Council of University System Faculty

General Body Meeting Minutes: Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Salisbury University, Scarborough Leadership Center

CUSF Members Present (15):
Joyce Shirazi (UMUC, Secretary), Bill Chapin (UMES), Emmanuel Onyeozili (UMES), Bill Stuart (UMCP, Vice Chair), Martha Siegel (TU, At-Large), Joyce Currie Little (TU), Joyce Tenney (UMBC), Zane Berge (UMBC), John Collins (UMBI, Chair), Alcott Arthur (CSU, At-Large), Paul Flexner (SU), Bobbi Adams (SU), Mike Garner (SU), Dave Parker (SU), Gerry Wojnar (FSU)

Teri Hollander (USM, Associate Vice Chancellor, Office of Academic Affairs), Michael Van Alstine (UMB, School Associate Dean for Research and Faculty Development, Law School Professor), Brenda Bratton Blom (UMB, Law School Professor).

Call to Order

John Collins called the meeting to order at 10:00 am. Mike Garner introduced the Provost and Vice President of Academic Affairs at Salisbury University, Dr. Tom Jones. Dr. Jones welcomed CUSF on behalf of SU President, Dr. Janet Dudley-Eshbach. He applauded CUSF for the work that it does and invited those in attendance to wander around and see the campus, which is currently at its peak. Continuing, Dr. Jones noted that SU has been very fortunate on the capital budget side. In 2006 the Maryland General Assembly approved a $54.7 million capital project to build a Teacher Education and Technology Center on the main campus. Construction began in the fall of 2006, and now the 165,000 square feet Teacher Education and Technology Center is scheduled for a fall 2008 opening. It will be a showcase in the mid-Atlantic region for teacher education and workforce development, and one of the largest in the USM. This new center contains an integrated mass media center for faculty and students, information technology services, distance learning facilities, a student resource center, a faculty curriculum development suite, and other facilities. Another new building at SU is the 112,000 square feet Franklin P. Perdue School of Business building. This new building, which SU will move into this summer, replaces and expands the facilities that supported the business school’s academic, research and public service programs. There is also a new multi-level parking garage on the east-campus next to the sports fields. Dr. Jones noted that SU is a growth institution with 8500 students, based on head count.


The April 2008 CUSF Meeting Minutes were approved at 10:15 am.


John Collins reviewed the order of the day and initiated the introductions of all meeting attendees. Teri Hollander explained the job responsibilities of Andy Clark, USM Director of Legislative Affairs, Government Relations, who was not able to attend the meeting. John Collins added that Andy Clark wants to know CUSF better, especially for the legislative sessions, because he wants to be our advocate.

UMB Law School Appointment Procedures

Teri noted that the Chancellor is in full support of the changes, which can result in an Associate Professorship after 3 years, with consideration for tenure, and an initial appointment for up to 6 years for an Associate Professor. Peer law schools do this and UMB wants to be able to compete. This helps recruitment and retention. Brenda Bratton Blom stated that the UMB Faculty Senate does not review these things and that she wanted to affirm that this was written by the faculty. It corrects even the full professor position, in cases where they do not have tenure.


John Collins: Can you become a full professor without tenure?
Martha Siegel: ‘Not hiring, but promoting is the question.
Michael Van Alstine: This came from our faculty unanimously. They looked at it for over 2 years. It was entirely done without the involvement of the Dean. The motivation for the change was that people come out of law school a long time before they apply to become law professor. The average is 8 years. We are competing now with Duke University and others. We are doing well. However, our competitors have the kind of system that we are proposing. Therefore, we need to offer the same as they do to compete.
Martha Siegel: What is the down side?
Mike Garner: If they are publishing and tenured, surely they are qualified to be promoted.
Martha Siegel: But this is the other way around.
Teri Hollander: This is proposed for UMB law school only.
John Collins: Is there still a tenure clock?
Mike Garner: Yes, 6 years.
Bill Chapin: Motion to “accept these UMB School of Law changes in procedure”.

