MSU Faculty Regent Blog

Agenda for the 9 June BOR Meeting

2011-06-07T09:39:00.000-07:00

The full agenda (and most supporting documents) for the 9 June BOR meeting are available here: http://www2.moreheadstate.edu/bor/index.aspx?id=63066

The new Personnel Roster is not available online, but it does reflect a 2% pay raise for all employees ($600 minimum). Hard copies of this popular document should arrive in the Library and various departments in the next week or so.

As I mentioned in a previous post, I will be at Yale University and will have to miss the meeting (first time ever). Representatives from the Faculty Senate plan to attend.

Ron

It's Time to Get This Blog Up and Running Again

2011-06-02T06:40:00.000-07:00

Stay tuned for more information about next week's Board of Regents Meeting (6/9/11). I hope to have a full agenda early next week.

As I announced in the Faculty Senate, I will have to miss my first BOR meeting in June. I am reading a paper at an international conference at Yale University next week. It was an offer I simply could not refuse.

Ron

Tremendous Editorial in Herald-Leader on the UK Board and on Administrative Costs at American Universities

2010-09-20T07:51:00.000-07:00

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

Blackboard or Moodle?

2010-08-30T03:38:00.000-07:00

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

BOR Work Session on Friday, 27 August

2010-08-25T09:14:00.000-07:00

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

In Praise of John O'Cull

2010-07-24T05:19:00.000-07:00

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.

Questions on President's Compensation

2010-06-12T03:57:00.000-07:00

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

BOR Meeting on Thursday, 10 June

2010-06-09T08:59:00.000-07:00

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

Report from BOR Work Session on 20 May

2010-05-22T10:03:00.000-07:00

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

BOR Work Session on Thursday, 20 May

2010-05-15T05:03:00.000-07:00

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

Brief Report from 11 March Meeting

2010-03-12T06:14:00.000-08:00

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

BOR Quarterly Meeting on Thursday, 11 March

2010-03-10T03:16:00.000-08:00

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

KTRS Changes

2010-03-01T13:00:00.000-08:00

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

Best Information on the UA-Huntsville Situation

2010-02-15T04:03:00.000-08:00

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.

Breaking News: Raises at WKU

2010-02-10T03:34:00.000-08:00

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

House Bill 374 and Faculty Regent Elections?

2010-02-09T07:58:00.000-08:00

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

Faculty Senate Constitution Draft

2010-01-31T03:39:00.001-08:00

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

Comment on Projected Budget Cuts

2010-01-24T04:20:00.000-08:00

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

Faculty Morale?

2010-01-14T08:00:00.000-08:00

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 . . . .

New Year's Resolution

2010-01-09T03:50:00.000-08:00

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

BOR Meeting on Wednesday, 30 September

2009-09-28T05:48:00.000-07:00

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

More on Tenure--at KCTCS and MSU

2009-09-24T03:21:00.000-07:00

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

Please Participate in the Presidential Review

2009-09-20T04:37:00.000-07:00

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).

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

Some Links

2009-09-16T06:19:00.001-07:00

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

Some Comments on Convocation

2009-08-15T07:50:00.000-07:00

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

WKU Faculty Survey

2009-08-10T12:33:00.000-07:00

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

Updates from the Provost

2009-08-05T04:35:00.000-07:00

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

Changes in Upcoming BOR Meetings (Updated)

2009-08-03T04:45:00.000-07:00

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

A Reader's Comment on Faculty and Staff Positions

2009-07-27T13:16:00.000-07:00

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

Several Responses to Reader's Question Re: Sabbaticals

2009-07-13T03:05:00.001-07:00

An anonymous reader writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me know if you have other questions or concerns.

Ron

BOR Quarterly Meeting, 11 June 2009

2009-06-07T12:54:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ron

Can We Function Without Department Chairs?

2009-06-04T12:46:00.001-07:00

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

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

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

Ron

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

Agenda for Special Meeting on 21 May

2009-05-17T05:26:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

I hope that you're enjoying some time off.

Ron

Another View of the Audit

2009-05-06T11:09:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

Other thoughts on the matter?

Answers Forthcoming . . .

2009-04-30T10:22:00.001-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stay strong,

Ron

Audit and Restructuring

2009-04-26T04:54:00.000-07:00

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

You're Invited . . .

2009-04-18T11:16:00.000-07:00

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

Yet Another KCTCS/Tenure Update

2009-04-16T09:34:00.000-07:00

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

Update on KCTCS Tenure Elimination

2009-04-15T08:23:00.001-07:00

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

In Defense of Tenure . . .

2009-04-07T13:11:00.001-07:00

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

The President's Forums

2009-03-27T14:24:00.001-07:00

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

Catching Up . . .

