiello, Rick Coffinberger, Jose
Cortina, Nicole Darnall, Yvonne Demory, Betsy DeMulder, Robert Dudley, Susan
Hirsch, Margret Hjalmarson, Mark Houck, Dimitrios Ioannou, David Kuebrich,
Linda Monson, Jean Moore, Janette Muir, Star Muir, Paula Petrik, Frank Philpot,
Peter Pober, Earle Reybold, Jim Sanford, Joe Scimecca, Suzanne Scott, Suzanne
Slayden, Ray Sommer, Thomas Speller, Peter Stearns, June Tangney, Shirley
Travis, Susan Trencher, Nigel Waters, Harry Wechsler, Phil Wiest, Stanley
Zoltek.
Senators Absent: Jack Censer, Vikas Chandhoke, Lloyd Cohen, Maggie Daniels, Kelly
Dunne, Daniel Garrison, Mark Ginsberg, Jack Goldstone, Lloyd Griffiths, Jorge
Haddock, Frances Harbour, Dan Joyce, Alan Merten, Adam Mossoff, James Olds,
Daniel Polsby, William Reeder, Edward Rhodes, Pierre Rodgers, Eva Thorp, Iosif
Vaisman, John Zenelis.
Visitors Present: Kevin Avruch, Professor of Conflict Resolution and Anthropology,
ICAR; Andrea Bartoli, Director of the Institute for Conflict Analysis and
Resolution; Deborah Boehm-Davis, Chair, Department of Psychology, CHSS; 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;
Heather Groves Hannan, Head, Mercer Library (PWC) and Chair, Librarians'
Council; Linda Harber, Associate Vice President, Human Resources and
Payroll; Robin Herron, Associate
Director, Office of Media and Public Relations; Rick Holt, Workplace Learning,
Human Resources and Payroll, and Vice Chair, Staff Senate; Corey Jackson,
Director, Equity and Diversity Services; Susan Jones, University Registrar;
Josef Leidenfrost, Austrian Student Ombudsman, Ministry of Education; Colleen
Morretta, Administrative Director, Mercatus Center (Arlington Campus); Sharon Pitt, Executive Director, Division of
Instructional Technology, ITU; Kris Smith, Associate Provost, Institutional
Research and Reporting; Paul Smith, Professor, Cultural Studies Program;
Bethany Usher, Associate Director, Center for Teaching Excellence; Brian
Walther, Senior Associate University Counsel.
I. Call to
Order: The meeting was called to order at 3:01 p.m.
II. Approval of the
Minutes of September 8, 2010 – The minutes were approved
as distributed.
III. Announcements
Chair Peter Pober announced that Rector Volgenau’s visit to the
Faculty Senate has been rescheduled to our next meeting, November 10, 2010. The Chair introduced Dean Shirley Travis of
the College of Health and Human Services (CHHS), invited to speak on the state
of CHHS.
Dean
Travis began by stating that CHHS is now 4 years old. In her view recent
changes associated with system-wide
health care reform would have a major impact on the future directions of
programs in health and human services. Faculty members in CHHS have been
reading the 900+ page document and see many opportunities and challenges ahead.
The rapid pace of health care reform requires colleges, such as CHHS, to be
nimble and innovative in order to keep up with changes in workforce demands,
research priorities, and opportunities for community engagement and community
partnerships.
Current
enrollment in CHHS is just under 1300 FTEs. CHHS programs have nearly doubled
FTEs from 730 in 2006. She anticipates a comfortable size for the college to be
around 1600 FTEs by 2015. This number
will depend on a number of variables including the speed with which new programs are implemented, the availability
of academic space, and continued demand for programs. CHHS faculty members are waiting for approval
from SCHEV of the next two CHHS departments: Department of Nutrition and Food
Studies and Department of Rehabilitation Science. This year CHHS implemented
three new graduate programs: a new doctor of nursing practice in the school of
nursing, a MS degree in Health and Medical Policy with the School of Public
Policy, and a MS degree in Senior Housing/Assisted Living. Next year the newly
approved PhD in Rehabilitation Science, with collaboration from the
Bioengineering program in the Volgenau School of Engineering will be
implemented and a new MS degree proposal
in Health Informatics, with support from the Volgenau School of Engineering
will be finalized. The School of Nursing received a $1.6 mil grant from HSRA to
expand services at the Jeannie Schmidt Clinic, a nurse led clinic in Herndon.
