Date: February 7, 2006
To: The Academic Community
From: Jennifer Ballengee, Secretary
Subject: February 6, 2006-Meeting of the University Senate
The fifth regular meeting of the University Senate was held on Monday, February 6, 2006, at 4:00 p.m. in Rooms 314-315 of the University Union.
Absent were Senators Stein, Kikenea and York, as well as Provost Brennan, Vice President Sheehan, and Vice President Clements.
The Senate voted unanimously to accept the agenda.
Prof. Vatz made one correction to the December 5, 2005, minutes: p.3, "imprimatum" to "imprimatur"
With this change, the Senate voted unanimously to accept the December 5, 2005, minutes.
REPORTS OF EX OFFICIO SENATORS (Twenty Minutes)
REPORT OF PRESIDENT CARET:
The President began by reporting on the in-house press conference launching new web page. He noted that the overall feeling was that the website was a Big improvement"; it was "well-received".
He then remarked upon his meeting in the morning of 2/6/06: EE initiatives in academic areas are coming down from the administration.
Pres. Caret then turned to the Budget for 06-07: 18.5% increase in base budget, with 50% of that to base costs. There is a goal of $5000 for FTE base. This will allow TU to grow 500 students / year. By 2012, the goal is 25,000 students.
Pres. Caret remarked upon the press conference with Gov. Ehrlich: it concerned the capital budget. Everything in the 5-year budget is more or less intact. Capital construction involves 106 millon / year for the next 8 years.
He added that this is a strong budget and we should be pleased.
REPORT OF THE PROVOST, ASSOC. PROVOST LEATHER:
Academic Affairs approved 28 new faculty and 9 new staff positions.
TU is growing at 1,000 / year over next few years= 800 FTE head count. This raises a challenge about how we will accommodate the new students: where do we put them? Do we move to on-line courses?
The joint MBA with UB should be ready by Fall 06. The Web site will be functional by 3/15/06. The program will be enrolling new students by 4/06.
REPORT OF VICE PRESIDENT RUBIN:
Vice President Rubin thanked all involved in the website
He noted that we have received good feedback on our TV spots, radio spots, and billboards on 83N. They are "Resonating with people."
He then turned to Alumni relations. There is a big event 2/7/06 PM: 230 RSVP already. TU is building a focus on alumni outside state of MD.
Vice Pres. Rubin then remarked upon Development: He thanked people for gifts, and encouraged people to make more gifts. He went on to urge faculty members to make campaign contributions, noting that the faculty and staff campaign has always been a big component of the campaign. There was no discussion about how low faculty salaries may keep faculty from donating money to Towson. Vice President Rubin also noted that November 2 will be a big day for an announcement regarding the capital campaign.
REPORT OF VICE PRESIDENT MORIARTY:
Student Affairs is examining what policies are needed to accommodate growth, especially Housing and Student Activities. The January conference, which focused on the national survey of student engagement, provided a great opportunity for Student Affairs to meet with faculty. Vice President Moriarty provided a handout providing explanation of language and co-curricular learning, Learning Outcomes, and engagement and involvement across campus. She explained the importance of developing college-based Student Leader Groups, to help students make a connection to the institution, which largely happens through the major. She noted that the Leadershape conference went well in late January: 55 students participated in a week of development, learning how one leads with integrity and implements change. Two more handouts related to collaboration: February festival, which markets programs that are happening in the Spring semester, including a number of arts events. These campus-wide events are meant to market to students, to make sure students feel like they have something to do on campus. She also noted the Friday Night Live series, which provides an alternative activity to underage drinking.
Prof. Sullivan then acknowledged the good work of the interim Vice President Leberknight.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE (Twenty Minutes)
PROFESSOR McLUCAS, AAUP REPORT:
The AAUP will be bringing to the Senate a motion about 3rd year review, which is a concern of the Junior Faculty Committee of the AAUP. Another conversation that the AAUP will be leading is one concerning principles of shared governance and leadership.
PROFESSOR SIEGEL, CUSF REPORT:
CUSF acknowledges that the system has done well in acquiring good funding. Faculty salaries, however, look stagnant, especially in relation to our peers. Faculty salaries should be part of the dashboard indicators given at the end of each year. CUSF has also been discussing increasing faculty support for retired faculty; CUSF has been working closely with USM staff on this issue. Students asked if the faculty could write a letter of support for cutting costs of textbooks; as a result, Senate bill 214 requires that ISBN's be put on the website. Prof. Siegel indicated that this should not be a law; there's a second part to the bill that has to do with accepting gifts in return for using certain textbooks. Another forthcoming bill is House Bill 25, which will wave State taxes for textbook sales. There's also discussion of state universities teaching reading in a certain way to Education students; CUSF is against this state determination of curriculum matters, which should be determined by faculty (according to the policy of Shared Governance stated in the Faculty Handbook). Prof. Siegel noted the new BOR policy on "event-related student misconduct." At the Chancellor's Council, some problems arose concerning the wording and what might pose a threat to the university campus, in our ability to determine panels, speakers, etc. This seems like a First Amendment issue, she suggested. Finally, she invited everyone to come to Annapolis on 2/15 and 2/16 for Student Research Day.
