University Senate

Memorandum

Date:   April 30, 2010

To:      The Academic Community

From:  Sharon Pitcher, Secretary of the Senate

Subject:  Minutes of April 5, 2010  - Meeting of the University Senate

The seventh regular meeting of the University Senate will be held on Monday, April 5, 2010, at 4:00 p.m. in Rooms 314-315 of the University Union.

• CALL TO ORDER
• ROLL CALL – AAUP was represented by Matthew Darrington. President Caret, Vice President Moriarty, Vice President Sheehan, Vice President Brasington, Terry Ewell, and Judith Guerrero were absent.
• APROVAL OF AGENDA – Approved unanimously
• APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR March Meetings, 2010- Approved unanimously
• REPORTS OF EX OFFICIO SENATORS

Provost Welsh

• Academic Affairs is working on a strategic plan that will tie into the University Strategic Plan.  Two undergraduate groups, one graduate group, and three faculty groups met. Over 75 participated. She met with the Deans that day with the facilitator and will meet again..  It is fast process and has to be submitted to the President in July.
• She shared information about presentations of the Service Learning faculty fellows and acknowledged the excellent work that they are doing.
• She reviewed the Workload documents submitted a few years ago by the departments and met with Dave Vanko, who chaired the Workload Committee. Most documents were approved, there are still a few that need work, and will following up on these.

Professor Siegel asked about the Academic Plan and why a meeting of the Senate was not included.  The Provost explained that some of the meetings have included Senators, but this is not governance. Professor Siegel emphasized that the Senate has to approve new programs, and suggested that it would be helpful if the Senate was involved. Time does not allow for all groups to meet.  She will give this some thoughts and get back to us.

Professor Vatz asked about workload.  He explained about the email sent to the faculty of CoFAC was a major change and if it is not a major change, it is perceived by faculty as a change. He also suggested that faculty outside of CoFAC were concerned that this was a “trial balloon”. The provost replied that the chair of Professor Vatz’s department was following the established workload policy in place as expressed by an email from his chair.  The provost emphasized that this was not a “trial balloon”. She also stressed that this was not the place for a CoFAC workload issue.  Professor Vatz responded that the chair’s email was a small retrenchment from what the dean said. The provost again explained that the established workloads are still being followed and this is not a change in policy. Professor Knutson then asked if this is a change.  The provost responded that she spoke to the dean and he explained that it was not a change.

Professor Durington asked about a discussion of 50 advisees being considered for a course release.  Professor Sullivan responded that this release was system policy and was being honored. Professor Siegel suggested that we should see the workload documents.  Professor Provost responded that this may not be easy to do, but that there should be copies in the departments.  She suggested that the senators request the workload documents from their department chairs. Professor Siegel suggested that this could come before the Council of Chairs to share with departments. Provost Welsh agreed to bring this up with the Council of Chairs. Professor Slotkins suggested that it is more difficult to get a 3/3 and that the standards seem to be changed.   The problems could be changes of how the existing rules are being applied.  The provost responded that she is only hearing perceptions, but she would have to collect data to see if there is a change.  Professor Knutson suggested that this should be brought to the Promotion and Tenure Committees to clarify.  Professor Vatz shared that there are people that have lost their 3/3 load and the Dean came out with numbers to prove this that it will save thousands of dollars. Provost Welsh explained the economy is tough so people may be enforcing policies that they may have been lax on before.

Professor Zimmerman commented that in his department that the workload is very clearly defined and is being followed.  In his department, though, the courses are overflowing with students. He has been assigned five or six students over the number allowed. Provost Welsh clarified that they are bumping up the number of students in the classes, but they need to do this so that they do not have to go to layoffs. Professor Burks pointed out that many times the class sizes are too big for the maximum class size.  The provost responded that she will look into that, because it should not happen. Professor Burks then asked what the status of the Chapter 3 is and the provost responded that it is still at the university attorney’s office.  They are very busy, but we have asked them to try to get it back this semester.

Vice President Rubin

• We have three months remaining in the giving campaign.  We have raised $43 million with $50 million being our goal.  Faculty and staff giving is only at 14%.  He asked for any participation that faculty are able to give

Matthew Durington, AAUP

The Faculty Association/TU-AAUP Spring Meeting will be Friday, April 9th, from 3-4 PM in the Riderwood Room of the Burkshire Marriott, with Happy Hour to follow in the University Club.  

