GEORGE MASON
UNIVERSITY
DRAFT MINUTES OF
THE FACULTY SENATE
SEPTEMBER 8, 2010
Robinson Hall B113,
3:00 - 4:15 p.m.
Senators
Present: Clayton Austin,
Heibatollah Baghi, Ernest Barreto, Sheryl Beach, Jim Bennett, Alok Berry, John
Cantiello, Rick Coffinberger, Lloyd Cohen, Maggie Daniels, Nicole Darnall,
Betsy DeMulder, Robert Dudley, Kellly Dunne, Daniel Garrison, Jack Goldstone,
Susan Hirsch, Margret Hjalmarson, Mark Houck, Dimitrios Ioannou, Dan Joyce,
David Kuebrich, Linda Monson, Jean Moore, Janette Muir, Star Muir, Paula
Petrik, Frank Philpot, Peter Pober, Earle Reybold, Pierre Rodgers, Jim Sanford,
Joe Scimecca, Suzanne Scott, Suzanne Slayden, Ray Sommer, Thomas Speller, Peter
Stearns, June Tangney, Eva Thorp, Shirley Travis, Susan Trencher, Harry
Wechsler, Phil Wiest, Stanley Zoltek.*
*by
teleconference phone.
Senators
Absent: Doris Bitler,
Jack Censer, Vikas Chandhoke, Jose Cortina, Yvonne Demory, Mark Ginsberg, Lloyd
Griffiths, Jorge Haddock, Frances Harbour, Alan Merten, Adam Mossoff, James Olds,
Daniel Polsby, William Reeder, Edward Rhodes, Iosif Vaisman, Nigel Waters, John
Zenelis.
Visitors
Present: Kevin Avruch,
Professor of Conflict Resolution and Anthropology, ICAR; Rick Davis,
Associate Provost for Undergraduate Education; Pat Donini, Human Relations
Director/DeputyDirector, Human Resources; Esther Elstun, Professor Emerita,
Modern and Classical Languages; Donna Fox, Associate Dean, Office of Academic
Integrity, University Life; Dolores Gomez-Roman, University Ombudsman; Zeina
Habal, Blackboard Account Executive; Linda Harber, Associate Vice President,
Human Resources and Payroll; Susan
Jones, University Registrar; LeRoy LaFleur, Vice Chair, Librarians' Council; J.
G. McDaniel, Associate Provost for Distance Education; Danielle Miller, President,
Mason Ambassadors; Jason Minkoff, Sr. Director, Blackboard Managed Hosting
Support; Sharon Pitt, Executive Director, DOIT, ITU.
I.
Call to Order: The meeting was
called to order at 3:00 p.m.
II.
Approval of the Minutes of April 28, 2010:
The minutes were approved as distributed.
III.
Announcements
Welcome from
Professor Peter Pober, Chair of the Faculty Senate. The Chair recounted a moment at a
recent retreat when a student said that
his effort was "to give voice to those who are voiceless". Professor Pober’s “charge” to the Senate
echoed that view as the role of the Senate, to “give voice to those faculty
members who may not feel able to voice their concerns” and to “begin right now.
Provost Peter
Stearns provided a list of goals/topics for AY 2010-20011
SACS
Accreditation/QEP: The SACS report
sent forward September 8. Off-site
review occurs in November and SACS
on-site review will take place in March 2011. The QEP (Quality
Enhancement Plan) is a major university initiative for the next five-six
years. Faculty will be asked to know
more about it before the SACS visit.
Expansion of
academic income: Next year we will lose $19 million in federal funding and
$13 million in state funding; presenting difficult financial challenges. GMU currently setting money aside for use
next year . Sources of increased income include:
·
Access-Bridge:
increased recruitment of international students. Twenty-five students are enrolled this year,
we hope to triple this next year.
Graduate students are also included.
·
Continuing Education and Executive Education: Not new, but an opportunity for additional
expansion, includes part of distance education revenue. Interactions with faculty on alternative
sources of revenue continue.
·
Pricing/Tuition: Close attention to our two greatest values,
faculty and location. We have received
some additional assistance for graduate student development.
* In terms of reasonable planning regarding
state funding, earnings consistent with university purposes, not state aid.
Enrollment
Management: The Provost noted that
our enrollment was higher than anticipated: retention rate, graduate enrollment, students
changing from part-time to full time status all increased. Undergraduate enrollment targets that had
been cut back, also met New Ad Hoc
committee will be formed (October-November) to look at long-term enrollment
targets. The Faculty Senate is invited
to name a representative to the committee.
