Dr. William Kirwan, Chancellor

Meeting March 23, 2004

Faculty & Staff Senate Executive Board

I. Welcome
President Janet Dudley-Eshbach and Dr. Buchanan welcomed Chancellor Kirwan. 

II. Chancellor’s Agenda
Dr. Kirwan said he has no agenda for this meeting but would like to discuss any observations, questions and concerns from faculty and staff.  Dr. Kirwan commended President Eshbach on her achievements at SU.  He stated that SU’s reputation is on an upward projectory.  There’s a rise in reputation and a sense that SU is exceptional wide spread and has highest graduate rate volume of education and that of concerns of students.  President Eshbach should get credit on diversity at SU and adverse student body. 

III. State Budget

A. We are still at difficult times.  State situation in Annapolis (economic stress) brings out discussions of faculty workload, tuition increases and salaries. The state is on the verge of removing UMS from position cap. Governor introduced bill and this should pass Senate.  Next year would not be subject to position cap and will be removed permanently.  No revenue solution this year, it will be a fiscal mess.  Legislative will be crucial next few weeks.  Regents Effectiveness & Efficiency Task Force from system office and campus.  Purpose -that all campuses are efficient with current resources.  Analyze justification of on line education; can universities in system use Chesapeake College for reserve purposes. There is declining state support. High school classes increase 25% in next 10 years wanting higher education.  System budget should grow by 5%.

B. Budget includes 2.5% increase and COLA at flat dollar amount.  That has not been worked out at this time.

IV. Faculty Concerns

Several faculty questioned merit restrictions among faculty and how it’s divided.  There’s no balance. No extreme examples of where the money goes - there should be guidelines.  All allocated monies should go to merit only. Salary recommendations are on advisory input. PRD not always guaranteed. Faculty is performing above “meet standards”. It was voiced that funding is more political for merit money.

CUSS came up with a program to determine who gets percentage.  Everyone who meets expectations at 90% gets merit increase.  All monies go to “meet standards” so there isn’t any extra money for exceptional performances.  There should not be restrictions at SU as far as how the monies are distributed. Please consider the Regents Effective & Efficiency Task Force and that they have done well.  Salaries and administration taken off the table at the Legislature.  Funding guidelines – year 2000 SU was at 90% of funding guidelines.  Year 2001 SU over achieved enrolled incoming students and the revenue per student. No one has taken money from SU. Hold down tuition funding guidelines at SU was disproportionately lower from prior years of administration. Maryland has never given funding on enrollment. 

V. Status at SU

A. SU has a great master plan to increase space on campus.  SU, Bowie and Towson have the room for growth.  Teaching and workload at peer universities high.

B. Senate Meetings has low attendance due to budget cutbacks (staff not being replaced and extra workload)

C. UMB and College Park Coalition Agreement – C.P. has single senate; CUSS categories would not be a part of their governing program.  CUSS gives advising issues to legislative.