FacEx-Faculty Senate Executive Committee 3/22/16
(This meeting may be electronically recorded.)
II. Approval of March 1 minutes
III. Report of Faculty Senate President Tom Beisecker
IV. Report of University Senate President Mike Williams
V. Discussion of Faculty Code
VI. Old Business
VII. New Business
Approved April 5, 2016 5t
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tom Beisecker, Mike Williams, Pam Keller, Joe Harrington, Ron Barrett-Gonzalez, Amalia Monroe-Gulick
ALSO PRESENT: Maureen Altman, Kathy Reed, University Governance; Mohammad ElHodiri, AAUP
Faculty Senate President and FacEx Chair Tom Beisecker called the meeting to order and asked for announcements.
MINUTES for March 1, 2016 were approved.
REPORT OF FACULTY SENATE PRESIDENT TOM BEISECKER
Beisecker reported that at tomorrow’s KBOR meeting COFSP (Council of Faculty Senate Presidents) will consider cut scores for AP & CLEP. He said that in many respects the discussion will mirror the FacEx March 1 discussion. However some institutions expressed concern that standard scores across institutions, which is driven by KBOR, may not work. He asked if FacEx had any concerns about the issue for Pam and Mike, who will be attending the meeting in his stead. In the ensuing discussion it was expressed that, regarding retention, higher scores may be better. On the other hand, in considering enrollment, a lower standard might be more favorable, especially for students enrolling in and transferring from feeder schools. Beisecker emphasized that this is an important issue, adding that his preference would be that the matter be left to the individual institutions and their faculty.
REPORT OF UNIVERSITY SENATE PRESIDENT MIKE WILLIAMS
Mike Williams reported that the Chancellor’s weapons committee is working on the draft of KU’s Weapon’s policy and said that so far it is basically a rewrite of the KBOR policy but is still in its first draft. He added that the KU Policy will not cover Salina because it is not a property owned or leased by KU.
Williams reported that the 20-member Provost Weapons Committee which he co-chairs with Chris Keary, (Interim Chief of Police in Public Safety), has been exploring several issues: there is a lack of evidence of what is a restricted area; employees can carry concealed guns beyond metal detectors; residence halls are restricted from concealed carry because they already require key cards; key card areas containing hazardous materials are also restricted from concealed carry; there are federal restrictions for compressed gases; questions between federal and state laws have been raised, for example federal employees must be safe in their offices. He noted that it is still very early in the committee process.
Williams reported that he held an information session at KU Med and noted that their situation is scarier since the building is a maze. Doctors are very concerned and upset.
The Diversity Equity and Inclusion Committee (DEI) met this morning. So far there is nothing to report.
DISCUSSION OF FACULTY CODE
Beisecker said he was happy Faculty Senate was able to get through the Faculty Code at their last meeting and explained that Thursday’s meeting, which Pam Keller will chair in his stead, will be another information session. Beisecker distributed handouts of the code with comments about what required further discussion, as well as a Excel sheet synopsis with green highlights which indicated topics in which the Faculty Senate were in agreement. He explained that his goal was to make the entire sheet green, and began discussion of the items which required further consideration.
Article I Title
“Provost Office and”
“subject to the ultimate authority of the Chancellor
Joe Harrington suggested the addition “as defined in KSA 76.714 and 715. (Writer’s Note: KSA 76.725 also addresses the right of the Chancellor.)
FACEX UNANIMOUSLY AGREED TO ADD “AS DEFINED IN KSA 76.714 AND 716.
Article III, Sections 2, 3 and 4
consistent and unbiased impartial
Ron Barrett-Gonzalez insisted that, while deleting “unbiased” was acceptable, “consistent” must remain to protect faculty. Keller objected that it’s a charged word if an issue goes to litigation in that it changes the conversation from whether there was exactly consistent treatment or whether a decision was applied fairly and accurately. She felt that the reason the administration will never accept “consistent” is because the language will not allow any change in policy. (For example someone could complain that they weren’t being treated as someone was five years ago). Beisecker felt he could make an argument for the administration’s change to “impartial” as stronger and more flexible legally; Williams noted that “impartial” means treating all parties equally. Barrett-Gonzalez felt something stronger than “impartial” was needed. Harrington suggested “according to University policies in place at the time of the proposed sanction”. Keller suggested “equal” instead of “consistent”, as not being as charged. Harrington suggested “equal and impartial”.
FACEX UNANIMOUSLY AGREED TO ADD “EQUAL AND” TO IMPARTIAL
Article III, Section 3
consistent with the principles of shared governance
FacEx discussed the definition of “shared governance”. Barrett-Gonzalez suggested the AAUP definition of “shared governance” be incorporated; Williams noted that AAU also has a definition. Beisecker pointed out that “shared governance” had been added by the administration to allay faculty fears, and suggested it be taken out rather than added to; Keller agreed. Barrett-Gonzalez said that if the administration put it in then they’re happy with it and it should be kept in, adding, if they’re throwing us a bone, he’ll take the bone.
