skip to main content
Faculty Senate
University of Mississippi

Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

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
      • Seconded
      • Voted
      • Approved unanimously
  • Second order of business: Report from Donna Gurley on legal issues involving concealed weapons
    • Applies to concealed-carry weapon license bearers
      • Must be 21 to acquire
      • May then get “expanded” certificate after training program
      • Similar to laws in other states
      • Could be interpreted to apply to colleges/universities
    • IHL Policy 1106 prohibits firearms on campus
      • Is still in force as far as IHL is concerned
      • Violators will be asked to leave, arrested for trespass if they refuse
      • Some universities have been successful against challenges along these lines, others have not
    • Senate moves
      • Motion of support would be most prudent
      • IHL support also possible
      • Approach is statewide
    • Questions
      • Sen. Albritton: Is there a rationale for discussing this in light of the “fairly clear” legislative language on the topic?
      •             Answer: Consulting with police has raised the issue of vigilantism and difficulty of identifying an armed perp vs. an armed civilian
      • Question: What if the policy is challenged?
      •             Answer: Challenge is expected; will go to litigation
      •             Lawsuit would name both university and IHL
      • Question: Do faculty have a right to know if students have “enhanced” carry?
      •             Answer: Yes, and it is perfectly acceptable to prohibit firearms in class in the syllabus
      •             Is unlikely that we will be forced to allow students in class, armed
      • Sen. Albritton: What if faculty approve of concealed carry allow firearms holders into their class?
      •             Answer: Should be reported to IHL as a policy violation
      • Question: Are there any precedents of an IHL policy that contravenes state law?
      •             Answer: Not off the cuff, but there are justifications in tobacco use and parking regulations on campus as both an institution and a property owner
      •             New law is criminal statute; violators will not be arrested but simply asked to leave
      • Question: Can the university obtain information about permits?
      •             Answer: Information is not available and is not public; would not necessarily be useful as licensors may not actively be carrying
      • Question: What other concerns are there?
      •             Answer: Concerns have been heard from faculty, alumni, parents (e.g. worries about firearms in alcohol-fueled grove)
      • Subpoint2
      • Subpoint3
    • Donna may be contacted at dgurley@olemiss.edu with questions
  • Third order of business: Senate Committee Reports
    • Exec. Cmte.
      • None
    • Finance
      • None
    • University Services
      • None
    • Acad. Support
      • None
  • Fourth order of business: Report of Academic Affairs cmte.
    • Issue of concealed weapons
      • Resolution presented to Sen. Solinger at last meeting was passed unanimously; now referred to Senate as a whole for discussion
      • Comment: Should authorized users be mentioned?
      • Comment: Should the fourth, repetitious paragraph be struck?
      • Comment: Third paragraph could be amended to compensate
      • Comment: Fourth Paragraph might be necessary in light of differing language in IHL/university policy
      • Comment: Resolution should stick with the concealed carry and not all weapons as in university policy
      • Comment: Language of Solinger resolution supports IHL policy, not necessarily university policy
      • Friendly amendment: insert “unauthorized” between “by” and “individuals” in paragraph 3
      •             No opposition
      • Resolution called to vote
      •             Voted
      •             37 yea
      •             1 nay
      •             Passed
    • Academic dishonesty
      • Information gathering is ongoing
    • Point3
      • Subpoint1
      • Subpoint2
      • Subpoint3
    • Point4
      • Subpoint1
      • Subpoint2
      • Subpoint3
    • Point5
      • Subpoint1
      • Subpoint2
      • Subpoint3
  • Fifth order of business: Report of Governance committee on non-tenure-track faculty representation
    • October resolution passed 6-2
      • Urges creation of separate non-tenure-track faculty body
      • Motion now brought before Senate
    • Discussion
      • Question: could we re-propose the older resolution which Gov’ce considered but rejected?
      •             Sen. Albritton: second resolution is currently under consideration
      • Comment: AAUP mentioned solidarity as important and could cite no precedent for a non-tenure-track resolution
    • Move to substitute first, rejected resolution for second
      • Seconded
      • Question: Are we debating the inclusion of non-tenure-track faculty into the Senate?
      •             Sen. Albritton: We are debating a change of resolutions, not whether or not it would be adopted
      • Question: How would this upset the balance of the Senate? Would be improper to act on so little information (e.g. apportionment)
      • Comment: These views came up in committee vis a vis non-tenure-track faculty roles, numbers, etc.
      • Question: When determining the number of representative faculty, is tenure and tenure-track faculty the only factor considered in apportionment?
