I. Roll Call.

Present: Bange, Barmore, Duquette, Grant, Heim, Kraemer, R. LeDocq, Majak, Nyatepe-Coo, Prucha, D. Riley, P. Taylor, VanVoorhis, Vogt, Voiku, Wingate

Excused: Hench, S. Kelly, Monte, L. Nelson

II. Approval of Minutes.

There were no minutes available.

III. Reports.

A.  Chancellor’s Report: The Chancellor indicated that she will not be able to attend the final Senate meeting next week on May 4th. She told the senators that she appreciates the conscientious deliberations of the Senate this year. She also asked the senators to encourage their colleagues to be involved in the remaining search and screens that are going on yet this spring by attending the open sessions for faculty.

B.   Provost/Vice Chancellor’s Report:  There was no Provost/Vice Chancellor’s Report.

C.   Chair/Faculty Representative's Report: The chair reminded the senators that "Cookie Day" is next week at the final meeting of the Senate on May 4th. The chair also mentioned that the Senate will not have time to deal with the issue of web-based and online courses this year. A report from the UCC on this issue was distributed to the senators. The chair indicated that this is a very good report that covers a lot of major issues that will need to be dealt with. One recommendation made in the report is to create a standing committee to deal with issues of web-based courses, online courses, etc. The chair indicated that perhaps a better solution is to have the Articles and Bylaws Committee appoint a standing committee to look more generally at the interface between curriculum and technology.

IV.    Approval of the Spring 2000 graduation list.

M/S/P (by voice vote) to approve the Spring 2000 list of graduates contingent upon the successful completion of the requirements for their respective degrees.

V. Approval of committee assignments for 2000-01.

M/S/P (by voice vote) to approve the committee assignments for 2000-01.

VI. Bylaw change for the Faculty Development Committee – First Reading.

There was no discussion of the following proposed bylaw change:

I.The Faculty Development Committee

Duties and responsibilities of the committee shall include the following, with the exception of faculty sabbatical leave proposals:

1. Initiating, developing, and implementing programs concerned with improvement of instruction and faculty development.
2. Establishing priorities for faculty development and improvement of instruction programs.
3. Establishing written screening and selection procedures, and providing guidelines for proposals related to improvement of instruction and faculty development.
4. Reviewing, screening, and selecting for funding, proposals which are related to improvement of instruction and faculty development.
5. Providing the UW-L Foundation... (remainder unchanged)

The Chair provided copies of email that he received from two department chairs stating their support for the recommendations. Discussion then continued on this issue. Comments from the discussion included the following:
 

• It was stated that we need to have serious discussions concerning the role of chairs and what the departments need from their chair before we consider the issue of compensation. Once we have a better idea of the role of the chair, we can better discuss the issue of what compensation is needed. In response, it was stated that we do know what chairs are doing now and we can discuss the need for compensation based on this. If this role changes, we can change the compensation.
• There was a question concerning how the figure of $1800 was determined and where this money would come from. The question of how the committee came up with the figure was not answered, but it was indicated that the dollars would come from salary savings. An email from Dean Magerus was distributed indicating that he supports the use of salary savings for compensation of chairs. In addition, he indicated that the recommendations for compensation of chairs was unanimously supported at a recent council of Chairs and program Directors meeting in the College of CLS.
• It was indicated that no matter where the money comes from, it will amount to a decrease in the number of faculty in the classroom.
• It was pointed out that when the chair is given release time, the department still has to meet their SCH targets. There is no adjustment made in the target when the chair is given release time. It was mentioned that perhaps this should be a more general guideline and that the exact amount of release time should be left up to the department and the dean. In response, it was stated that the purpose of the recommendation was to create consistency in the amount of release time given to chairs, but that there is flexibility built into the recommendation in statement 2.

Discussion then continued on the question of summer appointments for chairs. Barry Clark, chair of the PTS Committee, arrived to join the discussion. Points/questions brought up in the discussion included the following.
 

• A question was asked concerning how this would change the costs involved. Barry Clark indicated that the costs would change very little since the recommendation is not very different from current policy.
• It was asked whether these positions would be taken out of the summer positions given to the departments. It was indicated that it is not generally well understood where summer positions come from in the first place. It was stated that the understanding was that the department would generate the money to cover the position through summer school tuition.
• A question was asked concerning how other UW campuses handle summer appointments for chairs. The committee indicated that they got very little response from a survey that they sent out to other campuses concerning this issue.
• It was mentioned that the way the recommendation is written, the Dean would not be involved in determining the summer appointment for the chair except for cases where there is a request for an exception to the standard guideline. This was the intent of the committee in order to guarantee consistency in the appointments.
• It was mentioned that the recommendation is meant to be a minimum appointment and requests for a larger appointment would be discussed with the Dean.

