University Senate
Memorandum
Date: May 2, 2007
To: The Academic Community
From: Jennifer Ballengee, Secretary
Subject: May 7, 2007—Meeting of the University Senate
The eighth regular meeting of the University Senate was held on Monday, May 7, 2007, 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, Little, Roberge, Rosecky, Trajkovski, Webster, Moore, and Vaughn-Smith, and President Caret, Vice President Sheehan, and Vice President Rubin.
The Senate approved the agenda unanimously.
The Senate approved the Minutes unanimously.
Report of the Provost:
Provost Clements passed on the Budget update from President. For the second year in a row TU has had the largest budget increase in the system. But when you add in all the mandatory increases, there’s not a lot of money left. Largely the budget is intact for the upcoming year; at the eleventh hour, there was a budget cut of $2 million toward the system, but a lot of that is targeted toward enrollment growth. Next year we will probably increase enrollment by about 400 students.
MBA Program: The legislation that was proposed (Senate Bill 29) was to kill the MBA program. While that bill was killed, the dispute will probably continue. However, the growing enrollments in the TU program as well as in MSUs program indicate that there is a significant need for both programs.
Prof. Siegel noted that the new Secretary of Higher Education was at the Chancellor’s Council today. She noted that reports were negative regarding his reaction to TUs MBA dilemma.
Provost Clements noted that Pres. Caret and Prof. Jim Lyons have had a good relationship, but TU will nevertheless continue to work hard on retaining the MBA program.
Prof. Siegel asked when we could expect our salary letters. Provost Clements said he wasn’t quite sure. He added that a 2% COLA and 2.5% Merit increase have been approved.
Provost Clements noted that Promotion and Tenure announcements would appear within a week.
Provost Clements responded positively to Prof. Vatz’s suggestion that there should be a retirement announcement (cf. April minutes). Provost Clements agreed that this should be done.
He announced that the revised Chapter 3 document is in the Provost’s office, being reviewed by Assoc. Provost Leather, and then Provost Clements will look at it, then send it to the University counsel, and then on to the President.
RPAC Meeting: Request of Academic Affairs:
2.) faculty promotions: $300,000
3.) operating budgets: $1.9 million
Prof. Zimmerman asked the Provost to speak to whether FDRC and Travel money are increasing or decreasing. Provost Clements noted that the average FDRC funding per faculty member is about $250. He said this absolutely needs to be raised.
Enrollment numbers: We’ve had a record number of applications to the university, and these are strong applications. We’ll have no problem hitting the enrollment projection of 400.
Potential School of Technology: An outside consultant has done a feasibility study on this project; it is on Provost Clements’ desk. This will need to be discussed by the university over the next semester or two, before anything moves ahead.
External grants are at about $17.6 million as a whole; the goal was $20 million in externally funded projects. It looks like TU will hit the goal this year.
The Provost’s office will be filling positions over the summer. An ad will go out soon for an Associate Provost position, Assistant Provost, and also Bill Reuling’s position, and Executive Administrative Assistant (Judy Kempske).
MHEC wants to put together a statement in response to BRAC, with regard to educational programming and workforce opportunities. TU played a key role in that meeting.
Emergency Preparedness discussions: As a university TU is fairly well positioned. The President brought many ideas with him from California. The university has launched a text messaging system and a siren system.
Prof. Siegel asked about university policy for faculty and staff regarding “problematic” students. Is there any policy?
VP Moriarty responded that the Student Code of Conduct is the policy that guides student conduct on campus. Also, they have published a guide for faculty to help students who are distressed.
Prof. Debye related an anecdote: a student came in continually high on drugs and fell asleep; his lab partner was threatened by the student with a gun. Prof. Debye called Student Affairs who sent him to police; the police said they couldn’t do anything if no crime was committed. Provost Clements noted that nationwide there will obviously be much discussion in this regard.
Prof. Pitcher noted that her college is pushing for having outside evaluators for promotion and tenure. She asked Provost Clements if there is a policy on this. He responded that there is none in the handbook, but that he’s open to discussing the pros and cons of this question. Prof. Pitcher suggested that the faculty need to be included in this discussion, in order not to feel threatened by this change. Prof. McLucas suggested that the norm at many institutions is that an outside review can be a positive thing. The AAUP position, he added, is that the strongest voices in P and T reviews should be those of the peers.
Prof. Leshnoff asked about the movement toward Research Intensive. Provost Clements responded that it is a slow process. There are multiple Carnegie classifications. We will not become Research Extensive, such as UMCP. For Research Intensive $40 million in grants and contracts is a key number; 20 doctoral students graduated per year. This must be sustained for a few years. Once we hit Research Intensive, the workload must logically be lowered, to compensate for the increased research. Prof. Leshnoff asked if it’s part of TU’s mission. Provost Clements responded that it is a natural part of Towson’s growth; there is also some interest on the part of the USM. He added that this is a place where the student is highly valued, and that should not change. Prof. Leshnoff mentioned that these levels will have effects upon the faculty in terms of expectations for promotion and tenure, salary, etc. Prof. Leshnoff recommended that the Provost should consider how grants in the arts are categorized; if the university takes a more holistic view of grants in the arts, this could have an effect upon the university’s status. Prof. Sullivan noted that the P and T committees should be aware of this liminal status and how it affects the faculty.
