Faculty Senate Meeting 6/10/05 - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Jun 10, 2005

Faculty Senate Meeting 6/10/05

Date: Jun 10, 2005

e)Faculty Departure Data:

2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04

Ole Miss 69 62 59 67

MSU 77 156* 98 74

USM 110 107 112 110

USM wins by a landslide. Shouldn't there be an asterik mark after 98 and 74 also?

No matter, we're still in the lead.

Date: Jun 10, 2005

numbers wrote:

e)Faculty Departure Data: 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04

MSU 77 156* 98 74 USM 110 107 112 110 USM wins by a landslide. Shouldn't there be an asterik mark after 98 and 74 also? No matter, we're still in the lead.

No, Mississippi State had a "one-time-only" special incentive to their faculty to accept early retirement in Summer 2002.

On the other hand, with a core of 450-500 teaching faculty, this is a disturbing turnover for USM.

Date: Jun 10, 2005

is anyone questioning the numbers on departures? if not, i've got two observations. first, we were hemmoraging (sp?) faculty before thames got here. (go ahead--take your best shot!) second, what amazes me more is that our departure rate is only about 1/3 worse than MSU's or OM's. given their endowments, gifted presidents, blah...blah...blah, i wonder if it's not just the lack of legislative support for our colleges and universities that's a major cause of our problems. lack of decent raises for what seems like eons. add thames onto the mix and we get worse than our sister institutions, but things look pretty bad overall for our major universities.

Date: Jun 10, 2005

Having just returned from a refreshing 3 day stay at The Inn at Ole Miss ("The Only Thing We Overlook is the Grove"), I'd like to turn the whole thing on its head.

Why not view these numbers as a mini-referendum on three communities: Oxford, Starkville & Hattiesburg. Could it be that professors who haven't seen pay raises in a while are just a tad more likely to want to live in Oxford than in Hattiesburg?

After seeing co-eds speedwalking from campus down to The Square for a quick loop through & back to sorority row, I have to wonder... Are the McDonald's in Hattiesburg offering wireless internet connectivity with the Quarter Pounder with Cheese? And how much are the off-campus condominiums selling for on North 40th these days?

Date: Jun 10, 2005

invictus--i agree. thanks for the perspective.

Date: Jun 10, 2005

now--let me bitch! since this thread began with the faculty senate report from today's meeting--why can't the senate update it's minutes from earlier meetings in a timely manner? the last minutes are from a february meeting?! now your calendar indicates subsequent meetings--what happened at them? you'll put gunther's report on savings from reorganization, but not the minutes of the meetings?! yeah-yeah--the meetings have to be approved before they can be posted. so you haven't approved minutes at meetings since then? what is this parliamentary parlor game played with meetings being recessed from a month before? come on folks! transparency!? get it together.

Date: Jun 10, 2005

stinky cheese man wrote:

now--let me bitch! since this thread began with the faculty senate report from today's meeting--why can't the senate update it's minutes from earlier meetings in a timely manner? the last minutes are from a february meeting?! now your calendar indicates subsequent meetings--what happened at them? you'll put gunther's report on savings from reorganization, but not the minutes of the meetings?! yeah-yeah--the meetings have to be approved before they can be posted. so you haven't approved minutes at meetings since then? what is this parliamentary parlor game played with meetings being recessed from a month before? come on folks! transparency!? get it together.

It is standard procedure in the Senate to recess the May meeting and conclude it in June for the purpose of nominating and electing new Senate officers. Furthermore, anyone can attend any Senate meeting. You're welcomed to do so. The meeting schedule is posted on the Senate web site. Regarding minutes of meetings, I'll gladly post any directly to you as they are approved by the Senate. You can contact me through the Department of Psychology web site.

Date: Jun 10, 2005

joe--why should i have to contact you back channel for the minutes of a university committee? what is the problem with the transparency of the faculty senate? so now it has become tradition that the may meeting extends to the june meeting? tradition since when? i repeat my question--when are minutes from prior meetings that i assume have been approved (unless they haven't and then that's another issue) going to be posted on the website? transparency!

