FacEx Minutes October 26, 2021


Faculty Senate Executive Committee Minutes

Oct 26, 2021, 03:00 PM

Approved: November 9, 2021

Present:
Remy Lequesne Patricia Gaston, Nate Brunsell, Nick Syrett, Hossein Saiedian, Corey Maley, Ani Kokobobo.

 

Victors: Lea Currie, Josh Bolick, Kristen Sederstrom, Alyssa Wingo (UDK)

Lea Currie: Libraries; upcoming renegotiation of "big deal" with Elsevier

 

Lequesne introduced Lea Currie from the Libraries, Josh Bolick and Kristen Sederstrom. 

Currie noted the main reason she, Josh, and Kristen were at the meeting was to request help communicating with faculty about the issues surrounding Elsevier and other renewals.  There are links provided regarding a recap of Elsevier and budget considerations.  The group will also meet with the Deans and the possibilities of communicating with faculty.

Recap of Elsevier links video: https://youtu.be/JgnD2EBGwoE.
 

https://lib.ku.edu/sites/lib/files/styles/wide_col_xl_12/public/images/2021/Budget-02_0.jpg?h=84312d27&itok=cJKJ295h

https://openaccess.ku.edu/ku-libraries-observes-14th-international-open-access-week

https://sparcopen.org/our-work/big-deal-cancellation-tracking/

 

Resolution: https://www.facsen.iastate.edu/sites/default/files/uploads/19-20%20Docket%20Calendar/19-5%20-%20Faculty%20Senate%20Resolution%20-%20Suporting%20Library%20Negotiating%20Principles.pdf

 

Discussion/questions:

After much discussion, FacEx agreed that a resolution could be adopted by the Faculty Senate and be shared with all faculty. 

Lea Currie agreed that she, Bolick, and Sederstrom could work on a draft resolution and forward it to Lequesne for FacEx and Faculty Senate review. 

 

Approval of October 5, 2021, Minutes

Motion to approve.  approved
 

University Senate President Report:

Saiedian reported that SenEx met with the KBOR on October 21, 201.

Saiedian also noted that he and the Staff Senate Leaders met with the Provost.  The Provost started the discussion with two questions before she addressed the items on the agenda. First, she asked both Tim and Saiedian what their impressions were of the meeting with the KBOR.  Tim briefly discussed what had been stated during the KBOR meeting.  Saiedian mentioned that the faculty responded with comments about how they cared for the University and the sacrifices that have been made.  

 

Faculty Senate President Report: Rémy Lequesne; (see the end of minutes for report)

 

Ad-hoc Committee Updates

  1. Program Discontinuance (Ani Kokobobo).  The Ad-Hoc committee has met once.  They have a second meeting scheduled.  The committee received some suggestions from the administration and general counsel regarding USRR Article VIII.  The committee will review these and report back to FacEx.

                            

    1. FRB Procedures Related to Tenured Faculty Dismissals (Rémy Lequesne)

The chair has done a large amount of work, reviewed the proposed changes from general counsel, drafted new language.  The committee will review again, and Lequesne has invited the chair to discuss the changes will FacEx. 

 

Amendments not approved by Provost

Proposed FSRR 7.5-

 

Rationale

The decision to dismiss a tenured faculty member is one of the most momentous decisions a university can make. The reasons for taking such an action should be spelled out within the principal academic rules and regulations of the institution. The proposed amendment below would do just that.

 

Moreover, tenure is the cornerstone of academic freedom, and due process is the foundation of tenure. Accordingly, the proposed amendment places the dismissal of tenured faculty within the rules and regulations governing the academic conduct of the University, the Faculty Senate Rules and Regulations (FSRR).

 

Placing information regarding dismissals and appeals of tenured faculty in the FSRR would make the rules governing dismissal of a tenured faculty member consistent with those governing appeals of tenure and promotion decisions and appeals of administrative actions, both of which outline the processes governing those types of appeals in some detail.

 

A Faculty Senate ad-hoc committee is currently reviewing the Procedures of the Faculty Rights Board for Hearing Appeals in Cases Involving Administrative Action of Dismissal of a Tenured Faculty Member. The proposed language below is separate from, but complementary to, that effort. The language below does not exist within the Faculty Rights Board procedures.

