EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES

 

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

 

Absent:           Alexander, Bolin, Rapkin     

           

Date:               Wednesday, November 29, 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 3:00 p.m.

 

2.0       Draft Diversity Plan (Linda Crump, Assistant to the Chancellor, Equity, Access and      Diversity Programs)

Moeller stated that the Committee wanted to know if there is an original plan currently in place.  Crump reported that there is a fairly long comprehensive plan that includes initiatives but there is no level of responsibility included in the plan.  She stated that the plan was originally started under former Chancellor Moeser.  She noted that the committee that worked on this original plan surveyed the diversity efforts that were already taking place on campus and compiled a list of these efforts.  The committee then looked at what was missing and tried to work this into a plan.  She pointed out that the plan was not bad but it had no impact and lacked a level of responsibility.  She stated that the original committee members were appointed by the Vice Chancellors.  She noted that the current committee was also appointed by the Vice Chancellors.  She pointed out that getting the draft plan out is the first phase of the process. 

 

Ledder stated that one thing that is confusing is that there is reference to a 1997 document that we haven’t seen, but we have a 1999 document.  Crump stated that she is not familiar with the 1997 document and noted that there may be documents out on the web that need to be removed.  She stated that the committee that worked on the original plan was not a broad committee.  She noted that the original plan was started under one Chancellor (Chancellor Moeser) and worked on again under another Chancellor (Chancellor Perlman) and the 1997 document might have stayed in limbo.  Ledder asked if the 1999 document was a draft because it was never approved or whether it was not developed.  Crump stated that it was not fully developed.

 

Crump reported that the current committee looked at the 1999 document and tried to move forward with it.  Moeller asked how the latest draft differs from the 1999 plan.  Crump stated that the goals are the same but the latest draft includes a list of responsibilities.  Bradford asked if the Executive Committee could get a copy of the 1999 plan.  Crump stated that she will try to get a copy of the plan.  She pointed out that the 1999 plan would not be a bad plan if there were unlimited resources available to carry it out.  She stated that after the plan was revealed town hall meetings were held and these turned out to be sessions where frustrations were vented but no ideas were put forth that would move the plan forward.  Flowers asked if the complaints were because policies weren’t being followed in order to promote diversity or whether the complaints about the plan itself.  Crump stated that the complaints were more on the line that the university was not committed to diversity rather than complaints about the plan. 

 

Crump reported that the current committee examined diversity plans at other institutions.  She noted that some of the plans were very resource intensive models and UNL is looking for something not so resource intensive and one that would use existing reporting mechanisms so additional reports do not have to be created.  She stated that the first phase of the plan is to create a draft and get it out to the campus for feedback.  She noted that the committee is now trying to gauge what the themes of the plan should be.  She noted that the Chancellor would like to see more organized campus groups having a dialogue about the plan and its themes.  She stated that the scheme is to go to the normal governance groups on campus to have them review the final plan. 

 

Moeller asked if the committee read Professor Moshman’s comments on the plan.  Crump stated that Professor Moshman’s comments were read.  She noted that he addressed rights of individuals and pointed out that the university has always needed to balance these rights. 

 

Ledder stated that he gets the sense from his colleagues that phase one of the process should not be thought of as completed.  He stated that the plan needs to be reconsidered.  He pointed out that the current draft is more for staff members and is not appropriate for academics.  He stated that there does not seem to be enough diversity of views on the current committee and there is a lack of faculty members on the committee.  He stated that there is no representation from faculty members with diversity experience on the committee.  Crump pointed out that it was the Vice Chancellors who appointed people to the committee. 

 

Bradford stated that the whole process seems backwards.  He pointed out that the academic component of the plan should have been focused on first.  He stated that the academic mission of the university needs to be considered first and the committee has not given due consideration to this area.  He noted that the committee should have had full-time tenured faculty members on the committee during the initial stage.  He stated that the administrative components of the plan should be considered later. 

 

Moeller pointed out that there are people with diversity expertise on campus.  She suggested that the committee should be expanded to include some of these faculty members.  Crump stated that she will notify the Chancellor of this request. 

 

Flowers stated that an administrator that should be on the committee is Vice Chancellor Franco who would be an excellent choice for the committee.  Flowers pointed out that staff relationships with diversity and hiring diversity issues can often be quite distinct from the academic issues of diversity.  He stated that a one size fits all plan might not work and that there may need to be components in it that can differentiate the issues that arise with different groups on campus.  He suggested that the process of the plan be similar to that of the general education process where faculty members are being informed throughout the process. 

