UNL ACADEMIC SENATE

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES

PRESENT: Aguilar, Bender, Bryant, Ford, Baum Kuska, Latta, Mayo, Prochaska Cue, Williams, Zorn

ABSENT: Humes, Scheideler

DATE: January 20, 1999

PLACE: 201 Canfield Administration Building

______________________________________________________________________________

1.0 Call to Order

Latta called the meeting to order at 3:04 PM.

2.0 Announcements

2.1 Candidate for Vice Chancellor of Research

Latta reminded the committee that the first candidate for the position of Vice Chancellor Research will be on campus January 20-21st and that there is a meeting scheduled with the Executive Committee at 11:20 on the 21^st. Mayo volunteered to run the meeting since Latta will be out of town for an AAHE meeting.

2.2 Meeting with President Smith

Latta reported she will be meeting with President Smith on February 2^nd and asked for members of the committee to contact her about issues that they would like her to discuss with him.

2.3 Celebration with Senators Dinner

Latta announced that there is a Celebrate with Senators Dinner sponsored by the Tax Discussion Group (formerly Agriculture, Mainstreet and Education Against Measure 413) on January 21^st. She stated that a ticket was available and asked if anyone is interested in attending. Bryant indicated that he will attend the dinner. Latta reported that the Tax Discussion Group will have another meeting on January 28^th and that interested people should RSVP.

2.4 University-wide Committee on Diversity Report

Latta reported that she received a copy of the University-wide Committee on Diversity Report to the Board of Regents. She stated a copy of the report will be sent to members of the Executive Committee.

3.0 Chancellor Moeser

3.1 Confidentiality of Email

In response to concerns raised by Senator Thad Kulik at the December Senate meeting, Chancellor Moeser stated that email messages can not be considered confidential. Williams reported that while sitting next to Lt. Governor Kim Robak at the meeting, Robak made the comment that the law of the State of Nebraska states that the State can not ensure confidentiality. Chancellor Moeser suggested that people attach a notice to their email messages that the message can not be copied.

3.2 Comments by University Lobbyist

Bryant suggested that the University lobbyist should be encouraged to talk about items that would help the University's public image rather than making comments that reflect a dismal outlook for the University. Chancellor Moeser agreed.