The motion was seconded and unanimously approved. Teri Hollander suggested that if we are going to consider this for the entire system, then CUSF should include this topic for study and discussion. The proposed UMB School of Law changes are shown in Appendix I.

Faculty Affairs

Paul Flexner stated that he was encouraged by Jim Sansbury at the last CUSF meeting and that he has not forgotten what Jim Sansbury said at the meeting. Paul Flexner noted that when he took the information back to the faculty about a 7% increase, some were concerned about the current status of health benefits. Paul Flexner added that for example, one faculty member cannot retire since he arrived at SU 6 years ago at the age of 58. He is 64 years old now and, he will have to teach until he is 74 years old to receive full coverage, and until he is 83 for his wife to be covered. Paul Flexner said that he, himself, is practically in the same boat because his wife will not be covered unless he works well into his late 60’s. The system needs to be fixed because most folks did not know this information when they started. People were hoping to retire after 15 years. Mike Garner agreed that no one explained the differences in the system when he started. Bill Stuart said that only slowly are these issues being pointed out to new employees. Bobbi Adams stated that she started in fall 2003 and received one sheet of paper with the differences in the plan, and she had to make a decision in a week. She noted that it wasn’t that simple though and that there are many differences and we need to remedy the differences in the plans. Teri Hollander explained that Jim Sansbury has been directed to cost it out and have discussions with the State. Anybody who isn’t given that information needs to work with the HR Directors. She added that she hopes that we will be able to make the adjustment, but that this issue is handled by Jim Sansbury and Joe Vivona. However, fiscal and state issues may be the major considerations. Martha Siegel said that the action has helped some faculty members, and that every faculty member that she spoke to said they would be willing to contribute more for the retirement plan. Paul Flexner agreed, but Martha Siegel wondered if this would affect the pretax exemption. She also added that we have to be careful to not hurt the people in the State retirement plan, because the State can negatively change theirs to make them equal. Mike Garner explained that regarding pretax dollars, it is only a problem if you are at the maximum contribution level, which is not an issue for us. It will probably be pretax dollars across the board. He added that we need to know what it will take for them to make the two plans equal. Otherwise it will be unfair. Paul Flexner noted that looking at our aspirational peers, we are out-of-state. Martha Siegel said that therefore we need to be on board with them and not the State, so that we do not hurt them. Teri Hollander stated that USM has developed some template information that the various institutions used and can apply for the entire USM. Joyce Tenney said that UMBC would like to see it before it hits the legislature. John Collins commended the Faculty Affairs Committee for their excellent work all year.

Associate Vice Chancellor’s Report


Teri Hollander reported that the legislature cut $6.8 million from the USM FY 09 budget and apportioned it to all institutions. In the last round, of the remaining $50 million from the $300 million of cuts in the State budget, USM will receive a $4.5 millionreduction. However, most of this $4.5 million reduction will be entirely restricted to the Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) Account, which is over-funded. The OPEB account is used for retiree benefits, but due to over-funding it will be used to cover all but $375,000 of the $4.5 million reduction. Teri Hollander noted that budgets are prepared by each institution, however, the Board of Regents (BOR) will likely freeze tuition for in-state, undergraduate students. Many institutions may be able to get additional funding inside of the 30% cap on out-of-state students.

Mike Garner added that we had that excess because all county, city and state governments made low estimates on retirement benefits. This is why we do not need as much set aside. Martha Siegel noted that the legislature did not cap the COLA by salary, which is helpful.


Based on a question regarding the Board of Regents, Teri Hollander stated that we have new Regents—Norman Augustine, Dr. Frank Reid, and Joshua Michael. Joshua Michael (UMBC) will serve a one-year term as Student Regent and he is also a student commissioner on the Maryland Higher Education Commission.
Lastly, Teri Hollander stated that based on the WICHE study funded by Lumina, high school growth is going to decline in the State and that this is the peak now. African Americans will increase by only 1.3% and whites are declining sharply. It is projected that the Hispanic population will have the largest growth, followed by Asians. (The full report can be found at:

New Chairpersons Workshop

Martha Siegel stated that there were over 60 people in attendance at the New Chairpersons Workshop. It was crowded and they probably need another level of introduction. There were so many people that even eating and getting with the disciplines was difficult. Martha Siegel noted that CUSF members in attendance had a chance to mix with them. She also thanked Deloris James for all of the work that she did. Teri Hollander said that it was great, but the attendees wanted more time for each area of discussion. The large number of attendees was probably because we did not have the workshop last year. Having a pre-conference would also be a good idea. This year we even had university deans in attendance. Regarding a question about performance reviews for USM presidents, Martha Siegel noted that their reviews previously included polling. It is very beneficial and it is a practice that if done, should be given more exposure. We need to discuss that some more and we need to put it in writing. Bill Chapin said that it is done at UMES. Teri Hollander noted that every 5 years, it is the “extensive” review. Mike Garner said that SU is not getting feedback on that and that he has not done it in 10 years. He added that we need the system to do a 360 degree review and that it is done everywhere, even in the federal government.

John Collins added that John Wolfe received a special commendation from the Chancellor for his work on organizing the workshop. The agenda for the workshop is shown in Appendix II.

Planning for Next Year – Bill Chapin

Proposed Meeting Schedule for 2008-2009

Bill Chapin and Martha Siegel requested that CUSF members send comments/approval of tentative meeting dates to them as soon as possible. Gerry Wojnar suggested that we change the proposed May meeting to Thursday, May 21, 2009. This way it will occur after final examinations, rather than during the reading period. The proposed meeting dates are listed in Appendix III.


Mike Garner stated that Delegate Norman Conway, SU Institute for Public Affairs and Civic Engagement (PACE) Advisory Board Member recently visited SU and discussed the need for textbook best practices. He said that CUSF needs to push and come out with something powerful now. Mike Garner suggested that CUSF hire a good student who could compile what universities are doing all over the USA, and that it needs to be a 25-page paper with links, etc. He noted that this is important for planning purposes because it is going to come back in the next session. Martha Siegel recommended a brochure instead, with best practices. She added that we need to do it now and that we need to be proactive.

John Collins stated that after the June 9, 2008 meeting, the CUSF Executive Committee will consist of all newly elected and current CUSF Executive Committee members. He added that Bill Chapin would become Chair on August 1, 2008, and the new CUSF Executive Committee members take over at the September, 2008 CUSF meeting.

The list of possible CUSF activities for 2008-2009 distributed by Bill Chapin is shown in Appendix IV.


Legislative Affairs

John Collins stated that the Chancellor went out of his way to commend a textbook letter based on a draft prepared by Patti Cossard that he had sent to CUSF, Faculty Senate Chairs, AAAC and the Chancellor. Martha Siegel stated that she did not think that it got out to all the faculty. John Collins reported that the April 18, 2008 meeting, organized and chaired by Bill Stuart, of the CUSF Executive Committee with the Chancellor and Faculty Senate Chairs had been very successful.


Bobbi Adams asked about the point of CUSF discussing telecommuting previously. Paul Flexner responded that he thought it was a way to try to reduce our carbon footprint. Teri Hollander added that Donald Boesch, the USM Vice Chancellor of Environmental Sustainability, could fill us in on what is happening on a system-wide basis.


The meeting adjourned at approximately 1:00 pm.

APPENDIX I. Statement from UMB School of Law


For CUSF Meeting, Tuesday, May 14, 2008

To respond to a national competitive trend in faculty hiring and retention in schools of law, the University of Maryland, Baltimore (UMB) is requesting from the University System of Maryland Board of Regents revised terms and conditions for the University of Maryland School of Law for faculty appointment and promotion at the Assistant and Associate Professor ranks. The national trend among top rank law schools is for more flexibility at initial faculty appointment than is permitted by the USM Policy on Appointment, Rank and Tenure of Faculty (II-1.00) (ART).

