35th Faculty Senate

Vol. 35, No. 11

April 19, 2001


I. Roll Call.

Present:  Bange, Barmore, Barnd, Brooks, Claflin, Cravins, Gendreau, Hench, Hollenback, S. Kelly, R. LeDocq, Majak, Marx, Monte, Odulana, Senger, Stroud, R. Sullivan, Tyser, Van Voorhis, Zellmer.

Excused:  Doering, Heim.

II. Approval of Minutes.

The minutes of the April 5, 2001 meeting were approved as distributed.

III. Reports.

There was no Chancellor's or Provost/Vice-Chancellor's report.

Chair Bange distributed committee memberships and time-lines for the Provost/Vice-Chancellor Search & Screen Committee as well as the Assistant Chancellor for Advancement Search & Screen Committee.

Provost/Vice-Chancellor S/S Committee Members:

Faculty Representatives:
Dr. Betsy Morgan, Psychology - Chair
Dr. Mike Haupert, Economics
Dr. S. N. Rajagopal, Microbiology
Dr. Bruce Riley, Mathematics
Dr. Dean Stroud, Foreign Languages

Academic Staff Representatives:
Dr. M. Donald Campbell, Continuing Education/Extension
Dr. Jodie Wagner, Counseling and Testing

Student Representative:
Mr. Ge Vang

Classified Representative:
Ms. Michelle Abing, Affirmative Action & Diversity

Chancellor's Appointments:
Dr. Lise Graham, Finance
Dr. Ronald Rochon, School of Education
 

Assistant Chancellor for Advancement S/S Committee Members:

Faculty Representatives:
Dr. Joseph Heim, Political Science & Public Administration
Dr. Richard Pein, Exercise & Sport Science
Dr. Patricia Wilder, Physical Therapy

Academic Staff Representatives:
Ms. Janie Spencer, Advancement
Mr. Brad quarberg, Advancement
Ms. Cheryl Hancock, Advancement
Ms. Marcee Peplinski, Mississippi Valley Archaeological Center
Ms. Sharie Brunk, Academic Discovery Lab

Student Representatives:
Mr. Bradley Mitchell
Mr. Joe Amundsen

Classified Representative:
Ms. Diane O'Brien, Advancement

Chancellor's Appointments:
Dr. Carl Wimberly - Chair
Mr. John Wettstein
Mr. Joe Baker

Bange noted that the Chancellor's appointments to the Provost's search committee give the faculty representation a clear majority.  He also reported that he has received requests from Senators Cravins and Hollenback that the members of that particular search committee meet with the Faculty Senate prior to the beginning of the search process.  He will invite the committee to the May 3rd meeting for an open discussion on what the faculty is interested in seeing for our next Provost/Vice-Chancellor.

The Articles & By-laws Committee has submitted the proposed by-law change for the Remuneration of Department Chairpersons.   Bange reminded Senators that the salary adjustment for department chairpersons was approved last Spring and that this particular by-law change reflects the will of the Senate.  Copies were distributed and this item will appear on the next agenda as a second reading.

Chair Bange announced that Senator Claflin will not be present at the final meeting because of professional commitments.   Tom is retiring at the end of this academic year after a distinguished career that includes serving 15 yrs on the Faculty Senate spanning four decades.  He served 7 years on the Senate Executive Committee including 5 years as Chair.  He has presided over 62 senate meetings, and is presently finishing his one-year term as the Secretary.  Applause and best wishes for a long and happy retirement were expressed by all those present.

Lastly, Chair Bange announced that the long-anticipated Cookie Day is scheduled for the May 3, 2001, meeting.  He'll be making his famous Monster Cookies and has invited all senators to bake their favorite cookies and bring along enough to share.

IV. Discussion of the Report of the Instructional and Research Academic Staff Working Group.

Bange stated that the Faculty Senate response to the Report will be directed to Interim Provost/Vice-Chancellor Rada who will forward any recommendations or comments on to System on behalf of the Institution.  Considerable concern was expressed on the issue of retitling.  Senators were troubled because the title of professor is indicative of someone who has earned a terminal degree, and using "Instructional Professor" adds to the blurring of the distinction between faculty and academic staff.

Bob Wingate reported that TAUWP has passed a resolution opposing the retitling of academic staff.  He stated that the major issue is job security and emphasized that it is seen as an indirect attack on tenure.

M/S/P the Faculty Senate opposes the titling changes for teaching academic staff, as proposed. (show of hands:  17-yes, 0-no, 3-abstain)

V. By-law Revisions for Program/Curriculum Committees - First Reading.

Keith Sherony, a member of the Articles & By-laws Committee joined the senate.  He explained that the main thrust of the document is to clarify and to carve out niches for the appropriate curriculum-related committees (Academic Priorities Committee, Undergraduate Curriculum Committee, Graduate Curriculum Committee, General Education Committee).  In addition, one of the most pressing problems has been how new or revised program offerings should be directed.  The committee's recommendations provide order to the flow of things.  In fact, the following description of the roles of the various committees indicate there are no sweeping changes but rather a clarification of where things go depending on work.  The Articles & By-laws Committee does, however, recommend changing the name of the Academic Priorities Committee to The Academic Planning Committee.  The APC was created in response to a UW-System directive that required a program addition to be offset by the termination of an existing program. The “build one, burn one" rule seems to be in abeyance, and the APC’s responsibilities now focus on planning rather than setting priorities. Consequently, the new name would more accurately reflect the committee’s work.

