Content
University of Nebraska – Lincoln
Academic Planning Committee
October 14, 2026
Minutes
Members Present: Belser, Bradshaw, Burkey, Gonzales, Hanrahan, Heng-Moss, Henson, Kain, Marron, Nelson, Savaiano, Schneider, Sharif, Smith
Members Absent: Gay, Harvey, Henson, Lindquist, Shrader
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.
2.0 Approval of September 23, 2026 Minutes
Button noted that he had a slight correction with the minutes in that he met multiple times with the national AAUP leaders. Bradshaw then asked if there were any further revisions. Hearing none, he stated that the minutes were approved.
3.0 Revised and Updated Program Indicators (Button and Volkmer)
Button stated that we are at an important stage with reviewing the revised and updated program indicators. He noted that the program indicators were shared with the Faculty Senate Executive Committee yesterday and they will now be presented for consultation with the APC. He pointed out that it is very much in the charge of the APC to have ongoing conversations about the revised program indicators. He stated that in May 2025 the program indicators were first presented to the APC and since last fall Volkmer and the Office of Research and Innovation have worked to improve and make adjustments to the indicators, stating that he is very appreciative of the work that has been done.
Volkmer stated that he appreciates the chance to present the revised and updated program indicators. Button pointed out that the Data Integrity and Stewardship website provides information about how the data will be used, what the shared definitions are, promotes transparency and consistency, provides documentation and guidance, outlines the data ecosystem, and provides an FAQ section. He noted that this is an ongoing effort to ensure we have clarity about the data we utilize throughout the year and how it helps to drive our strategy. He stated that the conversation today is to assess whether these are the right indicators, whether there are indicators that are missing, and to get feedback.
Volkmer reported that discussions were held with all the colleges and their leadership teams this summer to see how we could better improve the process of developing the program indicators and to provide transparency and clarity for them. He stated that the program indicators reporting will be provided through Tableau which should facilitate broader distribution, managed distribution, and transparency. He pointed out that across the colleges and units; there was the shared belief that data was needed to help provide benchmarks, set strategies, and to measure our successes and performance but that it should be transparent. He noted that there was understanding of how the indicators could be used but the colleges and units stated that they did not want comparisons between them and other units. He reported that based on the feedback received, the Z scores have been deemphasized, and instead more raw data is being looked at.
Volkmer stated that these standard indicators do not fully capture the mission for the fine and performing arts, architecture, journalism, and law, so the question becomes how we capture the data for these colleges. He stated that they are working with the Office of Research and Innovation to understand how we can incorporate qualitative narratives to contextualize some of the data.
Button stated that part of the feedback gained from the APC in May 2025 involved utilizing a pooled analysis, so comparisons were only across units within similar configurations of disciplines. He noted that for all its perceived flaws, Academic Analytics compares similar units rather than across diverse disciplines.
Button stated that there needs to be a governance committee to educate and refine the program indicators over time. Volkmer noted that there are some things that do not reconcile with the data we collect. For instance, some dean’s offices have an academic program or an interdisciplinary program which do not fit within a department. He pointed out that we will probably be wrestling with these data structure issues for a while. He stated that as we get a better understanding of our data, we will be able to make changes that will make reporting processes better.
Volkmer stated that Tableau’s reporting infrastructure better supports the campus needs. It can provide transparency, managed distribution, automaton and standardization, secure delivery, and data interaction and visualization. He stated that Tableau’s reporting scope emphasizes instructional and research data benchmarks and supports reporting. He noted that comparative Z-scores, while still available, have been significantly deemphasized.
Volkmer reported that Tableau is just a reporting and analytics program, it does not store data, it must be directed to the data, and you tell it what data you want to view and he pointed out that it is very interactive. He stated that the data comes from PeopleSoft, Salesforce, SAP, Canvas, NURamp, Academic Analytics and the user can see the data and filter it for whatever information they are looking for. He noted that much information is available in the FAQ to help the DEOs when they are using Tableau. He pointed out that the data in Tableau is all validated.
Volkmer showed an actual Tableau report and pointed out that you can even see what changes have occurred since the last time you were looking at a report. He stated that currently the idea is to have updates done once a year in late January but acknowledged that some updates might need to be done more often.
