Website: http://www.unl.edu/asenate/welcome.htm

UNL ACADEMIC SENATE MEETING MINUTES

East Campus Union, Great Plains Room

March 7, 2000

Presidents Gail Latta, and Sheila Scheideler Presiding

1.0 Call to Order

President Latta called the meeting to order at 2:37 p.m.

2.0 Chancellor Moeser

Chancellor Moeser reported that the budget adjustments for the next fiscal year are nearly complete and that the Deans are aware of what the budget will be for their colleges. He stated that the budget request process for the next biennium is underway and that it is currently being reviewed by the Board of Regents.

Chancellor Moeser reported that he met with the faculty of the College of Engineering. He stated that he is pleased to report that the faculty of both the UNL and UNO campus have come together and that they are acting more and more as a single faculty in two locations.

Chancellor Moeser noted that the plans for the Native American Memorial are moving forward and that he hopes that implementation of the memorial will occur in the very near future. He pointed out that we are waiting to receive feedback from some of the tribes on the proposed plans.

Chancellor Moeser announced that the Life Sciences Task Force Report will soon be on the web. He noted that this is a significant and far reaching report made by faculty. He stated that he just received the report of the Future Nebraska Task Force and that it will be made public very soon.

Update on Searches - Chancellor Moeser stated that a new Dean has been appointed to the College of Human Resources and Family Sciences. He stated that they hope to have a new Dean for Architecture very soon. The other administrative searches are continuing. He noted that he will soon be announcing an Interim Dean for the College of Fine Arts.

Professor Jensen, Psychology, stated that he was upset to read an article in the newspaper concerning UNL not reaching the quota for gender equity and that this came as a surprise to him. He noted that his department just hired two females for next year and he had presumed that we were not as far back as the report suggested. Chancellor Moeser stated that he wrote to all of the Deans last fall reminding them of the importance of diversity on campus. He noted that we lost ground last year in meeting the quota. He pointed out that no appointments were made last year in the humanities and the social sciences. He stated that recently, some significant offers have been made. He pointed out that the College of Fine and Performing Arts has made seven tenured track appointments to faculty of color. He noted that the College of Arts & Sciences may be appointing ten positions this year. He stated that we need to be making these offers because it is the right thing to do, not because we are under the stricture of the law. He pointed out that we need to be a more diverse faculty and that this is crucial to our academic excellence. He noted that when he spoke to the College of Engineering he was acutely aware that there was a room full of faculty but only two of them were women. He pointed out that we now have data, department by department, that tells us what the availability pool is by ethnicity and gender of Ph.D.'s in any given field. Professor Adams, Libraries, asked what the status is on the Task Force on Wellness. Chancellor Moeser stated that he did not know what the status is but he will try to find an answer to this question.

3.0 Announcements

3.1 Documenting Teaching Excellence (Professor Bernstein)

Latta introduced Professor Dan Bernstein, Psychology, who is currently working with the Academy of Distinguished Teachers, on ways in which teaching excellence may be documented in greater depth and variety. She noted that President Elect Scheideler and herself have been working on this project and that they are interested in getting wider input from faculty on it. Professor Bernstein stated that discussions were held a year ago with faculty about dimensions of teaching that faculty are concerned with and what kinds of evidence may be gathered to represent these dimensions. He noted that many faculty feel that while student evaluations are important, just using the students' perspective is incomplete in evaluating teaching. From these discussions an outline was generated. The basic dimensions of this are: 1) the intellectual content of teaching, 2) quality of student understanding, 3) range of structural practices, 4) effective development of teaching, 5) leadership in the teaching community, and 6) student perception. He pointed out that it is very important at this point that a broader range of faculty need to have a conversation on this outline in order to move forward. He noted that a flexible framework or outline is needed to help faculty move into this area of excellence in teaching. Professor Mientka, Mathematics and Statistics, asked if they have a common role or identity and how one goes about contacting them? Bernstein state that there is no structure as of yet but that the best contact person is Associate Vice Chancellor Evelyn Jacobson. Scheideler stated they are inviting faculty from each department to attend a forum which will be held on Friday, April 7^th, 2:30 - 4:30, in the City Campus Union to discuss this issue further. She asked that each Senator identify two faculty from their department who may be interested in this topic and who will be interested in attending the forum.

