University Senate Links
University Senate
MEMORANDUM
Date: October 10, 2001
To: The Academic Community
From: James M. Anthony, Secretary
Subject: October 1, 2001 Meeting of the University Senate
The second regular meeting of the University Senate met on October 1, 2001 in Rooms 314-316 of the University Union. Chairperson Holter called the meeting to order at 4:02 p.m.
Professors Gissendanner and Nelson and Vice-President Parker were absent.
There was a move to change the agenda to consider the annual report of the Honors College at the beginning of the meeting. There was no objection.
New Business
1. Prof. Vatz moved, Prof. Vocke seconded a motion: To receive the annual report of the Honors Programs. (Motion 01 / 02-1).
Prof. Davani asked a couple of questions and made one correction of a typographical nature. The motion to accept passed unanimously.
2. Acting Provost Jones discussed some issues of Shared Governance:
To what extent is the faculty included in decision making on campus? The Senate committees cover such areas as:
Curriculum Admissions standards Peer review Hearing and judicial process for faculty and students Recruitment and appointment of faculty Research and Development (Faculty development) Assessment Technology Intercollegiate Athletics
How much does the faculty share governance over fiscal matters? President Perkins plans to share information on the budget with the faculty.
We need to consider how the Senate involves itself with intercollegiate and campus athletics, facilities management, long range planning, student life.
We need a powerfully engaged Faculty Senate with active student participation. The new constitution did not address these concerns.
How many Senate committees do we need. Currently we have 15. Some of these have an opportunity to reengage in active work.
We need to think about the organization of the committees. There is a problem with trying to have so much representation on each committee. Committees should become drivers of the agenda rather than reactive bodies.
Professor Chen asked that we look at the history of some of these committees. We need to decide whether we want authority in fiscal matters. Provost Jones said that there are often problems with turn around time on fiscal decisions.
Professor Siegel noted that in passing programs we never ask questions about affordability.
Professor Vatz stated that he thinks it is a mistake for the president not to attend Senate meetings. Provost Jones noted that perhaps Pres. Perkins wants to authorize the Senate as more of an independent voice.
Professor Christian stated that she thinks it should be a Faculty Senate, not a body trying to include every constituency.
Provost Jones said that the President wants to engage in and trust the faculty voice and is inviting us to define our future. President Perkins will meet regularly with the Chair of the Senate, the Senate Executive Committee and the President of the Faculty Assn./AAUP. He wants to decentralize the process and spend more of his time off campus.
Professor Gallagher expressed concern that we have gotten away from the academic side. He thinks we can speak more freely in the absence of the president.
Professor Sullivan noted that some policy making clearly falls to faculty responsibility. Many of the issues in the operations side of things are too tedious for the Senate to debate.
Professor Siegel brought up the question of Senate oversight of various centers on campus. Also the role of athletics.
Professor Anthony brought up the question of long range planning, e.g. in the area of new programs. Who decides where expansions in programs will come? We rarely discuss the larger picture, but merely pass new programs. Provost Jones agreed that we need to decide what our core values will be and our strategies for success. Towson has a great history of collegiality; we just need to decide what we are going to do.
Professor Stein noted that we need better information for decision making. Provost Jones agreed that information flow can be a problem.
Professor Sullivan noted that the Senate is not the only deliberative bodyÑthat much is done at the department and the college level.
Provost Jones stated that we should always keep in mind how what we are doing contributes to learning.
Professor Siegel noted that faculty roles and responsibilities are changing. We need to reward contribution like this. Does our hiring and review process reward participation in governance? Provost Jones stated that while we value research, we have always emphasized teaching in the evaluative process.
Professor Whitman asked if Provost Jones envisions a series of amendments to the present constitution.
Professor Gallagher asked the Senate to do some homework and look at the faculty handbook and the constitution.
Mr. Crusante noted that the students wish to be involved.
Professor Siegel noted that the Senate established the role of colleges and its control over them. Perhaps that system of oversight needs to be rethought.
Professor Zimmerman suggested that we brainstorm on what kinds of committees we need and what their role should be.
It was decided that the October 15 meeting will be devoted to a general discussion of the current constitution and the directions we might want to change it.
