University Senate

Memorandum

Date:                    November 27, 2006

To:                       The Academic Community

From:                   Jennifer Ballengee, Secretary

Subject:              November 6, 2006—Meeting of the University Senate

The second regular meeting of the University Senate was held on Monday, November 6, 2006, 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 p.m.

• ROLL CALL

Absent were Senators McLucas, Wengert, and Diéguez, and President Caret, Vice Pres. Sheehan, Vice Pres. Rubin, and Vice Pres. Clements.

• APPROVAL OF AGENDA

The Senate unanimously approved the Agenda.

• APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF October 9, 2006, MEETING

The Senate unanimously approved the Minutes of the October 9, 2006, meeting.

Senator Brown commented upon the problem with faculty parking, the privileging of graduate students, who are taking up faculty parking.  He also lodged a complaint about the use of loading docks.  He ended by remarking upon the expense of student fees.

Senator Sullivan announced that the Roundtable with the President will happen Tuesday, November 14, at 4 p.m. Such issues can be raised there.

• REPORTS OF EX OFFICIO SENATORS

REPORT OF THE VICE PRESIDENT FOR ACADEMIC AFFAIRS, Provost Brennan:

The Provost reported that the Fiscal Year ’08 Budget is in process.  There is some discussion about whether or not Towson can carry over the excess of 800 FTE’s from this year into next year. Doing so would help with the housing issue created by increased enrollment.

REPORT OF THE VICE PRESIDENT FOR STUDENT AFFAIRS, Vice President Moriarty:

Vice President Moriarty reported that many student programs have been happening this Fall, particularly in the first 6 weeks. There has been a big focus on commuter students; there are about 600 first year students that commute to campus.

Mr. Guy Davis will be starting in January as the director of the Career Center.

• REPORTS OF OFFICERS OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE

CUSF REPORT, Prof. Siegel:

Prof. Siegel reported that the CUSF Executive Committee will meet Friday, 11/10, with Senate chairs of USM. High on the agenda is the role of shared governance on each campus.

The Student Research Day will be held this year in conjunction with Annapolis 101.

CUSF is interested in talking about the role of faculty in admissions policy.

Prof. Sullivan asked if an institution could be out of line with USM Policy.  Prof. Siegel responded no, it’s the president’s responsibility to be in line. There’s an avenue for complaints to CUSF, if it’s a faculty member who needs to lodge a complaint.

Profs. Sullivan and Siegel issued a reminder that there is still time to nominate a colleague for a Regents Award, which can be done on the website www.usmd.edu.  Faculty members may go to the faculty awards section to find about the requirements.

AAUP REPORT, Prof. Ballengee (in lieu of Prof. McLucas):

Prof. Ballengee reported the date for the AAUP Fall meeting:  November 15, 4 p.m., LI 011.

SGA REPORT, Senator Moore:

The SGA has been pushing student voting. Senator Moore urged everyone who is registered to vote.

• OLD BUSINESS

1.  Motion 06/07-06

Accept annual report of the UCC Curriculum Committee (attached)

              (Senate Executive Committee)

Prof. Little was disturbed by some changes to the General Education Requirements; she remarked that the word for those kinds of changes is not filtering to the faculty in an efficient way.  An all-faculty e-mail list would help with this, but also greater administrative support for the Senate.  Prof. Siegel suggested respectfully that the Administration should assign someone to the Senate and its committees to support such things.

The annual report passed, 19-0-1.

• NEW BUSINESS   

1.  Motion 06/07-07:

Accept annual report of the Admissions Committee (attached)

              (Senate Executive Committee)

Prof. Roberge raised a question about the Top Ten Percent Program:  Are there any statistics on retention rates? No one present offered information beyond what was included on the Annual Report.  Prof. Siegel suggested that we should examine the program closely.  Prof. Roberge added his concern that students are being accepted without the resources that they need.  Provost Brennan noted that Prof. Roberge didn’t have any statistics to back his criticism.  Prof. Zimmerman suggested that we direct the committee to address some of those questions before we accept the report.   Prof. Sullivan suggested that the Senate could redirect the committee to provide additional information before the report is accepted. 

