Wednesday, March 2, 2005
I. Senate President David Wyld called the meeting to order at 3:04 p.m. in the Alumni Center. Membership Secretary Mary Sue Ply called roll. Senators absent were: Ahn, Armenta, Blanchard, Bornier, Brewer-Plazinic, Dassau, Diez, Gilbert, Jeansonne, Koss, Ratcliff, Stewart, and Weaver.
II. Minutes from the February 2nd meeting were unanimously approved.
President Wyld announced to Senators that Southeastern
student, Lindsey Cardinale, was a finalist on the current American Idol show
airing on Fox. He urged Senators—in
IV. Invited Guests:
A. President Randy Moffett updated Senators on several items of business.
1. President Moffett shared the good news that in the fall semester Southeastern had its highest entering freshman ACT averages (21.0), exceeding the state average and the national average. This spring, the ACT average was 20.7 for entering freshmen, up from 19 about a year ago.
Moffett said that there have been a number of stories in the last few days in
the newspapers about APR, a way of evaluating how athletes are progressing
academically. Southeastern is the 3rd best APR school in
3. Dr. Moffett then announced that the SACS team will be on campus Monday through Wednesday, March 14, 15, and 16. He stressed the importance of this visit, and the importance of Southeastern maintaining its accreditation. Based on the preliminary off-site review, we are off to a very good start. However, the final test will be when the SACS team comes to look at follow up information based on our earlier report in relation to compliance standards. They will be looking at the QEP (Quality Enhancement Plan) and Southeastern’s chosen area of focus: academic advising.
a. President Moffett said Senators may have a direct involvement in QEP, or will certainly have colleagues who are directly involved. Some will have interviews scheduled with one of the team members. The team members will talk to many people during their three-day visit.
b. Having SACS accreditation is the cornerstone of everything Southeastern does. Dr. Moffett cautioned that we do not want to be in a situation of being put on probation like a sister school was recently in a nearby state. Not only will that institution have to go through the SACS process again, they also have been suspended by their board from taking any other action--such as adding new degree programs, etc. Not doing well on SACS can have far-reaching effects.
c. If an institution loses SACS accreditation, it cannot grant financial aid to students because it loses the ability to be recognized by the Department of Education. President Moffett said he does not anticipate this will happen at Southeastern, but wanted to emphasis that the notes that have been sent out to faculty members are important. Some departments have been asked by the administration to look at their effectiveness documents; some have been asked to be involved with interviews. All of these things are exceptionally important. Dr. Moffett asked the Senators to continue to cooperate as they had been doing for the past year or so.
d. He thanked Senators for all of their help, and urged them to continue to help over the next few weeks. President Moffett then opened the floor for questions.
Senator Yeargain said he had heard some distressing
news in the
ii. President Moffett said that one of the areas that had been generally questioned by the SACS reviewers was faculty credentials. He asked Dr. Crain to elaborate further on this topic.
iii. Dr. Crain said that the SACS qualifications were based on the number of graduate hours completed by an instructor. He said there were exceptions available under SACS if someone had a master’s degree, but not the requisite eighteen hours in the particular discipline in which s/he was instructing. The exception hinged on the person having significant professional experience in the area s/he was teaching. Southeastern has had instances of employing someone part-time or full-time who did not have the requisite eighteen hours in the field in which they were teaching, and they also did not have significant professional experience that would qualify them for an exception under the SACS provision. Therefore, in the future, Southeastern will meet the SACS requirements.
iv. President Moffett said that he did not know of a discussion about significant layoffs or reductions. He believed that those identified as lacking experience was only three to four people.
Senator Wyld said some of the instructors in the
vi. President Moffett said that Southeastern is creating a policy that meets SACS requirements, but recommended that he speak with Senator Yeargain individually in order to address any specific matters.
e. There being no further questions, Senator Wyld thanked President Moffett for his visit to the Senate.
B. President Wyld then introduced Dr. Crain to provide an update on the shift to the electronic purchase card.
1. Dr. Crain said that he had met with the Executive Committee, and had heard concerns raised about the progress of implementing the purchase card.
2. He said that he had recently met with Steven Smith who assured him they are moving toward our objective for an electronic purchase card. They have now gone through a required application process with State Purchasing, Dr. Crain said.