      •             Sen. Albritton: Yes; current rules allow a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 3. 1 standard deviation from the mean equals another representative
      • Question: Given those limits, how does including non-tenure-track faculty influence the faculty senate composition?
      •             Answer: 32% are non-tenure-track faculty; some departments have non-tenure-track faculty that match or exceed other faculty members (e.g. English), while others have very few.
      •             Current resolution “lets the chips fall where they may”
      • Comment: We are discussing the issue of non-tenure-track faculty eligibility for senate election along with a separate body (resolution and substitute resolution
      •             Comment: Yes, but it would by extension change the composition of the Senate
      • Comment: 70% of pharmacy practice faculty are non-tenure-track faculty but have the same basic mission albeit in different proportions
      • Comment: Only tenure-track faculty have this commitment in other units
      • Sen. Albirtton: In the past, full-time research faculty were excluded from the representational count
      • Comment: Second resolution better reflects the massive variation among non-tenure-track faculty without imposing one school’s views
      • Move the question
      •             Seconded
      •             9 yea
      •             26 nay
      •             Fails
    • Further discussion on second point
      • Comment: “separate body” should be redefined
      •             Sen. Albritton: Would ultimately be up to non-tenure-track faculty to decide form and function
      • Comment: We don’t seem to have a clear goal or information
      • Comment: Wouldn’t a separate body be separate but unequal?
      • Comment: Seems that non-tenure-track faculty should be taking the initiative rather than us
      •             Sen. Albritton: Does the resolution imply that?
      •                         Comment: It could be interpreted that way
      • Sen. Albritton: Could we perhaps replace “create” with “explore?”
      • Comment: We could also vote it down and let the non-tenure-track faculty take the initiative
      • Comment: The core issue was when non-tenure-track faculty and tenure-track faculty have conflicting interests; the motion before the Senate would press for non-tenure-track faculty representation cleanly and without conflict of interest
      • Sen. Barnett: A concern is that this could be construed as an endorsement of administration policies regarding hiring of non-tenure-track faculty rather than tenure-track faculty; could send the wrong message
      • Comment: As their representatives, we should be acting on behalf of non-tenure-track faculty; if they want more they could do so on their own behalf
      • Sen. Barnett: The senate supporting a body suggested by others is different than taking the lead in its creation and sends a different message
      • Comment: We are still “winging it” here; need more information and longer consideration/deliberation and more data
      •             Sen. Albritton: What data do you need?
      •                         Breakdown of number, roles, and perspectives between departments; discussions with non-tenure-track faculty
      • Comment: Many of those discussions have already been had, especially in October
      • Comment: Senate’s role is to advise the chancellor; would it be prudent for university administration to have two faculty bodies?
      •             Comment: Pharmacy practice feels that such a non-tenure-track faculty body would be inherently unequal (without elaboration)
      • Comment: What if the bodies disagree?
      • Motion to table
      •             Seconded
      •             24 yea
      •             9 nay
      •             1 abstention
  • Sixth order of business: Old business
    • Resolution of smoke-free vs. tobacco-free
    •             Two votes taken; one in December and one in March
      • Resolutions are slightly different; one was for smoke-free (which passed) and the other was for tobacco-free (which failed)
      • Provost has asked for two volunteers to resolve this; one smoker and one non-smoker
      •             Bob Brown has volunteered as the non-smoker
      •             Michael Barnett has volunteered as the smoker
      • Subpoint3
    • Academic freedom in departments as raised at previous meeting
      • Appears to be issue of assigning courses without faculty consent
      • Would anyone be interested in pursuing the issue? If so, it will be referred to a committee
      • Comments: should be investigated
      • Issue of whether assigning courses without faculty consent constitutes a violation of academic freedom is referred to the gov’ce committee
    • Report for search committee for VC for student affairs
      • 38 applicants narrowed to 4
      • Each will have open question period to address concerns from senate or others
      • Candidates should visit before end of April; watch for announcements from Provost’s office for session dates
  • Seventh order of business: New business
    • Faculty senate appointments to standing committees
      • Lists seem inaccurate and out of date
      • List gone over with present senators to indicate whether of not meetings have been held and attended
    • Graduate dean search committee update from Provost Stocks
      •             Two acceptable candidates have been approved; process is ongoing
    • Increase in temperature
    •             Comment: is IHL policy
    •             Comment: should be considered
    •             Sen. Albritton: issue to be referred to academic support committee
  • Tenth order to business: Next meeting will be in May before graduation; May 8
  •             Remember to hold elections for the term beginning August; Sen. Albritton will be retiring and not eligible for reelection
  • Senator Albritton closed the meeting at 9:00 p.m.