MINUTES OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
OF THE FACULTY SENATE
MONDAY, February 26, 2007; 1:30 – 2:30 p.m., Mason Hall, room D5
Present: Jim Bennett, Lorraine Brown, Phil Buchanan, Dave Kuebrich, Jim Sanford, Suzanne Slayden, Peter Stearns, Cliff Sutton, Susan Trencher.
Approval of Minutes: The minutes of our meeting February 12, 2007 were approved; revisions to the minutes of January 12, 2007 were completed.
Proposal to permit Krasnow Institute to hold faculty appointments directly, which the Provost supports:
· Four faculty from Social Complexity plus seven-eight scientists not primarily in cognitive psychology, but working in neuroscience. Together this combines two vigorous small units too small to merit department status. To put in Krasnow as most efficient, cost-effective way to obtain organizational framework needed to conduct business.
· Both inherently interdisciplinary fit with Krasnow, particularly as working with CHSS and COS inter-unit faculty combinations. The deans of CHSS and COS, as well as the chair of the Psychology Department, concur with this recommendation.
· Jim Olds, Director of the Krasnow Institute, will appear and explain proposal at March 7th Faculty Senate meeting, as Provost will be away. Hopes to present to BOV at its meeting March 21st.
· Would this proposal make Krasnow Institute degree-granting?
No, degrees would continue to be housed in other units and administered by faculty in other units, as handled now. Significant contingent in Psychology, COS, and IT&E; an inter-unit program with little unit in Krasnow. Reorganization of existing faculty: no imminent hires, but (could be some) in Psychology and Neuroscience. Krasnow to be a department equivalent re hiring, second level tenure review by Krasnow and additional faculty as needed. First and second level reviews would not have the same people. In present second level review, faculty recuse themselves if part of initial review.
· For purposes of Faculty Senate (allocation), would Krasnow faculty be disenfranchised?
No, because they are pooled with ICAR for FTE.
· Is there a plan for degree programs in Krasnow?
Only inter-unit degree programs now in force. Enrollment targets for Krasnow not yet discussed.
· Would faculty members be moved to Krasnow? Why is it necessary to do this?
There are now seven-eight faculty logically in the College of Science – Neuroscience. Not enough to pay for them to have department status; virtually associated with Krasnow now.
· “Social Complexity” defined as Computational Social Science.
Executive Committee Meeting with Faculty Representatives to BOV Committees today:
· How do they communicate to the faculty as a whole as they are not Faculty Senate representatives? They were elected by the general faculty.
· Should they report to the Executive Committee? Offer statements to the Faculty Senate throughout the year?
· Election process next year – to stagger terms?
Academic Policies: Cliff Sutton
· Motion: Absence for Religious Observances or Participation in University Activities: revised draft distributed.
· Report: M-W-F Scheduling Changes – Julie Christensen to give a brief oral report; to be posted on website. Dee Holisky (Sr. Associate Dean – CHSS) says “no opposition” to this. All has been considered; recognizing there is a downside to this.
Other AP Committee work ongoing: summer scheduling (Jim Willett); same paper submitted to two different classes (Dan Joyce); and overlap of credits in double-majors (Peter Pober researching what other Virginia universities do).
Requests Provost’s assistance in posting of salary data – requires technical expertise beyond instructions we have unsuccessfully tried to carry out.
Motion: Employment of Family Member/Partner includes new statements:
· “Appearance of exercising control” includes but is not limited to assigning responsibility for personnel actions or supervision to a colleague or subordinate.” – different from other Virginia university draft policy.
· In situation with two deans in which one has a family member applicant, the other dean could not take charge or charge a subordinate – decision must go to the Provost.
· New final sentence: “Only after the Board is satisfied that the present policy was implemented and that safeguards were adequate should the personnel action be approved.”
Jose Cortina (CHSS) nominated to serve on Policy Task Force Considering Clinical Faculty.
Two faculty members (representatives to the Copyright Policy Committee) adamantly opposed to some parts of policy. One has asked to give a ten-minute power-point presentation. “Significant Use of Resources” issue irreconcilable. Recommendation not to disapprove entire policy, rather write exceptions to certain provisions as a separate document for presentation to the BOV. Concern expressed about lack of time in which to vote on such an important policy. Suggestion made to ask for summary of power-point presentation noted above to be distributed in advance of meeting, as well as to remind faculty to carefully consider this in advance of meeting. Deans’ positions on proposed policy unknown.
Other Agenda Items:
The budget has been tentatively approved, subject to governor’s approval. GMU received ½ E&G(?) funding request ($1.2 million/not $2.4 million requested), did not fare as well as some universities. Lack of evenhandedness very troubling. Now gearing up for biennium budget next year; not happy with lobbying firm’s performance. Too much effort directed towards governor, need to deal (more) with Northern Virginia delegation. We need more presence in Richmond.
A member of the Executive Committee expressed concern about impact of transportation bill endangering funding for education and public safety; surprised some in local delegation voted for bill; or failed to vote.
Clerk, Faculty Senate