George Mason University
Approved Minutes of the Continuation of the Faculty Senate May 1st Meeting
May 7, 2002


Senators Present: K. Avruch, J. Bennett, A. Berry, E. Blaisten-Barojas, D. Boileau, B. Brown, L. Brown, P. Buchanan, R. Coffinberger, M. Deshmukh, E. Elstun, P. Feerick, H. Gortner, R.C. Jones, D. Kuebrich, C. Mattusch, L. Pawloski, J. Sanford, J. Scimecca, L. Seligmann, S. Slayden, P. So, A. Sofer, P. Story, D. Struppa, C. Sutton, S. Trencher, P. Wilkie, S. Zoltek.

Senators Absent: W. M. Black, L. Bowen, R. Carty, S. Cheldelin, T. Chorvat, Y. D.  Chung, S. Cobb, R. Conti, S. deMonsabert, M. DeNys, M. Ferri, D. Gantz, J. Gorrell, M. Grady, L. Griffiths, K. Haynes, J. High, H. W. Jeong, R. Klimoski, A. Kolker, M. Krauss, B. Manchester, A. Merten, J. Moore, H. Morgan, R. Nadeau, W. Reeder, J. Kozlowski, L.
Rockwood, S. Ruth, R. Smith, P. Stearns, B. Sturtevant, C. Thomas, J. Zenelis.

Guests Present: Sheryl Beach, Robin Herron, Susan Jones, Tojo Thatchenkery.

I. Call to Order
Chair Don Boileau called the meeting to order at 3:03. This meeting is a continuation meeting of the May 1, 2002 Faculty Senate meeting.

II. Announcements – Don Boileau
The Faculty Senate will have representation on the Board of Trustees of the George Mason University Foundation. If House Bill 538 passes next year, the faculty will have representation on the Board of Visitors.

There has been overlapping of teaching schedules and department meetings during the Faculty Senate meetings this year. The Faculty Senate would appreciate Dean, Directors, and Chairs taking the Senate meetings into consideration when preparing their scheduling of classes and meetings.

Senators Larry Bowen, Bobbi Conti, and Pat Story will be retiring from the University.

III. New Business
A change in the agenda was made to accommodate senators who may have to leave the meeting early.

Election of the Chair of the Faculty Senate
The Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate nominated Professor James Bennett for the position of Chair of the Faculty Senate. With no other nominations, a motion was made and seconded to close the nominations and cast a unanimous ballot. James Bennett was unanimously elected for the 2002-2003 term as Chair of the Faculty Senate. The first official act of the Chair will be to lead the graduation procession on Saturday, May 18, 2002.

Academic Policies Committee Motion
Motion:
The term of the Task Force on Teaching Evaluation be extended through the Fall 2002 semester. Pat Story reported the Committee is doing important work and believes that most members of the Committee will continue to serve. Stanley Zoltek suggested the creation of an on-going committee be created to oversee teacher evaluations. The motion passed.

International Dual Degrees
Esther Elstun reported that senators were sent an e-mail message concerning a recommendation on international dual degrees. Yehuda Lukacs has received three inquiries recently about such programs. A discussion followed which clarified the point that these students would receive two degrees. It was moved and seconded to send this recommendation back to the Committee.

Message from the Provost, Peter Stearns (delivered by Sheryl Beach):
“I regret not being able to attend Don Boileau's last meeting as chair of the Senate. But I would like to extend my thanks and appreciation to Don for three years of wise and constructive leadership, and for the personal commitment involved. The University, as well as the Senate, is better for his term of service.”

IV. Unfinished Business — Senate Committee Reports, continued

Senate Standing Committee Reports
Executive Committee – Don Boileau
Don Boileau, Chair will submit his report after the Board of Visitors meeting on May 15, 2002.

Academic Policies Committee – Esther Elstun
Senate Academic Policies Committee 2001-2002 Final Report
The Academic Policies Committee met every other week during the fall semester 2001, and — except for spring break and Senate meeting days — every week during spring semester 2002. The Committee completed the following items of business:
1. Summer School 2002 calendar;
2. Annual review of the Academic Policies section, 2002-2003 catalogue;
3. Policy concerning concentrations within majors;
4. Oversight of the ad hoc Task Force on Teacher/Course Evaluation; and
5. Policy concerning minors.

At its meeting on 1 May 2002, the Senate voted to postpone action on the Committee's recommendation concerning minors. Before devoting further time and effort to this matter, the Committee will seek a clarification of the status of the recently created Council on Minors, as well as specific instructions from the Senate concerning how it wishes the Committee to proceed.

Work on the policy issues concerning minors was unusually time-consuming, with the result that two major items of business begun this spring could not be completed and will be carried over to next year: (1) the university's residence requirement and related policy issues, and (2) a Student Senate-proposed change in the university's drop and withdrawal policies. A third item, which came to the Committee late in the current semester, addresses the question of GMU participation, with accredited universities in other countries, in academic or professional programs that lead to the award of dual degrees. At today's meeting,
the Committee will seek Senate endorsement in principle of the concept of international dual degrees and our participation in programs leading to them. If closure is not reached at today's meeting, this matter will also be carried over to next year. Finally, if the Senate adopts the Committee's motion to continue the ad hoc Task Force on Teacher/Course Evaluation through the fall semester 2002, the Committee will continue to interact with that group.

