• Home
  • Faculty Senate 2/23/17

Faculty Senate 2/23/17

Faculty Senate
February 23, 2017 - 3:30pm
Green Hall-Room 203 - Law School
Agenda: 

 

I.  Approval of minutes from February 9, 2017

II.  Report of Faculty Senate President Pam Keller

III.  Speaker: Josh Bolick, Scholarly Communications Librarian

IV.  Proposed Amendments FSRR 6.1.2, 6.2.1.1 and 7.4.1

V.  FSRR 7.5 Amendment

VI. Faculty Unionization Resolution

VII. Unfinished Business

VIII.  New Business

Minutes: 

Minutes

FACULTY SENATE MEETING

February 23, 2017 – 4:00 p.m. – 203 Green Hall

Approved March 9, 2017

MEMBERS PRESENT:  Faculty Joe Harrington, Pam Keller, Cecile Accilien, Ron Barrett-Gonzalez, Tom Beisecker, Naima Boussofara, Ben Chappell, Jonathan Clark, Chris Elles, Christopher Fischer, Ruben Flores, Jane Gibson, Megan Greene, Lynn Hancock, Kissan Joseph, Margaret Marco, Jason Matejkowski, Amalia Monroe-Gulick, Ebenezer Obadare, Bozenna Pasik-Duncan, Meagan Patterson, Edward Peltier, Tom Prisinzano, Lance Rake, Angela Rathmel, Suzanne Shontz, Geraldo Sousa, Bill Staples, Dean Stetler, Belinda Sturm

ABSENT:  Mary Banwart, Kelly Chong (excused), Pam Fine (excused), Lisa Friis (excused), Sandra Gray, Elspeth Healey (excused), Elizabeth MacGonagle, Paul Outka (excused), Roberta Freund Schwartz  

ALSO PRESENT: Maureen Altman and Kathy Reed, University Governance; Neeli Bendapudi, Provost; Mary Lee Hummert, Vice Provost for Faculty Development; Kathryn Clark, Faculty member; Satya Mandal, Mathematics; Emily Wellborn, Ashley Hocking, University Daily Kansan (UDK)

President Pam Keller called the meeting to order and announced that the meeting is recorded.    

MINUTES for February 9, 2017 were approved. 

REPORT OF THE FACULTY SENATE PRESIDENT

The only addition Keller had to the report she had given at the University Senate meeting was an announcement that Josh Bolick, who had been scheduled to speak about Open Educational Resource, agreed to attend the next meeting so there would be more time for today’s agenda.

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO FSRR 6.1.2, 6.2.1.1 AND 7.4.1

Keller explained that FRPR, who had been charged to look at including various AAUP statements in the FSRR, had proposed the amendments.  FacEx then approved and forwarded the amendments to Faculty Senate for discussion after the required seven-day notification to faculty.  Referring to the amendment process Keller explained that the practice has been that when there is a rule change it goes through FacEx/SenEx and/or a committee.  A senator can always bring an issue to the floor later. 

Keller noted that motions weren’t needed because FacEx had already moved on the amendments.

Keller explained that in order to vote on the amendments at this discussion meeting which is the first meeting after the notification email was sent to faculty a two-thirds vote was needed.

Motion to vote on FSRR 6.1.2 today.  Sousa/Flores.  Passed.

Motion to adopt amendment to FRSS 6.1.2.  Passed.

Regarding FSRR 6.1.2 Keller explained that there had been no reference to the AAUP 1970 interpretive comments on the 1940 Statement on Academic Freedom and Tenure because of a title error so FRPR had proposed the amendment to FSRR 6.1.2 to correct the error.

 Proposed Revisions: 

6.1.2 Academic Freedom and Tenure Policy. These standards and procedures are adopted pursuant to and shall be construed in conformity with the policies of the Kansas Board of Regents concerning promotion, tenure, and non-reappointment. The University of Kansas subscribes to the 1940 American Association of University Professors (AAUP) statement on Academic Freedom and Tenure with 1970 Interpretive Comments and/or any amendments or revisions to that statement adopted by the Kansas Board of Regents.

Keller explained that FRPR had been charged to consider adding the AAUP 1975 Statement on Teaching Evaluation to the FSRR.  FRPR decided instead to add a few principles from the statement 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.

She pointed out that in 6.2.1.1 the only change was the addition of “through the process of peer review” and read the changes in 7.4.1

                Proposed Revisions

6.2.1.1 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.

