The
Faculty
Senate Meeting
Union
Hall of Honors
Members Present: College of the Arts: Ki.
Davis, S. Nielsen College of Business: D. Duhon,
T. Green College of Education & Psychology: T. Hartsell,
E. Lundin, J. Rachal, J.
Palmer College of Health & Human Sciences: S. Graham-Kresge College
of Liberal Arts: D. Cabana, P. Gentile, S. Malone, J. Meyer, A.
Miller, L. Nored, J. Norton, S. Oshrin,
B. Scarborough, J. Waltman College of Marine
Science: J. Lytle College of Nursing: K. Masters College of
Science & Technology: P. Butko, B. Coates, M.
Cobb, R. Folse, M. Henry University Libraries:
T. Graham USM-Gulf Coast: D. Alford, Ka. Davis, S. Naghshpour,
J.P. Smith
Members Represented
by Proxy: College of the Arts: T. Lewis (Ki. Davis)
College of Education & Psychology: J. Olmi
(T. Graham), E. Lundin (J. Rachal)
College of Health & Human Sciences: J. Bethel (S. Graham-Kresge), M.F. Nettles (S. Graham-Kresge)
College of Nursing: A. Brock (Kathy Johnson) College of Science &
Technology: M. Hall (M. Lux), J. Mattson (D. Duhon), G. Russell (M. Henry)
Members Absent: College of Business: J. Crocket College of Health & Human Sciences: S.
Hubble College of International and Continuing Education: M. Miller
College of Liberal Arts: M. Dearmey College of
Science & Technology: D. Becket
1.0 Call to Order 2:00 p.m.
2.0 Approval of Agenda: Move S. Nielsen; Second D. Alford; Passed
3.0 Approval of Minutes for September 13, 2002 meeting. Move D. Alford; Second
S. Nielsen; Passed.
4.0 Forum Speaker: Robert Y. Lochhead: People
have behaved like this evaluation system is a secret. It has been out for a
year. I've distributed it through my chairs and
solicited feedback, and only one person has replied. I am not the oracle in
this; I need input.
In the future, connectivity and other technologies
will result in dramatically increased amount of and emphasis on knowledge. A
new model for higher education that supports continuous re-learning is needed.
Manual labor will be replaced by technology, and people will need knowledge
that can't be replaced by technology.
Funding to higher education has eroded over the past
30 years, and, as a result of global recession, it will continue to erode.
In Ohio, less than 2% goes to higher education; in
Mississippi 9% goes to higher education. If you rank Mississippi based on per
thousand dollars brought in, we rank 8th. Our legislature does well by us.
Forty-six states are facing the same funding crisis.
Wise and flexible investment in human capital is needed. When capital goes
down, we need investment in knowledge.
The traditional student body will continue in reduced
numbers. Life-long education will dominate the scene, and it will create a need
for world experts and delivery systems. Thus, we need to identify our global
niches and develop them. Every faculty member must be engaged as a world or
regional expert, and research will become more important as they work to
establish a place within the world order.
We need enhanced rigor in each discipline with
crosscutting minors. There is more external money available for this than at
any other time. We have thought of ourselves as a repository of knowledge, but
we need to think about being a clearinghouse of knowledge: the Walmart of knowledge. We bring in knowledge, repackage it,
and distribute it.
Before we set out, we need to know where we are, then
to "strengthen our vessel," and "prepare the crew." We should expect nothing but the best from
the swift and the strong. How do we strengthen the weak? How do we develop
individuals? We need more faculty development opportunities and need
performance metrics to provide information on what individuals need to do their
jobs better.
A performance metric starts with the existing system.
Points are assigned for research (scholarly activity), teaching (credit hours),
service (internal and external), and funding. Funding is important, but it is
not the only thing that is important. Next, add quality measures.
Minimum class size and equivalents for the metric: 20
lower level students, 10 upper level students, 5 graduate students, $25,000 in
external funding, 1 peer reviewed international article, officer status for an
international organization all are counted equally.
Points calculation: Points generated = (lower level
credit hours)/60 + (upper level credit hours)/30 + (graduate credit hours)/15 +
(research points)/2.5 + (scholarly points)/8 + (service points)/20
Using this point system, we can calculate individual,
department, and college distribution. We can identify areas of concentration
and look for balance across a college.
