University Senate
Date: February 26, 2010
To: The Academic Community
From: Sharon Pitcher, Secretary of the Senate
Subject: Minutes of February 1st, 2010 — Meeting of the University Senate
The fifth regular meeting of the University Senate was held on Monday, February 1st, 2010, at 4:00 p.m. in Rooms 314-315 of the University Union.
Vice President Sheehan
Vice President Rubin
CUSF - Professor Siegel shared that entrenchment plans should be developed with faculty input. Also, a report of salaries across campuses in comparison to peer groups has not come out and has been requested. Also, there are working groups meeting to work on policies to improve the status of graduate assistants and adjuncts. There are concerns about strategic planning and we are looking at the outlines to see if we want to add to the lists. The next meeting at University of Baltimore will have a panel discussion on collective bargaining especially for full time faculty. Members of CUSF have differing views on whether we should have collective bargaining or not. CUSF has concerns about Maryland not participating in Race to the Top. The Regents have approved the faculty awards suggested by CUSF.
AAUP – Professor Ballengee reported they hope to have a family leave policy to the Senate in March. Good attendance by faculty at the meeting to create this has produced a good document. There will also be a workshop on February 12th on a voluntary mentoring program. She requested that the senators make sure colleagues know about faculty elections coming up. Actual elections will be in March. Professor Siegel shared that graduate assistants at University of Maryland College Park are requesting a semester of maternity leave and this brought up the issue of sick leave bank whether we have them or not. Provost Welsh shared that she does not think we have any type of sick leave banks. Professor Vatz pointed out there are differences in what happens to faculty sick leave when they retire depending on retirement programs. Professor Siegel responded that we are still looking into both of these issues.
SGA – Jon Graf reported that they are working on Tiger Pride Day in Annapolis on February 17th. SGA finished the survey on academic advising and are working on looking at the results with the Provost. The Towson unified effort involving the Towson flag and colors is a big initiative this semester. The Smoke Free Task Force developed a plan of action, which the SGA has approved and is working on putting it in place. They are still trying to fill in student committee representative slots and asked senators to let them know where there are still openings. SGA is also working on the Haiti Fund effort and have some activities coming up. The Hot Cocoa Event will take place tomorrow. They also have a fine arts campaign coming up and their monthly report will be coming out this week.
Towson University Staff Council (TUSC) – Kay Kazinski reported that they had a successful collection drive for the House of Ruth and they will be repeating this again next year. They have brown bag sessions coming up, which will be on their new calendar. They are also setting up a web site where students and staff can submit ideas for budget cutting efforts. TUSC submitted 15 nominations for Regent Staff Awards and will be opening nominations for TUSC Care nominations soon.
Professor Sullivan suggested that the Graduate Studies committee proposed four plans, but suggested Plan 2 was their recommendation. Professor Zimmerman suggested that he did not like Plan 2, but preferred Plan 4. He thought this would be easier for faculty since this is similar to the undergraduate grades. Professor Pitcher shared that her department, which includes the largest graduate programs in the College of Education, preferred the first option that included the B- and C+. She suggested having +/- for graduate students’ grades was very important because so many of the graduate students were getting As, showing very little discrimination between a 90 or a 98. This would add necessary differentiation. Senator Cornwell, the Graduate Student representative, volunteered that the students he polled valued the +/- being given, but opposed the grade of B-. Many employers would not reimburse a B-. Professor Bergman also agrees that we need +/-. Professor Zimmerman proposes voting on the four different suggestions. Senator Cornwell shared that the MBA program already uses the A-/B+ option and he values that his 89 is recognized.
Professor Zimmerman suggested a straw vote on what plan we want to move forward since the Graduate Studies Committee suggested four options. There was some discussion that the MBA program already uses the Plan 2 and Professor Lawson suggested keeping the grading similar to undergraduate grading. Professor Ballengee asked whether this would affect accreditation and the Provost answered no. A straw vote was taken on the four plans. The majority voted for Plan #2., which includes an A- and B+. A motion was put forward to adopt Plan #2.
Motion 09/10-22 carried 22-2-1
New Business
“The Curriculum Committee shall have two standing sub-committees committees that handle designated curriculum matters and report back to the curriculum committee. These are the Course Approval Reporting Committee and the General Education Reporting Committee.
Both of these committees shall be composed of one faculty member from each of the colleges or schools with academic departments. These faculty members will be appointed for a three-year term by the University President, upon nomination of the President of the Faculty Association.
The non-voting ex officio members of the Course Approval Reporting Committee shall consist of a representative of the Provost’s office, a representative of the Registrar’s office and a representative of the Admissions office.
