Be sure to check out the editorial by an emeritus economics professor at Centre. Although the editorial focuses on the UK Board of Trustees and their (to my way of thinking) totally inappropriate "salary adjustment" for President Lee Todd, it contains some good information on a recent study performed by the Goldwater Institute on administrative bloat in American universities.
You can read the editorial for yourself here: http://www.kentucky.com/2010/09/20/1442710/uk-trustees-must-reset-priorities.html
The study on administrative costs can be found here: http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/article/4941
The Goldwater Institute may be a little more conservative than college professors, but the study contains some valuable information.
I pledge to find out more about administrative costs for MSU and to keep you posted.
Ron
Monday, September 20, 2010
Monday, August 30, 2010
Blackboard or Moodle?
As you are probably aware, the University is considering switching from Blackboard to Moodle for its online course delivery system. From what I can tell, the major consideration seems to be the cost of Blackboard.
Although I have heard some good things about Moodle from students who have used it elsewhere, most faculty members on our campus seem to want to keep Blackboard for a variety of reasons. Two of the most compelling that I have heard are (a) the modules that various publishers have produced work with Blackboard but do not work with Moodle and (b) the KCTCS system uses the new version of Blackboard, so if we're serious about getting more transfer students, we should perhaps use what KCTCS is using. My friends in CIS also tell me that the new version of Blackboard has all kinds of useful new features.
One of my concerns here--and this concern I apparently share with a number of faculty--is that the choice of our online delivery system is an academic decision that should be made by Academic Affairs (as opposed to IT). And I would hope that the faculty would have a significant voice in this process. Faculty Senate members, are you listening?
Let me know what you think. And let your faculty senators know what you're thinking as well.
Ron
Although I have heard some good things about Moodle from students who have used it elsewhere, most faculty members on our campus seem to want to keep Blackboard for a variety of reasons. Two of the most compelling that I have heard are (a) the modules that various publishers have produced work with Blackboard but do not work with Moodle and (b) the KCTCS system uses the new version of Blackboard, so if we're serious about getting more transfer students, we should perhaps use what KCTCS is using. My friends in CIS also tell me that the new version of Blackboard has all kinds of useful new features.
One of my concerns here--and this concern I apparently share with a number of faculty--is that the choice of our online delivery system is an academic decision that should be made by Academic Affairs (as opposed to IT). And I would hope that the faculty would have a significant voice in this process. Faculty Senate members, are you listening?
Let me know what you think. And let your faculty senators know what you're thinking as well.
Ron
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
BOR Work Session on Friday, 27 August
The work session on Friday, 27 August will largely be a celebration of the new CHER facility, with no other items on the agenda. BOR members will get a tour of the facility and will participate in the ribbon cutting ceremony.
The CHER facility will be a great new resource for the region and for MSU.
Ron
The CHER facility will be a great new resource for the region and for MSU.
Ron
Saturday, July 24, 2010
In Praise of John O'Cull
We learned in June that Dr. John O'Cull will not be returning for another term on MSU's BOR. If you don't know John, you probably should.
John was an outstanding member of the BOR. John is an MSU graduate, and currently one of his sons is an MSU student, so he knows the place well and is a strong supporter of MSU. But, more important, as a Regent, John always took an active interest in recent developments in higher education, and he was genuinely interested in hearing the faculty perspective on various issues, including the controversial ones. And, although he has a rather mild temperament, he also could ask some tough questions in his efforts to make MSU a better institution.
I'll miss John on the BOR, both personally and professionally. He has set a high standard for the new Regents to live up to. If you know John or if you meet him, thank him for his outstanding service to MSU's BOR.
John was an outstanding member of the BOR. John is an MSU graduate, and currently one of his sons is an MSU student, so he knows the place well and is a strong supporter of MSU. But, more important, as a Regent, John always took an active interest in recent developments in higher education, and he was genuinely interested in hearing the faculty perspective on various issues, including the controversial ones. And, although he has a rather mild temperament, he also could ask some tough questions in his efforts to make MSU a better institution.
