UNL ACADEMIC SENATE

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES

PRESENT: Bryant, Ford, Baum Kuska, Latta, Mayo, Prochaska Cue, Scheideler, Zorn

ABSENT: Aguilar, Bender, Humes, Williams

DATE: February 17, 1999

PLACE: 201 Canfield Administration Building

______________________________________________________________________________

1.0 Call to Order

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

2.0 Announcements

2.1 Academic Senate Rules and Bylaws Committee

Latta reported that the Academic Senate Rules and Bylaws Committee has been formed and the members of the committee are Laurie Hodges from Horticulture, Shelley Fuller from Art & Art History, and Bob Diffendal from Conservation and Survey. Latta stated that the charge at this time will be to review the Past President position for next year.

2.2 Parking and Transit Services Master Plan Meeting

Latta announced that she received a letter from James Main, Assistant Vice Chancellor Business, inviting anyone interested in attending an informational meeting on the Parking and Transit Services Master Plan of the campus. The meeting will discuss the parking garages and parking permit fees and will be held on Thursday, March 11^th from 3:30 - 5:00 at the City Campus Union.

2.3 Dedication of the New Rifle Range

Latta reported that she received an invitation to attend the dedication of the new rifle range on March 9^th at 2:00. She reported that she will be unable to attend and stated that anyone else from the Executive Committee is welcomed to attend.

2.4 Response from the Academic Freedom Coalition of Nebraska on the Hiring Policy

Latta stated that she received a response from the AFCON committee on the new hiring policy. She noted that she updated them on what we have recently negotiated with Associate to the Chancellor Howe. She asked them to respond back if they have any further concerns or questions.

2.5 Academic Freedom Coalition of Nebraska Policy on Academic Freedom and Sexual Orientation

Latta stated that she will forward the policy to the Executive Committee for their review before it is put on the agenda for next week.

2.6 Board of Regents Meeting

Latta reported that there will be a meeting of the Board of Regents on Saturday, February 20^th beginning at 8:30. She stated that the University-wide Committee on Gender Equity 1999 Report will be presented at the meeting.

2.7 Faculty Salary Figures

Latta reported that the Faculty Compensation Advisory Committee is in the process of receiving preliminary figures on faculty salaries. She noted that one issue that will affect how the figures look this year is the fact that many of the non-tenure track positions that were formerly reported as Assistant Professors have been reassigned to Senior Lecturers and these figures have been removed from the faculty data. She pointed out that our salaries appear to be closer to the mid-point of our peer institutions even though there was no substantive change with regard to tenure track positions. Bryant asked if this obfuscates comparisons between this year's data and last year's and if so, then they should pull out those positions in last year's figures and make a comparison based on that information. Latta stated that it will be reported that these changes have been made. Zorn pointed out that it depends on what the comparisons are being made against and if the peer schools designate these same positions as Assistant Professors. He noted that we need to compare ourselves to similar data to make the comparisons accurate. Latta noted that additional investigation has to be done to figure out what the accurate way is to communicate the data. Scheideler stated that a report was given by Alan Moeller, Assistant Vice Chancellor for IANR, stating that to meet salary requirements there would have to be reallocation within the budget. She noted that it may be premature to make this public before we even know what will happen with the budget. Zorn pointed out that the Chancellor stated that much of this is being triggered by commitments which have already been made. SVCAA Edwards stated that some of the unfunded mandates are Internet II which will cost approximately $1.2 million for the first year, a scholarship deficit, medical benefits for graduate teaching assistants, and possibly the tuition waiver extension. Bryant noted that President Smith stated in his speech to the Senate that some of the funding may have to come from internal sources. Latta stated that she will make more information available when it is complete.

3.0 Approval of 2/10/99 minutes

Mayo moved and Zorn seconded approval of the minutes as amended.

4.0 Finalizing Ballot for President Elect

Latta announced that three candidates have come forward to be placed on the ballot for President Elect. She stated that Sheila Scheideler, Animal Science, Tom Winter, Classics and Walter Mientka, Mathematics and Statistics are all interested in running. Latta pointed out that all three candidates have indicated interest in serving the remainder of this term and are interested in being on the ballot for next year's term. The committee voted unanimously to place all three candidates on the ballot.

