UNL ACADEMIC SENATE

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES

PRESENT: Aguilar, Bender, Bryant, Ford, Humes, Kennedy, Latta, Scheideler, Zorn

ABSENT: Mayo, Prochaska-Cue, Williams

DATE: December 2, 1998

PLACE: 1227 R Street, Academic Senate Office _____________________________________________________________________________

1.0 Call to Order

Kennedy called the meeting to order at 3:10 PM.

2.0 Announcements

2.1 Meeting with the Deans

Kennedy announced that Ford, Prochaska-Cue, Bender, Latta, Aguilar, and herself will be meeting with some of the Deans on December 10^th. Kennedy noted that the Executive Committee members will report back to the committee on the meeting.

2.2 Chancellor's Cabinet Meeting

Latta reported that at the Chancellor's Cabinet meeting she asked for suggested strategies the Senate might employ to try to move the issue of benefits for domestic partners off the table and back onto the agenda. She reported that some of the administrators suggested that other disenfranchised groups such as adult disabled children living at home or elderly parents residing in the home, might also be considered. Zorn pointed out that the financial implications of this would be very high. Latta stated that she is seeking to obtain data on Nebraska companies that extend benefits to domestic partners. She suggested that two strategies might be employed to review this data: referring it to the University-wide Benefits Committee and discussing it with the Employee Benefits Committee research the information. Latta reported that a cafeteria style of benefits is still being considered at Central Administration. She stated that if this system is used, there will be a basic level of benefits for all employees. They can then choose additional benefits to accompany the basic level of benefits. Scheideler asked if the transfer of tuition remission is still being considered in the package? Latta stated that it is still being considered.

2.3 Questions on the Issue of the Senior Lecturer Position

Latta thanked the committee for their feedback on the questions being asked of Chancellor Moeser regarding the position of Senior Lecturer. She reported that the questions have been submitted to Chancellor Moeser and that he had referred them to Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards for his response.

2.4 Vice Chancellor's Diversity Task Force

Aguilar reported that the task force received approximately 30 applications for their call for campus projects to enhance diversity on campus. She stated that the subcommittee will be meeting soon to review the applications.

3.0 Kim Phelps, Assistant Vice Chancellor for Business & Finance and Alan Moeller, Assistant IANR Vice Chancellor - Administrative Systems Project

