Monday, November 28, 2011

Mason Hall D1, 2:00 – 3:30 p.m.


Senators Present:  Janette Muir, Star Muir, Peter Pober, Earle Reybold, Jim Sanford, Suzanne Slayden, Peter Stearns, June Tangney.


I.  Approval of Minutes of October 31, 2011:  The minutes were accepted as distributed.


II.  Announcements

Dean Mark Ginsberg (CEHD) and Dean Andrea Bartoli (S-CAR) will offer brief remarks at the December 7th meeting.  Suzanne Slayden, Chair pro Tem, will preside as Chair Peter Pober will be traveling in China.  Michael Nickens will replace Janette Muir as Faculty Representative to the APDUC Committee effective Spring Term 2012.


III.  Progress reports, business, and agenda items from Senate Standing Committees

A.  Academic Policies – Janette Muir

The Committee meets tomorrow to select a new chair.  Changes to the Honor Code will happen when it happens.  It is not worth continuing the Early Entrance Program on the agenda for now. 

We received a note from student government about the shortened add period; they are not happy.  The new chair will meet with them.  Faculty are happy with the new add period; not to include as agenda item at this time.

Discussion:  Does it make sense to have a longer add period for individualized study?  The Registrar does not want different standards.  Students did not have the same possibility of doing well when they had already missed so much (class time).  Financial Aid was also kept waiting.  The last time students did not favor change because there is a lot to navigate - understandable, but other reasons are also important.  APAC said that one more day would be helpful.  What do the other Virginia public institutions do?  We looked at the big VA institutions, all were shorter than the old policy.  We are likely longer than otherwise.


B.  Budget and Resources – June Tangney

June distributed the results of the Summer Salary Teaching Survey.  She will meet with representatives from the Provost’s staff next week.  Is there anything else we should add?  The issue can be seen both as a top-down and bottom-up issue in the sense that faculty (should) know their rights in the Faculty Handbook (Section 3.3 Summer Salary, pp. 58-59).

Discussion: Department schedulers are asked to verify additional changes to summer schedule by December 1st – to be ready to “go live”.  As most units likely have their schedules for Summer 2012 now,   to monitor process for Summer 2013. Questions include:  How is money distributed to colleges?  Based on full-time-instructional faculty?  It is very clear they do not receive enough money to cover all full-time instructional faculty who wish to teach.  Funding levels may be legacy numbers from previous years, varies a lot by college.  To establish a deadline for full-time instructional faculty to indicate they wish to teach summer class(es).  Summer term is a money maker; is there enough demand to justfy taking some profit back for faculty salaries? By annualization the whole process is hidden.  You cannot see how much is hidden in the summer.  A test study wil be conducted in one department to determine if targets out of line based on funding given, minimum enrollment, amount of dollars, student FTE, faculty FTE.  To discuss at meeting with Provost representatives whether a general announcement to be distributed to full-time instructional faculty in the fall inviting them to contact chairs if they wish to teach summer courses.


Extramural Funding Survey:  There are still problems with data received from the Registrar’s Office; to remove as agenda item for now.  CHSS Policy requiring PIs to include 10% academic year salary for each month summer salary not a consistent policy.  It is a disincentive for those getting research funding, to remove for now as an active item for consideration. 


C.  Faculty Matters – Jim Sanford

The committee has not met since our last meeting due to Thanksgiving break.  We expect to have a resolution next time for Maternity/Paternity Leave.


D.  Nominations – Suzanne Slayden

Dimitrios Ioannou is nominated to serve on the Academic Policies Committee.


E.  Organization and Operations – Star Muir

Faculty Senators Spring 2012: CHSS to replace Janette Muir for remainder of her Senate term (Spring 2012-AY 12-13); S-CAR to replace Susan Hirsch for the remainder of her one-year Senate term Spring 2012, and CHSS to replace John Farina for Spring 2012 only while he is on leave. 

Discussion:  Is it necessary to replace a committee member away on  leave for the spring term?  Particularly if the committee does not have enough business during that time?  Should committee chairs determine whether replacement needed?  Some faculty continue to communicate by email while away.  Need to avoid even numbers of committee members; also disruptive to committee work over multi-year period.  Faculty on Senate Standing Committees need to be replaced.  Impresssion that every Faculty Senator should serve on a committee not explicit; Senators must report back to college – cannot mandate replacement serve on committee, but could ask if willing to serve. 


The committee will review a new policy  before deciding whether to propose new committee to address free speech and ethics issues.  Where does  code of ethics land?  Transcends Faculty Matters, does not fit with other committees.  Ultimately reviewed by O&O and then sent to the Executive Committee and then to the Faculty Senate.  An awkward fit, similar reaction to Consensual Relationship Policy – involves employee relations of which faculty are a subset.   


