Content
University of Nebraska – Lincoln
Academic Planning Committee
August 19, 2026
Minutes
Members Present: Belser, Bradshaw, Burkey, Gay, Gonzales, Hanrahan, Harvey, Heng-Moss, Henson, Lindquist, Marron, Nelson, Savaiano, Schneider, Sharif, Shrader, Smith
Members Absent: Kain
Guests: Professor Kate Brooks, Professor Mark Balschweid
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
Bradshaw called the meeting to order at 3:02 p.m.
Bradshaw noted that this was a special meeting for the APC to consider the naming of the School of Agricultural Social Sciences and Analytics and only those items listed on the agenda.
2.0 Introduction of New APC Members
Bradshaw had everyone introduce themselves and reported that Belser, Burkey, Harvey, Kain, Lindquist, Marron, Savaiano, Shrader and Smith were all new members on the Committee.
3.0 Approval of May 13, 2026 Minutes
Bradshaw pointed out that VC Heng-Moss and EVC Button had some revisions to the minutes, and he asked if there were any further revisions. Lindquist noted that the proposals to establish a school for both the mergers of Agricultural Economics and Agricultural Leadership, Education, and Communication, and Plant Pathology and Entomology were both approved at the May 13th meeting, but he questioned why only the name for the school for Ag Econ and Ag LEC was being voted on today. He stated that he protests this because it does not make sense that the APC should vote on one school’s name and not the other.
Gonzales stated that Clarke had moved for the APC to vote on the school’s name for Plant Pathology and Entomology, but the motion failed. Gay questioned whether there was as much opposition at the time against the name of that school in comparison to the opposition that was made to the proposed school name of Agricultural Social Sciences and Analytics. Gay pointed out that at that time there was no proposed name for the school for the Plant Pathology and Entomology merger, but there are concerns now from other units. Lindquist noted that at the May 13th meeting there was a formal objection to the name of the School of Agricultural Social Sciences and Analytics, but no formal objection had been received to the School of Plant Health and Insect Sciences. Lindquist reported that Professor Mamo, Chair of Agronomy and Horticulture, sent a letter objecting to the school’s name. Griffin reported that the letter was sent to Interim Chancellor Ankerson. Gonzales pointed out that the APC approved the proposal for Plant Pathology/Entomology without the school’s name and the APC’s approval was forwarded to the Chancellor with the understanding that the proposed name of the school would be included in the proposal that Interim Chancellor Ankerson would consider.
Bradshaw asked if there was approval for the minutes. Gay moved and Schneider seconded approval of the minutes. The minutes were approved by the APC.
4.0 Proposed Name of New School Agricultural Social Sciences and Analytics
4.1 Presentation from Professor Kate Brooks, Director of the New School, and Professor Balschweid, Agricultural Leadership, Education, and Communication
Bradshaw noted that at the end of the May 13th meeting, the APC agreed to meet over the summer to consider and vote electronically either for approval or disapproval of the proposed name of School of Agricultural Social Sciences and Analytics. The meeting was to be held after Ag Econ/Ag LEC reached out to other units for broader engagement and to get additional letters of support. He reported that the electronic vote did not occur due to the lack of a quorum, which was the reason for this special meeting. He stated that both Schools technically launched on August 17th with the timeline approved by the Board of Regents. He pointed out that what did not happen was the adoption of a formal name. He stated that the APC’s recommendation would not be the final word on the name, but the Committee’s recommendation would go to Interim Chancellor Ankerson, then to Provost Jackson, President Gold, and finally to the Board of Regents.
Bradshaw stated that Brooks and Balschweid were going to provide context on how the faculty in the new school considered the proposed name. Brooks reported that the faculty came together and spent a considerable amount of time getting to know one another and to develop a shared identity and vision to think about what they wanted this new school to represent. She noted that the last part of the process was developing a name for the school. She pointed out that approximately 60 possible names were identified, and these were discussed in various faculty meetings, through survey feedback, and at a spring retreat. She stated that on April 15th there was a faculty vote that was taken and the name was chosen. She pointed out that when the APC tabled the committee’s recommendation, it allowed the proposed name of the school to be broadly socialized with other units on campus. She stated that responses to the socializing of the name resulted in positive support and concerns. In particular, the College of Arts and Sciences raised concerns over the use of social sciences, and the College of Business raised concerns about the use of analytics. She reported that all the feedback was shared with the faculty and a meeting was conducted in June to see if the faculty wanted to reconsider the name due to some of the feedback that was received. She pointed out that there was thoughtful discussion about whether the name should be reconsidered but in the end the faculty felt that the original name was still the best.