Facilities: 5,400 students now reside on campus,
increasing to 6000 in January, 2012. Other projects include the Potomac
Environmental Research Center in Belmont Bay, Academic VII (CHHS), additional
lab space at Prince William, and the first graduate dorms at Prince William. Need for more graduate student housing on the
Fairfax campus. New dorm will open Fall 2012 in collaboration with the
Smithsonian Institution at Fort Royal, VA.
Collaborations:
1.
With the Smithsonian Institution, a new MA program in the Decorative Arts (begins next year).
2.
With Georgetown University:Joint certificate in medical education (already
extant and described as successful) will be followed by joint MA program to
begin next year. Follow-up question response re : The Provost described
the ideal student for the joint program with Georgetown as someone who wants to
get the necessary credentials to apply to medical school. Nationwide, the pool of applicants was high.
3.
Discussions about medical school already begun will continue, no decisions yet
made.
4.
With the Prince William, Manassas, and Manassas Park public schools., Governor's School at Innovation Park on the
Prince William Campus.
Global:
Faculty Forum on Global Education:
Thursday September 30 at 11:00
a.m., Research Hall, room 163. Major search underway for Vice President for Global
Strategies currently filled on interim basis.
Decisions not yet made re joint programs in South Korea (market survey
conducted) and Sardinia (discussions to set up joint science/technology
program) The Provost described
dual/joint degree programs as “the
hottest global ticket.” GMU currently has five programs with a variety of
international partners, may have 10-15 in a year.
Diversity: We have made inching progress in faculty and
staff diversity over the past ten years.
Diversity is high priority.
Distributed
campuses:
Opportunity to move forward in the near-term in Loudoun is an open topic. Development of a campus for
continuing/professional education in Tysons Corner has been well-received. Received increasing solicitations to develop
academic activities in the District of Columbia. GMU currently has license to do so, but not the
space.
Honor
Society Applications: We expect to have authorization
for GMU Chapter of Phi Kappa Phi by the end of the year. We have also submitted an application to Phi
Beta Kappa. A delegation will visit in
Spring 2011. We are optimistic, as the
university has made major progress in a variety of areas since the last PBK
visit in 2004.
State
of Virginia/Development: Role of Governor's Commission
on Higher Education and development opportunities. In
response to follow-up question, Provost concerned about state
efforts to tell institutions that they can handle many more students with less funding. Noted that efforts in Florida to take on tens
of thousands more students on distance (education) without increased funding , does not work. On the
research front, 13% increase in awards from last year. We have also received the largest grant ever for
continuing education.
Chair
Pober expressed his deep appreciation to Provost Stearns for the updates and to
Senators who have accepted the following appointments: Suzanne Slayden, Chair Pro Tempore, Star
Muir, Parliamentarian, and Sheryl Beach and Linda Monson, Sergeants-at-Arms.
IV. New
Business - Committee Reports
A. Senate Standing Committees
Executive
Committee – Peter Pober, Chair
Motion to amend the By-Laws of the Faculty Senate
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 above motion involves changes to the
By-Laws and will be presented for approval at our next meeting (October 6,
2010).
The following email consists of 1) a suggestion for
improving the process of evaluation, 2) the text of the January 21, 2009 Senate
motion authorizing the evaluation, and 3) the
summary narrative evaluation.
I.
Suggestion(s)
When the Senate discussed this evaluation, we spoke of it as a work in progress that would likely
need major tweaking in the future. At present, perhaps the most important
change is that we make sure the evaluation gets done early enough for the BOV
to read it and discuss it with the Senate Chair and Representatives (as called
for by the Senate resolution) prior to its annual assessment of the
President. For example, the
questionnaire might be sent to the committee chairs on March 1, responses
received and summarized by the Exec Comm. by April 1, the draft summary
reviewed by the full Senate at its April meeting, and the final report sent to
the BOV and Faculty by May 1. Then the
Chair and Reps could meet with the BOV (or a subsection of it or at least the
Rector) before the Board makes its annual evaluation.
II.
