• Home
  • University Senate 2/23/17

University Senate 2/23/17

University Senate
February 23, 2017 - 3:30pm
Green Hall-Room 203 - Law School


I.  Approval of Minutes from February 9, 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

III.  Student Senate Election Commission members Chair, Garrett Farlow and   Harrison Baker

IV. Vote on USRR Article V, University Ombud

V. Susan Twombly to discuss Ad Hoc Cost Savings Committee

VI. Discussion of Campus Carry Notification Resolution

VII. Proposed USRR Article X

VIII.  Policy Library Working Group Recommendations

IX.  Unfinished Business

X.  New Business




February 23, 2017 – 3:30 p.m. – 203 Green Hall

Approved March 9, 2017

MEMBERS PRESENT:  Faculty Joe Harrington, Pam Keller, Cecile Accilien, Ron Barrett-Gonzalez, Tom Beisecker, Naima Boussofara, Ben Chappell, Jonathan Clark, Chris Elles, Christopher Fischer, Ruben Flores, Jane Gibson, Megan Greene, Lynn Hancock, Kissan Joseph, Margaret Marco, Jason Matejkowski, Amalia Monroe-Gulick, Ebenezer Obadare, Bozenna Pasik-Duncan, Meagan Patterson, Edward Peltier, Tom Prisinzano, Lance Rake, Angela Rathmel, Suzanne Shontz, Geraldo Sousa, Bill Staples, Dean Stetler, Belinda Sturm; Students Gabby Naylor, Alexandra Erwin, Jasmine Fillmore, Jessica Guardiola, Joseph Kolhoff, Jacob Murray, Sophie Wang; Staff, Keah Cunningham, David Day, Deb Deering, Abby Ehling, Emily Gullickson, Connie Jordan, Lorne Jordan, Brian Moss, Anna Paradis, Peggy Robinson

ABSENTFaculty, Mary Banwart, Kelly Chong (excused), Pam Fine (excused), Lisa Friis (excused), Sandra Gray, Elspeth Healey (excused), Elizabeth MacGonagle, Paul Outka (excused), Roberta Freund Schwartz,  Students, Chancellor Adams, Dylan Jones (excused), Zoya Khan, Brittney Oleniacz, Victoria Snitsar, Adam Steinhilber Staff, Liz Phillips, Michael Chavez, Charlotte Goodman (excused)

ALSO PRESENT: Maureen Altman and Kathy Reed, University Governance; Neeli Bendapudi, Provost; Mary Lee Hummert, Vice Provost for Faculty Development; Kathryn Clark, Faculty member; Satya Mandal, Mathematics; Emily Wellborn, Ashley Hocking, University Daily Kansan (UDK)

Harrington called the meeting to order and announced that the meeting was being recorded. 

MINUTES for February 9, 2017 were approved.


University Senate President

In lieu of report Harrington said that for the sake of time the meeting would be observing the rules of debate on screen (available at the end of the minutes), reminding senators that according to Roberts Rules no senator could speak twice on the same question and other senators must be able to speak once before another senator could speak twice.  He also asked senators to keep comments germane to the topic.

Faculty Senate President

Pam Keller reported that KBOR Chair Zoe Newton initiated a task force to study how to serve the underrepresented.  The Chancellor Leadership Statement detailing desired attributes of a new chancellor was presented at KBOR by Chancellor Search Committee Chair David Dillon and unanimously approved; it is available on the Chancellor’s website.  Keller had reported to KBOR that five of the six regent institutions had passed resolutions against concealed carry; Pittsburgh State is considering a similar resolution this month.

Student Senate President

Gabby Naylor reported that Student Senate changed the number of required holdover senators from three to two.  The third seat will be elected from among Student Senate members which will give more opportunities to other senate groups.  There will be a leadership conference Saturday which will be open to faculty, staff, and studs.  The Finance Committee approved a $1.30 fee increase which will go to the full Student Senate for approval. 

Staff Senate President

In Liz Phillips absence Brian Moss reported that the KBOR Governance Committee made a technical change of removing “classified” to update the code relating to staff.  He credited Kathy Reed with discovering that due to another change the committee made staff no longer reports directly to KBOR; Staff Senate is seeking to have staff reinstated.  Since the Staff Handbook had been removed from the website because the administration had wanted everything in the Policy Library staff asked and received permission from the Provost to create a more navigable staff handbook for the website. 


Harrington announced that Student Senate Election Commission members would not be able to attend today’s meeting.


Harrington asked senate to approve the amendments which according to the rules of the University Senate Code had been discussed at the last meeting and were required to be voted on at this meeting.  Passed.