Quality measures: In teaching, we should evaluate
performance in later classes or in "life." We should look at
placement of graduates, recruitment, performance of students on standardized
tests, and their external scholarships. For scholarly activity look at how
often faculty research is cited and at the quality of their publications.
Other considerations: People who bring in
institutional funding should be rewarded at a higher level than those who fund
their own research. Was overhead recovered? Was salary release obtained?
Evaluate service, including whether it was internal, external, or community
service.
The way ahead is to be true to our mission. Nurture
students to be the "best." Build infrastructure and motivate
students. Drive the discovery process. Engage in meaningful service that has an
impact on the community and on professional discipline. Thrust to K-12, so our
students are better prepared. Stretch to economic development (help the state,
so the state can help us). Work together to bring in the
resources that our mission needs and deserves.
Our duty: We are "the wise." The monastic
tradition of education is a poor option. We need to interact with the world,
and become less of a repository. We have a duty to be leaders, preparing the
path for the next generations, embracing the love of knowledge, and developing
a populace that reasons and thinks critically.
Faculty Senate is encouraged to comment on and
improve the performance measurement system. Encourage constructive criticism
among the rest of the faculty. Participate in developing a working model of the
"new university." The reason for a points system is to improve
productivity. Be open minded in preparing the way.
Questions:
B. Scarborough: I think that it's difficult to
quantify productivity and efficiency.
R. Lochhead: In academia we
stand up to difficult things.
B. Scarborough: I'm not reticent about stepping up to
difficult things, but take teaching.
I've taken 10 times as much time with graduate classes as undergraduate.
R. Lochhead: In the metric
it would get 4 times as many points.
B. Scarborough: I've written a book that took 12
years. It's a good book and already won a prize before it has come out. How do
I get credit during the 12 years that I was researching and writing it?
R. Lochhead: That's where
we need input. The concrete is not set. How are we going to measure
progress? How can we help you write that
book?
B. Scarborough: Regarding citations, I get cited all
over the place, but I only know about it if someone tells me. I have no way to
count them.
R. Lochhead: This is easy
for the sciences, because we have a citations index. I'm on a task force to
quantify performance for research. I hope we can figure it out.
B. Scarborough: You said that an institutional grant
should count more than a personal grant. What if the personal grant leads to a
publication that wins a Pulitzer Prize and that brings credit to the
university? You have a bias toward bringing grant money to the university.
R. Lochhead: I'd rather be
Pulitzer or Nobel than be a Pulitzer or Nobel Prize
winner. Nobody can remember who won two years later. But who gave the prize,
everyone remebers that.
J. Palmer: In the Strategic Plan there was a very
good discussion of evaluating performance. Have you examined that?
R. Lochhead: Yes. I also
read Boyers books. This system is not all embracing;
it is a more direct approach. That's why we need input. Things like shared
governance should be included.
J. Palmer: The Strategic Plan concept would be more
appealing to someone like B. Scarborough. Different people can bring different
strengths.
S. Naghashpour: First, the
problem is that you're trying to answer a hard question with an easy answer.
Second, the concept of running the university as a business is flawed.
R. Lochhead: What is the
biggest factor in determining the income of someone in this university? It's the amount of money that you negotiated
on the way in.
S. Naghashpour: You can't
compare across disciplines.
R. Lochhead: You assign
grades to different people.
S. Naghashpour: They're all
taking the same subject.
B. Smith: Sometimes my metrics don't capture it in grading,
and so I build in a portfolio to suggest whether I have the wrong answer. This
could be 10% wiggle room assigning the grade. We are professionals and have to
use professional judgment on things that can't be quantified. You might
integrate this, but who has the professional judgment required?
R. Lochhead: I agree. The
question is how to promote the professional advancement of these people, and
that's where professional judgment comes in.
B. Smith: The metric might get you within 10%, but
the portfolio might get you the rest of the way.
R. Lochhead: We need to sit
down and ask, "what are your major expectations
for next year?"
D. Duhon: I'm assuming that
you have some kind of metric that determines what constitutes scholarly or
service points? How do you know what
constitutes good service?
