UNL ACADEMIC SENATE MEETING MINUTES
Clifford Hardin Nebraska Center, East Campus
November 5, 1996
President Peter Bleed Presiding
1.0 Call to Order
*President Bleed called the meeting to order at 2:35 pm.
2.0 Announcements
* Special Task Force on Benefits. President Smith has
appointed a special task force to examine strategies for improved
benefits for all four campuses. President Bleed and Adams,
Libraries and Employee Benefits Committee Chair, will represent
UNL.
3.0 Chancellor Moeser
3.1 Vote in today's election. Chancellor Moeser urged
senators to vote if they had not already done so.
3.2 Participation in combined campaign. Chancellor Moeser
shared his concern about the university community's drop in support
from last year's contribution. From both a personal and institutional
request, he urged faculty to take civic responsibility in the
community. A follow up question by Chouinard, Mathematics &
Statistics, stated that faculty did not get information about the
various charities other than its availability in the department
office.
3.3 Reallocation process. Chancellor Moeser referred to the
guidelines document of October 9th that has been distributed to
faculty. The overarching priorities are: areas of emphasis as
determined by the Academic Planning Committee; diversity;
recruitment of high ability students; information technology; library;
operating budgets; and deferred maintenance. His discussion
focused on academic rigor and to challenge students to be
successful. He urged department discussions on ensuring a rigorous
curriculum and challenged faculty to teach to the top students and
increase expectations. The objective was not to flunk out students
but to increase the retention rate. He requested that faculty not
inflate grades or lower expectations. He stated that we need to keep
Nebraska's best in Nebraska and to attract top out of state
students.
3.4 Climate for minorities and women. Beverly Ledbetter,
vice president and general counsel at Brown University, has been
hired as a consultant to review the Athletic Department. Chancellor
Moeser shared data on the increase in the number of female faculty
at UNL since 1989 and an increase in the number of female faculty
promoted to the associate rank. Progress needs to be made in the
number of female faculty promoted to full professor and those
appointed to administrative positions. The status of minority faculty
is virtually flat and we need to work in this area.
3.5 Sexual Harassment. The policy on sexual harassment is
in place and will be enforced. Dr. Ricardo Garcia, Director of
Affirmative Action and Diversity, will visit with each college about
diversity. A designated person from each college will receive
affirmative action training.
3.6 Tenure. Chancellor Moeser will write an article for the
program of the upcoming football game to answer questions about
why we have tenure and that it is a guarantee of academic freedom
but that it is not an iron lunch bucket'. Tenure at UNL is not
easily awarded and there are guidelines for removal of tenure.
Chancellor Moeser pointed out that where we need to improve the
review process is to review fully promoted professors beginning 5
years after promotion. He proposed a process which would
recognize the top ten percent with a stipend. He stated that a joint
administrative/faculty committee has been appointed to develop the
procedures. The members are Associate Vice Chancellors Al
Kilgore and David Brinkerhoff, Dean Darrell Nelson, Agricultural
Research Division, Doug Jose and James Ford.
4.0 Committee Reports
4.1 Chancellor's Commission on the Status of People of
Color. Venita Kelley, Communication Studies, Chair of the CCSPC
reported on the commission's activities and a written report was
distributed to Senators at the meeting. Highlights of the report
include a summary of last year's issues and the 1996-7 goals of the
CCSPS. The Chair of CCSPC will serve on the President's
Advisory Council. In November, the CCSPS will have an office in
Niehardt.
A discussion on the use of the more appropriate term
"microculture" versus "minority" followed. Microculture more
appropriate describes racially and ethnically different people rather
than minority or people of color.
4.2 Chancellor's Commission on the Status of Women.
Marilyn Grady, Educational Administration, Chair of the CCSW
gave an overview of the CCSW and reviewed the priorities of the
CCSW. A written report was distributed to the Senators at the
meeting. Grady stated that although progress is being made, not
many women are in faculty roles and administration. The CCSW
will have an office and a secretary in Niehardt.
4.3 Research Council. David Stanley-Samuelson,
Entomology, Chair of the Research Council highlighted 2 points
stated in the written report distributed to Senators. 1) The Grant-in-Aid forms were revised; a maximum of $3000 can be requested; and
2) formal policies and procedures for the continuity were developed
for the Research Council. NU Foundation provides $300,000 to
support faculty through the Research Council. Chouinard asked why
a negative amount was given in the report. Stanley-Samuelson
responded that more was spent than they had and that they were able
to move funds around.
