EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES

 

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

 

Absent:           Alexander, Bolin, Rapkin, Scholz

           

Date:               Wednesday, November 1, 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 3:04 p.m.

 

2.0       Announcements

No announcements were made.

 

3.0       Approval of 10/25/06 Minutes

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

 

4.0       Unfinished Business

            4.1       Diversity Plan

Stock reported that he is bothered by the limited process that was used in creating the plan.  He noted that the language used in the plan is smug and pompous and in some instances is dangerous.  He stated that the merits of diversity identified in the plan are superficial.  He noted that objective 1.1 could be interpreted as opposing those instructors who take a provocative stance in teaching in order to challenge and make students think.  He pointed out that the plan does not address diversity of ideas or awareness of political or philosophical ideas.  He questioned the procedures and wondered what the next stages are for the plan. 

 

Bradford noted that there appears to be some discrepancies with what the administration is saying regarding the plan.  He noted that the deadline date for comments was set for October 31st yet the Chancellor stated that the plan was just a draft for discussion. 

 

Stock noted that many departments are already doing some of the things that are mentioned in the plan.  Bradford pointed out that the Chancellor stated in the October 18th Executive Committee meeting that there is a diversity policy but it is not working well.  Bradford stated that the Chancellor indicated that he is not expecting to adopt a plan right away. 

 

Bradford pointed out that there were hardly any faculty members on the committee that wrote the report.  Flowers noted that what is missing from the plan is how it works with academics. 

 

Moeller asked how the Committee wants to respond on the plan.  Ledder stated that Professor Moshman’s critique was very good and suggested that the Committee endorse it.  He noted that the Committee should focus on the process and the structure of the committee that wrote the report.  Bradford pointed out that it is unclear whether the writers of the report are involved in entire the process.  He noted that, as he understands it, the comments are to go to the Chancellor and the Chancellor is supposed to make the adjustments to the plan. 

 

Moeller noted that the Committee is scheduled to meet with the writers of the plan on November 29th. 

 

Ledder suggested that the Senate could take a position on the process that was used to write the plan.  He noted that there could be a motion calling for full dialogue on the plan. 

 

Ledder stated that there should be more faculty members on the committee.  Beck stated that there are a number of groups on campus, such as the Chancellor’s Commission on the Status of Women, who should be interested in the plan. 

 

The Committee agreed that a letter should be sent to the Chancellor explaining that we have some serious concerns with the plan.  Moeller stated that she would draft a letter and send it to the Committee for input. 

 

Bradford pointed out that the document clearly needs more academic viewpoints.  Ledder stated that it would be helpful to have someone on the committee whose teaching program addresses the issue of diversity in the classroom. 

 

Zimmers asked if the plan is based on plans at other universities.  Stock stated that he guessed that it was assembled from some existing documents somewhere. 

 

Alloway noted that it is the mission of the Senate to encourage discussions on things such as the diversity plan.  Bradford suggested inviting Professor Moshman and the members of the committee that wrote the plan to the November 7th Senate meeting where the plan will be discussed. 

 

4.2       Opinions on Strategic Planning

Beck noted that members of the Committee are meeting with the NCA accreditation team next week and it would be helpful to know what people are thinking regarding how the strategic planning is being handled in their units.  She asked if the process is working. 

           

Beck noted that she has not seen any real planning being done.  Ledder stated that the Mathematics department has a strategic plan that it uses regularly. 

 

Beck asked how the strategic planning process is going campus wide.  Bradford noted that the Dean of the Law College created a plan and discussed it with the faculty.  Flowers stated that in Psychology a lot of time was initially spent on the strategic plan but not so now.  He pointed out that the strategic planning was supposed to be an iterative process that was based on feedback but no one has seen any of the feedback.  Moeller stated that the strategic plan in her college was built off of the accreditation of the college two years ago.  She noted that the faculty members reviewed the plan in a faculty meeting but she has not heard of any feedback about the plan.  Alloway and Hachtmann stated that they have not heard anything recently about the plan. 

