Faculty Senate Meeting - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Oct 4, 2005

Faculty Senate Meeting

Date: Oct 4, 2005

Collecting questions??? The questions have to be screened in advance? A faculty member can't just ask one at the meeting?

Date: Oct 4, 2005

Outside Observer wrote:

Collecting questions??? The questions have to be screened in advance? A faculty member can't just ask one at the meeting?

OO, let me explain. Submitting the question anonymously and in advance helps ensure that questions can be asked without fear of retaliation.

Date: Oct 4, 2005

Ask the doctor wrote:

Outside Observer wrote: Collecting questions??? The questions have to be screened in advance? A faculty member can't just ask one at the meeting? OO, let me explain. Submitting the question anonymously and in advance helps ensure that questions can be asked without fear of retaliation.

A very telling comment about the health of the University of Southern Mississippi

Date: Oct 5, 2005

Any Senator can ALWAYS ask a question at a meeting.

It has become the recent sad practice for the executive committee to offer to collect questions, as noted already, in order to offer cover for Senators who feel vulnerable -- particularly as we have an increased number of junior professors these days serving in many areas of university goverance.

Date: Oct 5, 2005

stephen judd wrote:

Any Senator can ALWAYS ask a question at a meeting. It has become the recent sad practice for the executive committee to offer to collect questions, as noted already, in order to offer cover for Senators who feel vulnerable -- particularly as we have an increased number of junior professors these days serving in many areas of university goverance.

Very sad.

Date: Oct 5, 2005

That IS sad...and the epitome of a sick organization.

Date: Oct 5, 2005

From Faculty Senate Listserv:

From Bill Powell:

Colleagues,

Posted at http://www.usm.edu/fsenate/raises05.htm is a spreadsheet that has been prepared based on the information on raises for the current fiscal year, which was provided to the Senate Executive Committee by Dr. Thames. We will have hard copies of the spreadsheet at the Senate meeting on Friday. A link to this web version of the spreadsheet will be on the Faculty Senate webpage tomorrow.

If you print out a copy, we recommend setting your page setup to ‘landscape’ and your print scale to around 90%.

Dr. Thames will be the guest speaker at the senate meeting this Friday. All are welcome to attend.

The University of Southern Mississippi

Faculty Senate Meeting on October 7, 2005

Cook Library Room 123 at 2:00 p.m.

1.0            Recognition of the recipients of the 2004-2005 Faculty Senate and Office of the President Awards.
2.0            Forum - Dr. Shelby F. Thames
2.1            Questions and Answers
3.0             Call to Order
4.0            Approval of Agenda

5.0            Officers' Reports
5.1            President
    5.1.1           Gulf Coast Status
     5.1.2           Mississippi State University Faculty Senate resolution
     5.1.3           Raises
     5.1.4           Graduation
     5.1.5           Exam Schedule
     5.1.6           CAC and 3rd year review
     5.1.7           Online Evaluations of Teaching
     5.1.8           Other

5.2            President-Elect

5.3             Secretary
     5.3.1   Faculty Senate Committees

5.4            Secretary-Elect
      5.4.1             Provost’s Council

6.0   Committee Reports
            6.1                  Academic and Governance: Bill Scarborough, chair
            6.2                  Administration and Faculty Evaluations: Steve Oshrin, chair
            6.3                  Awards: Mary Lux, chair
            6.4                  Budget: Myron Henry, chair
            6.5                  Constitution and Bylaws: Randy Buchanan, chair
            6.6                   Faculty Welfare: Tim Rehner, chair
            6.7                  Government Relations: Dave Duhon, chair
            6.8                  Technology: Barton Spencer, chair
            6.9                  Elections: Paula Smithka, chair
            6.10               Ad hoc committee reports and liaison reports

6.10.1      President’s Council

6.10.2       American Association of University Professors

6.10.3       Academic/Graduate Council

6.10.4       Faculty Leadership Council

6.10.5       Transportation

6.0       New Business

7.0       Old   Business
     7.1            Associate Dean search in College of Education and Psychology

8.0        Other
9.0     Adjournment

Date: Oct 5, 2005

raise report

Date: Oct 5, 2005

RE: Faculty Senate Meeting

Date: Oct 5, 2005

Lurker wrote:

Upon reviewing the "raise report" it becomes apparent that Melanie Norton was rewarded for retracting her vote of no confidence after-the-fact and for being the lone dissenter in FS meetings. Don't get me wrong, I valued her opinions and always respected her right to be heard but now seriously wonder what other factors, if any, might account for this raise outside the normal merit process. Any other comments on this or other raises? It's hard to imagine any explanation other than patronage (if that's the right term) given the names that are on the list. Thanks to the FS Executive Committee for bringing this info forward!

