The UNL Faculty Senate adopted a resolution at its Sept. 2 meeting asking university administrators to explain the program cuts they are expected to propose in the week of Sept. 8.
The university needs to make an additional $27.5 million in cuts this year.
The resolution, which was introduced by Senate President John Shrader, says:
“We the Faculty Senate of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln ask the chancellor and the interim executive vice president to publicly release all the metrics, criteria and any processes used to make the proposals and recommendations for the $27.5 million in budget cuts by the week of Sept. 8.
“These include the metrics used to determine any and all of the decisions to eliminate programs, to eliminate faculty positions, to merge programs, units, schools, colleges or any other academic units, or anything else related to the budget reduction process.”
Shrader, an associate professor of broadcasting, introduced the resolution under new business. Because Senate rules require that proposals be voted on at the next meeting after the one in which they were introduced, the Senate had to vote to consider the proposal an emergency measure requiring immediate action.
The original resolution asked only for “metrics,” but Esma Gel, a professor of supply chain management and analytics, said explanations for what cuts are proposed would be more helpful than just numbers. Ann Tschetter, associate professor of practice in history, said Executive Vice Chancellor Mark Button had said some of the metrics would not be released, but Shrader said the Senate should still ask for that information. Robert Powers, a professor of chemistry, suggested the resolution include a deadline for the administration to respond.
After amendments adding a request from criteria and decision process and a deadline were approved, the resolution as a whole was approved.
In his opening remarks, Shrader said the timing and size of the pending budget cuts is worrisome. The cuts will have to be finalized by mid-October, which leaves little time for the Academic Planning Committee to review and respond to the cuts proposed by the administration. Furthermore, the administration has not made clear what metrics or criteria it will employ in making its recommendations, he said.
Nationally, the atmosphere for universities and faculty members is increasingly uncomfortable, Shrader said. Many states are either eliminating faculty senates or curtailing their power and activities, he said, echoing a report that appeared in The Chronicle of Higher Education in August.
“We are in an existential fight,” Shrader said. “There are people in the state who would be just fine if we stayed on the sideline and let them make the decisions.”
In other business, the Senate received annual reports from the Academic Rights and Responsibilities Committee and the Senate Executive Committee.
Elizabeth Lewis, a professor of teacher learning and teacher education and out-going chair of the ARRC, said the processes for post-tenure review of faculty are becoming an issue. Post-tenure review is a process for working with faculty who are tenured but are not performing well in one or more areas. It is a process that is supposed to help the faculty member improve or adapt, but it can also lead to revocation of tenure.
Lewis also said the ARRC had prepared a primer on its procedures to explain them in language more easily understood than the legalese used in the documents. The primer also provides advice to faculty with problems or concerns about where best to turn for help. Some issues may be more easily resolved by seeking help from the ombuds office, she said, while others may require ARRC intervention or even a lawyer.
In other new business, Interim Vice Chancellor of Research Jennifer Nelson and Associate Vice Chancellor Nathan Meier informed the Senate about changes to the processes for obtaining internal research grants. They said the Office of Research and Innovation was expanding opportunities for obtaining internal grants and streamlining the application process.
