• Home
  • FacEx-Faculty Senate Executive Committee 05/03/15

FacEx-Faculty Senate Executive Committee 05/03/15

FacEx
May 3, 2016 - 3:00pm
33 Strong Hall
Agenda: 

 

I.  Announcements

II.  Approval of April 19 minutes

III. Report of Faculty Senate President Tom Beisecker

IV.  Report of University Senate President Mike Williams

V. Possible discussion of Faculty Senate Committee final reports

VI. Discussion of Intellectual Property Policy draft

VII. Discussion of Faculty Code

VIII. Old Business

IX. New Business

 

Minutes: 

Approved May 10, 2016

MEMBERS PRESENT: Tom Beisecker, Mike Williams, Pam Keller, Joe Harrington, Ron Barrett-Gonzalez, Amalia Monroe-Gulick 

ABSENT:

ALSO PRESENT: Maureen Altman, Kathy Reed, University Governance, Sara Shepherd, LJ World

Faculty Senate President and FacEx Chair Tom Beisecker called the meeting to order, informed FacEx that the meeting was being recorded, and asked for announcements.  

MINUTES for April 19, 2016 were approved.    

REPORT OF FACULTY SENATE PRESIDENT TOM BEISECKER

Beisecker reported that at a seminar about Academic Analytics which he attended as department chair he learned that they now have the ability to go beyond units and look at the progress of individual faculty members.  He found this disturbing and suggested that this is something Faculty Senate should look at it next year.  He added that while Academic Analytics would argue they only disseminate data, how the data is used is a concern.  FacEx agreed that this new ability was disturbing and expressed concerns that Academic Analytics doesn’t give a complete picture, citing that research is primarily considered and many activities--for example, writing, service, and creative and artistic accomplishments--aren’t included.  Barrett-Gonzalez also objected that it isn’t made for small units.  Pam Keller assured FacEx would review it next year.  Reed informed FacEx that it had been a charge for the Faculty Research Committee in past years but wasn’t assigned to them this year because they had to conduct the three-year review of the GRF [General Research Fund].   It was suggested that an ad hoc committee could possibly be created to review Academic Analytics next year.  At Amalia Monroe-Gulick’s suggestion that FacEx determine goals for review, Keller suggested some possible questions to consider: 1) What is Academic Analytics studying? 2) What are the uses of the study? 3) How will the procedures of Academic Analytics change over time?  Beisecker was concerned that, while Academic Analytics praised the value of being able to identify rising stars, it was uncertain what else would be studied and how information would be used.  Williams noted that it could pose problems in regard to promotion and tenure.   

ACTION: FACEX WILL LOOK AT ACADEMIC ANALYTICS IN FALL.

REPORT OF UNIVERSITY SENATE PRESIDENT MIKE WILLIAMS

Williams reported that he had met with Interim Provost Sara Rosen and Diane Goddard, Vice Provost for Administration & Finance, to discuss SenEx questions about expenditures for Shared Service Centers, Everspring, Shorelight, Climate Survey, and Huron.  He was confident that he had laid the groundwork for continued conversation to lead to greater transparency of how much was expended and whether there had been a savings. 

Williams reported that now that the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee (DEI) has submitted their report he will soon propose an ad hoc committee on weapons, diversity and freedom of expression.  Williams informed FacEx that his agreement with the DEI report was conditional and he still contends that the Multicultural Student Government’s proposal isn’t complete and the time frame will be bigger than they say.  His opinion is that since the administration just received the 28-page report last Thursday morning, there probably won’t be a response until summer.  Monroe-Gulick said she thought the report was more direct than she might have anticipated.

Discussion of FRPR’s core Curriculum Survey 

As a member of the Faculty Rights, Privileges and Responsibilities Committee (FRPR) Monroe-Gulick reported on the results of the committee’s survey.  She said that there was a 16% response compared to the 14% response in 2015.  She reported that there were more negative than positive comments.  She read the survey recommendations regarding the course selection process: simplify and/or clarify; give more feedback; decrease time from submission to decision; develop and implement a plan that decreases the perception of bias in the selection process to increase faculty support.  Williams observed that KU Core has been a blessing for Journalism while Barrett-Gonzalez offered that it has been a nightmare for Engineering, and Monroe-Gulick and Harrison noted that it has hurt humanities enrollment numbers.  Beisecker’s continued to be disturbed that the University Core Curriculum Committee (UCCC) doesn’t report to faculty directly.  He observed that Governance now has two-years of surveys and suggested FacEx should continue next year to monitor and possibly address issues of KU Core.  Monroe-Gulick reported that the survey results had been given to Stuart Day, Acting Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs; Beisecker suggested it would be a good idea to forward the results and recommendations to UCCC.     

Motion that the results of the FRPR Core Curriculum Survey be forwarded to the University Core Curriculum Committee (UCCC).  Barrett-Gonzalez/Williams.  Passed.

ACTIONS: FacEx should continue next year to monitor and possibly address issues of KU Core.

