Â鶹AV

The Chair, Roy Ross, called the meeting to order at 10:20 a.m. due to the difficulty of parking in the parking garage.

II. Welcome

Roy Ross welcomed everyone and because of the low attendance at that point (due to the parking situation), we asked Dr. Myers if he would be able to return later to extend his welcome to the Council. Dr. Myers was only too happy to oblige.

III. Approval of Minutes

The minutes from the February 27, 2001 Council Meeting were accepted with the noted corrections.

Chair, Roy Ross, started his report with the Chancellor's Council that was held March 5, 2001. The main part of this meeting was a legislative update, and Roy had nothing to add regarding the Council.

The Regent's Education Policy Committee met March 14, 2001 at UMB and covered at this meeting were the Faculty Substance Abuse Policy and accountability in shared governance. The accountability in shared governance is something the Council has been concerned with for many years. Out of a survey of all 13 institutions, only 8 responded and some wanted extensions. Dr. Steve Havas of UMB testified that faculty do not participate in the shared governance process. UMB's example is that their doctors have their own personal practices.

The Staff shared governance is still the same. If collective bargaining happens, what will the role of CUSS be or will there even be a need for the Council, and who would it include? It's possible that it could still exist to cover those individuals not covered by collective bargaining - which might include supervisory individuals.

The collective bargaining bill has been amended and we'll get the information out to the Council at a later date.

The Regents Finance Committee met March 15, 2001 and discussed the Alcohol Substance Abuse Policy for Faculty and Staff. The policy was pulled back for changes. It was considered too lenient because we are looked on as (and should be) role models for the students. The Substance Abuse Policy was a three-strike rule (three occurrences and you are out). Drug distribution should be termination at the second or perhaps even the first step. The students are held to a stricter code. Considering that Faculty works daily with students and Staff provide daily service, why are they not held as accountable? Concerns are that this could be abused and used as a way to terminate someone you do not like.

Another area of this debate is the sensitive vs. non-sensitive areas of the System. The Regents want to unify into one code - if you work at the Â鶹AV its 2 strikes then you are out. There are concerns with the Pharmacy school, helicopter pilots, and the CES vessels. It was mentioned that the CES vessels are under strict drug testing control already.

Development of this policy for staff was started in 1992 and tabled in 1997 because the faculty wanted to be included. Now we will be going back to the drawing board. Until a decision is made, and the new policy in place (whatever form it might take), the Governor's executive order will take precedence.

Senate Bill 207- Collective Bargaining for University System employees (a handout was distributed) has some amendments that we need to be aware of. The first amendment is a technical one that amends the purpose and function paragraphs. The second amendment allows for bargaining at each institution within the System. The third amendment corrects an oversight in the bill by providing that the Board of Trustees of Baltimore City Community College shall designate representatives to participate in collective bargaining. Changes in the definition of the board to include the existing State Labor Relations Board (SLRB) and the newly formed Higher Education Labor Relations Board (HELRB).

The fourth amendment is a clarifying one and strikes language no longer needed because of the creation of the new labor relations board. Amendment five establishes the HELRB as a separate unit of State government. The HELRB has similar powers and duties as the existing SLRB. Four members must have knowledge of higher education. The Governing Boards of Institutions of Higher Education will provide advice and guidance to the HELRB. The Â鶹AV Higher Education Commission will provide staff support to the board. The HELRB is responsible for overseeing collective bargaining only for State Institutions of Higher Education.

The sixth amendment provides that each institution of the Â鶹AV have its own set of bargaining units. Two bargaining units are established by campus: Non-exempt employees and Exempt employees. It also allows the President of each institution to assign classifications to each bargaining unit, and to execute a memorandum of understanding.

Amendment seven eliminates the language allowing supplemental MOU's because bargaining would occur by institution. It would also provide that the Presidents not participate in bargaining over any matter inconsistent with applicable law. The last amendment, eight, provides for the terms of the new Board members.

Delegate Rawlings stated that, if the collective bargaining bill reaches his committee, he would hold open hearings.

Dr. Skip Meyers, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer at UMUC welcomed the Council and mentioned that we were at the best little global university in Â鶹AV.

Benefits

Did not meet.

Communications

Had no report.

Compensation

The committee has nothing pending. They are still waiting for the B.E.S.T. Task Force to have its next meeting. It's believed that the deadline for the calling of this meeting is June.

In addition, they are still waiting for the information on staff to faculty ratios at our peer institutions based on the research data that Larry Lauer collected during his tenure as Chair of the Council. Larry has promised to forward the information to them as soon as he can.

They also looked at the Academic Advising information that was provided by Sandy Ratke from her people at the System Office. The recommendations sound like good ideas, but without detailed information, it's difficult to make blanket statements about the plans.

Community Development

The Board of Regents' Staff Awards took up a large part of their meeting. All evaluations are due to Starr Levine by early April. There was extensive discussion about what constitutes a resume. It was agreed that a biographical sketch would be enough if that were all an employee had. Also discussed was the due date and the fact that a number of institutions did not submit nominations. The Council agreed that the due date was set in stone and that no nominations were to be accepted after March 1, 2001. The committee will be looking at ways to increase participation, insure that the directions are clearer and look into ways that the nominees are placed into the correct categories. This year a number of nominees, while highly deserving, were obviously nominated in the wrong category.

IX. Old Business

The time clock issue was mentioned again in regard to the new system called Payroll Human Resources (PHR) being implemented July 15, 2001 at the College Park campus. It was mentioned that there would be mandatory training in the new policies. It was questioned whether we should send a letter to the Chancellor with our concerns, but that was tabled until we receive more information.

X. New Business

The 10:00 a.m. start is a better fit for all members.

Susann Shoop announced that Towson University is getting a new President. Their Staff Council is concerned that they will have nothing new to discuss with the new President upon their arrival. The Council suggested working up a wish list and interacting with other staff senates to see what their concerns are and possibly adopt for Towson's use.

Committee reports for the Newsletter are due to Fran Younger by the June Meeting. Please transmit them electronically if you are able.

The possibility of having a July picnic was raised again. A great time was had by all that attended last year. Please bring your ideas for locations and dates.

The meeting was adjourned at 2:07 p.m. The next CUSS meeting will be held at UMES on April 24, 2001.