FacEx-Faculty Senate Executive Committee 9/22/15
(This meeting may be electronically recorded.)
II. Approval of September 8, 2015 minutes
III. Report of Faculty Senate President Tom Beisecker
IV. Three Proposed Technical Changes to University Senate Code Art XIII, Sec 2 (Research and two for Restricted Research)
V. Proposed Amendment to University Senate Code Art II, Sec. 4 (Secretary)
VI. Proposed Amendment to University Senate Code Art II, Sec. 2 (Election)
VII. Proposed Amendment to University Senate Code Art X, Sec. 2 (ACEC Faculty Senate/Faculty rep)
VIII. Proposed Amendment to FSRR 1.1.1. (PTR)
IX New Business
X. Old Business
XI. Faculty Code
FACULTY SENATE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE (FacEx)
September 22, 2015 – Provost’s Conference Room – 3:00 p.m.
Approved as corrected October 6, 2015
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tom Beisecker, Mike Williams, Pam Keller, Joe Harrington, Ron Barrett-Gonzalez, Amalia Monroe-Gulick
EXCUSED: Sandra Gray
ALSO PRESENT: Maureen Altman, Kathy Reed, Amy Smith
Faculty Senate President and FacEx Chair Tom Beisecker called the meeting to order.
MINUTES for September 8, 2015 were approved with the following corrections: Page 1, Line 4, Barrett-Gonzalez misspelt; Page 2, Paragraph 3, Line 4, AAU not AAUP; Page 2, Paragraph 6, Line 1, “campus” climate not climate change.
Report of Faculty Senate President Tom Beisecker
Tom Beisecker and Mike Williams both reported on the COFSP meeting about gun legislation. Beisecker reported that the good news is that every campus is now concerned and involved. However the bad news is that there is no concerted sense of what can be done other than preparing for implementation. The deadline for the universities’ exemption to prohibit concealed weapons on campus is July 1, 2017. The Regents staff is pessimistic that there will be any change in the legislation, nor is it likely the exemption will be extended, so the next step is to deal with issues of implementation--discover what exemptions may be possible (for example, firearms in labs) and exactly what the law entails. (General Council will send Williams a link to the laws). Williams said it is conceivable that the statute that prohibits open carry in public buildings will remain. The Regents want to take a proactive central role and Beisecker observed that, particularly since KU is the only campus with a task force, it is a step ahead by being proactive and can help guide the Regents who are seeking input and instructing campuses coordinate to with them. Several possible ideas were discussed: there might be assistance in the wording “safe learning environment” which appears in government grants and other documents; exemptions might be made for safety in buildings with hazardous materials; enforcement of the law that those possessing firearms must be 21; what rules should be made about unattended firearms.
Beisecker reported that when he asked if any of the other campuses have done anything to assess the Post-Tenure Review Policy he discovered that we are the only ones who are.
Beisecker distributed a handout of Foresight 2020, the Regent’s ten-year strategic plan (attached at the end of the minutes), and asked FacEx to look it over since it will help in understanding what the administration is doing. In particular he noted that the Regents want to promote higher education in Kansas. Amalia Monroe-Gulick added that the annual reports and agreements of KU and each university regarding Foresight 2020 are available online. Beisecker asked FacEx to look at measures and aspirations, especially measures.
Proposed changes to the University Senate Code and FSRR.
The committee discussed and acted upon the following changes:
Three Proposed Technical Changes to University Senate Code Art XIII, Sec 2 (One for Research and two for Restricted Research)
Technical changes only need FacEx approval:
University Senate Code Article XVII, Section 2. “Technical changes to this Code, the University Senate Rules and Regulations, and the Faculty Senate Rules and Regulations are to be understood to include renumbering articles and sections, updating administrative titles, and making other non-substantive revisions that improve accuracy and clarity… It shall be the prerogative of the Faculty Senate Executive Committee to make technical changes by majority vote to Articles II, VII, and XIII of this Code and to the Faculty Senate Rules and Regulations.”
