Faculty Senate - 4/2/16
(This meeting may be electronically recorded.)
I. Approval of minutes from April 21, 2016
II. Report of Faculty Senate President
III. Discussion of Faculty Code
IV. Old Business
V. New Business
FACULTY SENATE MEETING
April 28, 2016–3:30–203 Green Hall
Approved May 5, 2016
MEMBERS PRESENT: Faculty Mike Williams, Tom Beisecker, Philip Baringer, Ron Barrett-Gonzalez, Jay Childers, Jonathan Clark, Chris Elles Charles Epp, Pam Fine, Lynn Hancock, Joe Harrington, Pamela Keller, Jason Matejkowski, Mario Medina, Amalia Monroe-Gulick Steve Padget, Bozenna Pasik-Duncan, Roberta Freund Schwartz, Geraldo Sousa, Bill Staples, Belinda Sturm, Barbara Timmermann, Lisa Wolf-Wendell
ABSENT: Mary Banwart (excused), Jim Carothers (excused), Kelly Chong, Michael Davidson (excused), Christopher Fischer, Lisa Friis, Andrea Greenhoot (excused), Majid Hannoum (excused), Kissan Joseph, (excused), Paul Laird, Weishi Liu, Jonathan Mayhew, Meagan Patterson (excused), Angela Rathmel (excused), Dean Stetler, Susan Williams (excused)
ALSO PRESENT: Maureen Altman and Kathy Reed, University Governance; Mary Lee Hummert, Vice Provost for Faculty Development; Kirk McClure, Chair of FRPR (Faculty Rights, Privileges and Responsibilities); Paul Johnson; Cecile Accilien
Tom Beisecker called the meeting to order and announced that the meeting was being recorded.
MINUTES for April 21, 2016 were approved. Ron Barrett-Gonzalez requested Gerald Mikkelson’s comments be added to the minutes. Beisecker explained that it was the practice to make non-members’ comments available in the Governance Office.
REPORT OF THE FACULTY SENATE PRESIDENT
Beisecker announced that the Provost Search candidates’ presentations were complete.
REPORT OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE PRESIDENT
DISCUSSION OF FACULTY CODE
Mike Williams made a motion to accept the version of the Faculty Code which had been sent to the faculty of the University in the seven-day notification email [April 22]. Pam Keller seconded the motion.
Williams enumerated some items which he felt represented gains over the current 1971 code: Article I, faculty rights equal to the administration to make changes to the code; Article III, right of actions applied in an impartial manner; anchored references to other code, policies or state statutes which clarify to future readers the reason an item was included in the code; hearings prior rather than after the application of sanctions; significant improvement of response to Leave Without Pay.
Jonathan Clark, Belinda Sturm, Bill Staples and Ron Barrett-Gonzalez opposed the motion requesting more discussion; Sturm and Barrett-Gonzalez wanted the opportunity to express comments from their colleagues. Geraldo Sousa said he couldn’t vote without settling some of the issues. Bozenna Pasik-Duncan expressed frustration with the process, noting that the code may not be perfect but compromise is important. Jay Childers expressed concern that this discussion will be kicked into next year to be considered by new members who have no knowledge of this year’s conversations. Amalia Monroe-Gulick said that at some point there can’t be more comments and Senate needs to vote. Pamela Fine suggested a commitment to vote by a certain date, perhaps next week. Joe Harrington felt that it was better to live with the current code than take one that Senate is not comfortable with. Williams encouraged Senate vote on the code and Beisecker pointed out that amendments are appropriate during discussion of motion to approve.
Reading Section 43 of Roberts Rules of Order, Clark demanded that Beisecker stand down because he believes Beisecker has an opinion and because he stood down at an earlier meeting. Parliamentarian Harrington interpreted Roberts Rules as pertaining to the particular meeting taking place. Pam Keller disagreed with the proposal, saying that Beisecker hasn’t given an opinion on today’s motion. Beisecker took exception to the proposal, citing that he hadn’t expressed an opinion on the current issue.
Monroe-Gulick moved that Article V Leave without Pay be deleted. Sousa seconded the motion.
Williams cited that if deleted a faculty member has fourteen days to appeal and the administration has 14 days to respond, 28 days before even going to FRB (Faculty Rights Board). The revised version provides the quicker response time of ten days which isn’t possible under existing code. Monroe-Gulick pointed out that other regent schools don’t have this type of leave without pay. She felt that there is still the problem of the FRB acting after the sanction and added that the sanction section of the code [Article 6] takes care of the issue addressed in Article V. Strum agreed that Article V is redundant, and added that “other academic responsibilities” in the article is a problem.
Harrington moved that the first amendment be substituted for a secondary amendment to replace Article V with the Leave without Pay text from the KBOR policy manual. Barrett-Gonzales seconded.
Harrington read the Leave Without Pay text from the KBOR policy manual.
