March 19, 1998 Regular Meeting
Time: 12:45 p.m.
Place: Room 321 Dorman Hall
Bateman, Belli, Boyd, Broome, Bullard, Chen, Coats, Deeds, Holder, Hood, Hovermale, Hurst, Ingram, Jack, Kizer, Linford, Malone, Marshall, Minnis, Murphey, Nagel, Nebeker, Rice, Robinson, Salin, Schneider, Thompson, To, Waldhalm, Walker, Wilkinson, and Zuercher.
Bateman, Hood, Robinson, Schneider, and Stark
Vice President Foil, Director Brown, Dean Fox, Dean Gunter, Dean Mercer, Director Watson
Danny Chetam for Foil, Fox and Guenter.
Approval minutes previous meeting
See February 12, 1998 Regular Meeting minutes..
Vice President Foil
To: Dr. Rodney Foil
From: G. Euel Coats
CC: Executive Committee
Re: Miscellaneous items
Senate review of Operating Policies and Procedures.
First, the Senate appreciates the opportunity to review proposed OPP's or revisions of existing OPP's. We will be happy to receive these at the same time they go to DPAC. We suggest that at the same time a proposed policy or revision goes to DPAC that you request a review by DAFVM Senate.
Our method of considering business is slow. First, we must receive a request in writing to consider an issue. At the next meeting, the Senate decides whether to send the request to a standing committee for study. If yes, the Chair assigns the request to a standing or ad hoc committee. The committee will present its report at a future meeting. We will make an effort to review these in a timely manner.
Suggested change in "Action Item" form.
We will remove the "Approved," "Approved with modification," and "Not approved" check boxes in the "Response" section and replace with blank space for you or Deans-Directors to respond as you wish.
Request for an update of administration review by faculty.
We received the attached request which was discussed at the February 26, 1998 Executive Committee meeting. Rather than place this item on the agenda for the March Regular Meeting as a request to send to committee for study, it was decided that this could be handled by requesting that you provide the senate an update. Consequently, we request that you discuss department head evaluations at the March 19, 1998 meeting. Specifically, we request that you address the questions posed in the attached letter and comment on the issue of faculty opportunity to evaluate Deans and Directors.
|Allen, Albert J.||Agricultural Economics|
|Boyd, Leroy||Animal & Dairy Sciences|
|Broome, Malcolm||MSUES Staff Development|
|Culver, Virgil||MSUES Food and Fiber Center|
|Cushman, Kent||North Miss Research & Extension Center|
|Deeds, Jacquelyn||Ag Ed and Exp Statistics|
|Don Jackson||Wildlife and Fisheries|
|Haque, Zee||Food Science & Technology|
|Hovermale, Carl||Coastal Research & Extension Center|
|Ingram, David||Central Research & Extension Center|
|Ingram, Leonard||Forest Product Laboratory|
|Kizer, Jean||Human Sciences|
|Linford, Robert||CVM Animal Health|
|Malone, Carylon||Human Sciences|
|Munn, Ian A||Forestry|
|Nagel, David||Plant and Soil Sciences|
|Nebeker, Evan||Entomology & Plant Pathology|
|Paulsen, Dan||CVM Diagnostic Laboratory|
|Rice, Charles||CVM Research Program|
|Robinson, John||Agricultural Economics|
|Ryals, Phillip E.||Biochemistry & Molecular Biology|
|Schneider, John||Entomology & Plant Pathology|
|Shaw, David R.||Plant and Soil Sciences|
|Smith, T. W.||Poultry Science|
|Starks, Nelda||MSUES 4-H & Youth Development|
|Thomasson, Alex||Agricultural and Biological Engineering|
|Waldhalm, Steve||CVM Academic Programs|
|Walker, Ron||MSUES Center for Government Affairs|
|Wills, Gene||Delta Research & Extension Center|
|Zuercher, Larry||Landscape Architecture|
The next time this was on the agenda at DPAC was in the Fall 1997 to discuss-review-adopt after the one-year trial implementation. At the first meeting it was discussed, a summary of concerns that had been raised by one or more department heads was distributed, issues were discussed, and a committee was asked to look at possible revisions. Graham Purchase (CVM) was named Chair and I was asked to serve on that committee to represent faculty or to name someone to represent us. Since Steve Bullard had been involved in a similar task, I asked him to represent us. Before that committee could meet and work on the assignment, Graham Purchase resigned his position at MSU.