The President noted that the words "threat," "serious harm," "expulsion," and "presumptive dismissal" are actually in the current document; it's unlikely they'll be removed.
SENATOR ACCARDI, SGA REPORT:
Over break, the students went down to lobby in Annapolis; TU had the largest number of students. The students also painted the walls in the Union; this has created more Towson spirit, she suggested, and students felt connected to it. SGA is still hoping to disseminate "What's UP Doc" across campus, so that faculty know what's going on. She then addressed the student misconduct issue: this is a problem that stemmed from UMCP riots, and doesn't seem to concern TU, she argued. There seems to be a lack of discretion in the language.
Senator Butler explained that students are cut down the middle about Senate Bill 214; students want to have ISBNs published. As for the House Bill 25, students are fully in support of the 4.5% raise every year, if state funding is going to offset the other costs.
Senator Accardi added that students were asked to write resolutions about both bills.
Heidi York, Prof. Sullivan announced, has now graduated and is no longer GSA representative. Prof. Sullivan then took the opportunity to thank everyone for their work on the Senate.
Pres. Caret noted that the BOR will be on campus on Friday. The meeting will be in the Chesapeake Room. Public session will be around 9:30 a.m.
Assoc. Provost Leather explained that the Mission Statement has gone through the MHEC Education committee; it has not been passed by the entire committee as of yet. Morgan State challenged the statement on two levels: that we want to move to research-intensive and that we claim that we are a "premiere metropolitan university." There are laws that designate certain language for certain schools. MSU has been the 'urban university," which they felt was too close to Metropolitan University. There's going to be a special commission to examine this sort of language.
Pres. Caret noted that Research Intensive requires 12 doctorates in 3 disciplines per year. This year we graduated 12 in 2 disciplines, so we're very close to that goal.
Assoc. Provost Leather then asked a pre-emptive question: Why does the mission statement have to be so long? MHEC requires that they be in this form. The summary mission statement, however, is what most of us will generally use as a mission statement.
Prof. McLucas asked what the status was of the name "premier" in this document. He noted that "premier" means the best or most important.
Prof. Little noted that if you look at the purpose and role of faculty in the statement, you find very little there. If you look at part four, objectives and outcomes, you find very little mention of faculty. If you look at Goals, faculty doesn't even have a major goal. Yet, quite obviously, you couldn't have a university without some of the things that faculty do. Faculty also does outreach, not just to the local community, but also on the national and international level. Under curriculum, there's no mention of faculty, although obviously faculty are going to be developing such curriculum. She suggested having a goal under part four for what faculty are supposed to do. Prof. Sullivan agreed that TU might include faculty in the mission statement.
Assoc. Provost Leather responded that this is a very prescriptive document; we're following a template. In institutional goals and outcomes, TU decided to tie the Mission Statement specifically to 2010. This was not meant to slur or diminish the importance of faculty, she added. Her statement acknowledged the fact that the university Vision statement also does not make much mention of faculty.
Prof. Storrs raised a very important question: If the Mission Statement is actually already being reviewed by a subcommittee of MHEc, is there any point in our considering it?
Assoc. Provost Leather responded that only the part about "premier" is being reviewed by a subcommittee.
Prof. Storrs then asked whether the document would be later amended, if the Senate approved it. He added that he's happy not to have everything the faculty's doing set out in black and white.
Prof. Siegel then registered dissatisfaction with the process. Actually MHEC asked for this in the summer, she noted, and the system asked that it be delayed until the end of September. She worked hard to make sure that faculty had a chance to look at the document before it went to MHEC. Our collective wisdom is worthwhile, she noted, and faculty should have been consulted.
Prof. Vatz corrected a typo in the second paragraph on page 2: it's the College of Fine Arts and Communication.
Prof. Webster made a motion to approve the motion; Prof. Tabac seconded. The motion carried, 15-1-4.
2. Motion 05/06-24:
Approve CLA Constitution [1982 Version and proposed Revised Version Attached] (Senate Executive Committee)
Prof. Bethany Brandt (Psychology) stood to speak about the constitution and address Senate concerns. Several years ago the Senate asked to review constitutions, this prompted Dean Beverly Leetch to review ours, and she found that it was in compliance, but outdated (1982). Discrepencies involved both technology and the growth of the CLA. With those two key points in mind, the Council made a constitution with these major changes:
Creation of Leadership Council: including the Deans, the Chairs, and Program Directors.
