Council of University System Faculty
CUSF Meeting of March 13, 2006
March 13, 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); Patricia Alt (TU);
Frank Alt (UMCP); Alcott Arthur (CSU); Rahim Ashkeboussi (FSU); Zane Berge (UMBC);
Dennis Coates (UMBC); Paul Flexner (SU); Stephanie Gibson (UB); Denny Gulick (UMCP);
John Gustafson (UMUC); Stephen Jacobs (UMB); A. Deloris James (UMUC); Joan
Langdon (BSU); Joyce Currie Little (TU); David Parker (SU); Joyce Shirazi (UMUC);
J. Court Stevenson (UMCES); William Stuart (UMCP); Joyce Tenney (UMBC).
Not Present: Memo Diriker (SU, on leave); R. Michael Garner (SU);
Rosemary Jagus (UMBI); Lori Harris (CSU); H. Rodger Harvey (UMCES, alternate);
Marymal Holmes (BSU); Adelaide Lagnese (UMUC); Raymond Morgan (UMCES,
alternate); Elizabeth Mulroy (UMB); Emmanuel Onyeozili (UMES); Douglas Pryor (TU);
Frank Robb (UMBI, alternate); Kim Rotruck (FSU); Robert Scott (FSU, alternate);
Paul Thut (UMB); Harry Womack (SU, alternate); Patricia Young (UMBC, alternate);
Jay Zimmerman (TU, alternate).
Guests: Irwin Goldstein (VCAA, USM); John Wolfe (Associate VCAA, USM);
Donald Spicer (VCAF/AA, USM); Marci McClive (FSU).
Dr. Siegel opened the meeting at 10:00am. She introduced TU President Robert
Caret, who welcomed the group and gave a brief summary of what’s going on at
The minutes of the February 23 CUSF meeting were unanimously approved without
Dr. Siegel distributed copies of the agenda, which was approved unanimously.
The System Report was given by Dr. Goldstein, starting with a
legislative update. There are two new issues of particular interest. The first
is the definition of in state residence as applied to tuition. There is
currently a law suit seeking to make the current restrictions less stringent.
Currently, it’s extremely difficult for an out of state student to be
recognized as a resident of Maryland. New residents arising from BRAC are likely
to have expedited residence. The second issue is a house bill that basically
redefines how USM programs should be organized. This applies to all programs
within 35 miles of each other, most undergraduate programs (except basic arts
and sciences) and all graduate programs. The bill requires financial parity,
MHEC review and elimination of unnecessary program duplication within 180 days.
The bill seems unlikely to pass in its present form, however. The OCR review is
progressing slowly. MHEC hasn’t yet finished its final report. It’s not
known whether OCR will visit USM before the election.
The Chancellor, et al. are working toward getting health benefits for
contractual faculty. This complicated issue was discussed at length by the
A question has arisen about how merit money should be allocated, i.e., should
some of the merit money be used for something other than salaries? Dr. Goldstein
will try to develop a system-wide policy on contractual faculty that doesn’t
require BOR approval and that all the campuses agree to implement. A draft
policy will come back to CUSF for comment before it is put into place. This will
require meeting with a lot of people, and there is no guarantee of success.
Dr. Wolfe reported on the recent "Multicultural Day" at TU. There
was a panel discussion of the role of religion and spirituality on campus. Dr.
Wolfe plans to visit all the USM campuses. He also wants to gather information
for the purpose of setting up Ombuds procedures on all campuses. He is also
interested in the issue of career flexibility for tenure-track faculty.
Dr. Chapin asked about the money that will be allocated for increased
enrollment. What happens to this money if the projected growth does not occur?
Dr. Goldstein’s reply was that the money is not there yet, but all campus
presidents say they will meet their growth goals. In reply to a question from
Dr. Ashkeboussi, Dr. Goldstein said that the enrollment growth would not lower
academic quality because the quality of the new students will meet current
Dr. Siegel began the Chair’s Report at 11:15am. She discussed the
proposed CUSF resolution on merit pay, noting that the method of allocation
should be determined by faculty. Copies of the resolution were distributed.
