EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING

Present: DiMagno, Fuller, Logan-Peters, Miller, Prochaska-Cue, Sawyer, Scheideler, Siekman, Spann, Whitt, Wolf

Absent: Bryant, King

Date: Wednesday, December 12, 2001

1.0 Call to Order

Miller called the meeting to order at 3:01 p.m.

2.0 Announcements

No announcements were made.

3.0 Chancellor Perlman

3.1 Budget Reductions

Wolf stated that the Executive Committee would like to know the Chancellor's position on the use of faculty salary raises to offset the budget reduction and whether he would make a statement at the January Academic Senate meeting in regards to this issue. Whitt stated that he has heard of two proposals regarding the use of faculty salary raises: 1) faculty could forego half of their raises or, 2) faculty could forego all of their raises. Siekman stated that a third proposal is that a portion of the raises could be used by some departments/units. Chancellor Perlman stated that the problem is perplexing and that he currently has no strong position, although he would be willing to make a statement in January. He stated that we need to see what the alternatives are before any decisions are made. He pointed out that the strength of a University is directly linked to faculty salary levels. He stated that he is hopeful that we can go through the process that has been agreed upon.

Siekman stated that some state senators are saying that the university is getting the same amount as in the past. He pointed out that his division will lose three people if his unit is hit with the full 5% budget cut. He pointed out that a salary increase does not do much good if your workload increases significantly due to people being laid off. He noted that the perception amongst the public is that they see faculty members receiving increases of 6% or more, yet the university is cutting people. He pointed out that the budget cutting process is actually one of reallocation since some units may get less than a 2.5% reduction, while other areas might receive a higher reduction. DiMagno noted that the cuts will hurt the university, but one of the issues is how they will hurt the university. He asked whether it will be a long-term problem where we lose faculty because of low pay, or a problem we deal with immediately. He pointed out that we are still behind the mid-point of our peer institutions. Fuller pointed out that it is not necessarily a one-to-one correlation. She questioned whether people would be willing to give up their raises if they knew that someone else's unit would benefit from it.

Logan-Peters stated that she is concerned with support staff. She stated that they cannot afford to give up their raises. She asked what the cut off would be in determining who could afford not to get a raise. The committee agreed that this is a very divisive issue. Miller noted that a 2.5% cut would not shock the system but larger cuts would. SVCAA Edwards pointed out that the proposed 5% reductions are a planning exercise. He stated that in order to get a 2.5% average decrease in budget, some areas may have to cut more than 2.5%. Sawyer pointed out that while it is commendable that some faculty members are willing to give up their raises, they should not do this unless it is really necessary. He noted that in the 1930's the university voluntarily took a 10% cut. He stated that the legislature then decided to cut the University's budget twice more because they felt the university could afford it, given its voluntary cut.

Whitt stated that unit heads in Arts & Sciences have been asked to poll faculty on the issue of using faculty salary increases. Siekman noted that it is the Chancellor who will make the decision as to how much each department will get cut. DiMagno pointed out that cuts in faculty pay are already occurring due to the hiring freeze and normal rate of retirement. Miller noted that the university cannot be made better without hiring new faculty. Scheideler stated that there seem to be a lot of mixed feelings on east campus. She stated that an email poll was conducted in IANR providing several different options. She stated that the problem with the poll is that it did not allow for other options. She noted that if you voted against using the raises, you would be viewed as not being a team player and therefore some faculty felt coerced into voting to give up their raises. She noted that the 5% budget reduction has not even been discussed at the department level.

Chancellor Perlman stated that he is opposed to laddering salary increases. He stated that it is proper for administration to get some sense of how faculty members view the issue. He stated that there needs to be conversations at the department level regarding this issue. He noted that this is a campus-wide issue and that either all departments would do it or none would do it. He stated that it is possible that central administration could take the raises system-wide. Wolf pointed out that it is important to reiterate having faith in the budget cutting process already in place before any decisions are made about cutting into next year's salary raises.

3.2 Quality Indicators

SVCAA Edwards stated that the quality indicators are now available on the web. He stated that there will be campus conversations concerning them after the break. He noted that we need to start collecting data on those indicators where no data are presently available. He stated that a spring deadline or target date might be set in order to generate a report on the indicators. He noted that he would appreciate feedback from departments on the indicators. Chancellor Perlman pointed out that SVCAA Edwards made it clear to the Board of Regents that what he was presenting was a tentative document still requiring campus discussion. SVCAA Edwards told the committee out that the issue is wasn't whether to have quality indicators, but whether we have the right ones. He stated that he is aware that some quality indicators can not be measured quantifiably.