 

Faculty Senate Rules and Regulations

Article VII. Faculty Rights and Responsibilities

Section 5. Dismissal of Tenured Faculty

 

FSRR 7.5 Hearings on Dismissal of Tenured Faculty

Tenured faculty may be removed only for cause, in cases of program discontinuance, or in cases of financial exigency as defined in the USRR Article VII and VIII. In such cases, the burden is on the University to establish grounds for dismissal. If the faculty member disputes the basis for dismissal, they are entitled to a hearing before the Faculty Rights Board. The procedures for hearings before the Faculty Rights Board have been developed by the Faculty Senate, subject to approval by the Chancellor.

 

A motion was made by Syrett to forward the proposed amendment to Faculty Senate. 

Kokobobo seconded the motion.

The motion passed unanimously.

 

Proposed new Faculty Rights, for Faculty Code.

Faculty Code 3.17 – (see end of the minutes)
FacEx members asked for more information as to why this ended up as a new faculty right.

 

The Governance Office will pull the history and post in teams.

 

Proposed FSRR 10.5 – (see the end of minutes)

Accept denial from Provost. Table amendment.

 

Excused Absence Policy Draft – USRR Article II. Academic Work and its Evaluation

 

After discussion, FacEx members requested the chair of FRPR and Susan Williams attend a FacEx meeting to discuss the proposed amendment.

 

Instructional Workload Policy Draft 

Lequesne will have more information at the next FacEx meeting. 

 

 

Faculty Senate/FacEx Meeting Protocols (see information at the end of the minutes)

Syrett made a motion to approve the Faculty Senate/FacEx meeting protocols as presented.

Seconded by Maley.

They were passed unanimously.

 

  1. Old Business –

Lequesne noted that he would like to suspend the FacEx Office Hours.  Leave it as an option should something come up in the future.  Members agreed.

 

  1. New Business –

 

Meeting adjourned.

 

                             Faculty Senate President's Report to FacEx 2021.10.25

The following items are updates since my 2021.10.21 report to the Faculty Senate:

  1. Vaccine mandate
    1. The Chancellor announced on 2021.10.22 that all KU employees will be required to be fully vaccinated or have an approved religious or medical exemption by 2021.12.08.
    2. This mandate resulted from the President's August order requiring that all employees at federal contractors be vaccinated. KU, which receives federal research grants, is a federal contractor. 
    3. KU is working quickly to establish procedures for employees to submit proof of vaccination and apply for exemptions. We should expect to hear details soon.
  2. Public comment period for revisions to "Faculty Responsibility for Establishment of Curricula, Academic Standards, and Degree Requirements and Academic Program Definitions"
    1. Revisions were prompted by KBOR policy changes and changes that KU elected to make to internal procedures. I am working to understand which parts of the revisions were prompted by KBOR and which were internal.
    2. It's my understanding that the Executive Council for Graduate Faculty and the Academic Program Coordinating Committee approved the revisions. Governance was not consulted.
    3. I have made the point to the Provost's Office and the Policy Office that including Governance in the public comment period is not the same as consulting with Governance.

 

 

Amendment to Faculty Code of Rights, Responsibilities and Conduct

Approved by FacEx with amendments January 28, 2020

Senate to Faculty, Library Faculty and Unclassified Academic Staff, for 7-day review: January 30, 2020

Discussion: Faculty Senate, February 6, 2020

Response to Administration Rejection of Amendment to FSRR V

With regard to FacEx request on November 7 that FRPR reconsider the amendment and "please review, suggest possible changes and forward any comments to FacEx by February 5, 2019."

Possible Action:
Recommend that FacEx approve and introduce the following substitute amendment in the University Senate:

 

Faculty Code of Rights, Responsibilities, and Conduct

Article III, Faculty Rights

 

17. The faculty sets requirements for degrees offered and determines when requirements have been met, subject to the authority of the Board of Regents. KU abides by the Association of American Universities' "Statement on Academic Principles," which states that "[t]he faculty holds the primary responsibility for matters related to education and research, such as setting the curriculum"; and by the "Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities," jointly formulated and approved by the American Association of University Professors, the American Council on Education, and the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, which states that "The faculty has primary responsibility for such fundamental areas as curriculum, subject matter and methods of instruction of student life which relate to the educational process ."

 

Rationale:
 

The rejected amendment read: "The faculty has primary responsibility for such fundamental areas as curriculum, subject matter and methods of instruction, and those aspects of student life which relate to the educational process. The faculty sets the requirements for the degrees offered, determines when the requirements have been met, subject to the authority of the Board of Regents."

 

Administration noted that the rejected amendment was too broad. The new amendment (above) is strictly focused on curriculum. It opens by succinctly stating the policy. It then affirms the supporting principle by quoting the statement of the AAU (of which KU is, for now, a member) and the joint AAUP/ACE/AGB statement. 

