The
Faculty Senate Meeting
Union Hall of Honors
Members Present: College of the Arts: Ki. Davis, S. Nielsen College
of Business: J. Crockett, D. Duhon, T. Green College
of Education & Psychology: T. Hartsell, J.
Palmer College of Health & Human Sciences: J. Bethel, S. Grahm-Kresge, S. Hubble, M.F. Nettles College of
International and Continuing Education: M. Miller College of Liberal
Arts: D. Cabana, P. Gentile, S. Malone, J. Meyer, J. Norton, S. Oshrin, B. Scarborough 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 University Libraries: T. Graham USM-Gulf Coast: Ka.
Davis, S. Naghashpour, J.P. Smith
Members Represented by Proxy:
College of the Arts: Ki. Davis (T. Lewis) College of Education
& Psychology: J. Rachal (J. Palmer)
College of Liberal Arts: A. Miller (Amy Young), L. Nored
(A. Young), J. Waltman (Amy Young) College of
Science & Technology: D. Beckett (B. Coates) USM-Gulf Coast: D.
Alford (J.P. Smith)
Members Absent: College of Education & Psychology: E. Lundin,
J. Olmi
1.0
Call to Order [
2.0
Approval of Agenda: S. Oshrin: move; S. Hubble: second; Passed.
3.0
Approval of Minutes
3.1
3.2
[Item
5.0 preceded 4.0]
4.0
Forum Speaker: Provost J. Grimes: Thank you for inviting me. I would like to attend
all of your meetings, just to be here and answer any of your questions and to
convey information that I may have for you. I would not to be here for the
whole meeting. I think that there are miscommunications. Part of my role is to
liaison between faculty and the administration.
B. Scarborough: I have no
problem with you coming to answer questions, but not sitting through the whole
thing.
J. Grimes: I agree, that is not the intent. Let me address the faculty
activity report. It is nothing more than a way to streamline, standardize, and
digitize internal access to information about our faculty. We've done this
before, but not in digital form. You've filled out an activity form before, and
we'd like to go back to that, but using a single format/software
package/spreadsheet device. We'll have a single digitized way to look at what
the faculty do. This will provide aggregate data for
our Institutional Research Office to report the accrediting agencies, and it
offers administrators a quick way to see what faculty members are doing in
regard to raises and other decisions. For example, I've been asked by a chair
to help retain a faculty member who has been offered a job elsewhere. Right now
I just have information on courses taught and the annual ORSP report. Using
that information I'm can't see why we'd want to keep this person. If I had
access to an activity report, I would have more information to go on. If the chair wants to keep this person, there
must be something beyond the credit hours or research dollars. If I had access
to an activity report, I would have better reasons to help offer that person a
better salary to entice them to stay here.
A. Young: Why can't you get that
information from chair? We do annual evaluations.
J. Grimes: We could, but we'd
like it available so that at any point in time we can take a look at it. Also,
this will be a living document that you can add to as you do things. There will
be a cut off date if a department decides to use it for annual evaluations.
We're also concerned about privacy, and this won’t be open to the public.
Though keep in mind that legally the public could request access to the
information, since we're all public employees. We're requiring all tenured and
tenure track faculty to complete it. We're considering adding research faculty
next year. This is an opportunity to brag about the wonderful things that you
do and communicate why it's important.
B. Coates: There are some things
that we do that don't fit. Where do I get some help?
J. Grimes: This is not a perfect
tool, so we need your input. For now, put it under the comments section, and we'll see if next year we can find a way to
gather that information.
B. Coates: It was said that we'd
have input. But we never saw this in our college. It didn't filter down.
J. Grimes: We want this to be a
living document, so that you can add things in there. I'm sure that we missed
things, so we'll want to add them.
B. Coates: I'm a coordinator for
a program, and that takes up a lot of my time. There's no place for that. Will
anyone ever read the comments section if I include it there?
J. Grimes: Yes. If I go to the
trouble to access the report, then I would look at every area, because we
understand that we don't have the appropriate box for everything.
M. Cobb: This year we had 13
days to fill this out. It was due at a particularly busy time. Also, the information that we need for this
form is not in the form that we collect for deparment
evaluation. I don't think that we were given enough time to complete it. In
terms of using it for annual evaluation, my department does evaluation by
committee. How would that work?
J. Grimes: We set the deadline
so it could be used for annual evaluations if departments chose to do that.
We're backing off of our deadline. We thank those who did fill it out on time,
and we would like for those who haven't to fill it out.
B. Scarborough: Are you asking
or ordering, because I don't plan to fill it out. Did you get the AAUP letter
that we delivered to your office?
J. Grimes: I did. This is a FS
meeting, not an AAUP meeting.
B. Scarborough: This is
information that already is collected at the department level. We're worried
that this will be used to penalize people.
