Skip to main content

Full text of "Faculty Senate (1994 - 1995 minutes): 1994-09-09 meeting"

See other formats


THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY 
WASHINGTON, DC 

MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING 
OF THE FACULTY SENATE HELD ON 
SEPTEMBER 9, 1994, IN LISNER HALL 
ROOM 603 


The meeting was called to order by President Trachtenberg at 
2:15 p.m. 

Present: President Trachtenberg, Vice President French, 

Registrar Gaglione, Parliamentarian (Interim) 

Hill, Boswell, Brewer, Carson, Castleberry, 

Eftis, Englander, Fowler, Friedenthal, 

Frieder, Griffith, Gupta, Harrington, Johnston 
Kahn, Keimowitz, Kind, Kirsch, Mitchell, 

Pelzman, Robinson, Salamon, Seavey, K. Smith, 

P. Smith, Solomon, Thompson, Tropea, and Vontress 

Absent: Elgart, Millar, and Miller 


In the absence of a Parliamentarian for the 1994-95 Senate 
Session, Professor Peter P. Hill agreed to serve as Interim 
Parliamentarian at today's meeting at the request of the President. 


APPROVAL OF MINUTES 

The minutes of the regular meeting of May, 5, 1994, were 

approved as distributed. 

RESOLUTIONS 

x. RESOLUTION 94/1. " A RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE VOLUNTAR Y RETIREMENT 
OPPORTUNITIES AND INCENTIVES TO FACULTY " 

Professor Gupta, Chair of the Faculty Development and Support 
Committee, explained that the Committee had spent almost all of the 
last year working on this issue. In studying the effects of the 
lending of mandatory retirement, he said that^^iejj^Committee 
i discovered that academic institutions across the saffirey >/ere also 
struggling with this issue and that even the Federal Government was 
offering "buyouts.” Professor Gupta said that, as of January 1, 
1994, there is no fixed age retirement for college faculty; 
however, he said, no academic institution can afford to have on its 
staff faculty members whose effectiveness may have been 
compromised. He said there is clearly a need to have some kind of 


Faculty Senate Minutes - September 9, 1994 


Page 2 


voluntary retirement policy that would be beneficial both to the 
institution and to the individual faculty member. Upon behalf of 
the Faculty Development and Support Committee, Professor Gupta then 
moved the adoption of Resolution 94/1, and the motion was seconded. 

Professor Carson asked if the voluntary retirement option was 
a one-time offering, and Professor Gupta replied that it would be 
a continuing option. Professor Vontress asked if the Committee had 
considered the advantages and disadvantages of this encouragement; 
i.e., it could be a financial advantage to the University to 
encourage senior faculty to retire early in order to bring in 
junior faculty, but would it be an academic advantage to the 
University. Professor Gupta responded that the Committee did 
consider that there might be some faculty the University would like 
to discourage from taking early retirement. Professor Mitchell 
pointed out that in that case the administration could devise 
attractive incentives to particular senior professors to induce 
them to stay. 

Professor Kirsch asked Professor Gupta if his Committee had 
done the costing to determine if this plan would be financially 
advantageous to the University. Professor Gupta replied that that 
would be a major project which could not be undertaken solely by 
the Committee because it would require the involvement of many 
other groups. Professor Kirsch responded that he thought such a 
study should precede this resolution. 

Professor Eftis said he found some ambiguities in the 
resolution. Since there is no mandatory age limit for retirement, 
any time a person chooses to retire is voluntary retirement. He 
asked whether there would be any financial incentives for a faculty 
member who decided to retire at 77 years of age, for example. 
Professor Gupta responded that that person could ask the 
administration what kind of retirement package would be available 
to him or her. 

Professor Griffith said that he thought this resolution was 
unclear as to what extent it intended to endorse the current policy 
with respect to retirement, as reflected in the Faculty Handbook , 
and to what extent it was asking for a change in current policy. 
He pointed out, for example, the current policy provides that 
retirement options be available at age 55 after completing 20 years 
of full-time service or age 60 after completing 10 years of full- 
time service; but the resolution in Item 2 changes the 10 years of 
full-time service to 15 years. Professor Griffith said that it is 
already the case that all faculty members have a voluntary oppor- 
tunity to make an irrevocable decision to retire from active 
service, and that incentives, such as post retirement part-time 



Faculty Senate Minutes - September 9, 1994 


Page 3 


teaching opportunities, office space, etc. , are considered. He 
said it seemed to him that what is really being asked for are 
enhancements to faculty who retire before the age of 65. Professor 
Griffith said that he thought the resolution needed to be much 
clearer in what it was asking the Senate to do. 


Professor Gupta, responding to Professor Griffith's question 
about Item 2 of the resolution, noted that the number "15” was a 
typographical error, and that the number "10" was the correct 

figure. 


Professor Gupta said that he agreed with Professor Griffith s 
suggestion that enhancements should be offered to faculty who 
re tire before the age of 65. Professor Gupta then moved that the 
Fifth RESOLVING Clause be amended by substituting the word 
"enhancing" for the word "providing" in the first sentence, so that 
the same would read: "(5) That consideration be given to 
enhancing post retirement part-time teaching opportunities , office 
space, computer and library facilities, continued health insurance 
premiums and reimbursements for financial planning services to the 
retiring faculty." The motion was seconded. 


Vice President French said that the difficulty in listing 
several items for enhancements in one clause is that some of these 
now exist. For instance, office space has been dedicated by some 
schools for emeriti faculty; general library privileges including 
electronic access, are provided. On the other hand, Vice President 
French said that he did not think that departments should be bound 
to invite all retired faculty to continue teaching as a 
possibility. Vice President French said that there were a number 
of factors which were not taken into account in this resolution. 


The question was called on the Gupta amendment, and the 
amendment was adopted unanimously . 

Professor Kahn indicated that he did not agree with the 
specific language of the Resolution. For example, with reference 
to the Third RESOLVING Clause, Professor Kahn said that he regarded 
a lump sum severance bonus as an extraordinary limitation, and not 
a sensible one in view of our tax codes. A payment to be 
negotiated between the individual faculty member and the 
administration was really not a stipulation, and should not be left 
entirely open to an individual negotiation in each case. He said 
he did not think the full Senate was the place to wordsmith 
particular phrases, and he, therefore, moved that the resolution be 
recommitted for clarification. The motion was seconded. 


