Council of University System Faculty
CUSF Executive Committee Meeting with Chancellor
and Senate Chairs, October 14, 2005
Meeting of CUSF Executive Committee and Faculty Senate Chairs
Present: E.W. Chapin (UMES Faculty Assembly Chair, CUSF Vice Chair
and Chair of this meeting); Martha Siegel (CUSF Chair and alternate for
Timothy Sullivan, TU Faculty Senate Chair); Lee Richardson (Past CUSF
Chair and alternate for Mortimer Sellers, UB Faculty Senate Chair); John
Collins (UMBI, CUSF Secretary); Vincent Brannigan (UMCP, CUSF
At-Large); John McMullen (FSU, CUSF At-Large); John Organ (BSU
Faculty Senate Chair); Joan Langdon (BSU); Alcott Arthur
(alternate for Fred Medinger, CSU Chair); Robert Kauffman (FSU Senate
Chair); Maarten Pereboom (SU Senate Chair); Robert Carpenter (UMBC
Faculty Senate Chair); Mervyn Monteiro (UMBI Senate Chair); H. Rodger
Harvey (UMCES Senate Chair); Sylvester J. Gates (UMCP Senate
Chair-Elect); Alfred Raider (UMUC University Advisory Council Chair).
Honored Guests: William E. Kirwan, USM Chancellor; Irwin
Goldstein, USM Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.
Not Present: Julie Zito (UMB Senate Chair); Michelle Demanche (UMES
Dr. Chapin called the meeting to order at 10:00am and distributed copies of
the meeting agenda. He noted that all campuses except UMB were represented
Dr. Chapin gave an overview of the meaning of shared governance at USM. He
said that campus Senate Chairs should know what their campus mission statements
are, whether their campuses have been following it, and whether they have
achieved any of their stated goals. He distributed individual copies of the
campus mission statements. Some Chairs expressed disappointment that they had
never before seen their own campus’ document.
Dr. Chapin said that the CUSF chair sometimes listens to grievances from the
campuses, but often the grievants haven’t followed their own campus
procedures. Sometimes the campus president has final authority and CUSF cannot
intervene. Sometimes, however, real violations of Board of Regents policies do
occur. An example of such a case would be a tenured professor who is terminated
on short notice. CUSF has recently set up a procedure for dealing with these
violations. Dr. Chapin distributed copies of this procedure and promised to send
electronic copies in the near future.
Dr. Chapin introduced the topic of high textbook prices. He distributed
copies of a letter which Dr. Siegel, at the request of the Student Council, had
written asking USM faculty to help keep these costs down. Dr. Siegel spoke
briefly, saying that the students were pleased with her letter, and asked the
Senate Chairs to distribute copies of the letter to all their faculty.
Dr. Chapin then asked everyone at the meeting to briefly introduce
themselves, and for the Senate Chairs to give a brief overview of the state of
shared governance on their own campus. It was agreed that these remarks would
not be included in the meeting minutes. The Senate Chairs’ remarks were
suspended when Chancellor Kirwan and Vice Chancellor Goldstein joined the
meeting at 11:08am.
Dr. Kirwan talked about the current status of USM’s Effectiveness and
Efficiency (E&E) initiative. He said that there has been a lot of activity
on this, and that the efforts have been appreciated by the Governor and
Legislature. Dr. Kirwan said he was pleased that USM received a 6% increase in
general funds this year. Part of the reason for this success was the environment
created by the E&E effort. Dr. Kirwan said that he is not aware how the
individual campuses are implementing E&E. He said that the Regents want
E&E to continue, now with a greater emphasis on effectiveness than on how to
save money. The Chancellor said that we are near the limit of finding new ways
to save money that would not be counterproductive. He said that one way to
increase effectiveness would be to shorten students’ time to degree. This
could be done, for example, by providing the students with better advising to
help them stay on track toward their degrees. Advanced placement credits would
also help. The next step now is for campus administrative vice presidents to get
together with Vice Chancellor Joe Vivona to prepare an agenda, including
strategies for the next phase. Dr. Kirwan said that a lot of the activity now
will be campus-specific, and faculty senates must help to shape the agendas for
future campus E&E efforts. Dr. Siegel expressed disappointment that mission
statements on some campuses, including her own, were being developed without
Dr. Kirwan then invited questions on his remarks so far.
Dr. Monteiro asked how the impending change in the status of the Institute
for Human Virology (IHV) would affect the future of UMBI. Dr. Kirwan said that
he was working directly with Drs. Gallo (IHV), Hunter-Cevera (MBC) and Ramsey (UMB)
to develop a proposal for the Regents. An advisory council of outside experts
would be appointed to help with this effort.
There were a number of questions about costs, budgets, etc. In response to a
question, the Chancellor said that USM was asking the state for extra money to
help cover the expected higher heating costs this winter.
In response to another question, the Chancellor said that USM will be
proposing to allocate funds according to student enrollment. He will ask the
state for extra funds to help support the costs of enrollment growth. Without
that funding increase, USM may not be able to take the extra students. He is
going to make a big push on this with the legislature.
