AGENDA
University of Nevada, Reno
2010-11 Faculty Senate
September 16, 2010, 1:15 p.m.
RSJ 304
All times are approximate
1:15
1.
Roll Call and Introductions
1:20
2.
ReEnergize the Vote Campaign: Marika Dimitriadis
Information/Enclosure
1:25
3.
Consent Agenda
Action/Enclosure
1:30
4.
Visit with President Glick
Information/Discussion
2:00
5.
Visit with Director of Athletics, Cary Groth
Information/Discussion
2:20
6.
Chair’s Report
Information/Discussion
2:40
7.
Action/Enclosure
2:50
8.
Election for the Executive Board Vacancy for 1 AtLarge Member
Campus Unity Commission: Shirley Diaz
3:00
Information/Enclosure
Break
3:15
9.
AFPPP Final Report: Jill Wallace & Stephani Foust
Action/Enclosure
4:00
10.
Committee Liaisons Update
Information/Discussion
4:20
11.
New Business
Information
Future Senate Meetings
UNR Faculty Senate Website
October 21. 2010
RSJ 304
November 18, 2010
RSJ 304
Future Board of Regents Meetings
NSHE Website
December 2-3, 2010
DRI- LV
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
September 16, 2010
Agenda Item #2
RE-Energizing the VOTE IN Nevada
In the 2008 elections, 22.4 million Millennial generation voters (ages 18-29) showed up to the polls, making their voices
heard and showing America that young people are interested in the future of the country. At 44 million strong, youth
represent one-fifth of the electorate both nationally and in the state of Nevada and are poised to become the largest
and most influential bloc in the electorate. But will they rise to the challenge of their own creation, and continue to make
a significant impact in the voting booth?
More than one-third of young people who voted in 2008 have moved since then and need to re-register, and many young
people have never registered at all, since 12,000 young Americans turn 18 every day. Moreover, some young people are
simply disenchanted and disengaged from the political process.
Despite this challenge, the 2010 elections also present an enormous opportunity for young voters. By continuing to turn
out in large numbers, young voters have the opportunity to deliver on the promise of participation they made in 2008. The
Millennial generation is the largest and most diverse generation of young people in American history. By turning out to
vote again in 2010, young people can show their power and claim their rightful place as a critical part of the American
electorate.
By engaging and empowering young voters on their own campuses, the Sierra Club is dedicated to reinvigorating this
generation’s commitment to participation and involvement. This fall, the Sierra Club will launch an aggressive
nonpartisan peer-to-peer effort to turn out young voters in Nevada – ReEnergizing the Vote. Working with student
volunteers at community colleges and four-year universities, organizers will register, educate, and mobilize thousands
of young Nevadans. Building on the Sierra Club’s long history of successful grassroots organizing and youth-focused
programs, this program will use the best field and online tactics available to get young people to the polls on Election
Day.
Nevada’s ReEnergizing the Vote Program
The Sierra Club’s Nevada ReEnergizing the Vote Program will be based in Las Vegas and Reno. In both cities, Campus
field organizers will work with student volunteers, partner organizations, administrators and faculty to reach thousands
of students about the importance of registering and voting. We will also employ online and new media tools – including
direct online voter registration in Clark County – to reach the broadest and most diverse swath of young voters we can.
The ReEnergize the Vote Campus Field Organizers in Nevada will focus on the following campuses:
•
•
•
•
•
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
University of Nevada, Reno
College of Southern Nevada: Cheyenne, Charleston, and Henderson campuses
Nevada State College
Truckee Meadows Community College
The goal of ReEnergize the Vote Program goal is to increase youth voter registration and turnout in the 2010 election
cycle by 5 percent over the 2006 levels. Our non-partisan voter education effort will continue to engage young voters in
the electoral process while building power for the youth movement after the election.
Contact Information: Marika Dimitriadis, Campus Organizer: marika.dimitriadis@sierraclub.org or 775-443-0511 Jordan
Butler, Campus Organizer:jordan.butler@sierraclub.org or 631-559-6281
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
September 16, 2010
Agenda Item #3
Link to the Consent Agenda:
http://www.unr.edu/facultysenate/meetings/10-11/Agendas/9-16-10Consentpkt.doc
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
September 16, 2010
Agenda Item #7
Bios for the nominees for the vacant at-large seat on the Executive Board
Name: Stephen Lafer
Title:
Associate Professor
Department:
Curriculum, teaching, and learning
Number of years at UNR: 23
Brief Educational background; BA, English, UC Davis; MA, English. Humboldt State University; Ph.D.
Curriculum and Instruction, University of Oregon.
Past committee leadership roles: Capstone Committee Chair, Coordinator, secondary education, Chair,
College of Education Faculty Senate.
Brief summary of other service or experiences that support your nomination: I have been actively involved in
matters of importance to the College in which I reside, to the University, and, most particularly, to the field of
education through my work as a teacher educator and an advocate for schools that work to develop the human
potential. I participate in the work of bodies such as the Senate in order to infuse discussion with a concern for
the future of the American democracy and for a world society that values the rights of individuals to grow their
intellects to full capacity while participating in developing forms of governance that insure such intellectual
freedom while developing policy and institutions that encourage citizen participation in the decision making
process and citizen responsibility and the obligation
Name: Glenn Miller
Title: Professor and Director- Graduate Program in Environmental Sciences
Department:
Natural Resources and Environmental Science
Number of years at UNR: 32 years
Brief Educational background: Bachelor of Science in Chemistry, University of California at Santa Barbara;
Ph.D. in Agricultural Chemistry, University of California, Davis.
Postdoctoral
appointment: Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research
Laboratory, Athens, Georgia
Past committee leadership roles: During my 32 years of being a member of the faculty of UNR, I have served
on a large variety of committees at UNR, including several chairmanships and memberships of search
committees, the Environmental Studies Board, the Mountain and Desert Research fund, director of the
Graduate Program in Environmental Science and Health, and the director of the Center for Environmental
Science and Engineering. I have served on a variety of ad hoc university review committees for program
reviews, faculty appeals and departmental, college and university tenure and promotion committees. I have
also served on several National Academy of Science panels, EPA review panels and several research and
environmental NGO boards. In recent years, I have devoted a considerable amount of time to the Nevada
Faculty Alliance (NFA), having served for two years as the chair of the UNR NFA chapter, and am currently the
chair of the northern NFA Political Action Committee.
Brief summary of other service or experiences that support your nomination: I have always been a strong
advocate of faculty governance of the university, and willingly participated in a variety of committees that have
required faculty to make difficult decisions to strengthen the institution. While this is the first term I have
served on the faculty senate, the thoughtful deliberations of the faculty senate are recognized as a critical
component of university governance. My efforts with the NFA have provided an opportunity to work with the
UNR central administration, as well as issues surrounding tenure, which is so critical at this point in UNR’s
history. Finally, the political efforts of the NFA have allowed me to know many of the regents of the NSHE,
particularly in northern Nevada, as well as establishing working relationships with northern Nevada legislators.
Both of these activities would be invaluable as a member of the Faculty Senate Executive Board, particularly
during the next year, as very difficult decisions are made on how the NSHE, and UNR in particular, will be
funded.
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
September 16, 2010
Agenda Item #8
To the Faculty Senate,
We are the ASUN Department of Campus Unity, the new home of the Unity Commission. We are the
newest department of the Associated Students of the University of Nevada, created last year to give diversity
issues their due place in campus life and to set the bar for diversity initiatives on our campus. As a
department we strive to break social stereotypes by providing programming and opportunities on campus for
interaction and expression between peoples of different backgrounds and ideas. It is our goal to raise
awareness of diversity issues both on campus and in our community. We are dedicated to promoting
understanding, awareness, acceptance, communication, and respect among all members of the Wolf Pack.
