FacEx-Faculty Senate Executive Committee 10/25/2016
(This meeting may be electronically recorded.)
- Approval of October 4, 2016 minutes
- Report of Faculty Senate President Pam Keller
- Report of University Senate President Joe Harrington
- Speaker: Josh Bolick, Scholarly Communications Librarian
- Policy Library Housekeeping
- Unfinished Business
- New Business
FACULTY SENATE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE - FacEx
October 25, 2016
Governance Conference Room, 33 Strong Hall
Approved November 8, 2016
FY17 MEMBERS PRESENT: Pam Keller, Joe Harrington, Amalia Monroe-Gulick, Suzanne Shontz, Pam Fine, Ruben Flores
FY17 MEMBERS ABSENT: Tom Beisecker (excused)
ALSO PRESENT: Maureen Altman, Kathy Reed, University Governance; Josh Bolick, Scholarly Communications Librarian; Mary Lee Hummert, Vice Provost for Faculty Development.
Pam Keller called the meeting to order, informed FacEx that the meeting was being recorded, and asked for announcements.
MINUTES for October 4, 2016 were approved.
REPORT OF FACULTY SENATE PRESIDENT PAM KELLER
Reporting on the last KBOR meeting Keller said that the main focus was what happens with campus carry implementation policies. Policies will continue to be discussed but KU’s has not yet been reviewed by KBOR who will review all the policies and then approve them all at the same time. Keller suggested that after the policy is approved FacEx invite Mike Williams, who was a member of the weapons implementation committee during his term as FY16 University Senate President, to a Faculty Senate meeting to discuss KU’s weapons implementation policy. In their meeting with the Provost Keller and Harrington discussed communication and were told that the Provost is creating a user-friendly website to collect information from faculty.
ACTION: INVITE MIKE WILLIAMS TO THE UNIVERSITY SENATE MEETING TO DISCUSS KU’S WEAPONS IMPLEMENTATION POLICY AFTER IT IS APPROVED BY KBOR.
REPORT OF UNIVERSITY SENATE PRESIDENT JOE HARRINGTON
Joe Harrington said he contacted Matt Melvin, Vice Provost for Enrollment Management (which oversees Student Information Systems for the Office of the Registrar) regarding questions about the language on the Enroll and Pay login page which University Senate charged SenEx to investigate. Harrington said that if he doesn’t receive more information he will request a meeting of faculty and staff leaders with Melvin and his staff about the issue. Keller added that she spoke with Leisa I. Julian, Vice Chancellor, Chief Financial Officer, about the issue as well and was told that the goal of the change was to target students. Keller suggested that something different might be created instead. Continuing the subject begun by FY16 University President Mike Williams, Harrington asked the Provost for a cost benefit analysis on consultants (ex. Shorelight, Huron, Academic Analytics, etc.). The Provost said she would talk to the Chancellor, but did approve archiving the current big documents. Harrington explained that Shorelight financials for LSU were available on the internet but not for KU. Pam Fine said she would like to know how students in the Shorelight program were doing. Keller noted that former Interim Provost Sara Rosen had reported on that at a University Senate meeting last year but SenEx could ask someone back to make another report. Responding to the question of our representation on KUAAP Keller suggested Maureen Altman contact our appointee to ask about the committee.
ACTION: MAUREEN ALTMAN WILL CONTACT FACEX’S APPOINTEE TO THE KUAAP COMMITTEE.
Josh Bolick, Scholarly Communications Librarian, REGARDING OPEN EDUCATION
While his office deals with Open Access Bolick explained that there is a difference between Open Access which concerns scholarship and Open Education which was created for pedagogy. Referring to an article in Quartz which discussed the negative impact of the increasingly high cost of textbooks he said that students are doing without texts or have created strategies such as renting, sharing, or even illegally downloading textbooks. Pointing out the positive qualities of Open Education he said that licensed materials freely available to students through OPENSTAX can be revised, remixed, etc. allowing instructors to build course materials for students’ needs. When asked about who would cover the costs, Bolick explained that OPENSTAX received a grant from Gates, Hewlett and others and has reached out to textbook authors to contribute. Instructors can (1) adopt texts, (2) adapt texts, or (3) create texts. While adoption or adaptation is simpler and preferable he said that some professors on campus have authored their own material—in one case because material in their own field wasn’t readily available—and have received stipends for their work. He reported that there is money for 23 stipends and $50,000 has also been earmarked from the KU Library Parents’ campaign. Emphasizing the value of the program, Bolick said that KState has been using it for five years and saved a million dollars, adding that studies have shown that students are doing as well or better with open resources. Responding to Fine’s question of how Open Education has been encouraged the campus, he said that KU libraries have collaborated the Open Textbook Network which is a coalition of universities around the country who have created the Open Textbook Library, to encourage awareness among faculty. KU libraries are promoting through Open Textbook Library workshops and CTE (Center for Teaching Excellence), and Bolick offered to talk to any interested group. He also added that proposals for creation projects are being considered which will receive support through the grant from KU Library Parents. In answer to Fine’s question of whether the program was bad for anyone, Bolick offered that a handful of people who have been successful at writing textbooks might feel threatened. Keller pointed out that a possible barrier could be how contributed materials to Open Education might be credited toward tenure but added that a structural mechanism might be developed to alleviate the problem. Bolick and SenEx members agreed that online might not be worthwhile for everyone but it was pointed out that it offers an enormous savings to students. Bolick noted that they don’t want anyone to use what they don’t consider worthwhile and that he foresees instruction materials being a mix of textbooks and online in the future.
