EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES

 

Present:          Alexander, Alloway, Beck, Bolin, Fech, Flowers, Hoffman, Scholz, Stock

 

Absent:           Moeller, Peterson, Rapkin, Shea

           

Date:               Wednesday, April 12, 2006

 

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 3:05 p.m.

           

2.0       Announcements

            2.1       Meeting Cancelled

Beck pointed out that the Committee was supposed to meet with Chancellor Perlman and SVCAA Couture today but the Senate Office received a phone call about an hour and a half before the meeting canceling it.  She noted that Griffin emailed SVCAA Couture to say that the schedule is set up before the semester and the dates that are selected for meetings with the administrators is based on their schedules.  Beck pointed out that a copy of the agenda is usually faxed over one to two days before the meeting and it would be helpful if we were informed earlier so that we could make arrangements to possibly meet with someone else. 

 

Beck stated that the next meeting with the Chancellor will not be until May 31st because he has canceled the May 3rd meeting as well.  She noted that the Committee has not met with SVCAA Couture since February 1st. 

 

Beck stated that she will arrange a meeting with the Chancellor before the April 25th Senate meeting because we need to get some input from him on some things before the meeting. 

           

3.0       Approval of 4/5/06 Minutes

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

 

4.0       Unfinished Business

            4.1       Committee Restructuring

Beck stated that she started thinking again about the proposal to merge the Commencement, Honors Convocation, and Honorary Degrees Committees and thought it should be presented to the Senate at the April 25th meeting as an emergency motion.  She noted that if the proposal is approved it would decrease the number of faculty members needed to serve on committees by 12.  She stated that she emailed Associate to the Chancellor Howe who serves on these committees to get his feedback on the draft proposal.  She noted that he is in agreement with making this an emergency motion.  She stated that another alternative is to not appoint anyone until the Senate votes on the proposal in September. 

 

Hoffman stated that he received a majority of votes from the Committee on Committees to approve the draft proposal and to present it to the Senate. 

 

The Committee agreed that it was fine to present it to the Senate.

 

Beck stated that another possible change to committees would be to have the faculty members of the Faculty Compensation Advisory Committee serve on the UNL Employees Benefits Committee as well and thus decrease the number of faculty members needed by six.    

 

Beck reported that she will sit in on some of the Academic Standards Committee meetings this summer to see how the meetings work.  She noted that only three faculty members are needed at a meeting but the panel has 22 faculty members on it.  Hoffman stated that the committee needs to meet often over a short period of time to review appeals by students because the students cannot register for courses until the appeal is decided.  Beck wondered if having a Dean of Undergraduate Studies might make the process less faculty intensive. 

 

            4.2       Evaluation Process of Vice Chancellor Owens

Beck reported that the evaluation process is moving along.  She noted that the committee to review the evaluations will include Peterson, Scholz, Hoffman, and Flowers.  She pointed out that she felt it is important to get people outside of IANR on the committee to get some outside perspective. 

 

Fech asked if the IANR Liaison Committee makes up the majority of the members of the review committee.  Beck stated that there will be 7 members from the Liaison Committee and 5 members from the Senate Executive Committee. 

 

Beck stated that she has received a copy of VC Owens’ report of his activities and this will be posted on the Chancellor’s website.  She noted that the response form will be posted at the end of the report.

 

Beck stated that the process will follow the evaluation process used by Academic Affairs.  She noted that the committee will oversee the data that is collected.  She stated that an announcement about the evaluation process will go out on Monday and there will be a month response time. 

 

Beck stated that according to the evaluation guidelines she will pull all of the information together and then share it with the committee.  She noted that at the beginning of the fall semester the Chancellor will go over the evaluation with VC Owens. 

 

Scholz asked if the committee will be meeting over the summer.  Beck stated that the committee will probably not meet until August and there might be a couple of meetings.  She pointed out that the Chancellor wants to get feedback quickly before people leave for the summer but once that information is collected there is no rush. 

 

4.3       Professor Ari

Fech asked if the visa situation for Professor Ari has been resolved yet or if the University has received any word from the State Department.  The other Committee members stated that they have not heard anything about the situation. 

 

4.4       Professor of Practice Position

Hoffman stated that nothing has been sent to all of the faculty members about the professor of practice positions that are being proposed.  He stated that faculty members need to be made aware of this because it can have some significant impacts in some departments. 

 

Beck stated that she wanted to discuss this issue with the Chancellor and SVCAA if they had met with the Committee.  She wondered whether the administration was going to get any more input on the proposal.  She stated that a question had been raised about the apportionment statements since this is primarily a teaching position; having apportionment statements in the description made this position too closely resemble tenure track positions. 

 

5.0       New Business

5.1       Post Tenure Review Report

Beck stated that she received a report from Associate VC Jacobson on post tenure review.  Beck noted that UNL academic units invoked post-tenure review in 18 instances.  Of these 18 instances:

·        3 faculty members were given an improvement plan and deficiencies were corrected before a formal post tenure review was needed.

·        10 faculty members retired before a formal post tenure review was initiated

·        2 faculty members underwent a formal post tenure review

·        2 post tenure reviews are still in progress

·        1 faculty member received a first notification of chronic deficiencies that need to be corrected before the next annual evaluation

 

Beck reported that in her response to Associate VC Jacobson she asked if it is thought that the post tenure review process is helpful or could it be made better.  Beck stated that she was told that the Deans believe that the post tenure reviews are helpful.  She stated that she would like to present this information at the April 25th Senate meeting.

