EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES

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

Absent: Beck, Moeller, Rapkin

Date: Wednesday, September 27, 2006

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

Bradford called the meeting to order at 3:04 p.m.

2.0 Vice Chancellor Franco

Vice Chancellor Franco stated that the campus recently hosted Parents Weekend with approximately 300 parents attending from 16 different states. He reported that the parents were very pleased with their visit and particularly enjoyed hearing how their kids are doing in the classrooms. He stated that he appreciated professors taking the time to participate in the event and hoped more faculty members will be involved next year.

Vice Chancellor Franco reported that he recently attended the Midwest Consortium for Service Learning. He noted that 25 institutions participated in the consortium. He stated that many professors have students involved in service learning and he is working with Dean Kean to see if there is much interest in establishing a service certificate program.

Vice Chancellor Franco stated that service learning has been around for a number of years but is getting more popular. He noted that this is service work that is done in the context of a discipline such as students in a psychology class working at a local clinic. He pointed out that some courses could be designated as service learning courses and students would receive credit for the work. He noted that learning experience can be applied in many different fields and if there is enough interest in establishing a service certificate program, he will pursue it.

Vice Chancellor Franco stated that he attended an AAUP meeting in Washington DC on academic freedom. He noted that one of the main topics of discussion was about withdrawing an invitation to a guest speaker that was invited to campus by either the university, faculty, or a student organization. He stated that the discussion centered on what circumstances would have to occur in order to un-invite the speaker. He noted that a policy statement was drafted regarding this issue. He pointed out that the policy states that basically once you invite someone you should rarely un-invite them. The one issue that would justify withdrawing the invitation is safety, whether it is for the safety of the participants or the speaker. He noted that campuses need to weigh the reality of what the consequences can be if a controversial speaker is brought to campus.

Vice Chancellor Franco stated that mid-semester checks are currently going on. He stated that a number of programs for the students are taking place in the Union and he appreciates the faculty members getting involved. He pointed out that the mid-semester checks are a reminder to students of what they need to do with their classes.

Vice Chancellor Franco stated that he wants the campus to provide more activities for students, particularly for those under the age of 21. He noted that many of these students are saying that there are not enough things for them to do. He reported that there will be a tailgating party, without alcohol, in front of the Union when Nebraska plays against Texas. He stated that 4, 000 – 5,000 students are expected to attend the tailgate party. He noted that the students have suggested doing a similar tailgate party for the basketball games as well.

Vice Chancellor Franco stated that there have been three fires recently, two in fraternity houses and one in an off campus apartment rented by students. He noted that two of the fires were at fraternity houses on campus and the other was off campus. He stated that one fire occurred due to a lightening strike and the other is still being investigated. He noted that he had the Fire Marshall inspect all of the fraternity and sorority houses on campus to make sure that all of the houses are safe.

Vice Chancellor Franco stated that he wants to reach out to other parts of the state and he is planning to travel throughout the state to meet prospective students. He noted that he wants to work on providing access to higher education to lower income students. He stated that he is working with the Grand Island schools to identify 50 low income students. The high schools will work with these students for four years to make sure they meet the requirements to attend the university. If they meet the standards the university will help them financially and the students will qualify for Pell grants.

Ledder noted that part of the criteria for these students is to be a first generation college student. He asked if the students also show academic promise. Vice Chancellor Franco stated that they do show academic promise and in Grand Island a math and English teacher have been identified who will work with these students throughout the four years they are in high school.

Scholz pointed out that it is good see these initiatives started. He asked if there are other things that Vice Chancellor Franco thinks needs attention. Vice Chancellor Franco stated that overall he has found the university to be in better shape than he thought. He noted that faculty members have been very involved with students. He pointed out that the Greek system is very good and he wishes that the good things that the Greek houses do would get more attention.

Bradford asked if there are any persistent concerns that the Vice Chancellor hears from students. Vice Chancellor Franco stated that one current concern is about the Safe Assignment program. He noted that students are supportive of the program but they want to see it used as an educational tool, not just a tool for punishing.

Stock pointed out that academic dishonesty seems to be spiking on campus and the Committee is looking into the idea of having an “XF” grade to indicate a student failed a course because they were caught cheating. Vice Chancellor Franco stated that the question is how to help students become better. He noted that some students make mistakes but we need to provide a learning environment for them. He speculated whether we need to educate students better about what is considered cheating. Ledder stated that the Committee has been discussing the issue and feels the university needs to have a clear definition of academic dishonesty. Vice Chancellor Franco stated that faculty members may need to spend more time educating students on what is considered academic dishonesty. Alloway stated that the Committee has had numerous conversations about the teaching aspect of Safe Assignment and looks at it as a teaching tool. He pointed out that it is getting harder for faculty members to know if they are bringing accurate charges of plagiarism against a student and Safe Assignment would help identify true cases of plagiarism. Ledder noted that there are some willful attempts by students to defraud the system and the faculty want to do something about this but the grade would only be used in egregious cases.

