EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES

Present: Aguilar, Bender, Bryant, Latta, Miller, Prochaska Cue, Scheideler, Siekman

Absent: Humes, Mayo, Zorn

Date: Wednesday, April 12, 2000

Location: 420 University Terrace, Ste. 203

______________________________________________________________________________

1.0 Call to Order (Latta)

Latta called the meeting to order at 3:07 PM.

2.0 Announcements

3.0 Senate Library Committee (Laurie Thomas Lee, Chair of the Libraries Committee, Joan Gieseke, Dean of Libraries, Sandy Placzek, Law Library)

Laurie Thomas Lee, Chair of the Libraries Committee, stated that they wanted to speak to the Executive Committee to show support and raise concerns over the situation with the budget for the Libraries. She pointed out that with the increasing costs of materials, together with the budget cuts, that the Libraries are barely surviving. She noted that a well supported library is needed to maintain the honors program and to allow this University to remain as a research I institution. Dean Gieseke stated that for this year the library is managing but in the next biennium serious cuts will need to be made in serials, acquisitions, and probably some if the staff of the libraries. She noted that they have been streamlining as much as possible but that it definitely has impacts on the service they can provide.

Scheideler suggested that we should try to do more exchange with the library of UNMC. She asked if there is much discussion with the other campus libraries? Dean Gieseke reported that they meet every few months. Latta pointed out that many of the journals set the cost of getting reprints of an article. Miller asked if the new paradigm is shifting towards electronic materials? Dean Gieseke noted that publishers not only control the hard print copy prices but they still are controlling the electronic material prices as well. She stated that it will be a number of years before the majority of materials in the libraries will be paperless. She pointed out that 80% of the materials are still only available in paper.

Aguilar asked if faculty can donate copies of journals to the library? Dean Gieseke stated that this practice is usually illegal. She stated that some departments buy journal serials. She noted that they are working with the foundation to try to raise some funds for the library. Scheideler asked if the Libraries could seek help again from the athletics department? Dean Gieseke reported that those funds are currently going towards scholarships.

Aguilar asked if they can monitor the use of the library and make adjustments from these observations. Dean Gieseke stated that approximately 800,000 people used the library last year and interlibrary loans were up 10-15%. She noted that they have been internally restaffing areas according to need.

Siekman asked if we could log into a hub and share library materials with other universities? Dean Gieseke stated that there is usually an agreement set forth by the publishers of how often articles can be shared. She noted that most electronic materials will not allow interlibrary loans.

Bryant asked if the UNL library system is treated any differently than the other library systems since our mission focuses on research? Dean Gieseke stated that Central Administration does seem to understand the differences between the campuses and she noted that each campus is treated differently in regards to the distribution of funds.

Miller noted that sympathy for the situation of the libraries may be low at this time since most departments and colleges are facing the same problems. Latta suggested that the Libraries Committee should speak to the Academic Planning Committee since they have more input into budget priority decisions. Aguilar noted that they should point out that the libraries are included in the accreditation process.

4.0 Approval of 3/22/00, 3/29/00 and 4/5/00 Minutes

Whitt moved approval of the 3/22/00 and 3/29/00 minutes as amended. Motion seconded by Miller. Motion approved. Approval of the 4/5/00 minutes was postponed.

5.0 Commission for Development of Criteria for Evaluation and Prioritization of Academic Programs (Update)

Latta reported that the Commission met last week to discuss the feedback received on the draft document on the criteria for evaluation and prioritization of academic programs. She stated that many of the issues raised by the UNL constitutents are considered implementation issues by the Commission. The Commission feels that these issues need to be handled at the campus level. Latta stated that this will allow the campus to develop the process for determining the criteria and procedures for prioritizing academic programs. She pointed out that we do not know what kind of time line there will be on this issue. Latta noted that given the commissions' stance on the implementation process. She pointed out that the Academic Planning Committee will need to look at this again in terms of programming and to recommend a process for working with the Academic Senate and the Deans to coordinate the design process.

