EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES
Present: Alexander,
Alloway, Beck, Bolin, Fech,
Flowers, Hoffman, Moeller, Peterson, Rapkin, Scholz, Shea, Stock
Absent:
Date: Wednesday, October 26, 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 3:01 p.m.
2.0 Announcements
2.1 Chronicle
of Higher Education Article on Tuition
Peterson noted that an article in
the Chronicle of Higher Education on tuition rates for universities indicates
that the
2.2 Board of Regents Special
Session
Shea reported that he attended a Board of Regents special session on land being purchased by UNO. He stated that the decision was passed unanimously without much discussion.
Fech asked where the property is located. Shea stated that it is adjacent to UNO and believes it will be used for building dormitories for housing. He understood that only the agreement to purchase the land has been approved at this point and further approval will be needed to construct the buildings.
Shea stated that, based on Chancellor Belck’s comments, any housing available at UNO is taken very quickly. Moeller pointed out that many international students attend UNO.
Shea stated that there was some discussion about whether UNO was competing with UNL and UNK for students by being able to provide housing. He noted that while he was in attendance the issue was only discussed and nothing came out of it regarding this concern.
Alloway stated that regular meetings of the Board of Regents are broadcasted on KRNU on 90.3 FM.
3.0 Approval of 8/31/05 Minutes
Moeller moved and Peterson seconded approval of the minutes as amended. Motion approved.
4.0 Unfinished Business
4.1 Reduction
in Force Procedures
The Committee continued working on revising the draft document of the reduction in force procedures.
Beck suggested that the Committee meet with Professor Rosson who served on the ad hoc committee that created the draft. She stated that she will notify the Committee when he can meet with them.
4.2 Update on Syllabus
Policy
Beck reported that in the Board of Regents Bylaws, Chapter 4.1, section F there is language that states that professors must “inform students concerning the requirements, standards, objectives, and evaluation procedures at the beginning of each course.” She pointed out that the Bylaw is not specific in how this information is to be given. Alloway noted that Associate Vice Chancellor Wilson, Academic Affairs, stated that there is nothing in the Board of Regents Bylaws that uses the word syllabus.
Rapkin noted that a syllabus denotes some kind of document. He stated that the ASUN wants a more rigorous policy that would include some kind of document. Stock questioned whether the students want to expand the Bylaw policy to stipulate that the information must be provided in written form.
Moeller asked if departments require a course syllabus. The Committee stated that this can vary greatly.
Hoffman noted that some courses are arranged in such a way that it would be difficult to list the specifics of the course in a syllabus. Stock stated that a policy should not require that the syllabus be too specific.
Rapkin noted many syllabi go beyond just listing the requirements, standards, and objectives of the course. They also list policies on attendance and academic dishonesty. Hoffman pointed out that the academic dishonesty and attendance policies are already stated in the student handbook and the undergraduate bulletin. Rapkin stated that the student handbook is not explicit about what would happen if a student misses a certain number of classes.
Alexander pointed out that having a syllabus is actually self protection for the instructor. He noted that it lays out the requirements and standards for the course. He stated that a student cannot argue that he/she did not know what the requirements or the standards of the course are if there is a syllabus. Peterson stated that it helps with expectations with the class as well.
Beck stated that the issue will be raised at the Senate meeting.
4.3 Policy on Evaluation of
Administrators
Beck noted that in looking at the
existing policy it states that the Academic Senate Executive Committee is to
provide feedback on the five year evaluations of administrators, particularly
on the performance of the administrator.
Beck stated that there is no formal process for conducting annual evaluations of administrators. She noted that procedures for this are not uniform. She suggested that the issue should be discussed with the senior administrative team next week.
Moeller asked why this is being brought up. Beck stated that she has been approached by faculty members in IANR about the issue.
Alexander wondered how many people respond to these evaluations. He pointed out that the faculty does not receive any summarized feedback concerning the evaluations. He noted that evaluations are required to be signed but many faculty members do not want to sign their names. He stated that if a case should go to the court the court can mandate that the evaluation and the writer of the evaluation be revealed. He stated that he will not fill out another review if he has to sign it. Alloway reported that his college was informed by General Counsel Wood to just confirm if a student has worked for them but provide no further information because there is a risk of getting sued if the report is negative and the student doesn’t get a job they are applying for.
Beck noted that student teaching evaluations do not require a signature so why should faculty be required to sign an evaluation. Rapkin stated that evaluations can become a tool for administrators because they can see who sent in and signed an evaluation. Hoffman noted that although he receives an evaluation form on the Dean each year he does not fill it out anymore because of the requirement of a signature.
5.0 New Business
5.1 Upcoming Executive
Committee Meetings
On November 16th, Dan Carpenter, Director of Parking and Transit Services, will be meeting with the Committee to discuss parking issues on campus, particularly parking during athletic events.
On December 14th, Vice Chancellor Paul will be meeting with the Committee to discuss issues relating to research, particularly problems with the Institutional Review Board.
5.2 North Central
Accreditation Steering Committee
Beck distributed notes from the Steering Committee’s meeting on October 21st. She noted that the Steering Committee is asking for suggestions of people who could speak for the institution in “sidebars” in the self-study. Beck pointed out that the people recommended for this aspect of the NCA Accreditation should have a great deal of knowledge about higher education and have broad interests. She asked that suggestions be made to her by next week.
5.3 New Requirements for UNL
Websites
Shea stated that he has heard concerns about the new requirements for UNL websites. He noted that the templates that must be used are very rigid and are not useful for some websites. He stated that he has heard that the costs for having Information Services assist with creating a new website can exceed $1000. Fech noted that a lot of service is provided for the $1000 fee.
Shea stated that he has heard that the fee applies to IANR but not for city campus. He noted that this is an issue that needs to be discussed. He pointed out that if the University is requiring these templates be used then the University should pay for them. Shea will try to get more information about this matter.
The Committee agreed to discuss the issue with the senior administrative team.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m. The next meeting of the Executive Committee will be on Wednesday, November 2nd at 3:00 p.m. The meeting will be held in 201 Canfield Administration Building. The minutes are respectfully submitted by Karen Griffin, Coordinator and Pat Shea, Secretary.