Rebuilt HTML — PaddleOCR-VL (Baidu)

1

Minutes of Faculty Senate 2/20/17 Meeting 123 Hathaway Hall

2

1. Call to order

The meeting was called to order at 3:10 pm. Fourteen senators were present.

2. Agenda

Parliamentarian Dantrea Hampton noted the agenda was missing time limits. A motion was passed, with all in favor, for the meeting to last 75 minutes overall. The objective of the meeting was to determine if the question of a vote of confidence in the Board of Regents overall, or for specific Board members, should put forward to the whole faculty.

3. Discuss vote of confidence on the Board of Regents, or certain members of the Board of Regents.

Faculty Senate President Sipes noted that while Senate always welcomes guests, today we would follow the protocol of senators speaking first, observing three minute time limits. Speakers were asked to identify themselves. Senate voted in favor of letting guests speak after senators had a chance to express their views.

Chair Rye praised the recent student forum and the way students expressed their concerns in a civil manner. Then she noted that her primary concern is with the low percentage spent on instruction at the university: KSU is at 14% actual and 18% functional versus our sister institutions, which are closer to the mid-30s. The good news is that faculty are on the finance committee and so will have more input going forward.

Chair Andries noted that those he represents have questions about the current presidential search, but with little information available about how the search was undertaken, it is hard to come to conclusions.

Parliamentarian Hampton reported that people in her area met and discussed the issue. They felt there was not enough information to move forward with a vote of the whole faculty. They wanted to wait to see what happened at the forthcoming special Board meeting.

Senate Vice President Kumar explained a concern about President Sias creating deficits and the Board not questioning it; there has not been sufficient Board oversight. President Burse discovered the deficit, not the Board. Additionally, Burse’s hires were rubber stamped by the Board. The Board is responsible for the University’s current problems.

A senator expressed concern about how negative press generated by forums such as this one have a deleterious impact on his recruitment efforts.

Another senator pointed out that a vote of no confidence is a blunt instrument. We had discussed engaging in one a year ago and it moved too swiftly. He has heard from his area that people want answers and that there is little communication between the Board and Senate. Questions

3

remain, such as how the search was executed; why some Board members did not vote on the finalists. We should arrive at answers to these questions before moving forward.

A senator argued that he was against a vote of confidence because we have no guidelines to follow; Robert’s Rules doesn’t indicate how this should be done.

Chair Moffett explained that people in his area have expressed a desire to have their voice be heard through a faculty-wide vote.

Past Senate President Smith said that he had difficulty having confidence in the Board, but had been divided about how to proceed, especially since the Board’s intention with the upcoming special meeting were not clear. He registered concern about the search firm having the campus complete a survey about the search and then not publicizing the responses. The Search Committee never solicited feedback and never asked us what we want. Most of all he hoped to see transparency and better communication.

Chair Glass added that her constituents were concerned about administrator pay increases.

A guest echoed praise for the students and noted their good critical thinking skills reflect the faculty is doing the right thing to put student learning at the center of what we do. The Board’s role is to facilitate the work of the institutions but it has not been doing that. This shortcoming falls on the Chair on the Board. While we were initially optimistic about search, the final list shows two candidates who have created instability at their institutions. Either the search committee didn’t do its job vetting the candidates properly or it felt it was ok for KSU not to have the best.

A student expressed his feeling that there was lack of trust at the institution.

Faculty Regent McFayden argued that many faculty members have jobs because of him and he was instrumental in getting improved insurance options on campus. He said that the real problem at the institution is the DWF rate and that it corresponds to race: white faculty members fail black students at a much higher rate than black faculty members do. The search firm we used successfully completed other presidential searches. The Board saved the school when there was a threat of financial exigency last year.

A guest responded that faculty at the university are not racists. Regent McFayden directed her to look at the numbers. The guest went on to invite anyone to review her gradebook, and that she resents the characterization of faculty as racists. Regent McFayden said he stood by his statement.

The guest went to the petition signed by 53 faculty members asking for Dr. Thompson to be interviewed for the position. She said Regent McFayden should have brought this petition to the Board. He replied that he would have broken the law by having done so.

4

A student expressed frustration with the tone of the meeting and indicated the student meeting had not proceeded in that way. Students need answers; they have been seeking information about how the search was conducted.