 

Administration's memo holds that "insertion of the proposed amendment in the definitions for Article V is not appropriate." They cite the Faculty Code as being the proper place for such a policy; the proposal therefore places the statement under Article III of that document, "Faculty Rights."

 

General Counsel objects that the Faculty Code already places the faculty in charge of curriculum and degree requirements, as in the statement "Faculty members have the right to participate in the determination of their teaching, administrative, and other university assignments and responsibilities" (III.4) and "Teaching duties of a professor include planning classroom and/or online activities as appropriate to the method of course delivery; preparing course syllabi; designing assignments and/or examinations; holding regular office hours or being available for consultation; supervising independent work undertaken by students; directing theses and dissertations; evaluating students: assessing and documenting student learning; advising; and developing and assessing curricula" (IV.1.c).

This objection is based on a misreading of these sections; and the misreading is based on a misunderstanding of the differences between singular, plural, and collective nouns. A singular noun, e.g., "a professor," designates an individual, not a group. A plural noun, e.g., "faculty members" refers to a group of individuals. By contrast, a collective noun, e.g., "the faculty," is one that appears singular, but refers to a group, taken as a whole.

Clearly a professor cannot unilaterally establish the curriculum for their department, school, or University; and in any event, the clause IV.1.c refers to duties rather than rights. Likewise, individual faculty members cannot set assignments and responsibilities for all faculty members; III.4 refers to the right of individual faculty members to participate in the determination of their own distribution of effort. The inclusion of "administrative, and other university assignments and responsibilities" indicates that the clause refers to specific job assignments, not approval of curriculum and requirements for degrees generally.

Thus the existing articles III & IV of the Faculty Code do not establish the principle that the faculty, as a body, has the primary responsibility for setting the curriculum and requirements. Many of our peer intuitions do have such statements in their policy documents in emphatic and unequivocal fashion (see below: note the definite article preceding "faculty" in each). Indeed, such as statement, or one said in as many words, should be unproblematic for an institution seeking to retain AAU membership. It is therefore mystifying why the administration would object to such an unobjectionable industry-wide statement of principle.

But even if the proposal does duplicate language that already exists in other governance documents, so what? Better to risk redundancy than lack of clarity. Moreover, this would not be the only example of duplicative language amongst the various documents in the Policy Library. Surely the GC is not employing its twelve staff attorneys and eight staff members in rooting out each one.

 

1. Colorado
http://www.cu.edu/faculty-council/constitution/article-i-definitions-and-principles

 

Constitution:

 

I.B
The faculty takes the lead in decisions concerning selection of faculty, educational policy related to teaching, curriculum, research, academic ethics and other academic matters. The administration takes the lead in matters of internal operations and external relations of the University. [this is almost verbatim from the AAUP 1958 statement]

 

I.B.1
The facultyshall have the principal rolein the origination of academic policy and standards, including initial authorization and direction of all courses, curricula, and degrees offered, admissions criteria, regulation of student academic conduct and activities, and determination of candidates for degrees. 

 

2. Missouri

https://www.umsystem.edu/ums/rules/collected_rules/faculty/ch300/300.010_faculty_bylaws_umc

 

Faculty By-Laws: 

C.3. Authority -- The faculty's authority, as delegated by the Board of Curators, is of three types: direct and primary, in which the faculty has essential decision-making authority; shared, in which the faculty participates with others; and advisory, in which the faculty counsels with the person or offices with ultimate decision-making authority. (On those matters requiring multi-campus coordination, the faculty shall act through its appropriate bodies, Section 300.010.F.)

Primary and Direct Authority-- The UMC faculty has essential decision-making authority in matters directly affecting the educational program of UMC, including but not limited to:
(1) Articulation and maintenance of standards of academic performance -- this includes but is not limited to guidelines for appropriate research, service, and scholarships; requirements for graduation; and related matters.
(2) Construction and approval of courses of instruction and of curricula.
 

 

3. Oregon

https://senate.uoregon.edu/governance-2/constitution/

 

University Constitution 1.3:

Sole faculty governance authority at the University of Oregon resides in the Statutory Faculty.This authority extends to all academic matters as commonly understood in higher education. The Statutory Faculty may delegate its authority but must retain oversight responsibility.

