Email: senate@unlinfo.unl.edu

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

UNL ACADEMIC SENATE MEETING MINUTES

City Campus Union, Auditorium

February 2, 1999

Presidents Gail Latta, and James Ford Presiding

1.0 Call to Order

President Latta called the meeting to order at 2:37 p.m.

2.0 Recognition of Outgoing President Patricia Kennedy

Outgoing President Patricia Kennedy was unable to attend the meeting.

3.0 Announcements

3.1 Revised Bylaw 4.3

Latta announced that the Senators have a report on the status of negotiations and the issues regarding the proposed changes to Bylaw 4.3. She encouraged the Senators to take this information to their constituents (available on the web at http://www.unl.edu/asenate/Bylaw.htm). She pointed out that Bylaw 4.3 relates to the apportionment of faculty appointments and that the provisions of this Bylaw are central to our culture of shared governance here at UNL. She noted that they protect faculty and insure that they participate as partners in charting the future of departments and in negotiating how members of the department will share responsibility for fulfilling the mission of this institution. Latta pointed out that the rationale for the changes to the Bylaws is that there is an inconsistency between the language in Bylaw 4.3 and Bylaw 3.4.4 which addresses the assignment of duties. Latta stated that the language that was proposed to the Regents in July changes the role of faculty in a substantial way. She pointed out that it diminishes the faculty's ability to participate in the process of shaping the future of UNL. She noted that it does two things: it eliminates the standard of mutual agreement and it recasts the role of faculty. Latta stated that we have wanted to try to find different language that would be acceptable both to administration and the faculty that would harmonize these two pieces of the Bylaws and yet not damage the culture of shared governance here at UNL. Latta stated that they tried to incorporate the language from the faculty handbook into the draft but that a variety of issues are still not being addressed. Some of these issues are the need to move more quickly on cases where reapportionment is needed; whether the Regents have a concern with the term mutual agreement; what role does mutual agreement play in maintaining quality programs in instruction and research; whether there are adequate administrative measures in the Bylaws for dealing effectively with negligent faculty performance; what degree of collective responsibility do departments have for resolving issues of faculty apportionment in relation to the departmental mission; whether or not negotiations based on mutual agreement adequately accommodates changes in apportionment relative to the developmental nature of faculty's careers; whether it is reasonable to expect chairs to effectively reassign faculty without mutual agreement; what protection would faculty have against being reassigned to responsibilities that they are not prepared to assume or for the purpose of stopping unpopular research; whether this Bylaw is an appropriate place to introduce additional mechanisms for dealing with faculty who have become unproductive in research or need to be removed from the classroom; whether there is evidence that mutual agreement is not working at UNL; and whether putting an arbitration committee in place would make it too easy for chairs to abandon efforts to arrive at mutual agreement. Latta noted that one of the possible provisions that has been discussed is the possibility of maintaining the mutual agreement standard by putting in place some mechanism for arbitration. She pointed out that a draft that incorporates this has been submitted but that there have been some issues that have come up that have not been resolved. Latta noted that further discussion on this will be continuing. She stated that there are concerns regarding the composition of the arbitration committee and whether a chair or unit head should have authority to implement changes in a faculty member's apportionment until the arbitration committee deals with the issue. Latta pointed out that it comes down to whether we should have an arbitration or an appeals committee which places a different kind of relationship between faculty and administration. Latta stated that she spoke with President Smith concerning the proposed Bylaw change. She reported that he has been waiting to hear from UNL on this issue. Latta stated that it was not intended that this change would give chairs authority to reassign productive faculty but they do have questions about whether or not this Bylaw should accommodate the chair's need to reassign faculty who are unproductive. Latta reported that President Smith stated that he has not been asked by anyone what his opinion is on this issue and she said that he stated that he does not see Bylaw 4.3 and 3.4.4 as speaking to different issues. She reported that he did not make a distinction between apportionment of a faculty member's appointments and the specific assignments that are made within that apportionment. Latta reported that it was decided at the end of the meeting with President Smith that it would be best for Latta and Sally Wise, Chair of Academic Rights and Responsibilities Committee, to sit down with Lee Jones, Executive Vice President and Provost, and Dick Wood, Vice President and General Counsel, to go over the language that was drafted and work on making the two Bylaws consistent. She noted that providing Academic Senate feedback to the Executive Committee will be extremely helpful to them in their negotiations. Latta stated that she hopes to have a motion to put on the floor for open discussion at the next meeting in relation to this issue. Mayo, Entomology, asked for clarification on the differences between apportionment and assignment of duties. Latta stated that apportionment means the specified division of a faculty member's appointment which shall be devoted to different types of university business: teaching, research, service and extension, and administration. A faculty member's apportionment is relatively stable from year to year unless there are specific reasons for requesting a change. The term assignment refers to the specific activities a faculty member is responsible for carrying out in a given year within each area of apportionment in his/her appointment. Scheideler, Animal Science, stated that a consensus of the information provided is that there are currently two Bylaws and that administration is proposing changing these Bylaws and to take out the phrase mutual consent. She stated that as professionals that this is a right they should consider very seriously. She noted that the feedback the Executive Committee is getting from administration is that they have very specific reasons why they want mutual consent removed from the language. She stressed that faculty should think very clearly about what the implications of this would be for faculty. Bryant, Educational Administration, added that the Executive Committee has been debating this issue and the language. He pointed out that the last time it was brought to the Senate the Committee did not understand what the Senate thought on the subject and he pointed out that the Committee really needs feedback. Zorn, Finance, stated that he was the person who first suggested a committee and that he saw the committee as an appeals committee rather than an arbitration committee. He pointed out that we did not need to arbitrate every particular change but that he saw the appeals committee as a compromise position for a faculty member who thought they were being treated arbitrarily or retaliated against.

