University Senate Minutes
Memorandum
Date: May 1, 2006
To: The Academic Community
From: Jennifer Ballengee, Secretary
Subject: May 1, 2006—Meeting of the University Senate
The sixth regular meeting of the University Senate was held on Monday, May 1, 2006 at 4:00 p.m. in Rooms 314-315 of the University Union.
Prof. Vatz requested substitution of new motion 05/06-31 for the one originally on the agenda. Prof. Rosecky moved to accept; Prof. Siegel seconded. The Senate approved the agenda unanimously.
Prof. Siegel noted that she had submitted to the Secretary several corrections of the minutes, including some typoes. Prof. Storrs moved to accept the minutes; Prof. Webster seconded. The Senate approved the minutes unanimously.
REPORT OF PRESIDENT CARET:
Pres. Caret reported that TU Plans to offer more 2+2 programs at Harford Community College to handle enrollment growth. 70% of students who graduate from Harford Community College come to TU, so TU has been working with the President of Harford Community College to develop targeted 2+2 programs. TU Administration met with Harford Administrators and Harford County Business people to talk about the possibilities; they will continue to develop this program.
Prof. Siegel asked how this shift would affect enrollment.
Pres. Caret answered that there will continue to be a limited number of programs there.
Prof. Rosecky suggested that Harford Community college offers a program that ends up with an RN certificate; TU offers the same thing, but along with a BS. This seems like a powerful opportunity.
REPORT OF PROVOST BRENNAN, ACADEMIC AFFAIRS:
It’s important to note, Provost Brennan added, that we need Harford Community College in order to meet our enrollment growth target. We need them as much as they need us; this will be an equivalent partnership. Only one in 5 Towson students are eligible to get into nursing now. The demand goes beyond our capacity to handle it, because of faculty and facilities and resources. We continue to modestly grow our presence at Shady Grove, as well.
We are on target for the dramatic enrollment growth: 805 FTE will enter in August, to bring us up to well over 19,000 students. TU is not doing TU Cares for Freshmen anymore; it will exist only as a transfer student program.
Prof. Leshnoff asked question about Health Benefits for Lecturers and Salary compression: What is the time frame for such budget decisions?
The Provost replied that RPAC has met twice with the VPs who submitted budget proposals. They have used a rating system in terms of their priorities. He agreed with what the Senate recommended, and then added his own priorities to the budget that was submitted by Academic Affairs. This budget must be finalized by June 30. The budget will be sent to the president by mid-May.
Prof. Siegel asked, given that the students are being given schedules now, how are we handling placement tests? In math, all students must take placement tests, she noted. This is necessary for scheduling and advising purposes. The Provost said that he would check on that.
The Provost later clarified that not all students currently take placement tests; only a subset identified through specific measures such as SAT performance or high school record.
REPORT OF VICE PRESIDENT MORIARTY, STUDENT AFFAIRS:
Vice President Moriarty reported that for Freshmen, TU will be doing a much more extensive orientation. Students will move in two days earlier than usual, and participate in a new student convocation.
TU is launching a search for director of the Career Center.
The SGA had a wonderful year-end program last night. Vice Pres. Moriarty thanked Darcy Accardi for her excellent work with SGA.
Prof. Roberge asked, “Who will advise the Freshmen during this time?”
The Provost answered that what the Administration is trying to do right now is give students an opportunity to have their schedules be a more deliberative process. The main purpose of the new orientation program is to get them to really bond with their first-year advisor, and also to use it as a launch pad into the semester. In really monitoring course enrollments and in adding courses before the end of August, scheduling should go much more smoothly, and we should be able to meet their demands more effectively.
VP Moriarty added that the intention is that the notion of engagement will be reinforced in this program.
Prof. Roberge asked, “Will their be more First year advisors?”
The Provost affirmed that there would be more First year Advisors.
AAUP REPORT, PROF. MCLUCAS:
Membership has topped 100. The state conference was last Saturday, and Towson had the largest contingent in attendance.
University Elections materials are up on the web.
CUSF REPORT, PROF. SIEGEL:
CUSF met on April 18 with all the Senate chairs. The Chancellor came for lunch and stayed until the afternoon. CUSF impressed upon him the importance of total compensation for lecturers. CUSF talked a great deal about the cap on COLA, as well. (There is a capped COLA for those with salaries of $70,000 or more.)
Legislative changes in Retirement plans have made the chart comparing retirement plans obsolete, so that will need to be changed.
Benefits for lecturers are still up in the air. In addition, CUSF has asked the Provost to take a look at the council’s revised procedures for Regents Awards.
Prof. Sullivan noted that the current cost of living is 3.4%, so even at 2% we’re falling behind. Over the summer, the Senate will continue to convene in a smaller group. One of the things the Senate will be addressing during this time is the Regents Award.
