UNL ACADEMIC SENATE

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES

PRESENT: Bender, Bryant, Past President Ford, Humes, President Kennnedy, Baum Kuska, Latta, Prochaska-Cue, Scheideler, and Zorn

ABSENT: Shoemaker and Williams

DATE: May 27, 1998

PLACE: 1227 R Street, Academic Senate Office

_____________________________________________________________________________

1.0 Call to Order

President Kennedy called the meeting to order at 3:05 PM.

2.0 Announcements

2.1 NN21 Workshop - Roles and Rewards of Faculty

President Kennedy announced that the NN21 workshop "Roles and Rewards of Faculty" will be held on May 28 and that she, Gail Latta, and Sheila Scheideler will be attending the workshop.

2.2 Funding for Early Completion of the Stadium

President Kennedy reported that she received an email message from a Senator who voiced concern on the funding source for the $200,000 given to complete the stadium earlier than originally planned to accommodate the addition of a football game to the schedule. She stated that Herb Howe, Associate to the Chancellor, informed her that the funds will be covered through ticket costs for the additional game.

3.0 Vice Chancellor Omtvedt

3.1 NN21 Update

Vice Chancellor Omtvedt asked Ellen Russell, Director of the NN21 project to provide an update. Kennedy reported that information is not getting out to the faculty on the change of focus for the project. Russell provided the committee with a packet of information which contained the news release on the upcoming Chautauqua being hosted by NN21 on June 29 and 30 at the Cornhusker Hotel in Lincoln. Russell reported that the event will incorporate the fine and performing arts to stimulate discussion about creative change and experimentation in education and encouraged people to attend. She described the project as being in three phases: Phase I, conducted in 1994-95 was the envisioning phase; Phase II, now through 2001, the implementation stage; and Phase III, the follow up stage. Russell stated that currently there are seven action teams dealing with topics such as diversity, distance education, faculty rewards and values, human capital development, sustainable communities, curriculum and food systems. She reported that a number of these teams have demonstration projects currently in operation. Bryant pointed out that some people think the NN21 project is a reform effort and he asked if there is a specific agenda or goals. Russell responded that the strategy team is struggling with how to adapt to changes currently going on but she pointed out that this is an ongoing and evolving process. She stated that the consultant, Steve Bosserman, of Workspan, Inc., suggests that part of the agenda may incorporate the ideas of how to have an influence on policy and budgets for education. Vice Chancellor Omtvedt stated that the project will dovetail with the K-16 Initiative and reminded everyone that the NN21 project involves all entities and does not segregate higher education. He noted that one of the biggest hurdles of the project has been getting people to realize that this was not just an Agricultural project and that it impacts all institutions. Scheideler asked if the sustainable community action teams are involving the research and extension centers. Russell responded that they are and that currently the centers at Nebraska City and Albion are involved in projects. Latta asked what the motivation is for these changes and why Kellogg is interested in these changes. Vice Chancellor Omtvedt replied that Kellogg has always been interested in the community, particularly the rural community and land grant institutions. He stated that they foresee the need for a lot of change in the 21^st century at land grant universities and seek to help facilitate these changes. Vice Chancellor Omtvedt and Russell both stated that faculty involvement is critical in order to keep focus with people from other spectrums. Latta asked if the demonstration projects are going to need additional funding to continue operating. Russell stated that they hope to eventually be self-supporting.

3.2 Post Tenure Review - IANR

Scheideler stated that there are currently discussions going on within units on post tenure review and that there seems to be some confusion on the implementation of the review, in particular, whether it was to be effective retroactively. She stated that there needs to be some clarification from administration on the policy. Vice Chancellor Omtvedt stated that the letter he sent jointly with Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards expressed that the faculty were to develop the criteria but that there was not clarification on the timing. Scheideler pointed out that some faculty were nervous that there was not some kind of umbrella on the definition of criteria and that there is great variation from department to department. She stated there may be a need for some overarching principles. Kennedy replied that each department is very different and that an overarching principle may conflict with the policy that states that faculty determine the criteria. Vice Chancellor Omtvedt asked what other departments across campus are doing. Ford responded that the English department is currently working on it. Zorn stated that the Finance department is having discussions on assessment and how it is measured. Latta pointed out that the language in the letter from Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards and Vice Chancellor Omtvedt was taken directly from the document endorsed by the Senate, and calls for criteria to be defined in relation to existing departmental evaluation methods. Kennedy and Scheideler both pointed out that evaluation varies greatly from department to department and that currently, in some departments the evaluation is made by only one person, the chair, and not the faculty. Zorn stated that it is his understanding that the criteria to be set is for what constitutes an unsatisfactory performance. Vice Chancellor Omtvedt pointed out that the post tenure review committee is independent of the department head. Scheideler suggested that a time line for when a person is evaluated under the new post tenure review policy would help.

