University Senate

Memorandum

Date:                   April 30, 2009

To:                       The Academic Community

From:                   Senate Executive Committee

Subject:             Minutes of April 6, 2009—Meeting of the University Senate

The seventh regular meeting of the University Senate was held on Monday, April 6, 2009, at 4:00 p.m. in Rooms 314-315 of the University Union.

• CALL TO ORDER
• ROLL CALL

              Vice President Sheehan and Vice President Brasington were absent.

• APPROVAL OF AGENDA-Senator Poltorak proposed changing item #4 from discussion to motion. 

             Motion passed with change.

• APPROVAL OF MINUTES  - Tabled to next meeting.
• REPORTS OF EX OFFICIO SENATORS

President Caret:

• The University of Maryland System was cut $51 million and we received 4.8% cut on top of an 11% growth base.  We got 1.4 million back but it is not clear whether the Board of Reagents will support increase of tuition.  We got no enrollment growth or enhancement money.  The House and Senate are now looking at the system wide budget.  The cuts should be small but there is no new money.  Since costs have gone up, that is a problem.  We do not expect growth. We should have a final budget as soon as tonight and we will move on that.
• Legislation to kill MBA was voted down with a 10-1 margin.
• On-going dialogue with the neighborhood led to us being able to sign a memorandum.  The cost and design estimates are being done now for the new area for the new arena. We are trying to be good neighbors. Vice President Moriarty has meet with many groups, including the police department and those from the apartment complexes.
• We need a new provost.  President Caret met with Executive Committee of the Senate, the Chairs, and other groups to get their recommendations.  An acting provost will be announced before Provost Clements leaves.  We have started the search and hope to hire someone before the end of the summer.  Professor Siegel suggested that the search committee should write the ad.  Pres. Caret responded that we used the ad that we have used before and if we want to change any of the characteristics before we interview, we can.
• Professor Vatz commented that he valued how Dr. Caret has been keeping to the commitment that growth comes with funding.  He then asked will we get the appropriate funding for the growth we have already experienced.  Dr. Caret answered that we already got that funding.  Prof. Vatz then commented that when we hired the provost before Provost Clements that there was not a majority of support for him and cautioned about this happening this time.  Caret answered that that should not happen.  A majority should support the new provost.

Provost Clements:

Professor Sullivan, the Senate President, acknowledged the work that Provost Clements has done and presented him with a gift. We have accomplished a lot under his leadership. Provost Clements then reported:

• He responded that it is because this institution is so good that he got this new job.  He reported that we will try to keep enrollment where it is now as much as we can.  We have not been able to hire additional faculty positions but are waiting to hear about the budget. We have replaced pins.
• We signed an agreement with Harford County and are working on the same for Baltimore Hebrew University.
• We received four Regents’ awards, which was more than any other institution.
• President Caret asked if we are going to finish the Chapter Three before he leaves.  He responded that it has come from Attorney General’s office with some items that have to be adjusted.  They are working on this and are hoping it will be here for review next month. A few of the items in Chapter 3 did not match with the system requirements and we are working on them. Then the Faculty Handbook needs to also be adjusted to agree with the Chapter 3.

VP Moriarty:

• We have seen an increase in student engagement in the campus community this year.  More students are involved in intramurals, and more applied for RA positions than ever before.  All of these indicators are good signs of involvement.  Students participating in internships are also higher than ever with about three fourths of the upperclassman involved in internship experiences.
• Tigerfest – We have been planning how to manage events this year to have less impact on the neighborhood.  Student leaders representing larger groups across campus have signed on to be responsible for a more positive Tiger Fest.  We have staff that will go out in the neighborhood on the morning of Tiger Fest to talk with students about our expectations.
• We will partner with Towson Chamber for Towson town clean-up.
•  Applications for this year's student leadership awards are due on April 15.  This is a campus-wide celebration to recognize students active across campus.
• Civic Engagement programs are going strong.  The New York Times on campus program has brought in great speakers and we were told that we have the most readership across all universities using the program.
• We are implementing a policy to collect student's current local addresses to help improve communication with our students. 
• We are working on the smoke-free campus and received much input from groups throughout the campus.
• The Time, Place and Manor Policy has been sent around for input.  Prof. Ballingee asked if this will come back to the Senate.  Vice President Moriarty answered that they can do that.
• Prof. Siegel shared that she was speaking to someone that was at another campus that has a smoke free campus and that it had gotten worse because students are still finding places to smoke. Vice President Moriarty suggested that they will consider how to advertise it.  Prof. Maronick asked whether the Senate will be asked about this.  Prof. Storrs asked whether it was a smoke free or tobacco free campus, which could make a difference.

