UNL ACADEMIC SENATE

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES

PRESENT: Aguilar, Bender, Bryant, Ford, Humes, Latta, Mayo, Prochaska Cue, Scheideler, Zorn

ABSENT: Humes, Baum Kuska, Williams

DATE: February 10, 1999

PLACE: Love Library Instruction Room

______________________________________________________________________________

1.0 Call to Order

Latta called the meeting to order at 3:09 PM.

2.0 Announcements

2.1 Senate Rules and Bylaws Committee

Latta stated that she is currently seeking names for Senators to serve on the Senate Rules and Bylaws Committee and that she will be putting a committee together soon.

2.2 Native American Remains in Bessey Hall

Latta reported that she received a phone call from Randy Thomas, member of the Grassroots NAGPRA, stating his concern of the discovery of additional remains in Bessey Hall. Latta reported that she informed Thomas that the Executive Committee will inquire as to how the investigation is proceeding.

3.0 Senior Chancellor Edwards

3.1 Nebraska Performance Model

SVCAA Edwards gave a slide presentation on the revised Nebraska Performance Model (NPM). He stated that the overall plan is to develop a data and accounting framework, using concepts from the Florida Bank and elsewhere, which would fit needs of UNL. The model will consist of two parts: a relational database and the Nebraska Performance Model. He pointed out that the relational database will link multiple databases on campus such as personnel, student information, curricular, budget, accounting, grants and contracts, and facilities. SVCAA Edwards stated that the principles of the NPM are: 1) to identify and encourage high levels of performance by units on campus; 2) to make the data underlying state support and campus decisions more accessible to the campus community; 3) to establish a common framework for decision-making to inform the role of professional judgement and shared-governance; 4) measuring the performance of a unit based on what the unit contributes or produces compared to how much the University invests in or spends on the unit; 5) peer and longitudinal comparisons rather than contemporaneous comparisons with dissimilar units on our own campus; 6) document inputs to and outputs from all academic and administrative units as well as collecting relevant peer-institution data; 7) units will be evaluated relative to its particular assignment; 8) build upon existing evaluation procedures and use data already collected for other purposes; 9) NPM is designed to inform and assist both campus-wide decision processes and unit-level planning and evaluation. SVCAA Edwards stated that one of the concerns is the privacy issue and who will have accessibility to the program. Bryant asked what kinds of information will be available to faculty? SVCAA Edwards stated that while it has not been determined what kinds of information will be available, he indicated that class rosters and other information should be available. He stated that information should be as open as possible for the UNL campus but he indicated that there is a concern to protect the campus. SVCAA Edwards also noted that privacy considerations may require keeping some information confidential. He stated that working teams may be set up to discuss some of these issues further to gather more input. Bryant asked for clarification on point number two regarding state support. SVCAA Edwards responded that it is to justify state support and clarify what that support is and what we produce for that state support and how we can justify continued state support. SVCAA Edwards noted that number three, discussing establishment of a common framework for decision making, does not mean that this is the creation of a decision algorithm nor a formula. He noted that the accounting of outputs includes quality aspects of a unit, not just quantity of output. Bryant asked how values are placed on outputs? SVCAA Edwards stated that the Florida Bank placed a monetary value on outputs but UNL would not do this. He pointed out that to say that the outputs are intrinsically both quantitative and qualitative in character, means that it will not be easy to add them up in a simple accounting framework. SVCAA Edwards stressed that they want to measure programs against the same programs at peer institutions rather than against different programs on campus. Mayo asked who are the peer institutions? SVCAA Edwards responded that this has not been decided yet and something that the Nebraska Task Force is reviewing. Zorn noted that there are severe problems in trying to get statistically meaningful comparisons in heterogenous populations. SVCAA Edwards stated that some comparisons are needed and that a statistical sample can be obtained with institutions that are similar to us. Aguilar asked if there is a need or benefit to addressing comparisons even within the system? SVCAA Edwards stated that we want to maintain our mission and compare ourselves with institutions that have a similar mission. Bryant suggested that the first principle of the model be changed to value quality rather than quantity. SVCAA Edwards pointed out that the output measure is multi-dimensional, it includes quality as well as quantity. He stated that they believe that the outputs exceed the inputs. Zorn pointed out that if a number is attached, a formula is needed. He noted that it is useful to have the database as long as you recognize the limitations of that database. SVCAA Edwards reported that the organizational elements to be encouraged are: 1) a focus on unit goals, individuals' multiple profiles; 2) a greater sense of entrepreneurial responsibility; and 3) high quality, high-impact work. Prochaska Cue noted that team work and interdisciplinary work does not appear to be reflected in the model. SVCAA Edwards stated that interdisciplinary work is something that they want to highly encourage and he pointed out that each faculty member's unit will get credit for whatever work is done by that faculty member. Prochaska Cue asked if grants would be divided up in this model and how joint articles will be considered? SVCAA Edwards responded that the grants would be split up in some way but that they do not want to get into counting articles. Scheideler suggested putting in bonuses or extra credit for interdisciplinary work. Bryant asked how the faculty can have input into this process in a sustained way? SVCAA Edwards stated that this is just a presentation and that they are interested in having discussions. He noted that a web interface will be available soon. SCVAA Edwards stated that there is an output quality report which is defined by the unit. Mayo asked for clarification on the use of the terms colleges or units. SVCAA Edwards stated that it has not been distinguished yet but noted this was not at an individual level. Scheideler noted that significant impact is almost unmeasurable and that it is difficult to directly relate it back to faculty. She stated that documentation would be needed. SVCAA Edwards stated that units have enormous impact. Aguilar asked if the model is based on whether the same information can be obtained from the peer institutions? SVCAA Edwards stated that the peer information would be needed. Latta stated that the NPM will be placed on next week's agenda for further discussion.