Prof. Sullivan moved to table the report; Provost Brennan seconded.

Motion to table passed 18-0-0.

Things the Senate would like to learn from the committee before passing the annual report:

a.)  What are the retention rates from the first year of the program?

b.)  What sort of changes have been made to run the program more successfully in its second year?

c.)  How is this program being evaluated?

2.  Motion 06/07-08:

Accept annual report of the Faculty Development and Research Committee (FDRC) (attached)

(Senate Executive Committee)

Prof. Pitcher complained that there are no criteria specified for these grants, and no feedback for why grants are accepted or rejected.

Dean Gong replied that the criteria are in the application form. Those are the criteria by which applications are judged.  The committee advises applicants to meet with their faculty representatives on the committee to discuss their proposals, before submitting and if they’re rejected. 

Prof. Guerrero asked to see statistics regarding funding by department and college, and what sorts of projects are being funded. 

Prof. Siegel remarked that it would be nice to have a couple of graphs, comparing to previous years, etc.  Dean Gong said that those are being created.  Prof. Siegel added that it would be interesting to see increases in funds going to FDRC.  There has been a great amount of increase since Provost Brennan has arrived.  Provost Brennan asked Prof. Siegel what she had heard about foundation support.  Prof. Siegel replied that a long time ago, it was said that faculty should give to the foundation because that money might go toward faculty development. 

Motion passed unanimously, 21-0-0.

3.  Motion 06/07-09:

Accept annual report of the Library Committee (attached)

              (Senate Executive Committee)

Prof. Vatz commented that the hours our library is open on weekends are less than all other schools on the USM campus.  This is not a good idea.

Motion passed unanimously, 19-0-0.

              4.  Discussion Item:

              PTRM Document, Chapter 3 (Provost’s comments attached)

                            (Senate Executive Committee)

Provost Brennan had requested of the Senate to have an opportunity to formally respond to the Document, once the Senate had reached an agreement with it.  He included his comments with the Agenda.

Prof. Zimmerman asked of his comments: “Department chair letter providing a short 5-year summary and overall evaluation of the faculty’s performance and major accomplishments.”

Does this need to be written by the department chair, or could it be by committee?

Provost Brennan responded that the summary could be provided by a committee, but it should be in someone’s report. Prof. Zimmerman suggested that it be changed to “Department chair or designee” Provost Brennan agreed.

Prof. Little asked about the phrase: “Student evaluations of teaching as summarized by the office of the department chairperson or as summarized by the Office of Assessment.”  (Italic font denotes changes in wording.)

She noted that student evaluations are confidential.  Wouldn’t taking them to the Office of Assessment be a violation of that?  Provost Brennan replied that his presumption was that the Office of Assessment is a resource to be utilized by the department for summarizing and evaluating and providing a summary template.  But this is something that can stay in the dept.—it is an “either-or” statement.  Associate Provost Leather added that the Office of Assessment is running a parallel evaluation form at the moment. Now they don’t just go to OTS; now the Office of Assessment is delivering it better and quicker.  She hopes eventually the Office of Assessment will take over this job.  Prof. Little noted that it should be clarified that this is a tabulation. Prof. Brennan remarked that student evaluations can cripple teaching;  this emphasis upon student evaluations concerns him.  Provost Brennan acknowledged that Professor Brennan had a good point, but the problem is that teaching evaluations have a status throughout the document.  These are important questions to raise, he added, which the University PTRM Committee should wrestle with.  Prof. Siegel noted that “summarize” is the tricky word here; it should say “tabulate the score.” Prof. Vatz added that this problem is intimately connected to grade inflation.

