Faculty Senate: Minutes

FACULTY SENATE HAS NOT FORMALLY APPROVED THIS DRAFT OF THE 1-17-03 MINUTES

The University of Southern Mississippi

Faculty Senate Meeting

January 17, 2003

Union Hall of Honors

2:00 p.m.

Members Present: College of the Arts: Ki. Davis, T. Lewis, S. Nielsen College of Business: J. Crocket, D. Duhon, T. Green College of Education & Psychology: T. Hartsell, J. Olmi, J. Palmer, J. Rachal College of Health & Human Sciences: J. Bethel, S. Graham-Kresge, S. Hubble, M.F. Nettles College of International and Continuing Education: M. Miller College of Liberal Arts: D. Cabana, M. Dearmey, P. Gentile, S. Malone, J. Meyer, A. Miller, M. Norton, S. Oshrin, B. Scarborough, J. Waltman College of Marine Science: J. Lytle College of Nursing: K. Masters, A. Brock College of Science & Technology: D. Beckett, P. Butko, B. Coates, M. Cobb, R. Folse, M. Hall, M. Henry, J. Mattson, G. Russell University Libraries: T. Graham USM-Gulf Coast: Ka. Davis

Members Represented by Proxy: USM-Gulf Coast: S. Naghshpour (Ka. Davis)

Members Absent: College of Education & Psychology: E. Lundin College of Liberal Arts: L. Nored

1.0 Call to Order: 2:00

2.0 Approval of Agenda: S. Oshrin moved to set aside the agenda in favor of item 4.0.; D. Duhon: second; Passed.

3.0 Approval of Minutes for November 15, 2002 meeting: M. Henry: move; S. Hubble: second; Passed.

4.0 Forum Speakers: Provost J. Grimes and Provost T. Hudson (State of the University):

T. Hudson: Good afternoon, and thanks for time on your agenda, today. I will yield my time to Dr. Thames. We asked early on to be a part of this agenda, but Dr. Thames would like to talk to you. I'm sure that he'll want to introduce special guests. We are very fortunate in Mississippi to have dedicated individuals who volunteer their time on the IHL Board. I am amazed at the time that IHL Board members volunteer.

S. Thames: I am delighted to have four of our IHL Board members here today: Ms. Amy Whitten, Ms. Ricki Garrett, Mr. Thomas Colbert, and Mr. Carl Nicholson. Thank you for being with us today [applause].

We made the presentation on the restructuring plan to the Board yesterday. A number of them said that they'd like to be part of the discussions. I wanted to invite them to comment on the plan. Ms. Whitten is an attorney from Jackson.

A.Whitten: Thanks for letting us be present. I've been on the Board for 3 years. The importance of what we do is on the campuses and not in Jackson. So I look for opportunities to come to the campuses. The changes may be viewed as dramatic. They are structural, not academic. I believe it is a win-win. It centers on students. It will produce an aggregate strength for faculty within the new colleges that will help you to spring over those you'd like to equal or surpass. I appreciate the opportunity to be involved in USM. I'm not as familiar with the school as I will be in the next 2 years. I'm much more familiar than when I first started, and I have to tell you that you are in the most creative part of the state in our system. I appreciate the jobs that you do and how long suffering you are. No one is in this room because of money. You labor under some serious struggles, and we will do whatever we can do to put a shoulder to the resource issues [applause].

S. Thames: Ms. Garrett is from Clinton.

R. Garrett: I think I know many of you. You know that I have been a long time supporter of USM. Long before my two children and three nephews attended here, I was a supporter of the University of Mississippi [sic] because I saw this as a student oriented school. The faculty and administration has an interest in their needs, encouraging them to develop into being all they can be. I think that in the long term, you'll see this as a good plan for the University of Mississippi [sic], and would never vote for anything that would be detrimental to USM. I, too, see it as a structural change rather than an academic change. It won't save much money, but it will create some synergies and be positive for the students. Over the long term I think that you'll see it as a good thing. I think that support for USM is very high on the Board right now; there is a commitment to fund USM, to help USM to develop and be the best university it can be [applause].

S. Thames: Thomas Colbert from Brandon.

T. Colbert: Mr. President and FS members, it's a pleasure to be here today. It was a unanimous decision of the Board to adopt this plan. It is one of the most innovative plans I've seen since I've been on the Board, which is 6 years. It will strengthen the academic area. Considering the resources we have, we have to look at efficiency. I'll be here if there are questions to answer later [applause].

S. Thames: Carl Nicholson from Hattiesburg.

C. Nicholson: I feel like I know many of you here. I have lived here for 30 years, and many of you are neighbors of mine. I had 3 children to get degrees here, 2 undergraduates and 1 graduate. Both campuses are so important to the continued growth of the southern part of the state. Financial support from the public sector is deteriorating across the country. We have to change the way we do business. It has been a priority of the Board to get institutions to reduce administrative costs and drive some of that revenue over a long-term basis to the faculty and students. That's who our customers are, the students of this institution. Thank you [applause].