3. Southeastern is also required to create certain policies at the institutional level that comply with State Purchasing rules in utilization of the purchase card. In order to do that, they have created a cross-functional team involving people from various aspects of operational units in the University that will be impacted by use of the card. They are now at the point of adding one or two people from the academic programs that might be using the card. These people will be participating in the development of the institutional policies that will allow Southeastern to go back to State Purchasing for purposes of demonstrating a policy infrastructure that will allow us to use the card. Once that process is completed, which should be in the month of March, Southeastern will then go through a pilot phase that involves choosing three or four units on campus and issuing purchase cards to them to test the infrastructure. If everything goes well with that phase, we should have full implementation a few months thereafter. Dr. Crain said he believed that everything was going reasonably well.
4. In answer to a question by Senator Wyld, Dr. Crain said that it was possible we would have a couple of the pilot units in place by mid-April, but probably not full implementation.
5. President Wyld suggest that, due to prior conversations in the Senate, Biology—due to its purchasing volume—would likely volunteer to be a pilot unit.
6. Senator White concurred, saying that Biology would indeed like to be a part of the pilot program.
C. President Wyld then introduced Athletic Director, Frank Pergolizzi.
1. Mr. Pergolizzi noted that Online Process reports for athletes had gone out. Mr. Pergolizzi said that Senators having ideas regarding this process should let him know, so things can work as effectively as possible.
2. Senator Wyld asked Mr. Pergolizzi to update Senators on the basketball team. Mr. Pergolizzi said that, right now, Southeastern is in first place. If we win one of our last two games, we will clinch at least a tie for first place. If we win the last two, we are the undisputed regular season champions. We will play the first round conference tournament at home on Tuesday night at 7 p.m., and hopefully we will be at home Thursday night, and hopefully we will be at home on Sunday afternoon at 1 o’clock on ESPN in the Championship game.
3. President Wyld said that, on behalf of the Senate, we wish the term well in their efforts and hope they indeed make the NCAA tournament.
D. Mr. Pergolizzi introduced Dennis Roland, Southeastern’s new head football coach. Coach Roland is a former assistant coach at Southeastern, and has been a head coach at four different collegiate institutions.
1. Coach Roland said that he was both excited and humbled to be back at Southeastern.
2. He told the Senators about his background, his family (including his wife of 23 years, and 6’9” Dennis, Jr. who is a senior at the University of Georgia and can sometimes look a little intimidating because he is so big).
3. Senator Billings joked that Little Dennis might want to play at Southeastern.
4. Coach Roland also talked about his philosophy of football, athletics, and academics. He said that athletics and academics co-exist and should work together to educate young people.
5. He said that we live in a competitive world, and if we are going to keep score, he certainly wants to win. Ultimately, though, his emphasis is on teaching character, getting the academics, and going to class. If these things are emphasized, he said, the winning will come. Taking shortcuts in those things shows up directly on the field.
6. Coach Roland said that most of the athletes really do want to get a good education, and asked Senators to help him to provide that education.
7. President Wyld thanked the Coach for coming; and Coach Roland responded that he would be happy to speak with any University or community group in the future.
E. Senator Wyld then introduced Jessie Roberts, Director of Human Resources, who introduced Judi Allen, from Teachers’ Retirement System of Louisiana to speak about the DROP/LaDROP issue brought up by Senator Ramsey at the last meeting.
1. Ms. Allen said that the difference between DROP and LaDROP was simply the way that interest was paid on the accounts.
a. In the old DROP accounts, interest comes from the actuarial rate of return minus ½ of 1%. Last year, they realized a return great enough to pay 9.35 percent, which was very good after three years of zero interest.
b. The LaDROP interest is paid through liquid asset accounts…money market type of accounts driven on a liquid asset basis. These accounts yield approximately what a regular passbook account does. In January of this year, LaDROP accounts received 1.7398 percent interest. Interest is earned daily and posted monthly. February was a little better, with 2.0367 percent posted to the LaDROP accounts.
c. Last year, the actual amount paid at the end of the fiscal year on LaDROP accounts was .9471 percent.
d. In answer to a question by Senator Ramsey, Ms. Allen said that these were the rates that were paid after the administrative fee.
e. She noted that LaDROP procedures were something the Teachers’ Retirement System had to live with. The lawmakers put it in, she said, and they will have to make any changes. She said she could only answer questions about how things were formulated.
f. Ms. Allen then informed Senators about proposed Senate Bill #7 authored by Senator Boasso: http://www.trsl.org/general/index.php?page=Legis.
g. She said that, among a number of other things, this bill: proposes eliminating DROP totally; suggests increases in member contributions; and sets a minimum retirement age of 60 with ten years of service. See Addendum A. Original instrument located at: http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=288715
h. Ms. Roberts said that Human Resources would be putting out additional information out on campus notices. See Addendum B.
