DSJ Suggestions (00oct11mins)




Present:        Bender, Bryant, Fuller, Humes, Miller, Scheideler, Swoboda, Whitt, Zorn


Absent:          Jackson, Latta, Prochaska-Cue, Siekman, Zorn


Date:              Wednesday, October 11, 2000


Location:       420 University Terrace, Academic Senate Office


1.0          Call to Order

                Scheideler called the meeting to order at 3:03 PM.


2.0          Announcements

No announcements were made.


3.0          Kent Seacrest, Antelope Valley Project

Guests:  Don Jensen, Psychology, John Gaber, Community & Regional Planning, and Gary Bergman, Southeast Research & Extension

Scheideler welcomed Kent Seacrest and stated that Executive Committee is interested in the Antelope Valley Project (AVP) from a number of perspectives.  Seacrest stated that the AVP offers great partnership opportunities for the University and the adjoining neighborhoods.  He noted that 45 other US universities  are involved in similar neighborhood revitalization projects.   He pointed out that maintaining these neighborhoods is vital for student/facultyrecruitment.  Seacrest suggested that the university could collaborate with neighboring communities by working together on several programs, such as building the campus multi-cultural center within the community rather than directly on campus.  Bryant noted that the faculty have not, until recently, been made aware of the AVP’s social implications.  He pointed out that the project will create a major highway that would appear to separate the campus from neighborhoods to the east and asked if this would create a barrier.  Seacrest stated that the intent is to make this a landscaped, six lane road, not a freeway.


Bergman noted that there is an erosion of the downtown area.  Seacrest stated that this is the fundamental issue.  He pointed out that the city needs to determine what it wants to have happen with downtown Lincoln.  He stated that the purpose of the AVP is to help keep the city’s core alive.  He noted that the AVP allows this to happen by eliminating the floodplain, rerouting traffic, bypassing the railroads, and opening up land for more potential planning.  Scheideler asked about the traffic flow between campuses.  Seacrest stated that there would still be access to Holdrege Street.  He pointed out that there will be a back door entrance to east campus that will allow for easier access to the AVP’s main corridor. 


Scheideler pointed out the campus master plan shows student athletic fields will be displaced; she asked if some of the recreation fields would be relocated.  Seacrest stated that some fields would be moved to the Northeast Community Park area near east campus.  Bryant noted that the Executive Committee was told by Past Chancellor Moeser that the athletic fields could not be moved.  He pointed out that the big research complex slated to be built on the east side of campus was not neighborhood friendly.  Bryant asked forfurther clarification on the AVP’s impact on housing.  Seacrest stated that new housing will be developed in the second phase of the project.  He pointed out that some of the 30 homes displaced by the AVP would be physically moved to existing empty lots in the Malone neighborhood.  Seacrest  stated that there are national developers who are interested in building university housing in the Malone and Clinton neighborhoods.  Gaber pointed out that housing issues have not been completely resolved.  He stated that it is important to have the university define it’s role and to take financial and social responsibility for its part of the project.  Scheideler noted that the faculty could provide other resources, such as faculty expertise.  Seacrest stated that it would be very helpful for the university to provide an action plan.  Jensen asked why faculty were not employed in developing the AVP and the campus master plan.  He stated that there is concern with the plan now and for the long-term.  Scheideler stated that the Executive Committee is stressing to administration that the faculty want to be involved in both the campus master plan and the AVP.  Seacrest  pointed out that the vision statement of the AVP will be presented to the City Council on October 30th.  He noted that it would be very helpful to have the University involved with the presentation.   The Committee agreed that faculty have had very little involvement in the development of either the campus master plan or the AVP, although there appears to be considerable faculty interest in being involved.  Swoboda asked if Interim Chancellor Perlman has a committee to work on the AVP.  Scheideler stated that she would check into this. 


Jensen pointed out that the width of the six-lane road has been underplayed.  He stated that the traffic plan’s consequences have never been realistically dealt with.  Griffin stated that there is concern with pedestrians crossing such a wide road.  Seacrest stated that studies have been conducted on this issue and that traffic signals will be timed accordingly to allow pedestrians time to cross the road.  He noted that principals of the local schools have accepted the plan and have reviewed the issues regarding pedestrian road crossing(s).  Fuller asked how the plan was going to counter flight to the suburbs.  Swoboda stated that developers would need to create new housing in the impacted neighborhoods.  She stated that it would be important to get families with a variety of incomes living in the area to achieve successful neighborhood   revitalization. 


4.0          Approval of 10/4/00 Minutes

Bryant moved and Whitt seconded approval of the minutes.  Motion approved. 


5.0          Unfinished Business

                5.1   Student Absence Policy, Bob Diffendal, Chair of Intercollegiate Athletics

Diffendal stated that any changes to the existing student absence policy should do two things:  1) Assist  students and 2) clarify the present policy.  He noted that there appears to be some confusion as to whether some of the language used in the Schedule of Classes and the Bulletin are Senate policies.  He pointed out that the section on student attendance in the Schedule of Classes is very confusing.  The committee agreed that the language needs to be clarified.  Diffendal stated that the form presented to the Senate in the spring was meant only as a means of communication.  Whitt pointed out that it appeared that some Senators felt that the form was a policy to be enforced rather than a tool to help them.   The committee agreed that a resolution limited to clarifying the existing 1983 student absence policy should be presented to the Senate.  The committee worked on revising the resolution; it will be presented at the next Senate meeting.


6.0          New Business

Swoboda asked that concerns regarding the $90,000 consulting firm fee for the Chancellor’s search be discussed at an upcoming meeting.


The meeting was adjourned at 5:10 p.m.  The next meeting of the Executive Committee will be at 3:00 PM on Wednesday, October 18, 2000 at 201 Canfield Administration Building.  Respectfully submitted, David S. Jackson, Secretary.