UNL ACADEMIC SENATE

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES

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

ABSENT: Shoemaker, Williams

DATE: March 11, 1998

PLACE: 201 Canfield Administration Building

_____________________________________________________________________________

1.0 Call to Order

Ford called the meeting to order at 3:07 PM.

2.0 Announcements

2.1 Shared Governance Meeting

Kennedy and Ford reported that the first meeting on shared governance between faculty and administration went very well and that issues discussed were: building trust between administrators and faculty; channels of communication; administrators changing more rapidly than in the past; professionalization of administration from faculty; the role of shared governance; restructuring; faculty committees; changing time spans for faculty; and administrative accountability to faculty. Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards suggested that some case studies be written for the next meeting and he stated that the group will possibly meet several more times and hopefully come to an agreement on what is shared governance.

3.0 Chancellor Moeser

3.1 Academic Climate: Student Expectations (guest: Dan Bernstein, Psychology)

Dan Bernstein, Psychology, presented information collected by the Peer Review Project. He stated that the three factors involved in student learning are 1) the performance of instructors in creating a learning environment, 2) what students bring to class and 3) the amount of time students work on assignments. He stated that the project is trying to help faculty change the structure of their courses so that students will more actively engage in their course work. Chancellor Moeser stated that it was important to provide this information to the faculty. Bernstein stated that he was available to speak to departments but he stressed that the project was to assist faculty in creating a more productive learning environment. He stated that the peer review project is important in providing a balanced review of a faculty member who demands more work from students since they typically get negative evaluations from students.

3.2 Reallocation

Latta stated that she recently attended a meeting of the Academic Planning Committee which discussed the proposal set forth in the "Focusing Our Resources" document and stated that the committee formed a subcommittee to explore alternatives to the process outlined by Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards' for targeting specific areas for enhancement. She stated that L. Davis Clements, Chair of APC, asked if restructuring and reallocation are two separate and distinct processes. Chancellor Moeser stated that reallocation was essential due to the current budget situation. He stated that alternatives to reallocation may be giving credit to a college which has a small budget in return for in kind services. Chancellor Moeser stated that they are looking at various strategies and that any new program money will have to come from internal sources. Kennedy asked if a report on the last reallocation has been produced yet. Chancellor Moeser stated that they are just in the process of allocating the funds but that it was possible to produce an interim report. Chancellor Moeser stated that no process has been set yet for reallocation for the upcoming academic year. Latta asked what is the Chancellor's definition of restructuring. Chancellor Moeser stated that we needed to review the way the university is organized since there are some disciplines which are divided into two or three separate departments. He stated that he is interested in the creation of business centers. Mayo stated that the continual reallocation process was creating a loss of quality in existing programs. Chancellor Moeser stated that there may ultimately be some programs eliminated. Latta stated that an area of the "Focusing Our Resources" document suggested that certain areas of strength be identified for increased funding. Chancellor Moeser stated that they were targeting areas of excellence which they hoped would develop into programs of national stature. He stated that in order to do this, it was important for individual colleges and departments to focus on specific areas. Latta stated that she was not sure that focusing on specific areas will propel programs into national stature. Sartori stated that there has been a tremendous increase in the number of graduate programs and since many of the national surveys are based on the size of programs, many good, small programs may not make the list now.

3.3 Professional Ethics Statement (Kennedy)

Kennedy reported that she spoke with Helen Moore, Sociology, one of the writers of the Professional Ethics Statement, endorsed by the Academic Senate in April 1990, to discuss how the document could be distributed to faculty. She stated that the document could be a joint effort between the Academic Senate and Academic Affairs. Chancellor Moeser stated that this was a good idea and that he will review the document.

