EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING
Present: Bryant,
DiMagno, Fuller, Logan-Peters, Miller, Prochaska-Cue, Sawyer, Siekman
Spann,
Whitt, Wolf
Absent: King,
Scheideler
Date:
Location: 201 Canfield Administration Building
1.0 Call to
Order
Bryant called the meeting to order at
2.0 Announcements
2.1 President
Smith to Speak at April 2nd Academic Senate Meeting
Bryant reminded the committee that President
Smith will be addressing the Senate at the April 2nd meeting. He stated that he asked President Smith to
discuss the budget and, if possible, to speak on the blue ribbon health
committee findings. He stated that
anyone wishing to have other issues addressed should email Karen Griffin,
Coordinator of the Academic Senate, so she can notify the President’s office.
2.2 Candidates for Provost
Bryant stated that he is participating in the
interviewing of candidates for the Provost position which is being vacated by
Lee Jones due to his retirement. Bryant
noted that there are five strong candidates for this position, four external
candidates and one internal candidate.
2.3 Academic Rights and Responsibilities
Procedures
Byrant reported that progress is being made in
revising the Grievance procedures. He
stated that he hopes to have a draft copy of the procedures to the Executive
Committee by the end of this semester.
2.4 Speakers Bureau
Bryant reported that the Executive Committee
has been asked to submit names of faculty who would be interested in
participating in the UNL Speakers Bureau.
He stated that anyone interested should contact him via email.
3.0 Chancellor
Perlman
3.1 Budget Process for the Next Cut
Chancellor Perlman reported that the
legislature may have to go into special session in May in order to deal with the
state’s budget deficit if they do not resolve it during this session. He noted that until the budget situation is
resolved, the University is unsure how much of an additional cut it will
receive. He stated that no serious
reductions in the budget can take place without a process that allows for
serious discussions with the faculty. He
noted that this process cannot take place over the summer because few faculty
members are on campus. He pointed out
that a lot of faculty members have contacted their legislator which has
resulted in a large variety of senators coming to the defense of the
university. Bryant pointed out that
Michelle Waite, Assistant to the Chancellor for Community Relations, has done a
great job working on behalf of the university and in keeping the Executive
Committee aware of particular concerns.
3.2 Distribution of Faculty Salary Increases
Bryant reported that the members of the Executive Committee have
different opinions on how the salary increases should be distributed but they all
agree that they want to know ahead of time what the final breakdown will be for
the distribution of the increases.
Chancellor Perlman stated that he is waiting
to hear the Faculty Compensation Advisory Committee’s recommendations. Miller noted that the FCAC will be meeting on
April 1st and that he hopes a statement from the committee will be
made at that time. Chancellor Perlman stated that information on our peer institutions is
still being compiled and that he hopes it will be available so that it can be
used to help determine the salary increases.
He noted that there have been concerns over last year’s 1.5% increase
for minimum satisfactory performance; however, he pointed out that very few
people received this amount and that most people received a raise equivalent to
the cost of living increase. He pointed
out that the pool for faculty salary increases and the pool for administrative
increases are separate. He noted that a
lot of administrative positions were filled last year and that the salaries for
these positions increased because they were often new hires. He stated that it is an inherent fact in
universities that new people are continually hired, often at a salary higher
than current employees because of the current market.
DiMagno asked what the rationale is for the administrative control of the
faculty salary increases. He pointed out
that there is a strong proposal for merit increase, yet the merit increase is
determined at the department level, not the administrative level. Chancellor Perlman
stated that departments are not homogenous and that some departments have
uniformly high achievers. He pointed out
that in order to compensate these high achieving departments fairly, the
administration needs to be able to distribute some additional funding. He noted that market issues, as well as gender
and minority equity issues, also need to be taken into account.
Siekman stated that departments were told by upper administration last year that
they needed to give more money to people in their departments, yet they were
not given the money by upper administration to do so. He pointed out that in some departments a
satisfactory evaluation is considered a great rating and that it should be
compensated better than last year.
Chancellor Perlman noted that he continues to
hear about the diversity of how faculty salary increases are handled in the
departments. He pointed out that this in
itself is a good reason for the administration to hold back a percentage of the
increase. He noted that there need to be
some checks and balances to the system.
Wolf stated that one of the major problems last year was with the
restrictions that were imposed by the administration on departments. Chancellor Perlman
pointed out that there were no restrictions.
Wolf stated that the language did not clearly convey that these were
just guidelines and were not mandatory.
Chancellor Perlman agreed that there were
problems with the communication of the guidelines. He stated that the idea was to give chairs
and deans a process of conversation that would continue up through
administrative lines.
Miller suggested that there should be a uniform system regarding how
faculty salary increases are determined.
