Council of University System Faculty
CUSF Meeting of November 19, 2004
Council of University System Faculty
Minutes – November 19, 2004
University of Baltimore
Present: Lee Richardson (Chair); Martha Siegel (Immediate Past Chair); Joan Langdon (BSU); Alcott Arthur (CSC); Linda Day-Clark (CSC); John C. McMullin (FSU); Kim Rotruck (FSU); R. M Garner (SU); Harry Womack (SU); David L. Parker(SU, ExCom); Patricia Alt (TU, ExCom); Douglas Pryor (TU); Jay Zimmerman (TU); Stephanie Gibson (UB); David A. Hardcastle (UMB); Steve Jacobs (UMB); Alan Kreizenbeck (UMBC); Joyce Tenney (UMBC); John H. Collins (UMBI); Ray Morgan (UMCES); Vincent Brannigan (UMCP, Vice Chair); Denny Gulick (UMCP); William Stuart (UMCP); E. W. Chapin (UMES, Secretary); A. Deloris James (UMUC); John Gustafson (UMUC); Adelaide Lagnese (UMUC); Joyce Shirazi (UMUC); Gertrude Eaton (USM); Irv Goldstein (USM);
The meeting was called to order at ten o’clock.
UB President Bogomolny brought greetings from the campus. He discussed the recent turn-around in the ten-year enrollment decline and the campus’s active real estate business.
The agenda was approved as distributed. The minutes of the October meeting were approved with minor adjustments.
Given the favorable reception of the A. R. T. policy by the Board of Regents, it is now incumbent upon us to make sure that the modifications become well-known on all the campuses.
Irv Goldstein and Gertrude Eaton presented an extensive USM report.
It would appear that there will be a “bump” for the USM in the Governor’s proposed budget, but the amount is not yet known. As a result, the BOR may not act to determine new tuition rates until after the first of the year. If there is a special legislative session on the medical malpractice question, it will likely also consider the possible override of the veto of the bill authorizing regular 5% increases for the USM coupled with 5% limitation on tuition increases.
Among the E & E initiatives, wording for the required 12-credits of non-traditional coursework seems to have stabilized (and to be sufficiently general not to be a significant problem for most of the campuses). The limitation of degree programs to 120 credits (with the expected exceptions) also seems close to its final form. Small wording adjustments, accepted by Irv Goldstein, were made to the policy for spring admits with deferred admission from the fall semester. Later, the Committee on Academic Affairs agreed to provide leadership in the further consideration of these issues and other matters involving the appearance of the breach of traditional faculty responsibilities by other parties.
The policy of applying a possible 25% tuition surcharge for students taking over 10% beyond the required number of credits for their degree is rather more complex, since it is not quite clear what courses to count and what exceptions need to be made.
The earlier apparent MSDE mandate concerning the way to teach teachers to teach reading seems now to be less of a mandate, leaving faculty freer to teach what seems most appropriate, but the situation bears continued watching.
The alcohol and substance abuse policy question has arisen again, thanks to a request from the CUSS chair in his report to the BOR. Perhaps a policy, similar to some other BOR policies, simply requiring each campus to have its own policy could be adopted, since currently available policy drafts seem unacceptable to most constituencies. Later, a committee spearheaded by Vince Brannigan and Stephanie Gibson, extended to the entire Committee on Faculty Affairs (and friends) will consider this issue. Information on how this sort of thing is handled at peer institutions would be most helpful.
The Presidents’ work on On-Line instructional priorities is at the stage of gathering the experience of the campuses and seeking successful examples. There are complex questions of faculty training and incentives, overall funding, etc., so that any final policy must leave the decisions about implementation to the campuses. Relying on the expertise and experience of UMUC will certainly be one option, but also certainly not a mandate.
The Regents’ Faculty Awards proposals are all in now and have been distributed to reviewers for discussion at a December 13th meeting.
Some campuses are reporting losing faculty because there are not sufficient funds for the salaries needed to hold stronger young faculty and because of teaching load questions. This impacts negatively on the amount of external research funding coming to the USM campuses.
Work on the proper definition of faculty load and its accurate reporting continues. The inclusion of all full-time faculty in computations and the provision of additional instruction for those who do the counting on the campuses (in ways that will provide a more complete record of the various sorts of work that faculty do) all seem to be leading to more accurate reporting. A more general recognition that department-level analysis, rather than individual exception reporting, is more likely to be a better measure of load could facilitate understanding of faculty load by legislators and others not directly involved in teaching.
The System Appeals policy proposed by Martha Siegel, distributed earlier, generated considerable discussion. After a motion for cloture passed, the proposal itself was approved, and then reopened to approve editorial adjustments later by committee.
According to the report of Pat Alt and others, many of the meetings of the MHEC FAC are dominated by the representatives of the community colleges. We need to encourage the Senate Chairs to be sure that all USM representatives have in fact been selected and that they are attending the meetings.
Another matter eliciting considerable discussion was the proposed increases in the costs of healthcare (premiums, deductibles, doctor visits, etc. all might go up). Later in the meeting, Stephanie Gibson proposed wording for a letter to the Governor, expressing our distress and concern about the proposed increases. The letter was approved in principle with authority for revision of the wording resting with a committee consisting of the CUSF Executive Committee, Stephanie Gibson and Jay Zimmerman.
Mike Garner’s report of concern about significant increases in Presidential salaries during times of financial stringency, particularly when such increases occur roughly at the same time that there are layoffs on the campus, generated the final discussion of the day.
The meeting was adjourned at about two o’clock.