The University of Southern Mississippi
Faculty Senate Meeting
December 5, 2006
Cook Library, Room 123
5:00 p.m.
Agenda
1.0
Call to order: 5:05 p.m.
2.0 Agenda approved.
3.0 Discussion Items
3.1 Alternative Learning Draft Proposal
(Bill Powell) – Bill P. gave a brief summary of the University Faculty Pay
Review Committee’s charge and an overview of the proposal (Appendix 1 – charge
and summary. Click
here for link to full report.) After questions and discussion, a
motion was made and passed to accept the proposal.
3.2 Departmental Governance Options (FS
conversation) – Don Redalje, chair of the Academic
and Governance committee, has looked at the wording in the Faculty Handbook
concerning the Departmental Governance Options. Don R. had sent the
committee members various options of wording and the committee will discuss the
options (at least electronically) and possibly present some recommendations to
the FS in the near future senate.
4.0 Officers' Reports
4.1 President
4.1.1 Report on Meetings with President and Provost: There
was one meeting with the president and two with provost since the November FS
meeting. Discussion items: exec. officers
covered these items with president and provost: dead week, governance
options, search for head of Admissions, student advising (see item 4.1.2), and
update on the Polymer Science auditorium motion passed and sent to the
president and provost by the senate. The president expressed dismay at
the matter and the provost stated that time had sort of run out on the
issue. Both agreed that this situation should not be allowed to happen
again next semester.
4.1.2 Provost’s Charge to Senate Concerning Advisement – Myron H. introduced Provost’s
charge. General discussion followed which included the recommendation
that senate work with Academic Council on this. Myron H. asked senators
to read Provost’s letter over break and then he would seek volunteers at the
January meeting.
4.13 Compensation
Adjustments – this item was addressed last on the agenda. Myron H. stated
that he had received an unsolicited anonymous packet
that suggests that there may have been some larger salary adjustments. Based on
FS discussion, this topic may need to be addressed further. However, the
information needs to be verified through the University budget books.
The officers will attempt to do this by the January meeting of the
FS.
4.2
President-Elect
4.2.1 Contingent Faculty Grievance and Rights – a number of
issues have arisen to suggest that the Faculty Handbook section on faculty
grievances may needs to extended to address
contingent faculty (adjuncts, instructors, etc.)
4.2.2 Role of University Publications
4.3 Secretary
4.3.1 Update on Ad Astra Committee – the committee met last
week and there seemed to be a consensus that more control of room assignments
needed to come back to departments. The meeting ended with two
recommendations: Debby Hill will
explore ascertaining a consultant and will also check to see if the
PeopleSoft/Astra issue can be resolved.
4.4 Secretary-Elect – FAR deadline has been
extended to January 15th.
5.0 Committee Reports
5.1 President’s Council
5.1.1 Election of New Representatives
5.2 University Planning Council
5.3 Academic and Governance
5.4 Administration and Faculty Evaluations
5.5 Awards
5.6 Budget
5.7 Constitution and Bylaws
5.8 Faculty Welfare
5.9 Government Relations
5.10 Technology
5.11 Elections
5.12 Other committee and liaison reports
5.12.1 AAUP (Joe Olmi) – AAUP hopes that the
faculty senate
will join with AAUP to address the IHL Appeals Process policy.
5.12.2 Facility Management Planning Committee (Mary Beth
Applin, Amy Young, others)
5.12.3 Alternative Learning Committee
5.12.4 Distance Education Committee
5.12.5 Faculty Handbook Committee
6.0 New Business- Myron H. and Amy Y., as
individual faculty, have communicated to individuals in the Athletic
Foundation, the Alumni Association and the USM Foundation concerning the
presidential compensation packet that included a large retroactive salary
increase for Dr. Thames. The officers sent a letter to the Hattiesburg
American addressing senate officers’ concerns. Joe Olmi
asked that once information is verified that the AAUP be included in on any
discussions. Some senators expressed outrage that any administrators
would be receiving raises at this time when budgets are tight, tuitions are
being raised, and positions aren’t being filled and yet money is being given
freely for raises to administrators. Is this a wise expenditure at this
time? And is it wise to raise the salary for an administrator which by
all accounts raises the platform that the university will work from when
negotiating salaries for new administrators coming in? After much
discussion, Myron H. stated that the officers will try to verify the
information before sharing with senators at the next meeting.
