University Governance
Task Force on
the Handbook for Faculty and Other Unclassified Staff
Preliminary Report
February 16, 2009
Introduction
The Faculty Senate Executive Committee (FacEx) formed the Task Force on the Handbook for Faculty and Other Unclassified Staff in April the Spring of 2008, with the support of the Provost, and charged it to draft a new Handbook, develop a set of proposed amendments to incorporate essential policies from the current Handbook into the FSRR and USRR, and develop a set of proposed policies and procedures for inclusion in the University Policy Library. Members of the task force include Richard Hale, Rex Buchanan, Dan Consolver, Mohamed El-Hodiri, Margaret Severson, John Stratton, Jane Tuttle, and Susan Twombly. Richard Levy served as “reporter” for the task force, and Jeannette Johnson, Jenny Mehmedovic, and Mary Lee Hummert participated as ex officio members.
The task force met once in the spring of 2008 to develop a plan for its work. It was agreed that during the summer, Professor Levy should prepare a working draft of a new Handbook and identify policies that needed to be moved from the current Handbook to other locations. The draft prepared by Professor Levy and a list of policies to be moved and/or reviewed were distributed to task force members at the beginning of the fall semester. In the fall semester, the task force met weekly to review the draft and makes suggestions. Subcommittees were formed to focus on the main components of the Handbook and their suggestions were incorporated into a draft that was reviewed by the task force as a whole.
During the course of its work during the Fall of 2008, in consultation with the Provost and FacEx, the Task Force determined to divide the work into two phases. In the first phase, a draft Handbook would be approved and forwarded to FacEx and the Provost (Charge 1), and in the second phase, the Task Force would work on the development of recommended rules and regulations and policy recommendations (Charges 2 & 3).
Because Charges 2 and 3 represent substantial tasks that will take considerable time to complete, this approach is intended to facilitate conversion to the new Handbook as quickly as possible. The expectation is that policies currently found only in the Handbook will be moved “as is” to the University Policy Library (which is where the 1998 and 1986 Handbooks are currently located), pending review and potential adjustments to those policies during Phase 2. This preliminary report represents the completion of Phase 1 of the Task Force’s work, and includes two main components. First, the Task Force presents a draft Handbook for Faculty and Academic and Professional Staff. Second, the Task Force presents recommendations for the transition to the new Handbook, including short term, medium term, and long term action items for both Governance and the Provost’s Office.
Proposed Handbook
The Task Force focused its attention during the Fall of 2008 on the completion of a draft Handbook to recommend, using a working draft prepared during the summer. There was consensus within the Task Force that the Handbook should be a descriptive document that serves as a gateway to policies, but that it should not be a source of or repository for the policies themselves. The Task Force believes that the Handbook’s current status as a source of policy is problematic for several reasons. First, the Handbook’s preface declares that:
The University
reserves the right to expand upon, alter, amend, or delete any provisions
contained herein as may be deemed necessary or appropriate by the
administration. Accordingly, the policies described in this Handbook are
not intended to create a contract between the
Although there is a longstanding custom of seeking the concurrence of Governance before making changes to the Handbook, this has not always occurred and there is no established procedure for Governance participation in changes to the Handbook. Second, having multiple sources of policies creates unnecessary confusion and results in at times overlapping and contradictory statements, in part because of difficulties in maintaining the currency of the Handbook.
Thus, making the Handbook a descriptive gateway would limit the extent to which discrepancies would arise between the Handbook and University policies, and make clear that actual policies would prevail in the case of any inconsistency. It would also facilitate the maintenance of an up to date Handbook and promote greater integration between the Handbook and the Policy Library. The proposed Handbook has therefore been designed as a web document consisting of a series of narrative summaries followed by a set of links to relevant policy documents. It is expected that a table of contents with bookmarks to each section and internal bookmarks for cross references within summaries will be added to facilitate use.
In preparing the narrative summaries, the Task Force attempted to provide sufficient descriptive information to make the Handbook serve as a useful introduction to and overview of key University Policies, while keeping the summaries relatively brief and avoiding excessive detail so as to minimize the need to revise the Handbook as policies change or at least minimizing the complexity of necessary revisions. Nonetheless, the assumption is that, once adopted, the Handbook will require regular maintenance to ensure its currency, and to correct errors or improve clarity. The maintenance of the Handbook would be the responsibility of the Provost’s Office.
