University Senate Minutes

November 5, 2007 Meeting

Memorandum

Date:                   November 25, 2007

To:                       The Academic Community

From:                   Jennifer Ballengee, Secretary

Subject:             November 5, 2007—Meeting of the University Senate

The third regular meeting of the University Senate was held on Monday, November 5, 2007, at 4:00 p.m. in Rooms 314-315 of the University Union.

• CALL TO ORDER

Prof. Sullivan called the meeting to order at 4 PM.

• ROLL CALL

Absent were Vice President Moriarty, Vice President Sheehan, and Prof. Goins.

• APPROVAL OF AGENDA

The Senate voted unanimously to approve the agenda.

• APPROVAL OF MINUTES from OCTOBER 1, 2007 meeting

The Senate voted unanimously to approve the minutes.

• REPORTS OF EX OFFICIO SENATORS

REPORT OF PRESIDENT CARET:

Pres. Caret expressed his enthusiasm about his announcement appointing Vice President Jim Clements as Provost.  He admitted that a number of people felt that a search should be held for the position. He said he understood that position but he didn’t feel that in good faith such a search would be possible, considering what a good job Provost Clements has been doing.  This allows, he noted, another Vice Presidency to open; the search for a new DECO Vice President will begin in the next week or so.  In the interim, Dyan Brasington has been serving as the acting associate VP of DECO, but now she will begin to report directly to Pres. Caret.

State Budget:  The legislature is in special session. The goal of the special session is to consider potential revenue sources, aimed at closing a structural deficit of the state and to enhance certain areas of the state budget, including higher education.  There is a resolution that the Board of Regents supports revenue enhancements directed at improving higher education.  Information regarding this legislation is available on the alumni web site.  The State Budget for FY 09 is still very unclear.

Enrollment: TU came in at 760 FTE instead of the 400 FTE toward which TU aimed.  TU is trying to get some money to match that enrollment.

Prof. Pitcher brought to the attention of the Senate the fact that the Linthicum parking lot is going to be closed and there will be no handicapped parking for those three buildings.  She said she’d heard handicapped parking would be at Stephens Hall and faculty would have to take a transport from there.  Pres. Caret said that he thought there should be some in Towsontown Garage. Provost Clements said he’d made a note of it as well, and would follow up on it.

Prof. Sullivan noted that letters can be remarkably effective in influencing the legislature.

REPORT OF PROVOST CLEMENTS:

First Provost Clements thanked the President for giving him the opportunity to serve as Provost.

He reported that faculty PINS for next year will be helped by the increased enrollment.  He and VP Sheehan have discussed 24 new PINS.  There will be a statement on a search contingent on funding. 

Also he is addressing operating budgets. He and VP Sheehan have agreed to free up $500,000 for operating budgets.  Salary savings of about $1 million dollars went to the following places: 

Provost Clements noted that this is one-time money.

Pres. Caret added that we are in a space crunch. TU has been looking for short term space and they’ve been able to arrange with the Foundation Board to purchase an office building on York Rd.; TU is currently leasing it from the Foundation.

Prof. Siegel suggested that a corporate donor should donate a bridge.

Provost Clements noted that there is an ongoing discussion about Chapter Three of the Faculty Handbook.  Associate Provost Denniston is working on that.

Provost Clements noted that Towson’s current CHP hours are at 7.0, which is good.  The System number is now 7.5. 

Preliminary results from NCATE review have been very positive. 

TU is working on the Trimester; that task force is being finalized. There will be a presentation on the trimester on 11/13.  For the next few months, a group of faculty will meet to talk about the details and possibilities for this. 

TU is continuing to partner with community colleges.  Assistant Provost Horta-Hayden has produced a document listing all of our partnerships in that regard.  She has also developed a document outlining procedures for developing new programs.

Oct. 20-23, TU held in Baltimore the largest CUMU conference ever; it was successful and profitable.

Prof. Zimmerman asked for specifics of the document about new programs. The Provost said he’d be happy to share the document with the University Curriculum Committee.

REPORT OF VICE PRESIDENT RUBIN:

Vice President Rubin thanked all faculty for supporting the annual campaign drive.  In addition, he explained how faculty could make a capital gift, as well.  He also added that faculty can make “plan” gifts to the university.

In the capital campaign, TU is approaching $27 million dollars, toward its $50 million dollar goal by 2010.

TU has been stepping up its alumni events that have been successful in fund-raising efforts.

He complimented the Deans on their efforts, too, particularly on working with donors.

Prof. Siegel asked about gifts that are not endowments but are meant for specific programs or something that someone really wants to do. Are we marketing that kind of thing, as well? VP Rubin answered that there are many people doing that, but he noted that maybe that’s something TU should explore further. 

