EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES
Present: Alexander, Beck, Bradford, Buck, Fuller, Logan-Peters, Miller, Peterson, Shea, Spann, Whitt
Absent: Fech, Wunder
Date: Wednesday, March 3, 2004
Location: 201 Canfield Administration Building
_______________________________________________________________________
1.0 Call to Order
Peterson called the meeting to order at 3:01 p.m.
2.0 Announcements
No announcements were made.
3.0 Interim SVCAA Brinkerhoff
3.1 Faculty Evaluations and Salary Increases How Will They Be Handled
Interim SVCAA Brinkerhoff stated that there has not been a lot of discussion on how the faculty evaluations will be conducted this year. He stated that it is his understanding that the annual evaluations will be conducted as usual to determine salary increases. He noted that performance is still a significant portion of the evaluation. He pointed out that the total increase for the current biennium is 3.5%. He reminded the Committee that $600 of the allotted increase was distributed this semester and that the remaining amount of the salary increase would be distributed this summer.
Interim SVCAA Brinkerhoff stated that the Faculty Compensation Advisory Committee (FCAC) will be meeting sometime this month to make recommendations to the Chancellor regarding the faculty salary increases. He noted that the FCAC will look at salary figures for our peer institutions and base their recommendations in part on these figures. He stated that the FCAC will discuss whether the salary increase should be an across the board raise or if it should be based on merit. He noted that the last few years the recommendation from the FCAC strongly supported making salary increases based on merit.
Interim SVCAA Brinkerhoff pointed out that the Chancellor does not always endorse the recommendations made by the FCAC. He noted that the breakdown of the apportionment for the increases is usually where the difference is between the FCACs recommendations and the Chancellors final decision. Peterson noted that the FCAC is merely an advisory committee. He pointed out that the FCAC recommended the salary increases be deferred last year. Interim SVCAA Brinkerhoff stated that this gave the institution some flexibility in dealing with the current budget crisis.
Whitt asked if there has been any discussion regarding the annual reviews being conducted over a two year period of time rather than just a year. He noted that many units did not conduct evaluations last year because of the salary increases being deferred. Interim SVCAA Brinkerhoff stated that there has been little discussion on this topic. He noted that there are many different variations of how evaluations are conducted within units. He pointed out that some colleges conduct evaluations over a three year period, not just one. He stated that he believes the salary guidelines will provide information on the period of time that the evaluations should cover.
3.2 ES/IS Proposal
Peterson reported that the Academic Senate approved a resolution calling for the ES/IS proposal to be distributed to the college curriculum committees. The curriculum committees would consult with either the members of the ES/IS Review Committee or with President Wunder regarding concerns they may have. Peterson stated that the plan is to incorporate the suggestions and recommendations made by the curriculum committees into the proposal for a final vote by the Senate.
Interim SVCAA Brinkerhoff stated that he applauds the efforts of everyone who has worked on revising the ES/IS programs. He stated that the comprehensive education program came into being in the early 1990s because the university did not have one and this created great problems for students transferring between colleges. He noted that a committee was formed and chaired by former Associate Vice Chancellor Grobsmith and supported by former SVCAA Leitzel. He pointed out that it is now time to evaluate and possibly revise the programs.
Interim SVCAA Brinkerhoff noted that an enormous amount of effort was involved in getting the faculty members of the colleges to approve the comprehensive program. He stated that members of Grobsmiths committee met with the faculty members, not the curriculum committee members, of the colleges. He pointed out that the Bylaws of UNL and the colleges do not give authority to the college curriculum committees to approve these kinds of changes. He stated that it will take the faculty members of the colleges to approve the revisions. He noted that in order for this to be accomplished it will take a lot of coordination. He suggested that the Office of Undergraduate Studies could assist in the process. He pointed out that the current ES/IS programs took 2-3 years to be approved.
Peterson thanked Interim SVCAA Brinkerhoff for the information and stated that the Executive Committee will need to determine what to do next. He stated that the process could be turned over to Dean Kean and if the colleges approve the proposal then the Senate would not need to vote on it.
Peterson asked how to prevent colleges from opting out of the ES/IS programs. Interim SVCAA Brinkerhoff stated that colleges cannot opt out of the ES/IS programs. He pointed out that there is variation that can occur within the programs but the university has a contract with the students that must be kept. He stated that colleges can choose not to offer IS courses but they would need to require that the students take IS courses in another college. He pointed out that colleges cannot opt out of the comprehensive education program. Fuller asked if the colleges can waive the IS courses. Interim SVCAA Brinkerhoff stated that they could not. He stated that the issue is what will work best for the students.
Miller noted that the first committee had strong support from former SVCAA Leitzel and former Chancellor Spanier. He stated that a sustained effort to make revisions in the program will need some administrative support. Interim SVCAA Brinkerhoff agreed and stated that the Undergraduate Dean should be involved. Peterson noted that former SVCAA Edwards had indicated that the curriculum belonged to the faculty and that his office would not get involved. Interim SVCAA Brinkerhoff stated that how the process of getting approval of the proposal is orchestrated might allow for assistance from Undergraduate Studies.