Because the proposed Handbook is intended to be descriptive of current policy and is not itself a source of policy, it has not been vetted using the policy apparatus of Governance or posted for public discussion. The critical goal was to systematically and accurately describe existing policy, not to make or recommend policy. Likewise, the Task Force does not believe that the Handbook needs to approved through any formal policy making process, although approval may be required for the displacement of the 1998 and 1986 Handbooks, which were originally approved by Governance. To the extent that the policies in those Handbooks are placed without change in the Policy Library and any amendments to them follow the same process as for prior amendments to the Handbooks, there is no real policy change in the status quo. Nonetheless, the Task Force believes that it is appropriate for Governance to endorse the Handbook as part of the process.
During the process of preparing the Handbook, working drafts were shared with FacEx and the Provost’s Office and input was sought from the Faculty Rights, Privileges, and Responsibilities Committee, the General Counsel’s Office, Research and Graduate Studies, and HREO. Changes were offered by Research and Graduate Studies (which were incorporated), but not by the General Counsel’s Office or HREO, who apparently wished to wait for the final version. The Task Force believes that it is especially important for those two bodies to review the Handbook for accuracy, and other entity with responsibility for policies described in the Handbook should review those policies as well, but concluded that we should forward the draft for further action before that review, which can occur as part of the implementation process. The proposed Handbook is attached to this report as a separate document.
Transitional Recommendations
Although the draft Handbook proposed by the Task Force is intended to be a descriptive gateway to University policy and not itself a source of policy, during the comprehensive effort to summarize policies the Task Force identified a number of policy-related tasks that should accompany the transition to the new Handbook. This part of the preliminary report makes recommendations to accomplish those tasks. Some of these tasks relate to matters within the purview of the central administration. Others relate to matters that are the primary responsibility of Governance. Others may involve matters in which the respective roles of the administration and Governance are unclear.
To facilitate planning and consideration, the action items recommended are grouped into short term, medium term, and long term recommendations. The short term recommendations relate to those actions that are integral to the transition to the new Handbook and should be completed before or at the time when the new Handbook takes effect. The medium term recommendations concern policy matters that are not immediately necessary to the transition, but that the Task Force considers a high priority to be undertaken as soon as possible, including several policy issues which the Task Force will address this spring. Finally, the long term recommendations concern the review or development of policies which the Task Force considers important, but that can be addressed after more pressing issues.
A. Short
Term Recommendations
These recommendations are directed toward the Provost’s Office and concern the logistics of transitioning the new Handbook. They should be completed before or simultaneously with its activation.
1. Review by General Counsel and HREO: The Task Force made every effort to summarize
current policy accurately and comprehensively, but further review to ensure
accuracy is necessary, particularly by the General Counsel’s Office and HREO,
in light of their roles and expertise on critical policies covered in the Handbook. Other administrative bodies should also be
invited to check portions of the Handbook addressing matters within their areas of responsibility.
2. Conversion of Policies in the 1998 and 1986
Handbooks: Dismantling the old Handbooks is a critical step in the transition. Because many important University Policies
are found exclusively in the old Handbooks,
those policies must be relocated to a new home before the Handbooks can be taken off line. At least for the time being, those policies should go to the Policy
Library, although some aspects of some policies may eventually be incorporated
into the University Senate Code, the University Senate Rules and Regulations,
or the Faculty Senate Regulations. Because the old Handbooks (as
well as these Governance documents) are already in the Policy Library the
policies are not really being moved, but rather reformatted as stand alone
policies rather than as part of a Handbook. A list of these policies,
with references to the relevant Handbook provisions
and additional comments is included as an appendix to this Preliminary Report.
3.
Creation/Revision of Website for Vice Provosts: Currently, the
Provost’s website includes a page on Vice Provosts that provides personal
information, but no information about Vice Provost responsibilities and lines
of reporting. This makes it difficult to
know who to go to with an issue. If this
information were added, it would also allow the Handbook to link to a descriptive site and the descriptive content
in part I.A of the Handbook could be
minimized. It would also limit the need
to amend the Handbook when
administrative structures change.
4. Completion of Policies in Development: During
the course of the Task Force deliberations, there were a number of areas in
which new or revised policies were identified as being in development in the
Provost’s Office. To greatest extent
possible, it would be useful to complete and post those policies in time for
them to be referenced in the Handbook when it is posted for public use. Those
policies which cannot be completed promptly, however, could be addressed in the
medium term.
