FacEx-Faculty Senate Executive Committee 02/07/17
Faculty Senate Executive Committee Agenda
February 7, 2017– 3:00 p.m.
Governance Conference Room, 33 Strong Hall
(This meeting may be electronically recorded.)
II. Approval of January 24, 2017 minutes
III. Report of Faculty Senate President Pam Keller
IV. Report of University Senate President Joe Harrington
V. Proposed amendments to FSRR 6.1.2, 6.2.1, 7.4.1 and 7.4.2
VI. Proposes changes adding Faculty Senate Representation to UCCC Procedures and Criteria for Appointment Policy
VII. Approval of Gender Neutral Language Changes
VIII. Unfinished Business
IX. New Business
Approved with corrections February 21, 2017
MEMBERS PRESENT: Pam Keller, Joe Harrington, Amalia Monroe-Gulick, Pam Fine, Ruben Flores, Ebenezer Obadare, Suzanne Shontz
ALSO PRESENT: Maureen Altman, Kathy Reed, University Governance
Pam Keller called the meeting to order, informed FacEx that the meeting was being recorded, and asked for announcements. Ruben Flores reported that the Ad Hoc DEI Within Governance Committee will meet on February 16.
MINUTES for January 24, 2017 were approved.
REPORT OF FACULTY SENATE PRESIDENT PAM KELLER
Keller said she had nothing to report but would introduce some items under New Business.
REPORT OF UNIVERSITY SENATE PRESIDENT JOE HARRINGTON
Joe Harrington informed that the new University Senate Vice President Gabby Naylor (who will be serving as Vice President due to Brittney Oleniacz’s resignation) will preside at University Senate on Thursday in his absence. Since proposed amendments to the sections of the USRR regarding Ombuds will be discussed Faculty Ombud Maria Orive attend the meeting to answer questions. If Harrington doesn’t receive feedback from the Provost regarding SenEx’s questions the campus carry notification resolution might be introduced at Thursday’s meeting. He reminded FacEx that the meeting was starting at 3:15 in an attempt to ensure Faculty Senate has its fully allotted time. If University Senate begins to go overtime Keller will make a motion to adjourn; Harrington added that if any University Senate business was pending it could be tabled.
Approval of proposed amendments to fsrr 6.1.2, 6.2.1, 7.4.1 and 7.4.2
Keller explained that the proposed amendments were the result of the FRPR (Faculty Rights Privileges and Responsibilities) Committee’s charges to look at AAUP guidelines for possible inclusion in the FSRR. Harrington, who is a member of the committee, explained that a slight change was proposed in 6.1.2 since the committee realized that the name of document cited includes the 1970 Academic Freedom and Tenure interpretive comments. In looking at the inclusion of the AAUP 1975 Statement on Teaching Evaluation some members of FRPR thought the statement was outdated so a subcommittee was formed for further examination. FRPR added peer review to 188.8.131.52 which doesn’t specifically change procedures but highlights peer review as part of the evaluation process. Changes to FSRR 7.4.1 were made to serve as a reminder to ensure faculty is involved in the process. Harrington advised against the proposed changes to 7.4.2 questioning the inclusion of links. Keller agreed citing that links would have to be continually updated, which would be difficult to keep track of and could be dangerous since misinformation or inconsistencies in the links could be grounds for appeal.
Motion to accept FRPR’s proposed changes to FSRR 6.1.2, 184.108.40.206 7.4.1 but not 7.4.2. Flores/Monroe-Gulick. Passed.
Harrington agreed to Keller’s request that he help explain the amendments to Faculty Senate.
APPROVAL OF CHANGES ADDING FACULTY SENATE REPRESENTATION TO UCCC (University Common Core Committee) PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA FOR APPOINTMENT POLICY
Keller explained the issue began last year with the concern that Governance had no input in UCCC. When Stuart Day, Interim Vice Provost for Academic Affairs, mentioned that he wanted input FRPR was charged with proposing additions and changes to the policy. Keller informed FacEx that if the changes were approved she would present them to Day. She explained FRPR suggested the faculty representative be a voting member regarding issues of policy but ex officio in matters regarding other procedures. Harrington observed that this doesn’t address how faculty can change the Core but that it is a step. Amalia Monroe-Gulick noted that the representative could bring both Governance issues to the UCCC Committee and UCCC issues to Governance. Regarding whether the representative should be a Faculty Senate member or general faculty member Keller explained that she didn’t think it was a good idea to limit to faculty senate since there may be a non-senator who would be very good, and also that opening membership to a non-faculty senator would expand the pool. Flores questioned whether “faculty senate representative” would be confusing but Keller explained that she was trying to separate the Governance representative from UCCC faculty members not chosen by FacEx. Keller said that more university committees are including Governance members and suggested that FacEx may want to request ad hoc reports from Governance appointees.
Motion to approve FRPR changes to UCCC Procedures and Criteria for Appointment Policy. Flores/Monroe-Gulick. Passed.
Approval of Gender Neutral Language Changes
Keller thanked Pam Fine for making additional edits to the FY17 O&A (Organization and Administration) Committee’s suggested gender neutral changes. A question arose about the section in 220.127.116.11. Suzanne Shontz moved that FacEx remove “themselves” after recuse in 18.104.22.168. Flores Seconded. Passed.
