University Senate Links
University Senate
MEMORANDUM
Date: November 21, 2003
To: The Academic Community
From: James M. Anthony, Secretary
Subject: November 3, 2003-Meeting of the University Senate
The third regular meeting of the University Senate was held on November 3, 2003 in the University Union, Rooms 314-16. The meeting was called to order at 4:04 p.m. by Chairperson Norma Holter.
ROLL CALL
Professors Ballengee and Lu, President Caret, Vice Presidents Parker and Rubin were excused.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The agenda was approved as distributed.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
The minutes of the October 27 meeting were corrected to show that Professor Siegel was excused.
On p. 3 a statement attributed to Professor Ballengee regarding productivity documents was actually made by Professor Pitcher and that the comment referred especially to graduate studies.
REPORTS OF EX OFFICIO SENATORS
President Caret was excused.
Interim Provost Leather discussed the current efforts to report on effectiveness and efficiency and cooperation and collaboration.
The committee on workload is working on recommendations to be made to the System office. One problem is just providing information without any explanation of the figures.
They are attempting to answer such questions as:
Why faculty have different workload levels. The system needs to develop peer comparisons. We need to poll national associations to obtain information. We must develop an analysis of the history of workloads, but just looking at the past may not provide the answers.
They are looking at all institutions in the System, not just the flagship.
· We need to audit workload policies, looking at assigned time and non-classroom productivity.
· We must review the post-tenure review.
· We must provide explanation of accreditation requirements.
· We will take a strong stand on the freezing of tenure.
· We will consider policies regarding the percentage of tenure and non-tenure-track faculty.
· We develop ways of providing a better pool of FT non-tenure track faculty with better salaries.
· We will explore the use of technology in the delivery of courses (not sure this is the answer.)
We are also looking at the sharing of faculty and programs. There is talk about more on-line course instruction; perhaps there will be more system-wide training in this.
Provost Leather for President Caret: She distributed the Budget Priority Statement. Please send comments to Chairperson Holter.
Questions:
Professor Zimmerman asked about the issue of freezing tenure.
Answer: We want this off the table.
Professor Vatz asked what the threats to the current workload are. Answer: We are all in the boat together; any faculty member bringing in big money will be deemed okay for assigned time, etc. The Regents as a body are even more conservative and want to have faculty in the offices more. There is a misunderstanding of different types of "businesses" that we are in.
Question: Are research institutions being looked at the same way? Is this again viewing the comprehensives with prejudice?
Answer: There is a strong belief that we have mishandled the workload.
Professor Anthony asked if there is anything that faculty can do.
Answer: Any action would be premature as yet.
Vice President Harnage reported that he is pleased to see what good press the Master Plan has been receiving. It is also being well received by the state budget leaders. He expects that we will see the beginning of funding for items in the Master Plan. This year we will furnish planning for the design of the new entrance to the campus.
Professor Siegel asked about the future of Linthicum.
Answer: The planners agreed it could be replaced, but in the meantime it will become an important part of the surge space.
Professor Siegel (CUSF) will distribute the report electronically.
Professor Zimmerman (AAUP/Faculty Association) reported that the AAUP/Faculty Association has discussed:
A motion to have the System study a plan to equalize salary and merit pay.
The issue of adjunct faculty: there are too many and the pay is too low.
The low level of membership in the local AAUP/Faculty Association.
The issue of the treatment of accumulated sick leave at retirement. Is accumulated sick leave treated differently in the two different retirement systems?
The issue of maternity/parental leave. Provost Leather noted that there is a federal law regarding maternity/parental leave. Chairperson Holter noted that the Senate has an ad hoc committee working on family medical leave issues. Professor Sullivan added that the committee should prioritize these problems. Provost Leather said she would like to see some recommendations on this since the Faculty Handbook is in the process of being rewritten. Professor Sullivan stated that the ad hoc committee can have a report for the next Senate meeting.
Ms. Pica (SGA) announced that the SGA is sponsoring a forum on tuition on December 2 from 4-6 p.m.
The Student Life committee is working on issues of dining hall hours, Library hours during the exam period, and security officers in residential buildings.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE
Chairperson Holter announced that Professor Anthony and she attended the last meeting of CUSF representatives and Senate officers held at System Headquarters. Professor Siegel's report of that meeting will be forthcoming.
Chairperson Holter also announced a Senate Retreat to be held on January 9, 2004.
OLD BUSINESS
1. Stein moved, Professor Forbes seconded a motion: To receive the annual report of the University Curriculum Committee (Motion 03-04-12).
