EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING
Present: Bryant, DiMagno, Fuller, King, Logan-Peters, Miller, Sawyer, Siekman, Whitt, Wolf
Absent: Prochaska-Cue, Scheideler, Spann
Date: Wednesday, October 3, 2001
Location: 201 Canfield Administration Building
1.0 Call to Order
Bryant called the meeting to order at 3:02 p.m.
2.0 Announcements
No announcements were made.
3.0 Chancellor Perlman
3.1 Breakdown of Faculty Salary Increases by Percentages
Item postponed due to lack of time.
3.2 Discussion of Recruiting Plan
Bryant reported that he was impressed with the recruiting plan presented by the outside consultant and agreed that everyone on campus needs to be involved, to some degree, in order for it to be successful. However, he stated that he is receiving different messages from a variety of sources as to where he should put his efforts, and this causes confusion for faculty. He noted that the distance education plan for UNL has not yet been developed, yet $12,000 grants are available for creating new distance education courses, but money is not available to hire new faculty or to improve existing courses. He stated that a study is being conducted in his college to quantify faculty workload. He pointed out that recruiting is not considered a part of his workload, and if it is not counted, why then should he or anyone else want to do it. Wolf indicated that there is confusion on campus about what the real values are and what the cross-currents of expectations are on campus for faculty. Sawyer stated that he is on the task force that has been assigned to look at professors workload. He noted that there is no clear way to quantify and collect the data on a faculty members work and the task force has not been given any clear direction from the university on how this should be done.
SVCAA Edwards stated the campus is in a situation of changing course direction. He noted that many good things are currently happening around the campus, but that we are facing a budget cut that is going to have impact on some of these accomplishments and create more contradiction for faculty. He noted that there has been pressure from both inside and outside of the campus to create more distance education courses and this has been the driving force behind offering the grants. He stated that the workload study is in part due to the post tenure review process. He stated that administrators and faculty recently came to an understanding of what faculty assignments and apportionment are to be, but no information has been collected regarding the faculty apportionments. He stated these apportionments should be based on a reasonable set of standards. He noted that colleges have been asked to review this and to determine what would be a reasonable set of guidelines to use to determine apportionments and how they are constituted. He noted that they do not want a system that would not count additional work done by faculty outside of their given assignment.
Chancellor Perlman stated that we have no choice but to invest in recruiting students. He pointed out that this is a revenue source for the campus, and in order for us to be successful at it, we need to have the people and software in place that would enable us to strategically recruit. Wolf pointed out that another major concern is retention of students. Chancellor Perlman stated that this was a more daunting task in that it is difficult to determine which students will drop out of the university. He stated that improvements in advising could help to identify those students that may be in jeopardy. He stated that the campus is working on integrating the financial aid system with recruiting. He noted that they are trying to gather information on all of the financial aid that is available at the college level. Sawyer suggested that faculty should review midterm grades to determine if students are having difficulty. He stated that colleges should try to work with these students through advising. DiMagno pointed out that faculty are willing to assist in recruiting, but that it is important (both for the University and for the faculty member) that they participate in an effective and efficient manner. Logan-Peters asked for information on retention rates. Chancellor Perlman stated that the retention of freshmen and sophomores has increased but that students who have been here longer do not have as good a retention rate, in part because admissions were not involved in the early stages of their recruitment. VC Owens stated that the statistics are similar on east campus. He pointed out that the learning communities that have recently been established seem to be very effective.
3.3 Implementation of Budget Cut
Item postponed due to lack of time.
3.4 Annual Evaluation of Administrators
Item postponed due to lack of time.
3.5 Issues on the Horizon
Health Care Committee
Chancellor Perlman stated that he is seeking faculty or staff that are well informed in health care coverage to serve on the blue ribbon panel that is being created by President Smith to review the health care program. He asked that suggestions be submitted to him quickly.
4.0 SVCAA Edwards
4.1 Update on Searches for Deans
SVCAA Edwards stated that the search for the Dean of the College of Engineering is in progress. He stated that there is a soft deadline of October 15th for applications. He noted that the committee would begin reviewing applications after that date.
SVCAA Edwards stated that the search committee for the Dean of Teachers College has not been named yet. He stated that they hope to advertise for the position soon and that a deadline date of either December 1st or January 1st is being considered for submission of applications. He stated that they hope to have both new deans start during summer 2002. Sawyer pointed out that in order to hire the best person, the university administration needs to determine what role they want Teachers College to take in the state.
5.0 VC Owens
5.1 Discrepancies Between Salary Increases and Annual Evaluations
Bryant stated that he has received complaints from faculty that the annual evaluation does not coincide with the salary increase that they were given. VC Owens stated that part of the problem might be that people are expecting a certain percentage of increase and yet they receive less. He noted that this part of the salary process needs to be improved. Fuller pointed out that it is unclear what the standard raise is for a good annual evaluation. Bryant suggested that the Executive Committee could ask the Faculty Compensation Advisory Committee to work on establishing a standard raise of 3% for satisfactory performance. He noted that this would result in the Vice Chancellors receiving a smaller portion of money for their use. Miller stated that comparable evaluations need to be given if the increase is below the cost of living increase. Bryant stated that chairs need help with doing the complex task of determining salary increases. VC Owens stated that there were good discussions with the Deans at the recent retreat regarding this issue. He noted that a suggestion was made to hold workshops and seminars to assist chairs with the salary increase process. Bryant stated that many faculty did not receive any explanation regarding the amount of their increase. Fuller pointed out that faculty do not know where the funds for their increase came from. She stated that it was unclear as to whether the raise may have included funding for gender equity, whether it was based on merit, and how much of it came for the Deans or the departments funding. SVCAA Edwards stated that he sent a letter out to each faculty member who received funding from the Vice Chancellors level. He stated that better communication needs to happen between the chairs and the faculty members and that they need to work with the chairs to help accomplish this task. He noted that it is important to pay attention to the annual evaluations and the salary increases because they do not always appear to be connected.
5.2 County Support of Extension Personnel
Item postponed due to lack of time.
5.3 Update on Dean of CASNR Search
VC Owens reported that the search is currently underway and that an announcement for the position should be advertised soon.
6.0 Approval of 9/26/01Minutes
Sawyer moved and Siekman seconded, approval of the minutes as amended. Motion approved.
7.0 Unfinished Business
No unfinished business was discussed.
8.0 New Business
No new business was discussed.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:07 p.m. The next meeting of the Executive Committee will be held on Wednesday, October 10th at 3:00 p.m. in the Academic Senate Office, 420 University Terrace. Respectfully submitted by Karen Griffin, Coordinator, and James King, Secretary.
