University Senate Agenda
April 7, 2008 Meeting
Memorandum
Date: May 1, 2008
To: The Academic Community
From: Jennifer Ballengee, Secretary
Subject: April 7, 2008—Meeting of the University Senate
The seventh regular meeting of the University Senate was held on Monday, April 7, 2008, at 4:00 p.m. in Rooms 314-315 of the University Union.
Absent were Senators Bergman, Brown, Margulies, Pitcher, Wengert, and Haley, and President Caret, Provost Clements, and Vice President Rubin.
The Senate approved the Agenda unanimously.
Prof. Zimmerman requested to replace the passage on pg. 8, 2/3 of the way down, “Ms. Doherty claimed the evaluations were voluntary,” with “Ms. Doherty stated the evaluations were voluntary.”
The Senate then approved the Minutes unanimously.
REPORT OF VICE PRESIDENT RUBIN:
Faculty-staff campaign: 450 faculty-staff have contributed; the goal is 650 participants. He expressed confidence that the Foundation would surpass its $ 50 million goal.
Towson University Foundation, Inc. VP Rubin passed out an informative handout. The Foundation has grown from about $ 10 million in 2000 to about $ 41 million. This includes dollars, plus gifts of art and antiques, etc. As far as endowment alone goes, the amount has grown from $ 7 million in 2000 to $ 31 million today.
REPORT OF VICE PRESIDENT MORIARTY:
This Thursday at 3:30 PM in the Glen is the grand opening celebration of the Towson University Challenge Course. This happened through partnership with faculty. VP Moriarty indicated that concerns about environmental impact on the Glen were considered in the planning of this course.
The grand opening of the new multicultural center happened this last month.
Civic engagement initiatives: 5 subcommittees: Political engagement (chaired by Jim Roberts—political science); Service learning (chaired by Maria Fracasso); Environmental initiative (chaired by Jane Wolfson—environmental studies); Community Principles (Tiger pledge and graduation pledge); and Community Service (co-curricular activities and community service initiatives).
Town-Gown relations: As TU grows, more students are living in the neighborhood. The majority of these students do very well, but there are a handful of gathering places that disturb neighbors. So Student Affairs is working with students and neighbors to smooth any friction. TU is helping neighbors to understand that living near TU means living near students. TU is helping to sponsor the Town-Gown Community Cleanup day this month, and is also working to keep Tigerfest from conflicting with the Towsontown festival. Students will be helping to run the children’s activities at that festival this year.
Tigerfest: Saturday, April 26th.
Prof. Vatz expressed concern about student pledges. Why is it necessary to have students, who are supposed to be developing their own ideas, why is it important to have them make a community pledge? VP Moriarty answered that it’s important because we are meant to be building citizens of the world; these pledges express values that are good for citizenship. The pledges are asking students to think about social and environmental consequences of their actions, what sort of roles they play in society, commitment to lifelong learning, etc. Prof. Webster asked what happens if they don’t sign it. VP Moriarty said it’s optional.
Prof. Webster noted that today the Towerlight reported that Towson is taking extra measures against students that are caught using a fake ID or drinking underage. He asked if it is really the university’s place to add punishment to legal punishments.
Prof. Knutsen asked if the pledge was modeled on other pledges, as catalysts for the Towson pledge. VP Moriarty said that it was originally modeled after a pledge used at a university in California, but now TU has developed its own.
Prof. McLucas noted that this discussion could be postponed until it comes before the Senate as a Point of Information.
VP Moriarty noted that TU’s student code of conduct gives TU the right to address student behaviors that contradict the student code, even if they happen off campus.
A long discussion ensued debating the pros and cons of TU becoming involved in monitoring off-campus student behavior that is already addressed by the law. Prof. Cox offered to bring relevant data to a future Senate meeting to facilitate a more informed discussion on the issue.
Prof. Sullivan asked about the status of the Time, Place, and Manner policy. VP Moriarty said that she intended to bring it before the Senate as only a Point of Information.
CUSF Report, Prof. Siegel:
The duplicate program bill seems to have been killed.
Salary and COLA do not seem to be topics of conversation in the legislature right now. She therefore expressed the hope that we’ll have a COLA raise this year.
Funding to the USM center at Hagerstown: TU has a significant Nursing program there. TU faculty members went to CUSF to ask for help with this. The legislature had threatened to take away the majority of the Hagerstown budget. At this point, the legislature has taken only $100,000 away from the Hagerstown budget.
The Chancellor’s council discussed this morning STEM workforce issues, including the production of teachers and workers to meet state needs. This will come up at the Provost’s meeting that happens in a few days.
