Content
Presidents John Shrader, Rich Leiter, and Pete Eklund, Presiding
1.0 Call to Order
President Shrader called the meeting to order at 2:31 p.m.
President Shrader welcomed everyone to the final Faculty Senate meeting of the academic year. He noted that Interim Chancellor Ankerson sends her regards, but she cannot be in attendance today because she must be in Omaha to take care of university business, but Executive Vice Chancellor Button will be speaking.
President Shrader noted the that last 12 months have exhilarating, sometimes frustrating, and always interesting. He noted that we have been through a lot together, and he expects that we will have plenty more to do coming up. He pointed out that you don’t really know what you are getting into when you run for President-Elect and you never know what cards you will be dealt, but what has made it a pleasurable experience for him over the past 12 months has been the monthly Senate meetings, the weekly Executive Committee meetings, and the meetings on the books and off the books with campus and university leadership, and the people in the room.
First, he wanted to say that we could not, would not, do this work without the indefatigable, the backbone of this operation, Karen Griffin. Thank you. He noted that the Executive Committee spends a lot of time together, and honestly, you all know not all committees are created equally, but this committee has been collaborative, it’s been earnest, it’s been dependable, and oftentimes a whole bunch of fun and he appreciates and thanks all of the Executive Committee members.
President Shrader noted that some forces, both internally and externally, have made the work of the Faculty Senate even more important, and maybe as important as ever. He thanked all the Senators for their attention to details, their interest in doing the work well, and doing it the right way and said it has been a pleasure serving as their President. He pointed out that President-Elect Leiter will be taking over as President during the meeting, but he noted that he will continue to be outspoken as he serves as Past President.
2.0 Announcements
2.1 Welcome New Senators
President Shrader welcomed the following new senators: Luis Othoniel Rosa, Modern Languages & Literature; Nathan Huynh, Civil & Environmental Engineering; Nirupam Aich, Civil & Environmental Engineering; Shubhendu Bhardwaj, Electrical & Computer Engineering; Katie Anania, School of Art, Art History & Design; Stanley Kleppinger, Glenn Korff School of Music; Michelle Harvey, Johnny Carson School of Theatre & Film; Christian Elowsky, Agronomy & Horticulture; John Fech, Extension Engagement Zone 9; Sarah Karle, College of Architecture; Andrew Zimbroff, Textiles, Merchandising, & Fashion Design; John Brunero, Philosophy; Julie Schultz, Extension Engagement Zone 5.
Senators who have been re-elected: Joseph Baumert, Food Science & Technology; Devin Rose,Food Science & Technology. The Post Doctoral Association Representative is Moushumi Hazra.
3.0 Executive Committee Elections
3.1 President-Election
President Shrader noted that Professor Reimer, Glenn Korff School of Music was running for President-Elect. He then asked if there were any nominations from the floor either from those thatwere in person or from those online. Hearing none he asked the Faculty Senate to approve by acclamation. Hearing no objections, Professor Reimer was elected by acclamation.
3.2 Secretary
President Shrader noted that Professor Tschetter, History, was running for Secretary. He then asked if there were any nominations from the floor either from those in person or online. Hearing none he asked the Faculty Senate to approve by acclamation. Hearing no objections, Professor Tschetter was approved by acclamation.
3.3 Executive Committee Members
President Shrader reported that Professor Kopocis, Durham School of Architectural & Construction Engineering and Professor Robison, University Libraries, were running for election to the Executive Committee. He then asked if there were any nominations from the floor either from those in person or online. Hearing none he asked the Faculty Senate to approve by acclamation. Hearing no objections, Professor Kopocis and Professor Robison were approved by acclamation.
3.4 Extension Education Member
President Shrader noted that Professor Timmerman, Extension Engagement Zone 2, was running for the Extension Educator position on the Executive Committee. President Shrader noted that Professor Tschetter, History, was running for Secretary. He then asked if there were any nominations from the floor either from those in person or online. Hearing none he asked the Faculty Senate to approve by acclamation. Hearing no objections, Professor Timmerman was approved by acclamation.
