Email: senate@unlinfo.unl.edu
Website: http://www.unl.edu/asenate/welcome.htm
UNL ACADEMIC SENATE MEETING MINUTES
City Campus Union, Auditorium
April 6, 1999
Presidents Gail Latta, and James Ford Presiding
1.0 Call to Order
President Latta called the meeting to order at 2:39 p.m.
2.0 Announcements
2.1 Revisions to Bylaw 4.3
Latta reported that work is continuing on the revisions to Bylaw 4.3 and that good progress has been made. She noted that language has been agreed upon that does provide mutual consent but provides a way to resolve issues when mutual consent can not be reached. She reported that the negotiations are not at a point where the revision could be presented to the Academic Senate. She pointed out that a current draft is going to the Academic Rights and Responsibilities Committee for their review. Latta wanted to thank those people who have sent in supporting messages or resolutions that have been passed. She stated that they have been very helpful in formulating the draft.
2.2 Mayoral Forum
Latta announced that the Association for Students of the University of Nebraska and Delta Sigma Pi are working along with the Academic Senate on a mayoral candidate forum. She reported that the forum will be held on April 13th at 7:00 pm in the City Campus Union and she encouraged all members of the campus community to attend.
2.3 Bottle Club Resolution
Latta reported that the Executive Committee was asked on 3/24/99 to endorse a resolution opposing the creation of a bottle club by Barry's Bar and Grill. She stated that due to the timeliness of needing to get the resolution passed, the Executive Committee decided to act upon it immediately and approved the resolution.
2.4 Hiring Policy
Latta announced that she received notification that the new hiring policy now has alternative language which has been accepted across the campus. The language replaces the term potentially embarrassing activities. She read that "in particular candidates and references are to be asked if a candidate has engaged in behavior in the past, that if repeated as an employee of the University of Nebraska, would seriously jeopardize your ability to successfully complete your job or lead to possible disciplinary action."
2.5 Post Tenure Review - Timing
Latta reported that the Executive Committee has been working with the Vice Chancellors about the timing for the implementation of post tenure review. She pointed out that the 1998 evaluation would cover a period of time prior to the development of the criteria established by the departments. Latta stated that the Executive Committee is encouraging consideration of this fact when looking at the timing of whether the 1998 evaluations should be counted as the first year under the post tenure review policy. She noted that there is growing understanding that this problem would cause an injustice that we want to avoid. She pointed out that discussions are still on going.
2.6 AAHE Grant Update
Latta reported that the second set of questions about implementing post tenure review will be sent out. She encouraged faculty for feedback. Latta noted that this is the continuation of the AAHE grant to study the issues that arise from implementing post tenure review. She stated that she will be sending out a full set of questions to chairs, heads of departments and deans to allow them to respond from their perspective. She noted that she will be sending out the first set of questions again with the second set since some people did not have the time to answer the questions due to the holiday break. Latta stated that the goal is to organize activities, forums and facilitated discussions next year that will allow the academic community to discuss what factors need to be addressed.
2.7 Executive Committee Agendas
Latta reported that the Executive Committee has agreed to distribute the committee agendas by email prior to their meeting to solicit input on items on the agenda. Van Roojen asked if the draft version of the Executive committee minutes can be sent out prior to their approval? Latta stated that the Executive committee will discuss this suggestion.
2.8 Nominating Committee
Latta announced that the Nominating Committee will be meeting on Wednesday, April 7th to discuss the slate for the Senate elections. She stated that they welcome any suggestions for the opened positions.
