FacEx-Faculty Senate Executive Committee 4/19/16
(This meeting may be electronically recorded.)
II. Approval of April 5 minutes
III. Report of Faculty Senate President Tom Beisecker
IV. Report of University Senate President Mike Williams
V. Discussion of Intellectual Property Policy draft
VI. Discussion of Committee Final Reports from Faculty Compensation, Faculty Research (FSRC), Faculty Rights, Privileges and Responsibilities (FRPR) and Standards and Procedures on Promotion and Tenure (SPPT)
VII. Discussion of Faculty Code
VIII. Old Business
IX. New Business
FACULTY SENATE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE (FacEx)
April 19, 2016 – University Governance Conference Room, 33 Strong Hall – 3:00
Approved May 3, 2016
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tom Beisecker, Mike Williams, Pam Keller, Joe Harrington, Ron Barrett-Gonzalez, Amalia Monroe-Gulick
ALSO PRESENT: Maureen Altman, Kathy Reed, University Governance
Faculty Senate President and FacEx Chair Tom Beisecker called the meeting to order, informed FacEx that the meeting was being recorded, and asked for announcements.
MINUTES for April 5, 2016 were approved.
REPORT OF FACULTY SENATE PRESIDENT TOM BEISECKER
Beisecker said that the major part of his report will be given during the Faculty Code discussion. At their meeting last Thursday with Interim Provost Sara Rosen and Mary Lee Hummert, Vice Provost of Faculty Development, he and Mike Williams received the Intellectual Policy (IP) draft which they were asked to respond to by April 30, 2016. The budget was discussed in general and there was nothing to report. Beisecker told FacEx that he and Pam Keller will be going to Manhattan tomorrow for the COFSP (Council of Faculty Senate Presidents) meeting.
REPORT OF UNIVERSITY SENATE PRESIDENT MIKE WILLIAMS
Mike Williams reported that he had spoken with the Multicultural Student Government (MSG) a week ago Friday regarding their request for clarification about how to be recognized within the University Senate Code as a separate entity; they are currently recognized as a student organization. On Tuesday MSG gave him a proposal requesting SenEx to recognize them as a standing body. He responded to MSG and copied the Chancellor because the proposal included a request for action. Williams said there are several problems with their proposal, in particular their desire to be recognized immediately. He explained to them that the articles in the University Senate Code that concern student governance must go through Student Senate and also pointed out that KBOR only recognizes one student senate. Williams told FacEx that the proposal wasn’t prepared in enough detail for him to report at today’s meeting. Responding to Ron Barrett-Gonzalez’ question of what power MSG wants, Williams explained that they want equal representation in all places student government has power, and want to be a complement to student senate, not co-governance or partnership. Barrett-Gonzalez asked if they could be an advisory group to Student Senate but Williams said that is not their proposal. He will report any new information he receives to governance.
Williams said he expects to see the final draft of the KU Weapons Policy soon. The Provost’s weapons policy implementation committee meets tomorrow.
Amalia Monroe-Gulick asked Williams if he and Beisecker had asked the Provost about expenditures for Shared Service Centers, Everspring, Shorelight, Climate Survey, and Huron which were discussed at the last SenEx meeting. Williams said that there hadn’t been time.
In response to Barrett-Gonzalez’ question about the status of approval of Student Senate’s fee approval for the Multicultural Student Government, Williams said it wasn’t discussed. Since the budget goes from the Chancellor to KBOR Barrett-Gonzalez asked what the timetable might be. Beisecker said KBOR has two meetings on the budget, in May (first read) and in June.
DISCUSSION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY POLICY DRAFT
Beisecker apologized that FacEx hadn’t received the Intellectual Properties Policy and Provost’s letter until yesterday but explained that he had not received it until late last Friday. He said that according to Rosen and Hummert the policy is basically consistent with the report accepted on March 5, 2015 by Faculty Senate, with a few changes. He asked that FacEx review it today and respond as they saw fit. Barrett-Gonzalez reported that the Engineering Faculty Senate reviewed the policy and said it is not in keeping with the spirit of the March 2015 policy. He said that there were several areas in which language needed to be clarified. He cited item (c) under “applies to” on the first page of the policy as egregious (“(c) relating to the University’s actual or demonstrably anticipated research and/or development”) and said that language needs to be stripped. Keller pointed out that if the research being done during employment outside KU is much different it’s not a problem. Barrett-Gonzalez said KSA 44 130 needs to me included in the policy. He pointed out that the issue of greater concern is that the Employee Invention Assignment Agreement faculty must sign can preclude them from being employed because what the faculty member generates isn’t the property of the employer. Keller and Beisecker said it was their impression that the employee agreement was to be revised along with the policy; Reed agreed, noting that in the FacEx minutes of February, 2015 indicated it was being revised, and Maureen Altman said that Amy Smith, Policy Office Director, said the agreement is ready to go, awaiting policy approval. FacEx agreed that a decision on the policy couldn’t be considered until they see the Employee Invention Assignment Agreement.
Motion that FacEx must see the Employee Invention Assignment Agreement in order to review both the agreement and the IP Policy. Williams/Barrett-Gonzalez. Passed unanimously.
ACTION: BEISECKER WILL ASK THE PROVOST FOR A COPY OF THE REVISED VERSION OF THE EMPLOYEE INVENTION ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT.
DISCUSSION OF FINAL REPORTS
FACULTY COMPENSATION, Faculty Research (FSRC), Faculty Rights, Privileges and Responsibilities (FRPR) and Standards and Procedures on Promotion and Tenure (SPPT)
Beisecker explained that the purpose of reviewing the reports is not to take formal action but to accept the reports, thank the committee, and use the information to decide on charges for FY17 committees.