CUSF, Professor Siegel:

        There was not much to report.  CUSF and USM are prepared to ask for additional supplements to ORPs - to raise both state and individual contributions to these systems.  CUSF also has been trying to get health benefits for retirees in the ORPs extended to spouses at the same time it is offered to retirees (after 16 years of service).  Budget concerns at the state level are preventing these proposals from going forward..  CUSF is awaiting news on the budget and the final form of the Textbook Affordability Bill.

        Professor Sullivan asked about College Park’s post tenure review.  Professor Siegel responded that the University of Maryland Senate has not approved it.  Professor Sullivan shared that it was rumored that if someone received a negative review that he/she could get a 10% decrease in their salary and suggested that if this is passed down from the flagship it could affect us. Prof. Zimmerman suggested someone there refused to teach certain classes.  The Senate at College Park has not yet approved this part of the post tenure review process. President Caret shared that we have to protect tenure so we have tightened what we do but this has not been a problem here.  Provost Clements shared that our post tenure reviews have done very well.

AAUP, Professor Ballengee:

• Junior faculty committee had a very positive last meeting with the provost.
• Voting for University Faculty Elections is in the process. The deadline is April 14.  Emails with a link to the site will go out to remind everyone. 
• April 27 meeting we will vote for officers and things to do for next year.
• The regional AAUP meeting is on May 18 at Coppin. 
• We have increased membership considerably this year.
• Friday Sept 25th next year will be the Crab Feast/Bull Roast membership event. 
• We have been asked to host the regional meeting next year.

Professor Siegel asked about the textbook bill.  President Caret did not know but Senater Elfreth shared it was passed and is in committee right now.

SGA Report, Senator Guy:

• Voting is going on now. This will be her last Senate meeting representing SGA.  The new president will be at the next meeting.  Professor Sullivan acknowledged the excellent work that Senator Guy did leading the SGA.
• SGA partnered with the Alumni Association to volunteer at the Maryland Food Bank.
• Student-shared office space hopefully will be ready by April 21. They will hold an open house in the future so everyone can see the space.
• She suggested that the senators should look out for the April 16 Towerlight for a faculty appreciation piece in the paper.

Senate Executive Committee, Professor Sullivan:

• The University PTRM is concerned that they did not vote on the student evaluation form that is being used in two colleges.  Prof. Manesse asked for clarification on what form.  Professor Vatz also asked what this is. Professor Bergman shared that the professors of the liberal arts did not vote on it.  Professor Tabak also shared that it is used in the College of Business and they were just told to give it out.  Prof Zimmerman expressed concern that it is being used because when the past Director of Assessment testified about these evaluation forms, the senate raised concerns.  Professor Knutson asked for clarification about whether the college and departments were to choose what they used.  Professor Vatz also was concerned because the assessment tool was not something that we would want to use.  Professor Siegel shared that they used two different forms but never heard what the results were.  Professor Manasse shared that it has implications. She is in a department that was told to use this form and all of their evaluations went down. Professor Berman suggested that it does have implications and the PTRM Committee definitely should have some say in this. This evaluation is being used unfairly and the person who came to the Senate with this document did not present this correctly. Provost Clements shared that he was happy that we are having this discussion.  He did not know that this was being done and thought there was a level of faculty input.  Professor Tabak shared that although they did not agree with this document, the results are being used.  Professor Webster asked who, since the past Assessment Director is gone, directed the use of this.  Professor Brown asked what is stopping colleges from selecting forms that they use.  Professor Siegel suggests that the college councils of the colleges should be approving this.  Professor Zimmerman asked that the colleges using it be contacted and asked about the history of how this document was adopted.  The departments should have the opportunity to vote on this document.  Professor Manasse shared that she did not know that she had a choice to use the document.  Professor Ballengee suggested that we have a responsibility to ask for a history.  Professor Vatz shared that we have a passive way on this campus that is great in many aspects but as a result there are people who just used the appalling document because they did not question it.  Provost Clements suggested that we should ask the college councils about this.  Professor Zimmerman made a motion that the Deans and College Councils of the two colleges using the evaluation be requested to provide us with a history of the implementation of the evaluation.