 

Ledder stated that he has a sense that resources, to a certain extent, are tied into the strategic plan.  He noted that if a chair wants to hire a new faculty member he/she has to demonstrate how this hire fits into the strategic plan. 

 

4.3       Changes to Employee Benefits Committee

Beck stated that the main change to the Employee’s Benefits Committee is to have five of the faculty members on the committee include the Past President of the Senate and the four other faculty members appointed to the Faculty Compensation Advisory Committee.  Bradford moved that the changes to the committee be accepted.  Ledder seconded the motion.  Griffin asked if the changes would take effect next September.  Bradford stated this is correct.  Motion approved by the Executive Committee. 

 

4.4       Draft Motion on General Education Outcomes and Structural Criteria

Moeller noted that good points were raised at the open forum on general education.  Beck stated that the open forum on east campus was not heavily attended with only about six faculty members present.  Moeller noted that some departments are actively meeting and discussing the program. 

 

Ledder stated that many of the courses are already doing what is required to meet the general education courses.  He pointed out that there is no definite statement about what portion of the course has to meet an outcome.  He stated that the proposals going to the colleges should include a section of frequently asked questions.  He noted that the general education committees are working on this. 

 

Ledder stated that there are some concerns from faculty members that the Senate is pushing the general education program.  He asked if it isn’t better that the Senate, which is composed of faculty members from all of the colleges, pushes this rather than the administration?  Moeller pointed out that it is better if the faculty does this before someone else does it for us.  She noted that the campus is acting on what is occurring across the country at other universities dealing with revising their general education programs.

 

Ledder noted that the motion will be presented to the Senate but not voted on until December.  He suggested that the Senate should discuss the motion in November so people can talk about it with their colleagues in their departments.  Moeller proposed having small group discussions at the Senate meeting.  Ledder stated that perhaps questions that were raised at the open forum can be introduced at the Senate.  He offered to put together a brief list of minor clarifications on the proposals.

 

Ledder pointed out that the current ES/IS program is something that is in between a university-wide general education program and each college’s program.  He stated that the new program has components that are university-wide but individual colleges could then expand the requirements for graduation in that college.  He noted that there will not be an exhaustive set of requirements for the program.  He stated that the committees did not want to make a program that was so big that the colleges could not add their requirements to it. 

 

Ledder made the motion to accept the resolution, Beck seconded the motion.  Motion approved. 

 

4.5       Senate Survey on General Education Outcomes and Structural Criteria

Moeller asked if we should conduct a survey on the outcomes and structural criteria similar to the survey that was conducted on the institutional objectives.  Ledder stated that he thinks a survey should be conducted but he is not sure what questions should be asked.  He pointed out that it would be nice to know if the faculty members are aware of what is going on with the proposed program.  He stated that approving the outcomes and structural criteria is just approving the first two elements of the program and it does not mean that the program will go into effect.  All four proposals will need to be approved by the colleges before a new general education program is in place.  Flowers pointed out that he does not think this information is getting through to the department level although there have been some discussions in some departments. 

 

Ledder suggested that the Senate conduct a simple survey asking how conversant the faculty member is on the general education program.  Other questions could be whether the faculty members think they have enough information on the program, whether they plan to vote, and whether they have participated in conversations related to the new program.  He stated that the survey would be designed to get information out rather than to get people’s opinions. 

 

4.6       Reduction in Force Procedures

Beck stated that she will be getting a message out to the committee that worked on the reduction in force procedures to schedule a meeting.  She noted that she hopes the committee can have a revised draft some time in December.  She pointed out that there needs to be good procedures in place, especially should Amendment 423 pass. 

