EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES
Present: Bryant, King, Logan-Peters, Miller,
Peterson, Sawyer, Siekman, Whitt, Wolf, Wunder
Absent: DiMagno,
Fuller, Spann
Date:
Location: 201 Canfield
Administration Building
1.0 Call to Order (Miller)
Miller called the meeting to order at
2.0 Chancellor Perlman/VC
Owens
2.1 Special
Legislative Session
Chancellor Perlman stated that the university is glad to hear that the Appropriations Committee is seeking to reduce the amount of the cuts to the university. He noted that other efforts are underway to find other sources of funding to offset the reduction to the university. He pointed out that Senator Foley is being supportive of the university and that he helped put together the package to reduce the university’s cuts. Chancellor Perlman stated that it is critical for individuals to contact their state legislator to show support for the university.
Miller asked why the road funds were considered untouchable. Chancellor Perlman stated that the highways are crucial for rural areas because they are heavily used. He pointed out that some of the money raised by the recent sales tax increase will go towards the highway roads fund.
Chancellor Perlman stated that there are 5 or 6 members of the Appropriations Committee that are working to find a way to reduce the University’s reduction. He noted that the special session will probably end quickly.
2.2 Budget Update
Chancellor Perlman stated that the tentative time frame on the budget reductions calls for a meeting with the Deans and Directors on September 4th. He noted that a budget framework will be developed at this meeting. He stated that he hopes to make an announcement on September 15th or 20th regarding his recommendations for budget cuts. He pointed out that President Smith wants to see a tentative list of reductions for each campus by September 3rd. He stated that the Academic Planning Committee will hold hearings in early October and that he hopes the process can be completed by Thanksgiving.
Miller asked if these cuts were for this year’s budget. Chancellor Perlman stated that they are for the current fiscal year. He pointed out that there is also a cash flow problem that needs to be dealt with on campus.
Chancellor Perlman stated that Dick Wood, General Counsel, is still rethinking furloughs. He stated that the question is whether tenured faculty can be furloughed. He pointed out that there is no contractual agreement on the salary increases at UNL and that these could still possibly be used. Miller asked if it was possible that the university would close down for a week. Chancellor Perlman stated that this is possible. He noted that if the work week is shortened, it is easier to compute the savings on hourly paid employees. He pointed out that other universities are furloughing their employees. He stated that Dick Wood is consulting with these universities. Logan-Peters asked if the lowest paid staff can be excluded from the furlough. Chancellor Perlman stated that this is a possibility.
Wunder asked if academic programs will still be cut if the university system’s budget reduction is reduced by ten million dollars. Chancellor Perlman stated that administration tried to figure out a $5 million budget cut to the campus. He stated that he is not confident that he can do this without touching some programs, but he pointed out that the impact would be significantly reduced. He reported that he is having conversations with the Deans about possible restructuring and that this could help with the reductions.
The committee discussed whether they supported the idea of furloughs. Peterson stated that it would be okay but questioned how many days would be involved. Logan-Peters asked what would happen with classes and the students during the days of the furlough. Bryant stated that it is hard to answer the question about furloughs without knowing what the alternatives would be to the reductions. Sawyer suggested that the semester could be ended a few days earlier. Miller stated that he preferred the furloughs over removing the pay increases. Wolf pointed out that it would be useful to know if there is going to be a furlough so that faculty can incorporate it into their syllabi. Chancellor Perlman stated that he does not believe there would be any political fallout from outside the university as a result of a furlough. He stated that there could be a problem if the staff members are furloughed but faculty members are not. He stated that other things could be looked at such as using money set aside for equipment. Bryant stated that he has a real problem with the university using $3 million to fund enhancement programs yet expecting employees to be furloughed. He stated that this is forcing employees to pay for the priority programs.
Wunder asked how much research overhead money is generated and whether some of these funds could be used to offset the reductions. Chancellor Perlman stated that there is some possibility, although much of these funds have been committed. He noted that the university continues to argue with the state over these funds. The state sees overhead costs as double dipping; however the reason why the university receives overhead funds is due to the additional expenses incurred with receiving grants and conducting research.
Logan-Peters noted that the highway trust fund was heavily supported by Senator Warner. She suggested that the university should have a similar fund to help it through difficult economic times. She noted that the idea should be given to some senators to see if they would support it.
Wunder asked if discussions were continuing with the other Chancellors regarding restructuring of the university. Chancellor Perlman stated that discussions are still ongoing but no decisions have been made.
King noted that some faculty members are very pleased with President Smith’s support of the university before the legislature. Miller stated that President Smith did an excellent job in reporting to the Appropriations Committee and that he should be commended for his efforts.
2.3 Issues for Upcoming
Semester
2.3.A. Apportionment of Faculty Effort
Chancellor Perlman
distributed a draft letter that will be sent to department chairs and heads
asking them to meet, discuss, and come to an agreement, with each faculty
member regarding his/her apportionment of effort in the areas of teaching,
research, service, extension, outreach, and administration. He noted that the letter states that the
faculty member should be informed that her or his annual evaluation will be
based on this apportionment. He pointed
out that administration is asking that this be done to be in compliance with
Regents Bylaw 4.3. In addition, he noted
that the
Bryant stated that there needs to be a clearer distinction in the letter between apportionment and assignment. He pointed out that there was confusion on this issue when the Academic Senate was working on revising the Bylaw. He noted that there should be some mechanism in place that allows one to adjust his or her apportionment during the year. Chancellor Perlman pointed out that Bylaw 4.3 does state that a process exists that would allow a change.
