UNL ACADEMIC SENATE

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES

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

ABSENT: Aguilar, Mayo, Scheideler, Zorn

DATE: March 31, 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 Satellite Communication Symposium

Latta announced that Provost Shulenburger from the University of Kansas will be here on Friday, April 2^nd to discuss the National Electronic Repository. She stated that another presentation will be held in the afternoon on the economic impact of rising prices of satellite communication and strategies that faculties at various universities are being encouraged to take. Latta reported that the Executive Committee is invited to attend the afternoon session as well as the morning session.

2.2 NN21 Report on Nebraskan's Educational Needs, Access to Technology and the Perceptions of the University of Nebraska

Latta reported that Kay Rockwell, the principal investigator for this report, will be giving a presentation on the findings on Tuesday, April 6^th at 8:00 AM in Burnett Hall. Latta noted that the Executive Committee may meet with the investigators in May.

2.3 Strategies with Legislature

Latta announced that Professor Jim Lewis, Mathematics & Statistics, will be meeting with the Executive Committee on April 7 to talk about strategies that have been used in the past in working with the State Legislature. She reported that she is working with Michelle Waite, on possibly setting up a forum in early April for the Senators on strategies to educate legislators about faculty/salary issues and the University.

3.0 Chancellor Moeser

3.1 Revised Bylaw

Latta stated that she received word that Dick Wood has agreed on retaining the language of the latest draft of the Bylaw but she noted that she has not received a copy of it yet. She pointed out that Wood's version omitted some things. Latta stated that the committee felt that the language should also include the definitions of apportionment and assignment. She reported that the substantive issue between the Senate's version and Wood's version is the designation of the appeals committee. Latta noted that the Senate version calls for the appeal to be held at either the college or department level while Wood's version calls for it at the college level. Chancellor Moeser stated that he believes a college level committee would allow for a more objective decision. He noted that it was suggested at the last meeting that a member of the committee should be a department representative and that this individual recuse themselves from the vote. Latta stated that she was informed by a faculty member that his department has a committee in place that will strive to work towards a mutual agreement, hopefully avoiding the need to go to an appeals process. Chancellor Moeser responded that this would be a wonderful way for a department to solve its own problems. Latta reported that the Academic Rights and Responsibilities Committee raised the issue that departments may have difficulty getting representation on an elected committee in large colleges where there are many departments. She pointed out that these elected committees in the large colleges may be so far removed from the culture of the departments that it would be difficult for them to understand the mission and issues that were involved. SVCAA Edwards stated that he hopes there is flexibility in how this process is applied. He pointed out that there are a number of small departments where it would be difficult to have an appeals committee. He noted that the policy has to allow us to figure what is the goal that is trying to be achieved and the way in which the goal can be achieved given a particular set of circumstances. Gail pointed out that the Senate's version tries to accomplish this flexibility with the language used. Ford asked if there are any parallel situations where a committee needs to be formed? Bryant asked if the ARRC thought about the election process for this committee? Latta stated that the ARRC was thinking that a standing committee may be able to assume the responsibility of the appeal process. Bender asked if this needs to be decided at this level and suggested that language be incorporated that would allow the colleges to determine how the committee would be formed. Latta pointed out that it is critical for faculty to know that these issues have been resolved before they will accept the change in the Bylaw. Williams asked what the time line is for getting this accomplished? Latta stated that if it was clear that there is a preference that we could agree upon regarding the collegiate level committee, it could be passed quickly. However, Latta noted that the level of the committee may be a point of contention for faculty which would require that we move much slower. Chancellor Moeser pointed out that the intentional ambiguous language may be the best approach as it will allow more latitude. Humes stated that something needs to be set in advance to avoid anyone shopping around for venues. Ford suggested that the same procedures used in creating a post tenure review committee could be applied to this situation as well. Chancellor Moeser asked who empanels that committee? Latta noted that the language of the PTR document refers to the unit. Williams pointed out that the department head should not be able to empanel the committee. Humes noted that this is an advantage to having the committee at the college level. SVCAA Edwards pointed out that a departmental committee may put colleagues in an awkward position. He suggested that if the committee needs to know the culture of the department that someone be brought in from the department to discuss it. Latta stated that some concerns of having the committee at the college level need to be addressed by reinserting the language that says this committee shall be responsible for considering the positions of each party in relation to the departmental and college mission, as well as the faculty member's overall record of contributions and particular expertise. She pointed out that this needs to be the context in which the decision should be made, regardless of what level of committee is used and that this supports the idea of having a representative from the department on that committee. Latta noted that the post tenure review document will be examined to see if the language establishing a committee could be transferred. Latta stated that the ARRC will need to write its opinion of the policy before it can be presented to the Senate for a vote. Chancellor Moeser stated that there is no overriding time pressure to get this resolved this semester.