Interim SVCAA Brinkerhoff stated that the report from the Transition to University Task Force is out and he suggested that the Committee should look at it because recommendations are made that coincide with the proposed changes in the ES/IS programs.
3.3 Status of the Departments in the College of Architecture and the College of Journalism and Mass Communications
Peterson asked if it is official that the departments have been eliminated in the College of Journalism and Mass Communications. Interim SVCAA Brinkerhoff stated that the transition has occurred to eliminate the departments. Griffin asked why no official notice came out about this change. She pointed out that a number of areas outside of the college are affected by the elimination. She noted that the elimination of the departments will result in the loss of two representatives from the College on the Academic Senate. Interim SVCAA Brinkerhoff stated that the administration did not recognize that the changes would affect other areas. He stated that he would speak to Dean Norton about announcing the structural change within the college.
Spann noted that there has been no official notice given to the faculty members of the college by any administrative officer beyond the college that the change has been approved. He pointed out that there has been some confusion regarding when the change was to occur. He stated that at one point he was told that the change would occur at the end of the fiscal year and that it was unclear whether the change would need approval outside of the college. Interim SVCAA Brinkerhoff stated that the elimination of the departments is an organizational change and it does not require approval of the Board of Regents.
Peterson asked if there is any sense that letters need to be sent to the tenured faculty members of the college about where their tenure resides. Interim SVCAA Brinkerhoff stated that he has heard of discussions regarding tenure and where it resides with all of the changes that have recently occurred on campus. He noted that there are some rare exceptions where tenure resides at the college level but for the most part tenure resides in the departments. Beck pointed out that President Smith indicated in a letter last April that tenure resides at the institutional level. She noted that tenure is granted by the Board of Regents, not by the departments.
Spann asked where tenure resides for the faculty of his college if their departments have been eliminated. Interim SVCAA Brinkerhoff stated that if a program is eliminated then faculty can be fired. Spann asked what defines a program. He noted that at one time Broadcasting was a separate department and program, it apparently still continues as a program. He stated, however, that the Chancellor indicated to the college that it would be more difficult to eliminate faculty within the college because with the elimination of departments they would be considered one unit. Interim SVCAA Brinkerhoff pointed out that if a program is eliminated than the faculty members of that program are subject to dismissal.
Whitt noted that the letter of appointment for many faculty members states that tenure would be in a specific department. If the department is eliminated, where does the tenure reside. Interim SVCAA Brinkerhoff stated that these are difficult questions that need to be discussed. Whitt pointed out that these are questions that need to be resolved.
Fuller asked if the departments in the College of Architecture are being eliminated. Interim SVCAA Brinkerhoff stated that they are not and he has not heard of any recent discussions regarding this issue. He stated that this could change depending on further budget cuts but he is not planning on having any discussions with Dean Drummond about this.
Spann stated that he does not feel that there is an advantage in protecting the faculty members in his college with elimination of departments because they continue as programs. Interim SVCAA Brinkerhoff stated that eliminating a program and a department are not always synonymous. He pointed out that it would be difficult to eliminate one of the programs in the College of Journalism and Mass Communications without affecting the other programs. He noted that the students in that college acquire skills in all of the programs.
3.4 NCard
Alexander stated that he is receiving emails from faculty members who are concerned with security issues and the new NCard that is to be issued this summer. He stated that too many people have access to data that is available on the universitys electronic files. He asked if faculty members have a choice in enrolling in the NCard. Interim SVCAA Brinkerhoff stated that this is an area that is covered by Vice Chancellor Jackson. He stated that he would inquire about these concerns. Alexander pointed out that security of information is a major concern for many employees and that it is currently very lax.
Logan-Peters noted that the new NCard will not have a persons social security number on it. She stated that a 16 digit number will be used instead. She noted that the library is taking steps to restrict access of information.
Fuller stated that she has concerns with the link of the card to a private corporation. Kim Phelps, Assistant Vice Chancellor for University Services, stated that Wells Fargo will only know the 16 digit number and will only have a link to a person if that person wants to activate an account with them.
4.0 Tad McDowell, Director of Parking and Transportation Services and Kim Phelps, Assistant Vice Chancellor for University Services
4.1 Presentation on Proposed Parking Fee Increases
McDowell reported that the university was just recently made aware of changes in the Antelope Valley Project which will have an impact on parking. He stated that a wash basin is going to be constructed in an area that was to be given to the university for surface parking. As a result there will now be fewer stalls available than originally predicted.
McDowell than showed a power point presentation of projected costs and number of stalls from now until 2008-2009. He noted that last year was the best year for parking on campus. He stated that all permits were sold and there were hardly any complaints. This year there is a 272 stall deficit but the same number of permits were sold as last year. As a result, there were many more complaints.
McDowell stated that the shortage of parking stalls will get worse in the upcoming year, mainly because of the Antelope Valley Project. He stated that the figures presented did not include possible increases in enrollment, loss of stalls due to construction on campus, or trying to meet the campus master plan.
