Memorandum

Date: February 2, 2010

Re:  The Academic Community

From:  Sharon Pitcher, Secretary of Senate

Subject:  Minutes of the December 7th, 2009  Meeting of the University Senate

The fourth regular meeting of the University Senate was held on Monday, December 7th2009, at 4:00 p.m. in Rooms 314-315 of the University Union.

• CALL TO ORDER
• ROLL CALL – President Caret, Vice President Moriarty, and Vice President Rubin were absent.
• APROVAL OF AGENDA – Approved unanimously.
• APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR November 2, 2009 – Approved unanimously with corrections.
• REPORTS OF EX OFFICIO SENATORS

Provost Welsh

Most of her report will be part of the business of the Senate tonight.

• She has been working with the Deans on the budgets, carefully considering cuts so they have the least impact on Academic affairs.
• H1N1 vaccinations will be available for all Towson students, faculty or staff and some family in the Burdick gym on December 9, 11-5.
• Professor Pitcher shared a question from one of her colleagues in the College of Education asking if Provost Welsh could clarify the difference between the Academic Computing Committee and the Information Technology Committee of the Senate. Provost Welsh clarified that the Academic Computing Committee will only advise on academic affairs use of technology to pull academic computing forward.  OTS set up this committee. Professor Siegel asked if the chair of the Information Technology Committee of the Senate is on this committee. Provost answered that the chair of that committee is on the Academic Computing Committee and she chairs this committee.

Vice President Sheehan

• We did not have any cuts this week. Latest was 25 million cut to the system, which came out of fund balance.
• We have given back 7.2 million dollars of fund balance this year along with reductions in operations. As of right now, we are holding our breathe for additional cuts. We will know more when they review revenues again on December 15.

• They are now talking about 2 billion to 3 billion shortfalls in state revenue. This means we may be looking at 200 million dollars of cuts in the USM system. This university could be looking at 15 to 16 million dollars cut to operating budgets for next year.
• Professor Siegel asked about whether this included a tuition increase.  Vice President Sheehan answered that this does not include the increase and we are talking about a 5% increase in tuition at this point.
• Professor Sullivan asked about across the board reduction or will it be different over all departments?  Vice President Sheehan answered that we are trying to decide how to do this. Provost Welsh added that in Academic Affairs they are trying to look carefully at all scenarios to do what is best for the university.  Professor Sullivan replied that the Senate would like to work with the university on this.
• Professor Pitcher thanked Vice President Sheehan for the new pathway to Hawkins Hall and brought forward a concern from Graduate Directors that when graduate students register for classes, they get a bill that needs to be paid within two weeks.  This is causing a problem with enrollment in graduate courses.  With economy the way it is right now, students are waiting until the last minute to register for classes making it difficult for programs to decide whether to run the class or not. Our students have told us that other universities give them more time to pay the bill. Is there a way that students can register, but give them a longer grace period to pay the bill?  Professor Lawson agreed that this is a problem in her department because there is a cut-off point for what the faculty are getting paid so they are sometimes paid on six students but with later enrollment, there may actually be 10 students. Vice President Sheehan said he would look into this.  Professor Vatz asked how is the deficit allocated to individual campuses.  Sheehan answered that it is prorated on how the appropriations are given.  So we receive 8% of allocations and, therefore, are receiving approximately 8% of the deficit. We do our allocations on that.

Vice President Brasington

• She shared that she attended because she was interested in the agenda. She is working hard to contribute to the fund balance.

REPORTS OF OFFICERS OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE

SGA

• They are planning on the Tiger Pride Day in February in Annapolis.  There will not be a lunch as in the past but planning special events for the teachers.

• Surveying students about academic advising and will be reporting on this. Provost Welsh added that she has been working with SGA on this and appreciates their leadership on the issue. She will be meeting with the Deans and Associate Deans to address their concerns.
• Their newsletter will be sent out electronically to the Senate.

CUSF

• Board of Reagents has approved new admissions requirements of four units of high school math with some flexibility. CUSEF is looking into the role of faculty particularly through shared governance to monitor the admissions to our institutions.
• Senator Elfreth and Provost Welsh clarified that they passed this with the understanding that the chancellor would need to come back with more clarification. 

AAUP

• First Second Friday event is this coming Friday and the speaker will be our new provost.  It will start at 3PM with a happy hour following.
• They had their Fall meeting on November 19.  The two action items for this year are to create a primary caregiver leave policy, which we hope to bring to Senate in the Spring, and we are working on a new mentoring program.

TU Staff Council

• They are doing a House of Ruth drive for personal use items and information on this is on their website and Facebook site. 
• They have concerns about the budget and will be requesting a meeting with the president’s executive committee.

Professor Sullivan informed the Senate that he emailed the Senators the Constitution of the College of Health Science, which will be on the February agenda.

