In case you're considering coming to the BOR meeting on Wednesday, 30 September, be aware that the meeting starts at 8:00 a.m. and that the Board plans to go into executive session immediately after the roll call to discuss the Presidential Evaluation being conducted this week. I think Dr. Moore, the consultant from Penson and Associates, is planning on this part of the meeting lasting around an hour and a half. Thus, the public part of the meeting will begin somewhere around 9:30.
The agenda has not been posted online yet, but I have seen a draft version. While the agenda will be fairly light, but there are a few important items, including the approval of personnel actions that resulted from the reorganizations. Also the Regents will receive a preliminary report on enrollment.
Ron
Monday, September 28, 2009
Thursday, September 24, 2009
More on Tenure--at KCTCS and MSU
The Herald-Leader reports that Attorney General Jack Conway issued an opinion that KCTCS does not have the legal authority to eliminate tenure for newly hired faculty. We should all keep a close watch on this issue. Here is a link to the story: http://www.kentucky.com/latest_news/story/947848.html
For me (and remember that I come from a department that is made up of about half non-tenure-eligible positions), the most distressing part of the article is the last sentence: "KCTCS employs 5,000 faculty members, of which 890 are tenured and 168 more are on track for tenure." Surely the numbers weren't that different last fall before the issue arose. That means that, even with a tenure system in place, only about 21% of faculty were tenured or on track to receive tenure at KCTCS.
What are the numbers at MSU? I am trying to find out as part of my work on the SACS review. But, from the national numbers I've seen, tenure is already being eroded in significant ways with the employment of large numbers of adjunct and non-tenure-eligible faculty.
On a positive note, at the last BOR workshop, Dr. Andrews made a brief statement in support of tenure at MSU. I was encouraged.
Ron
For me (and remember that I come from a department that is made up of about half non-tenure-eligible positions), the most distressing part of the article is the last sentence: "KCTCS employs 5,000 faculty members, of which 890 are tenured and 168 more are on track for tenure." Surely the numbers weren't that different last fall before the issue arose. That means that, even with a tenure system in place, only about 21% of faculty were tenured or on track to receive tenure at KCTCS.
What are the numbers at MSU? I am trying to find out as part of my work on the SACS review. But, from the national numbers I've seen, tenure is already being eroded in significant ways with the employment of large numbers of adjunct and non-tenure-eligible faculty.
On a positive note, at the last BOR workshop, Dr. Andrews made a brief statement in support of tenure at MSU. I was encouraged.
Ron
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Please Participate in the Presidential Review
If you have not received information about the upcoming review of President Andrews on 30 September through 2 October, you may want to look at the official announcement here: http://www.moreheadstate.edu/news/release.aspx?id=49672
If you are not among those faculty invited to meet in person with Dr. John Moore, you can still participate in the process by sending a signed letter with your comments (see the announcement for Dr. Moore's address).
If you are not among those faculty invited to meet in person with Dr. John Moore, you can still participate in the process by sending a signed letter with your comments (see the announcement for Dr. Moore's address).
The whole point of this evaluation is to provide Dr. Andrews with the information he needs to improve in his role as our president. You can help him and the institution as a whole by offering your perspectives.
Ron
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Some Links
First, the original link to the WKU data on evaluation of administrators is not working. Let me give you a new version that should work: http://www.wku.edu/senate/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/2009FacWellSurveySummary.html
(Thanks to Robert Royar in my department for sorting this out.)
Second, I attended the Governor's Conference on Postsecondary Education Trusteeship last week. At the conference, Kati Haycock, who works for the Education Trust, gave a talk full of eye-opening statistics about higher education in the U.S. and in Kentucky. Her presentation can be found here: http://www.cpe.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/667E5311-F5B2-4203-B003-4FE9FF298516/0/Haycockpresentation.pdf
Basically, we have made some important strides in access to higher education, but our graduation rates for lower-income students and for minority students is rather poor. There is a ton of information here that might be useful.
Ron
(Thanks to Robert Royar in my department for sorting this out.)
Second, I attended the Governor's Conference on Postsecondary Education Trusteeship last week. At the conference, Kati Haycock, who works for the Education Trust, gave a talk full of eye-opening statistics about higher education in the U.S. and in Kentucky. Her presentation can be found here: http://www.cpe.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/667E5311-F5B2-4203-B003-4FE9FF298516/0/Haycockpresentation.pdf
Basically, we have made some important strides in access to higher education, but our graduation rates for lower-income students and for minority students is rather poor. There is a ton of information here that might be useful.
Ron
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Some Comments on Convocation
If you missed Convocation, you missed a good gathering. We honored our award-winning faculty and staff. (Congrats to all of them.) We heard an informative update from President Andrews on a variety of matters, including the budget, SACS, and the academic review, among other subjects. And President Andrews and Provost Hughes took questions from faculty and staff (mainly faculty).
My first comment is that I am very proud of the questions that MSU faculty members asked. From those questions, there could be little doubt in the minds of observers from outside academia that we remain deeply committed to our teaching, professional achievement, and service work. And I am encouraged that President Andrews and Provost Hughes have consistently been willing to engage with faculty in this manner. I think this is a good sign, and Dr. Andrews told me the same thing in an e-mail the next day.