Dr. Kirwan said that he expects FY07 to also be a good budget year for USM.
He hopes for a 7% budget increase next year. He expects a tuition increase of
about 5%, perhaps less on some campuses. Dr. Siegel asked if the projected
tuition increase is public information. The Chancellor said yes, but the 5%
figure is still only an estimate.
Dr. Richardson asked about the effect of election-year proposals on the
budget. Dr. Kirwan said that historically, budgets tend to look better in
election years, but a possible deficit situation is expected in about two years.
Dr. Kirwan noted that USM is now developing a 4-year budget strategy in
coordination with the state.
Dr. Kirwan said that there is a national crisis concerning access to higher
education and income levels. Low-ability, wealthy people are more likely to be
educated than poor, high-ability people. Students with the lowest income are
graduating with the most debt.
Dr. Monteiro asked when the frozen fund balance will be unfrozen The
Chancellor answered that there is no freeze, but USM needs to keep its fund
balance at a certain level in order to maintain its bond rating.
Dr. Gates asked about deferred maintenance. Dr. Kirwan said that the Regents
will adopt a new policy that each year the campuses should be spending 2%, up
from the current 1%, of their budget on maintenance. This increase will be
phased in over several years. It will take about 10 years to overcome the
current maintenance backlog.
Dr. Siegel asked Dr. Kirwan whether he agrees that the state contribution
(currently 7.25%) to optional retirement programs is too low. Dr. Kirwan said
yes, USM has supported an increase to 9.5%, and came close to getting it last
year before it died somewhere in the legislative process.
In response to a comment from Dr. Brannigan, Dr. Kirwan said that everyone is
disappointed with the recent cuts in health insurance benefits. He said that
this is a national problem, and that the state has not begun to address this
issue for next year.
Following a short break for participants to get some food, and the meeting
continued through lunch.
The Chancellor talked about the Office of Civil Rights ( OCR) agreement.
Maryland is one of about 23 states that have been required to make certain
changes in order to lift certain sanctions and/or oversight by the OCR. A report
is now being developed and it is hoped that the OCR will soon make a favorable
decision soon to remove their order. The OCR is looking for a good faith effort
to desegregate and have equity of funding. Dr. Goldstein said that an important
committee dealing with this issue will meet within the next week. This is a
statewide issue, not limited to USM.
Next, the Chancellor talked about early admission to college by high school
students, and the role being played by community colleges. Many high school
seniors have time on their hands and could qualify for early admission or
advanced placement. Some USM campuses have already started teaching courses to
high school seniors. The Shady Grove center may be used as a site for some of
this teaching. This is a good thing, because students with AP credits can
graduate sooner. Ability to pay is a big factor here. Dr. Goldstein noted that
federal financial aid is not available for these students. This issue is being
worked on by educators.
There was a discussion of what t to do about poorly-prepared high school
students, and the role of community colleges in remedial education.
Dr. Chapin asked how campus shared governance bodies can be more involved in
budget processes. Many decisions about budgets are made without consulting them.
Dr. Kirwan noted that every campus must have a shared governance process and
that the campuses have a lot of autonomy. Dr. Chapin asked if it’s proper for
faculty to be appointed to committees by administrators. Dr. Kirwan said that it’s
acceptable in some cases, but shared governance bodies should be elected by
their constituents, not appointed by administrators. Dr. Langdon noted that some
shared governance policies exist only on paper. Dr. Kirwan said it was possible
to appeal policy violations to the Chancellor said you could appeal to the
Chancellor. Dr. Siegel said that CUSF would be glad to try to help in such
situations, perhaps by pointing out how other campuses are working. Dr. Kirwan
endorsed this idea. Dr. Siegel said that Martha said that academics, not
financial people, should be running the campuses. Dr. Kirwan agreed, saying that
the provost should be the number two administrator on each campus.
Dr. Chapin thanked Dr. Kirwan for coming to the meeting. Drs. Kirwan and
Goldstein left meeting at 1:15pm, and the overviews by Senate Chairs of the
state of shared governance on their own campus resumed.
Dr. Organ described the situation at BSU, with emphasis on the faculty’s
desire to participate in the selection of their next president and other campus
There was a long and energetic general discussion of how open a presidential
search should be. Some said that the regents will take over the process,
regardless of what the campus people think. A discussion followed.
Dr. Rodgers talked about the situation at UMCES. He said that faculty were
heavily involved in the development of a 5-year plan for UMCES, and also did an
internal evaluation of all the campus administrators. They are about to review
their ART policies.
Dr. Raider said that UMUC is new at shared governance but they are making
progress. Faculty is represented on the Presidential Search Committee and had
substantial input into the position description. All seats in the recent
election were contested. They are trying to move from the stage in shared
governance where the administration communicates decisions for comment to the
stage where faculty are involved in the decision making process.
Dr. Chapin called for a close in the discussion of shared governance on the
campuses, and the meeting adjourned at 2:00pm.