Ms. Hoffstetter spoke to the report. Professor Zimmerman asked if any proposals were rejected. Answer: Yes. Some were tabled and will be brought back. The question was called and the motion passed 20/0/0.
NEW BUSINESS
2. Professor Zimmerman moved, Professor Siegel seconded a motion: To receive the annual report of the Resource Planning & Advisory Committee (Motion 03-04-14).
Professor Vanko spoke to the motion. Professor Zimmerman noted that his appointment began only in August and therefore absences recorded earlier were before his appointment.
The question was called and the motion passed 20/0/0.
3. Professor Anthony moved, Professor Cox seconded a motion: To receive the annual report of the Library and Instructional Technologies Committee (Motion 03-04-15).
Professor Zimmerman, the chair of the committee answered questions. There were none. The motion passed 20/0/0.
4. Mr. Zimmelman moved, Ms. Berlanstein seconded a motion: To receive the annual report of the University Scholarship Committee. (Motion 03-04-16).
Professor Laster answered questions. Provost Leather noted that item 4 of the report was an example of items that should come to the full Senate:
[We discussed important issues and brought them to the attention of the professional staff and to each of the Colleges. For example, we discussed:
a. The need for financial aid for graduate students.
b. The nominal elimination of the Towson Scholar Award, now called The Presidential Full Scholarship. This is the highest award a student can receive, and it covers nearly all of a student's tuition, fees, room, and board.
c. Scholarship Seeker, the new search engine for scholarships: http://onestop.towson/finaid.
d. The number of awards available and the changing requirements for these awards.]
In particular the issue of the elimination of the Towson Scholar Award seems to be something on which the Senate should deliberate.
There was also discussion of the need for more financial aid for graduate students and how decisions of financial aid are made.
Vice President Harnage noted that the Regents expect that as the tuition increases, the University put more money into financial aid. He also pointed out the differences in what is generally defined as "financial aid," much of which is governed by federal policies and "scholarships," some of which is governed policies set up by donors and the University. He also thinks that any move to eliminate the word "Scholarship" from this committee would be a mistake.
Professor Anthony noted that there was no attendance report included with the copy of the annual report included in our packets. Ms. Berlanstein said she would check to see if that had been submitted with the original. She asked that we receive the report contingent on receiving the attendance report.
Professor Siegel asked for clarification of the "elimination" of the Towson Scholar Award. Mr. Lonnie McNew stated that it was really just a name change because the Student Affairs office though that the name "Presidential Full Scholarship Award" would have more prestige than "Towson Scholar Award."
Professor Sullivan asked that the report on Scholarship should include numbers of students receiving scholarships.
Professor Cox said that the annual report should reflect what is in the committee's list of duties.
Dean Gong affirmed the needs for support of graduate students.
The motion passed 16/0/0.
5. Professor Wingert moved, Professor Anthony seconded a motion: To correct the Senate Academic Integrity Policy, specifically to modify by reference the Student Appeals Committee (IV-B Appeal Procedures). (Motion 03-04-17).
Mr. Giordani spoke to the motion. He explained that there had developed to committees because at one time they thought there might too many appeals for one committee to handle. This has not turned out to be the case. Therefore he recommends eliminating the Student Academic Integrity Committee and directing all appeals to the Student Appeals Committee.
The motion passed 19/0/0.
6. Professor Stein moved, Professor Forbes seconded a motion: To approve the ratification of the College Constitution for the College of Business and Economics (Motion 03-04-18.)
Professor Keesling spoke to the motion.
Professor Zimmerman questioned the lack of an election committee.
There was also a question as to whether the meetings were open to any member of the Academic Community. Answer: It is common practice that all meetings of standing committees, College councils, etc. are open to all members of the Academic Community.
Three corrections to the copy were given to the College Council for reconsideration.
The motion to send back to the Council passed 19/0/0.
7. Professor Hartzler-Miller moved, Professor Stein seconded a motion: To approve the ratification of the College Constitution for the College of Education (Motion 03-04-19).
Professor Pitcher spoke to the motion.
There was a question of the definition of the faculty electorate. There was also a question about the election committee. It was agreed to send it back for changes.
The vote was 19/0/0.
8. Professor Anthony moved, Professor Stein seconded a motion: To approve the ratification of the College Constitution for the College of Fine Arts and Communication (Motion 03-04-20).
Professor Anthony and Stein spoke to the motion.
Questions came up regarding the listing of "Service Units," the need for an elections committee, and the definition of the faculty electorate. The changes will be brought back for the February Senate meeting.
