Content
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES
Present: Gorman, James, Leiter, Lewis, Pierobon, Reimer, Robison, Tschetter
Absent: Baesu, Gruverman, Reddi, Shrader, Timmerman
Date: Tuesday, October 20, 2026
Location: Nebraska Union, Platte River Room North
Note: These are not verbatim minutes. They are a summary of the discussions at the Executive Committee meeting as corrected by those participating.
______________________________________________________________________
- Call (Leiter)
Leiter called the meeting to order at 2:34 p.m.
2.0 Update on Work of APC (Professor Bradshaw, APC Chair)
Bradshaw noted that he provided a copy of a report to the Executive Committee summarizing the work that the APC has been doing since late August. He stated that he would provide three highlights of the Committee’s work. The first is the academic restructuring of Agricultural Economics and Agricultural Leadership, Education and Communication into the School of Agricultural Social Sciences and Analytics. He reported that during the August meeting there was discussion about merger procedures and the need to review and possibly revise them. He stated that secondly, a subcommittee of the APC has been working on revising the APC section of the UNL Bylaws. He noted that once the APC has approved the proposed revisions, the document will need to go to the Faculty Senate and ASUN for approval before the Chancellor could submit it to the system office for Board of Regents approval.
Gorman asked why the UNL Bylaws on the APC were being changed. Bradshaw stated that some things are out-of-date, adding the Staff Senate President or designee is being proposed, and there has been some discussion about voting. Gorman pointed out that the UNL Bylaws currently states that all members vote on all motions. Bradshaw stated that there is an element of discussion about who should vote and whether some elements of it should be in the operating procedures rather than the Bylaws.
Bradshaw stated that another area in the Bylaws that the subcommittee is considering is the financial exigency and significant budget reductions section and how the APC should interface more with the ELT in these situations. He stated that the APC has had discussions about budget oversight and becoming more involved with the ELT when budget reductions are being considered. He stated that the APC is discussing whether the Committee’s Long-Range Planning Committee could be involved with the budget reductions or whether a new standing committee needs to be created. He noted that the APC discussed the need for more transparency and information with the budget. Leiter pointed out that there has been an unfinished Senate agenda item calling for the creation of a budget committee. During discussions with the ELT there was concern that a budget committee would duplicate the work of the APC. He suggested that there is an opportunity for the Faculty Senate and the APC to work together to get more access with the campus budget.
Bradshaw pointed out that the APC is an advisory committee only in that it makes recommendations to the Chancellor. He stated that the APC is trying to rectify this by establishing what the role of the APC is, what the Faculty Senate’s role is, and how we can work together to have true shared governance with the ELT. Bradshaw stated that he believes communication between the APC and Faculty Senate Executive Committee have been better since the Faculty Senate Past President has been serving on the Committee.
Leiter asked what the relationship is between the APC and the Faculty Senate. Bradshaw reported that the APC was to facilitate the performance of the duties of the Chancellor as specified in Section 2.8 and 2.9 of the Regents Bylaws and Section 1.2 of the UNL Bylaws. The Committee reviews academic programming including program proposals and proposals to eliminate academic departments.
Bradshaw reported that Interim Chancellor Ankerson met with the APC and charged the committee with updating the Bylaws and operating procedures and creating rubrics to review proposals. He noted that she was advocating for a more accurate and stronger role of the APC in academic planning.
Gorman stated that it is not clear that the APC is to report on policy. He noted the Committee has independent authority, but it acts as an advisory committee to the Faculty Senate, but the relationship is complicated and multifaceted. He suggested that the Faculty Senate and the APC should work more closely together on reviewing and providing feedback on the program indicators.
Lewis noted that getting things approved by the Board of Regents can be a difficult task. Bradshaw pointed out that Interim Chancellor Ankerson strongly supports the revision and she was encouraging the timeline to get the proposed revisions to the Bylaws completed by December. He stated that he is hoping that tomorrow’s meeting of the subcommittee will be its last one and then the APC could vote on the proposed revisions to the APC.
Tschetter stated that the APC and the Faculty Senate Executive Committee should meet more periodically. Bradshaw agreed and stated that he would be happy to meet with the Executive Committee again. Tschetter suggested having Bradshaw speak to the Executive Committee after the APC voted on the revised UNL Bylaws.
3.0 Possible Policy on Grading Conflict of Interests (AVC Marks)
AVC Marks asked what we do with faculty members who have a family member in one of their classes. He noted that the Board of Regents’ policy on nepotism is more about employment rather than addressing it academically. He pointed out that the Faculty Senate has an Ethics Statement, but he is looking for the possibility to develop a direct policy, and he wanted to get the Executive Committee’s opinion on this. He believes that the intent is that there should be some kind of management with these cases. He reported that the typical approach has been some management plan where another faculty member grades the work, but there have been cases, although minor, of some faculty members resisting this plan.
