University Senate Minutes
Memorandum
Date: April 20, 2006
To: The Academic Community
From: Jennifer Ballengee, Secretary
Subject: April 3, 2006—Meeting of the University Senate
The sixth regular meeting of the University Senate was held on Monday, April 3, 2006 at 4:00 p.m. in Rooms 314-315 of the University Union.
Prof. Pitcher raised one of the pieces left out of the minutes last time regarding workload. A comment by Cindy Hartzler-Miller, indicating that the College of Education had not yet approved workload documents, appeared out of context. Prof. Ballengee noted that she had already corrected the minutes in this regard.
Prof. Vatz then suggested that the minutes are too long and some things should be left out.
Prof. Siegel noted that there were a few typoes. She also noted that on pg. 4, the radius should be 35-mile radius, not 50.
Prof. Storrs noted a problem with the pg. 8. It was clarified that the Provost’s comment was in terms of “learning outcomes.” Remove “frightening claim” and “no one seemed disturbed.”
Prof. Storrs then suggested that the Secretary ought to provide two versions of the minutes: the long version and then a shorter, summary version of events.
Prof. Vatz raised an issue about the percentiles of faculty, noting that it’s not clear whether these percentiles are in terms of mean or median.
Prof. Storrs moved to accept minutes; Prof. Webster seconded. The Senate voted unanimously to accept the minutes, with the suggested changes.
REPORT OF THE PROVOST:
Associate Provost Leather reported that Dr. Brennan wanted her to report that the workload documents have been provided by all departments, and they will be on the May agenda.
Prof. Pitcher noted that the College of Education has not yet approved their versions. Prof. Rosecky noted that his dept. just approved their documents on Friday.
Assoc. Provost Leather responded that these are needed by April 15, in time for the May meeting.
Prof. Siegel asked if tenure and promotion letters had been distributed and Assoc. Provost Leather affirmed that.
REPORT OF VICE PRESIDENT RUBIN:
Vice President Rubin reported that Towson continues to make progress on fund-raising opportunities in the University. If you look on the website, he suggested, you’ll notice a graph indicating levels of participation divided by college. He re-emphasized how important it is for faculty to participate.
Prof. Ballengee asked if there was any correlation between average salaries per college and donations per college. Vice President Rubin responded that there was no data available on that.
Lee Mazola, a graduate of Towson, was honored as Baltimore Businesswoman of the year.
Radio and television spots are getting the message of Towson out.
REPORT OF VICE PRESIDENT CLEMENTS:
Towson has been ranked as one of the best places to work by the Baltimore Business Journal, Vice President Clements reported. The feedback from this survey was very positive.
We also won the Spirit award, based on a video of TU students doing the Towson fight song.
REPORT OF VICE PRESIDENT MORIARTY:
This morning at the President’s Council meeting, the Student code of conduct policy was amended.
The Office of Student Affairs is interested in pursuing Co-Curricular involvement of faculty in terms of co-curricular learning. This idea arose at the January conference. She’ll be working on developing this.
Also, Student Affairs is conducting another examination of student engagement, looking closely at what other things students do outside of the classroom to enhance their learning.
Prof. Sullivan asked if there also discussion about revising the academic integrity section. He asked if that will come to the Senate?
Assoc. Provost Leather confirmed that it would come before the Senate, at least as an information item…
Prof. Sullivan asserted that the issue of redefining plagiarism is one that should come before the Senate.
AAUP REPORT, PROF. MCLUCAS:
The AAUP membership is rising; the membership has hit 100 now, which is higher than it has been in quite a long time. The Spring AAUP newsletter is forthcoming. The State meeting of the AAUP will be April 29th at Montgomery County Community College.
Prof. McLucas then noted that it’s part of the job of the AAUP President that he hears reports from faculty that Towson is not the best place to work; there have been a number of resignations, in addition to significant difficulty in hiring. There is an unmistakable morale problem that the university needs to continue to address.
CUSF REPORT, PROF. SIEGEL:
The tuition bill didn’t actually make it over to the governor, Prof. Siegel reported. However, the Academic Freedom Bill is dead in the water. She hasn’t found out what’s happened to the textbook bill.
There are still some issues of with the teacher’s pension system bill; it’s stalled, too. If it has to come back again, she suggested, support for the optional retirement plan is going to fade.
Some little issues that may turn out to be big ones: At recent meetings of Provosts, there was a presentation by Carol Twigg about how to teach large classes more effectively. Raising class size is still on the table. The Board of Regents was excited about the idea of treating large classes in what it sees as innovative ways.
