UNL ACADEMIC SENATE

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES

PRESENT: Bender, Bryant, Ford, Humes, Kennedy, Baum Kuska, Latta, Mayo, Prochaska-Cue, Scheideler, Zorn

ABSENT: Aguilar, Williams

DATE: November 4, 1998

PLACE: 201 Canfield Administration Building

______________________________________________________________________________

1.0 Call to Order

Kennedy called the meeting to order at 3:09 PM.

2.0 Announcements

No announcements were made.

3.0 Chancellor Moeser

3.1 Senior Lecturer Positions (Latta)

Latta stated that a number of questions have arisen regarding the Senior Lecturer positions. She stated that there is concern with the disruption that has occurred in the academic community as a result of these newly created positions. Latta noted that how the appointment is being applied is inconsistent with the rationale given to the Executive Committee about why the positions were created. She is hearing reports that many people who were Assistant Professors on non-tenure track lines have been changed to Senior Lecturers and she asked what the rationale was for these changes. Chancellor Moeser stated that it was his understanding that it was to stop the use of Assistant Professor, tenure-leading lines for non-tenure track positions. He stated that in his view the Senior Lecturer position is considered a higher position and that an Assistant Professor position is an entry level position. He pointed out that this is a title used at many other universities with great distinction. He noted that these positions allows them to clarify those people who are in tenure-leading positions. Chancellor Moeser stated that another point to these positions is to provide these people with benefits. Latta stated that she can appreciate the rationale but that we need to address the effects this is having on our academic community and that it is a morale issue. Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards stated that while he has heard of some cases of dissatisfied people, he is not hearing the same degree of concern. Latta pointed out that these changes seem to have effected Assistant Professors primarily in the area of teaching. SVCAA Edwards stated that Assistant Research Professors are funded by grants and are not on the state budget. Bryant stated that an unintended consequence is the graduate faculty status. SVCAA Edwards stated that this should be corrected later this month and that the general consensus is that these people should have graduate faculty status. Scheideler stated that one of the concerns is that departments may change the ratio of tenure track positions to non tenure track positions. Chancellor Moeser pointed out that this allows the university to give a truer picture of the number of tenure track positions. SVCAA Edwards stated that he has heard that the creation of these positions has provided clarity to the job classifications. Chancellor Moeser stated that the purpose is to be fair and consistent with the use of the titles and as clear as possible with one's status with part-time versus full-time and tenure versus non-tenure positions. Latta asked if there weren't some things that we could be doing to communicate the importance and status of these positions and how we could create a culture at the University that would value the title of Senior Lecturer. Chancellor Moeser and SVCAA stated that was an excellent idea. Latta noted that the Teaching/Learning/Technology/ Roundtable and the Teaching Council are struggling with how they understand the relationship of these positions and whether they should extend their calls to these people. Ford suggested that the Chancellor and Latta have another question and answer segment in the Scarlet. Latta invited anyone from the Executive Committee to submit questions.

