The
Faculty
Senate Meeting
Joseph
Greene Rm. 116
Members Present: College of the Arts: Ki. Davis, S. Nielsen College of Business: J.
Crockett, D. Duhon, T. Green College of Education & Psychology: T.
Harsell, 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, P. Gentile, S. Malone, A. Miller, J. Norton, B. Scarbourgh
College of Marine Science: J. Lytle College of Nursing: A. Brock
College of Science & Technology: D. Beckett, P. Butko, B. Coates, R.
Folse, M. Hall, M. Henry, J. Mattson, G. Russell University Libraries:
T. Graham USM-Gulf Coast: D. Alford, Ka.
Members Represented
by Proxy: College of the Arts: T. Lewis (Ki. Davis) College of Business: College
of Education & Psychology:College of Health & Human Sciences:College of
International and Continuing Education:
College of Liberal Arts: M. Dearmey (B. Scarborough), P. Gentile (A.
Miller), L. Nored (D. Cabana), S. Oshrin (Stanley Hauer), J. Meyer (A. Kaul),
J. Waltman (A. Young) College of Marine Science: College of Nursing: K.
Masters (A. Brock) College of Science & Technology: M. Cobb (Ray
Seyfarth) USM-Gulf Coast: J. Pat Smith (Ka.
Members Absent: College of Education & Psychology: E. Lundin
1.0 Call to Order [
2.0 President's Report: D. Cabana: Before this discussion begins I want to
make a brief statement. Almost a year ago, upon assuming responsibilities as
President of the Faculty Senate I had one goal, one priority for my brief time
in office. I wanted to forge a working
alliance with the administration, one that would prove mutually beneficial to
students, faculty, staff, and administration. Such a collaborative effort, I
thought, could only result in good things for this university. As a faculty
member who was entering an eleventh year at USM, I was confident that I could
use that experience to represent my colleagues in a way that would clearly
state their hopes and aspirations, their desire for meaningful participation in
university governance, and their wishes for a fruitful, cooperative working
relationship with the administration.
Somewhat naively perhaps, I also thought that I could
use 25 years of administrative experience in state government to help faculty
better understand the awesome challenges of running a publicly funded
institution as large as this university, especially at a time when severe
budget cuts confront university administrators at every turn. With all my
heart, I honestly believed that with a lot of hard work, and a little luck
thrown in, administration and faculty did not have to be consigned to working
around the usual "us versus them" mentality that so often
characterizes management-employee relationships. Unfortunately, what I have
presided over is an ever-widening gulf between administration and faculty, for
which I take much responsibility.
Much has happened during the past 10 months, from
reorganization to new faculty activity reports. Lots of change, and
consequently, considerable fear. Change is always unsettling because of the
unknown. It goes without saying, of course, that change for the sake of change
can be detrimental to the effectiveness of any organization. Conversely,
neither does change have to be avoided simply because something has always been
done a certain way. Ultimately, change is inevitable, especially when organizations
come under new leadership. So, suffice it to say, the administrative positions
that have been filled with many new faces, the deletion of some positions and
creation of others, the restructuring of the university, and many other changes
that have taken place should not really have surprised any of us. They are the
natural occurrences that are the result of a new leadership team.
In just a few moments you will embark on a discussion
that can have far-reaching, long-term implications for this university family.
Students, faculty, staff, and administrators will all be profoundly affected by
your discussion and deliberation this evening. I implore you to engage in this
dialogue with conscience, wisdom, and fairness as your guideposts.
For the better part of a year now, I have worked with
Dr. Thames and members of his cabinet. I think I can safely say that I have
come to know him as well as, if not better than, a vast majority of the
faculty. He has devoted all of his adult life to this university. I am
convinced that he deeply cares, and wants to do good things for USM. He is
forceful, strong, and passionate in his beliefs. He has an excellent
relationship with key legislative leaders, who in turn have great confidence in
him. He has solid support from the IHL Board of Trustees.
He is not an evil person, not the devil incarnate, as
some have tried to portray him. He is not hesitant to tackle challenges. He is,
like most of us, a complex man with many sides to him. He is an optimist who
sees challenges, not problems. He is one who always sees the glass as
half-full. He does, however, expect faculty, rather than simply identifying
problems, to also be prepared to suggest solutions. When faculty talk
"shared governance," Dr. Thames talks "shared accountability and
responsibility."
