Minutes: CUSF Meeting of September 19, 2008

University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science (UMCES)

A. Chairman Bill Chapin called the meeting of the Council of University System Faculty (CUSF) to order at 10:00 a.m. on Friday, September 19, 2008 at the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science (UMCES), Chesapeake Biological Laboratory (CBL), Solomons Island, in the Bernie Fowler Laboratory. Those in attendance were (29): Chairman Bill Chapin (UMES), Vice-Chairman Martha Siegel (TU), Secretary Joyce Shirazi (UMUC), At-Large Officers Joyce Tenney (UMBC) and Bill Stuart (UMCP), Past-Chairman John Collins (UMBI); other CUSF members Joan Langdon (BSU), Alcott Arthur (CU), Kim Rotruck (FSU), Gerry Wojnar (FSU), Mary Mumper (FSU), Bill Montgomery (UMCP), Arthur Popper (UMCP), James Gates, Jr. (UMCP), Patti Cossard (UMCP), Paul Flexner (SU), Mike Garner (SU), Bobbi Adams (SU), Thomas Krause (TU), Jay Zimmerman (TU), Stephanie Gibson (UB), Rosemary Jagus (UMBI), Rodger Harvey (UMCES), William Rivera (UMCP), Emmanuel Onyeozili (UMES), Robert Johnson, Jr. (UMES), Bill Sondervan (UMUC); Senior Vice Chancellor Irv Goldstein; UMCES Associate Director Amanda Grimes.

B. Welcome from University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science: Rodger Harvey welcomed CUSF to University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science and introduced Mrs. Amanda Grimes, CBL Associate Director of Administration and External Affairs. Mrs. Grimes welcomed CUSF to UMCES and discussed the history and purpose of UMCES, noting that the first building on the campus was built in 1929.

C. Joyce Shirazi moved for approval of the June 09, 2008 CUSF meeting minutes; seconded by Bill Stuart; approved unanimously.