The School of Law wishes to retain the essential structure of review for tenure as codified in the USM ART Policy – six years of service on the tenure track, with tenure review no later than the sixth year. The revised terms and conditions being requested are 1) promotion to Associate Professor at the end of three years as Assistant Professor, without immediate tenure, followed by review for tenure in the third year at the Associate Professor rank, and 2) appointment at the Associate Professor rank, tenure track, for up to six years.


In 2004 the University of Maryland School of Law faculty began a comprehensive review of the School of Law’s tenure and promotions procedures in light of evolving trends among national law schools. A broadly representative faculty committee was then charged with investigating and making recommendations on the existing standards for promotion and tenure. Meeting regularly for over a year and a half, the committee conducted its investigation of promotion and tenure standards and procedures of nearly two dozen of the nation’s leading public and private law schools*.

The goal of the exercise was to ensure both that the School of Law’s standards meet or exceed those of peer institutions and that the school offers an environment that will attract and retain faculty colleagues on a par with the best law schools in the country.

The result of the committee’s investigation and deliberations was a proposal for a substantial revision of the School of Law’s tenure and promotions standards.

Following discussion, consideration, and amendment, the faculty of the School of Law unanimously supported the new standards and new procedures. One faculty member supported standards even higher than those eventually adopted. The result of the faculty’s changes have been a significant heightening of standards for academic credentials, professional experience, and demonstrated scholarly abilities of entry-level, tenure-track faculty at both the Assistant Professor and Associate Professor ranks in the School of Law.

The School of Law carefully restructured the new standards and process to advance three principal goals. First, the School of Law needed to respond to the evolving competitive standards for hiring high caliber faculty members as it increasingly competes with the country’s leading public and private law schools for new faculty appointments. Second, a striking increase in the distinctive professional and academic credentials of a new generation of faculty candidates in the field of law required enhanced flexibility in appointment ranks. Finally, both of these factors also exert influence on the School of Law’s ability to retain high quality junior colleagues. To respond, it needed to introduce a degree of flexibility in academic ranks before the decisive tenure evaluation.

*The following schools were found to have some aspect which corresponds to the promotion and tenure structure requested for the University of Maryland School of Law: Duke Law School, Northwestern University School of Law, The University of Southern California School of Law, Vanderbilt Law School, Emory Law School, The University of Illinois (Urbana-Champaign) School of Law, The College of William and Mary Marshall-Wythe School of Law, George Mason University, The University of Alabama School of Law, The University of Georgia School of Law, the University of Colorado School of Law, Wake Forest University School of Law, Cornell Law School, Boston University School of Law, George Washington University School of Law, The University of Iowa School of Law, Fordham University School of Law, Notre Dame Law School, and Indiana University (Bloomington) School of Law.

New ART Terms for UM School of Law

Nationally, the law school faculty tenure track path is moving to consideration for promotion to Associate Professor, though not review for tenure, during the third year of full time appointment. The USM Policy on Appointment, Rank and Tenure of Faculty (ART) states “Promotions to the rank of Associate Professor carry immediate tenure.” The School of Law would like to be able to promote to Associate Professor, without immediate tenure. After that promotion, the review for tenure would be no later than the third year of a three year appointment as Associate Professor. As a result, the review for tenure would still be no later than the sixth year of full-time faculty appointment.

Special competitive demands arise for exceptionally qualified individuals whose rank at initial appointment, based on qualifications, would be at Associate Professor. Nationally many other leading law schools use appointment to Associate Professor as the entry-level to the tenure-track. The USM ART Policy permits initial appointment at the rank of Associate Professor for a maximum of six years with tenure review in the sixth year, but only for those “individuals with no prior teaching experience.” With significantly heightened standards for prior professional experience, the School of Law would like to be able to appoint any new Associate Professor, regardless of the nature of prior formal teaching experience, to that rank for up to six years. The tenure and promotion decisions would be made in the sixth year.

In addition to the faculty of the School of Law, Dean Karen Rothenberg, President David Ramsay, Chancellor Brit Kirwan and Vice Chancellor Irv Goldstein support these revised terms and conditions for the UM School of Law. When it was discussed at the May 5, 2008 meeting of Chancellor’s Council, Robert Bogomolny and other USM Presidents also were supportive. This proposal is intended for the June 4, 2008 meeting of the Committee on Education Policy and at the Board of Regents June 20, 2008.

