DAFVM Faculty Senate

MINUTES

April 9, 1998 Regular Meeting
Time: 12:45 p.m.
Place: Room 321 Dorman Hall

Senate Membership
Bateman, Belli, Boyd, Broome, Bullard, Chen, Coats, Deeds, Ebelhar, Holder, Hood, Hovermale, Hurst, Ingram, Jack, Kizer, Linford, Malone, Marshall, Minnis, Murphey, Nagel, Nebeker, Rice, Robinson, Salin, Schneider, Starks, Thompson, To, Waldhalm, Walker, and Zuercher.

Excused
Bullard, Murphey, Kizer, Nebeker

Absent unexcused
Nagel

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

Present
Danny Cheatham for Dr. Foil, Dean Fox,

Dr. Cheatham summarized the recently finished legsilative session.

Approval minutes previous meeting
Minutes March 19, 1998 Meeting approved on motion by Salin seconded by Boyd.

Guest comments

Chair report

  • Chair welcomed Wayne Ebelhar, new member representing Delta Research & Extension Center. Wayne was elected to fill the remainder of Steve Calhoun's term.
  • Chair Coats indicated that Dr. Foil had agreed to provide secretarial service out of the Vice President to support the Senate.
  • Also report that Dr. Foil was exploring a possible "home" location for Senate meetings.
  • To date approximately 115 faculty have voted on the proposed changes in the Charter. April 20th will be the last day to vote on these proposed changes.
  • Chair reminded representatives that May was the "election meeting." A call for nominations for Chair would be sent to representatives in the near future. He reminder group that nominations for Vice Chair are made at the meeting.
  • Elections for representatives should be complete, although offical notification had not been received from one or more departments.

Vice Chair Report
No report

Robert Holland Faculty Senate Report
The Chair of Robert Holland Faculty Senate will be given 50% release time, beginning July 1. Currently, release time for the Chair is 25%.

Consideration of New Recommendations
None

Standing Committee Reports
No report.

Academic Affairs

REPORT TO THE
DAFVM FACULTY SENATE
BY THE ACADEMIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

Following report was preceeded by motion by Broome seconded by Boyd to suspend rules move item to first on agenda (Deeds needed to leave early) passed 22-0-0. Committee report presented by Deeds. Vice Chair Thompson handled the discussion. Deeds motion seconded by Malone to accept committee recommendation passed 23-0-0.

BACKGROUND : On November 24, 1997, Dr. Rodney Foil, Vice President of the DAFVM, requested assistance in assessing DAFVM representation on MSU standing committees. By e-mail Dr. Foil later informed the Academic Affairs committee that he "would like for you all to look through the University committee book and see if the Division seems adequately represented on key committees."

DISCUSSION: The Academic Affairs Committee met on March 19 to discuss Dr. Foil's request. The Committee feels that the DAFVM is generally well-represented on MSU standing committees. Some areas were identified, however, where change is recommended.

RECOMMENDATION: The DAFVM Faculty Senate recommends that Dr. Foil request the following changes that relate to the MSU Standing Committees book and to DAFVM representation on the Committees listed in the book:

  1. Administrative Council (on page 1) - for consistency with Dr. Fox and Dr. Watson, add "and Director, Forest and Wildlife Research Center" after Dr. Gunter's name as Dean of Forest Resources.
  2. Advancement Council (on page 1) - for consistency with Dr. Fox and Dr. Watson, add "and Director, Forest and Wildlife Research Center" after Dr. Gunter's name as Dean of Forest Resources.
  3. Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects in Research (on page 10) - a representative from DAFVM should be named to this committee.
  4. Research Council (on page 14) - for consistency with Dr. Fox and Dr. Watson, add "and Director, Forest and Wildlife Research Center" after Dr. Gunter's name as Dean of Forest Resources.
  5. Student, Faculty, and Staff Organizations (on page 16) - a representative from DAFVM should be named to this committee.

