• Home
  • University Senate - 04/21/16

University Senate - 04/21/16

University Senate
April 21, 2016 - 3:30pm
Green Hall-Room 203
Agenda: 

(This meeting may be electronically recorded.)

 

    I.      Announcements

   II.     Approval of minutes from April 7, 2016

 III.      Standing Reports

           A.  University Senate President Mike Williams

           B.  Faculty Senate President Tom Beisecker

            C.  Student Senate President Chancellor Adams

            D.  Staff Senate President Chris Wallace

 IV.      Discussion on Discontinuance of LL.M. Elder Law Program

V.      Discussion/Vote on Amendment to University Senate Code Article XI, Section 2(a), Membership on the Parking Commission

 VI.      Unfinished Business

            Vote on

            USRR 1.3.1 Calendar Committee

            USRR 2.2.8 Grade Replacement

            USRR 2.2.10 Pharmacy Grading

 

 VII.     New Business       

 

 

Minutes: 

Minutes

UNIVERSITY SENATE MEETING

April 21, 2016 – 3:30 p.m. – 203 Green Hall

Approved May 5, 2016

MEMBERS PRESENT:  Faculty Mike Williams, Tom Beisecker, Philip Baringer, Ron Barrett-Gonzalez, Jim Carothers, Jay Childers, Jonathan Clark, Michael Davidson, Chris Elles, Christopher Fischer, Joe Harrington, Pamela Keller, Jason Matejkowski, Jonathan Mayhew, Amalia Monroe-Gulick, Bozenna Pasik-Duncan, Meagan Patterson, Roberta Freund Schwartz, Bill Staples, Dean Stetler, Belinda Sturm, Susan Williams, Lisa Wolf-Wendell; Students  Chancellor Adams, Harrison Baker, Brent Lee, Chance Maginness, Brittany Oleniacz, Staff Chris Wallace, Terri Chambers, Keah Cunningham, Anna Paradis, Liz Phillips, Peggy Robinson, Tanya Spacek

ABSENTFaculty Mary Banwart (excused), Kelly Chong,  Charles Epp (excused), Pam Fine, Lisa Friis, Andrea Greenhoot, (excused), Lynn Hancock (excused), Majid Hannoum (excused), Kissan Joseph (excused), Paul Laird, Weishi Liu, Mario Medina, Steve Padget, Angela Rathmel (excused), Geraldo Sousa (excused), Barbara Timmermann, (excused); Students Sarah Elliott, Erin Fowler, Thomas Green, Nobus Oghenekaro, Logan Sutton, Sophia Templin, Sophie Wang, Taylor Zabel; Staff Michelle Ginavan-Hayes, Charlotte Goodman, Kristine Latta, Emily Lee (excused), Margaret Mahoney, Susan Shaw

ALSO PRESENT: Maureen Altman and Kathy Reed, University Governance; Mary Lee Hummert, Vice Provost for Faculty Development; Kirk McClure, Chair of Faculty Right, Privileges, and Responsibilities (FRPR); James Sterbenz, EECS; Gerald Mikkelson, Emeritus Professor

President Mike Williams called the meeting to order, announced that the meeting is recorded, and asked for announcements

MINUTES for April 7, 2016 were approved.

STANDING REPORTS

University Senate President

Williams reported that USRR 2.9.1 which concerned changes to FacEx appeals and the appeal form was approved by Chancellor.  He updated Senate that both the Chancellor’s weapons committee on policy and the Provost’s committee on implementation were in full swing, and a KU weapons policy draft should be available in a few weeks.  The Provost’s committee meets twice monthly, with subcommittees meeting on off weeks.  The deadline for the committees is September 1, 2016.

Faculty Senate President

Reporting on the KBOR COFSP (Council of Faculty Senate Presidents) meeting yesterday Beisecker said that COFSP continues to be concerned about Kansas Senate Bill 388 which would mandate that by January 2017 KBOR adopt a policy of common standards across institutions for CLEP (College Level Entrance Placement) scores.  AP scores are not included but Beisecker said that could be an oversight; there is also the possibility that military service standards would also be included.  COFSP drafted a policy to allow institutions some discretion regarding CLEP but there is question whether that will be allowed.  Beisecker informed Senate that KBOR has created a FAQ page about their weapons policy on their website.  He noted that the COFSP membership transition has begun and Pam Keller will chair the council next year.

