I. Approval of Minutes from June 1, 2017
III. Standing Reports
a. University Senate President Suzanne Shontz
b. Faculty Senate President Amalia Monroe-Gulick
c. Student Body Vice President Mattie Carter
d. Staff Senate President Brian Moss
IV. Discuss Amendment to CODE 1.8 and XVII
V. Final Report-Ad Hoc Committee on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
VI. Undergraduate Thesis Policy Comment Period
VII. Unfinished Business
VIII. New Business
UNIVERSITY SENATE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE - SenEx
August 29, 2017
Provost Conference Room, Strong Hall
Approved: September 12, 2017
Members Present: Amalia Monroe-Gulick, Suzanne Shontz, Kirk McClure, Ruben Flores, Roberta Schwartz, Pam Fine, Mattie Carter, Jessica Guardiola, John Foster, David Day, Michelle Ginavan-Hayes, Brian Moss
Absent: Shawn Alexander
Also Present: Kathy Reed, University Governance
Visitors: Mohamed El-Hodiri, AAUP observer
Suzanne Shontz called the meeting to order.
Agenda Item I. Approval of minutes from June 1, 2017. Approved.
Agenda Item II. Introductions
Agenda Item III. Standing Reports
University Senate President Suzanne Shontz:Charges were completed in June, for University Senate committees. The charges on are the University Senate agenda for September 7, 2017, requesting final approval by the Senate. The final report from the Ad-Hoc Committee on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion was received and forwarded to SenEx members. Shontz mentioned that SenEx is waiting on one last report from the Ad Hoc Committee on Gender Equity. Last spring there was a suggestion that SenEx may want to form an Ad-Hoc committee on Sexual Violence. Shontz is waiting on the rationale and possible charges so that SenEx may discuss.
Faculty Senate President Amalia Monroe-Gulick: FacEx met in June and finalized the FY2018 charges and faculty appointments to governance committees. Monroe-Gulick reported that there is a search committee in the process of hiring a person for the governance office.
Student Body Vice-President Mattie Carter:Student Senate committees are meeting for the first time this year on August 30, 2017. Freshmen elections take place on Sept. 5 & 6. Student Senate has an internship program for freshman that are not elected. Student Senate hopes to have 20 – 25 freshman involved in the program.
Student Senate will be working on a Resolution for University Senate, to amend the USRR regarding excused medical absences for students. In April 2017, University Senate discussed an amendment to the USRR, and it was noted during the discussions that the USRR did not specify excused absences when the student was faced with a medical crisis, but excused absences in the case of a medical crisis of a relative or close friend.
The Student Senate currently has a student that is both deaf and blind. The student requires Tactile signing. Tactile signing is based on sign language that uses touch and sign to communicate. This type of interpretation requires two interpreters. University Administrators have informed Student Senate that they are responsible for the costs incurred when students attend meetings, functions, etc. This is very costly, and Student Senate does not have the budget to accommodate the additional expenses. Carter also noted, the University does not cover activities that occur outside of the classroom. Dr. Durham, Vice Provost, Student Affairs, has agreed to cover the costs associated with individual student organizations, but not Student Senate meetings. Student Senate could incur charges exceeding $10,000.00 or more for the student to attend Student Senate meetings alone.
Carter reported that she had spoken with Catherine Johnson, Director, Accessibility & ADA Education. Johnson is working on a policy regarding Event Accessibility. The draft policy does include a statement that the event is responsible for making the request and paying for the request. This conflicts with what Dr. Durham has previously stated regarding student organizations. Carter will forward a copy of the draft policy to SenEx members.
Pam Fine asked about a UDK story, or a fund raising event. Carter reported that she had looked into numerous different possibilities; unfortunately, there has not been any answers to the issues. Carter did reach out to Johnson County Community College, as they often have students from the Kansas School for Deaf. JCCC has a centralized fund, which is used to pay for events, lecture series, classroom, etc.
Staff Senate President, Brian Moss: Moss reported that Staff Senate supports the Student Senate and University Senate, regarding the issues of how interpreters are paid.
Moss and Hayes have reviewed and made committee appointments for FY2018. All but one of the staff committees have chairs. The Staff Senate has had a fair amount of turnover. They are concerned this could be a sign of staff being given extra responsibilities and short on time.
