UNL ACADEMIC SENATE

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES

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

ABSENT: Mayo

DATE: March 24, 1999

PLACE: 201 Canfield Administration Building

______________________________________________________________________________

1.0 Call to Order

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

2.0 Announcements

2.1 IANR Vice Chancellor's Liaison Committee Letter

Latta reported that she received a letter from the IANR Vice Chancellor's Liaison Committee stating that they are in support of retaining mutual consent in Bylaw 4.3. They pointed out that elimination of mutual consent will erode faculty governance.

3.0 Chancellor Moeser

3.1 Resolution Opposing Opening of Bottle Club

Chancellor Moeser reported that they are opposing the appeal to the state liquor commission by the owner of Barry's Bar and Grill to open a bottle club. This club would be an after hours establishment that would not sell, but would allow members to store their liquor at Barry's and then consumer it between the hours of 10:00 PM and 6:00 AM. Chancellor Moeser stated that they intend to go to the city commission to request an ordinance to prohibit such an establishment. Vice Chancellor Griesen, Student Affairs, distributed a resolution opposing the establishment of this club. Latta asked where the Mayor stands on this issue. Griesen reported that he is adamantly opposed to it. Chancellor Moeser stated that he hopes that the mayoral candidates will also oppose the issue. Griesen reported that many of the student organizations have had a close vote on the opposition of the bottle club. Bryant stated that he supports the opposition to the bottle club but does not think it is necessary to have the other items in the resolution. Griesen pointed out that the resolution encourages the State Liquor Control Commissioners to require state issued liquor licenses of all businesses allowing the consumption of alcohol on their premise. He noted that Cindy Johnson will be introducing a resolution to the city council on a city ordinance to restrict the allowance of private bottle clubs. Latta noted that the resolution implies that it refers to the city campus. She asked if it should refer to both city and east campus. Chancellor Moeser pointed out that we are considered one campus. Griesen noted that the statistics apply to both campuses. Bryant suggested that the resolution should just address the bottle issue. Bender moved and Prochaska Cue seconded that the Academic Senate Executive Committee endorses the resolution to oppose the establishment of bottle clubs. Motion approved, 6 in favor, 2 against.