R. Lochhead: If you're a
president of an international association it's 20
points, if you publish a peer reviewed article that's 6 points.
D. Duhon: And people know
this ahead of time, so they know what to do?
R. Lochhead: Yes.
J. Rachal: I applaud your
commitment to lifelong education. I was bothered by your suggestion that there
is an easy side (quantitative) and a difficult side (qualitative). It occurs to
me that it's all qualitative, and you're trying to impose quantitative values
on quantitative judgments. I have one significant area of concern and that is
that one gets points based on enrollment.
R. Lochhead: That's where
the qualitative comes in. It's important to look at the economic value, but if you
do, you get 200 in a class. We need to decide how to compare and to measure
quality.
B. Scarborough: But who's most qualified to make that
qualitative judgment?
R. Lochhead: Everyone has a
voice. We're all qualified.
M. Henry: I thank you for coming. I was the one
person from the college who provided input on the metric. There are differences
between this metric and the college's past practices. The past system was used
to measure overall departmental productivity not individual productivity. People
could contribute very different things that contribute to the overall
productivity of the unit. A difference between the metric and the Strategic
Plan is that the latter offers the concept that people can contribute in
different ways to a unit. Evaluation is based on assigned responsibilities. D.
Cabana has asked the deans to provide the metrics that they're thinking about
using for the Academic and Governance Committee to examine, so FS has taken a
step forward, already.
R. Lochhead: In a normal
time of growth this wouldn't be a big deal, but we're in a shrinking mode. I
had to ask people to teach four classes last year. We need to tackle that
through getting funding. If we just hunker down and teach four classes, then we
wither.
J.P. Smith: I want to reflect on the Walmart comparison. I take that as that we're trying to
find ways to do teaching and learning better. I liked the idea of looking
beyond the student evaluation. In Academic Council, we've discussed grade
inflation and the impact of student evaluations on grade inflation. The use of
grades as motivational tools is being eroded. We need to make students work
hard. The biggest boost that we could have is that our graduates are getting
into the best graduate and law schools, passing their license exams. These
student evaluations of teaching don't measure the quality of actual output of
the course very well. We need to think about the long-term consequences of what
happens to people who go to school.
R. Lochhead: You can be
nice, and make them pass the license exam.
J.P. Smith: We need to be sure that we know what
we're measuring, that you measure things of long-term consequence.
D. Alford: We get defensive when we talk about
evaluation, because we have the sense that we can never do enough. I get
assignments to do more and more things, and there is no end in sight. I need to
know when I've done enough, but I'm never told that I've done enough. I see
advantages in being able to compare what I've done to a standard.
R. Lochhead: These are
mutual expectations. I see my colleagues working many hours, and the perception
that we work half days is a gross misrepresentation. We have tasks, but we also
need time to grow.
Again, I need your input. The perception is that the evaluation system
is sinister, and it's not.
Ki.
R. Lochhead: Only my
college. Nursing also is doing something similar. Other colleges eventually
will need to.
D. Cabana: Dr. Lochhead, we
appreciate your coming to talk with us. [applause]
5.0 Officers' Reports
5.1 President's Report: D. Cabana: At IHL, two researchers from MSU and UM
presented a survey they have done on perceptions of higher education in
Revenue projections don't look good. It's still very
early. The most frequently heard number is 10% cuts, but nobody knows. The
legislature will be revising revenue estimates between now and when they go
into session in January, but we will have to wait until April to know what the
real impact is. There will be no bridge money as there was last year. If it's
close to 10%, then there will be a serious impact. Tax revenues for the month
of September came in at $10M less than anticipated. If that trend continues
then by January we'll be hearing some dire stories about what's in store.
At cabinet, Provost Grimes reiterated that an evaluation
process will be in place in the spring in conjunction with evaluation methods
in place previously. The Academic and Governance Committee is
working on this for FS, and hopefully it will report to the Senate in November
and we'll have report for the provost by the holiday. Evaluation will be a fact
of life. It's not whether, but what form it will take. There's nothing on the
table that I'm aware of concerning a single process for the whole university.
Nursing is working on a system. We sent letter to the deans two weeks ago
asking for information on their respective evaluation processes or what they're
considering. We have had no responses, except from Dr. Lochhead
through his presentation to FS. The provost will communicate to the deans our
desire to work with them on evaluation.