Pres. Caret added that medical benefits for spouses are being reconsidered.
SGA REPORT, SENATOR ACCARDI:
SGA has inaugurated their new officers. Patrick Dieguez is the new President of SGA. David Butler is the new Vice President. Brandon Moore is the new Director of Academic Affairs. There’s an editorial in the Towerlight by a student about the A+; Senator Accardi reiterated that SGA has no interest in instituting an A+.
Senator Accardi then thanked the Senate for their support of SGA in the past few years, and added that she hopes it will remain.
POINTS OF INFORMATION:
Prof. Sullivan announced that it is the intent of the Senate Executive Committee (plus a few extra members) to meet in the summer. Prof. Sullivan thanked Prof. Hartzler-Miller and Prof. Ballengee for being member-at-large and Secretary, respectively.
Prof. Sullivan noted that these are changes that will be instituted in the Faculty Handbook. The issue of the 3rd year review remains, as do the issues of Merit and Workload.
Prof. Storrs asked, “Will we see the revisions? Will we receive a redline version?”
Prof. Siegel asked, “When we have a new chapter 3, can we ask that the Senate see it before it’s sent out as a finished document?”
Prof. Leshnoff noted that the Senate passed the changes and agreed to approve the Document.
Prof. Siegel argued that the University P and T committee should implement the suggested changes and submit the final revised version again to the Senate.
Prof. Little agreed that the changes should be submitted to the Senate again. Senators would like to see all of Chapter 3.
Prof. Rosecky moved that a completed revised version of Chapter 3 be submitted to the Senate for review; Prof. Siegel seconded the motion.
Prof. Leshnoff noted that if there’s a problem, then the Senate will need to change it in September.
Prof. Sullivan agreed that it can’t be implemented over the summer anyway.
A vote was called for Prof. Rosecky’s motion. The motion passed: 19 in favor; 1 opposed; 0 abstaining.
At the May 2, 2005 meeting of the Senate, there was a request for departments to develop guidelines for the distribution of teaching loads. There are two parts to the report that the Provost provided, in response to that request (attached). The first is an explanation of the Excel spreadsheet of what he has received so far. The request was that Colleges submit Department schemes by the end of Fall semester. Three colleges couldn’t meet this deadline. The first was COBE, which ran into accreditation problems. There were some logistic problems in the College of Health Professions, which delayed their submission. And the last submission was from the College of Education.
The schemes are divided into three categories. The first is Descriptive, featuring a fairly wide set of criteria; the second category recognizes those schemes with specific criteria, which usually contain examples of what faculty need to do. And the third category features operational specificity, which is a fairly refined definition that is quantifiable in terms of a point system. Most programs were approved, though some were approved provisionally (as the spreadsheet notes).
The critical question here, the Provost noted, was how scholarship is defined, for all members of a department. He was particularly impressed with the schemes of the English department and the Department of Audiology and Deaf Studies.
This is a good advance, he suggested, because it locates the initiation of decision making on workload where it should be, at the department level.
He has not yet approved the guidelines for the College of Education. There was an attempt to define a college-wide standard. This doesn’t seem like a good idea. The other issue is the centrality of the PDS (Professional Development Schools) workload in the college of Education, which is really complicating things for them. In their particular set of circumstances, it is understandable that they are taking more time with this.
He will be coming back to the Senate again with an elaboration of those areas that are not completely approved, as well as the College of Education. At that point he will submit them to the President, and we will move forward from that point.
Prof. Ballengee asked, “Do carry-over points count? We were informed by our Dean that the Provost’s office would not allow carry-over points.”
The Provost affirmed that carry-over points or similar credits could be accommodated in the departmental guidelines.
Prof. Ballengee then asked, “Does this mean that faculty who are approved by their departments to teach a certain load based on their approved system can teach the number of courses for which they have been approved?”
The Provost replied that within the parameters of the 7.5 that we are required to meet, how those goals are met should be determined at the level of the department. That is where the decision should be initiated, and then it goes to the Dean, and then to the Provost.
Prof. Pitcher thanked the Provost for his leadership in this matter. She pointed out that none of the faculty members of the College of Education have had any input on this workload scheme. She remembered that when they were first talking about workload last year, the Provost and President Caret both discussed empowering faculty in these terms; faculty need to be able to determine the kind of workload that they want. But this is not happening in the College of Education.
Prof. Siegel noted that working on the System-wide workload agreement was also very difficult. We’ve done a reasonably good job here. She then requested that after this is in place for a year, in the Fall of 2007, we request a report from the provost and AAUP providing some review of how the system is working. The other issue is how to judge people within a college when the workloads within a college are determined according to significantly different requirements.