i. After additional questions and discussion about retirement, LaDROP, and choices regarding such, Senator Simoneaux noted that the Senate really did not have any recourse unless we complained about LaDROP to the legislators in hopes of changing the law. Senator Simoneaux asked if we had a higher education representation on the current board of the retirement system. Ms. Allen said that Dr. Jerry Baudin from LSU was the representative for higher education.
j. Senator Carruth, Chair of the Budget Committee, said that in 2001 when the stocks plummeted, money was lost temporarily. He said that he believed someone had then asked for the opinion of the Attorney General, whose opinion was that the benefits of anyone in a state-wide retirement system should not be diminished or impaired. This was apparently interpreted by the legislature to mean that DROP accounts were shielded from losses invested in the stock markets; thus the investments would be in things that did not lose money.
k. President Wyld thanked Ms. Allen for addressing the Senate.
V. Old Business:
A. Judicial Review: Senator Root, Chair of the Professional Rights and Responsibilities Committee, presented Senators with a resolution regarding modifications to the Academic Integrity Process. (See Addendum C)
1. Senator Root made a motion to adopt the resolution as written. Senator Simoneaux seconded the motion.
2. The Senate voted unanimously to approve this resolution (Senate Resolution #5) as written.
B. Internal Grant Process: Senator Nelson, Chair of the Faculty Welfare Committee, presented Senators with a resolution regarding streamlining internal grant applications. (See Addendum D)
1. Senator Nelson made a motion to adopt the resolution as written. Senator Ramsey seconded the motion.
2. The Senate voted unanimously to approve this resolution (Senate Resolution #6) as written.
C. Changes in Senate Bylaws: Senator Coxe, Chair of the Constitution and Bylaws Committee, presented Senators with proposed changes to the Senate Bylaws. (See Addendum E)
1. Senator Coxe noted that proposed changes in the Officer descriptions would be presented at the next meeting.
2. She also noted that the changes for Committee descriptions being presented at this meeting would not be voted on until the April meeting, after the Senators had time to consider the presented changes.
3. Provost Crain thought the Senate might want to re-think the proposed language that the Budget Committee would be “charged with the duties of analyzing, summarizing, and reporting annually to the Senate on the current University budget.” Several others commented that such a charge would indeed be quite complicated.
4. After additional discussion, Senator Yeargain moved to table these issues until the next meeting for purposes of then voting. Senator Ply seconded motion. The Senate voted unanimously in favor of tabling the matter until the next meeting.
D. Search Committee Composition: Senator Nelson presented Senators with a resolution regarding procedures for Faculty Searches at the Departmental Level.
1. Senator Nelson made a motion to adopt the resolution as written. Senator Yeargain seconded the motion.
2. After discussion, the Senate voted unanimously to adopt this resolution (Senate Resolution #7) as presented in Addendum F.
E. Transfer Admissions Correspondence: President Wyld told Senators that he had been in contact with Sam Domiano and Steve Soutullo on the issue raised by Senator Ply regarding communication sent to transfer students. The Executive Committee is continuing to work on this issue; and Sam Domiano will, hopefully, be attending a Senate meeting in the near future to present new correspondence.
F. DROP Changes: Senator Carruth, Chair of the Budget Committee, asked if there were additional questions about the DROP issue.
1. Senator Ply said that one of the things the Senate has done in the past is to authorize the Senate President to write a letter to the legislative delegation to express disapprobation to proposed legislation. If the Senate members are sufficiently concerned about the proposed Senate Bill 7, then we can vote to have our Senate President write a letter expressing that concern.
2. After discussion, it was determined that the Senators would read about the proposed legislation (see Addendums A and B), and would also continue to consider the matter of LaDROP, and both matters would be brought back to the next meeting.
VI. New Business:
A. Academic Promotion of Administrators: Senator Yeargain said that academic Department Heads and Deans are entitled to hold academic rank and to receive academic promotion; but questions have arisen as to what is done when a person holding rank above a Dean (and who teaches a course or two a year as an overload) wants promotion in academic rank. He asked that the issue be referred to committee for review and Senate recommendation. Senator Ply seconded the motion. President Wyld sent the issue to the Professional Rights and Responsibility Committee for further review.
