The
Faculty Senate Meeting
Union Hall of Honors
Members Present:
College of the Arts: Ki. Davis, T. Lewis, S. Nielsen College of Business: D.
Duhon, T. Green College of Education &
Psychology: T. Hartsell, J. Palmer, J. Rachal College of International and Continuing
Education: M. Miller College of Liberal Arts: D. Cabana, P. Gentile,
S. Malone, J. Meyer, A. Miller, L. Nored, B.
Scarborough College of Marine Science: J. Lytle College of Nursing: K.
Masters College of Science & Technology: D. Beckett, P. Butko, B. Coates, R. Folse, M.
Hall, M. Henry University Libraries: T. Graham USM-Gulf Coast: Ka.
Members Represented by Proxy: College of Business: J.
Crockett (J. Palmer) College of Education & Psychology: J. Olmi (T. Graham) College of Health & Human Sciences:
J. Bethel (B. Scarborough), S. Hubble (T. Graham) M.F. Nettles (M.
Henry) College of Liberal Arts: M. Dearmey (B.
Scarborough), J. Norton (J. Palmer) S. Oshrin (A.
Miller), J.Waltman (A. Young) College of Nursing: A.
Brock (K. Masters) College of Science & Technology: M. Cobb (Mary Dayne Gregg) G. Russell (J. Mattson) USM-Gulf
Coast: D. Alford (Ka.
Members Absent: College of Education & Psychology: E. Lundin College of Health & Human Sciences: S. Graham-Kresge
1.0
Call to Order [
2.0 Approval of Agenda: J. Palmer: move; S. Nielsen: second; Vote: passed.
3.0 Approval of Minutes for March 21, 2003 meeting: B. Scarborough: move; M. Henry: second; Vote: passed.
4.0 Forum Speaker: Richard Giannini: Let me begin by thanking you for what you do for the university and for the benefits that we, in athletics, get from that. We don't refer to our players at athletes, but as student athletes. Our most important objective is that they're students first and athletes second. I've brought my staff today, so that they can speak on their particular areas and so you can get to know them.
We'll talk about graduation rates, which have improved dramatically over the
past few years, and about a new NCAA program that provides incentives and
disincentives in regard to graduation rates. The NCAA will measure graduate
rates, and if you don't hit a certain rate then you have to reduce scholarships
in that particular sport. If the rate is very bad, they will prevent
participation in NCAA championship events. The NCAA also is becoming more
stringent on academic standards. It will become increasingly difficult
for junior college athletes to transfer to a 4-year institution. Overall
you will have a higher standard of student athlete coming into the
university. As an example of the discipline exercised by coaches in
regard to academics, Coach Bower, during yesterday's practice, named four
students who missed classes that week. He made them get up at
We strive to have an outstanding program and bring exposure to the
university. We're hosting
You read a lot about compliance and other institutions that get put on probation. We work very hard to try to make sure that that never happens at Southern Miss.
We're trying to upgrade our facilities to remain competitive in CUSA. The money
will come from donations, self-generated through the sale of premium seating, and
we've asked the city and counties to provide additional funding. My
understanding is that the city and counties have not put a penny in this
institution since the 1950s. This area has taken us for granted, and
we've tried to point out to them what the university means to
At this point I will call on a few members of my staff.
Tracy Robinson: [Academic Enhancement Program]: I know that many of you have helped us with our students. Many have participated in recruiting by coming in on Saturdays to speak to prospective student athletes and their parents. Faculty have a terrific impact on our recruiting process, and I want to thank you. You only hear in the press about the student athletes who do poorly, but we have a lot of student athletes out of the 400 that we have who do the right thing. They go to class and do a good job. Last year, 105 student athletes from Southern Miss were recognized by CUSA for academic performance. Our women's tennis team won the CUSA sport academic award for earning the highest team GPA. We have 3 named Scholar Athlete of the Year (highest GPA for their sport); 5 Verizon All-Americans; and 3 Arthur Ash Junior Sports Scholars. Our graduation rate in men's basketball climbed from 25% to 67%. In football it climbed from 52% to 64%. Our football graduation rate is better than any school in MS, AL, GA, and FL. In CUSA only Tulane has a higher graduation rate; in the SEC, only Vanderbilt has a higher graduation rate than Southern Miss. Last semester, 40% of the football team had a 3.0 or higher GPA. In regard to the new NCAA eligibility standards, Southern Miss student athletes are operating one full year ahead of new NCAA requirements. Are all of our 400 athletes scholars? Do they all attend class everyday? No, but we do everything that we can to monitor their attendance. I can't watch every single student, but we do the best we can with a staff of four. You've seen us look in the window or check their names off on their way in the door. It is hard to be a Division IA student athlete and do well in school. Their schedules are extremely difficult. When you get the list from me that indicates absences the students will have, please remember that it is not the fault of the student that they have to miss class for events. They represent the school well. We haven't had many of the behavior issues that other schools have. If you have individual concerns, I would welcome a call and would come to speak to you or your colleagues. Thank you for what you do for the student athletes.
