Lynette Schreiner and Lori Mann vote on the plans pertaining to the intellectual property bill Tuesday afternoon in Webb Lecture Hall. Julie Thephachan/The Bulletin

President Michael Shonrock made his way around the circle of tables, personally introducing himself and leaving a trail of laughs behind him in preparation for his speech at Tuesday’s Faculty Senate meeting.

In his speech Shonrock adressed raising enrollment and focusing communication between faculty, students and administration.

“Enrollment of an institution has a great impact on the future and this is an opportunity to invest and reinvest in our future,” Shonrock said. “Every opportunity, I get I am going to recruit for Emporia State University. I have enjoyed the opportunity over the years to write personal letters and I am happy to make phone calls. These are the types of things that are important.”

After Shonrock’s speech, amendments to the intellectual property bill was the topic of discussion. Faculty members debated on whether to casually introduce the bill to Shonrock before sending it to him for approval.

“It is not a negotiation (and) it is not to propose another amendment of your own, we just want his thoughts about it,” said Kevin Johnson, faculty president. “He doesn’t have to say he will approve it or not, we just want his thoughts and concerns on it.”

The bill, which was left on the table until a new president was elected, aims to “foster the creation and dissemination of knowledge and to define the individual and institutional rights associated with the distribution of benefits that may be derived from the creation of intellectual property.”

The senate voted 26-1 to send the bill to Shonrock for evaluation before a final decision is made.

Rocky Robinson

Send article as PDF to

The Faculty Senate votes on the resolution indicting the presidential pay raises. The vote passed 25-0. Julie Thephachan/The Bulletin

The Faculty Senate passed a resolution, 25-0, Tuesday afternoon challenging the recent pay raise for Kansas Board of Regents university presidents. Last month KBOR approved salary raises for the heads of its six universities while also making sizeable adjustments for three presidents, according to the resolution.

“The feeling is… that even if these market adjustments were in line with what university presidents are making, in Kansas, right now, this is a spectacularly bad time to be doing this,” said Max McCoy, senator, assistant professor of journalism and adviser to The Bulletin. “The Resolution is not saying, nor is it intended to say, that these presidents aren’t worth the money. It is just saying an adjustment of this magnitude is ill-advised during this economic climate.”

All university presidents received a 1.8 percent cost of living increase for the coming year. But the presidents of Fort Hays State, Kansas State, and Pittsburg State each received raises ranging from 12.2-14.7 percent, including a $50,000 salary boost for Kirk Schulz, K-State president, according to the resolution.

The resolution also states that such large increases are “well above a reasonable cost of living adjustment, regardless of whether it is supported by private or public monies.”

“I think this reflects the consensus of the faculty that there is concern over presidential salaries,” McCoy said. “Particularly in times of economic hardship, this sends a message to the average Kansan that perhaps they could not or would not accept.”

A motion was passed unanimously to send the resolution to each individual member of KBOR. Kevin Johnson, associate professor of business administration and education and president of Faculty Senate, also suggested to send the resolution to other universities to see if they would like to follow suit.

The Intellectual Property Bill was also brought up during the meeting. The bill, which aims to “foster the creation and dissemination of knowledge and to define the individual and institutional rights associated with and the distribution of benefits that may be derived from the creation of intellectual property,” was left on the table until a new president is appointed by KBOR.

“We thought it was best if we would just leave it on the table until a new president is elected,” Marvin Harrell, professor of mathematics said. “It could keep president Flentje from acting on it and potentially rejecting it while allowing the senators and the departments to look at it more carefully.”

Rocky Robinson

Send article as PDF to

Michael Morales, associate professor of physical science, makes a proposal for the intellectual property bill during the Faculty Senate meeting in the Kanza room Tuesday afternoon. Morales pushed for this bill to pass, which would give the university’s professors recognition for their creative property. Julie Thephachan/The Bulletin

The amendment of a Faculty Senate bill regarding the intellectual property policy was the focus of debate at the meeting on Tuesday in Webb 2 Lecture Hall.

“The reason I put (the amendment) together is because this doesn’t reflect a good balance between the university’s rights and the faculty member’s rights who might create it (an intellectual property),” said Michael Morales, associate professor of physical sciences department.

Morales said some of the original policies, like “the university shall have the right to revise (mediated courseware) and decide who will utilize the mediated courseware,” were fairly strong.

