UNL ACADEMIC SENATE

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES

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

ABSENT: Aguilar, Baum Kuska, Williams

DATE: February 3, 1999

PLACE: 201 Canfield Administration Building

______________________________________________________________________________

1.0 Call to Order

Latta called the meeting to order at 3:02 PM.

2.0 Announcements

2.1 Vice Chancellor for Research Candidate

Latta announced that the last candidate for the Vice Chancellor for Research will be on campus for interviews on February 4^th. She reported that the Executive Committee is scheduled to meet with the candidate at 11:20 on February 4^th. Latta noted that the regular faculty meeting will be at 4:20.

2.2 Y2 Compliance

Latta stated that she received a report from Chancellor Moeser on the status of departments/units in regards to Y2 compliance. She pointed out that the Academic Senate Office has completed the task and is Y2 compliant. Latta stated that the report is available to see in the Senate office.

2.3 Campus Master Plan

Latta reported that she received a copy of the campus master plan and that it will be available in the Senate office.

2.4 University-wide Report on Diversity

Latta reported that she has asked Professor Aguilar to review the University-wide Committee Report on Diversity which was presented to the Board of Regents. She stated that Aguilar will report at an upcoming Executive Committee meeting on the report.

2.5 Faculty Resource Index

Latta reported that Professor Humes has prepared a very complete summary of the comparisons he made between the Faculty Resource Index on the web and the UNL Faculty Handbook. She stated that he has made some recommendations on how we should proceed. Latta stated that a copy will be sent to the Executive Committee and will be discussed at an upcoming Executive committee meeting.

2.6 Pepsi Fund

Latta stated that people from the Pepsi Foundation wanted to meet with the Executive Committee to discuss the Pepsi fund. She stated that a meeting will be scheduled.

2.7 Governor Johanns Visit to the Academic Senate

Latta reported that she will be meeting with Chancellor Moeser and Kim Robak, Vice President of External Affairs, to discuss the upcoming visit of Governor Johanns.

3.0 Chancellor Moeser

3.1 Revised Bylaw 4.3

Chancellor Moeser stated that he felt the issue was fairly well covered at the Senate meeting the previous day. Latta noted that she will be able to revisit the issue in a couple of weeks and by that point she will have been able to meet with Sally Wise and Dick Wood on the issue. He stated that he believed that administration and faculty can work together to resolve their differences on this issue.

3.2 Issues on the Horizon

3.2.1 Alcorn State Agreement

Scheideler asked what type of resources are allocated to carry out the interactions by faculty when an agreement is set up, such as the one with Alcorn State? Chancellor Moeser stated that it depends on the agreement. He pointed out that this agreement came about largely due to the efforts of Merlin Lawson, Dean of Graduate Studies and International Affairs. He stated that this is a significant agreement because Alcorn is a historically African American land grant university with a very strong agricultural component. He suggested that the Executive Committee ask Lawson to come and speak on what resources are being set aside. Chancellor Moeser stated that he sees great opportunity for joint research between the two institutions. Scheideler stated that in a recent meeting they were told that there is no funding for faculty and administrators to go down to Alcorn and that they would need to find their own funding. She pointed out that faculty need some kind of incentive in order to become involved and that some of these things need to be resolved before getting faculty involved. Chancellor Moeser stated that in some cases the funding will be on an ad hoc basis.

3.2.2 Hiring Freeze on Faculty Lines

Latta asked what method has been used to determine which lines will not be filled and why this is being done. Chancellor Moeser stated that to be responsible administrators we need to prepare ourselves for the worse case scenario with the budget. He pointed out that they are temporarily getting control of all searches and are to give great scrutiny to hiring as it goes on. He stated that there are some searches that need to proceed in critical areas but that there may be areas that we need to temporarily halt. He pointed out that the better strategy is to not hire right now rather than hiring and then having to let people go because of the budget situation. Chancellor Moeser stated that every Dean is going to get a bill for a budgetary adjustment for the next biennium. He stated that he sees no way that this can be avoided, even with the best scenario coming out of the unicameral. He pointed out that we are still going to have more costs to meet than we have new resources coming in. Chancellor Moeser stated that he has asked Lee Jones to give him a figure representing what the worse case scenario will be for UNL. Latta stated that a member of a search committee in a department is concerned that some departments are being hit harder than others. Chancellor Moeser stated that it is the Dean's discretion and that departments may be impacted differentially. However, he stated that all Deans must talk with Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards to get approval to continue any searches. Chancellor Moeser pointed out that every search, no matter where it is in the process, has been halted until further authorization is given. Latta asked if it is possible that some Deans may not have talked to SVCAA Edwards and if they have been provided with any guidelines on what the bill may amount to? Chancellor Moeser responded that it is possible that not everyone has spoken to SVCAA Edwards. He stated that the Deans may have been told that there may be a 2 ½% reduction. Latta asked if faculty should go to their Dean to get any further information? Chancellor Moeser stated that either their Dean or their Chair. Latta pointed out that faculty are concerned with how the decisions were made and whether a department is being targeted because they will be phased out? Latta asked if a report will be made regarding the impact of the halt on searchers? Chancellor Moeser stated that if the information is available a report should be made. He noted that one of the problems is that there are not nearly as many searches this year as last year. He pointed out that the Deans do not have as many searches to close that as they need to make adjustments in the budget. Latta stated that in the long run we will want to look at the impact these decisions have had on the issue between tenure-track and non-tenure track positions. Chancellor Moeser pointed out that one of the other things that will need to be looked at is what the ratio of full-time faculty is to students. He stated that if our student population continues to decline that we will have to look at fewer faculty. He noted that the Nebraska Performance Model can play an important role here in how departments and colleges are funded. He stated that there has to be a correlation between the number of student credit hours being taught as well as the research being done and the number of faculty in that unit. Latta noted that if they are talking about fewer faculty than they should also be talking about fewer classes. Chancellor Moeser pointed out that the number of faculty has remained almost constant over the years regardless of the fluctuation of the student population.

