DAFVM Faculty Senate

MINUTES

March 19, 1998 Regular Meeting
Time: 12:45 p.m.
Place: Room 321 Dorman Hall

Senate Membership
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.

Excused
Bateman, Hood, Robinson, Schneider, and Stark

Absent unexcused
Walker

Division Administrators
Vice President Foil, Director Brown, Dean Fox, Dean Gunter, Dean Mercer, Director Watson

Present
Danny Chetam for Foil, Fox and Guenter.


Approval minutes previous meeting

See February 12, 1998 Regular Meeting minutes..


Guest comments

Vice President Foil

  • Response DFAVM request concerning department head evaluation (See following memo requesting response).
  • Other and other guest.

Begin memo

Memorandum

To: Dr. Rodney Foil

From: G. Euel Coats

CC: Executive Committee

Date: 02/28/98

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.

End memo

Chair report

  • Phil Steele has resigned as Forest Products Representative. The department has been notified that an election should be held to fill the remainder of his term. We owe Phil a big thank you for the work that he did while on the Senate. Specifically, he provided the leadership for the review of the proposed IHL policy changes. He and members of that committee did an outstanding job in a very short period of time on issues that are extremely important to faculty. He noted in his resignation letter "Hopefully, I will get the opportunity to serve on the DAFVM Faculty Senate again." I second that motion. Thanks Phil.
  • Dr. Leonard Ingram has been elected to fill the remained of Dr. Steele's term.
  • Departments with representatives whose terms end June 30 have been notified to hold elections.
  • Update Ad Hoc Committee Pool.
    Individuals named to date are listed in the left column.

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
Kubiske, Mark Forestry
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

  •  Background on the department head evaluation.

    Specifically, how the issue has been handled in DPAC since I have represented the Ag Reps of RHFS and/or DAFVM Senate. My comments are related to process, not implementation, or sharing of results of evaluations with faculty, department head responses, etc.
  • My first exposure to this policy at DPAC was when it was adopted for one year on a trial basis. At the meeting in which the decision was made to adopt on a trial basis, I expressed a concern about the timing that would provide department heads results prior to annual faculty evaluations. Following that input, the time frame was changed so department heads received results after annual faculty evauations. Evaluations have been conducted one time in which heads received the summaries in late Spring 1997.

    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

    • Purpose of the evaluation

      The evaluation was billed as a pilot study. Results should not be used until the study has been validated. The process needs careful study and evaluation.

      Is the evaluation to be used for professional improvement or is it to be used for personnel decisions e.g., assignment and pay. The tone of the responses and the trends of the numbers could be used for professional improvement even though they are not statistically valid. If it is for personnel decisions, then it needs to be statistically valid and beyond reproach because it could be the basis for legal action.


      Department Heads vary in responsibility for, for example, research, teaching and service. It is not possible to compare one with another or you would be comparing "apples with oranges."

      Departments vary greatly in the number of faculty. Surveys in small departments may not have sufficient respondents to make them significant. On the other hand, small departments may be easier to manage.

      Department heads vary greatly in the amount of experience as department head and in their styles of management and in their aptitude to manage. Such differences are not reflected in scores in a survey.

      Differences in the Populations of Faculty Doing the Evaluation

      Faculty are not homogeneous. Some departments have a very heterogeneous group of faculty whereas others are more homogeneous. I believe that researchers tend to be "prima donnas" in many different fields, that is, they are creative in different ways. In a department that has a heavy emphasis on research, the faculty are therefore more heterogeneous and more difficult to manage.

      One might question whether faculty that have been given a terminal contract and are within months of leaving the employ of the university should be allowed to participate in the evaluation. This is of particular concern if the responses are allowed to be anonymous and there is no control of who votes or the number of times a person can vote.

      The Evaluation Instrument

      Before it is used, an instrument should be tested for validity and reliability. A pilot test is dangerous if it is treated as a valid instrument.

      All items are treated as being of equal importance. They are clearly not of equal importance.

      Individual items often lack definition and so are interpreted differently by different faculty and by supervisors.

      Administration of the Evaluation

      In the last evaluation, there was no protection against multiple responses by the same individual. Our local governments take great care to ensure that each person has only one chance to vote and it is against the law to vote more than once. The same people vote as participate in the evaluations and therefore one can expect the same degree of honesty (or dishonesty). Department Head evaluations are just as important to the Department Heads as partisan elections are to the candidates. Thus, as a result of the process, a candidate could lose his or her job. I believe that a considerable effort should be made to assure that multiple responses by the same individual are not possible.

      The faculty should be told in writing that it is their individual responses that are solicited. They should complete only one form alone. If several people communicated to respond with identical scores, one of them could influence the scores of others. This is one of the reasons for secret ballots.

      Ability of the Faculty to Evaluate

      Understanding of Department Head's duties varies greatly. One department head was evaluated low because he did not supply basic equipment and support graduate student travel.