Student Senate President

Reporting for Chancellor Adams, Chance Maginness announced that OneKU won the Student Senate election.  Brittany Oleniacz told Senate that nine graduate students were still needed to serve on Student Senate.  In response to questions of concern about the recently revised student code, Maginness explained that the approved off campus jurisdiction is limited primarily to incidents involving endangerment of another member of the community.  Oleniacz added that the jurisdiction change also took Title IX into account.  Maginness explained that the right of protest which had been deleted was put back into the code.  He added that the omission of the right guaranteeing Student Senate control over their financial processes had been an oversight in the draft and has been put back into the code.

Staff Senate President

Liz Phillips, Staff Senate President for FY17, reported that she will be chair of the KBOR statewide professional staff committee next year.  She informed Senate that there are still some positions open in Staff Senate.  Phillips announced that the Mini Wheat State Tour, which will take place on Stop Day, still has seats available.  The tour will visit sites in Topeka including Brown vs the Board of Education, and the Capitol.

Discontinuance of LL. M. Elder Law Program

Motion to approve the discontinuance of the LL.M. Elder Law Program.  Baker/Keller. Passed.

Discussion and vote on Proposed Amendment to University Senate Code Article XI,  Section 2(a), Membership on the Parking Commission

Williams explained that the amendment corrected student representation on the committee which was down a member because of the inability of AbleHawks to fill the required position.  The amendment would also give the Academic Achievement and Access Center (AAAC) representation.

In accordance with University Senate Code 1.8.2d (“No enactment, amendment, or repeal shall be adopted upon initial consideration unless the University Senate, by a two-thirds majority of members present, shall vote to suspend this provision”), Harrison Baker moved that the Senate vote on the amendment at today’s meeting.

Motion to vote on amendment to University Senate Code Article XI, Section 2(A).  Baker/Oleniacz.  Passed.

Motion to approve amendment to University Senate Code Article XI, Section 2(A).  Baker/Oleniacz.  Passed. 

Unfinished Business

VOTE ON AMENDMENTS:

AMENDMENT USRR 1.3.1, CALENDAR COMMITTEE

Motion to approve amendment to USRR 1.3.1. Strum/Harrison.  Passed

AMENDMENT USRR 2.2.8 GRADE REPLACEMENT

Williams explained that the biggest change is that a lower grade earned when retaking a class for grade replacement is NOT included in the GPA.  Oleniacz asked about time frame of grade replacement, in particular whether a student who returns to school years after failing several courses would be able to attempt grade replacement.  It was explained that in such cases students usually request academic forgiveness. 

Motion to approve amendment USRR 2.2.8.  Maginness/Oleniacz.  Passed.

AMENDMENT USRR 2.2.10 PHARMACY GRADING

Motion to approve amendment USRR 2.2.10.  Harrison/Chambers. Passed.

OLD BUSINESS

Clark presented his suggested syllabus statement regarding guns which he had originally proposed at the February 11, 2016 University Senate meeting: 

“If a student brings any weapon (as defined by the KBOR) to this class or to the office of any instructor teaching this class, the class will cease to meet as a group and instruction will for the rest of the semester be given, during stated class hours, via Skype conference (Skype address:_______________).  Your enrollment in this class constitutes your acceptance of this provision.

Williams reminded Clark that he had responded to him at an earlier meeting that he had checked with General Council who said that the statement would be included in considerations about weapons implementation procedures.  Williams added that although the weapons policy draft is not completed yet, faculty is required to meet their classes as scheduled in the catalog, and recommended Clark not to put the statement in the syllabus as it would probably be a violation of the policy.  Responding to Clark’s question whether anyone had an objection to the statement, Maginness expressed that he felt it was unnecessary and inappropriate on a number of levels: there will already be repercussions for students who produce a gun; there is more psychological damage in not meeting class than might have occurred as a result of a gun incident; Skype is not necessarily possible for everyone.  He also added that he enrolls in a class to have a professor in the class.   Baker agreed, noting that online courses aren’t as effective.  He also questioned how students would pay for the course since fees are different for online courses.  Oleniacz observed that science classes are very hands on and questioned how the statement would affect the syllabus. 

New Business

Bozenna Pasik-Duncan suggested that those being considered for SenEx/FacEx and Faculty and University Senate positions at the meeting on May 5 present a general personal statement.  Williams responded that the idea was very good and he will investigate procedures.