Facilities Support Services and Libraries Committee — Stanley Zoltek
The Committee was assigned only one action item by O&O. The Committee was asked to review complaints by both students and faculty regarding the production and management of course material packets.

This year, for the first time, the distribution of course material packets was handled by the Bookstore and not the University Copy Shop. Some faculty felt that this resulted in an inordinate increase in the cost of the same course packets that they used the prior semester. Also, it was reported by students that while they were able to locate the textbooks for their courses, often they were not able to find the related course packets.

T o better understand the reported problems and to help resolve them, the Committee brought together representatives of the Bookstore and Student Services. At the meeting the Bookstore representatives explained the increase in the cost of the course packets and agreed to place additional signs to better indicate the location of course packets. While some of the increase in costs seemed unavoidable, the Committee strongly suggested to the Bookstore that all efforts be made to curtail future  increases.

The Committee met an additional four times during the academic year. At two of the meetings, John Zenelis, Director of Libraries, reported on the impact of budget cuts on library acquisitions and facilities. He also reviewed with and requested feedback from the Committee on future library construction and renovation plans. The remaining meetings were devoted to reviewing and ranking the Fenwick Fellow applications.

Faculty Matters Committee — Joe Scimecca
Senate Faculty Matters Committee Final Report

During the academic year 2001-02, the Faculty Senate Faculty Matters Committee dealt with the following items:
1. Published and distributed the annual Administrative Survey results for AY 2000-2001.
2. Distributed the questionnaire for the Administrative Survey for AY 2001-2002.
3. Handled three summer school appeals; two were resolved. A committee will be established to investigate the third, which concerns uniform payment for lab courses.
4. Looked into the issue of intellectual property rights. This inquiry will be ongoing during the next year.
5. Began inquiry into different payment schemes for chairing BIS and MIS projects.
6. Began inquiry into having raises (in years they are given) begin with the first September paycheck and not the last paycheck in December.
7. Provided input into the Senate response to the BOV Rewards and Incentives Draft Report.

Organization and Operations – Estela Blaisten-Barojas
Ten items of business were submitted this year. Six of them went to the Academic Policies Committee, three to the Faculty Matters Committee, and one to the Organization and Operations Committee. The business load was about half of what had been logged in the previous three years.

The single item routed to O&O concerned a change in the type of student representative to the General Education Committee. It was agreed with the respective student organizations that the student representative will be appointed by the Student Government and ratified by the Student Senate.

Additionally, the committee recommended to the Executive Committee and the Senate that the process of revising the Bylaws be postponed until Fall 2002. The Committee revised the Senate website and adopted the version currently in place since October 2001. The Committee worked out the Senate seat allocation that was presented at the March meeting and adopted by the Senate.

Nominations Committee – Rick Coffinberger
Nominations Committee Final Report

At the beginning of the academic year 2001-02, the Faculty Senate Nominations Committee fulfilled it charge as enumerated in the Senate’s by-laws. Specifically, the Committee provided the Senate membership a slate of nominees for election to fill vacancies on all Senate Standing Committees (other than the Nominations Committee), as well as all University Standing Committees. Thereafter, the Committee worked closely with the Senate Chair to prepare additional slates as needed to fill other committee vacancies on an ad hoc basis.

University Standing Committee Reports

Academic Appeals Committee – Suzanne Slayden
University Academic Appeals Committee 2001-2002 Year-End Report

Members: Julie Christensen (Provost's Office, ex officio), James Bennett, Connie Hylton, J. E. Lin, Robert Nadeau, Suzanne Slayden (Chair).
The Committee met four times this year. The Committee has been discussing the following items:
1. The criteria for and duration of GMU undergraduate dismissal policies;
2. The criteria for academic warning, probation, and suspension; and
3. The refinement of the charge of the committee to clarify responsibility for final
disposition of appeals at the university level.

The current criteria for warning, probation, suspension, and dismissal as they appear in the current catalog were approved by the Faculty Senate in Spring 1987 and amended in Spring 1988. Some of the consequences of these criteria are now viewed as undesirable:

The terms and conditions of student re-admission to GMU after dismissal are not explicit and could be inconsistently applied in the various academic units.
1,196 students have been dismissed from GMU since 1996
1,196 received a first suspension
40 received a second suspension
It appears that a second suspension is underutilized as a retention device, and
students proceed rather rapidly from a first suspension to dismissal because they fit the "dismissal criteria."

Among the "dismissal criteria" is a table of student GPA's and credit hours showing the minimum acceptable values which depend on "the number of cumulative quality credits earned at the university plus credits transferred from other institutions or obtained by testing." The attached chart shows the effect on the academic dismissal rate of transfer students when using total credit hours (transfer hours + GMU quality hours) instead of GMU quality hours only. A transfer student can be dismissed with a higher GPA, but the same number of GMU quality hours as a non-transfer student and a transfer student can be dismissed with fewer quality hours but the same GP A as non-transfer students.

The committee is in the process of formulating solutions to the above-mentioned problems, which will be recommended to the Faculty Senate.

Admissions Committee — Alok Berry
Students are being admitted with all-time-high SAT scores.

