UNL ACADEMIC SENATE

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES

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

ABSENT: Ford, Humes, Baum Kuska, Prochaska Cue, Williams

DATE: April 7, 1999

PLACE: 1227 R Street, Academic Senate Office

______________________________________________________________________________

1.0 Call to Order

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

2.0 Announcements

2.1 Upcoming Executive Committee Meeting Agendas

Latta reported that Jim Main, Assistant Vice Chancellor of Business and Finance, will be meeting with the committee to discuss parking on April 14^th as well as Vice Chancellor Griesen who will be meeting with the committee to discuss changes to the student code of conduct. Latta reported that the committee will be discussing the Task Force Recommendations Relating to Temporary Faculty report with Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards on April 21^st.

3.0 NN21 Scholarship Action Team Report - Stephen Hilliard, Gary Lynne, Sally Wise

Hilliard reported that the document was not written as a report but written to serve the needs of higher education generally in the state. He stated that their main concern is how to evaluate faculty work. He noted that they have taken an over view of academic work and they found that some of the standard evaluation systems used for faculty and staff are not flexible enough to recognize what people need to do. He pointed out that the reward system was never attended to be so rigid. He noted that the Senate and the units could play a role in reviewing their system on evaluating faculty work. He pointed out that they are not wanting to do anything that will increase the workload that people already do in conducting evaluations. Lynne stated that they do not want anyone to put in more than 5 % of their time on evaluations. Bryant stated that there is a misplaced focus on evaluation of individuals and he noted that there should really be evaluations of systems or programs rather than individuals. He stated that there are already a lot of methods in place to evaluate faculty. Scheideler noted that the evaluation system on East Campus appears to be very repetitive. She pointed out that more streamlining needs to take place in the evaluation process. Bryant stated that the culture of this institution does not ask us to do honest evaluations because there are no rewards for doing so. He pointed out that more time is being taken away from the core activities that faculty were hired to do. Hilliard pointed out that the review should have the premise that all forms of significant academic work should be acknowledged and supported although this does not mean that these all need to be formally evaluated and rewarded equally. He stated that a major goal should be the simplification and greater coherence in evaluation measurements and procedures. He noted the review should consider the cost/benefit evaluation of activity in terms of the time expended in the probable benefits. He asked if changes can be made to make the evaluation process less burdensome, fairer and more accurate. Mayo stated that he felt that evaluations are one of the most important things we do. He believes that it is absolutely critical that both positive and negative feedback be provided to people. He pointed out that it needs to be reinforced backwards from administration on down. Lynne stated that they originally thought of dealing with program evaluations. He noted that this started out of the idea to broaden the definition of scholarly activity and the accomplishments of faculty. Hilliard stated that when faculty think about faculty work they usually take a very individualistic model. He stated that the evaluation is set up to evaluate the person who does all aspects of the work well. He noted that collaborative work creates upheaval in some of the present evaluation system. He pointed out that it would take some time to change the mind set at universities that are so based on the individualist scholar model. Scheideler asked why administrators do not give full credit to a project. Hilliard noted that more faculty are more geared towards the individualistic model rather than administrators. Zorn pointed out that spending too much time on evaluations creates a loss of productivity for the faculty member. He noted that some of the reviews and evaluations create volumes of paperwork which in fact does not help the evaluation process but actually bogs it down. Hilliard pointed out that they are not asking for anymore evaluations from anyone but that they are actually asking for less which are more rationale and sensible than the current evaluation system now. He noted that 5% of people's time should be the outer limit that is spent on evaluations. He stated that whatever evaluation system is used, people need to be more inclusive of what academic work has become. He noted that the variety of faculty work needs to be recognized and that there needs to be a rationalizing of the system. Lynne noted that they are trying to be more inclusive of all faculty work. Hilliard stated that evaluations can be excessive but that this is not necessary. He stated that outside comments should be included in the evaluations. He pointed out that as long as merit increases are being given, there needs to be verification of the materials presented by the faculty. Latta stated that the report