GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY
MINUTES OF THE FACULTY SENATE
November 9, 2011
Robinson Hall B113, 3:02 – 4:28 p.m.
Senators Present: Ernest Barreto, Sheryl Beach, Jim Bennett, Alok Berry, Doris Bitler, John Cantiello, Rick Coffinberger, Arie Croitoru, Charlene Douglas, Cody Edwards, John Farina, Jorge Haddock, Susan Hirsch, Mark Houck, Dimitrios Ioannou, Kathryn Jacobsen, Dan Joyce, David Kuebrich, Jerry Mayer, Linda Monson, Janette Muir, Star Muir, Elavie Ndura, James Olds, Peter Pober, Earle Reybold, Pierre Rodgers, Jim Sanford, Joe Scimecca, Suzanne Scott, Suzanne Slayden, Thomas Speller, Peter Stearns, June Tangney, Susan Trencher, Halaevalu Vakalahi, Phil Wiest, John Zenelis, Stanley Zoltek.
Senators Absent: Jack Censer, Vikas Chandhoke, Lloyd Cohen, Maggie Daniels, Yvonne Demory, Robert Dudley, Kelly Dunne, Daniel Garrison, Mark Ginsberg, Lloyd Griffiths, Margret Hjalmarson, Bruce Johnsen, Howard Kurtz, Ning Li, Alan Merten, Paula Petrik, Daniel Polsby, William Reeder, Edward Rhodes, Lesley Smith, Ray Sommer, Eva Thorp, Shirley Travis, Iosif Vaisman.
Visitors Present: Rick Davis, Associate Provost for Undergraduate Education/Associate Dean, CPVA; Pat Donini, Employee Relations Director/Deputy Director, Human Resources; Kim Eby, Associate Provost, Faculty Development and Director, Center for Teaching Excellence; Esther Elstun, Professor Emerita, Modern and Classical Languages; Josh Eyler, Associate Director, Center for Teaching Excellence; Dolores Gomez-Roman, University Ombudsman; Robert Johnson, Associate Professor of Finance, School of Management/Chair, Academic Initiatives Committee; Linda Harber, Associate Vice President, Human Resources and Payroll; Thomas Hennessey, University Chief of Staff; Corey Jackson, Director, Office of Equity and Diversity Services; Reuben Jones, Senior Admin. Reporter, Connect2Mason.com; Susan Jones, Associate Provost and University Registrar, Registrar's Office; Gabe Levine, Student Government Liaison; Tim Murphy, Director, Classroom and Lab Technologies, DOIT; ; Della Patrick, Staff Senate Liaison; Sharon Pitt, Executive Director, DOIT; Claudia Rector, Assistant Provost for Academic Affairs; Linda Schwartzstein, Vice Provost, Academic Affairs/Vice President, Enrollment Services; Bethany Usher, Director, Students as Scholars/Associate Director, Center for Teaching Excellence; Dr. Ernst Volgenau, Rector, George Mason University; Brian Walther, Associate University Counsel..
I. Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 3:02 p.m.
II. Approval of the Minutes of October 5, 2011: The minutes were approved as distributed.
Chair Pober welcomed everyone to the meeting and introduced Rector Ernst Volgenau. Rector Volgenau mentioned he had “just returned from a visit to UCLA, his alma mater,” from which he received a PhD in Engineering. “He described the UCLA campus and student body, noting the Dean of the Engineering School described the typical student in the top 3-4% of high school class, with perfect SAT scores in Math. He emphasized that UCLA has very high entrance requirements, a medical school, as well as tremendous grant proposals and alumni systems. He noted that, during the visit, President Merten suggested UCLA, among other universities such as UVA and the University of Michigan, as models for George Mason to emulate.
Rector Volgenau reported on the Presidential Search. Initially, he said, we planned to appoint eight Visitors to the Presidential Search Committee. As the new appointees to the BOV also wanted to be involved in the selection process, he decided to allow any Visitor who wished to serve on the Presidential Search Committee to join; eleven Visitors serve on the committee. So far, he reports, the meetings have been reasonably collegial and instructive.
