University Senate Minutes

December 3, 2007 Meeting

Memorandum

Date:                   December 9, 2007

To:                       The Academic Community

From:                   Jennifer Ballengee, Secretary

Subject:             December 3, 2007—Meeting of the University Senate

The fourth regular meeting of the University Senate was held on Monday, December 3, 2007, at 4:00 p.m. in Rooms 314-315 of the University Union.

• CALL TO ORDER

Prof. Sullivan called the meeting to order at 4 PM.

• ROLL CALL

Absent were Senators Brown, Guerrero, Moore, and Meyer, and President Caret, Vice President Rubin.

• APPROVAL OF AGENDA

The Senate approved the agenda unanimously.

• APPROVAL OF MINUTES from NOVEMBER 5, 2007 meeting

Prof. Pitcher dictated a change on page 5: the College voted on the document and the change was ratified by the whole college.  Prof. Webster was present.

The Senate unanimously approved the Minutes.

• REPORTS OF EX OFFICIO SENATORS

REPORT OF PROVOST CLEMENTS:

The Provost’s office has approved 24 new PINS:

4 to CBE

3 to COFAC

3 to CHP

7 to CLA

2 to COE

5 to Fisher College of Science and Mathematics (FCSM)

The Provost has asked the Deans to come up with a model for the best way to distribute these PINS; he also worked with his own staff and their model pretty much matched the Deans’ suggestion.

$500,000 in additional operating money has been made available; the idea is that it will go to base:

This money will hopefully be put to use immediately. Deans in colleges will determine how the money will be distributed.

The Provost is working with Vice President Sheehan on a $1.1 million one-time request, mainly for equipment across the colleges.  Each Dean was asked to submit a list of critical needs. This money comes primarily from summer funding and empty lines.

Update on 7400 York Rd.:  The Vice Presidents are deciding on potential units from campus that can move to 7400 and Terracedale. 

The Trimester continues to move forward. A Board of Regents E and E committee meeting a few weeks ago approved the trimester. It must ultimately be approved by the whole Board of Regents.  TU is finalizing the task force for that.

Online enrollments at TU are growing:

We now offer 62 classes online. Last fall it was 31. Undergrad there are 35 (was 18 last fall), graduate 27 (13 last fall). Total enrollment 981 (489 last fall). Out of 981, 707 are undergrad and 274 are grad.  The key is maintaining quality.

Merit task force: The idea is to expand that task force to include compensation as a whole. He is finalizing that task force.

Enrollment projections for next year: President Caret has said it looks like our target for next year is currently set to 500 FTE additional students.  The system projects enrollment for system, and we get a third of it under the current model.  The President has a commitment from the system that we will get paid for the extra students we absorbed this year.

A USM Conference titled “Closing the Achievement Gap” was held last month. The Chancellor listed 3 highest priority items:  closing achievement gap; STEM; environment.   Towson has good numbers in regard to the achievement gap.

A Governor’s task force wants to create center for Genocide, Human Rights, and Tolerance.  TU is interested in being a home for that.  It is hopeful that TU will be the home for that center.

Prof. Vatz asked about the Merit increase committee.  He asked for confirmation that any recommendation will affect the following year’s merit raises, so that people won’t be getting new PINS and losing money. Provost Clements noted that Prof. Vatz’s concerns were mathematically apt. He said he didn’t know the exact time frame; he feels “sooner rather than later” would be best. 

Prof. Tabak noted that many universities are compensating faculty for summer teaching on a percentage basis. IS TU considering this?  Provost Clements agreed.  He noted that it might be a percentage of salary.

Prof. McLucas noted several faculty issues:  PINS are good news, but the formula that ties them only to the growth of the student body is inaccurate, since we started too low. We need to continue to grow the tenure-track faculty.  The Trimester has significant impact on faculty, potentially, so the AAUP will be monitoring this closely.  Online courses are also a concern for faculty; Academe had an important piece about online education and workload in its recent issue. 

Prof. Pitcher asked again what was happening with Chapter 3 of the Faculty Handbook.  The Provost noted that Assoc. Provost Denniston is working with a group of faculty on that document.  Prof. Pitcher noted that the Senate had already done that.  Prof. Burks noted that this issue troubles the UPTRM Committee. Provost Clements suggested that the Senate bring in Assoc. Provost Denniston to speak to the body about the work being done.  Prof. Siegel noted that the UPTRM Committee worked very hard; even though the Senate rewrote parts, they did it in good faith. She shares Prof. Burks concerns.  She suggested that it needs to come back before it goes before legal council.  Some discussion ensued about the version of the document that the committee had compiled in January 2007. Prof. Sullivan stated that he assumed that it went to Provost Brennan.  Prof. Sullivan promised that the Senate Executive committee would check on this issue. 