Don Oberhelman: [Compliance]: Compliance is a
misunderstood area throughout the
The new eligibility standards by NCAA is its first major shift in philosophy in 15 years. It is a result of low graduation rates for football and men's basketball. The new standards require students earlier on to have more hours toward their degrees. At the start of their junior year, currently they have to have 25% of their degree completed, and that will go up to 40%. That creates a challenge, but it won't be a huge impact on us, except for the rare student who changes major late. You've probably heard that FSU and UGA have had problems recently. Are we immune from that? No, but I don't think that we have staff who intentionally would skirt or disregard the rules.
R. Giannini: Speaking to secondary violations, you can't do certain things for student athletes that you can do for other students. I once violated the rules by taking a depressed student to a restaurant for supper. I learned my lesson quickly. I reported it and got a letter of reprimand. NCAA rules are strict, and we work hard to make sure we're in compliance.
David Hansen [Internal Operations and Facilities]: I'm the main liaison with the business and finance areas on campus. I oversee the athletic budget. We've made a lot of progress in managing expenses and lining them up with revenues. We have balanced our budget the last two years and hope to this year. We can't do too much to reduce expenses and remain competitive, but we've been able to increase revenues. Facility renovations and enlargement will help us to remain competitiveness and increase revenue. Only 35% of NCAA programs balance their budgets, and we're one of them. It's not easy, but we make it a high priority.
R. Giannini: Last year we had a faculty and staff day
at the
B. Coates: Is there anything we as faculty could do that would be a violation?
T. Robinson: Anything that you would share with a non-athlete student would be appropriate. You can't make any promises to them based on the fact that they're a student athlete.
B. Coates: Would it be okay to send an email to students I talked with saying that I'm glad they decided to come to USM?
D. Oberhelman: It potentially could be a problem, unless you do that on a regular basis with students who are not athletes. I don't see a problem if you do it for other students, but I would avoid making reference to athletics.
D. Beckett: A few years ago, men's cross country and men's indoor track was done away with, ostensibly for budget reasons. Was it to save money? To keep in line with Title IX? Not having cross country limits our ability to have good men distance runners. Are there plans to revive men's cross country?
R. Giannini: When I first got here and had budget deficits close to $1M, we had to do something. We had to keep gender equity. We chose to drop in-door track and cross country. Many other schools have been dropping in-door track in meeting budgets. In cross country, indoor track, and outdoor track, you can have 12.5 scholarships, and we went down to 7. It saved about $75K - $100K. A new requirement is that we had to have 16 sports, and we had 15. I gave the track coach the choice to reinstate either cross country or indoor track, and he chose indoor track. Now there are 8-9 scholarships. As we improve in our operating budget, the goal would be to bring back cross country.
D. Beckett: Faculty used to be able to see basketball and baseball games without charge. It was a nice benefit. Reed Green seems fairly empty for basketball games. Why not reinstate that benefit? It would bring more people in, it would promote ties between faculty and athletics, and it would be a good benefit.
R. Giannini: That was 15 or 16 years ago. About 10 years ago, the IRS said that if we gave large ticket discounts then we would have to give faculty 1099 forms to report additional income. We went to 20% discount, so it wouldn't have to be reported to the IRS. We operate like everybody else in the country. We'll look at what we can do in that regard. We need the money, but we also appreciate what faculty do for the athletic program. We'll continue to have the faculty and staff days. We'll also look at the overall situation again.
