EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES
Present: Bender, Bryant, Jackson, Humes, Latta,
Miller, Prochaska-Cue, Scheideler,
Swoboda, Whitt, Zorn
1.0 Call
to Order
Scheideler called the meeting to order at 3:03 PM.
2.0 Chancellor Perlman/Acting SVCAA
Brinkerhoff
2.1 Prioritization of Programs
Scheideler
reported that she and President-Elect Bryant met with Professor Jim Lewis,
chair of the Academic Planning Committee, to discuss the upcoming
prioritization process. She thanked
Chancellor Perlman for the letter he sent to the faculty regarding this
issue. President Scheideler indicated
that there is concern among faculty that they will not have a sufficient
opportunity to help determine the campus priorities. Bryant noted that the short time line on this process may mean
that even the Academic Planning Committee will not have a chance to provide
adequate input. Chancellor Perlman
pointed out that the Deans have not received any information regarding how the
prioritization process should take place.
He noted that this is not a new process and that program prioritization
has been occurring for some time on campus.
Scheideler asked how he anticipates having faculty participate in these
discussions. Chancellor Perlman stated
that it would be done as is normally done for academic planning purposes within
each college and the Institute.
Scheideler raised the concern that there are faculty who do not trust
the current process adequately determines the true importance of certain
programs to the institution. The
Chancellor reiterated that it is critical that this process not become
an exercise that consumes everyone’s time.
He noted that this prioritization process is not a process designed to exclusively
surface the best programs, but rather is a more formal means of determining
where funding will be placed. He
stated that there are some very good programs that will not be on the priority
list because they already receive enough funding or are getting adequate
funding from outside sources. Miller
asked who will make the ultimate decision regarding funding distribution. Chancellor Perlman stated that fund
distribution at the Dean’s level will be in accordance with
College/Institute priorities; he would
make the decisions for campus-wide resources based on input from
academic administrators and faculty (via such groups as the Academic
Planning Committee.)
Latta
stated that the rhetoric associated with the development of the prioritization
criteria may have contributed to the issue’s complexity because it seemed
to focus on identifying the best programs. She noted that it did not deal with what programs needed
funding. Chancellor Perlman agreed that
the rhetoric may have caused difficulty.
He pointed out that there is general support for how he has
characterized the process. Scheideler
stated that the faculty need be informed that if they have concerns, they need
to go speak with their Chair and/or
Dean. Chancellor Perlman stated he will
be working with the APC on the process.
Acting SVCAA Brinkerhoff suggested that a short statement be sent to the
APC describing how the process will work.
Bryant asked what the time line is on the prioritization process. Chancellor Perlman stated that President
Smith wants to have the priority
programs (top 20%) identified by the end of the academic year.
2.2 Antelope Valley Project
Scheideler inquired if the
University is taking an academic interest in the Antelope Valley Project and if
so, what kind. She noted that of
primary concern is the refugee community and what kind of resources we can
offer this particular community within the scope of the project. Bryant pointed out that the university, as
one of the partners in this project, has an ethical responsibility to the
community. Chancellor Perlman stated
that if faculty see any academic interest emerging as a result of the project
then they should take advantage of it, although he doesn’t believe further
technical support for the project is needed.
Latta pointed out that the university would be a partner in creating
widespread community change in the effected area. She asked how the institution could become a good citizen and
embrace the community, making certain that we are doing things to further the
mission of the university in partnership with the community. Chancellor Perlman noted that there has been a lengthy process of communicating with
the community. He suggested that Kent
Seacrest be invited to speak to the Executive Committee regarding the
project. Zorn stated that one of the
main concerns is to insure that the 48 households that will be displaced by the
project are properly reallocated.
Chancellor Perlman agreed and stated that this part of the project has
been discussed and addressed although he does not know to what extent. Bryant pointed out that we cannot predict how
much the community and businesses will be disrupted by the changes that will
occur as a result of the project. He
noted that with appropriate educational services, it might be possible to help
alleviate some of this disruption.
