UNL ACADEMIC SENATE

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES

DATE: Wednesday, April 28, 1999

PRESENT: Bender, Bryant, Latta, Mayo, Scheideler, Zorn

ABSENT: Aguilar, Humes, Miller, Prochaska-Cue, Siekman

______________________________________________________________________________

1.0 Call to OrderLatta called the meeting to order at 3:16.

2.0 Announcements

2.1 Executive Committee Election

Latta reported that Scheideler's election to the President Elect position opened a seat on the Executive Committee but that the result of the election for this seat was not announced. She reported that Hugh Whitt was elected to the two year term vacated by Scheideler. Latta stated that she will email the Senate to inform them of the election outcome.

2.2 Terrace Walk Through

Latta announced that there will be a walk through of the University Terrace building (the building where the Senate office will be moved to) on Monday, May 10^th at 3:30. She noted that the building is still under renovation but that the walls will be in place so that we will be able to determine where the Senate office will be located and how it will look.

2.3 Email Message to Chancellor Moeser

Latta reported that she has sent an email message to the Chancellor regarding the discussion on the budget at the Senate meeting on April 27^th. She noted that excellent questions were asked of the Chancellor and that she hoped they could have further discussions on these questions.

3.0 Approval of 4/21/99 Minutes

Approval of the minutes were postponed.

4.0 Nebraska Performance Model

Latta distributed summaries of the concerns of the Executive Committee on the Nebraska Performance Model. She stated that Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards wants to arrange for the committee to view a demonstration of the model at the next meeting. Scheideler stated that she has concerns that the Board of Regents, who are said to be trying to evaluate departments and how they rank in the nation, will use the NPM as their tool to start eliminating programs. Bryant stated that the NPM may be another thing that is created by an administrator on this campus but attributed to be driven by the Board of Regents. He asked Latta if she has heard any discussions about this at the Board of Regents meeting. Latta pointed out that these issues would be discussed first and that she would seek to find out if this model was being discussed at that level. Bryant stated that if this is the tool that the Board wants to use then we should have some contact with that committee to see what their goals are. He pointed out that the NPM has been the only alternative that we know about that has been examined. Mayo noted that the NPM does not evaluate against mission. Bryant stated that the data in the NPM is already out there and can be attained. Latta reported that Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards would like to set up a time with the full Senate to demonstrate the model. She noted that they would like to get people on board for using the model this summer. Latta suggested that we discuss the questions already raised by the committee before seeing the demonstration. The committee agreed to discuss these concerns first. She reported that the Deans have already seen the demo and that they have decided on some of the levels of access to information. Bryant asked what happened to the concept of having access to the data for everyone? Latta asked who gets to decide who gets to see what information and how it will be used? She noted that there are no rules in place to determine some of these decisions. Mayo pointed out that he has concerns of how the information can be accessed by people outside of the system. He stated that these people may not understand the mission of the university and may misinterpret some of the data. Latta pointed out that problems can occur within the university though if people start basing decisions on how we compare to another university rather than to our own mission. Mayo stated that we need to stay very involved to keep providing input into the model. Bryant stated that he wants to see SVCAA Edwards answer the questions in very concrete ways before seeing a demo. Bryant noted that administrative initiatives such as this should not be put in place over the summer when many of the faculty are gone.

5.0 Senate Meeting Discussion

Bryant suggested acknowledging and thanking Professor Genoways and McShane for their comments made at the Academic Senate meeting. Latta stated that she is discussing with the Academic Freedom Award Committee the possibility of moving the presentation of the award to an earlier Senate meeting. Bryant suggested that an email message be sent to the Senators reminding them that the Senate can be convened at seven days notice by the President and that it may be necessary to do so over the summer should circumstances warrant it. The committee discussed the conversation held on the budget issue.

6.0 Parking

Latta reported that there will be a meeting with Mel Jones, Jim Main, Tad McDowell, UAAD, UNOPA, ASUN leaders and some members of the Executive Committee on Tuesday, May 4^th at noon to discuss alternatives to the proposed parking plan. She pointed out that it is important for all of the groups to work together on this issue. Zorn noted that faculty are concerned with the fees being associated with the cost of a parking garage and that this needs to be explored.

