http://www.usm.edu/fsenate/minutes/2007-5-4.htm

4.0       Officers' Reports
4.1       President

4.1.1  Promotion & Tenure Remands Several faculty have contacted AAUP and Senate Executive Officers with concerns because their Promotion or Tenure dossiers were remanded by the provost even though they have received positive support from the departments, college councils and the university council.  Some of the faculty also voiced concerns about the accurateness of the information cited by the provost in the remands. The large number of concerns prompted much discussion at the senate meeting.  Senators questioned the disconnect between the provosts expectations and the peer review committees.  To ascertain the facts in an effort to determine if there is a serious disconnect, a motion was made and passed unanimously to send a request to the provost asking for the total number of P&T documents that went up and the total number that were sent back for remand.

                                    4.1.2  Provost Councils plural! (Summer Term Pay Rate and Enrollment, Sunguard and Online Courses, 2007/08 Raises) Myron H. reported that the provost has indeed called several provost meetings in the last month and that they have been very helpful in terms of transition issues.  The issue of raises was the topic at one meeting.  Myron H. stated that the senates position was that raises should be cost of living or base merit raise type raises.  Following the meeting, Myron H. sent an email to the chairs, deans and the provost explaining why the senate thought a base merit raise was appropriate and an example of how it might be accomplished.  Myron H. also asked that whatever process was used be transparent.  The following week, faculty began to be asked for vitas and were told that the provost had sent instructions to the deans for determining raises.  In an email letter, Myron H. asked the provost to share instructions given to the deans about the raises and asked deans to share with faculty the method that each intended to employ in their respective college.  The provost did send the instructions to Myron H. but with a statement that information about how each dean arrives at his or her recommendations for raises cannot and will not be provided to the Faculty Senate.  The instructions told deans that all raise recommendations to the provost were to be accompanied by each faculty members vita, annual evaluation and the FAR-lite form that he provided.  (A senator pointed out that the FAR form stated that failure to provide all required documentation may negate a merit raise.)

            Senators voiced concern that senate input concerning raises was again ignored by the administration and that the same micro-managing top-down method for giving raises was again being used.  Senators expressed concern that chairs were being left out of the decision-making process and that the process given in the Faculty Handbook for determining raises (the departmental committee/chair and the annual evaluation) was being violated.   After much discussion, a motion was passed unanimously to draft a letter to be sent to the provost expressing the senates opposition to the apparent violations of the Handbook and the spirit of Shared Governance in the decision-making process of the raise determinations.