3.2 Intellectual Property Policy

Latta reported that Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards has responded by letter to Central Administration outlining the concerns that faculty have in regards to the latest draft of the intellectual property policy. She noted that the letter includes a copy of the approved Senate resolution on the policy and comments made by faculty during the two forums held on the issue of intellectual property. She stated that copies of the letter can be obtained through the Senate office upon request.

3.3 Intellectual Property Ownership and Scholarly Communication Symposium

Latta stated that there will be a symposium on intellectual property ownership on March 31^st at the Lied Center for Performing Arts in the Steinhardt Room. The symposium is being sponsored by the University Libraries. Additional information can be obtained from Professor Agnes Adams, Libraries.

3.4 Meeting with Regent Hassebrook

Latta reported that she will be visiting with Regent Hassebrook regarding input on President Smith's evaluation. She stated that she was contacted and informed that it was an oversight that the Academic Senate Presidents were not contacted by the Board of Regents prior to his evaluation.

3.5 Presentation of Institutional Marketing Team

Latta reminded the Senate that the Institutional Marketing Team will be making a presentation to the Executive Committee and Senate on March 8^th, 3:00 PM, City Campus Union. She noted that this is an important report that will establish the course for recruiting and for providing public relations for the campus.

3.6 Donation to the Schwartzkopf Fund

Professor Darrel Siekman, South Central Research & Extension, presented President Latta with a check for $1000 from the Nebraska Cooperative Extension Association for the Academic Senate Schwartzkopf Fund. Latta thanked Siekman and pointed out that the Association has also provided the funds to purchase teleconferencing equipment for the Academic Senate Office which will enable various committees to reach its members off campus. Siekman stated that it was a pleasure to represent over 200 faculty across the state that are in the association. He noted that the extension faculty feel that the Senate is very important to the faculty of the UNL campus and he pointed out that this is demonstrated in the increase of their yearly donation from $750 to $1000.

3.7 Nominating Committee

Latta reported that the nominating committee for the Senate elections has been formed. Sheila Scheideler, George Tuck, and Latta are on the committee and will develop a slate for the Executive Committee and the Senate officers. She asked that anyone with nominations contact herself or other members of the committee.

3.8 Reorganization of Division of Continuing Studies

Latta reported that she is continuing to gather information on the reorganizing of the Division of Continuing Studies and will report back to the Senate.

3.9 Information Technology on Campus

Latta reported that she is arranging a meeting with the chair of the Teaching/Learning/Technology Roundtable and the Executive Committee to meet with Walter Weir, Chief Information Officer and Director of UN Computing Services Network to discuss the university technology plan.

4.0 Approval of 2/1/00 Minutes

Professor Mientka, Mathematics & Statistics, moved that the minutes be approved as amended. Professor Bender, Journalism, seconded the motion. Motion approved.

5.0 Committee Reports

5.1 Convocations Committee (Professor Bryant)

Professor Bryant, member of the Convocations Committee stated that the report was distributed to the Senate and that he would be happy to answer any questions. He stated that he wanted to applaud Professor Karen Durst, chair of the committee, for her work in organizing the committee and the grant application process.

5.2 Employee Benefits Committee (Professor Adams)

Professor Adams reported that the committee wants to maintain benefits for everyone on campus but they are concerned with what is going to happen in the next few years. She noted that Central Administration has hired a consultant to review the benefits package. She pointed out that those groups that are most costly, retirees and dependents, may be hit with higher fees. She stated that the committee feels frustrated because decisions on employee benefits appear to be made without input from the University-wide Benefits Committee. Mientka commended Adams for writing the report. He stated that it is disturbing to learn that the committee is being informed on items after the fact. He pointed out that something needs to be done about this lack of information to the committee. Adams stated that the committee has contacted Central Administration about the short notice on decisions. She noted that the committee was told that information will come out earlier but she has yet to see this happen. Professor Reece, Panhandle Research & Extension, asked about the auxiliary relationships of those units whose insurance was going to be dropped by the University. Adams stated, that while these auxiliary units do not have direct connections to the university, they have been affiliated with it over a long period of time. She stated that the committee was concerned that they were not given enough notice that their insurance coverage would be dropped from the university in order for them to seek insurance elsewhere. Reece asked if they were concerned with the process in how this was handled and whether the committee felt insurance should be extended to these units? Adams stated that the concern was that the issue had not been taken to the University-wide Benefits Committee first for input.

