EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING
Present: Bryant,
DiMagno, Fuller, Logan-Peters, Prochaska-Cue,
Sawyer, Siekman, Spann, Whitt, Wolf
Absent: King,
Miller, Scheideler
Date:
Location: 201 Canfield Administration Building
1.0 Call to
Order
Bryant called the meeting to order at
2.0 Announcements
2.1 Meeting
with Teachers College Faculty
Bryant reported that SVCAA Edwards will be
meeting with faculty of the Teachers College on May 3rd to discuss
the future of the college and the search for a new dean.
3.0 Chancellor
Perlman
3.1 The Next Budget Cutting Process
Chancellor Perlman stated that the process for
the additional 1% budget cut was outlined in his email message to the campus on
April 16th. He pointed out
that he is still trying to follow the procedures approved by the Academic
Planning Committee. He noted that on
April 22nd he will announce his tentative recommendations for budget
cuts. He stated that affected units will
have until Friday, April 26th, to respond. He noted that units that will be affected
have already been notified. He stated
that the schedule outlining the process will be posted on the web. He stated that the APC is not restricting the
length of the response on those units directly affected. He pointed out that there will be an
opportunity for people to respond who are indirectly affected by the cuts,
although they will be limited to a one page response. He reported that the APC will hold hearings
on May 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. He stated that the APC is scheduled to
provide him with its recommendations by May 10th. He stated that he will respond as quickly as
possible, although he does want to take the time if serious questions are
raised. He noted that he is sensitive to
completing the process while faculty members are still on campus.
Logan-Peters asked if individuals who may be losing their position have
been notified. Chancellor Perlman stated that some positions will definitely be cut
but he is unaware whether the individuals holding those positions have been
notified. He pointed out that the
university will adhere to the existing policies regarding the termination of employees.
Chancellor Perlman stated that on April 19th
Central Administration will be making an announcement regarding the total
amount of dollars that will be cut from each of the campuses.
3.2 Climate Survey
Chancellor Perlman stated that
Chancellor Perlman noted that the survey will
be web based. He stated that employees
will receive an email which will give them a pin number and website for them to
use to respond to the survey. He pointed
out that employees who do not use email or the web
have been taken into account and that they will receive the survey in another
format. He noted that the survey should
only take about 10 minutes to complete.
He stated that the pin numbers will allow
Chancellor Perlman reported that
Chancellor Perlman stated that this year’s
survey will be used to set a base line.
He noted that the survey will be conducted on an annual basis and the
data gathered from future years will be used to determine if improvements have
been made.
Fuller asked if
Wolf pointed out that some questions are missing. He noted that it is easy for employees to
know what is expected of them but the real question is whether they have the
time to do all that is expected of them.
Chancellor Perlman noted that if an employee
is disgruntled, this should come out in his/her responses. Whitt noted that the survey has been
validated in industry but questioned whether it has been used at
universities. Chancellor Perlman stated that some universities have done climate
surveys. Whitt pointed out that the survey
may be a good diagnostic tool but that it may fail to show some of the problems
on campus. Spann asked when the data
will be available to the departments.
Chancellor Perlman stated each unit should
receive feedback sometime in early fall.
3.3 Faculty Salary Distribution
Bryant reported that the Executive Committee passed a motion last week
regarding the distribution of the faculty salary increases. He stated that the same pattern was followed
as last year; however, units would receive more while Deans and Vice
Chancellors would receive less. He noted
that the reasoning for this was that the committee felt that issues of
inequities were addressed last year. He
pointed out that the committee felt that knowledge of an individual’s
performance is best known at the department level rather than the Dean or Vice
Chancellor’s level.
Chancellor Perlman stated that he has not
received the recommendations of the Faculty Compensation Advisory
Committee. He pointed out that the
Executive Committee’s recommendation actually gives the Deans more money for
merit increases. He noted that he has
been reminded by faculty that some departments are not doing well in
distributing the increases. He pointed
out that the recommendations create a puzzle as to how to engage faculty in a
department to discuss faculty evaluations.
He noted that some units feel very strongly that they do not want to be
engaged in conversations whereby faculty evaluations are discussed. Wolf asked if this meant that departments who
are interested in doing this will be restricted from having these
conversations. Chancellor Perlman stated that this would not happen. He noted that he is interested in making the
process more public as long as actual figures are not revealed. He stated they are considering stating in the
guidelines that the criteria for evaluations must be articulated and increases
must be made in conjunction with faculty evaluations. He stated that they hope to give departments
more leeway this year. Bryant stated
that the committee agreed with the comments made regarding articulating the
criteria used in evaluations. He pointed
out that the process of determining which faculty would be put forward to the
dean for further increases was a bone of contention last year. SVCAA Edwards pointed out that the time frame
is becoming an issue. He stated that the
Chancellor may have to make a decision before the FCAC makes its
recommendations.
Sawyer asked what is being done with the faculty members who received
less than satisfactory performance evaluations.
Chancellor Perlman stated that he hopes that
conversations have taken place that would help these faculty members to improve
their performance. SVCAA Edwards stated
that most of the letters of evaluation include a statement about what will
trigger a post tenure review. He pointed
out that usually this initial statement is enough to motivate the faculty
member to improve his/her performance.
He stated that there have been some second year statements made. VC Owens stated that the IANR has one
on-going post tenure review.
