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
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Monday, August 10, 2009
WKU Faculty Survey
I recently learned that WKU's Faculty Senate has a committee called The Faculty Welfare and Professional Responsibilities Committee. This past weekend, this committee released the results of their WKU Faculty Welfare Survey. According to a story in the Bowling Green Daily News, faculty were asked to evaluate benefits, working conditions, support services, job satisfaction, and the performance of the WKU President and Provost.
To read the story from the Bowling Green Daily News, click here: http://www.bgdailynews.com/articles/2009/08/09/news/news8.txt
To read the actual survey results, click here:
http://www.wku.edu/Dept/Org/FS/documents.htm
Would MSU benefit from conducting a similar survey? Tell your department senators if you would like to see the Faculty Senate conduct such a survey.
Ron
To read the story from the Bowling Green Daily News, click here: http://www.bgdailynews.com/articles/2009/08/09/news/news8.txt
To read the actual survey results, click here:
http://www.wku.edu/Dept/Org/FS/documents.htm
Would MSU benefit from conducting a similar survey? Tell your department senators if you would like to see the Faculty Senate conduct such a survey.
Ron
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Updates from the Provost
This summer, many faculty across campus have asked me in one form or another if any updates were available on the status of the re-organization of Academic Affairs. The Provost reports in an e-mail that she is finishing up an organizational chart for the BOR meeting on 11 August. She reports that she will consult with the President about the best method for delivering this material to faculty and staff at about the same time.
On another matter, a regular reader of this blog has asked about the report that the personnel roster approved last June (and put together several weeks before that time) contains 51 fewer faculty and staff positions from the previous year. I had promised to find out how many faculty positions are included in that number and if there are any updates on those numbers. (There are often some resignations over the summer, and SOAR numbers may influence some hirings). The Provost reports that she is working on these final numbers and will have an answer shortly.
For the context of this last question, please see the posting and comments from 27 July entitled A Reader's Comment on Faculty and Staff Positions. Both the reader and I are concerned how programs might be enhanced during a time of fiscal challenge (to put it mildly) and, it appears, a shrinking faculty. But let's get the data first.
Ron
On another matter, a regular reader of this blog has asked about the report that the personnel roster approved last June (and put together several weeks before that time) contains 51 fewer faculty and staff positions from the previous year. I had promised to find out how many faculty positions are included in that number and if there are any updates on those numbers. (There are often some resignations over the summer, and SOAR numbers may influence some hirings). The Provost reports that she is working on these final numbers and will have an answer shortly.
For the context of this last question, please see the posting and comments from 27 July entitled A Reader's Comment on Faculty and Staff Positions. Both the reader and I are concerned how programs might be enhanced during a time of fiscal challenge (to put it mildly) and, it appears, a shrinking faculty. But let's get the data first.
Ron
Monday, August 3, 2009
Changes in Upcoming BOR Meetings (Updated)
First, let me post a revised meeting schedule for the MSU BOR and then offer some explanations:
Tuesday, 11 August Special Meeting
Thursday, 17 September Work Session
Wednesday, 30 September Special Meeting
The main reason for the Special Meeting in August is to swear in our new Regents and have an orientation session. (You may remember that Lexington lawyer Julie Butcher was appointed this summer by the Governor. Also, earlier in the spring Terry White was elected by the staff to serve as Staff Regent, and Kyle Yarawsky was elected SGA President and Student Regent.) If there are substantive issues on the agenda (which I have not yet seen), I will be sure to post them here. After lunch, the Regents will participate in the groundbreaking of the Student Recreation Center.
I may receive more information concerning the Work Session in September, but I would assume that meeting will be used to provide an update on the academic re-organization and other topics. Again, I'll let you know what I find out.
The September 30 meeting was originally scheduled for the BOR to meet briefly with Dr. John Moore, who is conducting the comprehensive Presidential Review for Penson Associates. (Expect more information on that review process later. But please mark 30 September and the first couple of days of October on your calendar, since Dr. Moore will be meeting with many faculty in groups or individually over several days.) But the "Special Meeting" status allows us to conduct business, so I would also expect to handle some routine matters, such as a quarterly financial report and personnel actions. Again, as the agenda shapes up, I will report back to you.
All of these meetings and work sessions are public, and you are welcome to attend if you would like. If you are available, you might also like to attend the groundbreaking ceremony for the Student Recreation Center on 11 August.
P.S. I'm still waiting for some information on faculty hiring and an organizational chart for Academic Affairs. Getting information over the summer is often slow. (See the previous post and comments for a context.)
