Faculty Senate
Vol. 37, No. 4
October 10, 2002

I.  Roll Call.

Present:  Barmore, Barnd, Beck, Brooks, Cravins, Dixon, Gendreau, Gibson, Hollenback, Kelly, Kernozek, Krajewski, Majak, L. Nelson, Poulton, Ragan, Senger, Taylor, Tyser, Vandenberg-Daves, Wingate, Zellmer.

Excused: Hoar, A. Nelson.

II.  Approval of Minutes.
The minutes of the 9-26-02 meeting were approved with a correction in the first line of the Chair’s Report changing was to were.

III.  Reports.

A. Chair Senger reported that the Promotion, Tenure & Salary Committee (PTS) and the Jt. Promotion Committee are presently at work toward refining communication between the two committees and clarifying roles.  In essence, the PTS Committee works on policy, while the Jt. Promotion Committee is the implementing body.   Issues such as interpreting departmental guidelines regarding standards for promotion, and other related questions will be discussed by the PTS Committee.  The PTS Committee will forward any recommendations on these policies, to the faculty senate for consideration and approval prior to the implementation by the Jt. Promotion Committee.

The senate received a copy of the charge to the Joint Information Technology Committee.  The main charge is to look into the utilization of instructional technology in classrooms – portable podiums or building facilities within a classroom; how much the facilities are being used; and how can it be a more efficient use of resources. 

On other matters; copies of former Senate Chair Heim’s memo re the all university council were distributed; Chair Senger was visited by a representative from the United Student Council asking the senate to promote the upcoming conference on building unity (Senger will reference the November event in his next e-mail to campus).

B.  Provost/Vice-Chancellor Hitch continues her round of making departmental visits.  To date, she has met with 14 departments and has another 5 scheduled on her calendar.  She is listening to concerns about the budget, and receiving comments on the strategic plan.  Discussions also continue with Deans on the $120,900 budget shortfall, retention records, and graduation rates.

C. Vice-Chancellor Lostetter reported that every effort is being made to clear up the confusion between tuition payments and Taco Bell charges that are appearing on UW-L students’ credit card statements.  This story has spread quickly through the media… even broadcasting on CNN Headline News.

D. Faculty Representative, Georges Cravins reported that progress is being made in the discussions with other faculty representatives regarding issues on teacher education.

IV.  Approval of SEC Nominations to the Search & Screen Committee for the Associate Dean of the College of Science & Allied Health.

M/S/P to approve the following SEC nominees to serve on the search and screen committee for the Associate Dean of the College of Science & Allied Health:  Tom Gendreau, Margaret Maher, Bruce Osterby, Bruce Riley, and Mark Zellmer.  (voice vote)

V.  Reorganization of Athletics and Campus Recreation.
As required by faculty senate policy, P/VC Hitch presented the proposed reorganization of athletics and campus recreation.  The reorganization would change the report lines of Intercollegiate Athletics and Recreational Sports from the Dean of HPERTE to the Dean of Student Development/Academic Services, thus keeping the academic component together while moving the non-academic portion into a student services unit.  Dr. Hitch emphasized that it was never her intent to arrive at UW-L and begin making sweeping changes in college structure.  However, two failed searches to hire a Dean of HPERTE raised questions.  After determining that appropriate search procedures had been followed, the PVC explored ways to do something to change the process.  She looked at comparable institutions within the UW-System (all over the board) and at national ads listed in the Chronicle of Higher Education.  While there are a wide variety of structures, there is a tendency for either stand-alone colleges of education, or HPERTE-like combinations without attachments to non-academic units. 

A lively discussion ensued involving questions/answers.  Concerns were expressed that some people in both the academic and coaching units would end up with two deanly bosses.

Senator Barnd, speaking on behalf of the coaching staff, reported mixed feelings and concerns that the teacher/coach model is in jeopardy.  She raised the issue that perhaps the wrong component is being removed. 

