Email: senate@unl.edu

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

UNL ACADEMIC SENATE MEETING MINUTES

City Campus Union, Auditorium

September 5, 2000

Presidents Sheila Scheideler, Miles Bryant and Gail Latta Presiding

1.0 Call to Order

President Scheideler called the meeting to order at 2:36 p.m.

2.0 Announcements

2.1 Senate Representatives on Committees

President Scheideler thanked the Senators who have volunteered to serve on committees. She reported that the Convocations, Curriculum, Police and Pepsi Student Fund Committees are all in need of a Senate representative. She asked that anyone interested in serving on these committees for this year contact her or the Academic Senate Office.

2.2 Summer Activities

President Scheideler reported that the Executive Committee met throughout the summer and that the committee's activities are detailed in the Executive Committee Summer report. She noted that the Board of Regents suggested that a 5.22% salary increase for each year be put forward in the biennial budget request to the State legislature. She pointed out that the Revised Bylaw 4.3 was passed by the Board this summer.

2.3 Rescheduling of October Senate Meeting

President Scheideler asked the Senate if the October Senate meeting could be moved from the 3^rd to the 10^th. The reason for the change is due to a conflict that Interim Interim Chancellor Perlman has on the 3^rd. The Senate agreed to reschedule the October Senate meeting to the 10th.

3.0 Interim Chancellor Perlman

Interim Chancellor Perlman stated that he looks forward to working with the Senate and that his administration is trying hard to collaborate and communicate with all groups that are influenced by decisions that are made at the University. He asked the Senate to remind him if this goal is not met.

Interim Chancellor Perlman stated that the University has many opportunities; he noted that the Academic Senate should play a constructive role in moving the University forward. He stated that the University needs to stay competitive and that we need to be responsive to the market. He pointed out that everyone should be working to improve the University.

3.1 Issues on the Horizon

Interim Chancellor Perlman stated that one upcoming concern involves health care costs. He stated that official information should be out soon. He pointed out that the University is a self-insured institution and that as the general population of the employees ages, insurance claims will increase. He noted that while we have been a beneficiary in the last few years from a large reserve in our health care trust, the funds in that trust are now dwindling rapidly, due primarily to increases in prescription costs.

Interim Chancellor Perlman stated that another issue on the horizon is the Program Prioritization request. He reported that he sent an email to the campus community on this subject. He pointed out that this process needs to be taken seriously. He stated that most colleges already have a set of priorities established on which they are already acting. He stated that the criteria developed by the prioritization committee should be used to check the reality of our strategic plan. He noted that this is not a process designed to find ways to make dramatic cuts. He stated that the process will not be data driven although it will be checked by data. He noted that ultimately, establishing priorities depends on judgements that we make in the context of shared governance.

Interim Chancellor Perlman stated that the 2020 Report on the Future of Research and Graduate Education at UNL is an important report that needs to be taken seriously. He stated that he hoped that the 2020 report can be used as an opportunity for discussion to determine where we are going in the areas of research and graduate education. He suggested that the faculty not just criticize the report without offering alternative visions and areas in which our research and graduate education efforts can be enhanced.

Interim Chancellor Perlman stated that the issues raised by the Life Sciences Report are complex, but that there are great opportunities ahead. He stated that there will need to be more collaboration and coordination among the various elements involved in the Life Sciences. He pointed out that these various elements are expanding; noting disciplines not usually associated with the Life Sciences, such as computer science, chemistry, and physics are going to be critical players.

Interim Chancellor Perlman indicated that student retention is critical. He stated that the faculty have a great impact on retention because students get connected to the University oftentimes via the faculty. He hoped that the Senate discusses the question of how faculty can either collectively or individually work to keep students here.

Interim Chancellor Perlman reported that two candidates are coming to campus to interview for the Vice Chancellor of IANR. He stated that the gap between the first set of candidates brought on campus and the second set is due to the summer break. He noted that he has been engaged in conversations with the two candidates over the summer.