 

4. Indiana

http://www.indiana.edu/~ufc/constitution.html

 

Faculty Council Constitution:

 

Section 2.2: Legislative Authority

 

The faculty has legislative authority to establish policy and determine procedures for its implementation governing the teaching, research, and service aspects of the University's academic mission. Areas within the faculty's legislative authority include:

 

A. Academic mission . . .

E. Curriculum

 

5. Michigan State

https://acadgov.msu.edu/bylaws

 

Bylaws for Academic Governance:

 

4.5.3. . . . the faculty's delegated authority to review and approve or reject all changes in undergraduate curriculaand degree requirements . . . andto review andapprove or reject changes in graduate and graduate-professional curricula and degree requirements 

 

6. UNC

https://www.unc.edu/faculty/faccoun/code/code2010.shtml

 

Faculty Code:

 

"Faculty Council":

§ 2-8. Powers.

(a) The Council exercises the legislative powers of the General Faculty:

  1. to determine the educational policies of the University and the rulesand regulations under which administrators and faculty will conduct the educational activities of the University;
  2. to prescribe the requirements for admissions, programs of study, and the award of academic degrees by the University in the context of the basic educational policies of the University and the special competencies of the faculties of particular colleges and schools;

 

7. UVA

http://facultysenate.virginia.edu/content/about

 

The Academic Affairs Committee [of the Faculty Senate] "will be responsible for all issues pertaining to matters of curricular . . . review" http://facultysenate.virginia.edu/committees/1

 

8. Florida

http://senate.ufl.edu/

 

University Constitution:

Article V. Section 3. THE [Faculty] SENATE POLICY COUNCILS. Five Senate Policy Councils are charged with making policy recommendations and facilitating faculty participation in shared governance in their assigned areas. 

(A) The Policy Councils are: 

(1) Academic Policy: This council's area encompasses educational policy, including the creation, modification, or deletion of academic programs and units; curriculum; academic standing; relationship of academic units to each other; general policies concerning student instruction; and academic merits of candidates for administrative positions of academic significance.

 

Amendment to FSRR X.

Approved by FacEx with amendments January 28, 2020
Sent to Faculty, Library Faculty and Unclassified Academic Staff, January 29, 2020

Discussion: Faculty Senate, February 6,2020.  Faculty Senate voted to suspend University Senate Code 2.5.2. (f)) and vote on the amendment on February 6, 2020.  The motion passed, and the amendment was voted on and passed on February 6, 2020. 
Sent out for 21-Day Review: February 7, 2020
Last Day to Comment February 28, 2020
Sent to Provost, March 2, 2020

 

Response to Administration Rejection of Amendment to FSRR X

With regard to FacEx's request on November 7 that FRPR reconsider the amendment and "please review, suggest possible changes and forward any comments to FacEx by February 5, 2020."

 

Possible Action:
Recommend that FacEx approve and introduce the following substitute amendment before the Faculty Senate:

 

Rationale:
The original amendment arose from the fact that FacEx felt that the University was over-relying on prolonged interim and acting appointments that are not subject to the same oversight and review as permanent administrators. The original FSRR Article X amendment established regular reviews of interim administrators. In rejecting the proposal, the then-Interim Provost wrote, ". . . I recommend considering an amendment elsewhere that puts a limit on how many years an interim or acting appointment is allowed to continue before a permanent appointment is made or before some level of review and input from faculty, students, staff, and other administrators . . . ." The amendment above will accomplish that recommended action.

 

FSRR Article X. Procedures for Review and Reappointment of Chairpersons, Academic Deans, and Vice Chancellors

 

Section 1. Selection and Review of Chairpersons

...

Section 2. Review of Academic Deans

...

Section 3. Review of Vice Provosts and the Vice Chancellors Reporting to the Provost

...

Section 4. Review of Assistant and Associate Chairpersons, Assistant and Associate Deans, Assistant and Associate Vice Chancellors, and Assistant and Associate Vice Provosts

...

Section 5.Interim Administrators. The use of interim or acting administrators is never desirable but is sometimes necessary. Permanent replacements should be appointed to fill vacant administrative positions as soon as practicable, per the relevant section of this article.

Accordingly, the use of interim or acting Provosts, Vice Provosts, Vice Chancellors, Assistant and Associate Vice Chancellors should shall not exceed twenty-four (24) months. However, under extraordinary circumstances, the use of interim or acting administrators in said offices may be extended for an additional  up to twelve (12) months, with the approval of the Provost and a vote of two-thirds of the members of the University Senate. None of the said offices shall should remain under interim or acting leadership for more than thirty-six (36) months in total, by which time a permanent appointment must be made.