Professor Pelzman spoke in support of the motion to recommit 
because he had tried himself to figure out exactly what this 



Faculty Senate Minutes - September 9, 1994 


Page 4 


resolution meant in terms of dollars and cents. He said that the 
Senate needed to consider what the objectives are of an early 
retirement scheme. If it is to encourage people at the last stage 
of their very productive careers to exit gracefully, that was one 
thing, but if it is providing incentives to faculty to "steal" from 
the system by doing their twenty years and then taking a very large 
ticket out of this big window, that would cost the University a 
fortune that probably would come out of faculty salaries 
ultimately. 

Professor Mitchell said he also supported the motion to 
recommit. He said that an early retirement system ought to include 
a balance of two factors. One is to show compassion to senior 
faculty who are perhaps leaving the University and to free up 
University resources to enable it to hire younger, first - rate 
faculty, and, secondly, an early retirement system cannot be 
developed without numbers. 

Professor Gupta spoke against the recommitment because the 
Committee was not equipped to carry out the kind of analysis that 
would provide the specific numbers the Senate wished to have. He 
said that the Committee did attempt to use all kinds of numbers, 
but it turned out that the administration was not willing to be 
tied down to any numbers, so the Committee decided to bring the 
resolution to the Senate without any numbers. 

Professor Kirsch and Professor Griffith both recommended that 
the resolution be recommitted to the Committee with instructions to 
the Committee that it request that a Task Force be established to 
make a financial analysis of data that is necessary to develop an 
early retirement plan so that everybody will know what the options 
are. 


The question was called on the motion to recommit, and the 
motion was adopted. (Resolution 94/1 is attached.) 


INTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTIONS 

No resolutions were introduced. 

DISCUSSION OF ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON FISCAL PLANNING AND 
BUDGETING FOR AY 1993-94 

On behalf of the Committee on Fiscal Planning and Budgeting, 
Professor Pelzman, Chair, gave a brief outline of the components of 
the Report. He reported that the Committee Report was composed of 
two major portions. The first lists a number of basic facts with 
which the faculty should become familiar. The second reports on 



Faculty Senate Minutes - September 9, 1994 


Page 5 


the current status of faculty participation in the budget planning 
process. It concludes that "at best" this participation is still 
at its early developmental stage. As far as the key data points 
are concerned, the Committee wished to stress that the University 
is a tuition - dependent institution. He pointed out that most of 
the n um bers in the Report reflected real 1988 dollars that have 
been adjusted for inflation. He said that real undergraduate net 
tuition revenue, adjusted for inflation, declined between 1988-93. 
Currently, the administration was projecting student enrollment 
where tuition would increase and undergraduate enrollments would 
remain constant or increase despite the increase in tuition. The 
assumptions behind these projections need to be discussed. Another 
area of interest was the disparity in actual tuition payments 
between graduate and undergraduate students . Undergraduate student 
revenues are discounted at a much higher rate than graduate 
tuition. This shifts the burden of rising tuition revenue to 
graduate students away from undergraduate students. The fact that 
graduate students were also being shortchanged with respect to poor 
library facilities and other resources made the tax burden on 
graduate students even larger . Keep in mind that expenditures on 
library services have been declining since 1988. This is another 
issue that the faculty should be concerned with. 

Professor Pelzman then expressed his thanks to Vice President 
Katz and his staff who were very helpful in providing data to the 
Committee. He noted that Professor Griffith and Professor Solomon, 
both members of the Fiscal Planning and Budgeting Committee, were 
present, and that he and Professors Griffith and Solomon would be 
happy to answer any questions. 

Professor Kirsch expressed his concern about the University's 
ability in the future to carry out its programs and policies, given 
the decline in tuition revenue in real dollars. Professor Pelzman 
replied that the component that is generating the decline in real 
revenue was the discretionary discount factor — the degree to 
which tuition for undergraduates was being discounted. He said 
that there was a level beyond which discounting would not provide 
any additional improvement in the student characteristics. The 
discount factor can be lowered, he said, but then the character- 
istics of the incoming student body will change. Professor Pelzman 
said he understood that the discount factor was not planned to 
increase above 42% for 1994-95. 

Professor Gupta asked if the discount in the future would be 
lowered or remain the same. President Trachtenberg replied that 
the intention, obviously, was to reverse the negative trend, but 
we live in a contingent world. The administration is looking at 
several alternative goals at the same time. One was to bring in a 
quality of student body that would be challenging for our faculty. 


Faculty Senate Minutes - September 9, 1994 


Page 6 


We need the faculty for the students, we need the students for the 
faculty, and we need to be able to pay the one group and to some 
extent for the other group. And hopefully, he said, a sufficient 
number of the student body is paying enough of the posted price 
that it all works out positively at the end. The President said 
that The George Washington University is in the black and is a 
financially healthy institution, and that the discount factor was 
but one snapshot for one portion of a large and complicated budget. 
Professor Carson commented that, as Chair of the Committee on 
Admissions Policy, Student Financial Aid, and Enrollment Management 
last year, the Committee noted that the monies being spent had 
worked very effectively. The President agreed. He thanked 
Professor Carson for that endorsement. He further replied that he 
was going to appoint a Presidential Commission to study the 
question of enrollment — what size undergraduate population we 
wanted and how we wanted them distributed, and what size graduate 
population we wanted, as the University was moving more and more 
into a mode of full-time graduate students. He said that all of 
these issues needed to be looked at within the context of 
residential facilities, recreational facilities, and academic 
facilities such as the architecture of our classrooms. He said the 
University at the present time was very well-positioned, but there 
was a lot of work to be done in trying to figure out how to 
maneuver ourselves from where we stand now into the 21st Century. 

A discussion followed by Professors Eftis, Pelzman, Mitchell, 
and President Trachtenberg. 

Professor Griffith commended Professor Pelzman for his 
leadership as Chair of the Fiscal Planning and Budgeting Committee 
which worked very hard in order to bring this Report to the Senate. 
Noting that the President rightly called attention to the fact that 
University is not in a financial deficit, Professor Griffith said 
he thought it was the responsibility of the faculty to watch out 
for what might be called "academic" deficits. If one looks at the 
ways in which the revenue lines play out, one can observe changes 
in the kinds of students we are attracting, e.g. more full-time 
graduate students, and undergraduates with higher SAT's, class 
rankings, etc. And this raises questions for faculty about whether 
we are able to deliver academically what these students need. For 
example, when we bring in these overflowing classes, we are forced 
to hire more and more part-time faculty, and that may create a kind 
of "academic deficit." Further, it is distressing to see that as 
the University gets more academically demanding students, and 
becomes even more revenue dependent on its graduate students, it is 
simultaneously decreasing its proportionate funding for the 
Libraries. There are other indications as well of the low priority 
accorded the Libraries by this Administration. For example, the 
University was willing to impose a fee on the student body to build 



Faculty Senate Minutes - September 9, 1994 


Page 7 


a Wellness Center, but it made a contribution for libraries a 
voluntary, not standard, fee. And further, it has been two years 
since the resignation of the University Librarian and we still have 
an Interim Librarian. Professor Griffith said that if one looks at 
how the Library, as a central part of the University, is treated, 
it shows it is not treated nearly as well as it should be. He said 
he hoped the Fiscal Planning and Budgeting Committee would work 
with the Libraries Committee to develop some targets as to what the 
funding for the Library ought to be. 

