EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES

 

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

 

Absent:           Bolin  

           

Date:               Wednesday, January 17, 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 3:06 p.m.

 

2.0       Announcements

            No announcements were made.

           

3.0       Approval of 1/10/07 Minutes

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

 

4.0       Unfinished Business

4.1       Meeting with ASUN President

Moeller reported that she met with Matt Schaefer, President of ASUN, to discuss concerns they have with the Graduate Student Association (GSA).  She noted that GSA has not applied as a registered student organization yet.  She pointed out that the ASUN does have seven graduate student representatives on it.  She suggested that she and Bradford meet with VC Franco, ASUN and GSA to help facilitate discussion. 

 

Scholz asked whether Graduate Studies is taking an active or passive role in the formation of the GSA.  Moeller stated that it is taking an active role.  Scholz suggested that it might be more fruitful to have a conversation with Graduate Studies first. 

 

4.2       Providing Information to Reporters

Alloway asked if there was any further contact from the Lincoln Journal Star and Omaha World Herald reporters particularly since the release of the Governor’s budget proposal for the university.  Moeller noted that the budget puts the university in competition with funds for K-12.  Bradford pointed out that one of the legislative proposals would give K-12 a bigger chunk of the funds. 

 

Alloway suggested that we should be in contact with the reporters.  Bradford stated that he has had several contacts with Melissa Lee from the Lincoln Journal Star.  He suggested that we invite Matt Hansen from the Omaha World Herald to a meeting since he was unable to attend the meeting in the fall. 

 

4.3       General Education Update

Moeller reported that she recently met with Dean Drummond from the College of Architecture who felt that the meeting on the general education proposals in the college was very positive.  She reported that Dean Drummond felt that two areas of concern on the proposals were the lack of an international global perspective and a lack of a real emphasis on communication skills.  Scholz noted that the lack of a visual communication skill requirement in the general education proposal was a big issue for the Architecture faculty. 

 

Moeller asked if there is going to be another meeting in the college to discuss the concerns of the proposal further.  Scholz stated that there will be another meeting but he does not know if it has been scheduled yet.  He noted that after the college vote there was a meeting of Dean Drummond and the program administrators in the College of Architecture with John Janovy, Associate VC Wilson, and Dean Kean, and the main thing that was agreed upon in the meeting is that the college needs to revisit the proposals. 

 

Moeller stated that she did send an email message to Professor Janovy and Associate VC Wilson suggesting that someone like Wilson from outside the college should attend the college meetings to help clarify and answer questions.  She noted that she had not received any messages back about this suggestion. 

 

Moeller stated that the College of Education and Human Services will not vote on the proposals until early February.  She noted that the meeting will be an open meeting. 

 

Alexander reported that the faculty college meeting was cancelled in the fall but he thinks the proposals will be taken up at the spring meeting.  He pointed out that it is difficult to get a quorum at the college meetings. 

 

Alloway asked if the College of Architecture has a large visual literacy component to their program.  Scholz stated that they do and the thought is that with more work and communications being done in the world with visualization and graphics, especially through technology, this should be a necessary part of the general education program.  He noted that several Architecture faculty also believe that the new general education program needs to be more forward-looking and address what will happen in the future rather than just focusing on what is being done now.  Moeller stated that she has heard this concern from others as well.  Scholz stated that in the meeting following the college vote it was explained that the proposed revisions to the general education program have resulted from a process of compromise among members of the general education committees. 

 

Ledder asked if the focus of the college meeting was on Architecture students or students in other colleges as well.  Scholz stated that it was on students overall. 

 

Ledder noted that one of the problems is that each college wants to establish requirements for the program.  He pointed out that a lot of the things that colleges are wanting are really options in the program, not requirements. 

 

Scholz stated that there is frustration with the lack of clarity in the process of reviewing and voting on the general education program proposals.  He pointed out that there was no clear explanation of what would happen if there is a negative vote.  Ledder stated that this is not a problem in Arts & Sciences.  Scholz noted that Arts & Sciences has formed an advisory group to address some of their concerns.  He stated that the process seems to have been designed incrementally and that many faculty are not fully aware of the implications of “yes” or “no” votes at this stage of the process or whether concerns and input submitted at this time, along with or instead of votes, will be used by the committee to modify and further develop the proposal.  Ledder pointed out that a vote of yes just authorizes the committees to continue working towards a level of detail and a no vote means we stick with the current ES/IS program.  Scholz noted that it was not explained like this at the College of Architecture meeting.  Ledder stated that it might be because the administrators are not understanding some of the arguments being presented whereas the Executive Committee has already heard many of the arguments. 

 

Moeller noted that there needs to be a record of the concerns that are emerging in the colleges.  Ledder stated that this is already being done.  He noted that Associate VC Wilson’s frequently asked questions document addresses many of the concerns.  He pointed out that someone needs to be at the college meetings who knows these frequently asked questions and can address the concerns. 

