February 17, 2010

Room B113, Robinson Hall B113, 3:00 – 4:11 p.m.


Senators Present:  David Anderson, Heibatollah Baghi, Sheryl Beach, Jim Bennett, Alok Berry, Doris Bitler, Rick Coffinberger, Rutledge Dennis, Karl Fryxell, Jack Goldstone, Margret Hjalmarson, Mark Houck, Dimitrios Ioannou, David Kuebrich, Linda Monson, Jean Moore, Janette Muir, Star Muir, Frank Philpot, Peter Pober, William Reeder, Earle Reybold, Larry Rockwood, Pierre Rodgers, Jim Sanford, Joe Scimecca, Suzanne Slayden, June Tangney, Susan Trencher, Iosif Vaisman, Nigel Waters, Harry Wechsler, Phil Wiest, Stanley Zoltek.


Senators Absent:  Rei Berroa, Phillip Buchanan, Jack Censer, Vikas Chandhoke, Lloyd Cohen, Jose Cortina, Sharon deMonsabert, Yvonne Demory, Betsy DeMulder, Kelly Dunne, Penny Earley, Martin Ford, Lloyd Griffiths, Jorge Haddock, Frances Harbour, Kingsley Haynes, Bruce Johnsen, Howard Kurtz, Terrence Lyons, Alan Merten, James Olds, Daniel Polsby, Suzanne Scott, Peter Stearns, Tojo Thatchenkery, Shirley Travis, Peter Winant, Michael Wolf-Branigin, John Zenelis.


Visitors Present: Corey Jackson, Director, Equity and Diversity Services; Rick Davis, Associate Provost for Undergraduate Education; Nathan Dorfman, Student Senator and Student Government Liaison; Kim Eby, Associate Provost for Faculty Development/ Director, Center for Teaching Excellence; Esther Elstun, Professor emerita, Modern and Classical Languages; Dolores Gomez-Moran, University Ombudsman; Linda Harber, Associate Vice President, Human Resources/Payroll; Robin Herron, Associate Director, Office of Media & Public Relations; Susan Jones, University Registrar; Linda Miller, Senior Associate Dean, College of Visual & Performing Arts, and Faculty Athletic Representative/Chair, Athletic Council; Linda Schwartzstein, Vice Provost for Academic Affairs/VP for Enrollment Services; Bethany Usher, Associate Director, Center for Teaching Excellence.


I.                   Call to Order:  The meeting was called to order at 3:04 p.m.


II.                Approval of the Minutes of January 20, 2010:  The minutes were approved as distributed.


III.             Announcements

Senate Chair Peter Pober welcomed faculty to this meeting, rescheduled from February 10, 2010 because the University was closed due to inclement weather.  Dean Vikas Chandhoke’s brief remarks, originally scheduled for February 10th, have been rescheduled to April 28, 2010.  Professor Pober welcomed Dean William Reeder of the College of Visual and Performing Arts. 


Dean Reeder: The College of Visual and Performing Arts (CVPA) is growing very dramatically:

 1. Facilities.  The Hylton Performing Arts Center, which opens in May (on the Prince William campus), and the construction underway of the new de Laski Performing Arts Center for music and dance are “game-changing” developments.  Once these projects are completed, the Fine Arts area in College Hall will also be renovated.  With this, we come of age – with infrastructure to compete with some of the finest schools in the U.S.  We are distinctive in arts education, but are not emulating other schools. The College has its own model, and it is effectively integrated with other areas of the University.  

2. Academics:   We have conceptualized and created three new schools--School of Art, School of Dance, and School of Music—without a fixed standard imposed by an outside accrediting body.  This allowed us to design curricula following our own template.  Within the last year, we have been authorized to confer a PhD in Music.  Within the next eighteen months we will begin to offer an MFA in Theater in conjunction with CHSS.   Enrollment growth in the College’s new computer game design program is “off the charts.”  We will also participate in research for Department of Defense simulation design, a new area for the arts.  The College also participates in the Film and Video Studies program, a shared program distributed across the University, which is headed by Professor Cynthia Lont (COMM).  Film is now ubiquitous to what everyone is doing. Media tools penetrate everyone’s work.  We are not in competition with NYU or UCLA.  The Arts Management Program is growing quickly. It has attracted an international student body, including quite a number of international students enrolled from China.  Overall enrollment in CVPA is very strong.  Part of our growth is reputational – with the rising tide of GMU, there is a” good buzz on our street.”  This is vital, for we depend on an “enrollment-driven” budget.  