McDowell presented three different scenarios that can occur. He stated in each scenario there will be some increase in parking. He noted that the scenarios call for a special parking permit for garage parking which would cost more than for surface parking. He stated that there has been an increasing problem of parking spaces not being available in the garages because so many students park their cars there and then leave them for extended periods of time. He stated that it is now time for parking services to take greater control over the garages. Bradford pointed out that for people coming from east campus to city campus their only choice is to park in the garages. McDowell stated that the faculty and staff of east campus have been very cooperative with all of the increases in parking fees and that they should be given a special permit that will allow them to park in the garages when they come to city campus.
McDowell stated that the number of scenarios that can be created are limited. He pointed out that there are a multitude of issues surrounding the restriction of parking on campus for students. He stated that one of these issues is recruitment and that restricting parking on campus could have a negative impact on recruiting new students. He noted that parking permits will be limited this coming year.
McDowell noted that the cost of reserved parking will not increase. He stated that parking services feels that people paying for reserved parking are paying a high price as it is and raising the fee would possibly encourage these people to use the citys parking garages instead because they would cost less.
McDowell reported that one of scenarios includes the demolition of former housing units on North 16th Street by the university Housing department. He stated that two of the buildings are unusable and need to be demolished. He stated that Housing is willing to pay for the demolition of the buildings and agrees to give the land to parking services for their use.
Phelps pointed out that the increase for garage parking is to make the rates more equitable between faculty/staff and students since they are parking in the same facility. He noted that parking fees for faculty/staff parking lots are still higher because they are closer to campus buildings than the student lots.
McDowell stated that the presentation will be presented to the executive groups of the major organizations on campus: the Academic Senate, ASUN, UNOPA, and UAAD. He noted that there will also be a presentation on March 29th in the east campus union and another presentation in the city campus union on March 31st. He stated that at each presentation people will be able to provide feedback on the scenarios. He stated that parking services hopes to get the preferences of people on campus. He noted that the Parking Advisory Committee has been consulted with regard to the scenarios.
Fuller pointed out that timing for the presentation of the scenarios is not good. She stated that freezes on salary increases and the rising cost of health care are hitting faculty and staff hard and that increases in the parking fees will only exacerbate things. McDowell stated that the reality of the situation is that when we loose parking stalls we loose the revenue from those stalls which will result in increased fees to maintain the parking that is still available. He noted that the parking and transit services office has made substantial budget cuts to reduce cost.
Miller asked if the university has ever tried to negotiate a contract with private parking garages. McDowell stated that they have spoken with the private firms but there is not much of a cost saving for the university.
Miller asked what the demand was for perimeter parking. McDowell stated that south of the Devaney building there are 250 stalls that are currently empty. He noted that the increased fees will probably force some people to park in the perimeter areas.
Logan-Peters asked if a new garage is part of the scenarios and where it would be built. McDowell stated that it would be an addition to the Avery and 14th Street garage. Logan-Peters asked when the Avery garage will be completed. McDowell stated that it is scheduled to be available July 1.
Spann stated that some of the problems seemed to be the result of poor planning. He asked why the university was not aware that more stalls were going to be lost due to Antelope Valley. McDowell stated that the university just found out about the change three weeks ago in a meeting regarding the Antelope Valley Project. Spann stated that the university should be compensated if more stalls are going to be removed.
Fuller asked if the Avery garage will have rental space similar to the 17th street garage. McDowell stated that it will not. He noted that there was a decline in new business start ups after 9/11 and that is possibly why the spaces were not rented in the 17th street garage. He stated that the University Police will be moving into the 17th street garage during the summer.
Fuller asked if advertising space is being rented out in the garages. McDowell stated that he is in the process of speaking to someone about this to see if it will be possible to gain some funding through advertising.
McDowell stated that the presentation will be put on the Parking and Transportation Services website.
5.0 Approval of 2/25/04 Minutes
Spann moved and Logan-Peters seconded approval of the minutes as amended. Motion approved.
6.0 Unfinished Business
6.1 Travel & Transport
Item postponed until the next meeting.
6.2 Update on Child Care
Item postponed until the next meeting
7.0 New Business
7.1 Library Requirement
Peterson noted that at the Senate meeting he stated that Jeff Schlechte, a member of ASUN, is on a committee that is looking into the library requirement. The committee is claiming that the current format of the course is not beneficial to students. The committee suggests that the course should be integrated with other courses rather than being a stand alone course. Logan-Peters noted that the Transition report makes this suggestion as well. Spann noted that a journalism course is being restructured so it includes the library course. Logan-Peters reported that the Libraries are looking into integrating the course into other courses on campus as well.
7.2 Western Washington Universitys Human Rights Resolution
Item postponed until the next meeting.
7.3 Senate Meeting
Peterson noted that the Senate passed a resolution opposing LB 1202 which would restrict job applicants materials from being made available to the public. The Committee felt that a copy of the resolution should be sent to all of the state legislators. It was recommended that Michelle Waite, Assistant to the Chancellor on Community Relations, be contacted to see if she has access to an email list to the state senators. Shea suggested that a copy of the resolution should be sent to Chancellor Perlman and President Smith as a courtesy.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:12 p.m. The next meeting of the Executive Committee will be on Wednesday, March 11th 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.
