Content
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES
Present: Gorman, Gruverman, James, Leiter, Lewis, Pierobon, Reddi, Reimer, Robison, Shrader, Timmerman, Tschetter
Absent: Baesu
Date: Tuesday, September 15, 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.
______________________________________________________________________
- Call (Leiter)
Leiter called the meeting to order at 2:30 p.m.
2.0 Information Technologies and Services Committee (Professor Hempel)
2.1 ChatGPT Enterprise
Hempel noted that he chaired the ITSC last year and is again elected as chair for this year. He reported that over the summer there have been reports of the university purchasing a ChatGPT enterprise and when the ITSC met on September 4th AI on campus was the major topic of discussion. He pointed out that CIO Haugerud is a member of the ITSC and attends most of the meetings and hears about the concerns being raised by the faculty.
Hempel stated that ITSC was told the university purchased 12.4 million credits from ChatGPT, and UNL only received 3 million credits with UNO receiving the biggest share of the credits. He reported that those who sign up to use the ChatGPT enterprise will only receive 300 credits, but these only last for a short time for more intensive tasks, and if you use the higher-effort versions of the models it will consume credits even faster. He stated that the ITSC is trying to figure out how the credits can be managed better, and whether there is some flexibility with them, such as limited users being able to give their unused credits to another person. He noted that users do not currently have a way to purchase more credits, pointing out that the account is overseen by ITS which is at the system level. He stated that there are only two approved AI providers on campus and faculty are supposed to use the enterprise-licensed AI services for research related work, but the limited credits constrain the use of the system’s tools. He reported that he will be meeting with Professor Wisnicki and Professor Pitla, directors for the AI Institute on in early October to discuss these concerns with the ChatGPT enterprise license.
Leiter asked what the per cost of the credits are in the ChatGPT enterprise. Hempel stated that he did not know how much the university paid per credit. He noted that an email from Cassie Mallette, Director, Emerging Technologies in ITS was sent out on July 30, provides some detail on the allotted credits, what is included in the core account and the features that require additional credits, and tips for getting the most of your credits.
Hempel noted that the university currently has ChatGPT 5.5 and 5.6 Luna, Terra, and Sol enabled with ChaptGPT 5.6 for medium and high use, as well as GPT 5.5 Pro and 5.6 Sol Pro. He pointed out that more features in the higher models require additional credits. Gruverman asked if the five hours of usage is per month or per week. Hempel stated the 300 credits are per month but it’s really a question of how much you use it effectively. For instance, if you put in a coding task it’s very easy to run through it in a few hours. Tschetter asked if access stops once you use up your credits. Hempel stated that the user would not be able to use the more expensive models at that point, but could revert to the free options within the enterprise plan.
Gruverman asked if people need to apply for use of the ChatGPT enterprise. Hempel stated that faculty must sign up to use it. He noted that there is limited use for students, but Microsoft’s Copilot now also leverages ChatGPT 5.6, so the students have a fairly powerful model with unlimited usage through Microsoft, but only for chat.
Gruverman asked what the benefit is of using the UNL account as opposed to your personal ChatGPT account. Hempel pointed out that the main reason for using the university account is data protection. He stated that the enterprise model protects your data and intellectual property and noted that consumer accounts may retain and train on data unless the user opts out. He reported that basically the enterprise account is the best protection of your data. He pointed out that the enterprise provides the strongest protection of your data because it resides in its own Nebraska University tenant.
Gruverman asked if he uses DcukDuckGo or a browser which is anonymous if that protects a person’s data. Hempel stated that it doesn’t help with data privacy related to AI models because when you use a provider like Anthropic, or Open AI, it still passes through their cloud services to run the LLM to answer your queries, so they still receive your data.
Gruverman noted that in the application form there is a question asking how many licenses are needed and he asked how many faculty can get. Hempel stated that it would depend on your research group needs. If you have several graduate students working on a research project you could include them.
