Content
Members Present: Bradshaw, Clarke, Combs, Cressler, Gay, Gonzales, Hanrahan, Heng-Moss, Henson, Jemkur, Mueller, Nelson, Sharif, Tschetter, Van Den Wymelenberg
Members Absent: Eklund, McLean, Wilkins
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 3:02 p.m.
2.0 Approval of March 11, 2026 Minutes
Hanrahan asked if there were any revisions to the minutes. Gay asked that his comment reflect that having a strategic plan that meshes with the Odyssey to Excellence isn’t anywhere near the top of the list. We are not competitive in recruiting graduate students, which seriously hurts our chances of getting into the AAU. He also asked for clarification about whether there would be a breakdown of elimination of staff personnel versus administrative personnel. Hanrahan asked if there were any objections. Hearing none, he stated that the minutes were accepted as corrected.
3.0 Proposal to Delete the BA/BS in Ethnic Studies
Gay noted that there is no savings from deleting the program and asked why it is being deleting when there is no cost savings, particularly since the program had more majors last year than previously. Button pointed out that the program is not meeting the CCPE required enrollment level and the faculty associated with Ethnic Studies will move from having a split appointment to having a full-time appointment in their home department. He stated that the minor is still being offered and by taking this action we can still maintain the curriculum. Gay asked how active the CCPE is in reviewing whether programs meet the minimum standard enrollment. Heng-Moss reported that the CCPE does an in-depth study of programs and if they do not see improvements, they will take action. Hanrahan asked if there was approval of the proposal to eliminate the program. The APC approved the proposal, ten in favor with one opposed.
4.0 Proposal to Rename Agricultural and Biological Systems Engineering MS Program
Hanrahan noted that the proposal was straightforward. Nelson asked what the reason is for removing part of the name of the current program. Heng-Moss stated that Biological Systems Engineering not only mirrors the department and the undergraduate program, but it also more accurately reflects the scope and focus of the program and research.
Hanrahan asked if there was approval for the proposal. The APC approved the proposal with 12 in favor.
5.0 Proposal to Rename the Biological Engineering Ph.D. Program
Heng-Moss reported that the renaming of the Ph.D. program to Biological Systems Engineering mirrors the department and undergraduate program offerings. The APC unanimously approved the renaming of the Ph.D. program
6.0 Strategic Framework Discussion
Pillar 1: Extraordinary Teaching and Learning
Gay stated that he felt the strategic plan should be bolder and noted that we are already doing much of the bullet points that are identified in the Our Bold Path Forward strategic framework. He agreed with expanding and enhancing accelerated master’s degree programs and expanding access to higher education through expanded statewide transferability.
Hanrahan suggested that we offer some of our basic curriculum online through digital means and at a reduced rate, so we don’t lose out on transfer students from community colleges or state colleges. Heng-Moss asked if this would be aimed at high school students. She pointed out that many high school students are coming in with basic curriculum credits, but Hanrahan’s idea could be an active way to connect with high school students and noted that the idea would be like expanding the Nebraska Now program.
Cressler stated that a couple of the bullet points under this pillar are redundant because they both address development and implementation of inclusive instructional design and pedagogies. Gay questioned who would enhance the instructional design and pedagogy and pointed out that the job of teaching is with the faculty. He stated that if the proposal is to run a tighter ship, we should get rid of the Center for Transformative Teaching (CTT) which is costly to operate, and he noted Chancellor Perlman eliminated the Teaching and Learning Center in a previous budget cut. Hanrahan disagreed, pointing out that he has used the Center and has found it to be valuable. Sharif stated that the Engineering College has a similar center but specifically geared towards engineers and it has been very helpful. Mueller and Tschetter both agreed that CTT was a great resource with Muller noting that CTT is not prescriptive or setting guidelines that a faculty member must follow for their course(s).
