Faculty Senate

 

February 24, 2005                                                                                           3:30 p.m.

Vol. 39, No. 10                                                                                                325 Graff Main Hall

 

I.  Roll Call.

Present:  Beck, Cravins, Dixon, Galbraith, Gendreau, Gongaware, Grunwald, Heim, Hench, Johnston-Rodriguez, Kernozek, Kraemer, S. Krajewski, Maher, Majak, C. Miller, Poulton, Ragan, B. Riley, Senger, Shanks, Shillinger, D. Sullivan.

Excused:  Clow.

 

II.  Approval of Minutes.

The minutes of the November 18, 2004, meeting were approved as distributed.

 

III.  Spring Semester Replacement for Senator Cam Choy.

M/S/P to approve Dr. Carol Miller’s a one-semester replacement for Senator Choy.

 

IV.  Reports.

A.  Chair Riley announced that the 2005-06 committee preference sheets are in the mail.  These flamingo pink forms are due back in the faculty senate office not later than close of business on Friday, March 11th.

 

B.  The General Education Forum two weeks ago generated interesting discussion but did not reach any conclusion.  Many folks at end of the forum indicated they would like another opportunity to discuss the purpose and vision of general education at UWL.  Consequently a lunch hour discussion has been scheduled for March 4th.  Announcements concerning the lunch will be distributed via email.  Dr. Riley summarized the General Education Assessment Conference he recently attended in Atlanta along with Georges Cravins, Deb Hoskins, and Emily Johnson.  It was a good experience.  Many schools are struggling with general education, and UWL is actually in pretty good shape.  Other campuses don’t seem to have agreement on what is the purpose of general education.  Riley believes we have invested in right things re general education – faculty development activities, especially teaching improvement activities, support for course revision and development of new courses.

 

C.  The next faculty senate meeting will have recommendations from task force on academic staff issues. Also, Senators will recall, that at the January 27th meeting, we promised feedback on Plan 2008: Phase II – email comments to Sibbie.

 

D.  Copies of University Registrar Diane Schumacher’s memo to Provost Hitch, regarding e-grading were distributed.  Chair Riley called attention to item #4 which reads:

 

The next steps in the e-grading project are:

4) To take action on the following recommendations made by the faculty advisory group.

a. Establish e-grading as the only method of submitting grades; do not provide a choice between bubble sheets or electronic submission.

b. Grading is a faculty responsibility, which should not be delegated to another individual.  If an extenuating circumstance exists that prevents the course instructor form inputting grades, the department chair must approve a surrogate instructor and submit that information to Records and Registration.

c. Require a date of “last record of activity” for NA grades.

d. The project team should investigate automating the Incomplete Form as well as the process of submitting the forms.

 

The SEC will make recommendations regarding this project and report back to the Senate.

 

E.  Nominating petitions for election to 40th Faculty Senate were received from:

Kerrie Hoar (SAH); Kenny Hunt, Susan Kelly, Ronda Knox, Steven Senger, Stefan Smith, Gwyneth Straker, Carmen Wilson (At-large).  No petitions were received from the CBA for the open position.  Rather than go through the formal balloting procedure, the Senate Executive Committee recommends that the above slate be adopted since (with the exception of CBA) the number of petitions received is exactly the number of open positions.

 

M/S/P to approve. (voice vote)

 

F.  Another EESHR Dean candidate is on campus and will meet with the SEC tomorrow at 10 a.m. in this room.  Next Friday the final candidate will visit campus and will be meeting with governance groups at 10 a.m. in the Senate Chambers.  Chair Riley expressed a concern about this search.  Specifically, dean candidates have been informed that funding for the position is tenuous and that the position might not be filled.  Is there a strong commitment from administration to hire a dean?  Provost Hitch responded that the campus has committed to reviewing every position from LTE up.  Any budget cuts will be administration.  We have been frank with candidates re where we are right now.  Concern is will this information dampen the candidates’ interest in position?  Apparently this is not unusual in other States or across the country.  SEC questions what happened with the budget.  Governor presented his budget February 8th which supports classroom instruction and a give back in other areas; or increase in student tuition.  System is still sorting out what the Governor’s budget means.  Chancellors will meet tomorrow to discuss how any cuts will be distributed.

