• Home
  • University Senate - 10/08/15

University Senate - 10/08/15

University Senate
October 8, 2015 - 3:30pm
Provost’s Conference Room
Agenda: 

(This meeting may be electronically recorded.)

I.          Announcements

II.         Approval of minutes from September 10, 2015

III.        Standing Reports

A.  University Senate President Mike Williams

            B.  Faculty Senate President Tom Beisecker

            C.  Student Senate President Zach George

            D.  Staff Senate President Chris Wallace

IV.        Proposed Amendment to University Senate Code Art X, Sec. 2 (ACEC Faculty)

V.         Proposed Amendment to University Senate Code Art. X Sec 2. (AP&P’s ex officio member)

VI.        Proposed Amendment to University Senate Code Art. X Sec 2. (Libraries Committee Provost Appointments)

VII.       Proposed Amendment to University Senate Code Art XI Sec. 2 (Parking Commission Provost Appointments)

VIII.      Proposed Amendment to University Senate Code Art XI Sec. 4 (Judicial Board Provost Appointments)

IX.        Proposed Amendment to USRR 6.8.3 (Annotations)

X.         Proposed Amendment to USRR 6.9.1 (Parking Appeals)

XI.        Approval of Calendar Committee’s 2015 charge-final exams on multiple campuses

XII.       Weapons on Campus Committee

XIII.      Meeting Reminder to Committees

XII.       Update on KU Academic Accelerator Program, KUAAP.  Speakers: Sara Rosen, Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs, Susan Gronbeck-Tedesco, Associate Vice Provost, International Programs and Amy Neufeld, Director, International Programs)

XIII.      Old Business

XIV.     New Business

Attachments:

Fall 2014 PRE-AAP+AAP Student Facts

Minutes: 

Minutes

UNIVERSITY SENATE MEETING

October 8, 2015 – 3:30 p.m. – 203 Green Hall

Approved as corrected November 5, 2015

MEMBERS PRESENT:  Faculty Mike Williams, Tom Beisecker, Mary Banwart, Philip Baringer, Ron Barrett-Gonzalez, Jim Carothers, Kelly Chong, Jonathan Clark, Chris Elles, Pam Fine, Andrea Greenhoot, Lynn Hancock, Majid Hannoum, Joe Harrington, Pamela Keller, Paul Laird, Weishi Liu, Jason Matejkowski, Jonathan Mayhew, Mario Medina, Steve Padget, Bozenna Pasik-Duncan, Meagan Patterson, Roberta Freund Schwartz, Geraldo Sousa, Bill Staples, Dean Stetler, Belinda Sturm, Susan Williams, Students Harrison Baker, Shegufta Huma, Keonya Jackson, Elizabeth Johnson, Brent Lee, Chance Maginness, Brittany Oleniacz, Logan Sutton, Howard Trey Wolf, Mady Womack, Taylor Zabel, Staff Chris Wallace, Terri Chambers, Michelle Ginavan-Hayes, Charlotte Goodman, Kristine Latta, Emily Lee, Liz Phillips, Peggy Robinson, Susan Shaw,

ABSENTFaculty Jay Childers, Charles Epp (excused), Christopher Fischer, Lisa Friis, Sandra Gray (excused), Kissan Joseph, Amalia Monroe-Gulick (excused), Angela Rathmel, Barbara Timmerman (excused), Lisa Wolf-Wendel (excused), Students Zach George (excused), Sophia Templin (excused) Staff Keah Cunningham (excused), Margaret Mahoney (excused), Tanya Spacek

ALSO PRESENT: Provost Jeffrey Vitter; Senior Vice Provost Sara Rosen; Associate Vice Provost of International Programs Susan Gronbeck-Tedesco; Director of International Programs Amy Neufeld; Maureen Altman and Kathy Reed, University Governance; Amy Smith, Policy Office; Sarah Elliott, student

President Mike Williams called the meeting to order. 

MINUTES for 9/10/2015 were approved.  Harrison Baker noted that student Sara Elliott had been omitted from the minutes; Jim Carothers pointed out that in line 15 the “s” in Williams had been omitted.

