Faculty Senate
Vol. 38, No. 6
October 23, 2003


 

I.          Roll Call.

Present:  Beck, Bigel, Brooks, Dixon, Gendreau, Gibson, Gongaware, Hoar, Kernozek, Kraemer, Maher, Majak, Ragan, B. Riley, D. Riley, Shanks, Shillinger, Sullivan, Taylor, Vandenberg-Daves, Wilson, Wingate.

Excused:  Heim, Poulton.

 

II.          Approval of Minutes.

The minutes of the October 9, 2003, meeting were approved as distributed.

 

III.         Reports.

 

Chair Hoar announced the additional members who have been appointed to the Search/Screen Committee for the Dean of CLS: The students have selected Larry Golba (Student Association). The Academic Staff council has selected Carla Burkhardt, (formerly from CLS, now Assistant to the Dean in Science and Allied Health) and Barbara Stewart, Director of Multi-Cultural Student Services.

           

Pay-Plan:  Copies of the final document relative to the pay-plan for 03-05 were distributed. While the President of the System requested 4% for each year, we will be getting 0% the first year and 1% the second. In addition, this document indicates that the amount that we will be required to contribute to the various health plans – these are the amounts that we expected. 

 

Budget: The Joint Budget and Planning group has been meeting with Ron Lostetter and others in an attempt to understand where the budget for UW-L currently stands.

§         Enrollment Management 21 (or EM21) was an agreement between System and the leadership of UW-L (Chancellor Kuiper’s administration).

§         The goal of EM21 was simple—decrease the total number of students without decreasing the budget.

o        This would increase the average dollars per student that UW-L would receive (UW-L ranked near the bottom in this category within the System at the time).

o        This would improve the student to faculty ratio.

o        This would be achieved by changing the “mix” of students, resulting in more non-resident students, but fewer total students.

o        So a clear measure of the success or failure of this plan would be the two ratios ($/student and student/faculty) as they compare to earlier in time and as they compare to other campuses in the System.

§         In order to attain this success, the plan requires that the targets related to the new mix be met, and this is where the plan is failing.

§         Without attaining the proper mix (which, includes an unrealistic expectation related to non-resident students), the income from tuition is reduced, and UW-L cannot justify the Budget it has requested.

§         What is the gap between what UW-L requested and what we can justify (based on enrollment) this year? These amounts are not yet fully understood. The 800,000 we reduced last year will help, but the numbers are still coming in from System and Joint Budget and Planning committee continues to try to understand the situation.  Hoar will keep the senate updated on the developments.

 

Lastly, there will be an item under new business, which is consideration of the motion relating to the funding of the Sabbaticals.

 

Chancellor Hastad confirmed that UWL cannot renegotiate the EM21 figures regarding out of state targets.  In fact, all the institutions are having difficulty reaching their target enrollments for out of state students.  However, there is good news on the horizon in the form of an initiative called Legacy Scholars.  This initiative will provide discounted tuition for out of state students who are children or grandchildren of alumni.  It is anticipated that the initiative will strengthen loyalty of alumni – creatively calling it a Return to Wisconsin. 

 

Secondly, pay plan.  Hastad shares pleasant surprise with System’s response and Regents’ response – actually supported 4% and 4%.  We’ve created a niche at UWL and we are proud of it.  Our challenge is to figure out how to do it even better.

 

Provost/Vice-Chancellor’s Report.  The subject of transfer credit is being discussed at the Board of Regents; however no action has been taken by that group.  A committee is being formed to further explore the issue.

 

Vice-Chancellor for Administration & Finance, Ron Lostetter distributed additional information regarding the pay increase issue from Karen Timberlake, Director of the State Employment Relations.

           

Faculty Representative, Joe Heim is attending a meeting in Madison.

 

Student Association Representative, Larry Golba reported that the student senate has extended applications for the oversight committee on academic advising.

 

 

IV.        Report from the Positioning Task Force

Chair Hoar has invited the members of the Task Force to attend today to help us as we discuss the report and its recommendations.  He clarified that the Senate would report to Provost Hitch – this is not a report to endorse.  The report was put in final form late Tuesday and distributed shortly thereafter, so we may not be all “up-to-speed” on its contents.

 

Why are we discussing it so soon? Well, while the process of Searching for a Dean of CLS has begun, there are still a number of interims in Administrative positions:

§         Within HPER-TE: The dean, the associate dean and director of the School of Education.

  •   Within SAH: Both associate Deans.

 

The Task Force, constructed and charged by the Provost, has been dealing with questions related to structure, and so job descriptions and reporting lines could have been affected.

  

  • In addition, there is an NCATE on-site review coming up (Director Swantz sent out an invitation to you to attend a meeting with the on-site team—November 4th, please mark your calendars. The site visit is prior to the next Senate meeting so today is the perfect opportunity to discuss that portion of the report concerning Teacher Education.

