SENATE OF THE FACULTY, March 18, 1999

  The Senate of the Faculty met in the Natural Products Building, Room 1044.

 Present: A. Bomba (PP), J. Bradley (PP), B. Choinski, W. Cleland, S. Conlon (2P), C. Esposito, R. Ethridge (P), D. Feller (PP), D. Graves (1), L. Harper, R. Klein (P), F.Laurenzo, K. McKee (1), J. Mizenko (1PPPPP), M. Overby (1PP), L. Pittman (4), T. J. Ray (PP), J. Reidy (1PPP), J. Rimoldi, M. Slattery (PPPP), L. Smith (2PP), K. Sufka (P), C. Taylor, M. Vinson (PP), Jay Watson (P), John Watson (1PP), R. Westmoreland (1PPP), J. Williamson, C. Williford (3).

Absent: D. Adler* (1P), J. Aubrey* (PPP), M.L. Baggett (2P), T. Bates* (P), G. Buskes* (PP), J. Cassidy* (PPP), M. Deighton* (PPP), R. Dorsey (8), A. Elsherbeni* (PP), A. Fisher-Wirth* (1PPP), V. Frierson-Adams* (P), P. Goggans (1P), R. Gordon (4), K. Green* (1PPP), L. Hanshaw (3P), S. Hargrove* (3 PP), Haws (7 P), L. Kravitz* (1PP), T. McCarty (2), L. McLary* (1PPP), J. Murray (8), A. Paterson* (2PP), J. S. Payne (2P), K. Raber* (1PP), W. Rayburn (8), E. Sisson* (3PPPP), H. Sloan (8), M. Tew* (P), M. Van Boening (4P).

 Chair Williamson called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. when it was determined that a quorum was present. He announced that the Chancellor has selected Dr. Carolyn Ellis Staton to the next Provost. He reported that the Senate Executive Committee has asked the Chancellor to convert 2% of the raise money to an across-the-board cost of living raise whereby all faculty would get the same dollar amount. The remaining money would be awarded on merit. It is possible that the cost of living raise may be based on the average salary of all university employees.

Sen. Laurenzo, Chair of the General Academic Affairs Committee, reported on the Compromise Copyright Policy. It has been posted on the web at:

https://www.olemiss.edu/orgs/faculty_senate/final/1998_1999/finaljoi.html

This compromise document is the work of a committee with representation from the University Research Board, the Senate (Fred Laurenzo), and Gary Myers and Conrad Cunningham who had authored previous drafts. This version preserves the basic features of the Myers-Jensen draft, which begins with a presumption of faculty ownership. University claims are excluded, with three possible exceptions: supervised works, supported works, and externally funded works. Supervised works are those created at the direction of the university. The third area, externally funded works, would require that any claim by the university would have to be established at the outset, when the contract with the funding agency is written. The second case, "supported works" would be the most common situation. Customary use of office space, clerical support, computers, office equipment, supplies, library resources, etc. are not considered "substantial use of university resources." The responsibility for asserting the University's claim rests with the supervisor of the faculty member. The policy envisions a standing committee created to serve as an appeals committee, necessary for due process. In the document, it is named the "Intellectual Property Committee" which should be changed to "University Copyright Appeals Committee."

After a brief discussion, Sen. Laurenzo moved that the Senate approve the draft as written, except that the name of the committee defined on p. 8 be changed from "University Intellectual Property Committee" to "University Copyright Appeals Committee," and with the proviso that the Senate Executive Committee be empowered to use its discretion in rewriting the three paragraphs on pp. 8-9 defining the committee's structure. (2nd T.J. Ray) The motion passed by voice vote.

Sen. Williamson expressed appreciation to Sen. Laurenzo and his committee for producing this final compromise version. Sen. Laurenzo moved (2nd Bradley) that the Senate express its thanks to Gary Myers and Mary Jensen for their work in producing the draft that forms the basis of the final version. The motion passed by a voice vote.

 On a motion by Sen. Jay Watson (2nd Slattery), the minutes of the February 11, 1999 meeting were approved.

The next agenda item was to hear a presentation on the proposed Honor Code. The Chair introduced Dr. Gay Hatfield, chair of the Honor Code Committee, and student members Tim Sumrall, Allison Grisham, Brad Davis, John Joseph, and Stephen Hammack. Dr. Hatfield explained the background of the present document, which was an outgrowth of an honors seminar she taught last year. The students researched the issue intensively and met with the Chancellor and Provost, who were very supported of the students’ work. An Honor Code Committee was appointed, with Gary Miller, Maurice Eftink, and John Williamson as the other faculty members. She has already incorporated changes made as a result of responses to the announcement of its website. The document has been reviewed by the Undergraduate Council and the Academic Council.

The students spoke briefly in turn and then answered questions from senators. Some of the changes from current practice are that students are held responsible for reporting cheating, that violations must be reported on a form to the Provost's office. The composition of the Honor Council, which would replace the current Academic Discipline Committee, would include an equal number of student and faculty members, with a faculty chair.

Among the issues raised in the discussion were why is it necessary to turn in a form when the student admits to cheating and consents to the penalty levied by the professor? How long will the records of violations be retained? What about graduate students? Sen. Williamson stated that in the interim there would have to be a separate committee to deal with graduate students. Concern was voiced that the present definition of a quorum for a hearing does not mandate an equal number of faculty and students. Sen. Jay Watson and Sen. Bradley emphasized the need for consistency in the implementation of the code - if the students are to sign it, this act of consent should transpire before each test in every class. Also, how is the code to be ratified? By a referendum of the entire faculty and student body? Or just by the ASB? It is more likely to be successful if a majority of students ratify it.

At the conclusion of the discussion, Sen. Sufka expressed appreciation to Gay Hatfield and the students for their graceful handling of tough questions from the Senate.

At 9:00 p.m. Sen.Taylor moved a suspension of the rules to continue deliberations beyond 9:00 p.m. (2nd Klein) The motion passed.

Chair Williamson suggested that a straw vote be taken to determine if the Senate essentially approves in principle, the idea of a campus-wide Honor Code, and that the issue should be referred to the General Academic Affairs Committee to work with the Honor Code Committee on a final draft. (Motion: Sufka, 2nd Jay Watson) The motion carried.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. The Senate’s next meeting will be Thursday, April 8, 1999 at 7:00 p.m.

 

 Approved April 15, 1999