EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES

 

Present:          Alloway, Bolin, Bradford, Hachtmann, Ledder, Moeller, Scholz, Stock, Zimmers

 

Absent:           Alexander, Beck, Flowers, Rapkin

           

Date:               Wednesday, October 11, 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 3:03 p.m.

 

2.0       Announcements

2.1       Executive Committee to Meet with the Accreditation Team

Moeller reported that she sent Professor O’Hanlon an email message expressing the Committee’s objection to the paragraph in the self study report referring to the vote of the faculty on the budget cuts.  She noted that the Committee expressed concern during the summer about the inaccuracies of the paragraph and were disappointed that the changes were not made to the report.  She stated that Professor O’Hanlon wants to meet with the Committee on October 25th to discuss the concerns.  She noted that the Committee will also be scheduled to meet with the Accreditation Team during the team’s visit in early November. 

 

3.0       Approval of 10/4/06 Minutes

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

 

4.0       Unfinished Business

            4.1       Commencement and Honors Convocation Committee Merger

A copy of the syllabus of the proposed combined Commencement and Honors Convocation Committee was distributed to the Committee.  Moeller noted that the faculty members of the combined committees will constitute a majority of the members of the committee.  She pointed out that this was one of the concerns of the Commencement Committee over the first proposal to combine the two committees with the Honorary Degrees Committee. 

 

Stock moved that the Commencement and Honors Convocation Committee syllabus be approved to replace the original proposal of combining the Commencement, Honors Convocation, and Honorary Degrees Committee.  Ledder seconded the motion.  Motion approved. 

 

Moeller stated that she will send the members of the Commencement Committee a copy of the newly proposed syllabus. 

           

5.0       New Business

5.1       Senate Voting on General Education Program

Bradford stated that in reading the provisions in the state statues it is clear that colleges have to vote on curriculum issues.  He pointed out that while the Regents Bylaw states that each college has the power to determine requirements for graduation, the Regents Bylaws also state in 2.12.1. C under Responsibilities of Faculty Governing Agencies reads “Each agency shall have the following general responsibilities:… (c) Act on academic matters that affect more than one college.”  

 

Moeller noted that having the Senate vote on the proposed general education program puts the governance back on the Senate.  She asked what the procedures should be in voting on the program. 

 

Ledder stated that he believed that the Senate should vote on the proposals first.  He pointed out that at the college level there is no possibility for amending the proposal but this could be done at the Senate because it does not act in parallel with any other body on campus.  He noted that he does not want to change the proposal but if concerns are found the faculty should have the opportunity of making amendments.  Bradford stated that he did not think that there should be a possibility of amendments because the changes would probably not be significant enough to change the proposal. 

 

Ledder stated that he thinks the GEPT and the GEAC would be in favor of having the Senate vote on the proposals.  He noted that colleges could vote against the proposal but this could change if the Senate supports the proposal since the Senate is composed of representatives from units across the campus.  He noted that in its motion the Senate could recommend that the colleges approve the proposal. 

 

            5.2       Draft Diversity Plan

Moeller questioned whether the diversity plan is supposed to be a part of the campus strategic plan.  Bradford wondered whether it is an update of what we already have.  Alloway suggested that if it is an update, a comparison between the original plan and this one would be helpful, since references are made to the former plan. 

 

Bradford pointed out that one of the quotes used in the draft plan are from a previous second draft from 1999.   He questioned if the plan was ever adopted, and if not, why. 

 

Stock stated that the English department advisory committee discussed the plan and raised concerns.  He noted that there is pedagogically a way of teaching that challenges students to think and the plan appears to stifle that way of teaching.  He stated that the tone of the plan is a problem. 

 

Bradford stated that another problem with the plan is that they group different classifications of employees together in the same objective without acknowledging that things may be handled differently by the different classifications of employees.  Ledder pointed out that there should be a distinction between the pedagogical environment and those environments that are not. 

 

Ledder noted that some departments have already been very successful in improving their climate.  He stated that those departments should not be told that they need to do a climate improvement plan. 

 

Bradford pointed out that the plan calls for evaluating faculty and staff in areas where they have no control.  He pointed out that some of the evaluation plans will not work in an academic collegial setting. 

 

Bradford stated that the plan sounds like it is a quota program.  Ledder noted that some of the goals the faculty and departments have little control over.  He noted that it might be a good idea to try to meet the goal but the reality is that it cannot always be done.  He pointed out that the mathematics department has tried hard to recruit minority faculty members and has not had as much success as they would like simply because the people are hired elsewhere for a variety of reasons.  Bradford noted that the university can create equal opportunities but can not create equal results. 

 

The committee agreed to meet with the committee that wrote the plan to discuss its concerns.

 

            5.3       General Education Outcomes

Ledder stated that most of the outcomes are non-controversial but number 10 could create problems for some departments (to see the outcomes go to:  http://www.unl.edu/svcaa/gened/outcomes.htm).  Moeller pointed out that departments could get around number 10 by having a course that integrates what the students know. 

 

Ledder asked if the Senate should conduct a survey on the outcomes before the structural criteria for the general education program is developed.  He noted that the structural criteria are the rules that will determine how the outcomes will be satisfied by a student.  Ledder pointed out that students will only be able to satisfy three of their outcomes in their major.  He stated that the other outcomes will need to be satisfied with other courses.