One Senator, having just attended an assembly on the South Plaza organized by students offered two concerns for the Rector’s consideration:
(1). Students do not feel they are very well represented in the Presidential Search Process. They also complained that involvement in the process began at a very late stage.
(2). The GMU Administration is not as diverse as the student body. The student body is very proud of its diversity.
Rector Volgenau observed that “the student representatives speak out; they have not been quiet.” He acknowledged a lot of people wanted to be on the Committee. He reported that Jean Greenwood (of the Presidential Search Firm) defines 18 members as normal size of a search committee:”our committee has 23 or 24 members.” Rector Volgenau says there have been a lot of community meetings to gain input on the criteria for President. Chief of Staff Tom Hennessey added that the Greenwood Firm has received more feedback on the Presidential Search Process than ever before.
Several Senators also expressed their concerns about the Presidential Search Process, which include the possibility faculty could be presented with a sole finalist, losing the opportunity to provide feedback about a group of finalists. Some faculty view candidates who are unwilling to stand in an open forum to answer faculty questions as a disqualifier for the position.
Rector Volgenau replied that “the search committee members signed confidentiality agreements, and added that there are good candidates who will not consider position if their identities are disclosed. The process is underway to examine applicants’ records; “we have not yet interviewed people that will not happen for a while.” Some Visitors are concerned that the Presidential Search Committee will inhibit the role of the BOV which selects candidates. The Rector agreed that it is conceivable that the BOV could consider other candidates; he cannot “forecast what will happen.” He agreed to make sure that the Presidential Search Committee considers the Faculty Senate Resolution as well.
A Senator noted that there was a 100% rise in SAT applicant scores; the incoming class in the School of Nursing is much stronger. Question: What changes do you see to reflect this?
Rector Volgenau replied that enrollment is growing very slowly as state support has declined. Every in-state student loses money, out-of-state students bring in more money than they cost. With a growing number of candidates and fixed enrollment, standards, he said, will go up no matter what we do. He is wary of the BOV becoming deeply involved in GMU administration and rely on the President and his team to do their jobs.
A Senator noted that she “has a lot of respect for Rector Volgenau and appreciates his graciousness. The Senator expressed concern that candidates would be worried about their reputations (in terms of a stated rationale for search privacy). The Senator stated that,”in academia the way you raise your salary is to get a better offer and feels reasoning not applicable in an academic setting.” The Senator pointed to the fact that President Merten did try to get another position at another university while at Mason. “We are a public university; we (need) transparency.”
Rector Volgenau said he respected the comment but disagreed. Recalling his involvement with searches in the business sector, he said they are confidential. “When you make an offer, sometimes there are counter-offers; sooner or later will become public later in process than in academe.”
Another Senator mentioned the Faculty Handbook section related to administrative searches. Section 1.2.5 Faculty Participation in the Selection of Certain Members of the GMU Administration states, “The Board of Visitors provides for participation on presidential search 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.” Rector Volgenau responded he “will be sure to read the Faculty Handbook and will do his best to adhere to it; we did approve it”.
Dean Jorge Haddock, School of Management noted School of Management's recent accomplishments and ongoing projects are included in Attachment A.
A Senator asked Dean Haddock to “Give me three reasons why your programs are so good.”
Dean Haddock: -1- “The quality of faculty is second to none... faculty are very productive. There is a huge demand (among students) for business schools.”
-2- Among students we get very good feedback, (including) our location.
-3- “SOM is very entrepreneurial; he took the job as dean because he can have great flexibility. We continue to build on our reputation.”
Director Jim Olds, Krasnow Institute for Advanced Study focused on three main points.
-1- “We are an academic unit – a strange academic unit. Our faculty and departments all house faculty from other departments: COS, CHSS, CEHD, and now from CHHS. All faculty under one roof are collaborative; they teach each others' students independent of boundaries of their disciplines and are full voting members of the Krasnow faculty. Teaching some very fine MA, PhD programs, including Neuroscience programs. We are getting a lot of grant money. Our publications appear in Science and Nature.”
