Date: October 11, 2005
To: The Academic Community
From: Jennifer Ballengee, Secretary
Subject: October 10, 2005-Meeting of the University Senate
The third regular meeting of the University Senate was held on October 10, 2005, in the University Union, Rooms 314-316.
Professor Sullivan called the meeting to order at 4 p.m. Present at the meeting were Senators Ballengee, Cox, Debye, Hartzler-Miller, Leshnoff, Little, McLucas, Nixon, Pitcher, Roberge, Rosecky, Siegel, Storrs, Sullivan, Tabak, Vatz, Webster, Weinstein, Wengert, Accardi, Butler, Castillo, Torres, and York. Absent were Senators Stein and Grande. Ex Officio members present were Provost Brennan, Vice President Leberknight and Parliamentarian Darren Goins. Officio members absent were President Caret, Vice President Moriarty, Vice President Rubin, and Vice President Clements.
The meeting began with the election for Secretary of the Senate. Prof. Vatz, chair of the nominating committee, nominated Prof. Ballengee. The Senate unanimously elected Prof. Ballengee, with a vote of 21-0-0. Prof. Vatz then solicited nominations for Vice-Chair. That election will be held in the November Senate meeting.
Prof. Rosecky then moved to approve the Agenda. Prof. Vatz seconded the motion. Prof. Siegel mentioned that the Senate had decided to discuss the Mission Statement at the October meeting. Provost Brennan suggested that that discussion would be better held in November, once the mission is approved by the President. The Senate then voted unanimously (21-0-0) to accept the Agenda.
Prof. Rosecky then moved to accept the Minutes from the September meeting. Prof. Siegel seconded the motion. Prof. Siegel asked that the section at the bottom of page 2 of the minutes, which describes the mix goal for Towson students, be clarified. With this change, the minutes were unanimously accepted by a vote of 21-0-0.
REPORTS OF EX OFFICIO SENATORS
REPORT OF THE PROVOST:
Provost Brennan noted that there are three major searches happening at Towson this year.
The search for Dean of CLA, whose search committee is headed by Dean Lorian. He has scheduled two additional for a for CLA faculty, in order that faculty may voice search concerns. The goal is to obtain a new Dean by 2006.
The Search for Director of University Libraries will be headed by Dean Fracasso. The Provost has met with the library staff and is formulating the position criteria.
The third Search is for a new Dean of CoBE. The Provost is currently assembling that Search Committee
The Provost then turned to the forthcoming Budget Process. TU is requesting a 7% general increase (which will include an allocation to enhance the flagship campus), plus a 2% increase designated to correspond with the enrollment increase. The USM is proposing a different growth proposal, however. Institutions who believe that they can grow will be asked to bid on sections of the general enrollment growth, based on programming that they can offer. The Provost hopes that this proposal will not be implemented, though, and that TU will be able to follow the proposal we've already made. Nevertheless, the administration is proposing budget breakdowns based on student demand and workforce needs in order to link the growth to specific demands.
Finally, the Provost turned to Satellite and Online issues. Web Tycho is being proposed as a replacement for Blackboard. The Administration is hoping for an official agreement by November, so that we can move to Web Tycho smoothly, as the Blackboard contract runs out. The Blackboard contract expires June 31, 2006.
There are 4 pilot Master's programs, the HRD program, the Communications program in COFAC, the Homeland Security program, and the Applied Information program, which are being developed as completely online programs for next Fall. Also, there is a Bachelor's in Technical and Professional Studies degree in development; only 30 hours of this program will be completed at TU, so this program is also being developed to be completely online. The University has $60,000 targeted for developing these online programs.
Prof. Rosecky asked about TU developing an MBA program in Poland. The Provost responded that TU is close to an agreement with the University of Lodz, the second largest University in Poland. UMCP has partnered with them previously in Business, but Lodz is going to transfer their program to TU, and move it up to the level of an MBA. The Proposal that TU is submitting for this MBA program is identical to the one approved by the Senate last year (that proposal was tabled by USM). This could be a bridging vehicle, the Provost suggested, allowing TU to enter the world of MBA's without needing the approval of MHEC. Right now, the proposal is at the system level.
Prof. Vatz reminded the Provost of the President's promise of no enrollment growth at Towson without sufficient financial support from the System. He then asked if the Board of Regents could nevertheless force TU to accept more students. The Provost responded that he wasn't sure of the answer to that question.
Senator Accardi asked if the University's bid for funds, under the USM proposal for growth bids, would reflect only the needs or offerings of Academic Programs. The Provost responded that the proposal only took into account Academic Programs.
Prof. Sullivan noted that MHEC has approved programs coming from the Shady Grove campus.
Prof. Siegel noted that we don't want to become University of Baltimore. We should protect Towson's reputation. A Towson degree doesn't only indicate classes completed, but a whole Towson experience. The Provost agreed.
