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

cartoon by Ellen Weiss

The Emporia State faculty senate is reviewing the university’s policy regarding academic dishonesty in order to curb the amount of plagiarism and cheating on campus.

The changes to the current academic dishonesty policy that would go into affect with the ratification of this bill are that students who commit academic dishonesty can be denied access to a major program, would allow the university registrar to block a student’s attempt to withdraw from a class to avoid penalties for academic dishonesty and would allow department chairs to be informed of students in the major program under his or her direction who have committed acts of academic dishonesty.

Academic dishonesty is a major issue in academia. Cheating or plagiarism in any capacity of another’s intellectual property is an act that should be taken seriously by everyone in academia. The faculty senate is taking the proper action to ensure that no ESU student commits these acts.

This new bill is a good thing for ESU students. It protects the sanctity of the academic process that all ESU students are involved in. The new bill is good for the majority of ESU students, who take the academic process seriously and understand the importance of honesty in the classroom.

Every student at ESU has seen a copy of the academic dishonesty policy at ESU. It is printed in every class syllabus that is handed out each semester. However, most students do not read the policy and therefore do not know for certain what the rules and punishments for committing academic dishonesty are. Perhaps this new bill will be a catalyst for ESU students to take note of what constitutes academic dishonesty and how serious the penalties for committing academic dishonesty are.

This is an important bill that directly affects ESU students. By bringing the matter of academic dishonesty to the forefront, it will be easier for professors to explain to students how grave an offence it really is. There may be students who think occasionally peaking at another student’s test is not a major problem. By that same token, it is much easier to meet a word requirement on a research paper by taking bits and pieces of others’ ideas. This new bill can be a means of discussing what academic dishonesty is and the importance of protecting the intellectual property of others.

There is no excuse for academic dishonesty. Most students at ESU know this. It is very possible that the ratification of this bill will go a long way in curbing the amount of academic dishonesty that occurs at ESU. Even one instance of academic dishonesty is too much. The harsher penalties and more efficient ways of dealing with the issue will hopefully ensure that no academic dishonesty happens at ESU.

Ideas and creative thinking are what makes the university setting one of the most stimulating places to develop critical thinking and analysis. By better protecting the intellectual property of everyone, this bill makes ESU a stronger learner community.

Send article as PDF to

Faculty President Joella Mehrhof speaks about changes to the academic calendar Tuesday afternoon in Visser Hall. Jon Coffey/ The Bulletin

A bill targeting changes to Emporia State’s academic calendar, including lowering the number of class days from 75 to 73 and eliminating Fall Break to institute a weeklong Thanksgiving Break, was tabled at the Faculty Senate on Tuesday in Visser Hall. Members moved to gather more information on students’ preferences before voting on the bill.

            The bill, which was on its second hearing, was met with mixed reactions from the Senate. James Waegelein, accounting professor and senator, proposed an amendment that is consistent with the current policy regarding Fall and Thanksgiving Breaks. Under the current policy, ESU gets two days off in October and three days off for Thanksgiving.

“I surveyed my faculty who were slightly in favor in keeping the existing Fall Break and the three day Thanksgiving Break… they thought it was in the students’ best interests from an academic standpoint,” Waegelain said. “Talking to students informally, they preferred the existing Fall Break.”

            Dwight Moore, associate professor of biology and chair of academic affairs, said people enjoy Fall Break because it gives them time to rest in the middle of the semester.

            But Moore said many private schools tend to have weeklong Thanksgiving Breaks since their student populations are usually diverse. Even some Board of Regents schools allow for a weeklong break for the holiday.

            “I have a lot of friends at K-State who have that weeklong break and they speak pretty highly of it – they like it,” said Jonathan Rivers, senior social science secondary education major and Associated Student Government president. “I also have friends that don’t (like the weeklong break), so I get the mixed bag as well. I think if you plan to do a lot of travelling at Thanksgiving, it’s fantastic,” Rivers said.

            Moore introduced another bill at the meeting to replace in its entirety the current academic dishonesty policy at ESU.

The bill states as its purpose, “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.”

            Sheryl Lidzy, assistant professor of communications and chair of faculty affairs, introduced a bill regarding ESU’s intellectual property policy which deals with things like copyrightable software, student academic creations and manuscripts for academic journals.

            According to the bill, the policy applies to “all full or part-time employees, including student employees, creating intellectual property while under contract with Emporia State University.”

            The academic calendar bill will have its third hearing and the two new bills will be on their second hearings at the next Faculty Senate meeting at 3:30 p.m. on March 15 in Visser Hall Room 330.