5.0 Dale Ekart, Recycling Office
* Dale Ekart, Recycling Coordinator, explained that faculty
could call the Recycling Office when they are moving offices or
have lots to recycle, and that he would be available to speak to
classes about recycling. Also their office has produced a nine-minute
video which explains recycling and is available for use.
6.0 Approval of 10/8/96 Minutes
* Dewey, Geography, moved for approval of the 10/8/96
minutes. Seconded by Robertson, Mechanical Engineering. Minutes
were approved.
7.0 Periodic Review of Tenured Faculty Document
* The Executive Committee's document "The Academic
Context for Periodic Review of Tenured Faculty at UNL" was sent
to Senators prior to the meeting and was made available on e-mail.
The document is in response to the Regents request for a statement
from each campus on reviewing tenured faculty. The Regents would
like a progress report at their 12/14/96 meeting. The document
comes to the Senate as a seconded motion from the Executive
Committee for Senate approval at the December Senate meeting.
Discussion followed. Jensen, Psychology, stated that if we
undermine tenure it will be difficult to bring in senior faculty; tenure
serves to keep us competitive. Wise, Law, disagreed with #3 in the
conclusions and stated that faculty know what is being done with
regard to faculty review in their own college; but asked what is done
in other colleges? And how will a five-year review document fit into
this document? Kennedy, Music, asked what's the bottom line?
Goedert, Construction Systems, stated that the review process looks
good on paper but protects non-productive faculty. Mayo,
Entomology, stated that tenure is under attack and the public
embraces the idea of post tenure review. Jose, Ag. Economics,
asked Senate members where does protection come, where do you
see the deficiency and what do you propose? The response was that
reviews are not done uniformly or if at all and that no one is willing
to approach non-productive faculty. Jose stated that the structure is
there and asked where is the weak link in the current structure? The
response was that we need to take a proactive stance and that peer
review was more valuable. Bleed asked Ford to take the Chair and
stated that we need to be attuned to human diversity and that he
does not see a large contingency of unproductive faculty. Bleed
resumed the Chair. Discussion continued on our response to the
Regents and Bleed stated that we were not requested to discuss the
failures of the review process. Pederson, Conservation and Survey,
stated that he was aware of release of tenured faculty and felt that
the tenure procedures were working.
8.0 Unfinished Business
* No unfinished Business.
9.0 New Business
* Regent Bylaw Amendment. On 10/25/96 the Regents took
action on a tenure case which was brought before them by a faculty
in compliance with the current appeal procedure. The Regents
proposed a bylaw amendment change, provided at the Senate
meeting, which they will act upon at their 12/14/96 meeting. If this
bylaw change is approved, the UNL appeal process would be
changed; no longer allowing faculty to appeal their case to the
Regents. The ARRC provided the Senate with written background
information on the proposed bylaw amendment. Wise moved that
the UNL Academic Senate recommend that the Regents pass the
proposed bylaw amendment. Seconded by Kennedy, Marketing.
The motion will be voted on at the 12/3/96 meeting of Senate.
Discussion followed. Harbison, Chemistry, stated that he was
unfavorable to the bylaw change and was impressed with Regent
Wilson's insight. Discussion continued on the irregularities in the
tenure process, rules not being followed and unwriten rules being
used. A recommendation was made that the Regents should not be
removed from the appeal process. Chancellor Moeser responded that
the Regents felt uncomfortable in this situation and felt that there
was a need for some type of appellate process. UNL is the only
campus which involves the Regents in the appeal process. In 1993
the Regents removed themselves from the tenure process but did not
realize that UNL involved Regents in their appeal process.
Chancellor Moeser proposed developing a process that included an
agreed upon outside panel would be selected appeal the case rather
that involve the Regents. Kennedy, History, asked that if the
Regents passed the bylaw change, would there be a commitment to
create a structure. Chancellor Moeser answered yes. Roysircar-Sodowsky, Educational Psychology, proposed that we encourage the
Regents to withdraw the motion until another process is in place. A
safety measure is needed for faculty. Jensen, Psychology, stated that
the bylaws could be enriched by forming a commission to aid the
Regents in the appeal process.
10. For the Good of the Order
The meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m. The next Senate meeting will
be December 3 at the City Campus Union. Respectfully submitted,
Julie Albrecht, secretary.