Chancellor Girod did report that the KBOR was not going to change the reporting system that had been suggested last spring. The KBOR had amended language in the KBOR manual that the two staff councils report to the Council of Presidents, not directly to the KBOR. Staff lobbied to keep the reporting the way it was, including bringing it to the attention of the KBOR, when they were on campus last spring, and met with SenEx. The Regents have agreed to leave the groups reporting to the KBOR twice a year.
Agenda Item IV. Discuss Amendment to CODE 1.8 and XVII
Shontz discussed the rationale for the amendment. In the past Senators were asked to vote on proposals that came straight from the floor, no one had time to read it. Also, large portions of meeting times were used to write and rewrite new motions made from the floor. The idea is not to prevent a proposal but to allow senators time to review and research and be prepared to discuss.
Schwartz moved to forward University Senate Code 1.8.2 to University Senate. Flores seconded.
Vote: Approved, unanimous.
Discuss Amendment to XVII
Additional discussion: Shontz confirmed that SenEx would not deny a proposal, all items would be forwarded to University Senate. This amendment is to ensure the proper procedures for amendments are followed, and senators have time to read and review any proposal, policy, resolution or amendment prior to the meeting in which it will be discussed.
Schwartz moved to forward the amendments to University Senate Article XVII. Hayes seconded.
Vote: Approved, unanimous.
Agenda Item V. Final Report Ad Hoc Committee on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion:
Ruben Flores, chair of the Ad Hoc committee, started by reviewing the recommendations of the committee:
- The DEI recommends that this committee should be a permanent standing committee of the University Senate.
- The DEI continue to facilitate the relationship between Student Senate and MSG.
- University Senate needs to work on a building a stronger working relationship with the Student Senate.
- DEI recommends the committee work on the feasibility of an independent MSG, alternative models for the allocation of student seats within Student Senate and student elections.
- The DEI should review the memorandum-of-agreement signed between the MSG and Student Senate.
The deliberations of the committee were parallel to what was being discussed in Student Senate. The committee was not convinced that an independent student group is needed or should take place. DEI noted that the possibility of a separate group, operating as an independent body could prove to be detrimental to the university. The presence of two Student Senates could give the impression that members of the student body are unable to work directly with one another to transform the university.
Day, suggested that the committee follow up on the changes that have taken place and that the committee work on ensuring these changes are lasting changes. Carter noted that the changes made last spring were positive, but rushed. One part of SSRR was changed, but another was not. Student Senate has been working with MSG. Student Senate is concerned, as there may be inconsistencies as to how MSG is operating, based on student comments. Carter also asked about expanding the committee beyond Student Senate, to review diversity in staff and faculty senates. Monroe-Gulick noted that the committee function could still be considered an AD Hoc committee. SenEx needs to consider, that if a standing committee is formed, do we broaden the issues, to ensure the charges are feasible.
Flores will bring a proposal to the September 12, 2017, SenEx meeting. The proposal should include membership, description of the committee (standing or Ad-Hoc), what is the purpose of the committee, and draft charges. [Writers Note 9/12/17: Flores will be meeting with MSG Student Government, prior to addressing a proposal for an Ad-Hoc or Standing Committee]
Agenda Item VI. Undergraduate Thesis Policy Comment Period:
SenEx members discussed the proposed Undergraduate Thesis Policy; the policy is defining the minimum criteria needed for a university-designated undergraduate thesis. Many parts of the thesis are left up to the departments to decide on.
Comments: This endorses that the unit knows best how to run their programs. There is a concern that the policy indicated the thesis has to be a written product, which may not apply to all types of theses.
Action: Ask John Augusto, talk to SenEx about this policy.
Agenda Item VII. Unfinished Business:
Shontz and Monroe-Gulick asked the provost about the status of the Climate Survey. The Deans have received all of the comments. Shontz has discussed the Climate Survey with the Dean of Engineering. The Engineering Dean did offer to speak at University Senate regarding the School of Engineering, and what they were doing based on the information received from the climate survey.
Agenda Item VIII. New Business:
SenEx discussed the need for University Senate to advocate for a solution regarding how the individual units and senates were being charged for interpreters. It was reported that recently a department was required to pay the costs to make a room ADA compliant. SenEx members stated that this is a university issue, not an individual group or department issue. Numerous possibilities were discussed, the consensus is that SenEx will prepare a resolution regarding the concerns, while also addressing the issues with University Administrators.
