Email:
Website:
UNL ACADEMIC
SENATE MEETING MINUTES
East Campus
Presidents Tice Miller, John Wunder, and Miles Bryant, Presiding
1.0 Call to
Order
President Miller called the meeting
to order at
2.0 Announcements
2.1 Recognition
of Outgoing Senators
President Miller announced the names of those senators whose terms are ending with this meeting. He stated that the faculty appreciated their contribution and service to faculty governance.
3.0 Chancellor
Perlman
Chancellor Perlman stated that the focus of
everyone is still on the budget reductions.
He noted that the recent action of the Appropriations Committee is
encouraging but it is a long time until June 2nd when the
legislature is likely to make its final recommendations on the budget. He pointed out that there is still much work
that needs to be done.
Chancellor Perlman stated that he had
originally planned to announce the second round of budget cuts today but it has
been delayed. He stated that Central
Administration will determine when the campuses will make the next
announcements but there is currently no fixed date.
Chancellor Perlman noted that the reductions
he announced were controversial. He
pointed out that the Academic Planning Committee process of reviewing the
budget cuts is underway. He stated that
the administration has conducted a number of exercises to explore what the
effects of horizontal cuts would be to the university. He pointed out that a 10% reduction for every
unit on campus would be so damaging that it would strip every program on campus
of any kind of quality. In order to
demonstrate the damage that an across the board cut would do to departments,
Chancellor Perlman distributed a handout which provided budget information for
each department. The handout showed
what the total cut to the departments would be if the budget was decreased by
8%. He stated that if anyone thinks their
department could handle such a cut, then they should let him know.
Chancellor Perlman stated that he is
distressed with the assertion that the consequences of the Museum reductions
have impacted women disproportionately.
He pointed out that eight faculty members were being eliminated. Of these eight, four have been offered
positions in other departments, two are eligible for retirement, and two have
not yet been placed.
Chancellor Perlman pointed out that the APC
process of dealing with the budget cuts is not over. He stated that he understands the obligations
the university has under the AAUP guidelines and the administration is exerting
all good efforts to find other jobs for the Museum faculty members. He noted that the tradition of the university
is that a department has to vote on approving the transfer of a faculty member
from another department and this has not yet taken place.
Chancellor Perlman noted that if tenure track
and tenured faculty were not cut, every other category of personnel would have
to be significantly cut. He pointed out
that most of the people in these categories, and in tenure track positions, are
women and cutting them would create a disproportionate impact on women.
Professor Genoways, Museum, stated that as one
of the eight professors scheduled to be terminated, he feels that he may be
forced into retirement because of the cuts.
He stated that he and the other curators of the Museum believe that the
firing of tenured faculty is an attack on the tenure system itself and that it
is being masked under budget cuts. He
asked if cutting the research division of the Museums is a bona fide
elimination of a program and what constitutes a program. Chancellor Perlman stated that the definition
of a program is explained in Executive Memorandum No. 24 and in the Procedures
to Be Invoked for Significant Budget Reductions and Reallocations. Genoways asked why eight of nine tenured
faculty members in the Museum constitute a program and one does not. He pointed out that he does not see two
different programs. Chancellor Perlman
stated that the assessment of the programs at the Museum indicated that there
was a research branch and a public education programs branch. He pointed out that the faculty member not
proposed for termination is more involved in public education. He noted that the process calls for the APC
to review and recommend to the Chancellor whether or not the program should be
eliminated. The decision to eliminate
the program must then be made by President Smith and finally by the Board of
Regents.
Professor Genoways noted that the Chancellor
is not following AAUP guidelines in all cases.
Chancellor Perlman stated that he believed that he is following the AAUP
guidelines. He pointed out that he needs
to consider the university further down the road. He stated that his proposed budget cuts are
not a reflection on the quality of the Museum.
He stated that he is trying to maintain and enhance the quality of
education for other parts of the university while trying to deal with a
possible $21 million budget cut. He
pointed out that if there were no vertical cuts, then the entire university
would suffer. He stated that if he
thought the university could rebuild in a short period of time, then he would
do the budget cuts differently. Genoways
questioned how cutting $400,000 from one unit will affect the educational
system across the university. Chancellor
Perlman pointed out that most of the university is not made up of big programs
with lots of money. He stated that he
needs to make cuts in a number of places in order to reach $21 million.