“What I tried to do then was to go through (the amendment) and make it more balanced,” Morales said. “For example, in most places where the university was deciding an issue, I thought that should be mutually agreed upon by the creator or creator’s courseware and the university.”

Marian Riedy, assistant professor of business administration and education, said she agreed with some of the amendment, but thought there was some confusion remaining about the meaning and intent of the proposed policy.

“I think the amendment was directed to the part of the policy dealing with delivery methodology,” Riedy said, “but I think the main concern, which is addressed in the proposed policy, is the ownership of course materials, which is in another part of the policy.”

She said she was also concerned that some parts of the amendment might conflict with the Kansas Board of Regents’ intellectual property policy.

Two motions were made. One passed 19-6 deciding that the amendment should be separated into four specific pieces. The other passed 20-6 that the amendment should be tabled until the next meeting on Nov. 15.

“A rush vote is too dangerous to me,” said Deborah Gerish, associate professor of social sciences department. “Take some time, let people understand what the amendment really means. My department tells me what they want me to vote. Then we are all good.”

The presidential search also brought to attention the lack of available candidate information and the limited time faculty and students have to provide feedback.

“The Board of Regents has a different view on the campus,” said Marvin Harrell, professor of mathematics and chair of Faculty Affairs. “If we are the sellers rather than the buyers…we really aren’t looking at them – they are looking at us. At least that’s the impression that’s been given, and it’s the problem we need to be thinking about and then we expect the senate might want to consider a resolution.”

The Phoenix Charity Foundation is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, which exists to support the families of international students in emergency situations. It was founded and acquired its IRS certification within a week after the fire that killed two ESU students over fall break, by Sisi Huang, president of the Chinese Student Association and business manager for The Bulletin.

“What amazed me was that it’s a 501 (c)(3) registered organization, and she got it done in a week, which is unheard of,” said Kevin Johnson, Faculty Senate president. “I don’t know how she did it. It almost made me wish I had a company so I could offer her a job.”

Two other bills regarding credit hours for course and a time limit we on their second reading. Both were passed unanimously and forwarded on to interim President H. Edward Flentje for approval.

The next meeting will be at 3:30 p.m. on Nov. 15 in Webb 2 Lecture Hall.

Tianhai Jiang

Send article as PDF to

Faculty Senate President Kevin Johnson explains that interim President H. Edward Flentje decided not to sign the bill that would modify the current administrator evaluation policy. A motion is made that the bill should be held and submitted to the new president. Yiqing Fu/The Bulletin

Despite efforts of the Faculty Senate to provide more transparency in the administration, interim President H. Edward Flentje opted last Tuesday not to sign a bill that would modify the current procedures for faculty and staff evaluations of administrators.

“Last week I met with President Flentje,” said Kevin Johnson, Faculty Senate president at last Tuesday’s meeting. “It appears the rejection was not so much an opposition to the policy but the main thing he stressed was he just did not want to saddle the next president with the bill.”

The bill would promote “an atmosphere of transparency and trust at Emporia State,” according to a letter sent to Flentje on the senate’s behalf by Max McCoy, senator, assistant professor of journalism and adviser to The Bulletin.

The bill aims to allow administrators the opportunity to share the results of their own, individual evaluations with the faculty. It also states that the evaluations will “neither be made public nor available to any party outside of Emporia State University without the consent of the evaluated administrator, the University President, or as required by law.”

But last spring, former President Michael Lane vetoed the bill because he believed it was “self-contradictory and inconsistent with (the Kansas Open Records Act),” according to McCoy’s letter.

Still, the bill recognizes that certain information found in administrator evaluations may be deemed confidential under KORA.  Last spring, Provost Tes Mehring made her own administrator evaluation available online.

A motion was made and passed 25-4 that the bill should be held and re-submitted as is to whomever is appointed as the next president of ESU.

Three other bills were also brought to the attention of the senate.

Marian Riedy, associate professor of business administration and education, said that the intellectual property bill was passed last April, but it was never sent to former President Lane for approval.

A bill addressing credit hours for different courses was also discussed. The Department of Education now requires institutions that enroll students receiving federal financial aid to define the amount of work needed to receive a credit hour.

“We are looking at a variety of things out on the internet and various other schools who have already dealt with this issue,” said Dwight Moore, associate professor of biology. “It defines a credit hour in face-to-face classes and accommodates distance learning in which the same amount of learning should occur to earn a credit hour.”

Another bill regarding the time limit for which a course can still be considered consistent with current academic standards was also addressed.