Committee: Steve Bullard (Chair), T.C. Chen, Jacquelyn Deeds, Robert Linford, Carolyn Malone, David Nagel, and Marvin Salin

Ancillary Affairs
No report

 

Charter and Bylaws

REPORT TO THE
DAFVM FACULTY SENATE
BY THE CHARTER & BYLAWS COMMITTEE

Motion by Belli seconded by Zuercher to recommend no changes passed 20-1-2.

REPORT: The question of using prisoners for labor on the Experiment Station is not without supporters. There has been some political pressure/encouragement to do so. Additionally, some stations find it difficult to hire adequate labor to accomplish their tasks. Seasonal needs are difficult to fill from local populations. Apparently use of prisoners was addressed/or became an issue only this year. While the committee votes in support of the AOP as stated, the issue is serious enough that it may warrant futher study. It may be that there are needs that can safely be filled using prisoners. Guidelines insuring safety would be needed. However, without further information, the committee is not ready to modify the AOP.

Committee: Lanny Bateman (Chair), Keith Belli, Joey Murphey, Evan Nebeker, John Schnider, and Neld Starks.

Faculty Affairs
April 1998

DAFVM Faculty Senate Faculty Affairs Committee Report
Motion by Waldhalm seconded by Zuercher to adopt committee recommendation passed 23-0-0.

BACKGROUND: At the request of Vice President Foil, the proposed Operating Policy and Procedure statement regarding Sponsored Programs was sent to the DAFVM Senate for review and recommendation. The proposed statement was assigned to, and reviewed by, the Faculty Affairs Committee of the DAFVM Faculty Senate. Committee members studied and commented on the proposed statement via e-mail.

RECOMMENDATION: The Committee found minor problems in the proposed statement, and recommends that the Senate propose the following modifications to the policy and procedure statement (refer to full text of OPP with line numbers that follow recommended modifications below):

ORIGINAL LINE 34 revision proposed (IN CAP LETTERS):

"... if contacted by the sponsoring agency DURING THE PROJECT NEGOTIATION, they are to..."

ORIGINAL LINE 36 revision proposed (IN CAP LETTERS): "...carried out by SPA personnel IN CONSULTATION WITH THE P.I."

ORIGINAL LINE 86 revision proposed(IN CAP LETTERS): "... if contacted by the sponsoring agency DURING THE PROJECT NEGOTIATION, they are to..."

Also, not part of committee action it was suggested after the meeting by one member that "(SPA)" be added after the first use of Sponsored Programs Administration in the section "Policy."

Original full text of the OPP follows:

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 (SPA)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 DURING THE PROJECT NEGOTIATION, 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 IN CONSULTATION WITH THE P.I. 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 DURING THE PROJECT NEGOTIATION, 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. (ADD LINK/REFERENCE)

REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES

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

Signature lines removed

*****

Resource Affairs
REVISED REPORT TO THE DAFVM FACULTY SENATE
BY THE RESOURCE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
APRIL 9, 1998

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:

  1. The OPPs document as received contained a number of typographical errors which are assumed to be artifacts of *.html translation.
  2. The OPPs formalize what is already in place in terms of authority and shared responsibilities between R&E centers and campus departments. With the exception of program coordination, the OPPs 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.
  3. 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.
  4. The OPPs makes is 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 heads of agencies (MAFES, MSU-ES, FWRC) and colleges (CALS, CFR) involving that commodity/discipline. Further, these plans will be updated periodically (i.e., at least every five years) to ensure relevance."

Committee: Malcolm Broome, Leonard Ingram, Skip Jack, John Robinson (Chair), and Lawrence Zuercher.

*****

Old Business
None

New Business
Motion by Zuercher seconded by Belli to send to committee a verba request for Senate to study and make recommendations concerning involvement of departments in considerations leading to relocation due to renovations, or other reasons, passed 20-0-0. Issues was sent to Resources Committee for study.

Motion by Minnis seconded by Boyd instructed Chair to declare vacant representative positions in which three (3) unexcused absence were recorded and ask department heads, or equivalent, to hold elections to fill the remainder of said terms. Motion passed 25-0-0.

Adjourn
Motion by Boyd seconded by Hurst passed by voice vote.

Approved 14th day of May 1998 on motion Bateman seconded Thompson by voice vote.

Return to minutes page