5.3 Intercollegiate Athletics Committee (Professor Christensen)

Professor Christensen, chair of the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee, indicated that the report was distributed to the senators in their packet. He noted that the Student Athletic Advisory Board and ASUN asked the committee to review the student absence policy. He stated that the committee wanted to seek a solution to the problem of students needing to miss class due to participation in University sanctioned events. The committee created a student absence policy form which they discussed with the Executive Committee. Professor Morris, Biological Sciences, pointed out that this form would in effect create a contract between the faculty and student. Christensen stated that it is meant to be a tool for both faculty and student. Mientka asked who will provide the form? He pointed out that this is a systematic form and hoped that it does not create unnecessary work for faculty. Christensen noted that this policy covers all students participating in sanctioned events, not just athletes. He pointed out that the document recognizes that each faculty member has their own policy. Professor Allgood, Economics, stated that athletes currently come to him with a form to sign prior to the beginning of the semester. He asked if this will still be necessary? Christensen stated that this would be a good thing to continue since the form is not a required policy.

5.4 Parking Advisory Committee (Professor Specht)

Professor Specht, chair of the Parking Advisory Committee, reported that the committee met on March 3^rd and approved advancing the recommendation made on the parking permit fees. He noted that the committee has approved the construction of only one parking structure of the master plan. This was done on the basis of need. He pointed out that the committee did not approve any plans on how to finance this structure. Scheideler asked if the Office of Business and Finance has been working more with the committee or whether they are still making unilateral decisions? Specht stated that they are working more with the committee, particularly in working on an alternative plan. He noted that the committee has been looking at funding for the structure. They are unable to find a donor for the structure so they have looked at other revenue sources such as increasing the cost for football parking, increasing meter rates, raising meter fines, and charging a fee for the use of the shuttle if a person does not have a parking permit. He pointed out that the contract for football parking has already been signed for this year so it would not be able to be changed until the following year. Premium reserved stalls for selected lots has also been suggested. The committee approved a motion to explore additional revenue sources.

Specht stated that the committee developed and approved the following fee structure: Premium reserved - $70/mo.; Regular reserved - $55/mo.; Lot 10 - $21/mo.; Student Reserve - $50/mo.; Regular student - $17/mo.; Remote - $8/mo. He noted this would increase revenue by $317,000. Professor Zorn, Finance, asked how the revenue plans were determined and how do they know if people will purchase the premium parking spaces? Dan Carpenter, Interim Director of Parking Services, stated that was an increase in demand for reserved spots this past year. Specht stated that a key element for the premium stalls will be location. He noted that the committee came up with this plan in an effort to keep the costs down as much as possible for the Lot 10 permit holders.

Bryant asked how the committee has addressed the concerns from the Chancellor's Commission on the Status of Women? Carpenter responded that pregnant employees and students may obtain a handicapped parking permit. Specht pointed out that the staff are very concerned with the parking permit fees which is why they tried to address that issue as best as they could in the proposed fee structure. He noted that the Chancellor has agreed to reimburse parking lots lost to construction.

Bender asked if there is a preference for people who teach night classes? Carpenter stated that Lot 10's are open after 3:00 for any permit holder and Lot 17's after 4:00. Bender pointed out that there is a problem if a faculty member must come during the mid day and stay late at night. Morris asked what the distinction will be between premium reserved and reserved spaces? Specht stated that the committee is working on this. Latta asked if the fee structure will be recommended to the Vice Chancellor for Business and Finance? Specht stated that it will and that it should be approved soon.

6.0 Unfinished Business

6.1 Approval of Committee on Committees Ballot

The ballot was approved by the majority vote with three abstentions.

6.2 Approval of the Academic Rights and Responsibilities Committee - Additional Language to Procedures

Latta stated that the Senate needed to vote on the proposal for the addition of language to the Academic Rights and Responsibilities Procedures. Professor Ball, Marketing, stated that the motion requires us to speed up investigations and make administrators responsible for conducting investigations of faculty accused of discrimination. He noted that discrimination includes the notion of a hostile environment and that this is a vague concept in the law. He stated that this concept is a danger to academic freedom and that faculty or students can be accused of creating a hostile environment if they are presenting confrontational viewpoints. He felt that this additional language poses a real threat to academic freedom. Bender asked Linda Crump, Assistant to the Chancellor for Equity, Access & Diversity Programs, if the language imposes any new duties on administrators? Crump stated that it is strictly procedural and that it is not adding any additional responsibilities to administrators. She noted that there are no substantiative changes to the document. Zorn pointed out that the time line can cause problems for an investigation being made by the Academic Rights and Responsibilities Panel. Crump stated that there is the ability for a panel to request an extension on the time line. Motion approved by the majority of the quorum with two against and 6 abstentions.