3.2 Philosophy of Institutional Change (Latta)

Latta noted that in discussing the proposed Bylaw change that the Chancellor has referred to the need for institutional change. She suggested that it might be useful to separate this idea from the Bylaw issue, which is a specific issue, because the idea of institutional change is a much larger agenda. Latta asked the Chancellor to clarify this idea. Chancellor Moeser responded the it is the view of a number of people, both within academia and outside of it that see major challenges ahead for universities if they continue in the same mode of operation. He noted that there is a desire within universities to maintain the culture of the academic enterprise but that there is a problem in how slow the process works. Chancellor Moeser pointed out that there is very little understanding by the general public on how universities operate and that they do not realize that we do much more than just instruct. Kennedy asked if the Chancellor has received information on what the University contributes to the economy of the state? Chancellor Moeser stated that the Bureau of Business Research is working on providing that information. He stated that there is a belief that universities that fail to adapt to public demands will be increasingly more marginalized. He pointed out that distance learning is an example. While he noted that no one is making money in the area right now, he pointed out that this will change. Chancellor Moeser pointed out that how we respond to distance education is crucial. He stated that it will be important to have incentives to faculty encourage their participation in distance education. He pointed out that the university needs to be more nimble and more responsive and that there has been "mission creep" within the university. Chancellor Moeser stated that the university does not do a good job at looking at the need of programs and whether they are still needed. Latta pointed out that faculty are more than ready to move on distance education but that there is no commitment to having incentives or support to create these courses. She stated that it is not just a matter of time but technology as well and that there is a lack of resources. Bryant pointed out that faculty have created internal structures and rules that at times impede the ability to adapt and change quickly. SVCAA Edwards noted that administration has also created rules which impede progress. He noted that the problem is that our institution and others have not really been creative to deal with these issues. Chancellor Moeser pointed out that the Nebraska Performance Model would allow us to reward productive programs. Zorn pointed out while there is a need to adapt and to evolve, that change done too quickly can cause destruction. He stated that it is also important to change the perception of the public. Bryant asked if the Future Nebraska Task Force will be charged to look at these kinds of issues? Chancellor Moeser stated that the charge has not been written yet. Bryant suggested that the committee may want to deliberate these issues and that an orchestrated plan is needed to change public opinion. Mayo stated that while he agrees there is a need to change quickly, he is concerned with the idea that shared governance is too slow a process. He asked how can we work a system that allows shared governance but that can work more closely to speed up change. Mayo stated that it needs to be kept in mind that our idea of change may be different and that faculty are more worried about the consequences of change and that may be why there is hesitancy to large changes. He asked if there wasn't someway we could get together to streamline the system. Scheideler pointed out that there needs to be rewards for faculty who want to change. She noted that often times people may want to change but that they are not allowed to do so. SVCAA Edwards stated that the need for change is not only a response to public demand but also to the demands of opportunities that arise. He pointed out that as state funding stabilizes, new sources of revenue may generate change and that new opportunities may require us to be responsive. Chancellor Moeser pointed out that care needs to be given in regards to opportunities that are presented and that it is important to add elements that will add to the University. Latta noted that this is an important conversation to continue. Zorn stated that it is important to evaluate ideas critically. Baum Kuska asked what part does the impact of the public play on the institution and the Futures Committee and as faculty being a part of the movement toward change, how much can we rely upon that as that is constantly changing? When does that play apart and become important in our discussions as far as the futures? Are they going to drive our institution or are we within going to drive to make the changes out there? Chancellor Moeser, stated that he does not think they will drive the institution but that we need to listen and be sensitive to the concerns of the larger society. He pointed out that as a land grant institution we have a societal responsibility.

3.3 Update on Diversity Plan

Linda Crump, Director of Affirmative Action and Diversity, reported that they are getting some feedback on the diversity plan. She stated that there will be open discussion sessions on November 17, 18, and 19 and that they hoped to get more feedback at these sessions. Chancellor Moeser pointed out that to the extent that we are talking about issues of climate and not discrimination on this campus the gay/lesbian issue falls under the area of campus climate rather than affirmative action because at this time the federal definition does not include gay and lesbians. He pointed out that the dependant non-spousal issue is a Board of Regents issue and not controlled by the campus. Bryant noted that the Academic Senate approved a resolution calling for domestic partners to be included in the benefits package and that this was forwarded to the University-wide Benefits Committee where it has been tabled indefinitely. He suggested that some kind of resolution should be made on this issue. Kennedy stated that she will talk with the UNL representative to the University-wide Benefits Committee to see if it is possible to gather support for this issue.

3.4 Outcomes of Reallocation (Latta)

Latta reported that there was a report that recently went to APC outlining essentially where the money went. She asked if they were still working on a report that will provide some kind of outcomes of what the actual effects were, not where the money went, but how it has impacted programs? Chancellor Moeser stated that they are working on a report but that it is important to remember that it is still a work in progress. He stated that they will be providing a detailed report to Central Administration on where the money was taken from. Ford encouraged that a report be given using the categories that we normally use: research, service and teaching. He also asked if the report will address both quantitative and qualitative effects of the reallocation. Chancellor Moeser stated that it will and pointed out that the number of courses being offered has increased with reallocation. Bryant asked how the allocated money for distance education was spent? Chancellor Moeser responded that an extension education coordinator was hired in both North Platte and in Norfolk and that a replacement was needed for Arnold Bateman in Scottsbluff. Zorn noted that there is considerable pressure to have MBA classes taught via distance education but that the enrollments are often very low. Latta pointed out that the upfront and ongoing costs for these courses are expensive. Chancellor Moeser stated that a for profit separate corporation has been set up to hopefully attract some private capital to create high school web classes. He noted that there is a tremendous audience for this kind of education.