R. Folse: Does this success in grades for athletes indicate a grade inflation problem?
T. Robinson: That's not a problem.
R. Folse: Do we do anything different from other schools?
T. Robinson: I don't know that we do anything different. We have more educators on staff, now, and so we have a better ability to recognize needs (learning disabilities, for example). We make sure that students get what they need, and we have coaches who are very supportive. At other institutions, the coaches and academic people have more difficulty communicating. I meet with coaches regularly, and they respond to attendance and other issues.
R. Giannini: You're allowed to take a non-qualified high school student who pays his or her own way during the freshman year. If the student makes the grades, then becomes eligible and can play. There also are partial qualifiers who can get admitted, have a scholarship and practice, but who don't have the grades to be able to play. Other schools have many of these athletes. We took a leadership role 4 years ago to try to get a rule for CUSA to limit them. SEC has a rule limiting them. We bring it up each year, but only 4 schools are in favor: TCU, Tulane, Army, and Southern Miss. We're proud of that stance. People thought that we were successful because we had so many non and partial qualifiers, but we have very few.
J. Rachal: How many times was M.M. Roberts Stadium full this year?
R. Giannini: We've been about 90% full and sold out one game. We averaged about 28,500 until we lost to TCU. Our final home game was about 19,000. Our average keeps going up. For the last couple of years, we've averaged 25-28K.
J. Rachal: We filled it once this year. Have we run out of tickets previously?
R. Giannini:
B. Scarborough: I've been pleased with the student athletes I've had. My question is about baseball. These players are gone a lot. One player missed 7-8 times, and he may flunk the course. It's not his fault. You can't pass my course missing that many. Also, you schedule games during final exam week, and I think that's outrageous. Exams should be the number 1 priority for everybody.
R. Giannini: Not all of the 14 conference teams have the same academic schedule. Our baseball program does better than softball. We're trying to make sure that the softball players don't miss so many classes. We're trying to come up with a schedule, so that if a coach exceeds a certain number of missed classes, they have to change their playing schedule. We're aware that it's a problem, but it's also a problem in the league, accommodating everyone's schedule. We take the problem seriously, and we're working on it.
T. Robinson: Also, we don't have the budget to fly teams to games, so it takes longer than other schools. It helps, sometimes, when students can take tests proctored at away facilities, and we can proctor make-ups when you don't have time. That way they don't have 4 make-ups on the same day when they get back.
D. Duhon: I commend you. You pay more attention to students than other conferences where I've been. Where are we on raising the money for the renovation?
R. Giannini: People forget that 10 years ago Ole Miss
had 38K seats with 4-5K in end zone and didn't fill them. Now they have 60+K
and fill them. The product is basically the same; they're in the middle or
lower half of the SEC. But with more fan-friendly facilities, more people got
involved. The athletic director at MSU related that the premium seating has
attracted corporations that bring businessmen from across the state to campus.
They have several thousand people come to games who are leaders in the state
and who never had been to
Thank you. We're going to continue to try to remain competitive; we're going to do with integrity and class [applause].
5.0 Officers’ Reports
5.1 President’s Report: D. Cabana: There have been no budget meetings yet at USM. The IHL Board has yet to break the budget out and present it to institutions. That has been something done in May. I'm hopeful that it will be done in next week's meeting. I wouldn't be surprised if it was put off until May. So, there are no meetings that I should have been in, but wasn't invited to.
The legislature's passing of the education budget during the first 2-weeks of the session was an important step forward in expressing a commitment to education. But, still, the budget came down to the 11th hour. Legislature asked to borrow money from the "rainy day" funds of state agencies, including IHL institutions, to patch the budget together. They'll pay it back over 5 years. Some of these agencies already operate at a deficit going into July 1. While we were exuberant in January, we understood by April that not much had changed. Next year is going to be bad. This budget is going to come back and bite state government (unless there is a tax increase).
The provost and president have agreed that FS president will be involved in budget deliberations when they occur.
There is another item for the agenda that came to me, today. It involves personnel issues, so I would entertain a motion to go into executive session.
M. D. Gregg: Move to go into executive session; Ki.
[FS deliberated on the matter in executive session.]
