APRIL 2, 2014  

Robinson Hall B113,  3:00  - 4:15 p.m.


Senators Present:  Mark Addleson, Dominique Banville, Jim Bennett, Alok Berry, Lisa Billingham, Doris Bitler Davis, Ángel Cabrera, Carol Cleaveland, Rick Coffinberger, Arie Croitoru, Charlene Douglas, Robert Dudley, Dimitrios Ioannou, Kathryn Jacobsen, David Kuebrich, Timothy Leslie, Patricia Maulden, Daniel Menascé, Linda Monson, Star Muir, Frank Allen Philpot, Keith Renshaw, Catherine Sausville, Joe Scimecca, Suzanne Scott, Suzanne Slayden, Bob Smith, Lesley Smith, Peter Stearns, June Tangney, Susan Trencher, Iosif Vaisman, Anand Vidyashankar, Jenice View, Phil Wiest, Shelley Wong, John Zenelis, Stanley Zoltek.


Senators Absent:  Peggy Agouris, Changwoo Ahn, Kenneth Ball, Deborah Boehm-Davis, John Cantiello, Lloyd Cohen, Betsy DeMulder, Helen Frederick, Janos Gertler, Mark Ginsberg, Mark Houck, Ghassan Husseinali, Bruce Johnsen, Ning Li, Stuart Malawer, Elavie Ndura, Sarah Nutter, James Olds, Paula Petrik, Peter Pober, Daniel Polsby, Thomas Prohaska, William Reeder, Pierre Rodgers, Mark Rozell.


Visitors Present: Janet Bingham, Vice President for University Advancement and Alumni Relations and President, GMU Foundation; Gbemi Disu, Special Assistant to the President; Kimberly Ford, Personnel Project Manager, Enrollment Planning & Administration, Provost Office;  Jim Laychak, Associate Vice President, University Advancement and Alumni Relations; Geraldine Mobley, Provost Liaison & Interim Ombudsman, Compliance, Diversity and Ethics; Janette Muir, Associate Provost for Undergraduate Education; Claudia Rector, Assistant Provost for Academic Affairs; Dennis Webster, Director, Special Diversity Initiatives, University Life; Cathy Wolfe , Director, Campus Planning.


I.          Call to Order:  The meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m.


II.       Announcements


Provost Peter Stearns announced we successfully launched the Songdo Campus.  Two accreditation visits (Music and Law) are taking place today.  Both were quite favorable about faculty quality.


Budget Update: Sr. Vice President J.J. Davis is traveling this week.  In her absence, she provided “Preliminary Analysis of Budget Amendments Impacting Mason” – copies available for Senators to review.


Brief Update on Mason Hall/University Hall Move – Cathy Wolfe, Director, Campus Planning

In her introductory remarks Cathy noted the replacement of windows in Mason Hall provided at opportunity to create more space for instructional purposes.  Her slide presentation “University Hall/Mason Hall Changes” (pp. 1-5) is posted on the Faculty Senate website.   We are now in the Discovery -Information Gathering Phase of the Master Plan (pp.6-7).  Faculty are encouraged to participate in an adjacency survey to ask how you will collaborate in the future in order to better inform decisions on space assignments.  Town Hall meetings will be scheduled. 


Length of Summer School:  The Summer term sessions are set for Summer 2014.  With students already enrolling in Summer courses, it is not possible to change back the length of terms for the upcoming Summer sessions.  Beginning this month, there will be a more robust examination of the change in length of the Summer Term.  These discussions will include data from Summer 2014 enrollment, evidence presented by the Financial Aid office, and faculty and student feedback.   Based on this review, the Summer 2015 sessions will be adjusted accordingly, including the possibility of returning to a 5-week session or continuing with a 6-week session.

Your patience with this process is greatly appreciated.


Discussion: A Senator remarked that it did not seems a very complicated issue to find the specific federal regulation requiring summer session of six weeks for student eligibility for federal financial aid (as discussed at the previous Senate meeting).  Chair Douglas responded that a meeting will take place next week (April 9th) with representatives from Summer School, Financial Aid, Senator Suzanne Slayden (who  compiled a comprehensive survey of summer sessions at GMU since 1966), and me.