Susan Twombly to discuss Ad Hoc Cost Savings Committee

Twombly had hoped that this meeting would have been a focus group for ideas but due to the packed agenda said she would give any update of the committee’s work and encourage Senate to send any ideas via their survey or to the Governance website.  She informed Senate of the committee’s membership--Mohamed El-Hodiri (faculty), University Senate Staff Senators Anna Paradis and David Day, and students John Rebein and Hanna Hayden-- and reminded them of the committee’s charge to “Construct a survey mechanism to poll faculty, staff, students and alumni for cost-saving ideas.”  All but the alums were polled.  The committee was also charged to examine budgets, commission studies, identify how the need for cost savings has been addressed in the past, decide on priorities for the future and enlist expert help from within KU for cost savings and impact analysis.  The committee met with Staff Senate, the Student Senate Finance Committee and Student Rights Committee and might meet with Faculty Senate, depending on their interest.  The committee will focus on the survey and categorize the subjects and report on feasibility, focusing on what items were easiest to act on.  Looking at the 200 surveys received out of 30,000 sent the committee concluded that cost savings was not a burning issue but they had received comments which reflected concern-- students were particularly interested in environmentally responsible actions which would result in cost savings; library hours should not be cut; money to keep the campus beautiful should not be cut; students questioned why there wasn’t one common scholarship application.

Discussion of Campus Carry Notification Resolution

Referring to the text of the resolution (at the end of the minutes) Harrington explained that the blue text in the document indicated actions taken by the administration regarding the resolution and asked for a motion to adopt.

Motion to adopt the campus carry notification resolution.  Barrett-Gonzalez/Accilien

Barrett-Gonzalez asked that parent/alum Martha Priest’s letter regarding notification of campus carry which she had sent to senators be added to the minutes.  He emphasized that the issue was urgent and said that rather than adopt the resolution he would recommend it be remanded to a committee which he agreed, at Harrington’s request, to present under new business.  Barrett-Gonzalez moved, and David Day seconded, to table adoption of the campus carry notification resolution.  Passed.

Proposed USRR Article X

Harrington explained that when motions to make amendment changes are presented from the floor rather than through SenEx it isn’t so clear how to proceed.  Since he had not been at the last meeting when USRR Article X was proposed he had listened to the recording of the meeting and felt that the seven-day notification should be sent out.  He explained that since the notification had been sent last week the procedure now was to discuss at this meeting and vote at the next.

Motion to adopt USRR Article X.  Barrett-Gonzalez/Flores

Referring to the table (at the end of the minutes) from HR on insurance coverage Barrett-Gonzalez said that more information was needed and there should be a task force on the subject.  He then moved, and Ruben Flores seconded, to withdraw the motion to adopt USRR Article X.  Passed.

Policy Library Working Group Recommendations

Jonathan Clark, Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee to Review the Policy Library gave an update.  At a meeting last semester [December 1] he had asked Senate for confirmation that the committee was proceeding in the right direction.  Last meeting he had pointed out the committee’s recommendations to Senate (available at the end of the minutes), noted that they had found many policies ok, which they recommended be formally approved by the Senate. The Committee flagged a few policies and recommended them for further study. 

Motion to approve the policies recommended for approval by the Ad Hoc Committee to Review the Policy Library.  Clark/Barrett-Gonzalez.  Passed.

Barrett-Gonzalez suggested that Senate accept the work of the committee and moved to amend the motion to include archiving the policies in the Spencer Research Library.  Passed.   

Barrett-Gonzalez said archiving would provide a snapshot in time of the documents.  Amalia Monroe-Gulick asked if Senate could expand on the motion and have policies archived in the Policy Library.  Kathy Reed explained that they are already archived by the policy library but you have to request them; Monroe-Gulick wanted them made available.

Motion to archive the approved policies in the University Archives.  Passed.




Campus carry notification resolution

Barrett-Gonzalez moved, and Geraldo Sousa seconded, that the [campus carry] notification resolution be remanded to a committee composed of the Faculty, Staff, Student and University Senate presidents and presidents-elect and Provost Office with the wording of the proposed resolution as a starting point adding consideration of notification to vision and hearing impaired individuals and alumni with a policy statement due in one week.  Student senator Jasmine Fillmore explained that “blind, low vision and deaf” was more culturally appropriate.  Senate agreed to accept the wording as a technical change:  moved that the campus carry notification resolution be remanded to a committee composed of the faculty, staff, student and University presidents and presidents-elect and Provost Office with the wording of the proposed resolution as a starting point adding consideration of notification to blind, low vision, and deaf individuals and alumni with a policy statement due in one week.