Responding to Professor Griffith's remarks, the President said 
that the University does need to invest more money in the Library 
and that additional funding is contemplated. He said that the 
student body, during the seven years he has been here, has either 
declined in number or remained flat while the faculty has grown 
during same period. The increase in freshman students this year 
was not a calculated outcome. President Trachtenberg said it was 
the administration's intention next year to be even more stringent 
in the University's admissions standards to bring in a freshman 
class that is closer to the intended target because the admini- 
stration is even more concerned than the faculty, if that is 
possible, about maintaining GW's reputation for quality instruc- 
tion. He said the administration did not want to erode the 
accomplishments the University has made in its student-faculty 
ratios. 

Professor Robinson asked the President what the administration 
was planning with regard to the Library. The President replied 
that an emergency appropriation in the amount of $250,000 had 
already been made to the Library in anticipation of the 1994 
freshman class. Additionally, when the administration knows 
exactly what the enrollment figure is and can determine what 
resources are available, then, he said, it would be possible to sit 
down with the academic administrators to discuss the best way of 
investing those resources in the enhancement of the institution. 
One target of that investment is the Library. 

Professor Pelzman asked the privilege of the floor for 
Professor Henry Solomon. 

Professor Solomon said he wished to make a few comments 
related to Professor Kirsch's point about concern for the future of 
the University. In walking around the campus the past two years. 
Professor Solomon said he perceived a certain kind of hype, i.e., 
the University has all of these students, the tuition has been 
increased, and all the money is coming in. He said he thought 
there are certain questions to be asked. For example, if the 
University did increase the tuition but did not give 42% financial 



Faculty Senate Minutes - September 9, 1994 Page 8 

assistance, then there would be more money for the institution. 
Professor Solomon said that, in terms of money, this question is 
important because the University is forgoing income. What that 
means for the future is unknown, but it was important to know the 
reality of what is happening here and what the tradeoffs are. 

Further discussion followed by Professors Solomon, Englander, 
Pelzman, and President Trachtenberg. 

GENERAL BUSINESS 

I . NOMINATION FOR ELECTION OF FACULTY TO S ENATE STANDING 
COMMITTEES 

On behalf of the Executive Committee, Professor Robinson moved 
the nominations of the following faculty: Professors Stuart 

Umpleby and James Dinwiddie to the Faculty Development and Support 
Committee; Professor Robert Goulard to the Libraries Committee; 
Professor Arthur D. Kirsch to the Appoint ment. Salary and Promotion 
Policies committee : and Professors Barbara D. Miller and Anthony M. 
Yezer to the Fiscal Planning and Budgeting Committee . The nominees 
were elected unanimously. 


II. REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 

The Report of the Executive Committee by Professor Robinson, 
Chair, is enclosed. 

III. ANNUAL REPORTS OF SENATE STANDING COMMITTEES 

Annual Reports from the following Senate Committees had been 
received during the summer and distributed with the agenda for this 
meeting: Committee on Admissions Policy, Student Financial Aid, 

and Enrollment Management; Joint Committee of Faculty and Students; 
and Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate, together with 
Administration Response to Resolutions from the Faculty Senate 
1993-94 Term. 

Professor Carson, Chair, Committee on Admissions Policy, 
Student Financial Aid, and Enrollment Management, noted that the 
Committee was very impressed by the amount of work and strategic 
planning the administration put into undergraduate enrollment; 
however, he urged the administration to do the same for graduate 
enrollment. 

Vice President French pointed out that the University has 
increased financial aid considerably to graduate students, and that 



Faculty Senate Minutes - September 9, 1994 


Page 9 


the University's aid "packages" are increasingly competitive. He 
said that the Presidential Commission intends to study graduate and 
undergraduate profiles and objectives in a way that he thought 
would be reassuring to faculty . 


BRIEF STATEMENTS (AND QUESTIONS) 

President Trachtenberg said that he wished to thank Debbie 
Masters for the fine work she has done as Interim Librarian for the 
past two years . He noted that a Search Committee is recruiting 
candidates for the position of University Librarian, and that he 
was pleased Ms. Masters is one of those candidates. He hoped that 
the University would have a Librarian appointed by January 1st, and 
at that point consultation with the Librarian about long term 
investing of money in the Library will transpire. 

With reference to the 1993-94 Annual Report of the Committee 
on Admissions Policy, Student Financial Aid, and Enrollment 
Management, Dean Salamon said she wished to note some incorrect 
information contained in the concluding paragraph on Page 2 of the 
Report. A statement is made that budgets for GTF/GTA support 
appeared too late to offer them for prospective Ph.D. students. 
Dean Salamon said that her office received preliminary 
announcements last year no later than December 15th, and firm 
confirmation of what her GTA budgets would be no later than 
February 1st. She said that she acted on that basis and she was 
very pleased with it, and that the central office did not make a 
mistake. 

Professor Kirsch said he wished to compliment the Gelman 
Library for making available a service called "UnCover Reveal," 
which provides access to journals through the convenience of a 
personal E-mail account. This service allows individual users to 
set up their own profiles and he urged the faculty to take 
advantage of this service. 

ADJOURNMENT 


Upon motion made and seconded, 
adjourned the meeting at 3:50 p.m. 