Baker announced that GayX talks which weren’t included on the GAYPRIL events calendar, would be held in Woodruff Auditorium on April 28 from 6:00 to 9:00 p.m..   

Referring to the revised Intellectual Properties (IP) policy which FacEx received last week Ron Barrett-Gonzalez commented on concerns of the School of Engineering.  He expressed surprise that it wasn’t like the policy that was agreed upon last year and said it should be further revised.  He explained that the current Employee Invention Assignment Agreement prevented faculty, students and emeritus professors from getting hired by or getting internships from outside companies since it required invention rights be pre-assigned to KU.  Mary Lee Hummert explained that there is a revised form which will be implemented when FacEx approves the IP Policy, which she believes is consistent with the policy Faculty Senate agreed upon last year.  She further assured Barrett-Gonzalez that those who had signed the previous agreement will be taken care of by the new agreement.  Barrett-Gonzalez agreed with Williams’ request that he give Williams and Beisecker permission to see where things stand, but emphasized that since summer hiring is nearing the matter is urgent.  

The meeting adjourned at 4:21

Respectfully submitted,

Maureen Altman

Recommendation for Program Discontinuance

Program – LL.M. Elder Law

Academic plan code: ELDRLW-LLM

Department: School of Law

College or School: School of Law

CIP code:

Rationale for recommendation: Our decision to discontinue the Elder Law LL.M. relates primarily to a lack of interest on the part of prospective students and resources to continue the program. The dramatic lack of interest in the LL.M. Elder Law degree program is not limited to KU. The ABA lists only three other law schools nationwide that offer an LL.M. degree in this area of law – Stetson University, Touro College Law Center and Western New England University. It should be noted, however, that Touro no longer lists their LL.M. degree in Aging and Longevity on their website and have apparently discontinued it. Even with the limited number of schools offering this program, the demand is not there at KU Law as reflected in our enrollment numbers. Since its inception in 2004, student enrollment has been very low and even non-existent at times. Only nine students have completed the program over the course of sixteen years.

In addition, with the exception of the thesis component of the program, the curriculum draws from existing classes available to JD students. Most JD students interested in this particular area of law have the opportunity to take many of the same courses as part of their JD program. Students enrolled at KU Law can actually obtain an Elder Law Certificate without the additional year required of the LL.M. degree. This lack of student interest is coupled with a lack of faculty support. The professor with specific expertise in the area departed several years ago and the remaining faculty member working to administer the program retired last year. These developments led to the decision by the dean and the faculty to discontinue admitting students and eventually eliminate the program once all remaining students graduated.

As defined by University policy, the LL.M. Elder Law program is inactive. We have not admitted students to the program in over three years and have no plans to admit students in the future. All references to the program on our website, catalog and other similar materials have long since been removed. The last remaining students enrolled in the program graduated in 2015 at which time, this program, in essence, ceased to exist.

Impact of discontinuance:

On students:

This is a separate post-JD program. Discontinuance of this program will have no impact on our student body. There will be no changes or deletions of any existing courses as a result of the discontinuation. The Elder Law Externship remains as an experiential course offering for students. JD students interested in elder law may still tailor their coursework in this area by pursuing a Certificate in Elder Law.

On faculty:

There is no direct impact on the faculty. The director of the program, Professor Sandy McKenzie, retired May 2015. There are no full-time faculty members who focus in this particular area of law or who are willing to take up the directorship mantle.

The curriculum for the LL.M. Elder Law degree relied on existing course offerings which will continue to be taught. No faculty appointments or even part-time lecturer appointments are impacted by the discontinuance of this degree program.

Mission impact:

With the departure of Professor Kim Dayton many years ago, our elder law program, in general, has not had the benefit of a full-time, tenured/tenure-track faculty member at the helm whose primary focus was elder law. Much of the clinical coursework has be delegated to adjunct faculty members. With the continued diminished interest in the program and the need to fill other instructional areas, recruiting faculty who teach and research in the area of elder law has not been a priority. The law school’s mission is better served by redirecting attention, resources, and faculty strengths to the JD program and other post-JD programs that attract more students and provide more added benefit to the students’ overall education and future employment opportunities. Directing our resources to the demands of the students and the strengths of the faculty better serves the teaching and research components of the school’s mission.

Effective date of discontinuance: Immediately

From: Reed, Kathy

To: Williams, Michael

Cc: Altman, Maureen; Stetler, Dean A.

