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
Monday, August 3, 2009
Monday, July 27, 2009
A Reader's Comment on Faculty and Staff Positions
An anonymous readers writes:
"Interesting that the president's report to the BOR included a reduction of 51 positions, and in addition, that there was a hiring freeze. Today, I see where MSU has hired an media relations persons for athletics, yet we cannot hire qualified faculty for some programs that are increasingly in demand. Stimulus?"
I have a couple of responses. First, the reduction of 51 positions from the 2008-09 personnel roster includes both faculty and staff. I have not seen a recent figure on the number of faculty positions, but my understanding was that faculty positions would depend on SOAR numbers. I am not sure that I ever heard the word "freeze" used, although I know the administration has been very carefully monitoring hiring this year and approving hirings on a case-by-case basis. I will, however, attempt to find out if the number of faculty positions has indeed gone down and by how much.
It should be pointed out that the Media Relations Director position is not a new position. Drew Dickerson is replacing Randy Stacy in that position. It is fairly common for universities--especially those that play Division I sports--to hire Media Relations Directors or something equivalent.
Now, I think the more interesting question here is how much emphasis MSU should place on athletics. This is a complicated issue, and I have to admit to having mixed feelings about it. In recent years, MSU athletics have had a number of successes, and MSU has invested some significant resources in our sports teams and facilities. It is frequently argued that sports are the "front porch" of the university. How convincing is that argument? I would very much like some advice on this matter.
Ron
"Interesting that the president's report to the BOR included a reduction of 51 positions, and in addition, that there was a hiring freeze. Today, I see where MSU has hired an media relations persons for athletics, yet we cannot hire qualified faculty for some programs that are increasingly in demand. Stimulus?"
I have a couple of responses. First, the reduction of 51 positions from the 2008-09 personnel roster includes both faculty and staff. I have not seen a recent figure on the number of faculty positions, but my understanding was that faculty positions would depend on SOAR numbers. I am not sure that I ever heard the word "freeze" used, although I know the administration has been very carefully monitoring hiring this year and approving hirings on a case-by-case basis. I will, however, attempt to find out if the number of faculty positions has indeed gone down and by how much.
It should be pointed out that the Media Relations Director position is not a new position. Drew Dickerson is replacing Randy Stacy in that position. It is fairly common for universities--especially those that play Division I sports--to hire Media Relations Directors or something equivalent.
Now, I think the more interesting question here is how much emphasis MSU should place on athletics. This is a complicated issue, and I have to admit to having mixed feelings about it. In recent years, MSU athletics have had a number of successes, and MSU has invested some significant resources in our sports teams and facilities. It is frequently argued that sports are the "front porch" of the university. How convincing is that argument? I would very much like some advice on this matter.
Ron
Monday, July 13, 2009
Several Responses to Reader's Question Re: Sabbaticals
An anonymous reader writes:
"What is happening with sabbaticals? Do the people who were granted sabbaticals last year but couldn't take them get them this year? Do they compete with new applications? Are sabbaticals on hold until better budget days?"
First, in the spirit of complete disclosure, I should note that I did not vote on sabbaticals this year because my spouse applied for a sabbatical and was indeed approved for one. Two other faculty members also received sabbaticals.
The approval process was slowed down this year, as the administration searched for ways to fund sabbaticals. I don't know the full details, but I know the Provost asked that the Professional Development Committee rank the proposals (and I presume some sort of limit was placed on the number of sabbaticals for 2009-10). Letters to all applicants clarifying the exact status of their applications went out in June. I do not know the details of all of those letters, but I presume they clarify the status of "unsuccessful applications." (If I am wrong on this point, please let me know.)
The delay in notification of all applicants caused some frustration. But let's give credit to the President and Provost for ensuring that sabbaticals were available at all this year.
