Faculty Senate
Vol. 37, No. 15
April 10, 2003


I.  Roll Call.

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

Excused:  Beck, Nelson.

II. Minutes.

There were no minutes to approve.

III. Reports.

Chair Senger distributed copies of the letter, introduction, and student learning outcomes that have been forwarded to chairs and other third party faculty by the General Education Committee.   Senators are encouraged to solicit input from their own departments.  In other matters, the Committee on Faculty Committees continues its work and expects to have a report at the next meeting; ballots for election to faculty senate will be counted next week with results announced immediately.

Associate Chancellor Lostetter attended the Academic Staff Council sponsored meeting with area legislators.  Overall it was a good exchange of information – where see budget coming in related to issues is not yet nailed down.  About half are not addressed yet.   He met yesterday in Madison and posed same question.  He described the scene where 100 fire fighters showed up to get message to legislators.  Higher education needs our help – we need to be speaking to legislators at every opportunity about the importance of higher education to the future of the State.

IV. CAPS Recommendation for Procedure on Reduced Course Loads for Persons with Disabilities. 

Diane Schumacher joined the faculty senate and answered questions.  The guidelines have been approved by CAPS.  Students need to apply each term.  Not considered an academic policy rather a procedure.  Advantage is a practical impact such as allowing students to be covered under parent’s insurance policy, as well as being eligible to receive scholarships for full-time status.

M/S/P to approve.  (voice vote)

V. CAPS Information on Review of Course Drop Rates.

CAPS concluded that given the relatively low incidence of multiple drops, valid extenuating circumstances and oversight by representatives of the colleges, CAPS concluded that the current policy is sufficient.

No action was taken by the senate.

VI.  Proposal to Implement Certificate Program in Medical Dosimetry.

Bruce Osterby, Chair of the Academic Planning Committee, reported that the committee approved the new certificate program by a vote of 5-0-0.  He stated that the proposers have done a good job of establishing a need or clientele for this extensive certificate program.  It is the understanding that it will run as a service-based pricing program and become self-sufficient after 2 years; it will require about $43K of reallocation money for the first 2 years but generate revenue after that time.  First class of students will probably be radiation therapists.   Grants to help cover costs will pay for part of a position but level of support will decrease over the next five years.  The major expense will be to hire one person – Dosimetrist - but not a tenure position.

Kris Saeger, Program director in radiation therapy joined the senate and addressed questions.  Course requirements are extensive based on accreditation requirements.  Much of course development will be done through grant.   Lower level of courses will be preparation prior to students beginning clinical work.  250 and up is current with clinical experience.  Stanford is developing courses but administered locally.

Dr. Wegner pointed out that the courses need to go through the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee for approval.

What is the difference between a radiation therapist and a dosimetrist?  Radiation therapist – delivers the radiation.  Dosimetrist determines where the treatment goes – measuring doses as well.

What is the opportunity costs – what are you giving up – borrowing resources from university at-large.  Where is the money coming from?  Can’t answer – after 2 years begin making a profit – after 7 years will have refunded loan.  Has a commitment from university for a short-term loan.  Does Stanford have any commercial rights to this curriculum?  No, it is being administered by Stanford but curriculum is a joint effort.

Admissions requirements – any concern from the senate?  Will be non-degree students and will be processed like any other non-degree student.

Will bring back to faculty senate after the UCC looks at it.

V.  Proposal to Reorganize Health Related Department in the College of SAH.

The College of Science and Allied Health is requesting Faculty Senate approval to reorganize departments and programs within the College by: 

  • Moving the Program in Nuclear Medicine Technology (NMT) from the Department of Clinical Science to the Department of Chemistry
  • Moving the Program in Clinical Laboratory Science (CLS) from the Department of Clinical Science to the Department of Microbiology
  • Consolidating the Departments of Clinical Science (Occupational Therapy, Radiation Therapy, and Physician Assistant) and Physical Therapy into a single department (Health Professions)

 Bruce Osterby, Chair of the Academic Planning committee presented committee’s concerns:  

  • Big change is PT will loose status as department and become a program.
  • NMT and Clinical Lab Science would be separated from the other health programs.
  • Bylaws question affecting promotion and tenure.
  • Would like a year to work out details

However, he stressed that faculty are generally supportive of reorganization – will work out any difficulties – this is an evolving process – keeping current within profession.  Advantage – both affiliated with hundreds of hospitals – by having one person in the department handling paperwork becomes more efficient – some financial savings – use of same program assistant.  Mentoring system and collaborators.  Will move MLS into microbiology and out of the Deans office – cutting PA will also help reduce budget deficit.

