• Home
  • Faculty Sente 04/13/17

Faculty Sente 04/13/17

Faculty Senate
April 13, 2017 - 3:30pm
Green Hall-Room 203 - Law School
Agenda: 

 

(immediately following the 3:15 University Senate meeting)

Room 203 Green Hall (Law School)

 

(This meeting may be electronically recorded.)

 

  1. Approval of minutes from March 30, 2017

 

  1. Report of Faculty Senate President Pam Keller

 

  1. Vote on Proposed Amendment FSRR 6.5 (Initial Review)

 

  1. Vote on Proposed Amendment FSRR 7.4.2.2 (Conflict of Interest)

 

  1. Amendment to Faculty Evaluation Policy for Tenure-Track and Tenured Faculty Members

 

  1. Unfinished Business

 

  1. New Business

 

Minutes: 

Minutes

FACULTY SENATE MEETING

April 13, 2017 – 4:00 p.m. – 203 Green Hall

 

Approved April 27, 2017

MEMBERS PRESENT:  Joe Harrington, Pam Keller, Cecile Accilien, Mary Banwart, Ron Barrett-Gonzalez, Tom Beisecker, Ben Chappell, Jonathan Clark, Chris Elles, Pam Fine, Ruben Flores, Jane Gibson, Megan Greene, Lynn Hancock, Elspeth Healey, Kissan Joseph, Elizabeth MacGonagle, Margaret Marco, Jason Matejkowski, Amalia Monroe-Gulick, Paul Outka, Bozenna Pasik-Duncan, Meagan Patterson, Edward Peltier, Roberta Freund Schwartz, Geraldo Sousa, Bill Staples, Dean Stetler, Belinda Sturm

 

ABSENT:  Naima Boussofara (excused), Kelly Chong, Christopher Fischer, Lisa Friis, Sandra Gray, Ebenezer Obadare, Tom Prisinzano, Lance Rake, Angela Rathmel (excused), Suzanne Shontz (excused)

 

ALSO PRESENT: Maureen Altman and Kathy Reed, University Governance; Chancellor Bernadette Gray-Little; Rick Hale, FRPR (Faculty Rights, Privileges, and Responsibilities Committee) Chair; Kevin Smith, Dean of Libraries; Emily Wellborn, UDK.

 

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

 

MINUTES for March 30, 2017 were approved.

 

FACULTY SENATE PRESIDENT REPORT

Keller said she had nothing to report beyond her report to University Senate.

 

VOTE ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT FSRR 6.5 (INTIAL REVIEW)

Keller said she spoke with SPPT (Standards and Procedures for Promotion and Tenure committee) Chair Robb Sorem regarding Senate’s question about why “at the beginning of the spring semester” had been added to 6.5.1.2 and whether it precluded starting sooner.  Explaining that the language had been taken from another section, Sorem said that it was not the intent to preclude starting sooner and that the committee wasn’t trying to change preclude starting earlier. 

Keller showed Senator Angela Rathmel’s proposed amendments and read her question about what happens after the faculty member requests a review. 

Is it currently the expectation that faculty would initiate a request and that request still be subject to the department, school, or administrative unit determining whether those qualification warrant promotion? Or can faculty initiate a process of review, overriding a departmental determination of it being warranted?

Keller’s interpretation was that once a faculty member made a request the unit will put forward the request, not deny it.  Monroe-Gulick proposed an amendment.

Motion to amend adding “or before” to the first sentence after “At”, and “the department, school, or administrative unit” to the last sentence after “if the faculty member requests it”.  Monroe-Gulick/Barrett-Gonzalez.  Passed.

6.5.1.2 As part of the annual faculty evaluation process, At or before 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 faculty member requests it, the department, school, or administrative unit shall initiate procedures for reviewing the faculty member for promotion to full professor.

Motion to approve 6.5.1 as amended.  Passed. 

Senate discussed the issue of timing.  Lynn Hancock expressed concern that a faculty member may not have an opportunity to be reviewed if something which warranted promotion happened near the time of evaluation.  Keller noted that a decision doesn’t have to be made at a specific time.  Meagan Patterson asked if Senate might want to add some broader language saying that a review could be done at any time of the year.   Geraldo Sousa pointed out that the Provost has a timeline which makes it necessary to have a certain amount of time to gather materials.  Expressing her opinion that some women stay in their rank longer than they should and that some departments aren’t as diligent as others in doing evaluations, Belinda Sturm said she agreed with the amendment but said that the “beginning” was fuzzy.   Ron Barrett-Gonzalez offered that the language would light a fire under procrastinators.  Several senators were all right with the amendment as long as the language was not interpreted as restricting evaluations to the beginning of the semester.   

 

VOTE AMENDMENT FSRR 7.4.2.2 (CONFLICT OF INTEREST)

Motion to approve amendments to FSRR 7.4.2.2.  Passed

Motion to table vote.  Barrett/Sousa.  Withdrawn.

Barrett-Gonzalez said that conflict of interest now speaks only to research not broader issues and that a good statement, for example one including spouses or siblings, doesn’t currently exist.  Keller said that the point was to get a general principal into FSRR and suggested Barrett-Gonzalez propose a charge for the FY18 FRPR committee.   