 

Ledder noted that no department will have courses that can meet all of the outcomes.  He pointed out that the purpose for the general education program is to get students to take courses in a variety of disciplines in order to give them a broader education.  Moeller asked if the departments will identify which courses will meet specific outcomes.  Ledder stated yes and pointed out that no course can be designated for more than two outcomes.  He stated that a student can only claim credit for one of the outcomes from any one course, and in cases where a course can meet more than one outcome it will be up to the student to identify which of the two outcomes will be credited. 

 

Zimmers asked if passing the course satisfies the requirement for the outcome.  Ledder stated that he is not sure what the general education committees are planning.  He stated that he thinks fulfilling the outcome requirement would be based on a particular assignment for the course rather than the whole course.  He noted that a student in the class might receive a C for the course but not meet the criteria because the student received a D on the paper.  Alloway suggested that creating additional grading and reporting work for faculty member might be met with resistance.  Hachtmann noted that it would be difficult to explain to the students as well. 

 

Scholz asked who would monitor whether students meet the outcome requirements.  Ledder stated that the students would probably have to sign a form which would be retained by Registration and Records.  Scholz asked if the instructor would have to report two grades, one for the course and one for the outcome.  Ledder stated that this is a possibility.  Stock pointed out that this should not be too difficult.  He stated that instructors could receive a separate roster identifying students who are taking the course to meet an outcome requirement.  Ledder noted that probably one assignment for the course will meet the outcome requirement and the grade on that assignment will be reported as evident of meeting that outcome. 

 

Ledder noted that proposed structural criteria calls for the instructor to establish a plan that will demonstrate how the outcome will be met by the course.  The Curriculum Committee will then decide whether the course is approved for meeting the outcomes identified and then a contract would be signed with the department.  He noted that in order for the program to work the course must meet the outcomes and the students must meet the requirements of the outcome in the course. 

 

Scholz pointed out that having two grading systems seems overly complicated.  Ledder noted that the grade for the outcome requirement would be a pass/no pass grade.

 

Scholz asked if there would be an appeals mechanism for students to dispute a grade on the outcome.  Ledder stated that he thinks there would be.  He pointed out that the Nroll system would need to be changed so students can indicate what outcome the course is going to meet for them. 

 

Bradford stated that he can see students resisting the outcome requirement in part because it might be difficult for students to determine how the course will meet the outcomes.  Moeller pointed out that the good assessment tools will need to be in place in order to explain to students why they received a certain grade. 

 

Alloway questioned how outside activities such as internships will be factored into the outcome requirements.  It was pointed out that students should be allowed to petition departments to get credit for outside experiences.  Alloway noted that it may be difficult to evaluate whether outside experiences meet specific outcomes because they sometimes take place off campus and may not be monitored in the same way as a class.  Moeller stated that a faculty committee would need to determine whether outside experiences meet the outcome criteria.  Ledder pointed out that only a pass/no pass grade would need to be given.

 

Scholz wondered whether experiences predating enrollment, such as in the case of non-traditional students, would count.  Ledder stated that he thinks that they might.  He noted that part of the push for revamping the general education program is to help deal with transfer students.  Bradford wondered whether some skills acquired in high school would count.  Ledder stated that these kinds of things will need to be worked out by the committees. 

 

Stock stated that he is unsure how some assignments could be measured to meet the outcomes.  Ledder stated that group work could be an issue that needs to be considered. 

 

Bradford pointed out that outcome number two is illegal because the use of the words oral and visual is a violation of the American Disabilities Act.  He noted that instead it should read “demonstrate effective communication skills through the assessment and critical evaluation of information.” 

 

Bradford questioned the use of the phrase “standards of evidence” in outcome number five.  Stock noted that it is important not to get bogged down in the details. 

 

Ledder volunteered to send Professor Janovy the Committee’s feedback on the outcomes.  He pointed out that the colleges will receive proposals on the outcomes and the structural criteria in December.  He noted that a copy of the proposals will be sent to the colleges in a couple of weeks. 

 

The Committee agreed that the Senate should discuss the outcomes at the November Senate meeting. 

 

The Committee discussed when the survey should be designed and sent out.  Moeller pointed out that before the survey is sent out there needs to be an explanation of the relationship between the objectives and the outcomes. 

 

            5.4       Search Committee for Dean of Arts and Sciences

Moeller reported that she sent an email message to the Chancellor reminding him that the UNL Bylaws state that the advisory committee shall be determined by the selecting officer in consultation with the elected heads of ASUN and the Academic Senate.  She stated that she has asked the Chancellor when he wants the Executive Committee to provide a list of names for the committee.  She noted that Senior Vice Chancellor Couture will be the selecting officer and Moeller will be meeting with her soon about the search committee.

 

The Committee suggested some faculty members for the search committee.  Moeller stated that she will keep the Committee informed about the progress of the search committee.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 4:52 p.m.  The next meeting of the Executive Committee will be on Wednesday, October 18th at 3:00 pm.  The meeting will be held in 201 Canfield Administration Building.  The minutes are respectfully submitted by Karen Griffin, Coordinator and Rick Alloway, Secretary.