Start scanned section
TECHNICAL CONCERNS REGARDING DEPARTMENT HEAD EVALUATIONS
As I understand this policy, faculty will have the opportunity to evaluate department heads on an annual basis. This is more frequent than required by university policy. From AOP 10.02 , "At the end of each three year period, a thorough review and evaluation of a department head will be conducted by the dean. This review and evaluation will be based upon data solicited from the faculty, staff, students, and other appropriate individuals."
Begin scanned document
End scanned document.
From the discussion that followed:
Date April 21-22, 1998
Location Crowne Plaza Hotel, Jackson, MS
Vice Chair Report
Robert Holland Faculty Senate Report
Deans Council March 3, 1998
Comments President Portera
AOP 12.15 Academic Probation
Consideration of New recommendations
Begin scanned document
Division of Agriculture Forestry, and Veterinary Medicine Policy and Guidelines for Use of Non-Employee Labor
The units of the Division of Agriculture, Forestry, and Veterinary Medicine of Mississippi State University are custodians of extensive land, buildings, and equipment resources for the conduct of research, education, and extension programs. The following policy and guidelines are presented with reference to use of non-employee labor in overall management of Division programs.
There are many opportunities for use of non-employee labor by the Division. For example, civic organizations, senior citizens clubs, youth organizations, and the military that offer to serve as hosts and guides at special events maintain plantings on Division grounds or help with trash removal may be desirable. It is recognized that volunteers already comprise segments of ongoing programs such as 4-H and Mississippi Homemaker Volunteers, and that they operate within accepted procedures of those programs. In addition, there may be instances where a construction project such as building a road or bridge may coincide with a training need of a military company from which benefits would accrue to both organizations.
The Mississippi Legislature has also authorized use of prisoners for labor by public agencies. Use of prisoners by Division of Agriculture, Forestry, and Veterinary Medicine Units is discouraged. However, in instances of natural disaster and other special circumstances prisoners may be used provided they are supervised by law enforcement authorities. In cases where prisoners are used for labor, such work should be conducted so as to prevent contact with the general public. If prisoners are working in facilities used for public gatherings, when such public gatherings are taking place, prisoners must not be present. Under no circumstances shall prisoners be used in work that affects research outcomes.
Department and Research and Extension Center Heads are responsible for managing this policy and guidelines. Requests for deviation from this policy require approval by the Vice President, Division of Agriculture, Forestry, and Veterinary Medicine.
Signature lines removed
End scanned document
Foil request (verbal to Chair Coats) re: sponsored programs as follows plus attachments (Attachments 12 and 13): "DAFVM Proposals and "Sponsored Agreement Award received by DAFVM/MSU, Motion by Nagel seconded by Deeds sent to Academic Affairs for review.
POLICY AND PROCEDURE STATEMENT ON SPONSORED PROGRAMS AT MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITY
The purpose of this policy and procedure is to provide for effective and efficient processing of all proposals and awards for funding from external sponsors.
The policy of Mississippi State University is that all proposals and awards for project funding from external sponsors shall be processed through the Sponsored Programs Administration unit of the Office of Research. This includes proposals and awards for research, service, and instructional activities. Proposals and awards from the Division of Agriculture, Forestry, and Veterinary Medicine (DAFVM) are the responsibility of the Vice President for DAFVM and shall follow procedures given below for the DAFVM. All other university units shall follow procedures given below for the Division of Research.
PROCEDURES, DIVISION OF RESEARCH
The originator of the proposal shall prepare an Internal Approval Sheet (IAS) and obtain the approval signatures of the Department Head and the Dean/Director of the college or school. A final copy of the proposal, a completed IAS, and a completed and signed Proposal Cover Sheet should be forwarded to SPA a minimum of five working days prior to the deadline receipt date for the proposal.