Prof. Siegel had nothing new to report on lecturer benefits.
CUSF has agreed to form a committee to hear complaints—alleged violations of Board or System rules.
Prof. Gail Gasparich of TU Biology received a Regents/Faculty Award this month.
CUSF will meet on April 18th with Senate chairs, and the Chancellor.
Prof. Vatz asked Prof. Siegel to clarify the tuition remission problem.
Prof. Siegel explained that the Tuition Remission memo refers back to changes that were made in federal tax laws. The wording that was sent out by the memo seemed to require that the student must live with the person claiming the remission, which seems absurd. If you go to the Human Resources website at Towson, you can find a copy of it there.
Prof. Storrs asked about benefits for non-tenure track professional faculty: “How does that relate to the priorities we’ll be discussing later?”
Prof. Siegel responded that they’re the same thing.
Assoc. Provost Leather added that the simple answer is that it’s the old PIN system. The Dept. of Budget and Management continues to dole out PINs. They have not yet offered Towson the option of numerous PINs for the lecturers.
SGA REPORT, SENATOR ACCARDI:
Tomorrow is SGA day, to promote student government and to try to encourage students to run for election. Elections are April 18th and 19th; Senator Accardi urged faculty to please encourage students to vote or run for something.
Friday evening on Burdick field there will be an end-of-year party and recognition for student groups.
SGA is also promoting Saturday’s lacrosse game against Drexel.
Senator Butler reported that he’s drafted a memo to go out to all departments, encouraging faculty to tell their students what’s going on on campus.
Every year for the past three years, the SGA has hosted a celebration for its elite. Faculty have been less responsive, so that event will not take place this year.
Senator Accardi noted that the policy on Academic Integrity needs to take Group Work into account.
Also, the tuition freeze was passed. Towson flags have been put up around Towson. She’ll introduce the new SGA President to the Senate in May.
Prof. Vatz noted that one thing that many don’t realize is that fees will increase, even if there’s a tuition freeze.
GSA Report: April 25th Happy Hour for Graduate Students.
1. Motion 05/06-26:
Prioritize Line Items for Special Faculty Funding [attached].
(Senate Executive Committee)
Prof. Sullivan explained that the Provost has requested that the Senate prioritize Salary issues.
Assoc. Provost Leather clarified that this is new money from the budget; not merit money.
Prof. Sullivan provided two handouts: one an update of faculty feedback from CoHP. In addition, Prof. Leather provided Mean and Median salary figures for ’06.
To start discussion, Prof. Sullivan noted that, from the responses he received, there does seem to be some agreement about the importance of providing Health Benefits to Lecturers.
Prof. Storrs worried whether the Senate was going to do bad, by trying to do good. Some lecturers might like to have the choice of whether or not to receive benefits or a salary raise.
Assoc. Provost Leather explained that it’s illegal in the state to provide such a choice.
Prof. Siegel asked if we could give lecturers a fixed amount of money, which they could use for benefits or for salary. Unfortunately, the money is taxable.
Assoc. Provost Leather explained that the Provost’s office had looked at that possibility and rejected it for that very reason.
Prof. Pitcher explained that she and Prof. Hartzler-Miller had solicited opinions on the matter in the College of Education; they received 18 replies. There were mixed responses from the lecturers. Some already have benefits, others are having difficulty staying here with no benefits. She had 12 people talk about salary compression and how it has affected the people that are here and their morale. A couple of people who have led searches mentioned how difficult it is to hire people because of salary. Some lecturers are often people who’ve been very involved in school systems before they came here; they made much more “on the outside.” These are issues that need to be taken seriously. Prof. Pitcher then asked if it is possible for Human Resources to offer a group insurance policy to the lecturers?
Prof. Storrs asked, “What pot of money is this? Can we say that, right off the top, we devote so much aside for Merit increases?”
Assoc. Provost Leather clarified again that this is not the Merit money. It’s part of the new money that’s coming to the university as a result of increased enrollment. It will probably be about a million dollars.
Prof. Sullivan reiterated that this was only a discussion for guidance.
Prof. Leshnoff reasoned, “There’s a million dollars on the table up for grabs. As I understand it, if we don’t claim it, we may not get it. I think therefore that we need to come to some definitive conclusion.”