3.3 Proposed Bylaws Revision

Latta reported that a new draft of the Bylaw has been written and revised to include ARRC input. A copy of the new draft had been distributed by email prior to the meeting. Latta stated that they tried to incorporate the concept of a review committee for those cases where an agreement could not be negotiated. Chancellor Moeser stated that he is concerned that the newest draft appears to create departmental governance by committee. He noted that the key wording is that the "committee will decide whether the faculty member's apportionment of duties is to be changed, and if so, in what manner." Latta pointed out that it was previously discussed to have some kind of arbitration committee. Chancellor Moeser stated that the chair of a department should be able to make changes in the overall apportionment, but that if the faculty member did not agree or felt it was done in an unfair manner, he or she should then be able to appeal to a department committee. He did not think the matter should automatically go to a departmental committee. Latta asked under what conditions could a change be appealed? Chancellor Moeser stated that a faculty member should, in his view, be given the right of appeal, if he or she thought the change was unjustified or done capriciously. Ford asked if there were any instances under current Bylaws where it was difficult to change the apportionment of a faculty member's duties without there being mutual consent? SVCAA Edwards stated that it has occurred. Latta pointed out that when they initially began working on this they were trying to make two parts of the Bylaws consistent with each other. She pointed out that they had started out with an agreement to incorporate language from the faculty handbook which would accomplish this goal. Latta stated that the issue appears to be very different from the one initially presented. Chancellor Moeser stated that the revised draft would not allow a change in a faculty member's assignment. Ford pointed out that the Bylaws allows the Chancellor to remove people from the classroom for cause and that it could then be appealed. Chancellor Moeser stated a chair should have the discretion to be able to remove a person from the classroom if circumstances warranted it. Ford pointed out that a chair can not change the apportionment of duties in the midst of a semester. Chancellor Moeser stated that there have been and will be cases in which a faculty member is still an asset to the University but may not be capable of being in the classroom. Ford stated that there are procedures, both cultural and institutional procedures, that are in place to deal with these kind of situations. He stated that the administration owes it to faculty to demonstrate that such a radical change in the Bylaws is needed, and without that demonstration, it will be very difficult to get faculty support for these changes. SVCAA Edwards stated that the issue comes down to who has the final decision making authority. He pointed out that in the cases when mutual consent does break down, there is a need to be able to go back to the rules. SVCAA Edwards distributed a revision to the draft developed by the Senate Executive and ARRC committees. SVCAA Edwards' revision gave chairs authority to make changes in faculty apportionment in cases where mutual agreement could be not reached, and placed responsibility upon the faculty member to appeal to a three member committee appointed outside the department. Currently, he noted there a two different Bylaws to deal with this problem and that they are inconsistent. Latta stated that the two portion of the Bylaws speak to two different issues. She asked, by being consistent, does that mean both instances must be handled in the same way? She noted that the apportionment and the assignment are different things that different parts of the Bylaws speak to and that they are currently handled differently. SVCAA Edwards stated that in practice the lines are not drawn so clearly and that for most faculty we don't have this apportionment. He asked if a change in these peoples' teaching load is a change in apportionment of duties or assignment? Bryant stated that this can become a huge political issue with faculty and that this deals with the issue of faculty autonomy. He noted that an agreement in assignments is made each year. Bryant stated that the newly revised draft does provide a mechanism to deal with disputes of apportionments. Chancellor Moeser noted that ultimately the language will be decided by the Board of Regents. Ford stated that they have not been able to determine that there is a great deal of support from the Board of Regents on this issue. Chancellor Moeser noted that the Regents believe that there should be strict lines of command. SVCAA pointed out that there appears to be a certain amount of irritation from the Regents that this change has not yet been made. He noted that the faculty have been granted enormous authority over the review process. Mayo pointed out that shared governance is needed and that to just abdicate faculty's responsibility is hard to accept. He stated that an arbitration committee is needed if this change is made. Chancellor Moeser stated that the apparent contradiction of the Bylaws creates tremendous overlap. Ford suggested that they remove the apparent contradiction but leave in the mutual consent language. Chancellor Moeser pointed out that this is where the contradiction lies. Bryant pointed out that the faculty are trying to be responsible and that there is a need for a policy that will work for all. Bender stated that he is concerned that it will be too easy for administrator's to abandon the search for working towards a mutual agreement. Chancellor Moeser stated that the revised draft upholds individual faculty member's rights more than the rights of the department, other faculty, or students. Latta stated that they will need to discuss the revision further.

3.4 Issues on the Horizon

Chancellor Moeser reported that the budgetary recommendations have been made and that we should get a report on January 28^th from the Governor. He noted that while the budget may be austere, the University will continue to press the issue. Latta commented on President Smith's statement requesting help in speaking to Senators. Chancellor Moeser pointed out that it is important to go in with a common voice. He stated that it would be very helpful to get citizens to voice their support for the University. Mayo asked if there is any more information on the task force appointed by President Smith to look at administrative efficiencies. Chancellor Moeser stated that he does not have any further information but stated that he expects to see more recommendations for administrative efficiencies. Aguilar asked what the Chancellor's sense was of the Martin Luther King celebration on campus. Chancellor Moeser responded that he thought it was a very successful celebration and that there was a good representation of the members of the campus.

