Content
Members Present: Bradshaw, Button, Clarke, Gay, Gonzales, Hanrahan, McLean, Nelson, Sharif, Tschetter, Van Den Wymelenberg
Members Absent: Combs, Cressler, Eklund, Heng-Moss, Henson, Jemkur, Mueller
Note: These are not verbatim minutes. This is a summary of the discussions at the Academic Planning Committee meeting as corrected by those participating.
1.0 Call
Hanrahan called the meeting to order at 3:04 p.m.
2.0 Approval of March 25, 2026 Minutes
Hanrahan asked if there were any revisions to the minutes. Gay stated that he had minor revisions. Hanrahan noted that the minutes were accepted as corrected by Gay. The minutes were then approved unanimously.
3.0 Are the minors in Geology and Meteorology being put on pause?
Hanrahan stated that he thought these minors were to be eliminated with the department. Button stated that the minors are not being eliminated but they are being put on pause to allow the curriculum to be revamped. He noted that the faculty in the School of Natural Resources and the faculty in the College of Arts and Sciences will need to determine the curriculum for the minors. He stated that the students will be able to complete the minor and the intention is to bring the program back by fall 2027.
Hanrahan asked if the Board of Regents were made aware that the minors would remain. Button pointed out that this information was included in the budget reduction proposal that went to the Board.
Hanrahan asked where the minors will reside. Button pointed out that administratively this has yet to be determined. Hanrahan noted that some of the faculty members in Earth & Atmospheric Sciences are being retained but they will need to have a home department. Button stated that faculty will follow existing campus process for changes of tenure home.
4.0 Our Bold Path Forward
4.1 Pillar Two: Extraordinary Research and Creative Activity
Gay emphasized the need for specific content in Pillar 2 and pointed out that if the goal is to advance excellence in research and creative activity one way to achieve this is to hire talented faculty and to provide adequate startup funds for them. He stated that increasing graduate student stipends to be competitive with other institutions is another way to make improvements.
He noted that when he first came to UNL faculty he received 6% back from indirect costs generated through research funding, but he said that much of these funds now go to other things. He stated that providing some fraction of these indirect costs back to the faculty member conducting the research would help to incentivize and advance research and creative activity.
Hanrahan stated that he would like to see a bullet that directly addresses creative endeavors. He suggested that outcomes for the arts and humanities could include national visibility, community engagement and taking the arts to areas throughout Nebraska. He suggested there be more coordination between the arts and humanities and Extension which could help faculty in these disciplines connect more with people in communities across the state.
Hanrahan suggested creating a center to bridge STEM and the arts. For instance, he noted that having a center could allow faculty members who see voice issues for some people to connect with someone in the STEM fields and together they could find creative, unique, human-centered solutions to the problems. He pointed out that that this would take some funding, perhaps from the Foundation. Gay noted that some faculty members in Physics are collaborating with Theatre Arts faculty members, and he believes they received about $600,000 to support the collaboration. Hanrahan suggested that robotics could possibly benefit by studying how the body moves by working with the dance program.
Van Den Wymelenberg stated that creative activity should have a couple of bullets that could be defined as nurture and spotlight creative activity that enhances quality of life and community vitality within the state of Nebraska and how we see it contributing to our cause and our mission. He stated that another aspect is innovation, which could be making a video of the agricultural innovations and research created at the university and how it benefits the people of the state. He pointed out that the video could then be shared with State Legislators and Extension would be perfect with sharing that information. McLean reported that there are three and four-minute videos that show agricultural research extension throughout the state and for every district in the state there is a pride sheet that Extension sends out to the local senators that shows the activity that is being done in the research and extension facilities in their district.
Van Den Wymelenberg suggested that two of the bullets could be reorganized such as evaluation criteria and guidelines associated with top-tier universities and the fourth bullet talks about aligning promotion and tenure criteria to incentivize faculty members. He pointed out that we may want to evaluate our processes, so they are more internally process oriented, for instance, aligning promotion and tenure criteria.
