EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES
Present: Alexander, Bradford, Buck, Fech, Fuller, Logan-Peters, Peterson, Shea, Spann, Whitt, Wunder
Absent: Beck, Miller
Date: Wednesday, March 24, 2004
Location: Academic Senate Office, 420 University Terrace
_______________________________________________________________________
1.0 Call to Order
Wunder called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m.
2.0 Announcements
2.1 Report on Board of Regents Meeting
Wunder reported that an elaborate presentation was made to the Board by Cooperative Extension on the work they are doing. He noted that the new University tagline was used extensively in the presentation. He reported that the Board was concerned that Extension seeks grants with the federal Department of Homeland Security. He pointed out that extension personnel have extensive knowledge of the state and should be able to apply for Homeland Security grants.
Wunder stated that Extension reported approximately 500 refereed publications were produced by extension faculty members. He wondered whether extension publications were refereed in the same manner as academic publications. Fech noted that there are approximately 400 personnel in extension. Shea stated that extension personnel were expected to produce a number of written products relating to the extension field in which they specialize. He pointed out that 500 publications was not a high number when there are 400 people involved in creating them.
Wunder reported that the Board discussed enrollment at the campuses. He stated that the Board was concerned with the downturn in enrollments. He reported that Regent Hassebrook expressed concern that the decrease in enrollment could be related to the serious loss of faculty members. Wunder stated that the Board praised UNL for its improvements in admissions.
2.2 Email Message on Restructuring of Faculty
Wunder reported that he received an email message from a faculty member expressing concern over comments that a Dean recently made in a faculty meeting. The email message stated that the Dean was asked about the number of decreasing tenure track lines for faculty members. The Dean reportedly stated that the university is being restructured into tenure track lines, research faculty who are non tenured and teaching faculty who are also non tenured. The email message stated that the non tenured faculty members would have rolling contracts of 5 - 10 years and will be paid higher than tenured faculty members.
Spann stated that he believed that this was happening at universities across the country but he is not aware of the percentage of universities where this is occurring. Whitt noted that research faculty members get paid more here but that teaching faculty members are usually paid less. Shea pointed out that there seems to be an increase in the number of research professors who are not on tenure lines. He noted that there is a three year limit on post docs and putting them on a non-tenure track line is one way of retaining these people. He pointed out that these reassignments allow administrators to decide who will be faculty members. He stated that tenured faculty members should have input into deciding who will become a member of the faculty in a unit. Logan-Peters stated that the Libraries have a research assistant professor but the person is non-voting. Shea noted that they do have a vote in the School of Natural Resources. Fech questioned whether a proper search has been conducted for the position that the post doc fills.
Alexander noted that the College of Engineering and Technology has similar appointments. There is a desire of course for the person to have an appointment as a Research Assistant Professor versus say a Research Engineer. This looks better on the resume and the benefits are different. He stated that a problem that has occurred as a result of these changes is that faculty members are not allowed to advise graduate students. This means that regular faculty members have to compete for the available graduate students. In addition, these faculty members do not participate in many of the other activities required of regular faculty members.
Logan-Peters noted that significant restructuring of the faculty could have a serious impact on the membership of the Senate. She stated that faculty members on non-tenured lines may have less of an incentive for participating in faculty governance.
3.0 Approval of 3/10/04 Minutes
Alexander moved and Whitt seconded approval of the minutes as amended. Motion approved.
4.0 Nomination for Executive Committee
Peterson reported that the subcommittee working on nominations for Executive Committee membership has produced a list of names of Senators who might be willing to serve on the Executive Committee. He stated that he would forward the names to Wunder so that he can contact the people to see if they are interested in being a candidate.
5.0 Transition Report A Beginning Discussion
Wunder suggested that this summer the Committee should invite Dean of Undergraduate Studies Rita Kean to a meeting to discuss the Transition Report. He suggested that the report could be presented to the Senate this fall with a panel discussion.
Peterson noted that the Transition Report overlaps the ES/IS proposal. He reported that he, Dean Kean, CASNR Associate Dean Schinstock and Professor Bergstrom from English, met with CASNR faculty members to discuss the ES/IS proposal. Peterson noted that the Senate agreed that colleges should be consulted with on the proposal. He stated that the Office of Undergraduate Studies would schedule meetings but a working group to consult with the colleges needs to be established. He suggested that he could be in the working group along with Kean, Bergstrom, and perhaps Beck and anyone else who would be willing to work on the issue. Peterson reported that Kean feels that a target date of November 2004 for completing the consultations needs to be set. Wunder suggested that Peterson appoint a resource committee to assist in the consultations.
6.0 ARRC Procedures Preliminary Discussion
A draft copy of the Senate Syllabus of Campus-Wide Committees Academic Rights and Responsibilities Committee, the Responsibilities of the Academic Rights and Responsibilities Committee and Procedures for Handling Matters of Academic Freedom and Tenure, Grievance and Professional Conduct, and the Code of Procedures for Grievances was distributed to the Executive Committee. Wunder noted that the ARRC was originally charged in 1997-98 with changing the procedures. He asked the Committee to read the documents over carefully. He suggested that the committee should begin general discussions on the revised documents in three weeks. He stated that Professors McShane and Works could be invited to the meeting for discussion on the documents. He noted that eventually the changes will need to be presented to the Senate and voted upon by the entire faculty. He stated that the Board of Regents will eventually need to approve the changes.
