EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES

 

Present:          Alloway, Beck, Bradford, Flowers, Hachtmann, Ledder, Moeller, Scholz, Stock, Zimmers

 

Absent:           Alexander, Bolin, Rapkin     

           

Date:               Wednesday, December 13, 2006

 

Location:        City Campus Union, Room 213

 

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       Chancellor Perlman

            2.1       Diversity Plan Process

Moeller reported that Linda Crump, Assistant to the Chancellor, Equity, Access & Diversity Programs wrote to ask the Committee to recommend a process for reworking the diversity plan.  Moeller stated that the Committee’s recommendations are:  1) to work closely with the Academic Planning Committee because in large part it is in their purview; 2) reconstitute a new committee or build on the existing committee to include faculty with knowledge and expertise in the area of diversity; 3) submit a list of faculty members to serve along with the APC to work on a plan; 4) have the plan reviewed by major stakeholders such as the Senate Executive Committee, APC, ASUN; 5) have a vote by the APC and the Senate on the final version of the plan.  Moeller pointed out that the process would be similar to the one being used by the general education committees. 

 

Chancellor Perlman stated that generally he is fine with the Committee’s recommendations.  He pointed out that one concern is that the plan needs to have priorities and it must be a plan that can be used to accomplish things.  He stated that there needs to be a meaningful plan of action with some central priorities and steps that the colleges and departments can take.  He noted that the current draft can be used or the new committee could start over. 

 

Moeller pointed out that there is great dissatisfaction with the draft plan but it can be used as a resource if the new committee decides to use it.  She noted that the idea is to get a plan that allows diversity to be addressed without dealing with a lot of bureaucracy. 

 

Chancellor Perlman stated that like all strategic plans, this one is trying to get people motivated to address issues of diversity.  He pointed out that there needs to be a realistic plan that people can do with their available resources.  He noted that the conversation about the issue is as important as the ultimate document.  He stated that one needs to focus on realistic and measurable priorities.  Beck stated that the committee can draft a framework with certain priorities to be addressed first but that is flexible enough to allow new priorities to be added as progress is made on the first set without having to create a whole new plan.  She pointed out that the plan should be dynamic. 

 

Bradford asked what the next step is in getting this accomplished.  Chancellor Perlman stated that the Senate needs to form a committee.  Moeller stated that she will recommend a committee to Crump.

 

2.2       Budget

Chancellor Perlman stated that there are still some uncertainties with the budget this year and we still have not received the allocation for the utilities deficit from last year so he is unsure how everything will balance out.  He noted that he does not see any major dislocations in the budget for this year but utilities are still a problem.  He stated that the Board of Regents will be submitting a request to the legislature for a deficit appropriation.

 

Chancellor Perlman stated that the Governor has said several things that can have an impact on the universities budget.  The good news is that the Governor has stated that education is a priority but the bad news is that all of the state agencies might be held to a 3% increase in their budget.  He pointed out that this will not be good for the university, particularly when salary increases are added into the budget.  He noted that many things will happen between now and the end of June and things can change. 

 

Chancellor Perlman stated that there are many unknowns with the budget and the legislature.  He stated that there are about 23 new senators this year and we do not know who will chair the appropriations committee.  Moeller asked if the university is making an effort to get to know the new senators.  The Chancellor stated that we are doing our best to meet and talk with them. 

 

Moeller stated that the Executive Committee received a copy of a letter from a staff member complaining about the staff receiving less of an increase than faculty members for the past two years.  She asked if the staff salaries come from a different source than the faculty.  Chancellor Perlman stated that the staff salary pool is a different pool than the faculty pool. 

 

Moeller asked if the staff salaries are determined by the legislature.   Chancellor Perlman stated that the staff salaries tend to mirror the state employees salary increases.  He noted that the process of determining the staff salaries is different than the faculty salaries.  He pointed out that the market for faculty is national, for managerial/professional it is usually regional and for staff it is local.  He pointed out that this can cause a problem for some positions.  For instance, for some managerial/professional positions the market is local while for other positions it is national.  He stated that he is seeing a lot of pressure from these ranks because of these variances in jobs.  He pointed out that it might be difficult to get the legislature to give a higher increase to university staff than state staff. 

