• Home
  • FacEx-Faculty Senate Executive Committee 4/5/15

FacEx-Faculty Senate Executive Committee 4/5/15

April 5, 2016 - 3:00pm
33 Strong Hall

(This meeting may be electronically recorded.)

   I.       Announcements

  II.      Approval of March 22 minutes

 III.      Report of Faculty Senate President Tom Beisecker

 IV.      Report of University Senate President Mike Williams

  V.      Course Level Transfer Policy

 VI.      Discussion of Faculty Code

VII.      Old Business

VIII.      New Business       





April 5, 2016 – University Governance Conference Room, 33 Strong Hall – 3:00

Approved April 19, 2016

MEMBERS PRESENT: Tom Beisecker, Pam Keller, Joe Harrington, Ron Barrett-Gonzalez,

ABSENT: Amalia Monroe-Gulick (excused), Mike Williams (excused)

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.  He noted that Mike Williams was absent since he was conducting a weapons information session at the Edwards campus.  Beisecker noted that one of the senate meetings [April 21] will be held at the same time as one of the Provost candidate presentations.  He said that the decision to cancel should be made by the senate.  

MINUTES for March 22, 2016 were approved. 


Nothing to report


Nothing to report


Beisecker explained that the Course Level Transfer Policy was a policy stipulating that courses transfer at the appropriate level, and ensures that junior college courses can’t be credited at a junior or senior level.  He recommended approval and asked for a motion. 

Motion to approve the course Level Transfer policy and inform Faculty Senate of FacEx approval.  Barrett/Gonzalez/Harrington.  Passed.



Referencing Beisecker’s Code Change Analysis which reflected his Faculty Code discussions with Vice Provost for Faculty Development Mary Lee Hummert, FacEx discussed Faculty Code items. (Code Change Analysis is available at the end of the minutes).

Article 1 Title

Beisecker said the “University Policy” addition is gone; it’s a dead issue. 

FacEx revisited their decision to add “as defined in KSA 76-714 and 76.715”, and also added KSA 76-725 (available at the end of the minutes).  It will read “subject to the ultimate authority of the Chancellor, as defined in KSA 76-714, 76.715, and KSA 76-725”.  Keller observed that there had been no strong opposition to added language at Faculty Senate and assumed there is no need for further discussion at Faculty Senate. 

Article III Right 2

Beisecker reported that he received opposition from the administration on this item since the Administration believes that the term “impartial” has been codified successfully in FSRR 6.1.1.  He recommended FacEx approve the administration’s substitution of “consistent and unbiased” with “impartial”.  Ron Barrett-Gonzalez disagreed since he felt “consistent” would avoid future problems and create another roadblock to the administration in matters of due process.  Keller said that it appears unlikely that the administration will ever agree to “consistent” or FacEx’s suggestion of “equal”, and that, since “impartial” means policies would be applied to everyone, it would be practical to accept the administration’s change to “impartial”.  Beisecker agreed that the administration is not going to accept “consistent” or “equal” and that “impartial”, which carries the concept of equality, is fair enough.  He added that he can argue for “impartial” which is pretty explicit in FSRR 6.1.1.

Article III Right 3

Beisecker observed that the administration has agreed to revert to “determination”.  He said that he hoped the administration’s addition of “consistent with the principles of shared governance” would allay some fears.  Beisecker noted that Right 3 contained the “impartial” addition already addressed under Right 2.

Article III Right 4

Beisecker informed FacEx that the administration agreed to revert back to “participate” rather than “provide information to assist” but had some question about approving his substitution of “subject to University policies” with “subject to FSRR 5.7.1 and 5.7.2”.  Barrett-Gonzalez offered that this might be because FSRR 5.7.1 and 5.7.2 is limited to teaching and doesn’t address scholarly work or service.  Harrington suggested Hummert might not object to “subject to Faculty Senate Rules and Regulations” and not specifically add FSRR 5.7.1 and 5.7.2.  Harrington and Barrett-Gonzalez suggested Beisecker ask Hummert what the “University policies” are; Keller suggested he find out if Hummert wants the language broader than FSRR 5.7.1 and 5.7.  Beisecker agreed to ask her.

Action: Beisecker will ask Hummert what University policies are referring to.