J. Grimes: It will not be used
to penalize people. I want to be able to quickly and efficiently access
information about our employees. I don't always have time to go to a chair, and
chairs aren't always available.
T. Green: Who do I call to find
help in completing the form? If I make an error, will it count against me?
J. Grimes: There are no errors to
make. It would be our error if we didn't provide the appropriate box. S. Siltanen and her staff would be the ones to contact, since
they'll add the new boxes.
J. Bethel: It seems that for an
administration that is focused on efficiency, this duplication of effort seems
inefficient. We're already being evaluated. Also, do I get to count the time I
spend on this?
J. Grimes: No, it's one of the
things that we have to do as faculty.
J. Bethel: You're asking for the
information because you don't have time to call my department head?
J. Grimes: That would be a
simplistic answer.
J. Bethel: Could there be a data
entry clerk to enter the information that we submit in hard copy?
J. Grimes: We wouldn't have time
to do that.
P. Butko:
Could we put all of this information in electronic form--abolish the
dossiers--so that I can use it for tenure and promotion and everything else?
J. Grimes: That sounds like a
good idea, but I'm not going to propose that. In general, I think that doing
these things online rather than on paper is something that would be good to
look at.
M. Hall: So, non-tenure track
instructors shouldn't complete it?
J. Grimes: If I were non-tenure
track I would want to fill this out. It might help us to make a decision about
whether could make tenure track appointment. We've been asked to renew
contracts of non-tenure track faculty who have been here for multiple years. If
we get new money this year, should we use it to make these positions
tenure-track appointments? With the activity report, I could pull up
information on those people.
M. Hall: I'm not sure what
you're trying to get at with some of the questions, including how many
instructional improvement grants one has gotten in a year.
S. Siltanen:
We participate in a
J. Grimes: We'll collect
information for 2002, but the 2003 form can be added to during the course of
the year. If you add to the report regularly, it will help you to avoid a
crunch at next year's deadline.
J. Palmer: There is mistrust
because of past events. Will you use this document to look at teaching class
loads to make recommendations to my chair about what I'm teaching?
J. Grimes: Yes.
J. Palmer: For research?
J. Grimes Possibly.
J. Palmer: For grant writing?
J Grimes: It's a possibility.
J. Palmer: What about for tenure
and promotion, once it has gone through the faculty committees?
J. Grimes: Probably not. I can't
speak for the dean or the university advisory committee. But as provost, I
would have enough information without it by that time unless we get to where
all of this is done electronically. The activity report is a snap shot and not
a replacement for the promotion and tenure processes. Not everything that you
would need to know would be there.
J. Palmer: It sounds like there
are many uses, and it should be expanded to allow faculty to elaborate,
especially for teaching.
J. Grimes: Yes, the numbers
alone could be misleading. For example, a field course or a special problems
course with few students on paper that may not look like much when in fact it
costs many hours.
S. Siltanen:
Your teaching, enrollment, credit hours will be there. Then we can view an
information box with this other information from the activity report. It won't
show blank boxes for what you haven't done. We don't ask for enrollment,
because we already have it.
J. Lytle: Since you want it
electronically, why couldn't we use our own format in electronic form?
J. Grimes: We need a common
format, so they will all work together.
Ki.
J. Grimes: No, but I see how the
comments at the different levels could be done online.
Ki.
J. Grimes: You've helped me to
answer why we need the activity report. All of those other things can be
communicated. If I depended on just ORSP reports and teaching loads, I wouldn't
fully understand what you're doing.
S. Nielsen: I teach 4-hour/wk
classes for which I only get 2-credit hours. Can the form account for the
contact hours as opposed to credit hours?
S. Siltanen:
It sounds like you're falling through the cracks. A lab allows that flexibility
if you want to call it that. With PeopleSoft you can't track contact hours if
not a lab.
S. Nielsen: I think it's
actually that the lab counts less.
J. Grimes: Maybe this is a
vehicle for correcting that.
S. Siltanen:
We can pull up PeopleSoft and look.
J.P. Smith: A concern is that
administration is not viewing us in the context of what we do. Some produce
numerous brief publications in a year, others lengthy publications over
multiple years. We'd feel better if you'd ask the chair to place the individual
within the context of the unit.
J. Grimes: I admit that I don't
know what goes on in the Arts and in History. I understand that you can't
quantify much of what you do. This is our instrument for you to communicate
what you do. I like your idea of going to the chair and asking to put the
individual in the context of the unit.
M. Cobb: Does each faculty
member have access to his or her own information?
S. Siltanen:
The information gets merged into a file that goes to the chair. The chair can
add comments. The faculty member can review it at that point. Besides the
activity report, it includes coursework and comments added. We could add in so
that the chair can contextualize the dept.