Damn!! If I knew there would be money involved I would have voted for confidence. But I had no confidence he would actually pay off.

Date: Oct 5, 2005

Lurker wrote:

Upon reviewing the "raise report" it becomes apparent that Melanie Norton was rewarded for retracting her vote of no confidence after-the-fact and for being the lone dissenter in FS meetings. Don't get me wrong, I valued her opinions and always respected her right to be heard but now seriously wonder what other factors, if any, might account for this raise outside the normal merit process. Any other comments on this or other raises? It's hard to imagine any explanation other than patronage (if that's the right term) given the names that are on the list. Thanks to the FS Executive Committee for bringing this info forward!

Even though this is one reasonable interpretation of the data, other interpretations may become apparent when one looks at the budget book and compares operating budgets, average faculty salaries, and administrative salaries for the two units (LIS and CFS) that "joined" COEP as a function of the 2003 Thames slice and dice to the original units in the college. LIS and CFS are abysmally low on many of these parameters. I am not 100% sure, but the small 2+% faculty off year raise you see in the COEP may be one that falls under the same set of circumstances for CFS. I'll check with Myron. One crude index of cronyism is how easy or difficult it is to get the Dome to agree to a particular adjustment initiated at the unit level. Based on this index, I would not classify either of the above as high on the cronysim scale. However, I have seen other requests slide through the system in record time. More often than not, processing speed and positive outcomes are strongly correlated with who you know or who you are related to in the Dome.

I also noticed that several variables may be missing for some of the lines, and these may account for such anomolies as a reduction in salary across time. These include the addition or deletion of stipends for directing programs, administrative stipends, and twelve versus nine month contracts. These are minor issues, however, and the report does raise significant and troubling questions about the processes used to award raises, especially in the absence of a long-term, systematic, feasible, and coherent administrative plan to bring faculty and staff salaries in line with our peer institutions' compensation packages.

Another issue not yet addressed by this report that I would like to see raised in FS is the contractual arrangements reached regarding the percentage of administrative stipend retained should a 12 month employee with faculty status rejoin the 9 month faculty ranks. This would require examination of contracts to verify. If the "usual" process is not followed, people can get a delayed but hidden raise.

The executive cabinet of the AAUP is scheduled to meet next Friday at 4 PM. The AAUP is awaiting further information from the FS meeting, and is ready to provide assistance and support, as requested, to the FS on this issue.

Date: Oct 6, 2005

Why didn't the FS include the names of the faculty receiving raises, rather than anonymous entries. Yet another example of double standards. You folks are such hypocrits!

Date: Oct 6, 2005

I'm a layman,not a university man,but these salaries seem very high.I know you can get people who work alot harder for alot less in the private sector.

Date: Oct 6, 2005

Speaking of raises, FYI, the much despised Tim Hudson recently recommended and then shepherded through a 5.5% raise for all UH-V faculty AND staffers, the highest increases in the UH system. In his new iteration as UH-V prez, Hudson is receiving good marks and is perceived by the UH Board of Regents as their fair-haired boy. Oh, perhaps you haven't heard of the U. of Houston. It's that backwater operation over in America's fourth largest city.

Date: Oct 6, 2005

Hometown Man is yet another TROLL who wants to recite SFT's PR about university faculty. Don't respond directly to this poster. We have tried ad nauseum to explain to those who know nothing about how a real university is run, the hard work done by faculty, etc., etc.. Save your breath or in this case the energy required to respond directly to HM. Some folks are "unteachable".

Date: Oct 6, 2005

Machiavelli wrote:

Why didn't the FS include the names of the faculty receiving raises, rather than anonymous entries. Yet another example of double standards. You folks are such hypocrits!

As explained in the box above the faculty raise data, some of the faculty raises may have been "equity" raises that were truly deserved while other raises may have be based on more "amorphous" reasoning. It is my understanding that FS is trying to obtain additional information regarding these faculty raises and if they are successful the information will be provided at Friday's meeting.

