University Senate
Memorandum
Date: January 31, 2007
To: The Academic Community
From: Jennifer Ballengee, Secretary
Subject: December 4, 2006—Meeting of the University Senate
The fourth regular meeting of the University Senate was held on Monday, December 4, 2006, at 4:00 p.m. in Rooms 314-315 of the University Union.
Prof. Sullivan called the meeting to order at 4 p.m.
Absent were Senators Brown, Guerrero and Nixon. Also absent were Pres. Caret, Vice Pres. Moriarty, Vice Pres. Sheehan, Vice Pres. Rubin, and Vice Pres. Clements.
The Senate approved the agenda unanimously.
The Senate approved the minutes unanimously.
The Senate approved the minutes unanimously.
REPORT OF THE PROVOST, Provost Brennan:
The Administration has been meeting with USM about enrollment projections for next year. TU has proposed taking its overage of additional FTE above the 805 FTE promised for this year and rolling that over into next year. By current projections, then, TU would grow next year by 800 minus the overage of this year, about 125. TU’s proposal to the system is that TU be funded for an additional 800 FTE next year, but only increase its enrollment by about 675. The question is whether or not USM can afford to take this risk of letting Towson not increase more. The Provost expressed the hope that we’ll find out in the next month or so whether or not they’ll accept TU’s proposal.
There is otherwise some uncertainty about the budget for next year, because of the change in State Administration. The Provost suggested that TU is in a particularly strong position because of our enrollment growth and its help to USM.
Prof. Siegel remarked that when CUSF met with USM Senate chairs, TU was accused of stealing students from other USM institutions.
CUSF REPORT, Prof. Siegel:
CUSF will meet 12/12 at UMCP. CUSF continues to discuss issues of contingent faculty. They are considering creating a new category for yearly contract employees that will help them acquire better benefits.
Prof. Siegel noted that there was some discussion about Tiger Pride day in Annapolis, including Towson student research there, too.
AAUP REPORT, Prof. McLucas:
AAUP had a strong chapter meeting in November. A new issue of the AAUP newsletter will appear before the end of Fall semester. A special issue of the newsletter in the Spring semester will address the issue of contingent faculty. The All-faculty e-mail list is still in the works.
SGA REPORT, Senator Dieguez:
Passed around a memo concerning a permanent motto for Towson University. He asked for comments or feedback from the Senate.
Senator Moore passed around a second memo about student plagiarism. SGA is proposing a special system called “Turnitin” for faculty.
Prof. Little noted that this program used to be available to TU faculty. Prof. Brennan noted that determining whether or not students are actually ignorant of plagiarism is an issue. Prof. Brennan asked how “Turnitin” is better or different from what we already have in place. Senator Moore agreed that it offers nothing new. Prof. Little noted that plagiarism is often by accident. Prof. Siegel noted that students could benefit from access to this program. Prof. Rosecky noted that one can use a web search engine to find plagiarism. He added that it is unethical to plagiarize. Prof. Vatz noted the ambiguity of the word plagiarism. Prof. Zimmerman noted that the Senate was not currently considering a motion. He suggested that the SGA give this memo to the University Technology committee and get their response. Prof. Sullivan applauded the SGA for raising this issue. Prof. Brennan asked whether or not the university motto could be in English.
1. Motion 06/07-07:
Accept annual report of the Admissions Committee
(Senate Executive Committee)
The motion had been tabled because of questions about the Top Ten program. Provost Brennan responded to these questions with summary data:
The first year of the program recruited 88 students from Baltimore County and 98 from Baltimore City that were in eligible high schools; this produced a total of 186 students. There was a return rate of 76%: 86% of students from Baltimore County returned and 68% of students from Baltimore City returned. The total return rate for the university as a whole was 80%. The Top 10 students, the Provost remarked are academically diverse; some are honors college students, some are in developmental courses and relying on the academic support infrastructure set up for this program, managed through the Provost’s Office, the Office of Enrollment Management, and overseen primarily by Mr. Barry Evans.
This year, TU modified the program slightly. Students whose verbal and math scores were relatively quite low (compared to successful Top Ten students from its first year) were invited to participate in a dual admissions program, mostly with BCCC and the Community College of Baltimore County (CCBC). There are a total of 16 of these students. They will do at least one year at the community college. These students are still advised by TU faculty; they will be evaluated after each year, with the hope they’ll be admitted to TU by their junior year.
