UNL ACADEMIC SENATE

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES

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

ABSENT: Williams

DATE: September 2, 1998

PLACE: 201 Canfield Administration Building

_____________________________________________________________________________

1.0 Call to Order

President Kennedy called the meeting to order at 3:03 PM.

2.0 Announcements

No announcements were made.

3.0 Regina Thunderhawk, Senior Anthropology Student

Regina Thunderhawk, Senior Anthropology student, asked to address the Executive Committee of the Academic Senate on the recent Native American issues at the University. She stated that while great gains had been made the previous day between the University and Native Americans, she pointed out that indigenous issues were world wide and were an on going human rights issue. Thunderhawk stated that Native American artifacts should be handled according to the Native tradition and that the University should seek out consultants from the tribes on the proper care of these artifacts. She noted that many of the artifacts stored by the museum have had arsenic used on them for preservation. As a result, she said there is great concern regarding the welfare of the people to whom some of these items will be repatriated. Thunderhawk stated that the paradigm currently being used by academia needs to shift from a Euro-American paradigm to an indigenous paradigm when dealing with indigenous people. Thunderhawk pointed out that obtaining approval from the Native community as well as a community IRB should be required along with a University IRB. Bryant asked how the current University IRB is lacking? Thunderhawk replied that many researchers do not get a community IRB and that it comes down to a matter of respect. She pointed out that people outside the university do not have a voice in matters regarding research and that they need to be given that voice. Thunderhawk stated that she hoped that there is support for the Anthropology department and pointed out that several members of that department took great risks for their actions but that they did the morally and ethically right thing. Thunderhawk reported that these people are viewed as heroes to many Native Americans. Scheideler noted that there are stricter guidelines and regulations regarding research work that is done with animals but there are little, if any, such regulations for working with any human remains. Chancellor Moeser stated that Thunderhawk made some excellent points and that he, Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards and Vice Chancellor Grew need to review current policies. He stated that it is imperative that we raise cultural sensitivity. Chick Hale, member of the Kickapoo nation, stated that the reason why he is here is not because he has a problem with the University of Nebraska, but because people who were responsible for the proper handling and care of Native American remains and items did not do their job properly. He stated that he was unaware until yesterday that members of the Kickapoo nation could attend the University at in-state tuition rates and he stated that he will let the Kickapoo people know of this policy. Hale stated that he is grateful that a mutual agreement was made yesterday but pointed out that there is still unfinished business which must be resolved. He noted that the current Native American studies program is inaccurate and suggested that Native American representatives should be consulted in regards to the curriculum. Hale stated that their culture and their lands have been taken away and that they do not want their spirituality taken away too. He stressed that educating people is important and challenged the University to help Native American students here at the campus and to ask for their assistance in recruiting other Native American students. Hale stated that he wants a sworn testimony from the Chancellor stating that the inventory is accurate and that he and other members of his nation will review the accuracy of the inventory. Hale thanked the Executive Committee and the Chancellor for allowing him to speak. Ralph Thomas, Santee Nation, stated that the agreement made yesterday was a good initiative and that he hopes that in the spirit of that accord that the University corresponds and works with the Native American tribes. He suggested that the Executive Committee notify the tribes of the issues raised by Thunderhawk. Randy Thomas, Santee Nation, stated that he has volunteered to work with Vice Chancellor Grew on the NAGPRA issue and that he will inform the NAGPRA representatives of the work being conducted at the University. He pointed out that to Native Americans there is only one race, the human race and that when they pray everyday they say the four colors: red, white, black and yellow, the colors of the human race.

4.0 Chancellor Moeser

4.1 Political Science Committee Report

Chancellor Moeser stated that he only recently received the report of the special committee to review the department of political science and that once he has read through the report he will discuss it with the Executive Committee.

4.2 Decreasing Percentage of Full-time Faculty

Kennedy stated that Chancellor Moeser spoke about this at the Senate meeting of September 1^st in announcing that 67 new faculty members have been hired. Latta asked if data, such as if these people were hired due to reallocated funds, would be available soon. Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards responded that his office will be providing the information in the near future.

4.3 Action of the Academic Senate

Chancellor Moeser reported that the action of the Academic Senate to support the agreement between UNL and the Native American tribal representatives was greatly appreciated and that it provided a strong message which was very helpful. He felt that the Native Americans attending the conference were also deeply appreciative. Chancellor Moeser stated that his experiences of the last few days had given him a much greater appreciation of their spirituality and that he realized that this issue was very much a human rights issue. Scheideler stated that the University should have extensive guidelines on the handling of human remains and that all remains should be handled with respect. Chancellor Moeser stated that the creation of such a policy should fall under the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research. Chancellor Moeser reported that ten scholarships for Native American students are being created and that he will be writing letters to all former Nebraska tribes to inform them of the policy that members of the tribes can attend the University with in-state tuition. Latta suggested that we need to review the educational needs of the state and determine whether we are meeting the needs of Native American students.

4.4 Issues on the Horizon

Bryant asked what the status is on the Committee for the Future of Nebraska. Chancellor Moeser responded that he is receiving nominations and applications for committee members and is working on a charge for the committee. Prochaska Cue asked if nominations needed to include a vita and letter of interest. Chancellor Moeser replied that a letter will be sent to nominees asking for that information.

