University Senate Agenda
May 5, 2008 Meeting
Memorandum
Date: April 29, 2008
To: The Academic Community
From: Jennifer Ballengee, Secretary
Subject: May 5, 2008—Meeting of the University Senate
The eighth regular meeting of the University Senate was held on Monday, May 5, 2008, at 4:00 p.m. in Rooms 314-315 of the University Union.
Absent were….
Prof. Vatz moved to move Item #5 of New Business to the first item of New Business. Prof. Knutsen seconded the issue. Discussion ensued. The Senate voted on the motion 6-9-1. The Agenda therefore remained unchanged.
The Senate voted unanimously to approve the minutes.
REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT:
Pres. Caret reported that the 09 Budget has come through the governor’s office and legislature; although there have been a number of cuts and new tax streams, TU’s budget, and the budget for USM, is to be applauded. The new one is a 10% increase to the system. The other good news for students is that because of the budget, there will be three years in a row now with no tuition increase; this is relatively unique across the country. Total increase to TU: 13.3% increase to base. There have been great improvements to TU’s budget, earned by us. This budget, when you take both state budget and tuition, given the growth, will generate about $22 million extra dollars, over last year. But that money disappears quickly:
-$5 million to retiree health insurance and post-retirement obligations
-the 2.5% merit increase last year cost about $2.7 million and COLA cost about $2.5 million last year. It will probably be about the same this year.
-There is a $2 million requirement from the state for fund balance; TU must contribute to state bank fund.
-There is a $400,000 increase in debt service to bonds funding construction on campus.
So we have about $2 mil unencumbered funds for TU. TU has put aside about $3 million for emergency funds, etc.
The state still has a $50 million hole in its budget that it was unable to fix. It’s unlikely that that hole will be fixed without any cuts to the system (USM). If that happens, there may be talk of a tuition increase.
TU also has some enhancement funding in this budget, about $600,000, aimed specifically at STEM workforce development.
A 5-year review of peer institutions has been completed (every 5 years MHEC reviews peer institutions; it’s a collaborative process). There are 50 of these institutions, and TU uses their funding in order to determine comparable funding. Ten of these 50 are chosen as performance peers, against whom Towson’s performance is measured. USM was supportive of everything TU proposed; TU met a series of times with MHEC and came up with a group of schools which are both realistic and aspirational: 7 new performance peers and 3 original peers (UC Sacramento, Western Kentucky Univ., Eastern Mich. Univ.). New institutions: Ball State, Eastern Carolina, James Mad, UNC Charlotte, Portland State, UM Boston, U of Western Iowa. Five of these 7 are in the doctoral category and hence have more research activity and more doctoral production than we do. TU also came up with a smaller group of truly aspirational peers—something well beyond where we are now, but logically could be where we’d like to end up. This should make a huge difference in terms of funding guidelines and faculty workload.
Prof. Brown asked about state funding per student. The President answered that TU receives $5300 per FTE.
REPORT OF PROVOST CLEMENTS:
TU received official NCATE accreditation this week. We also have just been renewed as an NSA and DHS national center of academic excellence. Grants and contracts (April 30 numbers) were up to $17.9 million this year, compared to $15.8 million last year.
AAUP Second Friday event: Prof. Jack Fruchtman will give a presentation; followed by a happy hour.
Provost Clements reviewed specific Academic Affairs budget items:
***He’ll send me this for the minutes.
TU has had about 20,000 applications for next year, about 17,500 for freshmen alone.
GPAs and SAT scores are very strong.
Proposals for two new schools: School of Nursing and School of Technology. The Provost and the Deans have decided that the requirements for such new schools need to be structured, including economic analysis, objectives and expectations for new schools, how these things are measured, program size, approval process for Senate, and conclusions about P and T. The Deans will be working on formalizing this over the summer and hopefully that will come to the Senate in the Fall.
The Art Department will change its name to Art, Art History, and Education. The Provost has asked the Dean of COFAC to discuss this with other Deans to make sure they approve.
Provost Clements then addressed the perception that class size is really growing. The case is that the average class size across the university has dropped to just around 19-1, whereas it was in the low 20s in the past. He noted that he knows this is not every class, but on the whole the class size has dropped.
He called upon Kathy Doherty to discuss the new Assessment cycle.