S. Thames: I know that this represents a significant change for the academic community. My colleagues and I have spent many long hours thinking about this change, always with a focus on what is good for USM and our students. We believe that we have a plan that is better than our past structure. We know that it will be better for Southern Mississippi. We know that it will save resources. We know that fulltime faculty will meet more of our instructional needs. We know that we will reduce administrative costs. That's what we've heard from day 1: Reduce administrative costs and put more resources in the classroom. I'm sure that many of you have questions. T. Hudson is here, J. Grimes is coming, and we have members of our cabinet who can answer them.

B. Scarborough: I will concede that some of the changes are salutary, but the major problem is that no input was possible from those affected, faculty, students, even the deans who didn't know about this until 7:30 this morning. You can make decisions rapidly and without difficulty if you're operating a dictatorship. Sadam and Castro have no problems making decisions, but that's not the way we've been doing it at this University. It's not the way we do it in America. There's great resentment that there was no opportunity for input from faculty and other constituent groups.

S. Thames: I'm sorry that there is great resentment. We don't want great resentment, but I've been at this university a long time. One of the recent experiences that we've had was spending about 3 years looking at an academic core. The last meeting I heard about was Academic Council asking for the core to be tabled. If we had brought this [restructuring plan] before you, it never would have happened. This is an administrative restructuring plan, and we felt that it was best for us to handle this at higher administration. It is now time for you to get involved. You should be involved in helping to select the deans for these colleges. Faculty input will be encouraged. You will be on selection committees. We'll have students, business leaders, and alumni involved. We'll have total community involvement to select deans. We knew that we'd get criticized, but thought it was important enough to this University to get this plan done. We did not do it to intentionally harm anyone or infuriate anyone, but to move this university forward in a timely and efficient manner. I do not apologize for that. We didn't intend to hurt anyone's feelings. We intended to help USM, its students, and to produce a better university.

J. Bethel: This isn't about people's feelings being hurt. The process is reprehensible. The IHL Board members said that we are creative and innovative. Certainly, we needed to tap into that creativity and innovation. We were completely left out of the loop. The process is horrific. Does it end here, or who's next? When do we hear about that? What is the next round, and how will we hear about it? Will there be another convocation? Will we read about it in the Clarion Ledger?

S. Thames: You will be involved in terms of being members of the selection committee for the deans. I'm sorry that you think it's reprehensible. I think it was best for USM. You will have major input to selection of these 5 new deans. Make selections of whom you want on the search committees. Have maximum involvement in having the best deans in America come to Southern Miss.
M. Henry: So, others might not have different ideas on what's best for the university? We hear the few, but the many are left out.

S. Thames: I have apologized if that's the impression that you get. I have told you why, and I stand by my statement, sir.

A. Miller: Will the search process for the 5 deans be internal or external, and what is the timeline?

S. Thames: We hope to have these deans hired by July 1, 2003. That's a short timeframe. We will want to be taking nominations of faculty members to be part of the selection committees starting next week. Be thinking of whom you want on the 5 search committees. Drs. Grimes and Hudson will talk to you about that.

A. Miller: Will the searches be external as well as internal?

S. Thames: Yes, external as well as internal.

G. Russell: I'd like for you to expound on two things you mentioned this morning [at the state of the university address]. First, the idea that we will form schools within the colleges, whether this will happen in a few special situations where there are natural linkages or rather if there will be a larger number of schools so that most departments will be part of a larger school. Secondly, you mentioned getting members of a single college in physical proximity to each other. What is the timeframe for that?

S. Thames: Obviously, this is a maturation process. We don't know how many schools will be formed. We hope that deans and faculty will make recommendations to us. But we feel that this structure is a viable way to structure the university over the long term. We know that schools can't immediately relocate, and I can't give you a timeframe. That involves resources that we are not entirely in control of. The legislature is in control of the majority of it. We'll be working toward that end, to make a better life for all of our faculty and staff, a better place for them to work.

M. Miller: You didn't mention the Honors College?

S. Thames: Honors has been an important college to Southern Miss for many years. It will continue to report to J. Grimes. It is not a degree-granting program, and that's why we didn't talk about it.

A. Miller: So, it will stay an independent college?

S. Thames: Yes, an independent college.

M. Cobb: Another issue not specifically addressed this morning was the PhD granting program Scientific Computing. Where does it fit in the structure?

T. Hudson: There's been discussion. That program is in Science and Technology, and I don't think there will be a change to that. I want to go back to the question that A. Miller asked. We asked the deans this morning to begin thinking about good people to be on the search committees [for the 5 deans]. Now is the time to be completely engaged and to influence this process. From that meeting this morning until when I checked my email about 5 minutes ago, I have over 40 names of people who are anxious, able, and ready to be a part of these search committees. This is something that is doable, it's exciting, and I urge you to be a part of that. You can send names to J. Grimes, Dr. Thames, or me. We want to get people involved in this process.

