To: President Shelby F. Thames
Provost Jay Grimes

From: Faculty Senate Executive Officers on behalf of the entire Senate.

Topic: Issues of concern emerging from the September 8, 2006 Faculty Senate meeting.

INTRODUCTION

At its regularly scheduled meeting on September 8, 2006, members of the Faculty Senate by unanimous vote directed the officers of the Senate to compose and send a letter of concern to both of you. Senators also requested that we invite you to a future Senate meeting so that we might discuss these topics and others in constructive ways. We invite President Thames to the October 6 meeting of the Senate for a conversation about the topics listed below as well as other topics he or members of the Senate may feel are appropriate for our discussion. An invitation is also extended to Provost Grimes for the October 6, 2006 meeting of the Senate, but Dr. Grimes has noted already that he has an out of state commitment that precludes his attendance.

The topics of this letter focus on personnel matters. Specifically, senators are concerned about the "profit and loss" spreadsheet that has been shared with deans, chairs, and others; "unwritten criteria" for promotion and tenure; and the main purposes of the pre-tenure review (third year review). A related issue but a late addition to our topics of concern is a memo entitled "FAR Policy."

We think we have captured the sentiment that was expressed by senators on the respective issues under the first three headings that follow. The "FAR Policy" was added to our list of topics after the September 8 Faculty Senate meeting at the request of several senators who recently learned of this document.

THE PROFIT AND LOSS SPREADSHEET

Faculty Senators report that there is definitely notable concern among many faculty members about the potential use of the "profit and loss" spreadsheet and about the messages the spreadsheet may send across the university about what is important or not important. For example, the spreadsheet excludes even the slightest reference to University service, and that exclusion follows the efforts of countless faculty who devoted many hours to the SACS reaffirmation and Katrina recovery efforts. The spreadsheet fails to recognize that tax support comes to USM mostly because Mississippi taxpayers believe students at USM are receiving a very good education and are being taught by dedicated and knowledgeable faculty. Or at least no "profit" credit is given from tax support. The spreadsheet seems to undervalue faculty efforts at graduate and upper division levels of instruction where smaller classes are generally the norm but where the expertise of senior faculty is fundamental. It also isn't clear just how credit for grant dollars is calculated, and the spreadsheet fails to even hint at the costs of research or that most research dollars are dedicated expenditures (in contrast to the more flexible tuition and tax revenue).
Senators wonder whether this spreadsheet implies that the administration is overly focused on individual faculty members instead of featuring unit level productivity that preserves department prerogatives to make assignments so that the strengths of individual faculty are best utilized.
Subject to satisfactory unit level productivity that is consistent with expectations for peer units at comparable universities, we believe the university administration should encourage departments to bring the diverse strengths and unique dedication of USM faculty into full play rather than suggest through the distribution of the spreadsheet that what counts is an imaginary profit or loss. We urge the administration to discontinue actions exemplified by the distribution of the profit and loss spreadsheet that undermine the abilities of departments to wisely manage personnel and other resources. We also urge actions that recognize the diversity of contributions faculty make to the success of our students and university.

PROMOTION AND TENURE CRITERIA

It has been suggested by many faculty members including several from the New Faculty Workshop that the administration has stated and is saying that each faculty member must submit a grant application annually if he or she is to have any expectation of being tenured and promoted. If the administration is stating that this is a requirement for tenure and promotion for each and every faculty member, then that would be a violation of the USM Faculty Handbook. The Faculty Handbook makes it clear that departments determine criteria for promotion and tenure subject to college approval and being consistent with the existing university promotion and tenure criteria that appear in the Faculty Handbook. Submitting a grant annually does not appear as a university level criterion in the current Faculty Handbook, nor does that requirement appear as a criterion among most department criteria.

For many departments and faculty, we agree that it is fully appropriate to encourage and expect periodic grant submissions. For other departments and faculty, this criterion is not as important as other recognized criteria that are consistent with criteria of peer units at other universities. One size does not fit all, and the existing language in the USM Faculty Handbook recognizes that.

We urge the administration not to suggest that submitting a grant application annually "is a must" for promotion and tenure. However, we would join the administration in urging departments to encourage grant activity where that is appropriate and where external funding sources are available.

PRE-TENURE REVIEW (THIRD YEAR REVIEW)

In the last few years, there are a number of examples where faculty members in their pre-tenure reviews have received strong statements from their departments that they are making satisfactory progress toward tenure. But then one or more senior administrators state that a particular faculty member is not making satisfactory progress tenure, and then that faculty member receives a terminal contract. We believe the main purpose of the pre-tenure review is to identify areas where faculty members might improve their performances before they face the up or out tenure review. We believe the pre-tenure review was intended to be and should be developmental in nature, not an up or out review.

To the credit of the senior administration, several terminal contracts that were issued as a result of pre-tenure reviews that were positive at department levels but negative at another administrative level were withdrawn upon reconsideration. But by then much trauma had already occurred, within departments and among the faculty who received terminal contracts. We urge the administration to think of the pre-tenure review as a progress report that points to areas of improvement, thereby underlining its developmental nature. Of course, prior to tenure, departments can recommend a terminal contract as a result of any annual review.

A DOCUMENT THAT EMERGED FROM INFORMATION NEW FACULTY RECEIVED

Several new faculty members have stated that they received a document titled "Faculty Activity Report Policy," and we now have a copy of it. The entire document is of concern, but we highlight just a few troubling statements. Specifically, part of the document reads "It is intended that the FAR will become an up to date and dynamic repository of faculty competency and achievements. Over time, and with appropriate modification, it will replace other reporting mechanisms used by faculty which currently report activities, aspirations, and accomplishments. This will, in turn, simplify the process of capturing achievements of faculty."

We believe the second statement is inappropriate and a violation of the articulated role of the FAR that appears in the Faculty Handbook. We ask the administration who composed and distributed this document, and we urge the administration to end any efforts to make the FAR a substitute for the much more inclusive, informed, and rigorous annual departmental review process and documentation.

CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS

The purpose of this letter is to bring front and center serious concerns about faculty evaluation and the criteria that are employed in these evaluations. At any time, we would encourage all to adhere to the provisions of the Faculty Handbook. At any time, we would also urge the administration to refrain from introducing new "performance tools or measures" (e.g., the profit and loss, net contribution spreadsheet; a new criterion that each faculty member must submit a grant annually to have any hope of promotion and tenure; and an unwarranted expansion of the role of the FAR) that might not fit everyone. We know for the good of the university that senior administrators are committed to a smooth transition to new leadership. In this context, we urge even more emphatically that all of the USM family devote their energies to this smooth transition and avoid actions (like the examples above) that have the potential to cause undue concern during this period of transition.

Finally, if any of the topics about which we have raised concerns were not at the initiation of nor supported by the senior administration, then we will gladly state that the initiative was not the responsibility of and is not supported by the senior administration.

Thank you.

xc USM faculty senators


-- Edited by Reporter at 14:33, 2006-09-29