Council of University System Faculty

General Body Meeting Minutes: Tuesday, November 18, 2008

A. Chairman Bill Chapin called the meeting of the Council of University System Faculty (CUSF) to order at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, November 18, 2008 at Towson University (TU), in Room 424 of the Administration Building.Those in attendance were (24): Chairman Bill Chapin (UMES), Vice-Chairman Martha Siegel (TU), Secretary Joyce Shirazi (UMUC), At-Large Officers Joyce Tenney (UMBC) and Bill Stuart (UMCP), Past-Chairman John Collins (UMBI); other CUSF members Monika Gross (BSU), Alcott Arthur (CU), Gerry Wojnar (FSU), Mary Mumper (FSU), William Montgomery (UMCP), Arthur Popper (UMCP), Paul Flexner (SU), Dave Parker (SU), Bobbi Adams (SU), Thomas Krause (TU), Edith Wheeler (TU), Jay Zimmerman (TU), Stephanie Gibson (UB), Frank Robb (UMBI), Robert Johnson, Jr. (UMES), Sharon Fratta-Hill (UMUC); Senior Vice Chancellor Irv Goldstein; TU President Robert Caret.

B. Welcome from Towson University: Martha Siegel introduced Dr. Robert Caret, the President of Towson University (TU), who discussed his background and noted how much of a pleasure it was for him to be working with CUSF. He mentioned that he has been President at TU since 2003, where he started many years ago as a Chemistry Instructor. However, before becoming the President of TU, he was the President of San Jose State University for a few years, noting that he enjoyed California, but came back to TU because faculty and system administration work well together in a non-competitive way. He added that in the University of California System there was a great deal of litigation, and that they need someone to help mend those fences. President Caret noted the shared governance at USM is strong, it has not hindered the process, and that he works with the University Senate, CUSF, etc., on many issues, such as the challenge of part-time versus full-time faculty. President Caret added that he is working aggressively to try to get to equality with the ORP versus the State Retirement system, and that he appreciates all that CUSF does and the good relationship. In response to questions, President Caret noted the following:

1. TU economic reality; At TU the focus is not on becoming a comprehensive research institution such as UMCP, but on offering research-based learning with practical application, where 80% is applied research, including doctorates. The strategic plan is to have 25% graduate students, of which 2% are doctorates.

2. The status of long-term, full-time, non-tenure faculty; The problem is two-fold problem, a) Budget - It is less expensive to hire them, b) Growth – TU hires only 60 to 65 tenure track faculty per year and the bottom line is there has been a 1% per year decrease. The preferred ratio of tenures to non-tenures is 70:30. Regarding the merit system, there are many creative ways to do it, and at TU much autonomy to given to departments.

3. Unions; Union impact depends on the State, but all unions are very structured in terms of how to do things. He does not like how unions advocate for everybody, regardless of the merit or value, which is a disservice. He noted that if you talk to TU faculty, you will find that the system serves them quite well. It works well here because we are all shared governance people. Unions get into too many nuts and bolts battles. He also added that he is not crazy about the unionization of graduate students, and suggested that we treat them fairly because unionization changes the whole atmosphere.

4. STEM; The Governor chairs the P-20 Leadership Council of Maryland. Dr. June Streckfus and Chancellor Brit Kirwan co-chair the new state-wide STEM Task Force. The Chancellor has formed two internal USM committees on these issues. The STEM Workforce Task Force portion is chaired by TU President Robert Caret and will focus on workforce issues, with special attention to teachers. The final report is due before Christmas. There were about 114 STEM teachers produced this year and it is a critical area of need, i.e. engineering, biotech, IT and health professions (indirectly). He noted that we have estimated dollar figures on what it costs to produce an individual engineer or an individual teacher and that we are budgeting for summer academies, etc. He also added that we will have to triple all production and that we could need 330 more STEM teachers for example. Therefore, we are trying to gather all information required and get back to the legislature. TU produced 45 STEM teachers, which is about 40% of current total. He also added that students are turned off at middle school, not elementary school. Therefore, a middle school certification for math and science teachers, as well as in-service training for elementary school teachers would be helpful. However, the primary interest should be on secondary teachers. Martha Siegel wanted to verify that we will have a CUSF faculty member on the STEM Workforce Task Force and President Caret stated that we will.