Flowers stated that a substantial number of faculty members seem to be unaware that our current student code of conduct (section 4.2) specifically requires that faculty report to Judicial Affairs as well as their department head or chair if an incident of academic dishonesty leads to a reduction in a student’s grade. He wondered how much additional value the “X” grade would provide if the current mandatory reporting policy was actually followed. Vice Chancellor Franco stated that he does not want to interfere with classes but faculty members should let Judicial Affairs know if there are cases of cheating.

Alloway stated that it was nice to hear that the campus is trying to do things to provide more activities for underage students. He noted that a candidate for the Director of the Student Unions suggested having a night club in the union. It had all the trappings of a dance club but without the alcohol. Vice Chancellor Franco stated that there have been suggestions to keep the union open later at night.

Stock noted that the university received grant money to assist in curbing binge drinking. He asked if the grant is still going on and how it is enforced. Vice Chancellor Franco stated that the grant is for nine years and we are toward the end of the grant period. He stated that the efforts have had an impact. He pointed out that the good neighbor policy is having an effect. This is when university students and campus police work together to educate students about reducing noise in their neighborhoods and in being responsible neighbors.

Zimmers stated that he hopes the Vice Chancellor calls on extension faculty members when he travels throughout the state. He pointed out that the extension staff are very involved with 4H and can help with making contacts with prospective students. Vice Chancellor Franco stated that the extension personnel are already helping out and he plans to ask for their assistance in his travels.

Bradford stated that the recent incident with the Chemistry professor and conversations with ASUN gave the Committee the sense that students do not know where to go to report problems. He asked if there is anything we can do to make students more aware of what steps they can take. Vice Chancellor Franco stated that the best way is through faculty members. He stated that if faculty members can communicate what students can do, this would be helpful. He pointed out that students need to feel that they can report things without being penalized. He noted that having a student ombudsman would help.

Bradford asked if students are made aware of their academic rights during freshman orientation. Vice Chancellor Franco stated that they are but they are so bombarded with information that they often do not remember. Ledder suggested reminding them of their rights and encouraging them see the department chair during the mid-semester check.

3.0 General Education Planning Team – Review Results of Survey on Institutional Objectives (Professor Janovy, Professor Peterson, Professor Mitchell, Jessica Jonson, University-wide Assessment Coordinator)

A cross-tabular breakdown of the responses of the survey was distributed to the Committee. Flowers stated that the survey results show that there are no real areas of disagreement on the Institutional Objectives and overall there is a strong endorsement of the objectives.

Bradford stated that he was impressed with the response rate across the boards. He noted that in the small group discussions at the last Senate meeting there was concern over the use of the word “exercise” in the third objective. Janovy stated that members of the General Education Planning Team (GEPT) and General Education Advisory Committee (GEAC) had concerns as well.

Peterson reported that the committees are working on developing proposals that will go to the college curriculum committees on the institutional objectives and the outcomes. He noted that the results of the survey will help to determine some issues that faculty members might be concerned about. He pointed out that the difficulty will be in getting seven different colleges to ratify the revised program.

Janovy stated that the proposals are currently in an outline form and when it is presented the outcomes will be separated from the proposals. He noted that the proposed outcomes can be found on the web at (http://www.unl.edu/svcaa/gened/outcomes.shtml). Ledder asked if the outcomes were completed. Janovy stated that most of them are completed and he does not expect much further wordsmithing on them. He stated that the goal is to talk to the faculty about the outcomes in the beginning of October. Jonson noted that initially the committees thought the outcomes could be separate from the institutional objectives but they realized this could not be done.

Ledder stated that the Executive Committee would like to discuss the outcomes at the November 7^th Senate meeting and possibly vote on a resolution to support the outcomes at the December 5^th meeting. Janovy stated that it would be helpful if faculty members were sent a message to look at the website to review the outcomes. Peterson noted that faculty members should try to focus on the outcomes and not spend so much time focusing on whether their course fits the outcomes.

Ledder stated that he liked the idea of separating the outcomes from the structure of the general education program because it gets people to think about what students should know when they are finished with their education here. Peterson stated that the idea of the GEPT is to get people to agree on what we want to accomplish with the students’ education. He pointed out that more faculty involvement in the revision process will help to shape the general education program at UNL.

