University of South Alabama
Faculty Senate
REPORT ON
PRESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE (1998-2003)
February 2004
Submitted to:
The Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees of the University of South Alabama,
in conjunction with the 2003-2004 evaluation of university progress.
Prepared by:
Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee for Presidential Evaluation:
Stephen Morris, Committee Chair, Vice Chair Faculty Senate
Nick Aronson, Senate Caucus leader, College of Medicine
Ross Dickens, Senate Caucus leader, Mitchell College of Business
Frank Donovan, Senate Caucus leader, College of Engineering
David Gray, Senate Caucus leader, College of Education
John Jefferson, Senate Caucus leader, College of Allied Health
Elliot Lauderdale, Senate Caucus leader, School of Continuing Education
Michelle Moreau, Senate Caucus leader, College of Arts and Sciences
Harold Pardue, Senate Caucus leader, School of Computer and Information Sciences
Marian Peters, Senate Caucus leader, College of Nursing
Justin Robertson, Senate Caucus leader, University Library
Faculty Senate: Report on Presidential Performance (1998-2003)
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report of the Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee (herein the Committee) focuses
on the president and matters of concern to faculty. The Committee stresses the
importance of reviewing the president periodically and the need to develop
evaluative criteria.

The Committee commends the president for developing and instituting a much
needed comprehensive planning and assessment program that extends from the
highest to the lowest levels of the institution.

The Committee also commends President Moulton for decentralizing decision
making and strengthening the role of the Academic Vice President.

The Committee notes that the president has adopted most of the reforms
recommended in the 1990 report prepared by Dr. Harold Enarson.

Many important steps have been taken over the past five years to enhance the quality
of the University, including the expansion of the library, an increase in the scope of
freshman scholarships, the establishment of an honors program, the growth in federal
research grants, and the creation of the Technology Park and Cancer Center.

Communications between faculty and the president have improved dramatically. The
president routinely meets with representatives of the Faculty Senate and conducts
general faculty meetings.

The Committee commends President Moulton’s handling of the football issue: a good
example of his deliberative and consultative style.

The president has greatly upgraded relations with the alumni, students and
community leaders and has helped craft a more positive public image of the
institution.

The president has received an average evaluation of 3.38 on a scale of 1 to 5 in the
annual faculty surveys since 1998. Additional survey data point to a positive opinion
regarding the resources dedicated to teaching, but a less than positive evaluation of
resources dedicated to research and limited confidence in recent search procedures.

Faculty governance has improved under President Moulton, though much more can
and should be done to enhance and ensure faculty involvement in decision making.
Faculty Senate: Report on Presidential Performance (1998-2003)
2

The president has done a good job at securing financial resources for the institution
during difficult fiscal times. The Committee praises the appointment of a
development officer and the work of the institution to secure private gifts. The
Committee remains concerned about the relationship with the USA Foundation –
which has cost the institution substantially -- and the president’s handling of the
dispute. Current developments in the relationship nurture guarded optimism.

There is a sense among faculty that the president has not clearly defined or articulated
a vision for the university.

Despite positive administrative and academic changes, the Committee finds that
academic matters have too often been neglected. Expanding enrollments and new
programs have increased the burden on departments and faculty who are too often
asked to do more with less. The Committee is also concerned about the reduction in
the percentage of tenured/tenure track lines and the growing use of part-time faculty.

Faculty salaries have stagnated during the five year period and continue to lag behind
national averages: a major concern of faculty. Salary increases during the period are
less than in comparable periods and well below the increases enjoyed by upper-level
administrators.
Faculty Senate: Report on Presidential Performance (1998-2003)
3
Preface: The Task of Evaluating the President and the University
The idea for this evaluation grew out of the controversy surrounding the suspension of
the presidential search and the appointment of V. Gordon Moulton in December 1998 by
the USA Board of Trustees (BOT). To assuage faculty concerns, the BOT agreed at that
time to “revisit the issue of the presidency in five years.” Shortly thereafter, however, the
BOT adopted a policy guaranteeing a national search for future presidents, a policy later
formalized in the 2001 mutual agreement with the USA Foundation. With the search
issue resolved, the BOT therefore expanded the initiative to “revisit” the presidency in
2003 to encompass university progress.
The Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee (the Committee) firmly believes that the BOT
should conduct periodic assessments of the university president. There are many reasons
to adopt such a policy. Among them, SACS requires it: “The effectiveness of all
administrators, including the CEO (president) must be evaluated periodically” (SACS
page 67, line 15, cited in USA SACS Report p. 21). The Enarson Report (1990, 10) – a
report sponsored by and subsequently endorsed by the BOT – also stresses the need for
the governing authority to “review performance [of the president] at stated intervals.”1
Yet despite these recommendations and the advantages of formal mechanisms for
assessment, the by-laws of the BOT do not mandate periodic evaluations of the university
president, nor has the BOT to our knowledge exercised its responsibility in this area.
The Committee, therefore, recommends that the Faculty Senate pass a resolution calling
on the BOT to adopt a policy to evaluate the president on a routine basis in full
compliance with SACS requirements and, furthermore, that the BOT develop a
systematic assessment process for such reviews that includes faculty input.
Criteria, Scope and Methods of this Report
One of the primary challenges faced by the Committee was to develop a set of criteria to
evaluate presidential performance. The University mission statement and the planning
document provide broad guidelines, but these relate more to the university as a whole
than to the presidency. The Committee therefore sees part of its task as developing
criteria to evaluate the president and recommends that the aforementioned Senate
resolution call on the BOT to codify the president’s job description to assist future
presidential evaluations.
A critical question in establishing criteria involves defining the scope of the evaluation.
Three ingredients delineate the scope of this report. First, the current evaluation focuses
on presidential performance rather than university progress. Although it is often difficult
to uncouple one from the other, we recognize that the president is ultimately responsible
for shaping and implementing policies affecting the university. He may get undeserved
credit and blame in equal measure. Second, this report examines those issues that most
directly concern and impact faculty, specifically those items laid out in ‘Vision 1’ in the
Harold L. Enarson, “Organizational Issues and Concerns at the University of South Alabama,” Boulder,
Colorado, August 1990.
1
Faculty Senate: Report on Presidential Performance (1998-2003)
4
Long-Range Planning document and in the president’s report entitled “Achieving a
Collective Vision,” including faculty recruitment and retention, opportunities and support
for faculty development and research, the strengthening of degree programs and support
for teaching, salaries and benefits, the purpose and vision of the university, facultyadministration relations, and faculty governance. We do not attempt to address in any
systematic way such areas as student life (“Vision 2”), multiculturalism (“Vision 3”), the
public image of the institution (“Vision 4”), the financial position of the institution
(“Vision 5”), the overall planning, budgeting processes (“Vision 6”) or the strength of the
USA Health System (“Vision 7”). Finally, this assessment concentrates on the five-year
period since the naming of President Moulton as permanent president. We recognize that
President Moulton did not take office with a blank slate, but inherited the policies,
institutions and challenges of his predecessor. Focus on the five-year period inherently
means a comparison between the institution’s present and its past.
In preparing this report, the Committee collected and examined a wide range of materials
from Senate reports and outside assessments of the organizational issues facing the
University to annual faculty surveys and statistical data provided by the Office of
Institutional Research and Planning and the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs
(SVPAA). The Committee also conducted extensive interviews with past Senate officers
and held an open faculty forum to hear the concerns of all faculty. The Committee also
received numerous written comments and recommendations from faculty.
Quantitative Faculty Evaluations of the President and University Leadership since
1998
The Faculty Senate annually conducts a comprehensive survey of faculty opinion. The
survey is not based on a random sample; instead, all members of the faculty are
encouraged to participate. The following tables present results relevant to this evaluation:
Table 1. Rating Presidential Performance
Question: indicate your confidence in, or opinion of, the effectiveness of University
President (Moulton)
(1 = very poor, 5 = excellent)
year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
avg. score
3.26
3.38
3.51
3.30
3.30
3.56
n
(292)
(315)
(306)
(335)
(230)
(210)
Faculty Senate: Report on Presidential Performance (1998-2003)
5
Table 2. Assessing University Leadership (president and vice presidents)
Question: indicate your opinion about how highly you rate the university leadership
(1 = very poor, 5 = excellent) (avg. scores)
>Informs faculty of developments critical
to the accomplishment of the mission
>Honors all promises and commitments
>Is impartial and professional in relations
with faculty
>Conveys administrative expectations in
a clear and effective manner
>Encourages new initiatives
>Seeks and dedicates ample resources
to fulfill mission
>Seeks and incorporates faculty input into
decisions concerning matters vital
to the mission of the university
>Responds to crisis w/appropriate measures
2001
2002
2003
3.06
2.98
3.05
3.09
3.35
3.43
2.92
3.01
3.28
2.89
2.77
3.01
2.52
3.33
3.25
2.55
2.69
2.99
2.50
53% (yes)
2.52
42%*
2.81
76%*
* 2002 and 2003 versions contain a separate “no opinion” category
Table 3. Evaluating Resources for Teaching and Research
Questions: Are you provided with adequate and appropriate resources to teach
effectively at USA?