Chair Douglas welcomed President Ángel Cabrera.  President Cabrera introduced three colleagues, Janet Bingham, our new President of the GMU Foundation and head of the GMU Development Office.  (Previously the offices were separated); Gbemi Disu, Special Assistant to the President; and Jim Laychak, who works for Janet Bingham as a senior development officer.  He distributed the following chart:  Fundraising Totals for the Last Five Years – Gifts and Pledges 2010-2014” (posted on the Faculty Senate website).  Overall, he shared good news.  How is our fundraising evolving over the past few years?  During presidential transition, there is often a dip, but we did not see it.  We had a banner year last year - $30-40 million in 2010; $46 million in 2013, and to date $42 million for 2014 so far.  We are travelling well, but we need to do much better.  In a university of our size, a $60 million endowment yields about $3 million/annum to use; not able to move needle very much.  We receive from donors current gifts – e.g. scholarship funds, but also need to put money in endowment for intergenerational fairness.  For example, if a donor gives $1 million, we could deploy it tomorrow or in 3-4 years; or put in endowment to generate $45,000/year, smaller, but in perpetuity.  This is one of the tensions we face because our endowment is so small.  We need to put attention there in additional to current needs.  Working on hybrid $10 million gift, $1 million to use now, $9 million to endowment for grant in perpetuity. We are in the “silent phase” of the campaign.  Adding that he does not get concept, silent means not big bang public announcement.


Janet Bingham began her career at the University of Arizona, undergraduate and PhD, and was head of external relations there.  She led a successful company and had successful private foundation experience as well.  She understands wealthy people because she has worked for them.  What do we need in a campaign plan?  In additional to the University Strategic Plan 2014 (see Executive Summary), the colleges and schools are working on their strategic plans – bringing information from their plans to put together our collective dream list.  A comprehensive plan will have ordered priorities; an attractive way to get people to donate.  A feasibility study also includes sampling donors to see if goals are reasonable.  Working assumption of a half billion dollar ($500 million) campaign, assuming feasibility study goes well.  Then we will be well on our way to meeting goal to publicize campaign; timing to finish campaign plan this year and begin public phase in Spring 2015. 


There is also a tricky side to this – very prone to conspiracy theories – we need to invest money to make money.  There is a correlation between investment in fundraising, the more money you will raise.  Like any good investment, we need to have money to invest.  We don’t have money in regular budget to invest.  To try “budget magic” to move some more money to fundraising is still not enough.  Suggested increase “Gift Tax”, e.g. to take 5-6% of gift to support work of the GMU Foundation.  Most foundations (designate?) part of gift to help with fundraising, whether folks realize it or not.  We are extremely transparent.  We may need to increase the tax - if we don’t invest, we won’t be able to raise more money.


In response to questions from two Senators, President Cabrera clarified that the chart distributed included private gifts, not external research funds.  No money from the federal government can be considered as a gift.

Another Senator asked for some sense of what norms are regarding (fundraising) tax?

President Cabrera:  In a range from 0-10, “0’ means the university assumes all expenses of fundraising, from its general budget.  In some places, large unrestricted endowments may cover all expenses of foundation.

Another Senator:  What is an appropriate level of endowment?

President Cabrera:  Our operating budget is around $700 million.  If our endowment was around the same amount, would generate about 5% revenue stream.  In the next decade, the budget could be higher.  There is no norm about this. 

A Senator:  Do we have aggregated data on the college level?  Can we see amount raised by School by Development Office for CHSS?

President Cabrera:  We report to the BOV how well we are doing, we cut data in many ways.  Folks who fundraise in units report both to deans and to Janet Bingham.  In most cases costs shared and dual-reporting.  He stressed the importance of coordinating efforts not to go to same donor for different reasons.  Fundraising is a team effort.  He does not know of any major gift that was not a team effort over time, even over years.  In almost every case, there is a faculty member behind a major gift.  Alumni feel they owe a great deal to faculty member(s).  He expressed his appreciation to all walking the walk and encouraged others to get involved; can be a lot of fun, great for GMU and for donors also. 


IV.       New Business - Committee Reports

A.  Senate Standing Committees

Executive Committee

Annual Faculty Senate Evaluation of the President and Provost by Faculty Senate Standing Committees, University Standing Committees – see Attachment A.


Academic Policiesno report.

Budget & Resourcesno report.

