Email: senate@unlnotesorg.unl.edu

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

UNL ACADEMIC SENATE MEETING MINUTES

City Campus Union, Auditorium

October 2, 2001

Presidents Miles Bryant, Tice Miller, and Sheila Scheideler Presiding

1.0 Call to Order

President Bryant called the meeting to order at 2:35 p.m.

2.0 Announcements

2.1 Executive Committee Goals

President Bryant reported that a copy of the goals established by the Executive Committee this year were included in the Senator packet. He pointed out that the goals are a way to provide continuity through the changes to the membership of both the Senate and the Executive committee.

2.2 Review of Promotion and Tenure Process

President Miles reported that the Executive Committee and the Office of Academic Affairs would like to form a committee to review the various promotion and tenure processes that exist on campus. He stated that the goal of the committee is to make a summary description of the various processes. He asked that anyone interested in serving on this committee contact him.

2.3 Meeting with President Smith

President Bryant reported that he and the Presidents of the Faculty Senate from the other three campuses recently met with President Smith. He stated that topics of discussion included budget problems, tenure residing at the campus level, and the retirement cap. He pointed out that the issue of tenure residing at the campus level was just for discussion and that this is not being actively promoted on campus.

2.4 Meeting with Consultant for Recruiting and Retention of Students

President Bryant announced that the Executive Committee has been invited by Chancellor Perlman to attend a meeting with the deans and directors to hear a consultant review our recruiting and retention strategies. He stated that the meeting would be held on October 3^rd.

2.5 Art for Academic Senate Office

President Bryant reported that the Academic Senate Office now has artwork by faculty hanging in the conference room. He noted that Professors Joe Ruffo, Karen Kunc, and Shelley Fuller have contributed their art.

3.0 Chancellor Perlman

Chancellor Perlman reported that a consultant has been hired to work on recruiting and retaining students and that they are optimistic about the direction in which they are going with this issue. He stated that major research grants would be announced soon. He pointed out that technology transfer is improving and that departments have been hiring highly qualified faculty.

Chancellor Perlman stated that due to the revenue shortfalls for the state, a special legislative session would be held at the end of October to review the state budget. He noted that there are a range of possibilities as to how much of a budget cut the university would receive. The best case scenario would be a 3% cut for two years. He noted that while the university is prepared to take some cuts, the cuts should be fair. He pointed out that this is not a good time for the university to take cuts since it is starting to make significant progress towards improvement.

Chancellor Perlman stated that he has already asked the Vice Chancellors for reduction scenarios of up to 3% for the next two years. He noted that more than likely all searches would be suspended. He stated that the objective will be to make cuts, but to do it in a way that will leave the university in the strongest position possible. He pointed out that there will be on going discussions with members of the university community regarding the budget reduction process. He stated that he did want to push forward with the priority programs initiatives and that he is planning to give the foundation a list of the priority programs to see if donors can be found to help support these programs. He noted that while priority programs are important, the core programs must succeed, regardless of the budget reductions. He pointed out that they can not cut back on their recruiting efforts since this is a potential source of revenue.

Professor Miller asked for information regarding enrollment. Chancellor Perlman stated that there was an increase in graduate student enrollment but that the UNL campus is down 2% in freshman students. He pointed out that those freshmen students that did enroll are very good students. He stated that the campus needs to work harder to recruit students.

3.2 Medical Insurance Coverage

Chancellor Perlman reported that university employees would be receiving a letter soon from President Smith with respect to medical insurance coverage. He stated that while in the past we had a significant health reserve fund, that fund has been drastically depleted over the last few years. As a result, health insurance coverage would increase $35 - $50 per month. He stated that the option was either to reduce health insurance benefits or to increase the cost. He noted that the increase would take effect January 1, 2002.