Pointing out that there was a discrepancy between the initial notification proposed at the last University Senate meeting and the administration response document projected on the screen (at the end of the minutes), Chappell expressed concern that the issue was bogged down in the details of how notifications would be made rather than focusing on the heart of the factual resolution which is to make sure that people coming to KU are aware that the university cannot restrict guns on campus and has no choice.  Harrington said the omission was an error and the full statement would be remanded to the committee. 

Omitted section: “As of July 1, 2017 the state of Kansas will forbid the University from prohibiting firearms on campus. Those visiting or working at the University may assume that concealed weapons are allowed in any public place where armed guards do not control access."

Keller agreed that it was feasible for the presidents and presidents-elect to meet and suggested that she and Harrington talk to the Provost about the results at their next regularly scheduled meeting on March 8.  Harrington informed Senate, as a point of information, that the notification was not endorsed by SenEx.  Day offered that going over all the specifics of the resolution would take too much time.  Harrington explained that the notification document which was projected was the result of a request to obtain more information from the administration about what actions were already being taken.  In response to Naylor’s question of how the committee should address the eight items on the resolution Barrett-Gonzalez explained the items were a starting point and said the committee should decide on how to proceed.  There were suggestion of issues for the committee to consider: accessibility--informing international faculty, students, and staff in their own language and informing the blind, low vision and deaf in braille and sign language. 

Keller moved, and Jonathan Clark seconded, to amend that the committee be composed of presidents and presidents-elect only.  Passed.

Belinda Sturm asked why SenEx had voted against the resolution.  Suzanne Shontz explained they had felt it was too detailed, too specific.     

Final amended motion: that the [campus carry] notification resolution be remanded to a committee composed of the Faculty, Staff, Student and University Senates’ presidents and presidents-elect with the wording of the proposed resolution as a starting point, adding consideration of notification to blind, low vision, and deaf individuals and alums with a policy statement due in one week. Barrett-Gonzalez/Sousa.  Passed.


Move to empanel a task force composed of representatives from constituent bodies to meet with Human Resources to work out the details of the proposed USRR X prior to the end of the semester with action occurring before July 1, 2017.  Barrett/Clark.   

David Day said that in the light of the current budget situation this is an effort in futility considering there is already institutional coverage, as well people’s our own private insurance.  Responding to Day’s comment that there is a low probability of weapon-related accident Barrett-Gonzalez explained that insurance rates would be reasonable with the entire university having insurance.  In response to Harrington question of why this should be a separate committee rather than SenEx Barrett-Gonzalez said that the committee would have experts. 

Move to remand to SenEx at their next meeting to examine the USRR X amendment and its implications.  Patterson/Keller.  Failed.

Barrett-Gonzalez said that it could be done today sending to SenEx would be an unnecessary delay.  Tom Beisecker argued that there were many details to work out and SenEx would be a good place to begin.  Strum suggested that if remanded to SenEx they be assigned to submit a written report of the current status of insurance with recommendations of actions for Senate.  Sousa pointed out that Senate needs to see the relationship between what is proposed and workman’s comp and whether it could be allowed with workman’s comp.    

Thomas Prisinano moved, and Barrett-Gonzalez seconded, for an amendment, to add “comment on feasibility” to the motion. 

Belinda Strum moved for a secondary amendment to clarify the current status of insurance if a shooter accident were to occur to a student, staff or faculty.  Passed.

Move to empanel a task force composed of representatives from constituent bodies to meet with Human Resources to comment on the feasibility of and to clarify the current status of insurance if a shooter accident were to occur to a student, staff or faculty and work out the details of the proposed USRR X prior to the end of the semester with action occurring before July 1, 2017.  Passed.

As a point of information Keller said that Director of HR Ola Faucher offered to come to a Senate meeting to answer questions. 

Loren Jordan moved, and Barrett-Gonzalez seconded, to amend the motion changing shooter to intentional or accidental firearm discharge.  Passed. 

David Day moved to table until Ola Faucher could address the Senate. 

Barrett-Gonzalez stated that the issue was too urgent to wait.  Abby Ehling pointed out that tabling would still be faster since it would give Senate the opportunity to decide whether to proceed with the issue.  It was also pointed out that it would give the opportunity of having a report from HR should it be decided to form a committee.  Day agreed saying that Faucher might make the work of a committee unnecessary.  Clark countered that a committee would scrutinize the information so time would not be taken from the Senate.

The motion failed.

Final motion: to empanel a task force composed of representatives from constituent bodies to meet with Human Resources to comment on the feasibility of, and to clarify the current status of, insurance if an intentional of accidental firearm discharge accident were to occur to a student, staff or faculty member, and to work out the details of the proposed USRR X prior to the end of the semester with action occurring before 1 July.  Passed.