4.0 Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards

4.1 Future Nebraska Task Force Update

Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards reported that the committee has met three times. He noted that the committee has been divided into three smaller groups and each group has been given the same set of questions to address. These questions are the understanding of the charge of the task force, what kind of institution do we want to be the in areas of research and graduate studies 10 - 20 years from now, and what should we do now to move to that position. He stated that there needs to be engagement between the task force and the campus while they go through this but he is unsure as to what form this will take. He noted that the full committee will start meeting again in early February. SVCAA Edwards reported that a team is coming up from Texas A & M on February 10^th to talk to the task force. He pointed out that A & M is an interesting case because they were able to transform itself in a 20 year period from a dying school to a very successful scholarly institution. He stated that there is a growing sense in the task force that there is a need to start defining what people will be working on. Mayo asked if the idea of getting a group of people to come in from a variety of different disciplines to give us a more external view? SVCAA Edwards stated that they are not at that point yet and that the task force is not close to discussing specific areas yet. Bryant asked if the areas on campus that do not have much to do with research but are involved in graduate education have a voice in the task force. SVCAA Edwards responded that they do and he pointed out that his definition of research includes research, scholarship and creative activity. Latta suggested that this statement would be helpful to the task force.

4.2 Evaluation of Administrations by Faculty

Mayo pointed out that the issue is continued annual evaluation by faculty. Latta stated that what is needed is a clarification of what is the current structure of evaluations. SVCAA Edwards responded that administrators are evaluated every year but that the form of the evaluation varies. He noted that what was implemented last year was a full evaluation of administrators will be conducted on an every other year basis, with the off year not going through the full solicitation process. However, SVCAA Edwards pointed out that anyone can have input to that process during the off years if they wish to do so. He noted that the full evaluation of Deans is conducted on a 5 year basis with evaluations also coming from outside the college and University. Mayo asked if department heads/chairs are given a full evaluation every five years? SVCAA Edwards stated that is correct. Mayo noted that confusion occurs with the differences in how evaluations are conducted among the different colleges. He pointed out that it becomes unclear as to what the University policies are versus the local policies regarding evaluations. Latta stated that in the off years some colleges have an elected group which conducts an evaluation, while others have an administrative committee. SVCAA Edwards stated that this is correct and that some colleges have decided to go with this format. Latta asked if the current process if working well? SVCAA Edwards stated that it is too early to tell. He pointed out that he would like to move to fewer, but more meaningful evaluations. Latta asked what is the frequency and the purpose of the evaluations and what avenues of peer review are available? She pointed out that it appears that we have gone to two different cultures in that we have gone to this Post Tenure Review in which there are very strict, annual evaluations and that the stakes have been raised very high for faculty. Zorn stated that if the purpose of a review is to effect people's behavior then you want frequent reviews to provide feedback. He noted that if there are any problems with annual evaluation its that they may not be as honest. SVCAA Edwards agreed and pointed out that they certainly want to maintain the opportunity for anybody to have input to the annual evaluation, even in the year in which the full solicitation is not being done. Latta stated it would be helpful if the Senior Vice Chancellor could report back as to how the process has worked. Bryant suggested that it may be helpful to conduct college specific evaluations.

4.3 Biological Sciences Integration Update (Mayo)

Mayo asked what the charge of the committee is and what the plan is for the group? SVCAA Edwards stated that the committee has now been appointed and that they will be meeting very soon. He stated that the plan is to give them an open field in terms of what we are asking them to look at for coordination, collaboration within the life sciences. He stated that they hope that the committee will be able to complete their task this semester or at least provide an interim report. He stated that they are being asked to think about different scenarios for our campus and for how we might be able to achieve more collaboration. SVCAA Edwards stated that there is no presumption of any particular outcome or organizational changes but that there is an expression of positioning ourselves better in such areas as reporting things in the NRC rankings. He stated that we need to present our strengths and assets more effectively.

