EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES

 

Present:          Bolin, Bradford, Flowers, Hachtmann, Ledder, Moeller, Rapkin, Scholz, Stock, Zimmers

 

Absent:           Alexander, Alloway, Beck    

           

Date:               Wednesday, February 14, 2007

 

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 3:04 p.m.

 

2.0       Robert Crisler, Internet and Interactive Media Manager, Heather Dahm, CIT, Ned     Hummel, Mathematics, and Aaron Grauer, Housing

Crisler stated that in 2004 the redevelopment process of the UNL websites began with the assistance of Professor Moore from the School of Music.  During the time since then a Web Developers’ Network has been formed to assist and give support to the numerous web developers on campus.  Monthly meetings, a bulletin board, and chat rooms are all being used to allow the developers to communicate and provide support for each other. 

 

Crisler stated that the ideas behind the redevelopment process were to make the UNL websites more consistent, easy to use, to provide the same look, to be accessible, and to be flexible and dynamic.  He reported that more than 50 web site designs were initially created.  He stated that those designs were than ranked in a meeting of the Next Generation Web Committee.  The ranking identified three personalities of the websites and people within the committee split to form three different groups to continue working on developing websites based on the three different personalities.  The Next Generation Web Committee also developed recommendations that were stated in a white paper (http://www.unl.edu/webdevnet/downloads/NGWC_White_Paper.pdf).

 

Ledder asked if any visually challenged people were invited to be a part of the committee or other web developer groups.  Crisler stated that he did not think so. 

 

Crisler reported that audience testing of the websites began in May 2006 and in August 2006 the template selected went live.  He noted that all UNL websites are supposed to be transferred to the new UNL template by August of 2007.  He pointed out that this is a deadline set by Chancellor Perlman. 

 

Crisler stated that his office welcomes feedback.  He noted that evolutionary changes can be made along the way but wholesale changes will not be applied until 2009.  He stated that the plan is to redesign the website in three year intervals. 

 

Crisler stated that the Web Developers Network reports on how the transitions to the UNL templates are progressing.  He noted that unl.edu is one of the top 10,000 web sites worldwide. 

 

Moeller asked if help is available on line for people working on transferring web sites to the UNL template.  Crisler stated that there are many different ways people can get help.  He noted that the Web Developer Network site has many links for help.  Moeller asked if all websites associated with the university must be on the template by August.  Crisler stated that anything at the unit level and above must be on the template. 

 

Bradford asked if everybody within the university has to have their webpage on the templates.  He asked if this includes class websites and personal faculty websites.  Crisler stated that it is his understanding that these do not have to be on the templates. 

 

Crisler reported that all sites will be machine tested.  He noted that the web sites are designed to meet Section 508 of the federal accessibility guidelines.  He pointed out that UNL is the first university in the Big 12 and in our peers to achieve conformance with Section 508 standards for accessibility and first in this group to achieve machine-testable conformance with the more extensive Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG).  Ledder stated that he checked out the WCAG and pointed out that the contrast on the bottom of the templates is not great enough to provide good visibility.  He stated that his daughter, who is visually challenged, cannot read 59 parts of the UNL templates.  He noted that he sent an email message to Crisler pointing out this concern but the response was that compliance with the standards is sufficient. 

 

Crisler reported that he spoke with Christy Horn, Compliance Officer, about the templates.  Crisler noted that the templates have been tested with a screen reader.  Ledder stated that he has no doubts that the website would work with a screen reader but he asked if anyone who is actually blind had a chance to provide input on the screen.  He pointed out that it would help to get the actual opinions of blind people on the templates.  He cited the following statement from the World Wide Web Consortium:  “Broadening evaluation to involve people with disabilities helps better understand accessibility issues and implement more effective accessibility solutions.”  Crisler pointed out that it is not possible to create screens to accommodate everyone’s special need.  He stated that the screens are designed to meet the standards.  Ledder noted that the standards are not perfect and stated that he is only suggesting that input be gathered from some blind people to get their review of the web site as suggested by the consortium.  Moeller suggested contacting Stephen Panarelli, Systems Manager from the College of Education and Human Sciences, who has sight difficulties. 

 

Moeller noted that in the Deans and Directors meeting that morning Professor Lauerman spoke of a group conducting quality assurance evaluations on the website.  Moeller wondered if there are any visually impaired people in this group.     

 

Ledder stated that it is hard to have respect for standards when there are problems with contrast in the standards.  Crisler pointed out that the standards are based on a mathematical formula.  Flowers noted that font size and contrast are very important on websites and he is not sure whether mathematical formulas take these into consideration.  Bradford asked if changing the font size can be done by the web user.  Crisler stated that it can.  Bradford noted that not just the size of the screen but the resolution is important as well. 