 

2.3       Human Resources’ On Line Application Process

Flowers stated that it was brought to his attention as chair of a search committee that candidates applying for faculty positions need to complete a human resources’ form on the web.  He pointed out that the information on the form is probably the university’s attempt to collect data for equity and diversity issues.  He stated that the problem is that the form on line is inappropriately designed and does not even reflect that it is a UNL document.  He stated that candidates have stated that they have trouble up loading the form and getting instructions on it and it is not a neat, welcoming screen.  He reported that two candidates called up asking for help in getting the form to operate properly.  He pointed out that this form does not present a good front for the university. 

 

Flowers stated that he has discussed the problem with Crump.  He noted that the difficulty with this form could negatively impact things like diversity because people get frustrated trying to complete the form and wind up not doing it.  He stated that the form does not apply well to candidates interested in faculty positions.  He noted that a far better approach would be to have a separate form for faculty positions and it should be seamless, well designed, and attractive. 

 

Chancellor Perlman stated that he will take a look at the site.  Bradford suggested the search committees should take care of the applications although he acknowledged that they would not be able to complete the Equal Employment Opportunity information.  Chancellor Perlman stated that he has heard some discussions about this and some people state that they think the form is great but he will look into it. 

 

Ledder asked if it is common now for applicants to begin applying for a job by starting with a human resources webpage.  He stated that he finds this troublesome because of the message it initially sends. 

 

2.4       General Education Proposals – Voting

Ledder stated that there have been three votes on the proposals.  He noted that the Senate voted to endorse the proposals at its December 5th meeting even though we do not have an official role in the voting process.  He pointed out that the endorsement of the Senate sends a message to the colleges encouraging them to support the proposals.  He reported that the Senate vote was 30 in favor to 8 opposed. 

 

Ledder stated that Arts & Sciences met on December 7th and voted to approve the proposals after long discussions on them.  He noted that the vote was 28 in favor to 22 against.  He reported that there was a unanimous voice vote by the faculty for the dean to put together a committee that will draft an advisory statement about the proposals.  He stated that this special committee will meet in January and the college will vote on an advisory statement at that time.  If approved, it would be sent to the planning team. 

 

Ledder reported that the College of Journalism and Mass Communications approved the proposals unanimously. 

 

Moeller stated that the College of Education and Human Sciences met to discuss the proposals but voting will not take place until February.  She pointed out that the voting will take place by an actual ballot. 

 

Ledder stated that he believes that the process is generally viewed positively but he believes getting the other proposals to the colleges will take longer than the original timetable indicated.  He noted that it is probably unrealistic to think that a new general education program will be in place by next fall.  He opined that the work the general education committees are doing is outstanding and it may be worth taking the time to get the proposals right.

 

Chancellor Perlman stated that he is comfortable with how things are proceeding and he hopes that the new program will be a success. 

 

2.5       Issues on the Horizon

2.5.A   Update on Professor Belot

Moeller asked for an update on Professor Belot.  Chancellor Perlman reported that he has filed a request with President Milliken to terminate Professor Belot.  Chancellor Perlman stated that the procedures call for the President to have an investigation done by an independent attorney to see if there is cause for termination. 

 

Chancellor Perlman stated that he met with the Academic Rights & Responsibilities Special Resource Committee after he met with the co-chairs of the Academic Rights & Responsibilities Committee.  Chancellor Perlman stated that the ARRC has appointed faculty members to advise Professor Belot and he has hired his own lawyer to deal with the criminal case and any university procedure. 