2.3 2020 Task Force Report
Scheideler
reported that there was a good discussion at the September Senate meeting. She stated that a number of summary points
were made: 1) some of the data used was
not accurate; 2) there was a lack of attention to the broad vision of the
institution, especially a perceived lack of focus on the Humanities and
Arts; 3) implementation of the vision; 4) the definition of excellence; 5)
concern with how realistic the report is in comparing us with institutions such
as Berkeley and Harvard. Zorn pointed
out that while we should all strive to improve, we should have realistic goals
to reach. He noted that institutions
such as Berkeley and Harvard have much larger resource bases to work with and
that unless our resources improve drastically, we will not be able to reach the
lofty goals set by the report. He
suggested that what we can do is to use the prestigious universities as a
model. Chancellor Perlman stated that
he agrees with the scope of the report and that it addresses some
universal principles such as striving for improvement and recognition of
achievement. He pointed out that there
are numerous UNL research projects that are in the top of their fields. Miller stated that one of the things we need
to do is to advertise more of our distinguished research activities. Latta noted that at the report’s core is a
discussion of how it is we create a vision for improvement in research
and creative activity that is not just generic, but takes our culture
into account. Chancellor Perlman
suggested that we discuss the next step in the process at an upcoming meeting.
3.0 Announcements
3.1 Peer Review Conference
Scheideler reported that a conference will be held
Lincoln on October 13 and 14 in conjunction with the Peer Review Project being
conducted by Professor Dan Bernstein.
Latta stated that the conference is designed to get all of the campuses
working on this issue together to discuss the project and the approaches being
used at these institutions. Scheideler asked for suggestions of Senators who may be interested
in attending.
4.0 Approval of 9/13/00 Minutes
Miller moved and Swoboda seconded approval of the minutes as
amended. Motion approved.
5.0 Linda
Crump, Assistant to the Chancellor for Equity, Access, & Diversity Programs
and Elizabeth Kosier, JD, Mediation Center, Lincoln, NE
Crump announced that the University has contracted with the Mediation
Center, at a cost of $37,000, to help resolve disputes resolutions. She noted that funding was provided using
diversity funds. Kosier stated that
there are six Mediation Centers throughout Nebraska. She noted that the Center could assist the university in
resolution of disputes, facilitate decision making, conduct training in
effective negotiation, conflict resolution and collaboration, and offer
consultation on conflict resolution systems design. She pointed out that the Center is a private, non-profit
organization. She stated that
participation by all parties involved in dispute resolutions or any other
process is strictly voluntary. Scheideler
asked for an example of how the faculty could use the services. Kosier stated that an example would be if
there is a conflict between members of a department. She stated that a team of negotiators would be brought in and a
nine-step process would be used to determine what happened, what was the
impact, what the problem is, and what are the needs of the parties
involved. She pointed out that the
people involved are the ones that would craft the outcome/resolution.
Bryant asked if the mediation center could help address diversity needs
on campus. Crump pointed out that it
could help in many issues but that it is not limited to diversity. The Center could also assist in skill
building, educational opportunities, and help deal with climatic issues. She noted that this is a two-year pilot
program. She pointed out that the
Equity, Access, & Diversity Programs have limited jurisdiction, whereas,
the Mediation Center can go beyond these jurisdictions to deal with issues that
her office can not address or resolve.
Bender asked what mechanism is in place for people to get to the
Mediation Center. Crump stated that
anyone can contact them. She noted that
her office will be marketing information on the Mediation Center very
soon. She pointed out that people on
campus can contact the Mediation Center directly, rather than going through
anyone on campus; names of those participating will not be reported back to the
university.
Bryant asked if there is any conflict of using the Center in regards to
the Academic Rights and Responsibilities Committee. Bender, chair of ARRC, stated that he did not believe there is
any problem and that he can see the Center as being helpful in some situations. Kosier pointed out that in some cases it
might be helpful to have a member from the ARRC serve as a third party in the
negotiations. Miller asked if people
are protected legally. Kosier stated
that they are covered by statutory confidentiality protections. Crump pointed out that the contract does not
cover students due to their number; this may change if the office of Equity,
Access, and Diversity see that there are benefits to the
program. The committee agreed that a
presentation regarding the Center should be made to the full Senate.
6.0 Unfinished Business
6.1 Revised Strategic Agenda
The committee began making final changes to the revised Academic Senate
Strategic Agenda. Further discussion
will continue at the next meeting.
6.2 Student
Absence Policy
Item postponed.
7.0 New Business
No new business was discussed.
The
meeting was adjourned at 5:07 PM. The
next meeting of the Executive Committee will be at 3:00 PM on Wednesday,
September 20, 2000 at 420 University Terrace, Academic Senate Office. Respectfully submitted, David S. Jackson,
Secretary.