Council of University System Faculty
CUSF Executive Committee and Senate Chairs Meeting of
April 18, 2003
Meeting of USM Senate Chairs with Chancellor and CUSF Executive Committee
April 18, 2003
USM Faculty Senate Chairs Present: Dr. Randall Rhodes, FSU; Dr. Morad
Eghbal, UB; Dr. Barry Handwerger, UMB; Dr. Arthur Huseonica, UMUC; Dr. Cheryl
Miller, UMBC; Dr. Steven Kronheim, UMUC (University Advisory Council); Dr.
Rolande Murray, CSC; Dr. Kent Cartwright, UMCP; Dr. Charles McKenzie, SU; Dr.
Norma Holter, TU; Dr. J.Court Stevenson, UMCES.
USM Representation: Dr. Ruth Robertson, Associate Vice Chancellor
for Academic Affairs; Dr. Nancy Shapiro, Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic
CUSF Executive Committee Members Present: Dr. John Collins (UMBI),
Vice Chair; Dr. Vincent Brannigan (UMCP), Vice Chair-Elect; Dr. David Parker
Dr. Collins called the meeting to order promptly at 10:00 am. Each of the Senate
Chairs introduced themselves and spoke briefly about issues of concern at their
UMCES: Not able to compensate for budget cuts by raising tuition. Worried about
future budget cuts. They are coping with a new building.
UMCP: Also concerned about budget cuts.
CSC: The campus is excited and hopeful about their new president. The faculty
senate is moving toward being an independent body. Changes in the faculty
handbook are needed. It is difficult to get faculty involved in the senate. CSC
will change its name, probably to Coppin University or Coppin State University.
UMBC: There is a great deal of frustration, depression on the part of the
faculty. Tuition has been raised 5%. Two to three day furloughs have been
imposed. While faculty salaries are stagnant or decreasing, the salaries of top
administrators continue to increase.
FSU: The faculty are upset that, due to a gag order that had been imposed on
their president, they learned about upcoming furloughs by reading the
'newspapers. The faculty accept the necessity of furloughs, but there is a great
deal of anger about how they are being applied (e.g., having furlough days
during Spring break). The amount of money saved by furloughs is relatively
UMB: The campus is coping relatively well with budget cuts, although the
president wont reveal any details of his budget cut plans. The Faculty Assembly
has finally come into existence as the first independent governance body in the
School of Medicine. UMB is unique because of its diverse funding sources and low
tuition income. Clinical income is decreasing. Funding from the NIH, way up in
recent years, is beginning to level off and there is fear that it will soon
start to decrease. Cutbacks in state funding are a very serious problem.
TU: There is pressure for the campus to grow, but no resources for growth have
been provided. There is overcrowding, for example converting rest rooms into
faculty offices. Things are at the breaking point due to deferred maintenance,
lack of supplies and obsolete equipment. Although the presidential search has
apparently come to a successful conclusion, emotions are still high from recent
outrages. The presidential search process was badly flawed.
UB: Lobbying efforts on behalf of the USM budget were admirable, but the new
Governors staff has no understanding of the devastating effects of budget
cutbacks. Unfunded homeland securitymandates, for example having to keep track
of foreign students, are causing problems. There is no strategic plan for the
future. In general, UB is having problems similar to those of TU.
UMUC: Coping with budget cuts has been a challenge, but the administration,
supported by the faculty governance system, remain committed to serving UMUC's
students. Faculty governance at UMUC, since its inception two years ago, has
made tremendous strides and is represented in all decision making committees. A
discussion was initiated about how faculty at Maryland's institutions are
compensated for participation in governance activities.
SU: Budget cuts uncovered some cracks in the shared governance process, but now
its agreed that faculty should be involved in budgetary decisions. Some faculty
are willing to take furlough days to help prevent layoffs.
The Chancellor arrived at 11:15 am. Following introductions, the discussion
began with the Chancellors opening remarks. He summarized where we are in the
legislative process and how USM is trying to influence the process. The new
Governors staff are inexperienced. The slots issue has been very divisive. USM
has become somewhat of a ping-pong ball. The USM lobbying effort has been very
effectiveat putting out a simple message and getting everyone on message. Grass
roots efforts also made an impression. Lobbying efforts will be reevaluated for
more effectiveness next year. A special session of the legislature to resolve
the current budget impasse could help USM, because the legislature acts as a
bufferfor USM. Governor Ehrlich could delay balancing the state budget until the
end of the 2003-2004 fiscal year, then roll over the deficit into
2004-2005, creating a total deficit of close to a billion dollars. Now is not a
good time for high-profile public lobbying, but USM is working behind the
scenes. There has no sign of backlash from the legislature in response to USMs
lobbying. A general discussion followed, with the Chancellor responding to
questions from the Senate Chairs.
The Chancellor left at 12:45 pm. While his presence at the meeting was greatly
appreciated, most participants were not greatly encouraged about the future of
USM. It was generally felt that the Chancellor, perhaps understandably in view
of the ongoing budget crisis, was somewhat out of touch with governance problems
at the campus level.
Dr. Collins said that, in the absence of the CUSF secretary, he had taken some
brief notes during the meeting that would be used to prepare draft minutes. Dr.
Parker encouraged everyone to repeat and expand their lobbying efforts for next
years legislative session. Dr. Brannigan suggested that the Senate Chairs
consider having an additional meeting in Annapolis next year during the session.
The meeting was adjourned at 1:00 pm