Professor Genoways noted that the AAUP
guidelines state that faculty members being terminated should receive
compensation. He asked if it was the
university’s intent to follow these guidelines.
Chancellor Perlman stated that he tries to adhere to the AAUP guidelines
as much as possible. He pointed out that
the university’s policy is to give one year’s notice to faculty members who are
being terminated.
Professor Gennoways stated that he has been
put in a difficult situation because the decision to retire must be made in a
very short period of time since the deadline date is April 30. Chancellor Perlman reported that a proposal
to extend the retirement deadline date until July will be made to the Board of
Regents at the April meeting.
Professor May, Economics, stated that she
understands the severity of the situation and faculty want to work with the
Chancellor on the budget cuts, but he seems to be working against the
faculty. She stated that the Chancellor
needs to explain the specific cuts of $1.1 million and how this will save money
when people are being hired back to fill the employees being terminated. She stated that these cuts are not worth the
tremendous stress and threat to tenure.
Chancellor Perlman pointed out that, contrary to what people may think,
he does not spend all of his time arguing with the faculty. He stated that the bottom line is that by July
1 UNL will have $21 million less in the budget. He stated that faculty being terminated can
only be rehired if open faculty lines are available. He noted that the department picking up the
faculty must also cover part of the salary.
He pointed out that he is not targeting any individual faculty member.
Past President Bryant asked the Chancellor to
clarify why financial exigency is not being declared in light of the current
financial crisis. Chancellor Perlman
pointed out that there are negative consequences of declaring financial
exigency. He stated that by declaring
bankruptcy the university would have difficulty recruiting and retaining both
faculty and students and bond rates would increase.
Professor Gay, Physics & Astronomy,
stated that he supported vertical cuts.
He pointed out that horizontal cuts would have far greater impact on all
of the departments. He noted that in his
department a horizontal cut would require elimination of at least ¾ of their
graduate teaching assistants. As a
result, faculty would have to teach more courses which would leave them little
time to work on grant proposals and to obtain outside funding. Professor Ford, English, stated that he
supports the general strategy of vertical cuts.
He noted that weak programs need to be identified and that this should
have been done in the past. He pointed
out that specifics in how to identify these programs need to be determined.
Professor Hoffman, Industrial &
Management Systems Engineering, stated that he prefers the Chancellor to make
the decision on the budget cuts. He
asked if UNK and UNO were using the same approach as UNL. Chancellor Perlman stated that he has not
heard how UNK and UNO are dealing with the second phase of these budget
cuts. He reported that they have not cut
tenured faculty members yet. He stated
that UNL must stand for quality and that he is not comparing us with UNK or
UNO.
Professor Sherrard, Civil Engineering, asked
if there has been any forecast for increases in tuition. Chancellor Perlman stated that he has not
heard of any decisions yet regarding tuition increases. He pointed out that the tuition increase will
more than likely only cover the increase in fixed costs. He stated that the Board of Regents feels strongly
that part of a tuition increase needs to go towards need-based scholars.
Professor Wolf, English, asked if the deans’
proposals for the 10% budget cuts were horizontal cuts and if they suggested
firing tenured faculty members.
Chancellor Perlman stated that no dean recommended the firing of tenured
faculty. He stated that the deans’
recommendations were not absolute across the board cuts but included a variety
of responses. He pointed out that some
colleges cannot get to a 10% budget reduction.
Professor Spann, Broadcasting, asked why the deans did not support
cutting academic programs. Chancellor
Perlman stated that the deans were not willing to make those cuts. He pointed out that it is a difficult
decision that only the Chancellor should have to make.
President-Elect Wunder stated that he had
just returned from a National Endowment for the Humanities meeting in
Chancellor Perlman stated that the budget
cuts will no doubt hurt our reputation with some people but he is hopeful that
if the cuts are done right, that the damage will be short-lived. He noted how long the university’s reputation
suffered in the 1980’s when severe budget cuts occurred. He reported that the last university to fire
tenured faculty members was
4.0 Approval of
Professor Diffendal, Conservation & Survey Division, moved that the minutes be approved. Professor Jackson, Food Science & Technology, seconded the motion. Motion approved.
