EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES

 

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

 

Absent:           Alexander

           

Date:               Wednesday, September 14, 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

            Moeller called the meeting to order at 3:06 p.m.

 

2.0       Announcements

            2.1       Link on Blackboard for General Education Revision Process

Peterson reported that there is a link on Blackboard that will enable faculty and students to make comments regarding the general education program.  He noted that the committee working on revising general education requested the link in order to get feedback from a wide variety of people. 

 

Flowers asked if a memo has been sent to the faculty about the link.  Peterson stated that this would be a good idea.  He noted that not everyone uses Blackboard on a regular basis.  Hoffman pointed out that 85% of the faculty members use Blackboard at some time.

 

3.0       Approval of 9/7/05 Minutes

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

 

4.0       Unfinished Business

            4.1       Continue Work on Creating a Policy on Surveying Faculty

Beck stated that the Committee needed to continue working on developing a policy on surveying faculty.  She noted that the Committee agreed that the Senate should not be a gatekeeper for all surveys wanting to be conducted. 

 

Peterson suggested that the policy include language that states that the President, upon approval of the Executive Committee, can survey or communicate to the faculty.  Flowers stated that if a faculty member outside of the Senate wanted to conduct a survey it should be on an issue that the Senate or the Committee is addressing. 

 

Rapkin pointed out that faculty members will need reassurance that the survey will not evolve into a referendum.  Moeller stated that there should not be too many restrictions on how the survey will be used.  Shea agreed and stated that the intent of the information will help determine how it is used.  He noted that some people interpret polling as a referendum.

 

Peterson asked if the Committee was going to propose a policy to Chancellor Perlman.  He noted that a policy should state that the purpose of the surveys is to gather information from the academic assembly.  He noted that the Committee should reassure the Chancellor that surveys will only be conducted with deliberation.  Hoffman pointed out that the Senate should have the right to contact the academic assembly since the Senate is the faculty governing board. 

 

Moeller noted that conducting the surveys will provide the faculty with a mechanism that will give them direct input to the Senate and faculty governance will be a more democratic process. 

 

Beck suggested that any surveys not from the Senate should still need approval from the Chancellor’s office.  Griffin suggested that the Computational Services and Facilities Committee should be charged with developing a policy regarding other kinds of campus surveys.  Scholz wondered whether other universities have policies on this issue.    

 

Beck stated that she would charge the Computational Services and Facilities Committee to work on developing a policy.

 

4.2              Continue Work on Developing a Faculty Survey

The Committee agreed that the first survey that they wanted to conduct would be on the quality indicators list of journals.  One of the questions on the survey would ask the question whether the faculty member has been evaluated based on the list of journals.  Other questions would include whether the faculty in the department had input into developing the list and whether they are aware if a list exists in their department.  Beck suggested that the question should be asked whether there are any sub disciplines within their field and whether any journals from this sub discipline are included on the list. 

 

Peterson asked if the questions would be limited to the journal list or would also pertain to the other quality indicators.  Moeller suggested that the questions should be focused on the list because this seems to be where the problems are focused.

 

The Committee discussed whether any kind of personal information should be gathered.  The Committee agreed that the college should be identified, rank, and whether tenured, untenured, tenure track, or non tenure track should be identified.

 

Scholz asked if there is a written policy regarding the quality indicators and whether it states that they are not to be used in annual faculty evaluations.  Beck stated that she believes there is a policy and will check this out. 

 

The Committee agreed that there might be some yes or no questions but others should use a scale.  The Committee all agreed that the survey should be short. 

 

Peterson wondered whether extension people may be evaluated differently.  Fech stated that they would not be evaluated on the basis of a journal list but they are evaluated in other ways such as the number of research grants obtained and impact of their educational program.  Scholz stated that the preamble should indicate that the survey is looking for faculty members who are involved in publishing their research. 

 

Alloway asked what the reasoning is for conducting the survey.  Peterson stated that some people have been complaining that their faculty evaluations have been based on whether or not they published in any of the journals on the list.  He pointed out that a survey of the faculty would provide information on how widespread this problem is. 

 

The Committee discussed whether respondents should be able to see immediate results of the responses or whether the information should be provided after all responses have been tabulated.  Hoffman stated that seeing information on how people responded could have an influence on other respondents.  Flowers suggested suppressing the responses until all information is gathered.  He stated that the results could be posted on the Senate website. 