REPORT OF VICE PRESIDENT LEBERKNIGHT (V.P. of Administration and Finance):
Vice President Leberknight began by noting that he has recently attended 3 meetings with the Chancellor and/or the Board of Regents discussing the budget, which will rise to $140 million plus this year. In addition to the 9% of state support that Towson is asking for, the USM is proposing a 6% increase in tuition, in addition to the 1% of Efficiency and Effectiveness funding. The University system is now at $95 million in mandated costs, including the recent increase in utilities. If we don't meet the $140 million, all Universities in the system will suffer. Housing is a particular issue right now, and the system is aware of this.
Vice President Leberknight also reported on the small fire that occurred on Sunday, October 9. No one was hurt, although some water damage was sustained.
Prof. Vatz commented upon the recent increase in crime, adding that crimes also seem to be happening earlier in the evening. He asked if this is a trend over which TU has no control. He also wondered whether this might affect the reputation of the university.
Vice President Leberknight noted that he's meeting with the Towson police chief in order to address these issues. He agreed that there seems to have been a general increase in crime in the last six months.
Senator Accardi asked who had proposed the 6% increase in tuition. Vice President Leberknight clarified that the system has proposed the increase as one possibility for meeting budget needs.
Prof. Rosecky noted that there is definitely a facilities limitation to enrollment growth, as all of his classes are currently packed full. Vice President Leberknight responded that the facilities issue is being addressed on all levels.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS of the UNIVERSITY SENATE
CUSF REPORT, PROFESSOR SIEGEL:
Prof. Siegel noted that CUSF is finding a Common Calendar very helpful; she suggested that CUSF would oppose any change to it.
Prof. Siegel then reported on two proposals brought to CUSF by students. The first addresses the cost of textbooks. Prof. Siegel has submitted a letter to Prof. Sullivan, who will distribute it to all faculty. This letter suggests ways to minimize costs of textbooks for students. The second proposal suggests a week-long Thanksgiving Break. CUSF sent the proposal back with a request that the students find a calendar that works in this regard.
On October 14th, CUSF Executive Committee is meeting with the Senate Chairs. The next general CUSF meeting is October 20.
Senator Butler noted that the SGA was elated with the CUSF proposal for limiting textbook costs. SGA has submitted a similar proposal to the Board of Regents.
Prof. Siegel concluded by noting the 11/1 deadline for Regents Awards for Faculty.
AAUP REPORT, PROFESSOR MCLUCAS:
Prof. McLucas reported that Towson hosted the Maryland Regional AAUP Conference on October 1st. The conference was a big success, and reflected well on Towson. The theme was "The Corporate University" and the conference featured two keynote speakers, Prof. Cary Nelson, Jubilee Professor of Arts and Sciences, and Dr. John Curtis, Director of Research for the National American Association of University Professors. The conference focused on reinvigorating Shared Governance and promoting solidarity among faculty of different levels.
The Towson AAUP is currently conducting a membership drive. One aspect of strengthening the Towson AAUP is the reinstitution of the Towson AAUP Newsletter, which will appear twice each semester, beginning this Fall. The Newsletter will feature issues that the AAUP addresses, including faculty grievances, issues of intellectual property, online course development, the role of the Administration in program planning and curriculum, and the issue of off-campus members appointed to Search committees.
The Fall meeting of the AAUP will be Wednesday, November 9, at 3:30 p.m.
SGA REPORT, SENATOR ACCARDI:
Ms. Accardi noted that SGA is still conducting a transportation survey. Faculty should remind students to take the survey. It would be nice, she added, to have faculty announce student events in classes.
NEW BUSINESS
1. Election of New Officers: The election of a new Vice-Chair will take place in the November meeting.
2. Motion 05/06-05: Receive the Annual Report of the Admissions Committee.
Prof. Siegel moved to accept the motion; Prof. Cox seconded the motion. The motion was passed by a unanimous vote of 21-0-0.
3. Motion 05/06-06: Receive the Annual Report of the Academic Standards Committee.
Prof. Cox moved to accept the motion; Prof. Tabak seconded the motion. The motion was passed by a unanimous vote of 19-0-0.
4. Motion 05/06-07: Receive the Annual Report of the Information Technology Committee.
Prof. Tatman represented the committee. Prof. Hartzler-Miller asked Prof. Tatman about the advantages of moving to Web Tycho. Prof. Tatman replied that cost has been the greatest factor. In addition, Towson will be able to have an effect upon Web Tycho, because of the company's association with University College.
Prof. Siegel said that the Math Department would like to be able to put math symbols online.
The Provost noted that there will be a series of presentations on the new program. He added that Departments may even want to sponsor presentations.
Prof. Storrs asked if the Blackboard survey was therefore a moot point (since Web Tycho seems to be already moving into place). Prof. Tatman noted that the return for that survey was very good-70%. Vice President Leberknight noted that there is still a contract with Blackboard through June 31st. Services are constantly upgrading. Since University College is working closely with Web Tycho already, its to their advantage to get other Universities in the System to join them.
Prof. Little noted that there was a Senate Committee 2 years ago that advised that technology for University College should be the guideline for all systems.