Interim Chancellor Perlman reported that the search committee for the Vice Chancellor of Research has been formed. He pointed out that the committee has intentionally been kept small so that the search process can move quickly. He hoped that the search committee members will consult broadly with other faculty. He stated that they are currently developing a list of candidates and hope to have an expeditious search in order to fill the vacancy quickly. He stated that he and Acting SVCAA Brinkerhoff have agreed that no commitments or policies will be changed during this interim period without careful consideration and approval by both of their offices.

Interim Chancellor Perlman reported that candidates for the Dean of Arts & Sciences position will soon be coming to campus for interviews. He stated that the Dean of Fine Arts search is one month behind the Arts & Sciences search but that they are conducting airport interviews. He noted that the Dean of Law College search is a couple of months behind the Fine Arts search. He pointed out that the Dean of Extension and the Dean of the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources searches are on hold until the Vice Chancellor of IANR position is filled.

Professor Jensen, Psychology, stated that he was happy to hear two things: the focus on shared governance and the focus on appropriate size goals to achieve. He noted that in the last 3 years the campus master plan, which involved a major planning effort during this period, was done with far too little shared governance and far too little faculty input. He pointed out that it was approved too rapidly. He stated that he is interested in modifying the master plan. He noted that he has been involved in traffic planning for the city over the last 12-14 years. He stated that he is appalled at parts of the campus master plan that went forward and has been integrated into the Antelope Valley Project because of their consequences for safe and effective traffic management within the campus and the downtown area. He stated that he recently gave the city a critique on both the Antelope Valley Project and Campus Master Plan. He stated that he feels that this is a subject that was done with little faculty involvement. He noted that he would like to see the details of the campus master plan reopened for faculty and the Academic Senate's reconsideration. He asked if this would be feasible. Interim Chancellor Perlman pointed out that a master plan is just that, a plan and all plans are subject to change. He noted that there are some critical time issues with respect to the Antelope Valley Project. He stated that there are two items of concern that have been expressed with regard to traffic flow. One is with16th and 17^th streets being made into one way or two way traffic. He noted that there is nothing in the Antelope Valley Project that dictates the answer to traffic flow on these two streets. He pointed out that when construction begins on the Project, these two streets will terminate in a cul de sac preventing through traffic from entering the campus. He stated that the second issue involves, because of the cul de sacs, transportation between East and City campuses; there will be no direct link between the two campuses. He stated that overall the Antelope Valley Project gives the campus integrity, reduces traffic flow through the campus, and frees up land for future building projects.

Professor Hallbeck, Industrial & Management Systems Engineering, stated that faculty are concerned with parking structures and the shuttle bus concept. She pointed out that if faculty have to fight for parking it will result in more faculty working from home. She noted that parking is a part of the campus plan that faculty would like to revisit to explore alternatives. Interim Chancellor Perlman stated that if anyone wants to provide an alternative plan, he will listen. He stated that faculty will perform to the best that they can and that he does not anticipate that the change in parking will have an adverse effect on their coming to campus.

Professor Bauer, West Central Research & Extension, asked what opportunities were presented to the IANR Vice Chancellor candidates during the informal summer discussions such that they are not actively seeking the position. Interim Chancellor Perlman stated that the opportunities are to be the leader of an institute at the University that is highly regarded by the citizens of the state, to be advisory to the President of the University with respect to agricultural questions, and that it is probably one of the highest positions in the state of Nebraska with a focus on agriculture.

Professor King, Agricultural Leadership & Communication, noted that the Board of Regents agreed to sign a contract with the Distance Learning Workshop for a cost of $400,000 over two years. He pointed out that the faculty have heard little about this and that there is concern that the funds will come from the campuses. Professor King further noted there will be implications for on campus teaching. Interim Chancellor Perlman stated that he did not have previous knowledge of the contract but that he has an inquiry into President Smith about it. He stated that what we would get from the contract is access to a number of distance education courses that have not yet been developed. He pointed out that distance education is upon us and that issues regarding faculty roles will need to be addressed.

Past President Latta stated that she would like to have clarification on the statement indicating that the two candidates for IANR VC had not originally pursued the position. She noted that as a member of the search committee she was aware that these candidates pursued the position as much as the other candidates. Interim Chancellor Perlman pointed out that he was brought into the search process late and that past Chancellor Moeser had conversations with the two candidates. Interim Chancellor Perlman indicated that he was not aware of why they were not brought in for the first round of interviews.