Effective Teaching Committee
The Effective Teaching Committee did not meet.

Committee on Communications with the BOV — Richard Rubenstein
The Committee on Communications with the BOV did not meet.

Committee on External Academic Relations — Ariela Sofer
The External Academic Relations Committee (EARC) includes Esther Elstun, Hal Gortner, Jack High, Harriet Morgan, Ariela Sofer (Chair), Toni Travis, and Provost Designee Wendy Peyton.

The major charge of the Committee is to foster dialogue and better communication with our state legislature, with the ultimate goal of promoting good will and appreciation of George Mason University through its Faculty. To this end, the Committee held a luncheon with Delegate Kenneth Plum in the summer of 2001 and a luncheon with Delegates Vince Callahan, Harry Parrish,
and Chap Peterson in the fall. Topics discussed were the underfunding of GMU, the problems of space, large classrooms, and lack of lab equipment.

Another major item of focus for the Committee was HB538, the bill proposed by Delegate Steve Landes, calling for faculty representation on governing boards of institutions of higher education. Passing the bill has been a major goal for the entire Faculty Senate of Virginia (FSV) and the EARC has played a major role in these activities. Through the aforementioned luncheons and through letters to the Northern Virginia representatives, the EARC managed to garner support for the bill and was a co-sponsor of the bill. The bill was passed by the House Education Committee and by the House itself but, unfortunately, was voted down by the Senate Committee. Efforts to get faculty representation on Board of Visitors, however, will continue.

The work of the Committee (and that of Senate Chair Don Boileau) also led to a bill sponsored by Delegate Callahan titled “HB 28: Higher education; expectation of privacy in electronic communications.” This bill was tabled until the 2003 session.

Finally, the Committee — through its representatives on the Faculty Senate of Virginia, Esther Elstun and Hal Gortner — participated in the activities of the FSV, including two meetings and e-mail communications.

Grievance Committee — Linda Kalof
The University Grievance Committee considered one grievance during the 2001-2002 academic year. This Grievance was filed by a research (non-instructional) faculty member in one unit against members in another unit. The Committee considered the allegations and found a prima facie case. However, when the Committee requested additional information from the defendants, the request was denied. The defendants claimed that research faculty are not covered by the GMU. The following are two relevant paragraphs regarding this issue from the George Mason University Research Personnel Policies and Procedures in the “Faculty 282 Information Guide” (htm:/ /www gmu.edu/facstaff/research.html):

"Research personnel are considered an employee subgroup of faculty; they are not instructional faculty. Consequently, research personnel are not covered by the policies and procedures of the Faculty Handbook. However, the ‘Faculty Information Guide’ of the Faculty Handbook should be referenced for administrative procedures. In addition, they are subject to the rules and regulations of the university."

"Research personnel have access to university rules and regulations with respect to due process and related issues (i.e., sexual harassment, equity, etc.). Lack of available funding for research positions is a non-grievable issue. Research personnel are not covered by the Virginia Personnel Act, which covers classified state employees. In addition, research personnel are not covered under the Faculty Handbook, although the administrative procedures contained within the ‘Faculty Information Guide’ are applicable."

The charge of the University Standing Grievance Committee (http://www.gmu.edu/facstaff/senate/CHARGES.HTM#gr) is to "1) Investigate faculty grievances which involve faculty from more than one local academic unit. Issues of investigation include alleged infringements of academic freedom, alleged unfair or inappropriate conditions of employment and exclude retention,
promotion and tenure appeals, 2) Investigate faculty grievances which are not addressed by, or do not fall within the purview of the grievance committee of the pertinent local academic unit, 3) Investigate faculty grievances for local academic units that do not have grievance committees established, or when a grievance committee does not conform with the written procedures of the local academic unit."

The Committee queried a member of the Faculty Senate and several university administrators regarding this issue. Although the Committee still finds ambiguity in the language relating to this issue, it appears that, at this time, research (non-instructional) faculty are not covered by the Faculty Handbook and are not entitled to a grievance procedure. The grievant was so informed and was provided with the relevant correspondence.

It is the Committee's sense that all faculty members, including research personnel, should have access to university rules and regulations with respect to due process and related issues. It is the Committee's recommendation that the Faculty Senate
consider resolutions to remedy this problem. In particular, the Faculty Senate should determine the process that will best provide research personnel with due process and, therefore, do not have a right to file a grievance. The allegations contained in the grievance were not addressed in the defendants’ response.

A specific recommendation is to include language in the Faculty Handbook and the “Faculty Information Guide” that research personnel should be entitled to file grievances under the Faculty Handbook, and that those grievances be within the jurisdiction of the University Grievance Committee if they cross unit lines. The Faculty Senate is asked to take action on this matter.

Minority and Diversity Issues Committee — Tojo Thatchenkery
The Committee met twice. Since Asian students make up the largest population at George Mason, the Committee is currently seeking information on what percentage of the Classified Staff are Asian. They have also requested data on what percentage of minority faculty received tenure and also what percentage of faculty who are minorities have attained full-professor status.

Non-traditional, Interdisciplinary, and Adult Learning Committee
No report was given by the Non-traditional, Interdisciplinary, and Adult Learning Committee.

