University Senate
Memorandum
Date: November 2, 2006
To: The Academic Community
From: Jennifer Ballengee, Secretary
Subject: October 9, 2006—Meeting of the University Senate
The second regular meeting of the University Senate was held on Monday, October 9, 2006, 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 Prof. Webster, Provost Brennan, Vice President Moriarty, Vice President Sheehan, and Vice President Rubin.
The Agenda was unanimously approved by the Senate.
The Minutes from Sept. 18, 2006, were unanimously approved by the Senate.
REPORT OF THE PROVOST:
Provost Brennan deferred to the President.
REPORT OF VICE PRESIDENT CLEMENTS:
Vice President Clements handed out a Media Release detailing significant and recent items.
University Center for Economic Development: Towson recertified by EDA, this comes with a $1000 grant.
The Economic Outlook Conference is upcoming; the keynote speaker will be one of the authors of Freakenomics.
The grant from CISCO Corporation has been finalized; Towson has received over $1 million from CISCO in the last 5 years.
The Building Steps is running smoothly. Building Steps takes at-risk kids from Baltimore city and puts them through a training program, also providing connections with businesses in the community.
CUSF REPORT, PROF. SIEGEL:
CUSF continues to address retirement issues; among other things, they are exploring the possibility for early retirement. But there is some question about whether this possibility may be affected by enrollment booms and natural retirement booms. Also, CUSF will be discussing increases of optional retirement program.
AAUP REPORT, PROF. MCLUCAS:
Prof. McLucas reported an unfortunate case that happened at the end of last school year, that he’s concerned may come up again. A faculty colleague had a disgruntled student who created a fake profile of the professor on MySpace, and sent unprofessional messages to other students while posing as that professor. Prof. McLucas urged the Administration to establish accountability for students who engage in that sort of behavior. Prof. Zimmerman asked if any action was taken against the student. Prof. Vatz asked if it is relevant to the story that it’s a student. He argued that this is a general outrage that could happen in any hierarchical situation. Prof. Ballengee pointed out that the unprofessional e-mails sent by the student posing as the professor could damage that professor’s professional reputation. Also, in other hierarchical situations, such as the workplace, such an outrage would result in firing the perpetrator. In this university situation, professors have no such defense of their character. Rather, they must depend upon the Administration to provide accountability and to protect the professor (and thus the university’s reputation, as well) from such damage and insult.
The President indicated that there have been a number of issues where “spoofing” of e-mails has happened. The Administration is working on policy.
SGA REPORT, SENATOR DIEGUEZ:
SGA is finalizing a survey that will be given to students; they hope to deliver one to faculty, as well.
The SGA is still at work on a strategic vision for student government.
Senator Moore reported that the SGA completed a survey on class registration. Students requested more online classes. Students felt having registration during class time put them at a disadvantage. The sample size of the survey was 250 students.
SENATE REPORT, PROF. SULLIVAN:
Prof. Sullivan gave a reminder that the Regents Faculty Awards deadline for nominees is approaching; nominations are due by mid-November. Prof. Siegel noted that the procedure has changed. Rather than have the provost’s office make the recommendations, there should be a committee of the Senate that makes the nominations. Our institution gets very few letters/packets/recommendations to CUSF. They’re not very complicated to compose. The President noted that if we have people who are competitive for any award, we should be nominating them. Even to have nominees is important.
Prof. Sullivan reported that the Compensation Committee is still moving forward.
There has been a change in the size of our campus. But also the political world has changed, and what they expect of us. Politics has become much more involved; the Spellings Commission is one aspect of this.
There are five themes we live by on campus – they are part of TU2010: Enrollment Management, Growth, and Mix; Student Experience and Success; Partnerships Philosophy; Resources for Success; Telling and Selling the Story.
If TU were given a choice, we would probably take the campus down to around 12 or 13,000, build quality, stay true to our Liberal Arts core and experience.
We have felt that this is not an option. The state is growing rapidly, and TU is the only institution poised to grow. The state can’t really afford to grow UMBC and UMCP. We decided that we ought to make the best of this situation, by asking for a comparable budget increase as and agreeing to grow. We received that last year, and also received a very good capital budget.
What does the growth and maturation of the campus mean for us?
