EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES
Present: Alloway, Beck, Fech, Flowers,
Hoffman, Moeller, Peterson, Rapkin, Scholz, Shea, Stock
Absent: Alexander, Bolin
Date: Wednesday, November 2, 2005
Location: 201 Canfield Administration Building
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 3:05 p.m.
2.0 Chancellor Perlman,
VC Owens
Beck noted that once again no
administrator was available to speak to the Senate at the monthly meeting. She stated that she realized that conflicts
arise with the meetings but pointed out it would be helpful if one of the
administrators could speak to the full Senate at each meeting. Chancellor Perlman
apologized for not being at the Senate meeting on November 1st and
stated that he really does want to speak to the Senate. He stated that he felt it was important for
him to attend the opening of the new Kimmell
Orchard/University of
Peterson suggested that if no other administrator is available to speak to the Senate that perhaps Associate to the Chancellor Howe could speak. Peterson pointed out that Howe is well informed. Chancellor Perlman stated that this was a good idea but he would try to insure that there is an administrator available for the Senate meetings.
2.1 Budget Cuts in Colleges
Beck noted that during the July 6th Executive Committee meeting the Chancellor had stated that he would prefer not having to do across the board cuts but he wanted to avoid the ordeal of the last budget cuts. She pointed out that the Chancellor had indicated an approximately 2% budget reduction for departments/units.
Beck stated that some colleges are being asked to develop scenarios of 2, 4, and 8% budget cuts. She stated that the 8% budget cut is causing real concerns and a cut of this proportion would result in faculty members being fired. She reported that one question that is being asked is why permanent budget reductions are being used to address a temporary situation which is a result of the tuition shortfall.
Beck asked why the University can’t go to the Legislature and explain that we have a temporary budget problem and ask for the Legislature’s assistance, especially since the University was hard hit with the previous cuts.
Chancellor Perlman stated that it was not his intention of insisting to the Vice Chancellors or Deans that across the board cuts had to be done. He stated that he expected the Vice Chancellors and Deans to handle the budget cuts as best as they saw fit. He noted that it does not surprise him that some units are looking at making vertical reductions because they feel this is a better strategy rather than doing across the board cuts.
Chancellor Perlman stated that he expects the Deans and Chairs to make the recommendations that they think are the best in order to manage their budgets. However, there are some lines he will not cross given the situation that we are in. He pointed out that he expects the cuts will be based on the least damage they will cause to their departments and colleges.
Beck stated that the 8% scenario is causing a lot of morale issues and people are upset. She noted that a group of IANR senators is considering writing a letter to department heads suggesting that they may want to rethink the strategy of the budget cuts, particularly the 8% scenario until more definitive information is available. She pointed out that an 8% cut is severe.
Chancellor Perlman stated that he hopes people would have a moderate understanding that developing a scenario is an exercise and not necessarily a recommendation. He pointed out that it is always a balancing act to try to assess the need to address morale issues but at the same time deal with the financial reality of the situation. He noted that nothing he stated earlier prevents administrators for asking for more than a 2% cut.
Chancellor Perlman pointed out that he does not feel the budget shortfall makes a compelling case to ask for additional funds from the State Legislature. He noted that the University received its best budget in the past 15 years. He stated that the University will be going to the Legislature with a budget deficit, mostly because of the cost of utilities which could be up to $6 million. He noted that he would be content if this could be covered.
Fech
asked about UNL being liable for the problems at Mead, particularly the water
contamination issue. Chancellor Perlman stated that there are two issues with Mead. One is contamination from us and the other is
contamination from the
Shea asked VC Owens to comment on the request for departments/units to develop an 8% budget cut scenario. VC Owens stated that this request is to see what the system can handle in terms of budget cuts. He noted that some units will have minimal cuts while others will have greater cuts. He stated the budget cuts in IANR will not be across the board. He noted that developing these scenarios is very frustrating for all concerned and he recognizes it is an aggravating exercise.
Shea pointed out that faculty can understand the 2 or 4% budget cut scenarios but jumping to an 8% scenario is particularly upsetting. He stated that putting 8% on the table, particularly when it is unknown what will actually be required cut is very serious. He pointed out that when a unit creates the budget cut scenario it identifies what it feels is expendable. He stated that it says what the faculty is willing to sacrifice. VC Owens stated that he does not interpret the scenarios as what the department is willing to give up. He pointed out some units will not have any cuts while others might have an 8% cut.
