FacEx- Faculty Senate Executive Committee 3/28/17
Faculty Senate Executive Committee Agenda
March 28, 2017– 3:00 p.m.
Governance Conference Room, 33 Strong Hall
(This meeting may be electronically recorded.)
I. Approval of March 7, 2017 minutes
II. Report of Faculty Senate President Pam Keller
III. Report of University Senate President Joe Harrington
IV. Proposed amendment to USRR Article IX
V. Unfinished Business
VI. New Business
FACULTY SENATE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE - FacEx
March 28, 2017
Governance Conference Room, 33 Strong Hall
Approved April 11, 2017
MEMBERS PRESENT: Pam Keller, Joe Harrington, Amalia Monroe-Gulick, Pam Fine, Ebenezer Obadare, Suzanne Shontz
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ruben Flores (excused)
ALSO PRESENT: Maureen Altman, Kathy Reed, University Governance
Pam Keller called the meeting to order and informed FacEx that the meeting was being recorded.
MINUTES for March 7, 2017 were approved.
REPORT OF FACULTY SENATE PRESIDENT PAM KELLER
Keller said that she reported to KBOR in favor of reinstating staff reporting to them, emphasizing the importance to staff as one of the few public and direct means of communication available to them. While students’ request to serve on several KBOR committees as ex officio nonvoting members was not approved, students will be formally recognized at committee meetings for their input. She said the question for Amalia Monroe-Gulick and the next Council of Faculty Senate Presidents (COFSP) would be to decide if they wanted to ask for the same thing. She said that they already have access to the Council of Chief Academic Officers meetings, but pursuing representation to the budget committee was problematic because of scheduling conflict; however access to the Governance committee would be particularly valuable because of policy issues. KBOR has a new project, being pushed by the company who sells the GED, to give some college credit for those who score high on the GED. The exam is not content based but a very high score would be required. One of the faculty senate presidents is a math teacher who along with some of his colleagues took the exam and only the chair of the department was able to earn the score required to receive credit. Keller observed that KBOR’s goal is to lessen barriers. In their meeting with the Chancellor Keller and Harrington found that the administration is hesitant to put campus carry notifications on the University websites SenEx/Senate had requested (KU’s main page, Admission and HR) because of fear of declining enrollment and definitely won’t add the notifications in this legislative session or before the law goes into effect. Keller said some notification is being sent via emails; for example the International Programs is notifying international students. In response to questions, she said she will check when in the application/acceptance process the emails are being sent.
REPORT OF UNIVERSITY SENATE PRESIDENT JOE HARRINGTON
As an update Harrington said that the Chancellor search committees is reviewing applications.
UPDATE ON THE AD HOC DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION WITHIN GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE
In Ruben Flores absence Pam Fine gave an update. She credited Student Body President Stephonn Alcorn with getting approval for a referendum asking students whether the coalition system should persist; the referendum deadline would be fall 2018 but it was hoped it would be completed earlier. Alcorn also was instrumental in killing the fee allotment for Multicultural Student Government (MSG) which the Chancellor would probably have denied again. The possibility for MSG to be a caucus within Student Senate was suggested but the MSG Chair said the group wants a separate government. Fine reported that in their investigation of other schools her Journalism students found that of the Big Ten Schools only one or two used coalitions and most used a ticket system. Noting the value of the Ad Hoc DEI within Governance Committee, Keller suggested next year’s senate presidents Monroe-Gulick and Suzanne Shontz consider charging the committee with looking at implementation of the referendum. Fine said she would like to see what the committee can do to support more voter turnout.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO USRR ARTICLE IX
Keller said that FacEx can help Harrington on the amendments to USRR Article IX (Research misconduct) which will be discussed at the SenEx meeting next week by becoming informed about the amendments. She mentioned Kathy Reed’s suggested change to USRR 220.127.116.11 which would make SenEx responsible for appointing the non-voting Judicial Board member of the misconduct investigation.
If the respondent is not a faculty member, a non-voting member of the committee shall be selected by the University Senate Executive Committee from among the members of the Judicial Board having the same status (e.g., student or unclassified professional staff) as the respondent to observe that the respondent’s rights are not violated.
Keller asked FacEx to share comments they might have regarding additions and edits. Shontz said that overall it seems good, for example creating uniformity with federal grants policies. Harrington said that Rick Hale, Chair of FRPR (Faculty Rights, Privileges, and Responsibilities Committee) which proposed the amendments offered to answer any questions.
