EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES

 

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

 

Absent:           Rapkin

           

Date:               Wednesday, October 25, 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       Computational Services and Facilities Committee

Flowers reported that the committee recently met and is discussing the need to update the charge and syllabus of the committee.  He noted that the responsibilities and charge of the committee have not been changed in fifteen years and they need to be updated and restructured.  He stated that the committee is hoping to prompt better communication between the Senate, the committee, the administration, and others on campus. 

 

2.2       Letter from the College of Architecture

Moeller reported that she received a letter from faculty members in the College of Architecture who are opposed to the changes to the Senate Bylaws because they are concerned with having adequate representation in the Senate.  The letter pointed out that the College was pressured into reorganizing by creating four programs and eliminating departments but was told that they would not suffer unduly because of the restructuring.  The faculty members in the College of Architecture are concerned that they would lose a representative to the Senate.

 

Bradford pointed out that the changes to the Bylaws actually protect colleges that are being restructured because it ensures that each college will have two representatives, and if there are more than 50 faculty members, the college will have three representatives.  He volunteered to write a letter to the faculty members in the college to address their concerns. 

 

2.3       Teaching Academic Integrity

Zimmer stated that he received an email message from a faculty member who stated that the issue of academic dishonesty should be addressed from a positive approach rather than a negative, punitive approach.  The faculty member suggested that freshmen students should be taught academic integrity in freshmen required courses and they should be taught how to distinguish credible sources on the web and how to accurately reference other sources of information. 

 

Bolin noted that the Library freshmen course addresses some of these issues. 

 

2.4       Safe Assignment Committee Meeting

Flowers reported that the Safe Assignment Committee will be meeting on Monday, October 30th. 

 

Alexander asked if there was some way that a thesis or dissertation could be checked using Safe Assignment without having to put a fake course into the program.  Moeller noted that the program should be readily available for those who want to use it, regardless of whether it is for a course or just to check a paper.  Flowers stated that he believed the program can be set up to allow people to check papers regardless of whether they are for a regularly scheduled course. 

 

Bradford asked why a faculty member has to go through Blackboard to use the program.  He asked if the program can be used from Safe Assignment’s own site.  Bolin stated that she would check to see whether these concerns can be addressed by the Safe Assignment program.

 

3.0       Approval of 10/18/06 Minutes

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

 

4.0       Unfinished Business

            4.1       Arts & Sciences Dean Search Committee

Moeller reported that she met with SVCAA Couture and brought the list of faculty members that the Executive Committee identified as possible members of the search committee.  Moeller noted that the list was composed from input from the members of the Committee as well as several other people on campus.  She noted that there were four faculty members who were on both the Committee’s list and SVCAA Couture’s list.  Moeller reported that she and SVCAA Couture were eventually able to identify 19 possible search committee members.  Moeller stated that the actual committee will have 9 – 11 people on it.  She pointed out that the UNL Bylaws state that there needs to be twice as many names on the potential list of candidates for the search committee.

 

Beck stated that she hopes that SVCAA Couture will consult with the Executive Committee again if a number of potential candidates are unable to serve on the committee.  Moeller noted that SVCAA Couture wants to have a lot of the members be from the College of Arts & Sciences.  Moeller pointed out that the faculty members must make up a plurality of the committee members. 

 

 

 

 

4.2       NCA Accreditation

Moeller stated that Professor O’Hanlon volunteered to come and talk to the Committee about its concerns with the self-study report.  She pointed out that the Committee is also scheduled to meet with the accreditation team on November 6th.

 

Professor O’Hanlon noted that the team is coming in on Sunday, November 5th.  The team will meet with the Chancellor first and the rest of the visit is organized into five tracks.  He stated that he did not expect the meetings to be tightly bound regardless of the track it is in and all kinds of matters could be addressed in the meetings.

 

Professor O’Hanlon stated that there will be open meetings for students as well as a luncheon with representatives from ASUN.  He noted that there will also be open meetings for staff and faculty members. 

 

Professor O’Hanlon stated that there will be many meetings but there will also be room for the team to have additional meetings if they desire.  He pointed out that the team has to verify the self-study report. 

 

Professor O’Hanlon reported that there will be an exit report on Wednesday.  He stated that the report by the accreditation team will take nine to ten weeks to be completed after their visit. 

 

Moeller asked if everything the team needs to see is on line so that the team can review it before they come.  Professor O’Hanlon stated that there will be two work rooms for the teams and laptop computers will be provided along with a USB scan disk with the report on it. 

 

Professor O’Hanlon stated that the Executive Committee is meeting with the track that covers the broadest chapters of the self-study report.  He noted that this will allow the Committee to discuss many issues with the team. 

 

Professor O’Hanlon reported that the deans will need to have examples of their strategic planning when they meet with the team and they are allowed to bring in additional people to the meetings.  He noted that the Academic Planning Committee is meeting with the team and its first task will be to explain to the team what their role is on campus. 

