• Home
  • SenEx-University Senate Executive Committee 4/4/17

SenEx-University Senate Executive Committee 4/4/17

SenEx
April 4, 2017 - 3:00pm
Provost’s Conference Room
Agenda: 

University Senate Executive Committee – SenEx

March 14, 2017– 3:00 p.m.

Provost Conference Room, Strong 250

(This meeting may be electronically recorded.)

 

I.  Approval of minutes of March 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.  Proposed Employment Conditions Policy

IV.  Unfinished Business - Proposed amendments to USRR Article IX Research Misconduct

V. New Business

Minutes: 

MINUTES

UNIVERSITY SENATE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE - SenEx

April 4, 2017 – 3:00 p.m.

Provost Conference Room

 

 

Approved April 18, 2017

MEMBERS PRESENT: Joe Harrington, Pam Keller, Amalia Monroe-Gulick, Alex Erwin, Pam Fine, Charlotte Goodman, Dylan Jones, Brian Moss, Jacob Murray, Liz Phillips

 

FY17 MEMBERS ABSENT: Ruben Flores (excused) Gabby Naylor (excused), Ebenezer Obadare (excused), Suzanne Shontz (excused)

 

ALSO PRESENT: Maureen Altman and Kathy Reed, University Governance;

 

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

 

MINUTES for March 14, 2017 were approved

 

Report of University Senate President

Harrington reported that the Chancellor search committee is narrowing down the pool of applicants.   Tonight at 6:00 in Woodruff Auditorium poet Nikki Giovanni will be speaking.  He said she kicked the Virginia Tech shooter out of her workshop because he was so disturbing and Harrington has it on good authority that she will speak about guns on campus.  Harrington asked SenEx to look at the Climate Study slides and results in case they wanted to do something.  The Ombud position description will be available in a week and it’s hoped that the position will be filled before the end of the fiscal year.

REPORT OF FACULTY SENATE PRESIDENT

Pam Keller had nothing new to report since her University Senate report last Thursday.

REPORT OF STUDENT SENATE PRESIDENT

In Gabby Naylor’s absence Jacob Murray reported that that five members of the Student Senate Executive Committee staff are lobbying in D.C as part of the Big 12 On the Hill Day.  The last Student Senate meeting where legislation will be voted on is tomorrow night.  Some of the issues they will be voting on are: a line item bill which funds student groups including $1 to MSG (Multicultural Student Government), and adding projects/platforms started this year into the job descriptions/roles of Directors of Diversity & Development.  Student elections will be held next Wednesday and Thursday.

REPORT OF sTAFF SENATE PRESIDENT

Liz Phillips reported that Staff Senate elections were held last week and Michelle Ginavan Hayes will be the new president-elect. Phillips said she and Julene Miller, KBOR General Counsel, will meet before the KBOR COPS (Council of Presidents) meeting to discuss her rationale to remove staff from reporting to KBOR.  Phillips told Miller that staff state-wide felt disenfranchised by the recommendation which they believed she had instigated.   

   

PROPOSED employment conditions policy

Harrington explained that SenEx had no input in the creation of the policy but has been given the opportunity to comment during the comment period which ends on April 10.  He pointed out some of the differences in the new document which replaces the Hiring/Rehiring and Temporary Employment policies and includes additional language.  He observed that much of the new policy is the same as what it replaces but pointed out that “faculty” has been added to the Hiring/Rehiring section and “Temporary appointments are considered at will and may be terminated prior to the end of the work assignment or at the discretion of the University” was added to the section on Temporary Employment.  Keller said the addition of “faculty” was confusing and wondered if faculty had been represented in the creation of the policy.  Phillips said that the policy had been shared with the Staff Personnel Committee but she didn’t know if anyone from faculty was consulted.  Amalia Monroe-Gulick wondered if the new phrase in the last line in paragraph two, “Employees who are terminated for cause may not be eligible for rehire as determined by HRM”, is a good or bad thing and asked if it is legal.  Keller said that it isn’t unusual to not rehire.  Joe said he will send SenEx his copy of the differences in the new policy and asked them to send him comments/questions.

ACTION: HARRINGTON WILL SEND SENEX A COPY OF THE DIFFERENCES IN THE NEW POLICY.  SENEX WILL SEND HIM ANY COMMENTS/QUESTIONS.

 

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

Proposed amendments to USRR Article IX Research Misconduct

Harrington reminded SenEx that he had asked them to look at the amendment which FRPR (Faculty Rights, Privileges, and Responsibilities committee) Chair Rick Hale and Jim Tracy, Vice Chancellor for Research, had discussed at the last SenEx meeting.  He explained that an additional change was made in USRR 9.4.3.2 which now explained how the judicial board representative would be selected (…If the respondent is not a faculty member, a non-voting member of the committee shall be selected by the University Senate Executive Committee  from among the members of the Judicial Board having the same status…).  Harrington said that today is the last meeting for SenEx to approve amendments so that they can go through the amendment process by the end of this semester.

Motion to approve amendments to USRR Article IX and forward to University Senate.  Keller/Jones.  Passed.

