Email: senate@unlinfo.unl.edu

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

UNL ACADEMIC SENATE MEETING MINUTES

East Campus Union, Great Plains Room

September 1, 1998

Presidents Patricia Kennedy, Gail Latta, and James Ford Presiding

1.0 Call to Order

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

2.0 Announcements

2.1 Parking for Senators

President Kennedy announced that the Academic Senate office has received five special hang tags for Lot 17A just north of the City Campus Union. These five hang tags are available on a first-come, first-serve basis from the Academic Senate Office anyone interested should contact the office. Kennedy pointed out that these tags are to be used for meetings scheduled on City Campus only. She reported that several Lot 10's are available near the campus: the loop in front of the stadium, lot behind the Temple building, 17^th and R street, and the Beadle Center. Kennedy reported that shuttles run every 5 - 10 minutes from the Beadle Center and stop in front of the City Campus Union.

2.2 Transfer of Tuition Remission Update

President Kennedy announced that Chancellor Moeser was successful in gathering support from the other Chancellors for the transfer of tuition remission benefit. She stated that the Chancellors will discuss this with President Smith. Benham, South Central Research & Extension, asked if the policy is the same as the one proposed at the February meeting. Kennedy replied that it was the same.

2.3 TKE House Update

President Kennedy reported that bidding on the renovation of the TKE house was conducted during the summer however, the bids submitted were well over budget. The project will be rebid in the fall.

2.4 AAHE Proposal on Post Tenure Review (Latta)

President-Elect Latta reported that Associate Vice Chancellor Jacobson notified the Executive Committee of a call to write a proposal for a grant on the study of the post tenure review process. Latta stated that she and Associate Vice Chancellor Jacobson submitted a proposal. They will be notified in September of the outcome of their proposal.

2.5 Proposed Bylaw Change - 3.4.4 Assignment of Duties (Latta)

President-Elect Latta reported that at the July 25^th Board of Regents meeting the proposed bylaw change was introduced as an informational item. She stated that Chancellor Moeser asked the Board of Regents to postpone any action on this item until the faculty had input. Latta reported that the Faculty Handbook addresses the proposed change in Section IV.A, Point III B. She stated that the Executive Committee is working with the Chancellor and Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards to try to incorporate the language used in the Faculty Handbook into the proposed Bylaw change.

2.6 Shared Governance Update

Past President Ford reported that faculty and administrators met three times last year and had frank discussions regarding faculty concerns and issues. Ford, however, indicated that there are very troubling concerns for faculty. He emphasized that faculty must have access to information in a timely and unfiltered manner. He stated that another concern is that some administrators do not feel that the Academic Senate represent the faculty and that they feel there are other constituents that should be listened to instead. He reported that President Kennedy spoke to Chancellor Moeser who stated that he accepts the Senate as the representatives of the faculty. Ford stated there continues to be troubling and fundamental problems between faculty and administrators on these and other issues but that faculty and administration want to continue the discussions. He stated that the administration needs to do more work with the faculty.

2.7 Recognition of Service Award

President Kennedy presented a recognition of service award to Gargi Roysircar Sodowsky for her service on the Executive Committee.