2009-03-09T12:30:00.001-07:00

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

A Case of Alleged "Veep Creep"

2009-01-24T10:28:00.000-08:00

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

Answering a Question Regarding the Space Science Center

2009-01-24T10:19:00.000-08:00

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.

Board of Regents Work Session

2009-01-15T18:33:00.000-08:00

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

Answers from the President

2009-01-07T09:26:00.000-08:00

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

Presidential Evaluation and Compensation

2008-12-15T10:41:00.000-08:00

As promised, here are some thoughts on the President's evaluation and compensation.

First of all, there are two related but distinct issues here: evaluation and compensation. As is true with faculty members, it is possible that the President might receive a very positive annual evaluation but no salary increase because of the current fiscal situation.

Evaluation is handled each year by the Board of Regents. As I reported at Faculty Senate, the President set out goals for the year at the September meeting. (In fact, your senators should have a copy of the President's goals.) In addition to looking at his success in meeting those goals, the Board of Regents will this year hire an outside consulting firm to conduct an independent review of the President's performance. We will be holding a retreat in late February to prepare for this review. As I learn more, I will share information with you. I am determined that that faculty will have a significant and meaningful role in this process.

I personally would like to see a more meaningful instrument than the current Senior Administration Evaluation Survey. I realize that this instrument was chosen by the Faculty Senate Evaluation Committee a couple of years ago, but many of the questions on that instrument seem less than helpful. (For example, we have no idea what is meant by "barriers to success.") And the instrument asks us to evaluate senior administrators as a group rather than as individuals. Surely we can get better information from a different instrument. Of course, faculty evaluations of the President would only be one key part of his total evaluation (just as student evaluations are only one key part in faculty annual evaluations).

I would also like to see more transparency in the evaluation of the President. While the evaluation process is a personnel matter (and thus the actual discussions are carried out in closed session), the results are public. As many of you know, other university boards in the state provide specific evaluation criteria as well as numerical ratings of the job performance of their presidents. While I cannot promise that I can persuade the Board to adopt such a model, I am hopeful that the Board will provide more specific information about the evaluation process and the results than it has done in the past.

Now, the President's compensation is probably the most controversial issue here. Do remember that parts of the President's compensation package were negotiated as part of his contract. Thus, increases to his deferred compensation account are not really up for discussion or debate. Also, I hope you will remember that the Board voted two years ago to provide the possibility of performance bonuses for the President. Most faculty I have talked to don't like the idea of a bonus for the President, but that policy was adopted by the Board and will not likely be revised or rescinded during the next few years.

As many of you are aware, at the Presidential forums Dr. Andrews stated that it was unlikely that employees at MSU will receive raises for 2009-10. Given that fact--as well as the continuing gloomy economic forecasts--I would find it very difficult to vote for a presidential raise or bonus of any sort. And I hope that the other members of the Board would feel the same way.

Please note that this statement is not a reflection on the President's job performance one way or the other. It is simply a realistic acknowledgment that we live in difficult economic times and that we all have to make sacrifices as a result. It is also an acknowledgment that we are dealing with public money--state appropriations, federal grant money, and tuition dollars--and that we have to be wise stewards of these resources.

Since this topic is especially tricky, I want to talk with the President early in the spring about this very issue. Please continue to let me know what you're thinking about all these issues,as well as anything else on your mind, so that I can best represent you.

Look for another post in the next week.

Stay Tuned

2008-12-11T10:23:00.001-08:00

I recently received two excellent comments--one on the President's salary, and the other on the Space Science Center. I am buried under a mound of student work to grade, but I want to respond to both of these comments the week after finals.

(BTW, typically the Faculty Regent gets a course off each semester, but this semester I am teaching a full load of 12 hours because of some scheduling problems for the fall.)

If you have comments on the topics above or any other topic at the University, I would love to hear from you.

Happy grading. Look for some commentary next week.
Ron

Update on My Meeting with President Andrews

2008-11-13T06:47:00.001-08:00

It has taken me several days to gather my thoughts on my meeting with President Andrews concerning faculty morale. In fact, it will probably take me a couple of postings to cover all of my thoughts on the current situation. But let me give you the basics.

While I'm not sure that Dr. Andrews and I see the current state of affairs in precisely the same way, his reaction to the meeting was largely positive. In short, he listened and he agreed to take some actions.

First, he agreed that we need to step back a bit and prioritize the many initiatives that we have under way at the present time. His top two priorities--the curriculum audit and general education reform--are probably the top two priorities of the faculty as well. He also expressed a general willingness to be flexible with deadlines if necessary.

Second, he agreed that we need to get a handle on all of the various work groups and ad hoc committees exploring policies that directly affect faculty. He agreed with my suggestion that a meeting needs to take place between the leadership of the Faculty Senate and the Provost and members of her staff to sort out where we stand on these various initiatives. The exact relationships between the work groups and ad hoc committees and the Faculty Senate committees should be clarified at such a meeting.

