Addendum # 1

Re the Proposed Changes to the Regents Policies in reference to the Emeriti, the Board supports the changes indicated in Roman type below, commentary is italicized. . References to parts of the document are underlined.

the awarding of Emeritus status by the President or campus Chancellor of each campus rather than by the Board. (Intro, ¶1)

(I have no objection to this, Board approval is largely perfunctory, currently, and the only reasons for the Board to intervene would be to enhance the status of the dignity conferred or to exercise some inappropriate denial.

But, given the trouble that some folks have had we should request that part of the notice of separation from university filed with each departing faculty member there be a place where the chair indicates whether the faculty member is recommended for Emeriti status. This could be simply a line which reads: Emeritus Status ( Check one):___Recommended, ___Not Recommended, ___Ineligible).

2. The granting of Emeritus status only to faculty members with the rank of

Assistant Professor or above. (Current rules permit the awarding emeritus status generically to “employees”). (Intro, ¶ 1)

(Restricting Emeritus status to faculty members makes sense, especially since some exceptions seem to be built in later .

(However, I am concerned that there are folks with lifelong teaching commitments to the University who are systematically excluded from this list.

(I have in mind life-long lecturers, e.g. and our new Professors of Practice and Rresearch Professors.)

3. The addition of “service” to the list of categories in which a faculty member’s

significant contribution may be recognized. (This makes obvious sense, especially

since we recognize the Agent faculty as holding faculty rank.) (Intro, ¶1)

4. The excising of the specific mention of librarians among those eligible. (Intro, ¶1)

(UNL llibrarians hold faculty rank and so this will not affect us.The Dean of Libraries says it will not affect our sister campuses either.) (Intro, ¶1)

5. The explicit inclusion among the eligible of “Chancellors, VC’s, and Deans; and

Directors whose work impinges directly upon the educational program.” (Intro,

¶1) (This language woud replace the explicit listing of “registrar, comptroller,

administrative dean, or head of other similar division or subdivision whose work

impinges . . . . “

(Again, I do not know what this means to particular persons, although it could be clarified I suppose. As it stands, I could make the argument that, e.g. Darryl Swanson who is actively in the Association, ought to be given Emeriti Status.

(But it is not clear to me who would make this decision or whether weas an Association could admit someone who did not have official emeriti status. This last, presumably should be our decision. )

1. the approval of emeritus status for a President is reserved for the Board. (Intro, ¶2)

(As a general rule I think the monsters of the deep should be allowed to feed on each other. But, should a retiring President of the University be eligible for emeritus status as a faculty member in a discipline, whether or not the President wants to grant the title of “Emeritus President.” We could ask that the rule simply say that rule say that the status of “emeritus President” is reserved to the Board, that of emeritus professor being reserved to the relevant department and campus. )

2. 10 years of university employment would be required (not just ”presumed”), though exceptions may be made by the President or Chancellor. (Intro, ¶3)

(How much, if any, of the previous service time of folks who just this year

became “Research Professors” would count on the ten years? We could

suggest that Ten years of “ be replaced by “Excellent or extended”. )

3. the list of Emeritus of new emeriti will be annually presented to the Board.

(Intro, ¶3)

(We should ask that that list be automatically be made available to the appropriate emeriti association.)

4. There is boiler plate language about encouraging retired faculty to be intellectually active that gets struck. (1. General Principles, ¶ 1 & 2)

(Not much loss, in my judgment.)

5. In its place is language permitting emeritus faculty (no longer simply “retired faculty”) to continue research and service to their student advisees. Continued access to library materials is also available to those wishing to continue active scholarship. 1. (General Principles, ¶ 3)

(What is at issue here is not access to the library holdings, which is available

to all citizens, but home access to the library digital capabilities.. Perhaps

this, too should be made clear Further, the rule should not be written so as

to permit the assumption that (except in cases those who have engaged in

unprofessional conduct) non-“emeriti’ed” faculty could be prohibited from

continuing to pursue their study or to serve their student advisees.)

6. “It is largely up to individual departments to determine the level of support and the requisite facilities that are made available to individual emeritus faculty.” (1. General Principles, ¶ 4)

(The principle seems right to me, since the availability of space and

equipment has to be allocated in a way that prioritizes ongoing programs.

But the sentence should be clearer: if the facilities are “requisite,” what choice can be made?)

7. Similar privileges may be extended to senior administrators described in item 5 above. (1. General Principles, ¶ 5)

(Seems appropriate to me.)

8. The appropriate chair may make office space or desk room, or research facilities may be made available if available. The reliance on the recommendation of the departmental staff disappears. (2 Special Privileges a) (Is this a loss?)

9. Emeriti may apply for research support and publication privileges as regular faculty. 2 Special Privileges b

The issue here seems more the prerogatives of the ennobled than the quality

of work. This one of those places where I think that the opportunities

should be available to any retired faculty member, as the language now

reads , not just to the emeriti.)

10. Current language says that matters not covered by this policy shall be decided by the relevant dean or director, or on appeal by the chancellor.

This language disappears and is not replaced. 2 Special Privileges a, second ¶. (I’d prefer the language stayed.)

11. Under the proposal,, among the retired only officially designated emeriti shall be carried in official rosters of University personnel. 3. Perquisites, intro.

(This is a loss.)

12. Now only emeriti will need be recognized as are faculty at official University functions. 3. Perquisites a.

(Any problem other than the possibility of gratuitous offense? )

13. The requirement placed on the university to accommodate its dissemination

of official notices so as to include emeriti by mail if need be, disappears. .

3. Perquisites old b. (Understandable but sad.)

18. Not even emeriti among the retired may attend departmental meetings without an invitation—and then without a vote. . 3. Perquisites a. (This is the current rule and will remain.)

19. What is new in this regard is the elimination of the floor right (i.e, the right of retired faculty to attend and speak but not vote) at meetings of the University Senate meetings. 3. Perquisites a. (Since this right was included at the request of the UNL faculty Senate it seems to me we should object to its removal. If the principle is that the Regents Policy should not contain campus specific policy, then why is thr preceding section left here?)

20. Emeriti serving as references for their former students, providing information for former colleagues, or performing other university service which continues beyond retirement will be allowed access to stationery, computers and other appropriate office privileges. (Current language opens this to any retired faculty, indeed retired persons. It is not clear why the unemeriti-ed faculty should be excluded from such access when performing university business.)

21. Email privileges remain for Emeriti, although it does not say if they remain for other retired faculty. 3. Perquisites d.

22. Similarly, the right of access by retired faculty to the Student Union, athletic events, etc. (Does this include the Rec and Lied Centers) on the same basis as to other faculty members is now restricted to “emeriti.” 3. Perquisites ed.

I’d make 2 points here:

1. We should insist on this simple provision in the area of athletic tix and anywhere else where the rules have become more restrictive)

2. Again, it is not clear to me why this should not continue to apply to retired persons, or even restricted to retired faculty, rather than just emeriti.)

2 matters overall:

1. The old rules most often needed fixing where they confused all University retired persons with retired faculty. These new rules are most often need repair when they make invidious distinctions between the legitimate needs of retired faculty and those reserve to emeriti.. If we are going to have a rule limited this way then there should be another rRegents Policy statement that covers retired faculty general—and does not restrict them arbitrarily. If there are some legitimate reason why some retired faculty should not have access accorded to others, then it should be a fact noted at the time of severance of the faculty member concerned, rather than simply be a generic deprivation).

2. There should be noted a forum where disputes over the matters contained in this document can be adjudicated. On some matters, the Chancellor is the told off to do this. I would prefer that the jurisdiction of an ARRC GrievanceCommittee be recognized.