EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES

 

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

 

Absent:           Alexander, Alloway, Moeller, Rapkin

           

Date:               Wednesday, February 15, 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 3:02 p.m.

 

2.0       Announcements

            2.1       Report on Deans and Directors Meeting    

Beck reported that at the Deans and Directors meeting earlier today the Chancellor distributed a handout summarizing the three bills in front of the Legislature, LB 605 – Deferred Maintenance Funding, Utilities Deficit Request, and Ag Research and Development Center Environmental Remedial Investigation and Removal Actions Program Deficit Request.  She noted that anyone wanting a copy of the summarization should contact the Senate Office.

 

Beck stated that the Chancellor reported that at this point the estimated shortfall, excluding the utilities and Mead cleanup costs, is approximately $5 million.  Peterson asked if this was for the whole University or just UNL.  Beck stated that she thought this was for the whole University.  She noted that the shortfall is not just due to a decrease in tuition revenue but also because of some decisions that the Board of Regents made in regards to funding. 

 

Beck stated that the Chancellor did not like the proposals that he looked at for permanent  budget reductions.  As a result he is going back to an assigned minus system used in the 1980’s.  Beck reported that the Chancellor stated that he is not going to specify to units how they have to deal with the deficit amount.   Instead, the Deans will assign a minus figure to the departments and each department will have to deal with the deficit budget over the fiscal year. 

 

Beck stated that the Chancellor does not see these cuts as permanent cuts in most cases although it could be permanent cuts for some departments.  She stated that the Chancellor indicated that some money will be given back to units if things improve.  She pointed out that getting funding back will be determined by the department’s strategic plans, not by programs of excellence.  Peterson stated that the budget plan sounds like an across-the- boards cut and if money comes back departments will be rebuilt based on their strategic plans. 

 

Peterson noted that in earlier discussions VC Owens stated that some departments would be cut more than others.  Peterson asked if that will still be done.  Beck stated that she thinks this could happen and that the cuts could be done unevenly in some colleges. 

 

Beck reported that she did not feel that the cuts are about cutting any programs, however.  She noted that the Chancellor stated that these were not vertical cuts in the sense of his identifying programs for elimination. 

 

Hoffman asked if a Dean has the power to cut a program.  Beck stated that they cannot make the decision on their own to simply do away with an existing program and fire faculty members.  She noted that programs cuts are supposed to go through the reduction in force procedures and would have to be approved by the Academic Planning Committee.  She stated that the Dean could not make the decision to fire tenured faculty members without going through all of the procedures.  Peterson pointed out that some programs cuts may even have to be approved by the Regents. 

 

Beck reported that the Chancellor indicated that if things eventually become more stable with the budgets he will not penalize Deans if they do make some significant cuts within their units now.

 

Beck reported that the Chancellor stated that he had to face this kind of budget scenario when he was Dean but the difference now is that it is a temporary situation whereas previously it was a permanent strategy for managing finances at the University.  The Chancellor stated that if there were salary increases due to promotions it really messed up the budget on the assigned minus plan because the deficit just gets bigger.  Beck stated that VC Griesen pointed out that it was not a good strategy as a permanent way to operate and the campus really needs to do everything that we can to reduce costs and look for increasing revenues. 

 

Beck reported that a report on undergraduate admissions of freshmen students was distributed at the meeting.  She noted that the report indicates that entering freshmen enrollment is up for this year and that we are increasing our recruiting success in metropolitan Omaha, Kansas City, Minneapolis, and Chicago. 

 

Beck stated that information was also distributed on transfer students.  She noted that the situation is interesting because these students have a problem in getting into introductory classes that are already filled because upperclassmen are taking these classes.  She stated that a list of classes in high demand was distributed.  Hoffman pointed out that some schools hold spaces open for transfer students.  Beck stated that this should be suggested to the administration on New Student Enrollment staff.  Hoffman noted that some of the transfer students are forced to take classes at Southeast Community College because they can’t get into courses here.  Beck reported that this was discussed at the meeting.

 

Beck reported that the Gallup survey will be conducted in early April.  She stated that the Chancellor reported that the survey has not done a good job of elevating issues beyond the department level.  Peterson pointed out that this is because of the way the survey is set up.  He stated that it has never been clear from the survey how the elevation of issues is to work.  Beck stated that this should be looked at in the survey instead of after the fact.  She noted that there are issues beyond a department’s control that affect the morale of the employees. 

