UNL ACADEMIC SENATE

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES

PRESENT: Aguilar, Bender, Bryant, Humes, Latta, Mayo, Prochaska-Cue, Scheideler, Williams, Zorn

ABSENT: Ford, Kennedy, Baum Kuska

DATE: October 21, 1998

PLACE: 201 Canfield Administration Building

_____________________________________________________________________________

1.0 Call to Order

Latta called the meeting to order at 3:04 PM.

2.0 Announcements

2.1 President Kennedy Meeting with President Smith

Latta announced that President Kennedy was unable to attend the meeting because she and the other Academic Senate Presidents were meeting with President Smith.

3.0 Chancellor Moeser

3.1 Update on the Nebraska Future Committee

Chancellor Moeser reported that approximately 30 people, mostly faculty and a few administrators, have been selected to serve on the committee. He stated that letters were sent out to these people asking for their service on the committee. Latta asked if a charge has been written for the committee. Chancellor Moeser responded that a charge has been written which he will make available to the Executive Committee. He noted that the name of the committee has been changed to the Future Nebraska Task Force: Research and Graduate Education. Chancellor Moeser pointed out that the members of the committee are not representatives of particular areas but are to act as citizens of the University. He stated that they are being asked to determine the strengths of the university and to study other institutions to see what are their distinctions. Latta asked whether individuals not selected had been notified. Chancellor Moeser indicated they were waiting to see how many accepted the appointment.

3.2 Proposed Bylaw Change

Latta reported that Kennedy, Ford and herself met with the Chair of the Academic Rights and Responsibilities Committee and Jim McShane to draft new language for the proposed Bylaw change. She stated that they incorporated the faculty handbook guidelines and attempted to draft a document with the least amount of changes necessary. Chancellor Moeser stated that the draft forces the Post Tenure Review as the only avenue for allowing change in a faculty member's assignment and that this would be a process that would take two years. Latta stated that faculty members should be allowed to correct deficiencies. Mayo asked what could be done in the meantime should a faculty member's responsibilities change. Mayo pointed out that when mutual consent can not be reached a faculty arbitrating committee should be formed to handle requests for change whether they be on the part of administration or a faculty member. Chancellor Moeser expressed concern that a stalemate will occur over the term "mutual consent." He reported that he has heard Regents stating that the University needs to make adjustments to situations more quickly. Bender pointed out that assignments can be adjusted now but that it is the apportionment of a faculty member's duties which needs to be by mutual consent. Latta asked if there is any explanation of why the Regents do not have faith that changes can be reached by mutual consent? Chancellor Moeser stated that mutual consent is an ideal situation but that ultimately there may come a time when adjustments need to be made. Chancellor Moeser agreed that there should be some kind of appellate process for faculty should there be disagreement but that the chair should have the ability to make adjustments. Latta asked why a chair should have the ultimate decision rather than an appellate committee. Chancellor Moeser responded that chairs are expected to make reasonable assignments. He stated that chairs currently face a propensity of faculty who want to teach their favorite courses. Zorn noted that the people in the field have a greater knowledge of the courses that need to be taught and that this needs to be taken into consideration. Chancellor Moeser asked what should happen to a faculty member who stops being productive in research and yet does not increase their teaching or service load. Bryant stated that the regular evaluation system which is in place will accomplish this goal. Zorn pointed out that faculty need to have some kind of protection in place should they wish to differ with a chair on a particular issue so that they can speak freely without fear of retaliation. Latta stressed that faculty involvement is important for a university to maintain quality programs and that there needs to be a peer review system in place. Aguilar pointed out that with mutual consent faculty have the right to request a change and that the phrase mutual consent is a respectful way of allowing this process to happen. Humes noted that the Political Science department has an appeal process in place that has been successful. Chancellor Moeser suggested that a middle ground be found in the language which would provide a mechanism for appeal. He stated that this committee did not need to be confined within a department but could be at the college level and could possibly overrule the chair. Chancellor Moeser pointed out that the Board of Regents wants a clearer line of authority to be able to make changes. Bryant stated that there are two different models: one militaristic and the other participatory. He stated that the proposed Bylaw change from Central Administration was militaristic and that he would like to know that a real problem exists which would require the need for the Bylaw change. Zorn pointed out that it is imperative to have some form of a safeguard in a politically charged atmosphere such as the University. Aguilar suggested that the committee should check with department chairs to see if there is a reality to this problem. Chancellor Moeser suggested that the Committee meet with Dick Wood, General Counsel, to discuss this issue further. Latta agreed to reconvene her committee to discuss these issues with them and to work on a revised draft.

3.3 Letter to Students from Vice Chancellor Griesen on Standing at Football Games

Scheideler reported that a member of her department brought the letter sent to students to her attention and stated that he felt that the letter had a penalizing tone to which he objected. Chancellor Moeser pointed out that this is the 4^th or 5^th time that students have been told that standing during the football games is discourteous to other patrons and that action such as the loss of student seating may be taken to avoid this behavior. Scheideler was unaware that this issue has been raised before and suggested that perhaps the student section should be moved to the back rows of the stadium. Chancellor Moeser stated that he hoped this would not have to happen and that he hoped students will consider being courteous to other patrons.