Past President Latta asked for a status update on the intellectual property policy. Interim Chancellor Perlman noted that intellectual property is his field of study and he was quite interested in the policy. He stated that the first draft was unclear and he volunteered to assist in redrafting the policy. He noted that the latest version is clearer but that there are still some issues that need to be addressed. He stated that he has been assured that a new draft will be presented to the Senate for review.

Professor Hallbeck stated that her department lost potential graduate students due to the failure of the Graduate Studies office to process application forms in a timely manner. She asked if there was anyway that a streamlined process could be developed for UNL undergraduate students applying to our graduate programs. Interim Chancellor Perlman stated that he had not heard of this problem but noted that he will look into the matter.

President Scheideler, in response to Professor King's question on the distance education consortium, reported that she and the other Senate Presidents met with President Smith last week. At this meeting President Smith reported that the $400,000 would come from a combination of foundation and internal central administration funds. President Scheideler stated that President Smith hoped that no funds would need to come from the campuses. She noted that President Smith recognized the need for input from faculty and students. She stated that President Smith thought it would be a good economic decision to become involved. The modules created by this project would primarily be for introductory offerings. President Scheideler stated that she hoped that each campus will have a student/faculty group that will provide advice on distance education proposals.

4.0 Approval of 4/25/00 minutes

Professor Bender, Journalism, moved that the minutes be accepted. Motion seconded by Professor Diffendal, Conservation & Survey Division. Motion approved.

5.0 Election to Replace Teresita Aguilar on the Executive Committee

An election was held to replace Teresita Aguilar on the Executive Committee. Linda Swoboda, Construction Management was elected.

6.0 Committee Reports

6.1 Commencement Committee (Professor Woldt)

Professor Woldt stated that, as written in the report, Husker Vision was successfully incorporated into the commencement ceremonies. Videos of the commencement can now be purchased by graduating students. Professor Woldt then played a portion of the video. He noted that they have received positive feedback on the trial program that allows students to purchase graduation regalia. Professor Jensen asked if the video will make individual photos unnecessary. Professor Woldt stated that he thought the posed photographs would still be desired. He noted that the Doctoral hooding ceremony has garnered increased participation.

6.2 Executive Committee Summer Report

President Scheideler reported that the Executive Committee was able to get the intellectual property policy put on hold until it is revised and sufficient feedback from the faculty has been obtained. She noted that after a review of the UNL Bylaws, it was determined that the Academic Senate should suggest names of faculty members to serve on search committees for all positions of Dean and higher. She pointed out that the Executive Committee acts on behalf of the Senate when the Senate is not in session and that the committee has put forward names for the search committees for the Dean of the Law College and Vice Chancellor for Research. She asked that Senators come forward to give her names of possible members of any upcoming search committees. She stated that the Executive Committee is working on revising the Senate strategic agenda and will present it at a forthcoming Senate meeting. She reported that Admissions, Central Administration, and administration are anxious to get the faculty's help in recruiting students. Professor Dillon, Electrical Engineering, asked for clarification on how the composition of the search committees is determined and the selection process used to determine membership. President Scheideler stated that two different processes were used for the Dean of the Law College search committee and the Vice Chancellor for Research search. She noted that with the Law College search the Executive Committee tried to insure that a broad spectrum of people would be on the search committee. With the search committee for VC of Research they tried to insure that each college would be represented on the committee. She pointed out that the executive committee is open to any suggestions for committee membership, but that suggestions need to be forwarded in a timely manner so that the Executive committee is not holding up searches. President Scheideler noted that the Executive Committee forwards twice the number of names as required to fill the committee; the Administration ultimately selects the membership.

7.0 Panel Discussion on the 2020 Future of Research and Graduate Education at UNL Report (Professors Wunder, Powers, Prochaska-Cue, Miller).

