University Senate Links
University Senate
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 27, 2004
To: The Academic Community
From: James M. Anthony, Secretary
Subject: February 2, 2004—Meeting of the University Senate
The fifth regular meeting of the University Senate was held on February 2, 2004 in the University Union, Rooms 314-316. The meeting was called to order at 4:07 p.m. by Chairperson Norma Holter.
Roll Call
Provost Leather was excused. Mr. Zimmelman was absent. Chairperson Holter introduced and welcomed Dr. Veril L. Phillips, Interim Vice President for Student Affairs.
Approval Of The Agenda
It was requested to remove the motion to approve the change to an existing program (Post-Master's Certificate for Administrator I) from the agenda.
Professor Vatz requested that Discussion Item #8 (The USM Effectiveness & Efficiency Workgroup) be moved to Item #2 of New Business. There was no objection.
Approval Of The Minutes Of The Previous Meeting
Professor Siegel moved, Professor Stein seconded a motion to approve the minutes as distributed. The motion passed.
Reports Of Ex Officio Senators
President Caret noted that he felt the Senate retreat went well and that a stronger relationship between the President's Office and the Senate had developed.
He thanked Veril Phillips for agreeing to serve as Interim Vice President for Student Affairs.
Budget: Although the overall budget news is not good, there is good news that the governor included a 1.6% COLA in the budget for FY04-05 and a 2.5% merit pool which will have to come from existing funds.
There is excellent news on the capital budget: it includes money for the first new academic building in years: a new Liberal Arts and Social Science Complex. This is the first key component in the new master plan.
Athletics: He addressed the rumors about cutbacks in athletics by saying it is a complex issue dominated by many variables: which conferences we are in, NCAA Title IX, and Rules at the state level as to how monies may be spent. We can't solve the problems by changing one thing. When he is ready to make a decision, he will work with the Senate and the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee. Gymnastics is now costing $60,000 per year. He is meeting with student athletes and the Student Inter-Collegiate Committee.
Professor Siegel asked if the process for the decision on athletics could include a committee before the President decides.
Answer: This is one of the most politically charged issues. We are running 23 sports and we can't afford it. Dr. Caret is putting together a small committee of about ten people to help him make the decision.
Professor Sullivan asked where the funding for athletic scholarships comes from. Answer: Operating expenses.
Professor Lu asked to whom the proposed COLA and merit awards would go.
Answer: the COLA would go to all base salaries. (This would come from general funds.) The merit would go to those recommended for merit awards. (This would come from the faculty pool.)
Questions: Professor Pitcher expressed dismay at the late hour announcement regarding the University closing last Tuesday. Many late afternoon students were already en route and there was confusion about whether classes scheduled for 4:20 p.m. were cancelled. President Caret apologized for the confusion.
Vice President Rubin made a report on the organization of the University Advancement Division.
It includes the following:
- Alumni Operations which focuses mostly on Maryland alumni. The Maryland Alumni Project is meeting with groups to get them involved.
- Development, which is the main fund raising operation, includes:
- The Annual Campaign which includes the Faculty-Staff campaign: This is presently at 70% of goal.
- Corporate Gifts: this is looking at new initiatives
- Planned Giving: this deals with legacy and estate planning. It is establishing an advisory committee.
- Other capital gifts, which includes opportunities for naming buildings and other projects.
Fundraising is still relatively new at Towson University. We are now raising $3-3.5 million each year. We need a feasibility study regarding the new capital campaign.
The Office of Research Services helps to oversee grants and contracts, but this office is not part of the Development Office.
Last week there was a Development retreat with the President, Vice Presidents and the Deans in order to develop fundraising plans for each College.
- The Marketing and Communication area, University Relations, also comes under University Advancement.
Provost Leather is recovering from surgery and was excused.
Chairperson Holter read an e-mail from the Provost concerning the report of the Board of Regents Committee on Effectiveness and Efficiency.
Towson is one of two institutions in the System not in compliance with the Board's guidelines on faculty workload for comprehensive universities. The guidelines call for a 7-8 course load per year. Non-compliance is an egregious error. We have been asked to come into compliance immediately—by Fall, 2004.
Professor Ballangee asked that a copy of Provost's e-mail be sent to the Senators. Chairperson Holter agreed. Professor Siegel asked that discussion of this issue be postponed until we come to its place on the agenda.
