University Senate Minutes: October 1, 2007 Meeting
Memorandum
Date: October 31, 2007
To: The Academic Community
From: Jennifer Ballengee, Secretary
Subject: October 1, 2007—Meeting of the University Senate
The second regular meeting of the University Senate was held on Monday, October 1, 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 President Caret, Vice President Moriarty, Vice President Sheehan, and Vice President Rubin.
The Agenda was approved unanimously by the Senate.
The Minutes were approved unanimously by the Senate.
The Provost passed on the opportunity to give a report, but agreed to accept questions. Prof. Bergman raised the issue of chairs with attached tabletops being the only available seating in Linthicum Hall. He noted that these chairs cause serious problems for students who are disabled and cannot function with such chairs.
Provost Clements agreed that TU should provide seating that works for all students.
AAUP Report, Prof. McLucas:
The Junior Faculty Committee had a successful meeting earlier this month.
The AAUP Crab Feast / Bull Roast was huge success—there were double the number of people as last year.
Prof. Zimmerman will be speaking in the second Friday series, 10/12/07, on Mathematics and Art.
Chapter meeting: Wed., Oct. 17, 3:30-5 p.m.
Prof. McLucas solicited reaction from Senate about presence of non-tenured faculty on P and T Committees. Prof. Vatz expressed that he had never heard of that before. Prof. Zimmerman recommended that the question be sent to the UPTRM Committee, to solicit their opinion on this matter. Prof. Sullivan noted that there is variability by department. Prof. Burke offered to bring this matter to the committee at their 10/5/07 meeting.
SGA Report, Senator Haley:
The SGA DOA reported that textbook orders were submitted on time, saving students money. She said that Provost Clements has agreed not to bring the C- back; SGA is happy to hear that. SGA is working on a permanent motto for Towson University; a committee of faculty and students are addressing that. Senator Moore will be heading that effort. SGA will be sending out an interdepartmental letter asking for people to sit on the committee; Senator Moore welcomed volunteers.
Prof. Sullivan noted that the executive committee also discussed this. Two years ago Provost Brennan said that the issue would be applied for two years. The Senate is asking the Academic Standards committee for a report on this, in order to finish up the process begun two years ago.
CUSF Report, Prof. Siegel:
Budget: situation looks promising, in that USM seems to be exempt from budget cuts. Plus there is a proposal for some higher taxes, in particular a proposed 1% in corporate tax, which includes that ½ of that 1% be dedicated entirely to higher education. This would be in addition to our regular budget. If this goes through, it will give us a little bit more secure funding.
Dr. Kerwin’s initatives: Figure out ways to close the so-called achievement gap between lower and middle or upper income students. TU is getting more students from lower-income schools and neighborhoods, so this achievement gap will become more apparent. The competitiveness issue is big; he’s hoping to attract more students to science, technology, and teaching.
There’s a 2.5% Merit in the budget submitted to the governor. The COLA is decided in the Spring.
Faculty workload report: she’ll discuss it next time.
Senator Meyer noted that the Maryland Student Council is taking a proactive stance on these budget issues.
Prof. Sullivan asked about the discussion on the achievement gap: Prof. Siegel answered that the USM is looking at data and trying to decide when or whether to have interventions to help students perform at a competitive level. Between the 3rd and 4th year of college, in particular, that is when the gap really grows.
Prof. Sullivan distributed two AAUP documents, one on Academic Freedom and Outside Speakers and the other an open letter from Cary Nelson, describing the position that AAUP has taken on Academic Freedom and Outside Speakers.
NEW BUSINESS:
Accept a By-Laws Change, Informational Technology Committee.
Prof. O’Leary noted that the name of the committee has changed to IITC: Informational and Instructional Technology Committee. Prof. Bergman noted that when the document talks about the responsibilities of the committee, some of the formerly robust language has been weakened. Now the committee is no longer an advocate but is only a guide; the “bottom up” language is now missing, and it sounds like a “top-down” organization. Prof. O’Leary noted that the new language is a reflection of what the committee is now actually doing. He noted that the committee spent the better part of a year discussing and creating these new by-laws. Prof. Bergman noted that the new language cuts off the ability and legality of the committee to take on the role of advocacy; now the committee is restricted to simply reiterating the goals of the administration.