We hope to unify the campus by showing that diversity is a component of life to become familiar with and to
understand. We have the power and freedom to be creative, innovative, and revolutionary on and for this
campus.
The ASUN Unity Commission is interested in collaborating with the faculty senate to make a difference
at this university. We believe that the faculty has the potential to help us spread awareness about diversity on
campus. It is possible that by combining our visions and ideas with yours, our message can grow. We would
like to work with faculty to host events that will promote diversity and unity on this campus or in any other
way. We would gladly appreciate your participation and involvement in our mission to break social
stereotypes and to make the University of Nevada more united. If you are interested, please feel free to
contact our Director of Campus Unity, Shirley Diaz at directorunity@asun.unr.edu. We look forward to
working with you!
Sincerely,
The ASUN Unity Commission
asun.unr.edu
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
September 16, 2010
Agenda Item #9
University of Nevada, Reno
Faculty Senate
Administrative Faculty Policies, Procedure and Personnel Committee (AFPPP)
2009-10 Year-End Report
Submitted by: Jill Wallace and Stephani Foust (Co-chairs)
Sept. 3, 2010
Committee Membership
Jamie Anderson, Office of Medical Education
Carolyn Adams, Libraries
Dean Dietrich, Development & Alumni Relations
Rita Escher, Academic and Opportunity Support Programs
Stephani Foust, Student Services
Stephen Jenkins, Biology
Nancy Markee, Advising Center
Marilyn Ming, Southern Cooperative Extension
Vannessa Nicholas, Advising Center
Sandra Ott, Center for Basque Studies
Thomas Quint, Mathematics and Statistics
Marie Stewart, ASUN Bookstore
Robbyn Tolles, Office of Medical Education
Jill Wallace, Information Technology
Committee Annual and Standing Charges
Standing Charges
Charge 1: Review AFP3 Committee charges over the prior three years, and any recommendations
adopted by the Faculty Senate. Report on the implementation status of these recommendations.
Research and findings:

The 2008-09 AFPPP charges & report focused on two charges: (1) Consider issues related to the
creation of a new employment category for professional or technical staff, and review the policies and
categories of peer institutions. (2) UNR Bylaws require that all faculty, academic and administrative,
should have the protection of bylaws at the major unit (e.g., college) or below, but many administrative
faculty work in divisions and units without bylaws. What bylaws are appropriate and necessary for
administrative faculty, and what current examples exist? The report was not approved and,
therefore, no action was taken on its recommendations.

The 2007-08 AFPPP charges included the following: (1) Assign two committee members to sit on a
Human Resources Administrative Faculty Personnel Committee. This global committee would act as a
resource to administrative faculty on an individual basis as well as to department heads and Deans who
have administrative faculty within their areas. If a College or department wants to pursue the use of
peer review for administrative faculty within its area(s), this committee could assist in defining true
peers across the different colleges and departments within the University. (2) Assign one committee
member to sit on the Human Resources Administrative Faculty Evaluation Task Force to address the
administrative faculty evaluation form and process. The AFPPP can then provide input into the form
and process. (3) Request a status of activities of the Human Resources Administrative Faculty Salary
and Benefits Committee. Assign a committee member to sit on this, if necessary. (4) Assign one
committee member to sit on the Administrative Manual Committee (UAM). (5) Explore Professional
Technical employment category. (6) Standing Charge: Conduct brown-bag meetings of the
administrative faculty, at least one per semester, to provide them an opportunity to discuss the issues
of the day or to provide them with information about benefits, policies and procedures, etc. This
committee did not submit a report.

The 2006-07 charges included the following: (1) Assign two committee members to sit on a Human
Resources Administrative Faculty Personnel Committee. This global committee would act as a
resource to administrative faculty on an individual basis as well as to department heads and Deans who
have administrative faculty within their areas. If a College or department wants to pursue the use of
peer review for administrative faculty within its area(s), this committee could assist in defining true
peers across the different colleges and departments within the University. (2) Assign one committee
member to sit on the Human Resources Administrative Faculty Evaluation Task Force to address the
administrative faculty evaluation form and process. The AFPPP can then provide input into the form
and process. (3) Work with Human Resources to assess the composition of the faculty at the University
to determine whether more emphasis needs to be placed on administrative faculty issues. Investigate
the ratio of academic faculty to administrative faculty for the past 5-10 years. (4) Standing Charge:
Conduct brown-bag meetings of the administrative faculty, at least one per semester, to provide them
an opportunity to discuss the issues of the day or to provide them with information about benefits,
policies and procedures, etc. The following actions or recommendations were made: (1) This charge
was placed on hold due to the fact that a Task Force was already convened to look at the
Administrative Faculty Evaluation process. (2) The Chair of the AFPPP was an active member of the
Human Resources Administrative Faculty Performance Evaluation Task Force which met frequently
throughout the summer, fall and early spring semesters. (3) Their findings were: Administrative faculty
have nearly doubled in the past 6 years [2000-06]. Faculty was [2006-07] comprised of 41%
Administrative and 59% Academic. Salary rank distribution indicated a “core”/mid-level group of
administrative faculty (rank 2 and 3 approximately 50%). The distribution across departments indicated
that administrative faculty were represented across campus. Information Technology, the Med School
and Athletics represented approximately 30%. The recommendation from this charge was: The AFPPP
Committee’s existence and future charges will ensure that the needs of Administrative Faculty are
being addressed. (4) The committee hosted a Fall 06 brown bag (What’s In It for Me? Administrative
Faculty Development Opportunities) and a Spring 07 brown bag (Governing Documents and Recent
Amendments 101). Their recommend was: Continue to host brown bag luncheons. This report was
approved and recommendations implemented with the exception of the recommendation to
continue hosting brown bag luncheons. The Fall 06 and Spring 07 brown bags were the last
ones organized for administrative faculty.
Actions taken: The 2009-10 AFPPP committee reviewed the information gathered and the recommendations
made in the three previous years and incorporated the relevant information into this committee’s report.
Recommendation (Charge 1):
Add the following charge back into the AFPPP’s standing charges: Conduct brown-bag lunch meetings
of the administrative faculty, at least one per semester, to provide them an opportunity to discuss the
issues of the day or to provide them with information about benefits, policies and procedures, etc.
Charge 2: Make recommendations on the future status, organization, structure, and charges of the
AFP3 Committee. Consider whether the committee is necessary and effective, and how it could be
improved.
Research and findings: The 2009-10 AFPPP committee was made up of 14 members, 10 administrative faculty
and 4 academic faculty. The administrative faculty members of the committee felt that the inclusion of
academic faculty added a valuable perspective and assisted in facilitating understanding and communication
between the two groups.
The AFPPP committee also feels that the continuation of this committee is vital because of the large number of
administrative faculty employed by the university and because it is a good place to consider and address
issues specific to administrative faculty. The committee expressed a desire that the charges given to the
committee be specific and actionable.
Actions taken: The committee considered how the work of future AFPPP committees could be improved and,
in response to this part of the charge, made the second of the following recommendations.
Recommendations (Charge 2):
1. Continue the AFPPP committee, with both administrative and academic faculty representation.
2. The Faculty Senate Chair (or another member of the FS Executive Board) and the AFPPP chair will
meet with senators who are administrative faculty to determine the charges for the following year.
Charge 3: Upon request by the Executive Board, review any proposals affecting AFP3 Committee
objectives, and report recommendations to the Executive Board within six weeks after receipt of any
request for review.