3.5 Academic Planning Committee Non-Tenure Track Faculty
President Shrader stated that a non-tenure track faculty member from the Faculty Senate needed to be elected to the Academic Planning Committee and Professor Savaiano, Special Education & Communication Disorders, was running for election to this position. He then asked if there were any nominations from the floor either from those in person or online. Hearing none he asked the Faculty Senate to approve by acclamation. Hearing no objections, Professor Savaiano was approved by acclamation.
President Shrader wanted to acknowledge the Executive Committee members who whose terms have ended on the Committee. He sincerely thanked Past President Eklund, Professor Vakilzadian, Professor Bearnes for their service noting that they all have been honest and earnest contributors to the Faculty Senate’s work.
President Shrader noted that his work as President is now complete and he was turning the gavel over to Professor Leiter, the new President of the Faculty Senate. President Leiter then presented Past President Shrader with gifts from the Faculty Senate and thanked him for his work and his leadership. He then recognized Professor Reimer.
Professor Reimer stated that she was pleased to offer the following resolution;
A Motion of Gratitude and Commendation for President John Shrader
WHEREAS, as the term of President John Shrader draws to a close at this meeting, the Faculty Senate finds it fitting to formalize a record of his exceptional service during a period of unprecedented institutional challenge; and
WHEREAS, the past year has been defined by a failure of leadership within the campus administration, creating an environment of instability and institutional drift; and
WHEREAS, President Shrader refused to adopt a posture of passive observation, instead choosing to confront administrative negligence with directness and integrity; and
WHEREAS, when local administrative channels proved unresponsive or incapable, President Shrader took the courageous step of bringing campus-level leadership failures directly to theattention of the System Administration; and
WHEREAS, when campus leadership chose to yield to external political extremism and turned a cold shoulder to our marginalized students, staff, and faculty in a calculated retreat, President Shrader stood firmly and resisted this policy, pushing back at the System level to defend our commitment to the idea that every person and interaction matters; and
WHEREAS, President Shrader continuously defended the independence of the Faculty Senate, resisting administrative interference in the workings of faculty governance as established by the Board of Regents; and
WHEREAS, during the institutional crisis surrounding the motion of no confidence in campus leadership, President Shrader demonstrated flexibility and statesmanship, always seeking resolutions that would restore sound leadership while protecting the reputation and dignity of the University and its faculty; and
WHEREAS, campus administration has repeatedly failed in its fundamental duty to publicly and forcefully defend the faculty against baseless partisan accusations of indoctrination and irrelevance, despite repeated calls to do so; and
WHEREAS, in the face of this administrative silence, President Shrader willingly stepped to the microphone, serving as an eloquent spokesman for the professoriate and forcefully countering these stereotyped attacks against the professionalism of the faculty and the importance of its mission;
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the Faculty Senate expresses its deepest gratitude and highest commendation to John Shrader for his transformative leadership; and
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Senate recognizes President Shrader’s tenure not merely as a term of office, but as a vital defense of the University itself, and we offer this commendation as a formal record of our support for his methods, his message, and his "straight-talking" resolve.
Secretary Tschetter seconded the motion. Professor Gorman, Parliamentarian, noted that the rules allow for resolutions of commendation to be voted on immediately. President Leiter asked if there is any objections to adopting the resolution by unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, the resolution is adopted by unanimous consent.
4.0 EVC Button
EVC Button thanked everyone for the opportunity for him to meet with the Faculty Senate. He noted that this has been a highly tumultuous and painful year for the campus and stated that there are certain ground truths to anchor oneself, especially during times when there are growing levels of public distrust and direct assaults to higher education. However, he pointed out that higher education plays a role in building, sustaining, and perpetuating a pluralistic, democratic society. He stated that he believes deeply in the purpose and mission of UNL because it has long embodied qualities that make higher education and public-land grant universities worthy of trust. He noted that the university is committed to the widest possible access and equal opportunity to education.
