MINUTES OF THE FACULTY HANDBOOK REVISION COMMITTEE
Monday, September 10, 2007; Mason Hall D1 – 11:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.
Present: Kevin Avruch, Associate Director and Professor of Conflict Resolution, Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution; Lorraine Brown, Professor of English, College of Humanities and Social Sciences; Rick Coffinberger, Associate Professor of Business and Legal Studies, School of Management, Chair; Martin Ford, Senior Associate Dean, College of Education and Human Development; Dave Harr, Senior Associate Dean, School of Management; Suzanne Slayden, Associate Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry, College of Science.
New Sexual Harassment Policy: Last week Provost Stearns requested that a new Sexual Harassment policy replace the previous policy in the Faculty Handbook as posted on the GMU website (to avoid) legal problems. The Faculty Senate does not own internet access to the Handbook; Renate Guilford will serve as point-of-contact. The recently approved Copyright Policy also needs to be updated within the Faculty Handbook on the GMU website. Is this usual for the Equity Office to develop policy? The Provost responded that the Equity Office reports to the President, and suggested we take question up with them directly.
Krasnow Institute Approval: Changes to Faculty Handbook: Recall that Professor Olds gave a presentation about reorganization of the Krasnow Institute to the Faculty Senate at its March 7, 2007 meeting. No reference was made with respect to compliance with Faculty Handbook text before reorganization proposal was approved by the BOV March 21, 2007. In current text, institutes may not hold departments; the Krasnow Institute will hold two departments. Need to revise Sections 18.104.22.168 Schools and Colleges without Departments; 22.214.171.124 Institutes; and 126.96.36.199 Academic Departments:
· An institute is the structural/functional equivalent of a school. Some schools have departments and some do not.
· ICAR is in the business of creating recognized discipline of Conflict Resolution. Over a period of time, the longevity, size, and scope of institute may become recognized as permanent, not transitory. Institutes also described as “cutting edge.” If you want to have ability to evolve; research and practice needs not conforming to university standards; then need to have some mechanism to do this. Not to limit manifestations of institutes.
· Not to preclude institutes growing into college status; institutes allow you to do interdisciplinary work, have flexibility. Not to go immediately to college/school level – may overstate status, may not have longevity. ICAR began undergraduate degree program; faculty doubled from 10 to 20, faculty still smaller than some departments.
· Use of institutes for flexibility under past-president Johnson as a thing of the past; institutes are here to stay.
· Concern expressed about manner in which reorganization of Krasnow Institute was effected. Immediate issue for this committee to address semantic changes.
· Important addition to 1994 Handbook (188.8.131.52 Institutes)“Institutes may offer interdisciplinary academic programs that do not duplicate those of other units.”
· Institutes have E&G funding, unlike centers, which must be externally funded. .
· Two departments in Krasnow Institute represent two different manifestations – makes sense to subdivide as curriculum, promotion and tenure, etc. would be distinct for each department.
Second-Level Promotion and Tenure Review Committees
· ICAR did not have second-level review committee. Provost expressed surprise that every school had to have a second-level review. Who audits this? Need for concerned faculty to make noise. Need for parties to contract to be monitored; in some places might be a Faculty Senate relevant committee, such as exists for grievance cases (Grievance Committee).
· Krasnow Institute now working on its by-laws. Provost refused suggestion that he (or Krasnow Director) would appoint members of second-level review committee as inappropriate; functions as a faculty (peer) review.
· Many faculty already affiliated with Krasnow Institute - may use as pool from which to draw faculty to participate in second-level review committees
· Need to change 1994 Faculty Handbook text where Faculty Senate elects people to participate in second-level P&T review. (Section 2.8.4 a.3): “...In the event the number of participating local academic units is insufficient to provide a committee of at least ten members, the committee will be brought to full strength by the addition of faculty members elected by (but not necessarily from) the Faculty Senate."
· In the past there used to be a second-level P&T review committee for institutes known as "the super committee" put together by provost. As institutes disappeared or become schools, past practices forgotten; not done maliciously.
