Content
University of Nebraska – Lincoln
Academic Planning Committee
May 13, 2026
Minutes
Members Present: Bradshaw, Clarke, Combs, Eklund, Gay, Gonzales, Hanrahan, Heng-Moss, Henson, Mueller, Nelson, Sharif, Schneider, Tschetter
Members Absent: Cressler, Jemkur, Van Den Wymelenberg
Guests: John Lindquist, Tom Burkey (new APC members beginning August 1)
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
Tschetter called the meeting to order at 3:01 p.m.
2.0 Recognize APC Members Whose Terms Are Ending July 31, 2026 – Clay Cressler, Max Mueller, Ann Tschetter, Jennifer Clarke, Kevin Van Den Wymelenberg, Pete Eklund, and Gwendolyn Combs
Tschetter thanked Cressler, Mueller, Clarke, Van Den Wymelenberg, Eklund for their work on the APC noting that their terms were ending on July 31, 2026. She also thanked Combs who is retiring in August and will need to be replaced on the committee.
3.0 Introduce New APC Members
Tschetter introduced new APC Members Kurt Schneider, ASUN President, John Lindquist, Agronomy & Horticulture and Interim Dean Burkey, CASNR.
4.0 Approval of April 22, 2026 Minutes
Tschetter asked if there were any revisions to the minutes. Button noted that he had a minor revision that he sent to Griffin. Griffin noted that Button’s revision was included in the minutes that were sent to the Committee members. Hearing no further revisions, Tschetter asked if there was approval of the minutes. The APC approved the minutes.
5.0 Proposal to Create the School of Agricultural Social Sciences and Analytics
Heng-Moss stated that the proposal to combine Agricultural Economics with Agricultural Leadership, Education, and Communication to create a new school defines the personnel plan, organizational structure, and scope and mission. Current academic degree programs would be retained. She pointed out that the merger process honored shared governance – the engagement and collaborative efforts among the faculty from the two units were essential to creating the proposed framework for the new school. She reported that the merged units would still maintain their identity through two subunits called Divisions.
Tschetter stated that she has heard some concerns, particularly from CAS, about the name of the school and some faculty members felt that the use of social sciences and analytics in the title would be confusing to students. McLean pointed out that one part of the university does not own social sciences, but Tschetter stated that traditionally, the social sciences has been a part of CAS. McLean stated that IANR would be open to having the APC approve the proposal with the idea that the academic units could discuss and develop a new school’s name.
Button asked if there was any kind of engagement with the social science faculty to discuss the proposed name. Gay reported that the APC subcommittee attended meetings of the units and there was a lot of discussion about finding a name. He pointed out that the name that is currently being proposed is much better than the other names that were being discussed. He stated that the consultant and the heads of the two departments developed a survey which was sent to the faculty and staff of the effected departments.
Bradshaw asked if it was apparent to the APC subcommittee that there was faculty involvement in the merger process, particularly with the formation of committees, the name of the school, and the writing of the bylaws. Gay stated that there was a nice blend of faculty and staff and the merger process was not administratively driven. He noted that all three groups were well represented. Heng-Moss pointed out that AVC Bischoff made sure that the departments followed the APC guidelines on mergers. She stated that she understands the concerns that are being elevated about the name of the school but noted that the faculty were intentional about including “agriculture” in front of social sciences and analytics. Tschetter stated that there is concern, particularly with the Curriculum Committee, that there could be duplication with the social sciences.
Clarke stated that there is a problem with the school’s name including “analytics” when there is nothing defined in the proposal and no degree program in agricultural analytics. She noted that including analytics in the mission statement as a goal is one thing but having it in the school’s title before a program has even been created is misleading to perspective students. She stated that furthermore, the mission statement overlaps with Biological Systems Engineering and pointed out that there needs to be discussion with BSE.
Hanrahan asked if the name Agriculture, Economics and Leadership was considered, and if so, why was it rejected. Heng-Moss reported that the departments were not in favor of choosing part of the legacy names for the school title; their goal was to be inclusive. She noted that Agricultural Economics’ website demonstrates that the faculty view their department as analytical even shifted the CIP code to be underneath quantitative economics which is why they are continuing to carry the idea of analytics forward. Clarke stated that there may be a piece of agricultural analysis in Ag Econ but it is not prominent and would need to be more developed in order to include it in the school’s name.
McLean suggested approving the proposal except for the school’s name and allowing the departments to go back and work on the name. Button stated that he supports McLean’s suggestion noting that the faculty in the departments have done a lot of work but suggested that the departments consult with the social science departments because it does not appear that enough people have weighed in on the name.
McLean moved that the APC votes to approve the merger proposal of Agricultural Economics and Agricultural Leadership, Education, and Communication and asks the units to come back to the APC to approve the school’s title, after socializing the name of the new school with other departments. Hanrahan seconded the motion. Button suggested an amendment to see more engagement with other social sciences departments about the school’s title and to have more than two letters supporting the new title. Hanrahan seconded the motion. Motion approved by the APC.