I'll miss John on the BOR, both personally and professionally. He has set a high standard for the new Regents to live up to. If you know John or if you meet him, thank him for his outstanding service to MSU's BOR.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Questions on President's Compensation
Following the BOR meeting on 6/10, I received a number of inquiries regarding the change to the President's compensation. Confidentiality rules prohibit me from reporting on any discussions during closed session, but I can provide some facts from the open session of the meeting:
1. The President will not be receiving a raise or a bonus for 2010-11.
2. The Board voted to change the President's compensation package by adding $25,000 to the President's retirement annuity for each year that he remains in the position beyond the age of 62. MSU will continue to hold the principal (as it does with his current annuity), and Dr. Andrews will only receive the interest from from this annuity after his retirement.
3. I voted against this motion, stating in the open meeting that I do not believe it appropriate to increase the President's compensation package given the current fiscal situation of the University.
I wanted you to know the facts. Other than stating these simple facts, I do not have any comments to offer, since I prefer to let my public statement and vote express my opinion.
Ron
1. The President will not be receiving a raise or a bonus for 2010-11.
2. The Board voted to change the President's compensation package by adding $25,000 to the President's retirement annuity for each year that he remains in the position beyond the age of 62. MSU will continue to hold the principal (as it does with his current annuity), and Dr. Andrews will only receive the interest from from this annuity after his retirement.
3. I voted against this motion, stating in the open meeting that I do not believe it appropriate to increase the President's compensation package given the current fiscal situation of the University.
I wanted you to know the facts. Other than stating these simple facts, I do not have any comments to offer, since I prefer to let my public statement and vote express my opinion.
Ron
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
BOR Meeting on Thursday, 10 June
The full agenda for the 10 June BOR meeting is online and is mostly routine for this time of year. We will of course approve the operating budget and personnel roster for next year, but there is nothing terribly noteworthy in those documents except for the fact that we continue to struggle to do the best we can given the current funding situation.
For faculty, perhaps the most interesting topic will be the BOR's response to the revised Faculty Senate Constitution. A subcommittee of the Board and representatives from the Faculty Senate met a couple of weeks ago to discuss the document and to try to work out some compromises. It is too early to tell exactly what the Board will do with the Constitution, but it is possible that the Board will approve the document contingent upon some revisions. If this is the case, the revised document would be returned to the Senate and would have to be approved by that body and by the full faculty. More on this subject as it develops.
The Board will also approve the new strategic plan for the institution and will discuss the President's contract.
Ron
For faculty, perhaps the most interesting topic will be the BOR's response to the revised Faculty Senate Constitution. A subcommittee of the Board and representatives from the Faculty Senate met a couple of weeks ago to discuss the document and to try to work out some compromises. It is too early to tell exactly what the Board will do with the Constitution, but it is possible that the Board will approve the document contingent upon some revisions. If this is the case, the revised document would be returned to the Senate and would have to be approved by that body and by the full faculty. More on this subject as it develops.
The Board will also approve the new strategic plan for the institution and will discuss the President's contract.
Ron
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Report from BOR Work Session on 20 May
The BOR can take no actions at a work session, but several important topics were discussed on Thursday, 20 May.
Faculty Senate Chair Royal Berglee was present to present an overview of the Faculty Senate Constitution. President Andrews commented that the document was "not ready" for approval, and he suggested to Chair Merchant that a subcommittee of the BOR be formed to discuss the new Constitution and make a report back to the full group. This subcommittee will meet with Chair Berglee and incoming chair McCormick, the Provost, and the University Attorney. I agreed to serve on the subcommittee, which meets next week.
