SenEx-University Senate Executive Committee 2/28/17
I. Approval of minutes of February 14, 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. Ombuds Search Committee
IV. Article X Committee
V. Campus Carry Notification Resolution Committee
VI. Possible Amendments to University Code
VII. Unfinished Business
VIII. New Business
Approved February 28, 2017
MEMBERS PRESENT: Joe Harrington, Pam Keller, Suzanne Shontz, Amalia Monroe-Gulick, Alex Erwin, Pam Fine, Ruben Flores, Charlotte Goodman, Dylan Jones, Jacob Murray, Brian Moss, Gabby Naylor, Liz Phillips
FY17 MEMBERS ABSENT: Ebenezer Obadare (excused)
ALSO PRESENT: Maureen Altman and Kathy Reed, University Governance; Ron Barrett-Gonzalez, University/Faculty senator; Sara Shepherd, LJWorld
Joe Harrington called the meeting to order and announced that the meeting was recorded.
MINUTES for January 31, 2017 were approved
Report of University Senate President
Harrington reported the Chancellor’s search committee was would be getting a final position description today. The Kansas House bill regarding concealed carry is still in committee. Harrington is still waiting for a cost benefit analysis about consultants from the Provost but Pam Keller explained that it needs to be summarized first. He is also waiting for a link to the concealed carry page from KU’s main page and the Admissions page.
REPORT OF FACULTY SENATE PRESIDENT
Pam Keller said she had nothing to report since the last Thursday’s University Senate meeting.
REPORT OF STUDENT SENATE PRESIDENT
Gabby Naylor reported that the Student Advisory Council which is comprised of all the student body presidents from the Regents universities gave KBOR a proposal requesting non-voting student representation on all committees. Tomorrow changes to the election bill will be considered; she explained that Student Senate was looking at changing the required holdover senators from three to two because of the challenge of filling the positions due to students’ schedules. The third seat will be elected from among Student Senate members which will give more opportunities to other senate groups. Naylor also reported that the election process has started.
REPORT OF STAFF SENATE PRESIDENT
Liz Phillips reported that staff is reviewing the employee handbook and has been given the greenlight from provost for the handbook to again be online; it had been omitted because the administration had wanted everything in the Policy Library. She credited Kathy Reed with discovering that due to a change made by the KBOR Governance Committee staff no longer reports directly to KBOR; Phillips and Brian Moss are seeking to have staff reinstated. Phillips said they would be receiving a report about reciprocal tuition tomorrow.
GENDER NEUTRAL LANGUAGE CHANGES
Harrington proposed voting on the changes by consent agenda rather than one by one and asked if anyone had any items to discuss. Amalia Monroe-Gulick asked why “in writing” had been struck from 188.8.131.52. Keller explained that since it says earlier in the sentence that the Chancellor is responding in a “document” writing is implied and “in writing” keeps it closer to what was there before. Kathy Reed explained the correction made before the meeting to University Senate Code, Article I, Section 7 regarding third year senator and president-elect; O&A’s change changed the meaning so that it appeared that a senator in the third term could serve as president elect in the following year and then president in the year after that. The correction was approved. Suzanne Shontz asked why in 184.108.40.206 “(personal appearance)” wasn’t deleted since it seemed redundant. Keller said that that is what’s currently in the code and changing would go beyond gender neutral changes; she also noted that this is sometimes a term used in court to distinguish the possibility of appearing for instance by affidavit rather than personally. Shontz cited an inconsistency in the use of plurals in 220.127.116.11. SenEx agreed and changed the text:
18.104.22.168 During Period 1, a students may withdraw from a course by canceling his/her their enrollment in that course. The course will not appear on the student's official record.
22.214.171.124 During Period 1,
a students may withdraw from a course or courses by canceling his/her their enrollments in that those courses. The courses will not appear on the student 's’ official record.
Motion to approve the gender neutral changes as amended. Monroe-Gulick/Shontz
RECOMMENDATIONS OF AD HOC COMMITTEEE TO REVIEW POLICY LIBRARY
Harrington explained that Ad Hoc Committee to Review Policy Library Chair Jonathan Clark’s idea was that SenEx approve the list of policies as a consent calendar, approving as a whole and removing whatever the SenEx felt should be removed rather than going through the document policy by policy. Discussion ensued. Keller asked what the next step would be if SenEx approved. She questioned the wisdom of looking backwards, and suggested it would be better to create attention for something positive rather than appear to be criticizing past work, adding that the amount of energy expended to review these policies versus the amount of good it would do should be considered. Ron Barrett-Gonzalez said that a handful of the policies such as conflict of interest and research were egregious and should be reviewed. Harrington noted that the KU Core was already on Governance’s radar. Members also mentioned possibly turning over review of the policies the ad hoc committee questioned to a Governance committee. Harrington suggested approving the policies the committee noted were alright. Keller noted that reviewing the policies suggests Governance wasn’t originally involved but there is a complex history and SenEx doesn’t know all the negotiations that might have occurred; there would be a negative inference that Governance hadn’t been included before which is an oversimplification of the history of the policies. Because of confusion about what SenEx needed to do the ad hoc committee’s charges were read.
To review university-wide policies and identify those that should come to the attention of the University Senate and which might be accepted by Senate in their current form.
The committee felt that they were charged to look at what the committee had reviewed.
Motion to accept the report. Keller/Fine. Passed.
CAMPUS CARRY NOTIFICATION RESOLUTION
Reminding SenEx that consideration of the resolution had been tabled last meeting pending information from the administration, Harrington referred to the document which included information from Michael Wade-Smith, Director of External Affairs in the Provost Office, about actions the administration had taken regarding the items in the resolution. Harrington noted that the information would be introduced in University Senate.
Monroe-Gulick moved, and Pam Fine seconded, to endorse Campus Carry Notification Resolution. Fine suggested going through the actions and support what’s been done rather than approve the resolution that doesn’t acknowledge the actions of the administration. Monroe-Gulick said she was not satisfied with all the answers from the Provost office, particularly with the response to number seven, feeling that the notification should not be with the Office of Public Affairs. Phillips felt it had been forwarded to them because they maintain the website.
7. Notifications on the main KU home page at least half as large as the largest sports banner that has been posted.
a. This request has been forwarded to the Office of Public Affairs that manages the KU home page.
However she did agree with number eight and amended her motion.
Amendment motion to endorse Campus Carry Notification Resolution without number eight. Monroe-Gulick/Shontz.
Referring to numbers four, five and six Naylor expressed that someone who planned to come to a school should be responsible for knowing the law. Regarding number six Shontz expressed concerned that if no one informs employees they may not know to ask specifically about weapons on campus and may renege on an offer of employment after they find out about the issue. Keller expressed concern that there could be legal problems with speaking on some of the issues; citing number four for example, student ambassadors may give the impression of safety. She agreed that it is a professional obligation to inform but worried about how much. She suggested that the university should target incoming faculty and students on the website instead of having individuals give information, and that the resolution should be more general. Fine agreed adding that what is suggested is impractical—for example how long should the door sign remain, how many emails should be sent—and should be broader.
The motion failed.
Meeting adjourned at 3:59