Chancellor Perlman stated that President Smith is forming a blue ribbon panel to review the current health insurance coverage. He noted that an outside consultant would be hired to assist in the review. He stated that they hope to eventually have an insurance plan in place that would be more affordable. Professor Wolf, English, asked why the panel wasn't formed last year when the problem first became apparent. Chancellor Perlman stated that central administration did not think the costs to the policy were going to be so severe. He noted that the pay outs far exceeded the projections. Professor Wunder, History, pointed out that administration needs to look much more seriously at the parking fees in view of the health insurance increase. He noted that there are people on campus that can not afford the increase in both parking and health care. Chancellor Perlman stated that there are some limitations on how differential we can make fringe benefits. He stated that there are other ways that the problem may be solved. He noted that this is a serious problem. Professor Prochaska Cue, Family & Consumer Sciences, asked if members of the blue ribbon panel will be assigned by President Smith and how does someone make suggestions for appointments to the panel. Chancellor Perlman stated that suggestions should be sent directly to him. Professor Kranz, Northeast Research & Extension, asked if any of the other benefits will be effected by similar increases. Chancellor Perlman stated that he has not heard of any discussion for increases in other benefits. Professor Nielsen, Animal Science, suggested that the panel should look at the other benefits as well. Chancellor Perlman stated that he believed the panel would be better served by focusing on medical insurance. He noted that in spite of the budget cut and the increased medical costs, that we can still make this a great university.

4.0 Election of Executive Committee Member

Professor DiMagno, Chemistry, was voted in for a three year term as the new Executive Committee member.

5.0 Approval of 9/4/01 Minutes

Professor Nielsen, Animal Science, moved and Professor Bender seconded approval of the minutes. Motion approved.

6.0 Committee Reports

6.1 Academic Standards Committee (Professor Gregory)

Professor Gregory made a correction to the report stating that Judy Cole had resigned and has been replaced by Tom Rinkevich. He reported that the committee met 23 times last year but that only 3 members were needed for each meeting. He pointed out that the large number of members enables him to spread the work out amongst the committee.

6.2 Grading & Examinations Committee (Professor Lee)

Professor Lee reported that there is some confusion regarding the responsibilities of the committee. He pointed out that the committee only handles late withdrawals and grade option changes. He stated that grade appeals are handled with the college. He stated that the last 2 years the appeals have been handled by the colleges by the appeals officer and committee member. He noted that appeals can go to the full committee if necessary. He stated that the representatives from Architecture, Fine & Performing Arts, and Business Administration would be changing and anyone with questions in these colleges should go to the Deans office.

Bryant noted that the Executive Committee has asked the Grading and Examination Committee to look at how minus grades are treated, particularly in regard to academic standing. The committee is also being asked to review the policy allowing faculty members to change final grades at any time after the grade is given. Professor van Roojen, Philosophy, asked if a problem existed with faculty changing grades. Bryant stated that there was an issue of a faculty member being pressured to change a grade for a student. Professor Wolf, English, pointed out that the request to review the policy was made by the Chancellor and Senior Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and only one case was cited. He noted that the issue was not raised by the Executive Committee. Bryant stated that there have been rumors of other grade changes and the Executive Committee decided to ask the Grading & Examination committee to review it.

6.3 Academic Rights & Responsibilities Committee (Professor Bender)

Professor Bender reported that the committee received two formal complaints last year. Only one of these cases was formed into an investigative panel. He stated that the committee spent most of the year working on revising the procedures. He noted that the committee hopes to bring the changes to the Senate in the near future.

7.0 Unfinished Business

No unfinished business was discussed.

8.0 New Business

8.1 Motion to Approve Additional Language to the Policy Regarding Scheduling of Summer Session Classes

President Bryant reported that in 1987 the Executive Committee established a standard meeting class time for summer session courses. He stated that classes meeting during these standard times were given priority room assignments for general purpose classrooms. He noted that some of these times have been altered over the years in some colleges and that Teachers College experimented this past summer with teaching classes four times a week instead of five. Professor Wunder asked if the change would apply to pre-session classes. Bryant stated that it probably would not work for the pre-session courses. Professor Goedert, Construction Systems Technology, pointed out that classes not meeting at standard times could cause problems with scheduling for other courses. Bryant stated that Summer Sessions has looked at this and has set aside blocks of time to accommodate the courses set at standard times. Professor Goedert stated that this change could create problems. He noted that it would compress class work even more than it already is in the summer, that it would cut into a second class period which would prevent the room from being used, and it could prevent students from taking another course. Bryant stated that the proposal to change the language was made by faculty. He noted that students prefer the four day week schedule rather than the five. He stated that the motion to include language allowing courses to meet at other times is being brought forward by the Executive committee. Motion to be voted upon at the next meeting.

