Council of University System Faculty

CUSF Meeting of October 14, 2002



OCTOBER 14, 2002

Delegates Present Drs. P. Alreck (SU), P. Alt (TU), A. Alcott (CSC), Z. Berge (UMBC), V. Brannigan (UMCP), R. Chenette (UMB), J. Collins (UMBI), R. Michael Garner (SU – Alternate), S. Havas (UMB), A. Huseonica (UMUC – Alternate), S. Jacobs (UMB), R. Jagus (UMBI), B. Laufer (TU), J. Lombardi (FSU), M. McClive (FSU), B. Noonan (UMES), K. Olson (UMCP), M. Siegel (TU), C. Smith (UMCP).

Delegates AbsentM. Mumper (FSU), J. Organ (BSU), N. Petulante (BSU), L. Sita, (UMCP).

Delegates Excused C. Burry (UMB); W. Chapin (Past-President); F. Alt (UMCP), M. Diriker (SU), J. Gelatt (UMUC), S. Gibson (UB), W.E. Orser (UMBC),   L. Richardson (UB), D. Spinner (UMES).

Guests Dr. Catherine Gira, FSU President, Dr. Steve Simpson (Provost), and Dr. John Bowman, (Associate Provost), Dr. Randall Rhodes (FSU Faculty Senate Chair),   Dr. Nancy Shapiro (USM, Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs)

Dr. Parker called the meeting to order at 10:00 am and Dr. Marci McClive recognized Randall Rhodes, FSU Senate Chair and introduced Dr. Catherine Gira, FSU President.  Dr. Gira welcomed CUSF to Frostburg and stated that the USM faces a major challenge with “Maintaining the Momentum.”  The concern is given the budget situation, the importance of higher education .  In 1998, the Larson Commission – more autonomy to campuses.  Senior leadership is key.  The Speaker of the House (Casper Taylor) will go on a tour of the state to educate new delegates about higher education.  There is a lot to continue to hold onto in terms of higher education, workforce development.  It is important that faculty groups be engaged, students be engaged, parents of students be engaged in higher education.  Prognosis is that the next few months will be tough.  The governor and the legislature are one of the most powerful in the 50 states.

Dr. Gira entertained questions about the legislature, particularly in terms of the budget that the governor proposes and how much of that budget higher education receives.  It’s important to educate the legislature in terms of higher education and the needs of the institutions.  The current gubernatorial race will play a key role in terms of what will occur in the next 4 years.  The Glendening budget will go forward in January, and whomever the new governor is will either take that budget, modify or throw out the budget.  Another question concerned the proposed tuition increase.  The charge of the taskforce is to find a reasonable balance between state appropriation and tuition/fees.

Dr. Parker recognized Dr. Steve Jacobs (UMB) and Dr. Rosemary Jagus (UMBI) newly elected representatives.    

Dr. Steve Havas raised concern that Dr. Don Boesch, the interim Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, has not been to any CUSF meetings this academic year.  He noted that Dr. Middleton used to attend all CUSF meetings.  Dr. Shapiro stated that she would bring the concern back to Dr. Boesch, but said that he is still President of UMCES. 

  1. Approval of Minutes – The minutes were approved with editorial changes.
  1. The following are the reports from the CUSF Chair:
1.Dr. Parker reported that Tuesday, October 29th there will be a Senate Chairs Meeting @ Adelphi with the CUSF Executive Committee and the Chancellor.  Please let Dr. Collins know if other CUSF members are coming.

2.At the November 20th CUSF Meeting @ Bowie, the Chancellor is planning to attend from 11:30am until 1pm.

3.At the last CUSS (Council of University System Staff) meeting the question of benefits selection period being delayed until after the election came up.  No one announced WHY the delay occurred, but the DBM is still negotiating rates.  There was considerable speculation at CUSS about:  1) should we anticipate a major increase in our health insurance costs, and 2) was this delay politically motivated given the large number of State employees who did not get raises this year.

4.Dr. Parker reported that Bill Destler will chair the Search for the Vice Chanceloor for Academic Affairs.  In addition, the following CUSF members (with brief bios) were nominated by the CUSF Chair: Frank Alt, UMCP;   Bill Chapin, UMES; John Collins, UMBI; Steve Havas, UMB; Brigid Noonan, UMES; Lee Richardson, UB;  Martha Siegel, TU. Dr. Parker announced that Dr. Chapin has been selected to serve, and consideration is being given to adding another one of the above to the committee.  The final listing of committee members has not yet been announced.

5.Report on Regents’ Meeting

Stanley F. Battle has been named President of Coppin. 

A tuition Task force has been formed, as of now, there are no faculty serving.