Like all of us, he and the members of his cabinet are
human beings, with the same flaws and blemishes that afflict all of us. Perhaps
the differences are that their flaws, their imperfections become magnified, and
they are there for all to see, because they live in a public fishbowl. I cannot
begin to express to you the enormity of the job of President. As a Commissioner
of Corrections for the state of
Higher education is no different. Our universities
have lost almost 100 million dollars in operating revenue the past four years;
there have been no pay raises, our benefits, especially health care, have been
significantly reduced. But Shelby Thames, Tim Hudson, and Jay Grimes did not
create those problems. They inherited them, along with a sense of urgency that
changes must be made, the university must adapt to changing times, striving to
find new, innovative, bold approaches to confront these challenges. That has
been the mandate from IHL. That mandate will continue for the foreseeable future.
Having said all of that, there are problems that
confront this administration. They may be problems more of style, and less of
substance. There must be a convincing demonstration on the part of the
administration that they both value and will actively pursue collaborative
efforts with faculty. Trust must be restored by all concerned. I am encouraged
by what I believe have been very substantive discussions the past two days with
both the President and the Provosts.
Now is not a time to slam the door on dialogue with
the administration. In fact, it is imperative that we go the extra mile. In
good conscience I can neither support a referendum vote by this body nor a
similar vote by the faculty at large--not at this time. The issue of confidence
votes ought to be a last resort, used only after every other conceivable
attempt to resolve our differences has failed. In my opinion, Dr. Thames has
committed no capital offenses. He has done nothing that is so grievous as to
justify a confidence vote. I am absolutely convinced that such as action at
this time can only erode even further the schism that has developed. I will not
deny for one moment that some part of my opposition is selfishly motivated. I
view such an action every bit as much a referendum on my leadership of the
Senate as it is on the President's leadership of the university. I am saddened
and disappointed that this debate has even become necessary. As I told you, the
members of the Senate, in our last meeting no one had been more painfully aware
this year than me of the frequent criticisms directed toward my performance in
this job by my faculty colleagues.
Nevertheless, I think it futile and fruitless to
engage in the blame game, with each side pointing fingers at the other. I have
but 6 or 7 weeks remaining in office. I ask you, indeed plead with you, to let
me have these final weeks to intensify my efforts to bring about
reconciliation, to restore trust on both sides. I simply refuse to believe that
it is too late to bridge the gulf. But there will be little, if any opportunity
for success if I am to operate under the cloud of a faculty referendum. Having
said that, if the Senate is convinced that this continuing effort would be
pointless, then I am prepared to step aside as Senate President immediately,
thereby allowing a new face, in the person of Dr. Henry, to get an early start
on what will hopefully be a far more productive term than mine has been. I will
vote against any resolution that proposes a referendum vote. But I will also do
my job as Senate President, and do my dead level best to maximize the
opportunity for you to debate, and vote, should that prove to be your course of
action this evening.
3.0 Faculty Handbook
Committee: D. Cabana: Last week I
received a copy of an email sent by the provosts to J. Kolbo [chair] advising
him that the handbook committee was dissolved. The explanation given was that
the measure is in keeping with the wishes of FS by way of a handbook resolution
passed during the last meeting. In response to actions of provosts, I responded
that the resolution asked to put back on the committee the individuals who I
asked to serve or, in lieu of that, to dissolve the committee until such time
as there could be further discussion toward a resolution agreeable to both sides.