Prof. Sullivan noted that there are lots of useful specific entities toward which donations could be designated, including WTMD, which is part of the foundation.

• REPORTS OF OFFICERS OF THE SENATE

CUSF REPORT, Prof. Siegel:

On Nov. 14th, there’s a system-wide conference on closing the achievement gap.  CUSF has asked that USM start to provide info to faculty about all of the things that are going into that conference. 

The executive committee will be meeting with Senate chairs on Nov. 15th.  Prof. Sullivan will be there.  On CUSF’s agenda for this year are benefits for full-time non-tenure-track benefits, including COLA and Merit.  They join students in concern for textbook costs, but they don’t know what to do about it.  CUSF has asked for some accounting of all STEM programs in the system, so that there can be some sense of what people are doing and how resources might be shared. 

AAUP REPORT, Prof. Ballengee:

The AAUP had its Fall meeting in October.  There was a very large turnout, and many issues were discussed, including the 3rd year review proposed by the Junior Faculty Committee of the AAUP.  The JFC will meet with the Provost on Wed., Nov. 7th.

The AAUP Second Fridays series continues.  Prof. Cheryl Brown will lead a discussion titled “More Writing, Less Grading” on Friday, November 9th.  The Provost has generously donated some refreshments for that event.

The AAUP and the Junior Faculty Committee of the AAUP continue to pursue the institution of a 3rd year review across the University.

SGA REPORT, Senator Haley:

SGA presented a report on the funding stream and is sending copies of it to the legislators.

SGA is still discussing the possibility of a TU motto.

SGA is hosting a contest for West Village naming.

Prof. Sullivan raised a P and T question that had been posed to him by the UPTRM.  What should be the role of faculty in approving College PTRM Documents?

Prof. Vatz noted that there has perennially been a problem with inconsistencies between university, college, and departmental P and T policies.  There needs to be a rule about the hierarchy of policy.  There should be no inconsistencies.

Prof. Zimmerman asked whether, when a college committee decides on policy, they must have each department of the college to ratify the decision.

Prof. Burks noted that that is essentially the situation here. The concern of the UPTRM is that the document is incredibly specific considering funding dollars that faculty must raise, etc.  It seemed much more specific than department requirements and they were wondering if the departments were even aware of the roles.

Prof. Bergman noted that if there is a College Council, and that Council should be participating in the approval of such a document.  Prof. Sullivan noted that all colleges have a college council, but not all are equally effective.

Prof. Rosecky noted that such a College Document undermines the specificity of departmental P and T Documents.

Prof. Pitcher noted that the College of Education recently revised their P and T Document; the College voted on the document and the change was ratified by the whole college. 

Prof. Burks noted that there was no evidence in this particular case that the College Council—or anyone beyond the Dean’s office—had seen or approved the document.

Prof. Siegel noted that any College council member, as a representative of his/her department, should take such a document back to his/her department for vetting. But the actual vote should probably be in the Council.

Prof. Sullivan said that he would respond to the UPTRM that the Senate upholds the principle of shared governance, and that includes making sure that such a document has been fully vetted by faculty, specifically by the College Council.

Prof. Siegel added that the agenda of a College Council should include the discussion of such a document, so that people know that it’s coming up for discussion. Prof. Bergman added that such a discussion should include making the opportunity for representatives to take such documents back to their departments for discussion.

Prof. Siegel noted that those without tenure or those not even on the tenure track may not be able to deal effectively with such issues.

Prof. Zimmerman noted that the system has worked effectively in that the UPTRM has caught this issue.

Prof. Pitcher noted that one of the problems with the makeup of College Councils may be that constitutions state that no one may serve more than once on the Council.

Prof. Sullivan noted that complacency tends to set in until a crisis arises.

• NEW BUSINESS

•  Motion 07/08-9: 

Accept the Annual Report of the Admissions Committee (attached).

              (Senate Executive Committee)

Prof. Bergman noted that the document indicates that there’s “appropriate mentoring” for the Top 10 Program. He asked what kind of mentoring this is. Nancy Wilks, last year’s chairman of the committee, answered that she understands that there is some group tutoring.  She said that retention rates are on the report.  Jim Hull, the current chairman, noted that the program comes out of the Provost’s office; the Admissions Committee is merely reporting results.

Prof. Burks asked SGA if there are efforts to make sure the student representatives will be able to attend the committee?  Senator Haley noted that SGA is streamlining the process of appointing students to committees, and current committee representatives have been cleared in terms of schedule.