J. Bethel: Will the process be similar to the presidential search?

S. Thames: Yes.

J. Lytle: How will we handle graduate processes with graduate school gone? Within the college?

S. Thames: Yes. We'll work on that between now and July 1. We may accept applications at a central location for a while and distribute them to colleges. We have not worked through some of the details, but that shouldn't be a problem. We'll have to change our catalogs, so people know where to send their applications. Thank goodness we have email, now. That should make it easier than publishing books, so we don't have a lag in time.

J. Lytle: Do you see us still having Graduate Council?

S. Thames: Yes, it is important for overseeing the academic aspect of the Graduate School. But this [restructuring] is to reduce the cost of administration. It will give the student an opportunity to go to one place rather than 5-6 places.

S. Malone: Military Science and Air Force ROTC were not listed.

S. Thames: They will stay in the Liberal Arts school.

J.P. Smith: Do you consider the departmental clusters as set in stone, or if they see themselves in a better synergy with other departments can they realign? Can it be revisited, or is it set in your mind?

S. Thames: I think it would be extraordinary if we made a change at this time. We need to give this process an opportunity to work. If it doesn't, we can change it. We're very aware of Criminal Justice and the potential it has. We put it where it has the best chance for expansion, growth, and prestige.

J. Olmi: I want to make a statement in support of Dean Martray. I regret the way he found out. I hope that he'll re-apply. Otherwise, it will be a significant loss to this University, considering what he did for the last NCATE review and is doing for the upcoming NCATE review. He deserves to remain dean of the College of Education and Psychology.

S. Thames: Thank you.

D. Duhon: Will this structural change affect the Coast much?

T. Hudson: The Coast will harmonize with the change in Hattiesburg. Right now, we have 5 academic divisions that handle 9 colleges. I anticipate that we'll have 3-4 academic divisions to handle the 5 colleges. We'll have a slight adjustment and harmonization. We'll also have a similar process of looking at administrative costs to, as Carl Nicholson said, push those resources to the classroom. We also need to gear up our student services on the Coast. I also want to respond to J.P. Smith's question. We're starting with a very good start, an innovative plan. I would think that there would be adjustments over time. We've looked at over 200 universities across the US, and there is no single model for success. It has to do with what your institution needs within the context of the resource environment that it operates in.

T. Green: This morning you mentioned benefits. What are some of the short to medium term things that this [restructuring] should do that we're not doing now?

S. Thames: We're hiring 222 adjuncts to teach 222 classes. If this new structure works out like we think it will, former administrators could teach one half of these classes. So: 1) Immediate dollar savings, and 2) Get adjuncts out of the classroom in favor of having our more competent teachers in the classroom. That's the short term, immediate effect. D. Keith tells us, using a conservative figure, that reallocation costs may be $1M and as much as $1.7M. This reallocation will go to instruction.

J. Rachal: Will former deans retain their current salaries?

S. Thames: Yes. Those who have been deans for 10 years will retain their full salary. If they've been deans for less than 10 years, then they will retain a percentage. Each year you are a dean, you retain 10% of your supplement.

J. Palmer: A few years back we established a vision for the university and put together a document, which was celebrated. We put together a strategic plan. How does this fit with the restructuring, or are we putting it aside?

S. Thames: We've just changed a structure, not a degree, major, or a goal. It affects how we get to our overall goals. Hopefully, we'll get there faster this way.

J.P. Smith: When you restructure from 9 deans to 5 and give a pink slip to all 9, what is the logic there? Why not keep 5 and retain some stability rather than start with a clean slate?

S. Thames: They're still employed by USM. If they were faculty members, then they're still faculty members.

J.P. Smith: The slate is clean, and there may be 5 totally new people without understanding of what we've gone through before.

S. Thames: We have 5 new units. Every college is different than it was before. That's the logic.

T. Hudson: Take the College of Arts and Letters, for example. Who would you pick? Shouldn't there be an opportunity to apply and have faculty influence that process.

Ki. Davis: The College of the Arts is the only college of the arts in Mississippi, and it has brought prestige to the University and to the state. What about these major areas that are strong by themselves? How do we fit in the next breakdown?

S. Thames: There aren't plans for another breakdown, as far as this group of people are concerned. The new deans (and some of those may be current deans) will decide what they want their colleges to be and work with faculty to get there.

Ki. Davis: As far as faculty and chairs, will everything stay the same?

S. Thames: Nothing ever stays the same. Everything always changes.

J. Grimes: We will be the only College of Arts and Letters in the state. The prestigious college tends to be the College of Arts and Letters. It is a symbiotic paring, and we don't think that we've diminished the arts. The arts mean a lot to us.

M. Dearmey: If you're going to have 5 colleges, then you've come up with the best possible 5. It's exciting. Others may not agree, since the status of the arts and nursing will be adversely affected. I greatly admire you, Dr. Thames, for becoming a legendary professor. It would be a great thing if you became a legendary president. It would be good for the university. We'd have your picture in every classroom. However, the Board should listen to this point. It is the policy of the American Association of Governing Boards that, whenever changes are made that affect the university across the board, faculty should have input in that decision. Under no circumstance should the Board approve anything this major without checking with upper administration to make sure that the faculty has, in fact, had input. So, shame on you [IHL Board]. [Applause.]