Are you provided with adequate and appropriate resources to conduct research or
creative work at USA?
(1= very inadequate, 5 = very adequate)(avg. scores)
year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Teaching
3.17
3.13
3.20
3.15
3.33
3.70
Research
2.76
2.64
2.58
2.40
2.64
2.87
Faculty Senate: Report on Presidential Performance (1998-2003)
6
Table 4. Gauging Faculty Morale
Question: If you had a variety of professional options, would you prefer to:
 remain at USA with little or not change in duties
 remain at USA with significant change in duties
 move to another institution
year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
remain
w/no change
47%
47%
43%
37%
39%
nd
remain
w/significant change
23%
19%
23%
21%
16%
move
27%
27%
29%
36%
34%
Question: How satisfied are you with opportunities currently provided by USA to
concentrate on what you do best?
(1= very dissatisfied, 5 = very satisfied)
year
avg. score
1998
3.17
1999
3.09
2000
3.03
2001
2.70
2002
2.02
2003
3.11
Table 5. Assessing Recruitment for President, VPs, and Deans and the Credibility of
Search Committees (2003 only)
Question: Are you satisfied with the process of recruitment [of president, vice president
and deans? (1=very unsatisfied, 5 = very satisfied) avg. score: 2.62
Question: Are you satisfied that the membership of search committees is credible?
(1= not very credible, 5= very credible)
avg. score: 3.14
The overall assessments of the president reflected in Table 1 document a level of
satisfaction above the 3.0 mid-point of the 1 to 5 scale: an assessment that has remained
relatively consistent over the period. Confidence in the president compares well with the
confidence ratings for other administrators (vice presidents and deans). Opinion varies
across colleges with the College of Nursing and the School of Computer & Information
Sciences at times issuing a rating of 4 or higher and the College of Arts & Sciences a
rating slightly below 3.
Faculty Senate: Report on Presidential Performance (1998-2003)
7
Table 2 shows evaluations of “university leadership” (president and vice presidents). All
assessments are in the positive direction with a noticeable improvement over the three
year period during which this question has been asked. Table 3 gauges opinion on the
commitment of resources to teaching and research. It reveals a relatively favorable
opinion on the commitment of resources to teaching, but a less than favorable opinion on
the commitment of resources to research. Table 4 presents two indicators of faculty
morale. In two years, overall satisfaction falls below the mid-point of 3.0, suggesting a
clear dip in faculty morale. The average figures, particularly the percentage of
respondents expressing a desire to leave the institution if given the chance, show that
faculty morale certainly has room for improvement. Finally, Table 5 contains two items
regarding recruitment. Both the survey data and our discussions with faculty (see section
under Recruitment) suggest lukewarm confidence in the recruitment process.
Vision
A shared vision, developed by the president and faculty, is critical to the institution.
“Without such a vision there is no framework to guide the decision-making process”
(Enarson Report 1990, 8). The points raised in meetings with faculty and in written
comments reveal deep concerns about the current vision for the university. For example,
despite the formulation of strategic goals (certainly a positive step), it remains unclear
whether the University sees itself striving to become a major research institution or
perceives its role as primarily teaching, or some combination of the two. Some believe
that rather than giving due emphasis to academic matters, the president tends to see the
institution more in terms of “career preparation.” Some sense that the University has not
done enough to distinguish itself among the peer institutions in the region. One common
observation is that the University tends toward the reactive rather than the proactive.
Planning and Administration
Among the challenges facing the president upon assuming office was to develop and
institute a process for planning and assessment and to decentralize administrative
decision-making. The Committee credits the president with designing and instituting a
broad-based planning and evaluation system, the “USA Institutional Effectiveness
Program.” In accordance to the recommendations of the Enarson Report (1990, 45, 5253), the broad-based initiative features a Long-Range Planning Committee composed of
members of the BOT, the administration, faculty, students, public officials and
community leaders. Since its inception, the Long-Range Planning Committee has worked
to formulate and articulate a set of strategic goals and to assess university progress
toward achieving those goals. Equally important, the Institutional Effectiveness Program
mandates detailed annual reviews and projections at the college, departmental and
programmatic levels. Such reviews offer a much-needed and clear institutional means for
the various units to plan growth, assess progress, and articulate needs.