3.4 Issues on the Horizon

3.4.1. Coordinating Commission for Postsecondary Education

Chancellor Moeser reported that the Coordinating Commission recently met to discuss the 1999-2001 Institutional Budget Requests. He reported that the Coordinating Commission believes that UNL is currently at the midpoint of the Commission's peer institutions for salary and that they are recommending less than a 3% increase. The full report will be available on the web at: http://www.nol.org/NEpostsecondaryed. Chancellor Moeser stated that an upcoming issue may be how the University will deal with possible budget cuts as a result of either Measure 413 being passed or the effects of reduced state revenue. He pointed out that the next Governor's budget recommendations will be critical. Latta asked what the questions were from the State Appropriations Committee that went to Central Administration? Chancellor Moeser stated that the list of questions was very long and stated that this could be an indication of difficult times ahead with the Legislature.

4.0 Vice Chancellor Omtvedt

4.1 Department Searches

Scheideler asked what the University policy is regarding access to the applications file in department chair or head searches. Vice Chancellor Omtvedt stated that the search advisory committee screens the applications and that the department will be notified when the short list of applicants has been determined. He pointed out that some applicants do not want people to know that they are applying for a position. Chancellor Moeser stated that searches conducted within the University are confidential. Scheideler asked if a search committee was in place yet for the Dean of the College of Human Resources and Family Sciences. Vice Chancellor Omtvedt reported that the search committee is almost complete.

4.2 Gender Equity Report - IANR Statistics

Scheideler noted that the Gender Equity Report broke down statistics by college and stated that she was concerned that only three or four new faculty hires were female in IANR. Vice Chancellor Omtvedt stated that few new hires were made and that out of these few, three were women. Scheideler asked what the plan is to increase the level of female hires? Vice Chancellor Omtvedt stated that Associate Vice Chancellor McBreen is working on a draft plan which she wants the Deans to review. He pointed out that they need to work more diligently in recruiting minorities and women in some departments. He stated that the gender gap will be easier to close than the minority gap. Vice Chancellor Omtvedt stated that this is a high priority in the Vice Chancellor's office.

4.3 Issues on the Horizon

4.3.1. Listening Sessions

Vice Chancellor Omtvedt reported that listening sessions at the various research and extension facilities will be held to discuss programs and program priorities. He stated that the sessions will be held with a wide group of people including outside individuals as well as faculty and students.

4.3.2. Extended Education

Vice Chancellor Omtvedt reported that extended education will be discussed at the next Planning meeting of the Board of Regents. Topics will include tuition rates for distance education and making distance education one of the core missions of the University. Bryant asked where the subsidy is coming from for distance education. Vice Chancellor Omtvedt responded that they are approximately $660,000 short if the previous budget is used and that they will be asking for new funding. Chancellor Moeser pointed out that this does not address the issue of fees. Mayo stated that teaching distance education courses creates an overload for faculty and pointed out that fees could not cover these costs. Chancellor Moeser stated that distance education courses will become part of a regular assignment. Bryant noted that there is a perception that the Institute receives a lot of funding and asked if the mission of IANR is becoming broader? Vice Chancellor Omtvedt stated that there is no mission creep within IANR and that it is clear what needs to be added. He pointed out that the cooperative extension program is serving a much broader area than the Institute. He noted that the extension educators provide feedback to diverse areas within the University. He stated that the goal is to make the resources of the University available to the people of the state. Vice Chancellor Omtvedt noted that the extension program is an instrument of connectivity that should be utilized more fully. He pointed out that IANR is not nearly as autonomous as people perceive and that there are many joint appointments.

5.0 Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards

5.1 Update on Post Tenure Review Standards

5.2 Nebraska Performance Model-Capaldi Visit

Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards was unable to meet with the committee due to a conflict with another meeting.

6.0 Approval of 10/14/98 minutes (Bryant)

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

7.0 Senate Agenda Items

7.1 Feedback from Faculty Discussions

Postponed until next week.

8.0 Pepsi Fund

Postponed until next week.

9.0 Faculty and Salary Benefit Issues

Latta stated she would like to get input from faculty on salary and benefit issues for the Faculty Compensation Advisory Committee.

10.0 Unfinished Business

10.1 Senior Lecturer Positions

Postponed until next week.

11.0 New Business

11.1 Joint Senate Motion on Faculty Governance

Bryant suggested that there be a joint motion from the four Academic Senates to address faculty involvement in policy deliberations from the beginning. He pointed out that these policies have major impacts on faculty and that faculty should be included in the deliberation of these policies.

Meeting adjourned at 5:20 PM. The next Executive Committee meeting will be held on Wednesday, October 28 at 3:00 PM at 1227 R Street.