GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY
MINUTES OF THE FACULTY SENATE MEETING
February 1, 2012
Robinson Hall B113, 3:00 – 4:15 p.m..
Senators
Present: Ernest
Barreto, Sheryl Beach, Jim Bennett, Alok Berry, John Cantiello, Vikas
Chandhoke, Arie Croitoru, Yvonne Demory, Charlene Douglas, Robert Dudley,
Daniel Garrison, Mark Houck, Dimitrios Ioannou, Kathryn Jacobsen, Dan Joyce,
David Kuebrich, Howard Kurtz, Ning Li, Linda Monson, Star Muir, Susan Allen
Nan, Elavie Ndura, Paula Petrik, Peter Pober, William Reeder, Earle Reybold,
Jim Sanford, Joe Scimecca, Suzanne Scott, Suzanne Slayden, Ray Sommer, Peter
Stearns, June Tangney, Halaevalu Vakalahi, Phil Wiest, Stanley Zoltek.
Senators
Absent: Doris
Bitler, Jack Censer, Rick Coffinberger, Lloyd Cohen, Kelly Dunne, Cody Edwards,
Mark Ginsberg, Lloyd Griffiths, Jorge Haddock, Margret Hjalmarson, Bruce
Johnsen, Jerry Mayer, Alan Merten, James Olds, Daniel Polsby, Edward Rhodes,
Pierre Rodgers, Lesley Smith, Thomas Speller, Shirley Travis, Susan Trencher,
Iosif Vaisman, John Zenelis.
Visitors: Rizna Ahmed, Director of Benefits; Human Resources
and Payroll; Betsy Appleton, Chair, Librarians’ Council; 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; Linda
Harber, Associate Vice President, Human Resources and Payroll; Robin Herron,
Associate Director, Media and Public Relations; Susan Jones, Associate Provost
and University Registrar; Michelle Lim, HR Faculty Business Partner, Human
Resources and Payroll; James Martin,
Vice-Chair, Staff Senate; Janette
Muir, Associate Provost for Undergraduate Education; Claudia Rector, Assistant Provost for Academic
Affairs; Linda Schwartzstein, Vice
Provost for Academic Affairs, Vice President for Enrollment Services.
I.
Call to Order: The
meeting was called to order at 3:02 p.m.
II.
Approval of the Minutes of December 7, 2011:
The
minutes were approved as distributed.
III.
Announcements
Chair Pober welcomed
Senators to “Fiesta February” noting the Senate will meet for three weeks in a
row. He parlayed as he begins his last
semester as chair of the Faculty Senate, encouraging Senators to consider
the position.
Dean
Vikas Chandhoke, College of Science, provided a brief overview of the past
year’s accomplishments. He focused first on academic and research space, noting
that projects in Prince William for research space and graduate housing are
underway. The renovation of Science and
Tech II is expected to be complete in summer, 2013, and the project for the
Belmont Bay for Environmental Research in two years. The most important (new)
physical asset is the new telescope. He
invited everyone to attend an Open House on February 8th between
6:00-8:00 p.m. Dean Chandhoke then discussed expansion for enrollment: a new MA
in Biomedical Science with Georgetown has been received very well and expected
to expand further next year. He acknowledged “the research side” struggles for
expansion with funding pressures. Infrastructure, he said, limits ability to
expand aggressively this year, but will expand in the future. He noted the College added twelve faculty
members to the roster this year. The College, he said, is attracting very high
quality assistant professors.
Question: Which departments are (the) hires?
Dean Chandhoke: There are four in math, some in physics,
Krasnow, chemistry, spread over the college.
Question:
Chance to attract more research students?
Dean
Chandhoke: More grants, graduate
stipends with supplemental awards. This
is not a
cheap place to live. Need to have
grants/stipends (sufficient for) high cost of living.
Dean
William Reeder, College of Visual and Performing Arts, reported his college is
continuing to enjoy very steady growth.
In the last two years, he said, he has been happily surprised with
larger numbers than budgeted. He noted a
collaborative sense of goodwill among faculty members to manage growth and the
expectations of students. His report focused on:
·
Facilities: Renovation of the old Fine
Arts building to include offices for all faculty members and 32 more practice
rooms. He noted the new buildings, as well: the deLaski Performing Arts
Building, the Hylton Performing Arts Center, and Art and Design Building.
·
Community energy: He emphasized the
positive impact of the Faculty Arts Board, the Green Machine, and a number of
joint projects such as computer game design shared with the Volgenau School.