S. Naghshpour:
Why didn't you ask us before rather than afterward? Also, if the chair knows
what the person is doing and makes a recommendation, why can't you take that at
face value?
J. Grimes: The chairs aren't
always available. We want this information online so everyone from chairs on up
can have access to it.
S. Naghshpour:
So, what we submit is as important as what we have done.
J. Grimes: That is not the
intent of this exercise. It is incumbent on you to demonstrate what you've
done.
D. Duhon:
We have a breakdown in communication. Some people have had input (Arts), but
most faculty never saw it until the email arrived. We should think about this
year being a trial run year. Our target date ought to be next February.
J. Grimes: I like that, but with
this provision: what if I want to access information this year? It would
behoove you to fill yours out completely. I did see this as a phase-in year.
D. Duhon:
To not do this electronically is kind of like putting our heads in the sand.
S. Siltanen:
We're working with the AACSB accreditation, now. This will help in making
reports for accreditation for NCATE and others.
M. Henry: Have you or your staff
filled it out yourselves?
J. Crockett: It's not hard.
J. Grimes: Yes, but I was
testing it to make sure it worked so I filled out boxes hypothetically for
categories that don't relate to my work.
M. Henry: Maybe you should fill
this out and share it. Previously, you said that it would have a limited number
of uses, but now it seems that it will be used for many of the things that you
formerly said that it would not be used for, things like raises and tenure. It
seems that it will be a personnel document that will be used in a variety of
ways. Were you misquoted earlier?
J. Grimes: No, I was not
misquoted. We didn't plan to use it so extensively, but as the document evolved
and as we see its worth, we see this as a useful document for a variety of
purposes, including raise determinations. But keep in mind that the
recommendations for raises come up through the departments, and we'll have that
information first and foremost. If we don't have everything that we need, then
this document will provide that. You've been there, and you know that you want
as much information as you can get your hands on.
M. Henry: I would have contacted
the dean or chair about personnel matters, and would wait to make the decision
until they were available.
B. Scarborough: The document
starts at 2002. What happens to what faculty have done
prior to 2002. My spreadsheet would go back to 1964, and your form doesn't
account for that.
J. Grimes: What you've done
before is important, and it counted. You've been promoted, tenured, and given
raises on the basis of that. We can't go back and digitize all of this past
information. That would be like digitizing documents in the library; the cost
would be prohibitive.
B. Scarborough: I'm concerned
about your answers to Jesse's and Myron's questions. That is what we were
afraid that you were going to use the information for. We're worried that
you're going to make all of the decisions about promotions and raises up there,
top down. That's not the way a university should be run. It will create more
trouble than you can imagine. I'm speaking for many people and in all colleges.
Nobody asks us anything, and it looks like everything will be managed from the
CEO down. That's very disturbing for a lot of people.
J. Grimes: The only input you
haven't had is into the reorganization. We stand by our decision to do it the
way that we did.
B. Scarborough: We haven't had
input on this activity report. Didn't we have a FS committee to look at this
Dave [Duhon]? The last I heard was that we couldn't
find out from the administration or the deans what this was about.
D. Duhon:
In certain departments, the communication process worked. In the majority of
them it did not work well.
J. Grimes: In at least 3 deans council meetings, I asked the deans to take this back
to their chairs and directors, to make sure that it worked for the colleges and
the units within the colleges. I followed up with an e-mail. Then I heard that
departments never saw it.
D. Duhon:
There probably was a breakdown between deans and chairs.
D. Cabana: We sent letters to
deans, made phone calls, and the provost intervened. Then there was semester
break. We never heard from deans. Since the deans didn't respond to FS, the
breakdown probably was between the deans and the chairs. Since we heard that
the activity report would not be used for evaluation, we did not pursue it with
the deans after the break.
B. Coates: Now we know that it
didn't make it to every department, so you didn't get the input you needed. The
2003 document will be filled out all year long.
J. Grimes: That's a decision we
made 2 days ago [to allow it to be filled out all year long].
B. Coates: That part is a good
idea. But now that we know that it's imperfect, can we change the 2003 or is it
frozen?
J. Grimes: I've told all
departments that I have visited that I have experience with a graduate-only
program, and I have no experience with
S. Hubble: I have 3 questions:
1) Could you clarify the credit hour fee for
summer? 2) What is the rationale for
uncapping the fee structure? 3) Will it apply to both grads and undergrads?
J. Grimes: It applies to both.
It was $134/credit hour for undergraduates and $173 for graduates. That's per
credit hour with no break. Summer school is a stand-alone process and we need
all the revenue we can get to make it work. Most universities are not capped,
and we're uncapping. We understand that we're putting students in hardship
situation, so we're uncapping but using last summer's rates. You also may know
that the president has agreed not to ask for a tuition increase next year.
