Council of University System Faculty

CUSF Meeting of March 13, 2006


CUSF Meeting

March 13, 2006

Towson University

Present: Martha Siegel (Chair, TU); Lee Richardson (Past Chair, UB); E. William Chapin (Vice Chair, UMES); John Collins (Secretary, UMBI); Vincent Brannigan (At-Large, UMCP); John McMullen (At-Large, FSU); Patricia Alt (TU); Frank Alt (UMCP); Alcott Arthur (CSU); Rahim Ashkeboussi (FSU); Zane Berge (UMBC); Dennis Coates (UMBC); Paul Flexner (SU); Stephanie Gibson (UB); Denny Gulick (UMCP); John Gustafson (UMUC); Stephen Jacobs (UMB); A. Deloris James (UMUC); Joan Langdon (BSU); Joyce Currie Little (TU); David Parker (SU); Joyce Shirazi (UMUC); J. Court Stevenson (UMCES); William Stuart (UMCP); Joyce Tenney (UMBC).

Not Present: Memo Diriker (SU, on leave); R. Michael Garner (SU); Rosemary Jagus (UMBI); Lori Harris (CSU); H. Rodger Harvey (UMCES, alternate); Marymal Holmes (BSU); Adelaide Lagnese (UMUC); Raymond Morgan (UMCES, alternate); Elizabeth Mulroy (UMB); Emmanuel Onyeozili (UMES); Douglas Pryor (TU); Frank Robb (UMBI, alternate); Kim Rotruck (FSU); Robert Scott (FSU, alternate); Paul Thut (UMB); Harry Womack (SU, alternate); Patricia Young (UMBC, alternate); Jay Zimmerman (TU, alternate).

Guests: Irwin Goldstein (VCAA, USM); John Wolfe (Associate VCAA, USM); Donald Spicer (VCAF/AA, USM); Marci McClive (FSU).

Dr. Siegel opened the meeting at 10:00am. She introduced TU President Robert Caret, who welcomed the group and gave a brief summary of what’s going on at TU.

The minutes of the February 23 CUSF meeting were unanimously approved without modification.

Dr. Siegel distributed copies of the agenda, which was approved unanimously.

The System Report was given by Dr. Goldstein, starting with a legislative update. There are two new issues of particular interest. The first is the definition of in state residence as applied to tuition. There is currently a law suit seeking to make the current restrictions less stringent. Currently, it’s extremely difficult for an out of state student to be recognized as a resident of Maryland. New residents arising from BRAC are likely to have expedited residence. The second issue is a house bill that basically redefines how USM programs should be organized. This applies to all programs within 35 miles of each other, most undergraduate programs (except basic arts and sciences) and all graduate programs. The bill requires financial parity, MHEC review and elimination of unnecessary program duplication within 180 days. The bill seems unlikely to pass in its present form, however. The OCR review is progressing slowly. MHEC hasn’t yet finished its final report. It’s not known whether OCR will visit USM before the election.

The Chancellor, et al. are working toward getting health benefits for contractual faculty. This complicated issue was discussed at length by the group.

A question has arisen about how merit money should be allocated, i.e., should some of the merit money be used for something other than salaries? Dr. Goldstein will try to develop a system-wide policy on contractual faculty that doesn’t require BOR approval and that all the campuses agree to implement. A draft policy will come back to CUSF for comment before it is put into place. This will require meeting with a lot of people, and there is no guarantee of success.

Dr. Wolfe reported on the recent "Multicultural Day" at TU. There was a panel discussion of the role of religion and spirituality on campus. Dr. Wolfe plans to visit all the USM campuses. He also wants to gather information for the purpose of setting up Ombuds procedures on all campuses. He is also interested in the issue of career flexibility for tenure-track faculty.

Dr. Chapin asked about the money that will be allocated for increased enrollment. What happens to this money if the projected growth does not occur? Dr. Goldstein’s reply was that the money is not there yet, but all campus presidents say they will meet their growth goals. In reply to a question from Dr. Ashkeboussi, Dr. Goldstein said that the enrollment growth would not lower academic quality because the quality of the new students will meet current standards.

Dr. Siegel began the Chair’s Report at 11:15am. She discussed the proposed CUSF resolution on merit pay, noting that the method of allocation should be determined by faculty. Copies of the resolution were distributed.