3.0 Chancellor Moeser
Chancellor Moeser reported that this is a time for celebration on the campus as we celebrate success and excellence at a number of events on campus. He announced that the Honors Convocation will be held on Friday, April 9th. He noted that 20 faculty members will be recognized at this ceremony. He stated that over 3,000 students will be honored for outstanding academic achievement, 23 seniors will be honored as Chancellor's Scholars for earning all A's, 385 will be honored as Superior Scholars for being in the upper 3% of their colleges, and 2,840 will be honored was High Scholars. Chancellor Moeser reported that the new Donald R. and Mary Lee Swanson Award for Teaching Excellence has been given to David Wilson, Associate Professor of Curriculum and Instruction. He is the first recipient of this award and he will be given a $10,000 stipend. Chancellor Moeser announced the names of the other faculty members receiving awards. Chancellor Moeser stated that it is a great time to recognize faculty achievements. He noted that we are doing an excellent job of recognizing outstanding performance in the classroom, however we need to give more recognition for faculty accomplishments in research and creative activities. He pointed out that he wants us to dedicate ourselves next year to increasing the recognition of faculty accomplishments in research.
Chancellor Moeser stated that he wanted to reiterate some of his remarks printed in the Scarlet regarding the budget. He pointed out that the early signs are that the Nebraska Legislature is moving towards the budget proposed by the Appropriations Committee which is very near what the Regents have requested in regards to increases for faculty and staff. He noted that it will send us on the way of making some significant advances towards improving faculty salaries. He pointed out that the Regents have dedicated themselves to a four year plan to bring faculty salaries up to at least the mid-point of our peers. Chancellor Moeser stated that he has never been comfortable with the idea of reaching only for the mid-point of our peers. He stated we should not lose sight of our long-term aspirations for this University which would mean salary levels above the mid-point of our peers. He noted that the appropriations likely to come out of the Legislature falls far short of the Regents' total request. He pointed out that there will be a short fall of $4.7 million for the University system for the coming fiscal year. He noted that there is also a $2.6 million shortfall as a result of lower enrollment on all of the campuses. As a result, there will be an adjustment for each year of the biennium. Chancellor Moeser stated that the adjustment will be spread over a four year period to minimize the impact in each fiscal year. He noted that the adjustment for UNL is $2.7 million. He pointed out that much of that will come back to the campus in the form of 2% increase in operating budgets, 5% increase in the acquisition budget for the library, funds for operating and opening new buildings, approximately $700,000 for information technology, and new faculty lines for the College of Engineering and Technology. He noted that it is a budget reallocation and not necessarily a budget reduction. Chancellor Moeser stated that additional funding requests that were not addressed in the Regents request included campus administrative requests for additional funding for information technology such as instructional technologies, support for Internet II, Lotus Notes and basic wiring for buildings; additional support for Engineering faculty in accordance with the Regents' approved business plan; funding for medical benefits for Graduate Teaching Assistants; additional support for diversity; and the replacement of the deficit in our Scholarship funds. He stated that the Deans were asked to prepare budget reductions for the coming year ranging from 2.6 - 3.2%. He noted we should avoid falling into a sense of negative reactivity. He pointed out that a way of improving the budget is to increase enrollment. He stated that he approved $300,000 for recruiting out of state and international students. He pointed out that the revenues generated from new enrollment growths should be allocated to those academic units that produce that growth. Chancellor Moeser pointed out that Central Administration has approved the return of half of the funds from new undergraduate enrollment and all of the funds from graduate enrollment to the campus which increases its enrollment. He stated that another means of generating income is in becoming more efficient. He noted that 2 Engineering faculty have suggested a way to reduce facilities cost by $2 million and he encouraged other faculty to come forward with suggestions. Chancellor Moeser stated that the University has recently received the best private support in the history of the University. He noted that new funds are targeting specific areas of academic quality. He stated that these funds are coming in the forms of endowed chairs, scholarships and fellowships, and in constructing new facilities. He reported that the first $1 million endowed chair has been awarded to the Plant Science department. Chancellor Moeser stated that the budgetary challenges will test us and our character. He noted that we can resolve to find ways to be more efficient, more resourceful and ultimately better than we have been before. He pointed out that we can only do that by working together and using our creativity and imagination.
