Southeastern Louisiana University

Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes

November 12, 2003

Alumni Center

 

I.          The meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. by Senate President David Wyld.  Senators absent: Ahn, Billings, Bornier, Bouton, Brocato, Bush, Coxe, Depoy, Diez, Hoover, Mitchell, Noto, Oliver, Prescott, Schulte, Schwab, VanBeke, Vidrine, Weaver, and Wills.

 

II.         The minutes of the October 1, 2003 Senate minutes were unanimously approved with a friendly amendment previously sent to the Recording Secretary.

 

III.       Invited Guests:

A.        President Randy Moffett, who requested to address the Senate, was added to the agenda.  He informed senators of several recent and upcoming decisions by the university.

1.         The administration evaluated this fall’s registration to determine strong and weak points.  SLU enjoyed a record registration this fall, with higher ACT scores from incoming students.  However, with many late applications, the university experienced difficulty in finding enough sections to accommodate students.  Moffett held meetings with Steve Soutillo, Bea Baldwin, and John Crain to determine possible steps for the next academic year to improve this situation.  Moffett reported their conclusions:

a.         The application deadline will be moved back to accommodate students; however, the university will increase efforts to announce this deadline and will more rigorously enforce the application deadline.

 

b.         Transfer students continue to challenge the enrollment process since Southeastern often does not receive transfer credits until July or later for the fall semester.  This poses a problem to evaluate the credits and to place students in appropriate classes.  To alleviate the situation, the university will now admit students conditionally, based on their prior semester of work.  Students will sign a form agreeing that, if their latest credits disqualify them for admission, admission will be denied.  This move will distribute the paperwork of evaluating previous and latest records, allowing an earlier and more accurate assessment.

 

c.         The conditional admission will allow students to take advantage of summer advising and early registration for the fall and will better indicate the number of math and English classes that need to be offered in the fall.

 

d.         High school students coming in as new freshmen will be pre-admitted based on their last six semesters of high school work.  Because SLU’s scholarships were offered later than those of some other universities, we often lost the better students, who accepted other offers first.  Southeastern has moved up the date of scholarship announcements to attract these top students.  They can apply for scholarships in December and these students will be evaluated based on performance through their first semester of senior year; if their later performance disqualifies them for the scholarship, they will not receive it.

 

2.         In a study of retention and graduation rates, the administration concluded that the better students apply earlier, and students who must enroll in transitional studies classes have lower retention and graduation rates.  Because Southeastern wants to increase student retention and facilitate timely graduation, Moffett said Southeastern will make the following recommendations to the Board of Supervisors concerning our admission standards:

a.         The Board of Supervisors has decreed that, beginning in the fall of 2005, students who must enroll in 2 transitional classes cannot enroll in a 4-year university but must take and pass those classes at a community college.  Southeastern will propose that our university implement this requirement earlier, effective summer 2004.  This will send a message to the Board of Supervisors that Southeastern is ready to tighten our academic standards and move forward, perhaps eventually from a tier 3 to a tier 2 school.

i.          Moffett said this move would affect approximately 400 students with the lowest ACT scores (some with composites of barely 15).

ii.          If the Board approves the move, Southeastern will begin a public relations program to inform potential students.  In addition, we will continue our Summer Bridge Program to get students ready for these tighter admission standards and will work with Delgado and Baton Rouge Community College to pick up those students who are not able to be admitted to SLU.

iii.         Moffett believes that, though this decision will affect budget, our Master Plan will stay on target and Southeastern will be sending the right message of where 4-year universities are going.

b.         Though the cutoff of ACT scores varies from school to school in Louisiana, the Board of Supervisors would like the cutoff score to be 18 for both math and English, and Southeastern would like to go along with that standard.

 

                        3.         Moffett opened the floor for comment.

a.         Senator Ply asked whether new incoming freshmen will be allowed to pre-register in the summer for the fall semester and whether they will be given a separate time slot for advising.  Moffett replied the details have not yet been worked out.  Ply requested they be given a separate advising period.

b.         Senator Bostick asked that if students are “un-admitted,” will their tuition then be held up.  Moffett said no funds will be held up, but their studies indicate that the possibility of this situation is almost nil.

c.         Senator Yeargain queried whether Southeastern will eventually move to eliminate transitional classes altogether.  Moffett thought that was a possibility.  Currently, the student must have a minimum ACT of 20 and a 2.0 GPA; however, in 2005, students without the TOPS core courses will be denied admission.  Also, in 2005 students who have the TOPS core but place in 2 transitional courses cannot be admitted.   Currently, only LSU has eliminated transitional courses for freshmen, and tier 2 schools allow only 1 transitional course. 

4.         The last topic Moffett wanted to address was Civic Engagement and Service Learning.  Industrial Technology, Nursing, and other departments already have strong components of community service in their curricula; the university wants to link up those programs that already exist and move them forward.  Moffett believes we already do much by way of service learning but we don’t keep up with these programs’ progress and report and publicize our efforts.  He requested the senate embrace the movement—the administration is not trying to create new work for faculty but capture what is already being done.  Faculty will receive information on this effort soon.

 

B.         Connie Davis, Associate Director of Auxiliary Services, spoke to the Senate on textbook rental changes.

1.         The current rental system is being transferred to Peoplesoft.  She summarized the changes on a handout (see below).

2.         The main change will be that a student no longer has to get a signature card receipt.

3.         There was no discussion on the changes.

 

C.        Senator Faust, Chair of the University Faculty Recruitment and Retention Committee, offered a handout on the results of last summer’s Faculty Satisfaction Survey (see below).  The Recruitment and Retention Committee will use these results, along with research they have conducted since November 2002, to compose a report and specific recommendations to the Provost before Thanksgiving.  She requested any senator who had suggestions or questions to contact her before that deadline.

 

D.        Dr. Al Dranguet, Professor of History and Political Science and Faculty Ombudsperson, addressed the Senate on the role of the Ombudsperson.

1.         Dranguet has served as Ombudsperson for 1 ½ years.  His basic job is to serve as an objective 3rd person to resolve disputes between faculty members and administration before the faculty member files a grievance.  Usually, the faculty member takes the issue to the Department Head then the Dean; if the issue is not resolved, he or she turns to the Ombudsperson.

2.         The amount of involvement undertaken by the Ombudsperson can vary at the discretion of the faculty member.  The faculty member can also request instead another faculty member to arbitrate, as long as that arbitrator has the same qualifications as a Faculty Ombudsperson: a full professor with at least 10 years of service at Southeastern.

3.         Since we have not had a formal grievance filed for 4 or 5 years, evidently the Ombudsperson concept is working.  Generally, Dranguet gets a request about once a week.

4.         He invited anyone desiring more information on the position to check the Faculty Handbook, available on the Provost’s webpage.

5.         Senator Knutson asked why a faculty member would approach the Department Head and Dean first.  Dranguet explained this is the usual “chain of command”; the faculty member does not have to follow that procedure.

 

IV.       Old Business

A.        Patriot Act:  Senator Wyld thanked senators for getting input on the Patriot Act from their departments.  He called upon Senator Bostick to report her actions with the Faculty Advisory Council/Board of Supervisors.

1.         She presented the following letter to the FAC expressing the concern of faculty members over the Patriot Act threatening academic freedom:

 

Senator Landrieu, Breaux, and the 7 US. reps. (sent individually).

 

The Faculty Advisory Council to the Board of Supervisors (BOS) for regional

colleges and universities of the State of Louisiana (FAC) is made up of

elected representatives from each college and university and represents

the faculty of those institutions as a committee at the monthly BOS

meeting regarding issues of importance to higher education in Louisiana.

Our concern and consternation expressed herein are over those

elements of the PATRIOT Act that impinge upon freedom of speech and thought

and inquiry, and also violate the Constitutional safeguards regarding

searches and seizures. We urge you as our representative to work to repeal

those portions of the act that undermine American tradition of liberty

and due process--and to oppose any other proposed legislation that would

further erode freedom.

Basically, our analysis of the portion of the Act which targets libraries

indicated the following: The Act provides broad powers for the government

to collect information that may be related to terrorism.  These powers

appear to infringe on areas previously protected by the freedom from

illegal search and seizure.  In particular, under the provisions of this

act, the federal government may, without a search warrant, demand patron

records kept by the library including circulation records, acquisition

records, interlibrary loan records, research request records, etc.  The

library would be under an automatic gag order, meaning that the patron could not be told that they were under investigation.  The criteria for the FBI to demand individual records is only that they claim that the records may be related to

terrorism.  There is no need to show that the individual patron is

suspected of anything.  Nor is there any need to show probable cause.