S. Thames: I told The Board of Trustees that it had not been discussed with the faculty or the deans, with no one except the team. So, they knew that.

M. Dearmey: I'm saying that they knew that we had no input. It is the policy of the AG signed onto by the Association of Governing Boards that when a change like this is made faculty should have input, and that didn't happen. And its a major point in the AAUP Red Book. You [S. Thames] are one of the brightest people I've seen to step into those shoes, but I've been very upset over the past 6 years (and I'm saying this to the IHL Board) that US Senators have used leverage in internal personnel decisions in universities. This has happened on 4 occasions. It happened when we hired Fleming. Someone was put into the pool of candidates at the recommendation of Trent Lott. Another instance occurred with Lott and Marine Science. There was another at MSU and two others, so 5. I'm not suggesting the Board had anything to do with this, but the Board should resist this. This is not the way to do business with an institution concerned with instruction and research.

R. Garrett: I've been on the Board for 10.5 years, and the DSU search is my 12th or 13th search. I believe that we have a search process that has a great deal of integrity. I can give you my word that we've never selected a president based on what any one person wanted, whether a senator, faculty member, or alum. When we started the MSU search the first time, we had a candidate who was being supported by each US Senator, and both are probably unhappy about what the Board has done since we selected someone else. We have never made a decision based on what a political figure or one group wanted. I think that our process is one of the best in the country.

M. Dearmey: They should stay away from the internal personnel decisions in universities. Follow the AG and AAUP guidelines. And say [to politicians] that we'd appreciate it if you wouldn't put candidates in our pools or publicly support a candidate. The Senate Select Committee on Ethics doesn't like Senators interfering with institutions that are non-political in nature.

R. Garrett: I think that having a constitutional Board is an advantage. It helps to avoid that kind of pressure, such as input from governors or others.

S. Thames: I appreciate your having us here today. Let's all work together to make Southern Miss the best institution in America. We'll have differences in opinion from time to time, but I don't have any doubt that we all want what's best for USM and its students. Thank you to the Board members [applause].

[S. Thames and Board members depart. Provosts stay for additional questions.]

S. Hubble: For Dr. Grimes: Three of us on FS served on a Faculty Handbook Committee. There were substantive changes made to the Handbook. It was forwarded and was supposed to be put on the Web once adopted. The committee would be an ongoing committee. Can you update us on status of the document and the committee?

J. Grimes: The committee will be asked to form again this semester. We put it aside for a while. It will be resurrected. It will be a living committee, and we will get the changes up. But we wanted to finish these changes [reorganization].

S. Hubble: Will it have the same makeup?

J. Grimes: Same type of makeup, but there will be new names.

D. Beckett: In Science and Technology, the office already seems hard pressed to handle all of the work. Adding in the responsibilities for graduate school, how are we going to do that? Will we add another body or so to each college?

J. Grimes: We will redistribute existing Graduate School personnel. We may hire new people. Reallocation of dollars may allow us to do this. The new college structure is dean, associate dean (can hire additional associate dean with outside money) and 5 support staff. The staff will include a person with business capability, one with technology expertise, and one for admissions. We may have to hire more.

D. Duhon: Would you care to comment on the revised faculty activity report?

J. Grimes: I haven't seen it in 2 weeks, but I hear from Dr. Siltanen that it will go through one more iteration. We have listened to all of you. We incorporated changes that certain colleges wanted. It probably will be ready in 2 weeks. It will give faculty an opportunity to communicate their research, teaching, scholarship, and economic development activities. As the document is used, hopefully it will be revised and perfected over time.

B. Scarborough: With regard to shared governance, I don't think that the faculty and the administration are on the same page. How will selection committees [for the deans] be chosen? Will colleges elect members or forward names from whom appointments are made. The latter is not shared governance.

J. Grimes: Let's go back to shared governance and the Red Book. There is a statement in there that, where appropriate, faculty governance will be used to make major decisions. It was our call (President Thames, the provosts, and vice presidents) that at this point and time, it was not important to involve faculty governance to make this initial, up-front reorganization. We're all faculty, and we all believe in faculty governance. So, we think that this point in time is the right time for you to come in and make the reorganization work. In regard to the selection of the deans, we will, absolutely, involve the faculty. We've already asked the deans to forward names of individuals to sit on these 5 committees.

B. Scarborough: It will be your choice. With true shared governance, the faculty would elect their representatives.

T. Hudson: If you want to influence that process, then consult with your colleagues and focus on people who you want to be on that committee. Twenty-one emails that I've received were from a group of faculty who came together, discussed the issue, and decided who they thought would be the best. So, there's an opportunity to have tremendous influence.
M. Henry: The FS Budget Committee submitted questions to the president and they were copied to you. They're beyond the college level, and I think they're relevant. The announcement from this morning was that there would be savings of $1-2M. In addition, the president indicated that, already, because of administrative reductions at a different level, about $280K was saved. Where is the $280K, given that there is a view that there is more administration at that level than there had been previously?

