EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES
Present: Bryant, King, Logan-Peters, Prochaska-Cue, Siekman, Wolf
Absent: Banerjee, Fuller, Miller, Scheideler, Spann, Whitt
Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2001
Location: 201 Canfield Administration Building
______________________________________________________________________________
<![endif]>
1.0 Call to Order (Bryant)
Bryant called the meeting to order at 2:34 p.m.
<![endif]>
2.0 Announcements
2.1 Visitors Center
Bryant reported that a groundbreaking ceremony would be held next week for the Visitors Center. Logan-Peters volunteered to attend on behalf of the Executive Committee.
<![endif]>
2.2 Concerns of Faculty on the Distribution of Salary Increases
Bryant suggested that the members of the Executive Committee should note any concerns raised by faculty regarding salary increases. He stated that the committee would discuss these concerns with the Chancellor.
<![endif]>
3.0 Approval of 5/30/01 Minutes
Approval of the minutes was postponed due to lack of a quorum.
<![endif]>
4.0 Chancellor Perlman
4.1 Intellectual Property Policy
Chancellor Perlman reported that the latest draft of the Intellectual Property policy addresses the concerns raised by faculty. He noted that the issue on royalties has been handled. He stated that the policy would be presented to the Board of Regents in June and voted upon in July. Bryant asked if the policy could be amended in the future if needed. Chancellor Perlman stated that this could be done. He pointed out that the Conflict of Interest and the Conflict of Commitment policies would need to be revised in the near future. He noted that the changes in these policies are being driven by the use of technology in teaching.
<![endif]>
4.2 Faculty Salary Distribution
Bryant stated that the committee would like to provide input regarding faculty concerns with the recent faculty salary increases. Chancellor Perlman stated that he is very interested in hearing the concerns of the faculty as well as seeing a statistical breakdown of the distribution so that improvements can be made for next year. He noted that a number of issues regarding the process have surfaced. He stated there is concern with the disparity of the process used by some departments, although he believes that intellectually the process is correct. Wolf pointed out that not everyone agrees that the process is correct. He noted that the language that has been used by administration, and how it has been reported in the press, has given the impression that the money being held back by administration is rather small, when in reality it is actually over 33%. He pointed out that even faculty members receiving outstanding evaluations were receiving increases below 4%. He noted that campuses with bargaining units would not have accepted these low increases and asked whether the Chancellor was concerned that these disparities could eventually lead to the formation of a union at UNL. Chancellor Perlman stated that he is concerned with the possibility of this occurring. He stated that he is a proponent of the merit system because he does not think broad-based distributions are good for the quality of the university.
<![endif]>
Chancellor Perlman stated that he wants to review the data on the distribution to determine if there are problems that need to be corrected. He stated that some departments appeared to have adhered to the guidelines much more strictly than was intended. Siekman noted that many departments felt that they had to create a range in the distribution. Wolf expressed concern over the money retained by administration and how it would be distributed. Chancellor Perlman stated that he wants to look at the data to determine how this money was used. He pointed out that the amount held back by administration was to help those departments that had uniformly good employees, and therefore had few remaining funds for merit increases, as well as faculty members who do considerable service work outside of their departments. Wolf stated that it is important for the Executive Committee to examine the statistics so that the committee may assist in correcting problems for next years distribution.
<![endif]>
Bryant noted that the Faculty Compensation Advisory Committee (FCAC) agreed with basing the increases on merit. However, he stated that the faculty members of the committee were surprised with the final allocation process. He pointed out that next year the committee needs to address this process directly. Chancellor Perlman stated that a study would need to be conducted on the data and that the guidelines would need to be revised. Byrant pointed out that it would be important to analyze the data to see if we are adhering to our values and putting funds into areas that have been designated as agenda items. Wolf asked if the FCAC agreed to the amount held back by administration. Bryant stated that the FCAC recommended that more funding should go to the departments rather than administration. Wolf suggested that the FCAC needed to take into consideration next year how the allocations were made this year.
<![endif]>
Bryant stated that faculty are reporting that part of the funds are being used to retain faculty which discriminates against those faculty who may be place bound due to age or family. He pointed out that some people could view this as a form of discrimination.
<![endif]>
Siekman asked if the raises received by UNO and UNK were for members of the bargaining units only or across the boards. Chancellor Perlman stated that all UNO faculty received 6.9% and UNK 6.0%, regardless of whether they were a member of the bargaining unit or not.