STANDING REPORTS

University Senate President

Referencing last Thursday’s shooting at Umpqua Community College in Oregon, Mike Williams said that the pressures on campus and in this state are not trivial.  He reported that the Ad Hoc Weapons Committee is working on a document on procedures regarding weapons on campus.  Williams added that the committee’s primary goal is to ensure people can express themselves and announced that the University community will be invited to forums.  KU must work with the state as well.  Jonathan Clark reported that 2007-2013 figures from extensive press reports show that 225,386 Americans have been killed in gun related incidents.  Williams thanked him for his offer to ask the History and American Studies departments for a report on how we have come to this point.  He added that KBOR Student Advisory Committee is also partnering with the Docking Institute through Fort Hayes on a survey about gun legislation; results should be available by the end of this term.  The Ad Hoc Weapons Committee is planning a survey of the KU community as well.  Williams said that the committee plans to have a draft of procedures to share with University Senate by the end of the spring semester and hopes to have a final version ready to implement in fall 2016. 

Faculty Senate President

Echoing Williams, Tom Beisecker reported that guns on campuses was one of the major topics at the last KBOR COFSP (Council of Faculty Senate Presidents) meeting.  KBOR wants campuses to act with a single voice so that the gun policy can be more effective.  The KBOR Student Advisory Committee’s survey is on COFSP’s agenda for October and he assumes a survey will be created to extend to faculty and staff.  Another topic of the September COFSP meeting is the desire of KBOR to change Kansas citizens’ perception of higher education.  KBOR wants to provide information explaining how everyone in the state benefits from the state’s higher education.  Beisecker said he will be asking the Senate for help.

Student Senate President

In Zach George’s absence Chance Maginness reported for Student Senate.  He said Student Body President Jessie Pringle reported at the last Student Senate meeting that the gun survey will be out in late October or early November and results should be available in mid or late December; questions will be approved at next KBOR Student Advisory Committee meeting in October.  A bill was approved to increase travel funds for those who want to attend the MEF fund.  An elections reform bill was also passed. 

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 in September.  She had been very involved in the Professional Development Fund.

DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

University Senate Code Amendments:

Article X, Section 2 (ACEC)

Rationale: 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. 

Article X. Standing Committees of the University Senate

Section 2. Membership

The Committee on Academic Computing and Electronic Communication shall be composed of four 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 members serving staggered three-year terms,; and two students, an one undergraduate and a one graduate student each serving a one‑year terms, appointed by the student body president…

Article X, Section 2 (AP&P)

Rationale: The FY-15  AP&P committee recommended that the Director of Student  Academic Services of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences be added as an ex-officio, non-voting member of the AP&P committee.

Article X. Standing Committees of the University Senate

Section 2. Membership

The Committee on Academic Policies and Procedures shall be composed of seven faculty serving staggered three-year terms, three representatives from the staff serving staggered three-year terms, and three students serving one-year terms. A representative of the Undergraduate Advising Executive Committee (UAEC), appointed by that group, and the University Registrar, and the Director of Student Academic Services in the College of Liberal Arts & Sciences, shall serve as ex-officio, non-voting members.

Article X, Section 2 (Libraries), Article XI, Section 2 (Parking Commissions), and Article XI, Section 4 (Judicial Board)

Rationale for the following three amendments: The practice has been that each body contacts and appoints their own members.  The names of the staff and students (and faculty for parking) are then given to the provost.  The provost sends letters of service to both the appointee coping his/her supervisor. 

Article X. Standing Committees of the University Senate

Section 2. Membership

The University Committee on Libraries shall be composed of…In addition, there shall be four student members serving one-year terms and two staff members appointed by the Provost  their respective governance bodies and serving staggered three year terms.  These appointments are endorsed by the Provost via a letter of service to the appointee and his/her supervisor

Article XI University Commissions, Boards, and Other Committees

Section 2. The Parking Commission

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 appointed by the Student Senate Executive Committee; three members of the faculty, one of whom may be an emeritus faculty member, recommended appointed by the Faculty Senate Executive Committee; four staff recommended appointed by the Staff Senate. These appointments are endorsed by the Provost via a letter of service to the appointee and his/her supervisor.

Article XI University Commissions, Boards, and Other Committees

Section 4. Judicial Board

The Judicial Board shall be composed of:

III.    three members of the unclassified professional staff (as defined in Part II. E of the Handbook for Faculty and Other Unclassified Staff), appointed by the Provost, for three‑year overlapping terms. appointed by their respective governance bodies, for three year staggered terms.  These appointments are endorsed by the Provost via a letter of service to the appointee and his/her supervisor.