He noted that academic freedom and the responsibility to honor the equal freedom of others are the fundamental correlates of our entire enterprise. He pointed out that we recognize that giving back to the people of Nebraska and its communities is more than just an institutional obligation, it is in fact embedded in the identity of what it means to be a Husker. He noted that research universities remain a fulcrum of opportunity and human achievement, fundamental discovery, economic innovation and we are also vital sources of the future of our democracy.
EVC Button pointed out that the end of the spring semester gives us a chance to reflect and recognize the outstanding achievements of our faculty, staff, and students. He stated that 95 faculty members are achieving promotion and/or tenure this year and in about a week approximately 3,800 students, both undergraduates and graduate students will graduate.
EVC Button noted that the 2025-26 academic year saw unprecedented disruptions to federal support of research, innovation, and creative endeavors, and deeply painful academic program closures and reductions in force. He pointed out that UNL has been buffeted by the samegovernmental, economics, demographic, and technological forces that are roiling higher education institutions across the country and around the globe. However, the diversity of perspectives and the dispersed wisdom of faculty, staff, and students are among our greatest ongoing institutional strengths. Therefore, it is essential to proactively engage, listen, and bring these insights to bear in setting institutional priorities. He encouraged Senators to engage with the Our Bold Path Forward process noting that comments and information can be found online https://chancellor.unl.edu/our-bold-path-forward/.
EVC Button noted that UNL has a rich history and sound set of practices and processes for robust shared governance, but he and the Academic Planning Committee have seen opportunities to make changes to some of the processes. He stated that he is trying to build trust, bolster communication, and believes there needs to be more transparent and consistent information on the budget. He pointed out that he continues to advocate strongly for public assistance to support UNL and noted that we will always be stronger when we work together.
Professor PeeksMease, Sociology, stated that when EVC Button was Dean of CAS he made some productive comments about there being a well-being survey, in part to see how under-represented faculty and staff were experiencing things at the university, and that the information from the survey would be shared by chairs and deans. He asked if there is any possibility of a well-being survey for faculty and staff being conducted now. EVC Button pointed out that with the budget reduction process, other important work was pushed aside, but he stated that he would like to see a survey conducted on an annual basis and he would like to have this as an item to work on in September.
Professor Rumann, Educational Administration, pointed out that the university needs courageous leadership rather than bold and asked how the EVC sees his role and asked what is being done for the faculty that are losing their jobs due to the budget reductions. EVC Button appreciates the question and noted that not everything that he does is visible, but he reported that he continues to advocate strongly and persistently at both the system level and at the legislature for support of UNL. He pointed out that the budget reductions were due to a continued under investment in UNL.
He stated that for those faculty members who are losing their jobs, he advocated that the university provides these faculty members with an 18-month notice. He reported that 12 tenured faculty members were retained and there has been an extension to the contracts for some faculty members.
He stated that there have been recent conversations about engaging a search firm to help those faculty members who are looking for a new position elsewhere.
Professor McElravy, Agricultural Leadership, Education, and Communication, noted that he has seen the relationship between the EVC and VC of IANR change over the years and asked if EVC Button can describe the relationship between the positions. EVC Button stated that he has always valued the relationship with IANR and he has had a strong relationship with VC Heng-Moss since there were both deans. He stated that having a clear alliance between Academic Affairs and IANR is critical to the university and the state.
Past President Shrader noted that the EVC mentioned working on continual transparency with the budget process and asked how this would be manifested internally and publicly EVC Button stated that we don’t always have clear insight into where we are during the year relative to what we said our budget would be, and what we actually are experiencing with the budget at the moment.
He stated that in part some of this is due to our enterprise systems which need to be updated. He stated that decisions would also be better if we had more insight throughout the year, and having stable leadership to provide that information would be needed. He pointed out that the campus was mandated to develop and utilize academic program indicators and to provide an assessment that used data as at least one component of the budget reduction process. He stated that he heard all of the criticisms about the data and told his team that we need to begin looking at how to revise the indicators and how to ensure that there’s far more transparency into the program indicators.