The other major difference is that TU has found SAT scores to be a better predictor of student success than GPA (even though it’s a GPA measure that gets them into the program).
Provost Brennan urged faculty to bear in mind that this program is intended to correct the 2003 fact that, out of a Freshman class of 2200, only 24 were from Baltimore City Public Schools. TU’s goal is to essentially phase out this program once TU has been put on the radar of Baltimore City Public Schools. Provost Brennan invited Louise Shulack to add to his comments. She reaffirmed the basic points he’d made.
Prof. Little noted that the very last sentence of the Admissions Committee report notes the importance of student input on the committee. She agreed that it would be important on this committee, in particular, to have student input.
Prof. Siegel complimented TU for having an Admissions Committee that includes faculty and students; this is not the case for all USM institutions.
The Senate voted unanimously to accept the motion 20-0-0.
2. Motion 06/07-10:
Accept revised Faculty Handbook, Chapter 3, which incorporates changes recommended by Senate (passed in 05/06), Provost’s recommendations (presented at 11/06/06 meeting), and Senate responses to those recommendations (discussed at 11/06/06 and 11/20/06 meetings)
(Senate Executive Committee)
Prof. Vatz noted pg. 18, terms to be used in evaluation of faculty performance. He noted that a.) he doesn’t see the necessity for such a section, and b.) he suggested eliminating precise empirical benchmarks for student evaluations. He moved that this be done.
The Provost noticed that the copy was in error.
The Senate agreed not to vote on it.
Prof. Zimmerman noted that on pg. 3, 2a and 2b are not consistent.
Prof. Ballengee agreed to make a clean copy for the Senate. Senators should send comments to Prof. Ballengee by Jan. 10.
1. Discussion Item:
Report of the University Police Chief
See handout. While nonviolent crimes may have risen slightly in the past year, violent crimes have decreased significantly.
Prof. Rosecky said that this campus has traditionally been a safe campus. The Senate applauded the police for doing a splendid job.
Prof. Brennan asked if officers patrol on foot in addition to cars. The chief affirmed that, and added that there are also bicycle patrol officers. He also asked if the Chief is being consulted about new construction at Towson. The chief affirmed that the police are given the opportunity to make recommendations on blueprints.
Prof. Leshnoff asked for an update on Officer Brown. The Chief said that the Officer is on staff, but remarked that he could not go into detail on that because it’s a personnel matter. Prof. Leshnoff noted that the Baltimore-area Jewish community was very upset to hear about that officer’s situation.
Prof. Siegel asked about vacation and holiday closures. She noted that it is a problem to have to ask permission to be in buildings during that time. The Chief responded that it is important that the police have a record of who is allowed to be in the building at all times. Prof. Little asked if the Chief gets reports on computer crimes.
2. Motion 06/07-11:
The Provost and Senate Executive Committee will jointly appoint a representative committee to plan revisions and updating of the University General Education Curriculum, beginning in February 2007 with a target date of completion of its work, including review by the appropriate University Senate committees and the full Senate, by May 2008.
(Senate Executive Committee and the Provost)
Prof. Roberge asked how this is different from the current, standing committee on General Education. The Provost noted that the current committee has the task of monitoring the current general education requirements. He added that, with higher enrollment and new curricula being planned, it is important to have a proactive process on General Education. Prof. Sullivan noted that this is the topic of the January conference. The Provost noted that Louis Menand will be the keynote speaker at this event. The January conference is not meant to be prescriptive in any way, it is simply meant to discuss the process.
The Senate accepted the motion 19-0-0.
3. Motion 06/07-12:
Accept University PTRM Committee Proposal for the Third Year Review (appended)
(Senate Executive Committee)
Prof. Vatz noted that this is yet another additional amount of work for large departments. He questioned the need for a third year review. Prof. Zimmerman empathized with Prof. Vatz’s concerns, but also noted the need to give feedback for people in the tenure process. Prof. McLucas expressed support for the motion; he noted that the motion came out of the Junior Faculty committee of the AAUP. They are asking for clarity in the tenure process. Prof. Webster noted that the Psychology Department mentors from day one. Provost Brennan agreed that departments should do this. But the annual review only looks at one year at a time. The Third Year Review looks at all three years together; this is one of the rationales for such a review.
Prof. Brennan, as a member of the JFC, noted that one member of the committee expressed the fear that the third year review was being used to “label” junior professors. The Third Year Review proposal should designate that it is used to help professors get tenure, not to categorize junior faculty.
