May 2, 2017 - 3:00pm
Provost’s Conference Room


(This meeting may be electronically recorded.)



I.          Report of University Senate President Suzanne Shontz

II.        Information for SenEx Summer Meeting



I.                    Approval of minutes from April 18, 2017


II.                    Standing Reports

          A.        University Senate President Joe Harrington

          B.        Faculty Senate President Pam Keller

          C.        Student Senate President Gabby Naylor

          D.        Staff Senate President Liz Phillips


III.                    Consideration of Proposed Amendment USRR 1.4.6 for referral to an appropriate committee  



IV.                    Proposed amendments and additions to IT Policies


V.                    Proposed amendments to Non-Reappointment for UPS and Staff Grievance Procedure


VI.                    Unfinished Business


VII.                     New Business




May 2, 2017 – 3:00 p.m.

Provost Conference Room

Joint Meeting of FY17 and FY18 SenEx Committees




Approved: June 1, 2017

MEMBERS PRESENT: Suzanne Shontz, Ruben Flores, Amalia Monroe-Gulick, Kirk McClure, Shawn Alexander, Mattie Carter, Pam Fine, Michelle Ginavan Hayes, Brian Moss, Roberta Schwartz


FY17 MEMBERS ABSENT: David Day (excused), John Foster, Jessica Guardiola, Brittney Oleniacz, 


ALSO PRESENT: Joe Harrington, Pam Keller, Gabby Naylor, Liz Phillips, and Charlotte Goodman, FY17 SenEx members; Maureen Altman and Kathy Reed, University Governance; Sara Shepherd, LJ World; Mohamed El-Hodiri, Faculty/University Senate member


Suzanne Shontz called the meeting to order and announced that the meeting was being recorded.



Shontz asked the group to introduce themselves.  SenEx applauded the new University Senate officers President-Elect Ruben Flores and Vice President Mattie Carter who had been elected at last Thursday’s April 27 University Senate meeting.    



Shontz explained that there would be a SenEx meeting in the summer to determine University Senate Committee charges for the 2017-2018 school year and asked SenEx to fill out the schedule they received so the meeting could be scheduled.    


Meeting adjourned at 3:07


Respectfully submitted,

Maureen Altman


Meeting was followed by the FY18 FacEx meeting.





MEMBERS PRESENT: Joe Harrington, Suzanne Shontz, Pam Keller, Amalia Monroe-Gulick, Pam Fine, Ruben Flores, Charlotte Goodman, Brian Moss, Gabby Naylor, Liz Phillips


MEMBERS ABSENT: Alex Erwin, Dylan Jones, Jacob Murray, Ebenezer Obadare


ALSO PRESENT: FY18 SenEx members Shawn Alexander, Michelle Ginivan-Hayes, Charlotte Goodman, Jessica Guardiola, Kirk McClure, Roberta Schwartz; Maureen Altman and Kathy Reed, University Governance; Sara Shepherd, LJWorld


Joe Harrington called the meeting to order and announced that the meeting was recorded.


MINUTES for April 18, 2017 were approved


Report of University Senate President

Harrington had nothing to report since Thursday’s University Senate meeting


Pam Keller had nothing to report since Thursday’s University Senate meeting


Gabby Naylor reported that Student Senate was finalizing their sexual violence provider fund, as well as the mentorship program for first generation students which will be ready in fall.


Liz Phillips she had nothing to report.



Harrington reminded SenEx that at last Thursday’s April 27 meeting University Senate had voted to refer proposed amendment USRR 1.4.6, concerning exceptions to exams, to SenEx to decide on an appropriate committee to look at the proposal.  Since the FY18 SenEx will be creating charges Harrington suggested SenEx make a recommendation to them today.  Because it originated in Student Senate, Harrington suggested that consideration of USRR 1.4.6 be a charge for FY18 AP&P (Academic Policies & Procedures Committee) whose standing charges include “consider input from Student Senate on desired changes to academic policies”.  SenEx agreed.   


Proposed amendments and additions to IT Policies

Harrington asked Suzanne Shontz to explain some of the concerns she and the EECS (Electrical Engineering and Computer Science) department had with the four proposed IT policies which had been sent (along with her comments) with the SenEx agenda.  (Her comments are in the meeting materials linked at the end of the minutes).  Rather than going through each policy, she offered a summary of concerns.  Although she understood IT’s need for security she said limiting the university to one system could affect EECS’s faculty and students since some research requires a specific system, and students need access to more than one system because they are learning how to use several operating systems.  She agreed that if someone caused a virus they should be shut down but expressed concern about the extent of the reach of the policy which she felt was severe at the lower level.  Shontz noted that the policy would control her cell phone while not paying her bill; Harrington added that it was also a problem that, since any device used for University business is included, personal computers would be controlled by the policy.  Regarding the Server Hosting Policy Shontz said she wanted the accommodation for exceptions but expressed concerns about the skill sets that would be required if all systems were put under IT.  She questioned how the person in charge of the unit could classify all the data of the department, adding the example that she has defense research that person wouldn’t necessarily know about.  Harrington said it was unclear what the policy meant by highest risk, public distrust and damage to the University’s reputation.  Amalia Monroe-Gulick said the overall problem is that the working group is limited; it includes IT General Council and the Policy Office with no input from faculty (particularly Computer Science faculty).  She suggested that a working group of faculty and staff is needed; Shontz thought it was odd that the policy wouldn’t want to wait for the new CIO to weigh in.  She also pointed out, and others agreed, that there shouldn’t be a flood of comment periods with short deadlines left to the end of the year.  Harrington offered to look at draft minutes of today’s meeting, list SenEx’s concerns, and with SenEx approval send them to IT, General Counsel, and the Policy Office.

