FEBRUARY 6, 2008


Senators Present:  Ernest Barreto, Sheryl Beach, Jim Bennett, Alok Berry, Lorraine Brown, Philip Buchanan, Frieda Butler, Rick Coffinberger, Jose Cortina, Rutledge Dennis, Penelope Earley, Allison Frendak, Mark Houck, Dimitrios Ioannou, David Kuebrich, Linda Monson, Jean Moore, Patricia Moyer-Packenham, Janette Muir, Jim Sanford, Joe Scimecca, Suzanne Slayden, Ray Sommer, Peter Stearns, Ellen Todd, Susan Trencher, Iosif Vaisman, Phil Wiest, James Willett, Mary Williams, Michael Wolf-Branigin.


Senators Absent:  David Anderson, Kristine Bell, Deborah Boehm-Davis, Jack Censer, Vikas Chandhoke, Sandra Cheldelin, Elizabeth Chong, Julie Christensen, Sara Cobb, Lloyd Cohen, Sharon deMonsabert, Jeffrey Gorrell, Lloyd Griffiths, Karen Hallows, Kingsley Haynes, Allison Hayward, Matthew Karush, Richard Klimoski, Jim Kozlowski, Howard Kurtz, Alan Merten, Paula Petrik, Daniel Polsby, Jane Razeghi, William Reeder, Larry Rockwood, June Tangney, Shirley Travis, Peter Winant, John Zenelis, Stanley Zoltek.


Visitors Present:  Alan Christensen, Associate Professor of Molecular and Microbiology; Pat Donini Employee Relations Director and Deputy Director, Human Resources and Payroll; Jane Flinn, Associate Professor of Psychology; Rebecca Fulton, Assistant News Editor, Broadside; Dolores Gomez-Moran, University Ombudsman for Students; Linda Harber, Associate Vice President, Human Resources/Payroll; Robin Herron, Editor, Daily Gazette, Media Relations; Christine LaPaille, Vice President, University Relations; Janice Leary, Editor-in-Chief, Broadside; Brian Marcus, Associate Dean for Development and Associate Professor of Arts Management, College of Visual and Performing Arts; Mary McCutcheon, Anthropology; Della Patrick, Vice Chair, Staff Senate; Alex Pieterse, Assistant Professor, College of Education and Human Development; Bob Smith, Professor of Psychology; Elizabeth Stern, News Director, Connect Mason; David Wong, Professor and Chair, Earth Systems and Geoinformation Sciences.


I.  Call to Order:  The meeting was called to order at 3:03 p.m. by Chair Suzanne Slayden.  Professor Slayden welcomed everyone to this Special Meeting of the Faculty Senate which was requested by nineteen Senators.*  Visitors may sign in if they wish their presence recorded in the minutes.  Only business included in the agenda can be transacted at the Special Meeting and so there is no stated order of business. Consistent with all Senate meetings, Senators and visitors may all contribute to the discussion.  To provide an opportunity for the maximum number of speakers, the Chair will recognize all speakers once before recognizing any speaker twice.  If necessary, the Sergeant-at-Arms will monitor a two-minute per speaker limit.  Speakers, whether a Senator or a visitor (unless the visitor is speaking in an official capacity), will not be identified by name in the minutes.  Candid remarks are encouraged and should be directed to policy issues as part of a productive and civil discussion.


*Section 7 of Faculty Senate bylaws state:  “On his or her own initiative the Chair may call a special meeting of the Senate.  In response to any petition signed by 20 percent of the members of the Senate, the Chair must call a special meeting to be convened within six instructional days.
Statements and slides presented by Professor Rick Coffinberger, Chair of the Task Force on Compensation Issues (TCFI); Faculty Representative to the BOV Finance and Resources Committee:


 SLIDE 1:  “Investment in Mason’s Faculty” distributed at the last BOV meeting (Jan. 30, 2008); source unknown:




We (GMU Faculty) are about 30% behind in cost of living compared to other institutions in Virginia and many other institutions in the US.  The budget proposal GMU sent to the Virginia legislature requested supplemental funding for a cost of living adjustment (COLA) over a multi-year period.  This request was not supported in the Governor’s Budget proposal; thus it is unlikely that the Commonwealth will provide GMU any funds in the foreseeable future to address lost purchasing power due to the very high cost of living and working in Northern Virginia.  In addition, the Govenor's Budget Proposal contains no salary increase this year (2008). The Governor is proposing a 3% increase for the following year.  Faculty and staff raises will be delayed by six months; effective in July of 2009, rather than late November 2008.  While the GMU administration is finally paying serious attention to the COLA issue, the bad news is that the Washington Post reports that there may not be any salary increases for faculty and staff over and above the delay mentioned above, because the state's budget deficit is growing and is apparently much larger now than when the Govenor made his budget proposals. 

Senator Question:  The next raise would be effective on July 2009?
Response, R. Coffinberger:  Yes; however the funding for that raise is now in question so we may not see another raise until July 2010 or later. 
(Slides 2-8 are also linked to the Faculty Senate website.)


SLIDE 2:  The Task Force on Compensation Issues reported early on that we had been refused access to the CUPA-HR (The College and University Professional Association for Human Resources) database.  This database would have been very useful for us to make some judgments regarding administrative salaries in relation to other universities.  Yesterday we received the most recent GMU salary data incorporated into the following chart.* Adjusted for two years ago, Chronicle of Higher Education (CHE) data show a  7 % salary increase; data may be inaccurate.  Note that percentile rank includes salary only, not compensation. 


Salaries of “Selected” GMU Upper-Level Academic Administrators Compared to Peers at Public Doctoral-Granting Institutions (2008)**


Sources: CUPA 2006 and the GMU Salary Data (2008).


*These data were provided by GMU Human Resources and Payroll.


SLIDE 3:  “Presidential “Compensation” at GMU and its SCHEV “Public” Peer Institutions 2006-07”. Includes new SCHEV peers and November 2007 data from CHE George Mason University is the second highest paid with inclusion of total compensation.





SLIDE 4:  Illustrates presidential compensation at GMU and its SCHEV public peers 2006-07.  The President’s home and car, both of which are provided by the GMU Foundation, are not included in this data.  Note that without this additional compensation, the President of GMU ranks second on this list.  Also see Mean and Median Compensation figures at bottom of chart.




Georgia State University 


George Mason University


Arizona State University at Tempe Campus 


University of Houston


University of New Mexico-Main Campus


University of Louisville


University of Connecticut


University of Nevada-Reno


University of Nevada-Las Vegas


University of Cincinnati-Main Campus


University of Maryland-College Park


University of Oklahoma - Norman Campus


SUNY at Buffalo 


Wayne State University


University of Missouri-Columbia


University of Kansas Main Campus


Indiana University-Bloomington* 


Indiana University-Purdue University-Indianapolis


University of Nebraska at Lincoln


University of Memphis


University of Arkansas Main Campus 


Mean Compensation=$448,542;  GMU +$193,958 (+43.25%)

Median Compensation =$438,557;  GMU +$203,943 (+46.5%)

*Data for one public peer, SUNY at Albany, were not available.

SOURCE: Chronicle of Higher Education, November 16, 2007.



SLIDE 5:  Presidential Salaries at Public Research Universities:  – In order to place this in a broader perspective we looked at the Pay Brackets of Public University Presidents, a database which uses breakdown in terms of range, for AY 2006-07.   GMU is in the top 10% of compensation. 



SOURCE: Chronicle of Higher Education, November 16, 2007 and Newsweek Magazine Rankings of Private & Public Universities (2007).



SLIDE 6:  Presidential Compensation at Top Four Public Research Universities and GMU:  For further comparison we looked up the four best public research universities as defined by US News and World Report:  University of California at Berkeley, University of Virginia, UCLA, and University of Michigan at Ann Arbor:  The fifth bar on graph is GMU.  The question we raise is:  Are we getting our money’s worth?

Sources: Chronicle of Higher Education, November 16, 2007 and Newsweek College and University Rankings (Fall 2007).



SLIDE 7:  Growth of Full-Time Instructional Faculty 1996-2006 (GMU Fact Book 2006-07):  Instructional faculty has grown about one-third since 1996.