This grant will provide 5 nursing faculty members with grant funded faculty
practice opportunities for the duration of the 5 year grant.
Dean
Travis indicated that the biggest challenges are similar to the rest of the
university (1) recruitment of faculty members and (2) space. She noted that she
was perplexed by difficulties in recruitment because it is her view that GMU is
offering competitive salaries based on data from the professional organizations
of the programs in the college. This year CHHS will recruit for 11 positions –
some new, some replacements, and some carried over from last year. This is a
large number of positions for a relatively new college. She thanked those
faculty members who have or will be asked to serve on search committees and
help with recruitment and interview activities.
Dean
Travis indicated that progress on Academic VII was moving forward slowly.
Twenty-one members of the CHHS Advisory Board are helping on the development
front to get the building built.
Questions
from Senators:
Question
1:
Re difficulties in recruitment: Were faculty offers made, and were salaries
competitive?
Dean
Travis:
The offers were made. There is a perception and reality that it costs more to
live in northern Virginia. Therefore, candidates expect high offers that are
generally 20% higher than we offer. We do everything we can to recruit
high quality candidates – it is the salary that keeps them from accepting, not
the rest of the package that typically includes graduate student support,
relocation packages, etc.
Question
2:
What is the distribution of graduate and undergraduate students in the college?
Dean
Travis:
At present 70% undergraduate and 30% graduate; moving toward 65% undergraduate
and 35% graduate (correction submitted by Dr. Travis – current enrollment
includes 63% undergraduate and 37% graduate with strategic directions to move
the college toward 60% undergraduate and 40% graduate students). Most of the
new programs in the college are at the graduate level.
In
the absence of further questions, Chair of the Senate Pober thanked Dean Travis
for her presentation. Chair Pober then asked Provost Stearns whether he had any
comments to make at this time. The
Provost had no comments.
IV.
Unfinished Business and Special Orders
Motion to amend the By Laws of the Faculty Senate (2nd
view)
The Faculty Senate Executive Committee MOVES that Article IV,
Section 6 of the Faculty Senate Bylaws be changed to read: "Meetings of the
Senate shall be convened on at least four Wednesday afternoons during each
semester of the academic year."
Rationale:
Currently, Article IV, Section 6 reads as follows: "Meetings of the Senate
shall be convened on at least one Wednesday afternoon of each month of the
academic year, beginning in September." When the Spring semester begins
late in January (as it does this year), it's difficult to schedule a meeting
during that month. The proposed change provides at least the same number of
meetings, but offers flexibility in scheduling.
The motion was approved unanimously.
V. New Business - Committee
Reports
A. Senate Standing Committees
Executive Committee – Peter Pober, Chair
Chair Pober thanked the Chairs and
committees of the Senate for the work they are
doing.
Academic Policies – Janette Muir, Chair reported that the committee is very
busy, but have nothing to bring to the floor right now.
Budget & Resources – June Tangney, Chair
The committee is working
on a request from the BOV to generate (ideas) for raising faculty compensation
other than raising tuition. There is not
a long list and the committee requests faculty to submit their ideas.
Discussion:
Re some previous ideas, Chair Pober stated that tuition reimbursement
for faculty members’ children is against
the law in Virginia. Some schools circumvented this by creating foundations.
Professor Tangney added that other institutions have attempted this but in
order to get this benefit, funds must be raised to pay for faculty
member’s children’s tuition. Senator question: Is it legal to take money
from the (GMU) Foundation? The Provost responded that he did not
know, and Chair Pober suggested that the committee contact Mark Broderick (Vice
President for Development and Alumni Affairs) to ask about this question.