Kathy Doherty introduced Prof. Jane Neopolitan, chair of the Univ. Assessment Council, to inform the Senate. She requested a change in the Senate bylaws concerning the makeup of the University Assessment Council. In the past, the council has focused on assessing academic programs, with big subcommittees on undergrad and grad programs. The Council would now like to open up membership in its body to most every division on campus. Some of these will be ex officio and non-voting, though they may later become more participatory. She distributed copies of the request. It was agreed that this request will need to be formally presented to the Senate as a Motion (with appropriate supporting documents) in Fall 2008.
Provost Clements announced that there’s now a push, for federal tax reasons, that all academic employees be paid on a 12-month schedule. Prof. Siegel asked for important clarification that this not change the contract—i.e., that those with a 9-month contract remain on a 9-month contract, rather than a 12-month contract.
Chapter 3 of the Faculty Handbook update: the document is not ready for review; work on it is not completed, for several reasons, including multiple cases where issues needed to be discussed with the Attorney General’s office and/or Michael Anselme’s office. The schedule for moving forward is that the document will be finished in June. At that time, it will be made available to all Senate members for review. It will go at the same time to the AG’s office and University counsel’s office for review. The Senate will then vote on it in Fall 08. Prof. Burks expressed serious concern, echoing the UPTRM committee, that the document will therefore not be implemented until Fall 09; this is serious lag time. Provost Clements acknowledged her concern and expressed his regret that circumstances couldn’t enable a more expedient process. Prof. Siegel noted that the State’s Attorney General and someone from the system are currently going over chap. 2 of the State’s document on faculty promotion and tenure.
REPORT OF VICE PRESIDENT MORIARTY:
Two quick updates: there will be a new commencement pledge this year. The pledge has moved from the national pledge used last year (which focused on the environment) to something more compatible with TU. She passed out cards printed with the new pledge.
A proposal for a tobacco-free campus policy has been passed from Student Affairs to the President’s council. She passed out the goal, rationale, and draft of the policy’s language. This came from the Substance Abuse Concerns committee. In Fall 2008, student affairs will distribute this to generate discussion, in the hopes of establishing a tobacco-free campus by Dec. 2008. Prof. Siegel noted that this won’t work, because it puts the faculty in the position of enforcing the policy, which just won’t work.
Prof. Sullivan asked about the Time, Place, and Manner policy. VP Moriarty said that the committee has had their last meeting; it will now be going through the approval process. Prof. Sullivan clarified that in the Fall it should come back to the Senate as a motion for approval (as indicated in the minutes from the March 2008 meeting).
CUSF REPORT, Prof. Siegel:
CUSF has been working on Faculty Benefits; CUSF is trying to ensure better retirement benefits for those who are on alternate retirement programs, such as TIAA-CREF. The state may be willing to put in more money, but it may also ask for the employees to make a contribution of 3-5%, bringing the entire package up significantly. She said that CUSF will explore whether or not this is a viable possibility with the faculty and with AAUP.
CUSF is also looking at issues related to sick leave and credit for sick leave—also, “collegial leave” (If you get people to cover your classes, then your absence isn’t counted as “sick leave”).
Academic Affairs: The governor is taking a large interest in pre-K through 20. He is soliciting the business sector greatly on this. CUSF has asked that faculty be included on committees that are formed in this regard.
Student Research Day: CUSF is discussing whether or not to continue this, since it’s unclear whether it makes the impact it’s meant to.
Textbook Bill: CUSF opposes any legislative action that restricts in any way the text that a faculty member may assign to students.
CUSF sponsors a workshop for new department chairs and new deans. This year there were 60 people there; it seemed quite successful.
Pres. Caret noted that the USM presidents are enthusiastic about this workshop and are considering expanding it. Regarding textbook issues, these issues are not going to go away; it would be good if CUSF could come up with a solution that might lead the way on this.
Provost Clements complimented the workshop’s success, as well.
Prof. Zimmerman noted that Prof. Siegel was elected the Vice President of CUSF.
AAUP REPORT, Prof. McLucas:
Prof. McLucas repeated the announcement about the AAUP Second Fridays event.
The AAUP has been discussing with Provost Clements the potential of faculty sharing leave. This is a faculty-specific issue because the nature of semester-long classes complicates maternity leave. He would like to see TU take a definitive and significant position on this problem.
Prof. McLucas urged the university to be firm on the fact that 12-month pay compulsion not translate to changing the contracts of faculty from 10-month to 12-month.
Prof. McLucas introduced Prof. Matthew Durington who is the chair of the JFC and will become vice-president of AAUP at the end of the summer.
SGA REPORT, Senator Haley:
SGA Elections were successfully completed.
Senior Week, week before last, was successful.
