Faculty Senate MINUTES – September 12, 2017
Present: Jeff Pickerd, Patrick Alexander, Nancy Wicker, Brice Noonan, Brad Jones, Zia Shariat-Madar, Brenda Prager, Randy Wadkins, Chris Mullen, Aileen Ajootian, Tossi Ikuta, Lei Cao, Bath Ann Fennellu, Adam Gussow, Ethel Scurlock, Andrew Lynch, Jennifer Gifford, KoFan Lee, Zachary Kagan Guthrie, Vivian Ibrahim, April Holm, Evangeline Robinson, Aysia Steele, Antonia Eliason, Stacy Lantagne, Doug Davis, Kimberly Kaiser, Cecelia Parks, Amy Gibson, John Berns, Sumali Conlon, Allyn White, Martial Longla, Tejas Pandya, Sara Wellman, Stephen Fafulas, Chalet Tan, Megan Rosenthal, Gary Theilman, Debroah Mower, Breese Quinn, Tim Nordstrom, Marilyn Mendolia, Christian Sellar, Younghee Lim, Ana Velitchkova, Marcos Mendoza, Roy Thurston, Mark Ortwein, Jessica Essary, Robert Cummings, Michael Barnett (for Rory Ledbetter)
Absent: Byung Jang, Christina Torbert, Thomas Peattie, Mary Roseman
• Call Meeting to Order
o Called to order: 5:59
o Quorum present
• Dr. Josh Gladden (JG) – Interim Vice Chancellor for Research and Sponsored Programs
o Flagship Constellations; Communications; Fellow for Undergraduate Research; Senate Resolution from Spring 2017
o 1. Flagship constellation program
 We have settled on 4 different research themes
 Groups have been meeting over the summer and will continue over the course of the semester
• There have been a number of organizational meetings to date
 The main thing that is that the constellations are not meant to be research centers, or exclusive. Rather they are to be thought of as research avenues to which anyone can be belong. Everyone is invited to the conversation.
 There will be a lot of activity over the course of the year
• NOV 17, 2017, a formal announcement and public launch of the Constellations (with dignitaries and congressional staffers) will take place
o 2. Establishing a faculty fellow for undergraduate (UG) research
 We didn’t have a single point person or office with a global perspective on undergraduate research on campus
• Jason Ritchie of Chemistry and Biochemistry will take this position at 20% FTE
o He will be going around to departments to find out about the opportunities for UG students
o The next step will be communicating those opportunities to prospective students and their parents
• Provost has offered $50,000 for UG research support
o 3. Provost and JG will be sharing a communications person to better relay the good work of the university to those within and outside of the institution (esp. donors)
 Will help with press releases, social media presence etc..
o 4. Responses to senate resolution from last spring:
 All members of the office have carefully read and considered the suggestions provided by the 2016-17 Faculty Senate
 A couple of initial points, to be followed with a written response
• 1. We have launched the research development fellows as of last January. We have three fellows currently. They are meant to be a better liaison between ORSP and the other academic units. They have already been valuable in their first semester.
• 2. We are also working on a grants mentorship program that will be launched shortly. This will be an organized program. First launched in the College of Liberal Arts. This program will pair successful grant writers with junior scholars. There will be some financial compensation for the mentor.
• 3. Travel grant process has been streamlined (ex. fewer required signatures) and the application is now fully electronic. We have also increased the total amount of money allocated to the program by 20%. Amount caps have also been bumped up: $500-700 (domestic travel); $1000-1200 (international travel)
• 4. Coordinating staff leave time around grant deadlines. We are currently trying to do that. But we don’t get it right every time. There are always deadlines and they shift regularly.
o One thing the faculty could do is contact ORSP as soon as possible when you are thinking about submitting an application. The sooner you get on their radar the better they can coordinate schedules internally.
o Questions:
 Q: In hearing discussions about the plans for future hires in departments, to what extent will departments who are actively involved in the constellations get preferential treatment in hiring?
 A: There are no lines disappearing. That being said we will make efforts to align the needs to all departments where it makes sense.
