skip to main content
Faculty Senate
University of Mississippi

Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

Meeting held in Bryant 209

 

 

Agenda

  • Senator Albritton opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
  • First order of business: Approve minutes of last meeting
    • Moved by Sen. Barnett
      • Seconded
      • Voted
        • Approved unanimously
  • Second order of business: Presentation by Provost Stocks
    • Response to Senate Issues
      • Absence Policy
        • Passed undergrad council by one vote
        • Failed to pass CAA
          • Wording issues were cause
        • Revised policy to come at next CAA meeting
      • Last Week of Class
        • Presented to undergrad council on April Fools’ Day
          • Failed at UC 7-1
      • Branch Campus Quality Control
        • Writing support centers formed at Tupelo and Desoto campuses
        • A group is looking at preparatory courses in writing and related disciplines
      • Tenure/Tenure-Track Faculty Peer Comparison
        • Percentage of tenure and tenure-track faculty declining nationwide
        • Metrics vary based on methods of counting
        • IRA provided comparative data
          • UM 2010-2011 compared to SUG average 2009-2010 (most recent data from both)
          • Most UM units have more tenure-track/tenure faculty than SUG average with some exceptions
        • Question: is data skewed by small sample sizes? Chemical Engineering has 6 tenured faculty but only shows as 97%
          • Provost Stocks: IRA will have to field that
      • Enrollment Plan
        • IHL policy changed in Spring 2011
        • September 2011 issue of Reader’s Digest highlights enrollment issues
        • Some control on admissions is needed
          • Nonresident applications are area of flexibility
          • If we’re at capacity, we may cull some nonresident applicants
        • Nonresidents below 2.5 GPA or 20 ACT will be considered for admissions deferment
          • Considerations based on graduation stats, first-year performance, recruiting goals, number of applicants, and capacity
        • Committee has been formed with Senate representation to consider these applications
    • Stipends
      • Amended plan passed by Senate to go to IHL next week
      • Graduate stipends in UM 2020
        • Short-range and long-range strategies considered, including matching funds, grant assistantships, and 90% of regional average as goal
      • Average (from 950 assistantships) ranges from $33,000 to $1100
        • Mode is $3600
        • Median is $9000
        • Mean is $9700
      • Most graduate funds are not centrally supported but support instead comes from the Graduate School
        • Graduate stipend money has increased lately through temporary and permanent increases
        • However, there are significant unspent stipends carried forward both centrally and in departments
          • Some money is not being spent
        • Question: can unspent money be reallocated to other departments?
          • Provost Stocks: Yes, but it would have to be done by individual deans
          • Some of the unspent money may be used for other purposes
        • Question: How can there be carry-forwards when departments don’t seem to have any money?
          • Associate Provost Wilkin: Graph is only for stipends; data for individual departments can be provided
          • Departments often do not know about this money
    • University Update
      • Campus has grown by nearly 3000 students over 3 years
      • Freshmen are up by nearly 1000 students
        • Average ACT, GPA, and diversity are all up
        • Question: Doesn’t the larger honors college explain this?
          • Provost Stocks: Data is available; honors is part, but Croft, Lott, CME, and Provost Scholars help
      • Question: Is the university advertising these facts?
        • Provost Stocks: Not really; there is no chief advertising officer
      • International students have grown 42%
      • State allocations down to 16%
        • UM has lowest state appropriation per FTE student among state universities
        • UM assesses $10,000 in fees and collects and average of 90% of that after scholarships
        • UM spends more on academics and less on student services than any other Mississippi university
      • Renovations
        • Lamar Hall, Coulter Hall, Natural Products, and Central Mechanical Plant renovations to be completed 2013
        • Howry/Faulkner, Old Wal-Mart, new Student Housing to be completed 2012
        • Union renovations in design phase; will take 3 years from inception
      • Class size has increased, but number of sections has as well
        • More large sections
        • 46% of classes are still taught by tenure/tenure-track faculty
        • Faculty/student ratio is 19:1
    • Questions
      • Question: What about the Turner Center?
        • Provost Stocks: Turner Center is #3 priority; facility was built for a population of only 7000 students
        • Other needs are competing with it
      • Senator Barnett: What about growth in tenure/tenure-track faculty compared to instructors?
        • Provost Stocks: Not the university administration’s place to dictate, but ideally the growth will be a mix
          • Dictated by individual departments and colleges
          • Add’l doctoral candidates are a possibility
      • Question: How big can we get?
        • Provost Stocks: Short-term, there are severe constraints
          • We need more beds, cafes, classrooms, parking spots, and teachers
          • Classrooms (especially labs) and eating space are keenest concerns; parking is adequate but not convenient to central campus
          • Ideally, we move from being a small, poor institution to a medium, financially stable one
          • Out of state tuition can grow
      • Question: What is our ability to turn away qualified applicants?
        • Provost Stocks: We are obligated to accept qualified Missisippians
          • Out-of-staters are only current area of flexibility