I know from conversations with the President that, even in a tough fiscal year, he wanted to move forward with regular incentives for faculty and staff. Thus, even though most faculty and staff received no pay raises, the University did fund salary increases for both faculty and staff who received promotions or job re-classifications. He was disappointed that the third and final year of the staff salary enhancement plan will have to be delayed. And I have seen no details as of yet, but I also know that Beth Patrick has been working on a comprehensive faculty salary study that will form the basis of a faculty salary enhancement plan that the President has mentioned several times to the Board of Regents.
Also I hope that communication on issues such as this one might be improved in the future. Based on the recommendations of a subcommittee charged with improving meeting procedures (I am a member of this subcommittee), the draft minutes of BOR meetings will be posted within a few weeks of the meetings (rather than a couple of months later). Thus, for example, after the meeting held the first week of June, you should be able to read draft minutes by somewhere around the third week of June. (Do give Board Secretary Carol Johnson a little slack here, since these minutes are often lengthy and it is crucial that they be as accurate as possible.) These minutes will be available on the BOR web site (see link on the first page of this blog).
Let me know if you have other questions or concerns.
Ron
"What is happening with sabbaticals? Do the people who were granted sabbaticals last year but couldn't take them get them this year? Do they compete with new applications? Are sabbaticals on hold until better budget days?"
First, in the spirit of complete disclosure, I should note that I did not vote on sabbaticals this year because my spouse applied for a sabbatical and was indeed approved for one. Two other faculty members also received sabbaticals.
The approval process was slowed down this year, as the administration searched for ways to fund sabbaticals. I don't know the full details, but I know the Provost asked that the Professional Development Committee rank the proposals (and I presume some sort of limit was placed on the number of sabbaticals for 2009-10). Letters to all applicants clarifying the exact status of their applications went out in June. I do not know the details of all of those letters, but I presume they clarify the status of "unsuccessful applications." (If I am wrong on this point, please let me know.)
The delay in notification of all applicants caused some frustration. But let's give credit to the President and Provost for ensuring that sabbaticals were available at all this year.
I know from conversations with the President that, even in a tough fiscal year, he wanted to move forward with regular incentives for faculty and staff. Thus, even though most faculty and staff received no pay raises, the University did fund salary increases for both faculty and staff who received promotions or job re-classifications. He was disappointed that the third and final year of the staff salary enhancement plan will have to be delayed. And I have seen no details as of yet, but I also know that Beth Patrick has been working on a comprehensive faculty salary study that will form the basis of a faculty salary enhancement plan that the President has mentioned several times to the Board of Regents.
Also I hope that communication on issues such as this one might be improved in the future. Based on the recommendations of a subcommittee charged with improving meeting procedures (I am a member of this subcommittee), the draft minutes of BOR meetings will be posted within a few weeks of the meetings (rather than a couple of months later). Thus, for example, after the meeting held the first week of June, you should be able to read draft minutes by somewhere around the third week of June. (Do give Board Secretary Carol Johnson a little slack here, since these minutes are often lengthy and it is crucial that they be as accurate as possible.) These minutes will be available on the BOR web site (see link on the first page of this blog).
Let me know if you have other questions or concerns.
Ron
Sunday, June 7, 2009
BOR Quarterly Meeting, 11 June 2009
As promised, here is a (streamlined) agenda for the Quarterly Meeting on 11 June at 9:00 a.m. in the Riggle Room:
A. Approve Resolution Sustaining Diversity
B. Adopt Resolutions of Commendation for Lora Pace and Michael Harmon
C. President's Recommendations:
1. Approve Sabbaticals
2. Approve Emeritus Status
3. Approve Promotions
4. Approve Tenure for Academic Administrator
5. Ratify Personnel Actions
6. Accept Third Quarter Financial Report and Amend Operating Budget
7. Approve Identity Theft Prevention Program
8. Ratify Six-Year Capital Plan
9. Approve 2009-10 Operating Budget, Fee Schedule, and Personnel Roster
10. Approve Student Conduct Code
D. Approve President's Contract
Most of these agenda items do not need comment. Items C.1-6. are routine for the June meeting. Item C.7. is a program designed to "protect members of the University community by reducing the risk from Identity Theft fraud and maximizing potential damage to the University from fraudulent acts."