3. Fundraising: We have had lots of early successes, thanks, in particular, to the deLaski family and Prince William County.  We now raise about one million dollars annually.  We have about 650 volunteers fundraisers, along with another 1,000 volunteers in Prince William who are “waiting in the wings.” This broad support is essential to our on-going fund-raising efforts.  Administratively, the College is quite stretched:  it is hard to keep up with the servicing of both academic and operational needs. 

4. Faculty: An important “next step” is to assist the faculty in playing a larger role in the life of the College. When CVPA was formed, we had one tenured faculty member, so the College has had a “fast-tracked” development of its tenured professorship.  We have an incredible community of senior artists and scholars. Faculty leaders have the same struggles with budgetary boundaries as those faced by the Administration.  Budget cuts are not a lot of fun.  Ticket sales at the Center for Fine Arts are ahead of our goals.  Music and dance programs are spires of excellence.  Art is about to become accredited. 


Question:  Will faculty receive the 50% discount at Hylton?  This is a huge benefit to faculty.

Dean Reeder: The same services will be available at Hylton as here at the Fairfax Campus.  Faculty members in the audience are huge stars.  People talk about seeing them.


IV.             Unfinished Business


Organization and Operations Committee – Susan Trencher, Chair


Resolution to Ensure Faculty Senate Bylaws and Charter Consistency


Whereas the responsibilities of the Faculty Senate in Section II.A.1 of the Faculty Senate Charter indicate that the Senate shall have “the fundamental general responsibility to speak and act for the General Faculty on matters affecting the University as a whole;” and


Whereas the Charter indicates in Section II.A.2 that the Faculty Senate, “on behalf of the general faculty, shall have the particular responsibility to formulate proposals on those matters affecting the welfare of the university as a whole,” which will constitute the “primary advice to the administration;” and


Whereas the Charter further specifies that on “matters affecting the entire faculty and transcending collegiate unit boundaries, the Senate shall be the primary faculty representative in consultation with the central administration and the President;” and


Whereas the Bylaws in Article I, Section 1 specify that the “membership of the George Mason Faculty Senate and eligibility to vote therein shall be as prescribed by the Charter,” yet there is no prescription of voting eligibility in any section or clause of the Charter; and


Whereas administrators are welcomed and encouraged to participate in dialog and consultation with and as members of the Faculty Senate, yet should not be representing the faculty voice on matters of importance to the faculty and the University;


Be it resolved:


That Article I, Section I of the Bylaws of the Faculty Senate should be amended to strike “and eligibility to vote therein” and add the following sentence at the end:  “Eligibility to vote on matters before the Faculty Senate shall be limited to duly elected faculty members of the Faculty Senate.



Professor Trencher explained that at the last Faculty Senate meeting (January 20, 2010) a motion “To Establish an Ad Hoc Committee to Propose Amendments to the Charter of the Faculty Senate” was referred to the Organization and Operations Committee (O&O).  The O&O Committee has decided to look into the Charter.  At present, O&O is composed of two members from CHSS, one from CHHS, one from SPP, and one from VSITE.  The Committee will conduct meetings and ask for input from senators from other schools as well as the general faculty.  The Committee has several concerns about the present Charter, and its review will be a long-term project. It will not be completed this spring, but the Committee expects to bring the matter back for Senate discussion in a year. 


The O&O Committee feels discussion of amendment to the by-laws is still warranted.  Currently both documents (charter and by-laws) are flawed.  In this interim period, we are keeping the motion on the table. 


In opposition to the motion, a Senator reiterated that the by-laws can not be in conflict with the charter, as it is a superior document.  The Charter does not specify that there are different types of membership in the Senate.  Should the Senate decide to pass this amendment, it would be null and void. The Senator appealed to the Faculty Senate to take the high road, and respect the general authority of the Charter. We all want to disenfranchise the administrators, but we need to do so in the proper manner.


In support of the motion, Senators made several arguments:  1) The proposed resolution does not contravene the Charter but facilitates the main mission of the Charter.  2) As the Faculty Handbook points out, the Faculty Senate it to present Faculty views to the Administration.  3) Many administrators do not participate in the on-going work of the Senate, so they should not be allowed to vote.  4) If we decide to attempt to change the Charter, we run the risk of not getting the required number of faculty to attend a meeting for making the change. (In a discussion about whether deans, directors and other administrators could also be elected as Senators, it was noted that they now serve in an ex-officio capacity. 5) The Faculty Handbook  (2009) Section 1.3.1 now states that only faculty with instructional appointments (whether tenured, tenure-track, term, or adjunct) may be elected to the Faculty Senate.


