EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES

 

Present:          Beck, Bolin, Flowers, Hoffman, Moeller, Peterson, Rapkin, Scholz, Shea, Stock

 

Absent:           Alexander, Fech

           

Date:               Wednesday, August 24, 2005

 

Location:        Academic Senate, 420 University Terrace

 

Note:   These are not verbatim minutes.  They are a summary of the discussions at the Executive Committee meeting as corrected by those participating.

______________________________________________________________________   

1.0              Call to Order

Beck called the meeting to order at 3:04 p.m.

 

2.0       Professor Ron Lee, AAUP Report on the Department of Economics and Issues of Faculty Governance

Professor Lee stated that a group of faculty members from the Economics department approached the local chapter of the AAUP to talk about concerns they had with the lack of faculty governance in their department.  Lee stated that the group presented documents as well as provided oral evidence of problems that were occurring in the department.  Lee noted that the report written by the AAUP was based primarily on the evidence provided in the written documents. 

 

Lee pointed out that the AAUP drew on five well established principles of faculty governance as outlined in the AAUP’s “Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities” and “Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure” when reviewing the evidence provided.  These principles are:  1) communication, 2) educational policy, 3) faculty status, 4) planning, and 5) academic freedom and protection against discrimination. 

 

Lee stated that several areas in the report highlighted those principles that were regularly violated according to the documentation provided.  He noted that the first area was in the hiring of faculty members.  He stated that two searches were conducted for the Director of the Nebraska Council on Economic Education.  He noted that the Council is a non-profit organization but the Director holds a tenured position in the Department of Economics. 

 

Lee reported that during the first search the department faculty did not have the opportunity to discuss the job position and no outreach program was established to try and recruit women and minorities.  Furthermore, the deadline date for submitting applications was before the national meeting.  Traditionally, the national meeting is a place where faculty members can meet and interview potential candidates.  The group of Economic professors felt that the early deadline date contributed to having a weak pool of candidates for the position.  A job offer was made to one candidate but it was declined by the candidate. 

 

Lee noted that the first candidate was offered an Associate Professor position in the department.  Lee reported that the group of professors was concerned about the quality of the candidate.  He noted that the professors are also concerned with improving the quality of the department by hiring strong candidates. 

 

Lee reported that during the second search once again only one candidate was put forward.  The faculty members of the department requested to see the reference letters of the candidates but were denied by the Chair.  Lee noted that he has not heard of this happening in any other department.  He stated that Richard Wood, Vice President and General Counsel, stepped in and pointed out that the state of Nebraska has a law which states that any citizen of Nebraska can review the application file. 

 

Lee stated that the group claimed that after the first failed search there was a lot of discussion about fixing the problems of the search process but nothing happened to change it.  He noted that it appears, from the evidence that was provided, that the department administration set up roadblocks for the faculty of the department to participate in the process. 

 

Lee stated that the second principle of faculty governance that appears to have been violated is departmental planning.  He stated that CBA was given permission to use the 2002 strategic plan developed by the College.  However, the departmental level planning that should have been the result of the 2002 planning process did not take place in Economics as claimed by the group of Economics professors.

 

Lee reported that another principle that appears to have been violated is that of communication with the faculty in the department.  The group of faculty members stated that there are no regularly scheduled department meetings and the Chair often ignores requests to put certain items on the agenda when department meetings are held.  In particular, agenda item requests made by female faculty members are often ignored. 

 

Lee stated that a disturbing issue that arose during the conversations regarded the use of the quality indicators list as a measure for faculty evaluations.  He noted that some faculty members may be excellent researchers but their field is highly specialized and the journals they publish in may not be the particular journals identified on the quality indicators list of leading journals for the department.  He noted that in at least one annual review the evaluation claimed that the faculty member did not do well in research because his or her article was not published in one of the identified journals for that department.  He pointed out that the group of professors claimed that the Economics department did not create their own list of journals.  Instead, an interdepartmental committee in the College selected the journals for each department.  It was reported to Lee that this committee did not have a representative from the Economics department. 