Clarify the responsibilities of College Council. One area important to expand power was to allow faculty to evaluate the Dean and report to Provost and College.
Creation of a standing Technology committee, adding in annual professional development requirements (the Dean will update them each year). Also, now electronic recording will be required for Agendas, schedules, and meeting minutes.
Prof. Brandt also responded to Senate concerns about voting. She said that the document was approved by 90% of the faculty, 45 out of 60 faculty approved it (it was later noted that 45 faculty hardly constitutes 90% of the CLA faculty; this is only 90% of the faculty who voted, far below two thirds). Certain policies such as how members of committees are elected are now in the bylaws. The new constitution clarifies where students on the Council come from. How is the council elected? The by-laws indicate that members of the council are elected by departments. The council chose to have when meetings occur remain flexible; that, too, is in the by-laws, determined by the Dean in consultation with the council. The chair of the Council sets the Council's agenda. The agenda of the Leadership Council is set by the Dean. The election of the College P and T Committee is not in the Constitution because it's in the handbook.
Assoc. Provost Leather noted a comment that she had for the CLA council, on the issue of evaluating the Dean. Core faculty has a very specific definition; you can define it as you wish in a Constitution, but lecturers are not included in the core faculty in the System. If this is clarified, it will help alleviate confusion. She also asked a question of the Senate: Do you feel comfortable with one college evaluating a Dean, as part of what's in their constitution?
Prof. Siegel noted that every college should evaluate its Dean. It would seem that the Provost would like that information. AT CUSF, there's been quite a bit of time discussing evaluating administrators.
Prof. Rosecky remarked upon the core faculty issue: in COBE the constitution refers to participating faculty, as opposed to core faculty. This way people can include full-time but non-tenured faculty.
Prof. Roberge suggested that one could strike the word core from pg. 2.
Assoc. Provost Leather noted that if you're going to do all full-time, you need to include also clinical faculty, because you have them in faculty studies.
Prof. Little noted that it also must be struck on pg. 3, under A.3.
Prof. Siegel suggested that it's conceivable that the College Council could consist of nothing but full-time lecturers. We need to think about the consequences of how many people on the council are lecturers. Prof. Rosecky noted that there was a specific position on the COBE Council for one Lecturer.
Prof. Roberge noted that within CLA there is some concern that the views of the lecturers be represented in some way; when this is brought back to CLA this should be considered.
Prof. Siegel noted that in Roman Numeral 3A, it's the same definition for core faculty. On page 1, under 1B there's no indication that lecturers can not serve on the Council.
Prof. Little asked if the purpose of the Leadership Council is to make recommendations to the Dean, why does the Dean then also get to vote? And why are there so many administrators on the council?
Prof. Dubye moved back to the second paragraph of the preamble: there is a grammatical problem in the first sentence of the second paragraph.
Prof. Roberge made a friendly amendment to clean up that language.
Pres. Caret agreed that the language here definitely needs to be cleaned up.
Prof. Siegel wondered about the role of the Secretary on pg. 2, number 3. She suggested that it should be probably moved to the by-laws, since you may find you want to have a Secretary.
Prof. Little repeated: the leadership Council is an advisory committee-why are there so many administrators on the Leadership Council?
Prof. Doug Herman, from Geography and a member of the CLA Council, also raised some questions for the Senate's consideration: Does this version still have the Asst. Dean on the Council along with the Dean? He noted that the Junior Faculty (which comprise about a third of the council) have a concern about the intimidation factor with so many administrators on the Council. Several Senators agreed with this concern.
Prof. Brandt answered that the Council representatives will take this back to the Council and address the Senate's concern that the Council is too administratively heavy.
Prof. Storrs noted that it looks like everything the Council does can be subject to veto by the Dean. Something gets through the Council by means of vote. Yet everything in steps one through 7, including the evaluation, can be vetoed by the Dean.
Prof. Sullivan added that if the Dean vetoes her own evaluation, the Provost will notice that she's vetoed it.
Prof. Debye suggested that that phrase should be dropped.
Prof. Webster raised two issues: it says recommendations; someone can always say no. And as far as dropping the rest of it out, at least it's honest. As far as the Leadership Council is concerned, their duties are different than the Council.
Prof. Ballengee suggested that some of the confusion about the difference between the CLA Council and the Leadership Council might be arising from the number of Administrators on both the Council and the Leadership Council. The two look alike.
Prof. Rosecky argued, "If I were a Junior person, I'd worry about the number of Administrators on the College Council."
