Faculty Assembly

Draft Minutes

October 20, 2009

       I.            The meeting was called to order at 11:03 a.m.

    II.            Approval of the minutes of previous meeting – The meetings were approved with no changes

 III.            Reports from committees and representatives to other bodies

A.    Brief report from across the Bay

1.      Dr. Chapin reported that there seems to be more fear than in the past.  There seems to be a belief that the Chancellor will get out of this again.  If they take $300 million from the budget that it will magically be done in such a way that it does not affect school budgets.  This would be very unfair to other state employees as they would be asked to unfairly shoulder this burden.  It is difficult to know what to do and still preserve things for the students.  

2.      The question was raised about UNUC college’s totally on-line courses is not allowed in the State of Maryland because of an appeal by Morgan State.  Dr. Charles Williams reported that he has no knowledge if the appeal was approved.  The current opinion of the Higher Education Commission seems to be that an online campus clearly competes with a traditional course.  This is affecting things that UMES would like to do.  We are getting closer to the point where a campus will have to establish a policy.  For example the textbook legislation which was passed has been less than enthusiastically embraced.  Bookstore revenues at the larger schools are down by about $24 million which affects money the campus receives.  

3.      A general version of the pornography policy was written, but the reagents are very hesitant to write a global policy.  It will probably lead to everyone’s having to create a policy within certain guidelines.  We have MEES students have had complications with students from other campuses taking the courses.  

4.      A new agreement has been made for MEES reorganization.  Since we have over the years had several courses taught here and earning the degree, Dr. Chapin hops that Dr. Charles Williams will distribute them to faculty as soon as he received it. It is a little difficult because it is not our own program so we do not control it.

B.     Other Committee Reports – No other reports given.

 IV.            Questions on the computation of furlough adjustments in pay.

A.    On this campus the furlough is based on your bi-weekly earnings.  The result in the view of some members is that it favors 12 month faculty over 9 month faculty.  Because the rate of pay is divided over 9 months instead of 12, thus it is at a slightly higher rate than the 9 month people.

B.     Dr. Ronnie Holden reported that the furlough days are based on earnings per day.  We are consistent with what College Park is doing.  They are seeing variations across the board across the system.  The Attorney Generals’ office is looking at how to make the schools be consistent across the system. 

C.     Faculty raised the question of the amount of salary lost based on salary (i.e. $60,000, $50,000).  Dr. Holden responded that the floor for non-exempt employees made in agreement with the union.  Part of what we see is this.  Even with the approach used, UMES is still $60,000 short.  Was the contractual salary used or all monies (including course overloads).  Dr. Holden stated it was based on contract only.  The comment was made that it is unfair to make people who make more money take more furlough days.  If UMES is asked for a bigger chunk of the potential $300 million shortfall, what will happen.  Dr. Holden stated that if we are hit again with another $1.2 million it will be devastating.  If we do a lay off, the savings is only 25% of one’s salary and many people take leave so there is no effective savings.  Travel and procurement have been restricted.   A comment was made that the professor appreciated that administration recognize that some faculty are hit harder than others.   Dr. Holden commented that that 9-month faculty who are paid over 12 months are being treated as 12 month employees when it comes to the salary reduction.  The question was raised about the raising of the teaching load from 12 to 15 credits per semester in 1991.  Dr. Holden reported that they are not contemplating it at this time.  This option was voluntary.  Would people be willing to volunteer for it?  A professor mentioned charging students who take more than 15 credits more money.  Dr. Holden reported that it creates problems for students who fail courses.  In addition the number of people who take over 18 credit hours is not significant. It was mentioned that students who stay for 5^th and 6^th years should be charged more.  A professor mentioned that maybe enrollment in the freshmen class could be capped.  How have small increases in enrollment helped?  Dr. Holden stated that we had a very small increase in enrollment but we also raised the minimum SAT level.  It helped us meet our budget goals because fewer faculty members need to be hired.  The freshmen core did not increase.  Has any thought been given to charging extra for the elite programs?  Dr. Holden we can do that at the Graduate level, but it is much more difficult to do that at the undergraduate level.  The question was raised about charging lab fees for the sciences, arts, and music in which we have not been charged before.  Dr. Holden stated that we charge a small fee across the board.  We do lose student’s because of their inability to pay especially our out of state students.  Dr. Chapin stated that the Board of Reagent’s will not raise tuition in Spring semester it will just create more problems as students financial aid has already been awarded and can not take this into account.  A question was raised about the percentage of the budget allocated for certain items (i.e. indirect vs. direct cost, state budget vs. campus budget.) 24% of our budget comes from the state, 60% from tuition and the balance from federal sources.  Fifteen years ago 66% of our budget came from the state.  The question was raised about people who work in the summer and do not have enough students to make the class, there was a fixed rate required.  Dr. Holden stated he does not think this is fair.  Will the salary reduction affect retirement benefits?  Dr. Holden reported that it is not supposed to affect retirement funds.

