From Faculty Senate Listserv:

Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 19:56:04 -0500
To: Facsen@usm.edu
From: "D. Joe Olmi" <d.olmi@usm.edu>
Subject: [Facsen] PC Meeting

Colleagues,

Attached are my impressions of the recent PC meeting. If you have additional information, please contact me as needed. In some cases, some of you may have clarifying information. That information would be appreciated as well. Good evening.

Agenda Items:
 
1.                  Minutes: The minutes of the previous meeting were approved by those attending the meeting. In that I had not yet been placed on the PC listserv, I had not received the previous minutes, therefore did not cast a vote.
 
2.                  New Officers: Patricia Brewer was nominated and approved as the PC Secretary. Scott Piland is the new chair of the committee, and he chaired the meeting.
 
3.                  SACS Update: Dr. Joan Exline was introduced by Dr. Piland and Dr. Thames to offer a brief report on the current status of SACS and the development of the probation report. Dr. Exline indicated that the University was in the final stages of preparing the SACS report that is due by August 2nd. A final decision is expected from SACS this coming December. Dr. Exline also reported on the reaffirmation process that is also currently underway with a report due into the SACS office by this coming September 2nd. Shortly after the receipt of the materials, there will be a SACS Committee visit on September 6th and 7th with a report to the University in April 2006. A decision will be forthcoming from SACS in December 2006. Given that the SACS situation was due to distance education issues, I asked about the reorganization of Continuing Education. It was reported by Drs. Thames and Exline that the overarching purpose of the reorganization was to move all oversight of courses to the respective departments and to insure that all credit offerings were within the purview of those respective departments.
 
4.                  Coast Plans: Dr. Thames offered an overview of the Administration’s plans for the Gulf Park Campus. He reported that during the past session of the Legislature, $22 million were appropriated for capital improvements to the USM campuses with $11 million of those dollars dedicated to capital improvements on the Coast, including a $5.5 million appropriation for a new science building. He indicated that this $22 million is the largest sum ever dedicated to USM. Dr. Thames also reported on other improvements to USM’s other Coast sites (Stennis, Jackson County, and Marine Sciences). He indicated the need to continue to proclaim the importance of coastal USM to others in that immediate area and to continue to work to attract transfer students to USM Gulf Park, in that there is such a large community college contingency located in close proximity to Gulf Park. He also indicated that with the recent decision regarding casino management courses, USM will be actively working to be the primary provider of coursework/training in that academic arena.
 
5.                  Student Evaluations: Dr. Exline reported that the response rate to the spring pilot of student course evaluations was only approximately 25%, which was well below what was hoped for. I believe she indicated that due to the low response rate, course evaluations information was submitted only to respective faculty members and not to Deans and Chairs. Others may have definitive information pertaining to who received the information. A new committee has been formed to further study the course evaluation process in hopes of getting a much higher percentage of students participating in the online process. It was reported that Ole Miss had an 85% of students participating in past online course evaluations. She encouraged us to push the online process to our students. Dr. Exline also reported that the “Comments” section has been placed back in the summer online evaluation. When asked by why it was not included in the spring version, she reported that it was not included at the request of the Faculty Senate. I was not able to comment, but did not remember the Senate taking a stand against the inclusion of a “Comments” section. If others are able to clarify, please help me here. I suggested that I considered the “Comments” section a very important component of the course evaluation process. She suggested that it was placed back into the evaluation at the urging of others, but the comments information would for individual professors only and would not be used for T/P decisions. I argued that this information could be very important in T/P decisions and urged that she reconsider her position on the issue. It was not apparent to me that the Administration had made a decision on the issue, but it was more Dr. Exline’s position/opinion. She softened her position after further discussion. She further urged that comments/questions should be forwarded to the newly formed course evaluation committee. As soon as I can get a copy of the membership of that committee, I will forward it to the Senate.
 
6.                  Other Issues: It was reported that an interim to fill Ken Malone’s position would be appointed shortly with a formal national search soon to follow. The search for the PR Director continues with approximately 40 applicants in process. There will be more news on that issue as it develops.
 
7.                  Upcoming Meetings: September 14th, October 12th, November 9th, and December 14th.

D. Joe Olmi, Ph.D.
Associate Professor and Director of the School Psychology Service Center
Department of Psychology