 

Lee stated that he has seen some annual reviews where there are references to the quality indicators list.  He noted that using the quality indicators list to evaluate people’s research is a threat to academic freedom because it can inhibit people from doing research in more specific areas that may not have journals on the list. 

 

Lee reported that he did receive a letter from Professor Digman, Management, who chaired the committee in the College of Business Administration that created the College’s strategic plan in 2002.  In his letter Professor Digman stated that the College participated in an open process that involved a great deal of faculty input.  Lee stated that this was not being disputed by the group of faculty members.  The plan called for more specific objectives which would result in departmental action items.  The Economics faculty group claimed that no discussions were held to develop these departmental action steps.  Lee noted that the College was allowed to use the 2002 plan for the 2004-05 strategic plan. 

 

Lee pointed out that currently the Economics department has an interim chair because the current chair is on leave for this year.  Lee reported that he has spoken briefly and informally with Dean Milligan about the situation and stated that she is concerned with the quality of professional life in the Economics department.  He reported that Dean Milligan plans on working to improve the situation in Economics.  Lee pointed out that when there is great animosity within a department it is important to follow procedures carefully.

 

Peterson asked whom the AAUP report was sent to.  Lee stated that the AAUP was originally interested in entering into a conversation with Dean Milligan, Professor Anderson, Chair of Economics, and Senior Vice Chancellor Couture.  He stated that copies of the report were sent to these people and the faculty members who visited with AAUP.  He noted that the report was sent to the faculty members to review for errors.  He stated that one of the faculty members then decided to send the report to all of the faculty members in the College. 

 

Lee reported that he received an email message from Associate Dean Karels asking if the AAUP had a statement for the faculty members of the Economics department.  Lee pointed out that the AAUP’s attempt was not to cause problems in the department but to see if the situation can be improved.  He noted that the AAUP is neutral on substantive departmental policies but it is interested in procedures of faculty governance. 

 

Beck noted that typically Economic departments are housed in the College of Arts and Sciences at many universities.  She wondered whether there is a feeling in the Economics department here that some faculty members fit better in Arts and Sciences rather than in the Business College.  She questioned whether the department is in the right place.  Lee stated that it is possible that putting the department in a professional school could change the character of the discipline but he did not know if this has happened.  Peterson stated that he did not think the department is more business oriented.  He pointed out that Economics departments that have been put into professional schools often become the outcast of these colleges and typically are smaller in size. 

 

Shea wondered whether having the Economics department in a professional school would change the nature of the department as new hires are made.  He pointed out that if this is the case, then the hiring process becomes even more critical.  He noted that if candidates are being considered for positions without faculty input it gives the administrators more control over the shaping of the department.  Lee pointed out that he has never heard of a search on campus where only one candidate was put forward.  He stated that if this occurred in his college a very long explanation would need to be provided to the department. 

 

Lee noted that in general, professional colleges seem to have a different relationship between the Dean and the faculty members.  He stated that in many of the smaller professional colleges they seem to want a unit similar to the Law College where there are no departments. 

 

Rapkin stated that from the evidence provided it seems that the Dean of the College was made aware of the search practices late in the game.  He asked if this was true.  Lee stated that he thinks there was enough concern voiced by faculty members within the Economics department that the Dean would have been aware of what was going on.  Rapkin pointed out that it seems that the Dean would have been complacent with what was happening with the searches because she would have had to give approval for bringing in candidates. 

 

Lee stated that the group of faculty members felt that the Office of Equity, Access & Diversity Programs, was very negligent when they complained about the searches and the lack of minority candidates.  Beck pointed out that the Office stated that the faculty could not see the references on the candidates but this was later over ruled by the University Counsel. 

 

Peterson stated that the Committee has heard rumors that the list of quality indicators is being used in CBA to declare faculty members as research inactive which could then trigger a post tenure review.   He pointed out that he did not know if this is actually occurring.  Lee stated that he thinks that some departments across the campus are evaluating faculty based on the quality indicator lists.  The Committee discussed the differences between departments in how many journals are listed on the quality indicator list.  Flowers pointed out that interdisciplinary research is greatly impacted by the quality indicators list because some professors do not want to get involved in research that cannot be published in the leading journals in their discipline.  Peterson noted that the Senate might want to take action on how the quality indicator lists are being used.  Flowers wondered how many faculty members are feeling pressure to publish in the listed journals and whether this is influencing what research they are conducting. 

