University Senate 12/4/14
December 4, 2014 – 3:30 p.m.
Room 203 Green Hall (Law School)
(This meeting may be electronically recorded.)
II. Approval of minutes from November 6, 2014
III. Standing Reports
A. University Senate President Jonathan Mayhew
B. Faculty Senate President Jim Carothers
C. Student Senate President Miranda Wagner
D. Unclassified Senate President Amanda Ostreko
E. University Support Staff Senate President Chris Wallace
IV. Social Media Policy Procedures
V. Old Business
VI. New Business
December 4, 2014 – 3:30 p.m.
203 Green Hall
MEMBERS PRESENT: Faculty – Jonathan Mayhew, Jim Carothers, Mahasweta Banerjee, Philip Baringer, Ronald Barrett-Gonzalez, Thomas Beisecker, Kelly Chong, Katherine Clark, Antha Cotten-Spreckelmeyer, Mohamed El-Hodiri, Kim Glover, Sandra Gray, Andrea Greenhoot, Kissan Joseph, Nancy Kinnersley, Paul Laird, Jeremy Martin, Gerald Mikkelson, Paul Outka, Steve Padget, Allan Pasco, Bozenna Pasik-Duncan, Meagan Patterson, Marlesa Roney, Roberta Freund Schwartz, Bill Staples, Barbara Timmermann, Barney Warf, Mike Williams, Lisa Wolfe-Wendel. Students – Omar Rana, Sarah Elliot, Kaitlyn Klein, Miranda Wagner. Unclassified Staff – Mishelle Denton, David Day, Greg Smith, Elizabeth Phillips, Michael Krings. University Support Staff – Charlotte Goodman, Peggy Robinson, David Weakley. Ex-Officio non-voting – Chancellor Bernadette Gray-Little, Unclassified Senate President Amanda Ostreko.
EXCUSED: Faculty – Lisa Friis, Pamela Keller, Elizabeth MacGonagle. Students – Harrison Baker, Emma Halling. University Support Staff – Chris Wallace. Unclassified Staff – David Weakley.
ALSO PRESENT: Kathleen Levy and Kathy Reed, University Governance.
President Jonathan Mayhew called the meeting to order.
University Senate approved the minutes for November 6, 2014.
University Senate President – Mayhew deferred until later in the meeting.
Faculty Senate President – Carothers congratulated the students on successfully challenging the BOR regarding a proposed amendment that would have allowed administrations at BOR schools to adjust fees without submitting a referendum to the student body. He noted that he has received inquiries about the budget, and he has no information on this.
Student Senate President – Wagner reported that election reform has been a major issue for Student Senate. They are working on clarifying language to make it easier for students to follow the rules.
Unclassified Senate President – Ostreko announced that there will be a Faculty-Staff Day of Writing on Thursday, January 15, from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. in the Sabatini Multicultural Resource Center. More information is available from Terese Thonus, Director, KU Writing Center. Ostreko reported that Unclassified Senate discussed the draft Tobacco Free KU Policy. Human Resources has asked Unclassified Senate for feedback on the Disciplinary Action Policy. The One Staff Senate proposal will be reviewed soon by Unclassified Senate and University Support Staff Senate.
University Support Staff Senate President – No report.
SOCIAL MEDIA POLICY PROCEDURES
Mayhew introduced the draft Social Media Policy (SMP) Procedures. (A copy is provided at the end of the minutes.) He began by outlining the procedure that was followed in producing the policy. BOR passed the SMP last spring and the Provost formed an ad hoc committee to create a procedure for dealing with possible violations. The committee included faculty, staff, students, and administration. The draft procedures were developed by Charles Epp and Marta Caminero-Santangelo, and considered and modified by the committee. SenEx has considered the draft procedures and suggested changes. Most of the substantive changes were accepted by administration. The SMP Procedures Policy is a Provost policy; the role of University Senate is advisory.
The next step in the process will be to have a full discussion of the draft at the February University Senate meeting with a vote to take place in March. Mayhew stated that he would go over the policy and would entertain comments but would not answer questions until the February meeting. Representatives from administration and General Counsel’s Office will also be available to answer questions in February.
Mayhew explained the main features of the draft policy. He noted that the notification provision was not in the original but was added at the suggestion of SenEx. The function of the Initial Review Panel is to determine if there is sufficient cause to go forward. The accused has the right to submit a written statement at this stage. The Substantive Review Board conducts a hearing on the merits. The draft includes the procedure for appointing the members of the Substantive Review Board. The draft also contains provisions regarding appeal rights, time frame, and legal advice.