Date: Jun 10, 2005

and the senate recesses its may meeting only to continue over to the election of the officers in the june meeting? and what happened at the may meeting unrelated to this election doesn't get reflected in the minutes? about those parliamentary procedure games! who is the parliamentarian these days? and i mean that seriously. the games being played by the FS are getting bad, at least by your account.

Date: Jun 11, 2005

stinky cheese man wrote:

and the senate recesses its may meeting only to continue over to the election of the officers in the june meeting? and what happened at the may meeting unrelated to this election doesn't get reflected in the minutes? about those parliamentary procedure games! who is the parliamentarian these days? and i mean that seriously. the games being played by the FS are getting bad, at least by your account.

Parliamentarian is Pat Smith; I will gladly forward a summary to you personnally or it can be posted here; games being played by the FS??? Let's get real!!! Anyoine can access information generated by the FS at most any time. I know that any senator will gladly sit down with anyone and relay/discuss any issue taken up by the FS. Additionally, you have a college representative. SCM, when I was the FS secretary I spent countless hours listening to tapes of long, very long meetings (and extra special called meetings as well) to generate the meeting minutes for FS approval. I vividly remember spending at least 9 hours on my first set of minutes. This doesn't count the many meetings that are held in planning, meetings held with administration over critical issues, time spent on the phone tracking down information (if it is possible to access such). I marveled at the time spent this year by David, Bill, Mary Beth and Bonnie in planning, meeting and informing the rest of us. In short, if this is an attempt to pick a fight over an issue with the FS, it would seem to me that you could come up with a more substantive one. Transparency of the FS is certainly not the issue!!!!

Date: Jun 11, 2005

Joe Olmi wrote:

stinky cheese man wrote: and the senate recesses its may meeting only to continue over to the election of the officers in the june meeting? and what happened at the may meeting unrelated to this election doesn't get reflected in the minutes? about those parliamentary procedure games! who is the parliamentarian these days? and i mean that seriously. the games being played by the FS are getting bad, at least by your account. Parliamentarian is Pat Smith; I will gladly forward a summary to you personnally or it can be posted here; games being played by the FS??? Let's get real!!! Anyoine can access information generated by the FS at most any time. I know that any senator will gladly sit down with anyone and relay/discuss any issue taken up by the FS. Additionally, you have a college representative. SCM, when I was the FS secretary I spent countless hours listening to tapes of long, very long meetings (and extra special called meetings as well) to generate the meeting minutes for FS approval. I vividly remember spending at least 9 hours on my first set of minutes. This doesn't count the many meetings that are held in planning, meetings held with administration over critical issues, time spent on the phone tracking down information (if it is possible to access such). I marveled at the time spent this year by David, Bill, Mary Beth and Bonnie in planning, meeting and informing the rest of us. In short, if this is an attempt to pick a fight over an issue with the FS, it would seem to me that you could come up with a more substantive one. Transparency of the FS is certainly not the issue!!!!

Sorry for the typo; that should read "anyone."

Date: Jun 11, 2005

stinky cheese man wrote:

and the senate recesses its may meeting only to continue over to the election of the officers in the june meeting? and what happened at the may meeting unrelated to this election doesn't get reflected in the minutes? about those parliamentary procedure games! who is the parliamentarian these days? and i mean that seriously. the games being played by the FS are getting bad, at least by your account.

Having been Faculty Senate Secretary before the Senate minutes were posted on a Web page (in the days when "hard-copies" were produced), I can tell you that this it is a labor-intensive process, to transcribe tapes of meetings. Then, once the minutes are corrected approved at the next Senate meeting, that the Secretary has to 'convert' the written text into Web-accessible HTML code. Since the Senate Web page is on the USM server, I assume that the HTML-coded minutes must be sent to iTech for downloading onto the server.

