Faculty Senate 03/30/17
March 30, 2017
(immediately following the 3:15 University Senate meeting)
Room 203 Green Hall (Law School)
(This meeting may be electronically recorded.)
I. Approval of minutes from March 9, 2017
II. Report of Faculty Senate President Pam Keller
III. Proposed Amendment FSRR VI, Section 5 (Initial Review)
IV. FSRR 18.104.22.168 Amendment (Conflict of Interest)
V. Faculty Unionization Resolution
VI. Unfinished Business
VII. New Business
FACULTY SENATE MEETING
March 30, 2017 – 4:00 p.m. – 203 Green Hall
Approved April 13, 2017
MEMBERS PRESENT: Joe Harrington, Pam Keller, Cecile Accilien, Mary Banwart, Ron Barrett-Gonzalez, Tom Beisecker, Naima Boussofara, Ben Chappell, Jonathan Clark, Chris Elles, Christopher Fischer, Lisa Friis, Sandra Gray, Megan Greene, Kissan Joseph, Elizabeth MacGonagle, Margaret Marco, Jason Matejkowski, Amalia Monroe-Gulick, Ebenezer Obadare, Paul Outka, Bozenna Pasik-Duncan, Meagan Patterson, Edward Peltier, Tom Prisinzano, Lance Rake, Angela Rathmel, Roberta Freund Schwartz, Suzanne Shontz, Dean Stetler, Belinda Sturm
ABSENT: Kelly Chong (excused), Pam Fine (excused), Ruben Flores (excused), Elspeth Healey (excused), Jane Gibson (excused), Lynn Hancock (excused), Geraldo Sousa (excused), Bill Staples (excused)
ALSO PRESENT: Maureen Altman and Kathy Reed, University Governance; Chancellor Bernadette Gray-Little
President Pam Keller called the meeting to order and announced that the meeting is recorded.
MINUTES for March 9, 2017 were approved as corrected. Meagan Patterson said that she had attended the University Senate meeting but was not present for Faculty Senate.
REPORT OF THE FACULTY SENATE PRESIDENT
Keller reminded senators to vote for new FY18 senators and to encourage their colleagues to vote. She thanked Meagan Patterson for suggesting bios be added to the election information and Kathy Reed for implementing the suggestion.
proposed amendment FSRR Vi, Section 5 (initial Review)
Keller explained that while SPPT (Standards and Procedures for Promotion and Tenure committee) was working on the charge to review changes to promotion and tenure procedures they saw a discrepancy on self-initiating. Units were allowing professors to self-initiate promotion review but it was only allowed in the Faculty Senate Rules and Regulations (FSRR) after seven years. Ex officio committee member Mary Lee Hummert, Vice Provost for Faculty Development, agreed with the proposed FSRR changes which were passed unanimously. Keller presented the comment Governance received after notification that questioned replacing “
As part of the annual faculty evaluation process” with “At the beginning of the spring semester” as being vague and having an indefinite end time. Beisecker suggested that SPPT might have omitted the first line because the evaluation process occurs later. Keller said she would ask the committee why they had added the language. Keller explained that FacEx had removed “tenured” from 22.214.171.124 in SPPT’s amendment because, for example in the Law School, some faculty go up for both promotion and tenure at the same time and the change made it more consistent. It was suggested that “tenured” be removed in the third line of 126.96.36.199 as well. Keller explained that FacEx decided not removing it for fear that everyone would ask to be considered for promotion but added that Senate could remove it if it was considered problematic. Angela Rathmel said she thought it was problematic because it doesn’t account for promotion consideration for others kinds of faculty, such as academic staff. Looking at it from a department chair’s perspective, Tom Beisecker observed that removing “tenured” in the third line wouldn’t really be an issue since, if a request were made, a unit would be free to look at a newer faculty member and deem they weren’t ready. Suzanne Shontz pointed out that one of FacEx’s reasons for removing “tenure” was that it would cover the instance when a faculty member who may warrant promotion comes into the unit without tenure. [Writer’s note: There was an error in the amendment presented; FacEx had deleted both instances of “tenured”]. The amendment will be voted on at the next meeting.
ACTION: KELLER WILL ASK SPPT WHY THEY ADDED “AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SPRING SEMESTER” TO THE BEGINNING OF 188.8.131.52
PROPOSED AMENDMENT FSRR 184.108.40.206 (CONFLICT OF INTEREST)
Keller explained that the amendment was the result of a charge to FRPR to construct a general statement for inclusion in the FSRR which will mitigate conflicts of interest. Ron Barrett-Gonzalez agreed with the amendment, pointing out that what exists now only refers to research. However he added that in the future surgery needs to be done on the conflict of interest statement. The amendment will be voted on at the next meeting.
FACULTY UNIONIZATION RESOLUTION
Keller asked Barrett-Gonzalez, who proposed the resolution, if he would like Senate to discuss the issue in a meeting of the whole or in a more formal discussion; he preferred the former. Noting the confusion of how proposals are made, Keller explained her reasoning for not sending out a seven-day notification requiring an initial consideration. She said she was concerned that the process of making a proposal a motion would rush a decision and discussing as a committee of the whole would serve as a solution. Harrington added that a motion could also be tabled.
