The
Faculty
Senate Meeting
Union
Hall of Honors
Members Present and
Those Represented by Proxy:
College of the Arts and
Letters:
Phillip
Gentile, Kate Greene, Stephen Judd, Tony Lewis, John Meyer, Bill Powell, Bill
Scarborough, Paula Smithka, Mary Ann Stringer, Susan Malone (Anne Wallace)
James
Crockett, Trellis Green, Mark Miller (John Meyer)
Taralyn Hartsell, Janet
Nelson, Joe Olmi, John Rachal, Janice Thompson (Lisa Williams)
Joyous Bethel, Margot Hall,
Bonnie Harbaugh, Susan Hubble, Amal Khoury, Kathleen Masters, Stephen Oshrin,
Mary Frances Nettles (Joyous Bethel)
David Beckett, Randy
Buchanan, Peter Butko, Ray Folse, Mary Dayne Gregg, Myron Henry, Jerry Mattson,
Gail Russell, Alan Thompson, Denis Wiesenburg
University Libraries:
Mary Beth Applin
Darlys Alford, Kathy Davis
(Darlys Alford), Shadad Naghshpour, Pat Smith
Members Absent:
College of Business and
International Development
David Duhon
Melanie Norton
1.0
Call to
Order Meeting called to order at
2.0
Approval
of May/June Minutes (moved/seconded/passed)
3.0
Approval
of Agenda (moved/seconded/passed)
4.0
Officers’
Reports
4.1
President’s
Report: Myron
prefaced his report with statements regarding the positive nature of the Senate
Retreat. Following his comments the
following items were addressed by the Senate President.
4.1.1
Reapportionment
of Faculty Senate: Proposal for Constitution/Bylaws
The issue of
reapportionment of the Faculty Senate was discussed in light of the reorganization
of colleges of the University. The Senate officers discussed the issue and felt
that a critical mass of 42-45 members is appropriate. The [then] current draft
of the handbook suggested that the Senate should have 25 members. The Senate
officers disagreed with this and determined that setting the number 41, then compute
the percentage of the entire faculty that a college comprises. The Constitution/Bylaws
Committee will be looking more closely at the apportionment of members across
the
4.1.2
Constitution/Bylaws
provision for Closed Meetings:
Due to recent need to have closed meetings coupled with the fact that our
current Constitution/Bylaws does not address the issue of closed meetings, the Constitution/Bylaws
Committee was charged with developing such procedures. After discussion
detailing that the Senate as an advisory body and not a governing body, the
charge for the Constitution/Bylaws Committee remained.
4.1.3
University
Faculty Handbook Committee/Senate Handbook Advisory Committee Updates:
The importance of the University Faculty Handbook Committee cannot be
understated given the importance of full and fair faculty representation on
such a committee. The Senate is extremely concerned that full-time teaching
faculty is represented on the Committee. Susan Hubble and Michael Forester were
asked by the Senate President to represent the Faculty Senate on the current
committee, based on their past involvement with the Handbook development. The
current version of the Handbook that was originally drafted by Mr. Jack
Hanberry details the following membership of the University Faculty Handbook
Committee: the representative of the University President, the VP of Research
and Economic Development, the Human Resources Director, two teaching faculty
members (one selected by the University President), the Faculty Senate President,
and the/a University attorney. The current proposal on the table enlarges the Committee.
The Faculty Senate President stressed the importance of the involvement of all
faculty in the review of the draft handbook that is slated to come before
faculty for review by the end of the month. The Senate Handbook Advisory
Committee will continue to monitor and advise the full Senate on key issues as
they arise in the Handbook development process. The Senate President stressed
the importance of the language contained therein and noted that the anticipated
adoption of the current version under review will be in August 2004. The avenue
of review by faculty will be through respective department chairs and deans. Dr.
Forester further noted that much of the credit
goes to the current Faculty Senate President for his untiring efforts to ensure
that faculty are fairly represented and protected.
4.1.4
Faculty
Senate Representative for SACS Institutional Planning and Effectiveness
Committee:
The Senate officers’ selection: Jerome Kolbo
4.1.5
The Senate President noted that John Meyer has agreed to replace Dick
Conville on the Faculty Senate.
4.2
President-Elect:
Postponed
comments until later in the meeting.
4.3
Secretary
4.3.1
Overview
of Committees/Assignments
Faculty Senate
Committee assignments and Committee Chairs were noted: Faculty Welfare
Committee (John Meyer); Awards Committee (Tony Lewis); Administration and
Faculty Evaluations Committee (Ray Folse); Academic and Governance Committee
(Steve Oshrin); Budget Committee (Mary Ann Stringer); Technology Committee
(Mary Beth Applin); Elections Committee (Peter Butko); Government Relations
Committee (Pat Smith); and Constitution/Bylaws Committee (Darlys Alford)
4.3.2
Faculty
Senate Listserv
Read a report from the Secretary-Elect stating that the Faculty Senate Listserv
is now a completely closed list.
