UNL ACADEMIC SENATE

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES

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

ABSENT: Aguilar, Whitt

DATE: August 25, 1999

PLACE: Academic Senate Office, 420 University Terrace, Suite 203

_____________________________________________________________________________

1.0 Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 3:09 pm.

2.0 Announcements

No announcements were made.

3.0 Sally Wise, Chair of Academic Rights and Responsibilities Committee

3.1 UNL Bylaws

Latta reminded the committee that Associate to the Chancellor Herb Howe gave them a draft of the revisions to the UNL Bylaws for review. Upon examination of the document, the committee felt they needed clarification as to which changes were updates to the document and which changes were newly proposed language. She reported that she has received a new copy detailing the requested clarifications. Wise stated that the revisions must be checked for accuracy, and the newly proposed language in the document must be approved by the Senate, the Association for Students of the University of Nebraska, the Chancellor and then the Board of Regents. Latta suggested that an ad hoc committee be formed to review both the revisions and the proposed new language. Wise noted that some structural changes were made and that it is important for a committee to review the document to determine if some of the proposed changes accurately reflect approved policies and to raise issues that may be of concern to faculty. Zorn asked if there was some kind of procedure in place that informs people of changes made to campus policies? Latta stated that currently no office oversees the compilation of these changes after they have been approved by the Board of Regents, but that this is one of the issues which the proposed new language addresses. Zorn suggested that the revised document be sent to the General Committee of each of the Colleges for review of sections that pertain to their area. Wise noted that many of the changes do not directly apply to the colleges. She suggested that the date of acceptance or amendments should be listed after each section of the Bylaws, noting the dates of all revisions. Miller asked when this task will need to be completed? Latta stated that it should be done during this academic year. She stated that James McShane, English, has agreed to serve on the committee. Wise pointed out that the charge to the committee needs to be clear in who they should report back to and whether they should merely raise issues of concern or whether they should propose new language. Scheideler tentatively volunteered to chair the committee.

3.2 Regents Bylaw 4.3

Latta reported that she has been meeting with Sally Wise to continue work on the revision to the Regents Bylaw 4.3. She distributed the latest draft version which particularly addresses the composition of the elected faculty committee which will be established in cases where mutual agreement can not be reached. Wise pointed out that it is important for each college to think about this committee structure, especially when considering faculty with joint appointments. Latta noted that the newest revision makes provision for each college to make its own rules about the composition of the committee, and the voting privileges of its members. She also noted that some changes were made to insure that consistent language was used throughout the Bylaw to refer to the criteria that would be used by the committee in making a judgement. Bryant suggested that the numbering of the Bylaw may need to be further revised. Miller asked if the document is clear on the composition of the committee members? Latta pointed out that it states that the committee is to have elected faculty members. She pointed out that the ARRC will need to review the latest draft, as will Dick Wood, General Counsel and the Chancellor, before it is taken to the full Senate for approval. She stated that she and Wise will review the numbering of the Bylaw again and will report back to the committee.

3.3 Voluntary Withdrawal from Early Tenure Consideration

Wise reported that Associate Vice Chancellor Evelyn Jacobson noticed an irregularity in the guidelines for the evaluation of faculty for promotion and tenure. Wise stated that while a faculty member has the right to withdraw from early consideration of promotion, the guidelines do not explicitly indicate that this can be done for tenure, although in practice, they may. She reported that the ARRC has reviewed the guidelines and they agree that the correction should be made to make the candidate's right to withdrawal from early consideration of tenure explicit. Although not required, the committee agreed that this should go to the Senate for a vote. The committee agreed to discuss the issue with Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards when they next meet with him.

In a related matter, Wise pointed out that the current expectations of the Senior Vice Chancellor's office for soliciting external letters of review for promotion and tenure files is more strict than is called for in the existing University "guidelines" document. The committee agreed this discrepancy should be discussed with Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards, once the procedures for making a change to the "guidelines" has been clarified.

4.0 Freshmen Experience Task Force Report

4.1 Senate Sponsored Forum for Gathering Faculty Input on Recommendations

(See report at http://www.unl.edu/svcaa/Activities/TF/FReport.html)

Latta reported that the Freshmen Experience Task Force would like to have two faculty forums, sponsored by the Academic Senate, to discuss the recommendations made in their report. Scheideler pointed out that it is important to have student input and suggested that the ASUN should be included as a sponsor for these forums. Bryant noted that there needs to be more up front discussion of the findings of the report rather than just talking about the recommendations. Humes pointed out that it is important for faculty to know what the problems are that generated the formation of this task force. Zorn moved that the Academic Senate sponsor two faculty forums to discuss the Freshmen Experience Task Force. Bender seconded the motion. Scheideler amended the motion to include the involvement of the ASUN. Amendment accepted. Motion approved.