Professor Trencher added that the O&O Committee is not afraid to bring this change to the faculty, but there is difficulty – GMU is not the same campus as when the Charter was put into motion.  There are now more than one thousand faculty.  This does not means we are seeking to disenfranchise the Faculty, it is our responsibility to represent the Faculty as best we can.


Chair Peter Pober reminded Senators that a resolution to amend the bylaws requires a 2/3 vote to pass.  The resolution was approved. 


I.                   New Business – Committee Reports

A.   Senate Standing Committees


Executive Committee –Peter Pober, Chair

Resolution of Appreciation to Rector Volgenau

Sponsored by Senators Jim Bennett, Doris Bitler, Rick Coffinberger, David Kuebrich, Janette Muir, Peter Pober, and Susan Trencher.

WHEREAS Rector Volgenau met with the Faculty Senate Executive Committee in response to concerns regarding the participation of the General Faculty in the Board of Visitor’s decision to extend the current contract of President Merten; and

WHEREAS after discussion and an exchange of views at this meeting, the Rector affirmed that the General Faculty should, indeed, play a critical role in decisions regarding the appointment, reappointment, renewal, or extension of contracts of senior members of the Central Administration as mandated by the Faculty Handbook and in accordance with Handbook procedures; and,

WHEREAS the Rector also reaffirmed his commitment to transparency and shared governance and welcomed input from the Faculty in matters affecting the University;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Faculty Senate expresses its appreciation to Rector Volgenau for endorsing principles involving the General Faculty that are essential to the achievement of a world-class University.


The motion was approved.


Academic Policies – Janette Muir, Chair

The Committee is looking at reducing time for the ADD period, and appreciates your input.


Budget and Resources – Rick Coffinberger, Chair

Because of the snow days and the beginning of the semester, we have only met this afternoon, and continue to work on on-going issues.


Faculty Matters – Doris Bitler, Chair

The Committee met today, and discussed the upcoming Faculty Evaluation of Administrators.  We have not received any responses to an informal survey on Bookstore concerns. 


Professor Joe Scimecca presented the following report: 


Information on Summer School

From the Faculty Matters Committee of the Faculty Senate


This is written in order to clear up misinformation and misinterpretations concerning Summer School.


1. The decentralization of Summer School administration will begin in the summer of 2011.  For the coming summer session (2010) nothing will change administratively.


2. All of the tuition for Summer School goes directly to the University. At $326 per credit for in-state students the University receives $978 or approximately $1,000 per student per 3-credit course (much more for out-of-sate students). That is, if a faculty member is paid, let’s say, $7,000 and 20 students enroll in the particular course, then the University receives a minimum of an extra $13,000 for that course.


3.  The Faculty Handbook is quite clear on compensation for teaching in the summer for the first course.  It reads: “Every full-time faculty member who wishes to teach in the summer shall be afforded an opportunity to teach one 3-credit course (or equivalent) at 10% of their annual nine-month salary, assuming he or she is qualified to teach the course and the course meets minimal enrollment criteria  and appropriate  scheduling, curricular, and pedagogical needs” (p.59). This means that the teaching of one course is not dependent on money made available for teaching by the administration. Everyone who wants to teach in the summer must be paid 10% per 3-credit course.  To do otherwise is to violate the Faculty Handbook.


4. However, there may be some controversy over the second course. The Faculty Handbook reads: “Furthermore, full-time faculty should not be excluded from teaching additional courses at 10% of their annual nine-month salary, when no demonstrated financial constraints exist. Grievances over what constitutes financial constraints should be resolved at the local level, but if no agreement can be reached, the Provost and the Faculty Senate’s Executive Committee will be the designated body to resolve the disagreement” (p.60).  This means that the Administration cannot unilaterally decide the amount faculty members can be paid for a second course; faculty members in keeping with the Faculty Handbook can grieve if they are offered less than 10% and this grievance is to be adjudicated by the Faculty Senate’s Executive Committee and the Provost who must agree that financial constraints exist. To do otherwise, violates the Faculty Handbook.


5. If problems arise as to whether faculty members have not been compensated in accordance with the Faculty Handbook, they should contact the Chair of the Faculty Matters Committee of the Faculty Senate. (Currently, Professor Doris Bitler.)


