Become a Member

FHSU AAUP Resources

Meeting Minutes & Agendas

Stay up to date with past meeting minutes and future agendas. Use the menu below to navigate by academic year, or search for specific details.

2025

Documents

Current Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)

Bylaws

Grievance Forms

Reports

FAQ

ANSWER: “MOA” is an abbreviation of the title Memorandum of Agreement, which is your employment contract between the FHSU Administration and the FHSU Chapter of AAUP which is the recognized bargaining unit of FHSU Faculty. They negotiate the contract on your behalf. 

EXPLANATION: The MOA is a legally binding document that details the duties of Faculty and Administration under the contract and their respective rights. Some people incorrectly refer to the MOA as a “memorandum of understanding” or “MOU,” but the MOA is much more than an understanding. It is a legally binding contract. The FHSU/AAUP Memorandum of Agreement includes detailed definitions of key employment terms, such as workload, as well as outlines of the procedures for tenure, promotion, the filing of grievances, and the process for reducing the faculty workforce when the university encounters financial exigencies. Each of these sections of the MOA are listed in its table of contents, and the definitions and procedures delineated in the MOA are the foundation of faculty employment at FHSU. All faculty sign a Letter of Appointment, but the MOA is the negotiated and legally binding contract that governs faculty employment and is central to shared governance at FHSU.

ANSWER: The MOA is a legally binding document, as well as your employment contract between the FHSU Administration and the FHSU Chapter of AAUP (the recognized bargaining unit of FHSU Faculty which negotiates the contract on your behalf.) It outlines faculty rights and responsibilities and provides due process for faculty employed at FHSU.

EXPLANATION: The MOA is important because it clearly outlines the rights and responsibilities of faculty and is a legally binding contract negotiated between the faculty, the administration, KBOR, and the Kansas Department of Administration. By becoming a paid FHSU/AAUP Chapter Member, faculty are given a voice in the negotiations process through their vote. The MOA is negotiated for faculty salaries every year, only every three years will the entire document be open for negotiations. All full-time teaching faculty are recognized by FHSU and the State of Kansas as unit members and thus protected by the MOA.

ANSWER: You and your departmental colleagues do!  

EXPLANATION: Paragraph D, Part I of Article VIII, Merit Evaluation states: “Departmental/unit criteria for merit must be developed by departmental/unit faculty and be approved by them, and the departmental/unit chair, respective dean, and provost. Each list of criteria must include the date of faculty approval.” Similar language for tenure criteria is found in paragraph 1 of Article IX: Tenure, “[d]epartment (or unit) criteria for tenure must be developed by the department faculty and be approved by the faculty, the department chair, dean and Provost,” which is repeated in paragraph 6.B. of the same article: “In the tenure, promotion and merit procedures, the starting point for a faculty member is the criteria established at the department level and approved by the Dean.”  In the same paragraph, the MOA further states that while “expectations and the criteria are not likely to be the same for all departments. . . . the criteria of all departments will reflect the general expectations of the university as well as the specifics of the department.” Non-tenure track (NTT) faculty will find parallel language in Article XII 4. C. and 5. A. ii., and Librarians will find parallel language in Article XIII 4.B. FHSU-AAUP strongly encourages faculty within each department to revisit their criteria and update it accordingly with special attention to criteria for NTT faculty.

ANSWER: Although varying interpretations of the MOA may influence departmental expectations for summer service, the contractual language established through negotiations between FHSU Administration and FHSU/AAUP establishes operational guidelines, and the answer to the questions above is contingent upon whether or not the faculty member has an overload/supplemental course assignment for summer. 

EXPLANATION: This important question warrants close review of the MOA and of practices and procedures across academic units that may violate the contractual agreement between FHSU administration and FHSU/AAUP that defines workload for teaching faculty. Advising is in the teaching domain and cannot be considered service, so:

  • faculty with an assigned summer course may correctly be eligible to advise students who have been identified as their advisees. Conversely, 
  • faculty who do not have a summer-course assignment may not be required to meet with their advisees during the summer, and the general expectation in practice is that faculty be reasonably accessible during the academic year and communicate well with advisees in advance of summer session. 