Chancellor Perlman stated that he is
supportive of a uniform system but he believes that this is something that the
faculty needs to support. DiMagno suggested that department chairs should publish the
criteria used in determining faculty evaluations. He stated that these criteria should be
specifically stated and that there should be campus-wide criteria. Chancellor Perlman
stated that the FCAC should discuss the definition of a campus minimum standard
of evaluation. Whitt pointed out that it
would be helpful for faculty to know what criteria are used so that they can
work towards them. Chancellor Perlman suggested that the FCAC should also discuss how
chairs and deans communicate to their faculty on the increases they
receive. Miller stressed the need to
have good department chairs in place to insure that the salary increases are
conducted fairly.
Bryant noted that vacant faculty lines have been a source of funding for
increases due to promotion and tenure.
He asked if there are enough lines available to take care of the
increases generated by promotions. Chancellor
Perlman stated that they are committed to promotion
and tenure and although he does not know if there is enough funding through
vacant faculty positions to address these increases, he stated that the funding
will be found.
3.3 Teaching Council
Bryant reported that Professor Brooks, Chair of the Teaching Council, has
resigned from the Council. Bryant noted
that the Teaching Council has been targeted to take on some of the work of the
Teaching and
3.4 Evaluation of Administrators Report
Logan-Peters reported that the subcommittee working on the evaluation of
administrators has been reviewing other institutions’ evaluation system. She noted that the UNL evaluation system is
not as inclusive as those of other institutions. She stated that the best system appears to be
the one used by the University of Colorado-Boulder. She reported that the Faculty Senate
administers the process at CU with the assistance of the office equivalent to
our Institutional Research and Planning.
She stated that they give specific guidelines on who can participate in
the evaluations and that all of the information is available on their
Website. She noted that the evaluations
at CU are unsigned but have broader input than those elicited here. She reported that a standard evaluation form
is available at CU on the Web although specific language can be added to
address the responsibilities of particular administrators. She noted that climate issues are included on
the evaluation form. She stated that CU does
not alter the comments which are published on the web but the Senate committee
summarizes the comments and gives them to the appropriate supervisor of the
administrator and to the person being evaluated. She pointed out that there needs to be
further discussion as to whether the faculty members at UNL want a new system;
if so, a good survey instrument would need to be designed.
Bryant noted that signed evaluations of administrators were not required
until SVCAA Edwards came to campus.
Sawyer stated that he knows of professors who have suffered repercussions
from making signed, critical evaluations of administrators. He asked if the administration is interested
in changing the current evaluation system.
Chancellor Perlman stated that an evaluation
process that does not have the confidence of the people involved is not a
helpful process. He stated that he is
supportive of an evaluation system that has the confidence of the faculty. He suggested that administrators should be
evaluated every three years rather than every year as is done at CU. He stated that the kinds of information
published would need to be determined.
He pointed out that the public’s view of the support that an
administrator has within the university can have an effect on the outside
support that the university receives. Bryant
stated that the committee is not looking to create an adversarial system.
Whitt noted that it is problematical for the Executive committee to
evaluate an administrator when they have little contact with that person. He stated a system similar to the one being
used by CU would help address this problem.
Chancellor Perlman agreed that it is important
to receive evaluations from people who have knowledge of an administrator’s
work. Sawyer suggested that results of
the evaluations could be kept within the university, perhaps between the
Executive Committee and the Chancellor.
He pointed out that something needs to be done if an administrator
receives numerous negative evaluations.
Chancellor Perlman stated that he is
supportive of a system that is informative and he encouraged the committee to
pursue the issue further.
4.0 Approval
of
Sawyer moved and Logan-Peters seconded approval of the minutes as
amended. Motion approved.
5.0 Unfinished Business
5.1 Update on Evaluation of VC Griesen
Bryant reported that he has not completed summarizing comments for the evaluation of VC Griesen. He stated that he would ask SVCAA Edwards for an extension so he can hear back from more of the Executive Committee members.
5.2 Nominations for Executive Committee
The committee worked on nominations for the
Executive Committee elections that will take place on April 30th.
6.0 New Business
6.1 Distribution of Executive Committee
Minutes
Wolf stated that he distributes the final version of the Executive Committee minutes to the faculty in his department. He stated that he has been told that they are grateful to receive these as it gives them a sense of the work that is done by the Senate and the Executive Committee. Wolf suggested that an announcement be made at the Senate meeting encouraging Senators to distribute the minutes. He stated that some of the issues would have more support if faculty were aware that they are being discussed.
6.2 Withdrawal Policy
Spann reported that an incident has occurred whereby a student cannot complete a course due to serious injuries sustained in a car accident. He pointed out that it was too late in the semester for the student to withdraw from the course. He noted that an incomplete requires that a student should have a substantial amount of the coursework completed but in this particular case this requirement was not met. Spann stated that there needs to be some middle policy that deals with judicial withdrawal due to extenuating circumstances. The committee agreed. Bryant suggested that he contact ASUN to see if this would be an issue that they would be interested in working on.
The meeting was adjourned at