Efforts to schedule a meeting with the
BOV and AAUP representatives are underway.
Faculty
Matters – Doris Bitler, Chair
The committee is working on a number of
issues but has no report at this time.
Nominations – Jim Bennett, Chair
Eva Thorp is nominated to fill a
vacancy on the Academic Appeals Committee.
Yvonne Demory is nominated to serve as
Faculty Senate liaison to the Staff Senate
Professor Bennett asked for unanimous
consent to add the nomination of Suzanne Scott to serve as Faculty Senate
liaison to the Student Government, which was approved. All the nominations were seconded and the
nominees elected. Professor Bennett
thanked the nominees for their service.
Professor Bennett announced that the Provost is forming a Task Force on
over-regulation and bureaucratic practices that would include three faculty
representatives. He asked Senators to
send him an email if they would like to serve.
Provost Stearns elaborated that the Task Force will address
concerns expressed by faculty and department chairs about the cumulative
impact of too many regulations upon faculty.
If findings indicate that these difficulties exist, the question will be
how to retrench or prevent this problem in future. Currently there no clearinghouse for
regulatory imposition.
Organization &
Operations – Star Muir, Chair
Issue #1: Senators were sent an email
today about a proposed code of ethics which Tom Hennessey (University Chief of
Staff) is working on. Please respond by
the deadline (October 20th).
Question:
What motivated the effort to create/get approval for a code of
ethics? Professor Muir responded that he
has not yet looked at peer group universities, (expects) many have code of
ethics. The BOV has asked Tom Hennessey
why the present code is limited to financial ethics, and not directed at other areas as well.
Issue #2: Should the Institute of
Conflict Analysis and Resolution become a School, the allocation of Faculty
Senate seats will be affected.
Issue #3: The committee is charged with
(reviewing) the Faculty Senate charter/by-laws/committee charges and plan to
send a survey with questions/prioritizing changes. For example, we have discussed why the
membership of the Minority and Diversity Issues committee is limited to tenured
and tenure track faculty.
B. Other Committees
Report from the Faculty
Representatives to the Board of Visitors – Janette Muir
Professor Muir presented the following report, adding that BOV is
limited to what they can really do.
Senators are asked to submit any additional concerns. Chair Pober noted that the objective is to
present the report to the BOV at its December 1st meeting, and asks Senators to
give feedback before that date.
Representatives
present: Rick Coffinberger, Mark Houck, Janette Muir, Toni Travis
Purpose:
To respond to Visitor DeLaski’s request for concerns faculty may have that the
BOV could actually address.
Several
concerns are identified below, along with specific questions the BOV might care
to pursue regarding each concern.
1)
Global Initiatives –
a. General
Concerns: Often initiatives are unclear
in terms of rationale and overall benefit to University. As new global initiatives are developed,
there is less focus on state and local needs.
b. Question
to ask: Can the BOV ask for a cost
accounting/balance sheet for various initiatives that Provost and others are
encouraging – that includes both start up and maintenance costs?
2)
Growth issues –
a. General
Concerns: As Mason continues to grow, what is the impact for faculty, students
and staff?
i. Evidence
suggests that increased growth does not mean increased state resources.
ii.
Increased growth does not increase the
quality of our students (other state schools limit growth and attract a higher
caliber of students).
iii. There
is a finite amount of resources across the university, many of which seem to be
devoted to new projects.
iv. Increased
growth impacts class sizes and student resources. This is especially significant in writing
intensive classes.
v.
Growth is particularly reflected in
administrative positions across the university, thus increasing bureaucratic
functions and procedures.
b. Questions
to ask:
i. Can
the University provide better rationale for enrollment targets and stronger
admission standards to better control enrollment increases?
ii.
Should the University take a careful
look at undersubscribed majors and minors with the goal to better address the
needs of 21st Century students?
3)
Space Issues --
a. General
Concerns: With increased growth, there is more pressure on classrooms – our
space doesn’t match enrollment sizes.