            Source: GMU Fact Book, 2006-07.


SLIDE 8:  Growth of Administrative Faculty 1996-2006 (GMU Fact Book 2006-07):  On administrative side, (which is smaller in number) growth has been approximately 100%.  We then looked at 2006 administrative faculty salaries which average $76-77K.  Benefits equal (around) 20% of salary; multiplied by the 300 administrative faculty increase over 10 years = $28 Million.


            Source: GMU Fact Book, 2006-07.

Statements and supporting materials presented by Professor James Bennett, Faculty Representative to the BOV Faculty and Academic Standards Committee

Serving as faculty representative to the BOV’s Faculty and Academic Standards Committee, you learn a lot.  At the December BOV meeting (Dec. 5, 2007) Senior Vice President Morrie Scherrens gave an excellent presentation on the cost of living problem. With our new peer group, the problem is worse than before.  What do we do about this?  Here is where things get fuzzy, i.e., there is no public money, and we are looking at recession.  We’re (GMU Faculty and Staff) not very high on the agenda.  At every one of these meetings, an

idée fixe, the “world class university” is discussed.  However, for example, when Dean Shirley Travis of CHHS was asked by the BOV about what was needed to build the nursing program in the face of a nationwide severe shortage of nurses, she concluded that the cost would be around $34 million.  When Rector Volgenau asked President Merten, “What should we do?” the President offered no response in terms of obtaining the necessary resources.  In my experience, it takes inputs to get outputs.  As state is continuing to back away, it seems to me that we need to look more at private fundraising side.  Here are some data regarding our success, or lack of success, thus far.


George Mason University Foundation Contributions by year, as of July 1:


1996          $6,318,083      President Merten Arrives 1 July

1997          14,825,546     

1998          19,641,297     

1999            9,988,086    

2000            8,324,684    

2001          23,595,065     

2002          13,498,374      April 8, 2002: $110 Million Campaign Announced

2003          14,352,359     

2004          13,348,978     

2005          16,553,465      September 26: $142 Million Successful Campaign Concluded

2006          26,979,537     

2007          22,467,591      


The sum of GMU Foundation contributions raised between 2002 ($110 Million Campaign Announced) and 2005 equals $57.752 million.  The sum of foundation contributions raised between 1996 (President Merten’s arrival) and 2001 (before the announcement of the $110 Million Campaign) equals $82.693 million.  Thus, the $142 million campaign requires us to include all funds raised since 1996 in the total.


George Mason University Foundation Endowment by year, as of July 1:


1996              $17,890,000      President Merten Arrives July 1

1997                22,480,000

1998                27,090,000

1999                32,170,000

2000                33,400,000

2001                32,630,000

2002                30,410,000      April 8, 2002: $110 Million Campaign Announced

2003                32,570,000

2004                37,980,000

2005                40,820,000      September 26: $142 Million Successful Campaign Concluded

2006                46,520,000

2007                54,720,000


Source: Dave Roe, President, GMU Foundation.

Total increase in University Endowment 1996-2007 = $36,830,000 or, on average $3,348,000 per year


In his address to the Senate (Nov. 28, 2007) President Merten compared GMU fundraising to other “like institutions” commenting that GMU is doing well in comparison to other young universities (universities similar in age to GMU).  Evidence to the contrary is presented below:


Endowments of Universities in Florida and California that are “young” like Mason, as of July 1, 2007


Florida Universities





Opened for Classes



Current Enrollment



($ Millions)


U South Fla








U Central Fla








Fla Atlantic U








U North Fla








U West Fla








Fla Internat’l U








Fla Institute of Tech












California Universities





Opened for Classes


Current Enrollment



($ Millions)


UC - Irvine








UC - Riverside








Cal State - Northridge








Cal State - Fullerton

























Source: Chronicle of Higher Education, February 1, 2008.