The Chancellor stood for questions. Weiss, School of Natural Resource Sciences, stated that the University's lack of informing the news media that the University was open for business on March 8th when a snow storm hit, was not a wise public relations decision. He suggested that whenever there is a storm the media should be notified, regardless of whether the University is open or closed, to avoid negative publicity. Chancellor Moeser agreed but stated that the only calls being made to the media where those institutions that were closed, not ones that were remaining open. Mientka, Mathematics & Statistics noted that 3,000 more students are needed on campus to reach the 25,000 capacity of UNL. He noted that his department recently recruited six potential graduate students and were able to sign up four of these students. He suggested that departments share successful recruiting techniques to increase enrollments. Chancellor Moeser responded that a graduate student has not received a National Science Foundation grant in 25 years on this campus until this year when 5 grants have been awarded along with one honorable mention. He stated that this is because faculty encouraged students to apply for these grants. He noted that we are in the top ten nationally with Harvard and MIT with the number of students receiving NSF awards. Genoways, Museum, pointed out that 3 or 4 years ago the residency requirements were changed along with the higher standards of admission, that these have had major impacts in recruiting out of state students. He noted that we continue to reallocate money from units to fund information technology. He stated that his unit's budget was reduced 4% a couple of years ago and that they are now facing another 3.2% reduction which has resulted in their not being able to take advantage of the new software because they have not been able to purchase new computers which can support these programs due to the lack of funds. Chancellor Moeser stated that he disagreed with the assessment regarding the Board of Regents policy on stated residency requirements. He believed that the Regents' decision helped us. He stated that under the new policy out of state students can have reduced tuition based on their predicted GPA's. He stated that the most high achieving students, up to 25% of the enrollment, can be brought to campus with the program Scholarships for New Nebraskans. He stated that the net effect has been that we can offer in-state tuition rates for very good out of state students. He noted that some of the funds for information technology will have to be invested for hardware to update equipment. Chancellor Moeser pointed out that Internet II is for research and it will be an essential research tool. DiMagno, Chemistry, asked about the value of the input of faculty when it comes time for major capital improvements. He noted that Hamilton Hall is undergoing a major infrastructure upgrade yet faculty have not been consulted at all. He pointed out that major health and safety concerns have not and will not be addressed. Chancellor Moeser stated that he can not answer that particular question but he noted that Deans and Chairs have been consulted. He stated that the plan that the state approved deals with all of the serious ventilation and air circulation issues. He does not believe that programmatic improvements are being addressed. DiMagno responded that not only programmatic enhancements but light fixtures are corroded and other problems are not being fixed. Nielsen, Animal Science, noted that there are many discussions taking place on campus in regards to the parking dilemma. He pointed out that the faculty/staff parking costs will rise 300% five years from now and he stated that he finds it difficult for him to tell his secretary why she should be paying $528 a year for a license to hunt for a parking space. He noted that across the state job classifications are the same and yet the parking rates are different creating an inequity. He stated that when new buildings are being built on existing parking spaces and when replacement money for those parking lots are not factored into the cost of the building, then essentially the employees are paying for the construction of these buildings through increased parking costs. Chancellor Moeser stated that there is no easy answer to the question. He pointed out that this is why a low cost option of perimeter parking is being retained. He noted that 40% of parking on city campus is being lost. He stated that the proposed parking fees will be comparable to other urban campuses. He noted that some of the Law faculty have pointed out that it may be possible to use pre-tax dollars in our reimbursement account to pay for parking and that they are reviewing this possibility. Barnes, Music, stated that his department recently had 45 very qualified graduate applicants to their department but they had only 6 openings which they later cut down to 3 in order to try to improve the stipends. He asked Chancellor Moeser if he had any suggestions on how faculty, who