EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES
Present: Alloway, Beck, Bolin, Flowers, Moeller, Peterson, Rapkin, Scholz, Shea, Stock
Absent: Alexander, Fech,
Hoffman
Date: Wednesday, October 12, 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 3:02 p.m.
2.0 SVCAA Couture
2.1 On-line
Teaching Evaluations
Beck reported that she relayed the message to the Committee that there will be a workshop about on-line teaching evaluations. SVCAA Couture explained that the computer science and engineering department received funding from Academic Affairs to develop on-line teaching evaluations. She stated that the Music department has been working on using on-line evaluations and has recently tested them.
SVCAA Couture stated that her office approves funding for technology related projects on a case by case basis. She stated that she would like to have a more regular process of reviewing grant requests like the on-line evaluation project. She noted that funding for these kinds of projects should have a use beyond one department or unit.
SVCAA Couture stated that the on-line teaching evaluation project has been in place for about a year. She stated that she asked the people working on the project to give a demonstration workshop to faculty, students, and staff. She noted that many of the students today are computer savvy and could easily do on-line teaching evaluations. She pointed out that there could be some potential savings in conducting on-line evaluations. She stated that feedback from the campus is needed regarding this kind of evaluation. She pointed out that the campus is not being asked to adopt the on-line evaluation method at this time, but she feels that it is a project that should be explored for further development. She noted that in order for the on-line evaluations to develop further there needs to be input from other groups.
Beck noted that the officers of ASUN raised the subject when they met with the Committee last week. She stated that there was a long discussion about the on-line evaluations including the pros and cons of them.
Beck asked when the workshops will be held. SVCAA Couture stated that she does not know if dates have been scheduled yet but she will check on this. She stated that Associate Vice Chancellor Roeber will be coordinating the demonstration and will send out notices to the campus about when the workshops will be held. She stated that she believes the Deans have been notified and that they should be informing the chairs of the workshops.
Flowers asked if the workshops will be held soon. SVCAA Couture stated that they will be held this semester. She stated that departments currently working on projects to develop on-line evaluations will continue to move forward but they should combine forces rather than work on them individually.
2.2 Quality Indicators
Beck noted that there have been previous discussions with the senior administrative team regarding quality indicators. SVCAA Couture stated that an updated report on the quality indicators will be coming out within a few weeks. She stated that she, along with Chancellor Perlman and Vice Chancellor Owens, have reviewed the final data collected for 2005. She stated that there will be an introductory message when the quality indicators are sent out. She noted that some indicators showed progress while some others remained steady.
SVCAA Couture stated that the questions about this report now are: what use we are making of the quality indicators and how do they apply to the strategic planning? She stated that she wants to put a committee together of Deans and faculty members to look at the current quality indicators to determine which data is useful to collect. She noted that some of the quality indicators are useful because they allow ways to measure the campus’ efforts to reach specific goals. She pointed out that the committee would also look to see if there are some quality indicators which are not effective in measuring progress towards the goals the campus is trying to reach. She stated that a review of the quality indicators will be conducted this year.
SVCAA Couture stated that the title “quality indicators” suggests that there are goals and benchmarks with a set of actions that the campus is willing to implement in order to reach these goals. She pointed out reports such as the 20/20 report and the Everyone a Learner, Everyone a Teacher report could be used as guides to link the campus activities with the quality indicators; this is also true of our strategic plans. She noted that the Deans will be asked more specifically what indicators they would like to use to measure their own strategic priorities and goals.
SVCAA Couture stated that another issue discussed with the Deans at a recent retreat is whether the university should provide department or college data profiles. She noted that these profiles would give statistical information about each department/unit. She pointed out that statistical information is collected at the institutional level but it is not reported annually at the department or college level. She stated that the units and departments do not automatically get reports which give descriptive information like how many faculty members are in a department, how many of them are part-time faculty or how many major and minors are credited to the department.
SVCAA Couture pointed out that some departments collect this kind of information individually but they need to be aware that when administrative decisions are being made they are not being made based on this individual information. She stated that she believes it is important that departments and faculty see the profile data that are being used when decisions are made. She stated that it will take discussions and some time in order to develop a common set of college or department data profiles, but she believes this is important to do. She pointed out that data profiles are not necessarily quality indicators, but rather descriptions of characteristics of each college and department. She noted that this kind of information could be useful university wide. She stated that annual status reports are common at many institutions and that they would have value here.