Action: Draft a resolution for review by SenEx and University Senate.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:50 p.m.
Kathy Reed, University Governance
Documents discussed at August 29, 2017 SenEx meeting:
Final Report from the Ad-Hoc Committee on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, https://governance.ku.edu/sites/governance.ku.edu/files/docs/FY2017DEIFinalReport.docx
University Senate Code, Article I. Section 8, and Article XVII. Procedures
Senators have objected to being asked to vote on proposed enactments, amendments, repeals, statements of University policy or procedures and resolutions without being able to review them in advance. There have also been concerns regarding members trying to draft proposals during a meeting, with senators expected to vote that day, on the drafted document. To ensure that senators are given time to consider proposals that are brought forth during University Senate meetings, the following amendments to 1.8.2, 1.8.3 and Article XVII were drafted.
These amendments would not prevent a voting member of the Senate from introducing a proposal. Any proposal made would fall under “new business” and would be accepted by the University Senate President without discussion or vote. The written proposal (including rationale) would be forwarded to the University Senate Executive Committee. The University Senate Executive Committee will forward all proposals received to the University Senate, ensuring all of the proper procedures are followed.
1.8.1 The University Senate shall act in behalf of the University's faculty, staff, and students in the performance of its powers. The University Senate Executive Committee shall assure
Toward the effective execution of these responsibilities. the Senate shall elect from its membership the University Senate Executive Committee ("SenEx[RK1] ").
1.8.2 Subject to and in accordance with the control of the Chancellor and the Board of Regents as provided by law, the University Senate is empowered to formulate such Rules and Regulations as it shall deem wise and proper for the control and government of such affairs of the University as directly affect the entire Lawrence campus, including the Edwards campus, and shall take such steps as it shall deem necessary for their implementation and administration. Affairs of the University which directly affect the entire Lawrence campus include, but are not limited to, academic procedures and policies (such as the requirements for graduation and degrees, the methods of evaluating academic work, and the standards of academic conduct of faculty and students) common to the College and all Schools, class and examination schedules, the calendar, the libraries, campus-wide activities and events, the role of the University in public affairs, participation in organization and administration, the framing and execution of long-range plans, decisions regarding existing or prospective resources, and fiscal affairs. The University Senate Rules and Regulations so formulated may be enacted, amended or repealed by majority of the University Senate members present at a regular or special meeting pursuant to the following procedure:
(a.) A proposed enactment, amendment, repeal or statements of University policy, procedures and resolutions (proposal) shall be presented in writing for initial consideration by the University Senate using any one of the four following procedures:
i.) The University Senate Executive Committee may forward a proposal by a two-thirds vote of the Senate Executive Committee members present and voting.
ii.) Any of the three constituent senates may forward a proposal to the University Senate Executive Committee, by at least a majority vote.
iii.) A petition containing the proposal and signed by one hundred members of the university community (including faculty, staff, and students, as defined in their respective Codes) may be forwarded to the University Senate Executive Committee.
iv.) A proposal may be presented from any voting member of the University Senate, by submitting it (including rationale) in writing during “New Business” of the Senate. The proposal is accepted by the University Senate President, not discussed or voted on and forwarded to University Senate Executive committee.
(b) The University Senate Executive Committee will forward all proposals received under item (a) i. – iv, to the University Senate, following the procedures outlined below.