· Differences exist among units where tenured faculty outside a department asked to serve on second-level P&T review committee; concern about faculty participating outside the college. For example, in School of Management: first-level review by area faculty (analogous to dept-level review committee); second-level review by discipline.
· Ad hoc committees for personnel review in violation of Faculty Handbook (Section 2.8.4.a.2)" ...In order to qualify to operate under the provisions stated in this paragraph, however, the aforesaid program faculties cannot exist solely to make personnel evaluations."
· Scale of unit has dramatic input - pool of peer-elected people needs to be large enough.
· Faculty who serve on first-level committee may not (serve) on second -level committee.
· Model not appropriate for ICAR because of its small size. In ICAR - second-level committee members outside institute need to have some connection to the work broadly defined. All tenured faculty at ICAR expected to contribute to first level P&T Committee; to avoid Machiavellian aspersions, second level P&T Committee members from outside ICAR; faculty from across university with some affinity to discipline asked to constitute second-tier. P&T Committee Chair (ICAR faculty member/director) serves ex-officio to answer questions which may arise. Different emphases among disciplines regarding journal articles vs. books, participation in negotiations, etc. Need for Chair to answer questions which might prejudice a decision for clinicians or practitioners. Need for affinity group to populate second-level P&T committee very important: some may have co-authored articles with ICAR faculty; have strong commitment to mission of ICAR; etc. Almost none of the respected journals in our field would be acceptable as top tier journals (yet). Similar to evolution of new scientific discipline. Tyranny of dead hand of traditional disciplines; to puzzle out and protect junior faculty. Asking a lot of affiliated faculty; however, there are not many candidates for second-level review.
· In COS, one 2nd-level P&T member elected from department; two or three at-large representatives elected for one academic year - at-large representatives recused from same department second-level committee.
· Need to ask tenured and tenure-track faculty to vote for P&T Committee to avoid impression that same group electing first-level committees elects the second-level committee.
· What happens when there are not enough tenured or full professor faculty? At times may need to borrow someone from another department. School by-laws provided a way to create second-level committee to vote before going to dean and ultimately provost.
· Concern about flexibility; need to hold as much agency/autonomy as possible - as noted earlier, Provost declined to appoint faculty to second-level P&T review committee. Oversight and external review (?) key.
· Governance and management concerns: would members of second-level P&T committee be privy to "secrets" expressed in first-level committee? Deans and provost also free to get information. Unless a gross abuse, to err on side of faculty unit to define standards - to discuss at a future time.
· Only tenured faculty eligible to serve on P&T Committee, in by-laws all full-time instructional faculty can vote on composition of P&T committee.
· Why is School of Law exempt? (Section 2.8.4 a.4 )"The School of Law, because it offers degrees which are defined by the Commonwealth of Virginia as "professional degrees," is exempt from the provisions specified in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), but it is not exempt from the requirement for two-level review."
Why Institutes? Can all the things an institute does also be done by a department?
· Department cannot exist as autonomous units.
· Differences between multidisciplinary and flexible response to emerging topics.
· An institute can exist without academic programs.
· Kellar Institute for Human Disabilities an anomaly; named not to be confused with Kellar Center (elsewhere) which operates as a center.
· If mission is research or service, then should be named a center.
· If remove "may" from second sentence 184.108.40.206 Institutes, does it refute argument where institutes could not operate in the same way as a department? No, because departments have chairs who report to deans. If a school, ICAR director would have to report to dean.
· Decided not to include Department of Neuroscience in COS as beginning evolution into a department within Krasnow. Most of faculty who teach in it are in COS science departments.
· Dept. of Social Complexity: noted that department of Psychology as largest grant-generating entity; a political decision with administrative output.
· If a faculty member had a primary affiliation with the Krasnow Institute, the affiliation must be in one of the two departments in the Krasnow Institute.
Clinical Faculty: GMU Faculty Practice Plan "Mason Care" Draft June 12, 2007 circulated among committee members; to discuss at future meeting.
Clerk, Faculty Senate
TEMPLATE REVISIONS ATTACHED:
220.127.116.11 Schools and Colleges without Departments
18.104.22.168 Academic Departments
2.8.4 Procedures for Promotion and Tenure (page 1 of three)