University Senate Agenda
February 4, 2008 Meeting
Memorandum
Date: February 15, 2008
To: The Academic Community
From: Jennifer Ballengee, Secretary
Subject: February 4, 2008—Meeting of the University Senate
The fifth regular meeting of the University Senate was held on Monday, February 4, 2008, at 4:00 p.m. in Rooms 314-315 of the University Union.
Prof. Sullivan called the meeting to order at 4 PM.
Absent were Senators Bergman, Debye, and Guerrero.
The Senate approved the agenda unanimously.
Prof. Lawson was here Dec. 3.
The Senate approved the Minutes unanimously.
Report of President Caret:
Budget: The governor’s budget continues to hold, for now. That includes significant $ for 500 FTE growth next year; includes mandatory cost increases; and holds tuition for the third year in a row. This budget would give us an increase in double digits. TU will give budget testimony in about a week and a half to the House and the Senate.
MBA: Senator Conway has reintroduced her bill regarding the MBA (Senate Bill 49; last year it was 29); Delegate Rudy Cain has introduced it on the House side. There may be room for some optimism. There was a hearing this week, but then the Senate called a special meeting in which the issue was remanded back to MHEC, to give the new Secretary a chance to try to broker a compromise that will satisfy everyone. TU’s MBA has almost 400 students; we’ve already graduated our first students. Enrollments are up 30% from two years ago. One of the realities of the situation is that none of TUs undergrad students go to Morgan State for the MBA. The only way to change that is to change the paradigm, to bring the two closer.
Other bills coming forward: textbook pricing is one.
Five-Year review of Peer Institutions: Every five years MHEC comes forward with a group of 50 peer institutions who are then used as our funding peers. We take the 75th percentile as a target. Out of that 50 we choose 10, with the approval of MHEC and USM, that are also performance peers. We are working with MHEC to see if there’s a way to expand the 50 by removing some and adding others we feel would do a better job of describing us.
Prof. Siegel asked what was remanded back to MHEC. Was it the legislation about new programs, or just the issue of the MBA? Pres. Caret confirmed that it was just the issue of the MBA.
Report of Provost Clements:
Provost Clements thanked everyone for accommodating students—he only received one call about a problem with a student getting the classes he/she needed.
TU freed up $1.2 million dollars in one-time funding. It was released 2 months ago.
Smart classrooms, campus technology, one-time boost in operating budget.
One Time Funding
FY 2008
Lab/Technology Operating
College Smart Classrooms Budget Other Total
College of Business and Economics 129,613 129,613
College of Fine Arts and Communication 111,600 111,600
College of Liberal Arts 89,060 16,000 105,060
College of Science and Math 209,680 209,680
College of Education 117,905 117,905
College of Health Professions 93,200 70,600 163,800
College of Graduate Studies and Research 75,000 75,000
Enrollment 14,500 21,700 36,200
Library 198,050 39,000 237,050
Honors College 33,000 33,000
Multicultural 11,760 11,760
Total 751,058 257,310 222,300 1,230,668
Grants and Contracts: Provost Clements announced that there was a celebration the night of the 4th for faculty who have brought in external grants and contracts. When Pres. Caret arrived, we were at $9 million. This past year we hit about $20 million. This year, we’ve already hit the $14 million mark, and could meet $25 million. This could make a difference in terms of teaching load and peer institutions. TU also received some federal money for a forensics chemistry lab. Congressman Sarbanes and Senator Cardin were here.
Space: There’s a committee that meets on a regular basis to work out space needs and movement. Non-core academic pieces are being shifted off campus, or to spaces like 7400 York Rd.
Growth: For next year, we are projected at 500 FTE.
Provost Clements has set up a series of town hall meetings in Colleges across campus.
TU received a nice gift to start a center for Adults with Autism.
With Senator Cardin and Congressmen Sarbanes, we’ve received three earmarks. The forensics lab was one. The second is related to BRAC to create a database of internship opportunities and to connect TU with that growth. The third earmark is for Cherry Hill. Those earmarks total about $750 or 800,000.