REPORT OF VICE PRESIDENT SHEEHAN:

Budget:  Current year FY 08, things are going well, particularly because of enrollment numbers.  Utility budgets are fine, since the weather has been warm. 

As for FY 09, it’s too soon to tell. We know that the special session is over and that some earmarks were targeted for higher education, but we don’t know how those things will trickle down to us.  USM has been held harmless in terms of getting back empty positions.  The state still has to cut $550 million from operating budgets.  By the next Senate meeting, TU will have a better notion of what is being proposed.

In other areas:  Security: TU continues to move forward to enhance security on campus. TU is moving forward with a siren notification system.  This will work in tandem with campus e-mail and cell phone notification. 

The Bookstore Manager is retiring at the end of January. 

The Greening of TU: We are moving forward with many items to help Green the campus. Pres. Caret signed the President’s Climate Commitment in November; they have formed a committee (and are awaiting one name from Prof. Sullivan).  TU has ordered 5 electric vehicles—campus service vehicles.  They’ll be more environmentally and walkway friendly.  TU is trying to eliminate gas-powered vehicles from the core of campus. TU is also looking at hybrids as they replace their fleet. 

Capital Construction is happening. The CLA Building is moving forward; the footings are poured and the pilings are all in.  The Towsontown garage addition is complete; it will be open for use after Christmas break.  Infrastructure, time and effort and money are going underground, into the infrastructure of Towson.  Residence halls are on time and on budget; they will open in August 2008.  TU is putting together a proposal for two additional units (600 beds); a mirror image of the two being built now.  The Towson Center has a renovation plan in the works.

REPORT OF VICE PRESIDENT MORIARTY:

All student support services have felt enrollment growth; it’s been a hectic fall. There’s also been staff turnover. There is a New Director of Student Activities and a new Director of Student Recreation Services.  There has also been growth in Center for Student Diversity.  The Towerlight has moved so that the Center for Student Diversity can occupy a large part of space in the Union. 

Career Center: One 2010 initiative is to double the number of internships.  The group is exploring whether there is any way to acknowledge students getting non-credit internships. 

Transfer/Transitions issue:  TU continues to struggle with retaining and integrating transfer students.  They are looking at a number of recommendations to improve in this area.

Alcohol is a major topic of conversation in Student Affairs. Student Affairs is looking seriously at tailgating, and looking at ways for students who are of age to continue drinking at university-sponsored events. 

Crisis management:  The Student Behavioral Management team is a group that comes together periodically to address students who may be need help.

Civic Engagement is the place of truest collaboration between Academic Affairs and Student Affairs. They have “transitioned” from a steering committee to an advisory group. Rather than focus simply on service learning: political engagement, service learning, environment, and community principles.  TU was chosen one of 15 institutions to participate in the American Democracy Project, with a polling center in the spring (Prof. Jim Roberts is heading that up). 

Off-campus relationships:  new Policy on Disruptive Behaviors related to off-campus behavior.  Next year with University Village and Towson Place opening, TU will again get a sense of more students remaining on campus.  But sometimes when students live off campus, their behavior reflects poorly on TU. Student Affairs is trying to address this issue.

• REPORTS OF OFFICERS OF THE SENATE

CUSF REPORT, PROF. SIEGEL:

The executive committee of CUSF registered their concern that there were no faculty formally invited to participate in the “Closing the Achievement Gap” conference. Each university will get a DVD copy of the conference. CUSF is asking for a copy to distribute to members and to Senate chairs, because asking Universities to implement programs doesn’t work unless faculty members are part of the solution. When the executive committee met with the Senate chairs, CUSF asked Prof. Kerwin to speak to the Assessment program, which has gotten quite a bit of press. He had a powerpoint presentation, but then had to immediately leave. Many questions were left unanswered.  The Diamondback published an article which left out much pertinent information about this trial assessment plan and associated “student learning outcomes.”  CUSF has asked for a copy of the powerpoint presentation.  Many faculty are very concerned about outside agencies and non accreditation agencies determining what we should be teaching. Prof. Sullivan distributed letter from the Council for Higher Education Accreditation:  “Talking Points.”  The U.S. Senate reauthorized this in July 2007, emphasizing important aspects, including accountability of institutions, requiring institutions to set standards for student achievement and provide evidence of this success.  Unfortunately, the House Bill doesn’t look like this. 