3.2 Issues on the Horizon

3.2.1 Faculty Fellow Status for Senior Lecturers and Undergraduate Status

SVCAA Edwards stated that a ballot will be sent out to faculty regarding whether Senior Lecturers should have faculty fellow status. Latta noted that it would be helpful to have the question and answer segment on this subject ready for the Scarlet before the ballot is distributed.

3.2.2 Vice Chancellor for Research Position

SVCAA Edwards reported that the candidates who came to campus will be reviewed and prioritized either the end of this week or the beginning of next week. He suggested that if people wanted to provide feedback on the candidates that they do so quickly.

3.2.3 Visit of Ray Bowin, Texas A & M

SVCAA Edwards stated that Ray Bowen, President of Texas A & M University, is arriving on campus to meet with the Nebraska Task Force.

3.2.4 Post Tenure Review Statements

SVCAA Edwards reported that five or six UNL department's post tenure review statements are now available on the web (http://www.unl.edu/svcaa/Policies/PostTenureExamples.html) for people to review.

4.0 Vice Chancellor Omtvedt

4.1 Proposed Policy for IANR Post Tenure Review

Vice Chancellor Omtvedt reported that units met with the three Deans of IANR to discuss the post tenure review policy and that there was further discussion with the Vice Chancellor's Council. He noted that the Deans submitted suggestions, based on their discussions with individual units, on December 18^th. He reported that two standing committees reviewed the policy in January. He noted that there is one uniform policy for IANR but that each unit is to establish their own criteria to determine what substantial and chronic deficiencies meant. He stressed that he is concerned that there is not as much interaction going on with individual faculty in deciding the criteria for their units. He stated that he was urged by the liaison committee to send a copy of the policy statement proposal with a letter to all the faculty asking for feedback. VC Omtvedt reported that the basic plan in IANR for evaluation is based on a grading system with U being considered unsatisfactory performance and B representing below expectations. He noted that one of the problems is that they are not clear on the difference between what constitutes a B or a U grading. VC Omtvedt stated that if a faculty member is given a U for two years the post tenure review will be implemented. Scheideler pointed out that there was not much discussion concerning what constitutes a U or a B at the unit level. She pointed out that the units received correspondence from the college level indicating that they were not to look at the grading scale, that they were only to decide what the grades should be to trigger a post tenure review. VC Omtvedt replied that it is the responsibility of the units to decide what constitutes a U or B. Mayo pointed out that the problem for his department was in determining what is considered below expectations. Bryant asked if this grading scheme is unique to IANR? VC Omtvedt responded that there are many different forms of evaluation on campus but that some colleges may go to a uniform policy. Bryant noted that he is surprised that the faculty accepts the grading scheme and he pointed out that the post tenure review requires the faculty to identify what unsatisfactory performance is but that it does not require faculty to establish any other performance levels beyond that minimum. VC Omtvedt indicated that the evaluation being used for the last few years was developed and voted on by the faculty of IANR. Latta noted that VC Omtvedt and SVCAA Edwards called for the faculty of a department to define what the criteria is for chronic and deficient work. She asked if that is still the goal? VC Omtvedt stated that it is going to be up to the individual departments to decide the criteria. He noted that the statements went to the committee headed by Dick Pratt for review and that they were returned to the departments with comments. He stated that after reviewing it, he felt that they needed to be worked on between the Deans and the departments. Latta asked if statements were sent in by the individual departments to be reviewed? VC Omtvedt stated that it was the overall policy was submitted and that it is still being discussed. Latta asked if the