EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES
Present: Bryant,
DiMagno, Fuller, Miller, Peterson, Sawyer, Siekman, Spann, Whitt, Wolf, Wunder
Absent: King,
Logan-Peters
Guests: Craig
Eckhardt, Ron Lee, Ken Nickerson, Ellen Paparozzi, Barry Rosson (faculty
members of the Academic Planning Committee)
Date:
Location: 201
Canfield Administration Building
1.0 Call to Order (Miller)
Miller called the meeting to
order at
2.0 SVCAA Edwards/VC Owens
2.1 Update
on Budget Reductions
SVCAA Edwards reported that the
special legislative session will begin on July 30th. He stated that it is expected that the
Governor will announce his plan for dealing with the budget deficit sometime
after July 12th. He stated
that the university hopes that it will be treated fairly during the budget
cutting process. VC Owens noted that the
upcoming budget reductions will probably not be the final cuts made to the
University. He stated that there are
strong indications that the Governor’s budget plan will pass the legislature
with few changes. He pointed out that
SVCAA Edwards stated that administration fully intends to honor the process established to reduce UNL’s budget. Sawyer asked what the criteria will be in deciding what programs will be cut. SVCAA Edwards stated that administration will follow the procedures used during the last round of cuts. He pointed out that the administration still has the plans developed by the colleges last year to deal with a 5% reduction. He noted that the Chancellor may ask the Deans to develop plans for another 5% or possibly 10% reduction. Wunder pointed out that some, but not all departments have already been told to develop 5% and 10% reduction plans. He stated that since the Chancellor or SVCAA has not yet asked publicly for these plans, it creates confusion and heightens anxiety on campus. He stated that a comprehensive plan for all departments is probably needed.
Peterson stated that the 5 and 10% reduction plans appeared to be inconsistent with the notion that the University should make vertical rather than horizontal cuts. He noted that creating the plans is very time consuming for each department. He suggested that the administration consider alternative means of dealing with the budget reductions such as providing an incentive for faculty to move from a 12 month appointment to a 9 month appointment or improving the early retirement plan.
Rosson asked how vertical cuts will
help offset the budget cuts when funds have already been distributed for this
fiscal year. SVCAA Edwards pointed out that
some vertical cuts were made last year with the elimination of the
Lee asked if President Smith was planning to distribute all of the $3 million enhancement money. SVCAA Edwards stated that he believed that President Smith has made plans to distribute all of the enhancement funds to those programs identified by each campus. VC Owens pointed out that some members of the Board of Regents were upset with President Smith when he used some of the priority money to bridge the deficit last year. Eckhardt noted that savings from making vertical cuts are not realized until a year or more later. SVCAA Edwards stated that the university needs to make sure it can pay the bills this year. He stated that one of the questions is how to make the permanent budget fit into place for this fiscal year. He pointed out that it is important for the university to be in a good position to be able to regenerate once the state gets through these difficult economic times.
Nickerson pointed out that one of the functions of the Executive Committee and the APC is to provide the Chancellor with other ideas in how to deal with the budget cuts. He asked if these suggestions were being compiled so people know that they are being taken seriously. SVCAA Edwards stated that the Chancellor is receiving suggestions and responding back to all of them. He noted that the Chancellor is sending some of these suggestions and his responses to the campus community via email.
Paparozzi suggested that a step out plan could be developed whereby older faculty could retire in phases. She stated that an enticement for faculty members to do this could be to include the coverage of health care.
Wolf asked if the definition of a program is clearly stated. SVCAA Edwards stated that the document “Procedures to Be Invoked for Significant Budget Reallocation and Reduction” defines a program on page 13 (a copy of this document can be found on the web at http://www.unl.edu/pr/chancllr/19930210realloreducproc/.) Lee pointed out that the document allows elimination of subprograms. SVCAA Edwards stated that the language of the document is clear in defining an academic program. Lee noted that there is a significant difference in characteristic A which defines a program as “including the word college, school, department, center, institute, division, program or bureau as a part of its title” and characteristic E which states “is a distinct academic option or track within a larger unit.” Miller pointed out that characteristic E could fragment departments. Lee stated that the definition of program could almost allow elimination of particular individuals. Wolf asked the Senior Vice Chancellor what his opinion is regarding the definition of programs. SVCAA Edwards stated that they have been using the criteria defined in the document.
Bryant asked if the administration is considering terminating tenured faculty. SVCAA Edwards stated that he could not rule out the possibility of this occurring. He pointed out that the size of the budget reduction will be the determining factor. Wunder stated that the document provides the potential to focus on one person in a department for termination. He pointed out that this could invoke the other parts of the document that deal with reduction of an individual rather than a program. He noted that there are different criteria for terminating an individual person and that it occurs usually under much different circumstances.
DiMagno asked if there were changes in the ratio between students and tenured and tenure leading line faculty. SVCAA Edwards stated that there has been a decline in the ratio. He stated that some faculty members have been lost but that a greater number of students have been lost.