FACEX UNANIMOUSLY AGREED TO RETAIN “consistent with the principles of shared governance”
Article III, Section 4
participate provide information to assist
Beisecker said the administration will go back to “participate”.
Article III Section 4
subject to University policies
Beisecker suggested replacing “subject to University policies with “subject to FSRR 5.7.1 & 5.7.2. Amalia Monroe-Gulick pointed out that, while not a problematic issue, FSRR 5.7.1 & 5.7.2 doesn’t include non-teaching faculty. Barrett-Gonzalez congratulated Beisecker on the substitution.
FACEX UNANIMOUSLY AGREED TO SUBSTITUTE “SUBJECT TO UNIVERSITY POLICIES” WITH “SUBJECT TO FSRR 5.7.1 AND 5.7.2”.
FacEx agreed that at Thursday’s Faculty Senate meeting Keller would take the faculty through the sections of the Code discussed today, restricting discussion to the above items which FacEx has thus far addressed.
Beisecker told FacEx that Administrative Leave Without Pay is being reviewed by administration and a decision is on their table. He said that they have accepted the Administrative Leave Without Pay policy which is in the current code. Beisecker asked Harrington to read the section of Beisecker’s analysis of code changes regarding Administrative Leave Without Pay in which he explained he attempted to try to make the language of the current code consistent with the new faculty code draft, as well as improve it.
“The operation of the University requires faculty members to meet classes at the regularly scheduled hour and to carry out their other academic responsibilities. Failure to meet these responsibilities without making satisfactory advance arrangements (if physically able to do so) and communicating the nature of the arrangements to the person’s chairperson (or dean if the school is not organized departmentally) may result in the faculty member being placed on administratively determined Leave Without Pay by the Provost. When Leave Without Pay is imposed, the Provost shall notify the faculty member of the action and provide the reasons for the leave. In addition, the notice shall advise the faculty member that the Leave Without Pay shall cease, and the faculty member shall resume pay status, upon the faculty member’s notification to the Provost that the faculty member has resumed his/her attendance or academic responsibilities or otherwise made satisfactory arrangements that have been confirmed by the chairperson or dean. The notice shall advise the faculty member that if he/she believes the Leave Without Pay was improperly imposed he/she may seek review by requesting a hearing before the Faculty Rights Board pursuant to Article XIII, Section 3, item (vii) of the University Senate Code.”
Beisecker is working with administration for immediate review and rapid decision in cases of Leave without Pay. He added that he has the sense that the administration may work with time boundaries to make review of the appropriateness of the action more immediate (hopefully within two weeks and probably by FRB); in answer to their question of FRB availability for a more immediate review Beisecker said he assured Interim Provost Sara Rosen and Vice Provost for Faculty Development Mary Lee Hummert that FRB would be made available. FacEx agreed with Beisecker’s proposal to the administration of making the review automatically triggered, rather than review being the responsibility of the faculty member since this would avoid confusion and the possibility that the 14-day limit might be missed. FacEx also suggested that “physically” be deleted from the faculty code draft (“without notification or approval when physically able”), citing there could be incidents of mental issues.
Barrett-Gonzalez and others asked if Rosen and Hummer would talk to FacEx. Beisecker said he felt sure they would and will ask them.
ACTION BEISECKER WILL ASK ROSEN AND HUMMERT TO ATTEND THE NEXT FACEX MEETING
TOBACCO FREE INITIATIVE
Beisecker said that Jim Carothers has asked FacEx to forward the following statement to Faculty Senate for their consideration:
“The University of Kansas Faculty Senate endorses the efforts and the principle of the movement to make the Lawrence campus tobacco-free”
MOTION: FORWARD CAROTHERS’ RESOLUTION TO FACULTY SENATE. WILLIAMS/HARRINGTON. PASSED.
FacEx agreed that the resolution be added to the next Faculty Senate agenda before discussion of the Faculty Code.
ACTION: ADD CAROTHERS’ RESOLUTION TO THE THURSDAY MARCH 24, 2016 FACULTY SENATE AGENDA BEFORE DISCUSSION OF FACULTY CODE.
Barrett-Gonzalez announced that James P. Pottorff, Jr., University General Counsel, is undergoing his five-year review and felt that Faculty Senate should weigh in on the process, feeling that Pottorff’s position affects Governance. Williams explained that a survey is sent out prior to the hearing but he believes who receives the survey is the prerogative of the chair and it is usually sent to people who have had contact with the individual being reviewed. He added that he thinks anyone who wishes to comment can meet individually with the committee. Beisecker said FacEx will see what they can do.
No further business.
Meeting adjourned at. 4:34