J. Grimes: We haven't increased administration, but have downsized. There were appointments that were not made in the president's office. That's where the $275K or $276K came from. I can't give details off top of my head.

M. Henry: But you will do that at the proper time?

J. Grimes: I'd be happy to.

S. Hubble: How do we keep things moving into the next year, including searches and the budget process, if we have deans that won't be deans after July 1?

J. Grimes: I'm not sure how to answer that. We do have to build a budget, we have these 5 positions and other positions to fill. But we will endeavor to keep the ball rolling, and we will try to have deans in place quickly. We may not have all 5 deans in place by July 1. But we intend to have the searches well underway by that time.

S. Nielsen: In the Arts, we have been able to use our creative activities to count for research (for tenure, promotion, and evaluation) because that's what we are. If we're in Arts and Letters, then will our creative activities continue to count?

J. Grimes: We would not make those decisions at our level. This is where shared governance steps in: how you review tenure, promotion, and scholarship. I understand that it creates challenges to put these groups together, but they're not insurmountable.

G. Russell: How will we save money if we're going to continue to pay former deans (at least three of whom will get keep their full salaries), redistribute staff, and also pay new deans?

J. Grimes: I wish I had a chart to show you, because L. McFall costed out the things we're doing. We also calculated that perhaps not all would step back into the ranks of staff or faculty. If each of the 5 colleges had 1 dean at $130K, 1 associate dean, and 5 staff, running all of those numbers L. McFall came up with reallocation of $1.1M - $1.8M.

T. Hudson: There will be savings in adjunct faculty. For example, if you don't have a Graduate dean then there are 6 sections taught by a senior faculty member and you don't purchase the services of an adjunct in that area. It's not a savings but a reallocation. That's what the Board has challenged us to do, to reallocate money from administration toward the core mission.

J. Olmi: Is this cost cutting or something we're not doing? If it's not simply cost cutting, then why hasn't someone told us what we're not doing?

J. Grimes: It is cost cutting, but that's not initially what led us to start down this road. The IHL Board charged President Thames to do certain things. Tim and I realized that this type of reorganization could: 1) create new synergies, 2) reenergize some groups that needed some help, 3) accomplish some cost savings, and 4) do what the Board asked us to at the same time.

T. Hudson: People have claimed that USM hasn't always gotten its fair share of attention and resources. Some of that has been a confidence issue or a misunderstanding issue. By responding to this challenge, we are working with the Board very closely to assure that we don't lose any ground.

J. Olmi: My understanding is that it was our administration's decision, and not the Board's decision.

T. Hudson: The decision was the administration's, but the mandate from the Board was to streamline administration, to reallocate costs across the system from administration to instruction.

J. Olmi: So, from the Board it was just cost cutting?

T. Hudson: I don't think so. It was reallocation. There's a big difference.

J. Olmi: I understand, but, again, does the Board have a perception that there's something we weren't doing as faculty?

T. Hudson: It's not about faculty, but about upper level administration.

J. Olmi: My other comment is about adjuncts. If we can't fill positions we rely on adjuncts. So, how many those positions are cut positions that no longer exist? Just to say that we've saved adjunct money by having senior level professors go into these classes, that's not the whole truth in the statement of adjunct faculty is it?

J. Grimes: It's true in the sense that we'll replace some of these adjunct faculty with senior faculty. Also, we're optimistic about the budget process this year. President Thames' actions will pay off for USM and the entire IHL. His actions may help us to find new money to put some of these positions back into place.

Ki. Davis: Will we be able to hire new faculty?

J. Grimes: I hope so. We're painfully aware of the need.

Ki. Davis: What is the status of Athletics and the University Libraries?

J. Grimes: We're going to look at all aspects of the university. We started with the academic side of the house. We haven't discussed athletics. We've had discussions about the Libraries, but haven't begun to think about that.

Ki. Davis: So, they will be the same?

J. Grimes: Physical Plant, staff, the Libraries, and all aspects of the University will be looked at. Now is the time that faculty and staff can help us to brain storm some of the other changes.

A. Brock: I hope that accreditation issues are being considered.

J. Grimes: We looked very carefully at accreditation, and I'm proud to say that all but one of our programs are accredited. We're optimistic that we'll have them all accredited. We understand that we have problems in certain units, not to say that they'll lose accreditation. We've got some problems, so we were acutely aware of what we might do by this reorganization. We do not want to affect our accreditation. Several people assured us that the reorganization would not change a thing in regard to accreditation, including Nursing. We see this as a way to improve Nursing, because they are now pared with other groups that will help synergize them. We've talked to some in the private sectors in Hattiesburg, and they're excited about this. They say that this is the way that many nursing programs are going; they're paring themselves up with other groups that they can work with. We hope that the groups within the colleges have the opportunity to become more prestigious, endowed, and named. By creating super colleges that will do things better because of economies of scale, then we can focus on the disciplines, the schools, the institutes, the centers, whatever they will become. This is an opportunity to grow Marine Sciences, Arts, Nursing, and others. There are opportunities to be endowed. You as a faculty have to get these groups together to form schools, and we will help you go out to the private sector and find funding to endow these schools.