Research and findings: NA
Actions taken: There were no proposals sent to the AFPPP committee, although proposals affecting the
committee’s objectives were sent to the Bylaws and Code Committee for review in December 09. The AFPPP
committee did not have the opportunity to review the proposals and give recommendations before the
proposals came to the senate for discussion and voting in January.
Recommendation (charge 3):
Proposals affecting an AFPPP committee’s objectives should be sent to the committee for review and
recommendations before being presented to Faculty Senate.
Charge 4: Upon request by the Executive Board, serve as a sounding board for the Executive Board for
issues related to AFPPP Committee charges and objectives.
Research and findings: NA
Actions taken: NA
Recommendation (charge 4):
This charge is similar to charge #3; therefore, we recommend that the two charges be combined into
one standing charge for the future.
Charge 5: In consultation with the Executive Board, appoint a liaison from the AFP3 Committee to the
University Administrative Manual Committee. Identify any other campus committees with similar
missions or concerns, and appoint liaisons as appropriate to facilitate communication between these
committees and the Faculty Senate.
Research and findings: NA
Actions taken: Jill Wallace and Stephani Foust served as liaisons to the University Administrative Manual
Committee. One difficulty they encountered in actively participating in UAM meetings is that the meetings were
normally held at the same time as the Faculty Senate meetings. In discussion of other charges, the committee
also identified the Administrative Faculty Salary Placement Committee as being a committee where
participation and communication could be informative.
Recommendations (charge 5):
1. Continue the standing charge of appointing a liaison from the AFPPP Committee to the University
Administrative Manual Committee.
2. Appoint a liaison to the Administrative Faculty Salary Placement Committee.
Additional Charges
Charge 6: Building upon items identified in both the Senate charges for 2008-09 and the report from
the AFPPP Committee, develop a methodology to systematically identify issues of concern for
administrative faculty. Examples of issues previously identified include the criteria for evaluation;
organization reporting lines; voting rights for administrative faculty; and the process of nonreappointment. Once these issues are identified, select the most important concerns, and identify both
the nature of the concerns and potential alternative responses. Make recommendations to the Senate,
as appropriate.
Actions taken: Due to the budgetary crisis and the fact that the Non-traditional Faculty Task Force (NTFTF)
committee in 2007 did a thorough survey that included administrative faculty, it was decided that an informal
survey would be conducted. The following actions were taken to identify issues of concern for administrative
faculty: (1) The results of the administrative faculty survey conducted by the NTFTF were reviewed. (2)
Feedback regarding “issues of concern” for administrative faculty was gathered informally during November 09
via email by AFPPP committee members asking groups of administrative faculty to share any concerns that
had regarding their administrative faculty position or contract. (3) The results of the NTFTF 2007 administrative
faculty survey and the feedback gathered in Nov. 09 were compared and prioritized.
Research and findings:
The 2007 NTFTF administrative faculty survey identified the concerns regarding the following topics:
 Opportunities for advancement (in range levels) – i.e. lack of any opportunity for advancement or of a
plan for advancement
 Job Responsibilities – i.e. lack of clear communication about what is expected, inconsistent
expectations from supervisors
 Evaluation – i.e. lack of objectivity in the evaluation process, lack of objective or consistent criteria,
evaluations done by immediate supervisor changed by upper management without explanation,
evaluation done by supervisor or academic faculty who is not familiar with job duties of administrative
faculty, supervisors not trained in how to evaluate faculty, evaluation criteria do not match or fit actual
job responsibilities, disconnect between evaluation and merit
The feedback received in Nov. 09 in response to the request that administrative faculty share any concerns
they had regarding their administrative faculty position or contract focused on the following topics:
 Job security and furloughs
 Contracts
 Respect and representation
 Benefits
 Promotion and professional development
 Evaluation
Based on this feedback and issues of concern identified in the NTFTF survey results, the committee selected
three main topics for further research and recommendations: promotion/advancement, evaluation process, and
faculty governance.
6a. Promotion/advancement
Research and findings:
The standards for administrative faculty salary ranges are determined through the “Administrative Faculty
Salary Model” at http://www.unr.edu/hr/documents/compensation/UNRADminFacMOdel.pdf . According to the
Administrative Faculty Salary Model,

There are seven salary ranges for administrative faculty. The salary range for each level is equal to the
average salary for comparable positions at the 49 universities comprising an approved peer group,
adjusted for a cost-of-living differential, and extended in either direction by an amount equal to 25% of
that average salary.

A committee, appointed by the President and representing the major divisions in which administrative
faculty are employed, recommends to the President placements within the model. Eight weighted
factors are utilized by the Administrative Faculty Salary Placement Committee in order to determine
placement within seven salary ranges. These factors and their weighted percentages are:
o
Complexity of problems to be solved (10%)
o
Minimum skills and knowledge required (10%)
o
Interpersonal relationships ordinarily involved in day-to-day activities (10%)
o
Organizational levels at which interpersonal relationships ordinarily occur (10%)
o
Nature of responsibility exercised within the context of the overall operations of the university
(20%)
o
Extent of functional responsibility exercised (10%)
o
Constraint on independent action within which the position functions (10%)
o
Impact of independent actions on the attainment of goals for educational programs and/or
institutional development (20%)

New or vacant positions must be reviewed prior to any search to determine the appropriate salary
range for the position. If a permanent reassignment of administrative duties and responsibilities occurs,
the position should be reviewed to determine the appropriate range. If the new duties and
responsibilities are determined to be at a higher range, the salary is increased to the minimum salary
for that range or 10%, whichever is greater.

Temporary salary adjustments may be made where an administrative faculty member has been
temporarily assigned additional duties and responsibilities. These additional duties and responsibilities
in combination with those of the permanent position are reviewed to determine at what range they
would normally be compensated. If such duties are compensated at the same range as the
administrative faculty member’s current salary, no additional increment is granted. If the temporary
duties and responsibilities are determined to be at a higher range, a temporary adjustment to the
minimum of the higher range or up to a 10% increase in current salary is granted during the period that
these additional responsibilities were assigned.
Additional information on a temporary salary adjustment is provided at
http://www.unr.edu/vpaf/hr/compensation/salary_temp.html.
The rules for administrative faculty advancement are spelled out in the “University Administrative Manual” [last
revised: May 3, 2010] in section 2,515: Guidelines for Faculty Promotion on pages 169 – 170 at
www.unr.edu/business_finance/forms/uam.pdf or http://sites.unr.edu/administrativemanual/personnel/academic-and-administrative-personnel/2,515-guidelines-for-faculty-promotion.aspx .
Basically, there are four ways through which administrative faculty promotion can occur:
1. Through reevaluation of an existing PDQ – This requires a rewrite of the existing PDQ.
2. Promotion from one position to another approved PDQ and title at the next higher range – This
assumes that a higher level approved PDQ is already in place.
3. Through an approval Line of Progression PDQ – This assumes that a set of PDQs are written and
approved so that an administrative faculty member can easily move up the line of progression as skills
and experience are acquired.
4. Through a competitive search – This requires a new PDQ.
After clarifying the existing situation concerning promotion of administrative faculty, we have determined that
this information needs to be disseminated more widely to administrative faculty and their supervisors as these
facts are generally not well known.
Recommendations (charge 6a):
1. (For Human Resources) Hold trainings for supervisors of administrative faculty positions that
explain how PDQs may be written to allow for administrative faculty advancement.
2. (For supervisors) Include criteria for advancement/promotion in the position description or PDQ.
3. (For Human Resources) Clearly define the process for a salary range review, i.e. under what
circumstances a review should occur and how the process is initiated.