Beck stated that the faculty will not be informed of what comprises the 8% cut. She stated that this will create a lot of finger pointing and suspicion about what is going on. VC Owens stated that he does not think only the chairs/heads will develop the scenarios. He believes that serious discussions with all of the faculty members in a department will occur.
Fech stated that in his unit an 8% cut would result in the loss of six people. VC Owens stated that IANR could be looking at a $1.3 million cut.
2.2 Review and Reappointment
of Administrative Officers Policy
Beck reported that she has received inquiries from faculty members about this policy and whether it is being used, particularly for evaluating Vice Chancellors and the Deans. She stated that she was able to get a copy of the document from the Academic Affairs website. She noted that the policy applies to department chairs on up and it is fairly uniformly written.
Chancellor Perlman asked what the issues are about the review policy. Beck stated that things are handled very differently in colleges in how faculty members are invited to evaluate Deans but rarely are they invited to evaluate Vice Chancellors. She noted that in IANR forms are distributed to the faculty members and the form does indicate that an evaluation of the Vice Chancellor can be made.
Beck stated that another issue concerning the evaluations is that faculty members are required to sign them. She pointed out that there is no requirement for students to sign teaching evaluations. She stated that there are some faculty members who do not feel comfortable in signing an evaluation form for fear there could be some kind of retaliation if negative comments are made. She stated that she hears quite often that people do not want to sign the evaluation forms.
Peterson pointed out that Professor Alexander stated that if a case should go to court the court can mandate that the evaluation and the author of the evaluation be revealed. Peterson noted that Professor Alexander has stated that consequently he refuses to fill out evaluations that he must sign.
Beck suggested that instead of signing the form the envelope could be signed and then discarded once the evaluation is received in the appropriate office. This way the evaluation would remain anonymous.
Chancellor Perlman stated that he does not have much passion on either side of the debate. He noted that he agrees with those who feel that anonymous evaluations lack credibility. He stated that unless he receives a number of evaluations expressing the same dissatisfaction, he would not pay much attention to an anonymous evaluation. He noted that on one hand you lose credibility but on the other hand you lose confidence in the process.
Chancellor Perlman stated that he has had a committee of Deans looking at the annual review of Deans. He noted that he has asked them to focus on this question but he does not know what the responses were. He stated that SVCAA Couture would know better. He pointed out that he appreciates that the Deans should not be the only ones to evaluate other Deans and the same goes with the Vice Chancellors.
Moeller stated that the purpose of evaluations should be looked at. She noted they can be extremely helpful whether or not they are signed. She pointed out that people would probably be more honest if they did not have to sign the evaluation. She stated that evaluations should be used as a tool for making improvements. She stated that she believes more input would be made if the evaluations did not have to be signed.
Chancellor Perlman stated that he would be happy to think about the issue again.
Rapkin stated that it is not clear to him why administrators would not want to have as much information as possible. He asked why an unsigned evaluation is not credible. Chancellor Perlman stated that a particularly critical review might be important if it is from a successful faculty member. He stated that if the review is from someone who was just denied tenure that evaluation might not be as objective. He noted that he would probably weigh the successful faculty member’s evaluation higher.
Beck noted that comments made on evaluations are usually summarized by someone else so the administrator does not see the actual evaluation. VC Owens stated that in IANR the evaluations are tabulated by Linda Arnold in his office. He noted that he has never looked at the signatures on the evaluations. Beck pointed out that signing an envelope could satisfy the need for validation.
Peterson stated that in his department the promotion and tenure committee reviews the evaluations made on the chair. He stated that this committee receives a list of comments made in the evaluations and these comments are tabulated by the Vice Chancellor’s office. He pointed out that the problem is that it is unknown whether the comments listed are attributed to one person or to a number of people. He stated that there needs to be further information to see if the comments are widespread or from just one individual.
Peterson noted that the policy states that a faculty member is to be appointed from the unit to coordinate the review of the incumbent administrator. He questioned whether this actually happens.
Hoffman reported that the department promotion and tenure committee has never evaluated the chair. He stated that the evaluation goes to someone in the Dean’s office. Flowers stated that in Arts and Sciences they receive forms from the Dean’s office to evaluate the department chairs. Stock stated that in the English department the chairs are evaluated twice. He noted that the Dean’s office sends out forms and reviews the evaluations and a committee within the department reviews the evaluations.
Beck suggested that the Committee should discuss the issue with SVCAA Couture.
