EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES
Present: Bryant,
DiMagno, Fuller, King, Logan-Peters, Miller,
Peterson, Siekman, Spann, Wolf, Wunder
Absent: Sawyer, Whitt
Date:
Location: Academic Senate
Office, 420 University Terrace
1.0 Call to Order (Miller)
Miller called the meeting to
order at
2.0 Announcements
2.1 Board
of Regents Meeting
Miller reported that the Gender Equity Report will be presented to the Board at the June 1st meeting.
2.2 Health Care Report
Miller announced that the report
from the Blue Ribbon Panel on Health Care has been distributed to the employees
of the university. He stated that a full
copy of the report should be given to the Academic Senate office. Bryant stated that feedback from emeriti
faculty is needed on the report. He
suggested that Emeriti Professor Dick Fleming should be invited to speak to the
Executive Committee. Siekman
reported that UNL has gone on record to recommend that part-time employees
should receive the tuition remission benefit.
3.0 Approval of
Bryant moved and Siekman seconded approval of the minutes as amended. Motion approved.
4.0 Evaluation of Administrators (King and
Logan-Peters)
Logan-Peters stated that the
Executive committee needs to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the
Senate conducting evaluation of administrators.
She pointed out that they also need to discuss the amount of work that
would be involved in order to do these evaluations. King stated that the committee needs to be
clear what the intent is for conducting the evaluations. He noted that the
Wolf asked who sees the results of
the survey at
Logan-Peters reported that the
Senate at
Wolf cautioned the committee against creating an elaborate evaluation system that would take considerable work but in the end yields nothing. Miller noted that in reviewing Vice Chancellor Griesen’s evaluations there was input from a broad spectrum on campus. Logan-Peters pointed out that the problem is that many of the evaluations done on administrators are lopsided. She suggested that the system currently in place at UNL needs to be revamped. Wunder pointed out that the problem with the evaluation process for Deans is that untenured faculty members are afraid to voice their opinion for fear of retaliation.
Wolf noted that there is no consistent process across colleges for conducting evaluation of administrators. Bryant stated that the Regents Bylaws state that evaluations must be done but they do not prescribe how they should be done. Fuller stated that it makes more sense for the committee to overhaul our present system rather than creating a new system. Logan-Peters pointed out that an ad hoc committee should be formed to oversee that evaluations will be done.
Bryant stated that the problem appears to be that evaluations by faculty are not being considered. He suggested that the committee design a survey for faculty evaluations and bring it, along with a resolution, to the Senate. He noted that the resolution would state that these surveys, which would not require a signature, would be included in the evaluation of administrators. Logan-Peters suggested that a resolution be drafted which states that the faculty are not happy with the lack of faculty input in the evaluation of administrators.
Wunder stated that procedural issues need to be addressed. He stated that the current process should be laid out and examined. He noted that there should be an inventory of the different evaluation processes that are being used in the colleges. He pointed out that there needs to be some means by which the faculty community is informed of the results of the evaluations.
DiMagno suggested that a committee be created to review the evaluations of administrators. He pointed out that this would eliminate a single review of the evaluations. Miller suggested that an ad hoc committee could be appointed from the Senate to inventory the evaluation process of administrators. Wolf stated that the committee should do an inventory of the existing procedures for administrators at the Deans level and above. Peterson stated that the second step would be to get opinions from faculty as to whether they feel the process is working. Wunder stated that the ad hoc committee should be charged with modifying the current process so that faculty evaluations are brought into the process. Spann pointed out that the process doesn’t work because some faculty members fear retribution. He noted that while the procedures on paper might look good, problems exist with the process. Wunder pointed out that the problem lies in how the process is implemented. He stated that the procedures outlined are not taking place and that the faculty members need a voice in the proceedings. Siekman noted that there needs to be clarification on what happens with the evaluations. Miller stated that there appears to be a perception that the faculty members do not have a voice in the process. Spann stated that people feel that the process is not effective.
The committee agreed to revise the subcommittee formed to review the evaluation of administrators by adding Miles Bryant and Tom Spann to it. The charge of the subcommittee was also revised. It is now to look at the processes that are currently being used across campus.
5.0 APC Recommendations on Budget Reductions
Miller stated that he thought the APC made a reasonable response to the Chancellor’s recent budget reductions. He noted that the Scottsbluff center was of concern to many people. Siekman pointed out that there are 3 diagnostic centers in the state and that cutting the Scottsbluff center was where the fewest number of people would be terminated.
Wolf asked if the same procedures will be in place should the University receive additional budget cuts. Miller stated that they would. The Committee commended the APC for all of their hard work on the budget cuts.
Wolf asked when the special session will be held. Miller stated that it is unsure at this time but he believed it would be held before the elections in November.
6.0 Unfinished Business
6.1 Feedback
on New Grading System
The committee agreed that most feedback on the new grading system has been positive except for the confusion surrounding the grade of C-. DiMagno pointed out that C- is not considered passing. Wunder noted that the C- should be a passing grade. Peterson stated that it varies across campus how a C- is treated. Miller stated that the Senate should discuss the status of a C- grade. Wolf suggested that the Grading and Examination Committee should review this issue before it goes to the Senate. Spann stated that the Executive Committee should get a report from Dr. Hawkey, Director of Registration and Records, on the new grading system to see if there are any changes from when he reported to the committee in the fall.
7.0 New Business
7.1 Normalizing
of Grades
DiMagno reported that he asked Dr. Hawkey to develop a scheme to normalize grades for students in each class. He noted that when the grades were normalized, it spread the gpa out for the class. He stated that the most significant changes were made in the top portion of the grades. He noted that students taking rigorously graded courses are punished in the current scheme. He stated that ideally he would like to see the normalized grades reported on transcripts. Wunder pointed out that a professor can teach the same course to two different classes and yet one class will do significantly better than the other. He stated that the scheme assumes that a low grade indicates a rigorous course, when, in fact, this may not be the case. Peterson pointed out that the only instance where the normalization of grades matters is in regards to achieving honors. Bryant noted that the current system is unfair with respect to honors. DiMagno stated that there would be some inequities in the normalization system, but there are great inequities within the current system. Peterson pointed out that pass/no pass courses are not taken into account. Bryant suggested that Dr. Hawkey should be invited to speak to the Executive Committee on the issue.
7.2 Incoming Freshmen Summer
Reading Program
Miller asked for feedback regarding the incoming freshmen summer reading program. Wolf stated that there is a conflict with the timing of the class where the students meet to discuss the book and the first few days of the semester. Most of the committee agreed that many students did not appear to have read the book or had any interest in the book.
7.3 Plagiarism on Campus
Miller stated that there were 31 cases of plagiarism on campus this past year. He stated that he would like to invite someone, perhaps, Rosemary Blum, Director of Student Judicial Affairs, to come and speak to the committee about it. Peterson pointed out that citations from the internet seem to be the biggest violation.
7.3 Upcoming Agenda Items
Discussion on college credit being given to students at Nebraska Wesleyan for AP high school courses regardless of whether they take the national examination and the ramifications for transfers into UNL.
Discussion on the Blue Ribbon Panel Health Care report.
The meeting was adjourned at