3.2 Revised Bylaws 4.3

Latta presented the latest draft of the revised Bylaw 4.3 written by herself and Sally Wise, which she had sent to General counsel Richard Wood for comment. Chancellor Moeser indicated that Wood had discussed that draft with him yesterday and sent him an amended version just prior to the meeting. He noted that the only significant differences in Wood's revision to the Senate's revision is the level of the review committee. Chancellor Moeser noted that the reason for having the appeal committee at the college level is to prevent any difficulties for small departments. He pointed out that a college level committee would put the appeal in a more objective environment. Latta noted that Wise had concerns that in very large colleges, departments may be at a disadvantage in terms of there not being any representation of their department in a given year on a college-wide committee. Scheideler suggested that they not close the door on a department committee and recommended that the language read "the tenure college level committee with representation from that department". She noted that it is important that either committee have the background information to the case in order to make a decision. Chancellor Moeser agreed that this would allow for a fairer hearing. Humes stated that he would rather see it housed at the college level with a department representative but that the department representative be recused from the final vote to avoid any possible conflict of interest. Ford stated that the appeals committee should be as close as possible to the department. He noted that the faculty members' assignments are made within the context of the department mission. He pointed out that it is that faculty member's colleagues that know the most about the relationship between a particular assignment and the mission of the department. He noted that it is these colleagues who can best determine what is best and good for the department. Humes pointed out that this is the only judgement that is being made and he wondered whether the level of appeal should be held in the department where matters unconnected to the needs of the department might be an obstacle. Ford stated that there is a basis for an another appeal by one of the Bylaws committee. Chancellor Moeser stated that this process would not be an expeditious matter that could be handled before implementation of the decision. He noted that the decision would be allowed to go forward if an expeditious review is not conducted. He pointed out that the way it has been written in either draft, is to make the appeal process expeditious. Ford asked if the decision could go forward while it is being appealed to whatever committee? Chancellor Moeser pointed out that grievance procedures can take years. Latta noted that no changes can be made prior to the initial appeal. Zorn noted that the first appeal would be expeditiously but that a second appeal to a higher level of committee could be made. Aguilar pointed out that the Senate draft states that the appeal committee could either be at the department or college level while Wood's version stated that it would be at the college level. She felt that a department representative is needed to clarify issues. She noted that there needs to be a sense of trust and faith in the committee. She asked if it is going to be a fixed committee? Chancellor Moeser asked in the Senate draft who decides which level of committee is used? Latta stated that this is one of the things ARRC has been discussing with her. She pointed out that the Senate version includes language that makes clear what the goal of the committee is so that a faculty member would not be arbitrarily assigned to some function that the department needed or that he/she is not trained or prepared to do. She pointed out that this language has been removed from Wood's version. Chancellor Moeser stated that there is no problem in keeping that language in the document. Scheideler moved that the language "tenure home college" be amended to add "with representation from the department". Bender seconded the motion. Zorn stated that he wanted to circulate the document first before voting on any versions. Latta asked for clarification on the phrase. She asked whether it would mean that one member of the committee be a representative and how the person would be assigned to the committee? Scheideler stated that there would be one elected member from the department. Aguilar pointed out that this would assure at least one member of the committee representing the department. Bryant stated that there needs to be more specification on how the committee is constituted. Bender noted that the committee is elected but it is up to the college to decide how they handle the committee. Zorn reiterated that he wants to get feedback from his constituents before voting on the document. Latta pointed out that if language specifying the committee's responsibilities were reinserted, it might address the concern over departmental representation, since it would ensure the departmental mission and needs would be heard and considered before a ruling was reached. Scheideler withdrew her motion. Bender withdrew his second. Williams asked if this applies to extension personnel. Prochaska Cue pointed out that it only applies to tenure track faculty. Latta asked if Wood merely wanted to remove the ambiguity of allowing the committee to be formed at either the department or college level? Chancellor Moeser stated that it was only to avoid any conflict of interests from the review process. Latta stated that the drafts will be discussed further at next week's meeting. She noted that they hope to present to the Senate at the April 6^th meeting a final draft which would be voted upon at the April 27^th meeting. Ford pointed out that there could be opposition from the Senate to accept anything that does not grant the absolute right of mutual consent. Aguilar asked what happens in the case when mutual agreement is not reached. Ford stated that a faculty member can not be forced to change his/her apportionment. Latta pointed out that this does not always happen. Zorn noted that administration has degrees of suasion that can be used in these cases. Ford pointed out that a faculty member who is intimidated now for appealing to a Bylaw committee may still be too intimidated to appeal to a college committee. Humes asked what is the reversion level? Can the Regents go ahead and do what they want to do? Zorn pointed out that as a principle he believes that the Regents would be reluctant to change anything unilaterally that could be viewed in the courts as defining a contract. Latta stated that it is in our best interest to resolve cases where mutual agreement can not be reached and it would be helpful to have a mechanism in place to accomplish this. She pointed out that currently faculty have to resort to an external review of procedures which many faculty do not even know exists. Scheideler noted that there is still a lot of confusion about apportionment and assignment, specifically apportionment. She suggested that it should be clarified. Latta asked if the definitions previously drafted by the Executive/ARRC subcommittee should be reinserted into the Bylaws? Scheideler stated that this was not necessary but that they need to be available, either in the faculty handbook or on the web, for clarification. Latta stated that she would summarize the questions raised in this discussion and seek clarification from Dick Wood before next week's meeting. The committee agreed to review the policy and discuss it further at next week's meeting.