 

Moeller noted that the Committee has particular concerns over the section of the report that addresses the firing of tenured faculty members during the budget crisis.  She pointed out that this section does not give an accurate account of what transpired during this time period. 

 

Beck summarized the concerns of faculty members as follows:  she stated that faculty members are concerned with the way the report was written because it appears that the firing of tenured professors was a strategy for protecting undergraduate education.  She stated that the paragraph does not reflect the reality of the situation.  She pointed out that this solution for dealing with the budget cuts did not have the full review from the Academic Planning Committee and some of the things that transpired happened over the objections of the APC.  She noted that the response in favor to the question of faculty support for the cuts is quite misleading because the questions posed were confounded.  She pointed out that firing tenured professors hurt UNL’s reputation nationally even to the point that some faculty members were subjected to negative fallout at national conferences.  She stated that this section of firing tenured faculty members should not be written as if it were a good thing. 

 

Professor O’Hanlon stated that the team will be meeting with the faculty members who served on the APC during the budget cutting period.

 

Moeller read a copy of an article from the Lincoln Journal Star which indicated that the AAUP did not think guidelines were adequately followed during the budget crisis.  Beck indicated that the article cites Roger Bowen, current general secretary of the AAUP, who was in Lincoln in 2004; he was not the general secretary at the time of the budget cuts. 

 

Professor O’Hanlon stated that the Committee is free to bring up the issue to the team.  He stated that he did not know whether the team will even mention this section. 

 

Moeller stated that she thinks the role of the Committee is to talk about some of the good things that have happened on campus as well as some of our needs.  She pointed out that the issue concerning the budget cuts will not be the central mission of the Committee’s meeting with the team but the team needs to understand the context of what happened. 

 

Beck stated that she appreciates the Committee being scheduled to meet with the team.  Professor O’Hanlon noted that we are doing a lot of good things here at UNL.  He stated that he did not know how much is going on here until he got involved in working on the self-study report. 

 

4.3       Family Friendly Policies

Moeller noted that the proposal is to allow a faculty member to have his/her FTE tenure clock reduced to .5 FTE when there is significant familial demand or for personal circumstances related to the health of the faculty member. 

 

Ledder questioned the tuition remission policy and why a family member enrolled part-time is not eligible for the tuition remission.  Bradford noted that this is a restriction made by the Board of Regents.  Ledder stated that a spouse should be able to take an evening course under tuition remission.  He pointed out that the existing policy is not that family friendly.  Bradford noted that the current policy is an improvement over the previous policy which only gave tuition remission to the employee. 

 

Ledder stated that he liked the proposal for the half-time tenure track.  He noted that it allows people to better integrate their professional life with their personal life for a short period of time when there are significant personal stresses.  He pointed out that the university does not seem to suffer from it and it would benefit the individual faculty member. 

 

Bradford questioned whether the Modified Duties proposal is a substitution of the existing policy or a modification.  He pointed out if the proposal is meant as a substitution it is more limiting than the existing policy.  He noted that the proposal introduces the possibility of reallocating faculty members duties until they return to full-time status. 

 

Ledder pointed out that the proposal does not address tenure clock interruption.  He stated that the proposal should be added as an alternative policy to the existing policy. 

 

Bradford questioned why the faculty member using the new policy can only be partially reduced for an entire semester.  He noted that in the existing policy the primary care giver can get full release. 

 

Alexander pointed out that in reality what happens is that a lot of people pick up the duties of the people on release without getting any extra compensation for the increased workload.  He noted that if a faculty member is on half-time duties, then some of the money from the salary line should be given to those people who pick up the extra duties. 

 

Ledder questioned what would happen if a faculty member only needed a month on part-time duties rather than a whole semester.  He wondered whether there is any alternative for this need.  Alexander pointed out that in some cases what was supposed to be only a few weeks or month leave turns into a three month leave.  He pointed out that the policy could be abused. 

 

Alexander stated that money needs to be made available to compensate anyone who picks up the additional duties of the faculty member who is going half-time.  Ledder noted that number six of the policy states that “the first priority for salary savings realized from a reduction in FTE will be to cover any resulting instructional needs.”  Beck stated that in the past some female faculty members had to pay for substitutes out of their own pocket in order to take leave.  Moeller pointed out that there was no unified procedure on this but it was supposed to be negotiated in the department. 

 

Moeller asked if there were any objections to the new policy.  Bradford stated that he is concerned that there could be violations with the AAUP on the tenure clock.  He noted that the AAUP policy on the tenure clock is phrased in terms of full-time faculty members.  Flowers noted that the AAUP guidelines are ambiguous about half-time faculty members. 

 

Bradford questioned how it will be ensured that the policy is not abused by administrators.  Ledder noted that the policy should only apply to faculty members who are already employed here.  Beck stated that it could be written into the policy that it would only apply if it is requested by the faculty member.  Ledder stated that someone could be coerced into working half-time.  Bradford stated that the policy could be abused by forcing people to accept half-time employment or risk not getting tenure.  He noted that the AAUP states that the probationary period for full-time faculty members should not exceed seven years.  He pointed out that the proposal would appear to violate this policy. 