Prof. Vatz asked about the status of the committee on Merit and Compensation. Provost Clements said it wasn’t quite finalized but will meet soon. Prof. Sullivan noted that he has data and has discovered evidence of compression!
Prof. Vatz pointed out the unfairness of using averages within departments for Merit.
Prof. McLucas pointed out that the issue of gender will be important in this work.
Prof. Siegel asked if COLA and merit had been allocated in the budget. The Pres. Said COLA had not yet been allocated, but that Merit is at 2.5%.
Report of Vice President Rubin:
TU is continuing its campaign efforts. We are practically at $29 milliion in this $50 million campaign. In terms of this year, we are at about 70% completion of this drive. He urged faculty to participate in the drive; at any amount, it makes a difference. TU is presently at a 13% level of participation on campus; but TU is raising more dollars from the participants. We need both $ and participation.
The gift from the autism center allowed TU to impact a donor’s particular interest.
Report of Vice President Sheehan:
Construction: All of the projects currently in process are on time and on budget. In addition, the schedule for the Phase II Liberal Arts Building is holding, as we move through the legislative process. Construction on that will begin in Summer 2009. TU is beginning the process to develop two new residence halls.
Auxiliary operations: He’s working on a bringing a presentation from that office to the Senate.
Report of Vice President Moriarty:
Spring will be busy, as always. She handed out the February fest brochure—a wide range of activities. 55 students just graduated from the Leadershape program. The program has had an important impact on students who have participated. Black History Month is February: there will be activities all month. Feb. 15 will feature a program on MLK.
Collaborations between Academic and Student Affairs: Internships are being increased; a career development committee has been formed to increase those opportunities.
Closing the Achievement Gap: A system-wide initiative studying the kinds of support needed to help support “at risk” students.
Student Affairs recently contracted with an outside company that’s going to help with assessment. That company will look at data from already established assessment over the years.
Civic Engagement: This is an area of major collaboration between Academic and Student Affairs. “Focus the Nation” last week featured lots of student engagement. TU will begin a recycling pilot in the dorms this year.
Student Affairs plans to identify and groom agency contacts for increasing service learning work.
Vice President Moriarty handed around very nicely printed brochures on February fest. Provost Clements noted that some of the fliers have scheduling changes: Ben Carson will be here Monday, Feb. 18 (not Thurs., Feb. 7).
Prof. Sullivan asked if any presidential candidates will visit TU. Isaac answered that student groups will be fostering this more as the November election nears.
Report of Prof. McLucas, AAUP:
The AAUP continues to monitor P and T requirements. Committee W and the Junior Faculty committee are particularly active recently.
Prof. Siegel, CUSF Report:
CUSF had a useful meeting with the Chancellor; they discussed his agenda. They discussed the VSA. The Chancellor’s presentation on VSA (“Voluntary” System of Accountability) produced some concerned in CUSF members, particularly on the academic side of things.
Textbook issue: People in CUSF are going regularly to the legislature and testifying, as are faculty from MHEC. Basically they’re trying to defend faculty rights to choose textbooks; and trying to reassure the legislature that it’s important to think carefully about choosing textbooks. In order to order the textbook, faculty should be able to state the price.
Employment issues, Tuition remission: Our eligibility has changed by virtue of the tax law. The benefit will now be taxable for some. This is particularly an issue for staff, who often come here for the benefit of tuition remission.
CUSF is continuing to try to pressure the state to raise their contributions to retirement; we’re currently at the bottom, with only 7.5% support, where as most of our peers are around 12%. Also, there is no good informative brochure about retirement benefits for new faculty.
Closing the Achievement Gap: This was a big conference; but the number of faculty invited to the conference was miniscule. We know of only one faculty member who was invited. This is of concern to CUSF.
Student Research Day: Deadline for posters is Feb. 8th. CUSF is meeting that day and will review all of the research posters that day. The date of the event is the 28th.
Prof. Vatz asked if it was true that some faculty accrue sick days, and others don’t. Prof. Siegel confirmed that that was true.
Prof. Webster noted that it’s apparent that the legislature are unwilling to address the major cause of textbook overpricing. Faculty don’t set the prices of textbooks; publishers, who have a near monopoly, are the ones who set the prices.