3.2 Issues on the Horizon

3.2.1 Budget

Chancellor Moeser reported that he is in the process of preparing a communication to all faculty and staff with information on the budgetary situation in regards to the next biennium based on what they think the legislature is doing. He stated that he will discuss this further next week.

4.0 Vice Chancellor Omtvedt

4.1 Post Tenure Review Policy and 4.2 Implementing Post Tenure Review (Timing)

Vice Chancellor Omtvedt reported that IANR is making good headway on the Post Tenure Review policy. He reported that the Committee on Policy, Appointments and Promotion evaluated the proposed policy. He noted that there was a general consensus to continue use of the IANR annual evaluation form. VC Omtvedt pointed out that they want to be sure that they are on the same timetable as the rest of the university. He stated that he and Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards met to discuss the timing of the implementation of the PTR. He noted that it was their understanding that the policy was going to be applied at the time of approval by the Board of Regents in February 1998. The committee defined substantive and chronic deficiencies as a U which means unsatisfactory performance. VC Omtvedt pointed out that IANR evaluates on the calendar year which means that according to the time line, 1998 would be the first year to consider in the PTR process. He stated that if a faculty member was told in their annual evaluation meeting that their performance was not greatly improved by the next year, then the post tenure review committee would be formed and implemented. He noted that in some units discussions have not taken place to establish the statements that define what chronic and deficient mean. VC Omtvedt stated that the goal is to provide guidelines so that a faculty member can improve their performance. He pointed out that faculty members learn of what their evaluation is in December. Scheideler stated that the form is fine but that it is important for the departments to determine their criteria. Humes stated that he is concerned with the ex post facto nature of what is being stated. He noted that the department post tenure review guidelines were not officially in place until last month but that faculty are being evaluated using those guidelines for the purpose of post tenure review on what was done earlier. He pointed out that the process should wait a full year and then go into place so that all faculty know what the guidelines are, what exactly is expected, and then they can behave accordingly. VC Omtvedt stated that he and SVCAA Edwards have been working on determining whether the annual performance review conducted during the 1998-99 academic year to evaluate performance on the previous year will come as the first mandated annual notice under this policy. However, he stated that they would consider favorably a faculty member's request for a one year extension of the implementation date if the department implemented performance expectations late or if the faculty member received an evaluation that changed greatly from the previous year's evaluation. Humes stated that the ex post facto rule is disturbing because, in a sense, it makes something a crime after the fact. He suggested that rather than making an extension based on a case by case basis, it would be better to wait for the full implementation of the policy. Scheideler pointed out that it gives the impression that administration is waiting at the gate to enforce this policy. VC Omtvedt stated that if the 1998 evaluation is used as the first performance, it will still be five years before an individual could be removed from the University. Humes noted that if we start implementing the policy with the 1999 evaluations when the guidelines are in place, it will only be an additional year. He pointed out that doing this would go a long way in assuring faculty that there really is good will here on the intent of post tenure review. VC Omtvedt noted that not all units are based on a calendar year basis. He stated that he is willing to discuss the issue of the implementation of the policy with SVCAA Edwards. He pointed out that there is concern that the Board of Regents will be looking for a report on the 1998 performance. Aguilar asked if IANR would implement PTR sooner than city campus? VC Omtvedt stated that this is not the intent. Latta pointed out that we were notified on March 31, 1998 that the policy would be in effect. She noted that for those faculty evaluated in October of 1998, that evaluation went back to October of 1997, preceding the effective date of the policy. She stated that there are still some faculty who are being evaluated in 1998-99 for performance that preceded the first notice of when the policy was in effect. Latta noted that it would be a good idea if we were able to indicate that the performance in 1998-99 would be the first year of performance that would be evaluated under the policy and the standards that were implemented this year. She stated that there should be some mechanism for people who were given an unsatisfactory performance to resolve their deficiencies before the first year of the implementation of PTR. VC Omtvedt asked if chairs/head of units should layout what faculty need to do to improve their performance when they meet with the individual faculty member? Latta stated that it would give them a clear indication of what is needed. Aguilar stated that it should be the 1999-2000 year that is first evaluated since department guidelines were just put in place this spring of 1999. Prochaska Cue asked if it is determined by when the department had its statements in and approved, irrespective of what the entire university is doing. VC Omtvedt stated that the annual performance reviews conducted during 1999-2000 academic year will be used to judge the previous year. For those on a calendar year it would start in January. Prochaska Cue asked if the people who are under Academic Affairs are being evaluated on the work they did from August 1997 through June of 1998? VC Omtvedt thought that they are done on spring, summer and fall semester. Prochaska Cue pointed out that its not based on a true academic year. Latta stated that if the letter which the Vice Chancellors are planning to send out r explaining the procedures that must be followed to implement the peer review is to embody the principles endorsed in this discussion, than the performance review conducted during the 1999-2000 academic year for the preceding year which satisfies these requirements should count as the first mandated annual notice under this policy. Latta stated that the primary thrust of the letter should be declaring the date of implementation rather than reviewing the initial assumptions that were never confirmed. VC Omtvedt agreed with the changes but he pointed out that it was the expectation of the Board of Regents that the policy would go into effect immediately. Latta pointed out that we need to emphasize the progress that has been made this year in writing performance standards and strengthening the rigor of the annual review process, in preparation for the implementation of PTR, and we also need to present a justification for the principle that the faculty should not be evaluated under PTR for performance that preceded the implementation of the policy. VC Omtvedt stated that it is critical to get communication to everyone of what is the implementation date. Humes stated that some departments believe that the implementation is already in effect. VC Omtvedt stated that they were working under the assumption that it was in effect but after seeing the status of some of the departments, they thought that some flexibility should be allowed. Bryant encouraged that they use very direct language in their communications and definitions. Latta asked what the status is of the other campuses? VC Omtvedt stated that UNK is basing their implementation on the 1998-99 academic year. Latta stated that she will summarize this discussion and the view of the Executive Committee on these issues for the Vice Chancellors.