Two Proposed Technical Amendments to University Senate Code Art XIII, Section 2 Membership
- The Committee on Research shall be composed of the Vice Chancellor for Research
and Graduate Studies; twelve members of the Faculty serving staggered three-year terms, with not more than one member of any department; one graduate student member elected by the Graduate Student Advisory Board, who shall participate only in the policy-making functions of the committee; and the Associate Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate Studieswho shall be a non‑voting member and who shall serve as secretary of the committee.
- The Committee on Restricted Research shall be composed of six faculty members holding regular appointments to the graduate faculty, appointed to staggered three-year terms, with two members rotating each year. The Vice Chancellor for Research
and Graduate Studiesor designee and the Chair of the Faculty Senate Research Committee, or designee, will be ex-officio, non-voting members of the committee.
Proposed Technical Amendment to University Senate Code Art XIII, Section 3 Functions
In accordance with Part III of the Restricted Research Policy, the committee shall maintain a current record, open for review, of the review actions taken by the committee and the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research
and Graduate Studies, and shall make an annual report to the Faculty Senate Executive Committee listing each restrictive grant or contract considered during the year.
Beisecker explained that these changes are a recognition of a title change that happened some years ago, probably in 2006. Motion to approve: Williams/Keller. Passed
Proposed Amendment to University Senate Code Art II, Sec. 4 Election of Officers (Secretary)
When the University and Faculty Senate consisted of all members of the Faculty, the term “secretary” was mentioned in the University Senate Code. This was in reference to responsibilities of the Governance Office. When University and Faculty Senate reorganized in 2005-2006 for the 2006-2007 year, secretary was removed and “Office of University Governance” was added. In addition to this change, the Parliamentary Practice was changed from “…University Senate Executive Committee shall annually appoint a member of the Faculty Senate, who need not be a member of the Faculty Council, to serve as Parliamentarian of all meetings of the University and Faculty Senates and Councils,” to “…The vice president of the University Senate shall serve as parliamentarian of all meetings of the University Senate.” The following sentence was also added “…The secretary of the Faculty Senate shall be elected by and among the members of the Faculty Senate Executive Committee and shall serve a one-year term...”
With the exception of FY2014 when there was a discussion about a parliamentarian for the Faculty Senate, it was noted that the Code did not provide a procedure for a parliamentarian for Faculty Senate. At that time the secretary of the faculty senate was elected and with the idea that he would also serve as the parliamentarian. Since the Faculty Senate Secretary has not been elected each year on a regular basis, perhaps the CODE should be changed to reflect the need for a parliamentarian for Faculty Senate.
“The secretary of the Faculty Senate shall be elected by and among the members of the Faculty Senate Executive Committee and shall serve as parliamentarian of all meetings of the Faculty Senate Executive Committee and Faculty Senate. This is a one-year term...”
Beisecker explained that election of a secretary has been prescribed in the Code but hasn’t been done in some years. This change would provide FacEx/Faculty Senate with a parliamentarian, a position which exists in SenEx/University Senate but not in FacEx/Faculty Senate.
Motion to approve: Williams/Barrett-Gonzales. Passed
Proposed Amendment to University Senate Code Art II, Sec. 2 (Election)
Updated Faculty Election Procedures. With the use of electronic voting and email we no longer use the February 1, and February 15th as the date for a call for nominations.
Nomination forms for Faculty Senate membership shall be issued to faculty members by the Office of University Governance each year on or before
February 1 March 1. The call for nominations shall be accompanied by a list of the present Faculty Senate members whose terms of service are to continue and a list of those ineligible for nomination. The nomination forms must be returned to the Office of University Governance by February 15 March 15. At each election there shall be at least twice as many nominees as there are Faculty Senate positions to be filled and there shall be at least two nominations from the College, from each school, and from the Libraries when a member from them must be elected to the Senate. If the nominations are insufficient in number or inadequate to meet the representation requirements of Section 1 of this Article, the Faculty Senate Executive Committee shall make the additional nominations that are necessary for an adequate ballot. The Office of University Governance shall, by February 20 March 25, notify each nominee of his/her nomination and ascertain willingness to serve.
Beisecker explained that this change reflects current practice and are changes in dates not substance. Kathy Reed explained that the dates changed when the move was made from paper to electronic ballots which take less time. Ron Barrett-Gonzalez also noted that February 1 is early to ask for nominations.
