Email: senate@unlinfo.unl.edu

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

UNL ACADEMIC SENATE MEETING MINUTES

City Campus Union, Centennial Room

April 7, 1998

Presidents James Ford, Patricia Kennedy, and Peter Bleed Presiding

1.0 Call to Order

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

2.0 Announcements

2.1 Shared Governance Meeting

Ford reported that the Executive Committee of the Academic Senate launched activities with administration to discuss shared governance. He reported that he, Patricia Kennedy, and Gail Latta, attended the National Network of Faculty Senates meeting in Atlanta, GA. Kennedy reported that other Senate officers from across the country met to discuss shared governance. She stated that this meeting gave everyone involved a better understanding of what shared governance is and also gave her a better feeling about UNL and the Academic Senate. Kennedy stated that the next meeting between faculty and administrators on shared governance at UNL will look at case studies.

2.2 Improving Academic Climate

Latta reported that in addition to attending the preconference meeting on shared governance, she also attended a half-day workshop on Increasing Expectations for Student Academic Effort presented by Drs. Karen Maitland and Karl L. Schilling of Miami University (Ohio). Latta stated that the Schillings reported on work being funded by a FIPSE Planning Grant involving 7 mid-western campuses and that the purpose of the study was to develop methods of assessing the expectations that undergraduate students bring to the educational process, and to identify the best practices for fostering high levels of expectations for student effort. She reported that the premise of this research stems from a 1984 National Institutes of Education report which identified 3 critical conditions for excellence in undergraduate education: student involvement, assessment and feedback, and high expectations. Latta stated that the study indicates that students actually approach their first year of undergraduate study with slightly higher expectations for their involvement and commitment than their behavior in the first year bears out, yet 80% of these students are maintaining a GPA of 3.0 or better. She stated that these studies do not assume that faculty are not already engaged in efforts to communicate appropriate levels of expectations to students and additional work is being done to examine what faculty currently do to help shape students' expectations for success in their academic careers. Latta reported that a practice adopted at Virginia Tech is for the Faculty Senate to send a letter to all incoming freshmen stating certain expectations the community holds to be important for student academic success. Latta stated that Dan Bernstein, Psychology, recently reported to the Executive Committee on data that has been collected at UNL in connection with the FIPSE grant on Teaching Portfolios and that he will be presenting the team's findings at the April 28^th Senate meeting.

3.0 President Dennis L. Smith

President Smith reported that he meets every year with faculty of the four campuses and that he is addressing the issue that all campuses are concerned with, namely, the budget issue. He stated that it is not possible to predict what is going to happen in the next 10-15 years but that some indications could be gathered from past data. President Smith stated that the most important goal at the University of Nebraska is quality and that we need to dedicate ourselves to that goal. Presenting data from previous years, President Smith stated that the bulk of the increase of state funds for education has been concentrated at the K-12 level, which received a three-fold increase from 1983-1999, while the University's percentage has progressively decreased. President Smith stated that a history of funding and total appropriations show that the state's general fund budget increased 9.4% per year while the University's increase has been only 3.3% and that we have received a steady decline in percentage of funds since 1988-89. President Smith reported that the distribution of state general funds was going to: 1) K-12 education; 2) medicaid costs; and 3) corrections. He stated that together these three groups comprised 52% of the state general fund. President Smith reported that considering a 3% increase in salaries and operating expenses, by the year 2015 the University will need a total of $763 million just to maintain status quo which does not allow for any new growth. He stated that raising tuition is not a solution to the problem since every percentage point raises only $900,000 and that it would take a 300% increase in tuition to cover the costs of the University. President Smith stated that it was important to remember that while the economy is healthy and that we could get a 5% increase in the state budget which may allow the University to receive a 6% increase, we are in an election year where there are three Republican candidates for governor who are all promising to cut the budget which could have severe effects on the University. He stated that there is an organization in the state known as the Business Summit who are pushing to cap revenue to the rate of inflation as well as consideration by the legislature to cut the state sales tax. All of these actions, President Smith stated, could have effects on the University. President Smith asked how do we plan for the future and asked for the faculty's participation and input into this planning. President Smith presented a scenario of eliminating all non-academic support staff which he stated would result in only a 10-20% savings. He stated that while this would help financially, it does not solve the problem and other solutions must be found. President Smith stated that there may be room for some consolidation and downsizing but that this was not a simple answer. He stated that it was important for the University to become more efficient and effective and that reorganization may help in attaining this goal. He gave some examples such as creating interdepartmental business centers and offering courses of low enrollment at only one campus rather than at several of the campuses using technology. President Smith stated that it was necessary to look at new approaches to management such as the new administrative system project which will be used by all the campuses and using electronic resources rather than producing hard copies of all documents. President Smith re-emphasized that quality can not be sacrificed and that the University must be the best it can be. He stated that the University should seek an increase in its budget but that this will not be successful unless the University makes an effort to be more efficient. He stated that it is essential to develop strategies and appealed to the faculty to join in the process to make the University a more efficient and effective institution.