-2-” We have a fabulous new wet lab space in Fairfax, provides opportunities for students; jammed with undergraduate students on the weekend. …we are really diving into STEM education.”
-3-” We are very cognizant that Science Enterprise is global. No international boundaries around research design to better all mankind.” New program with Humboldt University in Berlin “Soft Skills” explains how to write grants among different countries. Pilot program to begin in Berlin; to train our trainees in both sets of skills to work internationally.
IV. New Business - Committee Reports
A. Senate Standing Committees
Executive Committee – Peter Pober, Chair
On behalf of the Executive Committee, Chair Pober moves the following resolution be adopted by the Faculty Senate. Does anyone wish to discuss the resolution?
Resolution on the Presidential Search Process – Executive Committee
Whereas, one criterion stated by the Faculty Senate for inclusion in a job vacancy announcement for university president was a “proven commitment to transparency throughout the university in all aspects of its operations,” and
Whereas, a second criterion stated by the Faculty Senate for inclusion in a job vacancy announcement for university president was a “proven commitment to shared governance,” and
Whereas, the Presidential Search Committee Checklist1 of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), the primary organization that supports shared governance between faculty and administrators, states, “…in order to attract the best candidates, the search process may involve some measure of confidentiality, especially during the early phases….However, to ensure a successful search, the nominees who are recommended to the board should visit campus and be interviewed by the faculty and possibly other constituent groups,” and
Whereas, the same document also states, “The second stage of the interview process involves campus visits where the candidate will meet with different constituencies, particularly faculty and students. These open visits are crucial in the success of the search process because they permit members of the campus community to participate in providing impressions as well as to contribute to the candidate’s understanding of the culture of the institution,” and
Whereas, at forums regarding the presidential search process, numerous faculty expressed opinions in favor of candidates’ meeting with faculty in open forums and expressed opinions against hiring a candidate without such meetings,
Therefore, be it resolved that the Faculty Senate supports a search process that includes multiple final candidates’ participation in open meetings with faculty prior to selection of the next president and strongly disapproves a search process that does not include such meetings, and
Be it further resolved that the position of the Faculty Senate is that a candidate who does not meet with faculty in an open meeting as part of the search process fails to demonstrate proven commitment to transparency throughout the university in all aspects of its operations, and
Be it further resolved that the position of the Faculty Senate is that a candidate who does not meet with faculty in an open meeting as part of the search process fails to demonstrate a commitment to shared governance as identified by the AAUP, and
Be it further resolved that this resolution be transmitted to the chair and all members of the Presidential Search Committee, and
Be it further resolved that multiple final candidates for the presidency of George Mason University be made aware of this resolution during the search process
A Senator suggested the inclusion of a statement from the Faculty Handbook which clearly suggests the general faculty must meet with candidate finalists, to be inserted as the third “whereas” By a vote of 31 in favor, 3 opposed, the inclusion of an amendment was approved.
A motion was made and seconded to place the following text as the third whereas:
“Whereas, the GMU Faculty Handbook Section 1.2.5 Faculty Participation in the Selection of Certain Members of the Central Administration, specifies that “…The search and selection process must include opportunities for the General Faculty to meet with candidates who are finalists for the presidency,” and
A Senator spoke in favor of the amendment, as “positive...it makes sense, and adds institutional might.” Another Senator spoke against the inclusion of the amendment: “...The BOV can change the Faculty Handbook by fiat...the resolution is good enough and strong enough as it is. Rector Volgenau is aware of it.” In response, a third Senator remarked: “If you are afraid they will change (it), what have you lost? If we don't stand up for the Faculty Handbook it is not worth anything.”
A Senator suggested the amendment appear as the first whereas. An amendment to the amendment was made to move the amendment from third whereas to first whereas. A Senator “called the question.” The amendment to move the amendment from third whereas to first whereas was approved. A motion was made and seconded to vote on the resolution as amended. Paper ballots were distributed. 31 votes in favor, 2 votes opposed, the amended resolution was approved.