Senator Gibson reported that it is the sense of the HPER faculty that previous search and screens failed because of timing.  He stated that the programs at UW-La Crosse are among the most successful in the State, and if it’s been successful with the teacher/coach models, why would it be those two components that are removed?  The feeling of the faculty is that we need answers to questions first.  Likewise, the coaches see an uncertain future.

Other matters brought up:

  • The current interim dean has been in place for four years – word gets around that the internal candidate is very interested.
  • The faculty in education does not want to move – they are asking for continuity.
  • Did searches fail because Athletics are in the position?  Is a totally academic deanship more desirable? 
  • Is it the money?

Petra Roter, Dean of Student Services, sees the proposed plan as a very positive move.  She stated that her units have strong and cooperative relationships with both areas.  She sees it as an opportunity to enhance relationships.

Garth Tymeson, Interim Dean of the College of HPERTE, stated that the reorganization will present challenges, and opportunities for enhancing collaboration.  He supports the proposed plan.  We will need to work to maintain the integrity of relationships that have been longstanding for decades.  Maintaining the teacher/coach academic model will be a real challenge.

Senators Barnd and Gibson reiterated that the coaches are concerned about the long-term effects, and that the ESS faculty feel they are out of the loop – they are not happy.  They see a potential for negative – don’t see the positives – they don’t know.

M/S/F that the faculty senate approve the reorganization report from the Provost/Vice-Chancellor and forward it to the administration for implementation.   (show of hands: 7-yes, 11-no, 4-abstain)

Motion fails.

M/S/P that the faculty senate will reconsider the recommendation if it is presented with evidence that the current structure of HPERTE is the reason for the failed Dean searches.  (voice vote)

M/S/P that the Faculty Senate would like to see more evidence of support for the reorganization by affected faculty.  (voice vote)

VI.  General Education Program: Course Moratorium.
Emily Johnson, Director of the General Education Program, reviewed the rationale for declaring a temporary new course moratorium in the general education program.  She expects that the moratorium would continue for a minimum of one year.  The moratorium does not include writing emphasis courses, or course revisions – especially if such revisions have already received the approval from the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee.  Dr. Johnson reported that for this one year, department chairs do not have strong concerns.  Meanwhile, the General Education Committee will continue its work of refining student learning outcomes in order to better assess the general education program.

VII.  Recommendations from Undergraduate Curriculum Committee Concerning Time-Compressed Courses.
Chair Senger reviewed the history of the issue of time-compressed courses.  At its meeting October 26, 2000, the faculty senate held a discussion on J- and M-term courses.  At that time, a motion was approved to charge the UCC to develop a policy for approving courses for offering during the 4-week summer sessions, as well as J- and M-term sessions.  Senate Chair, Dave  Bange, charged the UCC  to create a process or policy that would help ensure the academic quality of courses offer in 3- or 4-week sessions.  In particular, the Senate would like departments that offer course in both the standard 14-week format and in such abbreviated sessions provide an assessment that the learning outcomes from the different formats are, in fact, equivalent. 

Again, in August 2001, former Senate Chair, Joe Heim reminded the UCC of the “hold-over” item from the previous academic year to complete the recommendations related to the review of J- and M-term issues and policies.

The UCC brought the following two charges to the faculty senate at end of last spring:

1)      The Faculty Senate should not attempt to control the creation of “time-compressed” versions of existing full-semester courses.  UCC finds it sufficient to maintain the current system: time-compressed versions of full-semester courses are created by action of departments and Deans.  Naturally, creation of a totally new course, time-compressed or full semester, should continue to require the approval of UCC/GCC.