2.3 Programs of Excellence
Beck reported that she received an email message from a member of the Academic Planning Committee who stated that the APC did not review the proposals for the Programs of Excellence this year. She stated that a presentation was made about the proposals but the APC never reviewed the proposals. She pointed out that APC is supposed to review these kinds of proposals.
Chancellor Perlman stated that it was his impression that the APC reviewed the proposals but some temporary decisions were made because of a deadline date being imposed by Varner Hall. He noted that there is dispute between the campus and Varner Hall in how these programs are managed. He stated that initially Central Administration allocated the funds to the campuses and then the campuses invited proposals. He pointed out that APC was directly involved in reviewing the proposals. He reported that now Central Administration wants to know about the proposals that are approved before the funding is provided. He stated that he does not want to waste faculty time in competing for funds if it is not known how much funding there is. He noted that a presentation may have been made with the theory that the proposals would be fully reviewed later. He stated that it was his assumption that the APC was directly involved in the process. Chancellor Perlman stated that he is trying to move into a system that would call for proposals in March and they would be ready for approval in July when the funding would be known.
Peterson noted that some proposals were funded for one year and others for longer. Chancellor Perlman stated that there have been a number of questions regarding the management of the Programs of Excellence. He noted that the Chancellors will be making a presentation to the Board of Regents at its next meeting about how the programs are managed. He pointed out that how UNL handles the programs is different from the other campuses because UNL is a research campus. He noted that the campus can achieve recognition through departments collaborating on research and programs.
Chancellor Perlman pointed out that the campus has gone through centers of excellence but this has not been a successful approach. He noted that some of the Programs of Excellence have received a three to five year commitment because this is the way to build excellence. He pointed out that classroom renovations have received Programs of Excellence funding because teaching is a critical part of the University’s mission.
2.4 Course Syllabus Policy
Beck reported that ASUN is asking for a course syllabus policy to be developed. She pointed out that she did not know if this is a major issue because it is assumed that most instructors distribute a syllabus. She noted that the Regents Bylaws address the issue but vaguely. She stated that the Teaching Council is going to work with the students to see how large an issue this is and what can be done about it. She noted that it may be simply that the Deans need to state that a syllabus is required.
Beck stated that there are other issues regarding a course syllabus policy. She noted that there may be elements such as policies on academic dishonesty or attendance that need to be included on every syllabus.
Beck stated that this is an issue that the Committee will discuss with SVCAA Couture. Chancellor Perlman stated that he will be interested to see how this issue is resolved.
2.5 Child Care Concerns
Beck reported that she has heard concerns about an outside company managing the child care facility. She stated that people feel that the current staff is being bypassed and questions have been asked about why these people cannot be hired for the child care facility.
Moeller noted that there are rumors that everyone employed by the outside firm will have to have a bachelor’s degree. She stated that people who have children enrolled in the current University child care program are very pleased with the personnel and want to keep these people because their children feel comfortable with them.
Chancellor Perlman stated that the concerns are understandable and he realizes there are transition issues for children who are currently enrolled. He noted that he has heard from a number of people that the current director and staff are very good. He stated that VC Jackson and Associate VC Currin are working on resolving these issues. He stated that VC Jackson and Associate VC Currin recently met with the parents of the children who are enrolled in the current program to discuss their concerns.
Chancellor Perlman stated that he still believes we should outsource the child care to someone who knows how to run a child care program. He noted that there are people on campus, such as those running the Child Development Lab, who have intimate knowledge with child care but these people are not interested in running the University Child Care program. He pointed out that the current director may be good but there needs to be some supervision of this person. He stated that he thinks that ultimately we will have better service if it is outsourced with a company that is in the field.
Hoffman asked why the current staff can’t get involved with the program. Chancellor Perlman stated that while we have a competent director there is really no mechanism in place that would supervise the program and how well it is working.
Moeller stated that another concern is how many spots will be available for faculty, staff, and students who want to use the program. Chancellor Perlman stated that there are a number of issues that will need to be dealt with. He noted that many of these are expected but getting all of the issues resolved will not be easy.
2.6 Requirements for UNL
Websites
Beck stated that the mandate that the NebGuides must now be printed off at county extension offices or by individual citizens will cause problems. She pointed out that the publications will not be printed in the UNL power of red color because many of these people do not have color printers. VC Owens stated that the mandate will help remove the 1972 NebGuides that still exist. He stated that he believes there should be a color printer in each county office. Beck stated that extension faculty members are upset about the mandate.