3.2 AAHE Grant Update

Latta thanked Senators for their responses on the survey sent out. She noted that they are delaying sending out the next set of questions until the campus has had feedback in regards to the acceptability of their criteria statements. Latta reported that they have been granted permission from AAHE to adjust the time line for the grant. She reported that at a Roles and Rewards Conference of the AAHE last month, there was discussion on the framework policy at UNL that set the discussion on post tenure review. She noted that other campuses have expressed an interest in seeing this document. Latta noted that when feedback on the criteria statements is complete, a second set of questions will be sent out. Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards stated that he just signed the letters going back to the departments giving feedback on their post tenure review statements. He noted that those should be coming to the departments shortly. He stated that it is evident that the departments gave careful thought to the statements.

3.3 Filling the Position of President-Elect

Latta reported that at the last Executive Committee meeting, two motions were made and approved concerning the President and President-Elect position and that the issue will be discussed under New Business.

3.4 New Hiring Policy

Latta reported that she met with Associate to the Chancellor Howe to clarify some of the questions being raised concerning the new hiring policy. She pointed out that one of the sets of questions asks references of candidates if there were incidents that might cause embarrassment to the institution. Latta stated that some recent changes have been made to the policy and that the policy is only being applied to A-line administrators and faculty who are hired with tenure. She pointed out that there is no document that candidates are being asked to sign in regards to this policy. Latta stated that the Executive Committee will be meeting with Howe to further clarify issues regarding this new policy.

3.5 Meeting with President Smith

Latta reported several issues were raised at the Academic Senate Presidents' meeting with President Smith. She report that there has been some questions regarding the use of engineering departmental labs by students. She stated that students should have access to these labs. She asked people to contact her if this is a problem at UNL. Latta reported that she followed up with President Smith regarding his comments that he is open to faculty participation in the legislative process at the last Senate meeting. Latta noted that he suggested to her is that he is interested in a coordinated effort by faculty at a point and time when it would be really beneficial to bolster our position. Latta stated that President Smith reported that the Governor's initial proposal was going to be 2.95% for the first year of the biennium with 3.4% for the second year. She stated that after discussion with President Smith and others, the Governor came to the proposal of 3.74% and 3.45%, where it currently stands.

