Faculty Senate

 

Vol. 39, No. 7                                                                                      325 Graff Main Hall

November 18, 2004                                                                             3:30 p.m.

 

I.          Roll Call.

Present:  Beck, Choy, Clow, Cravins, Galbraith, Gendreau, Gongaware, Grunwald, Heim, Hench, Kraemer, S. Krajewski, Maher, Majak, Poulton, Ragan, B. Riley, D. Riley, Shanks, Shillinger, D. Sullivan.

Excused:  Dixon, Johnston-Rodriguez, Kernozek.

 

II.         Approval of Minutes.

The minutes of the October 7, 2004 meeting were approved as distributed.

 

III.       Reports.

The Joint Planning & Budget Committee met yesterday and discussed the Budget Reduction Exercise submitted by UW-System, which is a response to the State’s Department of Administration request.  The 2005-07 Major Policies and Budget Instructions require state agencies to submit plans to reduce all non-federally funded state administrative operations appropriations by ten percent.  In its proposal, 167 positions would be eliminated and 1650 fewer students would be allowed to enroll over the 2005-07 biennium.  Of the 167 positions, 103 fall under what the system called instructional staff, 15 were labeled student services staff and 24 were called academic support staff.  The system also called for 25 administrative position cuts from physical plant services and other institutional support services.  The general reduction plan did not involve individual institutions and was developed formulaically based on the current composition of the GPR/Fee budget. DOA has accepted the proposal from System.

 

In an article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel dated 11/18/04, the Governor blasted UW budget cuts, saying that enrollment/instruction trims are not satisfactory.  The Governor is quoted saying “It is not conceivable that the university, just as the rest of the state government, cannot find administrative cuts to be made,” adding “I think the result of this is you’re going to see my office and the Legislature scrutinizing them much more closely than if they had come forward with really focusing on the administrative cuts.”  System President Reilly has had a conversation with Governor Doyle and the Board of Regents heard the Chancellors explain that this is only an exercise.  There is on-going correspondence and conversation between the two groups.

 

Chancellor Hastad responded to questions regarding the proposal from the Governor.  With respect to what UW System was asked to do, each Chancellor said it would be pointless to put the individual campuses through a theoretical ten percent reduction exercise, it would not be healthy.  With that said, the whole thing is generating considerable public debate, and it will likely continue until budget is finalized.  Hastad reminded Senators that this is the Governor’s re-election budget and that UW-System took a disproportional cut in the budget last time.

 

Senators expressed frustration from a planning and budget concept – it’s clear that system doesn’t pay any attention to faculty.  We have no voice, no voice on Regents – no one is listening to what we have to say.  Concern is the perception about System with high profile dog fights – it doesn’t help.

 

What is more disturbing is the nature of the proposal of the reductions which are counter-productive to instruction.  System has produced a report that attacks the very basis of university: limiting access; administration vs. instructional; 11 % of proposed cuts is administration vs. 89% elsewhere (60% is instruction). 

 

M/S/P the UW-L Faculty Senate asks the Senate Executive, after due consultation with members of the Faculty Senate and the Joint Planning & Budget Committee to write a letter expressing UW-L faculty concern regarding UW System’s proposed plan for addressing Governor Doyle’s call for demonstrating how UW System might accomplish a 10% reduction in Administrative costs in the UW System.  The Faculty Senate Chair should send his letter to Governor Doyle, System President Reilly, and to UW System Regents in a timely manner.  (show of hands:  19-yes, 0-no, 3-abstain)

 

Discussion of the issue included the question asking what other faculty senates are doing regarding the 10% administrative budget reduction exercise.  Joe Heim reported that earlier in the year several campuses passed resolutions asking the governor for no more cuts in UW System budgets.  Senator Heim was not aware of any actions specifically related to the 10% administrative budget reduction exercise, but he will bring up the issue at the next faculty representative meeting (tomorrow) and report back to the SEC.  It was suggested that the primary emphasis of any letter sent to the governor should be to resist any budget cuts to the UW System period.

 

Chair Riley has received a report from the Faculty Development Committee which will be posted on the web.  The SEC is looking at putting together an ad hoc committee to make recommendations regarding the structure of the reporting lines for the Director of the General Education Program as well as the General Education Committee.

 

Chancellor Hastad’s Report.  At its last meeting, the Board of Regents agreed to move the pay plan forward, which includes a 3% increase catch-up for each of the 2 years, as well as an additional 2% increase each year – gives more flexibility to individual campuses.  Hastad remains cautiously optimistic re pay plan as he hasn’t heard anything about a cut looming on the horizon.

 

Provost/Vice-Chancellor Hitch thanked everyone that has served on recent search and screen committees.  Two administrative searches are in the final stages of the interviewing process.  She encouraged faculty participation in open forums and stressed the importance of providing feedback.  Lastly, she announced that Teri Thill has accepted the Institutional Research position vacated by Dr. Nyatepe-Coo.