Building on this point, Dean Reeder said collaborative relationship require us
to “be inclusive.” For example, the
original organization around the Arts and Mason Partnership evolved to a much
simpler relationship across academic, professional, community groups. The “Friends” groups—now there are 13—developed
in the past three or four years beyond the classic non-profit role; they have
assumed an advisory capacity.
Question: What happened to Cheap Seats for faculty?
Dean Reeder did not know,
but promised to look into it.
Chair
Pober announced that the agenda for the Special Faculty Senate Meeting to
Address the Presidential Search Process – February 8, 2012 will be posted
(today) and hopes everyone will come with a desire to speak. As in the past, we will have time limits so
all will have a chance to speak (and to) experience a logos-driven
perspective. Emotions may run high. (Faculty) do have a lot to say.
He
also noted a Special Faculty Senate Meeting to Consider Proposed Changes to the
Faculty Handbook – February 15, 2012
IV. New Business –
Committee Reports
A.
Senate
Standing Committees
Executive Committee – Peter
Pober, Chair
Chair Pober welcomed Susan Allen
Nan, the new Senator from the School of Conflict Analysis and Resolution. He also thanked Senator Suzanne Scott who has
agreed to serve as chair of the Academic Policies Committee.
A Senator asked whether there
were any updates to the Freedom of Speech Policy recommendations made by the Task Force (University Space and Expression Committee). Chair Pober served on the committee and
responded that the Committee submitted its revisions to University Counsel Tom
Moncure, and is happy to address further revisions.
A Senator asked about (the
status) of the recommendations made in the Action Plan for Police and Community
Relations (established as an outcome of the July 2011) Presidential Task Force on University Police and University Community
Relations. Chair Pober will invite Chief
of Police Michael Lynch and Sr. VP Morrie Scherrens to a Faculty Senate meeting
this semester to provide an update.
Academic Policies - no report at
this time.
Budget & Resources – June Tangney, Chair
Summer
Salary Report: We have concluded our summary
report on the Summer Salary Issue (see Attachment A). Although there are quite a number of
full-time instructional faculty teaching this summer, some do not know they
have the rights they have. (As described
in the last paragraph of the report), beginning in September, the Provost will
send out a call to faculty for requests for summer teaching.
Faculty
Salary Data: The faculty and admnistrator
salary data reports are not yet posted due to the VRS anti-raise. We are working with Human Resources to
designate raise data in such a way to protect privacy of faculty retirement
status.
Independent
Study Survey: We have initiated a survey of chairs, deans, and directors (to
ascertain) policies on independent study/courses and hope to present a report
at our next meeting.
Faculty Matters – Jim Sanford, Chair
Proposed
Changes to the 2012 Revision of the Faculty Handbook Section 3.6.2:
The Faculty Matters Committee voted to approve a
change in the length of time elapsing between tenuerd faculty study leaves in which the proposed revision text be
changed from “six” to “four”
years appears underlined and in RED BOLD:
3.6.2
Faculty Handbook 2012 Proposed Revision
text in which the time elapsed between study leaves for tenured faculty
clarified:
“Faculty must be tenured with six four
years of service at GMU, and have completed six four
years of such service since a previous study leave. This six four
year period includes time spent on leave of absence, unless such leave includes
time worked at another agency or institution...”
As the Faculty Matters Committee’s vote was too
late for inclusion in this meeting’s agenda, the Senate voted by unanimous
consent to add this item to the agenda.
Senator Slayden, Chair of the Faculty Handbook
Revision Committee, noted that proposed
changes to the Study Leave policy also needed the involvement of the Provost’s
Office as well as the Research Council, which had earlier asked for
clarification of this policy.
A motion was made and seconded to postphone
consideration of the change until the Faculty Handbook Committee can meet and
consult.
Discussion (redacted):
Senator Sanford responded that the Faculty Matters
Committee approved this change just a week ago and that the Faculty Senate,
administration, and the BOV can all propose changes to the Faculty Handbook.
Another Senator commented that he did not
understand why this is so involved, (just) to change the word “six” to the word
“four”.
Senator Slayden responded that the Faculty Handbook
Revision Committee has talked about how do we best approach revisions to the
Faculty Handbook? There is a need for
consultation with the administration and asked that we postphone revision at
this time so that we can get feedback from Provost Stearns and Roger Stough (VP
for Research and Economic Development) before we vote on it.
The motion to postpone voting on the proposed
revision failed. By a show of hands, 12
votes in favor of postponement, 15
votes opposed to postponement.
Provost Stearns:
We haven’t had a chance to look at this.
The amount of money/funding available is not likely to increase. Beyond the change from 7 to 6 years already
agreed upon, he does not know where this figure came from and noted it was a dramatic change.