3.4 Affirmative Action Policies and Procedures

Ford stated that there were rising tensions on campus in regards to the policies and procedures regarding the search and hiring procedures on new faculty members and he asked whether the current policy regarding the requirement of a minority member on the interview list was illegal. He stated that clearer guidelines were needed for colleges and departments in this area. Chancellor Moeser stated he did not think that it is illegal for a Dean to require a diverse group of people to be brought in for interviews but that he will check with Linda Crump, Director of Affirmative Action and Dick Wood, General Counsel. Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards stated that clearer guidelines could be provided but that it is important to recognize that the laws are changing in this area across the country. He stated that the Affirmative Action office is currently working on a diversity plan which will have primary impact on the search process. Bleed stated that some faculty are concerned with the loss of power in the search committee process. Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards stated that the only input from upper administration in the search committee process for the positions of Dean in the College of Business Administration and the Law College is to ensure that the committees are on schedule. Scheideler stated that some people view diversity as lessening the search pool but she stated that skills, other than scholarly research, which allows a person to perform a variety of tasks should also be considered and that search committees need to look at highly qualified individuals with a diversity of skills not reflected in scholarly publications. Chancellor Moeser stated that a broader definition of quality, without lowering the standards, is needed. He stated that we need to review our values and commitments at the University and stated that academic rigor and excellence goes hand in hand with diversity. Latta stated that further clarification is needed to define what the criteria is for a diverse pool.

3.5 Distance Education Confidentiality

Latta expressed concern about the breach of student confidentiality of a student's course registration as reported in a recent Daily Nebraskan article. Chancellor Moeser stated that he will check into the matter.

3.6 Athletic Ticket Prices

Bleed stated that he has received phone calls from faculty concerning the high price of athletic tickets. The issue was discussed and Chancellor Moeser stated that there had been no changes in prices in the last 4 years and prices were comparable to costs at other universities.

3.7 Childcare with Recreation Center

Scheideler reported that the lack of childcare on campus was a concern for many faculty, staff and students and stated that the East Campus Recreation Center is interested in providing childcare but lacked the appropriate facility. She stated that a facility existed on East campus which will support the childcare facility and which would be available for use through the summer months. Chancellor Moeser stated that he was aware of the inadequate childcare facilities on campus and asked if using this facility would interfere with the academic program. Scheideler responded that there would be no conflict during the summer months and that any research equipment could be secured in a locked room. Chancellor Moeser stated that he would discuss the matter with administrators.

3.8 Issues on the Horizon

3.8a President's Council

Chancellor Moeser stated that the President's Council decided in a recent meeting that the priority budget issues are: 1) faculty salary increases of 6% per year for two years; 2) UNO Engineering lines; 3) infrastructure; 4) operating costs for departments; 5) library acquisitions; 6) computing.

3.8b CBA Dean's Search

Chancellor Moeser stated that the CBA Dean's Search was progressing and that a short list of 4-5 candidates will be out soon.

4.0 Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards

4.1 Faculty Involvement in Chair Selections

Item postponed until next meeting.

4.2 Annual Evaluations of Faculty and Administrators

Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards reported that he and Vice Chancellor Omtvedt are currently working on establishing a system which would ensure equitable evaluation of faculty. He stated that current guidelines call for the evaluations to be conducted at the department level only and that it was difficult to ensure accountability. He stated that he has been discussing with the Deans the possibility of changing the guidelines to involve the Deans in the review process to ensure equitable evaluations across the university. Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards stated that currently the Dean's office and the Office of Academic Affairs only receive a copy of the annual evaluation. Mayo stated that the Deans of IANR are currently involved in faculty evaluations and stated that any appeal to a review was processed through the tenure and promotion committee. Sartori asked if the annual evaluation of Deans by faculty is being waived and being replaced by a departmental executive committee. Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards stated that the annual survey of faculty on evaluations of Deans was producing few responses and his office decided they would only survey faculty in alternative years to see if there would be a better response rate. In alternative years he asks that a representative faculty executive committee review and report on the dean's performance. Kennedy stated that it was particularly important for faculty to be involved in an annual review of administrators to determine if there are any problems. Latta observed that in some cases the executive committee which reviews the Dean is not an elected committee of faculty. Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards stated that he did not specify the members of the committee and that he is open to a representative faculty committee but would like to alternate the review process. Ford stated that faculty would like to have been involved in this issue before policy is promulgated.

4.3 Faculty Reaction to Faculty Forums

Item postponed until next meeting.

4.4 Delphi Survey

Item postponed until next meeting.

4.5 Issues on the Horizon

5.0 Approval of 3/4/98 minutes (Albrecht)

Japp moved and Kennedy seconded the approval of the minutes as amended.

6.0 New Business

7.0 Unfinished Business

7.1 Nominating Committee

Bleed reported that the nominating committee will be meeting soon and that a slate will be forthcoming.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:10 PM. The next Executive Committee meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, March 18, 1227 R Street. Respectfully submitted, Julie Albrecht, Secretary.