University Senate

Memorandum

Date:   March 31, 2010

To:      The Academic Community

From:  Sharon Pitcher, Secretary of the Senate

Subject:  March 1, 2010- Meeting of the University Senate

 

The sixth regular meeting of the University Senate was held on Monday, March 1, 2010, at 4:00 p.m. in Rooms 314-315 of the University Union.

Provost Welsh

 

Professor Knutzon asked whether the students are counted for the census for living on campus.  Provost answered that they are counted as living in Maryland if they live on campus for Census purposes.  Posters are up in the resident halls to inform the students. Professor Gueerrero asked if that has any implications for in/out of state tuition.  Provost answered that this has nothing to do with tuition. 

Professor Vatz asked about inconsistent messages that faculty have received about the budget. He shared a message received by CoFAC saying there would be an elimination of 3/3-course load for anyone past their first three years or with administrative duties. Administrators have refused to give information about the budget. The chair of RPAC sent him an email expressing concern about the lack of information being given to them by administration. Provost answered that the email that was sent out about the 3/4 workload was not really a change.  Faculty do not automatically have a 3/3 teaching load, but have to prove a need. Professor Vatz responded that this was a major change without faculty input.  Provost Welsh answered that she called Dean Spicer about this and he responded that strong research was considered part of the workload. No one should be at 3/3 unless they can demonstrate that they are doing something to warrant a 3/3. Dean Lorion clarified that one of scenarios if we had more budget cuts that we may need to consider 3/4 load.  This is not a policy change.  This was just a “what if”. The deans and chairs are working on what is the most appropriate load.  The provost explained that we should be evaluating this every year and that a 3/3 is not automatic. Dean Lorion shared that Dean Spicer was surprised about this since it was an old email. Professor Siegel shared that new faculty are often given the wrong impression of what the workload is because they are told that they will get a 3/3 load for the first three years and that if they show scholarship, they will keep the 3/3 load.  We have been hiring some outstanding faculty based on this policy so we have to be careful with the message so we do not loose these good people. Provost Welsh explained that this is not a change.  The system still tells us that we are at a seven.  So if half teach six, the other half need to teach eight.  It cannot be across board.  We do have to make sure that we are clearly expressing the correct message. Professor Zimmerman explained that we were to come up a plan of policies for each department and these policies were submitted to the past provost and approved.  Provost Welsh responded that she found the plans and many were marked denied.  Professor Knutson questioned who knew whether they the plans were denied.  She developed the plan for her department and they have been operating under this.  She did not know though whether that was changed. Professor Zimmerman stated that the provost at the time came to this body and said the plans were approved.  We should have documentation to that approval. Professor Ballengee shared that the type of university we are depends on what type of workload we have and faculty are confused with this.  Are we a university that gets grants and publications or do we not have time for this?  What she hears from faculty is that they would like clarification on that. Professor Vatz offered that this was definitely a change in CoFAC, and that is how the dean put out the memo that this was a change in policy.  He stressed that we have to be consistent in this and decisions are being made without people knowing what is going on.

Professor Cox asked about the course evaluation sent to PTR&M Committee.  Provost Welsh responded that we are using this course evaluation form in 75% of the courses sections and if we put this up electronically, this saves money.  If everyone does their own, this is much more expensive.  We have to cut where we can.  The provost’s goal is to have one form with a certain amount of responses that were the same and a few others that were decided by the department.  She does know that this has to go through the PTR&M Committee and the Senate for approval. Professor Cox expressed concerned about the response rate online and how that will affect faculty evaluation.  Provost Welsh responded that most universities are getting excellent response rates online because grades are withheld for a certain amount of time if students do not respond to the online survey.  Professor Bergman, who represents the Senate on the PTR&M Committee, explained that use of this university wide evaluation started out as a pilot study and never went through the process of approval by PTR&M.  Now it is used by 75% of the courses and for the first time the procedures are going through the PTR&M Committee.  Provost Welsh responded that this has been a pilot study for over four years but over 75% are using it so it is beyond a pilot study. Professor Bergman responded that the departments were forced to use the form.  Many other members of the Senate reaffirmed that faculty did not have a choice in using this survey.

Professor Burkes, who is also on the PTRM committee, explained the following concerns of the committee: security of the online evaluation, forcing the students to take it by holding grades could cause psychological problems with how they fill it out, and concerns about the question of expense.  They do not understand how it would save that much money. Provost Welsh explained that the cost is for the cost of the forms and for the people required to process the scantron forms.  Professor Lawson asked about clarification of the workload documents. Provost Welsh responded that we need to look at this issue and she will work with the Deans to better inform everyone. We have to think about what workload is because it is not just teaching.