D. Cabana: I have appointed a 3-member committee to examine a number of
concerns expressed by faculty members in one of the departments in the
The Transition Team met on Wednesday of this week for 3.5-4 hours. We'll meet again in a week. We're trying to feel our way in terms of all of the things that we are to be concerned with. The committee will send recommendations to the administration on a range of issues, including office space for new deans, staff sizes, and other issues related to the reorganization.
FS ballots have been distributed. A faculty member pointed out that Dean Harper is on the ballot. There is no language in the constitution that excludes deans. If this is a concern then FS may want the Constitution Committee to look at it.
B. Scarborough: He won't be a dean after July 1, anyway.
5.2 President-Elect’s Report: M.Henry: S. Malone and M. Miller will fill out the committee charged during executive session.
5.3 Secretary’s Report: T. Graham: See proxies, above.
J. Rachal: [Urged enforcement of 3-absences rule.]
6.0 Committee Reports
6.1 AAUP: B. Scarborough: We asked
AAUP national office in
Several USM members attended state AAUP meeting. We don't have enough schools
represented to have a state conference, yet. There are 4 that are active. USM
has the largest contingent with 60+ members.
J. Palmer: What can AAUP do? Are there any kind of sanctions?
B. Scarborough: This is an initial step. We're not at the point of a sanction, yet. A sanction has to involve an issue of broader scope rather than concern a single institution or it has to relate to an individual tenured faculty member who has been aggrieved (by being fired, for example). They have the power to sanction or censure, and that would be the next step. The initial step was to alert the administration and IHL that there are concerns here and that the national office shares those concerns. The AAUP office has asked for a response, and will proceed based on whether they respond and whether the grievances continue.
J. Rachal: What is the difference between censure and sanction?
M. Henry: Censure is often for an action or single set of actions, and it is not necessarily institutional. Sanctions are placed on an institution. Censure could be specifics that don't brand the entire institution.
B. Scarborough: They might censure the president, for example, without encouraging prospective faculty members to avoid taking a position there.
J. Rachal: Sanctions are a heavier punishment?
B. Scarborough: Right.
6.2 Transportation: B. Scarborough: This committee is defunct. R. Pierce was fired and Cecil Wilson was called into military service.
6.3 Elections: P. Butko: Ballots have been distributed and are coming back to us. We will count them on Monday, and begin second round. Considering that a 3rd round may be necessary, I believe that we will announce results by the end of May.
7.0 Old Business
D. Cabana: A number of these items also are covered in a memo addressed to Provost Grimes that lists a number of questions [distributed]. I think I can address the old business items as a part of covering the memo.
I had an extensive conversation with Provost Grimes about FAR. I expressed the Senate's concerns. There was a commitment to consult with faculty before implementing next year. He expressed that he didn't intend to mislead the Senate when he said that FAR wouldn't be used as part of an evaluation process, then later indicated differently in meetings with individual departments. His response was that there had been some re-thinking, and now there is a line of thought that FAR should be used in faculty evaluation. He expressed concern about how this affects his credibility with the faculty, but that as provost this is part what goes with the job.
In regard to economic development as a 4th evaluation category, I discussed this with both provosts. Their sense is that economic development is something that the university in its totality is involved with everyday from cultural events to reciting poetry. Each college will have to determine for itself what is economic development for that college. We'll talk more about this later, since there is a resolution before us.
M. Henry: I appreciate your summarizing the letter for us, but one of the purposes of the letter is to have the provost speak directly to the questions.
D. Cabana: I'm not suggesting that this won't go to the provost, I'm summarizing because I want you to understand what I already have been talking with the provost and president about these items. They have not been going unaddressed.
In respect to the Faculty Handbook Committee, I bear responsibility for having to uninvite the 4 members who I asked to serve on the committee. There were concerns raised by FS about not enough faculty representation and especially junior faculty. I sent names to the provost. That went fine, and they were slated to participate in the process. I then--I suppose it's fair to say--tried to do an end run, trying to get S. Hubble and M. Forster on the committee considering their experience with the handbook process. I didn't ask Jerome Kolbo or the provost. I just asked S. Hubble and M. Forster. My impression was that it wouldn't be a problem. That's the straw that broke the camel's back. I did it because I felt so strongly that we needed more faculty representation, but the result was that I had to uninvite them. I accept responsibility for it, because I didn't confer with the provost or president beforehand.