The Committee also credits the president for effectively delegating responsibility over
academic matters by strengthening the office of the academic vice president, a move also
recommended in the Enarson Report (1990, 33). This positive development is a much
Faculty Senate: Report on Presidential Performance (1998-2003)
8
needed departure from the micro-management of the prior administration. Consistent
with the planning process, aspects of decision-making and assessments have been
decentralized down to the college or the departmental level. In some cases (though not
all), issues such as workload policy, reassigned time, budgets, and even the evaluation of
department chairs have been made much more transparent and systematic.
Academic Support and Development
The Committee recognizes that significant improvements in the academic quality of the
University have taken place over the past five years. The president enjoys credit for
increasing enrollment, for expanding the number and scope of academic scholarships and
an increase in the academic quality of incoming freshman, for promoting the
development of new academic and professional programs and for creating an honors
program. The many capital improvements listed under Vision 1 in “Achieving a
Collective Vision,” including the library expansion, the completion of the Laidlaw
Performing Arts Center, and the modernization of classrooms throughout campus are
extremely important accomplishments, and have significantly added to the learning
environment. The growth of federal appropriations and the creation of the Cancer
Research Institute and the Technology Park, moreover, have clearly helped set the stage
for the University to become an important research leader and contribute to the local
economy and to technological innovation.
The successful completion of the SACS Review and the university’s re-accreditation are
also significant milestones for the institution. Yet the Committee shares the concern
expressed by Professor Roger DuMars, the faculty coordinator of the SACS report, that
“current personnel, programs and resources devoted to institutional accountability will
not support future institutional and college accreditation efforts” (Letter to Mr. Nix,
January 16, 2004).
The Committee recognizes that the president shoulders a wide range of duties and
responsibilities. Many express the view, however, that the president tends to concentrate
his efforts on community relations, infrastructure development and health care -- with
good results -- but pays little attention to academic issues and faculty matters. Faculty
believe that academic matters have not received the resources or attention they deserve.
In talking with the academic units experiencing growth, it is our impression that there has
been a failure by this administration to provide the resources needed to respond
adequately to that growth. Many whom we spoke with expressed the view that expanding
enrollments and the development of new programs have strained departments and faculty.
Growing enrollments magnify the lack of academic personnel, forcing a greater reliance
on part-time instructors, high turnover rates, and increasing workloads. Faculty have
faced new demands for on-line programs, but without receiving adequate technical
training or support. In many departments, despite the development of new programs,
lines have been frozen, leading to the cannibalization of lines from other programs and
departments. In short, faculty feel that in many cases they are being squeezed, asked to do
more with less, thereby triggering frustration and feeding a sense that the administration
cares little about what goes on at the classroom level. The burden often leads to fewer
Faculty Senate: Report on Presidential Performance (1998-2003)
9
classes being taught, larger classes, or a greater reliance on part-time faculty who have a
limited stake in the institution. The MBA online program, for instance, a new program
touted in the president’s report, has become a lame-duck program and has been virtually
dropped in part because of the lack of resources to run it.
The increasing burden on faculty impacts not only the classroom, but also weakens the
faculty’s ability to conduct quality research. Representatives from one college, for
example, noted that they feel “required” to teach in the summer because of program
needs. And though a sabbatical policy is now in place, demonstrating a certain
commitment to the mission of research, faculty outside of the College of Arts and
Sciences generally think that taking a sabbatical is impractical given the programmatic
demands of teaching. Indeed, rather than being considered a fundamental part of the
responsibility of each faculty member, there is a growing sense that research is
considered an “outside” activity requiring “outside” funding. In the end, there is a sense
among many that the administration is disengaged from these academic problems.
University libraries have enjoyed substantial support in recent years. Improvements range
from the purchase and installation of the Endeavor/Voyager system in 1999 to the library
expansion. But while most of the faculty agrees that the university libraries have done
fairly well as far as material funding goes, there remains a concern that such funding is
irregular at best. There appears to be no set amount designated for library concerns, with
some years being fat and others lean. According to some, funds badly needed for the
libraries or promised by the USA Foundation have been diverted to other uses.
