Council of University System Faculty
CUSF Meeting of November 20, 2002
CUSF GENERAL MEETING AT BSU
NOVEMBER 20, 2002
Delegates Present: Drs. P. Alreck (SU), F. Alt (UMCP), P. Alt
(TU), A. Arthur (CSC), Z. Berge (UMBC), V. Brannigan (UMCP), C. Burry (UMB),
W.E. Chapin (Past-President), R. Chenette (UMB), J. Collins (UMBI), R. Michael
Garner (SU Alternate), J. Gelatt (UMUC), S. Havas (UMB), S. Jacobs (UMB), J.
Lombardi (FSU Alternate), B. Noonan (UMES), A. Norcio (UMBC), K. Olson (UMCP),
J. Organ (BSU), A. Pandey (SU), D. Parker (Chair), L. Richardson (UB), F. Robb
(UMBI - Alternate) M. Siegel (TU), C. Smith (UMCP), W. Stuart (UMCP).
Delegates Absent: M. Mumper, (FSU), W.E. Orser (UMBC), D. Spinner
Delegates Excused: M. Diriker (SU), S. Gibson (UB), R. Jagus
(UMBI), B. Laufer (TU), M. McClive (FSU).
Guests: Dr. William E. Kirwan, Chancellor, USM; Dr. Calvin Lowe,
President, BSU; Dr. Ruth Robertson, Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic
Affairs, USM; and Dr. Nancy Shapiro, Associate Vice Chancellor for
Academic Affairs, USM.
Dr. Parker called the meeting to order at 10:00 am and welcomed Dr. Bill
Stuart, a new delegate from UMCP and Dr. Frank Robb, a new alternate from
UMBI. Dr. Parker recognized Dr. John Organ, BSU campus liaison who
introduced the President, Dr. Calvin Lowe.
Dr. Lowe welcomed CUSF to the Bowie State campus. He offered that BSU is
nearing an end to an $8 million dollar plan of a Capital Planning Project.
Dr. Lowe noted that BSU is the only school in the system to institute a
freshman laptop program. The President stated that the reputation of a
school is built on the faculty, their teaching, scholarship and service to the
university and the community. BSU is in the process of increasing the
reputation based on the faculty by bringing 30 new Assistant Professors to
Questions were asked concerning Shared Governance on the campus. Dr.
Lowe shared that the official shared governance bodies were adopted from SU's
policy. BSU has individual shared governance policies. They also
have a strategic planning committee and if the University Council structure
allows cross talk between the different bodies, BSU will implement those
changes deemed necessary. Questions also arose concerning how far down
shared governance extends. The President did state that Shared
Governance reaches to all levels within the university. The conversation
continued with questions about incentives for faculty to participate in Shared
Governance and the disincentives that exist when participation in Shared
Governance is not recognized by the institution. .
Questions were then asked how the University plans to distribute the 30 new
(FTTT) lines. A Budget Advisory Committee was put together to plan the
$2 million necessary to get the additional lines, and the distribution will be
in the fields of education, nursing, and business, with the recommendation
that 5 new positions be created within each of these departments. The
distribution of the remaining 15, then, would be among other departments.
Discussion continued concerning the hiring of these new faculty in the face of
the present fiscal crisis. The President remarked that one of the
assumptions is that there would not be an increase in the '04 budget.
With this increase in the '04 budget, dollars were built in for 22 faculty
positions, and the taskforce is to figure how to put in the additional 8
positions and account for turnover, without preventing a cut in the '04
Approval of minutes: Amended concerning Faculty Grievance Policy.
Dr. Steve Havas raised concern that the motion passed at the last meeting was
incorrectly reported in the minutes and none of the other representatives
noted it. He said that it is imperative that CUSF be more vigilant about
motions made. The motion that was passed unanimously should read as
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
III. USM Procedures (new section)
In the event that a faculty grievance involves a violation by an administrator
of a 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.
Vice Chancellor Search: Two USM faculty members, Martha Siegel and Bill
Chapin, are on the search committee. The first meeting went very well.
A description of the position for the ad is being developed.
