UNL ACADEMIC SENATE

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES

PRESENT: Aguilar, Bender, Bryant, Ford, Baum Kuska, Kennedy, Latta, Mayo, Scheideler, Zorn

ABSENT: Humes, Prochaska-Cue, Williams

DATE: January 13, 1999

PLACE: 1227 R Street, Academic Senate Office

______________________________________________________________________________

1.0 Call to Order

Kennedy called the meeting to order at 3:05 PM.

2.0 Announcements

2.1 Meeting with the Nebraska Cooperative Extension Association

Kennedy announced that she will be meeting with members of the Nebraska Cooperative Extension Association in Grand Island on Friday, January 15^th.

2.2 Candidate for Vice Chancellor of Research

Latta announced that the first candidate for the position of Vice Chancellor Research will be on campus January 21^st for interviewing.

2.3 Draft of Bylaw Revision

Latta reported that a second draft of the revision to the Bylaws concerning faculty assignments will be reviewed by the Academic Rights and Responsibilities Committee at their next meeting and that she hoped it will be ready to present to the Senate at the February meeting.

2.4 Regents Touring the UNL Campus

Kennedy announced that some of the members of the Board of Regents will be touring the UNL campus on Friday, January 15^th.

2.5 Committee to Respond to the Office of Civil Rights Report

Aguilar reported that the subcommittee formed to respond to the Office of Civil Rights report is considering writing a document on racial harassment, similar to the one done on sexual harassment. She stated a subcommittee may be formed to work on this report.

3.0 Approval of 12/16/98 minutes

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

4.0 Discussion of January 12^th Academic Senate Meeting

Bryant suggested that as a follow up to President Smith's comments concerning the skills of UNL graduates, that the Senate might want to produce an ad hoc report on what our graduates can do. Zorn asked what are the intentions of the report. Bryant responded that it would just be a reply to the information provided by President Smith. Scheideler

pointed out that such an assessment may also show the curriculum has changed to include Integrated Studies. Zorn noted that broad characterizations are made by CEO's about the ability of graduates but that in fact, the people who should be surveyed are the Human Resource people who do the hiring. Kennedy pointed out that the Career Services office does conduct a survey and she suggested that we use the information already gathered and present it to President Smith. Mayo stated that one of the things we should look at is to survey the faculty and compare it with businesses to see if we are talking about the same issues. Bryant stated that the university might benefit from putting out annual information on what graduates have experienced and can be expected to do. He noted that International Affairs recently conducted a survey that actually shows data regarding the openness of the student body to the diversity of cultures.

In regards to Chancellor Moeser's comments concerning the extension educators, Bryant stated that the Chancellor seems to be placing the educators in the role of a broker agency for the university and he wondered what roles the Chancellor sees these people playing in the future. He asked if the extension people are aware of this charge. Latta stated that the extension educators she has spoken with are very aware of this role. Scheideler pointed out that the county offices can not effectively do their job without extending beyond IANR, particularly in today's environment. She noted that IANR's programs are primarily devoted to a limited segment of the population and that there is really no way to do program delivery for the needs if we don't extend beyond that limited segment. Mayo pointed out that they are already moving in that direction. Scheideler wondered whether the money to initiate the changes in extension in regards to recruitment came from the reallocation of extension funds or from administration recruitment money. Bryant stated that he thought it was reallocation money, specifically from the technology fund. Kennedy reminded the committee that President Smith stated that he needs help in talking to the Senators and she suggested that the committee should explore ways to do this. Scheideler suggested that the committee should start the take a Senator to lunch meetings again. Bryant suggested that members of the Senate may want to attend hearings and make a presence in the legislature when relevant topics come up. Aguilar asked if the Senate can make statements regarding legislative issues. Mayo pointed out that only as individuals can statements be made. Zorn suggested that one means of supporting the transfer of tuition remission would be to point out that many private colleges have tuition remission for dependents/spouses and that it is viewed as a recruitment benefit. Baum Kuska asked if we could provide accurate information on our peer institutions regarding this benefit and suggested that we send this information over to President Smith. Ford stated that John Benson, Institutional Research and Planning, has these figures. Scheideler stated that if administration is serious about recruitment and want faculty to be innovative and participate, they should allow departments to tap into general funds which would allow them to conduct grassroots recruitment at the department level.