In addition, many faculty believe that the president and the administration have not spent
enough time, money or energy concerning the technological needs of the University.
There is a common perception that USA technological resources and services are
significantly “behind the curve” when compared to other educational institutions of
similar size and intent. One member of the faculty wrote that USA needs “a campuswide, coordinated plan for current and future use of technology by faculty and staff.
[The] current situation is hodge-podge.”
Relations with the Faculty and Faculty Governance
According to the Enarson Report (1990, 8-9), an institution works well “when mutual
respect and teamwork are cultivated, where the demands of each do not infringe on the
perceived roles and interests of others. It works poorly if the ‘other side’ is secretly
regarded with skepticism, or even contempt.” In dealing with the lingering effects of the
previous administration, President Moulton responded positively by dramatically
improving communications and overall relations with faculty. Though prior to 1998
irregular meetings were held between the president and leaders of the Faculty Senate,
President Moulton has routinely and regularly met with the Senators on a monthly basis,
in full compliance with one of the recommendations of the Enarson Report (1990, 50).
The periodic meetings have allowed the faculty’s representatives to engage the president
on a wide range of issues, helping to break down any sense of presidential insulation or a
“we versus them” mentality. The president has also conducted regular faculty meetings to
Faculty Senate: Report on Presidential Performance (1998-2003)
10
lay out challenges and policy initiatives before the full faculty and to answer questions.
Clearly, faculty are not only much more informed about current matters than in the past,
but generally believe that they have an open line of communications with the president.
Faculty governance, a long-cherished tradition in academia and critical to the well being
of the institution goes beyond mere communication. The University Mission Statement
underlines the importance of faculty governance: “To advance scholarship the University
will provide appropriate instructional and investigative facilities within an atmosphere of
academic freedom and shared governance.” Overall, significant progress has been made
over the past five years to more effectively incorporate faculty into the decision-making
processes. Much of this progress stems from the president’s efforts to decentralize
decision-making. In accordance with the USA Faculty Handbook, for instance,
representatives of the Faculty Senate serve and enjoy voice and vote on all universitywide committees. Most changes in academic policies have been properly routed through
both the Academic Affairs Policy Committee (composed of representatives from the
Faculty Senate and College Deans) and approved by the full Faculty Senate. Ad hoc
committees, such as search committees, have also enjoyed faculty involvement.
Still, concerns have been raised regarding the nature of faculty governance, presenting
important challenges for the future of the institution. The first centers on the lack of
faculty control over who participates in shared governance. Though the administration
routinely asks the chair of the Faculty Senate for her/his recommendations – a positive
move undertaken during the period under review -- all faculty appointments to
committees are nevertheless made by the administration. This practice potentially
weakens and may even negate faculty representation. Procedures could easily be created
to turn this power of appointment over to the faculty itself. Second, there is a sense that
faculty involvement is lacking in certain areas and remains minimal and diluted in other
areas. Faculty have no representation on the Board of Trustees, the Council of Deans or
the Council of Chairs, for instance. In other areas, faculty involvement is minimal,
thereby diminishing faculty’s influence over important decisions. The long-range
planning committee, for instance, does include faculty representatives, but only 3 out of a
total of 38 seats (9 seats represent the administration). On the Fringe Benefits Committee,
faculty hold 5 of 18 seats. Input from “stakeholders” is certainly important; but there is a
strong sense that faculty should not be considered just another “constituency.” Being the
only group responsible for the fulfillment of each aspect of the University’s mission and
the only group possessing the intellectual capital that forms the foundation of the
institution, the faculty should be seen more as the core of the University and less as a
“stakeholder.” Of equal concern, this lack of faculty input often extends to the most basic
academic/administrative unit: the department. Though many departments actively
practice faculty governance, the degree of discretionary authority given to chairs is not
balanced by mechanisms designed to ensure accountability and faculty involvement.
Some departments have by-laws setting out the responsibilities of the chair and faculty,
and faculty exercise administrative oversight, but such mechanisms are seemingly left to
the departments themselves; no uniform policy exists. In short, the USA Faculty
Handbook supports faculty input into departmental decisions, but provides almost no
mechanisms to ensure it. Third, there is a sense that faculty play an extremely limited role
Faculty Senate: Report on Presidential Performance (1998-2003)
11
in the evaluation of administrative personnel. Though all administrators (save the
president) are evaluated annually, faculty input remains limited and it is unclear the
extent to which their input is even used. Finally, there is a lack of clarity and transparency
as to how academic policies are to be developed and implemented. At times, policies
seem to appear without a clear idea of the process by which they evolved. The Banner
computer system, for example, was developed with virtually no faculty input, creating
problems that continue to force unwanted changes in academic policies.