Salary Equity Study Committee — John Miller
Salary Equity Study Committee Final Report

The Salary Equity Committee submits two documents for the Faculty Senate’s review:

1) A document showing summaries concerning salary information broken out by individual schools within the University. The schools represented in the Table are ordered by overall median salary. Note that the results in the table are NOT adjusted for factors such as experience or length of service. Therefore, we should be careful in comparing units because some of the differences between units may be related to differences in the variables not adjusted for. Salary consists of base salary converted to nine-month appointment, plus scholar stipends, plus grant stipends. The school codes are:
VPA College of Visual and Performing Arts
GSE Graduate School of Education
CAS College of Arts and Sciences
NHS College of Nursing and Health Science
ITE School of Information Technology and Engineering
SCS School of Computational Sciences
SOM School of Management
LAW School of Law
SPP School of Public Policy
RKC Robinson Professors, Interdisciplinary Center for Economic Studies, Krasnow Institute, and Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution (created to avoid exposing individual salaries in these small units).

Salary Summaries for 2001 Salaries at GMU

SCHOOL RANK NO MEAN  MEDIAN     MINIMUM  MAXIMUM  STD DEV
VPA

ALL
Asst
Assoc
Prof
Emnt

26
12
7
6
1
$57,419
$40,768
$62,313
$75,841
$112,446
$54,154
$39,744
$55,620
$72,037
$112,446
$27,450
$27,450 
$49,162
$60,390
$112,446
$112,446
$62,925
$93,000
$95,000
$112,446
$21,738
$7,985
$15,471
$14,945
GSE ALL
Asst
Assoc
Prof
70
21
30
19
$68,022
$50,244 
$65,791 
$91,194
$63,985
$49,500 
$65,612
$91,393 
$45,542
$45,542
$50,242 
$59,037
$119,006
$59,229 
$81,070
$119,006
$17,634
$3,189
$6,854
$12,699
CAS ALL
Asst
Assoc
Prof
Emnt

311
62
130
113
6

$69,038 
$48,878
$63,591
$83,891
$115,638
$65,183
$47,655
$63,011
$80,527
$120,649
$37,937 
$37,937
$40,000
$56,578
$88,557
$163,648 
$86,364
$102,186
$163,648
$134,896
$19,113
$7,963
$8,776
$16,579
$18,124
NHS ALL
Asst
Assoc
Prof
24
7
11
6
$70,207
$56,401
$71,773
$83,445
$69,977
$56,350
$70,000
$82,069
$48,946
$48,946
$65,029
$72,214
$98,206
$60,545
$86,080
$98,206
$12,323
$3,946
$5,829
$11,372
ITE ALL
Asst
Assoc
Prof
Emnt
78
14
27
33
4
$94,875
$68,493
$80,725
$110,837
$151,040
$88,711
$68,000
$79,820
$108,118
$148,807

$62,000
$62,000
$63,180
$83,366
$127,948

$178,600
$77,000
$102,318
$161,947
$178,600
$25,565
$3,483
$8,531
$18,353
$20,973
SCS ALL
Asst
Assoc
Prof
Emnt
18
1
9
7
1
$95,570
$75,600
$76,972
$115,904
$140,580
$89,400
$75,600
$74,291
$122,482
$140,580
$66,100
$75,600
$66,100
$91,600
$140,580
$156,027
$75,600
$101,000
$156,027
$140,580

$27,237

$11,003
$23,134

SOM

ALL
Asst
Assoc
Prof
Emnt

33
12
12
7
2

$93,993
$84,629
$85,555
$110,608
$142,651

$90,128
$83,250
$84,836
$108,073
$142,651
$71,657
$77,490
$71,657
$87,614
$120,833
$164,468
$95,000
$101,562
$145,000
$164,468
$20,446
$6,762
$10,207
$19,157
$30,855
LAW ALL
Asst
Assoc
Prof
Emnt
29
4
8
13
4
$106,917
$80,038
$96,857
$116,798
$121,801

$105,441
$79,750
$99,475
$111,500
$122,448

$71,500
$77,500
$71,500
$87,916
$82,309
$160,000
$83,150
$128,000
$139,655
$160,000
$23,155
$2,734
$17,835
$15,959
$35,832
SPP ALL
Asst
Assoc
Prof
Emnt
23
2
7
10
4
$103,978
$56,530
$68,290
$116,919
$157,803
$110,210
$56,530
$69,525
$113,719
$164,236
$52,322
$52,322
$62,826
$100,053
$112,695
$190,043
$60,737
$72,494
$150,000
$190,043
$37,998
$5,950
$3,840
$14,154
$32,440
RKC ALL
Asst
Assoc
Prof
Emnt
26
2
4
6
14

$113,111
$51,694
$73,621
$121,616
$129,522

$112,206
$51,694
$73,626
$108,694
$127,204
$45,000
$45,000
$65,000
$90,946
$107,876
$192,273
$58,388
$82,231
$192,273
$164,388
$33,866
$9,467
$7,791
$37,160
$16,432

2) A copy of a report on salary equity submitted by the Chair of the Committee (Dr. Miller) to the University Equity Office. This report is not an official product of this Committee, but has been reviewed by the Committee and is sent on to the Faculty Senate for its review and enlightenment. In this report, it is noted that there are no glaring salary equity problems at the overall university level for Instructional Full-Time Faculty.