Update: I have now seen an agenda for the 11 August meeting. The only item besides the swearing in of new regents and an orientation session is the election of a Vice Chair.
Ron
Tuesday, 11 August Special Meeting
Thursday, 17 September Work Session
Wednesday, 30 September Special Meeting
The main reason for the Special Meeting in August is to swear in our new Regents and have an orientation session. (You may remember that Lexington lawyer Julie Butcher was appointed this summer by the Governor. Also, earlier in the spring Terry White was elected by the staff to serve as Staff Regent, and Kyle Yarawsky was elected SGA President and Student Regent.) If there are substantive issues on the agenda (which I have not yet seen), I will be sure to post them here. After lunch, the Regents will participate in the groundbreaking of the Student Recreation Center.
I may receive more information concerning the Work Session in September, but I would assume that meeting will be used to provide an update on the academic re-organization and other topics. Again, I'll let you know what I find out.
The September 30 meeting was originally scheduled for the BOR to meet briefly with Dr. John Moore, who is conducting the comprehensive Presidential Review for Penson Associates. (Expect more information on that review process later. But please mark 30 September and the first couple of days of October on your calendar, since Dr. Moore will be meeting with many faculty in groups or individually over several days.) But the "Special Meeting" status allows us to conduct business, so I would also expect to handle some routine matters, such as a quarterly financial report and personnel actions. Again, as the agenda shapes up, I will report back to you.
All of these meetings and work sessions are public, and you are welcome to attend if you would like. If you are available, you might also like to attend the groundbreaking ceremony for the Student Recreation Center on 11 August.
P.S. I'm still waiting for some information on faculty hiring and an organizational chart for Academic Affairs. Getting information over the summer is often slow. (See the previous post and comments for a context.)
Update: I have now seen an agenda for the 11 August meeting. The only item besides the swearing in of new regents and an orientation session is the election of a Vice Chair.
Ron
Monday, July 27, 2009
A Reader's Comment on Faculty and Staff Positions
An anonymous readers writes:
"Interesting that the president's report to the BOR included a reduction of 51 positions, and in addition, that there was a hiring freeze. Today, I see where MSU has hired an media relations persons for athletics, yet we cannot hire qualified faculty for some programs that are increasingly in demand. Stimulus?"
I have a couple of responses. First, the reduction of 51 positions from the 2008-09 personnel roster includes both faculty and staff. I have not seen a recent figure on the number of faculty positions, but my understanding was that faculty positions would depend on SOAR numbers. I am not sure that I ever heard the word "freeze" used, although I know the administration has been very carefully monitoring hiring this year and approving hirings on a case-by-case basis. I will, however, attempt to find out if the number of faculty positions has indeed gone down and by how much.
It should be pointed out that the Media Relations Director position is not a new position. Drew Dickerson is replacing Randy Stacy in that position. It is fairly common for universities--especially those that play Division I sports--to hire Media Relations Directors or something equivalent.
Now, I think the more interesting question here is how much emphasis MSU should place on athletics. This is a complicated issue, and I have to admit to having mixed feelings about it. In recent years, MSU athletics have had a number of successes, and MSU has invested some significant resources in our sports teams and facilities. It is frequently argued that sports are the "front porch" of the university. How convincing is that argument? I would very much like some advice on this matter.
Ron
"Interesting that the president's report to the BOR included a reduction of 51 positions, and in addition, that there was a hiring freeze. Today, I see where MSU has hired an media relations persons for athletics, yet we cannot hire qualified faculty for some programs that are increasingly in demand. Stimulus?"
I have a couple of responses. First, the reduction of 51 positions from the 2008-09 personnel roster includes both faculty and staff. I have not seen a recent figure on the number of faculty positions, but my understanding was that faculty positions would depend on SOAR numbers. I am not sure that I ever heard the word "freeze" used, although I know the administration has been very carefully monitoring hiring this year and approving hirings on a case-by-case basis. I will, however, attempt to find out if the number of faculty positions has indeed gone down and by how much.
It should be pointed out that the Media Relations Director position is not a new position. Drew Dickerson is replacing Randy Stacy in that position. It is fairly common for universities--especially those that play Division I sports--to hire Media Relations Directors or something equivalent.
Now, I think the more interesting question here is how much emphasis MSU should place on athletics. This is a complicated issue, and I have to admit to having mixed feelings about it. In recent years, MSU athletics have had a number of successes, and MSU has invested some significant resources in our sports teams and facilities. It is frequently argued that sports are the "front porch" of the university. How convincing is that argument? I would very much like some advice on this matter.
