University Senate Links
University Senate
MEMORANDUM
Date: December 9, 2004
From: Debra Berlanstein, Secretary
Subject: December 6, 2004 - Meeting of the University Senate
Professor Sullivan called the meeting to order 4 p.m. Secretary Berlanstein called the roll. Vice-Presidents Rubin and Harnage were excused.
The agenda was approved as distributed.
Professor Holter inquired regarding the status of the Senate's comments on President Caret's address. Professor Sullivan said he would forward copies to the Senate. She also asked about the status of the e-portfolio issue. Professor Sullivan will look into where that issue currently stands. He also mentioned following up on the request that the departments develop workload guidelines.
The minutes of the November 1, 2004 meeting were approved unanimously.
REPORTS OF EX OFFICIO SENATORS
President Caret had just returned from a meeting of CUSP (Council of University System Presidents). Although the Chancellor has been unable to get a definitive answer from the Governor regarding funding for the USM, the Governor did tell the SGA President from UMCP in an interview that the system would receive a bump in funding. The decision regarding tuition has been delayed. There will be a meeting in January of the Board of Regents and the Finance Committee.
Also discussed was a possible increase in health care costs, including the idea that some of the cost may be passed on to the employees (co-pay and other costs). This is an FY 05-06 problem. Choices made in open enrollment now will be in effect for six months.
There have been three protests filed to the joint MBA program with the University of Baltimore. They came from Mt. St. Mary's College concerned that courses may be taught out in that area of the state, from Loyola College who believes they are already serving the needs of the area, and from MHEC that the program may be a duplication of Morgan's program. These are being addressed and responded to by Provost Brennan and his counterpart at UB.
TU 2010: This process began back in March 2003 to evaluate the campus and identify areas for growth and change. This developed into the 9 guiding principles, 86 action items and 23 campus goals highlighted in the brochure that has been published. Copies were distributed to the Senate.
Professor Siegel asked that new ideas like these be brought to the Senate, keeping us aware of new initiatives and making us all better spokespersons for the University.
President Caret agreed that the Senate will be involved as we go forward.
Provost Brennan reported that he has concluded 3 open fora focusing on 1) the concept of the metropolitan university 2) smart enrollment growth and 3) workload. All were well-attended and had good participation. He announced that the January Conference on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 would look at research and scholarship at a metropolitan university. Workload issues would be the focus. He sees the conference as a vehicle to bring closure to the discussion that has become a distraction and created some morale issues. There will be two external speakers and one internal speaker. More information will be forthcoming on the Daily Digest.
We are well ahead of previous years in inquiries, applications and admissions for 2005-2006. He discussed two pilot programs going on that will help us to collect valuable information and make informed long-term decisions. 1) Targeted recruitment at Baltimore City public high schools. The top 10% of graduates of these schools are being courted and offered financial packages in hopes of getting higher enrollment from these schools. The Admissions Committee was briefed about this initiative in September, since any future policies regarding this program would go through that committee. 2) Accepting students with high SAT scores but with a lower GPA than we would normally accept. This targets a higher proportion of male students and the pilot was undertaken to address the poor balance of 61% female and 39% male enrollment at Towson. An academic support system will be in place to help these students succeed.
Professor Hartzler-Miller asked if the first initiative would be advertised. Provost Brennan replied that we were working with the guidance counselors and principals at these schools.
Professor Vatz asked if this would ultimately affect our graduation rate.
Lonnie McNew said we will strive to hold our profile while we bring in students that we expect to graduate.
Provost Brennan commented that it is a balancing act of addressing gender, graduation rates and our profile in publications such as U.S. News.
Senator Dupas asked if the Provost knew why the numbers from Baltimore City were so low.
Provost Brennan stated that many schools were going after the same 10% of students and Towson has not had a positive image in those communities. The pilot will help us make Towson a viable alternative for these students. We hope to improve Towson's reputation as a welcoming and comfortable place.
Professor Pitcher asked Provost if there would be more junior faculty meetings taking place.
Provost Brennan replied that he will continue to meet with the junior faculty executive group monthly and they will hold a large group meeting once a semester.
Professor Sullivan asked if the breakout sessions at the January conference would be discipline specific.
Provost Brennan replied that yes they would and that there would be eight different small groups with facilitators so the outcome would be structured.
Professor Roberge asked if there were any current programs to bring students from Baltimore City on campus.
Provost Brennan said there were scattered programs but we needed better PR and an established presence.
Vice-President Moriarty reported her division is working on infrastructure issues including policies and programs. She also announced a February Festival during the first weeks of the spring semester to welcome new transfer students to campus.
Professor Siegel (CUSP) reported from CUSP that there is concern regarding the health care benefits, particularly with the idea of changing to a fiscal year for choices that would begin in July. They are putting together a statement against such a change. The USM Workload document is going to the Board of Regents very soon. She also announced that there would be USM student research days held in Annapolis with displays of student research on March 1, 2, 3, with 16-20 posters displayed each day. There is also a workshop scheduled for new department chairs on January 20.
Professor Ballengee asked if she could get a copy of the Workload document. Professor Siegel said she would provide it.
Jay Zimmerman (AAUP) reported that AAUP has 93 paid members and Professor Laura Lising would serve as the new Vice-President.
NEW BUSINESS
1. Motion 04/05-11 (resubmitted):
To receive the annual report of the University Assessment Council.
Professor Lu moved to receive the revised report. Professor Fisher seconded the motion. Professor Hartzler-Miller asked for clarification about what the revisions included. The motion passed 20-0-1.
2. Information Items:
A) Forthcoming report from the University P&T Committee
Professor Sullivan asked Professor Cox to give an overview of what areas the P&T Committee have been working on. She reported that the major issues addressed in the report include:
1. Clarifying ambiguity that existed in the P&T document and making it more user-friendly.
2. The appeals process
3. Inclusion of policies regarding the tenure clock and questions of family and medical leave
4. Keeping the process as open as possible
5. The number of merit levels/ratings
Professor Siegel commented that we don't have a clear statement as to how departments were allocated merit money and many faculty have asked about the policy.
Other questions regarding the relationship between merit money, workload and P& T were raised.
Professor Cox said that the committee only worked on P&T issues. They reviewed the current document after the Provost and Deans drafted a document with suggested changes.
Professor Siegel asked that the new document be sent to the chairs of the college P&T committees.
Professor Zimmerman asked that it go out to the AAUP membership as well.
B) Status of C- grade issue Currently the Academic Standards Committee is investigating the two possibilities referred by the Senate: 1. Accept C- grade as satisfying major credit yet still requiring 2.00 GPA in the major 2. Accept C- grade toward major without requiring grade point average of 2.00 in major
Senator Dupas reported that she had met with Professor Johnson, chair of the Academic Standards Committee to discuss the issues. She expressed concerns about +/- grading being enforced as the standard on campus and also whether or not there was a way of altering the grade scale to allow for a C- to equal a 2.00. After an enthusiastic discussion Professor Siegel moved and Professor Hartzler-Miller seconded a motion that states:
To ask the Academic Standards Committee to gather additional information regarding the possibility of rescaling the grade scale so that a C- grade equals a 2.00.
The motion carried 19-0-0.
Professor Siegel moved and Professor Stein moved to adjourn the meeting.
The Senate adjourned at 5:45 P.M.