Email: senate@unlnotesorg.unl.edu

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

UNL ACADEMIC SENATE MEETING MINUTES

East Campus Union, Auditorium

February 6, 2001

Presidents Sheila Scheideler and Miles Bryant Presiding

1.0 Call to Order

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

2.0 Announcements

2.1 Legislative Bills

President Scheideler reported that several Legislative Bills, that would have significant impact on the University, will be debated before members of the State Legislature. LB615, the Fetal Cell Tissue Research bill, will be open for public comments Friday, February 9^th. She stated that Professor Dwayne Ball, President of the Academic Freedom Coalition of Nebraska would be speaking on behalf of academic freedom.

2.2 Nebraska Cooperative Extension Association

Professor Siekman, South Central Research & Extension, presented the Academic Senate with a check for $1000 from the Nebraska Cooperative Extension Association. He stated that the association has over 200 members who voted to donate the funds to the Senate. President Scheideler thanked Professor Siekman and the association for their continued support of the Senate.

3.0 Interim Chancellor Perlman

3.1 Prioritization Process Update

Interim Chancellor Perlman reported that the list of priority programs is available on the web. He noted that two forums to gather faculty input would be held on February 8^th and 9^th. He stated that he has received suggestions as to where to look for additional priorities. Interim Chancellor Perlman stated that after faculty input has been gathered, the Vice Chancellors will review the priority programs again and come to a final decision. The Deans and parties with programs on the priority list will then need to expand and elaborate on their programs. He noted that this list, with full program descriptions would be transmitted to President Smith by May 15^th; the list would then be presented, to the Board of Regents in June.

Interim Chancellor Perlman stated that there is concern that colleges took different approaches in establishing their priorities. He noted that the process was designed to allow each Dean to submit priorities without requiring a final commitment. Interim Chancellor Perlman indicated the reasoning behind this approach was to allow the Deans to see the strategies of other colleges and take this into consideration in their second submission. He pointed out that the Vice Chancellors would need to address the differences in the process, which may result in refining or broadening some of the priorities. Interim Chancellor Perlman pointed out that the campus administration expects the colleges will invest their resources in accordance with the priorities they established. He noted that this does not mean that funding will immediately go to all the programs on the list. He stated that there would be an opportunity for campus administrators to develop a subset of priority programs that would receive initial investments.

Interim Chancellor Perlman pointed out that the intent of the process is not to cut programs but to focus on programs for university investment. He noted that listed priority programs would change over time.

Interim Chancellor Perlman stated that faculty concerned with their programs not being on the list should take a look to see if they can contribute to any of the identified programs. He noted the campus community should not view this prioritization process as another futile exercise, but as an on-going process that will hopefully help enhance the university.

President Scheideler stated that it would be helpful for faculty to know what kind of input administration hopes to gather during the faculty forums. Interim Chancellor Perlman responded that they hope to receive constructive suggestions on how the list could be improved. Professor van Roojen, Philosophy, pointed out that people were not interested in seeing fewer priorities listed. Interim Chancellor Perlman encouraged faculty to let SVCAA Edwards, Vice Chancellor Owens or himself know of any thoughts or suggestions that faculty may have regarding this issue.

3.2 Issues on the Horizon

3.2.1 Distance Education Report

Interim Chancellor Perlman stated that he received a copy of Central Administration's task force report on distance education. President Smith wants feedback on the report by February 26^th. Interim Chancellor Perlman stated that he would provide a copy to the Senate Executive Committee and Deans for their review. He noted that he wants to compare central's report with a similar draft report prepared at UNL.

3.2.2 Recruiting

Interim Chancellor Perlman stated that UNL would be presenting a report on student recruitment to the Board of Regents in March. He noted that the report will include a strategic plan, anticipated recruiting costs, and a listing of and the consequences associated with significant increases in enrollment. He stated that, if possible, he would provide the campus community with a copy of the report.