5.0 Committee Reports
5.1 Parking Advisory Committee (Professor Bell)
Professor Bell indicated that the Senators received a copy of the report in their packet. He stated that although it was not an eventful year, the committee did good work. He stated that they are reviewing the guiding principles of the committee and have developed a five year plan. He noted that the committee wants to include in the guiding principles that parking must be replaced whenever it is displaced by the construction of a new building. He reported that there are no large fee increases scheduled in the five year plan. He stated that there will be a $1 per month increase for faculty and staff this coming year to cover maintenance costs. He reported that the ASUN approved a transit plan.
Professor
Carlo, Psychology, asked if the committee has reviewed having a separate fee
for faculty and staff since staff are not paid as much as faculty.
Professor
Hoffman noted that at
5.2 Employee
Benefits Committee (Professor Bradford)
Professor Bradford stated that the report was self-explanatory but welcomed questions that anyone might have. He stated that the committee did not try to increase benefits this year because of the budget problems facing the university. He stated that the committee received some information regarding the utilization of the tuition remission benefit. He noted that the information received addressed only the number of people using the benefit and it did not provide information on the cost of it to the university.
5.3 Computational
Services and Facilities Committee (Professor Jackson)
Professor Jackson noted that the report is self explanatory but welcomed questions that anyone might have. He stated that the committee meets once a month and tries to take action on computer policies.
5.4 Academic
Freedom Award Committee (Professor Moshman)
Professor Moshman stated that there were two nominees this year for the Academic Freedom Award but the committee chose not to give the award out this year. He stated that an explanation for this decision was provided in the report. President Miller asked if this has ever happened in the past. Professor Moshman stated that there have been years when no award was given. He pointed out that the award is to recognize a faculty member who has a long track record of defending academic freedom. He noted that the defense of academic freedom needs to be in the general sense, not just in regards to an individual’s work. He pointed out that the Academic Freedom Award is very specific regarding this issue.
6.0 Unfinished Business
6.1 Motion
on Implementing the New Grading System
Professor Ford stated that the motion presented at the March meeting states that “in the implementation of UNL’s new grading system, no change shall be made which results in the lowering of standards. The new standard shall be equal to, or higher than, the old standard when letter grades in both systems are converted to numerical equivalencies.” He pointed out that it is the Senate who should decide to maintain the standards of the grading system, not local interests. The motion was approved with six abstentions.
7.0 New
Business
7.1
AAUP Guidelines
Professor Haller, English and member of AAUP, recognized that these are difficult times for everyone. He stated that he has been in close contact with the national office of AAUP concerning what is occurring at UNL. He stated that he has enormous concerns for the quality of education at UNL. He pointed out that the maintenance of the tenure system is critical in keeping quality at the university.
Professor Haller stated that there is harm in going after tenured faculty and even more harm when faculty members start going against each other. He stated that it is important that the AAUP guidelines not be compromised. He pointed out that the AAUP guidelines state that the university must try to find another position for any faculty members who are terminated due to program elimination.
Professor Haller stated that the AAUP supports a moratorium on firing tenured faculty members. He stated that enhancing revenues could be one way of helping with the budget cuts. He stated that the faculty needs to take control and that the Senate and APC should be the bodies to take this control. He noted that while the local AAUP chapter is not active, faculty members will be contacted to request that they join. He pointed out that the AAUP could be another voice for faculty.
Professor Diffendal, asked if it was possible for the AAUP to review equivalently ranked faculty members and whether then can be moved from soft dollars to hard dollars. Haller stated that the AAUP is disturbed by the trend to build a faculty body without tenure track members. Diffendal stated that academic freedom and tenure should be extended to the extension faculty. Haller stated that he would like to see the extension faculty be given tenure if this can legally be done.