Prof. O’Leary noted that there is not the same kind of Academic/Administrative split that is reflected in the former document. He confirmed that the committee has no real decision-making ability anyway. Prof. Rosecky noted that he wanted the IITC to advocate for faculty concerns regarding technology. Prof. Debye noted that he could appreciate the difficulty of the committee since the committee is given no budgetary input. Yet, he, too, noted concern that the charge of Advocacy be retained in the by-laws. Prof. Debye moved that the following be added to the preamble of Section Q: “The IIT exists to serve as advocate for University resources to support academic computing and to make recommendations to the CIO, Provosts Office, and the University Senate on matters of planning and the use of information and instructional technologies.” Prof. Bergman seconded. The Senate voted 20-0-1 (abstention) to amend the proposed bylaws according to Prof. Debye’s motion.
Prof. Webster asked why so many VPs are necessary for this committee. Prof. O’Leary noted that the committee had discussed this. Prof. Siegel noted that this is part of shared governance; administrators have an important place on the committees, in terms of providing input, but administrators do not have the capacity to vote. Prof. Pitcher noted that all of the VPs are relevant to this conversation. Prof. Vatz suggested that these administrators could be made non-voting members of the committee. Prof. O’leary noted that with the new by-laws there are 7 faculty representatives from each college, plus a librarian representative, plus two new divisions are added to list of voting members. College members are selected by the Dean, he clarified. Prof. Webster expressed discomfort with the fact that the committee is so administrative-heavy (especially considering the fact that there are only 6 academic colleges). Prof. O’Leary clarified that the committee felt it was important to be a university committee, not a faculty committee; the issues this committee addresses are not faculty-only issues. Prof. Rosecky echoed Prof. Webster’s concerns; shared governance should be a sharing of decisions between faculty and administrators. Prof. Tabak asked what other university committees have voting administrative members. Prof. Sullivan solicited friendly amendments to the by-laws. Prof. Debye suggested that University Advancement and Economic and Community outreach members should be moved from 1.D to 2. D (non-voting). Prof. Zimmerman disagreed with the friendly amendment. Prof. Brown echoed the disagreement, and added that however the committee votes, they only produce recommendations, which still have to go through the senate. Prof. Burke noted that, according to the proposed by-laws, recommendations are not made to the Senate. Prof. Cox confirmed this. Prof. Zimmerman solicited Provost Clements’ opinion. Provost Clements noted that the academic side should drive this committee, though he noted that the input of these administrators is valuable. Prof. Sullivan called for a vote on the friendly amendment. The Senate voted in favor of the amendment 15-5-2.
Prof. Sullivan asked for a vote upon amended bylaws: 19-0-2.
Accept the Annual Report of the Academic Standards committee.
Senator Castillo what the specific changes were under the section third attempt policy. Prof. McCool noted that the quotation marks indicate that this is not related to general university policy. The motion presented from the music department, he clarified, does not modify university policy. He read the motion aloud, which demonstrated that the music department was imposing particular limitations on the number of times a course could be taken in the music department, in particular. Prof. Siegel asked about the last 30 credits in Geography: the CCBC course is a 100- or 200-level course. McCool clarified that the student has to be a native of Towson. The current requirement is that the student must take their last 30 credits from Towson; in this case, the policy designates that courses may be taken out of order, though 90 credits total must be taken at Towson. Prof. Burke raised concerns about the membership of the committee; she said that she planned to raise a motion regarding that later.
The Senate moved to accept the report, 22-0-0.
Accept the Annual Report University Curriculum Committee.
Prof. Zimmerman noted that the subcommittee report is also included. Prof. Siegel noted that the Senate approves new majors and new programs. She asked at what point a program has to come back before the Senate. This comes up at the System level, too, she noted. She took issue with the fact that Track and Concentration have identical language. A Concentration, Prof. Zimmerman noted, must be approved by MHEC. She expressed the desire to have the Curriculum Committee to note to the Senate when a program or department has changed substantially enough to become different from what the Senate had approved.