• F/U: Is it always going to be the constellations that get preference, because we don’t always have money to fill all lines
o Provost: The discussions will always be based on the teaching and hiring needs of all departments. We have been talking to the deans about including language into job opportunities about the constellations if and when it makes sense. Any unit that is trying to advance their mission will be part of the discussion about how hiring decisions will be made, regardless of whether or not they are part of a constellation.
 Q: If we foresee a situation in the future where lines will be available to a constellation, how do we balance that against the educational needs of the institution?
 A: Careful consideration is and will continue to be made of the needs of all groups on campus. Our 20:1 student to faculty ratio is an important core value of the institution.
• Provost: The other part of this conversation that is important is the context of these discussions. It is all dependent on the needs of a department or unit. There is not a one size fits all solution. The constellations are an opportunity.
• Dr. John Neff – Director, Center for Civil War Research, Assoc. Prof. History, Member of Chancellor’s Advisory Committee on History and Contextualization.
o Dr. Neff will provide a summary of the conclusions outlined in the committee’s final report (presented to the Chancellor 16 June 2017) o https://context.olemiss.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/89/2017/07/ChancellorAdvisoryCommitteeFinalReport.pdf
o There are three major components to the report: 1) the contextualization of the 7 places that were identified in the fall semester of 2016. That part of the report the Chancellor has accepted. 2) In the process of completing that report the committee identified two additional sites (the stained glass window in Ventress Hall and the Cemetery) needing contextualization. These recommendations have also been accepted by the Chancellor. 3) The committee has also developed a number of suggestions about how to better engage the community in the process of the contextulizations. While this was outside of the scope of the initial committee (meaning that the chancellor can not officially accept them), but the chancellor is interested in furthering this discussion.
o Questions:
 Q: The statue was contextualized before this committee?
 A: Yes that was done in the 2015/16 FY
 Q: Given the current events around the country do you have any sense of this committee being reconvened?
 A: Not at this time. However, the committee does have the sense that this work will continue.
• F/U: Speaking for myself, I believe that the Chancellor has taken a position that contextualization is the best strategy. I don’t necessarily agree with that approach. One of the things that I don’t think our institution wants to be accused of is not moving forward. I do believe that a relocation of a monument would be a powerful signal, perhaps to the cemetery, where people who are interested in that monument and the particular history can actively choose to go.
• F/U: To echo what has already been said there were a few things that the committee wanted to explore, but we didn’t because it was outside of the scope of this committee. The chancellor seems to be of the opinion that more work to contextualize is needed and should be completed.
 Q: Could you speak to the decision to rename Vardaman hall, while not renaming others that are tied to people who did equally horrific things?
 A: This was a large committee, with a tremendous number of divergent areas of expertise and experience. We relied heavily on the Yale report, which dealt with this institutions decision to rename an entire college (http://president.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/CEPR_FINAL_12-2-16.pdf). They produced a set of principles, which would need to be met before a name could be changed. One of these principles was whether or not that person was “exceptional” in terms of the historical context of their
time. We were told that George Hall could not be renamed, and the committee’s response was to provide a contextualization that told the truth about his actions at the time.
• F/U: There have been discussions at the state level about identifying state level figures who are more representative of where we are as a state today. I would like for MS to be first/proactive on a race related issues, rather than the last.
 Q: I understand that the Chancellor has invited departments to contribute to contextualization. Is there a time when other options besides contextualization (i.e. removal of statues) could be considered?
 A: My sense, right now is that it will not be considered at this time. However, the chancellor seems to be beginning to be open to other options in the future.
• F/U: Our charge was very narrow. But one of the ideas that we talked about was what to do with buildings that are currently unnamed and is there a way we could tell the story of MS that is more inclusive of our history.
 Q: What would you recommend that we do as a faculty senate?
 A: Stay active and watch the process as it unfolds. To encourage the chancellor to create a standing committee around this topic, beyond just encouraging academic departments to be involved.
• F/U: The Chancellor’s response was to recommend that Dr. Caldwell advocate for the creation of a standing committee on this topic.