Prof. Pitcher noted that the other issue that needs to be examined is FDRC money is distributed, including review processes and infrastructure. Provost Clements agreed and added that he has already been intending to examine this.
Report of Vice President Moriarty:
The new childcare center is officially open. TU broke ground last week on new Towson housing. TU also had an external review of its Greek Life program. They’ll be launching a feasibility study to look at the possibility of Greek housing.
TU will continue to focus on helping faculty learn how to deal more effectively with problem students.
Tigerfest featured a campaign for responsible behaviors; the result was a safe and reasonable event this year.
Prof. Vatz noted his concern about a University Civic Engagement Steering Committee, which is sponsoring a senior pledge that he viewed as a politicization of graduation. There has been no discussion of this, not even in the Senate. VP Moriarty noted that she is chair of that committee, and this is part of the Towson 2010 mission for civic engagement. Prof. Vatz noted that it’s a policy that could be coercive to students. VP Moriarty noted that it’s not mandatory; it’s an informal part of educating seniors. It’s part of TUs campaign to become more civically aware and more engaged with the world around them.
Prof. Goins asked if that campaign is endorsed by the Green party or if it’s an independent movement. She answered that it’s independent.
AAUP REPORT, Prof. McLucas:
Prof. McLucas noted that he has discussed with Provost Clements a university-wide discussion about faculty rights, legal rights, etc. He has often discussed with Prof. Moriarty better preparing faculty to deal with students with disabilities, too.
Finally, he drew attention to the note that he and Prof. Sullivan sent to the AAUP at Virginia Tech. Several people responded with appreciation.
Faculty elections are taking place this week. There will be a designated staff person for shared governance beginning next year, but this year Prof. McLucas and Dan Leonard are running the elections alone. Ballots will come out in a couple of days and be due the following week.
The AAUP newsletter will appear (by e-mail) this week.
Provost Clements noted his agreement that there should be a university-wide faculty meeting to address the concerns Prof. McLucas mentioned. He added that whatever happens with the budget, staff administrative support will be provided to the Faculty Association and to the Senate.
Prof. Tabak asked V.P. Moriarty about the childcare center. Are there plans to use it as a strategic tool to attract and retain faculty? Faculty get second priority for space, and the cost is extremely high for faculty. VP Moriarty expressed no intentions of helping faculty in this regard.
CUSF REPORT, Prof. Siegel:
Prof. Siegel noted that she’s gotten thanks for providing some benefits for lecturers, but there is much more to do. CUSF will keep the pressure on to find out how the contractual faculty at Board of Trustees schools could be made state employees.
CUSF has been working for a long time to get USM to cover domestic partners. There is a bill to this effect on Governor O’Malley’s desk.
The annual workshop for department chairs will be next January.
CUSF sent a representative to the statewide partnership for K-16 education. At the moment there is a preliminary proposal on dual enrollment. This should be watched. Some of it has to do with AP courses, some has to do with offering college courses at the university for high school courses, but also some provisions argue that high school teachers may offer college courses for college credit.
Provost Clements suggested that the Council of University System Presidents supports the movement for insurance for domestic partners.
SGA REPORT, Senator Dieguez:
SGA sponsored a vigil for VA Tech, and sent a banner signed by students to Virginia Tech. Our banner was placed in a prominent area in the Union.
SGA Elections: New president Jenny Haley spoke about SGA plans for next year. SGA wants to work for better communication with faculty and staff and to have more students out in the community.
Prof. Sullivan noted that in the Fall there will be a more formal list of retired faculty. He mentioned 4 by name. Prof. Vatz noted that, up until 3 years ago, this was done every Spring.
1. Motion 06/07-20:
Approve new graduate program in Kinesiology. (attached)
(Senate Executive Committee)
Prof. Dave Zang noted that Kinesiology is a major supplier of Physical Education teachers in Maryland. Many teachers in the region have expressed the desire to have an MS program in Kinesiology.
Prof. Debye noted that the Finance section has been left blank. Prof. Zang answered that by the third year the program will be flush; in the first two years funds will be reallocated.
Prof. Siegel noted that every course in the program is a Kinesiology course; she noted that she didn’t see any statistics courses that would facilitate research. The representative noted that the first two courses are applied courses that involve methodology and statistics. The substance of the course, however, is for education, not research. There are elective courses that are more research substantial for any students who decide they may want to go on to dissertation work.
Prof. Siegel then also noted that none of the courses have prerequisites, so it’s unclear that they are 600-level courses. Dean Exner responded that the students have to be admitted to the program before they may take the courses. This establishes the graduate level of work and expectation. Prof. Sullivan asked if the department of Kinesiology has asked for additional PINs; Prof. Zang confirmed that they had.
