University Governance
MinutesFACULTY SENATE
April 9, 2009 – Room #106, Green Hall – 4:00 p.m.Approved 04/23/09
PRESENT: Melissa Birch, David Brackett, Matt Burke, James Daugherty, Ben Eggleston, Mohamed El-Hodiri, Ada Emmett, Mark Ezell, Lisa Friis, Allen Ford, Joe Harrington, Robert Harrington, Nancy Kinnersley, Man Kong, Liz Kowalchuk, Chuck Marsh, Steve Maynard-Moody, Brent Metz, Jim Orr, Jean Peterson, Barbara Phipps, Gitti Salami, Iris Fischer Smith, Dan Spencer, John Staniunas, Jeff Staudinger, John Stratton, Kelli Thomas, Rodolfo Torres, Donna Tucker, Lisa Wolf-Wendel, Tony Walton.
EXCUSED: Mary Berry, Marta Caminero-Santangelo, Doug Huffman, Alice Lieberman, Joyce McCray-Pearson, Bozenna Pasik-Duncan, Jean Phillips, Stacey S White.
ALSO PRESENT: Molly Mulloy and Kathy Reed, Governance; Mary Lee Hummert and Danny Anderson, Provost’s Office; Reggie Robinson, Board of Regents; Drue Jennings, chair, Chancellor Search Committee; Professors Victor Bailey and Jeff Aube.
Faculty Senate President Nancy Kinnersley called the meeting to order at 4:10 p.m.
MINUTES for March 26, 2009 were approved.
STANDING REPORTS
Faculty Senate President. Nancy Kinnersley announced that the Open Access Policy will be on the agenda for the next Faculty Senate meeting.VOTE: AMENDMENT TO FSRR ARTICLE VI
Kinnersley described the changes recommended by the SPPT Committee (Standards and Procedures for Promotion & Tenure). Mark Ezell/Lisa Friis moved to approve the clarifying text added to FSRR 6.1.5.1, 6.4.3.4., 6.3.2, and 6.3.3. Passed without dissent. The changes are shown in bold font below: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. …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. …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. …
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. …
CONVERSATION WITH KU CHANCELLOR SEARCH COMMITTEE
Nancy Kinnersley welcomed Drue Jennings, Search Committee chair, Reggie Robinson, CEO of the Board of Regents, and KU Professors and members of the search committee Victor Bailey and Jeff Aube.
Jennings described the search process, stating that the 18-member committee has met on a number of occasions since February. He said the 160 persons nominated or recruited represent a broad spectrum of experience in academia, business, and government and the quality of candidates has been spectacular. The committee is operating with absolute confidentiality and hopes to narrow its list to a dozen candidates, with 3-5 persons ultimately interviewed, and unranked names of finalists forwarded to the Regents by the end of June.
Reggie Robinson expressed appreciation to Mr. Jennings for chairing the committee and said the Regents had to make difficult decisions in appointing the search committee, which some people said was too large.
Nancy Kinnersley asked what part the Faculty Senate will play in the search process as it progresses. Robinson responded that he did not know because many “process decisions” are yet to be made by the committee. Jennings added that the committee will determine the last stage for the candidates. His personal preference is not to have public visits to the campus to meet with various constituencies because the publicity may cause some fine candidates to withdraw their names. He said the finalists could be scrutinized confidentially in other ways by the search committee and its consultants. On the other hand, search committee member Victor Bailey said his preference is to have a more open element to the process. Steve Maynard-Moody agreed with Bailey, stating that 90% of the faculty would say we need an open process even though we might lose a candidate who didn’t want to jeopardize his/her current position. Robinson said these different viewpoints will have to be decided by the search committee. Lisa Wolf – Wendel urged that the search be as open as possible, but requested that representatives of the Faculty Senate be included if the candidates were to meet privately with a small number of constituents. In response to a question, Jeff Aube said that the issue of shared governance can be probed in the interview process.
Asked about the trend to recruit college presidents with a business or government background, Robinson said that the increased demand on external fundraising has resulted in more business CEOs being included in search pools but the vast majority of candidates and presidents hired are from academia.
After answering many questions, the search committee members were thanked by Nancy Kinnersley for meeting with the Faculty Senate today.No further business.
Respectfully submitted,
Molly Mulloy