EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES

 

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

 

Absent:           Alexander, Beck, Rapkin, Scholz    

           

Date:               Wednesday, February 28, 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 3:03 p.m.

 

2.0       Michelle Waite, Assistant to the Chancellor for Community Relations

Moeller stated that several faculty members have indicated that they want to help the university in spreading news about the good work that is being done here.  She asked what the Executive Committee can do to help assist in getting this information out.

 

Waite stated that UNL works in conjunction with the other campuses and with central administration to interact with the legislature.  She noted that central administration distributes message points about the university.  She stated that the current message points are very general and very broad.  She stated that there may be another message point coming out soon, which she will share with the Executive Committee that discusses UNL’s efficiencies.

 

Waite stated that it would be very helpful for faculty members to contact senators on the Appropriations Committee.  She noted that the timing of this is critical since the university’s budget is still under recommendation.  During the next week (March 5th) the university’s budget hearing will take place.  She pointed out that UNL gets half of the university’s budget.  Waite stated that the members of the Appropriations Committee are:  Senator Lavon Heidemann, Senator Lowen Kruse, Senator L. Patrick Engel, Senator Tony Fulton, Senator John Harms, Senator Danielle Nantkes, Senator John Nelson, Senator John Synowiecki, and Senator John Wightman. 

           

Waite pointed out that the legislature is very different now with all of the new senators.  She noted that the new class of senators is very good and very bright.  She stated that it would be helpful to have someone who can speak on behalf of the faculty to meet and speak with the legislators. 

 

Waite reported that central administration is coordinating who will be speaking to the Appropriations Committee on the university’s budget.  She stated that she thinks some faculty members may be speaking. 

 

Waite stated that between March 6th and 26th are all of the bill hearings followed by the post hearing reviews.  She noted that the Appropriations Committee has to give its final recommendations to the full legislature by April 25th and the legislative session will end on May 31st.  She noted that currently the Committee’s recommendation on the university budget is not too bad.

 

Ledder stated that two of the four campuses in the system have collective bargaining units.  He asked what affect this might have on the university’s budget.  Waite stated that in this particular case it might be good for UNL.  She stated that probably faculty and staff members at UNL and UNMC will be given a similar increase as those at UNK and UNO.  She stated that she does not know whether being unionized works for or against us with the legislature. 

 

Waite stated that once the recommendation makes it to the legislative floor individual senators can be contacted.  She noted that once the budget is drafted amendments can be made to it by members of the legislature.  She pointed out that it is common for people outside of the Appropriations Committee to make changes to the budget but it is easier to make changes when the bill is still in the committee. 

 

Moeller asked what would be the best format for meeting with some of the legislators.  Waite pointed out that the legislator’s calendars are packed because so many of them are new this year.  She stated that it would be better for people to go over to the capital to talk with the legislator.  She also suggested talking to the administrative aides.  She stated that it would be helpful to get information about the senator, his/her district, personal interests or their business when talking with them.  She stated that discussing successes the university has had in areas of interest to the senator would be particularly helpful. 

 

Waite stated that the university definitely wants to give the legislators a faculty perspective.  She pointed out that some legislators may not understand the importance of national and international recognition for the university.  She noted that students are also very effective in talking with senators. 

 

Waite stated that with the Appropriations Committee’s current recommendations, $10 million will still be needed for salaries.  She stated that there is $8 million in utilities cost that needs to be covered due to the shortage from last year.  She noted that there will be a $23 million shortfall even with the Appropriations Committee’s current recommendation. 

 

Waite stated that each 1% of tuition increase raises $1.7 million.  A 5% increase would raise $8.5 million but she does not think that the Board of Regents will raise tuition by 5%.  She pointed out that even with a 5% increase there would still be a $7.5 million shortfall for UNL.  She suggested that faculty members who were here during the recent budget cuts can tell the legislators what happened with the cuts. 

 

Waite stated that some of the new senators may not understand how the money is used by the university.  She noted that there are some people who think there are a lot of wastes at the university. 

 

Waite stated that in previous years the Governor has been good to the university.  She pointed out that there is money available so she is not sure what is going on with the Governor’s thinking.  Ledder stated that he believes the governance community has become stuck on the idea that we are over taxed.  He pointed out that people will always complain that taxes are too much no matter what they are.  Waite stated that many of the new legislators are hearing people complain about property taxes.  She pointed out that Nebraska does not have a tax base here so the tax burden falls on the property owners. 