Faculty MattersJoe Scimecca, Chair

The Faculty Evaluation of Administrators Survey 2013-14 is out.  He asked Faculty Senators to complete the survey and also encourage their colleagues to do so.

Nominations – Jim Bennett, Chair

Keith Renshaw (CHSS) and Esther Elstun (CHSS-emeritá) were nominated to serve as Faculty Senate Representatives to the Technology Leadership Council.  No further nominations were made from the floor and the nominees were elected.


Evans Mandes (Senior Associate Dean, COS) was nominated to serve as Faculty Senate Representative to Search Committee for Assistant Vice President/Director of Intercollegiate Athletics.  A motion was made and seconded to nominate Dominique Banville (CEHD).  Paper ballots were distributed and Dominique Banville was elected. 


Organization & Operationsno report.


B. Other Committees/Faculty Representatives

Faculty Handbook Committee -  Suzanne Slayden, Chair


Proposed Revisions to the Faculty Handbook                                       April 2, 2014

The Rector has asked the Faculty Senate to revise the Faculty Handbook 1) in the Preface to state the relationship between the Faculty Handbook and the Code of Virginia, and 2) in Chapter 1, Section 1.2.5 “Faculty Participation in the Selection of Certain Members of the Central Administration”.


1) The committee moved that the Faculty Handbook Preface by revised by inserting the language shown as underlined below:


Preface to the Handbook The George Mason University Faculty Handbook defines and describes the conditions of full-time instructional, research, and clinical faculty employment; the structures and processes through which the faculty participates in institutional decision-making and governance; and the academic policies of the University as established by its Board of Visitors. As an educational institution and executive branch agency of the Commonwealth of Virginia, George Mason University is governed by the Code of Virginia and the general laws of the Commonwealth. Nothing in this Handbook shall be interpreted to be contrary to law, or to regulations and policies of the executive branch of government.


The provisions of the Faculty Handbook, as amended from time to time, are incorporated by reference in all full time instructional, research, and clinical faculty employment contracts. These provisions are binding on the University and on individual faculty members. The Faculty Handbook governs the employment relationship of individual faculty members, and sets forth the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of faculty members and of the University. Faculty and academic administrators are expected to read the Faculty Handbook and to be familiar with its contents.



Discussion: Senator Slayden noted phrasing requested by BOV to eliminate concerns about collective bargaining which is prohibited by state law. Also, the proposed language does not affect the application of the University’s nondiscrimination policy, which applies to all employees independent of the Handbook. Another Senator noted the executive branch includes the Governor and Attorney General but not the legislative branch. Usually the judiciary interprets questionable provisions of the law. Provost Stearns remarked that the proposed language was crafted with the BOV’s withdrawal of extensive proposed changes (to which the Faculty Senate had earlier objected).


It was moved and seconded to amend the main motion by deleting the sentence: “Nothing in this Handbook shall be interpreted to be contrary to law, or regulations and policies of the executive branch of government.” The motion to amend failed. The motion to approve the revision passed.


2) In February, 2013, the Faculty Senate approved revisions to Section 1.2.5; however, these revisions were not submitted to the Board of Visitors for their approval and so do not appear in the current Handbook. Any proposed revision to Section 1.2.5 would be a motion to “Amend Something Previously Adopted”. Possible changes to section 1.2.5, based on discussion at the previous Faculty Senate meeting, appear on the agenda. One of them will be handled as a main motion and the others will be motions to amend the main motion.


Currently approved version, February, 2013:

1.2.5 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 by faculty on presidential search, reappointment, and contract extension committees. A minimum of 25% of the committee must be composed of members of the General Faculty, at least half of whom are elected by the General Faculty, with the remainder appointed by the Board of Visitors. No more than one representative from any school/college/institute may serve on the committee.


The Board will make concerted efforts to further engage the faculty in the selection process (e.g., conducting a survey of faculty regarding desirable characteristics; providing an opportunity for General Faculty or representatives of the General Faculty to meet with finalists). In the case of reappointment or contract extension, this process includes an opportunity for the General Faculty to meet with the President to discuss his or her achievements and future plans for the university.


A. The committee moved to change the current version of Section 1.2.5 as follows:


Para. 2, line 2: strike out “must be” and insert “should be”.