There have been four Deans’ Workgroups established to look at key areas we’re interested in and to strategically plan growth:
Program Outreach: what and where
Internal Cooperation (Interdisciplinary)
Raising the Research Enterprise
New Programs
We have several programs that are very large, around 1000 students; they can’t be grown anymore. We can grow these offsite at satellite sites (e.g., Elementary Education and Nursing), and through distance education, too. But we also need new programs that can be grown with existing faculty. Many of these will be at the graduate level.
Interdisciplinary Institutes:
Metropolitan Issues
Entrepreneurial Issues
Human Development
Writing
These will bring curricular and/or research expertise together in a multidisciplinary way. Such institutions can help program development and enrollment growth.
Organizational Structure:
TU Provost, James Brennan has proposed developing a proposed School of Technology. This will bundle an existing group of programs with new programs. TU will incubate the School in the Fisher College of Math and Sciences.
Enhanced Programmatic Reputations:
We need programs that are well-known. U.S. News is one measure; they have lists of “Best…” programs and schools.
New Approaches:
Online Education: We need to not only offer courses online, but develop full programs online. We already are beginning that. Hopefully 20-30% of courses could be offered offsite or online.
The Trimester is an idea still floating out there. We are trying to get the System to fund the net growth that would result from this expansion. TU will slowly grow it, work with faculty, form a task force this semester to figure it out. Coupling this modular approach along with online courses could really increase TU’s output of educational product.
The System has been studying the research of Carol Twig on collaborative learning. Her research shows that it works. She tried it with the Spanish program at TU, the effort was never completed. Her approach is about learning by doing: start with problem solving, then get together and talk about it, have a lecture, help each other, etc. She has shown significant improvements in programs she’s worked with.
Faculty Work and Output:
We want a campus that is true to TU’s historical culture, but we want to evolve it into the future. How do we maintain that culture? Appropriate resources. You can’t maintain an effective faculty-student ratio without resources. This must be made a high priority. Our big challenge is how to maintain the culture of “real” faculty teaching in the classroom, with relatively small classes (80% of classes under 30). We need money to do this. We’re putting a lot of money into faculty, new faculty hiring and maintaining the current faculty. The Provost has a strong academic core. The real trick is going to be maintaining this base and increasing the research productivity of the campus at the same time. That is why DECO was created. If we can start bringing in $40 million in grants per year (we’re currently at $20 million), we can move to research intensive. We are pretty much there at the doctoral level (producing 10 doctorates per year). We’re trying to do most of this in applied research, working with businesses and nonprofits.
We need to tie all of these things together.
62% of faculty were hired in the last 11 years. The new faculty are exciting; this bodes well for the campus.
Prof. Rosecky remarked that he had never heard such an encouraging set of words.
Prof. Zimmerman asked what USM thinks about these plans?
The President responded that there is a general sense of support. But we’ll need to go through the political dialogue to explain it.
Prof. Leshnoff remarked upon the Trimester, noting that the idea of a task force on this issue that includes faculty sounds encouraging. But the implementation of the plans just discussed by the President relies on the trimester system. Prof. Leshnoff asked, “How do you project the rollout, or at least the discussion of such a thing?”
The President responded that even good schools have done it. Indeed there are ways to do it, even in a unionized environment. If we put together a task force for the rest of this year, TU should be able to begin growing the summer a bit.
Prof. Siegel made a plea that we not lose the important characteristic of TU which is shared governance. These ideas should be percolating up, but instead they’re coming down like a drip. Two examples of this problem: Advising and the School of Technology. The Senate and the faculty, in general, should be hearing about these things before they are enacted. Maintaining the cohesive community of TU depends upon shared governance.
The President responded that to some extent, this can happen because of pressures to move quickly. He and the Provost have discussed organizational changes for the past couple of years. The School of Technology is a proposal, not a fact. Prof. Siegel asked, “Who will see the drafts of these ideas?” The President responded that the Administration needs to begin a dialogue with faculty now.
Prof. Rosecky commented upon his advising load and how departments and colleges are determining advising roles. The President responded that the Associate Dean will work with chairs and deans to make sure that colleges go through steps that work for them.
Prof. Roberge suggested that the President should consider having a faculty member on those 4 Deans’ planning committees. He then asked the President to elaborate on the idea of DECO and how it relates to academic affairs. The President responded that he is primarily concerned with acquiring grant money, not how it comes in or to where. DECO is largely a self-supported unit; it could even be profit-making. It therefore has an entrepreneurial driving force. But there are also aspects of it that simply aim toward a common good. The tension would be solved if DECO were moved to the academic division. But this shouldn’t have to be the case; such a thing requires trust, however. The idea behind developing CGIS, for example, was to give students research and internship opportunities. In other words, CGIS wasn’t formed just for grants. But the process of developing CGIS into a business must be done carefully. Resources will come in, but they must be shared. Jim’s goal is not to bring money into DECO, it’s to bring money into the university. But we need to be careful not to have DECO and the university competing for the same grants.
