The University of Southern Mississippi

1.0 Recognition of the recipients of the 2004-2005 Faculty Senate and Office of the President Awards

David Beckett, past Senate president, remarked upon the history of the Faculty Awards, and the importance of faculty participation in selecting faculty awards. He thanked past members of the Award Committee, especially chair Alan Thompson for work in selecting the awardees. David Beckett strongly recommended that the Faculty Senate continue to participate in the selection of and awarding of faculty awards. He congratulated each of the awardees. Dave Beckett and Dr. Shelby Thames, USM president, presented the awards to Steven Baker and Vincent Stretch for Junior Faculty Teaching; to Andrew Lowe for Junior Faculty Research; Chi “Steve” Yuen for Mentoring; Jeffery Kauffman for Community Service; and Jui Ding for Grand Marshall. Senators applauded each award recipient.

2.0 Forum Speaker: Shelby F. Thames.

President Thames spoke to the Faculty Senate on the topics of Status of the Gulf Coast Campus before and after Katrina, Budget and Salary Issues, and Priorities for the Future, and then took questions from the Senators.

See the Power Point presentation on the Faculty Senate Website

(http://www.usm.edu/fsenate/ ).

Questions from the Floor: Bill Scarborough asked if the GC campus will be built on the same site or at an alternate site. President Thames replied that a more central location near I-10 could be an asset to Southern Miss, but that issue is still being discussed, as damage is being assessed now. FEMA will support rebuilding at a different location. President Thames complimented the GC Associate Provost, Dr. Joachim, for doing an excellent job managing the GC campus during and after the crisis.

Bill Scarborough also stated that he understands President Thames’ emphasis on increasing student numbers, but is concerned with quality of students admitted. President Thames replied that one cannot build a great university without the best students, and that he supported recruiting and retaining the best students.

Bill Powell asked if student enrollment pre-Katrina was lower than last year. President Thames stated that according to Joe Paul, Assistant VP, enrollment was up 1-2%, and enrollment at GP Pre-Katrina was above 3,000, an increase of about 500 students.

Don Redalje reminded President Thames to not forget the Marine Sciences and Stennis needs. President Thames stated he would not, and that these sites and the faculty were extremely important for the University.

Myron Henry had questions related to indirect cost recoveries discussed in his presentation. President Thames clarified that ~40% was the highest indirects available, from the NIH and NSF. Myron Henry also needed clarification and asked if we had $55-60,000,000 available to departments in indirects? President Thames said no, that figure was about 8 million dollars.

David Duhon asked about the hold from the Provost Office on Summer Research Grants, Awards and Promotions due to financial losses from Katrina. President Thames replied that Promotions are a priority. He stated that we spend 12-14 million dollars to run the GC. He needs to find out what the revenue will be on the GC, and will wait until after registration on October 13 to see how many dollars we have for Grants and Awards.

Joe Olmi asked about new hires for next year and stated that we are behind already. The President stated that we have to balance the budget, and he cannot answer that question until more information about revenue is received. President Thames asked Joan Exline to look into advertising permission for hires now, so USM can get candidates for possible positions. He emphasized that permission to advertise was not equal to permission to hire.

Dave Beckett asked about whether a liaison is in place to collect proffered assistance and financial support for USM after Katrina. President Thames stated that Tim Ryan is making a list and setting himself up a contact base for gathering funds.

Paula Smithka asked about the Commercialization Park that is being planned and how would this benefit the University and the City? President Thames replied that The Park will have facilities that aspiring companies can rent from USM, and these companies come here because USM has the manpower and the equipment, the facilities. They would have research contracts with USM. USM will have ownership of part of the product, and royalties. It will take years to materialize. Silicon Valley and Google have been started like that. Income will come from rent, contracts and grants, student hires, and later, royalties, and they will pay taxes also. Would that money be brought into E & G funds? No, these will be primarily used for research.

Bill Powell stated that Senators appreciated the information about administrative raises given to the Executive Committee. He asked President Thames why the administrators got raises, while only some of the non promotion-related raises to faculty could be considered merit and the other equity raises. President Thames stated that raises are important, that some rose in rank to chair, others needed equity raises, the administrators received raises because chairs and other administrators are farther behind than any other group. He wishes he could give raises to everyone, but he gave raises to keep people here and to reward outstanding service.

