EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES
Present: Alexander,
Alloway, Beck, Fech,
Hoffman, Peterson, Rapkin, Shea,
Stock
Absent: Bolin, Scholz
Date: Wednesday, March 8, 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 3:07 p.m.
2.0 ASUN (Meghan Lyons, Omaid
Zabih)
2.1 Syllabus
Policy
Zabih stated that the syllabus policy proposal was developed by some of the ASUN senators to ensure that every class will have a syllabus. Peterson asked if this is a university wide policy as stated in the proposal. Zabih stated that it would only apply to UNL.
Zabih stated that ASUN would like to see professors utilize Blackboard more heavily. He noted that the syllabus could be placed on Blackboard and students could look at it rather than the instructor going over the syllabus the first day of class.
Beck pointed out that SVCAA Couture sent an email message out to all faculty members asking them to provide students with a syllabus. Shea stated that there should be a syllabus for every course and certain information should be provided on each syllabus.
Peterson stated that he would like
to hear from professors the reason why they do not provide a syllabus.
Beck asked if the proposal is meant
to provide students with basic information about the course without spelling
out a specific, day-by-day schedule.
Shea
stated that he did not understand why an instructor would object to having a
syllabus for a course. Zabih pointed out that instructors teaching courses for one
credit might not want to do a syllabus. Shea stated that whatever applies to the course should be
put on a syllabus. Beck stated that, at
a minimum, instructors should be expected to inform students of when tests are
to be held or when papers and/or projects are due.
Rapkin stated that the syllabus should be explicit with what the course requirements are whether they are quizzes, tests, papers, class participation or projects. He noted that the syllabus should give some indication to the student of the proportion of the grade these requirements represent.
Stock noted that sometimes it is
not possible to provide the time and location of the final. He pointed out that instructors should be
allowed the flexibility to determine if the final is going to be a take home
exam. Shea
suggested that the syllabus could provide information on the nature and
logistics of the final without specifying a date.
Alexander stated that one of the
problems with the ES/IS courses is that some of them have no requirements in
terms of what the course is. Peterson
noted that the Deans proposed some changes with the ES/IS courses and one of
the changes was to instruct the faculty that they need to put on the syllabus
whether the course is an ES or IS course and what the expectations of the
course are.
Beck stated that the proposal will be put on the April 4th Senate agenda.
3.0 Announcements
No announcements were made.
4.0 Approval of 3/1/08 Minutes
Stock moved and Rapkin seconded approval of the minutes as amended. Motion approved.
5.0 Unfinished Business
5.1 Committee Report Letter
The Committee discussed and
approved revisions to the letter sent to committee chairs calling for the
annual report that is presented to the Senate.
5.2 Committee Proposal
Beck distributed a draft proposal to combine the Commencement, Honors Convocations, and Honorary Degrees Committees. She noted that she spoke with Professors Berger and Hitchcock, and Associate to the Chancellor Howe about the possible merger and they all agreed that they saw no problems in merging the Commencement and Honors Convocations committees. She pointed out that staff members handle the work of Commencement and Honors Convocations. She stated that the faculty members appointed to the combined committee would constitute the Honorary Degrees subcommittee. She pointed out that the Honorary Degrees Committee meets only twice a year. She stated that the subcommittee could be expanded when there are policy changes to Commencement or Honors Convocation that need approval by the faculty.
Shea noted that the proposal would mean that not all members would participate in the work of the committee. Stock pointed out that it is not unusual for subcommittees to exist and as long as people know where they are going to fit on a committee there should not be a problem.
Hoffman stated that there are a number of committees that meet only once a semester. He pointed out that there are two approaches that can be taken. The first is to allow committee members to serve consecutive terms on a committee. He pointed out that this will not only help in filling vacant positions on committees but it will provide consistency to the committee.
Hoffman stated that the second idea is to have a pool of committee members who are not assigned to a specific committee but who can fill in on a committee when a member is needed. He noted that a significant number of people who sent in committee service preference forms indicated they were willing to serve on any committee. He stated that both of these ideas would require rewriting the syllabus for committees.
Beck stated that she will make revisions to the proposal and send it to Hoffman for the Committee on Committees to review.
Alexander asked how Honorary Degrees are nominated. He noted that he has several former students who have become very successful in their fields that he would like to see considered for Honorary Degrees. Beck stated that an email message is sent to the faculty calling for nominations for the Honorary Degrees. Alexander asked what the criteria are for people to receive an Honorary Degree. Beck stated that they usually have had some association with UNL and have been successful in their field. Rapkin suggested that Alexander’s former students might qualify for Masters Week.