4.4 Issues on the Horizon

4.4.1 Upcoming Campus Projects

SVCAA Edwards wanted to point out that in the midst of concerns about what our state budget is going to be that the next 3 or 4 months will be a time of some positive things happening to our campus. First of all, the University has received the Opthmer check. There are 3 or 4 big projects for which proposals are going to be made soon. These are: the NEH Regional Humanities Proposal will be submitted this spring; a group of faculty will meet with Gallup to work on a proposal for an NSF project which would make UNL an electronic portal for all of Gallup's public access data polls from 1936 to the present; the Human Rights and Human Diversity project is continuing conversation with the Ford Foundation and that we are currently in the second stage of the process; the J.D. Edwards Honors Program is underway, and the architectural drawings will soon be unveiled for the Kaufman Residential Academic Center.

4.4.2 Graduate Faculty Fellow Status for Senior Lecturers

Ford asked what the status is on the voting of whether to allow Senior Lecturers and Visiting Professors faculty fellow standing and whether there was anything we could do to speed this process along? SVCAA Edwards stated that he has not heard whether the vote has occurred but he was told by Dean Lawson that he didn't think it should be a problem. SVCAA Edwards stated that he will follow up on what is happening on this issue.

4.4.3 Nebraska Performance Model

Zorn stated that he heard there was a hold on the Nebraska Performance Model. SVCAA Edwards stated that Central Administration has some reservations on it but that they are working on a revised model. He noted that they want a model that will support high quality endeavor. He stated that when the revised version is completed it will be presented to the Executive Committee. Bryant asked in the rethinking of the NPM if there is a way to incorporate all the different evaluations that departments do? SVCAA Edwards stated that they hope to be able to do this. He pointed out that he hopes all of these various evaluations will be part of one scheme which may eliminate some of the repetitive work. He noted that Academic Program Reviews could be integrated in such a way that much of the data will be already gathered rather than a department having to work on it from scratch.

5.0 Vice Chancellor Omtvedt

5.1 Search Committee of Extension Dean

Vice Chancellor Omtvedt reported that a draft is being worked on for the position description of the Extension Dean appointment. He stated that an advisory committee is still being worked out and that they are trying to get a good cross section of members. VC Omtvedt stated that they have support from Cooperative Extension that the incumbent will report to the Vice Chancellor of IANR and Extension Education. He stated that they hoped a draft of the position will be ready in two weeks and he noted that the deadline date for nominations will probably be April15. Latta asked if the dual reporting line is occurring with outlying extension people? VC Omtvedt stated that it is and that it is a good evolutionary step. Latta asked if the reporting line of other people will change? VC Omtvedt stated that it would. Chancellor Moeser noted all of these elements are converging with a University-wide responsibility. Bryant noted that extension has traditionally been off campus. He asked what happens with the role of extension in regards to distance education. VC Omtvedt pointed out that credit courses are a relatively small part of extension. Bryant asked if those who are doing more and more distance education courses will eventually become another arm of Continuing Studies? VC Omtvedt stated that the Continuing Studies office is needed to continue the nurturing of distance education courses. He pointed out that they need more support for those who want to develop distance education courses.

6.0 Approval of 1/13/99 Minutes

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

7.0 Unfinished Business

7.1 Resignation of President Pat Kennedy

The Executive Committee recognized the resignation of President Pat Kennedy. Bryant agreed to draft a letter of appreciation for her service. Mayo welcomed Gail Latta as President and pointed out that the Senate Rules call for an election to fill the position of President-Elect. The Committee agreed to work on the issue at the next meeting.

8.0 New Business

8.1 Donation from the Nebraska Cooperative Extension Association

Williams stated that she will be presenting a check at the March 2^nd Academic Senate meeting in the amount of $750 from the Nebraska Cooperative Extension Association to the Academic Senate. She stated that they hoped that the money will be spent on a shared governance project. Latta reported that she will be meeting with Randy Pryor, President of the Nebraska Cooperative Extension Association in April and will report to him on how we spend the money donated to the Senate.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:36 PM. The next meeting will be held on January 27^th in the Academic Senate Office, 1227 R Street. Respectfully submitted, Miles Bryant, Secretary.