President Trachtenberg 



J. Matthew Gaglione 
Secretary 



[Any inquiries about this resolution should be directed to Professpr 
Murli M. Gupta, Chair of the Committee on Faculty Development and Support 
4-4857. J 


A RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT 

OPPORTUNITIES AND INCENTIVES TO FACULTY (94/1) 


WHEREAS, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act precludes 
any fixed age retirement for the University faculty; and 

WHEREAS, it is in the mutual interest of both faculty and the 
University that faculty members retire before their teaching and 
research effectiveness becomes compromised; and 

WHEREAS, it" is important to the academic, freedom of all 
faculty that changes in the U.S. law not result in a weakening of 
the tenure system; and 


WHEREAS, it is important that individual, faculty members 
voluntarily determine when they wish to discontinue their active 
service at the University; NOW THEREFORE 

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE FACULTY SENATE OF THE GEORGE WASHINGTON 
UNIVERSITY 


(1) That all faculty members have a voluntary opportunity to 
make an irrevocable decision to retire from active service; and 

(2) That the voluntary retirement option be available to all 
faculty at age 55 after completing 20 years of full time service or 
at age 60 after completing^- years of full time service; and 

(3) That the voluntary retirement option be accompanied by a 
financial incentive in the form of a lumpsum severance bonus to 
negotiated between, the individual faculty member and the 
administration; and 

(4) That the administration consider providing a Partial 
retirement option prior to or in con;)unction with the voluntary 

retirement; and 

(5) That consideration be given to/fSSSS& ^^outtr^and 
nart-time teaching opportunities, office space, computer and 
library^f abilities , continued health insurance !*-«««£ 
reimbursements for financial planning services to the retiring 

faculty; and 

(6) That a voluntary retirement option be made available and 
known to the faculty of the University. 



Committee on Faculty Development and Support 
Approved April 19, 1994 


Recommitted, 9/9/94 



REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 
SEPTEMBER 9, 1994 

PROFESSOR LILIEN F. ROBINSON, CHAIR 


On behalf of the Executive Committee, I would like to 
report on the following matters. 


I. GRIEVANCES 

(1) The Executive Committee appointed Professor Robert Park 
of the National Law Center as Special Mediator in a grievance from 
the School of Medicine and Health Sciences. 

(2) A grievance from the School of Education and Human 
Development, previously reported upon, continues in the formal 
grievance stage. 

(3) In a grievance from the School of Engineering and Applied 
Science, the Executive Committee has appointed Professor Carol 
Izumi of the National Law Center, as Special Mediator. 

II. NONCONCURRENCES 

(1) An administrative nonconcurrence in Columbian College and 
Graduate School of Arts and Sciences was received by the Executive 
Committee this past May. A hearing was held by the Executive 
Committee; the case is currently in progress. 

(2) Three potential nonconcurrences in the School of Medicine 
and Health Sciences were received by the Executive Committee during 
the spring and summer. Two of these cases have been resolved; the 
third is still pending. 

III. UPDATE ON DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVE APPEALS PROCESS FOR 

HANDLING NONCONCURRENCES 

Work on the matter of an alternative appeals process for 
handling nonconcurrences was continued over the summer. The 
following changes were made to the membership of the Ad Hoc 
Committee. Professor Kahn, Chair of the Professional Ethics and 
Academic Freedom Committee, and Professor Lobuts, member of the 
same Committee, were appointed to replace Professor Cohn and 
Professor Henig, both of whom are no longer members of the PEAF 
Committee. The Executive Committee also appointed Professor 
Pelzman to replace one of the Executive Committee representatives. 
Professor Holmes, who is no longer a member of the Executive 
Committee, and Professor Harrington who replaced Professor 
Johnston, who resigned his position. 



Report of the Executive Committee, September 9, 1994 


Page 2 


Currently, the Ad Hoc Committee, in concert with the Executive 
Committee, is in the process of framing a response to a memorandum 
recently received from Vice President French. I anticipate that we 
will be providing a full report on the above at the October 
meeting. I am hopeful that we will also have a resolution with 
respect to an alternative appeals process for handling 
nonconcurrences at that time. 


IV. ANNOUNCEMENTS 

(1) The President has responded to Faculty Senate Resolutions 
of the 1993-94 Session. Received on August 22, 1994, this document 
was distributed with the Faculty Senate agenda. 


(2) An updated membership list of Senate Standing Committees 
will be distributed with the minutes. This list will reflect any 
changes in the membership since May, 1994. 


(3) The next meeting of the Executive Committee is Thursday, 
September 22, 1994, to set the agenda for the October 14th Senate 
meeting. Please note that any items of business for the Senate 
agenda should be received by the Executive Committee before 

September 22nd. 


Thank you. 



THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY 
Washington, DC 


The Faculty Senate 


August 29, 1994 


The Faculty Senate will meet on Friday, September 9, 1994 at 
2:10 p.m. in Lisner Hall 603. 


AGENDA 


1. Call to order 

2. Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of May 5, 1994 

3. Resolutions: 

A RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT OPPORTUNITIES AND 
INCENTIVES TO FACULTY (94/1) with accompanying Report; Professor 
Murli M. Gupta, Chair, Faculty Development and Support Committee 
(Resolution 94/1 with Report attached) 

4 . Introduction of Resolutions 


5. Discussion of Annual Report of the Committee on Fiscal Planning and 
Budgeting for AY 1993-94; Professor Joseph Pelzman, Chair, Fiscal 
Planning and Budgeting Committee (Report previously distributed 
with the May 5, 1994, Senate minutes) 

6. General Business: 

(a) Nomination for election of the following faculty to 

Senate Standing Committees: Professors Stuart Umpleby and 

James Dinwiddie to the Faculty Development and Support 
Committee ; Professor Robert Goulard to the Libraries 
Committee ; Professor Arthur D. Kirsch to the 
Appointment. Salary and Promotion Policies Committee; 
and Professors Barbara D. Miller and Anthony M. Yezer 
to the Fiscal Planning and Budgeting Committee 

(b) Report of the Executive Committee: Professor Lilien 

F. Robinson, Chair 

(c) Annual Reports (1993-94 Session) : Committee on Admissions 

Policy, Student Financial Aid, and Enrollment Management; 
Joint Committee of Faculty and Students; and Executive 
Committee of the Faculty Senate, together with Administration 
Response to Resolutions from the Faculty Senate-1993-94 
Term (Reports attached) 

7. Brief Statements (and Questions) 

8 . Ad j ournment 




[Any inquiries about this resolution should be directed to Professor 
Murli M. Gupta, Chair of the Committee on Faculty Development and Support 

4-4857.] 


A RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT 

OPPORTUNITIES AND INCENTIVES TO FACULTY (94/1) 


WHEREAS, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act precludes 
any fixed age retirement for the University faculty; and 

WHEREAS it is in the mutual interest of both faculty and the 
University A that faculty members retire before their teaching and 
research effectiveness becomes compromised; and 

whereas it is important to the academic freedom of all 
facul” teat' changes in the O.S. law not result in a weakening of 

the tenure system; and 

whfrfas it is important that individual faculty members 
voluntarily 3 determine when they wish to discontinue their active 
service at the University; NOW THEREFORE 

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE FACULTY SENATE OF THE GEORGE WASHINGTON 
UNIVERSITY 

(1) That all faculty members have a voluntary opportunity to 
make in irrevocable decision to retire from active service; and 

(2) That the voluntary retirement option be available to all 
faculty at age 55 after completing 20 years of full time service or 
at age 60 after completing 15 years of full time service; and 

(3) That the voluntary retirement option be accompanied by a 
financial incentive in the form of a lumpsum severance bonus ^to be 
negotiated between the individual faculty member and the 
administration; and 

(4) That the administration consider providing a partial 
retirement option prior to or in conjunction with the voluntary 
retirement; and 


(5) That consideration be given to providing post retirement 
part-time teaching opportunities, office space, computer and 
library facilities, continued health insurance premiums and 
reimbursements for financial planning services to the retiring 

faculty; and 

(6) That a voluntary retirement option be made available and 
known to the faculty of the University. 


Committee on Faculty Development and Support 
Approved April 19, 1994 



Resolution 94/1 


Faculty Senate Committee on Faculty Development and Support 


Voluntary Retirement Opportunities and Incentives 

The 1978 amendments to Age Discrimination in Employment Act raised the mandatory 
retirement age for college faculty from 65 to 70. In 1986, U.S. Congress passed further 
amendments that eliminated (“uncapped”) the mandatory retirement altogether, effective 
January 1, 1994. Universities and colleges nationwide have been examining ways of 
responding to the challenge of no mandatory retirement for their faculty. At The George 
Washington University, the Faculty Senate made an effort in this direction by adopting 
Resolution 90/15 on April 12, 1991 that asked the Vice President for Academic Affairs to 
direct each school to devise plans to facilitate the voluntary retirement of senior faculty. 

In response to Faculty Senate Resolution 90/15, the Administration set up a Task Force 
on Post Tenure Evaluation of Continuing Faculty. The recommendations of this Task 
Force, though technically withdrawn, were the subject of a heated debate in the Faculty 
Senate during February of last year and resulted in the adoption of Resolution 92/4 which 
reaffirmed the principles of tenure and academic freedom, and rejected the imposition of 
additional peer review of tenured faculty; the Senate also opposed “threats or processes 
of harassment to ‘encourage’ retirement of faculty.” 

Early in the current academic year, the Faculty Senate Committee on Faculty 
Development and Support invited Vice-President French to discuss the issue of early 
retirement at GW and to begin a dialogue. Dr. French informed the committee that he has 
been talking to an average of 2 faculty members per month about early or partial 
retirement and that the University enters into about 8 such arrangements each year. The 
committee discussed the needs of the retired faculty, the vitality of existing faculty, the 
proverbial “deadwood”, and the nexus between “early retirement" and post-tenure 
evaluation. 

There is a widespread concern, nationwide, that with an aged, top heavy faculty, the 
younger faculty would have fewer opportunities for tenured positions fVoluntary Incentive 
Early Retirement Programs. TIAA/CREF Research Dialogues, July 1988]. It is of interest 
to note that in order to reduce the size of the government without resorting to layoffs, the 
federal agencies recently began to offer a Voluntary Separation Incentive Payments 
(Buyouts) program that allows a federal employee of 12 months service the lesser of 
$25,000 or his/her severance pay entitlement [ Washington Post, March 28, 1 994, p. A1 9]. 

The Committee met several times to consider the incentives for voluntary retirement of 
active senior faculty. The present practice has been that any faculty member may 
approach his/her chair, dean and the Vice President for Academic Affairs (or the VPAA 
directly) to negotiate an early retirement package. The committee believes that there 
ought to be broad guidelines that are available and known to all faculty contemplating 


1 



retirement. It has been pointed out that many faculty members considering possible 
retirement would wish to maintain academic relationship with the University and would 
"ate The availability of office space, secretarial assistance and **"0 

privileges at better than the current part-time rates. The other wns deration is the 
possible transition from full time to part time status pnor to voluntary retirement. 

The Committee discovered that the University of Chicago has recently adopted and 
implemented a voluntary retirement plan that provides a “window penod” dunng which 
the eligible faculty members make an irrevocable decision to retire from active service 
and receive financial incentives based upon an announced formula. The Committee had 
access to the Chicago report, Report of the T ask Force on Faculty Retiremerg (November 
as well as the implementation documents dated July 2, 1993 tromthe University 
of Chicago It is felt that a comparable project at GWU could not be undertaken solely by 
ir ..mmittflp’ euch a Droiect would require much broader involvement of many other 
groups such as the ASPP Committee, Budget Review Committee, Administration and 
Board of Trustees However, the Committee is convinced that there is a need to have a 
voluntary, without coercion of any sort, retirement plan that is known and available to all 

faculty members. 

There is agreement that any retirement proposal should be voluntarily initiated by the 
facultv members Once a faculty member declares his/her intent to retire from the 
SSsE ! and negotiates and accepts a severance package, the intent becomes 
irrevocable. The present ‘early retirement’ policy at GWU allows a faculty 
at age 55 after 20 years service or at age 60 after 10 years service. The committee 

believes this should continue to be the policy for voluntary retirement. 

In recent years many faculty members contemplating early retirement have approached 
iTdminSon and woLd out individual packages of ^ems son,e ,nvo,v, g 
lumpsum payments and others providing payments spread over a ^ nur ^ be ^° f 
Committee knows of a number of cases where the recently retired faculty members were 
unaware that they could have approached the administration and worked out an individual 
package for themselves. The Committee believes that, in fairness to members 

the availability of financial incentives on voluntary retirement should be known to an 
facutty members. In fact, the present resolution merely recapitulates the present practice 
at GWU with one change: it alerts the taculty to their opportunities for negotiating a 
satisfactory retirement package for themselves. 

Under the new policy at the University ot Chicago, each faculty '^ n ? Q 

of the voluntary opportunities is offered reimbursements, up to _$3000, for rmancia 
planning services within 12 months of declaring their intent to retire. The Comrnrttee 
recommends that provision of financial planning services by an outside counsellor be 
considered as a fringe benefit for all faculty approaching retirement. 

Many faculty members approaching retirement wish to continue their teaching and/or 


2 



research activities at the university. For them it is important to have office space, and 
continued access to secretarial, computer and library facilities. The Committee 
recommends the university provide a central space, if not possible within departments or 
schools, for emeriti faculty. The possibility of providing part-time opportunities to the 
retired faculty should also be considered insofar they meet the departmental needs. 
Consideration should be given to provide such teaching opportunities at better than part- 

time rates. 


