From Faculty Senate Listserv:

"Good Morning Faculty Senate Colleagues:

We are back early from the President's Council meeting today, so on behalf of Anne and myself, I thought I would pen a short report.  First, this is Anne's last PC meeting, and it is fortunate that she was there to "lighten" the  moment on the questions about the brochure, "A Work in Progress."

But first, the other topics before the questions. 

Budget

Dr. Thames reported what most of us have read in the newspaper:  state revenues are up slightly, and the settlement by the State with WorldCom on back taxes ($100 million) may put a little more into state coffers.   However, the WorldCom settlement is a one-time only thing.  Dr. Thames also mentioned that the most likely scenario is a 5% reduction in tax support which would be a loss of $3.75m to USM.  With increasing fixed costs of between 2 and 3 million, Dr. Thames said the university could face a shortfall of just over $6 million unless there is a tuition increase to offset the probable reduction in tax support. 

Dr. Thames also mentioned that tax funding from IHL may in the future be governed by the "Texas formula" which is based on weighted student credit hours (SCH).  This observation served as a lead in to my comments on SCH during the question period. 

SACS

Joan Exline reported that SACS preparation is going well and she thanked those who are involved.  She reported that the consultant on SACS,  Dr. Margaret Sullivan, has looked at many of the Compliance Audit reports and seemed satisfied with our progress.  Our Quality Enhancement Plan project is "improving written and oral communication" among our students.  Mary Lux has been selected as the the new QEP leader.  Joan stated that this new QEP position may be relatively permanent since the QEP project must be completed within a five year period after the SACS reaffirmation visit.  She mentioned that the Strategic Plan is now at the Board of Trustees' office.

Joan also stated that Continuing Education in no longer in the credit hour business at all, but will only offer non-credit activities.  She talked about the formation of a coordinating body for Continuing Education. 

QUESTIONS ABOUT RECENT PUBLICATIONS

Joan mentioned I had asked about costs for the glossy "A Work in Progress."  I had the impression that most had not seen the publication (which can now be perused on line).  She said the initial printing was for 2,500 copies and cost $7,852.  The second printing was for 4,000.  Joan stated the total cost for both printings was $13,845.  I commented that considering the publication was over thirty pages long, the costs were surprisingly low.  People seemed to wonder why I had asked about this publication.  Then I tried to point out some concerns such as the way the Thames administration claimed full credit for research in FY 2002.  Dr. Thames said Cecil Burge had done that part, and the his response to me seemed to suggest that I was just engaged in nitpicking.   I also mentioned the enrollment increases that were advertised in the booklet and mentioned that SCH are really the gold standard since credits are what students pay for with tuition dollars, and if the Texas formula is used for IHL allocations, then weighted SCH will be used for IHL allocations too. 

Anne commented that the way the publication was distributed (no copies to faculty or faculty leadership groups), the language in it attributing so much to Dr. Thames, and the emphasis on how great things are offended many. She noted the view from the trenches (my words, Anne was more eloquent) is that things are not so good.  In this context, she stated that she felt the publication rubbed many colleagues the wrong way. 

I then mentioned that SCH data indicate that enrollments from an SCH perspective are flat.  This caused some tension, and other ways of looking at enrollments popped back on the table from Dr. Thames, Dr. Exline, and Joe Paul.  Here are the SCH enrollment data I finally received yesterday from Institutional Research.  Up till then, summer SCH from 2004 had not been available to me.

SCH BY FISCAL YEAR   

FY 2003 (summer 2002,  fall 2002, spring 2003)

Total SCH Hattiesburg and Gulf Coast 400,883

FY 2004 (summer 2003,  fall 2003, spring 2004)

Total SCH Hattiesburg and Gulf Coast 400,281.5

FY 2005 (summer 2004,  fall 2004, spring 2005)

Total SCH Hattiesburg and Gulf Coast 402,830

Percentage change in SCH from FY 2003 to FY 2004 (400,281.5)/(400,883) is (99.85%), down (.15%)

Percentage change in SCH from FY 2004 to FY 2005 (402,830)/(400,281.5) is (100.64%), up (.64%)

Percentage change in SCH from FY 2003 to FY 2005 (402,830)/(400,883) is (100.49%), up (.49%)

Thus, over a two year period from FY 2003 to FY 2005, total FY (summer, fall, spring) SCH for USM are up just less than one half of one percent.

The above data are not consistent with the information on page seven in the brochure, "A Work in Progress."  On that page one of the bullets asserts that "student enrollment has increased semester by semester since April 1, 2002, growing 7.1% from 2002 to 2004.  I made an effort to point out data inconsistencies but was not very successful.  Of course, some head count data may have resulted in the 7.1% increase referred to in the brochure, but generally there is some consistency between head count data and SCH data.  The data also appear inconsistent with the assertion that the Gulf Coast has seen "a staggering 45 percent increase" from page 1 of the brochure.  In any case, the gold standard is still SCH, and I stated that we should probably share various data sets and their trends when we report enrollments.

Joan concluded the meeting by asking whose terms have expired on the PC.  Anne mentioned that she is leaving and I indicated my term would expire.

Dr. Thames asked if there were other questions.  There weren't any, and the meeting concluded at 7:50 am. "