A Proposal for the Senate to Make an Annual Evaluation of the President and
Provost (as amended
and approved by the Faculty Senate January 21, 2009):
Introduction: The Faculty Senate
currently conducts an annual evaluation in which the Faculty assesses the
performance of the President, the Provost, and the Deans and Directors. While
this assessment should be continued, it would also be useful to have the Senate
conduct its own evaluation. Therefore the Faculty Matters Committee proposes
the following motion:
Resolution:
The elected members of the Faculty Senate will conduct an annual evaluation of
how effectively the President and Provost have interacted with the Faculty Senate
during the preceding academic year. The results of this assessment will
be summarized by the Executive Committee in narrative form and sent to the
General Faculty and to the Board of Visitors. The Senate Chair and the
elected Faculty Representatives to the BOV will discuss the report with the
Board of Visitors.
Explanation:
The
Executive Committee will solicit input from the chairs of the Senate Standing
Committees, as well as from ad hoc and University Committees that report to the
Senate), and then compose a draft version of an annual assessment report of the
President and the Provost. This draft report will be presented for
discussion, amendment, and approval by the elected members of the Senate at its
April meeting. The approved report will then be sent to the General
Faculty and Board of Visitors as a separate mailing.
The
assessment will include but not be limited to the following issues:
1)
Have the Senate and its committees been provided access to the President, the
Provost and their staffs in a timely manner?
2)
Have the President, Provost and their staffs provided the Senate requested
information in a timely manner?
3) In
the case of joint Senate-Administration committees or task forces, have the
President, Provost and/or their staffs participated in a collegial and
effective manner?
4)
Have the President, Provost and their staffs complied with the Faculty
Handbook?
5) In
policies involving the future of the University that have the potential to have
significant impact upon the nature of the University or upon the Faculty and
their work, has the Senate been included in the planning process in a
significant way from the beginning?
Rationale:
Because
the General Faculty “delegates to the Faculty Senate the responsibility for
participation in governance at the university level” (Handbook, 1.3.1),
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 unique need for
effective relations with the chief administrative officers and a unique
perspective upon how well these officers are collaborating with the Senate.
Accordingly, it is appropriate that the Senate make a separate annual
evaluation of how effectively the President, the Provost, and their staffs,
have interacted with the Senate and that it share this information with the
General Faculty, and with the members of the Board of Visitors. The
overall goal of this procedure is to ensure that both the General Faculty and
the Board gain an understanding of the Faculty Senate’s perception of
cooperation between the George Mason Central Administration and the Senate.
Discussion:
An
amendment to add “by the Executive Committee” between “summarized” and
“in narrative form” in the second sentence of the resolution was accepted with
no objection.
The
amended motion was approved.
Annual Evaluation of the President and
Provost’s Interaction with the Faculty Senate
Executive Summary: After assessing the quality of collaboration of
President Merten and Provost Stearns and their staffs with the Faculty Senate
during the preceding year, the Senate generally gives high marks to the Provost
and the staffs of both the Provost and the President. However, the Senate has
some serious concerns regarding the performance of the President. This brief
report also makes several recommendations for developing a more productive
working relationship between the Administration and the Faculty Senate.
Evaluation
Provost
Stearns: The Senate appreciates that the Provost
regularly attends the meetings of both the Executive Committee and the full
Senate. It is most helpful to have the Provost’s input during these
deliberations. The Senate also appreciates that the Provost provided the full
Senate (at its September, 2009 meeting) with an overview of the major issues he
anticipated dealing with during the upcoming academic year. This type of
advance notice is indispensable if the Senate is to play a meaningful role in
shaping important University policies.
In addition, various Senate committees report that the Provost provides
them with timely and helpful information and is responsive to their requests.
The
Senate has also found the Provost’s staff to be consistently helpful. Committee
reports gave special commendation to Associate Provosts Rick Davis, Renate
Guilford and Michelle Marks; Assistant Provost Claudia Rector; Financial Aid
Director Jevita Rogers; Registrar Susan Jones; and the Offices of Institutional
Effectiveness and Research and Reporting.
President
Merten: The President necessarily has less
interaction with the Senate than the Provost who serves as the University’s
chief academic officer. However, the Senate notes with appreciation that the
President makes a semesterly presentation to the Senate regarding such issues
as long-term plans for the University, the annual budget, and other matters of
significant import. Also, the Athletic Council, in particular praised the
President for his consistently effective support.
Dissatisfactions with the President’s
performance included the following:
1) Failure to post an annual
report for use by faculty for the annual Faculty Evaluation of Administrators.
This seems to show a casual indifference to the opinion of the Faculty.