3.2.3 Funding for Grassroots Recruitment

Scheideler stated that faculty are realizing that they have to do more grassroots recruitment themselves but she pointed out that the resources are tied up through the admissions office. She stated that faculty in her department are trying to determine how to allocate internal resources to do more recruitment themselves but yet enhance what is going on through the admissions office. She pointed out that we need to connect to on-going efforts that are already in place. Scheideler stated that there should be some type of incentive or reward for faculty getting more involved. Chancellor Moeser stated that the self-interest will become clear for departments. He stated that one of the positive developments for staff is the ability to reward staff with one time bonuses for exceptional performance. He stated that they were given clearance by Central administration and that they are developing a pay plan to allow them to do this. He pointed out that this will be a good morale factor for staff and a way to give incentive again for good performance. Chancellor Moeser stated that there is a massive re-engineering of staff positions that will allow promotions without having to change jobs. Latta stated that we need to pursue a connection with admissions and coordinate efforts. Chancellor Moeser noted that the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs now reports to the Senior Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. He stated that the reason for this change is to have the Academic Affairs sector to be over admissions. He noted that departments have networks with the community that can be used to recruit students. Bender pointed out that the admissions office is not very aggressive in taking advantage of some of the opportunities that are available. Chancellor Moeser agreed and stated that it was only a few years ago that significant recruiting efforts were made.

4.0 Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards

Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards was unable to attend due to his attendance at a conference meeting.

5.0 Associate to the Chancellor Herbert Howe

5.1 New Hiring Policy

Howe reported that the new hiring procedure recently put into place is a result of several things. First, he stated that, as reported in articles in The Chronicle of Higher Education, universities are being sued because they hired faculty from other universities who had been involved in some sort of problematic behavior. Howe noted that the universities are sued because they did not conduct a thorough job in checking out the person's background. He pointed out that there have been similar situations here in the recent past which have led university officials to wonder if we are doing any kind of checking in a systematic way. Howe noted that in developing this the key is in the balance: on the one hand to have an appropriate level of screening while on the other hand not driving good candidates away. He stated that in considering the policy, they discussed what kinds of things can be asked, of whom should the questions be asked, and what the general process should be. Howe pointed out that this policy is being applied only to faculty who come in with tenure and academic administrators. Howe noted that the Executive Committee was concerned with the use of the word embarrassing being used in the questions. He stated that it was discussed with Dick Wood, General Counsel, and Wood stated that the only difficulty with the word is that it could be problematic in court. Howe noted that a Westlaw search will also be conducted which will provide a complete printout of headlines about an individual from major newspapers. Mayo stated that the problem with the word embarrassing is the range of interpretation that can be associated with it. Howe agreed and noted that it is clear in the letter that some things can not be discussed. Zorn pointed out that they are asking for a subjective evaluation that is subject to too many interpretations. Howe stated that the questions are asked in the context of an interview and that it is the interviewer, not the candidate, who signs a form indicating that this procedure has been completed. Bender asked if there is a policy that the candidate sees? Howe responded no and stated that it is discussed during the interview. Bender pointed out that the word embarrassing is vague and that a clearer definition is needed. Bryant stated that there is wide opposition in Teachers College to the policy. He pointed out that the same information can be gathered from conducting a thorough background search. Latta asked if the policy is modeled on one from another institution? Howe responded that he checked with other institutions and stated that other institutions had different means of investigation such as FBI checks. Humes was concerned with redundancy and asked if the policy was really needed if Westlaw checks were being conducted? He also asked if they thought they would catch more things by asking these questions? Howe responded that the problem with Westlaw is that it does not cover every paper. Zorn stated that more specific language or questions designed to elicit what you really are after should be used. Bryant asked if the search committee chair is required to ask these questions? Herb replied no, that it is the hiring authority, such as the department chair or dean. Latta pointed out that the candidate's references have to be asked by someone on the search committee and that the hiring authority would ask, presumably the chair of the search committee, whether the questions have been asked. Howe responded yes. Latta suggested that every reference who is contacted be reminded of our equal opportunity policy so that it is clear that the questions being asked do not pertain to areas that we do not want information about such as sexual orientation. Chancellor Moeser noted that is why all search committees must undergo training by Affirmative Action. Linda Crump, Director of Affirmative Action, stated that areas of awareness that can become problematic are raised. She noted that her office fields many questions from search committee members. Latta noted that the scope of the question needs to be communicated. Zorn pointed out that more specific questions might avoid suits against the university by unsuccessful candidates who could claim they were discriminated on the basis of their answer to the question. Chancellor Moeser suggested using the word discredit in place of embarrassing. Mayo suggested deleting the word embarrassing and asking, "Have you done anything in the past that, if done at this institution, would jeopardize your ability to do your job or possibly lead to dismissal". Chancellor Moeser suggested disciplinary action rather than dismissal. Howe stated that he will check these possible changes out.