I think that this approach--the BOR and faculty representatives discussing the Constitution--is a good development, even if the administration and the Board cannot approve the Constitution as it was recently approved by the faculty. Any changes the BOR might suggest would have to be approved by the Faculty Senate and by the full faculty. One of the sticking points (as was expected) is the faculty's role in evaluating the President. The President himself has remarked that the faculty has a legitimate role in the process, but precisely how that process should work is still open to debate. He has also asked (and I think this point of view has some merit) if the Faculty Senate Constitution is the best place to stipulate such a process. More later on this topic as it develops.
While the preliminary report on the STAMATES enrollment marketing survey was interesting, the more general discussion on one of the preliminary findings was, I think, very revealing. The analysts at STAMATES were rather taken aback by the difference between responses from "external" groups and "internal" groups over the issue of MSU's reputation and quality. Most faculty probably won't be surprised to learn that "internal" groups (faculty, staff, current students) did not rate the institution as highly as "external" groups, and they were far less optimistic about MSU reaching its stated goals.
The discussion took a lengthy detour as BOR members and administrators considered the cause of this discrepancy. Fiscal Affairs Chair Verdie Craig was present, and she very eloquently described some of the frustrations felt by MSU faculty and the continued low state of faculty morale at the institution. These are themes that many of us have tried to bring before the administration and the BOR. Faculty were lucky to have had the chance to speak to this issue, and we were fortunate indeed to have Senator Craig there to provide an additional faculty perspective.
President Andrews laid out some possible strategies on addressing the budget, although we will have to wait for the special session to move forward. Our tuition increase of 5% was approved by the Council on Friday, and we are also contemplating some minor adjustments on various fees to help offset the budget cuts. President Andrews believes that we can address the cuts for the next year by applying some reserve funds and by adopting some cost-saving measures. Applications for enrollment look good compared to last year, and indeed any enrollment gains will certainly help.
I guess I don't have to tell you to keep following the budget saga closely. President Andrews has promised to keep the campus community informed.
The BOR will meet on Thursday, 10 June and should be able to approve a budget for 2010-11.
Ron
Faculty Senate Chair Royal Berglee was present to present an overview of the Faculty Senate Constitution. President Andrews commented that the document was "not ready" for approval, and he suggested to Chair Merchant that a subcommittee of the BOR be formed to discuss the new Constitution and make a report back to the full group. This subcommittee will meet with Chair Berglee and incoming chair McCormick, the Provost, and the University Attorney. I agreed to serve on the subcommittee, which meets next week.
I think that this approach--the BOR and faculty representatives discussing the Constitution--is a good development, even if the administration and the Board cannot approve the Constitution as it was recently approved by the faculty. Any changes the BOR might suggest would have to be approved by the Faculty Senate and by the full faculty. One of the sticking points (as was expected) is the faculty's role in evaluating the President. The President himself has remarked that the faculty has a legitimate role in the process, but precisely how that process should work is still open to debate. He has also asked (and I think this point of view has some merit) if the Faculty Senate Constitution is the best place to stipulate such a process. More later on this topic as it develops.
While the preliminary report on the STAMATES enrollment marketing survey was interesting, the more general discussion on one of the preliminary findings was, I think, very revealing. The analysts at STAMATES were rather taken aback by the difference between responses from "external" groups and "internal" groups over the issue of MSU's reputation and quality. Most faculty probably won't be surprised to learn that "internal" groups (faculty, staff, current students) did not rate the institution as highly as "external" groups, and they were far less optimistic about MSU reaching its stated goals.
The discussion took a lengthy detour as BOR members and administrators considered the cause of this discrepancy. Fiscal Affairs Chair Verdie Craig was present, and she very eloquently described some of the frustrations felt by MSU faculty and the continued low state of faculty morale at the institution. These are themes that many of us have tried to bring before the administration and the BOR. Faculty were lucky to have had the chance to speak to this issue, and we were fortunate indeed to have Senator Craig there to provide an additional faculty perspective.