IV.   two members of the university support staff, appointed by the Provost, for three-year overlapping terms. their respective governance bodies, for three year staggered terms.  These appointments are endorsed by the Provost via a letter of service. 

V.     three administrators, at least one of whom shall have faculty status, appointed by the Faculty Senate Executive Committee Provost for three-year overlapping terms. For purposes of this provision, administrators are those persons assigned half time or less to teaching duties

University Senate Rules and Regulations

USRR Article VI, Section 8

Rationale: The Governance Office found that after the Judicial Board procedures were reformed the suggested annotated version was never created.  This has caused confusion and inconvenience for those seeking the annotations.  It was suggested that this section be removed. 

USRR Article VI. Procedures for Conflict Resolution

Section 8. Other Powers and Responsibilities of Judicial Board Chair

6.8.3 Annotation Interpretations of University Senate Code and Rules and Regulations

6.8.3.1 Compilation. The Judicial Board Chair shall compile an annotated version of the University Senate Code, the University Senate Rules and Regulations, and other provisions applicable in disputes arising under these procedures. The annotated version of applicable provisions shall include brief statements of all Judicial Board decisions interpreting a provision. These statements shall identify the provision in question, the interpretive issue, the resolution of the issue by the hearing or appeal panel in question, and the date of the decision, but should not include information about the parties or details of the matter in dispute.

6.8.3.2 Availability. A copy of the annotated version of the University Senate Code and the University Senate Rules and Regulations shall be maintained in the office of the Judicial Board and provided to the Office of the University General Counsel, as well as any unit or specialized tribunal that requests a copy. The annotation(s) respecting any provision shall be available upon request to any interested person. When the application of a provision that has been subject to a prior interpretation is at issue in any matter pending before the Judicial Board, the Judicial Board Chair shall provide copies of the pertinent annotation(s) to the parties and the members of the panel who will be deciding the case. Members of a unit level hearing panel or specialized tribunal may inquire of the Judicial Board Chair whether prior interpretations of relevant provisions exist, and the Judicial Board Chair shall provide copies of the annotation(s) reflecting any such interpretation.

6.8.3.3 6.8.3.1 Effect.

Prior interpretations are not binding on subsequent decision makers, but decision makers should bear in mind that inconsistent interpretation of applicable provisions undermines the fairness and predictability of the dispute resolution process. In the event that inconsistent interpretations arise, the Judicial Board Chair shall inform the University Senate Executive Committee of the inconsistency and recommend changes in the applicable provision to clarify its meaning.

USRR Article VI, Section 9

Rationale: After meeting with Nicholas Birdsong, Court of Parking Appeals, the following USRR change was recommended (Fall2014.)  This will make Article VI, Section 9 consistent with amendment 11 of the University of Kansas Court of Parking Appeals Rules of Practice and Procedure:

“Any amendments to these Rules shall be made at the discretion of the Chief Justice with the advice and consent of the Officers. Pursuant to University Senate Rules and Regulations 6.9.1, amendments to the Court’s procedures shall take effect 30 days after submission of the proposed amendments to the chairperson of the Judicial Board, unless returned by the chairperson for correction or modification. Subsequent to any modification under this section, the Chief Justice shall be responsible for ensuring that these Rules are promptly updated in the KU Policy Library.”

USRR Article VI. Procedures for Conflict Resolution

Section 9. Procedures of the Court of Parking Appeals

USRR 6.9.1 …Copies of the procedures shall be supplied to the offices of University Governance, Provost, General Counsel, and Dean of the Law School, and to others upon request. The Chief Justice shall be responsible for promptly placing the procedures in the KU Policy Library.

Williams informed the Senate that the Provost had expressed concerns about amendments to Articles X, Section 2, and XI, Section 2 regarding Provost approval of appointments.  He observed that the Provost still endorses, still has authority but noted that, while the intention of the proposed amendments was to reflect what is being practiced, he understood that the language may leave open to interpretation that the Provost may or may not have the due respect and participation in the process.  Williams recommended that the Senate approve the amendments as written—since it moves along the process of cleaning up and consolidating the language—with the understanding that the issue may be revisited with future amendments to make sure that it’s clear that the Provost Office absolutely has the privilege and right to be involved in the appointment process. 