Bradshaw asked if the APC would vote on the proposed new name. Hanrahan moved that the APC votes electronically during the summer to approve the name of the school. Clarke seconded the motion. Motion approved, with three opposed.
Hanrahan asked if the IANR Vice Chancellor appoints the directors of the proposed two new schools rather than the dean. Heng-Moss stated that for IANR units the VC appoints rather than the dean. Hanrahan asked if the schools will be a separate entity or part of CASNR. Heng-Moss stated that the schools will be a part of IANR and have a tripartite mission aligned with Nebraska Extension, Agricultural Research Division, and CASNR.
Hanrahan asked how the mergers will be saving money. He noted hearing that savings from VSIP retirements were to be used for strategic hiring, not to cover budget reductions. Clarke reported that VP Barnes has stated that assumed retirements cannot be counted towards budget reductions. Heng-Moss noted that the proposal to the APC on September 12, indicated that budget savings would be realized through an open staff position and natural attrition, including the VSIP. Button reported that 62 faculty members are taking the VSIP and these retirements are permanent reductions that help the university address the structural budget deficit. The remaining balance will be part of a strategic faculty hiring pool aligned with system and campus research goals.
Hanrahan stated that he does not have a problem with the merger proposal, but he does have a problem with the VSIPs being used as savings for the budget reductions and he is upset and feels that the administration has lied about the savings from these mergers. Gay pointed out that the APC subcommittee observed the meetings about the mergers and stated that a lot of work has been put into the effort. He said he is in favor of the merger with the exception of the name, but he agrees with Hanrahan that the budget process was poorly handled.
Gay moved to accept the proposal except for the proposed name. Bradshaw seconded the motion. Motion approved, 11 in favor, 2 against.
6.0 Proposal to Merge the Entomology and Plant Pathology Departments
Clarke questioned how the role of microbiology plays in the proposal. Bradshaw stated that both disciplines provide curricular and instructional support to other campus majors, including Horticulture, the School of Natural Resources, and the Microbiology program. Clarke stated that the use of the term microbiology is very broad and that it should be more specifically defined as plant pathology and entomology. Heng-Moss noted that the entomology and plant pathology units are merely carrying forward the scope of what they already do, and it is not their intent to take away areas of expertise from other areas such as food microbiology or soil microbiology.
Clarke stated that there is the issue of a communication problem because the mergers have not been shared with other departments in IANR and she believes there will be a lot of questions from other units about where these schools fit into IANR. Lindquist agreed that the proposal should be shared with all of the unit leaders in IANR. Clarke moved that the name of the new school of entomology and plant pathology be voted on at the same time as the name of the school for the merger of Ag Econ and Ag LEC. Tschetter seconded the motion, but motion failed.
Tschetter moved to accept the proposal to merge the entomology and plant pathology as presented. Bradshaw seconded the motion. The motion was approved with 11 in favor and 2 opposed.
7.0 Reports from EVC Button, VC Heng-Moss
Button reported that the university was still dealing with the effects of the recent cyberattack on Canvas. He pointed out that Thursday evening, prior to graduation on Saturday, there were 140 students who still needed grades submitted to graduate and members of the Registrar’s Office worked with faculty members to get these final grades submitted. As a result of all the hard work, all students were cleared for graduation. He noted that this year’s graduating class had the highest participation rate with 92% of graduating students participating in the ceremony.
Button stated that the campus is actively working to retain students and if the trend continues, we will have our best retention rate with just slightly under 90%. He noted that the team is working to make sure that every student is eligible to come back and pointed out that net deposits are trending in the right direction.
Heng-Moss wanted to acknowledge and express gratitude to the APC members for everything they have done during this difficult year, and she wanted to thank the faculty, staff, and the members of the APC subcommittees in moving forward with the mergers.
8.0 Other Business
Gay wanted to thank the administration for putting online how the budgetary reductions presented in fall 2025 were made. He noted that the faculty reductions were very direct and not ambiguous but stated that the administrative cuts and staff efficiencies made with alternate funding were not as clear. He asked where the alternate funding was coming from and pointed out that the faculty are concerned that the budget process has not been transparent.
Button stated that in the Chancellor’s office, positions identified for alternative funding were covered by foundation funds. Gay pointed out that Chancellor Bennett had stated that foundation funds could not be used to cover the budget reductions. Button stated that most foundation funds are very specific in what they can be used for, but there are a few foundation funds that can be used to cover other things. Gay noted that the AAUP claims that the foundation has $122 million that can be used for other things. Button stated that the amount of unrestricted funds is limited and every fund he has seen has specific purposes, although there may be some that allow a small amount of funding to be used for other purposes. He pointed out that the Office of Student Life will no longer receive state funds. He suggested that if the APC would like more detailed information about the budget, people from the Office of Business and Finance could be brought into the first APC meeting in the fall semester to further explain the budget.
The meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m. The next meeting of the APC will be on Wednesday, September 9, 2026. The minutes are respectfully submitted by Karen Griffin, Coordinator.