Faculty Senate
Vol. 37, No. 16
April 24, 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.  Approval of Minutes.
The minutes of the March 27, April 3, and April 10, 2003, meetings were approved as distributed.

III.  Reports.
Chair Senger announced that nominations for next year’s Senate Executive Committee will be sent out next Monday; the Certificate Program for Medical Dosimetry has been approved by the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee and will be on the May 8th agenda; very soon the senate web site will include a flow chart of how proposals move through the university, as well as a status report/summary of senate actions; the Chancellor’s response to the budget reduction has been received and distributed to Senators; elected to next year’s faculty senate are: Tim Gongaware, Joe Heim, Eric Kraemer, Peg Maher, Bruce Riley, Dave Riley, Joyce Shanks, and Dick Sullivan; the organizational meeting will be held May 8th at 3:30 p.m. where we once again celebrate the last meeting of the semester and the much awaited Cookie Day!

Chief Financial Officer, Ron Lostetter, gave details of the proposed compensation package for classified non-represented employees that show 0% the first year and 1% in year two.  The proposal includes some changes to medical coverage payments: Family Tier one would be $62.50/month; Tier two would be $100/month; while Tier three comes in at $150/month.  Single coverage comes in at $25.50/month.  The tiers are based on cost-efficiency.  Presently the least expensive plans are in Dane County.

Copies of the UW-La Crosse Differential Tuition Funding materials were distributed.

Faculty Representative, Georges Cravins, reported that the BOR is holding hearings to determine what the future should be with respect to budget cuts and quality of education.  Regents are reviewing academic staff policies and checking with System to see how other campuses are doing budget planning.  It is likely that Senator Cravins will be in attendance at the next BOR meeting in Stevens Point on May 8th. 

IV.  Academic Planning Committee.
Bruce Osterby, Chair of the Academic Planning Committee, presented the following two recommendations:

M/S/P to recommend a change in the by-laws for the Academic Planning Committee: under section 4, amend to read:  Receiving and reviewing proposals to eliminate or suspend academic programs and forwarding its recommendations to the Faculty Senate.

(This constitutes a first reading)

M/S/P to recommend that the “New Program Entitlement” flow chart (attached) be used as the procedure for new program entitlements.  (voice vote)  This would clarify the UWS and UWL roles for new programs.  It also insures that the Academic Planning Committee/Faculty Senate approval for new programs would be required at the Entitlement to Plan stage and the Authorization stage.

2.7 add “of the Education committee of the BOR”

Dr. Wegner has requested that this be put on the web site.  Chair Senger responded that it was his intention to do so.

V.  Academic Program Review of the Department of Sociology & Archaeology.
Carol McCoy, Chair of the Academic Program Review Committee, and Kim Vogt, Chair of the Department of Sociology/Archaeology, joined the senate.  The committee commends the department for a well-written self-study document and for their thoughtful response to the external review.

The senate had several questions with respect to the new social statistics course.  Chair Vogt responded that the social statistics course would be a requirement for the major but would never be a substitution for the standard math course.

M/S/P to endorse the proposal.  (voice vote)

VI.  Undergraduate Curriculum Committee Guidelines Review.
Andy Matchett, Chair of the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee reviewed the proposed list of Criteria for Evaluation of Proposals, which the committee has discussed and approved.  These guidelines are meant to be used at the discretion of the committee.  The purpose is to provide information to departments making proposals for UCC review.

Criteria for Evaluation of Proposals
Undergraduate Curriculum Committee

UCC will consider new and revised course proposals with the following criteria in mind, in decreasing order of importance.  Department representatives submitting proposals should be prepared to answer questions concerning these issues, and present/discuss evidence of fulfilling these requirements.

 1.       Needs of Students and Society

(a)     The new course, program or revision should satisfy an identifiable need within the mission of the University.

(b)    The new or revised course should not duplicate curriculum already available in the department. 

(c)     For new course proposals that may have overlap with courses in other departments, evidence should be presented that those departments have been contacted and that the overlap is minimal or that the perspective is significantly different to merit a new course.  Departments may want to consider enrollment restrictions and the feasibility of course cross listing.  Course revisions that may result in significant overlap with courses in other departments should be accompanied by similar evidence.

(d)    The clientele of the program or course should be carefully considered and include sufficient enrollment to merit the use of necessary resources.

(e)     The role of the course or program should be carefully considered, including requirement in major or minor programs within and external to the department.  If the course will significantly impact other departments or programs, submitters are encouraged to include evidence of communication with the other programs/departments.

2.       Quality

(a)     The new course/program or revision should be well conceived and well organized.  Revisions resulting in substantial changes to course content or new course proposals should include a sufficient outline of the course material and pattern to demonstrate these requirements.

(b)    The level of rigor should meet current standards for a university course or program, and the number of credits awarded should be reflective of the amount of work required in the course.

(c)     The new or revised course should have appropriate prerequisites.

3.       Ability of the Department and College to meet resource needs

While UCC recognizes that a signature on the LX form certifies the Dean's willingness to support a course or program, there are course design issues that can significantly impact the quality of a course offering and the experience for the students.  Therefore, submitters may be asked to discuss the following:

(a)     The department must have sufficient faculty/staff expertise for the new course or program or to make the proposed changes in an existing course or program. 

(b)    The department must have sufficient faculty/staff resources for the new course or program or to make the proposed changes in an existing course or program.  Departments submitting multiple proposals for new courses should consider whether there are infrequently offered courses that could be deleted.