Athletes. During her report Keller said that, as recommended during the last SenEx meeting, she and Harrington talked to the Chancellor about Pam Fine’s question of whether procedures regarding treatment of male and female athletes in incidents involving misconduct is equitable. The Chancellor didn’t give them much information about the specific incident Fine had mentioned because individual coaches make decisions about sanctions and confidentiality is an issue as well. Harrington got the impression that coaches don’t talk to each other about procedures. In response to Keller’s request for someone to speak to Governance about policies and procedures the Chancellor seemed to indicate she would give her a name. Fine said that she didn’t expect athletics to codify treatment but it should be clear that fair principles prevail. Keller expressed that while it was uncertain if the issue is the bailiwick of Governance questions should still be asked. Harrington suggested making it a charge of the Athletics Committee. Shontz suggested that if the Chancellor doesn’t give a name SenEx ask the Assistant Athletic Director to speak at a meeting. She also thought it might be good to ask students their ideas on the issue.
Faculty Evaluation Policy for Tenure amendment
Keller reminded FacEx that Mary Lee Hummert had discussed changes to the policy at a fall meeting [October 25] and that while FacEx had approved technical changes the change of years between a unit’s review of evaluation procedures was a substantive change that needed to be taken to Faculty Senate. Since Hummert asked that to avoid confusion FacEx wait until this year’s reviews were completed Keller said that the policy would be presented for approval sometime in April. Shontz pointed out that while the change made the requirement three rather than five years a unit could still review at three years if they chose to; Keller asked that she mention that at the Faculty Senate meeting.
Questions for KBOR meeting. Keller reminded FacEx to consider questions for KBOR at their meeting with them on April 20. Harrington said campus carry should definitely be a topic and that he would also like to see the Social Media policy eliminated or trimmed back.
Issues for next year. Fine asked if there were issues to consider for next year. Keller said she felt strongly about her and Monroe-Gulick meeting to discuss issues and procedures in order to help with the transition. Noting that the agenda was up to FY18 presidents Monroe-Gulick and Shontz, she said she would like to see the Ad Hoc Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Within Governance Committee continue, suggesting the focus be on structural change rather than resolutions (although important). She also felt strongly that topics of mentoring and sexual assault be considered and added that there are protective laws regarding the latter that she would like to work on with others at the Law School. Regarding sexual assault Fine said she would like greater transparency which would give details such as frequency, location, time of day, and familiarity with the assailant. Keller suggested Fine look into creating a specific committee charge or suggest an ad hoc committee for next year and make the report due in December. She also said that she and Harrington needed to clean up the current committee charges. Keller said that Monroe-Gulick is interested in issues of Unclassified Academic Staff. Keller also said that the IP policy still hasn’t been resolved. Regarding the issue of retention Harrington said that the administration’s program of offering funding for mentoring students on probation has been successful but Keller expressed that mentorship of junior faculty and faculty of color was still a concern that Faculty Senate should look at. Climate study issues were also mentioned, as well as the probable issue of funding for new buildings which was in part dependent on increased income from international student tuition which was now decreasing.
Meeting adjourned at 4:51.
USRR Article IX
Proposed Amendment to Faculty Evaluation Policy for Tenure and Tenure-Track Members
Amendment to Faculty Evaluation Policy for Tenure-Track and Tenured Faculty Members
At the October 25, 2016 FacEx (Faculty Senate Executive Committee) meeting Mary Lee Hummert, Vice Provost for Faculty Development, recommended that each unit’s review of its evaluation process should be changed from a requirement of every three years to every five years. The three-year review period reflected a requirement in the KBOR policy manual when the faculty evaluation policy was initially adopted, but it is no longer a KBOR requirement. In practice, the three-year review period placed an administrative burden on departments and schools, and the short time period between reviews discouraged rather than encouraged a close review and possible modifications of department policies. A five-year required review period is proposed to address these unintended consequences of requiring a review every three years. At the same time, there is nothing that would prevent a department from making modifications at any time within the five-year period if necessary. FacEx approved and decided to forward the amendment to Faculty Senate.
- Evaluation process
Each unit (department or school if a school has no departments) will adopt by a vote of the faculty a modified process of annual evaluation. The process will include a statement of the overall acceptable level of performance that meets faculty academic responsibilities, a system for annual evaluation of faculty, a provision for faculty development, other measures of institutional support, and a statement of a faculty member's right to due process in the event any disagreement should arise in the course of the evaluation. After approval of the process by the dean and Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor (Provost), the policy shall be distributed to all faculty and members of the unit to which it applies. Each unit shall review its evaluation process at least once every
three five years and any changes shall be adopted by a faculty vote and approved by the dean and Provost. A current copy of each unit's evaluation process shall be kept on file in the Office of the Provost and the Office of University Governance.