Academic Policies – Janette Muir, Chair
We have met with Brenda Quaye, the new director of the Office of Academic Integrity about changes to the Honor Code. They are interested in having faculty input to process...They are also looking for students to serve on the Honor Committee.
Budget & Resources – June Tangney, Chair
We are conducting a survey of chairs to find out whether faculty are notified of opportunities to teach over the summer and whether they could honor all full time faculty requests to teach. So far we have received responses from 30 of 57 administrators surveyed (53% response rate). Of those returned, 27 (90%) valid, 3 (10%) invalid, had just assumed chair. Of the 27 valid responses, 22 (81%) notified faculty and could honor all full time faculty requests to teach one course for summer 2011. 5 (19%) said they could not honor all full-time faculty requests to teach one course for summer 2011. The bottom line: There is more of a problem than we thought. Senator Tangney distributed “Results of Summer Teaching Survey 11/9/11” (see Attachment B). “A tip of the iceberg” problem, e.g., faculty did not ask/tell because too many want to ask. We have an issues we need to address as a faculty. Please send comments or concerns to June Tangney firstname.lastname@example.org and the Budget and Resources Committee.
Faculty Matters – Jim Sanford
The Faculty Evaluation of Administrators survey will be distributed next week. We are working on faculty wishing to take courses enrollment application process and looking at maternity/paternity leave.
Nominations – no report.
Organization & Operations – Star Muir, Chair
The Executive Committee agreed to forward requests received for Faculty Handbook revisions directly to the Faculty Handbook Revision Committee through Organization and Operations. They may also be sent to other recipients as needed.
B. Other Committees
Academic Initiatives Committee Report
The Faculty Senate voted unanimously to accept the report. See ATTACHMENT C
V. Other New Business
Consensual Relationships Policy – Corey Jackson, Director, Equity and Diversity Services and Brian Walther, Senior Associate University Counsel presented the proposed policy. With input from the Faculty Senate Executive Committee, revisions were incorporated, we looked at it several times. Discussion also included the Faculty Matters Committee. We ask for the endorsement of the Faculty Senate.
A Senator questioned “Why do we need this policy?”
Brian Walther: This has come up at other universities. In an abuse of power situation, faculty member/employees obligated to come forward to address it; necessary to make stronger statements; requires disclosure more than the Sexual Harassment Policy.
Chair Pober added that the Executive Committee feels the proposed policy is significantly improved.
A Senator inquired if something happened, and the first order of report processes it, are procedures in place to deal with faculty issues or does it go to Human Resources? Concerned about protection of faculty if not adjudicated, if process not well-defined.
Brian Walther: It is a matter for supervisor/chairs, then goes to dean, then to Office of Equity and Diversity Services. It is not very different from other universities in Virginia.
Corey Jackson: Not to circumvent policies in place, but to supplement them. Some policies harsher, some are looser, need to get policies in line (references Department of Education/Civil Rights).
Another Senator asked: “We are sacrificing privacy by asking faculty to report this to unit chair and have information move up the chain?”
Corey Jackson: Yes, but privacy is sacrificed when relationships go bad. There has been an increase in these kinds of cases; students report them after the fact.
A motion was made and seconded to endorse the policy. The motion was approved with one negative vote. See ATTACHMENT D for the policy text.
Korea Initiative Update: Professor Bob Johnston, Chair of the Academic Initiatives Committee, announced that the committee has just received the first draft of the consolidated report about Korea. The committee will perform due diligence on three items: academic, faculty, and financial. We have requested additional information and expect to give a revised report and recommendation to this group at the December meeting.
VI. Remarks for the Good of the General Faculty
As Chair Pober will be away in December, Chair pro Tem Suzanne Slayden will chair the next Faculty Faculty Senate meeting on December 7th.
Congratulations to Senator Janette Muir, who will become the new Associate Provost for Undergraduate Education. As she moves to the gallery, there will be an election in CHSS to fill her Senate seat and the Nominations Committee will move to replace her as Faculty Representative to the APDUC Committee of the BOV.
