Faculty Senate
Vol. 37, No. 11
February 27, 2003

I.   Roll Call.

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

II.  Approval of Minutes.

There were no minutes available.

III.  Reports.

Provost/Vice Chancellor Hitch reported that she continues to talk to effected parties about the potential reorganization of HPERTE – details will be available in March.  Georges Cravins announced that the Faculty Representatives will meet tomorrow in Madison.  Chair Senger urged Senators to recycle their agenda envelopes.

IV.  Discussion of FY02 Lapse and Biennial Budget Reductions for FY03-05.

The following motion in support of the UWL classified employees was presented, discussed, and approved.

M/S/P the faculty senate of the University of Wisconsin – La Crosse wishes to go on record in support of the Wisconsin legislature taking action on the bargaining agreement that was negotiated in good faith between the State of Wisconsin and AFSCME Council 24 Wisconsin State Employees Union for all classified employees here on this campus and throughout the State of Wisconsin.  (unanimous voice vote)

Chair Senger reported that the budget reduction web page containing rescission guidelines, etc. was posted earlier this week.  Senators are encouraged to review the information.

Senger distributed copies of President Lyall’s statements on Governor Doyle’s proposed 2003-05 budget cut, where she stresses that UW-System is looking for all possible areas of reduction before making choices that affect instruction.

Chair Senger reviewed several handouts regarding the budget reduction. The first handout [1] outlined the affects over each year of the biennium of the Governors State Budget proposal. The handout breaks down the affects of the $250,000,000 GPR reduction and as well as the $150,000,000 increase in tuition. The document also explains what the affect will be on UW-L’s GPR budget. Finally, this handout describes how it is that the dollar increase in tuition will generate the roughly $150,000,000.

The second handout [2] contained estimates of student FTE across the various units of the University System. It also describes the affect of tuition increases on the various campus budgets.

The third handout [3] compared the 1989-1990 UW-L budget to the 2002-2003 budget. Each category (activity code) in the budget is listed, and the proportional amount that each category represented is listed. These proportions indicate that if the 89-90 budget was viewed in current dollars, there would be differences in the dollar amounts in the current budget categories. These differences indicate that there is currently $2.7 million less in instruction relative to 89-90 (there has been a 3.97% decline as a percentage of the total budget), and there is $2.4 million dollars more in Academic Support (a 3.43% increase as a percentage of total budget). 

The fourth handout [4] contained a list indicating the number of Deans, Associate Deans and Assistant Deans at each of the Comprehensive Universities in the System. The number of positions of these types ranges between 3.5 (in UW-Platteville) and 11 (at UW-La Crosse).

Senger reminded the senate that the intent of this meeting is to provide the University Planning & Budget Committee with guidelines when the committee meets March 5th.  Provost Hitch explained the process for releasing proposed budget reduction scenarios – February 28th Hitch/Lostetter finalize proposal; March 3 distributed to Chancellor’s Cabinet; March 4th distributed to Deans Council; March 5th presented to Planning & Budget Committee.

The academic deans described the effect of the budget cuts on their colleges.

HPERTE – reductions in certain majors, looking at natural trends.  With a 2.5% reduction – vacancies that would not be filled include: health education/promotion, teacher education pedagogy, exercise/sport science, science education.  With a 5% reduction – educational studies ½ time position shared with business not renewed; exercise/sport science bridge retirement position not filled; recreation management and educational studies position not filled, which will reduce the size of special education.  With a 7.5% reduction, the college could start taking hits in the area of academic staff positions – would affect the area of reading education, school of health ed/teacher ed.  A 10% reduction level means major changes – look administratively – combine associate dean position with department chair.  Each 2.5% reduction  amounts to approximately $137,000.

CLS – developed additional criteria to follow regarding budget reductions:  avoid cutting any filled tenure track position or tenure track faculty.  No elimination of departments or major program. Try to be equitable in cuts, safeguard supplies/equipment, faculty development, and student help.  Give back positions from retirements or resignations.  Potential programmatic cuts such as Amity Scholars in modern languages, writing program in English, cuts in the dean’s office – reductions in sabbaticals, LTE positions and part-time positions.