Meeting time

Clark asked what had happened to the consideration of moving the Senate meeting time.  Keller explained Senate had been polled but there was no consensus it was decided that it would not be appropriate to change time.  Harrington asked who could meet at 3:00 instead of 3:30; six said they couldn’t. 


The meeting adjourned at 4:46.


Respectfully submitted,

Maureen Altman


Parent Weapons Letter (requested to be added to the minutes)


Professor Joe Harrington, President of the University of Kansas Senate                     

February 21, 2017 The Senate of the University of Kansas

Via Email

Dear Professor Harrington and Senators,

Thank you for taking the time to learn about how the change in Kansas’ concealed carry law has impacted my family and in particular, my son, currently a KU junior.

I was raised in Kansas and graduated with honors from KU in 1986 with a bachelor’s degree in theatre and media arts. In 2013, when my son decided to apply to KU, I was thrilled. Those who have attended a parent’s or grandparent’s college or have had a child who has attended your college will understand the special feeling that comes from “your” school and how it impacts generations of family.

We did not learn any facts about the Kansas gun law when he submitted his application in August 2013, nor when he was accepted, nor when he learned of his Jayhawk Generations scholarship, nor when he signed his dorm contract and we paid the deposit in spring 2014. He was never told that on July 1, 2017, just prior to his senior year, concealed firearms would be allowed on campus. Pertinent information important to his decision about where to attend college was hidden from him.

So, how and when were we officially told about the gun law? That’s an interesting question. My son learned about it inadvertently, not officially, during a KU class in October 2015. An instructor, who that day participated in an emergency/active shooter training session, mentioned the law to his class. Immediately, my son sent me an urgent text describing the situation. In turn, I searched the internet and found a few articles published in Kansas news outlets. No information was posted on the KU website. I scoured the Kansas Board of Regent’s website and found mention of the law’s implementation process, so I wrote to the Regents with my concerns and questions. I copied all the top KU administration on that email. I received a reply immediately from Breeze Richardson, KBOR director of communications. To date, I have received no communication from KU administration about the letter.

Ms. Richardson clarified the law for me, that without revocation or permanent exemption by the Kansas Legislature, the law would go into effect on July 1, 2017. When I questioned whether KBOR required disclosure to students, particularly prospective students, she replied:


No, following the implementation of this law (2013), the Regents did not mandate that prospective students be informed of the current exemption, although detailed information about the state statute is included on every posted sign at every entrance to every building (which includes the statute number).


I cannot begin to put into words the feeling of betrayal, disappointment and anger I felt at that moment and still feel to this day. By omission and by hiding behind a legal definition of disclosure, citing only a cryptic statute number on a “no guns” sticker, the University of Kansas used the subterfuge of legalese to essentially lie about the coming change in law and associated policies that my son would encounter during his undergraduate study.

Once I came to understand the gravity of KU’s non-disclosure, I took responsibility to ensure that no other family within my influence would feel that same betrayal, disappointment and anger. I contacted and worked in conjunction with my congressman, Rep. Keith Ellison (D—MN 5th  District). Perhaps you are unaware, but federal law does not mandate disclosure of state gun policy to prospective students. Colleges and universities are required by law to be transparent about tuition and room and board costs, and also to give reasonable estimates for fees, books and personal expenses. But notification of a policy that allows students to keep a loaded firearm in a dorm room? No transparent disclosure is required. As a direct result of our family’s experience with KU, in September 2016,


Representative Ellison introduced H.R.5965 - Campus Gun Policy Transparency Act. He and the co-signers believe, like we do, that gun policy information must be transparent and disclosed to students.

On February 7, 2017, a KU recruiter visited my son’s high school in Minnesota. When I learned about the visit, I immediately telephoned KU admissions and spoke with Lisa Beck, the assistant director of operations. I asked if the recruiter visiting the high school would disclose the Kansas gun law to these Minnesota students. She did not know the answer. She inquired immediately to admissions director Lisa Pinamonti Kress, who verified that high school recruiters are not disclosing the law. Ms. Beck emphasized that the issue is “very much in the news.” I respectfully disagreed with her because this issue is not news in other states and other countries. Students outside Kansas do not know that this will occur on July 1, 2017, unless they are specifically told.

Following that phone conversation, I immediately contacted my school district’s superintendent, the high school principal, high school administrators, and all the student counselors to tell them about the law in Kansas. I asked them to carefully consider the students they know well, especially those who may have a history of domestic violence, who are gun violence survivors, or who may have mental illness, a history of anxiety, depression or risk of suicide. I implored them to tell students to check state gun laws. On February 7, 2017, I also made a formal statement at our local school board meeting, notifying the directors about the law in Kansas. I implored them to add an item to high school college prep checklists: check state gun laws.

