Faculty Senate 03/09/17
I. Approval of minutes from February 23, 2017
II. Report of Faculty Senate President Pam Keller
III. Speaker: Josh Bolick, Scholarly Communications Librarian
IV. Proposed Amendment FSRR 220.127.116.11
V. FSRR 7.5 Amendment
VI. Faculty Unionization Resolution
VII. Unfinished Business
VIII. New Business
FACULTY SENATE MEETING
March 9, 2017 – 4:00 p.m. – 203 Green Hall
Approved as amended March 30, 2017. Meagan Patterson should have been listed as absent.
(Meagan corrected that she was not present for Faculty Senate meeting, only for University Senate).
MEMBERS PRESENT: Faculty Joe Harrington, Pam Keller, Cecile Accilien, Mary Banwart, Ron Barrett-Gonzalez, Tom Beisecker, Naima Boussofara, Ben Chappell, Kelly Chong, Jonathan Clark, Chris Elles, Pam Fine, Ruben Flores, Jane Gibson, Lynn Hancock, Elspeth Healey, Kissan Joseph, Margaret Marco, Amalia Monroe-Gulick, Paul Outka, Meagan Patterson, Edward Peltier, Tom Prisinzano, Lance Rake, Roberta Freund Schwartz, Suzanne Shontz, Geraldo Sousa, Dean Stetler, Belinda Sturm;
ABSENT: Faculty, Christopher Fischer, Lisa Friis (excused), Sandra Gray, Megan Greene (excused), Elizabeth MacGonagle, Jason Matejkowski (excused), Ebenezer Obadare, Bozenna Pasik-Duncan (excused), Angela Rathmel (excused, attended later), Bill Staples (excused)
ALSO PRESENT: Maureen Altman and Kathy Reed, University Governance; Ola Faucher, Director of Human Resources; Mike Williams, FY2016 University Senate President; Sara Shepherd, LJWorld
President Pam Keller called the meeting to order and announced that the meeting was being recorded.
MINUTES for February 23, 2017 were approved as corrected.
REPORT OF THE FACULTY SENATE PRESIDENT
Report same as University Senate meeting report.
Speaker: Josh Bolick, Scholarly Communications Librarian REGARDING ONLINE EDUCATION RESOURCES (oER) (Slide presentation available at the minutes).
Keller introduced Josh Bolick and thanked him for having rescheduled. Bolick announced that OER is growing. College affordability is a serious problem with two-thirds of students borrowing $29,000 on average; students are dropping out because of costs, including costs of textbooks which has increased four times the rate of inflation over the last few decades. Referring to his slide presentation Bolick noted the effects on students and ways they tried to work through the issue which had also been addressed by the Provost in her latest issue of Strong Ties. Noting that books and supplies are the only cost faculty can control he encouraged faculty to utilize OER as one solution. He explained that OER represented “free” and “permission” and referred to the five R’s—permission to retain, reuse, revise, remix, and redistribute material. Bolick reported that $50,000 is available from the KU Parents Campaign for help in utilizing OER, for example to hire a graduate student to help reorganize or redesign a course. He added that one obstacle is that faculty don’t always know how to access materials. He encouraged senators to look at the websites he included in the handout he had provided and to share the information with their colleagues. Bolick offered to talk to anybody about the issue. He encouraged faculty to attend the talk “Serving Social Justice and Pedagogical Innovation Through Open Educational Practices”, on March 30 at 10:00 in The Commons by Dr. Rajiv Jhangiani, a major figure on the efficacy of OER,
Jonathan Clark asked if OER included any type of book or only a special type. Bolick responded it would be clearer to say “materials”. Noting that some of his textbooks were lower on Amazon Lynn Hancock asked if it would be a violation if he mentioned Amazon on his syllabus. Bolick said an instructor couldn’t direct students to illegally posted copies but could direct them to a legal affordable options. Chris Elles expressed concern that using OER might drive up costs in other areas and asked if it would be possible to negotiate prices with publishers. Bolick responded that the bookstore has successfully helped some departments negotiate. In response to where the bookstores stand Bolick said that that varies from place to place but so far KU’s relationship has been positive. Cecile Accilien expressed that the issue is connected to diversity, equity and inclusion and felt that faculty needs to make materials available to students in need, many of whom are first generation. Responding to the question of how widespread use was on KU’s campus Bolick said that he didn’t have a mechanism to track exact numbers but Physics was using a textbook, Accilien has used OER to create a Haitian Creole resource, and faculty in Engineering, Geography and several other departments were utilizing OER. Bolick said that not all materials are available and he certainly doesn’t want make demands on faculty but he does want to encourage faculty to look into using OER.
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO FSRR 18.104.22.168
Keller explained that FSRR 22.214.171.124, proposed by FRPR (Faculty Rights, Privileges, and Responsibilities committee), was one of other proposed amendments that had been approved at the last meeting. FSRR 126.96.36.199 had been tabled because of confusion over the language. She said that the consensus of FacEx was that the language was causing more harm than good and suggested the proposed amendment be withdrawn.
Motion to withdraw proposed amendment to FSRR 188.8.131.52. Harrington/Sousa.