7.0 Old Business
8.0 Other
9.0 Adjournment: 6:07pm. Best
wishes for the New Year and see you in 2007
Appendix 1
The
Council of Chairs: Ad Hoc Committee – Alternative Learning Issues
Final DRAFT
University Faculty Pay Review Committee
The Committee charge:
The original charge to the committee was to obtain recommendations for policies governing pay for teaching in the mini-sessions and in alternative delivery modes from all the representative bodies, Graduate Council, Academic Council, Council of Chairs and Faculty Senate. However, the issue was expanded at the first meeting by Associate Provost Moore to include developing policies governing faculty pay related to: courses taught in load, and out of load; in mini-sessions and in regular terms; summer pay scales; and adjunct pay as well as identify and investigate all issues relevant to faculty pay, which also includes designation of appropriate minimum course enrollment, faculty compensation for developing courses and then delivering them in non-traditional manners, such as IVN, online, hybrid, intensive sessions, and any variation away from face to face in a ‘’standard” semester configuration. This committee was asked to create a set of policies to recommend to the deans and provost based upon the investigations and evaluation of feedback from the university community and the various elected bodies it represents: Academic Council, Council of Chairs, Faculty Senate, and Graduate Council.
The following policy recommendations are offered for your consideration. These are the result of initial discussions and requests for comment. Please provide written comments to your representatives, statements of support or disagreement with recommendations would be appreciated, as well as any additional information or recommendations you wish to have included in the discussion. The committee members are
Dr. Stan Hauer, Academic Council Stanley.Hauer@usm.edu
Dr. Jerome Kolbo, Graduate Council Jerome.Kolbo@usm.edu
Dr. J Norton, Chair Melanie.Norton@usm.edu
Dr. Bill Powell, Faculty Senate William.Powell@usm.edu
Dr. Kathy Yadrick, Council of Chairs M.Yadrick@usm.edu
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS:
o Limit the number of credit hours a faculty member could teach in mini-session, or approved overload to no more than four credit hours,
o Ensure that junior and senior faculty have equal opportunities to participate in alternative learning formats,
o Maintain ongoing documentation appropriate to SACS, NCATE and university review such as syllabi, enrollment, faculty credential, history of appropriate university approval of format changes (anything that has not already been approved)
o Conduct significant course evaluation on each offering
Summary
This committee
reviewed two other
The initial concern regarding alternative learning pay came about with the initiation of mini-sessions. The basic salary was set at $1500.00 per credit hour, with a limit of four credit hours allowed to be taught during a mini-session by an individual. This created a situation where some assistant professors could earn more money teaching in mini-sessions at the beginning and end of the summer than they could earn teaching three courses during the summer. This led to other questions about the equity of summer pay in general as well as overload pay and adjunct pay.
Extended discussion among the committee and with the groups the members represent lead to the conclusion that faculty summer salary must be coherent with any overload or mini-session salary, otherwise it appears inappropriate incentives are created, which could lead to courses being offered in formats promoting personal profit and not academic excellence. The committee recommends the base of $1500 per credit hour, established at the assistant professor level should be employed, pro-rated to rank, above and below such that the attached summer, or mini-session, or overload pay schedule be instituted, pending review by the various bodies the committee represents. The selection of this amount was based upon the mini-session rate, and a compromise between setting the base rate at the instructor level, or the full professor level.
Adjunct salary must be competitive to assure USM access to the best-qualified individuals to supplement the teaching corp. Well-qualified adjuncts are critical to continuing accreditation and appropriate academic opportunities for our students. The committee recommends that minimum adjunct salary be set at the recommended instructor base, with adjustment allowed at the departmental level to address market forces and areas of expertise. The pay recommendation for adjuncts includes all academic sessions, and delivery methods.
Decisions related to course offerings, enrollment limitations, whether minimum or maximum, and overload pay should be made at the department level within the colleges’ consciousness of budgetary responsibility, not at the provost level. Departmental monitoring of enrollments allows for decisions based on overall departmental enrollment and student needs.
The committee recommends permitting graduate assistants to apply tuition waivers to credit hours in mini-session. The advantages to the students include being able to distribute their course load better, and having access to courses that may not be available at any other time. Permitting their enrollment also assists in maintaining enrollment numbers for courses.