Phones: Senator Mirando asked the Senate
to examine the possibility of adopting a cell phone policy. He presented a
press release about
A. Election Potpourri: Senator Ply announced that there are three different sets of elections pertaining to the Senate and Faculty over the next few weeks. She said that she had emailed Faculty Senators with two lists (a list of those Senators whose terms end at the close of this semester, and a list of those departments needing to put forward nominees to run for College wide seats on Faculty Grievance, University Planning Council, and University Tenure and Promotion Committee). See Addendums H and I. The third set of elections involves Senate Officer positions. President Wyld reiterated a March 15 deadline for University wide elections, and March 24th for individual Senate seats. He added that nominations for Senate Officers were also due by March 24th.
B. Representative Bostic presented BOS/FAC reports to the Senators. She particularly called attention to a draft of a newly stated policy on emergency administrative leave, DROP issues, matters involving our current state-designated travel agent, and tuition increases (See Addendum J for Representative Bostic’s full report).
C. SGA Report: Senator Hite praised SGA for the grants they are providing for many good causes across campus; and she asked that the organization be recognized. President Wyld said that he would invite an SGA representative to our final meeting to report on their yearly activities, and recognize their fine work.
VIII. President Wyld adjourned the meeting at 4:45 p.m. The next meeting is scheduled for April 6, 2005.
The original instrument and the following digest, which constitutes no part of the legislative instrument, were prepared by Angela Lockett De Jean.
Proposed law, relative to LASERS, changes the employee contributions rate from 7.5% to 8.25% for persons hired on or after July 1, 2005.
Proposed law, relative to LASERS, defines the average compensation for persons hired on or after July 1, 2005, as the average annual earned compensation of a state employee for the 60 highest months of successive employment, or for the highest 60 successive joined months of employment where interruption of service occurred; however, average compensation for part-time employees who do not use 60 months of full-time employment for average compensation purposes shall be based on the base pay the part-time employee would have received had he been employed on a full-time basis. Present law defines final average compensation as the highest 36 months of an employee.
Proposed law, relative to LASERS, provides the following guidelines for the computation of average compensation for persons hired on or after July 1, 2005:
The limitations on the computation of average compensation does not apply to any of the 12 month periods where compensation increased by more than 15% over the previous 12 month period based solely on an increase in compensation by a uniform system-wide increase enacted by the Department of Civil Service and approved by the governor or by a pay adjustment enacted by the legislature.
Present law, relative to LASERS, provides that any member shall be eligible for retirement if he has:
(1) 30 years or more of service, at any age
(2) 25 years or more of service at age 55 or thereafter
(3) 10 years or more of service, at age 60 or thereafter
(4) 20 years of service credit at any age actuarially reduced from the earliest age that he would normally become eligible for a regular retirement benefit.
Proposed law, relative to LASERS, provides that any member hired on or after July 1, 2005, shall be eligible for retirement if he has 10 years or more of service at age 60 or thereafter.
Present law, relative to LASERS, allows any member who is eligible for regular retirement to elect to participate in DROP. Proposed law removes this option for any member hired on or after July 1, 2005.
Proposed law, relative to LASERS, requires a refund paid to any member whose first date of employment making him eligible for membership in the system occurred on or after July 1, 2005, to include interest at a rate of three percent.
Proposed law, relative to TRSL, changes the employee contributions rate from 8% to 8.25% for persons hired on or after July 1, 2005.
Proposed law, relative to TRSL, defines average compensation for persons hired on or after July 1, 2005, as the average earnable compensation of a teacher for the five highest successive years of employment, or the highest five successive joined years of employment where interruption of service occurred. Present law considers the three highest successive years of a teacher’s employment when defining average compensation.
Proposed law, relative to TRSL, provides that for persons hired on or after July 1, 2005, the amount for the 37th through the 48th month shall not exceed the lesser of the maximum allowable compensation amount or the actual compensation amount for the 25th through the 36th month by more than 10%.
Proposed law, relative to TRSL, provides that for persons hired on or after July 1, 2005, the amount for the 49th through the 60th month shall not exceed the lesser of the maximum allowable compensation amount or the actual compensation amount for the 37th through the 48th month by more than 10%.
Present law, relative to TRSL, provides that the 36 months used for average compensation cannot cover a period when the member receives more than three years of service credit.
Proposed law, relative to TRSL, provides that for persons hired on or after July 1, 2005, the 60 months used for average compensation cannot cover a period when the member receives more than three years of service credit.
Present law, relative to TRSL, provides that any member who retires and then returns to active service shall have his retirement benefits suspended for the duration of such active service or the lapse of 12 months from the effective date of his retirement, whichever occurs first.
Proposed law, relative to TRSL, provides that no member of the system may return to active service within the 12 month period immediately following the effective date of his retirement.