Moore said the issue was called to attention when a past student graduated with a 40-year-old course which “had gone stale.”

Drafts for these bills will be looked over at the next meeting at 3:30 p.m. next Tuesday in Webb 2 Lecture Hall.

Kenzie Templeton and Rocky Robinson

Send article as PDF to

An administrator evaluation bill that was passed last spring and left unsigned by Michael Lane, former president, was a topic of debate at the Faculty Senate meeting Tuesday afternoon.

The purpose of the administrator evaluation policy is to review the professional performance of administrators and provide input to the reviewed administrator, his or her supervisor and the president of the university.

The bill aims to make these evaluations available to for Faculty Senate executive committee review. Administrators may also choose to make a summary of their own evaluations available for the entire faculty.

Lane’s position on the bill was that it was self-contradictory. He said that evaluations were confidential employee records and this disclosure would violate the Kansas Open Records Act and state and university policy, according to a letter Lane disclosed to the Faculty Senate last spring.

The senate voted 26-1 to send the bill to current interim President H. Edward Flentje for approval.

“We felt greater transparency and trust was needed with the administration,” said Max McCoy, assistant professor of journalism and adviser to The Bulletin. “The consensus, as evidenced by the near unanimous vote of the senate, is that there needs to be a mechanism by which those participating in administrator evaluations have some feedback as to the results. This is important, we believe, in promoting an atmosphere of transparency and trust at Emporia State.”

Jim Williams, associate provost for enrollment management and vice president for strategic partnerships, discussed the transferrable core of credits, which he said the Kansas Board of Regents was “fast tracking.” Several university faculty across the state expressed some concern with quality control at the community college level but the community colleges and KBOR were in favor of the change, Williams said.

Also discussed was the definition of sexual harassment by federal regulations. Kevin Johnson, senate president and associate professor of business administration, said that the existing policy must be reviewed and must be updated in accordance with federal regulations.

Dwight Moore, associate professor of biology and chair of academic affairs for the senate, discussed a university policy that limits the amount of time a department can allow students to gain credit for classes after being away from campus for a certain period of time. Moore also furthered the discussion of the definition of a credit hour. The academic affairs committee is still working on this definition and looking for faculty input.

Marvin Harrell, professor of mathematics, discussed how to handle benefits for domestic partnerships. Harrell also discussed revising a portion of the Faculty Senate constitution by moving the patent policy to the intellectual property rights section of the constitution.

The next Faculty Senate meeting will be at 3:30 p.m. on Oct. 18 in Visser Hall 330.

Billy Garner

Send article as PDF to

Faculty Senate President Kevin Johnson questions how to attract faculty to live in Lyon County and improve their morale. The Faculty Senate meeting was held this Tuesday in Webb Lecture Hall. Yiqing Fu/The Bulletin

The standardization of general education among community colleges and regents schools and Emporia State’s low enrollment figures were addressed at the Faculty Senate meeting on Tuesday in Webb 2 Lecture hall.

“The transfer and articulation policy is moving along quicker than some people expected… ultimately the goal is for general education courses to be counted as credit at any of the regent’s universities,” said Kevin Johnson, senate president and associate professor of business administration.

Some members of the faculty are concerned about the standardization of courses since it is difficult for regents to ensure that course materials and instructors are adequate.

“I’ve talked to some of the physical science faculty already (about the standardization) and four out of four of them were opposed to the idea,” said Ken Thompson, professor of physical science.

Tes Mehring, provost and vice president of academic affairs, said that KBOR did not seem to hear the issues being voiced by the faculty and wanted to push the bill through. Johnson said most of the support for the bill came from KBOR and community colleges.

Johnson said he was interested in the senate members discussing their concerns or support with their departments so he could present the faculty opinion at the next KBOR meeting.

Mehring said she was concerned with some noted instances of transfer credits counting as electives and not fulfilling general course requirements, but she said this may not be a widespread problem.

Also discussed was the definition of a credit hour, which is currently being adjusted by the faculty to incorporate more than just lecture classes such as labs and internships. Dwight Moore, associate professor of biology and chair of academic affairs for the senate, said that the committee plans to model the new standard around other schools’ broader definitions of credit hours.

Mehring also said that there was a decline in enrollment at ESU this year, which would cause a one percent decrease in the budget. Mehring did not provide the actual enrollment figures, but she said that they would be released in a press release.