D. Chair’s Report from Meetings of Groups over the Summer: Bill Chapin presented the key highlights from meetings over the summer and distributed various related materials.
1. CUSF: We must arrange a meeting to discuss the New Chairs’ Workshop. Librarians are faculty and we need to work on this on our campuses.
2. Presidential Task Forces: The Research Competitiveness and Economic Development Task Force is chaired by UMCP President Dan Mote and will focus on R&D and economic development, with special attention given to technology transfer and innovation. The STEM Workforce Task Force is chaired by TU President Robert Caret and will focus on workforce issues, with special attention to teachers. These task force charges have international significance and illustrate how we directly bring dollars to the state.
3. Budgetary Issues: Some cuts are likely, but clarification is needed on impact to promotions, tenure, etc. There is a proposed Board of Regents (BOR) Slots Resolution (in favor of the video terminals). There is a new USM Tele-working Policy in the works that applies to non-faculty employees and may lead to complications when collective bargaining is involved since not all employees have jobs that make tele-working a likely possibility.
4. Regents’ Faculty Awards: The material is already out and the committees on each campus should go through shared governance and not solely the president’s office. The link to the awards material is http://www.usmd.edu/usm/academicaffairs/regfac.txt. Bill Chapin agreed to send the packets directly to Senate Chairs electronically.
5. Benefits: The proposal from USM is that there will be a contribution from the system side and out of our salaries for optional retirement plan (ORP); There are some major problems with tuition remission because the benefits are currently determined by IRS rules; for example, if students make too much money over the summer they may not be eligible, and there are also tax implications; CUSF continues to ask that benefits not be tied to IRS rules (even if those who use the benefits may be taxed on the benefits). A proposal for benefits for domestic partners will be available, but only for same sex partners, which is still in the works.
6. Hagerstown: Last year we were helpful in avoiding legislative interventions and CUSF representatives from FSU agreed.
7. USM Requirements: More students are admitted and some are not prepared and are getting behind while taking remedial classes. All Senate Chairs were mailed information on the achievement gap and what will be done by their institutions. Students need to be prepared from P to 20. In at least two MD counties, for example, if a student fails Algebra I Part I or Part II, they find other equivalent courses to use. Demonstrating student success is another issue. This issue will be sent to the CUSF Academic Affairs Committee.
8. Textbooks: The CUSF Chair sent the current version of the CUSF textbook recommendation to the Senate Chairs for distribution. Martha Siegel suggested that all CUSF members receive the letters. Not all Senate Chairs have access, or are allowed to send emails to all faculty. There is a gatekeeper on at least two campuses. Patti Cossard added that MHEC FAC is also developing a document. Irv Goldstein noted that the federal authorization also has a set of edicts and it is clear that whatever they say is what we will do. CUSF will monitor the proposed legislation.
9. BOR reviewing their policies.
10. Faculty Policies: CUSF is also reviewing our policies regarding who the CUSF officers are, what the standing committees are, etc. The constitution and the by-laws have differing language. We must go to the BOR for approval of changes.
11. CUSF Chairs for Internal Committees and Representatives of CUSF to Other Bodies: Bill Chapin will report to the Chancellor at the President’s Council and to the full BOR. He will conduct the Executive Committee and General Body CUSF meetings. Martha Siegel will attend the AAAC meetings (except for the retreat). Joyce Tenney will continue to attend the BOR finance meetings and to chair the Faculty Regents Awards Committee. Bill Stuart will continue to attend the BOR educational policy meetings and to represent our interests at P-20 meetings. Patti Cossard will attend the MHEC-FAC meetings representing CUSF. BSU and CU still need MHEC-FAC representation. CUSF needs a representative to the UMATS (computer) council, which meets monthly at Anne Arundel Community College.
12. BOR Meeting: Governor Mandel’s recommendations regarding campus safety and security passed. A campus can be sued for what it did not do. Governor Mandel voiced concerns about a lack of faculty involvement. We must be sure that faculty members are selected and involved. Martha Siegel noted that all USM committees, concerning academic matters, should have a spot for a CUSF representative, a student and a staff representative; that way the policy can go both ways, and it is not just handed down.

E. Report from USM Senior Vice Chancellor Irv Goldstein:
1. Budget: It is not as bad as we thought. We are getting a cut. The Governor is probably still negotiating with other agencies. Chancellor Brit Kirwan instituted a hiring freeze system-wide and he left it with each campus President as to exceptions from the freeze. This may be good enough for the fiscal year. The other problem is next year. For this fiscal year, the Governor replaced a tuition increase and put it elsewhere in the budget. He realizes that it is a knowledge economy state and he has a broad vision of the relationship. In answer to questions from the floor, Irv Goldstein said that there were no thoughts coming from USM regarding faculty pushing for the passing of slots. Healthy discussions can not hurt. Parking issues are decided by the individual campuses.
2. The Office of Civil Rights (OCR): The lawsuit related to duplicate programs is proceeding. The TU-UB MBA program was one of the main programs in the lawsuit. We filed our report and depositions of presidents are likely in the next several months. This summer OCR visited some USM facilities and video taped the facilities; probably making comparisons of the physical facilities between HBCU’s and historically white institutions. They called in advance. We are not sure if they will act on our report or wait until after the election. Five campuses were in the first round. Use-of-facilities questions were asked.
3. MHEC is reviewing the State Plan for Higher Education.
4. Chancellor Brit Kirwan discussed innovative USM research project awards: New research initiatives to combat global warming, using biological processes to create new generation bio-sensors that detect and report bio-terrorism threats, developing more efficient and effective bio-fuels, assessing the impact of climate change specifically on the State of Maryland, generating electricity through photosynthetic microbial fuel cells.
5. Campus issues discussed at Provosts’ Retreat: Challenges to historically white institutions, design of a strategic plan, having an older student body, joint faculty appointments; Jim Sherwood discussed the UMUC student body; A-day-in-the-life of a Provost; Andy Clarke discussed the Higher Education Re-Authorization Act.
6. Legislative Issues: The Textbook Authorization Act is one. Many issues and tensions have been raised regarding unionization of graduate student assistants. A number of peer institutions have graduate student unions. But there are serious tensions regarding the relationships of graduate students and faculty and many of our institutions prefer to resolve those issues without the constraints provided by union activities. Other legislative issues related to unions include agency fees - whether a non-member may have to pay an agency fee, immigration status, campus safety and security, and program duplication.
7. Maryland Center for Environmental Science (MCES) Program: Five or six campuses are involved in the program. It is administratively housed at UMCP. External review will follow traditional policies and it will eventually go to each Provost, then the USM review committee. The external review report is quite positive. Eventually, the USM report will provide recommendations to the Chancellor for further enhancement of the program.
8. STEM: Dr. June Streckfus, Executive Director of the Maryland Business Round Table, will co-chair a new state-wide STEM Task Force established and co-chaired by Chancellor Brit Kirwan. The Chancellor has formed two internal USM committees on these issues. Dr. Dan Mote will chair the task force on research competitiveness, and Dr. Robert Caret is chairing a USM committee on workforce competitiveness.
9. Hagerstown: We do not expect further challenges to the Hagerstown budget during the next legislative session.
10. Benefits: Proposals for same sex domestic partner benefits are going well and they are trying to move the ball forward for contributions to the optional retirement plan (ORP). What are the real costs? Is our package really deficient? PJ Hogan is working on these issues. The Family Leave Act is still policy.

