University Senate
Memorandum
Date: October 30, 2008
To: The Academic Community
From: Sharon Pitcher, Secretary to the Senate
Subject: Minutes from the Meeting of the University Senate, October 6, 2008
The second regular meeting of the University Senate was held on Monday, October 6, 2008, at 4:00 p.m. in Rooms 314-315 of the University Union.
The agenda was approved unanimously.
The minutes were approved unanimously.
Vice President Sheehan – The system went through a 30 million dollar reduction. 2.6 million is coming out of operating budget. The university system has initiated a hiring freeze. The presidents can approve critical positions such as teaching positions and student well-being. We will not have to reduce operating budgets at this time but we will know more in December. Professor Brown asked about department searches and the Provost responded that they are trying to get an answer as quickly as possible. VP Sheehan reported that they are trying to decide on the most crucial positions.
Vice President Rubin - Funding will be tight. The letters to faculty are going and he emphasized that it is important for the amount of faculty and alums who give as it is what they give. He encouraged everyone to try to continue their support.
Professor Siegel, CUSEF- Meeting October 15 and later in the month the executive committee will meet with Senate Chairs. She encouraged all who had concerns to communicate them to Tim Sullivan because the chancellor will be there. We are collecting nominations for Faculty Regent Awards. A letter is going out to faculty about textbooks to demonstrate to the legislature that we can police ourselves. We do not want legislation that gets in the way of our academic work. CUSEF also has concerns about support of the optional retirement program and benefits for same sex couples. (Copies of the textbook letter and Board of Regents’ Faculty Awards were given out by Tim Sullivan.)
Professor Durington, AAUP, reported that the crab feast was a big success. Fall chapter meeting October 22, 3:30 to 4:30 in Union. Second Friday events start. Friday, Oct. 10 is in Linthicum 307. November, Rick Vatz will present. AAUP state meeting is at Loyola. He then encouraged membership.
Senator Guy, SGA – Second traveling meeting tomorrow. Traveling around so they are visible on campus. SGA opinion of slots is being discussed tomorrow.
He encouraged nominations to the board of regents award and further reinforced trying to protect the academic side of the university as much as possible during the budget cutting process.–
Success stories from last year:
Enrollment numbers – all time high – 21,111 (82% undergraduates, 18% graduate students)
In state 79% out of state 21%
240,000 to 260,000 credit production hours
More than 20,000 applications this year, 16,000 were freshmen
5600 new student, 2282 freshman
818 grad students
Everyone, who said they were coming, came.
Diversity went up from 18% to 19%
5300 applications were minority students, 700 enrolled
805 full time faculty (up from 601 in 2005):
568 Tenure Track, 33 Clinical Faculty, 38 Leturers
97 new full time faculties hired this year 57 tenure track, 27 visiting, 11 lecturers
66% course units are taught by full time faculty, 34% part time
Student hour production 67% full time
Faculty production hours – average course units taught tenure /tenure track 6.9 – including lecturers 7.3.
Faculty published 67 books, 611 referred work, 1000 professional presentation, 1000 hours of volunteer service
Grants were 24 million up from 19 million
Some comparison to peers:
Two-year Retention Rates - peers 77% , ours is 83%
Six-Year Completion Rates – peers 51%, ours 64%
Graduation of Minorities – peers 47%, ours 44%
Student to Faculty Ratio - peers 17 to 1, ours 18 to 1
Trimester: The provost acknowledged the work of Dr. Extner in leading the effort. It got off to very good start and he thanked faculty that taught classes.
Online classes: We now have 72, enrollment 1400 (increase over 100% in last two years)
Academic Affairs budget requests for this year included:
Faculty promotions
Cola for lectures
Operating money
We will have extra money because we brought in more students than production.
Asked for money for faculty compression, classroom technology and professional development that we didn’t get – we will continue trying.
The following extra funds were made available to the colleges:
Big Initiatives for upcoming year:
Professor Lawson -How does the Center for Teaching Excellence relate to CIAT? The provost answered that the task force will be looking into this.
(Senate Executive Committee)
Motion carried 22-0-0
Professor Siegle asked about a regular system to inform the university of what one college or department is doing. She asked if there is a way to make this more transparent. As we get bigger, the need for this is becoming bigger.
The motion passed 22-0-0.
Prof Knutson shared that the Middle states group asked about courses that have been on the books but not active. We keep track of new courses but what is being done to keep track of obsolete courses? Prof. Sullivan suggested that it can get messy quickly. Prof. Knutson clarified that People Soft could eliminate this since there is a way courses could be dropped.
The motion passed 22-0-0
The Provost shared the process for deciding what jobs would be frozen. The president has all of the Vice Presidents making a list of important jobs to be requested permission to fill. From the Academic side the request is for the ability to hire for replacement pins. We are also asking for all of the positions that we having visiting people in this year. We are also asking for part-time faculty for Spring and requesting pins for next year if we are growing. We have been given permission to hire with external funds from grants and contracts. Replacement searches will go forward. Prof. Webster asked if there is a plan if we cannot find part-time people to fill positions. The Provost responded if we don’t get funding to hirer for quality faculty for positions, we will not offer the classes Prof. Manasee asked whether by replacements, are we just talking about emergency ones or also those we also absolutely need. The Provost answered that we are asking for those we need but we have to hold tight. Prof. Siegel suggested that we have to make it clear that what we may hear from other system schools may not apply to us. The Provost responded that we are lucky because funding on this campus is very well managed so we may not have to worry. Professor Zimmerman asked about community college courses. Provost explained that in the evening we may be able to let BCCC faculty teach those courses on our campus and use our facilities. Prof. Siegel asked if they will other courses. The provost answered that these are small groups (37) for a small amount of classes. Professor Lawson suggested that it also important to remember the importance of staff. The provost responded that they are trying to come up with a ratio of staff to faculty. VP Sheehan volunteered that we were planning more support staff but this may be one area we have to reconsider with budget cuts. Faculty has grown but support staff has not.