 

Crisler stated that UNL is using the international standards for contrast.  Ledder noted that he is not saying that the standards are of no use.  He stated that he is merely suggesting that best results require a combination of input from users and the standards.  He pointed out that he gets the sense that the web developers do not care about the users.  Crisler reminded the Committee that UNL is the first university in the Big 12 to adhere to the standards. 

 

Grauer noted that testing on the standards was done before they were set.  Hedges pointed out that the initial design of the website needed to meet the minimum standards.  He stated that it is possible to makes changes to the websites down the road.  Crisler stated that the web developers have worked hard to make sure that the standards are met.  Ledder stated that meeting standards and providing accessibility is not necessarily equivalent.  Standards are based on experiments performed with specific test web pages.  They are only guidelines when used for a web site not tested in the creation of the standards.  The standards should not be taken as absolute truth, but as approximations.

 

Grauer stated that no one is saying that the web developers are refusing to do tests with visually impaired people.  He pointed out that the websites have been tested on many individuals.  He noted that it is not much trouble to do further testing but he asked when does the university need to stop trying to make the website accessible to everyone.  He pointed out that at some point the user needs to take some initiative in enhancing their monitor in some way so they can read the website.  He noted that the burden has to shift over to the user because it is impossible to accommodate everyone’s needs.  Ledder agreed with the shift in burden but not with using randomly selected test subjects alone.  It would be easy to get volunteers from the campus organization of blind students.  Suggestions made by these students would not necessarily have to be implemented, but an attempt should be made to get the opinions of actual visually-impaired students. 

 

Moeller stated that essentially the university has met the top end of the standards for websites.  She stated that the Committee would just like to recommend that the websites be reviewed for input by some of the visually impaired people on campus. 

 

Griffin stated that an issue that was mentioned in previous meetings is that some departments on east campus are being charged for having their websites changed by CIT but departments on city campus are not being charged.  She asked for clarification on this.  Dahm reported that departments can have Communications and Information Technology (CIT) set up a website for the fee of $800 - $1000 per site.  She noted that the entire website is set up by CIT and units do not have to worry about maintaining the sites.  Ledder asked if this is optional for all departments.  Dahm stated that it is.  Scholz asked if the fee is an annual charge.  Dahm stated that there is an annual charge for this service. 

 

Zimmers asked if the county extension offices will be required to change their websites.  Dahm stated that all of the university associated websites will be required to comply with the standard UNL template. 

 

Scholz asked if the Web Developers Network is a fixed number of members or whether other people can join.  Crisler stated that anyone who works on websites can register on line.  He pointed out that there is free training on the templates that is available to members. 

 

Bradford asked if there are standards for the hearing impaired.  He noted that he does a lot of podcasting.  Crisler stated that there are standards and pointed out that there should be text to accompany the podcast. 

 

Crisler pointed out that the university does care about accessibility of the websites.  He noted that the standards might not be the Holy Grail but UNL has come further than any of the other institutions in the Big 12.  Ledder pointed out that being faster than 86% of other sites is a credit as well.  He noted that having a fast website is a very positive thing. 

 

3.0       Announcements

3.1       Faculty at 5 Event

Moeller announced that there will be another Faculty at 5 Event on Friday, February 23rd.  She asked that people please come to the event and noted that the concert afterwards have been great. 

 

3.2       Annual Big 12 Conference on Black Student Government

Moeller reported that the campus will be hosting the Annual Big 12 Conference on Black Student Government on February 15 – 18.  She noted that over 1200 students are expected to attend.  She pointed out that this is the first time UNL is hosting the event and there will be a gospel performance at the Pershing Auditorium on Friday evening. 

 

3.3       Ninth Annual Nebraska Conference for Undergraduate Women in Mathematics

Moeller reported that she attended the Ninth Annual Nebraska Conference for Undergraduate Women in Mathematics last weekend.  Ledder noted that over 200 undergraduate students from across the country, and three from Ireland, came to the conference.  He noted that the program allows undergraduate women to meet and discuss their own research and interest in mathematics.  The conference also provides information for the women on what life is like in a graduate program in mathematics.  Moeller noted that the mathematics department has received a huge grant for their work in promoting women in math. 

