Members Represented by Proxy:  College of the Arts:  DeAnna Douglas (pr. Shellie Nielsen); College of Business Administration:   Trellis Green (pr. Scott Magruder);  College of Health and Human Sciences: Mary Frances Nettles (pr. Michael Forster); College of Liberal Arts: Karen Austin (pr. Art Kaul), Charles Bolton (pr. Art Kaul), Kim Herzinger (pr. Michael Dearmey), Alexandra Jaffe (pr. David Hunt); College of Nursing: Janie Butts (pr. Elizabeth Harrison); Institute of Marine Science:  Steven Lohrenz (pr. Sue Hubble); College of Science and Technology: David Beckett (pr. Dean Dunn), Lida McDowell (pr. Mary Lux); University Libraries:  Sherry Laughlin (pr. Joyce Radcliff),  Karolyn Thompson (pr. Joyce Radcliff).

Members Absent:  College of Business Administration: Ernest King; College of Education and Psychology: Sheila Alber. Jesse Palmer;  College of Science and Technology:  Grayson Rayborn;  Gulf Park:  J. Pat Smith.

FORUM SPEAKER:  Richard Gianinni, Athletic Director
R. Gianinni  opened by stating that he feels that strong athletics are an important recruiting tool for students and, through athletic events, is a way to bring alumni back to this campus.  Our affiliation with Conference USA is a plus for us as it gives us visibility.  By reading about our athletic successes, you also read about us as a university all over the country.  Seeing athletic students graduate is his number one priority. He stated that the student athletic graduation rates are as good as many around the country, if not better.  At one point the graduation rate was 67%.  The most recent count was 51% with many factors affecting this percentage.  Last semester, out of approximately 280 athletes, 114 athletes were honor students, 16 athletes had a perfect 4.0,  53 athletic students had 3.25 or better, and 45 athletics had a 3.0 or better.  The athletic department  has four new individuals in their academic center designed to strengthen that area.  Some donations this fall resulted in the acquisition of 12 computers for their  academic lab.  Athletic students also are monitored closely to make sure they are attending classes.

R. Gianinni then went on to talk about the $525,000  deficit last year.  He found fundamental problems in scholarships in that the scholarship budget had gone over what it should have been.  The other factor resulted from 1995-1996 when the gender equity committee did a study to get into title 9.  This was achieved by adding women's soccer in 1997 and women's softball in 1998.  Now both teams are up to full speed with scholarships and are costing $ 700,000.  When the decision was made to start these sports, there was no revenue allocated to operate these sports and no discussion to reduce any sports.  This has resulted in the deficit.  He stated that they  are going to make some serious cuts in athletics and some serious cuts in non revenue sports.  He also noted that they will have to cut scholarships, eliminate some positions,  cut some travel, maximize what they are already doing and maximizing their scheduling.  Ticket sales need to be increased and ticket prices will have to be raised.  Plans are to implement a ticket priority plan similar to what other universities are doing.  The positive side to this is the academic success athletics are having along with the the quality of the teams they have.  When the tennis courts were torn down to accommodate the new dormitory, rather than being negative about losing a facility, he felt the dorms would be a good way of recruiting students.