Myron Henry asked (about a table in the presentation) whether comparisons be made between administrative pay between institutions without factoring in time in position, and experience? President Thames stated that pay is based on job responsibility and that was the basis on which those salaries are given. Myron Henry stated that time in position and experience are also factors. President Thames gave examples of administrators at other MS universities who had not been in their positions long, yet had higher salaries than more experienced administrators at USM

David Duhon commented that USM administrators are substantially underpaid when compared to other MS University administrators. “Is there something philosophical going on here that makes us so different? Why are we so far behind, Dr. Thames?” President Thames replied that they are much underpaid and work just as hard as or harder than administrators at Ole Miss or Miss. State. He can’t give you a reason for this, it has happened over many years, and it is not fair.

Bill Powell stated that while we all appreciate the pay inequities in cross-university comparisons, there is not a sense on campus that we are suffering together equally in this fiscal year in terms of raises.

Mary Beth Applin added that is hard to justify giving raises when you are raising tuition and telling students we have to raise tuition just to make ends meet; while raises are being given that could be used toward placing 3 or 4 faculty members in a classroom. President Thames replied that he would like to explain the other side of the coin. He gave the example that if we had a faculty member who brought in 10,000,000 dollars and are a profit center for USM. They pay their own salary, bring in indirect dollars to USM, and yet are we going to make that person suffer? If we don’t pay him more, another institution will come and pick him up from us. He gave an example of a faculty member, who did not get an equity raise of $25,000 dollars, who became a Presidential Scholar, and then left.

A senator asked if how much money you bring into USM is used solely to determine how much you are worth to the University. President Thames replied, “No, not at all. You make money for the University when you teach classes, we all bring money into this university, but there are some people who bring in extraordinary amounts of dollars, I just used that as an example. I pointed out that we have to have that money; it is the only way we can survive. I don’t mean to keep harping on money, and give you the wrong impression, we all bring in money by doing our jobs, and teaching brings in money.”

Larry Mead asked about $40,000 raises. President Thames said that he must be referring to our Athletic Director, who is paid in the bottom third of athletic directors in Conference USA. This raise brought him up to about midpoint. The Athletic Foundation contributed $20,000 to bring it to $40,000. President Thames believes that Mr. Giananini has done a remarkable job. He has built the field house and plans to renovate the stadium with private dollars, USM student athletes have had a high rate of graduation on time, he is a moral man and does a great job. President Thames said, “I wish I could give him more money. There was a danger of losing him to the SEC.”

Dr. Scarborough commented that he understood what the president was saying, but one of the problems is that “you think in terms of your own background in Polymer Science. We have lost a lot of people in History and English, which used to be 2 of our best departments at this University for years because they have not gotten raises in years…. My point is that you can give a $10,000-20,000 raise to someone who is going to bring in money, but somebody who has a national reputation as a scholar and gets a good offer from someplace else…Chuck Bolton is a good example… we lost a good man. I wish you viewed all colleges that way.” President Thames responded, “I try to, I try to.”

Another Senator asked, “Why is there inequity between USM and Ole Miss in how much money is received from the state, yet the enrollment figures are not that far apart?” President Thames replied that he did not know, that they had experienced a decline in enrollment for the last 2 years, but could not answer that question because he does not know.

Bill Powell asked, “Has there been any email monitoring this last year?” President Thames answered, “None that I am aware of.”

Bill Powell thanked President Thames for coming to speak to the Faculty Senate. Senators applauded, and the Senate took a break before the meeting began.

3.0 Call to Order at 3:30pm

4.0 Approval of Agenda

4.1 Addition: Resolution proposing moving the GP campus to a modern, more accessible location

5.0 Officers’ Reports

5.1 President- Bill Powell

5.1.1 Gulf Coast Issues

5.1.1.1 A faculty and staff group will be collecting doughnuts, muffins, cookies and other sweets on Monday between to bring to GP Campus on Monday morning to welcome students, faculty, and staff for the opening day of class. Please bring donations to the LAB parking lot between 7:30am-9:30 am.

5.1.1.2 Workgroups are being formed by Bill and Mary Beth Applin to assist GP faculty and staff cleanup offices and home sites. Meet this Sunday morning at 11:00am in the LAB parking lot. Pat Smith has identified 4 families who need help. This may be the first of several work trips.

5.1.1.2.1 Joe Olmi stated that he had a work group from Pennsylvania looking for work projects. Bill Powell suggested calling Pat Smith at GP for direction.

5.1.1.3 Pat Smith has been working on solutions for delivering classes to GP students. Offering about 70% of the courses to 50% of the students.

5.1.1.3.1 About 2,450 students on GC pre-Katrina, to date, 1,220 have registered to return.

5.1.1.4 Efforts were successful in getting faculty and staff declared essential personnel for FEMA benefits, including housing.

Huckleberry Hill and Cedar Point are possible sites for trailer homes for faculty and staff.