Hanrahan questioned what is meant in the bullet point about barriers to access and student success. He pointed out that the terms being used seem to be to get students to finish earlier but not necessarily with the needed skills. Button stated that the reason for these discussions is to hear what the faculty have to say about the bullet points listed under each pillar so revisions and refinements can be made to the framework. He noted that transfer students can have a unique set of challenges and student success can mean many things and we want to ensure that they have the resources to help them be successful. Hanrahan suggested moving this particular bullet to the culture and environment pillar because having it under the teaching and learning pillar might lead faculty members to think about curriculum efficiencies in order to move students through the program faster. Gay commented on the “Review academic policies to remove barriers” bullet and asked if there have been any instances where people responsible for student welfare have identified such barriers but didn’t try to eliminate them. Since he hoped we were already doing this, the bullet point seemed to be little more than nagging. Heng-Moss pointed out that barriers may not be at the local level, they could be at the system or even the state level. Hanrahan stated that we need to call out particular barriers and remove them. Combs noted that barriers can be broad and asked what the monitoring mechanisms are to assess and remediate if the barriers are removed.
Cressler stated that some of the bullets seem open-ended and while there is an idea, there is not a follow-through with what the mechanism would be to achieve the reimagining that is being suggested. He pointed out that in some of the bullets are specific, but others are not and it creates a bit of uncertainty and the inconsistency becomes confusing, particularly with the last bullet point which is about money. Hanrahan noted that access to transformative opportunities often comes down to whether or not the individual can afford to pay for it, such as study abroad. He asked how the university is thinking about this and whether there would be a fundraising campaign to support these kinds of student experiences.
Mueller suggested creating the Nebraska Academy, noting that Syracuse University has something like this where students could take certain classes that were at the 100 level and that were direct credits to the university. He pointed out that this connects high school students with college level learning and is a way for us to connect with the high school students, particularly those in the state. He pointed out that this could be a powerful synergy and students could perhaps come to campus for a day or two to audit a class and get a quick glimpse of life on campus.
Van Den Wymelenberg noted that he is intrigued with the high school academy and aggressive thinking and asked what we could put into our plan that would spark some system-wide transformation that the Committee thinks is essential in order to have a robust university. He stated that we need to address that higher education is in rapidly changing environments and we need to streamline our approval processes and get better at transfer credit between schools and remove the barriers between sharing grants between the campuses. He noted though that some accreditation processes may dictate the curricular path of a college so making things like accelerated master’s programs might be problematic. He pointed out that bullet eight was somewhat confusing because while some parts of it make perfect sense, civic engagement leadership development, community building; it is unclear what is meant by affordability or well-being.
Heng-Moss reported that this is just a framework, an overarching piece, not a plan. She stated that the idea is that there will be different strategic ideas coming from the various campus units and groups and some maybe similar, but there needs to be flexibility to allow these strategic opportunities to come forward and from there we could start to build connectivity, so we have a bold strategic plan. Hanrahan stated that some guide rails should be provided to the campus community because otherwise you could have people coming up with different ideas that are all over the place. He noted that if the pillars and bullet points are more clearly defined, then people can focus on developing ideas.
Van Den Wymelenberg pointed out that the strategic framework is a commitment to invest or reappropriate resources within a narrow margin of what is available and units will identify with certain bullet points, but he thinks the faculty will read the framework plan more broadly and then really focus in on their college and suggesting things that are most relevant to their unit.
Pillar 4: Extraordinary Culture and Environment
Sharif stated that bullet one about expanding professional development opportunities should include mentorship which she believes is very important and Combs agreed and noted that better mentoring programs need to be developed. Hanrahan suggested that more professional development opportunities need to be developed for faculty. Button stated that professional development for students could include things like how to write a resume and a cover letter and how to interview. Van Den Wymelenberg stated that he is hearing from professionals that students need to learn soft skills as well, how to learn and relate to people. Hanrahan suggested that we should aspire to be a campus where curiosity and problem solving is the norm.
Van Den Wymelenberg stated that we have a modest means to reward excellence and create incentives for outstanding research and creative endeavors, but it could be improved. Mueller stated that when a faculty member has a book published his college hosts an event to recognize the faculty member and colleagues attend. He pointed out that these events signal a reward and are important to the faculty member.