Prof. Siegel expressed concern about a few things: 1.) the same concern as Prof. Brennan; 2.) this review seems to suggest a promise of tenure; 3.) number 7 in the proposal should be removed, since she’s not sure we have “accelerated tracks” anymore. Prof. Zimmerman noted that Dean Exner (on the committee) thought the material should be shared with the Dean, and the committee agreed it should not go beyond that level.
Prof. Pitcher noted that mentoring needs to be in place. Prof. McLucas noted that a person at this stage of their career is particularly in need of a review in this sense. Prof. Vatz noted that nobody disputes the value of mentoring, but a review such as this raises potential legal problems.
Provost Brennan noted that it’s his assumption that anyone hired by TU on a tenure-track line is tenurable. When a faculty member is denied tenure, it is evidence of a failure on the part of the individual and the institution. When a faculty is denied tenure and anyone is surprised, that is a failure of the institution. This is a way to give junior faculty feedback on multiple years of productivity and to help them stay on track so that they can get tenure. Prof. Zimmerman noted that, since this does review not go up to the higher administration, he doesn’t see how there’s a legal problem with this. Prof. Siegel responded that many institutions give a three-year initial contract, but TU is somewhat unique in having a one-year renewable contract for junior faculty.
The Senate passed the motion 14-1-4.
The Third Year Review Proposal will be incorporated in Chapter 3 of the Faculty Handbook, if it’s accepted by the President.
4. Motion 06/07-13:
Accept annual report of the Student Appeals Committee
(Senate Executive Committee)
The motion was tabled. The Senate will request a new report.
5. Motion 06/07-14:
Accept annual report of the Research Planning & Advisory Committee (RPAC)
(Senate Executive Committee)
Prof. Vanko, chair of the committee, was present.
Prof. Sullivan noted that last year the Senate voted to approve a member of DECO on the committee. Prof. Sullivan raised a motion for Prof. Vanko, which moved that the Senate amend the RPAC membership so that any VP who sits on the committee as that division’s representative will not have a vote.
The Senate passed that motion 17-0-0.
Prof. Siegel asked Prof. Vanko to describe the meetings. RPAC now meets monthly in the Fall, and more frequently in the Spring. RPAC conducted an exercise in zero-base budgeting. Now they are discussing benchmark-based budgeting. Prof. Brennan asked if the information from the Delaware budget study could be distilled and put into the Annual Report for next year. Prof. Debye asked if TU hadn’t participated in a similar study before this. Prof. Vanko said TU did it for one year several years ago, but then did not continue.
The Senate passed the motion 19-0-0.
Prof. Sullivan adjourned the meeting at 6 p.m.
Appendix
Third Year Review Proposal
11-10-06 rev
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR THE PURPOSE OF REVIEW OF FACULTY PROGRESS TOWARDS TENURE AND PROMOTION DURING THE THIRD YEAR (“Third Year Review”)
1. Purpose of Review. The department recognizes that each faculty member offers a unique combination of education, skills, interests, experiences and career aspirations. Consequently, while the standards for performance will be consistent among faculty, the areas in which each faculty member is evaluated and the weight assigned to each of those areas will differ among faculty, consistent with the annual workload agreements as agreed to by faculty, chair and dean.
At the conclusion of the Fall semester during a candidate’s third year at Towson University, the department PTRM Committee shall conduct a “Third Year Review” of tenure-track candidates. The purpose of the review is to serve as an advisory and mentoring function for the faculty member.
The review will be done in concert with the Guidelines for Development of Departmental Standards and Expectations for Teaching, Scholarship and Service, as described in the Towson University Faculty Handbook, Addendum A. As noted below, department PTRM committee evaluations of a candidate’s interim progress will become part of the faculty member’s file at the department level and shared with the dean; however, it will not be forwarded to either the college PTRM committee or the provost.
2. Dimensions of Review. Candidates during their third year of service will be evaluated on three primary dimensions: Teaching, Scholarship and Service. Balance among dimensions is to be achieved through the workload as developed by faculty, chair and dean. In addition, a faculty member shall be committed to collegiality and academic citizenship as demonstrated by humane, ethical and professional behavior.