Article III Right 5

Citing his suggested language, which was accepted by the administration, Beisecker explained that he had tried to pick up what is in the current code and incorporate the administration’s amendment.

Beisecker’s suggested change:

“Faculty members have a right to be informed about personnel files that contain information about them.  Faculty personnel files are maintained by the Provost’s Office, Human Resources, the college/school or comparable unit, and the department(s) or comparable unit(s) in which the faculty member is appointed.  Subject to the provisions of FSRR 7.2, the faculty member shall have the right to examine the contents of such files and notify the Provost of any inaccuracies or missing information in the files.”

Article III Right 7

hearing appeal

request a hearing appeal the sanction to before

If an appeal is filed, the University will stay imposition of the sanction pending disposition of the appeal

Beisecker reported that he was able to get all the old language back; the administration agreed to revert to the original “hearing” which means that the right is not restricted to an appeal.  He noted that language concerning imposition of sanction is the administration’s addition.


Article III Right 10

Faculty members, groups, or organizations may distribute written or electronic material on campus without prior approval so long as the distribution is consistent with University and Board of Regents policy and state and federal law. The person or persons responsible for such material must be clearly indicated.

Article III Right 11

Faculty members have the right to pursue opportunities for improving their skills and developing their talents related to their responsibilities as teachers and scholars contingent upon the availability of resources and  compliance with applicable University and Board of Regents policies (e.g., travel, conflict of interest, leaves, class schedules, etc.).

Beisecker noted that Right 10 basically addresses the right to distribute materials. He explained that Hummert is saying that there are additional areas in University policy that are not addressed by KBOR policies.  Barrett-Gonzalez said he wants to add “as stated in USRR” and have these University policies codified in USRR.  Keller pointed out that making that many additions to the USSR would be difficult to update, can’t be changed quickly enough to be practical, and would not be user friendly.  She agreed with the need to protect the right of an individual to contribute but that every specific isn’t needed and delineation should be broad.  Keller suggested that an addition could you put in the introduction or at the end of the right stipulating that First Amendment rights cannot be violated.  Beisecker said that he is always concerned with anything that refers to “University policies” and will speak with Hummert about possible solutions to Right 10 language.    

Beisecker noted that Right 11 elicited the same type of comment from Hummert regarding university policies specific to this campus.  Referring to the sample websites Hummert had given him, Beisecker said he agreed with some—for example, travel--but found others problematic—for example conflict of interest.  He concluded that rights 10 and 11 still have problems.

Article III Right 13

and Kansas Board of Regents policy

Beisecker noted that there were no objections from FRPR.

Article III Right 14

Faculty members have a right to consistent and unbiased treatment in the allocation of resources in support of teaching and research

Beisecker explained that the administration felt it should be deleted because the standard of impartial treatment from their perspective had been established in earlier rights.  He also noted that there were no objections from FRPR to the deletion.  Barrett-Gonzalez expressed concerns about the deletion.  FacEx suggested asking the administration to keep the right with the change of “consistent and unbiased” to “impartial”.  Keller suggested making the argument that if the right has already been established it wouldn’t be a problem to leave it in.  Beisecker said he would make the suggestion. 


Article III Right 15

University and

Beisecker noted that “University and” in the second sentence does not refer to policy as in the first item but Barrett-Gonzalez noted that “University policy” in the first sentence does refer to policy.  Keller pointed out however that “University policy” in the first sentence is the Faculty Senate’s language.  FacEx decided on the following edits to Right 15:

Faculty members have the right to be evaluated annually. according to University policy.  Each faculty member shall receive from the departmental chairperson or dean a written statement evaluating his/her performance during the preceding year. Typically, the faculty member will be evaluated on teaching, scholarship, service, and/or professional performance consistent with University and unit the expectations of the position, and approved allocation of effort.


Article III Right 16

consistent with FSRR 6.1.2 in all of these cases, the University has the burden of proof to establish grounds for dismissal. The University will follow established policies and procedures in such

Beisecker reported that he was able to get the administration to agree to put FSRR 6.1.2 back in. 

Article V.  Administrative Leave Without Pay

Beisecker asked FacEx to look over his suggested changes (in green text).  He noted that the beginning of the text was from the current Faculty Code of Rights, Responsibilities and Conduct but that automatic notification of FRB (Faculty Rights Board) of Administrative Leave Without Pay is a change.  Barrett-Gonzalez suggested changing “academic responsibilities” in the first sentence to “instructional” responsibilities.  Keller agreed the change would better reflect the meaning of the paragraph as “instructional” and would be less broad than “academic”.