3.6 Upcoming Events

Latta announced that Governor Johann will be speaking to the Academic Senate at the March 2^nd meeting. She reported that we are negotiating with the mayoral candidates to host a forum in either late March or early April. She noted that the issue for the mayoral candidates will be the interfacing between the city and the university in regards to the Antelope Valley Project. Latta reported that the Pepsi representative has requested to meet with the Executive Committee to discuss how will service is being provided to the campus. She asked that Senators send comments to the Executive Committee.

4.0 Chancellor Moeser

Chancellor Moeser welcomed the Senate to the new auditorium of the Nebraska Union. He noted it will not be scheduled for classes but for special events, departmental presentations and the like.

4.1 Proposed Changes to the Bylaws

Chancellor Moeser stated the proposed changes to the Bylaws is a very important issue. He reported that he wanted to give his assurance that what was driving this change is not an administrative ploy or plot to destroy faculty governance, either philosophically or in practice. He pointed out that it was initiated by a genuine and sincere concern about an internal contradiction between Bylaws 4.3 and 3.4.4. He stated that he personally finds the distinction being made between apportionment and appointment a somewhat unique feature. He stated that he understands that this is an important issue to some members of the faculty. Chancellor Moeser stated that he is interested in moving this forward and wants to avoid a collision between the faculty and the Board of Regents. He noted that negotiations have been going on and hopes that an agreement can be reached eliminating the internal contradictions that exist in the Bylaws but yet still preserves appropriate level of faculty participation in governance. McShane, English, cautioned the Chancellor in discussing these issues because someone might easily mistake what was said as a threat that if we didn't give up mutual consent, it would be taken from us by the Board of Regents. McShane stated that we have an evaluation document in the University Faculty Handbook that contains the language that allows for the distinction between assignment and apportionment. He pointed out that the handbook was carefully negotiated by the faculty and by the administration of this university over several years and that it was approved by the Academic Senate, the Council of Deans, by the Chancellor and the Chancellor's Cabinet and it was brought to the Board of Regents. McShane noted that at the meeting with the Board of Regents they told him how careful the faculty were and how mindful they were about the particular problems which are now again arising. McShane stated that the danger is that we enter into negotiations on issues like this, we get the language in place that allows us to deal with it and then somebody unilaterally decides that won't do anymore. He noted that when we get into situations like this the habit has been to negotiate. He pointed out that if there is no future to negotiations so that we can maintain our professional status and if the Regents can vote to impose on us an unprofessional status, then we can vote to accept the consequences of that and move to collective bargaining. He stated that this is no way to run a University and that the faculty should stand tall. Chancellor Moeser stated that he did not think that they are in much disagreement and that they are both talking about negotiations. He stated that he is trying to avoid what Professor McShane just described.

4.2 Celebration of Teaching

Chancellor Moeser reported that two events occurred on campus recently relating to teaching. He noted that there was a Celebration of Teaching dinner and an awards ceremony where faculty were recognized for outstanding teaching. He pointed out that this award was conferred by our own students and their parents in association with the UNL Parent's Association. He stated that he is glad to see more recognition being given to excellence in teaching on this campus. Chancellor Moeser stated that we need to find more ways to recognize faculty success across all boards. He pointed out that we need to do more on the research/creative activity front. He stated that not enough is done to recognize the work of faculty in scholarship, publications, major works of artistic creations, and funded grants. Chancellor Moeser stated he has asked Senior Vice Chancellor Edwards and Vice Chancellor Omtvedt to work on celebrating faculty accomplishments and excellence by this fall. Chancellor Moeser stated that this will coincide with another important development on campus, the 100^th anniversary of the beginning of graduate education on this campus. He reported that with the cooperation of the commencement committee, that this spring a new separate ceremony will be held on which to confer doctoral hoods so that recipients of doctoral degrees and their graduate faculty members will have an opportunity for very special recognition. Chancellor Moeser reported that the ceremony will be held in the Lied Center on the Friday afternoon prior to commencement. Jensen, Psychology, asked if the proposed change in the hooding of Ph.D. candidates will mean that they will already be hooded when they go through the commencement ceremony and will they still go across the stage as their names are read? Chancellor Moeser replied that they will be hooded on Friday and that they will walk across the stage in the Lied Center with their faculty mentor and the name of the dissertation title will be read. He stated that the next morning in the commencement ceremony they will walk across the stage hooded and will then receive their degree.