Para. 2, line 4: insert “elected” before “representative” so that it reads “No more than one elected representative….”


Para. 3, line 1: strike out “will make” and insert “should make”.


B. It was moved and seconded to amend the main motion by substituting Paragraphs 2 and 3 in the 2013 version with the following:


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 includes opportunities for the General Faculty to meet with candidates who are finalists for the presidency.


The Board of Visitors also provides for participation in the process of presidential reappointments or contract extensions by faculty who are elected by the General Faculty. This process includes an opportunity for the General Faculty to meet with the President to discuss his or her achievements and future plans for the university.


C. It was moved and seconded to amend the amendment by striking out and inserting as shown below:


The authority to appoint the President of George Mason University is vested in the Board of Visitors. Because the selection of the President is of fundamental importance to the institution, tThe Board of Visitors provides for participation on the presidential search committees by faculty who are elected by the General Faculty. To ensure the most successful conclusion to the search process, finalist candidates should visit the campuses and meet with the General Faculty. In the event that it is necessary to maintain candidate confidentiality, the search committee and other designated university representatives will meet with the finalists. The search and selection process must include opportunities for the General Faculty to meet with candidates who are finalists for the presidency.


The Board of Visitors also provides for participation in the process of presidential reappointments or contract extensions by faculty who are elected by the General Faculty. This process includes an opportunity for the General Faculty to meet with the President to discuss his or her achievements and future plans for the university.


It was noted that the AAUP and SUNY Presidential Search documents that were consulted for this language have acknowledged that under certain circumstances it may be necessary to preserve presidential candidate confidentiality. In such cases, the search is deemed “representational” when only some faculty will meet with the finalist candidates. The motion to amend the amendment passed.


Discussion/Outcome:  After a wide-ranging discussion, and with no objection, the main motion (A.) and the pending amendment (C.) were referred back to the Faculty Handbook Revision Committee. Discussion topics included substitutions such as “meaningful representation”, “at least 25% faculty representation on the Presidential search Committee” and feasibility of present BOV approval of best practices outlined in the amendment (C.). Some Senators saw prospect of future presidential search unlikely in the near future.


V.        Other New Business-none.

VI.       Remarks for the Good of the General Faculty

Carnegie Institution Community Engagement Classification Task Force will be discussed at our next meeting (April 23rd). Chair Douglas reminded Faculty Senators the reception for Provost Peter Stearns following our meeting in the Mason Hall Atrium.


VII.     Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at approximately 4:14 p.m.


Respectfully submitted,

Charlene Douglas

Chair, Faculty Senate






Evaluation of the President and Provost by Faculty Senate Standing Committees, University Standing Committees, and Ad Hoc Committees AY 2013-14

responses compiled February-March, 2014

Note that some committees did not provide responses to each question.


1. During the past calendar year has the President or Provost announced initiatives or goals or acted upon issues that fall under the charge of your Committee? If so, was your Committee consulted by the President or Provost in a timely manner before the announcement or action? If not, do you believe your Committee should have been consulted? Would it have been helpful to have had the input of your Committee from the outset?


Responses from Faculty Senate Standing Committees:


Academic Policies:  Our committee did not have occasion to interact with either the President or the Provost, but we did interact with Associate Provosts. The Associate Provost for Undergraduate Education communicated regularly with our committee about the upcoming changes in General Education. The Associate Provost for Graduate Education has agreed to attend AP meetings whenever we discuss graduate matters. There was an issue early in AY 2013-14 because of policies about time limits for PhD students, which were not brought to the AP committee. The Associate Provost met with the Chair of AP and the chair of O&O, and we were satisfied that there would be ways to avoid such problems in the future by having an AP representative on the Graduate Committee and by having the Associate Provost attend our AP meetings.