6.0 Status on the Agreement with the Office of Civil Rights, Linda Crump, Director of Affirmative Action

Crump stated that a copy of the agreement can be found on the web (http://www.unl.edu/SVCAA/Activities/OCR.html) and that a committee has been formed that is reviewing any changes that need to occur to any policies and procedures. She noted that the committee has completed reviewing the human resources grievance procedures. She stated that she will be meeting with the Academic Rights and Responsibilities Committee to discuss some changes and that the student judicial affairs is in the process of reviewing the policies and procedures. Crump stated that she informed the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) that not all of the policies and procedures can be reported back to them until they are approved by the appropriate governing bodies. She pointed out that the OCR did not dictate to us how we should create the educational component that is part of the agreement but she pointed out that we do have to have some plan completed by June to send to them. She stated that they want to involve both the Commission on the Status of People of Color and the Commission on the Status of Women, Women's Studies and Ethnic Studies around these issues to help create a good educational plan for the whole university. Bryant asked what the charge to these groups will be? Crump replied that their charge would be to help in the development of providing educational opportunities for the campus (the complete charge can be found in the agreement under "Educating the Campus Community"). Crump noted that the OCR does expect certain information to be provided (see footnote on page 5 of the agreement). Scheideler stated that it is excellent that an education plan is being created but suggested that a message needs to be clearly sent out to faculty that this issue is something that is being taken quite seriously by the university. Crump noted that the OCR preference would be to have required training for everyone on campus each year. Bryant stated that people need to understand that this in an opportunity for growth. Crump pointed out that she was able to convince the OCR that in order to accomplish this in a meaningful way at an educational institution, an educational plan whereby anyone who is responsible for supervising individuals will be informed of what their responsibilities are. Bryant suggested rethinking the educational strategy and suggested that it needs to be a mainstream initiative. Scheideler stated that if it was coming from the Office of Graduate Studies that all chairs and members of graduate committees need to do this, then it may be more accepted. Scheideler suggested presenting it as an opportunity for people to do a better job. Crump pointed out that if we are asking people to take on the responsibility of the institution, we have to help them to know and understand the scope of their responsibilities around these issues. She noted that this may mean that a person does not have to get actively involved in a situation, but that they have the responsibility of at least referring a person as to where they should go if the issues of racial or sexual harassment or misconduct arise. Crump pointed out that one of the charges from the OCR is to make sure that people know what their rights are. Chancellor Moeser stated that this is an opportunity for people to learn their responsibilities and liabilities. Crump noted that they are trying to offer a development opportunity, particularly for those people who are in a leadership position, through this educational program. Latta pointed out that the core group who work in the designing of the educational program will become a resource group and that other groups on campus, such as Graduate Studies, can work with them in promoting the program. Crump noted that we need to be holistic in looking at where it is going to be meaningful for faculty, staff, and students. Latta suggested that the aspect of partnering can be embedded in the plan that is submitted to the OCR. She also suggested that some mechanism be established that may allow the committee to be aware of the concerns of others. Crump asked if she should speak to the full Senate about this. Latta stated that it would be good for her to speak to the Senate on the agreement made with OCR. Zorn noted that many positive things are happening on campus and that these need to be recognized. Crump stated that the educational process does not intend to stop the good things that are currently happening on campus.

7.0 Approval of 1/27/99 Minutes (Bryant)

Humes moved and Bender seconded approval of the minutes.

8.0 Unfinished Business

8.1 Replacement of Senate Liaison to Academic Planning Committee

Latta stated that we need to replace her as the Senate Liaison on the Academic Planning Committee for the remainder of this semester. Humes volunteered to serve on the committee.

9.0 New Business

9.1 Expectations of Senators

Latta suggested forming a subcommittee to review the expectations of new Senators and ways we can provide information to guide them.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:12 PM. The next meeting will be held on February 10^th, at the Academic Senate Office. Respectfully submitted, Miles Bryant, Secretary.