4.3 Future Nebraska Task Force

Chancellor Moeser reported that the Future Nebraska Task Force will meet later this month with Dr. Ray Bowen, President of Texas A & M University. He stated that Dr. Bowen has been invited to come to campus to talk about the planning process at Texas A & M.

4.4 Governor Johann's Visit

Chancellor Moeser stated that he was providing the Senate with a handout prepared by Kim Robak, Vice President for External Affairs, which is a concise summary of what the Governor has proposed to the Unicameral in terms of the legislative appropriations. He read from the report that the overall Governor's recommendation for the University represents a net increase in state appropriations of 3.74%, or $13 million in the first year and 3.48% in the second year. This is against a Board request of 6.85% in FY 2000 and 6.07% increase in 2001. Chancellor Moeser pointed out that the only capital project recommended was $600,000 for a $1.1 million dollar request for a hazardous material facilities on the Lincoln campus. He noted that one of the problems with the Governor's proposed budget is that they recommend 73% of the funding with the assumption that we can cover the rest with tuition. He pointed out that there is an inherent fallacy in their proposal because we have already accounted for a tuition increase and the state is essentially providing 73 cents on the dollar which comes to a 3.74% increase. Chancellor Moeser noted that $13 million has been proposed about the $16 million that was requested for faculty/staff salaries. He pointed out that we have very serious fiscal issues to face with the proposed budget. Chancellor Moeser stated that President Smith, the Board of Regents and administration are all committed to going to the legislature and making a case for the Regents proposal.

4.5 Enrollment

Chancellor Moeser stated that one of the areas that he is very committed to is the potential for UNL to begin to grow its enrollment, particularly with out-of-state enrollments. He stated that one can make the case that we are operating at less than full capacity with regard to the fiscal plant of the campus and that we can easily accommodate approximately 2000 more students on this campus. In order to attract more out-of-state students, Chancellor Moeser reported that they are having conversations with the admissions office of possibly increasing their staff. He stated that part of the decline has been in the enrollment of graduate students and transfer students. He pointed out that everyone needs to be concerned about enrollment because that is part of the revenue flow that feeds our budget. Chancellor Moeser noted that an agreement has been worked out with Central Administration that essentially says the campus will be able to glean the results of tuition growth if we can generate that growth, which is a change from the way Central Administration has been operating in recent years. Chancellor Moeser asked the faculty to be part of the process, to be responsive and talk to prospective students and parents. Mientka, Mathematics and Statistics, stated that through the efforts of the Chancellor and administration, standards have been raised and that the obvious consequence has been a decrease in enrollment. He suggested that when we talk with the Governor we should mention the fact that UNL set standards to attain higher academic students. Mientka stated that at a recent conference in Oregon there was an open day for students to come and meet recruiters from various Universities and he noted that UNL did not have a representative there. He pointed out that being present at such conferences will help us. Chancellor Moeser completely agreed and stated that we need to work on recruitment of graduate students. He stated that they are going to commit to the issue of providing health care benefits to graduate teaching assistants.

Nelson, Agronomy, stated that while he appreciates the fine new facility, there is great difficulty in finding parking and he asked if there is going to be anything to address this problem. Chancellor Moeser stated that they are working on solutions to parking. He stated that one of the consequences for improvements in parking will be the increase in the cost of parking because parking garages will need to be built and the shelter system will need to be improved. He noted that it will get worse before it gets better due to the construction that will be going on this year.