Our Forensics Team finished second at last weekend’s LE Norton Invitational. We had the most harrowing return trip, the bus driver died. If you have our students in your classes, I beg your indulgence in this situation.
The Presidential Search Process continued:
It is important to acknowledge a number of administrators have supported open process in the Presidential Search Among other schools, UVA presented one candidate (finalist), a similar move took place somewhere else During the search for President Merten (1996), four candidates were brought in and their names released. Not the same search firm, but part of it. What happens if they simply ignore us? To appeal, we would have to go above the BOV to the Attorney General.
In speaking for the other side, a Senator noted the President and Provost are not tenured in positions versus having tenure as professors. A different set of circumstances, really torn about this, we want to have the best person we can. Other Senators' responses included: Isn't transparency the goal? In all aspects? While not tenured in position, they have golden parachutes, and are well-taken care of. Faculty want to have candidates who really want to do good.
The Presidential Search Committee meets once a month, important to consider this issue now. The resolution will be sent immediately to Rector Volgenau, Vice Rector Clemente, Visitor Hammel and the rest of the Search Committee. Do we know what the time frame will be? In developing the following motion, a November 15th deadline was replaced by “no later than two weeks prior to the selection of the final candidates.”
“The Faculty Senate of GMU requests the Presidential Search Committee to determine whether they will comply with the request of the resolution or not no later than two weeks prior to the selection of the final candidates and report back to the Faculty Senate.”
The motion was approved.
Gabe Levine, Student Government Liaison, invited faculty to participate in Goal 2011 which takes place on Friday, and appreciates your involvement.
VII. Adjournment : The meeting adjourned at 4:28 p.m.
Dean Jorge Haddock’s Remarks to the Faculty Senate
Good afternoon. Thank you so very much for this opportunity to share some of the many accomplishments and ongoing projects we have happening at the School of Management. In today’s economy, businesses and business schools are constantly talking about innovation in an effort to create better business practices, find new and exciting ways to promote programs, and enhance learning. History has shown us that to thrive – or in some instances, survive, an organization must innovate. Over the course of the past year, I believe we have made innovative strides at the School of Management, and I’m very proud of our recent accomplishments and ongoing projects.
· Just last month, in US News and World Report, we improved in our rankings: Among Undergraduate Business Education Programs: George Mason School of Management ranked #81 (up from #88 last year). Among Best Part-Time MBA Programs, George Mason School of Management ranked #59. He added “There are over 1400 business programs in the US, we are very proud of this.”
· Ranked #86 among North American business schools in the University of Texas at Dallas' Business Schools Research Ranking ™ for research contributions to top business journals.
· Ranked top 50 in Brigham Young University's Accounting Research Rankings.
· Faculty received 7 grants for research studies AY 2011-11. He added “As Business School faculty are not required to bring in grants, this is both unusual and unique.”
I have some updates to share with you regarding projects we have mentioned in the past:
· In today’s fast-paced society, many successful and active business leaders are looking to advance their careers even further, but need the flexibility to make it happen. In response to this growing need, Mason’s School of Management has expanded its Executive MBA programs to offer an online Global EMBA and National Defense EMBA. Classes for the online Executive MBA will begin in January.
· In addition, I’m happy to announce that our MS in Management of Secure Information Systems (or cyber security program) is launching in January 2012. It is a cross-disciplinary program drawing on the expertise of faculty members within the School of Management, School of Public Policy, and Volgenau School of Engineering. The program provides students with the management skills they need while addressing the specific technology and policy challenges of modern computerized information systems.
· The first students to complete our MS in Real Estate Development Program graduated this May and we've built a strong leadership group with the Real Estate Council comprised of executives from regional real estate companies, associations, and foundations.
· When I last spoke to you, we announced that we established the Center for Global Business Innovation and Transformation. I am happy to report that we recently hired a new director for the center, Robert Grosse. Robert is formerly the dean of the EGADE graduate business school at Monterrey Tec in Mexico, internationally ranked as one of the top business schools in the world. In addition, Hun Lee, associate professor of management in the School of Management has been named assistant director.
We also have a number of initiatives that are underway.