3.2.3 Searches

Interim Chancellor Perlman reported that they are in the final negotiation stages for the Dean of the College of Fine Arts. He stated that interviews for a new Dean of the Law College search were just completed and they are waiting for feedback from the faculty. An announcement was also made that three candidates for the Vice Chancellor of Research position will be coming to campus for interviews.

3.2.4 Tobacco Settlement Bill

Interim Chancellor Perlman noted that this the Tobacco Settlement bill has significant implications for the UNL campus. He pointed out that the bill would allocate $16 million per year from the Tobacco Settlement Endowment for the purpose of biomedical research. He stated that the funds would go to four institutions: UNMC, UNL, Creighton University, and Boy's Town Research Hospital. A base amount would be given to each institution, with the remaining funds being allocated to the University of Nebraska. These funds would then be competed for by faculty on the basis of NIH funding in the particular areas of research.

3.2.5 Board of Regents

Interim Chancellor Perlman reported that the Board of Regents has adopted a schedule for discussing strategic issues for the next year. Some of these sessions will deal with what is meant by quality, what outcomes are expected, how quality is measured, and techniques to make improvements. He noted these issues create both a challenge and opportunity for the campus to consider.

3.2.6 Intellectual Property Update

President Elect Bryant asked for an update on the intellectual property policy. Interim Chancellor Perlman stated that the document is intimately tied into distance education. He noted that the most recent draft is at central administration and is being reviewed. He stated that there would be a committee hearing on intellectual property with the Board of Regents in either May or June.

4.0 Approval of 1/9/01 minutes

Professor Prochaska Cue, Family & Consumer Sciences, moved and Professor Kocher, Biological Systems Engineering, seconded approval of the minutes. Motion approved.

5.0 Committee Reports

5.1 Academic Planning Committee (Professor Lewis)

Professor Lewis asked if there were any questions on the report distributed to Senators. He pointed out that the report included a list of the various items that came before the committee. President Scheideler asked for clarification on any follow up that is conducted after an academic program review. Lewis stated that the responsibility of the APC is to insure that the academic program review process works effectively and that it is a good use of resources. He reported that the process does work well. He noted that the APC periodically reviews whether changes suggested by review teams have been implemented.

5.2 Convocations Committee (Professor Voeltz)

Professor Voeltz asked if there were any questions on the report distributed to Senators. He noted that 25 Convocations awards were granted this year and two were rejected due to lack of information. He stated that the chairperson responsibilities for the committee has been split between himself and Sue Ann Gardner. He announced the deadline for submitting applications for funding for visitors coming in the fall semester is April 15^th (or the following business day thereafter).

5.3 Committee on Committees (Professor Powers)

Professor Powers asked if there were any questions on the report distributed to Senators. He pointed out that volunteers are still needed to serve on committees. He reported that less than 10% of over 1400 faculty returned the committee service preference form.

6.0 Committee on Committees Draft Ballot

Professor Powers presented that draft ballot for election of members to the Academic Planning Committee, the Academic Rights and Responsibilities Committee, and the Academic Rights and Responsibilities Panel. He stated that anyone with concerns should contact him or any other Committee on Committees members. He stated that the ballot format would be voted on at the March Senate meeting.

7.0 Pound-Howard Ballot Nominations/Elections

The ballots for the Pound-Howard award were distributed and Senators cast their votes.

8.0 Unfinished Business

8.1 University Bookstore Committee Changes

President Scheideler noted that the Committee on Committees made the recommended changes suggested by the Senate to the Bookstore Committee syllabus. As requested at the January Senate meeting, she asked for clarification on why a department chair was designated as a committee member. Committee on Committees Member Howe stated that a department chair would have a broader perspective on how the bookstore is functioning. Motion approved to accept the recommended changes.