5. Growth at TU; TU is the fastest growing USM campus based on FTE, except for UMUC, but TU can not just keep taking students. There must be a happy medium. California has almost 500,000 students in the University of California System. President Caret added that he is assuming that growth at TU will range from 0 to 400 students, but it has been growing by 1000 students per year. Next year a new Liberal Arts Building will be opening up, which will help. There were 16,000 applications for 2,800 slots this past year. He concluded that the 1987-1988 legislation that designated the UMCP flagship works as long as we provide the opportunity for the students to come to college. However, we do not want legislators deciding this.

C. Joyce Shirazi moved for approval of the October 15, 2008 CUSF meeting minutes; seconded by Bill Stuart; approved unanimously.

D. Report from USM Senior Vice-Chancellor Irv Goldstein:

1. President Caret; He is very innovative and he has the courage to do many things at TU.

2. Budget; The October figures do not tell you much. We are waiting on the December numbers. Based on this, the Maryland Department of Budget and Management will have to decide what they are going to do. We are not in the bad shape that some of the other States are in, such as California, which cut enrollments by 10,000 students across the University of California (UC) System. Florida is also in bad shape. There may be a variety of discussions about how we handle furloughs, if they are necessary. Cuts in the middle of the year do not leave us many options because there is no flexibility. We do not have the actual numbers, such as, a) How much is the State deficit as a whole? They thought they knew, but what is it now based on December numbers? b) How much of that deficit is coming to us? We know it is not bright. There will be some guidance for campuses regarding furloughs versus job cuts, the Chancellor may say he would appreciate no layoffs. Given the variety of our campuses, there is no way that we can say “all” campuses must do “this or that”; but there will be some guidance. Shared governance involvement is on the agenda for the next Presidents Meeting, which will note that shared governance must be involved in this. We will discuss the timing of the cuts, i.e. furloughs with the Presidents. We are going to say prepare now and get shared governance involved. In response to questions, Irv Goldstein noted that they will emphasize the need for preparation and shared governance involvement to the Presidents and Provosts, but that we need to be careful about noting publicly that we are prepared for this. UMCP had furloughs last time and the higher paid employees had to take more furlough days than the lower paid employees. Some campuses did different things. There were cuts and it was called the Christmas Surprise because the last cuts came the Friday before Christmas. Mary Mumper added that most of them at FSU got their furlough days during the spring break. Irv Goldstein added that a furlough means that you do not work, which for faculty is a pay cut. He added in response to a question about the consortia suffering, that the private colleges are suffering due to decreased endowments. When the endowments go down you still have to pay folks, therefore they are in desperate trouble, too. The Sellinger Funding Formula is hurting the private schools because their funding is based on ours, and the Cade Funding Formula is hurting the community colleges. Regarding a question about the possibility of a tuition hike to bail us out this year, Irv Goldstein noted that the Governor is proud that we have gone three straight years without a tuition hike. However, depending on the cut, there will be vigorous input for increasing tuition. There must be some understanding with the Governor. There will be a spirited discussion. The meeting with the Governor will include discussions on cuts as well as enrollment growth.

3. Textbooks; The conference is next week November 24 at UMCP, and Irv Goldstein hoped that we could come.

4. DeVry University (for profit); The decision will be made tomorrow regarding the Master of Public Administration with objections from TU, BSU, etc. We are sending a contingent to Maryland Higher Education Commission (MHEC). MHEC is not concerned that the for-profits are competing with us and that we have room. MHEC removed all but 2 of 22 programs that DeVry University wanted to bring to Maryland. We have campuses that can handle them all, including UMUC. Bill Chapin noted that MHEC seems so different now and asked if there is any way to understand this. Irv Goldstein noted that all of the DeVry University programs that Morgan State University objected to were removed. Regarding questions about funding for the Bohanan Commission recommendations, Irv Goldstein noted that most things are very good for us. We are compared to States like Pennsylvania and Virginia, rather than Oregon. Every USM campus but UB gets more money from their peer group. All of it is very positive. Regarding a question about maintaining control with unfunded enrollment growth, Irv Goldstein noted that it depends on the topic. SU, TU and BSU are supposed to grow. The other campuses decided not to grow. New programs should go through the BOR, therefore it depends on the topic as to whether or not the system is involved. Most of these things are discussed between the Presidents and the Chancellor. Irv Goldstein said that UMBC is opening up a new program at Shady Grove, but when times are tough, it becomes a problem.