Salary Equity at GMU for Nonrestricted Instructional Faculty
In spring of 1996, several reports on salary equity at George Mason University (GMU) were issued. This report updates those reports using salary data from December 2001. The previous reports concentrated on salary equity between female and male faculty members. This report will also look at salary equity for various race/ethnic groups within the GMU faculty.

In the previous reports, the necessity of adjusting for important “human capital” variables was explained. We will review that necessity here as well using the example from the previous report. Consider two hypothetical organizations in which salary is determined by at most two things — department and gender. The organization-wide summary measures are:

Hypothetical Organization A
Females: 45 employees with a mean salary of $31,000
Males: 45 employees with a mean salary of $39,000
Females make up 50% of all employees but only 15% of the top 20 salaries, only 25% of the top 40 salaries, but 85% of the bottom 20 salaries, and 75% of the bottom 40 salaries.

Hypothetical Organization B
Females: 45 employees with a mean salary of $39,000
Males: 45 employees with a mean salary of $39,000
Females make up 50% of all employees and 85% of the top 20 salaries, 75% of the top 40 salaries, but only 15% of the bottom 20 salaries, and only 25% of the bottom 40 salaries.

It would appear that there might be a considerable disadvantage for females in the salary structure at Organization A, but either no advantage or an advantage for females at Organization B. When we look at the distribution of salaries broken down by department, a different picture emerges.

In Organization A, salary is determined only by department of employment. The observed differences in the organization-wide summary measures are entirely caused by the concentration of females in the lower paying departments. If assignment to departments is done by the organization in a gender-neutral manner then the difference in overall mean salaries does not indicate a true disparity. (It is not necessarily a given at all organizations that such assignment is made in a gender-neutral manner. However, at GMU, department is a proxy for field of expertise of the faculty member. The university can hardly assign a chemist to the English Department. Hence, department will be an important variable to use in adjustment.)

In Organization B, salaries are determined by department and by gender. In each department, males make $8K more than females. However, the concentration of females in higher paying departments conceals this disparity when the organization-wide measures are considered. The salary details of these hypothetical organizations are given in Table 1.

Table 1: Salary Structures for Two Hypothetical Organizations

Organization A
Organization B
Department
Females
Males
Department
Females
Males
A
N: 9 Sal: $23K
N: 1 Sal: $23K
A
N: 9 Sal: $47K
N: 1 Sal: $55K
B
N: 8 Sal: $26K
N: 2 Sal: $26K
B
N: 8 Sal: $44K
N: 2 Sal: $52K
C
N: 7 Sal: $29K
N: 3 Sal: $29K
C
N: 7 Sal: $41K
N: 3 Sal: $49K
D
N: 6 Sal: $32K
N: 4 Sal: $32K
D
N: 6 Sal: $38K
N: 4 Sal: $46K
E
N: 5 Sal: $35K
N: 5 Sal: $35K
E
N: 5 Sal: $35K
N: 5 Sal: $43K
F
N: 4 Sal: $38K
N: 6 Sal: $38K
F
N: 4 Sal: $32K
N: 6 Sal: $40K
G
N: 3 Sal: $41K
N: 7 Sal: $41K
G
N: 3 Sal: $29K
N: 7 Sal: $37K
H
N: 2 Sal: $44K
N: 8 Sal: $44K
H
N: 2 Sal: $26K
N: 8 Sal: $34K
I
N: 1 Sal: $47K
N: 9 Sal: $47K
I
N: 1 Sal: $23K
N: 9 Sal: $31K

Statistical Rationale for Adjustment:
When we study salary equity and wish to discover whether gender or race/ethnic disparities exist, we use the process of adjustment. We ask the question: “Is there any relation between gender and salary?” However, this question must be answered in a context. That context is defined by which variables we use for adjustment. In this case, the variables used for adjustment define a model that sets a salary structure in a discrimination-free environment. Then we see if adding gender or race/ethnic variables can substantially increase the predictive power of the model. If adding gender or race/ethnic variables does increase the predictive power to a statistically significant degree, then we would find a statistically significant disparity relating to gender or race/ethnicity.

With regard to statistical validity, the variables not used for adjustment are assumed not to vary systematically with gender or race/ethnicity. For instance, we will not use publication record as an adjustment variable because it is not in the database we have available. Thus, we must assume that this aspect of faculty evaluation does not vary in a systematic way between genders or race/ethnic groups. This appears to us to be reasonable assumption.

We must interpret all results in terms of what variables were used (or not used) for adjustment. For example, a number which was often cited in 1996 was the approximately $11,000 difference between the average male salary and average female salary at GMU in 1995. This was a real difference. There was nothing wrong with the arithmetic used to compute it. However, if we are to give it any intrinsic meaning, we must interpret it in light of the adjustment process described above. In this case, we are adjusting for no variables. Thus, if we give any meaning to this difference in terms of salary inequity, we are postulating a discrimination-free model where salaries for all faculty should be roughly equal, regardless of any qualifications, rank, experience, or anything else. Furthermore, if we wish the model to be valid from a statistical point of view, we must assume that the other potential variables which could have been used for adjustment in 1996 did not vary between males and females or were not related to salary, which was demonstrably false.