SenEx members had the following concerns:
- What happens to the accused person while the matter is pending?
- What is the role of the Chancellor?
- Regarding appeal rights, what is the backup for staff?
Mayhew confirmed that amendments from the floor would be allowed when the vote is taken in March. Members asked what will happen if SenEx votes against the draft. Mayhew reminded members that KU needs a procedure for dealing with violations of the BOR Social Media Policy and to consider the motivation for voting against it as a protest of the BOR policy. He further noted that if members have specific concerns about the draft procedures perhaps additional changes can be negotiated. Mayhew will investigate whether limits on the use of the procedures can be added.
Mayhew stated that the draft policy will be available on the Governance website with a link sent to the entire University community. He welcomes all comments.
Wolf-Wendel called for a statement by SenEx that, in light of recent developments, the state should provide benefits to all who are legally married.
The short-term military leave amendments approved by SenEx in October have been approved by the Provost and the Chancellor.
No further business. The meeting was adjourned.
DRAFT: Social Media Policy Procedures, Lawrence Campus 9/29/14
In the instance that the Provost decides that a faculty or staff member may have engaged in an improper use of social media under the KBOR Social Media Policy, the Provost shall notify the employee that an Initial Review Panel will be convened.
Initial Review Panel
An initial review panel shall determine whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the faculty or staff member violated the social media policy. To reach its determination, the Initial Review Panel shall, at its discretion, receive and gather evidence and testimony. The faculty or staff member in question has the option to present a written statement to the IRP. No charge shall proceed to the SRB unless upon a determination by the Initial Review Panel that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the member of the faculty or staff improperly used social media as defined by the Social Media Policy.
The IRP shall be composed of the Dean of the academic unit in which the faculty member serves in the case of an allegation against a faculty member, or the supervisor of the staff member in the case of an allegation against a member of the staff; a designee of the Provost; and a designee of the University Senate President. The designee of the University Senate President may be a member of the employee class of the employee who is facing the charge. All nominations to the IRP must be approved by the Provost.
Substantive Review Board
In the event that the IRP has determined that there are reasonable grounds to proceed with a charge, the Substantive Review Board shall consider evidence and testimony to determine whether to make a recommendation for disciplinary action. The burden of establishing that there has been a violation of the Social Media Policy shall be on the University. If there are disputed issues of material fact, the accused employee shall have the right to present relevant evidence, including the testimony of witnesses, and to cross-examine adverse witnesses. If the SRB determines that there are no disputed issues of material fact, it may make its recommendation on the basis of written submissions and without an evidentiary hearing.
The SRB shall be composed of five members to be chosen on a case-by-case basis through the following procedure:
- In a case of a charge against a member of the faculty (including non-tenure-track faculty) , the members of the Committee shall be two tenured faculty members chosen by the Provost or designee, two tenured faculty members chosen by the Faculty Senate Executive Committee, and one tenured faculty member chosen by these four members. The Committee shall choose one of its members as the chair.
- In a case of a charge against any other University employee, including student employees, the members of the Committee shall be two University employees chosen by the Provost or designee, two University employees chosen by the University Senate Executive Committee, and one employee chosen by these four members. The Committee shall choose one of its members as the chair.
All nominees to the SRB must be approved by the Provost. No nominee shall be approved if a conflict of interest exists that shall compromise the impartiality of the review.
Substantive Review Board Outcome
The SRB shall weigh the evidence for and against the charge of an improper use of social media under the KBOR Social Media Policy and shall report its recommendation to the Provost.
The IRP shall conduct its initial review within 5-7 days of being charged with a review; the SRB shall have 14-21 days to review information/hold a hearing and 5-7 days to write a report and make a recommendation. Any Board member not available to participate in a hearing within the required timeframe will be replaced. The SRB shall have the authority to adjust time frames for good reason as it deems necessary (for example, for a brief delay to allow an employee sufficient time to retain legal counsel), with appropriate notification to the involved parties.
In the event the Initial Review Panel or Substantive Review Board need or desire legal advice, such advice should be sought from the Office of the General Counsel.
Disciplinary action taken subsequent to the recommendation of SRB is subject to appeal in accordance with existing procedures as described in USRR 6.4.