EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES
Present: Alloway, Beck, Flowers, Moeller, Peterson, Rapkin, Shea
Absent: Alexander, Bolin, Fech,
Hoffman, Scholz, Stock
Date: Wednesday, April 19, 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 3:09 p.m.
2.0 Announcements
2.1 Strategic
Planning Hearings
Beck reported that she attended the first hearing on the strategic plans for the colleges. She noted that each Dean has 10 minutes to present their plan and that the plans seem to be better developed than last year. She noted that linkages are beginning to form between some colleges and programs. She pointed out that the interaction within some colleges is still not going well.
Flowers noted that the
Beck stated that at the hearings
the Chancellor reported that there has been some discussion about creating a
Alloway asked if UNMC would administer the college. Beck stated that she did not think this has been decided and discussions are only in the preliminary stages.
3.0 Approval of 4/12/06 Minutes
The Executive Committee approved the minutes via email due to a lack of a quorum at the meeting.
4.0 Unfinished Business
4.1 Committee
Restructuring
Beck stated that she discussed with the Chancellor and SVCAA the idea of having the faculty members on the Faculty Compensation Advisory Committee become the faculty members on the UNL Employees Committee. She noted that the sixth faculty member on the Benefits Committee could be the faculty representative to the University-wide Benefits Committee. She stated that the Chancellor felt that the chair of the UNL Benefits Committee should not be the faculty representative to the University-wide Benefits Committee because a chair only holds the position for one year and he wants to appoint the representative to the University-wide Committee for three years. Beck noted that the Chancellor thinks that merging the two committees would be a good idea and that he would work with us.
Beck reported that Professor Bradford has resigned from the University-wide Benefits Committee and will need to be replaced. She stated that the Chancellor wants to appoint someone to this committee quickly so the Senate needs to provide at least three names of possible candidates to serve on the University-Wide Benefits Committee.
4.2 Meeting
with the Chancellor and SVCAA
Beck reported that there is a slight correction in the Post Tenure Review report that was written by Associate VC Jacobson. Beck noted that 11 faculty members retired before a review was conducted instead of the 10 that was reported. She stated that SVCAA Couture noted that the Deans and Directors think the review process has been very effective. Faculty members are engaged in the process and have generally become very reflective about the work that they do. Some have become more focused and some have realized that it was time to move on and retire. Beck stated that it was reported that there were a few faculty members who had family or personal issues that caused them some problems in moving forward with their careers.
Beck noted that the Chancellor asked if there were any specific concerns that prompted the inquiry of the post tenure review procedures. She reported that she told him that there were no specific concerns and that the request was simply to get a report on how the process was going.
Beck stated that she discussed with
the Chancellor and SVCAA concern over the annual reviews of Deans and the fact
that confidentiality is not addressed in the letter notifying faculty members
of the review. Beck reported that SVCAA
Couture stated that she received phone calls from several
Beck stated that she asked what happens to the evaluation file after the process is completed. She stated that she pointed out the history of what happened in a recent lawsuit and how retribution occurred because of a Dean reading the comments. Beck reported that SVCAA Couture stated that she has been thinking about this and wondered what can be done because the University does have a record retention policy. Beck stated that the Chancellor believes that the overall evaluation needs to be retained but he was unsure whether all of the specific comments need to be kept. Beck noted that the Chancellor and SVCAA will look into this matter further. Peterson stated that it could be helpful to the Dean to look at the comments that have been made. Shea pointed out that confidentiality is important to protect those individuals who may criticize a Dean. He noted that some people can be identified by the comments they make. Beck reported that SVCAA Couture stated that she also invites people to come and talk to her if they do not feel comfortable writing an evaluation, but that this also has hearsay implications.
4.3 Coordinator
Evaluation
The Committee discussed making revisions to the form that will be used to evaluate the coordinator of the Senate.
4.4 Academic Dishonesty
Discussion
Beck stated that she sent Professor King an email asking for an update on what the Teaching Council has accomplished regarding academic dishonesty. She stated that she does not think anything definitive has happened yet. She suggested that the Committee meet with Dr. Hecker, Director of Student Judicial Affairs, sometime in the summer to discuss the issue.