Vice President Harnage announced that Towson University has experienced a watershed event in terms of the capital budget: the announcement of funding for a new Liberal Arts and Social Science complex. This success is due in part to our ability to defend our capital needs to the Budget Office, the development of an appropriate capital plan, as well as the President's campaign with the governor to include the funding in the proposed budget. As Vice President Harnage said, “We are now at the table.”
The governor's proposed budget goes through 2009 and includes nearly $114 million for Towson University. There is also an extra $500,000 for the Mainstage of the Center for the Arts.
The new Liberal Arts complex is a two-phase project with the first phase allocated at $4.42 million for planning and $2.1 million the next year. FY07 will include $40 million for construction and FY 2008 $4 million for equipment. FY09 will include $54 million for phase II.
The Health Professions Building is next in queue. Although delayed one year, it will receive $1.1 million in FY 2008 and $1.9 million in FY 2009.
The total amount allocated to Towson University represents 1/6 of the entire capital funding for the University System of Maryland. Only one institution received more.
The Senate gave Vice President Harnage a round of applause!
Ms. Berlanstein inquired about renovations to the library. Answer: the order of projects has not changed; some have just been deferred.
Interim Vice President Phillips said that he has felt very welcome at Towson University and is excited to be here.
Professor Siegel (CUSF) : CUSF is considering several days for legislative actions. There will be a meeting February 16 in Annapolis. CUSF invites faculty to come and visit members of the Legislature. February 23 is Student Research Poster Day: Nothing has been submitted from Towson University yet. March 15 is a rally in Annapolis in support of Thornton.
CUSF is working on a draft of changes to the Reappointment and Tenure document. It is looking at a process for evaluating administrators. It sponsored a workshop for new department chairs.
CUSF is also discussing inequities between TIAA and the State Retirement System.
CUSF is also considering the issue of how to handle enrollment growth. Should enrollment grow since the budget as submitted shows no growth in funding?
Professor Zimmerman (AAUP-Faculty Association): AAUP is dealing with the workload issue. There will be a town meeting with President Caret on February 10 from 3-5 p.m. in Chesapeake I in the Union.
Ms. Pica (SGA) : SGA has been given office space for 13 student groups and is grateful. Tiger Pride Day will be held February 23 in Annapolis.
Old Business
• Motion 03/04-19: To approve the ratification of the College Constitution for the College of Education.
Professor Little asked about the definition of the electorate.
The question vote was taken. The motion passed 21/1/0.
New Business
Discussion Item 8: USM Effectiveness & Efficiency Workgroup report . Professor Vatz asked Professor Ed Duncan to address the Senate regarding the letter he sent to incoming Provost Brennan. Professor Duncan read the following letter into the record:
January 24, 2004
TU Provost (Incoming) James Brennan
Dean, College of Arts & Sciences
University of Louisville
Louisville, Kentucky 40292
Dear Provost Brennan:
Welcome to Towson University. I have something I want to tell you and hope you won't mind if the presentation is open and direct. It is from the heart.
Last week's eTU, Towson University's new faculty/staff e-newsletter, had for its headline a quote from an interview with you: “Towson is Going Places.” What an ironic headline to coincide with the announced increase in teaching load for professors. Towson is going places all right. Unfortunately, it's in the wrong direction.
The decision to increase the faculty teaching load will be welcomed by no one except people who mistakenly believe that the way out of the current state economic problems is to increase the work load of an already hard-working faculty, one that hasn't seen a pay increase, not a cent, for three years and counting—and won't for this extra load. Such a move is counterproductive in every way.
Let's start with educational quality. It stands to reason that increasing the teaching load takes away time from non-classroom duties such as advising, community outreach, university service, and, most importantly, research and scholarship. As you know, these non-classroom duties, especially the research and scholarship, take up a considerable amount of time in the life of a professor. One thing that distinguishes professors from high school and community college teachers is the level of the students they teach, mainly upper-division undergraduates and graduate students. At this level, keeping current in one's field is critical, and the better universities know this. There is a reason that such schools allow their professors time to devote to research and scholarship: the better informed the professor is, the better the classes he or she teaches, and the more the student in those classes learns. Over the past half-century, the American education system has proven to be the best in the world, a fact that is underscored by the number of foreign students who have come here to study. It has maintained this dominance with quality faculty and a system designed to deliver the best education possible to the greatest number of students possible. One major factor in our ability to adapt to the rapidly changing times better than other countries has been the quality of our educational systems.
