• Home
  • SenEx-University Senate Executive Committee 09/13/16

SenEx-University Senate Executive Committee 09/13/16

SenEx
September 13, 2016 - 3:00pm
Provost’s Conference Room
Agenda: 
  1. Announcements
     
  2. Approval of minutes from August 30, 2016
     
  3. 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

  1. Ad Hoc Cost Saving Committee
  1. University Policy Program (a.k.a. “Policy on Policies”)
  1. DEI committee
  1. Goals for Year
  1. Unfinished Business
  1. New Business
Minutes: 
Approved September 27, 2016

MEMBERS PRESENT: Joe Harrington, Pam Keller, Suzanne Shontz, Amalia Monroe-Gulick, Tom Beisecker, Ruben Flores, Charlotte Goodman, Dylan Jones, Brian Moss, Jacob Murray, Gabby Naylor, Brittney Oleniacz, Liz Phillips

FY17 MEMBERS ABSENT: Pam Fine

ALSO PRESENT: Maureen Altman and Kathy Reed, University Governance; Mohamed El-Hodiri, AAUP; Jonathan Clark, Ron Barrett-Gonzalez, University Senate.

Joe Harrington called the meeting to order and asked for announcements. He urged everyone to complete the Climate Survey.

MINUTES for August 30, 2016 were approved.

Report of University Senate President
Joe Harrington said he had nothing new to report since last Thursday’s University Senate meeting.

REPORT OF FACULTY SENATE PRESIDENT
Pam Keller reported that the Faculty Code, approved by Faculty Senate at last Thursday’s September 8 meeting, was forwarded to the Provost last Friday, September 9 and awaits approval from the Chancellor.

REPORT OF STUDENT SENATE PRESIDENT
Gabby Naylor reported that this was the first day of Freshmen elections.  Noting that the turnout has not been very good so far, she asked SenEx to encourage Freshmen to vote.  She added that five to ten new replacement senators will be joining full senate at next week’s meeting

REPORT OF sTAFF SENATE PRESIDENT
Since Staff Senate hasn’t met yet this month Liz Phillips didn’t have a meeting report.  She reported that she, Brian Moss (Staff Senate President Elect), and Chris Wallace (Staff Senator) will meet tomorrow with KBOR, representing UPS, Unclassified Professional Staff, (Phillips and Moss) and USS, University Senate Staff, (Wallace).

Ad Hoc Cost Saving Committee
(Document explaining committee in “meeting materials” at the end of the minutes.)
Reminding SenEx that at last Thursday’s September 8 University Senate meeting members voted to have SenEx consider Ron Barrett-Gonzalez’ proposal to establish an Ad Hoc Cost Saving Committee, Harrington introduced Barrett-Gonzalez who presented information about the proposal.  Barrett-Gonzalez explained that his concerns about the health of the institution, particularly in light of Topeka’s budget cuts, had prompted him to suggest the Ad Hoc Cost Saving Committee, and added that he believed the committee would lend cover to the Chancellor since cuts would be recommended by the committee and not appear to be made purely arbitrarily without university input.  He suggested the committee be comprised of faculty, students, and staff from a wide variety of departments and disciplines across campus who would look at inefficient practices across campus and report to the administration.  He recommended that the committee set a time frame that would be suitable for having impact on the budget.  Harrington questioned whether work similar to the proposed committee was already being done by P&R (the University Senate Planning and Resources Committee) or if the administration possibly has a website where people can make suggestions.  The suggestion was made to add cost saving P&R, possibly making the cost saving committee a subcommittee with two-year terms so information from the Climate Survey results could be used.  Beisecker pointed out that Barrett-Gonzalez seemed to be proposing something different than what P&R does, in that P&R has never been a committee to ferret out inefficiencies but rather looks at the budget and tries to bring Governance a sense of what the University’s issues are; Barrett-Gonzalez agreed.  Keller expressed concern that the committee be careful to make sure that suggested cuts truly help the university and were not simply made because a unit had more money.  She also noted that it would be critical that the committee work with P&R particularly because of their information about the budget.  Harrington proposed he speak to P&R and administration about what they were doing about cost savings. SenEx agreed.
ACTION: HARRINGTON WILL HAVE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE ADMINISTRATION AND P&R TO GET INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT THEY ARE DOING ABOUT COST SAVING AND HOW THAT WOULD TIE IN WITH THE AD HOC COMMITTEE, AND REPORT BACK TO SENEX.