Kennedy stated that she received 25 email messages from Senators stating their support of her remaining as President. Griffin reported that she researched what had happened previously and stated that Royce Ballinger stepped down as Academic Senate President when he was appointed as Associate Vice Chancellor of EPSCOR. She reported that Fred Choobineh volunteered to take over some of the responsibilities of President-Elect but was not voted into this office until the May meeting when he ran unopposed and that the position was not filled until his election. Griffin pointed out that the Faculty Senate was changed to the Academic Senate in 1990 and that administrators were included in as part of the UNL Assembly at that time. Mayo stated that his interpretation of the rules was that if Kennedy stepped down, Latta would assume responsibilities as the President and that an election to fill the President-Elect must be conducted at the next Senate meeting. Baum Kuska asked what constitutes a member of the Academic Senate. She asked if there is a listing of this and whether it precludes any group, and if there are any limitations on who can hold an office. Bryant pointed out that there is a legal issue, as well as a political issue, that needs to be addressed. Kennedy stated that the Senate Bylaws should be changed to clarify who can be President. Ford stated that the idea instituted a long time ago was that the Senate President would be at half time for their regular duties. He stated that he hoped that the position of Senate President is viewed by people in the Senate, and by people outside the Senate, as taking up a least as much time as that. He thought that a negative message would be sent to the Senate, as well as the academic community, if the Senate does not see the President as putting his or her responsibility above everything else during the time of their term. Ford stated there is also a conflict of interest and the appearance of conflict of interest. He thinks it is unwise for the Senate President to be in a position where an apparent conflict of interest arises. He stated that he did not think that he could have handled being Senate President, teaching a course and taking on another job. Mayo wanted to clarify that Latta could take over as President now and continue next year for the term she was elected. He stated that the needs of the Senate may not be met if the President-Elect is unable to follow through on what has been started by Kennedy. The committee discussed the Senate rules and decided to consult with the Parlimentarian on the position of President-Elect. Bryant stated that he thought that the Executive Committee should bring some kind of a solution to the Senate in February on this issue. Kennedy stated that she will be teaching one course. Aguilar stated there is concern over the amount of time that Kennedy will be able to commit to the Senate Presidency. Kennedy stated that for the remainder of the few months she is willing to work overtime in order to fulfill her commitment to the Senate. Kennedy pointed out that she clearly stated to the Dean of CBA that she had a responsibility to the Senate and that she would need to continue her work with the Senate even if it conflicted with her administrative duties. Aguilar asked if Latta and other members will be asked to take on additional responsibilities without having release time. Scheideler stated that it may be difficult to look at issues from two different perspectives, a faculty perspective and an administrative perspective. She stated that it may be an image problem in that the Senate may wonder whether Kennedy was looking at an issue from an administrative position or a faculty position. Kennedy stated that this would not be a problem for her because she will be primarily involved in work supporting faculty. Ford asked if a Senate President who is an administrator meets with the Chancellor, are they more concerned with a faculty issue or a possible promotion to a higher administrative position. Scheideler stated that the Executive Committee supports President Kennedy and thinks she is capable of doing the job but that she is concerned with the message of conflict that can be sent to the faculty members. Kennedy pointed out that a number of Senators suggested that if a conflict of interest does arise, that she should step aside and let the Executive Committee deal with it. Bender asked if Latta could get release time to do this job. Latta stated that she spoke with her Dean and that they could make adjustments in her workload. Ford stated that all of the issues raised will be debated at the Senate meeting and he stated that one consideration is whether or not this is the kind of debate we want to have at that meeting. Mayo stated that the Executive Committee should have a specific proposal to present to the Senate at the next meeting. The committee discussed the voting procedures to elect a President-Elect should there be a need to do so.

5.0 Governor Johanns Visit to the Academic Senate

Kennedy reported that Governor Johanns will be speaking to the Academic Senate on March 2^nd. She asked for suggestions of topics that he should discuss. Latta suggested that he should clarify when he is discussing education whether this includes higher education or whether it is only about K-12 education. Bryant stated that he would like to hear how this University can support him in the things he hopes to accomplish. The Committee agreed to send an email out to all faculty and staff to announce the Governor's presentation to the Academic Senate.

6.0 Evaluation of Administrators

Scheideler pointed out that there needs to be more than a five year review of administrators by faculty and suggested that a peer review may be useful. Latta stated that the issue of departmental input was raised with Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards concerning annual faculty evaluations of administrators and that his reply was that it was being solicited on an every other year basis due to a lack of responses from faculty. Bryant stated that a larger issue was the lack of accountability to faculty by administrators. The committee agreed to discuss the issue at the next meeting with administrators.

7.0 Unfinished Business

7.1 Faculty Resource Index Update (Humes)

Item postponed.

7.2 Future Nebraska Task Force (Scheideler)

Latta reported that the Future Nebraska Task Force is looking at the research culture at UNL. Mayo asked if there has been any discussion on identifying the areas that we can excel at here in Nebraska. He gave the example that people come from all over the world to study the Great Plains, which is a unique aspect of our region. Latta stated that the task force has been divided into three different groups and that one of those groups is looking at what are the researchable questions relating to that issue and what methodology might be developed. Scheideler stated that there appears to be some frustration by faculty on the task force due to the heavy handedness of some of the administrators who are on the task force and that it does not appear to be a bottom up effort. She pointed out that when the task force was first introduced the original plan was for the committee to be composed of primarily faculty. Aguilar noted that there is a recurring theme about research that brings in funding and she pointed out that they seem to forget about the incredible amount of scholarly research that is occurring in the Arts and Humanities and other areas that don't bring in the dollars but do make a significant contribution to the culture. She stated that we need to remind administrators of this point. Latta stated that the smaller groups seemed to be more focused.

7.3 Chancellor Moeser's Reaction to the Meeting between the Executive Committee and Deans

Bender asked how Chancellor Moeser reacted to the fact that the Executive Committee and a number of the Deans were meeting. Kennedy replied that Chancellor Moeser was very positive and that he is willing to meet with that group. She stated that he was very concerned with the lack of trust and that he was happy to see the group getting together.

8.0 New Business

8.1 Replacement of James Carr on Academic Planning Committee

Kennedy reported that the Committee needed to replace James Carr on the Academic Planning Committee for this semester. The committee suggested several people to the Academic Planning Committee.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:01 PM. The next meeting will be held on January 20^th in 201 Canfield Administration Building. Respectfully submitted, Miles Bryant, Secretary.