North Central Accreditation Self-Study Report.  Under the guidelines of the North Central Association (NCA), the university’s accrediting agency, UW-L is required to undergo a self-study every ten years. Upon completion of the self-study, a report is prepared and submitted to NCA after which a team of evaluators is sent for an on-campus visit. The next NCA visit is scheduled for late spring semester 2006.  Dorothy Zeisler-Vralsted has been named the UW-L Self Study Coordinator.  She will oversee the gathering of evidence and draft a final report.  A steering committee comprised of eleven faculty and staff members will work with Dr. Zeisler-Vralsted to gather evidence for the report.

The work of the Self-Study Steering Committee and their subcommittees is divided according to the five criteria NCA requires for accreditation. During the 2004-2005 academic year, the Steering Committee will collect data that match the core components listed within the respective criterion. A team of UW-L consultants will also assist committee members in gathering data. 

As the steering committee responds to the NCA criteria, it will utilize the UW-L Strategic Plan's seven key focus areas. The focus areas are academics, student development, diversity, community, globalization, quality of life, and resources. It will frame responses around the appropriate focus areas. After collecting sufficient evidence to support each of the criteria, Steering Committee members will draft reports specific to the criterion their committees are working on. The criterion committees will complete their reports by mid-May 2005 and submit them to the Self-Study Coordinator.

During the summer 2005, the Coordinator will write the draft Self-Study Report. Beginning fall semester 2005, the draft Self-Study Report will be available for the campus community to review. The report will be posted on the website and paper copies of the report will be distributed at several campus locations. The campus community will have eight weeks to respond to the draft.

Once the campus review is finished, the Coordinator will make the final revisions of the report and submit the final Self-Study Report to the NCA. The final report must be submitted at least eight weeks before the on-site visit. When the NCA evaluators visit the campus in late spring 2006, the campus community will have another opportunity to participate as part of the evaluators’ visit is devoted to meeting with various UW-L constituencies. After the NCA visit, the campus will receive a report from the NCA evaluation team.

Scott Cooper and Betsy Morgan, who are members of the NCA Steering Committee, presented an update on the student learning outcomes portion of the study.  Presently, they are in the data collecting process – assessment reports, program review reports – as well as looking at larger ideas on ways the entire campus can enhance student learning, i.e. technology, library resources. 

  

Dr. Zeisler-Vralsted is working with a liaison at North Central and has been notified that one of the evaluators will visit campus next April to provide assistance and help the committee through this process.

 

Student Representative, Larry Golba reported that the Get Out to Vote campaign was quite successful registering several 100 voters.  In fact, voting was at 98% in campus district; 96% in District 6.  Golba indicated that there are many problems with the new ID cards – working on programs to get students educated.

 

IV.       New Mathematics Major and Minor Emphases – postponed.

 

V.        UW Graduate Business Consortium Degree.

Dr. Jim Finch, representing the College of Business Administration, joined the senate.  He reviewed the proposal to request authorization to implement a UW Graduate Business Consortium MBA Degree.  An “Entitlement to Plan” for a consortium Internet MBA degree was recently approved by UWS.   An “Authorization to Implement” is being submitted for approval to grant degree awarding authority to the UW Graduate Business Consortium for an Internet delivered MBA degree.  The Consortium consists of the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, La Crosse, Oshkosh and Parkside and operates in partnership with UW Extension’s Learning Innovations (LI).

 

Dr. Finch addressed previously raised faculty concerns over curriculum:

 

Do the UWL faculty have the requisite control over the Internet MBA curriculum

 

This issue has been discussed and addressed at all levels.  The UW-L Graduate Curriculum Committee considered these curriculum issues at its May 5, 2004 meeting and unanimously endorsed the “Entitlement to Plan” and “Authorization to Implement.”  The basis for their decision included:

 

  • The degree is not a UW-L degree and the students enrolled in the degree program are not UW-L students.   The degree has been and will be awarded by a different degree granting entity to students who have been admitted to that separate program.
  • Over the development of this separate degree, all the internet MBA foundation courses have previously been approved by UW-L by going through the UW-L processes and committees.
  • Module 3 of the Internet MBA is identical to the on-campus BUS 760 that is a required course in our residential MBA program.   It has gone through the full UW-L curriculum processes and committees and will be continue to be subject to UW-L control.
  • An Academic Standards and Assessment Committee consisting of representatives from each campus and from Learning Innovations establishes the standards and curriculum for the degree.  It conducts assessment and evaluation of al aspects of the program.  Each campus is represented by one graduate faculty and one graduate program director.

 

 Faculty concerns over resources:

 

Will the program place a strain on faculty resources? 

 

This issue has been discussed and addressed at all levels.   First, it should be recognized that the proposal contains a provision whereby a university can unilaterally withdraw upon 12 months notice.  This option can be exercised if the CBA determines it does not have the resources to continue in the program.