5.1.1.5 Jim Miller, Chet Rakocinski, and Don Redalje from the GC had suggestions for helping faculty. Phone colleagues to fill them in on news, give moral support, take time to talk, take time to listen. Faculty staff and students all need places to live or stay indefinitely, as so many lost their homes, cars, possessions.

5.1.1.6 Joe Olmi stated that he was concerned with how some faculty members were reassigned to teaching in Hattiesburg and that nothing was being systematically done by the University to help faculty with housing and other needs so that they can return to teaching.

5.1.2 Mississippi State University Faculty Senate Resolution

The MSU Faculty Senate sent a resolution offering condolences and support to USM after the Hurricane Katrina Crisis in South Mississippi to President Thames. The USM Faculty Senate was appreciative of their sentiment and concern, both Bill Powell and President Thames responded with letters of appreciation to the MSU Faculty Senate.

5.1.3 Raises

Bill Powell and Myron Henry discussed a handout prepared by Myron Henry re: Analysis of raises in question. Administrative raises = 16; faculty raises = 12 (not counting chairs). Select administrators and some faculty received raises averaging 10% this summer. This raise was given in a very tight budget year, and tuition had been increased, faculty were told not to expect any raises this year. Further, the raises were given at a time the University was on SACS probation, and faculty had worked extensively on SACS without raises. The process of awarding and the appropriateness of these raises were discussed.

Myron Henry expressed concern about the amount of raises given to athletic administrators from private sources and University Funds. Athletics receives state funding and money for scholarships. Private dollars can be used to free up state dollars to be used for other purposes. A raise from any source means that those monies are not available for alternate uses, such as instruction, equipment, etc.

A senator questioned raises for some faculty. Bill Powell explained that some faculty members on the list were also department chairs or directors, and at least one of them was given a raise to adjust for inequities in pay within that title.

Another senator was sorely disappointed in the lack of administrative transparency in the raise process, once again, which diminishes our faith and trust in administration and in the evaluation and raise processes outlined in the Faculty Handbook. Faculty have a visible, outlined process that goes up a line of authority for evaluations and raises. This process removes final decisions from those who may have personal motives. Administration does not seem to operate with the same degree of transparency or accountability in this area. Administrators work with each other face to face each day, and so see themselves working hard, deserving rewards. This situation is open for abuse. Somehow this sort of dynamic needs to be addressed. . Another Senator agreed that transparency of process is important.

One senator stated that raises at the corporate level, if one uses the corporate model of administration, usually depends upon performance indicators that are known and transparent. It is not known if or how faculty evaluation of administrators was utilized in determining administrative raises. Further, some who received sizeable raises were at the helm at the time USM was placed on SACS probation, and we are not off of probation yet. Several messages can be derived from the Administrative Raises: We are not all sacrificing together; and this president came in with a goal of making administration more efficient. Is this actually occurring? Is more money from administrative efficiency being directed toward the classroom?

Another senator expressed frustration at watching faculty working hours and hours of overtime on committees because we are short on faculty, and to remove USM from SACS probation, while money comes out of E & G funds for administrative raises instead of to more faculty positions to help with workloads.

One senator pointed out that this is not the time for administrative raises to address inequity in pay between Mississippi Universities. The time to do that should be at a time of general raises. Administration is not sharing the sacrifices they are expecting from faculty, staff and students.

It was expressed by a different senator that a raise for chairs who were promoted was a very good thing, as good chairs need to be retained and rewarded. However, the other raises for administrators who had no promotions appear egregious. Any message we send to the administration should include an understanding of which raises were warranted and which weren’t.

Another senator said that the crux of the issue was where the raise came from and for what reason. Who decided the figures and how?

The question was asked of Bill Powell: Was extra money given to Colleges to award faculty raises?

Bill Powell answered that he had spoken to deans of all five colleges, and that in three of the colleges no extra, newly allocated money was received, meaning that any raises came from internal college reallocations of funds. Some of the raises were equity raises required by an accreditation body, while one was a counter-offer to retain a faculty member. CoST Dean Gandy reported, on the other hand, that he was asked by administration to give names of those who met productivity goals, and he did. Raises were funded with new money provided to the college. Chairs of faculty who were nominated were not necessarily informed of this decision. Raises in CoST averaged 8.7%. For all other colleges the average was 6.7%.

Raises were awarded to six faculty in Science and Technology, one in Education and Psychology, one in Business, and four in Arts & Letters. (No raises in the College of Health were reported in the information provided by the Office of the President.)

Bill Powell charged the Budget Committee to draft a statement or a resolution regarding this issue.