Variables Available for Use in Our Analyses:
The variables available to be used for our analyses are the following: base salary; additions to salary for eminent scholar, chair, director, and grant (a form of salary supplement used for only one faculty member); fte; length of contract (9 or 12 month); division (school); department; rank; highest degree; year of highest degree; hire date; date of highest rank; type of contract (research or instructional); status of appointment (restricted, tenure track, or tenured); whether the individual had ever been a dean or administrator (other than department chair); gender and ethnicity.

For the salary studies given in this report, we considered only individuals with nonrestricted instructional appointments. Subsequent reports may deal with other individuals.

We used as the dependent variable in our analyses the log of salary, where salary was computed as follows: scale base salary to one fte and 9 month contract and add supplements not including chair nor director stipends. We computed degree time as years since highest degree, gmutime as time from date of hire, and ranktime as time from acquisition of highest rank.

Indicator variables are variables which take the value one if a certain condition is met and a value of zero otherwise. We created an indicator variable for gender (value one for females). We created one indicator variable for each of the following race/ethnicity group: Asian-Americans, African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, and nonresident aliens. (It is our understanding that the nonresident alien group is a “protected class” by law and that the university is required to designate individuals in this group by this label. An individual in the nonresident alien group might otherwise have been classified into some other race/ethnic group had the individual been a U. S. citizen.)

We created an indicator variable for each academic rank (assistant, associate, full, and eminent professors). We created an indicator variable for each degree (masters, specialist (such as JD), doctorate). We created an indicator variable for having tenure. We created an indicator variable for having ever been a dean or administrator. We then used the variables described above to make a salary study. We used multiple regression and comparison of similarly situated individuals as in the study of 1995 salaries.

Comparison of 1995 and 2001 Overall Measures:
We begin by comparing the overall measures from the 1995 data and the new 2001 data. In the 1995 data, the overall summary information for gender and race/ethnic groups was as shown in Table 2. (The information about race/ethnic groups was not presented in our 1996 reports.)

Table 2: Summary Information for 1995 Salaries

Group
No (Percent)
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Females
150 (27%)
$55,082
$53,878
Males
398 (73%)
$66,028
$63,128
Asian-Americans
32 (6%)
$60,809
$58,746
African-Americans
21 (4%)
$58,790
$56,708
Hispanic-Americans
10 (2%)
$58,730
$56,354
Nonresident Aliens
20 (4%)
$54,368
$53,031
Whites
465 (85%)
$63,841
$61,178

The summary information for the 2001 salary data is given in Table 3.

Table 3: Summary Information for 2001 Salaries

Group
No (Percent)
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Females
203 (32%)
$67,085
$64,721
Males
435 (68%)
$83,787
$79,477
Asian-Americans
41 (6%)
$74,589
$70,139
African-Americans
28 (4%)
$73,590
$70,479
Hispanic-Americans
16 (3%)
$73,967
$70,071
Nonresident Aliens
12 (2%)
$71,350
$70,038
Whites
541 (85%)
$79,311
$75,235

The first thing we notice in comparing Tables 2 and 3 is that the gap between females and males has increased from $9,250 (in geometric mean) for 1995 to $14,756 for 2001. The gaps between whites and most of the other race/ethnic groups have increased as well. We might consider whether these increases simply reflect inflation or whether they may be related to other causes. The easiest thing to check is whether there are differential raises for faculty who are present in both data sets. The mean percent raises for each group are given in Table 4 for the 381 faculty who were present both in the 1995 and 2001 data bases.

Table 4: Mean Percent Raise 1995 - 2001

Group
No (Percent)
Mean
Females
96 (25%)
36.3%
Males
285 (75%)
34.6%
Asian-Americans
26 (7%)
37.8%
African-Americans
13 (3%)
34.5%
Hispanic-Americans
7 (2%)
33.0%
Nonresident Aliens
2 (1%)
33.2%
Whites
333 (87%)
34.9%

We see in Table 4 that there are very small (and statistically insignificant) differences in the mean percent raises for the various groups. We see that the mean percent raise is, in fact, slightly higher for females than for males. Hence, the change in the difference in unadjusted mean salaries is not due to difference in raises for faculty members who remained at GMU. We note that it is no more reasonable to compare unadjusted mean salaries in 2001 that it was in 1995. Hence, we now proceed to analyze the 2001 salary structure in a manner similar to that in which we analyzed the 1995 salary structure.

Multiple Regression Analyses of The 2001 Salary Structure:
As we found for the 1995 data, we find that the 2001 data requires that we analyze log of salary rather than raw salary. This transformation of the dependent variable is made so as to meet the assumptions required for multiple regression analyses more closely. For the 2001 data, we will simultaneously analyze for race/ethnicity differences as well as gender differences. We will present the results for a series of models. For each model, we computed the estimated coefficient for gender and each of the four non-majority ethnic groups. In the information presented below, we give detailed information only for gender differences. This is because in no model (including the model adjusting for nothing) are any of the race/ethnic coefficients statistically significant. This says that we are unable to find any evidence of systematic differences between any of the race/ethnic groups in terms of mean log salary. Table 5 contains the variables used to adjust the log salary differences. Table 6 contains the results of the regression fitting.