S. Hubble: Regarding the deans
search, how do you define staff? I can't find what I would call staff in the
dean selection committee for my new college.
J. Grimes: I can't think of who
they were for your college off the top of my head, but they were non-tenured,
non-tenure track. We're supposed to have 2 staff on each committee. It's not
too late. I'll look at that.
[5-minute
recess]
J. Grimes: Several of us have
talked about the need to compensate excellence among our faculty. We have a way
to do that for research, and A. Dvorak will announce that policy at the annual
awards function in April. We need a way to do this for core instruction. Faculty are teaching countless hours, inspiring and
motivating students. They are the kind of faculty that you want in the classroom.
I'm asking you to set up guidelines. We want a mechanism to determine who they
are and to supplement their pay. We don't know yet how much we can supplement
their pay. We want an evaluation instrument to find out who those people are on
an annual basis. If you do this by Monday April 7, then the Friday of that week
is the awards program, and we'll be able to announce both the research and
teaching award. I'm asking D. Cabana to charge this group to do this.
J. Lytle: Can we see the
research mechanism?
J. Grimes, No, it's too early.
There will be rewards if you've bought out a percentage of your teaching time.
It's legal; other universities do this. It will only involve those involved in
research, however. That's the reason for the teaching compensation.
J.P. Smith: There are rumors
about the provost home at
J. Grimes: I have no idea as to
this other than that remodeling is going on.
J.P. Smith: I think that trust
is an issue. Would naming additional members to the dean search committees from
Academic Council, FS, Graduate Council be possible to
promote trust?
J. Grimes: I will carry this
back to cabinet. There is at least one FS member on each committee, but you
didn't name them.
S. Nielsen: Why so many
outside people?
J. Grimes: They need to be
connected to community and be able to work with the president to raise funds.
We see them as presidents of mini-universities and as entrepreneurs. We all
realize that state revenues are declining, are flat, or show small increase. We
need to be better in terms of development. We won't hire any dean that can't
connect with the community and raise money. We chose people for the selection
committees with a passion for and understanding of the particular college.
R. Folse:
Will Mathematics remain a department or be merged?
J. Grimes: We're pleased with
the 5 colleges, but further changes belong to the faculty. I have a copy of the
list of departments within colleges [posted as pdf on
FS site]. We can't change departments and schools without IHL board approval.
R. Folse:
There is a rumor that you are on a search committee
J. Grimes: I am not, and it
would be a huge conflict if I were, because those groups have to make
recommendations to the 2 provosts.
H. Applin:
Dr. Thames was quoted in the paper saying that he wouldn't fire directors or
department heads. Ours has been removed after 37 years of service. It has
demoralized our department. Why did this happen?
J. Grimes: That is a personnel
issue, so I can't answer your question.
D. Duhon:
Has someone been fired from the university?
H. Applin:
No, removed from an administrative position, and 4 months before retirement.
Also, we're top 5 in engineering technology, but when you take workforce
training out it's taking us out of the top 5. It's particular to Science and
Technology.
J. Grimes: Workforce training is
in Business, and we felt that it belongs there.
H. Applin:
Is it possible that you are wrong?
J. Grimes: That's always
possible
H. Applin:
Is it set in stone?
J. Grimes: Yes.
H. Applin:
When you take the department head and workforce training out of the
J. Grimes: Now we're getting
into personnel and diversity issues that would need to be discussed in closed
session.
H. Applin:
Then I'd like to have a closed session.
J. Grimes: I'd be happy to talk
to you in my office.
B. Scarborough: This is on
another subject: phased retirement. There are several prominent retirees in my
area. They don't know if they'll be able to continue to teach on a part-time
basis although continued requests have been made to the administration. They
have alot to offer. When will you inform someone
whether they will be able to teach?
J. Grimes: Very soon. We're
close to a revised policy. I've been championing your request to the cabinet.
We want to retain these people through phased retirement.
M. Cobb: The implication is that
computer science and mathematics is a combined department. Our department chair
and dean don't know that this is in their hands, that this is not a decision
already made in stone. They don't know that we're supposed to be deciding this.
J. Grimes: Your dean certainly
knows that its not etched in stone, so talk to your
dean. I see that this is as an opportunity; there is a huge need to move into
computational science and applied mathematics.
M. Cobb: So, should we take that
as a strong recommendation to structure the departments that way?
J. Grimes: We're not going
further than the 5 colleges. It's up to you the faculty. Take this matter into
your hands and think about what you see yourselves as in the future. You should
have great ideas by the time that the deans come in. It should be driven by
where the opportunities are in your discipline, needs and funding
opportunities. We're not going to make those decisions for you.
D. Duhon:
We're going to try to keep accreditation for all accredited programs?
J. Grimes: I would hope so. We
have no intention of losing accreditation. We need to work with you to make
sure that we retain those.