2) A seeming attempt to avoid a formal review by
the Faculty, as explicitly called for in
the Faculty Handbook, as part of the larger review process for
reappointment by the Board of Visitors. The Senate’s stated concern about this
violation of the Handbook was ignored
until the Executive Committee discussed the matter with the Rector who called
for compliance with the Handbook. The President then cooperated, but the
delay resulted in ill-feeling and a rushed process.
3) A general perception that the
President does not value the perspective of the Senate and is, therefore, not
interested in informing the Senate about his activities and agenda for the University..
The
Senate found the President’s staff to be consistently helpful. Committees
praised the responsiveness of Chief of Staff Tom Hennessey and office staffers
Mary Roper and Sharon Cullen. Also, the Diversity Committee commended the
consistent willingness of Corey Jackson, Director of Equity and Diversity
Services, to assist them with their work. In a similar vein, the External
Relations Committee stated that Government Relations Officer Betty Jolly
provided useful information and expressed a desire to work more closely with
the Committee.
Also
notable was that requested data on administrative and faculty salaries was
provided not only in a timely manner but also in a new format that greatly
facilitated posting on the Senate website. Special commendation is given to
Donna Kidd, Associate Vice President for Budget and Planning, and her
staff. We also wish to acknowledge the
contributions of Linda Harber, Associate Vice President for Human Resources and
Payroll, and her staff in addressing many questions throughout the year.
In
an effort to further its collaboration with the Administration, the Senate
respectfully makes the following suggestions:
1. As
a general statement, the Senate asks that the Administration be more proactive
in collaborating with the Senate Executive Committee and the various senate and
university committees when the Administration is contemplating new policies
that will have a significant impact upon the University and the professional
work and lives of the faculty.
2. As
a partial but important way of addressing the concern stated in point #1, the
Senate asks that the Provost continue to provide (early in the fall semester)
an overview of his agenda for the upcoming academic year. The Senate realizes
that this agenda may be tentative, but it nevertheless provides the Senate with
a helpful context for figuring out how it can add its perspective and best
contribute to the shaping of new policies. In fact, it would be helpful if the
Provost could provide a brief written outline of the agenda prior to the
meeting as a basis for productive discussion.
3. It
would be helpful to receive a similar type of tentative agenda from the
President.
4.
The Senate appreciates that the Provost seeks Senate/Faculty representation on
various committees. Sometimes it would be helpful if the Senate were given more
lead time for fulfilling these requests as well as a better understanding of
what will be expected of the representatives.
5.
The Budget and Resources Committee would find it helpful if one of its members
could attend every meeting of the University Budget Planning Committee. (At
present, the Committee is only invited to send a representative to some of the
meetings.)
6.
The Diversity Committee welcomes further collaboration with the Administration
on various aspects of its work, including the development of benchmarks for
monitoring progress on diversity and inclusion issues.
7.
Finally, the Senate invites the Administration to suggest how the Senate might
take steps to work more effectively.
Academic
Policies – Janette Muir, Chair
Questionnaire will be distributed re abbreviated final period during
2010 spring term.
Budtget and
Resources – Rick Coffinberger, Chair
3% salary bonus effective
December 1st, which will be paid separately, and not a base pay raise. Senator question: Clarification about
channeling the bonus into retirement accounts.
Linda Harber, Associate VP for
Human Resources and Payroll responded that there will be a packet available in the next month or so. An announcement will be sent once the packet
is posted on the Human Resources website.
Faculty Matters – Jim Sanford
The Teaching Contributions of Administrative Faculty
for Fall
2009 and for Spring
2010 are also posted on the Faculty Senate website: http://www3.gmu.edu/resources/facstaff/senate/
Mason e-files this week (September 7, 2010)
has two announcements about special deals for faculty and staff regarding
athletic facility membership. The deals stem primarily from Senate consultation
last spring with Staff Senate and then the
Athletic Department : (1) Special Faculty/Staff Membership offer
September 7–14, 10% off annual membership and (2) Free Fitness Classes
September 7-11 – Mason Recreation: As part of the Taste of Fitness experience,
the fall fitness class schedule will kick off a time period of free classes for
members, paid guests (guest fee) and one day pass patrons from September 7—11.
Enjoy Yoga, Pilates, Group Exercise and Indoor Cycling classes for free. Free
classes available on a first come first serve basis and provide a introductory
approach to each class. Senator question about application of 10%
annual membership discount availability for existing members will be
investigated.
Nominations – See V. Other New Business
Organization
& Operations No report.