Senator Sanford:
The Faculty Matters Committee recognized that this may not involve more money, but would
(result) in more competition. The
proposal would assist full professors, giving them more incentive to continue
research. Without expectation of more
money/funding available, would expect
those who are really productive (in their research) likely to get it.
A Senator asked whether this practice is very common;
in most universities of which he is aware, it is not.
Senator Petrik,
who also serves on the Faculty Matters Committee cited another insitution in
which the interval between study
leaves for
Assistant and Associate Professors is
seven years, but
for Full Professors it is five.
Senator Petrik also consulted her academic department.
A Senator expressed concern given the lack of
money, that full professors might get most of the leaves over
lower-ranking professors based on research proposals.
Senator Petrik replied
this “would help the vast field of associate professors move up...”
A motion was made and seconded to
change the proposed study leave interval in Section 3.6.2 Faculty
Handbook 2012 Revision from six to four
years. By a show of hands, 9 votes in
favor, 18 votes against, the motion failed.
A Senator commented that she “has never seen a group vote
against its own self-interest with (such) grace and abandon.”
Senator Sanford also reported that the committee is
working on maternity/paternity leaves
and will also look at email privacy issues, with implications for compromising
human subjects and other research topics.
Nominations
Dan Joyce
(CVPA) is nominated to fill a vacancy on the Organization and
OperationsCommittee for Spring, 2012. No further nominations were made from the
floor, and the nomination was approved unanimously.
Organization & Operations – Star Muir, Chair
Senator
Muir clarified that the email privacy issue was first assigned to the
Technology Policy Committee. There is a
clause in the policy that faculty have no expectation of privacy in email. He
said people need to know their privacy is not being protected; the issue was
then sent to Faculty Matters.
Gun
Policy on Campus:
By (employment) contract, faculty cannot bring a gun on campus,
nor can students. However, the state of
Virginia recently voted to support the public’s ability to carry concealed
weapons in public places (see University Policy
1120: Weapons on Campus). People who are not members of the GMU
community can bring guns to campus, but they cannot enter buildings or attend
university events with them. If you are
a member of the general public, you can carry concealed weapons in Virginia in
public places. There is no place for
this to go; as approved by the Commonwealth of Virginia and upheld by the
Virginia Supreme Court. O&O will not
refer this issue out. In response to a
question raised, Senator Muir confirmed that University Policy 1120 is not in
conflict with state law.
B. Other Committees
Academic
Initiatives Committee: The Fall 2011 report of the Academic Initiatives Committee is
posted on the Senate website. A
motion was made and seconded to accept the report from the Academic Initiatives
Committee. The motion was approved
unanimously.
Faculty Handbook
Revision Committee – Suzanne
Slayden, Chair
The Committee has met 7-8 times this semester; first three meetings
solo, then in expanded meetings with representatives from the Provost’s office,
Human Resources, and CHSS Associate Dean Debbie Boehm-Davis. We can take the “four” proposal back to the
Provost and the Research Council. At the
Special Meeting to consider proposed revisions to the Faculty Handbook on
February 15th, we plan to ask for a vote of yes or no. If no, the proposed revisions will be sent
back to the committee (to avoid last minute changes). Chair Pober thanked Senator Slayden and the
committee for all their work. Please see
Attachment B for the full text of the committee’s report.
V.
Other New Business
VRS Update – Linda Harber, Vice
President for Human Resources
*Vice President Harber recently went to Richmond with Betty
Jolly, State Government Relations Director. She said they expressed opposition
to proposals to cap COLAs, adjust (retirement contribution) formulas, and the
governor’s hybrid plan. There are
currently various retirement House and Senate bills; for example, House
Bill #486 offers the opportunity for those ORP faculty with less than ten
years’ service the option to switch to VRS by purchasing credit –an actuarial
number that could be quite high. Faculty
interested in changing from VRS to ORP should watch the status of that
bill. Current legislation proposed
does not impact the Optional Retirement Plan (ORP) program elements. She noted, “we are working together with UVA,
Virginia Tech, and VCU on many of these initiatives." * Text provided by Vice President Harber
in response to inquiry.
See also ATTACHMENT C, Letter to State Employees from Governor
McDonnell, January 12, 2012. A Senator
observed an inaccuracy in the Governor’s letter which stated that the 5% VRS
contribution was completely offset.
Endorsement for BOV Consideration of Emeritus Status for Thomas
Hennessey
In recognition of years of meritorious
service to the University, the Faculty Senate recommends to the Board of
Visitors that Thomas Hennessey be granted the title Chief of Staff Emeritus
upon his retirement in May, 2012.
Chair Pober
expressed his deep appreciation for Tom’s work.