S. Oshrin:
Will the use of the activity report for promotion and tenure deliberations
necessitate changes in the faculty handbook?
J. Grimes: If it is used for
official functions down the line, then yes. There is a need to get the Faculty
Handbook Committee functional, and so we're going to get that group together
next week.
S. Judd: Can you explain the
thinking behind merging the Colleges of the Arts and Liberal Arts? One reason I
came here was because this was the only college of the arts in
J. Grimes: When we paired those
colleges, we felt there was synergy between departments in the two: artists
working in some area of history, or whatever that may be. When we looked at
other institutions, there were colleges of arts and letters at many places. USC
only has one college with the rest as schools. That would be the extreme
example. I don't think that it diminishes the arts to have it combined. We want
to focus on the importance of the schools. We want to see them become endowed,
become named. We would hope that the
S. Judd: I think that it
represents a step backwards. It also pushes Darwinism. There will be
in-fighting in regard to who will survive this change. Music will not want to
be part of a
J. Grimes: We don't want that to
happen, so we want to choose a dean that will not be partisan.
We'll put an interim in place before we choose a dean that will not be
successful. Work with us to make sure that the fears that you have don't come
to fruition.
M. Henry: When will you complete
the faculty activity report, and may I defer mine until yours is done? Also, it
would be useful to make available the figures associated with the remodeling of
the provost's house at
J. Grimes: I could fill it out, but there would just have to be
one box to check that says provost. Regarding the remodeling, this is the first that I have
heard of these rumors.
B. Coates: Does the activity
report marginalize the role and decision-making capability of chairs? The chair
is there daily and understands the goals of the department.
J. Grimes: New deans will need
to make sure that chairs do what chairs should do.
B. Coates: I think that you
should spend a lot of time in Jackson and Washington and thinking about long
term strategic issues. It worries me that you will be spending so much time
looking at someone's activity report. Why worry about that when there is a
chair and a dean that should worry about that? Think about the big issues.
J. Grimes: I agree, but chairs
and deans haven't always looked at the kinds of things that they need to look
at. That's part of our responsibility as management, to make sure that the
chairs and deans do that. I do think about the big issues. I was in Washington
2 weeks ago, and I'm going again.
B. Coates: That's important;
that's what we want to see you doing [laughter].
J.P. Smith: Maybe making
presentations to the legislature and bond hearings and things like that.
R. Folse:
Last time you spoke to us, we asked you to look into the savings numbers from
the reorganization.
J. Grimes: L. McFall did this and shared them with the Hattiesburg
American. Did you get them [D. Cabana]?
D. Cabana: I did. L. McFall will explain those to FS.
J. Grimes: We both know that
statisticians and mathematicians can do whatever they want to with numbers. We
felt that our projections were done with great sincerity; they are good and
accurate. But you know that someone can take any projection that you do and rip
it apart.
M. Henry: We
also know that a good analysis of numbers can reveal the truth.
J. Grimes: Back to the activity report, what deadline is realistic?
[Attendees settled on March 17.]
[Applause] Again, I'd be happy
to come back for every meeting.
5.0
Officers’ Reports
5.1 President’s Report: D. Cabana: The Faculty
Senates for the Universities have a right to stand a little bit taller, today,
because the Education Bill passed. FS met with governor in November. The
Executive Committee communicated that would like to see education funded first,
to make it the priority. The Governor responded positively and communicated his
intention to fund K-Higher Education with the same bill. Executive Committee
then laid out the same concerns to the local legislative delegation. The
legislators felt that there was a window of opportunity. If the FS of the
universities spoke with a unified voice, there would be a possibility. At the
brown bag luncheon, the Governor also responded favorably to the suggestion of
a higher education meeting while the legislature was in session. Instead, he
decided to have a press conference. He did not attend, because he wanted it to
focus on faculty and representatives of other educational entities. The Faculty
Senate presidents and Art Kaul, commissioners of
education, higher education and community colleges, and IHL board members
participated. The message was to make history in this state by making education
the priority, making a statement and funding education first. There was good
attendance. Key legislators were there and the Lt. Governor. There seemed to be
a possibility of a very early bill for education. The legislators did not slam
the door on the Governor's idea of funding all educational levels under one
bill, and it happened. The people who worked on this were faculty and students
from all levels, IHL board, and other boards all singing from the same hymnal.
It felt good in these economic times to have the governor whisper in my ear, "I
told you that we could do this." The Governor and the legislature listened
to the faculties at the 8 universities. The only university that was
represented by administration was USM: Dr. Thames, Dr. Grimes, and others. Ours
was the only one of the 8 that had administration pressing the issue at the
press conference. On this one issue, there was a coming together. I take that
as a hopeful sign. It was hard work to get the legislators' attention. I
personally commend the Governor and the legislative leadership. I hope that FS
will join me in that, because this was an historic accomplishment. I hope that
this is the way that its done from here on out, that
education is funded first.