3.3 Degree Grade Rosters and Athletes Eligibility to Play in Post Season Games

Chancellor Perlman stated that the NCAA calculates at the end of the academic year the credit hours earned by college athletes to determine an athlete's eligibility to play. However, recently a rule has been adopted by the Big 12 Conference which states that athletes must have passed 6 credit hours in a semester in order to be eligible to play in post season games. He noted that there was a recommendation that the students must pass these credit hours with a C or better, but that this had come down to a split vote. He noted that while the athletic directors opposed the C or better rule, they wanted more time to think about it. He reported that the Board of Directors of the Big 12 stated that the 6 hour requirement be imposed, but held off on the requirement of the courses being passed with a C or better due to the concern of whether the GPA could be calculated in time. He stated that the conference staff interpreted the required 6 hours to mean that these credit hours had to go towards making substantial progress towards the degree for those college athletes who had declared a degree program. He noted that obtaining a grade of C or better for courses in one's major is already a requirement at UNL. He stated that the Big 12 also required that a drop dead date should be established for reporting grades. He noted that this drop dead date is 2 days before grades are due at UNL and this is why there is pressure from the athletics department. He stated that he is aware that this is an additional burden for faculty, but he pointed out that this does help to raise academic standards. DiMagno noted that faculty members already receive cards from the athletic department asking for feedback on athletes' performance. Fuller pointed out that there was no forewarning that some student athletes' names were going to appear on the grade roster. Wolf stated that there was no communication to the faculty that this rule had been accepted and that it could have an impact on their grading. Chancellor Perlman agreed that there should have been better communication with the faculty. Spann pointed out that faculty are now being asked to fill out three different reports on student athletes but there is no reporting system in place for other students. He noted that the mid-term grade rosters used to provide some feedback to other students. He stated that the faculty has an obligation to inform all students of their performance in class and that there should be some mechanism to help all students. Whitt stated that the required reports often come at inopportune times. Chancellor Perlman suggested that the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee be contacted to look at the issue.

3.4 Issues on the Horizon

Chancellor Perlman stated that informing students of their performance in class relates to the major issue of retention. He stated that the consultants working on recruitment and retention have been very helpful. He noted that the admissions office is learning how to obtain more data and are getting needed software to help them in their job. He pointed out that there are an extraordinary number of transfer students but that little is done to recruit them or to help retain them. He stated that there are very low retention rates on transfer students and that we need to make it easier for them to adjust to the campus. He stated that a report will be made by the consultants on recruiting and retaining students and that he would give the committee an executive summary of it.

4.0 SVCAA Edwards/VC Owens

4.1 Update on Administrative Searches

SVCAA Edwards stated that the Dean of Engineering search is continuing and that the search committee is moving towards identifying candidates to bring to campus. He stated that the search for the Director of Admissions had two candidates identified to bring to campus but that one has withdrawn. He noted that the search committee is reviewing the pool of candidates again to see if they can find another candidate.

VC Owens stated that the search committee for the Dean of the College of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources is currently sorting through applicants.

4.2 How Departments are Coping with 5% Reduction in Budget

SVCAA Edwards and VC Owens stated that the budget reduction plans from departments/units are due on Friday, December 14^th and that they do not have any information until they see the plans. Scheideler noted that the administrative cuts for IANR's 2% reduction for this year all come from open faculty positions except for some equipment fund. She asked when the administrative team will take cuts. VC Owens stated that they are currently working on making these cuts. He noted that the first round of cuts seems unfair in some areas but he was looking for funds that were still available. He pointed out that using the $3 million set aside for priority programs helped to reduce the budget reductions this year but that they will not be available next year. He pointed out that there will be some areas, such as the priority programs, where programs will be increased while in other programs, there will be decreases.

DiMagno stated he is concerned with the statements being made that the first cuts are less painful. He pointed out that a large number of the cuts come from not hiring faculty. He noted that we will not be hiring double the amount of faculty next year to make up for the freeze this year. He pointed out that next year there could be even more faculty positions lost. He pointed out that with the hiring freeze, faculty are already facing a 4% cut and that with a 3% cut next year, the faculty will receive a 7% cut. He stated that a loss of so many faculty members will have impacts on students, outreach programs, and the mission of the university. He pointed out that administrators need to make these impacts public. He suggested that the administration make data available regarding the number of faculty over the past 6 - 8 years. He stated that the student/faculty ratio is a quality indicator that could be used to show the impact the loss of faculty is having on students and programs. Scheideler pointed out that as programs are reviewed for reductions, the administration needs to keep diversity goals in mind. VC Owens stated that this has been discussed and that they are trying to avoid losing any tenure tack positions. DiMagno noted that taking open faculty positions is an attractive scenario for administrators and that there is a strong incentive to give these positions up.

4.3 Position on Faculty Salary Increases

VC Owens stated that this issue has been discussed in IANR but that no vote has been taken. He stated that some faculty members are adamantly opposed to the idea of giving up their salary raises. He stated that the issue needs to be discussed at the Academic Senate meeting. He noted that President Smith has stated that the salary increases could possibly be an option for reducing the budget cuts. Scheideler pointed out that a poll had been taken in the departments of IANR regarding the faculty salary raises. She noted that the poll was done hastily and that it should have been balanced with other options than the ones given in the poll. VC Owens stated that the decision to use the raises as a means of cutting the budget should come from the faculty. He stated that the impacts of the 5% reduction would need to be reviewed before a decision could be made on whether to use faculty salary increases. DiMagno pointed out that the 4% reduction of lost faculty lines and the loss of a salary raise would result in a 10% cut to faculty.

5.0 Approval of 12/5/01 Minutes

Scheideler moved and Whitt seconded approval of the minutes as amended. Motion approved.

6.0 Unfinished Business

No unfinished business was discussed.

7.0 New Business

7.1 January 9^th Executive Committee Meeting

The committee decided to meet on January 9^th.

7.2 Correction to Daily Nebraskan Article

Fuller stated that the Daily Nebraskan should be notified that the figures stated in their article on the debate to use faculty salary raises needs to be corrected. She pointed out that no figures have been decided upon for next year and that the figures stated in the article were from this year's increases. The committee agreed that the Secretary of the Academic Senate should notify the Daily Nebraskan of this correction.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:46 p.m. The next meeting of the Executive Committee will be held on Wednesday, January 9^th at 3:00 p.m., Academic Senate Office, 420 University Terrace. The minutes are respectfully submitted by Karen Griffin, Coordinator, James King, Secretary, and George Wolf, Acting Secretary.