Beck noted that the Teaching Council did meet with Dr. Hecker in December. They also reviewed our peer institutions’ policy on academic dishonesty and looked at several articles on the issue. She stated that Professor King indicated that a review of the software that is available at UNL was also conducted. Beck stated that the Council encourages departments to have discussions about academic dishonesty and suggested that strong language be used on course syllabi. She noted that the student members on the Teaching Council did not think there were many violations of academic dishonesty.
Alloway suggested conducting a survey of the faculty on academic dishonesty. Peterson stated that the survey could include questions asking if the faculty member is aware of academic dishonesty occurring in their classes and if the faculty member knows what options are available if a student is caught cheating.
Flowers pointed out that some people do not want to deal with academic dishonesty by going through university channels because it is so time consuming.
Beck suggested that the Committee should continue working on addressing the problem of academic dishonesty.
4.5 Executive Committee
Goals Revisited
Item postponed.
4.6 Reduction in Force
Procedures
Beck stated that revising the Reduction in Force Procedures will be continued.
Shea stated that he has mixed feelings about what has happened to date with the procedures. He stated that he was disappointed that an open discussion with the Senate about the draft procedures was not held. He pointed out that the ad hoc committee worked hard on the procedures for several years. He stated that he was pleased with the draft document that the committee developed and he felt that the draft should have been pursued beyond the discussion Beck and Moeller had with the Chancellor.
Moeller stated that she believes the door is still open to make changes to the procedures. She noted that the Chancellor stated that he is comfortable with the current policy but he is open to suggestions and comments about them. She stated that Beck will chair an ad hoc committee to continue working on the procedures. Moeller stated that she needs to know where the current procedures were not followed during the budget crisis. She stated that she will be candid with the Chancellor about the problems with the current procedures. She suggested that the ad hoc committee look at both the proposed document and the current procedures to see how they can be meshed together.
Shea stated that he hopes there can be discussion with the Senate in the fall regarding a draft set of procedures. He stated that he is concerned that we will not be prepared for the next round of budget cuts involving personnel and it would be better to prepare now. He suggested that a target date be set for completion of and Senate action on the revised procedures.
4.7 Website
4.8 Professor of Practice Position
Moeller stated that she is getting a lot of negative feedback from faculty members regarding the professor of practice positions. She stated that the faculty members do not feel there should be a teaching track and a research track.
Shea stated that creating two separate tracks was not the intent of the committee. He noted that the committee discussed creating a similar set of positions for the non-tenure track research faculty but it could not be easily done. He stated that the priority for creating these positions was the non-tenure track teaching positions. He noted that there was some discussion about creating similar positions for extension personnel as well. He stated that the intent was to create more equivalent positions for non-tenure track faculty members. Peterson pointed out that the real distinction is between tenure track and non-tenure track faculty members. Shea stated that the creation of these positions was to primarily address those people who are already employed by UNL. He assumes that it is not an effort to increase the percentage of non-tenure track faculty.
Beck stated that she discussed the professor of practice positions with the Chancellor and SVCAA and they feel that enough faculty members have seen the proposal since the Academic Senate and the Academic Planning Committee have both reviewed it. Beck stated that the proposal will be presented to the Board of Regents at the June meeting and it will be voted on as a new category of employee. She stated that the specific guidelines for these positions will be developed within the units.
Beck reported that General Counsel Wood has reviewed the proposal and looked carefully at the notification deadlines. She stated that she believes the issue over the apportionment of duties has been removed and that some outreach might be included. Shea noted that his understanding is that a research component of the position was not excluded but also not required. He pointed out that this needs to be decided at the local level. Alloway noted that the positions will have a heavier teaching load but will not be weighed down with other responsibilities.
Moeller asked if the professors of practice will be involved with decision making within departments. Shea noted that some departments do not want these people to have voting powers but the committee felt that they should be involved in decisions as long as they are not regarding tenure. He pointed out that the idea was to make the non-tenure track faculty positions better.