I must unambiguously state: Had my son known that guns would come to KU during his four year undergraduate study, he would never have applied to KU in the first place. But he wasn’t given that information, so he proceeded with his application and acceptance ignorant of what was to come. He, an out-of-state student, was not privy to the Kansas news coverage of the legislation. I sincerely believed I had fulfilled my parental responsibility for due diligence by attending the prospective student campus visit, attending his meeting with an admissions representative, reading the admissions mailings and dorm contract, and understanding the financial responsibility that tuition, room board and fees would entail. I did not know, nor do most parents know, that it is equally important to verify and understand gun laws that impact campus weapons policy.

Because my son learned by accident about the change in gun policy, he has fortunately had enough time to consider on how he will proceed after July 1, 2017. He has submitted transfer applications and make campus visits to other universities so if the Kansas Legislature does not exempt Kansas universities, he can complete his undergraduate degree elsewhere. My son’s decision to leave KU because of the gun law has been one of intense grief and sadness. He is doing well in his studies and extracurricular activities. He loves KU, as I did when I was a student there. He will not leave KU because it is his choice. He would leave KU because of his reasonable and personal desire to attend a school where permitless guns are not allowed on campus. His transfer will be forced for the sole reason that the University of Kansas and KBOR did not disclose the law to prospective students, parents and guardians when they should have done so.

Our family may have been harmed by this process, but you have an opportunity to partially right this wrong. Please support the resolution demanding that the administration transparently disclose the weapons policy on campus to all current and prospective students, faculty, staff, visitors and alumni like myself. I hope that your actions and the administration’s response will prevent future students from experiencing the same frustration, anger and grief that we have suffered.




Martha Priest

University of Kansas, 1986 Parent of a current KU junior






Guidelines and Rules for Debate in University Senate:

Given that we are faced with a large agenda to cover in 45 minutes, the Chair respectfully requests, as a courtesy to the other members and to the body, that senators:
▷ kindly limit their remarks to two minutes or less.

▷ kindly refrain from repeating points that another person has already made or asking questions that have already been asked.

Roberts Rules of Order § 43 (unless otherwise noted):
▷  [N]o member can speak more than twice to the same question on the same day . . . .

- The main motion is a “question” – only 2 “speeches” per member

- But: a member also “can still speak twice on a motion to postpone the main question indefinitely, and twice on each amendment that may be moved, and so on.” [i.e., subsidiary motions]

- “. . . [A] member cannot make a second speech [on the question] until every

member who desires to speak on it has had an opportunity to do so once.”

- “Merely asking a question [to solicit information] or making a brief suggestion is not counted as speaking debate; nor is the making of a secondary motion [e.g., amendment, referral], so long as in making the motion the member makes no comment on the then-pending question.”

▷  “In debate a member’s remarks must be germane to the question before the assembly – that is, his [sic] statements must have bearing on whether the immediately pending motion should be adopted.”

▷   “[T]he chair should let the floor alternate, as far as possible, between those favoring and those opposing the measure.” (§ 42)

▷  “Before a member in an assembly can make a motion or speak in debate, he must claim the floor by rising and addressing the chair . . ., and must be recognized by the chair.” (§ 42)  We have generally ignored this rule in the past; however, if there are a large number of people present, it may become necessary in order to see and hear the speaker.

▷  “. . . [A]ny member of Senate may move to permit a non-member of Senate to speak for a specified time on the issue under consideration, with a two-thirds majority of those present and voting required for approval.” (Univ. Code I.6)


Vote on USRR Article V


Changes to USRR Article V. Section 1. University Ombuds Office.

In order to prepare for the upcoming staffing turnover in the University Ombuds Office, the Office requests that the University Senate consider the changes listed below to Article V, Section 1, of the University Senate Rules and Regulations. The majority of the new language serves to open up the University Ombuds position to allow both external and internal searches for the University Ombuds. With this in mind, we have dropped the requirement that the University Ombuds have six years of prior service at the University of Kansas. However, given the importance of institutional memory and a deep knowledge of the University for the Ombuds Office, we have kept the six year requirement for the Faculty Ombuds position; thus the Faculty Ombuds would provide institutional knowledge in the event of an external hire for the University Ombuds position.

The remaining changes are to clarify the role of the University Senate Executive Committee in assembling the search committee for both the University Ombuds and Faculty Ombuds positions, and to stress that the University Ombuds (and the Faculty Ombuds their 3-year term) does not serve in that position at the pleasure of the administration. This is an important issue, as ombuds professional standards and certification requirements specify that the ombuds role must be independent.

