skip to main content
Faculty Senate
University of Mississippi

Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Meeting held in Bryant 209

 

 

Senators in Attendance:

Susan Allen, Adnan Aydin, Melissa Bass, Michael Barnett, Sarah Blackwell, Will Berry, Mark Bing, David Case, Bill Chappell, Yunhee Chang, Douglas Davis, Robert Doerksen, Daneel Ferreira, Les Field,  John Garner, Carol Gohm, Amanda Johnston, Jason Kovari, John Lobur, Mustafa Matalgah, Erwin Mina-Diaz.,  Ann Monroe, Mike Mossing, Stephanie Noble, Brice Noonan, Charles Ross, Jeff Roux, Bashir Salau, Chris Sapp, Paul Scovazzo, Steven Skultety, Jason Solinger, Debra Spurgeon, Don Summers, Durant Thompson, Lollie Vaughan, Mark Walker, Alex Watson, Donna West-Strum, Lorri Williamson, Ahmet Yukleyen

 

Senators absent with prior notification:

            Philip Rhodes, Ethel Young Minor, Jason Dewland, Soumyajit Majumdar

 

Senators absent with replacements:

            Brian Reithel replaced by Milan Aiken

 

Senators absent without notification:

Judith Cassidy, Chung Song, Charles Ross, Ronald Schroeder, Mark Dole,                                    Zia Shariat-Madar

 