B. Other
Committees
Faculty Representatives to the Board of
Visitors – Janette Muir
At the request of
Visitor Kathleen de Laski, Faculty
representatives (Janette Muir, Rick Coffinberger, Mark Houck, Toni-Michelle
Travis), are in the process of looking at faculty concerns which the Board could really tackle. Additional input from
the Faculty Senate will be requested.
V. Other New
Business
A.
Elections
September
2010 Report of the Faculty Senate Nominations Committee
The Faculty Senate has charged the Nominations Committee to
“provide, unless otherwise specified, a slate of at least as many nominees as
the number of positions to be filled for each election conducted by the
Senate.” In carrying out this Charge, a call for volunteers was issued in June
this year to ascertain interest among faculty in serving on the various Senate
and University Standing Committees. The slates developed by the Nominations
Committee are subject to restrictions imposed when the Senate creates
committees and specifies their Charges. For example, only tenured faculty may
serve on the University Grievance Committee and the Minority and Diversity
Issues Committee; moreover, only Senators may serve on Senate Standing
Committees, and each University Standing Committee must have at least one
Senator as a member. Beyond membership mandates from the Senate, the
Nominations Committee considers several factors in selecting nominees: interest (volunteers who want to serve are
given preference over people who must be dragooned ‑‑ but some
dragooning can occur when no one volunteers); experience, i.e., length of
service at Mason; unit ‑‑ one college or academic unit shouldn't
have all the members of a committee; and
continuity ‑‑ particularly when various initiatives are
underway for SACS accreditation, especially those involving the General
Education Committee; furthermore, the Athletic Council is undergoing an NCAA
review. With these preliminaries in mind, the Nominations Committee offers the
following slates:
Election of the Secretary of the Senate: Susan Trencher was elected unanimously.
FACULTY
SENATE STANDING COMMITTEES:
ACADEMIC
POLICIES:
Continuing
Members: Sheryl Beach (COS), Janette Muir (CHSS)
Nominees: Jose Cortina (CHSS), Fran
Harbour (CHSS), Harry Wechsler (VSITE)
BUDGET
AND RESOURCES
Continuing
Members: Alok Berry (VSITE), Rick Coffinberger (SOM)
Nominees: Ernest Barreto (COS), June Tangney (CHSS),
Phil Wiest (CHSS)
FACULTY
MATTERS
Continuing
Member: Joe Scimecca (CHSS)
Nominees: Doris Bitler (CHSS), John Cantiello (CHHS),
Mark Houck (VSITE), Jim Sanford (CHSS)
NOMINATIONS:
Continuing
Members: Jim Bennett (CHSS), Dimitrios Ioannou (VSITE)
Nominees: – Three vacancies; nominations must come from the
floor. David Kuebrich, Howard Kurtz, and
Pierre Rodgers were nominated. The
nominations were seconded.
ORGANIZATION
AND OPERATIONS:
Continuing
Member: Jack Goldstone (SPP)
Nominees: Bob Dudley (CHSS), Kelly
Dunne (CHSS), Jean Moore (CHHS), Star Muir (CHSS)
Nominations
were closed and a unanimous ballot cast to elect nominees to the Senate
Standing Committees.
(Nominees
in Bold Type are Faculty Senators)
ACADEMIC
APPEALS
Continuing
Members: Betsy DeMulder (CEHD), Marty DeNys (CHSS),
Michael Hurley (CHSS) (Provost appointee), Miriam Raskin (CHHS), Carmen
Rioux-Bailey (CEHD)
Continuing
Members: Bob Johnston (SOM), Terry
Zawacki (CHSS)
Nominees: Liz Chong (CHHS), Tom Kiley (COS), Thomas Speller
(VSITE), David Wilsford (CHSS)
ADMISSIONS
Continuing
Members: Nicole Sealey (VSITE), Suzanne Slayden
(COS), Eddie Tallent (Admissions appointee), Jason Warren (CHSS)
Nominees: Dan Joyce (CVPA), Charles Thomas (CEHD)
ATHLETIC
COUNCIL
Continuing
Members: Linda Miller (Chair, Faculty Athletic
Representative), Robert Baker (CEHD), Steve Klein (CHSS), Phil Wiest (CHSS)
Nominee: Guiseppina Kysar Mattietti (COS)
EFFECTIVE
TEACHING
Continuing