Now, we find that the globalization of technology is creating job loss in this country, not just manufacturing jobs, but also the information technology jobs that have sustained the economy for the past dozen years or so. India is next to the U.S. in numbers enrolled in universities, and China is not far behind. Despite their poverty, at higher levels these countries are on the move. Although they are doing what they can to close the educational gap, the one advantage we have over them is our superior university systems—so far. It is imperative that we do what we can to maintain that advantage, i.e., to increase the quality of education, not to water it down by cheapening the product and thereby putting our graduates on a level with theirs, who are willing to work for far less. Maintaining quality here is not a luxury but a necessary investment in the continued economic prominence of this country. Unfortunately, our current academic cost-cutting measures are resulting in a cheapened product, and in education, as elsewhere, you ultimately get what you pay for.
The impending Walmartization of the university, although it may seem attractive on the surface (i.e., more cans of corn for less money) is ultimately counterproductive because students are not cans of corn. States that have invested in quality education have benefited, while those that have perennially cut corners, like Alabama, Mississippi, et al, can only watch as vibrant new companies go elsewhere.
Having Towson professors teach an extra class may sound like an efficient and reasonable way to get more blood out of the turnip, in effect to get something for nothing, but such a move has its costs. For one thing, it will be a step backwards for the evolution of the university. In 1997, Towson reduced its teaching load for professors from four courses per semester to three. According to Provost Haeger, who worked for the change, the precipitating cause for this move was the university's inability to hire qualified faculty in several fields, but he also felt it was the right move academically.
For the faculty it marked a significant step forward in the progress of the university. And the benefits have been evident. As you know, in all disciplines, applicants for professors' jobs use course-load as the determining factor in deciding which universities they want to go to. A three-course load allows them time to develop their own ideas, to keep up in their field, and to be a player in its evolution, while a four-course load forces them into an almost total teaching mode. As a consequence of the move to a three-course load at Towson, the quality of incoming faculty the past few years has increased markedly over the faculty it replaced, a fortunate circumstance since the quality of the students has also increased over the same time period, with entering SAT scores higher than ever.
If we increase the teaching load, however, we will see our promising young faculty moving on to better universities to pursue their careers, while our new openings are filled by applicants of lesser caliber. And if several departments couldn't hire qualified faculty to teach a four-course load in 1997, what has changed so that they will be able to do it now? Telling applicants that they have a three-year grace period will not keep them from seeing what kind of academic life lies down the road if they come here. Unfortunately, Towson will become more like a community college and less like a university. Call it planned mediocrity. Students are paying more and will be getting less.
The recent progress in quality at Towson benefits not just the current students but alumni as well. The better the university's growing reputation, the more respected it makes the degree of everyone who has gone here in years past. I can't imagine Towson alumni will be happy to learn of this proposed change in direction.
Some might argue that if TU professors used to teach a four-course load in the nineties, then they shouldn't complain about returning to one. But this argument overlooks a critical difference between then and now. Before the change, regular classes in my department had a maximum of 30 students. However, when the university moved to a three-course load, this maximum was increased to 35. In other departments the numbers varied, but the principle remained the same: the reduction in course load was offset by larger classes. Professors at the time were not universally happy about this increase in class size. Some said it diminished the level of individual instruction possible in a class and would damage Towson's reputation as a university that maintained small class sizes. Still, it was done, and we all learned to live with it. Now, the plan is to return to the four-course load but not to return to the small-sized classes of the past. This move will result not only in a 38% increase in the number of students for professors teaching four classes (not 3 x 35 = 105 but 4 x 35 = 140) but also a significant increase over the old pre-1997 levels (i.e., not 4 x 30 = 120 but 4 x 35 = 140). This jump in numbers will of course be detrimental to the overall quality of instruction, limit teacher-student interaction, encourage corner-cutting, and increase the amount of time necessary to prepare for classes and to grade assignments, research papers, essay tests, and the like. It is thus a lose-lose proposition for both students and professors.
The increased teaching load also represents a breach in an implied promise to new faculty coming in over the past few years. Official TU job openings described the positions as three-course loads, so does the faculty handbook, and so did contracts. I understand that the university has a legal out through an escape clause in the contract, but that doesn't negate the fact that prospective professors were told that the course load was three and made their decisions to come to Towson on that basis. To make them teach four courses now that they're here amounts to a bait-and-switch. They and those who hired them will feel betrayed by such a move.
Faculty morale will be damaged, not just because we will be spending more time grading essays and less time at other academic activities, but because we will all be aware that we've been working at a university that up to now was headed in the right direction, one that was improving in quality in every way, but which now has suddenly taken a u-turn toward institutionalized mediocrity. Our hopes for the future of the university and the positive attitudes that went with the feeling of being part of its progress will all go out the window.