Fech reported that the mandate is causing a lot of consternation in units. He noted that the faculty members applaud getting away from the old publications but he pointed out that 90% of the horticultural teaching pieces that are used by the county offices are going to vanish come January. He pointed out that this will cause a lot of problems for the Extension Educators. He noted that nearly half of the Douglas/Sarpy budget that goes to the extension offices has been cut so these offices will not have the funding to produce the materials needed to serve 6,000 people. He stated that some of the extension offices just have one secretary and one extension member and they will not have information to hand out come January. He stated that he does not want to have to refer people to the web all of the time because he wants to recruit for UNL and focus on UNL. Hoffman agreed and relayed an experience he had of trying to get information from one University extension website, and was referred to another institution.
VC Owens stated that the University is a national leader in e-extension. He stated that the old publications need to be removed because they are outdated. Fech stated that he hopes that they can come up with something that meets the logistical needs of the everyday extension person but is a nice looking publication.
Chancellor Perlman stated that there have been concerns from some units about being forced to utilize templates for websites. He noted that the University is adopting systems that are cutting edge for web design and management and he believes we should not move away from this effort.
Chancellor Perlman pointed out that there is a major initiative with respect to websites. He noted that a wide variety of people look at our websites. He stated that the content and organization of our websites has been driven by technology instead of the other way around but efforts are under way to correct this. He pointed out that people ought to get answers quickly resolved when they go to the UNL home page. He noted that currently moving through the website is not that easy.
Chancellor Perlman stated that the people working on changing the UNL homepage want to get input from focus groups. He noted that the Admissions website was tested with prospective students and it helped to develop a site that is user friendly.
Chancellor Perlman stated that he understands that some of the technology for the new templates has caused some concerns but he believes some of the concerns are a lack of training.
Hoffman reported that he has received complaints from a number of faculty members who feel that they are receiving too many email messages from the administrators and that these messages are extremely long. Moeller noted that there is a delete button that these people can use.
2.7 Issues on the Horizon
Chancellor Perlman stated that UNL is still in the running for getting the Semester at Sea program. He noted that four other schools are in contention for the program. He stated that he believes the decision on who will get the program will be made sometime this semester. He noted that he is somewhat concerned with the transition if we should get it but he has been assured by the people at Semester at Sea that they have already been working on how to deal with the transition.
Chancellor Perlman stated that he has met with all of the offices that will directly be involved with the program and they are working on developing a budget for working with the program. He noted that so far the financial aspects for UNL are still very positive.
Chancellor Perlman stated that the Board of Regents has been holding a number of meetings to work on the strategic framework for the University. He noted that the Chancellors and President Milliken developed the framework and the Board has decided to select a few of the strategies that they want to see developed as priorities. The Board also wants to set objective measures to see if the University is successful in achieving these priorities.
Chancellor Perlman reported that the Chancellors and President have met with the Board three times to discuss the priorities. He stated that they will meet again in December to discuss administrative costs. He noted that some of the members of the Board are enthusiastic about reducing administrative costs. He stated that enrollment and graduation rates will also be discussed.
Alloway
noted the changes that will be occurring at UNO with the building of more
housing. He asked if it seems as if UNO
is seen as competing for students. Chancellor Perlman
stated that no doubt in some ways UNO is being competitive. He pointed out that they are considered a
residential institution which is a prime factor for some students. He noted that currently it would be difficult
to argue against them getting the housing.
He pointed out that they do not have the housing that UNL has and in
regards to their peer institutions, they are low in housing space. He stated that in many ways we are not
competing with them and
Fech stated that there have been many negative associations with the University taking over the property to construct the dorms. He noted that while the property may not be highly valued it is still personal property and the University using eminent domain to acquire the land is causing some problems. He pointed out that the Extension Educators are receiving comments from people about their dislike of the situation. Chancellor Perlman noted that the fact is that the University has not authorized land acquisition through eminent domain in a very long time. He stated that the University always tries to negotiate the acquisition of property.
3.0 Announcements
No announcements were made.
4.0 Approval of 10/26/05 Minutes
Peterson moved and Stock seconded approval of the minutes as amended. Motion approved.
5.0 Unfinished Business
5.1
The Committee continued working on
revising the
6.0 New Business
No new business was discussed.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m. The next meeting of the Executive Committee will be on Wednesday, November 9th 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.