Scheideler asked if they have any outline in mind, such as the Academic Program Review, as the process? Latta stated that there is data that can be used from the APR's but other information will also be needed. She pointed out that the commission is looking for ways to identify the strong programs are for the campus. She noted that there are certain programs that are vital for the University's core academic programs. Siekman stated that we need to go back to the mission of the campus to see how programs fit into it. Latta pointed out that the first criteria in the Commission's guidelines is relation to campus mission and strategic plan, as well as the University's strategic agenda. Aguilar noted that the process might be helpful internally to go through such an exercise to see what we do with our current resources, what we are expected to do in a new area, and the kind of resources we would need or how things are shifting in programs. Latta noted that in regards to budget priorities Central Administration is expected to be looking to see if our budget priorities are consistent with our strengths. Scheideler pointed out that they need to integrate the work that has already be done such as the Life Sciences Task Force. Latta pointed out that she has been advocating for a multidimensional evaluation process that would permit programs to be assessed only in relation to other programs with similar institutional missions. This approach would ensure that strengths were identified in research, extension, and core academic programs, as well as all other areas of mission. It would not require prioritizing programs with different missions against each other.

Bryant noted that it is still subjective scoring. Latta stated that the guidelines call for use of both objective and subjective data. Scheideler pointed out that hard data is still going to be needed.

Aguilar stated that the Deans will ultimately still have the power to determine what will be cut and what programs will remain. She pointed out that the Deans need to be recognized as part of the discussion. Whitt noted that the faculty are already being asked to produce many of these reports which is resulting in them being able to devote less time to teaching, research, and service.

6.0 Kellogg Commission Reports and Recommendations

In preparation for an upcoming joint meeting with the Academic Planning Committee on the Kellogg Commission's Report and Recommendations, Latta will have Coordinator Griffin distribute copies of the Summary Report of the Commission. Latta noted that she recently attended a meeting to discuss how the Commission's recommendations could be implemented. She stated that it will be important for the UNL academic community to decide if the recommendations make sense for us, and provide feedback on their recommendations.

7.0 Unfinished Business

7.1 Class Notes on the Web Resolution

Latta reported that she had asked two faculty members of the Law College to look at the legal issues concerning class notes being placed on the web by students. In response, Professor Denicola, Law College, wrote that "federal copyright only protects works that are fixed in a tangible form" and that "even when a work is protected by copyright, the protection does not extend to the ideas communicated, only to the manner in which the ideas are expressed". Latta noted that the assumption that lectures are not fixed in a tangible form is not always true. Latta stated that a fellow faculty member raised the question of whether the institution or the faculty member is the owner of the lectures. She pointed out that previous to the drafting of the proposed intellectual property policy, outlines, overheads and other items used by faculty were considered as tools of the instructor. Now there seems to be an effort to separate these tools from the ownership of the faculty member. Bryant moved that the resolution be postponed at the next Senate meeting until the legal issues involved are clarified. Motion seconded by Whitt. Motion approved, one opposed.

7.2 Computer Use Guidelines

Latta distributed copies of the Ethical Principles for the Use of UNL Computing Resources, adopted by the Senate 11/91, a copy of Executive Memorandum No. 16 on the Policy for Responsible Use of University Computers and Information Systems, and Guidelines for the Use of Computing Resources at UNL that can be found on the web. She pointed out that the Executive Memorandum probably supercedes all other policies.

7.3 Student Absence Policy (Scheideler)

Scheideler noted that the committee needs to provide more background information to the Senate regarding missed class policies before it can act on the student absence form. She noted that faculty need to fully understand that the form is designed to be a tool to assist both the faculty and the student and that it is not a required policy. She suggested that the motion be postponed until the fall semester. The committee agreed to postpone the motion.

8.0 New Business

8.1 Class.com

Latta reported that Class.com is up for renewal. She stated that one of the things that the Senate needs to be prepared for is a discussion on the relationship between the proposed intellectual property policy and Class.com. She pointed out that there is a vision that Class.com could possibly market university courses in the future. She noted that a new draft of the intellectual property policy may be coming out soon.

8.2 Bylaw 4.3

Latta noted that once Bylaw 4.3 is approved and put into place there should be follow up on the implementation of it. She stated that it has implications in regards to the apportionment of a faculty member's work and how that information is then recorded and collected. She pointed out that a question on service has arisen. She noted that Academic Affairs looks at service in two different ways: outside service and service to the university. She stated that revised Bylaw 4.3 does not have language to address this kind of distinction.

Meeting adjourned at 5:13 PM. The next meeting will be held on Wednesday, April 19^th at 3:00 PM, 201 Canfield Administration Building. Respectfully submitted, Miles Bryant, Secretary.