Minutes
Faculty Senate Executive Committee
Emporia State University
8 November 2002

Present: D. Allen, R. Catlett, M. Harrell, R. Keith, D. Moore, S. Neill (F. Mullins), J. Schwenn, and Z. Swanson

  1. Call to order: Keith called the meeting to order at 3:10 p.m. in the KSN Room of the Memorial Union.

  2. Approval of the minutes from 1 November 2002: The 1 November 2002 minutes were approved with corrections.

  3. Announcements:

    1. President of the Faculty Ron Keith:
      Keith stated the BoR would be meeting next week.

    2. Vice President for Academic Affairs John Schwenn:
      Schwenn informed FSEC that the University was to receive its 2004 budget back today. The proposed budget was equal to this year's budget including the budget cuts. It is expected that it will come back from the state with an additional cut of $1,520,000. We can still make a case for the original request. These cuts are from ESU's base state allocation.

  4. Committee Reports:
    1. Academic Affairs (Z. Swanson):
      Swanson stated that AA brought out the bill related to the Student Code of Standards (SCS). The committee is working on a bill to reflect changes that are being made to the Intensive English Program, including an exit exam. They would also like to include a flow chart in the P&PM to add clarity to the policy. It appears that these changes are motivated by a very small number of students getting through the program that still have trouble communicating in English. It was decided that Schwenn would visit with Jim Harter and discuss better ways to report program assessments and possibly consider outcome assessments if this is not already happening. Also, Swanson mentioned that he would be parsing out to a subcommittee the selections of the teaching awards.

    2. Faculty Affairs (Catlett):
      Catlett stated that FA would have a few issues on their plate at the next meeting. They will be looking at suggestions to the Retrenchment Policy and at the Chronic Low Performance Policy.

    3. Committee on Campus Governance (Neill):
      Neill stated that Keith and Moore visited the committee about reducing the commitment of service required of a person elected as a future president of the faculty. The committee is considering four options. The options are:
      1. eliminate the past president;
      2. eliminate the second vice president;
      3. reduce the second vice president's term to a half of a year; and
      4. leave it as is.
      Keith stated that a fourth option could be to elect a person to the second vice president's position but have no expectations for that individual to participate in the Senate or Senate committee meetings.

  5. Items for Discussion:

    1. Policy manual plan Keith made the following assignments for each of the standing committees to review a portion of the revised P&PM.
      • FA-Chapter 1 and 3A-3C
      • AA-Chapter 4 and 3D
      • COCG Chapter 3E to the end of Chapter 3.
      The task is to determine if inclusions are accurate. If not, what are the points of conflict? Are they substantive or something less than substantive? It is up to the chair and the committee to determine how they will do this. At least two people need to look at each section.
      The second part of the review is to determine if all the items in the current P&PM related to faculty are in the revised P&PM. We need to make sure that everything we, as faculty, want are included in the revised P&PM. The green sheets have a reference for every entry to the current P&PM. Keith will assign this task to the FSEC.
      FA has requested an electronic copy of the revised P&PM. Schwenn will see how this can best be handled.
      Committee chairs are to report back to FSEC on December 6th. The reports should document any inconsistencies and should be tidy and sequential.
      A request was made to have a copy of the revised P&PM for each department. Schwenn stated that he wanted to do this after the Senate has had a chance to review the document and make needed changes. Then it would be distributed for general comments before implementation.

    2. Faculty participation on the web page advisory committee
      The ESU web master has an advisory committee with one faculty member, but meetings have been scheduled at a time the faculty member cannot attend. The web master stated that he has sought input for web managers. This does not seem to be the case. It was noted that the web master is very open to changing things and is willing to work with the faculty.

    3. FSB 02001 - Student Code of Standards (AA) bill & Mandatory syllabus statement on academic dishonesty
      Schwenn distributed papers related to the issue of academic dishonesty and the BoR. ESU had submitted a plan to the BoR on how it would handle academic dishonesty. In that plan, it was stated that faculty would place ESU's policy or state how they would handle academic dishonesty in their syllabi. The BoR approved the ESU plan; however, other Regent's universities do not necessarily require such a statement in syllabi. It was noted that FSB 02001 should consider BoR's actions.
      Schwenn stated that the SCS is a way for a student to handle a situation in which they feel they have been grieved by another student. Another issue that needs to be dealt with is what if a student is caught cheating before the last day for automatic withdrawal and the student withdraws from the course. The SCS allows a faculty member to report it to the judicial officer. This will allow ESU to better track the reports of academic dishonesty and disruptive behavior.
      It was asked if Schwenn could send out a statement to faculty informing them of required statements for all syllabi and those that are recommended before the beginning of each year. Schwenn asked if this would be best coming from the department chairs.
      Keith stated that Senate needed to consider a resolution or bill supporting the SCS. Swanson said AA would be doing that.

    4. FSB 02002 -- Retrenchment Policy (FA) Catlett noted the need to change the name of the current policy. Schwenn stated that he had answers to the questions raised at last week's meeting.
      • What is retrenchment and when does it kick in? Can it occur without declaring financial exigency? Retrenchment is ESU's plan to do workforce reduction and that is why it has been listed under financial exigency in the revised P&PM. It kicks in when the President comes to the Senate and says we need to do something because of financial difficulties, etc. Retrenchment does not require financial exigency, but it must be followed before or after financial exigency is declared. In times of financial difficulty, tenured faculty can only be dismissed if financial exigency is declared and approved by the BoR. As for enhancing voluntary retirements or phased retirements, it appears that by state statute that ESU does not have the authority on it own to do this but may possibly be able to seek approval to do so.
      • Can programs be eliminated without program review or the declaration of financial exigency? Programs can only be removed following current program discontinuance policies.
      • For retrenchment purposes, if a tenure-track person is not reappointed, will the university be required to give the person a terminal contract? The non-renewal of non-tenured faculty must follow current policies without the declaration of financial exigency. Keith stated that you have to declare financial exigency to "break" rules. Schwenn said, "That is correct."
      The retrenchment bill will be on second reading next time. It was decide that it would be best to send this bill back to committee rather than table it. That way the committee could continue to work on it. If it were tabled, it would only come off the table if voted to do so and it would be on second reading in its original form with any amendments.

    5. Intensive English Discussed under AA report.

    6. Chronic Low Performance Postponed until the next meeting.

    7. Technology fees
      It was asked if the proposed technology fees were fees or an increase in tuition? Is the fee 150% of the tuition cost? It was stated that is why we have two faculty representatives on the Tuition and Budget Committee. This can be addressed in that committee.

  6. For the Good of the Executive Committee: Due to the lateness of the time, nothing was noted.

  7. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 5:08 p.m.

Submitted by:

Marvin Harrell
First Vice President of the Faculty

Last updated on 12 November 2002.
Provide comments about the format to Dwight Moore at mooredwi@emporia.edu.
Return to the Minutes of the Faculty Senate.