Email: senate@unlinfo.unl.edu

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

UNL ACADEMIC SENATE MEETING MINUTES

City Campus Union, Centennial Ballroom

October 6, 1998

Presidents Patricia Kennedy, Gail Latta, and James Ford Presiding

1.0 Call to Order

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

2.0 Announcements

2.1 Faculty Town Hall Meeting

President Kennedy announced that the Faculty Town Hall will be hosting a meeting on October 15^th at 7:00 P.M. on Affirmative Action in Academia. There will be a panel of 4 or 5 faculty members followed by a student roundtable discussion. They are encouraging faculty to ask their students to attend.

2.2 Representative to the Academic Freedom Coalition of Nebraska

President Kennedy reported that John Bender has resigned from the Academic Freedom Coalition of Nebraska due to time constraints. She stated that if anyone is interested in representing the Senate to this organization that they should contact her.

2.3 Academic Rights and Responsibilities Committee

President Kennedy announced that the Executive Committee has charged the Academic Rights and Responsibilities Committee to update their procedures. She reported that the revisions to bring the Post Tenure Review Policy up to compliance with the Board of Regents policy has been referred to the ARRC for their review.

3.0 Chancellor Moeser

3.1 Nebraska Future Committee

Chancellor Moeser thanked the faculty who have nominated or applied to serve on the Nebraska Future Task Force. He stated that Gail Latta, President-Elect of the Academic Senate will be the Senate representative to the committee. Chancellor Moeser reported that the Academic Planning Committee will be nominating a faculty member to serve on the task force.

3.2 Master Plan of the UNL Campus

Chancellor Moeser reported that the master plan of the campus will be presented to the President's Council in late October and that it should go to the Board of Regents for approval in December.

3.3 Construction on Campus

Chancellor Moeser stated that there will be considerable construction on the Lincoln campus in the near future resulting in considerable displacement of parking. He pointed out that the Temple Lot is scheduled for construction as well as Lot 17A north of the City Campus Union. He reported that Love Library will be renovated which will displace all who use the library facilities. Chancellor Moeser stated that some pain and discomfort will occur as a result of this construction but that it will result in wonderful progress.

3.4 Native American Remains

Chancellor Moeser reported that the notification on Native American remains at the University has been sent to the National Park Service and that the University is now waiting for their reply. He pointed out that the University submitted the inventory in the time period agreed upon with the Native Americans.

3.5 Public Reaction to Measure 413

Chancellor Moeser reported that he had just returned from the Lifelong Learning Center at Norfolk and recently returned from a trip to Grand Island where he had discussions with faculty and citizens concerning Measure 413. He stated that there appears to be growing awareness on the impact of the Measure. Chancellor Moeser reported that the Board of Regents opposed the Measure in a 6-2 vote and that President Smith had a press conference in the morning opposing the Measure.

3.6 University Budget

Chancellor Moeser reported that another fiscal reality is the loss of tuition revenue. He stated that as a result we should anticipate a decrease in the budget for the Lincoln campus. He pointed out that another issue that will need to be dealt with is the cost of Internet II.

