EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING
Present: Bryant, Fuller, King, Logan-Peters, Miller, Prochaska-Cue, Sawyer, Spann, Whitt, Wolf
Absent: DiMagno, Scheideler, Siekman
Date: Wednesday, December 5, 2001
1.0 Call to Order
Bryant called the meeting to order at 3:07 p.m.
2.1 Exemplary Service to Students Award Committee
Bryant reminded the committee to submit names of people who may be willing to serve on this committee. Spann volunteered to serve.
3.0 Approval of 11/28/01Minutes
Whitt moved and Sawyer seconded approval of the minutes as amended. Motion approved.
4.0 Unfinished Business
4.1 Evaluation of Administrators
Bryant suggested that a subcommittee be formed to work on this issue. Sawyer suggested that a pilot study should be conducted, perhaps with the Academic Senate. The committee agreed that a pilot study would need to be conducted on several administrators if they go ahead with this project. Bryant stated that the subcommittee would need to review the practices currently in place to review administrators. He noted that the subcommittee would need to discuss whether information gathered would be made public. King pointed out that it needs to be clear why the Executive Committee is doing these evaluations and what would be done with the information once it is gathered. Bryant stated that he would email people to see if they would be willing to serve on the subcommittee.
4.2 Quality Indicators
Bryant stated that once the quality indicators have been presented to the Board of Regents, the next step will be to see how they will be used by the campuses. He noted that some of the information identified by the quality indicators is already available on the web. Miller stated that if the quality indicators are only going to be used as a way to promote the work that is being done at the university, then there is no need to worry. Spann stated that he is concerned that only outputs are being counted and that inputs are not being taken into consideration. He noted that inputs would show that faculty members are being asked to do more work with fewer resources. King suggested that inputs could be made parallel to the outputs. The committee agreed to discuss the issue further with SVCAA Edwards.
4.3 Update on Budget Reductions
The committee discussed the issue raised at the December Academic Senate meeting regarding the use of faculty salary increases to offset the budget reductions. Bryant stated that he would draft a statement to send to Senators regarding the Executive Committees stance on the subject. The committee felt that more information regarding actual figures needs to be seen before they could support the use of faculty salary increases. The committee agreed to discuss this topic with Chancellor Perlman at their next meeting and ask him to make a clear statement at the January Senate meeting on this issue.
4.4 Pepsi Fund
Bryant reported that Vice Chancellor Jackson would be attending the January 16th Executive Committee meeting to discuss the Pepsi Fund. Bryant stated that he would like to discuss with her how they intend to use the endowment funds once the contract expires. He noted that he would also like to discuss the process that is used to determine who receives funding. Wolf pointed out that applications and an explanation of the process to obtain funding need to be distributed to the faculty. Bryant stated that the faculty should have a voice in determining the expenditure of the funds, particularly the $11 million endowment.
5.0 New Business
5.1 Exclusion of GLBT from New Cultural Center
Item postponed due to lack of time.
5.2 Degree Roster Instruction Sheet
Bryant stated that the reason the recent grade rosters are including the names of certain athletes is due to a ruling of the NCAA that students need to be declared eligible to play in post season games. Wolf noted that Chancellor Perlman provided information to the Executive Committee at the June 13th meeting that this was possibly going to happen. However, he noted that the Chancellor also stated that Professor Potuto, NUs representative to the NCAA, was going to try to get votes against the policy. Wolf pointed out that the Executive Committee was never informed of any further information regarding this policy and that no formal approval was given by the Executive Committee or the Academic Senate. Wolf stated that faculty members are beginning to feel that they are becoming bookkeepers for the athletic department and that this policy comes down as a command. Spann pointed out that faculty are being asked to fill out three different forms on each student athlete during the semester. He stated that the final grade should be sufficient. Logan-Peters suggested that the committee meet with Dennis Leblanc, Associate Athletic Director, Academic and Student Services and the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee, to discuss the concerns of the faculty.
5.3 Periodic Review of Not Fully Promoted Faculty
Bryant stated that he is waiting to hear from Associate to the Chancellor Howe regarding this policy. He noted that Professor Hallbeck, Industrial and Management Systems Engineering, asked why this was in the Faculty Evaluation Guidelines at the November Academic Senate meeting.
5.4 Update on Academic Planning Committee Work
Prochaska Cue reported that the APC is currently reviewing 58 pre-proposals for funding for priority programs. She noted that two subcommittees are looking at the pre-proposals and that the amounts being requested vary. She stated that the APC has requested that they have more lead time in reviewing the Chancellors budget cuts so that they could have a discussion with him before the list is made public.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:58 p.m. The next meeting of the Executive Committee will be held on Wednesday, December 12th at 3:00 p.m., 201 Canfield Administration Building. The minutes are respectfully submitted by Karen Griffin, Coordinator, and James King, Secretary.