3.0 Chancellor Moeser

3.1 Conference on Repatriation of Native American Remains

Chancellor Moeser reported that he had just come from the Conference on Repatriation of Native American Remains and announced that just minutes ago that he and the representatives of the tribes had just signed an agreement to repatriate all Native American remains under the Native American Grave Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). He stated that the agreement calls for the return of Native remains and burial property, including those remains assigned a tentative tribal affiliation; examination of all existing records concerning unaffiliated prehistoric and historic human remains and burial property within the next four weeks by the tribal NAGPRA representatives; the release of the remains 30 days after the completion of this examination; and the creation of an enclosed memorial site on East Campus where Native American remains were incinerated and scattered. Chancellor Moeser stated that while the agreement goes beyond what the NAGPRA law requires, he believes that it is the right thing to do although he is sure there will be some controversy in the scientific community in regards to the agreement. Bleed, Anthropology, stated that the agreement sounds excellent and that there was good leadership on this matter. Chancellor Moeser stated that we owe a great debt of gratitude to Vice Chancellor Grew for all of the time and devotion she has put to this issue. Mientka, Mathematics and Statistics, moved that the University of Nebraska Academic Senate support the action by Chancellor Moeser to resolve the unfortunate issues relating to the remains of the Native Americans. Haller, English, seconded the motion. Brand, Parliamentarian, stated that the agenda must first be set aside before a motion could be made. Roysircar Sodowsky, Educational Psychology, stated that while she appreciated the motion being made, she felt that the Senate should not make a hasty decision and that she would like to discuss it with the faculty in her department. Bleed made a motion to set the agenda aside, Albrecht, Nutritional Science & Dietetics, seconded the motion. Motion to set aside the agenda approved. Kennedy ruled that this is an intrinsic motion. Jensen, Psychology, stated that he felt that the Senate is moving too rapidly in this decision and that it is not the business of the Senate to give rewards to the administration based on five minutes notice. Past-President Ford stated that the agreement is reasonable and he is supportive of the administration in this effort. Bleed stated that this has been an issue explored by the community and that the Senate has an opportunity that is fleeing. He stated he is eager to vote on the motion. Emergency motion approved: 52 in favor, 6 against. Gay, Physics, asked what the controversy will be in the scientific community? Bleed stated that there will certainly be controversy but he believes that this is a good decision and that it is reflecting a set of legal issues. Harbison, Chemistry, stated that he has read NAGPRA and that he is concerned that there will be serious deleterious effects to archaeological research as a result of this agreement. Question called. Motion passed: 50 in favor; 1 against.

3.2 Issues on the Horizon

3.2.1. Reallocation

Chancellor Moeser reported that the Scarlet will be featuring a question and answer piece following up on reallocation. He stated that in his remarks he discusses the needs of the coming biennium: support for Internet II, continued support for diversity, replacing the deficit in scholarships and extending health care benefits for graduate students. Chancellor Moeser stated that he strongly supports extending the transfer of tuition remission but stated there is a cost attached to this. Chancellor Moeser noted that the reallocation plan is not massive and can be accomplished through the regular process.

3.2.2 Effects of the Constitutional Lid Proposal on the University

Chancellor Moeser pointed out that if the Lid proposal should pass, it will result in a loss of approximately $10 million to the UNL campus alone in the first year. He stated that a best case scenario would allow for salary increases and upgrade of technology but nothing beyond that and that any program changes would have to be funded internally. Chancellor Moeser stressed that endowments donated to the university should be used to invest in quality education and should be not used to replace the operating budget of the University. Haller, English, asked if it is true that proponents of the Lid say that educational needs would not be cut. Chancellor Moeser responded that statements have been made but that there are no guarantees that the University will not be cut. Scheideler stated that while the faculty on the whole accept the fact that Internet II and Lotus Notes are needed, there are no budgets constructed for these items and that there needs to be fiscal responsibility. Chancellor Moeser pointed out that the state is not funding the University to move forward and therefore, the University needs to reallocate within to cover the costs of such things as Internet II.

3.2.3. University of Nebraska Ranking

In response to a recent Daily Nebraskan editorial, Chancellor Moeser stated that he does take the national rankings of the University seriously and that these rankings are based on a number of things. He stated that one of these items is the retention rate. Chancellor Moeser pointed out that our retention rate dropped to 72% and that the six year graduation rate needs to move up to at least 60%. Chancellor Moeser stated that there were improvements in the scores of incoming students and that our reputation for quality is increasing. He stated that he would like UNL to create a supportive but challenging environment and noted that our reputation has increased to just 1/10th of a point below the tier II schools. Chancellor Moeser reported that a continuing problem on campus which they are focusing on the alcohol problem on campus. Zorn pointed out that one aspect of the Chancellor's initiatives which factor into the rankings is the faculty to student ratio. Zorn stated that the Chancellor needs to address the decreasing ranking of this ratio. Chancellor Moeser stated that 67 new faculty members started this semester. He stated that the deans and chairs have apportioned section sizes of courses and that there is an increase in larger class sizes.