 

Waite stated that almost every state around us is putting in significant amounts of money into higher education.  Moeller pointed out that there is a correlation greater investment in higher education and quality of living for the people of the state. 

 

Alloway asked if most of the legislators understand the difference between funding for athletics versus the university.  Waite stated that she believes most of them do understand this.  Zimmers noted that the recent Battelle report shows that for every $1 that goes into IANR, $15 goes back to the state.  Waite suggested that faculty members discuss what the impact of a budget shortfall will do to the senator’s constituents if they have or are going to have a family member in college. 

 

Waite stated that central administration is doing weekly updates on what is going on at the capital.  She noted that she will probably forward this information on to Moeller who can then forward it on to others if she likes. 

 

Bradford stated that he gets the sense that the Governor is going to line item veto anything that goes over his budget.  Waite stated that this could happen.  She noted that President Milliken is working very hard for the university. 

 

Moeller stated that she will ask faculty members at the Senate meeting on Tuesday to talk with their legislator. 

 

3.0       Professor Eckhardt, Chemistry

3.1       Laboratory Issues for Professors

Eckhardt stated that as a member of the Academic Planning Committee he brought to the Committee’s attention the issue of inequities in laboratories for faculty members in the Chemistry department.  He reported that Chemistry has undergone an extensive remodeling of Hamilton Hall and refurbishing the ventilation system.  He stated that only the top research floors were renovated and the other floors were left to their prehistoric conditions.  He stated that as a result the department has become ghettoized with some faculty members having very nice new laboratories and others left with old, outdated laboratories.  He reported that it is the Dean’s policy that new hires will get the new research laboratories while those who have been here are left with the old laboratories. 

 

Eckhardt stated that in order for faculty members to survive in the hard sciences two things are needed, students and grant money.  He pointed out that without good research facilities you cannot attract the students who are needed to help conduct the research.  This in turn leads to less writing and less publications which in turn can lead to fewer grants which can then lead to less of a merit increase.  As a result merit raises become differentiated and those in the poor laboratories will get further and further behind. 

 

Ledder asked when the old laboratories were considered state of the art.  Eckhardt stated it was in the 1970’s.  He pointed out that these facilities show 40 years worth of wear.  He noted that it would be different if everyone was in the same situation but this current situation is unfair.  He stated that the university is not addressing the problem and will lose more people as a result.  He noted that at least eight people have left the department. 

 

Ledder asked why some research floors were renovated and some not.  Eckhardt stated that some of the funding came from the National Institute for Health so those conducting research in the biosciences were renovated first.  He pointed out that the plan was to remodel the other floors but the money has not been made available for renovation. 

 

Moeller asked if the decision to give the new incoming hires the good research facilities is an age issue as well.  Eckhardt stated that in some ways it is because it affects faculty members who are middle aged or older.  He pointed out that this could be quite damaging because there is a greater risk of losing those faculty members who are middle aged. 

 

Moeller stated that the situation is similar to the salary compression issue which she discussed with the Chancellor.  She noted that she did discuss the Chemistry department problem with the Chancellor as well.  She reported that the Chancellor stated that the decision about renovations of facilities is a departmental and college decision. 

 

Eckhardt stated that the department has taken the issue to the Dean.  He noted that the department does not have control of the money that is needed to renovate the other laboratories.  He stated that the Dean has stated that the renovations would have to be done piecemeal because of the lack of funding and the new facilities would go to the new faculty members. 

 

Ledder noted that Dean Hoffman will be stepping down.  He wondered whether the policy of giving the new faculty members the new facilities will still exist once Dean Hoffman is no longer in that position.  Eckhardt pointed out that the problem goes deeper and there need to be institutional policies.  Ledder stated that guidelines would need to be written very carefully.  He pointed out that a faculty member who receives a grant should not be penalized for renovating their laboratory with that grant money because the department as a whole is not being renovated.  Eckhardt stated that if an individual does the renovation it is not so much of a problem but when an institutional renovation occurs it needs to be fair. 

 

Ledder noted that the School of Biological Sciences is split between older facilities in Manter and new ones in Beadle.  He wondered if they are having any similar problems.  Eckhardt stated that he thinks there may be a similar problem in a department on east campus.  He pointed out that the situation is very destructive to the department morale. 