 

The use of interim or acting Academic Deans and Assistant or Associate Deans should shall not exceed twenty-four (24) months. However, under extraordinary circumstances, the use of interim administrators in said offices may be extended for an additional  up to twelve (12) months, with the approval of the Provost and the governing body of the apposite school, College, or Libraries. None of the said offices shall should remain under interim leadership for more than 36 months in total, by which time a permanent appointment must be made.

 

Information and Basic Rules for University/Faculty Senate Meetings
FY2021-2022

Quorum:

University Senate: 33

Article I. Section 7. "The majority of those elected to Senate shall constitute a quorum to do business."
39 Faculty, 13 Students, 12 Staff, =64 /2+1=33

 

SenEx: 6 voting members

Article VI. Section 3. "…six voting members constituting a quorum for the transaction of business."

 

Faculty Senate: 21
Article II. Section 3. "The majority of those elected to Faculty Senate shall constitute a quorum to do business."
39 Faculty/2+1=21

 

FacEx: 4
Article VIII. "…four voting members constituting a quorum for the transaction of business."

Relations between Senate Rules and Roberts Rules
"The rules contained in the most recent edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised shall govern the Senates and their committees in all cases to which they are applicable, and in which they are not inconsistent with this Code or the special rules of these bodies. The vice president of the University Senate shall serve as parliamentarian of all meetings of the University Senate." (University Senate Code Article XVII Section 3)

Rules of procedure from the University Senate Code therefore take precedence over Robert's Rules.
(University Senate Code Article XVII)

In addition to these rules, we ask that members:

  1. Ask to be recognized before speaking (by raising their hand or indicating interest in the chat),
  2. Wait to be recognized by the chair before speaking,
  3. Limit comments to about two minutes,
  4. Address only the topic currently being discussed (save new items for new business),
  5. Speak no more than twice on any given topic,
  6. Defer to others who have yet to speak before speaking for a second time on a topic, and
  7. Address their comments to the chair and not to other members of the senate

 

 

University/Faculty Senate Rules and Regulations 

Needs second (?)

Vote Threshold

To propose an amendment, addition, or resolution

Requires a motion that may originate from SenEx, the university community, or any member of the senate.
University Senate: See University Senate Code 1.8.2.  (a)  - (b)
Faculty Senate: See
University Senate Code 2.5.2 (a) – (b)

To make a motion from the floor:
Any member of the senate may propose a motion from the floor, in writing, in the form of "I move … be received for initial consideration as a main motion at the next senate meeting.

Yes

Majority

To vote on a motion at the same meeting it is introduced

The senate may vote to suspend the provision to discuss a motion at one meeting and vote at the second.
(University Senate 1.8.2 (f); Faculty Senate 2.5.2 (f))   

Sample motion: "I move to suspend the provision that does not allow a vote upon initial consideration."

Yes

Two-Thirds

To allow a non-member of Senate to speak:

See University Senate Code Article I. Section 6.

Yes

Majority

 

Robert's Rules of Order During Debate

Can
interrupt

Needs second

Is
debatable

Is
Amendable


Vote

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

§10 To make a main motion

Must be in writing – and state what the motion is. 

I move that [or "to"] ...

NO

YES

YES

YES

MAJORITY

§12 Modify wording of motion

I move to amend the motion by…

NO

YES

YES

YES

MAJORITY

§11 Postpone indefinitely or kill main motion

I move that the motion be postponed indefinitely

NO

YES

YES

NO

MAJORITY

I move to postpone the motion to…

NO

YES

YES

YES

MAJORITY

§13 Refer to a committee, or ask for more information

I move to refer the motion to…

NO

YES

YES

YES

MAJORITY

§16 Close debate (AKA, "call the question")

I move the previous question

NO

YES

NO

NO

Two-Thirds

§21 - Close Meeting – to go into a closed meeting (committee appts., or personnel issues) (SenEx/FacEx)

I move to adjourn…

Motion should also state:
1) justification for closing meeting,
2) subjects to be discussed,
3) time and place the open meeting will resume

NO

YES

NO

NO

MAJORITY

Voting:
The chair calls first for the those in favor of the motion.  Then the chair calls for the negative vote.

Passed by acclamation, when there is no negative votes.

The chair does not call for abstentions. 

Those in favor of (repeats the motion)

Those against the motion

 

 

 

 

 

Adjourn – to end meeting with unresolved business.

I move to adjourn…

NO

YES

NO

NO

MAJORITY

§ 21. Adjourn. When is appears there is no further business, rather than calling or waiting for a motion to adjourn, the chair may ask if there any further business, since there is no further business, the meetings adjourned.