Third, he agreed with my suggestion to host a forum for faculty to express their views and ask questions. Both he and I agree that his open forums last summer had a very positive effect, and, if his schedule permits, he would like to hold such a forum before the end of this semester. Regardless of when such a forum takes place, please participate and encourage others in your unit to participate as well.

There is probably more to say about where we go from here, but I think that is enough for now. Stay tuned for more posts in the near future. As always, please let me know what you're thinking.

Ron

Thanks for Your Responses to My Faculty Morale Posting

2008-11-04T04:10:00.000-08:00

The response to my faculty morale posting (see archive at right for 28 October) has been overwhelming. Some faculty members replied on the blog, but many more replied privately to me via e-mail. And others stopped me in the hallway or on the street. While the number of responses surprised me, I was not terribly surprised that faculty largely agreed with my assessment of the current situtation. While some faculty expressed their support for certain initiatives (e.g., reassessing workload, reforming general ed.), there was deep concern about how we are proceeding.

If you have not responded to me in some fashion, please do so in the coming week. I am meeting with the President on Monday, 10 November to discuss the current situtation, and I want to try to represent all points of view. Also I would like to hear any specific suggestions for improving the current situtation.

Ron

Faculty Morale--the Lowest I've Ever Seen

2008-10-28T11:31:00.000-07:00

After speaking with a number of faculty and hearing faculty members express themselves very eloquently on the floor of the Faculty Senate, I have to conclude that faculty morale is the lowest I've seen it in my twenty years at the institution.

Sure, there are a number of factors external to MSU that might have an impact on the general mood on campus, but most of the faculty who have taken the time to speak me with me have expressed concerns about the large number of initiatives under way at the present time.

For example, at a recent Senate meeting, it became apparent that there is a great deal of uncertainly about the exact status of faculty evaluation and PBSI for 2008 (and it's late October). At the Senate Executive Council meeting last week, the Provost urged the Senate to adopt a standard teaching evaluation instrument (for this semester) since such ongoing evaluations are important for the SACS study. I stated in that meeting, as I have stated at other times, that I was dismayed that we dropped the IDEA form before creating or otherwise designating a replacement. I continue to be disturbed that the IDEA form was dropped simply by administrative fiat and without meaningful input from the faculty. (Technically, the Evaluation Committee of the Faculty Senate should approve the adoption or discontinuance of a student evaluation instrument.)

And this pattern of administrative fiat is continuing. For example, currently there are ad hoc committees addressing faculty workload and faculty evaluation. These processes are the responsibility of the Faculty Senate, yet these initiatives have been initiated outside of the Faculty Senate governance structure. General education revision, which is specifically listed in the Constitution of the Faculty Senate as being under control of that body, is being conducted independent of the Faculty Senate. Although the Senate insisted upon the formation of the General Education Advisory Council (made up of representatives from each department on campus), there is continued conflict about who will ultimately ratify a new general education framework (even though it is usual practice across the country to put such matters to a faculty vote). And there is talk about changing tenure and promotion standards and processes.

And then there's the curriculum audit process . . . . While I actually do think the basic process was a good idea, the wholesale reorganization of large parts of the university is not justified by the report. To choose just one example, the B.A. program in English was marked for "enhancement." But why, then, does the report recommend combining English and parts of Communication into one gigantic department that would be virtually impossible to administer--especially given the major differences in teaching strategies and research agendas in these already-diverse departments? And I know many of you are facing similar sorts of recommendations that simply are not justified by the audit, and you are deeply concerned about how these changes will affect you and your colleagues and your students.

No wonder faculty feel powerless. Why shouldn't we? If you're like me, you're struggling to keep up with the heavy teaching load at MSU and trying to do some meaningful research and service on the side. But meanwhile just about every significant process involving faculty--faculty evaluation, general education, the evaluation of the curriculum, and on and on--is up in the air. What is even more frustrating is that no clear answers seem to be coming from the administration. I have tried to get a fairly simple answer to the question posed by the faculty member below, but no answers seem to be forthcoming.

I would love to hear from more of you. If you think I am way off base here, please let me know. If others agree, please let me know that, too. If I'm going to represent you, I need to know where you stand.

Ron

Update on Workload Question

2008-10-09T04:20:00.000-07:00

It is a busy time of the semester, and I have had a hard time getting quick answers to the question posed by an anonymous reader concerning faculty workload. But at last I can report a tiny bit of progress.

