EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES

Present: Bender, Bryant, Latta, Mayo, Miller, Prochaska Cue, Siekman

Absent: Aguilar, Humes, Scheideler, Whitt, Zorn

Date: Wednesday, September 22, 1999

Location: 420 University Terrace, Ste. 203, Academic Senate Office

______________________________________________________________________________

1.0 Call to Order (Latta)

Latta called the meeting to order at 3:14 PM.

2.0 Announcements

2.1 Intercollegiate Athletics, Ethics and Corruption Conference

Latta reported that she has been invited to the Intercollegiate Athletics, Ethics and Corruption Conference. She stated that the chair of the Intercollegiate Athletic Committee suggested that Professor Rob Benford, Sociology, might be an appropriate person to attend this conference. She noted that another invitation was sent to Professor Jo Potuto, NCAA Representative, Law, however, she is not able to attend the conference and has recommended that Professor Steve Willborn, Law, go in her place.

2.2 Research Council Report

Latta reported that the Research Council is reviewing the changes being proposed by Vice Chancellor Torr and as a result, they will be presenting their committee report to the Senate in December instead of November.

2.3 Capital Construction Resolution

Latta reported that she will be meeting with Assistant Vice Chancellor for Facilities Management and Planning Rich McDermott to discuss the proposed resolution on capital construction. She pointed out that there may be two different issues with the resolution. One pertains to issues on campus such as the involvement of the Academic Planning Committee and the level of disclosure. The other issue deals with the Board of Regents' approach to starting any capital construction projects. She noted that this portion of the resolution may need to be dealt with separately. She pointed out that the use of the word infrastructure is not very clear. She noted that there appears to be basic support for the concept of the resolution but that it is not in the right format. The item will be discussed further at another meeting.

3.0 Chancellor Moeser

3.1 Program Evaluation and Prioritization Panel

Chancellor Moeser reported that he was pleased with the external representatives and UNL campus representatives to the NU Prioritization Commission. Miller asked how the committee was determined? Chancellor Moeser responded that the committee's membership was decided by President Smith although the Chancellors from each campus made suggestions. Latta pointed out that the Academic Senate President's were not asked for suggestions. She stated that she inquired whether she could make suggestions since she was being approached by people who were interested in serving on the commission. She noted that while inquiring, she did suggest one name and that it was considered but that the individual was not appointed to the commission. Miller felt that as the flagship campus, UNL is not well represented on this commission. He felt that the commission is an attempt to get a consensus of the four campuses, rather than acknowledging that UNL is the flagship campus. Chancellor Moeser pointed out that the people appointed to the commission are not to represent individual campus interest. Mayo stated that his initial concerns were partially offset because excellent individuals were selected from the University of Nebraska Lincoln, and they represent a good cross section of our campus. Chancellor Moeser stated that the commission is expected to respect the individual mission of each campus. Latta stated that the members of the commission are well appointed but that appointing herself and the other Academic Senate Presidents does not indicate that faculty were consulted on it. Latta stated that she has a question as to whether her membership on the commission is contingent on her position as Academic Senate President or whether it will continue after her term as President is completed. Chancellor Moeser stated that he is unsure of the answer to this question but thought that she was on the commission for the duration. Latta pointed out that she feels that it is the responsibility of everyone on the commission to provide information back to the campus.

3.2 IANR Vice Chancellor and NU Vice-President Search

Chancellor Moeser reported that he has appointed the following people to the search committee for the position of IANR Vice Chancellor and NU Vice-President: Cynthia Milligan, Mark Gustafson, Ron Raikes, Mark Kuzila, Keith Glewen, Pat Dussault, Pat Crews, Jim Van Etten, Don Beermann, Juan Gonzales, and Roy Frederick. Kim Robak and Gail Latta have also been appointed to the committee as ex officio members. A student representative will also be appointed. He stated that this is a major national search which he hopes will be conducted as quickly as possible.