 

G.  Copies of admission numbers from Corey Sjoquist, Admissions Operations Manager, were distributed.  Presently, we are continuing to accept qualified students for the Fall 2005 Freshman Class.  To date, 6165 applications have been received, 3877 have been accepted, and 2251 have submitted the $100 enrollment deposit (207 of which have canceled their admission).  The target is 1720.

 

H.  Provost/Vice-Chancellor Hitch launched the idea of a hiring initiative.  Deans and departments made proposals – got two positions in high demand area.  Next year there will be $550K for extra sections funding which is up about $200K from this year.  Will take $550K base and hold $50K as special – would distribute $260K in fall and $240K in spring.   Distribution within colleges will be deans’ decision.

 

I.  Faculty Representative Report.  Georges Cravins and Joe Heim reviewed discussions at recent meetings.  The resolution on the proposed constitutional amendment regarding the definition of marriage has been sent to the Governor and other local legislators.  Most think it won’t get through process.  Faculty Senates in several places investigating charters; UW Superior dealing with textbook realities; Governors budget proposal restores 125 faculty positions, and reduces 200 administrative positions.  Lastly with respect to next month’s Faculty Representative’s meeting, please let Senator Heim know if there are any particular issues you wish him to bring up.  We may be asked to approve resolution about cuts in administration which may affect academic staff.

 

V.  Distribution Plans for 2005-07 Pay Plan and Market Salary Adjustments.

Bob Carney, Chair of the Promotion, Tenure and Salary (PTS) Committee reviewed the following committee recommendations:

 

Proposal: Beginning with the 3 percent proposed salary increase funded through the biennial budget process.  We believe that the money should be distributed as follows: 2/3 goes to solid performance and 1/3 goes to merit.

 

Rationale:  In the recent past UW- La Crosse has worked to mitigate the problem of inequity (or compression) across ranks.  The enclosed data suggests we have been fairly successful in our approach.  Appendix A highlights the 3 previous distribution plans, noting the dramatic improvement in promotion pay increases and other past changes. We find that out of all the comprehensive institutions our Full professors are the least behind their peer group median.

 

UW-La Crosse diverted a large portion of its pay package from the 2000 pay plan and the 2001 – 2003 pay plan to address salary compression across the ranks.  In particular, in the 2001-2003 pay plan, 10% of the pay package was used to address compression across ranks.  (This was 10% in addition to the Chancellor’s discretionary fund.)  Of this money, 2/3 was given to Full Professors and 1/3 to Associates.  In addition, promotion adjustments for faculty ranks were also increased by 2/3 of the compression adjustments. Based on the limited data we have, 2003-2004 UW Averages and the Median of Peer Group Averages, our faculty members are between 3% and 8% below their respective peer groups.  The farthest behind appear from this data to be the Associate Professors, but we could not increase their salaries at a higher level than the Full Professors without risking some Associate Professor’s salaries surpassing the salaries of Full Professors in the same disciplines.

 

Much of the credit for the success in addressing this problem at UW – L should be attributed to the Chancellor.  The Chancellor committed a large portion of “salary savings” and the discretionary 10% to addressing the problem of compression.  It is only through putting this money back into the salary pool that we are able slow the salary disparities we face when compared to our peer group.  The Chancellor should also be commended for continuing to fund the larger promotion increases, which are currently scheduled to grow at the same rate as the pay plan, as they are also responsible for preventing the process of compression from returning.

 

Proposal: Concerning the 2% pay plan request: If the plan is 2 percent or less, we agree with the regents that it should be distributed to solid performers.  If it is more than 2% we believe that it should be distributed as follows: 2/3 go to solid performance and 1/3 goes to merit. 

 

Rationale: We feel this proposal is justified for the same reasons put forth above and also because of the recent 2003-2005 pay plan.  In those years faculty had no pay raise two years ago and only a 1% pay raise given last year, which did not cover the additional increase in the cost of living. Thus we believe it is more important to distribute most of any salary increase based on solid performance of the faculty. 

 

Proposal:  In the event the approved pay plan exceeds 2% the PTS committee will determine if there is some justification for distributing some percentage to the Chancellor’s fund.