The State hiring freeze directive from the DBM does NOT include faculty, persons hired on grant money, auxiliary enterprises, or students.  Stay tuned as this changes!

Policies for PTNTTF and FTNTTF were approved.  These amount to a re-write of current policies and do not mandate any expenditures for benefits at this time.  As we come out of the fiscal crisis we will need to revisit this. 

The governance plan at UMB was approved.  In ALL documents section E1, the matter of concern at the last CUSF meeting, was unchanged, so department chairs cannot be officers of the Faculty Assembly of the School of Medicine. 

Although the Chair strongly hinted at th 10/7 Chancellor’s Council that faculty should be mentioned in the Maintaining the Momentum Campaign Power Point Presentation, Vice Chancellor Martin’s presentation to the Regents in their Executive Session with the Chancellor’s Council continued to omit references to faculty.  Regent Florestano took issue with that fact, as did several other Regents.  They also noted that the MTM was too top-down, and needed to be re-directed toward people who would write letters and call their legislators in order to get action. 

6.In response to an e-mail from a member of CUSF, the Chair is requesting that the Faculty Affairs Committee consider the role Collective Bargaining will take in our meetings this year and make additional recommendations to the Executive Committee regarding this matter.  In particular:

Should this issue be an agenda item for the 11/20/02 meeting?

Should CUSF invite Art Hoechner from Temple University and possibly Cathleen McCann from AFT to talk with us about strategy, issues, etc.? 

How “safe” is faculty advocacy of collective bargaining legislation in the present political and fiscal climate?

 Action Items:

Need individuals for the BOR Faculty Awards – need 2 from comprehensives and 2 from research institutions.  Drs. Noonan and McClive volunteered. 

Faculty Affairs

Dr. Steve Havas made a motion to modify the BOR policy on faculty grievances.  The fairness of the grievance currently depends on the president of the institution.  Approximately 6 months ago the UMB policy was brought before CUSF, who were appalled at the UMB grievance procedure.  There needs to be a fair appeals procedure for faculty to present grievance issues, regardless of who is president of the institution.

Questions arose concerning how to proceed – to Ed Policy or to the Chancellor.  The consensus was that it is the Chancellor who would decide about how to bring this to the Ed. Policy and then the full BOR. 

Motion:  That CUSF recommends that these additions be made to the BOR faculty grievance policy:

I. (Add under policy).  Faculty should be free to avail themselves of the means of resolving grievances within their institution without recrimination.

USM Procedures (new section)

In the event that a faculty grievance involves a violation by an administrator of Board of Regents policy and that grievance cannot be successfully resolved within that institution, faculty may appeal the institution’s decision to the Chancellor of the University System of Maryland.   The University System of Maryland shall develop faculty grievance procedures which include descriptions of the process to be followed by the complainant and  the time limits governing the steps in the grievance resolution process.  The decision of the Chancellor shall be final.

The motion passed unanimously.

Report from USM:

Dr. Nancy Shapiro reported that the USM is trying to respond holistically to the budget crises.  This issue is not just higher education issue, but P-16.  The powerpoint distributed to the BOR is still under negotiation.  CUSF needs to think about how to do some public relations in terms of the budget.  We need a couple of very strategic faculty dog and pony shows, particularly in terms of how CUSF serves the citizens, in addition to the specialty programs, areas, etc., that each campus supplies.  The faculty and the programs are the hook for the citizens, which in turn gets across the message that we serve the students! 

The Governor’s conference on Higher Education takes place October 15, 2002 in Adelphi.  The subject is emerging issues about Community Colleges and 4 year institutions, specifically: 

Hartford CC be able to offer 4 year degrees

USM is experiencing pressure from CC lobby to suggest that if the 4 year institutions cannot provide cost-effective programs to the state, they are ready to do it. 

Access – are we providing enough access to the student population in Maryland?  If we are not, how do we, and if we do not, the community colleges state that they are able to. 

Every student who completes an AA degree in Maryland is able to go to one slot in a school in the USM, but they have to apply to that institution.

Standards are one of the biggest issues, particularly what are the minimum standards and what constitutes college readiness?  (Quality of the education and costs)

CUSF needs to become involved in terms of the quality of standards in these programs.  We need to send a message that quality and service is valued, particularly as it relates to promotion and tenure. 

There needs to be a level playing field, i.e., all those who prepare future educators, the primary concern should be the quality of the program. 

The issue is that community colleges are not interested in putting teachers and nurses forth, but to have students graduate with a 4 year degree from a 2 year institution which will change their funding guidelines.

The discussion continued, and the following issues arose:

How do we relate in terms of collegiality with the 2 year institutions?

