University Senate Minutes for March 2, 2009
Memorandum
Date: April 3, 2009
To: The Academic Community
From: Sharon Pitcher, Secretary to the Senate
Subject: Minutes from the Meeting of the University Senate, March 2, 2009
The second regular meeting of the University Senate was held on Monday, March 2, 2009, at 4:00 p.m. in Rooms 314-315 of the University Union.
Prof. Sullivan called the meeting to order at 4:08PM.
ROLL CALL
Absent were Senators Jennifer Ballengee, Dan Brown, Judith Guerrero, Tom Maronick, Sara Nixon, Sharon Pitcher, Donn Worgs, President Caret, Provost Clements, Vice-Presidents Moriarty, Sheehan, Brasington, and Rubin.
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA:
-Professor Zimmerman asked to move Motion 17 to the April meeting.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE FEBRUARY 2ND MEETING:
-Motion by Professor Knutson; seconded by Professor Storrs. The minutes were approved unanimously.
Report of the Provost, Associate Provost Denniston:
Associate Provost Denniston reported that Provost Clements wanted to express thanks for everyone’s support.
In the recent Board of Regents awards, Towson received 4 out of 16 awards. Clarinda Harriss and Cody Sandifer won teaching awards; Mary Lashley won for Public Service; and Alison McCartney won for Mentoring.
Provost Denniston affirmed that there will be no enrollment growth, because Towson is receiving no enrollment growth money this year. Growth will therefore be limited to under 1.5%; Towson will therefore take in about 2500/2600 freshmen
There remain still a few PINs that haven’t been distributed; these will likely be filled temporarily in visiting assistant professorship
Chapter 3 of the faculty handbook is still in process. One holdup is that TU no longer has an ART policy, which it must have in order to be in compliance with USM policy. Professor Siegel asked if the policy would come forward to the Senate. Professor Zimmerman moved to reconstitute the subcommittee that reviewed Chapter 3 the last time. Professor Cox seconded the motion. The motion passed 15-0-1
REPORTS OF THE OFFICERS OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE
Prof. Sullivan noted that an additional faculty member will be added to the Student Appeals Committee. There was no objection from Senate to this. The Chair will ask the Student Appeals Committee to formally request a change in the Senate by-laws to increase the representation on the committee to nine from its current eight members. The intent of the change is to increase the probability of quorum at all committee hearings.
CUSF Report, Professor Siegel:
Prof. Siegel thanked Associate Provost Dennison for discussing the Board of Regents faculty awards.
Textbook issue: According to the new Board of Regents policy, all textbook orders must be in by May 1st ; failure to order books by this deadline is a violation of the Board of Regents policy.
AAUP Report, Prof. Durington (sitting in for Jennifer Ballengee):
The TU-AAUP General Spring Meeting will be Wednesday, April 22nd. University elections will take place right after spring break.
SGA Report:
SGA Elections will be held April 7th and 8th. The SGA is also working on speeding up the process of Committee Appointments. On the agenda is a Discussion item for the Student Honor Code.
NEW BUSINESS
Moved by Professor Zimmerman, seconded by Professor Bergman. Passed unanimously by the Senate, 16-0-0.
Moved to next Senate meeting (at the request of Prof. Zimmerman).
Moved by Professor Siegel, seconded by Professor Vatz.
Dean Exner spoke on behalf of the UPTRM committee. The question arose about what groups should be involved in editing a document when the revisions are substantial…what is the best and most efficient process for that to occur? Professor Vatz noted that the Senate is an advisory committee. Professor Siegel sought a replacement for her position in the committee; she added that would like to see people look over faculty handbook. Associate Provost Denniston explained that the University Council is trying to establish all policies and procedures online.
Moved by Professor Bergman, seconded by Professor Knutson.
Professor Siegel asked about an administrative assistant for Academic Affairs division, noting that “Departments cannot function very well without staff.”
The motion Passed 14-0-0.
Moved by Professor Storrs, seconded by Professor Zimmerman.
Jim Roberts spoke as representative of the policy; he described the new policy as “starting new practice, but departments can revert to old practices if they wish.”
Professor Vatz asked about consistency of departmental practices and technical procedures for drop-add. Professor Siegel expressed concern regarding the phrase “under the use of the current practice.”
The motion passed unanimously, 14-0-0.
6. Information item – Concept paper for the School of Nursing
Dean Charlotte Exner explained the concept paper to develop a school of nursing. She noted that the School is being designed using the “most common academic model for nursing” today. She explained that Towson needs a school of nursing in order to “have a more powerful voice in political matters…increase visibility, and to recruit faculty,” just to name a few of the possible benefits. A key issue in developing the proposal was to address autonomy within the school.
Professor Zimmerman argued that Department of Nursing is not large enough, and therefore, autonomy at this point in time is not necessary. Professor Siegel expressed concern about the autonomy of a new school draining resources. Professor Manasse asked for clarification: “Is the concern about the proposal as laid out or about the potential for the request to change to being a college?”
Dean Exner clarified that the School is being proposed because Nursing has tremendous pressures to find ways to grow.
7. Information item – Concept paper for the School of Emerging Technologies
Dean Vanko was present to discuss the overview of the concept, which is for a school that is interdisciplinary, “kind of a like a think tank, an incubator for new ideas and programs.” The idea is to set that up within the Fischer College.
Professor Vatz stressed financial repercussions due to the economy. Professor Bergman expressed concern about potential problems in conceptualizing the School. He argued that he would like to see the conceptual framework worked out with more clarity before the Senate approves it. Professor Knutson suggested that the development of the School, and the resources it will entail, seems somewhat insensitive to the sacrifices faculty and students are already making to meet the state’s shortfall. Professor Webster urged more careful consideration of this idea.
8. Discussion item: The adoption of a student honor code.
Senator Poltorak of the SGA spoke as the representative for the honor code. The Senate discussion was oriented around the problem of enforcing such a code, even though faculty are generally in favor of the idea. As a result, several Senators expressed some reluctance to approve and ultimately administer such an honor code.
Prof. Sullivan adjourned the meeting at 6 PM.