are trying to recruit top quality graduate students, might be able to deal with the frustration of having such limited resources. Chancellor Moeser replied that graduate programs need to be protected when reviewing the budget situation. He stated that priorities need to be reviewed when faculty and staff positions come open. He noted that these are decisions that must be made within the colleges and departments. He stated that we need to redouble our efforts to seek private funds to support graduate fellowships. Weiss, School of Natural Resource Sciences, pointed out that there are other costs to the parking plan other than financial costs. He stated that east campus people feel that they are subsidizing parking garages on city campus. He noted that this is creating more division between the campuses. He pointed out that people on both campus will not buy parking permits and will resort to parking in the residential areas. He stated that morale will not only be effected by the budget reductions of 2.6%, but now there will also be high parking fees on top of it. He stated that he is concerned over the financial situation which shows the economy to be good, yet we are not being funded. Chancellor Moeser noted that the state is increasing our budget by 3.75%, which is better than in the past several years. He pointed out that the mood in the state is to move as much money as possible back to the tax payers. He noted that they do not understand why our costs go up when our enrollment is down. He stated that the university is much more complex than just teaching undergraduate students. He pointed out that we have a research and service mission as well which have to be supported. Chancellor Moeser noted that rural areas of the state are having economic difficulties. Zorn, Finance, stated that faculty feel that there should be more discussion with the faculty in the setting of priority items such as Lotus Notes, and in formulating priorities for recruiting more students and retaining students. Chancellor Moeser stated that he welcomes the faculty voice on all of these issues. He stated some of those decisions were made at a higher level. Hodges, Horticulture, stated that she has a plea in the terms of priorities, particularly in regards to the visitor's center. She pointed out that moving the torn notebook sculpture is upsetting to the artists who created the sculpture as well as herself. She noted that it will send a distressing signal to members of the fine arts. Chancellor Moeser stated that the sculpture will only be moved with the full participation of the sculptors. He pointed out that no decisions have been made to move it. He noted that no state dollars will be used to construct the visitors center and to move the sculpture. Haller, English, asked who the million dollar endowed chairs will be awarded to? Chancellor Moeser stated that the Board of Regents have approved the segregation of $12 million from the Opthmer endowment to create 24 new million dollar chairs. He stated that they will be used in key targeted areas of academic excellence. Haller asked if it is for faculty already here or new faculty being brought in? Chancellor Moeser stated that it is for faculty appointed through competitive, national searches. Latta stated that she was disturbed at the language in the budget letter that refers to the processes for approving programmatic cuts, calling it cumbersome, daunting, and virtually not useful. She stated that her concern is that it projects an image of the institution that it has procedures in place that serves no other purpose than to support processes. She asked whether or not he has plans for changing that process? Chancellor Moeser stated that he does not have a proposal in mind to change the process, but he stands by his remark. He pointed out that it is virtually impossible in this university to consider vertical cuts or programmatic eliminations. He noted that it forces us into making either across the board cuts or cuts without much rationale. He stated that it would be a 2 or 3 year process to fully implement. Latta stated that she would have great concern if there wasn't a process and 2 years is not too long a period of time for considering cutting a program. Chancellor Moeser stated that while she may be right, the current process does not enable them to deal with the budgetary realities with which we are faced. He stated that colleges need to discuss this first. He stated that he is pleased with some of the discussions he has heard about the merger of departments. He noted that we need to cut down unnecessary administration. Latta asked if he wasn't distinguishing between administrative efficiencies and elimination of academic programs. Chancellor Moeser stated that the document regarding this process is intentionally vague but that it does call for a very rigorous process for the elimination of a program. He pointed out that program elimination does not produce short term budgetary savings.
4.0 Approval of 3/2/99 minutes
The committee approved the minutes as amended.