SGA Report, Senator Haley:
SGA has been very active in dealing with the legislature. They are working on a more comprehensive textbook bill. House Bill 184: relates to housing code enforcement. The language of the bill targets students specifically. SGA is voting whether or not to endorse or oppose that bill tomorrow. That Bill is sponsored by Delegate Allman. UB-TU MBA: SGA passed a resolution against Senate bill 49.
Isaac’s legislative agenda: Addresses five main points related to students: textbooks, enrollment growth, funding, access and affordability. He passed around a brochure that describes these legislative actions.
Next month the new SGA director of Academic Affairs and the new Student at large will be present at the Senate.
Prof. Siegel asked Senator Haley to explain the Freedom of Speech Act. It’s a policy that relates to the time and place that freedom of speech is allowable on campus. Prof. Siegel suggested that such a policy should come before the Senate. Prof. Webster agreed.
Prof. Sullivan brought up Chapter 3 of the Faculty Handbook. Assoc. Provost Denniston spoke to the Senate about the document and the process. She noted that the final document approved by the Senate was lost after it was delivered [to former Provost Brennan] by the Senate sub-committee, but that problems her committee has been working on reflect the same issues the Senate discussed. The next step is that it will go to the Attorney General’s office, and then be reviewed by members of the Senate before moving on. Provost Clements noted that this body worked very hard on that document; but his office did not have the document they thought they did. They have taken time because the document is so important. Prof. Sullivan pointed out that the subcommittee elected by the Senate to put the last changes into the document will be the ones who review the document. Prof. Knutsen suggested that the Senate should review the document before it goes to the Attorney General’s office. Prof. Burks noted that she has seen no versions of this; but the UPTRM committee still has to act on questions that are coming to the committee, on the basis of the old document. Prof. Pitcher noted that the changes were all turned over to Assoc. Provost Denniston; so the Provost’s office now has a detailed record of what the Senate passed with regard to the document. Prof. Rosecky suggested that a document be ultimately printed and distributed to the Senate, once it has passed through the Assoc. Provost and Attorney General’s office. Prof. Siegel asked that paper copies be sent to members of the Senate and to the UPTRM, and that the Senate have one last chance to review the document, with changes, in total. She specified that it should be a hard document.
Pilot Trimester Program (attached).
(President Caret and Provost Clements)
TU had to take their business plan to the finance committee of the board and to the board of education committee. It has received unanimous approval for the trimester from both of these committees. The President stated that TU will begin the trimester with almost no change on campus. TU will initially not change the calendar; this may never happen. TU will increase a small number of classes, mainly STEM courses, and lab courses. TU expects to grow over the next three years at 40-80 FTE per year. The big difference will be that all growth will be funded as if it is a Fall FTE, which gives a $5500 increase per student, to build support system of faculty, etc. As the pilot progresses, the administration will then turn to the task force, which has now been formed, to address whatever problems or issues may arise with the program. In the pilot period, the funding will come from the system. At the end of the three years, the challenge will be to convince the state to actually fund this growth in the long term. Dean Charlotte Exner has agreed to chair the task force committee. Provost Clements added that the idea is better to utilize the facilities that we have. There shouldn’t be much difference, but the idea is to add flexibility for our faculty. For the next three years: small increase, minimal expansion. They are discussing the hope of increasing the compensation for summer courses. GW and U of Mich both have trimester programs. At GW they decided, after deliberation with faculty, to stay at a 14-14-10, uneven trimester. Time for reflection and research and scholarship, as well as adding quality to the teaching, is obviously important.