The Kansas Board of Regents Policy Manual, Chapter II, Section C. 10b
i. A leave without pay for up to three years may be granted by the chief executive officer of the employing institution when such is judged by the chief executive officer to be in the best interest of the institution. No leave may be granted to any employee who has accepted a permanent position with another postsecondary education institution.
ii. Any extension of a leave without pay beyond three years requires the approval of the Board. The chief executive officer of the employing institution shall provide documentation of extraordinary circumstances justifying the extension of such leave beyond three years.
iii. Leaves without pay shall not be regarded as a break in service; however, such leave shall not count toward the earning of sabbatical leave nor shall other than a scholarly leave count toward the tenure probationary period. Scholarly leave shall count toward the tenure probationary period unless the employee and the institution agree in writing to the contrary at the time the leave is granted.
iv. During a leave of absence without pay, an employee's eligibility for health insurance shall be determined by and be in accord with the policies, rules and regulations of the State Employees Health Insurance Commission.
Clark expressed no objection to the adding the KBOR policy. Lisa Wolf-Wendell pointed out that the KBOR Leave Without Pay and Leave Without Pay in Article V are completely different; Lynn Hancock agreed, noting that KBOR’s policy is voluntary whereas Leave Without Pay in Article V is a punishment. The Senators discussed whether areas of Article VI made Article V redundant. Keller explained that article VI regarded suspension in which a faculty member would continue to be paid until a hearing determined whether a suspension would be imposed whereas Article V isn’t a suspension but pay is taken away. Chuck Epps felt a sanction would be more onerous than Leave Without Pay and the current Leave Without Pay seemed reasonable. Pasik-Duncan commented that perhaps a message should be sent if a faculty member isn’t fulfilling his/her responsibility. Harrington expressed that abandonment of classes is not the only reason for Leave Without Pay; “other academic responsibilities” is a cause as well. Williams noted that the other responsibilities are explained earlier in the code. Williams pointed out that the inclusion of the required action by FRB within ten-days is a protection against the administration. Barrett-Gonzalez questioned whether FRB was capable of acting within ten days.
There was a call to question. The body voted on the motions.
Motion that the first amendment be substituted for a secondary amendment to replace Article V with the Leave without Pay language from the KBOR policy manual. Harrington/Barrett-Gonzales. Yeas, 14; nays, 7. Passed.
Motion to replace the language in the current Article V Leave Without Pay with the language from the KBOR policy manual. Yeas, 11; nays 9, abstentions, 2. Passed.
Sousa moved that text in the third sentence of the first paragraph of Article VI be changed to:
“As stated in Article III.7 of this code, sanctions may not be imposed upon a faculty member without notice of the charges against him or her and
the opportunity to request the faculty member has the right to a prompt hearing before the Judicial Board or the Faculty Rights Board. Barrett-Gonzalez seconded.
Keller pointed out that faculty have the right to an appeal before the Faculty Rights Board (FRB) but a hearing is the decision of the FRB, and moved that the language contain “appeal” as well as “hearing”; she also moved to delete “to request” which seemed to soften the right. Barrett-Gonzalez seconded.
Motion that the first amendment be substituted for the secondary amendment. Keller/Wolf-Wendell. Passed.
Motion to amend the third sentence of the first paragraph in Article VI with the following language: “As stated in Article III.7 of this code, sanctions may not be imposed upon a faculty member without notice of the charges against him or her and the opportunity
to request for a hearing or appeal before the Judicial Board or the Faculty Rights Board”. Keller/Barrett-Gonzalez. Passed
Barrett-Gonzalez expressed concern over the faculty responsibility to hold office hours as required in Article IV Section 1c, citing that faculty who must travel and can’t hold regular office hours could be subject to sanction. Roberta Freund Schwartz suggested an amendment.
Motion that the language of Article IV Section 1c, be amended to “holding regular office hours or being available for consultation”; Schwartz/Barrett-Gonzalez. Passed unanimously.
Noting that Faculty Senate has been working four years on the new Faculty Code, Harrington said he didn’t see why Senate can’t start amending the current code and adding those improvements which the administration and faculty have reached a consensus on. He moved that Senate table the proposed code.
Williams argued the motion was inappropriate since the latest draft is based on the current code, and, pointed to the side by side document distributed at the last meeting as showing how much alike the code and draft were. Some expressed objection to starting over, citing that the new draft is a significant improvement and noting that if the proposed code is adopted it isn’t written in stone, is adaptive, and could still be amended. Harrington objected that amending would be too difficult, and, since he sensed people weren’t comfortable with voting, recommended pushing work on the code to next year when Senate could use this draft to start putting items into a new code. Others felt that more discussion was needed and requested looking at the strikethrough and color-coded changes made by the administration which were in an earlier document. In response to Harrington’s concern that Senate is responsible for approving a code for all faculty, Keller pointed out that while it is a serious concern to be responsible for so many Senate has looked at the document more than anyone and is in the best position to vote. Beisecker pointed out that Senate has one more meeting this year to vote on the current draft.
Motion to table indefinitely. Harrington/Sousa. Failed.
Motion to table the code for one week and vote at the next meeting. Fine/Barrett-Gonzalez. Passed.
The meeting adjourned at 5:21.