Shrader asked why Open AI, and what the process was for deciding on purchasing the ChaptGPT enterprise. Hempel pointed out that he is not aware of any faculty involvement, and he only found out through the emails from Cassie Mallette. He stated that several faculty members were surprised that we ended up signing a contract with OpenAI. Shrader questioned whether any faculty provided input about purchasing the enterprise. Hempel stated that he does not know if faculty provided input before the RFP for the contract went out. Hempel stated that faculty members receive 300 credits for the entire month to use and then it resets to that amount the following month. Gorman asked if you were just chatting with someone on the enterprise how long the credits would last. Hempel pointed out that it would depend on the ChatGPT model of the ChatGPT and he cautioned faculty to be careful what model and effort level they select.
Pierobon stated that he took the training for using the ChatGPT enterprise and noted that he has some concerns. He pointed out that if you purchase your own account with Chat GPT you think you can use the Chat GPT the same way, but you can’t. Hempel stated that ITS guidance directs faculty to use their enterprise AI account.
Pierobon reported that the training discusses Executive Memorandum 41 which states that AI tools should only be used for research purposes. However, the ChatGPT training says you can use it for planning your vacation and for other personal things, but he strongly cautioned against that because people at UNL will be able to read all that you put into the ChatGPT. He noted that he reported to the Chancellor and EVC last week a problem he encountered with the ChatGPT enterprise wanting him to merge his private account with the university account which he refused to do. He stated that after speaking with CIO Haugerud he was contacted by Director Cassie Mallette who helped fix the situation because he had been locked out from changing the email address on his personal ChatGPT account.
Pierobon pointed out that if a faculty member is doing deep coding or research tasks they are usually done in the work mode of ChatGPT but, the work mode is not enabled for everybody. He stated that he had to contact Director Mallette explaining why he should be able to use the work mode and noted that he had to explain what expertise he had. The problem he stated is that the work mode does not work on the web version, only the app version. He pointed out that people need to get special permission if they are doing deep coding work.
Pierobon noted that he has installed Docker and runs OpenWebUI which gives him an interface which is very similar to ChatGPT. He stated that this is a publicly available model which is totally private. He asked why the university is paying a lot of money for the Open AI when we all have computers that are powerful enough that would allow people to install their own model. He stated that a self-installer could be developed within ITS and it would give them the same ChatGPT interfaces and they can work on the model exactly like they work on ChatGPT, but everything would be done locally. He suggested that people that don’t have a very powerful computer could maybe access resources in the Holland Computer Center. He pointed out that this would eliminate any dependency on external vendors and would give us a lot more power on where we put our data while also preserving privacy.
Hempel noted that if you use your university account through the university’s enterprise account, it is good to realize that the university can see it, and that the university may be subject to public record requests and share what is in your university account. He noted that Work mode and Codex require enabling by ITS and faculty should contact Director Mallette.
James asked what the point is of buying ChatGPT enterprise when we already have Microsoft Co-pilot. Hempel stated that this question has been raised. He pointed out that Microsoft Co-pilot was enabled across the entire tenant after we went through the tenant migration merge, but this could have also been done prior to the merge. He noted that the ITSC had no input into any of the decisions that were made about this.
James asked if there is any online training for using ChatGPT, perhaps in Bridge. She asked at what point is there some kind of information that is going to be given to the faculty about the AI tools that are available and how to use them. Hempel stated that this is a really good point and he will raise this with CIO Haugerud. He reported that ITS is trying to develop a website that will provide that information, but we really don’t have a formal process for onboarding people for using these kinds of tools, currently.
Gorman asked if an RFP was generated for the purchase of the enterprise. Hempel stated that Director Mallette might have this information. Gorman pointed out that there should have been specifications in the RFP and that we should be able to request them. Gorman asked what the Faculty Senate can do to help the ITSC. Hempel noted that currently the Committee has no insight as to how many faculty want to use the ChatGPT enterprise.