I asked whether this was a dissolution until there could be discussion or
whether it is dissolution. It is a dissolution. I explained to the FS in our
last meeting that I take responsibility for this action having been taken. I
want to refresh you on the series of steps that occurred. During the first or
second meeting, there was question of faculty representation. If one did not
include chairs as faculty, then there was not very broad faculty
representation. S. Laughlin and I were on the committee. Without objection from
J. Kolbo or the Provost, I appointed 2 faculty to serve. In our discussions, a
particular concern had been raised that junior faculty have a voice. I asked a
junior faculty member along with S. Oshrin. It occurred to me after the fact
that I had screwed up. We had asked S. Hubble and M. Forster at beginning of
term to serve in capacity, so I asked them to participate also. That was the
straw that broke the camel's back. I take responsibility. The size got to where
the administration decided to uninvite those 4 and get back to its original
plans for size and representation. The provost and I this morning talked about
how to resolve this concern. I think that reconstituting the committee as it
was is out of the question. At this time the provost and I have agreed, in
principle, that when a draft of the handbook is complete that hopefully the FS
president will be able to designate 4-5 faculty members to review and comment,
then to resubmit for further action. It's not what I or we wanted, but at this
point in time it's the best deal we can hope for.
B. Scarborough: The resolution did not say to
dissolve the committee; it says "discontinue" the activities of the
committee until the membership can be mutually agreed to. That's not dissolution.
Also, who is drafting the handbook? The faculty ought to be doing it, and
anything short of that is unacceptable.
D. Cabana: My understanding is that it is being
drafted by one of the staff attorneys.
J. Bethel: My understanding is that a new attorney
was retained to write this handbook.
D. Cabana: A new attorney has been obtained, but I'm
not sure that I would say that the attorney has been retained strictly to write
the handbook.
J. Bethel: My understanding is that he'll be strictly
the one to write it. He may have other duties.
D. Cabana: That may be correct.
M. Henry: When you presented the list, there only
were 2 who had didn't have administration as their primary duties. That is why
we were so supportive of you when you chose to submit additional names, and
apparently the provost was at least temporarily supportive. There are few
things before us that are more important than having faculty involved in
drafting the faculty handbook. It's too important to turn over to attorneys
[applause]. I, too, want to see healing, reaching out, and engaging take place.
This faculty handbook was an opportunity to bring people back together. Also,
the forward indicates a designated membership, including the president of FS.
What happened to the committee designated in the forward? Is that to be
disregarded? The tradition has been to start there and expand.
D. Cabana: I don't believe that the handbook
committee is retrievable under any circumstances. I don't like that and agree
with your comments, but that is the reality.
B. Taylor: How many know the history of the faculty
handbook? I'm the one responsible for the current handbook. About 6 years ago I
got a call from Vice-President Huffman and was asked, under the guidance of Lee
Gore, to go to faculty and get everyone's opinion and come up with a document
to recommend to the administration. We reached out to everyone, and we came up
with a pretty good product. This was during the Lucas administration. During
the next administration, there were unilateral changes that have messed up its
symmetry. Colleges have gone about promotion and tenure in a totally different
way. The rules of the game need to be very clear and simple, and everyone needs
to follow them. An attorney has to direct the process to protect you and state
of
B. Scarborough: Not the whole handbook, but the
tenure and promotion guidelines were drafted in the early 1980s by committees
within each college. There also was a university committee. I chaired the
university committee and the Liberal Arts committee. We had meetings, public
forums, incredible opportunity for input before we drafted anything. We
reviewed rules and regulations from other schools. This was how it was done
initially. This was under James Simms.
B. Taylor: The handbook we had when I got involved
was a claimant attorney's dream come true.
J. Norton: It is naive to think that we can draft a
handbook without an attorney. If we get to have a say in the end, then what is
wrong?
D. Cabana: I want you to understand that I have tried
to represent the FS wishes. I have asked (on numerous occasions during the past
5 days and as recently as
M. Henry: I've been involved in handbooks at other
universities as well as here. We had faculty members involved, and some of
those people are here tonight. We do need attorneys involved, but there is a
difference between having an attorney acting in advisory capacity and having an
attorney draft the handbook (if that is what is happening). Input on the front
end is key.
J. Palmer: Based on the discussion, we can assume the
handbook is a legal document. That makes it more important for faculty to have
input, because when we sign a contract it’s not just for employment, but the
handbook governs promotion and tenure. It would be much easier to get what we
want on front end then to change it once its done.
D. Alford: The trust has deteriorated so much that
hearing that a lawyer is constructing the handbook makes us wonder what real
opportunity we would have to review it.
M. Miller: The FAR is our closest analogy. It's been
done for us and now we're supposed to react to it. It's easier and more
effective to have input at the front end than to figure out how to respond to
it after the fact.
