UNL ACADEMIC SENATE

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES

PRESENT: Bender, Bryant, Ford, Humes, Kennedy, Baum Kuska, Latta, Scheideler, Williams, Zorn

ABSENT: Mayo, Prochaska-Cue

DATE: September 16, 1998

PLACE: 201 Canfield Administration Building

_____________________________________________________________________________

1.0 Call to Order

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

2.0 Announcements

2.1 Five Year Cumulative Review of Delivee Wright, Director Teaching and Learning Center

Kennedy announced that she received an email message from Associate Vice Chancellor Jacobson requesting that the Executive Committee, or another Senate Committee, be involved in the five year cumulative review of Dr. Wright. The Committee suggested that the Teaching Council be a part of this process.

2.2 AAHE Grant Proposal on Post Tenure Review

Latta announced that the AAHE grant proposal to study post tenure review has been approved for $8500. Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards stated that Chris Lacotta from AAHE is very interested in learning about our experiences with post tenure review. Latta noted that one of the requirements of the grant is that they report findings at the AAHE conference.

3.0 Chancellor Moeser

3.1 Nebraska Future Committee

Kennedy pointed out that there is concern over the Nebraska Future Committee being chaired by Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards when the committee was suppose to be a faculty committee. She stated that some faculty feel that the agenda is once again being set by administration. Chancellor Moeser replied that Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards was the convenor of the committee. However, the Chancellor noted that he expected the Senior Vice Chancellor to play a major leadership role as is appropriate given his position and role at the University. Chancellor Moeser reported that they have only begun to look at the list of candidates. He pointed out that this committee will take up a substantial amount of the members' time and that it will more than likely be longer than a one year commitment. Chancellor Moeser stated that the committee needs to be balanced and may include off campus people as well. He stated that the Executive Committee's nominee of Gail Latta is an excellent nomination and that she should consider herself as being one of the members of the committee.

3.2 Proposed Bylaw Changes

Chancellor Moeser stated that the suggestion of a committee to review and write a draft of the proposed bylaw change is a good idea. Latta stated that Sally Wise, Chair of ARRC, suggested that whatever language is drafted should go to the Academic Senate for a vote. Chancellor Moeser pointed out that this change is being proposed by the Board of Regents and that we do not have control of the time frame. Latta stated that the revised version would be offered as a substitute. Chancellor Moeser noted that the language in the Faculty Handbook which appears to be causing concern for the Regents is the phrase "mutual consent." He pointed out that the apportionment of faculty time can be changed but that the percentage of the work required can only be altered by mutual consent. Ford asked if there was a conflict between the new Post Tenure Review Bylaw and the previous Bylaw. Chancellor Moeser responded that there is a legal conflict with the current Bylaws. Ford suggested that in the rare cases when this could happen that the faculty member should litigate the case. Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards pointed out that Post Tenure Review does not easily allow the readjustment of faculty assignment nor does it allow for dismissal of someone. Bryant stated that the proposed bylaw change could fundamentally change the relationship between the faculty member and the University. Zorn stated that the change could substantially eliminate the very thing that tenure does. Latta stated that there is a danger in this readjustment being used by a dean or chair who does not agree with the type of research a faculty member is conducting. Ford asked to what degree does this problem exist? Chancellor Moeser and Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards did not know of any particular cases. Chancellor Moeser stated that it is increasingly more important in the future for the University to change more quickly and that this is an effort to protect the faculty from having conflicts with the Board of Regents. Chancellor Moeser asked if he and Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards will be able to discuss the draft version before it goes to the Senate. Latta responded that they would. Zorn suggested that a departmental committee, parallel to the post tenure review committee, could review the need to adjust a person's work load. Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards stated that it is important that we build the culture of a department based on cooperative endeavor and that post tenure review is really a mechanism to deal with rare cases. Zorn pointed out that in departments where there are elected or rotational chairs that there is a more colloquial atmosphere and less fear of retaliation. Ford pointed out that the Faculty Handbook was accepted by the Board of Regents and is considered co-equal to the Regents Bylaws. Chancellor Moeser pointed out that the Bylaws take precedence over the Faculty Handbook.

3.3 Political Science Department Report

Chancellor Moeser stated that he asked the Special Committee to Review Political Science to prepare an Executive Summary to the report. He stated that he send the report to the Chair of Political Science first, then to President Kennedy and finally to the Academic Rights and Responsibilities Committee. Chancellor Moeser stated that he is unsure as to how much of the report will be made public. He pointed out that the policy on handling sexual harassment cases does not allow for the entire report to be made public.

