Draft Draft Draft (02mar13mins)



Present:          Bryant, DiMagno, Fuller, Logan-Peters, Miller, Prochaska-Cue, Sawyer, Siekman, Spann, Whitt, Wolf


Absent:           King, Scheideler        


Date:               Wednesday, March 13, 2002


Location:        Academic Senate Office, 420 University Terrace

1.0       Call to Order

            Bryant called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m.


2.0       Announcements

2.1       Evaluation of Vice Chancellor Griesen

Bryant noted that the Bylaws call for the Executive Committee to evaluate the performance of administrators who do not directly supervise faculty.  Accordingly, the committee has been asked to review the performance of Vice Chancellor Griesen.  Copies of VC Griesen’s vitae and five year review of accomplishments were distributed to the committee.  The committee agreed to review the documents and submit comments to Bryant for him to consolidate into a final report. 


3.0       Approval of 2/27/02 and 3/6/02 Minutes

Sawyer moved and Spann seconded approval of the 2/27/02 minutes as amended.  Motion approved.

Miller moved and Sawyer seconded approval of the 3/6/02 minutes as amended.  Motion approved.


4.0       Search for Dean of Undergraduate Studies

Bryant reminded the committee that UNL Bylaws state that whenever a new academic administrative position is being considered, the administration must consult with the Executive Committee.  Miller questioned whether the position of Dean of Undergraduate Studies is appropriate.  He noted that one of the Associate Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs positions is being transferred to create this position.  He pointed out that the Academic Planning Committee has approved the position. 


Sawyer stated that an external search should be conducted.  Bryant noted that administration would like to fill the position quickly and that an external search would take longer and would probably be more costly.  Wolf speculated whether administration has someone already earmarked for the position.  Spann pointed out that the Deans of the various colleges should be overseeing the undergraduate programs in their colleges.  He questioned the need for a Dean of Undergraduate Studies.  Logan-Peters noted that the Deans are usually more concerned with third and fourth year students, rather than first or second year students.  She stated that part of the responsibility of the Dean of Undergraduate Studies is to recruit new students and to work on retaining first and second year students. 


Miller noted that an internal search would keep the salary for the position lower.  Bryant stated that if there is an internal search, it needs to be wide open and the committee structure needs to be strong enough to allow them to select a candidate, rather than just rubber stamping someone who has already been predetermined by the administration.  He pointed out that the problems with an external search are the amount of time and money needed to conduct it.  He noted that an external search could delay filling the position for a year.  Miller suggested that the Executive Committee should ask administration to reconsider conducting an external search.  Wolf pointed out that this position needs to be filled with someone with experience in recruiting and retaining students and who has a new and different perspective from what currently exists on campus.  Spann pointed out that what is most important is to hire the best person for this position, which might not necessarily be an outside person.  Bryant stated that he would report the concerns of the committee to administration and ask them to reconsider conducting an external search.


5.0       Dean of Graduate College Position

Bryant asked the committee if there were concerns over the Graduate College being under the supervision of the Vice Chancellor of Research.  He pointed out that the Senior Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs would be more appropriately suited to overseeing the Graduate College.  He stated that expediency was probably one of the driving factors in this restructuring.  Siekman noted that it was probably a matter of coordinating the Graduate College.  The committee agreed that the restructuring plan was already under way and that an alternative solution was not feasible at this time.


6.0       Administrative Structuring of International Affairs

Bryant noted that there are two separate offices, International Affairs and International Programs.  He pointed out that while there is some similarity between the two, their work is considerably different.  He stated these differences raise the issue of whether the two offices will be able to work well together. He noted that the Dean of International Affairs position will be changed to Director.  Miller stated that International Affairs, which is an important department for the University, is poorly funded.  He stated that more funding should be given to the office to hire enough people to do its necessary work.


7.0       Salary Picture and Faculty Compensation Advisory Committee (FCAC)

Bryant reported that the 4.56% increase for salaries has been sanctioned by both the Chancellor and the Academic Planning Committee.  He pointed out that peer salary increases could have an influence on the amount of increase UNL faculty will receive.  Miller reported that the FCAC is still waiting to get the information on the peers.  He stated that there are two issues he would like the Executive Committee to address.  One is whether more money should be kept by departments and two, whether there should be a higher across-the-board increase than last year’s 1.5% increase for satisfactory work.