L. Mullican: I also worked on handbook with B.
Taylor, and the previous handbook had been a disaster. A faculty handbook
written by a lawyer will be an attempt to tighten down the screws on the
faculty. That will be the whole point. There will be no wiggle room of any
kind. Seeking tenure and promotion under such a document will be nearly
impossible because we all are not the same. We need a handbook that takes our
differences into account and that isn't intended to give the university power
in the tenure and promotion process. This will not be a document that we will
be able to change. It will come from a lawyer and be a done deal.
J. Palmer: I propose that we ask the president and
provost to create a new faculty handbook committee properly represented by
faculty and to work with the attorney to incorporate the changes that are
needed in the handbook.
D. Alford: second
M. Henry: I would support such a motion. I do believe
that the committee should be consistent with the forward of the current
handbook. There should be a majority of faculty of the committee.
J. Palmer: Move to suspend rules; S. Hubble: second;
Vote: passed
J. Palmer: I would accept the changes suggested by M.
Henry.
D. Cabana: M. Henry and J. Palmer can work out the
language of the resolution. Is FS willing to proceed with a vote based on the
intent of the original motion?
D. Duhon: How does this differ from the previous resolution?
Aren't we repeating what we've already said?
A. Miller: It's a response to an action.
M. Henry: We have to have to hope that something we
do will change someone's mind. We can't stop trying to do that. This is an
opportunity for that to happen.
R. Folse: I was hoping that the FS would create a
committee and ask the provost for input before we write the handbook.
A. Kaul: During my term as FS president, we
established a handbook taskforce. There were 8-12 members who spent the better
part of the year working these issues. They made recommendations, but I don't
know what happened to the recommendations. It has been consistent for FS to be
involved in handbook matters. This has been going on for 3 years at least.
Vote: passed
3.0 Reorganization of the Faculty Senate: D. Cabana: We originally had decided to adhere to the
constitution. I chose to put this item on the agenda for guidance from FS. Do
we proceed as we are and concern ourselves with reorganization when FS comes
back into session in the fall or do we make an effort to reconstitute before
then?
J. Crockett: Continue on course.
J. Norton: You'll disenfranchise those who are
changing colleges. I won't represent the one I left and won't get a vote in the
one I'm in. The people who are left in the college which I was in formerly will
have their ballots polluted by having people who are not in their faculty
anymore on their ballots. I suggest we figure out an appropriate distribution
and work it into our current election.
D. Alford: The reorganization takes place July 1. We
don't meet in the summer.
J. Norton: Part of having elections now is to have a
voice over the summer. This won't reflect the faculty that I or others work
with in July.
B. Coates: It is my understanding that the Academic
Council and Graduate Council are not reorganizing right now. So, what is the
big deal?
D. Cabana: I'm not sure there is. I wanted to talk
about this before we left for the summer to decide if it's something we might
want to do.
M. Miller: [Reorganization] would be complicated from
our perspective. Our new college of Business and Economic Development consists
of parts of 4 different colleges. We've never had a single meeting as a faculty
to get to know each other or discuss an equitable distribution.
J. Palmer: It's also a FS constitutional issue. We'll
have a reapportionment next year according to the constitution, anyway. It's
not an attempt to disenfranchise, but to maintain an organized transition.
J. Olmi: Point of clarification: this body will be
responsible for its own reorganization. Is that correct? By our constitution,
we conduct any reorganization.
J. Palmer: Yes, according to the constitution.
J. Olmi: I want to be clear about that: any
reorganization comes from this body and nowhere else.
S Hubble: I don't think the smoke has cleared, and it
would behoove us to wait until the new deans are in place and we see what
further changes are coming. I don't feel that our faculty will be unrepresented
under the current structure.
D. Beckett: We've already started voting. Speaking of
disfranchising, what about those people already elected? There's no way to
dispense with the awkwardness of this. We should stay with the present
structure and deal with reorganization after it's happened.
J. Bethel: We could cancel the election and leave FS
as it is until everything settles and then recreate a ballot.
D. Cabana: J. Olmi has stated the essence of what I
was concerned about. FS is should do this itself and not leave it to any other
entity. That's why it's on the agenda for discussion.