Button stated that right now we are looking for feedback on the program indicators. He stated that every DEO on campus would have access and training would be provided to them and the expectation is that the DEOs would be tracking the data for their unit and communicating the outcomes with their units, but the intent at this time is to stop at the DEO level.
Griffin asked if the website was available for everyone to view. Volkmer stated that it is available for everyone. He noted that the intention is to probably expand the website over time as we get better at data governance campus wide. He stated that currently there are general terms defined on the website but that he anticipates that more data definitions will be added. He stated that questions can be submitted through the FAQ page and as these questions are answered, it will help build out the FAQ page.
Volkmer reported that workstreams currently in progress across the campus to improve data utilization and value include looking at creative activities, qualitative feedback processes, outcomes survey, ongoing website development, and ongoing support reports. He noted that there will be a Qualtrics survey asking DEOs to provide contextual information, and qualitative information about just their department in general. He stated that contextual information about their structure and contextual data about their research data will also be requested. He stated that the data would be in a separate warehouse where there will probably be another supporting report, as well as in Tableau.
Button stated that many things have not been captured yet and this is where qualitative input comes in. He noted that Extension and leadership are two examples that need to be considered. Button stated that Extension and research should be part of the qualitative input and this could be made more visible, but if you want to assess every unit by the same consistent standard for service and engagement, we are going to need some creative, thoughtful thinking about how to do this because it varies widely. VC Heng-Moss notes that Z scores for Extension would compare only units with Extension appointments, which is a concern. She added that outreach and engagement are happening across UNL, so how we recognize these efforts remains an important question.
Bradshaw asked if there are any specific action items for the APC. Button suggested that perhaps a subcommittee of the APC could serve as the governance committee to critically assess the indicators to make sure we are capturing things correctly and that the indicators are in close alignment with our strategic plans. He suggested a diverse faculty and administrative group could serve as the governing committee, and he anticipates that there will be requests from time to time to make changes and additions. He noted that he does not think the group would need to meet often. Bradshaw asked whether a new subcommittee would need to be created or could this be part of the Long-Range Planning Committee’s responsibilities. Button stated that this would need to be discussed but this is a good time with the review of the UNL Bylaws and the procedures to look at having a governance committee.
Savaiano pointed out that her department has active clinics and asked if clinic revenue, time, and student credit hours have been considered in the program indicators. Volkmer stated that he has not heard about clinics and there have been some similar discussions that need to be considered with the program indicators. He stated that he appreciated the feedback.
4.0 Request for Long Range Planning Committee (Bradshaw)
Bradshaw noted that the members of the LRP are Sharif (who is chair of the committee), Hanrahan, Gonzales, Gay, Heng-Moss, Belser, and Schneider. He referred to Interim Chancellor Ankerson’s charge to the APC was to review and suggest revisions to the membership and scope of section 7. Academic Planning Committee of the UNL Bylaws. He noted that a subcommittee was formed to do this work.
Bradshaw stated that he envisions the LRP taking up the third charge which is to develop a polished rubric based on the five pillars of Our Bold Path Forward strategic plan and which would enable the APC to consistently review future proposals and minimize case-by-case judgment. He noted that the LRP might be able to integrate some of the elements of the program indicators into long range planning. He pointed out that the APC’s operating procedures need to be revised and suggested that the LRP might work on the procedures during the spring semester.
Savaiano asked if it is realistic that there could be one rubric or whether three rubrics are needed to make recommendations on approving or disapproving a program proposal, eliminating a program, or merging programs. Button stated that this is a good question, and he pointed out that for each of the instances that Savaiano describes there is a template which has specific questions in which every program must provide answers, so the template itself is a kind of rubric. He noted that if you look at the details and you look at the budget sheets that need to accompany every template, he could certainly see something valuable being generated by the LRP relating to key procedural questions that the APC often asks. He stated that having a standard way of treating every program proposal would be a helpful contribution. Griffin noted that several years ago a draft document was created of what questions should be asked when program proposals are being considered, and she would be happy to share that document when needed.