B. Medium Term Recommendations
The recommendations that are included in this section concern matters that the Task Force believes warrant prompt attention, including policy issues that the Task Force expects to address this spring during the second phase of its work. Nonetheless, given the complexity of some of these issues and the importance of transitioning as quickly as possible to the new Handbook, the Task Force believes that these matters do not need to be completed before the posting of the new Handbook. For recommendations 1 through 4 below, the Task Force has formed subcommittees with an aim toward focusing issues and developing recommendations for specific charges to relevant Governance bodies. Recommendation 6 is a matter within the purview of the University administration.
1. Personnel Policies re Academic Staff: The Task Force
discovered that this area (proposed Handbook II.C) is currently a mix of specific policies for academic staff (some found
only in the old Handbooks),
application of faculty policies by default that are not designed for Academic
Staff, and grey areas for which no clear policy exists. There was a broad consensus on the Task Force
that there should be a clearer, more comprehensive set of policies designed
specifically for Academic Staff and that the development of these policies
should receive a high priority. To
facilitate that review, the consensus on the Task Force was to initiate the
process this spring by having a subcommittee review policies and frame issues. Specific issues to be addressed include:
clarification of titles (primarily descriptive and perhaps internal to the
Provost’s Office), evaluation, job security, dismissal and non-reappointment,
modified instructional duties, application of Code of Faculty Rights, and
consulting (clarification of “personal time”).
2. Personnel Policies re Professional Staff: The Task Force
discovered that this area (proposed Handbook II.D) is currently a mix of specific policies for professional staff (some only
in the old Handbooks), application of
faculty policies by default that are not designed for professional staff, and
grey areas for which no clear policy exists. There was a broad consensus on the Task Force that there should be a
clearer, more comprehensive set of policies designed specifically for
Professional Staff and that the development of these policies should receive a
high priority. To facilitate that
review, the consensus on the Task Force was to initiate the process this spring
by having a subcommittee review policies and frame issues. Specific issues identified include: titles,
evaluation, reappointment and promotion, job security, non-reappointment,
resignation and retirement.
3. Code of Faculty Rights, Responsibilities, and
Conduct: The Task Force consensus was to move this
document “as is” to the Policy Library temporarily, but that a more
comprehensive review of the Code was in order. In general, the Code is dated and often unclear or poorly adapted to
current conditions. In addition, the
Code’s applicability to academic and professional staff should be examined more
closely and its provisions should be adapted appropriately. A subcommittee of
the Task Force will undertake a more comprehensive review this spring, in
consultation with FRPR, with an aim toward making recommendations for specific committee
charges for next year.
4. Faculty Rights Board Procedures: Currently
these procedures, originally drafted in 1971-72, are included only in the
Handbook and are dated and cumbersome. Although it is necessary to move them to the Policy Library “as is” for
the time being, the consensus on the Task Force was that these procedures
warranted comprehensive review and revision. This would likely include general “framework” and authorizing provisions
in the FSRR and more specific procedures developed by the FRB and approved by
Governance. A subcommittee of the Task
Force will review the procedures this Spring, in consultation with the FRB,
with an aim toward making recommendations for specific committee charges for
next year.
5. Incorporation of Policies into Governance
Documents: Many of the policies that must be relocated
from the Handbook should be included
University Senate Code, the University Senate Rules and Regulations, or the
Faculty Senate Regulations. While a
number of these policies warrant substantial review and revision before that is
done, some of these policies are simple and straightforward and can be moved
without significant change or require little discussion. For example, the Task Force recommends that
the University Governance Charter issued by the Board of Regents (providing for
the creation of the University Senate) should be incorporated into the
University Senate Code. The Task Force
hopes to draft a set of such amendments in time for action by Governance this
spring.
6. Location and Consistency of General Personnel
Policies: HREO has posted a large
number of general personnel policies, many of which are also addressed in other
policy documents in the Policy Library and other locations. The process of moving HREO documents to the
Policy Library is a major undertaking and needs to continue (e.g., procedures
for handling discrimination complaints should be moved from the HREO site to
the Policy Library). In addition, the
administration may wish to review the various policies for consistency.
C. Long-Term Recommendations
The Task Force found a number of areas in which policies might be developed or improved. These concerns are significant, but given the difficulty and importance of the short term and medium term recommendations, it is unreasonable to expect that these issues could be addressed this year. Indeed, review of all these policies is likely to be a multiyear process, and priorities will have to be set by Governance and University administration. The policies are listed below in the order in which they appear in the draft Handbook and that order does not reflect any Task Force recommendation concerning the priority that should be attached to any issue or policy.