5.0 Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards

5.1 Hiring Freeze

Latta noted that in a previous discussion with Chancellor Moeser on this issue, he informed the committee that the Deans were to meet with the Senior Vice Chancellor to discuss any open positions and that together a decision would be made as to what positions would be filled at this time and which would remain open until the budget situation was clarified. She asked if it would be possible to get a list of those effected positions by departments. SVCAA Edwards stated that he has been meeting with the Deans and pointed out that there is not a hiring freeze. He noted that hiring is being made on campus. He reported that he has been meeting with the Deans to discuss the budget and to do some budget planning. He stated that he will try to get a list of the searched impacted but he noted there are some areas that are unclear at this time. Latta stated that knowing what kinds of criteria are being used in making the decisions would be helpful. SVCAA Edwards stated that commitments that have already been made are still being honored. Latta asked if they were looking at the size of a department or faculty overload in making decisions? He noted that they looked at student demands, high student/faculty ratio, recent departures from departments and a variety of other factors. He pointed out that they are trying to go ahead with the Plant Sciences hiring because it is important to an entire initiative. He stated that they are trying to look at the most urgent situations. Scheideler asked if the same criteria is being used for administrative positions? SVCAA Edwards responded yes. Latta stated that some departments are getting the sense that they are being phased out. SVCAA stated that it is not an attempt to do that kind of planning. Bryant asked if areas of excellence are driving decisions? SVCAA Edwards stated that it is a college based process that is being followed by the priorities set by the Deans. He pointed out that he has informed the Deans that they need to make sure that they can identify some areas to be cut should it be necessary. Latta asked if people should contact their Deans if they have questions? SVCAA stated yes. Scheideler pointed out that it would be helpful to have a forum where people can have interactions with their Dean.

5.2 Implementation of Post Tenure Review

SVCAA Edwards reported that the statements went back to the departments with most having minor suggestions for revisions. He noted that nearly all of the responses to the suggestions have been approved. SVCAA Edwards pointed out that most of the revisions have been to add qualitative language to the standards. Scheideler asked if he received statements from Animal Science or other units in IANR? SVCAA Edwards noted that IANR is different. He stated that the proposals went to the review committee, not individual statements from departments. He stated that he understands IANR will use the institute-wide evaluation system and on that model you would not have individual department statements. Scheideler pointed out that it is disappointing that one college can have a policy such that each department does not have the opportunity to develop their criteria as stated in the post tenure review policy. Latta stated that her understanding is that they want departments to develop their criteria but that they consider that to be the departments business and not to come for review. She pointed out that IANR has done somewhat of the inverse that was done on City Campus. She pointed out that we need to figure out how to be true to the spirit of the post tenure review document which calls for criteria to be written by departments and reviewed and accepted by the Deans and the Vice Chancellor. Scheideler stated that departments put together a statement and then sent it to the Deans. She noted that the Deans then stated that they did not want to do it this way. Latta stated that it did not seem as if a good review was conducted? Scheideler responded that she did not think a really good review happened. Ford stated that the Senate should figure out a way to communicate our expectations that what was agreed on in the post tenure review document be followed by both faculty and administration. Latta asked if a letter should be sent to VC Omtvedt ? Ford stated that a letter of memorandum should be sent. Scheideler pointed out that the steps need to be very clear on what is expected. SVCAA Edwards reported that there were only a few departments which required substantial revisions which would require a faculty decision. He noted that they have asked to have those back by March 1. Latta stated that there is concern about the timing and whether this will be the first year for evaluations and whether those departments who have not solidified their criteria, if it is fair to evaluate those faculty under the policy. SVCAA Edwards stated that they would need to deal with that on a case by case basis. He pointed out that performance does matter but that they are really interested in working with faculty to help them improve their performance. Scheideler stated that specific dates are needed as to when evaluations are included under the post tenure review policy and she noted that one department can not be working on a different time frame. SVCAA Edwards stated that if the annual evaluation of 1998-99 has a specific statement identifying what the deficiency is and that it has been judged chronic and substantial such that it is not resolved after one more annual review that it would trigger the post tenure review. He pointed out that if that explicit statement is not made, then he did not believe we could hold people to an ex post facto application.

