COPIED FROM THE FACULTY SENATE LISTSERV:

President’s Council
Of
The University of Southern Mississippi

Minutes of the Ninth Meeting of the Council
October 6, 2004

The council was called to order by Dr. Bobby Middlebrooks at 7:12 am on Wednesday, October 6, 2004 in Room A of the Commons Building. Council members present at the meeting in addition to Dr. Thames were: Dr. Tim Scheett, Ms. Miriam Cabana, Mr. David Johnson, Dr. Tom Fraschillo, Ms. Petra Lamb, Dr. Bobby Middlebrooks, Ms. Pam Posey, Dr. Tammy Greer, Mr. Robin Ryder, Dr. Trellis Green, Ms. Janice Prescott, Ms. Shelia White, Mr. Douglas Hancock, Dr. Myron Henry, Dr. Ray Folse, Ms. Wynde Fitts and Mr. Ray Scott. Guests attending were Mr. Greg Lassen, Mr. Russell Willis, and Dr. David Beckett. Dr. Joan Exline, Assistant to the President, was also present at the meeting.

Dr. Bobby Middlebrooks indicated that the minutes had previously been distributed and asked if there were any corrections. There being none, Dr. Middlebrooks asked for a motion to approve the minutes of the September 2, 2004 meeting as presented. Motion made by Dr. Green, seconded by Dr. Folse and APPROVED unanimously.

Dr. Thames expressed his hope that everyone had had a good start to the academic year. He reminded the council of the football game that weekend and asked that we all support the team.

Dr. Thames called on Russ Willis to present statistics related to lawsuits as requested at the September meeting of the Council. Mr. Willis discussed the handout attached to these minutes as Exhibit A. The vertical line on the chart indicates the point in time that Ms. Woodrick became the Director of Affirmative Action for the University. The figures are given by the date filed.

Dr. Greer asked about the amounts of the lawsuits and whether the University were better off financially by virtue of having an affirmative action officer. Mr. Willis said he did not have those numbers at this time. Dr. Thames assured the Council that related expenditures are minimal.

Dr. Greer stated that perhaps having an affirmative action office had kept things at the forefront. Dr. Thames responded that we will continue to have an office and someone looking after affirmative action issues.

Dr. Greer also stated that having a separate office makes the University look good in terms of its efforts to hire minorities. Dr. Henry noted that at the last meeting of the Council the decision was not yet final. He asked for an update. Dr. Thames responded that it would be moving into Mr. Willis’ office (Human Resources). Dr. Henry asked if they would then be closing the full-time office and letting Becky Woodrick go. Mr. Willis responded in the affirmative.
Mr. Lassen stated that he felt that we had lost sight of the fact that affirmative action is the job of everyone on campus. Dr. Greer responded that Ms. Woodrick educated everyone and made people more aware of the issues. Dr. Henry stated that having a full-time office has raised the visibility of affirmative action. He went on to say that many universities across the country find it important. Dr. Henry expressed his regret that the University would be closing the full-time office. Dr. Folse stated that he had not talked to one person who thought this was a good idea.

Dr. Henry asked Dr. Thames if the University is hiring another lawyer. Dr. Thames responded that we were hiring 0.7 of a position due to the number of suits pending. He explained that the IHL requests a certain level of premium reserve based on the number of suits pending and asked Mr. Lassen what the premium is for the current year. Mr. Lassen responded that he believed it was $1.3 million. Dr. Thames stated that we need to get these suits resolved in order to save money on the premium. He went on to say that many of these suits are small tort claims. The goal is to minimize this expenditure and put more money back into academics.

Dr. Thames called on Dr. Exline to explain how the organizational chart (see Exhibit B) was developed. Dr. Thames asked if Dr. Henry hadn’t asked for information about Dr. Clyde Ginn. Dr. Henry responded that he had used Dr. Ginn’s position as an example, but asked for a full organizational chart. Dr. Thames stated that Dr. Ginn is our lobbyist to the state legislature.

Dr. Exline explained that the organizational chart is maintained in Institutional Research. Dr. Greer asked where animal care is on the chart. Dr. Middlebrooks indicated this falls under the Vice-President for Research and Economic Development. Several questions were raised about particular positions on the chart. (Secretary’s note: Subsequent to the meeting of the Council, Dr. Thames asked the Faculty Senate to make a decision regarding the Affirmative Action office. The Senate voted to keep a separate office. Therefore, Exhibit C shows the revised organizational chart pursuant to the Senate vote. Exhibit B is the chart as presented at the meeting of the Council.)

Dr. Thames stated that the administration is looking at moving Economic Development to College of Science and Technology because of Dr. Doty’s concern over accreditation by AACSB. Dr. Folse asked if this is being planned or executed. Dr. Thames responded that it is on the Board of Trustees agenda for this month. Dr. Greer asked about any effect on students. Dr. Thames responded that he foresees no positive or negative effect on students. Dr. Greer asked if there would be any effect on faculty. Dr. Thames said that he believed the faculty was in agreement with the proposal. Dr. Green said that he believed this was a reasonable summary of what had been happening.

Ms. Posey said that this was the first she had heard of the potential move. Dr. Middlebrooks asked whether this was a permanent move or would the Dean work to move it back under College of Business and Economic Development after the accreditation was completed. Dr. Thames stated that the preference would be to have it in CBED.

Dr. Folse stated that he was hearing critical comments about Economic Development and that he had hoped Dr. Malone would be present at the meeting. He stated that he had heard it was being moved for reasons of quality. Dr. Thames said that we would have Dr. Malone at a Council meeting to discuss it. Dr. Folse asked Dr. Green about the quality issues. Dr. Green said that he didn’t know where Dr. Folse got his information but the CBED faculty is having difficulty making it fit into AACSB standards.

