EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES
Present: Alexander, Beck, Fuller, Logan-Peters, Miller, Peterson, Spann, Whitt, Wunder
Absent: Bradford, Buck, Fech, Shea
Date: Wednesday, April 7, 2004
Location: Academic Senate Office, 420 University Terrace
_______________________________________________________________________
1.0 Call to Order
Wunder called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m.
2.0 Announcements
2.1 Email Message from the Chancellor on Salary Guidelines
Wunder noted that the Chancellor sent a message to the faculty and staff regarding the guidelines for salary increases. Wunder stated that departments will be getting 2.2%, deans .3%, and the Vice Chancellors will receive .15 % for distribution. Peterson pointed out that this was the recommendation made by the Faculty Compensation Advisory Committee.
2.2 Changes in Affirmative Action and Job Searches
Wunder reported that there have been some changes in affirmative action. He noted that search committees now report the results of their search directly to affirmative action rather than the department. All candidates recommended by the search committee must be invited to campus for an interview.
3.0 Professor Sidnie White Crawford
3.1 Update on Coalition on Athletics
Crawford reported that she and Professor Logan-Peters attended a conference in January for the Big 12 universities on athletic reform. She noted that only seven of the Big 12 schools participated but they felt that it was still worthwhile for UNL to remain active with the organization.
Crawford distributed copies of the draft document Principles, Proposed Rules, and Guidelines Concerning the Faculty Role in Campus Athletics Governance, as written by the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics. She pointed out that there are now 25 NCAA Division 1 schools represented in the coalition. She stated that the University of Oklahoma refused to join because they felt that faculty governance and athletics was working just fine. Logan-Peters asked if the University of Colorado is a member of the coalition. Crawford confirmed that they are members.
Crawford stated that the coalition was originally started by disgruntled faculty members. She noted that not all schools in the coalition have similar problems. As a result, the coalition has developed general guidelines rather than use the specific ones written earlier. Crawford noted that many of the guidelines in the document are from the NCAA handbook. She stated that the members of the coalition are to vote on the document by Friday, April 9th. She stated that if it passes, it will become the statement for the coalition.
Crawford reported that she sees a few areas where UNLs practices do not meet the guidelines of the document. Specifically, she does not feel that UNLs process of appointing a faculty athletics representative is done according to the guidelines. She stated that the guidelines call for the announcement of an appointment process be given to the faculty governing board and the college athletics board. The appointment is to be made from the nomination list provided by the faculty governing board and the college athletics board. Wunder stated that to his knowledge this had not been the procedure followed previously at UNL. He stated that the representative here is the Chancellors representative who happens to be a faculty member, not the facultys appointment. Miller noted that the Chancellors representative is much different from a faculty representative. Logan-Peters noted that Professor Potuto, who is the Chancellors representative from UNL, does work hard to represent the faculty viewpoint. Wunder agreed.
Crawford noted that some other discrepancies between the guidelines and what is done at UNL deals with the responsibilities of the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee. She stated that the IAC does not participate in the review of appeals of the denial of scholarships for continuing athletes as stated in the guidelines nor is there a subcommittee of faculty and academic administrators who participates and advises in searches and major personnel decisions concerning athletic directors and head coaches. She noted that UNL also does not have a policy for normal progress and grade point average that meets minimal NCAA and conference requirements. She stated that UNL just uses the NCAA minimum.
Wunder noted that it is his understanding that the Board of Regents changed the policy regarding searches for athletic coaches. He stated that the Board removed their involvement in searches in any position that is below the Chancellors level. He pointed out that prior to the change the Board did have final approval of any hires. Fuller noted that previous search committees for coaches did include faculty members. Crawford noted that was when Bill Byrne was Athletic Director.
Logan-Peters asked if the guidelines were adopted, would that change some of the policies at UNL. Wunder stated that they probably would not change unless required by the NCAA.
Crawford stated that other guidelines not practiced here include a public announcement of a search for a faculty athletic representative. Faculty members interested in such a position would have to include a statement of interest with their application.
Wunder stated that this was the procedure last time. He asked if the composition of the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee at UNL meets the guidelines composition. Crawford stated that it does because the majority of the voting members of the committee are faculty members.
Miller asked which of the guidelines UNL violates the most. Crawford stated it would probably be in reference to the appointment of the faculty athletics representative requiring a list from the Senate Executive Committee and the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee.