Members: Rodger Smith (CHSS), Suzanne
Smith (CHSS), Cliff Sutton (VSITE -Provost appointee), Mary Williams (CEHD)
Nominees: Paula Petrik (CHSS)
EXTERNAL
ACADEMIC RELATIONS
Continuing
Members: Deborah Boehm-Davis (CHSS), Kelly
Dunne (CHSS), Penny Earley (CEHD- Provost appointee)
Nominees: Steve Farnsworth (CHSS), Karl Fryxell (COS), Frank
Philpot (SOM)
Continuing
Members: Rick Davis (Chair, Associate Provost for
Undergraduate Education), Don Boileau (CHSS), Rick Diecchio (COS – Provost
appointee), Kim Eby (CHSS/Associate Provost – Provost appointee), Doug Eyman
(CHSS), Frank Philpot (SOM – Provost appointee), Claire Snyder (CHSS),
Hugh Sockett (CHSS), Karen Studd (CVPA), Cliff Sutton (VSITE – Provost
appointee)
Nominees: Kammy Sanghera (VSITE), Carol Urban (CHHS), Peter
Winant (CVPA)
Continuing
Member: Lloyd Cohen (SOL)
Nominees: Scott Bauer (CEHD), Bob Pasnak (CHSS),
Johannes Rojahn (CHSS), Sylvia Sanchez (CEHD)
Continuing
Members: David Anderson (CEHD), Flavia Colonna (COS),
Jeng-Eng Lin (COS)
Nominees: Jennifer Leeman (CHSS), Suzanne Scott (CHSS)
NON-TRADITIONAL,
INTERDISCIPLINARY, and ADULT LEARNING
Continuing
Members: Reeshad Dalal (CHSS), Earle Reybold (CEHD),
Amelia Rutledge (CHSS)
Nominees: Jaime Lester (CHSS), John Riskind (CHSS)
SALARY
EQUITY STUDY COMMITTEE
Continuing
Members: Karen Hallows (SOM – Provost
appointee), Margret Hjalmarson (CEHD)
Continuing
Members: Phil Buchanan (SOM), Goodlett McDaniel
(CHSS – Provost appointee), Star Muir (CHSS)
Nominees: Melissa Martin (SOM), Walter Morris (COS), Sharon
Williams vonRooij (CEHD), Stanley Zoltek (COS)
Continuing
Members: Tom Owens (CVPA), Ellen
Rodgers (CEHD), Daniel Rothbart (ICAR), Terry Zawacki (Director, WAC Program
–Ex-Officio)
Nominees: Joan Bristol (CHSS), Sue Durham (CHSS), Tamara
Maddox (VSITE), Nicola Scott (SOM), Stanley Zoltek (COS)
Steve
Klein (CHSS) was nominated from the floor to serve on the Non-Traditional, Interdisciplinary, and
Adult Learning Committee. Professor Jim
Bennett, Chair of the Nominations Committee,
noted that some committees do not have strict numbers of members, so we
can elect an additional nominee. The
nomination was seconded
Nominations
were closed and a unanimous ballot cast to elect nominees to the University
Standing Committees.
Election
of Other Faculty Representatives:
FACULTY
HANDBOOK REVISION COMMITTEE
Jim
Bennett (CHSS) was elected unanimously to replace Lorraine Brown.
B. Presentations
Blackboard Usage
and Faculty Issues: Sharon Pitt,
Executive Director, DOIT
Ms. Pitt’s
presentation is posted on the Faculty
Senate website at http://www3.gmu.edu/resources/facstaff/senate/MINUTES_FS_2010-11/FacultySenate_LMSRecapDistribute.pdf
. Page 11 contains responses to questions about
daily logins/users of Blackboard. Page
12 provides data in responses to
question about Blackboard costs 2009-2010.
Honor Code: Donna Fox, Associate Dean, Office of Academic
Integrity, University Life
Dean Fox
distributed the annual report of the Honor Committee:
Annual Report of
the Honor Committee 2009-2010 Academic Year:
Overview of
Honor Code cases:
In the 2009-2010 academic year, the Mason community
witnessed some important improvements in the Honor Committee and the
adjudication of cases through it. Honor
Committee members serve in two capacities in addition to their role in the
adjudication of cases. Honor Committee
Guard members are HC members who volunteer to help professors in large
classrooms to proctor their exams. Honor
Committee Ambassadors are HC members who volunteer to present information at
info sessions or in classrooms. These
additional duties of the Honor Committee help us to meet our goals of
preventing cases of academic dishonesty and educating students, respectively.
For the 2009-2010 academic year, 326 students were
referred to the Honor Committee. (This
is consistent with the last academic year.)