Phelps, reported that the Administrative Systems Project (ASP) has put together a prototype of a system that takes the base package of a software program (SAP) and then designed it to meet the needs of the campuses. He reported that it is planned to come on line on July 1, 1999. Bryant asked what the purpose of the system is, whether this has connections with LotusNotes, and whether the restructuring of the staff is associated with ASP. Phelps stated that LotusNotes is not directly connected with ASP. He noted that there is an association with ASP and the restructuring of staff because it is advantageous for units to think about the reorganizing of their support staff as they go into the new environment. He stated that it helps them to do this before the staff become users of the system rather than training everyone on the system and then reorganizing the staff. Phelps pointed out that there is not a direct cause and effect to ASP and reorganization. Moeller noted that while the reorganization is not being driven by the new system, it is being hastened by the fact that the system is going to change the business processing of the University. He stated that the objectives of the system are to make better decisions and to improve the management processes. Moeller pointed out that it has the capability of moving more responsibility to the local level and to eliminate duplicate data entry. Bryant stated that Teachers College is undergoing the reorganization of the staff so that some departments will not have staff support. He stated that the reorganization will be by function not by department. Kennedy asked if there will be some departments that will not have someone to answer the phones and do other office work for the department? Byrant responded that this is a concern and questioned whether the University is servicing the data efficiency needs over the needs of the students. Moeller stated that conceptually it should not reduce the level of service to faculty or students and should enhance some services. He pointed out that if more of the decision making responsibilities are to occur at the local level that they will need to have more knowledge of the policies, procedures, and the processes than before. He pointed out that by having one person handle procedures such as PAFs, it will enable that person to become more knowledgeable and accurate in that area. Kennedy asked if ASP is going to be implemented all at the same time or whether it will be tested in some areas first? Moeller stated that all of the campuses will go onto the system on July 1 but that it will not be the end of the implementation. Moeller pointed out that there will be different levels of users: some clients who will be full-service and others will do only some of the functions. He noted that some of the functions will still be able to be processed in the traditional paper form although this will probably require changes in the forms. Coordinator Griffin asked who will determine the status of the users? Moeller stated that the ultimate decision should be made by the unit at the local level. He stated that the Lincoln Transition Team is trying to help in this process by surveying the end users. Bryant asked why software is being purchased that is so specialized that it will require a great deal of staff development? Phelps stated that the idea to change the system has been in the process for many years and that there has been a need for an updated system that will provide better management. He noted that there are only a few software programs out there that can handle the type of processing system that is used by the University. Moeller stated that it will be a multi-year implementation. Scheideler pointed out that this system is effecting people and asked if people's needs and comforts have been considered. She noted that it is important to have people buy into the program if it is to be successful and that this is obtained through people feeling they are part of the process. Kennedy pointed out that there is a fear of people losing their jobs. Griffin asked if job responsibilities increase, will salaries be adjusted to reflect this? Moeller stated that if people assume greater responsibility that they will need to take a look as to how they are classified. He pointed out that this is a very integrated system that will incorporate both human resources and financial management. Moeller noted that there have been approximately 140 people involved in the project, many of whom have been working with people on campus. Scheideler asked how many faculty have been involved in the various task forces. Phelps said that a few faculty have been involved. Kennedy asked how much faculty would be involved with the system. Moeller stated that faculty would probably be involved in the development of reports. Griffin pointed out many people are not concerned with the software system itself but with the restructuring of the support staff. She noted that faculty and chairs in departments in a number of colleges are concerned with the possibility of losing their support staff. Griffin pointed out that the secretaries do a great deal more than just the administrative work and that they are often the problem solvers for many people within departments. She stated that the human element in this appears to have been ignored and that pulling out the secretaries from the departments is pulling out a key person for the students and faculty of that department. Moeller stated that he felt that irregardless of ASP, he believes that reorganizing the staff into business centers should occur because the University needs to reevaluate the way it does business and do it more efficiently and effectively. Ford asked if they expect the number of staff to stay the same, decrease, or increase when they system is in place? Moeller stated that he believes that they are going into this to try to enhance productivity but that cost savings may be a secondary benefit. He pointed out that no one should assume that positions are going to be cut with the implementation of this system and that in fact, some things may need to get done that are not currently being handled which may result in reallocating positions from lower level activities to higher level activities. Aguilar pointed out that they are using a strong business model whose bottom line is profit but the University's agenda is very different. She stated that she has spoken with many of the support staff who are very concerned with the taking away of that human element. She asked how much thought has been given to that? Moeller responded that they are aware of the concern for change and have had a communications committee in place to help deal with it. Bryant stated that he can support the need for a new system that is more efficient but he asked why they need to upset the culture of his and other departments. He asked how beneficial will this change be for students. He pointed out that they will have a tougher time getting information and suggested that the system be tried out before massive changes be made in the reorganization of management teams. Zorn pointed out that if problems occur that are not administrative there should be room to make adjustments. Bryant pointed out that the staffing is being made to serve the system, not the students. Phelps stated that the service to faculty and staff can be better if there is some fine tuning in reorganization. Aguilar asked if they have conveyed to the Deans how to redefine the reorganization. Phelps stated that they have not and they have suggested that the Deans need to look and work with the key users in the college to determine the reorganization. Latta stated that there appears to be two systems, one is the computer system and the other a people system. She asked if there is a system approach to the redesign of the people system or if department's are being left to their own to figure out the best way to design this system? Phelps replied that the transition team has worked with the campus partners group and is gathering data and planning to help in the reorganization. Latta asked if faculty who use shadow systems will at some point be asked how they currently use the system and what they need the system to do for them. Moeller stated that he hopes this will occur and he pointed out that when the business centers were initiated on East Campus they surveyed the faculty for information on what services they were being provided for right now and what could happen to enhance those services. Moeller stated that it is important to identify the end result, but the units should be involved in the designing of how to achieve that end result. He stressed that not only the people involved in examining the organization but others need to feel that they have been a part of the process and that this could be accomplished through subcommittees. Griffin pointed out that this is not happening in some of the colleges and that the reorganization is being dictated down to the departments with little or no input from them. Moeller stated that there should be an evaluation stage, that you need to evaluate periodically the changes that have been made, what you did, what kind of cause did it have, was it positive or negative, if it was negative and if it was negative you need to figure out why and then adjust. Griffin asked when training will begin? Moeller stated no earlier than April and that it will probably run through May and June. Bryant asked how user friendly is this system? Phelps stated it will be easier than right now but that it will take some adjustments. He reported that it is a Window based system. Moeller pointed out that to use the system is easy but to know what to put into the system will be tough. Phelps stated that those using the system will need to know a great deal more about institutional policies and procedures than in the past. Aguilar stated that a faculty concern is not being able to go down to the departmental secretary to have work done because that person has been relocated. Moeller pointed out that the business center concept can be virtual and does not necessarily require anyone being moved. Kennedy invited Phelps and Moeller to make a presentation to the Academic Senate.

4.0 Approval of 11/18/98 minutes

Scheideler moved and Bender seconded approval of the minutes as amended.

5.0 Faculty Handbook on the Web

Latta suggested that the committee examine the extent to which the faculty handbook is on the web. Humes volunteered to look at the web but stated that the Senate should continue to push for hard copies to be available to faculty. He suggested that Jim McShane should be consulted regarding the different interpretations of the policies in the handbook.

6.0 Follow Up Discussion on the December Senate Meeting

Aguilar pointed out that the list of issues handed out to the Senate did not indicate goals of the Executive Committee and Senate. She suggested that specific goals need to be selected from the list. Kennedy suggested that the committee review the list, select specific goals and email either Gail or herself with their suggestions.

7.0 Unfinished Business

7.1 AAHE Grant

Latta reported that the committee working on the AAHE grant have put together a survey regarding the post tenure review process. She noted that the survey will be a two phase process and asked the Executive Committee to review the questions before they are sent to faculty. The committee agreed to review the survey and provide feedback to Latta.

8.0 New Business

8.1 Professional Liability Insurance

Zorn noted that more faculty are becoming embroiled in legal issues and proposed that professional liability insurance be extended to faculty. Latta pointed out that the Faculty Compensation and Advisory Committee should look into this further.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:26 PM. The next meeting will be held on December 9^th in the Academic Senate Office, 1227 R Street. Respectfully submitted, Miles Bryant, Secretary.