The non-voting ex officio members of the General Education Reporting Committee shall consist of a representative of the Provost’s office, a representative of the Registrar’s office, a representative of the Admissions office and a representative of Academic Advising. (Changes are in bold, italic type.)
The motion carried 24-0-0.
Professor Zimmerman clarified that since this is a by-laws change, it has to come to two Senate meetings.
4. Motion 09/10-26: To approve the statement on “Principles and Guidelines for Budget Reductions”. (Senate’s Resource Planning and Advisory Committee). Prof Knutson suggested often budget reductions focus on smaller programs like Dance, which financially may be more attractive in consideration for reduction, but brought special services or appeal to the university. She requests that we look at programs more as to what they bring to the university in national recognition or benefit to the campus than just size of the program. Professor Ballengee pointed out that this amendment addresses looking at larger items for budget cuts over academic programs, but she did agree that the language needed to be clarified. Professor Ewell suggested that programs themselves have to be considered over size of programs looking at the significance of program to the university and he does not see that in the document. He would like to see that included. Professor Bergman suggested reading the complete document does not suggest cutting small programs, but indicates that across the board cuts will seriously hurt the academic arms and suggested that some interpretations may be misleading. Professor Siegel suggested there are issues here that we are not considering, which are more profound and difficult, and we should table it. Motion to table passed 17-3-3
5. Discussion item: Access to campus buildings, mobility and safety across campus. Professor Cox explained an incident in Stephen Hall where there was no working elevator in the building the first week of class and there was no plan in place for students with physical needs to get to the third floor. A student in a wheelchair was not able to get to his class. This has been resolved for this student, but the process was very disheartening. She shared that as many of began discussing this incident, we realized that there has been other incidents like this. We are getting a reputation with doctors in this area as being not friendly to those with disabilities. Professor Tabak shared that some of the classroom changes on the first day of class were posted on the door of the classroom when the professor and students arrived for the class. She shared that in addition to students there are faculty with disabilities with offices on the third floor, which this impacted. The Provost explained that we changed the rooms immediately when we heard the elevator was not working. Professor Pitcher asked how the students were told. Professor Sullivan explained that the students were emailed. Lonnie McNew, Senior Associate Vice President in Enrollment Management explained when he was informed of the elevator situation, he tried to call the Disability Office. He was not able to get in touch with them. In this case we had to get a part from out of town to fix the elevator, so we made changes as quickly as we could. He suggested that we need more of a plan in the future. Susan Willemin from the Disability Office shared that they tried to move the class and it was suggested that they carry him up the stairs. She called the university counsel and Registrar’s Office and reluctantly the classroom was moved. There is not a plan in place. Mr. McNew explained the terrain of the campus makes this difficult. Ideally we would have another elevator, but this is not so easy. Ms. Willemin also shared that parking is being pushed out further to the outskirts of the campus so that this is increasingly difficult. Professor Sullivan shared that the university does need to look at this. Professor Pitcher explained that obstacles are constantly being put in the way of handicapped person navigating the paths near Hawkins Hall with the construction. That day a path was blocked at the end of the path to Hawkins Hall with the only way to continue was to go in the snow. A person in a wheelchair or on crutches would not have been able to proceed. We are being very careless about this and someone is going to get seriously hurt. Professor Knutson asked Ms. Willemin if we have anything in place to look at this more carefully. Ms. Willemin answered that we a disability advisory committee that is looking at these concerns. Presently we are handling the problems on a case-to-case basis until we can put a better plan in place.
6. Discussion item: The registration of Graduate students. Professor Pitcher shared that presently when a graduate student registers, they receive a bill that has to be paid in two weeks. She brought this up at the last Senate meeting, too. She cited the example of the Graduate Reading Program, which by the middle of January only had two to three students in a large percentage of the classes. Fortunately, the chair of the department decided to let the classes run, because all of the classes filled by the first day of class. This is causing many problems in planning. Vice President Sheehan responded that they are looking into this to extend the payment due date for students and the Provost explained that this is happening across the system. Professor Guerrero shared that undergraduate students in her program are complaining about this, too, and it is affecting field placements. Professor Lawson also explained that this affects salaries. Vice President Sheehan agreed to look into this and report back to the Senate.
7. Discussion of section XVIII (part A) of Chapter 3, Part 4 of the Faculty Handbook. Provost Welsh explained that everything in Chapter 3 has been approved but 18A. Professor Zimmerman suggested that the point most being objected to is the issue of the department representative being dismissed from the discussion of the candidate from the department. He explained that often the department representative explains crucial information that other members of the committee may not have. Professor Vatz agrees with Professor Zimmerman and believes doing this is not necessary. Professor Guerrero explains that the department representative often explains the fieldwork being done in professional development schools in the College of Education. Professor Tabok suggested that the documents submitted by the candidate should represent work in a written format so it would be understood by anyone to whom it was conveyed. Professor Maronick shared that the department representative often explains the department’s decision.