321
student cases have been resolved as of the date of this report
2 student cases are not resolvable since
the students left the university
3 student cases are still awaiting hearings
due to the summer break
Of the 321 cases that have been resolved, 88% of
students who were charged with an Honor Code violation were found to be
responsible. Most of these students,
74%, accepted responsibility for the charge in lieu of taking the case to the
Honor Committee. The most common
sanction that was recommended by professors in these particular cases was
equally split between either an F in the course or a zero on the
assignment/exam/quiz in question. For
students in upper division or graduate courses, an F in the course was the most
common sanction that was recommended.
For students in lower division courses, the most commonly recommended
sanction was a zero on the assignment in question. Graduate students face an additional sanction
of dismissal for a first violation of the Honor Code. Seventeen students received sanctions of
either suspension or dismissal from Mason in the 2009-2010 academic year.
Cases reviewed
by the Honor Committee:
The Honor Committee adjudicated 62 student cases as
of the date of this report.
Seventy-three percent of the students who took their cases to the Honor
Committee were found to be responsible for the stated charge, and 25% were
found to be not responsible. All
students who are charged with more than one violation must have their cases
referred to the Honor Committee for review.
In the 2009-2010 academic year, 19 student cases were reviewed for
students meeting this criterion (6% of total cases).
In order to appeal a decision made by the Honor
Committee, the student must provide documentation of either new information
that was not available at the time of the hearing OR evidence of procedural
irregularities. Six students appealed
Committee decisions in the 2009-2010 academic year. All were reviewed by the appeals board of the
Honor Committee and none was approved.
Statistics for
students responsible for an Honor Code violation:
Of students who were found to be responsible for an
Honor Code violation in the 2009-2010 academic year, 40% were female and 60%
were male. The median GPA for these
students was approximately 2.72. Seniors
were most commonly found responsible (35.8% of group), followed in order by
juniors (20.1%), freshmen (18.4%), sophomores (17.4%), and graduate students
(8.3%). In most cases (64%), the
students were responsible for plagiarism.
Thirty-three percent of the students were responsible for some form of
cheating. The remaining students were
found to be responsible for other infractions such as unauthorized
collaboration, falsification of documentation, etc.
Timeliness of
resolution of cases:
The median time to resolve cases in which students
accepted responsibility for the charge was approximately 3-4 working days from
receipt of the case. The median time to
resolve cases in which students elected to take their case to a hearing was approximately
13 working days from date of the election of this option. This does not include the outliers associated
with the summer term.
As of the date of this report, 3 cases are still
awaiting hearings in order to reach a resolution. The delay in resolution is due to the summer
break.
Other
activities of the Honor Committee:
In the 2009-2010 academic year, Honor Committee
members donated served more than 150 student hours as proctors to help
professors in their classrooms during exam periods. Honor Committee members served more than 20
student hours as HC Ambassadors to educate students about the Honor Committee
and Academic Integrity. Due to the
limited size of the Honor Committee, these services are available to the Mason
community on a first-come, first-served basis.
Our first Academic Integrity Week was held in
September of 2009, and we are planning on holding this event annually. The Golden Key International Honour Society
and the Alpha Lambda Delta Honor Society work in conjunction with the OAI to
raise awareness about the issues surrounding academic integrity. These Honor Society members and our Honor
Committee members will be posting posters in classrooms in addition to holding
other activities to raise awareness.
Website:
The Office for Academic Integrity’s website, academicintegrity.gmu.edu,
includes important information for both faculty and students.
Trends:
This year’s data are very similar to last year’s
data. Our hope is that increased
awareness and education will help reduce the number of cases filed in the future.
Donna
M. Fox, Ph.D.
Associate
Dean
Office
for Academic Integrity, UL
academicintegrity.gmu.edu
September
8, 2010
Additional Questions and
Comments
Dean
Fox: Seniors as the largest 35.8% of
group found responsible for Honor Code violations. Explanation
in part that this group has the most to lose; often repeat a difficult class
and cannot do the work. The Honor Code
Guard provides students to help proctor exams.
Senator questions re common
offenses and penalties:
Associate Dean, AIC; Intentional and
unintentional plagiarism.
Penalty
depends on whether it is a lower, higher, or graduate level course. Ultimately the professor decides.
Undergraduate
violations. First violation does not go
on record. Second violation may mean
dismissal or suspension, community service is no longer offered. Student may be
asked to work with the Writing Center or attend a seminar.