department level input has been given yet? VC Omtvedt stated that the department statements have not been given yet because the discussions have not yet occurred. Scheideler stated that there appears to have been a break down in the process and a misunderstanding of what is being requested by VC Omtvedt and SVCAA Edwards. Latta asked if VC Omtvedt still expects departments to write their statements and whether these will go to Dick Pratt's committee? VC Omtvedt stated that he didn't think it had to go that way but it certainly the departments would have to sign off on the statements. Latta pointed out that some level of consistency is needed to obtain these statements from the departments. Ford asked when IANR will be implementing the policy? VC Omtvedt stated that it will begin next year and noted that it will take two years of receiving a U to have the post tenure review implemented and that the entire process will take three years.

5.0 Approval of 2/3/99 Minutes

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

6.0 Nominations for President-Elect

The committee discussed possible candidates for President-Elect. Latta stated that she will send an email message to senators calling for nominations.

7.0 Governor Johanns' Visit

Latta stated that she will be meeting with Chancellor Moeser and Vice President for External Affairs Kim Robak to discuss Governor Johann's visit to the Academic Senate. Latta asked for input from the committee on the type of concerns they would like to see addressed. Mayo stated that he would like the Governor to discuss the different missions of the university and to talk about the expectations of the university. Bryant suggested that the Governor discuss the charge of the university as he sees it. Ford suggested asking the Governor if he believes the university should be one of the top 25 research public institutions in the country. Scheideler suggested that we ask what growth sectors will take off and what are his plans and goals for the university.

8.0 Forum for Mayoral Candidates

Latta reported that Sara Russell, President of ASUN, will be meeting with the Executive Committee on February 24^th to discuss a mayoral candidate forum sponsored jointly by the Academic Senate and ASUN. The committee agreed that the forum should be held in either late March or early April.

9.0 Unfinished Business

9.1 Rewording of Hiring Policy

The committee voted to approve Mayo's suggestion to have the wording for the new hiring policy be changed to "have you (the candidate) engaged in behavior in the past, that if repeated as an employee of the University of Nebraska, would seriously jeopardize your ability to successfully complete your job or might lead to disciplinary action". This new wording would replace the current wording asking whether there was anything in the candidate's past that if disclosed, "might cause embarrassment to the University of Nebraska as the employer." Latta stated that she will inform Associate to the Chancellor Howe of the committee's decision.

9.2 Baha'i Institute

The committee agreed not to take any action on behalf of the Baha'i Institute. Ford pointed out that the Academic Senate has historically not acted on special interest issues. He noted that the President usually sends a letter expressing concern on the issue but stating the committee's decision. Latta noted that she will send a letter to the professor who raised the issue.

9.3 Faculty Resource Index

Professor Humes was not available to discuss the issue. Issue postponed.

10.0 New Business

10.1 Pepsi Foundation Award

Ford reported that the Academic Senate, in conjunction with the Office of Academic Affairs, has been given a $50,000 grant to arrange a debate series. He noted that this debate series is to have wide academic interest and will hopefully increase academic excitement on campus. Bryant suggested having a subcommittee work on establishing the debate series. Ford reported that the Cooper Foundation and the Public Values group have offered to contribute and work on the series. He stated that he will contact Senators to ask for suggestions on speakers.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:33 PM. The next meeting will be held on February 17^th, at the 201 Canfield Administration Building. Respectfully submitted, Miles Bryant, Secretary.