UNL ACADEMIC SENATE

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES

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

ABSENT: Aguilar, Bender

DATE: April 21, 1999

PLACE: 201 Canfield Administration ______________________________________________________________________________

1.0 Call to Order

Latta called the meeting to order at 3:07 PM.

2.0 Announcements

No announcements were made.

3.0 Chancellor Moeser

3.1 Revised Bylaw 4.3

Latta reported that General Counsel Dick Wood drafted another version of the Bylaw based on the feedback that she provided to him from the last discussion. She noted that he included language that he had previously deleted and added the definitions of apportionment and assignment. Latta pointed out that he did reiterate that the committee be at the college level although he agreed that having a representative from the home department was a good idea. Chancellor Moeser felt that the issue of whether the faculty representative should excuse themselves from the vote still needed to be resolved. Latta stated that the Academic Rights and Responsibilities Committee feel that it is important to have a faculty representative from the department on the committee. The ARRC also thought that in the case of a joint appointment, the faculty member should have the option of having a representative from both of the departments on the committee. Chancellor Moeser stated that the representatives should be there for discussion but excused from the vote so that the committee can be as objective as possible. Humes pointed out that it should be up to the chair of the department and the faculty member to make their cases. He noted that an extra faculty member from the department on the case will weight the process in one way or another because of that faculty member's bias. Zorn reported that he has spoken with faculty about this issue and he stated that a departmental committee can better assess the needs of the department in order to fulfill its mission. He noted that a departmental committee would have the advantage of inducing more cooperative behavior. Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards stated that there is nothing in the document to preclude departments from doing that. He noted that the committee being referred to in the document is when all efforts to maintain mutual consent have been exhausted. Latta asked if a committee could be done on an informal basis? SVCAA Edwards stated that it can be done on an informal basis if that is the culture of the department. He noted that the faculty member or the chair has the option to go outside the department. Latta noted that there should be clarification that the departmental process is an informal one. Mayo pointed out that the language allows the departments to deal with the situation but that a formal faculty committee is available for those rare cases when the departments can not resolve the problem. Scheideler favored leaving the language stating that a faculty representative from the department will be included on the committee as this allows for flexibility. She stated that if the faculty member feels uncomfortable than they can excuse themselves from voting. Baum Kuska pointed out that the faculty member not only may be biased in voting but that person is involved in the deliberations and can influence this process. Humes noted that either side in the issue could in essence receive double representation. Latta pointed out that the draft states that each department will write its rules and regulations and that they may provide for a faculty representative. Mayo asked who decides this? Chancellor Moeser stated that he interprets the document as stating that the college will make that determination, not the department. Latta noted that Bylaw 2.9 deals with college governance and that it would be determined by the college. SVCAA Edwards stated that the goal is to have an impartial committee. Bryant noted that many colleges are small and that there is a lot of political interaction between faculty members of other departments. Ford asked what is done in the case of the Law College which has only one department? Chancellor Moeser stated that there is no choice there. Ford stated that if the Law College can do it, than others should be able to. SVCAA Edwards stated it would have to be skipped at the department level and go directly to a formal review in the case of the Law College. Scheideler moved that we endorse, in principle, the draft as written. Zorn seconded the motion. Latta asked about the ARRC's comment on the handling of joint appointments? Mayo stated that this issue needs to be resolved before the motion is voted on. Zorn pointed out that the dispute is only with one chair and that this chair should be the one who is involved. Humes suggested that the chair of the other department be allowed to present their side of the case. He noted that there are no regulations in the Bylaw that stipulates who can present a case or what kind of information can be presented. Ford stated that the word may needs to be resolved. Zorn suggested that if both parties do not object to the department representative, then that person would stay on the committee. However, if either party objects to the representative then the person would be removed. Scheideler stated that this will result in each college needing to determine their rules and regulations for the committee's function. Scheideler withdrew her motion until the issue is clarified. Ford suggested that the word may be changed to will. Mayo stated that as long as the word may means that the committee that is established at the college level will make that decision when they set up the rule, then the language is fine because it allows the college to make that decision. Humes asked why this needs to be left up to the college? He noted that we need to worry about the worse case scenario. He stated he would like to see the language referring to a faculty representative removed. Latta noted that she felt obligated to go back to ARRC to discuss this since they support having a faculty representative from the home department. Humes suggested that Latta take the information back to ARRC. The committee agreed.