Bylaws question – they are very similar.  What about individuals reviewed for tenure? Chair Senger asked if there was a legal problem and he was told “no” since the bylaws are similar and the people under review were to be reviewed by “outsiders” due to the small number of faculty in the departments.

M/S/P to approve (show of hands:  21- yes, 0-no, 1-abstain)

VI. Resolution on Domestic Partner Benefits.

The following resolution, we believe, emphasizes a commitment to fairness and equity for all university employees by the committee and we believe the faculty and staff as a whole will give its strong support.  We want to make the La Crosse campus position on full and equitable domestic partner benefits fully known. Extending health care benefits to domestic partners (of any gender combination)is arguably the most important issue in regards to DPB to be resolved.   Faculty and staff support on this issue will strengthen the university's position to press for changes that we believe are important to this university.   

M/S the following Resolution on Domestic Partner Benefits (DPB) supporting the extension of health care insurance benefits to domestic partners of all qualified employees of the University of Wisconsin System.

WHEREAS More than 150 colleges and universities now offer health insurance benefits to domestic partners, including the University of Iowa, Indiana University, the University of Michigan, Michigan State University, the University of Minnesota, University of Chicago, and Northwestern University; and

WHEREAS Six states now offer domestic partner health benefits to all state employees, as do over 100 cities and counties nationwide, including Dane County, the City of Madison and the City of Milwaukee; and

WHEREAS Thousands of private employers now offer domestic partner health benefits, including employers doing business in Wisconsin, such as Alliant Energy, CUNA Mutual Insurance Group, Oscar Mayer, Ameritech, Northern States Power, American Express, General Motors, and DaimlerChrysler; and

WHEREAS The University of Wisconsin does not currently offer equitable health insurance options for the families of all of its employees; and

WHEREAS The University of Wisconsin's ability to recruit and retain high-quality employees is demonstrated to be compromised by its lack of competitive health coverage ;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the University of Wisconsin- La Crosse Faculty Senate supports the extension of state health insurance benefits to domestic partners and any dependent children of the partners for all qualified University of Wisconsin System employees. 

 

Domestic Partners are defined as individuals who:
1. are responsible for each other's common welfare;
2. are not married to anyone;
3. are at least 18 years of age;
4. are not related by blood to a degree that would bar marriage in the state of Wisconsin; and
5. meet the following conditions within their relationship:
a)  the relationship has been in existence for a period of at least 12 consecutive months.
b)  the individuals currently share the same residence and intend to do so indefinitely.
c)  the individuals have at least two of the following (and can provide documentation if requested):
  (1)  Domestic partnership agreement
  (2)  Joint mortgage, lease, or title
  (3)  Designation of domestic partner as beneficiary for life insurance or retirement contract
  (4)  Durable property or health-care powers of attorney
  (5) Joint ownership of motor vehicle, joint checking account, or joint credit account.

  (Approved by Chancellor Kuipers on May 18, 1998)

 M/S/P  to amend to change “benefits” to coverage”.  (voice vote)

 M/S/F to amend by deleting “the families of” (voice vote)

 The main motion passed as amended.  (show of hands:  yes-18,  no-1, abstain-2)

VII. Review of Current Draft of the Strategic Plan.

Billy Clow, Chair of the Strategic Planning Committee, joined the senate.  He reported that this current draft, which incorporates feedback from various groups will go out on the web after approval from governance groups.  He would like final approval today and assumes it will not be subsequently modified. 

The senate discussed the revisions noting that academics have become more in the forefront.  There still is little mention of graduate studies (2 or 3 places), however the plan is laid out so that it doesn’t look like we are more interested in graduate education.  Would like to see a section on what do we value – liberally educated person – extremely important need high priority.  Also, why don’t we have a definition about what a liberally educated person might look like. 

What is process beyond adopting this?  Recent budget cuts have forced us into a different mode.  Will we follow up with an analysis?  P/VC Hitch responded that she will have colleges take a look at program array/program review.

The senate agreed to a first reading today.  Then after the document has received a wider campus review, it would then come back for final approval.

VIII. Adjournment.

The meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m.

 
Submitted by

Robert Hoar, Secretary