6b. Evaluation Process
Research and findings:
The results of the NTFTF survey highlighted the dissatisfaction of administrative faculty with the evaluation
process. Some general themes from comments were: lack of objectivity in the evaluation process; lack of clear
(or any) communication about what is expected; evaluations done by the immediate supervisor changed by
upper management without explanation; evaluation done by supervisor or academic faculty who is not familiar
with job duties of administrative faculty; supervisors not trained in how to evaluate faculty; criteria do not match
or fit actual job responsibilities; lack of objective or consistent criteria; inconsistent expectations from
supervisors; and disconnect between evaluation and merit. (Non-Traditional Faculty Task Force, Draft Final
Report, May 18, 2009, pages 6-7)
Since the time of this report, the administrative faculty evaluation form was revised and has been in existence
for two years. The most significant change in the form was the replacement of evaluation criteria by
“competencies for success”, which are defined for individual contributors and managers. (Appendix A)
Although evaluation procedures and guidelines and a recorded evaluation workshop presentation are provided
by Human Resources (http://www.unr.edu/hr/employeeperformance/administrativefaculty.html), the AFPPP
committee found that not all administrative faculty units use the Evaluation/Performance Review for
Administrative Faculty and that there are still many issues of concern with regards to the evaluation process.
The committee does not see a problem in administrative faculty units using an evaluation form created
specifically to address the common or relevant competencies in the unit, but they do feel that the evaluation
process, which includes the form used for evaluation, should be well defined, perhaps in the unit’s by-laws, and
that all supervisors within the unit follow this process and adhere to the governing policies and procedures as
outlined in the Board of Regents Handbook and University Administrative Manual
(http://www.unr.edu/hr/documents/employeeperformance/AdminFacGoverningPolicies_Procedures.pdf).
Recommendation (charge 6b):
A committee in each administrative and academic faculty unit should review and make
recommendations for the evaluation process of administrative faculty within that unit, if the evaluation
process for administrative faculty is not already defined in the unit’s by-laws.
6c. Faculty governance
Research and findings:
In gathering background information regarding administrative faculty representation, this committee looked at
two sources, the AFPPP 2008-2009 report and UNLV’s faculty senate by-laws.
The AFP3 2008-2009 report contained a comparison of nine peer institutions’ policies and practices regarding
positions comparable to University of Nevada, Reno Administrative Faculty. The institutions studied were:
Oregon State University, University of Oregon, Colorado State, Arizona State, University of Arizona,
Washington State, University of Washington, Utah State, and New Mexico. The University of Oregon and
Oregon State have significant representation of administrative professionals on the faculty senate. The other 7
universities have little or no faculty senate representation with all but one of these 7 having some separate
organization specifically designed for administrative professionals. The exception is Arizona State, where there
is virtually no faculty senate representation and no private or university organization for administrative
professionals.
At UNLV each of the following units have one representative for each thirty faculty or fraction thereof, who are
elected by the members of the unit from among its eligible members (academic faculty and professional staff
who hold at least a fifty percent professional contract with the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, as defined in
Title 4, Chapter 3 of the Board of Regents Handbook): College of Business, Education, Engineering, Fine Arts,
Hotel Administration, Liberal Arts, Sciences, and Urban Affairs, the Division of Health Sciences, the School of
Law and University Libraries. The Professional Staff unit at UNLV has one Faculty Senate representative from
each of the following areas: (1) President, University and Community Relations and Development; (2) Athletics
and the Thomas and Mack Center; (3) Research and Graduate College; (4) Finance; (5) Student Life; (6)
Administration; and (7) two representatives from the Provost area for a at total of eight representatives who are
elected by the members of each unit from among its eligible members. Members of the Faculty Senate
Executive Committee are the Chair of the Faculty Senate, Vice Chair of the Faculty Senate, Secretary of the
Faculty Senate, two members of the Faculty Senate elected At-Large from the Faculty Senate membership,
and one member from the Professional Staff. Only academic faculty are eligible for the offices of Chair, Vice
Chair, and Secretary of the Faculty Senate. (University of Nevada, Las Vegas Faculty Senate Constitution,
Revised January 2009, last retrieved on 8/22/2010 from: http://facultysenate.unlv.edu/FS_Bylaws-2010.05.doc)
On the University of Nevada, Reno Faculty Senate, there are 7 faculty senators representing the following
administrative faculty units: Administration and Finance, Development & Alumni Relations, Information
Technology, President’s Division, Provost Division, Research and Student Services. In addition to these 7
faculty senators, there may be other faculty senators who are elected senators from academic units.
Despite the fact that administrative faculty or their equivalent at some of the other peer institutions identified
have less or no faculty senate representation, this committee and other administrative faculty that we have
spoken to feel that the combination of academic and administrative faculty on the University of Nevada, Reno’s
Faculty Senate greatly contributes to the knowledge, strength and influence of this faculty senate.
Recommendation (charge 6c):
The administrative units, Administration and Finance, Development & Alumni Relations, Information
Technology, President’s Division, Provost Division, Research and Student Services, will continue to
have representation on the University of Nevada, Reno Faculty Senate.
Charge 7: UNR Bylaws specify that all faculty, academic and administrative, shall have the protection
of bylaws at the major unit (e.g., college) or below, but many administrative faculty work in divisions
and units without bylaws. Furthermore, the UNR Bylaws themselves tend to be focused primarily on
personnel policies for academic faculty. What bylaws are appropriate and necessary for administrative
faculty, and what current examples exist which could be used to create these bylaws? Make
recommendations to the Senate, as appropriate.
Research and findings:
There are a number of major units which are comprised of a large number of administrative faculty who do not
have unit bylaws. Of those units who do have current unit by-laws, very few make reference specifically to
administrative faculty within their units. There are three units, comprised mainly of administrative faculty whose
bylaws are either on file or in the process of being updated: Student Services, Administration and Finance, and
Development and Alumni Relations. The School of Medicine is another unit with many administrative faculty
which also has current bylaws on file, but unlike the administrative divisions mentioned above, the School of
Medicine combines both academic and administrative faculty.
Actions taken:
Two members of the AFPPP committee reviewed the existing bylaws of the administrative units listed above
and noted points of similarity and difference. We quickly discovered that there were significant similarities in
language and structure between the bylaws for Administration and Finance and Development and Alumni
Relations.
The bylaws for Student Services, on the other hand, contained most of the same elements but a very different
structure and a much greater level of detail about faculty rights, governance and procedures in the division,
some of which might not be as applicable to other units.
The bylaws for the School of Medicine were also reviewed, though, as noted above, the School of Medicine’s
bylaws are more like those of most academic units because the unit contains a mix of so many types of faculty.
Recommendations (charge 7):
1. All units who employ administrative faculty should review their own unit bylaws to ensure more
inclusion of the rights of administrative faculty.
2. Although the template has been included in Appendix B as a suggestion for what administrative
bylaws should include, the template should be reviewed by the Faculty Senate Bylaws and Code
Committee, and after that point, it should be posted on the Faculty Senate Bylaws Repository as a
tool that administrative units can use in crafting their own bylaws.
3. Those units who employ a large number of administrative faculty who do not have current bylaws
should use the template in Appendix B to assist in creating their own unit bylaws within the next
fiscal year.
Charge 8: Consider the viability and logistics of developing “lines of progression” for administrative
faculty, as recommended in the 2009 report of the Nontraditional Faculty Taskforce. Make
recommendations to the Senate, as appropriate.
Actions taken:
The AFPPP committee established a subcommittee to look into the possibilities for developing “lines of
progression” for administrative faculty. Members of the subcommittee spoke with people in Human Resources
as well as in the division of Development and Alumni Relations, where several lines of progression for
administrative faculty currently exist.
Research and findings:
The findings from the discussion with Human Resources are summarized in section 6a above. The discussion
with Development and Alumni Relations was useful in providing some background and history about how lines
of progression have been built around existing positions.