Many people, especially those unfamiliar with professors and their lives, may think that university faculty are working only when they are in class. This perception is unfortunate because it is simply wrong. Most of the faculty I know are like I am, that is, they always put in more than forty hours a week and, in a sense, are always working. We may not punch a clock, but we do put in the time. We do our jobs because we love what we do and because we want to contribute and do our part in creating a better, more-informed populace. Increasing our teaching load will not help us achieve our goals, nor will it accord with the state mandate to achieve and maintain national eminence for schools in Maryland's university system.
Instead, it will ensure that classes are taught by professors who are increasingly out of the loop when it comes to keeping up with their field, that promising junior faculty will move on to better jobs elsewhere, that incoming faculty will be inferior to what we are getting now, that President Caret's bold new initiatives for the university will be thwarted by diminished faculty energy and input, and that the resulting damage to faculty morale will be pervasive and felt on all levels.
What's the alternative to this ill-advised move? Professors with the energy and motivation to initiate projects and teach well, retention of quality faculty recruited over the past several years, successful recruitment of promising new faculty, continued improvement and development of academics, better-prepared graduates, increased prominence and reputation for Towson, and, most importantly, the conviction that we are all moving forward together for all the right reasons.
So, you were right when you said Towson University is “going places.” We just hope you have the ability and will to make sure they are the right places.
We wish you the best and look forward to meeting you.
Sincerely,
Edwin Duncan
Professor, English
Towson University
(Professor Duncan was the 2002 recipient of the statewide USM Regents' Award in Teaching Excellence. His web edition of Chaucer's General Prologue to the Canterbury Tales is used at universities in North America, Europe, and Australia.)
Professor Vatz questioned the apparent lack of consultation between the Board of Regents and the Towson administration on this matter. The Regents promised to meet with us when issues come up.
Professor Siegel stated that the letter should not have been addressed to incoming Provost Brennan. She went on to say the problem is that in terms of the Regent's workload policy we are lumped into the comprehensives and we don't feel that we belong there anymore. The President's challenge is to convince the Board that our mission is inconsistent with this category. We need to meet the requirements to move into a new category. Other problems include the fact that student credit hours produced are not counted into the workload; the lack of flexibility in applying the policy, as well as the timeline for raising the productivity of scholarly work.
We should try to get ourselves moved to a new category, to be creative with how we account for our time, to talk about class size, and to make this a policy in which faculty have a say.
Professor Ballengee stated that many junior faculty were hired on the 3:3 load. The faculty feel that they have been tricked. There are some 180 of these individuals. Though the Provost's letter seems to give hope for some faculty to remain at the 3:3, there is much ambiguity in the policy.
Professor Zimmerman echoed the concern of the junior faculty and asked that they be allowed to continue on a 3:3 load until they receive tenure. Three years is not enough.
Professor Lu expressed concerns over how the new policy would affect the growing graduate programs and especially the doctoral programs. The policy runs counter to TU's move to a research intensive institution. He added there is ambiguity about the guidelines for putting people on a 3/3 load based on research production.
Professor Whitman voiced concern over the move to larger class sizes when we went to the 3:3 load. Will these larger classes hold as we move to 4:3 or 4:4? This issue does not seem to be addressed.
Several faculty spoke about the move to eliminate credit for double sections.
Professor Sullivan brought up questions about credit hour production.
It may take time to raise our grant level to that required by a research intensive institution.
Professor Vatz reiterated the points about the breakdown in the process and the lack of consultation by the Regents with the academic community of Towson University.
Chairperson Holter thanked President Caret for cutting his trip short so he could be here.
Dr. Caret explained that he does not speak for the Board. But it is clear that the Board is frustrated that our teaching level is only 6.1 and that our faculty/student ratio is not going in the right direction. We went to 3:3 without Board of Regents approval.
He supports our efforts to bring up our levels of research by using the Boyer model. We need to recognize all types of research as valid. We can give some faculty the 3:3 load, but the evidence of the research record must be there and within the guidelines.
We need to go to the Board and demonstrate our record. Some faculty want to teach more and publish less. We need to educate the Board.
He also mentioned that in the Board's eyes there is a problem with the lack of Friday classes.
The Administration is willing to work with the departments.
We are being viewed as a growth institution, but we need to prove our quality and productivity.
Professor Zimmerman reiterated his points about the new faculty.
Professor Little noted that we are not following the USM guidelines for graduate faculty and graduate classes.