 

Bradford asked what else the Senate can do on the issue.  Eckhardt stated that he is not familiar enough with the Senate structure but he knows that it is an equity issue because some people are automatically being disadvantaged.  Moeller stated that it is an access issue as well and that some faculty members are unable to do good work.  Eckhardt pointed out that it is de facto age discrimination.  Moeller asked if this is affecting mainly senior professors.  Echkardt stated that it is.

 

Moeller stated that the Committee can raise the issue with the Chancellor when it meets with him on March 21st.  She noted that the Chancellor did state in her meeting with him that these kinds of inequities need to be resolved. 

 

Ledder suggested that in the course of pursuing a resolution to this problem it might be helpful to check with our peer institutions to see how many of them have research facilities that are 40 years old.  Eckhardt pointed out that across the nation there has been a huge boom in building new chemistry buildings. 

 

Moeller stated that the Committee will discuss the issue with the Chancellor and will inform Eckhardt of the discussion. 

 

4.0       Announcements

            No announcements were made.

             

5.0       Unfinished Business

            6.1       Reduction in Force Procedures

The Committee agreed to postpone the agenda item until clarification is received by Beck on the documents she forwarded. 

 

6.2       Syllabus Policy

Ledder presented the Committee with a new draft of the policy.  He noted that included was a draft resolution that can be brought to the Senate.  Ledder pointed out some of the changes that were made from the previous draft policy.  He noted that examples are now included in the policy.  

 

Bradford pointed out that the Senate will need to vote on this policy since this is an academic policy that affects all of the colleges. 

 

Ledder stated that ASUN has looked at the policy but needs to look at this latest revision.  He stated that the policy will not be in its final form to present to the Senate until he has heard back from ASUN.

 

 

6.3       General Education

Ledder asked if we know more about the colleges’ approval process of the first two proposals.  Moeller stated that they passed in the College of Education and Human Sciences by a huge margin.  She stated that she will contact Associate Vice Chancellor Wilson to see what the status is of the voting in the remaining colleges. 

 

Ledder noted that he and Janovy have been corresponding again but Ledder stated that he is pleased to see that the conversation has been expanded to others on the GEPT and GEAC.  He noted that the main thing that he finds irritating is that the committee claims that they are open to faculty input but they appear to be doing things to hinder that discussion. 

 

Ledder stated that it is his understanding that GEAC member Professor Goodburn wants an even more openness than he has suggested.  He noted that Goodburn has suggested posting the minutes of the meetings on the web.  He stated that he believed that this was a good idea because people would know the nature of the discussions which could help quell rumors and speculations. 

 

Ledder stated that the GEPT and GEAC are planning to hold an open forum discussion on March 26th.  He pointed out that if this does not happen the Senate should have an open forum discussion at the April Senate meeting. 

 

Moeller stated that the GEPT has asked to meet with the Committee.  Griffin stated that members of the GEPT will meeting with the Committee on March 21st at 3:45. 

 

6.4       Driving Policy

Zimmers asked if the faculty will see the proposed driving policy before it is approved.  Griffin stated that she sent an email message to Kim Phelps, Associate Vice Chancellor for Business & Finance, about this but never received a reply back.  She stated that she will try contacting him again. 

 

7.0       New Business

            7.1       Salary Increase Parity

Moeller reported that an email message was sent by a faculty member regarding concern over salary increase parity.  Moeller stated that she discussed the issue with the Chancellor who stated that if these inequities exist he would have a look at them. 

 

            7.2       Beck’s Eligibility to Serve as Chair

Bradford stated that he questions whether Beck should serve as chair of the Faculty Compensation Advisory Committee since she is no longer an active faculty member.  Moeller noted that Beck is an Emeritus faculty member. 

 

Bradford stated that the problem is that the committee syllabus does not state that members of the committee need to be an active faculty member.  He pointed out that he discussed the issue with Associate to the Chancellor Howe who shared his concern.  Bradford reported that Beck stated that she will discuss the issue with the university’s general counsel office. 

 

Bradford stated that the Faculty Compensation Advisory Committee will need to deal with this issue.  He pointed out that he is impressed that Beck is still willing to do the work of being chair but he is worried about setting a precedent. 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 4:55 p.m.  The next meeting of the Executive Committee will be on Wednesday, March 7th 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.