<![endif]>
<![endif]>
4.3 Distance Education Report (summary of changes)
Chancellor Perlman reported that the report has been revised so that the basic structure of the document is campus friendly. He stated that the campuses will be charged with developing a strategic plan which is to be updated annually. He noted that the Distance Education Council would insure that there are no unnecessary duplications in the campus programs and they would work on an agreement of a common platform. He pointed out that the report indicates a balance between entrepreneurial faculty and commonality of programs. He stated that a group is being formed to work on the campus Distance Education Plan at UNL. He noted that the Central Administration report would be presented to the Board of Regents in July.
<![endif]>
4.4 Transfer of Tuition Remission
Chancellor Perlman reported that the implementation of the transfer of tuition remission to dependents or spouses will be presented to the Board of Regents at the June meeting. He noted that the benefit is for full-time employees and is limited only to undergraduate courses.
<![endif]>
4.5 Academic Rights and Responsibilities Procedures Update
Bryant reported that the Executive Committee and the Academic Rights and Responsibilities Committee have been meeting to work on the proposed revisions to the ARRC procedures. Chancellor Perlman stated that he would like to review the proposed changes after the committees have completed work on them.
<![endif]>
4.6 Admissions
Chancellor Perlman reported that a consulting firm recently came to UNL to review the admissions program. He noted that the consultant suggested that audiences can be targeted but this requires hard work and the use of resources. Chancellor Perlman noted that many universities are going toward an enrollment management program and UNL is considering doing the same although further discussion and study is needed before agreeing to implement such a program.
<![endif]>
Chancellor Perlman stated that administration was considering hiring a Dean of Undergraduate Studies but this has been put on hold due to a number of concerns. He reported that the search process is underway to replace Susanna Finnel, Director of Admissions. He stated that there is discussion regarding the creation of an Enrollment Management Council.
<![endif]>
<![endif]>
4.7 Athletic Eligibility Rule
Chancellor Perlman reported that the current continuing eligibility rule in the Big 12 was changed. He stated that the Big 12 adopted a new rule that states that a student athlete must successfully complete at least six credit hours in each regular academic term in order to be eligible for the next regular academic term. He pointed out that this rule applies to post season competition which is defined as any competition, three days after the last exam date. He stated that the university would need to verify that a student has successfully completed six credit hours before he/she could play in any bowl or final competition.
<![endif]>
4.8 UNL Budget
Chancellor Perlman stated that the budget for this upcoming academic year will be tight. He pointed out that this is due to the additional funds needed to increase faculty and staff salaries as well as covering the cost of oral contraceptives. He noted that there would be a lack of discretionary funds available next year. He stated that President Smith is proposing to the Board of Regents that $3 million be used for programs of excellence. He stated that the campus administrators are working on a process to allow identified priority programs to request some of these funds. He noted that the Senate would be engaged in any process that narrows the priorities any further. Byrant asked what the time line would be for this process. Chancellor Perlman stated that they hope to have it organized this summer with requests being made in the fall and funding distributed by the spring semester. King asked if the energy situation is going to have an impact on the University budget. Chancellor Perlman stated that half of the deficit from last year has been paid and that we have already purchased our natural gas for next year so this should not be a factor.
<![endif]>
5.0 Promotion and Tenure Study
Bryant noted that the committee had agreed to conduct a study of the promotion and tenure process in conjunction with Academic Affairs. He pointed out that this is partly being driven by the dilemma raised regarding the inclusion of annual evaluations in the tenure file. He noted that one of the outcomes of the study is to improve the campus-wide process. King noted that it would be important to understand the variety of processes that exist on campus. Bryant pointed out that faculty involvement in the process also needs to be understood. Logan-Peters stated that it is important not to create a standard process and that the process to determine reappointments should also be reviewed. Siekman noted that there needs to be better coordination between the promotion and tenure committee and the unit chair/head when writing faculty evaluations. Wolf stated that the faculty should be surveyed to see what problems exist with the process. Bryant suggested that it would be good to discuss this with tenure track faculty, as well as newly tenured faculty. Logan-Peters pointed out that the overall goal should be to protect faculty and make them aware of what they must accomplish in order to achieve tenure. Prochaska-Cue pointed out that the standards for achieving promotion and tenure keep on changing and people are getting caught in the process. She stated that the question needs to be asked as to who continues to raise the standards for achieving tenure and promotion. She noted that how the tenure file is put together is another issue. Wolf stated that the appeals process regarding promotion and tenure decisions also needs to be reviewed. The committee discussed various ways to gather the needed information.
<![endif]>
The meeting was adjourned at 4:37 p.m. The next meeting of the Executive Committee will be held on Wednesday, June 27th at 2:30 p.m. in 201 Canfield Administration Building. Respectfully submitted, James King, Secretary, and Karen Griffin, Coordinator Academic Senate.
