University Governance

FACULTY SENATE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
November 1, 2011
3:00 p.m. – Provost’s Conference Room

Approved 11/15/2011
MEMBERS PRESENT: Rodolfo Torres, Sara Wilson, Andrew Torrance, Scott Murphy, Chris Crandall

EXCUSED: Megan Greene, Sandra Gautt

ALSO PRESENT: Molly Mulloy and Kathy Reed, Governance; Prof. Bill Scott

            FacEx chair Rodolfo Torres called the meeting to order.

MINUTES for 9/27/2011 were approved.

MEMORANDUM FROM THE SPPT COMMITTEE RE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO FSRR VI
            Rodolfo Torres said he spoke with SPPT member Rick Levy and chair Bill Keel following the discussion of the SPPT’s proposed amendments at the October Senate meeting. He referred members to a 3-page memo dated Oct. 26th from the SPPT committee that clarified the intent of SPPT’s original proposal and suggested new language in several places. Torres led a discussion of SPPT’s memo, noting that he would like to present the less-controversial amendments first for a vote at the Faculty Senate meeting.

Re FSRR 6.3.3.3. 
           Chris Crandall said it’s possible for a chair to have no vote on a promotion and tenure committee. Sara Wilson/Chris Crandall moved that the words “and its chair” be added to the first new sentence, which would then read: “In keeping with…. only members of the promotion and tenure committee and its chair may participate in or observe its deliberations.” Passed.

Re FSRR 6.2.1.   
          Sara Wilson/Chris Crandall moved to endorse the SPPT Committee’s suggestion to change the word “expectation” to “potential” in the first sentence, which would read: “The award of tenure and/or promotion in rank acknowledges meritorious performance and the expectation potential of future contributions…” Passed.

Re FSRR 6.1.1.1.
           Sara Wilson/Scott Murphy moved to endorse SPPT’s new sentence at the end of 6.1.1.1, as follows: “Because the award of promotion and tenure is a complex decision involving difficult judgments, there is no entitlement to promotion or tenure. While meeting minimum university standards and unit-level criteria is ordinarily necessary for the award of promotion and/or tenure, it is not sufficient to create a right to the award of promotion or tenure. “  Passed.

Re FSRR 6.3.2.
            Though SPPT does not recommend further changes to these sections, Torres noted that several Faculty Senate members said there is a problem with ambiguity in the language.  Crandall said the word “or” seemed to be redundant in 6.3.2.1 (….”The criteria shall state the expectations of performance in the areas of teaching, scholarship, service, and/or professional performance…”) and suggested it be removed. Scott Murphy suggested that the sentence begin with the words “As appropriate to the unit and position, the criteria shall state….”  Guest Jeannette Johnson suggested that the last new sentence of 6.3.2 could be split up by putting a period after “initial review” and starting the final sentence with “Units may require…” Following discussion, FacEx did not recommend any new changes.

FSRR 6.3.2.2.
           Rodolfo Torres said one problem is that some departments say the candidate for promotion and tenure must be ranked “very good” and must exceed expectations, not just meet expectations with a “good” ranking. He questioned the use of “very good” and “excellent” rankings rather than a “yes or no” system for tenure and promotion. A member said that the “poor to excellent” rating system is the same language used in some departments’ annual reviews. FacEx members agreed with Torres that if Faculty Senate members want substantial changes in the language to FSRR 6.3.2.1 and 6.3.2.2, that this section should be referred back to the SPPT committee to rewrite.
Torres observed that some Faculty Senate members worry about shifting power from the unit to the University and view the word “expectation” in light of concerns regarding post-tenure review.

NEW BUSINESS
FRPR Charges. 
           Rodolfo Torres said that the FRPR committee discussed the new charge sent to them regarding the placement of dismissal procedures in Faculty Senate Rules Art. VII and sent their recommendation to the Faculty Rights Board chair for feedback. He noted that the current dismissal procedures in the old 1998 Handbook are a “stand-alone” policy until they are revised and placed in the FSRR.  After FacEx receives FRPR’s formal recommendation re placement of the dismissal procedures, a new charge will be forwarded to the FRB to update those procedures. At that time, the Faculty Senate will be asked to approve a change in the current dismissal procedures to designate the Provost, not the Chancellor, as the charging party.  This is needed to be consistent with Board of Regents’ policy that the Chancellor now makes the final decision within the University, and she cannot be both the charging party and the final decision-maker.

KU Mission Statement. 
           Chris Crandall commented on the Mission statement in the Huron Consulting Company brochure and asked if KU’s Mission Statement has changed.  Molly Mulloy will email the current Mission Statement to FacEx.

No further business.

Respectfully submitted,
Molly Mulloy