President Sipes responded that faculty are as interested as students to find answers. Senate has submitted an open records request. She reiterated that the purpose of the meeting today was not to discuss the search process but to discuss a vote of confidence.

An alum argued that this really is all about the search. He said that Dr. Thompson has had six months on the job and the Board has decided he was not the right fit. He dismissed the allegation of mishandling of funds by one presidential candidate by noting something similar had had happened when George Reid was President.

A guest said he was a new faculty member and had left a long career in industry in order to teach. Since he was new, he had not heard specifics about past grievances against the Board. He asked what we hope to accomplish by going forward and felt he had not heard that yet.

A student responded to the alum's point about misuse of funds saying we can't afford to lose any more money.

A member of the alumni group from the Indianapolis reported that his group was against a confidence vote. He said that if there is a vote of confidence, it should be against the faculty.

VPAA Jackson argued that there are going to be parts of the search process we may not like. Teaching students is the most important thing we do. Everything is meaningless if students don't graduate. There is a problem when students complain that faculty won't email them back. She argued that she has tried to stay away from Faculty Senate processes for the sake of shared governance but until she can go to the Board with a decent graduation rate faculty are living in a glass house.

President Sipes noted her 17 years’ service to the university and questioned the notion that the graduation rate is all the faculty’s fault. That is like saying it’s all the Board’s fault. Faculty want to work with the Board to solve these problems.

Student Regent Williams added that the students had a more collegial meeting than this one and that faculty need to set an example for students.

A student expressed his feeling that there is a lack of responsibility being taken. He also noted the Student Regent should come to the students, not the other way around. Inclusiveness should be the top priority.

President Sipes suggested Regents McFayden and Williams seek to further the dialogue with their constituents.

5

Staff Regent Gilmore argued that we don’t have to mar the process because don’t like the outcome. He recommended everyone read the appropriate constitutions and bylaws that govern the different groups at the university.

University General Counsel Rowe confirmed that Senate’s resolution to add Dr. Thompson to the list of finalists will go to the Board on Wednesday.

A guest pointed out the Board allowed the failing AWA program to go on for five years and only intervened when President Burse arrived and called attention to the problems. Regent McFayden responded that he made the case to the Board to stop the program, but there was not consensus to do so.

Chair Rye drew attention to the bulleted list of concerns the Faculty Senate Executive Committee had assembled, which included issues such as bringing in administrators with promotion and tenure contrary to stated policies. She also expressed disappointment with the VPAA’s comments on faculty success when they have scored high on metrics such as the NSSE survey.

Regent McFayden echoed student concerns about mold in dorms and low nutrition food in the cafeteria. He said that KSU is graduating four students out of a hundred in four years and eight out of a hundred in six years. The numbers don't add up. He said he had secured the money to fix the dorm issue but when asked why it hasn't been fixed yet didn't know.

VPAA Jackson responded that the numbers are what they are and we have to deal with them. If she doesn't know about an issue she can't deal with, so faculty need to make her aware. She said she has earned her tenure twice and won't apologize for negotiating for it when she became Chief of Operations at KSU.

Chair Glass argued that we need to circle back to the issue at hand: a vote of confidence. Leadership is the question; the Board admitted students who were not college ready, which impacted our graduation rate. That should not be on faculty. Regent McFayden responded that great teachers teach.

Chair Glass went to note that the Board allowed these students to run up high balances. It also oversaw high administrator salaries, and this year there were increases equal to, or more, than what some junior faculty make in a year.

President Sipes was asked if there was still a quorum. Seventeen senators were counted.

Chair Rye made a motion to allow the whole faculty to make their own decisions about the efficacy of Board leadership so that a small group does not make a decision for them. Her motion was stated thus:

Faculty Senate proposes a resolution to send before the full faculty the opportunity to discuss and decide whether or not to have a vote of confidence on the Board of Regents as a whole or certain members of the board, with information of Senate concerns made available to the full faculty and allowing sufficient time for review

6

A vote was taken by secret ballot. The vote results were 16 yes; 3 no; 2 abstain. The motion carried.

4. Adjourn A motion to adjourn carried at 4:56pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Joe Moffett, Faculty Senate Secretary

[Approved at the 3/20/2017 Senate meeting]