He then answered a few questions, the first addressing the time line of a new tennis court.  He stated that, depending on funding, they hope to have a new softball and tennis court complex within  2-3 years.  He even feels that the tennis courts may be ready in a year.  As to fundraising, he stated the scholarships came out of the Eagle Club donations.  Currently, they are looking into putting in corporate suites whereby the sale of those boxes will also benefit athletic scholarships. In  the ticket priority plan, the stadium is divided up into sections with the better sections and seats having higher prices.  Many  universities are now implementing this or a similar system to generate more funds.  He is trying to upgrade the schedule with 4 conference games on the road and 4 here.  He also feels that we need to be customer friendly and get out into the community and talk about Southern Miss athletics.  D. Alford noted that the coast students do not get a discount even though they are USM students.  Gianinni stated that this needs to be resolved.  He also wants to do more on the coast and is looking into potentially hosting a basketball tournament there.
1.0  Call to Order:  The business meeting was called to order at 2:38 p.m.
2.0  Approval of Agenda: The agenda was approved with one addition to Old Business.
3.0  Approval of Minutes:  The February minutes were approved as distributed.
4.0  Executive Committee Reports
4.1  President's Report:  Art Kaul
**University Faculty Senate Association [UFSA], 15 March 2000:  The UFSA received a copy of IHL Commissioner Tom Layzell's proposed post tenure review policy to be introduced to the Board of Trustees a few hours before a meeting of the IHL Academic and Student Affairs Committee.  Layzell's proposed post tenure review policy provides for "a post tenure review process for all tenured faculty ... consistent with the institution's mission and priorities."  UFSA endorsed a letter to Dr. Layzell that requested that his post tenure review proposal add the wording "and be consistent with AAUP's minimum standards for good practice of Post Tenure Review" after "consistent with the institution's mission and priorities." The letter was later delivered to Dr. Layzell.   The UFSA letter to Layzell also stated:  "UFSA would request that the IHL Board not consider this request for an amendment as an endorsement of proposed IHL regulation 403.0103 on Post Tenure Review.  UFSA would request time to talk to their individual faculty senates and for UFSA to make a unified statement on this proposed regulation on Post Tenure Review.  Dr. Layzell's proposed post tenure review policy also would allow each institution to develop its own policies and procedures, including periodic review of all faculty, "triggered" reviews, or a combination of periodic and triggered reviews. UFSA members agreed to report the positions of individual Faculty Senates regarding post tenure review to the UFSA President, who would notify Dr. Layzell and IHL Board members of his findings.  [Copies of the proposed IHL post tenure review policy and the UFSA-endorsed letter were distributed to Faculty Senate members.]

        In other action, UFSA will consider taking a position on the GPA requirements for tuition waivers at the April meeting.

**IHL Meeting, 15 March 2000:  Dr. Layzell formally presented the proposed post tenure review policy to the IHL Academic and Student Affairs Committee.  Several concerns of IHL Board members emerged during discussion of the proposal: [1] the proposal did not uniformly prescribe policies and procedures applicable to all institutions; [2] a reporting mechanism was needed to inform the College Board of the outcomes of post tenure reviews, and [3] the policy needed specific linkage to the Board's termination policies.  Dr. Layzell argued against a uniform policy, repeatedly recommending giving institutions discretion to develop policies that fit their specific missions, priorities and needs. The proposed policy was given its official first reading on March 16, with the expectation of a second reading and approval of the proposed policy at the April  meeting.

        Also, President Fleming, Athletic Director Richard Gianinni and the Vice President for Business and Finance told the College Board that the athletic department projects a $760,000 deficit at the end of the fiscal year.

** A. Kaul announced the appointment of the following persons to the Ad Hoc Grievance Policy Committee:  Karen Austin, Chair, Sherry Laughlin,  Mary Lux, David Goff, Michael DeArmey, and John Rachal. He encouraged the committee to bring forward a grievance proposal for Faculty Senate consideration at the April meeting.
** A. Kaul reported that Dean Dunn had agreed to again represent the Faculty Senate on the University Publication Board, which selects the Executive Editor of the Student Printz and editor of The Southerner.
** The search for an associate provost continues.  Dr. M. J. McMahon of Towson University, Maryland, was undergoing interviews on Feb. 17.
President-Elect Sherry Laughlin attended an interview with the candidate scheduled at the time of the Faculty Senate meeting.  S. Laughlin also will attend the interview with the second candidate, Dr. Mark Hardy of Jackson State University on Feb. 24.
** A. Kaul distributed copies of the three page "Bi-Weekly Conversion Plan" that was presented to the President's Cabinet on Feb. 28. The document describes implementation of the twice-monthly payroll system mandated by the legislature.
** A. Kaul told the Faculty Senate he planned to appoint a Nominations Committee at the April 14 meeting.  The Nominations Committee would develop a slate of candidates for president-elect and secretary-elect for the 2000-2001 academic year.  Anyone wishing to serve on the
Nominations Committee should notify Kaul by March 31. He reminded the Faculty Senate that nominations also may be made  from the floor. The election is scheduled for the June 2000 meeting.