3.3 Weighing Campus Priorities Against Legislative Funding Levels

Latta stated that there is concern amongst the faculty that after the legislature appropriates funds to the university, there is not a process in place that allows the campus to weigh the new initiatives included in the budget request but not funded by the legislative appropriation, against existing programs that would have to be cut in order to fund the new initiatives. She noted that this is especially true in determining what areas would need to be cut in order to fund these priorities. She stated that they want to discuss what the possibilities or principles might be in order to provide this process. Chancellor Moeser responded that there are two levels of decision points. One is at the Central Administration level where some decisions are made at the President's Council. The other level is at the internal campus level. Latta pointed out that there appears to be more concern about the priorities that are identified at the system-wide level. She noted that faculty have some sense that there is the opportunity to give some input at the campus level. Chancellor Moeser stated that the only opportunity that we currently have to affect that decision is through the Chancellor having discussions with various groups on campus such as the Academic Planning Committee. He pointed out that the decisions get made within a very compressed time frame. He noted that one way to open this up is to try to construct models based on various funding levels before decisions need to be made. He noted there may be some flexibility if the net budget is given to the campuses early. He stated that the process is just beginning for the 2001-2003 biennium. He pointed out that faculty salaries are still a high priority. He noted that there are some other emerging issues, one of which may be to go back to Governor Orr's unfinished agenda for the Nebraska Research Initiative. He stated that this was a $20 million plan which was funded up to $12 million but then stopped. He noted that if the university was able to obtain the remaining $8 million, it could help leverage the university in the area of research and obtaining federal research money. Mayo hoped that any new funds would not be as closely tied to short term economic growth expectations. He noted that one of the problems with the Nebraska Research Initiative was that the funds were provided for economic development, however, the legislature's view of the time table for producing economic growth for the state was considerably shorter than the university's. He pointed out that because few examples of large numbers of jobs or products created can be easily identified, it affected our credibility with the legislature. Chancellor Moeser pointed out that another possibility is to obtain significant state support for extended education which would allow us to move more visibility into this field and which would provide service to people throughout the state.

3.4 Intercampus Programs

Latta stated that this was discussed with President Smith and the other Senate Presidents the last time they met. She stated that it has some relevance to the entire program of evaluation and prioritization. She stated that at the Central level there is an interest in increasing the number of shared programs, either instructional or research. She stated that it would be helpful to have a discussion about how we approach this issue, what are our expectations, what do we have to offer, what do we have to gain from that sort of strategy and what do we have to lose. She stated that it would help to start this process if we have some common understanding of what some of the issues are. Chancellor Moeser stated that we have a lot more to gain than lose from those strategies. He pointed out that two very successful examples are the joint Ph.D. programs with the UNMC in toxicology and the joint Ph.D. program with UNO in Educational Administration. He pointed out that the next critical area for us will be at the Kiewit Institute in regards to the extension of existing doctoral degrees which might be jointly offered between UNL and the Kiewit Institute. He pointed out that it is in our best interest to work with them in this area rather than them trying to establish their own separate Ph.D. program. The other area which will be very important for us stems from the research workshop that Vice Chancellor Torr has started which will involve faculty from UNL and UNMC. He noted that a new horizon for research at UNL is joint research with UNMC, especially considering that the largest area of federal growth is NIH. He pointed out that this is an opportunity for collaborative research.

4.0 Approval of 9/1/99 and 9/15/99 Minutes

Miller moved and Prochaska Cue seconded approval of the 9/1/99 minutes as amended. Motion approved. Prochaska Cue moved and Mayo seconded approval of the 9/15/99 minutes as amended. Motion approved.

5.0 Unfinished Business

5.1 APC Meeting Times/Representative

Latta reported that feedback from Executive Committee members indicated it would not be possible to reschedule the meetings that conflict with the Academic Planning Committee this semester, therefore, she would need to find someone to serve as her designee at these meetings. She stressed that it is still important that the committee look toward finding a long term solution to this problem. The committee suggested several names of potential representatives.

5.2 Follow Up with AAUP

The committee agreed that the meeting with the Executive Committee of AAUP was valuable and that both groups are concerned about the same issues. The committee discussed strategies for addressing these concerns, including continuing to work on the Senate strategic agenda. The committee agreed to stay in communication with the AAUP.

6.0 New Business

6.1 Temporary Appointment for Hugh Whitt on Executive Committee

Latta reported that Hugh Whitt is out on medical leave for this semester and needs to be temporarily replaced on the Executive Committee. She pointed out that Teresita Aguilar has a teaching conflict this semester and will also need to be temporarily replaced for the semester. Latta noted that in the past the policy has been for the committee to select a person to fill in for the semester. The committee discussed various suggestions to the committee.

6.2 Senate Representative on the Pepsi Committee

Latta noted that the Pepsi Committee will be a committee that will review proposals from student organizations and academic departments for funding for major campus events. The committee suggested several people for the committee.

The meeting was adjourned at 5.30 PM. The next meeting will be held on Wednesday, October 6^th at 3:00 PM at the Academic Senate Office, 420 University Terrace, Ste. 203. Respectfully submitted, Miles Bryant, Secretary.