SPA personnel will review the proposal budget for accuracy and completeness and will prepare the required certifications and representations. They will obtain the necessary internal reviews (legal, human subjects, animal welfare, biohazards, radiological safety, intellectual property, conflict of interest, etc.) and will ensure that the proposal is consistent with university policies and state and federal regulations. SPA personnel will then obtain approval by the Vice President for Research, who is authorized to contractually bind the university. Each proposal must be signed by appropriate reviewers before transmittal. The office will prepare an appropriate letter of transmittal, make the required number of copies, and forward them to the sponsoring agency. They also will carry out all necessary reporting to the University President, the Board of Trustees, and others.
Proposal authors (Principal Investigators) are advised that if contacted by the sponsoring agency, they are to discuss only technical or programmatic aspects of the proposed project. All negotiations relating to contractual and financial aspects of the program will be carried out by SPA personnel. Upon receipt of an award, SPA personnel will review the documents, obtain the appropriate signatures, and establish an account for use by the Principal Investigator.
PROCEDURES, DIVISION OF AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY, AND VETERINARY MEDICINE
Proposals and awards within the Division of Agriculture, Forestry, and Veterinary Medicine (DAFVM) fall into two primary categories: Responses to Requests for Proposals for extramural funds (RFP); and, Special Grants Programs (including the Specific and General Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) activity). The following procedures apply to all proposals and awards from all units excepting the Special Grants Programs submitted through the Mississippi Agriculture and Forestry Experiment Station (MAFES):
The originator of the proposal shall prepare an Internal Approval Sheet (IAS) and obtain the approval signatures of the Department Head(s) and the Dean/Director of the college, or unit. A final copy of the proposal, a completed IAS, and a completed and signed Proposal Cover Sheet should be forwarded to SPA a minimum of five working days prior to the deadline receipt date for the proposal.
SPA personnel will review the proposal budget for accuracy and completeness and will prepare the required certifications and representations. They will obtain the necessary internal reviews (legal, human subjects, animal welfare, biohazards, radiological safety, intellectual property, conflict of interest, etc.) and will ensure that the proposal is consistent with university policies and state and federal regulations. SPA personnel will then obtain approval by the Vice President for Agriculture, Forestry and Veterinary Medicine, who is authorized to contractually bind the university. Each proposal must be signed by appropriate reviewers before transmittal. The SPA will prepare an appropriate letter of transmittal, make the required number of copies, and forward them to the sponsoring agency. SPA will prepare all necessary reports to the University President, the Board of Trustees, and others.
Proposal authors (Principal Investigators) are to discuss only technical or programmatic aspects of the proposal with the sponsoring agency. All negotiations relating to contractual and financial aspects of the program will be carried out by SPA personnel. Upon receipt of an award, SPA personnel will review the documents, obtain the appropriate signatures, and establish an account for use by the Principal Investigator.
Procedures for the MAFES Special Grants Program:
The originator of the proposal shall prepare an Internal Approval Sheet (IAS) and obtain the approval signatures of the Department Heads involved. A final copy of the proposal, a completed IAS, and a completed and signed Proposal Cover Sheet should be forwarded to MAFES administration for signature of the Director of MAFES.
MAFES personnel will review the proposal budget for accuracy and completeness and will prepare the required certifications and representations. They will coordinate with the SPA to obtain the necessary internal reviews (legal, human subjects, animal welfare, biohazards, radiological safety, intellectual property, conflict of interest, etc.) and will ensure that the proposal is consistent with university policies and state and federal regulations. MAFES personnel will then obtain approval by the Vice President for Agriculture, Forestry and Veterinary Medicine, who is authorized to contractually bind the university. Each Special Grants Program proposal must be signed by appropriate reviewers before transmittal. MAFES or the department submitting the proposal will prepare an appropriate letter of transmittal, make the required number of copies, and forward them to the sponsoring agency. MAFES administration will forward a fully signed copy of the proposal along with a completed IAS to Sponsored Programs Administration for entry into the centralized proposal database.
Special Grants Program proposal authors (Principal Investigators) are advised that if contacted by the sponsoring agency, they are to discuss only technical or programmatic aspects of the proposed project. All negotiations relating to contractual and financial aspects of Special Grants Programs will be carried out by MAFES personnel in coordination with SPA. Upon receipt of an award, MAFES personnel will review the documents, obtain the appropriate signatures, and establish an account for use by the Principal Investigator.
A detailed flow chart describing the proposal and award processes within the DAFVM is found in Attachment A of this policy statement.
