SenEx-University Senate Executive Committee 9/29/15
This meeting may be electronically recorded.)
- Approval of minutes from September 15, 2015
- Standing Reports
- University Senate President Mike Williams
B. Faculty Senate President Tom Beisecker
C. Student Senate President Zach George
D. Staff President Chris Wallace
- Amendment to University Senate Code Article X. Section 2. Membership Standing Committees of the University Senate
(ACADEMIC COMPUTING AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS ACEC Committee membership)
- Update of scheduled visitors to SenEx and University Senate
- Preparation of questions about KUAAP to send to Susan Gronbeck-Tedesco and others who will be speaking to University Senate on October 8.
- Old Business
- New Business
UNIVERSITY SENATE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE - SenEx
September 29, 2015 – 3:00 p.m.
College Conference Room, 210 Strong
APPROVED: October 20, 2015
PRESENT: Mike Williams, Tom Beisecker, Pam Keller, Zach George, Ron Barrett-Gonzalez, Shegufta Huma, Brent Lee, Chance Maginness, Amalia Monroe-Gulick, Liz Phillips, Chris Wallace
ABSENT: Sandra Gray (excused), Joe Harrington (excused), Peggy Robinson (excused)
ALSO PRESENT: Maureen Altman and Kathy Reed, Governance; Amy Smith, Policy Office; Sara Shepherd, LJ World
SenEx Chair Mike Williams called the meeting to order. And asked for announcements
MINUTES for September 15, 2015 were approved.
University Senate President/SenEx Chair
Mike Williams informed SenEx that tomorrow is the first Weapons Committee meeting. To get a better perspective of various opinions he has added himself to Facebook pages such as the NRA and groups with different slants on the topic. In answer to Chance Maginness’s question whether the committee will know what the students in KBOR are doing, he said that the committee has relationships with KBOR General Counsel and Governance Committee but not specifically with the student group. However the committee hopes to maintain communication with various senates and units and will report to all constituencies. He added that the committee has intentionally been called the “Weapons” Committee rather than the “Gun” Committee to emphasize that campus safety is the primary issue. The deadline for the exemption prohibiting weapons on campus July 1, 2017.
Faculty Senate President/FacEx Chair
Tom Beisecker reported that the weapons policy dominated the September KBOR meeting, adding that the KBOR Governance Committee is exceptionally concerned. KBOR Student Advisory Committee is partnering with the Docking Institute through Fort Hayes on a survey about guns on campuses.
Student Senate President
Zach George reported that the Student Senate Fee Review Committee approved a fee increase from $13.70 to $18.70 to fund the new Burge Union. The plan will go to the Finance Committee and then to the full senate. The new union will include offices for legal advice, the Emily Taylor Center for Women and Gender Equity, The Campus Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Prevention and Education Research Center, and a reflection room. The fee will extend from 2017 to 2048. Williams asked how this related to KBOR’s decision not to increase fees. Chance Maginness said that the increase would not occur this year. Williams suggested Student Senate consider the increase in light of the KBOR decision.
Staff Senate President
Chris Wallace reported that the Professional Development Fund has been renamed the Jeanette Johnson Professional Development Fund in honor of Johnson, a long-time KU employee in the Policy Library who died earlier this month. She was very instrumental in the creation of UPS University Professional Staff and particularly the Professional Development Fund.
Student Senate’s Resolution of Support for a Grant to develop Academic Program for Students with Intellectual Disabilities
Williams asked Zach George for more information about the resolution. George explained that the Student Senate wrote in support of Dr. Morningstar’s (of Special Education) grant request to start a program at KU for people with intellectual disabilities which would provide a secondary transitional option. Jessie Pringle, student body president, also sent a letter of support which, along with the resolution, will be forwarded to the federal government.
Proposed Change to the University Senate Code
SenEx Agenda Item IV (September 29, 2015) (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 was discussed and approved by FacEx as well.)
Beisecker said the change comes from a desire of some to increase the population from which the faculty membership is selected. Faculty membership will go from four to five faculty at large. One concern expressed at FacEx is that Governance will lose contact but the majority of FacEx members felt that since the committee reports to SenEx that will be sufficient.
Article X. STANDING COMMITTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE
Section 2. Membership
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, three representatives from the staff serving staggered three-year terms, two students, an undergraduate and a graduate serving one‑year terms, appointed by the student body president. The Director of Information Technology or designee and the KU Privacy Officer shall serve as ex officio, nonvoting members. The members of the committee should be selected so that they will be broadly representative of the University faculty and students by user groups and disciplines.