4.3 Issues on the Horizon

4.3.1 Extended Education

VC Omtvedt announced that there will be a conference recognizing extended education on May 11^th. He distributed a newsletter which describes what master's degrees are available through extended education. He reported that they have received a one time allocation for faculty development opportunities for people looking to put courses on extended education. He noted that support is needed in terms of staff for developing courses for the web and satellite courses.

5.0 Approval of 3/3/99 Minutes (Bryant)

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

6.0 Unfinished Business

6.1 Faculty Resource Index

Postponed.

7.0 New Business

7.1 Parking

Latta reported that she met with Keith Zaborowski, Chair of the Parking Advisory Committee, to discuss the parking master plan. She reported that it does not appear that the Parking Advisory Committee was consulted on the plan, although the charge of the committee clearly states that they are to be involved in matters regarding parking. She noted that issues that should have been considered in developing the plan were not and that no plans were proposed to the Parking Advisory Committee, nor were they asked for input with regards to the characteristics that would be part of this plan. For instance, did we want a high tech tracking system for the shuttle, did we want a five minute busing service, whether business space should be available in the parking garage at 17^th & R, or was a sliding fee scale considered. Scheideler stated that faculty in her department are very concerned and she stated that it is very important that the Senate discuss this issue. Latta pointed out that she has asked Chancellor Moeser on several occasions whether the parking fee increases were going to be greater than the salary increases. Humes pointed out that if we are to pay the same as the median of our peers for parking than we should at least be at the median of our peers in other things such as salaries and benefits. He also stated that the university should work with the city in creating a stronger public transportation system in order to alleviate some of the need for parking. The committee agreed that this will be on the agenda for further discussion with Chancellor Moeser.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:21 PM. The next meeting will be held on March 31st, 201 Canfield Administration Building. Respectfully submitted, Miles Bryant, Secretary.