Sheryl Lidzy, newly-elected second vice president and associate professor of communication, brought a set of questions that were related to faculty morale and salaries. The senate decided to look further into who should be answering those questions.

The next Faculty Senate meeting will be at 3:30 p.m. on Oct. 4 in Webb 2 Lecture Hall.

Charlie Heptas

Send article as PDF to

Provost Tes Mehring speaks during the Faculty Senate Meeting as First Vice President Kevin Rabas and President Kevin Johnson listen carefully. The meeting was held at Webb 2 Lecture Hall on Tuesday afternoon. Jenny Pendarvis/The Bulletin

The Kansas Board of Regents and the search for Emporia State’s next president were the main topics of interim President H. Edward Flentje’s special address at the Faculty Senate meeting last Tuesday in Webb Lecture Hall in the Memorial Union.

“I think they just wanted to see this masked man who had shown up in July,” Flentje said. “It was just an introductory meeting – the tough questions will probably come later.”

In a one-on-one meeting with Flentje, KBOR discussed Emporia State’s relationships with external constituents, an issue that is of concern in the search for a new president. Flentje said the regents expressed great interest in ESU.

Flentje also said the regents have moved quickly in hiring consultants, issuing a recruitment profile and taking applications in an attempt to fill his temporary position. A smooth, trouble-free transition to new leadership is his plan until a new president is appointed. The regents will begin looking at applications in October.

“Emporia State University’s next president will demonstrate outstanding leadership ability, successful administrative experience preferably in higher education, energy, the capacity to embrace new ideas and innovation, fund-raising ability, and the interpersonal and communication skills to build and maintain strong, effective relationships with a broad range of constituents critical to the university’s success,” according to ESU’s website.

The election for secondary vice president was also discussed. Flentje, a member of Wichita State’s Faculty Senate, said it is an important role to represent the faculty who usually hold diverse opinions.

Sheryl Lidzy and Heidi Hamilton are the two candidates running for the position, and they appeared at a forum last week. Faculty President Kevin Johnson said he was impressed with both candidates, saying either one would be great for the job.

“You want someone who wants to become involved in the campus, someone who wants to have that position of representing the faculty,” Johnson said, “letting the faculties concerns be heard and passing information back to the Faculty Senate. Like a lot of things, we look for people who want to do it.”

The secondary vice president is a four-year commitment, which gains responsibilities each year. Johnson said leaders of the Faculty Senate give faculty a voice in university affairs and also represent the faculty to the Board of Regents.

Johnson said the process of promoting second vice president each year makes them pay closer attention and is a great way to learn what is expected of the president, while getting a good idea of the roles of each senate committee.

Voting for the position of secondary vice president is a weeklong affair and the winner will be announced next Monday at 5 p.m.

The next meeting will be at 3:30 p.m., Oct. 4 in Webb Lecture Hall.

Rocky Robinson

Send article as PDF to

Past President of the Faculty Senate Carol Russel joins the debate regarding the administration evaluations Tuesday afternoon in Visser Hall. Jon Coffey/ The Bulletin

The Faculty Senate bill regarding administrator evaluations, which was passed in February and sent to Emporia State President Michael Lane for approval, was the focus of an ethical and legal debate at the Faculty Senate meeting on Tuesday in Visser Hall.

“Legal counsel has advised us that a summary of the evaluation results should not be made available to the faculty without that evaluated administrator’s written consent,” said Paul Luebbers, chair of campus governance for Faculty Senate.

Recently, Tes Mehring, provost and vice president of academic affairs, allowed the results of her own evaluation to appear on Faculty Senate’s website.

But Joella Merhof, president of Faculty Senate, said Tracy Greene, general counsel and records custodian for ESU, felt that the bill was in violation of Kansas employment law because it could potentially make public certain personnel records, which are confidential.

Other senators argued that a proposed amendment to the bill was not consistent with the Kansas Open Records Act, since some information in administrator evaluations are not considered personnel records and should hence be open to the public.

An amendment was passed that stated, “The appointing administrator should provide the Faculty a summary of the review (excluding confidential personnel information as consistent with the Kansas Open Records Act), including a statement of actions taken as a result of the review.”

The amended bill is up again for Lane’s review and approval.

Sheryl Lidzy, chair of faculty affairs, said Lane did not sign the recently passed intellectual property bill because the bill’s definition of intellectual property is not consistent with the Kansas Board of Regents’ definition, among other reason.