 

Ledder stated that the Executive Committee is looking for faculty representation on the committee.  He pointed out that someone who is a department chair might not be the best representative for the faculty and a new faculty member might not have enough experience.  He stated that it would be good to have someone on the committee who teaches a course on race relations. 

 

Stock stated that the sense of the Executive Committee and the Senate is that the plan needs more than just tweaking.  He noted that of particular concern is how diversity is being defined in the plan.  He stated that there is widespread concern about the draft as it exists now.  He pointed out that it would be a good idea to have a reconstituted committee and re examine some of the commitments of the university. 

 

Bradford stated that regardless of the substance of the plan, there are a lot of people who feel that the plan is tainted by the process that was used and the way that it was presented.  He stated that the best thing to do would be to reconstitute the committee and basically start over.  He stated that good parts of the existing draft could be used but a new plan should be written.  He pointed out that compared to the general education process, a diversity plan suddenly appeared and people felt there was no input into it.  He noted that the general education process allowed input even before a plan surfaced.   He stated that he has concerns about the merit of the plan. 

 

Alloway stated that the Executive Committee spent most of the summer methodically reviewing the accreditation draft report and the general education proposals.  He pointed out that the diversity plan came through as almost a finished plan and there was no mention that there was going to be a three phase process to developing the plan.  He suggested that the Executive Committee should be given the opportunity to review the plan like it did with the general education proposals before they were sent out to the campus.

 

Ledder stated that he is not comfortable with the idea that the process is in phase two.  He stated that he thinks the process is at the beginning of phase one.  He pointed out that a document is needed where the fundamentals are agreed upon consensually. 

 

Crump stated that she believes there may be a lack of understanding on the governmental responsibilities of affirmative action that the university needs to adhere to.  She noted that because we are a federal contractor and accept federal contracts the university has certain federal obligations that must be followed.  She pointed out that part of the current draft document deals with these federal obligations.  She stated that if the obligations are not followed, the university could lose federal funding for grants and contracts. 

 

Bradford stated that the plan does not have to include the federal requirements.  Crump pointed out that the university needs to be careful about what we can and cannot do.  She stated that the university does not collect a broad spectrum of data.  Moeller asked if the university must measure gender and race.  Crump stated that this is correct.  She noted that there are different profiles between students and employees and different demographics are collected. 

 

Ledder questioned whether the plan was created merely to satisfy federal authorities.  He noted that it is not the plan we would choose if the goal were to benefit the university as much as possible.  Crump stated that the federal requirements might be misplaced in a diversity document.  She suggested that the requirements might be better if they were in their own entity. 

 

Ledder stated that the definitions of diversity should include different political views.  Crump pointed out that the university does not want to keep this kind of data.  Ledder asked if the purpose of the plan is to promote real diversity, why something should be left out just because we don’t collect data on it. 

 

Alloway stated that another concern with the plan is that evaluations could be effected if the person is not involved in diversity plans.  Stock stated that objective 1.1 regarding evaluations is a concern because it is quite prescriptive. 

 

Bradford stated that the main problem is the substance of the plan and how it might be used for evaluations.  He pointed out that the plan sounds like a quota system which is illegal.  He noted that the plan states that administrators are going to do a report in terms of how many women and minorities are hired.  He noted that the plan suggests that if numbers are not met, a faculty member or administrator could be subjected to discipline.  He stated that the implementation of these objectives could be used in a way that would cause problems in the academic environment. 

 

Crump asked if the plan needs to start over with a broader committee.  Ledder stated that he did not think that the current members should be removed from the committee but it should be made broader.  Moeller stated that faculty members with expertise in the area of diversity should be on the committee.  She stated that a representative from UNOPA and UAAD should be included as well since staff members deal with different issues than faculty members.  Bradford noted that parts of the draft can be used for a new plan. 

 

Moeller stated that the Executive Committee has worked well with the general education committees and the Committee should have a look at the revised draft before it goes out to the campus community.  Ledder pointed out that it would be easier to get feedback from the Executive Committee before the document goes out to the entire campus. 

 

Flowers stated that if the plan involved academic policy, that component of it would need to be approved by the Senate because the policy would affect all of the colleges.  It is the Senate’s purview to act on matters that affect all colleges. 