There is only one university (Florida Institute of Technology) on this list of “young universities” with a smaller endowment than that of GMU.  The University of South Florida (endowment $388.516 million) is three years younger than GMU; the University of Central Florida (endowment $116.291 million) is eleven years younger than GMU.   California and Florida experienced a lot of growth in the late 1950’s – early 1960’s.  They provide a lot of evidence to demonstrate that young schools can have a decent endowment.  The median income of families in Fairfax County is over $100,000.  Loudoun County has the second-highest median income in the US.  There is a great deal of money locally, but we aren’t getting it.


Endowments in GMU’s New SCHEV-Approved “Peer Group” July 1, 2007:

(thousands of dollars)


GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY            $57,720


Georgia State Univ.                                        $97,684

Univ. of Nevada - Reno                                 240,328

Univ. of Memphis                                           206,976

Wayne State Univ.                                          236,659

Univ. of New Mexico                                     320,200

Univ. of Connecticut                                      337,945

Arizona State Univ.                                        478,385

Univ. of Houston                                            522,395

SUNY & Univ. of Buffalo                             566,362

Univ. of Louisville                                          796,812

Univ. of Maryland                                          810,374

Univ. of Arkansas                                           876,839

Univ. of Missouri                                         1,097,846

Univ. of Oklahoma                                      1,114,426

Univ. of Cincinnati                                      1,185,400          

Univ. of Kansas                                           1,238,695

Univ. of Nebraska                                        1,277,169

Indiana Univ.                                               1,556,853


Source: Chronicle of Higher Education, February 1, 2008.


Marc Broderick (Vice President for University Development and Alumni Affairs) gave the Board of Visitors a detailed and informative report about fund-raising performance at the BOV’s meeting on January 30.  Below are some highlights from that report.  The entire report will be included with in the minutes of this meeting (Appendix.1).


1. Seven broad categories of giving are shown: Annual Fund, Community/Public Services, Facilities (e.g., Arts Center in Manassas/Point of View), Students, and “Other”, along with two categories that are directly related to faculty: Faculty and Research. In 2007, the Faculty and Research category accounts for more than half of the total (51%) in gifts and pledges to GMU.  Of the $22.5 million in gifts and pledges in 2007 -- Faculty and Research account for $11.478 million, more than half the total (51.1%). Faculty members brought more than half the money to the Foundation in 2007.


2. The editor of the Chronicle of Higher Education reported at a meeting here some years ago that grants of less than $25 million are not reported in the Chronicle because they are so common and not newsworthy. Large grants are rare at GMU, if not non-existent.  In the last 5 years:


1. The largest single grant has been $5 million -- and there has been only one of those.

2. There have only been 16 grants between $1 million and $4.9 million.

3. There have only been 15 grants between $500k and $999k


No existing building has been named for a donor during President Merten’s term.


Of the twenty largest grants in 2007, the Mercatus Center received 5, the Law School’s Law and Economic Center received 6, and 3 were for the Manassas Performing Arts Center. The Mercatus Center alone, raises close to $7 million a year, according to the Mercatus web page.


Although Mason Faculty are bringing in more than half the University’s donations, there are many university staff engaged in fund-raising activity. Broderick lists the participants at the various units.  According to an informed source, Deans and Directors are expected to spend half their time raising money, and are counted as 0.5 people for this purpose.  By unit:

Athletics          3.0                               KRASNOW   0.5

CEHD             2.5                               LIBRARY      1.5

CHHS             1.5                               SOL                4.5

CHSS              1.5                               SOM               2.5

COS                1.5                               SPP                 2.0

CVPA             4.5                               UNIV. LIFE   1.5

ICAR              1.5                               “General”    13.0*      

ITE                  2.5

Total Personnel... ± 44

*“General” includes Broderick, others in the Development office, some GMU Foundation personnel, some in Alumni Affairs, and others such as President Merten, Provost Stearns, Tom Hennessey  -- in all, 13 people.


Given this level of “input” and resources expended on fundraising throughout the University, one would expect some level of success.  That is: those tasked with fund raising should raise at least two or three times their respective compensation. However, for 2007, consider the fundraising results of the following units.