Agenda

  • Senator Albritton opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
  • First order of business: Approve minutes of last meeting
    • Moved by Senator Lobur; seconded
      • Passed
  • Second order of business: Provost Stocks to speak on items of interest
    • Handling enrollment growth
      • Provost Stocks presented enrollment growth by year and by college
      • Question: What is enrollment growth at Mississippi State?
        • Up 5.6% to 19,600 for FY 2010-2011
      • Managing growth: improving predictions, larger sections
      • Question: What is the total number of fall sections?
        • There are approximately 70 freshmen sections
        • The total number of sections is unknown
    • Responsibilities as a flagship university in poor state
      • Current admission policy is not open but is “generous”
        • No student who meets minimum standards is currently rejected
      • Continued growth may raise questions of capacity
      • Question of “high-achieving” vs. “less demonstrated preparedness” students
        • UM has responsibilities to both groups
        • Both groups are growing
        • UM wants to grow high-achieving students, but provide “appropriate” support to all
      • The Center for Manufacturing Excellence and Provost Scholar program were both developed in part to help handle high-achieving student demand and recruit additional high-achieving students
      • Provost Stocks presented Provost Scholars enrollee stats
      • Work is needed to raise median student ACT score to approximately 24 via initiatives, planning
      • FastTrack, EDHE, and Dev. Studies all developed in part to handle “less demonstrated preparedness” student demand, and improve retention for 17-21 ACT students
      • “Less demonstrated preparedness” students have the highest failure rate for freshmen among their peer group
        • Supplemental instruction may be implemented for courses with a 30% failure rate or higher
    • Important metrics
      • The average UM ACT has climbed to 23.3, a hold from last year
        • By comparison, Mississippi State’s average ACT is 23
      • 1st-year retention, diversity, graduation rate are improving, but more work is needed
        • There was a 60.5% 6-year graduation rate for 2009, the highest ever
        • There was a 37.5% 4-year graduation rate for 2009, also the highest ever
        • Both were slightly lower for 2010
        • A predictive model has been developed based on first-year retention
    • Financial update
      • Budget issues continue even in face of slight overall budget increase
        • Tuition is rising as is the percentage of total UM income it represents (to 33% in current FY)
        • State funding declining as is the percentage of total UM income it represents (to 18%)
        • Research awards, funding, contracts and grants are all increasing
    • Senate issues from last year
      • Faculty activity report taskforce met over 2010 summer
        • Conclusion: the issue was too complicated to resolve by summer’s end
        • A decision will be made on a new system purchase by end of fall
        • The existing system, perhaps with modifications, will persist for 2011
      • Plus/minus grading
        • Approved by undergraduate and graduate councils
        • Council of Academic Administrators tabled the motion in order to defer to a newly elected ASB
        • The issue is on the agenda for next Acad. Council
          • Question: Has the ASB reviewed it yet?
            • ASB representative: No official ASB position yet, but issue has been discussed
            • ASB rep: Students seem indifferent
      • Course evaluation enhancements
        • 8 enhancements proposed
          • Separate questions for writing-intensive courses
          • Separate questions for courses with multiple instructors
          • More refined comparison groups
          • Rotating questions
          • Statistics on A-C students vs. all students
          • Faculty selected questions
          • Early-semester evaluations
          • Steps to cull frivolous responses
      • General Studies degree update
        • Taskforce for General Studies created in 2008-09
          • It recommended creation of a Bachelor of General Studies degree in 2009-2010
        • Faculty focus groups were used to solicit implementation suggestions
          • Liberal Arts and Applied Sciences both turned down the chance to host General Studies
        • Proposal was submitted to IHL, General Education Committee, and the undergrad council
        • Degree details
          • 120 credit hours
          • 30 hour core curriculum
          • 3 minors required
          • Written statement explaining how minors complement each other required
          • 30 300-level plus hours required
          • Students cannot be accepted into Bachelor of General Studies program before completion of 1st year (30 credit hours)
        • Other details to be hammered out (like official “home” of degree)
        • Senator Albritton: As curriculum proposal, General Studies and other similar new degrees should be brought to Senate attention, not for confirmation but for consultation
        • Question: Will a senate standing committee consult on the ongoing degree creation process?
          • Certainly a possibility
        • Question: How selective a degree will General Studies be?
          • Unknown, contingent on who hosts the program
          • This issue led to name change from integrated to general studies
        • Question: If no department steps up, who takes over advising for General Studies?
          • Advising center will handle it for now
          • A council is needed to review written statements
          • There’s a 1-year time frame for implementation
          • Parallel Master’s of Integrated Studies being considered for hosting by grad school
        • Question: What are the employment prospects of a General Studies degree holder? Can they be employed after grad?
          • Unknown; may be useful for those already employed but need degree for advancement/retention
        • Motivation for the new degree was an IHL request to improve graduation prospects for students with 90+ hours and good standing
          • Many schools make it a distance learning degree
      • Strategic planning
        • UM 2020 plan created to supplement previous 1994 vision
          • It comprises a 10-year “vision” for university growth
        • Oversight rests with provost, strategic planning council, dean’s council, etc.
        • 4 issues:
          • How will a Great American Public University be defined in 2020?
          • What’s it mean to be a Great American Public University in a poor state?
          • If demand exceeds capacity, how do we shape the university?
          • What role is there for
            • Access
            • Selective admissions
            • Progress in academic excellence
            • Progress in retention/graduation
