The meeting was called to
order at 10:00 a.m. by the Chair, Larry Lauer.
II.
Welcome
Janet Magruder of UMBC
welcomed us and introduced the guests seated around the room. We then heard
from Dr. Freeman Hrabrowski, III, President of the University of Maryland,
Baltimore County. Dr. Hrabrowski spoke
of how he realizes that employees have a life beyond their institutions and how
he appreciates the whole person. UMBC
is an Honors University and while they have no football, they do have the
national chess champions. Walking
around the campus it seems like the Plaza at the United Nations building. They have students from over 80 different
countries.
UMBC takes pride in focusing
on shared governance. Dr. Hrabrowski
has been at UMBC for 18 years and through that time he's received tremendous
support from the faculty and staff.
UMBC works with the community and Inner City Baltimore students with
reading, writing mathematics. Their
vision is a bold one. UMBC is dedicated
to producing graduates that become the best.
Finally, Dr. Hrabrowski
mentioned that it is the staff that make the place move. Everyone at their institution represents
UMBC, and all take ownership of the students.
Larry then introduced Nathan
Chapman, Jr., Chairperson of the Board of Regents. The Governor appointed him to the Board 5 years ago. He started as Treasurer, served 2 years, and
then became Vice Chair, and he became Chairperson last July. He's in the fourth year of his first term
and he can serve a maximum of two five-year terms. The officers of the Board usually stay the same unless the
composition of board drastically changes.
The Governor tries to break up the composition of the Board
geographically, but that sometimes doesn't work. Once on the board, members represent the 13 institutions, not an
individual institution. Mr. Chapman has
now become the senior member of the Board, while still remaining the
youngest.
The full Board meets every
two months and the Board Committees meet in off months. The work the Board tackles come up through
the committees. Dr. Langenberg, as Chancellor, is the Chief of Staff. As Chairman, Mr. Chapman wants to be active
with this kind of outreach. [He is the first Chairman of the Board of
Regents to attend a CUSS Meeting.]
The Board is constantly
working to ensure that we get the budget our institutions need. Now we will be using funding guidelines, and
these will be based on peer reviews.
Through our peers and aspirational peers, we will have guidelines on how
we stand with our institutional peers.
What this means is that we will get more money, but it will be
enrollment based. Accountability of the
institution is equally important. The
System must deliver on the basis of peer accountability, but the big thing now
is to see that we get the funding needed.
We need to keep the budget intact for USM.
The second thing that's
important is technology. Mr. Chapman
formed a committee on technology. This
was the first new standing committee since the board's inception. First, at the institution level we owe every
student the same opportunity. At the
staff level, he wants everyone to have email, a way to exchange
information. Second, we need to make
sure each student has a standard technological proficiency upon
graduation. And how do we accomplish
our goal of ensuring this? Do we set a
standard or set-up a course? The Board
will set a goal and make it part of Presidential compensation. This is especially important due to the
Larson report. The third concern is the
digital divide, or who has technology and who does not. This is not just racially based, it's also
gender, age, and geographically based.
How the USM is addressing this is by mandating computer access. Discussions with the Presidents on how to
accomplish this are on-going. The
funding might come from the State, but no decisions have been made yet.
The teacher shortage in the
state of Maryland is another concern of the Regents. Mr. Chapman feels that we need to divide our resources to address
this. There are also shortages in the
Nursing and Pharmacy fields.
Questions
asked of Mr. Chapman
What is the
BOR doing to improve funding for the lesser funded institutions? We have to rely on the Presidents of each institution to bring
the issues to the Board and then we ask "What do you want first?" and then the
discussions start. From the operating
side, funding is driven by enrollment.
The enrollment targets bring in the money to the institution.
Contractual
employees' health care? He has not seen or heard
anything relating to this issue at this time.
If this is something of concern to us, please formally propose it. In addition to benefits issue, if people are
in a contractual position for long periods of time (years), then it sounds like
something that should be addressed. But
it's a presidential decision, not something he's aware that the Board will be
stepping into.
How are things
brought to the Board and what is their relationship with the various
institutional groups? He meets with staff groups at
different institutions and we have a strong staff representation. Also, issues are brought up through the
committees, much the way ours are.
Please talk
about the Larson legislation and how you see that impacting on presidential
prerogative? It will be a balancing act and, where
the Presidents will now have more
autonomy, the Board has independence when it comes to procurement. The Board of Public Works is now removed
from our procurement process. We have a
high construction budget and we need to insure that it gets spent in a timely
manner. The Board has gotten into the
construction process in order to make sure this happens. The Board may have to fire Presidents due to
cost overruns, but he hopes it won't come to this.
