• Home
  • FacEx-Faculty Senate Executive Committee 3/1/16

FacEx-Faculty Senate Executive Committee 3/1/16

March 1, 2016 - 3:00pm
33 Strong Hall

  I.        Announcements

  II.      Approval of February 16 minutes

 III.      Report of Faculty Senate President Tom Beisecker

 IV.      Report of University Senate President Mike Williams

  V.      UAAC Member Selection policy revision

 VI.      Proposed Process for AP & CLEP Scores

VII.      FSRR 7.3

VIII.    Discussion of Faculty Code

 IX.    Old Business

  X.     New Business






March 1, 2016 – University Governance Conference Room, 33 Strong Hall – 3:00


Approved March 22, 2016

MEMBERS PRESENT: Tom Beisecker, Mike Williams, Pam Keller, Joe Harrington, Ron Barrett-Gonzalez, Amalia Monroe-Gulick


ALSO PRESENT: Maureen Altman, Kathy Reed, University Governance;  

Faculty Senate President and FacEx Chair Tom Beisecker called the meeting to order, announced meeting is recorded, and asked for announcements.  Maureen Altman updated FacEx about their appointment to the Memorial Corporation Board.  Bryan Young has agreed to serve.

MINUTES for February 16, 2016 were approved.


Beisecker’s report is the same as his SenEx report from last week with one addition, AP and CLEP scores.

Report from February 23 SenEx meeting: Tom Beisecker reported about the last KBOR meeting.  He said that there wasn’t much discussion on weapons since KBOR is now waiting for the institutions to put together their policies and procedures.  COFSP (the Council of Faculty Senate Presidents) met with COGRO (the Council of Government Relations Officers) to discuss what role the faculty might have in assisting the process of representing the universities to the legislature.  In considering ways that the faculty senate presidents could be a more robust tool for our government representatives to use, COFSP considered the possibility of making faculty president terms longer, or possibly including past presidents in the council to achieve greater stability across time.  COGRO updated COFSP about the status of some bills.  The bill to move the concealed carry exemption up to 2016 failed, as did the bill to allow 18 year olds to carry concealed weapons on campus, although this could be reconsidered in the future.  House Bill 25.31 could strip due process in firing junior college faculty which concerns COFSP as being (as one COFSP member put it) a possible “tenure attack creep”.  Liz Phillips informed SenEx that the bill was referred to the Appropriations Committee yesterday.  COFSP is watching the bill and is aware that the junior college administrations support it.  Williams noted that the state already got rid of K12 tenure last year.  Phillips asked if the equalization of leaves between different staffs (USS and UPS) is being addressed.  Beisecker said he didn’t think so and Williams said he hadn’t seen it not on the agenda. 

He explained that COFSP (Council of Faculty Senate Presidents) wants to develop a process to determine how to cut AP and CLEP scores.  They are now scored 1-5 and every institution chooses their own acceptable score.  KBOR has mandated that the scores be standardized.  Since 3 is currently the score that is used, those departments at KU that require a 4 or 5 have to accept a student with a 3.  COFSP is basically proposing that they look at all requirements and take the highest rather than average.  (For example a 5 requirement at KU trumps a 3 at K-State).  Ron Barrett-Gonzalez questioned why one department should be penalized by a higher number, such as high Math requirements in Engineering, but Beisecker pointed out the difficulty to Engineering if scores stay lower.  Barrett-Gonzalez added that he disagrees with a standardized score.  Beisecker explained that as of July 1, 2017 KBOR will mandate standardization so students can transfer across institutions.  Amalia Monroe-Gulick asked if COFSP has talked to K-12 educators; Beisecker said they had.  Barrett-Gonzalez expressed concern that standardization might be unfair for some schools and Keller said similar concerns had been expressed at the last COFSP meeting as well.  Beisecker noted that the drafted policy was proposed by a professor at K-State and has been signed off by other KBOR schools.  In conclusion he said he and Keller will keep FacEx updated on the results of the policy.



Williams reported that he had spent a very pleasant morning with night staff discussing the weapons policy.  They had been appreciative of the visit, and he encouraged other members of FacEx, particularly future presidents, to visit with them.  Williams said he received good questions, many that were no different than those he had received at the Weapons Information Session except that more people (about 50/50) were in agreement with concealed carried.  They were less worried about mass shootings and more worried about their personal safety in empty buildings. 

Williams announced that he has officially been appointed co-chair of provost weapons committee. 

He let FacEx know that he will be attending a conference on Thursday and will not be able to chair the University Senate meeting.  He will check with Kathy Reed and Maureen Altman to make sure University Senate Vice President Brent Lee gets the information he needs to chair.



