University Senate 04/13/17
April 13, 2017 – 3:15 p.m.
Room 203 Green Hall (Law School)
(This meeting may be electronically recorded.)
I. Approval of Minutes from March 30, 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
VI. Unfinished Business
VII. New Business
UNIVERSITY SENATE MEETING
April 13, 2017 – 3:15 p.m. – 203 Green Hall
Approved April 27, 2017
MEMBERS PRESENT: Faculty Joe Harrington, Pam Keller, Cecile Accilien, Mary Banwart, Ron Barrett-Gonzalez, Tom Beisecker, Ben Chappell, Jonathan Clark, Chris Elles, Pam Fine, Ruben Flores, Jane Gibson, Megan Greene, Lynn Hancock, Elspeth Healey, Kissan Joseph, Elizabeth MacGonagle, Margaret Marco, Jason Matejkowski, Amalia Monroe-Gulick, Paul Outka, Bozenna Pasik-Duncan, Meagan Patterson, Edward Peltier, Roberta Freund Schwartz, Geraldo Sousa, Bill Staples, Dean Stetler, Belinda Sturm Students Gabby Naylor, Dylan Jones, Joseph Kollhoff, Staff Keah Cunningham, David Day, Abby Ehling, Charlotte Goodman, Connie Jordan, Lorne Jordan, Brian Moss,
ABSENT: Faculty Naima Boussofara (excused), Kelly Chong, Christopher Fischer, Lisa Friis, Sandra Gray, Ebenezer Obadare, Tom Prisinzano, Lance Rake, Angela Rathmel (excused), Suzanne Shontz (excused), Students Chancellor Adams, Alexandra Erwin, Jasmine Fillmore (excused), Jessica Guardiola, Zoya Khan, Jacob Murray, Brittney Oleniacz, Victoria Snitsar, Adam Steinhilber, Sophie Wang (excused), Staff Michael Chavez, Deb Deering (excused), Emily Gullickson (excused), Anna Paradis (excused), Liz Phillips (excused), Peggy Robinson
ALSO PRESENT: Maureen Altman and Kathy Reed, University Governance; Chancellor Bernadette Gray-Little; Rick Hale, FRPR (Faculty Rights, Privileges, and Responsibilities Committee) Chair; Kevin Smith, Dean of Libraries, Emily Wellborn, UDK (University Daily Kansan).
Harrington called the meeting to order and announced that the meeting was being recorded.
MINUTES for March 30, 2017 were approved. Jonathan Clark asked that he would like “accept” changed to “adopt” regarding the Ad Hoc Policy Review Committees Recommendations #4. However Senate determined this would be a substantive change which should be discussed under unfinished business.
University Senate President
Harrington reported that the Chancellor search committee is narrowing the applicant pool. The Ombud Search Committee has been formed but he is still waiting for approval of amendments to USRR Article V regarding the Ombud. Next Tuesday SenEx will continue to discuss the new proposed Employment Conditions policy which replaces Hiring/Rehiring and Temporary Employment policies.
Faculty Senate President
Pam Keller reported that next week KBOR will hold its monthly meeting at KU. While they’re on campus KBOR will be meeting with SenEx and Keller asked senators to please email any questions/issues they might want to communicate. Campus carry and climate study are topics suggested by FacEx.
ACTION: KATHY REED WILL LET SENATE KNOW DATE AND TIME OF KBOR MEETING AT KU.
Student Senate President
Gabby Naylor reported that Student Senate elections were postponed yesterday due to technical difficulties; elections will now be held today and tomorrow instead of yesterday and today. Student Senate membership will turn over on April 26. Last Wednesday Student Senate passed legislation to incorporate the Multicultural Student Government (MSG) who will receive the equivalent of a $1 fee. It will not be a separate fee but rather the allotment, which is around $40,000 to assist MSG in helping underrepresented students, will be funded like other groups. Student Senate completed a big project which will streamline the funding process by putting it online so applicants will not have to apply in person. There will be a referendum next fall for students to decide whether they want to continue coalitions. In response to Ron Barrett-Gonzalez’ suggestion, Naylor said that they checked that the referendum will not create a First Amendment problem. There will be an explanation paragraph with the referendum and they will work with OIRP (Office of Institutional Research and Planning). She added that KU is one of the few schools who still has coalitions.