5.0 Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards

5.1 Nebraska Performance Model

Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards announced that a pilot project of the Nebraska Performance Model, involving six departments, is being conducted. He stated that the NPM will be done at the college level only except for the college of Arts and Sciences which will be broken down into the various sciences. SVCAA Edwards stated that comparisons will not be conducted between departments within a college. Rather, he stated, a department will be compared with the same department but at peer institutions. Bender pointed out that this will still create an element of competition and asked whether equivalent data will be available from the peer institutions. SVCAA Edwards stated they are currently working on this with the University of Florida. Scheideler asked what the need is for doing the NPM? SVCAA responded that the present system does not necessarily reflect accurate data and that it would be more beneficial to compare departments within their own field rather than within a college. Scheideler pointed out that manipulation of data could be a problem in the future. Mayo stated that this model is based on the assumption that Florida gets funding based on enrollment whereas our legislation works differently. SVCAA Edwards stated that the NPM would allow us to provide data regarding the mission and work that is done at UNL in an unfiltered manner. Bryant asked if the data accurately reflects the work done in the departments. SVCAA Edwards stated that there were still some areas that needed to be worked out but reminded the committee that the comparisons are with the same departments in peer institutions. Zorn pointed out that a relevant peer group for a particular department may not be the same as the peer group used by the University. Latta stated that there was another approach in that each department would define who its' peer institutions are. She pointed out that a more critical issue is how quality is factored in the data. SVCAA Edwards stated that there would be quantitative data followed by a narrative page to reflect qualitative data. Prochaska Cue noted that there are difficulties in dealing with out reach extension and asked how extension faculty are included in the data. Humes suggested that data be collected longitudinally versus cross-sectionally. Latta asked if there are data elements that are missing and that it is important to flush out the implications of the assumptions being made. Kennedy suggested that the committee provide feedback to SVCAA Edwards via email.

5.2 Promotion to Full Faculty Requirements

Item discussed in 5.3.2. Defining Standards for Post Tenure Review.

5.3 Issues on the Horizon

5.3.1. Effects of Proposed Constitutional Lid Proposal

Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards provided an analysis from Central Administration showing the effects on the University if the Lid was passed. He reported that UNL would take a $10 million cut in budget, assuming that state agencies are cut proportionally. He pointed out that the results could possibly be a 6% cut in salary for all employees or the loss of 200 faculty positions. Chancellor Moeser reported that the students of ASUN are actively involved in efforts to oppose the Lid.

5.3.2. Defining Standards for Post Tenure Review

Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards stated that he sent out an email message to all faculty informing them that a letter was sent out in April to Deans, Chairs and Directors asking for departments to define their own performance expectations by October 1^st. Kennedy thanked the Senior Vice Chancellor for stating at the Senate meeting that this deadline could be delayed. She pointed out that the comments made in the Academic Senate meeting indicate that not all faculty are receiving information pertaining to important issues such as this. Latta stated that the timing of the April letter was a problem due to fact that many faculty have 9 month appointments and were not available during the summer to work on the development of these standards. She stated that proper input from faculty is critical and that any department without standards will encounter problems with post tenure review. Latta pointed out that there appears to be problems in defining the difference between minimal standards versus adequate standards and that there is a danger in that we will be creating very stringent standards. She stated that this could result in many more people being placed under post tenure review. Scheideler stated that she was very concerned with Professor McShane's comments regarding the potential connection between post tenure review and the proposed By-law change. Zorn noted that tenure is viewed as giving someone independence in the research they conduct and that he is concerned that the standards will call for significant research versus quality research. Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards stated that the intention is not to make the faculty at risk but to allow faculty to have input into defining the definition of what constitutes substantial and chronic deficiencies. Bryant asked if there is are differential layers of evaluation at the administrative level. Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards pointed out that the language of the post tenure review document calls for approval of the standards by the deans and himself. He stated that the goal is not to have any great variations in standards from department to department. Zorn noted that there is a concern regarding the substitution of teaching for research and stated that people who do little research should teach more courses. Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards stated that adjustments need to be made to insure that a person meets the standard for a full-time position. He pointed out that he hoped that standards would also be set to recognize good teaching performance as well as research performance. Mayo noted that there appears to be confusion and reminded the committee that faculty were defining the rules for rare situations. Vice Chancellor Omtvedt asked if there was any indication of whether or not departments have been making progress on developing the standards. Kennedy reported that business has not started, Mayo stated that his department is just getting started and that they plan to use their hiring guidelines as a general framework.

6.0 Vice Chancellor Omtvedt

Postponed.

7.0 Approval of 8/26/98 minutes (Bryant)

Postponed due to email failure.

8.0 Faculty Survey

Postponed.

9.0 ARRC Procedures Charge

Kennedy distributed a draft of the charge and asked the committee for feedback.

10.0 Senate Meeting

Kennedy asked the committee members to send their small group discussion notes to Coordinator Griffin.

11.0 Unfinished Business

11.1 Meeting with ASUN & DN

The Committee discussed possible topics for their meeting with ASUN and the Daily Nebraskan staff. Some of these topics are: the expectations the students have of faculty, student leadership, editorials in the Daily Nebraskan, feedback on integrated studies and comprehensive education, and teaching evaluations.

12.0 New Business

12.0 Email Message Regarding Academic Freedom

The committee discussed Gerry Harbison's email message to senators concerning what he believed to be an overt threat by State Senator Dwite Pedersen in regards to academic freedom. The committee discussed whether the Senator's letter was a rhetorical response and whether academic freedom was being threatened. The committee agreed to review the entire letter by Senator Pedersen further. Bender suggested that a letter to the editor addressing academic freedom might be appropriate and volunteered to draft a letter. The committee agreed to review the draft and then decide whether this action should be taken.

The meeting was adjourned at 6:15 pm. The next Executive Committee will be held on September 9, Wick Alumni Center. Respectfully submitted, Miles Bryant.