Beisecker asked if FacEx agrees with the new language of the amended University Academic Assessment Committee (UAAC) Member Selection policy draft which they had approved at an earlier meeting.  He explained that Amy Smith who had forwarded the document to Beisecker wanted everyone to know she did not propose the policy but is just the purveyor.  Monroe-Gulick who is on the committee explained that the purpose of the added language is to clarify that FacEx doesn’t charge the committee and the committee reports to Senior Vice-Provost for Academic Affairs not FacEx.  She added that including FacEx is a step forward since for the past three years the departments or schools nominated.  Barrett-Gonzalez suggested FacEx approve on the condition that they are informed of who is appointed.  Beisecker noted that he has been concerned with this committee, as well as UCCC (University Core Curriculum Committee) which controls curricular requirements for graduation, because they don’t report to Governance and added that he would have liked to spend more time on them both but that other things had to be considered this semester which side-tracked consideration.  In regard to Beisecker’s concerns Monroe-Gulick mentioned that UAAC has been trying to have more connection with UCCC, and pointed out that FRPR’s last charge this year is to send another survey about the core curriculum.  Barrett-Gonzalez suggested adding a member of FacEx as one of the nine faculty nominations.  Pam Keller pointed out that since FacEx members already have a lot to do it might be more practical for FacEx to make a note to nominate a FacEx member rather than make it a requirement.  Monroe-Gulick said that the UAAC wants this policy change; Beisecker reminded FacEx that they had already agreed with the policy. 

Motion to approve amendment to University Academic Assessment Committee (UAAC) Member Selection policy draft.  Keller/Williams.  Passed

Action tom will report back TO THE COMMITTEE

Action facex will attempt to nominate a facex member to uaac

FSRR 7.3

Beisecker asked Keller, a member of FRB, if FacEx should send the FSRR 7.3 revisions to Faculty Senate or wait until FRB amends the corresponding stand-alone policy, Governance Procedures of the Faculty Rights Board for Hearing Appeals From Administrative Actions.  She recommended that the revisions be sent to Faculty Senate to decide on FSRR 7.3 before doing the procedures.  Reed expressed concern that the procedures might not completely correspond to the rules of FSRR 7.3 but Keller felt that it would be all right we would still have FSRR 7.3 and the rule is more powerful than the procedures.  Keller felt that the current FRB would accept the rule first over the procedure and, while it could be a problem in interim, she advised that consideration of the amendments to FSRR 7.3. move forward; the procedures can be changed after FSRR 7.3 is amended.  This would also avoid the procedures having to be changed more than once if proposed amendments to FSRR 7.3. are changed or not accepted.


Beisecker expressed some concerns about the newsletter Harrington had sent regarding the Faculty Code.  1) Beisecker disagreed that FRPR had recommended adopting all but one administrative change, and said that he had spoken with FRPR chair, Kirk McClure, to make certain that silence on the part of FRPR about an administrative change to the code assumed acceptance.  2. Beisecker felt Harrington’s statement that “the Faculty Code has yet to be in the Policy Library” implies it should have been, but Beisecker said the code needs to be accepted by the administration before it can be put in the Policy Library.  3. Beisecker agreed with Harrington’s citing Administrative Leave Without Pay as an unresolved issue, but was unclear about Harrington’s reference to burden of proof and cited that FRPR had no objection.

As Parliamentarian Harrington asked Beisecker how he wants the Faculty Senate meeting to go on Thursday.  Beisecker said that he wants to start at the beginning of the Faculty Code version that the Administration returned on February 15, 2016 and go through all the changes that are marked in red to determine what was changed and what can get done.  Monroe-Gulick said that Article V Administrative Leave Without Pay must be addressed since it is the greatest obstacle.  Discussion ensued.  Monroe-Gulick suggested the code use KBOR’s non-punitive Administrative Leave Without Pay policy as other KBOR schools do.  Keller pointed out that that policy addressed voluntary leave without pay requested by a faculty member who needs a temporary leave for academic purposes, and questioned what recourse administration has regarding a case of faculty abandonment.  Beisecker said that the only way he could be happy with leave without pay would be if the process ran something like a scenario in which FRB would be notified before an instructor was put on leave without pay for abandonment, so that FRB could give a quick (possibly on week) turnaround determining if that action is appropriate.  Williams proposed possibly using a sanction such as Article VI,2d regarding suspension; it would be somewhat slower than administrative leave without pay but may solve the issue and could allow the deletion of Article V.  That would also allow Administrative Leave Without Pay to be under its definition of voluntary leave requested by a faculty member.  Beisecker said he was pleased with today’s suggestions and ideas and more ideas need to worked on; he said he would talk to Mary Lee Hummert about the suggestions and ideas FacEx had expressed.     

Old Business


New Business

Referring to the first paragraph of the Faculty Code Analysis handout, Beisecker explained that whatever is put in the Faculty Code the Chancellor has the right to approve.   

