Faculty Senate


October 13, 2005                                                                                            325 Graff Main Hall

Vol. 40, No. 4                                                                                                  3:30 p.m.


I.       Roll Call.

      Present:  Choy, Clow, Cravins, Galbraith, Gongaware, S. Grunwald, Heim, K. Hoar, Hunt, Johnston-Rodriguez, S. Kelly, Knox, Kraemer, S. Krajewski, B. Riley, Senger, Shanks, S. Smith, Straker, R. Sullivan, C. Wilson.

      Absent:  D. Riley


II.     Minutes.

      Approval of minutes from September 29, 2005 meeting was delayed until the next meeting.


III. Reports.

A.  Chair’s Report – Search committee updates.  The search committee for the director of the School of Education will have their first meeting on October 18th.  The search committee for the Dean of Student Services will meet Oct. 14th.  The search committee for the Dean of the College of Science & Allied Health will be chaired by Bob Hoar and has met and discussed procedures and advertisement of the position. 


University organization discussion by the senate.  Senators Cravins and Kelly requested that the faculty senate discuss university organization.  Chair Wilson updated senate that in 2003 a positioning task force was developed by the Provost and as part of their final report made recommendations on this issue (report will be posted on the faculty senate webpage).  Recommendations from the Positioning Task Force include:

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


  1. Student Association Report – Ryan VanLoo reported that the general assembly of the United Council of students will be working on developing a privacy policy in regards to the new Higher One debit cards.  For any personal information to be released a student signature will be required.


  1. Faculty Representative’s Report – Joe Heim reported that the faculty representatives met two weeks ago.  Issues that were discussed are as follows. 


    • Each campus will be required to have its own enrollment policy that would be approved by System which would have to use a holistic admissions approach, which means that a broader array of criteria be used for student admissions.
    • Status of UW System Coordinator of Women’s issues.  President Riley has received many letters from faculty senates disagreeing with the omission of this position.
    • Other issues discussed included budget concerns, political issues, legislature proposals, student bill of rights, transfer of credits, stem cell research, personnel policies with respect to back-up appointments, health care leave policies, and pay compression issues.  The faculty representatives are concerned that UW System dictates the agenda to the faculty reps and thus they are becoming more assertive to prevent this.


IV.  Briefings.


A.          ad hoc Program Array Committee Final Report.  Tom Gendreau, chair of the committee, discussed highlights of the report.  This committee did not review any program but looked at the current review processes of programs which consume resources.  From the academic program side they concurred that no new committees are needed for the review process; however, the APR process should be strengthened.  This would include enforcing that reviews are submitted on time and when reports specify a problem that the program needs to respond in a timely manner.  They suggested that the APR reports include some common program costs associated with them and that the reports be sent to Budget and Planning. 


In regards to service programs, which include all programs not reviewed by the APR process, it was recommended that these programs also undergo a review process.  It was suggested that there be a parallel committee (like APR) to review these service units. 



Recommendations of the ad hoc Program Array Review Committee (10/10/2005)


1. The review process must include all UWL budgeted programs and activities.


2. There are two uses of the review process. The first use is to maintain and improve the quality of all UWL programs. The second use is to identify programs that could be reduced or cut in the event of budget problems.


3. The review of academic programs should primarily focus on the quality of individual programs. Programs that are determined to be of low quality may be candidates for additional resources or candidates for elimination depending on their centrality to the UWL mission.


4. The review of service programs should primarily focus on how those programs support the academic mission of UWL. Programs that are determined to be of low quality may be candidates for elimination or candidates for additional resources if they are considered essential to the operation of the institution or are legally mandated.


5. The Academic Program Review (APR) process and the Academic Planning (APC) process should continue as the means for reviewing academic programs. The APR process can be used to review the quality of existing academic programs. The APC process already includes processes for reviewing proposals for the creation of new academic programs and for the elimination of existing academic programs.


6. The APR process needs to be strengthened. Maintaining the quality of the academic programs is the responsibility of the Faculty. To meet that responsibility all programs should be reviewed on a regular basis. The reviews need to be an honest assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of each program. The current APR process seems to include most of requirements for a careful review but the implementation seems inconsistent. To improve the process we propose the following.


            a. APR reports need to be done on time. This means departments should submit reports to the committee early in the Fall semester of the year in which they are due. The committee should spend the Fall and early Spring semesters reviewing the department reports and report to the Faculty Senate in the middle of the Spring semester. It is not good for the process to have the Faculty Senate rush through reports at the end of April or early May.


            b. There should be negative consequences to departments that do not complete their APR         reports on time.


            c. When APR reports indicate problems, they need to be addressed. If the Faculty Senate approves an APR report that identifies problems with a program, then during the following academic year the Provost should report to the Faculty Senate about the actions that have been taken to address the problems. In extreme cases the APR may recommend that a program be cut or eliminated. If the Faculty Senate approves such a report, the program would be sent to the APC and the APC process for program elimination should

be followed.


            d. APR reports should include the cost of each program. Departments should assign costs to the programs they offer such as majors, minors, graduate programs and general education offerings. The Faculty Senate should charge the APR committee with developing a cost reporting instrument that all academic departments can use.


            e. After APR reports are approved by the Faculty Senate a summary of the report should

            be sent to Joint Planning & Budget. The summary should include a statement about the

            APR committee findings, the costs of the programs offered by the department and other

            data used by APR (number of majors, student credit hours, etc.)