Carothers proposed a call to question on all the amendments.  Clark questioned the last paragraph of the 6.8.3 proposed amendment. He felt that the last paragraph (6.8.3.3) requires the annotated information described in the proceeding paragraphs (6.8.3.1 and 6.8.3.2) and deleting those paragraphs would omit the information necessary to the decision makers referenced in 6.8.3.3.  Ron Barrett-Gonzalez agreed that the annotations are needed as an archive.  Kathy Reed explained that all cases are kept and archived with access limited to the Judicial Board Chair and the parties involved.  However 6.8.3.1 and 6.8.3.2 refer to disputes regarding interpretations of procedures rather than individual cases and that there haven’t been any disputes.  Jeanette Johnson (formerly of the Policy Office) and Molly Mulloy (former Office Administrator of University Governance) had found no record of an annotated version.  Maginness noted that the purpose of the amendment was to put the rule in line with the practice.  Reed agreed that the purpose was to streamline.  Barrett-Gonzales questioned that perhaps the practices should be changed and annotations should be made.  Harrison Baker also asked why annotations were not made.  Carothers referred to the rationale and said more information about the history—who was responsible for the procedures being reformed, who decided annotations not be made—would be helpful.  (He also noted that amendments to the University Code and USRR should not be considered together).  

Williams explained that the meeting today was to discuss the amendments which will be voted on at the next meeting.  He will report information regarding 6.8.3 at the next meeting.

Approval of Calendar Committee’s 2015 charge--final exams on multiple campuses

Approved by SenEx: September 29, 2015

Rational:

The Committee discussed developing a policy for scheduling final exams on dual campuses, and received input from various members of the committee. After extensive debate, the committee reached a consensus that various campuses should continue their current general final exam policies. This is because only a relatively small number of students have classes on more than one campuses in the same semester.

Instead of having an overarching policy, the committee agreed that the current final exam policy dealing with exam conflicts within campus should be amended to include conflicts across campuses. A draft of this amendment, as proposed by the committee for adoption by the University Senate (or further debate in the 2016 fiscal year), is appended to this report.

Final Examinations for Multiple Campuses

Conflicting Final Examination Language, as per the Office of the University Registrar

Website (http://registrar.ku.edu/final-exam-policies):

Recommended change is in highlighted bold:

Conflicting Examinations

In case a student is subjected to conflicting examinations as listed in the final examination schedule for the appropriate semester, the last mentioned arranges an examination for the affected student at a different time.

1. When the conflicting examinations are between French and Italian and Spanish, an examination for the affected student is arranged at a different time by French and Italian for spring semesters and by Spanish for fall semesters.

2. If one of the conflicting examination times is a Common Examination (e.g., all sections of

Humanities & Western Civilization 204), the non-Common Examination final instructor will arrange an alternate time.

3. In the case of students with final examinations on multiple campuses for the same day, the same procedures apply for determining if a conflict exists and how it should be resolved. In addition to the standard time of the exam, sixty minutes of time should be added to the beginning and end time of the examinations to accommodate travel time between locations when determining if a conflict exists.

Williams explained that since students may have exam conflicts on the Lawrence campus and other campuses, the FY15 Calendar Committee recommended an addition to the Final Exam Policy to accommodate the conflict and provide for additional time needed to travel.  He requested a motion to approve the committee’s recommendation.

Motion to approve the FY15 Calendar Committees addition to the Final Exam Policy.  Carothers/Maginness.  Passed.

MEETING REMINDER TO COMMITTEE Chairs 

Williams reminded chairs of University Senate Committees to schedule their committee meetings.

UPDATE ON KU ACADEMIC ACCELERATOR PROGRAM KUAAP.  Speakers: Sara Rosen, Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs, Susan Gronbeck-Tedesco, Associate Vice Provost, International Programs and Amy Neufeld, Director, International Programs

Giving a brief history of KUAAP, Sara Rosen noted that Goal 1 of Bold Aspirations was to strengthen the pipeline of students into and through the university.  To create a stable base to support KU, Bold Aspirations, as well as Changing for Excellence, realized that the University must grow KU’s population, as well as making it more diverse.  KU’s international population was eight percent of the student population when the program started; the goal is fifteen to sixteen percent.  After a semester of studying international recruitment companies and talking to other schools, Shorelight was chosen because the University liked their model for many reasons.  Shorelight has no branding of its own; rather than recruiting for someone else, they are recruiting KU students.  They don’t dictate how the University does things but instead work together with KU to build the program.  The program has a KU fulltime dedicated staff.  KU was impressed with Shorelight’s 130 field staff and recruiters around the world; the University can’t do that kind of recruitment.  The program integrates AEC, ISS and International Programs together with the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences.  There is a joint governance structure; the steering committee is comprised of three members from Shorelight Education, three from KU—Sara Rosen, Diane Goddard, Vice Provost for Administration and Programs, and Susan Gronbeck-Tedesco—and the CEO and two Vice Presidents from Shorelight.  Under the steering committee are academic, marketing/enrollment, and infrastructures/operations committees.  

