MEMORAN DU M
 

October 17, 1999

TO: Dr. Rita Egan
FROM: Michael Moore

Ouestions For Senate Meeting

I am writing in response to your memorandum of October 5, 1999, listing two issues about which faculty have raised questions. Since I will be out of town at the October 21 meeting of the Senate, I am providing a written response. Should my response below not be sufficient, please let me know and I will address accordingly at the first Senate meeting in November.

The first issue listed several questions concerning policies for and at our Extended Campus Centers.

Q: ".... should there be a university policy clearly regulating off-campus offerings so that inflated off-campus enrollments in upper-division courses do not do violence to our on-campus faculty offerings?
A: I'm not sure what is meant by "inflated off-campus enrollments." Regardless, the course offerings are determined by the Department Chair in collaboration with the Center Director. Only courses should be scheduled for which there is an appropriate population and qualified faculty member, regular or adjunct, to teach the course. Experience and surveys of students indicate that few students enrolled in courses at an ECC will travel to the main campus while enrolled at the Center. In other words, offering or not offering a course at an ECC (with the occasional exception at West Liberty) seldom has an impact on the main campus enrollment in the same course.

Q: "Is the mission of the off-campus centers to prepare students with general education/basic courses, or is it increasingly to offer entire degree programs?"
A: The primary mission of the Extended Campus Centers is to provide residents of our service region access to a quality education. Of course, we must do so within the university's limited budget and multiple priorities. At a minimum, that means offering as many general education and lower-level courses as the enrollment will sustain. Where there is a sufficient population at an ECC to warrant the offering of a complete program, our mission supports doing so. To date, the only complete programs we have agreed to offer at an ECC (Ashland and Prestonsburg) are Elementary Education, Nursing and Business. In all cases, a program is identified for completion at an ECC only with the support of the department chair and faculty. Where we do offer complete programs, every effort is made to provide some level of full-time, residential faculty at each Center. Obviously, however, neither the critical mass at any center nor our budget would permit more than limited residential faculty.  Please keep in mind that without the ECC's, our enrollment would be approximately 1,900 less.

The second issue concerned salary adjustments associated with promotion.
 Q: If it is true that the salary adjustment associated with promotion has not increased over the last five years, "what steps are being taken to improve the increase of salary after promotion."
 A: My recollection is that the current increase associated with promotion  is $2000 from Assistant to Associate and $4,000 from Associate to Professor) was implemented by President Eaglin approximately five years ago as one of several strategies for addressing the inequity in faculty salaries at MSU. For what it is worth, the current raise associated with promotion at MSU remains higher than most institutions. Regardless, a suggestion for increasing the amount has been made by the appropriate committee in the SACS self-study report. The initial draft of the report, including that suggestion, was approved by the SACS Steering Committee. At this time, I have no idea whether there will be an increase for the 2000-2001 academic year.