Prof. McLucas prompted the Senate to express their congratulations to the graduating SGA Senators on their graduation and thanks for their service.
Prof. Sullivan raised some points from the Executive Committee. Summer Senate will be composed of the Executive Committee and at least one representative from each College. The Executive Committee will put together a list of nominations for new officers for September meeting of next year.
That a TUSC (Towson University Staff Council) Representative be included as a non-voting member of the University Senate.
(Senate Executive Committee)
Prof. Zimmerman asked if that person will be considered a member, giving a report. Prof. Sullivan noted that this member will not be ex officio (these are the senators who give reports), simply non-voting.
The Senate passed the motion 16-0-0.
Intellectual Property Issues.
(Senate Executive Committee)
Provost Clements explained that he has had several discussions about this with Barbara English. She has reviewed USM documents. The next step is that a small group will get together with him and Ms. English and Dr. Kleinsesser in order to finalize revisions on a new policy.
Accept Proposal for the Creation of a new Department of E-business and Technology Management within the College of Business and Economics (attached).
(Senate Executive Committee)
Assoc. Dean Louise Laurence and Prof. Sharma Pillutla were present to address questions from the Senate.
Prof. Knutsen noted that the end of the document discriminates against Dance. If they want to include Dance, then she’s happy to help; but if not, then they should remove the offensive statement.
Prof. Rosecky argued in favor of this new department. He’s in the Marketing and E-Business department, which has suffered from the differences between the two. The time for such a split has come due. Prof. Sullivan noted that this is the only undergraduate E-Business program in the State of Maryland. Prof. Siegel noted that she’d like a statement from the Department of Computer and Information Sciences that they are amenable to this. Prof. Knutsen asked for clarification on the number of required courses.
Prof. Siegel proposed an amendment that the Senate accepts the Proposal named in the motion, provided there is no substantive objection from affected departments. She would leave it up to the Provost to decide what is substantive. Prof. Burks seconded the motion. Prof. Zimmerman asked for clarification on what are affected departments. Profs. Zimmerman and Siegel agreed to specify “Computer and Information Sciences.”
The Senate voted 15-0-1 to accept the amendment.
The Senate voted 15-0-1 to accept the motion.
NEW BUSINESS
Approve Towson University application for signatory of Magna Charta (attached).
(Senate Executive Committee)
Pres. Caret explained that TU was made aware of the Magna Charta by the President Emeritus of the University of Oldenburg. Universities across the globe have been coming together to form a cohesive unit across the world. They’re also looking at a tier system for institutions, along the lines of Carnegie Mellon’s ranking system. As part of this, they’ve created the Magna Charta. There is no cost to being a member. It’s simply a way to reach across the globe and join with our sister institutions across the globe. Pres. Caret has done extensive research on this program; a number of institutions have signed, including Clemson, William and Mary, Johns Hopkins, Berkeley, U of Chicago, etc. The President’s Council approves of this, but wanted to pass it along to the Senate. Part of the approval process requires that copies of the Senate Minutes be included with the other documents of application.
The Senate passed the Motion 16-0-0.
Accept Annual Report of Student Financial Assistance Committee (attached).
(Senate Executive Committee)
Prof. Vonnie Shields was present to address questions from the Senate, but there were none.
The Senate passed the motion 16-0-0.
Approve Proposal for a Distinguished Visiting Faculty Program (attached).
(Office of the Provost)
Prof. Siegel noted that this should be Distinguished Visiting Faculty. Prof. Knutsen asked if there will be any system or process for selecting qualified faculty.
Provost Clements responded that this process needs to be developed. For one thing, the Department who would be affected would need to show support for this. He said it would be difficult to determine permanent specific criteria, since it may change according to case. But exactly what requirements are needed must be clarified. There could be a committee to determine criteria and choose from among those nominated. Prof. Siegel asked who would establish the criteria and how they would be established. She also mentioned the issue of funding. She feels strongly that faculty should be participating in this, rather than leaving it to one-on-one decisions with the Provost. The Provost clarified that he agrees with the need for a committee. Prof. McLucas argued that we should take the word Professor out of the proposal, in order to reserve respect for that particular position. He also noted that the Visiting Faculty should be supervised by regular faculty members. Prof. Zimmerman asked how many the Provost had in mind. The Provost responded that initially it would be just one or two. Pres. Caret noted that he was involved with these in California, and they used them in two ways—to bring in people who have established significant reputations in their fields; also, to supplement faculty positions as new trends and fields develop.