Prof. McLucas noted that if the Administration received a 70% return on the Blackboard survey, it wasn't necessarily a gesture of goodwill, but rather the response to a threat. Many faculty didn't know of the financial advantages at stake in the proposed switch away from Blackboard when they were required to fill out the survey.
Prof. Siegel moved to accept the motion; Prof. Rosecky seconded the motion. The motion passed by a unanimous vote of 24-0-0.
Prof. Siegel noted that any revision to Bylaws should be attached to the report.
5. Motion 05/06-08: Receive the Annual Report of the Library Committee.
Prof. Rosecky moved to accept the motion; Prof. Tabak seconded. The motion passed by a unanimous vote of 24-0-0.
OLD BUSINESS:
1. . Senate discussion of the Revised PTRM Document: Review of three motions previously passed.
a. On April 18, 2005, the Senate moved to advise that Merit be kept to 3 levels in the new PTRM Document. The motion was passed by a vote of 15 in favor-1 opposed-1 abstaining.
b. On April 18, 2005, the Senate moved to advise that Deans be ex officio and non-voting members of the College P and T Committee, in addition to submitting his or her own recommendation. The motion was passed by a unanimous vote of 14-0-0.
c. On April 18, 2005, the Senate moved to advise that Chairs should serve on Departmental P and T Committees as voting members, and should submit a written recommendation either agreeing or disagreeing with the Departmental P and T Committee's decision. The motion was passed by a vote of 13-0-0.
2. Motions responding to Amendments Offered by the Towson University Council of Chairpersons (submitted to the Senate on April 4, 2005).
a. Motion 05/06-09: That departments must approve standards, criteria, and expectations by secret ballot.
Prof. Vatz said that the secret ballot seems like micro-managing. He opposed the motion because it seems Federalist and generally secrecy seems bad. Prof. Siegel noted that these motions were voted on and approved in committee last Spring. Prof. Hartzler-Miller noted that this motion doesn't necessarily reflect the desire of the Council of Chairs. Prof. Tabak asked about the purpose of the secret ballot. Prof. Little responded that it is to protect non-tenured faculty. Prof. Cox reiterated that point. Prof. Rosecky commented that he was on the fence: a secret ballot can help, but it can also hurt. Prof. Leshnoff added that secrecy diminishes accountability. Prof. Siegel expressed disapproval because it's a mandate.
Prof. Ballengee moved to call the question; Prof. Leshnoff seconded the motion. The Senate voted unanimously to call the question. The motion came to a vote and was rejected (0 approving-20 opposed-3 abstaining).
b. Motion 05/06-10: That the words "strategic plan, and programs" be removed from from 9:19 and that section 3.b (12:40-43) be removed in its entirety.
Prof. Hartzler-Miller read the relevant sections from the Handbook.
Prof. Siegel expressed her support of the motion, arguing for the removal of the statement. Prof. Vatz agreed.
Prof. Leshnoff moved to call the question; Prof. Ballengee seconded the motion. Two-thirds of the Senate approved calling the question to a vote. The motion came to a vote and carried, 17-2-2.
c. Motion 05/06-11: That the text at 13:19-29, designating the nature, organization, or content of scholarship in general, should be removed.
Prof. Hartzler-Miller read the relevant sections from the Handbook.
Ms. Accardi asked why professors don't want to be required to reflect the Mission statement in their scholarship. After all, she added, professors tell their students what to write sometimes. Prof. Ballengee replied that professors are trained and hired in order to be experts in their fields of research. Thus the relationship between professors and students is much different than that between administrators and professors, since professors are experts in their fields of knowledge, and therefore most aware of what students need to learn and know in that field. Likewise, professors, being experts in their fields of knowledge, know better than administrators (who may or may not be familiar with the various fields of research in the university) the topics of their own research and scholarship. Prof. Vatz added, more succinctly, that Ms. Accardi's comparison was a false analogy.
Prof. Leshnoff asked if the revised P and T document is eliminating the Carnegie report as it's standard. He argued that this cannot be done.
Prof. Vatz noted that when people publish scholarship, they are gatekeepers. This adds another level of gatekeeping. Prof. Webster added that this limits creativity.
Prof. Cox argued that the Senate asked the P and T Committee to revise the P and T Document. She suggested that the current discussion risked returning to the old P and T document. Prof. Debye, who also served on the University P and T Committee, added that the topic is nevertheless fair game for discussion. Prof. Vatz noted that the major problems have been with a lack of consistency. Prof. Pitcher suggested that the work of the University P and T committee had enabled the remaining problems to become apparent.
Prof. Sullivan noted that the motions before the Senate represented the intent of the Executive Committee to move this issue forward.
Prof. Little moved to call the question; Prof. Ballengee seconded. However, lacking a two-thirds vote in favor of calling the question, the issue was returned to the table.
Prof. Debye noted that the University P and T committee was responding to complaints of junior faculty that there was no clarity designating the requirements for P and T in the old P and T Document.
Prof. Sullivan, noting the time, determined that Motion 05/06-11 would return as Old Business in the November meeting.
8000 York Road | Towson, MD 21252 | 410-704-2000