This operating policy will be reviewed prior to July 1 of each ONY by the Director, MSU Sponsored Programs.
Director of Internal Audit Date University Counsel Date
Vice President for Research Date
Vice President for Agriculture Date
Forestry and Veterinary Medicine
End scanned document
Standing Committee Reports
Academic Affairs has no report for March 19 - we're meeting on the MSU standing committee issue on March 19 (after the regularly scheduled Faculty Senate meeting). I should have a report by the April meeting.
Charter and Bylaws
Morion by Thompson seconded by Nagel to send back to committee passed.
REPORT TO THE DAFVM FACULTY SENATE
BY THE RESOURCE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
BACKGROUND: On January 27, 1998, Dr. Foil wrote requesting that the DAFVM Faculty Senate review the proposed operating policy and procedures (OPPs) titled "Programmatic, Administrative and Budgetary Responsibility and Coordination of Research and Extension Centers and On-Campus Departments." This issue was forwarded to the Resource Affairs Committee at the February 12 meeting of the Senate.
DISCUSSION: Issue Background. The proposed OPPs are in response to longstanding issues of administrative authority in hiring, evaluating, promoting, and directing off-campus staff. The conflicting parties are typically department heads and research and extension (R&E) center directors. This is a subject with which many campus faculty, including the majority of this committee, had little exposure.
The issue of on/off campus coordination has been the subject of past meetings and focus groups over the years, and a working policy has been in place for some time. R&E center directors currently exercise administrative and budgetary authority for their resident staff. They also have primary responsibility in hiring and promoting their staff. This working policy is generally accepted by on-campus department heads since a) they're busy enough and b) they recognize that one person cannot serve two masters. In general, R&E center directors are satisfied with the current working policy and perceive it as the only feasible way to implement research and extension programs that are relevant to local clients.
An informal survey of department heads and R&E center directors reveals some problems that need addressing. Department heads and P&T committees sometimes feel too unfamiliar with the performance of off-campus personnel to adequately review their promotion packages. There is sometimes frustration over the evaluation of some off-campus staff, e.g., when that staff's scientific work is in question by others in their field. Some department heads occasionally perceive either token or no involvement in off-campus hirings. (There are some horror stories about department heads only learning second hand of the hiring of a R&E staff in their program area.) There is a mutual off-campus perception of being left out of some departmental affairs. It was noted that the focus of R&E centers is very applied and client-oriented, which may contrast with the top priorities of campus department heads.
FINDINGS: The OPPs document as received contained a number of typographical errors which are assumed to be artifacts of *.html translation.
The OPPs formalize what is already in place in terms of
authority and shared responsibilities between R&E centers
and campus departments. The OPPs mostly answer the question
of "Who's the Boss?" by assigning administrative,
budgetary, program responsibility, accountability, and
evaluation to the head of the unit where one resides.
The OPPs describe performance review and recommendation for promotion being conducted by the department P&T committee ("with representation of off campus personnel"), the department head, and the R&E center director. This potentially adds one additional wrinkle to an already complicated tenure and promotion process. In the event of differing views, the three sets of recommendations could in theory be resolved by higher level administrators in the Division or the University.
The OPPs make no real distinction of responsibility for program coordination in a given commodity or discipline between department heads and R&E Center directors. Policy Items 1 and 2 give respective responsibility of statewide and geographical programs to department heads and R&E Center directors. How does a department head really direct a statewide program when the regional scientists and specialists are programmatically responsible to the R&E center directors (Policy Item 5)? Policy Item 3 calls for coordination between them, and the Procedures call for joint participation in strategic planning of research, extension and academic programming. But the proposed OPPs do not clearly resolve the hypothetical (and hopefully rare) problem of sharp differences in program emphasis between department heads and R&E center directors. In short, the OPPs do not identify the final authority in deciding questions of program direction for a given commodity or disciplinary area.
RECOMMENDATION: Under Procedures, Item 1. Strategic Plan, following the first two bullet items, insert: "To ensure cooperation and consensus, the statewide commodity/disciplinary plans and unit strategic plans will be subject to review and approval by the Directors of MAFES and MSU-ES and the Dean of CALS. Further, these plans will be updated at a frequency of no more than five years."