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 and members of the Faculty Rights Board of the action and provide the reasons for the leave.  In addition, the notice shall advise the faculty member and members of the Faculty Rights Board 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.  Upon receiving notice from the Provost that a faculty member has been placed on Leave Without Pay, the Faculty Rights Board shall immediately begin an expedited review to determine whether the Leave Without Pay was properly imposed.  The Faculty Rights Board shall make its determination no later than 10 working days from the date it was notified.


Barrett-Gonzalez asked if rewriting the Faculty Code had been mandated or requested by the administration.  It was explained that when the handbook was moved from paper to electronic media, and the Faculty Code was no longer a part of the handbook, a task force was created in FY09 to look at the Faculty Handbook who recommended that the code be updated.  In answer to Barrett-Gonzalez request to see other versions of the Faculty Code, Reed said there is no history of multiple versions and there have only been a few revisions to the code since 1971.  Harrington said FacEx/Faculty Senate should negotiate for the Faculty Code’s inclusion in FSRR.  Beisecker observed that he has seen no potential for that movement.

Old Business


New Business

No further business.

Meeting adjourned at. 4:15

Respectfully submitted

Maureen Altman






Course Level Transfer

Document Type*





Purpose & Applies To*


To define the level (freshman/sophomore or junior/senior) of credit awarded for advanced standing credits transferred to the University of Kansas.

Applies To*

All undergraduate students

Campus* (Please select if the policy will apply to the entire University, to a main campus and all reporting units, or to a specific campus or campuses. The selections in this section determine which logo(s) appear on the policy.)

 All University

 Lawrence campus & all reporting units

 KUMC campus & all reporting units


 KU Medical Center





 Juniper Gardens



Policy Statement, Special Circumstances, & Consequences

Policy Statement*

Lower division courses typically taken during the first half of a baccalaureate degree program (courses numbered 100-299 at KU) and upper division courses usually associated with the last half of a baccalaureate degree program (courses numbered 300 and above at KU) may be matched to an equivalent course at KU for content, but will be awarded the level of credit as defined by the competency level at the originating institution.

Contacts & Dates

Policy Owner*

KU Office of Admissions.


Lisa Beck
Associate Director of Operations
Office of Admissions
KU Visitor Center

Approved by*

VP for Enrollment Management

Approval Date* (MM-DD-YYYY)


Effective Date* (MM-DD-YYYY)


Review Cycle*




Background and Related Documents

Definitions, Keywords, History



Review, Approval & Change History*

<DATE>: Prior to final approval, this policy was developed by the Office of Admissions and reviewed by the Transfer Articulation Policy Council.





Academic Work & Evaluations





KSA 76-714. Chief executive officers; titles; appointment; compensation. The chief executive officer of the University of Kansas shall have the title of chancellor. The chief executive officers of other state educational institutions shall have the title of president. The chief executive officers of the state educational institutions shall be appointed by the board of regents. Such chief executive officers shall serve at the pleasure of the board of regents and shall receive such compensation as the board of regents prescribes.


KSA 76-715.  Appointment of employees; compensation. The chief executive officer of each state educational institution shall appoint such employees as are authorized by the board of regents. Employees in the unclassified service shall serve at the pleasure of the chief executive officer of the state educational institution, subject to policies approved by the board of regents. Unclassified employees shall receive such compensation as is prescribed by the chief executive officer of the state educational institution within authorizations by the board of regents. Employees of the state educational institutions, who are not in the unclassified service, shall be in the classified service of the Kansas civil service act.


KSA 76-725. Administration of state educational institutions; delegation of authority. Subject to laws of this state and the policies, rules and regulations of the board of regents, the chief executive officer of each  state educational institution shall administer the affairs of such institution and may delegate to any officer, employee, student, faculty committee, student-faculty committee, or student committee any part of such authority or any of such duties. Any such person or committee may be selected or elected in any manner approved by the board of regents.


Handout Beisecker's Code change analysis (From meetings with Mary Lee Hummert) April 4, 2016/sites/governance.ku.edu/files/docs/20160404HandoutFacExmeeting.pdf




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