4.2  President-Elect's Report:  Sherry Laughlin No report.
4.3  Secretary's Report:  Shellie Nielsen  No report.
4.4  Secretary-Elect's Report:  Michael Forster
Proxies were announced and an attendance roster was passed.
5.0  Old Business
5.1  Faculty Computers Resolution from the Benefits and Work Environment Committee.
Discussion:   S. Oshrin moved and M.  Dearmey seconded amending the resolution with adding "every faculty member who desires one. . ."  The amendment passed unanimously.  After further discussion which brought up maintenance and upgrade comments, the motion passed unanimously.  The text of the resolution is available on the Senate web site.
5.2  Course Prerequisite Resolution from the Benefits and Work Environment Committee.
This resolution resulted from the concern that Deans were bypassing prerequisites where in fact only faculty members should have that right to waive the prerequisites for a course.  S. Hubble was concerned that this resolution may not really be realistic and may actually result in an unrealistic work load for the registrar.  L. Goff stated that K. Austin goes to student transcripts and spends hours trying to make sure they have the prerequisites for the next course.  Several also had the same concern that it was going to make undue work for the registrar.  S. Oshrin preferred to defer the vote until  K. austin was available to hear the concerns.  Two key issues came out 1)  that we don't have the computer system  that is effective in identifying prerequisites, and 2)  who has the exclusive rights to waive a prerequisite.  It was recommended that this discussion be tabled until the registrar could be consulted as to what capabilities existed to address this problem.  D. Dunn moved to table this discussion and the motion was seconded.  The motion passed unanimously tabling further discussion on this resolution until the April Senate meeting. 
5.3  Post Tenure Review Resolution from the February 18 meeting
A. Kaul recommended that the Senate reaffirm its resolution of February 18 on post tenure review.  D. Dunn moved and L. Range seconded.  The motion passed unanimously.  The reaffirmation is noted on the original resolution on the Senate web site.
6.0  Committee Reports
6.1  Academic and Governance:  Mary Lux No report.
6.2  Administrative and Faculty Evaluation:  Kimberley Davis
K . Davis had a meeting with Dr. Hollandsworth and he was unsure whether the issue regarding confidentiality and the handling of the Student Evaluation of Faculty forms needed another mandate.  He mentioned a document that was written by the Senate about 8-10 years ago but could not find it.  It was suggested that she look in the archives at McCain Library.  As to what was the effect of the annual administrative evaluations, he did not know about any type of results.  The committee's survey revealed a variety of ways those forms were handled and the committee felt that there needed to be a uniform way that the process was handled.  It was even revealed that, although the forms might have been initially sealed, once they got to the department secretary often they were taken out and even copies were made of them.  (They were not sure why any copies should be made at all.)
6.3  Archives:  Shellie Nielsen   No report.
6.4  Athletic Liaison:  Trellis Green  No Report
6.5  Awards:  Lillian Range
The awards are done and the names have been turned in.
6.6  Benefits and Work Environment:  John Rachal
The committee acted on the faculty salary figures that came from the Faculty Salary Comparison handout last month.  J. Rachal got corrected figures for USM but we were still substantially behind Ole Miss and Mississippi State.  In discussion, it was pointed out that maybe state and ole miss might be dipping into their foundations which we are not in a position to do that.  Dearmey pointed out that President Fleming made the decision to give faculty 4.5% raises with the extra money going into technology and the hiring of administrators.  It was also pointed out that they are getting rid of part time positions, not hiring for new positions, freezing positions and even losing positions.  Others pointed out that it is a catch 22 situation with the numbers game.  We need to hire to keep the numbers up, but if we are not allowed to then our numbers will go down compounding the problem.  It was noted that this is a larger issue than our own internal budget priority.  It was suggested that we examine in a bigger sense what role the Faculty Senate should take.   The following resolution will be voted on next month.

Faculty Salary Resolution
The Faculty Senate is greatly concerned that USM has fallen substantially behind its two comprehensive sister institutions in average faculty salaries.  Based on corrected figures supplied by USM's Planning, Evaluation, and Institutional Effectiveness department and the IHL report to the legislature, in the fiscal year 1999 USM's average salary was only $1,365 behind Mississippi State, and $1,265 behind the University of Mississippi.  In fiscal year 2000, however, those gaps have risen to $4,063 and $2,917 respectively, with State at $57,006, University of Mississippi at $55,860, and USM at $52,943.