7.0 Faculty Compensation Advisory Committee Referral

Latta reported that the referral for the Executive Committee is to oversee a process of evaluating how the Faculty Compensation Advisory Committee functions specifically what the charge is, whether we have access to the information that is needed, and the leadership of the committee. She suggested that a task force or subcommittee be created to examine the FCAC. She noted that she will be meeting again with the committee to discuss this further. Griffin pointed out that any changes to the syllabus first must go to the Committee on Committees for approval. Latta pointed out that the charge of the committee needs to be clarified. She stated that one of the charges to the committee is to conduct a study on administrative salaries yet this is not routinely done currently and the information needed to do so is not ordinarily provided to the committee. In addition, salary comparison data between departments has not been provided to the committee. Bryant stated that we can get that information from the library if necessary. Latta stated that we can get the information on administrators at the University of Nebraska but not from our peer institutions. Bender asked why the database isn't public record under state law? Mayo pointed out that the information on peer institutions is probably not considered public record. Bender stated that whoever is in charge of the records has to release it and if they do not wish to release it then they have to cite a specific law that authorizes withholding. He noted that the Nebraska Public Records law states that records pertaining to fiscal matters are presumed to be open. He pointed out that this includes salaries. Bender stated that it should be available in paper and electronic format. Latta asked if he could get a copy of the record law? Bender stated that he can and will do so. Bender noted that if they have the information and it is not exempt from disclosure, they have to release it. Bryant suggested that the committee needs to be reconstituted as a Senate committee and not a hybrid of two former committees. Scheideler stated that we should make our recommendations public record. Bryant volunteered to work on the task force during the summer.

8.0 Teleconferencing Equipment

The committee agreed to test some teleconferencing equipment at the Executive Committee meetings to accommodate the Extension representative. The committee agreed that there should continue to be some expectations for the Extension representative to meet in person with the committee, but that teleconferencing would allow greater flexibility. The committee will work with the current representative, Darrel Siekman, to see how viable this alternative is. They discussed the possibility of eventually broadcasting the Senate meetings as well.

9.0 Unfunded Imperatives

The committee discussed the unfunded imperatives. Mayo stated that the Academic Senate Budget Committee recently reviewed the University budget over the last three years. He pointed out that the only area that has had increases, and double the percentage of increases, has been Central Administration. He noted that that it is difficult to determine exactly where all of this money goes to. Bryant pointed out that it should be up to administration to track where these funds go. Latta asked whether the Legislature was trying to send a message when they did not fully fund the I.S. & T.E. project at UNO. Zorn pointed out that this was a deal that was cut between UNL, Central Administration, and the Legislature. Scheideler asked why we had to pick up the funding that the Legislature did not come forward with. Mayo noted that the compromise was that there is not going to be a separate Engineering college at UNO. He pointed out that while we may need to fulfill this agreement that was made, the new positions for that college should be delayed and cut just like every other department is facing. Scheideler noted that they can not build that program up at the expense of the entire UNL campus. Mayo stated that the faculty of the engineering college here are very upset about this because they are having to pick up part of this cost out of their own budget. Zorn stated that there should be discussion, rather than just an announcement on these unfunded imperatives. He pointed out that he would like to hear an explanation from a knowledgeable person on why Internet II is needed. Zorn noted that there needs to be an assessment of the need for some of these unfunded imperatives. Scheideler pointed out that student contracts for veterinary school is not a new charge but has been on going. Latta stated that she asked Chancellor Moeser whether we can slow down our implementation of some of these priorities. She suggested that we move a bit more slowly given the present funding situation. Zorn pointed out that being ahead on the technology curve is usually more costly. He noted that while it would be nice to be out front in research, he asked at what cost? He pointed out that the scholarship fund deficit can be easily raised through private funds. Zorn stated that people are generally in favor of giving money towards scholarships. Bryant asked whether we want the Chancellor to remove some of these items? Mayo stated that there needs to be some flexibility in delaying some of these imperatives. He pointed out that Internet II can be phased in over a longer period of time. Scheideler stated that it will be difficult to hire 12 new faculty positions for the engineering program at UNO and suggested that they be allowed 2 positions a year for 6 years instead. Zorn suggested that the foundation be solicited for the scholarship deficit fund. The committee agreed to discuss the issue further with the Chancellor.

10.0 Unfinished Business

No unfinished business was discussed.

11.0 New Business

No new business was discussed.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:12 PM. The next meeting of the Executive Committee will be held on Wednesday, May 5^th at 3:00 pm, 201 Canfield Administration Building. Respectfully submitted, Miles Bryant, Secretary.