In April 2000, the Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Faculty Governance issued a
report with a series of recommendations (“Report of the USA Faculty Senate Ad hoc
Committee on Faculty Governance”). Some recommendations, such as reassigning more
teaching time of the Faculty Senate chair and Faculty Senate participation in
recommending faculty representatives to university-wide committees, have been
implemented. Yet many others have not. The faculty would like to see such proposals reexamined.
The Football Issue
One area that many see as indicative of the president’s deliberative style and for which he
is to be given high marks relates to his handling of the football question. To his credit,
President Moulton oversaw a thorough and transparent investigation of the proposition to
initiate football that included input from faculty, student, alumni and community leaders.
He hired two major consulting firms to aid with the deliberations and endorsed a
meticulous process carefully designed to gauge public support and the likelihood of
success. Such an approach not only allowed the University to make a sound decision
against launching football at that time, but the decision making process itself was deemed
fair and legitimate by all interested parties.
Faculty Salaries
A critical function of the president is to provide the resources to permit faculty to perform
the University’s function. Yet faculty salary increases have been very modest over the
past five years. As shown in Figure 1, from 1998 to 2003 faculty salaries rose just 5.4%,
constituting negative growth in real, inflation-adjusted terms. Rising health insurance and
co-pay costs have further reduced the level of real income. Such modest increases are
generally less than those for the administration (Figure 1) and, as shown in Figure 2, in
most cases considerably smaller than the increments enjoyed during previous 5 year
periods. Additional information from the Office of Institutional Research and Planning
shows changes from 1997-98 to 2001-2002 period to be below the national average and
slightly above the average changes for the reference group in all ranks except instructor.
Even so, in 2001-2002 faculty salaries at USA remained 17.3% below the reference
group level and a full 36% below the national level as illustrated in Figure 3. These data
do not include the salaries of part-time faculty, adjuncts or graduate assistants.
Faculty Senate: Report on Presidential Performance (1998-2003)
12
Figure 1
Salary Increases 1998-2003
40%
35.0%
35%
30%
28.6%
25%
20%
15.4%
15%
10%
11.9% 12.0%
9.6%
9.1%
5%
8.6%
3.5%
V
Pr P2
es
id
en
t
VP
1
In
st
ru
As cto
r
st
.
As Pr
so of.
c.
Pr
of
.
Pr
of
.
D
e
As
a
so n
c.
VP
0%
Note: VP1 refers just to the change in the 3 vice president positions that existed in 1998; VP2 includes the
5 vice president positions that existed in 2003.
Source: USA Salary Tables 1998 and 2003; Table 5.4 “Average Salaries of Full-Time, Instructional
Faculty 1982-83 through 2002-2003,” Office of Institutional Research and Planning
Figure 2
Faculty Salary Increases
Five Year Periods
40%
30%
1983-1988
20%
1988-1993
10%
1993-1998
1998-2003
As
In
s
tru
ct
or
st
.P
As
r
so of.
c.
Pr
of
.
Pr
o
Al
l F f.
ac
ul
ty
0%
Source: Table 5.4 “Average Salaries of Full-Time, Instructional Faculty 1982-83 through 2002-2003”
Office of Institutional Research and Planning.
Faculty Senate: Report on Presidential Performance (1998-2003)
13
Figure 3
Comparison of USA Avg. Faculty Salaries to
NASULGC, by Rank 2001-02
$100,000
$80,000
$60,000
National
$40,000
Reference
$20,000
USA
l
Al
In
st
ru
As cto
r
st
As . Pr
so of.
c.
Pr
of
.
Pr
of
.
$0
Source: Exhibit 2.1 “Comparison of USA Average Faculty Salaries,” Office of Institutional Research and
Planning.
While state funding problems certainly weigh heavily on this issue, many note the huge
amount of resources devoted to other purposes during this same period, including legal
fees in the dispute with the USA Foundation. The Committee must also highlight the fact
that amidst such modest salary adjustments and dramatic increases in out-of-pocket
expenses for health care, the president’s salary increased 35% (Figure 1). In fact, as a
ratio to average faculty salaries over the period, the president’s salary rose from 4.64
times the average faculty salary to 5.96 times the average salary. By providing salary
adjustments that brought the president and many in the administrative ranks more closely
in alignment with market value while simultaneously allowing a downward slide in real,
inflation-adjusted salaries of rank-in-file faculty, the president created the unfortunate
impression among many that the faculty are undervalued by this administration.