7.4.1 In accordance with Board of Regents policy, the University evaluates faculty performance through annual evaluation and periodic post-tenure review. faculty evaluation criteria, procedures and instruments shall be developed through faculty participation in each department, college or division and recorded to express the performance expectations of faculty therein. Faculty evaluations include annual evaluation and periodic post-tenure review. Faculty evaluation ensures accountability and promotes development and achievement by recognizing and rewarding contributions and accomplishments, identifying the support needed to facilitate faculty success, and addressing areas of performance that need improvement. Such evaluations include both annual evaluations for all faculty and periodic post-tenure review.

Motion to vote on FSRR 6.2.1.1 and 7.4.1.  Barrett-Gonzalez/Souse.  Passed.

Motion to consider FSRR 6.2.1.1 and 7.4.1.  Barrett-Gonzalez/Sousa.  Passed.

Angela Rathmel expressed concern for units that might not have a peer review process for evaluations.  Mary Lee Hummert interpreted that all should but some schools are different.  Ben Chappell expressed concern that while the spirit of the amendment is that the peer review process is considered in teaching, the amendment seems to be concerned with “a faculty member’s record”; he would like to make sure that “a faculty member’s record” includes teaching.  He noted that in other contexts like promotion and tenure peer review might signify outside letters and there might be other specific practices other than the annual departmental evaluation.  Chappell wanted clarification that peer review means annual departmental evaluation so that it’s not imposing a new burden.  At Keller’s suggestion that it might be less confusing if the amendments were considered separately, Barrett and Sousa withdrew their motion to consider FSRR 6.2.1.1 and 7.4.1.

Motion to approve FSRR 7.4.1.  Sousa/Barrett-Gonzalez.  Passed.

Motion to table FSRR 6.2.1.1.  Sousa/Shontz.  Passed

Keller will look into getting clarification on FSRR 6.2.1.1 

FSRR 7.5. AMENDMENT

Keller said that at a minimum she needed clarification regarding FSRR 7.5.  When the amendment was brought up at the last meeting she interpreted that it was meant to be put on the agenda not to trigger initial consideration which would require that the entire faculty community be notified by email seven days before the Faculty Senate meeting where it would be discussed and, if two-thirds of the Senate agree, voted on.  Barrett-Gonzales moved, and Geraldo Sousa seconded, that FSRR be put on the agenda for the next meeting but not trigger initial consideration, and that the meeting be adjourned.  Passed.    

FACULTY UNIONIZATION RESOLUTION

There was no time for consideration of the resolution.

Unfinished Business

None.

 

New Business

None.

 

The meeting adjourned at 5:07

 

Respectfully submitted,

Maureen Altman

 

MEETING MATERIALS

 

Proposed Amendments to FSRR 6.1.2, 6.2.1.1, 7.4.1 and 7.4.2

February 2017

Proposed amendment to FSRR 6.1.2

 

Rationale:
This recommendation is in response to FRPR’s specific charge 3(a): “Consider, then if appropriate, propose the inclusion of the AAUP 1970 Interpretive Statement in FSRR 6.1.2 to the FacEx..”  Since the correct title of the document as published (if properly cited) is 1940 AAUP Statement on Academic Freedom and Tenure with 1970 Interpretive Comments, FRPR decided the easiest way to fulfill the charge is to correct the title. FRPR found nothing in the 1970 comments objectionable, and several pages’ worth of professional associations endorsed it since 1970.

 

Proposed Revisions: 

6.1.2 Academic Freedom and Tenure Policy. These standards and procedures are adopted pursuant to and shall be construed in conformity with the policies of the Kansas Board of Regents concerning promotion, tenure, and non-reappointment. The University of Kansas subscribes to the 1940 American Association of University Professors (AAUP) statement on Academic Freedom and Tenure with 1970 Interpretive Comments and/or any amendments or revisions to that statement adopted by the Kansas Board of Regents.

Proposed amendment to FSRR 6.2.1.1, and 7.4.1

Rationale:

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 7.4.2.1 (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.

Proposed Revisions

6.2.1.1 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.

7.4.1 In accordance with Board of Regents policy, the University evaluates faculty performance through annual evaluation and periodic post-tenure review. faculty evaluation criteria, procedures and instruments shall be developed through faculty participation in each department, college or division and recorded to express the performance expectations of faculty therein. Faculty evaluations include annual evaluation and periodic post-tenure review. Faculty evaluation ensures accountability and promotes development and achievement by recognizing and rewarding contributions and accomplishments, identifying the support needed to facilitate faculty success, and addressing areas of performance that need improvement. Such evaluations include both annual evaluations for all faculty and periodic post-tenure review.

Faculty Proposal to Faculty Senate

February 2017

 

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.”

and

 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.

Accordingly:

FSRR 7.5

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.

 

 

Unionization Resolution

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.


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.
—ALA
23rd nationwide for service to veterans —"Best for Vets," Military Times
KU Today
Governance Meetings