Extraordinary Meeting of the Faculty Senate Agenda – March 31, 2015
This extraordinary meeting of the University of Mississippi Faculty Senate was called together at 7:00 PM on March 24, 2015.
Senators in attendance: Rachna Prakash; Charles Ross; Philip Jackson; Patrick Curtis; Robert Doerksen; Randy Wadkins; Brad Cook; Tossi Ikuta; Feng Wang; Tom Garrett; Elliott Hutchcraft; Adetayo Alabi; Ben McClelland; Yang-Chieh Fu; Oliver Dinius; Joshua Howard; Vanessa Gregory; Lorri Williamson; Susan Ivey; Jessica Leming; Jing Jing Wu; Dwight Frink; Christopher Newman; Sasha Kocic; Tejas Pandya; Heather Allen; Valentina Iepuri; Laurel Lambert; Erin Holmes; Allison Bell; Breese Quinn; Ben Jones; Greg Love; Desiree Stepteau-Watson; Minjoo Oh; Allan Bellman; Mark Ortwein; Joe Sumrall; Rory Ledbetter
Senators excused: Antonia Eliason; Adam Estes; Annette Trefzer
Senators absent: Brice Noonan; Robert Van Ness; Darren Grem; Dennis Bunch; Milam Aiken; Michael Gardiner; Jos Milton; Mary Thurlkill; Marilyn Mendolia; David Rutherford; Marcos Mendoza
The following departments’ seats were unfilled as of this date: Chemical Engineering, Civil Engineering, Law (2), Pharmaceutics
• Call Meeting to Order 7:02PM
• Resolution Welcoming Contract Negotiations with Chancellor Dan Jones
There has been a lot of activity since our first extraordinary meeting, and a lot of bodies have put out proposals asking for a renewal of Chancellor Dan Jones. I suppose you know that the IHL and Jones have entered conversations about this. I am keeping up with Administration about this, and they tell me that they are still cautiously optimistic, though less so this week than last. They have also been in contact with the liaison for SACS, and there has been a letter drafted, but this is being held until further action is taken on Dan Jones’s contract. Many organizations are in a holding pattern for fear of interfering with anything going on with negotiations. The Executive Committee has met twice since our last meeting, because we feel it is important to remain active so the IHL knows that we are still very concerned, and that we are not just responding and disappearing. In that light, we have drafted this resolution.
[Reading from screen]:
The Senate of the Faculty of the University of Mississippi welcomes news that contract negotiations have commenced between the Board of Trustees of the State Institutions of Higher Learning and Chancellor Dan Jones. The Senate continues its unwavering support for the immediate renewal of Chancellor Jones’ contract.
The Faculty of the University of Mississippi is proud to join the Executive Faculty of the University of Mississippi Medical Center, the Associated Student Body, the Staff Council, the University of Mississippi Foundation, the Ole Miss Alumni Association, benefactors of the University and the many diverse voices that rose in support of Chancellor Dan Jones.
The Faculty Senate reaffirms that Chancellor Jones is an exceptional leader for this university and deserves to continue his truly outstanding work for the University of Mississippi beyond the end of his current contract on September 14, 2015. The Senate expresses its utmost confidence in Chancellor Jones and calls upon the Board to immediately renew his contract.
THE SENATE OF THE FACULTY
Motion to approve.
Seconded.
Discussion:
Dinius: I was part of the group that drafted this last Friday, and I re-read it and thought maybe there wasn’t enough in there to express that we are keeping up with what is going on. I think it’s important to not just restate what we said, but to keep it current since we are keeping current with the situation. Because of this, I suggested two revisions, as seen here.
Barnett: [Reading from screen]:
The Senate of the Faculty of the University of Mississippi welcomes news that contract negotiations have commenced between the Board of Trustees of the State Institutions of Higher Learning and Chancellor Dan Jones. Chancellor Jones has struck a conciliatory tone, and the Senate expresses its hope that this will be the spirit of ongoing negotiations to reach a conclusion that is in the best interest of the University of Mississippi.
No information has come to light casting doubt on Chancellor Jones’s accomplishments as leader of the University of Mississippi. His record, as summarized in the Faculty Senate’s resolution on March 24, 2015, stands. Thus, the Faculty Senate of the University of Mississippi continues its unwavering support for the immediate renewal of Chancellor Jones’ contract.
Motion for amendment.
Yes. Seconded.
Discussion: None.
In favor: 40. Opposed: 0. Abstention: 1.
C: Do we want to add anything about UMMC has also demonstrated, since it’s actually about UMMC.