If adopted by the Board of Regents, the alternative terms and conditions will apply to tenure track or tenured faculty members appointed on or after July 1, 2008. The alternative terms and conditions will apply to a faculty member appointed between June 1, 2005 and June 30, 2008, only upon that individual’s written request to the Dean of the School of Law, submitted no later than September 30, 2008. This gives all current tenure track faculty the same opportunity (but not obligation) to be considered under the new standards.

APPENDIX II. Agenda of New Chairs Workshop

New Chairpersons Workshop
30 April, 2008


Sponsored by the University System of Maryland Office of the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and the Council of University System Faculty

8:30 - 9:00 am Registration and Continental Breakfast

9:00 - 9:15 am Welcome
Dr. Martha Siegel, Council of University System Faculty

9:15 - 10:15 am Perspectives on Challenges Faced by Department Chairpersons
Dr. Irwin Goldstein, Senior Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, USM

10:15 - 10:45 am USM Budget, Effectiveness and Efficiency and the Administrative
Mr. Joseph Vivona, Chief Operating Officer and Vice Chancellor for Administration and Finance, USM

10:45 - 12:00 pm Legal Aspects of Higher Education
Anne Donahue, Deputy Counsel for Litigation, Maryland Attorney
General’s Office

12:00 - 1:00 pm LUNCH and CONVERSATION
CUSF, Department Chairs,

1:00 - 2:15 pm Faculty Evaluations and Mentoring
Stephen J. Simpson, Provost, FSU

2:15 - 3:30 pm Faculty Workload: Issues and Responsibilities
Dr. Benjamin Passmore, Director of Policy Research and Analysis, USM






9/19/08 (Fri)

UMCES (Solomon’s) or BSU


10/15/08 (Wed)



11/18/08 (Tues)



12/16/08 (Tues)
semester classes end 12/15



1/23/09 (Fri)
2nd semester begins 1/26



2/19/09 (Thurs)



3/25/09 (Wed)
spring break 3/15 – 3/22



4/20/09 (Mon)



5/13/09 (Wed)
classes end 5/12





APPENDIX IV. Suggested List of Items for 2008-2009 CUSF

  1. Reminders
    1. Wireless Access
    2. Phone Access
  2. Questions
    1. No Decrease in Representations
    2. Mail Ballots
    3. Electronic voting
    4. Electronic meeting
    5. Constitution/ Bylaws inconsistencies
  3. Guests
    1. Staff
    2. Students
    3. Sansbury
    4. Vivona
    5. Britt
    6. Irv
  4. Representatives
    1. Presidents
    2. BOR
    3. AAAC
    4. MHEC
    5. BOR Academic Affairs
    6. BOR Fiscal Affairs
    7. Pre-K to 20:
  5. Internal
    1. Calendar:
    2. Librarians: BOR and campuses
    3. Full-time / no benefits : growing?
    4. $14.6B state unfunded retiree benefits: done year by year (Cassemeyer committee year 2)
    5. ORP up: our 5%? :$16M: why dropped AIG?
    6. Tuition Remission: vs staff?, approx 3300 all per year
    7. Health benefits, especially spousal: $14M?
    8. Sick leave at retirement (law to change0/ collegially supported sick leave (scrutiny?) / Sick-leave Bank?
    9. Legislative Affairs
    10. Faculty Affairs
    11. BOR Policy Review
  6. Educational
    1. Textbook policies
    2. Textbook as fees?
    3. General Education Survey / Consistency
    4. Demonstrating progress to public
    5. Duplicate programs (Morgan?)
    6. Carol Twigg
    7. No SAT Legislation?
    8. Faculty Review of Administrators
    9. UMB law school APT changes to be generalized?
  7. Sponsored Activities
    1. Student Research Day: value?, grad students?
    2. Senate Chairs: Martha
    3. New Chairs’ Workshop
    4. Regents Faculty Awards