Subject: AP&P - Approval of Request to Discontinue Inactive Degree Program

Date: Monday, April 04, 2016 1:48:00 PM

Attachments: LLM Elder Law Program Discontinuance Recommendation.pdf

Emailrequest.pdf

Please note, this is being sent on behalf of Prof. Stetler, Chair, AP&P

April 4, 2016

TO: Mike Williams, President, University Senate

FROM: Dean Stetler, chair, Academic Policies & Procedures (AP&P)

Committee

RE: Approval of Request to Discontinue Inactive Degree Program

The AP&P Committee voted 9 to 1 to approve the School of Law’s request to discontinue the Elder Law LL.M. Per University Senate Rules and Regulations (USRR) 8.3.4 (see excerpt below), the matter is being forwarded to the University Senate for its recommendation.

USRR:

Article VIII. Policies and Procedures Regarding Academic Program Discontinuance

Section 3. Recommendations for Discontinuance of Inactive Academic Programs

8.3.4 Upon receipt of a Recommendation for Discontinuance under 8.3.3, the Committee on

Academic Policies and Procedures shall review the recommendation and submit to the University

Senate its written recommendation for or against the Recommendation for Program

Discontinuance.

 

Potential Amendments to University Senate Code Article XI Section 2

(Regarding membership on the Parking Commission)

Approved by the University Senate Executive Committee (SenEx) on April 12, 2016

 

Rationale:

In the spring of 2015, there was a change made to the Parking Commission to include a student representative of AbleHawks.  The Student Senate worked with the Faculty Advisor for AbleHawks, who has been unable to secure a student member from AbleHawks to attend the Parking Commission meetings.  Therefore the commission has been short one student voting member.  Upon consultation with the Faculty Advisor for AbleHawks, the amendment below is proposed.  The amendment deletes the requirement that one student be from AbleHawks), and includes the Director of Academic Achievement and Access Center, or his/her designee, to represent students regarding equal access and accessibility to parking. 

Deletion of “the Vice Provost Responsible for Parking & Transit” is a technical change resulting from Parking & Transit becoming a responsibility of the Vice Provost for Administration and Finance.    

 

University Senate code

Article XI University Commissions, Boards, and Other Committees

Section 2. The Parking Commission

 

  1. Members

The University of Kansas Parking Commission shall be composed of ten voting members and seven nine ex officio non-voting members.

  1. Voting members. The Provost shall appoint the voting members from lists of persons recommended by the groups named: Three members of the student body including a member of the University Transit Commission and a representative of AbleHawks recommended by the Student Senate Executive Committee; three members of the faculty, one of whom may be an emeritus faculty member, recommended by the Faculty Senate Executive Committee; four staff recommended by the Staff Senate.
  2. Ex officio, non-voting members. The ex-officio non-voting members shall be: the Chief Financial Officer of the Lawrence campus; the Vice Provost responsible for Parking &Transit; the Vice Provost for Administration and Finance, or his/her designee; the Director of Design and Construction Management or his/her designee; the Chief Justice of the Court of Parking Appeals or a Court officer; the Director of the Office of Public Safety, or his/her designee; the Director of Parking & Transit; the Assistant Director of Parking & Transit; and the Transportation Coordinator or a member of the Transit Commission (a student);, and the Director of Academic Achievement and Access Center, or his/her designee. 

 

Proposed Amendment to USRR 1.3.1

Approved by University Senate Executive Committee (SenEx) March 29, 2016

Rationale: Since about 15 years ago, responding to concerns from the University community, the Registrar's Office adopted a year-to-year rotation system of finals so that no course is assigned a Friday for its final every time, which was very well received by the community. The proposed change to USRR 1.3.1 better matches the current business practice of the University. Additionally, it offers a level of transparency into what kinds of exceptions have generally been approved by the Calendar Committee.

Article I Academic Schedules

Section 3. Final Examination Schedules

1.3.1 The Calendar Committee shall prepare and submit to the University Senate for approval a schedule for final examinations for each semester, so that it may be included in the Schedule of Classes. periodically review a final exam rotation and work with the Office of the University Registrar to ensure appropriate and equitable scheduling of  final exams. The Calendar Committee shall include in their final report to the University Senate Executive Committee the alternative final exams and special exams approved by the Committee for the academic year.