CUSF also produced a draft paper on textbook prices. Prof. Siegel will send that to anyone interested. CUSF has asked USM to supply them with salary data, for all institutions by rank. They are going to look at it in terms of salary of peer institutions. They are going to submit a request to the BoR that all institutions be evaluated on the basis of their peers.  Right now the only institution allowed to have aspirational peers is UMCP.

CUSF is also circulating a workload report. 

Also, CUSF has been asked by the system-wide student council to support the use of software to detect plagiarism.  Prof. Siegel suggested that this might be an issue that the Executive Committee would like to discuss.  The real problem, she suggested, is the judicial system and pursuing any case that is caught.

The next CUSF meeting will be on campus, Dec. 13, RM 424 ADMIN, from 10-2.

AAUP REPORT, PROF. MCLUCAS:

AAUP local chapter membership is strong; already almost as good as last year.

AAUP has sponsored a strong 2nd Friday lecture series this year:  Already Dean Cooney, Prof. Zimmerman, and Prof. Brown have presented.  Next February, Prof. Newman, Kinesiology, will present; in March, the presenter will be Prof. Sullivan, Economics.

The AAUP has revived Committee W; Prof. Ayse Dayi is leading this group.

The JFC has been actively working with the Provost on issues.

The AAUP had a productive meeting with President Caret on Wed., Nov. 27.  There was a very strong turnout for this meeting.

SGA REPORT, SENATOR HALEY:

Brendan Moore will be resigning from the Senate at the end of this semester.

SGA passed their first religious group budget.

Legislation pending at next SGA Meeting:  University campus climate challenge, coming from TU Energy Activists, has 4 energy conservation commitments.  SGA is also passing a resolution expressing continued support for the MBA program. 

SGA is sponsoring legislation opposing legislation going through Baltimore Council concerning housing. The Council legislation is directed toward students who own housing and rent to friends. This requires expensive inspections, in addition to licensing fees.  SGA will now be attending Baltimore Council meetings. 

• NEW BUSINESS

•  Motion 07/08-11: 

Accept the Annual Report of the Graduate Studies Committee (attached).

              (Senate Executive Committee)

The Senate accepted the report unanimously, 17-0-0.

• Motion 07/08-12:

Accept the Annual Report of RPAC (Resource Planning and Advisory Committee) (attached).

              (Senate Executive Committee)

The Senate accepted the report unanimously, 17-0-0.

• Motion 07/08-13:

Accept the Annual Report of the University Assessment Council (attached).

Prof. Siegel asked about the voluntary assessment (VSA) program. She asked if anyone could speak to it.  Kathy Doherty volunteered to answer any questions about it.  Prof. Siegel asked how it came about that TU would participate in this voluntary trial assessment program. Secondly, who will participate and is there some guideline that faculty may have about what will be tested.  Ms. Doherty responded that she did not think it had yet been decided that TU would participate.  Collegiate learning assessment (CLA) is an instrument that was developed several years ago. It asks students to develop several critical learning tasks.  This was piloted this semester, on a strictly voluntary basis.  The University Assessment Council participated in this discussion.  In the end, about 50 students participated. They received a $25 gift certificate from the university store for this.  The CAP (Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency) is a traditional assessment of critical thinking skills, developed by ACT a long time ago. TU was asked to participate by CAP to look at whether this is an effective measure of critical thinking skills. This is particularly important because we are coming up to our Middle States Self-Assessment process and Middle States will be asking us for significant assessment feedback.

Prof. Zimmerman asked if she had a handout to supplement the annual report.  Prof. Burks asked who is assessing the upper level writing. The writing assessment, Ms. Doherty answered, is part of the CAP assessment. It is a writing sample similar to the SAT sample.  The results go back to students and faculty.  Prof. Burks also asked about the status of the General Education assessement committee.  Ms. Doherty answered that the committee was convened last Spring, but has not met this semester; it will be reconvened next semester under Asst. Provost Horta-Hayden.  She met this semester with Dean Cooney and Asst. Dean Horta-Hayden to discuss General Education. The group agreed that there would be general Gen Ed competencies established across the university.

