New Business —

Meeting Agenda 

1. Review minutes from our 10/25 meeting
2. Review Kansas Biological Survey submission– committee members should review the submission and checklist ahead of the meeting so we can efficiently discuss any issues and respond to KBS with approval or recommended revisions. Documents are posted in Teams.
3. Update on status of other review requests
4. Discuss and seek advice from Amy Mendenhall on SPPT purview and questions arising from some submissions
5. Address communication back to FacEx on new SPPT charges; potential task sharing

Discussion:

1. Minutes approved

2. Review of Kansas Biological Survey submission:

• Due to late notice of meeting day and time, more time for Ari and Nisha to review submission and completed checklist

• Brittany and Uma agreed to review together at end of meeting and circulate comments to Ari and Nisha à response to KBS by end of week

• This was first review with a completed checklist – agreement that it makes the process much more manageable and efficient

   

3. Update on status of other requests:

• Active submissions other than KBS still waiting for checklist 

• New from English, Uma to reach out to chair

• Discussion of length of time since last SPPT review (2012) per OFA audit though revised policy was added to policy library without SPPT review in 2023 - Amy confirms we should do full review.

  • Issue for future discussion:  can we establish some common-sense procedure for abbreviated review when a minor revision is close in time to last approval (not checklist)? If so, how long is too long? Should it be based on whether standards were approved since last FSRR changes? If so, what would be basis for a full review? Discussion was not concluded. 

• Document with statuses is posted to Teams

4. Discuss and seek advice from Amy Mendenhall on SPPT purview and questions arising from some submissions

• Amy clarified that not only tenure track faculty but any faculty positions with promotion that goes through UCPT are within SPPT purview (discussion with reference to non-tenure track professor positions addressed in the KBS submission).
• This includes unclassified academic staff that go through to UCPT but does not include teaching professors, professors of practice, other designations.
• Unclassified academic staff relevant to SPPT are defined.
• Also agreed the following are not in SPPT purview: department bylaws; annual evaluation template; merit increases; post-tenure review procedures

5. Address communication back to FacEx on new SPPT charges; potential task sharing

• Discussion of the specific charges and key plans to fulfill will be (a) to be “more proactive” by creating and sharing overview guidance for departments/units to compare and learn from others, where to find documents, role of SPPT, procedural steps for posting to policy library, relevant contacts; and (b) to do a survey of the committee chairs and FRB chairs about any process issues that governance can address, collect and summarize the information, and offer recommendations to FacEx for next year

  • Committee members in attendance agreed this seems like a good approach

  • Amy said OFA can annually share with departments for continuity and clarity going forward

• We agree there is no automatic protocol we can establish through SPPT for external process-related feedback; potential to work with OFA on that (SPPT has no way to know which units have external accreditation or other reviews, but OFA likely will)

The committee agreed to the following tasks: 

(1) All committee members to complete review of KBS submission so we can send response before the break

(2) Uma to reach out to English with review info for spring

(3) Uma to summarize plan discussed for specific charges in spring; we will address task-sharing at first meeting of the spring semester

Meeting adjourned.