I wrote to Provost Hughes about the matter--apparently at the same time that at least one other faculty member asked her about it. She wrote me back with the following reply:

"I am looking into the PAc-29 information and the guidelines for overload. I understand that there is some history not recorded in the PAc that precedes both the President and me. We are looking into the issues that you raise. I will get back to you as soon as I can."

The original question has also been sent to Jane Fitzpatrick, the University Attorney, who can also comment on the legal status of the PAc (and all others).

My institutional memory stretches back a ways, but there is considerable murkiness on this issue. As I remember it, the two Provosts before Dr. Hughes worked to reduce or eliminate overload pay--and thus faculty overloads of any kind were discouraged. But certain matters are still unclear.

Under what circumstances are faculty required to teach an overload?

Will faculty be compensated for overloads?

Is the University consistent in how it handles workload issues involving graduate courses, labs, private lessons, thesis direction, etc.?

Discussions are underway regarding "differentiated loads" for faculty (more about this later in a separate post). In my opinion, we need to clarify some of our current policies and make them consistent before we get too far into these discussions.

I'll keep you informed as to what I learn. I would appreciate hearing your comments on this issue.

Ron

Question on Workload

2008-10-02T11:29:00.000-07:00

An Anonymous Reader asks:

"Can you define the workload restrictions, if any, that apply across campus? Right now, because of staff reductions, almost half of our department teaches an overload (as defined by PAc-29, which is 24 hrs per academic year). No one will be compensated, and I came to learn that the PAc's serve only as guidelines and there is no consequence to the administration if they violate the PAc's. So what governs how much a faculty is asked to work? The whim of their supervisor? It's a system without accountability and now with positions unfilled it is starting to impact more and more faculty."

I do not have an answer for you at the present. I will attempt to get some clarification soon. On the issue of your specific load, it might be helpful to know a little more. Would you feel comfortable telling me your department? Do other readers share this problem and concern?

Question on Administrative Spending

2008-10-02T11:16:00.000-07:00

An Anonymous Reader asks:

"Why is it that an academic program on campus can have a position suspended at the drop of a hat, despite a strong program review, whereas the Presidential Leadership Academy can have a $30,000 budget approved (only $20,000 this year!) without any review at all? I'm told that those who graduate value the experience greatly, but of course the same could be said for those who complete academic programs. We need more accountability for administrative spending, don't you think?"

I agree that we need more accountability for administrative spending, and indeed before the June meeting I want to get a much better handle on the University's budget. (It is at the June meeting when we pass the University's overall budget.) Please be aware that typically Regents do not get a chance to comment or suggest changes in individual budget lines. Right now I would rather focus my energies on academic positions and budget lines (than wading into a discussion of the merits of the President's Leadership Academy or other non-academic budget line). I will continue to hammer away at the simple point that we must support academic programs first and foremost.

But give me a little more time to understand the budget process a little more fully (it is a truly daunting task). If anyone wants specific information, I will try to obtain it. If you have specific concerns, please let me know. As I stated in an earlier entry, my first goal is to listen.

Question on Curriculum Audit

2008-10-02T10:48:00.000-07:00

An anonymous question:
What is your current position on the curriculum audit recommendations by the Provost?

It may sound a little flip, but my position is less important than your position. I need to know more clearly how faculty are feeling about the recommendations so that I can represent these concerns to the Board of Regents. So please post some of your concerns on this page and encourage others to do so. My first rule as your Regent is to listen first.

That principle doesn't mean I don't have opinions, and I'm willing to share a basic response until I learn more from the faculty. First, as your Regent, I want to know that the process that the Regents approved last March (before I was elected, by the way) is being followed and that all faculty have had a chance to respond in appropriate and timely fashion. I also want to know that all departments have had a chance to meet with the Provost to discuss the recommendations of the audit. We have a reasonably clear response process in place, and I encourage you to participate fully in that process.

As a faculty member, I have to admit that I am somewhat disappointed in the recommendations. My primary concern is that I can't always see the connection between the program audit and the recommended structural changes at the University. Some of these structural changes seem to be motivated simply by economics, and indeed some of them don't make sense practically or in terms of curriculum design. But we have been given the opportunity to suggest alternative approaches--and we've even been given a bit more time for this process. For the time being, I have to trust in the process and see what happens.

Greetings from your Faculty Regent

2008-09-27T04:20:00.000-07:00

Why another blog?

I give regular reports to the Faculty Senate, but I wanted to establish a forum where faculty can ask questions and provide feedback on campus initiatives and events. Such questions or comments do not need to be signed. I will try my best to answer these questions or to provide whatever information I can discover.

I also wanted a place to offer some explanations about how I voted on specific issues. I will normally try to solicit comments from faculty well in advance of a BOR meeting, but at times specific information on agenda items is not available until immediately before a meeting. It is important to me that you understand how and why I voted on a particular issue.

Always feel free to contact me.

Ron