Minutes of the Meeting of the Senate
of the Faculty
Thursday, March 21, 2002 7:00 p.m., Room 113, Conner Hall
Meeting called to order with a quorum at 7 p.m.
Present: E. Acevedo, D. Adler, M. Aiken, B. Alidaee, J. Aubrey, [K.P. George for B. Barkdoll], D. Barker, J. Bentley, N. Bercaw, L. Bombelli, C. Brower, W. Chen, J. Czarnetzky, K. Dellinger, A. Fisher-Wirth, J. Ford, G. Herrera, K. Knight, F. Laurenzo, P. Malone, A. Mark, J. Martin, R. Oliphant-Ingham, M. Overby, A. Quinney, J. Reid, D. Rock, J. Schetz, B. Smothers, K. Sufka, K. Swinden, M. Tew, A. Trefzer J. Urgo, C. West, N. Wiggers, S. Wolcott, M. Zarzeski, J. Zjawiony
Absent: A. Ajootian*, L. Cozad, S. Davis,
C. Eagles, R. Elam*, A. Kishk, C. Ochs, D. Wilkins*
A. Honors College Faculty Governance Issues, Informal Task Force Update by Senator Overby, chair of ad hoc committee
Concerns that this action has raised
B. Tenure Standards Report from the 03/18/02 meeting with the Provost on
tenure standards, Chair Adler
Background: Dean Harvey put in writing that if an Economics faculty member moved to Liberal Arts (as part of the potential move of the Economics area) then the faculty member WOULD receive tenure. If the faculty member remained in the Business School, the faculty member would NOT receive tenure. Harvey's reading of the tenure standard about the allocation of resource was used, in this case, to make a faculty member's tenure reliant on resource allocations. To prevent this misunderstanding in the future the language needs to be revised. Chair Adler recommended that the governance committee take up revising this language.
C. Update from recent Council of Academic Administrators' Meetings re: the composition of and selection of search committees and search committee chairs for academic administrators (plus limits interim Deans to serving for only one year), report by Senator Overby, Chair of Governance Committee
D. Strategic Planning, Report on a meeting with Dr. Eftink, Chair Adler
Dr. Eftink would like the Senate to support the Strategic Planning efforts. Chair Adler charged this to the University Affair committee.
II. Old Business
A. The minutes of February 14, 2002 Senate meeting were passed without dissent. minutes_20020200.html
III. New Business
Proposed procedure for the Business School Reorganization, Senator Tew
Senator Martin motioned to strike the
preamble, second, Senator Smothers.
Senator Malone: it is in the Faculty's purview and best interest to quote the SACS/AAUP in the preamble.
Senator Overby called the question.
Senator Schetz moved that the language
be changed such that the abstention ballots not are counted in
the total number of the votes, second, Senator Smothers.
Senator Overby: the existing language is clear and additional language will have to be added to explain.
Senator Tew/Senator Schetz: if we leave in the SAC language, we have to count abstention ballots.
Senator Overby called the question.
#1/line four "Dean is strongly encouraged to "
#3/line1 "the tenured and tenure tract faculty"
#5/last sentence "and this shall be so stated on the ballot" added to end of the sentence
#4/line two "secret ballot of the tenure and tenure track faculty in the School of Business, with the exception of the Dean."
Senator Overby called the question.
Meeting officially adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
This process is provided by the Senate of the Faculty of the University of Mississippi in response to a request from the Provost. The basis for this process lies in an answer provided by the University of Mississippi in response to a question from SACS that includes the following statement.
The University of Mississippi adheres to the principles of shared university governance enunciated in the "Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities" jointly formulated in 1966 by the American Association of University Professors, the American Council on Education, and the American Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. In accordance with that document, the University of Mississippi recognizes that: "the faculty has primary responsibility for such fundamental areas as curriculum, subject matter and methods of instruction, research, faculty status, and those aspects of student life which relate to the educational process." The University therefore endorses a process of consultation to assure that academic decisions are made through a joint effort of the faculty and administrators and with the cooperation and support of a majority of the faculty constituency affected.
The University recognizes that the faculty has special concern and responsibility for the establishment of the University's general education policies and goals and particularly for their implementation regarding curriculum, instruction, research, faculty status, and degree requirements. In addition, the University recognizes the faculty's necessary participation in shared governance regarding long-range plans for the institution, the allocation and use of physical resources, budgets, compensation, and the selection of academic officers.