McLean stated that there needs to be a bullet about promoting and engaging industry-sponsored research and we need to be more open to industry relations. He pointed out that having industry-sponsored research can also create a connection between the industry and students for their workforce which could lead to scholarships for students to go into that industry. He also noted that most people think federal funding is our number one source of funding but suggested that funding from NGOs could be included in the framework. Van Den Wymelenberg suggested that bullet two should also address having a faster way to execute industry friendly contracts and flexible IP arrangements.
4.2 Pillar Three: Extraordinary Partnerships and Engagement
Gay stated that bullet one was missing partnering and engaging with high schools. He noted that Ag leadership does a great job of engaging and recruiting students through FFA and 4-H Youth Development, but more faculty need to get out and visit high schools and speak to the students. He stated that outreach is a part of a faculty member’s responsibilities. Bradshaw noted that he has great experience working with high school teachers in the western part of the state and the experience was helpful to the high school teachers as well.
Hanrahan suggested changing bullet one to read student support by strengthening relationships and support systems. He stated that the language could frame some of the engagement work of the faculty as giving back to the community and the state rather than just focusing on recruiting.
Van Den Wymelenberg noted that he is not sure leveraging the Carnegie designation is what our stakeholders care about. He thinks people care more about what the university does to help the relationship with the community. He suggested having a new bullet that states that we work to elevate community engaged work for every legislature district. McLean stated that the Carnegie designation needs to be more clearly defined for the public.
McLean pointed out that Extension is not mentioned in the engagement section at all. Gonzales reported that at the IANR all hands meeting there were many comments stating the Extension needed to be added. He pointed out that only UNL has Extension and it needs to be included in this pillar.
Bradshaw asked if there is a strategic way to connect our service work or bridge professional degrees or practitioner degrees even though they are not counted for AAU metrics. He pointed out that this would speak strongly to our values with professional degrees like veterinary, audiology, and plant pathology. He noted that we are very much focused on trialing, trialing phase and management and our discovery portfolio could partner with degrees that do count, like PhDs and postdocs.
Sharif stated that in this age of AI we need to build more trust which is not listed at all. She questioned how we build trust with the public and trust in higher education institutions. She stated that it might be more relevant to pillar one, but she thinks it is more important than ever. Hanrahan stated that some reasons why students are not interested in coming to the university are due to economics. He stated that going into a trade can enable students to get a credential quickly. Bradshaw noted that Plant Pathology has a program that is self-supported and there is 100% placement program. He pointed out that while trust is important, outcome plays a big factor for the students as well.
Gonzales asked how we build trust with the public. Sharif suggested informing people about what we are doing with federal funds could help. She stated that we should use resources with different stakeholders in the community to develop relationships which would help build trust. Bradshaw stated that Extension helps the university to connect to the stakeholders, which leads to trust. McLean stated that it is the sustained relationship that is crucial. He noted that doing research to share it with our stakeholders is an example of a sustained relationship. Bradshaw stated that developing a relationship with growers takes time but personal communication and attending local board meetings helps to build that trust. Van Den Wymelenberg noted that the College of Architecture is involved in community and experiential learning but pointed out that it needs to be done carefully, and mentorship about doing this well is important.
Sharif stated that we need to think about how we can change assessment. Hanrahan suggested that we also need to consider mode of delivery. He stated that if we are going to market ourselves, we have to show how we can be beyond micro credentials, which is not mentioned in the pillars. McLean stated that part of this is with leveraging and sharing. He pointed out that the university does not sell enough to the public that students with a college degree typically have a better level of living, live longer, and are healthier.
McLean noted that there is a gap in bullet three, engagement partnership with our state legislator. He pointed out that we do have an active federal relations team and we need to determine how we can take advantage of the relations the team has developed.
Harnahan stated that pillar five will be discussed at the April 22nd meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 4:21 p.m. The next meeting of the APC will be on Wednesday, April 22, 2026. The minutes are respectfully submitted by Karen Griffin, Coordinator.