The Roles of APC, UCC, and GCC
1. APC shall be the faculty committee that considers proposals for all new programs, including emphases, concentrations, minors, majors, graduate, and special programs. APC shall consider proposals for all program revisions if it is determined that:

a) the proposed revision has resource needs that cannot be met by the proposing department and college, or;
b) the proposed revision has long-range academic planning implications.
APC shall consider individual courses only if it is determined that:
a) the proposed course has resource needs that cannot be met by the proposing department and college, or;
b) the proposed course has long-range academic planning implications.
APC shall review proposals in terms of resource issues and compliance with long-range academic plans. "Long range academic plans" shall be understood to include the current UW-L Mission Statement and other information APC finds useful.
2. UCC shall be the faculty committee that considers catalog revisions, minor adjustments in program requirements, and proposals for all new or revised undergraduate courses. UCC shall review all courses proposed for an existing undergraduate program, and all courses that are in a proposed undergraduate program that is approved by APC. UCC’s scope in considering resources shall be the department and college’s ability to meet the resource needs of the proposed course.

3. GCC shall be the faculty committee that considers catalog revisions, minor adjustments in program requirements, and proposals for all new or revised graduate courses. GCC shall review all courses proposed for an existing graduate program, and all courses that are in a proposed graduate program that is approved by APC. GCC’s scope in considering resources shall be the department and college’s ability to meet the resource needs of the proposed course.

Protocol for Proposing New or Revised Courses or Programs.
All proposals for new or revised courses or programs will first be forwarded as follows:

New  Programs

  • All proposals concerning new programs, including emphases, concentrations, minors, majors, graduate, and special programs, are forwarded to APC for review in terms of resource issues and compliance with long-range academic plans.
  • Programs that APC approves are forwarded to UCC or GCC, which evaluates the curricular content of the program’s individual courses.
  • Programs that APC and UCC or APC and GCC approve are forwarded to Faculty Senate for final action.
Individual Courses or Revised Programs
  • All proposals concerning individual courses or program revisions in which the department and college affirm their ability to meet the resource needs of the proposal and which do not have implications for long-range planning are forwarded directly to UCC or GCC.
  • All proposals concerning individual courses or program revisions that have resource needs that cannot be met by the proposing department and college are forwarded to APC.
  • All proposals concerning individual courses or program revisions that have implications for long-range academic planning are forwarded to APC. If R&R cannot determine whether such a proposal carries implications for long-range academic planning, the Director of R&R shall consult the Chair of APC and the Provost/Vice Chancellor to settle the question.
  • An individual course or program revision that APC approves is forwarded to UCC or GCC, which evaluates the proposal’s curricular content.
APC approval of a proposal does not guarantee UCC or GCC approval. Rather, APC approval is contingent upon approval by UCC or GCC.

First Reading of by-law changes as follows:

B. The Academic Planning Committee

Duties and responsibilities of the committee shall include:

1. Maintaining and updating the procedures and criteria used to review proposals for new or revised academic programs. Any changes in procedures or criteria are subject to the approval of the Faculty Senate. The procedures shall provide opportunity for input from those areas of the University that would be affected by the proposed program. The criteria shall take into consideration the needs of students and society, the mission of the university, the necessity for quality academic programs, and the availability of the necessary resources.

2. Receiving and reviewing proposals for all new academic programs, including emphases, concentrations, minors, majors, graduate, and special programs. Receiving and reviewing proposals for new or revised courses or for program revisions that have resource needs that cannot be met by the proposing department and college, or have implications for long-range academic planning.

a. The review shall include consulting with the Chancellor, the Provost/Vice Chancellor and the academic dean of the proposing college regarding the availability of resources within the college to fund the proposal.

b. If it is determined that adequate resources are not available within the college, APC shall request that the Provost/Vice Chancellor forward to APC a report detailing available resources in the other academic colleges and in the non-academic units of the university. The Provost/Vice Chancellor shall include recommendations on what available resources might be most appropriately used to fund the proposal.

c. The committee shall forward its recommendations to the Faculty Senate.

3. Formulating long range academic plans and reviewing externally generated academic planning initiatives for recommendation to the Faculty Senate.

4. Receiving and reviewing proposals to eliminate academic programs and forwarding its recommendations to the Faculty Senate.

