|
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:
- 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.
- 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.
- Institutional
Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects in
Research (on page 10) - a representative from DAFVM should
be named to this committee.
- 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.
- 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:
- 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. 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.
- 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 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
|