S. Laughlin: At the meeting there was no indication of number of people to be appointed or who they might be, so I think you were well within your prerogative to appoint more people. That was agreed to by everyone.
S. Nielsen: I would think that they would like to have people on the committee who already had participated in the process. Were you supposed to consult with them?
D. Cabana: In the initial discussions, I don't think there was a magic number in mind. Part of the explanation given to me was that the committee could get too large. But not everybody goes to every meeting, because of schedule conflicts. Out of 4 faculty members appointed, we could hope to have 2 of them present at any given meeting.
D. Beckett: So, we lost all of them.
D. Cabana: I'm the only senator on the committee.
Ki.
D. Cabana: On number 4 [faculty status, rank, and tenure for librarians], I have no new information but will discuss this with the provost.
Regarding item 5 [budget-related questions submitted in the fall], I brought this up on Wednesday. It is still being analyzed and possible responses being considered.
We'll have to await a response on 6-10 [evaluation of administrators, administrative structure for president's and provosts' offices, and housing for provosts].
J. Rachal: Wasn't there, at one time, a mechanism for evaluating upper administration?
Ki.
J. Rachal: It seems that there's nothing preventing our doing this informally, even without administration approval.
M. Henry: This question in the letter was to suggest that we do it together.
J. Rachal: That would be best, but in the absence of that, we could do it independently.
M. Henry: Yes, if they don't respond to this idea.
Ki.
D. Cabana: I've not heard anything out of the administration building about that.
J. Rachal: Regarding the 4th evaluation category, this is an act on the part of the administration that is of extreme importance to the faculty. My view is that economic development (essentially grant procurement, because I believe that is what the administration wants) is already subsumed within the existing 3 categories. If I'm invited to serve on an advisory committee, my intention is to treat grants as part of one of the three. The science model sees grants as research activities; in my department a grant may result a service activity.
M. Henry: Move to set aside the agenda, and take the issues as they come up; R. Folse, second; Vote: passed.
7.1 Faculty Handbook: [See 7.0, above]
7.2 Summer Tuition: D. Cabana: No new information.
7.3 Enrollment Minimums for Graduate Classes: D. Cabana: No new information.
7.4 Faculty Status for Librarians: [See 7.0, above]
7.5 Housing for Provosts: D. Cabana: No new information.
7.6 Economic Development as 4th Evaluation Category: [See 7.0, above]
8.0 New Business
8.1 Resolution on Economic Development as 4th Evaluation Category: B. Coates: This is another example of a unilateral mandate accomplished without input from the faculty. [Introduced DRAFT resolution]:
WHEREAS the administratively imposed Faculty Activity Report (FAR) contains a separate section on economic development, and
WHEREAS Provost Jay Grimes notified department chairs on March 6 that economic development will be added to teaching, research, and service as a fourth major category for faculty evaluation, and
WHEREAS an emphasis on economic development has now been included in letters of appointment for new faculty, and
WHEREAS economic development, as the term is generally understood, is already included within the overarching evaluative categories of teaching, research, and service, and
WHEREAS it is not precisely known what might be included for faculty under a separate category of “economic development” that is not already included under the overarching categories of teaching, research, and service, and
WHEREAS, this effort to impose a fourth category for faculty evaluation without consultation with and input from the Faculty Senate and faculty at large is yet another example of a unilateral mandate by the president and provosts,
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Faculty Senate of the University of Southern Mississippi strongly opposes this sudden introduction of a fourth evaluation category by the administration without any discussion among the academic community, and
THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Faculty Senate urges this administration to end its practice of making unilateral decisions that are void of meaningful input from those who will most affected by the decisions.
B. Scarborough: Move to suspend the rules; S. Nielsen: second; Vote: passed.
T Green: The last whereas seems too militant, and 2nd therefore seems like should be another resolution
M. Hall: Does this speak directly enough to the FS position on whether or not there should be a 4th evaluation category? Our area asked Provost Grimes what it meant so we could fill out the FAR. He didn't know how to define it, that different units might define it differently. That didn't help me. We should address solidly what our position is.