Teaching (in all its components including advising and mentoring): Student learning is at the core of Towson’s mission and the primary commitment of the faculty of the department. The teaching dimension of performance includes: Advising assigned and unassigned students from the department’s major fields of study, counseling students enrolled in the faculty member’s courses, classroom or online instruction, mentoring graduate and undergraduate research, preparation and keeping current in the subject areas being taught, and evaluation of student performance. Teaching may also include supervision of student internships and directed or independent studies. It is acknowledged that approaches and outcomes may differ among disciplines and it is for the discipline and department to determine standards within the framework of the faculty handbook. While faculty play a critical role in student learning, this policy re-affirms the primary responsibility of the student for the student’s own learning outcomes and career preparation.
Scholarship: Scholarship involves the investigation of the significance and meaning of knowledge, undertaken through critical analysis and interpretation. Scholarship may be applied, where knowledge is applied to real world problems to gain an understanding of how the knowledge can be used to help individuals and institutions resolve such problems. Scholarship may also be that of discovery, where new knowledge is developed through rigorous and disciplined investigative efforts. Scholarship may also be considered that of original creative work.
Scholarship typically includes both a process of peer review and some form of dissemination (or “publication”) of the work as determined by the relevant academic discipline.
The following are possible ways in which scholarship can be pursued and included as part of the annual workload agreement: presentations made at practitioner conferences and events; creative works (art, dance, music, showings, works and so on); presentations made at scholarly conferences, with or without proceedings publication; publication of a refereed article, case, monograph, book chapter or book; publication of textbook supplements or other course materials; award of a research grant or fellowship; creation of licensed computer software; reviews of books, software, etc. in a refereed scholarly journal; awards from the department, college, university or professional association for scholarly activity; and others. Many fields demonstrate "publication" through creative production rather than through traditional written documents." For example "appropriate kinds of scholarship/creative activity" may include: productions, juried exhibitions, distribution, management (of media stations or labs), internet publication, and multi-media performance as well as film, video and digital media productions. Additionally, the department may determine that a grant proposal (and the successful attainment of a grant) may be either scholarship or service depending upon its assessment of the purpose and quality of the grant.
Service: Faculty are expected to contribute their professional expertise to the department, college, university and professional associations. They are encouraged, but not required, to contribute to their communities as well. It is desirable that faculty service work, both at Towson and in professional associations, begins with membership and active participation on committees and eventually progress to leadership roles. Assessment will consider the level and extent of participation and contribution to service endeavors (rather than mere membership) and the collegiality displayed in treating others in a respectful manner. In presenting their service for review, faculty members should prepare a narrative, which explains the scope and depth of their contributions and may also solicit letters of support, or references, from those under whom the service was engaged.
3. Procedure. At the conclusion of the Fall semester during a candidate’s third year at Towson University, tenure track faculty should prepare an interim dossier of activities for evaluation by the department’s PTRM committee. The intention of the evaluation is to assess progress toward tenure by advising and mentoring the faculty member. This includes providing:
The faculty member should submit materials for the previous two and one-half years as if the faculty member were applying for tenure and/or promotion. The department PTRM Committee will evaluate the materials and indicate to the faculty member, in writing:
This written report will become part of the faculty member’s file at the department level, shared with the dean, and will not be forwarded to either the college PTRM committee or the provost. Again, the purpose of the review is to serve as an advisory and mentoring function for the faculty member.
4. Dossier. For purposes of the Third Year Review, the following materials (as set out in the Faculty Handbook, Annual Review) will be needed:
i. AR (Annual Report) or CAR (Chairperson's Annual Report) form including workload statement signed by faculty, chair and dean.
ii. Curriculum vitae
iii. Syllabi of courses taught in the year being reviewed
iv. Both student and peer evaluations of teaching and advising
v. Evidence of scholarship
vi. Evidence of service.
vii. AR part 2 from the previous academic year for continuing faculty, for each year.
5. Standards. The Department PTRM committee will assess the Third Year Review candidate and a clear statement of progress toward tenure must be included. New faculty must develop excellence in teaching (including advising and mentoring) and a plan for, and evidence of, scholarly productivity. Service will be evaluated according to department standards. As noted under Dimensions of Review (above) a faculty member also shall be committed to collegiality and academic citizenship as demonstrated by humane, ethical and professional behavior. The following three-level scale is to serve as a general guideline for the review:
6. Timetable: For purposes of review during a faculty’s third year:
7. Accelerated Track Review. In the circumstance where a faculty has been hired on an accelerated tenure-track timetable the agreement between faculty and dean or provost shall supercede the third year review. In those instances, the regular Annual Review by the department may be expected to serve a more extensive function and the department may provide more extensive feedback to the candidate.