Provost Stearns added that, although it was not his idea, he supports
the endorsement. The endorsement was
approved unanimously by the Faculty Senate.
VI.
Remarks for the Good of the General Faculty
Chair Pober introduced James Martin, recently
elected Vice-Chair of the Staff Senate.
He has been at Mason four years, as a student and staff member.
The Faculty Arts Board will hold an event on Friday,
March 23rd at 6:00 p.m. in advance of The Mikado. Dean Reeder asked Provost Stearns to regale
us again with a rewritten Mikado. If any
of you have such talents, please let him know. (For additional information, see
http://newsdesk.gmu.edu/2012/02/provost-stearns-to-entertain-at-faculty-arts-board-event/.)
Provost Stearns is attempting to arrange an
informal meeting between President-Elect Cabrera and Faculty Senators during in
early March.
Professor Giorgio Ascoli (Krasnow) and
Professor Bob Hazen (Robinson Professor of Earth Sciences) were both named 2012
Outstanding Faculty Awards, the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia
(SCHEV).
Kim Eby (Associate Provost) also noted that this is an honor for Mason
to have two of the twelve award recipients.
Vice Provost Schwartzstein thanked everyone for
their support for SACS Accreditation/Approval December 14th.
VII.
Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at
4:03 p.m.
Respectfully
submitted,
Earle
Reybold
Secretary
ATTACHMENT A
Summary of
Summer Salary Inquiry
Conducted by
the Budget and Resources Committee of the Faculty Senate
12/26/11
Funding
for summer term is now part of the annual academic budget allocated to units.
The summer instructional budgets moved to the academic units (FY) 2010/11 and
are part of the transition to move the university to an annualized model. Deans
and Directors now have the flexibility of managing all funds to meet annualized
targets. Similar to fall and spring, if an academic unit exceeds its target the
unit is compensated for the additional FTEs generated. If an academic unit does
not meet its established target, the unit is required to return a portion of
funding centrally.
The
primary disconnect seems to be that units do not uniformly receive sufficient
funding from the Provost’s office to allow full-time faculty to teach one
summer course at 10% of their base salary, as required by the Faculty
Handbook. In the past, the allocation
was made assuming that 70% of summer classes would be taught by full-time
faculty at 10% of their base salary, but this approach has changed over the
years. As mentioned earlier, the
academic units now manage all funding related to summer term. According to the
Provost’s office, each unit’s budget for summer is set based on historical data
and a varied set of factors distinctive to each unit. The use of a
full-time/part-time ratio was based on the historical use of each at the
university during summer term. If an allocated budget does not meet the
instructional costs associated with building and offering courses that meet the
needs of students and faculty, chairs may submit requests to deans. The dean
determines a course of action and, if necessary, contacts the Summer Term
Office for collaboration. No dean did so
for summer 2011, according to the Provost’s office.
In
some units (e.g., Psychology, SOM), relatively few full time faculty request
summer courses and thus the funds allocated are sufficient to meet and even
exceed the requirements of the Faculty Handbook. In other units (e.g., Sociology) the funds
allocated are not sufficient to meet this Faculty Handbook requirement. Chairs must overspend their summer
allocations to provide summer teaching opportunities to full-time faculty and
must take money from other parts of their budgets which are already very tight
to make up the difference. It was noted
that some departments implicitly discourage full-time faculty from teaching
summer school courses by the number, nature, and/or scheduling of summer school
courses. Electrical and Computer Engineering, for example, has reduced its
summer school offerings by approximately 60%.
Summer
courses are important to both Mason students and potentially for a significant
portion of Mason’s faculty members.
Most Mason students work a significant number of hours each week while
completing their degree requirements. As
a result of the time these students spend working and commuting, they want to
complete coursework during the summer in order to finish their degree
requirements in a timely manner. Summer
salary is potentially important to many Mason faculty, especially because Mason
faculty have received a single average 2.25% raise in the past five years and
because Mason faculty salaries now rank at the 3rd percentile
vis-à-vis SCHEV defined peer, adjusted for cost of living.
According to the Provost’s office, all tuition revenue generated
during the summer is part of the annual budget model that is based on
annualized FTE which forecasts total revenues generated from tuition and then
expenses against it to determine the annual tuition increase. The model showing
generation of $3 for every $1 invested in the summer is based on summer FTE
only against costs for instructional salaries and therefore erroneously depicts
a surplus. That said, the summer session is likely to be a source of additional
revenue for units and the University given the number of courses taught by
adjuncts.