5.0 Committee Reports
5.1 Employee Benefits Committee
Professor Adams asked for any questions on the report provided in the packet. She stated that Central Administration is working on a procedure to shelter parking fees. Weiss asked how the priority items were segregated out? He pointed out that financial planning is greatly needed on campus. Adams stated that the University is looking at doing some financial counseling. She pointed out that the committee decided to make one issue their priority this year. Prochaska Cue, Family and Consumer Sciences, pointed out that what is being asked for is financial education. She noted that this can be accomplished through seminars, workshops, and counseling. She stated that she is concerned that we not tie ourselves to a specific company. Adams stated that the University Wide Benefits Committee will be looking at long-term care at their next meeting. Jensen, Psychology, stated that because he is getting close to retirement age, he has been receiving a great deal of financial advice. He asked what the groundswell of discontent is regarding the availability of information regarding financial planning? He pointed out that he feels no lack of information and accepts TIAA/CREF's suggestions because their record has been so good. Adams stated that the financial education is a concern for some people. She stated that the committee will be asking for the domestic partner issue to be addressed again. Nielsen asked if the cost of benefits will be the same for domestic partners as for married partners? Adams stated that they are the same and that the issue is that the state does not recognize domestic partners. Bryant asked what the status is of the transfer of tuition remission? Adams stated that it is on hold at Central Administration at this point. Benham, South Central Research & Extension, asked if it is no longer a priority issue for the committee? Adams stated that they will be discussing it at the April meeting. Benham asked that they not drop this issue. She stated that they will continue working on this benefit.
5.2 Graduate Council
Professor Stanley stated that a copy of the report was included in the packet. He noted that the Council recommended to the Executive Graduate Council a change in the criteria for Graduate Faculty status for Senior Lecturers. He reported that this has been passed. Van Roojen asked where the standards for getting graduate faculty status are listed? Stanley stated that strict numerical criteria can not be found in any colleges. He stated that within the colleges there are different practices and that any concrete information should be available in the units. Van Roojen stated that the problem is not at the unit level but at the higher levels of the approval process. Stanley replied that applications which are questionable and that are not passed at the level of the Dean of Graduate Studies, are passed on to a subcommittee of the Graduate Council for review. Van Roojen pointed out that it is important for people who are subject to the process to know what the criteria are for attaining Graduate Faculty Status. Stanley stated that he will bring the point up to the Graduate Council at their next meeting.
5.3 Intercollegiate Athletics
Professor Benford asked for questions. Nielsen noted that the committee offered recommendations of the development of a policy by the Hewit Academic Center staff to deal with cases of possible academic dishonesty by student athletes, tutors or others. He asked why a separate policy is needed for athletes? Benford stated that the issue is that the Hewit Academic Center staff may not fall under the policies that students and faculty follow. Nielsen asked why, as students, they would not follow the same standards? Benford stated that their understanding of the Student Code of Conduct pertains to students and not all tutors are students. He noted that they are attempting to make sure some policies are in place to deal with any cases brought forward. Jensen stated that the easy resolution is to take the basic point of view that student athletes are students and the restrictions, policies and punishments be those typical for the standard student. Benford agreed and pointed out that the Hewitt Center is encouraging cases to be dealt with according to the Code of Conduct. Mientka asked what is the role of the institutional representative to the Big 12 Conference? He noted that it used to be called the faculty representative but that it was changed several years ago. Benford stated that Professor Potuto serves as a member of the committee and she provides the faculty perspective regarding some of the NCAA policies. He noted that all universities who are members of the NCAA have a faculty representative.
5.4 Academic Freedom Award Committee
Professor McShane stated that the report was distributed in the packet and asked for questions.
6.0 Academic Freedom Award Nominations
Professor McShane distributed the ballots for the Academic Freedom Award nomination and reminded the Senate that this information is not for public discussion.
7.0 Recognition of Outgoing Senators
Latta recognized the outgoing members of the Senate and presented a plaque to outgoing Executive Committee members Sharon Baum Kuska and Susan Williams.
8.0 Unfinished Business
No unfinished business.
9.0 New Business
Latta rearranged the agenda to include hearing motions from the Employee Benefits Committee.