President Andrews laid out some possible strategies on addressing the budget, although we will have to wait for the special session to move forward. Our tuition increase of 5% was approved by the Council on Friday, and we are also contemplating some minor adjustments on various fees to help offset the budget cuts. President Andrews believes that we can address the cuts for the next year by applying some reserve funds and by adopting some cost-saving measures. Applications for enrollment look good compared to last year, and indeed any enrollment gains will certainly help.
I guess I don't have to tell you to keep following the budget saga closely. President Andrews has promised to keep the campus community informed.
The BOR will meet on Thursday, 10 June and should be able to approve a budget for 2010-11.
Ron
Saturday, May 15, 2010
BOR Work Session on Thursday, 20 May
The BOR will hold a work session on Thursday 20 May at 9:00 a.m. in the Heritage Room.
The agenda is as follows:
1. Budget Update from President Andrews
2. 2010-11 Tuition Rates
3. Faculty Senate Constitution
4. STAMATS Enrollment Marketing Study
Obviously the first item is the most important for all of us. We now know that the Legislature will begin its special session on 24 May (after the primaries, as predicted by just about everyone) with a draft of a compromise budget put together by the Governor's office. We also know some details of that budget (see story here: http://www.moreheadstate.edu/news/release.aspx?id=55230), so it is a matter of learning how the administration is planning to respond.
At graduation, I did have a chance to talk with Rocky Adkins and Walter Blevins about how a government shutdown would affect MSU students and employees. After talking with them, and after reading the news this week, I feel somewhat more optimistic than I did before, but we'll all be relieved when this waiting game is over.
I am also curious how the Faculty Senate Constitution will be received by the administration. As far as I know, it has not been accepted or rejected by President Andrews. There may be a couple of sticking points, but the main one seems to be whether the Faculty Senate has the right to institute formative reviews of the President since the BOR bylaws state that the Board has the "exclusive right" to evaluate the President.
And the final item is tremendously important to us all as well. STAMATES is the firm that we have paid (rather handsomely) to help us determine how to improve our enrollment marketing. Headcount enrollment has been very flat in recent years, and credit hour production is going down. Increased enrollment may not solve all of our problems, but declining enrollment numbers will most certainly keep us from achieving some of our most important goals.
Look for my report on the work session next week.
Ron
The agenda is as follows:
1. Budget Update from President Andrews
2. 2010-11 Tuition Rates
3. Faculty Senate Constitution
4. STAMATS Enrollment Marketing Study
Obviously the first item is the most important for all of us. We now know that the Legislature will begin its special session on 24 May (after the primaries, as predicted by just about everyone) with a draft of a compromise budget put together by the Governor's office. We also know some details of that budget (see story here: http://www.moreheadstate.edu/news/release.aspx?id=55230), so it is a matter of learning how the administration is planning to respond.
At graduation, I did have a chance to talk with Rocky Adkins and Walter Blevins about how a government shutdown would affect MSU students and employees. After talking with them, and after reading the news this week, I feel somewhat more optimistic than I did before, but we'll all be relieved when this waiting game is over.
I am also curious how the Faculty Senate Constitution will be received by the administration. As far as I know, it has not been accepted or rejected by President Andrews. There may be a couple of sticking points, but the main one seems to be whether the Faculty Senate has the right to institute formative reviews of the President since the BOR bylaws state that the Board has the "exclusive right" to evaluate the President.
And the final item is tremendously important to us all as well. STAMATES is the firm that we have paid (rather handsomely) to help us determine how to improve our enrollment marketing. Headcount enrollment has been very flat in recent years, and credit hour production is going down. Increased enrollment may not solve all of our problems, but declining enrollment numbers will most certainly keep us from achieving some of our most important goals.
Look for my report on the work session next week.
Ron
Friday, March 12, 2010
Brief Report from 11 March Meeting
At Faculty Senate on Thursday, I promised to deliver my report on the blog, since our meeting was entirely taken up with discussion of the Constitution.
Obviously you can read the press release on the meeting here: http://www.moreheadstate.edu/news/index.aspx?id=53982
I will only make a couple of additional comments.
