University Senate
Memorandum
Date: September 13, 2007
To: The Academic Community
From: Jennifer Ballengee, Secretary
Subject: September 17, 2007—Meeting of the University Senate
The second September meeting of the University Senate was held on Monday, September 17, 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 Senators Brown and Castillo and President Caret, Vice President Moriarty, and Vice President Sheehan.
Prof. Zimmerman noted that the items tabled in the May meeting should be brought up again in the October meeting. Prof. Sullivan agreed.
The Senate then unanimously approved the Agenda.
Provost Clements noted two errors in figures in the Minutes from the May meeting:
Pg. 2: Faculty promotions: $300,000 (not $2.75 million)
Next page: 40 million in grants and contracts and 20 doctoral students graduated per year (he added that 20 and 10 is where we currently are).
With these corrections, the Senate unanimously approved the Minutes.
Provost Clements noted an error on Pg. 3: Not U of Wisconsin Madison, but Milwaukee.
Prof. Siegel asked me to number the pages of the minutes and attachments.
With these comments, the Senate unanimously approved the Minutes.
REPORTS OF EX OFFICIO SENATORS
REPORT OF Vice President RUBIN:
Vice President Rubin thanked the faculty for their fundraising efforts and support. The Capital Campaign now boasts over $26 million, with 4 ½ years to go; he predicted we’d reach the $50 million goal. He also urged faculty to continue their generosity and support in the capital campaign and to urge their colleagues to do so, too. This is important not just in dollar amounts, but the numbers of people participating also matters. He noted that advancement and development is a collaborative effort.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS OF THE SENATE
AAUP REPORT, Prof. McLucas:
Prof. McLucas reported a very good launch of the TU-AAUP’s “Second Fridays” series of talks. Dean Terry Cooney, Dean of CLA, delivered the first presentation. Over 50 people attended; the talk was followed by a lively happy hour afterwards. Next month, Prof. Zimmerman will speak about mathematics and art.
On Wednesday, Sept. 19, at 4 p.m., the Junior Faculty committee of the AAUP will hold an open organizational meeting, to which all are invited.
The Annual TU-AAUP Faculty and Friends Crab Feast / Bull Roast will be Friday, Sept. 28th, from 6-11 p.m. The price if paid in advance to the Treasurer (Prof. Isabel Castro-Vazquez, in the Foreign Languages Department) is $25, which includes the regular $15 annual dues for TU-AAUP. The price for friends, family, and any faculty who wait to pay at the door is $35; children are invited to attend for $15. Prof. McLucas offered to work out a special price for any student Senators if they’d like to attend.
Prof. McLucas noted that questionable promotion practices of a particular department have come to his attention; the problem is compounded by multiple versions of the Faculty Handbook. The 1998 version is online, but the 2003-2004 version is not online, though faculty have hard copies. Senator Burke reported that the committee is aware of the problem of multiple versions.
The TU-AAUP has identified the priorities it intends to address this year: teaching load, salary and merit issues, and faculty research and travel support.
Prof. Siegel asked if we now have secretarial help assigned to the Senate. Provost Clements affirmed that.
CUSF REPORT, Prof. Siegel:
One of the issues coming before CUSF is that tuition remission be extended to all public education higher institutions (including community colleges). Prof. Siegel is trying to keep this issue off of the agenda. This is a very explosive issue.
Prof. Siegel missed the first meeting of CUSF. She has been trying to get USM to reconsider the assignment of peers and to look at aspirational peers. CUSF is still looking at issues of adjunct faculty and lecturers.
There is a national movement coming from the federal government for a reform of Higher Education that resembles the No Child Left Behind legislation. CUSF plans to respond to that.
CUSF is again looking for recommendations for Regents Faculty Awards. She urged faculty to nominate people from TU.
Prof. Sullivan asked if we’re talking about the Federal Government in regard to the “no child left behind” initiative? Prof. Siegel confirmed.