Staff Senate President
In President Liz Phillips absence Brian Moss reported that elections were held and Michelle Ginivan-Hayes will be the FY18 president-elect; next Wednesday is the Staff Senate’s transition meeting. He and Liz Phillips will meet with Julene Miller, KBOR General Counsel, to discuss the removal of staff from reporting to KBOR. He explained that when Staff Senate asked KBOR to remove “classified staff” since it was out of date they dropped the reporting as well. USS (University Support Staff) reports to KBOR’s COPS (Council of Presidents) but UPS (Unclassified Professional Staff) has no one to report to. Tuition assistance for employees is still vague. Funding will be available through summer and the administration will look for ways to continue. It might be that part of a class is funded or something else. Employment policies regarding staff evaluations and appeals for UPS and USS are up for a comment period from the Policy Office. Moss said that while nothing in the policies appear contentious there will be another proposed policy which will address employment discontinuance on the grounds of best interest of the University which appears vague.
VOTE ON Proposed Amendment to usrr 1.3.2 (on-line and non-regular final exams)
Harrington reminded Senate that the amendment, which was discussed at the last meeting, needed to be voted on today. He explained that the language was consistent with USRR 1.4.2 which concerns exams, quizzes and tests other than final exams, and read the amendment.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments to USRR Article IX (Research Misconduct)
Harrington explained that today is the initial consideration of the amendment which was approved by SenEx on April 4, 2017. During the seven-day review period one comment was received suggesting that the language be gender neutral. Harrington read the gender neutral language changes that had been made by Governance Office Administrator Maureen Altman. Noting that this is a big amendment which was virtually a rewrite of the current article, Harrington invited FRPR (Faculty Rights, Privileges, and Responsibilities committee) Chair Rick Hale to explain the amendment. Giving a brief history, Hale explained that the impetus for the changes was that he and FY16 FRPR Chair, Kirk McClure had both served on scholarly misconduct committees and had seen what worked and what didn’t. This prompted them to recommend that FY17 FRPR be charged with reviewing the article. The committee noted some of the problems with the current article: scheduling problems; inconsistencies with federal regulations; structure as a hearing, making the complainant the prosecutor, although it should be a peer review; risk regarding confidentiality concerning external complainant. In mapping the article to federal policies they found more, for example the language gives the appearance of a conflict of interest by suggesting mediation. Hale explained some of the changes:
· Mediation deleted.
· Hearing format removed; it must be a peer review
· There will now be a response to any complaint
· The University doesn’t have to give outsiders all information which was a confidentiality problem
· Roles clarified
· An achievable schedule was created
· Clarified that a complainant can contact anyone with a complaint but eventually the Research Integrity Officer (Jim Tracy, Vice Chancellor for Research) must be contacted.
· The size of the inquiry committee was lowered to 2 or more and the investigation committee to 3 or more to make scheduling meetings more expedient
· Definitions section added
· Statute of limitations added.
Hale explained that the first phase in the procedure is assessment performed by the Research Integrity Officer, followed by consideration by an inquiry committee whose only role is to decide if the complaint should move forward to the next phase, the investigation.
He said that the entirety of FRPR agreed with the changes and had asked for comments about the amendments; except for wordsmithing the agreement was that the new article is much better, no oversight is lost, and Governance is involved. He suggested that FRPR should probably continue to review the article to review how it works and if it’s implementable.
Barrett-Gonzalez expressed concern over the vagueness and ambiguity of the University’s conflict of interest and suggested there be a statement in this document and other Governance documents. Hale pointed out that there is a conflict of interest statement in Article IX and that FRPR had suggested a statement be added to FSRR earlier this year; Harrington noted that that was FSRR 220.127.116.11 [passed by Faculty Senate on April 13]. Hale suggested that if that wasn’t sufficient it might be made a future charge for FRPR. Harrington pointed out that Research has a conflict of interest committee which Hale noted is not unilateral. Harrington said that there is a member of FRPR on the investigation committee to observe that rights are not violated and Keller pointed out that FRB (the Faculty Rights Board) is responsible with addressing conflicts. Regarding the concern that the decision of the Research Integrity Officer is absolute Hale said that that is required by the Fed, adding that the Officer only monitors. Regarding the standard of the complaint Geraldo Sousa noted that there is no penalty for a false accusation but Hale pointed out that federal regulations won’t allow the University to not accept a complaint. Responding to Sousa’s suggestion of possibly having one process for the Fed and one for the University, Hale explained that two processes would put the University at risk. Sousa questioned the use of the word “diligent” in 9.2.12 which Hale explained was language from the Fed. In closing Hale said that this is a good policy which provides protection for the University whereas the current policy puts the University at risk. He asked Senate to contact him with any questions.