Professor Jensen, Psychology, stated that having been born and raised in the state of Nebraska and talking to many friends and family members, he has noticed a decade long anti-intellectualism throughout the state and asked President Smith if there are any ways to fight, moderate or change this view to help support higher education. President Smith responded by stating that this is the situation throughout the country and that higher education is in trouble. He stated that with the Berlin Wall coming down in November 1989 and the end of the Cold War, that the country lost its focus. He stated that the new focus is the global economy and asked how can we help the nation to remain strong. President Smith stated that the wealth of nations will be knowledge based rather than resource based. He stated that universities have typically shunned business in the past although the bulk of graduates go into this arena and that we should convince corporations that we are their friends. President Smith stated that we need to educate leaders both nationally and in the state on the importance of higher education in the global economy. Past-President Bleed stated that there were many faculty perspectives and that faculty are loyal to departments. He stated there is a perspective between leadership and leadership function and asked how we prevent the perception problem. President Smith stated that faculty need to stop ignoring administration and find out what it does. He stated that numerous new federal regulations requires the need for additional administrators to ensure that the guidelines are met. He suggested that faculty find out what it takes to run a university. Bleed asked about finding a new meaning to shared governance. President Smith stated that it is fundamentally important to have shared governance but that this does not give faculty the right to veto decisions they do not like and he stated that everyone must get involved in order to have change. Professor Mayo, Entomology, stated that it was difficult to see how the University could make any savings without sacrificing quality. President Smith stated that he can not delineate how much we can save but that saving $20-$40 million was better than nothing and asked faculty to help solve the problem. A member from ROTC stated that the funds going to K-12 seemed to be for disciplinary uses rather than education and that students are entering college unprepared. He asked if we shouldn't be telling K-12 teachers that we need better prepared students. President Smith stated that he did not think this was the correct message to send to these educators and that the K-12 initiative, which is a collaboration of K-12 administration and higher education, is working to make both elementary education and secondary education stronger. He stated that the standards should be strengthened. President Smith stated there will be a retreat in May with Presidents of the University and State colleges, Chancellors, Deans and some faculty from all colleges and people from the K-12 sector to discuss education in Nebraska. Andy Schuerman, student, asked about student input and where it fits in. President Smith stated that student input can and should be obtained but that it needs to be handled carefully.

4.0 Chancellor Moeser

4.1 Reallocation

4.1.a. Report on Last Year's Reallocation

Chancellor Moeser stated that reallocation is needed and that currently we are in the process of reallocating funds from last year's reallocation process. He stated that currently there are 80 faculty searches being conducted and the bottom line of reallocation is that the transfer of funds has gone to academic programs. Chancellor Moeser reported that 1/3 of these positions would not be available if it were not for reallocation.

4.1.b. Rationale for New Reallocation

Chancellor Moeser stated that reallocation is needed in order to move the UNL campus forward. He stated that the amount of 4% was determined as being adequate enough to support the changes without being too excessive in cuts to colleges. Chancellor Moeser reported that they have been criticized in the last reallocation for conducting it in a top-down management style. As a result of these comments, Chancellor Moeser stated that an email message has been sent out asking for suggestions in regards to the reallocation process. He stated that priorities need to be set and that other sources of revenue need to be reviewed. Chancellor Moeser stated that one idea is to give greater allowances to colleges to reallocate internally. He stated that the University is on a path towards excellence and that discussions on this topic will be held. Chancellor Moeser asked what the long and short term goals should be for the University. He stated that we need to look at the organization and its' structure and ask ourselves if we are organized to the maximum degree of effectiveness and efficiency. Chancellor Moeser stated that we need to become more efficient and urged faculty to become a part of this process. Mayo, Entomology, stated that there has been great trauma since the last reallocation and that it has put a burden on programs resulting in the loss of quality and the loss of good people. He stated that he thinks we need more long-range planning. Chancellor Moeser stated that the long-term planning should be conducted at the department level and departments should not cannibalize their operating budgets but should look at what can be shut down. He stated that the University is use to growth spurts but that we now need to develop skills to downsize. He stated that reallocation may have to be linked with restructuring. Chancellor Moeser stated that distance learning is an untapped market which may be a source of new funding. He stated that it is important to use the creativity of faculty to solve the resource problem. Chancellor Moeser stated that we need to go from state assisted funding to entrepreneurial activities of faculty and that generating contracted research is another source of funding. He stated that those departments who can generate outside funding will assist those departments which can not. Professor Nielsen, Animal Science, stated that administration seemed to underestimate the trauma which reallocation has caused in departments and that faculty feel they have suffered a great deal. He stated that faculty are saying their initial reaction is that they will not go through another reallocation. Chancellor Moeser asked if areas such as admission of honors students, technology, wiring of campus were improvements and if we were not better since the reallocation process. Nielsen stated that while some things may have improved, many areas were hurt and that in balance he did not think we were better off. Chancellor Moeser stated that there is a greater cost to standing still. Professor Young, Biometry, stated there is no overall strategic plan and that not just the faculty, but the constituents of the state should have input. Professor van Roojen, Philosophy, asked if there is a mechanism for determining what is important to protect. Chancellor Moeser stated that we want to protect the vital central issues of the University which are the responsibilities of teaching, service and research. Professor Latta, Libraries, stated that the East and City campus were bridging the gap which had previously existed between the two campuses, but that the unification appears to have fallen apart in the reallocation process. She stated that an example is the creation of the DEAL lab which has been perceived as being created by reallocated funds to address university-wide needs but which works primarily with East Campus. Vice Chancellor Irv Omtvedt stated that the DEAL lab was a local solution, utilizing local resources to meet local needs. Latta asked how can we get back to the goal of unity. Chancellor Moeser stated that the placement of services does need to be addressed. Professor Winters, Classics, stated that a positive potential direction for the University is to promote one of the country's greatest exports which is higher education. He stated that we should be attracting students from other countries and that there is a huge market for what we do best and that we should pursue this area of potential growth. Chancellor Moeser stated that we have under utilized capacities at the University and that it is possible to increase our student enrollment. He stated that Nebraska is one of the few states which can discuss the increase of out of state students due to the need for workers in the state. He stated that we have a great deal of control over our own destiny and that we need to plan ahead and be aggressive on out of state recruitment.