Provost Clements noted that the Kinesiology Dept. here is very strong. He raised some questions: The Finance section being empty concerns him; the need to recruit the right kind of faculty; any library, facility, and technology needs are not clear in the Program description. Also, there should be some description of graduate students. Provost Clements encouraged them to work out some online classes in the Program. Prof. Zang noted that the Budget numbers needed to be compiled before the program goes before MHEC, but not before that. He noted that there has been little institutional input about what should be there.
Prof. Siegel noted that the Senate does want to see budget numbers and student enrollment projections for new Program proposals.
Dean Exner noted that she has had a couple of meetings with Prof. Zang during which she approved the Program and the budget. She noted that Kinesiology anticipates initiating the program in Spring of next year. Space is not a problem because these are night classes; technology needs have been covered. Library needs are difficult to figure; but the program will not be initiated without adequate operating funds. Faculty needs have been figured based on projected enrollment. Provost Clements noted that he likes the program and perceives the need for it, but he added that institutional history reflects the need for such figures to be presented in new program initiatives. Prof. Vatz agreed. Prof. Pitcher asked if this had been reviewed by MSED. The representative noted that this is not a certification program. Prof. Pitcher suggested that they should include a Reading course. Prof. Zimmerman asked how time crucial this is.
Vote: 7-0-7 (abstain). The motion passed.
2. Discussion Item: Salary Data.
(Senate Executive Committee)
Moved to the end of the Agenda.
3. Point of Information: Ad Hoc Senate Summer Committee
(Senate Executive Committee)
Prof. Sullivan proposed an ad hoc committee comprised of Executive Committee, Sara Nixon (to represent library), John McLucas (AAUP), Judith Guerrero (Education), Mel Brennan (COFAC), and Richard Vatz (at large). Rebecca Oppenheimer offered to be a student rep on the committee.
4. Discussion Item: Ad Hoc Nominating Committee
(Senate Executive Committee)
This committee is needed for re-election of officers. Prof. Sullivan solicited nominations: Prof. McLucas, Prof. Debye, and Prof. Pitcher.
2. Discussion Item: Salary Data.
(Senate Executive Committee)
Prof. Sullivan introduced 4 Senate motions from April on the Rectification of Salary Compression issues.
Prof. Vatz moved that we deal with the 4 motions as a unified block.
Motion 1: That merit raises should be based on university-wide median salaries of tenured and tenure-track salary at specific ranks.
Prof. Vatz noted that some colleges have suffered disproportionately in this regard, so a university-wide level would rectify the problem.
Prof. Siegel noted that the distinction of merit raises by rank is key here; the prior method was discriminatory against full professors and very kind to assistant professors.
Prof. Ballengee noted that there is a logical contradiction in the motion, in that it purports to work toward equivalency across the university, but not across ranks. If Merit is an award for excellent service, teaching, or scholarship, then the amount, value, or extent of the contribution that merits Merit must be considered equivalent for any professor; therefore the amount of money awarded should also be equivalent for any professor, regardless of rank. If Assistant or Associate Professors are to be awarded a Merit award of less money than Full Professors, than they should not be expected to do an equal amount of work. Merit is not a part of salary; it is an award of recognition for exceptional service.
Prof. Zimmerman argued that Motion 1 is a piecemeal approach with no clear vision.
Prof. Sullivan noted that these are nonbiding recommendations. He asked to call the question to a vote.
Prof. Sullivan clarified that merit is obtained by a median salary from all professors, across the university, by rank. When the department awards merit, it is determined as 2.5% of that median.
Prof. Leshnoff called the question. There were two objections, but the question held.
The vote was 5-2-5; therefore the motion (Motion #1) passed.
Motion 2: That herein cost-of-living adjustments (COLA) should be a percentage of individual faculty members’ salaries to lessen salary compression.
Provost Clements urged the Senate to be cautious in these votes.
Motion 3: For 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 raises there should be compensatory increases by estimating the mean salary differential per year (for all departments below the mean increases) and multiplying that amount by the number of years each faculty members has experienced a diminished increase in his/her base salary; and providing that amount within a timely fashion to such designated faculty members.
Motion 4: A recognition of the importance of promoting an equitable salary structure by a commitment of an additional 3% of the base salary budget to rectify existing faculty salary inequities.
Prof. Sullivan suggested that we might read the above motions as expressions of concern for the determination of merit and its distribution. Prof. Vatz suggested that he would be satisfied with Provost Clements being aware that the Senate is concerned about this problem.
Prof. Siegel expressed a concern that we need to examine this very carefully. At some institutions, the money that is given for merit is siphoned off to address some of the issues here. Prof. Zimmerman noted for the record that he is not necessarily against the intent of the policy, he just felt there was not a clear enough notion of the mathematical ramifications of this proposal. Prof. Goins recommended that someone make a motion to table and re-address this in September.
Prof. McLucas expressed the concern that the university is reaching a breaking point with salary discrepancy that will undermine faculty collegiality.
It was moved and seconded to table these motions until September.
Prof. Sullivan adjourned the meeting at 6:16 PM.