He reported that since January the team has engaged with every academic deans’ team and the DEOs will soon be engaged followed by the rest of the faculty to review to gain input on the revised indicators. He noted that very important refinements to the process will include new data visualization to support data integrity, data transparency, and providing clear alignment with our strategic priorities. He pointed out that the primary aim is to focus on data benchmarking and process indicators at the unit level, raw data assessments relative to key performance indicators, like graduation rates and retention rates, not z-scores and to add additional performance indicators that more accurately reflect the range of contributions that exist on our campus such as creativeactivities and outputs.
Professor Lewis, Teaching, Learning and Teacher Education, noted that she was previously chair of the Chancellor’s Commission on the Status of Women, and reported that Chancellor Bennett did not meet with the Commissions. Given that the Gender & Sexuality Center has closed and with DEI being dismantled, how is the administration going to make sure that faculty, staff, and students feel like they belong. EVC Button stated that we are campus that is committed to ensuring that everyone flourishes. He reported that he is committed to being at every meeting and he is happy to be involved with the Commissions. He stated that VC Anderson is changing the delivery of service that the Gender & Sexuality Center provided, but not the commitment behind offering the services.
Professor Lewis pointed out that there are certain things that the different Commissions can advocate for and she encouraged the administration to not combine the Commissions. She noted that a well-being survey was conducted when Chancellor Green was with UNL, but the survey results were not shared, even though there was nothing particularly controversial about the results. She said that sharing the results would help with building trust. EVC Button noted that he shared the same frustration with not seeing the results when he was dean.
Professor PeeksMease asked if EVC Button believes that removing the Gender & Sexuality Center was the right thing to do, and he asked who actually authorized the removal. EVC Button stated that he believes in trusting our colleagues that they are going to maintain services as they navigate fiscal hard decisions. He pointed out that we are operating in a new and different space which requires us to find a balance in our core beliefs.
Past President Eklund stated that something that is confusing to not only the faculty and staff, is reductions are being made but the University is trying to buy Nebraska Medicine from Clarkson Hospital and renovating the stadium at the same time. He understands that donor fatigue is occurring, and people want to know where all the money is coming from to cover these expensivecosts. EVC Button agreed and stated that having more transparency with the budget is important for all of us. He stated that there are very different sources of funding, many of which are one-time donor funds, but there is a different set of constraints for our campus which is why he continues to stress the importance of continuing to advocate for UNL. He pointed out that UNL alone generates $3 billion for our state budget.
Professor Clement, School of Veterinary and Biomedical Sciences, stated that as a trans individual they do not want to work in a place where LGBTQ+A people are not supported and they believe that students feel the same way. They pointed out that the dismantling of DEI and the Gender & Sexuality Center completely alienated huge groups of people. EVC Button appreciated the courage that Professor Clement showed in voicing this concern.
Professor McElravy asked what the EVC sees as the operational budget that is used for actual decision making. He reported that it is his understanding that someone is looking at the cost object numbers to see where the budget stands and he knows there are other people who are doing financial work because it wasn’t being done correctly at the business centers. EVC Button pointed out that it is critically important that everyone has a strong and transparent understanding of their budget and noted that DEOs get monthly reports. He stated that he thinks there would be real value to having meetings where faculty members can see what is going on with the budget, and hecan see this as a very useful campus-wide discussion. He noted that common commitment is needed because when we get a small increase in our budget but utility costs are rising dramatically, it has a significant impact on our budget.
Professor Marya, English, pointed out that the AAUP budgetary audit showed a different perspective of the university’s budget and wondered if the administration is considering the audit.
EVC Button reported that he read the audit carefully and pointed out that there are some things that the audit did not get right. For instance, one-time funds available at the system level were included in the audit. These, and many foundation funds, can only be used for specific purposes, not for general operating budget expenditure.