4.3.3
Regular
meetings with Senate Officers
The schedule of
Executive Committee meetings that was contained in the Senate meeting packet
was reviewed and noted that it is posted on the Senate web site. The Executive
Committee includes Senate officers, Committee chairs, and liaisons.
5.0
Committee Reports
5.1
Academic and Governance: (no report but set to meet.)
5.2
Administration and Faculty Evaluations: (refer to old business item)
5.3
Awards: (Committee
has met and will address Headwae Award quickly.)
5.4
Budget: (no
report)
5.5
Constitution and Bylaws: (will be meeting on Section 111 of the Constitution
(membership/apportionment of the Faculty Senate) and other issues)
5.6
Faculty Welfare: (have met and will be reporting on key issues in the near future)
5.7
Government Relations: (no report)
5.8
Technology: (an
agenda has been developed and will be meeting with iTech; report forthcoming)
5.9
Elections:
(no report)
5.10
Ad hoc Committees:
Mark Miller will be
AAUP liaison to the Senate;
6.0
Old Business
6.1 Evaluation of President/Provosts (Ray Folse and members of the FA Evaluations Committee, officers of the Senate):
The Senate President
noted that changes were made to the USM President and Provosts evaluation forms
and process and referred to the Senate meeting packet documents for the most
current versions before asking Ray Folse to comment. After much discussion
regarding the timing of administration evaluations (whether to go forward with
evaluations now [during the current fall] that were slated for last spring or
to postpone the process until this coming spring) as noted in the packet
document, a vote was taken regarding when to conduct the evaluation of the
University President and Provosts. The amendment that was passed 23-18 by the
Senate was that the evaluation process would be conducted in the spring 2004. A
follow-up motion was passed (unanimous voice vote) to conduct the
President/Provosts evaluation in conjunction with the evaluation of the deans
and department chairs. A third motion was passed (unanimous voice vote) to
adopt the versions of the evaluation instruments (President and Provosts)
contained in the Senate meeting packet. Senate President summed up the topic by
stating “we have a process; we have evaluation forms.” (Note: #2 of the process
was removed, as were the dates indicated on the forms. Other editorial changes
will be made as needed.)
6.2
Appointment Process for New Chairs of Departments:
Invited guests from
the Foreign Languages and Literature Department addressed the Senators
regarding concerns surrounding the issue of national searches for department
chairs [and deans]. There is concern that there is an unspoken or unannounced
policy of the Administration that all department chairs will be selected based
on a national search. It was reported that there appears to be different
standards regarding the need to conduct national searches to fill administrative
vacancies. The Senate Officers were asked to pose questions regarding the issue
to the President at its next meeting with the President to determine if such
was the case. The Senate President indicated that the Officers would report
back to the full Senate at the next regular meeting in October.
7.0
New Business
7.1
Distribution of Indirect Cost Recoveries: Process and Impact:
(Dave Beckett)
After initial
discussion regarding the issue of indirect cost recoveries by the Senate
President, Dr. Henry deferred to Dr. Beckett to provide an overview of the
topic. Dr. Beckett reported that indirects are charged on grants and can vary
from 0-43.8 percent, depending on the agency involved. He displayed the before
and after cost recovery situation. Departments have recently experienced a
forty percent decrease (from 25% to 15%) indirect cost recovery to the
departments on campus; a decrease that has significant negative impact on what
researchers are able to accomplish at the departmental level. Based on the
discussion, the Senate officers were charged with addressing the status of the
indirect cost recovery situation with Dr. Thames and reporting back to the full
Senate at the October meeting.
7.2
FAR Update (Stephen Judd):
The Committee met on Sept 5 with intention of resolving the [FAR] issue by early October. Faculty were encouraged to review the latest version of the FAR. There was concern voiced regarding the relationship between the FAR and faculty evaluation; the sentiment of the Committee was that it should be simply an activity report and is not intended to replace the departmental evaluation process. There will be an additional update report at the next meeting of the Senate in October.
7.3
Other (Bill Scarborough):
Concern was expressed
regarding the pay of part-time faculty. Issue was charged to the Faculty
Welfare Committee for investigation.
7.4
Other (Ray Folse):
7.4.1 Expressed concern related to losing four Thursday night classes due to athletic events/fall break. Faculty Officers were charged with addressing the issue during the next meeting with Dr. Thames.
7.4.2 Has there been a response from the Public Relations Department in regard to the Owens letter?
7.4.3
Are the
searches still open for the interim deans’ positions?
8.0
Adjournment 4:30