• Home
  • FacEx-Faculty Senate Executive Committee 3/7/17

FacEx-Faculty Senate Executive Committee 3/7/17

March 7, 2017 - 3:00pm
33 Strong Hall

I.  Approval of February 21, 2017 minutes

II.  Report of Faculty Senate President Pam Keller

III.  Report of University Senate President Joe Harrington

IV.  Committee Appointments (closed session) 

1.  Faculty nomination to Memorial Corporation Board (one faculty member)

2.  Ad Hoc Ombud Search Committee (two faculty member)

3.  Ad Hoc Insurance Review Committee (one faculty member)

V.  Proposed Faculty Code Changes Regarding Administrative Leave

VI. Unfinished Business  - FSRR

VII.  New Business





March 7, 2017

College Conference Room, 210 Strong Hall

Approved March 28, 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 and informed FacEx that the meeting was being recorded.

MINUTES for February 21, 2017 were approved as amended. 


Keller reported that she is on the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs internal search committee.  With the help of Kathy Reed she is still working on KBOR’s requirement that the Regent institutions standardize their AP credit.  Carl Miller, Faculty Senate President from Ft Hayes has offered to draft a campus carry statement from all institutions but she hasn’t heard how far he’s progressed.  Joe Harrington offered to create a draft and send it to Miller; Keller agreed.   


Harrington reported that proposed House Bill 2220 would prohibit KBOR and regent institutions from taking action against handguns, and any prior actions would be null and void.  At a campus carry meeting yesterday which included Jennifer Hammer [Acting Vice Provost for Diversity and Equity], Michael Wade-Smith [Director of External Affairs, Provost Office] and a representative from Public Affairs Harrington learned that Public Affairs is controlled by the Chancellor so the Provost is limited in how much she can notify about campus carry.  Harington noted that so far there is no chair for the Ombud search committee.  The Chancellor search committee will start vetting applicants in the middle of the month. 

Harrington asked chair Ruben Flores for an update on the Ad Hoc Diversity, Equity and Inclusion within Governance committee.  Flores said that their first three meetings have been lively but have gone very well.  Students from both sides (Student Senate and Multicultural Student Group, MSG) created lists of priorities to help look at legislation, representation, and fee review.  The committee made clear that there should be one student body.  Students on the committee have met three times and will present bills to Student Senate: one small bill for multi-cultural training and one big bill calling for a referendum asking all students for elimination of coalitions prior to bringing the issue to the Greek system.  A series of other bills, including who would receive fees, who would sit on the fee review committee and whether MSG would be granted seats on the Student Senate, didn’t make the deadline to present bills to Student Senate.  MSG committee member Trinity Carpenter thought the Student Body President Stephonn Alcorn had intentionally delayed; Flores said Alcorn was very busy but had wanted to get the issue resolved before new people were in the senate.  Flores will ask them to work together to submit the bills in the future.  Flores and DEI committee member Pam Fine noted that at their first DEI meeting faculty committee members had put the pressure on students to work on the issues, wanting it in the students’ hands.  Fine and Flores will attend the Student Senate meeting tomorrow.   

Committee Appointments (closed session)

  • Faculty nomination to Memorial Corporation Board (one faculty member)
  • Ad Hoc Ombud Search Committee (two faculty member)
  • Ad Hoc Insurance Review Committee (one faculty member)


Proposed Faculty Code Changes Regarding Administrative Leave

Keller said that she and Mary Lee Hummert, Vice Provost for Faculty Development, were worried about the proposal to add Administrative Leave without Pay to sanctions in the Faculty Code of Rights, Responsibilities, and Conduct.  FRPR (Faculty Rights, Responsibilities, and Privileges Committee) Chair Rick Hale had told Keller the committee made the suggestion because they were worried that faculty could still be put on administrative leave without pay.  Keller told FacEx that Hummert had confirmed that the administration knows it cannot impose administrative leave without pay; Keller explained that it is clear in the sanction section (Article VI) that sanctions cannot be imposed until after adjudication. She suggested changing “sanction” in the FRPR’s addition under Article V to “suspension” to make it clear that it matches number four in Article VI.  Amalia Monroe-Gulick objected to the FRPR’s amendments, citing voluntary Leave Without Pay is directly from KBOR, is clear and should not be changed; she added that it followed the section on faculty rights and is separate from the sanction section.  Suzanne Shontz expressed that the addition added clarity; Fine agreed but understood not wanting to alter the Faculty Code of Rights, Responsibilities and Conduct again.  Keller pointed out that the current Faculty Code goes beyond the AAUP 1958 statement [1958 Statement on Procedural Standards in Faculty Dismissal Proceedings] which FRPR was charged to consider, in that Faculty Senate was able to negotiate a guarantee from the administration that they would not impose administrative leave without pay until the hearing takes place.  FacEx decided against FRPR’s proposed change.