Professor Marya asked how the EVC visualizes the cultural difference across the campus next year since DEI has been eliminated. She noted that her students are upset and sad about the elimination.
EVC Button stated that the first thing is to listen to the faculty, staff, and students about how we can continue to celebrate everyone’s differences in a meaningful way. He pointed out that the Nebraska College Preparatory Academy is an innovative college access program that prepares first-generation students from income-eligible families for college and their future careers and it has an extraordinary success rate with the program continuing to be robust and strong. He stated that listening to faculty, staff, and students is critical to us finding the best way forward.
President-Elect Reimer asked what the system’s investment is to UNL and how will this be shown in a transparent report. She noted that not only do we need to advocate for UNL, but the university system as well. She asked if the budget reports for FY24 and FY25 can be shared. EVC Button noted that the budget is published every year in the university budget book and can be found at https://nebraska.edu/transparency/budget-fiscal-reports, although he acknowledged that it can be difficult to go through all of the documents due to the length of them. He reported that over the last eight years, the NU permanent state-aided budget has increased by $158 million, 16.6%. UNL’s budget over this time fame has increased by 0.64%. He pointed out that the data has been compiled over multiple years and the information has been shared with the APC and Faculty Senate
Executive Committee and these figures provide you with the perspective of how our campus is being funded as a percentage. He noted that when our budget is only increasing 0.64% and our costs are increasing at a much higher rate, it is fundamental fiscal realities that we have to manage and that we need to reverse. To do this, he stated that we need to be together in telling our story of the impact we make, the importance of investing in UNL, and continuing to advocate for the university.
President-Elect Reimer thanked EVC Button for the information and asked if the expenses in the budget book are drilled down to understandable categories or are they an aggregate of the expenses. She asked if the expenditures could be more clearly explained on faculty costs, administrative costs, and business costs. EVC Button stated that the information could be pulled from the budget, but he pointed out that just providing numbers does not explain everything. For instance, the system’s budget has grown but much of this is due to the centralization of things like ITS and procurement services. He agreed that providing more information on the budget is needed.
Professor Aich, Civil & Environmental Engineering, stated that he appreciates hearing the effort administration is making to build trust with the faculty and to work together, but communications are needed prior to changes being made. He stated that he was working on a budget for a grant and just received notice that the F & A rate was being increased. He pointed out that these kinds of changes need to be communicated beforehand because faculty members have already negotiated their budgets for grants. He noted that overall, there needs to be some sort of transparency and advanced notice for what faculty members can expect in the future. EVC Button agreed and stated that he would want to ask the Office of Research & Innovation when they began communicating information about the increased F & A rate. He stated that VC Nelson would agree that faculty need to be informed of the change and what the impacts of it are. He stated that he believes her office will help faculty members to mitigate the change.Professor Newton, College of Architecture, asked what the next academic year will look like given that the State is now running a budget deficit, and if the EVC does not know, when will you know.
EVC Button pointed out that we are still operating on the current budget, but we do need to pay attention to the Economic Forecasting Board and to what is happening in the legislature. He reported that everyone who is involved in the leadership team of the university, from the system level to the campuses, is working now and will continue to do so during the interim period while the next biennium budget is being worked on, to align and tell the story of the need to invest in this university. He stated that as of now, the university does not have any awareness of any kind of forthcoming additional reductions.
Professor Erickson, Animal Science, stated that advocating the legislature on behalf of the university is great but there are times when the faculty get told they cannot interact with legislators. He stated that it seems that advocating within the university system is really critical since UNL has only had a .064% increase over the past eight years. He pointed out that this slight increase shows a failure in leadership at the UNL level. He questioned how we could advocate more to the system to increase UNL’s budget. EVC Button stated that one thing that can be done is to make sure everyone is aware of UNL’s fiscal story and he is working to make sure the Deans and the ELT are attuned to the challenge we are facing. He stated that he is also advocating to address the university’s budget model which has not really been addressed since the 1970s, and he believes there is a growing awareness and openness to exploring addressing the budget model. He pointed out that we also must be thinking about the political economy of higher education in the state of Nebraska. He noted that there are only two million people in the state and we need to try to figure out how we are going to continue to invest in higher education in the state as a whole. He stated that with what we have in our control, we need to continue to push for a system that sees that investing in an R1 public comprehensive land-grant institution is essential. He stated that the faculty, staff, and student recommendations on how to advocate for this will be helpful.