5.3 Professor of Practice
Beck asked if there is any more feedback on the proposal to create the Professor of Practice positions. Peterson noted that departments have not had a chance to look at the proposals and voice their concerns. Shea pointed out that the administration wants to move quickly on the proposal.
Shea stated that the document sent to the Senate was the committee’s recommendations. He noted that since then the Deans have made recommendations as reported to the Senate by Associate VC Jacobson but the revised recommendations have not been seen by the Executive Committee. He stated that one of the recommendations is the gradual phase in process. He stated that the general feeling in the committee is that this gradual change to the new system will more likely be approved and accepted by the colleges.
Shea noted that the spirit behind the proposal to create the Professor of Practice positions is to give more recognition to non-tenure track faculty members. He pointed out that it puts these people on a parallel track with tenure-track faculty members. He stated that people on non-tenure track lines are working hard and need to be fully assimilated into the system.
Shea stated that one concern is how fast the new titles will be implemented. Hoffman pointed out that this proposal has real financial implications and the entire faculty should have a chance to review it.
The Committee agreed to discuss the issue with the Chancellor and for Beck to send a letter to Associate VC Jacobson requesting that the faculty be sent a copy of the revised proposal.
Alexander asked if the evaluation process is delineated in the proposal. He pointed out that in some departments people are being hired by department chairs without the faculty’s input and there are some cases where there could be a conflict of interest. He stated that the evaluation process of these people is not clearly delineated and oftentimes the evaluation is being conducted by a person who might have a vested interest in the employee. Beck pointed out that a lot of research professors are hired by principal investigators who have a grant and that she knows of cases in which scientists hired this way have been converted to tenure track positions without faculty discussion. Alexander stated that he is not opposed to these titles but there needs to be clear rules on how these people are evaluated. Shea suggested that this should be discussed with Associate VC Jacobson. The committee was hesitant to spell out in too much detail how non-tenure track faculty must be treated because departments and colleges do not like being told what to do. Beck pointed out that the Guidelines for Annual Evaluation, Promotion & Tenure spells out clearly that non-tenure track faculty members must be evaluated like everyone else including specifics about notice for non-renewal.
Shea reported that the Deans felt that the proposal should not be overly prescribed because they felt that the positions were too close to tenure track positions. He stated that these positions are most likely to be used if the person’s main purpose is teaching. Beck noted that there are people in IANR with high teaching apportionments (up to 100%) who are tenure track.
The Committee agreed to discuss the issue with Chancellor Perlman.
6.0 New Business
6.1 Review of Senate Meeting
Beck reported that VC Griesen is working with ASUN to make minor revisions to the proposed ASUN student absence policy.
The Committee discussed the possibility of changing the starting time of the Senate meetings to see if that will help keep people from leaving the meeting early.
Hoffman stated that he does not understand why the University does not go with Plan D for retirees. He noted that with this plan the government pays for 75% of the costs. Instead the retirees are paying the additional costs. Peterson pointed out that it was a special committee set up by the President that made the proposed recommendations. Beck stated that President Milliken appointed the members of the special committee, most of whom have experience with health insurance.
Beck stated that she does not know why the retirees were cut off from the rest of the University pool. Hoffman stated that in the late ‘80’s or early 90’s the University was allowed to take people out of the insurance pool. The advantage to doing this was because it lowered the cost to employees, but the cost of health care was not such a problem as it is now.
Beck reported that at the Board of Regents meeting information on the health care insurance was presented. She noted that 200 retirees are not eligible for Medicare but 1200 are. She stated that one of the figures presented showed that pharmacy costs for just six retirees amounted to over $940,000 last year.
Rapkin noted that the entire health care system across the country is a mess. Beck stated that it is particularly bad for the retirees but apparently putting them back in the pool would greatly increase the cost for everyone else. Alloway stated that he knows of retirees who have left the university health care insurance and found other insurance on the open market that is more favorable to them at less cost.
6.2 Executive Committee
Elections
The Committees noted that a call for nominations from the Committee on Committees was sent to the Senate and only one nomination has been made. The Committee discussed possible candidates for the Executive Committee.
6.3 Discussion with Roshan Pajnigar
Alexander stated that in principle
the new NU Values system might be good but in reality he does not think it is
working. He noted that even though a
department has the authority to change a position and has the money to pay a
person more Human Resources is not allowing it because they said it would
affect the other positions in that group.
He pointed out that Human Resources is still
controlling the hiring process.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:05 p.m. The next meeting of the Executive Committee will be on Wednesday, March 22nd 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.