G. Mattson: Don, would this be an effective way to make our voice heard? Who are we addressing it to?
D. Cabana: It's to the president. I always provide copies to the provosts.
G. Mattson: We pass one after another, will it serve our purpose?
B. Coates: Resolutions are the way we express our concerns.
D. Cabana: It's the way we communicate. We should keep in mind when we send resolutions that we should address the topic directly and be civil. The word "suddenly" suggests that it might not have been objectionable had it come more slowly. We could take this up next month after it's rewritten.
B. Coates: I suggest that we remove the last whereas, last resolved, and take out "suddenly."
A. Young: Some areas are expected to bring in grants. It's inappropriate to say we're against economic development, per se, but that we're against it as a 4th category.
Ki.
M. Henry: A concern is how fast this has moved, to the extent that offer letters contain the 4th category. We can delay, but the offer letters will go out to someone. Not acting will, in effect, be taking a position. We should consider the edited resolution, leaving in the last whereas.
S. Nielsen: This has come out of the blue, and there are legalities involved. We have a faculty handbook, which is being revised, but that still exists. I suspect that all of us will have this in our contracts.
B. Scarborough: I would object strongly to taking out the last whereas.
J. Palmer: I think the issue of the handbook should be in this resolution. Perhaps the resolution should go as far as to say that FS may attempt to get an injunction to prevent this from taking place. The handbook is a binding agreement. It is not mentioned in the handbook, except under teaching, research, and service.
T. Green: I didn't suggest to remove the last whereas, just the part about "yet another unilateral mandate." I also would add to the last resolved: "especially without discussion among faculty."
J. Lytle: One of the deans is saying that this was a common trend among other universities.
T. Green: I've never seen anything as broadly sweeping as this at USM.
M. D. Gregg: Why do we want to omit "sudden?" It has been sudden.
D. Cabana: It suggests that it would be okay if there had been discussion. If you want to do this today, then B. Coates, J. Palmer, L. Nored, and S. Nielsen get together and re-write.
[After redrafting of resolution by B. Coates, L. Nored, and S. Nielsen, B. Coates presented the following]:
WHEREAS the administratively imposed Faculty Activity Report (FAR) contains a separate section on economic development, and
WHEREAS Provost Jay Grimes notified department chairs on March 6 that economic development will be added to teaching, research, and service as a fourth major category for faculty evaluation, and
WHEREAS it is not precisely known what might be included for faculty under a separate category of “economic development” that is not already included under the overarching categories of teaching, research, and service, and
WHEREAS “economic development” is not contained in the provisions of the current faculty handbook, which may pose legal consequences, and
WHEREAS an emphasis on economic development has now been included in letters of appointment for new faculty,
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that the Faculty Senate of the
[Vote: Passed. Also available online at: res4thcat.htm]
8.2 Resolution on the 2003 Faculty Handbook Committee: M. Henry: Move to suspend the rules; B. Scarborough: second; Vote: passed
M. Henry: I'm introducing the resolution on behalf of Ray Folse:
Whereas, the 2003 Faculty Handbook Committee as it is presently constituted is comprised largely of individuals whose primary duties are administrative; and
Whereas, the Faculty Senate agreed at its March meeting that four additional members representing faculty and others should be added to the 2003 Faculty Handbook Committee; and
Whereas, these four Faculty Senate nominees, all of whom are well versed on Faculty Handbook issues, have been barred by the administration from serving on the Faculty Handbook Committee; and
Whereas, the Faculty Handbook is an exceedingly important document to all faculty and therefore of the utmost importance to the Faculty Senate, and
Whereas, the administration’s decision to exclude these four Faculty Senate nominees from service on the Faculty Handbook Committee can be interpreted as another example of its disregard for participatory governance; then
Be it therefore resolved that the Faculty Senate of the University of Southern Mississippi strongly urges the provosts to either appoint the four Faculty Senate nominees to the Faculty Handbook Committee or discontinue the current activities of the 2003 Faculty Handbook Committee until such time as the membership on the committee can be mutually agreed to by the administration and the Faculty Senate.
A. Young: Are meetings of this group open? Is there a way to access what's happening there?
M. Henry: Could you, Don, ask the chair to make the minutes of the handbook committee widely distributed?
D. Cabana: My impression is that meetings are open. I will raise that formally.
S. Nielsen: There was a great deal of work put into previous efforts, and they spent a lot of time finding inconsistencies, etc. They should be on it because they bring this knowledge and because we need more faculty representation.