Imagine my dismay later when I heard, in a public setting no less, an Academic Affairs administrator complain about some of the questions at Convocation. Unfortunately, such actions undermine the spirit of open and honest communication absolutely crucial to shared governance. I blame neither the President nor the Provost for these remarks, but I hope they will use their influence to encourage rather than discourage faculty from voicing questions and concerns.
On a second matter, I would like to respond to a comment that Dr. Andrews made regarding the “corporate” nature of our Board of Regents. Basically, he said that the Faculty, Staff, and Student Regents do not represent constituency groups. Dr. Andrews and I have talked about this issue several times in the past, and he knows that, for the most part, I do not agree with this position.
I say “for the most part” because I do agree with some elements of the position. New Regents swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and I am very much aware that I must represent the taxpayers of Kentucky. Moreover, I realize that I need to consider the priorities of students and their parents (whether they are Kentucky residents or not), and—somewhat more abstractly—I must serve the priorities of the ideal “University.”
But—and this I believe with all my heart—faculty are the heart and soul of the University. Without faculty, there is no University. Thus, in my role as Faculty Regent, serving faculty and representing their interests is the surest way to serve the Commonwealth, students, parents, and staff at the University.
So, yes, feel free to tell me—in person, by e-mail, through this blog, or through any other means you can imagine—what is on your mind. And tell me some positive things as well as negative. I need to be able to tell the other Regents where the faculty stands on a huge array of issues. While at the end of the day I have to cast a vote for or against some action, I promise to articulate your opinions and vote in your best interests. If I don’t, you have every right to elect another faculty member who will.
The President’s comment about the “corporate” nature of the Board also suggests the principle frequently expressed in literature from the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB) that Board members will speak with “one voice.”
As you might expect I cannot entirely subscribe to this principle, and indeed other Faculty Regents across the state do not consistently follow the principle when they believe Boards are making bad policies or decisions. (One recent example would be the abolishing of tenure in the Community and Technical College system in Kentucky, and indeed the Faculty Regents condemned the action.)
While most faculty believe that the “one voice” principle is not compatible with academic freedom and the spirit of shared governance, it is also, in my opinion, an ethically untenable position for members of public boards. In recent weeks and months, you have read the allegations involving several boards of public agencies and institutions in Kentucky. It is unfortunate that some individual board members did not step up and break the “one voice” principle and perhaps spare these boards an avalanche of negative publicity.
Luckily, we work at a University that values diversity, which I think means, among other things, a diversity of opinion. I honestly believe that all of us—faculty, administrators, Board members—want MSU to develop into the best institution it can possibly be. We should value dissent and disagreement because ultimately they will make our institution stronger.
Have a great semester. Stay in touch, and stay strong.
Ron
My first comment is that I am very proud of the questions that MSU faculty members asked. From those questions, there could be little doubt in the minds of observers from outside academia that we remain deeply committed to our teaching, professional achievement, and service work. And I am encouraged that President Andrews and Provost Hughes have consistently been willing to engage with faculty in this manner. I think this is a good sign, and Dr. Andrews told me the same thing in an e-mail the next day.
Imagine my dismay later when I heard, in a public setting no less, an Academic Affairs administrator complain about some of the questions at Convocation. Unfortunately, such actions undermine the spirit of open and honest communication absolutely crucial to shared governance. I blame neither the President nor the Provost for these remarks, but I hope they will use their influence to encourage rather than discourage faculty from voicing questions and concerns.
On a second matter, I would like to respond to a comment that Dr. Andrews made regarding the “corporate” nature of our Board of Regents. Basically, he said that the Faculty, Staff, and Student Regents do not represent constituency groups. Dr. Andrews and I have talked about this issue several times in the past, and he knows that, for the most part, I do not agree with this position.
I say “for the most part” because I do agree with some elements of the position. New Regents swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and I am very much aware that I must represent the taxpayers of Kentucky. Moreover, I realize that I need to consider the priorities of students and their parents (whether they are Kentucky residents or not), and—somewhat more abstractly—I must serve the priorities of the ideal “University.”
But—and this I believe with all my heart—faculty are the heart and soul of the University. Without faculty, there is no University. Thus, in my role as Faculty Regent, serving faculty and representing their interests is the surest way to serve the Commonwealth, students, parents, and staff at the University.
So, yes, feel free to tell me—in person, by e-mail, through this blog, or through any other means you can imagine—what is on your mind. And tell me some positive things as well as negative. I need to be able to tell the other Regents where the faculty stands on a huge array of issues. While at the end of the day I have to cast a vote for or against some action, I promise to articulate your opinions and vote in your best interests. If I don’t, you have every right to elect another faculty member who will.
The President’s comment about the “corporate” nature of the Board also suggests the principle frequently expressed in literature from the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB) that Board members will speak with “one voice.”