First, I am delighted in our new Board leadership. John Merchant and John O'Cull will do an excellent job in their respective roles as Board Chair and Vice Chair. Both are very experienced Board members and have my highest respect. I look forward to working with them both.
I also want to thank Elizabeth Mesa-Gaido for doing an excellent job with her sabbatical report. She articulated very clearly and enthusiastically why support for research and scholarly productions is so very important for the institution, our programs, and our students--as well as for our own professional development. She did a great job.
I am happy to report that the University was able to support a limited number of sabbaticals for next year (3 to be exact). I challenged the administration to try to find ways of funding sabbaticals on a firmer footing as we move out of these difficult fiscal times. Basically, there is no money in the budget for sabbaticals at present. Departments and colleges find creative ways of funding sabbaticals with existing resources.
Last, but not least, the Regents gave the President the authority to negotiate the purchase of the current Rowan County Library. Please note that the current Master Plan includes a Classroom to Community Project with a price tag of around 6 million dollars. Purchasing the Library building will come in WAY below that figure and thus should save the University several million dollars over the current plan. It should also be noted that the purchase will be funded with Little Foundation money and matching money from Bucks for Brains. All in all, it sounds like a win/win situation for the University and the community if all goes well.
Have a great spring break.
Ron
Obviously you can read the press release on the meeting here: http://www.moreheadstate.edu/news/index.aspx?id=53982
I will only make a couple of additional comments.
First, I am delighted in our new Board leadership. John Merchant and John O'Cull will do an excellent job in their respective roles as Board Chair and Vice Chair. Both are very experienced Board members and have my highest respect. I look forward to working with them both.
I also want to thank Elizabeth Mesa-Gaido for doing an excellent job with her sabbatical report. She articulated very clearly and enthusiastically why support for research and scholarly productions is so very important for the institution, our programs, and our students--as well as for our own professional development. She did a great job.
I am happy to report that the University was able to support a limited number of sabbaticals for next year (3 to be exact). I challenged the administration to try to find ways of funding sabbaticals on a firmer footing as we move out of these difficult fiscal times. Basically, there is no money in the budget for sabbaticals at present. Departments and colleges find creative ways of funding sabbaticals with existing resources.
Last, but not least, the Regents gave the President the authority to negotiate the purchase of the current Rowan County Library. Please note that the current Master Plan includes a Classroom to Community Project with a price tag of around 6 million dollars. Purchasing the Library building will come in WAY below that figure and thus should save the University several million dollars over the current plan. It should also be noted that the purchase will be funded with Little Foundation money and matching money from Bucks for Brains. All in all, it sounds like a win/win situation for the University and the community if all goes well.
Have a great spring break.
Ron
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
BOR Quarterly Meeting on Thursday, 11 March
For some reason, the agenda for the 11 March Quarterly Meeting of the BOR is not on the web just yet. I have seen a draft agenda, and here are some highlights (beyond the 2nd Quarter Financial Report, Personnel Actions, and other routine business):
A. Election of Board Officers
B. Approval of Tenure with Promotions
C. Approval of Sabbatical Leaves
D. Sabbatical Report from Elizabeth Mesa-Gaido (Art)
E. Approval of Purchase of Property and Exception to Master Plan
The last item may be the only controversial item on the agenda, and I would venture to say it is only controversial because of the difficult fiscal situation we are in throughout the state. Basically, the University is interested in pursuing the purchase of the current Rowan County Public Library for use as the location of the Kentucky Center for Traditional Music. The building could be used for other sorts of community outreach programs as well. Before the University can move forward on a purchase, the Regents must approve the exception to the Master Plan (acquiring this property is not on the plan).
From everything I've heard to date, this purchase makes sense for the University if the price is reasonable. If you get a chance, let me know what you think.
As always, you're welcome to attend BOR meetings. I'm sure the Regents would enjoy getting a chance to meet some faculty.