At the meeting, we'll receive reports on Faculty Association initiatives including the Primary Caregiver Childcare Policy and plans for a Primary Caregiver Family Care Policy; a Salary and Compensation Report; a discussion of Shared Governance and Lecturers (and other contingent faculty) at Towson; and plans for a potential Fall semester Teach-in on particular higher education issues.  

2) A meeting of the Junior Faculty Committee--open to all interested junior faculty!--will directly precede the regular meeting, in the same place.  The JFC meeting will begin at 2 PM.

3) There will also be a "Third Friday" event in April:  on April 16th, from 3:30-4:30 PM, in the Burkshire Marriott (room pending and email will be sent) the Faculty Association is sponsoring a workshop on a voluntary faculty mentoring program we are planning to pilot next year being crafted by our colleague Pamela Lottero-Perdue.  All interested are invited and encouraged to attend (this is the make-up date for the original workshop which was snowed out in February).

Finally, look for the announcement regarding the open period of voting for University Committee Faculty Elections.  Voting will begin soon and run for a couple of weeks.

Professor Siegel, CUSF

• We will have furloughs again but CUSF is trying to get the system to let them cover the time in different ways.  They are also concerned about highly employable staff and faculty that may leave the university as a result. 
• CUSF has been asked to contribute to the system’s strategic plan. 
• They will also have a presentation on long term collection data for students from pre-k to college. 
• They will be discussing the continuation of the Carol Twig program, a curriculum redesign to use technology. Provost Welsh clarified that this program was being done in different departments at the different system schools.
• They will be having a panel presentation in April on collective bargaining.
• She shared our primary care policy at their meeting and they are trying to have a more united view on the system level so they are looking at this.
• CUSF will be working with USM on the participation of graduate students and part time faculty in shared governance. 
• Professor Zimmerman added that next year we will have four representatives on CUSF and two alternates. Professor Sullivan commended the TU representatives. 
• Professor Durrington asked about the policy whether CUSF has discussed whether they will have a collective response to more furloughs. He felt the policy is that if we have furloughs for a three of years that it is a pay cut.  Professor Siegel asked AAUP to send an email to her about this.
• Professor Siegel clarified that they are only getting information about collective bargaining. They are not  formally moving in that direction.

Jon Graf,  SGA

• Their monthly report is in the Towerlight. 
• They will be voting for new officers this month, and the new officers will attend with him next month.  We should see some campaigning in the next couple of weeks.
• They are still working on revising the advising process. They started working on that this year, but the work is not done.
• They will be putting a bronze tiger in front of Cook similar to the one in front of Stephens. 
• They raised $53,000 in Relay for Life for the American Cancer Society.
• Working on student advocacy overall and getting student representation. 

Kay Kalinski, TUSC Representative

• They are electing new officers this month.
• They will work on strategic planning for next year once officers are elected..  She will be bringing up the Primary Care Policy that the Senate approved as a new initiative for TUSC to adopt for next year.