SGA REPORT, Senator Haley:
Senator Haley reported a very strong freshman class this year; she said they’re very excited about Towson. The SGA is promoting two substantial pieces of legislation: Dress Code, Switching Student Seating.
The student rep to MHEC Student Advisory council reported that MHEC was impressed with TU SGAs legislative agenda.
The SGA has printed up Coupon books for local restaurants.
Provost Clements outlined the three things he planned to address: current state of affairs, goals for future, and the concerns faculty.
Current State of Affairs:
Total headcount of students (full and part-time): 19,758
Total undergrad: 16, 219 (82%)
Total grad: 3, 539 (18%)
Fall FTE: 16, 483
In-state undergrad: 12, 936 (80%)
Out-state, 3, 283 (20%)
Credit hour production: 242,836 (92% undergrad)
Number of Freshman applications: 15, 114
Number of new students this year: 5, 099
Undergrad: 2,669
Transfers: 1,624
Grad students: 806
Freshman average GPA: just under 3.5 (3.46)
Freshman average SAT scores: 1084
75th Percentile = 1010
25th Percentile = 1160
Diversity:
Undergrad population 18%
Grad: 17%
Graduation Rates (6 yr)
Fall ’00 Cohort = 64.1%
(up from 55.6% in the past 4 years)
African-American Students = 64.2 %
(up from 45.3% in the past 4 years)
Retention Rates
Fall ’05 Cohort (2 yr) = 80%
African American Students = 84.7%
New Faculty Hires =75 total
Tenure-Track = 62
Clinical = 6
Visiting = 7
Grant #’s:
All-Time High = $19M to $21M
Budget information:
Towson received highest percentage increase in the system.
Academic Affairs: new money is about $3.4 million. $2.3 million to new faculty PINs. $300,000 for promotions. There’s a $765,000 chunk that will be used to support the MBA program ($157,000), the nursing program (in Hagerstown and on campus, $165,000), and for COLA and Merit for lecturers ($145,000), operating budgets ($60,000), plus $238,000 to be distributed, including faculty development.
RPAC is studying the use of fees, how fees are collected, how fees are used.
Trends for operating budgets over the last 5 years:
Operating budgets haven’t kept up with the growing number of students.
The Provost will have some money for one-time funding requests, and has asked the Deans for requests. He has asked RPAC for a strategic budgeting process.
Structure of the Provost’s office: Hired Kate Denniston as Associate Provost (applause) and Catherine Horta-Hayden as Assistant Provost(applause). There is new administrative help in the Provost’s office, too.
Looking ahead:
Tenure-track: 544 tenure-track faculty members
Clincial faculty: 60.5
Lecturers: 142, of which 92 are permanent, and 28 are filling tenure-track slots, and 22 with Towson Learning Network
The Provost is also going to discuss problems with merit and teaching load associated with hiring new faculty.
Faculty Development is an issue. The funds are too low, but it’s not just about the funds: infrastructure, etc. He has asked Dr. Denniston to conduct a study about faculty development.
7.1 Credit hours for tenure,tenure-track faculty last year. This year 6.9
For all faculty last year it was 7.4, now 7.3. His concern is that we’re not counting everything that should be counted. He has asked Dr. Douherty to look and see if we’re missing anything. We have to follow guidelines submitted, but other schools measure it differently. She is coming up with ways to count differently. He wants to figure out what the right model is to base our numbers on.
Faculty published 64 books last year and 471 referreed works. Days of public service: 7,249.
Salary compression issues: He plans to do a salary compression study. This is a priority.
Merit system needs to be addressed. The Senate passed something last year that suggested university-wide. There are various suggestions for other ways to do it. He’d like to revisit the issue for next year. His gut feeling is that it should be college-based.
Prof. Siegel expressed the hope that the Senate would be a part of this discussion, as well as AAUP. She urged that rank should be considered for Merit; the ranks should get different amounts.