Ron
A. Election of Board Officers
B. Approval of Tenure with Promotions
C. Approval of Sabbatical Leaves
D. Sabbatical Report from Elizabeth Mesa-Gaido (Art)
E. Approval of Purchase of Property and Exception to Master Plan
The last item may be the only controversial item on the agenda, and I would venture to say it is only controversial because of the difficult fiscal situation we are in throughout the state. Basically, the University is interested in pursuing the purchase of the current Rowan County Public Library for use as the location of the Kentucky Center for Traditional Music. The building could be used for other sorts of community outreach programs as well. Before the University can move forward on a purchase, the Regents must approve the exception to the Master Plan (acquiring this property is not on the plan).
From everything I've heard to date, this purchase makes sense for the University if the price is reasonable. If you get a chance, let me know what you think.
As always, you're welcome to attend BOR meetings. I'm sure the Regents would enjoy getting a chance to meet some faculty.
Ron
Monday, March 1, 2010
KTRS Changes
If you haven't read about the proposed changes to KTRS contributions, you may want to take a look at the following story: http://www.moreheadstate.edu/news/index.aspx?id=53716
At the BOR work session on 18 February, we were told that it was likely that individual members would be required to contribute an extra 1% (more or less) phased in over the next couple of years. The increased contribution was to go entirely toward the medical insurance fund for retired workers. Now, of course, we are hearing that the proposed increase will be 3%, phased in over six years. While the change in contributions will help shore up the funding of KTRS, the increased contribution is not likely to be popular with current members, especially since the changes will only affect the medical insurance of retired members.
What you may not realize is that the participating universities will also have to come up with a 3% increase (again, phased in over six years) as part of their contribution. This change will have the basic effect of a budget cut for MSU and the other institutions that utilize KTRS, and I don't have to explain how challenging it will be to pay for this increase under the current circumstances.
We'll have to see what happens with House Bill 540, but I am relatively sure that some sort of increase will indeed be enacted--for us as individuals, and for the University as a whole.
This issue is not an issue the Regents or the administration can solve, but I would be glad to hear your opinions.
Ron
At the BOR work session on 18 February, we were told that it was likely that individual members would be required to contribute an extra 1% (more or less) phased in over the next couple of years. The increased contribution was to go entirely toward the medical insurance fund for retired workers. Now, of course, we are hearing that the proposed increase will be 3%, phased in over six years. While the change in contributions will help shore up the funding of KTRS, the increased contribution is not likely to be popular with current members, especially since the changes will only affect the medical insurance of retired members.
What you may not realize is that the participating universities will also have to come up with a 3% increase (again, phased in over six years) as part of their contribution. This change will have the basic effect of a budget cut for MSU and the other institutions that utilize KTRS, and I don't have to explain how challenging it will be to pay for this increase under the current circumstances.
We'll have to see what happens with House Bill 540, but I am relatively sure that some sort of increase will indeed be enacted--for us as individuals, and for the University as a whole.
This issue is not an issue the Regents or the administration can solve, but I would be glad to hear your opinions.
Ron
Monday, February 15, 2010
Best Information on the UA-Huntsville Situation
You can find information about the UA-Huntsville shootings all over the web, but the Chronicle of Higher Education website has some of the best information available. Access it here: http://chronicle.com/section/Home/5.
As you might expect, there are some lively debates among Chronicle readers on the subject of tenure and workplace violence.
As you might expect, there are some lively debates among Chronicle readers on the subject of tenure and workplace violence.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Breaking News: Raises at WKU
According to the student newspaper at Western Kentucky University, administrators are planning for a modest raise for faculty for next year. The plan would turn the 1.5% bonus faculty got in 2009 into a raise to their base pay this July. Read the story here: http://www.wkuherald.com/2010/02/09/faculty-staff-to-get-raises/
Your natural question might be "If WKU can do it in these tough economic times, why can't MSU do it?" I'll be asking this question repeatedly myself, and I'll be watching to see what the other Kentucky universities do. I am not terribly hopeful that we'll get any raises for 2010-11, but we need to keep a faculty salary enhancement plan on the front burner.