University policy program (a.k.a. “policy on policies”)
As a follow-up to University Senate’s decision last Thursday (September 8) to forward Jonathan Clark’s recommendation to look at the University Policy Program, Clark addressed SenEx about the policy (handouts at the end of the minutes under “meeting materials”).  He explained to SenEx that Harrington had discovered the policy during last year’s Faculty Code discussion about policy ownership. Clark explained his concerns that although this is a key policy which governs all other policies, containing the constitutional statement of legality of all documents, Governance is not included, and that is a top down policy which negates shared governance.  Giving evidence that he was not exaggerating the danger of the policy, Clark referred to his handout of the email to the History Department which required that their Post Tenure Review Policy be placed in the Policy Library, and explained how it should be revised.  Clark made three recommendations: that SenEx (1) reaffirm the principals of shared governance so governance is in agreement with administration; (2) look over the policy to see if they agree with it, and (3) look at the policies in the Policy Library to see if they agree they should be placed there.  Keller noted that the policy legally doesn’t take away Governance’s authority to govern because that comes from the University Senate Code.  She observed that this could be a policy that covers those apart from Governance, and prevents policies from being created haphazardly.  Reed added that she spoke with the Policy Office when the University Policy Program was created and was assured Governance was not under the policy.  Harrington suggested that perhaps that point should be made more explicit.  Beisecker suggested that it would be helpful to have a policy person speak to SenEx and that while it could simply be a digest it would be good to find out if there is a problem.
Motion that SenEx invite the appropriate person in the Policy Library to address SenEx and explain the role of the “policy on policies”.  Beisecker/Keller.  Passed.
Clark suggested asking General Council for clarification.  Harrington agreed.  Keller expressed that the Policy Library is just a repository and cautioned to be careful of calling it something beyond that.  Monroe-Gulick said that clarification is needed as to whether it is simply a repository and how much power the policy holds.  Clark expressed his belief that it is not simply a repository but gives policy control to the Provost.
ACTION: SENEX WILL INVITE THE APPROPRIATE PERSON TO ADDRESS SENEX AND EXPLAIN THE ROLE OF THE “POLICY ON POLICIES”.

DEI COMMITTEE
Harrington reminded SenEx that the idea of creating a diversity committee to follow up on the work of the DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) Committee had been brought up at the SenEx meeting this summer but there wasn’t time to discuss it.  In light of the fact that it has since been confirmed that the DEI Committee will continue, Harrington asked SenEx for their thoughts on forming a committee.  It was decided that since student and staff senates have diversity committees and DEI is continuing SenEx should wait to see how SenEx can integrate and be of most value. 

GOALS FOR THE YEAR
Harrington asked SenEx members to let the committee know what issues are of concern to their constituencies.  Suzanne Shontz said she and Barrett-Gonzalez are still looking at the IP policy and will give SenEx more information later.  Phillips mentioned staff concerns: weapons on campus; the logistics of conforming to the Tobacco Initiative (which will go into effect in fall of 2018), for instance where smokers would go; inequities between Athletics housing versus other student housing; how budget cuts might affect jobs.  Staff Senate President-Elect Brian Moss also added that financial literacy, educating students about what’s out there, is a concern; he added that the topic was addressed about six years ago and the website looked like it hadn’t been updated since.  Flores expressed concern that that area study centers had lost half of their funding; Phillips added that loss of research funds was a concern to staff as well.  Naylor said that access to higher education is an issue, how students and KU employees access KU and how much they know about processes.  Oleniacz added GTAs issues: better training for GTAs; cultural competency training; funding for GTA printing; research funding; professional development (what do MAs and PhDs do with their degrees).  Questioning what the University’s priority regarding accessibility matters was Monroe-Gulick suggested accessibility might be an issue to look at.  Clark suggested the senate give publicity to the Ad Hoc Gender Equity Committee. 

UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None

NEW BUSINESS
None

Meeting adjourned at 3:54

Respectfully submitted,

Maureen Altman

MEETING MATERIALS


University Senate
Ad Hoc Committee on Cost Savings and Efficiency Enhancement

Purpose:
To save resources while enhancing or minimally impacting the Teaching, Research and Service functions and long-term viability of KU.
Recommended Committee Structure:
Students, Faculty and Staff representing a wide variety of departments and disciplines across campus.
Recommended Committee Actions:
Construct a survey mechanism to poll faculty, staff, students and alumni for cost-saving ideas. (Make such a mechanism anonymous, but with an option to self-identify, come and describe opportunity to committee.)

  1. Collect surveys;
  2. Examine budgets, commission studies as necessary;
  3. Decide on priorities;
  4. Enlist expert help from within KU for cost savings and impact analysis;
  5. Make recommendations publicly to the Administration.

UNIVERSITY POLICY PROGRAM
(A.K.A. “POLICY ON POLICIES”)

http://policy.ku.edu/university-policy-program  

Jonathan Clark’s Handouts

Handout 1.