 

Moeller thought that a written summary should be provided to the faculty before the meeting along with a copy of the frequently asked questions.  Scholz speculated that faculty members might oppose the proposal simply because they are not thoroughly informed about it or because some faculty in a meeting might express concerns that are not adequately addressed and thereby attract additional doubters before a vote is taken.  Moeller suggested that some of these concerns could be avoided if people more knowledgeable are there to explain some of the concerns. 

 

5.0       New Business

            5.1       Review of Senate Goals

The Committee reviewed the goals.  Moeller stated that Beck is still working on the reduction in force procedures.  Bradford pointed out that these procedures may be very important if the university faces budget cuts again because of the Governor’s budget proposal. 

 

Moeller asked what our venue is for providing input on the web pages.  Flowers pointed out that the Committee has directly related concerns with the Chancellor about the employment web page.  Ledder stated that the level of responsiveness in getting help with the web pages resembles that of the White House. 

 

Ledder stated the once the guidelines for the web pages has been approved the Senate could do a survey, referring to a web site with the standards, to see what the faculty thinks of it.  Bradford pointed out that when the web site format starts being enforced there could be problems for faculty members who have their own academic web site.

 

Alloway noted that one of the concerns raised about the web sites is who is available to help create them and whether some departments are being charged for the service.  He remembered having heard concerns at earlier Executive Committee meetings about some departments being charged for web consultation while others were not.  The Committee agreed to invite Robert Crisler, Internet and Interactive Media Manager to a meeting to discuss some of the concerns.

 

The Committee agreed that Goal 2, working with the Administration and ASUN to streamline academic procedures, has partially been met with the approval and implementation of the 15th week policy.  Ledder pointed out that the Committee has also worked with ASUN on suggesting requirements for course syllabi.  He noted that ASUN is supposed to be working on a syllabi resolution that they will give to the Committee for input. 

 

The Committee felt that further work needs to be done to on Goal 3, addressing concerns about academic dishonesty.  Moeller stated that she will draft a definition of academic dishonesty.  The Committee decided that a draft resolution proposing the X grade for academic dishonesty needs to be written.  The Committee agreed to revisit this issue at the next meeting.

 

On Goal 4, increasing faculty benefits and compensation, the Committee agreed that some work is being accomplished.  Moeller noted that she is working with the Chancellor’s Commission on the Status of Women to conduct a survey regarding childcare on campus.  She pointed out that the Committee also encouraged the Chancellor to continue working on resolving this problem. 

 

Moeller stated that the Committee discussed the changes to the vacation policy with the Chancellor.  The Committee agreed that further works needs to be done to improve salaries and noted that the Chancellor has made arguments to support this as well.  Bradford pointed out that President Milliken has also been working on improving salaries. 

 

Alloway wondered whether the University’s hesitancy to act on domestic partner benefits is due to financial constraints or political constraints. 

 

The Committee discussed other benefits such as the cost of belonging to the campus recreation center and the cost of Lied Center tickets.  Ledder pointed out that giving faculty and staff free membership to the recreation center would not cost the university anything.  Moeller noted that at other universities it is part of the benefits package.  She stated that free membership should be considered part of the wellness program.  She suggested that the Committee discuss this with the Chancellor.  Bradford stated that Deb Thomas, Assistant Vice President for Administration, is working on the committee looking at a wellness program and she should be invited to meet with the Committee to discuss this benefit.  Ledder noted that free membership to the recreation center could be used as a recruiting tool. 

 

Bradford suggested that the Committee might also want to explore having a discount at the Lied Center for faculty and staff.  He noted that Charles Bethea was contacted at one time by the UNL Employee Benefits Committee about this and he seemed to be receptive to the idea at the time.  The Committee agreed to invite Bethea to a meeting. 

 

The Committee agreed that some work has been done on Goal 5 which is to increase public awareness about what the University does and the work of the faculty.  It was noted that reporters from the Daily Nebraskan and Lincoln Journal Star have met with the Committee. 

 

Alexander stated that he has been disappointed that none of the reporters have approached the College of Engineering for stories on work the faculty are doing.  Moeller suggested that Alexander write or call Melissa Lee from the Lincoln Journal Star and invite her over to show her some of the exciting things that are occurring in the college. 

 

Bradford reported that he received a phone call from Lee over the break to discuss the Law College students that went down to New Orleans to do work.  He stated that what he finds worrisome is that the effects of the proposed budget for the university are not being done by the university reporters.  He suggested that information needs to be given to the reporters about the effects. 