Proposed amendment FSRR

Giving a recap of the proposed amendment Keller said that it had been forwarded by FRPR to FacEx who agreed that a seven-day notification be sent to the faculty prior to discussion by Faculty Senate; Faculty Senate then tabled discussion at the last meeting on February 28.  Keller reported that FRPR Chair Rick Hale had explained, and FRPR member Harrington agreed, that the intent was to ensure faculty participation in the review process and that the was meant to connect to their other amendments [FRPR 7.4.1. and 7.4.2] which Faculty Senate had approved at the meeting; however Faculty Senate had looked at FSRR separately.  Hale had added that since the primary goal was approval of FSRR 7.4.1, which confirmed faculty participation in evaluation procedures, approval of was not as crucial.  Keller agreed and suggested FacEx withdraw the amendment.   

Motion to withdraw amendment to FSRR from consideration.  Fine/Keller.  Passed.

Keller will explain facex’s decision to faculty senate and someone from facex will move to withdraw the amendment.


FSRR VI, Section 5

Monroe-Gulick noted a conflict regarding number of years between the current FSRR VI, Section 5 and  She added that there are currently inconsistencies among units and the amendments would clarify the procedures. Promotion to full professor is based on substantial additional achievement since the award of tenure and/or promotion to associate professor, and faculty members with tenure are expected to continue to engage in substantial productive activity in the areas of teaching (or professional performance), scholarship, and service. Although there may be some variation, continuing productivity should prepare most faculty members for promotion to full professor within six years of their promotion to the rank of associate professor.

Explaining that the amendment doesn’t address faculty who are qualified for promotion but came into their units as non-tenured, Shontz suggested that in “tenured” be omitted from the third line and from the amended text.  Keller expressed concern that maybe “associate” should be added since it sounded as though units would have to look at all faculty but noted that units could formulate their own rules.  FacEx observed that every department would now have to change their rules to conform.  Keller said she would explain FacEx’s rationale that some faculty come in as untenured but are capable for promotion.

FSRR As part of the annual faculty evaluation process, At the beginning of the spring semester, each department, school (if there is no departmental structure), or other administrative unit shall consider the qualifications of all tenured faculty members below the rank of full professor, with a view toward possible promotion in rank during the following academic year. After considering a faculty member’s qualifications, if the department, school, or administrative unit determines that those qualifications may warrant promotion in rank or if the tenured faculty member requests it, it shall initiate procedures for reviewing the faculty member for promotion to full professor.

Motion to recommend to Faculty Senate changes to FSRR VI, Section 5 as amended.  Monroe-Gulick/Shontz.  Passed.



Harrington explained that FRPR was charged to beef up policing of conflicts of interest.  Keller noted that it would be a future charge for FRB (Faculty Rights Board) to look at its policies to make sure there isn’t conflict of interest since, while procedures should avoid it, there aren’t always mechanisms. 

Motion to recommend amendment to Faculty Senate for discussion.  Monroe-Gulick/Fine.  Passed.


USRR Article IX

Keller explained that since scholarly misconduct applies to faculty, students and staff the amendment would have to be considered by SenEx/University Senate.  Referring to the length of the proposed amendments Keller reported that FRPR Chair Rick Hale had expressed concern about the amendments being rushed through and doesn’t have strong feelings that it go out this year.  Noting the importance of the issue Keller agreed but, concerned about acting while the issue has momentum and the expertise of the committee, questioned whether it might be considered now but not go into effect right away.  Reed said it could go on a late agenda with the 21-day review going into the fall semester.       

Harrington who is on FRPR explained that the issue arose because Rick Hale had been on a hearing which involved a party from outside the University and their access to data was a concern.  Keller added that FRPR had worked with Jim Tracy, Vice Chancellor for KU Research, President KUCR, and that Hale and Tracy offered to speak with SenEx/University Senate.  Harrington agreed to ask Hale and Tracy to attend next Tuesday’s SenEx meeting.  Noting that there are walls between promotion and tenure, and scholarly misconduct which protect those going up for tenure, Keller said she would like to further study the amendments to make sure those walls are intact. 

Because FRPR wanted to make sure they were in harmony with federal policy they had started edits using the Public Health Service (PHS) policy so the document before FacEx was not in the usual amended format showing additions and strikeouts to the original Governance document.  FacEx agreed that it would be very difficult to put the amendments in the usual format.  Reed offered to highlight in the current document the changes FRPR proposed and try to have it for the Tuesday SenEx meeting.



Meeting adjourned at 4:51


Respectfully submitted

Maureen Altman


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