As you might expect I cannot entirely subscribe to this principle, and indeed other Faculty Regents across the state do not consistently follow the principle when they believe Boards are making bad policies or decisions. (One recent example would be the abolishing of tenure in the Community and Technical College system in Kentucky, and indeed the Faculty Regents condemned the action.)
While most faculty believe that the “one voice” principle is not compatible with academic freedom and the spirit of shared governance, it is also, in my opinion, an ethically untenable position for members of public boards. In recent weeks and months, you have read the allegations involving several boards of public agencies and institutions in Kentucky. It is unfortunate that some individual board members did not step up and break the “one voice” principle and perhaps spare these boards an avalanche of negative publicity.
Luckily, we work at a University that values diversity, which I think means, among other things, a diversity of opinion. I honestly believe that all of us—faculty, administrators, Board members—want MSU to develop into the best institution it can possibly be. We should value dissent and disagreement because ultimately they will make our institution stronger.
Have a great semester. Stay in touch, and stay strong.
Ron
Monday, August 10, 2009
WKU Faculty Survey
I recently learned that WKU's Faculty Senate has a committee called The Faculty Welfare and Professional Responsibilities Committee. This past weekend, this committee released the results of their WKU Faculty Welfare Survey. According to a story in the Bowling Green Daily News, faculty were asked to evaluate benefits, working conditions, support services, job satisfaction, and the performance of the WKU President and Provost.
To read the story from the Bowling Green Daily News, click here: http://www.bgdailynews.com/articles/2009/08/09/news/news8.txt
To read the actual survey results, click here:
http://www.wku.edu/Dept/Org/FS/documents.htm
Would MSU benefit from conducting a similar survey? Tell your department senators if you would like to see the Faculty Senate conduct such a survey.
Ron
To read the story from the Bowling Green Daily News, click here: http://www.bgdailynews.com/articles/2009/08/09/news/news8.txt
To read the actual survey results, click here:
http://www.wku.edu/Dept/Org/FS/documents.htm
Would MSU benefit from conducting a similar survey? Tell your department senators if you would like to see the Faculty Senate conduct such a survey.
Ron
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Updates from the Provost
This summer, many faculty across campus have asked me in one form or another if any updates were available on the status of the re-organization of Academic Affairs. The Provost reports in an e-mail that she is finishing up an organizational chart for the BOR meeting on 11 August. She reports that she will consult with the President about the best method for delivering this material to faculty and staff at about the same time.
On another matter, a regular reader of this blog has asked about the report that the personnel roster approved last June (and put together several weeks before that time) contains 51 fewer faculty and staff positions from the previous year. I had promised to find out how many faculty positions are included in that number and if there are any updates on those numbers. (There are often some resignations over the summer, and SOAR numbers may influence some hirings). The Provost reports that she is working on these final numbers and will have an answer shortly.
For the context of this last question, please see the posting and comments from 27 July entitled A Reader's Comment on Faculty and Staff Positions. Both the reader and I are concerned how programs might be enhanced during a time of fiscal challenge (to put it mildly) and, it appears, a shrinking faculty. But let's get the data first.
Ron
On another matter, a regular reader of this blog has asked about the report that the personnel roster approved last June (and put together several weeks before that time) contains 51 fewer faculty and staff positions from the previous year. I had promised to find out how many faculty positions are included in that number and if there are any updates on those numbers. (There are often some resignations over the summer, and SOAR numbers may influence some hirings). The Provost reports that she is working on these final numbers and will have an answer shortly.
For the context of this last question, please see the posting and comments from 27 July entitled A Reader's Comment on Faculty and Staff Positions. Both the reader and I are concerned how programs might be enhanced during a time of fiscal challenge (to put it mildly) and, it appears, a shrinking faculty. But let's get the data first.
Ron
Monday, August 3, 2009
Changes in Upcoming BOR Meetings (Updated)
First, let me post a revised meeting schedule for the MSU BOR and then offer some explanations:
Tuesday, 11 August Special Meeting
Thursday, 17 September Work Session
Wednesday, 30 September Special Meeting
The main reason for the Special Meeting in August is to swear in our new Regents and have an orientation session. (You may remember that Lexington lawyer Julie Butcher was appointed this summer by the Governor. Also, earlier in the spring Terry White was elected by the staff to serve as Staff Regent, and Kyle Yarawsky was elected SGA President and Student Regent.) If there are substantive issues on the agenda (which I have not yet seen), I will be sure to post them here. After lunch, the Regents will participate in the groundbreaking of the Student Recreation Center.
I may receive more information concerning the Work Session in September, but I would assume that meeting will be used to provide an update on the academic re-organization and other topics. Again, I'll let you know what I find out.
The September 30 meeting was originally scheduled for the BOR to meet briefly with Dr. John Moore, who is conducting the comprehensive Presidential Review for Penson Associates. (Expect more information on that review process later. But please mark 30 September and the first couple of days of October on your calendar, since Dr. Moore will be meeting with many faculty in groups or individually over several days.) But the "Special Meeting" status allows us to conduct business, so I would also expect to handle some routine matters, such as a quarterly financial report and personnel actions. Again, as the agenda shapes up, I will report back to you.