The Six Year Capital Plan (see Item C.8. above) will seem familiar to those who have analyzed the plan in the past. For example, the first four items under "Projects Funded with State Bonds or State General Funds" for 2010-2012 include renovating and expanding the Student Center Phase II (52.9 million), constructing a clean room for the Space Science Center (4.3 million), purchasing equipment for the Center for Health, Education, and Research (3.8 million), and renovating Combs (26.3 million).
It may be important to point out that the operating budget and personnel roster (see Item C.9.) do not reflect the reorganizations in Academic Affairs. (Thus, for example, there are budget lines for a department called "Physical Sciences," when in fact that department will cease to exist on 1 July.) This situation is unfortunate, but with the reorganizations ongoing, perhaps it is unavoidable. Still, I will ask the President about this matter.
The Student Conduct Code (see Item C.10.) is unchanged, but the University is required to approve this document annually.
Item D (the President's Contract) will first be discussed in executive session and then brought back to the floor in open session. Barring some sort of extraordinary event, I will not comment on specific personnel issues on this blog. Any comments that I offer will be made in the open session of the BOR meeting.
After the meeting, and following lunch, the Regents will take part in the ribbon-cutting ceremony for the Space Science Center.
Remember that the BOR meeting is public. You are welcome to attend.
Ron
A. Approve Resolution Sustaining Diversity
B. Adopt Resolutions of Commendation for Lora Pace and Michael Harmon
C. President's Recommendations:
1. Approve Sabbaticals
2. Approve Emeritus Status
3. Approve Promotions
4. Approve Tenure for Academic Administrator
5. Ratify Personnel Actions
6. Accept Third Quarter Financial Report and Amend Operating Budget
7. Approve Identity Theft Prevention Program
8. Ratify Six-Year Capital Plan
9. Approve 2009-10 Operating Budget, Fee Schedule, and Personnel Roster
10. Approve Student Conduct Code
D. Approve President's Contract
Most of these agenda items do not need comment. Items C.1-6. are routine for the June meeting. Item C.7. is a program designed to "protect members of the University community by reducing the risk from Identity Theft fraud and maximizing potential damage to the University from fraudulent acts."
The Six Year Capital Plan (see Item C.8. above) will seem familiar to those who have analyzed the plan in the past. For example, the first four items under "Projects Funded with State Bonds or State General Funds" for 2010-2012 include renovating and expanding the Student Center Phase II (52.9 million), constructing a clean room for the Space Science Center (4.3 million), purchasing equipment for the Center for Health, Education, and Research (3.8 million), and renovating Combs (26.3 million).
It may be important to point out that the operating budget and personnel roster (see Item C.9.) do not reflect the reorganizations in Academic Affairs. (Thus, for example, there are budget lines for a department called "Physical Sciences," when in fact that department will cease to exist on 1 July.) This situation is unfortunate, but with the reorganizations ongoing, perhaps it is unavoidable. Still, I will ask the President about this matter.
The Student Conduct Code (see Item C.10.) is unchanged, but the University is required to approve this document annually.
Item D (the President's Contract) will first be discussed in executive session and then brought back to the floor in open session. Barring some sort of extraordinary event, I will not comment on specific personnel issues on this blog. Any comments that I offer will be made in the open session of the BOR meeting.
After the meeting, and following lunch, the Regents will take part in the ribbon-cutting ceremony for the Space Science Center.
Remember that the BOR meeting is public. You are welcome to attend.
Ron
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Can We Function Without Department Chairs?
The College of Business is about to embark on a new administrative model that will, as I understand it, eliminate the position of department chair. I have heard it from no official sources, but I get the sense that this model is being considered for the other colleges across campus, depending on how well it goes in the COB.
What do you think of this change? Can it work? Are there potential problems? What are they? Does anyone have experience at an institution without department chairs?
I'm trying to keep an open mind on this subject, so let me know what you're thinking.