College Park
has had overruns on the new Performing Arts Center and the Governor is
supposedly upset at College Park. When
budgets are cut, people lose jobs. Why
should the employees pay for these kinds of errors? And what will happen with the new Comcast Arena when it's built? The Board doesn't expect cost overruns on projects, but they
can't hold Dr. Mote responsible because he just arrived. The Board considers this a very serious
issue and if things worsen, they will have to get involved. Mr. Chapman doesn't think the new stadium
will be a concern and they will stay on top of it. The ultimate cost of the Arena is still in debate.
Concerns over
quality of education due to funding and size of enrollment are possible. Using
projections, it would appear we don't have enough space and funding to provide
for all the possible student enrollees for the future. How are we going to handle it, especially
the smaller institutions? The funding guidelines are
trying to address this. College Park
gets the lion's share of funding because it is the flagship institution. Funding guidelines do give correct and fair
funding by using peer comparisons.
Shady Grove and Hagerstown are possibilities of the direction to go to
ease enrollment at some institutions by bringing college educations to those
who want them.
What is the
timeline for these changes? We have a surplus in this
state, so we can implement them now.
Other systems don't have our resources.
We may be young, but we're one of the top systems, and are admired
throughout the country. Our staff to
faculty ratio is lower than other higher education institutions, so our next
step is building up the staff to handle the extra work.
How is teacher
preparation in Maryland being addressed? We need to
encourage students to choose teaching as a profession. The Board is also looking into free tuition,
guaranteed jobs, etc. The K-16 program
has been very positively accepted, but we are in the early stages. More incentives are needed so we can produce
the kind of teachers that will teach our students.
How is
implementation of policies by Presidents at the institutional level being
addressed? We need a uniformity of
approach and this doesn't always happen. The Regents
want to be informed about those areas that aren't being implemented
correctly. They want to know when
things aren't happening the way they should.
Do you follow
up with the institutions on implementation? No,
the Board works in generalities. They
would get involved only if there were a problem.
How do we
bring these things to your attention? The Council
should bring it forward, but we need to agree that this is an issue.
Larry Lauer thanked Regent
Chapman for attending and answering our questions. He then presented him with one of the favored CUSS buttons.
III.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Minutes from the
December meeting were accepted with the noted corrections.
The Minutes from the
February special meeting were accepted with the noted corrections.
IV. BYLAWS PRESENTATION
The
Bylaws were accepted with the noted corrections. They will be presented for vote at the March meeting.
V. REPORT FROM CHAIR
Larry attended a shared
governance meeting at Towson University with Dr. Hoke Smith (President of
Towson), Dr. Steve Havas (Chair of CUSF), Kelly Newsome (Chair of the Student
Council) and a representative from the College Park Provost's Office. The purpose was to go through all the
documentation and come up with a consensus document to present to the
Chancellor. They are trying to arrive
at an evaluation strategy, a self evaluation, then team, then independently
evaluated. There is no draft of the
document yet, but they hope to have something before the end of the academic
year.
BOR meeting - went directly
into the public session at noon. Larry
brought up the contractual employees issue.
The Regents spoke about the Microsoft settlement.
President's Council - They
discussed the shared governance work group, the budget, and Annapolis
issues. Larry spoke about the staff
training development program, but we feel that we need to move forward with
this ourselves, whether or not the Vice Presidents are involved. Donald Tynes will speak to Joe Vivona and
have it added as an agenda item to the next Vice Presidents meeting. It was suggested that we set a time limit
for the suggestion and then let Mr. Chapman know if the Vice Presidents don't
follow through. Larry will inform the
Chancellor and copy Regent Chapman.
Executive Committee - Discussed how to handle the
Senate Bill 245 discussion.
Special Meeting - the February 10th meeting
revolved around the Bylaws.
VI. USM
OFFICE LIAISON REPORT
Donald Tynes and Rosario van
Daalen reported on the following:
1.