The USA Patriot Act is up for renewal.  In addition a second Patriot Act II

is under consideration which, as currently written, would lessen the amount

of judicial oversight associated with government's request for records.

University researchers are particularly concerned about the Patriot Act and

especially the section regarding libraries. By the nature of our responsibilities,

much of our research investigates critical and often controversial issues .  As

social scientists we are commissioned to deal with issues which affect the society in which we live, at the highest and most rational levels of investigation. We should not fear retribution by the federal government because we fullfill our responsibility to inquire or because of our access to materials which may or may not be deemed terroristic. Particularly objectionable is the provision in this act that allows agents to investigate us without informing us of the investigation

or asking us the nature or purpose of our inquiry.

Thank you for representing our interests and our welfare. Please consider

the gravity of this issue and help us in any way you can.

 

Respectfully,

The Faculty Advisory Council

to the Board of Supervisors for regional

colleges and universities of the State of Louisiana

 

Dr Harry Bruder, University of Louisiana-Lafayette, Chair

 

Dr Louise Bostic, Southeastern Louisiana University

 

Dr Henry Sirgo, McNeese University

 

Dr John Rettenmeyer, University of Louisiana-Monroe

 

Dr Charles Willie, Grambling University

 

Dr Norman Pumphrey, Louisiana Tech University

 

Dr Greg Granger, Northwestern Louisiana University

 

2.         Senator Ply wanted to express her disappointment that the Senate Executive Council did not decide to compose a letter to legislators protesting this act and expressing consternation.  She encouraged individual faculty members to write our legislators with their concerns.

 

B.         Online Elections:  Senator Corbello of the Elections Committee reported that online elections is a work in progress; he hopes to have a full report at the next meeting.

 

C.        Interim Review:  Senator Guendouzi, Chair of the Professional Rights and Responsibilities Committee, offered 2 resolutions on the issues of Interim Review and Sabbatical Leaves (see below).

1.         Senator Yeargain moved approval of the Interim Review Resolution; Neuerburg seconded.  Discussion:

a.         Senator Corbello asked if there would be sanctions for those conducting an Interim Review who violate due process.  Guendouzi said no, and Yeargain added that, since the review process is part of the Faculty Handbook, a person could go to the Ombudsperson or Grievance Committee with complaints.

            b.         The Interim Review Resolution was approved unanimously.

 

2.         Sen. Yeargain moved approval of the Sabbatical Leave Resolution; unidentified senator seconded.  Discussion:

a.         Senator Andrus mentioned that the 3rd Monday in January is usually Martin Luther King’s Birthday, so a holiday.  She wondered if we should change the date sabbatical applications are due.  Sen. Ply responded that generally, when a deadline falls on a holiday, it is automatically moved to the next working day, so no change is really necessary.

b.         Senator Neuerburg questioned the “Be it therefore resolved” section: the “earliest day possible” phrase could be interpreted as anytime.  He asked if the sentence could be tightened up.  Sen. Ply explained the reason for the wording is that the BOS meets at its own discretion, so their earliest possible date might be in the summer.  Sen. Root offered a friendly amendment to change the phrase to “the earliest date possible contingent upon the BOS meeting schedule.”   All agreed to accept.

c.         Sen. Corbello asked if we could add a suggestion increasing funding for sabbaticals to 100% of the faculty’s salary.  The Senate consensus was that this was a separate issue and did not belong in this resolution.

d.         An unidentified senator asked Dr. Crain how many sabbaticals were generally granted each year.  Crain estimated 4-7, depending on how many requests were received and for how many semesters the sabbatical requested.  Sen. Ramsey commented that it behooved the university to grant these sabbaticals since the faculty member is only paid 75% of his or her salary and the classes are usually then taught by adjuncts at a much lower rate of salary.

e.         Sen. Wyld called for a vote, including Sen. Root’s friendly amendment.  The resolution passed unanimously.

 

V.        New Business

            A.        Textbook Rental Policy: Senator Yeargain

1.         Yeargain reported that the Rental Textbook Committee moved for a 2-year rental text cycle and that the student fee for this change would be increased accordingly.  The suggested student fee is $25.  Since more texts are coming with CDs, the Rental Text Committee decided not to deal with the CD issue: they would be stripped from the texts and given to the departments to use at their discretion.

2.         Yeargain explained that this issue is under New Business because the committee is studying whether now is the proper time to increase rental fees.  Depending on the Administration’s decision, the Budget Committee might be asked to look at the issue in December.  Since the textbook committee is trying to implement the change for fall 2004, they must submit the change to the new catalogue very soon.  Yeargain therefore moved  that the issue be sent to committee to draft a resolution approving the 2-year cycle and an increase in student rental fee to no more than $25 per course.  The motion was unanimously approved; the issue was sent to the Senate Budget Committee.

           

B.                 Academic Issues:  Wyld presented a conglomeration of issues that he had

received input on that he proposed to send to the Academic Committee:

1.         Transfer credit: Sen. Higginbotham sent a handout raising several issues Wyld thought best discussed in committee.

2.         Students Following Multiple Catalogues:  Sen. Ply explained the difficulties of students pursuing a double major or 2 different degrees and wanting to follow requirements for each degree in a different catalogue.  The Council of Department Heads is already looking into the problem.  Sen. Wyld added that Dr. Crain can provide input for the Academic Committee; the university does not want to discourage students from pursuing minors that are either brand new or being phased out.

3.         Ability to Drop Classes Online: Sen. Higginbotham’s handout explains his position on this issue.  Sen. Ramsey mentioned that students can currently drop classes online but cannot withdraw from class online.  The issue hinges on a difference in terminology. 

4.         Sen. Ply moved to send these issues to committee; Stewart seconded.  The motion passed with one not in favor.  Sent to Senate Academic Committee.

 

5.         Rankings of Southeastern in National Surveys:  Sen. Neuerburg presented a comparative report of how SLU is ranked in national surveys (see handout below).  We are in the 4th tier in the Southern Region, but SLU is at the top of that tier.  If we take more care in giving accurate information on these surveys, Neuerburg thinks it would help our case to move to the 3rd tier in the Southern Region.  This issue was also sent to the Academic Committee.

 

C.        Parking Potpourri:  Wyld and Simoneaux

1.         Sen. Wyld reported that Brad O’Hara had brought to his attention changes in parking effective immediately.  Faculty/Staff parking spots have been reduced by the old men’s gym, in front of the library, and to the side of the President’s residence.

2.         Also, Sen. Ply contacted O’Hara to ask if faculty could “park down” (park in student spots).  At one point, the Senate recommended faculty be allowed to park down but the request was refused. 

a.         Sen. Dranguet asked why.  He feels the faculty has never had a decent explanation of why this request was refused.

b.         Sen. Ramsey agreed with Dranguet. He likes to be sensitive to students, but an instructor’s lateness makes the entire class suffer.

c.         Ply added that alumni are being given stickers to allow them to park, but their children are using these stickers and parking in faculty places.

d.         Sen. Simoneaux’s concern was more with the spots by the old men’s gym.  Merek reported that it was under-utilized and that they were thinking of changing the parking arrangement; the next day, it was changed without discussion.  This area, by Twelve Oaks, is used by the community.  There was talk of using parking meters for the public but nothing has become of it.

e.         Sen. Dranguet added that since the $50 fine has been implemented, fewer students are parking in faculty lots.  But the problem is that students can still get in faculty lots, sit in their cars, and wait for friends to get out of class to pick them up.  He would like at least to see a resolution allowing faculty to park down.

f.          Sen. Bancroft mentioned that he and his wife had to switch cars and he was not allowed to park her car on campus because it had a St. Thomas sticker as well as an SLU hangtag.

g.         Sen. Beauboeuf requested we also look into handicapped parking.  People obviously not handicapped use these spots.

h.         Sen. Burns brought up the potentially dangerous situation in the parking lot behind Dvickers—the spots closest to the building no longer have a turn-around lane, so anyone parking there must back out to leave.

i.          Sen. Rossano moved to send these issues to committee; seconded and approved.  Sent to the Facilities and Planning Committee.