7. A parallel process to APR and APC should be created for service programs. Service programs (in past reports they were referred to as non-academic programs) include any UWL activity that consumes resources and is not reviewed by the APR process. In order to do service program reviews we propose following.


            a. All the units that offer service programs must identify the services offered and the

            costs associated with each service. This will be a difficult task but most of the work will

            only have to be done once. After a list of all the services is created it can be maintained in

            the same way the majors, minors, course descriptions, etc. are maintained by the

            academic programs.


            b. Each service program should identify how it substantively supports the UWL mission and identify any legal mandates it fulfills.


            c. A new committee should be created that periodically reviews service programs. A schedule identifying when programs are reviewed should be created. Like the APR this committee should strive to identify strengths and weaknesses of programs. When problems are identified they must be addressed by the leader of the unit that houses the service program. In extreme cases the committee may recommend that a service program be reduced or eliminated. This committee should make recommendations to Joint

Planning & Budget. The committee members should include academic staff, classified staff, faculty and students.


8. Items 6 and 7 propose that the costs associated with both academic programs and service programs be identified. When we asked some units to do this, it was difficult for the units to distinguish between positions and programs. It is important to focus on the costs of programs. When one position works for many programs, the portions of the cost of the position assigned to each program should be based on the time a person in a position spends working for the program. This will be difficult but since the goal of the process is to review the programs UWL offers not the positions UWL has to fill, it is important that costs be assigned to programs. Over time the cost estimates can be refined to give a more accurate view of the cost of each program. Ultimately every dollar spent by UWL should be associated with the program on which it was spent.



General comments included the purpose of compiling costs of programs and how to look at comparative costs.  Others comments were that not just program cost but quality and value need to be used to make judgments on a program.  It was decided that at the next faculty senate meeting service programs be invited to speak to this issue. 


B.                 Strategic Plan Update.  Billy Clow updated senate on the strategic plan and that many items in the plan are being carried out but people are not informed on these issues.  It was recommended that Joint Planning and Budget receive this information.


V.     Resolution Regarding the Elimination of the Position of the University of Wisconsin System Coordinator for Women’s Issues. 


M/S to approve the following resolution and forward it to the Board of Regents.


Whereas gender equity is a priority at UW-L,

Whereas University of Wisconsin System Coordinator for Women's Issues has directly impacted the status of women students, faculty and staff at UW-L through

·        obtaining a $500,000 grant from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation

·        partnering with the Wisconsin Coalition on Sexual Assault to promote the prevention of campus violence

·        participating on the Board of Directors of the Wisconsin Women in Higher Education Leadership

·        participating on the Board of Directors of the College and University Work/Family Association

·        organizing the first UW System conference to address work/family issues,


Whereas the 2004 Campus Climate survey emphasized the tremendous amount of work yet to be done to assure gender equality at UW-L,


And, whereas we value creating an effective organizational structure for improving the status of women in the University of Wisconsin System, including at UW-L,


The UW-L Faculty Senate is adamantly opposed to the elimination of the University of Wisconsin System Coordinator for Women’s Issues and respectfully asks the Board of Regents to reconsider this decision. 


General comments included that even though President Reilly has made it clear that his decision on this position will stand, SEC still believes the resolution is an appropriate response.  Comments included concern on what makes this a more important position than others that have been cut in system and what is the rational of cutting this position.  Other comments were that this is an area which the university feels is important and that it seems odd that this is the one position to be cut in system. 


The motion passed.  (voice vote)


VI.    Graduate Student Appeal Policy.


V.J. Agarwal and Karen McLean discussed the Graduate Student Appeal Policy, which has always been in place, but the procedure was unclear in certain cases.  A committee put together the new policy, which was approved by Graduate Council in May 2005.  All current graduate directors have been informed of the proposed new appeals process. 


M/S/P to approve the Graduate Student Appeal Policy. 


VII.  CSDA Affiliation with Psychology.


Chris Bakkum, director of the CSDA program, and Emily Johnson, chair of Psychology, discussed this affiliation.  This program was developed in the 1960s and was originally in the office of the dean of students. The program never had an academic department home and with the recent reorganizations the CSDA program has had many homes.  CSDA program members felt that the Psychology dept would be the best fit. 


General comments were why CSDA should be in psychology and not education.  This is due to the emphasis on the student development part of the program and the research expertise in the psychology department which would greatly enhance the thesis component of the program.


M/S/P to approve the affiliation between CSDA and Psychology.


VIII.  Adjournment.


The meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m.


Respectfully submitted,

Sandy Grunwald, Secretary