(c)     The support infrastructure must be adequate (sufficient laboratory facilities, sufficient library resources, availability of required internships, etc.) to offer the course/program in the long term.

4.       Record Keeping

(a)     The course number should be consistent with the level of work required in the course.

(b)    The course or program description should be clear and accurate, and programs should not have hidden requirements.

(c)     The instruction pattern should be appropriate and accurately described.


Questions involving course and/or program revisions will generally be limited to those sections of the LX form that are marked for revision.  However, presenters should give consideration to how the proposed changes may impact the other aspects of the course or program that have not been selected for revision, and be prepared to address questions from UCC members as necessary. 

Very minor changes may be handled through the Consent Agenda, which is presented to UCC members for expedited approval.  However, any UCC member may pull any item from the consent agenda and request a full first reading for the next meeting.  Generally only minor changes will be considered as possibilities for a consent agenda item.

1.      Reasonable items for consideration on the consent agenda:

·          Changes in semester offered

·          Course deletions

·          Changes in prerequisites within the proposing department

2.      Possible items for consideration on the consent agenda:  Proposers may request these items to appear on the consent agenda if they feel the changes are trivial. 

·          Course number

·          Changes in course description

·          Changes in course title

·          Changes in number of credits

M/S/P to support the guidelines.  (voice vote with one abstention)

VII.  Articles & Bylaws Committee Recommendations on Sizes of Faculty Committees.

Cynthia Berlin, chair of the committee, presented the report.  Essentially the committee is recommending that faculty committee sizes be set at nine faculty with exception of articles/bylaws; that existing committees are acceptable and should not be changed by combining or restructuring committees; that the PTS committee should assess the types/quantity of service and define faculty service expectations; and that appointments to the ABL committee should be made by the faculty senate rather than the Committee on Faculty Committees.

M/S to approve the reduction in size excluding the Hearing Committee.

M/S/F to amend that the Academic Program Review Committee size be increased to 10. (voice vote)

M/S/F to amend by maintaining staffing levels on the Research & Grants Committee.  (voice vote)

The motion was approved without amendments.  (unanimous show of hands)

Recommendation 3:  Improving faculty participation on committees.

Although the proposed reduction to committee size may offer some measure of relief, it may not be enough because budget cuts will likely reduce the size of the faculty.  Furthermore, anecdotal evidence suggests that at UW-L, the value of a service record has slipped over the years.  At the promotion level service activity is expected but is not something that is valued to the extent that it can distinguish a candidate.  At the college and department levels, accreditation and other pressures have heightened the importance of scholarship. Given UW-L’s teaching mission, faculty may “finance” more scholarly activity by cutting back on service efforts.

While the explanation for low faculty participation on committees is open to debate, the facts about it are not. There are 409 faculty members with Senate election voting privileges and 212 committee positions to fill. For the past five years, fewer than 212 of the eligible faculty members requested a committee assignment.  It is no wonder that the Committee on Faculty Committees has difficulty filling committee positions.  While faculty members’ professional and public service is valuable, we need to ask how these other forms of service are directly affecting University service.  There is no widespread information on the extent to which faculty engage in other service.   The Promotion, Tenure and Salary Committee needs to consider these issues and clarify service expectations in the hope of remedying the present shortage of volunteers for standing faculty committees.  Changing the reward structure to recognize service is one way to encourage participation.  A system of incentives and or penalties could be considered.

M/S/P to approve. (unanimous show of hands)

Recommendation 4:  Appointments to Articles and Bylaws Committee.

Standing faculty committees are an intermediary between faculty and their activities and the Faculty Senate except for the Articles and Bylaws Committee, which is an intermediary between the standing faculty committees and the Senate. Therefore, the Senate (SEC) should make the appointments to the Articles and Bylaws Committee rather than the Committee on Faculty Committees.  This would reduce by five the number of positions the Committee on Faculty Committees needs to fill.

M/S/P to approve. (unanimous show of hands)

VIII.  Recommendation on Formation of a Faculty Budget Review Committee. - First Reading.
Chair Senger discussed the SEC deliberations regarding the committee. While the Joint Budget and Planning Committee has related duties, the intent of this new committee is not the same. The senate needs a group of faculty that it can charge to review past budgetary actions and the impact of those actions on instruction. The findings of this group would provide data that would be useful to the joint committee, but these are not activities that the joint committee would normally be charged to look into. We initially thought it should be faculty members of budget committee, but later realized that there are individuals on the joint committee that may have more interest in planning then in budgets and to increase the workload in the budget area may cause individuals to choose other committee assignments. We have decided that it is in the best interests of the Senate to select the members of this committee with the expectation that they would have a close working relationship with the joint committee. 

Budget Review Committee

Duties and responsibilities of the committee shall include

  1. Study and report to the Senate on university budget decisions that affect instruction and research.
  2. Review annual budgets and report to the Senate on trends in support for instruction.

Membership of the committee will consist of five faculty members to be appointed by the Senate. Consecutive appointments may be allowed for up to five years. The committee will respond to direct charges from the Faculty Senate but will also be free to determine its own scope of study and review. The committee shall elect its chairperson.

The Chair noted that the seating gallery is now empty at 5:05 p.m.

M/S/P to amend duties and responsibilities by including:  The committee shall aim for maximum coordination with faculty on budget and planning committee.  (This constitutes a first reading)

IX.  Old Business.

X.  New Business.

XI.  Adjournment.

The meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m.

Submitted by,
Robert Hoar, Secretary