 

Hoffman noted that his department does not have a list of journals.  He pointed out that the result is that whenever he is in a College meeting for promotion and tenure the first question is what is the quality or level of journals based on the list of quality indicators.  He stated that sometimes he thinks faculty members do not know the quality of certain journals.  Lee pointed out that evaluations on publications can be done independently of the lists.  Stock stated that the English department accepted all of the journals that were submitted so there is no problem.  Lee noted that some departments were instructed to create a small list.  Peterson pointed out that some leading journals are not included in department lists even though many professors try to get published in them. 

 

Rapkin asked if anyone is doing anything about the list of quality indicators and how they are used.  Lee stated that he does not believe that using the lists to evaluate faculty is done maliciously.  He noted that some people seem confused on how to assess the work of people.  Peterson pointed out that using the lists to declare people research inactive is not the intent of the quality indicators.  Lee stated that it is important to raise the awareness that the list of quality indicators is separate from faculty evaluations.

 

Peterson questioned who is making the assessments of how well departments are performing.  He wondered who is collecting the data and doing something with it.  Beck stated that there is a report on the quality indicators on the Academic Affairs website but she is unsure whether it contains information on assessment of departments. 

 

Rapkin asked if the Economics department currently has any open faculty positions that they are trying to fill.  He pointed out that Dean Milligan is aware of problems in the Economics department and is working on a plan to deal with it.  Rapkin asked if Lee would receive accurate reporting from the Dean since she was compliant with the violations in the other two searches.  Lee noted that most of the anger from faculty members was towards the Chair, not the Dean.  Lee stated that he is aware that Dean Milligan supported the Chair of the Economics department.

 

Rapkin asked if CBA evaluates Deans and Chairs annually.  Members of the Committee did not know the answer to this question. 

 

Peterson pointed out that the Chancellor claims that he is hearing things differently than the Senate and that the Chancellor encouraged the Senate to gather information from a broader base of faculty members.  Peterson noted that the Senate is working on developing a survey mechanism that will allow them to gather information from a broader range of faculty members. 

 

Scholz asked if there is a reason why the AAUP did not discuss the Economics department issues with Professor Anderson, Chair, Dean Milligan, and Senior Vice Chancellor Couture.  Lee stated that the original plan was to send the report just to these individuals but when the report was widely disseminated it made it difficult for the AAUP to discuss the issue with the administrators. 

 

Scholz asked if there is common knowledge from the group of Economics department professors that there will be a follow up.  Lee stated that the purpose of the AAUP was to get the department to follow the principles of faculty governance.  He stated that the AAUP hoped that the department would be able to straighten out the problems.  Scholz asked if the department has tried to do this.  Lee stated that he did not know.  He noted that the Dean indicated that she was going to work on developing a plan to address the problem this summer. 

 

Shea stated that a key factor is that the majority of the faculty members support the Chair.  If they were not happy with how things were running in the department then you would think they would express their concerns with the Chair.  Lee stated that the processes and procedures highlighted by the AAUP are designed to protect the minority opinions of faculty members.  He stated that he does know that the Dean has talked to other faculty members in the department.  He noted that some of the faculty members might support the Chair but want some of the procedures handled differently.  He stated that some of the faculty members are concerned with the quality of the department, particularly the graduate program.  He noted that they now have very few doctoral students where before they had many. 

 

The Committee discussed the possibility of inviting Dean Milligan to speak with them to see if anything has been done to improve the situation in the department. 

 

3.0       Announcements

            3.1       Interview Sessions for Agricultural Research Dean and Director Candidates

Beck announced that the three candidates for Dean and Director of Agricultural Research Division will be held on the following dates:  Dr. Ray Noblet, Georgia, September 1-2; Dr. Don Beermann, UNL, September 8-9; Dr. Gary Cunningham, CSREES, DC, September 20-21.  She encouraged members of the committee to attend the interview sessions if they are asked because this position is important to the entire campus.