      There are people oriented (popularity) and task oriented (getting the job done) dimensions of performance. Can the Department Heads evaluation be solely considered an evaluation of popularity of the Department Head by the faculty. A Department Head who does a great job of improving the quality of the program and responding promptly to superiors, may be unpopular with a group of non performing or problem faculty. Faculty could have a personal bias against a Department Head because, for example, of the Department Head's personality type (Meyers-Briggs type). There is no way to change the personality type.

      There may be considerable disagreement with the meaning of some of the terms used in the questionnaire. For example, faculty may have a different view of what professional development is than the Department Head. How does a faculty know if the Department Head communicates the faculty needs with appropriate administrators?

      Analysis of Evaluation Results

      Rating categories (1-5) are ordinal scale data and have no real numeric meaning. Differences between rating categories are not intrinsically the same and may not be perceived as equal by the respondents.

      The rating scale may not be linear. For example, could a Department Head be both "Excellent" and "Needing Improvement." Faculty may choose "Needing Improvement" (because the wording is the best fit to their feelings) without realizing that the score of "2" is unsatisfactory. Moreover, the distribution of ratings may be skewed or bimodal (i.e. not normally distributed). The percentage of faculty marking each rating category as well as point and interval estimates of the median would be appropriate summary statistics. Non parametric methods should be used to test for differences among Department Heads. (See: Sampling and Surveying Handbook, "Chapter 6 -Common Statistical Analysis Errors").

      Some statisticians will argue that the rating categories are actually observations on an underlying continuous variable, making mean and standard deviation suitable as summary statistics. This invalidates the use of raw means for comparison of Department Heads.

      Z or T scores should be used for these comparisons. (See: Testing Memo #6, "What Kinds of Grades Should be Averaged?").

      Use of Evaluation Results

      Use of the data must be consistent with purpose. If they are to be used for personnel decisions, then the whole process needs tightening up. Consideration should be given to using a well-validated commercial instrument. The process must be defensible if grievance procedures or legal action may result.

      The results should not be the sole criterion for evaluation.

      End scanned section
      • At the next DPAC meeting the policy was approved with little modification except not to have an evaluation until Fall 1998. Note that this schedule will provide the department heads summaries prior to their annul evaluation of faculty of which I again expressed concern.

        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."

    • Cheatham response at Senate meeting March 19, 1998.
      • A one page summary entitled "DAFVM Faculty Senate Breifing - Department Head Evaluation Feedback" dated March 19, 1998 was distributed.

        Begin scanned document

        End scanned document.

        From the discussion that followed:

    • The draft policy that was thought to have been approved (at least by Chair Coats) by DPAC last Fall is apparently still in a review process.
    • All department heads or CVM program leaders were evaluated in late 1997 and the summary of those evaluations provided to department heads or program leaders in early 1998.
    • The next evaluation of department heads is scheduled for the end of the 1998 calendar year.
    • It is not know how many of the department heads shared the summary of their evaluations with faculty. None of the administrators present could verify if evaluations were shared with faculty.
    • Dr. Cheatham indicated that the policy on department head evaluation should be forwarded to the Senate in the future for review.
    • In response to the question about faculty evaluation of Deans and Directors, "No provision are in place to allow faculty to evaluate Deans or Directors."
    • March 2, 1988 Division Council
    • Congressman Pickering will bring Congressman James Sensenbrenner, Chairman of the U.S. House Committee on Science to MSU on March 9 to review remote sensing work at MSU. He is intersted in MSU becoming a remote sensing center.

      Update: Also accompanying Congressman Pickering was Admiral Gaffney, and Rita Colwell (Incoming Chair NSF) joined the group late in the day. David Evans (Forestry), David Shaw (Plant & Soil Sciences), and Nancy Cox (MAFES) summarized Division activities for this group.
    • Dr. Foil expressed an immediate need to convene a special workshop of administrators and appropriate faculty and staff to determine what MSU should be doing to provide more effective development and leadership of remote sensing.
    • Rita Colwell was also on campus March 10. She visited with the Division, ERC, and others while on campus. Among those visited while on campus was Division faculty member Nancy Reichert (Plant and Soil Sciences) to discuss her biotechnology work.
    • Six Division employees received awards at the MSU Research Awards Program on February 27.
      Faculty/Research Scientist: Douglas Marshall (CALS-MAFES), Phil Steele (CFR), & Gregg Boring (CVM)
      Research Support: Helen Delivorias (CVM)
      Undergraduate Student Research: Clay Ware (CFR)
      Graduate Student Research: Qian Ye (CVM)
    • Group discussed Division membership in the NABC 10 Organization. Dr. Foil expressed an interest in Division membership in this group.
    • Distributed a document from IHL pertaining to Tort Clain Requirements.
    • Growing the Mississippi Economy through Agriculture, Forestry and Community Development Economic Summit Conference

      Date April 21-22, 1998
      Location Crowne Plaza Hotel, Jackson, MS

    Vice Chair Report
    None

    Robert Holland Faculty Senate Report

    • Recent action of RHFS: recommended that senior faculty continue to be evaluated on an annual basis rather that every five years.
    • The Ad Hoc Committee appointed several months ago to address issues relating to promotion and tenure should present their report at the next RHFS meeting. The draft report that was discussed at the recent RHFS Executive Committee meeting may be found (scanned copy) in the Supplemental Information at the end of this package beginning on page *. You are encouraged to study these proposals and discuss any concerns you may have with your RHFS representative.