 

4.0       Approval of 2/7/07 Minutes

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

             

5.0       Unfinished Business

            5.1       Report on Meeting with Chancellor Perlman

Moeller stated that she had an excellent meeting with the Chancellor and addressed the issues that the Committee requested be raised.  She noted that the outside attorney has completed his report on Professor Belot of the Chemistry department and President Milliken is recommending termination.  She pointed out that the next step in the process will be to have an Academic Rights & Responsibilities hearing committee conduct an investigation. 

 

Moeller reported that she asked the Chancellor what he had in mind if budget cuts are needed.  She stated that the Chancellor made it clear that these would be vertical cuts because any other cuts would affect the quality of the institution. 

 

Moeller stated that she raised the salary compression issue.  She noted that the Chancellor agreed that there is a problem that must be looked at and it will be raised with the deans and chairs.  Ledder pointed out that the chairs have no power to deal with the issue. 

 

Moeller reported that she discussed the structural inequities in laboratory facilities issue that was raised in an Academic Planning Committee meeting.  She stated that the Chancellor stated that he has no control over this and it is strictly up to the department chairs. 

 

5.2       General Education Update

Ledder reported that there has been some discussion about what is coming up next in the process.  He stated that he is bothered by the lack of interest by GEPT in having faculty discussions prior to the next set of proposals being written.  He noted that an example of an issue that should be discussed is what kind of guidelines should be written for the outcomes.  He pointed out that some kind of structure is needed to monitor the courses for the program and that some group will be making the decisions on these courses.  He stated that this group should have some kind of written guidelines if there is to be stability throughout the years in the program. 

 

Ledder stated that it would be helpful to have some discussions on the guidelines before the proposals are written to get the opinions of the faculty.  The guidelines could be minimal or extensive, and this general issue ought to be discussed before the proposals are written.  He stated that there is concern among some faculty members that the guidelines will be too flexible and there is a strong likelihood that the faculty in the College of Arts & Sciences would not approve the proposals. 

 

Ledder stated that recent email exchanges with Professor Janovy indicate that the program might be governed by the contracts and a campus-wide committee would review these contracts. An assessment is needed to determine if the course is meeting the outcomes of the program.  Ledder pointed out that contracts may be a good thing, but someone is still going to have to decide what is acceptable and what is not.  If done without guidelines, the program could change substantially depending on who was making the decisions.  Moeller reported that she is hearing some of the same concerns from other faculty members. 

 

Ledder stated that he is toying with the idea of presenting a resolution to the Senate suggesting that there be some discussions with the faculty to gather input before the process of writing the guidelines begins. 

 

Flowers pointed out that there are two different approaches to the problem of how one might establish structure for evaluating general education course proposals.  He stated that one is to establish contracts with instructors for specific courses, establishing how objectives would be fulfilled and assessed.  This might be viewed favorable by a large number of faculty members, because it gives a bit more flexibility and some people would be more willing to accept it.  However such an individual course contract system risks lack of consistency over time and over committee changes.  The other approach is to have specific guidelines for a committee to adhere to when evaluating whether a course meets general education criteria.  This approach might ensure greater oversight and consistency over time in maintaining general education objective (something that some faculty members have felt has been lacking with our current Gen Ed system), but such an approach might initially present more challenges to gaining broad support across the university.  He noted that these approaches are quite fundamentally different but try to address the same problem.

 

Bradford pointed out that there are two issues.  One is the substantive issue of what the guidelines should include and the other is whether a resolution should be presented to the Senate stating that the faculty should have discussions before any proposals are written.  He noted that otherwise we could have the same problems as with the draft diversity plan.  Moeller suggested that the Executive Committee talk with the GEAC about these concerns.  She pointed out that in order for the next round of proposals to pass investment in the program from the faculty is needed.  Ledder pointed out that he thinks tremendous progress has been made, but he is concerned with the next phase of the process. 

 

Scholz reported that the College of Architecture held a meeting yesterday about the first proposals.  He noted that Professor Janovy attended the meeting to answer questions.  Scholz stated that the latest news is that Professor Janovy has reported to the GEPT the major concerns that he heard from the Architecture faculty members.  These concerns are that more writing is needed, the lack of American history as being a specific requirement for the general education program, and the issues of visual communication and computational skills.  The email message stated that Janovy assured the Architecture faculty that the GEAC and GEPT are going to take all comments into account with the development of the next two proposals and that there may be some adjustments to the wording of proposals 1 and 2 in response to the campus-wide comments made during the recent voting process.  Ledder stated that it is interesting to note that the faculty of the College of Arts & Sciences felt that the two prominent concerns with proposals 1 and 2 were the same as that of the faculty of the College of Architecture.  He suggested that it was unlikely that the Architecture opinions were influenced by the prior Arts & Sciences statement, which nobody in Architecture was likely to have seen. 