Dr. Greer stated that this involved moving people and not just paper. Dr. Thames said that the people involved want it and the Deans are in agreement.

Dr. Thames asked if there were any other questions concerning the organizational chart. Dr. Henry asked if all of the positions are represented in the budget book. Dr. Thames responded affirmatively.

Dr. Thames asked whether there were any members not familiar with what post-tenure review implies. He explained tenure track versus non-tenure track review processes. The Board of Trustees has final authority to grant tenure. There have been occasions when tenured faculty ceased to perform. The IHL has a policy ­ Policy # 403-0103 ­ for post-tenure review. The IHL recently reviewed the post-tenure review policies of each individual university in the system and found that in most cases there were areas where the university policy did not match Policy #403-0103.

Dr. Thames stated that our policy had two areas out of sync with board policy. The first is that it must have specified consequences for unsatisfactory post-tenure review. The second is an appeals process for aggrieved faculty members. Dr. Thames stated that he recently discovered at IHL offices that we had 20 tenured faculty who had been reported as unsatisfactory. Dr. Hudson had instructed the Deans that anyone with a below standard rating in any of the three areas be reported on a list to him. He then reported these to the IHL board as having unsatisfactory post-tenure reviews. Dr. Thames stated that this process by Dr. Hudson was of no consequence as far as Dr. Thames is concerned. He stated that we need a full review.

Dr. Green stated that his understanding from his service on Faculty Senate was that we had consequences including termination. Dr. Henry read from the October, 2002 IHL review of our policy regarding consequences and stated that we clearly had consequences at that time.

Dr. Thames said that he couldn’t tell the Council how this had been interpreted. It could be because the policy didn’t include the word “termination” and only used the word “sanctions.” He stated that we have a directive from IHL to fix this. Every institution has a deficiency in its process that needs to be resolved.

Dr. Henry stated that the concern is that this post-tenure review, which was not in accord with policy, resulted in 20 of the 28 statewide reported as unsatisfactory being from Southern Miss and 12 of these were from the College of Business and Economic Development. Dr. Exline stated that no names had been given to the IHL board. Dr. Henry responded that if the board asked for the names this administration would produce them. Dr. Thames confirmed Dr. Henry’s statement.

Dr. Thames said that he had read Dr. Hudson’s reporting form and that, in his opinion, this was not a proper post-tenure review process. Dr. Greer asked what Dr. Thames would do if the IHL board asked for the names in light of his opinion that the process was not proper. Dr. Thames stated that he would tell the board that it was not a proper post-tenure review and that the University will conduct one and then report.

Dr. Beckett stated that Faculty Senate has a committee for post-tenure review. Dr. Hudson called a meeting this summer with representatives from Faculty Senate, Academic Council and other bodies. Dr. Hudson made the committee aware of the deficiencies and charged the Faculty Senate committee with fixing it by the February 4, 2005 deadline. Dr. Beckett stated that Faculty Senate was notified of the deficiencies, yet, while a post-tenure review was taking place on this campus, no notification was given by either Dr. Hudson or the Deans who were aware of it.

Dr. Greer asked if this was the first time a report was requested. Dr. Thames stated that this was not a post-tenure review as far as he was concerned. Dr. Exline said that this was the first time this report had been requested. Dr. Thames stated that he would ask the Deans why this was not shared. He stated that communication is a difficult process. Dr. Henry said that it would be helpful if Dr. Thames issued a statement disavowing this post-tenure review. Dr. Thames stated that he would do so in his next presidential letter.

Mr. Lassen stated that there were four new board members with no background in higher education firing a lot of questions rapid-fire. He stated his opinion that someone may have “slapped something together” for some IHL board member.

Dr. Green stated that part of Dr. Doty’s problem was that the old college handbook was out of date. Dr. Doty was conservative in his review. Dr. Thames stated that Dr. Doty wrote an explanation that none of these faculty in context would be considered unsatisfactory.

Dr. Folse thanked Dr. Thames for his explanation and stated that faculty morale is low. Dr. Thames responded that this was disappointing to hear after $3.6 million in raises. Dr. Folse said that he would rephrase his comment to say that “some faculty are distressed when they hear these things.” Ms. Posey said that we need to recall that we are having growing pains. Dr. Folse asked how many tenured faculty members are at this university. Dr. Beckett responded that there are 308 tenured faculty.

Dr. Thames called on Mr. Lassen for a report on outsourcing. Mr. Lassen gave a very thorough explanation of revenue sources for the University. He stated that part of the reason for outsourcing was to keep students here on the weekends. Another rationale is to increase auxiliary revenues. As an example, he stated that we were getting $500,000 per year from Food Services prior to the outsourcing and are now guaranteed $1.5 million per year for the next ten years.

Ms. Fitts stated that there are a lot of rumors about what will and won’t be outsourced. She stated her opinion that it would be positive for Mr. Lassen to communicate what they are planning to outsource or keep in-house. Mr. Lassen responded that the administration is very thorough in making these decisions. He said that the decisions could be made faster but they would prefer to do it well rather than quickly.

Ms. Posey stated that a lot of offices are buying supplies off-campus. Ms. White stated that part of what the students are encountering is that there is no resale value to the books.

In view of the time, Dr. Henry asked whether the agenda item on “Reallocation of Funds” could be tabled until the next meeting. This was done by agreement.

Dr. Thames reminded everyone that we need to vote for the bond issue and to ask our friends to vote for it.

Dr. Thames adjourned the meeting at 8:48 a.m.