Provost Welsh suggested that this could be dangerous because the criteria should be very clear without questions that need to be explained and the department chair does write a letter that shares the department’s position. Professor Maronick responded that this gives too much power to the chair over the members of the department and the department representative view is very important for clarification.
Professor Ballengee shared that the National AAUP’s stance on promotion and tenure is that peers should determine it, and if you remove the department representative, you are removing the member closest to the candidate. She agreed that there is a danger in misrepresentative, but the danger is minimal in comparison to the role of that peer. Professor Siegel pointed out that the representatives are actually elected at large, our procedure is working, and she is not convinced that the change would be better.
Provost Welsh shared a new procedure from the College of Liberal Arts P&T Committee has put forward a similar resolution so there are others with this thought. Professor Siegel asked whether their college council approved this resolution. Provost Welsh answered that it has not been approved yet, because they are waiting for the approval of Chapter 3. She also point out that by the time the file comes to her office that the file has to speak for itself.
Professor Vatz shared that he has been on the College of Fine Arts P&T committee for many years and their system has worked well under the past procedures. Where he understands the concern, in practice, the department representative has added a lot to the discussion. There has never been a concern about the procedure. Professor Tabak shared that this issue has been a big concern for her, because she was against this before. She thought about this and the secret ballot as she reviewed past votes. She realized that the absence of the faculty member might have resulted in better deliberation. She also realized that the secret ballot would alleviate some other problems.
Professor Burke suggested that we delete item 6 from section 18A. A motion was put forward and seconded. Professor Siegel pointed out that although she supports this motion, a negative vote from the P&T committee should not result in the department representative being chastised. Motion carried 14-2-7.
Professor Siegel shared that she would like to support the secret ballot recognizing that prejudices might come out in public voting. We have to trust each other at the college level. Professor Bergman questioned that we are so concerned with the secret ballot when we are allowing outside assessment of faculty members without letting faculty see the evaluation. He pointed out that the importance of this document is to make the process more transparent. Provost Welsh suggested that we would put in procedures for best practices for this, but, in discussion with the deans, we are concerned if recommendations are shared with the candidate, many would not write the evaluations. Procedures for this will be developed and discussed more in the future. Professor Zimmerman agreed that a secret ballot is a better way to go. He thinks it is useful to get outside information, looks forward to seeing the best practices, but feels it is important that the candidate and department have a say in this process.
Professor Vatz disagrees with the secret ballot. He shared that he is against this process to vote someone out of their jobs without taking responsibility and that this is against the collegial process at the university. Professor Tabak shared that external review is standard process in her industry and recommended by their accreditation agency. Although it is very scary, it does push faculty to seek a national reputation. Professor Burks suggested that the University P&T Committee has the tedious job of comparing college and department documents to the university document. What is important by this document is that it establishes what can be done across the university and would like to see that the different disciplines have choices. She suggested a motion to be worded as a choice of secret or open ballot. There was no second.
Provost Welsh suggested that it is not meant to be a threat as much as it is intended to protect the candidate so the individual makes a careful decision. Professor Worgs agreed with Professor Vatz that the vote is public so everyone knows who votes what and we should have nothing to hide. He also worries that if we have external reviewers that it may have an impact on what people do with their careers and impact decisions of what we do at Towson. He is apposed to it, but thinks it would be useful to have voluntary comments. Senator Elfreth asked for clarification if what we are saying is we want to avoid group think and have committee members take responsibility for their vote. She asked if it is possible to find a happy medium between the two. Professor Webster shared in the past when they had a secret ballot, but then if the vote was negative, they were asked to justify why they voted as they did. They could then have another vote. This would avoid group think. Professor Sullivan suggested that we reconvene in two weeks with only one more point to decide since we are loosing people and this is too important.
The meeting was recessed and will reconvene in two weeks to discuss the other issues of Chapter 3. The meeting was adjourned at 6:20.
The Senate reconvened on February 15th.
Professor Sullivan reminded that the Senate that we were discussing Section 18 Part A of the Faculty Handbook and also we need to discuss some issues with elections. Professor Pitcher clarified that we still have the issues of the secret ballot and outside evaluators. Professor Sullivan added that we have not approved the whole section 18 and Provost Welsh clarified that we need to start with the secret ballot.
