Present:        Bender, Bryant, Fuller, Humes, Jackson, Latta, Miller, Prochaska Cue, Scheideler, Siekman, Swoboda, Whitt, Zorn


Absent:          [None]


Date:              Wednesday, October 18, 2000


Location:       201 Canfield Administration Building


1.0          Call to Order

                Scheideler called the meeting to order at 3:00 PM.


2.0          Announcements

2.1   Martin Luther King Freedom Breakfast

Scheideler reported that she received an invitation for the Academic Senate to co-sponsor the Martin Luther King Freedom Breakfast scheduled for January 12, 2001.  The committee agreed to have the Senate office co-sponsor the event by purchasing tickets.


2.2   Dale Ekart, Recycling Program Coordinator

Scheideler reported that she received a letter from Dale Ekart stating that he would be willing to come speak to any classes dealing with environmental issues.  He asked that she make this information available to faculty.


3.0          Acting Senior Vice Chancellor Brinkerhoff/Interim Vice Chancellor McBreen

3.1   Status of Email Messages and AAUP

Scheideler reported that a faculty member tried to send email via the University’s “all-faculty” list server regarding AAUP; their request to use the list server was turned down by the Office of Academic Affairs.  She asked if there are guidelines that state what can and cannot be distributed using this list server.  Acting SVCAA Brinkerhoff stated that a new policy is being developed by Kent Hendrickson, Associate Vice Chancellor for Information Services.  He noted that the Public Relations Office is being considered as the office that would screen generic emails for potential distribution to the faculty/staff.  Humes pointed out that since the policy will dictate what information faculty would receive via the list server, faculty should have input into the policy.  The committee agreed that a policy with clear criteria needs to be developed.  Brinkerhoff agreed to forward to the Executive Committee a copy of the proposed policy for their review and a copy of the criteria that were developed 5-6 years ago that serve as guidelines for authorizing email messages to faculty and staff. 


3.2   Prioritization Process at the Vice Chancellor’s Level

Acting SVCAA Brinkerhoff stated that the Vice Chancellors would not initially focus on developing new priorities during the initial stages of the prioritization process.   He stated that they would review the historical record of previously articulated institutional priorities.  Acting SVCAA Brinkerhoff noted that the Life Sciences and 2020 Task Force Reports would be included in this review.    He pointed out that the Prioritization Process is geared towards academic programs, not auxiliary services.  Latta asked if academic computing is being considered in the prioritization process.  Acting SVCAA Brinkerhoff stated that at this time it was not.  Latta asked if there coordination between the NU campuses in regards to the process.  SVCAA Brinkerhoff stated that the process established by the commission insured that the campuses would have freedom to work individually on the prioritization process. 


Jackson stated that he was concerned that some of the previously developed priorities, such as the “unfunded mandates,” were formulated with limited faculty input.  He noted that if these priorities were being used as a starting point for the process, there might be so much momentum behind these priorities that there would be little opportunity for revision.  Acting SVCAA Brinkerhoff stated that the previous priorities are to be used as a starting point, not as a guide to the prioritization process.  Jackson noted that there is no clear mechanism for departments/units to bring forth new priorities.  Interim VC McBreen stated that they are discussing with the Academic Planning Committee the idea of holding open forums so that faculty may provide input.   She noted that it would be very important to have faculty participate in these forums if they want to have an impact on the prioritization process. 


Bryant asked how the process was progressing at the college level.  Acting SVCAA Brinkerhoff stated that the colleges are working on it but the mechanism and progress varies from college to college.  He noted that there is a clear expectation for Deans to work with the units on this process.  Zorn pointed out that politics could play a role in determining the UNL’s priorities.  Acting SVCAA Brinkerhoff stated that there would be ample opportunity to collectively set campus priorities.  Fuller suggested that there be other mechanisms in place for faculty to provide input.  Acting SVCAA Brinkerhoff noted that the Academic Senate strategic agenda should be included in the documents being reviewed that relate to previous campus priorities.  Latta suggested that the Academic Senate Budget Priorities also be included. 


Bryant asked where the institution comes up with the funding for new priorities.  Interim VC McBreen stated that new priority initiatives are not part of the biennium budget and that accessing external funds might be required.  Miller pointed out that the process of gathering input from faculty has remained the same, and many faculty feel the process does not work well.  Acting SVCAA Brinkerhoff stated that they are working with the Academic Planning Committee to try to establish a better means of communication. 


3.3   Progress of Life Sciences Task Force Curriculum Team

Interim VC McBreen reported that the team is holding regular meetings and is making progress,  but that there has been no formal report from them yet.  Acting SVCAA Brinkerhoff noted that they want a final report from the curriculum team is expected by March 2001.  He stated that the team has good representation from both east and city campuses. 


4.0          Interim Vice Chancellor McBreen

                4.1   Status of Dean Searches

Scheideler stated that she was surprised to see that all four candidates being interviewed for the Dean of Fine Arts position are musicians.  Acting SVCAA Brinkerhoff noted that the original pool of candidates, including those who had “airport” interviews, had a variety of professional backgrounds.  The search committee, however, eventually filtered the list down to the selected four.  He pointed out that the search committees endeavors should be respected.  He noted that comments on the interviewed candidates are taken seriously by his office. 


Interim VC McBreen stated that the search committee has identified three candidates for the Dean of Extension.  She noted that she has spoken with the newly appointed Vice Chancellor, John Owens, regarding the search process but that he did not indicate how he will proceed with the search process.  Scheideler asked for an update on the Dean of CASNR search.  Interim VC McBreen stated that interim position, when formed, was anticipated to last for one year and that she does not know how Vice Chancellor Owens will proceed with this search. 


Acting SVCAA Brinkerhoff stated that the search for the Vice Chancellor of Research is in its early stages; people who have been nominated for the position are being called.  Scheideler asked if outside consultants are being used for this search.  Acting SVCAA Brinkerhoff stated that no outside firms have been employed.  He reported that the search for the Dean of the Law College is on target; it is hoped that campus interviews can be conducted this spring.


5.0          Approval of 10/11/00 Minutes

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


6.0          Unfinished Business

                6.1   Revised Strategic Agenda

Scheideler pointed out that the revisions to the strategic agenda are nearly complete and asked the committee to send her any further comments.


7.0          New Business

7.1   Academic Senate President’s Attendance at Chancellor’s Cabinet Meetings

The committee discussed the importance of the Academic Senate President attending the Chancellor’s Cabinet meetings.   The committee agreed to discuss the issue further with Interim Chancellor Perlman.


7.2    Letter of Support

Bryant suggested that, as a future agenda item, the committee should discuss whether they want to indicate support for Interim Chancellor Perlman’s consideration as a candidate for the Chancellor’s position.


The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.  The next meeting of the Executive Committee will be at 3:00 PM on Wednesday, October 25, 2000 at the Academic Senate Office, 420 University Terrace.  Respectfully submitted, David S. Jackson, Secretary.