FacEx Meeting Minutes

Meeting Details:

Fiscal Year: FY2024
Time: 3:00 p.m.
Location: Zoom
Minutes Recorded By: Suzanne Scales
Minutes Approved on:


Attending Members

  • Becci Akin
  • Josh Arpin
  • Kristin Villa
  • Sam Brody
  • Victor Gonzalez

Other Attendees

  • Amy Mendenhall
  • Caty Movich
  • Jeff Chasen
  • Suzanne Scales

Approval of Previous Minutes

Meeting minutes from Sept. 5. Motion to approve by Kristin Villa. Motion passed unanimously.


Faculty Senate Report

Reporter: Victor Gonzalez (Faculty Senate President)

Victor reported he will go to the first KBOR meeting on Thursday. After the meeting, they will report to the Faculty Senate Presidents at other institutions.

University Senate Report

Reporter: Kristin Villa (University Senate President)

Kristin reported on a meeting with Rachel, Student Services, Tammara Durham, and Susan Williams, who helped with the Excused Absence Policy, about the confusion with students going to Rachel’s office. They are being directed to that office for verification and faculty are not doing what they are supposed to do in that space. We need to educate faculty on how to use this policy. This is not meant to give away faculty autonomy. Student Affairs is very anti-documentation for health-related issues. There is a concern about not asking students for documentation ever and then, if they think they are abusing the system, asking for it. This is treating students differently on loose criteria.

A discussion on the Excused Absence Policy followed. Amy Mendenhall gave comments. Students are waiting 3 or 4 hours at the health center to get a note. They should not wait if they do not need medical attention. Some on-campus student employers are asking for notes. Jeff Chasen provided comments for student employers. They have a liberal sick policy for employees to provide greater flexibility. We need to create space around mental wellness. We have eliminated the previous policy which required a medical appointment for sick leave. We checked with GC and KBOR to make sure the new policy was admissible. Victor said that people who are teaching big classes or labs have concerns. He suggested doing a survey among faculty and seeing how these policies are affecting them and the perception of how many students are abusing this. Josh Arpin commented that he has 440 students. He had twelve makeups for a test last week, which they did in four sessions. Resources were needed. Other comments on the policy: It is hard to access severity of illnesses, if students are sick, they should stay home, some students do not know how to navigate, and there are inconsistencies. Kristin replied she holds students to documentation for exams. Kristin believes students and faculty need to both be educated. If the policy must go back through, it goes to the faculty senate. Victor asked if there is more education on the policy. Amy suggested a FAQ document that might be helpful for faculty. We might attract a small group of people if we held something. Josh volunteered to get this topic of the Business School faculty meeting agenda. We could gather feedback on what they are seeing. We could see if there is additional training that is needed. Closing comments: everyone needs to be on the same page, Student Affairs, Faculty Affairs, and others, we each might interpret and give different information, and we might not all ever agree.

New Business

Discussion of SPPT chair question on non-tenure track policy for reviews.

Josh gave input. As a member of Faculty Compensation committee, they hoped to produce a university wide teaching professor role description. For example, in business school, the responsibilities of tenure track and lecturers are the same. There is some scholarly engagement, 10%, for tenure. Otherwise, the role is the same, but the compensation and title are different. If we want them to be different, how do we structure the wording? The SPPT question may be getting at promotion guidelines. The work of the ad hoc committee under Lou Mulligan (Faculty Affairs) last year may be able to help with this as they were looking into this. Kristin gave input. They lump Unclassed Academic Staff (UAS) into this category, but UAS have specific university policies. They go through promotion the same way as tenure track. Teaching professors have guidelines and not policies. Lecturers and Professors of Practice do not have guidelines. They should be in a larger HR discussion. The title “clinical” is used in in some areas. Other titles in UAS are scientist and curator. Amy Mendenhall commented that there was the Teaching Professor Work started in Faculty Affairs last year. She plans to revive that group and continue the work that was started by her predecessor. Amy commented that the SPPT question groups all the classifications together, but there are different procedures, such as for research faculty. There are different procedures within the classification that is not UAS. There may not be formal procedures for all the classifications. Amy commented that Faculty Affairs has work to do to ensure procedures and processes are there for different classifications. Kristin said it was the term “policy” in SPPT charge #1 that was being questioned. Policy exists for tenure track UAS, but not other titles such as professors of the practice. It was recommended “if policy exist” should be changed to “if University policy exists” in the SPPT committee charge #1. The concern was that the committee’s workload may increase. The committee will be able to review these later when policies exist. FacEx could respond to the chair with the title classifications that the committee needs to review. Kristin Villa made a motion to make a technical edit to the charge by inserting the word “University.”  Becci Akin seconded the motion. Motion approved.

Kristin Villa made a motion to move to closed session. Victor seconded. Motion passed. Moved to closed session to discuss Faculty Senate appointments.

FacEx - Sept. 19, 2023

Member for

1 year 7 months
Submitted by Caty Movich on