EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES

 

Present:          Alexander, Bradford, Flowers, Hachtmann, Ledder, Moeller, Rapkin

 

Absent:           Alloway, Beck, Bolin, Scholz, Stock, Zimmers        

           

Date:               Wednesday, February 7, 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 3:07 p.m.

 

2.0       Announcements

            2.1       College of Engineering Vote on the General Education Proposals

Alexander reported that the College of Engineering Curriculum Committee voted to recommend the gen ed proposals and encourage the faculty to also approve them.  He stated that the faculty of the college will vote during the next two weeks by email.  Details are on the Curriculum Committee’s link on the Engineering College’s website. 

 

2.2       Syllabus Policy

Moeller reported that she received an email message from Associate Vice Chancellor Wilson concerning the Board of Regents’ syllabus policy.  She noted that the message stated that Regents’ Bylaw 4.1 requires faculty to “inform students concerning the requirements, standards, objectives, and evaluation procedures at the beginning of each course.”  UNL requires that this information be conveyed to students via a written syllabus at the beginning of each course.  Any syllabus should also clearly communicate the instructor’s name, office location, contact information, and office hours.  She stated that a copy of this policy can be found on the Academic Affairs website.  The message also stated that Academic Affairs has sent a message to the faculty before the semester begins reminding them of this policy and the information is also given at new faculty orientation meetings.  

 

Flowers pointed out that in the Executive Committee’s discussion with ASUN about a syllabus policy the Committee felt that having a written syllabus was not always appropriate.  Ledder stated that ASUN agreed with the Committee that more work needed to be done before the Senate should look at a UNL policy.  He stated that he will contact ASUN to see what the status is of the proposed policy.  He noted that the draft policy presented by Associate VC Wilson had some problems with it such as requiring office hours.  He pointed out that it is not always possible to know when office hours will be held when the syllabus is written.  Alexander stated that this is particularly true for arranged courses that faculty have yet to arrange until after the semester starts.

 

The Committee agreed that the Senate needs to vote on any UNL policy before it can be put into place. 

 

2.3       Meeting with the Chancellor

Moeller reported that she will be meeting with the Chancellor tomorrow because the Committee will not be able to meet with him again until March 28th.  Ledder suggested that she ask for an update of what is happening with the Chemistry professor.  Alexander pointed out that the athletic department is sending out a lot of email messages to the general faculty and wonder if this was really needed (example:  the email on the football recruiting class) and suggested that Moeller discuss this with the Chancellor. 

           

3.0       Approval of 1/31/07 Minutes

Rapkin moved and Alexander seconded approval of the minutes as amended.  Motion approved. 

 

4.0       Unfinished Business

4.1       Professor of Practice Positions Update

Moeller reported that she contacted Bill Nunez, Institutional Research and Planning, to ask if there are any Professors of Practice on campus.  She stated that Nunez reported that there are currently two Professors of Practice and forty five Senior Lecturers.  Flowers noted that it would be interesting to see the distribution of the Lecturers and Senior Lecturers to see if they are clustered in certain disciplines.              

 

4.2       Plans to Meet with Legislators

Moeller reported that she spoke with Michelle Waite in the Chancellor’s office about meeting with some of the legislators.  Moeller stated that the Chancellor’s office has a number of things planned and they are developing a strategic plan of when to include faculty members at the meetings.  Moeller stated that Waite will make all of the arrangements and will get back to the Committee. 

 

4.3       Meeting with Human Resources

Moeller stated that the Committee will be meeting with Assistant Vice Chancellor Currin on March 7th to discuss concerns with the on-line job application form for faculty positions.  She noted that the Chancellor had the Senior Administrative Team try out the website and did not see any problems with it. 

 

4.4       Reduction in Force Procedures

Moeller reported that Beck stated that she will have a draft of the proposed reduction in force procedures by next week. 

 

5.0       New Business

            5.1       Committee on Distinguished Teaching Award

Rapkin volunteered to serve on this committee. 

 

 

 

5.2       Faculty Salary Compressions

Moeller stated that she was asked to bring this issue up at the meeting.  She pointed out that in some departments new assistant professors are being hired at higher salaries than associate professors.  She noted that this can be quite demoralizing for faculty members who have accomplished records and have chosen to do their work at UNL. 

 

Flowers stated that there are some chairs in the College of Arts & Sciences who have been direct about needing guidelines for dealing with salary compression issues.  He noted that the current system requires departments to take money away from faculty within their own department.  He pointed out that internal redistribution does not help with compression issues.  Ledder agreed and stated that if a department wants to award someone for doing outstanding work they have to take funds from those in the department who may have had an average year. 

 

Ledder noted that there is not enough money available to resolve the compression issue in departments.  Bradford stated that the Chancellor could give chairs the discretion to address the compression problem.  Ledder suggested that guidelines could be written stating that half of the salary pool would be used to address compression and the other half would go towards merit increases.  Any other fracture could be just as easily chosen.  Alexander pointed out that merit raises can be very political.  He stated that he has witnessed very productive faculty members not being given a merit raise when it was definitely warranted. 

 

Ledder asked if the colleges receive an overall salary increase pool.  Bradford pointed out that the Vice Chancellor’s office always holds back some money. 

 

Ledder asked if the college executive committees review the guidelines on salary distribution.  Alexander stated that in his college only the chair decides how much people will get for a raise.  Flowers reported that in his college the dean keeps a database on salaries and the executive committee of the department grades people on their performance.  Moeller asked what criteria are used in grading.  Flowers noted that grading is based on research, teaching, and service.  Ledder stated that the campus tries hard to rank people according to merit even though it is not really possible to do that.  We don’t rank people according to structural inequities, even though that could be done more easily. 

 

Alexander pointed out that oftentimes the faculty members receiving large salary increases end up staying four or five years and then are leaving the university.  He wondered what is really being accomplished by this strategy in giving pay raises.  In addition, these same faculty members have been allowed to take equipment with them.  Thus, he stated that the university is not really investing in long term, excellent people who often have devoted their whole careers to improving the institution but investing in people just to have them come for a short period of time and then leave.  Moeller agreed and stated that faculty members who are here for a long time are not rewarded for loyalty and high achievement.  Bradford stated that losing people to other universities, particularly less prestigious institutions, is a concern.

 

Alexander stated that in relation to this topic is the issue of graduate scholarships.  He pointed out that if the university wants to make a name for itself in research it needs to have scholarships for graduate students.  He noted that the top research schools have a lot of fellowships for graduate students who in turn provide support for the faculty members conducting research.  He stated that in recent years the amount of scholarships has been reduced.  He pointed out that we could lose faculty members if they are not getting graduate students who are supported.  He stated that this is a major issue in terms of future institutional quality and retaining faculty members. 

 

Flowers noted that a couple of years ago the Othmer fellowships were drastically cut back but they have now been added back.  Moeller stated that this is true but departments still have to cover the first $10,000 of the fellowship. 

 

Alexander noted that the Research Office is now taking back an additional 3% of overhead that is being taken out of grants.  He stated that this provides even less money for the colleges.  Bradford asked what the justification is for doing this.  Alexander stated that to his knowledge the additional overhead charge has not been discussed.   Moeller stated that the Office of Research would claim that it is needed to support their offices. 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 4:06 p.m.  The next meeting of the Executive Committee will be on Wednesday, February 14 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.