 

4.7       Meeting with Members of the Press

Alloway reported he recently met with colleagues in the news-editorial discipline to discuss the idea of the Committee meeting with some Lincoln and Omaha newspaper reporters to discuss the work of the faculty.  He noted that they were in favor of this and that they suggested we also ought to contact newspaper editors and broadcast news directors from smaller communities across the state, since they are often looking for stories.  Ledder stated that he thought anything that combines service with teaching should be a good thing to report.  He noted that students from particular areas of the state could be highlighted.  

 

5.0       New Business

5.1       Senate Meeting

Moeller noted that the Senate meeting will be on Tuesday, November 7th in the City Campus Union.  The Committee discussed how to address the general education outcomes and structural criteria at the meeting under section 4.4.

 

5.2       Parking Privileges for Emeriti Professors

Moeller reported that she received an email message from a faculty member who was concerned with parking for emeriti professors.  She noted that Griffin communicated with Dan Carpenter, Director of Parking and Transportation Services, and provided information about the parking policy for emeriti professors.  This policy can be found on the web at http://parking.unl.edu/permits/index.shtml#Permittypes under the Special Parking Permits section.  Moeller pointed out that emeriti professors can get special parking permits.

 

5.3       Report on Meeting with President Milliken

Moeller noted that the presidents of the faculty senates from each of the campuses meet twice a year with President Milliken.  She reported that information on the university strategic plan was distributed at the meeting.  She noted that President Milliken stated that the university plan will not compete with the campus plans but it will be a cohesive plan for the university based in part on the campus plans.  Beck stated that President Milliken’s presentation to the Board of Regents in the spring linked the budget and strategic plan together very well.  She noted that it was very instructive to see how everything was pulled together to form a cohesive plan. 

 

Moeller reported that other topics of discussion were the general education program and the recent events that occurred at the UNO campus.  She stated that UNK has already started their new general education program.  She reported that it was enlightening to hear what was going on at the other campuses and she is planning to meet with the other presidents periodically. 

 

Beck asked if President Milliken discussed the Programs of Excellence and how he intends to coordinate them.  Moeller stated that this was not discussed.  She noted that President Milliken wants to come to each of the campuses to visit with the faculty senates. 

 

Moeller reported that President Milliken wants to see a cohesive climate survey for each of the campuses and would like to do an overall climate survey.  Beck noted that the Cooperative Extension service in Washington DC has a very good survey tool to look at climate issues.  She suggested it might be worth looking at. 

 

5.4       AAUP Report

Moeller stated that Professor Haller, English, sent an email message with a link to the new AAUP report on gender equity.  She noted that the report provides four measures of gender equity.  The report can be found at:  http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/research/geneq2006

 

Beck stated that the report provides tables that break down the figures between part-time and full-time faculty members and by tenure status.  She noted that the report shows that overall women’s salaries at UNL are 78.5% of the men’s salaries.  She stated that the percentage is better for assistant (92.9%) and associate professors (96.8%).  Ledder pointed out that the figures have to be weighted by the number of people that are in the categories. 

 

Bradford stated that the university’s statistical model shows there are no significant differences between the salaries at UNL.  Beck stated that the university’s model does not take into account several factors.  She stated that the Faculty Compensation Advisory Committee wants Institutional Research and Planning (IRP) to run some other models and to do a longevity study. 

 

Ledder stated that another problem with the data is that a correction has not been made for the department that a person is in.  He stated that it is a fact that there are more women in English than there is in Electrical Engineering.  He stated that the question needs to be asked whether a faculty member is getting paid more because of the department they are in.  Beck stated that IRP will run the study on some units but won’t do it on the small units because it is easy to identify individuals’ salaries.  Bradford pointed out that the faculty salaries are public information anyway and this should not stop IRP from doing a study on all units. 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 4:56 p.m.  The next meeting of the Executive Committee will be on Wednesday, November 8 at 3:00 pm.  The meeting will be held in the Academic Senate Office.  The minutes are respectfully submitted by Karen Griffin, Coordinator and Rick Alloway, Secretary.