EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES
Present: Beck, Carlo, Fech, Fuller, Logan-Peters, Miller, Peterson, Shea, Spann, Wunder
Absent: Alexander, Buck, Whitt
Date: Wednesday, December 3, 2003
Location: 201 Canfield Administration Building
1.0 Call to Order
Wunder called the meeting to order at 3:04 p.m.
2.0 Announcements
No announcements were made.
3.0 SVCAA Edwards
Wunder announced that he wanted to personally state that it was a pleasure working with SVCAA Edwards and that he and the Executive Committee wanted to wish SVCAA Edwards well. Wunder stated that he looks forward and hopes to work with Dr. Edwards in other areas.
3.1 Apportionment Figures
SVCAA Edwards stated that the apportionment figures on the responsibilities of the faculty were not available yet. He noted that the data currently being used was gathered in the 1990s. He stated that he wants to update this information. Peterson asked if the raw data are being gathered from self-reports written by the faculty members. SVCAA Edwards stated that this is correct and that city campus in now providing data similar to what IANR has been doing for a number of years.
Peterson pointed out that the information gathered by IANR does not include service or outreach. He asked if a faculty member can renegotiate the apportionment of his or her duties. Wunder stated that the faculty member should be able to renegotiate. Peterson pointed out that this can only be done if the chairs and deans agree to it. He noted that faculty members in IANR are not sending information in on their apportionment. SVCAA Edwards noted that there is a variety of assignments for faculty members in IANR and the Institute calculates the apportionment on these various assignments.
Wunder stated that last year the faculty members in the College of Arts & Sciences received a letter stating that faculty members could renegotiate the apportionment of their duties if they wish to do so. SVCAA Edwards noted that faculty members on city campus have an agreement on their apportionment of duties. He pointed out that this is usually in the letter of offer. He stated a change in the apportionment of duties cannot be made unilaterally by administrators. He noted that the language in the Regents Bylaws states that a faculty member can request a change in the apportionment and if this is not agreed upon with the chair, a faculty committee would be formed to review the situation.
SVCAA Edwards stated that there could be slight variance in the apportionment of duties from year to year but it would not require a change in the apportionment. However, if there is a chronic difference then the apportionment of duties should be changed.
Beck stated that she has been asked to review a draft document in one of the colleges that deals with apportionment of duties. She stated that she is concerned that part of the document emphasizes how a faculty members apportionment can be changed if the faculty member shows deficiency in any of assigned areas. She stated that the document should emphasize the strength of what the faculty member is doing rather than identifying any deficiencies. She noted that the document also discusses faculty evaluations but does not provide a link to how this relates to a change in the apportionment. She pointed out that some colleges might need help with these documents to insure that faculty members are being evaluated fairly. Wunder suggested SVCAA Edwards should review this matter.
Fuller questioned whether there might be a higher apportionment in research because of the 20/20 Report. SVCAA Edwards stated that this is probably correct. Fuller asked if there would be a decrease in undergraduate teaching. SVCAA Edwards stated that he did not know since the figures have not been processed yet.
Carlo stated that in his department there was little change from year to year in the apportionment of responsibilities. He noted that teaching loads are often maintained for budgetary reasons. SVCAA Edwards stated that gathering the apportionment figures was just an accounting mechanism. He noted that there continues to be an interest in faculty workloads and a better database would help the university respond to this interest.
3.2 Update on Search for Director of Financial Operations
SVCAA Edwards reported that the first search failed to find an internal candidate so the second search sought outside candidates. He stated that the search committee has put forward four names. He noted that he hopes to interview these candidates next week and that he hopes to appoint someone soon. He stated that the person hired would probably start in January.
3.3 Summer Sessions
Spann asked how the summer courses are looking since the budget cuts have been implemented. He stated that he is concerned that students will have difficulty getting the courses they need to graduate. SVCAA Edwards stated that some courses have been deleted but that the amount of credit hours being produced is only a little less than the previous year, in part because professors are teaching larger classes. He noted that the budget cuts have affected course offerings for students, reduced the amount of income from tuition, and reduced the salary of some faculty members. He stated that summer sessions have taken about all the cuts that they can handle. He noted that additional cuts would result in a loss of income through tuition.
