THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN MISSISSIPPI Marketing and Public Relations NEWS RELEASE
April 21, 2006 Marketing and Public Relations
601.266.4491
Southern Miss Gets 5.5% Tuition Increase: 5% Raises Funded But Katrina Shortfall Exceeds $9 Million
HATTIESBURG – The University of Southern Mississippi, with the approval of the Board of Trustees of State Institutions of Higher Learning (IHL), was granted a tuition increase of 5.5%. Merit raises were fully funded at 5% for faculty and staff. Even with the $1M additional funding to Southern Miss for Katrina and an additional incremental amount of $450,000 from the legislature, Southern Miss reports shortfalls exceeding $9M related to Hurricane Katrina.
“We have been asked to tighten our belts – again – just when we’ve had the shirt blown off our backs,” said Dr. Shelby F. Thames, president of the University of Southern Mississippi, after yesterday’s IHL Board of Trustees meeting.
Southern Miss is short of financial projections due to enrollment declines coupled with re-opening costs incurred at coastal sites such as the Gulf Coast Research Laboratory in Ocean Springs and the Gulfport Student Center. Southern Miss has over 1,800 students enrolled on the coast this spring at all locations.
“We will continue to graduate more Mississippians. We will continue to graduate more PhD’s than any other university in the state. And, we will continue to ask for additional appropriations to backfill our Katrina losses,” added Thames. We are pleased about raises for our quality faculty and staff but we will be pursuing other efficiency measures and program reviews on campus to insure that Southern Miss remains financially strong,” he concluded.
I wonder if the other institutions will base their raises on merit solely (which, as we know, is in the eye of the chief beholder at USM) or if this applies to USM alone. It did not seem the intent of the legislature to do this when the money was allocated.
Interesting that these raises are now "fully funded." Where did the additional 1.25 percent come from, and are raises "fully funded" at all institutions?
My premonition is that raise allocations will produce a heck of a battle, perhpas the biggest one in the next few months, given SFTs track record.
I wonder if the other institutions will base their raises on merit solely (which, as we know, is in the eye of the chief beholder at USM) or if this applies to USM alone. It did not seem the intent of the legislature to do this when the money was allocated. Interesting that these raises are now "fully funded." Where did the additional 1.25 percent come from, and are raises "fully funded" at all institutions? My premonition is that raise allocations will produce a heck of a battle, perhpas the biggest one in the next few months, given SFTs track record.
You get the 5% raise for the quality faculty and staff by not giving raises to the low producers on campus. More $$$ for CoST and other favorites.
Did you see the statement, "We are pleased about raises for our quality faculty and staff but we will be pursuing other efficiency measures and program reviews on campus to insure that Southern Miss remains financially strong,” he concluded."?
Just think, it may get worse if Faculty Senate keeps talking about a vote of No Confidence.
"We will continue to graduate more PhD’s than any other university in the state."
Thumb through the Commencement Bulletins for the past 25 years and you'll see convincing evidence of psychology's consistent contribution to USM's Ph.D. production.
In all the years that I have been here, I have never seen a faculty more pessimistic about announced raises. Initially, it was stated that the raise percentage was 5%, then it was quickly reduced to 3.75%, and given the statement by our Administration that all raises will be based on "merit," we all know that "merit" likely means "favorites." Can we truly expect raises to be based on any objective criteria? I doubt it seriously. Again, in all my years at USM, I have never seen the faculty more doubtful regarding the raise situation, knowing how raise decisions have been made in the past by this Administration.
the 5% to 3.75% issue was one the board outed the legislature on. the legislature wanted to crow about giving us 5% raises and meridith quickly noted the legislature didn't fund 5%, but really funded 3.75%.
as to raise uncertainty, i agree. however, my comment about IHL oversight (for what it's worth) is that the board apparently thinks 3% is a cost-of-living raise. below that, justify giving less. and this is nothing new--the board has done this before. beyond that, i think it's more or less of a crap shoot. i also heard that the deans are going to have to decide whether the raise will be based on the last year or two years of productivity.
apparently the IHL has said that any raise below 3% must be justified to the IHL as well as any raise over 7%.
Given the vast range of recent salary adjustments at USM, 3% to 7% is a rather narrow. Could this IHL imposed restriction be designed to prevent giving extravagent raises to friends/supporters and tiny or no raises to enemies/non- supporters? Who among the various presidents Mississippi's state supported universities might this have been designed for?
There is always a "list" that goes to IHL to support those that receive more or less than the board quidelines. It began during the McCain era.
Dear History,
That may be so. However, in the last round of raises several outstanding facutly members were given "adjusted" raises down to zero (not including the so-called $400 raise attributed to the efforts of the faculty senate). The zero raises were given to faculty who had done something to merit "persona non grata" status in the view of the university president. I do not know whether justification was sent to IHL regarding these zero raises, but I do know that their zero raise status "stuck." The modern history lesson in that case is as follows: do not look for the IHL to to intercede even in instances where raises are either very low or very high.
Dear History, That may be so. However, in the last round of raises several outstanding facutly members were given "adjusted" raises down to zero (not including the so-called $400 raise attributed to the efforts of the faculty senate). The zero raises were given to faculty who had done something to merit "persona non grata" status in the view of the university president. I do not know whether justification was sent to IHL regarding these zero raises, but I do know that their zero raise status "stuck." The modern history lesson in that case is as follows: do not look for the IHL to to intercede even in instances where raises are either very low or very high.
All that was said is that a justification list had to be submitted. Nobody "in the know" said anything about what acceptable justifications were or that the IHL would reverse a decision.
What is the justification for Dana Thames? She's on the same merit level as Stan? She is considered a scholar? If they're passing out merit raises to people who are academic jokes, then how can anyone believe in the justification of "merit"at USM.