University Governance
Minutes
FACULTY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
March 10, 2009
Approved 3/24/09
PRESENT: Nancy Kinnersley, Mary Berry, John Stratton, Lisa Wolf-Wendel, Liz Kowalchuk, Ben Eggleston
EXCUSED: Lisa Friis, John Staniunas
ALSO PRESENT: Molly Mulloy, Governance; Prof. Mark Ezell, chair, SPPT Committee.
Chair Nancy Kinnersley called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m.
MINUTES for 02/24/09 were approved.
REPORT OF THE FACULTY PRESIDENT
Nancy Kinnersley announced that Board of Regent’s staff called to say that CEO Reggie Robinson and Chancellor Search Committee Chair Drue Jennings, as well as the two KU faculty on the committee, will attend a meeting of the Faculty Senate this spring.
Kinnersley has received about twenty emails from faculty concerned about the proposed Open Access policy, a draft of which was apparently distributed to the chairs in the College. Several questions were raised about the analysis of the survey data. John Stratton noted that the Faculty Senate Research Committee amended and endorsed the policy at its meeting today. He led a discussion of the changes they approved, which includes a statement that faculty members will be able to “opt out” of participation on a yearly basis. John Stratton/Lisa Wolf-Wendel moved to post the full report on Governance’s website, to email the updated policy to all faculty for review and comment, to schedule it for further deliberation at the 3/26 Faculty Senate meeting, and to vote on it at a later Faculty Senate meeting. Passed.
Kinnersley reported that Vice Provost Danny Anderson is working on language for KU’s healthcare limited “bridge policy” and “retire-rehire” policy. The Council of Faculty Senate Presidents (COFSP) discovered a statement in the Regents’ policy manual about an annual teaching award to one tenured and one untenured faculty member at each of the Regents’ universities. This policy has not been utilized in many years.
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES FOR PROMOTION & TENURE
Kinnersley welcomed Mark Ezell, who distributed and led a discussion of two documents: (1) the SPPT Committee’s “General Interpretations of Article VI,” (2) “SPPT Committee Progress Report to Facex” dated 03/10/09.
Ezell said SPPT’s highest priority is to review units that conduct intermediate level reviews, including the College, Engineering, Education, Pharmacy, and RGS.
Referring to the handout entitled “General Interpretations of Article VI,” Ezell said the committee is finalizing this guidance document to be used by units working on their policies. FacEx members agreed with Ezell that the schools are not authorized to develop standards and criteria at the intermediate level; the department needs to do this. Ezell said he did not see where a department’s policies have to be approved by a school or dean. Several members expressed concern that individual units might set the bar too low and that the school might need to “equalize” the bar. In the discussion that followed, Stratton suggested that the guidance document include joint appointments, which Ezell agreed to include.
Ezell led a discussion of three amendments to FSRR Art. VI recommended by the SPPT committee. There was much discussion of SPPT’s proposed language to require that job descriptions be given to new assistant professors; SPPT will continue to refine the language on this issue. Lisa Wolf-Wendel/John Stratton moved to approve the amendments recommended by SPPT to FSRR 6.1.5.1 and FSRR 6.4.3 to clarify that if a candidate is denied tenure in his/her “mandatory year,” he/she cannot seek another review in the seventh (terminal) year. The changes are shown in bold font:
6.1.5. Time in Rank. In consideration of promotion and tenure, the following rules concerning time in rank apply:
6.1.5.1. Pursuant to Board of Regents policy, the probationary period for tenure track faculty may not exceed seven years. Under this policy, if a faculty member does not receive tenure, the seventh year becomes the terminal year. Consideration of tenure must therefore occur no later than the sixth year, which constitutes the “mandatory review year”. In cases of mandatory reviews resulting in the denial of tenure, no further reviews for tenure shall occur. Candidates who apply for promotion and tenure prior to their mandatory review year are held to the same standards of achievement as those who have completed the full probationary period. University and Regents policy may provide for the exclusion of some years in computing time in rank and such years shall not be included in determining the terminal or mandatory review year. When untenured faculty members are hired after serving at another academic institution, the treatment of time spent at the other institution and the resulting terminal and mandatory review years shall be established through negotiation at the time of the hire.
6.4.3. Non-reappointment.
…
6.4.3.4. If a faculty member is denied tenure during the mandatory review year, the decision constitutes a decision of non-reappointment, and the notification of the denial of tenure serves as notice of non-reappointment. In these instances, no further reviews for tenure shall occur. Non-reappointment for other reasons is a decision distinct from the denial of tenure and involves different procedures. Absent exceptional circumstances, non-reappointment for reasons other than the denial of tenure should not occur once a faculty member is under consideration for tenure during his or her mandatory review year.
Lisa Wolf-Wendel/John Stratton moved to approve SPPT’s recommended amendments to FSRR 6.3.2 to clarify that the faculty in the unit vote on their promotion and tenure policies and procedures. Passed. The new text is shown in bold font:
6.3.2. Criteria for Review. Each department, college or school, or other administrative unit with responsibility for conducting promotion and tenure review shall adopt by vote of eligible faculty or faculty body written criteria consistent with the university promotion and tenure standards set forth in section 2 of this Article, for evaluating a faculty member’s teaching, scholarship, and service. Units that include non-teaching faculty shall include criteria for the evaluation of professional performance.
. . .
6.3.3. Procedures for Review. Each department, college or school, or other administrative unit with responsibility for promotion and tenure review, as well as the University Committee on Promotion and Tenure (UCPT), shall adopt by vote of eligible faculty or faculty body written procedures for the conduct of review. While written procedures may vary considerably in accord with the particular needs of the department, college or school, or other administrative unit, all procedures must conform to the principles and requirements of this article, including its provisions concerning standards, confidentiality, candidate access and participation, and conflicts of interest.
Kinnersley said these amendments will be scheduled for discussion at the March 26 Faculty Senate meeting and voted on at the April 9th meeting.
Ezell described the SPPT Committee’s continuing work on its charge regarding external reviewers. The Committee met with Dan Bernstein, director of the Center for Teaching Excellence, to discuss a proposed amendment to FSRR 6.2.2 regarding teaching evaluation. In regard to SPPT’s charge to have a joint meeting with the UCPT Committee at the end of the semester, Ezell reported that Vice Provost Mary Lee Hummert does not think this will be possible.
Nancy Kinnersley thanked Ezell for meeting with FacEx today.
NEW BUSINESS
John Stratton, a member of the Task Force on the Faculty Handbook, reported that Rick Levy is developing new language for the FSRR about the Faculty Right Board’s authority to develop its own hearing procedures; the procedures themselves would be in the Policy Library rather than the FSRR. Kinnersley will invite Levy to meet with FacEx.
No further business.
Respectfully submitted,
Molly Mulloy