But three other bills passed unanimously along with one resolution at the meeting. The first bill modified the final examination policy in accordance with the recent changes to the academic calendar. The second outlines requirement for satisfactory academic progress for financial aid, good scholastic standing, scholastic probation, required withdrawal and re-admittance after withdrawal.

A third bill passed “to bring current policies for students who need developmental courses in line with current practice.”

Currently, all shared leave requests by ESU employees are processed by the Kansas State Shared Leave Committee. The senate passed a resolution, 13-7, that would re-establish a shared leave committee on campus.

“The previous shared leave committee on campus had a lot of bias,” said Dwight Moore, chair of academic affairs for Faculty Senate. “There were apparently considerable biases in that committee both for some people and against other people. My understanding is the reason we don’t have a shared leave committee on campus is because of that bias.”

But Giovanna Follo, senator and associate professor of sociology, said a shared leave committee needs to be established on campus.

“The initial reason it was taken away was purely for convenience – they did not have enough of these cases here on campus,” Follo said. “But at the same time, when it goes to the state, these concepts are so broadly interpreted that the interpretation lacks.”

The next Faculty Senate meeting is at 3:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 3 in Visser Hall 330.

Kenzie Templeton

Send article as PDF to

Cartoon by Ellen Weiss

In January, a bill was introduced in front of Emporia State’s faculty senate in regards to reviews of administrative personnel by others employed by the University. Throughout this semester, this bill has been debated and amended in various ways.

There is one part of the bill that has been discussed in depth regarding who is allowed to see the results of these reviews. The current version of the bill maintains that the administrative personnel being reviewed have the right to decide whether or not these reviews are made public.

This should not be an issue. These reviews absolutely should be published so that the ESU community can see how these administrative officials are performing. There should not be a choice if the laws of the state of Kansas are followed.

Two staff editorials in March editions of The Bulletin dealt with the importance of open records laws in the U.S. and ESU more specifically. The issue of administrative reviews is a perfect example of a time when we must look to these laws to solve the problem. In order for anyone to have a complete understanding of how the current administration is performing, these reviews should be available to the general public.

Provost Tes Mehring was reviewed this semester and should be commended for her willingness to make her individual administrative review results available on the faculty senate’s website.

But there are still certain individuals in the administration who have not as of yet followed Mehring’s actions by allowing their own reviews to be published on the faculty senate website. These individuals’ inability to work with the faculty senate and the ESU community in order to promote administrative transparency undermine the relationship between the administration and the faculty, staff and students. It could culminate in an atmosphere of distrust on campus.

There is no reason these results should not be published, and the unwillingness of certain members of the administration to comply with laws mandated by the government of Kansas is a serious matter.

There is, however, a quick and easy fix to this entire situation—publish the results immediately. Publication of these results is not only an act of good will by the administration, and something that could help to further an atmosphere of honesty and transparency at ESU, it is a government mandated law under the Kansas Open Records Act.

Administrative officials are public figures. They are paid by the state using government funds. As such, they are subject to a different standard than individual citizens in regards to privacy. Therefore, the right to privacy cannot be the reasoning behind not publishing the results of ESU’s administrative reviews.

Hopefully this issue will be solved in a timely manner so that ESU as a whole can move forward using the results of these reviews as a template for the future.

It’s not exactly publish or perish because there is no leeway on this one. The only option available is to publish.

Send article as PDF to

A bill regarding the intellectual property of Emporia State employees was passed as amended, 24-1, at Tuesday’s Faculty Senate meeting in Visser Hall. The bill applies to all full or part-time employees, including student employees, creating intellectual property while under contract with ESU.
The six page bill states, “The University has no rights in any intellectual property that is created solely as a result of the employee’s own creative and intellectual effort, time, resources, and money.”

The Senate also voted to pass a resolution that would create a Tuition Waiver/Assistance Program for ESU classified/unclassified spouses and dependents. Carol Russell, former president of Faculty Senate and professor of early childhood development and elementary teacher education, said the project has been in the works since 2003.

One concern among the senators was that only “lawful spouses” are eligible for the benefits of the resolution, domestic partners not included.

“There’s going to have to be more work done on this for the specifics, and that (partners) would be one of the specifics, but as far as the resolution’ saying, we do support some place to start,” Russell said.

Additionally, Joella Mehrhof, president of Faculty Senate, said President of ESU Michael Lane signed two bills previously passed by the Senate including FSB 10006, Modification of the Academic Calendar, and FSB 10007, Modification of the Academic Dishonesty Policy.

