Faculty Senate DRAFT Minutes for November are posted at: http://www.usm.edu/fsenate/minutes/2005-11-11.htm

Some interesting excerpts:

4.1.4        Raises
The senate had voted last meeting to authorize the senate's budget committee to write a letter to President Thames concerning the recent raises given to select administrators and faculty as well as concerns regarding MIDAS.  The budget committee wrote a letter which was distributed to senators who approved the letter unanimously.  The letter will be hand delivered to the president Monday (Appendix 3). 

 Appendix 3

November 14, 2005

To:       Dr. Shelby Thames, President

From:    The Faculty Senate Executive and Budget Committees on behalf of the Faculty Senate

Topic:   Questions and Observations arising from the October 7 Faculty Senate meeting.

          First, we thank you for sharing your thoughts with us at the October 7 meeting of the Faculty Senate.  Although the conversation was spirited at times, we think that it was both informative and respectful.  As you might speculate based on the discussion while you were present, additional observations and questions were forthcoming from senators after your departure.  We want to provide to you a sense of the discussion and pose a few questions.

1. Raises for Administrators.  Much concern was expressed about your decision to award substantial raises to selected administrators after the preparation of the University’s 2005- 2006 budget book. Senators observed that over the last year, USM was placed on probation by the Southern Association of College and Schools (SACS) and remained in the fourth tier in the U.S. News and World Report rankings.  Pre-Katrina enrollment in terms of student credit hours has remained virtually flat for several years.   Parking fees for faculty, staff, and students have more than doubled.   Health costs have increased for faculty and staff.  Academic units were told to prepare for budget reductions, and fiscal restraint is being emphasized.   With few exceptions, faculty and staff did not receive raises for 2005-2006.  In this context, senators see no justification for your decision to increase the salaries of selected administrators by 10% and $11,000 on average. 

It seems to us that true leaders make significant sacrifices for the common good before they ask others to sacrifice.  That is leadership by example.  We think asking others to sacrifice while $161,000 was spent to create another new administrative position and give selected administrators (who are already among the highest paid individuals in the university) substantial raises is the opposite of leadership by example, inconsistent with your “focus on students” (their tuition is paying for these raises), and contrary to your claims of “efficiency and accountability” in administration.  Further, the process for awarding the salary increases to these administrators was essentially invisible and therefore did not provide an opportunity for input from those these administrators serve.

2. E+G and Foundation Revenues and Expenditures.  Members of the Faculty Senate are concerned about resources from the USM Athletic Foundation, the USM Foundation, and the USM Research Foundation being used for certain purposes such as for salary increases.   We believe that it is somewhat misleading to describe resources from foundations as totally independent of Educational and General (E+G) resources.  A recent example in which it was suggested that foundation resources are distinct from E+G resources is the $20,000 from the Athletic Foundation that was used to increase the Athletic Director’s salary by $40,050. Millions of dollars from tax support and tuition (student fees) are dedicated to USM Athletics.  Private funds that find their way to the Athletic Foundation could be used for scholarships that are currently funded through E+G resources or to help reduce the portion of student fees that are directed to Athletics.  We wonder how private the University’s three foundations really are.  As we understand it, the salaries for most of the staff of the University’s foundations are paid for though E +G dollars, so that thousands of dollars from taxes and student tuition under gird the infrastructure of the University’s “private foundations.”  Because so much in public funding goes to support USM’s foundations, we believe the expenditures of the foundations should be public information and be available for careful scrutiny.  Technically, foundation expenditures may be distinct from E+G expenditures.  However, we conclude that in reality, the distinctions between E+G dollars and those of USM foundations are easily blurred and are therefore rather artificial.  

3.  Raises for Selected Faculty.  If we are interpreting the information correctly, twelve faculty members received raises after the 2005-2006 budget book was published.  The process for allocating faculty salary increases has not been explained.  We would appreciate learning about the process for faculty raises and the roles of the President, Provost, deans and chairs in that process.  

4. MIDAS Bonuses.   A majority of senators have concern about the MIDAS program.  Two years of MIDAS bonuses have totaled almost $900,000.  It seems to us that the sources for funding for MIDAS bonuses might be from facilities and administrative costs (formally indirect cost recoveries) attributable to grants, E+G dollars freed up because grants are paying a portion of salaries, or revenue from the Research Foundation.  We are inclined to conclude that “private” dollars from the Research Foundation are not a source since the $900,000 is so large that such expenditures from cash on hand in the Research Foundation would soon compromise its financial well being.  MIDAS bonuses from facilities and administrative costs in grants would violate the claim that universities have facilities and administrative expenses associated with grants and possibly persuade granting agencies that they are paying salary twice for the same work.  So, we conclude E+G dollars are the source of the bonuses.  This would mean that tax payers and student tuition are a main source for the MIDAS bonuses.  Assuming our observations are correct, we think paying MIDAS bonuses to selected faculty and administrators using taxpayer dollars and student tuition is a questionable use of these monies. We would appreciate receiving information from you on who has received MIDAS bonuses during the last two cycles of MIDAS, and how much did each individual received. 

We have linked several sources of revenue and expenditures in this letter because we think revenue and expenditures from major university budget categories are very much related.  We submit this letter to you in the spirit of sharing information openly, expressing our concerns directly and respectfully, and assuring accountability at all levels.  We look forward to your timely response to our questions and would welcome informed and respectful conversation on all the topics of this memo.