UNL ACADEMIC SENATE

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES

PRESENT: Albrecht, Bender, Past-President Bleed, President Ford, Japp, President-Elect Kennedy, Baum Kuska, Latta, Mayo, Sartori, Scheideler, Shoemaker

ABSENT: Williams

DATE: April 8, 1998

PLACE: 201 Canfield Administration Building

_____________________________________________________________________________

1.0 Call to Order

Ford called the meeting to order at 3:04 PM.

2.0 Announcements

2.1 Committee Members

Kennedy reported that she received a request from Linda Crump asking for two people from the Human Rights Committee to serve on the Office of Civil Rights: Partnership Audit Racial Harassment. The committee suggested Marilyn Grady and Tom Winters.

2.2 NN21 Workshop

Kennedy reported that the NN21 Scholarship team will be having a workshop on May 28^th from 8:00 - 3:30 and that they are interested in having 4 or 5 people from the Executive Committee attend the workshop. Kennedy, Latta and tentatively Scheideler volunteered to attend the workshop.

2.3 Budget Committee

Shoemaker asked on behalf of the Committee on Committees, whether the Executive Committee wanted the Committee on Committees to make recommendations for the budget committee. The Executive Committee agreed that they should make recommendations.

3.0 Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards

3.1 Faculty Reaction to Faculty Forums

Many of the faculty on east campus feel that the discussions on academic rigor and excellence imply that excellence does not currently exist on campus. Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards responded that they want to recognize and celebrate the strengths of programs which currently exist but that we should go forward and try to make ourselves better. He stated that while he recognizes the concern to be careful, he stated that there is always room for improvement. He stated we should have the self-confidence to evaluate and criticize ourselves and determine where our strengths and weaknesses exist and be able to improve on the weaknesses. Mayo stated that the generic statements being made by administrators in regards to teaching and excellence have provoked some faculty. He stated that there seems to be a perception that faculty are not currently doing a good job. Mayo stated that the perception of the lack of excellence is contributing to the high anger level and the low morale that currently exists on campus. Latta stated that part of the problem has been the lack of input by faculty early on and that rather than feeling they were part of a community effort, they feel that an edict has been declared by administration. Latta stated that there is general interest in the follow up from these discussions. Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards stated that follow up from the faculty forums and discussions is evident in the second draft of the diversity paper. He stated that the discussions have resulted in new ideas and a change in emphasis in the diversity paper and he hopes to receive feedback on the second draft which is on the web. Latta asked if further formal forums have been planned to discuss the revised document. Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards stated that there will be further discussions and that he hoped to move forward on the paper. He stated that there needs to be more frank and open discussions on these issues.

3.2 Delphi Survey

Albrecht stated that the Delphi Survey is still on the web and asked whether this is still considered a viable document. Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards stated that there is currently no plan to use the results from the survey but that it is out on the web because it was conducted and is considered a public document. He stated that the survey may be discussed in a future focus strategy forum.

3.3 Faculty Involvement in Selection of Chairs

Kennedy reported that the Executive Committee had been contacted by a department which felt that their input into the hiring of their department chair had been disregarded by the Dean. Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards stated that the failure to hire a chair for the department being discussed was due to unreasonable demands being made by the potential hiree. He stated that it is difficult to explain and discuss with the faculty when information is confidential. Kennedy stated that the Dean needs to convey the message to the department and that there appears to be a communication problem between the Dean and the department. It was recommended that Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards visit with this department.