No double standard here; just a legitimate attempt to protect those faculty who legitimately deserved their raises.

Date: Oct 6, 2005

The first leak about stealth raises for 2005-2006 came when it was reported that the President gave the Dean of COST some "extra money" for faculty raises right about the time the budget books closed for the fiscal year. The more recently reported administrative raises are a different, though related, issue.

Date: Oct 6, 2005

University Woman wrote:

Hometown Man is yet another TROLL who wants to recite SFT's PR about university faculty. Don't respond directly to this poster. We have tried ad nauseum to explain to those who know nothing about how a real university is run, the hard work done by faculty, etc., etc.. Save your breath or in this case the energy required to respond directly to HM. Some folks are "unteachable".

This is an interesting post.Hometown Man makes an observation that the posted salaries for the administrators at USM seem high compared to the private sector.Presumably these salaries were set by Thames. Some can certainly disagree with his observation.Perhaps they are too low or maybe just right. Ms.University Woman seems quite upset and accuses poor Hometown Man of reciting "SFT 's PR about the university faculty". Is Thames setting the salaries for his administrators and then putting out PR that they are overpaid? How clever. The good woman seems very distressed and hurls her accusations like missles laced with scorn. The chastened Hometown Man retreats knowing that the academic community has been warned to ignore him. Being ignored by women is always a devastating blow. But when you think about it,it's not surprising. A Hometown Man versus a University Woman,it's really no contest

Date: Oct 6, 2005

FSenator wrote:

Machiavelli wrote: Why didn't the FS include the names of the faculty receiving raises, rather than anonymous entries. Yet another example of double standards. You folks are such hypocrits! As explained in the box above the faculty raise data, some of the faculty raises may have been "equity" raises that were truly deserved while other raises may have be based on more "amorphous" reasoning. It is my understanding that FS is trying to obtain additional information regarding these faculty raises and if they are successful the information will be provided at Friday's meeting. No double standard here; just a legitimate attempt to protect those faculty who legitimately deserved their raises.

Oh... I see... if it is a faculty raise it is an "equity" raise that is truly deserved. All other others are "stealth" raises. No double standard there!

Date: Oct 6, 2005

Machiavelli wrote:

Why didn't the FS include the names of the faculty receiving raises, rather than anonymous entries. Yet another example of double standards. You folks are such hypocrits!

You can walk over to the library when they are available and get them for yourself. Are you to lazy to to that?

Date: Oct 6, 2005

Hometown man wrote:

these salaries seem very high.I know you can get people who work alot harder for alot less in the private sector.

Unfortunately, those who are less educated do have to work harder. That is a good reason to place your nose right on the old grindstone and avail yourself of every educational opportunity available.

Date: Oct 6, 2005

Hometown man wrote:

I'm a layman,not a university man,but these salaries seem very high.I know you can get people who work alot harder for alot less in the private sector.

Take it from me, honey, there's two ways to get the moola. You can either work hard for it or you can marry into it.

Date: Oct 7, 2005

Congratulations to Giannini. If there was ever an overpaid a$$, he is it. But if you know the car dealers you can do pretty much anything. Takes a lot of a$$ki$$ing, though.

Date: Oct 7, 2005

Dora ain't no dummy wrote:

Take it from me, honey, there's two ways to get the moola. You can either work hard for it or you can marry into it.

I'll take Option "B" -- know any likely candidates??

Date: Oct 7, 2005

this place is dead...

perhaps some spice

http://hattiesburgamerican.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051007/NEWS01/51007003

Date: Oct 8, 2005

I wish we could have had "shared governance' in the post Katrina days. We could have set up several committees to study the best way to bring the campus back to full service, debated what couses we should move from the Gulf Coast Campus, and reviewed the best options for a date to commence full operatons. Of course, the trees would still be on the ground, the power would not be operationg, the streets would not be passable, and classes would begin in January.

Date: Oct 8, 2005

Full Story:

http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051008/NEWS01/510080305/1002

Date: Oct 8, 2005

Clarion Ledger picks up story

http://clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051008/NEWS01/510080363/1002

Date: Oct 8, 2005

"One of the things I've had a problem about you the whole time is that you see things only in terms of your own background," history professor Bill Scarborough said. "I just wish you would view all the departments and all the colleges with the same perspective."

Way to go Dr. Scraborough - stick it to him and break it off!