Council of University System Faculty
CUSF Meeting of January 20, 2006
January 20, 2006
Present: Martha Siegel (Chair, TU); Lee Richardson (Past Chair, UB); E.
William Chapin (Vice Chair, UMES); John Collins (Secretary, UMBI); Vincent
Brannigan (At-Large, UMCP); John McMullen (At-Large, FSU); Denny Gulick (UMCP);
Paul Thut (UMB); Patricia Alt (TU); John Gustafson (UMUC); H. Rodger Harvey (UMCES);
Paul Flexner (SU); Zane Berge (UMBC); R. Michael Garner (SU); David Parker (SU);
Frank Alt (UMCP); Douglas Pryor (TU); Stephen Jacobs (UMB); William Stuart (UMCP);
Alcott Arthur (CSU); Frank Robb (UMBI, alternate); Joan Langdon (BSU); Dennis
Coates (UMBC); Joyce Shirazi (UMUC); Jay Zimmerman (TU, alternate); A. Deloris
Not Present: Marymal Holmes (BSU); Kim Rotruck (FSU); Robert Scott (FSU,
alternate); Memo Diriker (SU, on leave); Raymond Morgan (UMCES, alternate);
Emmanuel Onyeozili (UMES); Adelaide Lagnese (UMUC); Rahim Ashkeboussi (FSU);
Harry Womack (SU, alternate); Joyce Currie Little (TU); Stephanie Gibson (UB);
Elizabeth Mulroy (UMB); Joyce Tenney (UMBC); Patricia Young (UMBC, alternate);
Rosemary Jagus (UMBI); J. Court Stevenson (UMCES).
Honored Guests: Irwin Goldstein (VCAA, USM); John Wolfe (new Associate
Dr. Siegel called the meeting to order shortly after 10:00am. The minutes of the
December 16, 2005 CUSF meeting were approved unanimously with no changes except
to correct a minor typographical error.
Dr. Siegel interrupted her report at 10:15am to welcome Vice Chancellor
Goldstein and Dr. John Wolfe, the new Associate Vice Chancellor of Academic
System Report: Dr. Goldstein introduced Dr. Wolfe, who was warmly
welcomed by the group. Dr. Wolfe will work on legal issues, tenure flexibility,
and with CUSF. Dr. Goldstein will continue coming to most of the CUSF meetings.
USM’s budget prospects for this year are good. There is money for enrollment
growth. Several campuses (e.g., BSU, SU, TU) have been designated as growth
campuses. USM campuses will work with the community colleges. There is also
money for fund raising, workforce development, and enhancements such as aging
research and nanobiotechnology. USM’s legislative agenda this year is to
protect the Governor’s proposed budget. Dr. Goldstein noted that USM teaching
colleges are the only ones in the country to require that its students spend
time at a professional development school as a requirement for graduation. This
leads to better qualified teachers. While all parties have made their OCR
reports, the OCR situation is uncertain. A meeting to discuss a final draft
report is scheduled for January 23. The mission statements of all USM campuses
are on track for approval by the full board of MHEC. Efficiency and
Effectiveness is still on the table. Dr. Goldstein is scheduled to report what
the campus academic initiatives are: the intent is to learn what the campuses
are actually doing and report their successes as part of E & E. One of these
initiatives, dual admission with Community Colleges, was discussed. There was
considerable concern about how this will fit in with articulation agreements,
about whether it will attract stronger or remedial students, and who will be
doing the teaching (particularly for courses taught in the high schools, since
these credits would appear to transfer directly rather than going through some
mechanism such as the Advanced Placement tests). Another area of concern is
admission by some campuses that is granted in the fall but does not allow the
student onto campus until the spring (usually given because a campus has no more
space in fall, but will almost surely have classroom and dormitory space for the
spring semester). Dr. Goldstein reminded the group that military base closings
would result in 10,000-12,000 family units moving to MD, and there is no plan on
how to offer them education. They will start moving here in a year. There was a
general discussion of who needs to go to college - not everybody needs it. The
BOR Ed Policy Committee will meet on January 25; no difficult issues are on the
Dr. Siegel noted that there is no AAAC or Chancellor’s Council meeting this
month. She announced that Joann Goedert, Chief of the Educational Affairs
Division of the Maryland Attorney General’s Office, plans to come to the
February 23 CUSF meeting to discuss the lack of health benefits for USM’s
full-time non-tenure track contractual faculty.
The report of the CUSF Faculty Affairs Committee on the number of non-tenure
track USM faculty with no benefits was discussed. There are many full-time
faculty who have been offered benefits (at cost), but declined them. Often there
is no money in the campus budget for benefits. Having these
"no-benefits" faculty is often figured into campus budgets. There are
too many full-time, contractual faculty, some with long service, who are
underpaid and have no benefits. There was a spirited discussion on this issue.
Dr. Brannigan asked if there are any developments in the issue of retirement
benefits. The answer is no. A brief discussion followed. All agreed that
something needs to be done, perhaps by the CUSF Legislative Affairs Committee.
There was a general discussion of salary increases, with emphasis on how merit
money should be distributed. There is hope of 2% COLA for the upcoming year and
2.5% for merit, but USM salaries are lagging behind those of other institutions.
Salary compression is a big problem. Private institutions are doing much better
than USM. The question of what position CUSF should take on COLA vs. non-COLA
salary increases was raised. Dr. Chapin said that we need to gather data from
VCFA Vivona and elsewhere to see where we stand in percentile rank relative to
Dr. Siegel called for a lunch recess at noon, encouraging everybody to mingle
with attendees at the Chair’s Workshop being held downstairs.
After lunch, in addition to further discussion of earlier topics, discussion
centered on the methods of accreditation and determining credit transfer from
distance learning institutions, particularly in view of the recent criticism of
such institutions set up in Wyoming to provide courses for international
Although we had earlier thought that the proposal on the status of emeritus
faculty would not be controversial, it seems to have generated some concerns
from the Provosts and will need reconsideration.
Those interested in afternoon presentations at the Department Chairs meeting
adjourned to that meeting.