The continued availability of health insurance is an important factor in consideration of 
retirement by faculty members and their spouses. Under the new policy at the University 
of Chicago, the University pays lifetime premiums for each participating faculty member 
and spouse for university sponsored health insurance that supplements Medicare. While 
the enactment of Health Care Reform legislation may make this consideration moot, it is 
recommended that The George Washington University consider providing increased 
health insurance benefits to retired faculty and continue them beyond age 70. 

The George Washington University presently provides educational benefits to retired 
faculty members and their eligible dependents. The committee recommends that this 
practice should continue unchanged. 

The Committee also considered the availability of a partial retirement option prior to full 
retirement and recommends that GWU develop phased retirement policies that would 
allow the faculty members to declare irrevocable intent to retire after a number of years 
(to be negotiated between the faculty member and the administration). During the 
intervening years, the faculty members would continue to work at less than full time (1/2 
or 2/3) effort. At the end of the negotiated period of partial retirement, the faculty member 
would retire and be eligible to obtain the negotiated retirement benefits. 


Committee on Faculty Development and Support 
April 19, 1994 



1993-94 Annual Report 


Committee on Admissions Policy, Student Financial Aid, and Enrollment Management 


Introduction 

The committee met several times during the 93-94 academic year. The first activity was 
to understand the administrative structure dealing with admissions and financial aid. New 
to the related administrative structure this year are Daniel Small, Director Enrollment 
Management Administration and Donald Leaman, Associate Vice President for Research and 
Graduate Studies. We were unable to obtain any written documentation explaining the 
organization and structure of Rice Hall in these areas but obtained verbal descriptions of their 
activities from the persons involved. 

Based on these interviews and presentations it was clear that the committee name and charter did 
not correspond to the University's organizational structure nor the actual interrelationships 
between the areas of admissions, financial aid and enrollment management. Accordingly, a title 
change for the committee was proposed to the Faculty Senate and approved. 

Undergraduate Issues 

Overall, our impression of the undergraduate enrollment support was favorable. Certainly, the 
documentation demonstrates increasing SAT scores and strong enrollments for the University. We 
were surprised, however, by the lack (or unavailability) of a strategic plan for enrollment. While a 
comprehensive description of such a plan was presented verbally, it would be useful tor such a 
plan to be publicized to the faculty. 

We also noted, that where some individual Schools within the University had decreases in 
enrollment quality or quantity, some efforts were being made to focus recruiting to aid those 

schools. 

We were very pleased with the results of the merit scholarship programs. The extremely high 
retention rate for these scholars was very impressive. 

Graduate Issues 

The graduate admissions activity, unlike the undergraduate, is distributed to the various schools 
and colleges involved. The committee believes this to be appropriate although one of the end 
results of this distribution is less “attention” (and perhaps support) provided by the University for 
graduate programs. For schools such as SBPM, where a large percentage of students are graduate 
students and where the School receives a low return on its generated tuition, the lack ot a 
comprehensive graduate level admissioas and financial aid plan is harmful. It was drawn to this 
committees attention in Spring 1993, that the University, for the first time, had learned how and 
where money for graduate teaching and research support were allocated. 

Although the various colleges and schools seem well able to handle their admissions and recruiting 
process, graduate financial aid seems to be suffering a lack of “common sense from Rice Hall. 
The following portion is based on discussions with individuals in SBPM and may not be applicable 
elsewhere in the University. Departments in SBPM are being instructed to use their resources 
more effectively while at the same time, they are unable to provide the same level of GTA and GTF 



support as was done previously. One of the reasons for this is that the University is now treating 
GTA/GTA tuition stipends as “real money” where they apparently had not done so in the past. 
However, the result of this is that some departments will have to actually spend more money to 
cover laboratory sessions and recitations by hiring adjunct faculty rather than employing GTA 
support. While the University seems willing to employ merit scholarships to increase the quality ot 
undergraduate students, it is seriously neglecting the graduate area. GTF/GTA support is the most 
cost effective way to lure top quality students to the University and an extremely cost eflective 
method of providing teaching support tor undergraduate labs and recitations. Additionally, with 
budgets for these areas appearing so late, it is impossible to offer prospective Ph.D. students such 
assistantships in a time frame that will affect their enrollment decision. This area clearly needs 
additional support and some serious reconsideration by the administration. 


Submitted, 


John H. Carson, Chair 



annual report 

JOINT COMMITTEE OF FACULTY AND STUDENTS 
July, 1994 


in the 1993-94 academic year during the 

months ^o/september, 2^°^i t erbSwein J ?SrSudInt^n? , 'f a cSS 

a = d c^irs' and^everal^ember^shared^minute-taking. During the 

anemic year the following were the most salient natters brought 
before the committee. 

1. f-.d-nin Dishonesty. ££ 11 ^ thVwSrkTnTtiatS* 

committee) met frequently ^^^^^ diLussion of issues, 
in the previous year. There was^^mu ^ ^ r „^ a of student 

including the place of _ Morv incorporated a survey 

5X.Kfm£ ^To^L^ot “subcommittee Professor 

Kirkland and Scott Mory (May 1, 1994). 

ztzrjssssrsz. “ •“» 

academic year. 

o D a ,^ ou Prnrpss of Academic Pish 9 P?s£y. Related to the Academic 

agreed to the^mpora^ solutio n^proposed^ by ^ce Present ^Prenoh 

moanonsthilities. (See French's memo dated 2/14/94) it objected in 
principle to the manner in which the Board of Trustees made its 

decision 

Result of discussion. Yvonne Captain, faculty co-chair sent a 
response memo to Vice President French (3/30/94). However, the 
jCFS decided against adopting a resolution to protest the Board s 

decision. 


3. st inends and Award_s . The primary business of this ongoxng 
committee is to review the awards process in general and to 
determine the success of the student stipend awards that were 
instituted on a trial basis in 1990. In addition, a continuing 
concern among the student members of the JCFS is the understanding 
of how Student Leadership Awards are decided. 


Result. The Stipends and Awards committee will continue to meet in 
academic year 1994-95 to discuss the above. 


4 . Mission statement . A subcommittee met several times and 
presented its findings to the entire JCFS. After some revisions, 
the final draft of the Statement received approval and was 
forwarded to the Executive Committee via memo of February 25, 1994. 



Result. Final Mission Statement in hands of Executive Committee of 
the Faculty Senate. 

5. student involvement on Faculty Senate Standing Committees . Per 
Professor Schiff ' s concerns about lack of participation of students 
on his Faculty Senate committee during academic year 93-94, a 
discussion began on 1) student apathy on committees, 2) which 
Faculty Senate committees were best suited for student involvement. 