3.5 Issues on the Horizon

3.5.1 Improving Faculty Attendance at Commencement Exercises

Kennedy asked if anyone has been able to increase the number of free rentals to departments of cap and gowns for faculty who attend graduation ceremonies. SVCAA Edwards stated that he will raise the issue with Vice Chancellor Jones. Chancellor Moeser suggested that there could be a pool of free gowns rather than allocating by department.

3.5.2 Brown Bag Luncheons

Scheideler asked how the brown bag meetings are going? Chancellor Moeser stated that they have been very successful and that there has been very good discussion.

4.0 Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards

4.1 Update on Post Tenure Review Standards (Kennedy)

Kennedy asked if all of the colleges have turned in their standards on post tenure review. SVCAA Edwards pointed out that the deadline date has been extended to December 1^st. Latta stated that she has spoken with Sally Wise, Chair of the Academic Rights and Responsibilities Committee, concerning the language change to the Post Tenure Review document and that Wise agreed that the language looks fine. SVCAA Edwards thought that this information should be provided to the campus. SVCAA Edwards pointed out that this is an iterative process that will take some time.

4.2 Nebraska Performance Model - Capaldi Visit (Kennedy)

Prochaska-Cue reported that discussion centered around service and how it would be handled in the model. She stated that there are still concerns with the counting context and how that will be handled. She noted that there is a problem with how to count research that crosses over departmental lines.

4.3 CAO Discussion of Bylaws Change (Latta)

Latta asked about the input that was provided to the Council of Academic Officers on the Proposed Bylaw change. SVCAA Edwards responded that the information provided was very helpful and that the Council wanted to know where things stand on this issue. SVCAA Edwards informed the Council that there are discussions being held and that he was reassured by Executive Vice President Lee Jones that nothing would go to the Board of Regents until discussions with faculty have been completed.

4.4 Clarifying Tuition Remission Position (Kennedy)

Kennedy noted that some people are not clear on the difference between the tuition remission benefit and the transfer of tuition remission. She stated that some people see this as a new benefit rather than an existing benefit. Chancellor Moeser pointed out that some people view the transfer of tuition remission as an additional cost and that the distribution of this benefit would cause inequity. He stated there has been mixed feelings from faculty on this benefit but that it is strongly supported by staff. Scheideler pointed out that the way in which the benefit is presented may influence people's support of the benefit and that the public's view is that we already have this benefit. SVCAA Edwards stated that there is very strong support for the medical benefits for graduate students. Humes stated that a cafeteria style distribution of benefits will actually decrease benefits if people have to choose among existing benefits without an equal amount of NUFLEX dollars being added into the package. Chancellor Moeser agreed and stated that administration is not going to propose a package that will actually decrease the benefits of employees. Kennedy stated that President Smith's office is still collecting data on the costs of this benefit. Ford noted that when Central Administration discusses the issue that somebody needs to remind them that we are currently 8-12% behind in benefits with our peer universities.

5.0 Approval of 10/28/98 minutes

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

6.0 Unfinished Business

Kennedy distributed copies of the second draft of the priority goals and a draft of the celebration of teaching scheduled for the December Senate meeting. Latta reminded Kennedy to contact Delivee Wright, Teaching and Learning Center on the Celebration of Teaching scheduled for January.

7.0 New Business

7.1 Review Committee on Delivee Wright, Teaching and Learning Center

Kennedy asked for recommendations of faculty to serve on this committee. Kay Rockwell, Agricultural Leadership, Education & Communication, Dona Kizzier, Vocational & Adult Education, George Rogers, Vocational & Adult Education, Bill Walstad, Economic Education, Janice Lawrence, School of Accountancy, Julie Johnson, Family and Consumer Science, Kathy Ankerson, Architecture, George Tuck, News-Editorial, and Lyn Kathlene, Political Science were nominated.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:06 PM. The next meeting will be held on November 11^th in the Oak Room at the Lincoln University Club, University Towers, 13^th Street.