 

Beck suggested that we ask AAUP for an opinion on the matter.  She noted that she did not think a faculty member could drop below 80% and retain a tenure-track position.  Bradford pointed out that AAUP has a new standard on part-time faculty members but not on half-time tenure track faculty members.

 

Moeller noted that SVCAA Couture will be contacted to see if the proposal is a supplement or a replacement for the existing policy. 

 

4.4       General Education

Ledder noted that the structural criteria have been revised by the GEAC by reducing the number of criteria from ten to nine.  Bradford stated that it appears that number ten has been merged into point number one. 

 

The Committee discussed the concerns of a faculty member about the proposed new program.  Ledder suggested that we shouldn’t be mandating a liberal education for all colleges.  He cited the College of Engineering as an example.  Bradford pointed out that the university does not require all students to graduate with a liberal arts degree. 

 

Ledder stated that there seems to be a philosophical difference between the existing ES/IS program and the proposed achievement-centered education program.  He noted that the philosophy behind the existing program is for students to take courses across the disciplines while the proposed program is designed to help students to attain skills and knowledge.   Moeller pointed out that the proposed program is a paradigm shift in the philosophy of general education.

 

Bradford stated that there are courses that could certainly meet more than two outcomes.  

 

Moeller stated that the Senate will discuss the outcomes and the structural criteria at the November Senate meeting.  She asked whether a motion should be made similar to that done in October on the institutional objectives.  Ledder stated that he thinks another resolution should be introduced in November which endorses the outcomes and structural criteria.  He noted that the Senate would not vote on the motion until the December Senate meeting. 

 

Alexander questioned why the colleges are not voting on the entire general education program at once.  He noted that the College of Engineering is concerned with the assessment portion of the program.  Ledder stated that he can ask this at the open forum.  Bradford pointed out that by presenting the program in sections it gives the faculty members a basic idea of what we want students to learn and the proposal can be modified easier if it is done in steps.

 

Ledder noted that there are the structural criteria now but there needs to also be a structural mechanism.  He pointed out that implementation and assessment mechanisms need to be developed next.

 

4.5       Possible Meeting with Melissa Lee, Lincoln Journal Star, and Matt Hansen,     Omaha World Herald

Moeller suggested that members of the Nebraska Press (Melissa Lee, Lincoln Journal Star, Matt Hansen, Omaha World Herald, and the Daily Nebraskan) be invited to meet with the Committee to discuss how articles could be written about the work faculty members are doing.  She suggested that Committee members provide examples of research and work conducted by faculty members that may be of interest to Nebraska citizens.

           

5.0       New Business

5.1       Draft Diversity Plan

Item postponed until next week due to lack of time.

 

            5.2       ASUN Syllabus Policy

Moeller reported that Greg Gifford of ASUN is seeking an Executive Committee member to work with him on creating a syllabus policy.  Ledder volunteered to work on the policy.

 

            5.3       Faculty Compensation Advisory Committee Meeting

Beck reported that the FCAC met this week.  She stated that the committee discussed the reports that will be prepared for the spring such as the peer comparison report which will show how salaries have changed over a period of time.  She noted that there was a lot of discussion about the gender equity report.  She stated that the reports in the past have shown no statistical differences in salaries between men and women but it is unclear what data is actually being put in.  She reported that Institutional Research and Planning are going to run some alternative models.  She stated that the model being used for the minority report will be looked at.  She stated that a report on ethnicity has also been requested. 

 

Beck stated that there will be two meetings in the spring.  The first will be to discuss the data from the various reports and the second one will be to discuss the recommendation that will be made to the Chancellor on how faculty salaries should be distributed. 

 

Bradford noted that there will also be a comparison report on retirement data. 

 

Beck stated that SVCAA Couture indicated that there is the possibility that a proposal will be made to award promotions to faculty members differently than the flat rate they have been receiving.  Bradford noted that one proposal is to protect lower paid faculty members and will be based on either a minimum or a percentage increase, whichever is greater.  Beck pointed out that UNL stacked up well against our peer schools in terms of promotion raises.  She stated that it used to be that raises were given if a college could afford it but now it is taken out of the salary pool. 

 

 

            5.4       General Education Open Forums

Moeller stated that the General Education Forums will be held from 10:30 – 12:00 on City Campus at the Union and from 1:00 – 2:30 on East Campus at the Union this Friday, October 27th.   She encouraged Committee members to attend one of the forums.

 

            5.5       NCA Accreditation Team Meeting

Moeller reminded the Committee that they will be meeting with the accreditation team on Monday, November 6th at 3:30 in the City Campus Union, Room 213. 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 4:58 p.m.  The next meeting of the Executive Committee will be on Wednesday, November 1st at 3:00 pm.  The meeting will be held in Academic Senate Office, 420 University Terrace.  The minutes are respectfully submitted by Karen Griffin, Coordinator and Rick Alloway, Secretary.