Professor Webster suggested that often this issue is a matter of what we are most afraid of: whether it is what we do under coercion or what we do in the dark and he is more afraid of the dark. Provost Welsh explained a situation where the senate voted in an open process and then they used clickers for the voting and it was very different. She suggested it could be a secret ballot where the ballots were signed. She pointed out that in these meetings we have associate professors and full professors sometimes resulting in a power structure and when it is an open vote, it is more apt to be a group think. Professor Vatz asked whether this meant that there would be a secret ballot, but the vote would be recorded as to how each person voted. The provost responded that she would prefer this to an open ballot. Professor Siegel clarified that this would be a secret, signed ballot. Professor Pitcher shared that when her college does a secret ballot that only the number of votes is recorded. She questioned what the purpose of the signed ballot would be. She was concerned when you have forceful members of the committee and the Dean as part of the discussion, the vote could be very different if each member gets to vote silently. The signed secret ballot could be better than out loud voting, but still puts the people on the P&T Committee in a very stressful position. Prof Zimmerman asked who these ballots would go to. Provost Welsh explained that the issue is who takes the responsibility. She suggests the ballots could be burned. Professor Zimmerman questions the validity of this and believes a secret ballot is the way to go.
Professor Knutson reflected that the issue is whether the vote will be politicized. She feels committee members need to vote honestly and this could be done better openly. Professor Ballengee shared that in the position that she is in she hears about situations of coercion and fear. Therefore, she believes that a secret ballot is important because it protects the faculty. Professor Zimmerman shared that he also heard similar stories when he was AAUP president so he agrees with Professor Ballengee. Professor Vatz shared when you have a vote that means someone’s job, a person can work for years and then a negative vote could occur. Professor Knutson shared that it seems to her that in light of what Professor Ballengee said there ought to be considerations for people that are suffering from this coercion. Professor Ballengee answered that there should be a committee in place to review all negative decisions. There is all kind of situations that can happen beyond what ought to happen and we need some kind of review for these situations. Trusting in our maturity to vote responsibly is the lesser evil than trusting those in power not to abuse it.
Professor Pitcher agreed with Professor Ballengee because those on P&T committees do take their responsibility seriously and realize that it is the person’s job on the line when they are making those decisions. Voting thoughtfully and responsibly is easier to do in a silent ballot then when you are in a pressure situation. Although what happens in the committee is suppose to be confidential, sometimes people do not take that seriously. So information does go out of the room and could go out wrong. Serving on the P&T committee is difficult anyway. If we do not protect them with the silent ballot, we are putting faculty in a bad position. Provost Welsh agreed that the confidentiality issue has to be taken seriously and when we find that someone does not take it seriously, it can be detrimental to the campus. She is concerned about the coercion issue and stressed that this is something else we have to deal with. Also, no one should go for six years as a tenure track faculty and be surprised by a negative vote. We have failed them if that happens.
Professor Tabak also questioned the confidentiality issue if people are signing a ballot. Everyone is going to ask why they are signing their name. Professor Cox shared that she feels lucky to be in a department that is fair and consistent, but she wants to remind everyone that the document that is before us, which is a long time coming, has many pieces in it that will make the process fairer and the candidates will have paperwork to question a negative decision based on the changes that we have put in place. She questioned whether the secret ballot is really that big an issue as a result of the other changes. Just by virtue of the paperwork that we have put in place, there should be a trail of documentation for a more open and accountable process.
Professor Webster explained that the problem is not whether the people on the committees act diligently. The issue is the individuals that may use the situation negatively. We also cannot assume that because it is okay in our departments now that it will be okay in the future. He would like some record of an individual’s vote. If he is in the situation that he is denied, he would like to be able to go back and find out what happened. There needs to be a paper trail.
Provost Welsh asked if there is record of the vote now and many responded no. Professor Siegel explains no matter what the vote reveals, the committee has to write a letter explaining the vote. The vote can also be done again so if a vote is very different than the discussion, it will need to be explain. She then feels better about making the ballot secret although it was different than what she is used to. Professor Zimmerman explains that the paper trail is usually very clear, but collegiality is often where the problem comes in and can be used by well meaning people blowing things out of proportion. This is where the paper trail fails. We have a legal responsibility to look at the collegiality so it is important, but we have to look at how it is handled. That is why he thinks we need to get rid of group think. Professor Slotkin suggests that if we are looking at the person who is denied tenure, we have to think if they have enough information and if we need to have signed ballots that are sealed in case they are needed. Professor Lawson suggests that collegiality should be addressed all along in the annual review process with documentation in their files.
Associate Provost Dennison reminds everyone that the third year review is in place to take care of the concerns that we are talking about. The faculty member will be told explicitly whether they are doing a good job and it should not be a surprise.