Anticipation of a candidate in late spring is expected. No matter what
the ad states: it is a staff position. The principal requirement is that
the individual can work with the Chancellor. The Committee will probably
not meet until January. The position requires a great many skills.
A likely candidate would be someone who has been a Provost or held another
high level position on campus. The Committee must run the Search.
Dr. Siegel asked that CUSF be aware of such individuals and forward their
names. The USM staff members assigned to the committee are Nancy Shapiro
and Joan Marionni.
Faculty Grievance Policy - not formally sent to the Chancellor, however, will
be after amendment.
Faculty Salaries - No information has been received. CUSF needs to get
useful data from each of the campuses. The phrasing of the request is
critical. Dr. Brannigan recognizes how hard individuals have worked and
will push this issue forward as soon as possible. The data have been
requested before, i.e., distribution of salary relative to our peers. We
need the analyses of the data, however, not just the raw data.
Discussion then centered on how retention and merit monies are used to address
salary issues. Dr. Robertson said that the USM does not gather salary
data, that the data is received from AAUP, and that in order to analyze the
data, it needs to be retrieved from each of the campuses. The discussion
was suspended until the Chancellor arrived.
Tuition Taskforce Meeting - no faculty on the committee - this needs to be
brought to the attention of the BOR.
Regents Award Committee: Drs. Noonan (UMES), McClive (FSU), Alt (UMCP),
Burry (UMB), and Zimmerman (TU) - will work with Dr. Robertson (USM).
The Chair asked if an invitation to Governor-Elect Ehrlich was in order,
particularly to discuss how new Regents will be chosen under the new
leadership. Issues concerning the selection process, and the roles the
colleges, universities, and faculties play in the selection process would be
part of the discussion with the Governor-Elect. Dr. Parker said that in
his opinion CUSF has an interest in communicating information to the
Governor-Elect, as we are a small special interest group (faculty) within a
small interest group (USM) within another small interest group (higher
education). It might be presumptuous that the Governor-elect would be
available to speak with us as soon as he comes into office. A carefully
prepared program needs to be put together if CUSF does invite the
Governor-Elect. Dr. Collins suggested that, if an invitation goes out, it
might be a good idea to invite both Governor Ehrlich and Lieutenant Governor
Steele to our February 2003 meeting at UMBI because the President of UMBI has
been selected as a member of his transition team. Dr. Shapiro (USM) suggested
that we get a briefing from the newly hired Associate Vice Chancellor for
Government Relations Joe Bryce. A suggestion was made to form a small
committee to meet with the Vice Chancellor for Government Relations to begin
this process. The Legislative Affairs Committee will contact the USM
Headquarters to talk with him before the end of the semester, and prior to our
meeting at USM in January.
Vice Chair s Report: In the interest of time, Dr. Collins' suggestion that he
prepare a written report and submit it to the Secretary for inclusion in the
minutes to this meeting was agreed to. (See Appendix.)
Discussion centered on topics to discuss with the Chancellor:
Salary Data Request
Incentives for faculty to meet personnel
issues (applying and receiving grants); role of management (department chairs
FTTF; PTNTT (particularly when the FTTF
are encouraged to receive grants) salaries (on the average the USM pays
approximately 1/3 of what trades people make, e.g., $40/hour X 150 hours (to
prepare and deliver a course) = $6,000
Evaluation of Deans and Presidents
Committee Reports - were tabled with the arrival of Chancellor Kirwan at 11:45
Dr. Parker began the discussion about FTNTF and PTNTTF (salaries and
benefits). The Chancellor stated that these issues of part-time faculty
and benefits have become a national issue. ACE has just published a
report on PTF and trends around the country. The BOR Ed. Policy
Committee has shown a particular interest in this issue. A policy was
developed, but does not address all of the complicated issues, although it is
a beginning, and one that the USM can build. PTF are an enormous benefit
to the System, what we have to be certain of is that we do not take advantage
of these individuals.
The second issue discussed was that of the old University payroll system
(Coppin, SU, TU, FSU, UMCP) and the problems this creates problems for the
FTNTTF in terms of benefits. It puts those institutions at a
disadvantage. For example, 47 out of 316 FTF are without benefits at SU.