1. Appointment and Review of Administrators: There are FSRR
provisions addressing most aspects of these issues, but there are also old Handbook provisions that may or may not
be consistent with them. Most of the
procedures for appointment and review have not been updated in some time and
there is some feeling that they are cumbersome and in need of review. Recent amendments to FSRR address appointment
of chairs only. (Proposed Handbook II.A.
1 & 2)
2. Faculty Appointment Policies: Currently,
faculty appointment policies are a mix of minimal university policies, unit
level practices (which may or may not have been formalized), and general HREO
policies as gap fillers. The Task Force
found it difficult to determine what the policies are and a more formal University
policy may be desirable. (See Proposed
Handbook II.B.2)
3. Statement of Administrative Integrity: In discussing
the principle of Academic Integrity (Proposed Handbook III.C), the question was
raised whether that principle applied to administrators or whether there was
some equivalent standard of administrative integrity. Members observed that many faculty disputes
with administrators raise such questions and that there is no standard for
evaluating those issues. The development
of such a policy is recommended.
4. University Privacy Policy: Concerns were expressed about the current policy in
terms of clarity and adequacy of protections for faculty and staff. This appears to be a longer term project, but
may also be part of the review of the Code of Faculty Rights, Responsibility
and Conduct. The privacy policy was
developed by the University, and Governance would likely be in the position of
recommending or requesting changes to the policy, rather than amending
Governance documents.
5. Open Meetings and Open Records Guidance: The Kansas
Open Meetings Act and Open Records Act apply to many activities on campus
because the University is a state agency. Many members of the University community are unaware of the requirements
of these statutes and there is no guidance document currently available to
provide assistance. The Task Force
recommends that the Provost’s Office and General Counsel develop one.
6. Intellectual Property Policy: Concerns were expressed about the current
intellectual property policy, especially in light of recent contract provisions
sent out by the Administration. This
appears to be a longer term project, but may also be part of the review of the
Code of Faculty Rights, Responsibility and Conduct.
7. Telephone & Campus Mail Policies: Current Policies (such as they are) exist only in the
1986 Handbook, although some other
general policies may also apply to both telephone and campus mail use. If there are going to be specific Telephone
and Campus Mail policies, those policies should be updated in light of technological
and legal changes. (For example, the
Telephone policy still refers to the “
8. Authority of Academic Units: In addition to
the general statement in the Handbook, there are specific provisions in the
FSRR (Article 1, Article II, Section 1, Sections 2.3.5, 2.4.5, Article V,
sections 2 and 3) that address the authority of academic units on particular
matters. It might be useful to adopt a
general statement on this authority for inclusion in the FSRR.
9. Policies re Courses and Teaching Assignments: Current
process for determining courses to be offered and assignment of teaching
responsibilities are unit-based and have been the source of some concerns and
complaints within particular units, including concerns about the adequacy of
vetting for courses and non-faculty instructors, as well as the fairness of
teaching assignments. This issue may be
one that warrants some attention from Governance.
Conclusion
The Handbook for Faculty and Other Unclassified Staff dates to 1986 and was only partially updated in 1998. It is designed for a different time and for different conditions. A comprehensive revision is long overdue. The review of the Handbook has also provided an opportunity for the Task Force to take a systematic look at the broad range of policies that apply to faculty and academic and professional staff at the University, identifying a number of areas in which policy is dated, confusing, poorly written, and/or problematic as a matter of substance. Improving this broad range of policies is a long term undertaking—indeed, the maintenance of the University’s policy infrastructure is an ongoing process. The Task Force believes that the adoption of the new Handbook would be an important first step, but it is only a first step. Accordingly, the Task Force recommends and requests the following actions:
1. That Governance endorse this preliminary report, including the adoption of the proposed Handbook and the Task Force’s plan for addressing certain policy issues this spring;
2. That the Provost take the necessary steps to replace the old Handbooks with the proposed Handbook, including the actions identified under “short term recommendations,” above;
3. That Governance committees and administrative officials support the Task Force efforts this spring to frame issues and develop charges for further action regarding the “medium term recommendations,” above; and
4. That Governance and the central administration develop priorities to address the policy issues identified under “long term recommendations,” above.