Email: senate@unl.edu
Website: http://www.unl.edu/asenate/welcome.htm
UNL ACADEMIC SENATE MEETING MINUTES
City Campus Union, Auditorium
November 7, 2000
Presidents Sheila Scheideler, Miles Bryant and Gail Latta Presiding
1.0 Call to Order
President Scheideler called the meeting to order at 2:33 p.m.
2.0 Announcements
2.1 Revised Academic Senate Strategic Agenda
President Scheideler reported that the Executive Committee worked together this fall on revising the strategic agenda for the Academic Senate. A copy of the revised agenda was distributed at the meeting.
2.2 Evaluation of Dean Swoboda
President Scheideler announced that the Executive Committee has been asked to evaluate Dean Swoboda, Dean of Continuing Studies. She suggested that senators or other faculty members who have worked with Dean Swoboda and would like to provide feedback should email Acting SVCAA Brinkerhoff.
2.3 Prioritization Process
President Scheideler stated that faculty should have heard from their departments on how they can participate in the prioritization process. She indicated that the procedure varies from college to college and that she hopes each college is getting faculty input. She pointed out that November 15th is the deadline for submitting the first round of priorities. Scheideler stated that the Executive Committee hopes to have an opportunity to review these priorities after that date.
3.0 Acting Senior Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs Brinkerhoff
3.1 Update on Searches
Acting SVCAA Brinkerhoff reported that on campus interviews are being conducted for the Dean of Fine Arts position. He stated that all feedback will be evaluated before a hiring decision is made. He reported that the search committee for the Dean of Law College was still accepting applications. He also indicated that the search committee for the Vice Chancellor of Research position is reviewing applicants files. Searches for the Dean and Director of Cooperative Extension and the Dean of CASNR will not be completed until Dr. John Owens, the new IANR Vice Chancellor, arrives on campus this January.
3.2 Prioritization Process
Acting SVCAA Brinkerhoff reported that discussions on the Prioritization Process have been held with the Deans and the Academic Planning Committee and that it was now being discussed at the college level. He pointed out that the process is looking for priorities that are important opportunities for investment in the future. He noted that much work still needs to be done and that there will be a meeting with the Deans and representatives of the APC on November 16th to review the initial priorities. Another meeting will be held on November 28th to initially determine the 20-30% of programs that will be included in the list of priorities. After this November 28th meeting, Acting SVCAA Brinkerhoff indicated that he hoped to distribute a status update to the campus community. He noted that there would be opportunities for campus input. He stated that they hope to have a more finalized list by February 1st. Time will then be spent on writing the documentation to support the identified priorities. President Scheideler pointed out that while she was initially optimistic about the process, she is now concerned because faculty are receiving information that they need to fit programs into strategic plans that were developed in the past. Acting SVCAA Brinkerhoff stated that there is nothing in the prioritization process guidelines that forecloses the opportunity to examine new programs. He stated that he expects to see some new programs, as well as older programs listed as top priorities. Professor King asked how Dr. Brinkerhoff envisions the link between the priority process and the 2020 report. Acting SVCAA Brinkerhoff stated that the 2020 report will help us determine our priorities.
Professor Jensen pointed out that no mention was made on the search for a new Chancellor, and asked for a report. Acting SVCAA Brinkerhoff stated that there have been two meetings to date and that the committee will be meeting with the outside consultants. He noted that advertisements for the position have been published. Professor Wunder, History and member of the Chancellor's search committee, stated that they will be reviewing application files in the near future and that the search was moving ahead.
4.0 Approval of 10/10/00 Minutes
Brand, Chemical Engineering, moved and Hallbeck, Industrial & Management Systems Engineering, seconded approval of the minutes. Minutes approved.
5.0 Committee Reports
5.1 Research Council (Professor Asgarpoor)
Professor Asgarpoor, chair of the Research Council, reported that the Council made significant changes to the grant program names and their descriptions. He pointed out that to correct past accounting errors, the Research Council budget was significantly reduced this year. He stated that it will take two years of operating with a reduced budget to clear the deficit. Asgarpoor reported that the Council plans on reviewing the UNL Bylaws to see if they are in compliance. He stated that the Council would also like to provide feedback on unfunded proposals submitted to their grant programs. Professor Hodges, Horticulture, raised concern over the $95,000 accounting error and asked how this error occurred. Asgarpoor stated that it was due to a misunderstanding between the Sponsored Programs-Finance office and the Vice Chancellor for Research Office. Professor Jensen, Psychology, pointed out that the error does not appear to be the fault of the Research Council. He called for further investigation to determine who was at fault. Asgarpoor stated that he will take this concern back to the Council. Hodges stated that the faculty were owed a more complete explanation on this accounting error. Asgarpoor stated that he will look into the matter and give a supplemental report to President Scheideler.