So, if there are delays, they could be due to the Secretary trying to perform their duties as a professor, and while getting Senate minutes onto the Web page is important to many of us, under the current conditions, that "transcribing Senate minutes into written text" doesn't factor into the Annual Evaluation, and we're all being assessed for "efficiency." Next, once they're sent to iTech, someone there has to load the HTML-coded text onto the Senate Web page, and we have no idea how high-priority this task is for the iTech Web person, who presumably has to factor this into their "regular duties."

Date: Jun 11, 2005

stinky cheese man wrote:

joe--why should i have to contact you back channel for the minutes of a university committee? what is the problem with the transparency of the faculty senate? so now it has become tradition that the may meeting extends to the june meeting? tradition since when? i repeat my question--when are minutes from prior meetings that i assume have been approved (unless they haven't and then that's another issue) going to be posted on the website? transparency!

and

and the senate recesses its may meeting only to continue over to the election of the officers in the june meeting? and what happened at the may meeting unrelated to this election doesn't get reflected in the minutes? about those parliamentary procedure games! who is the parliamentarian these days? and i mean that seriously. the games being played by the FS are getting bad, at least by your account.

Stinky Cheese Man, you are correct that the Senate actions should be transparent. However last year there was more than regular business. There were additional "special meeting" called because of all of the new issues that arose almost weekly. In addition the executive committee was charged by the Senate with composing letters and responses on short notice. As a result the minutes piled up on the secretary, and the president who proofs the minutes. The link below shows the meetings, http://www.usm.edu/fsenate/minutes/2005.htm. Yesterday, the minutes for Feb 11, March and April were approved.

For the past few years the elections of new Senators has been delayed by making up ballots and run offs. The ballots can't be made until the eligible faculty are identified. This requires a list of faculty from each Dean's office. Surprise, surprise the administration seems to have a hard time determining how many faculty we have at USM. There has been delays in getting these names each year. In some areas the run offs have gone to the third round.

Without knowing those reelected and eligible to hold office, the election of officers must be delayed. The constitution says this election must occur at the May meeting. Since the elections were not finished in time, the May meeting was "recessed" and reconvened in June (yesterday) for the elections. Then the June meeting was held. The May minutes will be approved at the next regular meeting.

I hope this answers the questions you asked.

Date: Jun 11, 2005

stinky cheese man wrote:

the games being played by the FS are getting bad, at least by your account.

Given your likely ties to the administration, I find such criticisms of the Faculty Senate highly suspect.

Date: Jun 11, 2005

i don't think anyone has a "good" explanation for the minutes. all sorts of other stuff can be posted to the FS website--including Gunther's analysis of the savings through the reorganization--but minutes can't be. conversion of minutes from word processing to html. don't--put them up as adobe pdf files if that's the problem.

it's getting lame to say come to meetings or talk with a FS rep. why can't i simply read the minutes on the website? i don't think that's asking too much. they are the official record of what goes on at FS meetings. they should be put up in a timely manner.

i don't think i've heard of any explanation for now recessing meetings and not adjourning them.

and diogenes--i don't see what my comments have to do with being associated or not with the administration. minutes are the official record of all university committees. it's a matter of transparency and good policy.

Date: Jun 11, 2005

and let me add--what got me going was the fact that reporter did a pretty good job (for me at least) of summarizing parts of the FS meeting. this board is a more timely source of information about the FS than the FS website. maybe reporter ought to be FS secretary.

Date: Jun 11, 2005

stinky cheese man wrote:

i don't think anyone has a "good" explanation for the minutes. all sorts of other stuff can be posted to the FS website--including Gunther's analysis of the savings through the reorganization--but minutes can't be. conversion of minutes from word processing to html.