Prof. Siegel clarified that Freshmen took the assessment. She asked if they will be asked to take it again in 4 years.  Ms. Doherty recognized that she needs to provide much more information on this assessment.  TU was given the option of longitudinal (same group, when freshman or upperclassmen) or cross-sectional studies.  TU has opted for cross-sectional study.

Ms. Doherty handed out an attendance report and a review of the assessment cycle on campus. 

The Senate approved the report unanimously:  16-0-1 (abstention).

• Motion 07/08-14:

Pass Resolution on College Promotion and Tenure Documents (in response to request from UPTRM Committee).

              (Senate Executive Committee)

Resolution:  In compliance with the principles of shared governance outlined in Chapter 2, Part II, of the Faculty Handbook, the University Senate resolves that all College PTRM Documents, Revisions, or Additions must be approved by either the College Council, as a representative body of the college faculty, or by a vote of the whole faculty of the college themselves.

Prof. Vatz asked if this means that every small revision must be ratified before accepted. Prof. Sullivan affirmed that.  Prof. Burks clarified the issue:  This emerged from a situation in which there were major changes to the document and there was no proof that these changes were approved by faculty.  This resolution is meant to avoid anything like this.  Prof. Vatz asked if the word “major” might be inserted here.  Prof. Burks noted that “major” might be a matter of interpretation.  Prof. Siegel approved the resolution as is; such a vote could be done by email.  Prof. Pitcher noted that minor changes were fine to be approved by Council, but that major changes should be approved by the faculty.  Prof. Sullivan noted that Council members are representatives of their departments.  Prof. Tabak reiterated that responsibility of Council members.  Prof. Cox noted that part of the problem is who is sitting on the college council; if junior faculty are sitting on the council, the group may be very heavily influenced by the Dean.  Prof. Siegel noted that the College Constitution needs to be changed if the faculty members in that college are disturbed by the process of voting.  Prof. Knudsen suggested that it might be appropriate to say that revisions or additions must be approved as determined by the College.  Prof. McLucas noted that the language of this resolution is good, since it provides room for the differences of the colleges.

The Senate approved the resolution:  12-3-2 (abstain).

• Discussion Item:

Campus Safety:  Colonel Gerst, of the Towson University Campus Police.

Col. Gerst handed out statistics on campus safety.  He provided an informative report on crime rates and steps TU has taken to ensure the safety of those on its campus.

• Discussion Item:

Intellectual Property Issues: Ms. Barbara English (Associate University Counsel) was present to answer questions.

Prof. Bill Kleinsasser from Dept. of Music was also present, to speak to this issue.  He recommended that TU adopt the language that UMCP is using regarding intellectual property.  He proposed a motion to accept what’s proposed in the document. 

Prof. Siegel made the motion that we adopt the change proposed in the document (distributed at the Oct. 1 meeting). The motion was seconded. 

Prof. Siegel asked for clarification about what intellectual property belongs to whom.

Ms. English noted that USM adopted the current intellectual property policy in 2002.  They then said that policies could be amended based on the unique needs of the university. Any changes must be approved by the university chancellor.  The TU policy was also adopted in 2002, and it tracked the USM policy very closely.  UMCP’s policy was not approved by the chancellor until 2005 (it was approved by the UMCP President in 2003).  In order to amend TUs policy, it will be a very involved process.  She submitted that her advice would be that TU presents a persuasive justification for why TU’s unique needs and mission would make the policy change best and most appropriate for us. 

Prof. Sullivan noted that this is a very serious issue that merits careful consideration.  He suggested that the sense of this vote will be to address the seriousness of this issue and recommend that we move forward in considering the issue.  Prof. Kleinsasser noted that this is the 15th month of his involvement with this issue. There is, he noted, a certain issue on the part of faculty who are affected by this policy.  Ms. English noted that the University can decide to release ownership and return it to the creator. 

Prof. Zimmerman moved to table the issue.  Prof. Webster noted that this is an urgent issue. If we table it, then we wait until February to address it. 

The Senate voted to table the motion, 8-7-0.  The motion to table the motion carried. 

Ms. English said that the suggestion to change it would have to come from whatever VP covers this jurisdiction—in this case, probably the Provost.

Prof. Siegel asked that the minutes reflect that faculty members are free to ask for dispensation from these rules, for some kinds of work.  She suggested if that would be appropriate. Ms. English said that under this particular policy only the Chancellor has the rights to waive any provision of the USM policy or of any university’s approved policy.  She noted that it is unique to this policy.

Prof. Sullivan adjourned the meeting at 6:27 PM.