University System of Maryland
Council of University System Staff
University of Maryland University
March 27, 2001
|Joyce Bauguess (UB)
||Jackie Durbin (TU)
|Jeanette Cartron (UMCP)
||Art Hanlin (FSU)
|Sally Davies (UMUC)
||Kay Martel (UB)
|Rusty Kinnamon (UMCES)
|Tina Kreamer (UMUC)
|Larry Lauer (UMCP)
|Starrla Levine (UB)
||Jessica Bird (UMB)
|Nathan Long (BSU)
|Janet Magruder (UMBC)
||Willie Fields (CSC)
|Lu Ann Marshall (UMB)
||Tim Ford (UMBC)
|Patrick McLane (FSU)
||Dottie Holland (BSU)
|Craig Newman (UMCP)
||Valerie Lashley (FSU)
|Carol Prier (UMCP)
||Mike McCrea (UMBI)
|Sandy Ratke (USM
||Sharon Perkins (CSC)
|Roy Ross (UMB)
||Richard Rose (USM
|Susann Shoop (TU)
|Tammy Trivits (SSU)
||Rosario I. van Daalen
|Brenda Warwick (UMES)
|Fran Younger (UMCES)
E. Myers, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, UMUC
I. Call to Order
The Chair, Roy Ross, called the
meeting to order at 10:20 a.m. due to the difficulty of parking in the parking
Roy Ross welcomed everyone and
because of the low attendance at that point (due to the parking situation), we
asked Dr. Myers if he would be able to return later to extend his welcome to
the Council. Dr. Myers was only too happy to oblige.
III. Approval of Minutes
The minutes from the February 27,
2001 Council Meeting were accepted with the noted corrections.
IV. Report from the Chair
Chair, Roy Ross, started his
report with the Chancellor's Council that was held March 5, 2001. The main
part of this meeting was a legislative update, and Roy had nothing to add
regarding the Council.
The Regent's Education Policy
Committee met March 14, 2001 at UMB and covered at this meeting were the
Faculty Substance Abuse Policy and accountability in shared governance. The
accountability in shared governance is something the Council has been
concerned with for many years. Out of a survey of all 13 institutions, only 8
responded and some wanted extensions. Dr. Steve Havas of UMB testified that
faculty do not participate in the shared governance process. UMB's example
is that their doctors have their own personal practices.
The Staff shared governance is
still the same. If collective bargaining happens, what will the role of CUSS
be or will there even be a need for the Council, and who would it include? It's
possible that it could still exist to cover those individuals not covered by
collective bargaining - which might include supervisory individuals.
The collective bargaining bill has
been amended and we'll get the information out to the Council at a later
The Regents Finance Committee met
March 15, 2001 and discussed the Alcohol Substance Abuse Policy for Faculty
and Staff. The policy was pulled back for changes. It was considered too
lenient because we are looked on as (and should be) role models for the
students. The Substance Abuse Policy was a three-strike rule (three
occurrences and you are out). Drug distribution should be termination at the
second or perhaps even the first step. The students are held to a stricter
code. Considering that Faculty works daily with students and Staff provide
daily service, why are they not held as accountable? Concerns are that this
could be abused and used as a way to terminate someone you do not like.
Another area of this debate is the
sensitive vs. non-sensitive areas of the System. The Regents want to unify
into one code - if you work at the USM its 2 strikes then you are out. There
are concerns with the Pharmacy school, helicopter pilots, and the CES vessels.
It was mentioned that the CES vessels are under strict drug testing control
Development of this policy for
staff was started in 1992 and tabled in 1997 because the faculty wanted to be
included. Now we will be going back to the drawing board. Until a decision is
made, and the new policy in place (whatever form it might take), the Governor's
executive order will take precedence.
V. Report from USM Liaisons
Senate Bill 207- Collective
Bargaining for University System employees (a handout was distributed) has
some amendments that we need to be aware of. The first amendment is a
technical one that amends the purpose and function paragraphs. The second
amendment allows for bargaining at each institution within the System. The
third amendment corrects an oversight in the bill by providing that the Board
of Trustees of Baltimore City Community College shall designate
representatives to participate in collective bargaining. Changes in the
definition of the board to include the existing State Labor Relations Board
(SLRB) and the newly formed Higher Education Labor Relations Board (HELRB).
The fourth amendment is a
clarifying one and strikes language no longer needed because of the creation
of the new labor relations board. Amendment five establishes the HELRB as a
separate unit of State government. The HELRB has similar powers and duties as
the existing SLRB. Four members must have knowledge of higher education. The
Governing Boards of Institutions of Higher Education will provide advice and
guidance to the HELRB. The Maryland Higher Education Commission will provide
staff support to the board. The HELRB is responsible for overseeing collective
bargaining only for State Institutions of Higher Education.
The sixth amendment provides that
each institution of the USM have its own set of bargaining units. Two
bargaining units are established by campus: Non-exempt employees and Exempt
employees. It also allows the President of each institution to assign
classifications to each bargaining unit, and to execute a memorandum of
Amendment seven eliminates the
language allowing supplemental MOU's because bargaining would occur by
institution. It would also provide that the Presidents not participate in
bargaining over any matter inconsistent with applicable law. The last
amendment, eight, provides for the terms of the new Board members.
Delegate Rawlings stated that, if
the collective bargaining bill reaches his committee, he would hold open
Dr. Skip Meyers, Executive Vice
President and Chief Operating Officer at UMUC welcomed the Council and
mentioned that we were at the best little global university in Maryland.
VIII. Committee Reports
Did not meet.
Had no report.
The committee has nothing pending.
They are still waiting for the B.E.S.T. Task Force to have its next meeting. It's
believed that the deadline for the calling of this meeting is June.
In addition, they are still waiting
for the information on staff to faculty ratios at our peer institutions based on
the research data that Larry Lauer collected during his tenure as Chair of the
Council. Larry has promised to forward the information to them as soon as he
They also looked at the Academic
Advising information that was provided by Sandy Ratke from her people at the
System Office. The recommendations sound like good ideas, but without detailed
information, it's difficult to make blanket statements about the plans.
The Board of Regents' Staff Awards
took up a large part of their meeting. All evaluations are due to Starr Levine
by early April. There was extensive discussion about what constitutes a resume.
It was agreed that a biographical sketch would be enough if that were all an
employee had. Also discussed was the due date and the fact that a number of
institutions did not submit nominations. The Council agreed that the due date
was set in stone and that no nominations were to be accepted after March 1,
2001. The committee will be looking at ways to increase participation, insure
that the directions are clearer and look into ways that the nominees are placed
into the correct categories. This year a number of nominees, while highly
deserving, were obviously nominated in the wrong category.
The time clock issue was
mentioned again in regard to the new system called Payroll Human Resources
(PHR) being implemented July 15, 2001 at the College Park campus. It was
mentioned that there would be mandatory training in the new policies. It was
questioned whether we should send a letter to the Chancellor with our
concerns, but that was tabled until we receive more information.
X. New Business
The 10:00 a.m. start is a better
fit for all members.
Susann Shoop announced that Towson
University is getting a new President. Their Staff Council is concerned that
they will have nothing new to discuss with the new President upon their
arrival. The Council suggested working up a wish list and interacting with
other staff senates to see what their concerns are and possibly adopt for
Committee reports for the
Newsletter are due to Fran Younger by the June Meeting. Please transmit them
electronically if you are able.
The possibility of having a July
picnic was raised again. A great time was had by all that attended last year.
Please bring your ideas for locations and dates.
The meeting was adjourned at 2:07
p.m. The next CUSS meeting will be held at UMES on April 24, 2001.