[an error occurred while processing this directive]

Minutes of the Meeting of the Senate of the Faculty
Thursday, October 10, 2002, 7:00 p.m., Room 139, Holman Hall

Meeting called to order with a quorum at 7:05 p.m.

Present: Edmund Acevedo, Donna Adler, Milam Aiken, Brahram Alidaee, Nancy Bercaw, Luca Bombelli, Wei-Yin Chen, Kirsten Dellinger, Charles Eagles, Jennifer Ford, K.P. George, Kathy Knight, Phil Malone, Amy E. Mark, Rosemary Oliphant-Ingham, Anne Quinney, James Reid, David Rock, John Schetz, Bobbie Smothers, Warren Steel, Ken Sufka, Mark Tew, Annette Trefzer, Joseph Urgo, Charles West, Nancy Wiggers, Dawn Wilkins, Susan Wolcott

Absent: Aileen Ajootian, Julie Aubrey, Bonnie Avery, Deborah Barker, John Bentley,Charles Brower, Laurie Cozad, John Czarnetzky, Steven Davis, Rick Elam, Gail Herrera, Ahmed Kishk, Fred Laurenzo, Jeanette Martin, Clifford Ochs, Robert Riggs, Charles Ross, Marilyn Zarzeski
ALL ABSENT=PRIOR NOTIFICATION

I. Old Business
The minutes of the September 12, 2002 meeting were approved with out dissent 20020900.html

II. New Business
A. Report from Governance Committee, Chair, Senator Urgo
Met on Oct. 4, 2002, re: the review of academic administrators. Discussed three year reviews and annual reviews. Committee did not see any reason for immediate change. After the next group is reviewed, the committee will ask the Provost: 1.) What are the criteria she uses? 2.) Does the administrator take a self-review? 3.) Are there any changes in mind?
Provost mentioned that she would like to see more faculty participation :Dean Hopkins and Provost Staton looking forward to the committees's report.

DISCUSSION

• Only tenured faculty respond to the survey
• Maybe if departments meet as a group to discuss, there might be a better faculty response then just getting a form
• It seems that, in the past, IF the majority of the faculty give negative reviews, the administrator is still reappointed; this may be the cause of low faculty participation
• Perhaps something like a student evaluation with the non-comment responses of the faculty are posted publicly
• Some senators don't agree that administrative evaluations can be compared to student evaluation-i.e. reviews are not elections; this type of governance may be interfering
• Conversely, faculty concerns should be taken seriously; reason for lack of participation may be because there is no check in the system that lets people know that their voice is being considered

Senator Mark moved that that return the issue to the Governance committee pending another cycle of administrative reviews, whereupon the Committee will report back to the Senate. Motion second by Senator Wolcott. Motion approved without dissent.

B. Suggested Amendments to the Constitution of the Senate of the Faculty; available in a Word document: click here.

• "Suggested Language to Add Economics to Liberal Arts III" was approved without dissent.
• Hand count: 22 Senators voted for the Chair-elect system; 9 Senators voted for the 2-year Chair system; 2 abstentions.
• The language for the Chair-elect system passed without dissent.

C. Visit from Chancellor Khayat
i. Handout: editorial from Clarion-Ledger about the Open Doors ceremony

ii. Handout: University's commitment to its role as a research university, prepared by Alice Clark.
IHL will be asking us to set priorities for institutional research allocations; will likely be developing "centers of excellence" where universities and junior colleges partner with industry. This will not happen overnight-there will be time for discussion. Would like to allay our fears about a lack of commitment to research. Alice Clark is fighting for all of you-and not just in the hard sciences. Senator Schetz: handout does not address salary supplementation for faculty who bring in large grants.

iii. Handout: University Funding
State Funded Projects, Projects Funded with State and Federal Funds, Projects Funded with State and Private Combination, Federally Funded Projects, Privately Funded Projects, and University Funded Projects Since 1995.
Total of $254,684,800.00.
Note much expenditures were for infrastructure

iv. Discussion of student enrollment
Student enrollment is used to off-set cuts from the state to continue raises. Recruitment and retention will be our salvation during the next two years.

v. Question: does the administration have long-term plans for faculty salaries?

• Commitment is to shoot for the mid-point of the SUG average. Not a written plan, but administration is looking at predictable sources of funding for pay for graduate student stipends, research assistants, etc. Also, auxiliary sources, including athletics, could provide faculty raises…because state funding may go down, it may stabilize, but it will not go up.
• Moving salary lines into the foundation, or having the foundation fully fund faculty lines. There are 130 people who get foundation money in fully endowed positions or supplements. Don Fruge is not a university employee, he is the president of the foundation.
• One way to provide long-term planning is to tie faculty raises to long-term planning. Could mark a percentage of tuition money for faculty raises.

vi. Question: Was procedure followed in the Economics/Business school shift?

• The Provost maintains that the procedure suggested by the Senate was the procedure ultimately used
• Senate questioning that the procedures were really followed
• Chancellor said that it wasn't his business that he believes in following a strong Provost model and didn't get involved.

v. Question: Where will economics be permanently housed? Where they are now. Is economics being sufficiently funded? Yes.

vi. Faculty Research

• Chancellor would like a small group of Senators to sit down with the him and the Provost to discuss how to support faculty's research, while decreasing class size and increasing the percentage of full-time faculty; add on that we need qualified faculty (not graduate students) to staff the labs.
• Wants us to think on the academic credentials of our students-how much larger do we want to be and what do we want our entrance requirements to be?

vii. Honor code
Ole Miss still does not have an honor code in place. Is resting in the Senate currently; Provost would like us to take it up again.

viii. Quadrennial review of Dr. Eftink

• How long is it appropriate for someone the in administration to be an "Acting" Dean? For four years?
• Why is there yet to be a national search?
  • Chancellor response: thought that we didn't want to spend the money on a search.

ix. Questioning negative remarks by the Provost early this fall in the Daily Mississippian re: faculty retention

• Chancellor: administration is fully behind the faculty; we all say things we wish we could take back.
• Sometimes the administrative offices move more quickly than we should; we should consult with faculty more.

x. Inequity of Raises

• Senate questions why the faculty got minimal raises last year when over the last five years administrators have consistently gotten 15-25% raises?
  • Chancellor: some of the raises were for superstar administrators who lag behind their peer equally to faculty

xi. Sick building syndrome in Faser

• No response from continuing requests
• Continuing source of health concerning
  • Chancellor will look into it

Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.

---

Back to Faculty Senate Homepage

[an error occurred while processing this directive]