3.3 Issues on the Horizon

Vice Chancellor Omtvedt stated that there is a new letter from President Smith which lays out the facts regarding the budget of the University and that Kennedy will be receiving more information regarding the proposed constitutional amendment.

Vice Chancellor Omtvedt suggested that the Senate keep informed of the K-16 Initiative and stated that he thought it was important to get other people involved who were not necessarily administrators.

He reported that a topic being discussed is where tenure should reside - in the department or with the college or university. He stated that moving tenure to the college or university level would provide security for faculty but give the University some flexibility.

4.0 Approval of 5/20/98 minutes (Bryant)

Baum Kuska moved and Zorn seconded the approval of the minutes as amended.

5.0 Student Affairs

Kennedy reported that she met recently with members of the Office of Student Affairs who stated that they would like to get faculty more involved with students in areas such as advising and mentoring. Kennedy suggested that this could be discussed further at the Executive Committee Retreat to be held sometime in August. Ford asked if the Senate office has received a report from the Student Judicial Affairs office. Coordinator Griffin stated no report has been received but that she will contact the office to obtain a copy of the latest report.

6.0 Faculty Opposition to Proposed State Constitutional Amendment

Kennedy informed the committee that she had received an email letter from Senator Haller who wrote that the Senate and Executive Committee should be involved in efforts to oppose this amendment. She stated that she spoke to Herb Howe who recommended that the committee speak with the General Counsel of the University, Dick Wood. Ford pointed out that while we cannot solicit support against the amendment, we could provide the public with general information about the university. Zorn thought that focusing on specific areas would be more beneficial to the University and cautioned against statements that may appear to be self-serving. Latta stated that a negative attitude towards higher education is happening throughout the country and that it was important for us to present an alternative strategy. The committee agreed to discuss the matter further during the Executive Committee retreat.

7.0 Revised Undergraduate Discussion Paper

The Executive Committee discussed the revised undergraduate discussion paper. Humes voiced concern over whether the section regarding multiple profiles of what constitutes a faculty career may be an attempt to replace or reduce the number of tenure track positions. Zorn stated that having a system where there are two tracks might be a good idea but it could undermine the system as a whole. Bryant stated that throughout the document there appears to be areas where faculty are being asked to do more administrative work. He pointed out that faculty already do a lot of administrative work and that this leaves very little time for teaching. Zorn noted that it is good to have faculty involved in administration but that we must guard against just creating more bureaucracy. Bryant pointed out that to follow the recommendations outlined in the paper that some faculty are going to have to do a lot of work in the undergraduate program. Scheideler stated that the paragraph threatening tenure track lines needs to have a response. Ford suggested that a goal should be set to increase the proportion of tenure track lines. Humes stated that the requirements for the honors program and "fast-track" students could be used to support tenure track lines. Latta stated that the section regarding campus culture needs to communicate what the University's expectations of students are, what role the University plays, and what the University expects of students to be successful. She also stated that the University needs to give the support that students need and the tools that they require in order to be successful. Kennedy suggested that the committee discuss the paper further via an email round robin.

8.0 Unfinished Business

8.1 AAHE Post Tenure Review Grant

Kennedy reported that Evelyn Jacobson, Associate Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs, is interested in speaking with the Executive Committee on the post tenure review grant. Kennedy will let her know the Executive Committee's schedule for the summer and arrange a date when she can meet with the committee. If Jacobson is unable to meet during any of our scheduled meeting times, Kennedy stated that a smaller group may need to meet with Jacobson at another time.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:05 PM. The next Executive Committee meeting is scheduled for June 10, 1998 in 201 Canfield Administration Building. Respectfully submitted, Miles Bryant, Secretary.