Barrett-Gonzalez asked Keller why is should be withdrawn. She said she had spoken with FRPR Chair Rick Hale who said that there are multiple other places in FSRR that address colleagues being involved in review so it was not needed. Ben Chappell said that rationale was all about teaching and asked if peer involvement was included in other areas concerning teaching. Keller responded that she didn’t know. Concerned that student perceptions are being disproportionally reported in relation to peer input, Barrett-Gonzalez said he would like to see the 1975 AAUP Statement on Teaching Evaluation which includes a holistic approach to teaching, included in 184.108.40.206 or somewhere else. He added that peers should be evaluating in the classroom and it would be beneficial if the practice were uniform across the University. Hancock agreed, adding that forms to review peers are onerous and should be changed.
Motion to call to question. Beisecker/Flores. Passed.
Motion to withdraw amendment to FRSS 220.127.116.11 passed.
FSRR 7.5. AMENDMENT
Geraldo Sousa questioned whether the amendment was a good idea. Conducting classes remotely would be an obstacle to completing faculty duties. He added that concealed carry is the law and, while most don’t like it. FSRR 7.5 shouldn’t be passed for the sake of objecting to the law. Keller informed that FacEx had not approved it.
Motion to move to committee of the whole. Harrington/Beisecker. Passed.
Ron Barrett admitted it was a great sentiment but that the Provost would veto it. Mike Williams said the University Senate Code doesn’t allow the provisions although Barrett-Gonzalez said the Code could be changed in the future and suggested a committee to look at making changes. Amalia Monroe-Gulick objected that it is exclusively for faculty members and would rather a statement be made that would include staff as well. Accilien expressed that as woman of color who speaks with accent and is in a department which teaches subjects that could become volatile she would not be comfortable meeting with students in her office after concealed carry goes into effect. Belinda Strum suggested that rather than working to get around the law Senate should put its energy into how to work with the law, for example conflict resolution, how the University community can be made to feel safe. Tom Prisinzano said that speaking as a department chair FSRR 7.5 would be unenforceable and chaotic and he would not endorse it.
Motion to adjourn committee of the whole. Beisecker/Sousa. Passed.
FACULTY UNIONIZATION RESOLUTION
There was not time for this agenda item
Keller asked senators to let her know if they’d like to be on Governance committee.
The meeting adjourned at 5:07
Josh Bolick’s OER Slide Presentation
Proposed Amendments to FSRR 18.104.22.168
Proposed amendment to FSRR 22.214.171.124
Pursuant to FY17 FRPR (Faculty Rights, Privileges, and Responsibilities) Committee’s charge to “Consider, then if appropriate, propose the inclusion of the AAUP 1975 Statement on Teaching Evaluation in FSRR 126.96.36.199 (or other appropriate location within the FSRRs) to FacEx,” FRPR recommended a revision to the existing policy language. Rather than a specific recommendation to add a specific reference to the AAUP 1975 Statement on Teaching Evaluation in FSRR, FRPR recommended to adopt a few guiding principles from this document currently absent from FSRR, specifically ensuring the use of a peer review process in evaluation, and the participation of faculty in defining faculty evaluation. The latter aligns FSRR language with the actual language in Board of Regents Policy.
188.8.131.52 The University strives for a consistent standard of quality against which the performance of all faculty members is measured. Nonetheless, the nature of faculty activities varies across the University and a faculty member’s record must be evaluated through a process of peer review in light of his or her particular responsibilities and the expectations of the discipline. Teaching and scholarship should normally be given primary consideration, but the particular weight to be accorded each component of a faculty member’s activities depends upon the responsibilities of the faculty member. In the case of non-teaching faculty and unclassified academic staff, comparable professional responsibilities, as defined by their department or program and the standards of their disciplines, may be evaluated instead of teaching.
FSRR 7.5 Amendment
Background justification for FSRR 7.5:
Because FSRR 6.1.2 and KBOR Policy F.8.b.1 (July 1995 KBOR Policy and Procedures Manual) declare that:
“The precise terms and conditions of every appointment should be stated in writing and be in the possession of both institution and teacher before the appointment is consummated.”
There are no instances of any faculty member who has been hired prior to 2 April 2015 as having been informed that individuals with no training will be allowed to legally carry firearms in nearly every venue across campus,
The Faculty Senate of The University of Kansas declares that enforcement of the weapons on campus provisions of KSA 75-7c et. seq. would constitute a substantial, adverse and unilateral change in the terms and conditions of employment with neither the consent of the faculty nor compensation for the degradation of workplace safety.
Because the University of Kansas has advertised, adopted and adheres to Faculty Senate Rules and Regulations FSRR 6.1.2, The University of Kansas allows all faculty members to conduct their teaching, research and service duties in a weapon-free environment as such an environment was presented to them as the terms and conditions under which they were appointed. Methods to produce this weapon-free environment may include: allowing faculty members to conduct all University-related duties remotely, allowing faculty members to perform their duties in venues which have “adequate security measures” as prescribed by KSA 75-7c et. seq. or allowing faculty members to conduct their duties in private or Federal, weapon-free, off campus facilities.
Because KSA 75-7c et. seq. will place armed individuals with no training in most university facilities, counter to the original terms and conditions of employment of nearly all faculty members, with neither faculty consent nor compensation and those armed individuals induce a considerable degradation of Workplace Safety, The Faculty Senate of the University of Kansas hereby requests that the Kansas National Education Association initiate organization activities so as to form a faculty union on all campuses of The University of Kansas with the goal of reestablishing otherwise compromised workplace safety as the top condition of contract negotiations with The University of Kansas.