5.0 Business Centers, Administrative Process Changes (Dean Foster, Assistant Vice Chancellor Moeller, Assistant Vice Chancellor Phelps, Dean O'Hanlon)

Assistant Vice Chancellor Phelps introduced the Administrative System Program (ASP) that will be coming on line this July. He reported that this system will make the campus work more efficiently and that it will replace the current system. He reported that the benefits of the system are that it is Y2 compatible, it will give enhanced access to information, there will be real time view of the operation of University, it is user defined, and it will eliminate up to 90% of the paperwork. Phelps pointed out that there will be one integrated business system which should avoid the need for shadow systems. He stated that the system will allow for on-line travel authorizations, employee expense vouchers, automation of PAFs/PDFs, a time entry system, and employee benefit enrollment. Assistant Vice Chancellor Moeller, reported that the business centers are being created to increase effectiveness and efficiency of administrative functions. He stated that some advantages of the business centers will be enhanced knowledge of particular functions and enhanced administrative support there by giving greater diversity and strength to the organization. Moeller pointed out that smaller units will be able to work with other departments and that there will be increased coverage of departmental functions resulting in increased quality of service. He pointed out that the creation of the business centers will require involvement in the design by all of the customers involved. Moeller noted that there should be equality in the business center and that no one department/unit will be above another in the operations of the business center. He stated that the creation of the business centers is not being driven by ASP but rather by a need for the university to become more efficient. Dean O'Hanlon, reported that two business centers are being created in Teachers College. He noted that a team is being brought together and that they have responsibility in designing the center. O'Hanlon pointed out that the team will study how the college operates and determine how to provide the most efficient and effective support. Dean Foster, noted that they are looking at five different models for the business centers in the College of Arts & Sciences: 1) bring together 10 small programs and have them occupy one floor of Oldfather with one administrative center to work for the programs; 2) large departments will continue as they have been; 3) the large cluster model which would be to create one large business center for the sciences; 4) the big sibling little sibling model where a small department's office would merge with a larger department's office; 5) the comprehensive model, bringing two offices together for the administrative work only. Foster pointed out that concerns about the business centers include the loss of identity for a department, joint staff having two reporting lines, loss of control of financial information for chairs, viewing the merging as a step towards elimination of departments, staff concerns on the change in the jobs and fear of losing their jobs. Foster noted that all concerns need to be taken seriously and that professional help will be needed in the design of these centers. Arnold, Marketing, pointed out that no references have been made to the studies that have been conducted on the very type of changes that are being proposed. He noted that these studies point out that there is a critical course for incentives to make changes and that these kinds of changes take a long time. Arnold stated that the studies also reveal that the change can not be driven from the top down but needs to be from the bottom up. Moeller responded that when the first business center was created in 1995, a facilitator was assigned and the support staff worked as a team. Roysircar Sodowsky, Educational Psychology, asked how the centers were going to be organized and who would be supervising the staff in these centers, and whether new management positions will be created to supervise the centers? O'Hanlon responded that he is unsure of the answers to these questions are this time because the 3 teams of staff are currently reviewing the situation. Moeller pointed out that the center needs to be designed by the unit and suggested that chairs act as supervisors on a rotating basis. Brand, Chemical Engineering, stated that the staff provide important student functions and asked how this is going to be effected? Foster stated that service to students and faculty must be maintained. Foster pointed out that even if a large business center is created, there will still be a departmental office. Mientka, Mathematics & Statistics, asked if time sheets will be entered directly into the system? Phelps stated that with this system the department will enter the information directly. Chancellor Moeser asked them to address the concern of research faculty that the program will not allow grants and contracts to efficiently track research grants that have co-investigators from different departments. Moeller replied that the project systems module of the software addresses grants more effectively than we currently have been able to do. Phelps stated that interdepartmental research should not be impacted at all. SVCAA Edwards stated that the concern is where you have either principal investigators in two different departments or joint appointments, whether the system will be flexible enough to permit people to operate that way and to do the reporting or will it have to be done entirely in one unit. Moeller stated the system will accommodate this quite well but the issue may be security. The question was asked of where is the security of this system? Moeller stated that they do not have all of the answers yet regarding security or reporting although he noted that there is security on the system.