M. Hall: What is the history?
T. Green: It came under Lucas. We did not have one under McCain.
A. Young: It came out of Liberal Arts, which had its own handbook then was expanded. It was faculty-driven.
M. Hall: Should that be part of the resolution?
Vote: passed [Resolution also available at: reshndbk.htm]
8.3 Questions for Provosts: M. Henry: Several senators pulled this together. I'd like to delete the first sentence on number 10.
D. Beckett: We need to take the high road; we need civility. Some of these are the low road. Question 1: I would strike the phrase: "how do you think this change affects your credibility among the faculty?" That's a loaded question.
M. Henry: Accepted as an editorial change.
D. Beckett: I would strike number 10 [housing question]. It was not Provost Grimes or Hudson who initiated it, but rather the IHL Board.
J. Rachal: I disagree with both suggestions.
T. Green: I agree with D. Beckett, and $70-80K is not much on the
P. Butko: I agree with D. Beckett. It is IHL's business what they want to do with the houses.
M. Henry: Every building belongs to IHL. Also, IHL board members don't usually introduce measures on use of buildings. Administrations do. The buildings you teach in are IHL buildings in the same sense that the ones on the Coast are.
B. Scarborough: The question on housing needs to be there. The request obviously was made to IHL; they didn't initiate it. The money might not seem like much to you, but it does to me. Provost Grimes having two rent-free houses is unique.
D. Cabana: I don't think they're rent-free. There are federal regulations to meet when housing becomes part of a person's income. The provosts assert that their salaries are lower than at other institutions, and housing was offered as part of the package. Also, I caution you as someone who deals with the administration everyday, we may question decisions, how they're arrived at, but we get onto dangerous ground when we get into integrity and honesty. The provost told me that an IHL board member went to the Coast specifically to see the property and presented the measure to the board. If we say that it didn't happen this way, it will be received extremely negatively. I want FS to be aware of the thin line that there is to walk.
D. Beckett: We don't know all of the circumstances, and this seems to be in the muckraking category. The other questions are of legitimate concern to the faculty.
D. Cabana: The house had been occupied by a vice-president who was replaced by a provost, so the administration wants to know why it's any different.
A. Young: Regardless of who initiated this, I think that we have a right to the information on the money being spent. Also, we've created a precedent for even after salaries may increase.
M. Miller: There should be a middle ground here where we could have an accounting. The provost offered to come back to FS with a report.
D. Cabana: He has been asked, and he will not come back.
M. Miller: At least we should be informed on something that is so unusual.
M. Hall: I would omit 10 and the last part of the last sentence in 1. It doesn't help us to create animosity from the way in which we ask a question. It weakens all of the points.
A. Young: I want to keep the credibility issue in. When can we believe what's said?
T. Green: I can't support this with 10 in there. In paragraph 2, I would suggest replacing "is an ill-advised attempt" with is a "premature attempt." I'm concerned with the tone of this letter. "Premature" is a more definitive word.
B. Scarborough: If they told you that they make less than administrators elsewhere, our president makes more than those at other prestigious universities, and I suspect that the provosts do, too.
S. Nielsen: We should have documentation of that before we say it.
B. Scarborough: I got if from the Chronicle of Higher Education earlier in the year.
Ki.
D. Cabana: My leadership has been under attack most of the year, because you haven't seen glitzy quotes from me in the Hattiesburg American. I have considered extensively how to communicate with the administration. It makes us feel better to see this type of publicity, but it doesn't help me get in the door with the administration to have meaningful discussion. Also, I have not wanted faculty not to be marginalized more than we already perceive ourselves to be. My dealings with the administration in a more private way also has to do with the fact that the first year of any new administration is not the time to become immediately confrontational. We have to pursue any contentiousness with civility. As an administrator I didn't ask people who worked for me to like me, but I hoped that they would have respect for the office I held. I'm convinced that I've pursued the best path, but not the most popular one.
M. Henry: I take responsibility for the letter (even though I didn't write it all), and I intended to be respectful. I intended to ask questions rather than draw conclusions. I don't know whether IHL insisted that 2 people move into these houses on the coast, just that it's not generally what occurs when you're dealing with facilities. They're questions that warrant real answers. FS could remove 10 by amendment.
