UNL ACADEMIC SENATE

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES

PRESENT: Chancellor Moeser, Senior Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs Edwards,

Bender, Past President Ford, Humes, President Elect Latta,

Prochaska-Cue, Scheideler, Zorn

ABSENT: Secretary Bryant, President Kennedy, Baum Kuska, Mayo, Williams

DATE: July 22, 1998

Location: 201 Canfield Administration Building

______________________________________________________________________________

1.0 Call to Order

President Elect Latta called the meeting to order at 2:40pm.

2.0 Announcements

2.1 Clarification of Communication with Administration

Latta reported that Vice-Chancellor Edwards had noted that sometimes discussions which take place in Senate Exec meetings are interpreted differently by administrators and faculty. In some cases, the Senate Executive Committee has understood commitments to be made which are not considered to be commitments by administration. Ford suggested that we should probably be sending drafts of our minutes that include comments by administrators to them for comment prior to approval. Latta will ask President Kennedy to follow up on this recommendation.

3.0 Chancellor Moeser

3.1 Revisions of Bylaws 4.3

Chancellor Moeser expressed surprise that this issue had been sent to the Board of Regents at this time without discussion among faculty first. He stated that there is currently a contradiction in the University Bylaws concerning the assignment of duties to faculty. The perceived contradiction is between Section 3.4.4 "Assignment of Duties", relating to service and teaching obligations, and 4.3 "Appointments: Written Contracts". The proposed wording change would eliminate language in 4.3 which states that appointments shall be "mutually agreed upon". The new language would authorize department chairs, deans and directors to make changes in faculty appointments without the consent of the faculty member. Chancellor Moeser would like to see this issue dealt with at a later meeting of the Board of Regents in order that it can be considered by the faculty. Ford suggested that this issue be considered at the first Academic Senate meeting in the fall. Latta pointed out that the proposed change was not the only way to eliminate the perceived contradiction in the Bylaws. Ford agreed and suggested that it may be appropriate to eliminate the contradiction by asking for the mutual agreement of the faculty and supervisor for any change in assignment. Scheideler noted that this would not preclude individual faculty members from asking for their own changes, but there are other impediments to changes in assignments such as budgetary constraints. She suggested that the administration should work to make it easier to make changes. Chancellor Moeser suggested perhaps we should be considering changes in assignments in the light of changes faculty undergo during their career cycle. Zorn noted that changes in assignments are now done cooperatively. However, questions of competency in a subject matter may be a potential cause of change. He did note that roles do change over time, but that changes in assignments are not always handled well. Chancellor Moeser noted that he did not want this to be an issue that divided the faculty and the administration. Ford noted that the proposed change should not be couched in terms of a contradiction. The real point was that a faculty prerogative was being taken away. Latta noted that if faculty developmental changes throughout the career cycle was indeed the rationale for changes in appointment, than different language than that proposed is required. Departmental needs can be dealt with by the faculty as a whole, without chairs making unilateral assignments. Zorn mentioned that faculty might view assignments by the chair in a punitive manner. A way to reduce this tension would allow for arbitration within the department, i.e. there should be some appeal beyond the chair. Vice Chancellor Edwards noted that this would allow the faculty more scope as a group. Ford expressed concern that the proposed change would allow chairs to change assignments without concurrence of the faculty member or the members of the department. Bender suggested it might be a fair change in order to insure that all members of the department shoulder their responsibilities. Edwards noted that at present the chair can exclude faculty from assignments. Ford asked what if chairs want faculty to teach a class he/she is not prepared for? Zorn noted that professors respond to incentives. Chancellor Moeser noted that the cases which lead to this proposed revision are exceptions, but he did agree that faculty need to be shown the constraints on administrative actions in these cases. Latta suggested that we may not want extreme cases to be the basis for establishing standard operating procedures. Ford suggested a less extreme change might be to amend ARRC procedures in order to allow the removal of faculty from one or more courses.

3.2 Changes in ARRC Procedure

Chancellor Moeser stated that he is contacting the ARRC about changing procedures to close hearings on tenure revocation.

3.3 OCR Report and Follow-up

Chancellor Moeser discussed the response of the university to the Office of the Civil Rights.

3.4 Lotus Notes

Latta asked for clarification of procedures for getting faculty converted to Lotus Notes, and whether it requires a commitment of departmental resources. Chancellor Moeser suggested that we talk to Kent Hendriksen about this issue. He stated that currently the plan is to have all of UNL on Lotus Notes by 2001. Vice Chancellor Edwards noted that there haven't been any clear or well defined funds for the implementation of Lotus Notes. Latta asked if the implementation of Lotus Notes depends on reallocation. Chancellor Moeser noted that some funding through reallocation has already occurred.

3.5 Senate Involvement in Reallocation

Chancellor Moeser indicated he is currently revising his thinking about the possible role of faculty in reallocation.

3.6 Issues on the Horizon

3.6.1 The Chancellor stated that he had received a report from the Special Task Force and the Commencement Committee. The report concerns the creation of a new doctoral hooding ceremony which would take place on Friday afternoon before commencement. This would allow graduate faculty to hood their own candidates.

3.6.2 Tuition Remission for Dependents

The chancellor will talk to the other chancellors about this issue at the meeting of the Board of Regents in Scottsbluff.

4.0 Vice Chancellor Edwards

4.1 Post Tenure Review-External Review

Regents added a requirement of external review of research if a post-tenure review is triggered. Our document on post tenure review needs to be revised to reflect this requirement. Edwards will consider how to proceed with this revision.

4.2 Shared Governance Discussions

Edwards stated that he would like to see us continue the process. Latta agreed. Scheideler mentioned that we might want to consider how shared governance takes place on other campuses. She also suggested that administrators might want to spend more time with faculty at the faculty's workplace. Zorn noted that centralization tends to increase remoteness of the administration. Ford stated that he saw three issues coming out of the meetings on shared governance. These are: The passing of information to faculty from the administration, what do they get and when; Who represents the faculty? How does representation work?; Necessary restructuring of governmental units. Latta noted two other issues: Are there certain areas where administration welcomes faculty involvement more than others? If so, which areas are these and why?; Articulating how different groups, i.e. chairs, dean, faculty, etc., interact in a shared governance arrangement. What information should be shared and how. Latta also suggested that we might want to add new members to the discussion group, perhaps to make it more representative.

4.3 Issues on the Horizon

4.3.1 Edwards noted that salaries are published and a copy is or will be on file in the Senate Office. He also noted that they are online but with restricted access.

4.3.2 Edwards discussed the repatriation of Native American remains.

4.3.3 Edwards discussed the matter of a large estate being given to the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

5.0 Approval of 6/24/98 & 7/3/98 Minutes

Postponed to next meeting

6.0 Unfinished Business

6.1 AAHE Mini-grant Proposal Update

Latta distributed a draft of the grant proposal for AAHE which she has been working on with Evelyn Jacobson. The grant would be a two year project, jointly between the Academic Senate and the Vice-Chancellor's office. The purpose of the grant is to monitor and support implementation of the post-tenure review policy at UNL. It would examine in part, the changing roles of faculty and chairs in the annual review process as a result of PTR. Scheideler noted that IANR is already in the process of setting criteria. Latta stated that the study would focus on issues identified by faculty and chairs in implementing the post tenure review policy. Ford suggested that it would be beneficial, as part of the project, to generate a manual and perhaps put it online. Latta invited other comments on the draft to be sent to her.

7.0 New Business

The meeting was adjourned at 5:15 PM. Respectfully submitted, Brian D. Humes, Acting Secretary. The next meeting will be held on August 5, 1998 at 1227 R Street, Academic Senate Office.