 

Zimmers asked if there are any federal regulations that there has to be a diversity plan at an institution that receives federal contracts.  Crump stated that a diversity plan is not needed but an affirmative action plan is needed.  She noted that the institution does have to have targets for its demographic profile.  She stated that we have an affirmative obligation to increase the number of minorities and women on campus.  She stated that units that have not been able to hire in 20 years do not have good profiles.  She pointed out that it is hard to change the demographics when you can’t hire someone new.  She noted that when it comes down to particular hires the campus has to adhere to Title VII and not discriminate against candidates.  She pointed out that the State Legislature has added a factor because they feel that we need to have so many women and minorities on campus.  She pointed out that the university must have a good explanation if qualified women and minority candidates for positions are passed over. 

 

Crump noted that the mathematics department has been doing an amazing job of recruiting women into their graduate and undergraduate program.  Ledder stated that he wished the department would get more credit for its work in increasing the national pool of female applicants for math positions.  He noted that when faculty diversity is discussed the department only hears how they haven’t been able to hire a diverse enough faculty.  Crump stated that any applicant that turns us down is still counted in the demographics unless it turns out that discrimination has occurred.  She pointed out that the government has changed greatly in the way it audits universities.  She stated that a team from across the country is now brought in to conduct an audit where before it was the regional director. 

 

Beck stated that the evaluation section of the draft may not be a bad thing.  She noted that there have been complaints about unit heads over the years and yet the person is still in that position.  She noted that requiring department heads to adhere to guidelines might be a good thing.  Crump stated that there needs to be some guidelines for evaluations.  She stated that the question is how to normalize the evaluation process. 

 

Crump stated that she will take the concerns of the Executive Committee back to the Chancellor.

 

3.0       Graduate Student Association [GSA] (Tonia Compton, Amber Epp, Frank Moore)

Compton stated that she wanted to meet with the Executive Committee to make them aware of the newly formed Graduate Student Association.  She stated that some of the members of the GSA would like to talk about how the GSA and the Senate could work together on similar issues. 

 

Compton stated that the GSA was formed because there was no organization and a lack of community for graduate students.  She stated that after spending a year researching other graduate student organizations at universities across the country the GSA met and elected their executive officers in June.  She noted that the GSA has had three campus wide meetings to date and have had a few social events.  She stated that the purpose of the GSA is to facilitate a community for graduate students by sponsoring opportunities for professional development, creating opportunities for social interaction among graduate students outside of their discipline, and advocating issues relevant to graduate students and graduate education.  She noted that members of the GSA have met with SVCAA Couture, VC Paul, and VC Franco. 

 

Compton reported that the GSA wants to identify key issues for graduate students.  She reported that two issues that have emerged are the cost of health insurance and parental leave for graduate students. 

 

Epp stated that one of the things that the GSA wants to develop is having regular contact with the Senate.  She noted that the GSA would like to arrange meetings with the Senate Executive Committee and to get a representative on the Senate, similar to the ASUN representative.  She stated that the GSA would like to have representation on campus committees that have ASUN representation.   

 

Epp stated that the GSA would like to request having the syllabus of campus-wide committees amended.  She noted that ASUN is currently in charge of appointing students to committees but the GSA would like to appoint their own representatives.  She pointed out that the GSA has representation from almost all departments that have graduate programs.  With 40 representatives there would be a large pool for committee members from a variety of disciplines.  She noted that President Schaefer of ASUN supports the GSA and having them appoint representatives to the various committees. 

 

Epp pointed out that there are several committees that currently do not have student members but the GSA would like to have graduate students on them.  These include the Libraries, Commencement, and Convocations Committees.   She noted that the GSA wants to be the body that appoints graduate student representatives to committees.  Moeller stated that this would be ideal.  Griffin reminded the Committee that any changes to committees need to go to the Committee on Committees first for their review.

 

Bradford asked if professional students are included in the GSA.  Epp stated that the professional students were invited to become members but they declined because they have their own organizations however they are willing to work with the GSA.  Compton noted that when she first began working with Executive Associate Dean Weissinger on creating the GSA, the membership was kept strictly to those departments that offer graduate degrees.  She stated that the GSA checked with the Law College students but they felt that they have an organization that is effective. 