 

Required Internet MBA courses:  The CBA is required to teach only one course in the Internet MBA program.  That course is Module 3.   The required course is team-taught by three faculty members.  Each is given the choice in consultation with their department chair as whether to teach it as overload or in-load basis.  In the fall 2003, that course was taught on an overload basis.  In the fall 2004 the course was taught on in-load basis.  The CBA receives compensation for teaching the course.  If the course is taught as an overload the compensation goes to the faculty member.  If the course is taught in-load the compensation goes to the CBA.

 

Elective Internet MBA courses:  UWL is not required to teach any of the elective courses.  If CBA faculty do wish to teach, it is on a volunteer and overload basis for which they are compensated.  The CBA is expected to periodically participate in the offering courses which we have successfully accomplished on a volunteer basis.

 

Internet foundation courses:  UWL is not required to teach any of the foundation courses.  If CBA faculty do wish to teach, it is on a volunteer and overload basis for which they are compensated.  The CBA is expected to periodically participate in the offering foundation courses which we have we have successfully accomplished on a volunteer basis.

 

Faculty concerns over the “Slippery Slope” issue:

 

Is this a dangerous “slippery slope” leading to an undergraduate internet program? 

 

This issue has been discussed and addressed at all levels.   The “slippery slope” concern is based on the reasoning that one event will inevitably follow from another.  In this case, the event to follow has been identified an administratively instituted undergraduate Internet program.   There is no reason to believe this will occur.   First, just as in this case, there are a significant number of procedural steps and hurdles between the two events.   These include compliance with the CBA, UW-L, UWS and faculty procedures to implement programs.  Further, the CBA administration has not proposed, supported, or discussed proposing an undergraduate internet degree.  In fact, the CBA administration has specifically stated it has no interest or intent to propose such a course of action. 

 

Finch reported that on April 16, 2004 the UW-L Academic Planning Committee unanimously endorsed the “Entitlement to Plan” and “Authorization to Implement.”  In their unanimous endorsement they mentioned three concerns. 

 

Workload distributions across the four campuses.   As was previously stated, UWL’s sole obligation is to teach one course per year.  The teaching of all electives and foundation courses is on a volunteer basis.  Further, the combination of faculty from all four campuses provides a substantial pool of resources that is available for unexpected teaching shortage situations.  For example, this year a faculty retirement with one of the member universities resulted in a call for volunteers to fill an opening.  Within a week, a volunteer stepped forward to fill the opening.  Additionally, in the event a university should decide to drop out, they are required to give 12 months notice and another university will be sought to participate. 

 

The use of ad hoc staff to replace faculty who teach on line.  This concern only arises if there is a student demand substantial enough to add another section of what that faculty member who is teaching in the internet program could have taught at the undergraduate level.  The CBA maintains a strong pool of quality teachers to meet uneven demands.  These part time people will be used to fill the vacancy.   Funds generated from the on-line teaching are sufficient to continue to hire these people on an as needed basis.

 

How will the integrity of the examination process be maintained?  The integrity of the examination process is threatened by the same problems inherent in regular classroom courses.  Typically, these involve cheating by a variety of methods including imposters taking exams.   Identity issues arise in both regular and distance learning class settings.  Face to face you use visual recognition based on what you “recognize” of the person.  In on-line you also “recognize” the person by their responses, personal history etc.  Two basic strategies to increase academic integrity are honor systems and deterrents.

 

Learning Innovations, (the consortium’s distance learning support partner) is aware of the need to ensure the integrity of the system.   It will be using standard distance learning procedures and instructor developed testing and work assignments to verify identity.  Strategies and methods vary with the course and the instructor.  But they can include: 

 

  • Plagiarism, Honors Codes, Academic Dishonesty Codes
  • Use of open book exams only
  • Proctors requiring identification of students
  • Affidavits of verification
  • Group work analysis
  • Input from other students indicating peculiarities or possibilities of cheating in others
  • Response and behavior pattern analysis and information sorting
  • On line collaboration review
  • On line testing
  • Technical evidence such as servers that record the date, time, student’s identity, and scores.
  • Person to person telephone conferences
  • Instructor, Knowledge and information regarding students including personal information,  ways of responding to on-line  discussions, monitoring discussion threads, patterns of responses.

 

 

Ultimately, a lot of concerns from last spring have been addressed.  There is an escape clause with 12 months notice.  While remain skeptical trust that people will remain vigilant. 

 

M/S/P to approve the implementation of the UW Graduate Business Consortium MBA Degree. (show of hands: yes-15, no-1, 4-abstain)

 

VI.       General Education.

 

M/S/P to approve the previously distributed motion regarding student learning outcomes as amended below:  To give provisional approval to the student learning outcomes (as found in General Education Outcome Draft Report 5-5-03) solely for the purpose of conducting assessment of the current General Education Program and student learning.  The Student Learning Outcomes will continue to be seen as a working document subject to change.  (show of hands – 2 abstentions)

 

VII.      Adjournment.

The meeting adjourned at 5:18 p.m.