 

            4.3       Meeting with Dean Milligan

Beck reported that she spoke with Dean Milligan.  She stated that Dean Milligan appreciated the invitation to speak with the Committee and is contemplating whether to meet with the Committee.  Beck stated that Dean Milligan reported that she is working on a letter that will be sent to the local chapter of the AAUP explaining what steps have been taken on some of the issues raised in the report by the AAUP.  Beck noted that Dean Milligan stated that things were moving forward in the department and she did not want to jeopardize any efforts by meeting with the Executive Committee. 

 

Beck reported that she suggested to the Dean that she could bring the current acting chair of the Economics department with her if that would help.

 

Beck stated that she would keep the Committee informed of Dean Milligan’s decision. 

 

5.0       New Business

5.1       Upcoming Board of Regents Meeting

Beck reported that Common Cause and ASUN students are scheduled to make comments regarding Regent Hergert to the Board of Regents at the upcoming meeting.  She asked if the Committee was comfortable with her making an announcement that the Academic Senate was presented with a statement at the September 13th meeting and will vote on the statement at the October 4th meeting.  She would also state that amendments could be made to the statement.  The Committee agreed but cautioned that comments should pertain only to what has been presented to the Senate. 

 

 

5.2              Nebraska Cooperative Extension Association Letter to Vice Chancellor

            Owens

Beck reported that Professor Manning, President of the Nebraska Cooperative Extension Association, sent a letter to Vice Chancellor Owens explaining the difficulty in getting new faculty members established on email.  The letter pointed out that oftentimes new faculty members cannot get email service for the entire first month that they are employed. 

 

Flowers stated that the bureaucracy of the SAP system creates the difficulty.  He noted that this problem has been raised before but nothing seems to have been done to correct the situation.

 

Fech wondered if the situation is more prevalent for people who do not work on campus.  Flowers stated that it happens to all new employees, regardless of their location but it is possible that off campus people have even greater difficulty.

 

The Committee agreed to raise the issue next week when it meets with the Chancellor.  

 

5.3              Student Absence Policy

Beck reported that she received an email message from a faculty member who received a letter from the chair of the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee urging the faculty member to allow a student athlete to miss 17% of the classes for a particular course.  Beck informed the faculty member that the Executive Committee would discuss the issue.  The issue will be placed on next week’s agenda after the Committee has reviewed the existing policy.

 

5.4       Review of Senate Meeting

The Committee discussed how to get greater discussion and participation during the Senate meetings.  Changing the room location and arrangement at the East Campus Union were discussed. 

 

Moeller stated that she has heard from some faculty members that they do not receive a copy of the Executive Committee or Senate minutes.  She suggested that a list of responsibilities of Senators should be included in the Senate packet. 

 

The Committee discussed the responses at the Senate regarding the statement on Regent Elections.  The Committee stated that they were surprised to hear that some Senators felt that the statement was not strong enough.  The Committee agreed to work on amendments to the statement. 

 

5.5       Parking on Days of Athletic Events

Rapkin reported that a faculty member was unable to park in the reserved area of the loop parking on the evening of a volleyball game.  He noted that the faculty member was going to his office to work and was not allowed into the lot. 

 

Griffin stated that there used to be alternative lots for faculty members who wanted to come to work on event days but she was unsure whether these lots were still available.  Flowers pointed out that there have been a number of changes on campus and he is unsure where these lots are now. 

 

The Committee suggested inviting Dan Carpenter, Director of University Parking Services, to come and speak at a meeting.

 

5.6              Committee to Review Academic Titles

Correspondence from a faculty member forwarded to Fech and then to Beck noted that the members of the Committee to Review Academic Titles do not include any extension educators or specialists.  He suggested that an extension educator should be on the committee since these titles will be part of the review.  Shea pointed out that the committee will review all titles but some more in depth than others.  He stated that in particular the committee will be looking to see if ranks can be established within non tenure track positions.  He noted that the new title of Professor of Practice will be reviewed to see if it can cover other titles used in the past. 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 5:02 p.m.  The next meeting of the Executive Committee will be on Wednesday, September 21st at 3:00 pm.  The meeting will be held in 201 Canfield Administration Building.  The minutes are respectfully submitted by Karen Griffin, Coordinator and Pat Shea, Secretary.