 

Proposed Amendment to USRR 2.2.8

Article 2, Section 2.8 (USRR 2.2.8) Grade Replacement

Approved by University Senate Executive (SenEx) March 29, 2016

Rationale: The revisions will provide clarity on circumstances when a student retakes a course in which he/she had received a D or an F and receives a grade lower than the original grade, i.e. he/she receives a D and then repeats the course and receives an F.

Article II. Academic Work and Its Evaluation
Section 2. The Grading System

2.2.8 Grade Replacement Policy in Repeat Courses.

If a student takes a course at KU, receives a D or F in the course, enrolls in and repeats the course at KU, the new grade may be used in place of the original grade for purpose of GPA calculation, subject to the limitations herein.

2.2.8.1 The course must be numbered 000-299 and have been taken in the Fall 2001 semester or thereafter. Classes taken from Fall 2001 through Summer 2007 must have been requested by the student during the semester as qualifying for this policy. Beginning in Fall 2007, this policy automatically applies to classes that meet the criteria outlined in this section.

2.2.8.2 The grade of D or F cannot be the result of an academic misconduct sanction of “Reduction of Grade for the Course.”

2.2.8.3 The grade recalculation will happen by default.  Students may only repeat a course for grade replacement a maximum of five (5) times. This means a student may only repeat five courses once, or repeat a combination of a single course or multiple courses for a total allotment of five grade replacement opportunities.  Multiple repeats for grade replacement of a course are discouraged, but not explicitly prohibited. The time and date of registration of the course repeat(s) enrollment will be used to determine the limit of five repeat courses for grade replacement.

2.2.8.4 The original grade will remain on the transcript, although It will not be used to calculate the GPA.  Each attempt to improve and replace a course grade by repeating a course will reduce the number of repeats for grade improvement available to the student, regardless of the grade earned in the repeat of a course.

2.2.8.5  Students may have a grade replaced no more than five times, meaning a student may retake five courses, or a course five times, or any combination thereof. Multiple retakes of a course are discouraged, but not explicitly prohibited. The time and date of registration of the second (repeat) enrollment will be used to determine the limit of five repeat courses for grade replacement.  For each attempt to improve and replace a course grade by repeating a course, the grade recalculation will happen by default using the higher of the original or repeated course grades as follows:

2.2.8.5.1 If the higher grade was earned in a retake of the course, this will be considered course and grade replacement. The original course and grade will remain on the transcript, but will NOT be included in the calculation of GPA.

2.2.8.5.2 If the grade earned for any repeated course is lower than the original course grade, the lower grade will be shown on the transcript but will NOT be included in the calculation of the GPA.

2.2.8.5.3 If a student makes multiple attempts to replace a course grade by repeating the course multiple times (up to the limit of five times), and achieves a higher grade, this grade will be considered the course and grade replacement. The original and repeated courses and grades will appear on the transcript but the inferior grades will not be included in the GPA calculation.

2.2.8.6  This policy cannot be used for courses that apply to a baccalaureate degree already awarded by the University of Kansas.  Only the original course (department, number and original number of credit hours) may be retaken for course and grade replacement. A similar course (different department, or number, or credit hours) will not be considered for course and grade replacement.

2.2.8.7 This policy may not be used to replace course(s) and grade(s) that have been applied to a baccalaureate degree already awarded by the University of Kansas.

(Note: This amendment and the approval of USRR 2.2.5 will require renumbering Article II, Section 2).

 

Proposed Amendment to University Senate Rules and Regulations Article 2, Section 2.10 (USRR 2.2.10) Pharmacy Grading for Clinical Rotations.

Approved by University Senate Executive Committee (SenEx) March 29, 2016

Rationale: The amendment will allow the pharmacy program to maintain the integrity of the grade point average attained through course work separate from the documentation of competencies in the field experience.  Currently Preceptors, who are practicing pharmacists, avoid assigning letter grades below the A level.  As a result the vast majority of Pharmacy students are assigned A’s for 44 or their 140 PharmD credit hours, resulting in grade inflation.  This requirement will better differentiate student performance.

Article II. Academic Work and Its Evaluation
Section 2. The Grading System

2.2.10 The School of Pharmacy may use the letter E (Excellent), in addition to S (Satisfactory), U (Unsatisfactory) and I (Incomplete) for field work (clinical rotations) for grades recommended by preceptors.

(Note: This amendment and the approval of USRR 2.2.5 will require renumbering Article II, Section 2).

 

 

 


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