3.         Sen. Simoneaux suggested we encourage carpooling for those faculty needing it—we could set up a bulletin board to facilitate carpooling.

 

VI.       Announcements

A.        Departmental Senate Policies: Sen. Wyld announced that it has come to his attention a department on campus enforces “term limits” for its senators.  He reiterated that this practice is against the Faculty Senate Constitution, and he wanted to make sure this was documented in the minutes and that all departmental policies reflected this.

B.         Proposed 2004-2005 Academic Calendar:  Sen. Yeargain presented the proposed calendar for the next academic year (see below).  He mentioned that, because we will have too few MWF classes again this spring, faculty will be asked to make up one class period and to document their activity.

C.        Yeargain also raised a few other issues:

1.         He encouraged faculty to sign up for the new Crescent Dental Plan, presently used at ULL.  It allows faculty their choice of dentist.

2.         Faculty certification of time remains a problem.  Yeargain believes most of the problems are with part-time faculty, but he encouraged all to remember to certify each month.

D.        Wyld reminded faculty that for the last football game Friday, Nov. 14, faculty still have Tailgating Spot #45, at the eastern part of Friendship Circle.

E.      Sen. Simoneaux wanted to call to the faculty’s attention a recent notice posted by Jesse Roberts, Director of Human Resources, on the Windfall Elimination Provision and Government Pension Offsets.  Simoneaux encouraged all faculty to complete the petition recommended in the notice, a copy of which is below:

 

FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THIS NOTICE CONTACT
JESSIE ROBERTS AT JROBERTS@SELU.EDU
*************************************

Some of you are aware of the Windfall Elimination Provision and the
Government Pension Offsets. These are Social Security Benefits Acts that
diminish and/or obliterate any access to our Social Security Dollars
because we are receiving or will be receiving Government Pensions. These
Acts were passed in the mid 80s. There are two bills proposed in Congress
and the US Senate that can repeal these unjust acts.

We all belong to several organizations that provide us with a network of
state, federal, and local government employees. Many of us are being
penalized by the enforcement of the Windfall Elimination Provision and the
Government Pension Offset. As a vested public servant our rights have been
dramatically reduced. Please add your name to the list and send this
petition out to any organization or group of public employees. It is
critical to have these acts repealed.

 

Petition:

http://www.petitiononline.com/ssoffset/petition.html

 

F.         SGA Report: Diez/Lew

1.         Sen. Lew informed the Senate of the SGA’s efforts to involve students in this last football game.  They are offering a $500 Spirit Award to the best group or individual demonstrating spirit at the game.  A pep rally will be held on Friday, Nov. 14, at 11:45 at the Student Union.

2.         The SGA has money left for organizations.  They offer up to $1,000 for projects to any student organization who registers with the SGA at the beginning of the year. 

3.         Lew also clarified that the report of the SGA’s tearing down the old tennis courts for additional parking was just a recommendation and is not presently planned.

           

            G.        BOS/FAC report:  Sen. Bostick (see below).

 

VII.      The meeting adjouned at 4:40 p.m.  Next meeting:  Dec. 3, 2003

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Joan Faust,

Recording Secretary

 

Handouts

 

Textbook Rental

Policies and Procedures for Book Rental

 

Textbook Rental’s current computer system will be converting to PeopleSoft by the Spring 2004 semester.  This conversion to PeopleSoft has resulted in several policy and procedure changes.  Below is a summary of the new process:

 

·               Students will continue to check out and return their rental books as they have in the past.  A student I.D. is required for verification and it will be swiped to access the student’s account information in PeopleSoft.  Each book will then be scanned to be considered checked out or checked in under that student’s account.

·               The signature card receipt, which students have received in the past listing the issued books, is no longer being used.  The 10-12 second wait for each card receipt to be printed has been eliminated and therefore has reduced the lines.

·               Students have been advised that their account can be viewed online via LEONet immediately after their books have been checked out from any computer that has web access.  Textbook Rental will also have a computer available during each check-in / checkout period for students to access their LEONet account.

·               Students will receive an official notification through web mail.  The system will generate this email everyday throughout the semester that a student has checked out a book.  Students should receive this email within 24 hours of checking out a book.  The email will include:

-     A list of books issues

-     Deadline for the student to report any issue discrepancies

-     Return deadlines and penalties

-     Collection statement if overdue books are submitted to collection agency.

·               Students will then be responsible for returning all books issued by the stated deadline.  All books will continue to have the book policy label inside the front cover of each book, which states the return deadlines as well.

·               During the week of finals those students who still have rental books checked out will receive another email reminding them of the book return deadlines.  Once books are returned, students may access their LEONet account and receive confirmation that all books have been returned.

·               Students who do not return their books by the deadline will receive an email informing them of the fines that have been assessed to their account and reminding them of the deadline to return the books before the purchase price is assessed.  For those students who still do not return their books, a purchase price will be assessed to their account and an email will be sent.

 

Please distribute this information to all faculty and departmental secretaries.  Please refer students, when necessary, to Textbook Rental regarding Textbook Rental’s policies and procedures.  Mrs. Judy Easley, Manager of Textbook Rental, may be reached at 3780 or jeasley@selu.edu.

 

 

 

Southeastern Survey of Faculty Job Satisfaction: The Results

September 2003

Office of Institutional Research & Assessment

 

The Southeastern Faculty Senate was concerned about the retention of qualified faculty at Southeastern, and appointed a committee to research the problem.  The committee decided that a survey of the faculty regarding job satisfaction, community satisfaction, etc. was appropriate and asked the Office of Institutional Research & Assessment for assistance.  It was determined that a web-based survey would be the most appropriate, and due to other surveys being conducted and the need for speedy results, the survey was open for completion throughout the Summer 2003 semester.  Faculty were notified several times about the survey via e-mail.  E-mail was sent to 683 faculty.

 

A total of 221 faculty members completed the survey, for a response rate of 32.4%.  There was an even number of tenured and non-tenured faculty, 48.4% (n=107) each.  The majority of respondents, 67.9% (n=150) indicated they were married while 24.4% (n=54) are single.  Approximately 40% (38.9%, n=86) indicated they were born within 200 miles of Southeastern, while 56.6% (n=125) were born further away.  There were more female respondents (n=123, 55.7%) than male respondents (n=85, 38.5%).  Years at Southeastern ranged from one to over 30, with 10.9% (n=24) having been employed 1-3 years, 21.3% (n=47) have been here 4-6 years, 22.2% (n=49) have been here 7-10 years, 15.4% (n=34) have been here 11-15 years, and 24.0% (n=53) have been here 16 or more years.  The majority of the respondents (41.2%, n=91) were in the 45-54 age range, while 7.2% (n=16) were 25-34, 21.3% (n=47) were 35-44, 22.2% (n=49) were 55-64, and 3.6% (n=8) were 65 or older.

 

Table 1

Faculty Satisfaction with Various Aspects of Their Job

 

 

Very Dissatisfied

Somewhat Dissatisfied

Somewhat Satisfied

Very Satisfied

Not Applicable

Mean*

The opportunities for input about the content and methods of the courses I teach

1.8% (4)

7.7% (17)

13.6% (30)

71.0% (157)

4.1% (9)

3.63

The opportunity for input on what courses I teach

4.1% (9)

5.4% (12)

19.5% (43)

64.7% (143)

4.1% (9)

3.55

The number of classes I teach each semester

23.1% (51)

16.3% (36)

16.7% (37)

36.2% (80)

5.4% (12)

2.72

The amount of service I am expected to perform each semester

10.4% (23)

24.0% (53)

30.8% (68)

32.6% (72)

0.9% (2)

2.88

The amount of research I am expected to perform each semester

9.5% (21)

19.5% (43)

29.4% (65)

28.5% (63)

11.3% (25)

2.89


 

Table 1 Cont.

Faculty Satisfaction with Various Aspects of Their Job

 

Very Dissatisfied

Somewhat Dissatisfied

Somewhat Satisfied

Very Satisfied

Not Applicable

Mean*

The time I have for working with students as advisor, mentor, etc.