              Motion 08/09-23 passed 18-1-1.

• Professor Bergman put forward a motion to approve that the PTRM Committee should approve all of the student evaluation documents. Professor Knutson seconded.  Discussion followed whether this should be a sense of the Senate or a motion.  We were not sure whether this is needed because this may also be part of their job.  Prof. Brown suggests that it is the role of the committee to evaluate whether documents comply with other university documents. Prof. Zimmerman suggested that they need a clarification so we need to vote on this.

              Motion 08/09-24 passed 17-1-2.

• The Student Appeals Committee has not formally requested expanding their committee.

OLD BUSINESS

1. Motion 08/09 - 17:  To accept the annual report of the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee

              Professor Berkeley, the committee chair introduced the athletic team, thanked         Professor Zimmerman for his coordination between the committee and Senate.              He also thanked President Caret for his support of athletics.

              Professor Brown asked whether economy was affecting athletics. Michael    Hermann, Director of Athletics answered that they were working on ways to              reduce their budgets.  Their department is effected by university budget cuts but             ticket sales are also flat.  Professor Brown asked about student fees.  The athletic     director shared that if we do not get more students, the student fees will not             increase.  Professor Sullivan acknowledged the high standing of our teams in         graduation rate.  The director shared that we have many groups in place to make            this happen.

              The motion to accept the report passed 20-0-0.

NEW BUSINESS

1.   Revised Cultural Diversity Plan (Attached) –Information Item (Senate Executive                                      Committee)

Debbie Seeberger,? Special Assistant to the President for Diversity and Equal Opportunity, shared that this was prepared in response to legislation that required this kind of report. Particularly addressed is how we responded to hate crimes and other diversity problems. The Systems’ Education Policy Committee wanted the statistics.  Provost Clements shared that the Board of Reagents have commented numerous times about the high quality of this document.  Professor Siegel suggested that since we are getting this acknowledgement that we should ask for additional funding.  Seeberger responded that we have.  President Caret shared that when a group of representatives from other universities looked at Towson’s Plan that they considered it a model.  Professor Manasse asked about how the hate policy form is made available.  Seeberger shared that it was on the website.  Professor Manasse questioned the form because of the way the questions were asked may hinder you from getting all of the information needed.  She suggested that the Sociology Department may be able to help.  Seeberger answered that faculty worked on this and that she would value other help.  Prof. Berman asked about if one of the weaknesses is how diversity has been translated into the curriculum.  Seeberger suggested that this is one of the issues that we are trying to work with in the process of discussing diversity and then setting goals within departments. Professor Siegel questioned whether plans to address the achievement gap are addressing academic ways to close the gap like summer schools or pre-college events.  She requested that reports come regularly to us.

1. Motion 08/09-25– To accept the proposal for the Integrated Early Childhood Education/Special Education Program (attached). (Senate Executive Committee) Motion was forwarded and seconded. Professor Bergman questioned the salary and benefit information in the proposal. He also questioned other programs in the state are not getting students so why are we suggesting this.  Dean Lorion of the College of Education answered that since we already have Early Childhood and Special Education programs, we can do this.  We already have an Elementary program like this and it is very popular.  Enrollment in Elementary Ed has gone down and this major went up.  This gives the students an opportunity for students to leave with dual certification. Since all schools are now required to have full time kindergarten and early identification of learning problems, we expect that this will be popular.  If we see the same experience as we have seen in the past, faculty from the Early Childhood will be able to move into this program.  Dean Lorion explained that we are re-allocating time. The first year this will be on campus but in the future it will be at Shady Grove and Harford Co.  Prof. Siegel asked what percentage of full time faculty teach the courses and how many are taught by part-time faculty at Shady Grove and Heath Center. Dean Lorion answered that full-time lecturers are now staffing these centers. If we send tenure-track faculty, they many not get the mentoring that they need. Professor Siegel shared a concern about the quality of what we are doing there if we are using lecturers.  Dean Lorion shared that he is very confident with the quality of what we are doing there because we are hiring very qualified people.  He also shared that this is the reason he brought forward the need for clinical faculty.  We also have faculty that live in these areas that are teaching there and emeritus faculty that are also working for us at these centers.  We cannot grow beyond this because we want to make sure we have quality people teaching there. When we are using part time faculty it is to get their expertise. Professor Guerrero shared that she has taught in the off-campus centers and the leadership has been excellent and mentoring does go on at these centers. Dean Lorion also shared that these centers give us the opportunity to expose our students to diverse populations.

