UNL ACADEMIC SENATE

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES

PRESENT: Aguilar, Bender, Bryant, Latta, Mayo, Miller, Prochaska Cue, Scheideler, Siekman

ABSENT: Humes, Whitt, Zorn

DATE: August 18, 1999

PLACE: 201 Canfield Administration Building

_____________________________________________________________________________

1.0 Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 2:38 pm.

2.0 Announcements

No announcements were made.

3.0 Chancellor Moeser

3.1 Campus Reactions to Reallocation

Latta asked if the Chancellor is completely aware of what the immediate impacts and the potential long-term impacts will be from the reallocation? Chancellor Moeser stated that they are acutely aware of the feelings on campus regarding the reallocation. He noted that he will be presenting in his state of the campus address an analysis of what the financial problems are for the Lincoln campus and what the solutions are to this. He stated that it is clear that we need better internal communication and that he would like to work together with the Senate to make sure that information is available to the UNL community. Latta stated that she believed that the campus was fully informed about the internal reallocation but that when the legislature did not fully fund the university, there was a surprise in the approach that was taken in dealing with this situation. She noted that people felt that other possibilities with the legislature may have been explored by Central Administration but were not. She pointed out that faculty feel they did not have input in identifying the campus priorities that went into the making of the budget. Chancellor Moeser noted that all of us were caught off guard by what was presented to us. He pointed out that the Regents' request this year was for a 6.8% increase and although we did not receive this amount, the budget we were given has been the best that the University has received in the past 25 years. The committee reviewed a handout, prepared by Provost Jones, displaying the projected University budgets based on various state appropriations ranging from a 2% increase to 4.56%. He stated that he suggested to Central Administration that they adjust the internal, system-wide reallocation and consider projecting the budget with a 4% appropriations. The committee went into Executive session to discuss the reallocation further.

3.2 Faculty Input to Budget Planning 2000-01

Chancellor Moeser stated that faculty salaries will more than likely continue to be the top priority. He stated that although the projected budgets may not provide much latitude, he felt that faculty still need to be heard in the planning process. He noted that the UNL campus will probably have to provide a recommendation to Central Administration on the upcoming budget sometime during the month of October.

3.3 Priority Setting Process

Chancellor Moeser reported that he met with President Smith to discuss the priority setting process set forth by the Board of Regents. This process is to review the existing academic programs to find out where they stand and set priorities on the campuses. He stated that President Smith envisions the creation of a system-wide task force which he will appoint to develop both the process and the criteria for setting priorities. He stated that the four Academic Senate Presidents, four senior administrators from each of the campuses, additional faculty appointments from each campus, and some non-University people will probably be the members of this task force. He noted that they will be charged with the development of an overall framework process and general criteria. He stated that there should be a reasonable time of discussion on this task force and that it will ultimately report back to the Board of Regents. He noted that the Board will approve a set of processes and criteria. He pointed out that an overall process is needed that will be respectful of each campus' unique culture, traditions, and By-laws. Scheideler asked what the impetus is for conducting this process? Chancellor Moeser responded that he believes the driving impetus is that each of the four campuses needs to have its own profile. Latta stated that she will discuss what she knows about the process with the committee at the next meeting.

4.0 Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards and Vice Chancellor Omtvedt

