DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT (02aug28mins)



Present:          Bryant, DiMagno, Fuller, King, Logan-Peters, Miller, Peterson, Sawyer, Siekman, Spann,

                        Whitt, Wolf, Wunder




Date:               Wednesday, August 28, 2002


Location:        Academic Senate Office, 420 University Terrace

1.0       Call to Order (Miller)

Miller called the meeting to order at 2:35 p.m.


2.0       Announcements

No announcements were made.


3.0       Reporter from the Daily Nebraska

The Executive Committee met with Daily Nebraskan reporter Patti Vannoy to discuss the impending $7.5 million budget cut to the campus and the effects it is having on faculty members.  The article appeared in the August 29th edition of the DN.


4.0       Follow Up on Meeting with Chancellor Perlman

The committee discussed their reactions to the meeting with Chancellor Perlman regarding administrative costs.  The committee agreed that overall the meeting went well, although there was concern that the Chancellor still strongly supported administration.


5.0       Early Retirement Proposal to the Board of Regents

A copy of the proposal for early retirement of tenured faculty was distributed to the committee.  It was suggested that President Miller should announce at the September 3rd Senate meeting whether this proposal was approved by the Board of Regents. 


6.0       Interpretation of the Responsibilities of the Academic Rights &   Responsibilities Committee in the Regents Bylaws

DiMagno stated that he reviewed the responsibilities of the Academic Rights & Responsibilities Committee as written in the Regents Bylaws.  He pointed out that the language in the Bylaws indicates that the ARRC procedures can be invoked for any termination of a continuous appointment.  He noted that the language of the Bylaws states “A continuous appointment may be terminated only for adequate cause, retirement for age or disability, bona fide discontinuance of a program or department, or extraordinary circumstances because of financial exigency.  Before any termination for cause may occur, it shall be necessary to submit the matter to the Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee in the manner provided in Section 4.14.2.”  He pointed out that the language also states that the Board of Regents is compelled to follow the ARRC’s recommendations (Section 4.14.2 f) absent compelling evidence to the contrary. 


Wolf stated that the ARRC is concerned with the number of cases that could come forward should there be numerous cuts to academic programs.  DiMagno asked if members of the ARRC participate with the Academic Planning Committee in any way.  Bryant reported that they do not.  Sawyer suggested that the APC should send a copy of their minutes to the ARRC during the budget cutting process.


Spann wondered what would constitute a bona fide reason for discontinuance of a program.  He suggested that former chairs of the ARRC should be contacted to discuss how the Chancellor(s) dealt with recommendations from the ARRC. 


DiMagno pointed out that a major difference between the ARRC and the APC is that the ARRC is exclusively a faculty committee.


7.0       Unfinished Business

                        7.1       APC Procedures

Griffin distributed copies of the 1986 APC procedures that were used during the 1991 budget cuts.  Logan-Peters asked if it was possible to revert back to using the 1986 procedures.  Wunder stated that for the 1986 Procedures to be invoked that ASUN or the Academic Senate or APC, or all three of the signators, would first need to withdraw their support for the 1993 procedures.  He noted that it could be stated in a resolution withdrawing approval of the 1993 Procedures that the 1986 Procedures should be followed for the 2002 budget cuts.  


Fuller asked if the Executive Committee intends to present alternative solutions for the budget cuts.  Wunder suggested that the committee wait to see what budget cuts the Chancellor is proposing.  Miller asked if the committee should state that no faculty or academic programs should be cut or whether the committee should be somewhat flexible.  Fuller stated that she is opposed to the firing of any faculty but she would support faculty being merged into another department in order to cut programs.  Bryant suggested that the committee might want to develop alternative solutions and not stand so steadfast against releasing any faculty. 


Wunder pointed out that every available dollar will be used to offset the budget cuts for this fiscal year.  He noted that the real crucial time is actually next year after the legislature meets in the spring and before the new fiscal year begins in July.  He stated that the base budget will have had to be reduced by $7.5 million at that time.  He pointed out that what this means is that the time line for making budget cuts to the permanent budget does not have to be done so quickly.


8.0       New Business


The meeting was adjourned at 4:02 p.m.  The next meeting of the Academic Senate Executive Committee will be on Wednesday, September 4th at 3:00 p.m., 201 Canfield Administration Building.  The minutes are respectfully submitted by Karen Griffin, Coordinator, and James King, Secretary.