F. Report on Digital Library Budget Resolution: Patti Cossard provided an update of the Digital Library Budget Resolution, which was earlier distributed via email. The proposed resolution and background report on the Maryland Digital Library are shown in Appendices I and II.
1. It was previously a way to purchase material state-wide, instead it has become a consortium buying club. The money comes to the campus, but it is not earmarked. The problem is that we can not purchase items that need to be purchased to properly serve curriculums. Every year funding is requested via a budget.
2. The motion by Patti Cossard for the resolution as read was seconded by Bill Chapin.
3. Discussion: It should be added to the resolution that CUSF supports the resolution. The Maryland Digital Library budget request of $850,000 for “K-12” should be changed to read “P-20”. Patti Cossard will send the resolution to Chancellor Brit Kirwan and it will also go to the faculty. The resolution should request that Chancellor Brit Kirwan forward it to MHEC as part of their budget. There were no further questions and the resolution was unanimously approved with amendments as noted.

G. Lunch and Formation of Committees and First Committee Meetings

H. Other business: Joyce Tenney asked that CUSF recommend that they do not lower the drinking age. Bill Chapin noted that each CUSF committee should prepare a committee report in advance of the next meeting. All reports should be emailed to the CUSF secretary so that we will not be reading each report for the first time at the next meeting. At the October meeting all committee reports will be discussed before lunch. There was a discussion about the need for faculty to have input in the campus president’s review. At least three USM campuses currently have this.

I. It was moved by Mike Garner to adjourn; seconded by Paul Flexner. The meeting adjourned at 1:15 p.m.

APPENDIX I. PROPOSED MARYLAND DIGITAL LIBRARY RESOLUTION

RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF UNIVERSITY SYSTEM FACULTY IN SUPPORT OF THE MARYLAND DIGITAL LIBRARY FISCAL YEAR 2010 BUDGET PROPOSAL

WHEREAS, the Maryland Digital Library (MDL) was authorized in 1999 with an initial funding of $900K under the general responsibility of the Maryland Higher Education Commission (MHEC);

AND, WHEREAS, the MDL was made a permanent program of the Maryland Higher Education Commission by legislative act in 2004 without additional funding but for the stated legislative purpose of strengthening the academic library cooperation in Maryland and creating fiscal efficiencies through enhanced cooperation among academic libraries;

