• Home
  • FacEx-Faculty Senate Executive Committee 10/04/2016

FacEx-Faculty Senate Executive Committee 10/04/2016

October 4, 2016 - 3:00pm
33 Strong
  1. Announcements
  1. Approval of September 20, 2016 minutes
  1. Report of Faculty Senate President Pam Keller
  1. Report of University Senate President Joe Harrington
  2. Mary Lee Hummert, Vice Provost for Faculty Development and
    Carl Lejuez, Dean, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Discussion regarding CLAS Template for annual evaluation polices
  1. (3:45p.m.) Speaker: Stuart Day, Interim Vice Provost for Academic Affairs, discussion of UCCC University Core Curriculum Committee
  1. Unfinished Business

Approved October 25, 2016

FY17 MEMBERS PRESENT: Pam Keller, Joe Harrington, Amalia Monroe-Gulick, Suzanne Shontz, Tom Beisecker, Pam Fine, Ruben Flores


ALSO PRESENT: Maureen Altman, Kathy Reed, University Governance; Carl Lejuez, Dean, College of Liberal Arts & Sciences; Mary Lee Hummert, Vice Provost for Faculty Development; Stuart Day, Interim Vice Provost for Academic Affairs; Mohamed El-Hidiri, AAUP.

Pam Keller called the meeting to order and then asked if there were any announcements.  For the benefit of today’s guests she asked everyone to introduce themselves.   

MINUTES for September 20, 2016 were approved.


Keller mentioned that the Policy Office notified her and Joe Harrington that they had already made the changes to the University Policy Program document which had been discussed at the last SenEx meeting.  The document is shorter, with much omitted and policy “owner” has been changed to “primary policy contact”.  She reported that Mary Lee Hummert reached out to her about moving the location of three policies from the Provost Office to University Governance—Faculty Rights Board (FRB), Post Tenure Review (PTR), and Faculty Evaluation—which would put all related policies in one place.  FRB, which she and Kathy Reed had requested to be moved, has already been moved and Keller expressed that moving the policies was an excellent idea and she would like to see the other documents moved as well.    

The diversity, equity and inclusion working group will meet this Friday to plan for the November Faculty Senate forum.  The members include Ruben Flores, Ben Chappell, Cecile Accilien, and Andrea Greenhout.  Kelly Chong was invited to be a member but no response has been received.


Joe Harrington reported that the Chancellor will visit Thursday’s University Senate meeting to make some brief remarks and take questions.

He announced that the university has formed a working group to discuss the ruling which has discontinued university subsidies for graduate student employee health Insurance.  The group which will have a faculty member, GTA and GRA from the Lawrence campus on it, will look into ways to support graduate student employees’ health insurance needs.  Harrington asked FacEx members to let him know of any ideas they may have regarding the issue.

Carl Lejuez, Dean, College of liberal Arts and Sciences (CLAS), and Mary Lee Hummert, Vice Provost of Faculty Development regarding CLAS template for annual faculty evaluation polices.

Carl Lejuez and Mary Lee Hummert discussed the concerns FacEx had about an email CLAS had sent to CLAS units containing a template for the three-year review of unit faculty evaluations policies.  Hummert noted that these weren’t just guidelines for CLAS but that all schools would be receiving them.  By way of history, she explained that the three-year review had been mandated by KBOR in 1996 and approved by Faculty Senate (then Faculty Council).  She told FacEx that the new template reflected the fact that the university now has a Post-Tenure Review (PTR) policy.  Referring to section 5A of her handout, General Principles of Developing Faculty Evaluation Plans, University of Kansas 2016-2017 (at the end of the minutes), she explained that units had the option of having one committee conduct both faculty evaluations and post-tenure review, or two separate committees, and that the PTR is considered in the annual evaluation process.  When it was pointed out that the PTR must be conducted by a professor’s peers, Hummert noted that a unit may want to choose separate committees; others noted that their departments opted for one committee to make the process less invasive and allow less work for faculty.

Questions arose about merit considerations and dismissal.  Hummert explained that since the annual review must consider the PTR, both what happens in the PTR and the annual review regarding merit should be considered.  It was pointed out that the decision on merit is neither made by the PTR and evaluation committee/s nor by the dean but by the department chair.  Harrington noted that while the faculty evaluation could lead to dismissal, the PTR could not.  Hummert agreed, unless there was a pattern of unsatisfactory performance, which Harrington pointed out would be addressed in the evaluation process.  

Harrington and others expressed that the email had been confusing in that it appeared to have required language.  Lejuez explained that that was done to make sure that all the material wasn’t taken out, but the intention was to insure that each unit made a decision based on what worked best for them, not that all the material was required to be used.  Lejuez acknowledged that although the intention of the email had been to clarify the process it was in fact confusing, and agreed that they would work on making units aware of how the process is done.  He added that they were happy to come to FacEx for the opportunity to answer questions and support the faculty.

Closed section of meeting to consider two faculty appointments to the Ad Hoc Costs Savings Committee.


Day noted that this was a good year to review the KU Core, adding that next year will be better because a whole round of students will have completed four years of the program.  Having been a department chair, Day acknowledged that he understood faculty frustration with difficulties in the course approval process (e.g. uploading material, getting information to professors), but felt that UCCC had come a long way.  While he noted that while there were issues about how the program was started, he would like to make faculty feel now that it’s theirs.  He added that DeAngela Burns-Wallace, Vice Provost for Undergraduate Studies, was working hard on FRPR’s (Faculty Rights, Privileges, and Responsibilities Committee) KU Core surveys.   