 

Amendment of Faculty Evaluation Policy for Tenure-TRACK and Tenured Faculty Members

Keller explained that the policy doesn’t go through our notification process because it’s not in the University Senate Code or FSRR.  She explained that the reason for changing the time when units review their evaluation policy from three to five years was because three years was too often and by the time the review was completed it was nearly time to review the policy again.  The change would still allow a unit to review sooner than every five years if they chose but would not be required to.

Motion to approve amendment to Faculty Evaluation Policy for Tenure-Track and Tenured Faculty Members.  Beisecker/Seconded.  Passed. 

In response to Barrett-Gonzalez Kathy Reed said that the change had been initiated by a unit and then forwarded to FacEx who approved it.  Ben Chappell expressed strong support since the reviews are burdensome but said he would like it added that the five years be after the policy goes into effect not after this vote.

 

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

none.

 

New Business

Family benefits for tuition assistance of dependents

Hancock explained that the issue had been looked at by Governance in 2012 and 2013 but had been tabled by the administration.  He said that KU is the only Big 12 School without dependent tuition assistance.   Noting that KBOR’s policy is that each school decide and that Staff Senate has been looking at the question, Hancock suggested Senate examine the issue again.  Barrett-Gonzalez suggested spousal assistant be added; Hancock agreed.  Keller suggested it be a charge for next year and Hancock agreed to chair the committee.

ACTION: EXAMINATION OF THE TUITION ASSISTANCE WILL BE MADE A CHARGE FOR FY18. 

The meeting adjourned at 5:09.

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

Maureen Altman

 

MEETING MATERIALS

 

Proposed Amendment to FSRR 6, Section 5

(Regarding Promotion Requests)

Approved by FacEx March 7, 2017

Rationale:

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 6.5.1.3 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 6.5.1.3 is eliminated with wording added to both 6.5.1.1 and 6.5.1.2 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:

6.5.1.1 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.

6.5.1.2 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.

6.5.1.3 After seven years in the rank of associate professor, 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.

Suggestions of Senator Angela Rathmel

Proposed Amendment to FSRR 6, Section 5

(Regarding Promotion Requests)

Approved by FacEx March 7, 2017

Rationale:

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 6.5.1.3 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 6.5.1.3 is eliminated with wording added to both 6.5.1.1 and 6.5.1.2 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:

6.5.1.1 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/or promotion in rank.

6.5.1.2 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 faculty member requests it, it shall initiate procedures for reviewing the faculty member for promotion to full professor.

Question about 6.5.1.2 and the initial proposal to insert the phrase “or if the faculty member requests it”.  Is it currently the expectation that faculty would initiate a request and that request still be subject to the department, school, or administrative unit determining whether those qualification warrant promotion? Or can faculty can initiate a process of review, overriding a departmental determination of it being warranted.  Given my additional proposed edit to keep 6.5.1.3, the initial proposal of this phrase in 6.5.1.2 is not necessary, and even possibly problematic, unless it is intentionally asserting the latter.

6.5.1.3 After seven years in the rank of associate professor, 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 thein rank of full professor.

 

 

Potential Amendment to FSRR 7.4.2.2

(Regarding Conflict of Interest)

Approved by FacEx March 7, 2017

 

FSRR 7.4.2.2

Rationale:

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 7.4.2.2:

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.

 

 

Amendment to Faculty Evaluation Policy for Tenure-Track and Tenured Faculty Members

Rationale

At the October 25, 2016 FacEx (Faculty Senate Executive Committee) meeting Mary Lee Hummert, Vice Provost for Faculty Development, recommended that each unit’s review of its evaluation process should be changed from a requirement of every three years to every five years. The three-year review period reflected a requirement in the KBOR policy manual when the faculty evaluation policy was initially adopted, but it is no longer a KBOR requirement. In practice, the three-year review period placed an administrative burden on departments and schools, and the short time period between reviews discouraged rather than encouraged a close review and possible modifications of department policies. A five-year required review period is proposed to address these unintended consequences of requiring a review every three years. At the same time, there is nothing that would prevent a department from making modifications at any time within the five-year period if necessary. FacEx approved and decided to forward the amendment to Faculty Senate.

Implementation

  1. Evaluation process

Each unit (department or school if a school has no departments) will adopt by a vote of the faculty a modified process of annual evaluation. The process will include a statement of the overall acceptable level of performance that meets faculty academic responsibilities, a system for annual evaluation of faculty, a provision for faculty development, other measures of institutional support, and a statement of a faculty member's right to due process in the event any disagreement should arise in the course of the evaluation. After approval of the process by the dean and Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor (Provost), the policy shall be distributed to all faculty and members of the unit to which it applies. Each unit shall review its evaluation process at least once every three five years and any changes shall be adopted by a faculty vote and approved by the dean and Provost. A current copy of each unit's evaluation process shall be kept on file in the Office of the Provost and the Office of University Governance.

The full policy is located at:

http://policy.ku.edu/university-faculty/faculty-evaluation-tenured-tenure-track


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