I’m all for removing the TCPL limit at the University-level because I believe programs should have more agility and control. A program may decide to limit their TCPL percentage, but I believe most problems are complex that decisions should be made as close to the problem as possible where there’s the most context. Universal rules tend to stifle innovation and really only work for a minority of incumbents. I get the concern about the impact on scholarship, but that should be a program-by-program governance decision rather than a global arbitrary constraint. 

-Artie

> On Nov 20, 2019, at 11:15 AM, Fox, Jennifer <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> 
> Senate report from a rep in CCA:
> 
> 
> Today in Senate the following occurred:
> 
> SR-04 was approved to recommend two senators serve on all upcoming committees formed as part of the strategic planning recommendations.
> 
> SR-07, the TCPL grandfather clause was approved for all those who were hired before last summer and who do not want to opt in to the new promotion guidelines for TCPL.
> 
> Mike Curme asked for us to gather any feedback from constituents on the transition to new retirement plans.
> 
> Lastly, we heard from Provost Osborne regarding SR-08, which would remove the university-wde TCPL cap. There was not time left after his presentation to discuss or vote on the resolution, but  Provost Osborn discussed his rationale for the removal of the cap with us. 
> His support of the removal of a cap included the following points: 
> - Faculty are both the most valuable resource and also the most expensive
> - Thoughtful increase and deployment of TCPL allows time for TT faculty to fulfill teacher/scholar role by offloading service and teaching for TT 
> - Failure to remove university level cap on TCPL would create increased reliance on VAP and adjuncts. As an example, the CAS faculty is now comprised of 21% part time and 20% VAP faculty. The rest of the mix is TCPL and T/TT. Focusing only on TCPL ignores part time and VAP positions, which swell to compensate for budgetary constraints (and which, most agree, are the more difficult positions to defend ethically)
> -  Existing budgetary constraints mean something has to give. A middle strategy is necessary. For example, in the CAS, the expenses for a T/TT faculty teaching a class section are more than double a TCPL teaching the same section. If courses now taught by adjunct and VAP were taught by TT professors, this would be an increase in annual expenses of 7.7 million [which, another faculty member pointed out to me is more or less all of the university's income in a given year; I didn't fact check this but she was in a position to know]
> - There are examples of the proposed college-level management of the TCPL to Tenure/-track faculty: at William and Mary each school established what they needed for course coverage, research, and budget, with complete transparency of priorities given each year by deans.
> 
> How do we feel about this? The resolution will come before Senate again in two weeks, and more feedback would be preferred. So far I have heard strong cases from some in our programs that they need more TCPL and that TCPL are in many cases best options for their programs. I've also heard from some in our programs that think we are eroding our scholarly standing as a university by going down this road. Administrative leeway at the college level would seem to make sense, but how do we negotiate or establish each college's ideal ratio of faculty types?
> 
> To me, it sounds like the Provost is arguing that in order to be a university that values research we need to limit/select who gets to be research-focused to a smaller group, and to increase our TCPL faculty to higher teaching loads to make up the budgetary difference. It sounds like it is believed this is the future of higher education, particularly at an institution that is tuition-dependent and without an endowment to buffer us, as we are.
>