4.1 Impact of Reallocation 1999-2000 (process/faculty input)

Latta stated that she has been working with the Vice Chancellors to see what kind of processes can be put in place to follow up on the impacts of reallocation in the colleges. She noted that there are people who feel that this is a significant reallocation that should have gone through APC. She pointed out that since this was an across the board cut, APC did not need to review it. However, she noted that faculty need to have input as to where those cuts ultimately wind up. SVCAA Edwards stated that the Deans will be providing a report on the immediate distribution of the cuts and whether these will be the ultimate distribution. VC Omtvedt stated that rather than going back a second time to departments for reallocation, IANR is trying to work the reallocation within the ongoing strategic plan. He stated that they asked each of the units to identify a 3.5% cut. The units then worked with the deans to determine what the impacts would be on each individual unit. He noted that they have pooled all faculty positions that have come open. He stated that overall they ended up with a 2.33% reallocation at the unit level although this may vary amongst the units. He stated that the rest of the reallocation is coming from the pool of open positions. Latta asked if the units already know what cuts they are taking? VC Omtvedt responded that this is correct. He pointed out that they are trying to reduce the unfunded imperatives to reduce the negative impacts of the reallocation. Scheideler pointed out that no matter how it is viewed, we are losing people. SVCAA Edwards stated that UNL usually hires about 45 people a year and that approximately 40 tenure track people have been hired this year but that last year 68 people were hired with the help of the previous reallocation. He pointed out that the number of hires will vary by colleges. Bryant pointed out that there are differential impacts due to reallocation. He noted that those departments that have lost faculty this past year are now understaffed. Latta stated that this is why she would like to put together some kind of a process that will allow us to examine some strategies. She pointed out that it is difficult to know what kind of information can be obtained because of the diversity of the situation in the colleges. She stressed that there is a need to look at which departments are becoming heavily dependent upon senior lecturers or graduate students for teaching and what courses are not being taught due to the lack of faculty. Scheideler stated that the faculty feel that there is a strong impact from the reallocation and that it is important to obtain this information to determine how much core programs are being damaged by it. Mayo pointed out that we need to address what this tax is for. He stated that we can not be a comprehensive university with having only one person deep in our programs. SVCAA Edwards stated that we need to determine how we can be the kind of research institution that we need to be. He pointed out that we need to figure out the areas where we can obtain large research grants that bring in overhead payments and that this is a goal that we can attain. He stressed that this does not mean that the university will be concentrating only in areas were large grants can be funded. In fact, he stated that the humanities and arts have more at stake and success in getting some of these larger grants because of their ability to create an infrastructure that will facilitate research. He pointed out that there needs to be some mechanisms in place to adjust for fluctuations in enrollment in colleges so that those colleges whose enrollments are increasing can receive adequate support. Miller pointed out that we need to be competitive with other research institutions by bringing in top researchers and providing them with the needed support. VC Omtvedt stated that VC Torr is trying to do this. He pointed out that it is important that we conduct research for a land grant institution.

4.2 Proposed Intellectual Property Policy

Due to a lack of time Latta reported on the discussions she has been having with the Vice Chancellors about a process to gather campus wide input on this document from the faculty, as well as other campus constituents. She indicated that in addition to the discussion earlier this summer at the Senate Executive Committee Retreat, she has met with a variety of groups to discuss possible strategies for coordinating campus input. These groups include: the Extended Education Advisory Committee, the Steering Committee of the Teaching, Learning & Technology Roundtable, the IANR Liaison Committee, the Planning Committee for the Distance Learning Discussion Forum, and both Vice Chancellors Omtvedt and Edwards. She reported that central administration has indicated that this document is just a starting point for discussion, not a final product for which they are seeking approval. She indicated that central would like to have an integrated campus response to the proposed policy, including recommended changes by the end of the calendar year. Latta stated that it will be very important that input be sought from a wide range of faculty groups, as well as relevant staff (such as information technology specialists and instructional designers), as well as graduate students and administrative groups, so that it is clear to central that the feedback does not represent only a small portion of the campus community. Latta indicated that a steering committee would likely be appointed to gather and integrate the input from various campus groups. She will be following up with the Vice Chancellors on this issue.

4.3 Revising Promotion and Tenure Standards

Latta clarified that this agenda item reflected discussions the Executive Committee began at its retreat concerning the observations that some faculty are eager to begin discussions of potential changes in promotion and tenure guidelines at UNL to reflect greater emphasis on peer review of teaching excellence and assessment of the scholarly content of electronic publications. She indicated that it is important to clarify for the academic community that these changes must be initiated at the departmental level, although there may be things the academic senate can do to encourage discussion of the issues among faculty both within and across disciplines. The item will be placed on a subsequent agenda so that the Vice Chancellors can discuss their perspectives on this with the Executive Committee.

5.0 Approval of 7/21/99 Minutes

Miller moved and Prochaska Cue seconded approval of the minutes as amended.

6.0 Unfinished Business

No previous business was discussed.

7.0 New Business

7.1 Senate Executive Follow-Up: Draft Senate Strategic Agenda 1999-2000

Latta presented a draft Senate strategic agenda for 1999-2000 developed from ideas discussed at the Senate Executive Committee Retreat held in July. The committee briefly reviewed the document. Latta invited suggestions for revisions, additions, changes, and indicated that discussion would continue at the next Executive Committee meeting.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:59 PM. The next Executive Committee meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, August 25^th at 3:00 pm, at the Academic Senate Office, 420 University Terrace, Suite 203. Respectfully submitted, Miles Bryant, Secretary.