Beck stated that this makes good sense. She pointed out that members of the Executive Committee have heard a wide range comments regarding how the quality indicators are being used. She noted that some departments did not even generate a list of journals while other departments are using the quality indicators to conduct annual evaluations of faculty members. She pointed out that the quality indicators were mandated by the Board of Regents. Beck asked how the quality indicators mesh with what the SVCAA just stated.
SVCAA Couture noted that there may need to be two or three different kinds of reports produced annually that would be helpful to the institution. She pointed out that the Board of Regents is now looking at the strategic framework proposed by President Milliken. She stated that she did not know if the Board will change their approach to asking NU campuses for quality indicators based on the strategic framework but whatever they decide, the campuses will comply with what the Board mandates.
SVCAA Couture stated that she has asked Dr. Nunez, Director of Institutional Research and Planning, to work with others to help develop a score card concept for use across the campus. She noted “scorecards” are used to show progress toward a goal. If a goal is set, such as increasing graduate enrollment, and then a number of action steps would be developed along with indicators for success that would show how the campus is going to accomplish this goal. She stated that in time, the indicators could be reviewed to see if they show that we have accomplished the goals we set. She noted that the concept of a score card could be helpful to departments/units. She pointed out that the departments and units would develop their own targets and activities to reach their goals. She noted that the quality indicators might relate to “scorecards,” but they do not now exist along with a set of action steps or goals.
Shea stated that an important part of all of this is that all colleges and units need to have a common understanding of what the purpose is for this information. He pointed out that the lists of journals included as quality indicators are a major concern for many faculty members. He noted that some units may not use the quality indicators in the way they were intended, especially when conducting annual faculty evaluations. He stated that what the SVCAA is suggesting is very different than what he understands is included in the current quality indicators.
SVCAA Couture noted that the list of journals acceptable for faculty publication used by some departments to measure the quality of faculty accomplishments does cause some faculty concern. She stated that the question needs to be asked within departments whether using such lists as an indicator of quality is valuable.
Flowers stated that there is concern that the list being used at local levels is a tool that is not being used properly. He noted that the list could be restricting faculty members from conducting research in areas that may not be represented on the list. SVCAA Couture stated that there needs to be discussions within the departments where faculty members decide on the quality measures they want to see as the basis for annual evaluations. She pointed out that she is not familiar with the quality indicators in every department, but she does not think that indicators, such as publication in certain journals, are inappropriate. She stated that they are valuable but it is important for departments to decide what goals they are trying to meet.
Peterson stated that there are some things in the quality indicators that he does not like such as the number of Fulbright Scholarships. He pointed out that this quality indicator is often used as a comparison to other institutions but those institutions are usually much larger than UNL and have a larger student population.
SVCAA Couture stated that this leads to another discussion. She asked what the overall campus goals are. She noted that how the campus is viewed by external agencies and ranks against other universities is a factor that was taken into account in choosing the quality indicators. She stated that there has been discussion about the quality indicators that are on the AAU list of quality measures, and how our indicators compare with those collected by other Big 12 institutions. She pointed out that there are some indicators that are useful in doing these comparisons.
2.3 Revisions to General
Education Program
SVCAA Couture noted that Professor Janovy is doing a great job coordinating this effort. She noted that the committee working on revising the program has created a general list of goals and they are working on developing a communications plan. She stated that the committee wants to keep the campus informed about the process and Professor Janovy will be speaking with various campus groups about it.
SVCAA Couture stated that some people have wondered whether this is a serious effort to revise the general education program. She stated that it most definitely is. She noted that the current program needs to be reviewed and reformed. She reported that some of the features of the revised program may be similar to what is currently in place but energy needs to be reinvested into the program. She stated that the issue is one of revitalization of the general education program. She pointed out that it is important that the campus be up to date with the changes that are occurring across the nation in general education programs.
Peterson noted that Professor Janovy spoke at the Senate meeting about the plan to revise the general education program but no discussion occurred. Peterson stated that he is concerned with the two year time plan. He pointed out that the subject needs to be kept in the forefront with the faculty. Stock noted that revitalization of the program is the key word that the faculty members need to hear. SVCAA Couture stated that it needs to be on the front burner as the program we invest in. She stated that the general education program does not have the appearance of being on the front burner of the campus now. She pointed out that there needs to be some readjustment and revision of our program and that we need faculty involvement to do it. She stated that the hallmark of a university providing great education is having a great general education program. She noted that it is important to understand the outcomes of the program that are expected of our students.