22.214.171.124 If a candidate believes that there is a conflict of interest, the candidate may petition to have that person recuse
himself or herself. themselves. Procedures at all levels of review shall establish a means whereby, if a committee member does not recuse himself or herself themselves,…
Motion to approve gender neutral changes edited by Pam Fine as amended by FacEx. Fine/Obadare. Passed.
Keller said that she received an email from Faculty Senator Ben Chappell regarding a question he had received from a constituent about whether Faculty Senate was doing anything to try to prepare for the eventuality of anti-tenure legislation like that which has been introduced in Missouri and Iowa. Keller reported that she is not hearing anything about this at KBOR but added that Chappell thinks that there might be communication between states. FacEx noted that North Dakota was also proposing to end tenure and that Kansas had already ended it for public school teachers. Keller suggested that Kansas might be more concerned about money at the moment but will make enquires at COFSP (Council of Faculty Senate Presidents). She noted that since KBOR tries to put steps in place to make sure they are prepared for potential issues, it would be good if they were ready with ideas. She added that KBOR faculty have post tenure review, so they may already be reviewed more than many other states. Keller asked FacEx to think about possible actions if the legislation were to come up and said she will raise the issue to COFSP and the Provost.
Action: facex will think about ideas of things to do in the case of anti-tenure legislation.
ACTION: KELLER WILL RAISE THE ISSUE OF ANTI-TENURE LEGISLATION WITH COFSP AND THE PROVOST.
California law prohibiting travel to states with discriminatory laws
Keller read a section of the new California state law prohibiting state-funded and state-sponsored travel to states with discriminatory laws which includes Kansas. She told FacEx she wanted to bring the issue to their attention and would raise it to COFSP. Keller suggested that FacEx might want to gather data, for example the number of people prohibited from coming to Kansas.
ACTION: KELLER WILL RAISE THE ISSUE OF THE CALIFORNIA DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITION LAW TO COFSP.
Meeting adjourned at 4:12
Proposed Amendments to FSRR 6.1.2, 126.96.36.199, 7.4.1 and 7.4.2
Proposed amendment to FSRR 6.1.2
This recommendation is in response to FRPR’s specific charge 3(a): “Consider, then if appropriate, propose the inclusion of the AAUP 1970 Interpretive Statement in FSRR 6.1.2 to the FacEx..” Since the correct title of the document as published (if properly cited) is 1940 AAUP Statement on Academic Freedom and Tenure with 1970 Interpretive Comments, FRPR decided the easiest way to fulfill the charge is to correct the title. FRPR found nothing in the 1970 comments objectionable, and several pages’ worth of professional associations endorsed it since 1970.
6.1.2 Academic Freedom and Tenure Policy. These standards and procedures are adopted pursuant to and shall be construed in conformity with the policies of the Kansas Board of Regents concerning promotion, tenure, and non-reappointment. The University of Kansas subscribes to the 1940 American Association of University Professors (AAUP) statement on Academic Freedom and Tenure with 1970 Interpretive Comments and/or any amendments or revisions to that statement adopted by the Kansas Board of Regents.
Proposed amendment to FSRR 188.8.131.52, 7.4.1 and 7.4.2
Pursuant to FY17 FRPR (Faculty Rights, Privileges, and Responsibilities) Committee’s charge to “Consider, then if appropriate, propose the inclusion of the AAUP 1975 Statement on Teaching Evaluation in FSRR 184.108.40.206 (or other appropriate location within the FSRRs) to FacEx,” FRPR recommended a revision to the existing policy language. Rather than a specific recommendation to add a specific reference to the AAUP 1975 Statement on Teaching Evaluation in FSRR, FRPR recommended to adopt a few guiding principles from this document currently absent from FSRR, specifically ensuring the use of a peer review process in evaluation, and the participation of faculty in defining faculty evaluation. The latter aligns FSRR language with the actual language in Board of Regents Policy.
220.127.116.11 The University strives for a consistent standard of quality against which the performance of all faculty members is measured. Nonetheless, the nature of faculty activities varies across the University and a faculty member’s record must be evaluated through a process of peer review in light of his or her particular responsibilities and the expectations of the discipline. Teaching and scholarship should normally be given primary consideration, but the particular weight to be accorded each component of a faculty member’s activities depends upon the responsibilities of the faculty member. In the case of non-teaching faculty and unclassified academic staff, comparable professional responsibilities, as defined by their department or program and the standards of their disciplines, may be evaluated instead of teaching.
7.4.1 In accordance with Board of Regents policy, faculty evaluation criteria, procedures and instruments shall be developed through faculty participation in each department, college or division and recorded to express the performance expectations of faculty therein. Faculty evaluations include annual evaluation and periodic post-tenure review. Faculty evaluation ensures accountability and promotes development and achievement by recognizing and rewarding contributions and accomplishments, identifying the support needed to facilitate faculty success, and addressing areas of performance that need improvement.
7.4.2 The University conducts annual evaluations and periodic post-tenure review pursuant to policies developed cooperatively and approved by the Provost’s Office (http://policy.ku.edu/university-faculty/faculty-evaluation-tenured-tenur...) and the Faculty Senate (http://policy.ku.edu/university-faculty/faculty-evaluation-tenured-tenur...). Changes to these policies will require approval of both the Provost’s Office and the Faculty Senate. These policies shall:
(…rest of section unchanged)