Faculty Senate | Minutes 20111108

Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes

Tuesday, November 8, 2011

Meeting held in Bryant 209

Agenda

Senator Albritt0n opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.

First order of business: Housekeeping and minutes approval
- Roll call
- Approve minutes of last meeting
  - Moved
    - Seconded
    - Approved unanimously
Second order of business: Athletics and Knight Report
- Introduction by Chancellor Jones
  - Knight Report responsibilities rest with chancellor, not athletic director
  - Transparency is important
  - Does not equate to “chancellor does not support athletics,” but rather athletic-academic balance
  - Revenue from athletics have skyrocketed of late
    - Spent in facilities and coach salaries
    - New coach will be paid at market rates; unilateral decisions about pay cannot be made
  - SEC spends more money on athletics than any other conference; that is a market reality
  - Knight report is not being ignored, but key provisions have not been addressed
  - 10-12 universities have athletics programs so successful that overflow goes back to university
  - TV revenue will continue to rise, and no mechanism exists to control costs for facilities and coaches
  - Balance is a goal, but “participation in the market” is the best course for now.
- Overview by CFO Sparks
  - Auxiliary – entities or departments that operate on their own revenues and pay their own expenses
    - Includes bookstore, housing, Inn, etc. in addition to athletics
  - Pg. 9 of Knight Report: reform in a system with diverse financial and political situations is difficult
    - Ole Miss is especially unique
  - Some athletics programs compete for resources like normal departments, but they tend to be small and lower-division
  - Cost allocation varies, and direct comparisons can be difficult
    - Doesn’t mean the data is bad, but that different questions must be asked
  - Most institutions charge a student athletic fee; Mississippi has no fees but nevertheless takes a certain amount in lieu of said fee
    - $1.8-1.9 million from academics to athletics per year
      - Comparable to other universities
  - Some fees (e.g. nonresidents) are also waived for athletes as part of scholarships
    - $3.5 million when combined with fees-in-lieu
  - $535 million total university budget, $48 million for athletics (approx. 9%)
  - More reporting on athletics budget than general budget
  - University issues debt for athletics; total athletic debt is about $33 million (22% of total university debt)
    - For comparison, student housing debt is 51% of total
  - Lots of money goes back and forth, but is largely handled no differently than other auxiliaries
  - “Ole Miss Opportunity” scholarship program for MS residents
    - Athletics has come forward with $10 surcharge for one home game to support
      - Funded $395k of $400k expenses that way
  - Athletics pays for services used by its students (e.g. housing, food).
  - ESPN agreement has been inked and portion of funds will come back to university
    - Will be revisited in 5 years
- Remarks by Athletics Director Boone
  - NCAA president has attempted reformation of academic progress of athletes
  - Initial eligibility – student must be eligible to get into college
    - What kind of grades/scores must they have to qualify for athletics?
    - Previously: 2.0 average, 68 ACT total (approx 900 SAT)
      - Greater GPA can compensate for lower ACT and vice versa
    - Numbers are insufficient; changed to 2.3 GPA with same ACT/SAT
    - Will affect approx. 500 athletes
    - Important for expenditures in tutoring and other athlete academics
    - Community college transfers will also increase to 2.5 GPA plus a certain number of math, science, and English credits
      - “Year in readiness” deferred acceptance explored
      - May also be implemented for high school athletes not meeting minimum standards
  - APR – academic performance rate
    - One point for each academically-eligible student, and another for retained students per semester (4 pts per student)
    - 92.5%-93% of points will work out to 50% graduation rate
    - Waivers issued
      - Transfer students
      - Pro students
  - Not achieving minimum APR will result in postseason ban, with possible reduced practice time, scholarship loss
    - Penalties are significant in light of program
  - Student well-being
    - Cost of scholarship vs. cost of attendance
      - Latter is $3200 more than former
      - $2000 stipend is distributed to students to make up for that
      - $350,000 add’l cost per full scholarship athletes
      - Some issues with Title IX and gender imbalances
  - Scholarships
    - Multi-year scholarships are now possible
    - Creates “havok” in recruiting
- Questions
  - Comment by Chancellor Jones: Coach replacement and compensation will be borne entirely by athletics.
    - All head coaches save baseball are below conference average in salaries
    - Knight report evinces concern for rapid growth of coach salaries (“arms race”)
  - Sen. Lobur: Never felt pressured to bend rules for athletes; is appreciated. How can synergy between athletics and academics be improved, especially in light of their future careers and possible future challenges?
    - Director Boone: More communication would be helpful from both ends; athletics and academics need to talk to each other more
  - Sen. Lobur: What can we do to serve them better in their future careers?
    - Chancellor Jones: Inconsistencies have been reported for athletics; absences, etc. Students often have difficulty grasping them, and some faculty make no special accommodations
      - Additional communication is essential
  - Question: Market pay for coaches: why not take a leadership role, and link coach salaries with faculty salaries (they are both paid at market rates)
    - Chancellor Jones: We could do so, but it would wind up bringing us to a lower conference and be devastating to athletics
      - No one is prepared to make that call
    - Remark: why not pay 20% less for coaches when professors are paid 20% less than the market rate?
      - Chancellor Jones: 80% pay would destroy the program
      - Remark: Why is that?
      - Chancellor Jones: It is a consequence of the society we live in; unilateral decisions of that nature may harm both athletics and academics
  - Question: Is there are performance clause in the coach contract?
    - Chancellor Jones: You can have a reasonable contract, or a competitive contract; not both. Unreasonable contracts are an unfortunate necessity
    - A collapse of athletics would have dire effects for the university as a whole
    - We could participate in Division 3 athletics, but we would do so with 6000 students
  - Question: Is there a correlation between coach salary and success?
    - Chancellor Jones: The powers-that-be will not accept “un-smart” decisions in athletics
    - Director Boone: Current contract was negotiated when Nutt was bringing us bowl games