Dr. Siegel reported that distance education was discussed at the most recent
AAAC meeting distance ed was brought up. The Chancellor, Dr. Siegel and Joe Hill
(CUSS Chair) sent strong letters on this issue to the legislature, but nothing
likely to happen this year. Dr. Brannigan said he had discovered some bad
features of the USM tuition remission policy. A task force is investigating how
the dependency requirements are related to federal requirements. There is a
question, now being reviewed, of whether one must be an IRS-qualified dependent
or is it sufficient just to be financially dependent?
Dr. Siegel distributed a statement on CUSF she had written for the Faculty
Dr. Chapin began the process of electing the next CUSF Chair at 11:30am. Each
of the three candidates (Drs. Brannigan, Parker and Richardson) were asked to
make brief statements before votes were cast. The votes were counted by the CUSF
Membership and Rules Committee (Drs. Arthur, Chapin and Collins).
At 11:50am, Dr. Siegel invited Drs. Spicer, McClive and James to talk to the
group about USM’s plans for Online Distance Learning. Dr. McClive distributed
a handout and chaired the ensuing general discussion. It was suggested that it
would be a good idea to institute a Regents Faculty Award for distance
education. At 12:20pm, Dr. Siegel brought up the workload issue as related to
distance education, and how intellectual property guidelines would interface
among the campuses. Dr. McClive asked CUSF to discuss how to get broader
representation on the distance education committee.
At 12:25pm , Dr. Chapin announced that Dr. Parker had been elected as the
next CUSF Chair after the second ballot. He also called for nominations for the
other positions on the next CUSF Executive Committee.
Dr. Chapin also introduced proposed changes to the CUSF By-Laws that would be
discussed and voted on at the April 18 CUSF meeting. The effect of these changes
would be to put a cap on the future growth of CUSF membership by allowing a
maximum of six delegates per campus regardless of size.
The meeting broke for lunch at 12:30pm and committee meetings and reconvened
Dr. Chapin announced that the nominees for the other positions on the next
CUSF Executive Committee are Drs. Chapin and Brannigan for Vice Chair, Drs.
Collins and Langdon for Secretary, and Drs. Coates, P. Alt, James and Stuart for
the two At-Large positions. The nominations were declared closed. The elections
for these positions will take place at the April 18 CUSF meeting.
Dr. Siegel asked everyone to notify their Senate Chairs about the April 18
CUSF meeting with the Chancellor.
Dr. Gulick led a discussion on the cost of textbooks. He conveyed several
recommendations arising from a recent meeting on this topic that he had
attended. It is essential for faculty to submit their textbook orders in a
timely manner. Faculty should bundle only the books they are actually going to
use. The ISBN numbers of the books should be posted on the web. Faculty should
be aware of the prices of the books they assign. Dr. Siegel noted that some
bookstores are run by campuses, others by outside companies (e.g., Barnes &
Noble). She said that the bookstores should have faculty advisory committees.
They should also have someone on staff who will help faculty get copyright
permissions from publishers. She also noted that bookstores provide money to the
campuses and off-campus bookstores don’t. Dr. McMullen noted that less
expensive, nonreturnable versions of textbooks are often available. Dr.
Ashkeboussi noted that free texts are often available on line. He suggested that
professors could write their own books and offer them on-line for free. Dr.
Coates noted that UMBC has a student consortium that does direct selling of used
Dr. Stuart reported on the K-16 committee. They are concerned with two main
issues: (1) early enrollment and dual admissions; (2) lowering of standards by
community colleges in order to attract more students. Dr. Siegel that advanced
placement tests and early admissions are also important issues. Another issue is
alternate methods of teacher certification, e.g., for people in more difficult
fields (e.g., math, physics).
Dr. Siegel called on the Regents Faculty Award Committee to report their
suggestions for future awards. Dr. P. Alt mentioned several issues: (1) The
award for collaboration could include non-USM institutions; (2) every campus
should have a committee to recommend candidates; (3) USM students outside the
USA (e.g., UMUC students) could be made eligible; (4) we must emphasize that the
review is by faculty peers, not by the Regents; (4) candidates must follow the
rules, for example only include work done in the last three years in their
dossiers; (5) we should consider adding a new award, such as for distance
learning. Dr. Siegel suggested that the application process could be done on
line. Dr. Wolfe said that he wanted to institute a totally electronic submission
process, coordinated at the institutional level.
The meeting adjourned at 1:55pm.