Barnett: We can, if you would like to propose specific language.
C: We could include one sentence after “over the last week…” How about adding, “Furthermore, UMMC leaders have stated that their operations are financially sound.”
Seconded.
Discussion:
C: The language should not be there because it logically makes no sense. It should be inserted before the “Thus” phrase.
C: One thing to think about for not having a separate line for UMMC is that one area of concern was who gets to appoint the leader. One important thing is that UMMC is part of the university, and splitting them takes away from the fact that it is UM and the Chancellor is a part of it. I think that by including them, it does bring to mind that we’re following the Medical Center, but a big thing to me is that UMMC is part of UM, and I think this kind of separates them out.
C: I agree because in the next paragraph, we say that we join the Medical Center, so the addition is perhaps not needed.
C: Can you speak more about the intent of your proposed addition? C: It just struck me when I was reading the red additions, and I didn’t want it to sound like we were avoiding other issues raised. But since someone pointed out that they are in the paragraph below, it’s not needed.
Withdraw amendment? Yes. Seconded.
The first new sentence “the Senate expresses” doesn’t flow too well for me. Perhaps “conciliations will continue to be the tone of ongoing negotiations”. Someone might have a better idea, but that just didn’t seem to flow correctly with the tone.
Seconded.
Discussion:
Dinius: I included the term “spirit” deliberately, because the chancellor uses that term.
C: I would be willing to keep “spirit” in there somehow.
Barnett: So, “it is hoped that reconciliation will be the spirit…” should be added?
C: I’m not sure spirit works there, because reconciliation is not a spirit.
Barnett: How about “…that this reconciliatory spirit will guide ongoing negotiations…”
C: If you’re concerned about flow, we can split it into two sentences by placing a period between “tone” and “The Senate”. [This change was made].
C: Why is the term “conciliatory” used in one place, and the term “reconciliatory” in another?
C: It seems to me that Jones has struck the conciliatory mode, and then if the IHL meets him, it becomes ‘reconciliatory.’
C: It’s a little better now that we’ve made it into two sentences. The way it was originally worded put a lot on the shoulders of Chancellor Jones. Now it starts to put some pressure onto the Board to be reconciliatory. It’s subtle pressure, and not too bold. I’m wondering if we should be bolder towards the board, though we don’t know what has been happening behind closed doors. I’m just putting that out there, and I have no answer.
C: I think if we change it to “a reconciliatory spirit” that would imply calling on the board to get in on this.
C: “mutually reconciliatory”?
Barnett: Original people with motion, do you agree to this change? Yes.
C: I think it just takes it off of Jones a little.
C: Do we need “mutually”? C: The problem I have is that is sounds like we’re saying Jones did this, but you haven’t. If you just use “a”, it’s getting everyone on board.
In favor: All. 0 opposed. 0 abstentions.
C: It was just pointed out that the UM Alumni Association did not support this, but it was the Ole Miss Alumni Board.
Barnett: I can make that change without a motion.
Q: But aren’t there two organizations that did this related to alumni?
C: It was the Alumni Board that did this.
Barnett: What is their official title? We should use that.
C: “The Executive Committee of the Ole Miss Alumni Association” is their official title. [Barnett inserted this] In favor: 40. Opposed: 0. Abstention: 1
• New Business
As with our resolution last week, we will send this out via press release. Prior to that, I will send it to the President of Board of Trustees. I also did this last week, and I got indication that they received it and thanked me for sending it their way.
Dinius: In regards to the press release, should you send it to all of us senators so we can send it out to our departments? C: Sure. I can send it to Michael again, and he can send it out.
C: Have you had any communication with Vice President Perry? Barnett: No, I have not. It was to be sent his way, but I have received no response.
Barnett: The Executive Committee will continue to meet. Looking ahead to next week, we may want to respond depending on what happens this week. If this week concludes without a renewal of contract, the Executive Committee believes they will call another meeting of the senate to see how we want to respond that. We will let you know 72 hours in advance. The Executive Committee will continue to meet. If you all or your colleagues have any thoughts or responses, please send that to me or any member of the Executive Committee to help guide us in a good direction.
A few of you did reach out to me last week, and I appreciate it. If I haven’t responded, I’m sorry. I’ve been quite swamped with emails. I did share your thoughts with the Executive Committee, though, and we appreciate your input and thoughts. I greatly appreciate your time last week and this week. I know we’re busy, so thank you for your spirit. I have heard that many are appreciative of our work, so please know that our work is not going unnoticed.
• Adjournment: 7:29PM.