· We created the Investor Protection and Corporate Fraud Research Center and have named Keith Jones, associate professor of accounting at the School of Management as the center director.
· We established The Women in Business Affinity, which is a new initiative that provides a platform of engagement for our current business school students, alumni, and businesswomen from a variety of industries. This series aims to promote the excellence in and achievements of School of Management alumnae and the business community and to enhance the experience for our female students within business programs.
These are just a few of the many ongoing projects and accomplishments we are happy to share with the Faculty Senate, but does not encompass all that we are doing at the School of Management. I look forward to working with you as we continue to pursue new programs and initiatives. We are making great strides in accomplishing our many goals, including our goal of becoming a top 50 ranked business school in the US and becoming a premiere destination worldwide for Executive Education programs. Thank you all for your time today and I invite you to ask any questions you might have.
Results of Summer Teaching Survey
Total surveys emailed: 57
Total surveys returned: 30 (53%)
Of those returned: 27 (90%) valid; 3 (10%) invalid (e.g., had just assumed chair)
Of the 27 valid responses:
22 (81%) Notified all full-time faculty of the opportunity to teach a course for summer 2011
But there were a few qualifications:
· Yes. Of the courses we feel are needed and scheduled for summer, all faculty are notified of the schedule roster.
· Yes, except one class was canceled due to low enrollment.
· No. My tenure -track faculty are research active and use the summer to do research or write proposals. They have no time or inclination to teach. I would hope that that is the case for most of the tenure/tenure-track faculty in the university. Among the term faculty only one of the faculty may have wanted to teach, but they understand that the summer semester operated on a different financial model. In practice we only use adjuncts in the summer and this actually works well.
22 (81%) Were able to honor all full-time faculty requests for at least one course for summer 2011
But there were a few qualifications:
· Yes. The faculty who are qualified and typically teach those courses during the year are those who are offered the opportunity to teach them in the summer. If that faculty is not interested or is unavailable I offer the teaching opportunity to other faculty and if they are not interested or available we field the course using a qualified adjunct.
· No requests. At most one faculty may have wanted to teach but didn't even make any request.
5 (19%) Were unable to honor all full-time faculty requests for at least one course for summer 2011
· Faculty are aware of the teaching rotation and agree that with limited resources this is the fair way to address this situation. Two full time faculty and one adjunct were able to teach last summer. The program is strongly encouraged by the administration (Provost and College) to use adjunct faculty whenever possible.
· One full-time faculty was able to teach last summer and one this summer, but it required the design of a specialized, community outreach program to gain support.
Those who were unable to honor requests were asked:
How many faculty requests were not fulfilled, and how did you go about deciding who did and did not receive the requested teaching assignment?
· We discourage senior faculty from teaching over the Summer so we will have enough instructional funds to cover the costs for our junior faculty. Due to limited Summer instructional funds we often encourage graduate assistants and adjunct faculty to teach Summer classes because we can pay them less money. Even with these guidelines, we still were not able to provide Summer teaching to three or four faculty who wanted to teach. We did not provide Summer teaching to any faculty who has other university-related sources of Summer funding, through grants, contracts, stipends, summer camps, or other activities, so we would have enough instructional funds to cover the Summer teaching requests of faculty who had no other sources of Mason income for the Summer.
· We only honor 1-2 of lower salaried fac because of budget and also our senior fac we defer on because of their high salaries would break the budget.
· Priority was given to instructional faculty when assigning summer courses. All requests from instructional faculty were fulfilled. However, one professor with a relatively high salary (> $120K) who had requested a summer course was given the option of teaching a different course from the one requested (which was unlikely to receive a sufficiently high enrollment). However, he declined the alternative course assignment.
How much additional funding would you have needed to fulfill the requirements of the Faculty Handbook vis-à-vis summer teaching salary?
· An additional $100K in our Summer instructional budget would help us meet the full demand for Summer teaching.