President Caret noted that we are not ending the practice of giving credit for multiple sections taught by the same faculty.
Professor Whitman expressed concern that we can't give new faculty 3:3 without giving many other faculty 4:4.
Professor Siegel asked if research can count as a course on the workload without actually having a grant. Answer: Some can; some can't. The institution can choose to give assigned time for special research projects. The Deans and Chairs need to figure a way to get productivity up and the faculty/student ratio up.
Vice President Harnage stated that the faculty need to give the President the information he can use to defend the institution.
Professor Pitcher reiterated her concerns about the consternation and confusion among the junior faculty. We need a much clearer picture as to how things will be counted. President Caret reiterated that the Boyer model should work well for us.
The Senate recessed until February 16 at 4:00 PM.
Memorandum
Date: February 27, 2004
To: The Academic Community
From: James M. Anthony, Secretary
Subject: February 16, 2004— Continuation Meeting of the University Senate
The Senate was called back into session by Chairperson Norma Holter at 4:07 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Professors Boules, Little, Gallagher, President Caret, Provost Leather, and Vice Presidents Harnage, and Rubin were excused. Student member Zimmelman was absent.
Chairperson Holter distributed the letter from Chancellor Kirwan to President Caret dated January 29, 2004 concerning Towson University's non-compliance with the Board of Regent's Policy on Faculty Workload and Responsibilities.
Professor Vatz noted that at one point the Towson University Senate voted no-confidence in the Board of Regents based on their practice of decision making without discussing the issues with members of the campus.
Professor Stein stated that the tone of the letter almost suggests we tried to keep our faculty load a secret. We assume that the Board knew about this for sometime.
Professor Ballengee said that when Provost Haeger implemented the 3:3 load there was a sub-committee formed to study the situation and to make recommendations to the Board.
Professor Cox said that she understood that one way to make up for the 3:3 load was to increase class size. We were going to maintain efficiency by taking on more students.
Professor Pitcher said that perhaps we are not counting the right things. Chairperson Holter said that President Caret is working with the chairpersons to develop guidelines.
Interim Vice President Phillips said that President Caret expects guidelines to be published later this week.
Professor Lu noted that according to a draft of the guidelines distributed to the chairpersons, it appears that College Park has different formulas. We need to rework our formulas.
Professor Vatz stated that he doesn't want to communicate directly with the Regents if President Caret thinks it would undermine what he is doing.
Professor Stein noted that the USM policy provides for counting independent study students.
Professor Sullivan stated that Towson University as an institution has evolved and that we need specific formulas for what we do.
Associate Vice President Lonnie McNew noted that some departments now report graduate independent study students.
Professor Stein stated that the issue of independent studies affects all of the departments. If we really go by the USM policies, our credit hour production would drop.
Professor Hartzler-Miller said that there seems to be a short-term and a long-term solution. We need to have dialogue across campus. There are clearly gaps in the way things are counted.
Chairperson Holter said that she thinks that any letter should go to President Caret, not the Board of Regents. Professor Vatz said that he thinks that any communication should be on a one on one level.
Professor Zimmerman noted that a resolution passed by the AAUP was sent to President Caret.
Professor Doug Herman from Geography and a member of AAUP was asked to read the following AAUP resolution into the minutes.
RESOLUTION
Adopted by the Towson University AAUP/Faculty Association
on proposed changes to Faculty teaching loads
February 10, 2004
Whereas:
…Towson University has hired more than 200 new faculty since the reduced teaching load was implemented;
…Towson University aspires to higher standards; a better quality of education for its students, fostered by a richer academic community for its faculty;
…the proposed increase in teaching loads violates a commitment made to all new faculty by their chairs, deans, job advertisements, and faculty handbook at the time of their hire;
…this change will reduce the quality of teaching and learning as faculty respond to teaching more classes and students;
…this change will decrease research productivity, grant application and acquisition, and the scholarship of civic engagement, and will encourage the most productive scholars to leave the university, and (as past experience has demonstrated) make it difficult to recruit equally qualified replacements;
…this change has been proposed with no faculty involvement, and hastily communicated in a vague, informal and divisive manner;
…these negative developments gravely wound the faculty and student body of the Towson community, undermining the positive attitude needed to lift Towson towards its greater vision, and eroding trust in the administration;
BE IT RESOLVED by the AAUP/Faculty Association of Towson that WE CALL UPON OUR PRESIDENT:
…TO EXERCISE effective leadership by resisting this change and the faulty reasoning on which it is based;
…TO COMMUNICATE directly with faculty on major issues, and clearly articulate the background, rationale, and evidence that support major changes;
…TO HONOR the commitments made to junior faculty when they were hired;
…TO APPOINT a commission to review the accuracy of the data upon which the Regents' request is based, and to act upon the report of that commission with creative methods of addressing the non-compliance issue within the existing teaching load standard;
and
…TO UPHOLD the vision of a greater Towson University.