The Senate moved to accept the report, 20-0-1.
OLD BUSINESS:
Intellectual Property Proposals.
Prof. Sullivan solicited opinions from the Senate about how we should proceed with such issues. Prof. Webster asked if there was someone who could summarize the legal issues and proposals; he noted that the legal language is confusing and might be better summarized by someone in the legal profession. Prof. Rosecky agreed that it would be a good idea to have others speak before the Senate about this. Prof. Siegel noted that there is a systemwide intellectual property policy. At the very least, t his needs to be considered, too, since whatever we come up with has to correspond to the systemwide policy. Mr. Ariza spoke to the policy; in 1990 there was a common policy that TU had. In 2002, the USM changed the policy to determine that any software created “in the scope of one’s employment,” it is being claimed to be property of the university. He noted that he has never found this policy associated with any other university. In 2003, UMCP went back to the 1990 policy. The proposal before the Senate is simply to follow the model of UMCP. Provost Clements noted that there have been several calls received by the Provost’s office in this regard. He suggested that Michael Anselme come before the Senate to speak to these issues. The Provost noted that this is not just a COFAC issue.
That herein cost-of-living adjustments (COLA) should be a percentage of individual faculty members’ salaries to lessen salary compression.
Prof. Vatz read aloud from a sheet he’d brought to the Senate. Prof. Sullivan noted that the bottom 25% and top 25% are affected by this, but the middle range is affected much less. Prof. Siegel noted that this is poorly worded, since COLA is decided by the legislature, and it is a percentage of individual salaries, provided they don’t put a caveat in there. She explained the process: sometime in the spring, the legislature decides what the costof living increase should be for all state workers. Sometimes they put a cap on that increase, dependent on the amount of a salary. That can’t be compensated unless the university decides to do that for all state workers at the university. The only way that this could be valid would be if the motion reads that the COLA will be a percentage even if the state puts a cap on the COLA. Prof. Siegel raised the problem of who would pay for this. She urged that we recommend to the university that the university make up the difference. Prof. Vatz clarified that this is no attempt to force the administration to do anything that would work to the detriment of the university. This should not be construed as a demand. Provost Clements thanked Prof. Vatz for raising the issue and admitted that TU needs a long-term solution that is carefully studied. He reminded the Senate that he recommends 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 (he recommended Prof. Zimmerman, who could compute the mathematical formula for this). Prof. Vatz noted that the committee needs to be representative of colleges and departments that suffer from this policy.
Prof. Rosecky noted that number 1 on Prof. Vatz’ list doesn’t apply to his department, since new professors are hired at salaries that are often greater than that of full or associate professors. These issues can influence our ability to hire new faculty,, too. Prof. McLucas welcomed the proposal to form a committee to address this issue, with a close focus on the worst-paid members of the faculty. The state’s COLA raises never address compression, but what needs to be addressed percentages of salary. At some point the wrongs done to the poorest paid members of the faculty need to be redressed. Prof. Guerrero noted that salary information can be used destructively. She worried that this discussion could create an uncomfortable dynamic between senior and junior faculty.
Prof. Sullivan suggested that these motions be tabled. Prof. Sullivan noted that a roundtable discussion with the president will occur in two weeks, Monday at 4 p.m., in ADMIN 424. Prof. Sullivan noted that this conversation about salary will recur. Prof. Siegel moved that such a committee be formed, and that a report be presented to the Senate by March 1st, at the latest. Provost Clements noted that this discussion could affect salaries for next year. Prof. Siegel asked where equity money would come from. It is not supposed to come from the Merit pile. It should come from discretionary funds. Provost Clements noted that this is an important point. Provost Clements noted that many people are saying study it, but don’t rush. Prof. Bergman noted that the report didn’t need to issue all of its recommendations at once.
Prof. Sullivan called a vote on the motion to form the committee: 22-0-0.
That 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 member has experienced a diminished increase in his/her base salary; and providing that amount within a timely fashion to such designated faculty members.
4. Motion 07/08-8:
That Towson University should recognize 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 adjourned the meeting at 6:05 p.m.