Kenzie Templeton

Send article as PDF to

Faculty Senate President Joella Mehrhof speaks at the Faculty Senate meeting on Tuesday in Visser Hall. The senate voted on whether administrator evaluations should be open to the public. Chris Franklin/The Bulletin.

A bill deeming administrator evaluations as confidential personnel documents that are not open to the public was passed as amended 13-9 at the Faculty Senate meeting on Tuesday in Visser Hall.

In accordance with an amendment that was tabled at the last hearing, the administrator being evaluated will have the opportunity to provide written commentary along with the evaluation.

“The administrator gets to pick, at any juncture, who may be able to view that, before or afterwards – it’s nondescript on purpose,” said Rob Catlett, assistant professor of economics and faculty senator.

Under the current policy, Catlett said anyone who participates in the evaluations may view the results, but the records are not fully open to the public. They are also currently stored in the president’s office. Catlett said the amendment will provide a form of “check and balance” to the process.

Those included in administrator evaluations are the university president, provost and any vice president or dean.

Dwight Moore, associate professor of biological sciences and chair of academic affairs for Faculty Senate, said that another amendment which was passed and incorporated into the bill makes it possible for all faculty members to be able to evaluate individuals “at the vice presidential level.”

The appointing administrator will provide the faculty a summary of the administrator evaluation, including a statement of actions taken as a result, in accordance to the bill.

“It’s an attempt to create some dialogue following that evaluation,” Catlett said.

Another bill intended to change the requirement for the academic calendar had its first reading on Tuesday.

Moore said that all of the Regents schools have either 73 or 74 days per semester, while Emporia State has 75.

The proposed bill would make several changes to the requirements set forth for the current academic calendar. For instance, Moore said that one possibility would allow for five consecutive days off for Thanksgiving break, as opposed to the three days ESU currently has by eliminating Fall Break.

“A lot of students seem to be gone that Monday and Tuesday (before break) anyway,” Moore said.

Some senators voiced concern over having to make up snow days.

But Tes Mehring, provost and vice president for academic affairs, said, “We don’t make up snow days – we just talk faster.”

The bill will be brought back on the table at the next Faculty Senate meeting.

Joella Mehrhof, president of the Faculty Senate, said that in a monthly meeting with Michael Lane, president of ESU, it was discussed that there may be a shortfall in next year’s budget of $250,000 to $680,000 due to a decrease in enrollment. As a result, the equipment budget, which is currently set at approximately $900,000, has been frozen until a later date.

Mehrhof said that the ESU Foundation has also cut the level of scholarship funding from four-percent to three-percent of money that is eligible to be used.

“(Lane) is trying to talk the foundation board into three and three quarters-percent, and so this is not totally done at this moment, but that is their current recommendation,” Mehrhof said.

Kenzie Templeton

Send article as PDF to

Cartoon by Ellen Weiss

There is currently a bill that has been placed before the Emporia State Faculty Senate that aims to make administrators’ evaluations closed to the public.

Reviewing the administration at ESU is a good thing and the Faculty Senate obviously should take part in the implementation of these reviews, because employees of the university make up the evaluation committees. But it is not the job of the Faculty Senate to debate the confidentiality issues of these evaluations.

Bill 10005 states, “to protect the privacy rights of the evaluated administrator, the evaluation results will be considered confidential personnel records. The evaluation results will not be made public or available to any party outside of Emporia State University without the consent of the evaluated administrator or the University President or as required by law.”

On the surface, this seems like a good-hearted attempt to protect individual administrators from scorn in the event that evaluations of their job performance are unfavorable. But this policy puts everyone except the administration at a disadvantage.

Those who are interested in finding out more about ESU, particularly to determine if ESU would be the right fit for a potential student, faculty or staff member, should be able to study these administrative evaluations without hassle. It is hard enough to determine the state of the university as it is. There is no need to complicate things even further with the confidentiality issues in this bill.

People want to know and have the right to know whether or not our administrators have a good relationship with the faculty and staff members who work under them. This should be more than enough reason to not include this part of bill 10005 when it is eventually voted on in the senate.

But there is a bigger issue at play here. It is the opinion of The Bulletin staff that this portion of the bill should not be open for debate, particularly in the senate, which does not have the power to hire or fire members of the administration.

It is the Kansas Board of Regent’s job to hire the president of a state university and the president’s job to hire the other members of the administration. Why then is the Faculty Senate stipulating that these records be confidential, when they have no say whether or not these evaluations affect the job security of members of the administration?

The senate, however, cannot take all of the blame here. President Lane needs to take the responsibility for this as well. As a public institution, there should be complete transparency when it comes to the inner workings of the university. If an institution is to receive state funding in any capacity, the public has the right to know how the employees underneath Lane view him.