Prof. Herman rejoindered that indeed, the CLA Council is one-third junior faculty, and this is an issue for them.
Prof. Vatz noted that it is redundant to say "recommendations, subject to the overriding authority of the Dean."
Prof. Siegel noted that on page 3, the Leadership Council's purpose shall be to advise the Dean. It seems clear that the Dean should not have a vote on her own advisory council. The Dean shouldn't vote.
Prof. Webster suggested that the chairs are there at the behest of the Dean, yet they may act in concert with the Dean rather than the faculty. So it doesn't seem like one vote of the Dean would make much difference.
Prof. Roberge suggested that the Senate make these changes in the CLA Constitution.
Prof. Rosecky added that the Senate can say that we approve the document, subject to the changes we recommend.
Prof. Pitcher noted that the CLA didn't get 2/3 of the entire faculty electorate to vote on this.
Prof. Sullivan acknowledge that problem, and then asked what changes the recommended.
Prof. Siegel: Pg. 2, the beginning of D, we took out "subject to the overriding authority….the Dean. Pg. 2, 6, take out "core." On Pg. 3, under IIIA, take out "core".
The duties of the Secretary should be moved to the by-laws. Correct the garbled wording.
In addition, the Senate discussion suggested that both Councils were administratively heavy. One solution proposed removing the Assistant Dean from the CLA Council, and possibly also the Leadership Council.
Prof. Siegel then made a motion that the Dean of the college not be a voting member of the Leadership Council. The motion was seconded by Prof. Vatz. Prof. Sullivan called the vote. The motion passed 16-0-1.
3. Discussion Item: Salary and Benefits
The Senate Executive Committee proposes that the Senate discuss the following issues of salary and benefits: Salary Compression, Gender Equity, Health (or Fringe) Benefits for Lecturers and/or Adjuncts, Salary Equivalence across the University, and related financial issues. The Discussion will produce a list of specific concerns that will then be submitted to the Provost's Office and RPAC, which will then gather the data relevant to these issues and provide it to the Senate for further consideration and advisement. The Discussion should also include consideration of prioritizing salary and benefit issues.
(Senate Executive Committee)
Prof. Siegel suggested that is be added to the motion that there be some discussion about the way that Merit is distributed. She suggested having a single merit increment for everyone on the faculty. Since merit raises are based on percentage of salary, this exacerbates the salary compression issue.
Assoc. Provost Leather added that the motion should change Adjunct to Part-time faculty. She explained that Provost Brennan and she had taken a stab at what they thought were potentially the five biggest issues here: salary compression; salary level (to move each of the ranks to at least the 75th percentile); incremental increases in part-time salary; a salary scale for lecturers; at least health care benefits to lecturers. They also discussed whether or not merit should be distributed as it has been, and whether or not it should exist at all.
Prof. Sullivan distributed a handout, an article describing how one University's faculty worked together to figure out a solution for negotiating salary. The Article was from Academe (Jan.-Feb. 06), the publication of the national AAUP.
Prof. Siegel suggested forming a task force. Prof. Sullivan responded that RPAC could be a resource in this regard. He added that the Chair of the AAUP should be there.
Assoc. Provost Leather suggested that this is a chicken and egg thing. Trying to do it as the whole Senate will take forever. But the Provost is hoping that there will be some guidance as to what are the areas of concern, and what are the priorities for the faculty. This group is important in that initial deliberation. Then the RPAC can streamline that process.
Prof. Sullivan made an important observation: It is obvious that there are resources coming into the university, and while those resources are coming because of students, the faculty must acquire some of these resources, since we are the ones who give the students the product they are paying for-knowledge and career training. He encouraged the Provost's office to be consistent with the mission of the university.
Assoc. Provost Leather cautioned that any of these issues would cost at least a million dollars. How do we prioritize these resources?
The Senate noted that the figures needed to be more specific; "at least a million dollars" sounded like an excessive and broad estimate.
Prof. Hartzler-Miller noted that benefits for lecturers seems at the top of the list. She added that she felt the need for more information to make such a priority list.
Assoc. Provost Leather noted that that would come from the provost's office.
Prof. Rosecky argued that we've been unable to hire new faculty because we didn't have enough money. These are very important items. In this University we have a loose link between incentive and behavior. We need to address these salary issues.
Prof. Siegel added that the numbers that we get from system are averages; but we should get a median and a range.
Prof. Debye agreed with the need for giving lecturers health benefits, but they may not all want it.
Assoc. Provost Leather noted that the administration can't ask who would take it, but they can estimate.
Prof. Storrs moved to adjourn. Prof. Rosecky seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 6 p.m.
8000 York Road | Towson, MD 21252 | 410-704-2000