Ron
Monday, July 13, 2009
Several Responses to Reader's Question Re: Sabbaticals
An anonymous reader writes:
"What is happening with sabbaticals? Do the people who were granted sabbaticals last year but couldn't take them get them this year? Do they compete with new applications? Are sabbaticals on hold until better budget days?"
First, in the spirit of complete disclosure, I should note that I did not vote on sabbaticals this year because my spouse applied for a sabbatical and was indeed approved for one. Two other faculty members also received sabbaticals.
The approval process was slowed down this year, as the administration searched for ways to fund sabbaticals. I don't know the full details, but I know the Provost asked that the Professional Development Committee rank the proposals (and I presume some sort of limit was placed on the number of sabbaticals for 2009-10). Letters to all applicants clarifying the exact status of their applications went out in June. I do not know the details of all of those letters, but I presume they clarify the status of "unsuccessful applications." (If I am wrong on this point, please let me know.)
The delay in notification of all applicants caused some frustration. But let's give credit to the President and Provost for ensuring that sabbaticals were available at all this year.
I know from conversations with the President that, even in a tough fiscal year, he wanted to move forward with regular incentives for faculty and staff. Thus, even though most faculty and staff received no pay raises, the University did fund salary increases for both faculty and staff who received promotions or job re-classifications. He was disappointed that the third and final year of the staff salary enhancement plan will have to be delayed. And I have seen no details as of yet, but I also know that Beth Patrick has been working on a comprehensive faculty salary study that will form the basis of a faculty salary enhancement plan that the President has mentioned several times to the Board of Regents.
Also I hope that communication on issues such as this one might be improved in the future. Based on the recommendations of a subcommittee charged with improving meeting procedures (I am a member of this subcommittee), the draft minutes of BOR meetings will be posted within a few weeks of the meetings (rather than a couple of months later). Thus, for example, after the meeting held the first week of June, you should be able to read draft minutes by somewhere around the third week of June. (Do give Board Secretary Carol Johnson a little slack here, since these minutes are often lengthy and it is crucial that they be as accurate as possible.) These minutes will be available on the BOR web site (see link on the first page of this blog).
Let me know if you have other questions or concerns.
Ron
"What is happening with sabbaticals? Do the people who were granted sabbaticals last year but couldn't take them get them this year? Do they compete with new applications? Are sabbaticals on hold until better budget days?"
First, in the spirit of complete disclosure, I should note that I did not vote on sabbaticals this year because my spouse applied for a sabbatical and was indeed approved for one. Two other faculty members also received sabbaticals.
The approval process was slowed down this year, as the administration searched for ways to fund sabbaticals. I don't know the full details, but I know the Provost asked that the Professional Development Committee rank the proposals (and I presume some sort of limit was placed on the number of sabbaticals for 2009-10). Letters to all applicants clarifying the exact status of their applications went out in June. I do not know the details of all of those letters, but I presume they clarify the status of "unsuccessful applications." (If I am wrong on this point, please let me know.)
The delay in notification of all applicants caused some frustration. But let's give credit to the President and Provost for ensuring that sabbaticals were available at all this year.
I know from conversations with the President that, even in a tough fiscal year, he wanted to move forward with regular incentives for faculty and staff. Thus, even though most faculty and staff received no pay raises, the University did fund salary increases for both faculty and staff who received promotions or job re-classifications. He was disappointed that the third and final year of the staff salary enhancement plan will have to be delayed. And I have seen no details as of yet, but I also know that Beth Patrick has been working on a comprehensive faculty salary study that will form the basis of a faculty salary enhancement plan that the President has mentioned several times to the Board of Regents.
Also I hope that communication on issues such as this one might be improved in the future. Based on the recommendations of a subcommittee charged with improving meeting procedures (I am a member of this subcommittee), the draft minutes of BOR meetings will be posted within a few weeks of the meetings (rather than a couple of months later). Thus, for example, after the meeting held the first week of June, you should be able to read draft minutes by somewhere around the third week of June. (Do give Board Secretary Carol Johnson a little slack here, since these minutes are often lengthy and it is crucial that they be as accurate as possible.) These minutes will be available on the BOR web site (see link on the first page of this blog).
Let me know if you have other questions or concerns.
