Guest Speaker Presentation —

Shelley Hook, VCR of Research, was the guest speaker and presented on “One KU Research”. Shelley reviewed the overall goals of One KU. Shelley shared the One KU Research website page. Shelley reported the benefits to the Office of Research with One KU. The challenges facing research were discussed. Things are looking better than six months ago. There are challenges facing combining into One KU. There are differences in administrative functions. They are looking at ways to elevate research services. They are taking a strategic approach to this. They are incorporating recommendations from outside consultants and surveys. They will transition into “My Research” system, where they systems talk with each other, making it more efficient.

Q&A Session

Q. How does the Edwards Research fit into the scope of things?

A. Edwards is integrated into all Lawrence systems. KU Lawrence includes Edwards.

Q. Will Lawrence be implementing the different processes from the Med Center, or are you picking the best process from each campus?

A. We are equal opportunity pain. Both campuses are implementing the other processes when it makes sense.

Q. With One KU, the role of the Provost might shift. How is it changing?

A. Invite Corinne Bannon to come speak about the overview of One KU. It is the best summary.

Q. Can you explain to the research messages that we have received more research expenditures.

A. The extra dollars coming in does not give us extra dollars to play with. When we celebrate getting a grant, it costs us. We do celebrate though because we are growing research. It is a complicated problem and story. Research growth is our mission.

Q. Will the One KU initiative provide more transparency on processes on procurement services?

A. Yes, you will be able to see where things are in the system. Research is not procurement, though. 

Q. For creative schools that do not fit the category of traditional research, are there discussions about how they will be included?

A. Work is the point. We get the dollars we get to do the work to make an impact.

Q. The General Research Fund is on a decreasing curve. Why is this?

A. These do not come from the Office of Research, which only manages it. The Office of Research does not have control over these funds. We will advocate for this, though.

Q. Can we add in agreed upon times for workflow in the system? This time limit for processes will help researchers. 

A. Thank you for the suggestion.

Faculty Senate Report

Misty reported the following on the vote of confidence/no confidence of the Chancellor and CFO. Misty and Poppy sent a message to Faculty Senate on Monday. They could not give the background at the time. Misty’s end goal was to make sure that the Senate can represent all of faculty in a way that is honest and true to our experiences. Misty has heard concern throughout the year about communication about what is going on with the University about the resources and priorities at the University. There are Union negotiations going on. Faculty Senate is separate and not involved in the negotiations. Poppy and Misty received a letter about the Union contract that felt disrespectful to the academic system and was concerning Misty. Misty believed that faculty were not given full information. Misty thought she needed to take a stand against continual confusion of information. Misty and Poppy wanted to reach Faculty Senate and University Senate directly and provide a vehicle to bring our voices to administration to try and be heard. There is some confusion as to how it was rolled out. We did this community style. 

Misty reported that there were issues with Staff Senate and the Union, which she addressed with each. 

The letter was sent to the media. There were questions about the process from reporters. Misty said that she has an obligation as a leader to speak out about something when it is necessary. 

University Senate Report

Poppy said the letter was written by Poppy and Misty and sent to the University Senate and Faculty Senate only. We are looking for space to open the dialogue. 

• There was a discussion. The following comments were made:
• Why was staff not asked to send out the message? Misty responded that she was trying to protect everyone around her. 
• The movement expanded. The students seemed to have started a movement on their own. It was sent to University Senate, which includes student senators. 
• An opinion was given that it would be good to approach new leaders for feedback, before sending it to a larger audience. 
• Administration should take faculty more seriously, and the timing was right for this message. 
• The dean was appointed to the College, without a process, and the actions of Misty and Poppy were appropriate.
• The letter could have explained the rationale behind it. What was the purpose of this? What’s next?
• The Union has assured that Faculty Senate will continue. 
• The end game is to get administration to take the academic enterprise more seriously.
• We have extended the survey to allow everyone to have a voice.

Unfinished Business —

Processes to Implement the Open Access Policy. Moved forward to the next meeting.

New Business —

FSRR Article IX and University Senate Code Article XIII, Sec. 1, 2, and 3 Proposed Amendments.

Change to Restricted Research Policy and Procedures. This was passed by FacEx and moved forward to Faculty Senate. Materials were sent with the agenda with changes to the policy. FacEx has been having trouble filling committees because faculty are over committed. Misty met with Shelley Hooks and Susan McNally in the Office of Research to discuss the efficiency of the approval of restricted research policy. 

There is a proposal to shift the responsibility to the Office of Research, which has paid staff, and will make the approval process efficient and streamlined. The recommendation is to decommission the Faculty Senate Restricted Research Committee and put those responsibilities into the Office of Research, where they have been structurally and informally. 

Brendan Mattingly motioned to suspend the provision of University Senate Code 1.8.2 f. Jesse Wiley seconded the motion. Motion passed by super majority, 16 were in favor. None were opposed. 

Brendan motioned to approve the amendment. Jesse seconded. 19 were in favor. None were opposed. The motion passed.

Meeting adjourned.