Content
Present: Gorman, Kopocis, Leiter, Lewis, Pierobon, Reimer, Robison, Shrader, Timmerman, Tschetter
Absent: Baesu, Gruverman
Date: Tuesday, July 28, 2026
Location: Nebraska Union, Big Ten Conference Room
Note: These are not verbatim minutes. They are a summary of the discussions at the Executive Committee meeting as corrected by those participating.
1.0 Call (Leiter)
Leiter called the meeting to order at 2:33 p.m.
2.0 AVC Goodburn
2.1 Proposal for Undergraduate Curricular Review for Degree Programs that
Utilize Courses Across UNL and UNMC
AVC Goodburn reported that Provost Jackson convened a committee to develop a proposal for a governance structure that would be charged solely with reviewing proposals for new and changed undergraduate programs that share curriculum across the UNL and UNMC campuses. She noted that she and Kendra Schmid (UNMC) co-chaired a work group comprised of both UNL and UNMC administrators and faculty members. She noted that UNL representatives were Professor Greg Bashford, Registrar Steve Booton, AVC Goodburn, Associate Dean Griffin, Professor Kopocis, Associate Dean Nelson, Director Patty Sollars, and Professor Ann Tschetter.
AVC Goodburn reported that the committee met four times during the spring semester and several principles were identified: 1) uphold system-level authority while preserving campus expertise, 2) a commitment to faculty primacy and shared governance in curricular processes, 3) faculty-led initiation and review of proposals for new and changed undergraduate programs which will utilize current UNL and UNMC campus processes through their respective college and campus levels, 4) ensure accreditation andprofessional program standards, and 5) ensure representation from both campuses. She stated that the committee first discussed processes for new courses but determined that the current UNL curriculum process already generates a list of courses in process each month and that this list can be shared with UNMC department chairs and college deans. She pointed out that the committee felt that each campus should weigh in on their own courses, but it would be useful to have more information sharing about courses across UNL and UNMC to identify opportunities for collaboration.
AVC Goodburn noted that the curriculum committee processes on new or substantially revised programs at UNL and UNMC are quite different. UNMC develops their curriculum in their department, and the decision goes directly to their college dean and then their Office of Academic Affairs while UNL develops proposals from the department level through the college level and then to the Academic Planning Committee. However, it was felt that there needs to be governance weighing in from both campuses for new or revised programs that would utilize both UNL and UNMC courses. As a result, the suggestion has been to develop a new curricular committee that would consider these joint programs. She reported that the idea was to have a committee that would consist of two faculty members and an administrator and the faculty members would be appointed by an administrator. She stated that the chair of the committee would alternate annually between UNL and UNMC. She pointed out that the idea is that the APC approval would not be required since UNMC does not have a similar body. Shrader asked if UNMC is opposed to creating a committee similar to the APC. AVC Goodburn noted that UNMC has a separate system which is highly decentralized and they are not interested in creating a committee similar to APC.
Pierobon asked if there is a mechanism in place to identify duplicate courses. AVC Goodburn noted that currently there is no mechanism across the university’s campuses for identifying duplicate courses. Pierobon stated that he is concerned that there may not be an oversight entity particularly since we are looking at joint programs. AVC Goodburn stated that this is a reason for having chain of control for consideration of joint UNL and UNMC programs. Gorman pointed out that the administration has repeatedly stated that with the joint accreditation there will be no changes to shared governance, yet this proposal is in fact making changes because it is bypassing UNL’s approval process.
Reimer stated that from a curricular efficiency perspective she agrees with Pierobon’s concerns. She noted that if we are going to be accredited as one institution it will be difficult to justify duplicate courses to the accreditation agency. AVC Goodburn pointed out that the proposal being discussed states that the chain of control is for each campus to retain its level of authority. She specified that if a UNMC program wants to use a UNL course or vice versa, there needs to be shared decision making to ensure there are the resources and infrastructure to support the courses.
Leiter noted that if a department at UNL wants a new program it would still need to be reviewed and approved by the APC, but with this proposal the APC would not be involved in the process when there is a joint program between UNL and UNMC. However, he pointed out that in reviewing the proposal more broadly it seems that the APC is being removed from the approval process for all programs. AVC Goodburn stated that only the joint programs with UNMC would be removed from being reviewed and considered by the APC. She stated that all other regular UNL programs would still be required to go through the APC process.
Shrader asked if the two + two-year program identified in the proposal would not be considered a regular program. He asked if UNL is teaching students in this program. AVC Goodburn reported that a current public health program proposal is to have a two + two-year program where students would take two years of courses at UNL and two years of online courses with UNMC.
Shrader stated that UNMC is saying that they will not go through an intermediate level of consideration, but we are required by the UNL Bylaws to do that at UNL, and now the System office wants to create this new entity for approving joint programs, but they are not telling UNMC they have to have a similar process. AVC Goodburn pointed out that the goal is to create a better process that will enable UNMC courses to be utilized for UNL programs. Tschetter pointed out that the two campuses have very different processes for approving programs. She noted that it felt like UNMC was dictating how the process should work but there are a lot of concerns that need to be considered.
