EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES

 

Present:          Alloway, Beck, Moeller, Peterson, Rapkin, Scholz, Shea, Stock

 

Absent:           Alexander, Fech, Flowers, Hoffman

           

Date:               Wednesday, October 19, 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 3:03 p.m.

 

2.0       Announcements

            2.1       Meeting with Senate Presidents

Beck reported that she will be meeting with the Senate Presidents from UNK, UNO, and UNMC this evening in York.  She stated that one of the items to be discussed will be strategies for obtaining domestic partner benefits. 

 

Beck reported that the Presidents of the Senates will be meeting with President Milliken on October 27th.

 

2.2       Agenda for November 2nd Executive Committee Meeting

Beck stated that one of the items she wants to discuss with the administrators is why the Academic Planning Committee was not able to vote on the Programs of Excellence proposals.  She noted that the APC was just given a presentation on the proposals but did not get to review the proposals as they have done in the past.

 

Peterson stated that there needs to be broader discussion concerning the Programs of Excellence proposals.  He noted that people are making decisions on proposals in areas in which they do not have expertise.

 

2.3       Faculty at 5 on Friday

Beck reminded the Committee that the first Faculty at 5 reception will be held on Friday, October 21st in the Steinhardt Room of the Lied Center.  She encouraged people to attend.

 

3.0       Approval of 10/12/05 Minutes

Peterson moved and Rapkin seconded approval of the minutes as amended, pending editing changes by SVCAA Couture.  Motion approved.

 

 

4.0       Unfinished Business

            4.1       Reduction in Force Procedures

The Committee continued working on the draft of the RIF procedures. They discussed the best way to present the draft to the Senate.

 

4.2       Request to Make a Statement Regarding Restricting Higher Education in Iran

Beck reported that she received a request from a faculty member to have the Senate make a statement regarding the Iranian government restricting members of the Bahai faith from attending institutions of higher education.  She stated that the faculty member believes that the Iranian government might change its policy if it receives negative publicity from Western countries.

 

Griffin noted that this issue came before the Executive Committee a number of years ago.  She stated that at that time the Committee decided not to make a statement because it felt that the purview of the Senate was to deal with faculty governance at UNL.  Also, the Committee felt that it should not make a statement regarding a particular religion.

 

Alloway asked who the statement would be sent to.  He noted that simply making a statement would not be effective if it is not sent to the appropriate parties. 

 

Peterson suggested that a broader statement should be made regarding restrictions of academic freedom.  Beck wondered whether there was a particular group or organization that is collecting statements on this issue.  She noted that individual institutions would not be as effective as a list of institutions.  Rapkin stated that the principle of making a statement is right but he did not think it would be effective. 

 

Alloway stated that he did not think it was out of the purview of the Senate to represent all scholars.  Stock agreed that the statement should be broadened.  He pointed out that there are many religious groups throughout the world that are persecuted in some way. 

 

Beck stated that she would check with the faculty member to see if he has information about where a statement could be sent if the Senate agrees.

 

4.3       Update on Senate Access to Faculty Email

Griffin reported that an email message from the Senate will need to be sent to Information Services to be processed.  She stated that she did not think that the message would be censored in any way and that going through Information Services is simply to assist in the mechanics of getting the email sent to all faculty members. 

 

Shea stated that the Committee needs to be sure that any email messages from the Senate will be sent out to all faculty members including administrators at the same time. 

 

Griffin stated that the email message on the first Senate survey should go out sometime next week.

 

4.4       Update on Parking during Athletic Events

Rapkin asked if there has been any information regarding this issue that he raised several weeks ago.  Griffin stated that there are some parking lots available on campus where faculty members can park during athletic events. 

 

Moeller reported that she is coordinating a conference on campus and she was informed that people attending the conference would have to pay $3 a day to park on campus.  She noted that this will amount to $6 per person which will be a significant amount for her grant to cover. 

 

The Committee agreed to invite Dan Carpenter, Director of Parking and Transit Services, to a meeting to discuss these issues further. 

 

            4.5       Letters Regarding Student Athlete Absences

Alloway stated that he received a letter from the Athletics department which referred to the student being allowed to miss 15 days from class.  He noted that the Athletics department seems to believe that there is a policy that allows a student to miss up to 15 days of class.  The Committee agreed to invite Professor Crawford, Chair of the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee, to meet with the Committee to discuss the issue. 

 

5.0       New Business

5.1       Evaluation Procedures for Administrators

Beck reported that she has been asked by faculty members how the Chancellor gathers information to evaluate administrators.  She noted that she went to the Academic Affairs webpage and looked at the policy “Review and Reappointment of Administrative Officers” (http://www.unl.edu/svcaa/pdfs/adminreview.pdf) which was updated July 21, 2001.  She pointed out that the policy states that an annual evaluation is supposed to be held for all administrative positions.  She reported that in each case a faculty member is to coordinate the reviews.

 

Moeller stated that she believed that Associate Vice Chancellor Jacobson conducts the reviews for college deans. 

 

Beck stated that she has never seen a general call for evaluations of a Vice Chancellor.  She stated that all she has seen is an evaluation form from the IANR Vice Chancellor’s office asking for feedback on chairs of departments/units.  She noted that the form goes to a staff member in the Vice Chancellor’s office.  This person then synthesizes the information and it is given to the Vice Chancellor.  Beck stated that any comments listed in the report are anonymous.  She pointed out that the forms must be signed.  She noted that there are some faculty members who are afraid to sign for fear of retaliation.  She stated that there should be faculty input on upper administrators as well. 