Spann asked if the course reductions have impacted student graduation rates. SVCAA Edwards stated that Janet Wagner, Associate Director of Summer Sessions, and Rita Kean who was Interim Associate Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs at the time, worked to make sure classes necessary for graduation were not cut. Spann stated that eliminating some of the courses in the summer for Broadcasting would create a hardship for students, especially athletes, who can only take the lengthy courses during the summer when they do not have conflict with their athletic schedule.
3.4 ES/IS Proposal
Peterson noted that the ES/IS Review Committee made a motion at the Senate meeting for the Senate to approve the proposed changes to the ES/IS courses. He pointed out that the motion would not be voted on until the January meeting. He stated that probably amendments would be made to the proposed changes. He stated that if the Senate approves the proposal, it would then go to each college curriculum committee for approval. He noted that the proposed changes could encounter difficulties from the colleges and that Chancellor Perlman and Interim SVCAA Brinkerhoff may need to assist in helping these get approved.
Peterson pointed out that the Committee worked hard to give the faculty control over the curriculum. SVCAA Edwards wanted to congratulate the Committee for its hard work in reviewing these courses. He noted that he recently met with chairs from a number of departments who expressed concern that the Senate was trying to enforce changes on the college curriculums. He stated that he explained to the chairs that each college curriculum committee would need to review the proposed changes and that the Senate was not trying to impose changes to the curriculum. SVCAA Edwards stated that most of the chairs agreed that the ES/IS programs needed to be revised.
3.5 Search for Football Coach
Wunder asked what kind of rules apply to the search for a new football coach. He asked if the athletics department was required to go through the diversity training that other search committee members must do. He pointed out that he was surprised that the Assistant Head Coach, an African American who has been with the University for several years, was passed over as Interim Head Coach. SVCAA Edwards stated that he was not involved in anyway with the search for a new coach but he believed that Professor Wunder raised some good questions.
4.0 Unfinished Business
4.1 Wasted Time Committee Report Charging Committees to Review Proposed Changes
Wunder noted that the Senate did not have a formal vote on the report but the Senate overwhelmingly endorsed exploration of changing the procedures identified in the report. Beck clarified that the approval from the Senate was to move forward with further discussion on the proposed changes.
Wunder stated that he is asking certain offices and committees to review the procedures outlined in the Wasted Time Committee Report to see if they can be streamlined and made more efficient. He noted that he has written letters to SVCAA Edwards asking his office to review the performance review for tenured faculty and review the documentation required for tenure and promotion files. He reported that he will be sending a letter to Vice Chancellor Paul and Executive Associate Dean Weissinger regarding review of the graduate curriculum. The Committee agreed that a letter should be sent to Professor Fuess, Chair of the UNL Curriculum Committee and Dean of Undergraduate Studies Kean regarding review of the undergraduate curriculum. The Committee stated that the Academic Planning Committee should review the Academic Program Review process. Wunder noted that Professor Rosson, Chair of the APC, and William Nunez, Executive Secretary for the APC, will be notified. The Committee agreed that review of external funding falls under Vice Chancellor Pauls responsibilities and the Institutional Review Board is headed by Professor Raffaelli. Beck suggested that the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee should also have their process reviewed. She stated that the person to contact regarding this is Cindy Evans, Director of Veterinary Services, Research Compliance. Wunder stated that he would contact these people.
4.2 Resolution Supporting UNOPA and UAAD
Shea stated that he questioned whether staff members, if appointed to the APC, should need to vote on curriculum items. Peterson noted that in a recent meeting with members of UNOPA, UAAD, and ASUN the staff members stated that they were very offended by the letter they received from the Chancellor turning down their request for representation on the APC. Peterson noted that the letter indicated that the staffs only interest is with budget cuts. He stated that during the meeting the staff members pointed out that they have broader interests of what is occurring on campus than just budget cuts.
Shea asked if the staff representatives should have the privilege to vote on all APC matters. He noted that there are two different statements in the motion and asked if the motion is calling for a special expanded committee to deal with budget cutting issues.