Wunder noted that his department decides on a standard apportionment for faculty members. He asked if this would no longer be viable. Chancellor Perlman stated that if this is done for the entire faculty then it would not be a problem. Wunder asked if faculty members can protest if they do not agree with their chair on the apportionment. Bryant pointed out that the Bylaw specifically states that the agreement is by mutual consent. Peterson noted that IANR has been doing this for some time; however, these apportionments have budgetary implications. He stated that people would like to change their apportionment but it is difficult to do because of the budget implications. VC Owens stated that it could be possible to make the changes.
Chancellor Perlman stated that faculty hired in the past two years should have the apportionment of duties written in their letter of offer. He stated that the apportionment should allow people to be rewarded for all of the work they do. Bryant asked about faculty with administrative appointments. Chancellor Perlman stated that the Board of Regents lists administrative apportionments.
Bryant noted that SVCAA Edwards had reported earlier on a conflict of interest statement. He asked whether this will be reviewed this fall. Chancellor Perlman stated that he hopes so.
Chancellor Perlman
stated that
Bryant asked whether there is a hiring freeze on for faculty and administrative searches. Chancellor Perlman stated that there is no freeze, but the policies in place this past spring regarding hiring are still being followed.
2.3.B. New
Students
Chancellor Perlman stated that final figures on the number of new students entering this fall are not available yet. He pointed out that applications for housing are significantly higher.
Miller asked if there was going to be any special observance on September 11th. Chancellor Perlman stated that he is considering some kind of observance but he wants to keep it simple. He stated that ASUN is making plans for observance ceremonies on that day.
Wolf asked if the results of the Noel Levitz study of recruitment and retention are available. Chancellor Perlman stated that he is hoping that they will complete the report soon. He suggested that Dean Cerveny and Associate Vice Chancellor Rita Kean should meet and report to the full Senate in the fall to discuss recruiting and new student enrollment.
Chancellor Perlman
reported that SVCAA Edwards has a report on the quality indicators although not
all departments have responded. He
stated that the SVCAA intends to distribute the report. Wolf asked if we participate in the National Survey
of Student Engagement. Chancellor Perlman responded that we do.
3.0 Announcements
3.1
Miller reported that proposals for
the
Wunder
stated that NEH has approved a grant to UNL for a regional humanities center,
to be called the Plains Humanities Alliance.
It is a 3 to 1 match, for a total of approximately $1.2 million. Professor Susan Rosowski
in English is directing the
3.2 Hooding Ceremony
Miller announced that the doctoral
hooding ceremony will be held on August 16th and that Commencement
will be on August 17th. He
encouraged faculty to attend the commencement exercises.
3.3 Volunteers to Committees
Needed
4.0 Approval of
Peterson moved, and Bryant seconded, approval of the minutes as amended. Wunder suggested that a note be attached to the minutes when they are sent to the senators pointing out that these minutes are particularly important for faculty to read because of the discussion on the role of the APC in academic program eliminations. He stated that senators should send the minutes to their constituents. Motion approved.
5.0 Unfinished Business
No unfinished business was discussed.
6.0 New Business
6.1 Future
Meetings with APC Faculty Members
Miller reported that the faculty members of APC would like to meet periodically with the Executive Committee. He asked the committee how often they should meet with the APC members. Bryant suggested that two meetings be scheduled for early in September and then wait and see if they want further meetings. He pointed out that the APC will be getting very busy with the budget cuts. Wunder stated that Professor Eckhardt, Chair of the APC, would very much like to meet with the Executive Committee. Wunder pointed out that the 1993 Procedures to be Invoked for Significant Budget Reductions or Reallocations need to be carefully reviewed. He stated that the Executive committee needs to foster a working relationship with ASUN because ASUN will be asked to vote on the document should it be changed.
Miller suggested that the Executive Committee and the APC get legal counsel regarding the role of APC. He pointed out that APC has enormous moral clout. Peterson noted that in order for a new major or program to be approved, a process must be followed and APC has the power to approve or deny the acceptance of this new program. He wondered if the APC should have similar powers in the opposite case of program elimination. Wunder stated that the reason for confusion about the role of the APC in the elimination of academic programs is because instead of the normal process whereby the action is initiated from the bottom up, this is coming from the top down. Bryant noted that it is the SVCAA who has procedural authority to submit or deny applications to various degrees. Sawyer noted that APC is the mechanism for shared governance. Wolf pointed out that it is unknown whether the Chancellor is being pressured to cut programs. Whitt stated that there are more than written rules that need to be followed and that is where precedents become involved. He noted that there is a law of precedent which states that what was done in the past sets precedent for the present.
6.2 Agenda
for Executive Committee Retreat
The committee stated that the following issues should be reviewed at the Executive Committee Retreat on August 21st: faculty participation on committees and faculty governance; strengthening shared governance; domestic partner benefits; the treatment of older faculty; University trust fund; faculty evaluation of administrators; removing the retirement cap; how best to lobby the unicameral; meeting with Board of Regents Chair Kent Schroeder to discuss domestic partners benefits; faculty roles initiative; the role of extension; faculty club; vision of what we want the University to look like with restructuring; quality indicators, climate survey.
6.3 7/31
Wunder Memo
The committee discussed Wunder’s memo and report on administrative costs and discussed what would be the best strategy in dealing with this matter. The committee agreed to meet again on August 14th to discuss the issue further.
The meeting was adjourned at