A few years ago, the division of Development and Alumni Relations was experiencing significant growth and
recruiting for many different positions at the same time. As the division was having difficulty finding applicants
with the right experience for some of the range 4 positions it was seeking to fill, it created some lower-level
positions with similar duties and responsibilities to help fill some of the vacancies.
Eventually, upon the advice of Human Resources, the division combined those entry-level positions with some
of the higher-level positions to create lines-of-progression PDQs for those positions. This enabled the division
to select among applicants with a variety of experience levels, and, when someone was hired at a lower-level,
it provided a means for promoting those individuals to higher-ranking positions with more responsibility, without
the need for revising each individual’s PDQ each time a change in rank or responsibilities was sought, or
without the need for another search. Since that time, the division has created lines of progression for positions
in several departments, and several people who were originally hired into lower-level positions have been
promoted as they have gained more experience and as their skills have grown.
While this model will not work for all administrative divisions or departments, it is instructive as an example of
how, with the aid of Human Resources, existing options were applied creatively to help meet a need, and since
then, they have been applied in a way to allow for advancement and promotion of administrative faculty in the
division.
Recommendation – see 6a
Additional Proposals
In February, 2010, the AFPPP committee was asked to review the Set 3 proposals to amend the NSHE Code
(http://www.unr.edu/facultysenate/meetings/09-10/agenda/CodeProposalsJan2010.pdf, first proposed by an
advisory group consisting of four former chairs of the UNR Faculty Senate and to make recommendations
regarding them. The following recommendations (revised from the original code proposals by Elliott Parker,
2009-10 Faculty Senate chair) were pulled from the Set 3 proposals for review and recommendations. To
differentiate our recommendations from the recommendations proposed by the advisory group and Elliott
Parker, we will refer to these as proposals 1 and 2.
Proposal 1 (referred to as Recommendation #3.1 in the NSHE Code Changes Proposals): In Section 1.1
of the Code, revise subsection (b) to define administrative faculty (not administrators) as “those
professional staff in executive, supervisory or support positions, as defined by the Board of Regents.”
Then add a statement that institutions may define these professional staff categories further in their
bylaws.
Research and findings:
In Section 1.1 (Definitions) of the NSHE Code, definition b states: “’Administrators’ means administrative
faculty employed in executive supervisory or support positions, as defined by the Board of Regents.” It is
important to note that “administrative faculty” is not defined but that the title “administrative faculty” is
mentioned a total of 30 times in the Board of Regents Handbook. The title is frequently mentioned along with
“academic faculty” and “non-academic faculty”, i.e. “The NSHE Code, Chapter 5, Section 5.12.1 and 5.12.2,
establishes that written performance evaluations of academic faculty and administrative faculty shall be
conducted at least once annually by department chairs, supervisors or heads of administrative units.”
On June 10, 2010, the Faculty Senate approved a proposal to amend Section 2.3.3.b of the UNR Bylaws to
read “’Administrative faculty’ means those professional staff employed in executive, supervisory or support
positions, as defined by the Board of Regents.”
This AFPPP committee supports a recommendation to the Board of Regents that the titles of administrative
faculty and administers be defined in Section 1.1 of the NSHE Code.
The committee feels that the last sentence in proposal 1, “then add a statement that institutions may define
these professional staff categories further in their bylaws”, is problematic because its intentions and possible
outcomes are not well-defined.
Does this part of the proposal suggest that sub-categories of administrative faculty would be defined? Who
would define these sub-categories and for what purpose? If that is the case, what would be the impact on
those professional staff currently assigned to administrative faculty positions? What would be the impact on the
Administrative Faculty Salary Model? Would the employment rights and place in current governance structures
of people in these sub-category positions be affected in any way?
Or does this part of the proposal suggest that the category “administrative faculty” itself would be given a
different name. If that is the case, would the references to administrative faculty in the NSHE Code apply to
this group? Are there significant reasons to change the name? How would a name change benefit the
university?
Or does this part of the proposal suggest that a fourth category of employment be added to the existing three
main categories of employment, academic faculty, administrative faculty and classified employees?
What is clear to the AFPPP committee is that this second part of the proposal leads to many questions and, as
a result, to conjectures and fear among administrative faculty. Therefore, our recommendations will not
address this second part of the proposal.
Actions taken: Members of the AFPPP committee spent a good deal of time researching bylaws and code (i.e.
NSHE Code, UNR Bylaws, UNLV Bylaws, and Faculty Senate Bylaws) and interviewing people (i.e. Tim
McFarling, Ida Roberts, and others) to be able to respond to this proposal, but in the end, we had more
questions than answers to the second part of the proposal because its meaning, scope, and impact were so
unclear.
Proposal 2 (referred to as Recommendation #3.2 in the NSHE Code Changes Proposals): In Section 1.1
of the Code, add a new section after (b) to define “administrators” as only that subset of administrative
faculty in executive and supervisory roles, not support roles. Correct every reference to administrators
elsewhere in the Code to ensure that it means only these administrators, and not others. Where
necessary, correct references to “faculty,” which might be better defined as “faculty and other
professional staff exclusive of those in administrative positions.”
Research and findings:
If the definition “those professional staff in executive, supervisory or support positions” becomes the definition
of administrative faculty in Section 1.1 of the NSHE Code, then the title “administrator” should also be defined
since it is frequently used in the code.
Defining administrators as “that subset of administrative faculty in executive and supervisory roles, not support
roles” is problematic because of the context in which administrators are used in NSHE Code. For example, an
administrative faculty’s responsibilities could include both supervision and support, but that person’s position
would not be bound by some of the NSHE code that applies to administrators.
This definition could be modeled after the definition of “chief administrators” provided in section 4.2 of the UNR
Faculty Senate Bylaws: Chief administrators of the university include the president, the executive vicepresident & provost, and other vice-presidents, as well as associate and assistant vice-presidents and viceprovosts. Chief administrators of the major units are defined as deans or their administrative equivalents, as
well as associate and assistant deans.
Actions taken: Research of codes and bylaws.
Recommendations (for Board of Regents) - Proposal 1 and 2:
1. In Section 1.1 of the NSHE Code, amend subsection (b) to define administrative faculty (and not
administrators) as “those professional staff in executive, supervisory or support positions, as
defined by the Board of Regents.”
2. In Section 1.1 of the NSHE Code, add a definition of administrators that differentiates
administrators from administrative faculty who are not considered to be administrators.
3. Once administrative faculty and administrators are defined, use the specific titles of academic
faculty, administrative faculty and administrators in the NSHE Code when referring exclusively to
that respective subgroup.
Summary of Charges and Recommendations
Charge 1: Review AFP3 Committee charges over the prior three years, and any recommendations adopted by
the Faculty Senate. Report on the implementation status of these recommendations.
Recommendation (Charge 1): Add the following charge back into the AFPPP’s standing charges:
Conduct brown-bag lunch meetings of the administrative faculty, at least one per semester, to provide
them an opportunity to discuss the issues of the day or to provide them with information about benefits,
policies and procedures, etc.
Charge 2: Make recommendations on the future status, organization, structure, and charges of the AFP3
Committee. Consider whether the committee is necessary and effective, and how it could be improved.
Recommendations (Charge 2): 1. Continue the AFPPP committee, with both administrative and
academic faculty representation. 2. The Faculty Senate Chair (or another member of the FS Executive
Board) and the AFPPP chair will meet with senators who are administrative faculty to determine the
charges for the following year.
Charge 3: Upon request by the Executive Board, review any proposals affecting AFP3 Committee objectives,
and report recommendations to the Executive Board within six weeks after receipt of any request for review.