All of these meetings and work sessions are public, and you are welcome to attend if you would like. If you are available, you might also like to attend the groundbreaking ceremony for the Student Recreation Center on 11 August.
P.S. I'm still waiting for some information on faculty hiring and an organizational chart for Academic Affairs. Getting information over the summer is often slow. (See the previous post and comments for a context.)
Update: I have now seen an agenda for the 11 August meeting. The only item besides the swearing in of new regents and an orientation session is the election of a Vice Chair.
Ron
Tuesday, 11 August Special Meeting
Thursday, 17 September Work Session
Wednesday, 30 September Special Meeting
The main reason for the Special Meeting in August is to swear in our new Regents and have an orientation session. (You may remember that Lexington lawyer Julie Butcher was appointed this summer by the Governor. Also, earlier in the spring Terry White was elected by the staff to serve as Staff Regent, and Kyle Yarawsky was elected SGA President and Student Regent.) If there are substantive issues on the agenda (which I have not yet seen), I will be sure to post them here. After lunch, the Regents will participate in the groundbreaking of the Student Recreation Center.
I may receive more information concerning the Work Session in September, but I would assume that meeting will be used to provide an update on the academic re-organization and other topics. Again, I'll let you know what I find out.
The September 30 meeting was originally scheduled for the BOR to meet briefly with Dr. John Moore, who is conducting the comprehensive Presidential Review for Penson Associates. (Expect more information on that review process later. But please mark 30 September and the first couple of days of October on your calendar, since Dr. Moore will be meeting with many faculty in groups or individually over several days.) But the "Special Meeting" status allows us to conduct business, so I would also expect to handle some routine matters, such as a quarterly financial report and personnel actions. Again, as the agenda shapes up, I will report back to you.
All of these meetings and work sessions are public, and you are welcome to attend if you would like. If you are available, you might also like to attend the groundbreaking ceremony for the Student Recreation Center on 11 August.
P.S. I'm still waiting for some information on faculty hiring and an organizational chart for Academic Affairs. Getting information over the summer is often slow. (See the previous post and comments for a context.)
Update: I have now seen an agenda for the 11 August meeting. The only item besides the swearing in of new regents and an orientation session is the election of a Vice Chair.
Ron
Monday, July 27, 2009
A Reader's Comment on Faculty and Staff Positions
An anonymous readers writes:
"Interesting that the president's report to the BOR included a reduction of 51 positions, and in addition, that there was a hiring freeze. Today, I see where MSU has hired an media relations persons for athletics, yet we cannot hire qualified faculty for some programs that are increasingly in demand. Stimulus?"
I have a couple of responses. First, the reduction of 51 positions from the 2008-09 personnel roster includes both faculty and staff. I have not seen a recent figure on the number of faculty positions, but my understanding was that faculty positions would depend on SOAR numbers. I am not sure that I ever heard the word "freeze" used, although I know the administration has been very carefully monitoring hiring this year and approving hirings on a case-by-case basis. I will, however, attempt to find out if the number of faculty positions has indeed gone down and by how much.
It should be pointed out that the Media Relations Director position is not a new position. Drew Dickerson is replacing Randy Stacy in that position. It is fairly common for universities--especially those that play Division I sports--to hire Media Relations Directors or something equivalent.
Now, I think the more interesting question here is how much emphasis MSU should place on athletics. This is a complicated issue, and I have to admit to having mixed feelings about it. In recent years, MSU athletics have had a number of successes, and MSU has invested some significant resources in our sports teams and facilities. It is frequently argued that sports are the "front porch" of the university. How convincing is that argument? I would very much like some advice on this matter.
Ron
"Interesting that the president's report to the BOR included a reduction of 51 positions, and in addition, that there was a hiring freeze. Today, I see where MSU has hired an media relations persons for athletics, yet we cannot hire qualified faculty for some programs that are increasingly in demand. Stimulus?"
I have a couple of responses. First, the reduction of 51 positions from the 2008-09 personnel roster includes both faculty and staff. I have not seen a recent figure on the number of faculty positions, but my understanding was that faculty positions would depend on SOAR numbers. I am not sure that I ever heard the word "freeze" used, although I know the administration has been very carefully monitoring hiring this year and approving hirings on a case-by-case basis. I will, however, attempt to find out if the number of faculty positions has indeed gone down and by how much.
It should be pointed out that the Media Relations Director position is not a new position. Drew Dickerson is replacing Randy Stacy in that position. It is fairly common for universities--especially those that play Division I sports--to hire Media Relations Directors or something equivalent.
Now, I think the more interesting question here is how much emphasis MSU should place on athletics. This is a complicated issue, and I have to admit to having mixed feelings about it. In recent years, MSU athletics have had a number of successes, and MSU has invested some significant resources in our sports teams and facilities. It is frequently argued that sports are the "front porch" of the university. How convincing is that argument? I would very much like some advice on this matter.
Ron
Monday, July 13, 2009
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
"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
Sunday, June 7, 2009
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
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
Thursday, June 4, 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
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
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
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
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?
"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?