5.0 Approval of April 7, 2026 Minutes
President Leiter asked if there were any revisions to the April 7th meeting. Hearing none he asked for a motion to approve the minutes. Professor Vakilzadian, Computing and Electrical Engineering, moved to approve the minutes. Motion was seconded by Professor Peterson, Agricultural Economics and then approved by the Faculty Senate.
6.0 Committees
6.1 Convocations Committee (Professor Garcia)
Professor Garcia wanted to thank the members of the Convocations Committee for their work. She noted that the Committee administers a visiting speaker’s program and those interested in getting funding must fill out an application which is then reviewed by the Committee. She stated that application deadlines are April 1st and November 1st and this past year $15,264 was distributed.
6.2 Executive Committee Report (Past President Shrader)
Past President Shrader reported that the Executive Committee met weekly during the academic year and meets every other week during the summer. He noted that this year the Executive Committee met with President Gold several times, and met with the Chancellor, EVC, and VCIANR. He stated that the full minutes for the meetings can be found on the Faculty Senate website https://facultysenate.unl.edu.
6.3 Graduate Council Report (Associate VC Hope)
AVC Hope stated that in the spring of 2025 the MS in horticulture program was deleted and there was a name change in an MS program in Agronomy & Horticulture. She stated that the full faculty voted on changes to the system-wide Graduate College Handbook and the Master of Engineering Management program was designated as a professional program. She noted that the Graduate Council handled two grade appeals.Professor VanderPlas, Statistics, reported that she sent emails on the topic of how UNL is planning to compensate faculty members who are leaving due to their department being eliminated, yet they are helping students to finish their degree. She asked if there has been any recommendation that there be some kind of stipend paid to continue to serve in the role of advisor to students. AVC Hope stated that there has been robust conversation on this topic at the highest administrative level and this is an issue that is very much on everybody’s mind. She noted that we will have to figure out how this will be handled in individual circumstances.
7.0 Unfinished Business
7.1 Resolution to Strengthen Shared Governance and Institutional Trust
President Leiter noted that at the April 7th Faculty Senate meeting a resolution was presented to strengthen shared governance and institutional trust, and the motion was committed to the Senate Executive Committee so the motion could be carried over to our new session beginning on April 28. Past President Shrader then stated that the Executive Committee reports the resolution back to the Faculty Senate with no recommendations. President Leiter pointed out that the proposer of the resolution, Professor McElravy, has the right to speak first, and the President recognizes Professor McElravy.
Professor McElravy stated that he did not feel that he did a very good job of offering the resolution at the previous meeting, and since that time he has worked with Chief of Staff Gonzales, to help revise the motion to establish a path forward. With that, he proposed an amendment by substitution for the entire original resolution, noting that the revised motion was sent by email this morning to the Senate. Professor Vazansky, History, seconded the motion. President Leiter stated that before debate can begin on the substitute motion, it is critical to understand that we allow a process of further amendment on both the substitute version and the original version of the resolution.
Professor Houston, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, suggested the following amendments to the new substitute resolution. The first amendment would be included after line 41and the proposed language reads “In this report, the Interim Chancellor and the Executive Leadership Team must explain how the metrics (academic indicators) used in 2025 as the basis for elimination of academic units will be applied in future unit evaluations. The report must also describe how the accuracy of these or similar metrics (academic indicators) will be validated and what role faculty will play in the evaluation.”
