Council of University System Faculty

CUSF Meeting of November 20, 2002



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 (UMES).

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 campus. 

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 budget.   

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 follows:

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.

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.

Chair's Report:

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 and deans)

       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 am

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). <file://>  enables the 4 year institutions to see what schools help with transfer courses.

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 requested. 

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 in Annapolis. 

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 portfolio.

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 division courses?

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 table)

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 Vice Chair

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 discussed.

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 sought.

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.

Action Item:

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.

Discussion/Information Items:

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 workload.

4. Maryland - OCR Update.

        All USM institutions are in compliance.

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 this report