Proposed law, relative to TRSL, provides that any retiree of the system who returns to active service following the 12 month waiting period shall not be subject to any reduction in or suspension of his benefit during the period of reemployment.
Present law, relative to TRSL, provides that when any retiree returns to active service the employing agency shall within 10 days thereafter, notify the board of trustees in writing of such employment, as well as the date which it commenced and terminated.
Proposed law, relative to TRSL, provides that when any retiree returns to active service the employing agency shall within 10 days thereafter, notify the board of trustees and the state superintendent of education in writing of such employment, as well as the date which it commenced and terminated. Proposed law requires the state superintendent of education shall submit a report to the House and Senate committees on education and retirement detailing the reemployment of retirees. The report must be submitted semiannually, by March first and again by November first of each calendar year.
Present law, relative to TRSL, provides that any person may retire upon written notice to the board of trustees, if the member:
(1) has attained age 60 and has credit for five years of accredited service; or
(2) has attained age 55 and has credit for 25 or more years of accredited service; or
(3) at any age with 30 years or more of accredited service.
The accredited service shall not include unused accumulated sick leave and unused accumulated annual leave.
Present law, relative to TRSL, provides that a member having 20 years of service credit, exclusive of military service and unused annual and sick leave, but who is less than 60 years of age, may retire but he shall have his maximum benefit inclusive of military service credit and allowable unused annual and sick leave actuarially reduced from the earlier of the following:
(a) The date he would reach 60 years of age.
(b) The earliest age that he would first become eligible for a retirement benefit, if he had continued in service to that age and without regard to the date he became a member.
Proposed law, relative to TRSL, provides that any member hired on or after July 1, 2005 may retire upon written request to the board of trustees, if the member has attained the age of 60 years and has credit for 10 years of accredited service. The accredited service shall not include unused accumulated sick leave and unused accumulated annual leave.
Present law, relative to TRSL, provides that in lieu of terminating employment and accepting a retirement allowance, any member of this system who has 30 years of service credit at any age, 25 years of service credit and is at least age 55, or has 20 years of service credit exclusive of military service and is at least age 65 may elect to participate in DROP. A member with 10 years of service credit exclusive of military service and who is at least age 60 may elect to participate in the plan, but all benefits payable at any time shall only be calculated using a two percent benefit formula. Any member of the system who has 30 years of service credit and is at least age 55 or has 10 years of service credit and is at least age 60 may elect to participate in DROP. Proposed law, relative to TRSL, does not allow any member of the system the option to participate in DROP.
Proposed law, relative to LASERS and TRSL creates one board of trustees with administrative powers as follows:
(1) The board is vested with discretion to exercise these powers in the same manner, or
differently, for each LASERS and TRSL in accordance with the fulfillment of its fiduciary duty as provided by law:
(a) To appoint the director, assistant directors, actuary and chief investment officer, to fix their salaries, and to designate the powers and duties of these officials.
(b) To make, alter, amend ,and promulgate rules and otherwise provide for the establishment and maintenance of the systems, which by terms of the law are under the jurisdiction of the board as authorized by the retirement law.
(c) To prepare and submit to the Joint Legislative Committee on the Budget and the state budget officer with recommendations, a budget covering the estimated costs of administering each system for each succeeding fiscal year. This annual budget shall be subject to approval by the Joint Legislative Committee on the Budget.
(d) To hear appeals from members who claim their rights under the laws and/or the rules of the systems have been violated, and to issue appropriate orders in such cases.
(e) To adopt mortality and service tables.
(f) To designate a medical board composed of five physicians who are not members of the system to serve on the State Medical Disability Board, or as alternate physicians to the medical board.
(g) To designate a depository for operating monies, which shall be fully guaranteed.
(h) To designate a custodian of bonds and securities.
(i) To make rules and regulations governing election of board members, not inconsistent with law.
(j) To underwrite life insurance for employees with approval of the commissioner of administration, at any time that current coverage to members or retirees is either reduced or deleted, or cost of coverage is substantially increased. (2) The board shall consist of 17 members as follows:
(a) The state treasurer, ex officio, or his designee.
(b) The commissioner of administration, or his designee.
(c) The chairman of the House Committee on Retirement, ex officio, or his designee.
(d) The chairman of the Senate Committee on Retirement, ex officio, or his designee.
(e) The chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance, ex officio, or his designee.
(f) The chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations, ex officio, or his designee.
(g) The legislative actuary.
(h) Three representatives of for-profit corporations who have experience in private pension fund design or management, chosen by the chairmen of the House and Senate committees on retirement from a list of six names recommended by the state treasurer.