The Senate also notes that USM's actual dollar amount increase of $2,108 from FY 1999 to FY 2000 was the smallest amount of any of the state's eight public universities.  Significant salary disparities such as these have the potential to negatively impact the recruiting, hiring, and retention of highly qualified faculty members, especially in fields where vacancies exceed qualified applicants.

Therefore, the Faculty Senate urges the administration to treat faculty salary as the first fiscal priority and to seek salary parity with the other two comprehensive state institutions.

6.7  Constitution and Bylaws:  Allan McBride  No report.
6.8  Elections:  Steven Lohrenz
S. Hubble reported that the election process is underway. There is some confusion with the print center saying that the ballots have gone out, but they weren't sure.  S. Hubble took a quick poll to see which Colleges had received them.  Alvin Williams thinks there is a problem with the College of Business who reorganized and changed names of some of the departments.  The deadline for the preliminary  ballots is March 24.  If runoff elections are needed they will be sent out.  The difficulty with the elections is the difficulty in getting an accurate list from each college that identifies only full-time faculty.
6.9  Environment (ad hoc):  Dick Conville 
K. Davis stated that the committee would have a meeting next week.
6.10  Faculty Development:  Karolyn Thompson No report.
6.11  Technology:  Dean Dunn
**Computer Virus/Worm Warning:
During the Spring Break week, there was an outbreak of the "Pretty Worm" computer virus.  As predicted in November 1999, "Pretty Worm" is an example of a "mail itself" virus - - one written to hunt down the address books of Microsoft E-mail programs (Outlook, OUtlook Express, and Internet Mail), to make changes to the "infected" computer, then to mail itself to the first 50 addresses in the "infected" computer's E-mail box.    For now, users of Apple computers, UNIX?Linux computers, and Windows systems using Eudora, Pegasus, or Netscape Mail for E-mail, are not likely to spread this virus.  If you received a message with the Subject "C:\Coolprogs\Pretty Park.exe" you have been infected, as soon as you highlight this message under Outlook Express, or as soon as you open the message under Outlook.  You may "disinfect" your computer with either McAffee VirusScan or Symantec's Norton AntiVirus, by downloading the latest virus DAT files. The Southern Miss School of Engineering Technology has the latest update for McAfee VirusScan 4.x on their FTP server:  ftp://borg.st.usm.edu/Virus/DATs/   One should download and run "sdat4068.exe" on your computer.  This updates the "Scan Engine" and the virus signature files (*.dat) for McAfee VirusScan.  Symantec has information on Norton AntiVirus at:  http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/download.html.  With the onset of these "mail themselves" viruses, which may infect computers merely by the user viewing one's E-mail messages, it is critical for all Intel/Windows computer users to make weekly updates of their anti virus DAT files, and keep their virus scanning software current.
** News For All Users of Electronic Resources in the USM Library:
According to Carol Cubberley, Director of Technical services for the University Libraries,
" The USM Libraries is now able to offer access to all our electronic resources from off campus.  This access is for current faculty, staff, and students only.  In order to gain access from a remote site, you'll need to know your ocean account username and password."  You'll also need to make some changes to your browser. "From the USM Libraries homepage at <http://www.lib.usm.edu/> you can click on  'Off Campus Access' under 'Information Online. ' " This will take you to help screens that give instructions for setting up several commonly used browsers.  There is also a telephone number to call with questions.  Once you have set up your browser and enter the USM Library site from off campus, you won't notice any difference until you try to use a database that has license restrictions that limit use to current faculty, staff, and students.  At that point, you will be asked for your username and password.  Once you have been authorized, you will not be asked for a password again during that session.  
6.12  University Club:  Kim Herzinger  No report.
6.13  Transportation Committee:  Bill Scarborough
A. Kaul passed along information from B. Scarborough noting that Royce Piece  is proposing raising decal fees to "astronomical  heights".  Specifically the proposed fees are :  $95.00 students, $200.00 faculty/staff, $300.00 for a designated spot or gated lot.  These are designed to help finance a parking garage.  B. Scarborough is opposing these astronomical prices.  If anyone in Faculty Senate would like to propose a resolution that gives him support in this issue, now is the time to do it.  A. Kaul reiterated that this is just a proposal.  J.  Rachal  moved and the motion was seconded that   "we (the Faculty Senate) go on record as officially opposing such raises."  M. Dearmey added the following friendly amendment: " . . .and we recommend that other means be sought to finance the parking garage."  Further discussion pointed out that we aren't opposed to some price increases but faculty should not have to pay for the parking garage.  If the ticket fines were collected, money for the garage would be made.  Also, a few years ago, a student activity fee was tacked on to student fees which paid for the Payne Center.  It was suggested that this ought to be a student sponsored drive to tack on a student fee for this parking garage.  The following motion passed unanimously and the text is available on the Senate web site.