Ron
Sunday, June 7, 2009
BOR Quarterly Meeting, 11 June 2009
As promised, here is a (streamlined) agenda for the Quarterly Meeting on 11 June at 9:00 a.m. in the Riggle Room:
A. Approve Resolution Sustaining Diversity
B. Adopt Resolutions of Commendation for Lora Pace and Michael Harmon
C. President's Recommendations:
1. Approve Sabbaticals
2. Approve Emeritus Status
3. Approve Promotions
4. Approve Tenure for Academic Administrator
5. Ratify Personnel Actions
6. Accept Third Quarter Financial Report and Amend Operating Budget
7. Approve Identity Theft Prevention Program
8. Ratify Six-Year Capital Plan
9. Approve 2009-10 Operating Budget, Fee Schedule, and Personnel Roster
10. Approve Student Conduct Code
D. Approve President's Contract
Most of these agenda items do not need comment. Items C.1-6. are routine for the June meeting. Item C.7. is a program designed to "protect members of the University community by reducing the risk from Identity Theft fraud and maximizing potential damage to the University from fraudulent acts."
The Six Year Capital Plan (see Item C.8. above) will seem familiar to those who have analyzed the plan in the past. For example, the first four items under "Projects Funded with State Bonds or State General Funds" for 2010-2012 include renovating and expanding the Student Center Phase II (52.9 million), constructing a clean room for the Space Science Center (4.3 million), purchasing equipment for the Center for Health, Education, and Research (3.8 million), and renovating Combs (26.3 million).
It may be important to point out that the operating budget and personnel roster (see Item C.9.) do not reflect the reorganizations in Academic Affairs. (Thus, for example, there are budget lines for a department called "Physical Sciences," when in fact that department will cease to exist on 1 July.) This situation is unfortunate, but with the reorganizations ongoing, perhaps it is unavoidable. Still, I will ask the President about this matter.
The Student Conduct Code (see Item C.10.) is unchanged, but the University is required to approve this document annually.
Item D (the President's Contract) will first be discussed in executive session and then brought back to the floor in open session. Barring some sort of extraordinary event, I will not comment on specific personnel issues on this blog. Any comments that I offer will be made in the open session of the BOR meeting.
After the meeting, and following lunch, the Regents will take part in the ribbon-cutting ceremony for the Space Science Center.
Remember that the BOR meeting is public. You are welcome to attend.
Ron
A. Approve Resolution Sustaining Diversity
B. Adopt Resolutions of Commendation for Lora Pace and Michael Harmon
C. President's Recommendations:
1. Approve Sabbaticals
2. Approve Emeritus Status
3. Approve Promotions
4. Approve Tenure for Academic Administrator
5. Ratify Personnel Actions
6. Accept Third Quarter Financial Report and Amend Operating Budget
7. Approve Identity Theft Prevention Program
8. Ratify Six-Year Capital Plan
9. Approve 2009-10 Operating Budget, Fee Schedule, and Personnel Roster
10. Approve Student Conduct Code
D. Approve President's Contract
Most of these agenda items do not need comment. Items C.1-6. are routine for the June meeting. Item C.7. is a program designed to "protect members of the University community by reducing the risk from Identity Theft fraud and maximizing potential damage to the University from fraudulent acts."
The Six Year Capital Plan (see Item C.8. above) will seem familiar to those who have analyzed the plan in the past. For example, the first four items under "Projects Funded with State Bonds or State General Funds" for 2010-2012 include renovating and expanding the Student Center Phase II (52.9 million), constructing a clean room for the Space Science Center (4.3 million), purchasing equipment for the Center for Health, Education, and Research (3.8 million), and renovating Combs (26.3 million).
It may be important to point out that the operating budget and personnel roster (see Item C.9.) do not reflect the reorganizations in Academic Affairs. (Thus, for example, there are budget lines for a department called "Physical Sciences," when in fact that department will cease to exist on 1 July.) This situation is unfortunate, but with the reorganizations ongoing, perhaps it is unavoidable. Still, I will ask the President about this matter.
The Student Conduct Code (see Item C.10.) is unchanged, but the University is required to approve this document annually.
Item D (the President's Contract) will first be discussed in executive session and then brought back to the floor in open session. Barring some sort of extraordinary event, I will not comment on specific personnel issues on this blog. Any comments that I offer will be made in the open session of the BOR meeting.
After the meeting, and following lunch, the Regents will take part in the ribbon-cutting ceremony for the Space Science Center.
Remember that the BOR meeting is public. You are welcome to attend.
Ron
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