3.2 Parking

Latta stated that there are a number of reasons why faculty have asked the Senate to look at the parking plan. She reported that she visited with Keith Zaborowski, Chair of the Parking Advisory Committee, to learn about their history in their involvement in the plan. She stated that she was concerned that they did not appear to have been consulted with in regards to some alternative plans or the characteristics that might be desirable in these parking units. In particular, there was no discussion on whether there should be a high tech tracking system and whether there is a cost/benefit to having that system versus the sizable increase that it would take to fund that system. Chancellor Moeser stated that the high tech tracking system is a fairly recent idea and that it has not been figured into the cost of the garages. He stated that they do know that it will cost approximately $12,000 per parking stall to construct vertical parking units. He noted that the cost on an improved shuttle system is factored in. Latta pointed out that faculty did not have any input into this. She asked how we even know that the shuttle system will be used very much? SVCAA Edwards stated that he thought there has been a fair amount of consultation with the Parking Advisory Committee. Chancellor Moeser stated that the whole parking project is a subcomponent of the master plan which was fully opened to discussion campus wide. He noted that the general thrust of the master plan was to put parking on the periphery of the campus. He pointed out that it was during the discussion of the master plan that students, staff and faculty stated that a shuttle system will be needed if parking is on the periphery of campus. SVCAA Edwards stated that the master plan was also discussed in the Academic Planning Committee where faculty have input. Bryant noted that the report to the Academic Senate from the Parking Advisory Committee did not have any discussion on the parking plan. Latta stated that some issues the Parking Advisory Committee would like to discuss are why reserved parking is not being eliminated to reduce the number of unused parking lots in the center of campus, with the exception of handicap and medical need spaces? Why will faculty, staff, and students be vying for the same parking spaces in the garages? Chancellor Moeser suggested that Keith Zaborowski engage Tad McDowell, Director of Parking Services, and James Main, Assistant Vice Chancellor for Business & Finance, in discussion on these questions. He pointed out that there is still time and room for fine tuning of the parking plan. He noted that the students were a force in adjusting the order of where parking garages are being built first. He stated that the students felt that a garage at 17^th & R would be better and could accommodate the students in the residence halls on 17^th street. Latta pointed out that Parking Services continues to insist that the 17^th street garage will be used primarily by faculty and staff but it's the students who wanted it built so that they could park there. Chancellor Moeser stated that we may need to make a distinction between faculty/staff and student parking in the garages. Ford stated that one of the things that is needed at this university is for the faculty to have the perception that the administration is interested in nurturing the faculty in all aspects of the university. When the decision is made from top down that distinctions will not be made between students and faculty parking, that is a signal that we are not interested in nurturing the faculty. Chancellor Moeser pointed out that he did not say that. Ford suggested that when these kinds of decisions are made that this be the kind of question that is asked. Chancellor Moeser stated that he will pass the word to Vice Chancellor Jones that we need to make sure that those consultations continue to take place with the Parking Advisory Committee but the committee should take concerns directly to the people who are charged with establishing the outlines of the policy. Latta stated she will share with the committee the Chancellor's perception that these are still items that can be discussed. Bryant pointed out that this was not the way the plan was presented. Chancellor Moeser stated that what is not negotiable is the financial plan for building the garages because that has been established by bond council. Latta asked why parking garages are not eligible for consideration as a capital request? Chancellor Moeser stated that he thinks it is a legislative prohibition. Latta asked if we know that? Chancellor Moeser responded that even if it is not prohibited, the chances of getting capital construction money for a parking structure is not feasible. Latta noted that the Chancellor must be aware of the ill will that has been created by building on existing parking lots. Chancellor Moeser responded that these are academic buildings and that we are a land locked urban campus with limited room on which to build. Latta noted that a new baseball diamond is being proposed and asked if that space has been considered for parking. She pointed out that it is much more cost efficient to bus people to a location at one time than it is to set up a transportation system to bus people throughout the day. Chancellor Moeser stated those questions have been asked and many people participated in the discussions. Latta noted that the issue of security was raised at one of the master plan meetings and that this has not been addressed. Chancellor Moeser stated that this is why a shuttle system is needed and he pointed out that garages are considered safer because of their monitoring systems. Bryant stated that he went to one of the master plan meetings and he pointed out that parking was not made very clear and it did not tell him that he should hope that his raise will keep pace with the parking increase. Humes stated that from a faculty point of view two things hit him: the increase and the justification for the increase was that we are lagging behind our peer institutions in parking. He noted that he wouldn't mind paying what our peers pay if we weren't lagging behind in so many other areas. Chancellor Moeser stated that this is not the justification for the increase. Ford asked how many of the peer institutions ban parking for freshmen? Chancellor Moeser responded that very few banned parking and that they have to take into consideration that nearly 40% of the students on campus have outside jobs. Latta stated that there is great concern from east campus that they are being forced to pay for improvements on city campus. Bryant pointed out that the problem is more elaborate and that it may begin to impede faculty from doing their jobs. He noted that lower paid faculty and staff will not be able to afford the fees. Chancellor Moeser pointed out that they are maintaining a low cost option. Griffin stated that faculty members are stating that they will discontinue doing service work and committee work if it requires them to leave campus because it will be too difficult for them to find parking when they return. Prochaska Cue encouraged them to maintain separate parking lots for faculty/staff and students. She noted that students will often drive between east and city campus and want parking available at both locations. Chancellor Moeser suggested that the committee meet with Tad McDowell and James Main to discuss the issue further.

