EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES

Present: Alloway, Bolin, Bradford, Fech, Flowers, Hachtmann, LaCost, Ledder, Lindquist, Rapkin, Zimmers

Absent: Moeller, Prochaska-Cue

Date: Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Location: Faculty 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

Bradford called the meeting to order at 2:33 p.m.

2.0 Dean Oliva, University Academy

Dean Oliva reported that nearly two years ago SVCAA Couture asked a subcommittee of the Academic Planning Committee (APC) to review the colleges’ strategic plans, looking for similarities and potential crosscutting themes for interdisciplinary possibilities. The subcommittee however had difficulty comparing one strategic plan to another and as a result, went in a slightly different direction. He pointed out that initially the focus was on research, but the subcommittee felt that what was really needed was a greater emphasis on collaboration for teaching. He stated that the committee was interested in learning if there would be an opportunity to create an environment that would support faculty from different units to work collaboratively to explore multifaceted topics with students. The subcommittee therefore arrived at the creation of something called the University Academy. He pointed out that research is important but the campus is already having conversations about doing collaborative research across disciplines.

Dean Oliva stated that there are some things already happening on campus now with collaborative teaching across the colleges. He pointed out as an example that the current visual literacy program is a new collaboration between four colleges. He stated that this is the idea behind the University Academy, to find broad topics that have connections with several disciplines, and to create an environment in which faculty involved in teaching such courses would be able to do so as part of their assignment, rather than as an overload. He also noted that it would be important that each of the faculty members who were teaching in a particular course receive full credit for the work.

Dean Oliva stated that the subcommittee has had discussions with Professor Janovy. He noted that the subcommittee wanted to make sure that the thinking on how these courses work would fit into the new general education program. He also stated that the subcommittee considered the changes that are being proposed with the general education program and felt that the emphasis on student outcomes would also be the focus of the University Academic courses. He pointed out that student outcomes should include the ability to think critically, to collaborate with student peers, to seek out and make connections, to engage in self-learning, embrace broader and have a more informed understanding of the topic, and develop skills of effective communication through a variety of media.

Dean Oliva stated that everyone that the subcommittee has talked with about the academy has had a positive reaction. He noted that the structural challenges are the biggest problems, in particular how the courses are organized. He pointed out that the academy is not an honors initiative although there might be some things occurring in the honors program that could be a model for the academy. He noted that the idea is to have the academy be accessible to a broader group of students.

Dean Oliva stated that there would need to be a paradigm shift in the way these courses are taught. He stated that these courses would be a change of culture in the way that student outcomes are defined and assessed, in the types of classroom experiences students would have, in the way the faculty members are assigned and evaluated with respect to their teaching, in the willingness of faculty members to embrace the new structure, in the ability of faculty members to participate without overload or jeopardy, and in how we think about curricular requirements.

Dean Oliva stated that funding is one of the main challenges that would have to be addressed. He noted that the APC gave unanimous support to continue looking into the Academy and if there is enough interest there might be some experiments with courses.

Dean Oliva reported that the proposal for a University Academy was presented to the Deans at their retreat. He noted that the presentation was aimed at getting the Deans to support the idea and also to think about what the cost would be to release faculty members to teach one of the Academy courses because the plan is not to add additional work on a professor. He stated that the subcommittee wanted to get the Deans’ commitment up front before progressing further. He reported that the Deans were fine with the idea.

Dean Oliva stated that there was an open meeting of the APC and the Deans were asked to talk with their chairs to ascertain whether there would be interest in the Academy. He stated that 30 faculty members and students contacted the subcommittee to express their interest. The subcommittee then met with these faculty members as well as some students to present the concept of the Academy to them. He noted that a prototype of a course was also presented.

Dean Oliva stated that the subcommittee received tremendous positive responses on the concept and this past spring semester a report was given to the APC on the University Academy. He stated that the hope is to have some prototypes of courses launched next spring.

Dean Oliva reported that the plan is to continue working on the project over the summer. He stated that the idea is to roll out an experimental construct this fall and to obtain some support for funding.

Dean Oliva stated that the faculty teaching a University Academy course would also be asked to evaluate the process at the same time, so that the process could evolve as it went along.

Dean Oliva stated that the idea is to get the concept out of the APC and to move it to a group of interested faculty members who will continue to brainstorm on the idea. He pointed out that the future of the Academy will be based on people who want to do this. He noted that in order for it to continue the process cannot over burden faculty members.

Dean Oliva stated that the reason for speaking with the Executive Committee is to let the faculty know what the APC is doing with the University Academy. He noted that the idea is to keep people involved.

Bradford asked how the Academy will be institutionalized. Dean Oliva stated that there has been a lot of discussion on this and how it can be managed. He pointed out that at some point there probably needs to be someone to oversee the Academy, but he did not think someone new needed to be hired to do this. It could probably be done by someone in the office of Academic Affairs. He stated that the creative thinking should come from the faculty.