Provost Clements agreed that there should be a lot of input from faculty on this. Prof. Zimmerman has offered to run some mathematical models on this. He agreed that it should incorporate rank.
Prof. Vatz protested that exacerbating the salary gap between colleges via different merit standards per college is grossly unfair.
Prof. Bergman cautioned against rushing the process; it is a serious issue that needs to be explored carefully, not in a few weeks. Provost Clements agreed and suggested the possibility of doing a short-term solution and a long-term solution.
Prof. Vatz disagreed. Prof. Rosecky noted that the size of the pie is part of the problem here. There needs to be a bigger pie, not just discussion of how to divide it. Provost Clements suggested that he get together with the AAUP and the Chair of the Senate. Prof. Webster noted that the size of the pie makes the strong disagreement about it rather overblown.
The Provost acknowledged the need to address faculty Recruitment and Retention.
He also noted that Chapter 3 of the Faculty handbook needs to be finished and ratified.
The Provost’s office wants to beef up the Academic Achievement Center, Academic Advising, FYE, and Top Ten Program.
Middle States is upon us. There is a draft document due Spring 09; that needs to begin now. Final report due Fall 09 with a visit in 2010. He has asked Deans for names of people willing to help.
NCATE and AACSB are happening right now.
Trimester: There will be added flexibility.
Prof. Rosecky noted that the pay for summer school is pitiful.
The Provost remarked that the Hackerman Academy launched last year.
In addition, there are proposals for a School of Nursing and for a School of Technology.
He reported that the General Education study is continuing.
He also expressed an interest in New Academic Programs.
TU needs to develop a model for how to properly do outreach. Faculty are too often not properly rewarded or supported for that work.
Prof. Siegel noted that people who go off-campus are supposed to get credit under the workload agreement. Prof. Pitcher disagreed, and noted that Education had been rewarded not by time, but by a $500 stipend. The Dean of Education, she reported, has just taken this stipend away. Provost Clements noted that there is pressure to increase off-campus programs; we need to develop a model for balancing demands and rewarding faculty. There is a goal to increase off-campus enrollments by 10%.
Online programs: TU needs a specific model in place for this, too.
International programs: TU needs to work on structure there, as well.
Cherry Hill: TU needs to get more tenure-track and tenure faculty involved, and make it more university-wide.
Task force for BRAC—Provost Clements wants to set it up. Studies about BRAC are coming out of TU, so we are well-positioned to engage with this area growth.
7. Space
TU is very cramped. We may buy a building off-campus.
Provost Clements noted that he chairs the University Diversity Council. He’s open to recruitment ideas and suggestions.
Prof. Vatz noted that faculty are making lots of Merit Plus standings because TU is increasing its quality faculty. Prof. Lawson mentioned the need for support for grad students, too. Prof. Siegel wondered how many full-time graduate students we have. She mentioned that TU should be working on ways to attract graduate students, especially if we’re thinking of moving toward Research-Intensive status. She also asked what happened to parking privileges for Emeritus faculty.
Prof. Tabak agreed that Development funds are low. There’s also a structural issue; most funds have been given to colleges for decentralization. But maybe, if decentralization is going to continue, the funds should be sent to departments. Or make funds available at a central level. Provost Clements noted that he’s seen it both ways. He has asked Dr. Denniston to look at funds before and after, and how they’re distributed.
Prof. McLucas observed that, given that virtually all faculty are meritorious, the size of the pie still is not worth the divisiveness of faculty over merit. Secondly, he wants to find models of merit distribution that are not linked to current salary.
Prof. Rosecky applauded Provost Clements’ ability to listen to the faculty.
Prof. Pitcher noted that there has been a change in the graduate student population: more, younger, full-time, and needing of academic support. There needs to be greater graduate student writing support.
Dean Exner noted that 2/3 of students in the CoHP are graduate students.