Prof. Rosecky noted the need to make compensation worthwhile. Prof. Knutsen noted that it might be possible for faculty to shift their teaching load around more flexibly. Provost Clements agreed. He noted that the JFC of the AAUP discussed this potential benefit with him. Prof. Tabak asked about the issues on the last page of the document; she asked if the task force would be addressing these issues. The Provost confirmed. Prof. Siegel noted that she resented learning about the pilot once it had already reached the state level. She suggested that faculty—i.e., the Senate—should have been allowed to comment upon this. Being more open with faculty will benefit the institution, she added. Prof. Tabak noted that the heart of the matter is faculty compensation. Prof. McLucas noted that flexibility is good and pressure is bad; as long as teaching in summer is voluntary, fine. But he doesn’t want to see it become a norm by which the traditional academic lifestyle becomes not the norm. There must be limitations set upon faculty teaching extra in the trimester, to avoid faculty performance in other areas suffering. Pres. Caret agreed that the compensation could distort faculty workload toward teaching, and away from research and service. Prof. Zimmerman disagreed with Prof. McLucas’ comment and noted that some faculty could “handle it.” Prof. Siegel asked how federal agencies consider extra funding like this; this could be a real issue in terms of compensation for grant money. Prof. Tabak noted that the parallel between teaching and research should be supported by parallel compensation.
Prof. Siegel recommended that the task force come to a Senate meeting.
“Voluntary” System of Accountability.
(President Caret and Provost Clements)
The Spellings commission attempted to make the federal government much more active in assessment and accreditation of our campuses. In order to get ahead of that issue, a large working group from across the country was formed to look at how we might do this better ourselves: they came up with the “Voluntary” System of Accountability (VSA). They came up with a document that provides the substantive kinds of data that can be used by anyone to assess what kind of campus we are. Pages 1 and 2 (of the document he handed out, a generic spreadsheet for a generic State University), are basic statistics of in-and-out—cost, admissions, financial aid, etc. On page 3 are depicted Carnegie classifications; Graduation rate; hot-button areas that can be tailor made for each campus. Pages 4 and 5: Student experiences and the perception of students about those experiences. There are four instruments that could be used to assess the experience. We use the Nessy data; it could be implemented into this section. The last section is student learning outcomes. They leave it up to the campuses to report how they currently measure their student learning outcomes: vehicles such as Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA), etc., could be used here. Towson is piloting some of those tests. The Chancellor is asking if we’ll participate in this (he chaired the national effort on this); also, the two creators of it are asking if we will.
Prof. Siegel articulated some problems that she remembered from CUSF. She noted that at UMCP this created a bit of turmoil. Up until page 5, everything is fine; we’re doing much of it, it seems helpful, etc. What concerned the group was the Student Learning Outcomes. In the Chancellor’s presentation, there was a note about using one of three standardized tests. One concern was that the faculty had had no input on the student learning outcomes. Another concern was the “teaching to the test” kind of worry. Those who teach English and quantitative reasoning will bring about a sort of No Child Left Behind quandary. There are concerns that the faculty will be judged in just the way schools have been judged in these cases. The Chancellor spoke to these concerns and noted that reliability and feasibility of these tests is being explored. But the big question is whether we need to have yet another assessment methodology on top of what we are already required to do for Middle States and NCATE. Prof. McLucas raised the issue of academic freedom: Faculty in this university are hired as experts in their fields; they come up with syllabi that express learning goals and learning outcomes; the assumption is that grades will reflect the student’s performance in this regard; yet the idea of VSA is that an assessment test will reflect it more truly. Pres. Caret said that is not a necessary outcome. Katherine Doherty said that she was privileged to work on this portion of the program. The intent was to come up with a system that will represent what graduates will take away with them. Towson could highlight the good work with specificity. The VSA does recommend that participants look at one of three assessments: the CAP, the CLA, and the MAP. Each of these is designed to look at ways that assess critical thinking and analytic writing. It provides a way to assess learning particularly in General Education courses. Prof. Knutsen said she likes it, but disagrees with pg. 5. There’s abundant research that demonstrates that such assessment tests do not effectively assess student learning. Prof. Webster suggested that this should be approached with caution. He expressed concern that what is easily understood is not always the most innovative or responsible method. Pres. Caret asked if we had to use a standardized test for pg. 5. Katherine Doherty said that this is the current recommendation.
Accept the Annual Report of the Teacher Education Executive Board (attached).
(Senate Executive Committee)
The Senate voted unanimously to accept the report. 16-0-0.
Intellectual Property Issues.
(Senate Executive Committee)
Prof. Sullivan adjourned the meeting at 6:05 PM.