 

Ledder asked if it would be possible to have the Senate vote on one proposal that incorporates the various committee changes.  Moeller stated that this could be done.  Bradford pointed out that a Senate member could request that each change be voted upon separately. 

 

Beck pointed out that the Senate will vote in December on whether to combine the Commencement and Honors Convocation committees.  Compton stated that the GSA would like to have a representative on the committee that deals with the doctoral hooding ceremony. 

 

Beck stated that the GSA should also meet with VC Owens because there are many graduate students on East Campus.  Compton stated that the GSA will be meeting with VC Owens and they have been working diligently on including East Campus graduate students in the association.  Epp noted that two of the Executive Officers are from East Campus. 

 

Moore stated that the GSA would like the Senate to consider recognizing Graduate Student Appreciation Week which is April 2 – 6, 2007.  He stated that it would be great to get the Senate to celebrate this recognition in the spring.  He noted that the GSA is planning events for this week and is working on bringing a guest speaker to campus as well as having a wine and cheese reception.  Compton wondered whether the Senate could pass a resolution recognizing Graduate Student Appreciation Week.  She stated that the GSA is working on putting together a pamphlet that would highlight the work being done by graduate students. 

 

Moeller suggested that the GSA might want to get a profile started with the UNL Parents Association.  She pointed out that this association honors faculty and staff for outstanding work and graduate students could be included. 

 

Compton noted that the GSA is interested in family friendly events because a number of graduate students have children.  She stated that they would like to get child care so graduate students can attend the GSA meetings but money is a big obstacle.  She pointed out that the GSA has no independent funding.  She noted that there is a request in to Student Affairs and some other places for funding but this will probably require long term discussions.  Ledder suggested that they apply for funding from the Pepsi Student Events Fund. 

 

Compton noted that ASUN gets $13 per student to cover costs of operating expenses and legal services.  She stated that the GSA would like to have a fund to provide travel grants for students attending conferences.  She stated that the hope is to build a long term endowment.  Moore stated that they have plans to speak to the Foundation to see if they can help with fundraising. 

 

Compton stated that approval from the Board of Regents will be needed in order for the GSA to get a budget.  She reported that they are currently working on building a dream budget based on what they would do if they received 20% of student fees.  She noted that the dream budget is just to provide the Board with an idea of what would be done with the money if the GSA received funding.  She noted that there are serious items that they would like to see accomplished but they will need the faculty support in order to help convince the administration that the GSA should receive funding. 

 

Bradford stated that the organization should seek getting funding from the administration rather than taking a percentage of the student fees that already go to help support ASUN.  Compton stated that they looked at the funds that ASUN gets first because the legal services are shared by both graduate and undergraduate students.  She pointed out that the GSA is not opposed to ASUN but there is a lack of consideration of graduate student concerns by ASUN.  Epp noted that GSA has a good working relationship with ASUN but the graduate students are aware that ASUN does not serve the graduate students’ needs. 

 

Bradford stated that the Senate meetings are public and GSA members are welcome to attend the meetings.  Moeller stated that the GSA could give a presentation to the Senate at the January meeting. 

 

Bradford noted that the Executive Committee usually meets once a semester with ASUN and suggested that this could be done with GSA.  Moeller stated that discussions during these meetings focus on things that we can work collaboratively on. 

 

Flowers asked if the GSA has been appointed to other committees on campus such as the Institutional Review Board.  Compton stated that they are working to get on other committees such as the Academic Planning Committee and Teaching Council.  She stated that they already have a representative on the Graduate Council and Research Council. 

Ledder suggested that the GSA should try to get a non-voting position on the Board of Regents similar to the ASUN position. 

 

Compton stated that the GSA wants to get support from all of the departments on campus.  She noted that Texas Tech and Nebraska are the only schools in the Big 12 that do not have a graduate association. 

 

Moore stated that on December 9th there will be a fundraiser at Barnes and Noble locations in Lincoln.  He stated that graduate students will be handing out flyers at the stores and when the flyers are presented when making a purchase, 10-15% of the purchase will go towards the GSA.  Bradford stated that this could be announced at the Senate meeting next Tuesday.  Beck asked if this will go on all day.  Moore stated that it will. 

 

Ledder asked how a graduate student becomes a representative to the GSA.   Compton stated that this process was left up to the departments.  She noted that some departments held elections.  Beck asked if there is one representative per department.  Compton stated that there is correct.  She noted that the GSA has 40 representatives on it. 