This application of the MOA policy also applies to intersession, and of course faculty always have the right to decline a supplemental/overload course for either summer or intersession. In other scenarios, teaching faculty—whether or not they have overload course assignments—may be asked to assist with service activities in the summer or during intersession, either on campus or otherwise available. These types of service activities could include attending Tiger Stripes, meeting prospective students, working on accreditation, committee meetings, workshops, etc. These service activities fall outside the scope of teaching and in the summer or during intersession are beyond the scope of workload as defined for 9-month teaching faculty. Subsequently, these types of service activities must be 1. agreed by both the faculty member and the department chair, and 2. are subject to a rate of remuneration consistent with the pay formula for overload courses. Faculty are encouraged to consult the FHSU/AAUP Memorandum of Agreement to locate additional information, but we reference two articles specifically: MOA Article VII, I Workload, p. 4: “Returning or continuing nine-month faculty member’s term of employment will begin on Wednesday of the week prior to the first day of classes in the fall academic semester and end on the Monday following spring commencement.” MOA Article XIV, Summer Session and Virtual College, addresses the issue of service, with specific attention Remuneration and Limitations (Article XIV. D.), item 2: “If the faculty member provides scholarly service activities requested and approved by the department chair, then a rate of remuneration equal to 2.22 percent of the faculty’s base salary for each unit. Number, expectations, and duties comprising of scholarship or service shall be negotiated between the faculty member and the Chairperson and approved by the Dean and/or Provost.” Some 9-month faculty may welcome the opportunity to earn extra income from a service contract to meet with prospective students, represent their department at Tiger Stripes, or participate in other departmental service over the summer or during intersession. However, service outside the scope of workload, as defined in the MOA (Article VII), should never be expected or assigned without discussion and agreement between the department chair and faculty member or without supplemental pay.

ANSWER: No, but… 

EXPLANATION: The tenure file requires a statement concerning the systematic review of “the candidate’s classroom materials, e.g., course syllabi, assignments, tests etc.” by the candidate’s chair or colleague (MOA IX.4.D.vi.2.b.). In contrast, the promotion file requires a statement concerning either the systematic “observ[ation] of classroom teaching” or the systematic review of “the candidate’s classroom materials, e.g., course syllabi, assignments, tests, etc” (MOA XI.5.F.v.2.b.). Student alumni participation is not required for a tenure file. This question arises from reading MOA XI.5.F.v.2.d. (“d. Statements by alumni on the quality of the instruction in the candidate’s classes”) in isolation from language stated in MOA XI.5.F.v.2.: “… Items ‘a.’ through ‘c.’ listed below must be included in the candidate’s promotion file; item d is an item for the candidate to consider.” Ultimately, when specific documentation is not required by the MOA, it is the candidate’s responsibility to make their case for tenure and/or promotion, and the candidate should always consider and address all recommendations made at each level of review from previous and current review cycles.

ANSWER: Yes.

EXPLANATION: MOA Article VII, Paragraph C.3., responds directly to this question and provides significant guidance for both faculty and department chairs. “Each faculty member shall post and hold at least .5 regularly scheduled office hours per credit hour of instruction per week. The department chair will approve the faculty member’s office hour schedule, with a copy retained in the department office. Faculty members shall maintain office availability both physically and electronically proportionate to the modality of their semester teaching load with virtual office hours to include availability to students via telephone or synchronous electronic access including some availability in the evenings and/or weekends.” A faculty member teaching 12 credit hours must have six hours of regularly scheduled office hours. How these six hours are fulfilled (whether “physically and electronically”) will necessarily vary across faculty, dependent on course-delivery modality. If three of the 12 credit hours are delivered online, then a proportionate amount of the six office hours (90 minutes) should permit online students to access the faculty member via Zoom or other synchronous electronic means. Distribution of office hours should reflect an appropriate balance to the modalities of the courses taught.