At IHL, yesterday, the board approved property
purchase requests. The Albertson's building will at some point become the
B. Scarborough: It's interesting to me that the
university has money to buy the property on
D. Cabana: I asked the provost about these funds.
They're one-time funds. I'll endeavor find out more about where they came from
and what kind of funds they are.
D. Duhon: Are we still
getting the 2% raise?
D. Cabana: Yes, that will take will take place in
January. It's tantamount to a 1% raise for this year, since it will be given
mid-year.
D. Alford: Will it be across the board?
D. Cabana: As far as I know, yes.
5.2 President-Elect's Report: M.Henry: The new standing budget committee had its first
meeting today. Property purchases did come up, because they create a public
perception that we aren't so poor, after all. Bridge money is one-time money,
too. I think this Budget Committee can ask the right questions and can be well
informed, informed enough to understand the answers or understand if there
aren't answers. Bob Smith is no longer on FS, but he's on the committee because
of the talents he brings. I'll meet with him next week. The Committee will try
to do meaningful things on a macro sense, not be in everyone's budget. We'll
identify the major categories of revenue and of expenditure, trends over a 3-4
year period. We're looking at trend data and will report back.
D. Cabana: This Budget Committee is terribly
important, and can come to play an important role. If you're on this committee,
please try to get to as many meetings as possible. Right now we're in a
learning curve. That's good, because when we get back from the holidays in
January the university budget process will begin in earnest. So the time
between then and now is a good time to get our feet wet.
5.3 Secretary's Report: T. Graham: See proxies, above.
6.0 Committee Reports
6.1 Budget: M.
Henry: See President-Elect's Report, above.
6.2 UFSA: A.
Kaul: No report.
6.3 Transportation: B. Scarborough: We're down in ticket writers. Two were fired for
incompetence. They're down to three fulltime, but are advertising to fill the
vacant positions. The committee and the president have approved the gated lot.
It will be the lot west of Hearst. We don't know what the fee will be. If faculty
members don't use it, then we'll open it up for others. We need to fill it.
T. Green: When you say, "fill it," do you
mean the number sold?
B. Scarborough: They'll oversell slightly--something
like 10% over the number of spaces--on the assumption that not everyone will be
there at the same time, which I think is a reasonable assumption.
We're also looking into the visitor pass situation.
Cecil Wilson wants this as the first priority. There are a lot of abuses. SGA
is looking into it and will report back.
Finally, when they get the time and the money,
they're going to demolish some of the houses on
AAUP: Bill Scarborough: We have communicated with
the deans strongly supporting FS in its effort to increase faculty
participation in the budgetary process.
From Oct. 7 AAUP letter to deans (distributed to FS):
“AAUP-USM joins FS in urging the deans to include their college's FS Budget
Committee representative in their college's budget deliberations. AAUP-USM further
urges the deans to include not only the FS Budget Committee representative, but
also two additional faculty representatives, elected from their respective
College Councils, in these deliberations.”
AAUP also is investigating the metric system, and has
established a committee to examine the issue. Mike Forster is the chair. We're
working in conjunction with FS on that.
6.4 Awards:
A. Miller: We've been asked by the Office of the Provost to develop a new Grand
Marshall Award to be given annually, and the recipient would serve as Grand
Marshall at every graduation. We developed a description, eligibility criteria,
and documentation, which have been distributed to FS. We need to vote on
whether we endorse this.
From "Grand Marshal Award" document,
disseminated to FS:
Description: The "Grand Marshal Award"
recognizes a senior faculty member who has excelled in teaching, research, and
service. This award carries an
honorarium of $1,000.
Eligibility: Full-time faculty members who hold the
rank of Full Professor and have a minimum of ten years experience at USM are
eligible. Individuals who receive this award are not eligible for five years,
and individuals who have received two Grand Marshal Awards are ineligible. Nominations
will be accepted from any faculty member or administrator. Self-nominations
will not be accepted. Winner of the Grand Marshal Award will be recognized and
serve as Grand Marshal for commencement ceremonies for one calendar year (May,
August and December ceremonies).