Vice President Sheehan

 

Professor Ballengee, AAUP - Within the next week they will be accepting nominations for committees.  The Spring meeting of AAUP will be the second Friday of April, April 9 in the Burkshire with a happy hour afterwards.  The meeting on mentoring has been rescheduled for April 16 with a happy hour following also at the Burkshire.  Professor Zimmerman asked about a mechanism to make sure that no one is serving on two university committees.  Professor Ballengee answered that it is online but there is not a mechanism that will do this so they just have to look at it.

Senator Graff, SGA - 90 students went to Towson Pride Day with one class participating, alumni, alumni legislators, vice presidents and some faculty.  Towson Hearts the Art campaign gave art supplies to some schools in Baltimore City. The new effort is the Towsonify Campus, the campaign to give the campus more of a Towson feel.  This could be new banners, possibly another new Tiger statue, and other ways we can make the campus feel more Towson.  SGA Elections happen at the end of April.  SAG has also been sponsoring many community service events so they are proud of the award that the university won.  Relay for Life will be at the end of the month on the 23rd. Everyone is welcome to participate.

Professor Siegel, CUSF – The February meeting was postponed and the panel on collective bargaining will be back in April.  Professor Siegel is on the Adjunct Committee, they will be working on bargaining issues, and they are looking at conditions throughout the country.  They are collecting retrenchment policies from all of the universities.  They are monitoring the legislature. House Bill 59 is on universal design and  a task force has been formed to determine how this will be introduced in schools and higher education statewide and preparing teachers to teach it. There were questions about what this was.  Professor Lawson shared that this has to do with handicapping conditions. Professor Siegel shared that it also has to do with financial literacy and interference about what is going on in schools.  Professor Siegel further explained about Bill 1369, which is to set up a task force to study standardizing introductory courses in universities in Maryland.  If anyone is interested in the legislative update, they can contact her.  Professor Sullivan volunteered that if she sent the update to him, he will forward it to the Senate.  Provost Welsh voiced concern about a bill for faculty and staff to pay half tuition instead of getting the full tuition benefit.  The concern is that this may not pass as a bill, but will make its way into the bud

 
 

OLD BUSINESS

NEW BUSINESS

Senator Davis encouraged everyone to participate in the library survey. 

We will reconvene on March 22.  The meeting was adjourned at 6:10.

 

The Senate reconvened on March 22 to complete the March agenda.

Roll Call: President Caret, Vice President Moriarty, Vice President Sheehan, Vice President Rubin, Vice President Brasington, Professor Guerrero, Senator Steinburg, and Senator Elfreth were absent.