 

2.5.B   Policy on Accrued Vacation Time

Chancellor Perlman stated that the use or lose vacation policy was suspended as a result of a decision in the Nebraska Supreme Court.  He noted that the legal case filed by a private firm stated that vacation pay was like wages and could not be taken away from an employee once earned.  He reported that the Court decided that the use or lose policy could not be enforced anymore.  He pointed out that the Board of Regents may amend the Bylaws by putting a cap on the amount of vacation time an employee can earn or otherwise try to address the issue.  Under a cap, once this limit is reached, the employee would stop accruing vacation time.  He stated that the reason for making this amendment is ultimately to protect the university financially otherwise the university could possibly have to pay out large amounts of money to people who leave or retire with a significant amount of accumulated vacation time.   He stated that it was unfortunate that the use or lose notice on pay slips was omitted without notification.  He noted that a message should be coming out shortly about the change.

 

2.5.C   2015 Visioning Group

Chancellor Perlman reported that the 2015 visioning group in Lincoln is getting behind a number of projects that will be exciting for the university.  He noted that the 2015 group is interested in implementing these projects through the private sector but the group will also try to get the city government to implement their share of the projects.  He noted that the projects are substantial in scope, scale, and cost.  He pointed out that the most controversial of these projects is the idea of moving the state fair park. 

 

Chancellor Perlman reported that the Lincoln community is serious about these projects and $6 million has already been raised in private money to move the state fair.  He stated that most of the projects have potential for university involvement and tentative plans are to create a research corridor along the Antelope Valley Project.  He reported that another idea is to develop an arts and humanities center in the Haymarket area resulting in a creative center for Lincoln.  He noted that money needs to be raised for this and shareholders need to agree on this project. 

 

Chancellor Perlman reported that the RFP for the starship block downtown will probably come out in the next two weeks.  He stated that this is really exciting for the university and one proposal in particular calls to make P & Q streets a “university street” lined with little shops, similar to areas around other universities.  He noted that there is a lot of energy in the community now and the membership of the group is now at 150 and growing. 

 

Beck asked whether the proposed Whittier building renovation would help with child care.  Chancellor Perlman stated that it would help if funding is provided to renovate the building because it would include the north side where the university would like to place the child care facility

 

Alloway asked if the reaction of the state fair board to relocating the state fair grounds was anticipated.  Chancellor Perlman stated that it was anticipated because the 20-15 group knew it would be a hard sell.  He pointed out that the decision is not just up to the state fair board.

 

Chancellor Perlman stated that another part of the vision is to build an events arena and expanding the Haymarket parks to create a recreational center.  He noted that the university might be interested in being a partner in the creation of the recreational fields.  He stated that the projects are all very exciting and ambitious and there is real optimism about doing these things. 

 

2.5D    Communicating with New State Legislators

Alloway asked if there is anything that the faculty can do to help with the transition of the new legislators.  Chancellor Perlman stated that the faculty has always considered that they are independent from the administration and they should not hesitate to engage with the new legislators.  Moeller asked if the Executive Committee can meet as a group with the legislators.  She noted that there is some question whether the Committee can do that legally.  Chancellor Perlman stated that the Senate is sufficiently independent but recommended it act carefully.  He suggested that it would be good for the Committee to let Michelle Waite, Assistant to the Chancellor for Community Relations, know what is going on.  He stated that he did not think the Committee had any restraints on who they can meet with. 

 

3.0       Announcements

            3.1       Safe Assignment Committee

Flowers reported that the Committee met for its final meeting this semester and has put together a proposal on policies for using the Safe Assignment program.  He noted that the proposal will go to the Senate Executive Committee and to others on campus to get feedback.  He stated that there is some additional legal information that needs to be determined yet in regards to proprietary issues regarding students’ papers being kept in a database. 

 

Moeller stated that she has been letting the students in her courses use the Safe Assignment program and she thinks students are being more careful with citing their references.  She pointed out that there are however, still some kinks with the program.  Flowers acknowledged that there are some glitches with the program that need to be worked out.

 

Flowers stated that the policy will probably recommend an open lab for undergraduates to use the program on their own.  He pointed out that the lab would not give access to the local database of papers.  He noted that now students can only check their papers if the instructor allows it.  He stated that the policy will also have guidelines for courses dealing with sensitive issues.  He noted that another question is what to do with courses that aren’t your typical standard course such as honor’s thesis or master’s thesis.  He stated that the policy will recommend that faculty advisors to graduate students will be considered equivalent to an instructor. 