Day answered questions from FacEx members.  Responding to a question about recertification, he explained that there is a cyclical review process and that courses get recertified every five or six years.  He added that emphasis now is on the course approval process and that they are not ready for the course assessment process.  Noting that Burns-Wallace had expressed to her that she would like to collect more global data on the impact of the program, Keller asked if there would be an overall assessment of the KU Core program.  Observing that course enrollment in some departments had decreased dramatically while in others there was significant increase, Monroe-Gulick also asked if any studies had been made on the impact on enrollment.  Day responded that nothing was currently underway for the university as a whole but rather individual units were being looked at now.  However he said he would ask Burns-Wallace about future plans for university-wide assessment. 

Regarding course approval problems Day said Burns-Wallace is aware that the bottleneck in approval is a flaw in the system which is being worked on.  Keller said that it would be good to look at the trail of why courses are turned down.  Fine observed there should be a mechanism of how and why courses are approved.  Day agreed, adding that Burns-Wallace would like to change the process. 

FacEx expressed their concern about UCCC.  Assuming changes will occur, Tom Beisecker questioned what role faculty will have in the future of the program.  He felt it was deplorable that faculty had lost all control since graduation requirements are controlled by UCCC.  When others asked who the UCCC reports to, Day responded that it was under Burns-Wallace but that the committee doesn’t report to her.  He explained that a third of the committee was appointed every year and that while all members are not elected, the committee makeup is becoming more democratic. 

Regarding FacEx’s concerns Day agreed that it would be fair for FacEx to ask questions about UCCC.  (Where is the KU Core housed?  Who oversees the committee? Who does the committee report to?  Who oversees the approval process?)  Concerning what FacEx should do about being involved in the process, Keller suggested a conversation with the Provost.  Day suggested FacEx send him a one page proposal.






No further business.


Meeting adjourned at 4:18


Respectfully submitted

Maureen Altman




Handouts from Mary Lee Hummert


Handout #1

General Principles for Developing Faculty Evaluation Plans University of Kansas


1. It is the policy of the Kansas Board of (Board of Regents Policy and Procedures C- 3-8) that merit increases for faculty shall be based on the annual evaluation of their performance as it relates to the mission of the institution, college/school and department. The Board of Regents holds the presidents and Chancellor accountable for the development and implementation of evaluation systems in accordance with the following guidelines

a. Faculty evaluation criteria, procedures and instruments shall be through faculty participation in each department,or division and recorded to expresst he performance of faculty therein. Criteria procedures and instruments shall be:

i.   Sufficiently flexible to meeting the objectives of the unit.

             ii.  Sensitive to multi-year faculty activities and outcomes.

           iii.  Approved by the chief academic officer of each  university.

          iv. Compatible with contemporary research and scholarly literature on faculty evaluation. For example, assessment of research, where research is part of the job assignment, should ordinarily include but not be limited to information on the quality of the research, the amount of research, the media in which findings were disseminated, and the reception and importance  of the research. Similarly, the assessment of teaching, where teaching is part of the job assignment, should ordinarily include but not be limited to student ratings secured anonymously under standard conditions on norm-referenced instruments that adjust for initial student motivation, assessment of syllabi, and assessment of instructional materials.

2. The criteria for and process of annual evaluation must be adopted by a vote of the faculty

3. Annual evaluation procedures and instruments should call for multiple measures of performance in each area, be sufficiently flexible to meet the of the unit, and be to multi-year faculty activities and outcomes.

4. The annual evaluation process should yield multiple outcomes including information for departmental planning, merit salary decisions, progress toward promotion and/or tenure, differential allocation of effort, performance improvement plans, and strategies for renewal or development, as appropriate4.

5. The University's post-tenure review policy requires coordination annual evaluations as follows:

Under the heading Relation to Annual Evaluation, the policy states: "A unit's post-tenure review policy relates to the faculty evaluation policy and annual evaluations in one of two ways. If the unit's faculty evaluation policy provides for evaluation by a faculty committee, the unit may elect to have that committee conduct post-tenure review pursuant to the faculty evaluation policy, in which case the post-tenure review and annual evaluation are combined into a single process. In other cases, the post-tenure review will be conducted separately from the annual evaluation, but the post-tenure review file is incorporated into the documentation for the annual evaluation."

a. The Post-Tenure Review Policy also mandates that the results of the post-tenure review must be integrated into the annual evaluation process. Specifically, the policy states under the heading Review by the Unit Administrator:

"The chair, director, or dean (in schools without departments) will discuss the review with the faculty member as part of or in conjunction with the annual evaluation process. This discussion should concentrate on the future professional development of the faculty member with an aim toward enhancing meritorious work and improving less satisfactory performance, including adoption of a performance improvement plan, if necessary. Any action on the review that is within the scope of the Faculty Evaluation Policy must be taken pursuant to that policy."

6. The University policy on faculty evaluations may be found at: http://policy.ku.edu/provost/faculty-evaluation-tenured-tenure-track (as of 10/04/2016)

7. The University policy on faculty evaluations may be found at: http://policy.ku.edu/provost/DAE (as of 10/04/2016)

8.  The University's post-tenure review policy section on coordination with annual evaluation may be found at http://policy.ku.edu/provost/post-tenure-review (2. (as of 10/04/20106) A. Relation to Annual Evaluation)

1. Faculty Evaluation Plan Guidelines 2016-2017


Handout #2

http://policy.ku.edu/provost/post-tenure-review (as of 10/04/2016)

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