0015 3/4, how did you get a$$ to pass through the filter and Committee Chair, since when did Doty bashing become a recognized sport?

Curious, I sincerely apologize if I offended you with the use of the word a$$.  I should have used butt instead.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: 0015 3/4
"I do not have have the information on all committee assignments.  Chairs of major committees are generally common knowledge.  I must confess that I do not understand the focus on the number of committee assignments to the exclusion of other factors.  It is not uncommon for someone in the CoB to get appointed or elected to a committee and never attend a meeting (e.g., a current Academic Council rep).  And that is certainly not the only example.  People get elected to the faculty senate and do not attend meetings regularly or get assigned to another committee and make zero effort to do anything on the committee.  Simple membership is NOT a good indicator of level of service.  To make matters worse, Doty or the department chairs do not seem to care as evidenced by their indifference and failure to make people do their jobs.  "

---

I think the focus on numbers is that there is an inequitable spread of assignments in the CoB. I remember thinking that there were a couple of new faculty in management and marketing that don't have a single committee assignment. I don't know of a single faculty member in management or marketing who has more than 2 committee assignments, even if they are BS committees. I know an assistant prof (maybe the one who is appealing) who is on 4 in another department. I know another full prof who is on 3. There is no question that chairs of tough committees are carrying a load. But there seems to be a system in place that puts an equal quantity load on every department, regardless of department size. Thus, small departments get overworked per capita while large departments get underworked per capita. However, this is a function of the hiring process. You hire two or three in one department and none in others and the gap gets wider.

It looks like at least half the committees are chaired by a single department.  You are correct that the other two departments are not doing their share!

quote:

---

Originally posted by: All's fair
"It looks like at least half the committees are chaired by a single department.  You are correct that the other two departments are not doing their share!"

---

50% by mm , 40% by ecfiib, 10% by acmis.

Pilot,

Are you suggesting that the reason so few committees are chaired by economists is that we have recently hired more assistant professores in economics than in the other areas?  I don't think that is fair, we have more economists than any other discipline in the college so we needed to hire more.

I stand corrected, and thanks for the help.  Now you know why I'm the back seater and not the pilot!

faculty by department (www.usm.edu)

number:
acmis 16
ecfiib 22
mm 23
total 61

percentage:
acmis 26.23%
ecfiib 36.07%
mm 37.70%
total 100%

new hires now on campus since Doty:
acmis 0 (0 accounting, 0 mis)
ecfiib 3 (1 finance, 1 economics, 1 ib)
mm 4 (4 management, 0 marketing)

If accounting and MIS have so few new hires shouldn't they have more committee chairs?

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Beach, Beach, Beach
"Your numbers are wrong, out of date, and don't count the attempts to hire.  More accurate numbers
Economics  4; Accounting 1; Management 3; Marketing 1; Finance 0 (becasue the candidate turned down the offer); MIS 0; Tourism 1.
Don't ignore us on the coast!  We are part of the departments.
 "

---

show me where these numbers came from. you cannot. you are counting people who haven't even shown up for work yet. you must be a marketing person. you're trying to spin this to make it better for your boy doty. it's not going to work. those numbers may be true next year, but we're talking about right now, and your numbers are not right now.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: hummmm........
" show me where these numbers came from. you cannot. you are counting people who haven't even shown up for work yet. you must be a marketing person. you're trying to spin this to make it better for your boy doty. it's not going to work. those numbers may be true next year, but we're talking about right now, and your numbers are not right now."

---

You chose to use the less than two-year timeframe "since doty's arrival" and you were taken at your word.  You must have meant "in doty"s first year" or otherwise we would be using the full not quite two years numbers.  When did the committee assignments start and end and how long are the terms.  This is very confusing.  In the scheme of things, do you think this is particularly relevant?

I believe one of the "economists" everyone is counting in the "new hires" category is really an international business person.  Just trying to be accurate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: hummmm.....
" i clearly stated: "new hires now on campus since Doty:" what part of that do you not understand?"

---

hummmm seems to be proving stressful to you my friend, why don't you try ohmmmm instead?

amen to that