Paparozzi asked if there was a hiring freeze. SVCAA Edwards stated that there is not a hiring freeze and that some faculty positions are open. He acknowledged that hiring has been slowed down.
Lee pointed out that the AAUP recommends that universities should try to place tenured faculty member in other areas if possible before terminating them. SVCAA Edwards stated that no proposals to terminate faculty have been made. He noted that how the university deals with the budget cut will determine how it will fare in the future. He pointed out that good things will continue to happen on campus in spite of the budget cuts.
Miller asked whether the APC is recognized as a faculty committee or whether a faculty committee means that all of the members must be faculty. Bryant suggested that the Executive Committee might want to address this issue. Sawyer stated that faculty committees should be comprised of a majority of voting faculty members. Wolf suggested that the national AAUP office should be contacted to provide guidance on this issue.
Bryant asked if enrollment was up
this year. SVCAA Edwards stated that
there does appear to be an increase in enrollment for the fall term. Spann asked if there is any consideration to
increase tuition. SVCAA Edwards stated
that this could be a possibility. He
noted that many of our peer institutions have increased tuition
considerably. Bryant asked if there was
a possibility that the in-state tuition rate at the
Rosson stated that in the last two rounds of budget cuts the APC was presented only with a set amount, which meant the budget reductions. This resulted in very little that the APC could do to make recommendations off the list that was presented to them. He suggested that APC should be presented with alternative solutions, then hear the testimonies, and then make recommendations based on the alternatives. SVCAA Edwards stated that this could be discussed but he explained that the same problems exist this time as last time. Rosson stated that he meant other alternatives rather than academic programs. He stated that letting the APC investigate other alternatives would give the faculty members a sense that they had more input into the process. Nickerson pointed out that the APC did not have any options other than the ones presented to them by the Chancellor. Wunder stated that the last round of cuts the APC offered advice but that it would be different now because they would be looking at the termination of academic programs. He stated that the faculty members understand that the APC must vote to approve elimination of academic programs. SVCAA Edwards stated that this was not his understanding of the bylaws but that he would review them to clarify this issue.
Miller asked what would happen if the APC did not approve elimination of academic programs. DiMagno asked if financial exigency would then be declared. SVCAA Edwards stated that the main concern is that the cuts need to be looked at over a two to three year period. He pointed out that it is uncertain whether there will be an economic upturn. As a result, there will need to be vertical cuts in order to reduce the permanent budget. He noted that President Smith is also looking at the impacts the budget reductions will have on the next biennium. VC Owens pointed out that the structure of the University may be changing as a result of the cuts. He noted that the state legislature will be looking at the next biennium in January.
Bryant stated that a mixed message
is being sent to the parents regarding the state of the university. He noted that in new student enrollment
programs parents are told that everything is fine with the university when in
fact the university is facing large budget cuts. He stated that if the public is to be made
aware of the impacts the cuts will have on the university, then these mixed
messages need to stop.
3.0 Approval of
Bryant moved and Peterson seconded approval of the minutes as amended. Motion approved.
4.0 Unfinished Business
4.1 Interpretation of 1993 Procedures to be
Invoked for Reallocation or
Significant
Budget Reduction
Wunder reported that he has written
a response to Chancellor Perlman regarding the Chancellor’s interpretation of
the 1993 Procedures document. Wunder
noted that the Chancellor concluded that he does not have to show that a
program is weak in order to eliminate it.
Wunder pointed out that some of the APC procedures indicate that a
program of higher value should not be cut before a program of lower value. He restated, as has the Chancellor, that
there are three criteria that need to be considered when cutting a
program: centrality, capacity, and
peripherality, the document needs to be considered as a whole. He reported that the Chancellor would have to
persuade the APC that programs are of no value before tenured faculty could be
terminated. Wolf pointed out that
non-academic programs should be considered before academic programs. Miller stated that the Executive Committee
needs to be involved in discussions regarding elimination of programs and the
termination of tenure faculty members.
5.0 New Business
5.1 Report
on Meeting of Faculty Senate Presidents at UNO
Whitt reported that the Presidents and some faculty members of the academic senates met at UNO to discuss the impending budget cuts. He stated that they exchanged information and arrived at five statements to promote faculty leadership. He stated that the individual campuses have different strategies for dealing with the budget cuts. He noted that the UNK Senate is actively involved in the process of making budget reductions. He stated that the Senate Presidents will meet again in late summer or early fall. Bryant suggested that the statements should be released to the press during the special legislative session. Wunder asked if the unions at UNK and UNO have any impact on cutting academic programs. Miller stated that they do not. Wunder pointed out that while the mission of the faculty is in teaching, research, and service, the legislature and regents have officially stated that the priority duty of the university faculty is the teaching of the students. The committee discussed revisions to the five statements.
5.2 Upcoming Agenda Item
Peterson asked that the Climate Survey be placed on the agenda for discussion. He stated that chairs on east campus have been told that the climate survey will be used to evaluate their performance. He pointed out that many of the people who responded to the questionnaire based their answers on the overall organization, not the units. The committee agreed to place this item on a future agenda.
The meeting was adjourned at