• F/U: The chancellor needs to understand that faculty are serious about this topic, and to help back him up against others within this state who would rather not see UM change. I have been here since 1995, every time this institution has made changes towards the negative aspects of our history our institution has gotten better. The senate needs to let the Chancellor know that faculty are here everyday working to make this institution better.
o BRICE: If this topic is something that the senate is interested in pursuing, we could begin by assigning it the appropriate sub-committee and then form an ad-hoc committee of interested parties.
 F/U: There seems to be support for such a committee going forward
• Topic was assigned to Development and Planning
• Dr. Brice Noonan – Update from the Chair
o Overview of Senate workings & attendance statement
 Faculty Senate webpage: https://www.olemiss.edu/faculty_senate/
 Attendance is important. If you can not attend make sure you get someone to take your place.
o Searches – Provost, Vice Chancellor for Development
 VC development new hire has been made (Charlotte P Parks)
• Questions:
o Q: I understand that the search went through a number of phases, do you feel good about the candidate?
o A: We have been through two rounds of searches (started in Feb of this year), the second round was fast-tracked. She does a lot of corporate fundraising, which we don’t do enough of. She is a more traditional candidate. It would be worth inviting her to the Senate at some time in the future.
 Search for Provost
• Work of committee has concluded as of yesterday (September 11, 2017)
• We had great candidates in the airport interviews (9 people)
• 4 candidates were brought to campus, pros and cons of all candidates were passed to the chancellor
• Questions:
o Q: Were all candidates acceptable?
o A: It would be unusual for all candidates to be acceptable.
o Q: What is the timeline for decision?
o A: It is difficult to say at this time. The Chancellor will speak with Larry Sparks (Chair of the search committee) the week of the 18th and be informed of the conclusions of the committee.
o Q: Did we use a search firm? How does that work?
o A: Yes we did. They solicited candidates internally, and also reached out to candidates who they felt would be good fit. They did a good job.
o Representation of non-T/TT faculty
 This is an issue that the Senate has discussed in the past. Current senators do not represent faculty who are not tenure tracked.
 The group of non-TT faculty that started meeting last semester is making progress to get more representation from across the campus
 One of the things that we will need to discuss going forward is whether or not to integrate them into this body?
 Questions:
• Q: Do you get a sense of how many non-tenure track faculty are on campus?
• A: The material they are presenting material suggesting that there is a 50%/50% breakdown between the two groups. According to the provost the breakdown is more like 66%/33% for full time faculty.
o F/U: You said before that there were a few dozen people attending the interest meetings, so it will be difficult to build a new body without adequate representation by all non-tenure faculty.
• Q: I was reading an article Inside Higher Education that suggests providing additional funding to non-tenure to participate in these committees and service is not currently part of their contracts, has this topic been brought to the Provost?
• A: that has not been broached with the Provost
o Appointments to Senate subcommittees
• Committee Chair Elections (chairs will serve on Senate Executive Committee)
o Academic Instructional Affairs – Antonia Eliason (Law)
o Academic Conduct – Vivian Ibrahim (History)
o Finance & Benefits – Andrew Lynch (Finance)
o Development & Planning – Aileen Ajootian (Classics)
o Governance – April Holm (History)
o Research & Creative Achievement – Christian Sellar (Public Policy Leadership)
o University Services – Brad Jones (Biology)
• Old Business
• New Business
o Selection of Senate representative to University Standing Committee on Academic Dismissal
 Marilyn Mendolia volunteered and was assigned.
o Strategic planning committee updates – Michael Barnett
 It should be announced later in September
 There are four areas within the plan
 The most discussed issue is that 25% of the strategic plan is focused on Athletics. This is not like others SEC schools, but it is going to stay.
o Coach Matt Luke – Introduced himself to the Senate. Is thinking of planning an opportunity for faculty to interact with him and ask questions about holding students accountable for making the right decisions at the athletics department. Is open to interactions between academics and athletics. Please reach out if there is anything that you need.
• Adjournment
o 7:44 pm