Faculty Senate

                                        

January 31, 2008                                                                                                                                 Robert C. Voight Faculty Senate Chambers

Vol. 42, No. 9                                                                                                                                     325 Graff Main Hall – 3:30 p.m.

                                       

I.   Roll Call.

Present:  M. Abler, J. Anderson, S. Brokaw, V. Crank, S. Crutchfield, J. Heim, K. Hoar, D. Hoskins, K. Hunt, S. Kelly, R. Knox, A. Loh, C. Miller, P. Miller, A. Olson, G. Straker, R. Sullivan, B. Udermann, C. Wilson

Excused:  R. Ahmed, L. Dickmeyer, J. Miskowski, S. Senger, S. Smith,

 

II.   Approval of Minutes

The minutes of December 13, 2007 were approved.

 

III.   Reports.

            A.   Chair’s Report

 

University Core Director

The Senate Executive Committee (SEC) has created a draft position description for a University Core Director and forwarded the draft to the General Education Committee for review and feedback.  As written, the proposed position would consist of .75 reassigned time, with the remaining .25 to include teaching in the university core program to the extent possible.  The position would be for 3 years, with the option for the current director to reapply.  While not included in the position description, the SEC discussed the need for a search and screen committee to be engaged in the hiring process.

 

Mid-year Committee Chairs meeting

The SEC held a mid-year committee chairs meeting to get an update on committee work and challenges this year.  In general, the committees are working quite well.  For most of the committees, the students have been excellent members; their attendance and activity on the committees has been commendable.  Committee chairs did express a couple of common concerns.  First, for those committees without a set meeting time, finding a time when all members can meet is extremely difficult.  Second, some chairs expressed a desire to have some instruction on Robert’s Rules of Order. 

 

Evaluation of Administrative Offices

The SEC will be initiating another round of evaluations of administrative offices.  We will be focusing on 4 offices not included in the most recent evaluation including, the Chancellor’s Office, the Foundation, Campus Child Care, and the Campus Climate office.  The evaluation will follow the same format as the last one.  We will begin by asking people to respond to open ended questions about what is working well and not well, identify themes in those responses, and follow-up with a rating scale. 

 

First-year student orientation

Chris Dzieken, Amanda Handke and Justin Lair met with the SEC to discuss ways to involve faculty in new student orientation, alternatives to convocation, and the possibility of a shared book reading.  Next year, as a pilot, students in UW-L 100 will all read a particular book prior to the start of classes.  Students will discuss the reading in small groups with a faculty member.  The primary purpose of the shared reading will be to help students become part of a community and further support the development of student faculty relationships.  Depending on the success of the pilot, the group may discuss expanding the project to all first-year students in the future.

 

Intellectual Property Rights of Online Course Material

Given the increase of prominence of online courses, as evidenced by the new online director position, the SEC began discussion on the need for some policy or guidelines about the intellectual property rights for online course material.  We are reviewing UW System guidelines, as well as policies from other campuses, and are discussing the best group of people to develop some policy or guidelines specific to UW-L.

 

CAPS Meeting

As you may be aware, CAPS will be discussing a proposal from the SAH Dean's office to change the course repeat policy.  The concerns are that students who repeat courses multiple times are taking seats from other students who need to stay on track for graduation.  The proposal would allow students to repeat a course one time.  A second, and separate, proposal is to average the retake grade with the original grade rather than replace the original grade.  The first reading of this proposal will be on Friday, February 8 at 3:15 in 337 Cartwright Center.

 

WTC Associates of Sciences Liberal Arts Degree

Western Wisconsin Technical College (WTC) has asked UW-L to collaborate in the development of an Associate of Science Degree that will be offered at WTC.  The Wisconsin Technical College System currently has 4 institutions authorized to award the Associate of Science (and/or the Associate of Arts) degrees, including Chippewa Valley Technical College (CVTC), that offers an Associate Degree, in collaboration with UW-Eau Claire (UW-EC).  UW-L and WTC are working together to adapt and implement a version of the CVTC/UW-EC agreement; one that makes use of the faculty expertise and course capacity that are available at our institutions.  A steering committee has been hammering out the details, and we anticipate a first-read of the Memo of Understanding at the February 21st meeting.

 

A.     Chancellor

There are concerns in Madison over the lower than projected revenues coming to the State.  As a State institution, we are asked to restrict travel and hiring to only what is essential.  Negotiations with State institutions including the UW-System will take place later.  Little else is known at this point.

 

Fundraising for the Stadium and Academic building is continuing.  We will be hearing about another large contribution for the Stadium soon.  Much of this money is pledged, but not contributed yet.  This means that the campus would still need to borrow major funds to pay for the stadium at this point.  The Chancellor does not want to add large debt to the campus by borrowing large funds that interest will be due on in the future.   The Chancellor hopes to shift the Foundations emphasis to the Academic building.