The Bulletin staff urges the Faculty Senate to reconsider the implementation of this portion of FS Bill 10005. It is understandable to attempt to protect employees of ESU, but this portion of the bill oversteps the duties assigned to the Faculty Senate and frankly goes against the university’s duty to be completely straightforward towards those who fund its existence—Kansas taxpayers.

Send article as PDF to

A proposed bill aimed to further establish the procedure for administrator evaluations had its second hearing at the Faculty Senate meeting Tuesday in Visser Hall. If passed, the bill would deem such evaluations as confidential personnel documents that are not open to the public.

“The policy is kind of vague…one of the things it says is that participants of a survey… that any participants have the potential to see it, but you don’t who the participants are because it’s a survey and it’s anonymous,” said Joella Mehrhof, president of the Faculty Senate.

Rob Catlett, faculty senator and member of the American Association of University Professors, proposed an amendment to the bill that would provide an opportunity for the evaluated administrator to include a response explaining any potential criticism, along with the continuation for faculty to be able to view the evaluations.

“The full bill either intentionally or unintentionally strips that out,” Catlett said.

Under the current policy, faculty members who participate in the evaluations may have a chance to see the results, but the records are not fully open to the public. They are also currently stored in the president’s office.

The proposed bill states that its purpose is to “protect the privacy rights of the evaluated administrator, the evaluation results will be considered confidential personnel records.”

Mehrhof said there was no mandate for the bill, but that “it’s just time to update the procedures for administrator evaluations.”

Mike Merriam, counsel for the Kansas Press Association, said that the evaluations cannot be considered personnel records.

“If it was required by the college constitution or state law, I suppose it could be, but the facts as I understand them are that the Faculty Senate just does this voluntarily without any requirement, so it’s not a personnel record,” Merriam said.

Those included in administrator evaluations are the university president, provost and any vice president or dean.

Catlett said that those who are evaluated often find comments that are “uncomfortable” and may not be eager to have such comments open to the public.

“We need to find ways to preserve shared governance and whatever transparency we can,” Catlett said.

Mehrhof said the Faculty Senate ran out of time, so the bill and the amendment were tabled and will be up for discussion at the next meeting at 3:30 p.m. Feb. 1 in Visser Hall 330.

Kenzie Templeton

Send article as PDF to

The ESU Faculty Senate begins their discussion of the new bill “Report on Assessment of International Students’ Preparation in English Usage” during their meeting Tuesday afternoon in Visser Hall. Alissa Miller/ The Bulletin

The Emporia State Faculty Senate discussed the new bill “Report on Assessment of International Students’ Preparation in English Usage” and passed the Modification of the Policy “Providing Students with Syllabus” on its second reading at their meeting on Nov. 16.

“In some cases, (international) students are not very well prepared for their academic courses, and in some other cases they are quite well prepared. It seems to vary … from discipline to discipline how serious this issue might be,” said Dwight Moore, associate professor of biological sciences and chair of academic affairs.

According to the report, international students study in science, such as mathematics and economics and do better in business and some other programs which require high English skills, while the higher TOEFL scores do not indicate the better performances in the classroom.

“Perhaps different programs could have different standards for English usage, or they could access them in different ways,” Moore said. “We just want to bring before the university this possibility.”

In fact, the nursing program has already had a higher standard for non-native speakers’ English skills than the university’s requirement for undergraduates. International applicants to the nursing program must meet minimal scores in every sections of the TOEFL-IBT.

Jonathan Rivers, senior secondary education major and president of associated student government, said ASG was going to send out mailers to Gov. Sam Brownback to get his support on the Kansas Commitment, a $50 million fund plan aimed at boosting the Kansas economy by investing in higher education.

“We just want the new government to realize that this is very important to all of us,” Rivers said.

Rivers said they planned to get at least 500 students’ signatures around campus as well as from other universities.

Tes Mehring, provost and vice president for academic affairs, reported that about $175,000 was saved from last summer through applying a series of energy saving plans.

“That’s probably really good, since how hot the summer was,” Mehring said.

The senators passed FSB 10001 Modification of the Policy “Providing Students with a Syllabus.” This policy will replace FSB 03011 “Providing Students with Syllabi,” the current policy in university policy manuals.

According to the new policy, course syllabi should be available to students within one week of the start date of the class. Furthermore, all syllabi must include statements of the criteria set forth for grades, student accommodations for disabilities and the academic dishonesty policy in details.

However, students still cannot have access to a class syllabus when making decisions about which class to take before the class begins.

Han Yan

Send article as PDF to