University Senate Rules and Regulations

Article V. Organization for Conflict Resolution

Section 1. University Ombuds Office

5.1.1 Appointment. The University Ombuds and Faculty Ombuds shall each be appointed by the Chancellor from among a panel of three candidates presented by a search committee to be assembled by the University Senate Executive Committee.

5.1.2 Ombud’s Office. Faculty will be represented in the staffing of the Ombuds Office through a part time appointment of a faculty member either to the position of University Ombuds or as Faculty Ombuds University Ombuds. The University Ombuds is a full-time position; due to the independent nature of the University Ombuds Office, the University Ombuds does not serve at the pleasure of the Provost. Both the University Ombuds and Faculty Ombuds (see below) shall report to the Provost and to the University Senate Executive Committee.

5.1.3 Term of Office. Faculty Ombuds. Faculty will be represented in the staffing of the Ombuds Office through part time appointment of one or more tenured faculty members to the position of Faculty Ombuds. A faculty Faculty members serving in the Ombuds Office shall serve a three-year terms. The Faculty Ombuds shall be eligible for reappointment.

5.1.4 Qualifications. The University Ombuds shall possess a comprehensive knowledge of the University organization and procedures knowledge of current professional ombuds standards and practices and a post-baccalaureate degree. The Faculty Ombuds shall possess a comprehensive knowledge of the University organization, and He or she shall, at the time of initial appointment, have completed at least six ten years of service at the University of Kansas.


Weapons Notification with Actions Taken

The University Senate of the University of Kansas resolves that the KU Administration inform current and potential students, faculty and staff of the provisions of K.S.A. 75-7c01 et. seq. which will allow weapons, including the concealed carry of firearms, on campus beginning July 1st, 2017.

Specific notification should be issued in several forms: 

  1. Official e-mails to current students (as well as their legal guardians since some students taking classes at KU may not be 18 years old), faculty and staff describing the state of the law, proposed amendments and what legislative actions are underway and/or planned (like Senate Bill 53). 

    1. The following communications were delivered campus-wide (attached):

      1. Chancellor’s message “Next steps regarding weapons on campus” on 10/10/16 (system-wide email)

      2. Provost’s Strong Ties message “Safety First, Our Focus in the Time of Concealed Carry” on 10/17/16

      3. Provost’s message “Concealed Carry Information Session and Website” on 1/27/17

      4. Provost’s message “Concealed Carry Information Session Feb. 15” on 2/1/17

    2. The administration will not be updating campus on the legislative actions concerning concealed carry.This is one of the most highly visible and accessible conversations in the legislature this session and is being widely covered by the media.If individuals feel the need for more information or a clearer understanding of our work in Topeka, the Office of Public Affairs can answer questions in further depth.

  2. Notifications on all public doorways adjacent to the no-guns stickers currently in place.

    1. The administration is currently investigating signage proposals that will replace the no-guns stickers currently in place with signs acknowledging that we are a concealed carry campus.This will be completed by the July 1 implementation date of the law.This notification is a requirement of the law.

  3. Notifications via email as well as a separate flyer to prospective students and their families highlighting the presence of guns in dorms. (NOTE ****Students who have been admitted to KU for fall 2017 will have to pay part of their tuition this spring to guarantee their enrollment)

    1. < >Freshmen pay a $215 enrollment deposit (refundable until May 1), but also have the option to defer to their fall tuition statement if necessary. Transfer students don't pay until they are actually enrolled in the fall.

      The Office of Admissions is not currently sending information as part of the communication flow. Talking points, developed in partnership with the Office Public Affairs, were created over a year ago so that Admissions could respond in an informed manner to students and parents when questions surfaced. 

    2. The Office of Admissions does not typically distribute policy information to prospective students and parents on any state rules or regulations during the recruitment process. 

  4. Notifications by all campus tour guides hosting visiting families and prospective students.

    1. The KU Ambassadors know about the new law and can answer questions but it is not discussed and the Office of Admissions does not plan to incorporate it.  State legislation/policy is not something we typically highlight during the campus tour.

    2. For all orientation sessions beginning with the summer 2016 (including Summer and Fall 2016  students, as well as later with Spring 2017  students), parents and guests at orientation were informed of the change through a campus safety informational panel. The panel included representatives from Student Affairs, SAPEC, and KU PSO. The change to concealed carry laws was explicitly introduced at each session, and the KU PSO officer involved left time for extensive questions during and following the panel. KU PSO was also present in the Opportunities Fair each day to share additional information with students and parents. No print materials on the topic were distributed.The panel will continue in all summer 2017 orientation sessions at an extended length of time (30 minutes to 45 minutes) and will include information sheets currently in development.