The bad news is that next year
will be very tough budget-wise if things don't improve. The Executive Committee
raised the issue of tax increase with the Governor and with the legislators. We
know that won't happen in an election year, but the legislature now is thinking
of some kind of an increase. Cuts can only go so far.
Yesterday, the IHL Board
publicly approved the reorganization. A number of members spoke positively on
it. Other institutions are expected to look at their administrative structures.
If anyone has a doubt about how the legislature feels about how the IHL Board is
doing business, it has appropriated $500K to USM for the reorganization. I
don't know what it is to be used for, but it is a message from the legislature.
5.2 President-Elect’s Report: M. Henry: We had Executive
Committee meeting while Don was away. We
discussed Elections, Faculty Activity Report, selection of deans, and real
savings of reorganization.
J.P. Smith: Do we know how many
members of FS, Academic Council, and Graduate Council are on selection
committees?
M. Henry: There is at least one
senator on each committee, but we didn't select them.
D. Duhon:
I think that one of the reasons that Dr. Grimes is here is to address that.
5.3 Secretary’s Report: T. Graham: See proxies,
above.
6.0
Committee Reports
6.1 Administration and Faculty Evaluations:
Ki.
Davis: Evaluations have been turned in with exceptions of mathematics, computer
science, and medical technology. Accounting and MIS never do theirs. There were
some that turned theirs into Dr. Johnson directly. Education-Psychology evaluated their
associate dean. We decided last year that faculty could evaluate their
associate deans if they choose to. The results should be completed by Tuesday
or Wednesday. My college had a low
turnout, but some may have submitted the evaluations directly. From J.T.
Johnson's point of view the process went smoothly.
M. Cobb: The computer science
evaluations were sent to the provost’s office.
I don't know what happened them, because we
sent them well before the deadline. I'll check back with our office.
6.2 Budget: M. Henry: We met today and
looked at graduate programs in the summer. We also looked at a projected model
for savings from creating a College of Arts and Letters. If one assumes two
associate deans, then the savings would be if there were 5 staff rather than 9.
We discussed follow up from the letter we sent, and we'll be glad to get the
response of the administration on the $278K. You can cut, but if you don't
include what you put back in, then the picture can become distorted. It would
be good to review this information before L. McFall
speaks to FS.
S. Nielsen: If they are not
firing staff then what happens to the people beyond 5? We have a marketing
person and a development person in Arts; what happens to them?
A. Young: So, you're saying that
whatever savings there is is from staff?
M. Henry: Yes, if one assumes 2
associate provosts.
D. Duhon:
Are you sure that they said that they wouldn't reduce staff?
S. Nielsen: Yes, they said in
the paper they wouldn't fire staff.
S. Malone: My understanding is
that they said that any extra administrators (beyond 1 associate dean) would
come from external funds.
M. Henry: We assumed 2, since
that seems more realistic.
S. Malone: I agree, but I don't
think that it is the model that they have in mind.
M. Henry: Even there, they would
save another $94K or so. But I added the second associate dean because I
thought it was more realistic.
J.P. Smith: Has the university
budget process begun, and are our officers involved?
D. Cabana: It has not begun,
yet. I spoke with them last week on this, and that pledge to have FS involved
still is being verbalized. There have been no budget meetings yet.
J.P. Smith: Would a resolution
of reminder be useful, or are they listening to you?
D. Cabana: A resolution may be
counterproductive at this time, but if it appears to be useful I would not
hesitate to ask FS for a resolution.
D. Duhon:
Are there still conversations about an additional 2% raise for next year?
D. Cabana: As far as I know,
it's still alive. There are discussions about an additional 2%. It's nowhere
near a decision.
6.3 Transportation: B.
Scarborough: That committee has become inactive since Royce Pierce was fired.
Cecil Wilson and I will try to resurrect it. I think that they are ticketing assiduously.
6.4 AAUP: B. Scarborough: AAUP had a
meeting on Tuesday. We sent a letter to
the president and 2 provosts seeking information about the faculty activity
report. We started the process of getting the national AAUP body in Washington
to write a letter to IHL board and presidents expressing concern about the
governance style at the institutions.
M. Henry: I was concerned about
the provost's terse remarks regarding AAUP. Members of that organization should
be able to share information with FS. It would be disappointing if there is a
hint that it is inappropriate for Bill [Scarborough] to share information in
this forum from AAUP. I think that it is appropriate for AAUP and other faculty
organizations to share information with senators and for senators to share that
information with us. I felt uneasy about it, and I'm glad that you spoke up on
those issues, Bill. [applause]
D. Duhon:
I think that we negate the view of both groups when we have the same people
representing both. Myron [Henry], you serve both as president-elect of FS and
vice-president of AAUP. I think that you need to make a choice on which one you
want to represent. When you speak for both, we have one voice rather than
two. The opportunity to be disregarded
or regarded is reinforced. We need two voices. The more people we involve in
the discussion the better.