Prof. McLucas added to Prof. Siegel’s comment that he has heard that there are varying levels with which the faculty are being involved in this process. The message needs to be constantly reiterated that faculty should be involved in this.
Prof. Leshnoff asked, theoretically, if 90% qualify for a 3-3 load, how will the math workout?
The Provost stated that the long-term plan for the workload configuration of the university is to justify a Research Intensive workload of 6.5 units, between the comprehensive level and that of the Research Extensive institutions within the USM.
Prof. Roberge asked if we could have a digital version of all of those schemes?
The Provost said that he would send the handout he’d provided at this meeting out with the minutes. He said that he would try to get permission from the departments that are exemplary, to post them on the Provost’s website.
1. Motion 05/06-27:
Accept Annual Report of TEEB (Teacher Education Executive Board) [attached].
(Senate Executive Committee)
Prof. Siegel moved to accept it; Prof. Pitcher seconded it.
Prof. Siegel noted that what we’ve always required is a report with attendance, primary business, and motions that were passed.
The motion passed, with 20 in favor; 0 opposed; 0 abstaining.
To advise that, when the administration puts forward a major policy formulation, the administration make available to the university community a written text describing that policy in detail. Moreover, when the policy falls under the realm of faculty responsibilities, according to the AAUP Policy on Shared Governance, which Towson University has adopted in the Faculty Handbook, that policy must be vetted before the Senate before being put into effect.
(Richard Vatz and Jennifer Ballengee)
Prof. Vatz began by noting that the campus has been roiled by reports of intentional advising. He stated that he couldn’t recall any issue when he had been contacted by more people on the faculty who have been upset by what they thought they heard about future advising policies. Thus, he added, he and Senator Ballengee put together a motion that addresses a more general problem that the faculty has identified.
Prof. Vatz moved to accept the motion; Prof. Little seconded the motion.
The Provost said that he would certainly second this, and then he added that he would like to say in a public way that he’s sorry for any angst that was caused. From the time that he saw the original motion and the time that he spoke to Prof. Vatz, it was clear that in one of the colleges, there had been an advising form developed (which did not reflect the intention of the committee on intentional advising). This form was misleading in many ways. The purpose of intentional advising is to develop flexibility for large departments, and flexibility for students.
The second point of this motion here is well-intended, he observed, and he agreed to take responsibility for whether it should have gone through the Senate. He didn’t see it, from the point of view of faculty or workload, as a significant change. He was looking at it philosophically, and from the point of view of students. He wanted for faculty to be able to have more substantive conversations with their advisees.
Prof. Rosecky noted that he has over 100 advisees listed to his name. He then asked the Provost, “Can you define for me what you mean by intentional advising?”
The Provost responded that students are getting the opportunity to meet with their faculty members and discuss the direction of their study, etc. This incorporates the need for different degrees or kinds of advising as they move toward their degrees.
Prof. Vatz added that part of this is not confusing. The Associate Deans, in meeting with many departments, were saying specifically incorrect policy. Also, there was a great deal of symbolic communication that major changes in advising were to occur. Moreover, it was clearly communicated, even if erroneously, by some associate deans that mandatory one-on-one advising with full-time faculty would be required for all students.
The Provost went on to explain that it had become clear to the Administration that advising just is not working on this campus. Advising also includes a lot of other stuff that is making the students unhappy. One of the things that Dr. Moriarty and the Provost are trying to get going, he explained, is a joint task force that links advising to the Career Center. Some of the tools that we now have available through Peoplesoft are going to be very effective in helping faculty to advise students.
Prof. Cox noted that, based on what she was now hearing, this seemed very different from what she had heard. She then asked, “Is it true that students will need their advisor’s approval in order to register for classes?”
The Provost responded in the negative. Students will need to be unblocked, but how that is to be done will depend on departmental policy. This is your decision, he added.
Prof. McLucas noted that many colleagues have contacted him about student evaluations of advisors. “Is that still part of the plan?” he asked.
The Provost responded, “Not as far as I know.”
Prof. Vatz stated that many faculty were told that there would be student evaluations of advising. Prof. Siegel added that issues of evaluation were high on the list of complaints. She recommended that part of the policy might be that if there are departments where the ratio of advisees to tenured faculty is too high, then the block should be removed.
Prof. Webster stated that he had no problems with this policy, with the exception of blocking. He has a problem with this philosophically, he explained. The peers of Towson students who are not in university, and who are in the service, are making life and death decisions for themselves. Why is it that we assume that 18-21 year olds are not capable of monitoring their own lives? To him, he added, this is just another example of infantilization of a whole population of people who don’t deserve it. At what point do people take responsibility for their own lives? He suggested that it’s revolting that we hold students to such a low standard of responsibility.