The motion passed 19/0/0.
The Senate recessed until November 17, 2003 at 4:00 p.m.
UNIVERSITY SENATE
MEMORANDUM
Date: November 21, 2003
To: The Academic Community
From: James M. Anthony, Secretary
Subject: November 17, 2003-Continuation Meeting of the University Senate
The third regular meeting of the University Senate reconvened on November 17 in the University Union Rooms 314-316. Chairperson Holter called the meeting back into session at 4:08 p.m.
Ms. Berlanstein and Professors Cox, Gallagher, Wengert, and Whitman were excused. President Caret, Provost Leather, Vice Presidents Harnage, Parker, and Rubin were all excused.
Chairperson Holter reminded the Senators that there will be a Senate Retreat on January 9, 2004 at a location off campus. The purpose of the retreat is to discuss what the Senate is and to give directives to the rewriting of the Senate Constitution. It was pointed out that any change to the Senate Constitution must be ratified by 2/3 of the entire faculty and ¾ of the SGA. We need to begin talking to our constituencies immediately.
DISCUSSION ITEM
10. Policy on Voting Privileges of Ex-officio Administrators on Senate Standing Committees. This was precipitated by a recommendation from the Academic Standards Committee to allow ex-officio administrators to vote. Professor Johnson, Chair of the Academic Standards Committee spoke to the issue, explaining the ex-officio members of that committee are an integral part of the discussion and supply very important information and viewpoints on the discussion. Because of the importance of their roles, the Committee has recommended that they have a voice in the decisions.
In the discussion that ensued, a variety of viewpoints were expressed:
Academic decisions made by this committee are a faculty prerogative; it is the faculty that grants degrees; administrators can persuade, but they shouldn't vote on decisions. There was also some concern about the number of ex-officio members, who could possibly outnumber the faculty members at certain meetings.
Mr. Derringer (an ex-officio member of the Academic Standards committee stated that this is the first university where he has worked that does not allow ex-officio staff committee members a vote.
One recommendation was made to increase the number of faculty on the committee so that the ratio of faculty to staff would be greater.
Professor Stein expressed the view that responsibility in some areas of the University really does rest with the faculty, just as there are many areas of the University where the responsibility rests primarily with the staff. There are two different roles.
Dean Gong noted that at some universities staff membership in committees cannot be more than 1/3.
Professor Lu said that he would not agree to give the staff members a vote unless their number was less than 50% on a committee. There seemed to be consensus on this issue.
Chairperson Holter thanked Professor Johnson, Ms. Deems, Ms. Shulack, and Mr. Derringer of the Academic Standards Committee for their presence and contributions to the discussion.
12. Senate Oversight Over Distance Learning. The discussion of Distance Learning centered around its role and place in the delivery of University Education. One view is that it is simply another mode of delivery. Indeed, some technology-based modes, such as Blackboard, already increase access to traditional delivery of class work
Professor Hartzler-Miller asked if the question was whether we need more bureaucratic structure than our current one.
It was noted that the President's Task Force on Distance Learning is being chaired by Dean Tom Proffit of the College of Education. Members of the Senate were not sure what the exact charge of this Task Force is.
The question was asked whether this Task Force would make a report to the Senate. No one seemed to know. Professor Siegel asked that reports of such Task Forces should be sent to the Senate as information items.
Professor Siegel (CUSF) reported on some of the issues caused by the report on Efficiency and Effectiveness issued by the Mandel Commission. This will be distributed to the Senate via e-mail. It is the feeling of some that the Commission is out to attack tenure and traditional faculty workloads. The Academic Vice Presidents have agreed to address some of the issues with audits of each campus.
CUSF meets on Thursday. It hopes to take the lead with the legislature. Everyone needs to keep informed.
Professor Pitcher again reminded the Senate that the University needs to address the productivity document.
Professor Siegel said that in her opinion nothing is going to happen very soon.
Chairperson Holter proposed that we hold the two remaining discussion items until the December meeting. Professor Forbes asked that in the future we send out notices about meeting continuations.
Miss Schechtel moved, Mr. Zimmelman seconded a motion to adjourn.
The next regular meeting of the University Senate will take place on Monday, December 1, at 4:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
James Anthony, Secretary
The University Senate usually meets the first Monday of each month during the fall and spring semesters. The Executive Committee of the University Senate invites all interested parties to attend the meetings in the University Union.
Copies of documents relevant to agenda items are available at the Faculty Reserve Desk in Cook Library. Recordings of the meetings are located in Cook Library in the Media Resource Services area on the second floor.