5.2 Chancellor's Commission on the Status of People of Color (Professor Knisely)
Professor Knisely, co-chair of the CCSPC, reported that the winners of the annual Award for Outstanding Contribution to People of Color was presented to Nancy Lang, Northeast Research & Extension Center, and the Department of Academic Conferences and Professional Programs. Knisely reported that the Commission is trying involve more of the UNL campus community in the People of Color at Predominantly White Institutions Conference by making it easier for faculty to participate in the conference. Knisely announced that the Chancellor's Fulfilling the Dream Award is accepting nominations through December 11th. The award will be presented on January 15, 2001 during the Martin Luther King celebration. He stated that the Commission would like to work with the Academic Senate to review General Education requirements.
Professor Wolf inquired about the diversity summit and whether he would be included in the definition of diversity. He pointed out that there were representatives from the committee on Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, & Transgender Concerns (GLBT) and from the GLBT graduate student association at the diversity summit. He stated that issues regarding domestic partnership and campus climate were raised at the summit. He pointed out that he went to the CCSPC's website and reviewed the Document on Initiatives. Wolf stated that is was clear to him that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people are not included and asked what the Commission plans to do about this exclusion in the definition of diversity. Knisely responded that the most direct and easiest way is to initially amend the document. He stated that in discussions with the Interim Chancellor, it was indicated that this should be corrected. Knisely stated that he is more than glad to have the Commission work on this issue immediately. Professor Brookes, English, asked for clarification on the problem with section H of the General Education requirements. Knisely stated that in comparison to universities such as the University of California at Berkeley, the requirements here are not as meaningful as they could be. He pointed out that it is easy to fulfill the requirements with courses that bring little understanding to diversity. Scheideler noted that this would need to go to the Academic Planning Committee for discussion and approval. Brand, asked if the CCSPC is collecting data on recruitment and retention of faculty and students. Knisely reported that this was currently not being done but he would let the CCSPC know that the Senate is interested in obtaining the recruitment and retention information.
5.3 Chancellor's Commission on the Status of Women (Professor Lewis)
Professor Lewis, Nutritional Science & Dietetics, reported that the commission has a subcommittee to work on child care issues. She noted that the commission introduced the University of Arizona's child care voucher system to Interim Vice Chancellor Scott Lewis, Business & Finance, and asked him to evaluate the program. She pointed out that one of the new parking garages will have a child care facility but that this facility will not be built in the near future. She stated that next year the top priority of the commission will be to assess the campus climate for women. She indicated that the commission hopes to have a web site soon. Scheideler asked if they have received a response from Interim Vice Chancellor Scott Lewis on the child care proposal. Lewis stated that they have received no comments back, other than an indication that more information is needed to assess whether this program will work for both faculty and staff. Professor Wolf, English, asked what the commission plans to do to support benefits for domestic partners. Lewis replied that the commission will continue to support this benefit. She stated that she has heard that the other campuses are not as supportive of this benefit. Wolf stated that it appears to be stalled at central administration. He suggested that the Commission set up an appointment to discuss this issue with President Smith. Professor King, Agricultural Leadership Education & Communication, stated that the commission needs to look into paying an adequate wage for child care providers who may be hired by the University. Lewis stated that the commission is discussing the impact of increased health care costs on University staff. She pointed out that many staff feel that there is no longer any benefit in working at the University.
6.0 Student Recruiting and the UNL Marketing Plan (Professor Lauerman and Professor Larson)
Professor Lauerman, Advertising and co-chair of the Institutional Marketing Team, gave a presentation on the UNL Marketing Plan. She stated that with this Integrated Marketing Communications approach the campus hopes to increase the enrollment of students of promise, to create stronger rankings for the University, create a stronger base for faculty recruitment, develop stronger relations with our alumni, and increase the campus' reputation across the country. Lauerman stated that they hope to accomplish these goals by informing people about the successes of faculty, current and former students, bringing students of promise to on campus events, running radio spots about the university, and running promotional tapes in schools.