is less about evaluations and more about values. She stated that before we even start looking at evaluation systems there should be a basic conversation in the departments on what faculty members in a department value. She noted that, if and when, faculty get to a point where they say that their evaluation system no longer reflects their value system then that department and college should decide to redesign their system. Hilliard stated that they are not trying to tell people how to do evaluations. He pointed out that the instruments need to be decided by the departments rather than having a standard form. Latta stated that she could support providing opportunities for faculty to discuss their value system and whether or not the current evaluations reflect those values. She noted that an across the board review of the evaluation system is not a good idea. Hilliard agreed and stated that some colleges have done this just recently. Latta suggested it would be more effective if we can help to foster a culture that allows for contemplation of the evaluation system and the values by which that system operates. Lynne stated that the problem is that values are so buried in their conscious that sometimes people don't even know what they are and it can be painful for them to bring them out and talk about them. He noted that it may not be practical to have the conversations that Latta suggested. Zorn stated that there is a need to recognize certain realities and the evaluation and reward systems need to deal with these realities. Hilliard pointed out that there is widespread dissatisfaction with the fit of the evaluation system and what is actually being done, particularly with untenured faculty, women, people of color, and sometimes administrators and distinguished professors. Scheideler noted that the values are being effected by taxpayers and other outside people. Aguilar asked what they are seeking from the Executive Committee? Hilliard stated that they would like to see the dialogue on this issue carried forward with the Senate sponsoring this dialogue. Aguilar pointed out that Teachers College has already done this and noted that there may be other models which exist. Latta stated that if we are going to foster the kind of collaborative processes discussed, that there has to be a certain mass of individuals who have come to similar conclusions that can move others in their academic circle in the direction of shaping similar values. She pointed out that requiring everyone to do this may be problematical. Hilliard responded that those who have already gone through this process could provide information rather than going through the process again. He stated that he was unsure whether asking the Deans to do this would work very well. Aguilar suggested that the Deans could ask a committee to critique the evaluation system. Lynne noted that joint appointments, while programmatically make a great deal of sense, practically it is very difficult because of the two different systems involved. Bryant noted that this institution does not use rewards to change the behavior of the faculty. He pointed out that they could provide motivation for change which would not be costly. Latta pointed out that rewards need to be discussed at the same time that values are discussed. Bryant noted that junior faculty may be afraid to speak up because it may effect evaluation of their work by senior faculty. Hilliard stated that they did address rewards in the report. Zorn noted that it is important to keep in mind that you need the resources to reward people. Mayo stated that the overriding problem is how can we effectively give credit for whatever work is being done. He pointed out that the service sector to the state is very essential. Lynne pointed out that the intrinsic rewards are more important to the faculty than the extrinsic rewards. Scheideler stated that a positive climate and feedback from the administration is helpful. Hilliard noted that better communication between people will allow the systems to evolve into a mutual understanding. He stated that he has concerns over the way governance is done at the university and manage the assignment of work. He stated that there also needs to be discussion not only in the context of values but also in the context of how work is divided up and assigned to people. Aguilar stated that this is another reason to have these discussions at the college level in order for them to be meaningful. She pointed out that an across the boards mandate leads to distrust of whether faculty input was involved in the decision. Hilliard stated that they may need to go to the colleges as well.

4.0 Nominations for Senate Executive Committee and Committee on Committees

The committee discussed the candidates nominated for the Committee on Committees. Latta reported that the Nomination Committee was working on contacting the suggested candidates for the Executive Committee.

5.0 Approval of 3/24/99 and 3/31/99 Minutes (Bryant)

Bender moved and Mayo seconded approval of the 3/24/99 minutes as amended. Approval of the 3/31/99 minutes were postponed.

6.0 Faculty Salaries - Jim Lewis, Mathematics and Statistics

Lewis met with the Executive Committee to discuss possible strategies for improving faculty salaries.

7.0 Unfinished Business

No unfinished business.

8.0 New Business

No new business.

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.