POLICY LIBRARY HOUSEKEEPING
Keller noted that amending items in the Policy Library may be ongoing as inconsistences come up. As background she explained the proposed changes to the distributed document, Faculty Evaluation Policy For Tenure-Track and Tenured Faculty, were the result of an inconsistency with FRB procedures and KBOR policy, which cited incorrectly that the Chancellor’s decision preceded FRB proceedings. Keller explained some of the proposed changes: replace the link to the Handbook for Faculty and Other Unclassified Staff with the Faculty Code of Rights, Responsibilities and Conduct since pertinent information is now contained in the latter document; change the primary contact to Governance which is more appropriate; replace Code of Conduct with Procedures adopted by the Faculty Senate. Mary Lee Hummert added one more change; in the first paragraph on page two she recommended that each unit’s review of its evaluation process should be changed from a requirement of every three years to every five since three years is too often as well as unnecessary since the KBOR policy is now silent on the issue. SenEx members agreed that this change was substantive rather than technical like the other proposed changes and would need to be presented to all faculty in order to follow the procedures required for amending Governance documents. Hummert said that she learned from Interim Policy Office Director Jenn Anderson that it isn’t easy to make every policy its own owner (now primary policy contact) and suggested putting the evaluation and post tenure review policies together, searchable by name.
Motion to approve all proposed technical changes to the Faculty Evaluation Policy For Tenure-Track and Tenured Faculty. Monroe-Gulick/Shontz. Passed.
Motion to approve the amendment changing the evaluation review period from three to five years and bring it to Faculty Senate. Shontz/Monroe-Gulick.
Hummert suggested waiting to propose the amendment to the Faculty Senate since units are currently going through the review process. FacEx agreed to wait.
ACTION: BEGIN THE PROCESS OF AMENDING THE Faculty Evaluation Policy For Tenure-Track and Tenured Faculty AFTER THE THREE-YEAR REVIEW OF UNIT EVALUATIONS IS COMPLETED.
Keller explained the plan for the diversity presentation for the November 3 Faculty Senate meeting. Faculty members Joe Harrington, Elizabeth MacGonagle, and Ruben Flores will speak briefly about their feelings on the importance of the issue. After DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) Committee Co-Chair Shannon Portillo talks about the DEI report, a Q&A will follow. Keller offered to send an email with the DEI report link and encouraged everyone to read/re-read it. She emphasized the importance of the report, adding that she would like to see the senate talk about how to support its recommendations concerning faculty. She expressed that faculty encouraging their units to be involved seems the most important outcome rather than Faculty Senate doing something as a whole. Keller noted that this is a starting point in which she hoped the presentations of the three faculty members would encourage faculty to realize the importance of the issue, and Portillo’s talk would generate comments. Monroe-Gulick cautioned that everyone is not amenable to diversity discussions. Keller agreed that while she wanted the session to be positive no one knows for certain how it would be received. Since the issue will be ongoing SenEx discussed possible ideas for further meetings: minority faculty recruitment, including looking at the lack women in Engineering; addressing difficult conversations regarding self-realization concerning diversity; examples of what a good classroom looks like; a talk by Andrea Greenhoot of CTE (Center for Teaching Excellence) to suggest resources. Keller said she will ask for continuing dialog and asked SenEx to email her any ideas.
ACTION: KELLER WILL SEND AN EMAIL ABOUT THE NOVEMBER 3 FACULTY SENATE PROGRAM.
At Keller’s request Kathy Reed explained that the FY16 Ad Hoc Post Tenure Review (PTR) Committee had conducted a survey to see how PTR was doing but it was never analyzed. Keller suggested sending out another survey and then analyze both. Citing the difficulty of finding an appropriate committee to do this (separation between promotion and tenure and post tenure review eliminated SPPT and FRPR already had several charges), Keller suggested FacEx conduct the analysis and asked for a volunteer. Monroe-Gulick agreed and Fine offered to work with her.
No further business.
Meeting adjourned at 4:18
Melvin’s response to Harrington regarding new language on the Enroll & Pay login page.
Here is the feedback I received:
Change was made at the request of Student Accounts as a result of the fact that University Charges come through Enroll and Pay. Evidently, faculty and staff can accrue charges that they would pay through Enroll and Pay. The statement is primarily targeting students as I believe there has been some recent legal issues associated with attempting to collect past due balances and the direction given was to provide greater visibility/clarity on the initial screen that individuals would assume responsibility for any charges accrued.
We have contacted those from Student Accounts and Finance and Administration who were the drivers behind the change to provide more information/clarification for University Senate.