COMMITTEE: Malcolm Broome, Skip Jack, John Robinson (Chair), Phillip Steele, Lawrence Zuercher
On motion by Hurst seconded by Bullard Senate agreed to suspend rules to consider changes in Senate Charter passed 19-0-0.
Background: University Counsel had suggested in a note to Dr. Foil on 3-16-97, "As pointed out previously, there would be a conflict between this organ. and the Faculty Senate if this one functions at the University level, hence my suggested change ??????? as marked in red. Also, as we (was?) discussed, I believe it is important that you approve else use of university resources (meeting rooms, mail system, etc.) would be a problem. In addition, to schedule use of University facilities this organization would need to be recognized in accordance with the Use of Facilities Policy (64.01) which requires approval by the student, faculty and Staff Organization Committee."
Motion by Linford seconded by Nagel to authorize Chair to submit ballot to Division faculty for following two changes passes 20-0-0.
Proposed Change 1. (text to be deleted denoted by strikethrough, new text underlined)
Section 1. Charter.
Members of the General Faculty of the Division of Agriculture,
Forestry, and Veterinary Medicine (DAFVM) shall elect representatives
to DAFVM Faculty Senate (henceforth referred to as Senate
in this document) which functions as a channel of communication
between the faculty and administrators of
particularly those in DAFVM. In keeping with the
principles of shared university governance, the Senate
may consider, advise, and make recommendations to the Vice
President for DAFVM which concern the missions and programs
of DAFVM and the general welfare of its faculty, staff,
students, and others that it serves.
Proposed Change 2. Deleted text noted by strikethrough and proposed added text underlined.
Section 1.6. Functions
The Senate shall make recommendations
individuals the Vice President for DAFVM as
needed to accomplish the objectives listed above.
Additional Proposed Change to be included on ballot. "correction."
Section 1.1.3 Add "Forestry and Wildlife Research Center" noted as underlined text.
Section 1.1.3 College of Forest Resources, Forestry and Wildlife Research Center
Motion by Broome seconded by Thompson to adjourn passed by voice vote.
Approved day of 1998 on motion seconded by voice vote.
Begin scanned document
Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Promotion and Tenure (RHFS)
March 20, 1998
1 . College Promotion and Tenure Committee Composition
Issue: On September 27, 1996 G. Euel Coats, Chair of the University Promotion and Tenure Committee asked the Faculty Senate to review the composition of college level tenure and promotion committees. Specifically, he was concerned that the current wording of the Facufty Handbook allows some members of a college committee to be appointed by the dean. In fact, this is true. The current Faculty Handbook contains wording that specifically allows this, as section F.2.a begins with the phrase "The faculty of each college or school shall determine the structure of its own promotion and tenure committee, subject to the condition that a majority of the positions on the committee are held by faculty who are elected from the college."
Argument: In his letter Dr. Coats states that the "University Promotion and Tenure Committee views P & T functions (recommendations) as a responsibility that should be exercised independent of administration. We feel that an appointment by an administrator to a P & T Committee at minimum could create the perception of influence by the administrator."
The Ad Hoc Committee on Promotion and Tenure agrees with this thinking.
Recommendation: That the wording of section F.2.a of the faculty handbook be revised to read in the following manner:
"The faculty of each college or school shall determine the structure of its own promotion and tenure committee, subject to the condition that all positions on the committee are held by faculty who are elected from the college. The committee will determine annually its chairperson and all committee members will be made known to the faculty."
2. University Promotion and Tenure Committee Composition
Issue: In an e-mail exchange Provost Hodgson asked the Faculty Senate to examine the composition of the University Promotion and Tenure Committee. The issue arose because the Division of Continuing Education has no tenured faculty members, so their seat is vacant, but the Library, which does have tenured faculty members is not represented. Also, there are now eight colleges and schools, while the Faculty Handbook requires a committee composed of nine members.
The relevant section of the Faculty Handbook is section F. 1. a. which states: "The University Committee on Promotion and Tenure shall consist of nine (9) full-time, tenured faculty members with the rank of assistant professor and above, one from each academic school or college." This wording conflicts with the requirement that each school or college should be represented.
