Council of University System Faculty
CUSF Meeting of March 18, 2004
Meeting – March 18, 2004
Martha Siegel (Chair), Alcott Arthur (CSC), R. Michael Garner (SU), Anjali
Pandey (SU), Patricia Alt (TU), Douglas
Pryor (TU), Jay Zimmerman (TU), Stephanie Gibson (UB), Lee Richardson (UB),
David Hardcastle (UM,B), Steve Jacobs (UM,B), Zane Berge (UMBC), Rosemary Jagus
(UMBI), John Collins (UMBI), Ray Morgan (UMCES), J. Court Stevenson (UMCES),
Frank Alt (UMCP), Vince Brannigan (UMCP), Denny Gulick (UMCP), William Stuart (UMCP),
Bill Chapin (UMES), Jim Gelatt (UMUC), Adelaide Lagnese (UMUC), Joyce Shirazi (UMUC),
Nancy Shapiro (USM), Laslo Boyd (MFQHE)
The meeting was
called to order at ten o’clock.
Associate Provost at Towson, brought greetings from the campus.
minutes were approved with minor corrections.
preliminary slate of candidates for CUSF offices was announced. Later in the meeting
other candidates were added to the slate. In preparation
for elections next month, the nominations were
closed on the following slate:
Past Chair: Martha
Vince Brannigan (UMCP) and Lee Richardson (UB);
Vice Chair: John Collins (UMBI); Secretary:
Patricia Alt (TU), Bill Chapin (UMES); At-Large:
Stephanie Gibson (UB), David Parker (SU), Bill Stuart (UMCP), Jay Zimmerman (TU).
We agreed to follow
the usual rules, voting for offices in the order listed and allowing candidates
not elected to any particular office to run for any subsequent office if they so
desire. With the exception of the Past Chair, no two positions may be held by
two persons representing the same campus.
the Brief Reports of the Chair and Other Delegates, we learned
a. The AAAC
discussion of Merit Pay Guidelines revealed wide disparity from campus to campus
both in the procedures used and in the understanding of what ‘merit’ should
mean. Although the provosts did not
entirely endorse the view proposed by CUSF, they did agree on two essential
points: i. Shared Governance input is essential in making the decisions; ii.
Whatever funds are available should be used to increase faculty salaries.Similarly, the Presidents understood the CUSF position and were divided
on the question of exactly what merit should mean.
b. The question of
Faculty Workload is complicated by the fact that we are currently stuck with a
definition of course-load in terms of courses taught.This clearly reflects only a small part of what faculty do.Indeed, surveys in earlier years indicated that actual weekly faculty
hours of work average between fifty-six and seventy. It is difficult, however,
to find a more workable, credible metric and also include the work of non-core
faculty, recognize the extra burden that faculty now bear with decreased support
staff, recognize the special work
of graduate faculty with their research students, and recognize commonly
overlooked areas such as faculty work in the recruitment and selection of new
students and new faculty. Since the
student population has grown at a time when faculty numbers have not caught up,
it is quite natural that core faculty spend most of their time working with
upper-level courses, although this sometimes creates difficulties of public
perception of our work.
c. The Student
Research Day in Annapolis included thirty-eight excellent presentations.However, we were not very successful in attracting legislators to see
their work. This means that we must
give careful consideration to the scheduling of this event (both day and time of
day) for next year.
d. Chair Siegel
prepared Legislative Testimony, including support for the Busch and Frosh bills
offering guaranteed increases in University funding in exchange for caps on
tuition increases, which Lee Richardson took to the Legislature.Testimony in now on file in both houses, and was presented orally in one.This also provided a good opportunity to air our viewpoint to the media.
e. The rally on
Legislative Action Day did not take place since we could not coordinate
sufficient numbers of people to be present.Members were encouraged to take copies of the materials Stephanie Gibson
prepared and distribute them among the faculty on our campuses for use in
discussions with legislators.
f. The most recent
meeting of the MHEC FAC revealed that there is concern about the lack of (and
elimination of) tenure on the community college campuses.Given our own interest in the preservation of the tenure system and the
realization that many USM students come to us from the community colleges with
large numbers of transfer credits, the Alt and Alt committee suggested that we
have a meeting with community college representatives (probably initially those
who attend the MHEC FAC), rather in the style of our own meetings of the CUSF Ex
Com with the campus Senate Chairs, to determine our mutual interests and
concerns. This suggestion was unanimously supported by the group.
g. Reports of a
possible violation of the procedures for determining the tenure of a
tenure-track faculty member at CSC remain under investigation until there is
more clarity about just what happened.
In the System Report, Nancy Shapiro informed us that there is a
proposal to have the Chancellor’s office to write a letter of clarification of
ART policy instead of going through the procedure to get a new version of the
BOR ART policy approved. This
proposal was not met with great joy by all the members.
In addition, the
Secondary A.A.T. degree has been approved, based on a set of learning outcomes
agreed on by University and Community College representatives.
At the BOR
Educational Policy meeting, there was concern about the conflict between huge
enrollment increase projections and maintaining quality in view of the current
lack of a reliable revenue stream. There
are also still questions about handling community college transfers,
particularly of allowing ninety credits of transfer to schools in the USM.
The Document for System Appeals to the Chancellor and the Board, as
presented by Mike Garner, passed unanimously with minor word-smithing.
The discussion of the AAAC Time to Degree Document was postponed until
the next meeting.
(An update on the ART policy appears above in the System Report).
We unanimously agreed to ask the FSU Senate to distribute the FSU
procedures for the evaluation of administrators to all of the other Campus
Senates and to CUSF in order to facilitate further discussion of this matter.
Frank Alt led the discussion of Equity in Retirement Benefits.It is clearly important to apprise all new faculty members of the
consequences of their choices of retirement plans. We need more information of the costs of achieving parity in
such areas as credit for accumulated sick leave and medical benefits for spouses
of faculty before making a statement in this matter.
Business, Laslo Boyd of the Marylanders for Access to Quality Higher
Education spoke of the goals of that group and the necessity of having a
permanent, proactive group to speak for the interests of higher education in
Maryland, particularly to serve as a legislative voice in time when the
university budget is the largest part of the discretionary budget, and so
subject to cuts that make assuring continued access to quality difficult.He presented a listing of the principles of this group which will
eventually be distributed to all CUSF members.
The meeting was adjourned at about two o’clock.