While new buildings have come on line, adequate and functional classroom
space is still a problem. Classroom
space is also impacted in terms of technology needs.
b. Questions
to ask:
i. What
is the best way to improve the availability and quality of space? The BOV might consider a holistic assessment
of instructional spaces (including classrooms and hallways) by an external
consulting group.
ii.
How can more resources be allocated to
technology needs?
iii. Can
there be better classroom monitoring so that faculty are assigned classrooms
appropriate to their learning goals and objectives?
4)
Compensation
a. Concerns:
Faculty members are grateful that the BOV is attempting to work on compensation
issues, particularly dealing with COLA.
There are some areas, beyond specific salary increases, that continue to
perplex faculty.
i. Summer
school – If enrollments are increasing, how can faculty be better compensated
for summer work (particularly for large classes)? Inconsistencies exist among
units regarding summer school compensation – while this is common – the
inequities lead to increased frustration for faculty.
ii.
There tends to exist at Mason a
“culture of under-appreciation.” Administrators should make greater efforts to recognize
the good work of faculty.
iii. There
is also concern about the limited compensation package for graduate
students. Faculty cannot adequately
compete for top tier grads, thus there is not as much research support for
faculty; more pressure on fewer faculty for grants.
iv. Faculty
members are also concerned that administrators (particularly Deans) will get
poor performance ratings, but then continue to get salary increases and better
jobs. One college had a 90% negative
response rate for its Dean, but that administrator received a substantial
raise. In this current economic climate,
it is demoralizing for faculty to see the increase in administrators (and
salaries), while faculty have larger class sizes and frozen salaries for
multiple years.
b. Questions
to ask: Can the University explore other
options for compensation, such as course release time on occasion; better
compensation for faculty who teach larger class sizes; more reasonable salary
allocations for summer school (faculty should get 10% per class for multiple
classes), etc.
VI.
Other New Business
A. RESOLUTION ON THE
INSTITUTE FOR CONFLICT ANALYSIS AND RESOLUTION BECOMING A SCHOOL WITHIN GEORGE
MASON UNIVERSITY
WHEREAS
the Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution (ICAR) was the first
academic program in the United States and the first in the field to offer a
graduate level degree (MS 1981), and
WHEREAS
ICAR now awards a full complement of degrees, including Bachelor of Arts,
Bachelor of Science, Master of Science, Doctor of Philosophy, and five
professional development Graduate Certificates, and
WHEREAS
ICAR has increased in size with respect to faculty, students, staff, and
alumni, and
WHEREAS
ICAR houses two research and practice Centers and is developing a retreat and
conference center at Point of View (Mason Neck), and
WHEREAS
ICAR’s leadership of the expanding field of conflict analysis and resolution
would be enhanced by gaining recognition as a school, and
WHEREAS
ICAR’s current organization and operation mirror those of a school,
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that the Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution will
henceforth be identified as a School within George Mason University.
From the Institute of Conflict Analysis and
Resolution (ICAR) to The School for the Analysis of Conflict and
Resolution: A Proposal for a School is posted at on the Senate website at http://www3.gmu.edu/resources/facstaff/senate/MINUTES_FS_2010-11/From_Institute_to_School_21_09_2010.pdf .
Chair
Peter Pober met with representatives from ICAR.
The Chair noted the amount of work and research that provided the
foundation of this request. Professor Andrea Bartoli, Director of ICAR,
expressed his appreciation for the history that brought ICAR to this
point. ICAR’s report stated that the
Institute is already performing as a School and focused on the negative aspects
of being an institute and the positive aspects at present and in the future
that were to be gained by ICAR’s change of category.
Question: What are the current numbers of students and
programs?
Director
Bartoli: We have 500 students, mixed full time and
part-time, and 40 faculty – some full time, some part-time. The MS is the
oldest program, and ICAR began the first PhD program in Conflict
Resolution. There is significant growth
in certificate program(s) . GMU is the
only place to offer all four levels of program in the U.S.