E. Chair’s Report: Bill Chapin presented the following highlights.

1. Textbook Affordability Summit; Patti Cossard will attend the November 24, 2008 conference at UMCP. PJ Hogan believes that we can influence any possible legislation and that we must get rid of the textbook bundling. There will be legislation at some point, so we all need to put our heads together and in a good way. Hopefully that will be the bill. That is the whole purpose. Martha Siegel will try to be there. Irv Goldstein noted that publishers are not allowing students to purchase the textbooks without the CDs. When faculty change the textbooks at the last moment; students can not sell them back. New editions come out every three or four years because publishers cannot make money on re-sales. Martha Siegel confirmed that as an author, you receive all of the royalties the first year, half the royalties the second year, and nothing the third year, unless you revise the textbook or someone else does it, in which case the reviser gets the royalties. Other materials, i.e. power points, are required by part-time faculty, and students pay for them, but the students do not necessarily need those supplemental materials. Bill Chapin added that for example, paying higher prices for using one book for Calculus I, II, and III is acceptable, as well as higher prices for highly specialized books. Bobbi Adams noted that Colorado has a law where they must de-bundle, but stressed that we do not want legislators telling us how to do our jobs, because it makes no sense to get into whether or not a third of the book has changed, as an example. Martha Siegel noted that we have a responsibility to explain to legislators what we need, etc. We are not against signing a form that says that we are aware of the price. Sharon Fratta-Hill added that bookstores still mark-up the prices. Stephanie Gibson noted that textbooks get a smaller mark-up. Martha Siegel said that some bookstores are tied to the campuses and profits go back to the service of the campuses. If we lose that, then there is campus support lost. Sharon Fratta-Hill added that you think you are making valid decisions but you are not. Bill Chapin said that another issue is posting the ISBN numbers earlier. We can make sure that we do not get caught for stupid reasons. It is good for online purchases, but bad for returns.

2. USM Policy on Intellectual Property: Irv Goldstein noted that the intellectual property document is almost identical to the previous document. We are trying to determine what we are not following or what is out-of-date. We may be out of sync with a few words in the wording. CUSF concerns noted were in regards to what committee will deal with this issue and what committee will deal with this if there is a dispute. Martha Siegel noted that we would like to bring the document back to CUSF and discuss it at a meeting .

3. USM Policy on the Implementation and Monitoring of Recommendations of the Cult Task Force; Irv Goldstein noted that any change to the document is just cleanup and does not change policy. He will send it to us if we would like to see it .

4. Cultural Diversity; The Cultural Diversity Senate Bill 438 is a bill written by legislators because of a few individuals who have deep interests. Irv Goldstein noted that by May 1, 2009 we need to send a letter stating what each campus is doing to promote cultural diversity on USM campuses. It is on the agenda for AAAC and Doug Gansler, the Maryland Attorney General, has advised us. Therefore, on Friday we will alert our campuses that they must have a system in place for dealing with this. Every State and private institution must come up with a plan. Irv Goldstein added that he will take this information to AAAC and Chancellor Kirwan will take it to the Presidents. After the information is gathered it will go to the MHEC Educational Policy Committee and then to the full Board.

F. Legislative Activities Committee Report: Bill Chapin passed around a handout for the Legislative Activities Committee noting contacts on each USM campus. Each CUSF member reviewed the document and added the names of their campus legislative contacts. Bill Chapin gave the final document to Tom Krause.

G. Other Business: Martha Siegel explained that there was a flap at AAAC when she presented the CUSF Resolution on Merit Pay several years ago, shown in Appendix I. She asked for endorsement of the resolution by CUSF so that she could re-introduce it at AAAC. She noted that when it was presented a few years ago, AAAC did not like it and the consensus among AAAC was that the resolution was too specific.Therefore, they declined to present a formal motion at that time. Martha Siegel noted that shared governance procedures should actually include some shared governance. Moreover, the merit money should not be used for things such as marketing. Bill Chapin added that there are campuses where there is no faculty involvement. Mary Mumper stated that at FSU, faculty involvement is very strong. Martha Siegel said that the Provosts did not like the resolution when it was presented a few years ago and that the medical school, for example, would never accept it. She added that people wanted to know that the process was clear. Arthur Popper suggested that we take it to the Deans for their attention. He also added that the staff is unionized, therefore it matters. Stephanie Gibson wondered if we want to bring this policy up now when there is no merit pay. Many responded that yes that is why we want to bring this up now.