Result. A memo urging student involvement on Faculty Senate 
Committees was sent to the chair of the Executive Committee in 
August, 1994 

6. Dean's Search Committee . Interest in this committee did not 
continue from the previous year. 

Result. Due to lack of student involvement, this committee was 
disbanded. 

7. Continuity from one year to the next . It is apparent that one 
perennial concern for the JCFS is the issue of continuity — both in 
terms of the membership of the JFCS and with regard to various 
subcommittees within the JCFS. The lack of continuity has caused 
repetitions and reinventions of previous work. 

Result. LeNorman Strong has agreed to allow his office to serve as 
a repository for all records of the JCFS, dating back to the 
inception of this committee in 1970. Yvonne Captain is seeking the 
records of all past faculty co-chairs in tl.is effort. 

It is anticipated that the following will occupy the committee for 
the 1994-95 academic year: Academic Dishonesty, Stipends and 
Awards, Student Participation on Faculty Senate Standing 
Committees. 

* 

Official and ex-officio members who were active on the committee 
this year (attending at least three meetings or working on 
subcommittees) were: Jessica Arneson, Cheryl Beil, Yvonne 
Captain, Linda Donnels, Margaret Kirkland, Jeff Korte (for LeNorman 
Strong), Scott Mory, Joan Regnell, Sue Walitsky, and Harry Yeide. 


submitted by Yvonne Captain 
7/94 



ANNUAL REPORT OF EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE FACULTY SENATE 

1993-1994 SESSION 

The Executive Committee arranged the agenda for eight regular 
meetings of the Faculty Senate during the 1993—1994 Session. 
Additionally, it arranged one Special Meeting. A tabulation of 
resolutions considered and passed by the Senate is attached. The 
response of President Trachtenberg will be distributed when 

available. 

The Executive Committee referred a variety of matters for 
consideration and action to standing committees, including. . study 
of administrative operating and salary expenditures, review of 
University policy on "early tenure"; review of changes in the 
Medical Center's sabbatical leave compensation; revision to the 
academic dishonesty policy. The Special Committee reviewing Senate 
representation and terms continued its work. An Ad Hoc Committee, 
established by the Executive Committee, began the work of reviewing 
the role of Department Chairs. 

In June 1993, in accordance with the Faculty Code , the 
Executive Committee was notified of two administration 
nonconcurrences in the School of Engineering and Applied Science 
and one nonconcurrence in the Columbian College and Graduate School 
of Arts and Sciences. 

In the first case in the School of Engineering, the Dean 
withdrew his nonconcurrence subsequent to presentations by the Dean 
and Department to the Executive Committee. In the second 
Engineering School case, the Executive Committee advised that the 
Dean had presented "compelling" reasons and had provided 
"supporting reasons." The Department declined to withdraw its 
recommendation, and the case was forwarded to the Board of 
Trustees; the latter sustained the administration nonconcurrence. 

In the nonconcurrence in the Arts and Sciences, subsequent to 
the Executive Committee's recommendation that the Dean withdraw her 
nonconcurrence, negotiations between the Department and 
Administration resulted in a resolution acceptable to both parties. 

In May 1994, the Executive Committee was notified of one 
additional administration nonconcurrence in the Columbian College 
and Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. This case is currently 
in process. 

The Executive Committee received the following faculty 
grievances; two from the School of Engineering and Applied 
Science, two from the Medical School, and one from the School of 
Education. In each of the cases, the Executive Committee made 



Annual Report, 1993-1994 Session 


Page 2 


inquiries, and in four cases it appointed a Special Mediator. 

In one case in the Engineering School, discussions with the 
Administration are still in process. In the second Engineering 
School case, a resolution was reached. In one Medical School case, 
resolution was obtained, while mediation is in process in the 
second case. The grievance in the School of Education has entered 

the hearing stage. 

Over the course of the year, the . Chair of . the Executive 
Committee has also discussed potential grievances with ten. faculty 
members throughout the University. Some of these discussions are 

ongoing. 

Requests for advice/action forwarded to the Executive 
Committee during the 1993-1994 Session included the following. 


In a memorandum of April 29, 1993, Vice President French 
requested the Executive Committee's advice with respect to 
decisions on four faculty tenure recommendations in the School of 
Engineering and Applied Science. He indicated that., in light of 
the financial situation in the School, the Administration had 
concluded that it could not afford to grant additional tenure at 
the present time. Viewing any negative Administration decision. as 
a nonconconcurrence with faculty recommendations, the Executive 
Committee determined that it would be inappropriate for the 
Executive Committee to extend advice on cases that may come before 
it. The matter was reported at the May 6, 1993, Senate meeting. 
The Administration subsequently decided to gjrant tenure to all the 
faculty concerned. 


The Executive Committee received an inquiry from Professor 
William B. Griffith with respect to the existence of an 
Administration policy of financially penalizing academic 
departments found to have been at fault in litigation. Although 
the Executive Committee had a preliminary discussion of this 
subject with the Academic Vice President, a meeting with University 
legal officers is being arranged through Vice President French. 


The Executive Committee was notified by memorandum of October 
29, 1993, from President Trachtenberg of two resolutions passed by 
the Board of Trustees, changing the process for handling disputed 
academic dishonesty cases and disputed faculty personnel 
recommendations. Through these resolutions the Board indicated it 
would no longer serve as the final appeals body. 

The Executive Committee transmitted the resolution on academic 
dishonesty to the Joint Committee of Faculty and Students for 
response and recommendation, while bringing the resolution on 
nonconcurrences (disputed faculty personnel recommendations) to the 



Annual Report, 1993-1994 Session 


Page 3 


Faculty Senate. Responding to both substance and process (i.e., 
absence of consultation with faculty) the Senate reguested, by 
unanimous vote, that the Board rescind its resolution. That 
request, along with the Executive Committee's request for a meeting 
with the Board of Trustees' Executive Committee, was transmitted. 

At the invitation of the Chair of the Board of Trustees, 
Professors Gerald P. Johnston and Lilien F. Robinson made a 
presentation on behalf of the Executive Committee. 

On February 10, 1994, the Board of Trustees passed a second 
resolution indicating its desire to be removed from the 
nonconcurrence process and calling upon the Faculty and 
Administration to develop an appropriate process, considering all 
alternatives, except external arbitration. 

Accordingly, the Senate Executive Committee appointed 
Professors Victor H. Cohn, Jeffrey R. Henig, Dennis H. Holmes, 
Gerald P. Johnston, and Lilien F. Robinson to an Ad Hoc Committee. 
Vice President Roderick S. French appointed Deans Jack H. 
Friedenthal and Linda B. Salamon to the Committee. At the request 
of the Executive Committee, Vice President French joined the Ad Hoc 
Committee. 