Professor
Kevin Avruch,
representing ICAR, concurred that this is essentially a nomenclature
change. We have functioned like a school
except that it is smaller, we have our own admissions, ICAR began an
undergraduate program five years ago, and now have over 200 majors. Professor
Avruch also noted that ICAR lost one very large potential donor who could not
be convinced an institute was a permanent entity at GMU, thus becoming a school
was part of a development strategy for the unit.
Question
: In the future, what is your optimal
size of faculty, students, and programs?
Director
Bartoli: We are consolidating now. ICAR currently has new ventures in Malta and
China and is exploring new areas where ICAR can grow along with integrating
other units.
Question
: Are you going to have several undergraduate
degree programs? Most schools would have
more than one.
Director
Bartoli:
Not in the planning right now.
Follow
up: What about the future?
The
intention is to build strength in different topical tracks. Degree in a wide field still growing, such as
Human Rights, we offer both MA and MS. The School of Public Policy does not offer
any undergraduate degrees, nor does the School of Law.
A
motion was made and seconded, and the resolution was approved unanimously.
B. Consensual Relationships between Faculty and
Students – Corey Jackson, Director, Office of Equity and Diversity
Services, and Brian Walther, Office of
the University Counsel
A new
draft policy was displayed for Senators to review. Changes made include language consistent
between faculty and students, and that relationships between employees and
students be reported both to Human Resources and our offices, and added that
Human Resources, Office of Diversity Services, and the Office of the University
Counsel frequently work together. The
Faculty Matters Committee will review the draft policy and make recommendations
at a future meeting.
Discussion
Question: What
are the effective steps to be taken?
What does this mean if I wish to date a student not in my classroom?
Corey Jackson: The policy does not apply to that.
Follow Ups: So I do not have to report it unless in a
supervisory, coaching, counseling relationship?
Question: What about a situation in which student (A)
feels another student (B) in the class is involved with the professor?
Corey Jackson: We’re trying to protect against this
situation.
Comment: Brian Walther (University
attorney): You’re asking a very
practical question. It may not be
feasible to say how it will work in every situation. (The hope is) that once (policy) goes into
effect that there are not a lot of things in the woodwork.
Question
: How does this compare with situation
between two employees, one a supervisor?
The old policy said this was never allowed.
Brian Walther: Referenced Section 2.3.1.1 Favoritism in
Personnel Decisions in the Faculty
Handbook .
Follow up: If
all we have is disclosure, favoritism may still be there, not good for the institution.
Brian Walther: A very big question, this is a lot less
controversial.
Corey Jackson: Referenced discussion about Code of Ethics
earlier in the meeting: William and Mary
has the most restrictive policy on relationships. UVA and Virginia Tech have policies. Some smaller VA institutions do not have
policies. The William and Mary policy
has been in place 5-6 years. Yale came out
with a policy last year.
Question: How does the policy fit in with ethics
policy? Is it independent of it? Incorporated in it?
Corey Jackson: The policy is independent of it, but under
(an) ethical umbrella.
Brian Walther: What is new is the requirement to notify, not
now in place.
Question: How many cases of sexual harassment (occur)
per year?
Corey Jackson: It fluctuates. Each academic year we receive 20-25
complaints. How many result in cases are
less. Ohio State had 7 cases in 5 years,
GMU has had 3 cases in about 2 years.
Question: At risk of being unpleasantly blunt, (does
this) relate to certain populations on campus but not others? Are administrators concerned about this?
Corey Jackson and Brian Walther: The policy applies to all employees.
Follow up: Reference to past issue in which the person
you would have gone to (dean) was the person in the relationship. At the end of
the day it all came down to faculty who were told in Sexual Harassment training
that they were required to report this
activity to the President so that the President (and BOV) would be protected
against suit. Faculty could be included
in the suit if they knew about the relationship and didn’t report it. This
incident prompted the
beginning of sexual harassment training. The Senate sought to make sure that
everyone has to play by the same rules.