Discussion:  A Senator asked where the tuition revenues will go—to the LAUs, the Deans, or the Central Administration--once the decentralization occurs in 2011? Professor Scimecca responded that he was uncertain, but he does not think they will go to the LAU. Linda Schwartzstein, Vice Provost for Academic Affairs/VP for Enrollment Services, explained that the decentralization of administration is being done at the request of the LAUs. It is intended to make the work of administering the Summer School easier for the LAUs. For instance, the process for hiring faculty will now go directly from the LAU to Human Resources, not through the Provost’s Office (as is now done).  However, the overall structure of Summer School stays the same.


Another Senator added that Cathy Evans (Director, Summer Term, Provost’s Office) has told the Committee that LAUs will receive a base amount for faculty salaries. If these are insufficient, the LAUs can request more.


A Senator from the College of Science stated that teachers of summer science labs don’t get 10%. Professor Scimecca responded that he would pursue this issue.  Cathy Evans has been invited to attend the next Executive Committee meeting  (February 22). 


Nominations – Jim Bennett, Chair

We have worked on setting up the Faculty Presidential Review Committee, which is now operating.


Organization and Operations – Susan Trencher, Chair

We are looking into a request from a term faculty member who asks us to regularize the process for applying for tenure-track positions. 


B. Other Committees

Resolution from the Minority and Diversity Issues Committee – David Anderson, Chair



Prepared by Minority and Diversity Issues Committee

University Standing Committee - George Mason University


George Mason University promotes a living and learning environment for outstanding growth and productivity among its students, faculty and staff. Through its curriculum, programs, policies, procedures, services and resources, Mason strives to maintain a quality environment for work, study and personal growth.


An emphasis upon diversity and inclusion throughout the campus community is essential to achieve these goals. Diversity is broadly defined to include such characteristics as, but not limited to, race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, and sexual orientation. Diversity also entails different viewpoints, philosophies, and perspectives. Attention to these aspects of diversity will help promote a culture of inclusion and belonging, and an environment where diverse opinions, backgrounds and practices have the opportunity to be voiced, heard and respected.


The reflection of Mason’s commitment to diversity and inclusion goes beyond policies and procedures to focus on behavior at the individual, group and organizational level. The implementation of this commitment to diversity and inclusion is found in all settings, including individual work units and groups, student organizations and groups, and classroom settings; it is also found with the delivery of services and activities, including, but not limited to, curriculum, teaching, events, advising, research, service, and community outreach.


Acknowledging that the attainment of diversity and inclusion are dynamic and continuous processes, and that the larger societal setting has an evolving socio-cultural understanding of diversity and inclusion, Mason seeks to continuously improve its environment. To this end, the University promotes continuous monitoring and self-assessment regarding diversity. The aim is to incorporate diversity and inclusion within the philosophies and actions of the individual, group and organization, and to make improvements as needed.



Endorsed by MDIC Members - April 17, 2009

David S. Anderson

College of Education and Human Development

School of Recreation, Health and Tourism

Heibatollah Baghi

College of Health and Human Services

Department of Global and Community Health

Michael Naor

School of Management

Information Systems and Operations Management Department

Raja Parasuraman

College of Humanities and Social Sciences

Department of Psychology

Halaevalu Vakalahi

College of Health and Human Services

School of Social Work

Endorsed by MDIC Members – October 8, 2009

David S. Anderson

College of Education and Human Development

School of Recreation, Health and Tourism

Flavia Colonna

College of Science

Department of Mathematical Sciences

Jeng-Eng Lin

College of Science

Department of Mathematical Sciences

Michael Naor

School of Management

Information Systems and Operations Management Department

Halaevalu Vakalahi

College of Health and Human Services

School of Social Work





The MDIC proposes that the Faculty Senate endorse this Diversity Statement because it believes that while the University does have strength with diversity issues, and that many efforts to promote diversity and inclusion are found, the University still has no overarching statement on diversity. We find that Mason’s mission statement speaks to diversity, but does not define it. This proposed Diversity Statement helps to further define diversity, and the important role that individual units throughout the campus community can play in promoting diversity and inclusion. We believe that while many localized efforts are occurring, it would be helpful to have a broadly-based foundation for general guidance and support. Further, we believe that this statement can fit nicely into the University’s 2014 Strategic Plan, as well as with the upcoming SACS review. Finally, we see this as an opportunity for the faculty, through the Faculty Senate, to help shape University policy.  In short, we see the adoption of a Diversity Statement as a contribution to the overall quality of life on campus.