Parking Decal Fee Resolution

We, the Faculty Senate, go on record as officially opposing the following proposed parking decal fee raises: $95.00 students, $200.00 faculty/staff, and $300.00 designated spot or gated lot fee and we recommend that other means be sought to finance the parking garage.

6.14  AAUP Liaison:  Michael Dearmey
M. Dearmey read the section on governance in the 1999 version of the AAUP guidelines.  This section was cosigned by the AAUP, the American Council on Education, and the American Association of Governing Boards of University and Colleges.  On page 115, under the title of "The role of the faculty budgetary and salary matters" at the bottom of the page in section two in "Faculty participation in budgeting" it states:

" The faculty should participate both in the preparation of the total institutional budget and its specific fiscal divisions (salaries, academic programs, tuition, physical plants, grounds, etc.)  The soundness of the resulting decisions should be enhanced if an elected representative committee of the faculty participates in deciding in the overall allocation of institutional resources and the proportion to be devoted directly to the academic program. This committee should be given access to all the information that it requires to perform its task effectively and it should have the opportunity to confer periodically with representatives of the administration and the governing board.  Such an institution level body representative of the entire faculty can play an important part in mediating the financial needs and the demands of different groups within a faculty and can be a significant assistance to the administration in resolving impasses which may arise when a large variety of demands are made on necessarily limited resources.  Such a body would also be of critical importance in representing faculty interests in interpreting the needs of the faculty to the president and the governing board."

M. Dearmey proposed looking at the possibility of an elected body of faculty, possibly called faculty budgetary officers.  They would participate in budgetary hearings and would give input into budgetary process as representatives of the faculty.  The key is that we need faculty input into budgetary issues and concerns.
6.15  Faculty Handbook Task Force:  David Goff
Recommendations in terms of corrections to the Faculty Handbook were distributed to all Faculty Senators.  The format is basically from the web page version.  D. Goff asked everyone to look through the 32 recommendations and let him know of any typo errors.  The recommendations are in bold face and all caps.  He noted that they would have chapter 12 at the next meeting.  They have highlighted the concerns that the committee felt they needed more input from the Senate.  D. Goff encouraged anyone to email him with ideas.   A. Kaul hopes to have this finished by May.
6.16  Grievance Policy (ad hoc):  Karen Austin
M. Lux reported that the committee has been meeting about grievances in Chapter 12 of the Faculty Handbook.  There are three different kinds of appeals and they chose only to look at the one that will address the current problem with the faculty process.  They met with Anthony Harris this week where he gave them his thoughts on different policies from other institutions.  A draft has been started and should be ready next meeting.
7.0  New Business
D. Alford pointed out that after a meeting with Vice President Williams regarding the mandate for all faculty to attend a customer service meeting,   Williams publicly apologized to all Gulf Coast faculty and staff and stated  that, in the future, he would include faculty in financial oversights.  She noted that the Coast Faculty Association is still interested in coming out with some kind of statement that points out that faculty should be involved in developmental issues.
8.0  Announcements
K. Davis announced her recital date. 
9.0  Adjournment  The meeting was adjourned at 3:55 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, Shellie C. Nielsen, Faculty Senate Secretary