(a) (c) The university community shall be notified of a proposal proposed enactment, amendment or repeal,, which shall be posted on line or otherwise made available to the university community at least seven calendar days (excluding spring break, summer session and break, fall and thanksgiving break, and winter break) before its initial consideration at a regular or special meeting of the University Senate. The posting shall provide an explanation of the reasons for the proposal. It shall also indicate the time and place of the University Senate meeting at which the proposed changes will be considered. (b) (d) Faculty, staff, and students may submit written comments on the proposed enactment, amendment or repeal until noon on the date of the meeting at which the University Senate will vote discuss on[RK2] the matter. Comments shall be submitted to the Office of University Governance and shall be reported by the University Senate President, to the University Senate. and shall be made available for viewing by interested persons. (c) (e)Subject to the power of the presiding officer to provide for the orderly conduct of the meeting, spokespersons of constituencies from the university community with opposing views shall be permitted to make brief presentations to the University Senate before a vote is taken on a proposed enactment, amendment or repeal. (d) (f) No enactment, amendment, or repeal shall be adopted upon initial consideration unless the University Senate, by a two-thirds majority of members present, shall vote to suspend this provision. (e) (g) The requirements of subsections (a) (c) through (d) (f) shall not apply to technical amendments determined by the University Senate Executive Committee to be necessary to correct errors or clarify the original intent of provisions, which may be approved by simple majority vote of the University Senate Executive Committee. (f) (h) It shall be the duty of the office of University Governance to collect, compile and codify the rules and regulations, to make them available and, when necessary, to make appropriate changes to official statements of rules and policies.
1.8.3 No action of the University Senate to adopt or amend the rules and regulations of the University Senate, except for technical amendments under section 1.8.2
(e) (g), shall become effective until the following procedures for review have been exhausted:
(a) Senate's action to adopt or amend the University Senate Rules and Regulations shall normally be distributed by special notice to the University Community.
(b) A review by the University Senate of its action to adopt or amend the rules and regulations of the University Senate may be requested by at least a majority vote of any of the three constituent senates. A review may also be requested by petition of 100 members of the university community, including faculty, staff, and students, as defined in their respective codes. Such request for review shall be forwarded to the University Senate President within twenty-one calendar days of the date of special notice (excluding spring break, summer session and break, fall and thanksgiving break, and winter break).
(c) If a request for review is received by the University Senate president, the review of the action of the Senate shall be placed on the agenda of the next scheduled meeting of the Senate. In this case, the action shall not be transmitted to the Provost and Chancellor unless the action is approved by a majority of members present at the meeting.
(d) The results of the review, together with a copy of the petition, shall be submitted to the Provost.
(e) If no request for review is received by the senate president, the action of the University Senate to create or amend rules and regulations of the University Senate shall be transmitted to the Provost and Chancellor for final approval.
1.8.4 The University Senate may also approve statements of University policy or procedure that are generally applicable to the University Community, provided that such proposed statements follow the procedures listed in 1.8.2, (a) through (f).
except that, by vote of One-third of the University Senate members who are present and voting, may cause notification of the opportunity to request a review to be sent to the members of the three constituent senates as provided in 1.8.3 above.
1.8.5 In those cases where recommendations approved by Senate and forwarded to the Chancellor for approval are rejected by the Chancellor, the University Senate President will invite the Chancellor, or a representative, to discuss with Senate the reasons for the rejection, in an effort to find some common ground of agreement on the recommendations involved.
Article XVII. Procedures
The remainder of this Code may be amended at a regular or special meeting of the University Senate following the procedures for amendment to the Rules and Regulations of the University Senate set forth in Article I, section 8 of this Code. However, a two-thirds majority of those present shall be required for amendments to this Code.
A proposed amendment may be presented to the University Senate by any one of the four following procedures:
(a) The University Senate Executive Committee may propose an amendment by a two-thirds vote of the University Senate Executive Committee
SenEx members present and voting,
(b) Any of the three constituent senates may forward a proposed
an amendment to the University Senate Executive Committee, by at least a majority vote.
(c) A petition containing the proposed amendment and signed by one hundred members of the University Community (including faculty, staff, and students, as defined in their respective Codes) may be delivered to the University Senate Executive Committee.
(d) A proposed amendment may be presented from any voting member of the Senate by submitting it (including rationale) in writing during “New Business” of the Senate. The proposal is accepted by the University Senate President, not discussed or voted on and forwarded to University Senate Executive committee.
the floor during any regular or special meeting of the University Senate. A majority vote of the Senate members present and voting shall be necessary for the adoption of an amendment.
The University Senate Executive Committee will forward all proposed amendments received under (a) – (d) to the University Senate, following the procedures set forth in Article I. section 8 of the Code.
[RK1]University Senate does not elect SenEx members.
[RK2]Comments should be received by the initial meeting the proposal is being discussed. The senate has the ability by a 2/3 vote, to discuss and vote on a proposal, at the initial meeting, also the members should hear comments from constituents while the proposal is being discussed.