EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES

 

Present:          Alexander, Alloway, Beck, Fech, Flowers, Hoffman, Moeller, Rapkin, Peterson, Scholz, Stock

 

Absent:           Bolin, Shea

           

Date:               Wednesday, December 7, 2005

 

Location:        Academic Senate Office, 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 3:06 p.m.

 

2.0       Announcements

            2.1       Special Fees Committee

Beck reported that the Special Fees Committee does not meet as a group to discuss the requests that are submitted to attach special fees to a course.  She noted that individual members of the Committee review the requests and submit their opinion.  She stated that she will meet with Alloway and Hoffman to discuss the requests.  The Executive Committee felt that the Special Fees Committee should meet as a group to discuss the requests.  Peterson noted that it may be difficult to schedule a meeting with all of the members.  He suggested that a Blackboard site could be created for the members to use.  Peterson also noted that Dean of Undergraduate Studies Rita Kean can provide further information on details related to special fees and the work of the Special Fees Committee.  The Executive Committee agreed that after Beck, Alloway, and Hoffman review the fees next week, feedback will be provided to Dean Kean on the process.

 

Peterson stated that it seems that the term lab course seems to have become a generic term that is used for any course that has a special fee associated with it regardless of whether it is actually a lab course. 

 

Alexander asked if the Committee only reviews special fees.  He noted that the College of Engineering is looking into increasing the rate of tuition for engineering courses.  Peterson stated that the Committee just looks into special fees attached to certain courses.  Alloway pointed out that in the schedule of classes there is a note indicating a special fee is attached to a particular course.  Flowers noted that the special fees are supposed to help support special supplies or equipment that is needed for that course. 

 

Beck asked if the College of Engineering has had a separate tuition.  Alexander stated that it has not, but special fees have been attached to courses in order to provide the necessary equipment that is used in the course although he feels that over the years the original intent of the special fee seems to have been lost. 

 

2.2       Academic Planning Committee and Academic Program Reviews

Beck reported that the APC is going to look at how they monitor academic program reviews.  She noted that the APC is looking at a different model to use for the program reviews.  She stated that she will be meeting with Professor Keown, the Senate President’s Designee to the APC, to discuss the APC looking explicitly at faculty governance in departments when an academic program review is conducted. 

 

Beck reported that a motion was introduced to the APC that any upcoming budget cuts must follow the procedures that are currently in place.  She stated that the motion should be voted on at the next APC meeting. 

 

2.3       Board of Regents Strategic Planning Meeting

Beck reported that there was very good discussion at the Regents meeting on strategic planning for the University.  She stated that the Regents asked the Senate Presidents to respond quite a bit.  She noted that one prevalent theme is that teaching is the number one priority for the University.  She stated that she regrets not explaining to the Regents that in some colleges teaching is used punitively in evaluation and that teaching is not considered the number one priority.  She noted that some units restrict a faculty member’s access to graduate students if they are not actively involved in research.  These professors are also given a heavier teaching load. 

 

Peterson noted that faculty members can be bought out of teaching.  Flowers pointed out that there is tremendous variability about teaching.  He noted that it relates to a general climate issue and the question is how faculty members divide their time and how they are rewarded for it. 

 

Rapkin pointed out that there is meaningful distinction between punitive teaching and opting for a different teaching load.  He noted that there is the standard research track and there is the standard teaching track. 

 

Stock stated that while teaching is our main function, those doing well in research should not be penalized.  He noted that faculty members can reallocate their apportionment of duties and some people are better at research than teaching and vice versa.  Beck stated that this is fine but a problem occurs when evaluations do not acknowledge this difference as is the case in some colleges.

 

Peterson stated that in IANR people are locked into their assignments due to funding sources.  He noted that it is more difficult to reapportion duties because of the funding. 

 

Beck stated that some people are being hired to only teach and that several with no research or publications have been tenured in IANR recently.  Fech noted that Extension Educators are still expected to conduct some research even though 90 – 100% of their apportionment of duties is for teaching.  He stated that some faculty members may do a lot for a particular program but if they don’t attain a grant the work they do is not given as much credit.

 

Alexander stated that merit increases need to be looked at.  He questioned whether merit raises can be obtained for faculty members who have heavy teaching loads.  Beck stated that she expects that it can be done although she does not know for certain how these raises would compare with those based on research.  Alexander stated that it would be interesting to see if any merit raises have been given for teaching. 

 

            2.4       Greek Houses Grade Requests

Alloway reported that the form being used by the Greek houses to report grades for their members is being revised.  The revision will give student’s permission to the instructor to release his/her grade to the fraternity or sorority.  He noted that the revisions should be completed by next fall when grade reporting is the heaviest because pledges are trying to get into the houses. 

 

3.0       Approval of 11/301/05 Minutes

Flowers moved and Peterson seconded approval of the minutes as amended.  Motion approved.

 

4.0       Unfinished Business

            4.1       Senate Survey – Draft of Powerpoint Presentation (Flowers)

Flowers gave his Powerpoint presentation on the results of the survey on Quality Indicators.  The Committee discussed revising and shortening the presentation so it can be given to the Senate at the January meeting.  The Committee noted that there was good response on the survey with 492 completed surveys submitted. 

 

5.0       New Business

5.1       Review of Executive Committee Goals

The Committee reviewed the goals for 2005-06.  Most items have or are currently being worked on.  The Committee noted that further work needs to be done on meetings with UNOPA and UAAD, exploring various UNL policies with senior administrators to ensure uniform application and appropriate interpretation, and work with ASUN to address important student issues. 

 

Beck stated that she would like to explore the issue of having some kind of tenure system for extension educators.  She noted that there are several state universities that do have a rolling contract system for extension educators.  She stated that she would like to have a proposal ready in the spring to present to the Senate. 

 

The Committee noted that although they have not been actively involved in the accreditation process yet, they expect greater involvement in the process as the accreditation visit approaches in the fall.  It was pointed out that the Deans have not reported back to the departments on their strategic plans.  The Committee agreed that this should be discussed with the Chancellor and SVCAA in January. 

 

Beck stated that she thinks the Senate should look at its current structure to see if it should return to being a Faculty Senate instead of an Academic Senate.  She noted that the other three campuses have Faculty Senates.  She pointed out that this is not meant to be adversarial.  She stated that the original intent of creating an Academic Senate was to increase dialog between the faculty and the administration but this does not seem to have worked well within the Senate context.

 

5.2       Administrators Serving on Committees

Beck stated that she has been corresponding with a person who is an administrator but considers himself a professor because he has had an adjunct appointment at times.  She noted that this individual wants to serve on faculty committees but she is unsure whether he would qualify because his FTE is in administration, not in teaching or research.  Griffin stated that she would check the Bylaws are report back to the Committee at the next meeting.

           

The meeting was adjourned at 5:02 p.m.  The next meeting of the Executive Committee will be on Wednesday, December 14th at 3:00 pm.  The meeting will be held in the Academic Senate Office, 420 University Terrace.  The minutes are respectfully submitted by Karen Griffin, Coordinator and Pat Shea, Secretary.