College of Health & Human Services                      $ 198k

College of Science                                                      261k

Institute of Conflict Analysis & Resolution       151k

Krasnow Institute                                                       239k

Library                                                                       149k

            School of Management                                               191k

School of Public Policy                                               262k

University Life                                                            183k


Using the personnel tally from the various units, in 2007 some 12.5 people from the 8 units above raised a total of $1,634k -- or $130.7k per FTE.  Much of this money was raised by Faculty, not by the fundraisers.


The results are disappointing.  We are in a very wealthy area; with a large corporate presence – the Silicon Valley of the East.  If we are going to be a great university, it will take considerable financial support. 



Please note:  The TASK FORCE on COMPENSATION SURVEY distributed at the outset of the meeting, and included in the discussion below, appears in the Minutes as Appendix 2.

Senator question:  Could you provide clarification of the CUPA data refusal?

Response:  Chair TFCI:  We have asked for CUPA data for two years in a row but have not been provided materials requested.  It provides benchmark data for what other university administrators in public institutions are making (earning). 

Senator follow-up:  Does the chart on Administrative Salaries include Associate and Senior Associate Deans? 

Response:  Chair TFCI:  No, but this information may be available in CUPA data. 

Response:  Linda Harber, Associate Vice President for Human Resources and Payroll:  (CUPA) data is an administrative and management tool paid for by state. In response to a follow-up question Ms. Harber confirmed the CUPA data is not “FOIABLE” as it is a professional management tool.

Senator comment:  When Rector Volgenau was here (November 7, 2007) he said it should be available.  I called the CUPA Research Office who indicated they would like to share, but participation in reporting of data is voluntary.  The restriction on access to data is a “local” decision, not a CUPA decision.


Senator comment and question:  I have looked over the survey (see Appendix 2) and listened to everyone, and wondering about the problem and solving approaches (sic) we might take to make a more persuasive argument.  How can we make this argument for ourselves without critiquing administrative salaries?  I recently met with a TIAA representative... are there more concrete things we can do, not just charts and graphs? 


Senator comment:  As Chair of the Budget and Resources Committee for the last year and a half, I meet once a month with the university budget planning group.  At virtually every meeting, the topic of faculty salaries comes up.  They are trying to get the COLA, to do some things.  It is not that the administration does not recognize the issues (but they are) tough to address.  There are 1900 administrative and teaching faculty at GMU.  To increase faculty salaries by 1%, it would take $1.2-$1.3 million.  It does take real money.  The funding doesn’t come from state, funding from students.  The administration is trying; the situation is very difficult. 


Senator comment:  There are obviously finite resources.  But when you look at disparity between raises of some administrators versus many faculty, there is a sense of powerlessness and helplessness.  Not so long ago, faculty waited three years for raises (during which time) administrators received raises.  A different distribution of existing funds might not mean large raises for faculty overall but better compensation and cooperation, might mean a faculty that at least can say it has made some gains and can feel it is better respected. 


Senator comment:  The real issues we have to consider are competency, ethics, and responsibilities of administrators.  Some of this information needs to be more widely shared within and outside the university.  I think we should still explore some issues.  I do not see why administration hasn’t done a better job in organizing local business community and also state (legislative) representatives.  There are limited resources and while raising tuition is not desirable, GMU students graduate with among the lowest debt among research universities.  The question is whether we continue to grow new expensive programs at the expense of the faculty.  There has been some concern that (discussion of) consolidation, compensation, and collegiality is civil.  Collegiality as defined by AAUP, is to make sure faculty are protected, not just compliance, if you satisfy your responsibilities to your chair and your students.  If you speak up today, as Jim and Rick did, it is very good collegiality.  We should consider some sort of initiative. 


Senator comment (former President of GMU Chapter of AAUP): I can’t improve on what you said about AAUP and collegiality.  The damage to faculty is in their silence, fear of speaking up (about) income issues.  I have been at GMU for forty years.   When the business model was imposed on the University, collegiality, openness, everything, changed.  We should not be separated by income and that’s the bottom line.  Rutledge Dennis will serve as the new President of the GMU Chapter of AAUP.


Visitor question:  Is there comparative data on classified staff? 


Response, Linda Harber, Associate Vice President for Human Resources and Payroll:  We have some regional and local data which compares some classifications, not all.