The committee discussed online development and delivery incentives after detailing the creation and offering process for members who had not conducted online courses. The outcome recommendation was that a development fee of $1000.00 should be paid for the initial development of a course for online delivery. After the initial development incentive and after the initial offering, a $500 delivery incentive should be paid to faculty offering the course online there after. The delivery incentive would only be paid after the initial offering and is based upon the innate requirements in online courses to affect significant maintenance at each offering.
Recurring discussion about all alternative education delivery has a focus on appropriate academic integrity. Faculty and departmental bodies must be the first line in academic decisions, and should also be held responsible for the integrity of their programs. Compliance with various best practices, attention to accreditation documentation and requirements will assist in assuring academic strength.
The impact of the recommended summer salary base would be the necessary increase in enrollment minimum guidelines by four students per class. However, allowing departments to manage course offering and consider large enrollment courses in conjunction with lesser-enrolled courses should minimize the impact of this change in minimal class size guidelines on course offerings. Setting summer salary in line with the mini-sessions (and adjusting mini-sessions correspondently) will allow faculty to make course offering decisions based on appropriate academic interests rather then the enticement of substantially skewed salary differences. Mini-sessions will remain lucrative and enticing, but will not make offering courses in typical summer sessions less attractive financially. Overload pay in relation to the recommended base changes may the most impacted as it may become more effective to employ adjuncts, or actually hire full time faculty to serve the students needs creating overload necessity. However, overload pay must be reconciled with other salary incentives least faculty be exploited.
If adjuncts are paid at the same base rate as instructors, there will still be some savings in using adjuncts, as there are minimal benefits paid (9.5%), but there would still be noticeable increases in the cost of using adjuncts compared to the current adjunct system. There would be less incentive to use adjuncts since the cost savings would be decreased. Increasing adjunct base pay also addresses qualification concerns as well as the pressure from accrediting bodies to move away from all but the most essential use of adjuncts.
Assuming departments already plan carefully to provide only courses determined to be appropriate in format and student service, departmental management of enrollment, and selection of time frame and delivery format should adequately adjust the summer and mini-sessions to be successful.
Accepting summer semesters and mini-sessions must be self-sustaining, covering all incurred costs of salary and benefits; the committee has considered the long-term economic impact of the recommendations. Implications of changing summer base include requiring the establishment of enrollment criteria by each college and department, and the further development of policies governing how many courses faculty of various rank may expect to be able to teach.
All members of the university will need to examine the recommendations submitted. The potential for impacts well beyond just faculty salary are real and measurable. However the sustained growth of the university, of its enrollment and services should, overtime balance what at first may be a serious increase in faculty salary costs. If more faculty are willing to teach in summer, or during mini-session, it will be possible to attract more students, and provide more diversity in course offerings. Departmental management of enrollment criteria is essential to maintaining a balance among high and low enrollment courses, which allows courses to be offered creating economic good will for future courses.
This is a draft document, and should elicit a significant amount of discussion on the topics involved.
Appendices of calculations based on current and proposed salary recommendations are attached.
Members present and those absent [in brackets] but represented by proxy (in parentheses):
College of the Arts & Letters
Anita Davis
Cheryl Goggin
[Stan Hauer] (Steve Oshrin)
Stephen Judd
John Meyer
Greg O’Brien
Bill Powell
Bob Press
Paula Smithka
Amy Young
Stephen Burshardt
College of Education & Psychology
[Mary Ann Blackwell] (John Rachal)
[Taralynn Hartsell] (Myron Henry)
Joe Olmi
Tony Rodriguez-Buckingham
John Rachal
[Wendy Bounds] (Bonnie Harbaugh)
Bonnie Harbaugh
[Mary Lux] (Mary Applin)
Steve Oshrin
[Tim Rehner] (Steve Oshrin)
College of Coastal Science
[Chet Rakocinski] (Don Redalje)
Don Redalje
College of Science & Technology
Randy Buchanan
Jeff Evans
Jerry Griffith
John Hannon
Myron Henry
Larry Mead
Bobby Middlebrooks
Gail Russell
University Libraries
Mary Beth Applin
Jay Barton Spencer
Members Absent:
College of the Arts & Letters:
Scott Magruder
Bill Gunther
Catherine Price
College of Education & Psychology:
College of Coastal Science:
Charles McCormick
College of Science & Technology:
University Libraries:
Julie Cwikla
Patsy Anderson
Darlys Alford