NEW BUSINESS

1.     Motion 09/10-18: To accept the annual report of the Library Advisory Committee.   (Senate Executive Committee) Professor Zimmerman asked whether we would be able to better fund the library, which is under funded.  Provost shared that we are trying to hold their budget in these financial times.  Motion passed 24-0-0

2.     Motion 09/10-19: To accept the annual report of the Graduate Studies Committee. (Senate Executive Committee) Motion assed 24-0-0.

3.     Information item:  Proposal from the Graduate Studies Committee to implement a plus/minus grading scheme in graduate courses. Professor Pitcher asked why this was brought forward.  Professor Cox, who did serve on the committee in the past, shared that the graduate directors suggested this. This will be voted on at a future meeting.

4.     Discussion item:  a proposal for a Towson University Policy on Textbook Affordability.   Provost Welsh shared that the Maryland Legislature passed a bill on this and we are required to have a policy.  She then went over the different documents on the policy including a system policy and the work of the committee.  The third document was a policy from the bookstore following what is being done by the system.  The fourth document was a form for the faculty to help them to look more carefully at what they are ordering. The IT component should be fairly simple.  She has talked to the chairs and if there are multiple sections, the chair can answer some of the questions for the faculty.  Professor Tabak suggested that when she looked at the forms she didn’t see the 25% added by the bookstore.  She has seen very little about what the bookstore’s obligation in this will be.  Provost Welsh answered that the extra profit that they make goes right back into the university, but they are posting how students can get the books from other local vendors. Provost Welsh stated that by law we have to give the information about textbooks to the bookstore.  Professor Siegel suggested that this is a very, very complex system.  Some bookstores in the system have lost a lot of money over this.  We are only required to find the publishers price.  We can bargain with the publisher on the price and sometimes they will come down.  It is clear that we have to order through the bookstore, but the students are not required to buy from the bookstore.  Vice President Sheehan confirmed that the bookstore does mark up the books 25%, but on higher priced books they are trying to keep it to 10%.  We are required by the law to put the information on the books on the website.  The bookstore has lost $250,000 in sales over the last two years. Our legal council confirmed that students are not required to buy from the bookstore, but we are required to post the book list.  Professor Zimmerman asked whether the bookstore could bargain.  The provost answered that they try to and try to also buy used books.  Senator Sarah Elfreth shared that she really appreciates this policy, because it made the best of a difficult bill.  This puts the responsibility on the backs of the students.  Professor Siegel suggested that students that are on financial aide many have to buy books from the bookstore so we do have to inform the bookstore.  Professor Anthony asked about the questions on the form about different editions and some of the questions about how you choose the books especially new edition and old edition. He was not sure how faculty would answer these questions.  Provost Welsh answered that this asks the faculty to look at the differences in editions. Professor Bergman also voiced concerns that then you are teaching from different editions and students are working from many different cheaper editions. Provost Welsh replied that it is up to the faculty member what edition they are choosing. Professor Tabak shared that she was going to use an old edition, but was informed that McGraw Hill was not selling the old edition.  Professor Webster shared that he tried to let his students use used texts and they tried to get them from Amazon and many did not get books.  Professor Zimmerman suggested that if students want to use older editions that it is up to the students to find the pages and borrow a book from someone else for what is new.  Professor Siegel suggested that this is ugly, but you just have to fill out the form.  Professor Sullivan shared that he heard there is even a Federal law.  Professor Vatz asked what happens if you don’t do this.  Michael Anselmi answered that you only have to fill out a form.  Professor Slotkin shared that there is an option to ask for more time if you are designing a new course. Mr. Anselmi confirmed that you can request an extension. Professor Anthony asked about getting information from the bookstore being difficult with much questions.  Senator Elfreih asked if faculty were really going to do this.  Professor Manesse shared that faculty do take cost into consideration.  Professor Ballengee suggested that faculty here are very student oriented and are caring about the cost of textbooks. Professor Pitcher shared that in College of Education we often use less expensive professional development books instead of textbooks.  Professor Guerrero added that we often try to suggest to the students other resources that they can use instead of expensive textbooks, but we want students to be responsible enough to use those resources.