8.1% (18)

22.2% (49)

36.2% (80)

24.4% (24)

7.2% (16)

2.85

Time available for class preparation

9.0% (20)

20.8% (46)

35.7% (79)

27.6% (61)

5.0% (11)

2.88

Quality of undergraduate students whom I have taught here

14.0% (31)

28.1% (62)

41.6% (92)

10.0% (22)

4.5% (10)

2.51

Quality of graduate students whom I have taught here

2.7% (6)

15.4% (34)

20.8% (46)

16.7% (37)

41.2% (91)

2.93

Funds for conference travel

8.1% (18)

16.3% (36)

24.4% (54)

37.1% (82)

12.7% (27)

3.05

Availability of Graduate Assistant or clerical help for research assistance

21.7% (48)

16.7% (37)

20.4% (45)

11.3% (25)

26.2% (58)

2.30

Support for grant-writing

12.7% (28)

12.7% (28)

27.1% (60)

19.5% (43)

23.5% (52)

2.74

My job security

8.6% (19)

9.5% (21)

30.8% (68)

45.7% (101)

3.6% (8)

3.20

Opportunity for advancement in rank at Southeastern

8.6% (19)

11.3% (25)

48.9% (108)

18.6% (41)

10.9% (24)

2.89

University support in research and other scholarly activity

17.2% (18)

18.1% (40)

0%

23.5% (52)

8.1% (18)

2.51

The effectiveness of faculty leadership at Southeastern (e.g. Faculty Senate, other faculty councils)

9.0% (20)

17.6% (39)

44.8% (99)

24.0% (53)

1.4% (3)

2.88

My salary

21.7% (48)

25.3% (56)

39.8% (88)

10.9% (24)

0.5% (1)

2.41

My health benefits

14.5% (32)

22.6% (50)

34.4% (76)

17.6% (39)

9.5% (21)

2.62

My retirement benefits

12.7% (28)

21.3% (47)

38.5% (85)

23.5% (52)

1.8% (4)

2.76

Other benefits

12.2% (27)

15.4% (34)

37.1% (82)

10.9% (24)

20.4% (45)

2.62

Spouse or partner employment opportunities in this geographic area

8.1% (18)

12.2% (27)

21.7% (48)

14.9% (33)

39.8% (88)

2.76

Educational opportunities for my children

13.1% (29)

13.1% (29)

15.8% (35)

13.6% (30)

41.6% (92)

2.54

Day care opportunities for my children

6.8% (15)

4.1% (9)

7.2% (16)

3.2% (7)

72.9% (161)

2.32

 

Faculty were next asked how likely it was that they would leave Southeastern in the next two years.  The vast majority (67.9%, n=150) indicated they were not likely to leave, while 18.6% (n=41) indicated they were likely to leave and 10.0% (n=22) were very likely to leave.  Those respondents who indicated they were likely or very likely to leave were asked why they were leaving.  There were three main themes that emerged.  The first one was personal reasons such as a spouse’s relocation, long commute, etc.  The second reason was the perceived lack of salary and benefits at Southeastern.  The final reason is the treatment and expectations of faculty by the administration.

 

 

Ranking of Survey Responses by Mean

Most satisfied  

3.63     The opportunities for input about the content and

methods of the courses I teach

3.55          The opportunity for input on what courses I teach

3.2       My job security

            3.05     Funds for conference travel

            2.93     Quality of graduate students whom I have taught here

            2.89     The amount of research I am expected to perform each semester

            2.89     Opportunity for advancement in rank at Southeastern

            2.88     The amount of service I am expected to perform each semester

            2.88     Time available for class preparation

            2.88     The effectiveness of faculty leadership at Southeastern (e.g.

Faculty Senate, other faculty councils)

              2.85   The time I have for working with students as advisor, mentor, etc.

              2.76   My retirement benefits

              2.76   Spouse or partner employment opportunities in this geographic area

              2.74   Support for grant-writing

              2.72   The number of classes I teach each semester

              2.62   My health benefits

              2.62   Other benefits

              2.54   Educational opportunities for my children

              2.51   Quality of undergraduate students whom I have taught here

              2.51   University support in research and other scholarly activity

              2.41   My salary

              2.32   Day care opportunities for my children

   2.3    Availability of Graduate Assistant or clerical help for research assistance

Most dissatisfied       

 

                      

In General Narrative Comments, five general categories emerged.  Below is a summary of each:

 

1.         Strong Points (to build upon)

 

There were a number of comments that were unequivocally positive.  These positive attributes are shown below.  The number in parenthesis indicates the number of responses mentioning that attribute.

 

Regular salary increases (1)

Supportive administration (3)

Ability to travel (1)

Opportunities for research (2)

Geographic location (between New Orleans and Baton Rouge) (1)

Quality of life in the Hammond area (1)

Sense of university community (2)

Academic atmosphere (1)

Opportunity for interdisciplinary faculty colloquy (1)

Diversity among students, faculty, and staff (1)

Willingness of university to be on the cutting edge (1)

Library resources (1)

Quality of students (1)

Quality of faculty (1)

Reputation of university in the community and surrounding areas (1)                  

Elder care facilities in the community (1)

 

2.         University Leadership

 

Faculty provided a variety of comments regarding the administration and leadership at Southeastern.  Some expressed appreciation of administrators who listen, provide answers, and process requests in a timely manner. Some faculty perceived administrators as good advocates for their needs, and appreciated that faculty raises seem to be a priority at Southeastern.  Areas of concern included a perceived lack of support and respect, and a lack of appreciation of faculty by administrators.   Several expressed dissatisfaction that committee recommendations are ignored or overridden and that faculty service seems to be overlooked and not appreciated.    In the evaluation process, faculty were concerned about administrative politics and favoritism, and the weight given to SOTs.  Additional concerns cited lack of vision and poor communication of directives.

 

3.         Faculty Support

 

In the area of faculty support (research, clerical, and university offices), concern was expressed by a number of survey respondents over the increasing research demands placed on faculty members without adequate administrative support.  Suggestions made for improvement included increased clerical support, and graduate assistants to assist in the writing and administering of grants, as well as in preparing research, presentations, and publications.  Several comments addressed faculty pay equity, and the inequity of teaching loads.

Concern was also expressed over the lack of assistance received from administrative support services, and reoccurring difficulties with specific offices (i.e. purchasing and enrollment services) were noted, pointing disfavorably at organizational issues, and highly inefficient, time consuming paperwork requirements.

Isolated comments were made concerning inadequate facilities and resources (e.g., the lack of teaching supplies and equipment, the lack of office facilities for part-time faculty, and insufficient parking).  Positive comments were made regarding recent building improvements, and campus beautification projects.

 

 

4.         A Review of the Comments Concerning Salary and Benefits at SLU

Faculty were asked how likely it was that they would leave Southeastern in the next two years. Of the 150 faculty members that responded to the survey, 50 (33%) chose to include comments. Of those 50, 14 (28%) responded that they were unhappy with their salaries. A total of 4 (8%) faculty members indicated poor health insurance was a concern. And, 1 (2%) stated that retirement programs were adversely affecting Social Security benefits.

When faculty were asked to include any general comments they might have, of the 150 faculty members that responded to the survey, 76 (51%) chose to include comments. Of those 76, 17 (22%) responded that they were unhappy with their salaries, while 4 (5%) indicated poor health insurance was a concern. A total of 3 (3%) respondents were concerned with retirement benefits: Two stated that retirement programs were adversely affecting Social Security benefits, and 1 worried that there were not enough retirement program options.

For the 126 (50 + 76) faculty members who did include comments, 31 (25%) indicated salaries were too low, 8 (6%) discussed problems with poor health insurance, and 4 (3%) worried about the existing retirement plans.

 

 

5.         Course Load/Service Demands of Faculty

 

An analysis of the written comments on the Survey of Faculty Job Satisfaction yielded thirty-six (36) items related to course load and/or service demands. The numbers of items in selected response categories are noted below:

                                                                                                                                                    Response Category                                                                     Number                            

 

Heavy/excessive course loads                                                               30                                Negatively impacts scholarly productivity                              17       

            Negatively impacts service                                                          9                   

            Encourages turnover                                                                   5

            Obstacle to recruiting                                                                  1

            De-motivator                                                                              1

 

Inadequate teaching support                                                                    6                   

 

Lack of summer teaching opportunity                                          2                   

 

Lack of appreciation

Faculty needs and demands (teaching resources, etc.)     4                   

Faculty committee recommendations                                           3                   

Instructor’s position                                                                    3

                                                                                                                                               

 

 

            First, it should be noted that the item in the Survey of Faculty Job Satisfaction addressing “the number of classes I teach each semester” received the highest percentage of “very dissatisfied” ratings (23.1%) of all items in the survey.  When combined with the “somewhat dissatisfied” responses, the combined percentage of responses was 39.4%. Likewise, the item addressing “the amount of service I am expected to perform each semester” received a “very dissatisfied/somewhat dissatisfied” combined rating of 34.4%.