Motion to accept: Maginness/Huma
In the discussion that followed, Maginness proposed another rewritten version which he felt cleaned up the language and made everything more streamlined:
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, three representatives from the staff serving staggered three-year terms, two students, an undergraduate and a graduate serving one‑year terms, appointed by the student body president. The Committee on Academic Computing and Electronic Communication shall be comprised of four the following nine voting members: 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, three representatives from the staff members serving staggered three-year terms, and two students, an one undergraduate and a one graduate student each serving a one‑year term s and appointed by the student body president. The Director of Information Technology or designee and the KU Privacy Officer shall serve as ex officio, nonvoting members. The members of the committee should be selected so that they will be broadly representative of the University faculty and students by user groups and disciplines.
Motion at accept new version: Wallace/George
Kathy Reed pointed out, and Williams agreed, that if the language was changed on this committee the format on all committee membership in the University Senate Code would also have to be changed. Maginness felt language in the Code is confusing. Williams asked Maginness to talk to him about making plans to work on editing the Code, which will be a large project; Reed suggested this as a summer project.
Pam Keller suggested the following amendments:
The Committee on Academic Computing and Electronic Communication shall be composed of
four nine [Writer’s note; this was later corrected to “ten”] voting members: 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, three representatives from the staff serving staggered three-year terms,; two students, an undergraduate and a graduate serving one‑year terms, appointed by the student body president. The Director of Information Technology or designee and the KU Privacy Officer shall serve as ex officio, nonvoting members. The members of the committee should be selected so that they will be broadly representative of the University faculty and students by user groups and disciplines.
Motion: Accept Keller’s version which amended the current version by adding, “composed of nine members:” and replacing commas between groups with semicolons. Keller/Lee. Passed
Update of Scheduled Visitors to SenEx and University Senate
Senior Vice Provost Sara Rosen and International Program’s Associate Vice Provost Susan Gronbeck-Tedesco and Director Amy Neufeld have been asked to speak at the October 8 University Senate meeting about the KU Academic Accelerator Program KUAAP. University Senate was selected as the venue rather than Faculty Senate because KUAAP involves everyone.
On October 20 Donna Hultine, Director of Parking and Transit will discuss the parking situation at the SenEx meeting. Barry Swanson, Associate Vice Provost of Campus Operations isn’t available until December. Williams said since it is important for SenEx to start moving on the parking issue, he decided not to wait until December when both Swanson and Hultine would be able to attend. Williams hopes that SenEx will learn enough to relay information to University Senate. If not, Hultine and Swanson will be invited to the December Senate meeting.
Jim Tracy, Vice Chancellor of Research, will speak at the December 3 Faculty Senate meeting.
Preparation of questions about the KU Academic Accelerator Program KUAAP to send to Sara Rosen, Susan Gronbeck-Tedesco and Amy Neufeld who will be speaking to University Senate on October 8.
Stating that University Senate doesn’t want a standard presentation, Williams asked SenEx to provide more pointed questions for the KUAAP visit on October 8. The following questions/issues were suggested.
Tom Beisecker: Student success. How have the students done?
Williams: With two semesters under their belts, have the students succeeded to the level hoped for? Williams: What issues have been encountered?
Williams: Dorms. Is there enough space in the dorms?
Shegufta Huma: How does this affect the retention of international students? Williams: How does this affect the retention of all students?
Beisecker: What are the interests of students, what areas, what majors?
Zach George: What is the level of support from the University? Have the students received the support they were promised?
Brent Lee: How well have the students been integrated into the broader university community? Do they feel welcome? He has heard that there was an “us vs. them” mentality.
Amalia Monroe-Gulick: How are they doing organizationally? Shorelight people aren’t employees; how are they fitting in? Williams suggested we ask Rosen for an organizational chart or roster of employees indicating who are Shorelight and who are KU employees.
Huma: What is the relationship with the Applied English Center (AEC)? Williams added: In the same vein, is this overwhelming AEC, and how is this affecting enrollment in particular units around campus?
Beisecker: What is the representation of students they are recruiting?
Monroe-Gulick: Comparative data with other schools served by Shorelight should be made available. How successful is Shorelight with all their students?
Williams: Referencing Shorelight’s sealed contract he said that many people on campus want to know how much this is this costing us. Ron Barrett-Gonzalez suggested Rosen provide a copy of the redacted version of the contract; there should also be a statement of work available. Since there are other companies similar to Shorelight, he also suggested SenEx request information about the bids of other companies. Williams noted that these requests addressed the same idea: not knowing how much is being spent is a problem for everyone. He emphasized that we want to be supportive but there are questions, adding that when there are questions there isn’t support.