Recruitment
Responses to the faculty survey noted earlier exhibit a relatively low level of confidence
in the search process. According to the SVPAA, since 1998 there have been two vice
presidential level searches (both external with one external candidate hired), eight deanlevel searches (all external searches with seven external candidates hired), five
associate/assistant dean-level searches (two external with two external hires) and a total
of 197 tenure-track faculty searches (all external searches) (Figure 4). The data indicate
an active outside hiring process, but with a mix of internal hires that provides evidence
that USA employees can often find professional advancement without changing
institutions.
Faculty Senate: Report on Presidential Performance (1998-2003)
14
Figure 4
Faculty Tenure Track Searches
43
47
38
32
37
-99 2000
-01 1-02 2-03
98
00
0
0
19
20
20
20
99
9
1
Data compiled by the Committee based on information provided by the SPVAA.
Faculty also expressed concerns about the use of non-tenured and part-time faculty.
Tenure is fundamental to higher education, both in terms of protecting academic freedom
and promoting shared governance, while excessive reliance on underpaid part-timers who
have a limited stake in the academic mission potentially weakens academic quality and
raises the burden of committee work and advising on the tenure track faculty. Data in
Figure 5 show a sharp decline in recent years in the percentage of tenured/tenure track
positions and a corresponding increase in the use of non-tenure track faculty. The drop
since 1995-96 follows a marked increase in the percentage of tenure positions from 1980
to 1995. This trend in the use of non-tenure track faculty is particularly strong in Nursing
and Allied Health as illustrated in Figure 6, but the loss in tenure/tenure track lines is not
limited to those two colleges.
Figure 5
Percentage of Tenured or Tenure-Track
Positions
80%
77%
19
80
-8
1
19
85
-8
6
19
90
-9
1
19
95
-9
6
20
00
-0
1
20
03
-0
4
74%
83% 85% 84%
Faculty Senate: Report on Presidential Performance (1998-2003)
15
Figure 6
Percentage Tenured and Tenure Track Positions
by College (1995-96 to 2003-04)
100%
80%
60%
1995-96
2000-01
40%
2003-04
20%
l
Al
g
u
ur
s
N
En
Ed
IS
C
s
Bu
AS
AH
0%
Data for Figures 5 and 6 were compiled from information in USA catalogs. They do not include the
Library, the College of Medicine or part-time faculty.
Information on the number and role of part-time faculty are incomplete and not easy to
interpret. Still, in the fall of 2002, 72.3% of USA faculty employees were classified as
Full-Time (662 full-time and 254 part-time). By comparison, 83.1% of the faculty at the
University of Alabama (Tuscaloosa) during this period were considered full time
(“Common Data Set,” University of Alabama web site). These numbers could be a
consequence of a heavier reliance on Graduate Teaching Assistants (GTA’s) at the
University of Alabama. However, it should be stressed that GTAs still fall under the
tutelage of full-time university faculty and are thus more likely to be dedicated to
departmental priorities than the average part-time instructor. Of course, these absolute
numbers say nothing about the number of courses or the number of students taught by
full- or part-time faculty or trends, though they do suggest a relatively high reliance on
part-time faculty. Figure 7, in turn, attempts to show the relative proportion of teaching
by full and part-time faculty based on a measure of full-time equivalence (FTE). It shows
differences across colleges and that for the university as a whole (excluding the College
of Medicine) part-time faculty account for 25% of the total teaching FTE. Unfortunately,
these data do not tell us whether our reliance on part-time faculty is excessive or on the
rise.
Faculty Senate: Report on Presidential Performance (1998-2003)
16
Figure 7
Full-time FTE and Part-time FTE
2003
Part-time FTE
Al
l
22% 13% 18% 25%
Ed
En
g
N
ur
s
AS
4%
45%
18% 17%
Bu
s
C
I
C S
on
tE
d
32%
AH
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Full-time FTE
Note: Excludes the College of Medicine.