 

Flowers noted that this does not seem to be occurring with any kind of frequency.  Beck agreed and stated that she would be concerned if the numbers were higher.  Alloway questioned how the term “working well” is defined.  Beck noted that the process is supposed to be for developmental purposes as opposed to punitive.  She wondered whether the three faculty members that had an improvement plan developed found the process to be helpful.  Flowers noted that the 10 faculty members who retired could have been people who were at the sunset of their career.  Beck stated that she knows about one of those cases and she did not think the review or the retirement was warranted.  Stock wondered whether people may have been harassed into retirement.

 

Stock stated that when the possibility of having a post tenure review process was first raised it was a fairly controversial issue.  Griffin pointed out that Senate meetings over the issue would last for three hours or more as debate about the issue continued.  Beck noted that the fears of the faculty may have been relieved with such low numbers. 

 

Alloway questioned whether the 18 cases were distinct individual cases or if there were some people who were showing up several times.  Flowers noted that 3 of the cases corrected the situation. 

 

Griffin noted that some departments may not want to invoke the procedure for fear of losing a faculty line.  Stock stated that since many people were opposed to post tenure reviews, department heads might be reluctant to conduct one because of the opposition.  Beck wondered if the cases were looked at carefully whether culpability in the failure to mentor or address the deficiency at some point would be detected.

 

Alloway asked if the post tenure review information would go into the personnel file of an individual and whether this could have an effect on whether it would be invoked.  Beck stated that there has to be two years of unsatisfactory performance before the review can be invoked.

 

5.2       Tuition Costs

Fech reported that he is concerned with the price of tuition.  He noted that the tuition for the next academic year has gone up by 8%.  He stated that in addition to the tuition increase there has been a $400 increase for room and board.  He reported that there is a $700 increase for new students for the year which is a substantial amount for some students. 

 

Hoffman noted that those students who cannot afford the increase will not come or will leave the University.  Fech pointed out that it will get worse next year with another 9% increase in tuition rates. 

 

Alloway stated that how he and other faculty members in his college hear about the difficulties students have with the tuition is that they can no longer participate in many of the college’s sponsored activities because they have to work more.  Stock agreed and stated that many students are saying the same thing to him.  Alloway stated that students are also starting to have to go to school part time and/or may take a year off to earn enough money to continue their education. 

           

 

 

            5.3       Search Committee

Beck stated that a faculty member on the search committee for the Vice Chancellor for Students Affair was very pleased with how the Chancellor conducted the search.  The faculty member indicated that the process was very open and the committee members not only were able to give written evaluation of the candidates but met with the Chancellor to provide input as well.  The faculty member stated that the committee had a fallback plan should none of the candidates qualify or accept the position and although the Chancellor did not accept the plan, he met with the committee to explain why.  Overall the committee was very complimentary on how the search process was handled. 

 

5.4       Evaluation of Dean

Alexander stated that the faculty members in the College of Engineering received an announcement from SVCAA Couture about the evaluation of the Dean.  He noted that there is no mention in the announcement about the confidentiality of the information that is provided in the feedback.  He stated that the announcement indicates that the Dean can request to see and respond to all of the comments that are made.  Alexander stated that due to the lack of information about confidentiality many faculty members that he has spoken with have stated that they will not participate in the evaluation.  Hoffman agreed and stated that he has heard from people that they will not make an evaluation for fear of confidentiality and concern that the Dean can figure out who the person was based on previous statements that may have been made by an individual. 

 

Beck stated that anyone evaluated can see the comments but they are compiled into a list with no names associated to them.  She stated that it is her understanding that when comments are made a number is recorded to verify the authenticity of who wrote the evaluation but then the number and the comment are separated.  Hoffman pointed out that the way the announcement was written there is no indication that there is confidentiality. 

 

Alexander stated that the announcement does not give any indication whether the evaluation needs to be signed. 

 

Beck asked if the problem is that the specific comments are shared with the Dean.  Alexander stated that it is worded in the announcement that the Dean can see and respond to any comments that are made.  Hoffman stated that comments would need to be generic so that the Dean cannot identify who wrote them. 

 

Alexander noted that if serious allegations are made and someone put then into a file it would be possible for the Dean to later access them through possible court action.   He stated that the University has gone through this before and the University was forced by the courts to turn over the evaluation and thus revealed the identity of the evaluator.  Alexander stated that if the comments are shredded after the evaluation process then this problem would be alleviated. 

 

Bolin stated that the five year review of the Dean of Libraries has been a different process.  She stated that a link to the report made by Dean Giesecke was provided in the announcement.  Flowers stated that he is serving on the committee to review the feedback and he noted that the comments were quite anonymous.  He wondered whether part of the university is conducting evaluations differently then they should be doing. 

 

Beck noted that in the evaluation of VC Owens there is a list of the faculty members who have been asked to submit an evaluation.  Once the evaluation is received, the faculty members’ name is removed from the list so that they cannot submit another evaluation.  She pointed out that while she understands there is a need to verify the authenticity of evaluations, it is not good to have people scared to send an evaluation in.   

 

Beck stated that this issue needs to be raised with SVCAA Couture and that she will do so when she meets with the SVCAA.  There may be a difference in the College of Engineering (annual evaluation) and the format shared through the Chancellor’s office (five year review) and that it will be clarified.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 4:38 p.m.  The next meeting of the Executive Committee will be on Wednesday, April 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.