OLD BUSINESS

• Motion 09/10-29: Chapter 5- Grievance Policy (Senate Executive Committee) – Provost Welsh shared that she took the concerns back to the university counsel.  He added the point that legal council can be consulted but not brought into the process. Also, how the grievances would be dealt if the Dean was involved was addressed. If the Dean was involved, the university president will select another person that the report will be directed to.  She then explained how Jennifer Ballengee’s concern about lecturers not being included was handled. Professor Ballengee was consulted and felt it was covered.  Senator Davis asked about the make-up of the committee.  Provost Welsh responded that it now clearly defined.  Professor Bergman asked about the timeframe of a grievance and gave the example of a  grievance over merit if a person did not realize that you were discriminated. Provost Welsh explained that this may be similar to the Leadbetter case, where she did not know that she was not being paid what male professors were paid.  Provost Welsh explained that we have to handle this in a timely manner, but feels that if there is a concern like this, we would take that in consideration. Professor Sullivan suggested that this was an extraordinary situation.  Professor Siegel suggested we put in something about extraordinary circumstances. The provost responded that this would have to go back to counsel to do this. Professor Siegel also suggested that CUSEF also has a grievance committee for any grievance that cannot be handled on a campus.  They try to be a mediator between the system and the institutions. Professor Sullivan suggested that this could be passed and then we could amend this to include extraordinary circumstances.  Professor Siegel then asked about grievances for part time faculty since this policy does not cover them.  She suggested that we should also move forward with a separate policy for them.  Professor Burks suggested that we should have a policy for part time faculty especially if we want to include them in shared governance.  Professor Zimmerman asked for the question to be called. Professor Sullivan suggested we vote on the policy and then go back and make changes if we need to.  He suggested that we look at this and our constitution in the future. Professor Siegel pointed out a typo of “Faulty” instead of “Faculty on page 2, F 2 of the policy. Dean Extner asked about whether clinical faculty should be included under F 2, which talks about re-appointment.  She suggested they should add clinical faculty.  Provost Welsh responded that it would need to go back to university counsel if we make a change. Professor Sullivan suggested that we vote on the document as it is and bring it back if we need to make changes. Motion carried 22-0-0.
• Motion 09/10-31: Composition of the Retrenchment Committee and the Retrenchment Appeals Committee – Provost Welsh explained that the policy must be approved by the office of the chancellor. The one in the faculty handbook has been approved by the chancellor, and it is the one we must use instead of the one on the University Senate website.  We need to follow USM policy. Provost Welsh pointed out the difference between the two versions was in red from the university counsel.  Senator Davis pointed out that a librarian was not included.  Provost Welsh explained that the university counsel stated that the librarian representative could be added.  Senator Davis asked about whether this document protects librarians and Professor Sullivan explained that they are covered under faculty.  Professor Lawson pointed out inconsistencies in elected librarians and Professor Knutson pointed other inconsistencies that seemed to be just a part of the policy.  Professor Durington asked about elected and appointed representatives on both committees.  Provost Welsh pointed out that the policy has been approved, but we would be voting on including a librarian on both committees.  Motion passed 17-0-4. Professor Bergman pointed out that non-tenure should be hyphenated and at-large should be, too.  He suggested copy edited before appearing on the website. Professor Manessee asked about how policies not approved get on the website.  Professor Sullivan explained that we will be discussing that later.
• Motion 09/10-26:  To approve the statement on “Principles and              Guidelines for Budget Reductions”. (Senate’s Resource Planning    and Advisory Committee).  This is a second vote.  Motion was put forward to call the vote.  Motion carries 19-0-3.

NEW BUSINESS

• Motion 09/10-32: Adding the following to Senate Bylaws for the General Education Reporting Committee – “The General Education Reporting Committee will have an additional voting representative from the Honors College.” (Senate’s General Education Reporting Committee) – Motion was put forward. Professor Zimmerman apologized that this came back to the Senate after the last motion was approved, because the committee realized that they forgot to mention that they added a voting ex-officiate member from the Honor’s College last year.  The Honor’s College does often bring new courses forward. Senator Davis reminded everyone that library resources should be included with new courses.  Motion carries 21-0-0.
• Motion 09/10-33: Approval of Online Student Course Feedback Survey (Senate Executive Committee)

Professor Sullivan pointed out that the PTR&M committee has sent a recommendation to the Senate on how this should be done. Professor Burks explained that the PTR&M committee has worked on this for along time and it is a better document that was originally sent to them. The committee, though, still has quite a few concerns about this document and thought it should be discussed by a larger body.  They were concerned about how the numbers would be tabulated and how the online delivering would affect response rates. The Office of Assessment made changes they suggested, but they still are concerned.  Professor Bergman reinforced what Professor Bergs said. He reinforced that Vice President Trainer has done a good job in taking into consideration their comments, but the committee is concerned about the online delivery. 

Professor Vatz felt many of the questions were irrelevant and the document is lengthy.  Provost Welsh asked for examples.  Professor Vatz gave the following examples about subjective reality such as the ones about being challenged intellectually and learning a great deal.  He also pointed out the ones about the instructor caring about student learning and challenging them to think in new ways were trite and were difficult for students to determine. His major concern is that this was another example of the faculty loosing autonomy over their courses. He also questioned the validity of the questions. Provost Welsh responded that Professor Vatz was underestimating our students.  She also suggested the primary use of the instrument is for the faculty to make their courses better and should not just be a tenure instrument.  She suggested any faculty who gets 2s and never does anything to improve that score should be involved in other conversations about teaching and the evaluation should only be part of the decision. Professor Vatz responded that his department has a much better 15-question evaluation, which he would be glad to share. He suggested forcing students to take a lengthy evaluation invalidates the evaluation.