Chairperson Holter distributed an Executive Summary about the Review of Athletics at Towson University as well as an article from the Baltimore Sun regarding athletics at Towson.
Professor Sullivan asked if Professor Berkeley, Chairperson of the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee could be asked to speak about the situation.
Professor Berkeley stated that President Caret has been reviewing all athletic issues at Towson in terms of competitive balance and cost. Towson has the highest percentage of student fees going to athletics of the institutions in our conference.
Dr. Caret has called three sets of consultants to campus to review the situation of athletics. They met with many individuals and committees.
The next stage will be a meeting on February 25 between President Caret and his Athletic Advisory Committee made up of persons representing many different constituencies to discuss the issues including gender issues, competitive balance, and costs.
Professor Berkeley has asked President Caret that the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee participate before decisions are made.
We can expect a decision by the middle of March.
New Business
• Professor Hartzler-Miller moved, Professor Pitcher seconded a motion: To approve the proposal for a Certificate of Advanced Studies in Early Childhood Education. (Motion 03/04-25)
Professor Edyth Wheeler, Graduate Director for Early Childhood Education, spoke to the motion. Professor Sullivan asked about faculty resources.
The vote was called and the motion passed 19/0/0.
Information Items
• The Status of P&T Committee Issues . This item was postponed until the March agenda at the request of Professor Diane Taylor.
• Evaluation of Deans . Chairperson Holter noted that there seems to be an inconsistency of the evaluation of deans across colleges. Professor Zimmerman noted that CUSF is addressing the issue as well as the evaluation of all administrators.
• Higher Education Report . This item can be downloaded from http://www.usmd.edu/EEWorkGroup . It deals with the need to invest in Higher Education. The current financial difficulties will dominate agendas for the next several years.
Discussion Items
• Family Medical Leave Act . Professor Sullivan spoke to the report from the Ad hoc Family & Medical Leave Subcommittee.
Chairperson Holter asked how hours are counted for faculty and how long a faculty member has to work to qualify. Answer: about 30 weeks.
The question also came up as to how the three-week difference between the 12-week leave provided by the Act and the 15-week semester will be accounted for.
Holter also pointed out that there was no policy regarding the effect family medical leave would have on the tenure clock. Answer: The committee felt that this issue is the purview of the P & T Committee.
There was a question about the continuation of health coverage during family medical leave. Answer: This is a question about the benefits package.
Professor Sullivan also noted that there was concern about the future of Day Care Center for children of faculty on campus. The committee felt this should be part of the master plan.
Professor Vatz asked Professor Sullivan to put these concerns in a letter to Vice President Harnage and to copy Chairperson Holter and the President. It was suggested that the letter be sent to the new Provost as well.
Professor Vatz suggested that perhaps we should pass a sense of the Senate resolution.
Professor Zimmerman brought up the issue of the differences in the way accumulated sick days are treated in the different retirement systems. CUSF is putting together a proposal regarding this.
Professor Sullivan suggested that the issue of the tenure clock needs to be addressed by the P & T Committee. Professor Zimmerman agreed that according to CUSF this a local issue.
• Executive Summary: Ability of Higher Education to Meet Enrollment Growth and Workforce Demands . Professor Zimmerman noted this has been discussed at CUSF and that the Legislature is not contemplating more cuts to the System. He also noted that President Caret's testimony was very well received.
Professor Stein brought up the issue of whether Independent Study projects are counted on faculty loads. There was general discussion about how these activities are or are not counted among various departments. Professor Anthony suggested that this discussion be postponed until we have members of the administration present and that we discuss it with the new Provost when he arrives.
Chairperson Holter distributed copies of two publications:
- From AASCU: Budget & Appropriations: Update on FY04 Education Budget
- Another on Federal Grants and their affects on Student financial aid.
Professor Anthony announced that the next Senate meeting will be held one week later than usual: on Monday, March 8 at 4 PM in the Potomac Lounge of the Union. This will allow the new Provost to be introduced and to address the Senate.
Professor Forbes moved, Professor Ballengee seconded a motion to adjourn. The Senate adjourned at 5:36 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
James M. 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.