Rationale: We would request that none of the pay plan go to the Chancellor’s discretionary fund at this time, since we do not know if some of the market salary adjustment funds will be directed to go to the Chancellor’s fund.  If this is not the case, we will reevaluate this issue after we have more information.  In the event the Chancellor has control over any portion of the pay plan, we recommended that it be used to address individual cases where faculty salaries are considerably low in relation to others in similar fields in this institution.  Department Chairs and Deans would need to identify such individuals and work with the Chancellor to correct these shortfalls as much as is possible with funds available.  While the PTS committee realizes there are a few isolated cases where faculty suffer from one of the many types of salary inequity, we feel the best way to deal with this is not through the rather blunt instrument of the pay plan distribution recommendations that we are charged with developing.  We would however encourage the Chancellor, in consultation with the Deans and Department Chairs, to continue to use “salary savings” to address individual cases of market shortfalls by faculty rank, or to reward faculty involved in innovative and/or collaborative program delivery, and/or exceptional performance in support of institution goals, and/or to correct gender pay equities in the faculty.  Using salary savings helps to further increase the overall salary pool at UWL and is one of the main reasons why we are better off than many of our sister institutions.

Part of the difficulty with addressing inequities other than those between rank is the absence of good data to measure the problem.  We request that the appropriate administrative units gather data to determine the size of the existing market inequities.
The PTS committee is willing to review this proposal, next year, once we have an accurate accounting of the size of the salary package, sources, distribution constraints, and market inequities. 

 

M/S/P to approve the recommendations from the PTS Committee. (voice vote)

 

VI.  Authorization to Implement a Doctor of Physical Therapy Degree Program Jointly at University of Wisconsin – La Crosse and University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee.

 

Karen Palmer-McLean and Kimberly Harbst reviewed the history and rationale/justification for change of degree.

 

  • The current breadth and depth of education required of physical therapists is consistent with professional doctoral-level education.
  • APTA Vision 2020 Statement recognized PT as an entry-point into the healthcare system.  With that comes increased responsibility for screening, diagnosis, and referral.
  • 92% of all PT programs have either transitioned, or are in the process of transitioning, to the DPT
  • A professional doctoral degree involves extensive study over a wide range of courses integrating basic sciences with skilled professional practice. The practitioner must exhibit strong clinical skills and reasoning based on evidence-based rationale. 
  • Some degree of apprenticeship learning is typical in most professional doctoral programs.  

 

Degree Tracks:

 

  • Students entering the   profession of physical therapy for the first time and seeking a Doctor of Physical Therapy Degree (entry-level track) may do so using the residential on-campus program (Track I).
  • Students who are already licensed physical therapists and wish to obtain a DPT (transitional track) may do so using distance education and/or non-traditionally scheduled classes (Track II).

 

 

Roles – UW-L and UW-M:

 

  • UW-L will administer and deliver entry-level DPT curriculum
  • UW-M will administer t-DPT curriculum
  • In 3 years, based on market demand, UW-M may initiate an entry-level DPT cohort using the curricular model outlined in this document.  At that time, the two campuses may share responsibilities for delivery of the entry-level coursework
  • There will be a single admissions committee comprised of PT program faculty from both campuses.
  • Administration of clinical education will be coordinated between the two campuses.
  • A curriculum review committee will be established comprised of PT program faculty from both campuses. Curriculum oversight will be retained by both campus governance groups.
  • An arbitration plan will be developed in the event the two campus programs are unable to resolve some issue.
  • An exit strategy will be developed in the event that the two campus partners identify irreconcilable differences.

 

Proposed Entry-Level DPT Program Details:

 

Credits:             112 credits

Length:             34 months full-time (9 semesters)

Size:                  44 students per cohort admitted each year

Faculty:             10 full-time UW-L physical therapy faculty/IAS 

 

Entry-Level Curricular Key Points:

 

  • Sociology course added as a pre-requisite; Math 151 course deleted as a requirement; GRE’s will be required.
  • Increased credits from  97-101 (MSPT) to 112 (DPT)
  • Increased from 8 semesters including summers (MSPT) to 9 semesters including summers
  • Curriculum revisions based on Normative Model for Physical Therapist Education: Versions 2004 and consistent with CAPTE professional education accreditation requirements with increased emphasis on:
    • Differential screening
    • Evidence-based practice
    • Diagnostic imaging, embryology, pharmacology, histology
  • Lengthened full-time terminal clinical education experiences from 24 weeks (MSPT) to 36 weeks (DPT)

  

No additional resources are being requested by the UW-L PT program in order to implement the new degree.  Please refer to sections 7 and 8 of the report for details.

 

 

M/S/P to approve. (show of hands:  20-yes, 0-no, 3-abstain)

 

VII.  Adjournment.

The meeting adjourned at 5:20 p.m.