Motion to move to a committee of the whole to discuss the proposed resolution. Barrett-Gonzalez/seconded. Passed.
Barrett-Gonzalez said that the unions at Pittsburg State, Fort Hays and JCCC were working very well, adding that in a survey Pittsburg State was named the happiest university in the state as opposed to KU where, according to recent reports, morale is low. Giving Pittsburg State as an example, he said that governance, which primarily handles academic issues, and the union, which primarily handles workplace issues, meet to negotiate issues, thus avoiding problems fomenting and issues going to court. He emphasized that it is critical for Senate to consider adoption of a union which would afford fair treatment of faculty and help the health of the University since a union would be cooperative not adversarial. Some senators expressed concern with tying unionization so strongly to campus carry. Barrett-Gonzalez said that his intention was to start the conversation about unionization. Although Paul Outka supported having a union, citing that in his work with FRB he had found that there was disparity in representation, he said that the union should represent several issues, not just campus carry. Amalia Monroe-Gulick suggested that since focus on unionization might take away from campus carry (for example in the media) it might be better to address unionization in fall. The Chancellor observed that it was a mistake for the unionization statement to focus on guns since campus carry is a state, not a University, concern.
Motion to adjourn as a committee of the whole. Harrington/Barrett-Gonzales. Passed.
Motion to adjourn the meeting. Beisecker/Banwart. Failed.
Motion to resolve that 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. Harrington/Barrett-Gonzalez.
In support of the amendment Jonathan Clark said that while a union could not magically augment salaries, it would be good for morale and other issues besides guns, such as social media. Referring to his work on the Faculty Rights Board (FRB) he agreed with Paul Outka’s previous comment that there was disparity of treatment, and expressed the belief that a union would secure equity in the workplace. Having also served on FRB Lisa Friis said she felt differently and thought that KU upheld their part and demonstrated procedures she would like to represent her. Some senators said they would like more information about unions to share with their peers.
Motion to table the issue. Sturm/Freund Schwartz. Passed.
The meeting adjourned at 4:42.
Proposed Amendment to FSRR 6, Section 5
(Regarding Promotion Requests)
Approved by FacEx March 7, 2017
The FY17 SPPT committee was reviewing proposed changes to program’s P&T procedures and noted a perceived discrepancy between practice and the FSRR policy. Article 220.127.116.11 requires that departments, or schools, review each tenured faculty member, below full professor, each year for promotion. It further states that faculty are not allowed to self-initiate the process until after seven years. It was the general consensus of the committee members that faculty are generally allowed to self-initiate the process at any time. Mary Lee Hummert agreed with the committee. Therefore, the committee drafted the attached proposed changes eliminating the seven year limit. Article 18.104.22.168 is eliminated with wording added to both 22.214.171.124 and 126.96.36.199 to better describe current practice. The vote was unanimous in favor of the amendment.
Section 5. Initial Review
6.5.1 Initiation of Review. The process for conducting an initial review concerning the award of tenure and/or promotion in rank shall be initiated as follows:
188.8.131.52 Prior to the beginning of the spring semester, the Provost shall notify all faculty whose mandatory review year will be the following academic year, with copies provided to department chairs, deans, and/or heads of their administrative units. Upon receipt of this notice or if a faculty member requests it prior to the mandatory review year, the department, school (if there is no departmental structure), or other administrative unit shall initiate procedures for evaluating the candidate for the award of tenure or tenure and promotion in rank.
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. 184.108.40.206 After seven years in the rank of associate professor, At the beginning of the spring semester, a faculty member who believes he or she has the qualifications for promotion, despite the failure of his or her unit to initiate the review process for promotion to full professor, may initiate the promotion review process himself or herself. In such cases the unit will treat the candidate in the same way that it treats other candidates for promotion to the rank of full professor.
Comment on 220.127.116.11
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2017 7:41 PM
To: Keller, Pamela Von Essen
Subject: Notification of Proposed Amendments to Faculty Senate Rules and Regulations FSRR VI, Sections 5 and FSRR 18.104.22.168
I thank you for clarifying this. It has caused consternation this semester within our dept. and it is about time that the rules align with practice.
I am nonetheless concerned about the vague wording of “At the beginning of the spring semester” compared to the earlier wording of “Prior to the beginning of the spring semester,” which has a definite end point…although I agree, it seems a little early. How far into the semester does “at the beginning” extend? To Spring break?
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.
I suppose this vagueness allows leeway, which is good, but also conflict…since some people take it literally…and also we have found that we need to get the process moving earlier in the spring semester to finalize the external reviewers prior to the end of the semester, especially for those going up for Full Professor, since the field of possible reviewers is limited.
Potential Amendment to FSRR 22.214.171.124
(Regarding Conflict of Interest)
Approved by FacEx March 7, 2017
The proposed amendment is the result of the charge to FSRR to “Construct a general statement for inclusion in the Faculty Senate Rules and Regulations which will mitigate conflicts of interest in all hearings related to faculty members’ discipline and/or dismissal.”
Amendment to FSRR 126.96.36.199:
Provide for the adoption of evaluation procedures by units that ensure review is conducted in a manner that avoids conflict of interest and respects faculty rights, including academic freedom and tenure, the confidentiality of personnel matters, and principles of due process, including the right to appeal unfavorable decisions.
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.