Thursday, April 30, 2009
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
"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
Sunday, April 26, 2009
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
"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
Saturday, April 18, 2009
You're Invited . . .
All faculty and librarians are invited to drop by 102 Combs on Wednesday, 22 April from 3:00 until 5:00 p.m. I would like to hear your opinions on the curriculum audit, reorganization, presidential evaluation, and/or anything else you would like to talk about.
If you can't make it, please consider posting a response on this blog or sending me an e-mail at r-morrison@rocketmail.com.
Stay strong,
Ron
If you can't make it, please consider posting a response on this blog or sending me an e-mail at r-morrison@rocketmail.com.
Stay strong,
Ron
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Yet Another KCTCS/Tenure Update
Roy Silver, a sociology professor at Southeast Kentucky Community and Technical College, has published another very compelling defense of tenure. The article, which appeared in Thursday's Herald-Leader, can be found at this link: http://www.kentucky.com/589/story/762887.html
For more information on the situation at KCTCS, please read my previous two posts.
Stay strong,
Ron
For more information on the situation at KCTCS, please read my previous two posts.
Stay strong,
Ron
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Update on KCTCS Tenure Elimination
Many of you are probably aware that on 3 April the faculty at Southeast Community and Technical College voted to give the Board of Regents for KCTCS a vote of no confidence. (This sentence is a little tortured for an English professor, but it is hard to articulate!) If you have not read about this vote, you may wish to read the full news story: http://www.kentucky.com/142/story/750072.html
What you may not know is that the faculty at Bluegrass Community and Technical College are preparing to do the same thing, according to posts on the COSFL discussion list. And I just received word that the Leestown Campus of KCTCS is calling a special meeting to discuss a similar resolution.
I am not sure that such votes of no confidence will have much of an effect, but perhaps extraordinary times demand extraordinary measures. The loss of tenure for future hires in the KCTCS system is a serious threat to the concept of tenure at all colleges and universities in the state.
What can we do beyond offering moral support to our colleagues at these institutions? I think the most important thing we can do is to continue to articulate to the general public why we think tenure needs to be preserved. If you haven't read the recent letter from the General Secretary of the AAUP to KCTCS faculty members (see my post immediately below), it is a great place to start.
Ron
What you may not know is that the faculty at Bluegrass Community and Technical College are preparing to do the same thing, according to posts on the COSFL discussion list. And I just received word that the Leestown Campus of KCTCS is calling a special meeting to discuss a similar resolution.
I am not sure that such votes of no confidence will have much of an effect, but perhaps extraordinary times demand extraordinary measures. The loss of tenure for future hires in the KCTCS system is a serious threat to the concept of tenure at all colleges and universities in the state.
What can we do beyond offering moral support to our colleagues at these institutions? I think the most important thing we can do is to continue to articulate to the general public why we think tenure needs to be preserved. If you haven't read the recent letter from the General Secretary of the AAUP to KCTCS faculty members (see my post immediately below), it is a great place to start.
Ron
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
In Defense of Tenure . . .
Most of you probably know that recently the Board of Regents of the Kentucky Community and Technical College System voted to abolish tenure for all new faculty hires coming into the system.
This development has been very disturbing to many of us in higher education, and indeed the AAUP and the state-level Council of Senate and Faculty Leadership (COSFL) have been exploring ways of challenging this decision.
I thought you might like to read a public letter from the General Secretary of the AAUP to the faculty at Kentucky's Community and Technical Colleges, since it provides a compelling and rational defense of tenure in general. Among other reasons, as the General Secretary states, "Tenure is key to providing faculty members the genuine freedom to challenge and engage students in the classroom." To read the letter in its entirety, please follow this link: http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/about/gensec/KCTCS.htm
If you find the letter as compelling as I do, please consider sending a link to your colleagues in Kentucky and across the nation.
And just so no rumors get started, please let me state in very clear terms that I have heard no one suggest that Morehead State should abolish tenure. But I think it a very valuable thing to articulate to the general public why we value tenure and why we will work hard to preserve it.
Ron
This development has been very disturbing to many of us in higher education, and indeed the AAUP and the state-level Council of Senate and Faculty Leadership (COSFL) have been exploring ways of challenging this decision.
I thought you might like to read a public letter from the General Secretary of the AAUP to the faculty at Kentucky's Community and Technical Colleges, since it provides a compelling and rational defense of tenure in general. Among other reasons, as the General Secretary states, "Tenure is key to providing faculty members the genuine freedom to challenge and engage students in the classroom." To read the letter in its entirety, please follow this link: http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/about/gensec/KCTCS.htm
If you find the letter as compelling as I do, please consider sending a link to your colleagues in Kentucky and across the nation.
And just so no rumors get started, please let me state in very clear terms that I have heard no one suggest that Morehead State should abolish tenure. But I think it a very valuable thing to articulate to the general public why we value tenure and why we will work hard to preserve it.
Ron
Friday, March 27, 2009
The President's Forums
On Wednesday, I had to leave town right as the President was convening his first of two forums with faculty and staff. (I am sitting in Pittsburgh as I write this sentence. Since November, I have been planning to attend the College English Association meeting.)