5.3 Signing Evaluations of Administrators

Latta reported that there is concern amongst the faculty about the signing of evaluations on administrators. She pointed out that this runs counter to student teaching evaluations and asked what the rationale is for this policy? SVCAA Edwards pointed out that the policy proceeds his arrival at UNL but that he agrees with it because he feels that requiring signature on evaluations decreases irresponsible evaluations. He stated that his office insures confidentiality and that only a summary of statements goes back to the Dean. Prochaska Cue pointed out that there is concern of confidentiality when the summary is used in small departments when evaluating a department head. She stated that some faculty members have experienced retribution in the past, especially when exact statements from evaluations have been quoted in the summary. She noted that requiring signatures creates a chilling effect on the responses. SVCAA Edwards pointed out that what she is referring to is a matter of confidentiality rather than requiring signatures. He stated that this is a serious issue and that confidentiality should be insured at all levels. Prochaska Cue suggested destroying the evaluations after the summaries have been made. SVCAA Edwards pointed out that they are required to keep the evaluations by law. Bryant asked what the University wants from the evaluations and pointed out that the low feedback may be due to the lack of trust faculty have in the confidentiality of such feedback. He noted that the University could use other mechanisms for acquiring evaluations. Latta stated that it would be helpful if there is a way to get some assurance on how confidentiality is maintained. She thought it would be helpful if people understood the effort that goes into maintaining this confidentiality. Baum Kuska pointed out that confidentiality is assured to the students when anonymous teaching evaluations which are submitted and that faculty are expected to respect that anonymity. She asked why that can't be expected of faculty? She pointed out that requiring signatures does not increase trust for faculty but rather creates more distrust in a system that is already considered by some to be distrustful. She noted that those who don't submit an evaluation because they are concerned about having to sign it are not being heard. Scheideler stated that she did not understand the Senior Vice Chancellor's justification. SVCAA Edwards responded that this is a serious and responsible task and that people should do these in a way that identifies who they are. Scheideler asked if they can make the signature optional? SVCAA Edwards stated that he did not think so and that he is not interested in receiving anonymous information. He stated that people should take responsibility for their evaluation. Baum Kuska asked if faculty should then take anonymous student evaluations seriously? SVCAA Edwards stated that these are separate issues. He stated that he would like to see responsible evaluations. Bryant noted that just because you get an irresponsible evaluation does not mean that you have to act upon it but noted that it might actually tell you something. He noted that the principle of integrity in evaluations should then apply to all evaluations. SVCAA Edwards stated that this is an argument to reevaluate student teaching evaluations. Scheideler pointed out that faculty should have some other kinds of opportunities, such as focus groups or some kind of forum to make their voices heard besides signed evaluations. Mayo stated that he has seen that signing evaluations has helped to reduce the number of irresponsible evaluations. Latta suggested that this issue be revisited since there is the sense that administrative reviews are not working well.