 

NEW BUSINESS

Jacob Murray proposed amendments to USRR which were approved by the Student Senate Executive Committee and will be brought to the full Student Senate tomorrow night for a vote.  Proposed USRR 1.3.10 and 1.4.6, which had been brought to the Student Senate Executive Committee by University Senate Senator Joseph Kollhoff would codify transactions when a student has a life-changing event.  Murray explained that the amendment would give freedom for students and instructors about determining how the event would be interpreted.  Harrington noted some items included in the rationale: the amendments primarily address issues of older students; medical emergencies are currently covered in the USRR but not life-changing events such as birth, employment, nuptials, etc. 

Move to adopt proposed amendment USRR 1.3.10 and 1.4.6 and forward to senate.  Murray/Jones. 

Harrington said that he had explained to Joseph Kollhoff that although Kollhoff wanted the amendments approved soon, SenEx would have to approve them at today’s meeting for them to go through the amendment process by the end of this semester.  Harrington explained to SenEx that sections of the proposed amendments were taken verbatim from the regulation regarding medical crisis (USRR 1.4.4) which outlines procedures but, in response to Pam Fine’s question, doesn’t require the instructor to excuse the student.  Dylan Jones who had to leave early expressed his support of the amendments.  Keller expressed concerns about how broad “life-changing” is: you can plan a marriage; whether a honeymoon is considered part of nuptials; birth is medical; loss of employment is broad; it doesn’t say if it’s the student’s life-changing event or includes someone else as well.  She asked if students are already accommodated or if this is a hypothetical.  Pam Fine agreed they were good points and suggested possibly adding to USRR 1.3.8 and 1.4.4 which address medical.  Murray said that he will bring SenEx’s concerns to the full Student Senate meeting tomorrow where the amendments will be presented and in his opinion approved.  He asked for bullet points to bring to the meeting.

·        Amend the current USRR sections rather than add new sections

·        Add life-changing event of student and immediate family member

·        Mention some of the items of concern such as loss of employment

·        Look at having either more specific limitations or possibly none at all

·        Interpret life-changes; examples are somewhat diluted

Harrington said that if he receives the Student Senate results by Thursday he will ask Maureen Altman to send the amendments out as a notification to be discussed at the April 13 University Senate meeting.  

Motion to table proposed amendments USRR 1.3.10 and 1.4.6.  Keller/Murray.  Passed.

 

Climate study

Monroe-Gulick said that she has been thinking about the potential role of Governance mentioned in the next steps of the study and expressed concerns about what data is going to OIRP (Office of Institutional Research & Planning) and how it will be processed by them.  She asked if SenEx should form an ad hoc committee to look at the results, and/or whether SenEx should ask Interim Vice Provost for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Jennifer Hamar to provide results.  Keller said that the study will be on the FacEx agenda on next Tuesday when she would like to ask if it would be good to bring someone to speak to Faculty Senate.  At SenEx’s request Monroe-Gulick said she will ask OIRP and perhaps Jennifer Hamar how data is being handled and who will receive the results.  She added that she is concerned about the level of accountability and access.   

Motion Monroe-Gulick will begin the conversation about the Climate Study.  Keller/Phillips.  Passed.  

 

Procedures for proposing amendments

Harrington reminded SenEx that Governance still doesn’t have a clear method of proposing an amendment and it would be useful to sort that out.  Phillips asked if there should be a charge for a committee.  Harrington had proposed amendments at previous meetings but since there isn’t much that can be done this semester it will have to be brought up next semester. 

 

Meeting adjourned at 3:48

 

Respectfully submitted,

Maureen Altman

 

MEETING MATERIALS

 

Employment Conditions Policy

 

Proposed Employment Conditions Policy

 

Explanation of Employment Conditions Policy

 

 

Proposed Amendment to USRR Article IX

 

Proposed amendment to USRR Article IX

 

Crosswalk

 

Worksheet

 

 

Proposed Amendments—USRR 1.3.10 and 1.4.6

 

Hello Mr. Harrington,

 

I am interested in getting a few paragraphs inserted into the USRR. I have drafted a resolution for Student Senate to consider at our last meeting next Wednesday. However, as it is a rules and reg change I thought it would be wise to also submit the amendments to university senate. I am a University Senator so I don’t know if that changes anything in any way. But, here are the paragraphs I would like to see inserted:

 

1.3.10 Students with a verifiable life-changing event, (marriage, birth/adoption of a child, loss of employment, etc) or bearing witness to a life-changing event for an immediate family member, may be excused from being present for the final examination. 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 attempt to come to a mutually agreeable method of making up the missed examination.

 

And

 

1.4.6 Students with a verifiable life-changing event, (marriage, birth/adoption of a child, loss of employment, etc) or bearing witness to a life-changing 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.

 

Rationale: My major concern is for individuals who are older students, as that is my constituency. There currently exists clauses in the USRR in the event of medical emergencies. However, there are no protections for an individual or couple who may be giving birth, adopting a child, loss of employment (I’d be willing to talk about that one) or (the one I am personally concerned with) exchanging nuptials. (Full disclosure: I am getting married on the 13th of October, the Friday before fall break.) I find it unconscionable that the University, or individual professors, could potentially take prejudicial action against a student for something that would have been planned (in my case has been worked on since June of 2016) well before a student’s enrollment in a particular course.

 

I have drafted a resolution that I plan to pass through Student Senate asking for this language (or language similar in spirit) to be included in the USRR.

 

 

 


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