Draft Draft Draft (01apr4mins)



Present:          Bender, Bryant, Fuller, Humes, Jackson, Latta, Miller, Prochaska-cue, Scheideler


Absent:           Siekman, Swoboda, Whitt, Zorn


Date:               Wednesday, April 4, 2001


1.0       Call to Order

            Scheideler called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m.


2.0       Announcements

            2.1      Faculty Outreach:  Activities and Attitudes at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Scheideler distributed the NN21 publication Faculty Outreach:  Activities and Attitudes at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.  This is a report on the findings of a survey that was conducted to better understand the role of outreach in higher education. 


2.2      Employee Assistance Program Advisory Committee Member

Scheideler reported that the EAP is seeking a member to serve on its program advisory committee.  Several faculty members were suggested for the committee.


3.0       Chancellor Perlman

Scheideler asked for an update on the status of the search for Dean of Cooperative Extension.  Chancellor Perlman reported that he interacted with all of the candidates, but since Vice Chancellor Owens was out on funeral leave, he did not know the current status of the search. 


Miller asked if there would be a ceremony to celebrate Chancellor Perlman’s appointment.  Chancellor Perlman reported that the Bylaws required a formal installation.   He stated this would be done in conjunction with the State of the University Address on August 24.


Latta asked if the Chancellor had any sense of whether or not the tuition increase would be supported by the Board of Regents.  Chancellor Perlman stated that he believed it would be approved by a majority of the Board.  Latta pointed out that the press has been reporting that the tuition increase would support faculty salaries.  She wondered how the Legislature is viewing these reports.  Chancellor Perlman stated that he believes the Legislature feels they are funding the faculty salary increases, but that there was an expectation from the Legislature that the University would raise its tuition. He reported that he has not heard any negative reactions to the proposed tuition increase.


Scheideler asked if more cuts would be made by the Athletics Department.  Chancellor Perlman stated that he is unaware of any other cuts being considered.  He pointed out that other universities are making cuts in their athletic programs, including swimming programs, and that the cost of collegiate athletics was an issue being faced by universities throughout the country.


4.0       Senior Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs Edwards

            4.1       Graduate Faculty Membership

Scheideler pointed out that there appears to be a problem with the process of applying for graduate faculty membership.  Humes noted that there is a problem with people being turned down at the level beyond the college and not being given a reason for the rejection.  Fuller pointed out that each college has its own separate standards although she noted that some people have been turned down even though they appear to be highly qualified.  The committee agreed that they want an official response from Dean Lawson regarding the process and suggested that they meet with him at an upcoming executive committee meeting.


4.2       The New Grading System and the Graduate College

Scheideler reported that the Graduate College feels that the issue of passing the new grading system should have been discussed with them before the Senate voted to approve the change.  Scheideler stated that it was her understanding that the Senate acts for the faculty at large.  SVCAA Edwards pointed out that the Graduate College is system wide and that the Executive Graduate Council should deal with issues and make decisions regarding the Graduate College.  Scheideler noted that the structure causes confusion and that it is unclear whether the Regents Bylaws gives the Graduate College autonomy on this issue. 


4.3       Issues on the Horizon

SVCAA Edwards reported that merit salary adjustments would be dealt with soon, however, he pointed out that figures from the Legislature would be coming out late this year.  He noted that there should be no large changes to the procedures that have been used in the recent past. 


SVCAA Edwards stated that they do not have this year’s data available on the success of the faculty hiring process.  He pointed out that he has some concerns on the composition of the new hires, since less money was available this year.  He noted that we are still under a legislative mandate to diversify the faculty membership and that if this is not accomplished, we could lose 1% of our budget.  Scheideler noted that diversity has not been raised at some search committee meetings.   SVCAA Edwards stated that there is currently no campus wide system in place to inform department heads and search committee chairs of the need for diversity.  He noted that they hope to obtain some funding from Central Administration for the next fiscal year to help with diversity hiring. 