Three new bills were on first hearing at the meeting. Dwight Moore, chair of the academic affairs committee and associate professor of biology, introduced a bill that would change the university’s final examination policy.

The current policy states, “the final examination period shall begin on Monday following the completion of 75 teaching days.”

But Moore said this line needs to change since the academic calendar was recently modified. The proposed bill would place the final examination period the Monday after the completion of the teaching days as defined by the academic calendar.

Some senators questioned the requirement of a final exam since some upper level courses have major paper assignments.

“The policy says you have to meet during the final exam – you don’t have to give an exam but you have to meet,” Moore said. “You could have cookies and milk if you want to, but you have to meet.”

Moore introduced another bill that encompasses the university’s policy on scholastic standing for undergraduate students. Currently, Moore said there are five separate sections in the University Policy Manual on academic standing, only one of which that has ever been addressed by the Faculty Senate. This proposal puts all five of those sections under one, specific bill.

The bill addresses satisfactory academic progress for financial aid, good scholastic standing, scholastic probation, required withdrawal and re-admittance after required withdrawal.

Moore said about one-fourth of the students in the Student Advising Center were below a 2.0 GPA at the end of the 2010 fall semester.

“Those students were not on probation under the current policy nor would they be on this policy, but still there’s a considerable number who are underachieving… this is also under pressure from federal guidelines that students need to be held to a higher standard for financial aid,” Moore said.

Another bill that applies to students enrolled in developmental courses whose skills in the areas of reading, writing or mathematics need to be improved was on its first hearing.

“These are the zero hundred classes like MA095, MA098, EG001 and EL072,” Moore said. “These are developmental courses that do not count toward graduation but students are often required to take based on a variety of assessments.”

The bill would replace the current Developmental Course Guidelines in the University Policy Manual.

Send article as PDF to

ASG President Jonathan Rivers explains that he believes most ESU students prefer a fall break to a week long Thanksgiving Break during the faculty senate meeting Tuesday in Visser Hall. Chris Franklin/ The Bulletin

After weeks of debate over possible changes to the academic calendar, Faculty Senate has decided to preserve fall break instead of replacing it with a longer, five-day Thanksgiving Break.
Faculty Senate had decided to postpone voting on the bill, FSB 10005, in order to gather student opinion on the possible changes.

Jonathan Rivers, senior social science secondary education major and ASG president, said that he found that most of the students he spoke with preferred the current layout of breaks in the fall semester. Many ASG senators also said that their constituents leaned more towards having two separate breaks.
“After midterms and midterm papers, it gives the students an opportunity to regroup, catch up and recharge,” said James Waegelein, accounting professor and member of Faculty Senate.
However, there was talk of reasons students might prefer having a long Thanksgiving break. Rivers said it allows for those who travel over breaks to spend additional time with their families.
Prior to voting on the bill, the senate voted to amend the bill to preserve fall break. After this amendment passed, the senate passed the rest of the bill, which will potentially change the first day of classes from a Wednesday to a different day of the week. It will also cut out two or three days to fit within the guidelines the Kansas Board of Regents has set for the number of class days regent schools are required to have.
Faculty Senate Bill 10007, introduced by Dwight Moore, associate professor of biology and chair of academic affairs, would replace the current academic dishonesty bill in its entirety. The bill was read for a second time at the meeting on Tueday.
According to the bill, its purpose is “to 1) establish that academic dishonesty may be grounds to deny admission to a major or program, 2) allow the registrar to prevent a student from withdrawing or dropping a class to avoid a penalty of academic dishonesty and 3) insure that department chairs and program directors can be informed of students within their programs who have committed acts of academic dishonesty.”
The bill passed, 23 to one.
Additionally, the intellectual property policy bill was introduced at the previous meeting and was on its second reading on Tuesday. This bill, introduced by Sheryl Lidzy, assistant professor of communications and chair of faculty affairs, regards software that can be copyrighted and recognized university publications, in addition to other intellectual property produced at ESU or by ESU faculty and students.
The bill states that it applies to “all full or part-time employees, including student employees, creating intellectual property while under contract with Emporia State University.”
An amendment was proposed to change the vague wording of the bill and it was neither passed nor declined on Tuesday.
The intellectual privacy policy will be voted on at the next meeting which will take place at 3:30 p.m. on April 5 in Visser Hall Room 330.

Smantha Jones

Send article as PDF to