Visitor comment:  Is the only source (of additional funding) private donations?  Is there a way the university can improve in private donations?  I am stunned by SOM  (School of Management) statistics.  What can be done to help units who want to do this?  Frankly I have no sense there is an effort to raise money at all.


Senator comment:  Earlier a survey instrument from the Task Force on Compensation was distributed and I encourage Senators to fill it out.  Non-senators may also fill these out, just note that you are not a Senator at the end of the form.  If you cannot return the survey today, send it to the Faculty Senate Office MS 5E5. 


Visitor comment:  I am in favor of drawing back on the pace of the expansion effort, and would rather strengthen the core of the university.  (But) I object to the phrasing of the (survey) questions.


Senator comment:  You don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing.  What do we do with the survey results?  I am in favor of sending the material presented by the Task Force of Compensation Issues and Jim Bennett’s work in an ALLFAC message. 


Senator comment:  Having served on a number of search committees, it is very frustrating because it is easy to identify candidates who are very highly desirable, but they (do not) wish to come here with salaries (offered).  Is faculty retention an issue?


Senator comment:  I can’t speak to the larger university, but the last time there was an economic downturn, and salaries were frozen our department lost eleven senior faculty who went to other universities. 


Senator comment:  We should be looking for more concrete problem-solving points. 


Senator comment:  We can look at the possibility of an isolated tuition increase, to go to faculty salaries as well as administrative salaries.  But I am disturbed by President Merten’s attititude that we’re young, therefore, we cannot raise money.


Senator comment:  The position of the Faculty Senate may be significantly improved or has the potential to improve because of faculty reps on BOV committees.  The BOV will receive a full faculty representative for the first time in March which should give us an opportunity to bring up issue of no accountability and the need for transparency.  On the other issue – if the Task Force on Compensation raises the issue once a year, nothing is going to happen.  We need to put increasing pressure on the BOV and the Administration.  What about reallocation of internal funds?  Tuition increases?


Senator comment:  We should ask the Secretary of the Faculty Senate to write to Rector Volgenau in cooperation with head of the Task Force on Compensation, requesting data be made available to us, and requesting his intervention in this matter


Chair of the Senate:  As we do not have a quorum* today, we will make this an agenda item for next week. With regard to the distribution of transparencies used today I am resistant to sending out too many ALLFAC messages.  I am concerned that folks are not reading our messages as it is. I am trying to make more information available on the Faculty Senate website. 


Senator comment:  I agree with you in general, but this is a different case.  This is Faculty Senate business to send this out and I would like to make a motion to this effect.  (No motion could be made for reasons cited by the Chair above). 


Visitor comment:  However correctly faculty deserve and need compensation, how do we go about this without being self-serving?  (We can make the point that it is) harder to hire and retain faculty and very costly to replace them, as another argument. 


Senator comment:  I agree that some might say there is a  problem with being seen as self-serving, but when the Faculty Senate meets and discusses these issues it is not just for themselves, but for all the faculty and staff.  It is about raising the baseline and earning the compensation so that we can look at those among us making $52,000 as a faculty member, with children at home and say that we are trying to gain for all a decent standard of living in our chosen career.


*The Faculty Senate has 63 voting members consisting of 50 elected faculty representing academic units, and 13 Administrators serving by virtue of their administrative positions.


Adjournment:  The meeting adjourned at 4:12 p.m.


Respectfully submitted,

Susan Trencher



APPENDIX 1 –Development Performance Fiscal Year to Date (FYTD) as of July 1, 2007, pp. 1-8.


APPENDIX 2:  To:  Members of the Faculty Senate

From: Senate Task Force on Compensation

For : Distribution at Special Called Meeting, February 6, 2008


So that the Task Force on Compensation can better understand the Faculty Senate’s will, kindly complete this questionnaire and return it to Meg Caniano at today’s meeting or via email, MSN 5E5.


1. Do you believe the Central Administration should stop growing the University (e.g., creating new campuses, adding costly new programs) so that it can allocate more funds to faculty and staff salaries?


                                                                                    Not at all            somewhat           Very much


2. Do you favor raising tuition and directing the additional money to faculty and staff salaries and need-based scholarships?