If you haven't read the post on HB 374 below, please take a look at it and tell me what you think.
Ron
Your natural question might be "If WKU can do it in these tough economic times, why can't MSU do it?" I'll be asking this question repeatedly myself, and I'll be watching to see what the other Kentucky universities do. I am not terribly hopeful that we'll get any raises for 2010-11, but we need to keep a faculty salary enhancement plan on the front burner.
If you haven't read the post on HB 374 below, please take a look at it and tell me what you think.
Ron
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
House Bill 374 and Faculty Regent Elections?
According to MSU's web page: "House Bill 374, sponsored by Rep. Jody Richards, D-Bowling Green, would allow faculty members at the rank of instructor to vote in elections for faculty seats on the governing boards of the six comprehensive universities and also would make them eligible to hold such seats. Current law restricts voting and election rights to faculty at the rank of assistant professor and higher."
I am curious what you think of this proposal.
As the current Faculty Regent, I am probably not entirely objective about such a proposal. But I do have an opinion. There is probably some justification for having Instructors vote for the Faculty Regent. Currently at our institution, non-tenure-eligible faculty (which includes both full-time Instructors and part-time Adjunct Instructors) represent nearly 45% of the total faculty, and they generate close to 30% of the total credit hours of the institution. In the interests of fairness, it seems to me that full-time Instructors should have some say in who represents them on the Board of Regents.
I am much less in favor of allowing full-time Instructors to serve on the Board of Regents. Many of these folks are very capable and very professional, but I strongly believe that our Faculty Regent should be tenured and should be a full professor (the latter is currently not a requirement, btw). It seems like a recipe for disaster to elect a Faculty Regent who could conceivably be fired at a moment's notice and who doesn't have full academic freedom.
But I am willing to be convinced otherwise, so let me know if you have a different opinion on this matter.
Ron
I am curious what you think of this proposal.
As the current Faculty Regent, I am probably not entirely objective about such a proposal. But I do have an opinion. There is probably some justification for having Instructors vote for the Faculty Regent. Currently at our institution, non-tenure-eligible faculty (which includes both full-time Instructors and part-time Adjunct Instructors) represent nearly 45% of the total faculty, and they generate close to 30% of the total credit hours of the institution. In the interests of fairness, it seems to me that full-time Instructors should have some say in who represents them on the Board of Regents.
I am much less in favor of allowing full-time Instructors to serve on the Board of Regents. Many of these folks are very capable and very professional, but I strongly believe that our Faculty Regent should be tenured and should be a full professor (the latter is currently not a requirement, btw). It seems like a recipe for disaster to elect a Faculty Regent who could conceivably be fired at a moment's notice and who doesn't have full academic freedom.
But I am willing to be convinced otherwise, so let me know if you have a different opinion on this matter.
Ron
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Faculty Senate Constitution Draft
This week the Faculty Senate will likely start to discuss and vote on sections of a revised Constitution. At first blush, this project may not sound very interesting, but let me assure you there are some important issues that will have an effect on all faculty members.
This week you should receive a copy of the current draft of the revised Constitution from Royal Berglee, FS Chair. If you don't, contact your department senators for a copy. Please let your senators know your thoughts on the proposed changes. You can also let me know your thoughts as well.
Some of the hot button issues include representation on the Senate, the evaluation of administrators (including the President), and communication with the Board of Regents. Please note that changes to the FS Constitution must be put to a full-faculty vote, so you will be hearing more about this matter as time goes on.
Ron
This week you should receive a copy of the current draft of the revised Constitution from Royal Berglee, FS Chair. If you don't, contact your department senators for a copy. Please let your senators know your thoughts on the proposed changes. You can also let me know your thoughts as well.
Some of the hot button issues include representation on the Senate, the evaluation of administrators (including the President), and communication with the Board of Regents. Please note that changes to the FS Constitution must be put to a full-faculty vote, so you will be hearing more about this matter as time goes on.
