EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES

 

Present:          Beck, Bolin, Bradford, Flowers, Hachtmann, Ledder, Moeller, Scholz                 

 

Absent:           Alexander, Alloway, Rapkin, Stock, Zimmers

           

Date:               Wednesday, July 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

            Moeller called the meeting to order at 2:37 p.m.

 

2.0       Announcements

            2.1       Meeting with Professor Janovy

Griffin reminded the Committee that there would be a meeting on Tuesday, July 18th at 10:00 a.m. with Professor Janovy to discuss the Senate conducting a survey on the institutional objectives.            

 

3.0       Approval of 6/28/06 Minutes

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

 

4.0       Unfinished Business

            4.1       Draft Letter to Executive Associate Dean Weissinger

The Committee reviewed the letter that will be sent to Weissinger asking for communication with faculty members when a graduate student is requesting withdrawal from a course.

 

4.2       Letter to the Chancellor on Cancellation of the Child Care Facility

The Committee reviewed the letter that will be sent to the Chancellor on the cancellation of the child care facility.  Moeller noted that the letter suggests changing the facility to an appropriate location and points out that childcare is a major concern for faculty and staff members with children and is important for recruiting and retaining new faculty members. 

 

4.3       Faculty Club

Moeller reported that she received an email message from Associate to the Chancellor Howe stating that there is a $17,000 endowment at the Foundation that can be used for a faculty club but only $8,000 can be spent.  Interest earnings on the endowment will probably generate about $750 a year.  Howe consulted with the Chancellor and the Chancellor stated that the Senate Executive Committee should be the group to decide how the money can be used.

 

Moeller reported that she did some checking on the web about faculty clubs at other institutions.  She noted that many young faculty members have to work about 60 – 80 hours per week and may not have had the cultural experience of having a faculty club.  She suggested that a quick survey could be sent out asking faculty members if there is any interest in having a faculty club. 

 

Bradford stated that he does not see any value in having a faculty club.  He pointed out that time allocation may not be a reason why people do not go to faculty clubs.  He stated that the reason could be attitudinal. 

 

Hachtmann stated that as a faculty member who has been here only four years it would be great to get to know people in other departments and colleges.  She noted that a colleague recently left UNL because it was so difficult to meet anyone outside of her department or college.  Hachtmann wondered how many other faculty members feel the same way. 

 

Bradford suggested that if a survey is done one of the questions should be how much people would be willing to pay to go to a faculty club.  Bolin stated that the survey could also ask if faculty members are interested in meeting other people on campus. 

 

Bradford pointed out that having two campuses, city and east campus, may create a problem.  Hachtmann noted that location and time may be other important factors in the success of a faculty club. 

 

Moeller and Flowers agreed to draft a short survey. 

 

4.4       Committee Assignments

Griffin reported that some faculty members, previously identified, respectfully declined to serve on committees due to other commitments.  The Committee worked on identifying faculty members for various committees.

 

4.5       Involving Faculty in the General Education Revision Process

Moeller stated that she has been reading about revising general education programs and contacted ACE colleagues from across the country to get ideas about how to get faculty involved in the revision process.  She presented a summary of ideas and suggestions from the ACE colleagues. 

 

Ledder pointed out that in the article “Avoiding the Potholes:  Strategies for Reforming General Education” the author Jerry Gaff cited an example where issuing a single, final report resulted in a defeat of the revision by the faculty.  He noted that efforts to revise the general education program are more successful when the faculty is issued a series of report as the revisions progress. 

 

Ledder stated that there are two distinct issues with the process:  one is content and the other is procedural.  He noted that it is the procedural issue that needs help.  He pointed out that the committees working on revising the general education program need to get feedback from the faculty at each stage of the revision process.  He noted that people need to buy into the rationale behind the revisions.  Moeller agreed and stated that approval of the revisions needs to be gained incrementally. 

 

Ledder noted that even though the Seante does not vote on curriculum issues, it is charged with advising the administration on such issues and can do so on its own initiative.  Moeller noted that revising the general education program is one of the most critical things occurring on campus.  She pointed out that the revised program will have major impacts on the curriculum of the campus and will have direct impact on many faculty members.  She noted that she will be speaking to the Chancellor about engaging the faculty in the process. 

 

5.0       New Business

5.1       Chapter 6 – Accreditation Self-Study Report

The Committee reviewed Chapter 6.  The question was raised why the chapters are put on the web for review when they have not been completed.  The comment was raised that it is not effective for faculty to review the chapters when they are not finished. 

 

Moeller stated that she will contact Professor O’Hanlon and let him know the concerns of the Committee on this chapter.

           

5.2       Draft Syllabus for Merging the Faculty Compensation Advisory Committee       Faculty Members with the Employee Benefits Committee

Beck noted that the proposed revisions came out of discussions that occurred last year on how to reduce the number of committees that faculty members need to serve on.  She pointed out that both committees address employee concerns.  She stated that the proposed revision would have the faculty members from the Faculty Compensation Advisory Committee serving as the faculty members on the Employee Benefits Committee.  She noted that the representative to the University-wide Fringe Benefit Committee, who is appointed by the Chancellor, would also serve as a member of the combined committee.  Bradford stated that the syllabus for the University-wide committee did not state that the Chancellor appointed the campus representative to the committee.  Beck stated that in the past, the Senate has recommended names of faculty members to the Chancellor and he chooses from the list.  Griffin stated that she will check with Central Administration to get clarification.

 

Bradford stated that several years ago the Employee Benefits Committee was considering recommendation to eliminate the committee altogether because input from the committee is not considered by the University-wide Fringe Benefits Committee.  Beck noted that the UNL Employee Benefits Committee includes staff members and there are other kinds of benefits on campus other than health benefits. 

 

Bradford stated that he thinks streamlining the committees is a good idea.  He questioned whether the representative to the University-wide committee should be subject to the same term length as the other members.  Beck stated that this is a good question and suggested that this needs to be considered. 

 

Griffin wondered whether faculty members might object to serving on two committees.  She noted that faculty members are frequently asking how often and how long committee meetings are held before they will agree to serve.  Beck and Bradford pointed out that both of these committees meet only a few times during the year. 

 

The Committee agreed to discuss the idea of combining the committees further.

 

5.3       Notification of Salary Increases

Beck asked the Committee if they received a letter from their department chair informing them of what their salary increase will be.  She noted that some faculty members did receive a letter, some are told what the percentage of increase will be, and others receive no information until the official notice is sent out.  Responses from the Committee varied.  She noted that she would like to bring it up with the Faculty Compensation Committee next year that there should be a uniform procedure for informing faculty members. 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 4:14 p.m.  The next meeting of the Executive Committee will be on Wednesday, July 26th at 2:30 pm.  The meeting will be held in 201 Canfield Administration Building.  The minutes are respectfully submitted by Karen Griffin, Coordinator and Rick Alloway, Secretary.