                                                                                    Not at all            somewhat           Very much


3. How upset are you by GMU's low salaries?


                                                                                    Not at all            somewhat           Very much


4.  How satisfied are you with the Central Administration’s efforts to improve faculty salaries to date?                         


                                                                                    Not at all            somewhat           Very much


5. How much confidence do you have in the Central Administration’s ability to improve faculty salaries in the future?


                                                                                    Not at all            somewhat           Very much


6. How concerned are you with the growing disparity between salaries of instructional faculty and upper level administrators, relative to respective peers?


                                                                                    Not at all            somewhat           Very much


7. How satisfied are you with President Merton’s presentation to the Faculty Senate on his efforts specifically to improve faculty salaries to date?                          


                                                                                    Not at all            somewhat           Very much


8. How concerned are you that President Merton has declined to provide information on the raises awarded to upper level administrators for the coming year?


                                                                                    Not at all            somewhat           Very much


9. How concerned are you that that both President Merton and Provost Stearns have declined to provide information about the criteria on which raises for upper level administrators are based?


                                                                                    Not at all            somewhat           Very much


10. How concerned are you that President Merton has declined to provide complete information on all salary supplements, bonuses, deferred compensation, club memberships, expense accounts or other emoluments he and other members of the Central Administration receive from the George Mason University Foundation?


                                                                                    Not at all            somewhat           Very much


11. How satisfied are you with President Merton’s efforts to build GMU’s endowment over the past 5 years?                          


                                                                                    Not at all            somewhat           Very much


12. Would you like the Faculty Senate to forward a request to the BOV to discontinue awarding President Merton an annual performance bonus (typically $100,000) until substantial increases are seen (vis a vis peers) in faculty salaries and the University’s endowment?


                                                                                    Not at all            somewhat           Very much


13. How concerned are you that the activities of the Task Force on Faculty Compensation may have a negative impact on your future earnings?


                                                                                    Not at all            somewhat           Very much


14. How concerned are you that the activities of the Task Force on Faculty Compensation may have a negative impact on you in other ways?  Kindly specify___________________________________________


                                                                                    Not at all            somewhat           Very much


15. Would you like the Task Force on Faculty Compensation to continue its work in the coming years?


                                                                                    Not at all            somewhat           Very much


16. To what degree would you like the Task Force to continue its efforts gathering and reporting information about salaries and other forms of compensation and support?


                                                                                    Not at all            somewhat           Very much


17. Would you be willing to support such efforts with your time and expertise (e.g., gathering information or conducting statistical analyses)?


                                                                                    Not at all            somewhat           Very much


18. To what degree would you like the Task Force to meet with local units to increase understanding of faculty salary and compensation issues?


                                                                                    Not at all            somewhat           Very much


19. Would you be willing to support such efforts with your time and expertise (e.g., arrange for the TF to make a presentation at a department meeting)?


                                                                                    Not at all            somewhat           Very much



20. To what degree would you like the Task Force to meet with Northern Virginia legislators to discuss issues of salary and support?


                                                                                    Not at all            somewhat           Very much


21. Would you be willing to support such efforts with your time and expertise (e.g., arranging a meeting that included yourself, one or more TF members, and your state senator or delegate)?


                                                                                    Not at all            somewhat           Very much


22. To what degree would you like the Task Force to increase understanding among the general public by reaching out to the news media through press releases, op ed pieces and/or letters to the editor?


                                                                                    Not at all            somewhat           Very much


23. Would you be willing to support such efforts with your time and expertise?


                                                                                    Not at all            somewhat           Very much


24. The Senate has been raising the issue of the COLA and the increasing gap between Administrative and Faculty Salaries for several years, but the gap has widened and faculty salaries continue to drop vis a vis peers.  To what degree would you like the Senate to take a stronger stand (e.g., more militant tactics such as a rally or demonstration to which news media are invited, or a faculty “slowdown”)?


                                                                                    Not at all            somewhat           Very much



Thank you very much for your input. Feel free to provide us with other information in the space below. 


Name: ______________________________________________  (optional)