M. Cobb: Do the projected reallocation costs include any reductions in staff at the departmental level?

J. Grimes: No, they don't. We understand that some people may retire or leave for a better offer.

M. Cobb: So, those positions will be filled if we have a retirement?

J. Grimes: Yes.

S. Oshrin: What is the status of the new administrative supplement policy?

J. Grimes: We will enact it as of July 1. Up until June 30, the existing policy will stay in effect (that you keep 10% of your administrative supplement for every year that you are an administrator). If you sign a new contract on July 1, the old policy is history. We've checked with Lee Gore and outside counsel to make sure that we can do this.

S. Oshrin: How will that affect current administrators?

J. Grimes: Hypothetically, if I were still the dean of Marine Sciences and my college was going to continue as Marine Sciences, if I step back into the ranks I'd go back with my full salary as dean. If I were to sign on as the new dean after July 1, from then on if I step back into the ranks I would not carry that supplement with me. But there is always the possibility that you could negotiate that. Everyone has the right to negotiate what he or she takes back into the ranks.

T. Hudson: The policy that goes into effect on July 1 is the Board policy. It was out of compliance. IHL does a review when a new president starts, and that was an issue put on the table. Existing deans and chairs are under the old policy until they sign a new contract on July 1. That will be their choice to sign or not.

G. Russell: Is that a scheme to wipe the slate clean of department chairs, too?

T. Hudson: No, it's unrelated. But you'll want to assess your own situation.

G. Russell: The supplement for chairs is not enough to be a factor in anyone's decision to be a chair.
T. Hudson: I understand.

J. Palmer: Was the academic calendar put on the IHL list for review?

T. Hudson: We weren't privy to all of that.

J. Grimes: T. Hudson and I had an interesting conversation with the Council of Academic Officers in Jackson this week. We talked about going to a floating 9-month contract, so a faculty member could work spring and summer and take fall off. There's no policy against that. If a faculty member is too busy teaching in the summer and can't take it off, then they could achieve their teaching responsibilities in the summer and take off fall or spring. That's something we're going to look at.

D. Duhon: As of 7:45 this morning, we had 9 lame duck deans. We know that it's unlikely for lame duck administrators to accomplish much. Can they help us get this implemented? Don't we need to accelerate this search for the 5 new deans?

J. Grimes: You are the ones with everything at stake, the ones who can make this thing work. You need to help us. Also, we have some good deans that we hope will reapply and be successful in the search process. We felt the best way to do it was to wipe the slate clean. We agonized over it. We do need to accelerate this. We hope that our ad in the Chronicle will send a very strong message. It could send a negative message. But we hope that it sends a message that USM is making a bold new step, that it's looked at itself, and that it will create these 5 new opportunities.

J. Rachal: This morning Dr. Thames alluded to the environmental scanning report [from the 1980s] and suggested that it was pretty much a fiasco, that little got done. That was part of his rationale for using the process that he did. I would encourage you and the administration to have more faith in faculty. Give us a date certain by when input should be submitted. I don't agree that it wouldn't have been done otherwise, though we may have come up with different result. The process looks bad. They should have had faith in us, and we could have come to a similar conclusion.

J. Grimes: I appreciate that. It was a good statement.

B. Coates: What's wrong with input? What idea isn't known to you that could have been proposed. We'll never know.

J. Grimes: You could still come up with that great idea.

R. Folse: Faculty take longer to make a decision, because we challenge each other’s ideas. Were up sides and down sides presented to the Board? I think this is good, but the process bothers me. Were there checks and balances? Or is the devil in the details?

J. Grimes: No, we didn't get into the cons with the Board because we didn’t have time to do that.

R. Folse: So, it was more of a sales pitch.

J. Grimes: I would remind you that, with one exception, we are all faculty. We fully appreciate what you're saying.

T. Hudson: It's a fair comment. The only con was the issue we're discussing right now.

J. Mattson: How was the message to the deans received? What about the rumors of staff being terminated?

J. Grimes: I've not heard that rumor. With regard to your question on how it was received, there were two kinds of questions: 1) Why didn't you involve us and faculty (and we expected that kind of question), and 2) questions specific to their colleges. What's going to happen my people? Are they going to be protected or lose their jobs? What about the non-academic centers and services? Will they be affected? The answers were "no," they will not be affected. We'll not terminate people. We’re not going to affect those services to the community (Hattiesburg community or disciplinary community). We hope that they would not only continue but also grow from this process. I'm disturbed what you heard about staff being terminated. I have not heard that. Have you, Tim [Hudson]?

T. Hudson: No.

S. Hubble: I foresee our colleagues asking us "what's next?" You mentioned that each college would have a dean, associate dean, and 5 staff. So, there's already thought and structure to the next step. There will be specific positions, and we know how many. It concerns me how we'll give better service to students with 7 people. But when and how are we going to know the other decisions that have already been made?

J. Grimes: We haven't made other decisions. The 7 positions are a hypothetical administrative unit, so we could do some number crunching. Seven may not be the perfect number for a given college. We decided that on average there would be dean, associate, and 5 support staff, but it may vary by college.