In sum, units do not
uniformly receive sufficient funding from the Provost’s office to allow
full-time faculty to teach one summer course at 10% of their base salary, as
required by the Faculty Handbook. Yet no
dean contacted the Summer Term Office in 2011 for an adjustment to the summer
allocation. An administrative procedure is needed to more flexibly meet the
faculty requests for summer teaching assignments and associated salary. One possibility would be to modify the
procedure so that a specific deadline date be established for faculty to
declare that they wanted a summer school course and that funding sufficient to
cover all their salaries be put aside at that date. The remaining money could be allocated to
programs as done in the past.
During the fall of 2011,
the Budget and Resources Committee of the Faculty Senate sent a survey to Deans
and Directors to get a clearer picture of the state of summer teaching by full
time faculty. Fifty seven (57) surveys
were mailed and 53% (30) were returned with 27 completed by administrators who
had been in their positions long enough to comment on summer teaching practices
in their Unit. Eighty one percent (81%) of administrators routinely notified
their faculty of summer teaching opportunities with one administrator noting
that they only used adjuncts because tenure/tenure-track faculty use the summer
for research writing. The same percentage of administrators was able to honor
all faculty requests, and used adjuncts only when full-time faculty members
were not interested.
However,
19% of administrators were unable to honor all full-time faculty requests for
summer teaching when requests were made.
One Unit noted that their College and the Provost’s office encouraged
the use of adjuncts for summer teaching whenever possible. Various types of
rationing strategies were used to support summer teaching: one unit used only
lower salaried faculty, another limited summer opportunities to graduate
assistants and adjuncts and did not offer courses to faculty with outside
funding streams such as grants or stipends, and another Unit offered a high
salaried faculty the opportunity to teach a course other than the one requested,
resulting in the faculty member declining to teach.
Additional
funding requests, on the order of $30 - $100,000, were suggested by
administrators in order to honor all full-time faculty requests for summer
teaching. As an alternative to the 10% salary, support options included:
encouraging faculty to apply for summer funding from the University or other
outside sources, reliance on faculty summer grant funding, financing labs in
natural science at the 6.7% rate instead of 10% (unless they are coordinating)
and encouraging more oversight from the central administration.
At
a subsequent meeting between the Chair of the Budget and Resources Committee
and relevant members of the Provost’s staff (Cathy Evans and Renate Guilford),
it was decided that each year in September, the Provost staff would work with
the Chair of the Faculty Senate and the Provost to send out a call to faculty
for requests for summer teaching, to be submitted to the Chair, Director, or
Dean (depending on the unit). In
October, Chairs and Directors will submit to their Associate Deans a course
schedule (without a budget). Associate
Deans will then communicate with the summer term office regarding funding
required to cover courses with adequate enrollment.
ATTACHMENT B
Report from the Faculty Handbook Revision Committee for the Faculty Senate meeting, February 1, 2012
The Faculty Handbook Revision Committee
and appropriate administrators have approved the proposed revisions to the
Faculty Handbook that appear in the Attachment. The Faculty Senate will convene in a Special
Meeting on February 15, 2012 to vote on the revisions.
The
Board of Visitors has requested that any approved changes be considered by them
at their March 21, 2012 meeting (agenda deadline is March 5).
By
this report, we hope to give Faculty Senators and the General Faculty ample
time to read and discuss the proposals before the Special Meeting. If there are
any questions or concerns, they can be voiced at the Faculty Senate meeting or
communicated to the Committee. It is unlikely that the Committee will consider
any wholly new proposals before the agenda deadline for the Special Meeting
(Feb. 8).
When
the agenda for the Special Meeting is circulated, the motion to approve the
revisions will include the stipulation that there are to be no further
revisions at the meeting other than those necessary to correct typographical or
grammatical errors. This procedure is the same as used for consideration of the
2009 and 2011 revisions.
The
Committee and administrators will meet at least three more times this semester
to continue discussions of proposals that are not yet finalized, as well as to
begin discussion of any new proposed revisions.
Committee:
The
full committee recommending these changes consists of the Faculty Handbook
Revision Committee, whose faculty members are elected by the Faculty Senate,
and representatives from the Administration:
Geoffrey
Birchard
COS
Lloyd
Cohen
SOL
Faculty Senator
Richard
Miller
CEHD
Suzanne Slayden
COS
Faculty Senator
Chair
Deborah Boehm-Davis
Associate Dean, CHSS
Renate
Guilford
Associate Provost, Enrollment Planning & Administration
Michelle
Lim
Human Resources Faculty Business Partner
Brian
Walther
Senior Associate University Counsel
The proposed revisions to the
Faculty Handbook 2012 are posted on the Senate website.
ATTACHMENT C
|
January 12, 2012 Dear Fellow
State Employees:
|