Harrington informed senators that they can propose amendments to FRPR’s proposed changes next week before the vote is taken. Kathy Reed asked that any amendments be sent to Governance before the meeting.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments-USRR 1.3.10 and 1.4.6 (Exam Accommodations)
Harrington read the amendments which had been approved by Student Senate. Admitting that he had a selfish interest in proposing the amendments because he might need exam accommodations for his wedding in fall, Senator Joseph Kollhoff pointed out that nevertheless the amendments would protect other students as well. Edward Peltier asked if the differences in the two proposed amendments was intentional. (USRR 1.3.10 states “the instructor and student shall attempt to come to a mutually agreeable method,” whereas USRR 1.4.6 states “the instructor and student shall come to a mutually agreeable method”). Kollhoff explained the language was pulled directly from USRR 1.4.2 and 1.3.2. Concerns about vagueness of the IRS life events were discussed: whether it included a family member getting a job; the duration (if the wedding were on a Friday would that concern a Monday exam), etc. While sympathetic to students’ conflicts Meagan Patterson said she was concerned that the amendment might be moving education to the bottom of students’ priority lists. Belinda Sturm expressed logistical concerns of accommodations such as the requirement of a deadline for submission of final grades. Some questioned if there is a currently a problem which needs to be codified. Others felt safeguards are already in place and questioned whether the amendments would tie the hands of faculty without solving problems. A suggestion was made to add to the USRRs (1.3.2 and 1.4.2) which already existed.
Clark pointed out the inconsistency that the Senate had “adopted” some of the Ad Hoc Policy Review Committee’s recommendations but “accepted” others. He moved that recommendations 1, 2, 3, and 4 be adopted and “accept” be changed to “adopt” in previously accepted policies. Barrett-Gonzalez seconded. Failed.
Harrington explained that “accept” essentially means “thanks for sharing” whereas “adopt” means agreement with every word. Keller said she was against adopting all the recommendations because everyone hasn’t gone through every policy to see if it’s been adopted by the authority that has the right to adopt it in the first place. Amalia Monroe-Gulick said she was in favor of “accept” because some policies need to be reviewed and if Senate adopts they are saying they agree with all the recommendations which she for one doesn’t. Clark expressed confusion since the recommendations have already been adopted. Pointing out that the committee had been charged to advise Senate of those policies which should be given special attention, committee member Lorne Jordan asked for clarification as to whether Senate was going to act on the policies the committee suggested they look at. Keller said she took the charge to mean that policies could be reviewed in the future, adding that she wants to avoid the notion that everyone agrees that there are policies with problems without being able to look at them and possibly change them. Harrington proposed presenting all the recommendations as a consent calendar where policies Senate doesn’t want could be taken off and the rest adopted.
Motion to create a consent calendar of recommendations at the next meeting. Lorne/Seconded. Passed.
The meeting adjourned at 4:33
Potential Amendment to University Senate Rules and Regulations Article I, Section 3.
(Regarding Final Exams for Online/Non-regular Courses)
Approved by SenEx March 14, 2017
The particular sentence (highlighted and bold) proposed to be inserted in the third paragraph of USRR 1.3.2 is essentially copied from USRR 1.4.2 (which governs special exams), but currently is not explicitly included in USRR 1.3.2 (which governs final exams). It is obvious that the spirit of this rule applies to the finals, and it is better to reiterate this sentence explicitly in USRR 1.3.2, since online and non-regular courses seem to be involving more students now and questions about such time conflicts did arise.
If a “take home” exam or an online exam is given in a class with a regular meeting time, it may not be due prior to the end of the regularly scheduled final exam period for the class. If a proctored or online exam is given for an online course, the due date shall be noted in the course syllabus. When the final of an online/non-regular course conflicts with a student's obligation to other regularly scheduled university classes, the student will be accorded the opportunity to take the final at a time not in conflict with other regularly scheduled university classes. The above does not apply to assignments such as projects, performances, or papers. These may be due or take place during the last week of regular classes. Projects, performances, paper, and other coursework may be due during finals week only in lieu of a final exam. This rule does not apply to coursework for which the student has received an extension.
Proposed Amendment to USRR Article IX
(Materials sent prior to meeting)
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.
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.