7.0 New Business

7.1 University Bookstore Committee

Latta introduced a proposal from the Executive Committee to create a Bookstore Committee. Appointments to the committee will be faculty, students appointed by ASUN, staff appointed by UAAD and UNOPA. She noted that Bob Carlson, Manager of the University Bookstore, who approached the Executive Committee about the formation of the Bookstore Committee, is leaving UNL. She stated that she will take the proposal back to the Executive Committee to ask whether they should continue with the proposal.

7.2 Bylaw 4.3

Latta stated that the Executive Committee was presenting the revised Bylaw 4.3 to the Senate for their approval at next month's meeting. She discussed the various revisions to the document as indicated in the printed version. She noted that the document retains the standard of mutual agreement, that it defines the terms apportionment and assigned duties, as well as defining the responsibility of the committee that will be created should mutual agreement not be reached between a faculty member and an administrator. Professor Brookes, English, stated that he is concerned with the lack of time limits in the document that would prevent this from becoming an annual problem. Bender stated that the ARRC had not discussed this possibility. Ball asked where the Board of Regents stand on a unilateral decision? Latta stated that they are awaiting for faculty endorsement of the policy. Professor Archer, Geography, asked if a faculty member is tenured in two home departments whether or not each department will have representation on the committee? Morris pointed out that a faculty member can have a joint appointment but can be tenured in only one department. Bender stated that he will take concerns back to the ARRC for further review.

7.3 Student Absence Policy

Bryant presented the proposal for the Student Absence Policy created by the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee with input from the Executive Committee. He noted that it is a vehicle for negotiations between the student and faculty member when a student must miss a class due to participation in a sanctioned university event. Professor Brand, Chemical Engineering, suggested that the requirement of the student's name in additional sections of the form is not needed. Jensen suggested that the form should be printed in duplicate. Brookes asked who is requiring the student to be present at the event and pointed out that the student is required to attend class. He stated that the form should indicate why it should be considered a required absence. Christensen stated that the form does have a space to list who is requiring the student to attend the event. The motion will be voted upon at the next Senate meeting.

7.4 Same Sex Domestic Partners Benefit

Bryant introduced the motion from the Executive Committee. He stated that the Executive Committee has been asked by the Human Rights Committee and the Chancellor's Commission on the Status of Women to endorse the motion for benefits for same sex domestic partners based on equity and the institutional policy of prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. Latta noted that the previous two motions endorsed by the Senate on this issue have been tabled by the University-wide Benefits Committee. She noted that this motion is more specific. The motion will be voted upon at the next Senate meeting.

7.5 Travel Contract

Interim Vice Chancellor Lewis addressed the Senate on the new travel contract. He stated that he understands the concern over the proposed travel contract and was happy to answer any questions. Professor Hallbeck, Industrial & Management Systems Engineering, stated that many faculty use the internet to purchase their air tickets. She asked why this is being eliminated? Lewis stated that the Burns Commission is trying to reduce costs back to departments by eliminating any additional processing charges and they are trying to minimize the administrative cost of processing expense vouchers. Professor Dewey, Geosciences, pointed out that the national trend shows that businesses save money by purchasing airline tickets through the internet. Lewis pointed out that the travel contract has not been signed yet and is still being negotiated. He noted that there is great diversity in how people arrange travel on campus. Jensen wanted to call attention to overhead which is paid to administration to do administrative chores to help the rest of us do our business. He stated that he finds that giving a monopoly to one travel agency, because it will cut down the administrative cost to administration, is an abdication of the responsibility of the administration to use their overhead for the purpose for which it is intended. Lewis pointed out that administrative savings is a savings for the university. Archer asked how it will be worked if the amount of travel money available is less than the fare? Lewis stated that this has not been addressed. In this case the faculty member may have to go ahead and purchase the ticket and then at the end of the trip would file one expense voucher. Scheideler suggested that they take another economic look at this to determine whether the ramifications justify the contract. She pointed out that faculty are very conscientious when it comes to travel funds. Lewis stated that this is not a reaction to over spending. Rather it is a means of trying to anticipate future costs and avoiding them. He stated that he would is willing to discuss this issue further with faculty.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:50 pm. The next Senate meeting will be April 4, 2000 in the City Campus Union, Auditorium. Respectfully submitted, Miles Bryant, Secretary.