9.1 Employee Benefits Committee Resolutions
Adams moved that the Academic Senate endorse the Employee Benefits Committee to request that the issue of domestic partners be placed on the agenda again at the University-wide Benefits Committee. Motion approved. Adams moved that the UNL Academic Senate recommends raising the institution's contribution to retirement benefits by 1/2% beginning with FY 1999-2000. Motion approved. Adams moved that the Academic Senate supports increasing the University's contribution to NUCredits. Motion approved. Mientka suggested that the motions be prioritized because of the present budget crunch. The Senate approved the increase to retirement benefits as the first priority, the increase to NU Credits as second, and the domestic partner issue as third priority.
9.2 Parking Plan
Latta reported that some of the issues regarding the proposed parking plan are the lack of interaction between the Parking Advisory Committee and the Parking staff in terms of developing the plan, recommendations of last year's committee regarding fee increases, how UNL parking fees compare to other institutions, concerns of creating faculty/staff/student combined parking areas, why parking garages are not included in University capital campaign, why donors are not expected to pay to replace parking they displace, why reserve parking is not being limited to reduce the number of unused parking spaces in the center of campus, except for medical and handicap parking, why faculty, staff, and students will be charged different rates for essentially the same parking privileges, the position of the UAAD President that the increases are not worth fighting, the disproportional increases in fees for faculty and staff and the impact it will have on the lowest paid employees, and the east campus/city campus discrepancy.
9.3 Chair of Parking Advisory Committee Report
Mr. Zaborowski, stated that the committee was not consulted in regards to the current proposed plan. He pointed out that Tad McDowell, Director of Parking and Transit Services, was charged to come up with a solution in a short period of time. He noted that the committee suggested last year to raise parking fees $1 per month for this year and $2 per month for the next two years, with the $2 per month going towards future parking structures. He pointed out that at that time only two parking structures were proposed and there was no distinction as to which campus they were to be located. He recommends that people attend the upcoming parking meetings to voice their opinions. Jensen stated that an important issue here is the absence of faculty input and involvement in the master plan. He noted that a number of arbitrary and irrational decisions were made. He stated that it is the manner in which these decisions were made that seems to indicate the lack of acceptance of faculty governance as a major tenant of this university. Zaborowski stated that the committee supported the ASUN's resolution that all future construction must help replace parking. He pointed out that what is compounding the price of the garages is that they are being built in a time of shortage of builders thereby paying a premium price. Morris, Biological Sciences, stated that people did not attend the meetings held on the Master Plan. He noted that the plan called for a pedestrian friendly campus which would call for parking to be placed on the perimeters of campus. He stated that the announcement of the increased parking fees is a poor means of communication. Genoways pointed out that it is difficult to carry all the necessary materials for teaching when you have to teach in various locations on campus and a pedestrian friendly campus will force people to not teach in other areas of the campus. He noted that he has a joint appointment between city and east campus and is required to travel to both campuses during the day. He asked where the time/cost analysis is for faculty who have to move around the campuses? Zaborowski stated that McDowell addressed this problem at the presentation by stating that the shuttle system will be a more user friendly system. Genoways pointed out that they can not run it successfully today and asked how they will be able to do it well when it becomes much more complicated. He asked if the committee sees the budget for parking? Zaborowski stated that they do and that there are several faculty representatives that serve on the committee. Genoways asked if we will see the savings of the increased fees? Zaborowski stated that any excess that is generated over a year goes to retire bond debt or whatever debt Parking Services has. He noted that they are borrowing all of the money up front for the garages. Genoways asked why McDowell has not spoken to the Senate. Brand, Chemical Engineering, stated that a concern for many faculty and staff is security. She pointed out that a number of female faculty met with McDowell to discuss the concern of faculty regarding security, particularly in the evenings at the parking facilities. She stated that his reply was that it was no problem. Aguilar, Curriculum & Instruction, suggested that the fees come from increasing the cost of football parking. Shirer, Modern Languages, stated that the master plan should have been presented to the Senate. Bryant pointed out that it is not just a matter of presenting the master plan but asking