1. Elect a Senate Representative to the University PTRM Committee.
(Senate Nominating Committee)
Prof. Sullivan solicited nominations and volunteers for the position. Prof. Bergman agreed to serve for the Fall, but will be on sabbatical for the Spring. Therefore, someone else will need to be found for the Spring.
(Senate Executive Committee)
Prof. Zimmerman called a graduate student to the floor to speak. The student noted that grad students are teaching, working in labs, doing research, and in return they get a Faculty/Staff parking permit. Last year, they were charged $70 annually. This year they are being charged $230. According to the website, staff making less than $15,000/year are charged $70 per year. While recognizing that this may be a clerical error, he wanted to draw the injustice to our attention. Senator Holsey pointed out that $230 is the student rate for parking. He responded that grad student assistants consider themselves staff. Prof. Sullivan asked how many Graduate Assistants are on campus? Provost Clements agreed to get that information. Senator Haley asked if the grad student received a Faculty/Staff permit. Senator Sullivan noted that there used to be a parking committee that the Senate participated in. He noted that Parking policies emanate out of the Finance office. Prof. Bergman argued that this is a good reflection of support that’s given to graduate students and teaching assistants. At TU, he continued, we are in the process of developing how to have a “real” graduate program. This is a symptom of a large problem: that we haven’t really addressed the issue of the growing graduate student population at Towson, he concluded. Prof. Webster observed that there used to be a parking committee; it seemed to disappear right around the time that parking rates skyrocketed. Senator Haley asked for clarification: Is this just graduate assistants, or all graduate students? The representative clarified that it is just for graduate assistants. He asked if there are graduate students on this committee. Prof. Sullivan noted that the only place for graduate students on the Senate is through the co-operation of the SGA.
Prof. Bergman moved that Prof. Sullivan draft a letter in support of the graduate assistant parking plight. Prof. Cox seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
Prof. Zimmerman reiterated that this is an issue that will not go away, as our graduate students population grows. We will need to examine these issues carefully. Prof. Vatz added that the state should be funding our parking. Prof. Guerrero noted that we should think of parking off-campus, too.
Prof. Zimmerman suggested moving the 4th motion forward on the agenda.
(Senate Executive Committee)
Prof. Zimmerman moved to accept; Senator Oppenheimer seconded.
The Senate voted 18-0-1 to accept the report.
Prof. Siegel noted that there was also a proposal for a change in the committee’s by-laws. Prof. Siegel moved that we accept the change, as well. Prof. Zimmerman moved that that motion should be put forward in October, giving time for consideration of the change.
Prof. O’Leary (chair of the committee) noted the outdated nature of many of the bylaws, which seem to date to 1994. Prof. O’Leary passed around a handout with Current By-Laws and proposed modifications.
(Senate Executive Committee)
Prof. Sullivan read the list into the record. Prof. Sullivan proposed that the names be put into the record and recommended for Librarian and Faculty Emeritus status. Prof. Vatz applauded the list, but asked that voting on the names be held until October. Prof. Siegel noted that in general there are certain requirements for emeritus; all people on the list have met the requirements. Also, she added, most departments vote on emeritus status. She added that she personally would have difficulty denying anyone this status, if their department and Dean recommended them, and if they’d served the required amount of time. Prof. Vatz raised the issue of ethics and emeritus status and asked if it’s just a ritual. Prof. McLucas recommended that voting commence. Prof. Zimmerman recommended that Prof. Vatz make a motion to table the motion until October. Prof. Rosecky seconded the motion. The Senate voted on the motion to table; the results of the vote were: 4-12-1. So the motion to table failed. Prof. Sullivan called a vote on the motion to accept faculty emeritus nominations. The Senate voted unanimously to accept the motion,19-0-0.
(Senate Executive Committee)
This motion was tabled until the Oct. 1 meeting.
Prof. Sullivan adjourned the meeting at 6:00 PM.