H. Lunch and Continuation of Discussions in Committees

I. Action on Motion from Committee: Martha Siegel provided a briefing on the CUSF Resolution on Merit Pay which was previously approved by CUSF in principle in February 2004.

1. The motion by Martha Siegel for the resolution was read and seconded by Bill Chapin: We reaffirm the CUSF Resolution on Merit Pay for Martha Siegel to take to the AAAC meeting this Friday, November 21, 2008.

2. Discussion; John Collins asked if not receiving merit this year would be an issue and what would be the effect of AAAC approval. Bill Chapin responded that this makes it a perfect time because there would be no money to fight over. Stephanie Gibson added that AAAC will not approve it.

3. There were no further questions and the resolution was unanimously approved. The resolution as approved is shown in Appendix I.

J. MHEC Faculty Advisory Committee Representative: Bill Chapin stated that Patti Cossard would like for CUSF to find another MHEC Faculty Advisory Committee representative to replace her because she is too busy with the CUSF Legislative Activities Committee. Sharon Fratta-Hill is a MHEC Faculty Advisory Committee representative for the adjuncts. CSU is the only USM institution not represented on the MHEC Faculty Advisory Committee. They meet every 3rd Tuesday of the month from 1:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. at Anne Arundel Community College. Bill Montgomery volunteered to be the MHEC Faculty Advisory Committee representative for CUSF and John Collins volunteered to be his back-up.

K. Introduction of By-Laws Adjustment Proposal: Alcott Arthur, Membership and Rules Committee Chair, read the proposed by-laws changes, as shown in Appendix II. CUSF will vote on these proposed changes at the Tuesday, December 16, 2008 meeting at UB. The current CUSF By-Laws are posted at

L. The meeting adjourned at 1:15 p.m.


Resolution on Merit Pay

Council of University System Faculty

The Council of University System Faculty strongly urges that merit pay as mandated for state workers should be made available to faculty by USM institutions. CUSF further urges that the policies governing the awarding of merit be developed with the full participation of the faculty. Merit pay should be awarded in a way that is consistent with campus mission and campus reappointment, promotion, and tenure standards. Every year, but specially this year in hard economic times, we believe that all campuses in the System should follow these basic guidelines in awarding whatever merit becomes available to faculty:

1. The entire merit package for faculty should be distributed through an open campus-wide policy that is established in full cooperation, consultation, and agreement with the faculty, either through a standing committee of the faculty shared governance body or through an elected ad hoc committee that includes both tenured and tenure-track faculty.

2. While a small portion of merit monies might be used at the discretion of Deans and Provosts for retention of faculty and/or for addressing inequities or compression in salaries, the overwhelming portion should be awarded to faculty who are considered meritorious as judged by peer-review.

3. Faculty should have significant input into the distribution of merit money, making recommendations consistent with campus mission and campus reappointment, promotion, and tenure standards.

4. The campus-wide policy should include an appeals procedure that includes faculty representation as well as a reporting procedure through which the Provosts explain how the aforementioned policy was implemented.

Re-approved by CUSF November 18, 2008
Previously approved in principle, February 2004


By-Laws Adjustment Proposal

1. In order to bring the CUSF By-Laws into consistency with the CUSF Constitution and current practice, we change section 4.1 of the By-laws from “Officers of the Council shall consist of the Chair, Vice Chair and Secretary, elected...” “to read “Officers of the Council shall consist of the Chair, Vice Chair, Secretary, the two at-large members of the Executive Committee, and the Past Chair, elected...”

2. In order to bring the CUSF By-Laws into consistency with the CUSF Constitution and current practice, we change section 6.1 of the By-Laws from “The Council shall establish appropriate standing committees. These shall include, but are not limited to, committees charged to deal with membership and rules, fiscal matters, faculty concerns, educational policies and legislative activities” to read “The Council shall establish appropriate standing committees. These shall include, but are not limited to, committees charged to deal with i. Academic and Educational Policy; ii. Faculty Rights and Welfare; iii. Research; iv. Membership, Rules, and Organization; v. Legislative Activities; and vi. Fiscal Affairs”.