Ron
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Comment on Projected Budget Cuts
Several faculty have asked me what I know about the statement in the Herald-Leader regarding potential budget cuts for higher ed if gambling legislation is not passed by the legislature. The exact figures were terrifying: 12% cuts the first year of the biennium and 34% cuts the second year.
The President spoke with the Senate Executive Council on Friday afternoon, and he believes what others of us suspected--the release of these figures was part of a strategy to build support for expanded gambling in the Commonwealth. If you've been reading the newspapers, you know that the expansion of gambling is not terribly likely at this point, so our legislature will have to figure out other ways of expanding revenue.
Still, the President believes that potential budget cuts will not reach the predicted levels, and I share his opinion. It is difficult not to be uneasy (if not downright frightened), but remember that
a. the Governor has shown consistent support for higher education;
b. higher education has some strong supporters in Frankfort;
c. MSU has some strong supporters in Frankfort;
d. President Andrews continues to take a conservative approach with MSU's internal budget.
So hang in there. We need to wait and watch (and lobby our representatives when the time comes), but don't let that 34% figure weigh you down.
Please continue to post responses to my faculty morale question.
Ron
The President spoke with the Senate Executive Council on Friday afternoon, and he believes what others of us suspected--the release of these figures was part of a strategy to build support for expanded gambling in the Commonwealth. If you've been reading the newspapers, you know that the expansion of gambling is not terribly likely at this point, so our legislature will have to figure out other ways of expanding revenue.
Still, the President believes that potential budget cuts will not reach the predicted levels, and I share his opinion. It is difficult not to be uneasy (if not downright frightened), but remember that
a. the Governor has shown consistent support for higher education;
b. higher education has some strong supporters in Frankfort;
c. MSU has some strong supporters in Frankfort;
d. President Andrews continues to take a conservative approach with MSU's internal budget.
So hang in there. We need to wait and watch (and lobby our representatives when the time comes), but don't let that 34% figure weigh you down.
Please continue to post responses to my faculty morale question.
Ron
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Faculty Morale?
In reply to my last posting, an anonymous reader comments that faculty morale is continuing to slip and offers some possible reasons for the trend.
I agree that morale is very low, although I have not been very successful in convincing the administration or the BOR that the morale issue goes beyond a general malaise caused by the gloomy economic situation we find ourselves in or the unusually large number of initiatives faculty have been forced to take on in the last couple of years (you know what they are, so I won't list them here). The anonymous reader claims that faculty are disenfranchised. I think that I would put it a different way: Many faculty feel disenfranchised for various reasons.
I would like to ask readers: How widespread is this feeling of disenfranchisement? What are some of the reasons for it? What will it take for conditions to change?
I'm really interested in reading some responses . . . .
I agree that morale is very low, although I have not been very successful in convincing the administration or the BOR that the morale issue goes beyond a general malaise caused by the gloomy economic situation we find ourselves in or the unusually large number of initiatives faculty have been forced to take on in the last couple of years (you know what they are, so I won't list them here). The anonymous reader claims that faculty are disenfranchised. I think that I would put it a different way: Many faculty feel disenfranchised for various reasons.
I would like to ask readers: How widespread is this feeling of disenfranchisement? What are some of the reasons for it? What will it take for conditions to change?
I'm really interested in reading some responses . . . .
Saturday, January 9, 2010
New Year's Resolution
Although I have tried to represent your interests to the best of my ability, I did not do a very good job of keeping up with this blog on a regular basis last semester. I promise to do a much better job from here on out with weekly updates at the least. The whole purpose of this blog is for me to learn your opinions about faculty issues at MSU. I will offer my opinions as a faculty member, but I hope that you will let me know what issues are on your minds.
Expect another post in the first week of classes. In the meantime, feel free to post comments or questions.
Ron
Expect another post in the first week of classes. In the meantime, feel free to post comments or questions.
Ron
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