Recommendation (charge 3): Proposals affecting an AFPPP committee’s objectives should be sent to
the committee for review and recommendations before being presented to Faculty Senate.
Charge 4: Upon request by the Executive Board, serve as a sounding board for the Executive Board for issues
related to AFPPP Committee charges and objectives.
Recommendation (charge 4): This charge is similar to charge #3; therefore, we recommend that the
two charges be combined into one standing charge for the future.
Charge 5: In consultation with the Executive Board, appoint a liaison from the AFP3 Committee to the
University Administrative Manual Committee. Identify any other campus committees with similar missions or
concerns, and appoint liaisons as appropriate to facilitate communication between these committees and the
Faculty Senate.
Recommendations (charge 5): 1. Continue the standing charge of appointing a liaison from the
AFPPP Committee to the University Administrative Manual Committee. 2. Appoint a liaison to the
Administrative Faculty Salary Placement Committee.
Charge 6: Building upon items identified in both the Senate charges for 2008-09 and the report from the
AFPPP Committee, develop a methodology to systematically identify issues of concern for administrative
faculty. Examples of issues previously identified include the criteria for evaluation; organization reporting lines;
voting rights for administrative faculty; and the process of non-reappointment. Once these issues are identified,
select the most important concerns, and identify both the nature of the concerns and potential alternative
responses. Make recommendations to the Senate, as appropriate.
Recommendations (charge 6a): 1. (For Human Resources) Hold trainings for supervisors of
administrative faculty positions that explain how PDQs may be written to allow for administrative faculty
advancement. 2. (For supervisors) Include criteria for advancement/promotion in the position
description or PDQ. 3. (For Human Resources) Clearly define the process for a salary range review, i.e.
under what circumstances a review should occur and how the process is initiated.
Recommendation (charge 6b): A committee in each administrative and academic faculty unit should
review and make recommendations for the evaluation process of administrative faculty within that unit,
if the evaluation process for administrative faculty is not already defined in the unit’s by-laws.
Recommendation (charge 6c): The administrative units, Administration and Finance, Development &
Alumni Relations, Information Technology, President’s Division, Provost Division, Research and
Student Services, will continue to have representation on the University of Nevada, Reno Faculty
Senate.
Charge 7: UNR Bylaws specify that all faculty, academic and administrative, shall have the protection of
bylaws at the major unit (e.g., college) or below, but many administrative faculty work in divisions and units
without bylaws. Furthermore, the UNR Bylaws themselves tend to be focused primarily on personnel policies
for academic faculty. What bylaws are appropriate and necessary for administrative faculty, and what current
examples exist which could be used to create these bylaws? Make recommendations to the Senate, as
appropriate.
Recommendations (charge 7): 1. All units who employ administrative faculty should review their own
unit bylaws to ensure more inclusion of the rights of administrative faculty. 2. Although the template has
been included in Appendix B as a suggestion for what administrative bylaws should include, the
template should be reviewed by the Faculty Senate Bylaws and Code Committee, and after that point, it
should be posted on the Faculty Senate Bylaws Repository as a tool that administrative units can use in
crafting their own bylaws. 3. Those units who employ a large number of administrative faculty who do
not have current bylaws should use the template in Appendix B to assist in creating their own unit
bylaws within the next fiscal year.
Charge 8: Consider the viability and logistics of developing “lines of progression” for administrative faculty, as
recommended in the 2009 report of the Nontraditional Faculty Taskforce. Make recommendations to the
Senate, as appropriate.
No recommendation – see recommendation 6a
Proposal 1 (referred to as Recommendation #3.1 in the NSHE Code Changes Proposals): In Section 1.1
of the Code, revise subsection (b) to define administrative faculty (not administrators) as “those professional
staff in executive, supervisory or support positions, as defined by the Board of Regents.” Then add a statement
that institutions may define these professional staff categories further in their bylaws.
Proposal 2 (referred to as Recommendation #3.2 in the NSHE Code Changes Proposals): In Section 1.1
of the Code, add a new section after (b) to define “administrators” as only that subset of administrative faculty
in executive and supervisory roles, not support roles. Correct every reference to administrators elsewhere in
the Code to ensure that it means only these administrators, and not others. Where necessary, correct
references to “faculty,” which might be better defined as “faculty and other professional staff exclusive of those
in administrative positions.”
Recommendations (for Board of Regents) - Proposal 1 and 2: 1. In Section 1.1 of the NSHE Code,
amend subsection (b) to define administrative faculty (and not administrators) as “those professional
staff in executive, supervisory or support positions, as defined by the Board of Regents.” 2. In Section
1.1 of the NSHE Code, add a definition of administrators that differentiates administrators from
administrative faculty who are not considered to be administrators. 3. Once administrative faculty and
administrators are defined, use the specific titles of academic faculty, administrative faculty and
administrators in the NSHE Code when referring exclusively to that respective subgroup.
Appendix A – Administrative Faculty Evaluation Form and Competencies for Success (attached)
Appendix B – Administrative Faculty Unit By-laws Template (attached)
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
September 16, 2010
Informational Items
Link to the Diversity Report:
http://system.nevada.edu/Board-of-R/Meetings/Agendas/September-3/Cultural-D/CD-2b.pdf
2 other informational Items:
NSHE Plan and DRI’s Agenda for their September meeting
THE STATE AND THE SYSTEM
NSHE PLAN FOR NEVADA’S COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES
Combining Excellence and Austerity to Attain Success
September 2010
As Nevada struggles in this difficult time of recession and high unemployment, it is time once and for all to
acknowledge that only through a robust and adequately funded education infrastructure and in particular higher
education will we ever achieve the diversification and growth that we all desire in our economy. We must make
a long term commitment to excellence in our colleges and universities and to the level of funding necessary to
support that excellence. In the immediate circumstances, however, it is incumbent on the state’s public colleges
and universities, its primary economic engine, to examine carefully how they can perform within the limited
resources available today, ensuring that the state is positioned as best as it can be to recruit, retain, and grow the
industries and businesses needed for a brighter future. This calls for a greater number of Nevadans with
degrees, certificates, and workforce skills, along with a strong research enterprise, to support the new economy.
How can we do this?
The steps that will need to be taken will not be easy or without risk. They will demand considerable change in
the way we currently work, both in the administrative area and in the classroom. Just as the private sector is
changing its business model, enduring cutbacks, and suffering the pain of seeing old dreams fade, so too will
NSHE have to reconfigure and redefine its vision for its future. Old patterns of action and thought will be
replaced by a new vibrant vision with a focus on quality and access in everything we do. Improvements in
quality must lead to both greater efficiencies and enhanced performance that will translate directly to more
students graduating with degrees or certificates to build the state’s economy.
To start this examination and change, we propose a series of key steps for consideration. While some may
prove longer term, care must be taken to view these proposals as a whole. In other words, if only a few are
implemented, the impact will be slight and the future will be just as predictable as the past is apparent. Change
is never easy for organizations, especially when it translates into significant new ideas. Sacrifice will be called
for on the part of every NSHE faculty and staff member Yet the changed culture that will result will be
stronger and more vibrant, building a justifiable pride for each employee in being part of this excellent system
of higher education.
Let us be clear as well that this is not a one way street. In order to achieve our mutual goals of pulling the State
out of the current recession and diversifying our economy, the State must make not only the long term funding
commitment referred to in starting, but also some substantial changes right now in the way it funds higher
education in order to allow the institutions the freedom and flexibility, accompanied by accountability, to do
their jobs.
1.