  1. Grievance Policy: Professor Sullivan asked the status of the policy.  Provost Welsh responded that it has been re-worded by the university counsel and will be brought back to the April meeting. Professor Sullivan asked Professor Ballengee if the concerns of the Senate were addressed and she responded that they have.
  2. Motion 09/10-30: Primary Care Policy (AAUP) – Professor Pitcher commended AAUP on how well the policy was developed especially the research on other institutions.  Professor Cox pointed out that it only focused on new parents and that there are other concerns such as aging parents.  Many more of Towson faculty are dealing with aging parents than new children. Professor Ballengee shared that AAUP recognized this, but thought the best way to go about this was to start with something that is more familiar and a distinct amount of time.  At this time, we have nothing.  It would be best to start with something that can be measured. With aging parents, it is more difficult to determine time.  That is why they stated that this policy was step 1.  AAUP plans to develop another policy next fall to handle other cases.  Professor Cox pointed out this is beyond the requirements of unpaid leave.  She asked if this would be a paid leave for one year or was there was a time limit.  Professor Ballengee pointed out on page 5 that they do indicate the paid semester of leave was for one semester or a choice of part time status, which would be a year.  She also invited Professor Cox to participate in the development of the second policy. Professor Cox felt that both could be included in this policy. She felt it should not be limited at this time and that it would not make a difference what the care giving was for. Professor Ballengee responded that she would support this if it is possible for us to do this.  Professor Knutzon shared that she thinks the language could be changed to consider all circumstances for primary care leave.  Professor Sullivan then clarified whether what we are discussing now is that we would substituted the other examples in addition to new child on page 5.  Professor Ballengee suggested that we could designate chronically ill parents and spouses. Professor Zimmerman expressed concern for doing this and would prefer going with what Professor Ballengee’s original suggestion to take care of this now and handle the others later in another policy.  Professor Takak suggested the we have to look at policies to do this.  Professor Slotkin asked about who we have to sell this to.  He did not know what audience this should be focused to. Professor Sullivan suggested it would be whoever signs our paycheck. Professor Ballengee clarified that she would support including all circumstances and clarified that AAUP prepared the document for the Senate but she was not sure who the Senate would send it to, but suggested it may have to be all of the vice presidents and University of Maryland system.  Professor Webster also asked who this would be sent to.  Professor Zimmerman wanted to know what the boundaries of this would be.  If someone had ten children, how long would the tenure clock be extended.  Provost Welsh shared that some universities have clarified it to the first two children.  Professor Knutzon responded that it should be a time limit and not amount of children limit.  Professor Ballengee explained if we are considering extending this to other issues that we would definitely have to have a time limit. Professor Cox agreed that for the paid leave it should be a time limit.  Professor Ballengee clarified that some of these issues come up at the AAUP meeting, but they were not sure how to do this.  She agrees that we do need to restrict the time and work that language into this.  Professor Sullivan pointed out on the top of page 6 stating that they may or may not choose to stop their tenure clock.  He is concerned about how this would be interpreted, and in this way, it still could be misinterpreted.  He suggested that we write in that it is assumed that you would stop the clock.  Then they could choose not to do this. Professor Ballengee responded that what they came up with were choices so as not to obligate either way, they listed different options at the end of the policy.  Provost Welsh shared that Princeton found that women were still discriminated against so they then put in place a policy that made the  extension of the tenure clock mandatory with the addition of a child to the family.  Professor Maronick asked for some clarification of the issues because he was confused.  He suggested that we take one issue at a time.  Professor Siegel suggested that we follow AAUP’s suggestion that we accept this first and then work on the next document.  She felt that this was worked on so carefully with the wording chosen carefully.  That if we try to extend this to other issues that if might be sloppy. Then use this for a pattern for the next step. As far as the tenure clock, we should be talking about that issue because that is an important one. Professor Lawson asked about the time frame that we should be looking at.  Professor Sullivan explained that we do not have a time frame.  Since this is a policy that will require resources, we are just considering it at this time and then will have to decide where it goes next.  Professor Vatz agreed with Professor Siegel that this was so well written that we should go with this at first. Then he asked how much this would cost to the university. Professor Ballengee explained that it is hard to say the cost, but pointed out that there is a cost to the university if we do not do this.  We loose faculty if we do not do this.  Employees are more productive with this type of policy. Professor Zimmerman also supported going forward with this policy but suggested that we do need to add some time limits. Professor Knutson pointed out that we do have models such as sabbaticals on what it costs when someone is on some leave.  Professor Ballengee pointed out that even when we interview we are asked about our policies so it is hard to measure how we are considered without this type of policy.  Professor Siegel shared that she was very concerned about the one example where the faculty member was forced to take her sick leave.  This is not what should happen. She was also concerned about the time factor of how often a person can invoke this policy.  Professor Zimmerman suggested that the limit should definitely be on how much the tenure clock can be extended. Provost Welsh suggested that two extensions may be a good choice. Professor Sullivan pointed out that this could be added specifically to address the tenure clock.  Professor Cox asked about what the motion was.  Professor Sullivan clarified that the motion is for us to support the proposal starting on page 5.  Professor Vatz asked for more clarification about what we wanted to add.  Professor Sullivan explained that this would be adding two leaves before tenure. Professor Vatz asked about total times this could be done for paid leave.  Professor Sullivan suggested a friendly amendment to add clarification that two extension of the tenure clock be allowed. The provost then asked should there be a limit to paid leave. Professor Vatz then asked about the amount of leaves.  Professor Siegel suggested that we do not address that but just amend the document to include two extensions of the tenure clock. Professor Ewell asked about how we clarify “new” parents.  Professor Ballengee clarified that we are not talking about young parents but new for a “new” child. Provost suggested we clarify the language to say addition to the family of a new child.  She also pointed out that a new policy from College Park clarified that nine years is the maximum amount of years to go up for tenure. Maybe we should consider this.  Professor Knutson pointed out that for exceptional faculty without terminal degrees that ten years is considered.  She suggested that we should consider ten years to be in line with that. Professor Sullivan pointed out that we are blurring the lines with that.  He was reluctant to do this because that kind of formula is very complicated. We cannot write a rule that will cover everyone. Professor Vatz was concerned that when Professor Sullivan as chair makes this kind of interpretation than it is considered a decision.  Professor Sullivan explained that he was just giving his opinion.  Professor Siegel was concerned about using the term “entitled” and that there are choices. She was concerned about the language of  “must” extend the tenure clock and she felt it was not clear.  Professor Zimmerman prefers that they can opt out and the default is that you automatically take it.  Then the faculty member can opt out, but in this way newer faculty are not discriminated if they take the leave.  Professor Vatz responded that he does not feel that we should require someone to take leave. Then when someone does not wish to take it, they could be required to do it.  Professor Zimmerman remind Professor Vatz that we are talking about stopping the tenure clock.  Professor Ballengee agreed that this could be done with the tenure clock and that could be put in writing in this document, but as far as the leave the committee that wrote this felt that everyone should have a choice and that is why they gave different options.  Professor Slotkins pointed out that since other institutions do this default option, we should consider it, then we should put specific wording that those that take the leave should not be discriminated against.  Professor Bergman suggested that wording for the person to choose not to opt out of the extension of the tenure clock unless they specifically ask for it could be included in the language.  Professor Siegel pointed out that these should be two different issues and we have to make sure that timing is important so departments can plan.  We cannot build everything in this, but she liked the word “entitled” because they should be entitled to it.  Professor Bergman responded that departments have to deal with sickness often and they work with this.  Professor Manasse pointed out that we have to acknowledge flexibility, because even with babies often we cannot plan.  Professor Sullivan asked about calling the amendment.  Professor Zimmerman objected. Professor Lawson asked whether we are voting on this or voting to have AAUP bring back changes. Professor Ballengee replied that with the friendly amendment in place we are voting on it.  Professor Zimmerman asked about whether we had any changes about the default.  Professor Sullivan clarified that we did not change that.   Professor Ewell asked to call the question.  Professor Sullivan asked if there were any objections and clarified that we are voting to accept the proposal with a friendly amendment about two stops for the tenure clock.  Motion carried 18-2-0.