 

Peterson stated that presumably the departments receive their report from the survey and may hold discussions on it but he questioned whether elevating the issues beyond the departments is ever discussed.  Flowers pointed out that a lot of departments think the survey is a waste of time because it is not a good survey.  Beck stated that the committee might want to suggest to the Chancellor that the survey include some kind of question that indicates that there are problems outside of the department.  Griffin stated that the survey should just include a question that asks if there are issues beyond the department’s control that affects the morale of the employee. 

 

Hoffman asked how an issue can be addressed if the problem identified is with the department chair or the college dean.  He stated that another problem with the survey is that if fewer than 10 people participate in the survey your department doesn’t get much information back.  He pointed out that Gallup should consider lowering the number of responses that are needed from units. 

 

Peterson stated that the Committee should remind the Chancellor that the main conclusion that came out of the last survey is that by and large the faculty and staff do not feel engaged but the administrators do.  He pointed out that many of the issues that the Senate has been asked to look at are beyond local level issues such as child care, retention and recruiting of women and minorities, and parking to name a few. 

 

Beck reported that SVCAA Couture’s recent email message to the faculty is asking for feedback from the faculty on the general education revisions.  Beck stated that faculty members should encourage their colleagues to provide feedback.  Hoffman pointed out that the recent pink information sheet that was sent out does not include a name or phone number of people to contact.  Peterson noted that Professor Janovy who is chairing the revision efforts sent out an email message and comments can be made to Janovy, Associate Vice Chancellor Wilson, or to himself.  He stated that he will mention this concern to the committee revising the program. 

 

Peterson noted that people on the larger general education revision committee have been speaking with people in their colleges.  He stated that each college has a representative on the committee and comments can also be directed to the representative.  He pointed out that everyone needs to be involved in the general education revision process. 

 

Beck stated that she gave a report to the Deans and Directors on the activities of the Senate which included reviewing the Senate structure, overhauling the committees by possibly merging or eliminating some of them, and the release of the draft of the reduction in force procedures.  She stated that the underlining theme of these projects is to encourage faculty participation in governance. 

 

Beck stated that she would like to work on the Senate website perhaps including pictures of the Executive Committee members. 

 

Beck reported that the Athletics department is holding a Faculty at 5:30 event at the Devaney Center.  For $5 faculty members and administrative staff can get pizza and Pepsi before the Nebraska-Colorado basketball game and the first 50 people get free tickets to the game. 

 

Peterson stated that he has heard people at the Faculty at 5 events talking about having a Faculty Club.  He suggested that the Committee might want to consider doing a survey to see how much interest there would be in having a Faculty Club.  He pointed out that UNL is one of the few major universities that does not have one.  Beck noted that there was supposed to be one in the basement of the Wick Alumni Center when it was remodeled (there had been one there previously) but the space was promised away.  Stock noted that there was a Faculty Club when he first came here that was fairly active.  He stated that people might be willing to join if the club was close to campus and didn’t cost much to join. 

 

Beck stated that she could speak with Dr. Nunez, Director of Institutional Research and Planning, to see if he could give some scenarios of possible locations.

 

            2.2       The Big Event

Beck reported that ASUN is scheduling “The Big Event” for April 8, 2006.  The event is a one-day, school-wide service project which will give UNL students, faculty, and staff the opportunity to say thank you to the Lincoln community for its support of the University.  She stated that anyone interested should check out ASUN’s website for the event (http://bigevent.unl.edu).

 

3.0       Approval of 8/31/05 Minutes

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

 

4.0       Unfinished Business

            4.1       Letter to Committee Chairs asking for Committee Reports to the Senate

Beck reminded the Committee that they discussed last week possibly eliminating the reports or changing what information should be presented to the Senate.  She noted that the letter that is sent to the committee chair does outline what they should discuss at the meeting but this does not always happen. 

 

Peterson stated that overall most reports given are okay although sometimes the chair can speak for too long.  Stock agreed.  Beck suggested that the presiding officer should state at the Senate meeting that they have a copy of the report and if there are any questions or specific issues that need to be addressed the chair of the committee is available to discuss them.  Stock suggested that the letter could state that the chair should be at the meeting to answer any possible questions but there is not the need for them to stand up and give a formal presentation if they feel it is not needed. 