Gay noted that he, Henson, and Harner (Staff Senate representative) served as the APC representatives on the merger process. He reported that there was collegial discussion at the meetings, which were very well run, and he did not see any problems with the process. He pointed out that numerous school names were suggested and none of them seemed very good, but he thought the name being proposed today was better. He noted that the response from the two departments to CAS’ concerns was detailed and well thought out. Henson concurred and stated that throughout the process things were handled democratically and intentionally.
Shrader pointed out that there were a number of comments about the use of analytics in the title, although he noted that most departments use analytics. He asked why analytics was part of the name. Gay stated that Agricultural Economics is the analytic component of the school.
Smith asked if any of the proposed names do not include social sciences. Brooks stated that there was a name, but she pointed out that most other universities use social sciences, and it was felt that using agricultural social sciences delineates the program.
Belser pointed out that those faculty members in the arts are used to the word “arts” being appropriated pretty much everywhere, an example being liberal arts. He noted that he has studied for 25 years and has had both NSF and NIH grants based on social sciences, cognitive science in particular and no one questioned his ability because he was an artist. He pointed out that he would never call himself a cognitive scientist, but he is blending cognitive science with the arts which are being done these days. He stated that while he understands the protective sense about the social sciences, he does not imagine that students would get confused with the name of the new school because it states agricultural social sciences, and he does not think any unit can own analytics because it is a methodology.
Bradshaw added that the departments being merged followed the APC guidelines for mergers carefully and they had to do it in a very short period of time. He pointed out that the APC guidelines on mergers do not address the naming of merged departments or colleges, and noted that the departments focused on the faculty governance issue to make sure it was protected in the merger.
Schneider stated that he is an agribusiness major and understands that the name of the school is agriculturally motivated. He stated that he believes the name of the school is a perfect fit and that it matches the courses being taught. He pointed out that he does not think that students will be confused by the name and that they know that it is a degree program within CASNR. Gay stated that as the APC representative on the merger process, he found the CAS’s argument against the name weak. He moved that the name be accepted as proposed. Motion seconded by Schneider. The motion was approved with 15 in favor and 3 against.
5.0 Update on Other New School Formation Process (Entomology and Plant Pathology)
Gonzales noted that at the May 13th meeting the proposal to merge the departments was approved but at that time, the name of the school had not been determined yet. He pointed out that Clarke had moved for the APC to vote on approving the name, but the motion failed at that meeting. He stated that since the May 13th meeting the name Plant Health and Insect Sciences has been identified and it is under consideration at the Interim Chancellor’s level since the approved proposal was sent to her for consideration. He noted that Professor Mamo, Chair, Agronomy and Horticulture, wrote a letter to the Interim Chancellor, expressing concerns about the proposed name. He stated that for future mergers, the APC’s guidelines on mergers need to be updated to address proposed school or college names.
6.0 Other Business
Bradshaw asked if there were any other agenda items to discuss. Gay asked how much budget cutting we must do this year. Button reported that due to the Governor’s mandate to reduce the university budget, UNL will be holding back $13.9 million in facilities maintenance and upgrade to classroom technology, as outlined in an email message that was sent by Interim Chancellor Ankerson. Gay asked about the $8.9 million system deficit. Schneider noted that this is a system deficit and that the tuition increase should help address this short fall.
Button pointed out that work continued during the spring semester to refine the indicators that will be used to view how departments are performing. He noted that the team is finalizing the indicators and working on developing a website, and he pointed out that they need to attend an APC meeting to talk about the next stage of our development with the indicators.
Button stated that the subcommittee is working on possible revisions to APC related documents, including the review of academic programs. He stated that there needs to be consistency with how this is done and the APC needs to provide feedback on it.
The meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m. The next meeting of the APC will be on Wednesday, September 9, 2026. The minutes are respectfully submitted by Karen Griffin, Coordinator.