M. Henry: I'm proud to have been
elected to office in both. I was vice-president of AAUP before I was elected
president-elect of FS. Many people knew it. I won't be vice-president of AAUP
after the spring elections, but I'm going to keep my membership in that
organization because I believe in the AAUP principles. They line up with the
principles that many senators hold.
D. Cabana: Before we move to Old
Business, there are two issues that I'd like to have addressed:
Academic Council: B. Velasquez: On February 7, AC sent a
response to the provost’s office to share with Dr. Thames regarding comments
made on faculty not having input [into reorganization]. This response is on the
AC Web site, and I encourage you to view that. We responded to comments about
AC being indecisive, but we also reiterate that we have serious reservations
about the general education curriculum to be instituted next fall. See: http://www.usm.edu/usmweb/academics/acminutes.html
Council of Chairs: S. Oshrin: The president spoke to the Council of Chairs in
regard to the administrative supplement.
The administration proposed a policy that would have eliminated for
deans, chairs, and other administrators signing new contracts the retention of
their administrative supplements when they step down. The flip side was that
individuals who gave up their administrative posts rather than sign the new
contract could keep their supplement. This created the potential for a great
deal of turnover. The president spoke to chairs and said that current chairs
would be grandfathered in and could keep their supplements. Only new chairs
will have their supplements disappear when they return to teaching.
M. Ryan: Current administrators
or current chairs will be grandfathered in?
S. Oshrin:
All administrators.
M. Ryan: That is not my
understanding.
S. Oshrin:
The inference was made that all administrators are under the same policy. I
would want to have that clarified if I were someone other than a chair.
D. Cabana: My sense was that
this represents an important turn of events for the chairs.
S. Oshrin:
It was encouraging that the president revised the policy.
7.0
Old Business
7.1 Resolution: Extending the
Six-Credit-Hour Benefit to Spouses: J. Meyer presented this resolution held over from
the November meeting. S. Hubble: move; S. Nielsen: second; Vote: passed. The text
of the resolution is as follows:
Because:
--a USM-Gulf Coast program of
allowing nontraditional students to take three hours of coursework for free has
encouraged continued coursework and generated funds for the university.
--faculty and staff have
received no raises for more than two years in the face of increasing health
plan costs.
--most faculty do not take
advantage of the below noted benefit.
--motivating people to take USM
courses may draw people in to complete a degree.
We,
the Faculty Senate of USM, advocate extending the six-credit-hour per semester
coursework benefit enjoyed by faculty and staff members to their spouses.
8.0
New Business
8.1 Elections: M. Henry: In reference to
the AAUP discussion, I intend to be an AAUP member next year, and if enough of
you feel that there is a conflict of interest then I will be willing to step
aside [as president-elect of FS]. For elections, I defer to D. Duhon.
D. Duhon:
At our last meeting, we discussed elections in the context of the
organizational changes. There was a suggestion that we should defer elections
until the reorganization is complete. In Executive Committee, we reached the
conclusion that we should not do that. We should have elections in the spring
based on the current structure. We don't need a resolution, because it is
consistent with the constitution. We thought we'd get a sense of the Senate:
Be
it resolved that the FS elections scheduled for spring 2003 should proceed as
scheduled in accordance with provisions in the current FS constitution. Be it
also resolved that elections of new officers will be governed by the present
structure of colleges and departments and existing policies.
Next year, when we reapportion
FS, it will be according to structure in place at that time. This follows the
constitution.
M. Hall: We would have a very
difficult time at this point getting multiple rounds of ballots done where run
offs are needed. The way the rules are written, you must have a 50% + 1
majority to win. Frequently, the first
two ballots that go out don't reach that majority.
D. Duhon:
That's a different issue. If we don't proceed as suggested then we'll have to
either revise the constitution or postpone the elections. Motion.
B. Scarborough: Second.
S. Hubble: I support this, and
it will give us plenty of time to do apportionment and revise the
constitution. I don't believe that it
will affect representation negatively.
J. Meyer: Why do we need a
resolution to follow the constitution?
D. Duhon:
So everyone knows what we're doing and in response to the discussion last
month. It's a sense of the Senate
resolution.
[The resolution was changed to a
recommendation, and then passed].
8.2 Expansion of Dean Search
Committees: J.P. Smith: I would like for us to suspend the rules and send
the provost a resolution asking that each of the elected faculty bodies appoint
a representative or representatives to the search committees. Move to suspend
rules; B. Scarborough: second; Vote: passed.