Motion: Joe Harrington will send a list of the concerns about the proposed IT policies expressed at today’s meeting to SenEx for approval and then forward approved comments to IT, General Counsel, and the Policy Office.  Flores/Fine.  Passed. 



Harrington explained that the proposed policies were from HR, General Counsel and the Policy Office.  Since they addressed staff non-reappointment and grievance policies he asked staff members to express any concerns about the proposals.  Citing the language “in the best interest of the University” in the proposed Notice of Non-reappointment Policy, Brian Moss observed that although non-reappointment should be in the best interest of the University this policy makes it one of the grounds while not being clear who decides “best interest”.  Phillips agreed adding that staff was told the Provost Office would make the decision but pointed out that often the dean or provost doesn’t know about the non-reappointment. 

Regarding the proposed grievance policy, Phillips explained that the big issue was that since UPS (Unclassified Professional Staff) has no grievance procedures a new policy was supposed to mirror the policy that exists for USS (University Support Staff), but it doesn’t.  In response to Keller’s question of whether the USS policy it is meant to mirror is good, Phillips said that it is a clone of the state’s policy.  She added that when the classified staff was changed staff was told they would have the same state protections but as Reed pointed out that only USS retained the protections, not UPS.  Harrington read the anonymous comments he had received regarding the proposed grievance policy:

               ·        What are eligible university support staff? 

·        USRR 6.4.15 does not give the unclassified staff member the ability to appeal to anyone but the provost office, which was not a neutral office.  They are not changing that, other than to say the grievance process goes to HR.  They are not a neutral office, oh wait I already said that.

·        HRM is the body receiving the complaint or the Vice Provost if the complaint involves HRM, these parties do not appear to be “neutral.” 

·        HRM appoints a staff committee to consider the complaint.  No mention of a Law member, or what type of list is used to “appoint” staff members to the committee.   

·        Now we have a chair appointed by HRM or the Associate Vice Provost making a determination to dismiss an grievance.  What type of training or legal knowledge does this person have? 

·        If the chair determines that a grievance should be heard by another body? The chair will recommend that the Associate Vice Provost send the grievance to the appropriate hearing body.  I’m not sure what other body they might be referring to. 

He asked Moss and Phillips if SenEx should comment or if staff had already commented.  They responded that their comments were not heeded and believed that comments from SenEx would bear more weight.  Harrington asked them to draft a letter, explaining what is wrong with the policy, which he will circulate to SenEx for approval before sending comments. 

Motion: Liz Phillips and Brian Moss will send a comment letter regarding the proposed staff policies to Harrington for SenEx approval; Harrington will send approved comment letter to the Policy Office.  Keller/Monroe-Gulick.  Passed.








Keller and Harrington thanked everyone for their work this year.  Flores thanked them for their leadership.


Meeting adjourned at 3:56


Respectfully submitted,

Maureen Altman


Meeting was followed by the FY17 FacEx meeting






Proposed Amendment--USRR 1.4.6

Approved by Student Senate April 5, 2017

Sent to SenEx by University Senate for Referral to Appropriate University Senate Committee April 27, 2017


Rationale (excerpted from Student Senate Final Bill Number 2017-315:

The necessity to protect students inundated by a life-changing event is currently unaddressed in the current USRR.  There currently exists protections in the USRR for “Students with a verifiable medical crisis of a relative or friend.” [However] many of these life-changing events primarily effect older, non-traditional and graduate students, who can least afford the lack of protection.  Students should not be punished due to the dictates of capitalism or bureaucracy especially in regard to the free-market availability of goods and services.


USRR 1.4.6 Students with a verifiable qualifying life event, (as defined by the IRS) or witnessing a qualifying life event for an immediate family member, may be excused from being present for scheduled examinations and tests. It is the responsibility of the student to initiate discussion with the instructor, prior to the examination/test if possible. The instructor and student shall come to a mutually agreeable method of making up the missed work to protect students experiencing a life-changing event.



IT Proposed Policies


Shontz Comments on IT Policies



Corrective measures & Appeals Policy Proposals


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