Budget and Resources:    In important ways all changes to the university budget are of significance to the Senate Committee on Budget and Resources.  In retrospect, as Chair of the Senate Committee I can see large areas in which as Chair I was remiss in failing to request information re new contracts and expenditures for university wide programs (not individuals, or individual units, which does not fall under the purview of this committee under normal circumstances).  The administration cannot be faulted for not answering a question not asked.  An example of a decision that impacts the entire university community both financially and for faculty and staff inside the classroom and in the course of student matriculation, is the contract with INTO.   The university community was told of the expected enormous budgetary impact (positive) of the agreement signed with INTO, a profit-making company whose job it is to bring international students to matriculate at George Mason for full tuition.  These students are allowed entry with lower required scores for entry to GMU and its programs, both on the English language proficiency exam and in overall GPA.  The terms of this contract must include costs to the university thus budgetary impact, that given unmet costs, e.g. timely and appropriate faculty raises would have been useful to understand, but as Chair I failed to alert my committee for consultation re an interest in seeing where the costs were.  (The shifting of the Mason Inn to serve as INTO dorm space is not included here given that we were provided the information of large losses to the GMU budget already accrued and predicted on the use of the Mason Inn as originally set out).  The expectation of the President and Provost’s office as stated are clearly on the profit side. The committee was not consulted on these matters.  Presentations by the Provost (and members of his staff) were set out essentially as a fait accompli at Town Hall meetings. It would have been helpful to have a financial breakdown given that the students coming into the university via this route will have a clear (although not exclusive) impact on the faculty in whose classes these students will be placed.  The President has not been present at any discussions and has not sought input from the Committee.  Although this was set out under the Provost’s purview, the President signed the contract.  I note the gaps in these kinds of communications as part of this report as a means to set out possible areas of consultation in the future.


Nominations:  The Nominations Committee regrets that President Cabrera waited until the Summer to request that Faculty Representatives be elected to the Provost Search Committee.  Many Faculty are away during the Summer, and numerous complaints were received about the conduct of the election solely because of the President's inaction.  In addition, after the election was rushed to accommodate the President, he took no action to convene the Search Committee until Fall, so this election could easily have been postponed until the start of classes when Faculty had returned. And, indeed, the election could even have been held prior to the end of the Spring semester had President Cabrera informed the Nominations Committee of the number to be elected and had asked for the election to occur. By failing to consult the Nominations Committee about the election, President Cabrera made the Nominations Committee's work difficult and needlessly annoyed many Faculty.


Organization and Operations:  The O&O has had no interaction with the President's office this year.  The Provost's office has generally been clear and responsive in forwarding issues for consideration by the Senate.  The Graduate Provost's decision to make significant policy decisions within the Graduate Council without review by the Senate (i.e. limits on time for graduate degree completion) is disturbing, especially given communication problems with a variety of academic units, but the Graduate Provost willingly met and discussed the issue with representatives from the Faculty Senate Executive Committee, and indicated there would be greater transparency and online clarification of decisions made.


Responses from the University Standing Committees:


Athletic Council:  No, no initiatives or goals for the Athletic Council were initiated by the President or the Provost. We did not have any issues under my charge with either the President or the Provost.


Effective Teaching Committee:  NO.


External Academic Relations Committee:  The Committee had no interaction with the President or the Provost this year.


Faculty Handbook Committee:  The Provost's office has changes it would like to see implemented in the FH and the Provost's representative has brought these issues to the committee for joint discussion.


Grievance Committee:  No.


Mason Core Committee:  Any initiatives suggested by the President would be related to the Strategic Plan and were vetted by many different committees, with input from leadership familiar with the Mason Core.


The Provost is continually made aware of work that the Mason Core committee is doing and has provided useful input regarding specific changes the committee has encouraged.


Minority and Diversity Issues Committee:  As far as I know, the administration has not announced initiatives or goals or acted upon issues that fall under the charge of the Minority and Diversity Issues Committee.  And we did not seek any information from them.


Non-Traditional, Interdisciplinary, and Adult Learning Committee:  No, no initiatives or goals fell under the charge of this committee in the past calendar year.


Technology Policy Committee:  The Technology Policy committee has interacted with the administration on a regular basis. The committee regularly meets with the University’s CIO. The CIO always responds to our questions and frequently brings members of her senior staff to respond to our concerns and brainstorm with us on solutions to technology issues affecting faculty.

Writing Across the Curriculum Committee: 
The WAC committee had little interaction with any administrators other than the ex officio member of the committee, the director of writing across the curriculum admission.


However, the committee feels free to ask for input from the administration and has always received it openly and freely.


2. Did your Committee seek information or input from the President or Provost or members of their staffs?   If so, did they respond adequately and in a timely manner?


Responses from Faculty Senate Standing Committees:


Academic Policies:  See Above.