Inherent in the Diversity Statement is the need to monitor efforts and issues regarding diversity. The statement cites the need for individual units to review their own efforts and needs, and to develop locally-appropriate strategies. Currently, the only formalized benchmarking of progress is found with the “Quality of Work-Life” survey, conducted every three years. The MDIC of 2008-2009 was successful in having additional questions incorporated in this survey; currently, 14 questions combine for three factors to help document a range of issues. This data can be used to identify exemplary areas as well as areas of concern, both university-wide as well as by individual work unit. This could be one source of information to help monitor progress over time. In addition, the MDIC believes that the adoption of this Diversity Statement could be most helpful in creating, identifying, and supporting other initiatives that would be helpful in providing benchmark data to further document progress.

Discussion:  Mr. Corey Jackson, Director, Equity and Diversity Services, added that it is good that things like this come from the faculty, not just those who work within administration.  A Senator inquired whether national origin was included.  Professor Anderson responded that the Committee did not attempt to enumerate a full listing, so as not to exclude anyone. 

The resolution was approved unanimously.


Report from Professor Linda Miller, Faculty Athletic Representative and Chair of the Athletic Council, on NCAA Cycle III Re-certification Process 


Professor Miller stated that we do not anticipate any significant issues this year.  A report will be published in April, available to the university community.  Please contact me if you have any questions about the process.


George Mason University to Undergo NCAA Certification  - Oct. 16, 2009

Media Contact: James Greif, 703-993-9118


FAIRFAX, Va. – George Mason University President Dr. Alan G. Merten announced today that the university will begin an 18-month, campus-wide effort to study its athletics program that will enable Mason to maintain its certification by the NCAA Committee on Athletics Certification. All Division I athletics programs must undergo certification every 10 years.

The university has now entered into the third phase of the review process. The process will provide Mason with an opportunity to reaffirm its commitment to the core operating principles adopted by NCAA member institutions and to involve individuals across the campus in continuous improvement efforts aligned with those operating principles.  Specific areas the self-study will cover are academic integrity, governance and commitment to rules compliance, and issues related to gender, diversity and student-athlete well-being.

The steering committee responsible for the study will be chaired by Martin Ford, acting dean of the College of Education and Human Development and includes President Merten and various members of the faculty and staff, athletics department personnel and the community. A member of the NCAA membership services staff recently conducted a one-day video orientation with the Steering Committee and its subcommittees.

George Mason University completed its first certification self-study in 1994. At the 1997 convention, the Division I membership voted to change the frequency of athletics certification from once every five years to once every 10 years. Thus, the current self-study will be the third in the certification process for George Mason. The last certification was completed in 2001. Both of the Mason’s previous certifications were found without conditions.

While academic accreditation is common in colleges and universities, this program focuses solely on certification of athletics programs. Following a pilot project, the Division I membership overwhelmingly supported the program and its standards at the 1993 NCAA Convention.

The certification program's purpose is to help ensure integrity in the institution's athletics operations. It opens up athletics to the rest of the university community and to the public. Institutions will benefit by increasing campus-wide awareness and knowledge of the athletics program, confirming its strengths and developing plans to improve areas of concern.

Within each area to be studied by the committee, the program has standards, called operating principles, which were adopted by the association to place a “measuring stick” by which all Division I members are evaluated.

Once the university has concluded its self-study, an external team of reviewers will conduct a two-day minimum evaluation visit on campus. Those reviewers will be peers from other colleges, universities or conference offices. That team will report to the NCAA Division I Committee on Athletics Certification, another independent group. The committee will then determine the institution's certification status and announce the decision publicly. For institutions that fail to conduct a comprehensive self-study or to correct problems, tough sanctions can be imposed.

The three options of certification status are: (a) certified; (b) certified with conditions; and (c) not certified. While universities/colleges will have an opportunity to correct deficient areas, those universities/colleges that do not take corrective actions may be ruled ineligible for NCAA championships.

The NCAA is a membership organization of colleges and universities that participate in intercollegiate athletics. The primary purpose of the Association is to maintain intercollegiate athletics as an integral part of the educational program and the athlete as an integral part of the student body. Activities of the NCAA membership include formulating rules of play for NCAA sports, conducting national championships, adopting and enforcing standards of eligibility, and studying all phases of intercollegiate athletics.

About George Mason University
Named the #1 national university to watch in the 2009 rankings of U.S. News & World Report, George Mason University is an innovative, entrepreneurial institution with global distinction in a range of academic fields. Located in Northern Virginia near Washington, D.C., Mason provides students access to diverse cultural experiences and the most sought-after internships and employers in the country.  Mason offers strong undergraduate and graduate degree programs in engineering and information technology, organizational psychology, health care and visual and performing arts. With Mason professors conducting groundbreaking research in areas such as climate change, public policy and the biosciences, George Mason University is a leading example of the modern, public university.