DISCUSSION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY POLICY DRAFT

Barrett-Gonzalez stated that the revised Employee Invention Assignment Agreement still doesn’t correct the main problem, that the university has all rights to inventions upfront.  Keller pointed out that the University allows the employee to give a list but Barrett-Gonzalez objected that the list is preexisting and demands signing away inventions before they are invented.  He further noted that the University is laying claim to twelve months of an employee’s work but only paying for nine.  He pointed out how difficult the agreement makes it for KU employees to work for outside companies.  Keller acknowledged that and agreed that the agreement and policy need work, adding that she doesn’t think the revised policy and agreement follows the recommendations the committee [Bi-Campus Committee on Patent Ownership and Faculty Consultation] made two years ago.  She noted that the University is not laying claim to all work but questioned whether they have reached the right balance.  FacEx agreed that Section 2 (Ownership of Patents and Copyrightable Software Policy) is a problem.  Keller said FacEx needs to target problematic issues and acknowledged that appropriate review would take some time.  She and Barrett-Gonzalez agreed to work on the policy and agreement drafts this summer.  Barrett-Gonzalez suggested Engineering be excluded.  Harrington asked Barrett-Gonzalez if it might be possible to get Lockheed or Cessna to make a statement objecting to the agreement; Barrett-Gonzalez believed they would.  Williams noted that the policy draft goes beyond the scope of the KBOR policy; Barrett-Gonzalez added that it also goes beyond state law.  Barrett-Gonzalez also stated that he found it troubling that the University is binding students to the agreement.  Keller said that FacEx should state an objection that the policy draft doesn’t agree with the document Faculty Senate accepted last year and that further discussion is needed.

Motion that Beisecker inform the administration of FacEx objections to the policy and agreement drafts.  Williams/Beisecker.  Passed.

ACTION: BEISECKER WILL REQUEST AN EXTENSION TO THE PROVOST’S APRIL 30 DEADLINE TO APPROVE THE POLICY.  HE WILL INFORM THE ADMINISTRATION OF FACEX OBJECTIONS TO THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY POLICY AND EMPLOYMENT INVENTION ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT DRAFTS.

ACTION: KELLER AND BARRETT-GONZALEZ WILL WORK ON EDITING THE POLICY DRAFT THE SUMMER.

 

DISCUSSION OF FACULTY CODE

Beisecker reminded FacEx that some changes had been made to the Faculty Code at the Faculty Senate meeting last week and that Faculty Senate voted that a vote on the Faculty Code draft would be taken at next Thursday’s meeting.  He distributed a handout enumerating areas of discussion with possible solutions.  Williams offered to create a side by side document with the latest code draft with last week’s amendments in one column, and Beisecker’s comments on the other.  Items in the comment column could be considered as amendments which would avoid comparing multiple versions of past months, and simplify voting.  Barrett-Gonzalez suggested putting items of the deleted Article V, like hearings, in Article VI, and reference appropriate provisions in the University Senate Code, FSRR, and USRR.  Keller said she had a similar idea of creating links in various areas of the Faculty Code, and suggested the language “the univ will follow the University Senate Code, USRR, and FSRR where applicable” could be added.  She gave the example that Article 12 of the University Senate Code, which details judicial functions, has elements that could be anchored into Article III Right 15 of the Faculty Code.  FacEx agreed unanimously with the idea.  Barrett-Gonzalez and Keller agreed to make the University Senate Code, USRR, and FSRR insertions in the Faculty Code draft and forward it to Mike Williams by Wednesday night to add to the side by side document.       

ACTION: KELLER AND BARRETT-GONZALEZ WILL INSERT UNIVERSITY SENATE CODE, USRR AND FSRR LINKS INTO the FACULTY CODE DRAFT AMENDED AT the APRIL 28 FACULTY SENATE MEETING AND FORWARD TO MIKE WILLIAMS WHO WILL CREATE A SIDE BY SIDE DOCUMENT CONTAINING THE FACULTY CODE DRAFT AND COMMENTS/SUGGESTED SOLUTIONS FROM THE TABLE BEISECKER HANDED OUT AT TODAY’S MEETING.

Old Business

For the sake of information Williams reported that the amendments to USRR 2.2.5 concerning grade changes for graduate theses and dissertations which were approved by Faculty Senate this spring are in violation of Graduate Studies grading policies because their policies require a letter grade rather than the grade of SP required in the amendment.  Maureen explained that Amy Smith, Director of the Policy Office, has informed Governance that Graduate Studies is prepared to revise their policy but will not meet again until fall.

New Business

Beisecker thanked everyone for their work this year.  He said it had been an interesting year and expected that interesting issues would emerge in the year to come.

No further business.

Meeting adjourned at 4:14.

Respectfully submitted

Maureen Altman

 Report on the University Core Curriculum Survey

 

Intellectual Property Policy draft

April 14, 2016

To:  Professor Michael Williams, President, University Senate

        Professor Tom Beisecker, President, Faculty Senate

From:  Interim Provost Sara Rosen

Re:  Final Draft of Intellectual Property Policy

Please review the policy which includes changes approved by the Office of Research, General Counsel, Administration and Governance leaders at KUMC. The changes were first reviewed by Rodolfo Torres and Andrew Torrance. The majority of the changes are technical in nature, they include, 1) consistent use of office names, 2) capitalization of defined terms, 3) addition of links to specifically referenced policies, 4) the relocation of certain information to provide better transitions between topics, and 5) the creation of a definitions section. Any definitions previously contained within the policy statement were relocated to the definitions section at the end of the policy document. Additional definitions were created to facilitate a common understanding of the terms used in the policy. KUMC also inserted a reference to curricula and learning modules in Item B.

There are a few revisions that are more than simple, technical changes and these are the ones to which we wish to draw your attention. We believe these changes do not create new protocols and that they align with the goals of the Bi-Campus Committee, however, we trust your opinions on this matter. These revisions include, 1) a more fully developed policy preamble, 2) the removal of procedures, 3) additional clarification of applicable laws and regulations including references to the Bayh-Dole Act, and 4) an expanded description of revenue sharing.

Before forwarding this to the Chancellor for her approval, we would like to have your review and endorsement of these changes. If you can provide your feedback by April 30, we will proceed with the final approval process.

cc:  Vice Provost Hummert

Faculty Code May 5, 2016 meeting

Beisecker’s Comments/Possible Solutions Regarding Faculty Code Draft (Handout)


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