        • Associate Provost Wilkin: capacity assessment is coming; will help make these decisions
  • Third order of business: Committee reports
    • Executive Committee
      • Resolution in support of Chancellor is presented for senate approval
      • Sen: Lobur: Name of the group should be struck from second paragraph
        • Seconded
        • Discussion:
          • Should group be called anonymous? They have a spokesperson
        • Vote
          • 28 yea
          • 8 nay
          • Passed
      • Question: What was committee’s goal in proposing resolution?
        • Senator Albritton: support for chancellor was only aim
          • Some drafts were very detailed about nature of attacks
          • Overall, committee felt that public statement of support was key issue
      • Comment: Statement of support is infringement of free speech
        • Senator Lobur: Free speech is important, but we should support the chancellor’s stand in the face of a pressure group
          • Would set a dangerous precedent
          • Senate has the right to support chancellor in such circumstances
      • Comment: Executive committee was not unanimous; since academic freedom is not under direct threat, response is not necessarily warranted
      • Senator Lobur: Pressue groups dictating policy is a bad precedent
        • Comment: Are they really dictating policy?
        • Comment: There is a difference between an expression of opinion and threatening the administration
      • Senator Bing: Nature of threats is unknown; are they simply withholding of monies or physical threats?
        • Question: Is nature of threats known?
        • Provost Stocks: Decline to comment on exact nature, but chancellor has issued some statements
      • Comment: Mississippi Public Radio broadcast a program which stated that the link between threats and the Forward Rebels is tenuous; Senate would be tying threats together without evidence
        • Senator Lobur: Supporting chancellor and ignoring the group is prudent
        • Senator Watson: Removing the name of the group should assuage that threat
      • Question: How are these threats different from any other situation, like the mascot or the chant?
        • Senator Lobur: in previous situations, the chancellor has never been moved to call the pressure group “uncivil” as he has now
      • Move that resolution be shortened to paragraphs 3 and 6, with paragraph 6 sending at the word “stand” and adding “against this anonymous group”
        • Seconded by Senator Lobur
        • Discussion:
          • Question: Why shorten it so much?
            • There is some support for all the resolution and some opposition, so this is a compromise
            • Comment: amendment would be contrary to resolution’s primary aims, especially the elimination of point #5
        • Vote
          • 1 yea
          • All others nay
          • Defeated
      • Vote on resolution as a whole
        • 21 yea
        • 15 nay
        • Passes as amended
    • Academic Affairs
    •             No report
    • Academic Support
      • IT is willing to put together a FAQ on the new email system and Blackboard for faculty
        • FAQ can be built from faculty submissions
      • Room reservation process has been discussed
        • Ad-Astra is being implemented to address this
    • Governance
      • Proposal on representation of non-tenure and non-tenure-track faculty in faculty senate
      • Report has been issued to senators; five options have been proposed
      • Move to receive report and its findings
        • Seconded
        • Discussion:
          • Comment: Perhaps senators should approach non-tenure-track faculty to make their representation known
          • Question: How is representation of non-tenure-track faculty our job?
            • Depends on department; line is finer in some high-teaching-load areas
            • Comment: As a Research 1 school that distinction is in place for a reason
          • Comment: Non-tenure-track faculty have no representation
          • Comment: Isn’t representing them a conflict of interest, as they can take faculty positions?
          • Question: Is this creating more responsibilities without more rights for the non-tenure-track faculty?
          • Question: What is it that non-tenure-track people will be representing? There are already representatives from various places
          • Comment: Modern Languages has only one faculty representative despite a large body of non-tenure-track faculty
            • Senator Albritton: Pharmacy counts adjuncts
          • Senator Barnett: Support for conflict of interest position; hypothetical resolution for more tenure lines would result in one    of other group being shortchanged
          • Comment: Wouldn’t non-tenure-track faculty want more spots so they could be hired with tenure?
          • Sen. Lobur: Many are not eligible for tenure; do not have proper     credentials
          • Comment: Their own body might be the best option
          • Senator Watson: Are non-tenure-track faculty eligible for representation on other bodies like the staff council?
            • Unknown at this time
          • Senator Albritton: Other institutions have their own bodies, often combined with instructors
          • Question: Were we to choose among the stated possibilities?
            • No, we were to gauge support, as a sort of straw poll
          • Question: Is such a nonbinding straw poll possible?
            • Why not?
          • Senator Albritton: refer back to committee for a formal motion is most prudent step
            • A recommendation for no change requires no vote
            • A recommendation for change requires vote
            • Moved
              • Seconded
              • Voted
              • Approved unanimously
    • Finance
      • No report
    • University Services
      • No Report
  • Fourth order of business: Old business
    • None
  • Fifth order of business: New business
    • None
  • Senator Albritton closed the meeting at 9:00 p.m.