EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES
Present: Bender, Bryant, Fuller, Humes, Jackson, Latta, Miller, Prochaska-Cue, Scheideler,
Seikman, Zorn
Absent: Whitt
Date: Wednesday, August 30, 2000
Location: 201 Canfield Administration Building
1.0 Call to Order
Scheideler called the meeting to order at 3:01 PM.
2.0 Acting SVCAA Brinkerhoff
2.1 Nebraska Performance Model
Scheideler stated that the faculty in some colleges have been told that the Nebraska Performance Model (NPM) is to be a priority, with implementation to take place this spring. She pointed out that there is still a great deal of concern regarding this project. SVCAA Brinkerhoff noted that the underlying value of the NPM is its ability to serve as an efficient management tool by creating a centralized relational database that contains important institutional statistics currently available from various sources and information systems. The NPM looks at inputs and outputs in categories of variables. He pointed out that the majority of the information gathered is quantitative but that qualitative data need to be recognized as well. He noted that it is not intended that the NPM be used to make budget decisions.
Acting SVCAA Brinkerhoff stated that SVCAA Edwards might want to look at comparable data at the institutional level, but not at the college or departmental level. Latta asked how corrections or adjustments would be made for differences in the missions of the institutions being compared. Acting SVCAA Brinkerhoff stated that qualitative input is needed to deal with this and perhaps a disclaimer should be made to point out the differences. Latta asked if it is the expectation of administration that the faculty in a given unit would understand how their performance was represented in the NPM. SVCAA Brinkerhoff stated that there should be no difficulty with this. Latta asked whether the Deans have been asked to identify what data will be in the NPM. SVCAA Brinkerhoff stated that there have been reviews of what is available for the Deans to use, such as the resources the department is using. Outputs will be information such as the number of majors and minors, degrees granted, contact hours, etc.
Miller pointed out that the objectives of using the NPM are not clear. SVCAA Brinkerhoff stated that the NPM is to facilitate answering various institutional questions with ease and efficiency; the NPM centralizes data collection of information that is currently difficult to gather. Zorn noted that the real issue is not the gathering of data, but how it will be used. He cautioned that an automatic formula should not be used with the model. Miller pointed out that the mandate to prioritize programs and the timing associated with the implementation of the NPM is creating concern that the NPM will be used to rank departments/units. SVCAA Brinkerhoff stated that the NPM would allow validation of information that is now in stored in several different locations. Latta pointed out that the easier the access to data, the more likely that it will become a default for making decisions. She noted that it is important for units to have discussions about how their performance is represented. She pointed out that there should be more discussion on the NPM if it is going to be used to make broad based decisions. SVCAA Brinkerhoff stated that the intent is to gather feedback from faculty. He noted that one advantage of the NPM is that the data will be available to units.
Scheideler suggested that there be a faculty advisory group assigned to the project to help with its implementation. Latta pointed out that she would like to be shown what data is being used to make decisions about the work of her unit because it might inform individual decisions she makes about how to prioritize her work. SVCAA Brinkerhoff noted that the unit of analysis is not on individuals but on departments or at the college level. He stated that the evaluation of individual faculty members is based on their annual evaluation. Miller noted that there is a feeling of a top down, rather than a participatory process in this project. SVCAA Brinkerhoff stated that units will not be forced to use the data, nor is a particular model being developed for people to use in association with the data. Prochaska-Cue pointed out that, in considering FTE, the NPM does not give a true and accurate reflection of effort due to the variation within colleges and departments. SVCAA Brinkerhoff agreed that in IANR FTE is distributed between research/teaching/extension while in other Colleges a faculty members entire FTE is often assigned to their teaching efforts; he noted that the revised Bylaw 4.3 will help to address this problem. Jackson questioned how the NPM would be linked with the prioritization process. SVCAA Brinkerhoff stated that they are only in the formative stages of discussion on the prioritization program. The committee discussed the prioritization program and how it will work at UNL.
2.2 Issues on the Horizon
Vice Chancellor for Research Search Committee
Acting SVCAA Brinkerhoff stated that the search committee for the Vice Chancellor of Research was nearly complete and that an announcement will be made when its membership was finalized. The Executive Committee discussed representation of colleges on the committee.
3.0 Announcements
3.1 Board of Regents Meeting
Scheideler reported that a strategic issue discussed at the Board of Regents meeting was the Rural Outreach. She noted that telecommunications, access to health care, leadership training, and value added agriculture are primary concerns of this program. She stated that President Smith has announced the formation of the search committee for Chancellor. In other matters, Scheideler reported that the Board of Regents has approved an Agreement between the University of Nebraska, the Midwest Higher Education Commission, and The Distributed Learning Workshop for the University of Nebraska to be one of the founding partners of The Distributed Learning Workshop. She stated that the intent is to buy into a consortium that will produce learning modules suitable for use in or the creation of undergraduate classes. Latta pointed out that this should have been discussed with faculty who will be expected to provide modules for the workshop.
3.2 Paul Axtel, Outside Consultant
Scheideler reported that the Executive Committee has the opportunity to meet with Paul Axtel, an outside consultant, to discuss leadership and techniques for groups to work more productively together. Scheideler suggested that the committee should think about specific issues that he can help with.
3.3 Health Care Benefits Meeting
Jackson reported that he attended the UAAD meeting with the Vice Presidents of Business & Finance. At the meeting it was reported that the money for the health care trust comes primarily from the premiums but that some income has comes from state support and interest accumulated on the trust. He reported that Caremark receives its income based on the total number of prescriptions that are processed. He noted that the increase to the health care premiums would be based on the net cost to employees (plan cost minus NU Credits). He pointed out that it would be more costly for the University to be insured by an outside firm rather than being self insured. He noted that Walgreens gives our plan a 13% discount on prescriptions while other pharmacies give a 14% discount.
4.0 Approval of 8/23/00 Minutes
Humes moved and Siekman seconded approval of the minutes as amended.
5.0 History of Student Absence Policy
Item postponed.
6.0 Unfinished Business
6.1 Revised Strategic Agenda
Scheideler asked the committee to review the revised strategic agenda and provide input at the next Executive Committee Meeting.
7.0 New Business
No new business was discussed.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:05 PM. The next meeting of the Executive Committee will be at 3:00 PM on Wednesday, September 6, 2000 at 420 University Terrace, Suite 203. Respectfully submitted, David S. Jackson, Secretary.