Motion to approve: Barrett-Gonzalez/Harrington. Passed
Proposed Amendment to University Senate Code Art X, Sec. 2 (ACEC Faculty Senate/Faculty rep)
Previous FacEx members felt that because ACEC reports to SenEx (which includes faculty) requiring a Faculty Senate member on the committee was redundant and that choosing the fifth faculty member from the faculty at large would offer a larger pool of candidates to choose from.
(According to the CODE this committee change must be approved by SenEx/University Senate since ACEC is a University Senate Committee. However, since this change involves faculty membership, the amendment needs to be discussed by FacEx as well.)
The Committee on Academic Computing and Electronic Communication shall be composed of
four five faculty members, one of whom shall be from the Libraries, serving staggered three-year terms, one faculty member of the Faculty Senate appointed for a one-year term…
Beisecker pointed out that this change allows for a larger pool from which to select faculty. Barrett-Gonzales expressed his concern that SenEx will miss the eyes and ears of a Senate member; Pam Keller noted that the committee still reports to SenEx.
Motion to approve: Williams/Keller. Passed; Barrett-Gonzales opposed.
Proposed Amendment to FSRR 1.1.1. (PTR)
The governance office currently reviews the policy library to insure that each school, division, department has posted their grievance procedures (USRR 5.2.1), bylaws, statements of organization, promotions, tenure recommendations and faculty evaluations in the policy library. The governance office sends emails out confirming that the information in the policy library is current. If this information is not posted the office contacts the dean of the school or the department chair.
When FSRR 7.4, regarding faculty evaluations (which included post-tenure review) was added, FSRR 1.1.1. was not updated.
…(5) personnel practices, to include faculty and unclassified staff appointments, promotions, tenure recommendations, evaluations, post-tenure review and selection of departmental chairperson(s)…
Beisecker explained that the change will make a necessary addition not made when PTR was added. When FSRR 1.1.1. was originally drafted there was no PTR so it should be included now.
Motion to approve: Barrett-Gonzales/Harrington. Passed
No new business
FacEx discussed what they considered a major item in the administration’s September 1 version of the Faculty Code, “Leave Without Pay.” Barrett-Gonzalez felt it strikes at tenure but Williams noted that administrators sometimes need an immediate way to get the attention of a faculty member who is not doing his/her job and cited the instance of “abandonment” of the classroom; Beisecker also cited the example of a teacher who is posing a danger to students (ex. unsafe labs). In his discussion with Vice Provost Mary Lee Hummert, Beisecker said that she told him the administration would use Leave Without Pay only as a last resort. Rather than derail all the good work that has been done on the Faculty Code, Williams suggested FacEx try and find a compromise, perhaps setting some sort of timeframe for Leave Without Pay. He said that faculty governance added Leave With Pay which may have thrown the pendulum too far and suggested possibly going back to another version. Expanding on this, Beisecker said he plans to send the document to FRPR to see if something can be created to bound potential problems that won’t infringe on tenure. Barrett-Gonzales is concerned with punishment before adjudication and suggested an accelerated adjudicatory process instead. Keller felt the language in the current faculty code is more narrow but wondered if there is a way to narrow the proposed code and still have the administration agree. Williams agreed that the language in the current code is narrow but the timeframe of Leave Without Pay should be addressed and noted that an accelerated adjudicatory process might be the means to make the timeframe more finite. Keller also questioned whether there might not be a reason for the policy, asking whether teachers who abandon their classes should be paid. On a positive note, Beisecker pointed out that the administration’s addition in Article III Number 7 regarding the stay of imposition of sanction pending disposition of an appeal was a very favorable improvement. Keller agreed that the new document reflected a lot of success; there is more specificity of rights. Beisecker asked for a motion to forward the current version of the Faculty Code to FRPR. Barrett-Gonzalez/Keller moved to forward the administration’s current version of the Faculty Code to FRPR with a November 1 deadline for its return to FacEx. Passed.
Beisecker thanked FacEx for their input and told them that he will meet with the FRPR Chair and, if possible, the committee.
No further business.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:26