Professor Ewell moves that we modify #5 by retaining all the language, but inserting “signed” secret ballot that are retained for one year at the department level by the chair and on the college level by the dean. Professor Vatz seconded the motion. Professor Tabak does not understand the signed ballot because what additional information does this give except for coercion. We already work in the committee to clarify the vote in the letter and give feedback to the candidate about the vote. Professor Pitcher agreed and asked about how this would be used if a person is denied tenure. They could come back and coerce someone that voted against them. How would this be used? Again we have to be careful about the confidentiality. Provost Welsh was concerned about signing a ballot so the person could track down who voted against them. Professor Knutson suggested now that in an open ballot that we do not write down how someone votes and she also cannot see a purpose to this.
Prof Zimmerman shared he was against the signing and was for a secret ballot. He feels this idea is flawed and could cause all kinds of legal problems. Professor Vatz felt that to have colleagues vote secretly to have someone thrown out of the university is not something that he wanted to see done. Provost Welsh shared that no one vote will put someone out of the university. Professor Ballengee suggested that the secret ballot could be a vote to keep someone in the university.
Professor Ballengee then moved that we call the question. Motioned carried 15-0-0 to call the question. A vote was taken on the motion of a signed secret ballot that will be retained by chairs and deans. The motion fails 2-15-0. Professor Ballengee then moved that we approve the language in the document. The motion was seconded. Professor Knutson suggested that the department has the option to be transparent. Professor Ewell asked about whether this vote is to approve the whole document or #5. Professor Ballengee explains that having a consistent policy is important to protect those whose departments are threatening. When you get a number of responses like this, we have to protect our colleagues. Professor Knutson responded that if you are in a department that needs a secret ballot, they could advocate for that. Professor Tabak shared that there are some basic differences in documents because of professions, but the process should be consistent. Professor Vatz responded that he understands both sides of this issue, but believes in a university of colleagues that we should not have secret ballots. Professor Zimmerman shares that we need consistency. Professor Ewell asked to call the question. Motion to keep the language in the document of a secret ballot carried 12-4-0.
Professor Tabak asks what process this goes through after us. Provost Welsh explained it will go to the Attorney General’s office. Professor Ewell motioned that we vote on the Section 18. The motion carries 16-0-0. Professor Seigel asked about when the faculty sees the folder. Associate Provost Dennison replied that the faculty member is informed whenever something is added to the binder.
Motion 09/10-27: Library Representative on TEEB (AAUP) Professor Ballengee brought forward a motion that a library member is added to the TEEB. Motion is made and seconded. Professor Knutson supported this and Professor Zimmerman suggested that Dean Lorion needs to be asked if the College of Education agrees with this. Professor Ballengee will contact Dean Lorion about this for the next meeting and reminded us that this motion has to come to two Senate meetings. The motion carries 16-0-0.
Motion 09/10-28: Assessment Council Members (AAUP) Professor Ballengee brought forward that the Assessment Council is now appointed and chair of the council would like to have the positions turned into voted positions as the at large members are currently done. Associate Provost Dennison asked whether Eileen Trainer, new assistant vice president for assessment, was consulted. Professor Ballengee will contact her also before the next meeting. Motion carried 16-0-0.
Motion 09/10-25: To amend the University Curriculum Committee By-Laws - Professor Ballengee then asked for a second vote for the committee members on the Curriculum reporting committees. Professor Siegel questioned the way we are doing this because the reason for a second vote is so that it is made public to the university community, but in this case we will make an exception. Motion carried 16-0-0.
Discussion Item: Lecturer representative to Senate - Professor Sullivan then brought forward a discussion of having a representative of lecturers. Associate Provost Dennison then asks if we are doing this, then should clinical faculty also be represented. Professor Ballengee shared that we rely on lecturers and clinical faculty a lot on this campus so they should be represented. Professor Siegel asked whether they would vote. Professor Sullivan explained that we would have to change our constitution if we want them to vote. Professor Ballengee shared that she thinks College Park did add a lecturer. Professor Slotkins thinks we should also add adjuncts. Professor Siegel suggested that we should only consider full time faculty because those on the Senate should have a long term commitment to the future of the institution. Professor Pitcher suggested that lectures are very different in different colleges. In her college lectures may be working in PDS and doing different things and she feels the Senate representatives should represent all that are in the college. Professor Ballengee asked whether Professor Siegel could give a report on her work on the CUSF committee on Lectures. Professor Guerrero asked if Professor Siegel could also report on part- time faculty. Professor Siegel suggested that they are very different at different institutions.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:30.