 

Scholz reported that there is still concern from the faculty members with the clarity of the process and what it means to vote on the four proposals.  He stated that there is still a lot of confusion as to what the significance is for the votes.  Ledder asked if Janovy made it clear in the meeting that proposals 1 and 2 are not binding.  Scholz stated that he was unable to attend the meeting because he had a class to teach.  He noted that electronic voting of the Architecture faculty will be done by faculty this week.  The Architcture resolution is to endorse the proposal but retain the right to remove that endorsement after seeing the next round of proposals.

 

5.3       Update on Syllabus Policy

Ledder stated that he has contacted ASUN member Greg Gifford and ASUN has written a revised policy which Gifford will be forwarding to him.  Ledder stated that he will present the revised ASUN policy to the Committee next week.

 

5.4       Professor of Practice Positions

Moeller distributed information provided by the Institutional Research and Planning Office indicating that there are now two Professors of Practice on campus.  She noted that there are also 45 Senior Lecturers on campus spread across 30 departments. 

 

Ledder asked where the two Professors of Practice are.  Ledder asked if some Senior Lecturers are full-time employees.  Moeller stated that they are and they have an option of moving into a Professor of Practice position. 

 

5.5       Diversity Task Force Committee

Moeller reported that she has almost all of the committee members appointed to the task force.  She stated that she has sent the members of the committee a copy of the process that she outlined for the Executive Committee recently. 

 

Moeller stated that she is thinking that the Academic Dishonesty Committee will be co-chaired.  She noted that President Matt Schaefer of ASUN has suggested that his successor be on the committee instead of him since his term as President will end soon.

 

5.6       Safe Assignment Policies

Flowers reported that he sent Dean Giesecke a copy of the minutes of the meeting when the Committee discussed the Safe Assignment policies.  He noted that the substantive concern was with the propriety of a student’s work and putting it in the local database.  He stated that he wrote a paragraph suggesting how the policy should be written to address the issue of a student being able to appeal his or her paper being put into the local database because of personal information included in the paper.  He pointed out that students and instructors need to know that there is an option excluding a paper from entry into the local database, even if a paper is screened with Safe Assignment software. 

 

Ledder suggested that the policy needs to be clearer on this issue so that if a student does not want a paper submitted to the local database they can appeal it.  He stated that it should be difficult for an instructor to over rule the request of a student asking that a paper not be included in the database. 

 

Flowers stated that he will report the concerns of the Committee to Dean Giesecke. 

 

6.0       New Business

            6.1       Distribution of Executive Committee Minutes

Zimmers reported that faculty members in IANR are stating that they are receiving several copies of the Executive Committee minutes.  He asked whether the minutes can be sent out only through the all faculty list serve.

 

Bradford stated that he objects to this.  He pointed out that faculty members already receive a lot of email messages and he did not think they should be burdened with more.  He noted that the minutes are posted on the web.  He suggested that an RSS feed could be set up on the Senate webpage and those interested in getting the minutes could subscribe to it.

 

Griffin pointed out that the extension faculty members are probably receiving multiple copies because each of the Senators from the districts is sending them out.  She asked if it is possible for only one person to send the minutes out.   Zimmers stated that he will speak with the other extension faculty members to see if this would work. 

 

6.2       On-line Training for Search Committees

Zimmers stated that extension faculty members are asking why there isn’t on-line training for people to be on search committees.  He pointed out that currently extension faculty members have to travel to Lincoln in order to get the training. 

 

Moeller stated that it was reported in the Deans and Directors meeting that there is a subcommittee working on getting the training on-line and it will eventually take place. 

 

Moeller noted that at the meeting Michelle Waite from the Chancellor’s Office reported on the efforts that are underway to meet with the legislators about the university.  She stated that there are overt efforts being made to meet the new senators and this is being done in a variety of settings. 

 

Moeller noted that it was announced at the meeting that the university is recommending salary increases of 4% for UNL although there are restraints on what can be done with the money that the legislature has to work with.  She stated that it was reported in the meeting that there are discussions in the legislature that the excess money that has been accumulated be given back to taxpayers in the form of property tax relief.  She stated that the university’s budget is due to the legislature by April 25th and it will be discussed by May 31st. 

 

Ledder stated that he wonders at what point the campus will have to deal with the vertical cuts mentioned by the Chancellor as possible if the university receives a 4.2% increase in its budget.  Bradford noted that something will need to be cut if salaries are scheduled for a 4% increase. 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 4:55 p.m.  The next meeting of the Executive Committee will be on Wednesday, February 21 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.