University Senate
Memorandum
Date: October 1, 2008
To: The Academic Community
From: Senate Executive Committee
Subject: October 20, 2008—Meeting of the University Senate
The second regular meeting of the University Senate will be held on Monday, October 20, 2008, at 4:00 p.m. in Rooms 314-315 of the University Union.
Magna Charta DVD was presented to the University Senate on behalf of President Caret. Dr. Clements explained the importance the signing in Bologna and briefly discussed the mission of the Magna Charta.
Provost Clements discussed the letter of intent that has been signed with Baltimore Hebrew University. Clements added that this has the long term potential to be a partnership that would allow joint research, the use of library volumes, and the awarding of degrees. Additionally, all BHU programs and courses would need to comply with Towson University’s Academic Standards. BHU also offers a Ph.D. in Jewish Studies. Clements asked for this to remain on the agenda for future discussions.
(Senate Executive Committee)
Professor Guerrero motioned to discuss Motion 08/09/07. Dr. Siegel seconded the motion. Dean Lorion stated that the percentage of non-tenured track faculty is at 24.6% and does not want that proportion to change unless they are authorized by the colleges, adding that he wants to work towards lowering the percentage.
Dr. Murdoch (Marketing Department) had serious reservations about there being no definition of a clinical program and wanted more stringent qualifications for these positions than outlined in the document.
Regarding requirements, Dean Exner stated that the document does not require professors to teach a maximum of 25% of time in the classroom and there are clear expectations of having a scholarship plan.
Professor Manasse stated that the proposal should be an opportunity to refine and make specific the role of the clinical professor and that these positions are present at other schools.
Dean Lorion refined what he was asking for, stating that he wanted the Senate to approve the position and then colleges approve the college-specific position of clinical faculty as defined in a proposal.
Siegel wanted clear policies laid out in the current motion. For example, there are no policies regarding ability to vote on college councils. Siegel views these positions as not fully understanding the departments and should therefore not be voting members. Lorion stated that this would be under the proposal presented to the colleges.
Professor Bergman believes there are a variety of categories that lecturers in his department could fit into and believes there needs to be finer definitions of these positions. Bergman believes that a bachelor’s degree and three years of experience is to small a requirement to be teaching. Dean Lorion stated that these positions would be in exceptional circumstances and is subject to an annual review.
Professor Brown expressed concern that if the Senate passes this document then there are other proposals that will eventually be passed by other bodies.
Regarding the hiring process, Clements stated that any multi-year contracts would have to be signed by the Maryland Attorney General and that the hiring would go through the Office of Diversity.
Professor Brown wants the college proposals sent to the Senate first and then sent to Provost’s office for signature. Knutson wants the document to be specific in terms of guidelines but flexible to accommodate college differences. Zimmerman would like to see a committee established. Siegel has problems with a dean taking it directly to the Provost.
Professor Vatz and Zimmerman agreed that the document should originate in colleges, go to the college councils, and then come to the Senate for approval.
Vatz believes the colleges that try to resolve the merit issue by plebiscite would be unwise way to solve this. He supports deans having the decision in distribution. Siegel thought it was the responsibility of the Senate to decide on this and procedures in which it is distributed because each college will choose different formats for the 2 year pilot.
Maronick disagreed with Siegel and stated the Senate should try different systems in colleges and see if it works for them, then discuss problems. Professor Brown supports shared governance, but would have preferred a uniform approach for two years, then tweaking the merit policy so it would be consistent across campus. The Provost should make the ultimate decision.
Knutson wanted to know what the criteria for success are so we can determine what models are reaching the requested data.
Bergman objected to the pools that each college would have. Understanding that it is a percentage of the salaries of those professors that are in it, he believes that it is fundamentally unfair and distorts the quality of teaching,
Provost Clements stated that:
The three models all have pros and cons. Clements believed that in a pilot we could try different things and see how each works.
Zimmerman asked who decides for the colleges. Then asked why there are three models but a clause allowing deans to offer other suggested models. Zimmerman stated he would almost rather see the deans determine a model rather than having colleges argue.
Clements stated that merit amount is determined by state and there is a chance for the next two years there may be none. The implementation piece is very important.
Zimmerman then asked whether the Merit Compensation Taskforce is the foundation for this merit document. Regarding compression, Zimmerman wanted to know what happened to the other options.
Worgs stated that there should be equality and fairness in colleges and ranks. He would like to see separation in compression and merit. Manasse stated that compression disparities cannot be solved by merit and believes that they should be thrown in together.
Professor Vatz believes colleges distributing merit lessens the disparities but makes it a little worse each year. You need a system that addresses compression. Vatz believes that we need to go to a university based situation and that the first system is the least bad and also the least likely to be supported by a plebiscite.
Siegel believes the problem is not the same because percentages are different among ranks even with double merit. The third possibility is more equitable but leaves a pot of money that can go to anybody without any clear process for who or how it gets distributed.
Clements believes we need to define together how we distribute it.
Professor Storrs moved to adjourn the meeting. It was seconded and approved 13-0-0.