Gorman asked how often this kind of situation happens. AVC Marks stated that he has not conducted an audit, but he knows of two cases this semester. Tschetter said that she believes it is a problem and that there should be some kind of policy, although acknowledged that it may not always be enforceable.
AVC Marks pointed out that the Regents Bylaws has a clear policy which says that there must be a management plan in cases of nepotism and another person must be identified as being the decision maker. Gorman pointed out that this arrangement could be difficult in small departments because the faculty member may be the only person who can teach a particular class that their family member needs to take to complete their program.
AVC Marks stated while the number of incidents is small, there could be potential problems. For instance, if the student is on a scholarship and must maintain a certain GPA, and they take a class from a family member, the family member may give the student an A which would benefit the family financially. He believes the situation can be resolved with the student taking a different section of a course, if available, or taking a course that is similar. He pointed out that he is not suggesting that the student should be prevented from completing their program or not be able to take a class that they want, but someone else needs to do the grading for that student.
AVC Marks asked what the alternative would be. Gorman stated that you should trust the ethics of the faculty member. Reimer noted that someone may not think of the potential ramifications that could occur if others found out that the instructor was grading their own family member.
Gorman suggested using the department’s grade appeals committee. AVC Marks stated that he is 100% in keeping it in the hands of the faculty and he believes that 99.9% of our faculty are trustworthy. His preference would be to allow the departments to figure out the correct mechanism.
Tschetter noted that we may be seeing more of these cases of students taking a class from a family member because of the current economy. She believes that having a policy would be needed to avoid any potential problems. Pierobon agreed and pointed out that having a policy would protect the student from any complaints by other students in the class.
AVC Marks stated that while the Senate’s Ethics Statement is good, it does not represent a policy or decision tree of what should be done if there is a situation where a faculty member is teaching a family member. He asked how we empower chairs to deal with the situation. Pierobon stated that as a principle, the conflict needs to be removed. It doesn’t mean that we don’t trust the faculty member, but we need to protect the faculty member and the student. You don’t want the other students to treat the student differently and he believes having a strict policy could be beneficial for everyone. Gorman pointed out that we don’t want to stigmatize the students and they may want to take the course to be with their friends.
Reimer asked if it would be possible to have a cafeteria style list of options for the student and the faculty member of what they can do instead of having the faculty member grade the student. Perhaps see if the student could take a complementary course on one of the other campuses. This would enable the student to have say in the dilemma.
AVC Marks stated that he would be happy to draft a policy and bring it back to the Executive Committee for review.
4.0 Announcements
No announcements were made.
5.0 Approval of October 13, 2026 Minutes
Approval of the minutes was postponed until the ELT had a chance to review the minutes.
6.0 Unfinished Business
6.1 Next Step for Teaching Evaluation Motion
The Executive Committee agreed that since Shrader was unable to attend the meeting due to travel, to postpone the agenda item.
6.2 Faculty Feedback
Pierobon reported that we have six responses to the feedback form which he would share with the Executive Committee. James asked whether the plan was to share these with the Faculty Senate, and how do we address the concerns raised. Leiter suggested that a summary of the comments could be presented to the Faculty Senate. Gorman stated that the feedback form could ask something specific, or they might be asking for advice and how to handle it. He noted that in these cases, we need to respond to them.
7.0 New Business
7.1 December 8 Executive Committee Meeting
Griffin noted that Interim Chancellor Ankerson will not be able to meet with the Executive Committee on December 8th. She asked whether the Executive Committee feels it needs to meet with the Interim Chancellor on December 15. The Executive Committee agreed that if an issue arises, that Leiter could meet with the Interim Chancellor during finals week.
7.2 January Executive Committee Meeting Schedule
Griffin asked the Executive Committee if it wanted to meet on January 5th. Leiter suggested that we schedule a meeting, but if not needed it could be cancelled.
7.3 Faculty Senate Voting on the Program Indicators
Gorman stated that the Faculty Senate should vote on the program indicators. He noted that the administration may not want to listen to the Faculty Senate, but the vote would be on the record. The Executive Committee agreed to discuss the idea further at its next meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:47 p.m. The next meeting of the Executive Committee will be on Tuesday, October 27, 2026, at 2:30 pm. The minutes are respectfully submitted by Karen Griffin, Coordinator and Ann Tschetter, Secretary.