Humes noted that MIT is proposing to put all class related materials, including class notes on the web.  He asked if this is something that UNL is considering.  SVCAA Edwards stated that there has been some discussion on the creation of a website for class notes.  He pointed out that they would like to get faculty involved if this were to happen.  Latta noted that there is the potential within the Blackboard portal of having guest accounts that would allow a person to get access to specific class information. 


4.4       Intellectual Property Policy

SVCAA Edwards stated that he spoke with the Deans regarding the latest draft of the IP policy.  He noted they have three major concerns.  The first is the discrepancy between section 4.0 and 5.2 regarding university involvement in research.  He noted that the underlying message in 5.2 is for faculty, if they wish to protect their intellectual property, to stay off campus to do research work.  The second concern is the lack of clarity regarding royalties, specifically, royalties that are derived from textbooks published by “publishing houses of standing.”  He noted that section b of 5.2 should have reference to this language used in section 3.11 of the Regent’s Bylaws.  The third concern is that while there is an implicit assumption in the policy that anything could be contracted out, this assumption is not clearly stated in the document. 


5.0       Approval of 3/21/01 and 3/28/01 Minutes

Miller moved and Humes seconded approval of the 3/21/01 minutes.  Motion approved.

Humes moved and Bender seconded approval of the 3/28/01 minutes.  Motion approved.


6.0       Unfinished Business

            6.1       Update on the Grading Policy Change

Scheideler reported that she met with Dean Lawson of the Graduate College to discuss the new grading system and whether it applies to graduate courses.  She noted that it is not clear how much autonomy the Graduate College has on this issue.  She stated that the Graduate Executive Council would be meeting to discuss the issue.  She pointed out that they are waiting to see if the Senates at UNO and UNK will approve the new grading system.  Scheideler stated that implementation of the new grading system will take place this fall, at least, for the undergraduate courses.  Humes asked how the change would affect scholarships.  Scheideler noted that grades posted prior to the fall semester of 2001 would be calculated based on the old grading system’s grade point assignments, while letter grades assigned starting this fall would be calculated using the new grade-point scale. 


6.2       Review Revisions of ARRC Procedures

Latta stated that she has concerns with the strategy discussed by the Executive Committee at the March 28th meeting regarding the introduction of the revised ARRC procedures to the Academic Senate.  She stated that faculty across the campus need the opportunity to provide input on the procedures.  She suggested that the Senators should have specific guidance on how they should present the procedures to their constituents or that faculty forums should be held to allow faculty to provide input.  Bryant pointed out that it is the intent of the Executive Committee to get faculty input, but that the Committee would rather produce a document for the Senate that would clearly outline and define the changes to the procedures so that these discussions could be facilitated.  Bender stated that the intent of the strategy was to help the Executive Committee develop a plan so that they would go to the Senate with a clear explanation of the revisions.  The committee discussed various strategies for presenting the proposed revisions to the faculty.


6.3       Faculty Compensation Advisory Committee Report

Bryant stated that the FCAC is looking to follow the same process for determining salary increases as has been done in recent past years.  He noted that they are concerned with the situation in Iowa and the effect it may have on the average salary increases of our peer institutions.  He reported that the committee is considering taking the average salary increase for the past three years and using that figure to establish the mid-point of our peer institutions.  He noted that we are currently 4 – 5% behind our peers.   Bryant reported that the committee is recommending an increase in the raises given for promotion, relative to rank.  The committee recommends that those faculty holding nine month appointments and being promoted to Associate Professor should receive $4,000; those being promoted to Full Professor should receive $6000.  For 12-month appointments, the faculty recommends that salary adjustments should generally be proportional to the recommendations for 9-month appointments. 


6.0       New Business

            6.1       Committee Service Preference Forms

Latta suggested that a spring committee service preference form should be distributed to faculty.  She pointed out that in the spring many faculty are more aware of what commitments they would have for the next academic year.  Griffin noted that the committee service preference form is available on the web and can be submitted at any time.  Scheideler suggested that Latta should refer this to the Committee on Committees.  Fuller, a member of the Committee on Committees, stated that she would bring the suggestion to the committee at their next meeting.


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