The Chancellor stated that he will look further examine this issue, and that
the situation with best practices and PTNTTF and FTNTTF are an issue that
needs to be addressed.
Dr. Brannigan asked about the budget cutbacks and the managerial problems this
creates. It is easy to cut monies, but in fact what takes managerial
skill is to utilize the people. A culture of defending turf makes
faculty initiatives and incentives difficult on the campuses. Ideas from
everyone will be needed to navigate through this difficult time period.
The bureaucracy that exists between inter-institutional or inter-disciplinary
areas cause the fiefdoms. The Chancellor acknowledged that turf
consciousness is one of the worst aspects of higher education.
Dr. Siegel then asked about the evaluation of administration by faculty and
students. There needs to be a system put into place to evaluate deans,
provosts and presidents. Dr. Kirwan remarked that he thought there was
an evaluation system in place for administrators, but that he would further
look into whether or not these evaluations were taking place.
Lunch at 12:00 pm
12:15 reconvened and introductions ensued.
The Chancellor thanked everyone for giving him the chance to have a
conversation. He welcomed everyone's advice and wanted to bring to our
attention two issues:
1. We knew that there would be an action on our
budget. The deficit is $1.7 out of $5 billion dollars.
The Chancellor said that there would be an announcement at 2:00 pm today
(11/20/02) of a 3.5% cut in the budget for higher education. This will be
roughly $40 million dollars across the USM, which could have been worse as
most other agencies are going to take a 4.5% cut. The priority within
the discretionary budget is higher education which is somewhat encouraging,
however, this is not a one time cut, but a cut at the base.
Need wide flexibility in dealing with cuts. There will be announcements
going out to the different campuses today (11/20/02). Contingency
planning is underway, however, the Chancellor has no idea what next year's
budget will be.
2. Relationships with Community Colleges - there
is a huge growth of 18-22 year olds in the state of Maryland. There are
tremendous shortages in a number of areas: nursing and teaching
(secondary education). A number of different strategies are being
developed, for example, a new Federal mandate has been developed that says
those individuals who receive federal funds must have highly qualified
teachers. In addition, in the state of Maryland, if a secondary teacher,
you must have a disciplinary major. The community colleges are in place
to step in and fill in this role. The Associate of Arts Degree (AAT)
degree (developed for elementary education), and is being developed for the
secondary level. The community colleges want to make this an easy
transfer, but the 4 years want to respect the discipline areas. We have
to find a way to be responsive to the state need and community colleges, as
well as the principles that under gird the different areas.
Our position needs to be stated clearly. The issue of quality control is
still an issue (input model and outcome model). Artweb.usmd.edu
enables the 4 year institutions to see what schools help with transfer
Other issues discussed with the Chancellor:
Dr. Frank Alt asked the Chancellor for a breakdown of faculty salaries for the
last 5 years (FTNTTF and PTNTTF). In addition, data are needed
concerning the percentage of credit hours, salaries by institution.
There has been an increase in the percentage of both FT and PT NTTF at the USM
institutions. Is it possible to get from the system a more comprehensive
breakdown of the salaries at alleged peers from USM? The Chancellor is
dedicated to giving us data and presented CUSF with a disk of the data
The discussion continued concerning LEP Programs (Limited Enrollment
Programs), which the Chancellor stated is a very complicated and difficult
issue. On the one hand, we recognize student interests ebb & flow in
different areas. We are obligated to consider transfers from community
colleges, but we cannot guarantee that a student will get into any major they
want. "No Room at the Inn" Bill is to be presented in the next
legislative session which would guarantee/force any institution to take in a
community college student who transfers (very unfair to our native students).
The Chancellor then moved the discussion into a model for Promotion and Tenure
(P&T). He said that it is the responsibility of each department and
college to create the criteria necessary for P&T (approved by campus
administration and BOR). He then discussed the Boyer Model "Scholarship
Reconsidered" - where each discipline area has a different "season"
and faculty is evaluated by those individuals in that particular area.
Expectations are set in different areas (teaching, scholarship and service).