3.2 Parking

Latta reported that she has met several times with Associate Vice Chancellor Jim Main to discuss the parking plan. She stated that they have had good discussions and are exploring different scenarios. She noted that during their discussions they agreed that at some level all aspects of the proposal are still negotiable. Latta pointed out that the financial basis for the garage is very high risk. She noted that it essentially does not leave the faculty and staff any option but to construct a building for the state. She stated that if a bond is taken out for the garage and then people decide they can no longer afford to park in the 10 lots, that this will effect the fees. She noted the fees will then have to go up to pay for the bond, thereby no longer giving her a choice to opt for less expensive parking. Latta stated that she is extremely uncomfortable with the University entering her as a cosigner into a loan to build a building. She stated that Main is willing to explore some options that were not previously explored. She noted that the decision to build a parking garage was made without any attempt to go to the Regents or go to the Legislature and make a case for why the full burden of constructing a state building should fall on the employees of the University. Chancellor Moeser stated that he spoke with the Chief of Staff of the Appropriations Committee and he stated that there is no precedent in the history in the State of Nebraska, nor did she think there would be a single vote in the unicameral for a parking garage. He stated that other alternatives can be explored including not building any garages although this will result in people having to park further out. Scheideler asked who pays the burden of building this garage? She noted that people are being expected to pay for the garage that will not be using it. Chancellor Moeser stated that the people who use it ought to be the ones to pay for it. Scheideler noted that the proposed fee structure goes well beyond the people who will actually use the garage. Latta stated that Main suggested that people could decide if they want to build a parking garage and come up with a way to finance it. She noted that there are many options that can be explored if the immediacy of having to make a decision of building the garage is removed. Chancellor Moeser stated that the immediacy is being brought about by the fact that 40% of city campus parking will be removed very quickly. Scheideler stated that another option is expanded perimeter parking specifically for non-employees. Zorn stated that it is certainly possible to build a parking garage based on user fees. He noted that it does not have to be the faculty as a whole. Chancellor Moeser stated that people can opt to pay for peripheral parking which is less than what they pay for now. Latta pointed out that if more people park in the perimeter and not in the 10 lots, and they do not increase the amount of perimeter space they will raise the fee for parking in the perimeter to cover the costs of the garage. Zorn stated that they can set it up so that parking in the garage is based strictly on user fees rather than general. Chancellor Moeser stated that he thinks it is folly for the garage not to be built. Latta noted that the Academic Planning Committee approved a program statement, without a specified time period and without any knowledge of fee structure, to build a parking garage on Avery Street. She noted that the program statement never came back to them when the location was moved. She also noted that the fee structure never went to the Parking Advisory Committee for discussion. She stated that it went to the students because of the activity of Vice Chancellor Griesen in informing the students that if they wanted input into the fee structure, they needed to schedule a meeting. Chancellor Moeser stated that he has a copy of the memo sent out notifying the President of the Senate of the March 11^th meeting on the parking plan. Latta pointed out that Main stated that the March 11^th meeting was the first time that faculty and staff were able to see the plan and comment on it. She noted that at that point the fees had already been set. Zorn stated that a few years ago he had his MBA students look into the feasibility of parking structures. He stated that what struck him was the cost of the proposed fees seem extremely high. He stated that it needs to be asked how they are coming up with these figures. Latta stated that what the Parking Committee did endorse over a year ago was gradual increases to our fees to create a fund that would increase in revenues so that at some point there would be the funds to build a garage. Chancellor Moeser stated that fees should have been escalating