Table 5: Description of Models Used

Model Adjusts for:
1 NOTHING
2 Degree time
3 Degree time, department
4 Degree time, department, GMU time
5 Degree time, department, GMU time, rank
6 Degree time, department, GMU time, rank, rank time
7 Degree time, department, GMU time, rank, rank time, degree type, tenure, ever a dean
8 Degree time, department, GMU time, rank, rank time, holding a specialist degree, ever a dean

Table 6: Results of Model Fitting

Model
R2
Coef.
P-value
Percent Diff.
Dollar Diff.
1 0.10 -0.208 <.0001 +23.1% +$14,948
2 0.33 -0.099 <.0001 +10.4% +$6,741
3 0.70 -0.014 0.4342 +1.4% +$928
4 0.70 -0.014 0.4374 +1.4% +$922
5 0.83 -0.008 0.5859 +0.8% +$494
6 0.83 -0.002 0.8766 +0.2% +$141
7 0.84 +0.003 0.8239 -0.3% -$194
8 0.84 +0.002 0.8663 -0.2% -$147

We observe that once we adjust for experience and field of expertise (as proxied by department), the coefficient for gender is not statistically significant. The percent difference column shows that the estimated percent difference in mean salary adjusted for the variables in each model. The dollar difference shows the estimated difference in dollars per year that a female would make if she were an equally qualified male, where equally qualified is defined by the variables in that model. We see that the estimated differences are not at all statistically significant for Models 3 through 8, and that the estimated differences are positive for Models 3 to 6 but negative for Models 7 and 8. In particular, Model 8 yields an estimated percent difference of only !0.2%, which says that the model estimates a female would make 0.2% less were she an equally qualified male, where equally qualified is determined by the variables used in Model 8. This translates to a dollar difference of $147 per year of salary in favor of females. (If we omit from Model 8 the explanatory variable for “ever a dean,” we obtain an estimated dollar difference of $173 in favor of males.)

Of course, these estimates have a large margin for error. A 95% confidence interval for the dollar difference in Model 8 goes from $1585 to $1833. This means that we estimate that a female would make between $1585 more to $1833 less than an equally qualified male. We really cannot say for sure which gender would make more (if equally qualified) based on these data. Based on these data, we are unable to conclude that there are systematic differences in salary between female and male faculty members, nor between majority and any race/ethnic group.

Comparison of Faculty Members who are “Similarly Situated”:
We divided the database into groups based on department, rank, degree time, GMU time, rank specific rank time, holding a specialist degree, and ever being a dean. (The time variables were divided at their median.) This yielded 335 groups, of which 68 contained both male and female faculty members. For each group with both male and female faculty members, the median log salary was calculated. There were 32 groups where the female median was higher, 35 groups where the male median was higher, and one group where there was a tie. Using a technique called the “sign test,” we can evaluate these results. In a model where salaries were assigned in a gender-neutral manner, we would not expect every group to result in a tie, but we would not expect either males or females to be ahead an inordinate amount of the time. Thus we evaluate the 32-35-1 in terms of a model of flipping a fair coin 67 times. We find that the p-value for these results is 0.8702. Based on these results, we are unable to conclude that there are systematic differences in salary between female and male faculty members.

Because there are not enough faculty members of any race/ethnic group to form a reasonable number of comparison groups, we did not use this methodology to analyze race/ethnic differences.

Summary:
We were unable to conclude that there are systematic differences in salary between female and male faculty members, nor between majority and any race/ethnic group. We discovered that the unadjusted salary differences have grown between 1995 and 2001, but that the growth in these differences is not attributable to differential raises for the various groups.

Tasks Accomplished:
This year the Committee finally obtained a clean copy of salary data from the administration so that serious analysis could begin. Summary information was examined and analyses begun. The salary information for instructional faculty appears to show that the University is in good shape from an equity standpoint. The overall differences among the various gender/ethnic groups are small and not statistically significant.

Tasks Planned for Next Year:
The Committee has already planned out a schedule of activities for next year. These include the following:

1) Analyze data for research faculty. This will also be more difficult than an analysis of instructional faculty because of the greater diversity in types of appointment, duties, and other factors among research faculty.

2) Analyze data for contract faculty. This will be even more difficult than an analysis of research faculty.

3) Propose a system for proactive salary review. This system would be implemented by the administration to annually review faculty salaries with a goal of seeking out faculty members whose salaries might receive an equity adjustment. The system would not by itself allocate any adjustments. It would call to the attention of administrative personnel salaries that are “outlying” in the
salary database. Appropriate administrative personnel would then review each individual situation concerning a potential equity adjustment. This system can neither be approved nor implemented by the Committee. The Committee (with the approval of the Faculty Senate) will propose a system to the University Administration for its consideration.

4) Obtain data from “peer” institutions so as to make some external comparisons as well as internal comparisons of salary.

Technology Policy Committee – Stanley Zoltek
Committee Members: S. Zoltek, Chair, A. Berry, R. Carver, M. Dworzecka, R. Nadeau, J. Offutt, S. Ruth

The Committee met four times during the academic year to discuss faculty needs and interests related to technology policy decisions at GMU. Each semester the Committee met twice with Joy Hughes, Vice President for Information Technology and CIO. At the meetings, the committee presented the current and immediate needs of faculty as well as future needs.