The Ad Hoc Committee has held five meetings, two of which were 
also attended by President Trachtenberg. 

Additionally, the Executive Committee arranged for a Special 
Senate Meeting on March 25, 1994, to obtain guidance from the 
Senate with respect to an acceptable process for handling 
nonconcurrences. The Senate took the position and reconfirmed it 
(April 8, 1994) by resolution that any final appeals process must 
end with the faculty. 

At the request of the Executive Committee, Senate 
representatives reported back to their respective schools, 
soliciting responses and suggestions. 

In view of the fact that discussions of the Ad Hoc Committee 
were still in process at the time of the last meeting of the 
Senate, the Executive Committee of the Board extended the deadline 
for submission of a report. It is the understanding of the Senate 
Executive Committee that the expectation of the Board of Trustees 
is that a report be presented for its October, 1994 meeting. 

The 1993-1994 Session of the Faculty Senate has considered and 
dealt with matters central to the success of faculty governance 



Annual Report, 1993-1994 Session 


Page 4 


at the University. The Executive Committee is exceedingly grateful 
to Faculty Senate members and colleagues throughout the University 
for their hard work, dedication and support. The Committee also 
extends special thanks to the Faculty Senate Office and especially 
to Ms. Doris Trone for her effective and conscientious assistance 
in the work of the Senate. 


Respectfully submitted. 


Lilien F. Robinson 

Chair, Executive Committee of the 

Faculty Senate 


Members of the Executive Committee: 


John G. Boswell 
Mervyn L. Elgart 
Ernest J. Englander 
Robert J. Harrington 
Gerald P. Johnston 
Joseph Pelzman 

ex officio: 


Stephen Joel Trachtenberg, President 



FACULTY SENATE 


RESOLUTIONS 93-94 


SESSION 


1 . 


Resolution 

No. 

Date of 
Meetincr 

Title of Resolution 

Action 

Remarks and/or Committee Referral 

Qno'n q nf +- V3 Arlmi ni q -f- r* i on 

93/1 

5/6/93 

A Resolution on a Mandatory 
Mid-Semester Academic 
Warning System 

Adopted 

5/6/93 

. ! j 

93/2 

5/6/93 

A Resolution to Commend The 
George Washington University 
Men's Basketball Team 

Adopted 

5/6/93 


93/3 

5/6/93 

A Resolution to Commend The 
George Washington University 
Grounds Department 

Adopted 

5/6/93 


93/4 

12/10/93 

A Resolution to Recommend the 
Establishment of a Joint 
Faculty-Administrion Task 
Force to Assess the Long-Run 
Comparative Advantage of the 
Virginia Campus (Substitute) 

Adopted 

12/10/93 


93/5 

1/21/94 

(Cancelled) 

2/11/94 

(Cancelled) 

A Resolution on Grading 
Extensions? 

Resolution 93/5 (noted above) 

Postponed to 
2/11/94 

Postponed to 
2/18/94 

The January 21st and February 11th 
Senate meetings were postponed 
due to snow and ice storms; all items 
of business were postponed to the 
February 18th meeting. 


2/18/94 

Resolution 93/5 (noted above) 

Adopted, 
as amended, 
2/18/94 


93/6 

3/11/94 

A Resolution on the Active 
Participation of the Faculty 
in University Governance 
(Substitute) 

Adopted, 
as amended, 
3/11/94 


93/7 

\ 

4/7/94 

A Resolution to Change the 
Name and Scope of the Stand- 
ing Committee on Admissions 
Policy and Student Financial 
Aid 

Adopted 

4/8/94 

1 



( 


Resolution 

No. 


93/8 


9 3 /-9 


93/10 


FACULT^ ENATE 

RESOLUTIONS 93-94 


SESSION 



2 . 


Date of 

Meeting Title of Resolution 


Remarks 

Action Response 


4/8/94 


A Resolution on the Faculty 
Senate ' s Support for the 
GWU Green Model University 
Task Force 


Adopted 

4/8/94 


and/or Committee Referral 
of the Administration 


4/8/94 


A Resolution on the Process 
of Handling Administrative 
Nonconcurrences with Faculty 
Personnel Recommendations 


Adopted , 
as amended 
4/8/94 


4/8/94 


A Resolution of Appreciation 
for Professor Victor H. Cohn 


Adopted by 

Acclamation 

4/8/94 


Administration - Response to Resolutions from the Faculty Senate 

1993-94 Term 


Resolution 93/1: 

A Resolution on a Mandatory Mid-Semester Academic Warning 
System 

Response: 

Accepted and communicated to the Deans for 
implementation. 

Resolution 93/2: 

A Resolution to Commend The George Washington University Men's 
Basketball Team 

Response: 

Accepted and communicated to the Athletic Department. 

Resolution 93/3: 

A Resolution to Commend The George Washington University 
Grounds Department 

Response: 

Accepted and communicated to the Grounds and 
Maintenance Department. 

Resolution 93/4: 

A Resolution to Recommend the Establishment of a Joint Faculty- 
Administration Task Force to Assess the Long-Run Comparative 
Advantage of the Virginia Campus (Substitute) 

Response: 

Acknowledged; awaiting report. 

Resolution 93/5: 

A Resolution on Grading Extensions 

Response: 

Accepted and communicated to the Deans and the 
Registrar. 


Resolution 93/6: A Resolution on the Active Participation of the Faculty in 

University Governance (Substitute) 

Response: (1) Accepted with the understanding that the Faculty 

Code takes precedence over the ordinances or by-laws 
of an individual school which may be contrary to or go 
beyond Code. 



2 


(2) We understand this to be a procedural rather than 
a substantive change in that, in the past, the 
consultation requirements were satisfied by meetings 
and now would require a written statement with 
opportunity provided for a formal response. This 
formal response not to be unreasonably delayed or 
withheld. 


Resolution 93/7: 

A Resolution to Change the Name and Scope of the Standing 
Committee on Admissions Policy and Student Financial Aid 

Response: 

Noted. 

Resolution 93/8: 

A Resolution on the Faculty Senate's Support for the GWU Green 
Model University Task Force 

Response: 

Noted. 

Resolution 93/9: 

A Resolution on the Process of Handling Administrative Non- 
concurrences with Faculty Personnel Recommendations 

Response: 

A new proposal from the Administration will be in the 
hands of the Executive Committee before the first 
meeting of the full Senate. 

Resolution 93/10: 

A Resolution of Appreciation for Professor Victor H. Cohn 

Response: 

The Administration associates itself with the Senate in 
its sentiments.