Williams said the program shouldn’t be judged on hearsay; information is needed in order to support it. He said he will hand deliver the questions to Rosen and have conversation with her.
Preparation of questions about parking to send to Donna Hultine who will be speaking to SenEx on October 20.
Williams distributed Brent Lee’s parking questions (attached to the end of the minutes). Williams’ hope is that the meeting with Parking will provide as much clarity as possible. He asked SenEx to look at the questions and send any additional questions/comments to Maureen. The questions will be pared down and given to parking for the October 20 meeting.
There was no further business. The meeting was adjourned at 4:01 p.m.
Note: questions are loosely organized into thematic areas.
1.) What is the mission statement / primary goal of the parking department?
2.) If the parking commission exercises poor judgement, are you capable of over-ruling their recommendations?
3.) Has anyone from the administration, for example the Provost's office, discussed the parking situation with you? Do they have to sign off on all parking changes, or do you possess that authority?
4.) If the administration decides to build a new building in a staff/faculty/administration parking lot, is it appropriate to re-zone yellow, student parking lots in order to make up the deficit?
5.) If the administration decides to build a new building in a yellow, student parking lot, would it be appropriate to re-zone red, blue, and gold lots?
6.) Are staff, faculty, and administrators entitled to preferential parking access on campus? If so, please explain why.
7.) What is the parking department doing, specifically, to ensure that parking utilization is maximized? Alternatively, do you not see this as a central goal of the parking department? If so, why not?
8.) What percentage of faculty, staff, and administrators purchase yellow parking permits, as opposed to red, blue, and gold?
9.) Why are red, blue, and gold lots restricted from either 8 AM to 5 PM or 7 AM to 7 PM when they are rarely utilized during this entire time? For example, I often see said lots half full after 2 PM.
10.) Has the addition of two new residence halls on Daisy Hill presented any new parking problems?
11.) How many students, if any, were turned away for Daisy Hill parking permits this year? I.e., how many did not “win” the “lottery”?
12.) How many graduate students are currently on the Allen Fieldhouse parking garage waiting list? How are these parking spots allocated? What percentage of this facility is allocated to graduate students?
13.) How would you assess the security of existing parking lots? For example, are there any lots that could use additional cameras or other security measures?
14.) Please provide a breakdown of revenue sources for the Parking Department. For example, what percentage comes from students, faculty, staff, administrators, or other external sources?
15.) Bring us up to speed concerning the implementation of the electronic license plate readers. Are the foreseen cost savings being realized? Have there been any unforeseen issues concerning its implementation?
16.) Which parking lots receive the greatest number of parking tickets? Is there anything that we can do, in terms of recommendations to the Parking Commission and our constituencies, in order to reduce said issues?
17.) What do you believe is the greatest parking issue present on campus, and what are you doing to ameliorate the situation? Is there anything that we can do to help?
18.) Are red, blue, and gold parking permits competitively priced considering their proximity to the core of campus?
19.) How are parking permit prices determined? Specifically: red, blue, and gold prices in relation to yellow parking permits.
20.) What will happen to the "new" Stouffer-Flint yellow parking places when demolition and construction along Innovation Way begins?
21.) Are you working with the KU Memorial Unions in order to ensure that the replacement to the Burge Union has adequate student parking in the Innovation Way area?
22.) Please comment on the current status of the McCollum Hall-site parking project for Student Housing residents. If known, what is the estimated ETA of this project and approximately how many parking spaces will it create?
23.) Have you considered different, potentially radically so, models of parking on campus? Specifically, what are your thoughts on making all campus parking a free-for-all system, in order to maximum parking utilization?
24.) Do you anticipate the parking situation on campus to get better once current construction is complete, or are the parking problems presented this year the "new normal"?
25.) Is there a concerted plan by the administration to eliminate and more heavily restrict parking on campus?
26.) Should parking on campus be more heavily regulated or less heavily regulated?
27.) How do you see parking on campus in 5 years, 25 years?
28.) One of the most frustrating things as a student with a yellow parking permit is to routinely walk by red, blue, and gold lots that are severely underutilized. What would you say to these students?
29.) Are you aware of the petition that has over 2000 student signatures on it? Have you read all, or part, of the comments that students have made? Would you like to respond to any of the concerns that these students have raised?
30.) What are your thoughts on making yellow parking lots free during the summer? How many summer only parking permits were sold?
31.) When and where will the next open parking forum be held? Where are notices of this event typically advertised?
32.) What outreach have you done to various groups on campus in order to hear their parking concerns?
33.) Comment on what happened to the Park and Ride system? It seems like that initiative has been abandoned. If so, what led to its failure? Are there any plans to revive it?