Prof. Roberge suggested that this is an issue of shared governance. There should be greater communication between the faculty and the administration.
The Provost said the document was created in the Fall by a group of experts involved in advising on the Towson campus; it was a transparent process. Chairs were supposed to disseminate this document and discuss it with their departments. TU has 35 departments. The dissemination of this information, he went on, seems to have happened in a couple of colleges, not at all in other colleges, and backwardly in other colleges. The chairs have a certain responsibility that they need to assume. He added that he felt a little offended when Senator Roberge phrased this as a problem of shared governance. He said he understood why Prof. Roberge was saying that he violated that, but that was the opposite of his intention.
Prof. Little noted that she supported the motion on the floor. She then added, however, that she had a question about the fact that there are still some specific details that we’ve gotten from our dean’s offices, and there seems to be a document in progress, and there are no faculty members on that committee which is developing the document for implementation.
Senator Accardi asked to address the comments about infantilization. She explained that she thought it would be babying students to say, “I need to check your schedule, and then I’ll unblock your registration.” She added that it should be clarified that there will not be technical problems with this process of unblocking.
The motion was called to a vote and passed, 19 in favor; 0 opposed; 0 abstained.
Prof. Rosecky asked, “Shall I understand that a written policy describing this advising policy will be disseminated?”
Prof. Sullivan and Prof. Goins answered, “Yes.”
Accept Revised Student Academic Integrity Policy
(Senate Executive Committee)
Prof. Storrs asked, “How is this policy different?”
Bob Giordani answered that this policy now includes non-course specific academic policy regulations. The deans are now a part of the process. There is now a definition of group work. In the new policy, the letters concerning academic integrity now go to the registrar’s office. Departments that have their own professional standards were also incorporated in this document.
Prof. Vatz noted that on page 25, the third paragraph reads, “In cases where the identity of the violator is not determined….the faculty may then hold the entire group responsible for a violation…” So, he asked, if you have a member of the group whose ethics are clean, how can one justify their punishment?
Mr. Giordani answered that if there is a situation in which the members’ of the group are inseparable, they must be treated as a group.
Senator Accardi agreed with Prof. Vatz, and explained that this was why she asked them to put a group policy in the document. She couldn’t think of an example in which one wouldn’t know who the person was who had cheated.
Prof. Siegel explained that if there’s no policy, then there’s no reason for the innocent not to remain mum. Prof. Rosecky suggested that in group projects, the group is responsible for the results they produce.
Prof. Vatz argued that if the University Senate slandered somebody, and we couldn’t tell who it was, and we were all held financially responsible, no one would put up with it.
Senator Castillo suggested that students will ultimately protect their own necks. Students will have no problem in turning someone else in, if it jeopardizes our own records.
Prof. Siegel asked a question about Page 21: “Who decides how long before something is submitted?”
Mr. Giordani: “I believe I do. No student has ever claimed they needed more time for an appeal.”
Prof. Siegel: “Why is there no appeal to the President?”
Provost: “None of the student judicial appeals appeal to the president.”
The motion came to a vote and passed, 12 in favor; 1 opposed; and 0 abstaining.
Receive new COBE Academic Policy
(Senate Executive Committee)
Prof. Siegel asked, “If you’re teaching a class in which you have MBA and non-MBA students, which policy will you use?”
Provost: “You’ll use the grading policy for the MBA.”
Prof. Rosecky: “I support this. It’s good for Towson.”
Prof. Rosecky moved to accept the motion; Prof. Roberge seconded.
The motion came to a vote and passed, 14 in favor; 0 opposed; 0 abstaining.
Approve Change in By-Laws for University Curriculum Committee
(University Curriculum Committee)
Prof. Siegel noted that there are a couple of significant typoes in the document: top of pg. 36, the letter “n” is missing. Then at the bottom, the word Committee is missing. She then noted that a substantive addition that she’d like to see is, under the course approval Reporting committee, an item #4. She asked if this could be amended to read: “To communicate to all departments the decisions reached.” And the same on item #5, section B1b.
Prof. Little noted that in both of those lists, the last thing is to communicate departments. She said that she’d move those so that that is one of the first things done, before the policies are approved.
The motion came to a vote and passed, 14 in favor; 0 opposed; 0 abstaining.
Accept SGA Resolution concerning Intentional Advising Programs.
(Student Government Association)
Senator Accardi explained that this resolution reflects similar concerns to those raised earlier. As long as students are involved in the implementation of this, SGA feels the policy is acceptable.
Prof. Storrs moved to accept the motion; Prof. Roberge seconded.
The motion came to a vote and passed, 14 in favor; 0 opposed; 0 abstaining.
Prof. Storrs moved to adjourn; Prof. Rosecky seconded.
Prof. Sullivan adjourned the meeting at 6:10 p.m.