Hanrahan stated that charging the LRP with developing the rubrics is fine but he is unclear, in reading the responsibilities of the LRP, what the committee is supposed to do because a lot of it says that the APC is to charge the LRP with getting information for the APC, so he does not see what the long-range planning aspect is. He questioned what kinds of things the LRP is supposed to be involved in. He stated that he thinks it is more important to get the procedures revised and to define what the committee is before the rubrics are tackled. Sharif agreed that the rubrics could be put on hold while the APC’s operating procedures are worked on, particularly pointed out that updates procedures would also be helpful to the new APC members.
Marron asked if what is suggested fits in with what Interim Chancellor Ankerson asked the APC to do. She pointed out that in looking at the operating procedures, the APC appears to be responsible for general areas of education, Extension, accessible research and service, including looking at the campus master plan. She stated that it is a broad picture, but specifics need to be clarified.
Hanrahan stated that we are trying to have a better, clearer picture of how APC is defined in the UNL Bylaws and then the operating procedures need to be revised and we need to get things codified and unified because the thinking is that the current Bylaws and the current operating procedures are not viable enough to ensure continuity when there is a rotation of leadership.
Bradshaw asked if there is the opportunity for the LRP to hold a meeting soon or whether it is premature to meet. He pointed out that the LRP could possibly meet with the Interim Chancellor to get further clarification. Sharif suggested that the LRP have an initial meeting to address what the Interim Chancellor is asking the committee to do and then start working on revising the procedures with the beginning of the spring semester.
5.0 Report on UNL/UNMC Summit and Meetings with HLC (Bradshaw)
Bradshaw reported that he attended the UNL/UNMC Joint Summit where the focus was on education, research, and data sharing. He noted that many pragmatic items came up in the discussions and it was apparent that there are operational procedures that create barriers for greater interaction between UNL and UNMC. He noted that the attendees were put into groups for discussion and at his table there was discussion about the structural challenges that exist and the inability to access the libraries on each campus. He pointed out that the publishers’ contracts are a main concern for getting library access and it was suggested that faculty members could apply for adjunct status at UNMC to gain access to the library. He stated that no actionable items have been identified yet.
Button stated that there are specific things we need to work on between the campuses and he reported that there will be additional summits. He pointed out that there is already a lot of collaboration occurring between the two campuses and noted that joint accreditation provides opportunities for our students and the whole state.
Nelson reported that her table had discussions on research and five areas were identified where there are areas of overlap. She noted that there was a lot of energy about how the faculty could work together with each other. Belser agreed with Nelson about the discussion at the research table and said he was surprised by the level of overlap the campuses have. He noted that everyone was energized by the discussions. Gonzales stated that the UNMC leadership is very interested in having more collaboration and wants more summits in order for both campuses to move forward. He stated that some pathways to move forward were identified as well as some of the barriers to being able to move forward. Belser stated that he believes there may be some misunderstandings that can be seen as barriers, but he thinks these can be solved through communications.
6.0 Update on UNL Bylaws Subcommittee Progress
6.1 Proposed Revisions to APC Membership
Bradshaw noted that the subcommittee working to revise the UNL Bylaws has suggested revisions to the membership of the committee and would like to hear from the APC members what they think of the suggested revisions. He pointed out that, if possible, he would like the APC to vote on proposed revisions to the UNL Bylaws at the October 28th meeting.
Bradshaw stated that the purpose of the APC is to facilitate performance of the duties of the Chancellor specified in Section 2.8 and 2.9 of the Regents’ Bylaws and Section 1.2 of the UNL Bylaws and enable a faculty governing body to act upon maters specified in Section 2.12.1 of the Regents Bylaws. He noted that the changes being proposed are on the makeup of the committee include adding the Staff Senate President or designee is one of the suggested changes. He reported that there were some changes that were made in terms of voting. He pointed out currently, the UNL Bylaws for the APC state that all members shall vote on all motions, but the proposal is to delete that statement. He stated that the major change being proposed is that any recommendation to the Chancellor shall require the affirmative vote of the majority of elected faculty members of the committee as described in (a) and (b) of the current bylaws.
