EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES

 

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

 

Absent:           Alexander, Rapkin, Scholz

           

Date:               Wednesday, November 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

            Moeller called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m.

 

2.0       Announcements

            2.1       Email Message about Committee Changes

Moeller reported that she received an email message from a senator asking if the Committee on Committees had a chance to review and approve the proposed changes to the Commencement and Honors Convocation Committees and the UNL Employee Benefits Committee.  The senator pointed out that the Executive Committee should not bypass existing committees in order to get things done quickly.  Moeller stated that she informed the senator that the changes to the Commencement and Honors Convocation Committees were approved by the Committee on Committees but it is not clear whether the committee reviewed the changes to the Employees Benefits Committee.  She stated that the Committee on Committees is meeting on November 17th and will review the changes to the Employee Benefits Committee.

 

3.0       Approval of 11/1/06 Minutes

Zimmers moved and Alloway seconded approval of the minutes as amended.  Motion approved. 

 

4.0       Unfinished Business

            4.1       Comments on Diversity Plan

Moeller noted that the discussion on the diversity plan went well at the November 7th Senate meeting.  She reported that she received an email message from the Chancellor stating that the plan was only a draft and was subject to change. 

 

Bradford stated that the Committee needs to think about what procedures we want to have for dealing with the revision of this plan before we meet with the Chancellor.  Ledder stated that a committee that works on the revision should include representatives from all of the different bodies that the plan will affect.  Moeller stated that experts in the field of the diversity, such as Professor Moshman, should be included as well. 

 

Bradford asked how the committee should be chosen.  He stated that he thinks there should be a separate plan for faculty members because the staff does not have to deal with issues of academic freedom.  He pointed out that climate is a big issue for staff.  Ledder observed that the draft plan appears to have been designed without the understanding that there are different models that are needed for the many different positions on campus. 

 

Ledder stated that there need to be three different policies on diversity:  one for personal interaction, one for classroom and curriculum, and one for hiring policies.  Bradford pointed out that the classroom policy needs to cover research as well.

           

Bolin noted that there is a diversity policy already but asked what the motivation is for creating the draft diversity plan.  Moeller stated that it is her understanding that the Chancellor wants to formulize a plan. 

 

Alloway stated that the Committee needs to ask the Chancellor what structure will be used in the process.  Bradford stated that he would like to see a committee of faculty, and maybe administrators, working on the plan.  Moeller stated that she does not think the timeline is pressing on the matter. 

 

Ledder stated that an adequate first step would be to have an accurate description of diversity.  Beck suggested that Moshman be contacted to see if he knows of any good diversity plans at other institutions.  She stated that she asked Moshman that question already and he is unaware of any other diversity plans. 

 

Alloway stated that the plan should be written in more of a broad scope rather than defining too many specific objectives.  He asked if the Committee wants to first discuss with the Chancellor the structure of the committee or content of the plan.  Moeller stated that the structure of the committee should be dealt with first.  This includes who is going to be on the committee and how they would be appointed.  The Committee recommended that Professor Moshman, Educational Psychology, Professor Ball, Marketing, and Professor Moore, Sociology serve on the committee if they are willing.  Moeller stated that there should be a plurality of faculty members on the committee.  Bradford pointed out that the faculty members should be knowledgeable about academic freedom and diversity issues. 

 

Beck stated that she will look at diversity plans at other universities.  She noted that Purdue University did a very good job of increasing the number of female faculty hires and their plan might be a good one to look at. 

 

4.2       Senate Survey on General Education Outcomes and Structural Criteria

Ledder pointed out that there may not be enough time to wait to send a survey out after the proposals have been sent to the colleges.  He suggested that a survey be conducted that doesn’t depend on the language of the proposals.  For instance, “what extent have you participated in discussions on the proposed general education program?” 

 

Beck questioned how likely the proposals are to change.  Ledder stated that there will probably be only minor changes.  He noted that the goal of the survey is to get people to think about the proposals.  Flowers pointed out that it would be helpful to see if some colleges are pursuing the general education process better than others. 

 

Moeller asked what will be done with the information gathered from the survey.  Ledder stated that the information could be given to the general education committees so they know where to focus their efforts.  He pointed out that it would be another opportunity to get information out about the general education proposals. 

 

Bradford noted that it might be only those people who are informed about the process who might respond to the survey.  Moeller stated that she recently spoke with two well known faculty members on campus who are unaware of the general education proposals.

 

Ledder stated that the message that needs to get across to the faculty is that approving the two proposals in December is not going to lock us into anything.  He pointed out that the details of the general education program will be voted on in a separate document, probably in the spring. 

 

The Committee discussed specific questions that should be included in the survey.  The Committee agreed that they would attempt to get the survey out before the Thanksgiving break. 

 

4.3       Status of Changes to the Senate

Alloway asked what the status is of the changes to the Senate that were approved by the Academic Assembly in September.  Griffin reported that the Chancellor has received the changes.  The next step is that ASUN must approve the changes and then the changes will be sent to the Board of Regents for their approval. 

 

5.0       New Business

5.1       Report on Meeting with NCA Team

Moeller reported that members of the Committee had a good meeting with the NCA team.  She noted that the main topic of discussion was about general education but the Committee did discuss the concerns raised by faculty members over the paragraph relating to the firing of tenured faculty members.  She pointed out that the Committee talked with the team about what actually transpired during the budget crisis.  Beck stated that the NCA team thought that lessons were probably learned during the budget cuts and they understood the context of what happened.  Flowers noted that the team was able to tie into how the budget cuts influenced the strategic planning process. 

 

5.2       Senate Meeting Follow Up

Beck stated that people need to introduce themselves before speaking at the Senate meetings, particularly new members or people who do not speak often. 

 

Bradford asked for clarification on the issue raised by the Research Council concerning arts and humanities representation on it.  Moeller stated that the report by the Council requested that there be more faculty members appointed to the Council from the Arts & Humanities discipline.  She stated that she spoke with another member of the Council and they did not feel that there is a need to increase the number of faculty members on the committee.  

 

Griffin noted that the syllabus requires three faculty members from each of the four disciplines (physical sciences, biological sciences, business and social sciences, and arts and humanities) to be on the Council.  She stated that the current membership reflects this division of the disciplines. 

 

Beck moved that the membership on the Council remain the same.  Stock seconded the motion.  Motion approved.   Moeller stated that the Committee on Committees will be asked to review the request and will be notified of the Executive Committee’s vote. 

 

5.3       Report on the Board of Regents Meeting

Moeller stated that the meeting was occupied predominantly by the strategic plans of the University as presented by President Milliken.  She reported that the position “Professor of Practice” was approved by the Board. 

 

5.4       Changing the Location of December Senate Meeting

Griffin reported that a senator requested that the December Senate meeting be moved from the East Campus Union to another location because his department is holding its annual open house and student project exhibition and would like to use the Great Plains Room.  She noted that the City Campus Union is available on December 5th for a meeting.  The committee agreed to move the meeting with the understanding that the next two meetings will be held on East Campus if possible.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 4:18 p.m.  The next meeting of the Executive Committee will be on Wednesday, November 15 at 3:00 pm.  The meeting will be held in 201 Canfield Administration.  The minutes are respectfully submitted by Karen Griffin, Coordinator and Rick Alloway, Secretary.