UNL ACADEMIC SENATE

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES

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

ABSENT: Mayo, Prochaska-Cue, Williams

DATE: January 27, 1999

PLACE: 1227 R Street, Academic Senate Office

______________________________________________________________________________

1.0 Call to Order

Latta called the meeting to order at 3:08 PM.

2.0 Announcements

2.1 Academic Freedom Coalition of Nebraska Appointment

Latta announced that Laurie Thomas Lee, Broadcasting, will be the Senate Representative to the Academic Freedom Coalition of Nebraska.

2.2 UNL Parents' Association Teaching Award Reception

Latta announced that the UNL Parents'Association is hosting a ceremony on Friday, January 29^th at 2:30 to recognize recipients of the certificate of contribution to students. She stated that she could not attend and asked for a volunteer. Scheideler volunteered to attend for the Senate.

2.3 Tax Discussion Group Meeting

Latta announced that the Tax Discussion Group is having a meeting to examine legislation that has been proposed for this year. Ford stated that he can attend the meeting. Bryant reported that he attend the Celebrate with A Senator dinner hosted by the Tax Discussion Group and noted that the Friends of the Faculty Senate was listed as a supporter.

3.0 Approval of 1/20/99 Minutes (Bryant)

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

4.0 Senate Rules & Bylaws Committee Members

Item postponed.

5.0 Unfinished Business

5.1 President-Elect Nominations

Latta stated that she checked with the Parlimentarian on the proper procedures for replacing the positions of President and President-Elect. Ford pointed out that the position of Past-President will also need to be filled for next year. He stated that one of the main responsibilities, although not a statutory responsibility of the Past President, is to provide a prospective on the experiences of this position. Latta noted that previously when the President resigned, the Executive Committee did not fill the position of President-Elect for the remainder of that academic year and that the Past-President position was left vacant for the following year. However, she pointed out that since that time the Senate Rules have been revised and now stipulate that the President-Elect position needs to be filled. Latta stated that it is the responsibility of the Executive Committee to put forward a slate, of no fewer than two nominations, for the President-Elect at the next Senate meeting providing the slate is distributed with the call of the meeting. However, Latta pointed out that this would not be possible for the February Senate meeting due to shortness of time. She noted that the Senate Bylaws and Rules do not stipulate that the Past-President position needs to be filled. Latta noted that there could either be an election at the March Senate meeting or a special meeting could be called for the election prior to the March Senate meeting. The committee discussed whether the length of the term for the President and the President-Elect should be for the remainder of this academic year only or whether it should be for the remainder of this year and the next academic year. Bender moved that the Executive Committee recommend to the Senate that Gail Latta serve the remainder of Pat Kennedy's term and serve her term as President and that the President-Elect position be filled for the same length of terms. Ford seconded the motion. An amendment was made to separate the motion into two separate motions. Bender moved that the Executive Committee recommend to the Senate that Gail Latta complete the remainder of Pat Kennedy's term as President and serve as President for the 1999-00 term for which she was elected. Bryant seconded the motion. Motion approved. Bender moved that the position of President-Elect will serve the remainder of this academic year and the 1999-00 term as President-Elect. Bryant seconded the motion. Baum Kuska pointed out that there is a new assembly at the last meeting in April that normally elects the President-Elect and that we would not be giving them the opportunity to select the leadership. Bender withdrew the motion, Bryant withdrew the second on the motion. Bender made the motion that we have an election in March for President-Elect with the understanding that there will be another election at the end of April for the same office with the understanding that whoever is elected President-Elect will be able to run again in the April election. Motion approved, one opposed, one abstention. The Committee recommended that the Senate Rules & Bylaws committee review the procedures for filling the position of Past President for next year.

5.2 Governor Johanns Visit - Email Announcement

Item postponed.

5.3 Bylaws 4.3

Latta reported that she received email messages from SVCAA Edwards and Vice Chancellor Omtvedt indicating that discussions are still open in regards to the revision of Bylaw 4.3. She noted that in SVCAA Edwards' revision, she is concerned with the statement that the chair's decision to change a faculty member's assignment goes into effect before it can got to an appeal committee. She pointed out that it will then be the responsibility of the faculty member to make an appeal. Latta stated she is also concerned with the formulation of the committee, although she stated that she can see some value in having something more than just an elected committee of faculty. She believes that we have commitment, based on an email message from SVCAA Edwards, that he is supportive of maintaining the faculty security and that in 99% of the cases, issues regarding apportionment can be worked out mutually. Latta stated that SVCAA Edwards feels that there needs to be some mechanism in place to deal with that 1% where mutual agreement can not be reached. Bender noted that he has concerns that there is no real guidance to determine when mutual consent has broken down. He feels that there needs to be something stronger that there is an expectation that the administrator will make all reasonable efforts to achieve mutual consent and that an appeal could be based, not only on the substance of the decision, but that it can be based on the failure of the administrator to make reasonable efforts to achieve mutual consent. Humes noted that the revision does not make clear who is to make every effort to achieve mutual consent. He pointed out that we have to write language that protects us or stay with what is already in place. Bryant stated that the issue strikes at the heart of the faculty's relationship with the institution. Aguilar stated that there seems to be no sense of faculty governance and shared governance and that we are getting the crunch of the corporate model which has no appreciation for the university. Latta noted that the original revision, which has much harsher language, was proposed by Central Administration and sent to the Board of Regents in July. Bryant pointed out that there are already a number of administrative latitudes which allows administrators to change what faculty do. He noted that there is tenure, post tenure review and that administrators are able to change the terms of one's assignment quite readily and do this all of the time. Ford stated that he believes this is one of the biggest threats to faculty and asked why we would give up something that has worked well for the past 40 years on this campus with no evidence that there is any reason to make these changes. He thought that it is fairly obvious, although he could be wrong, that it is because the administration wants more latitude to structure faculty assignments rather than to solve existing problems. Latta stated that in the beginning of this negotiation process, the goal was to take language from the Faculty Handbook that would clarify the relationship between 3.4.4 in the Regents Bylaws and 4.3 but that what we are now doing is putting in something that would take care of the 1% of those situations where mutuality can not be reached. She stated that we have to decide if we are unwilling to discuss any method for resolving those situations or if we are talking about what mechanism we would be willing to put in place to resolve this issue. Scheideler stated that we need to get a motion on the floor of the Senate so that we can have full discussion on this issue. Humes asked if this is a real issue for the Regents. Baum Kuska pointed out that we need to resolve this since it has already been brought to the attention of the Regents. Latta stated that President Smith agreed in July to hold off on acting on what had been proposed to the Regents until the faculty had time to discuss this. Bender noted that the area of conflict is the appeal mechanism and when it can be implemented. Latta asked if the latest revision by the Executive Committee and ARRC should be given to the Senate? The committee agreed to give a copy of the latest revision to the Senate at the next meeting. Ford suggested that we let Chancellor Moeser and SVCAA Edwards know that we will have an open and honest discussion of this issue at the Senate. Latta noted that one of the primary differences in the versions is that in the Senate's version, changes can not be made to a faculty member's assignment before the appeals committee reviews the case while in SVCAA Edwards' version, changes can be made first and then a faculty member would have to initiate an appeal. Aguilar suggested that we not discuss the issue further with administration without the support of the Senate.

8.0 New Business

6.1 Expectations of Senators

Item postponed.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:17 PM. The next meeting will be held on February 3^rd, 201 Canfield Administration Building. Respectfully submitted, Miles Bryant, Secretary.