ANSWER: The MOA provides that “virtual office hours” for online modality students should “includ[e] some availability in the evenings and/or weekends.” 

EXPLANATION: The quantity and timing of the office hours outside of the university’s normal operating hours are in the discretion of the faculty member, so long as the scheduling is done in good faith. Many faculty members include office-hour policy language that invites online students to “set appointments,” thus permitting the faculty member and student to set a mutually agreeable time to meet outside of regular business hours. The MOA does not require online availability to be held at a time distinct and separate from a faculty member’s on-campus office hours. Remember: the MOA does not require you to be “on call” 24 hours a day, seven days a week! As long as the faculty member’s schedule of office hours reasonably complies with the MOA and has been made in good faith, the department chair should not withhold approval of the schedule.

ANSWER: The MOA has no language concerning fall break or spring break but touches on the end of winter break. 

EXPLANATION: A difference between this question and summer is that the faculty is on contract during the year, but most contracts don’t address these time periods as ‘time off.’ The MOA does not mention fall or spring break expectations, but it does mention the end of winter break: “[f]or the spring semester, faculty members are to be available on campus on the Thursday before the Martin Luther King Holiday.” Article VII, I: Workload. Most faculty appointments are for a nine-month term. During the nine-month term, several breaks occur, including state and university holidays. Typically, state and university holidays result in the closure of the university and there is no expectation of faculty being on campus or engaging in work. These would include recognized holidays such as Labor Day, Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Year’s Day, and university declared holidays such as the Friday following Thanksgiving, and the week between Christmas and New Year’s days. 

 

This expected absence likely begins after the deadline for the submission of fall grades. Historically, most faculty are absent during this time unless they have been requested for specific service during this time. A wrinkle introduced to this analysis is “intersession” courses, and faculty who teach during intersession potentially “open themselves up” to availability for service because they are teaching during this time and, presumably, have signed a supplemental agreement for an overload course, or had the intersession course included in the original, Annual Statement of Responsibilities. In other words, if the intersession class is “in load” for the faculty member, then there is an expectation to be on campus for service, but if the course is a supplemental contract, then the faculty member may encounter requests from the department chair.

ANSWER: Faculty in the department/unit are responsible for constructing standards for merit, tenure, and promotion. 

EXPLANATION: Standards must be approved by the faculty, chair, dean, and provost. According to Merit Evaluation Article of the MOA (Article VIII.I.D.), “Departmental/unit criteria for merit must be developed by departmental/unit faculty and be approved by them, and the departmental/unit chair, respective dean, and provost. Each list of criteria must include the date of faculty approval.” Similarly, tenure criteria “must be developed by the department faculty and approved by the faculty, the department chair, dean, and Provost” (Article IX. 1.). Any changes or updates to the approved standards must then be approved by faculty, chair, dean, and provost. Typically, new or amended criteria are implemented in the next review cycle, unless a “grandfather clause” is included in the criteria. This would include all criteria related to merit, tenure, and promotion. Faculty must be evaluated at all levels of review using the faculty generated and approved criteria for merit, tenure, and promotion. Additionally, Non-Tenure Track (NTT) and Program Specialist faculty have pathways to promotion. The faculty are to be evaluated and reviewed based on faculty constructed and approved criteria. NTT faculty are not “required to engage in the scholarship of discovery, integration, or application. NTT faculty are, however, generally expected to participate in the scholarship of teaching, learning, and engagement.” (Article XII, 1.B.). It is considered good practice to ensure that scholarship expectations consistent with the MOA are comprehensive in all criteria for merit and promotion related to NTT faculty.

ANSWER: Early promotion is addressed by your departmental guidelines. 

EXPLANATION: Some departments/units allow for faculty to be promoted early, and department/unit criteria for early promotion should be well-established and easily available to faculty from their department chair or unit administrator. This criteria should clearly identify the eligibility requirements for early promotion and acknowledge that faculty cannot be promoted before KBOR guidelines for years of service have been met.