    V.            Old Business

A.    Proposed adjustments to Summer School Procedures – suggestions have been made about making teaching summer school more attractive to faculty by letting them know sooner when.  One of the basic programs is that we do everything at the last minute.  Thus students do not know if a course will be offered.  The same is true for faculty members.  We can make some changes which may help The proposal is to start thinking about summer school in the fall instead of in the spring.   We would get some indication of courses which are desired.  If you do that then when you get to spring advisement you have a much better idea of what will be need to be offered in the summer and/or which students will need to be retaking classes in the summer.  This would at least allow us to determine what definitely need to be offered and which definitely will not be needed to be offered.  The other part of the proposal is about retention it says that for courses which students need to repeat or take to get back on schedule, that we should have smaller numbers for the 100 level courses.  If we new about it before the end of the contracts it would allow faculty to decided if they will need to teach in the summer and which session.  There is also a proposal to make summer compensation more attractive by paying 1/12^th of a professors annual salary. This will not happen for the coming summer.  Dr. Holden did agree that it is unfair to pay a professor the same for a 3-credit versus a 4-credit class.  Please look at the information listed below and see what changes you would like to make.  We need to suggest something to Academic and Administrative Affairs before it is sent on to the Senate.  They will have to act on it.  Many campuses have summer sessions which are cash cows.    

 VI.            New Business – none

VII.            Annoucnements

VIII.            The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 p.m.

Possible Adjustments to Summer School Procedures (with comments)

1.      Planning Adjustments

a.       When departments are preparing the spring schedule, they will also prepare a first version of the summer schedule (based on the anticipated availability of faculty to teach courses, the anticipated needs of their major students and anticipated needs for service courses): this is no new burden for departments, just a change in time of year when the first summer school schedules are prepared.

b.      As faculty advise students during the fall on their selection of courses for spring, they will also encourage students to be selecting courses for the coming summer, based on student interests, student needs to catch up, student desires to move ahead, and the Board of Regents expectation of 12 credits of work for each student outside the Fall and Spring semesters.

c.       Discussion during this fall period of courses that students want for summer may lead to adjustments in the offerings made by the departments (for example, additional courses where there is demonstrated student interest).

d.      When faculty are advising students in the spring about their fall semester courses, they will also work to encourage students to take needed courses during the summer sessions (and to adjust their summer registration to reflect current reality: in particular, students with D’s or F’s a midterm time in the spring should be highly encouraged to consider enrolling in those courses during the summer “just in case”).

2.      Course Offering Adjustments:

a.       By the Monday after the last day of final examinations, announcement will be made to all students and faculty about which summer courses will actually be offered.  These courses will be in three categories:

i.  Courses that clearly have enough enrollment to be offered (or for which the faculty member has agreed to teach the course even with low enrollment).

ii. Courses which, because of low enrollment, are in doubt;

iii. Courses which although originally planned, can no longer be offered.

b.      Since these announcements are being made earlier than under the current plan, and so are being made with less sure data, the preliminary number of students needed to have a course automatically end up in category i. above may be higher than the current minimum number.

c.       In order to assure that summer school courses are available to assist as much as possible with student retention, the preliminary number of students needed for a course to end up in category i. above and the final number of students required to run such a course at full pay shall be lower (proposed number: 5) for 100-level general education courses which students may need to repeat (or which students may need to take to get back on schedule after taking a remedial course in an earlier semester) than for other summer courses  (current minimum number of students: 7).

3.      Compensation Adjustments (may need to be phased in, given the current economic climate)

a.       Compensation for a regular 3-credit summer course shall be one-twelfth on the average salary of a UMES assistant professor during the academic year just ending. (While normal course load during the fall and the spring is four such courses, faculty members are also expected to be doing research and service.  Thus the one-twelfth figure represents a reasonably approximation for the amount of total time expected to be spent in the teaching of one course during the academic year.)

b.      Both the full pay and the partial payment (for courses with fewer than the minimum number of students) will be corresponding adjusted for 4-credit and other courses not fitting the standard 3-credit model.

c.       When a faculty member is teaching more than one course during summer school, the determination of full pay for a course will be based on the total number of students in all of her courses being at least as large and the sum of the minimum totals for all the summer school courses that she is teaching. [For example, if she is teaching two minimum-seven courses and has fifteen students in one course, but only five students in the other, she will be paid the full rate for both courses.] This is a return to a UMES policy of many years ago.

d.      The averaging method in c. above will be extended to averaging over all the courses offered by a department during summer school within three years. [This parallels the current reporting expectation of Fall/Spring course loads to the Board of Regents, something done not on an individual faculty basis, but on the basis of department and campus averages.]

 Possible Adjustments to Summer School Procedures (with comments)