the faculty what kind of work they perform and what is needed to be able to do the job. Morris noted that a big city master parking plan has been created in a city that does not have an adequate mass transportation system. Bryant pointed out that the university has a strong land grant mission that requires a lot of off-campus service and work. Prochaska Cue suggested that separation between faculty/staff and student lots be maintained. Hallbeck, Industrial & Management Systems Engineering, stated that the response from McDowell on the evening safety issue was that they should work from 8:00 - 5:00. She noted that she feels that she has no options except to find a university that has an adequate transportation system or better parking. McShane pointed out that there needs to be a sense of proportionality to the parking plan and that faculty members need to be assured that they can get to class on time. He stated that asking staff to pay the same see for parking when they earn 1/3 - 1/5 of what many faculty earn, is not fair. He asked if something can be done on the disproportionate tax? Zaborowski stated that a proposal has been put forward from UNOPA for a sliding scale fee structure. Jensen moved that the master plan for UNL be reconsidered with full involvement of the Academic Senate or a specially designated subcommittee of the Academic Senate. Hallbeck seconded. Mientka suggested that the Executive Committee should take the matter up and deal with it as far as they can. Latta stated that there was one joint meeting of the Executive Committee and the Academic Planning Committee to discuss the master plan with the consultants. She noted the issues primarily raised were safety, distance between place of employment and parking, and questions concerning the utility of a visitor's center. Nelson pointed out that the master plan was originally intended to be a 15 - 20 year plan yet there appears to be a rapid movement towards it that makes it feel as if it has been crammed down our throat. Latta declared the motion as an emergency motion. Motion approved. Diffendal moved that the Academic Senate support the proportionality of the parking fee, related to salary, for faculty and staff. Hallbeck seconded the motion. Latta moved this as an emergency issue. Motion approved. Wise, Law, stated that she had a resolution from the Law College. She stated that the campus attitude on financing initiatives appears to be the model of taxing the academic programs for non-academic purposes or taxing an individual user for parking fees. She pointed out that this is not a productive model. She noted that there are significant transportation problems which are not being addressed. She stated that it is interesting to note that the administration here is now advocating this salary reduction for faculty and staff yet the legislature is advocating a salary increase. She stated that there seems to be a disconnection between what they do on campus and what they do off campus. She pointed out that if this was a unionized campus this issue would be a bargaining position. Wise stated that the faculty perspective of not being able to move off of campus and between campuses is also a concern for staff. She noted that other job opportunities in Lincoln will become more attractive to staff and that they will go to other jobs. She pointed out that we have a hard enough time recruiting staff and that we are making more of a problem to ourselves which we are doing intentionally and which makes absolutely no sense. Wise noted that the Chancellor stated earlier in the meeting that faculty should be creative. She suggested that the administration needs to be a little more creative in how they are handling the parking plan. She motioned that be it resolved that the Academic Senate strongly urges the administration of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln to fund the new 1999-2004 parking initiatives through means other than a substantial increase in user fees (parking fees) for the faculty, staff and students, and to report back to the Academic Senate at one of the early fall meetings, if not before. Seconded by Lenich. Latta declared the resolution as an emergency motion. Motion approved. Bryant suggested that a good way to communicate people's concerns on this issue is to email Tad McDowell and copy the Academic Senate office. Latta stated that she will take under advisement of having Tad McDowell and Jim Main speak to the Senate. She noted that she invited them to come to the meeting today but that they had to give a presentation on East campus. Wise stated that they need to address the issues, not discuss where they plan to put parking spaces. Morris pointed out that McDowell was charged to develop a parking plan because of the nature of the implementation of the master plan. He stated that the problem needs to be addressed at a higher level. Latta noted that the master plan is the impetus for this but that she is not pleased with the lack of involvement in the Parking Advisory Committee. Scheideler stated that she does not accept McDowell's comments back. She pointed out that there may be more than one way to solve this problem.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:04 p.m. The next Senate meeting will be April 27, 1999 in the East Campus Union, Great Plains Room. Respectfully submitted, Miles Bryant, Secretary.