Are there any committees we no longer need?  Example cited of Admisssions Committee which receives reports from Eddie Tallent; they do not get anything we could not get from Dean of Admissions.  We are at the straining point – we had just enough nominees and had to go begging to some extent.  O&O has an open-ended charge; ad hocs well qualified.  Is there a mechanism for getting rid of committees? Although created by the Faculty Senate, University Standing Committees are not owned by the Faculty Senate, and must have at least one Senator.  The Technology Policy Committee meets with the University CIO.  At the end of the year, O&O will ask the University Standing Committees what they are doing, and should we consider (disbanding) any?  The only two University Standing Committees which do not belong to us are General Education and the Athletic Council – we supply faculty to them.


IV.  Other Committees/Faculty Representatives


Presidential Search Committee:  The Faculty Senate Resolution was presentated as the very first item at the meeting, it was read and discussed.  Students, staff, and graduate students are in the process of doing the same.  We continue to meet; the proces is moving along.


Academic Initiatives Committee report on Korea:  Chair Pober read the folowing email received from Professor Bob Johnston earlier today in response to our request  for the AI Committee’s follow-up report promised at the November 9th meeting:  “Our committee was scheduled to meet last Monday the 21st on the Songdo Korea project.  However, the Global and International Studies Program office has not been able to get the information we had requested and the meeting was cancelled.  I have been in touch with them (Anne Schiller and Min Park) and do know that they are workng on this, but do not expect to have all we had requested in time for us to make a recommendation regarding this program to the faculty senate next week.  We are meeting this Wed. the 30th, but do not expect a complete response by then..  Part of the problem is that we need additional information from the newly formed Songdo Global University Foundation and I understanding that they are not fully staffed.”

Discussion:  An understandable delay, but where does this fall on the timeline?  The BOV vote was moved to January (25th ), prior to Faculty Senate meeting February 1st.  Concern expressed that the BOV should not vote on it at that time.  Could the specific questions the Academic Initiatives Committee be presented to the BOV?  In light of the Ras al-Khaimah experience, sense that BOV has much greater reticence about this.  Some Visitors are concerned about cost issues five, seven, eight years down the line.  What will the market rate be? We will ask Bob Johnston to include as part of the AI Committee report, the questions for which responses have yet to be received in view of BOV which meett November 30th and then January 25, 2012.


Task Force to Examine Agreements between GMU and Private Donors/Phi Beta Kappa:

Chair Pober reported there are some members of the PBK governing body concerned about these relationships.  He has indicated to Charles Addams, University of Arkansas, part of the PBK interview group, that we would love to have a PBK Chapter at GMU.  That is why we are asking for this report.  

Discussion:  What will come out of the committee that will satisfy them?  Recall Provost Stearns’ statements that we receive money from both liberal and conservative (groups); this does not influence what we do.  A former member of the Task Force noted its goal was to open up conversation given press on the issue; to put everything on the table for discussion.  Requests to see documentation were repeatedly refused by the GMU Foundation.  How is moeny used for academic purposes?  (academic freedom)  How is it channeled?  Not to say a negative impact, rather a fact-finding expedition.



V.  Agenda Items for December 7, 2011


VI.             New Business, Updates,  and Discussion

FS/AAUP request to co-host reception for BOV:  March 21, 2012 proposed, to verify not during spring break.


O&O to ask Tom Hennessey and Tom Moncure about origins of policy regarding the ability to carry guns on campus and whether GMU chose to opt in to this or had no choice . 


EEO Statement now contains non-discrimination on basis of “genetic information”.  A former chair of the Faculty Senate expressed concern that the Faculty Senate was not asked to vet EEO statement, O&O to ask Corey Jackson about this. 


Suzanne Slayden, Chair of the Faculty Handbook Revision Committee, distributed proposed revisions to Section 3.6.2 Leave Programs for Tenured Faculty, requesting input also from the Faculty Matters Committee.  Need for revision because there are more than one kind of leaves of absence.  While the Faculty Handbook Committee has a history of knowledge, in some cases important to address in committee where it would reside (such as Faculty Matters), particularly for interpretation of policy issues.  Provost Stearns and Brian Walther (University Counsel) will also have input,  Proposed revisions would still be voted upon by the Faculty Senate.


The state conference of the AAUP is being planned at this time; details to follow.


The meeting adjourned at 3:24 p.m.


Respectfully submitted,

Meg Caniano

Faculty Senate clerk