Ka.
D. Beckett: Move that we strike the end of sentence 1 ("and how do you think this change affects your credibility with the faculty").
M. Henry: second.
Vote: passed
D. Beckett: Move that we delete #10 [housing for provosts] in its entirety. I don't think that it is very civil, and we need to stay on the high road.
B. Coates: second.
S. Malone: I will agree for different reasons. Number 10 weakens the letter rhetorically. It's not as important of other things that are so critical.
Vote: passed
J. Palmer: Motion to submit the letter to the administration with changes; Ki.
[text of letter]:
From: Members of the Faculty Senate
Topic: Questions of Importance
Provost Grimes:
What follows is a list of questions we hope you will respond to in a timely manner. We regret that we feel the need to send these questions to you through a letter, but we have asked a number of what we think are legitimate and important questions of this administration, and we have not received full responses. To illustrate, question five on the list bellow deals with a request that was made in the fall semester of 2002. In the meantime, we continue to be surprised by administrative actions and mandates such as the “fourth category” and a change in the way the Faculty Activity Report (FAR) may be used. We are now concerned that announcing major decisions that affect many colleagues without input from those being affected is becoming a “standard” of operation for this administration. Regrettably, announcements on the restructuring of academic units, the FAR, and the fourth category are but representative examples that seem to demonstrate that this administration sees no need to engage in participatory governance of our university. It is in this chilly climate for conversation that we submit these questions to you, and through you to Provost Hudson (since many of the questions involve him too). A good climate for conversation is one that involves trust and mutual respect, not repeated surprises. We hope our climate for meaningful conversation improves soon, for that is in the best interests of our university. Thank you in advance for your timely response to these questions.
QUESTIONS FOR THE PROVOSTS
1. You (Provost Grimes) led many to believe that the Faculty Activity Report (FAR) would not be used for faculty evaluations. Then you acknowledged at a Faculty Senate meeting that FAR would probably be used for a variety of purposes including faculty evaluations. Why did you change your position?
2. Most faculty are very concerned about what they believe is an ill-advised attempt by the administration to impose a fourth category (economic development) for faculty evaluation. They also believe that however economic development is interpreted, it is already subsumed by the three overarching categories of teaching, research, and service. Why is the administration adamant about pushing a fourth category for faculty evaluation? Who was involved in the “development” of the fourth category? Is this fait accompli by the administration, and if so, why?
3. Why did the administration reject the four colleagues the Faculty Senate asked be added to the Faculty Handbook Committee? Given the importance of this document to faculty, will a draft version of the Faculty Handbook be submitted to the Faculty Senate for its review and revision?
4. At the March 19 meeting of IHL Chief Academic Officers, you reportedly initiated a discussion on eliminating faculty status for university librarians. Collectively, the Faculty Senate strongly believes that USM librarians should have faculty rank, and on March 21, passed by unanimous consent a strongly worded resolution that reaffirms the support of the Faculty Senate for faculty status for USM librarians. What were your purposes for raising this issue with IHL chief academic officers?
5. In fall semester, the Budget Committee of the Faculty Senate submitted a list of questions to the administration. The Budget Committee has received no response. We thought that the president agreed to a major role for Faculty Senate and faculty in planning and budgeting. What is the status of planning and budget preparation for FY 2004? With just a month to go in the semester, are we now to assume that there will not be avenues for meaningful input by faculty and staff into FY 2004 planning and budget building decisions?
6. Accountability is not just for faculty. What mechanisms should be put in place for faculty to evaluate the provosts and president? What should the criteria be? How can the Faculty Senate and the administration proceed together to develop a formal and objective process to evaluate annually the senior leadership of the university?
7. What is the current administrative structure for the Office of the President? Who has what responsibilities (e.g., president, staff, and others in the office)?
8. What is the current administrative structure for the Office of the Provost? Who has what responsibilities (e.g., provost, staff, associate provosts, and others in the office)?
9. When the president created
a second provost’s position, it was reported that virtually all USM activities
on the
xc Dr. Tim Hudson
Provost, USM Gulf Coast
8.3 May Meeting at GCRL: D. Cabana: Meet at 3pm.
9.0 Adjournment [5:35]