5.0 Senate Sponsored Presentation and Discussion of Vice Chancellor Torr's Research Initiative

Latta suggested that the Senate sponsor a presentation of Vice Chancellor Torr's analysis of UNL's research and her research initiative. Bryant stated that he was in support of the presentation but pointed out that it should provide useful information and not dwell on a long introductory. Zorn stated that background information could be provided in a handout. He noted that the presentation needs to get to the point of her recommendations. Bryant stated that the faculty will be interested in knowing what grants are available and how they can obtain these grants. Latta suggested that the Chair of the Academic Planning Committee might be invited to attend the presentation to discuss related issues of academic freedom and continued support for other funded research that had been referred to that committee for discussion. Siekman suggested that the presentation be sent out via satellite or closed circuit television to the extension centers. Mayo asked if Vice Chancellor Torr will be going to each of the colleges to discuss these research initiatives. Latta stated that Vice Chancellor Torr plans to do this but it will take some time. She stated that she will contact Vice Chancellor Torr to determine a date in October for the presentation. Bryant made the motion that the Academic Senate sponsor a presentation by Vice Chancellor Torr on her research initiative for UNL. Miller seconded the motion. Motion passed.

6.0 Approval of 8/18/99 Minutes

Mayo moved that the minutes be accepted as amended. Scheideler seconded the motion. Motion approved.

7.0 Unfinished Business

7.1 Academic Senate Strategic Agenda

Due to a lack of time, Latta asked the committee to review the draft for discussion at the next meeting.

8.0 New Business

8.1 Presentation to Board of Regents on Establishing Program Priorities

Latta reported that she and the other Senate Presidents met with President Smith and discussed their upcoming presentation to the Regents on establishing program priorities. She asked how it was that Robert Dickeson had been selected to speak to the Board of Regents on this topic. She stated that President Smith and Dickeson serve together on the Board of the USA Group and that it was after reading his book that Smith extended the invitation. This initiative is intended to compliment the work of the Burns Commission which was charged a year ago with identifying administrative efficiencies. The focus of the effort, Smith indicated, would be on identifying the strengths of the University. Latta later asked if President Smith, or others at Central Administration, were aware that Dickeson had been censured by the AAUP because of his actions at Northern Colorado State University. She had been told they were not aware of this and she provided them with a copy of the AAUP report censuring Dickeson. The committee discussed whether it wished to express objection to Dickeson's selection to lead the discussion of programmatic priorities with the Regents. It was decided that any objection to Dickeson might be misperceived as objection in principle to the discussion of programmatic priorities. Moreover, the committee agreed that Dr. Dickeson's ideas should be met with an open mind and subjected to a rational analysis for whatever merit they may possess. Latta emphasized that Dickeson's ideas represented only a starting place for developing a process for prioritizing programs within the NU system, and that President Smith had indicated since last may that he intends this to be a process that involves faculty and that is campus-based. She stated that Dickeson will give his presentation to the Board on Saturday, August 28^th at 8:30 and that afterwards each of the Academic Senate Presidents would be allowed six minutes to make comments regarding his presentation. She stated that President Smith has indicated that he intends to put together a task force that will include the four Senate Presidents, some administrators, and additional faculty. She stressed that whatever process is put into place for determining programmatic strengths needs to utilize the existing campus procedures. She pointed out that a ranked list of programs is neither a very useful nor desirable outcome of such a process, rather a greater understanding of program strengths is needed to inform discussion and decision-making. Latta pointed out that across-the-board cuts can not continue, since that approach is basically degrading to all programs. Latta asked the committee to indicate whether it agreed with her assessment that faculty support vertical program cuts, if additional significant reallocation becomes necessary, but that we continue to have grave concerns about the budgetary priorities and practices that make these reallocations necessary. All members present acknowledged their agreement. Zorn pointed out that the process of reallocation is detrimental, not only in the cuts in funding for programs, but that the stress has switched the focus of the faculty from teaching and research to concern over funding.

8.2 Executive Committee Meeting Times

Item postponed.

8.3 September 7^th Senate Meeting

Item postponed.

8.4 Proposed Resolution Concerning Capital Construction Projects

Item postponed.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:40 PM. The next Executive Committee meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, September 1, 201 Canfield Administration Building. Respectfully submitted, Miles Bryant, Secretary.