Lewis noted that there was essentially a memorandum of understanding for the joint accreditation was to improve our ratings and enrollment numbers and to make sure that UNL was given credit for students who transferred into programs such as the nursing program. She pointed out that the merger no longer looks like a convenience anymore because now there is a request to create this entity. AVC Goodburn stated that the charge she and Kendra Schmid were given was to identify opportunities to leverage expertise on both campuses for new programs that would be in the best interest of students across the state of Nebraska. She pointed out that this could include collaboration that would allow some of our students to participate in undergraduate research experiences with UNMC. She asked what processes should exist to help facilitate the joint programs and collaboration. She noted that currently UNL students and faculty cannot get access to UNMC resources.
Gorman pointed out that from parliamentarian procedures, the proposal is illegal and he believes there would be a significant fight from the Faculty Senate because of the bypassing of approval from the APC. He stated that there is no real faculty representation in the plan as written and faculty members should not be appointed by an administrator. AVC Goodburn asked for feedback on what could work. Gorman stated that anything is possible as long as it went through the APC, or some elected faculty body. Griffin noted that the faculty members of the APC are elected by the faculty body. Reimer stated that the UNL representatives on the joint committee must be elected by the faculty. Shrader stated that we should not accept a committee where the faculty members are appointed by an administrator and an administrator chairs the committee.
Robison pointed out that appearance of the committee is really important as we try to rebuild trust in the shared governance process. Gorman stated that the Faculty Senate President could appoint the members from the APC. He pointed out that UNMC would need to preserve their own bylaws in identifying faculty members to serve on the joint committee.
AVC Goodburn asked if there could be a subcommittee of the APC or whether there should be a new committee outside of the APC. She suggested that if there is a subcommittee the APC could review the proposal along with members from UNMC.Gorman suggested that this might work and AVC Goodburn said that she would revise the proposal with this feedback in mind and, after consulting with the work group, bring it back to the Faculty Senate Executive Committee again. She reported that she is also meeting with the APC chair in September.
Tschetter stated that people don’t know who to talk to about collaborating with UNMC and most people do not understand the joint accreditation. AVC Goodburn reported that Interim Chancellor Ankerson and Chancellor Davies are organizing a joint meeting at the end of September to allow faculty members to share ideas and hopefully to provide information on how collaboration will work.
3.0 Announcements
3.1 Executive Committee Retreat
Griffin reminded the Executive Committee that there will be a retreat on August 21 for the Committee to work on identifying its goals for the 2026-2027 academic year.
4.0 Approval of June 30, 2026, and July 14, 2026 Minutes
Griffin reported that she has not received a reply from the Chancellor’s office on the draft June 30 minutes. The Executive Committee agreed to postpone approval of the minutes until the Interim Chancellor has responded.
Leiter asked if there were any revisions to July 14 minutes. Hearing none, he asked for approval of the minutes. Tschetter moved for approval. Motion was seconded by Reimer and approved by the Executive Committee.
5.0 Unfinished Business
5.1 Identify Actionable Steps for Rebuilding Trust Report
Tschetter stated that the group working on writing the report has not met yet, but a meeting is being planned, and she and Reimer will provide an update.
5.2 Faculty Senate Diversity and Inclusion Committee
Shrader noted that the dilemma about the Senate’s Diversity and Inclusion Committee has not been addressed. He reported that the System office made an inquiry about the DI Committee during the spring semester wanting to know whether it was still operational. He suggested maybe reviewing the charge of the committee and said that the Executive Committee should ask Interim Chancellor Ankerson if there is any pressure from the System level to remove the committee.
6.0 New Business
6.1 AI Institute and Academic Freedom Concerns
Pierobon reported that he reviewed emails from Professor Gailey who raised concerns about the AI Institute being funded by Google which could influence the university’s institutional policy towards its industry, and he stated that he agrees with her concerns. He noted that he has been trying to meet with the directors of the AI Institute and pointed out that we need to understand the structure of the Institute and how it is funded.
Pierobon noted that in the School of Computing he and his colleagues use extensive AI models in research but there is not a common AI service for our campus. He noted that our campus should have an enterprise which would allow us to have our own model around our data center which would not allow data to go out to the public and we could run it without having to pay any licenses. He stated that the AI Institute should promote for us to create our own model and suggested that the Institute should talk to someone from the School of Computing about this. He pointed out, not only could we save a lot of money, but we could also use the creation of it as a research project.
Griffin asked if the Faculty Senate’s recently revised syllabus policy which requires an instructor to identify whether AI can be used for a class or not, would provide some protection for faculty members in the use of AI. Pierobon stated that it would to a certain extent but if the AI Institute creates a policy, it could possibly override the Senate’s policy.
Pierobon stated that he plans to meet with the directors of the AI Institute and will contact Professor Gailey about her concerns.
6.2 Proposed Big Ten University Mutual Defense Compact for the Protection of Tenure
Lewis noted that the proposed draft came through AAUP channels and the proposal seeks to commit Big Ten universities to having each other’s back when severe budget cuts are on the horizon. Gorman noted that the policy is not enforceable and while the collective action is a good idea, the proposal was selflessly and poorly written. He questioned whether any other Big Ten universities have voted to approve the proposal.
Lewis stated that she would send the concerns back to AAUP.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:25 p.m. The next meeting of the Executive Committee will be on Tuesday, August 11, 2026, at 2:30 pm. The minutes are respectfully submitted by Karen Griffin, Coordinator and Ann Tschetter, Secretary.