5.1.4 Graduation/Exam Schedule

Graduation will be on a Saturday, December 17, 2005. The decision was made not to have graduation on Friday, because Friday would have had to become the short exam day, which would necessitate making Wednesday a full exam day, and grades are due Thursday. With the Saturday graduation, Wednesday will be a light exam day and fewer professors will be pressured by the grade deadline of Thursday, December 22 at 11:00am.

5.1.5 CAC and 3^rd year review

Myron Henry and David Beckett explained that the faculty handbook committee supports the proposal that the College Advisory Committee needs to be included in the 3^rd year review process. The committee is asking for Faculty Senate opinion on this issue.

One senator stated that he did not see the value in CAC feedback, that departmental colleagues and chairs had more value in giving advice to the person. That is where the focus should be.

Another senator had concerns that the 3^rd year review process is being misused by the administration. He said ideally the department should be giving advice and mentoring in the 3^rd year review, however, the Dean of S & T was using the 3^rd year review to oust people.

The erosion of departmental power was eroding, and giving the CAC a say in 3^rd year review may dilute departmental power by adding another layer was a concern of one senator.

David Beckett and Myron Henry explained that the motive behind the proposal was to introduce some uniformity into the process, as some Colleges already do this, and others do not. Furthermore, allowing the CAC to give information back to the candidate and the administration, and to vote (as is done in tenure and promotion decisions) allows more input from the faculty side on whether the candidate is making meaningful progress towards tenure/promotion. David Beckett commented that recently a dean made a 3^rd year review the basis of firing a faculty member unilaterally as if it was a tenure decision. The department faculty had approved the person and recommended that the person was making satisfactory progress. He agreed that mentoring should be at the departmental level.

One senator remarked that she understands why it is wise to keep much of the decision making in the department but was not sure that any department has any power over any issue anymore.

Many senators expressed disbelief and a sense of inappropriateness at Dean interference in the 3^rd year review process. It was expressed that once again issues related to governance and power with this administration are problematic.

Handbook committee member Myron Henry supports the proposal, stating that adding the CAC level would enhance an appeal for 3^rd year review that had been approved by departmental faculty. It provides protection for faculty given terminal contracts at that time.

Another Senator stated that third year review should be focused on “Are you making progress toward tenure and promotion?” and should be decided by the department. Why not make a recommendation that if a faculty member receives a negative recommendation from his department or dean, the faculty member may appeal to the CAC and UAC. Questions were asked by Senators “Where would this policy place us vis-à-vis other MS Universities?” “Will this recommendation provide a process for 3^rd year review similar to tenure and promotion?”

Discussion on the merits of having a 3rd year review similar in process to the Tenure and Promotion process had support. David Duhon made a motion to endorse the recommendations from the Faculty Handbook Committee. After discussion, the motion was seconded and approved.

5.1.6 Online Evaluations of Teaching

A proposal establishing a Standing University Committee for student evaluation of teaching (Committee on the Evaluation of Teaching), with an explanation by Steve Oshrin was discussed. The Standing Committee continue to work on The Policy and Procedures for Student Evaluation of Instruction. Senators were encouraged to share the draft policies and procedures document with their constituencies and to provide feedback to committee members (NB: Bill Powell & Steve Oshrin are the FS representatives. Other faculty on the committee include Stan Hauer, Susan Hubble, Tammy Greer, Susan Ross, Heather Stirling Turner. Adel Ali & Bob Bateman represent the Council of Chairs). There is still debate on who will get what information. Questions about the committee included:

Is the University forming a uniform instrument, and if was being refined? Steve Oshrin and Bill Powell explained that there were core questions that would be the same for all departments, and in the future other questions may be asked specific to instructor, department or college. Suggestions from the Senate included: Timely feedback to professors; making feedback available on SOAR; eliminate reversed statements; evaluation does not need to be made every semester for every course (as is done now in some colleges).

Dave Duhon moved to endorse the proposal to create the standing committee on the evaluation of teaching. Motion was seconded and carried.

Anyone with other recommendations should forward them to Bill Powell.

5.1.7 Other

5.1.7.1 Library Summit- Kay Wahl is calling for volunteers to participate in a summit on October 31^st, which will include dinner. Please send a response to Kay Wahl if you are interested.

5.1.7.2 Every college is being asked by administration to place a complete, existing program of study in online format. (That means 50% or more of the course is online.) The directive is coming from Provost to Dean to Chairs Comments from senators included: Course decisions should come from the Faculty, not administration; faculty should decide whether a program of study is appropriate in online format; that those who teach online should be volunteers, and should receive compensation for teaching and preparing an online course. Steven Oshrin pointed out that online courses may have different accreditation processes and that notification to SACS and discipline specific accreditation bodies is necessary.