3.4 Issues on the Horizon

3.4.1. Distance Education

Bryant stated that it was reported to him that President Smith is planning on having central administration gather tuition revenue from distance education courses on a university wide basis, that the Board of Regents will not allow additional fees to be assessed to distance education courses and the Regents will not allow a 150% tuition cost for distance education courses. Chancellor Moeser responded that to his knowledge no decisions have been made in Varner Hall on distance education revenue. He stated that the people in western Nebraska are opposed to increases in distance education. The Chancellor noted that North Carolina's university chancellor made a budget request of 15 million dollars to support distance education, an amount that was calculated to provide an equivalent level of support services to that which was provided for on-campus students. He noted that he did not anticipate making a request of such magnitude to the Nebraska legislature. Chancellor Moeser stated that the legislature will probably not allow an increase in distance education funding and that reallocation may need to come from resident teaching. He pointed out that there needs to be improvement in incentives for faculty to teach distance education courses. Latta stated that from a public perspective that it is important to charge the same tuition for classes whether it is for distance education classes or on campus classes but that there are associated fees for distance education courses which could be identified as such. However, she noted that distance education requires technical support and asked if the actual cost of these classes is being reviewed. Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards stated that there is great pressure from outside agencies to lump all fees and costs into tuition since many employers will cover the cost of tuition only. Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards noted that we have to develop ways to become more competitive in the distance education marketplace. A UNL department he knew of had been working for many months to develop a distance education partnership with the University of Guam. That proposed program encountered many different institutional hurdles. In the meantime, San Diego University put together a counter proposal in a very short period of time and now has a distance program with the University of Guam. Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards stated that we must find ways to move quickly or others will succeed where we fail.

3.4.2. Tuition Remission Transfer

Ford asked what the status is of the tuition remission transfer benefit. Chancellor Moeser stated that not much progress has been made since his last report. He stated that President Smith believes this should be part of a benefits package rather than standing alone. Ford stated that there appears to be a lack of will to support a much desired benefit that would cost little to fund. He suggested that a meeting be called with the Executive Committees of the Academic Senates from the other campuses to support this benefit. Ford requested that we force this issue and that with a coalition of all of the Academic Senates that we take this tuition remission request to the Regents for a vote.

3.4.3. Discussions on the Web

Chancellor Moeser announced that soon there will be web pages addressing unfunded imperatives, the diversity plan, and the need for Internet II. He stated that administration would like to receive feedback on these issues.

3.4.4. Meetings with Faculty

Chancellor Moeser stated that he is considering either meeting with faculty through brown bag lunches or going to various departments for discussions. Scheideler suggested that a combination of the two would work best. Latta stated that the two strategies compliment each other and that open forums allow faculty to hear ideas and opinions from people outside of their department.

4.0 Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards

4.1 Nebraska Performance Model

Latta stated that the Committee has not had a chance to develop a systematic response to the Nebraska Performance Model and want to review it carefully so they can provide valuable feedback. She stated that it is very important that the feedback be valuable. Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards reported that he has been working on an introduction to the model and is currently waiting for feedback from the 6 pilot departments. He stated that some faculty are not pleased with the fact that freshmen and sophomore students are not being included in the count. He also stated that the service area needs further refinement and stated that comments on how to proceed would be very helpful. Scheideler stated that it is crucial for understanding the model to state why this is being done, what the goals are and where are we going with this model. SVCAA Edwards agreed that this is important. Latta noted that it is important to get this out on a timely basis as opinions are being formed with little or no background information being provided.

4.2 Task Force on Life Sciences

Postponed until the next meeting with Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards.

4.3 Review of University's Office of Research

Postponed until the next meeting with Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards.

4.4 Issues on the Horizon

4.4.1. Post Tenure Review

Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards stated that the language on the UNL policy needs to be adjusted to the language used in the Board of Regents policy. The committee stated they will review the proposed changes and reply back to the Senior Vice Chancellor.

5.0 Approval of 9/2/98 and 9/9/98 minutes.

Scheideler motioned and Bryant seconded the approval of the 9/2/98 minutes as amended. Approval of the 9/9/98 minutes was postponed.

6.0 Student Evaluations

Kara Slaughter and Summer Sjulin, ASUN Academic Committee, stated that they would like to institute a midterm teaching evaluation and were seeking input from the faculty on whether this could be accomplished. They said they were considering having the evaluations used mainly as a tool for the professor but were also considering it being reviewed by the chair of the department. Slaughter stated they were just beginning to interview students to try to determine the format of the evaluation. Kennedy suggested that they survey faculty to see what format would be most beneficial. Zorn pointed out that there are always a gambit of opinions on teaching and noted that there a different styles of teaching but that one style is not necessarily better than another style. Slaughter stated that students are concerned that open ended questions would reveal the student through handwriting and could jeopardize their grade in the course. Humes stated that the students should check with the Teaching and Learning Center to see if they can handle the analysis of mid-semester evaluations. Slaughter asked if a mid-semester evaluation would be an additional burden on the chair. Humes stated that more faculty would be willing to do a mid-semester evaluation if it is between the faculty and the students. Bryant noted that they want to avoid making this a part of a faculty review and that they would get more participation if it is seen as a tool. Slaughter stated that ASUN is hoping to make this mandatory. Bryant pointed out that they might want to have the backing of the Office of Academic Affairs and the college deans. Slaughter stated that their committee would like to put together a prototype of an evaluation and meet with the Executive Committee again to discuss it.

7.0 Governor Candidates

The committee agreed that both candidates for the governor should be invited to the Academic Senate meeting in October to discuss their views on education.

8.0 Faculty Survey

Item postponed until next meeting.

9.0 Martin Luther King Day Participation

Item postponed until next meeting.

10.0 Finalizing Priority Goals

Item postponed until next meeting.

11.0 Unfinished Business

11.1 Administrative Project System

Item postponed until next meeting.

12.0 New Business

No new business.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:33 pm. The next Executive Committee will be held on September 23, 1227 R Street. Respectfully submitted, Miles Bryant.