President Scheideler stated that it is important for faculty to have input into the reports being generated by the various task forces, the prioritization process, and UNL's strategic agenda. As a means to provide some of this input, the Executive Committee decided that a good way to review and critique these documents is to hold a panel discussion at the Senate meeting. Comments from the professors critiquing the report are:

Professor Wunder, History, stated that the report's positive aspects included: consideration being given to those faculty trying to do excellent teaching and research and a recognition that a potential crisis in graduate research is being recognized. He noted areas of concern, including that some faculty are not vested in the University mentioned in the report; problems with the report's assessment criteria and methodology; the report's failure to define research beyond federal sources, UNL's AAU aspect and arts/humanities not being fully covered, and the use of inaccurate data.

Professor Prochaska-Cue, Family & Consumer Sciences, stated that the report tries to be comprehensive and does represent the University's current state. She was disturbed, however, by the report's underlying assumption that faculty are not currently giving their best effort. She further expressed concern that research not supported by federal grants may no longer be valued. She noted that faculty member's unique potential and individual strengths need to be recognized in the report. Professor Prochaska-Cue indicated that while the report's vision is appropriate to the land grant mission, the aspirational institutions specifically listed in the report have eliminated or minimized the colleges in her field, a field specifically defined as part of that mission. She noted that the definition of excellence, as outlined in the report, may be different from what faculty define as excellence. She was glad, however, to see that the report stated that excellence will be defined by each discipline. She pointed out that she hopes the same effort used to develop the report will be used to examine undergraduate education and outreach.

Professsor Powers, Plant Pathology, questioned why this report was developed during an ongoing period of program prioritization. He noted that everyone strives towards excellence. He pointed out that the report fails to recognize that the university is already a leading research institution in many fields. He noted that in order to be a leader in research you must have strong institutional support for areas such as libraries and support staff, both of which have been hit hard by reallocation and cutbacks.

Professor Miller, Theater Arts, pointed out that the report does not adequately address the arts. He noted that faculty reputation matters and that the cultural climate of the campus is oftentimes determined by informal activity and interactions. He pointed out this intellectual activity and climate helps student retention and can create campus excellence. He stated that the faculty, particularly senior faculty, need to get more involved in sharing their expertise.

Professor Latta, member of the 2020 Task Force, thanked the panel for their critique. She noted that the report's intent was to cover all research areas but she noted that the arts and humanities needed to be better characterized in the report. She pointed out that the report tries to challenge faculty to pursue fellowships, grants and sabbaticals that would allow them to work on creative research. She noted that faculty governance is called for in the report and that we faculty need to be good citizens. She pointed out that it is important for faculty to be effective ambassadors for the University and to promote UNL's research and creative activity.

Professor Ruchala, Chair of the 2020 Task Force, thanked the Senate for their input and noted that it is very important to receive campus dialog on the report. She noted that University database systems are not very sophisticated and may have contributed to data errors. She asked that faculty let her know of such discrepancies.

Professor Jensen agreed that the faculty need to speak out more regarding their accomplishments and that they should be encouraged to seek more funding, appointments to editorial boards, and to reach out in their field. He pointed out that the university is not well served by the humbleness displayed by the faculty. Professor Dillon suggested that a different database could be used that would more accurately reflect and characterize faculty accomplishments. Professor Wunder pointed out that it is difficult to compare peer institutions when there is insufficient data. President-Elect Bryant noted that the report does not deal as much with graduate education as it does research. He asked if the report provides a vision for graduate education. He pointed out that graduate students who do not go into research are not well represented in the report. Professor Zorn, Finance, stated that in order for the university to achieve national status, there needs to be adequate support. He pointed out that the report needs to be realistic and suggested that we compare the university to our peer institutions rather than an elite group of schools that receive more substantial funding. Professor Gaber, Architecture, noted that there are three components to a vision: 1) assessment of the current situation, 2) goal setting and 3) a plan to meet your goals. He recommended that this three step process be followed so that the report's goals can be met. Acting SVCAA Brinkerhofff stated that administration wants to continue receiving feedback on the report.

8.0 Unfinished Business

No unfinished business was discussed.

9.0 New Business

No new business was discussed.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:36 p.m. The next Senate meeting will be Tuesday, October 10, 2000 in the East Campus Union, Great Plains Room. Respectfully submitted, David S. Jackson, Secretary.