for a period of time. He stated that we have been, in essence, under charging for parking. Latta pointed out that they doubled in 1994. Chancellor Moeser stated that parking on this campus is still relatively cheap. He stated that the schools that were chosen for comparative purposes are land locked urban campuses. Latta stated that Main explained to her that there is still a lot of perimeter parking that can be used. She pointed out that we should have time to explore other options before we rush ahead and set a precedent for raising fees to build parking garages before we even have money to do so. Scheideler noted that the process in this matter is being perceived as a top-down, insensitive process from administration. She pointed out that it has a lot of staff seriously questioning their dedication to working here at this institution. She stated that this has hurt morale greatly on campus. Chancellor Moeser pointed out that there will be no replacement for the Temple Lots. He noted that he is concerned that people will be asking why the parking garage wasn't built when they knew there was going to be a loss of parking lots. Latta stated that the planning for the garages has been a rush job and needs to be further explored. Chancellor Moeser stated that there is incredible student pressure to build the garage at 17^th & R St. Latta reported that the ASUN have a meeting this evening and will be revisiting the issue. She stated that they are not so set on it being built but their main concern is that if a garage is built, that they have access to it and not have very high fees for it. Latta noted that it would be best to not push this to go to the Board of Regents in June. Mayo stated that he does not believe that there is much opposition to the first garage being built, but that three other garages are being stacked on in a very short period of time. Chancellor Moeser stated that it is possible to stop the increase in fees after the first bonding is done. He stated that we are not committed to building parking garages two and three. He noted that the view is there that the parking demand is sufficient to justify all three of the parking structures. He stated that perhaps we should see what the subscription is for the parking garage and do it on a subscription basis. He pointed out that there is the argument that people on east campus should not have to pay for parking on city campus. He asked if this is one university or not? Ford noted that we should solve the problem as one unit. Bryant stated that he heard that the initial master plan included provisions for parking and asked if this was true? Chancellor Moeser stated that this is not true. Latta suggested that if the 17^th & R space is not being used for a construction site when the Temple lots are removed, then they could be surfaced to provide additional parking. Chancellor Moeser stated that this could be done but noted that some land will need to be purchased to accomplish this. Scheideler pointed out that there are some other green spaces on campus that could be used. Chancellor Moeser stated that he is not touching anymore green spots. Scheideler pointed out that compromises need to be made. Chancellor Moeser stated that this is a compromise that will not be made and that we are not going to compromise the limited aesthetic beauty of this campus. He noted that we are going to have a real parking crisis on campus and that we are currently unable to meet the demand for parking. Latta stated that Main assured her that there are many options in regards to perimeter parking that can still be explored. Chancellor Moeser pointed out that people do not like remote parking. Latta noted that this is in part because we do not have a good enough transit system yet. She stated that looking at the cost of perimeter parking as an option in relation to the cost of building a parking garage would allow us to see what the garage would cost and whether we could afford it. She pointed out that we would at least know this before making a decision. Scheideler noted that there is a lot of land on east campus and pointed out that none of the new buildings in the master plan are going on east campus. Latta noted that it has not been explored as to whether or not the number of reserved spots should be guided by demand or whether it should be limited to certain categories such as medical or disability needs. Chancellor Moeser stated that the committee should meet with the Parking Advisory Committee, Jim Main, Tad McDowell, and Mel Jones to discuss the possible options. Chancellor Moeser stated that he will not sign an agenda item on parking for the Board of Regents meeting while there is this much turbulence. He stated that we should explore other options.

