Present: Bender,
Bryant, Fuller, Humes, Jackson, Latta, Miller, Prochaska Cue, Scheideler,
Siekman, Swoboda, Whitt, Zorn
Absent: [None]
Location: 201
Canfield Administration Building
1.0 Call to Order
Scheideler called the
meeting to order at 3:00 PM.
2.0 Announcements
2.1 Martin Luther King Freedom
Breakfast
Scheideler reported that she
received an invitation for the Academic Senate to co-sponsor the Martin Luther
King Freedom Breakfast scheduled for January 12, 2001. The committee
agreed to have the Senate office co-sponsor the event by purchasing tickets.
2.2 Dale Ekart, Recycling
Program Coordinator
Scheideler reported that she
received a letter from Dale Ekart stating that he would be willing to come
speak to any classes dealing with environmental issues. He asked that she make this information
available to faculty.
3.0 Acting Senior Vice
Chancellor Brinkerhoff/Interim Vice Chancellor McBreen
3.1 Status of Email Messages
and AAUP
Scheideler reported that a
faculty member tried to send email via
the University’s “all-faculty” list server regarding AAUP; their request to use
the list server was turned down by the Office of Academic Affairs. She asked if there are guidelines that state
what can and cannot be distributed using
this list server. Acting SVCAA
Brinkerhoff stated that a new policy is being developed by Kent
Hendrickson, Associate Vice Chancellor for Information Services. He noted that the Public Relations Office is
being considered as the office that
would screen generic emails for potential distribution to the faculty/staff. Humes pointed out that since the policy will
dictate what information faculty would receive via the list server, faculty should have input into the
policy. The committee agreed that a policy with clear criteria needs to
be developed. Brinkerhoff agreed to
forward to the Executive Committee a copy of the proposed policy for their
review and a copy of the criteria that were developed 5-6 years ago that serve
as guidelines for authorizing email messages to faculty and staff.
3.2 Prioritization Process at
the Vice Chancellor’s Level
Acting SVCAA Brinkerhoff
stated that the Vice Chancellors would not initially focus on developing new priorities during the
initial stages of the prioritization
process. He stated that they would
review the historical record of previously
articulated institutional
priorities. Acting SVCAA Brinkerhoff
noted that the Life Sciences and 2020 Task Force Reports would be included in
this review. He pointed out that the
Prioritization Process is geared towards academic programs, not auxiliary
services. Latta asked if academic
computing is being considered in the prioritization process. Acting SVCAA Brinkerhoff stated that at this
time it was not. Latta asked if there
coordination between the NU campuses in regards to the
process. SVCAA Brinkerhoff stated that
the process established by the commission insured that the campuses would have
freedom to work individually on the prioritization process.
Jackson stated that he was concerned that
some of the previously developed priorities,
such as the “unfunded
mandates,” were formulated with
limited faculty input. He noted that if these priorities were being
used as a starting point for the process, there might be so much momentum behind these priorities that there would be
little opportunity for revision. Acting SVCAA Brinkerhoff stated that the
previous priorities are to be used as a starting
point, not as a guide to the prioritization process. Jackson noted that there is no
clear mechanism for departments/units to bring forth new priorities. Interim VC McBreen stated that they are
discussing with the Academic Planning Committee the idea of holding open forums
so that faculty may provide input. She
noted that it would be very important to have faculty participate in these
forums if they want to have an impact on the prioritization process.
Bryant asked how the process
was progressing at the college level.
Acting SVCAA Brinkerhoff stated that the colleges are working on it but the mechanism and progress varies from college to college. He noted that there is a clear expectation for Deans to work with
the units on this process. Zorn pointed
out that politics could play a role in determining the UNL’s priorities. Acting SVCAA Brinkerhoff stated that there
would be ample opportunity to collectively
set campus priorities. Fuller suggested that there be other
mechanisms in place for faculty to provide input. Acting SVCAA Brinkerhoff noted that the Academic Senate strategic
agenda should be included in the documents being reviewed that relate to previous campus priorities. Latta suggested that the Academic Senate
Budget Priorities also be included.
.
Bryant asked where the
institution comes up with the funding for new priorities. Interim VC McBreen stated that new priority initiatives are not part of the biennium budget and
that accessing external funds might be required. Miller pointed out that the process of gathering input from
faculty has remained the same, and many faculty feel the process does not work well. Acting SVCAA Brinkerhoff stated that they
are working with the Academic Planning Committee to try to establish a
better means of communication.
3.3 Progress of Life Sciences
Task Force Curriculum Team
Interim VC McBreen reported
that the team is holding regular
meetings and is making
progress, but that there has been no formal report from them yet. Acting SVCAA Brinkerhoff noted that they
want a final report from the curriculum team is expected by March
2001. He stated that the team has good
representation from both east and city campuses.
4.0 Interim Vice
Chancellor McBreen
4.1 Status of Dean Searches
Scheideler stated that she was surprised to see that all four candidates being interviewed for the Dean of Fine Arts position are musicians. Acting SVCAA Brinkerhoff noted that the original pool of candidates, including those who had “airport” interviews, had a variety of professional backgrounds. The search committee, however, eventually filtered the list down to the selected four. He pointed out that the search committees endeavors should be respected. He noted that comments on the interviewed candidates are taken seriously by his office.
Interim VC McBreen stated that the search committee has identified three candidates for the Dean of Extension. She noted that she has spoken with the newly appointed Vice Chancellor, John Owens, regarding the search process but that he did not indicate how he will proceed with the search process. Scheideler asked for an update on the Dean of CASNR search. Interim VC McBreen stated that interim position, when formed, was anticipated to last for one year and that she does not know how Vice Chancellor Owens will proceed with this search.
Acting SVCAA Brinkerhoff stated that the search for the Vice Chancellor of Research is in its early stages; people who have been nominated for the position are being called. Scheideler asked if outside consultants are being used for this search. Acting SVCAA Brinkerhoff stated that no outside firms have been employed. He reported that the search for the Dean of the Law College is on target; it is hoped that campus interviews can be conducted this spring.
5.0 Approval of 10/11/00
Minutes
Bender moved and Whitt
seconded approval of the minutes.
Motion approved.
6.0 Unfinished Business
6.1 Revised Strategic Agenda
Scheideler pointed out that
the revisions to the strategic agenda are
nearly complete and asked the committee to send her any further comments.
7.0 New Business
7.1 Academic Senate
President’s Attendance at Chancellor’s Cabinet Meetings
The committee discussed the
importance of the Academic Senate President attending the Chancellor’s Cabinet
meetings. The committee agreed to
discuss the issue further with Interim Chancellor Perlman.
7.2 Letter of Support
Bryant suggested that, as a
future agenda item, the committee
should discuss whether they want to indicate support for Interim Chancellor Perlman’s
consideration as a candidate
for the Chancellor’s position.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m. The next meeting of the Executive Committee will be at 3:00 PM on Wednesday, October 25, 2000 at the Academic Senate Office, 420 University Terrace. Respectfully submitted, David S. Jackson, Secretary.