Shea pointed out that it will be critical for the faculty to feel they are invested in the program if they are to become involved in it. SVCAA Couture stated that as Professor Janovy presents the revisions to draft plans and proposed changes in the current program, it is hoped that discussion will be generated. Beck noted that people were originally invested in the current plan when it was first developed but it has been some time and things have changed to cause erosion of the program. SVCAA stated that in order for the program to continue there must be a structure in place that insures that it is still running and functioning after the initial planning is done. She pointed out that the program needs to be maintained and that a committee might be needed to keep reviewing the program to assure that it is meeting our goals.
2.4 Other Issues
SVCAA Couture stated that the Chancellor has reported that the plan to reduce the cost of power by changing times when heat and air conditioning will be provided to buildings has been promoted. She reported that Ted Wiedner of Facilities Management has looked at the list of requested exceptions to the new power plan and it will be made public shortly. She stated that some buildings will be excluded from the plan because of sensitive equipment or animals. She reported that the target is to save $1.7 million by adjusting the temperature in buildings. She noted that the major expense is in moving the air in the buildings rather than in heating and air conditioning them.
3.0 Announcement
3.1 Martin
Luther King Breakfast
Beck reported that the Martin
Luther King Breakfast will be held on Friday, January 13th, 2006, at
the Embassy Suites. She noted that in
the past the Senate has purchased enough tickets to fill a table. The Committee agreed that the Senate should
sponsor the event. Beck stated that
those interested in attending the breakfast should let
3.2 Faculty Compensation
Advisory Committee
Peterson reported that the FCAC met on October 11th. He stated that it was a very good meeting and information was presented that was very informative. He noted that he will be sending the Executive Committee a copy of the minutes from the meeting.
4.0 Approval of 10/5/05 Minutes
Flowers moved and Peterson seconded approval of the minutes as amended. Motion approved.
5.0 Unfinished Business
5.1 Test
Survey on Quality Indicators
The Committee reviewed the results of the test survey that was sent to them. Griffin noted that there are a few things that need to get worked out with the Senate Office getting access to the faculty email list but once that is resolved the survey will be sent out.
5.2 Reduction in Force
Procedures
Beck reported that a task force was originally created by former Senate President Wunder to review and possibly revise the existing procedures to deal with budget cuts. She noted that the task force was suspended during the budget cuts but was reinstated a year ago by Past President Peterson. She noted that the faculty members on the present committee are the same but the student members have changed.
Beck stated that the task force looked at the 1986 Academic Planning Committee document to deal with budget reductions and the revisions made to the document by a committee created by former Chancellor Spanier in 1993. She noted that the original charge to the task force was to review the two documents to see if the differences in the document could be resolved and to try and figure out where the faculty gave away their power in the decision making process.
Beck stated that the task force
started out by reviewing the documents and discussing philosophically about
what the procedures to deal with budget reductions should be. She noted that the task force reviewed the
documents created at the
Beck reported that the task force decided that it would be easier to create a new document rather than trying to revise the current document. She stated that the task force wanted to increase faculty participation in the process and make it more transparent. She noted that the task force hoped to develop a procedure that could be used for either budget reductions or budget enhancements.
Beck reported that Past President Wunder has been shown the proposal. He recommended several changes although they were not substantive. She stated that she might ask Wunder to be at the Senate meeting when it is presented.
Beck stated that the Executive Committee needs to thoroughly discuss the proposal. She noted that the ASUN Executive Committee also needs to discuss and approve the document. She stated that the Academic Planning Committee will review it as well and that the Chancellor’s input will be needed.
Beck pointed out that Vice Chancellor Owens has stated that no administration can withstand a united faculty voice. Flowers noted that everyone knows that the budget cuts were a miserable time. He stated that if the suggested procedures were followed it would have looked much better.
The Committee agreed to discuss the issue further at its next meeting.
6.0 New Business
6.1 Search Committees
Shea reported that he was informed that the search committee for the Dean of the Agricultural Research Division had no opportunity to provide a group or joint recommendation on the candidates. They were only allowed individual input, the same as any other faculty member. He stated that the committee just processed and facilitated the application process but was not allowed to provide a group evaluation. Shea said he was told by a committee member that because the committee was a search advisory committee it did not automatically have the privilege to make a recommendation and essentially had no real authority in the selection process. He asked why faculty members would want to bother serving on a search committee when the committee is not allowed to make any kind of final recommendation after the interviews. Shea wondered whether most if not all UNL search committees were “advisory” committees, which he believes is not right.
The Committee agreed that this issue needs to be discussed with the administrators.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:55 p.m. The next meeting of the Executive Committee will be on Wednesday, October 19th 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.