Approval of Previous Minutes —

Kristin Villa made a motion to approve the minutes from the FacEx meeting on October 4.  Justin Blumenstiel seconded the motion. The motion passed and minutes were approved.

Guest Speaker Presentation —

The Faculty Senate Research Committee Chair, Joshua Roundy, joined the meeting.  The Faculty Senate committee is charged with making recommendations on the General Research Fund (GRF).  Roundy shared a presentation “GRF Recommendations”. Joshua gave background on the GRF allocations and pointed out that the allocations are based on the process from 1994.  Everyone on the committee, except one, agreed this should be changed.  After discussion, the recommendation was that the GRF should be allocated based on the size of the unit and how many PIs there are. Funding went down based on PI data “PI” is defined as PI eligible, which are those identified as one who is eligible to get a grant. There are significant changes for people, most in Life Sciences.  This should be done over a 3-year period to allow people time to adjust.  Joshua shared PI data. 

A discussion followed on the methodology and considerations of the committee.  

Comment:  Equity is important for allocations-PI status. The number of grants submitted as a metric is something that could be considered. 

Reply:  This could affect those departments, such as Humanities, that don’t submit as many grants.

Comment:  It seems that you are trying to make things more equitable.

Reply:  That is right.  We are a research university, and we should equally be doing research.

Comment:  The decrease in funding in the College is concerning because faculty count on summer salaries.

Reply:  I can share the data behind all of this. This is change for the units. 

Comment:  Procedurally-what happens next?

Reply: The committee was told October 31 was a deadline to submit, which they did. Joshua is not sure of what the procedures are.

Comment:  Is this something you did in consultation with Office of Research?  Does this need to be voted on by Faculty Senate?

Reply (Nate):  It’s nebulous.  We were asked to make recommendations, and we did.  It’s unclear, but Nate will touch base with Simon Atkinson, who is on the committee.

Question: Did the committee look at this from the point of view of what will be returned?  Did committee contemplate this?

Reply: We looked at outcomes. We discussed how outcomes could be weighted.

Comments:  What’s equitable in headcount may not be equitable in outcomes.  Equity versus numerical headcounts.

Answer: It was tricky to find a metric we could agree on.  We didn’t want to create a metric that could be manipulated.

Comment:  Did you look at those in units that don’t have access to other funds?

Reply:  No, we didn’t.  Not sure where we would get that data.  Not sure how to quantify that.

Additional comments.  Units can use funds as they seem fit.  There is not a standardization of how it’s used.  Units can decide how to allocate the money.  Any way you cut this; someone would be unhappy. 

Question.  The most dramatic change is in Life Sciences.  Why?

Answer.  Life Sciences was high in the past. This was set in 1994.  The committee found no justification why Life Sciences should have been so high.  It’s not a big cut, but rather why were they so high in the beginning.    Life Science will see the most dramatic change.

Comment:  The two reps from Office of Research-Simon Atkinson and Candan Tamerler Behar were in support. They are non-voting members of the committee but were supportive.

Nate Brunsell will follow up with VCR Simon Atkinson to get clarification and procedures. Joshua sent his presentation, which was then shared with the Faculty Executive Committee members.

Faculty Senate Report

1. COACHE Survey is moving along.  Expanding committee for more representation.  Email went out last week. We will have action plans on data analysis and communication.
2. Met with CLAS Dean candidates and submitted our recommendations.  Meeting with Provost tomorrow and hope to get updates.
3. Rpk-continuing its efforts at KBOR.  We have a meeting on Thursday related to academic portfolio and workload reviews.  Nate shared link to stie and form.
4. HLC-it’s progressing, but no updates.

University Senate Report

1. We’ve been invited to HLC committee meeting about repository of syllabi.  They will include students to get some input. 
2. Ani has been working on COACHE with Nate.
3. The Chancellor approved last year’s policy updates.  Ombuds policy will go forth to the Chancellor.  Ani reported she sent the recommendations for CLAS Dean search.
4. Shared Governance.  Ani requested the charges be reversed on website. We hope to memorialize the process, but not sure how yet.  We are planning a visionary exercise and thinking of using HR tool-Grove. There’s an upcoming meeting with the whole group.  We’ll send a campus email about visioning.  Governance will set up a sign-up sheet on the website.  We’ll get a sense of how many people will show.  Hopefully, we can do this in January, hopefully before Jan. 17 when classes start.  We’ll have an ongoing feedback loop.
5. Absences Policy will come back to University Senate in December.
6. In January, Karla Leeper will be at the University Senate.  Jessica Chilcoat will report on the staff morale project in January.

Unfinished Business —

We previously discussed the need for a DEIB committee.  Ani invited Nicole Hodges Persley to speak in February.  It will be good to get her input on this committee.  We can invite her to the next FacEx meeting. 

New Business —

There is an issue with Emeritus status.  According to KBOR, Emeritus can only go to retired and living faculty.  Some units are looking for an honorific title for those who are deceased but would have been granted emeritus status in a few years.  Comments were made. Emeritus is regulated.  For emeritus status, you have to be 55+ with 10-years of service and rated as “good”.  There is no downside to this honorific title. 

Next, Ani asked for a faculty volunteer for the Parking Committee.  Kristin Villa volunteered.

Nate brought up the issue of pressure on faculty to be in the office.  Comments made included the desire for workplace flexibility and students’ expectations for in-person meetings with faculty. We should be proactive on what we want.  We should deal with this.  We are just beginning the conversation around this.  As part of shared governance, we will discuss what it means to be part of an exceptional community.