              Professor Pitcher reinforced Provost Welsh’s point that tenure decisions should not be made by using the evaluation only.  She also, though, pointed out that the overall question rating the instructor with a number, which departments use on AR documents, unfairly diminishes the faculty member’s work.  In her department, they use a grand mean of all of the questions that ask about all of the work that a faculty member does. Often students who do not do well in a course will focus on a question like that one to rate a professor to get back at an instructor. She also suggested some re-wording of some of the other questions. Provost Welsh pointed out that the questions about rating the instructor and the course were added by the PTR&M Committee.

              Professor Webster also pointed out some questions that were not clear.  He explained having high expectations for learning is sometimes not valued by students. He pointed out many students think the instructor gives the grade instead of them earning it. He suggested that the word fair was not a good term throughout because different students have different definitions of “fair”.  He also pointed out that different students would define “deep knowledge”.  He also pointed out that these numbers do count.  They are used by promotion and tenure committees. If they do not matter, then why use them at all.

              Professor Manesse pointed out that the length is an issue.  She also pointed out that all of the questions are asked in the same manner so that when students get survey fatigue, they go down and answer, “agree”.  She suggested that the answers needed to be mixed up.

              Professor Siegel asked whether the intent was to have the questions about the course counted in any way against the faculty member because often the faculty member does not have a say about the course itself.  Professor Siegel also suggested if the questions are being used only for the instructor benefit, they can be useful.  If that is all they are going to be used for, that would be okay, but she does not think that is the case. Provost Welsh then read from the document supplied by the PTR&M Committee about the purposes of survey saying that the faculty member should report the numbers rating the course and the instructor on the AR submission.  She then explained she was in the meeting when the PTR&M members asked for those questions with the rating numbers because they thought faculty would want to report a number.  The committee then suggests that the complete surveys for each course should also be submitted with the AR and the AR process should be revised to reflect this.

              Senator Graf thanked the provost for getting input from students.  He pointed out that he was concerned about that the online delivery and the length of the survey.  He also pointed out the questions do need more work. He realizes that he takes classes in different departments and has seen many of the questions on this survey on evaluations that he has already filled out.  He also pointed out that students they talked to did not object to the online deliver. The students suggested that the grades be withheld until the survey is completed.

              Professor Knutson suggested that she does not have problems with being assessed, but many of these questions on this survey are not measurable.  You cannot measure caring and assigning a number to it. Whether she meets with students can be measured but caring is not measurable. Many kids would interpret it differently.  There are some protocols about writing objectives that are measurable that should be considered.  This questions do not meet the high standards that she has to meet for her scholarship.

              Provost Welsh responded that sometimes we need to know what the perception is, which is beyond actual data points. Provost Welsh emphasized that she is very committed to this going online because of the expense and some students object to the handwritten ones because faculty know their handwriting so they refuse to do that. If they type it in, no one will know who wrote the response. Professor Knutson responded she has an issue with the integrity of the document and it should meet the rigors of the different disciplines that construct surveys and write goals and objectives.

           Professor Tabak agreed that the issues brought up on the validity of the questions needs to be considered.  She does survey research and the issues brought up are valid issues. She also pointed out that she agrees with provost that the survey results should be for the faculty, but she knows that the numbers are being used for other purposes. She also has concerned about the centralization because one survey does not consider the different disciplines. Considering how the document is going to be used, every word needs to be considered. She also explained that the administration assistant in her department figures out the numbers from their department survey, so they get the results in a timely manner and can make changes to their courses.

              Provost Welsh responded that one of the main reason this should go online is cost savings. Having an administrative assistant sitting and tabulating data is not a good use of an administrative assistant. She also pointed out that all that she sees is a number and she does not know what those numbers mean. Also, many departments put comparisons with other departments and the university, but she does not know what these comparisons mean or where they get them. She suggests that having this centralized would be significantly better for university decision making. 

              Professor Cox suggested that the information about technology, textbooks, and Blackboard are not something that faculty have control over so if the university needs that information, it could be collected in another way and not on the faculty evaluation.  She also suggested that she does use the information from the evaluations and so do her peers.  She also suggested that students should have the right to refuse to answer the survey.  She agreed that she does not get the feedback in enough time to make decisions. 

              Provost Welsh responded that this is why this is a problem. It takes too long and we also had to add more money to have the evaluations scored.  We do not have money to add staff to do this in every department. She also explained that students will have a choice to take the survey, but their grades will be held up for a time period.  This is a choice they are making.