Reddi stated that assuming that the ChatGPT enterprise contract is renewable, the faculty need to get involved so there is better stewardship. He stated that it would be helpful to see the actual contract. Hempel noted that he assumes the contract would be filed in the systems office. Reddi pointed out that AI tools are not going away and will always be integrated into life, so it is important for us to get ahead of it in the next cycle. Gorman stated that it looks like the system is limiting research by using the enterprise and this should be presented to the Faculty Senate. Hempel stated that there are a lot of opportunities with AI and cautioned that if we are not carefully considering these opportunities and move in the wrong direction, we risk falling behind our peers.
Leiter asked what our peers in the Big Ten are doing with AI tools. Hempel stated that they are asking a lot of the same questions that we are. He noted that a few universities are trying to run their own models while others are purchasing a model from outside vendors. Shrader suggested that Leiter write a letter to President Gold asking for clarification and transparency about the purchase of ChatGPT enterprise. Lewis pointed out that she has not heard anything about the ChatGPT enterprise and she has had an enormous number of conversations trying to help new teachers and graduate students to navigate AI.
Hempel stated that he would forward the two emails to the Executive Committee that he received from Director Mallette this summer about ChatGPT enterprise. He reported that Chief of Staff Gonzales attended the first meeting of the academic year of the ITSC where some of the concerns about AI were reported. He noted that the Committee will be carefully watching what happens with campus information technology, particularly because of the budget limits and the reduction of funds for upgrading classroom technology.
Hempel thanked the Executive Committee for the opportunity to meet and discuss the issue.
3.0 Announcements
3.1 Contacting President Gold
Leiter reported that he sent President Gold an email expressing the concerns that have been raised about the Athletics Director meeting with legislators to advocate the building of a conference center and hotel adjacent to the stadium and the scheduling of events during the week which causes disruptions for the campus. Leiter noted that President Gold called him and as a result, he will be meeting with President Gold and Interim Chancellor Ankerson on Friday to discuss the concerns that he raised.
Shrader stated that he has concerns about the President’s leadership of the university. He noted that Athletics act as if it is separate entity of the university and that they can do whatever they want. He stated that he is concerned that the athletic director and the governor cooked up the convention scheme, without informing the president or the chancellor and at least some, if not all, members of the Board of Regents. He stated that he would love to hear from any or all these parties directly to tell him that he is wrong.
He pointed out that this situation reflects system leadership. It reflects his concern and many others’ concern about oversight of the athletic department. During the Ted Carter presidency the Board took away the oversight from the chancellor of the campus on which the stadium sits, and whose faculty teaches the students who are husker athletes.
He noted that he fully understands the financial challenges of college athletics since he has been in the sports media business his entire professional career. He pointed out that he is neither ill-informed nor naïve. He stated that the athletic department operates as if they are a separate, independent arm of this enterprise that doesn’t need accountability. And he fears there is too little oversight by the administration of this university.
4.0 Approval of September 8, 2026 Minutes
Leiter asked if there were any further revisions to the minutes. Hearing none he asked for a motion to approve the minutes. Shrader moved and Tschetter seconded approval of the minutes. The Executive Committee voted to approve the minutes.
5.0 Unfinished Business
5.1 Gathering Feedback from Faculty
Pierobon reported that he drafted a Microsoft form that could be used for faculty to submit their concerns to the Executive Committee. He noted that the link can be put on the Faculty Senate website but only UNL faculty would be able to access it. He pointed out that the Committee needs to decide what questions should be on the form.
Timmerman suggested that the form could identify whether the concerns are university, campus, college, or department related. She noted that including categories of concerns such as whether they are academic, morale problems, or business problems would help in sorting out the concerns. Pierobon noted that AI can sort the Microsoft forms by categories.
The Executive Committee agreed to work further on developing the Microsoft form with the goal of having it ready in November and decided that it should first be sent to the Faculty Senators to test it.
5.2 CAS Report on Faculty Morale
Lewis stated that she and Reimer received a report from Professor Werum in CAS and included in the report is a graph that shows the response from the faculty of their perceived support of academic freedom. She noted that the perceived support at the department level was pretty decent, but there is a dip at the college level, another dip at the campus level, and an even further dip at the system level. She stated that this shows a slice of faculty morale. She stated that she would forward the report to the Executive Committee.