SCM, the explanations Joe Olmi, Dean Dunn and I are what happened. The secretaries job is the hardest, most time comsuming job on the Senate. I personally asked Dr. Gunther to email me his report for permission make it public. This was done outside of the Senate because I wanted the information public ASAP by posting it here and sending a copy to Hattiesburg American.

don't--put them up as adobe pdf files if that's the problem. it's getting lame to say come to meetings or talk with a FS rep. why can't i simply read the minutes on the website? i don't think that's asking too much. they are the official record of what goes on at FS meetings. they should be put up in a timely manner.

I agree, but what is "a timely manner" when we are working in a crises mode with so many "special meeting" and side work? I do believe that having President Beckett review the minutes before sending it to the Senate made for an extra delay, but I also believe it was a prudent step at the time. Communication with the IHL Board was ongoing and at a critical stage during these months.

i don't think i've heard of any explanation for now recessing meetings and not adjourning them.

I tried to explain that the constitution states elections are to be at the May meeting. It was not possible to do it in May, so to be within the letter of the constitution, the May meeting was never adjourned. A recess was called and the meeting continued on June 10.

and diogenes--i don't see what my comments have to do with being associated or not with the administration. minutes are the official record of all university committees. it's a matter of transparency and good policy.

Date: Jun 11, 2005

A couple of thoughts about the delayed Faculty Senate minutes:

(1) I doubt most Faculty Senates keep minutes nearly so detailed as USM's. Clemson's Faculty Senate secretary doesn't always include the entire text of prepared statements, like the one that was given by Jim Crockett on February 11. And I've never seen a lengthy question and answer series, like the one that followed Crockett's statement, quoted verbatim. Although the Clemson FS meetings are recorded, and the Secretary must consult them on occasion, most of the material that appears in the minutes about committee reports, the President's report, etc., consists of brief summaries noted down during the meeting. Committees that want their full reports in the minutes put them on handouts which are attached as appendices.

All of that said, verbatim transcripts may be a good idea when the Faculty Senate is operating in a crisis situation.

(2) FS meeting minutes consist almost entirely of text and pose no great challenges to anyone with modest experience doing HTML coding. Couldn't the FS hire a student to take care of the HTML coding and expedite the availability of the minutes somewhat? (Besides, it's never good for a Faculty Senate, which may get involved in some kind of contention with the administration even under nomral circumstances, to be too reliant on staff people who report to administrators.)

Robert Campbell

Date: Jun 11, 2005

The resolution concerning the Gulf Coast library reminds me...

Wasn't the Faculty Senate leadership going to ask Ken Malone to finally show himself in front of the Senate?

Or did they ask him to address the GC library issue and get turned down?

Robert Campbell

Date: Jun 11, 2005

To bitch and complain about the timely posting of Senate minutes on the web site is one thing; to state lack of transparency in the actions of the Senate is totally another. Again, meetings are open to all, and if a colleague has a question about what transpired at any meeting, a simple contact with a Senator is all that is needed!!!

Date: Jun 11, 2005

Robert Campbell wrote:

The resolution concerning the Gulf Coast library reminds me... Wasn't the Faculty Senate leadership going to ask Ken Malone to finally show himself in front of the Senate? Or did they ask him to address the GC library issue and get turned down? Robert Campbell

The Senate was going to ask Malone to address the Senate on Continuing Education. First it was Sue Pace, then Malone and the latest is C.E. info must now come from Exline. We also had questions for Malone about the Coast operation, Library renovation, MBA at Jackson Co. etc. Beckett was to have him at the June meeting, but that agenda was already too large. The Senate will try again at a later meeting if members are still interested (and if he is still around.