SAH – reduction guidelines included a detailed budget sheet.  SAH reduced positions last year and made a larger cut than needed with hopes to redistribute money.  Presently have a carryover of 90K to begin to use toward budget cuts.  Restructured of the MLS program reduced from 3 faculty to 1 faculty – to be moved to Microbiology.  Mathematics taking large cut – with the reduction of students will reduce number needing college algebra and statistics.  Controversial issue is dropping CS 101 from the general education program – produces tremendous student credit hrs (4-5 faculty involved) and would require a fundamental change in general education program.  Not ordinary times, so no ordinary solutions – this would have a major impact on department – want C-S to focus on generating majors. 

CBA – included faculty, department chairs, program assistants and student advisory committee in budget discussions.  96% of budget in personnel – each 2.5% reduction equals $180K.  The goal is to maintain access/quality.  At the 2.5% level 2 ½  positions will not be filled due to resignations/retirement,  move the MBA director back into deans office, cut summer stipends for dept chairs, and a reduction in ad hoc positions.  At the 5% level:  2.5 FTE academic staff reduction, further reduction in ad hoc appointments.  Above 5% will mean closing two searches in Information Systems and Marketing.  The 7.5% level will reduce the business development center, the last remaining academic staff position, and possibly reduce tenure track.

Student Life – will be nickel and dimed at the 2.5% level – 98% of budget is staff.  Academic staff cuts will occur in OMSS, financial aid, counseling/testing, career services, records, and the child care center.  Graduate student and student life, psychologists – reducing by half time, etc.

Considerable discussion followed:

Missing from the whole discussion are multiple scenarios.  Where do we want to be in 5 years? Seems like most of the reductions are in the classroom because of reduction in students.  Need longer range plan of where are we going.  Seems like no attempt to look at administration. 

The proposed reorganization plan will reduce administration considerably. 

Budget reduction guidelines indicate there should be no across the board cuts.  Are we at the level yet to discuss 5% reductions?  Will look for the best combination of things to put the institution in the best place we want to be in five years.

What is the process to decide reductions?  In the College of Business Administration,  2 of the 5 positions are in economics.  This is the easy money to grab.  BUS 230 gets chucked from curriculum because we have the tail wagging the dog rather than the other way around.  Maybe we should have curriculum decisions/discussions now. 

What do associate deans do?  What are the benefits/pitfalls of reducing our level of associate deans?  Administrative duties – for example in the College of SAH, one associate dean is tied up in the allied health area.  To what extent do duties overlap with respect to consortium and associate deans?

There are many rolls and responsibilities of Associate Deans within the colleges.  One deals with graduate studies/programming and graduate assistantships.  An Associate Dean in CLS acts as the budget manager in the college.  All deans in CLS also teach. 

We should be preserving quality instruction.  Enrollments in introductory classes have risen 25%.  If we increase instruction load where do we get the time?  Goal should be to find way to protect instruction as best we can and still maintain downward path of EM21 so that at end we have a better ratio of student/faculty.

We might want to discuss faculty workload.  Instructional academic staff doesn’t have the three areas of expectations – teaching, research, service.  How do we provide instructional academic staff with greater responsibility of teaching?  There are negative and positive ramifications associated with this issue – it needs further discussion.  The quality and strength of the instruction is based on the faculty.  

Have we explored being more flexible on DINS?  We currently have DIN funding in allied health, advising, and economic stimulus funding.

Have we considered hybrid possibilities in budget cuts – say 2.5% reductions coupled with 2% across-the-board?

The cuts to UW-System are disproportionate.  We need to get in touch with our legislators.

Student Association Representative, David Glisch-Sanchez, spoke against Governor Doyle’s budget proposal, which is devastating to students.  He voiced concern about increased tuition and position reductions (650 of 2500 positions eliminated from UW-System).

M/S/P that the University Planning and Budget Committee considers no cut in instruction until every avenue has been researched.  (unanimous voice vote)

V.  Old Business.

VII.  New Business.

VIII. Adjournment.

The meeting adjourned at 5:40 p.m.


Submitted by
Robert Hoar, Secretary

Attachments to the minutes:

Faculty Senate Handout #1, 2/27, 2003.  
Faculty Senate Handout #2, 2/27, 2003.
Faculty Senate Handout #3, 2/27, 2003.  
Faculty Senate Handout #4, 2/27, 2003.