J.P. Smith: This is to get us on
the record as having recommended to the president what I think that most of us
think would be a good step. It is not incumbent on him to do this, but it is
incumbent on us to give him good advice. Here's an opportunity to give good
advice on how to address the cynicism about these search committees.
Resolution: Be it resolved that the Faculty Senate of the
University of Southern Mississippi out of concern for the creation and
strengthening of an internal climate of mutual trust that is necessary for the
long-term well-being of the University's teaching, research, creative, and
public service mission hereby urges the University's president to expand each
of the dean's search committees to include members selected by the Faculty
Senate, Academic Council, and the Graduate Council.
D. Cabana: On the morning of the
announcement of the reorganization, I made the request to the president that
the FS have a role in selecting faculty for involvement in the search
committees, and I have made the request since then. Hopefully, with a resolution in hand and at a
meeting of the full cabinet there will be some support there.
J.P. Smith: Move resolution; S.
Nielsen: second.
J. Palmer: Is this resolution
what you really want? These committees already have 19-20 people. What you
really want is that these bodies in the future are able to select more members
or the entire search committee. We already have FS members on the committees.
The committees are huge now. I'm not sure that this resolution is the one that you
want to submit. I think we want direction for future search committees.
J.P. Smith: We need to let them
know that there is a trust problem. We can give them advice on how to get out
of that.
M. Cobb: So, if we submit this resolution,
and they respond that we have FS members on the committees, is that acceptable?
J. Palmer: I was requested in an
email to serve on the committee, I assume because I am a Senator but that
wasn't stated. It's not clear how this resolution would play out? What do we
want?
M. Henry: The statement here is
about how faculty are involved in determining how
committee members should be selected. This isn't about whether the current
members should be there.
S. Nielsen: I probably would
have chosen Jesse, but we weren't asked. I have a problem with there being so
many outside members (5-6) as opposed to faculty (11-12). This would increase
the number of faculty. The provost seemed amenable.
G. Mattson: Should we be
speaking for Academic and Graduate Councils? Have they been consulted?
J.P. Smith: These are elected
bodies, and we should point back to them as good vehicles to be used for things
like this.
D. Cabana: When I discussed this
with the president, it was specifically regarding FS.
G. Mattson: Can we assume that
they feel like we do?
B. Scarborough: We're trying to
convey the point that we want elected faculty representatives on these
committees.
A. Young: I'm on both of these
bodies, and I see this as a good thing. They can look out for issues related to
their work.
P. Butko:
I agree with the spirit of the resolution, but I have concerns with the
practical application. Will it be futile?
D. Duhon:
They're not going to change the committees. We're not happy that we weren't
able to help select members of the committee. We want them to start listening.
B. Coates: What does another
futile effort hurt? This resolution can do two things: let them know that we
want to be represented and it might work.
J. Crockett: The provost has
promised to take this to the cabinet, and they know that we're upset. We're not
going to help ourselves by continuing to pass resolutions like this. They'll
say that they can't deal with us.
Ka.
Davis: D. Duhon, were you asked to serve as a member
of FS?
D. Duhon:
Yes.
Ka.
Davis: Can we treat those people asked as representatives of FS?
J. Palmer: It was not presented
to me as a representative of FS.
J. Meyer: I was the same way. FS
wasn't mentioned.
J. Palmer: What if they allow us
to elect someone? We elect one, and they appoint the rest? Do we want a process
set up so that we have say over all faculty representation? Just having one
vote isn't much of a voice.
S. Oshrin:
This is a moot point, because the deans will be selected by the time we could
get this past cabinet and carry out elections.
M. Henry: Could we defer this
until the provost reports back to us on his indication that he will explore
further participation with cabinet? The time frame is against us.
D. Cabana: I will be at cabinet
and will bring this up. It may cause a problem if we pass a resolution before
we give him a chance to do what he said he would do.
S. Hubble: We should demand a
process that gives us true involvement in all administrator searches, and not
just for these deans. We want a process that gives us true involvement in
faculty representation.
J. Crockett: Move to table; D. Duhon: second; Vote: passed.
D. Cabana: Is there other
business?
M. Hall: We're starting
elections 2 months later than last year. We had trouble getting it all done
last year. Can we make the call on elections without 50+1 if have been through
3 ballots?
J.P. Smith: We have to follow
the constitution.
P. Butko:
We will not violate the constitution, and the elections will occur. The bylaws
are not clear on how to count votes. I will take the responsibility for
interpreting, and I will endeavor to make sure that the elections are
successful.
D. Cabana: Peter, we trust you.
B. Scarborough: Can you refer to
a committee drafting the resolution described by S. Hubble
D. Cabana: Yes, I will do that
on Monday.
S. Hubble: Move to adjourn.
9.0 Adjournment [5:05]