P. Butko: It is clearly unconstitutional to not
proceed with elections. You are not disenfranchised. I represent my colleagues
in my department, and it doesn't matter what college I'm in. Be patient. Elections
will proceed under the new organization next year. The situation is not tragic.
J. Norton: There are people who do not agree with
this and who feel disenfranchised. The next election would be spring 04. We
won't be appropriately represented until July.
D. Duhon: We've already had this discussion and
decided to follow the constitution.
4.0 Motion to Call for a
Faculty-Wide Referendum Regarding a Confidence Vote: B. Scarborough: First, I'd like to respond to a
couple of comments that D. Cabana made. I do recognize that change is
inevitable, but the problem at the University in the past 10 months is not
change, per se, but the process through which the change was effected. The
method and the process is what we're most concerned about. The process is that
change is made without any consultation with any of the affected parties, and
certainly not with the faculty. You talk about dialog, and my question is, when
did the dialog begin? I haven't seen much dialog between administration and
faculty. I've seen only edicts issued by the administration. [D. Cabana] may
have had some dialog, but not many other people have. You say that you're going
to continue these efforts to reach an accommodation with the administration. My
question would be what these efforts have yielded so far. I don't see much
evidence of anything.
As far as the motion is concerned, on TV D. Cabana
related that there have been no capital crimes so far. That may be true, but I
have compiled a list of 20 grievances.
S. Hubble: Move to suspend the rules; second: S.
Nielsen; vote: passed
B. Scarborough: There have been a number of decisions
made by the administration that I think are very serious. Maybe they're not
capital crimes, but in combination it seems that they rise to that status. The
first was the reorganization, including the insulting treatment of the deans
and the fact that nobody was consulted or knew that it was underway until it
was announced. The decision to make economic development a 4th category for
evaluation is one of the more outrageous things done, also without input. We've
talked about the faculty handbook. The reorganization of the Center for
Continuing and International Education was done without consultation with those
involved, as was the
It seems to me that there has been no effort on the
part of the president or provosts to initiate dialog with faculty, no attempt
to consult faculty before decisions are made. Therefore, I'm asking not for FS
to pass a no-confidence vote, but to give each faculty member an opportunity to
vote confidence or no confidence in each one of the 3 top-level administrators.
This will show the university community, community of
[text of motion:]
In response to the pervasive challenges to the
cherished principles of shared governance and the persistent failure of the
present Administration to include faculty in decisions involving the academic side
of the University, we, the Faculty Senate of the University of Southern
Mississippi, propose to hold a campus-wide faculty referendum on the
performance of the presidential administration of Shelby F. Thames.
Said referendum, to be held no later than Thursday,
May 1 on both the
D. Alford: Move to go into executive session; second:
J. Olmi
D. Cabana: There is a motion to go into executive
session, because we are discussing what the chair defines as a personnel issue.
It has been seconded.
D. Duhon: Are we sure that this is a personnel issue?
D. Cabana: I think it's an issue that has
implications for personnel. It related to actions that could impact senior
level administrators.
J. Olmi: Please clarify who would remain if we go
into executive session.
D. Cabana: Everyone would be asked to vacate the room
except faculty.
J. Hanberry: The FS constitution states that
"all meetings shall be open." There is no provision in the
constitution or bylaws for executive session. What you are proposing to discuss
does not involve an employee of FS.
D. Duhon: I think that's technically correct. It's
not technically a personnel issue since we're not employers. It probably would
be a violation of the sunshine law.
M. Henry: Can we ask the gentleman to identify
himself?
J. Hanberry: My name is Jack Hanberry.
M. Henry: Can you say more?
J. Hanberry: I am the Director of Resources and Risk
Management.
M Miller: Since we're still on the record, and in
case there are any questions, I had a phone call at
Vote: passed
[In executive session, FS
tabled the referendum motion. It instructed D. Alford and M. Henry to draft a
resolution: 1) requesting facilitation between a committee of faculty and
administrators, 2) enumerating the issues to be addressed during the
facilitation process, and 3) calling for a moratorium on the implementation of
related policies until facilitation can take place.]
D. Cabana: FS stands in
recess until next Friday [approx.