            The tally of responses (see table) dealing with course load and service demands indicates that these two areas of faculty concern are closely linked.   Heavy course loads are the overriding concern among faculty with ramifications directly affecting scholarly productivity and service activities.  The predominant theme among faculty comments was that course load is too heavy to maintain an active research agenda, write and administer grants, publish, and engage in service activities.  Several members commented that the heavy teaching load encouraged faculty turnover; others related workload demands to de-motivation and obstacles to recruiting.

            Inadequate teaching support was a moderate concern among faculty with statements pointing to insufficiencies of release time, office supplies and equipment, graduate assistants, and clerical assistance for grant writing.  More summer teaching opportunities were expressed as a way to distribute teaching loads, support scholarly pursuits, and supplement salaries.

            Several faculty members commented on the lack of appreciation expressed by administrators for faculty needs and demands.  Some members were discouraged by the amount of time spent on search committees and the perceived lack of consideration of their recommendations.  Appreciation of the needs of part-time and instructor level faculty was also noted as a concern.

                      

 

Faculty Senate Resolution 03-04-02:
Interim Review of Tenure-Track Faculty
 
   
WHEREAS the Faculty Handbook section on "Evaluation During Probationary Period" contains some ambiguities that could result in inconsistencies in the Interim Review process across the university, and
    
WHEREAS concerns relating to the adherence to time lines in the Interim Review process have been brought to the Faculty Senate's attention, and
    
WHEREAS adherence to standardized procedures and time lines by both faculty and administrators ensures due process;
    
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED THAT the Faculty Senate recommend that the Provost convene an ad hoc committee composed of chairs of departmental tenure/promotion peer committees, with the charge to propose revisions of the Faculty Handbook section regarding the Interim Review process.
    Possible issues to be clarified can include:
·  the peer committee's purpose and role in the Interim Review e.g., whether or not it conducts any votes and can recommend termination, or just serves as an evaluative body)
·  a mandatory meeting between the committee and the candidate
·  the required contents in the candidate's Interim Review file
·  a candidate's right to complete the review process, including the peer evaluation, unless he/she has received a termination letter from the department head at least one month before the due date for the review file;
    
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Faculty Senate recommend that the Provost and deans work with the department heads to ensure that each department follows all the guidelines for the Interim Review in the Faculty Handbook; that each department has specific written procedures and evaluative criteria for the Interim Review and any other tenure-related reviews; that     tenure-track faculty receive such documents upon beginning their probationary periods; and that tenured faculty have such documents when they conduct peer reviews of tenure-track faculty.

 

 

FACULTY SENATE RESOLUTION 03-04-03:
SABBATICAL LEAVES
    
 
 
WHEREAS sabbaticals offer faculty and professional staff a valuable opportunity to work on significant scholarly or creative projects, and
    
WHEREAS sabbaticals are a privilege the administration accords to qualified individuals when the University budget permits, and
    
WHEREAS the Faculty Handbook specifies a timeline for individuals to submit applications ("third Monday in January" [V:7]) for the next academic year, and for the department head, dean, and Provost to forward the application to the President, and
    
WHEREAS the handbook does not specify a date by which the requests for approval for sabbaticals are sent to the University of Louisiana System, nor by which the applicants will be notified of whether or not they will receive sabbatical leaves and, if so, for the full year or a semester, and
    
WHEREAS some applicants' plans for a sabbatical might necessitate arrangements with another institution (e.g., laboratory, library, museum), a process which would be facilitated by or even depend upon a timely announcement of whether or not the sabbatical will be granted, and
    
WHEREAS the allocation of funds for sabbaticals requires approval by the Board of Supervisors for the University of Louisiana System;
    
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED THAT the Faculty Senate recommend that, prior to the end of the spring semester or at the earliest date possible, the administration inform applicants for sabbaticals about whether their proposals will be funded during the next academic year and for what semester(s), pending approval by the Board.

 

 

 

 

Ranking of Southeastern Louisiana University in

U.S. News & World Report America’s Best Colleges

 

Introduction

Annually, many organizations produce reports ranking colleges and universities.  These reports are used by students, parents, and school counselors in making decisions about colleges and universities.  One major report of this type is the annual U.S. News & World Report America’s Best Colleges.  Reviewing the information on Southeastern contained in this report, we are concerned about the accuracy of some of the data reported.  Further, we see ways in which the university could work to improve its overall ranking.

 

Rankings

In U.S. News & World Report America’s Best Colleges, colleges and universities are ranked based on data collected regarding reputation, retention, faculty resources, student selectivity, financial resources, and alumni giving (Table 1).

 

 

U.S. News and World Report Best Colleges & Universities 2004

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Category

 

 

 

 

Percent of score

 

1

Reputation (peer assessment)

 

 

25

 

2

Retention

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Graduation rate

 

 

20

 

 

 

Freshman retention rate

 

5

 

3

Faculty resources

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Class <20

 

 

 

6

 

 

 

Classes >= 50

 

 

2

 

 

 

Salary

 

 

 

7

 

 

 

% of faculty with terminal degree

3

 

 

 

Student/faculty ratio

 

 

1

 

 

 

% faculty full-time

 

 

1

 

4

Student selectivity

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ACT of enrollees

 

 

7.5

 

 

 

Top 25% of high school class

 

6

 

 

 

Acceptance rate

 

 

1.5

 

5

Financial resources

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Per student spending

 

 

10

 

6

Alumni giving

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% of alumni giving

 

 

5

 

 

Total

 

 

 

 

100

 

 

Table 1

 

Southeastern, like all public Louisiana schools, consistently scores poorly in these rankings.  For example, Southeastern regularly ranks in the fourth tier of southern regional Masters-granting schools.  The fourth tier consists of those schools ranking 100th-131st out of the 131 schools rated.  To put this into perspective, all Masters-granting public institutions in Louisiana rank in tier four. 

 

Southeastern’s scores for the past two years are reported below (Table 2).  It is significant to note that between 2003 and 2004 we have had changes that negatively affect our ranking in seven out of the eleven categories reported by USN&WR.

 

U.S. News & World Report Best Colleges & Universities

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scores

 

Category

 

 

 

 

2003

2004

1

Reputation (peer assessment on a five point scale)

2.7

2.6

2

Retention

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Graduation rate

 

 

20%

22%

 

 

Freshman retention rate

 

63%

65%

3

Faculty resources

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Class <20

 

 

 

31%

26%

 

 

Classes >= 50

 

 

8%

9%

 

 

Salary

 

 

 

***

***

 

 

% of faculty with terminal degree

***

*** 

 

 

Student/faculty ratio

 

 

25:1

26:1

 

 

% faculty full-time

 

 

90%

88%

4

Student selectivity

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ACT of enrollees

 

 

17-22

20

 

 

Top 25% of high school class

 

N/A

N/A

 

 

Acceptance rate

 

 

87%

91%

5

Financial resources

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Per student spending

 

 

***

***

6

Alumni giving

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% of alumni giving

 

 

8%

6%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*** Data not provided by U.S. News & World Report for any institution.

 

Table 2

 

Of further interest, we compared Southeastern to other public Masters-granting institutions in Louisiana.  There are a total of nine Masters-granting public institutions in Louisiana:  Grambling, LSU-Shreveport, McNeese, Nicholls, Northwestern, Southeastern, Southern- Baton Rouge, Southern- New Orleans, and UL Monroe.  Southeastern’s rankings are mixed as compared to the other eight Louisiana institutions (Table 3).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

U.S. News and World Report Best Colleges & Universities 2003 & 2004

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SLU Rankings by Category

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2003

2004

 

 

 

 

 

Southern

Tier 4

LA schools

Southern Tier 4

LA schools

 

 

Category

 

 

out of 31

out of 9

out of 32

out of 9

 

1

Peer assesment

 

1

1

1

1

 

2

Ave. Freshmen retention rates

15

1

13

2

 

3

Ave. Graduation rate

 

24

8

25

8

 

4

% of classes < 20

 

25

6*

26*

7*

 

5

% of classes >=50

 

19

3

21

4

 

6

Student/faculty ratio

 

29

7

27*

7*

 

7

% faculty full-time

 

8

4

11

7

 

8

SAT/ACT 25-75 percentile

8/17

3/9

12/17

6/9

 

9

Freshmen in top 25% of HS class

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

 

10

Acceptance rate

 

22

5

23

5

 

11

Ave. alumni giving

 

7

2

13

2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                * All lower ranked schools did not report data.