4.0 Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards

4.1 Nebraska Performance Model

Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards presented a handout (available on the web at: http://www.unl.edu/svcaa/Activities/9Questions.html) explaining the Nebraska Performance Model (NPM). He stated that the NPM contains two points: 1) a relational database which would link all of the current databases on campus and 2) a system similar to the Florida Bank Model which would be adapted to UNL. Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards stated that they are trying to construct a common framework to evaluate programs with peer institutions rather than comparing departments within a college. He pointed out that currently the only program evaluation is the five year academic program review. SVCAA Edwards stated that programs with growing enrollments and programs who raise their quality suffer in this kind of evaluation. SVCAA Edwards pointed out that there is a need to use the data stored in the various databases on campus more effectively and that this data should be made more accessible. SVCAA Edwards stated that he and Provost Capaldi of the University of Florida had applied for grants to work on a project that will enable them to collect data from other universities to use in conjunction with the NPM, but that they were not funded. He stated that he hoped to raise outside funds to support the project. He stated that a number of other universities are trying to create similar systems. SVCAA Edwards stated that one of the goals of the NPM is to create responsibility centered management in which each college acts on its own enterprise. He pointed out that this will have an advantage in that the academic units will have more control over their programs. He noted that some of the disadvantages are that it will create inequality in colleges and that it creates competition among the colleges which could result in courses being taught in departments outside of the department's area. SVCAA Edwards stated that the NPM will consist of three parts: 1) a set of accounts; b) a narrative description for each unit of its most important accomplishments and 3) comparisons based on peer-university colleges and on own-longitudinal data. SVCAA Edwards pointed out that the NPM would allow administrators to make informed decisions. He noted that it would also be applied to administration and would enable us to compare our administration with the administrations of the peer schools. SVCAA Edwards stated that they would like to get the system set up and simulations run within the academic year. He noted that they are very committed do doing the relational database but that it has yet to be determined whether to apply the Florida Bank Model. Van Roojen, Philosophy, stated that the weighting scheme, particularly in regards to class size, proposed last spring is not compatible with what is being presented today. SVCAA Edwards responded that they are not considering weighing factors at this time, but that they are merely collecting data. Van Roojen stated that it is important to use the original data collected and that there may be another way to conduct the model without using a weighing scheme. Jensen, Psychology, applauded the efforts to create a database which can be used for program evaluation, but is concerned by the tendency to immediately add evaluative weights. Jensen asked if it would not be wise to use the most sophisticated available techniques to understand that data before weighting is done. Specifically, he though that factor analytic methods (taught and used in a number of departments, including Biostatistics, psychology, and educational psychology) should be applied first. Benham, South Central Research & Extension, asked what units were involved in the simulation? SVCAA Edwards stated that 6 departments were involved in the simulation and that their data has been carefully blended to avoid detection. He pointed out that the NPM will be conducted at a college level, not necessarily on a departmental level. Weiss, School of Natural Resources, stated that he had contacted the head of a department at the University of Florida who had difficulty explaining how the Florida Bank system works. Weiss noted that he has concerns with what will happen in the future and with the changing administration. He stated that the concept of applying business practices to academia does not work. SVCAA Edwards responded that this is the very reason why they must take things slowly and try to figure out how best it will work. Nelson, Agronomy, pointed out that there is inference to a common currency but is unsure as to what that currency is. SVCAA Edwards responded that he is committed to implementing a relational database but that he is agnostic towards the bank model and that it may not be implemented. Gay, Physics & Astronomy, stated that he is in favor of the idea but recommends employing an undergraduate using a spreadsheet rather than hiring an outside consultant. Zorn, Finance, stated that it is important to maximize and measure as many things about performance as possible. He stated that other types of analysis could be used. Kocher, Biological Systems Engineering, asked who are the peer institutions and that it is important in the planning to obtain data. SVCAA Edwards stated that the grant that he and Provost Capaldi are trying to obtain will facilitate that gathering data process. Martin, Northeast Research & Extension, asked how outreach and extension fit into the model? SVCAA Edwards stated that they are left out in the Florida Bank Model but that this is an essential question that needs to be explored. Zorn noted that there is a tendency to focus on data that can be easily measured and collected rather than on quality which is more difficult to measure. SVCAA Edwards agreed that it is difficult to measure and that they need to make sure that quality is measured accurately. Barnes, Music, welcomed peer comparisons but expressed concern over the weighting of student credit hours. He pointed out that in the department of Music teaching is conducted in an applied format with one student per instructor. SVCAA Edwards stated that the advantage to this concept is that they would be compared to other Music departments but stressed that even within peer comparisons they may need to look at the differences in programs. Roysircar-Sodowsky, Educational Psychology, reemphasized that some departments were involved in professional programs and have a very selective mission which restricts them to working with a small number of students. She asked what will happen to the doctoral training of such programs? SVCAA Edwards stated that there is a high weight placed on doctoral training and stressed that the comparison will be made with peer institutions, not departments within the college. Jensen noted that there are three different activities being discussed; 1) that the database be available conveniently to all departments, 2) that comparable data be obtained from peer institutions (although that may be difficult if not impossible to obtain), and 3) weighting of data for decision making. He is primarily interested in the first, noting that some years ago the absence of such a database had unfortunate consequences for his department; the fact that psychology had 900 majors as well as a large graduate program (primarily in clinical psychology) was apparently not available to the administrators and deans when decisions regarding staff additions were being made. Weiss asked if we are addressing the right questions and stated that we should be conducting surveys of our graduates to determine how well they have been trained and how they compare with graduates from other institutions. Aguilar, Curriculum & Instruction, stated that there has been a lot of discussion on quantitative data but little discussion on qualitative data. SVCAA Edwards pointed out that there needs to be further discussion of what quality is and that it has to be a central part of the NPM. Haller, English, stated that the New York Times reported that there are a glut of students in state schools but that we are being told differently and asked why? Chancellor Moeser responded that demography plays a key role in these figures and that those states in the sunbelt are seeing a huge increase in their student population. He stated that the University is trying new strategies to recruit out of state students.