5.0 New Business
5.1 Final Exam Week
Scheduling Conflict
Beck pointed out that the request is asking for a breach in the final exam week policy. The Committee agreed that allowing the final exam to be taken on Friday would breach the policy and one allowance could eventually lead to abuse of the policy.
The Committee felt that the problem was resolved because a room is available in a nearby building where one of the finals could be given.
5.2 Report
on FCAC Meeting
Peterson reported that the committee met on April 14th. He noted that the committee only meets about twice a year and the main meeting is held during the spring semester. He pointed out that the committee should give its report to the Senate during the fall semester instead of the spring because the spring FCAC meeting often falls after the last Senate meeting at which reports are made making it necessary to distribute a follow-up report.
Peterson noted that the increase for faculty salaries is the same as last year, 3.95% and the committee recommended the same percentage of distribution as last year: 3% for the department, .65% for the college, and .3% for the Vice Chancellors. He pointed out that the split is to help departments and colleges address inequities and to help departments who may be significantly behind their peers in terms of salaries.
Peterson stated that the committee was informed that there will be a $100,000 deficit in Academic Affairs for funding promotion increases. He pointed out that in the past these increases were funded through open positions but there is not enough money available to cover all of them on city campus. He noted that IANR can cover all of its promotion increases. Beck pointed out that IANR has been holding an large number of lines open because of the cash flow problem that it has had to deal with this year.
Peterson stated that the committee agreed that the promotion increases are important to keep. He reported that the committee felt that the increases should not come out of the 3.95% salary pool and that the administration should find funding elsewhere for these promotions although he acknowledged that there are limited alternatives for the funding.
Peterson stated that Institutional Research and Planning reported that we continue to fall behind our peers in terms of salary. He reported that UNL is 3.2% behind its peers in faculty salaries for 2005-06. He stated that this will be pointed out to the Chancellor in the recommendation letter sent by the committee.
Peterson noted that Past President Bryant worked hard for a number of years to get the Legislature to increase the retirement cap on University employees. Peterson noted that the Board of Regents increased the retirement contribution to 7.5% this year but compared to some of our peer institutions we are behind in retirement contributions. He pointed out that this is another area which makes the University less competitive.
Peterson reported that the Office of Institutional Research and Planning generates a report each year on gender and other inequities in the system. He stated that the finalized reports are not ready yet but will eventually be posted on the IRP webpage. He noted that last year the report on gender inequities showed that the overall average salary differential for women was positive but this year the average salary was lower by $58. Beck pointed out that when the report is looked at by rank the difference is much greater, by as much as $1500 in some cases. She noted that if this is not corrected, it will make a huge difference over a number of years. Peterson stated more work is needed on the models that are used to generate these reports.
Peterson stated that there was discussion regarding the outliers report. He noted that this report provides information on faculty members whose salary is either substantially below or above the rest of the salaries within a department/unit. He reported that the total number of outliers has decreased but and the proportion of the negative (those with salaries below the predicted salary) outliers has also declined. Beck noted that Associate to the Chancellor Howe asked at what level the inequities should be addressed. She stated that if the inequities are the “garden variety” compression type (factors that are not caused by discrimination, either overt or unintentional) they should be taken care of by the Deans and Vice Chancellors. If the inequities are due to discrimination within a department then they should be taken care of at the department level.
Beck stated that there was a
discussion on email this past winter about development leaves and the Regents
Bylaws stating that a faculty member cannot make more money than their total
salary at UNL if they go elsewhere and get paid while on a full academic year
of 12-month leave. Rapkin
pointed out that when he was in
Beck suggested that a subcommittee should be created to look into this policy to see why it was created and whether it can be changed, it was agreed within the FCAC that this committee be set up.
5.3 April
26th Executive Committee Meeting
The meeting was adjourned at 5:08 p.m. The next meeting of the Executive Committee will be on Wednesday, May 3rd at 2:30 pm. The meeting will be held in 201 Canfield Administration Building. The minutes are respectfully submitted by Karen Griffin, Coordinator and Pat Shea, Secretary.