Steering Committee NCAA Certification 2010



Alan Merten



Martin Ford

Acting Dean, CEHD

Steering Committee Chair and Chief Report Writer

Maurice Scherrens

Senior  Vice President


Linda Miller

Senior Associate Dean, College of Visual and Performing Arts

Faculty Athletic Representative

Thomas O’Connor

Assistant Vice President for Intercollegiate Athletics & Recreation, Director of Athletics


Susan Collins

Senior Associate Athletic Director of Student Services

Senior Woman Administrator and Athletic Certification Liaison

Devraj Dasgupta

Student Government President


Lindsay Gray

Student-Athlete Advisory Council President (women’s tennis)


Jevita Rogers

Director of Student Financial Aid

Chair, Sub-Committee on Governance and Commitment to Rules Compliance

Clifton Sutton

Associate Professor of Statistics

Chair, Sub-Committee on Academic Integrity

Corey Jackson

Director of Equity and Diversity Services

Chair, Sub-Committee on Gender/Diversity Issues and Student- Athlete Well-Being

Debby Gregg

Executive Assistant to the Athletic Director

Report Coordinator

Jay Marsh

ICA Senior Associate Athletic Director for Event Management

Campus Contact

John Blacksten

Director, Office of Media and Public Relations


Randolph Church

Former Rector, George Mason University Board of Visitors


Dennis Garcia

Board of Visitors


Kelly Keelan

Student Athlete (women’s soccer)


Sandy Scherrens

Vice President, University Life


Linda Schwartzstein

Vice Provost, Academic Affairs; Vice President, Enrollment Services


Debbie Wilson

Associate Athletic Director for Academic Services


Kathleen Batterson

Senior Associate Commissioner, Colonial Athletic Association




II.                Other New Business


Report from the Faculty Presidential Review Committee – June Tangney

Professor Tangney noted that the Committee is working hard in the short time-frame—three weeks—it has to complete its agenda. It has not yet reached any final conclusions.


President Merten requested a two-year extension to his contract (from June 30, 2011 to June 30, 2013). As noted in the Faculty Handbook, Section 331.2.5 Faculty Participation in the Selection of Certain Members of the Central Administration:


 The faculty plays a vital role in the appointment and reappointment of senior academic administrators and other leadership positions related to the academic mission of the university. The Board of Visitors provides for participation on presidential search and reappointment committees by faculty who are elected by the General Faculty. The search and selection process must include opportunities for the General Faculty to meet with candidates who are finalists for the presidency.  


The Review Committee asked the President (through his chief-of-staff) to attend an open meeting. This request was declined, but President Merten did agree to meet privately with the Committee. At that meeting, he agreed to meet with the general faculty, but there was no longer sufficient time to arrange for this.  The Committee has also sent out an email questionnaire to receive faculty feedback. Professor Tangney acknowledged that some faculty feel the President’s extension is a “done-deed.” She noted, however, that whether his extension is already approved or not, it is important for the Committee to continue its work. It is important to have the review process to conform to the relevant provisions of the Faculty Handbook. It is crucial that the Senate take an active role in governance. 


Professor Tangney also suggested changing the wording in the Handbook to clarify that the called-for process of faculty review also applies to “extensions” of contracts not only for the President’s renewal but also with respect to other key positions.  It was noted that in the recent extension of the Provost’s contract, the Faculty Handbook’s provisions for faculty review were followed, and that the Provost had requested faculty review as part of the process.


III.             Remarks for the Good of the General Faculty


Chair Peter Pober praised Professor Linda Monson’s rendition of Debussy at the memorial service for Professor Jeffrey Chamberlain.


A budget forum with Provost Stearns and Vice President Scherrens will take place on February 24, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. in the Johnson Center Cinema.


Linda Harber, Associate Vice President, Human Resources/Payroll, noted that proposed changes to retirement accounts will affect only employees hired after July 1, 2010.


Congratulations to the Registrar’s Office for their work in adapting the class schedule due to winter weather closings. 


Dr. Bethany Usher was introduced as the new associate director of the Center for Teaching Excellence.  She received her PhD from SUNY-Potsdam in Anthropology.


IV.             Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 4:11 p.m.


Respectfully submitted,

David Kuebrich