Benefits for faculty and contingent faculty: there will be at the April 17th meeting a member of the USM Human Resources department to review rules and regulations. At that time, CUSF will also be discussing sick leave benefits for faculty, which are different from those for staff.
CUSF is putting together a brochure comparing benefits and ORPs. In a discussion with the Board of Regents, they have expressed sympathy for restoring some of the tuition remission benefits for faculty and staff.
AAUP Report, Prof. McLucas:
The April Second Friday event is this Friday, 3:30 PM: Prof. Joel Slotkin will be discussing Renaissance and cyberspace theories of memory.
Thanks to the Provost, there is now a staff person helping with the university elections balloting and vote counting. This year, there was almost a full slate of nominations. So watch for ballots that will be arriving in the mail soon.
The forthcoming Provost’s speakers series was generated in conjunction with the AAUP. This will be a good initiative for the campus. The Faculty Focus should also be re-emerging in the near future.
The Third Year Review initiative is on track, via the Chapter 3 PTRM Document revisions.
He also announced that this summer he will become chair of Foreign Languages; Prof. Ballengee will serve out the remainder of his term as President and Matt Durington will step into the role of Vice President.
SGA Report, Isaac Meyer:
The Relay for Life is this weekend.
Accept the Annual Report of the Student Appeals Committee (attached).
(Senate Executive Committee)
Prof. Knutsen asked for clarification of exactly what Appeals these are. VP Moriarty explained that this is sort of a student’s “last ditch effort” to have a neutral board looking at the situation and deciding whether or not the sanction is appropriate or not. Prof. Burks noted that it seemed a scanty report; Prof. Sullivan responded that this may be due to issues of confidentiality. Prof. Siegel asked if the report could include a notation with regard to undergraduate or graduate students.
Motion passed 17-1-0.
The Senate then returned to an unaddressed point in the SGA Report: The SGA Student Textbook Proposal. Senator Meyer noted that the Textbook bill may be dying in the legislature. The SGA proposes a taskforce to solve the problem on campus, rather than legislated by Annapolis. The purposes of this taskforce are listed on the taskforce proposal (included as an attachment with the April agenda). Senator Meyer noted that the taskforce should be directed by faculty but should also include students. Prof. Zimmerman suggested that SGA might want to consider having an ongoing committee that addresses this issue. Prof. Webster noted that it is easy for faculty to take responsibility for costs of textbooks by emailing or calling their textbook reps. Prof. Siegel noted that the CUSF report on the textbook issue (included in April attachments) is not an official document of CUSF. She also disagreed with the idea of forming a committee. Maryland is already requiring a report on textbooks. She noted that there used to be a committee on Auxiliary Services, which monitored all of these sorts of things. Perhaps it is time to have that committee again, she argued. She also expressed support for the SGA’s proposal that a taskforce be formed. Prof. Sullivan suggested that RPAC could take on the examination of Auxiliary Service more closely. Prof. Pitcher disagreed with Prof. Webster, arguing that we have no idea how much the bookstore will charge for a book. Prof. Rosecky noted that the problem is discipline-oriented. Prof. Tabak expressed disagreement with telling faculty what textbooks they should use.
Prof. Sullivan suggested returning to this issue in the May meeting.
Approve new Graduate Program in Child Life, Administration, and Family Collaboration (attached).
(Senate Executive Committee)
Prof. Karen Eskow was present to speak to any questions about the program. Senator Castillo asked about the referenced appendices. Prof. Eskow provided copies. Prof. Pitcher expressed admiration of the program; but she asked about the claim that there would be no extra expense. She asked if this is fair to faculty to not offer any extra compensation. Prof. Eskow noted that the program will ask for more financial support as the program grows. Prof. Zimmerman asked about where this goes after the Senate. Prof. Eskow noted that this will go through the Provost’s office and MHEC. Prof. Knutsen clarified that the program is not expecting any full time students in year one; part-time students will be first, up to 30. Prof. Eskow noted that there are students ready and able to move forward. Prof. Siegel asked if there are a lot of new courses; Prof. Eskow said, no, there is only one course that has yet to be approved. Prof. Siegel said she was concerned about the need for more faculty. Prof. Zimmerman asked if the program could handle it if the program received more students than projected. Prof. Eskow responded that the Program will accept a limited number of students. This is partially because of the limited number of internships that will be available to graduate students. Prof. Siegel asked if it is really true that this Program will not need any additional library resources. Prof. Eskow responded that the program draws on programs that are already in existence; so as the resources of those programs grow, so will this. Prof. Siegel asked the record to show that some members of the Senate expressed concerned about the number of faculty and library resources.
Motion passed 17-0-0.
Accept proposed Library Bylaw Amendment to Change the name of the Library and Instructional Technology Committee to the Library Advisory Committee (attached).