 

4.0       Unfinished Business

            4.1       Executive Committee Election

Griffin reported that Professor Alloway, College of Journalism, has agreed to run for the open position on the Executive Committee.  The Committee discussed other possible candidates for the ballot. 

 

4.2       Executive Committee Goals

The Committee discussed revisions to the draft version of the Executive Committee goals.  Peterson stated that he believes that the issue of domestic partner benefits needs to be included in the statement regarding employee benefits.  Griffin pointed out that the Senate has voted at least twice in the past to support domestic partner benefits. 

 

4.3       Regent Hergert

Beck reported that she will be meeting with the other Senate Presidents on Wednesday, August 31st to discuss, among other things, whether they want to make a statement regarding the issue.  She noted that the last time she spoke with the Presidents two were not in favor of making a statement but she did not know what their reasons were for this decision.  She stated that it would be best if all four campuses supported making a statement.

 

Shea pointed out that it does not matter if the Senates do not have jurisdiction on the matter because they would be making a statement of concern which the faculty have a right to do.  He noted that oftentimes the faculty members do not speak up and in some situations this could hurt the university down the road. 

 

Rapkin asked if there is a pro Hergert constituency.  Beck stated that she believes that some people in western Nebraska who voted for him may be supporting him.  Hoffman pointed out that many of the citizens in Hergert’s district did not know he was breaking the law when they voted for him. 

 

4.4       Motion to Senate on changes in Senate Rules and Bylaws

Item postponed due to lack of time.

 

5.0       New Business

5.1       Request from Meg Lauerman, Director, Office of University Communications  

Beck stated that Lauerman sent her an email asking if the Senate would like to help sponsor a social hour before the free concert series at the Lied Center this fall.  The social hour will be held at the Van Brundt Visitors’ Center.  She noted that the series is a number of free concerts being held in the Lied Center to encourage awareness of the arts.  The Committee agreed that this would be a good thing to host.

 

Beck stated that the communications office is working on a program called the Power of Red.  She stated that the office is interested in featuring table tents on the campus featuring information about top faculty members.  Moeller asked if this was being done to make faculty members more visible.  Stock stated that he liked the idea but would want more information.  Moeller stated that if this happens they should equally distribute the table tents between teaching and research and service.  Beck stated that she would contact Lauerman to get more information.

 

5.2              15th Week Policy

Griffin reported that she is receiving phone calls from faculty members who feel that the policy is unclear in parts, particularly with the third paragraph which states the deadline dates for projects, papers, and speeches. 

 

Flowers noted that the blurb that the policy was not to take effect until the spring semester was not included in the mailing that went out to faculty members.  He pointed out that the schedule of classes for the fall semester was already in print when the policy was approved by the Senate and therefore could not be included.

 

The Committee suggested that Griffin revise the third paragraph based on the suggestions made by the faculty members who called.  Griffin stated that she would make revisions and send it to the Committee for their comments. 

 

 

 

5.3              Academic Dishonesty

Flowers stated that he received a phone call from the Lincoln Journal Star concerning academic dishonesty.  He noted that he has tested out the website available through Blackboard that checks for plagiarism.  He stated that he was pleased with the results and urged other faculty members to try it out.

 

5.4              Committee to Review Faculty Positions

Shea stated that he has been asked to serve on a committee that will be reviewing all academic titles.  He noted that a new position, Professor of Practice, is being considered by the committee.  Shea stated that he would accept the invitation to serve and would report to the Committee.  The Committee agreed to put this issue on the agenda when they next meet with the administrators.

 

5.5              New Virus Control Program

Hoffman reported that the new virus control program adopted by UNL is not working properly.  He stated that the Committee should ask the Computational Services and Facilities Committee to look into this matter. 

 

5.6              Bike Paths

Hoffman reported that the bike paths on 19th street now suddenly dead end at Vine Street.  He stated that this needs to be brought to the attention of someone on campus since many students, staff, and faculty members use these bike paths. 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.  The next meeting of the Executive Committee will be on Wednesday, August 31 at 3:00 pm.  The meeting will be held in 201 Canfield Administration Building.  The minutes are respectfully submitted by Karen Griffin, Coordinator and Pat Shea, Secretary.