The regular membership of the committee shall consist of nine full time  faculty at the rank of Assistant Professor,  Associate Professor or Professor, having no designated administrative responsibilities, each with a minimum of four years experience at UW-L or tenured status. This membership shall include three faculty from the College of Liberal Studies and two faculty from each of the following academic units:  the College of Science and Allied Health, the College of Business Administration, and the College of Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Teacher Education. Terms of membership shall be three years and be staggered so that three members complete their terms and are replaced each year. The committee shall elect its chairperson. If the committee is meeting as described in 2.b. above, then the membership of the committee shall be temporarily expanded (if necessary) in order to provide a representative from the proposed new or revised program. If the committee is meeting as described in 4. above, then the membership of the committee shall be temporarily expanded (if necessary) in order to provide a representative from the program proposed for elimination. Any temporary member shall have no designated administrative responsibilities and shall be selected through procedures established by the committee.
 

K. The Graduate Curriculum Committee

Duties and responsibilities of the committee shall include:

4. Evaluating various curricular proposals by an established set of criteria, taking into consideration the needs of students and of society, the mission of the university, the necessity for quality programs, and the ability of the department and college to meet the resource needs of the proposal.
 

W. The Undergraduate Curriculum Committee

Duties and responsibilities of the committee shall include:

5. Evaluating curriculum proposals by a hierarchical set of criteria, taking into consideration the needs of students and of society, the mission of the university, the necessity for quality programs, and the ability of the department and college to meet the resource needs of the proposal.
 

I. The General Education Committee

Duties and responsibilities of the committee shall include:

4. Evaluating general education proposals within the established program structure, taking into consideration the needs of students and of society, the mission of the University, the necessity for quality general education, and the goals of the program.
 

Chair Bange thanked the committee for providing us with a top-notch document.  Dr. Sherony credited the Academic Priorities Committee for contributing a good bit of material as a starting point.
 

VI. Recommendations from the Academic Policies & Standards Committee on J-Term Sessions.

Rob Wolf, Chair of CAPS joined the Senate and presented the following committee recommendations:

MSP 1.  Students may be admitted to begin during J-Term.  (voice vote)

MSP 2. For undergraduate students, no academic action will result from J Term; fall academic action will be in effect until spring.  For graduate students, J Term will be considered a regular term of attendance which will result in the standard academic actions.  (voice vote)

MSP 3. J Term credits will not count toward full-time status for the fall or spring semester with the possible exception of spring financial aid awards.  (voice vote)

MSP 4.  Degrees will be awarded at the end of J Term to students who fulfilled the requirements.  (voice vote)

MSP 6.  Grades will be due from faculty at noon one week after J term ends.  (voice vote)

MS #5.  Withdrawal from a course (even if it is the students only course), during J and summer terms (including May term) after the deadline to withdraw will be considered a class withdrawal, not a university withdrawal, and count against the total of 4 allowable drops.  The deadline to withdraw from a course during the listed terms will be extended from 2 days to 1 week.

Dr. Wolf explained that the drop policy during J-Term is complicated because students frequently take only one course which means they are effectively withdrawing from the University.  The summer terms have a similar problem, so the committee decided to consider all the shortened terms simultaneously.  Discussion on the issue of dropping or withdrawal from university continued.  CAPS was divided on this recommendation so for the sake of argument, the supporting and opposing rationale follows:

Supporting recommendation:  Termination of enrollment in J or summer terms is a drop.  Almost always, the students intend to enroll in the immediately following term and the reasons for dropping are often less serious than those for a typical university withdrawal.  Calling drops university withdrawals, just to avoid the negative implications is very bad policy.  We are writing a 'lie' into policy.  If the implications of calling a drop a drop are negative, it should be dealt with as a separate issue.  The drop policy is intended to be effective during short terms.  After the first two semesters, a student shall be allowed four class drops… including summer sessions.  Currently, most drops are counted as university withdrawals during shortened terms.  This is against current policy.

Implementing this policy would not detrimentally affect many students.  In fact, it provides students a longer drop/add period, with no consequences, than the current policy.

It was the responsibility for the Report committee to make suggestions that would legitimize J Term.  This may mean making students take the consequences of university withdrawal more seriously.

Opposing recommendation:  Termination of enrollment in J or summer terms is usually defined as a university withdrawal under the current policy.  "A student who withdraws from all classes is considered to have withdrawn from the university."  Again, "Any student enrolled for only one class who wishes to withdraw from that class must complete withdrawal procedures as outlined in the section titled 'Withdrawal from the University'."  Also, there are many suggested motivations for the '4 drop' policy and very few of these motivations apply to J Term drops.

The J Term is very compressed.  If a student becomes ill or has a family emergency and misses several days, it is very difficult, if not impossible to recover in shortened terms.  J Term is not a regular semester, so why treat it like one?  Why make a policy that is negative in its impact?  The students lose their enrollment fees for terminated classes, that is a sufficient disincentive.

Most of the Dean's Assistants present at the meeting were supportive of counting termination of enrollment as a university withdrawal.

The recommendation FAILED.  (show of hands:  6-yes, 11-oppose, 2-abstain)

VII. Old Business.

VIII. New Business.

In response to Senator Cravins' earlier proposal that the faculty senate establish some kind of special recognition for our colleagues who are retiring, Senator Claflin suggested that a boat, motor, and trailer would be an appropriate retirement gift…  Laughter and a quick rush to the door signaled adjournment at 5:15 p.m.
 

Submitted by

Thomas O. Claflin, Secretary