Ron
P.S. As soon as I receive an agenda for the 6/11/09 BOR Quarterly Meeting, I will either post it or post a link to the BOR site.
What do you think of this change? Can it work? Are there potential problems? What are they? Does anyone have experience at an institution without department chairs?
I'm trying to keep an open mind on this subject, so let me know what you're thinking.
Ron
P.S. As soon as I receive an agenda for the 6/11/09 BOR Quarterly Meeting, I will either post it or post a link to the BOR site.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Agenda for Special Meeting on 21 May
As previously announced, the Work Session originally scheduled for 21 May has been changed to a Special Meeting. Basically, the 11 June meeting has a very full agenda (including approval of the budget and personnel roster), and that date will also serve as the ribbon-cutting ceremony for the Space Science Center.
As promised, here is an abbreviated agenda for the Special Meeting on 21 May (9:00 a.m. Riggle Room):
1. Ratify Awarding of Honorary Doctor's Degree
2. Ratify Spring Graduates
3. Approve Amended Campus Master Plan
4. Approve Reappointment of Auditing Firm
5. Approve Minimum Scope of the Annual Audit
6. Approve 2009-10 Tuition Rates
(The only item that probably needs an explanation is #3. The current Campus Master Plan calls for the construction of a new warehouse to replace the Cowden Building. As it turns out, the University is able to buy an existing warehouse for less money, and the Campus Master Plan needs to reflect this change.)
Do note that while this Special Meeting is public, the Board will probably also go into Executive Session to discuss some personnel matters, including the process for the President's evaluation.
I hope that you're enjoying some time off.
Ron
As promised, here is an abbreviated agenda for the Special Meeting on 21 May (9:00 a.m. Riggle Room):
1. Ratify Awarding of Honorary Doctor's Degree
2. Ratify Spring Graduates
3. Approve Amended Campus Master Plan
4. Approve Reappointment of Auditing Firm
5. Approve Minimum Scope of the Annual Audit
6. Approve 2009-10 Tuition Rates
(The only item that probably needs an explanation is #3. The current Campus Master Plan calls for the construction of a new warehouse to replace the Cowden Building. As it turns out, the University is able to buy an existing warehouse for less money, and the Campus Master Plan needs to reflect this change.)
Do note that while this Special Meeting is public, the Board will probably also go into Executive Session to discuss some personnel matters, including the process for the President's evaluation.
I hope that you're enjoying some time off.
Ron
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Another View of the Audit
An anonymous reader presents a different view of the academic audit:
"With all the issues flying around with the audit report there has been few voices about the positive side of many of these changes. My program is affected by the changes but hopefully in the end the program will be better off than before. We hope to have a stronger program with a better position for the future. The audit report was designed to bring out the problems with programs and focus on addressing them. Faculty may not always want to focus on the problems or admit that the changes could end up being better for the program. It would seem that the only faculty that are complaining about the audit are those with problems with their programs that don't want to see those problems addressed."
I am glad to hear a different point of view on this subject and welcome further comments on the subject.
I am not entirely sure I agree with the last statement, however. Many of the complaints I'm hearing do not concern the rating but are focused on the implementation process. For example, some faculty from programs that are marked for "enhancement" have questioned how reorganization is connected to enhancement.
Other thoughts on the matter?
"With all the issues flying around with the audit report there has been few voices about the positive side of many of these changes. My program is affected by the changes but hopefully in the end the program will be better off than before. We hope to have a stronger program with a better position for the future. The audit report was designed to bring out the problems with programs and focus on addressing them. Faculty may not always want to focus on the problems or admit that the changes could end up being better for the program. It would seem that the only faculty that are complaining about the audit are those with problems with their programs that don't want to see those problems addressed."
I am glad to hear a different point of view on this subject and welcome further comments on the subject.
I am not entirely sure I agree with the last statement, however. Many of the complaints I'm hearing do not concern the rating but are focused on the implementation process. For example, some faculty from programs that are marked for "enhancement" have questioned how reorganization is connected to enhancement.
Other thoughts on the matter?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
