EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES
Present: Bender, Bryant, Fuller, Humes, Jackson,
Latta, Miller, Prochaska-Cue, Scheideler,
Seikman, Zorn
1.0 Call
to Order
Scheideler called the meeting to order at 3:01 PM.
2.0 Acting
SVCAA Brinkerhoff
2.1 Nebraska Performance Model
Scheideler stated that the faculty in some colleges
have been told that the Nebraska Performance Model (NPM) is to be a priority, with implementation to take place this spring. She pointed out that there is still a great
deal of concern regarding this project.
SVCAA Brinkerhoff noted that the underlying value of the NPM is its
ability to serve as an efficient management tool by creating a centralized
relational database that contains important
institutional statistics currently available from various sources and
information systems. The NPM looks at inputs
and outputs in categories of variables.
He pointed out that the majority of the information gathered is
quantitative but that qualitative data need to be recognized as well. He noted that it is not intended that the
NPM be used to make budget decisions.
Acting SVCAA Brinkerhoff stated that SVCAA Edwards
might want to look at comparable data at the institutional level, but not at the college or departmental level. Latta asked how corrections or adjustments
would be made for differences in the missions of the institutions being
compared. Acting SVCAA Brinkerhoff
stated that qualitative input is needed to deal with this and perhaps a
disclaimer should be made to point out the differences. Latta asked if it is the expectation of
administration that the faculty in a given unit would understand how their
performance was represented in the NPM.
SVCAA Brinkerhoff stated that there should be no difficulty with this. Latta asked whether the Deans have been asked
to identify what data will be in the NPM.
SVCAA Brinkerhoff stated that there have been reviews of what is
available for the Deans to use, such as the resources the department is using. Outputs will be information such as the
number of majors and minors, degrees granted, contact hours, etc.
Miller pointed out that the objectives of using the
NPM are not clear. SVCAA Brinkerhoff
stated that the NPM is to facilitate answering various institutional questions
with ease and efficiency; the NPM centralizes
data collection of information that is currently difficult
to gather. Zorn noted that the real
issue is not the gathering of data, but how it will be used. He cautioned that an automatic formula
should not be used with the model.
Miller pointed out that the mandate to prioritize programs and the
timing associated with the implementation
of the NPM is creating concern that the NPM will be used to rank
departments/units. SVCAA Brinkerhoff
stated that the NPM would allow validation of information that is now in stored
in several different locations. Latta
pointed out that the easier the access to data, the more likely that it will
become a default for making decisions.
She noted that it is important for units to have discussions about how
their performance is represented. She
pointed out that there should be more discussion on the NPM if it is going to
be used to make broad based decisions.
SVCAA Brinkerhoff stated that the intent is to gather feedback from
faculty. He noted that one advantage of
the NPM is that the data will be available to
units.
Scheideler suggested that there be a faculty advisory
group assigned to the project to help with its implementation. Latta
pointed out that she would like to be shown what data is being used to make
decisions about the work of her unit because it might inform individual
decisions she makes about how to prioritize her work. SVCAA Brinkerhoff noted that the unit of analysis is not on
individuals but on departments or at the college
level. He stated that the evaluation
of individual faculty members is based on
their annual evaluation. Miller noted that there is a feeling of a
top down, rather than a participatory process in this project. SVCAA Brinkerhoff stated that units will not
be forced to use the data, nor is a particular model being developed for people
to use in association with the data.
Prochaska-Cue pointed out that, in considering FTE, the NPM does not
give a true and accurate reflection of effort due to the variation within
colleges and departments. SVCAA
Brinkerhoff agreed that in IANR FTE is distributed between
research/teaching/extension while in other Colleges a faculty member’s entire
FTE is often assigned to their teaching efforts; he noted
that the revised Bylaw 4.3 will help to address this problem. Jackson
questioned how the NPM would be linked with the prioritization process. SVCAA Brinkerhoff stated that they are only
in the formative stages of discussion on the prioritization program. The committee discussed the prioritization
program and how it will work at UNL.
2.2 Issues on
the Horizon
Vice Chancellor for Research Search Committee
Acting SVCAA Brinkerhoff stated that the search committee for the Vice
Chancellor of Research was nearly complete and that an announcement will be
made when its membership was finalized.
The Executive Committee discussed representation of colleges on the
committee.
3.0 Announcements
3.1 Board of
Regents Meeting
Scheideler reported that a strategic issue discussed at the Board of Regents meeting was the Rural
Outreach. She noted that
telecommunications, access to health care, leadership training, and value added
agriculture are primary concerns of this program. She stated that President Smith has announced the formation of
the search committee for Chancellor. In
other matters, Scheideler reported that the Board of Regents has approved an
Agreement between the University of Nebraska, the Midwest Higher Education
Commission, and The Distributed Learning Workshop for the University of Nebraska
to be one of the founding partners of The Distributed Learning Workshop. She stated
that the intent is to buy into a consortium that will produce learning modules
suitable for use in or the creation of
undergraduate classes. Latta pointed
out that this should have been discussed with faculty who will be expected to
provide modules for the workshop.
3.2 Paul
Axtel, Outside Consultant
Scheideler reported that the Executive Committee has the opportunity to
meet with Paul Axtel, an outside consultant, to discuss leadership and
techniques for groups to work more productively together. Scheideler suggested that the committee
should think about specific issues that he can help with.
3.3 Health
Care Benefits Meeting
Jackson reported that he attended the UAAD meeting with the Vice
Presidents of Business & Finance.
At the meeting it was reported that the money for the health care trust
comes primarily from the premiums but that some income has comes from state support and interest accumulated on the
trust. He reported that Caremark
receives its income based on the total number of prescriptions that are
processed. He noted that the increase
to the health care premiums would be based on the net cost to employees (plan
cost minus NU Credits). He pointed out
that it would be more costly for the University to be insured by an outside
firm rather than being self insured. He
noted that Walgreens gives our plan a 13%
discount on prescriptions while other pharmacies give a 14% discount.
4.0 Approval of 8/23/00 Minutes
Humes moved and Siekman seconded approval of the minutes as amended.
5.0 History of Student Absence Policy
Item postponed.
6.0 Unfinished Business
6.1 Revised Strategic Agenda
Scheideler asked the committee to review the revised strategic agenda
and provide input at the next Executive Committee Meeting.
7.0 New Business
No new business was discussed.
The
meeting was adjourned at 5:05 PM. The
next meeting of the Executive Committee will be at 3:00 PM on Wednesday,
September 6, 2000 at 420 University Terrace, Suite 203. Respectfully submitted, David S. Jackson,
Secretary.