(j) One representative of the active members of LASERS elected by vote of the active members of the system.
(k) One representative of the retirees of LASERS elected by vote of the retirees of the system.
(l) One representative of the active members of TRSL elected by vote of the active members of the system.
(m) One representative of the retirees of TRSL elected by vote of the retirees of the system.
Proposed law, relative to LASERS repeals present law composition of board of trustees.
Proposed law, relative to TRSL repeals present law members of board of trustees.
Effective upon signature of the governor or lapse of time for gubernatorial action.
(Amends R.S. 11:62(5)(e) and (11)©, 403(5), 429, 441(A), 444(A)(1)(a) and (C)(10)(a),
447(A), 537(A), 701(5)(a) and (b), 710(C), 761(A), 768(B)(2), 781(A)(2), and 786(A); adds R.S.
11:181.1 and repeals R.S. 11:231(A)(1), 511 and 822)
The TRSL Board of Trustees has voted to oppose Senate Bill 7, which has
been pre-filed for consideration in the upcoming Regular Session of the
Louisiana Legislature to convene on April 25. This legislation proposes to
make sweeping changes to the Teachers’ Retirement System of Louisiana
(TRSL) and the
new employees hired on or after July 1, 2005, including the elimination of
TRSL and LASERS members should be aware of this legislation and are
encouraged to contact their legislators and express their views.
A summary of SB7 can be found at
Whereas in the past, faculty members have not always been notified of the disposition of academic integrity cases that they have filed.
Whereas faculty recognize the privacy rights of students in such matters and the need for administrative protection of those interests. For these reasons, faculty may not need to know the precise details of the disposition of the case, but they should have the right to be notified that the case was disposed of, by whom, and in general terms, in what manner.
Whereas at present, there is no standardized mechanism for faculty to initiate and/or route an academic integrity issue with a student.
Be it therefore resolved that the Administration should seek to:
· Put in place a system for faculty notification of the disposition of all academic integrity cases filed by faculty, whether decided at the level of the Academic Dean or the Office of Judicial Affairs
· Create a standardized form for initiating and routing complaints regarding academic integrity across the university.
Whereas the internal grant application process can be complicated and time-consuming for faculty, and
Whereas it is in the best interest of the faculty and administration to make the process as streamlined as possible, and
Whereas with modern technology, it is possible to have the forms completed and approved online,
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED THAT the Center for Faculty Excellence and the University Research and Grants committee study this issue and attempt to streamline the application procedures.
The Academic Committee of the Senate shall consider, make recommendations on, and report to the Senate on matters pertaining to academic policies, practices, and standards in any area appropriate to its purview.
The Professional Rights and Responsibilities Committee of the Senate shall consider, make recommendations on, and report to the Senate on matters pertaining to academic freedom, academic fairness, and professional ethics in any area appropriated to its purview.
The Faculty Welfare Committee of the Senate shall consider, make recommendations on, and report to the Senate on matters pertaining to faculty welfare, benefits, and programs in any area appropriate to its purview.
The Academic Committee of the Senate shall consider, recommend, and report to the Senate on matters pertaining to academic policies, practices, and standards in any area appropriate to its purview.
The Professional Rights and Responsibilities Committee of the Senate shall consider, recommend, and report to the Senate on matters pertaining to academic freedom, academic fairness, and professional ethics in any area appropriate to its purview.
The Faculty Welfare Committee of the Senate shall consider, recommend, and report to the Senate on matters pertaining to faculty welfare, benefits, and programs in any area appropriate to its purview.
The Budget Committee shall
A. Make itself thoroughly familiar with the budget process at SLU. This includes, but is not limited to, gaining an in depth understanding of:
1. how the budgets are constructed,
2. the real and/or implied obligations that result from the budge,
3. how budget changes are authorized and made,
4. how budget variances (the differences between budgeted and actual expenditures) are analyzed and what effect they have.
B. Report to the Faculty Senate on each new budget (before that budget is adopted, if possible), emphasizing aspects the committee thinks are particularly pertinent to the faculty.
C. Monitor the budgetary process during the year paying particular attention to changes made during the year. The committee should report to the full Senate on any changes made during the year.
D. Analyze budget variances and make a report to the full Senate.
E. Answer any questions the Faculty Senate may have about the budgets or the budget process.
The Budget Committee of the Senate shall consider, recommend, and report to the Senate on matters pertaining to the budgetary affairs of the University in any area appropriate to its purview.