5.     Motion 09/10-20:  To accept the General Education Committee Final Report. (Senate Executive Committee) Provost Welsh shared that the proposal was written in 2008, submitted to the last provost, and the community gave feedback.  Professor Siegel asked when this would be put in place.  Provost Welsh answered that we are suggesting 2011 and the president understands we must commit resources to this since it is for the good of the community.  Professor Bergman suggested that this is going to be very difficult for the English department, because we do not have faculty qualified to teach the writing course.  Dean Cooney answered that the committee realized that we will need more resources, but it was not the job of the committee to do this.  He realized that it will require some leadership across the campus to improve the writing component and he suggested that it is the responsibility of everyone to improve this and not just the English faculty.  Professor Cox was concerned that the Towson Seminar has to be taught by full time faculty and was concerned that this would take faculty away from courses in the major.  Provost responded that the Towson Seminar should be important to the academic career of students at this university. We may need to do professional development on writing, but this is very important.  He also shared that the Seminar is very important to developing our students.  Professor Siegel asked about whether there would be honors sections of the General Education courses.  Interim Dean O’Pecko of the Honors College added that there is no reason why we can’t add honors classes.  Professor Anthony asked if the Towson Seminar replaces the Using Information Course.  Dean Cooney shared that it does.  Professor Anthony suggested that the description of the Seminar needed more detail to fulfill what was required by the Using Information Course.  Dean Cooney answered that some of the students on the committee did not find the Using Information Course helpful.  The Seminar will incorporate some of what that course did, but more important why they would use information.  Professor Burk shared that some of the elements of the old course were added to this, but it has more detail.  Professor Vatz asked about why an oral communication course is not included.  Dean Cooney answered that the writing course is required by the system and the oral communication could be included under “humanities”. Senator Graf commended the committee about how they explained the selection of the courses so students could understand it.  He also asked about the effect on transfer students.  Dean Cooney answered that there are always some courses that a university can require above the community college transfer credits.  They did include some flexibility about considering courses to meet the qualifications. Senator Graf replied the he heard there was a small reduction to the Gen Ed requirements and he saw it as only two credit difference. Dean Cooney answered that they would have to look at this again.  Professor Siegel suggested that the math courses and college algebra should be in different places.  She suggested that how it was put in the document had no flair to it, and everything else looked so interesting. Dean Cooney replied that the math department wrote that description.  Professor Manasse also voiced a concern that if faculty teach the Towson Seminar would there be enough faculty to teach the required courses.  Professor Sullivan suggested that often when we have a budget crisis it is a time that we look at what we do and decide what is important. Provost Welsh added that our Gen Eds needed to be examined and we will look at how to put in place the resources.  Professor Siegel also had a concern about how faculty will be able to teach these courses.  Professor Maronick shared a concern that faculty teaching a seminar will teach it, as they want.  Dean Cooney answered that the Towson Seminar is not be whatever a faculty member wants to teach, but it is the same as teaching a required approved course.  He then reminded the Senate that Middle States does say that we should collect syllabi of Gen Ed courses to make sure that they are being consistently taught.  Motion carries 19-3-1.

6.     Information item:  a proposed mission statement from the subcommittee on General Education Assessment. (University Assessment) Assistant Vice President for Assessment Trainer shared how this was developed over the summer.  Senator Steinberg suggested that this was to be piloted and wanted to know what the status was.  Trainer shared that faculty filled out forms about this, some workshops were held by faculty for faculty and some revisions were made.  We anticipate that we will need more information, but we have received some rich data at this point.  Professor Zimmerman shared that many math department faculty are concerned about the amount of the work.  She answered that we do have a learning curve to work through so we may have to collect data and discuss how we address learning outcomes across multiple sections.  She considers this year a pilot and will forward more to the Senate on what they learn.

7.     Motion 09/10-21:  Approval of Chapter 3, Part 4 of the Faculty Handbook. (Senate Executive Committee) Provost Welsh shared that the proposal from the Senate was brought to the Provost office in Spring ‘07.  Kate Denniston chaired a committee that went through the document to look at the Senate’s concerns.  When this was sent to the University attorney’s office and they asked for the ART (Appointment, Rank and Tenure) document.  This was looked into and an old one was found that was not signed.  This was re-created by the attorney’s office.  She then shared all of the levels of review by the Senate Committee, AAUP, the library, and the Provost office.  Professor Manasse asked about how the race of the applicant is decided.  Provost answered that this is done routinely.  The applicant fills out this information.  Professor Siegel pointed out that “Faculty Senate” was throughout the document and we do not have a Faculty Senate.  That should say “University Senate”.  Professor Siegel asked that it is clear about how someone is hired with tenure.  Provost Welsh answered that they will check on this. Professor Vatz suggested that some of these rules are not followed and a person receives a negative review, can the faculty number protest because a rule was not followed.  Mr. Anselmi answered that the faculty member would then go to the University P&T Committee.  Professor Vatz questioned an example on page 15 of Chapter 3 that says members of the tenure committees vote by secret ballot.  The provost answered that this is a procedural process that is fair to the faculty.  Professor Vatz asked what happens if this is not followed.  Mr. Anselmi answered that says that since the document says it should be done, it can be appealed if the procedure is not followed.  Professor Ewell asked about the language saying whether if someone comes up for early tenure and does not receive it, can they go up again.  Associate Provost Dennison clarified that further in the document it clarified that the USM policy requires that they can’t come up again. Further in the document it clarifies that if the department does not approves them, they can withdraw.