Source: USA, Faculty FTE Summary, Office of Institutional Research and Planning
Another important recruitment issue relates to minority faculty. Currently, just 2.8% of
USA faculty are African-American, well below the 1998 national average of 5.1%
(figures taken from USA administration and “Gender and Racial/Ethnic Composition of
Postsecondary Instructional Faculty.” Ed 1.328/3:G 28X). In 2002 President Moulton
appointed an Advisory Committee on Diversity in compliance with U.S. District Court
Order in response to Knight, et al, v. The State of Alabama, et al. concerning employment
practices of predominately white defendant institutions. The Committee supports the
work of the advisory committee and encourages the adoption of policies that will help
recruit and retain minority faculty.
Other University Issues
Relationships with University Stakeholders and the University’s Public Image
President Moulton has demonstrated that he is affable, knowledgeable and articulate and
has significantly improved communications and relations with the public, the community,
the state government, the BOT, alumni and students. In recognition of his work in
developing the Research Park, for instance, President Moulton was named “Mobilian of
the Year” in 2003 by the Civitan of Mobile. A key ingredient in improved public
relations has been the recruitment of Keith Ayers and the professionalization of the
Office of Public Relations. Although image is not everything, it is fair to say that there is
a good deal of substance beneath the more polished image.
Faculty Senate: Report on Presidential Performance (1998-2003)
17
Revenues
An important function of the president is to secure and ensure financial resources for the
operation of the university. President Moulton has faced on-going hardships on this front
and has acted aggressively to assure adequate financial support. From FY1998 to
FY2002, total revenues increased 14.4% while enrollment climbed 7.67%. Noteworthy
increases occurred in the categories of “federal grants and contracts” (+108%), “tuition
and fees” (+29%) and “state appropriations” (+20%) (Table 3.2 “Headcount Enrollment”
and Table 6.1 “Total Current Funds Revenues,” Office of Institutional Research and
Planning). President Moulton is to be commended for helping provide a propitious
climate for the faculty to increase the number of federal research grants and direct federal
appropriations, for mobilizing support behind the tax reform initiative, for maintaining a
good working relationship with the governor, and for gaining financial resources from a
range of alternative sources. Private giving, for instance, once negligible, exceeded $13
million over the past five years, helping to create scholarship programs and modernize
facilities. The president has also been successful at raising funds to support the creation
of the cancer research institute, including $12 million in state bonds approved in
December 2003, and even took on the unpopular task of ensuring the financial viability
of the health plan with a policy that shares cost increases according to a set formula. The
hiring of a development officer, one of the recommendations of the Enarson Report
(1990, 41), was a critical ingredient in enhancing funding for the university.
Although the President has shown true leadership in securing funds for the institution, the
University’s relationship with the Foundation has hampered the school’s public image
and its ability to attract donors. Though President Moulton’s appointment was in part the
product of the underlying polarization between two factions, over the ensuing period the
president proved unsuccessful at easing tensions or increasing funding from the
Foundation. Instead, he became a major protagonist in the dispute. Legal bills in 1999
exceeded $5 million with more than $2 million paid by the USA, indicating that the
University was at least a de facto party to the lawsuit. The president’s role in the
governor’s decision not to reappoint the two dissenters from the agreement to pay the
legal expenses remains unclear. A round of exchanges seemingly spearheaded by the
president during the summer of 2003 proved yet again to be unproductive and perhaps
even damaging to the institution. Though developments in the last quarter of 2003 and
early 2004 provide some hopeful signs of a new relationship, this remains an area of
grave concern and a true test of leadership.
Summary
In sum, the Committee recognizes that President Moulton has ushered in a new era at the
University of South Alabama. Facing a wide range of challenges, he has undertaken
significant steps to improve the operation of the organization, academic quality, relations
with faculty and university “stakeholders,” and the public’s image of the University. He
is to be congratulated for his many accomplishments. At the same time, the Committee
believes that more can be done to strengthen accountability, academic excellence, shared
Faculty Senate: Report on Presidential Performance (1998-2003)
18
governance, and faculty morale. The Senate looks forward to working with the BOT and
the administration to address these and other challenges.
*
*
*
*
*
This report of the Faculty Senate has been prepared for the Executive Committee of the
Board of Trustees in conjunction with their 2003-04 evaluation of university progress. It
is offered in the truest spirit of collegiality and is intended to contribute to an analysis of
recent accomplishments and the challenges facing the institution. The Committee
commends the Board of Trustees for welcoming the input of the faculty and appreciates
their continued service and dedication to the University of South Alabama. As always,
the Faculty Senate is committed to working with others in a climate of cooperation and
mutual respect to enhance the quality of the institution.