Gay noted that we are terrible in providing decent stipends to graduate students, and in fact, we provide the lowest stipends in the Big Ten and we often lose out to Kansas and Iowa in recruiting students. Van Den Wymelenberg asked if there is a minimum stipend for graduate students and he wondered if we create some of our own problems when it comes to graduate student stipends. Button pointed out that there are certain government standards, but we also have a minimum standard, although he noted that most units offer stipends above the standard amount. Van Den Wymelenberg asked if departments have the flexibility to provide larger stipends, and if not why. Tschetter reported that during an academic program review lack of resources for graduate students is a standard complaint. Nelson stated that philanthropic funds in the form of graduate fellowships could be one way to offer more support to students. She suggested that such fellowships in addition to graduate student support in grant proposals could help provide larger stipends which could help recruit strong students.
Hanrahan asked what happened to the campaign money that was raised during the time Chancellor Green was here. Button reported that raising funds to help support graduate students is something we always do, but he noted that some donors provide funds to specific programs only. Cressler pointed out that the Foundation limits departments’ ability to do fundraising. He stated that chairs and directors could contact alumni directly to raise funds, and he noted that this has been a very successful practice done at other universities. Van Den Wymelenberg suggested connecting with your students through LinkedIn before they leave so you are able to connect with your alumni.
Gay stated that shared governance is awful and suggested there should be a council of tenured, chaired faculty members or faculty members that have won teaching awards or have large grants who meet with the Chancellor every other week. Hanrahan questioned how we could improve shared governance. He noted that apportionments, annual evaluation procedures, and use of metrics are handled differently across the campus and having more streamlined and consistent evaluation processes would help faculty members. He pointed out that having a better idea of what is considered excellent work could help faculty members achieve better trajectories. Combs asked if there is a specific document that addresses more streamlined evaluation processes. Hanrahan reported that he wrote a white paper about how it could be streamlined and how it could help focus the efforts of faculty and enable them to think holistically about their career. He pointed out there needs to be more fluidity for a faculty member to be able to change their apportionment over their career.
Van Den Wymelenberg stated that in regard to bullet six about optimizing processes and involvement in shared governance he questioned how you get enough faculty voice without over burdening faculty service. Hanrahan pointed out that service is not equally valued across the campus, but it should be. He stated that service work needs to be more valued and noted that faculty members involved in service work broaden their network within their college and across the campus. Gay stated that the faculty has little influence since many of the shared governance committees are just advisory and even strongly held opinions by the faculty can be overridden by administrators. He noted that the faculty are the intellectual leaders of the university and they should have more power than just being advisory.
Clarke stated that if we anticipate the framework being developed this year there will need to be some rebuilding of trust. She pointed out that that the current culture and environment on campus is the worst she has seen because of the challenges we have gone through this year. Gay suggested that faculty and staff morale needs to be addressed and there needs to be improvements in order for trust to be regained. Cressler stated that having faculty and staff provide input into the strategic framework is one mechanism that could help rebuild some trust and confidence. Button asked what additional things could help rebuild trust. Mueller stated that there is nothing in the bullets that address faculty compensation and health care benefits. He pointed out that UNL is the lowest in the Big Ten when it comes to compensation. Bradshaw suggested the cultivation of trust though out-come based visions could help and he agreed that shared governance needs to be valued and respected. Hanrahan stated that there has not always been trust from the administration in faculty governance processes, but he noted that the rules and processes created by the faculty were developed by people who care about the institution and want to protect it.
Hanrahan stated that at the next meeting the APC will discuss pillars two and three of the strategic framework.
7.0 Other Business
Gay asked when the table on the administrative efficiencies from the budget reductions would be available. Button stated that he hopes it will be ready by the end of the week.
Hanrahan stated that a Senator made a comment during the March 3rd meeting that the APC was being vilified by the IANR administration during the merger process and he received a comment from a faculty member in one of the departments that the APC guidelines were harmful to the process. He asked Gay, Henson, and Sharif how the merger meetings are going. All three said that the meetings they attended were going well. Hanrahan noted that the guidelines need to still apply to make sure the faculty and staff are protected, particularly if one of the units is larger than another unit. He stated that a survey of the faculty and staff is to be conducted to take the temperature of how things are going with the merger.
Hanrahan reported that the APC subcommittee to review APC documents would be meeting on April 2nd at 10:00.
The meeting adjourned at 4:47 p.m. The next meeting of the APC will be on Wednesday, April 8, 2026. The minutes are respectfully submitted by Karen Griffin, Coordinator.