Gonzales stated that he agrees with adding the Staff Senate President or designee, which would increase the APC’s membership to twenty. He noted that adding the Staff Senate representative addresses Interim Chancellor Ankerson’s charge of the uniqueness of the APC because it would have a blend of administrators, faculty, students, and staff. He stated that another proposed revision is that no more than three faculty members from any one college can be on the committee.
Nelson pointed out that the proposed revisions on voting means that only half of the membership have votes that count while half of the membership of the committee’s vote wouldn’t count on recommendations that are made to the Chancellor. Griffin noted that many things get recommended to the Chancellor such as the committee’s recommendation to approve program proposals, and she said that the majority of the time the members of the committee voted the same. She stated that the problem is with the budget reductions and this is the area that needs to be addressed. She reported that numerous times in the Faculty Senate meetings it was raised that the administrators should recuse themselves from voting on budget reduction plans that they are involved with.
Hanrahan pointed out that the APC provides an opportunity for its members to be involved in recommendations that faculty and students, are not necessarily involved in. He stated that since it was pointed out by Bradshaw that the Bylaws state that the APC is a faculty governing body, there are members of the subcommittee that felt that it was important for the faculty voice to be expressed clearly to the Chancellor. He stated that the other members would still vote, but their vote would not count towards the recommendation.
Schneider stated that from a student perspective, as a Student Regent he can add items to the agenda and participate in committees and the Student Regents’ limitations only come from the Nebraska Constitution. He stated that it is important to recognize that the President of ASUN and the President of GSA bring the voice of the students to the APC and eliminating their vote makes them feel that their votes do not count so why should he sit through a two-hour long meeting and provide input when his vote wouldn’t matter. Hanrahan stated that the student’s input would be valued and could have an influence on how an elected faculty member of the APC would vote. Schneider pointed out that if the elected faculty members really wanted to do something, they would not be beholden to the students because the students’ votes would not matter. He noted that when there are controversial topics that need to be voted on, eliminating the vote of the administrators, students, Faculty and Staff Senate representatives hinders the ability of everybody to represent their thoughts on the topic.
Kain stated that when you take the vote away from the President of GSA, you’re suppressing the formal voice of the graduate students. She pointed out that whatever academic policies get discussed during the meeting impacts the graduate students and when she is going to vote she discusses all of the concerns with the GSA members and they provide her with feedback that she can then present to the APC. She stated that when her vote is suppressed the APC is actually suppressing the voice of the GSA, and that is a problem. Griffin noted that not only does the APC and the Faculty Senate need to approve the changes to the UNL Bylaws, but also ASUN.
Button stated that he also disagrees with the proposed revision. He stated that what makes the APC distinct is precisely because it is constituted by faculty, students, and soon to be staff. He pointed out that the proposed revision would take a committee of 20 and rendered the decision to make recommendations to the Chancellor down to six members. He stated that he thinks this is an anti-democratic move. He stated that we should not change the character of the committee and its democratic structure, in part, because it is the only committee of this nature on this campus. He noted that we can address what happened with the budget reduction process when we address the context of the procedures for budget reductions.
Belser stated that he thinks there are some strongly objectionable unintended consequences with the suggested revisions, with one of them rendering half the committee members as powerless. He noted that what excites him about this committee is that it is truly a shared governance committee. He stated that the proposed revision could turn a shared governance committee into faculty versus the other constituencies and he wants to see a more democratic body altogether. As a result he is opposed to the proposed revision. Nelson agrees and points out that Interim Chancellor Ankerson made the point when she spoke to the APC about the beauty of this being a shared governance committee. She noted that she deeply values the input of the student perspective. Schneider stated that the faculty, students and staff all have their own governing bodies and if the intent is to make the APC more of a faculty governing body, the faculty already have that through the Faculty Senate.
Gonzales pointed out that this conversation is an example of the uniqueness of the APC. He noted that we all want this institution to succeed and thrive. He stated that it could easily get into a tribalism of us versus them if the voting structure is changed.
The meeting adjourned at 4:59 p.m. The next meeting of the APC will be on Wednesday, October 28, 2026. The minutes are respectfully submitted by Karen Griffin, Coordinator.