Issues discussed included: (1) difficulties related to scheduling electronic classrooms, (2) need for improvement of environments in many "electronic" and "smart" classrooms — especially in older buildings, (3) possibilities for developing some instructional software through a consortium of local universities — motivated by some popular software packages becoming prohibitively
expensive, (4) providing additional and continuing input on the "layout" of classrooms in Academic IV, (5) reducing SPAM, and (6) what additional features are needed in the GMU e-mail system.

One outcome of the conversations with Dr. Hughes has been an increase in number of faculty being asked to consult on a regular basis and serve on committees that are planning tomorrow's "tech" environment. The Committee also sent a letter to Dr. Merten asking that the University not cut funding related to technology support and development. The Committee noted that such cuts would make it very difficult for GMU to maintain a position of leadership as one of the United States leading "wired" universities.

Writing Across the Curriculum Committee – Stanley Zoltek
Committee Members: S. Zoltek, Chair, J. Finkelstein, A. O’Brien, G. Redmond, L. Rigsby, D. Rine, K. Studd, T. Zawacki

The Committee met five times during the academic year. We reviewed one course and agreed that it met the requirements for a writing-intensive course in the major. The other meetings centered on a review of how well various programs were meeting the writing-intensive requirement. The Committee, through extensive discussions, assisted the director of GMU's WAC program, T. Zawacki, in determining how "writing profiles" can benefit individual programs, the university, and the students.

During the summer of 2002, the committee will develop a procedure that will provide a "quick" initial review of whether or not a course meets the writing-intensive requirement. The Committee is developing procedures insuring that courses to be reviewed in a timely manner.

Johnson Center Policy Board – Larry Rockwood
The Johnson Center Policy Board did not meet.

Task Force on Intellectual Property – Brack Brown
Brack Brown reported to the Senate that the property a faculty member produces could be owned by the University if significant University resources were used to create it. Department Chairs will play a significant role in addressing conflicts of
interest. The BOV currently signs off on conflicts of interest. This practice does not exist in any other state.

Ad Hoc Committee on the Budget — Rick Coffinberger
The Ad Hoc Committee on the Budget includes Rick Coffinberger (Chair), Michael Ferri, Anita Taylor, Patrick Wilkie, and Don Gantz.

Ad Hoc Committee on the Budget Interim Report
During the spring semester of 2002, the Faculty Senate and its Executive Committee created the Ad Hoc Committee on the Budget to gather information about the University’s pending budget crisis. This crisis was spawned by significant reductions in the University’s operating budget for AY 2002-03 by the Virginia General Assembly in March of 2002. In May of 2002, GMU Board of Visitors responded to the crisis by approving a tuition increase that erased most of the shortfall. The administration implemented additional internal actions to erase the remaining operating budget shortfall for AY 2002-03. Thus, by the end of the spring semester, the high level of anxiety generated by the pending budget crisis within the university community had subsided.

However, the Ad Hoc Committee on the Budget continues to be concerned about how the University will respond to the additional operating budget reductions that the General Assembly has planned for AY 2003-04 and AY 2004-05. The
magnitude of these reductions is in the range of seven to eight percent per year, and is compounded upon the reductions implemented for AY 2002-03. Therefore, the Committee anticipates that it will not complete the work necessary to achieve
its charge for several years. Furthermore, the Committee anticipates that the need for faculty input in the University’s budgeting process will increase dramatically as additional budget reductions are implemented.

During its deliberations this spring, the Committee concluded that the University’s administration adequately managed the budget reductions for AY 2002-03. However, the decision-making process for responding to this year’s budget reductions was largely limited to the central administration and Deans of the various schools and colleges. Since such budget reductions will undoubtedly have a severe impact on the delivery of our academic programs, shared governance and common sense require that the process be modified to guarantee faculty input in this decision-making process ab initio. The Committee discovered that an informal budget committee, comprised of central administrators (M. Scherrens, D. Kidd, D. Rossell, and T. Hennessey), regularly identifies budget trends and issues which may require action. This group also advises the President and Provost on such matters, including the formulation of procedures and possible plans of action for dealing with significant budget issues. Therefore, the Committee makes the following two recommendations to the Senates Executive Committee:

1) That the Senate Chair appoints a member of the Senate as soon as feasible to participate in and represent the GMU Faculty at the meetings of this informal budget committee. Furthermore, that this representative is charged with keeping the Executive Committee and Senate informed about the budgeting issues and processes which may affect academic programs and delivery thereof.

2) That the Senate Chair initiate regular meetings between the Senate Executive Committee and Executive V.P. Scherrens to enhance communications with the Faculty about important budget trends and issues which may affect academic programs and the delivery thereof.

The Committee has discussed and continues to ponder additional recommendations to the Executive Committee. These discussions will continue and new discussions will be initiated as the Committee continues it work.

V. Adjournment

It was moved and seconded to adjourn at 4:16 pm.

Respectfully submitted,
Lorraine Brown
Secretary, Faculty Senate

Return to Archives