Several Responses to Reader's Question Re: Sabbaticals

An anonymous reader writes:

"What is happening with sabbaticals? Do the people who were granted sabbaticals last year but couldn't take them get them this year? Do they compete with new applications? Are sabbaticals on hold until better budget days?"

First, in the spirit of complete disclosure, I should note that I did not vote on sabbaticals this year because my spouse applied for a sabbatical and was indeed approved for one. Two other faculty members also received sabbaticals.

The approval process was slowed down this year, as the administration searched for ways to fund sabbaticals. I don't know the full details, but I know the Provost asked that the Professional Development Committee rank the proposals (and I presume some sort of limit was placed on the number of sabbaticals for 2009-10). Letters to all applicants clarifying the exact status of their applications went out in June. I do not know the details of all of those letters, but I presume they clarify the status of "unsuccessful applications." (If I am wrong on this point, please let me know.)

The delay in notification of all applicants caused some frustration. But let's give credit to the President and Provost for ensuring that sabbaticals were available at all this year.

I know from conversations with the President that, even in a tough fiscal year, he wanted to move forward with regular incentives for faculty and staff. Thus, even though most faculty and staff received no pay raises, the University did fund salary increases for both faculty and staff who received promotions or job re-classifications. He was disappointed that the third and final year of the staff salary enhancement plan will have to be delayed. And I have seen no details as of yet, but I also know that Beth Patrick has been working on a comprehensive faculty salary study that will form the basis of a faculty salary enhancement plan that the President has mentioned several times to the Board of Regents.

Also I hope that communication on issues such as this one might be improved in the future. Based on the recommendations of a subcommittee charged with improving meeting procedures (I am a member of this subcommittee), the draft minutes of BOR meetings will be posted within a few weeks of the meetings (rather than a couple of months later). Thus, for example, after the meeting held the first week of June, you should be able to read draft minutes by somewhere around the third week of June. (Do give Board Secretary Carol Johnson a little slack here, since these minutes are often lengthy and it is crucial that they be as accurate as possible.) These minutes will be available on the BOR web site (see link on the first page of this blog).

Let me know if you have other questions or concerns.

Ron

BOR Quarterly Meeting, 11 June 2009

As promised, here is a (streamlined) agenda for the Quarterly Meeting on 11 June at 9:00 a.m. in the Riggle Room:

A. Approve Resolution Sustaining Diversity
B. Adopt Resolutions of Commendation for Lora Pace and Michael Harmon
C. President's Recommendations:
1. Approve Sabbaticals
2. Approve Emeritus Status
3. Approve Promotions
4. Approve Tenure for Academic Administrator
5. Ratify Personnel Actions
6. Accept Third Quarter Financial Report and Amend Operating Budget
7. Approve Identity Theft Prevention Program
8. Ratify Six-Year Capital Plan
9. Approve 2009-10 Operating Budget, Fee Schedule, and Personnel Roster
10. Approve Student Conduct Code
D. Approve President's Contract

Most of these agenda items do not need comment. Items C.1-6. are routine for the June meeting. Item C.7. is a program designed to "protect members of the University community by reducing the risk from Identity Theft fraud and maximizing potential damage to the University from fraudulent acts."

The Six Year Capital Plan (see Item C.8. above) will seem familiar to those who have analyzed the plan in the past. For example, the first four items under "Projects Funded with State Bonds or State General Funds" for 2010-2012 include renovating and expanding the Student Center Phase II (52.9 million), constructing a clean room for the Space Science Center (4.3 million), purchasing equipment for the Center for Health, Education, and Research (3.8 million), and renovating Combs (26.3 million).

It may be important to point out that the operating budget and personnel roster (see Item C.9.) do not reflect the reorganizations in Academic Affairs. (Thus, for example, there are budget lines for a department called "Physical Sciences," when in fact that department will cease to exist on 1 July.) This situation is unfortunate, but with the reorganizations ongoing, perhaps it is unavoidable. Still, I will ask the President about this matter.

The Student Conduct Code (see Item C.10.) is unchanged, but the University is required to approve this document annually.

Item D (the President's Contract) will first be discussed in executive session and then brought back to the floor in open session. Barring some sort of extraordinary event, I will not comment on specific personnel issues on this blog. Any comments that I offer will be made in the open session of the BOR meeting.

After the meeting, and following lunch, the Regents will take part in the ribbon-cutting ceremony for the Space Science Center.

Remember that the BOR meeting is public. You are welcome to attend.

Ron

Can We Function Without Department Chairs?

The College of Business is about to embark on a new administrative model that will, as I understand it, eliminate the position of department chair. I have heard it from no official sources, but I get the sense that this model is being considered for the other colleges across campus, depending on how well it goes in the COB.

What do you think of this change? Can it work? Are there potential problems? What are they? Does anyone have experience at an institution without department chairs?

I'm trying to keep an open mind on this subject, so let me know what you're thinking.

Ron

P.S. As soon as I receive an agenda for the 6/11/09 BOR Quarterly Meeting, I will either post it or post a link to the BOR site.

Agenda for Special Meeting on 21 May

As previously announced, the Work Session originally scheduled for 21 May has been changed to a Special Meeting. Basically, the 11 June meeting has a very full agenda (including approval of the budget and personnel roster), and that date will also serve as the ribbon-cutting ceremony for the Space Science Center.