 

Notes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.  Many of the rankings represent ties with one or more other institutions.

 

 

2.  We tie for 12th out of 31 in Peer Assessment for Southern Tier 3.

 

 

 

 

Table 3

 

Potential

            The poor performance of Louisiana schools has many causes, some historical, some contemporary.  However, a history of low scores should not deter us from working to raise our rank amongst our peers.  By improving our ranking, Southeastern could move from tier four into tier three.   Such a move would make Southeastern the only public Masters-granting institution in the state in tier three.  Such a ranking would be quite a feather in our collective cap as well as acknowledgement of the efforts we are making to improve Southeastern.  Such a move would improve Southeastern’s overall image and our ability to attract quality students.  Further, such improvements may make it easy to obtain increased funding for our programs.  In addition, such improvements may also help Southeastern to attract and retain quality faculty.  Faculty who will, in turn, continue to enhance our reputation through their teaching, research, grant writing, publications, performances, etc.

 

 

 

Recommendations

            It would behoove Southeastern to work to improve its rankings in this and similar surveys.  We have a sound basis upon which to work.  For example, Southeastern is tied for first in tier four on reputation and would tie for twelfth in tier three.  (Note that reputation accounts for 25% of our overall ranking.)  Our graduation rates and freshmen retention rates have been improving and these improvements are also helping our rankings.  Further, we believe that Southeastern could vault itself into tier three by improving on just a few of its numbers.  Granted, there is little that can be done about certain numbers; e.g., faculty salaries, per student spending, etc.  However, there are some numbers that could be easily adjusted.   To this end, we make the following recommendations.

 

  1. It is imperative that all of these data be accurately and correctly reported.  For example, in the 2004 survey, when asked for the 25th-75th percentiles for ACT of new students, we responded 20.  In other words, we provided them with the mean, not the requested percentiles.  We were the only school in our tier that responded incorrectly and one of only five out of the 131 Masters-granting universities responding to answer incorrectly.  We believe that this sends a message to prospective students and the message is not good.  Also, when asked for the percent of incoming freshmen in the top 25% of their high school class, we did not report any datum.  This datum represents 6% of our overall ranking and we received a score of 0 for it.
  2. When possible, departments offering multiple sections that have average enrollments of 20-25 students should cap most sections at 19 students and allow only a few sections to enroll 30.  Since the number of sections with enrollment less than 20 accounts for 6% of our overall scores, increasing the number of such sections will make a difference.
  3. When possible, departments offering multiple sections of classes that have average enrollments of 50-55 students should cap most sections at 49.  The number of sections having > 50 students counts against us.  By reducing the number of such sections, we can improve our overall ranking.
  4. We at Southeastern should continue our efforts to attract students with high ACT scores and/or who are in the top 25% of their high school class.  The quality of our students accounts for 13.5% of our ranking.
  5. The administration should welcome a lower acceptance rate.  Lower acceptance rates improve our overall score.
  6. The administration should continue to encourage alumni giving.  With the added attention Southeastern is currently receiving due to the return of football, we may see a spike in alumni giving.  Of course, we would like to see any positive trend continue since 5% of our overall score is based upon the percentage of alumni giving back to the university.
  7. The administration should publicize what we are doing well, especially to other university presidents, provosts, and deans of admission, in order to get a better peer assessment score.

 

 

 

 

 

RESOLUTION

 

WHEREAS, annually, many organizations produce reports ranking colleges and universities; and

 

WHEREAS, these reports are used by students, parents, and school counselors in making decisions about colleges and universities; and

 

WHEREAS, Southeastern, like all public Louisiana schools, consistently scores poorly in these rankings; and

 

WHEREAS, improving our ranking in such surveys will enhance our reputation and potentially attract more quality students and faculty;

 

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, the Faculty Senate encourages the administration of Southeastern to work to improve the ranking of Southeastern Louisiana University in these surveys by taking the following actions.

 

  1. All of the requested data should be accurately and correctly reported. 
  2. When possible, departments offering multiple sections that have average enrollments of 20-25 students should cap most sections at 19 students and allow only a few sections to enroll 30. 
  3. When possible, departments offering multiple sections of classes that have average enrollments of 50-55 students should cap most sections at 49. 
  4. We at Southeastern should continue our efforts to attract students with high ACT scores and/or who are in the top 25% of their high school class. 
  5. The administration should welcome a lower acceptance rate. 
  6. The administration should continue to encourage alumni giving. 
  7. The administration should publicize what we are doing well, especially to other university presidents, provosts, and deans of admission.

 

 

DRAFT

 

SOUTHEASTERN LOUISIANA UNIVERSITY

 

UNIVERSITY CALENDAR

2004 - 2005

 

Summer 2004

 

May 25-28           Tuesday-Friday       Schedule Changes/Drop/Add only for students who early registered for Summer

May 28                  Friday                                    Early Fee Payment Deadline

May 31                  Monday                                 Memorial Day Holiday

June 1                    Tuesday                                 8:00 a.m. - 12:00 noon.  Schedule Changes/Drop/Add.  Only

students who have paid fees for Summer classes will be

eligible to participate.

June 1-2                                Tuesday-Wednesday           Regular Registration (Beginning at 12:00 noon) and Freshman

Orientation

June 2                   Wednesday                        Fee Payment Deadline 6:00 p.m. Class schedules of non-paying students will be cancelled.

June 3                   Thursday                                First Day of Classes.  Last day for Undergraduate students to remove “I” grades; Term I begins.

June 3                   Thursday                                Late Registration with late fee; last day to make schedule changes.  Classes will be cancelled for all students with unpaid balances.

June 9-10              Wednesday-Thursday         Summer Orientation/Early Registration Program I

June 10                  Thursday                               Open Registration for students who did not early register and students who want to make

schedule changes.

June 15                  Tuesday                                 Last Day to file application for graduation for Summer 2004.  No graduation applications for

Summer2004 will be accepted after this date.

June 16-17            Wednesday-Thursday         Summer Orientation/Early Registration Program II

June 17                  Thursday                               Open Registration for students who did not early register and students who want to make

schedule changes.

June 17                  Thursday                               Last Day to withdraw from Term I Classes

June 23-24            Wednesday-Thursday         Summer Orientation/Early Registration Program III

June 24                  Thursday                               Open Registration for students who did not early register and students who want to make

schedule changes.

June 28                  Monday                                 Term I Classes End

June 29                Tuesday                                   Term I Classes: Final Examinations

June 30                Wednesday                              Term II Classes begin

July 2                     Friday                                    Independence Day Holiday

July 8                  Thursday                                  Regular Classes: Last day to withdraw from classes or resign from the University.

July 14-15           Wednesday-Thursday           Summer Orientation/Early Registration Program IV

July 15                   Thursday                               Open Registration for students who did not early register and students who want to make

schedule changes.

July 15                Thursday                                 Last Day to withdraw from Term II Classes

July 21-22            Wednesday-Thursday          Summer Orientation/Early Registration Program V

July 22                 Thursday                 Open Registration for students who did not early register and students who want to make

                                                                                schedule changes.              

July 22                 Thursday                                 Classes End

July 26                   Monday                                 Term II Classes: Final Exams

July 26                   Monday                                 Deadline for Graduate Theses and Graduate

                                                                                Comprehensive Exam

July 26-27             Monday-Tuesday                 Regular Classes -  Final Exams

July 28                   Wednesday                            Grades due by 11:00 a.m.