Wunder pointed out that the APC deals with a variety of issues. He noted that the APC has to approve the construction of new buildings, looks at academic program reviews of which staff are involved, and a number of other items that would be of interest to the staff. He pointed out that the APC would benefit from having information that the staff could provide on some of these issues. He stated that the APC requires that the majority of the members must be faculty. He suggested that two additional faculty positions could be put on the APC if the staff were to have representation.
Wunder stated that an argument against having staff on the APC is that they are not involved with teaching. He pointed out that there have been extension faculty members and librarians on the APC who do not teach.
Spann stated that staff members are important but he wondered if they should be able to vote on academic issues. He stated that he would be more comfortable if the staff members were made ex-officio members.
Peterson pointed out that the Chancellor seemed to be receptive to an expanded APC to deal with budget cuts. He suggested that the motion could express support of UAAD and UNOPA having representation on an expanded committee. Beck stated that the staff should have a voice on APC and that the Committee should support the reduction of the high number of administrators on the APC.
Wes moved to delete the phrase particularly in times of reductions-in-force proceedings. Carlo seconded the motion.
Shea stated that he believes in equal representation but he is concerned that the institution is becoming more like a corporation than an academic institution. He stated that issues should be declared as either academic or business and that we need to be careful if there is no distinction between academics and business.
Carlo stated that the part of the motion to be deleted does not specify expressing support for UAAD and UNOPA. He stated that the APC would benefit from having input from the staff, particularly on issues that impact the staff.
Logan-Peters stated that she felt it was important for the Committee to support the staff. Peterson reported that UNOPA and UAAD are delighted to be communicating with the Senate on a regular basis. Fuller noted that it is extremely important for the faculty and staff to support each other, particularly with the possibility of more budget cuts looming in the near future.
Motion to delete the phrase approved. The final motion reads:
Whereas both UNOPA and UAAD have expressed their desire for representation on the Academic Planning Committee (APC), and
Whereas many staff positions at UNL have been eliminated in recent budget cuts and reductions in force that were officially reviewed by the APC, and
Whereas the APC considers a number of issues that would benefit from staff contributions, and
Whereas UNOPA and UAAD have historically had representation on an expanded APC dealing with budget cuts,
The Academic Senate Executive Committee expressed its support for the requests of UNOPA and UAAD for representation on the APC.
Beck moved that the Committee reactivate the joint committee of faculty members and ASUN to review the procedures in dealing with budget cuts and including staff representatives as ex-officio members. Peterson seconded the motion. Wunder noted current university rules require Academic Senate and ASUN approval of procedures which is the basis for the review committee composition, but staff representatives should be present for the meetings. Motion approved.
4.3 ES/IS Review Committee Proposed Changes
The Committee decided that it needs to discuss a strategy for getting the information on the ES/IS proposed changes to the college curriculum committees should the Senate approve them. Wunder suggested that he and Peterson might need to meet with the college curriculum committees. The committee agreed to discuss the issue at the next meeting.
5.0 Approval of 11/19/03 Minutes
Carlo moved and Spann seconded approval of the minutes as amended. Motion approved.
6.0 New Business
6.1 Representatives from Collective Bargaining Units at Research I Universities
Wunder reported that a number of Senators have expressed interest in having collective bargaining representatives from Research I institutions speak to the Senate. The Committee agreed that it should look into what Research I universities have collective bargaining units.
Fech stated that some extension people have voiced concern over how a collective bargaining unit at UNL would affect their relations with the public and outside businesses. Shea stated that he has heard faculty members express concern that a union could weaken the relationship between UNL and the public and the legislature. Peterson noted that the Senate is really just in an educational mode right now and is only trying to get information about collective bargaining units at universities and no action is being taken on unionizing.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:15 p.m. The next meeting of the Executive Committee will be on Wednesday, December 10 at 3:00 pm. The meeting will be held in 201 Canfield Administration Building. The minutes are respectfully submitted by Karen Griffin, Coordinator and Shelley Fuller, Secretary.