AND, WHEREAS, the MDL is primarily supported contributions from its 52 member libraries and by the technical and fiduciary stewardship of the University of Maryland, College Park;

AND, WHEREAS, the constituent institutions of the University System of Maryland and all of higher education have benefited from this program;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT we, the Council of University System Faculty, support the MDL budget request of $850K for the Fiscal Year of 2010 in order to provide additional access to electronic databases, support direct patron borrowing, and fund the development of a Maryland Memory Project. We request that William E. Kirwan, Chancellor of the University of Maryland System, forward the request to James E. Lyons, Secretary, Maryland Higher Education Commission, to have the MDL budget proposal be included in the overall Maryland Higher Education Commission 2010 Budget Proposal. Furthermore, we ask that Chancellor Kirwan lobby the Governor on behalf of MDL to keep this budget request of $850K in the 2010 State Budget sent to the Maryland General Assembly.

APPENDIX II. MARYLAND DIGITAL LIBRARY BACKGROUND REPORT

Background Report on the Maryland Digital Library
Presented to CUSF
9/19/08

The Maryland Digital Library (MDL) was authorized in 1999 with an initial one-time funding of $900,000. The project was the general responsibility of the Maryland Higher Education Commission (MHEC) and the Secretary of Higher Education. The University of Maryland, College Park, has provided the technical and fiduciary support for the effort, with policy and governance matters delegated to a management group representative of various higher education library constituencies. In 2004 the State Legislature made MDL a permanent program of MHEC with two primary purposes: strengthening the academic library cooperation in the state and creating fiscal efficiencies through enhanced cooperation among academic libraries. The MDL mission is to provide information resources vital to the education of a population that must be intellectually competent, technologically proficient, and information literate in order to compete in the global workforce.

No additional state funding has been made since 2000. MDL has been self-funded by participating institutions which benefited from the fiscal advantages of consortial buying. However, the self-funding model cannot sustain expanded collaborative initiatives because it is currently restricted by individual campus budget allocations. In order to expand access to academic resources, leverage the existing investment of individual campuses and thereby help keep education affordable, further funding is sought to pursue the following initiatives:

1. Provide equitable access to electronic databases core to undergraduate research ($450K);
2. Investigate and begin to implement a collection-sharing model that would facilitate direct patron borrowing by college students any where in the state essentially creating equitable access all institutions ($150K);
3. Undertake Maryland Memory Project to digitize special collections with relevance to Maryland history thereby expanding access to unique materials of high value to all sectors of Maryland education, K-20 ($250K).

The FY10 MDL budget request is for a total of $850K. It will be matched by member institutions 1:1, providing an infusion of funding for the state's academic libraries which are critically underfunded.

Since the beginning of July 2000, the Maryland Digital Library has served the students, faculty, and staff at over 50 two- and four-year public and private institutions accredited by the Maryland Higher Education Commission. The success of this program can be seen in a brief set of statistics. Over 200,000 students have used the shared collection of 10 electronic databases to conduct over 2.1 million searches and to retrieve almost 1.6 million full-text articles or documents. These ten databases include a collection of 400 electronic books, nearly 3000 full-text electronic journals, reference works such as a science encyclopedia, an African-American studies database, and the Oxford English Dictionary Online as well as indexes in general academic studies, nursing and allied health, education, and business.

By cooperating as a consortium, MDL has been able to negotiate reduced rates for access to these electronic resources. At startup, MDL spent about $600,000 to license access to the ten databases at a savings of $ 2.9 million. The electronic resources were selected to provide a basic multidisciplinary collection with an emphasis on full-text that would be available to all colleges and universities regardless of their state of funding.