Professor Vatz stressed that we now have honesty and transparency in the provost but he questioned the decision to make merit college-wide, which is not what was proposed by the Task Force on Merit and Compensation, and then approved by the Senate.
Professor Durington read the following statement from Professor Ballengee, AAUP President:.
The AAUP would like to draw attention to the status of shared governance in the decision on merit distribution that Provost Clements has announced.
The problem of Merit distribution was first raised at the Senate in our May 2007 meeting. We established at the October 1, 2007, meeting the need to form a taskforce to address the issue, including faculty representatives from across the university and from the AAUP and Senate; the Senate voted 22-0-0 in strong approval of the need to form such a taskforce. In March of 2008, this taskforce was finally actually formed and had its first meeting. Over a series of five meetings, finishing in May just two days before Merit Distribution had to be decided for the 2008-2009 FY, the taskforce came up with four Motions advising how Merit should be best distributed. The motions were voted on and passed with a clear majority in the committee. Essential to agreement was the foundational idea, which the majority of committee members agreed upon, that Merit should be viewed as a reward for exceptional performance; as such, philosophically, the amount of Merit received by faculty members should be equivalent, reflecting the idea that the value of exceptional performance is equivalent no matter in what college or department a faculty member resides. The committee also agreed that Merit and Compression should therefore remain distinct and separate. These Motions passed by the taskforce were then presented to the Senate and voted on, at our May 5, 2008, meeting: the Motions were approved as a package by a vote of 13-2-2. (Unfortunately, the old system of distribution was, despite this vote of approval, still used to determine merit amounts for the 2008-2009 FY.)
Nevertheless, the Administration has opted, in presenting its three options for merit distribution, to disregard this process, the recommendations, and their approval by a significant majority of the elected representatives of the university faculty. Moreover, leaving the decision between the three options up to “the colleges” leaves open the possibility that the decision on Merit Distribution by college may well be made by a Dean, without significant (or any) faculty input. The AAUP views these developments, and the potential disregard for shared governance that they may reflect, with deep concern.
Professor Webster suggested that shifting it to the college level still keeps the college advantages set in stone. Shifting the emphasis to associate and full professors does not take into consideration the work of the assistant professors and the cost of living in this area. Professor Zimmerman also disagreed with the proposals because he feels the issue is that the committees asked that merit to be considered university-wide and not by colleges. He suggested that compression needs to be considered separately. Prof Siegel asked how was this new policy was shared with faculty. Prof. Knutson questioned about the recommendations being ignored and the time spent by faculty on these issues should have warranted more consideration. Prof Sullivan answered that he didn’t think all of the recommendations were ignored. One difference is that merit will be college-based rather than recommendation of the university. Compression issue was also part of this. Prof Zimmerman was not aware that this didn’t go to the whole senate.
Professor Tabak suggested that no organization cannot be receptive to the responsiveness to the market and retain the necessary faculty. She feels that the department system was more responsive to different department requirements. and that the college decision was a middle of the road choice.
The Provost shared that they knew that this was going to be difficult, he thanked the Senate and the committee that worked on this. He sent out an explanation of the new models to the Deans, the committee, and the AAUP. Three models were put forward. He explained the models. Other models may come out. Unfortunately there is not an easy solution to this. They are going to try the model for two years.
Prof Vatz suggested those departments that have been successful and hired new faculty are then receiving less merit. Prof Cox questioned the faculty excellence category and how it relates to the merit system. The provost answered that this does not affect merit but this extra money could be used by the colleges to reward excellent work or high teaching. Prof. Manasse suggested that her college, which is on the lower end, will never make as much as business but philosophically this is about merit. That if we go above and beyond, we should be rewarded in the same way. The equity makes us feel better. Prof. Worts asked for clarification. Provost suggested that allocation follow recommendations of Senate. Prof. Zimmerman suggested that Dean’s merit from a few years ago was apposed by the AAUP. The new model does not give guidance on who does this. He would like to make a motion that the majority of faculty for the college voted on how this money would be used. Prof. Siegel seconded the motion. The Provost suggested that we are trying to solve three problems. Professor Zimmerman suggested that there is no mechanism for what the colleges should do. Professor Webster questioned about how a pilot study could be done when there are three models and if we don’t get a decent pilot, we will be right back where we started. Professor Siegel shared that we need uniformity and would like to see excellence removed from the proposal. She also suggests that the fixed amount makes what those that get merit plus get the same amount at different levels. What is the same – the same percentage or the same amount? She has grave misgivings about the colleges making the decision. Prof. Berman shared that this is too serious an item that all of us did not receive the document. He also agreed that salary compression and merit are two different issues. Merit does not work unless basic salaries are good. Prof Lawson asked for confirmation. Will each college get their amount or is it based on their salaries? Other senators explained that it is based on salary. Prof. Siegel stated that we have to make sure that all faculty receive the proposal and a small group of the senate work on a better motion in November. Zimmerman withdrew the motion. The provost thanked the Senate for the discussion.
(Senate Executive Committee)
Debbie Seeberger shared that CoFAC had piloted the proposed modification to the Towson University Faculty and Professional Librarian Hiring Procedures. They found it to be very helpful. Prof. Zimmerman asked whether these procedures would apply to clinical faculty. Seeberger stated that they do and although clinical faculty are not specifically mentioned within the procedures, she would be happy to modify the procedures accordingly. There were no additional comments or questions.
The following items were held over for a second meeting for this month on October 20:
(Senate Executive Committee)
Senate convened at 6:00 PM.