Senator question: How do you handle
(situation) if you think student may have not done this intentionally?
Associate Dean, AIC: Faculty encouraged to turn suspected cases in
as it may actually be that student's second, third, fourth or even fifth
violation, and not a first one. If a professor takes action on his/her
own without university involvement, the faculty member may be sued by a
disgruntled student. The Honor Code is published in the University
Catalog.
Senator Question: Can we handle a case
internally and then just notify you of the student's name so that there is a
record of the violation?
Associate Dean, AIC: If a case is not submitted to the Honor
Committee as an official case, it can't constitute a "strike" against
a student. In order to identify repeat violators of the Honor Code, the
cases must be on record with and resolved by the Honor Committee.
Senator question: What is unintentional
plagiarism? There really is no such
thing. Student may have forgotten to use
quotation marks, place citation, etc.
Senators observations: NYT article about plagiarism
recently noted that students consider things on Wikipedia as common knowledge,
do not see this as plagiarism. Another senator noted article in Cognitive
Psychology
Associate Dean, AIC: Did you write it? No, then it is plagiarism.
Senator question: When students sign the Honor Code, has a student
gotten into trouble for not turning in another student?
Associate Dean, AIC: In one
case. If you do not report cheating,
then giving or receiving help in an unauthorized fashion is cheating.
Mason
Ambassadors – Danielle Miller, President
Chair Peter
Pober introduced Danielle Miller, noting that she also serves as a student
representative to the Board of Visitors.
Ms Miller described the Mason
Ambassadors as a group of students who recruit prospective students, give
tours, host distinguished guests etc. Described group as “the face of GMU” (for
faculty). Ms. Miller asked about what faculty would like to see included in
tours. They are often asked questions about the quality of courses and about
faculty, access to faculty. She asked that faculty send her suggestions
for “boasting”.
Senator suggestion:
Include mention of many internship opportunities available in the DC
area.
Ms Miller: Already do this, also talk about the
many networking opportunities available (with adjunct faculty) as well as
research opportunities.
VI.
Remarks for the Good of the General Faculty
1. Pleasently surprised that he has not had parking problems the
first week of school.
2. Faculty Senator Linda Monson will perform Sunday, September
19th at the Jean Carrington Cobb concert.
3. Associate
Provost for Undergraduate Education Rick Davis read the following letter from
Nathan Dorfman, Student Government Liaison to the Faculty Senate last year:
Dear Faculty
Senate Members:
Though
I wish I could say this personally, I want to inform you that due to a
busy schedule as chair of Student Government's State Outreach committee
and as a teaching assistant, I am no longer able to attend Faculty Senate
meetings.
A new Student Government liaison will be appointed by October's meeting.
Already,
Student Government is working hard to implement new initiatives. We
are currently planning a lobbying day in Richmond to be held in February
for Mason student leaders. Also, this month, we are collaborating with the
College of Visual and Performing Arts, in support of ARTS by George, a
September 25th gala benefit.
Most importantly, Student Government would greatly appreciate a Faculty
Senate liaison to attend Student Government meetings once a month.
Meetings are held on the Johnson Center's third floor at 4:30 on Thursdays. If
any Faculty Senator is interested in and available for the position,
please e-mail me at [email protected]. We hope that a Faculty Senate liaison can be
appointed by October’s meeting as well.
Again, it is a pleasure to partner with the Faculty Senate, and I wish you all
a successful year.
Respectfully,
Nathan Dorfman
Chair; M.A.S.O.N. Committee; 31st Student Senate
Student Senator
Peer Advisor
University Scholar
4. Newly
elected Senators are: Nicole Darnall (COS), John
Cantiello (CHHS), Bob Dudley (CHSS), Eva Thorp (CEHD), Maggie Daniels (CEHD), Daniel
Garrison (VSITE), and
Tom Speller (VSITE). Clayton Austin (CVPA) will
represent CVPA for the fall term as Howard Kurtz is away this semester.
5. Note re university community: Some Sodexho
employees are on strike today. They are
especially concerned about health and safety issues. A student demonstration in support of the
workers occurred earlier today.
6. Chair Pober
thanked Morrie Scherrens (Executive VP ) for his exemplary work on the
COLA. He is determined to get this
through. Members of the Senate Standing Committees were asked to meet
immediately following adjournment and notify the Clerk of the Senate of new
committee chairs.
VII.
Adjournment : The meeting
adjourned at 4:07 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan Trencher
Secretary