Today's (4/23) article in HA about Faculty Senate

Date: Apr 23, 2004

Today's (4/23) article in HA about Faculty Senate

Date: Apr 23, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: #cruncher
"Janet Braswell writes: "...69% of USM's estimated 600 faculty. They voted 430:32 against Thames' presidency. I had heard that by the time adjuncts, instructors, and others without faculty status were taken out of the equation, the real percentage of faculty voting back on March 10 was much higher. Can anyone confirm this?"

When the voting rolls were put together for Fac Senate and Academic Council there were descrepencies in which it appeared that there were fewer faculty elegiable to vote than the 650 cited. Senate did a number of surveys to determine exactly what the real number is but it seemed difficult to pin down. I think the general consensus is that there are probably at least 600 and perhaps the 650 isn't so far off. There are quite a few categories of rank to consider -- one I didn't even think of was emeritus professors, for instance.

I don't know if Senate decided to continue the pursuit on this but I have the feeling that it didn't seem like a major enough difference to keep running with. But perhaps someone out there knows better.

Date: Apr 23, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: present professor
"I don't know if Senate decided to continue the pursuit on this but I have the feeling that it didn't seem like a major enough difference to keep running with. But perhaps someone out there knows better."

I certainly don't and wasn't implying any sort of new scandal! I had heard it was being looked into. Just thought that if the actual pool of individuals with faculty rank were much smaller, then the percentage would be higher and worth noting. Not worth further discussion, thanks for the info PP.

Date: Apr 23, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: #cruncher
"I certainly don't and wasn't implying any sort of new scandal! I had heard it was being looked into. Just thought that if the actual pool of individuals with faculty rank were much smaller, then the percentage would be higher and worth noting. Not worth further discussion, thanks for the info PP."

At this point it is best to leave no stone unturned. A timely post for all to remember.

Date: Apr 23, 2004

RE: Today's (4/23) article in HA about Faculty Sen

Date: Apr 23, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Flash Gordon
"The number of tenure track faculty in the fall was about 540 according to my source in IR. You would have to add instructors to that. Of course, a 70% turn out to a one hour election with limited publicity and an intimidation factor operating is smashing."

This 540 number is more like what I had heard, which puts the percentage of tenure track faculty members voting at closer to 86%, which would be phenomenal for the reasons noted by Flash Gordon above. Maybe, however, I was asking the wrong question. Who is allowed to vote? If it is not just tenure track faculty members and by the time you add in instructors, adjuncts, and any eligible others, you get close to that 600+ number then this is still a non-issue. Educator, thanks, I'm not trying to get people to spin wheels here but I agree with you, 5 days left - no stone unturned.

Date: Apr 23, 2004

RE: Today's (4/23) article in HA about Faculty Senate

Date: Apr 23, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: foot soldier
"I heard the number of assistant, associate, and full profs is ca. 480. Anybody know the number of instructors?"

The 480 number is the number from academic council. The 540 number I believe is closer to Senate number. Instructors are eligable to vote apparently.

Correct - the issue was less a scandal than trying to reconfigure the percentage for the bext impact. But I agree, 70% is amazing on any campus.

Date: Apr 23, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: foot soldier
"I heard the number of assistant, associate, and full profs is ca. 480. Anybody know the number of instructors?"

Someone please confirm who was allowed to vote because if it was only these 480 tenure track professors, then the number is 96% and this is clearly noteworthy.

Date: Apr 23, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: #cruncher
"Someone please confirm who was allowed to vote because if it was only these 480 tenure track professors, then the number is 96% and this is clearly noteworthy."

90%...sorry

Date: Apr 23, 2004

A typical state university problem...figuring out how many real faculty you have!

Clemson overreports the number of faculty on its Web site, too. Interestingly enough, when some organization, like the consortium that does the faculty salary comparisons, specifies a definition Clemson will adhere to it in its reports. But for the rest of the world...they count every administrator with a faculty title attached, and every administrator who's called Lecturer to exploit a loophole in the SC civil service system. Sometimes they throw in some other folks as well.

One year when I was on the CU Faculty Senate, another Senator who was worried that his College would lose seats in the reapportionment came to me with a list of "faculty" in his College. I had to explain to him that 40 or 50 of those listed didn't qualify according to the Faculty Senate's criteria for eligibility to vote for Faculty Senators (the FS used "regular faculty ranks" as its criterion).

Date: Apr 23, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: #cruncher (obviously not!)
"90%...sorry"

All faculty were allowed to vote including instructors.