5.3 Executive Memorandum 46 Concerns
Leiter reported that he wrote an email to President Gold and Interim Chancellor Ankerson about the concerns with EM 46 that Gruverman raised. He stated that he received a call from VC Nelson, Office of Research and Innovation, who stated that the whole EM 46 policy is being developed and all the details have not been flushed out. She had explained that it is a complex matter and work is being done to develop a better policy. Leiter stated that VC Nelson stated that her office worked with the faculty member Gruverman referred to and they have been able to work around the problem for that faculty member. Leiter reported that VC Nelson is happy to meet with anybody to hear comments or concerns, and she had noted that Professor Bloom, Physics and Astronomy, has been very actively involved with revising the policy.
Gruverman pointed out that in the meantime, the EM 46 policy is in effect, and the problem is that it puts a lot of restrictions on our interactions with our foreign colleagues and on faculty international travel. He noted that the implementation of the policy is completely arbitrary. He stated that something needs to be done quickly with the policy because it is negatively impacting and restricting research. He pointed out that our Compliance and Security division in ORI has been overzealous for years and they have not been helpful at all in responding to the problem. He noted that when specific questions are asked to get clarification of what is and isn't allowed the faculty members don’t get answers, they are just referred to documents posted on their website which is not helpful.
Leiter stated that ORI is working on developing a flow chart which will show people where they are in the process and to allow people to appeal in a systematic way. Gruverman pointed out that a faculty member in his department received departmental and dean level approval, but it was then denied at the president level. Leiter reported that one of the problems is with export control and it is difficult to understand the federal government’s changes in regulation. Gruverman pointed out that these restrictions are not supposed to be applicable to the fundamental research.
Gorman stated that other Big Ten universities don’t rely on contract law. He noted that the EM is based on the fact that the university president has the right to enforce contracts for the university, but they are ignoring academic freedom issues. He stated that the Board of Regents Bylaws require that rules that are approved by the Board must be made in an open meeting, but this is not required for an executive memorandum.
Leiter stated that VC Nelson is willing to speak with us and suggested having her speak at a Faculty Senate meeting. Gorman stated that it would be worthwhile to point out to VC Nelson if there are other Big Ten universities that have a better way of dealing with this issue.
5.4 Initiative To Revisit Faculty Evaluation Process
Shrader stated that he will be offering an initiative to revisit the faculty evaluation process. He pointed out that a faculty member has shared with him comments made by a student on their (the faculty member’s) evaluation. He stated that it was entirely out of bounds and it was bordering on, if not clearly, a violation of the student code of conduct. This faculty member was rebuffed through the entire process at every level of the university process, from the top to the bottom.
Shrader stated that we offer students anonymity in these evaluations; we do not offer a forum for harassment. He stated that this university appears to be more concerned about protecting students’ mental health – and it’s important to protect students’ mental health - than it is in protecting faculty and faculty mental health. Shrader stated that he proposes we suspend the evaluation process until we can find a process that protects both students and faculty.
5.5 Faculty Advisor for ASUN Election Commission
Leiter stated that he received an email from ASUN President Schneider asking for a faculty advisor to the ASUN Election Commission. It was suggested to contact the Political Science department to see if a faculty member would be willing to be the advisor.
5.6 ASUN Email About Low-Cost Materials
Reimer reported that she received an email message from ASUN member Troy Kallhoff who stated that in the Spring of 2025 ASUN passed a bill calling for faculty to encourage instructors to use inclusive access materials whenever possible for their courses. It was suggested to have AVC Goodburn speak to the Faculty Senate about the Star program.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:54 p.m. The next meeting of the Executive Committee will be on Tuesday, September 22, 2026, at 2:30 pm. The minutes are respectfully submitted by Karen Griffin, Coordinator and Ann Tschetter, Secretary.