EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES

Present: Bender, Bryant, Humes, Latta, Mayo, Miller, Prochaska Cue, Scheideler, Siekman, Zorn

Absent: Aguilar

Date: February 16, 2000

Location: 201 Canfield Administration Building

______________________________________________________________________________

1.0 Call to Order (Latta)

Latta called the meeting to order at 3:06 PM.

2.0 Chancellor Moeser

2.1 Travel Contract

Latta reported that she has been conversing with Assistant Vice Chancellor Jim Main on the travel contract. Chancellor Moeser stated that there has been some misperception regarding the exclusive use of United Airlines. Latta stated that it is clear now that faculty do not have to use United Airlines exclusively but there is still concern over having to take the lowest fare regardless of a person's itinerary. Chancellor Moeser believes that the traveler has the element of choice. He stated that we need to be flexible for what is best for the traveler.

2.2 UNL Research Agenda (Scheideler)

Scheideler stated that there is a sentiment being shared by faculty that the research agenda is causing a lot of controversy and ill will because of its emphasis on large grants. She stated that while everyone appreciates the goal of the agenda, many faculty are feeling that smaller grants are being undervalued. Chancellor Moeser pointed out that what they are trying to address is not the failure of faculty, but the failure of leadership on the part of administration. He stated that we are under performing because we have not provided the leadership in terms of mobilizing the faculty resources that we have. He stated there is no desire to denigrate small grants. Scheideler stated that the increase focus and organization is great but there is a fear that small grants will be charged a 25% indirect costs fee despite previous agreement. Chancellor Moeser stated that he did not believe this will happen and that we will get indirect costs where appropriate. SVCAA Edwards pointed out that what we need to do is to get the people who receive small grants together to see if they can combine their efforts to get larger grant as well as continuing to get the smaller grants. Latta stated a related concern is in regards to changes being made in the policies on the distribution of indirect costs. She indicated that faculty were involved in developing existing policies, and they need to be involved in determining any changes in how these funds are used. Chancellor Moeser pointed out that this is a management issue although he is willing to discuss this with faculty. He noted that it is critical to maximize the returns to the principal investigators.

2.3 Electronic Key Access Buildings

Latta reported that there is concern with having electronic key access to buildings. Specifically, the concern is over who has access to the computerized logs that are generated by this form of security system. Chancellor Moeser reported that it will probably be the wave of the future although he is unaware of any plans to do so in the immediate future. He was unsure as to who maintains and has access to the logs. Latta stated that she will contact Interim Vice Chancellor Lewis for this information.

2.4 Issues on the Horizon

Latta asked about the organizational changes taking place within the Division of Continuing Studies. Chancellor Moeser indicated that the changes were necessary to accommodate the increasing demands of developing and maintaining the multimedia high school curriculum being marketed by Class.com. In the past, all DCS staff have shared responsibility for developing both high school and university courses. The new organization will maintain existing FTE support for each of these activities, while creating a clearer division of responsibilities and cleaner line relationships for employees. Bryant asked whether the changes would result in any decrease in support for faculty developing university distance education courses. Chancellor Moeser indicated that it should not.

3.0 Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards and Vice Chancellor Omtvedt

3.1 Budget Adjustments 2000-01

SVCAA Edwards reported that a budget adjustment proposal has gone to the Academic Planning Committee and the Council of Deans for them to review. He noted that one suggestion has been made but that overall the proposal has been accepted. He stated that some of the Deans had concerns on the differentiated amounts for the colleges. He noted that the Academic Planning Committee did raise some questions regarding the institutional accounts which the administration is wanting to discuss further with them. He reported that they should have the final assessment in the next few days.

3.2 Bylaws 4.3

SVCAA Edwards stated that he has concerns with the most recently revised version of Bylaws 4.3. He is concerned with the composition of the group that decides the apportionment if no agreement is reached. Particularly, he is concerned that there is no administrative input on the committee and he continues to have concerns with having someone from the department on the committee. He stated that for large departments this is not a problem but it is for smaller departments. He pointed out that if the committee feels it needs some information from the department, they can then ask someone to come in and serve as a resource person. He noted that the language in section iii is unclear in regards to defining each party.

SVCAA Edwards suggested that the committee be comprised of at least three people with one of the people being a department chair from an outside department. Latta stated that the ARRC thought it would be best handled at the collegiate level although they were split on whether there should be a department representative. Bender pointed out that because of the split opinions on this issue, the ARRC felt it should be left up to the colleges to determine the committee membership. SVCAA Edwards noted that it would be more legitimate if the department is removed from the process and there would not be a conflict of interest. Miller agreed and stated that language should be included that allowed for a faculty member from the department to be consulted as a resource person if needed.