State and Student Support. Both state funding and student tuition and fees will need to be reexamined.
a. Student Tuition and Fees. The NSHE agreement with the state provides that a large portion of
student fees and all tuition (out-of-state student charge in addition to fees) “count” when
determining the level of funding within the state supported operating budget. Going forward, if
state general fund support drops, depending on the level of decrease in state support, student fees
and tuition are likely to rise to prevent unsustainable decreases in the overall budget. Students
have historically supported actions needed to maintain excellence in their programs, even fee
increases. Given that reality, changes in current policies and practices are called for. First, we
propose that we examine whether all fees paid by in-state students and tuition for out-of-state
students should remain at each institution and not be counted within the state supported operating
budget. This would require a revamped state budget agreement that stipulates that the FTE for
these out-of state students will not count toward the generation of the NSHE budget request to
the state and hence will not be part of the formula calculations. Additionally, an agreement with
the state that specifies a cap on the percentage of out-of-state students within any given
institution is wise under this model. Secondly, the Board of Regents has approved a policy that
allows differential fees to support high cost or high demand programs to supplement what is
currently generated by the existing formula. These fees will be institution specific and include
some set aside for financial aid to assist those students most impacted by the additional cost. All
differential fees will be retained by the institution and will not be included within the state
supported operating budget. Third and longer term, in partnership with the legislature, we
propose that we examine how our biennial budget request is built. Specifically, we should ask
whether a budget model where the state agrees to fund a specific portion of the agreed-upon
formula with the remaining portion supported with student fees is a better model. That portion of
state and student responsibility will vary by institutional mission. For example, it is likely that
the community colleges and perhaps the state college would receive greater state support in
terms of an overall percentage of the institution’s budget versus the universities. A model such
as this could be included in the final recommendations of the MGT Study currently underway,
and, if accepted by the legislature, would make the Letter of Intent unnecessary.
b. Rainy Day Fund. In the past three years, we have seen the negative impact of large unexpected
decreases in state support for higher education. To assist if and when this happens in the future,
we recommend that the legislature create an NSHE Rainy Day Fund with a combination of state
appropriations and unspent end-of-year funds within the NSHE state supported operating budget.
Rather than have unspent dollars revert to the general fund, such funds would be invested
through a Rainy Day Fund. The future use of these funds could occur only within carefully
defined emergency circumstances established in partnership with the State Legislature.
c. The Funding Formula. This is the foundation of our state budget request and defines NSHE
institutional fiscal needs, based on a number of drivers that define cost, primarily the number of
NSHE students. The Presidents and I have asked for a review of this formula and hired MGT of
America to conduct this review. We expect that their report, taking into account many
interviews and comparisons with other state formulas, will result in recommendations for change
to the current formula. Out of this study, we hope we can gain recommendations that set aside or
correct misgivings about the equity of the current formula and create new incentives for
institutional behavior that reward outcomes rather than just inputs.
2. Goals. It is time for NSHE to set measurable goals and report the results to the people of Nevada.
Such goals should be aligned with the broader strategic goals of the State and support the brighter future
we need.
a. More Graduates. We must produce more entry-level graduates if Nevada is to become
competitive and more economically prosperous. The State’s participation in Complete College
America is evidence of the political will to accomplish this. The proposal before us is that
NSHE, in concert with private colleges and universities, will produce 1,064 more college
completers each year through 2020, a total of 70,224 more graduates than our current practice
would produce. We define college completers as students who receive a workforce certificate of
achievement, an associate’s degree, or a baccalaureate degree. Make no mistake about it – this
goal will require significant changes in how our institutions do business, some of which are
discussed in this plan. Unless NSHE institutions are strongly committed to efforts that improve
recruiting, retaining and graduating students, we will not meet this aggressive goal. Likewise,
the state’s partnership will be critical in assuring resources to enable students to receive the
classes and support they need to graduate.
b. More External Funding - Research. NSHE needs the State of Nevada to partner with the three
research institutions to establish a model to coordinate and fund research initiatives designed to
bring high tech, high wage businesses to Nevada in sectors which are consistent with the state
goals of economic diversification. Obvious targets for research technology transfer areas that
should be the focus for Nevada include green technologies and renewable energy, water and
natural resources, and biotechnology and health care. NSHE stands ready to do its part in this
endeavor, but Nevada is overdue in establishing a clear commitment to the importance of
research. One excellent model would be the State of Utah which established the Utah Science,
Technology, and Research (USTAR) Economic Development Initiative to bolster Utah’s
research strengths and significantly increase technology commercialization to create many higher
caliber jobs throughout the state. With strong commitment from the State, institutions can
increase their external funding for research by 10% annually. This commitment by the State and
the System of Higher Education can form the basis for a more vibrant, diversified and indeed an
export economy that we have all talked about to this point.
c. More External Funding – Workforce Grants. The colleges, as well as the research institutions,
will be enabled and encouraged to seek entrepreneurial ways of doing business. Increasing the
amount of external grants and contracts received to support workforce development initiatives is
critical. Proposed as a goal is an increase in the amount of those contracts and grants, by each
college, of no less than 10 percent per year going forward. We ask also that the State support
these efforts through the establishment of incentive and matching funds for external grants and
contracts. Additionally, there are likely savings and advantages in turning the receipt, processing
and program operation of a number of Federal funds that currently flow to the State Department
of Education or to the Department of Employment, Training, and Rehabilitation over to NSHE.
One example to look at would be the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Grant
funds.
3. Effectiveness and Efficiency. In both academic and in administrative areas, change will be required to
improve operations by careful review and the establishment of best practices. Within NSHE, both selfexamination and use of data to make decisions are expected. This is not a budget-cutting strategy, but
an excellence strategy. Any savings will be redirected to build quality.
a. Accelerated Degree Programs. Establish programs with financial incentives and academic
support for cohorts of students to finish certificates and degrees quickly.
b. Credit Limitations on Degrees. Set standards for degree requirements not to exceed 120 credits
for a bachelor’s degree, 60 credits for an associate degree, and 30 credits for a certificate of
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
achievement except under certain circumstances. Numerous examples exist across the country
of such degree limitations. Texas went as far as to put it in statute that without a “compelling
academic reason,” a degree may not exceed 120 credits (Texas Education Code § 61.0515).
Among others, the university systems of Georgia, Maryland, Mississippi, Montana and
Tennessee have all limited degree programs to 120 credits unless justification can be made for
more. We are confident that faculty will engage in examining all areas where quality student
learning outcomes may be gained in fewer credits – which translates to less cost and time for
students and more graduates for the state.
Low-Yield Programs. Ensure that all academic programs have realistic parameters for a
program’s continuation if low numbers of graduates (and few service courses) exist. This is
particularly critical for high cost graduate programs at the universities. This critical examination
is already happening at NSHE institutions, but it must become a regular and expected review,
and policy changes to put more teeth into the review are needed.
Redesigned Courses. Redesign remedial and general education courses and use new models for
instruction where research indicates that greater student learning and success at less cost or less
time are achieved through alternate methods (i.e. using technology to focus attention on the skills
students need for college-level courses that are self-paced and not lockstep with classmates).
NSHE colleges and universities have already begun this process and will continue aggressively
going forward. As we review the adequacy of our funding formula we must be sure that these
new methods are encouraged and funded, not excluded as might be the case now.
Incentives for Decreased Time to Degree. Target use of tuition and fees to build incentives for
students to complete college sooner, such as guaranteed fee levels up to a certain number of
credits or penalties for students who drop or repeat classes.
Part-time Faculty. With any increased use of adjunct or part-time faculty for instruction, put in
place the appropriate quality assurance mechanisms, such as prescribed course content,
mandated end-of-course assessments, in-class observations of adjunct/part-time faculty
instruction, and student evaluations.