5.2 President-Elect – Myron Henry had no report

5.3. Secretary- Bonnie Harbaugh stated that Committee Assignments and chairs had been posted on the Senate website. Bill Powell stated that committees would have their assignments soon.

5.4. Secretary-Elect- Mary Beth Applin attended the Provost’s Council for Myron Henry.

News included that a new Public Relations person had been hired, Margie Jepson.

Tom Meredith was touring Gulf Park campus to view damage and to examine efforts to restart the campus at the Garden Park site.

Pat Joachim had reported that there are 1,394 students enrolled at GP to date.

Dr. Grimes and those on the Coast recommended reinstating the “X” grade to avoid “F” and “I” grades for students in crisis.

An acting director of non-credit programs, Fred Varnado, was appointed after no suitable candidates were found in a National Search. The Search committee was not consulted about the interim appointment.

6.0 Committee Reports

6.1 Academic & Governance: Bill Scarborough, chair -No Report

6.2. Administration &Faculty Evaluations: Steve Oshrin, chair- No Report

6.3.      Awards: Mary Lux, chair -No Report
6.4.      Budget: Myron Henry, chair- No Report
6.5.      Constitution and Bylaws: Randy Buchanan, chair-No Report
6.6       Faculty Welfare: Tim Rehner, chair- No Report
6.7.      Government Relations: Dave Duhon, chair- No Report
6.8.      Technology: Barton Spencer, chair - No Report
6.9.      Elections: Paula Smithka, chair Paula Smithka reported that the 3^rd          round of ballots are underway for the senate runoff in Arts and Letters.

6.10. Ad hoc committee reports and liaison reports

6.10.1 President’s Council- Bobby Middlebrooks reported that the PC will meet this Wednesday.

6.10.2 American Association of University Professors- Officers were elected for 2005-2006. Mitch Berman is the President, Steven Judd is the Vice President, Amy Young is the Secretary, and Mark Kleindist is the Treasurer.

6.10.3 Academic/Graduate Council- Jeff Evan reported that distance education issues were under discussion.

6.10.4 Faculty Leadership Council- No Report

6.10.5 Transportation: Bill Scarborough reported there was a Transportation Committee meeting next week, and Greg Lassen would be addressing the group.

7.0 New Business

7.1 Resolution David Duhon introduced a Resolution to the Faculty Senate which would indicate support for moving the Gulf Park Campus to a different site. Resolutions must be introduced and distributed at least one meeting before a vote. A 2/3 majority vote is needed to pass a resolution. The resolution states:

Whereas the University of Southern Mississippi Gulf Park campus received a direct and devastating blow from Hurricane Katrina that has rendered the present campus unusable for some period of time.

And whereas the rebuilding of the Gulf Park campus will cost untold millions of dollars, and take many months or even years.

The Faculty Senate of the University of Southern Mississippi hereby encourages President Thames and the IHL to begin immediately to plan to build a completely new and modern Gulf Coast campus at a safer and more accessible location that will better meet the needs of the growing and rebuilding Coast of Mississippi.

7.2 Discussion of the Resolution: Dave Duhon said that he had talked with most business professors on the GP campus, and they agreed that a move to a more modern and accessible site was a good idea. As terrible as the storm was, it provides unique rebuilding and growth opportunities.

One senator expressed unease at discussing the resolution without input from a broader base of GP colleagues, after they have time to think about it. GP faculty and staff are in survival and shock modes at present. Also, assessments need to be completed to see which buildings are salvageable. Politically, the IHL wanted a University Center on the Coast, which includes other MS Universities. If we initiate the relocation, IHL may decide to make the site a University Center.

A Hattiesburg senator stated that an online forum on this issue would be useful, and accessible to most GP colleagues.

A senator from the GC campus said he is not speaking for all faculty on the Coast, but he thought more time and input from coast professors was needed.

Another Coast Senator stated that it would be good to have a new campus that was modern and accessible. He also recommended that GC colleagues needed to be engaged in the conversation.

This resolution will be discussed again at the next meeting.

8.0 Old Business

8.1 Search for Associate Dean in College of Education and Psychology- Bill Powell reports that he has not been able to meet with the Dean of CoEP yet, and he will keep us informed.

9.0 Other

9.1 Stephen Judd announced that the play Scapin was opening soon, and he encouraged senators to attend, and to let others know.

10.0 Adjournment- The meeting adjourned at 5:10pm