5.0 Approval of 3/3/987 Minutes (Secretary Albrecht)

Lingren, Family and Consumer Science, moved and Shirer, Modern Languages seconded approval of the minutes as amended.

6.0 Committee Reports

6.1 Computational Facilities and Services Committee (Bhattacharya)

Harbison, Chemistry, reported for Chair Bhattacharya who was at a conference and stated that anyone with questions should contact Professor Bhattacharya. A copy of the report was distributed in the senators packet.

6.2 Graduate Council (Dean Lawson)

A copy of the report was distributed in the senators packet.

6.3 Student Publications Board

A copy of the report was distributed in the senators packet.

6.4 Academic Freedom Award Committee (Pratt)

Professor Pratt asked for any questions. A copy of the report was distributed in the senators packet.

7.0 Academic Freedom Award Nomination (Pratt)

Professor Pratt presented the nomination of the Academic Freedom Award. She stated that the committee reviewed the applications and unanimously voted on nominating Mary McLean Beck, Animal Science for the James A. Lake Academic Freedom Award.

8.0 Recognition of Senators with Term Completions

Ford thanked the outgoing Senators for their service and presented each of them with a certificate of appreciation of service.

9.0 Unfinished Business

9.1 Pending Motions: Committee on Committees

Professor Chouinard, Chair of the Committee on Committees reported that both ROTC and the Athletic department agreed to being dropped from the Definition of Disciplines in the Syllabus of Senate Committees. Ford called for discussion on motion #1 to make the necessary changes to the Definition of Disciplines. Professor Hallbeck, Industrial and Management Systems Engineering, called the question. Motion passed unanimously. Ford called for discussion on motion #2 to change the membership of the Honorary Degrees Committee. Hallbeck stated she disagreed with having a Dean's appointment to the committee and suggested that the library member be placed on the ballot like the other committee members. Chouinard responded that the request came from the Honorary Degrees Committee and that this person is the one who does the research on the people nominated for honorary degrees. Professor Winters, Classics, stated that he has previously been on the committee and that the procedures of the past created a lot of work for the nominator. He stated that having the librarian on the committee to do the research saves a great deal of time but that this person deserves to be a member of the committee. Bender, Journalism, called the question. Motion passed.

10.0 Academic Planning Committee Ballot (Chouinard)

Chouinard reported that an error was made on the Academic Planning Committee ballot recently distributed. He stated that the ballot allowed for two people from the College of Arts and Sciences to be voted upon in two different pairings and that the error was not detected until after the ballots were distributed. He stated that the nominees were contacted and the situation explained and new pairings were made. Chouinard presented the new ballot with the following candidates:

Jim Lewis, Mathematics and Statistics vs. Stephen Behrendt, English

David Cronrath, Architecture vs. Rebecca Bernthal, Libraries

Jensen, Psychology moved and Brand, Chemical Engineering, seconded the motion. Motion approved unanimously.

11.0 New Business

Professor Haller, English, stated that there is considerable concern on the recent letter sent by Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards on annual reviews of faculty. He stated that the letter attributes the directive as coming from the Senate and that it raises the question of the desirability of these reviews. Ford stated that there are a wide range of procedures for reviews currently in place and that the letter called for the equitable review of all faculty as stated by a motion passed by the Senate in accepting the Post Tenure Review Document. Ford stated that he was surprised that the letter was viewed as threatening but stated that the Executive Committee will discuss the issue.

The meeting adjourned at 4:35 p.m. The next Senate meeting will be April 28, 1998 in the City Campus Union, the Centennial Ball Room. Respectfully submitted, Julie Albrecht, Secretary.