 

Moeller stated that the Executive Committee looks forward to working with the GSA. 

 

4.0       Announcements

4.1       Voting on General Education Proposals

Ledder reported that the College of Arts & Sciences Curriculum Committee has approved proposals one and two.  He stated that the faculty of the college will vote on December 7th on the proposals.  Flowers stated that Dean Hoffman’s memo was not clear about whether the faculty of the college would vote on the proposals.  Ledder stated that he sent an email message to Assistant Dean Goodburn who clarified that the faculty of Arts & Sciences will vote on the proposals. 

 

Beck stated that there will be a full faculty vote in CASNR on the proposals.  She stated that the vote will be on whether the faculty supports the new proposals or wants to stay with the current program. 

             

5.0       Approval of 11/8/06 Minutes

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

 

6.0       Unfinished Business

            6.1       Senate Survey on GE Outcomes and Structural Criteria

The Committee agreed not to conduct a survey on the outcomes and structural criteria.  Ledder pointed out that the Senate will vote on endorsing the proposals at the December 5th Senate meeting.

 

6.2       Family Friendly Policies – Extension of Probationary Period for Tenure

Moeller stated that she heard back from Professor Haller about AAUP’s stance on extending the probationary period for tenure.  Jonathan Knight of the AAUP national office stated that the “probationary period could be extended by whatever period of time a probational faculty member was part time.  Thus part time one semester makes the whole year not full time.  It is up to the institution to decide whether this could be done.”

 

7.0       New Business

            7.1       December Senate Meeting

The Committee prepared for the December Senate meeting.  Beck suggested that Moeller report to the Senate that the Committee met with Crump to discuss the diversity plan.  She stated that the Senate should be informed of the concerns that were given to Crump about the plan.

 

7.2       University Prescription Plan & Walmart

Bradford stated that he is going to present a motion at the Senate calling for Caremark’s plan to match the minimum price offered by Walmart for generic drugs.  Alloway noted that Caremark is looking at a possible merger with CVS to help control costs. 

 

7.3       January 3rd Meeting

The Committee agreed not to meet on January 3rd because many people will be out of town.

 

7.4       Letter on Staff Salaries

Moeller stated that a letter concerning the percentage of staff increases the past two years was sent to the presidents of UAAD and UNOPA and passed on to the Executive Committee.  Moeller noted that the letter points out that in the past staff and faculty members received the same percentage of increase but for 2005-2006 the faculty pool was 3.95% and the staff received 3.00%; for 2006-2007 the faculty pool was 3.95% and the staff pool was only 3.25%.  The letter pointed out that it is unfair for the staff to receive less of an increase particularly with the increase in health care costs and parking.  Moeller stated that the Senate is being asked to support staff receiving the same percentage of increase as the faculty. 

 

Griffin thought that the percentage difference was mandated either by the Board of Regents or the Legislature.  Moeller stated that she recollected the Chancellor making comments referring to this.

 

Bradford questioned whether this was something that the Senate should take a position on.  He noted that UNOPA and UAAD represent the staff and managerial/professional employees and they should not be taking a position on faculty salaries.  He stated that he is sympathetic but is not sure if it is an institutional concern.

 

Moeller pointed out that the staff members are intimately linked to the faculty because they support the work that the faculty does.  She stated that she wants to support the request and feels that there should be more equity.  She pointed out that the staff earns less and therefore their increases amount to considerably less than the faculty members. 

 

Bradford noted that as a practical matter giving equal percentage of increase will give less support for the faculty because there is no extra money available.  He stated that he would like to see the additional increase be taken out of some other pool.  He pointed out that he would like to see what the administrators’ salary pool is.  He noted that this is something that we don’t hear about. 

 

Ledder stated that he would vote in favor of supporting the request.  Bradford noted that the Senate has supported something similar in the past.  Ledder noted that there may be individuals who will vote against it but the Senate as a whole should decide if it supports the request. 

 

The Committee agreed that a motion to support equal salary percentage increases should be presented to the Senate in the spring. 

 

7.5       Search Committee for Dean of Arts & Sciences

Moeller provided the Committee with a list of the members of the search committee for the Dean of Arts & Sciences.  The Committee agreed that the search committee consisted of strong and representative faculty members and administrators.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 4:58 p.m.  The next meeting of the Executive Committee will be on Wednesday, December 6th 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 Rick Alloway, Secretary.