Prof. Roberge suggested that these summaries could just as easily be submitted by the faculty member submitting the report. Also, according to empirical reports, there is no correlation between giving candy or grades and the student’s evaluation.

Prof. Sullivan suggested that perhaps the Senate should consider the issue of student evaluations.

Prof. Siegel suggested that grade distributions should be provided for every course in the portfolio.  Prof. Zimmerman asked who is really responsible for putting the statistics in?  Prof. Brown asked, “What are we doing here?”

Prof. Goins, the parliamentarian, answered that the Senate was doing discussion by committee as a whole. He suggested that the Senate could get some motions going regarding Provost Brennan’s suggestions.

Prof. Siegel suggested taking a straw vote on each motion:

The motion passed 13-2-2.

Following are the Provost’s written comments on Chapter 3 (in Arial font), interspersed with responses of the Senate (in Times-Roman font).

Section XVI-A (5)          [p.1]                                                

• There is reference to an “Appendix K” in the draft document.  No Appendix K was attached.

Section XVI-A (9)          [p.2]

• Add to sentence, “…Summary Recommendation form (see “Forms” in this handbook) for all tenure and tenure-track faculty…”  (Italic font denotes changes in wording.)

Section XVI-A (11)        [p.2]

• Add to second sentence, “The Dean of the College or designee shall…”  (Italic font denotes changes in wording.)

Section XVI-B (2)(a)     [p.3]

• First bullet – add to beginning of the phrase, “Completed and signed”
• Last bullet – change to read as follows, “A narrative statement in which the faculty member describes his/her individual teaching and/or advising philosophy; the results of scholarship, research, grants or contracts activities; service activities; peer or chairperson evaluation; and an interpretation of student evaluations.  (Italic font denotes changes in wording.)

First four items:  Senate accepted.

Section XVI-B (2)(b)     [p.3]

• Second bullet – change to read as follows, “Student evaluations of teaching as summarized by the office of the department chairperson or as summarized by the Office of Assessment.”  (Italic font denotes changes in wording.)
• Add new bullet after second bullet – “Peer and/or chairperson’s evaluation(s) of teaching signed by both parties.”

Senate agreed to change “summarize” to “tabulation.”

Prof. Siegel moved to require that grade distributions be submitted with the portfolio, for courses beginning with the year this Document takes effect.

The motion passed, 15-2-0.

Section XVI-B (2)(c)     [p.3]

• Second bullet – change to read as follows, “A narrative statement in which the faculty member describes how he or she met and integrated teaching, research and service expectations based on his or her 6-year workload assignment and research agenda established by the department and approved by the college.”

(Italic font denotes changes in wording.)

Prof. Siegel asked about research not integrating with teaching. Provost Brennan responded that there is always research leading to teaching.  This is a statement where the individual is assessing his or her research, his or her position in the field and how one is staying in the field. 

Prof. Leshnoff suggested adding a friendly amendment to read “current research.”

Siegel suggested leaving it as it is.

Straw vote:  reject the Provost’s suggestions in this portion:  16-1-0l

Section XVI-B (2)(d)     [p.4]

• Add at the end of the first sentence, “…listed in 2a for tenured faculty and 2b. for tenure track faculty.”

Section XVI-B (2)(e)     [p.4]

• First bullet – change to read as follows, “…above in 2a and student and…”
• Add third bullet – “Department chair letter providing a short 5-year summary and overall evaluation of the faculty’s performance and major accomplishments.”

The Senate agreed with Prof. Zimmerman’s previous suggestion to add “or designee.”

Section XVI-B (3)(a)&(c)                  [p.4]      

• Should be a more definite time frame when new documentation inclusion is no longer allowed.   Suggested language:  “All documentation used as part of the consideration process must be included in the portfolio no later than November 30th.  Only pending information may be appended after that date.”