The University Policy Program

AAUP Report to SenEx, 13 September 2016
The 'University Policy Program' is the document that claims to govern all policies in the Provost's Policy Library. It is therefore of the highest importance, and well deserves the consideration of SenEx. Senators will note several of its striking features:

  1. On p. 4, under 'Review, Approval & Change History', it reveals that this document was never approved by the Senate.
  1. On p. 2, under 'Policy Hierarchy', it reveals that the Senate has no role whatever in the drafting and adoption of policies.
  1. On p. I, under 'Policy Statement', it asserts that 'It is anticipated and encouraged that all policies ultimately reside in the policy library'. This represents a degree of centralisation of which the university was hitherto unaware.
  1. On p. 3, under 'Policy owner', it contains the only definition of the 'ownership' of policies in any purported governance document. It is, moreover, sweeping in its implications: 'The unit with primary subject matter responsibility for interpretation, enforcement, review, and compliance with the policy.' This implies virtually total control. The phrase 'primary subject matter responsibility' is not defined but could be held to determine control.
  1. On p. 1, under 'University-wide policies', it reads: 'The chancellor has final authority to establish University-wide policies'. No mention is made of shared governance.
  1. On p. 2, under 'Campus-specific policies', it reads: 'The appropriate provost or executive vice chancellor, or designee, has final authority to establish campus-specific policies.' No mention is made of shared governance.
  1. On p. 2, under 'Unit-specific policies', it reads: 'The appropriate provost or executive vice chancellor, dean, or designee, has final authority to establish unit-specific policies.' No mention is made of shared Governance.

Recommendations:

  1.  SenEx should reaffirm the basic principle of shared governance that no university-generated policy is valid unless approved by both the University Senate (or Faculty Senate where appropriate) and the Chancellor. The University  is,  of  course,  subject  to  Federal  and  State law, and  to KBOR  regulations.
  2. SenEx should recommend that the Senate examine this document and amend it where appropriate, possibly through a sub-committee of SenEx.
  1. SenEx should recommend that Senate determine which  policies  have  been  placed  in the Provost's Library, and make  recommendations,  if  appropriate,  about  replacing  them  in  the custody of the units or of an archival repository.

Handout 2.

From: Richardson, Susann on behalf of CLAS Faculty Events
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 7:46 AM
To: Levin, Eve
Cc: Kelton, Paul T, Spiridigliozzi, Erin A.
Subject: HIST Call for Faculty Evaluation Plan Review

Call for Faculty Evaluation Plan (FEP) Review
Per the University policy on Faculty Evaluation (http://policy.ku.edu/provost/faculty-evaluation-tenured-tenure-track) - each unit shall review its evaluation process at least once every three years, and any changes shall be adopted by a faculty vote and approved by the Dean and Provost.
Attached is your unit's most recent FEP for your faculty's approval. Please note that the formatting has been updated for posting in the Policy Library.
The guidelines, transmission cover page, and template for faculty evaluation plans are attached and are also available on the Faculty Development Web Site http://facultydevelopment.ku.edu/annual-evaluation
This template mirrors the previous template with the following exceptions:
A required new section on integration of the post-tenure review results into the annual evaluation process, as required under the Post-tenure Review policy.
A request to outline the department's mentoring program for associate professors whereas previously this request was limited to mentoring for assistant professors. If your unit does not already address mentoring for associate professors, please add this to section 7.
We have updated your current FEP with the new section on post-tenure review (Section 5), using information from your unit's Post-tenure Review Criteria and Guidelines document.  Of the three bullets in this section, only the first bullet is unit-specific. The remaining two are boilerplate text and cannot be changed.  You can revise the first bullet, but this will also revision to your unit's Post-tenure Review Criteria and Guidelines document.
One additional change has been made to your FEP.  In section 6, the following boiler plate text is replacing the old text.

New Text:
The evaluation process of the Department of _________, seen in all its aspects, yields multiple outcomes. It acknowledges faculty accomplishments or shortcomings and makes them matters of record. It initiates discussions that influence the planning of both individual career development and unit evolution.  It assists in the identification of opportunities for faculty improvement and renewal.  It provides annual as well as cumulative data for merit-salary recommendations, sabbatical-leave and grant applications, tenure and promotion decisions, post-tenure review, and reassignments of responsibilities. And it provides documentation that may be used, at extremes, in support of either recognition or dismissal.
Old Text:
The annual evaluation process yields multiple outcomes, including initiation of discussions influencing career and department planning, identification of faculty development or renewal activities and data for merit salary determination. Furthermore, the faculty performance evaluation process yields documentation for special recognitions and cumulative data supporting personnel decisions, such as progress toward tenure and/or promotion reviews, reassignment of responsibilities, and recommendation of dismissal based on evidence of sustained failure to meet academic responsibilities.

The Provost Office has requested that all faculty-reviewed/approved FEPs be forwarded to their office no later than November 30, 2016.  Therefore, we are requesting approved FEPs, along with the signed Evaluation Plan Transmission Cover Page, be returned to our office via clasfaculty@ku.edu later than November 17, 2016.

Erick R. Scott
Assistant Professor
Department of History
University of Kansas
3621 Wescoe Hall


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