New Business —

Status Report

We began by reviewing our standing charges and the policies and procedures spreadsheet we use to review documents submitted to us. We reviewed the Status Report on Reviews from FY 2018.

We noted that we had previously returned the KU Libraries and the Applied English Center’s updates to the departments for revisions consistent with the F.S.R.R. policies and procedures.

FY 2019 Email Request for Submissions

We reviewed the draft email request for submissions based on last year’s template. Prof. Alexander questioned whether updates of boilerplate language mandated by the college should be submitted for approval, noting that some of the units last had documents reviewed in 2011 or 2012 but had certainly updated mandatory boilerplate since then. The two questions would be (1) whether college units actually did update boilerplate and (2) whether future boilerplate should be run through SPPT prior to dissemination to units. We recommended that the standard reminder email to units be changed as noted in the action item to the right.

Action: Prof. Matejkowski will amend the standard email to include two items:

1. a question confirming whether the 2017 updates were adopted, and
2. will make sure the email includes the F.S.R.R. language defining “non-technical changes” to clarify what is required to be submitted for review.

Law School P&T Policy Response

We reviewed the law school’s response to the updates we recommended. All updates had been completed as requested. We voted to approve the law school’s documents.

Action: Prof. Matejkowski will contact the Law School to confirm that the Criteria and Procedures for Tenure and Promotion document has been approved and that steps should be taken to update the Policy Library.

Economics Department Changes Review

We reviewed the Economics Department’s emailed request for clarification on whether a proposed change is technical or non-technical. We determined that in order to answer that questions, we would need to see a redlined version of the document. We can take this issue up at our next meeting.

Action: Prof. Matejkowski will contact the Economics Department to request a copy of the full document with appropriate redlining for review of the proposed change in context. This item will be added to the October meeting agenda.

SPLH Department Request for Review

Prof. Matejkowski requested that Prof. Dozier review recently submitted SPLH documents to determine whether the changes are new or are the same as were approved by this Committee last year. We reviewed the minutes from the Feb 2019 meeting of this Committee and determined that we had already reviewed and approved proposed changes from SPLH. Ms. Reed was unable to confirm that an email from the FY 2018 chair had been sent to the department confirming approval of the changes. Chair will review correspondence with SPLH to determine if there are new requests for Prof. Dozier to review prior to October meeting.

Action: Prof. Matejkowski will review email correspondence with SPLH to determine if a new request has been made or if they are awaiting confirmation of approval of the FY 2018 changes. If a new request exists, Prof. Dozier will review and report to the Committee on the changes at the October meeting.

Review of Specific Charges

Vice Prov. Brown reviewed the specific charges for this Committee.

First, he shared that the charge related to software development is based upon the University’s efforts to improve the workflow process for submission of P&T dossiers. They are contemplating a Sharepoint system which would enable candidates to submit their dossiers electronically, and then permissions would be set for various groups at appropriate levels of review. This would decrease the amount of staff time involved in re-assembling and forwarding documents at each stage and would also increase the likelihood that dossiers would be complete from the beginning. There is no specific action required of this Committee related to this charge at this time; the information is simply being shared so that we are prepared for P&T policies that may need to reflect these changes in the future.

Second, Vice Prov. Brown reviewed the charge of reviewing promotion policies for Unclassified Academic Staff. We discussed Article 6.1.1.4 of the F.S.R.R., which clarifies that all of the P&T policies are also applicable to Unclassified Academic Staff. Some units may not have standards for these staff, may need clarification that they must have specific promotion policies and criteria in place. The committee discussed issuing guidance, to be considered or drafted at the October meeting, to advise departments of this requirement. Note that identifying departments with this sort of staff may be challenging.

Action: Add to October meeting agenda: review 6.1.1.4 and draft guidance on need to develop / submit for review any promotion and tenure criteria for Unclassified Academic Staff.

Other Business

We discussed last year’s analysis of whether the F.S.R.R. prohibited chairs from being present for deliberations in their departments regarding promotion and tenure. We discussed whether a guidance document may be appropriate on this issue, as the rules appear to prohibit presence/participation in deliberations, but many departments specifically invite presence in a non-voting capacity. We believe a reminder was sent to chairs last year they may observe/participate, but not vote, in such deliberations. To be continued for decision on what kind of guidance, if any, to provide.

Action: Add to October meeting agenda to consider whether guidance is needed / should be drafted on this issue of chair involvement as participant in departmental deliberations.

A motion to adjourn was received, seconded, and unanimously approved at 3:00 p.m. Next meeting scheduled for October 24, 2018 from 2:00 – 3:00 PM in the Governance Conference Room 33, Strong Hall.