I'm sorry to have missed the forums, especially since some of the President's comments have apparently touched a raw nerve or two. (See responses to my previous posting, which were created right at the time of the President's forums.)
I am very interested in hearing other responses to the forums, so please let me know what you think by commenting on this posting.
On the issue of decreased benefits, I am very concerned that we might continue to lose benefits in the wake of the budget crisis. I pledge to keep you informed of any information I might learn, and I promise to pass along to the President and others any concerns that you bring to me. (I have, for example, communicated my concern about the closing of the MSU Child Care Center.)
More when I return to Morehead . . . .
Ron
I'm sorry to have missed the forums, especially since some of the President's comments have apparently touched a raw nerve or two. (See responses to my previous posting, which were created right at the time of the President's forums.)
I am very interested in hearing other responses to the forums, so please let me know what you think by commenting on this posting.
On the issue of decreased benefits, I am very concerned that we might continue to lose benefits in the wake of the budget crisis. I pledge to keep you informed of any information I might learn, and I promise to pass along to the President and others any concerns that you bring to me. (I have, for example, communicated my concern about the closing of the MSU Child Care Center.)
More when I return to Morehead . . . .
Ron
Monday, March 9, 2009
Catching Up . . .
Sorry to be slow responding to some of the postings on the blog, but I've been trying to take care of business for you, and I've had that nasty bug that's going around.
At any rate, I'm feeling better and ready to respond to at least a couple of questions (more later this week).
First, I take no responsibility for the poetry on this blog--even though I have enjoyed reading it. What a civilized response to the tense time as we waited for the audit results! Keep it up, and maybe we'll have enough material to publish a chapbook.
On a more serious note, I have been asked by an anonymous reader if the BOR should vote on something more than an "executive summary" of the audit. The reader's specific question is this:
"Is the BOR not charged with the task of: 'The determination of the number of divisions, departments, bureaus, offices, and agencies needed for the successful conduct of the University' (BOR Bylaws, Article II, A.11). Is it appropriate for the BOR to make that determination based on an executive summary?
This question deserves a detailed answer.
Article II, A.11 certainly applies here, but so do other bylaws. The BOR will eventually be presented with program deletions and additions, as well as other items that need BOR approval.
But right now, what we have is a recommendation from Academic Affairs to take certain actions on various programs, including some fairly extensive reorganizations. While it is safe to assume that the President and his Cabinet would like to approve all or most of these recommendations, fiscal constraints and other practicalities may indeed cause the plan to be revised in some ways. If you have looked at the recommendations, you realize that there are still lots of details to be ironed out, and indeed implementing these recommendations may prove difficult. Thus, while eventually the BOR will approve many specific elements of the plan (including, presumably, the number of "divisions, departments, etc.), we are not quite at that point yet.
To address the other part of the reader's question, I don't want to speak for my fellow BOR members, but they are very much aware of how important this academic audit is for the health of the University. At the BOR meeting on 12 March, they will hear a detailed presentation on the audit and will have a chance to ask questions and make comments. BOR members will have also access to the same materials that you have, including the full audit recommendations.
In the last couple of days, a reader asked about my reaction to the audit recommendations. I have given this same answer a couple of times recently, but it's what I really believe. My personal reaction is far less important than YOUR responses. If you have issues you want to get out there, please respond to this blog or send me an e-mail. I want to know what you're thinking so that I can communicate your thoughts to Board.
Stay strong.
Ron
At any rate, I'm feeling better and ready to respond to at least a couple of questions (more later this week).
First, I take no responsibility for the poetry on this blog--even though I have enjoyed reading it. What a civilized response to the tense time as we waited for the audit results! Keep it up, and maybe we'll have enough material to publish a chapbook.
On a more serious note, I have been asked by an anonymous reader if the BOR should vote on something more than an "executive summary" of the audit. The reader's specific question is this:
"Is the BOR not charged with the task of: 'The determination of the number of divisions, departments, bureaus, offices, and agencies needed for the successful conduct of the University' (BOR Bylaws, Article II, A.11). Is it appropriate for the BOR to make that determination based on an executive summary?
This question deserves a detailed answer.
Article II, A.11 certainly applies here, but so do other bylaws. The BOR will eventually be presented with program deletions and additions, as well as other items that need BOR approval.
But right now, what we have is a recommendation from Academic Affairs to take certain actions on various programs, including some fairly extensive reorganizations. While it is safe to assume that the President and his Cabinet would like to approve all or most of these recommendations, fiscal constraints and other practicalities may indeed cause the plan to be revised in some ways. If you have looked at the recommendations, you realize that there are still lots of details to be ironed out, and indeed implementing these recommendations may prove difficult. Thus, while eventually the BOR will approve many specific elements of the plan (including, presumably, the number of "divisions, departments, etc.), we are not quite at that point yet.
To address the other part of the reader's question, I don't want to speak for my fellow BOR members, but they are very much aware of how important this academic audit is for the health of the University. At the BOR meeting on 12 March, they will hear a detailed presentation on the audit and will have a chance to ask questions and make comments. BOR members will have also access to the same materials that you have, including the full audit recommendations.