8.2 Report from the Grading & Examinations Committee on the Proposal to Include Minuses in the UNL Grading System

Professor Lee, Chair of the Grading & Examinations Committee reported that the committee conducted an informal faculty poll the results suggested that most faculty were in favor of changing the grading system. He noted that the three main reasons to adopt the changes are that it allows for greater flexibility for the faculty in grading, UNL would be using a more standard grading system, and that the new system would help reduce grade inflation. He pointed out that there could be some ramifications associated with the transfer of UNO and UNK courses, since these campuses would be on a different grading system. Lee stated that the committee felt that the Senate should assess the faculty as a whole on the issue and also get student input. Professor Fuller, Art & Art History, asked if the costs associated with for implementing the change were known. Lee stated that 8 years ago it was estimated to be $3- 4,000 but that he was not aware of what the cost would be today.

Various Senators stated that they polled their constituents and that the majority of those surveyed were in favor of the change. Scheideler read a letter from Professor Ted Pardy, President of the Academy of Distinguished Teachers, indicating that the academy discussed the issue. He wrote that those in favor of the change felt that it provided the institution with greater tools for assessing student work. Those against the change felt that it would not make a difference in student performance. Overall, the academy felt that there would be no serious effect on UNL's standings.

Professor van Roojen stated that he had concerns with how the grading system would be implemented and the impact of having a different system at UNL versus the other UN campuses. He suggested that this issue should be resolved before the motion is accepted. He proposed that the motion, in principle, be accepted but that the specifics associated with the grading scale be deleted. Motion seconded by Professor Goedert, Construction Systems Technology. Professor Lee pointed out that grade points are the most valuable way of communicating student performance. He stated that the motion should encompass both the letter grade and the associated grade-point scale. Professor van Roojen stated that he accepts the concept of the motion but that the scale should be referred to someone who can make an informed judgement. He suggested that the scale be brought forward as a separate motion. Professor Ford, English, stated that the scale suggested in the original motion is the most commonly used scale with those grading systems that incorporate both minus and plus grades. Professor Bender, Journalism, called the question. Amendment opposed by the majority of the members.

Professor Ford stated that he spoke with the registrars of UNK and UNO who both indicated that there should not be any significant difficulty in transferring courses between the campuses. He reported that he also spoke with Donal Burns, Associate Executive Vice President and Provost, who indicated that there are no bylaws or rules that would prohibit UNL from changing their grading system. Burns also stated that there should be no problem in regard to the Graduate College if the grading system was changed. Professor Whitt, Sociology, pointed out that a C- would not be considered an acceptable level of performance under the proposed system, yet student performance in the "low-C range is considered acceptable under the present system. He noted that this would need to be addressed. Professor Archer, Anthropology & Geography, stated that the grades transferred from UNK or UNO to UNL (or vice-versa) would need to be recomputed; this process could result in raising a student's standing. Vice Chancellor Griesen pointed out that the issue is how finely faculty want to define the grading system. He noted that, although faculty should not be concerned with the administrative aspect of the issue, there would be some issues of importance that would need to be resolved, such as the transferring of courses between the campuses. He stated that there would be additional hidden costs such as explaining the two different grading systems that would appear on transcripts. President Joel Schaeffer, ASUN, pointed out that the students voted down the motion to change the grading system in the fall. He noted that some of the concerns were in regards to the threshold required to maintain scholarships. He stated that the transferring of credit from courses taken at UNK or UNO also needs to be addressed. Interim Chancellor Perlman stated that the faculty should set aside the administrative aspect of the motion and vote upon it from an academic viewpoint. He noted that if difficulties arise these can be addressed and if there were any real problems, they would come back to the Senate to ask for input. Professor Nielsen, Animal Science, asked why an A+ could not be given a grade point higher than 4.0. Professor Ford stated that those universities that tried to do this eventually reverted to a 4.0 scale. He noted that many graduate schools will not accept a grade point higher than a 4.0. Prochaska Cue called the question. Motion approved, 38 for, 13 against.

9.0 New Business

No new business was discussed.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:05 p.m. The next Senate meeting will be Tuesday, March 6, 2001 in the City Campus Union, Auditorium. Respectfully submitted, David S. Jackson, Secretary.