· $34,256 additional funding needed. The summer 2011 budget was $16,447
· It's difficult to estimate this because most faculty don't view the handbook requirement as something likely to be honored. Currently, there are two full professors who would like to teach a course each summer but are typically not assigned a course because the Dean's office has specified that the department needs to come out "in the black" with regard to the summer budget. Both professors make more than $120K for the AY. I estimate that at least 2 or 3 other faculty members would submit summer course requests if they thought that their request would be fulfilled. But most faculty in my department are not willing to teach a summer course different from the one they typically teach during the AY. The faculty handbook does not guarantee that full-time faculty are entitled to teach a course of their own choice during the summer. Since my department's faculty are not interested in teaching a course if it is not of their own choice, I would estimate that no additional funding is needed if faculty can be assigned to courses that are not their first choice.
Has any alternative support been suggested as a substitute for the 10% (e.g., administrative stipend, grant support). Please specify.
· Yes, we encourage our faculty to apply for Summer funding from the University and from external funding sources.
· A higher percentage of our faculty have summer grant funding. Those that don't are still encouraged to work on research and publishing. We strongly discourage our tenured and tenure-line faculty from teaching in the summer. I believe that only one such faculty has taught a summer course in the past 10 years.
· In the event that we were to come up short, we suggested that any course above one be paid at matrix, but our request was denied because it would not pass the current faculty senate regulations.
· BUT note that labs in natural science are NOT paid at 10% (as they once were). So lab instructors get only 6.7% I believe.
· I also am able to pay faculty 10% for teaching a laboratory if they coordinate the labs during the summer. If not, they get 6.7%. All faculty are able to teach as much as they want to during the summer, including two courses at 10%.
· The College has not provided budget for full-time faculty to teach in the summer for many years, long before I became Chair. Our college handles the summer differently than the fall and spring, and it requires a little more justification and oversight from central administration.
19 October 2011
Re: Spring Semester 2011 Report to the George Mason University Faculty Senate by the Academic Initiatives Committee
Committee Membership: Elizabeth Sook Chong, CHHS, Wayne Froman, CHSS, Tom Kiley, COS, Terry Zawacki, CHSS, and Thomas Speller (Chair), VSE
The Senate Academic Initiatives Committee met four times during the spring semester. Below is a summary of the activities at these meetings:
Date: 7 February 2011
Attending: Elizabeth Chong, Tom Kiley, Thomas Speller, David Wilsford, and Terry Zawacki (Faculty Committee Members)
Agenda Item: Discussion of the committee report to the faculty senate for the fall semester 2010.
Date: 24 February 2011
Attending: Elizabeth Chong, Tom Kiley, Thomas Speller, David Wilsford, and Terry Zawacki (Faculty Committee Members)
Agenda Item: Discussion of a revision to the committee charge that was submitted as an item of business for the 2 March 2011 faculty senate meeting.
Date: 4 April 2011
Attending: Thomas Speller and Terry Zawacki (Faculty Committee Members) Anne Schiller, (Associate Provost for International Projects) and Madelyn Ross, (Director of China Programs)
Agenda Item: Received a report (word and power point documents attached) from Madelyn Ross regarding the China 1+2+1 program. In a series of follow up questions addressing program pricing, majors available, faculty involvement in program decision making, why this is not a two way program, possible changes, and program cash flows were answered by Ms. Ross.
Date: 14 April 2011
Attending: Elizabeth Chong, Wayne Froman, and Thomas Speller (Faculty Committee Members) Anne Schiller, (Associate Provost for International Projects) and Min Park (Faculty Advisor for Korea Programs)
Agenda Item: Min Park provided power point presentation (copy attached) regarding the University’s global initiatives in Korea. Professor Park’s presentation included both ongoing initiatives as well as the possible George Mason University Songdo Branch Campus. For the possible Songdo Campus, a market survey has been conducted and copy is to be made available to the committee.
Other—Moscow State University Program: At the 18 October 2010 meeting of the committee a request was made for information regarding the status of the Moscow State University program at George Mason including enrollments and student progress. The committee did not receive a response to this request. However, the syllabi for eight courses that are part of the program were sent to the committee on 1 June 2011.