Alloway asked if the courses in the Academy would count under a particular major or if they would be more like the University Foundations courses. Dean Oliva stated that the general construct is that people will have a choice with the course. He would hope that students taking such a course would be able to have it included as part of their respective degree programs. He pointed out that part of the process of developing the course night include the chair signing off and stating whether the course will fit into a student’s program. He stated that opportunities need to be created to encourage faculty and chairs to become involved with the Academy. He pointed out that the experience of the students needs to be considered and there needs to be discussions on students making connections across disciplines.

Bradford asked if this was exclusively for undergraduate courses. Dean Oliva stated that initially it will be just for undergraduates. He stated that the subcommittee wants to focus on the teaching aspect but there could be opportunities for graduate students to come together. He noted that at some point they want to include graduate students.

Bradford asked if Dean Oliva would be interested in giving the full Senate a presentation on the University Academy. Dean Oliva stated that he would be happy to do this. He stated that anyone with questions can email him (goliva2@unl.edu).

3.0 Announcements

3.1 Dean of Arts & Sciences

Bradford reported that the administration is in negotiations with one of the candidates for the Dean of Arts & Sciences. He stated that he expects that an announcement will be made soon about the position.

4.0 Approval of 5/2/07 Minutes

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

5.0 Unfinished Business

5.1 RIF Procedures

Bradford reported that he reviewed the existing procedures and the themes that Professor Shea and Professor Rosson discussed with the Committee about what they were trying to accomplish with the proposed revised procedures. He stated that he did not think Beck’s revised procedures fully address these themes. He noted that the existing procedures state what is to be taken into account in order for a program to be cut. He pointed out that most of this is eliminated in Beck’s document. He stated that many of the procedures are the same in both procedures. He noted that the major difference is that some areas pertaining to confidentiality issues have been eliminated in Beck’s document and there are sections where the Senate President has been added.

Rapkin suggested that Beck be contacted to see why she omitted some of these things from her document.

Bradford stated that one of the themes of the revised procedures was to ensure that the Senate received more information but no process is stated in the proposed procedures for this to occur. He stated that he thought there would be more changes to the procedures but he sees nothing significant. Alloway pointed out that it might be easier to get the revised procedures approved if there aren’t wholesale changes to them.

Bradford stated that the one major difference in the procedures is the requirement that substantive enhancements in budgets also should be reviewed. He pointed out that this is a significant change in the approach of the procedures. He noted that if a new program is created there are already procedures that require approval from the APC and the Coordinating Commission for Secondary Education. He stated that he believes that substantive enhancements to a program should go through the APC. Flowers pointed out that the procedures might need to be invoked if the enhancements are a result of reallocation. Bradford noted that the procedures already deal with the issue of reallocation.

Lindquist pointed out that when a faculty line comes open it reverts back to the administration but if that line comes back it could be considered a new position under the proposed procedures. He noted that the administration could see this as the Senate trying to get involved in all financial matters. Bradford questioned what the faculty’s interest is in following these procedures if there is new money coming in for a program. He stated that the existing procedures address some of this in the amendments.

Bradford stated that he will make a major list of the changes and try to cross reference them to a section in the existing procedures. He stated that the committee will review the procedures again at its next meeting.

5.2 Publication of Syllabus Policy

Bradford stated that, to his knowledge, no final copy of the syllabus policy has been circulated to the faculty yet. He pointed out that this needs to get distributed. He stated that he will contact SVCAA Couture about getting this out to the faculty. He suggested that a notice of it could be announced in the ENews.

5.3 General Education

Bradford reported that the Committee will be discussing the latest information on the general education program at the next meeting. Flowers reported that people in his department have been reading what was recently distributed and they have concerns with accountability and record keeping issues. He noted that people fear how much time and effort will be required with the revised program.

5.4 RIAA

Alloway reported that there is a company in Chicago that is developing software for universities that will identify and block peer to peer file sharing. He stated that the company’s position is that universities are obligated by terms of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act to provide information requested by entities like the RIAA. Bradford pointed out that the university could block use of certain sites.

6.0 New Business

6.1 Diversity Committee – Replace two members

Bradford stated that Professor Poser needs to be replaced on the Diversity Committee since she has been appointed Associate to the Chancellor. He noted that Professor Haller is retiring in September and he will also need to be replaced on the committee. He pointed out that this creates two openings on the committee although Professor Haller informed him that the APC choose to have Professor Ball, Marketing, replace Haller. Bolin stated that this is correct. She noted that Haller is representing APC and Ball has indicated an interest in working on the committee.

Bradford stated that Poser still needs to be replaced on the committee. He pointed out that there are no minority faculty members on the committee and it would be nice to have one on it. He asked for suggestions for the committee.

6.2 Problems with Computational Services & Facilities Committee

Bradford reported that there has been a problem with the Computational Services & Facilities Committee not meeting regularly. Flowers pointed out that this is an important committee and it was beginning to take up some important work when it stopped meeting. Bradford stated that the committee that needs to become active again. He stated that he would appoint people to the committee that would help make sure that it meets on a regular basis again.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m. The next meeting of the Executive Committee will be on Wednesday, May 30 at 2:30 pm. The meeting will be held in 201 Canfield Administration. The minutes are respectfully submitted by Karen Griffin, Coordinator and Rick Alloway, Secretary.