        • Would the Faculty Senate prefer to engage in this process as a distinct body? Or would we prefer to be associated with a body such as the Strategic Planning Council (which maintains 6. Senate representatives)?
          • Input will be needed before long; either direction is acceptable
        • Question: Can the Provost comment on the relationship between growth at MSU as relates to growth at UM?
          • Provost: if we have the same standards and same cost at MSU and UM, why do Mississippi students choose MSU more often?
          • UM and MSU growth doesn’t hurt either but rather effects smaller schools (e.g. Mississippi Valley)
        • Question: In the face of increased enrollment and static faculty numbers, does compensation increase?
          • Hopefully both compensation and the number of faculty increase
          • Budget office nervous about FY 2013 after stimulus goes away and state appropriation declines; UM must cover both decreases in funding, increases in enrollment, as well as any potential increase in faculty numbers or compensation
          • UM has fewer employees per 100 students than MSU or USM; “we’re already lean”
          • If we can’t give raises, can we give one-time salary increases? Currently investigating if this is possible within IHL parameters
        • Question: Is SUG average pay off the table?
          • Endowments for faculty compensation are underway
        • Question: Which auxiliary enterprises generate the most cash flow?
          • #1: Athletics ($40 million profit last year)
          • #2: Housing
          • #3: Food Services
  • Third order of business: Plus-minus grading update
    • Covered by provost speech; still in limbo
  • Fourth order of business: New General Studies degree
    • Committee on Academic Affairs should monitor this
      • Place on Academic Affairs committee docket
      • Report periodically on progress to senate
  • Fifth order of business: Committee reports
    • Nothing to report from any standing committee
  • Sixth order of business: Old business
    • Senator Skultety with information on University of Southern Mississippi faculty cuts and proposed Senate statement
      • Programs and tenured faculty eliminated recently at USM
        • Strong reaction from MSU, UM philosophy departments on “arbitrary and ill-conceived” actions
          • Difficult job market for eliminated faculty
        • Counter-reaction: it’s USM’s business
        • Counter-counter reaction: draft letter of core principles on severity of firing tenured profs and repercussions thereof
        • Current proposed statement is compromise
        • Cuts are not specific to philosophy and religion programs, thus presented to Senate endorsement or consideration of proposed or amended statement
      • Question: What programs were selected for cuts, and by what process?
        • A “Priorities/Planning Committee” made the decisions
          • Results and meetings closed/not public
          • All USM schools apparently ranked by importance; justification for such was not made public
          • Lack of transparency as issue/addendum to statement
          • Entire religion program cut; philosophy dept masters program cut; others affected as well
            • Multiple tenured and tenure-track faculty removed on seniority basis
            • Example: professor with 1 year of tenure will be dismissed
        • Question: What was the motivation for the cuts?
          • USM  is in poor financial shape
          • A $15 million gap in their budget is rumored
          • Was cutting the faculty the option of last resort?
          • Comment: Is a public statement placing us above the rest of the workforce dangerous or arrogant? Is this an economic decision or a political one?
          • Counter-comment: Post-tenure humanities professors tend to feel free to study obscure areas free from marketplace pressures (especially vs. the hard sciences)
          • Comment: Emphasizing esoteric nature of cut positions not necessarily prudent
        • Question: To whom would statement be addressed?
          • IHL?
          • USM admins?
          • “To whom it may concern?”
          • No consensus among proposing faculty
        • Question: What has USM faculty senate done, and if they were lax, what can we do? What good would our statement do?
          • USM senate position unknown; impetus for statement comes from UM/MSU
        • Comment: We don’t know enough at this stage, and should stay out of a USM situation until clarified
          • Counter-comment: USM decision may have an effect at UM in area of hiring
          • Counter-comment: We should defer to previous faculty senate statement of principles (FY 2009-2010) on suggested steps for cutting staff to reassure applicants
        • Comment: Proposed statement not qualified enough, not specific enough. But if criteria for firings are unknown, should be brought to light
        • Senator Albritton: Issue should be referred to committee.
        • Moved by Senator Lobur that USM be consulted
          • Seconded
          • Withdrawn
        • Moved by Senator Lobur  that item be referred to executive committee for more information gathering
          • Comment: Why are we reaching out to them rather than vice-versa?
          • Counter-comment: Perhaps a stripped-down statement stating sympathy would suffice
        • Question: Has the faculty senate done anything similar before?
          • Unknown
        • Question: Has IHL weighed in?
          • IHL is not anticipated to veto cuts
        • Moved by Senator Lobur  that item be referred to executive committee for more information gathering
          • Seconded
          • Discussion: Proposing body should gather more information rather than executive committee
          • 22 in favor; 16 opposed; 1 abstention
          • Motion passes
        • Old business addendum: what about SAC/NCAA alignment discussed on May 4 by former Senator Ritchie?
          • Inquiries will be made to former Senator Ritchie
  • Eighth order of business: New business
    • University provision of regalia for former/older professors
      • Former program to that effect; lasted for three years
    • Senator Albritton: Department of Pharmacy Practice not represented in faculty senate
      • Overwhelming majority of department are practicing pharmacists, but some are tenure/tenure track
      • Faculty Governance Committee will look into issue of Department of Pharmacy Practice
        • Should the Department be invited to contribute a representative?
    • Question for provost: Respond to Oxford Eagle article about student lack of engagement with new mascot?
      • ASB representative: ASB no longer involved with mascot issue
      • Senator on relevant committee: discussion is ongoing to find mascot that “people can live with”
  • Ninth order of business:
    • Next meeting: October 12
  • Senator Albritton closed the meeting at 9:00 p.m.