5.0 Approval of 9/1/98 Minutes (Secretary Albrecht)

Haller, English moved and Shirer, Modern Languages, seconded approval of the minutes as amended.

6.0 Committee Reports

6.1 Academic Standards (Gregory)

Gregory reported that he recently met with the Committee on Committees to discuss proposed changes to the Academic Standards Committee. He stated that a name change as well as additional members were being requested due to the expansion of the responsibilities of the committee. A copy of the Academic Standards Committee report was included in the packet.

6.2 Grading and Examination Committee (Lee)

Lee reported that the committee is currently lacking a representative from the College of Arts and Sciences and that a request has been made to name one but to date there has been no response. He noted that the committee provided service for 180 students in the past year. Lee stated that there continues to be a problem with the committee in finding members and a chair. He stated that the committee is working on revising the procedures of how the committee operates. He stated that they are proposing that the activity of appeals could be handled in the college itself. Lee stated that the appeals officer of the college and the committee representative could review the majority of the appeals. He reported that the committee will meet in the fall to discuss these revisions. A copy of the Grading and Examination Committee report was included in the packet.

6.3 Academic Rights and Responsibilities Committee (McShane)

McShane stated that the special committee report on the Political Science department is to be distributed at the end of the week. Harbison, Chemistry, asked if the ARRC acknowledges that there was a problem with the case? McShane agreed that there were problems which were exacerbated by public reports. He stated that it was not the committee that broke the rule of confidence but that the procedures regarding confidence shall be reviewed. McShane pointed out that this was a very strong panel made up of two former Senate presidents, a department chair and a scholar who has deliberated over harassment issues. Whitt, Sociology, asked if the committee has observed any long range trend in the kind of issues that have been raised. McShane stated that there has been a trend and that these have been addressed in the report. Scheideler, Animal Science, asked if the issue has been resolved concerning the proposed Bylaw change? McShane stated that members of the Executive Committee were working with the ARRC and that Gail Latta is proposing language to address this change. He noted that it was difficult to find out who is initiating the change. McShane stated that what is at issue is the phrase "mutual consent" and pointed out that this same issue was addressed ten years ago. He noted that the issue was resolved and the procedures referring to this issue can be found in the faculty handbook. A copy of the Academic Rights and Responsbilities Committee report was included in the packet.

7.0 Election of Academic Senate Executive Committee Member

Teresita Aguilar, Curriculum and Instruction, was elected to serve on the Executive Committee for a two-year term.

8.0 Motion on Measure 413 - Proposed Constitutional Lid

Bender, News Editorial, presented a motion to oppose Measure 413. Kennedy declared this motion as an emergency item. Bender moved and Haller seconded approval of the motion. Harbison moved that the second section of the first clause and the entire second clause be removed. As a matter of expediency, Bender accepted the amendments. Haller seconded the amendments. Motion passed unanimously.

9.0 Small Group Discussions Follow-Up

Latta indicated that a compilation of the small group discussions was handed out at the meeting.

10.0 Unfinished Business

No unfinished business.

11.0 New Business

11.1 Faculty/Staff/Student Friendly Parking

Arth, Curriculum & Instruction, appealed to the Academic Senate to form an ad hoc committee to review the policies regarding the absence of hanging tags for people registered on campus to park. Kennedy pointed out that this is an issue for the Parking Advisory Committee to discuss and that she will talk to the committee chair about this concern.

11.2 Change in Titles to Lecturer/Sr. Lecturer

Haller stated that there have been questions raised concerning the change in titles for some of the faculty. He noted that this has been perceived as a demotion for many and asked if they can not be grandfathered in to existing titles. Kennedy stated that she was informed that an Assistant Professor position is for a person newly graduated from a doctoral program and that the title of Senior Lecturer is considered higher than an Assistant Professor position. She stated that the issue will to be discussed further by the Executive Committee.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:40 p.m. The next Senate meeting will be November 3, 1998 in the East Campus Union (check calendar of events at the Union for verification of room). Respectfully submitted, Miles Bryant, Secretary.