7.0 Unfinished Business
7.1 Update on Child Care (Buck)
Buck reported that she met with Vice Chancellor Jackson and Assistant Vice Chancellor Currin to discuss child care on campus. She stated that it was a very good meeting. She noted that VC Jackson and Assistant VC Currin have been looking into the child care issue for a year but a lack of facilities and the budget situation stalled attempts to move forward. Buck stated that there is now motivation to provide child care because the rental fee at the YWCA is increasing and there are now seven possible sites on campus where a child care facility could be housed.
Buck stated that Business and Finance is waiting to hear what the estimated cost would be to revamp one of the available facilities. She reported that VC Jackson is very interested in the Senate committee on child care. Buck stated that a campus committee is being formed on child care and VC Jackson would like to absorb the members of the Senate committee although Buck stated this is not a formal decision that has been made yet.
Buck stated that VC Jackson is interested in determining what the needs of the campus are for child care. Buck noted that the Senate committee has been working on this information and it will be able to provide valuable information to the campus committee. She stated that the campus committee will be looking at the business proposals and will establish the criteria that must be met.
Peterson asked if Buck discussed the company the Senate committee has been looking into with Jackson and Currin. Buck stated that they did discuss it. She stated that the child care program at Bryan Hospital is being looked at. She noted that the Bryan program allows people to sign up for a week if it is needed. She reported that eventually bids would be put out.
Wunder noted that he recently met with the Pepsi Advisory Committee and there was discussion on providing funds to use to build or remodel an existing structure on or near campus for a child care facility.
7.2 Update on Dead Week Reform (Spann)
Spann reported that the committee met and discussed three different proposals for revising dead week. He stated that committee members who were unable to attend the meeting were sent email notices regarding the proposals. He noted that most members of the committee were confused by the language mutual agreement which is in the current dead week policy. He stated that the students on the committee insisted that there should be a policy restricting exams during stop days.
Spann noted that all three of the proposals have two study days and two grading days. Plan A calls for Tuesday and Wednesday of dead week to be study days. Exams would begin on Thursday and continue on Friday, Saturday, Monday and Tuesday of the current exam week. Wednesday through Friday of what is now exam week would be used for grading.
Plan B calls for Tuesday and Wednesday of dead week to be study days. Exams begin on Thursday and continue on Friday, Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday of the current exam week. Thursday and Friday will be for grading.
Plan C calls for Tuesday and Wednesday of dead week to be study days. Exams begin on Thursday and Thursday evening and continue on Friday, Monday, Monday evening, and Tuesday. Wednesday through Friday would be grading.
All plans call for hooding ceremonies to be held on Friday and graduation exercises would be held on Saturday morning. Spann noted that the students preferred Plan B.
Spann stated that exam policies of peer institutions were reviewed. Wunder asked if any of them had a dead week. Spann stated that he did not see any although it is difficult to determine from the information available on the websites.
Wunder stated that at one time the Deans office of Arts & Sciences interpreted Dead Week to mean that new materials cannot be introduced the last week of classes. Whitt stated that the Sociology department interprets the Deans policy as not being able to give new assignments during the last week of classes.
Spann stated that, according to the University calendar, classes at UNL meet 75 times during the semester. Fuller asked if the plans would reduce the number of class days to 71. Spann stated that they would reduce the number of class days to 73. Buck pointed out that she has never heard of a study week or dead week before at other institutions. Fuller asked if the Committee wanted to propose a plan that reduces the number of class days. Buck suggested that the real problem that needs to be addressed is the problem of submitting grades for graduating seniors who take exams late on Friday.
Peterson noted that the Chancellor stated that we are one of the few universities that actually give diplomas out at the time of graduation. Peterson pointed out that most other universities mail the actual diploma out after all grades have been received. He suggested that not giving the diplomas out during the graduation ceremony is another alternative to the problem. Fuller pointed out that mailing out the diplomas would be an additional expense for the university.
Wunder suggested that plan B could be modified by having one study day (Wednesday) during the week and using Saturday and Sunday between exams as additional study days. Peterson pointed out that this would make the number of class times unequal. Spann noted that he met with Interim SVCAA Brinkerhoff and Interim Associate VC Latta about the dead week proposal. Spann stated that Interim SVCAA Brinkerhoff reviewed the bylaws of the campus and the university and stated that there are no constraints about changing the schedule except for the beginning and end dates of the semester.
Wunder suggested that Spann poll the dead week committee to see if they would approve plan B with a modification. Wunder stated that a proposal to change the dead week policy could be presented to the Senate at the April 6th meeting.