5.4 Future Nebraska Task Force Update

SVCAA Edwards reported that the committee met with Ray Bowen of Texas A & M University. He stated that the committee is moving in the direction of deciding what kind of university we want to be in 20 years from now rather than strategically planning for the next 3, 5, or 7 years. He says this helps to resolve some of the tension about who is this group, what are they planning, and what is the relation between this group and program plans, college plans or departmental plans. He noted that there is great pressure for all campuses to be treated equally. He pointed out that while we have a statement from the Regents stating that we are the graduate and research institution, it is not a clear enough focus for us to build political support for the campus and develop a rhetoric which can engage people outside and allow people to see what we aspire to. Latta stated that the conversations of the committee are in talking about aspirations and getting that sense of commitment to the kind of university that we want and how to get the people in the state to support the kind of university that we want. Bryant asked if the charge of the committee has shifted to one of totality? SVCAA Edwards stated that the committee agreed that it was too constraining to deal with just graduate education and research, so the charge has broadened. Bryant suggested that the composition of the committee may need to be changed to reflect this shift. Latta pointed out that it is not possible to talk about graduate education and research without impacting undergraduate education. She stated that this has led to discussions on who else needs to be included into the task force such as working groups, or additional internal and/or external links. SVCAA Edwards pointed out that this is not a decision making task force and that the work of this task force will rise or fall based on how good the ideas are and how compelling the rationale is for them and how well they are articulated to the campus. Prochaska Cue asked if service and outreach are now being included now that the charge has been expanded? She noted that there should be a critical look at the composition of the task force to see if it is represented holistically. Ford asked what happened to the function that needs to be performed by the old committee. He pointed out that the committee was suppose to solve some of the problems that we have and if not this committee, then who? SVCAA Edwards responded the task force is working on exactly that question and think that the way to solve these problems is trying first to get a better sense of the longer term aspirations. Latta stated that she does not see the task force going away from the original charge. She pointed out that they have been divided into smaller groups which are specifically looking at some of these issues. Ford stated that he will be disappointed if the result is a mission statement rather than operational suggestions. Latta stated that they are not talking about a mission statement but rather who we are and how we can become better at what we are and what those strategies are to reach these goals. She stated that they are discussing possibly setting up strategy teams to help achieve designated goals.

5.5 Nebraska Performance Model - Follow Up Discussion

Latta thanked SVCAA Edwards for his presentation on the Nebraska Performance Model (NPM) and noted that we need to figure out how to get wide faculty input on it. She suggested that we may want to work on strategy that would be most effective in accomplishing this task. Mayo asked what the next step is? SVCAA Edwards reported that they received the grant from the GTE Foundation of $150,000 which is being shared with the University of Florida and the National Association of College & University Business Offices. He noted that they are applying the grant to the part of the project that requires getting peer data. SVCAA Edwards stated that there is an article forthcoming in the Chronicle of Higher Education regarding the grant. He stated he has been insistent in saying that we are in the process of developing this and that it will be done slowly so that people can have a chance to see how it will operate and that it is not about to be implemented. Scheideler stated that she has a major concern about not letting this build walls between departments and colleges. She pointed out that the NPM could be an instrument that could do this very easily. She noted that it could be misused and could defeat productivity and defeat incentives for faculty. Scheideler stated that the basic philosophy of why it is being done versus how it can be misused needs to be negated from the start. Mayo stated that he has concerns of misuse of information outside the university with people who are not familiar with specific rolls and missions of various programs at the university. Bryant asked if the fundamental purpose of this is to make administrative decisions? SVCAA Edwards pointed out that it is one aspect of the model and that the purpose is to provide data to make more informed decisions. He stated that a system is needed that helps identify, acknowledge and reward success on campus, particularly unit success. He noted that there are few rewards for successful units on campus. He stated that it is very important that we create a greater sense of responsibility for creating resources that support our programs. He noted that we have a tremendous opportunity for increasing the retention of students and recruiting new students. He pointed out that we do not have much of a campus data system that will help us to grow. Bryant noted that it is more than just a management information system. Latta asked about placing the university libraries as an administrative unit as opposed to an academic unit. SVCAA stated that Dean Giesecke, Libraries, has inquired about that and is in discussion with Rebecca Carr as to whether there are other ways to think about the library than that. He pointed out that this is the sort of thing that makes the need for drafts. He noted that the interdisciplinary issue is also being discussed. Scheideler stated that the candidate from Florida for the Vice Chancellor for Research position mentioned that interdisciplinary research is a deficiency of the Florida model. Bryant stated that he sees it growing exponentially with so many variables and that it is very important to get the faculty engaged in reviewing the model. He pointed out that it must provide good, useful data. SVCAA stated they are working on making the relational database link to various aspects of the university. Latta suggested that they go back and look at the issues previously raised by the Executive Committee. Prochaska Cue stated that she will email SVCAA Edwards with her concerns about research, extension and outreach in the model and whether it will fall under sponsored activities and if this is the case, will it be measured in dollars. She wondered whether this will be the only measure of quality and quantity that they want. Mayo stressed that extension should be included as a separate category and not combined under a general service category.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:12 PM. The next meeting will be held on February 24^th in the Academic Senate Office, 1227 R St. Respectfully submitted, Miles Bryant, Secretary.