3.3 Academic Program Elimination

Latta stated that she is interested in following up on the statement made by Chancellor Moeser that the Procedures to be Invoked for Significant Budgetary Reallocations and Reductions are unworkable. Chancellor Moeser replied that he stated that the document was daunting and cumbersome and unworkable in the time frame allowed. He stated that it is not unworkable if you have an unlimited amount of time. He noted that it is a very lengthy process that makes it unlikely that we would ever elect to use it. Ford pointed out that program elimination does not work, not because of procedures that are or are in place, but because of the external pressures that are exerted. Chancellor Moeser stated he has no interested in reviewing or changing these procedures at this time. Latta asked if he will communicate this to the Academic Planning Committee. Chancellor Moeser agreed that he would let them know. Latta stated that the Academic Rights and Responsibilities Committee and the Academic Planning Committee are not unwilling to review the process to see how it can be streamlined. Chancellor Moeser stated that it may be a project for next year.

3.4 Issues on the Horizon

Chancellor Moeser reported that there is a need for more explicit information in regards to the reallocation and that he is currently working on preparing a document that will explain it. He noted that some of the things he will be addressing: where is the money that Central Administration is assessing and where does it go to, and what is the campus tax doing. SVCAA Edwards stated that they are looking at the unfunded imperatives and he stated that some of it will be able to be reduced. Scheideler stated that some faculty are closely scrutinizing the budget. She pointed out that last summer they were being asked to look at 1.5% and that now it has escalated to as high as 3.5%. She stated that a 3.5% reduction will do significant damage. She noted that there is a lot of frustration that these initiatives are being put together without faculty input. SVCAA Edwards stated that the deficit is coming from three places: 1) a decrease in tuition collected; 2) a possible pay increase in excess of what the legislature has funded; and 3) unfunded imperatives. Scheideler pointed out that it is the unfunded imperatives where faculty feel they have had no input. Chancellor Moeser stated that the largest amount of reallocation will go to salaries and benefits, a 2% increase in operating budgets, funds for operating new buildings, a required 2% set aside for all renovated and new buildings required by the legislature, faculty lines for engineering, and the University-wide technology plan which includes Internet II. Scheideler pointed out that it is items like Internet II where faculty feel they have no input. Latta stated that some faculty feel that we should push harder for the state to pay for Internet II since it will be a state resource. Chancellor Moeser stated that we are pushing as hard as we can. Latta asked what the time line is for implementing Internet II? She asked if there is any leeway in terms of when we need to acquire Internet II? Chancellor Moeser responded that there is a time line because there is a National Science Foundation requirement. He stated that next on the list is the commitment to support the Kiewit Institute in Omaha. He noted that the Regents have committed us to this. He stated that the scholarship fund needs to be replaced. Chancellor Moeser stated that we need to offer health benefits to graduate teaching assistants which will make us competitive in recruiting these students. He noted that there is some funding for the diversity plan. He pointed out that we have a draft diversity plan which could cost us $1 million but that we are only calling for $150,000 the first year and $150,000 for the next year. Scheideler noted that there should be an explanation on the $5 million a year for the next four years which Central Administration is asking for. Chancellor Moeser stated that it is $2.7 million per year for the next four years, not $5 million. He stated that this figure is predicated on no growth in enrollments and a 3% appropriation for the biennium yet to come. Scheideler stated that in President Smith's address to IANR he seemed to indicate that part of that reallocated money will go to biotechnology. SVCAA stated that the $5 million does not provide any new money for biotechnology. He noted that Central Administration calculated how much the University deficit is going to be, assuming that we get the 3% appropriations, that we have a tuition deficit, and that we are on this four year plan for raising faculty salaries. Chancellor Moeser stated that there may be administrative savings in areas such as telecommunications or utilities. Latta asked if there are restrictions on the areas where the funds will come from in the colleges? SVCAA Edwards stated that he has imposed that no tenured track faculty can be fired or laid off because of this reallocation. He stated that they have talked with each college to see how these cuts might work for the college. Ford asked if the number of courses can not be reduced? SVCAA Edwards stated that this is correct, particularly with the College of Arts and Sciences which teaches many of the required courses for all students. Latta asked if there are any restrictions for taking tenure leading faculty lines and making them non-tenured lines? Chancellor Moeser stated no. SVCAA Edwards pointed out that we do not really have tenure leading lines, that we just have a budget. He noted that a unit has a certain budget and it has to figure out how to use this budget. Chancellor Moeser pointed out that this is the good thing about our budget in that we do not have line control. Latta asked if this deals with the tuition shortfall. Chancellor Moeser stated that it is a relatively small part.

Chancellor Moeser stated that they have received the report from Robert Grimit on the handling of Native American remains and that it will be released at the end of the week.

Mayo stated that we should do something similar to Kansas State's spring recruitment since it is so successful. He noted that the 12^th Annual Nebraska Science Olympiad was held last weekend here and that it would be a great opportunity to recruit high quality students at this event. SVCAA Edwards stated that we need to use all of these opportunities to recruit these students.

4.0 Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards

4.1 Post Tenure Review Timing

Latta noted that a memo was recently sent to the Deans and Chairs from Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards and Vice Chancellor Omtvedt stating that the 1998 evaluations will not count as the first year of evaluations under the post tenure review policy.

4.2 Task Force Report on Recommendations on Temporary Faculty

Postponed due to lack of time.

4.3 Issues on the Horizon

No new issues on the horizon.

5.0 Approval of 3/31/99, 4/7/99, and 4/14/99 Minutes

Williams moved and Prochaska-Cue seconded approval of the3/31/99 minutes as amended.

Scheideler moved and Mayo seconded approval of the 4/7/99 minutes as amended.

Mayo moved and Humes seconded approval of the 4/14/99 minutes as amended.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:30 PM. The next meeting will be held on April 14th, 1227 R Street, Academic Senate Office. Respectfully submitted, Miles Bryant, Secretary.