 

Hoffman suggested that the report include information on the responsibilities of the committee.  He noted that he has learned things such as the availability of funds for guest speakers from the reports.  Scholz noted that the topics are helpful but he wondered if the written reports should follow some kind of template so there is a consistency in how they are given.  Fech agreed and stated that an outline would be nice. 

 

4.2       Committee Restructuring

Beck stated that she reviewed some of the committees a little further.  She questioned why the Academic Standards Committee needed to have such a large panel of faculty members to choose from.  She noted that the committee only meets at the end of each semester and only three members need to be present.  Hoffman stated that he served on the committee and it can take some time to review the appeals that are submitted.  He suggested that each college could have a representative to the committee instead of having a panel of 22 faculty members. 

 

Beck wondered whether the Academic Standards and Grading & Examination Committees could be combined.  She noted that this would reduce the number of faculty members needed for committees. 

 

Beck suggested that the Commencement, Honors Convocations, and Honorary Degrees Committee could be combined.  Griffin pointed out that the work of the Honorary Degrees Committee is quite different from the Commencement and Honors Convocations Committee.  Beck stated that the Honorary Degrees could be a subcommittee of the other two. 

 

Peterson stated that it would be useful to look at each committee’s syllabus to review the responsibilities.  He stated that it would be helpful to interact with the people who are or have been on the committees.

 

Beck asked if we need to have a Teaching Council.  Griffin pointed out that some of these committees are not Senate committees and the Senate does not have the authority to eliminate them.  Peterson stated that he does think the Teaching Council is needed. 

 

Beck suggested that the Parking Advisory and Parking Appeals Committees could be combined.  She stated that the Committee will discuss this with Dan Carpenter, Director of Parking & Transit Services, when he meets with the Committee on February 22nd.  She noted that most appeals are now handled on-line and the appeals committee may not be necessary. 

 

Beck stated that she would like to have two new committees considered.  One would be a Budget Committee.  She noted that there used to be a Budget Committee and it was useful in getting salaries increased.  She pointed out that it would be important to have people on the Committee who knew and understood budgets.  She stated that this Committee would be helpful in times of budget cuts.  Peterson suggested that the Faculty Compensation Advisory Committee could be made more active.  He asked what kind of power the Budget Committee would have since it would probably be just advisory.  Beck indicated she didn’t envision its having any power per se, but that its role would be to provide information to the Senate and Executive Committee. 

 

Beck stated that the other committee is a Human Rights Committee.  Peterson stated that it would need to be made very clear about what a Human Rights Committee would do. 

 

Griffin pointed out that both the Budget Committee and the Human Rights Committee were recently eliminated by the Senate because they have not been functioning for a number of years.  Shea stated that the Human Rights Committee could give people a place to go if there is an issue that needs to be dealt with when there is not an adequate mechanism available.  Stock noted that this was debated on at the Senate meeting and the vote was to eliminate the Committee. 

 

Hoffman stated that ad hoc committees can always be set up if particular issues come up that need to be dealt with.  Beck indicated that all of these ideas are just part of a discussion at this point and should not be cause for alarm.

 

5.0       New Business

5.1       Report on Academic Titles

Shea reported that the committee working on the academic titles submitted recommendations to the Chancellor on December 22nd.  He noted that he recently received word from Associate VC Jacobson that he could share the recommendations with the Senate.  He stated that the Associate VC is asking for a response back from the Senate by March 2nd.  Peterson asked why the faculty is being given such a short time frame to respond when the recommendations were made back in December.  Beck stated that the Senate may want to vote on the issue.  Shea stated that he will contact Associate VC Jacobson to let her know that the Committee wants to bring this to the attention of the Senate at the March 7th meeting. 

 

Shea stated that the reasons for looking into the academic titles are to bring the lecturer/senior lecturer positions into a more parallel structure with the rest of the faculty.  He noted that one of the recommendations of the committee is to eliminate the position of senior lecturer and those currently holding that title would be reassigned to an appropriate rank within the Professor of Practice category that is being created.  He noted that recommendations also include that the criteria for the Lecturer/T position be changed. 

