Council of University System Faculty
CUSF Meeting of January 16, 2004
CUSF Meeting – January 16, 2004
Present: Martha Siegel (Chair), David L. Parker (Past Chair), John Organ (BSU),
Alcott Arthur (CSU), Lori Harris (CSU), Marthe A. McClive (FSU), R. Michael
Garner (SU), Patricia Alt (TU), Jay Zimmerman (TU), Stephanie Gibson (UB), Lee
Richardson (UB), Steve Jacobs (UM,B), Rosemary Jagus (UMBI), Joyce Tenney (UMBC),
John Collins (UMBI), J Court Stevenson (UMCES), Frank Alt (UMCP), Vince
Brannigan (UMCP), William Stuart (UMCP), Bill Chapin (UMES), Emmanuel Onyeozili
(UMES), Art Huseonica (UMUC), Joyce Shirazi (UMUC), Irv Goldstein (USM)
The meeting was called to order at ten o’clock.
The minutes of the previous meeting were approved as adjusted. The current
CUSF roster was passed around for final corrections and adjustments.
The CUSF Executive Committee will meet on February 6 with the Senate Chairs
and the Chancellor. We are all urged to be sure that our Senate Chairs or their
representatives are present.
The ART document is still in process since the changes made in it make it
difficult to create a straightforward red-lined version.
Lee Richardson attended the Presidents Council meeting this month. Much of
their work was done in a long closed session, but the Presidents are
enthusiastic about our student research show, and conditionally approve of the
idea of faculty visiting legislator in Annapolis, and seem concerned about
Efficiency/Effectiveness, questions of time to degree, and questions of faculty
load. The Presidents will shortly be attending the Board of Regents retreat,
planning to deal with present difficulties and considering how to manage their
campuses under various future scenarios. We are still having trouble getting the
data we need for comparing expenditures at USM institutions with the
expenditures at our peer institutions.
Lee Richardson also attended the AAAC meeting at which there was again
considerable concern for the Efficiency/Effectiveness question. There is also
consideration of requiring special permission (or special payment) for student
course loads outside the 15 to 18 credit range, possibilities that are
complicated by the presence of part-time students and by concerns with student
Irv Goldstein presented the System report, filling in details on many of the
above topics. Attempts at improving efficiency and effectiveness may include
more collaboration across campuses, more common policies in financial matters,
etc. Difficulties with improving time to degree are exacerbated by tuition
increases, student changes of major, possibilities of limiting credits per
semester, and the presence of more and more non-traditional students. Not all
campuses are current in perfect accord with the BOR policy on faculty course
load, and some that are in compliance find themselves at the extreme end of the
scale, perhaps because of changes in the nature of the institutions in the time
since the policies were established. The current system of reporting exceptions
to course load does not effectively reflect either the large number of faculty
with overloads or the large number of courses covered by non-tenure-track and
part-time faculty. A return to a recognition that course load is really a
departmental concern rather than an individual faculty concern might help.
The budget situation for the coming year is complicated by the presence of
about eighty million dollars in unfunded mandates, including merit raises,
increased costs for insurance and utilities, and expanded debt service.
Legislative proposals that couple regular increases in state support for the
operating budget and annual recognition of the expanding number of students to
be served as a part of the base budget with limitations on tuition increases may
be of help. The USM campuses will try to provide four-year estimates of college
costs for students and their parents, but any such estimates must assume a
corresponding rational and regular adjustment of the state-supported part of the
John Organ reported on his meeting with the people from the USMO concerning
the difficulties about appointments and expenses at BSU. These problems have not
yet reached resolution.
David Parker agreed to make an ‘explanatory document’ to facilitate a
speedier review of the ART document whose processing has been disappointingly
There is still some confusion and lack of agreement concerning the proposed
Systems Appeals Process document. Appeals should come from faculty to campus
Senates (or equivalents), should involve only questions of violation of BOR
policy or of campus policy based on BOR policy. If the Senates find that the
faculty appeals have merit, the Senates will pass the appeals on to the
Chancellor/BOR for consideration and action. The situation is less clear for
appeals not validated by campus Senates: such appeals might well come to the
CUSF Executive Committee if the appellant faculty member so desires (or might
just die). There are also difficulties when Senates are not active during the
summer, when Senates are not totally independent, etc. A motion to accept the
‘B’ version of the documents proposed was eventually tabled. A committee of
four (Garner, Brannigan, F. Alt, Stuart) was appointed to consider this matter
further with the goal of having a final version available by next month’s
We had lunch with the ‘new’ Department Chairs who were also meeting at
USMO. Martha Siegel had met with them earlier in the day.
Vince Brannigan discussed our planned legislative actions. We will need a
permit for the March 15 rally. After our February 16 meeting in Annapolis, we
will be meeting with our own legislators, Senators and Delegates. If we have
suitable fact sheets to work from, we may succeed at putting faces on the issues
of importance to us.
Martha Siegel reminded us of the Student Research Day on February 23. It is
important that, in addition to the students and their poster presentation, we
have faculty present to assist with the process (and that we make sure that the
legislators come). The students are our best advocates in the appeal for
reasonable funding of the USM campuses.
The process of Faculty Evaluation of Administrators is uneven across the
campuses. Bill Chapin will gather information on the current situation so that
we can suggest best practices and perhaps a more uniform way of assisting in
The meeting was adjourned at about two o’clock.