Professor Sullivan reminded faculty that the AAUP dues are needed.
The Senate then returned to the Agenda.
Item 1: Prof. Chen moved, Prof. Stevens-Ratchford seconded a motion: To receive the annual reports of the Library and Instructional Technology Committee and the University Promotion and Tenure Committee (Motion 01 / 02-2).
Ms. Hofstetter represented the Library and Instructional Technology committee. Prof. Siegel asked what policies this committee is allowed to make. It was noted that there is another committee that represents CANS. This committee oversees the Library and CIAT. In the issue of budget, it was noted that questions are asked about resources for new programs. It was also remarked that the appointment of new committee members needs to be more timely. Perhaps these appointments could be made in the spring so that new members are ready to serve at the beginning of the Fall semester. Prof. Stein asked about the role of this committee in making policies.
Professor Shirley represented the University Promotion and Tenure Committee.
He noted that the committee had trouble getting departmental P & T documents by the February deadline.
The motion to accept the reports passed unanimously.
Professor Holter welcomed Vice President Showers.
The Senate recessed until October 15, 2001 at 4:00 P.M.
The Senate reconvened on October 15, 2001 at 4:00 P.M.
The meeting was called back into session by Chairperson Holter at 4:07 P.M.
Professors Blake, Cox, and Nelson and Provost Jones and Vice-President Showers were excused.
Vice-President Parker distributed a document entitled "Our View of Students," adopted by the Office of Student Affairs and a draft of a document entitled "Our View of the Student as Learner." He asked that members of the Senate submit suggestions and recommendations for the preparation of these documents.
Chairperson Holter addressed the Senate regarding what she feels we should consider. She stated that President Perkins is inviting the Senate to be a part of a much larger decision making policy. We must define our future. We can look at the current constitution, as well as the proposed new constitution. She suggested that we begin with Section E of the current constitution (Responsibilities of the University Senate) to determine what changes, if any, we wish to make.
Prof. Gallagher noted that in his opinion one of the problems with the proposed constitution was the increase in the numbers of administrators on the Senate.
Professor Vatz moved, Prof. Stevens-Ratchford seconded a motion: To revise the requirement for ratification of the new Senate Constitution to constitute two-thirds of those voting. (Motion 01 /02-3).
Prof. Siegel asked how this would be implemented. There was some discussion of Prof. Vatz' motion. Following this discussion, Prof. Vatz withdrew his motion. Prof. Gallagher moved, Prof. Davani seconded a motion: To move into a committee of the whole. There was no objection.
Prof. Sullivan noted that there is reason to consider a change in the constitution. Perhaps this is a time for a new constitution.
Prof. Stein noted that the Senate committee structure doesn't reflect all the responsibilities.
Prof. Siegel reminded the group that at one time we had many more committees than we do at present. A few years ago a number of them were deleted. She suggested that we discuss the responsibilities and what our role will be.
Ms. Berlanstein noted that most of this would be by-law changes.
The Senate entered into a discussion of Section E of the current constitution.
1. Standards of admission to the University: No discussion. 2. Academic Programs: No discussion. Prof. Gallagher noted that this is probably what we do best. 3. Long Range Planning: The question was asked if we really do this. Associate Provost Leather noted that we develop a Mission Statement and a Strategic Plan. It was stated that we have generally not had any role in fiscal planning. Prof. Zimmerman suggested that the statement include "Long range planning both academic and fiscal." It was also suggested that this item might need to be split into 2 categories.
4. Physical Facilities. Prof. Siegel asked if this includes such areas as the Bookstore. It was thought that it also includes Parking facilities. Prof. Zimmerman asked that the Senate be involved because of possible environmental impact. There was some discussion of the privatized services on campus.
5. The appointment of top administrative officers. It was noted that members of the Senate serve on search committees. Prof. Siegel noted that faculty also used to evaluate administrators.
6. Academic organizational structures. It was agreed that this area should be retained, but we have no committee that deals with this. It was suggested that the phrase "governance" be added.
7. Promotion and Tenure process: this should be retained.
8. Intercollegiate competition: this should be retained.
9. University calendar: this would include scheduling of classes and final exams.
The Senate adjourned at 4:55 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
James M. Anthony, Secretary.