)

Date: Jun 11, 2005

Robert Campbell wrote:

A couple of thoughts about the delayed Faculty Senate minutes: (1) I doubt most Faculty Senates keep minutes nearly so detailed as USM's. Clemson's Faculty Senate secretary doesn't always include the entire text of prepared statements, like the one that was given by Jim Crockett on February 11. And I've never seen a lengthy question and answer series, like the one that followed Crockett's statement, quoted verbatim. Although the Clemson FS meetings are recorded, and the Secretary must consult them on occasion, most of the material that appears in the minutes about committee reports, the President's report, etc., consists of brief summaries noted down during the meeting. Committees that want their full reports in the minutes put them on handouts which are attached as appendices. All of that said, verbatim transcripts may be a good idea when the Faculty Senate is operating in a crisis situation. ... Robert Campbell

Robert, I believe the detailed minutes are essential to the struggle and why I post news on this board. Others and I were emailing and posting the minutes to spread the word so that the general faculty and public would be fully informed with detailed arguments as to what was going on.

Remember the accusation that there were a few "trouble makers" causing all of the problems. If the faculty didn't know enough of the details then there would be fewer Letters to the Editor, etc. With the email monitoring, communication at USM was hindered somewhat. The Senate never knew when another vote of "no confidence" would come up. We couldn't wait for that to occur before trying to explain the many issues that were coming up in even in a 6-month period.

Even with all of this effort, some faculty are so spread around campus they were still not hearing some details. If another general vote of confidence came up, without that information, some new faculty may give SFT the benefit of the doubt. This is why we continue to spread the Truth to oppose the Power.

Thanks for your continued help and your wonderful blog.

Date: Jun 11, 2005

Reporter,

Thank you for the clarification on Malone. He's been involved in so many controversies, I'd forgotten which was the first one that the Senate wanted to hear from him on.

The incoming Senate leadership will have to figure out how to respond to Malone's dodging and Thames' efforts to protect him.

If Malone is already looking for work in the chemical industry (the only place he's professionally qualified to be), and he is no longer promoting any of his dubious initiatives, it would be better not to impede his exit from USM.

If he is trying to hold on to power at USM, on the other hand, and still trying to create a College of Economic Development (etc. etc.), the Faculty Senate leadership would be better advised to demand that he appear--and put a resolution of censure on the agenda if he doesn't.

The problem for the FS leadership will be figuring out which way Malone is leaning. It would be prudent for him to be looking for work elsewhere, because no successor to Thames is going to want him around, but there is no assurance that he will do the prudent thing.

Robert Campbell

Date: Jun 11, 2005

The Faculty Senate's officers worked their butts off this year. The Secretary's job is thankless and demanding. Listening to those tapes and constructing detailed, accurate minutes is a huge job and is critically important for compiling a good record of what has happened during this year. I have had occasion to go back to minutes of past years and am very grateful to have such a good record of meetings.

With this board and the information on the Senate web site, we have more information than we've ever had about what the faculty leadership is doing to get us through this mess.

scm you are way off base on this one.

Date: Jun 11, 2005

Malone is being reeled in big time. There will be no new colleges. He will likely leave as his influence continues to erode. Thank Exline for that.

Date: Jun 11, 2005

No doubt Exline is working on it.

The rest may take some time to become clear.

Robert Campbell

Date: Jun 11, 2005

The Faculty Senate are awesome. My purple and red hat is off to them. SFT wanted to "demote" their influence, and it didn't work. Rock on.

Date: Jun 11, 2005

Sometimes the political fallout has some beneficial side effects.

Date: Jun 11, 2005

A couple of points for 'stinky cheese man' and Robert Campbell:

1) Robert -- Unless the Faculty Senate budget has been substantially augmented since I finished my last term, there isn't enough money to "hire a student transcriber" even at minimum hourly wages. I'll leave it to someone with more-current information than me to describe the total Senate budget, but it was minimal at best when I served in that body.

2) 'stinky cheese man' -- It is still MUCH easier for 'reporter' to post information here, because it is not under the control of the university. Anything posted on the "official" USM Website, like the Faculty Senate Web page, is under the control of the university Webmaster, who presumably is an iTech employee. There is no guarantee that posting this kind of information has as high a priority for that person as it has for regular readers of this BBS.