President Leiter stated that the floor is now open for debate on the amendment to the proposed substitute resolution. Professor PeeksMease stated, that while he has high respect for Professor McElravy, he pointed out that the substitute motion has less teeth than the original motion and he asked Professor McElravy why he worked with the Chief of Staff of the administration when writing the substitute motion. He noted that the Faculty Senate is trying to put forth a resolution that identifies that there have been some huge problems in how the budget reductions were made. Furthermore, he asked why the names of the administrators have been removed because doing so does not hold anyone accountable.
Professor McElravy reported that he had been exploring some ideas about other legislation with Chief of Staff Gonzales and during the discussion it became clear that one of his priorities is shared governance and he learned that it was also a priority for Interim Chancellor Ankerson. He stated that he wanted to build on the fact that Interim Chancellor Ankerson has made some progress with improving shared governance and he did not feel that EVC Button, VC Heng-Moss, and Interim VC Nelson, should be held uniquely responsible for the future of shared governance at UNL. He stated that his hope was that having something collaborative could identify a path forward and would be a good steppingstone for how faculty and administrators could work together.President Leiter pointed out that before another amendment is made, we do not have a second yet for the first proposed amendment. Secretary Tschetter seconded the motion. President Leiter asked if there was any further discussion.
Professor PeeksMease pointed out that he does not need an administrator telling him that a message from the Interim Chancellor is shared governance, he just needs administrators to actually do shared governance. He noted that merely sending out email messages does not convince him that they are actually involved in shared governance.
President Leiter asked the Faculty Senate to vote on the amendment requiring the Interim Chancellor and the Executive Leadership Team to explain how the metrics (academic indicators) used in 2025 as the basis for elimination of academic units will be applied in future unit evaluations. The motion was approved overwhelmingly.
Professor Houston stated that he is concerned that the revised wording of the substitute motion puts less onus on the executive leadership team and the interim chancellor and more onus on the collaboration and he therefore is making a resolution to remove the Faculty Senate Executive Committee from collaborating in writing the report. He pointed out that this way the resolution would be more squarely aimed at the executive leadership team and the interim chancellor.
Professor McElravy stated that he is vehemently against this amendment to remove the Executive Committee from collaborating with the administrators when writing the report for the Faculty Senate. He stated that having a joint definition of shared governance is critical, and offering to have the Executive Committee work with the administration is a good will effort. Professor Houston stated that he appreciates the importance of shared governance and believes his amendment placing the responsibility on the Executive Leadership Team affirms their commitment to shared governance.
Professor VanderPlas pointed out that, with or without the amendment, she believes the Executive Committee will be consulted about the report. President Leiter noted that the Executive Committee has already worked with the administration along the lines of shared governance, and he thinks the Executive Committee should be involved in the writing of the report. This amendment failed.
President Leiter then asked for a vote on the revised substitute resolution. The vote on the substitute motion was approved with 44 in favor and 5 against.
8.0 New Business
9.1 James A. Lake Academic Freedom Award Nominations
President Leiter reported that the ballot for awarding three faculty members for the James A. Lake Academic Freedom Award will occur via email starting tomorrow.
9.2 Louise Pound-George Howard Award Nominations
President Leiter reported that a ballot for awarding two faculty members for the Louise Pound-George Howard Distinguished Career Award will be conducted electronically starting tomorrow. He asked that everyone keep the name of the nominees confidential until the voting is completed.
8.0 New Business
8.1 Open Mic
Professor PeeksMease stated that he reached out to Past President Shrader last year about the Faculty Senate’s Diversity and Inclusion Committee because no appointments last year were made to the Committee and the website had not been updated. He pointed out that it feels like the Committee is being phased out, not only by the administration, but by the Faculty Senate itself.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:58 p.m. The next meeting of the Faculty Senate will be held on Tuesday, September 1, 2026, at 2:30 p.m. in the Nebraska Union, Platte River Room and via Zoom. The minutes are respectfully submitted by Karen Griffin, Coordinator, and Ann Tschetter, Secretary.