Articulation and Transfer. In addition to the current work of the NSHE Articulation Board and
Regents’ policy, institutions need to work bilaterally, as needed, to ensure that credits transfer
under 2+2 and 3+1 agreements, that students consider carefully the advantages of completing
associate degrees prior to transfer, and that with these degrees, students are guaranteed admission
at the junior or senior level, ready to move forward toward a baccalaureate degree. Community
colleges will continuously monitor articulation agreements with NSHE institutions and other
post-secondary institutions so students transfer efficiently to four-year institutions.
Reinvestment of Efficiency Efforts. Develop a process whereby we report transparently how the
savings from our efficiency efforts are being used to create excellence within each institution.
As NSHE changes its culture and practices to operate more effectively and efficiently, these
dollars should be reallocated to areas where high need and the possibility of enhanced success
exists. Included in these efficiency efforts will be the launch of a major initiative to examine all
business functions, including, but not limited to purchasing, HR, payroll, that may result in the
consolidation of certain functions across the state. These efforts must be underscored by setting
a target of decrease in percentage of total expenditures for Operating/Maintenance and
Administration. Likewise, the examination of all common support services for quality and
efficiency will occur. Included in this will be System Computing Services, libraries, and
security/campus police services.
4. Financial Aid. Increasing financial assistance and scholarships for students is not just a matter of
maintaining access for low income students and their families. The state can ill afford to keep growing
the more expensive pathway of lifelong dependence on the state through social services and corrections,
when, for a much lower cost, education provides a robust and positive outcome for both individuals and
state budgets.
a. Focus on Student Access and Success. Quality institutions provide quality opportunities for all
students who are making education a priority and have the clear goal of obtaining degrees and
certificates that will make them well-educated and workforce ready. This requires that we focus
our services and our limited financial assistance on students whose needs are well defined and
who are on a track to success. The ongoing project with the University of Southern California
Center for Urban Education and WICHE will help identify the key places and individuals who
can succeed if institutional behavior supports them. Changes in institutional practice and
targeted financial aid have to be a high priority.
b. Policy Strategies Related to Affordability. Affordability is not just about tuition and fee costs; it
is also about a student’s ability to pay relative to their income and financial aid. Efforts must be
made to increase the percent of total disbursed financial aid that is need-based, and goals must be
set to hold us accountable.
c. Focus on Taking Full Advantage of Federal Financial Aid Funds. Currently, too many low
income students, particularly at our community colleges, do not apply for federal financial
assistance, thus leaving on the table needed support for their college aspirations. Within our
efforts on college access and success, we must focus on encouraging these students and their
families to apply for federal assistance and set goals to increase the participation rate among our
students.
d. Low Income Students and Tuition and Fee Increases. We ask that we consider a variety of
strategies to hold low-income students harmless to cost increases for a maximum of four years at
the universities and state college and two years at the community colleges to encourage full-time
enrollment.
5. Partnerships. All NSHE institutions must look to the efficiencies and economies gained by moving out
beyond our campuses and old ways of doing business and gaining new partnerships.
a. State-NSHE Partnerships. Where we see quality and cost savings that can be achieved through
reworking our agreements with the State, we will aggressively pursue executive and legislative
conversations to implement change. We will seek flexibility with responsibility for wise
decisions for Nevada. For example, the relationship must continue to be evaluated to ensure that
there is value added at every point in the chain of decisions by which we design, fund, manage,
and build public works.
b. High School Students. Early involvement with higher education by high school students is
generally associated with a strong college-going culture. In partnership with our Nevada high
schools, we will need to focus on more dual enrollment courses, early testing, and fast track
programs modeled on current 2+1 technical education agreement with school districts. In
addition, we must examine every place where public and higher education interface to make sure
that the maximum consistency and efficiency exists between the two. Areas for examination
would include not only dual programs and facilities use, but close coordination to engage
business, minority communities, our unacceptable dropout and remediation rates, the sharing of
common data, and the like. Partnership with public education must stop being a catch phrase and
become a way of doing business.
c. Business and nonprofit sector. We will pursue such partnerships at every level within
institutions where appropriate to build student opportunity, internships and employment,
synergies for quality operations, and potential cost savings.
d. Facilities. More intense use of existing buildings and classrooms will be required as the state’s
ability to fund new construction is limited in the immediate future. Distance education strategies
alone will not be sufficient. After institutions have reviewed again their maximum and optimal
use of classrooms, as enrollment grows, partnerships with school districts, hospitals, libraries,
and businesses to acquire classroom space will be encouraged. For example, the new state-of art
career and technical academies in Las Vegas might be available in late afternoons and evenings
for our use.
6. Accountability. Whether to the citizens of Nevada, our students, our faculty, the Governor, or
legislators, good information must flow that enables confidence to be built around the excellent job
being done throughout NSHE.
a. Student Success. The National Governor’s Association recently proposed several completion
metrics that will measure outcomes and progress for all states to use in the national effort to
increase the number of Americans with a college degree or certificate. The outcome metrics
include degrees and certificates awarded, graduation rates, transfer rates, and time and credits to
degree. For progress metrics, the NGA suggests: enrollment in remedial education, success
beyond remedial education, success in first-year courses, credit accumulation, retention rates,
and course completion. These reliable metrics are designed for all state leaders to use to gauge
whether policies are successful and to help inform funding decisions. NSHE must
wholeheartedly join efforts like this, such as the Voluntary System of Accountability (VSA), an
initiative by public 4-year universities to supply basic, comparable information through a
common report – the College Portrait, and a similar effort for community colleges developed
under the direction of the American Association of Community Colleges - Voluntary Framework
for Accountability (VFA). Both UNLV and UNR currently participate in this VSA project.
b. Attention to Quality and Improvement. Goals must be set for continuous monitoring of all
business and service functions going forward. Such reporting and examination of the
implications of good and reliable data must become a way of life for NSHE, building a culture to
question every operation about whether it is the best way to proceed. The iNtegrate project has
allowed us to begin that culture change in Student Services, and it will be the foundation for this
change occurring in business and in personnel practices. Funding for these additional modules
will be essential as we move forward.
This Plan will give institutions a margin of excellence and added flexibility in these difficult fiscal times. Both
the State of Nevada and NSHE will receive significant value-added benefits. For the state, public higher
education grows as a critical asset, invaluable to every citizen and inextricably woven into the fabric of each
community. When a question or policy issue arises, people will turn first to our institutions and have
confidence that our assistance is both available and excellent. Every faculty member and administrator will
view themselves as servants for the broader good of Nevada – the true meaning of our “Service” mission.
Likewise for students, our institutions will offer excellent and clearly defined educational pathways with stateof-art instruction and support. Students deserve to have full confidence in the value of any degree or certificate
from our colleges or universities. Finally, and importantly, for the taxpayers of Nevada, we commit to a method
of doing business that pledges value received for support given, with appropriate accountability and
transparency. This Plan moves higher education in Nevada forward in difficult times to make the critical
decisions necessary to ensure such success.
Agenda
Desert Research Institute
2010-2011 Faculty Senate
Meeting No. 5
SNSC (182) - NNSC (Stout B) Video-conference
September 14, 2010
3:00 PM – 5:00 PM
1.
Roll Call
2.
Approval of Minutes
3.
Chair’s Report
4.
Committee Reports
(Action)
(Information)
5. Program and Budget (Roberts)
(Information)
6. Bylaws (Albright)
(Information)
7. InfoTech (Susfalk, Roberts)
(Information)
8.
Computer Security
(Discussion)
9.
NSHE Legislative Plan
(Discussion)
10.
Conversation with UNLV Faculty Senate Chair, Dr. Cecilia Maldonado
11.
New Business
12.
Announcements
13.
Adjourn
14.
Executive Session