 

Moeller stated that she has never received forms to evaluate an upper administrator.  Peterson stated that he knows about five year evaluations but was not aware that administrators are to be reviewed each year.  Beck stated that the five year review is included in the policy. 

 

Stock noted that in the College of Arts and Sciences they used to receive evaluation forms.  He pointed out that faculty members should have the option of filling out a form.  He stated that sometimes faculty members do not feel they have the grounds to make an evaluation of an administrator because they do not have much contact with that person. 

 

Moeller asked if students are required to sign teaching evaluations.  The Committee stated that they do not. 

 

Peterson asked if the policy only applied to those administrators who are under Academic Affairs.  Beck stated that it is a UNL policy so it applies to both Academic Affairs and IANR. 

 

The Committee agreed to discuss this issue with the Senior Administrative Team when they meet with them on November 2nd. 

 

5.2       Budget Reduction Scenarios in Colleges

Beck asked the members of the Committee how their departments have been asked to deal with the budget reductions. 

           

Moeller stated that in her college they recently received a note from the Dean.  A position is being eliminated in the college to help deal with the budget reduction and the allocations committee will be taking a look at the college budget.  Beck asked how much the departments were asked to give up.  Moeller stated that she did not know the exact amount but it was stated in the memo. 

 

Scholz stated that in the College of Architecture they were told to give up 2% this year and 1.66% for next year.  He noted that this year’s 2% had to be cash funds. 

 

Beck reminded the Committee that Chancellor Perlman stated during a meeting with them this summer that he would be asking for a 2% reduction and they would be across the board even though he generally opposes across the board cuts. 

 

Alloway stated that he has heard of the possibility of freezing some positions.  He noted that he has heard the 2% figure used in his college.

 

Peterson stated that in IANR they were told to do three scenarios:  2%, 4%, and 8%.  He stated that the administration in IANR has claimed that they want to have some flexibility with the budget.  He pointed out that there is concern that the administration may want to cut more in some departments than in other departments.  He stated that he remembers the Chancellor stating that the cuts were supposed to be across the boards this time and departments would have to argue to get funding back when the budget shortage was over. 

 

Shea stated that by requiring departments to lay out different scenarios it allows the administrators to see how they can cut differentially in departments.  He questioned why IANR administration is asking for 4% and 8% cuts when the call was for a 2% cut.  He noted that by asking departments for different scenarios the administration could selectively cut programs and say the decisions were faculty driven. 

 

The Committee agreed to discuss this with the administrators on November 2nd. 

 

5.3       Constituency Concern

Rapkin stated that the department unit review committee in Political Science reviews research and teaching programs that deal with interactions with human subjects.  He reported that recently the committee approved three proposals that went to the Institutional Review Board.  He stated that the investigators of the proposals have had a difficult time with the IRB due to interminable delays and nitpicking of the proposals.  He questioned whether these problems are widespread.

 

Peterson stated that the Committee has heard consistent complaints about the IRB.  He noted that UCARE students often have difficulty getting approval for a project they are working on during a semester.  He pointed out that the same complaints, length of delays and the nitpicking has been widespread. 

 

Moeller stated that getting IRB approval here is difficult.  She noted that UNL goes well beyond the federal regulations which is not always a bad thing but when it creates delays for weeks and months at a time it is a real problem.  She pointed out that she has resorted to making direct phone calls in order to get the procedure moving. 

 

The Committee agreed to invite Vice Chancellor Paul to a meeting to discuss the issue.

 

5.4       Problems with Telecommunications Office

Alloway stated that his college is having problems with the Telecommunications Office.  He stated that there have been many delays in getting things done and there seems to be a lack of communication with Alltel.  As a result it has cost the college additional money in some cases.  He noted that it is difficult to speak to anyone there who is a full-time employee and who knows what is going on. 

 

The Committee stated that this is an issue that should be addressed to Vice Chancellor Jackson.

 

5.5       Child Care

Moeller stated that she is being asked a lot of questions regarding child care since the announcement of the child care facility.  She noted that one of the questions being asked is whether all employees for the child care service must have a bachelor’s degree.  She stated that there is concern that the current University child care workers will not be hired.  Moeller stated that there needs to be an informational session regarding the child care.  The Committee agreed to discuss this with the Chancellor. 

 

5.6       Course Syllabus Policy

Beck reported that ASUN is pushing the Committee to develop a course syllabus policy.  She noted that no University or campus course syllabus policy could be found.  She stated that there might be a policy within colleges but it is unknown whether each college has such a policy. 

 

Shea stated that he believed this was a reasonable question to raise.  He stated that having a uniform policy would be helpful.  He noted that it would be helpful to instructors if they knew what specific information should be included on the syllabus.  He suggested asking the Senate about this issue.

 

Peterson suggested that a task force be set up to do the research on whether colleges have a policy and to develop a model course syllabus. 

 

Scholz stated that the Committee might want to ask SVCAA Couture about this issue.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 4:58 p.m.  The next meeting of the Executive Committee will be on Wednesday, October 26th 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.