Draft Draft Draft (01oct24mins)

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING

Present: Bryant, DiMagno, Fuller, King, Miller, Prochaska-Cue, Sawyer, Siekman, Spann, Whitt,

Wolf

Absent: Logan-Peters, Scheideler

Date: Wednesday, October 24, 2001

Location: 201 Canfield Administration Building

1.0 Call to Order

Bryant called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m.

2.0 Announcements

2.1 Academic Planning Committee

Bryant reported that he is discussing with Merlyn Nielsen, Chair of the Academic Planning Committee, the possibility of the Executive Committee and the Academic Planning Committee meeting together to work on the budget reduction process. He stated that he would let the committee know when a joint meeting would be held.

2.2 Academic Rights and Responsibilities Procedures

Bryant reported that members of the Academic Rights and Responsibilities Committee and the Senate Executive Committee agreed to streamline the five procedures into a guide for special panels to use. He said there would then be a shorter document that would address policy issues for each of the five specific procedures. He stated that it would more than likely be some time before the documents would be ready to present to the full Senate.

3.0 Chancellor Perlman

3.1 Budget

Chancellor Perlman stated that he has been reviewing the Procedures to Be Invoked for Significant Budget Reallocations and Reductions document approved in 1993 that outlines the procedures that need to be followed in order to deal with budget reductions. He stated that, in accordance with the procedures, there would be discussions with the Academic Planning Committee, Senate Executive Committee, Deans and Directors, UNOPA, UAAD, and ASUN. Chancellor Perlman stated that there would be two phases of the budget reduction process. He pointed out that further information regarding the amount of reduction would not be available until after the special legislative session meets, and more than likely, additional information would not be available until January.

Chancellor Perlman stated that Phase I of the budget reduction would consist of across the board cuts with efforts made centrally to backstop critical functions to the extent practicable. He stated that Phase II would be a process to readjust the base budget as needed. He noted that there would be more time in Phase II to make reductions consistent with the role and mission of the University and to comply with the established procedures for budget reductions. He pointed out that the highest priority is to protect the ability of students to graduate in a timely fashion.

Chancellor Perlman stated that he would probably be sending weekly emails or notices out to the campus community regarding the budget reduction process. He stated that his document on the proposed principles governing budget reductions would eventually be made public once the final revisions have been made.

Miller asked if Phase I was an effort to grab all available funds. Chancellor Perlman stated that if the magnitude of the reduction is in any way a percent of so over 3%, this would have to occur. Bryant noted that the reduction will hurt all colleges, but asked if there are some areas where the reduction would be more harmful. SVCAA Edwards stated that some colleges will be more hard pressed to come up with the 3% cut than other colleges. He stated that it is too early to tell if there is any general pattern yet. He stated that if the designated process is used, there could be a direct impact on some teaching programs while in other areas there may be less impact. He stated that part of the first round is to get people to begin discussions on how to make reductions.

Bryant asked for clarification on what is meant by the priority of the institution. He asked whether this is a reference to the goals and mission of the institution or a specific reference to the priority process. Chancellor Perlman stated that in Phase II those priority programs have to emerge as important factors to be considered. However, he noted that while the vital functions of the university are not included in the priority process, they have to continue. Bryant asked if the Chancellor was aware of what President Smiths plans were for the priority money being held by Central Administration. Chancellor Perlman stated that President Smith strongly believes that the campuses should manage their own reduction. He stated that President Smith is working on the reductions for Central Administration and is reviewing all funding held at that level.

Sawyer pointed out that faculty positions opened due to retirement are often quickly acquired by administration. He stressed that it was important for those positions to be returned to the departments when it is feasible. Chancellor Perlman noted that if the campus receives a budget cut of 4 5 %, that it could take up to four or five years to restore the departments and campus to pre-reduction status. He pointed out that across the board cuts would occur in Phase I and that it is possible that some programs could be cut in Phase II but that the procedures outlined in the 1993 document would need to be followed. He stated that there has been no discussion regarding a declaration of financial exigency. He stated that decisions on reductions would need to be made by the departments and colleges.

Chancellor Perlman noted that there are criteria at the end of the Procedures to be Invoked document which need to be considered when trying to reduce academic programs and service programs. He noted that in some of these criteria there are elaborate data sets that tend to prove or disprove the existence of the factors that are important in cutting or maintaining programs. He stated that there will need to be discussions regarding data sets. He pointed out that there is no universal data set that can be used to compare various programs.

Upon the departure of Chancellor Perlman and SVCAA Edwards, the committee discussed the documents presented by the Chancellor regarding the budget reduction process. They agreed that they should confer with the Academic Planning Committee particularly in regards to the Phase I process and then provide feedback to the Chancellor. The committee then discussed writing an editorial to be submitted to the Lincoln Journal Star and to the Omaha World Herald regarding the impacts the budget would have on the university.

3.2 Board of Regents Quality Indicators