S. Hubble: So this will be in limbo until deans are selected?

J. Grimes: I would hope not. I would hope that the faculty would work with the administration to move toward some of these things. But new deans will want to decide who they want for associate dean and for their staff.

M. Dearmey: If we do have a new core, will any of this money be redirected toward hiring faculty to underpin the new core?

J. Grimes: Yes. We hope to achieve a variety of new things, including the new core. We really want this university to work, and need to use resources that we have efficiently.

M. Hall: If you have people who may retain their deans' salaries going into teaching and hiring new deans (who will have less experience), will you really save money? Have you really looked at what this will end up costing? If you will shuffle people around and move labs, have you looked at how much this will end up costing? Can you put together numbers and share them?

J. Grimes: No, we have not. It could cost more. I have been at institutions where cost savings measures ended up costing money. I hope that will not happen to us. L. McFall is very good at running the numbers, and she believes that it won't. We haven't looked at the cost of moving departments, and that will cost money.

A. Miller: Dr. Thames indicated that these will be external searches. Have ads been sent out?

J. Grimes: No. We're working on an ad for the Chronicle that will be an overall ad for all 5 deans. It will say what we've done, and that we're working on a bold new move. It will say that we are looking for deans in the following 5 areas. If you are interested, see USM's homepage. There will be a dean search button on the homepage. They can find information on the position that they're interested in, and there will be details on what the position involves. That's why in the next 10 days, when we put this committee together, we need that committee to define what these 5 dean job descriptions will look like.

A. Miller: Are we looking for associate deans?

J. Grimes: Not at this point, just the deans.

A. Miller: What if we don't fill by July 1, will there be an appointment of interim deans?

J. Grimes: If we don't hire by July 1 (and I realize that we probably won't have all 5), we will hire and interim, or Tim and I will have to pick up the slack.

T. Hudson: I would vote for interim in that case. We believe that if we move expeditiously then we can fill the positions on time. Also, we hope that some of the existing deans will apply, and I think that they will be considered if they do. I'm optimistic, but there's always a chance that we can't get it done.

J. Grimes: I think that if we submit by Jan. 27, we can get a Feb. 7 release in the Chronicle.

M. Miller: Over 12 years ago International Studies was elevated to the level of a college under Dean Hudson, and the same can be said about Continuing Education. We celebrated it as reflective of the priority that the University assigned to these programs. If it is to become a center, how do we answer if asked how this move reflects on the priorities at the University?

J. Grimes: Our priorities haven't changed. Those programs are extremely important to us in the same way that my old college is still important to me. We see this as an opportunity to grow international studies. I don't see this as a problem.

D. Duhon: Where are [International and Continuing Ed.] structured in the new organization?

M. Miller: All I know is what I read in the press release, which is that it answers to the office of the Provost.

T. Hudson: I think that it's wrong to think that if it's not a college then it's not important. I don't know what form International Education will take, because we haven't dealt with non-academic units. I don't think that having college status is the right place to invest significance. The right place to invest significance is our faculty engagement with students.

J. Grimes: Our centers and institutes at USM have tended to be stove piped in one college, whereas other universities established centers to cut across colleges and get the synergistic partnerships created. This [reorganization] allows us to get these partnerships created.

D. Alford: We have a problem with trust. You don't give us input on the reorganization, and now you ask for our participation. Having served on committees recently, even when faculty did voice preferences it was negated, including with the presidential search. Also, I don't know how many deans would apply. Who would set themselves up for this again? External dean interviewees are going to ask us what's going on here, and what are we going to say? We're an honored faculty? There's a lot of creativity welcome here? We'll find it difficult to sell these jobs. I refuse to serve on another search committee where the decision already has been made. This has been going on for over a year. Is it going to change, today?

T. Hudson: There are a lot of faculty out there with a different opinion. They see this as an opportunity. We've gotten positive responses, positive emails. [Whether to participate] is a decision that you'll all have to make.

D. Alford: This [reorganization] is not all bad, but it communicates that the administrators know more about what's best for the University than faculty do, many of whom have been here a long time. That's hard to get past.

J. Lytle: Could you clarify this committee? Will there not be 5?

J. Grimes: There will be 5 committees, each comprised of 5-10 people containing faculty, students, and outside stakeholders. We don't want too many outside stakeholders, because I see this process being driven by faculty.

J. Lytle: How will outsiders be brought in?

J. Grimes: Two ways: 1) I hope that faculty will have recommendations, and 2) we feel that we know who the people are in Hattiesburg and the Gulf Coast who have strong interest in seeing USM grow. So, we want 1-2 community stakeholders.

J. Lytle: So, the make up of the committee is already defined? We must have 1-2?

J. Grimes Not at all, but I would see as a very fair committee one that cuts across a variety of stakeholders: faculty, students, and outside community.

T. Green: How can you hire 5 deans in 6 months for what we pay? We're all underpaid. You can't do it in the College of Business. You get what you pay for. Also, you talk about efficiency. Efficiency means increased output with the same input. But that assumes that the quality is the same. I'm concerned about quality. For example, when you decentralize the functions of the Graduate School, you have a model in which there is no incentive to increase quality. The incentive is to lower quality. When that gets out to students, you could impact enrollment.