6.0 Approval of 1/12/99 Minutes (Secretary Bryant)

The minutes were not approved due to lack of a quorum.

7.0 Committee Reports

7.1 Convocations Committee (Professor Bryant)

Item postponed due to lateness of meeting.

7.2 Curriculum Committee (Professor Pfeiffer)

Item postponed due to lateness of meeting.

7.3 Honorary Degrees Committee (Professor Howe)

Due to a lack of a quorum it was decided that the Pound Howard award ballots will be mailed directly to the Senators.

7.4 Committee on Committees (Professor Kirk)

Item postponed due to lateness of meeting.

8.0 Committee on Committees Draft Slate and Ballot (Professor Kirk)

Item postponed due to lateness of meeting.

9.0 Unfinished Business

No unfinished business.

10.0 New Business

10.1 Filling the Position of President-Elect (This issue was discussed when a quorum was present.)

Latta suggested that the business of order be changed to allow discussion of the President-Elect position and to discuss the length of her term as President. Latta noted that there is currently a motion on the floor relating to Pat Kennedy's Presidency. Brand, Parlimentarian stated that the motion is now moot given the resignation of Kennedy. Latta reported that the Senate Rules stipulate that a special election must be held for the President-Elect position if a slate can be sent out with the call for the meeting. She stated that due to the shortness of time, a slate was not ready for this meeting. However, Latta stated that the issue of the length of her Presidency needs to be determined. Scheideler, moved on behalf of the Executive Committee, that Gail Latta be made President for the remainder of this period of time, February - end of April, and that she also be allowed to serve the 1999-2000 term for which she was elected. Jensen called the question. The motion was approved unanimously. Scheideler moved, on behalf of the Executive Committee, that the President-Elect position be filled for the remainder of this period of time, March - end of April, and that the regular election be held the last week in April for the President-Elect to be voted upon by the new body. Jensen, Psychology, asked if the person can stand sequentially. Scheideler stated that it was encouraged that the person do so. Nelson, Agronomy, stated that the person should be elected to serve the remainder of this term and next term. Scheideler noted that the Executive Committee discussed this issue and felt that the new body of the Senate should be given the chance to elect their President-Elect. Nelson asked if there was a need to fill the position for the remainder of this term. Scheideler pointed out that the Bylaws require that the position be filled to constitute a full Executive Committee. Aguilar, Curriculum and Instruction, pointed out that if something should happen to the President then we would need to have a President-Elect to fill the position. Shirer, Modern Languages, suggested that a Vice President be elected for the interim. Latta asked if he wanted to make this as a friendly amendment. Shirer stated that he did not think he could do so because there is no position of Vice President. Ford pointed out that the motion is suggesting that we do what is already in the Bylaws. Bleed, Anthropology, stated that due to the shortness of time he would not be offended to leave the position vacant if we could not elect someone for the remainder of this term and the next term. Latta pointed out that one concern is that the President-Elect chairs the Faculty Compensation Advisory Committee and if someone is not elected then we will have to find someone to serve on this committee. Bleed stated that with the investment that Latta has had in this committee this year, that she should continue on it. Ford asked if he is suggesting that we not follow the Bylaws? Bleed stated yes and that his recollection is that the position was not filled when this previously occurred. Griffin, Coordinator, pointed out that the Bylaws were revised in 1995 which mandates that a special election be held to fill this position. Jensen stated that we must stay with the Bylaws and move forward with this. Motion approved unanimously. Bleed recommended that Latta continue working with the Faculty Compensation Advisory Committee. Hallbeck, Industrial & Management Systems Engineering, asked about the Past-President position. Latta stated that it is not an emergency issue and that it will be given in the charge to the Senate Rules & Bylaws Committee to review.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:48 p.m. The next Senate meeting will be March 2, 1999 in the City Campus Union, Auditorium. Respectfully submitted, Miles Bryant, Secretary.