 

Moeller stated that she heard that the program costs $100,000 a year.  Flowers stated that he does not know the exact amount of the program but it is certainly not cheap. 

 

3.2       ASUN on Graduate Student Association

Moeller stated that she received a phone call from President Schaefer of ASUN and a message from Associate to the Chancellor Howe pointing out that the only recognized student body on campus is ASUN.  The Board of Regents will have to approve a change to the student governing organization in order for the Graduate Student Association (GSA) to be recognized.  ASUN is not delineated between graduate and undergraduate students. 

 

Alloway asked if the Graduate Student Association has the right to pursue the recognition of their association with the Board of Regents.  Moeller stated that she would suspect that the GSA would have to work with ASUN.  Beck stated that Vice Chancellor Franco might be able to assist the GSA but she thinks they would make faster progress if they carved out a niche within ASUN. 

 

3.3       Meeting Academic Rights & Responsibilities Co-Chair

Beck reported that she met with one of the co-chairs of the ARRC to clarify suspension procedures and the process required to terminate a tenured professor.  She noted that they are separate issues that have a different process. 

 

Beck stated that when termination of a continuous appointment is deemed necessary by the administration, the request is made to the President of the university who orders an investigation of the case by an independent attorney to see if termination is warranted.  If termination is found to be warranted, an Academic Freedom and Tenure complaint (AFT-B) is sent to the ARRC.  Upon receipt of the complaint, the ARRC sets up an AFT-B hearing committee composed of six elected, tenured faculty members.  She noted that the hearing is conducted following the rules of evidence of the district court of Nebraska, with the attorney, an attorney for the university, an attorney for the faculty member, and an attorney for the ARRC are present.  The hearing is transcribed verbatim and after the hearing the AFT-B hearing committee makes a determination on the case but ultimately the final decision on whether to terminate a tenured faculty member is made by the Board of Regents. 

 

Bradford asked if the Chancellor and Board of Regents are limited to the recommendations presented in the report.  Beck stated that she does not think they are but she knows that in all of the cases involving termination of a faculty member of which she has first-hand knowledge, the panel recommended termination and that recommendation was accepted. 

 

Beck reported that a faculty member can be suspended from their duties if a situation arises that creates an immediate threat to the university community, to the person themselves, or a serious disruption of university programs.  She pointed out that the actions of the faculty must be severe.  She stated that the Chancellor can then suspend someone from their duties.  She stated suspension occurs due to an emergency situation and should be used rarely.  She noted that the Chancellor can suspend a faculty member only after he/she has met with a three-person Special Resource Group appointed by the chair of the ARRC or, if that is not possible, the meeting must occur within 48 hours of the suspension.  The special ARRC resource group will meet with the faculty member to advise him/her of what their rights are.  She pointed out that the special ARRC resource group is composed of elected faculty members selected from the ARRC panel.  She noted that these procedures apply to all faculty members, regardless of tenure status, including extension educators as well.   She stated that the paragraph on suspension of faculty members in the Bylaws states that if possible, the faculty members should be reassigned to other duties.

 

Alloway asked if the findings of the investigation for suspension are included in the investigation for termination.  Beck stated that she believes the information would be included but the independent attorney still needs to conduct another investigation. 

 

 Beck stated that she is working with co-chair Professor Bryant of the ARRC to develop a flowchart of procedures and she is going to generate a list of frequently asked questions to help faculty and staff members determine whether, how, and for what reasons they can access the ARRC.

 

 

4.0       Approval of 12/6/06 Minutes

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

 

5.0       Unfinished Business

5.1       15th Week Policy

Alloway reported that he has been in communication with President Schaefer of the ASUN about complaints regarding the violation of the 15th week policy.  Alloway pointed out that it is still unclear who makes the decision on questions regarding the policy.  He recommended that the ASUN should revisit this issue.           

 

5.0       New Business

            No new business was discussed.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 4:26 p.m.  The next meeting of the Executive Committee will be on Wednesday, January 10th 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 Rick Alloway, Secretary.