Argument: The Ad Hoc Committee on Promotion and Tenure believes that each college or school that has tenured faculty members should be represented on the UPTC. It also thinks that in light of the Faculty Senate's March, 1997 decision to link tenure with promotion to associate professor that the wording of section F. 1. should reflect that change.
Recommendation: That the wording of section F.I.a. of the faculty handbook be revised to eliminate the requirement that the UTPC always consist of nine members, and to include wording requiring members to hold the rank of associate professor or above. The committee recommends that section F. 1. be amended to read as follows:
"The University Committee on Promotion and Tenure shall consist of full-time, tenured faculty members with the rank of associate professor and above, one from each academic school or college that has tenured faculty members. Each school/college will elect its representative in the fall by a majority vote of its full-time faculty members with the rank of associate professor and above. Service on the committee will be for three years, with staggered terms. Re-election is possible, but no more than six (6) consecutive years may be served by one representative. The committee will determine annually its chairperson, who will be a full voting member of the committee."
3. "Stop-the-Clock" during progress toward tenure and promotion
Issue: On April 3, 1995 Clyde Williams asked the Faculty Senate to consider a "Stop-the-clock" policy for untenured tenure-track faculty. Dr. Williams argued that such a policy would provide reasonable benefits to faculty, would track federal law, such as the Family Leave Act, and would be of benefit to faculty members who might require time to deal with family emergencies.
Argument: The Ad Hoc Committee on Promotion and Tenure has considered this request and has concluded that no action should be taken at this time. First, the Committee is hesitant to take any action that would conflict in any way with the Statement of Principles of the American Association of University Professors. The relevant statement reads as follows:
Beginning with appointment to the rank of full-time instructor or a higher rank, the probationary period should not exceed seven years, including within this period full-time service in all institutions of higher education; but subject to the proviso that when, after a term of probationary service of more than three years in one or more institutions, a teacher is called to another institution, it may be agreed in writing that his or her new appointment is for a probationary period of not more than four years, even though thereby the person's total probationary period in the academic profession is extended beyond the" normal maximum of seven years."
Second, the Ad Hoc Committee believes that the present wording of the Faculty Handbook allows sufficient flexibility for an untenured faculty member to take advantage of opportunities for professional leave, or to deal with family emergencies. Section E. 5. of the Faculty Handbook parallels the AAUP Statement of Principles in its statement "the probationary period shall be five to seven academic years, three of which may have been spent in the rank of instructor." This statement is in accordance with the policies of the Board of Trustees, Institutions of Higher Learning (March 1991).
Nevertheless, section E.5. also contains a statement that the Ad Hoc Committee believes provides adequate flexibility for faculty members wishing to take professional or family leave. In particular, the Committee thinks that the sentence reading "The department head must notify the faculty member as to how many years (if any) at the rank of instructor, or other credit, will be counted in the probationary period, as well as whether a leave of absence (if any) will be counted" allows the necessary flexibility. The last four sentences of section E.5. read as follows:
Leaves of absence for professional advancement may be counted as part of the five-year probationary period. The department head must notify the faculty member as to how many years (if any) at the rank of instructor, or other credit, will be counted in the probationary period, as well as whether a leave of absence (if any) will be counted. Faculty transferring from another institution within the Mississippi system are subject to the same probationary period as any new faculty.
Recommendation: No action.
4. Conflict between section B.3. and section E.2 of the Faculty Handbook
Issue: In March, 1997, the Faculty Senate voted to add the following language to section E.2. of the Faculty Handbook:
A faculty member who meets the established departmental, school, or college, and University standards for tenure automatically meets the standards for promotion to Associate Professor.
This language is somewhat inconsistent with section B.3. of the Faculty Handbook which states that "The University recognizes faculty achievement both by advances in rank and the granting of tenure, though the two are not necessarily linked." The language approved in March, 1997 links the granting of tenure to promotion, but not promotion to tenure.
Argument: The Ad Hoc Committee on Promotion and Tenure thinks that section B.3. should be made consistent with section E.2. of the Faculty Handbook and that the document should make it clear that tenure can not be granted without promotion to associate professor, but that promotion may occur at any time without a guarantee of tenure. It is important that departments retain the right to promote outstanding faculty members who may have not completed the probationary period required for tenure.
