UNL ACADEMIC SENATE

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES

DATE: Wednesday, May 19, 1999

PRESENT: Aguilar, Bender, Bryant, Humes, Latta, Mayo, Miller, Prochaska-Cue, Siekman, Whitt

ABSENT: Ford, Scheideler, Zorn

______________________________________________________________________________

1.0 Call to OrderLatta called the meeting to order at 3:17.

2.0 Announcements

No announcements.

3.0 Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards

3.1 Recommendations of the Task Force on Temporary Faculty

Latta reported that SVCAA Edwards requested feedback on the recommendations on temporary faculty. The five recommendations relate to: 1) providing temporary faculty (TF) with a contract/letter of offer, 2) notifying TF of appointment or reappointment at least two months before the beginning of the semester, 3) performing rigorous annual reviews of all TF, 4) providing enhanced professional development support to TF in the form of travel funds, departmental and team awards, eligibility for research council, teaching council and Teaching/Learning/Technology Roundtable grants, and inclusion as co-principle investigators on grant proposals. SVCAA Edwards stated that some of the recommendations will become policy. Mayo asked if they can be the lead investigator if they are eligible for grants? SVCAA Edwards stated that this has not been resolved and that it needs to be addressed by the Research Council. Bryant noted that there appears to be a trend across the country to hire non-tenure track faculty. Latta noted that when a new tenure track faculty member is hired there is an enculturation process whereby there is a shared understanding of the goals, values, and mission of the department. She stated that this may not always take place to the same extent with TF, since they are often hired to perform a specific task, rather than become full departmental members. She questioned whether without this orientation how the university could ensure that its resources were being used to support the university's missions. SVCAA provided data showing that the total number of tenured/tenure-track faculty at UNL has remained fairly constant for the past 10 years, although there have been shifts in number between departments and colleges. Latta asked how the data were compiled, noting discrepancies in the data for her college that raises questions about the accuracy of the data. SVCAA Edwards stated that it was a head count on the census date annually, not an indication of the total number of faculty lines in a department, and that further clarification would need to come from the Office of Institutional Research and Planning. Prochaska-Cue pointed out that there appears to be a gender discrepancy in that 50% of the non tenure track faculty are women while only 23% of tenured faculty are women. SVCAA Edwards noted that the diversity plan wants to increase the number of women in tenure track positions. He stated that there may be a need to examine whether there is discrimination in the hiring procedure for tenure and tenure track positions although there are currently processes in place to try to avoid this. He pointed out that many people in the non tenure track lines have chosen this as their career path. Humes stated that he agreed with many of the recommendations but he asked if we shouldn't be using the resources on people who are competitive in the market for tenure track positions rather than using these funds on non tenure track people. Whitt pointed out that many of these people are highly qualified but for various reasons, such as spousal employment, may be unable to apply for tenure track positions. Miller pointed out that more female graduate students are enrolled and therefore the numbers available for employment are higher and this may account for a large portion of these positions being filled by women. Latta stated that she is concerned with the additional expectations that tenured faculty would be mentors to non-tenure track faculty. She asked if we are putting all of this energy into creating another group of faculty rather than integrating them into the department and whether we are putting higher expectations on these people without appropriate compensation. SVCAA Edwards responded that the task force felt these people are often left without many connections to the departments in which they are employed. He noted that the chairs should help to integrate these people but this is not to try to shift the burden of the responsibility to other faculty. He stated that there is no intent to create higher expectations for these people. Aguilar pointed out that it is important to consider the length of contract with these people and that we need to acknowledge the different categories within this group of faculty, which includes both long term employees and one-time hires. Latta stated that she has concerns about a general set of policies for such a diverse group of faculty. SVCAA Edwards stated that the recommendations are permissive to cover the diversity of the group. Latta pointed out that there may need to be more specific policies appropriate for the various classifications of these positions. Miller stated that we need to hire long term people that contribute to the department rather than to hire people to take care of present problems. He stated that a clear letter of offer which describes the job responsibilities is needed but he asked how thorough an evaluation should be done on these people. He pointed out that they are asking a lot of work for the chair that may not be rewarding to the University. SVCAA Edwards stated that the language needs to be redrafted to reflect points raised by the executive committee and that he will work on this.