Contingent
employment - The State Legislative Oversight Committee is conducting a study on
contingent employment at all State agencies and is collecting statewide
information. The USM has complied with
the request and a copy of the response letter and summary tables were
distributed to all CUSS members during the meeting. The letter stated that a large number of Contingent employees
worked on grants (which have a defined period of time) and grants will always
have contingent employees. It's the
employees on other source of funding: Male/Female and Racial breakdown, the
source of funds (federal or private), the lack of benefits for Contingent
employees in the state, etc. At USM,
Contingent II employees already enjoy benefits that their state counterparts
don't have. Plus, the USM is already
reviewing the possibility of improving the existing mandatory benefits. Also, the State is reviewing how many Contingent
positions have been moved from Contingent to Regular Status. Can our institutions be more aggressive in
conversions? This question is currently
under review by the USM Administration.
2.
The
hearing February 9, 2000 on House Bill 224 - USM Enhancement of the Optional
Retirement Program hearing went well.
There was minimal questioning and Morgan, St. Mary's and community
colleges will be joining the ranks. The
proposed effective date is January 1, 2001.
The Exempt Pay Program
is moving forward as scheduled.
Institutions are implementing their pay administration plans: February
23 for former BOT schools and February 27 for former UM schools. Most Institutions have already implemented
the policy and are already using the "Duty Day" concept to record time on
timesheets. Systemwide it is expected
the amount of comptime approval to drop.
3. The State has
mandated that all employees receive training
pertinent to the
Governor's Policy on Domestic Violence.
Every employee is required to attend a training session that should be
no longer than 2 hours. Details will
come from the System Office in conjunction with the HR Directors at the
Institutions.
4. With the recent Cost of Living Adjustment
(COLA) awarded on January 1, 2000, employees are being encouraged to invest
some of that money in a supplemental retirement annuity (SRA) for their
retirement, lower their current taxes and obtain the state match (up to $600
matched dollar for dollar, on a fiscal year basis). CUSS members were encouraged to remind their constituents to put
some money into a SRA.
VII. WORKING LUNCH
VII. VOTE TO ENDORSE/NOT ENDORSE SENATE BILL 245
Larry Lauer stepped down as
Chair in order to take part in the discussion over Senate Bill 245. Dottie Holland, Vice Chairperson, conducted
this part of the meeting.
Dottie explained the
procedure for the discussion and requested that all the visitors, while being
welcome to remain, were not allowed to speak or comment during our discussion.
Craig Newman
presented the "Pro" Side of Senate Bill 245:
What is Collective Bargaining and how would the
process work if we get it. Upon passage
of bill there would be a determination of bargaining units. A bargaining unit is a group within the same
type of job (i.e., administrative/ clerical, police, trades, etc.) There would be an appeal process in place if
you don't feel you're in the right bargaining unit.
Once the bargaining units are defined, then the
first vote takes place. Each bargaining
unit votes on whether they want an organization to negotiate for them with the
state. An organization needs 10% of the
bargaining unit to vote for them to be included on the ballot. The ballot includes those organizations,
plus another category of "no representation".
Whoever wins becomes the representative of that bargaining unit. If no representation wins, then that's the
end of the process.
If an organization wins, then we move onto the
second vote for the bargaining team.
Election should be done after surveys and face to face meetings to make
everyone aware as to what the issues are.
Example: tuition remission. The next step would be to sit down and
bargain with the representatives from the USM.
How those representatives are chosen is up to the USM.
Then the bargaining starts - step by step, until
decisions are made. This continues
until everyone agrees that they've reached a point where they can present to
the members a proposed settlement to vote on.
There should be discussions with everyone (via email, telephone,
etc.). Then the vote is taken - a vote
"down", its back to negotiating; a vote "up", then you have an agreement. Only the legislature in session can approve
expenditures, so any monetary items in the settlement will have to be put into
the budget by the Governor to be approved by legislature. The final step is having the budget approved
by the legislature in the session following the settlement.
Another thing about collective bargaining is if a
bargaining unit elects an organization as representative, and they find that
that organization isn't representing them appropriately, then the unit can vote
them out. The process is called
"deselection".
Those are the essential parts to collective
bargaining. Now, does the bill
automatically give us collective bargaining?
That's not the case. The bill is
a right to vote for a collective bargaining bill. It's a basic civil right.
I think CUSS should vote for the bill.
Voting for the bill is neither endorsing nor not endorsing collective
bargaining.
Larry Lauer
presented the "Con" Side of Senate Bill 245:
All of us are in agreement that employees and
employers should sit down and talk about issues. But should outside groups come in and handle negotiations for
institutions? Is this the right choice
for the higher education environment?
