4.1.2          Graduate Assistant Allocation Proposal – ... Graduate Council called a special meeting in which the Provost attended to speak to this issue.  The provost said that he was charged to look at the grad assistant allocation on campus and that he alone had developed this proposal and it is based on economic and productivity needs.  Supposedly, the university is losing money by the way that it is presently allocating graduate assistantships. Graduate Council sent a statement to the Provost opposing this proposal and outlining the role that faculty should have in this process and recommending that discussion of the proposal be put off until next year when the new university administration comes in. 

                                    The senate passed a motion 37-0 authorizing the senate Executive Committee to develop and send to the Provost and President a statement supporting the Graduate Council’s recommendations and reaffirming the primary role of faculty (as per SACS) in the development of curricular activities and the shared responsibility in the fiscal process.

4.1.3          Teaching Loads Policy Proposal – Apparently the administration had requested information from deans justifying teaching load responsibilities and requests for positions in different depts.  After going to the dome 3-4 times to do this, an associate dean finally asked if some criteria could be given to them to define what the administration wanted.  As a response to this, draft #3 of the Teaching Loads Policy was circulated to deans for comment.  There is already a standard Teaching Load Policy in the Faculty Handbook.  The SACS team has not listed the current policy as inadequate in its audit report though it has been intimated that this is a response to SACS.  A senator suggested that the teaching load policy currently in the handbook was a result of an IHL policy requirement. Another senator suggested that maybe there is a connection between this teaching load policy and the grad asst. proposal and that the administration is possibly trying to shift greater teaching loads on to faculty in programs that are non-PhD.

                                    The senate passed a motion 37-0 to send a statement to the President and Provost to reject the 3rd draft of the Teaching Loads Policy and reaffirm our support for the current Teaching Load Policy in the Faculty Handbook while supporting the notion of a review over the next year of the current Handbook policy.  In addition, the university should continue to operate under the current policy as outlined in the handbook.  Bill P. charged the senate’s Academic and Governance Committee with reviewing the handbook’s policy and making recommendations if needed.

4.1.4          Searches and Faculty Positions – A senator from Psychology explained that the dept. of Psychology had been given permission this year to advertise for six positions.  As of two weeks ago, all six position searches had been canceled.  At the same time, the Department of CISE (chaired by Dr. Dana Thames) was granted permission to search for 14 positions.  The reasons given for the cancellation of positions in Psychology were 1) low productivity, 2) that faculty in that dept. were not “sufficiently engaged” and 3) that most faculty in that dept. only taught a 2-2 load.  In addition to cancellations in Psychology, the Dept. of Library and Information Sciences also had one of its two position searches cancelled positions that had been cited as needed by their accrediting body. In response to the administration’s assertions, the Psychology Dept. gathered stats from the FAR and IR to do a comparison of productivity in the different depts within the college (a summary data sheet was distributed to senators outlining productivity and faculty numbers in various depts in the College of Education and Psychology.)  The data challenged the reasons given by administration for ending the searches.

...Senators deliberated on the wording of a resolution to express their outrage at the administration’s differential treatment, apparent favoritism, and actions jeopardizing accreditation of a program. It was decided to move the issue to the bottom of the agenda (8.1) giving senators a chance to formalize a proper statement.

4.1.5          Midyear Raises since August 2005 –  ...  He did state that a quick look showed that 9 faculty had received raises since last August ranging from $2000-$26,000.  A senator asked if President’s daughter, Dr. Dana Thames, was one of the raises.  The answer was ‘yes’ - $13,000.  Another senator asked if the raises were distributed across campus.  Since Bill had not had time to review the data he couldn’t answer with certainty but did see at least 4 colleges represented.  Senators wanted the rationales for the raises before further discussing the issue. Bill will press the Provost for rationales. The raise information will be placed on reserve at the library. 

4.1.10      Bill requested and has received permission for the senate’s exec. committee to meet with the SACS team for 45 minutes.  He stated that he planned to address shared governance and sound planning issues at the meeting and welcomed any suggestions from the senate. ...

4.1.9          Meetings with Dr. Thames and Dr. Grimes – ...  In regards to the permissions to search, the exec. officers specifically asked why some colleges (particularly science) got more of their permissions to advertise than the other colleges and the president said that it was because they had gotten their paperwork in faster.  We tried to get summer research awards back to no avail  - also tried to get people who were selected some sort of privileged status (top of the list next year, etc), though no decision has been reached on this issue yet.  ...The Shared Governance document is now being reviewed by the university attorney, where the “must” statements added by the senate appear to be an issue. 

7.2        Discussion of a vote of No Confidence – The senate held a lengthy discussion regarding the merits of a No Confidence vote. A senator stated that in light of all of the bad management decisions that continue to be made by the administration and continue to be made without the input of faculty, a vote of no confidence should be considered in May after SACS leaves (so accreditation is not jeopardized).  A senator felt it important that the public be made aware that these bad decisions are adversely affecting the quality of education at the university.  Bill P. asked senators to canvass  their constituencies in the next month to elicit feedback on a No Confidence vote.  A resolution will be worded to be considered at the next senate meeting.  The No Confidence issue or at least the issues of poor management should be relayed to the IHL Commissioner.