Recommendation: The Ad Hoc Committee recommends that section B.3. of the Faculty Handbook be amended as follows by adding the underlined words:
The University recognizes faculty achievement both by advances in rank and the granting of tenure, though the two are not necessarily linked. For this reason, promotion is never granted routinely for simple satisfactory service, but reflects progressively higher professional competence and accomplishment. Faculty members who have met the requirements for promotion, but who have not fulfilled the probationary period for tenure, may be promoted without tenure. If a Faculty member is granted tenure he or she automatically meets the standards for associate professor. Rank also reflects comparable stature with others in similar disciplines in other university settings. Promotion is based on performance and demonstrated competence and not on length of service, but a reasonable time must elapse for the individual faculty member to demonstrate competence and have it confirmed by periodic evaluation. Professional achievement elsewhere will be considered for promotion and tenure.
5. External Reviews in the Promotion and Tenure Process
Issue: On May 16, 1997, Provost Derek J. Hodgson noted that there was an inconsistent and possibly somewhat sporadic use of external reviewers in promotion and tenure decisions. He further noted that he had discussed this issue with the Council of Deans which had recommended that it be referred to the Faculty Senate for consideration.
Argument: The Ad Hoc Committee on Promotion and Tenure has examined this issue and believes that the Faculty Senate should not address this issue at this time.
First, the Committee sees no faculty sentiment for the university-wide mandating of external reviews for promotion and tenure, even though the Council of Deans might find it desirable. Individual colleges and departments are free to use external reviews in their tenure and promotion process at the present time if they find it to be a useful and desirable practice.
Second, Provost Hodgson is stepping down as of July 1. His successor may or may not have strong opinions on this subject, and the Faculty Senate may or may not wish to address this issue after the installation of a new provost.
Recommendation: That the Faculty Senate take no action on mandating university-wide promotion and tenure reviews at this time.
6. Request for Approval of AOP 13.07
Issue: Provost Derek Hodgson has asked the Faculty Senate to approve the Academic Operating Policy 13.07 on Academic Promotion and Tenure Policies. This document includes basic guideline for the granting of tenure and expectations of faculty members which are derived from the By-Laws and Policies of the Board of Trustees of State Institutions of Higher Learning and from section IV of the Faculty Handbook "Faculty Responsibilities and Academic Operating Policies."
It also includes definitions of rank and the language of section B.3 ). of the Faculty Handbook.
Argument: The Ad Hoc Committee has examined this AOP and believes that it should only contain the section "General Criteria for Faculty Appointment and Eligibility for Tenure." it is recognized that the faculty has primary responsibility for the academic mission of the university. As stated in the Principles for University Governance "On matters primarily affecting the academic mission of the university (curriculum, subject matter and methods of instruction, advising, degree requirements, faculty scholarship, faculty status, faculty service), the principal responsibility for formulating and evaluating ideas lies with the faculty." It is also recognized that the governing document for Promotion and Tenure issues is the Faculty Handbook. Thus, the appropriate place for definitions of rank and promotion and tenure policies is the Faculty Handbook, not an AOP.
Second, if material is included in an AOP that is a reflection of the material found in the primary source, confusion may result. AOPs can be amended by administration without consulting the faculty, and an amended AOP that conflicts with the Faculty Handbook would cause great confusion in the P & T process.
Recommendation: That AOP 13.07 be revised to only include "General Criteria for Faculty Appointment and Eligibility for Tenure" and that individuals consulting AOP 13.07 be referred to the Faculty Handbook for definitive guidance on the promotion and tenure process. We recommend striking all material after the phrase (see FACULTY HANDBOOK, section IV, Faculty Responsibilities.) to the word RESPONSIBILITIES. We further recommend that it be replaced with the following:
See section V of the Faculty Handbook "Promotion and Tenure Policies" for definitive guidance regarding the promotion and tenure process.
Phil Bridges; Robert Cooper; Jim Haug, (c); Vince McGrath; Susan Hall; and Robert Wilson
End scanned document
Attachment 12. Scanned image. Policy and Procedure Statement on Sponsored Programs at Mississippi State University. "DAFVM Proposals."
Attachment 13. Scanned image. Policy and Procedure Statement on Sponsored Programs at Mississippi State University. "Sponsored Agreement Award received by DAFVM/MSU.".