Wolf pointed out that the figures endorsed by the committee are an
attempt to keep 1/3 of the increase from being kept by administration. Spann stated that the recommended 3% increase
for satisfactory performance is a response to help faculty members at the lower
end of the salary range deal with the increase in parking, health insurance,
and taxes. Chancellor Perlman noted that the goal is not to have faculty members
just perform satisfactorily, but to perform at a higher level. Bryant pointed out that the recommendation
was a reaction to the spread that was stipulated in the guidelines last
year. Siekman
stated that keeping the funds in the colleges would help Deans give additional
funding to those units that have a large number of high performers. He stated that the range stated in the
guidelines last year caused faculty evaluations not to match the raises in some
units. Byrant
pointed out that in some units there seemed to be a floating set of criteria
for evaluations. He noted that this
created a lot of misunderstanding in the units.
Siekman pointed out that faculty members were
not informed whether their increase was based on their performance or whether
part of it was due to inequities. Spann
noted that personal notices explaining the increase should be given to each
faculty member. Bryant asked that the
Executive Committee be notified of the Chancellor’s decision as soon as it is
possible.
3.4 Consultant’s Report on Recruiting Students
Chancellor Perlman stated that most of the recommendations from the consultants have been technological. He stated that these recommendations are in the planning stages. He stated that he will report to the committee on the essence of what has been recommended by the consultants. He pointed out that extraordinary improvements have already been made, such as scholarships being awarded earlier than has previously been done.
3.5 Notifying Units of Budget Cuts Before Notifying the Press
See 3.1 above.
3.6 Issues on the Horizon
Chancellor Perlman stated that Central Administration is supposed to distribute the funds for priority programs sometime soon. He noted that UNL could receive as much as $3 million.
4.0 SVCAA Edwards, VC Owens
4.1 Quality Indicators
Bryant reported that departments have been asked to identify the top journals and associations in their field for use as quality indicators. He noted that he has received emails from faculty members who are concerned about the process that is being used to determine these indicators. He stated that there should be campus-wide discussions on the quality indicators. SVCAA Edwards agreed that it would be good to have campus discussions on the indicators. He stated that the administration wants the departments to decide what they consider as quality indicators for publications and associations. He stated that the purpose of listing these publications is a way of creating indicators for areas that do not receive external funding.
VC Owens stated that IANR has been discussing the indicators. He reported that they conducted a town hall meeting which was telecast to the various extension centers. He noted that there was reasonable participation with much of the same comments being made as on city campus. He pointed out that they are still wrestling with the outreach indicator. He noted that the list of indicators is a work in progress that can change over time.
Bryant stated that faculty members are concerned that the list used for the quality indicators will become a part of the department and faculty evaluation process. Siekman stated that some faculty are worried that only those publications listed as quality indicators will be accepted by the department when conducting faculty evaluations. Wolf noted that the limitation on the number of publications compresses the list. Whitt pointed out that faculty members who specialize in a particular discipline could be told that the article they published is not going to be counted because it is not published in a journal that is on the list. Chancellor Perlman noted that in each field there are some journals that are more prestigious than others. He stated that if a faculty member publishes in a national, competitive journal, then it should be looked at as an achievement. He stated that the indicators are not meant to be exclusive. Wolf pointed out that the manner in which the process of identifying the indicators is being instituted is making it an exclusive list. He noted that people specializing in the cutting edges of their field will be penalized for not publishing in the journals listed. SVCAA Edwards stated that units need to decide what publications should be considered. He noted that the discussions of this list should include the question of what is meant by quality. He pointed out that this list should be used as a draft. Chancellor Perlman noted that the quality indicators are meant to show the quality of the institution. He stated that faculty performance is separate from the list.
DiMagno stated that in each field there is usually a division in the quality and tiers of journals. He pointed out that as long as four or five groups of journals can be defined then it should not be difficult to establish a list. Wolf noted that restricting the size of the list creates problems for large departments who have faculty members specializing in different fields. SVCAA Edwards stated that the College of Arts & Sciences put the limitation on the number of publications that can be listed. He stated that the reasoning was to figure out what departments consider real accomplishments. Wolf stated that a faculty-wide forum is needed. He stated that the faculty should determine whether a finite number of publications are appropriate. He pointed out that the faculty members were told that identifying these indicators needed to be done quickly, but there has been no involvement of the faculty afterwards.
SVCAA Edwards stated that he would be happy to be involved in campus or college forums, although he noted that campus-wide forums are usually not successful. He reported that the feedback on the process has been mixed with some departments feeling that it has been a useful exercise. Bryant asked how the data will be used. SVCAA Edwards stated that the data cannot be compared across disciplines or colleges and that there can be no comparisons with other institutions. He stated that the purpose is to see how departments are doing over a period of time. He noted that the data eventually become a statement of what departments consider to be high quality. DiMagno pointed out that there is a problem with narrowly defining high quality. He noted that if the list is too limited, not much data will be gathered. Fuller pointed out that in some fields the issues are more complex since high quality is not easily defined.
Bryant asked if the quality indicators would be used
as a report to the Board of Regents.
SVCAA Edwards stated it is for the Board of Regents as well as for UNL
itself. Bryant suggested that the
Academic Senate could hold some campus forums in the fall.
4.2 Update on Searches
SVCAA Edwards reported that they are still
negotiating with a candidate for the Dean of the
Bryant suggested that the tag line indicating that the University is an equal opportunity employer be shortened. He pointed out that the length of it is costly. Wolf noted that the statement is helpful for those who want to determine what the policies of the institution are in regards to discrimination. SVCAA Edwards suggested that it could be communicated differently by referring to the actual policy on the UNL website.
VC Owens reported that the campus based interviews for the Dean of CASNR position have been completed. He stated that he is still receiving comments from people but he hopes to make a decision soon.
5.0 Approval of
Whitt moved and Spann seconded approval of the
minutes as amended. Motion approved.
6.0 Unfinished Business
No unfinished
business was discussed.
7.0 New Business
No new business
was discussed.
The meeting was adjourned at