The discussion then moved into the area of the "Maintaining the Momentum
Campaign", and how USM faculty can support this initiative. The
Chancellor stated that a systemic and strategic message needs to be sent to
the general assembly at grass tops and grass roots levels to develop campus
strategy that will be integrated on the campuses and presented to the Assembly
Questions arose concerning how we can get intelligent advocates on the Board
of Regents. The Chancellor said that one way is through the Association
of Governing Boards (AGB) which informs governing boards about best practices,
which will be a merit based process (the governor will be given names of
highly respected/distinguished/accomplished individuals). The
Governor-Elect has not rejected this idea. The Chancellor stated that it
is too early to say at this juncture what will happen about the appointment of
BOR. The Chancellor urged CUSF to write a letter to the Governor and ask
him to appoint BOR based on merit, as well as those that can influence the
legislature (a bit of a conundrum). The folks need to be prominent and
influential whom the governor will listen to (people of principle).
In response to a question from Dr. Collins, the Chancellor said that the idea
of inviting the Governor-Elect to the February 2003 CUSF meeting at UMBI was
an excellent one, particularly because of the Governor's interest in
biotechnology. If the Governor cannot make it, the Chancellor suggested
that we invite the Lieutenant Governor, as he will have the higher education
The discussion then moved into the area of tuition. In particular,
differential tuition among the different USM institutions. The
Chancellor stated that the issue is being placed on the table, and best
practices need to be examined from around the country. For example, what
are the guidelines used, and what are the levels used at state support?
It is important that need based education be addressed. Further, should
tuition be differentiated by area of study or lower division versus higher
Questions concerning the implementation of the budget cuts were asked. The
Chancellor stated that he is confident that the cuts will go forth without
lay-offs. One way to combat the budget cuts is a mid-year tuition
increase. Some institutions may increase their tuition more than others.
Dr. Robb asked how institutions such as UMBI and UMCES, which have no tuition
income, are supposed to handle the cuts. The Chancellor said that these
institutions may get smaller cuts.
The Chancellor thanked everyone for their input and departed at 1:35 pm.
The agenda was picked up and discussion centered on the 3.5% budget cut and
how each campus will deal with this differently. It is imperative that
faculty, staff and students are involved in the financial process, i.e., we
need to mobilize every effort we have.
USM - $1.1. million for faculty retention (in FY 2002).
CUSF Committees - suspended until next meeting
Collective Bargaining - the unions which were voted in this past year in USM:
pay raises for staff; tuition remission; PMP process; grievance process
(we need to be aware of these unions and the issues they are bringing to the
A motion passed to have the CUSF Executive Committee compose a letter to the
Governor-Elect inviting him to the February 2003 CUSF meeting at UMBI to
discuss a number of different issues related to the USM.
Adjournment: 2:05 pm
Appendix: Vice Chair's Report - brief summary of meetings attended
- prepared by John Collins, CUSF
AAAC Retreat, August 14-15, 2002 - UMCES, Solomons
This two-day meeting involved an overnight hotel stay, the cost of which was
borne by the participants. The Chancellor joined us for dinner and an
open discussion in the first session on Wednesday evening. The meeting
reconvened on Thursday morning to discuss the agenda and goals for the
upcoming year. The relationships among the USM institutions, the Chancellor,
Regents, MHEC and the Legislature was discussed. It was noted that the USM
Strategic Plan will need to be revisited. The plan must include USM budget
priorities, mission statements, new program proposals, the OCR agreement,
enrollment strategies and accountability. Coordination and Collaboration
within USM, with other 4 year colleges and community colleges will be
essential. Also important will be to demonstrate the USM's role in advancing
Maryland through education, workforce development, economic development and
quality of life. It was noted that the role of the VCAA is crucial. This
person must be the major advisor to the Chancellor, the major spokesperson in
the State on Academic Policy (as opposed to MHEC), the chief manager of the
Regent's initiatives, and a leader in System-wide strategic issues. The VCAA
must be an advocate and assist in common issues but get out of the way of
issues that are individual campus matters. The new VCAA should also continue
as chair of the AAAC.