    - Chancellor Jones: Major sports conference participation means the board expects things to be run in a certain way
  - Question: Does the benefit per win outweigh the cost of coaching?
    - Chancellor Jones: It is impossible to link the two and dependent on the school
      - If we dropped athletics, enrollment would plummet
    - Director Boone: Eli Manning’s senior year, his impact was assessed by looking at city tax records; $18-20 million more than before
  - Senator Harker: What is the athlete graduation rate?
    - Chancellor Jones: 60% for athletes vs. 52% for all students
      - One of only two SEC schools with an academic graduation rate that high
      - Athletics reports to provost for academics
  - Senator Harker: is there career counseling and other support for athletes, who are statistically unlikely to go pro? Do athletics dictate academic policy?
    - Director Boone: We do have a program (“Champ’s Life) that exposes athletes to those issues, but participation is often voluntary
    - Chancellor Jones: The gen’l studies and physical/exercise science are often mentioned as being designed for athletes
      - There was “unhealthy” communication from the public on the majors being good for athletes
      - Jones pushed for physical education program before he was a chancellor candidate as a response to the state obesity rate
      - Gen’l studies was intended for non-traditional students
  - Question: Why are programs similar to the athletic academic support not implemented for at-risk non-athletes?
    - Chancellor Jones: Provost Stocks wants to do just that especially in “stem” disciplines for underprepared in-state students
    - Provost Stocks: We have 300 student athletes; it is very expensive for 2000 students
    - CFO Sparks: Athletics support is not scalable; need to find innovative programs that are
- Remarks by Ron Rychlak, faculty academic representative on athletic council
  - Communication issues are paramount
  - COIA – Council on Intercollegiate Athletics – report is currently pending
  - Athletics will often punish students even when professor will not
  - New academic integrity committee has been formed recently
  - Faculty senate contributes three members to the athletics committee
    - Elections for those positions need to be held soon
Third order of business: Senate Committee Reports
- Executive Cmte.
  - No report
- Academic Affairs
  - Working on statement for adequate staffing of courses
    - Would like to speak to Senator Harker, who introduced the motion
  - Considering request from division of student affairs of smoke-free campus proposal
    - Recommendation will be ready in advance of December meeting
- Academic Support
  - No report
- Faculty Governance
  - Presented proposed changes discussed in their meeting
  - Resolution to include nontenured faculty in faculty senate failed in committee
  - Resolution to urge creation of separate body to represent faculty senate passed committee
  - Senator Lobur: needs to be a greater discussion on larger trends in academia
  - Question: What issues went into the two votes in committee? What issues came up that led to the first statement being rejected?
    - Senator Harker: There was a robust debate
    - Permanent body of faculty that will never be tenured exists
    - Discussion was over changes necessary to senate to include non-tenured faculty in existing senate
  - Comment: We cannot include them as they have a different vision of the university, hence the defeat of the first resolution in committee – that was the thinking behind the committee vote
    - They need their own body as a consequence – again, that was how the voting majority of the committee was thinking
  - Comment: 70% of pharmacy practice is nontenured; first rejected resolution makes a good deal of sense in such an arrangement, and both tenured and nontenured faculty share a common vision
    - Comment: That is a unique feature of pharmacy practice; in most other areas there is no common vision and in fact are at cross-purposes
  - Question: What would such a body look like? Would it be responsibilities without rights, and how would a separate body further their interests? And what of those nontenured faculty who aspire to be tenured?
  - Comment: What power and influence would a separate body have? Aren’t our separate departments representing diverse visions as well?
    - Senator Albritton: Do the two groups have the same interests?
    - Comment: Some do and some don’t
  - Comment: The senate should oppose the existence of nontenured faculty, who are being used to supplant us
  - Comment: Second proposal is a profoundly bad idea, creating a splinter group and reducing the senate’s power
  - Senator Solinger: Second resolution could mean more responsibility without more rights, could dilute the faculty senate’s power. But what are the possible negative consequences of allowing permanent nontenured faculty to participate?
    - Comment: They have a different vision of research and the university
    - Senator Solinger: Don’t all departments have different visions?
      - Comment: They are all moving in the same basic direction regardless
  - Comment: It seems odd to say that we can represent nontenured faculty but they cannot represent us in the senate. The idea of only some are capable of representing the whole has a bad history
  - Comment: their mission is narrower in scope; many nontenured only teach or research while tenure-track faculty do all of those things
    - We can represent them because they perform a subset of their duties, but they can’t represent us because we have a broader set of duties
    - What does permanency mean for nontenured faculty? They have no job security and can be removed much more easily
  - Senator Lobur: Every other group has representation, from students to staff, and they need a distinctive voice (a la a lecturer’s union or lecturer’s group)
  - Question: can we assess public opinion on this matter? Perhaps proposal #2 would allow that
  - Comment: Setting up a weak straw-man body would be detrimental; senate is an advisory body, nothing more
  - Comment: Can recall a nontenured instructor who was upset over non-inclusion in the senate or equivalent body
  - Senator Barnett: 8-9 such people in Theatre; polled people were not interested in service which was not part of their contract
  - Move to table motion until December
    - Seconded
    - Voted
      - Passed by acclimation 29-2
  - Senator Albritton: Senators are now obligated to poll their departments on this issue and do research
- Finance
- No report
- University Services
  - No report
Fourth order of business: Old Business
- - None
Fifth order of business: New Business
- - December meeting
    - Will have to be on Dec. 6
  - Carriage House invitations
  - COIA representative will be chosen next meeting
  - Cell phones are becoming a danger to drivers and pedestrians
    - Referred to University Services committee
Senator Albritton closed the meeting at 9:00 p.m.