Vice President Clements asserted that DECO has been instrumental in bringing up the level of grants at the university.
The President explained that Provost Brennan and Vice President Clements will drive decision-making together; but when it comes to institutional Centers, the Dean over that Center, and the Center Director, will work together to set up policy.
Prof. McLucas re-emphasized the importance of shared governance, as Prof. Siegel has expressed it.
Prof. Vatz agreed with Prof. McLucas. He then issued a voice of warning against over-gratitude to the state. It’s still necessary to ask the State for funding to address specifically parking and housing costs. Whatever we’ve been getting is because of the generosity of the faculty.
The President responded that he absolutely agreed. He then noted that we’re up in the mid-to-high 70% of the AAUP scale, compared to our current peer institutions. Based on funding bases of peer institutions, we are the highest funded in the system. But there are two major problems with this conclusion, he added: It’s not the right peer group; we’re trying to prove that. Also, MHEC only looks at the expense side. It’s the students that are keeping the funding guideline up. We need to change the paradigm.
Prof. Little reiterated that retaining the culture of this institution is important. She asked for clarification of programs that would be included in the School of Technology. The President asserted that TU is looking at engineering technology and some 2 + 2 programs with UMBC that would lean toward engineering.
Prof. Sullivan then noted a Point of Information: Faculty Handbook Chapter 3 is not on the agenda for today, because the Provost wanted to prepare remarks for it. The document will return to the Senate in November.
Prof. Roberge asked how Chapter 3 fit with the rest of the Handbook.
Associate Provost Leather suggested that it is meant to work with the current Handbook. The most current Handbook is on the Provost’s web site.
Prof. Pitcher asked, “What is the time frame?”
Associate Provost Leather urged the Senate to move on the document, since it has been an issue for two years.
Prof. Siegel made a Motion to approve the document as it stands before the Senate. Prof. Rosecky seconded the Motion.
Prof. Zimmerman noted that on pg. 20, language for merit as written in the 2003 Handbook should be inserted. But, he added, the PTRM committee is currently working on merit.
Prof. Debye noted that the Senate message was clear that they wanted the old merit system.
Prof. Siegel and Prof. Zimmerman raised individual issues with typographical errors in the document. They agreed to submit those directly to the committee.
Prof. Siegel noted that pg. 26 should be changed to read Board of Regents and not Board of Trustees.
The Motion came to a vote and passed 20-0-1.
1. Motion 06/07-03:
Accept annual report of the Graduate Student Committee (GSC)
(Senate Executive Committee)
Passed unanimously, 20-0-0.
2. Motion 06/07-04:
Accept annual report of the Information Technology Committee (ITC)
(Senate Executive Committee)
Passed unanimously, 21-0-0.
3. Motion 06/07-05:
Accept annual report of the Academic Standards Committee
(Senate Executive Committee)
Passed unanimously, 21-0-0.
4. Motion 06/07-06:
Accept annual report of the UCC Curriculum Committee
(Senate Executive Committee)
The Senate moved to table the motion. 18-1-1.
5. Motion 06/07-07:
That the University create and maintain a faculty-only e-mail list, with access to send limited to the AAUP President, Senate Chair, and the University President and Provost.
(AAUP)
Prof. Siegel asked for clarification of which faculty would be included.
Associate Provost Leather suggested that we add Faculty Association to AAUP. Prof. Zimmerman suggested we change the amendment to read “Faculty Association President” as opposed to “AAUP President”. Associate Provost Leather suggested we not include part-time faculty, at least to begin with. Prof. Siegel suggested we amend it to read “full-time faculty and permanent part time.”
The Motion became thus:
That the University create and maintain a full-time faculty-only e-mail list, with access to send limited to the Faculty Association President, the Senate Chair, and the University President and Provost.
Motion passed 21-0-0.
1. Motion 06/07-02:
That all new buildings on campus should include plans for and implementation of wireless networking in all areas.
(IT Committee)
The Motion carried 17-0-1.
Prof. Sullivan adjourned the meeting at 6:03 p.m.