Motion passed 17-0-1.

1. Revised Report of the General Education Review Committee –Discussion Item (attached). (Senate Executive Committee)

Prof. Storrs asked about courses on ethics.  Dean Cooney, Chair of the committee,   answered that we do not have enough faculty to teach ethics and other science ethics issues.  We wanted to create categories that were broad enough to incorporate these issues and environmental issues.  Prof Bergman asked about needs from the provost level to sustain this program. Dean Cooney answered that they considered identifying over-seers and the committee as a whole did not recommend appointing a person but believed that we needed a more vigorous oversight and it was not the role of the committee to determine this.  Provost Clements commended Dean Cooney for the work of his committee on this very solid curriculum. Professor Siegel asked when will this be coming up for a vote and will the provost commit to this. Provost Clements suggested that it will be costly but he will leave comments about the document.  Professor Sullivan suggested that it will have to be decided where it goes now.

1. Motion 08/09-26 Revised Honor Pledge (attached)- Discussion Item. (SGA)

Motion was forwarded and seconded. Professor Vatz suggested that there is a disparity about what you do if there are infractions. Prof. Manasse questioned what she does when some papers come forward without the honor pledge.  Senator Poltorak shared that they want to follow what University Maryland does. They do  not require the pledge.  Senator Guy explained that it is meant to be symbolic of the Academic Integrity Policy.  Professor Vatz asked if a student signs the pledge do they get more of a consequence.  Senator Guy further emphasized that is really more symbolic.  Professor Bergman questioned the burden of this being on every paper. Senator Guy suggested that it could be on the syllabus at the beginning of the course.  Some professors just put it under the name on all assignments. Professor Vatz commented that this can not but help to make students more aware. Senator Poltorak said that it does make students more aware.  Professor Siegel asked what we are proposing.  She gives daily assignments and encourages them to work together.  She cannot imagine putting this on every assignment.  She would like to see that it use be up to the discretion of the professor. Professor Vatz points out that nothing proscribes variation.  Professor Manasse asked what the honor pledge is. Senator Poltorak suggested that we use a generic one that many schools use. Prof. Sullivan clarified that the motion is to support having an honor pledge.

The motion passed 15-1-0

1. Proposal for the School of Nursing (attached)  -Discussion Item (Senate Executive Committee)

Professor Sullivan clarified that the proposal is in collection phase and the developers just want comments.  Professor Zimmerman suggested that this proposal does not satisfy the requirement that proposed schools should be started within colleges.  Professor Vatz also suggested that we consider costs. Professor Jordan, Academic Chair of the Nursing Department, when answering first thanked the College of Health Professions for their help.  Then she answered that it is important that we have a School of Nursing to compete with other universities.  She also shared that Dean Exner has been very supportive of the proposal.  The school concept gives us prestige and ways we can move forward. Prof. Sullivan volunteered to re-circulate the proposal because some of the tables did not come out clearly on the version sent out to the Senate.  He then asked senators give the group some comments before they move forward with revisions.  Professor Cox, a senator from the College of Heath Professions, pointed out that they have thought about costs and the role of the Dean.  She also asked everyone to read the proposal and give feedback.  Prof. Zimmerman again questioned putting it on the same level as the College of Health Professions.  He understands the need for a school but questions it being set up as a college with a dean.  He suggested a director instead of a dean. There are concerns with a set up like a college with a dean.  Professor Jordan replied that nationally the schools we are competing with do have a dean.  She suggested since we do not have schools at Towson that it is hard for us to understand this. It was decided that the Senate would read the proposal after the version with tables is emailed to them and forward any feedback to Professor Jordan.

Professor Storrs motioned for adjournment.  Sullivan seconded.  Meeting was adjourned at 6:15.