3.3 Budget Update

Chancellor Moeser read his letter to the faculty and staff that will be in the April 1^st edition of the Scarlet. He noted that there are some serious budgetary issues that we need to address in the next biennium. He pointed out that faculty and staff salaries are the number one priority for improvement. However, he stated that the budget that may come out of the legislature falls far short of the Regents' total request. He stated that there may be a $4.7 million funding gap for the University system plus a $2.6 million tuition revenue shortfall. The net result will be in an adjustment in the university system budget for each of the coming biennium. The adjustment to UNL will be approximately $2.7 million per year. He noted that unfunded mandates that need to be covered are funding for information technology, additional support for engineering faculty in Omaha, graduate student assistant medical benefits, a deficit in the scholarship fund, and support for diversity. He reported that he has asked Deans and Vice Chancellors to prepare budgets with reductions at two levels: 2.6 and 3.2 percent. Chancellor Moeser believes that programmatic and institutional priorities will, to the greatest extent possible, drive budget decisions. He pointed out that improvements can be made by increased enrollments, creating efficiencies to save money, and strong private support from alumni and friends of the university. Bryant asked if the reduction figures will apply to all units? Chancellor Moeser stated that they would. He noted some of the reallocated $2.7 million will come back to us in the form of a 2% increase in operating funds, a 5% increase for acquisitions of the libraries, funding for some of the faculty lines for the engineering program up at UNO, and $700,000 for information technology. Latta noted that it is a reallocation. Humes asked what the average merit base increase will be? Chancellor Moeser stated that it is currently being discussed. He noted that the landscape around the campus on salaries varies greatly. He stated that one college is equivalent to its peers while another college is 14% below. He stated that he believes that salary increases should be given on award and merit but he noted that there are glaring market problems in some areas. Chancellor Moeser pointed out that equity issues also need to be addressed. He stated that some pools of increase will be retained at the college and administrative level to take care of exceptional situations. He pointed out that when he speaks off campus he always makes it a point to praise the faculty and the work that they do. He stated that he speaks of the research work that is being done and he noted that it is important for people to know that the research conducted by the faculty is important to the people of the state. Latta thanked the Chancellor for his support but noted that many people believe that faculty are overpaid and that they do not work up to par. Chancellor Moeser stated that the public does not understand why we need more funding when our enrollments are down. He noted that many people do not understand that we do a great deal more than teach.

4.0 Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards

4.1 Post Tenure Review Timing

Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards reported that he has been working with Vice Chancellor Omtvedt and President Latta to determine whether 1998 will be counted as the first year under the post tenure review policy. He pointed out that he has learned that there is great diversity amongst the colleges on when evaluations are conducted. SVCAA Edwards noted that since the post tenure review policy was not approved until February 28, 1998 and that the departmental statements were not completed until this month, it would be problematical to include the 1998 evaluations under the post tenure review policy. He stated that he would like to see part of the 1998 evaluation included in the process because one of the aspects of post tenure review is to identify sub-performance by faculty so that the chair and college can assist the faculty member in improving his/her performance. Latta asked if the Board of Regents are expecting a report on the 1998 evaluations? SVCAA Edwards stated that no definite date or instructions were given. He noted that it is well known that annual evaluations are conducted.

5.0 Vice Chancellor Omtvedt

5.1 Post Tenure Review Timing

Vice Chancellor Omtvedt reported that the 1998 evaluations will probably not be included in the timing of the post tenure review policy.

5.2 Update on Deans Searches

VC Omtvedt reported that the search for the Dean of the College of Human Resources and Family Sciences is moving forward. Associate Vice Chancellor Brinkerhoff stated that the search committee has recommended four candidates and that they will be brought in during the next three weeks for interviews. VC Omtvedt stated that the search committee for the Dean of Cooperative Extension has met once and that they hope to screen applications in May. He noted that there is an emphasis on reducing administrative overhead costs at IANR. He stated that the Dean for IANR International Programs will be made into a director and that an internal search will be conducted for this position. He noted that the same thing is happening for the Director for the Water Center for Environmental Programs. He pointed out that it will be a half time position that will be filled internally. VC Omtvedt stated that the Search for the Director of the School of Natural Resource Sciences is moving along. He stated that a national search will be conducted for this position.

6.0 Associate Vice Chancellor Brinkerhoff

6.1 Update on Leadership Initiative

Associate Vice Chancellor Brinkerhoff reported that there are several events coming up that he would like to get the Executive Committee involved with. He noted that the meeting on Effective Listening Training that was held with Paul Axtell was very good and engaging with different insights presented. He noted that Paul will be in Kearney in June for two days and encouraged people to attend the meeting. Latta pointed out that she wanted the Executive Committee to have input into the initiative and that it will dovetail with the philosophy of shared governance.

7.0 Approval of 3/24/99 Minutes (Bryant)

Postponed due to the lack of a quorum.

8.0 Unfinished Business

8.1 Faculty Resource Index

Postponed.

9.0 New Business

No new business was discussed.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:05 PM. The next meeting will be held on April 7th, 1227 R Street, Academic Senate Office. Respectfully submitted, Miles Bryant, Secretary.