    Deans Council March 3, 1998

    Comments President Portera
    • Increment still in budget. Sales tax issue last week in legislature caused concern. Warned that Ayers could still surface and cause problems with monies we receive from legislature.
    • Bond issue. Probably will be a total of 50-60 million of which MSU could get 9-10 million. Of that he thinks campus could get 6-7 million and the Gulf Coast MAFES Unit could get 3 million.
    • IHL staff is on campus today (3-3-98). MSU is presenting budget request and priorities.
    • ARL library update. Now thinks the amount of money needed may not be as large as originally thought. Indicated that IHL would be asked to designate MSU as ARL library in Mississippi. Also indicated that would ask for money to support in next year's budget.
    • Indicated that getting a handle on teaching overload was turning out to be more difficult than anticipated. He also indicated that this would be discussed with IHL today (3-3-98)in the session in which we are presenting budget priorities in generic terms rather than providing numbers of which we were not sure were correct at this time.
    • Shifting of E&G scholarship to private funding. They are continuing to look at ways to accomplish this. Indicated that he and Ward are working on shifting about 3 million to private monies. We have approximately 16 million from the recent capital campaign which generates approximately 1 million annually which could possibly be used in very near future. They are also looking at Patron of Excellence and future "larger donors" as a source for monies to accomplish this objective longer term.
    • Indicated that would use a professional firm for the Vice President for External Affairs search. He wants this on a very fast track.
    • Indicated that he would initiate meetings of Deans and Vice Presidents. He wants somewhat regular meetings of these administrators. VP for Research Committee is in the process of identifying candidates, etc. Indicated that some new applicants had been received.

      Search updates

    • COBI Dean Search. Graves reported that about 60 nominations had been received. Completed applications total about 25 at this time (3-2-98). Committee will meet on March 18, 1998 to begin the process of narrowing the list. Dean Graves indicated he was encouraged by the quality of the applicants. He also remarked that he felt in the future we would need to actively pursue applicants, not just send out announcements. He felt that several individuals had been persuaded to apply only after a "sales pitch."
    • Continuing Education Dean. Saal reported that they currently have 27 applications. Individual committee members are reviewing at the present time. They will meet on March 16, 1998 to narrow the list.

      Announcements

    • Promotion and Tenure. Dr. Rent reported that Dr. Hodgson indicated this would be completed on schedule (March 10).
    • Deans' Annual Review. Would be scheduled in near future. Also asked deans to bring department head evaluations.

      AOP 12.15 Academic Probation

    • Deans approved a recommended change to deal with students on probation. The proposed change would not allow a student to take (MSU would not accept) a course at another college while on probation. Change (new language underlined) " The course load of students on academic probation is restricted to a total of 14 credit hours; a student on academic probation who enrolls concurrently in excess of this limit in correspondence courses or at another institution will not receive credit at Mississippi State University for such courses."

    Consideration of New recommendations

    • Foil request (verbal) re: policy non-employee labor was sent to Charter and Bylaws on motion by Thompson seconded by Salin.

    Begin scanned document

    Division of Agriculture Forestry, and Veterinary Medicine Policy and Guidelines for Use of Non-Employee Labor

    DRAFT 2-27-98

    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.

    RECOMMENDED

    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

    PURPOSE

    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.

    POLICY

    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.

    REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES

    This operating policy will be reviewed prior to July 1 of each ONY by the Director, MSU Sponsored Programs.

    REVIEWED BY:

    Director of Internal Audit Date University Counsel Date

    RECOMMENDED BY:

    Vice President for Research Date
    Vice President for Agriculture Date

    Forestry and Veterinary Medicine

    APPROVED BY:

    President Date

    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.

    Ancillary Affairs
    No report

    Charter and Bylaws
    No report

    Faculty Affairs
    No report.

    Resource Affairs
    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

    Old Business
    None.

    New Business
    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 the university, 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 to appropriate 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

    Adjourn

    Motion by Broome seconded by Thompson to adjourn passed by voice vote.

    Approved day of 1998 on motion seconded by voice vote.

    Supplemental Information

    Begin scanned document

    DRAFT

    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.".