    3. The concealed carry changes will be included in the policies section of the 2017 Orientation Field Guide. It will likely be a brief (1-2 paragraph) reference, with a web link for more information. This is consistent with the way we cover other policies and regulations in the guide. It was not covered in the 2016 guide. 

  5. Notifications to all i

    1. The Office of International Programs has not directly supplemented any of the campus communications to date on this topic.That said, the office has had conversations with campus international student organizations on this topic, and the Lawrence Islamic Cultural Center has had information sessions that have included campus safety, as well as ISS personnel to discuss the concealed carry law and its implications.The prohibition on international students owning or possessing fire arms is not new – this is a regular part of the Office of International Programs communications to students and orientation efforts.

    2. The Office of International Programs is developing an email to all currently enrolled international students, active visiting scholars, and current international employees. This communication will publicize the http://concealedcarry.ku.edu website and explicitly mention the FAQ page that has been developed. International Programs will also provide an easy-to-read synopsis of the new concealed carry law as it relates to our international community. In particular, this synopsis will underscore the fact that their non-immigrant status still prohibits them for owning or possessing a fire arm, even though their domestic peers of age do not have a similar prohibition placed upon them as well as articulate what they should do in the event they feel threatened or concerned.

  6. Notification regarding the policy in all offers of employment and/or all job ads.

    1. Human Resources (HR) does not currently communicate University policies to prospective new hires. However, when a new hire has information processed with our “Onboarding” system HR provides a list of key policies (with URL links) that are important for them to review and have a “check mark” indicating their acknowledgement. HR will add the concealed carry law to that list.

    2. HR does not currently list specific laws or policies on their sites or in their marketing collateral.Offer letters include a generic statement about the expectation of abiding by all applicable state, federal, KBOR & KU laws/policies. HR will put links to the policy or policy-related website on the HRM website in a variety of locations over the course of the semester.

  7. Notifications on the main KU home page at least half as large as the largest sports banner that has been posted.

    1. This request has been forwarded to the Office of Public Affairs that manages the KU home page.

  8. Notifications in the UDK appearing weekly as an ad near page 1 at least 3 x 3.”

    1. The administration does not plan to do this.


Proposed New Article for USRR

February 2017

USRR 10 (Article X, Section 1)

Because Students, Faculty and Staff of the University of Kansas are entitled to a safe workplace as described in the Workplace Violence Policy, the University of Kansas shall provide "Adequate Security Measures" as prescribed by K.S.A. 75-7c ET. seq.  in their places of study and work or, if they are asked to be in buildings on campus which lack Adequate Security Measures, the Faculty, Students and Staff of the University of Kansas shall be provided with, as a term of their employment or enrollment, an insurance package to be paid by the University, covering:

 • Death and/or injury resulting from weapons-induced incidents on campus;

• Long-term disability insurance resulting from weapons-induced incidents on campus;

• Lost-wages insurance resulting from weapons-induced incidents on campus covering the entire span of any and all disabilities induced by said incident up to projected age of retirement.

Information on KU’s Insurance Coverage


..\..\2017\Feb 23, 2017\USen Feb 23, 2017\For Projection\Info on Coverage.docx


Notification Comments on Proposed Article X


Questions and Comments from University community re: proposed USRR Article X:
As of Wednesday (2/22) 9:00 a.m., 16 comments and questions had been received. Of those, 9 supported the amendment, 3 opposed the amendment, and the rest were requests for additional information. Substantive questions and points are excerpted below; duplications have been eliminated. Only arguments about the contents of the amendment are presented; arguments for or against the law have been removed. A similar report of any comments received on Wednesday 2/22 or before noon on Thursday 2/23 will be presented to the Senate at the Thursday University Senate meeting. The full transcript of comments is available by emailing govern@ku.edu.
 ❖ Other than the inclusion of gun violence wording, can you explain how the proposed changes to USRR Article X result in any difference of coverage beyond what is already a mandated benefit for faculty and staff and available to students?

❖ I notice there are no provisions for Death, Dismemberment, & Funeral Benefits addressed in the amendment. Can you please add it?

❖ Will this also include support for those who feel threatened just by having guns on campus? Mental health supports? Trainings in how to be around fire arms? Ways to participate in classes for those of us who feel threatened by gun presence at all?

❖ Does the Senate have the authority to put provisions in USRR that would impose a (possibly very substantial) financial burden on KU? Does the Senate know how much this insurance would cost? If the answer to #3 is "a lot", then I would encourage the Senate to consider the possible outcomes of passing this proposal.  One of two things will happen: (a) the Chancellor will veto it (which seems likely because of the financial burden it would impose) and will be seen as the bad guy on guns, which she is not; or (b) she will approve it and then the University will have to cut funding for something else to pay for this, because the current Legislature and Governor are certainly not going to allocate additional funds to pay for it.
❖ . . . [T]he State of Kansas should pay for the insurance policies for employees.  First, given the dire funding for higher education by the State, why should universities be doubly punished, by having to pay for insurance when the liability was state-generated and forced upon us?