Supporting Documentation: Nominees should submit the
following: a vita; one 500-word summary statement of teaching, research, and
service contributions; letters of support, not more than three from faculty
members or administrators and not more than three from students.
D. Alford: I haven't seen any deadlines for other
awards.
A. Miller: We're waiting on FS approval of the Grand
Marshall Award, so that we can set up timeline for all of the awards. There
would be a month for nominations, then until the first week of February for
nominees to get their information to the committee, and then the committee
would decide on a winner within a couple of months after that. It should be finished by about April.
D. Duhon: What was the
impetus?
D. Cabana: I met with the provost and Cynthia Moore
on ways to recognize faculty in lieu of pay raises. I did not specifically
suggest this, but it was one of the suggestions.
A. Miller: The Grand Marshal and the other awards
have been increased to $1K.
D. Duhon: This sounds like
the HEADWAE award.
A. Miller: It does, and there is no reason that
someone couldn't get both. HEADWAE is more external, in terms of recognition,
and the Grand Marshal Award is more internal.
J. Rachal: When is the call
for nominations?
A. Miller: Immediately. If FS approves this, then the
letter will go out on Monday along with the Teaching, Service, and
Librarianship awards. Nominations would be until November 25 or so, and
nominees would have until February to get their information in.
D. Cabana: In the past, Grand Marshall has been for
senior faculty. This award is written with this in mind.
D. Alford: Move to accept criteria; S. Nielsen,
second; Vote: passed
A. Miller: Our HEADWAE nomination is due Monday. It
has to be in
D. Cabana: The provost office just got this from
S. Graham-Kresge: This is a
recurring problem. It's the same deadline every year. The administration should
be able to proceed without the memo.
A. Miller: The Committee agrees. We think that this
should be done at the end of the spring, and have it ready for the fall.
M. Henry: When is the award actually given?
A. Miller: February.
M. Henry: I suspect that a few days late would be
acceptable.
S. Graham-Kresge: I think
the issue is that in
D. Duhon: Would it be out
of order to say that our winner would be next year's HEADWAE winner?
A. Miller: But this way, we can award more people.
[A. Miller provided a list of candidates.]
D. Cabana: I withdraw my name from consideration.
J. Palmer: Where did these names come from?
A. Miller: From the members committee, and members of
the faculties of their colleges. There's room for a write-in.
D. Cabana: [Accepted nominations from the floor.]
Vote: Winner is Mary Lux.
7.0 Old Business
7.1 Officers Meeting with the President: M. Henry: J. Olmi, T.
Graham, and I were present. We used the FS press release as our agenda. We
talked about the metric, budget committee, and seizing computers. The president
said that the question of the "seizing" computers "for any
reason" language in the Technology Security document has not been decided.
The president seems comfortable with our having a press release,
and a number of the topics on the release that had the potential to be
challenging pieces of conversation we all took in stride. I think it was a good
meeting.
8.0 New Business
8.1 Governor's Brown Bag Luncheon: D. Cabana: FS will sponsor a brown bag lunch with
Governor Ronnie Musgrove at the Commons dining hall on November 7 at
J. Palmer: I like the idea of a press release, but
ours seemed like something more. Dealing with individual items would work
better than listing all the things we've done. We'd be more likely to get it
out. We don't want to water down the message. The release should be a strong
statement on a topic.
M. Henry: I agree. This release came from our
discussion about getting FS actions out more quickly. We had three big things,
and wanted to get that information out quickly, thumbnail sketches. It probably
was too long. Student Printz did pick up on one of
the items.
D. Cabana: We have some tweaking to do, but I've had
positive responses from those who like getting this information out in print
and over the airwaves.
J.P. Smith: The USM Mail release was good, but for
external press, maybe you want to focus on one major thing.
D. Cabana: The Governor readily agreed to meet with
us on the day that he's coming for the dedication of the International and
Continuing Education building. I advised the president of this, and he thought
that it was a good idea and would help us to get an idea of the governor's
thinking on higher education.
Next month's forum speaker
will be Tom King. He'll talk about
health benefits.
J.P. Smith: We may be asked whether we prefer funds
for health insurance or for salaries. We might want to decide which we prefer.
You want both, but we need to help them decide which is more important.
Move to adjourn: B.
Scarborough.
9.0 Adjournment 4:00