 

Shea stated that the rational for the changes is that the current structure devalues the non-tenure track instructional faculty members compared to the tenure track and research faculty members.  He stated that the recommendations are an attempt to make the non-tenure track positions more equivalent.  He pointed out that the new category provides a promotion track for instructional faculty members that would acknowledge their teaching contributions. 

 

Shea noted that there was a lot of discussion about the title “Professor of Practice.”  He pointed out that it is a title that is being used at other institutions.  He noted that other suggestions were made but the committee decided that the “Professor of Practice” title would be flexible enough to cover all of the units at UNL.  Beck asked if this title only applies to teaching positions and not research.  Shea stated that at this time it only applies to teaching.  He noted that the committee agreed that further study would need to be conducted to see if changing the titles of research positions would be workable. 

 

Beck suggested that the title of Professor of Instruction should be considered, particularly if the research non-tenure track position titles do not get changed to fit into this category.  Shea pointed out that he would like to think that the research titles will also change eventually but this might be more difficult to do.  He stated that basically there would be four groups:  Lecture/T, tenured/tenure track, non-tenure teaching, non-tenure research, and extension educators.  He noted that there was some slight discussion about changing the extension titles but the committee agreed that this would be a huge hurdle and may not be workable. 

 

Beck pointed out that there are currently only 45 senior lecturers and most instructional, non-tenure track people will not be affected by this change.  She stated that the number of lecturers has increased by nearly 300% in recent years.  Shea stated that the goal was to make improvements over what we have had before. 

 

Beck asked if there are any violations of the Regents Bylaws with these titles.  Shea was not certain but believed changes in the Bylaws would be recommended if necessary. 

 

Hoffman asked who hires the non-tenure track people.  He noted that research professors are usually hired by the principal investigator of a grant.  He asked if there was any discussion on hiring, such as who hires these people and how many can departments have.  Beck stated that in her department a national search is conducted for lecturers.  Stock stated that in English there is a pool of these people who are eligible to teach and they are typically hired from year to year. 

 

Stock noted that one of the recommendations is for departments and other units to revise their bylaws to reflect non-tenure track faculty member’s rights, including voting rights and responsibilities in the units.  He stated that some of this is already occurring in English.  Shea stated that there was a lot of discussion on this topic.  He stated that the committee felt that there should be some UNL-wide uniformity in the rights of faculty holding these positions.  He noted that how non-tenure track faculty members are treated in units varies tremendously across the campus. 

 

Beck asked if the pool of non-tenured faculty members in English is composed of full-time employees.  Stock stated not necessarily.  He pointed out that it can be a balancing act depending on what courses need to be covered from semester to semester.  He stated that a committee within the department determines how many people are needed and review the applications of the people in the pool to see who will fit the best. 

 

Shea noted that under each academic title category recommendations have been made on the process that should be used to fill these positions. 

 

Fech asked if some of these positions are filled by opportunity hires or trailing spouses.  Shea and Beck stated that they could be. 

 

The Committee agreed that the report was well done.  Shea mentioned that the committee volunteered to look at policies associated with these positions including family/friendly policies.  He noted that the Chancellor requested that the committee also make recommendations on these policies.   Shea stated that the Council of Deans has received the report and are being asked to respond to the recommendations.  He noted that the committee recommended that compensation for promotion within this category should parallel that given to tenure-track faculty.  Flowers asked if there were specific guidelines now.  Peterson stated that there were not and there is no current way of promoting these people. 

 

Beck asked if the non-tenure track faculty (i.e., senior lecturers) have been polled to see how they feel about a Professor of Practice title.  Shea stated that he did not think they were polled.  He noted that the Senior Lecturer on the committee supported the proposed title. 

 

Beck asked what notice the non tenure-track faculty must be given if their position is terminated.  Hoffman stated that most people know that if they do not receive a contract by September 15th, they are not hired for that year.  Shea stated that specific guidelines are already in place or should be provided.

 

The Committee agreed that this should be an open forum discussion at the March Senate meeting and that the Academic titles Ad Hoc Committee should be invited to attend the meeting to address any questions. 

           

            5.2       Post Tenure Review Statistics

Beck stated that she would like to put on the agenda for a future meeting statistics on post tenure review.  How many have been conducted, has it been successful, and has anyone left the University because of a post tenure review.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 5:10 p.m.  The next meeting of the Executive Committee will be on Wednesday, February 22nd 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.