[phas-faculty_staff_others] News for the Senate

[Carlos Bertulani]

========

The Senate convened today for an extended session lasting over two hours. Here is a brief summary of the key highlights:

 1- Dr. Ricky Dobbs, our SACS Accreditation liaison, engaged senators in a discussion lasting nearly an hour. The debate touched upon several crucial points: 
(a) Ricky disclosed that out of hundreds of items, SACS returned 18 to the university due to non-compliance. 
(b) Academic freedom was a central topic, and I've asked how the university could demonstrate its commitment to academic freedom. Ricky suggested resolving litigations with students, staff, or faculty as one indicator. 
(c) Concerns were raised about the proliferation of Vice Presidents (VPs) who seemed disconnected from the faculty, prompting a senator to express frustration about unanswered emails and complaints. 
(d) Senators commended Ricky's dedication and competence, acknowledging him as one of the hardest-working members of the upper administration. 
(e) Criticism surfaced about the high salaries of VPs ($250,000), suggesting that the funds allocated to them could be better utilized for hiring faculty or addressing budgetary challenges. 

 2- Dr. Alex Williams and Mr. Jim Curry presented insights on faculty interactions with athletes: 
(a) Faculty were advised to accommodate athletes' class absences at the request of the Athletics Department, with no added difficulty in makeup exams. 
(b) Mental health challenges among athletes were highlighted, urging faculty understanding when athletes struggled academically. 
(c) Criteria for athlete acceptance were shared, indicating GPA requirements for each academic year. They should have at least 1.8/1.9/2.0 GPA for first/second/third year.
(d) But then, Dr. Curry presented positive academic achievements among athletes, boasting a 3.08 GPA average in the past year.

 3- Department Heads: 
Extensive discussion revolved around the evaluation of Department Heads, with notable faculty interest. Some senators are actively participating in the revision of Tenure and Promotion (T&P) and department head policies.

4- Merit Raises: 
(a) Despite a consensus for a 3% merit pool, the university only allocated 1.5% or $400,000. Senators discussed the idea of sourcing the remaining 1.5% from department heads. They said that the university will ask back $2,000 from each department operating fund. I guess we would need 200 departments get accumulate 400k.
(b) Discontent arose regarding a 30% increase in VP salaries, leaving insufficient funds for faculty raises. The Senate President proposed inviting Dr. Rudin to clarify this matter. 
(c) Senators were encouraged by the senate president to inquire about colleagues' merit raises within departments to take action if disparities were observed. I said that we do not go around in our department asking how much a colleague got in merit raises (*). But apparently some faculty do in other places. 
(*) I confess that I did this once, but instead of asking, I’ve spontaneously told two of my colleagues in the department that I got a larger merit raise than average. It did not end up well for me, but for my colleagues.  
(d) The faculty merit pool situation will be even worse next year, according to rumors circulated in the senate.
(e) A proposal emerged for faculty to have the ability to remove certain VPs, emphasizing the need for academic freedom and VP evaluations.
(f) Someone claimed that Deans, VPs, and up, do whatever they want. In my opinion, the discussion could have wisely been stopped at this point.
(g) . . . I will send you the minutes when I get them. But I guess much of what I wrote above will not be written down. I am sorry.

=====