M/S/P (by show of hands) to approve the recommended policy on summer appointments for chairs.

Discussion then moved to the recommendation on reduction of load. As with the previous policy, the wording was changed slightly to read "1. Department chairpersons are to be assigned a minimum reduced load…"

M/S/P (by show of hands) to approve the recommended policy on reduction of load for chairs.

Discussion then moved to the recommendation on the salary adjustment for chairs. Questions/ comments included the following.

• It was mentioned that with the passing of the previous two motions, chairs will be well compensated with the summer appointment and reduction of load. Using rough numbers of a .5 summer appointment and an average salary of $50,000, this amounts to approximately $15,000 over the three summers of a chair's term.
• It was stated that we should consider what is best for the university. Chairs often become chairs by default, and the costs of being chair overpower the benefits.
• It was mentioned that in order to encourage the best and brightest to be chair, we should grant them a small token of appreciation.
• It was mentioned that paying chairs may be a dangerous trend. Next we may start paying the Senate chair or chairs of committees. In response, it was mentioned that most universities do compensate their chairs, and they have not seen it become a problem or a trend.
• It was stated that there are better ways for us to spend these dollars, including hiring better new faculty.
• It was mentioned that there is a feeling that chairs would much rather have release time than dollars. However, it was pointed out that this new policy does not give more release time to most chairs.
• It was mentioned that newer faculty are more focused on scholarly activity and it may be difficult to have good chairs in the future.

VIII.   Review of the UCC decision to approve a new course, SAH 105: Analysis of Health, Wellness, and Disease for the Healthcare Consumer.

The chair stated that the Senate is not second-guessing the UCC on this issue. The request for the Senate to review the decision came from someone outside of the colleges of SAH and HPERTE. There is precedent for the Senate to review committee decisions concerning courses, but it is rare.

Don Socha, chair of the UCC was available for questions. The first question concerned the original vote on this matter in UCC. Don indicated that the vote was 9/2/1 to approve the course.

Mark Zellmer served as the spokesperson for the SAH 105 course and gave a brief statement. He mentioned that the course will not be lecture based, but will involve an inquiry-based, problem-based, module approach. The modules are being written by an interdisciplinary group of 15 faculty. He indicated that there is overlap of topics with HPR 105, but this is not without precedent. SAH 105 does not duplicate HPR 105, but it does cover similar topics. This is necessary if the course is to fit into the General Education category with HPR 105.

Sandy Price served as the spokesperson for the College of HPERTE and gave a brief statement. She indicated that the questions they have are primarily concerning process. They are concerned about the duplication of material. They question when they should have been asked to meet with SAH to discuss the issue. She indicated that the UCC meeting was the wrong venue for the debate that was held. The deans should have stepped in and they should have met earlier in the process. Their other concern was about the need for a choice in category G of General Education. A group from the College of SAH got a grant from the General Education committee in order to write the modules that will be used for the course. Does this indicate approval for the course by the General Education Committee?  It was stated that it was made clear when the grant was given that this did not indicate prior approval of the course for General Education.

The floor was then opened up for comments/questions from the senators.  Senator Kraemer asked for clarification of the module based approach, and questioned who would be teaching the students.  Mr. Zellmer gave a brief explanation and discussion continued.  Representatives from SAH reported that during the process of course approval, the UCC asked the College to make changes to the original proposal to diminish duplication.  The College came back with those changes and the course was subsequently approved.  Representatives from HPERTE distributed copies of the objectives of the HPR 105 course, a document entitled Wellness: Guidelines for a Healthy Lifestyle, and an example of  HPR 105 content duplication in the SAH 105 course for the Senate's review.  Diane Schumacher, Registrar, reported that the General Education Committee discussed the goals within Category G. of the General Education Program.  The committee felt the category was broad enough to accommodate a variety of courses within the category depending on what the proposed course looks like.

M/S endorsement of the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee's recommendation to approve a new course, SAH 105: Analysis of Health, Wellness and Disease for the Healthcare Consumer.

M/S/P to table the motion.  (show of hands:  10-yes, 2-no, 2-abstain)

M/S/P the Faculty Senate conclude the review of the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee's recommendation to approve a new course, SAH 105: Analysis of Health, Wellness and Disease for the Healthcare Consumer.  (show of hands:  9-yes, 1-no, 4-abstain)

IX. Old Business.   There was no old business.

X. New Business.   There was no new business.

XI. Adjournment.  The meeting adjourned at approximately 5:20 p.m.
 

Rebecca Lewin LeDocq, Secretary