 

NOTE:    THE CAFETERIA AND RESIDENCE HALLS (EXCEPT FOR ACADEMIC YEAR HOUSING) WILL BE CLOSED DURING THE FOURTH OF JULY HOLIDAY AND OTHER PERIODS WHEN CLASSES ARE NOT IN SESSION.  UNIVERSITY OFFICES WILL BE CLOSED ON FRIDAY, JULY 2, 2004.

 

ALL RENTAL TEXTBOOKS MUST BE RETURNED TO TEXTBOOK RENTALS ON OR BEFORE 6:00 P.M. THE NEXT BUSINESS DAY FOLLOWING THE LAST DAY OF FINAL EXAMINATIONS.  HOURS OF OPERATION EACH DAY DURING FINAL EXAMS: 7:45 A.M. - 6:00 P.M.

Draft Draft Draft Draft            SOUTHEASTERN LOUISIANA UNIVERSIT Y            Draft Draft Draft Draft

 

UNIVERSITY CALENDAR

 

2004 – 2005

 

Fall 2004

 

August 10-13                        Tuesday - Friday                 Schedule Changes/Drop/Add only for students who early registered for Fall

August 13                              Friday                                    Early Fee Payment Deadline 4:30 p.m. for all Early Registrants.  Class

                                                                                                Schedules of non-paying students will be canceled.

August 16                              Monday                                 Schedule Changes/Drop/Add.  Only students who have paid fees for Fall classes

will be eligible to participate.

August 16-17                        Monday-Tuesday                 Freshman Orientation; New Faculty Orientation

August 17-19                        Tuesday-Thursday               Regular Registration for all new students; students who did not pay fees; and

students who did not register.

August 19                              Thursday                               Fee Payment Deadline 6:00 p.m  Classes will be canceled for all students with

                                                                                                 unpaid balances.

August 20                              Friday                                    No Transaction Day

August 21                              Saturday                               Saturday Only Classes - First Class Meeting

August 23                              Monday                                 First Day of Classes

August 23-25               Monday-Wednesday    Late registration with late fee; last day to make schedule changes.  All fee

                                                                                                balances incurred during late registration must be paid by 4:30 p.m. Thursday,

                                                                                                August 26. Classes will be canceled for all students with unpaid balances

                                                                                                after this date.

August 25                              Wednesday                            Last day for undergraduate students to Remove “I” grades

September 6                          Monday                                 Labor Day Holiday

September 15                       Wednesday                            Last Day to file application for graduation for Fall 2004.  No graduation

 applications for Fall  2004  will be accepted after this date.

September 24                       Friday                                   First half-semester classes: Last day to withdraw or resign from the University

October 12                  Tuesday                                   First half-semester classes: Final Exams; T-TH schedule

October 13                            Wednesday                            First half-semester classes: Final Exams; M-W schedule

October 14                            Thursday                               Second half-semester classes begin

October 22                            Friday                                   Regular Classes: Last day to withdraw or resign from the University

November 8-12                       Monday-Friday                        Early Registration - Spring 2005

November 17                        Wednesday                           Second half-semester classes: Last day to withdraw or resign from the University

November 24                        Wednesday                            Thanksgiving Holiday (begins 12:00 noon).

November 25-26                  Thursday-Friday                 Thanksgiving Holidays

November 29                        Monday                                 First half-semester grades due by 11:00 a.m.

December 3                           Friday                                    Last Day of Classes

December 4                           Saturday                               Saturday Only Classes - Final Exams

December 6                          Monday                                 Deadline for Graduate Theses and Graduate Comprehensive Exams

December 6-10                     Monday-Friday*                 Final Exams

December 11                        Saturday                               Commencement 10:00 a.m.

December 13                        Monday                                 Grades due by 11:00 a.m.

                      

*Grades of prospective graduating students are due by 11:00 a.m., Thursday, December 9, 2004

 

NOTE:     THE CAFETERIA AND RESIDENCE HALLS (EXCEPT FOR ACADEMIC YEAR HOUSING) WILL BE CLOSED DURING THE LABOR DAY AND THANKSGIVING HOLIDAYS AND OTHER PERIODS WHEN CLASSES ARE NOT IN SESSION.  UNIVERSITY OFFICES WILL BE CLOSED ON LABOR DAY -SEPTEMBER 6; THANKSGIVING NOVEMBER 24 (Noon)-26; AND CHRISTMAS & NEW YEAR HOLIDAYS, DECEMBER 20, 2004JANUARY 3, 2005.

 

ALL RENTAL TEXTBOOKS MUST BE RETURNED TO TEXTBOOK RENTALS ON OR BEFORE 6:00 P.M. MONDAY FOLLOWING THE LAST DAY OF FINAL EXAMINATIONS.  HOURS OF OPERATION EACH DAY DURING FINAL EXAMS: 7:45 A.M. - 6:00 P.M.

43 MWF plus final exam = 2270 minutes                                                                                 Term I

29 TTH plus final exam = 2295 minutes                                                  14 MW Aug 23 – Oct 11, Exam Oct 13

29 MW plus final exam = 2295 minutes                                                   14 TTH Aug 24 – Oct 7,  Exam Oct 12

14 M 2100 + (50 + 120 final exam/class mtg) = 2270                                                             Term II

15 T 2250 + 120 minute final exam = 2370                                                            14 MW Oct 18 – Dec 1

15 W 2250 + 120 minute final exam = 2370                                                            14 TTH Oct 14 – Dec 2

14 TH 2100 + (50 + 120 final exam/class mtg) = 2270                                          

                                                                                                               

 

Draft Draft Draft Draft           SOUTHEASTERN LOUISIANA UNIVERSITY           Draft Draft Draft Draft

 

UNIVERSITY CALENDAR

 

2004 – 2005

 

Spring 2005

 

January 4-7          Tuesday - Friday                 Schedule Changes/Drop/Add only for students who registered early for Spring Classes

January                 7              Friday                                    Early Fee Payment Deadline 4:30 p.m. for all Early Registrants.  Class Schedules of

                                                                                non-paying students will be canceled.                                                                          

January 10      Monday                                   8:00 - 12:00 Noon Schedule Changes/Drop/Add.  Only students who have paid fees for Spring                                                        classes will be eligible to participate.

January                 10-11     Monday - Tuesday               Freshman Orientation; New Faculty/Staff Orientation

January           10-13   Monday - Thursday     Regular Registration (Beginning at 12:00 Noon) for all new students; students who did not                                                   pay fees; and students who did not register.

January 13          Thursday                                Fee Payment Deadline 6:00 p.m.  Classes will be canceled for all students with unpaid balances.

January 14           Friday                                    No Transaction Day

January 17           Monday                                 Martin Luther King Holiday

January 18           Tuesday                                 First Day of Classes

January 18-20     Tuesday - Thursday             Late Registration with late fee; last day to make schedule changes.  All fee balances

                                                                                incurred during late registration must be paid by 4:30 p.m. Friday, January 21.   Classes

                                                                                will be canceled for all students who have unpaid balances after this date.

January                 20           Thursday                               Last day for undergraduate students to remove “I” grades

January 22           Saturday                               Saturday Only Classes - First Class Meeting 

February 7-8        Monday-Tuesday                 Mardi Gras Holidays

February 9            Wednesday                            Classes begin at 12:00 Noon

February 15         Tuesday                                 Last Day to file application for graduation for Spring 2005.  No graduation applications for

 Spring 2005 will be accepted after this date.

February 17         Thursday                               First Half-semester classes: Last Day to withdraw or resign from the University

March 9                 Wednesday                            First half-semester classes: Final Exams: M-W schedule

March 10              Thursday                               First half-semester classes: Final Exams: T-TH schedule

March 14              Monday                                 Second half-semester classes begin

March 18              Friday                                   Regular Classes: Last Day to withdraw or resign from the University

March 21-24        Monday - Thursday             Early Registration for Summer 2005              

Mar 25-Apr 1       Friday - Friday                   Spring Break

April 4-8                Monday-Friday                   Early Registration for Fall 2005

April 21                 Thursday                               Second half-semester classes: Last Day to withdraw or resign from the University.

May 2                     Monday                                 First half-semester grades due by 11:00 a.m.

May 6                     Friday                                    Regular Classes End

May 7                     Saturday                               Saturday Only Classes - Final Exams

May 9                    Monday                                 Deadline for Graduate Theses and Graduate Comprehensive Exams

May 9-13               Monday-Friday*                 Final Examinations

May 14                  Saturday                               Commencement 10:00 a.m.