The committee shall be charged with the duties of analyzing, summarizing, and reporting annually to the Senate on the current University budget.
Whereas the recruitment and appointment of new faculty members is a serious undertaking, and
Whereas faculty participation in the search and selection process is vitally important, and
Whereas the Faculty Handbook and the Human Resources Handbook give vague and conflicting information on the appointment and duties of faculty search committees and the role of the other departmental faculty in the search and recommendation process, and
Whereas different departments have varying and often unwritten procedures for faculty searches,
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED THAT the Faculty Handbook (Part III; Section A; Procedures) and the appropriate section(s) of the Human Resources Handbook be edited to state that “Each academic department shall have written procedures and guidelines for the appointment and duties of the faculty search committee and the departmental search and recommendation process,” initiated by the departmental faculty and subject to the approval of the Academic Dean and the Provost.
Phones to be
banned at Mississippi State U. (U.
looks to ban cell phones from all classrooms, but a ban is not on the agenda at the
Mississippi State Faculty Senate members are working on a policy which treats the use of phones in a classroom as an offense that would justify removing students from classrooms for possessing a cell phone. If the ban is added to the policy, any student even seen with a phone in class will be asked to leave.
The MSU faculty senate will take up the issue at a meeting later in the semester.
“We do oppose the use of phones in class, but we do not want a ban altogether,” said Edward Sanders, president pro tempore of MSU Student Association Senate.
The Student Association Senate concluded that banning them would inconvenience many students when they need to use a phone.
“It will be brought up later in the semester even though student legislation
voted against it,” said Josh Foreman, editor of MSU campus newspaper, The
As for Ole Miss this is something that has not been discussed, said Maurice Eftink, associate provost.
The biggest problem with phones are the possibility of them ringing and the ability to cheat, according to MSU administrators.
“I do not know if banning them is necessary, it may be going too far,” Eftink said. “Plagiarism is a bigger concern for this institution.”
According to a Jan. 24 article in the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal, Walter Diehl, a professor at MSU, said he is fed up with phones in class. If he catches a student with one, he asks them to leave the class. He said if the policy is university-wide, then professors would have more authority enforcing the rule. Ole Miss officials said professors have the right to ask students to turn their phones off.
Many syllabi for classes at the university contain pleas for students to turn their cell phones on silent or completely off.
“The rules already in place include using a phone inappropriately,” Eftink said.
The camera tool and text messaging feature on phones can provide easy ways to cheat.
“I have heard it was a concern at other schools but it has not been addressed here,” said Provost Carolyn Staton.
Most syllabi state the classroom rules, which include no use of phones. The university is not aware that this topic is a huge issue in the classrooms.
“There should not be a policy banning them, the
rules should be up to the professor,” said Brett Thomas, a sophomore English
FACULTY SENATE SEATS UP FOR ELECTION
ACCOUNTING Paul Carruth
BIOLOGY Ed Nelson
CHEMISTRY/PHYSICS Sarah Weaver
COMMUNICATIONS Joe Mirando
COMPUTER SCIENCE Theresa Beaubouef
ED LEADERSHIP/TECH FOUND Tom Devaney
ENGLISH Reine Bouton (Faust’s seat)* Robin Norris Mary Sue Ply Jayetta Slawson
FOREIGN LANGUAGES Stuart Stewart
GENERAL BUSINESS Phyllis King
HISTORY/POLI SCI Al Dranguet Peggy Gonzalez-Perez
HUMAN DEV/SW Bonnie Ahn
*Joan Faust was in the first year of her two-year term; there was no call for nominations to fill the seat, making Reine Bouton a proxy for the rest of 2004/2005. However, since Dr. Faust has left the department, there needs to be an election for the remaining year of that term. Moreover, the English Department currently has only 48 full-time faculty, and thus no longer qualifies for the sixth senate seat. This spring election will then fill two two-year terms and the remaining one-year term for the Faust seat. In the fall, when faculty have returned from sabbatical and new faculty have been hired, English might again qualify for the sixth seat, at which time an election will be held for a two-year term.
**Elections in these departments will be conducted by the Nominations and Elections Committee, Pierre Titard, Chair. In the other departments, a senator not up for re-election will conduct the election (to be contacted by the membership secretary regarding willingness to do so).
Elections to be Held in Spring 2005**
* Must be a full-time, tenured faculty member with at least 10 years of service
REGULAR SEAT and ALTERNATE
University Planning Council
* Must be a full-time, tenured faculty member
Tenure & Promotion Committee
* Must be a full-time, tenured, full professor. If a department does not have an individual holding that rank, then a tenured associate professor can be nominated or, if none, then a tenured assistant professor.