❖  If we do this, then why are we not insuring our employees and students for any injury that occurs on campus from cars?  Car induced injuries and are much more probable and very lethal to student pedestrians.  Or, perhaps we eliminate all college intramural sports on campus for fear that some player will induce a broken leg or sprain an ankle. Surely, the university should cover any injury induced by one player on to another player while playing intramural on university property.  When does it stop?

❖  Providing insurance to all students, faculty and staff, or implementing “Adequate Security Measures” at campus facilities would inevitably raise expenses; the only people who pay those expenses are Students. Additionally, a University is uniquely ill-equipped to determine how much insurance is actually necessary under such circumstances. Those people, as individuals, should carry their own insurance if they have the unreasonable fear of harm in a public institution like KU.

❖  As a current student, and former employee of The University of Kansas (State of Kansas), I believe this is a powerful message to send to our state legislature. . . . [I]t puts an actual cost on the allowance of concealed weapons on all KU campuses, and university campuses across the state. . . . I'm of course assuming that the cost of this amendment will ultimately be passed on to the employees, faculty, and students in the form of increased tuition, fees, or new taxes to cover the cost of premiums for these thousands of new insurance policies.  But the state legislature needs to hear this statement, loud and clear.  

❖  I support this amendment.  I would assume the university would support it too, since they would likely be sued by any person injured in a gun-related incident on campus.  I suspect that purchasing the equivalent of a massive “umbrella” policy to cover gun injuries/death is cheaper than paying for all the security people and devices needed to cover all of our buildings. 

❖  The university and the state of Kansas must take some responsibility . . . At least the loved ones of those who are at risk for being shot by accident or deliberately on the KU Campus can have some insurance coverage.  It will not make up for the loss of a loved one or the injury to that person but it might assist family members to get through that trauma at least with some financial support.

❖  The proposed Amendment USRR Article X seems so reasonable given what we learned in the Concealed Carry Info Session on Feb 15, 2017.  As employees, we will be asked to work in spaces where people who have no training with guns and may or may not have above average common sense will be armed. . . . From 2005-2010, almost 3,800 people in the U.S. died from unintentional shootings (WISQARS Injury Mortality Reports, 1999-2010, supra note 1). Over 1,300 victims of unintentional shootings for the period 2005-2010 were under 25 years of age (WISQARS Injury Mortality Reports, 1999-2010, supra note 1). People of all age groups are significantly more likely to die from unintentional firearm injuries when they live in states with more guns, relative to states with fewer guns. On average, states with the highest gun levels had nine times the rate of unintentional firearms deaths compared to states with the lowest gun levels (Matthew Miller, Deborah Azrael & David Hemenway, Firearm Availability and Unintentional Firearm Deaths, 33 Accident Analysis & Prevention 477 [July 2001]).



Policy Library Working Groups Recommendations 2

Sent before meeting and projected on screen at meeting



Policy Library Working Groups Recommendation 2 approved by University Senate at today’s meeting


Policy Library Working Group Recommendations 2


In the Policy Library webpage, the policies are grouped by subject area (although this entails some repetition, the same policy sometimes being listed under more than one sub-heading). However, for convenience we follow here the subject areas adopted in the Policy Library.


Within these categories, the policies are listed in alphabetical order. We refer to the content of policies posted on the webpage as of 23 January 2017.


We have not considered KUMC and Edwards Campus policies, which we understand not to be within the remit of the Senate.


The Working Group respectfully submits its recommendations to the University Senate as follows.


Academic Policies


The Senate should accept the following policies as they stand:


Academic Programs

Academic Work & Evaluations

Admission to KU


Assistance with Disabilities

Assistance with Schoolwork

Conflict of Interest

Continuing Education

Distance Education




Graduation & Degrees

Grievance & Appeals

Holidays & Religious Holidays


Intellectual Property


Learning Communities


Promotion & Tenure

Service Learning

Study Abroad



Student Life Policies

Assistance with Disabilities


Events, Protests & Organizations

Facilities Use & Scheduling

Financial Assistance

Finding a Job

Health & Wellness


Learning about the University

Legal Assistance


Multicultural & Minority Resources


Information Access & Technology Policies

Privacy & Security







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.
23rd nationwide for service to veterans —"Best for Vets," Military Times
KU Today
Governance Meetings