The University acknowledges that true faculty participation in the governance of academic affairs requires good faith on the part of both the faculty and administration and genuine commitment by both to a program of shared governance.
The process proposed here is intended to ensure that the decision to transfer faculty or not to transfer faculty from the School of Business to the College of Liberal Arts includes the cooperation and support of a majority of the faculty constituency affected."
1. Preparation of a proposal
The issue considered here involves the transfer of faculty from the School of Business to the College of Liberal Arts. A proposal for such a transfer must be prepared by the proponents of this transfer, in this case the Dean of the School of Business. Following the SACS response, the Dean is strongly encouraged consult with the faculty members involved, consult with faculty members who are not identified for transfer, consult with the Dean of the College of Liberal Arts, and with the Provost. The proposal must include the following items:
a) Specific identification of the faculty
members who will transfer to the College of Liberal Arts if the
proposal is accepted.
b) Enumeration of the resources to support the transferred faculty that will be transferred from the School of Business to the College of Liberal Arts if the proposal is accepted. If the transferred resources are not proportional to the number of faculty transferred (either a greater or lesser percentage of resources transferred than the percentage of faculty transferred), the proposal must include a justification for the difference.
c) Anticipated impact on graduate and undergraduate education within the School of Business and the College of Liberal Arts.
d) Anticipated impact on research within the School of Business and the College of Liberal Arts.
e) Anticipated impact on the academic careers of the affected faculty.
f) Reasons why the proposed transfer has a positive impact on the University of Mississippi.
The intent of the proposal is to focus discussion and consideration on clearly defined actions and to provide reasons why the proponents believe these actions benefit the University of Mississippi.
2. Acceptance if approved by a majority
of the affected faculty
The proposal described in the first step must be accepted by the Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and by the Provost. That is, the Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and the Provost must indicate that they find the proposal acceptable, and will work to carry out the proposal if it is approved by a majority of the faculty affected.
3. Consideration of the proposal
The faculty of the School of Business will be provided with a copy of the proposal within 3 days of acceptance by the Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and by the Provost. The Dean of the School of Business may provide a physical copy, or an electronic copy, or provide instructions on how to access a web-based copy of the proposal.
Two weeks after the faculty of the School of Business are provided with a copy of the proposal, the Chair of the Senate of the Faculty will call a general faculty meeting of the School of Business with the single agenda item being discussion of the proposal.
4. Secret Ballot
Within 2 days of the general faculty meeting for discussion of the proposal, the Senate of the Faculty will conduct a secret ballot of all faculty in the School of Business. Two ballot options will be provided: "I support the proposal" and "I do not support the proposal".
A faculty member may return his or her ballot in person or by campus mail. A two-envelope system will be used to ensure anonymity of voting and to allow separate tabulation of the ballots.
5. Tabulation of Ballot
All of the faculty of the School of Business are "affected faculty." In order to provide the best information regarding the support or lack of support for the proposal, the ballots will be tabulated separately for the faculty who are identified to be transferred to the College of Liberal Arts and for the faculty who are identified to remain in the School of Business. For each group, the proposal will be classified as "approved by a majority" when the number of ballots that vote "I support the proposal" is a majority of the faculty eligible to vote. For each group, the proposal will be classified as "not approved by a majority" when the number of ballots that vote "I support the proposal" is less than a majority of the faculty eligible to vote. This means that an abstention has the effect of voting against the proposal.
Ballots will be tabulated one week from the date on which they were placed in campus mail to be provided to faculty.
6. Actions after Tabulation of Ballot
If both groups of faculty, those to be transferred and those to remain, approve the proposal, then the Provost, Dean of the School of Business, and Dean of the College of Liberal Arts will take action to realize the transfer of faculty.
If both groups of faculty, those to be transferred and those to remain, do not approve the proposal, then the transfer of faculty will not take place unless a subsequent proposal is approved by the process set out here.
If one group of faculty votes to approve the proposal and the other group of faculty does not approve the proposal, then the review process used during creation of the new school will be used. That is, the proposal will be submitted to the Undergraduate Council, the Graduate Council, the Council of Academic Administrators, the Research Board, the External Academic Affairs Committee, and the University Planning Council. Each of these groups will consider the proposal and advise the Chancellor and Provost regarding which action is in the best interests of the University of Mississippi. After receiving input from these University standing committees, the Provost will determine whether or not the proposal will be accepted.