3.2 Impact of Budget Cuts on Faculty Workload

Latta asked whether there has been any discussion with the Deans in regards to the impacts of the budget cuts, specifically what work will not be able to be conducted, whether classes or programs will be cut, whether enrollment of graduate students will be curtailed, and the impacts this will have on quality of instruction, student-faculty ratio, and research programs. SVCAA Edwards stated that these discussions have not occurred yet. VC Omtvedt stated that they are beginning to have these discussions in IANR. Latta pointed out that there could be an effect on the apportionment of faculty time and asked whether this will be discussed at the department level? SVCAA Edwards stated that he did not believe this will occur, but if it does, it will go to the unit level for discussion. Bryant stated that some faculty have indicated to him that budget cuts will not allow them to conduct research. Mayo pointed out that there is a discrepancy with what is occurring on campus with the budget cuts and the information that the public is receiving that the university is moving ahead. He noted that it is creating animosity with the faculty and misinforming the public. Reallocating funds from good programs to other programs does not make us a better university. It may help to keep or improve quality of some programs, but with respect to efforts to maintain our status as a major comprehensive university, in total we are a lesser university because of the cuts. VC Omtvedt stated that we can not go through the reductions and still continue doing the work that has been done. He pointed out that we need to determine the quality areas and that there needs to be more focus. Latta stated that it is misleading to give the public information that the reallocation is being done for the improvement of academic programs when in fact we are cutting academic programs to provide funding for many non-academic budget items. She pointed out that funding is not going towards the academic programs.

3.3 Chairs' Workshop, May 11

SVCAA Edwards stated that the two main topics at the Chairs' workshop were the multiple missions of the university and how we can increase revenues. He noted that in comparisons with other universities, we are lagging in obtaining revenue from resources other than from the state. Latta asked if the new revenues that are raised will be going back to Central Administration and whether faculty will have any input into how these revenues will be used? SVCAA Edwards stated that half of the undergraduate tuition and all of graduate tuition will be coming back to the campus. Miller asked if there is any credible evidence between the loss of the number of students and the higher admission standards? SVCAA Edwards noted that there is some evidence but that overall enrollment in all student categories is down. Miller asked how we compare to our neighboring universities? SVCAA Edwards stated that most are down in graduate enrollments but that they have had modest gains in undergraduate enrollment.

4.0 Vice Chancellor Omtvedt

4.1 Impact of Tuition Changes for Distance Education Courses

Item postponed.

4.2 South East Lifelong Learning Center Coordinator Position

Item postponed.

4.3 Issues on the Horizon

Item postponed.

5.0 Chancellor Moeser

5.1 Academic Planning Committee, May 12

Chancellor Moeser stated that he has asked the Academic Planning Committee to look at the possibility of programmatic cuts and eliminations in the second year of the biennium. He noted that he is asking them to do this as an alternative to across the board cuts. Latta asked what will be the review process? Chancellor Moeser responded that they will adhere to the existing procedures that have been established. He stated that he would need to have the APC's recommendations by the Spring of 2000 in order for the cuts to be made by July 1, 2000. Mayo pointed out that this is difficult to accomplish and that vertical cuts need to be made over a long period of time. He stated that cutting programs too quickly will raise opposition both within and outside of the university. Chancellor Moeser stated that we need to sharpen our focus and that each college will need to look at their areas of strength. Latta stated that she is concerned with the time line in that it does not give enough time for review. Mayo pointed out that he knows of few programs that are not important and that it is essential that we protect the existing programs that are left. Latta pointed out that the process is important and that identifying the principles upon which programs will be assessed needs to be established. Miller agreed and noted that if these principles are not established it can become a political power struggle and that the stronger programs will be the ones which will survive. Bryant stated that we may be losing students because of how we are currently conducting business and suggested that the administrative work should be reviewed. Chancellor Moeser stated that there are obligations to tenured faculty and students in programs which will have to be kept. Latta stated that the Executive Committee would like to work with APC on this issue.

5.2 Budget

Chancellor Moeser stated that he is committed to supporting faculty salary increases to close the salary gap with our peer institutions. He stated that we have to dedicate ourselves to improving the situation for faculty and that we need to start now to accomplish this. He pointed out that he does not want to make any further budget cuts in the next biennium. He noted that we need to start lobbying our own Regents and the legislature now for the next biennium. Chancellor Moeser pointed out that this has been the strongest level of support from the legislature that we have seen for years. Bryant stated that the committee applauds and appreciates the work done to secure the recently approved budget. The committee discussed Central Administration's list of items to be funded, noting examples of the kind of decisions that are being supported by the reallocation, on which faculty have had not input. Miller noted that there are a number of items in the budget that are not program enhancements. Chancellor Moeser pointed out that if we had more indirect costs obtained from research grants that this would act as a cushion for many of these expenses. He stated that we need to be more aggressive in obtaining large external grants.

6.0 Approval of 5/5/99 Minutes

Item postponed.

7.0 Unfinished Business

No unfinished business was discussed.

8.0 New Business

No new business was discussed.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:45 PM. The next meeting of the Executive Committee will be held on Wednesday, May 26^th at 3:00 pm, 1227 R Street. Respectfully submitted, Miles Bryant, Secretary.