Monroe-Gulick pointed out that librarians weren’t included in their faculty salary study, and the study didn’t say where the demographic information came from. She suggested both be included next year.
Motion to accept the Faculty Compensation with suggestions for later committees. Williams/Barrett-Gonzalez. Passed unanimously.
Faculty Research Committee. (FSRC)
The FSRC made the following recommendation: “The committee recommends that one specific charge for the FSRC committee in FY 17-18 should be to determine a method for GRF allocations that helps overcome a perception of disparity among units, that enhances a more effective way to use of the fund, and that is more dynamic and responsive to changing disciplinary research contexts within and outside the University.”
Barrett-Gonzalez observed that this has been a request for a long time. Beisecker said that the problem is that the fund is so static and Williams agreed, adding that while costs have risen the amount of the fund has not; Kathy Reed noted that it has actually decreased from its original amount. Williams also noted that allocation from unit to unit is another problem; Reed noted that FacEx approved FY15 FSRC’s recommendation to make some allocation changes.
Referring to Specific Charge 2 Monroe-Gulick suggested a future committee review and revise the survey created by FY16 FSRC; Beisecker agreed. He suggested Specific Charge 2 be cleaned up. Beisecker also felt Specific Charge 3 regarding entrepreneurship is important and should remain for FY17; Barrett-Gonzales and Williams agreed. Barrett-Gonzalez added that they should also look at conflict of interest regarding entrepreneurship.
Motion to accept the Faculty Research Committee report. Williams/Barrett-Gonzalez. Passed unanimously.
Standards and Procedures on Promotion and Tenure (SPPT) Committee
Motion to accept the SPPT report. Keller/Williams. Passed unanimously.
Barrett-Gonzales suggested SPPT look at the rules regarding third year review. It was pointed out that that should be a charge for FRPR.
Faculty Rights, Privileges and Responsibilities (FRPR)
Motion to accept the FRPR report. Monroe-Gulick/Williams. Passed unanimously.
Monroe-Gulick said that she should have the results of the FRPR survey on the KU Core next week and will share it with FacEx at the next meeting.
Beisecker reported that Library Appeals final report stated that there were no appeals for the year.
ACTION: SUGGESTION FOR FY17 FACULTY COMPENSATION COMMITTEE: INCLUDE LIBRARIANS AND DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION IN NEXT YEAR’S STUDY
ACTION: SUGGESTIONS FOR FY17 FACULTY RESEARCH COMMITTEE:
- (Recommendation from final report) Determine a method for GRF allocations that helps overcome a perception of disparity among units, that enhances a more effective way to use of the fund, and that is more dynamic and responsive to changing disciplinary research contexts within and outside the University.”
- Clean up Specific Charge 2
- Retain Specific Charge 3
ACTION: SUGGESTION FOR FY17 FRPR: LOOK AT THE RULES OF THIRD YEAR REVIEW
DISCUSSION OF FACULTY CODE
Referring to Barrett-Gonzalez’s LJ World April 19, 2016 Letter to the Editor, Beisecker said the first sentence was false. Keller agreed, adding that “for any reason they can dream up” was inflammatory based on all the negotiations of the past year. Barrett-Gonzalez disagreed stating that without Article III, Section 3 of the 1971 code (“Faculty members shall be exempt from disciplinary action except for conduct proscribed in Article V.”) the faculty is not protected. Keller noted that that was neither an issue in the April 2015 draft nor an action of the administration, and his comments in his letter was misleading. She said we should be careful about how we portray university publically. Barrett-Gonzalez countered that the public should know what is happening. Keller, Williams and Beisecker agreed but said the university should be portrayed accurately and didn’t feel it had been.
Discussion of the code followed. Monroe-Gulick was in favor of getting rid of Leave without Pay but Beisecker explained that the issue is whether FacEx/Faculty Senate stays with the old code or works on a mutually agreeable leave without pay section in new code. Williams argued that the new code has more protections, citing as an example that the first article gives Governance as much right to change the code as administration has. He added that the 1971 code doesn’t give protection from leave without pay without a hearing.
Beisecker reported that he had spoken with Mary Lee Hummert and, since she does not agree with deleting “impartial” and accepting Faculty Senate’s original wording “consistent and unbiased”, FacEx is going to have to decide about “impartial”. He suggested FacEx look at the definition of “impartial” in Black’s Law Dictionary. Beisecker said that in his letter reviewing the Faculty Code Alan Rupe, the attorney Barrett-Gonzalez has been consulting for AAUP, did not address “impartial”; Barrett-Gonzalez responded that while not in Rupe’s letter “impartial” was from the Claussen and Romke cases and Rupe had flagged “impartial”. Harrington asked if Barrett-Gonzalez would circulate Rupe’s letter; he agreed.
Beisecker said that the administration has agreed to retain “Kansas Board of Regents policy” in Right 13.
He also reported that Hummert still contends that Right 19 which administration deleted from the April 2015 draft is redundant.
Regarding the issue of burden of proof Beisecker said he looked at USRR and the articles that referred to financial exigency and program discontinuance stated that burden of proof is the responsibility of the faculty not the University. Therefore the code could not have a statement that burden of proof is the responsibility of the University in all cases since that would contradict USRR. Barrett-Gonzalez suggested adding a statement exempting those USRR instances. Keller suggested that specifics could be added; Williams agreed that specifics in USRR and FSRR could be anchored in the code.
ACTION: BARRETT-GONZALEZ WILL CIRCULATE ALAN RUPE’S LETTER REGARDING HIS REVIEW OF THE FACULTY CODE.
No further business.
Meeting adjourned at. 4:40