EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES

 

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

 

Absent:           Hoffman, Scholz

           

Date:               Wednesday, January 18, 2006                     

 

Location:        201 Canfield Administration Building

 

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       Interview with Dr. Randy Hyman, Ball State University, Candidate for Vice       Chancellor of Student Affairs

The Committee interviewed Dr. Hyman for the position of Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs.

 

3.0       Announcements

No announcements were made.

 

4.0       Approval of 1/11/06 Minutes

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

           

5.0       Unfinished Business

5.1       APC Revisions to the Academic Program Review (APR) Guidelines

Beck reported that she emailed SVCAA Couture stating that the Committee needed to extend the deadline for input on the revisions because of the length of the document and the fact that the Committee just received it last week.  Beck stated that she will provide feedback to SVCAA Couture by the end of this week. 

 

Beck stated that she wants to suggest that language be inserted in the document that calls for one academic program review for all of the four research and extension centers rather than each center having to conduct a separate program review.  Fech pointed out that it seems redundant to do separate APRs for each center. 

 

Shea noted that it makes a lot of sense to conduct one APR.  He asked if VC Owens has indicated what he thinks about doing just one APR.  Beck stated that the Committee can ask VC Owens this question when they meet with him on January 25th. 

 

Peterson asked why there should be just one APR conducted.  Beck stated that one reason is economical.  She pointed out that conducting four separate APRs costs four times as much.  Shea noted that the centers have a lot of shared activities now that previously they did not have.  He stated that the centers are not as separate a unit as they used to be.  Fech agreed and pointed out that this is especially true now with technology. 

 

Beck questioned why the revisions are calling for a seven year cycle for conducting APRs rather than a five year cycle.  Flowers pointed out that many accreditation processes are now being done every seven years. 

 

Alexander noted that Section C discusses centers and programs within units being reviewed.  He questioned how centers are being defined.  He stated that centers within his college have been reviewed but the results of the reviews have not been shared with the centers.  Peterson asked if the centers are part of a department.  Alexander stated that they are not but they are considered centers.  He stated that the University hires outside consultants to come in and review the center but there has been no feedback on the review.  Peterson stated that the APC’s guidelines cover reviews for independent centers as well as those within departments.  Beck stated that the Committee will ask about centers being reviewed and not getting the results of the review. 

 

Shea suggested that changes need to be made in the section about recommendations from the review team.  He pointed out that the review team should not be limited in making suggestions based on available resources.  The Committee agreed.

 

5.2       Senate Structure

Beck stated that she has thought about the Senate reverting back to a Faculty Senate rather than an Academic Senate.  She noted that very few administrators attend the Senate meetings unless there is an agenda item of specific interest to them.  She pointed out that when they do come to the meetings, they often do not speak.  She suggested that the Senate should consider going back to the Faculty Senate structure.  Beck stated that in 1988 a report was made to the Senate suggesting the change to the Academic Senate in order to facilitate better discussion between the faculty and the administration. 

 

Moeller asked why there is a need to change the Senate structure.  She pointed out that it is optimal to keep the free flow exchange of ideas between the faculty and administration.  Flowers asked what the downside is of the current structure.  Beck stated that she believes that the Senate would be more visible as a Faculty Senate.  She noted that most institutions, including the other four NU campuses, have a Faculty Senate. 

 

Shea stated that he would be concerned that changing the structure would be sending a message of exclusivity.  He pointed out that we do not want to make the administrators feel that they are not welcome to come to the meetings.  He noted that a reason for changing the structure is that some people assume that because we are an Academic Senate there are some things that we are restricted from dealing with.  He questioned where academics end and the rest of the university start.  He pointed out that at universities almost anything that happens has an impact on academics.  He stated that he believes that the faculty and the entire university community need to participate more in shared governance. 

 

Stock stated that he would be in favor of the change to the structure.  He noted that he was on the Senate when it was the Faculty Senate.  He stated that he lost interest in the Senate in part because he was not clear what an Academic Senate was.  He pointed out that when he was previously on the Faculty Senate it was his impression that the administrators attended the monthly meetings. 

 

Shea noted that the Senate meetings are public meetings and anyone can attend them but only Senators are able to vote on issues. 

 

Rapkin stated that he always thought of the Senate as a Faculty Senate.  He pointed out that if administrators are non-voting members then they are really just observers at the meetings who can make comments.

 

Peterson noted that if changes are made to the Senate structure it will required the approval of the Board of Regents.  He suggested that the Committee speak with the Chancellor, SVCAA, and VC to see what they think about the idea.  Beck agreed.  She pointed out that this is not meant as an adversarial issue.  She stated that she will visit with Chancellor Perlman about the issue. 

 

5.3       RIF/PRP (Program Review Proposal)

Beck reported that she, Shea, and Associate Dean Rosson, met with members of the ASUN to discuss the revisions to the procedures.  She stated that after the meeting she sent an email message to the students including sections from the UNL Bylaws about the APC and its responsibilities to help give them a better understanding about revising the procedures. 

 

Beck stated that she thinks the draft document should be sent out to the Senate and other groups on campus for them to review.  She stated that after the document has been out on the campus for a month or so it should be presented to the Senate as a motion.  She noted that by doing this the faculty can give their reactions to the document before it is made as a motion.  She stated that she will also visit with Chancellor Perlman about the revisions soon.