May 16                  Monday                                 Grades Due by 11:00 a.m.

*Grades of prospective graduating students are due by 11:00 a.m., Thursday, May 12, 2005

NOTE:     ALL FULL-SEMESTER AND TERM-I MWF, MW, AND MONDAY-ONLY CLASSES WILL INCLUDE ONE ADDITIONAL CLASS MEETING OR THE CAREFULLY MONITORED EQUIVALENT THEREOF. 

 

NOTE:     THE CAFETERIA AND RESIDENCE HALLS (EXCEPT FOR ACADEMIC YEAR HOUSING) WILL BE CLOSED DURING THE MARTIN LUTHER KING AND MARDI GRAS HOLIDAYS, SPRING BREAK AND OTHER PERIODS WHEN CLASSES ARE NOT IN SESSION.  UNIVERSITY OFFICES WILL BE CLOSED ON JANUARY 17, 2005 (MARTIN LUTHER KING), February 7-8, 2005 (MARDI GRAS), AND March 25 & 28, 2005 (Easter).

 

ALL RENTAL TEXTBOOKS MUST BE RETURNED TO TEXTBOOK RENTALS ON OR BEFORE 6:00 P.M. MONDAY FOLLOWING THE   LAST DAY OF FINAL EXAMINATIONS.  HOURS OF OPERATION EACH DAY DURING FINAL EXAMS: 7:45 A.M. - 6:00 P.M.

42 MWF plus final exam = 2220 minutes                                                                                 Term I

29 TTH plus final exam = 2295 minutes                                                  13 MW Jan 19 – Mar 7, Exam Mar 9

28 MW plus final exam = 2220 minutes                                                   14 TTH Jan 18 – Mar 8, Exam Mar 10

13 M 1950 + (50 + 120 final exam/class mtg) = 2120                                                             Term II

14 T 2100 +  (50 + 120 final exam/class mtg) = 2270                                             14 MW Mar 14 – May 4

15 W 2250 + 120 minute final exam = 2370                                                            14 TTH Mar 15 – May 5

15 TH 2250 + 120 minute final exam = 2370                                                         

                                                                                               

 

 

 

To: Faculty Senate

From: Louise Bostic, FAC  representative

Re: Report of October 23-24, 2003  FAC and BOS meetings

 

The FAC met at 3:30 on the campus of Louisiana Tech, Rustin, with seven

representatives present, UL-Lafayette, UL-Monroe, McNeese, Northwestern,

Southeastern, Grambling, Louisiana Tech.

 

Five items were discussed. Dr Clausen attended the last hour of our

meeting. Her suggestions and input are given in each item below.

 

1. Tenure review was of primary concern and discussion. Concerns involved

the idea (or possibility) of tenure review as a means to remove faculty who

may have differences of opinion with administrators or other faculty,

politicians, et al.  With tenure, a faculty may be removed only upon proof

of incompetence, proof that the position no longer is relevant or necessary

to the university, or felony has been committed.     Two hours of analysis

of the board's outlined position to this point with Dr Clausen's

verification of our analysis suggested the former concern is unfounded. It

appears that tenure review is simply an opportunity to affirm that tenured

faculty are doing their job. It is felt that the BOS and the public need

this assurance. It would be similar to merit raise appraisals and dismissal

with cause would remain the same with the same criteria. It was agreed that

an instance of removal of tenure or dismissal from employment due to tenure

review would be rare and difficult.     Dr Clausen indicated that the board

is going in this direction and that university senates who do not develop

their own system of review will be given directives by the board. In any

case, the system of review will be approved or not approved by the BOS.

She indicated that Southeastern's system of review is exemplary.

2. Legality of PPM practices.   This item was on our agenda, but was not

discussed. Our meeting lasted 3 hours and we had to leave for a 6:30

meeting.

 

3. ULL petition: unfairness in retirement system for those teaching 3 or

more years after DROP. This issue did not seem resolvable.  Faculty go into

DROP with clear understanding of the effects of future teaching on their

retirement benefits and changes could cause undue burden on retirement

funding. Dr Clausen took a more sympathetic position by referring the ULL

faculty to an individual whose specialty is looking at the financial

expedience of proposals, weighing the benefit to individuals against the

burden on the system.  This will shorten his inquiry, taking him directly

to the individual who makes such recomendations rather than passing his

inquiry hand to hand for months. This removed the issue from FAC and send

him directly to the office of his inquiry.

 

4. Reviewing removal-for-cause procedures & financial-exigency guidelines.

This was considered the most urgent matter for FAC to bring to the

respective senates.  A policy is quickly being developed by BOS.  I asked

Dr Clausen if it were too late for faculties to have input into those

policies. She indicated it may be too late.  This should have been

developed long before the financial crisis we are facing in the next budget

year. The fact that a policy is being developed and will be circulated on

campuses before budget cuts begin is in my opinion (Bostic's) a credit to

Dr Clausen and the BOS. If our faculty wants to input, they must develop

something by December 1 and the policy must contain the following elements:

            1. There is factuly (and student) participation in consideration of

possible discontinuance (of programs)

            2. There is consultation with appropriate faculty in the discipline

regarding recommendations on termination of appointments

            3. Faculty with tenure are not considered for termination until

non-tenured faculty have been considered.

            4. One year's formal notice is provided for termination of tenured

faculty.

            5. All efforts are made to allow enrolled students to complete

degree programs.

            6. Reasonable efforts are made to relocate tenured faculty from

terminated program to other suitable programs within the university

            7. If program is reinstated within three years, tenured faculty

terminated have first right to reinstate.

 

Of particular importance in considering discontinuance of programs due to

financial exigency is that a program may not be discontinued due to

financial exigency unless the institution is declared financially exigent.

This has important ramifications.  As I recall, in 1992 or 1994 or.... we

lost 17 majors at Southeastern.  These were discontinued or consolidated

due to "low enrolment" not to financial exigency.  This is an important

difference.  Also, as I recall, few if any faculty lost their appointments

as a result of that reorganization.

 

5. The Patriot Act.   Dr Clausen was present when I presented our petition

to the council.  She asked for a copy and showed obvious concern and strong

support of our petition.   Her suggestion was that we send our letters

immediately, but that we take our concerns to the Council of Presidents.

She felt they would endorse a similar letter and that a letter from the

Council of Presidents would be worthy of press release and our impact could

go very far.  It was agreed that this should be done, should be expedited

and should be brought before the Council of Presidents.     The final

letter to legislators, US President, John Ashcroft, et al was mailed with

all signatures of the FAC on Monday.  Our final draft is attached.(I will

bring to the meeting Wednesday)

    As a post script, I was at a meeting in Oklahoma Saturday afternoon.

Two attorneys and an appellate judge who are lifelong friends were there.

Very soon, our conversation turned to the Patriot Act I and II.    We

certainly are not the only informed people extremely concerned with this

act and its violation of our constitutional law.    Something has to give

on this issue.

 

BOS Report:

1. Grambling's search for a president and discussion thereof consumed much

of the BOS meeting. The interim president of Grambling reported full

accreditation for all required areas of accreditation and appropriate

commendations were given to the administration and faculty.  Reports from

the very large budget and finance committee of the university indicated a

second consecutive annual report of financial compliance allowing the

appointment of a president as early as January 2004. A website has been

created by the BOS to continually inform the public as well as Grambling

University of current status and to encourage applicants.

2.  SLU requested approval to negotiate a development contract for Phase

III Housing project(student housing facilities to accomodate 1600-2500

beds, including additional space for student services associated with

campus housing) with the selected development firm.  Recommendation: ULS

System staff and legal counsel will make the appropriate recommendations at

such time as the official request and required documentation is submitted

by the University(December 5 was the date SLU submitted).

3.  SLU requested new ground lease approval for the proposed President's

Home. BOS Recommendation: that the following resolution be adopted: that

the BOS approve SLU's request to enter into a ground lease with

Southeastern Development Foundation, Inc; that Dr Randy Moffett is

designated and authorized to execute any and all documents necessary to

execute the lease agreement; that UL System staff and legal councsel ensure

that all documents conform to statutory and administrative requirements.

The minimum estimated cost of the new facility is $750,000; reflects 7500

sq ft; property previously donated for the new home will be sold for

$315,000 by the foundation and will be applied to cost.