To the motion was added a friendly amendment to remove the word Professor and include only the phrase: Distinguished _______ (cf., artist, historian, health care professional, scientist, politician, entrepreneur, ……)-In-Residence.
The motion passed 16-0-0.
Background Checks for New Hires.
(Senate Executive Committee)
Requiring such background checks is standard business practice. USM does this for all of their staff positions. A USM committee made the recommendation that this be implemented for all new faculty. This is a nationwide trend; it is something the university wants to move forward. Prof. Siegel asked if it would be possible to find out how many of our peers do this. This would be minimal cost to the university. Prof. Knutsen asked if this has been a problem for TU. Provost Clements answered that there have been a few incidents that have occurred, but a relatively small percent. Prof. Lawson noted that all students in COHP have to have criminal background checks. Prof. Siegel asked if this includes any questions about US Citizenship. The process for non-citizens could take a significant amount of time.
Motions of the Taskforce on Merit and Compensation (attached).
(Senate Executive Committee)
Prof. Sullivan passed out a few tables to illustrate the discussion. Prof. Vatz moved that motions 1-4 be accepted by the Senate. The motion was seconded. Prof. Rosecky noted that he has a problem with equitable merit. The Marketing department has failed in two recent searches, because of money. The problem is that the university is not finding enough money to put toward faculty salaries. Prof. Vatz clarified that the problem of Merit money is independent of salary problems. It was recently revealed that the former merit process was implemented in a way that was unfair, basing the merit distribution on departmental averages, and that has hurt specific departments: Audiology, Art, Dance, EMF, Geography, History, Kinesiology, Mass Comm, Communication Studies, etc., including virtually all departments in COED. This motion would relieve the unfair policy that has harmed a number of departments.
Prof. Siegel asked the taskforce to speak to its reasoning in this regard. Prof. McLucas noted that there was much discussion about this in the meetings. We reached the agreement that discrepancies determined by the market are addressed in several ways: entry-level salaries, COLA, and compression. We were concerned to divorce merit from market questions. It’s very important that every faculty understand that failed searches exist in every department on campus, often because of low salary offerings. One could say that Merit need not be the third or fourth tool in dealing with Market. Merit should represent a Thank You for service and contributions, not a nod to the market.
Prof. Tabak asked if we looked to the peer institutions and how they distribute merit money. Prof. Sullivan said not extensively. Prof. Vatz responded that in his experience there is no other who institution who utilizes the department as a basis for distribution of merit. Prof. Siegel agreed that the current merit system is crazy, and discriminates unfairly. She said this new system sounds logical to her. Prof. Zimmerman noted that he was initially opposed to Motion #1, but he ultimately realized the logic of distinguishing Merit from other modes of compensation; there is a respectable philosophical basis for this. Prof. Tabak noted that merit money for each university is determined by a university-wide pool of salaries. She said that it is not fair to make equitable salaries that are not equitable. She proposed that the distribution should be done by college. Prof. Ballengee noted that equitable merit does not make equitable salaries. The two are quite distinct. Equitable merit reflects an equitable value of contributions to the university, department, field, etc. Disparate salaries, she added, will still be maintained through COLA and initial disparity of starting salaries; so those with higher salaries shouldn’t worry: they’ll continue to receive much higher salaries than many in the rest of the university. Prof. Rosecky said that if we’re going to discuss equivalency, it should be determined in terms of percentages. Prof. Vatz agreed with Prof. Ballengee’s points. He added that if we make distribution by College, this will exacerbate the already significant differential in merit money. He stressed that these are 4 reasonable motions. Prof. Zimmerman argued that the purpose is not to relieve inequity; he noted that these motions are philosophically reasonable arguments. Prof. Tabak disagreed with tying compression to merit money (Motion 4). Prof. Siegel noted that there are 3 things happening here: COLA (which is a percentage), Merit (which is not a percentage), and Compresson (which should be separate from the other two). She is particularly concerned with the kind of compression that goes by rank. Prof. Sullivan noted that the highest paid departments are the most compressed. Prof. McLucas noted that he understands all the arguments, and truly values the contributions of every faculty member of this university; he values them equally. He noted that the most valuable asset we have as faculty is solidarity. He added that, despite the fact that he’s a higher-paid faculty, he’d be happy to see assistant professors get the same merit he gets. He’s already highly paid in comparison to many assistant professors. Prof. Zimmerman noted that this package is the best compromise the taskforce could come up with. Prof. Brown asked for a straw vote.
The Senate took a straw vote on the entire package: the result was 13-2-2.
Prof. Sullivan adjourned the Senate at 6:07 PM.