 

What are the possible actions that we might take today? Basically we want to provide the Provost with feedback on the report so that she can construct a Proposal.

§         This feedback can take many forms:

o        We could endorse, at least in principle, the recommendations contained in the report.

o        We could suggest modifications to the recommendations for the Provost to consider.

o        We could choose not to endorse one or more of the recommendations.

o        We could choose to put off discussing a recommendation (due to lack of time – there was little time to prepare and there is little time left on today’s clock.)

§         Most importantly, however, we should keep an eye on the structure implications. It is in the best interests of the University to begin searching as early as possible. If, as we deliberate today, we come to an agreement that any of the “job-descriptions” relating to the current interim positions will not be changed, we should communicate this to the Provost.

 

Provost Hitch thanked task force members – formidable task on tight time line.  Initially a good beginning – going in the right direction.  This is not a reorganization proposal they have made.  Really looking for feedback.  Believes name change will draw a strong pool.  Makes sense to have deans search go first – no parallel search for associate deans at the same time.  Institute for Health Science seems to be going in right direction.  Hard for institutions to be forward thinking – this report does just that.

 

Gibson reported on the task force’s activities and summarized the Positioning Task Force’s report to the Provost as making five recommendations:

[1] Retain the current 4 college structure

[2] Create a Health Sciences Institute

[3] Develop an Education Institute

[4] Create a Teaching Education Committee as a Faculty Senate Committee

[5] Change the current name of HPERTE.

 

Swantz – when started down path bring some leadership in training teachers – this is a step in the right direction.  Key thing is bring all certification programs under one roof – comfortable and pleased with the report. 

 

Considerable discussion followed.

 

Name change doesn’t change departments reporting line.  Teacher education council/institution strengthens our position regarding accreditation concerns.   DPI is a more important player than NCATE as DPI clearly states that teacher education be a campus wide function – this proposal enhances the functioning of teacher education on campus.

  

Senator Shanks listed a number of serious concerns from her colleagues in Educational Studies including the following:

[1] How is clarity enhanced?

[2] Would the Institute be independent, would it depend on outside funding?

[3] What would be the perception of the Institution in the public schools?

[4] There seems to be a lack of clarity on how the new structure is really being changed or how the structure will make teacher education more of a campus-wide function.

[5] What would the reporting role of the Associate Dean for Education be?

[6] If the Teacher Education Council is a Faculty Senate committee, what would be the structure of the committee and who will serve on it?

 

In the discussion that ensured, the following additional concerns were expressed and comments made.

 

Idea of structure – how does changing to institute clear up structure? Unless it is defined, what is Teacher Education Institute?  One person concerned by term of institute – will it depend on outside funding?  What about the larger issue of concerns of education teachers?  What is role of dean or vice chancellor – who report to?  Level of authority.  If the Teacher Education Council is appointed by a faculty senate committee will people who specifically know the strengths and needs of program be on the committee?  There was confusion over name of school of education – it really wasn’t a school – doesn’t have faculty.  Teacher Education Council would be a faculty senate committee with the intent that teacher education institute would have representation on all committees on campus.  Initially, the Teacher Education Council would appoint representatives – faculty would be appointed by senate.

 

Who will have control?  Structure of the institute is parallel with UCC only it deals with teacher education.  Council would be very useful – great idea – should seriously consider.  Senator Dixon raised the concern of how this would affect the School Psychology program.  Why do we need institute and council?  Institute gives more campus-wide impact.  Not sure could be done with same group.  Institute would meet more frequently.  Council would have proposals brought to them to approve or disapprove curriculum.  Effort to increase profile and perceived importance in teacher education council. 

 

Concern expressed that most of last 12 years of teacher education have been under interim leadership, and that good ideas have been formulated but not acted upon sufficiently.

 

M/S/P it is the sense of senate that the current administrative structure of UWL should retain its current four college structure for the purpose of starting essential administrative searches.  (unanimous show of hands)

 

Hoar said that he will ask Swantz and Gibson to prepare a brief report to present to the Senate on the list of suggestions and concerns that have been expressed, in particular clarifying the roles of the institute and the council and return to the Senate to present it.  Discussion of the Positioning Task Force recommendations will continue at the next Senate meeting.

 

V.         New Business.

Sabbatical discussion.  Concerns were expressed about current legislation what would require faculty sabbaticals not to be funded from GPR dollars but only using foundation and other gift monies.  Brief but vigorous negative discussion of this proposal ensued, after which a motion was made and passed.

 

M/S/P the Faculty Senate strongly supports the funding of Faculty Sabbaticals using the current funding mechanism.   (voice vote)

 

VI.        Adjournment.

The meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m.

 

 

Submitted by

Eric R. Kraemer, Secretary