This policy applies to all faculty, staff and students of George Mason University.
II. POLICY STATEMENT
Sexual or romantic relationships between employees and students have the effect of undermining the atmosphere of trust on which the educational process depends. Positions of authority inherently carry the element of power in their relationships with Students. It is imperative that those in authority neither abuse, nor appear to abuse, this power entrusted to them. The respect and trust accorded an employee by a student, as well as the power exercised in giving praise or blame, grades, recommendations for further student and /or future employment, can greatly diminish should sexual or romantic activity be included in the relationship. Integrity can be compromised when employees evaluate the work or academic performance of students with whom they have a sexual or romantic relationship.
An employee who has a professional power relationship over a student must avoid any sexual or romantic relationships with the student. If an employee becomes involved in a sexual or romantic relationship with a student, or has had a past relationship with the student, the employee must immediately notify his or her supervisor. No employee shall exercise academic responsibility (instructional, evaluative or supervisory) for any student with whom the employee has or has had a sexual or romantic relationship.
Employees are responsible for complying with this policy regardless of who initiates the relationship. This policy applies regardless of whether both the employee and the student consent to the relationship, and whether the relationship is between individuals of the same sex or of the opposite sex.
Employees must be aware that sexual relationships with students have the potential for other adverse consequences, including the filing of a complaint alleging sexual harassment and/or retaliation under University Policy 1202 – Sexual Harassment. An employee who enters into a sexual relationship with a student where a professional power relationship exists must realize that if a charge of sexual harassment is subsequently lodged, a claim of mutual consent in the relationship may not be a sufficient defense.
For the purposes of this policy only:
a. "Employee" means any paid employee of the university. This policy also applies to volunteers who teach, coach, evaluate, advise and supervise students at the university.
b. "Student" means all individuals who receive instruction under the auspices of George Mason University, including but not limited to:
(1) persons who have registered for an educational program at the University, whether or not the student is currently enrolled (e.g., students who have enrolled at the University but have not yet registered for classes, students who decide not to enroll for a period of time, and doctoral degree candidates who are not registered);
(2) participants in internships, practicum experiences, outreach, and summer programs and camps; and
(3) students who are also employees.
c. “Professional Power Relationship” means a relationship between an employee and a student in which the employee may have authority to exercise decision-making authority regarding the student. Examples of a Professional Power Relationship include, but are not limited to, relationships in which the employee:
(1) is in a position to make administrative or educational decisions about a student;
(2) participates in an educational experience and has the authority to assign grades;
(3) has any input into the evaluation of the student’s academic performance;
(4) serves in matters of admission, or on scholarship awards committees;
(5) has a managerial position over the student;
(6) has an official academic advising relationship to the student, including as a thesis or dissertation advisor; or
(7) is a coach of the student.
d. “Consensual Relationships” means, for purposes of this policy only, relationships of a romantic, intimate, or sexual nature, where a Professional Power Relationship exists.
All academic and non-academic supervisors at all levels are responsible for implementation of this policy.
a. An Employee entering into or engaging in a Consensual Relationship, or a current or prospective employee offered a position who will be in such a relationship should the position be accepted, shall immediately:
(1) report the relationship to either the supervisor, Dean, Vice President/Provost, the hiring official, the Office of Equity & Diversity Services, or Human Resources & Payroll Office; and
(2) cooperate in actions taken to eliminate any actual or potential conflicts of interest and to mitigate adverse effects on third parties.
b. The supervisor shall treat the information confidentially and shall promptly:
(1) consult with the Office of Equity & Diversity Services; and
(2) cooperate with the Office of Equity & Diversity Services and Vice President/Provost, eliminate conflicts of interest, and mitigate adverse effects on third parties.
c. Possible actions a supervisor may take include, but are not limited to:
(1) transferring one of the individuals to another position or class; or
(2) transferring supervisory, decision-making, evaluative, academic or advisory responsibilities.
d. Violations of this policy may result in discipline in accordance with the Faculty Handbook, Administrative Faculty Handbook, and to the policies and procedures of the Commonwealth of Virginia.