Bradford asked for clarification on the term mutual agreement. Spann noted that this was a phrase adopted by the Academic Senate. He stated that the phrase applies to instructors wanting to reschedule their final exam time. He noted that mutual agreement means getting written agreement for three consecutive class periods from all students in the course. Wunder stated that a policy should be accepted that no exams can be changed outside of the scheduled exam time. Spann noted that the reform committee did not want to explain the term mutual agreement. Bradford stated that the option of changing the final exam schedule should not be given. Wunder agreed and stated that number four of the proposals should be changed to read that no final exams can be given outside of their scheduled exam time.
8.0 New Business
8.1 Domestic Partners Benefits
Wunder noted that many universities are giving informal benefits and suggested that the same could be done at UNL. He noted that these informal benefits would not require approval by the Board of Regents and could be directed by the Chancellor. Wunder stated that he would discuss the issue with the Chancellor when he meets with him on Friday. Wunder noted that some colleges may already be allowing these informal benefits. He stated that the informal benefits could affect staff more than faculty. He noted that the most significant benefit is providing access to medical and dental insurance for domestic partners but at full cost. The partner would not be able to purchase the insurance at university cost but would be able to be covered by the university plan. He noted that University of Utah is providing this benefit to domestic partners.
Fuller asked if there has been a review of our peer institutions on whether or not they provide domestic partner benefits. Wunder noted that a majority of the peer institutions provide these benefits. Whitt noted that an article in the Omaha World Herald stated that many major corporations are now providing benefits for domestic partners.
Bradford asked if the language in the state constitutional amendment that was passed several years ago would have an effect on offering these informal benefits. Wunder stated that Richard Wood, General Counsel, was consulted on this issue and he indicated that it would not.
Fuller noted that the Senate is on record a number of times supporting benefits for domestic partners. Wunder stated that while the Senate support is on record, there are no policies that have been issued as a result of the Senates support. He noted that the UNL Benefits Committee has favored hard benefits for domestic partners. He stated that the Board of Regents was presented with information on benefits for domestic partners and President Smith stated that once the majority of our peer institutions provide the benefits, we would look into it. Wunder stated that approving the informal benefits would create a more positive work experience.
Bradford asked if the inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity in diversity definitions is already being done. Wunder stated that he is uncertain whether it is in any official documents but would check into it.
Spann pointed out that supporting the informal benefits could make it difficult to get hard benefits for domestic partners because people might say that they are already getting many benefits. Wunder stated that this might happen but that it would make life better for people on campus if the informal benefits were approved. Bradford noted that most of the informal benefits could be provided without requiring system approval. He suggested that the Senate could support and approve the informal benefits.
8.2 Administrative Request of Faculty Members
Wunder stated that he received an email message from a faculty member concerned about the administration requiring an inventory list for various equipment including phones and keys, from all faculty members. Wunder asked if anyone else has been asked to provide this information. Spann stated that the College of Journalism and Mass Communications is requiring it but it was interpreted to mean any equipment that is taken away from the university such as laptop computers. The committee agreed to discuss it with the Chancellor when they meet with him on March 31st.
8.3 Pepsi Fund Advisory Committee
Wunder reported that he recently attended the advisory committee which meets only once a year. Fuller noted that in previous years there was discussion on how people could get access to the funds. Wunder stated that faculty members and students can submit applications to VC Jackson. Whitt reported that this is not widely known.
Wunder reported that the endowment fund generates approximately $700,000 a year but $800,000 is typically being spent. He noted that programs such as UCARE are typically funded through the Pepsi Fund. Logan-Peters asked if faculty members can apply for the funds. Wunder stated that the money needs to be spent on programs relevant to the UNL community.
Spann asked when the endowment ends. Wunder stated that it continues through 2007. He noted that UNL is the only campus in the country to have a long term endowment from Pepsi.
Peterson asked if there was fear that the expanding UCARE program will use up most of the available Pepsi funds. Wunder stated that administration is trying to move the UCARE program to more permanent funding because it has been so successful.
8.4 Unionized Universities
Fech asked what the status is of providing further information to the Senate regarding unionized universities. Wunder stated that he was not able to arrange a teleconference with Rutgers University and the University of Connecticut for the April 6th Senate meeting. He urged that the Committee should do this in the fall. Bradford stated that both sides of the issue should be presented to the Senate. Peterson stated that the Committee has discussed having someone from Central Administration come in to address the issue. Bradford suggested having an employee who came from a unionized campus speak to the Senate as well. Fech stated that the Committee has an obligation to the Senate to provide the information.
8.5 Meeting of the Faculty Compensation Advisory Committee
Peterson stated that the FCAC met and will send a message to the Chancellor on their recommendations. He noted that Interim SVCAA Brinkerhoff stated that the average percentage of increase that is remaining for distribution is about 2.65%. He stated that the FCAC recommended that the 2.65% be distributed as follows: 0.15% for the Vice Chancellors; 0.3% for the Deans; and 2.2% for the Departments. Peterson noted that the gender equity reports from our peer institutions were not available yet and the committee would probably be meeting again to discuss these.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m. The next meeting of the Executive Committee will be on Wednesday, March 31st at 1:30 pm. The meeting will be held in 201 Canfield Administration Building. The minutes are respectfully submitted by Karen Griffin, Coordinator and Shelley Fuller, Secretary.