7.2
Faculty Women’s Caucus
Professor Beck, Animal Science, stated that on behalf of the Faculty Women’s Caucus, she wanted to present a motion calling for a moratorium on the firing of tenured faculty. She made the motion:
“Whereas academic freedom and tenure are the fundamental foundations of a university system and
Whereas
the
Therefore be it resolved that the Faculty Women’s Caucus calls upon Chancellor Perlman to immediately institute a moratorium on the firing of tenured faculty and calls upon him to honor the commitment of tenure for both men and women faculty at UNL.”
Professor May seconded the motion. President Miller noted that the motion must be declared as an emergency motion in order to be voted upon at today’s meeting. Professor Fuller, Art & Art History, moved that the motion be declared an emergency motion. Professor Wolf seconded the motion. Motion defeated: 32 against, 18 in favor, 3 abstentions. Motion fails as an emergency item. The motion made by Professor Beck will be voted upon at the April 29th meeting.
Professor Beck pointed out that the university’s reputation has suffered due to the proposal to eliminate tenured faculty members. She stated that the motion put forward by the Faculty Women’s Caucus is a request for the Chancellor to pause in the budget cutting process and to work with the faculty rather than against the faculty. She noted that tenure has been breached and that we need to retain a commitment to tenure on campus.
Professor May stated that the request for a pause in the budget cutting process is give the Chancellor a chance to reevaluate the firing of tenured faculty members. She stated she has concerns for the loss of tenure and has immediate concern that the only two Museum faculty members who have not been offered a position elsewhere in the university are women. She noted that the state legislature passed LB 389 which requires that
the university move up from the bottom, to the top 50% of our peers in regards to diversity. She noted that there are only four more female faculty members now than when the bill was first passed.
Professor Prochaska-Cue, Family Resources and Consumer Science, stated that she believes in the concept of tenure but is torn by the way the resolution is written. She noted that she has concerns for the non-tenure faculty members. She offered a friendly amendment of including the language “while viable alternative solutions are sought” at the end of the last sentence in the third paragraph. Beck seconded the friendly amendment. Prochaska-Cue offered another friendly amendment to replace the language Faculty Women’s Caucus with UNL Academic Senate. May seconded the friendly amendment.
Chancellor Perlman stated that he would like to be able to pause in the budget cutting process but he stated that events are out of his control. He noted that he has to have a budget ready by July 1. He pointed out that he is certainly willing to listen to any faculty member concerning the cuts. Professor Carlo asked if a timeline for the moratorium was included in the resolution. Professor Beck stated that there was no timeline.
Professor Genoways stated that his constituents in the Museum wanted him to bring forth a motion for a vote of no confidence in the Chancellor. He stated that in his judgment, it may be premature to do this right now. He stated that the APC process needs to take place. He noted that the Museum’s hearing with the APC is scheduled for April 9th. He pointed out that he may bring the motion forward at the April 29th meeting and he encouraged the senators to inform themselves with what is really going on. He stated that the issue is tenure, not budget cuts. He stated that faculty governance has been circumvented with these budget decisions and that the faculty members need to get involved. He pointed out that the fate of the eight Museum faculty members could be the fate of other faculty members as well. He stated that he does not believe that any faculty members are safe and that these budget cuts are driving the UNL campus to unionization.
Chancellor Perlman stated that if the faculty members are committed to doing budget cuts through horizontal cuts, which many think would severely damage the university, then Professor Genoways should make the motion of no confidence now. He stated that by April 29th he may be forced to announce further proposed budget reductions. He noted that the Appropriations Committee will make their recommendations to the legislature on April 24th or 25th. He stated that if the reductions for the university are above 3%, then the next set of proposed budget reductions that he will announce will include additional tenured faculty members. He noted that he strongly supports tenure but he will not be able to support it for long if the quality of the campus is going to suffer because of it. He stated that unless someone can show him another way of making the budget cuts without compromising quality, he can see no other course of action but to eliminate some academic programs.
Professor Keith, Entomology, stated that it was a sad day. He did not believe it was fair to come up with a motion of no confidence in the Chancellor when he and the administration have been working hard to fight for the university. He suggested that a straw poll should be taken.
Professor Archer, Anthropology and Geography, pointed out that he represents the faculty in his department and that he feels that he needs to consult with his colleagues before he could vote on this motion.
Professor Hoffman moved that the meeting be adjourned. Motion approved.
The
meeting was adjourned at