8.2 Motion to Revise the Guidelines for the Evaluation of Faculty: Annual Evaluations, Promotion, and Tenure

President Bryant reported that the complete document can be found on the web at http://www.unl.edu/svcaa/policies/faculty/tenureguide.html. He noted that the proposed changes deal with: 1) internal applicants waiving their right of access to search files; 2) including language calling for written explanation for inconsistencies between annual evaluations and promotion and tenure decisions; 3) including language that allows for votes by secret ballot; 4) faculty having access to promotion and tenure file; and 5) adding language that allows for withdrawal from early tenure consideration without prejudice. Bryant stated that in addition there are changes to correct language so that the document coincides with existing committees.

Professor Banerjee, Biochemistry, asked if the document applies to IANR faculty as well. Bryant stated that it does. Professor Wunder asked if the language "by secret ballot" has precedent over department bylaws. Associate to the Chancellor Howe stated that the intent is to allow the department to decide how to conduct the vote. Bryant pointed out that the document is a longstanding document and that the changes are to make it compatible with the recently approved revised UNL Bylaws. Professor Winter, Classics, asked if a department is obligated to vote by secret ballot. Bryant stated that the language states that a department may vote by secret ballot. Professor van Roojen asked if a faculty member still has the right to waive access to their promotion and tenure file. Bryant stated that this option is still available.

Professor Goedert wanted clarification on the language "synopsis of discussions". Bryant stated that written summaries of the discussion should be kept. Howe stated that a lot of these changes come from the Academic Rights & Responsibilities Committee. He stated that the changes are being made to assure the rights of the faculty. He pointed out that a candidate has the right to know why they were turned down, and a synopsis of the discussion would provide the needed information. Furthermore, if there was an appeal on the decision, the written synopsis would be available for the Academic Freedom and Tenure panel to review. Professor Goedert stated that the way it is written appears to require that discussions must be recorded and retained. Howe stated that the written synopsis is needed if the decision is appealed. Goedert stated that it needs to be clear what discussions need to be written down. Howe stated that the intent is that any discussions leading to a vote must be written down. Professor Kulik, Computer Science & Technology, stated that it should be clarified that the official meeting needs to have a written synopsis. Professor Brand, Chemical Engineering, pointed out that, according to the Bylaws, any discussions leading to the decision are considered official discussions. Bryant stated that clarification of the language would be made.

Professor Wunder asked if early withdrawal could be made any time in the tenure process, up to the Board of Regents approval. Bryant stated that he assumed that this could be done at any time. Professor Martikainen, South Central Research & Extension, asked if there was a time line for dealing with new material for reconsideration after unfavorable annual evaluations. Howe stated that the issue is that reconsideration must be made by the department and college before it can go to the Academic Rights & Responsibilities Committee. He stated that there should be language in the document referring to limitations on the time line. Bryant suggested that the senators review the document on the web and be prepared to vote on the changes at the November meeting. Goedert asked if the Senate would vote on the changes separately. Bryant stated that he hopes that it would be voted as a complete package but that the Senate could vote on each correction separately if it chooses to do so. Brand pointed out that a vote must be taken by the Senate to decide whether to vote on the changes separately. She stated that if the Senate approves this, each correction would then have to be voted upon individually.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m. The next meeting of the Academic Senate will be on Tuesday, November 6^th at 2:30 p.m. in the East Campus Union, Great Plains Room. Respectfully submitted by Karen Griffin, Coordinator and James King, Secretary.