Rosen explained the financial model.  The year the students arrive there is a twelve-month program which is a mix of English language and general education courses, a Univ 101 sequence course and acculturation events.  Their fee pays for that year and any extra revenue is shared by KU and Shorelight.  After the first year, if students are successful they enter the University as sophomores with roughly 30 hours of credit and pay out-of-state tuition; Shorelight receives ten percent. There is no funding to Shorelight after the first year if students fail or leave.

Amy Neufeld reported on the progress of the program.  (She referred to the handout at the end of the minutes).  The first cohort in the AAP curriculum was comprised of 57 students whose average age was 19 years old; three-quarters were male.  The average high school GPA was 3.45; she underscored the fact that the minimum required GPA for KUAAP is 2.5.  Neufeld explained the various ways students can enter the program.  If their English language skills are acceptable they can go directly into the KU curriculum; if they are in the upper AEC range they are eligible for the KUAAP twelve-month program Rosen described; if their English language proficiency is not high enough to be successful in KUAAP courses, they start as Pre-AAP student which is really equivalent to being AEC students.  Fifty of the 57 are still at KU which is an 88% retention rate.  Most are interested in Business and STEM.  Of those who left, some were homesick, one was not emotionally ready for college but other reasons for leaving were similar to those of other KU students, a bad fit, or personal reasons. In the first year of the program 127 students were admitted; their persistence rates are similar to the 57 in the first AAP cohort.  This fall 176 were admitted.  There is a correlation between GPA and success with those with a lower GPAs having more difficulty.  Rosen added that primarily language proficiency rather than academics is a problem.  For the most part students are from China but the program is working on enrolling a more diverse group.  In answer to Shegufta Huma’s questions about Middle Eastern students and the gender imbalance, Rosen said that there is a large group from the United Arab Emirates and that the gender imbalance of 77% male and 23% female was a surprise to KU and Shorelight.  Rosen noted that price sensitivity is an issue in recruitment.  KUAAP is working on a transfer program in which students could prepare for two years in their own country and transfer, making it easier for families who might be able to afford only two years. In response to a question about placing the students correctly, Neufeld explained that the program accepts three different placement exams when the students apply, which determines if they are ready for the AAP or pre AAP curriculum.  They are given an additional placement test when they arrive.

Williams said that there is an important “do no harm” aspect to the contract with Shorelight.  Rosen explained that there is a financial clause that as the program ramps up Shorelight will make the University whole with respect to the tuition income AEC receives, especially from students in the levels of four and five so that KU is not cannibalizing our own students who come into the AEC program.  There are several mutual-out clauses as well.  Lynn Hancock asked about conflicts of interest with other American universities and Rosen assured that the program has put a bubble around KU.  Also, Shorelight wants a wide diversity of universities to work with; KU has a strong brand and is Midwestern.  Barrett-Gonzalez expressed concern about whether doubling KU’s international student population is a good thing, expressing a concern about overburdening faculty and underfunded programs, especially in Engineering.  The Provost said that there is a business model for Engineering, focusing on revenue.  Rosen pointed out that KU’s enrollment has been higher in the past.  Rosen informed the Senate that a slightly redacted contract has been handed over to the UDK.  Williams told the committee that any additional questions can be directed to Governance who will forward to Rosen and Neufeld.  Rosen and Neufeld also encouraged interested members of the KU community to attend one of KUAAP’s informational forums planned for October 21, 11:00-noon and November 30 1:00-2:00 in the Alderson Room, and December 8, 4:00-5:00 in the Jayhawk room.

 

Old Business

None

New Business

None

No further business. 

The meeting adjourned at 3:55.

Respectfully submitted,

Maureen Altman

Fall 2014 PRE-AAP+AAP Student Facts

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


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