Content
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES
Present: Baesu, Gorman, Gruverman, James, Leiter, Pierobon, Reddi, Reimer, Robison, Shrader, Timmerman, Tschetter
Absent: Lewis
Date: Tuesday, September 22, 2026
Location: 203 Alexander Building
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 2:34 p.m.
2.0 Announcements
2.1 Message from Interim Chancellor Ankerson Regarding AAUP Letter to AAU
Leiter reported that Interim Chancellor Ankerson sent an email message assuring everyone that the administration is concerned and working on protecting the reputation of the university after the letter that was sent by the President of the AAUP encouraging the AAU not to readmit UNL. The letter stated that UNL’s budget reduction actions eliminating departments and firing tenured faculty members damages the campuses’ ability to be a leading research institution.
Reddi questioned whether UNL is showing progress in the right direction to get readmitted to the AAU. He suggested that President Gold and Interim Chancellor Ankerson be asked to present their plan for how we can get readmitted into the AAU. Leiter stated that President Gold and Interim Chancellor Ankerson are both willing to come and speak with the Faculty Senate, but their schedules may not permit them to meet until the December 1st meeting.
3.0 Approval of September 15, 2026 Minutes
Leiter asked if there were any further revisions to the minutes. Hearing none, he asked for a motion to approve the minutes. Reddi moved and Tschetter seconded approval of the minutes. Motion approved.
4.0 Unfinished Business
4.1 Determining Questions for Faculty Feedback with Microsoft Form
Pierobon reported that he has the Microsoft form ready, the Executive Committee just needs to decide what questions should be on the form. He pointed out that at this time, only the Faculty Senators will have access to the form which will be on the Faculty Senate webpage, and they will need to log in if they want to access the form.
Reddi asked when the launch time would be. He suggested the QR be displayed at the next Senate meeting.
4.2 Request from ASUN on Bill on Low-Cost Course Materials
Reimer stated that she thanked ASUN student Troy Kalhoff for his concerns about requesting faculty members use of low-cost course materials for their courses. She noted that she explained that it was not in the Senate’s purview to enforce such a request, but the Executive Committee is identifying people to speak to the Senate about the STAR program. Robison pointed out that Professor Fraser Riehle from the University Libraries would be happy to share information and answer questions on STAR and OER, noting that the timing would be good since the OER grant deadline is currently planned for just before Thanksgiving break. The information about the STAR program will be presented at the November 3 Faculty Senate meeting.
4.3 Problems with Teaching Evaluations
Shrader stated that it was asked of him whether the initiative he suggested to look into suspending the use of course evaluations until another mechanism can be found should be made into a motion to present to the Faculty Senate. He pointed out that he has been made aware by several faculty members that they are receiving on occasion course evaluations that personally attack the faculty member. Some of these faculty members have reached out to the administration to see if these evaluations can be expunged from their record but they have been rebuffed from several different offices of the administration. He stated that he thinks the university should be committed to the mental health of the faculty.
Gorman stated that he found in the Regents’ Bylaws:
Each college or school shall provide a mechanism by which students have an opportunity to report their perceptions of courses and the methods by which they are being taught, provided however, that such mechanism shall protect members of the faculty from capricious and uninformed judgments (BOR Bylaws, 5.3).
He suggested that faculty members should be able to apply to a committee within the college to have an egregious evaluation expunged from their record.
Shrader and Gorman stated that they would work on creating a motion for the Faculty Senate to consider. Tschetter stated that course evaluations need to focus on constructive criticism to help improve a course. Reddi suggested that the Faculty Senate be asked whether verbiage should be included when course evaluations go to students that they are to keep the evaluations professional and that capricious language would not be allowed.
5.0 New Business
5.1 Report on Meeting with President Gold and Interim Chancellor Ankerson
Leiter stated that he told President Gold and Interim Chancellor Ankerson that there was a lot of concern from faculty members about Athletics being out of control. The recent incident with the Athletics Director speaking to Governor Pillen about building a conference center and hotel next to the stadium, without the University system’s knowledge, furthered that feeling and fueled some people to have doubts about the President’s leadership abilities. He reported that President Gold and Interim Chancellor Ankerson assured him that AD Dannen was spoken to by several different people in the upper administration about the incident.
Leiter noted that there was also discussion about AI and how the decision was made to go with ChatGPT and whether faculty input was sought before the decision was made. President Gold and Interim Chancellor Ankerson stated that the decision was made by ITS. Leiter pointed out that there are numerous concerns with ChatGPT and that the faculty, even those serving on UNL’s Information Services and Technologies Committee, were not informed until after the decision had been made. He told them both that there are some real communication problems with the systems office.
5.2 ASUN Request to Discuss Undisclosed Use of AI by Professors
Leiter reported that an email message came in from the ASUN Internal Vice President about wanting to speak to someone about the undisclosed use of AI by professors. Reddi pointed out that the concern seems to be whether students are getting information from an expert in the field versus asking AI. Gorman noted that there have always been commercially available tools to assist instructors with teaching. Pierobon stated that faculty members are responsible for their materials, and they can use whatever they want, provided the materials are up to the professor’s standards and that they stand by it. He pointed out that a faculty member is hired on their expertise. Reddi stated that the tools professors use to set up a class is up to the instructor, and there are existing policies in place that protect the students.
Tschetter wondered if students think AI is being used as a grading tool. Pierobon noted that an instructor cannot upload student materials for grading with AI. Gruverman stated that the students are primarily concerned about being graded by AI, but we do not want AI to do the grading and this needs to be reflected in our response to the student. He pointed out that it is the discretion of each instructor whether to use AI in the production of information for the course, but it needs to be within the guidelines of the university. Leiter stated that he would craft a response to the student.
5.3 Robocalls on University Phones
Pierobon reported that there seems to be a high number of incidents of robocalls being made to university phones. He stated that he contacted IT to ask if there was a way to filter these calls but was told they are unable to do this. It was suggested that Pierobon contact CIO Haugerud about the problem.
5.4 Problems with SSD Hours and Final Exams
Baesu pointed out that the final exam schedule is determined by the university, but there are some students who have accommodation that allows them extra time to take an exam. The problem is that the SSD office does not stay open past 5:00, which does not allow these students who have an afternoon exam time to complete their exam. She noted that this is just for finals week and questions why they can’t have someone in the office past 5:00. James suggested that a person working in the office could be given flexible work hours during that week, which would allow the office to stay open without having to pay someone overtime.
Tschetter noted that the testing center is no longer large enough and is not meeting the needs of the faculty. Pierobon reported that it is also difficult to book the testing center.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:32 p.m. The next meeting of the Executive Committee will be on Tuesday, September 29, 2026, at 2:30 pm. The minutes are respectfully submitted by Karen Griffin, Coordinator and Ann Tschetter, Secretary.