Provost Clements spoke to the ASAP Program. This is a three-year pilot and TU just admitted the third class of students.  Data still needs to be collected before the program can be fully assessed.

Prof. Siegel asked whether there is any documentation about where non-retained students go when they leave Towson.  Pres. Caret noted that TU will be more aggressive in terms of supporting such students and helping them to be successful at TU.  Barry Evans is one of the leads working with these students.

Prof. Tabak noted that the document expresses the need for a representative from each department.  Prof. Wilks noted the need for a broader faculty representation: there should be 6 instead of 4 faculty.

Prof. Zimmerman suggested that the committee should request a by-law change that would enable the membership to expand. Prof. Sullivan suggested that the committee should forward such a request to the Senate executive committee so that it can be added to the February agenda.

Prof Guerrero asked how minority applications are not measuring up.

Gustavo Minaya noted that the requirements for acceptance come down to qualifications such as grades and SAT or ACT scores.  The Top 10 Program is open to Baltimore City and County.  Of 13,000 applicants last year, 70 were admitted to the Top 10 Program.

Pres. Caret that he’s also on the College-Bound Board, which provides scholarships for inner-city students. They work with most inner-city schools, if they’re allowed in. Not all schools allow them in. 70% of students that enter Baltimore City high schools don’t graduate, so this has to be taken into account, too.  The students that stick with the College-Bound program end up going to colleges all across the country.

Prof. Bergman noted that financial awards were reduced from $4000 to $2000 per year. Why did this occur? Pres. Caret that he didn’t know that had happened, so he’d have to find out.  His guess was that the $4000 was above need-based aid; and that the program is just supplementing the need-based aid. He promised to get the answer for that.

Students must maintain a certain GPA in order to retain the scholarship. Some students lost the scholarship, but still retained need-based aid. 

The Senate voted 20-0-0 to approve the report.

Prof. Siegel suggested that a small committee be formed to review the make-up of university senate committees.

• Motion 07/08-10:

Accept the Annual Report of the UPTRM Committee (attached).

              (Senate Executive Committee)

The Senate voted 21-0-0 to accept the report.

• Discussion Item:

Provost’s Task Force on Salary and Merit.

This item comes from the minutes of the 10/1/07 minutes, in which the Provost recommended that there be a committee including representatives from the Senate to help structure this issue:  Senate, AAUP, Full, Associate, and Assistant Professors, a Dean, a Chair, and somebody from the Provost’s office, and an at-large-member.  The agreement was that a report would be presented to the Senate by March 1st, at the latest.  Provost Clements said that he’d been collecting names and that the committee would be formed soon.

• Discussion Item:

The DREAM Act, and Maryland House Bill 06 (attached).

              (Senate Executive Committee)

Prof. Sullivan noted that this is perhaps unusual for the Senate to address a piece of legislation in this form, but he suggested that this is a policy that may affect the future make-up of this university.

Prof. Vatz suggested that this is a very complicated matter that has been studied. Some have found this dispiriting. He felt the information that had been provided to the Senate was very one-sided and therefore could not contribute much to the discussion.

Prof. Bergman asked if Towson asks students to submit documentation of citizenship.  Mr. Manaya spoke to the issue and noted that students who have been living in MD since age 5 may still be charged out of state tuition if they’re illegal immigrants.  Prof. Bergman asked how these things are documented.  Students must provide a photocopy of Visa or birth certificate.

Prof. Guerrero recognized Prof. Vatz’s concerns, but urged that it is important for the Senate to engage in this conversation. It has potential impact for TU but for all higher education in MD and the nation.  This is another opportunity for TU to reach out to students of diverse background.

Prof. Rosecky congratulated the work of Mr. Manaya and his office.  Prof. Webster asked if this would be true for anyone—could a student come from New Jersey, file an application to be a permanent resident, and get in-state tuition? The answer was no. 

Prof. Guerrero noted that there are two legislations here, state and federal. They are different in terms of requirements of students.  Mr. Mantaya clarified that to receive in-state tuition students may apply. One requirement is to live in MD for 12 consecutive months and pay taxes to the state of MD.  There are other qualifications as well.

Senator Meyer commented that last year when the House Bill failed it was a hot topic for students. The SGA hosted an open forum on it, which brought out tragic stories, but the majority of students did not support it.  He admitted that it is a tough issue, but very much split on campus.

Prof. Zimmerman asked why we’re discussing it, since the bill failed. 

Prof. Guerrero suggested that it was merely a discussion item, to bring it to the Senate’s attention.

Senator Haley asked if there was a distinction between legal and illegal immigrants.

The need to present more than one side of the issue was raised by a number of people.

Prof. Sullivan adjourned the meeting at 6 p.m.