KBOR Policy Manual
Chapter II, Section C


a.  Chief Executive Officer

i.  General Provisions

(1)  Subject to the policies, rules and regulations of the Board of Regents, the chief executive officer of each state university shall administer the affairs of the university.  The Board of Regents holds the chief executive officer responsible and accountable for all operations of the university, including university controlled affiliated corporations, and expects that each chief executive officer shall devote his or her undivided attention and energies to management of the university.

No further business.


Meeting adjourned at. 4:37


Respectfully submitted

Maureen Altman


SUBJECT:         Proposed Process for AP & CLEP Scores

DATE:              February 26, 2016


The CoFSP proposes the following five-step method to be utilized in response to the charge "to develop a process to determine AP and CLEP cut scores."

1- Compare the current cut AP cut scores for each course across the KBOR universities, and compare the current CLEP cut scores for each course across the KBOR universities. Steps 2-5 would then be used for both AP and CLEP scores.

2- Establish the highest cut score for each course from among the KBOR university cut scores as the default system-wide cut score for that course.

3- Charge the members of the Council of Faculty Senate Presidents to distribute the default system-wide cut scores in draft form, to the department heads whose faculty members are responsible for each of those courses at each of their Regents' Universities.

4- If no university's department objects to the default cut score for a given course, let that default cut score be established as the system-wide cut score for that course.

5- If one or more departments object to a particular default cut score, let all of the university department heads responsible for that particular course discuss the issue by email or conference call, facilitated by the chair of the Council of Faculty Senate Presidents, with the objective of reaching consensus.  If a consensus cannot be reached, convene a meeting of the university department heads responsible for the course in question at the Kansas Core Outcomes Group annual meeting in September.  If consensus still cannot be reached, let the Council of Chief Academic Officers set the system-wide cut score for that particular course.






University Academic Assessment Committee Member Selection

Document Type*





Purpose & Applies To*


To define the committee composition and member selection process for the University Academic Assessment Committee.

Applies To*

Faculty, staff or Center for Teaching Excellence (CTE) representatives eligible for appointment to the University Academic Assessment Committee (UAAC).

Campus* (Please select if the policy will apply to the entire University, to a main campus and all reporting units, or to a specific campus or campuses. The selections in this section determine which logo(s) appear on the policy.)

 All University

 Lawrence campus & all reporting units

 KUMC campus & all reporting units


 KU Medical Center





 Juniper Gardens



List of sections included


Policy Statement, Special Circumstances, & Consequences

Policy Statement*

The committee will be composed of 11 members:

  • 9 faculty members serving three year terms (with three new members selected each academic year)
  • 1 staff member (either academic or professional staff), preferably with dedicated assessment responsibilities, serving a two year term
  • 1 representative from CTE (ex officio)

Faculty members of the committee are nominated by the Faculty Senate Executive Committee and appointed by the Provost’s Office, with the expectation that faculty members would be selected to provide an adequate representation over time of the different divisions of the College and the professional schools.  While UAAC members are selected in collaboration with Faculty Senate, the UAAC is charged by, and reports to, the Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs. This reporting line ensures that the work of the UAAC supports compliance with the Higher Learning Commission’s assessment requirements for institutional accreditation, as well as with Kansas Board of Regents assessment requirements and program review requirements.


The staff member is selected by the Provost’s Office based on recommendations from the University Senate Executive Committee. The CTE member is appointed by the Director of CTE.

Each year, the committee will select its chair from among its members.

Exclusions or Special Circumstances




Contacts & Dates

Policy Owner*

Office of the Provost


Center for Teaching Excellence

135 Budig Hall

1455 Jayhawk Blvd.


Fax: 785-864-5121


Approved by*

Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs

Approval Date* (MM-DD-YYYY)


Effective Date* (MM-DD-YYYY)


Review Cycle*




Background and Related Documents


The mission of the University Academic Assessment Committee (UAAC) is to promote student learning outcomes assessment as a means of understanding, documenting, and improving the quality of student learning. UAAC provides guidance and feedback on the assessment of student learning and the use of assessment results at the institutional and academic unit levels.

Related Policies


Related Procedures


Related Forms


Related Other

University Academic Assessment Committee Members

Definitions, Keywords, History




University Academic Assessment Committee Members, member selection, committee, academic assessment committee, nominated

Review, Approval & Change History*

DATE TBD: Prior to final approval, this policy was endorsed by the UAAC and FacEx.



Academic: Instruction







Procedures of the Faculty Rights Board for Hearing Appeals From Administrative Actions



One of 34 U.S. public institutions in the prestigious Association of American Universities
44 nationally ranked graduate programs.
—U.S. News & World Report
Top 50 nationwide for size of library collection.
23rd nationwide for service to veterans —"Best for Vets," Military Times
KU Today
Governance Meetings