Senate Bill 245 adds to the existing legislation,
specifically, the Larson Report and to the State Personnel Pensions Bill from
last year. To make a decision, you need
to understand what was in last year's bill.
This inserts information into the current legislation and enables the
Chancellor to pick a person(s) to participate in the collective bargaining
negotiations.
The State bill excluded contingent employees, but
the new one includes them while excluding faculty. Any managerial supervisory employee would be excluded, but each
case would be determined at a later point.
One of the large additions is in the bargaining
units. Instead of having local staff
groups, you'd have a large bargaining unit that would cut through the
institutions. A supplemental Memorandum
of Understanding, means that you might be able to raise an issue at an
individual institution.
Last year's bill has a Memorandum of Understanding
that has some power to it, but it isn't a contract. The State has a lot of rights as management. We as employees don't have the right to
strike or have a job action. What is
our recourse should things not go well?
What is the benefit to bringing in an outside
organization to negotiate for us? We
have established organizations that work with the various institutions. We have access to the Board of Regents, the
Presidents, etc. I feel that the
present representation is more varied than what collective bargaining would
give us.
I don't see collective bargaining as a good thing
for USM. I think that when given the
choice, most people would say "Yes, I need to be represented." It would bring another element into the USM
that isn't conducive to a continuing working relationship.
Jennifer Berkman made a
statement that collective bargaining is forcing us to decide how we want to be
governed. If we were to take the amount
of energy focused on collective bargaining and put that into shared governance,
the effect would be astounding. We're
concerned with the level of state involvement.
No one decision happens in a vacuum.
There are concerns that a collective way of bargaining will cut us off
at the knee. When we start to fraction
ourselves, it goes away from the idea of being a systemwide organization. Think about the culture on your campus and
see what the difference is to working at a learning institution and a state
agency. The system is only 10 years
old, and shared governance is even younger.
We're at a crucial point in our development. We don't need to be segregated.
Put energy into the system and move us forward even further.
Questions
relating to Senate Bill 245:
Couldn't CUSS
be the bargaining unit organization?
(Larry) I think the way the bill
is written would work against internal staff groups and believe that the
smaller institutions would get eaten up.
Also, CUSS doesn't have the resources to be a representative, but yes,
we could be.
Memorandum vs.
contract: Is one different from the
other? (Craig)
Some differences are due to politicians. A contract, a MOU, is a body of case law enabling them to be
enforced. (Larry) A contract has law behind it, a MOU doesn't
have the force of law behind it.
So, what
happens to managerial positions?
They're not covered by the bill.
Who represents them? The state calls people
management in a very broad way. People
who are not in the unit are not covered by the law.
Does it mean
that under the bill there will be no longer merit increases? No.
Where is the
bill now? The bill is currently in the Finance
Committee of the Senate.
Will we be
forced to pay dues to an organization?
Would management be forced to pay? No
agency fee means that no fee must be paid to any organization.
Can't we put
forward a bill for shared governance that would give us some teeth? Absolutely we could put forward such a bill. It's possible we could work on that before
the next session.
What's the
difference between a state agency and USM?
Why are they different environments? The difference
would be that the USM is less raw/less confrontational.
Dottie
Holland, hearing no more questions, called for the vote. Ballots were handed out and the vote was
taken. Results were 9 in favor of
endorsement of Senate Bill 245 and 19 against endorsement of Senate Bill 245.
VIII. COMMITTEE REPORTS
Benefits
Committee -
Communications -
Community
Development
-
Compensation - Andrianna Stuart
mentioned that the Compensation Committee met with Rosario to address their
questions during today's working lunch.
Rosario shared with the Council that the USM Pay Program Policy on Pay
Administration required each Institution to develop its own set of guidelines,
procedures and market in order to accomplish their missions and meet their
goals within their budgets.
Based on the above, their
institutional culture and style of management, Institutions will be using one
out of the two approved salary structures.
UMB, UMBI, UMCES and UMUC will be using the traditional ranges. BSU, CSC, FSU, SSU, TU, UB, UMBC, UMCP, UMES
and the USM Office will use the wide ranges.
Both salary structures have the same minimum at the lowest pay range and
the same maximum at the highest pay range.
UMCP has been permitted a higher maximum for exceptional market driven
jobs.
IX.
OLD BUSINESS
There was no old business.
X.
NEW BUSINESS
There was no
new business.
XI.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at
2:44 p.m. The next meeting will be held
on March 28, 2000 at the University of Maryland University College.