(Senate Executive Committee)
Prof. Zimmerman noted that it’s possible the Senate already passed this, but there is no record of it.
Motion passed 17-0-0.
Prof. Sullivan noted a Point of Information, not included on the agenda, about a name change for the Department of Marketing and E-Business. He handed out the Proposal for the Creation of a new Department of E-business and Technology Management within the College of Business and Economics. The department is splitting in two. Prof. suggested that this be tabled. Prof. Rosecky said it had never come to the Marketing and E-Business department. Prof. Tabak said it had come to Management, and that some of the faculty would be coming from that department. Prof. Pilluta spoke to the issue and explained the background. Prof. Rosecky suggested the motion be tabled, Prof. Siegel seconded the motion.
The senate voted to table the motion 17-0-0.
Interim Report from the General Education Revision Committee
(Senate Executive Committee)
Dean Cooney, chair of the committee, presented the report. The General Education review committee was set up about a year ago by the Provost. The committee agrees that the general education is important and deserves close attention. The Committee agreed on a few basic things: for example, try to improve on the labeling (rather than numbers, provide names for each categories). There was some time spent in getting members of the committee to trust each other, he explained. Dean Cooney handed around a preliminary outline for the committee’s work. The outline specified state requirements and then two groups of proposals: seminars, including a first year seminar (replacing UIE’s) and then possibly something to replace the Second Level Writing course. The replacement of the UIE’s by the first year seminar takes up the recent research conclusions that have concluded that research skills are better learned within the context of one particular subject. The topics of these seminars will be something the faculty member cares about. None of these may count toward any major. Dean Cooney noted that this will required commitment of funds and commitment of faculty to the seminars. The third area is headed Topical Requirements (one of which must meet a social and behavioral science requirement, required by the State). The total outline will require 43 units, the state max is 45. The five areas in the final section are: 1. The Metropolitan Outlook; 2. The United States as a Nation; 3. Global Perspectives; 4. Diversity and Difference; 5. Ethical Issues (including issues and values, science and technology). The first three areas are a broadening perspective, moving from the Metropolitan area to the Nation to the Globe. The Global Perspectives represents a shift away from a European-centered perspective (as the current Gen Eds are). The other two areas: Diversity and Difference represents something similar to what’s in the current core. Ethical Issues reflects the committee’s feeling that a Gen Ed category should focus on ethical issues; this category also includes the kinds of issues that our current Science, Technology, Values courses address.
Prof. McLucas clarified the First Year Seminar: Do faculty need to specialize in the topic they teach? Dean Cooney said that of course faculty should be informed of the subject but that it did not necessarily need to be their particular field of specialization. This clarifies the increasing interdisciplinarity of scholarly work. Prof. Siegel asked about what will happen to transfer students. AT least 50% of our students are coming from other institutions of higher education. She noted that last time the Gen Ed committee required some upper level courses. She asked if this is part of the discussion. Dean Cooney noted that, despite state requirements, there is some room for TU to put its stamp on transfer students. Whatever replaces the Second Level Writing will be required of all transfer students. There is also some discussion of requiring transfers to take the First Year Seminar. Prof. Vatz asked about the Fundamentals of Speech and Communication course. Dean Cooney responded that it is not now a requirement for the committee, nor have they talked about it as a requirement. Dean Cooney also noted that foreign languages have not been addressed specifically yet.
Trimester Taskforce Report
(Senate Executive Committee)
Dean Exner, chair of the Taskforce, presented the report. She passed out a handout of “talking points” for the trimester; she specified that this report not be distributed. All of the points of the trimester are aimed at making the trimester as much like other semester as possible, including expanded library hours, dining options, and tutoring.
Prof. Zimmerman noted that faculty are only receiving off-load payment for teaching this summer. Dean Exner noted that this is true, except for a few faculty who have gotten permission for teaching one of their regular load courses in the summer. Prof. McLucas noted the difference between TU students doing their courses in the summer and visiting students taking courses in the summer. Prof. Burks asked if ultimately it might be possible for faculty to have one of their regular semesters be summer, instead of the traditional Fall and Spring. Dean Exner explained potential difficulties with this possibility. Prof. Siegel expressed concern about TU students who choose to take 9 credits of their major at the upper-level from faculty who are not regular core faculty. Dean Exner responded that a significant number of full-time faculty are teaching in the summer.
Prof. Sullivan adjourned the meeting at 6:30 PM.
Merit and Compensation Task Force Report
(Senate Executive Committee)
That a TUSC (Towson University Staff Council) Representative be included as a non-voting member of the University Senate.
Intellectual Property Issues.
(Senate Executive Committee)