In the last couple of days, a reader asked about my reaction to the audit recommendations. I have given this same answer a couple of times recently, but it's what I really believe. My personal reaction is far less important than YOUR responses. If you have issues you want to get out there, please respond to this blog or send me an e-mail. I want to know what you're thinking so that I can communicate your thoughts to Board.
Stay strong.
Ron
Saturday, January 24, 2009
A Case of Alleged "Veep Creep"
Recently some faculty have been asking me privately about a case of "veep creep," by which they mean the establishment of more administrators at the vice presidential level. The reason? After the first of the year they learned that the University has a new CIO (Chief Information Officer)--and indeed it was rumored that this position was at the VP level. I recently corresponded with Beth Patrick about the matter, and a few days later the Senate Executive Council was also able to ask the President about the hiring. I want to clue you in to some important facts here.
1. The position is an Assistant Vice President for Technology. The difference may be subtle, but it is not a full VP position. As the President notes, we are actually down one VP with the retirement of Keith Kappes.
2. This position is actually an existing position. The position was formerly held by Gary Van Meter. When Gary Van Meter retired, the position was not filled, and in fact Beth Patrick performed all of the functions of this position for several years.
3. The approval for the position was granted about a year ago (before the most recent fiscal crisis came to a head), and the new Assistant VP (Gary Holeman) was hired about six months ago. Because of some compelling personal reasons, Mr. Holeman asked to have his start date delayed to 1 January. Thus, although some faculty were surprised to learn we have a new administrator when they returned from break, the hiring had actually been in the works for quite some time.
I put all this information out there so that you know all the facts and can judge for yourself what to conclude about this hiring. I am personally satisfied with the answers I have received, but I would welcome comments from anyone who wants to weigh in.
I do think the faculty has a right and an obligation to keep an eye on such matters, and I pledge to help you to answer any questions you might have. Many of us have heard the President talk of "right-sizing" the University, and it seems crucial that we not only "right-size" the student body and the faculty but the administration as well. And, as I have noted before, I definitely want the faculty to have some significant input into the question of what "right-sizing" actually means.
As always, I welcome your thoughts and questions.
Ron
1. The position is an Assistant Vice President for Technology. The difference may be subtle, but it is not a full VP position. As the President notes, we are actually down one VP with the retirement of Keith Kappes.
2. This position is actually an existing position. The position was formerly held by Gary Van Meter. When Gary Van Meter retired, the position was not filled, and in fact Beth Patrick performed all of the functions of this position for several years.
3. The approval for the position was granted about a year ago (before the most recent fiscal crisis came to a head), and the new Assistant VP (Gary Holeman) was hired about six months ago. Because of some compelling personal reasons, Mr. Holeman asked to have his start date delayed to 1 January. Thus, although some faculty were surprised to learn we have a new administrator when they returned from break, the hiring had actually been in the works for quite some time.
I put all this information out there so that you know all the facts and can judge for yourself what to conclude about this hiring. I am personally satisfied with the answers I have received, but I would welcome comments from anyone who wants to weigh in.
I do think the faculty has a right and an obligation to keep an eye on such matters, and I pledge to help you to answer any questions you might have. Many of us have heard the President talk of "right-sizing" the University, and it seems crucial that we not only "right-size" the student body and the faculty but the administration as well. And, as I have noted before, I definitely want the faculty to have some significant input into the question of what "right-sizing" actually means.
As always, I welcome your thoughts and questions.
Ron
Answering a Question Regarding the Space Science Center
Sorry to be slow answering this question. I'm sort of new to this blog format, and I didn't notice the question until recently.
An anonymous readers asks:
"I have heard from a few very reliable sources that the administration tried to move the Program of Distinction designation from IRAPP to Space Sciences but that they were blocked by CPE. Is this true?"
The CPE is not currently funding new programs of distinction. It is possible that the administration inquired about the Space Science Center becoming a program of distinction or perhaps about the future of state funding for such programs. But I don't think it is accurate to say that a request to make the Space Science Center a program of distinction was "blocked by CPE."
I hope this helps.
An anonymous readers asks:
"I have heard from a few very reliable sources that the administration tried to move the Program of Distinction designation from IRAPP to Space Sciences but that they were blocked by CPE. Is this true?"
The CPE is not currently funding new programs of distinction. It is possible that the administration inquired about the Space Science Center becoming a program of distinction or perhaps about the future of state funding for such programs. But I don't think it is accurate to say that a request to make the Space Science Center a program of distinction was "blocked by CPE."
I hope this helps.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Board of Regents Work Session
Before I was elected to the Board of Regents, I was a little puzzled about the "work sessions" that are scheduled roughly a month before the quarterly meetings. Work sessions are used to accomplish a variety of things. The Board is required by state law to provide a fairly extensive orientation for new members, for example. And quite typically, major items for discussion and approval are reviewed prior to the quarterly meeting. Although Regents do not typically have much involvement in the day-to-day operations of the University, work sessions do allow them to ask questions and make suggestions on policies and other important initiatives.