As promised, here is an abbreviated agenda for the Special Meeting on 21 May (9:00 a.m. Riggle Room):

1. Ratify Awarding of Honorary Doctor's Degree
2. Ratify Spring Graduates
3. Approve Amended Campus Master Plan
4. Approve Reappointment of Auditing Firm
5. Approve Minimum Scope of the Annual Audit
6. Approve 2009-10 Tuition Rates

(The only item that probably needs an explanation is #3. The current Campus Master Plan calls for the construction of a new warehouse to replace the Cowden Building. As it turns out, the University is able to buy an existing warehouse for less money, and the Campus Master Plan needs to reflect this change.)

Do note that while this Special Meeting is public, the Board will probably also go into Executive Session to discuss some personnel matters, including the process for the President's evaluation.

I hope that you're enjoying some time off.

Ron

Another View of the Audit

An anonymous reader presents a different view of the academic audit:

"With all the issues flying around with the audit report there has been few voices about the positive side of many of these changes. My program is affected by the changes but hopefully in the end the program will be better off than before. We hope to have a stronger program with a better position for the future. The audit report was designed to bring out the problems with programs and focus on addressing them. Faculty may not always want to focus on the problems or admit that the changes could end up being better for the program. It would seem that the only faculty that are complaining about the audit are those with problems with their programs that don't want to see those problems addressed."

I am glad to hear a different point of view on this subject and welcome further comments on the subject.

I am not entirely sure I agree with the last statement, however. Many of the complaints I'm hearing do not concern the rating but are focused on the implementation process. For example, some faculty from programs that are marked for "enhancement" have questioned how reorganization is connected to enhancement.

Other thoughts on the matter?

Answers Forthcoming . . .

An anonymous reader makes the following observation and asks some questions:

"There are many unresolved issues, open positions, and unanswered questions that remain at this time. Since we have not heard anything more about these and we are at the end of our semester, it looks like it will all happen during the summer when faculty are gone. It would seem that our faculty-driven process and full transparency isn’t much of a priority at this point if it existed at all. Will the Faculty Senate meet over the summer or the Board of Regents meet during the summer? Will you be around to check on these issues over the summer?"

Yesterday (Wednesday, 29 April) I met with the President to address these very issues. The Provost also joined us for much of the meeting.

Overall, I was very pleased with the meeting, and I am convinced that both the President and the Provost understand the concerns of the faculty. Not every question can be answered right away, since the whole process of implementing the audit recommendations is tremendously complicated, but both the President and the Provost agree that general statements on the most pressing subjects need to be sent out before the end of this term. I know the Provost is working on a memo to faculty, and I am hopeful you will receive it very soon.

To answer the other questions, the Faculty Senate always meets on an "as needed" basis over the summer. Most Senate Chairs have not favored meeting over the summer since it is often hard to obtain a quorum and because they have believed important matters should wait until the fall semester. But it is possible the leadership of the Senate may find it necessary to meet in June and/or July. Your departmental senators should keep you informed.

The Board of Regents will indeed meet over the summer. The BOR will have a special called meeting on 21 May, while the quarterly meeting will be held on 11 June. I have not seen an agenda for either meeting, but the reason we are having a special called meeting in May (instead of the usual work session) is because of a very full agenda for the quarterly meeting, including a ribbon-cutting ceremony for the Space Science Center. As soon as I receive an agenda for either meeting, I will post it here or post a link to the BOR page.

Finally, yes, I will be around all summer. I'm teaching during Summer I. Other than a few day trips, I should be in Morehead.

Stay strong,

Ron

Audit and Restructuring

Following my last post, I received a frustrated response from an anonymous reader. I invite you to scroll down and read the comment on my last post below, but the gist of the reader's comments are captured in this opening statement:

"As faculty regent, what have you heard or know about any transition plan for MSU's future? Are we going to hear anything official before the end of the semester? You are our representative on the board but we haven't heard much from you lately about what is going on either. "

Let me say from the outset that I share the reader's frustration. My own department is being split up, and I will be part of the new "Department of Literature, Linguistics, and Writing" (I didn't choose the title). Our Dean met with us just last week, and, although the faculty posed many good questions, we received nearly no answers. Basically we were told that the new department would exist as of 1 July 2009, but we have no idea who our chair will be. We will have to construct new department committees, write a new FEP, figure out where we are positioned in the new General Education, and so on. We expressed our dismay and frustration to the Dean, but we really received no answers to the questions that most concern us.

In the Faculty Senate, I have seen the same situation play out. Senators from those departments most affected by the restructuring and members of the Governance Committee (who will face the enormous responsibility of recrafting the Senate Constitution and committee descriptions and probably some PAcs as well) can get few specific answers from the Provost.

While I realize that restructuring is a complicated business and that one decision often affects a dozen more, most faculty--and indeed most chairs and deans--do not have a clear idea of how the audit recommendations (including restructuring) will be implemented. It is now late April, and we need some clear and direct answers from the Provost's Office before the end of the term.

(On the issue of having so many interim administrators, I am also deeply concerned. Let me comment on that issue in a separate post later.)

As I have reported in previous posts, I have discussed these matters with the President on several occasions, and I have communicated these concerns to the BOR. I will continue to voice your concerns, complaints, and suggestions to the President and the administration, and in fact I am scheduling a meeting with the President very shortly to discuss this matter.

I wish that I had more answers.

Yes, stay strong. Stay strong in your enthusiasm to teach your classes and pursue your research and creative projects. Stay strong in your desire to make this institution better. Stay strong in your resolve to ask difficult questions and voice minority positions. Stay strong in your defense of academic freedom and shared governance. Yes, it's kind of a goofy saying, but I still hope that MSU faculty, in the face of enormous challenges, will indeed

Stay Strong,

Ron