Professor Morris, Biological Sciences, asked if they have any regular connections with the public relations people in the colleges. Lauerman noted that these individuals are the key people with whom they work. She asked that faculty also let her know of any success stories, whether its about themselves or their students. Jensen pointed out that the public needs to know the importance of the University for training professionals, people such as doctors, lawyers, and entrepreneurs. He pointed out that he has not seen any statistical data that relates to this. Lauerman indicated that personal success stories appear to be more convincing than just providing numbers. Bryant asked how the marketing plan fits with the 2020 Vision Report. Larson pointed out that the target audience is higher education decision makers. She noted that the 2020 report deals with graduate education and research; they are planning on using success stories relating to these areas. King pointed out that external events can have an impact on how the university is viewed. He asked what things we should look out for that could have an impact. Larson stated that UNL's message should not change with every new administration. She noted that the faculty and staff's attitude needs to change to foster the campus' positive aspects. Lauerman stated that we need to be proactive in expressing our voice and that we need to address policy issues and administrative changes. Professor Miller asked how success stories can be brought to their attention. Lauerman stated that phone calls, email messages or any other means of communication would be fine. Professor Brookes pointed out that honors students need to be aware that not all students remain in college.
Professor Bauer, West Central Research & Extension, asked about the efforts that are underway to market to Nebraska's citizens. Lauerman stated that the citizens are considered very important constituents. She noted that alumni and the communication information technology group are important in contacting the state citizens. Jensen asked for an explanation of what the difference is between marketing activities and public relations. Lauerman and Larson explained that they have merged together to form integrated communications. They noted that the advertising function is different than the public relations function. Professor Bergman, Southeast Research & Extension, pointed out that the term students of promise sends a mixed message. Lauerman stated that the term was selected due to its inclusiveness. She noted that students who want to be here are considered students of promise. Professor Keith, Entomology, stated that the marketing plan needs to emphasize the value of UNL's international programs and the contribution these programs make to the people of the state. Lauerman and Larson agreed. They encouraged faculty to provide feedback on the marketing plan.
7.0 Unfinished Business
7.1 Approval of Changes to Commencement Committee Syllabus
Parliamentarian Brand stated that this motion could not be voted upon because the meeting no longer had a quorum. Motion postponed until the next meeting.
7.2 Student Absence Policy
Scheideler stated that the student absence policy was discussed during the spring semester but was postponed pending investigation into its history. She reported that only one resolution was passed by the Senate regarding class absences; this motion was made in 1983. Scheideler reported that the Executive Committee met with Vice Chancellor Griesen to discuss a new proposed motion. The committee, along with VC Griesen and Professor Diffendal, revised the resolution. She noted that the language in the schedule of classes regarding class absences is very confusing and that the Executive Committee has made recommendations that the language be corrected. The Executive Committee brought forth a resolution, to be considered a supplemental resolution to the 1983 motion:
University sponsored activities, including athletics, may cause a student to wish to be excused from a class, lab, or studio obligation. In all such instances, it is the student's responsibility to request permission for the absence (preferably in writing) from the instructor and to discuss how the absence would affect her/his ability to meet the course requirements. Students should do this as soon in the semester as possible. Students should recognize that not every course can accommodate excused absences and neither absence, not notification of an absence, relieves you from meeting the course requirements."
Professor Wunder suggested a friendly amendment to correct grammatical errors in the proposed resolution. Professor Schaefer suggested that the language strikes an unnecessarily hostile tone between student athletes and a faculty member. He indicated that the language "may cause a student to wish to be excused" should be changed since athletes often need to be excused. He pointed out that for an athlete on scholarship it is not an option for them not to attend a sporting event. He noted that there is nothing in the resolution placing an affirmative obligation on the faculty member to make every effort to work with students. Since there was no longer a quorum, President Scheideler stated that Senators Schaefer's suggestion should be provided in writing as an amendment to the motion and presented to the Senate at the next meeting. Professor Brookes suggested that it is not clear that the Senate has power in this matter, although he indicated that making a resolution may restore some of that power. He further suggested that the language in the bulletin and schedule of classes may need to be rewritten. Scheideler stated that additional changes to the bulletin, in particular regarding the time limit specified in the 1983 resolution, might need to be reviewed. She suggested that another motion dealing with this could be presented. Diffendal pointed out that the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee is a creature of the Academic Senate, not the Athletic Department, and that they are concerned with all students who have extra-curricular activities that take them away from classes.
8.0 New Business
8.1 Crisis Leave Program
Diffendal asked that the Executive Committee check into the status of the Crisis Leave Bank.
8.2 Research Council Resolution
Hallbeck presented the following motion, "I move that the Academic Senate charge the Research Council to speak to administration about the $95,000 shortfall, get a complete explanation, and ask for reparation for all moneys lost which were not the fault of the Research Council. Further, the Research Council will report to the Academic Senate until this is resolved to the satisfaction of the Senate." Motion seconded by Brand.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:25 p.m. The next Senate meeting will be Tuesday, December 5, 2000 in the East Campus Union, Great Plains Room. Respectfully submitted, David S. Jackson, Secretary.