Approval of Previous Minutes —

Meeting minutes from Nov. 17, 2022. Motion to approve by Ani Kokobobo. Motion passed unanimously.

Meeting minutes from Dec. 8, 2022. Motion to approve by Ani Kokobobo. Motion passed unanimously.

Guest Speaker Presentation —

Joe Walden, Chair of University Senate Academic Policies and Procedures (AP&P), talked about the revised Academic Forgiveness Policy. He said the committee took the best of policies at eight universities and made some adjustments that are better for the students and allow some students to come back. Students must be readmitted, earn 12 hours, maintain a 2.5 gpa once admitted. They can come back after a two-year break and forgive four semesters, as opposed to three.

Joe defined “academic forgiveness”.  It doesn’t take the courses off your transcript, but the courses are not considered in you gpa.  Up to four semesters will be taken off your gpa. Students can make up the first semesters they may have messed up. Instead of four years and a 25-year age requirement, they can come back sooner, do well, and have a chance to graduate with a decent gpa.

Question. Would this apply to any students or only undergraduates?

Answer-Our focus was on undergraduates.

The recommendations of revisions to the policy will go to the SenEx

Faculty Senate Report

RFK has finished their final report. They are asking for feedback. It’s important people share their opinions on that report and the recommendations that were proposed in that report.

In our meeting in December, we talked about GRF and reallocation across units. We heard a lot of discussion in meeting and emails. FacEx decided it was not worth while pursuing that at this time. We are going back to research committee and think about how to move forward to reallocate GRF funds.

Q. In Chat. Is Faculty Senate/Governance planning on submitting a response to rpk's report?

Ani. Are you going to write a response?

Nate. I get my time with KBOR every month and I talk about RPK.

Comment:  A unified response might be good.

Comment. Unifying a response across all institutions would be a strong way to go.

Nate. There is an implied idea in report that if a particular school closes a program, those students will go to another institution. We are addressing that.

Nate has voiced he is not in favor of this report since it began. Several of KBOR members it seems, may not go along with the report-in Nate’s opinions. They are not inclined to go along with it. He encouraged everyone to put in feedback and thoughts.

Nate reported that Ani and he have been working on the COACHE faculty satisfaction survey. The next steps are public presentations. The first meeting is Feb. 17 at 2 pm in Beren—Ani, Nate and the Provost will be giving a presentation and open for feedback. Beginning the week of Feb. 20 through mid-March there will be lunches regarding COACHE survey. We are considering doing one on Zoom. These are based on ministrative units. We are thinking of having sessions for non-tenured. It will give faculty a role in this process. The goal after the listening sessions, 13 members in advisory group, they will be organizing the feedback to think about the proposed actions.  This will be presented to the provost for recommendations for action. The last update is that SenEx will participate in the Dean of Libraries search.

Question. How many candidates?

Answer:   There are 4.

University Senate Report

Ani reported on COACHE. She reported she has been working on shared governance initiative. The visioning for Phase 1, what it means to be an exceptional learning community, is on Feb. 10 1-5 pm   We will create other opportunities for input, for those who can’t attend.  This is going to be a shortened Groves process. We will provide a structure, so we move fast and loop back to things.

The absences policy is moving forward and will finish the review period Feb. 7. We made a technical edit for the Law School to accommodate accreditation. Also, as Joe reported, we are revising the forgiveness policy. Also, there has been ongoing discussion on makeup of University Senate. Can we balance broader representation in University Senate with the academic role. We are taking up this question again and I want to bring this up.

Comments. Do the students and staff want majority in the Senate?

Ani. No, they want equal representation. Can faculty control academic policy and still have equal representation? We have this unique situation at KU and the limited representation the other groups have

Nate suggested a voting policy on academic matters.

New Business —

Teaching Professor Policy

Nate Brunsell provided context. Lou’s office Faculty Affairs is putting together some ad hoc committees. Nate reviewed the policy. Jennifer Ng, Faculty Affairs, was present to discuss the draft of the policy and makeup of the committees. Nate said we are looking for faculty representation and he wanted feedback on the makeup of the committees. Eventually, all classifications of faculty will be addressed.

Jennifer shared the charge “Teaching Professor Policy 2023 Ad Hoc Committee Charge”. They are looking at Teaching Professors first. This group is prioritized because we have so many in this group. They are looking at schools to see if they are within the guidelines that exist. There are so many titles, roles, and it is best to look at each individually. They are looking to see if units and departments are within the university guidelines. Jennifer said they want a committee to look at this. They want the results to lead into policy, stronger than guidelines. Faculty Affairs has been keeping a list of contradictions and concerns expressed with the guidelines, that they would like to turn over to a committee to reengage with 2019 guidelines.

Jennifer reviewed the committee makeup. They think it’s important to have teaching professors in the committee.  Some names of those on the committees were provided by Nate. Also, reps from Dean’s offices were provided.

Josh Arpin said he has been working with AIRE. He is interested in being on the committee from the faculty compensation side.

Jennifer said one of the questions on their list relates to lecturers and teaching professors We hope to specify how multi-term lectures might progress.

Ani said she has seen another document she has seen as Chair. What is the relationship between the two policies.

Teaching professors across campus was discussed. This is likely to change quickly, as it is a new title series. There are many in College, and Education, who converted lecturers to this title. School of Business has many too. Other schools are discussing this.

Question. In the School of Social Welfare, we have Professors of Practice. We are concerned about equity. When will this be attended to?

Answer. Jennifer said that will be next group. They hope to have policies and the earliest they would have discussions and documents would be the later part of the fall 2023.

They are still seeking nominees for these committees. If you are interested, let Nate know.

Nate asked for any comments on the ad hoc committee document be directed to him.

Discussion of Interim Administrators

We would like to have a discussion, through COACHE and other discussions, about the role, procedures and those serving in interim appointments.

Nate shared FSSR Article X. Section 5, which was previously declined. He asked if we still feel strongly about this and if we should revisit this. The provost seems receptive to this. The 24 months is a balance of how long a search will take and when the person can start.

Ani provided comments. This issue is from a historical backlog. There are a number of questions around this. If we can create some regulation around this, it would be good. She asked for feedback. We should not have perpetual interims making decisions that are long standing. Finding a replacement should be expedient.

Comment. This is not a good idea. We all serve at the pleasure of the Chancellor. I think it is outside of bailiwick.  A resolution is better than policy.

Ani replied that it would go on Article X, and therefore it is within our area.

Question. How would you enforce this? What promoted this revival of the Article X?

Ani. COACHE data shows this is a concern. That is what prompted this.

Comment. We can say how can we enforce this, but how do we enforce anything? Say a search needs to be initiated immediately. How long, who knows. But a search should begin right away.

Comment. Is it worth talking about what the interim selection is? There is usually no discussion. It’s dictated.  Maybe a mini search for the interim would be good. 

Comment. Good point. Input for interims would be good. There is usually a lag time when the person notifies and then steps down.

Ani. What would that look like? Soliciting recommendations?

Comment. Internal nominations.

Nate. The feedback on interim doesn’t preclude the length of time for the search.  A time to a person starting can be lengthened by things beyond control.

Ani. We want to have input to leaders who are making decisions that affect all of us.

We want permanent leadership who can navigate the landscape. A sense of urgency is needed.

Comment. What are next steps?

Nate—we will take it to FacEx. We will do something there and take it back to this body. This is FSSR Article X, so we will take it up at the next FacEx Meeting.

Meeting adjourned at 4:21 pm.