Professor Ewell then asked about why the faculty member from the department on the college committee would not be in the discussion of a fellow faculty member.  Often the department representative can give important information since many colleges have departments with such different fields.  Provost Welsh responded that faculty members could sway the committee, and the documents should stand on their own.  Professor Zimmerman also voiced a concern about the differences in departments. Provost Welsh suggested that the documents should stand on their own, but then added that something could be put in the document that the committee could go back to the department for clarification. Professor Ewell suggested point 10 on page 15 should be reversed to be positive instead of negative.  Professor Ballengee pointed out that since the departmental  representative excusing himself or herself is so different than what we do now, that P&T committees will need professional development to do this.  Professor Bergman voiced a concern that an external review kept confidential from the candidate is against what we believe at this university. It seems against the procedure of the candidate being able to look at the binder at all of the different stages. How can a candidate protest something that they do not have the opportunity to see?  Professor Webster also voiced concern about the representative from the department being present to provide the context for different disciplines.  Professor Siegel added that she has been on her college committee for six years and has never seen a department representative not putting forward support for their colleagues in a positive way.  She has found it very helpful and impressed by sincerity of the representatives in her college. Barbara English pointed out the language of the ART document about how the tenure is awarded to someone coming into the university is done by a formal review of the department. Professor Siegel also pointed out that many of the ranks in the ART document we do not have.  Barbara English suggested that if we do not have the ranks in this, we couldn’t use them. She went to the Provost office and asked about the ranks.  That is how we added them.  Associate Provost Denniston answered that sometimes with grants we need to put in different positions and we would like the flexibility to do this. Professor Maronick also voiced concerns about the department representative not being in deliberations.  He would not want to be on this committee without the representative.  Often when he was on the committee, the representative of the department clarified questions. Dennison suggested that the chair and the department committee letters would answer these questions.  Professor Maronick disagreed that this was not the same.  Dean Cooney shared that in their college they voted that the department representative cannot vote, but can answer questions. He shared that it can get more complicated. Professor Manasse shared that as someone coming up for tenure next year, the calendar is very confusing.  Professor Zimmerman asked about the use of outside public information.  Can a committee member look up how often someone is cited?  Provost Welsh suggested that a smart candidate would include this. Associate Provost Dennison suggests that nothing precludes this, but they have to tell the candidate that they did this. Provost Welsh suggests that at some universities this is requested.  Professor Vatz added that the department representative voting and silent ballot were concerning.  Provost Welsh shared that she has had the experience of this being important.  Professor Pitcher pointed out the Senate voted on the silent ballot at the College committee, and this was an issue that the majority of the Senate agreed to include.  Professor Slotkin wanted more clarification on how student evaluations would be used and pointed out a problem from page 1 to 2.  Professor Tabak also voiced a concern about the silent ballot and that her college will have a problem about this. Professor Siegel asked about clarification of who approves the course evaluations. Provost Welsh shared that the University PTR&M committee approves these.  Professor Ballengee pointed out that grade distribution should be added to the Annual Review.  She also questioned whether first year faculty should receive merit and questions about the calendar. Also, the Leadership Class suggests that collegiality needs to be more clarified.  She shared wording from AAUP and the Provost asked that this be sent to her.  The leadership class also suggested that there are all kinds of ways our careers could be affected by negative decisions. The Provost responded that the University PTR&M Committee reviews negative decisions.  Professor Sullivan suggested that the sections on page 14 & 15, Section XVIII be left out of our voting until we can further discuss this.  Professor Zimmerman urged the provost to incorporate more of the AAUP language on collegiality.  Provost answered that collegiality does really affect a department. Professor Zimmerman suggested that language would just clarify what was expected. Professor Berman asked about where the secret external evaluation enters the file.  Provost suggested that external reviewers would not do the reviews if the review were shared with the colleague.  Professor Bergman then asked if the candidates are denied tenure, how can they appeal what they are not able to see.  Mr. Anselmi suggested that the decisions are split on this.  Professor Bergman suggested that we don’t have a history of external reviewers; we do not have procedures for this, so this adds groundwork for something that could be quite dangerous.  Provost Welsh pointed that this revision does not require external review, but sets up a procedure for this.  Professor Ballengee asked why the procedures for the academic year are not in the ART document.  Barbara English suggested that we could add it, but we would have to do it in a flexible way. Professor Maronic motioned that we accept all but Section 18A of the Chapter 3. Professor Vatz seconded it. Professor Sullivan suggested that we approve it in principal. Professor Siegel pointed out that in approving this that we are approving all of the positions, too. Some discussion of what clarifying in principal meant resulting in calling the motion.  Motion to accept all but 18A of the new Chapter 3 carries 9-8-3. 

The meeting was adjourned at 6:30.