Council of University System Faculty

CUSF Executive Committee Meeting of December 1, 2003

Minutes

Council of University System Faculty

Executive Committee Meeting

December 1, 2003, USMO

Present: Vince Brannigan (CUSF), Bill Chapin (CUSF), John Dillon (USM), Mike Garner (CUSF), Irv Goldstein (USM), Britt Kirwan (USM), Dave Parker (CUSF), Martha Siegel (CUSF)

The meeting was called to order shortly after noon. The minutes of the previous meetings were approved as distributed.

The Chair, Martha Siegel, reported that she was still awaiting a letter confirming final action by the Bowie State University Senate concerning their vote of no confidence in the BSU President. We learned that the Education Policy Committee of the Board of Regents has approved the new shared governance document for BSU. We requested that USM try to assure that the search for a new Provost at BSU be open and include faculty representation on the search committee.

John Dillon explained for us the current work of the Advocacy Council, for which he provides leadership. We all agree that for the purposes of this Council (and our own parallel purposes in dealing with legislators) that it is essential that we have materials prepared quickly, perhaps in a myths-vs.-facts format, that will give us one voice (and a voice speaking in terms meaningful to the intended audience). To obtain clarity in areas of salary, workload and accessibility/affordability, we need to get the legislators and the public to understand better what faculty actually do and to understand that the USM is in a competitive market for quality faculty, competing on the basis of salary and working conditions. Garner and Parker will be giving public testimony to this end in Salisbury a few hours after the adjournment of the Executive Committee meeting.

The Pappas Commission, focusing on Maryland’ potential in the knowledge economy is likely to be helpful in our efforts to communicate to the public, since their report is likely to have much of a higher-education focus. Similarly, the proposed show of student work, now being organized for February 16 in Annapolis, can be a good demonstration of what the USM can do for students, given proper funding. There is still confusion in finding a suitable venue for this display.

Chancellor Kirwan reported that the process of mentoring the new Regents seems to be going well. There is also some positive legislative support of our position and some hope that we may be at the bottom of the totem pole if more budget cuts are required. The current climate seems to be one in which we need to advocate the existing funding guidelines as a measure of (minimal) adequacy. The two most sensitive areas here seem to be salaries and faculty workload.

We agreed that Dave Parker’s ART document, with minor adjustments, is at the point that it should go on to Gertrude Eaton and to the Attorney General’s office for study on its path to the AAAC for their consideration. (A similar new version may be needed for the corresponding ART policy for librarians.)

Mike Garner’s document on the System Appeals Process engendered considerable discussion, particularly concerning the role of the Board of Regents in the process. We agreed to gather competing versions of the document by e-mail for consideration at the next full CUSF meeting.

We agreed to create the agenda for the general CUSF meeting (on December 15 at Coppin State University) via e-mail.

The meeting was adjourned shortly after two.