Keep in mind that work sessions are public meetings. You are indeed welcome to attend any work session. Indeed I wish that at least a few faculty would attend every work session if at all possible. The President typically brings many of his cabinet members, and they are often asked questions and contribute to the discussion in various ways. I see no reason why faculty cannot contribute in the same sorts of ways. Senate Chair Cathy Thomas has been a regular attendee at work sessions and quarterly meetings, but I would love to see more of you attend, and indeed I think it would be very good for the Board to have more contact with faculty.
The next work session is Thursday, 19 February at 9:00 a.m. in the Riggle Room. Typically the work session lasts for several hours (but you should feel free to come and go as your schedule permits). I do not have an agenda at the present time for the upcoming meeting, but I am going to ask the President to comment on the Academic Program Audit process, since that important item will be on the agenda at the quarterly meeting in March.
Please note that the Regents will not be voting on the Academic Program Audit (more on that issue after I talk with the President). They will simply be briefed on the issue and will have the opportunity to ask questions and make comments. Once the results of the audit (and restructuring) are released, I am hopeful that there will be some opportunities to ask questions and to make comments directly to the administration. But, as always, feel free to contact me through the various channels, including this blog.
I hope your semester is off to a great start. The month of January seems particularly busy this year. Hang in there, and I'll try to do the same.
Ron
Keep in mind that work sessions are public meetings. You are indeed welcome to attend any work session. Indeed I wish that at least a few faculty would attend every work session if at all possible. The President typically brings many of his cabinet members, and they are often asked questions and contribute to the discussion in various ways. I see no reason why faculty cannot contribute in the same sorts of ways. Senate Chair Cathy Thomas has been a regular attendee at work sessions and quarterly meetings, but I would love to see more of you attend, and indeed I think it would be very good for the Board to have more contact with faculty.
The next work session is Thursday, 19 February at 9:00 a.m. in the Riggle Room. Typically the work session lasts for several hours (but you should feel free to come and go as your schedule permits). I do not have an agenda at the present time for the upcoming meeting, but I am going to ask the President to comment on the Academic Program Audit process, since that important item will be on the agenda at the quarterly meeting in March.
Please note that the Regents will not be voting on the Academic Program Audit (more on that issue after I talk with the President). They will simply be briefed on the issue and will have the opportunity to ask questions and make comments. Once the results of the audit (and restructuring) are released, I am hopeful that there will be some opportunities to ask questions and to make comments directly to the administration. But, as always, feel free to contact me through the various channels, including this blog.
I hope your semester is off to a great start. The month of January seems particularly busy this year. Hang in there, and I'll try to do the same.
Ron
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Answers from the President
Right after the new year, President Andrews sent an e-mail response to the two questions posed by readers of this blog (details below). I was very pleased that he also addressed these two concerns at Convocation on Wednesday, 7 January.
The two questions and answers are as follows:
1. Is literally "everything" on the table as we discuss budget cuts. His one-word answer is "yes."
2. What constitutes a "Program of Distinction" and how is this designation approved? Here, I'll cut and paste his e-mail response:
"We have one official program of distinction on our campus. It is IRAPP. That program resulted from the Higher Education Reform Act of 1997. In this legislation, each comprehensive institution was asked to develop and submit a proposal to create a program that had the potential to achieve national distinction. The past president and provost worked with the campus community to solicit proposals. My understanding is that IRAPP was selected from three or four proposals submitted. The proposal was reviewed on campus and by the BOR and submitted to the CPE and was approved. Annual reports of progress are submitted to the CPE via Academic Affairs. An institution may have additional programs of distinction. However, the CPE is not approving new programs with funding."
At Convocation, Dr. Andrews noted that the Space Science Center is not a "Program of Distinction," although he reiterated that the program is a valuable part of MSU's future.
I hope these answers help. Please continue to let me know what is on your mind. If you haven't read my posting on Presidential Evaluation and Compensation, please see the archives.
Ron
The two questions and answers are as follows:
1. Is literally "everything" on the table as we discuss budget cuts. His one-word answer is "yes."
2. What constitutes a "Program of Distinction" and how is this designation approved? Here, I'll cut and paste his e-mail response:
"We have one official program of distinction on our campus. It is IRAPP. That program resulted from the Higher Education Reform Act of 1997. In this legislation, each comprehensive institution was asked to develop and submit a proposal to create a program that had the potential to achieve national distinction. The past president and provost worked with the campus community to solicit proposals. My understanding is that IRAPP was selected from three or four proposals submitted. The proposal was reviewed on campus and by the BOR and submitted to the CPE and was approved. Annual reports of progress are submitted to the CPE via Academic Affairs. An institution may have additional programs of distinction. However, the CPE is not approving new programs with funding."
At Convocation, Dr. Andrews noted that the Space Science Center is not a "Program of Distinction," although he reiterated that the program is a valuable part of MSU's future.
I hope these answers help. Please continue to let me know what is on your mind. If you haven't read my posting on Presidential Evaluation and Compensation, please see the archives.
Ron
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