With the establishment of the Maryland Digital Library, Maryland joins our neighbors in Virginia, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania as well as dozens of other states from Alabama to Oregon in the implementation of digital library projects to support teaching and research. The relative success of the MDL program in its first years indicates that the program is starting to meet the base needs of the Maryland academic community. With requested funding, MDL would be able to continue to leverage the benefits of consortial purchasing to expand the shared electronic collection beyond core undergraduate materials to more in-depth research tools. Funds from the state would be matched on a 1:1 basis by the Maryland Digital Library participants. The resulting total of $900,000 would provide access for all MDL participants to research databases containing over 7400 full-text e-journals in business, nursing, social sciences, humanities and general science as well as to a package of newspapers including the Baltimore Sun and the Washington Post. This set of databases would provide equitable access to core undergraduate research material for all Maryland academic libraries and in turn establish a more level playing field for undergraduates of all higher education sectors, while at the same time leveraging increased bargaining power with the database publishers. [Support for electronic resources: $450,000]

Maryland’s academic libraries have built a “Harvard size” collection of millions of volumes—a very large investment in information resources, but one not readily available to students in all higher education sectors. In addition, studies indicate that as much as 60% of each of these collections is unique to the holding library. Rational efficiency argues that the investment should be readily and directly available statewide to students and faculty, but experience in the USM shows that traditional staff-mediated Interlibrary Loan systems cannot sustain the traffic that we know will result; nor can they respond quickly enough to meet the needs of most undergraduate students. What is needed is statewide implementation of a shared system which allows direct borrowing by individuals, unmediated by library staff. Therefore, the Maryland Digital Library is requesting $100,000 for FY 09 to investigate options for sharing these collections more effectively and providing access to the collections and delivering requested books for a college student anywhere in the state. This program makes sound economic sense because it will leverage the expenditures that Maryland has already spent over past years and provide equitable access to these collections. This creates a large-scale efficiency in exploiting the sunk-costs of collections in which we have invested. The experience with such patron-mediated access across institutions has been a proving ground at how powerfully this leveraging of existing collections can be. [Support for direct patron borrowing from all libraries: $150,000]

Maryland Digital Library also plans to begin a program of digitizing special collections owned by Maryland’s academic libraries, in particular those collections that have relevance to Maryland history. A major goal in digitizing these collections is to make them available to students in K-12 and Maryland citizens. Such a Maryland Memory Project will have broad applicability and benefit to all sectors of education by “exposing” special collections that are currently of benefit only to those able to travel to the holding library. Budget request $250,000 to be used in matching grants for specific digitization projects. [Support for digitization projects: $250,000]

Plans for the next two years include, in addition to the expansion of the shared electronic collections, the development of a virtual online catalog, digitizing unique Maryland collections, and pursuing the possibilities for collaborative efforts with the K-12 education sector. Initial discussions have taken place with the K-12 library community regarding possible collaborative subscriptions for electronic resources. The cost savings realized by the 50-plus college and university libraries could be leveraged even further by combining the number of students in the K-12 community. The two communities share a common educational purpose and interest in many of the same resources. Partnering in this manner would build a stronger continuum of educational information resources.

When it was established in 1999-2000, the Maryland Digital Library was awarded one-time startup funding in its first two years but it has not received state support since 2002, the General Assembly passed legislation establishing the MDL as a Maryland Higher Education Commission program initiative. Now this request fulfills the major goals outlined in the 2004 enabling legislation that made MDL a permanent program with MHEC.

State policy is guided by the aim of making electronic access to postsecondary education, particularly on-line courses, widely available to Marylanders. The State supplied initial support to create the Maryland Digital Library. However, lack of funding has limited the number and quality of services this organization can offer. Most important, this request provides seed money to create efficiency by leveraging current and past budget investments from tax dollars and student tuition across higher education at individual institutions. Its impact will be to create a highly proactive state consortium that breaks down barriers to access for 200,000 students and puts at their fingertips a collective library resource vital to their classroom success. There is no question that it will set us on the path to equalize access among the sectors eliminating some of the peaks and valleys that result from traditional budgeting to individual institutions. Information is the primary fuel of classroom instruction and advanced leading-edge research. This request will allow the MDL to efficient use of investments that we have made in information.