Policy Amendments

Proposed changes to the CODE, USRR, and FSRR are considered before the appropriate senate for discussion and approval. Before and after the senate votes, the proposed changes are sent to all faculty, staff, and students for comment and review. Amendments are then forwarded to the Provost and Chancellor for approval before being filed in the Policy Library.

Pending Amendments

Ombuds (USRR Articles 5 and 6)

In collaboration with the Ombuds office, the University Senate Executive Committee is working to update the language about the required qualifications for the Ombuds role, as well as general information on the function of the office at the university.

Read the updated policy here.

 

We changed 5.1 to link to the Ombuds Charter and the charter principles in keeping with best practices of the profession.

We changed 5.1.1.1 to indicate that while SenEx remains engaged in helping the selection of the University and Faculty Ombuds, we defer to these individuals in additional hiring in the office.

We changed 5.1.1.4 to no longer require that an individual have worked at KU for 10 years in order to serve as Faculty Ombuds. The University Senate executive committee and the University Senate had robust discussions regarding this topic. We ultimately decided and the University Senate agreed that while we seek for the Faculty Ombuds to have comprehensive knowledge of the university, which we now define in greater detail in the USRR, 10 years of service are both neither required for, nor necessarily guarantee this comprehensive knowledge. At the same time, we felt that someone should have at least some work experience at KU before assuming the Faculty Ombuds role. Accordingly, the years of experience have now been reduced to 3 years.

Additionally, we interpreted the original 10-year requirement in the USRR to indicate that the faculty member had to have obtained tenure at the university, which we felt was an important safeguard for an individual in this role. This language is in no way a reflection on the profound contributions of our non-tenure track to the university. It is a reflection of our belief that in the occasionally hierarchical climate of a university, the job security that tenure offers, can and should be a helpful tool for advocacy in the Faculty Ombuds role. Moreover, as the University Ombuds role is open to all employee categories, we thought that having the Faculty Ombuds be a tenured faculty would bring necessary knowledge of the tenure and promotion, particularly when disagreement over promotion/tenure constitutes a frequent reason for why some faculty visit the office.

We changed 6.2.2 to indicate that the Ombuds Office aims to help faculty, staff, and students to resolve conflict informally and to provide further references to the ombuds charter.

Finally, the term Ombuds will replace the more dated term Ombudsman as a technical correction throughout the USRR.

Sept. 30: Sent out to campus for 7-day notice

Oct. 6: Discussed by University Senate

Oct. 6: Approved by University Senate

Oct. 21: Sent out to campus for 21-day review

TBD: Forwarded to the Provost and Chancellor for approval

TBD: Approved by the Provost and Chancellor

TBD: Submitted to policy library

University Excused Absences (USRR Article 2)

The Faculty Rights, Privileges and Responsibilities (FRPR) committee has sent back to the University Senate Executive Committee (SenEx) a revised draft of the Excused Absences proposed policy for Article 2 of the USRR.

Read the updated policy here.

 

The proposed changes to the University Senate Rules and Regulations will provide guidance to faculty and students on excused absences. The policy has been drafted using language from other AAU institutions as a guide and edited with help from Student and Faculty Senate members including input from the Academic Policies and Procedure and Faculty Rights Privileges and Responsibilities Committees. The changes would replace the current policy sections that deal with exams and final exams and cover all work missed by an excused absence.

The goal of the revisions is to provide a concise policy that provides the definition of an excused absence, the scope of reasons for an excused absence, the responsibilities of the student and faculty in the event of an excused absence, and the process for appeal. This new policy will benefit students by providing the right to make up work that was missed for specific reasons that constitute an excused absence. The new policy will also benefit faculty by providing guidance on handling excused absence requests from students. Overall, the new policy will lead to better consistency across campus.

Nov. 3: Discussed by University Senate

Nov. 18: Sent out to campus for 7-day notice

Dec. 1: Approved by University Senate

Jan. 17: Sent out to campus for 21-day review

TBD: Forwarded to the Provost and Chancellor for approval

TBD: Approved by the Provost and Chancellor

TBD: Submitted to policy library

Academic Forgiveness (USRR 2.8)

The Academic Policies and Procedures (AP&P) committee is working to consider revisions to the Academic Forgiveness policy.


Approved Amendments

Religious Observances and Exams (USRR 1.3.12)

Recommendation from the Academic Policies & Procedures (AP&P) committee

The USRR identifies that for mandated religious observances that conflict with an examination and tests other than final examinations, students should be allowed to make-up the examination. The amendment also gives the same allowance to final examinations.

1.3.12 Students shall be excused from being present for the final examination in the event of a mandated religious observance.  In order to ascertain if the final examination conflicts with a mandated religious observance, the instructor shall ask students who may be affected to identify themselves privately so that a make-up examination may be scheduled at a mutually acceptable time. It is the responsibility of the student to initiate discussion with the instructor prior to the examination.  The instructor and student shall come to a mutually agreeable method of making up the missed examination.

April 5: Approved by SenEx

April 21: Sent out to campus for 7-day notice

April 28: Approved University Senate

April 28: Voted on by University Senate

Sept. 2: Forwarded to the Provost and Chancellor for approval

Nov. 2: Approved by the Provost and Chancellor

Nov. 3: Submitted to policy library

Academic Misconduct (USRR 2.6.5)

Recommendation from the Academic Policies & Procedures (AP&P) committee

This prevents students who have been charged with academic misconduct to bypass the sanction of “Reduction of grade for the Course” by changing to credit/no credit.

2.6.5

Reduction of grade for the Course: Reduction of grade may include the assignment of an F in the course. If the charged student dropped or withdrew from the course prior to the outcome of the adjudication, the course will be reinstated and assigned the grade as determined by the outcome of the hearing.  No student is allowed to change their grade to credit/no credit if found responsible of academic misconduct with the sanction of a reduction of grade for the course.   

April 5: Approved by SenEx

April 21: Sent out to campus for 7-day notice

April 28: Discussed by University Senate

April 28: Approved by University Senate

Sept. 2: Forwarded to the Provost and Chancellor for approval

Nov. 2: Approved by the Provost and Chancellor

Nov. 3: Submitted to policy library