Section XVI-B (5-sic)    [p.6]

• Change numbering from 5. to 6. because of duplication in the numbering sequence.
• Include in (a.):  “The Dean of the College or designee…”

Section XVI-C (5)          [p.6]

• End the first sentence after “… upon achieving completion of the terminal degree.”
• Add second sentence – “Such an agreement will be delineated in the letter of initial appointment with a February 1 completion deadline in the first year.”

Section XVI-C (7)          [p.7]

• Change the sentence to read – “Faculty seeking tenure before the mandatory 6th year and who have been denied at the department or college level, may apply in subsequent years.
• Add second sentence – “If the faculty member decides to proceed to the level of Provost for consideration of tenure, the decision shall be final.  Barring exceptional circumstances, the faculty member who is denied tenure shall receive no further consideration and shall receive a terminal one-year appointment.”

Prof. Siegel asked what effect this might have on hiring.  Provost Brennan responded that we’re now increasing options.

Prof. Siegel asked about dismissal of individuals in their first year of a tenure-track position.

Section XVII-A (2)          [p.8]

• Change the last sentence to read, “The promotion and/or tenure decision is based on the competence and quality of the individual as they relate to the development of the department’s program design and research agenda.”

Section XVII-B (1)(c)     [p.9]

• Change the sentence to read, “A faculty member shall meet his or her workload agreement of teaching, scholarship, and service and shall be available for advising and consultation through office hours.

Delete Section XVII-B (1)(d)              [p.9]

Section XVII-B (1)(e)     [p.9]

• Change the end of the sentence, “…continuing professional development and demonstration of scholarly growth.”

Section XVII-B (2)(a)     [p.9]

• Delete, “more restrictive than or in” in the second sentence.

Section XVII-B (3)(a)     [p.10]

• Change first sentence to read, “References to ‘Chairs’ and ‘Department’ include chairpersons and others in the colleges who have overall responsibility for faculty workload assignment, program development, and semester course offerings for the academic area.
• Delete second sentence.

Section XVII-B (3)(c)     [p.10]

• Delete, “more restrictive than or in” in the second sentence.

Section XVII-B (3)(d)     [p.11]

• Add to the second sentence, “…submitted for review by the College PTRM Committee and the Dean of the College and for approval by the University PTRM Committee.”

Section XVII-B (3)(f)      [p.11]

• Add to the sentence, “...and submit a revised copy to the College PTRM Committee and the Dean of the College prior to the date required for submission to the University PTRM Committee.”

Section XVII-C (1)(a)     [p.11]

• Add at the end of the sentence, “…and university standards.”

Associate Provost Leather remarked that this section needed a reference to keep the faculty member responsible to university standards.  Prof. Roberge suggested adding, at the end of that sentence, “as described in section 17B1a.”

Section XVII-C (3)(a)     [p.12]

• In the first sentence drop, “the Scholarship of”
• At the end of the second sentence add, “…in one’s academic field as affirmed by its community of scholars.”

Section XVII-C (3) (b)-(c) - delete

Section XVII-C (3)(old d, nowb)    [p.13]

• In the second sentence drop, “…approved evaluation documents herein”
• Add in the place of the deletion, “…annual AR or CAR or in departmental workload standards for 6, 7, or 8 unit loads.”

Bottom of page 13 - delete footnote.

Section XVII-C (4)(b)(1)  [p.14]

• After Vision, delete rest of sentence and add, “…and approved in the annual AR.”

Section XVIII-B (2)          [p.16]

• Need clarification on the intent and meaning of the last two sentences.

Section XVIII-C (1)(b)     [p.16]

• Delete this paragraph.

Section XVIII-C (2)(a)(3)              [p.18]

• Change sentence to read, “Tenured and probationary faculty shall be evaluated for all scheduled courses every semester.”

Prof. Vatz suggested that this passage should distinguish between large and small faculty. 

Straw poll ended at the end of page 3.

Prof. Sullivan announced that the Senate would reconvene on Monday November 20.

Meeting adjourned at 6 pm.