2)      UCC recommends that the Faculty Senate direct Academic Program Review Committee to add to its protocol (and associated forms) a separate reporting section for time-compressed courses.  APRC should ask departments to report such matters ad these: a) total time-compressed courses offered in the review period, both as absolute numbers and as percentages of all courses offered; b) year-by-year absolute numbers and percentages, to permit the analysis of trends; c) statements on the trends in the staffing of such courses—Are they taught primarily by tenured members of the department, primarily by untenured members, primarily by instructional academic staff? – and whether such trends are interfering with the ability to offer full-semester courses; d) summary statements indicating how assessments of student outcomes in time-compressed sections compare to assessments of student outcomes in time-compressed sections compare to assessments of student outcomes in full-semester versions of the same courses (note: this calls only for SUMMARY statements, not detailed reporting of assessment results).

The SEC has agreed that the senate will pursue the broader question (recommendation #1) at a future meeting.

M/S/P to approve recommendation #2. (voice vote)

VIII.  Introduction to the Strategic Planning Document.

In his opening remarks, Chair Senger reminded Senators of the importance that the faculty senate consider the document as areas of curriculum are under the direct authority of the faculty.  Moreover, when approved, the document will represent the campus as a whole.

Dr. Aaron Monte and Senator Mark Zellmer, representing the Strategic Planning Committee, made a brief introduction of the document.   Monte reviewed the process and called attention to pg. 3 of the document, which illustrates the six basic building blocks (Academics, Holistic Student Development, Diversity, Community, Global, Quality of Resources) of the plan.  The committee is asking the faculty senate to endorse the plan and make recommendations by November 4, 2002.

Q and A – What does it mean to say that we are a regional, state, comprehensive public university?   What is primary goal?  To what extent are we committing ourselves?  Clear statement to our educational niche – are we a research institution or undergraduate teaching?

Like to see it expanded beyond educational programs.  Who we are is more than training people for specific jobs – we are training people for life.

Senger – outlined process - broad discussion at today’s meeting; detailed discussions will be focused on at next meeting.

Dixon – agrees to look at who we are reaching.  He was concerned that graduate students were left out of the strategic plan.

Brooks – speaking for Mike Haupert, he relayed his concern about the lack of attention to the mission statement, which has 7 goals of which 6 focus on academics.  Believes strategic plan focuses on less academics.  The strategic plan should focus more on academics than it currently does.

Barmore – suggests changing “retaining U.S. born faculty of color” found on pg. 30, to “retain underrepresented groups within the university community.”   The document currently contains many inconsistencies.  For example, twice on pg. 12 it calls for expanding opportunities for service learning and capstone classes, where other places (pg. 10) calls for a reduction in the number of course offerings within departments and programs.   Also on pg. 10 the statement to review and reduce course offerings by 2005, is followed on pg. 11, with “reduce the average load to 9 credits by 2006”.   Then again in another part “reducing class sizes happens by 2007.”

Vandenberg-Daves participated in the Future Search Conference and felt it was a wonderful experience.  She feels that work life issues are important and promised the work life committee will be contributing to the review of the strategic plan.  Workplace as well as work life issues balance gender, equity issues.

Gendreau – worked on committee for half a semester.  Left in frustration  – many people on committee were hostile to the idea that this is primarily an academic institution.  Fundamental flaw in the document is the lack of academic process.  During the process people were asked to make statements but not defend them, debate was actively discouraged - not an academic discussion.  Participants were asked to suspend judgment as other people made statements.  It was a flawed, anti-academic process.  No discussion and agreement on document.  Academics is one of six building blocks. 

Billy Clow, Chair of the Budget & Planning Committee, commented on academics – not change mission of university.  This document is not necessarily a done deal.

Tom Hench, Consultant to the Strategic Planning process, emphasized that the Goals are stated in broadest terms and it would be a mistake to interpret them literally.

Senger is concerned about role of academics – very disturbed about apparent portion of academics missing i.e. no mention about recruiting and retention of faculty – no mention of degree programs.  There is a big disconnect between mission statement and contents.  The most concrete portion of the document is ambiguous.  He proposes to give the document close scrutiny.

IX.  Adjournment.
The meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m.

Submitted by,
T.J. Brooks