Janovy stated that the committees are trying to move forward on the schedule as charged. He noted that there is a big body of conversation taking place about assessment of the general education courses. He stated that the committees are thinking about the idea of having a contract with the faculty member for general education courses. The idea is that the professor will require students to generate a product, or products, for the course and the professor will submit a few of these finished products as samples to the assessment database. He noted that there will be some education involved when this is first unveiled but this process will allow more faculty power in what goes on in the classroom which will in turn alter the fundamental nature of the undergraduate experience. He pointed out that without some kind of assessment of the program, it will eventually wither away.

Ledder asked if professors can contract a course to meet a few of the outcomes. Peterson stated that the expectations are that the courses contracted would reinforce the institutional objectives and outcomes that apply to that course. Mitchell pointed out that the committees worked hard to make the outcomes not be discipline specific.

Ledder noted that there is a motion before the Senate to endorse the institutional objectives. Hopefully this will encourage the faculty to support the objectives.

Bradford stated that there is some question whether the Senate needs to approve the general education program. He stated that he looked at the state statutes and the Regents Bylaws and the Bylaws clearly states that “the faculties of each major administrative unit shall establish a governing agency for dealing with matters of interest to more than one college.” He noted that this would apply to the general education program because it is a matter of interest to more than one college therefore it should need Senate approval.

Ledder asked what would happen if only six of the seven colleges pass the general education program. Peterson stated that he is concerned with the Engineering College because of all its course requirements. Alexander stated that he thinks the revised program is needed and a lot of Engineering professors are already doing some of these kinds of courses.

Janovy stated that the next issue will be whether the fauclty members will be willing to take the next step of generating the products for the assessment database. Stock asked if the contracts will be attached to the professor or the courses. He noted that in his department a number of professors can be teaching different sections of the same course. Janovy stated that the Deans were adamant that the contract be with the department. He noted that there has been some preliminary discussion on the contract. It has been suggested that 20% of the graded activities would be needed for the assessment database. He pointed out that students would know ahead of time which of their graded projects would be included in the database. He stated that currently the committees are thinking that at least two pieces of evidence of coursework should be included. He noted that the evidence could include the best performance in the class and the other could be one at the mid point of the class. Ledder stated that in the peer review project a minimal set of products was needed for the course to be assessed. This set included a paper with a low A grading and another with a low C grading. He stated that by knowing the subject matter of the course it can be determined how the class did in the course. Janovy noted that the idea is to have an outsider look at the course assignment and the rubric for it and then look at the assessments to see if the course is on target for complying with the contracted outcome(s). Mitchell pointed out that the committees want to ensure that the process is as easy on faculty as possible.

Peterson stated that the Senate has been very helpful with getting the faculty involved with the institutional objectives and the survey has provided interesting information. He noted that the committees want to have open conversations about the general education program.

Bradford thanked the GEPT and GEAC committee members for all of the work that they are doing in trying to revise the program.

4.0 Announcements

No announcements were made.

5.0 Approval of 9/20/06 Minutes

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

6.0 Unfinished Business

6.1 Draft Motion on Spending Lid

Bradford stated that he is interested in getting comments from the Committee on the draft motion. He noted that he will be presenting the motion as a Senator so it did not need to be voted upon by the Executive Committee.

6.2 Status of Academic Rights and Responsibilities Committee

Griffin reported that Professor O’Hanlon has agreed to switch from the Committee to the Academic Rights and Responsibilities Panel for the remainder of his term. She stated that President Moeller will replace Professor O’Hanlon on the ARRC with someone from the Panel.

Ledder stated that Professor Chouinard, Mathematics, has agreed to resign from the ARRC because he felt it was important to have a balance of female faculty members on the Committee. Griffin noted that an election will need to be held to replace Chouinard since he is resigning from a three year term. She stated that the Senate will need to approve the ballot which will be presented to them at the October 3^rd Senate meeting.

6.3 Safe Assignment Evaluation Policy Committee

Flowers reported that he has been assigned to serve on the committee. He noted that the committee will try to develop a policy about usage of the Safe Assignment program. He stated that there is concern that guidelines should be developed on how instructors should use the program.

Bradford asked if the program was available for students to use. Flowers stated that students can use the program only if the professor allows it. He pointed out that the new manual for the program clearly encourages professors to do this.

Bradford stated that he would like to see the program available for students to use, particularly if the idea is to encourage them to learn what is considered plagiarism. Ledder stated that he is uncomfortable with not giving a faculty member the choice on whether to allow students to put their draft papers through the Safe Assignment program. Stock agreed.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:40 p.m. The next meeting of the Executive Committee will be on Wednesday October 4, 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.