 

6.0       New Business

            6.1       Resolution on Search Committee Issues

Beck distributed a draft resolution on search committee training.  Flowers asked what the reason is for the resolution.  He noted that there have been problems in the past but his department’s very recent experience with conducting searches has shown that it is working much better.  He pointed out that on-line training is not available yet but will be available very soon.  He stated that there has been no problem with training people in his department for the searches.  He noted that people conducting the training have come to his department to do the training and meet with the faculty members about the searches. 

 

Moeller suggested that the Committee should ask the faculty what their recent experiences have been. 

 

Beck reported that Flowers’ experience in not uniform.  She stated that at the last IANR Liaison Committee meeting the problems with the search committee training was a huge issue and that concerns raised were very similar to ones she has heard from other people including some administrators.  She stated that not long ago the Office of Equity, Access & Diversity refused to conduct a meeting by teleconferencing.  Instead there had to be a one hour session for training for out-state faculty members, some of whom had to drive in three hours to attend the session and the person conducting the session arrived a half hour late.   The extension faculty then had to go to Norfolk at another time for another meeting.  She stated that it was calculated that approximately $4500 worth of faculty time was lost because of the refusal to conduct the session by teleconferencing. 

 

Beck stated that another recent problem with the search committee training happened in CBA where misinformation was given to a department conducting a search.  It resulted in General Counsel Wood having to write a letter explaining the legal issues regarding the search. 

 

Rapkin stated that his department was recently informed that faculty members can be certified to conduct searches on-line very soon. 

 

Flowers suggested that the Committee should have a conversation with the Office of Equity, Access & Diversity, to see what things are currently being done to make the process better. 

 

Beck reported that one of the major complaints she has heard is how things are being run in large, general meetings.  Flowers stated that the meeting in his department was very targeted and helpful.  The Committee agreed that further information needs to be obtained before going through with a resolution.

 

Beck stated that another issue that has been recently raised is that search committees are being disbanded before they can give any feedback on candidates.  Flowers asked if this occurs only on administrative positions.  Beck reported that it happens at least at a department head level.

 

Peterson noted that the Committee has discussed this issue before.  He stated that it seems like search committees are merely advisory committees and don’t get to give an evaluation.  Beck pointed out that the Bylaws specifically state that the search committee is allowed to have a deliberative process which allows for an evaluation.  Peterson asked at what stage of the process.  Beck stated that the Bylaws indicate that after the interviews have been conducted. 

 

Peterson pointed out that not allowing the search committee to provide an evaluation on the candidates could make people ask why they should do the work when they don’t even get the opportunity to give an opinion. 

 

Beck reported that the IANR Liaison Committee wants this issue addressed.  She noted that VC Owens stated that he would revise the directive to state that the search committee not be disbanded before an evaluation is given.  She pointed out that the Bylaws also state that the person hired must be on the short list of candidates. 

 

6.2       Tuition Remission for Dependents Policy

Beck stated that she has received a request for the Committee to ask for tuition remission for dependents of part time employees.  She noted that this issue will be on the agenda when the Committee meets with Chancellor Perlman on January 25th. 

 

Peterson noted that the Chancellor has hinted that graduate tuition remission could be eliminated.  Peterson suggested that this issue needs to be raised with the Chancellor on the 25th as well.

 

6.3       Administrator Evaluation Resolution

Beck reported that the draft resolution is simply to ask the administration that they regularize the policy on evaluating administrators.  She noted that the Board of Regents, UNL Bylaws, and Academic Affairs’ policy all address evaluation of administrations but in some cases the process is not being implemented as it should.  She pointed out that the policy on the Academic Affairs webpage specifically states that “the supervisor shall invite a representative committee of faculty from the incumbent’s unit to provide a written analysis of the incumbent’s performance.”

 

Beck stated that the policy also states that the administrator being reviewed “shall prepare a report to the supervisor of the incumbent’s past and current objectives and the success in achieving these objectives, and the incumbent’s future objectives and proposed plan for achieving these objectives.  The report or a summary of the report will be made available to the faculty, students, and staff of the unit and to such others in a position to observe, evaluate, and offer information relevant to the incumbent’s performance.”  Flowers stated that he has never received such a list or summary report on an administrator.  Fech stated that he has received this on a unit head but not on the Dean.  Flowers pointed out that this is another policy that shows strong local discrepancies.

 

Beck stated that another issue in regards to evaluation of administrators is separating signatures from evaluations.  She stated that progress has been made in this area but it is not been completely implemented.

 

Peterson questioned whether this is a resolution that should go to the Senate from the Executive Committee or should the Committee make a formal request of the administrators.  Beck noted that VC Owens stated that he will move to the model that SVCAA Couture uses for evaluating administrators.  Beck suggested that an outside firm should be used to validate evaluations to ensure that they are legitimate. 

 

Beck pointed out that included in the section about providing a written analysis of the administrator, the language also states that “for administrative officers with campus-wise responsibility, the proper committee is the Academic Senate Executive Committee or a standing advisory committee in the unit.”

 

The Committee agreed to discuss the issue again.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 5:15 p.m.  The next meeting of the Executive Committee will be on Wednesday, January 25th 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.