3.3.4. Academic Standards for Post Tenure Review

Bleed stated that he has concerns regarding the determination of the minimum standards for the post tenure review document. He pointed out that many departments did not receive this information until the summer and that the deadline date of October 1 does not allow time for adequate discussion within the departments. Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards replied that it was fully intended in the post tenure review discussions that each department be allowed to determine what standards are to be used. He stated that all department chairs and deans were sent a letter at the end of the spring semester. Morris, Biological Sciences, stated that the letter was not received until May 5^th which did not allow time for discussion at the end of the spring semester. Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards stated that the deadline date could be extended to allow for discussion on this important matter. He stated that he hopes that departments will write the standards and expectations of what is considered an adequate or satisfactory performance, not just decide what is the minimum of what a faculty member is required to do. Jensen, Psychology, stated that there has been extensive discussion in his department in regards to this matter but that they would not have been necessary if the chair had understood what the Senior Vice Chancellor is asking for. He suggested that the Senior Vice Chancellor email the comments he just made to the Senate to all departments. Jensen stated that there is the potential for misinterpretation of the goals if they are not clearly communicated. Shirer, Modern Languages, stated that the letter should be sent to all faculty to avoid the disparity in interpretation made in the Dean's office. Whitt, Sociology noted that the Dean of Arts & Sciences indicated that if a faculty member does not meet the minimum standards in anyone one of the three areas, they are considered to have an unsatisfactory performance. Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards stated that there needs to be a balance of what constitutes a good performance. He suggested that people look at the examples of departmental academic standards on the web site: http://www.unl.edu/svcaa/Policies/PostTenureExamples.html. McShane, English, pointed out that the Post Tenure Review document was created with the intent of having faculty input in the process and he cautioned the faculty to be very careful in determining the academic standards for the department.

4.0 Approval of 4/28/98 Minutes (Secretary Albrecht)

Haller, English moved and Zorn, Finance seconded approval of the minutes as amended.

5.0 Committee Reports

5.1 Commencement Committee (McShane)

Professor McShane stated that reports were sent to the Senators and asked if there were any questions. Jensen, Psychology and former member of the Commencement Committee, stated that there is an absence of materials to cover the many athletic signs during the commencement procedural. He asked that there be some small amount of funds appropriated to embellish the commencement procedures.

5.2 Executive Committee Summer Report (Bryant)

Secretary Bryant presented the Executive Committee Summer Report. He pointed out that the committee meets frequently and works on many different tasks and is currently engaged in working on the proposed Bylaw change. Bryant asked for any questions on the report which was sent to Senators prior to the meeting.

6.0 Small Group Discussions

The Academic Senate met in small groups to discuss various issues of faculty concerns.

7.0 Unfinished Business

No unfinished business.

8.0 New Business

8.1 Constitutional Lid Proposal

Haller, English, asked what the Executive Committee is doing in regards to the proposed Constitutional Lid. Kennedy responded that while the committee has had discussions on the subject, they are unable to do anything as the Academic Senate Executive Committee according to the University Counsel. McShane, suggested that work can be done under the Friends of the Faculty Senate. Kennedy agreed that this can be done but that any work must be done after University hours and off of University property. Zorn, Finance, cautioned against presenting anything that may be seen as self serving. Haller stated that something needs to be done and that efforts should be organized by the Friends of the Faculty Senate. Bryant stated that both he and John Bender, News & Editorial, have attended meetings against the Lid. He pointed out that the Executive Committee's hands are tied but stated that the issue has not been ignored. Jensen, Psychology, asked why the faculty and the Senate can not lobby against the Lid. Howe, Associate to the Chancellor, stated that both faculty and administrators are University employees and fall under the same restrictions. Kennedy stated that efforts are being made by the Friends of the Faculty Senate to coordinate some kind of effort.

The meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m. The next Senate meeting will be October 6, 1998 in the City Campus Union (check calendar of events at the Union for verification of room). Respectfully submitted, Miles Bryant, Secretary.