What they do is critical – you are not going there to get credits, but to get trained. 

There are 3 kinds of access:  (1) people who are qualified but can’t afford; (2) achievement access; (3) location access

Dr. Shapiro also discussed private institutions for higher learning and state support for higher learning.  Monies to get students into our institutions (scholarships and financial aid) is one of the largest ways to get monies for other issues.  The cost of education is borne by state support and tuition.  There are times that the accomplishments of the USM institutions are not captured in print.  The following are some suggestions concerning what we as faculty can do in terms of partnerships.  Examples such as an undergraduate research day in Annapolis (showcase the system); a dog & pony show of what the USM can and does do.  Bring out the programs that are atypical to other schools, e.g., Aviation Sciences, Fire Science, Environmental Health, Agriculture Program, Hotel Restaurant Management, etc. 

It was suggested that we invite the Governor-Elect to come and speak with us about the budget and higher education.

Dr. Shapiro was awarded an NSF grant for $7.5 million dollars, working with Montgomery County Public Schools.  The body congratulated Dr. Shapiro .

Lunch - 12:00 noon

Reconvene - 12:55 pm

Committee Reports:

Faculty Affairs: Vince Brannigan, Chair

Action Item – originated from Dr. Havas.  Motion:  In order to adequately perform its function of advising, the Chancellor and the Board of Regents, CUSF needs detailed information on the distribution of faculty salaries relative to our peer institutes.  The Faculty Affairs Committee shall prepare a detailed request specifying the needed information.  The System is specifically requested to provide the information as quickly as possible even if it must be acquired from the individual institutions.  The motion was approved. 

Pam Alreck – working on gender issues – USM – 77% of all chairs are male; 23% are female; for those disciplines that are “feminine” there are many more male chairs.  Disproportionate amount of female chairs are from small departments.  When it comes to Deans – classification is in question – 65% are male; 35% are female.  UMCP is an outlier – 48 male chairs and 4 female chairs.  Dr. Alreck is double checking the data right now, i.e., the number of faculty on campus that are male and female.  Once received the data will be analyzed and reported back to CUSF. 

Financial/Administrative Affairs – Carl Smith, Chair

The Committee has requested from Joe Vivona to verify suspicion that prior budget cuts have been absorbed.  Dr. Smith asked CUSF members for verification that budget cuts have been absorbed in such a way that protects pedagogical mission of institution.  The question was raised whether there are examples on campus where cuts have resulted in the deleterious effects of teaching.

CUSF will ask Joe Vivona to come before this body to speak about what we would like to formulate the data requests for the Faculty Affairs Committee and the Financial/Administrative Affairs Committee. 

Legislative Liaison Committee – Dr. Memo Diriker and Dr. Lee Richardson, Co-chairs

In their absence, Dr. Brigid Noonan gave Dr. Diriker’s report.  The hottest issue is the budget.  The information portrayed in the powerpoint presentation may not be adequate.  In other words, it is known that the USM is an economic engine, and it is known that tomorrow’s workforce is prepared by the USM, and that money is spent in the communities at large, however, the monies given in the past few years have been too high.  Furthermore, is the USM providing a cost-effective education, e.g., how much better are the 4-year institutions at providing an education than community colleges.  It will be important for CUSF to talk about the societal beneifts of our knowledge and technology transfer efforts. 

Academic Affairs Committee:  Martha Siegel, Chair

  1. Technology Fluency Policy – Quite a bit of discussion about the unevenness of these policies from the Regents.  It was pointed out that what has to be done is on the back of the faculty.  Marci McClive has written a motion in terms of how to address this technology fluency issue.  She will send it out to all of us.  The legislature established the IT initiative and now it is in our hands, without support from the legislature.
  1. Community College – 4 year College Issue – the Committee is trying to identify people by discipline who are interested in working with this.  Particularly those areas that are most in demand (i.e., workplace demand – teaching, nursing, computer science).  WE need better access, better coordination, but keep standards high in terms of these programs.  If there is a dialogue between the 2 and 4-year institutions, perhaps the problems can be identified.
The Chair asked that emails be sent to him for action to be taken

Membership/Rules – Barbara Laufer, Chair

To determine what will constitute an actual dataset, the Committee felt that if changes were to be made, by-laws should be changed, not the constitution.

Other Business:  Dr. Havas asked that the Faculty Senate Chairs take CUSF’s motion of evaluating Presidents, Provosts, Deans and Chairs by the faculty be completed. 

CUSF representatives from all campuses need to be represented at the CUSF meetings, and the Faculty Senate Chairs who are new should be directed to these individuals.

Meeting adjourned at 1:40 pm