Miller asked if there are enough cases of this incident to warrant having another college standing committee. Latta stated that there are expected to be very few cases because the standard will still be mutual agreement, nevertheless, the APC felt that it should be a standing committee. It is expected that colleges will be able to identify an existing collegiate committee that could have this responsibility added to its charge. Zorn stated that each college should be allowed to form its own committee. He noted that he has concerns that an administrator on the committee could create an intimidation factor.

Bryant pointed out that the bylaw change has struck deeply at faculty autonomy and that the committee needs to be dominated by faculty. SVCAA Edward agreed with this. Latta stated that she will discuss the concerns raised at the meeting with the ARRC.

3.3 Bylaws 4.14.2

Latta stated that VC Omtvedt has written a letter to her and SVCAA Edwards regarding the UNK request to have some changes in the Regents Bylaws 4.14.2. Specifically, these changes would make the procedures in the Regents Bylaws more specific regarding procedures for processing complaints in instances when the individual against whom the complaint is brought does not respond within the designated time. Latta pointed out that the UNL Academic Rights and Responsibilities procedural documents already address these circumstances for complaints brought against UNL faculty. She distributed copies of the relevant sections of the ARRC procedural documents, illustrating that the standards vary depending upon the nature of the complaint, and that they allow for adjustments for special circumstances that may have rendered a faculty member's ability to respond within the designated time period. She stated that she has referred this issue to the ARRC which will need to look at the documents and compare them with the proposed changes, before rendering a recommendation. Zorn stated that he is concerned with the time line being suggested and that the language is very strict. Latta noted that the ARRC documents allow flexibility in the document for extenuating circumstances. SVCAA Edwards suggested that perhaps the issue can be addressed in the UNK Bylaws.

3.4 Issues on the Horizon

3.4.1 Search Committee Updates

SVCAA Edwards reported that the search committee for the Dean of Arts & Sciences has been formed. Nominations and applications are due by 5/31/00. He stated that they may do airport interviews over the summer. He stated that he will be naming an Interim Dean for the Hixson-Lied College of Fine Arts sometime soon.

3.4.2 Legislative Funding

SVCAA Edwards pointed out that we need to be thinking about future budget situations carefully if the Legislature should appropriate a similar budget this year as they did for last year.

4.0 Approval of 2/2/00 and 2/9/00 Minutes

Mayo moved approval of the minutes. Motion seconded by Humes. Minutes approved as amended.

5.0 Announcements

No announcements were made.

6.0 Unfinished Business

6.1 ARRC Response to OCR (Crump)

Assistant to the Chancellor Linda Crump met with the Executive Committee to discuss some concerns dealing with previously proposed language relative to the ARRC procedures as recommended by the Office of Civil Rights. Specifically the committee wanted clarification as to the way the terms rumors and alleged incidents are understood in relation to accusations of discrimination. Crump explained that it is through rumors and allegations that she finds out about incidents of discrimination occurring on campus. She stated that a known incident indicates that some form of investigation has been conducted. She noted that when a rumor comes to her she talks to as few people as possible but she tries to get any relevant information. She stated that her office tries to be judicious as possible since they know people's reputation and livelihoods are at stake. Miller asked for a definition of university official. Crump stated that it is anyone who has an employment relationship in a supervisory capacity. She noted that faculty are not legally obligated to act if they hear about a discrimination problem against a student, providing they are not involved in any supervisory position of that student. Mayo asked what a faculty member should do if someone comes to them, reports an incident, but does not want that faculty member to take any action? Crump stated that it depends on the context of the incident. She noted that she is legally obligated to act if there is physical violence against someone. Bryant asked if an obligation extends to students behavior towards faculty? Crump stated that students must adhere to the Student Code of Conduct and the violation needs to be stated in this policy.

7.0 New Business

7.1 Nominations Committee

Latta stated that although there is nothing in the Senate Bylaws regarding the members of the nominating committee for the Senate Executive committee elections, traditionally the Past President, President Elect and an outside member are on the committee. Latta stated that she and President Elect Scheideler will serve on the committee. George Tuck and Fred Choobineh, both Past Presidents were suggested as possible members.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:20 PM. The next meeting will be held on Wednesday, February 23^rd, at 3:00 PM, in the Academic Senate Office, 420 University Terrace, Ste. 203. Respectfully submitted, Miles Bryant, Secretary.