Assoc. Provost Leather responded, “In essence, part of what you’re saying is that these are all important to you. And that’s a message. Every issue here seems important to you, and it seems important that we grapple with all of them. I believe that the Provost is saying that we have to be working on these issues. What do we start with?”
Prof. Roberge asserted that he thought Benefits for Lecturers should be priority number one.
Prof. Hartzler-Miller agreed. With the low salaries we have, she added, we can buy smaller houses, or used cars, but in our culture, we cannot not really afford not to have insurance or health benefits. If we raise the salaries of Assistant and Associate Professors, she added, this should take care of some of the salary problems.
Prof. Siegel agreed that health benefits should be first. She also agreed with addressing the problem of salary compression. There are some areas where these inequities are worse than others.
Prof. Leshnoff asked Assoc. Provost Leather, “If we raise the salaries to 75th percentile, will that address the problem with Compression?”
Assoc. Provost Leather responded that if TU addresses compression, it will help TU move toward the 85th percentile, more effectively than an overall salary raise.
Prof. Leshnoff argued that if that’s the case, he’d to make a motion that we prioritize salary compression as first on this list of five. Prof. Vatz seconded the motion.
Prof. Siegel asked if this would cost the whole pot?
Prof. Webster added: “It pains me to say this, b/c I’d like more money, too. But I think health insurance is most important.”
Prof. Vatz argued that it is incorrect to infer that this would cost the whole pot.
Prof. Rosecky argued that the issue of health care benefits sounds good. But not everyone who works for TU is dependent on the University for their health-care benefits. To think that we are denying people health care benefits by not prioritizing it as number one is fallacious.
Prof. Roberge argued that it’s important that we make health-care benefits available to anyone who wants them.
Prof. Sullivan reminded the Senate that the motion on the floor is to make salary compression the number one priority.
Prof. Leshnoff suggested that the tenure and tenure-track faculty should come first, because they are the ones who will raise the profile of the university.
Prof. Siegel suggested that compression should be item number two. The staff who work here get health benefits after two years. We rely on the non-tenure-track people to bring our course-load averages up.
Prof. Pitcher asked if it was possible for us to amend that and say that we feel that both compression and health care benefits are both priorities?
Prof. Vatz noted that if he and Jonathan both agreed to change the motion, we can change it.
Prof. Leshnoff said he was curious to see what would happen to the motion as it stood.
Prof. Brown explained, “I don’t think offering someone insurance is amoral or ethical issue. It’s part of a job package that operates within a marketplace. We’ve hired faculty as part of a package, but now they’ve gotten here and they’ve got salary problems. It seems to me, that the University has its obligation to the first line of priority: the tenured and tenure-track faculty. The number one priority in a university is the faculty.”
Prof. McLucas added that the university can provide something different from the market.
Prof. Accardi asked if there were any lecturers on the Senate.
Many answered, “No.”
Prof.Tabak explained that she supported the motion because individuals had made a choice to accept their tenure-track positions based on an assumption that their salaries would not be frozen.
Prof. Leshnoff called the question.
Prof. Sullivan asked if there was any objection to calling the question.
The Senate voted to call the question: 16 for, 4 opposed, no abstention.
Prof. Sullivan noted that the motion in front of the Senate was to make Salary Compression the first priority.
The motion carried 11-9-0 to make the number one priority Salary Compression.
Prof. Pitcher moved to make benefits for lecturers the second priority; this was seconded by Prof. Storrs.
Prof. Sullivan called the motion to a vote. The motion to have health care for lecturers as the second priority passed: 19-0-0.
Prof. Siegel asked that the vote on these motions be conveyed to the Provost.
Prof. Rosecky moved that the third priority be that salary of current faculty be raised to the 85th percentile. Prof. Leshnoff seconded.
Prof. Sullivan noted that this objective has already been stated as a goal.
Prof. Siegel suggested that item #6 be removed from the Provost’s list of priorities.
Prof. Sullivan noted that the motion on the floor was to raise faculty salaries to the 85th percentile.
Prof. Weinstein asked if the Senate was going to prioritize all of these issues?
Prof. Rosecky noted that the Senate was merely suggesting order of priority. He added that he’d stop prioritizing after #3.
Prof. Vatz noted that he agreed with Weinstein.
Prof. Siegel suggested that raising salary to the 85th percentile goes along with salary compression.
Prof. Vatz asked if there is a difference between making the median 85th percentile and making the mean 85th percentile?
Assoc. Provost Leather affirmed that there is a difference.
Prof. Vatz said that that seems unfair to us.