Bryant stated that he has become aware of a number of problems with the way the faculty salary process unfolded in many departments last year.  He noted that there were some inequities that occurred in some units.  He stated that if a department has a set pattern for determining merit raises such as the one used by the sociology department, then there is not the problem of favoritism that seems to have occurred in some places.  He stated that administration needs to come up with a plan to monitor chairs that do not adhere to clear and public criteria for awarding merit increases.


Wolf pointed out that, at the very least, the process used last year should not be used again.  DiMagno stated that there is a logical inconsistency in the argument that the administration needs to control a portion of the salary increases to reward particular faculty based upon merit, since merit is generally determined by departments.  He stated that the question is whether departments are capable or incapable of handling the increases.  He stated that the question is whether departments are capable or incapable of handling the increases.  Miller pointed out that it needs to be recognized that some factors are out of the control of the chair, such as equity raises which come out of the pool of money for salary increases.  Logan-Peters stated that having no raises based on merit can be detrimental.  She suggested that there be a minimum merit raise.  The committee members suggested that the increase for a minimum merit raise should be 3.0 – 3.5%. 


Siekman pointed out that a real concern this year will be the promotion dollars.  He noted that in the past, money from open positions was used to fund increases due to promotions.  He noted that this money will not be available next year and suggested that a certain percentage of the salary money should be set aside to deal with promotions. 


Bryant pointed out that the Academic Senate serves as the faculty voice since the UNL campus is not unionized.  He noted that how departments handle the increases is crucial.  He stated that many faculty members did not fair well last year because of the guidelines that were used.  Wolf pointed out that departments were in an untenable position of having to use the formula created by administration.  He stated that as a result of these guidelines, people with quality records were not fairly compensated.  He pointed out that the formula required some people to be specially treated.  DiMagno stated that increases should be based strictly on merit.  He noted that if this is not done fairly by the chairs, then the Dean needs to take appropriate action.   Bryant stated that the plan for faculty salary increases needs to be made public.  The Executive Committee agreed that they would like to see the recommendations made by the Faculty Compensation Advisory Committee. 


8.0       Interviewing Candidates for Administrative Positions

Bryant stated that the Office of Academic Affairs has asked the Executive Committee if they would consider meeting with other campus groups when interviewing candidates for administrative positions.  He noted that Academic Affairs recommended that the committee could meet with the Chancellor’s Commission on the Status of Women and the Chancellor’s Commission on the Status of People of Color.  The committee agreed that it would be better if they met separately with the candidates since these other groups ought to have the time and latitude to pursue their particular interests.  Fuller pointed out there is no necessity for a large Executive Committee group to meet with a candidate as long as the importance of faculty governance is discussed.  Spann suggested that the length of the meetings could be reduced in order to help with the interview schedule.


9.0       New Business

9.1       Evaluation of Administrators

Logan-Peters reported that the subcommittee recently met and agreed to look at various samples used by other institutions.  She noted that the University of Colorado has a very good evaluation system that has been in place for 10 years.  She stated that they review positions of Assistant Deans and higher on a rotating basis.  She reported that the findings are then published on the Web.  She pointed out that Colorado has a standing Senate committee composed of elected members that oversees the process.  Siekman asked how the evaluations translate into salaries for administrators.  Logan-Peters reported that they do not have this information yet.  She stated that the subcommittee would do further research into how the evaluations are conducted.  DiMagno suggested that the subcommittee check with the University of Colorado to see if the information could be downloaded for use.  Bryant suggested that the subcommittee report to the Chancellor once they have gathered all of the information.  He stated that they need to check to see if the Office of Institutional Research and Planning could help in collecting the data.  Logan-Peters stated that she would report again on the issue when further research has been conducted.


            9.2       Nominations of Executive Committee Members and Officers

The committee worked on nominations for new officers and members for the April Senate elections.


The meeting was adjourned at 4:59 p.m.  The next meeting of the Executive Committee will be on Wednesday, March 27th at 3:00 p.m, in 201 Canfield Administration Building.  The minutes are respectfully submitted by Karen Griffin, Coordinator and James King, Secretary.