**According to the Faculty Senate By-Laws, departments who have a member in a continuing seat on one of these committees do not nominate a candidate for one of the vacant seats. All other departments nominate a candidate meeting the criteria, who then runs for the college seat.
The FAC met at 4:30 in the
representatives present, UL-Lafayette, McNeese (2 representatives),
Southeastern, Grambling, LaTech, Southwestern, and Northwestern(2
Four items were discussed.
1. The draft of a newly stated policy entitled "Emergency Administrative
Leave for Unclassified Staff" was circulated and discussed. The first
paragraph of this document under the heading Policy and Procedure was
considered to be dangerously vague and inclusive:
"POLICY AND PROCEDURE"
If an unclassified staff member in the course of performing of his or her duties is perceived to be in any way a danger to himself/herself or to others in the University community, his/her immediate supervisor through the appropriate chain of command shall recommend to the President that the unclassified staff member be placed on
emergency administrative leave with pay to remove the potential danger immediately and allow further investigation into the matter.
Numerous other objections were expressed by the representatives regarding
parts of the subsequent paragraphs of the two page document. Universal
opinion of the group present, however, was objection to the paragraph
above. Since this was only a draft and no action was to be taken till
April, the council agreed to take the draft document, make notes and
suggestions and submit opinions prior to the April 28 meeting.
2. The second issue involved numerous complaints regarding doing business
through the state-designated travel agent, Navagent. This issue from ULL
was considered to be somewhat of a problem on all campuses by the personal
experiences of those present. No campus-wide poll had been made, but there
seems to be enough of a problem throughout the state that the matter was
deemed appropriate to bring before the board for possible improvements.
This will be done at the April meeting. Input is requested.
3. Liquid Asset Drop (LaDrop) was brought to the group by Southeastern. The
issue of investment of monies by the state in low risk/low return
investments versus allowing the account holder to withdraw funds in lumpsum
or installments at the end of the participation in LaDrop was brought to
the group along with general concerns. The consensus of the group was that
no one present was qualified(skilled in economics or investments) to bring
the issue before BOS. Concern was compared to the issue of withdrawing from
Social Security funds for personal investments. The group agreed that the
issue should be addressed, but only through statements prepared by the
qualified faculty on our campuses and compiled from their notes in a
proposal for BOS.
4. The question of Academic Promotion of Administrators was brought before
the council to find out if there was concern on campuses regarding this
issue. There was concern but no one considered it an issue which could be
resolved and most representatives felt that there were better ways to
utilize our time than on a probably futile stand.
5. The group calling itself "Students for Academic Freedom" was of little
concern to the representatives present. The feeling was that the students
would be fighting an issue which might never raise its head in our state.
Louise Bostic, FAC
Several items were interesting and appropriate for this report to Southeastern.
1. BOS approved, with reluctance expressed by several board members, a 3%
tuition increase beginning summer, 2005 on all campuses. Chairman of the
finance committee pointed out that the national average increase is 12%.
2. New programs approved included a baccalaureate degree in Nanotechnology
at LaTech which is the only degree
of its kind in the
given, but I wondered how great the demand for this degree has been and how
many majors they have. This is normally a necessary criteria for new degree
programs. The Board expressed their pride in the new degree.
3. Changes to the honorary degree granting policy were approved. Basically,
undergraduate degrees, honorary, will be approved on a one-to-one basis now
and doctorates will be limited to 2 per year statewide.
4. McNeese requested and was granted approval to waive tuition and fees for
teachers pursuing National Board Certification. Nichols was approved for
this policy earlier. I do not know what Southeastern or other campuses do
and since this action was taken after our Thursday FAC meeting I could not
5. A presentation by Southeastern's service fraternity was given and highly
praised: SOCKS AND SHOES for IRAQI CHILDREN. This was quite impressive.
Those students have gathered over two large rooms full of socks and shoes
and donations to provide the shipping. They are sending the first shipments
this week. They need help packing if there are any volunteers.
6. LaTech together with
which will identify a computer user by their keyboard use. It seems they
have discovered we use a keyboard with such uniqueness that we can be
identified as if our entries were fingerprints. This has tremendous
potential and could be a source for finding the virus terrorists. I was
7. A Biologist is the new president of ULL. (Let's hear it for the
scientists.) He has been involved in coastal erosion projects and addressed
that issue in his response to the BOS approval of his appointment.
The next board of supervisors meeting is not until April 28.