Professor Knutson asked what happens next.  Professor Sullivan explained that we will then send it on to the Provost’s office.  The provost responded that she has shared it with the university counsel and he has pointed out that there may be challenges for it to agree with system policy. Then she will bring it back to the Senate. Professor Knutson asked whether we should share this with faculty who are considering having children.  Professor Sullivan explained this shows what the Senates believes a primary care giver deserves and Provost shared that there is a desire to be a more family friendly university.  Professor Siegel requested that provost update us on the policy in May and AAUP begin work on the other policy.  Professor Slotkin suggests that we have to know if funding can be budgeted for this. Professor Ballengee shared that AUUP’s work on this was done and explained that AAUP will have meetings in September to develop the next policy and she invited anyone interested to attend. 

 

  1. Information Item: Terminal Leave Policy (Senate Executive Committee)  Provost Welsh explained that she worked with Michael Ansmaee on reworking this policy.  We need to do this because of the budget. Deans have made offers to senior faculty.  After retiring, they can come back and teach as adjuncts. Fourteen faculty have applied.  The president will make the decision. They will work through the end of this academic year, and will receive full pay through January 15, 2011, and we will replace them with junior faculty the following year.  Professor Sullivan asked whether these were distributed across campus.  Provost Welsh responded that seven came from one department. Professor Worgs asked about how these would be determined.  Provost Welsh explained that the criteria would be needs of the university.  Professor Anthony asked if this was going to be done over the next couple of years. Provost Welsh answered that it would not.  We are doing it this year because we needed the savings.
  2. Professor Siegel brought up issues from CUSEF about their work on adjuncts.  Part time, non-tenure track faculty are covered by the policies of the reagents and part of that policy is that these faculty will be part of the university governance.  She was not sure if we are in compliance with this. The working group of CUSEF is coming up with some ideas on how to include adjuncts in governance.  Professor Sullivan pointed out that the policy is on the website.  Provost Welsh asked about how we could consider adjuncts and not lecturers or other contingent faculty.  Professor Sullivan pointed out that we may have to re-write our constitution in the future.  Professor Knutson suggested that maybe we should make a public statement that we should include them, but we have to consider if they want to.  Professor Siegel pointed out that this is complicated and pointed to the example where UMUC pays adjuncts to participate.  Provost Welsh agreed that this is complicated, because if they are giving of their time, they should be paid.

We adjourned at 5:20.