Corey Jackson: This includes employees to students, not
employees to employees.
Comment: The
policy needs a line to warn against retaliation.
Brian Walther: There is a line at the end.
Chair Comment: (We
need) to make sure that Faculty Matters knows it needs lines such as “not
wise”, “not recommended”.
Question:: In addition to what is not permitted, not
wise, does it spell out the consequences – the due process?
Corey Jackson: To be handled by supervisors unit by
unit. Could range from reprimand to
(more serious consequences).
Comment: As a former chair, this leaves me very
confused. I thought I was supposed to
refer directly to the Equity Office, but now the chair has discretion? I do not think this is good in our college.
Corey Jackson: There is a difference between sexual
harassment and disclosure of a relationship.
Follow up: Haven’t you put the chair in a very awkward
position?
Brain Walther: We would ask the chair to ask the person if
they are in an abusive relationship.
Summary: Peter Pober, Senate Chair
-1- Faculty Matters will address this
policy. Please send emails to Doris
Bitler with any concerns, observations you may have.
-2- If there are questions not fully flushed out,
contact Brian Walther and Corey Jackson for specifics.
-3- As an ongoing discussion, encourages Faculty
Senate not to discuss outside on specificity before Faculty Matters has a
chance to review it.
C. On-Line Course Evaluations Spring 2010 – Kris
Smith, Associate Provost, Institutional Research and Reporting
Dr.
Smith reported that 1177 course sections participated in on-line course
evaluations in Spring 2010; an increase from 855 course sections’ participation
in Fall 2009. The School of Management
participated for the Spring term only, while the College of Science participated for both fall and spring
terms. The response rate for on-line
forms increased slightly: Paper survey
responses 79% spring term, on-line 47% participation spring term. The response rate varies across course levels
– higher level, higher response rate- 36% response for 100-level courses, 74-80
% for graduate-level courses.. Slightly
higher , but not significantly higher, GPAs for respondents. University
will continue to use both methods throughout the year. Teacher Ranking: did a matched pair comparison between Spr-Spr
and Fall-Fall and found no significant difference between evaluation of
instruction or evaluation of courses.
There was a difference between on-line evaluation and paper evaluations.
There are some differences by level of student. Most frequently sophmore/junior
used paper, more frequently, seniors and graduate students web-based. Some issues came up during the spring about
confidentiality of responses by email,. Can faculty members see results? We do protect their (student) identities – only two staff members (see
them), we use LDAP to secure passwords.
Students used the My Mason portal, but still had to log into course
evaluation (tab) last year. This year
only need to log into MyMason and see/click “Course” tab. Another issue we ran into – we struggle with
getting faculty and students to read emails about course evaluations. We always send out emails to faculty to verify the correct administrative dates in
mid-semester. Often faculty don’t check
them until end of semester.
Question: How do you identify faculty to participant?
Kris
Smith: Either by single faculty, programs for an
entire school. We do not choose them,
they contact us.
D. QEP Update – Kim Eby and Bethany Usher
Please
see “Students as Scholars: QEP Update – Fall 2010” posted on the Faculty Senate website (http://www3.gmu.edu/resources/facstaff/senate/10-QEP_Presentation_Fall_Outreach_10-5.pptx
) and
the final draft report “Fostering a Culture of
Student Scholarship: Students as
Scholars” on the QEP website (http://qep.gmu.edu/download_files/10-QEP%20FINAL%20DRAFT%2010-5.pdf ).
VII. Remarks for the Good of the General Faculty
Linda Harber, Associate Vice President for Human Resources and
Payroll, announced that it had just been
learned that the 3% bonus will be taxed at your regular rate, not at 38% rate
as previously reported. Employees may
also put the 3% bonus into a 403b or 457
account as a one time payment, then reverts back to your previous setting. Forms are available on the HR website; the deadline to file the form is November
1st. Answers to Frequently Asked
Questions are posted on the Human Resources Website
VIII. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 4:17 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan Trencher
Secretary, Faculty Senate