Assoc. Provost Leather noted that that was a problem that couldn’t be changed in the Senate.
Prof. Siegel noted that one of the arguments that was made when we started was that the data used to compare us to our peers looks at means, not medians. We need to have a database of all the peers in order to make the comparison.
Prof. Pitcher asked if this compression issue would take care of the inequity issues across the campus?
Prof. Leshnoff moved to call the question.
Prof. Roberge asked if it was fair to call the question, according to Robert’s rules of order?
Prof. Goins noted that if there’s an objection, the group must vote.
Prof. Vatz noted that Roberts Rules of Order doesn’t want to prohibit debate.
Prof. Leshnoff withdrew calling the question, for fear of rudeness.
Prof. Hartzler-Miller noted that there were people waiting to participate on other issues, who have come specifically for today; we need to cut short the conversation.
Prof. Sullivan, seeing no other comments, called the vote.
The vote result was 6 in favor, 12 against, 0 abstentions. The motion failed.
Prof. Siegel noted that the Senate needed to come up with some decision about the Merit pool.
Assoc. Provost Leather suggested that if the Senate felt that needed to be discussed, the Senate should put that motion together.
1. Motion 05/06-27:
Accept Annual Report of TEEB (Teacher Education Executive Board) [attached].
(Senate Executive Committee)
Prof. Siegel moved to accept the Report; Prof. Pitcher seconded.
Dean Lorian noted that the Senate had not received all of the documents. The Secretary noted that she had not received them all, either, so was unable to distribute them.
The Senate voted unanimously to table the item.
2. Motion 05/06-28:
Accept Annual Report of the University Assessment Committee [attached].
(Senate Executive Committee)
The Senate voted unanimously to receive the report.
3. Motion 05/06-29:
Approve Proposal for a New Department of Special Education [attached].
(Provost’s Office)
Prof. Pitcher moved to approve the Proposal; Prof. Hartzler-Miller seconded.
Prof. Siegel asked, “What are the budgetary implications of this?”
Dean Lorian answered that there were no budgetary implications.
Prof. Pitcher asserted, “I support this.”
Dean Lorian explained that the College of Education really needs a clearly named Special Education Program. Given TUs central role in education in the state, it’s essential that we have one.
Prof. Pitcher explained that this will enable faculty to have more support, because the dept. chair won’t be spread as thin.
Prof. Webster called the question.
The Senate voted: 16 in favor, 0 opposed, 0 abstaining. The motion passed.
4. Motion 05/06-30:
Approve Proposal for College-Wide Third Year Reviews [attached]
(University PTRM Committee)
Prof. Sullivan noted that this motion originated in the JFC of the AAUP. It then went to the University PTRM Committeee.
Prof. Rosecky expressed his support for the proposal. If we have a 3rd year review, the junior faculty will have a better sense of things.
Prof. Vatz moved to accept the motion; Prof. Roberge seconded.
Prof. Siegel noted that the proposal should be amended to indicate that it’s a policy of the PTRM Committee, rather than the JFC.
Prof. Vatz noted that there was a line that confused him: the last line. In any legal challenge, the third year review would be used to support a bid for tenure, if it were denied. He suggested that it should be removed.
Prof. Brown asked if this simply duplicated what’s done in votes for retention.
Prof. Sullivan replied in the negative.
Prof. Siegel suggested that the document needed to go back to the PTRM committee for consistency, and in order to indicate where the statement will go in the Faculty Handbook.
Assoc. Provost Leather noted that anything that we do in the Senate as an action for faculty goes in the Faculty Handbook. She then wondered if this should also be reviewed by University Council. This concerned her in terms of not the process so much as the product.
Prof. Sullivan noted that there seemed to be agreement about having some kind of third year review in place. It seems the consensus is that the document needs to be worked more clearly.
Prof. Vatz reiterated his objection to the last phrase. The last sentence should be eliminated.
Prof. Rosecky retracted his motion, indicating he no longer supported his motion.
Prof. Debye protested that the PTRM Committee merely reviewed the wording. They did not approve it.
Prof. McLucas noted that the idea of the third year review was as an aid to junior faculty members in preparing for tenure application; the idea is that the junior faculty member gets a reality check, and not a paper trail.
Prof. Sullivan noted that there seemed to be a lot of agreement that this document needs more clarity.
Prof. Siegel moved to table the motion; Prof. Roberge seconded.
The meeting was adjourned 5:55 p.m.