3.4 Issues on the Horizon

Ford reported that faculty concern on the issue of reallocation is reaching serious levels. Ford stated that the level of rancor expressed in the Academic Senate meeting was indicative of a serious problem. Scheideler stated that many faculty feel that the Chancellor's responses were inappropriate and that people are feeling that the reallocation process is not a democratic process. Albrecht stated that the presentation lacked empathy for the people involved. Ford stated that part of the issue was in the lack of shared governance. He stated that faculty are troubled by the fact that there appears to be no room for compromise. Mayo stated that the across the board 4% budget decrease is very troubling since it is following ten years of budget cutting. He stated that departments are feeling very lean and that the overall quality of departments is being lowered because of reallocation. Albrecht stated that it is beyond frustration for faculty and that this concern is taking energy away from other important matters. Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards stated that in general there is support from the faculty for most of the targeted programs, however, he stated there is a dilemma in how to obtain this support since people are opposed to eliminating programs. He stated that he agrees that it is unlikely that we will get additional funds and therefore, the funds will need to be generated by the university. Scheideler stated that it appears that there is an overload of administrative positions and asked if administration is taking the same budget cuts as academic programs. Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards stated that administration does take a 4% cut as does the Athletic Department. He stated that the flow of funds was from non-academic to academic programs. Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards reported that there were currently 80 tenure track faculty searches authorized. Latta asked how many of these were actually new positions and Sartori asked how many of these positions were a result of reallocation. Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards stated that Associate Vice Chancellor Brinkerhoff is working on providing that information. Ford stated that English had lost 13 lines and that what we are seeing is not a creation of new lines but a shift from one department to another. Mayo stated that shifts in faculty lines does not fill up the major voids being created in departments due to cuts. Sartori asked if administration is prepared to make vertical cuts. Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards stated that the UNL community has been unable to make vertical cuts. He stated that if we do not reallocate we will not be able to move forward. Scheideler stated that administration is wanting to make changes too quickly and that administration is crediting reallocation for changes that are inaccurate such as the improvement in ACT scores. Latta agreed that improvements in such things as technology are being attributed to reallocation when in fact the changes have come about from the computing fees assessed to students. Scheideler stated that there has been no discussion yet with faculty about ways to improve quality without making budget cuts. She stated that the university has lost contact with its base support in the legislature, the Board of Regents and the people of Nebraska. She stated that we can improve quality if we emphasize what we are doing is for the education of Nebraskans.

4.0 Vice Chancellor Omtvedt

4.1 Issues on the Horizon

Vice Chancellor Omtvedt reported that on April 16 there will be an IANR faculty liaison meeting and that they need to do everything they can to address reallocation directly. He stated that the Deans also expressed frustration at a recent meeting similar to concerns raised earlier in this meeting. Vice Chancellor Omtvedt stated that they need to identify the over arching concerns of faculty and perhaps see what can be accomplished with internal reallocation. Vice Chancellor Omtvedt expressed concern over the widening gap between faculty and administration and stated that it may be to our detriment.

4.2 LB 1180

Albrecht asked if the governor vetoed funding for transfer of Extension Educators salaries to UNL and how this would effect extension educators. Vice Chancellor Omtvedt stated that the governor vetoed part of the bill which included $1.2 million for extension education but that there were efforts to try to get this back into the appropriations bill.

4.3 Restructuring of IANR

Scheideler asked if there were any formalized plans for the restructuring of IANR at this time. Vice Chancellor Omtvedt stated that there are no formalized plans for restructuring. Scheideler stated that one of the deans in IANR is moving forward with restructuring. Vice Chancellor Omtvedt stated that deans can restructure separately from administration and that this may be taking place in that particular unit. He stated that he will follow up on the matter.

4.4 Memo on faculty evaluations

Ford stated that he received a copy of a memo sent out by the IANR deans in regard to faculty evaluations and establishing the criteria by which faculty will be evaluated. Ford stated that this is contrary to what the post tenure review document states. He stated that the post tenure review document stated that it is the faculty who will determine the criteria for unsatisfactory performance. Vice Chancellor Omtvedt stated that he believed the deans were contacting department heads to inform them that their departments need to meet to determine the criteria for unsatisfactory performance. He stated that he will check into the memo and what has been communicated with the department heads.

5.0 Approval of 4/1/98 minutes

Mayo moved and Bleed seconded the approval of the minutes as ammended.

6.0 Diversity Document

The committee discussed comments to be made on the diversity document. The committee agreed to send comments to the Coordinator who will compile each of the individual concerns into one document.

7.0 New Business

7.1 Meeting with consultants on the Master Plan of the University

Coordinator Griffin reported that she had been contacted by Mary Majors, Institutional Research and Planning, requesting the Executive Committee to meet with the Academic Planning Committee and the outside consultants to discuss the Master plan for the university. The committee agreed to meet on Wednesday, April 29th.

8.0 Unfinished Business

No unfinished business.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:50 PM. The next Executive Committee meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, April 15, 1227 R Street. Respectfully submitted, Julie Albrecht, Secretary.