 

Moeller suggested that the committee should meet with Matt Hansen from the Omaha World Herald since he was unable to attend the fall meeting.  She suggested that people prepare a one page summary of the work they are doing to give to Hansen.  Zimmers noted that the people in the County Extension offices have a good relationship with the local papers. 

 

Scholz pointed out that some faculty members are very modest about the work they do and might not feel comfortable personally calling the news media to highlight their work.  He suggested that there should be someone in each of the colleges targeting these kinds of news stories.  Alexander stated that his college has a liaison to the papers.  He stated that one of the problems with this is that they usually want to have a faculty member posing for a picture.  He noted that not many faculty members want to have to pose for a picture, rather they want to get general articles out that highlight the work that they are doing. 

 

Stock stated that faculty members used to get a request, perhaps from Public Relations, about the work they are doing.  Moeller stated that she just received a message from Vice Chancellor Paul asking the same thing. 

 

Griffin suggested that the Committee send a message out to the Senators encouraging them to submit a one page summary about the work they are doing to the reporters. 

 

5.2       Safe Assignment Policies

Flowers reported that last fall a committee was convened to develop guidelines and policies for the use of the Safe Assignment program.  He noted that a copy of the draft policies was distributed to the Committee.  He stated that a separate committee is working on instructional use of the program. 

 

Flowers stated that the committee members representing both the faculty and administration was concerned that the software has a provision for checking against locally submitted papers.  He noted that this is an issue of fair use and how long the papers can be kept.  He stated that the papers will be removed from the system six years after the semester they were submitted.  He pointed out that the papers will be archived and kept locally and does not go out to the general public. 

 

Flowers reported that the one concern initially was that students be allowed to use the program to test their draft papers.  He stated that the proposed plan is that the Libraries will set up a laboratory where students can come in and use the software to check their paper.  He pointed out that the papers will not check against the local database and draft papers will not go into the system. 

 

Flowers stated that the draft policy will be going to the Vice Chancellors and others for their input. 

 

Flowers stated that the committee considered the issue of student papers that included sensitive personal information being submitted to the local database, and is proposing that there be a policy by which students may request  that such papers be excluded from being added to that database.  The current draft includes language that allows a student to make such a request to an instructor, with right to appeal the decision through the UNL grade appeals process. 

 

Alloway stated that it is hard for instructors to see what students see when they use Safe Assignment.  He asked if it is ambiguous to them whether an assignment is a safe assignment project.  Flowers stated it is his understanding that this is apparent and all instructions should make this clear. 

 

Flowers reported that another issue that needed to be clarified is the use of Safe Assignment for non-course academic assignments such as master’s thesis or doctoral dissertation.  He stated that in these cases the graduate committee chair would submit the paper into Safe Assignment. 

 

Bradford noted that in the appeal process for exempting a paper into the local database there is no indication of a standard that will be used to override the instructor’s decision. He noted that the instructor is given complete discretion about making this decision and if this is the case, why is there even an appeal process.  Flowers agreed and stated that he will pass this on to the committee that wrote the draft. 

 

Alloway asked if the six year limitation is due to the amount of server space.  Flowers stated that the policy resulted from a combination of issues, including those of server space, typical resident time of a given cohort of students, and the time window of previous works within which plagiarism would be most likely to occur. 

 

5.3       Exemplary Service to Students Committee

Moeller stated that she received a message from Stan Campbell, Director of Campus Recreation, stating that the Senate needs to appoint a faculty member to serve on the committee.  Rapkin volunteered to serve on the committee.

 

5.4       Accumulated Vacation Time Policy

Bradford stated that it is not clear to him that the university is giving people what they are entitled to in regards to accumulated vacation pay.  He noted that the Nebraska Supreme Court decision states that employees earn vacation time and it cannot be taken away from them if they don’t use it within a given year.  He stated that it is not clear but an employee should be able to accumulate their vacation time from past years although there is probably a statute of limitations.  He pointed out that this needs to be pursued with the administration because there are 12 month appointed faculty members and staff who this would affect.

 

Moeller asked if there will be a lid placed on how much vacation time an employee can accrue.  Alloway noted that in some businesses there is a mandatory vacation policy that employees must take vacation time within a given year.  Griffin pointed out that there are employees at the University who are unable to take some of their vacation time because they cannot get approval from their supervisor. 

 

Alexander noted that it will be the units that will have to foot the bill when an employee leaves the university with a large amount of vacation time accumulated.  He stated that this will be particularly hard for the centers. 

 

The Committee agreed to discuss the issue further with the Chancellor.

 

5.5       MBA Gallup Program

Bradford asked if the Academic Planning Committee had the opportunity to approve the MBA Gallup Program.  Moeller stated that she will check with Professor Keown, the Senate’s designee to the APC, about this. 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 4:48 p.m.  The next meeting of the Executive Committee will be on Wednesday, January 24, 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.