Budget and Resources:   When we sought information from the financial office (JJ Davis, Gil Brown, and Diana Cline, we were provided useful and timely information.  Budget and Resources also requests faculty salary information from Human Resources (VP Linda Harber) and that office too complied with our requests.

Nominations:  The Nominations Committee thanks Provost Stearns for his cooperative and timely response in making appointments to fill vacancies on committees with a Provost's representative. In every instance, the Provost was prompt and helpful.



Responses from the University Standing Committees:


Athletic Council:  No, the committee did not seek specific information from the President or the Provost. I meet with the President annually to provide information on the external oversight of the Intercollegiate Athletic Programs and submit a report on my work as the Faculty Athletic Representative.


Effective Teaching Committee:  YES and YES.


Faculty Handbook Committee:  Yes. The FH committee regularly meets with a representative from the Provost's office to discuss FH issues of interest to both. All responses were adequate and timely.


Grievance Committee:  Yes, The Grievance Committee sought input from both the President and the Provost, and both responded in a timely and complete manner.


Mason Core Committee:  The committee continually seeks information from relevant parties in the Provost office. For example, information on course-taking patterns and academic success is garnered from representatives of the Registrar’s Office and IRR. The Assessment Office regularly provides data about Mason Core categories and student learning outcomes.


The President’s office has been helpful in providing time on the President’s calendar to discuss issues related to global understanding and other core competency areas.


Non-Traditional, Interdisciplinary, and Adult Learning Committee:  No, the committee did not seek information or input from the president or provost. Our understanding was that this committee has not met for several years and was likely to be dissolved; it is on the list of committees being considered for elimination.

3. Please suggest how you believe the President, Provost and/or their staffs might more effectively interact with your Committee in the future, if necessary.


Responses from Faculty Senate Standing Committees:


Academic Policies:  Make sure Faculty Senate is informed of upcoming issues that affect faculty across the university so that those issues can be directed to the appropriate committees and forwarded to the Senate for information and/or vote.

Budget and Resources:   It would be useful to have more direct knowledge of the generalities of the budget.  We talk about transparency, but there are many actions brought in a pro forma way to the Senate that have budget implications, yet figures for these large-scale initiatives in a time of declining resources are not shared.  I am not setting the Senate Budget and Resources Committee in the place of others who have decision making rights in these arenas, but we do as faculty representatives bear responsibility for knowing and sharing a certain scale of information about the budget and its allocation.  There are many instances in which input from faculty, beyond the committee itself, which committee members could be helpful in seeking, would be useful and provide a sense of community rather than the somewhat adversarial relationship in which we unhappily find ourselves. To these ends, JJ Davis and Guilford Brown have already been particularly willing to be of assistance.


Responses from the University Standing Committees:


Athletic Council:  No recommendations.  We have established effective interaction and communication.  Senior administrators who report to the President, and senior administrators who report to the Provost serve as members of the Athletic Council.  They attend regularly and serve on the council’s sub-committees.




Faculty Handbook Committee:  No suggestions for improvement.


Grievance Committee:  The Committee feels that the current interactions are effective.


Mason Core Committee:  No suggestions.


Non-Traditional, Interdisciplinary, and Adult Learning Committee:  I think this committee should be dissolved and another standing committee should be created to address issues related to executive education, professional development, and competency-base education (both for credit and non-credit, across disciplines and trans-disciplinary).

4. Please relate any additional information you may have regarding interactions between your Committee and the President or Provost or their staff.

Responses from Faculty Senate Standing Committees:


Budget and Resources:  As above.


Responses from the University Standing Committees:


Athletic Council:  I am comfortable taking any issue or situation to the President or Provost with regard to student-athlete well being or academic performance.   I continue to receive the support necessary to continue in my role as Faculty Athletic Representative and Chair of the Athletic Council.




Faculty Handbook Committee:  The FH Committee finds the administrative representatives who meet with the committee to be dedicated and knowledgeable in their areas. They have spent many hours in committee meetings this semester and their efforts have resulted in a much improved Faculty Handbook.


Grievance Committee:  No other information is available.


Mason Core Committee:  Anyone that we have worked with from the Provost’s Office has been helpful, immediately responsive and relevant to our discussions.


Non-Traditional, Interdisciplinary, and Adult Learning Committee:  None.