J. Grimes: Quality is our number one concern. We may not be able to hire a dean of business for $130K, and we're prepared for that.

J. Crocket: Hard decisions had to be made quickly. It seems to me that the best thing we can do is to get on board and move forward. We shouldn't obstruct. The decision's been made. It needed to be made quickly and it was. I don't agree with how, but it's done. I think we have to take it and run.

J. Grimes: I fully agree.

M. Henry: I disagree with Jim [Crocket]. There's an issue of trust. The University runs on trust and respect. There's an opportunity here for trust and respect to be exercised very visibly. The message is that there wasn't trust, because the activity was behind closed doors. You add that to a [presidential] search that many called into question; add that to no searches [for administrators]; add that to this [reorganization]. At what point has trust been compromised enough that people can't believe. I can't imagine this having occurred, and the deans having been told as they were this morning. It is very hard for me to understand. We need to rebuild colleges, but also trust and respect.

J. Grimes: It wasn't a matter of trust in our minds, but we were called to do something quickly. It may have been the wrong call, but we all felt that if we gave this to the faculty it would not happen in an expeditious manner. We trust you, and we are proud of our faculty.

M. Henry: I think that you need to find concrete ways to demonstrate that day after day and week after week.

N. Kaul: I've served as chair of Academic Council and FS. I would encourage you to rebuild trust, a good deal of which has been lost. We have an enormous amount of talent and imagination among the faculty. Give us a deadline and we'll meet it. If we don't, it will be our fault. Dr. Thames gave the implementation of the core as reason for not including the faculty in this process under a time frame. It was under my term that we began to develop the core. The recent vote to table it was regretfully done. Had we had today's information then, including the possibility of funding, the outcome would have been different. The decision [to table] had to do with changes that were made along the way, and it was no longer the core that we'd envisioned. We had to rethink it.

J. Olmi: My greatest fear is that the decision already has been made about who deans will be. You can understand why we would feel this way. Can you guarantee to this body that that decision has not been made?

J. Grimes: It's not decided in my mind. I have no preconceived ideas as to who those deans will be.

J. Olmi: You understand why I would ask.

J. Grimes: I understand.

D. Cabana: In the Technology Security Document, I pointed out in cabinet this week that language was repeated [in regard to the impounding of computers]. It said "for any reason" then "for any appropriate reason." The administration directed that it be corrected to read "for any appropriate reason." It speaks to what J. Olmi was saying about whether you could give FS reasonable assurances that there will be an open process. I checked my email this morning, and now C. Santell is dragging feet and objecting because of Lee Gore's objections. So there are those occasions when, despite the best efforts of administration, the process gets waylaid after we'd reached consensus on something. Please check into that, and see that it gets done.

J. Grimes: L. Gore says that "appropriate" is unacceptable, and he won't allow us to use it. I was comfortable with it. Lee has said that "appropriate" raises too many questions. You can legally interpret "appropriate" however you want to in the courts. It's something we have to resolve.

D. Cabana: Thanks to both of you.

[Provosts Grimes and Hudson depart.]

D. Cabana: FS Constitution and Bylaws Committee chair needs to get in touch with me on Tuesday, because this reorganization also means that there is work that needs to be done in a short time regarding the structure of FS. I think that the Constitution and Bylaws Committee ought to be the body that examines where we go from here.

S. Hubble: I would ask that, even though it was an agenda item, the Executive Committee determine what the date of the April meeting will be? Could you email us that date?

D. Cabana: Yes, T. Graham and I will get together on that next week and will send out that information. [The April meeting as scheduled falls on Good Friday.]

M. Hall: Now is the time for the Elections Committee to look at reapportionment for the new colleges.

D. Cabana: That's why I would like to meet with the chair of the Constitution and Bylaws Committee next week. I think it would be appropriate to meet with the Elections Committee as well.

J. Palmer: M. Henry recommended by email that we move forward with elections using the present day structure. Let's move into next year before we restructure. This would eliminate a certain amount of confusion. I think that the Elections Committee should consider that recommendation.

D. Cabana: I agree.

M. Henry: Continuity is key right now. Re-electing everyone carte blanche has the potential for losing any kind of a voice at a time when the faculty voice seems increasingly important. There are so few groups where that can occur. This is the primary one. Elections will precede the reorganization, which will take effect July 1. I would encourage the Elections Committee to look at a phased approach.

D. Cabana: Is there any other business before FS? In the absence of other business, the Senate is adjourned.

5.0 Officers' Reports: Deferred to February meeting.

6.0 Committee Reports: Deferred to February meeting.

7.0 Old Business:

7.1 Resolution: Extending the Six-Credit Hour Benefits to Spouses: Deferred to February Meeting

7.2 April FS Meeting Date: Rescheduled date to be communicated by email.

8.0 New Business: Deferred to February meeting.

9.0 Adjournment [4:00]