Dr. Siegel reported that distance education was discussed at the most recent AAAC meeting distance ed was brought up. The Chancellor, Dr. Siegel and Joe Hill (CUSS Chair) sent strong letters on this issue to the legislature, but nothing likely to happen this year. Dr. Brannigan said he had discovered some bad features of the USM tuition remission policy. A task force is investigating how the dependency requirements are related to federal requirements. There is a question, now being reviewed, of whether one must be an IRS-qualified dependent or is it sufficient just to be financially dependent?

Dr. Siegel distributed a statement on CUSF she had written for the Faculty Voice.

Dr. Chapin began the process of electing the next CUSF Chair at 11:30am. Each of the three candidates (Drs. Brannigan, Parker and Richardson) were asked to make brief statements before votes were cast. The votes were counted by the CUSF Membership and Rules Committee (Drs. Arthur, Chapin and Collins).

At 11:50am, Dr. Siegel invited Drs. Spicer, McClive and James to talk to the group about USM’s plans for Online Distance Learning. Dr. McClive distributed a handout and chaired the ensuing general discussion. It was suggested that it would be a good idea to institute a Regents Faculty Award for distance education. At 12:20pm, Dr. Siegel brought up the workload issue as related to distance education, and how intellectual property guidelines would interface among the campuses. Dr. McClive asked CUSF to discuss how to get broader representation on the distance education committee.

At 12:25pm , Dr. Chapin announced that Dr. Parker had been elected as the next CUSF Chair after the second ballot. He also called for nominations for the other positions on the next CUSF Executive Committee.

Dr. Chapin also introduced proposed changes to the CUSF By-Laws that would be discussed and voted on at the April 18 CUSF meeting. The effect of these changes would be to put a cap on the future growth of CUSF membership by allowing a maximum of six delegates per campus regardless of size.

The meeting broke for lunch at 12:30pm and committee meetings and reconvened at 1:05pm

Dr. Chapin announced that the nominees for the other positions on the next CUSF Executive Committee are Drs. Chapin and Brannigan for Vice Chair, Drs. Collins and Langdon for Secretary, and Drs. Coates, P. Alt, James and Stuart for the two At-Large positions. The nominations were declared closed. The elections for these positions will take place at the April 18 CUSF meeting.

Dr. Siegel asked everyone to notify their Senate Chairs about the April 18 CUSF meeting with the Chancellor.

Dr. Gulick led a discussion on the cost of textbooks. He conveyed several recommendations arising from a recent meeting on this topic that he had attended. It is essential for faculty to submit their textbook orders in a timely manner. Faculty should bundle only the books they are actually going to use. The ISBN numbers of the books should be posted on the web. Faculty should be aware of the prices of the books they assign. Dr. Siegel noted that some bookstores are run by campuses, others by outside companies (e.g., Barnes & Noble). She said that the bookstores should have faculty advisory committees. They should also have someone on staff who will help faculty get copyright permissions from publishers. She also noted that bookstores provide money to the campuses and off-campus bookstores don’t. Dr. McMullen noted that less expensive, nonreturnable versions of textbooks are often available. Dr. Ashkeboussi noted that free texts are often available on line. He suggested that professors could write their own books and offer them on-line for free. Dr. Coates noted that UMBC has a student consortium that does direct selling of used books.

Dr. Stuart reported on the K-16 committee. They are concerned with two main issues: (1) early enrollment and dual admissions; (2) lowering of standards by community colleges in order to attract more students. Dr. Siegel that advanced placement tests and early admissions are also important issues. Another issue is alternate methods of teacher certification, e.g., for people in more difficult fields (e.g., math, physics).

Dr. Siegel called on the Regents Faculty Award Committee to report their suggestions for future awards. Dr. P. Alt mentioned several issues: (1) The award for collaboration could include non-USM institutions; (2) every campus should have a committee to recommend candidates; (3) USM students outside the USA (e.g., UMUC students) could be made eligible; (4) we must emphasize that the review is by faculty peers, not by the Regents; (4) candidates must follow the rules, for example only include work done in the last three years in their dossiers; (5) we should consider adding a new award, such as for distance learning. Dr. Siegel suggested that the application process could be done on line. Dr. Wolfe said that he wanted to institute a totally electronic submission process, coordinated at the institutional level.

The meeting adjourned at 1:55pm.