AAAC Meeting, September 12, 2002 - UMBC
The main topic of this meeting was strategic planning and the leadership role
of the Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs. The Chancellor does not want an
entirely new strategic plan, but rather an enhancement and update of the
existing one (available at
Dr. Boesch reported that the Chancellor is currently forming the tuition
policy task force requested by the Regents. It was noted that USM needs to
develop a much stronger voice With MHEC and with the legislature on issues
that affect the USM. There was much expression of concern regarding USM's
position relative to MHEC and the community colleges. Another area of concern
is coordination in the program approval process. It was observed that
biosciences, biotechnology and tech transfer are topics of intense interest to
the Chancellor. A number of organizational and agenda topics for the coming
year were addressed.
-The full minutes of this meeting are available on request.
AAAC Meeting, October 16, 2002 - UMB
The main topic of this meeting was setting academic priorities in the update
of the USM Strategic Plan. One goal was to incorporate the Chancellor's vision
for the system into the existing plan without writing a new plan. Academic
input will be crucial. The need for USM to provide needed programs without
being dictated to by MHEC was discussed. USM needs to have a System-wide plan
to respond to the baby boom echo. Some program will be needed.
The current budgetary situation was also discussed. It was noted that USM
needs to focus on what is being given up in order to address priorities. USM's
administrative staffing is already relatively lean. The role of the new
governmental relations person will be critical. Tuition affordability was
Dr. Boesch that funding for the USM Hagerstown Center had been approved, and
that completion by March, 2004 is anticipated. Expectations are high.
-The full minutes of this meeting are available on request.
AAAC Meeting, November 14, 2002 - UMES
The start of the meeting was delayed (for many participants) by about 30
minutes due to an Eastern Shore traffic accident. Most of the business of this
meeting was accomplished in the pre-lunch session. After breaking for a long
(about 90 minutes) and elaborate lunch, the remaining business was concluded
in about 15 minutes.
In the absence of Acting Vice Chancellor Boesch, the meeting was chaired by UB
Provost Ron Legon. The agenda included the following items:
1. Planning for the legislative session, including USM legislative
initiatives, USM responses to legislative initiatives by the community
colleges, and the maintain the momentum campaign.
2. Strategic Plan update.
3. Search for the new Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs - characteristics
4. Faculty workshops on effective use of technology in the classroom.
5. Report from subcommittee on assessment of part-time faculty (no action
required - charge removed).
6. Budget contingency planning task force - CUSF will be asked to recommend a
faculty member to be added to this group.
7. New program issues.
BOR Educational Policy Meeting, November 19, 2002 - Coppin State College
NOTE: All handouts and associated materials
from this meeting have been given to Martha Siegel.
1. Results of Periodic Reviews of Academic Programs.
The report was presented by
Associate Vice Chancellor Gertrude Eaton. She gave a five minute summary of
the seventy-five programs that were reviewed for academic year 01-02. No
evaluations were required for UB, but programs for the 02-03 year are being
reviewed. It was explained that the external reviewers for these programs are
well-regarded scholars and experts who interview students and others before
making recommendations. The reviewers may or may not be associated with USM.
The report was accepted by the Committee. No new academic program proposals
were submitted to the Committee for approval at this meeting.
2. Update on Academic Advising: Improvement and Enhancements.
This follow up report on the plan
approved by the BOR last year was accepted by the Committee.
3. Report on the Workload of the USM Faculty.
The report indicated that the
overall situation looks positive, with little change from last year. The
general view of USM, the Provosts and the Committee is that the workload
report is useless and should be abolished. It is uncertain whether the report
is a legislative mandate. AAAC will work on a better way to define faculty
4. Maryland - OCR Update.
All USM institutions are in
5. Opening Fall Enrollments
Acting Vice Chancellor Don Boesch
gave the report. He noted that the baby boom echo is here. Enrollment has
increased about 15% since 1998. About half of that increase is attributable to
UMUC, both on-line and in their face-to-face programs. The question of
possible limits to on-line growth was briefly discussed. Regent Florestano
asked several questions about the UMB professional schools and the overall
capacity of USM. It was noted that upcoming budget cuts will limit or halt
future growth. It may be necessary to put a cap on future growth, as has
already been done for certain programs at UMCP, SU and UB.
6. Report on Student Financial Aid.
This report was also presented by
Acting Vice Chancellor Don Boesch. Only undergraduate students were covered in