Crawford stated that she does not know if the athletics department will like the guidelines but she stated that the IAC is not concerned with this. She stated that she needs to know whether the Executive Committee wants her to vote yes on the guidelines. Fuller moved that the Academic Senate Executive Committee support the guidelines of the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics. Beck seconded the motion. Whitt asked if the vote should be taken to the full Senate. Wunder noted that there is a time issue in that Crawford needed to vote on the guidelines in two days. Fuller asked if the IAC and Professor Potuto have reviewed the guidelines. Crawford stated that both support the document. Motion approved.
Peterson asked if Crawford would continue to represent UNL in the coalition. Crawford noted that she is on the IAC for three years and has been appointed to the coalition for a year. She pointed out that she is going on sabbatical in the spring and will need to be replaced. Fuller asked if there were any faculty athletic representatives who were members of the coalition but not regular faculty members. Crawford stated that there were some but most were faculty members.
Miller asked how many of the Big 12 schools belonged to the coalition. Crawford stated that seven Big 12 schools were represented. She noted that both the University of Oklahoma and Iowa State University refused to join.
4.0 Approval of 3/31/04 Minutes
Whitt moved and Spann seconded approval of the minutes as amended. Motion approved.
5.0 Library 110 Reform ASUN Resolution
Peterson reported that ASUN is recommending that Library 110 should be combined into existing courses rather than being a stand alone course. He stated that they feel that the information provided in Library 110 would be more relevant if it was applied to a real course. Logan-Peters noted that the relevance of the course is a real issue that needs to be addressed. Peterson stated that he is unsure what ASUN wants the Executive Committee to do with the resolution.
Logan-Peters stated that the Libraries feel that the concept of the course is good but they agree with the relevancy issue. However, there is concern on what courses Library 110 would be attached to. She noted that many introductory courses are taught by graduate students and there is a lot of inconsistency in the way the courses are taught.
Wunder stated that some college and departments have introductory courses that could possibly incorporate the Library 110 course. Logan-Peters stated that it would not be feasible to combine the course with all of the introductory courses. She noted that various options of how to include Library 110 with other courses have not yet been explored. She pointed out that no changes would occur for at least a year because schedules are already out. She noted that whatever is done needs to be manageable. She stated that there are currently models on the web that professors could review for possible use.
Peterson stated that Ag 103 has been incorporating Library 110 for approximately five years. He asked if it was putting a strain on the Libraries. Logan-Peters stated that she is not sure. She stated that all of the information for Ag 103 is web based.
Logan-Peters suggested that Library 110 could be included in the freshman transition course that is being considered.
Fuller asked if Library 110 is part of the Libraries curriculum. Logan-Peters stated that it is. Fuller asked if this is a Senate issue. She pointed out that the curriculum belongs to the faculty of the colleges. Logan-Peters stated that the people involved with making this change should consult with the curriculum committee of the various colleges.
Logan-Peters stated that another reason students object to the course is because they have to pay for an additional credit hour. If the course was combined with other courses there would not be the additional cost.
6.0 Honors Convocation Committee
Griffin reported that the Honors Convocation Committee has had difficulty in scheduling meetings. She stated that members of the Committee stated that most of the work deals with arranging the Honors Convocation ceremonies and much of this is done by university personnel. The members stated that faculty input is needed if there are changes in the grading system that would affect honors students.
Beck suggested that the Committee could become a subcommittee of the Commencement Committee. Griffin stated that the Committee on Committees suggested this but both Commencement and Honors Convocation Committee members stated that they did not think this would work. Peterson suggested that the charge of the Committee might need to be reviewed and revised.
Spann questioned how many colleges have separate Honors Convocations ceremonies. He noted that students in his college feel more honored and recognized at the college ceremony rather than the university ceremony.
The committee agreed to invite Professor Patrice Berger to discuss the Honors Convocations Committee with him.
7.0 Unfinished Business
7.1 Parking Scenario
Griffin reported that Tad McDowell, Director University Parking Services, needs to know which of the parking scenarios the Committee prefers. The Committee agreed unanimously on parking scenario three.
8.0 New Business
8.1 Changes to the Senate Rules
The Committee discussed the proposed changes to the Senate Rules. Fuller voiced concern with having the Committee on Committees nominate people for the officer positions. She pointed out that the Committee on Committees already has their hands full trying to find people to serve on the many committees on campus. She stated that some people on the Committee on Committees are not familiar with the members of the Senate. She suggested that a nominating committee composed of a member from the Executive Committee, the chair of the Committee on Committees, and a member from the Academic Planning Committee be formed to nominate people to the Executive Committee.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:42 p.m. The next meeting of the Executive Committee will be on Wednesday, April 14th at 3:00 pm. The meeting will be held in the Academic Senate Office, 4270 University Terrace. The minutes are respectfully submitted by Karen Griffin, Coordinator and Shelley Fuller, Secretary.