              Professor Lawson asked whether department PTR&M committees could decide what questions were used to evaluation the faculty member verses using an overall rating.  Professor Sullivan responded the departments could make the decisions on how they were using the survey. Provost Welsh clarified that departments could make that decision.

              Professor Vatz asked whether the departments would have the opportunity to decide what to use on this survey.  Provost Welsh suggested the PTR&M committee felt they needed to put forward a way to use the numbers and that with the new Chapter 3, all of the PTR&M Committees would need to come back to the them. They felt there had to be one way to judge faculty, but she did think that the departments could make decisions.  Professor Burks suggested the committee had all of the same concerns. They did not write this, and the Assessment Committee did listen to their concerns. They met with Kate Dennison and she said that if there was an item that a department felt did not meet their needs that they could take that out. Professor Berks was skeptical about that would happen. They are still concerned about the online delivery, because University of Maryland has a low response rate for an online delivery. 

              Professor Vatz asked whether the department could make choices on the items that they want to use.  Provost Welsh suggested that the document could not be changed, but she felt department could decide what items were used.  Senator Kalinski shared that she attends class at another USM institution that does use an online survey in two components. One survey is sent out for all of the courses and a short evaluation is then sent out for each course.  She also pointed out that it is laid out differently with different types of answers for each question.  Also, they they cannot get into their course until the evaluation is filled out.

              Senator Puglisi shared that he was glad to hear that faculty are concerned about these.  He asked about when this survey would be sent out. Provost Welsh was not sure, but Vice President Trainor responded that it would be sent out two weeks before the end of the class.  He did think the response would be higher if the grades were withheld. Senator Puglisi shared that he has taken classes in all but the honors college and most of the evaluations were similar to this. 

              Professor Burks further explained that she preferred department evaluations but she did feel that this one is an improvement over what they first saw.  The committee also suggested the title of “Course Feedback Survey” since it is not an evaluation because it does not have the rigor. 

              Professor Zimmerman suggests that we table the survey and have the assessment people and those with expertise in survey instruments work on this.  He also suggested that although he really does not like the online survey idea, he does realize that we need to save the money.  He then suggested that we have another motion to approve an online instrument of some type.  Motion carries to table this survey 18-1-2.  Motion to support an online survey instrument of some type. Professor Siegel asked whether this would preclude having a separate online instrument for department.  Provost Welsh responded that this would not be cost effective.  Professor Zimmerman then revised his motion to say that the Senate would support a single online survey with optional college/departmental questions. Professor Vatz then asked for clarification of the motion.  Professor Sullivan then clarified that the motion was for one centralized online survey.  Professor Siegel then suggested the departments should be able to add to the document and that PTR&M should approve the document.  Professor Zimmerman felt that the Senate should approve the document. Professor Maronic voiced that he was opposed to the online survey and the pressure on the students to fill it out, which could cause negative reactions as a result of that.  He also was not clear why departments could not have individual survey instruments. Professor Webster suggested that we could use Survey Monkey.  Professor Worgs also was opposed to this instrument because he does not think these questions measure his objectives.  If he could measure his objectives, he would be open to that.  Professor Knutson was not opposed to an online survey because students are used to working online.  She is accepting the idea of a centralized survey, but thinks it should have some individualized factor. Professor Bergman suggested that in his experience on PTR&M that effort is being made to take feedback on this form. He understands the need to save money for travel or other faculty need.  He also suggests that this does not procure departments could have additional documents. Provost Welsh explains that the point of this is to be more effective and cost effective.  Professor Sullivan asked about withdrawing the document. Senator Sebring suggested that we amend the question to have an online survey.  Professor Zimmerman and Professor Bergman were asked if they agree to the amendment. Professor Bergman agreed but Professor Slotkins disagreed.  Professor Zimmerman withdrew the motion. Straw votes suggested opposition to a single survey and support for an online survey.

• Motion 09/10-34: The University Senate will update its website to include university committees, dates of meetings, and contact information with overseeing responsibility to update the data delegated to the Vice Chair of the Senate. (SGA and Senate Executive Committee) Tabled until the May meeting.
• Information Item: The University Senate will appoint a nominating committee for the Executive Committee at the May meeting.  Professor Sullivan shared this as an information item.

The Senate meeting was adjourned at 6:20.  The Senate will reconvene on May 3rd, 2010.