 

B.     Faculty Representative’s Report

The first Faculty Representatives meeting of the year will be February 1, 2008.

 

Our State legislators' support for the growth and access proposal has been a great help to our campus.

 

Several UW campuses have expressed opposition to the shared governance policy proposal.

 

            D.  Student Association Representative’s Report

The student government is opposed to averaging grades in the case of retakes.  Students would rather have advisors tell students that many graduate schools will average those grades.  There was not as much opposition to limiting retakes.

  

IV.   Undergraduate Curriculum Committee

            A.  Recommendations about General Education Committee recommendations for standard B.S. and B.A. requirements.

The below statements were approved and forwarded by the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee.  No action was requested of the Senate. 

The Undergraduate Curriculum Committee does not support the proposal made by the General Education Committee concerning a uniform set of requirements for BS and BA degrees granted by UW-L as written. The committee recommends that the issues be addressed at the departmental and college levels.  

Following the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee review of the responses summarized and forwarded to the Senate, there appears to be insufficient concern with the current procedures for establishing baccalaureate degree requirements to warrant changing Faculty Senate Articles of Organization or By-Laws to revise those procedures.

 

            B.  Russian Certificate

M/S/P  Russian Certificate program approved.

 

UW-L cannot offer a Russian major with its resources, but this offers our students recognition for study in more depth.

 

 

V.  APC:  Entitlement to Plan, BFA

This request seeks to create a Bachelor of Fine Arts (B.F.A.) major (with an emphasis) in the Department of Art (School of Arts and Communication, College of Liberal Studies).  This residential, on-campus program would draw upon existing studio disciplines as emphasis areas.  The desired start date for this program is Fall 2008, with an invitation for student portfolio reviews scheduled for 2008.  The starting date may need to be moved back.

 

The program would start with about 20 students who would need to apply for the program.

This would require more advanced level studio classes and the possibility of repeating classes. Designated studio space would be needed,  which can be accommodated for the small size program proposed.  The BFA would take 4-5 years to complete.

 

M\S\P Entitlement to Plan BGA

 

VI.  General Education Committee recommendations for General Education Task Force   Assessment proposal

 

Motions from the General Education Task Force Assessment Committee: 

  1. Faculty Senate Committee external to the General Education Committee to carry out the process of General Education program assessment.  
  1. Two-way communication between that committee and the General Education Committee.
  1. General Education Committee has some role to play in setting the assessment parameters for the General Education program.

 

Two way communications must occur between an Assessment Advisory Committee and the General Education Committee (GEC).  For instance, the GEC at some time may wish to modify Student Learning Outcomes that will be used in assessment.

 

It is felt by some on the GEC that a separate committee is needed for assessment to lighten the load for the GEC and also to bring in more expertise to assessment.

 

The question was raised on how the GEC can be doing curriculum reform if they have no time for assessment.  The committee has already charged departments with assessment tasks.  The response was made that some members of the GEC do not feel comfortable with doing this level of assessment.  Seeking help from people who have had more experience may help the committee.  The GEC has used department assessments in the past to motivate work of the GEC. 

 

There was a desire to clearly set up how any new assessment committee would be structured.  Would it be similar to other Faculty Senate Committees?  It may help to start with an ad hoc committee for a period of two years.  The initial development of assessment tools takes a great deal to start up.  An ad hoc committee may help start the work, and the work load can be reassessed in a year or two.  At that time, the Senate could determine if the ad hoc committee should be converted to a standing committee or if that work could be added back to the GEC.

 

Since assessment is already a role for the GEC, can we attract those with assessment experience to serve on the GEC?  At this point some of those people do not tend to sign up for that committee.

 

 

Any proposed Assessment Advisory Committee needs to have a two way communication with the departments.  Many on campus still seem reluctant to do assessment or do not understand what to do.  Much of the data piles up at the GEC

 

The Provost expressed the need for an assessment coordinator.  UW-L did have an assessment coordinator, but that role has changed.  Bill Cerbin described his role in assessment.  In 1992, he was asked to begin work with assessment.  Every program had to develop an assessment plan that was forwarded to him.  In 1998, a follow-up was done and  NCAA approved it.  At that point, assessment was decentralized.  Bill Cerbin is now in charge of institution wide assessment, writing in the major and faculty development. 

 

If we hire someone new, a request was made for an external search.  The Provost expressed a desire for an internal search.  The Faculty Senate would want to see a search and screen committee in place for such a position. 

 

This conversation will be discussed again at the next Senate meeting.  Carmen expressed a need for making a decision at the February 14 meeting.  The SEC will draft a motion in the line of an ad hoc committee idea. 

 

VII.  Response to BOR Committee Shared Governance Procedures

The following motions were made by the Senate Executive Committee.

 

M/S/P 

The UW-L Faculty Senate endorses the Shared Governance Principles and Guidelines for Faculty and Academic Staff.

 

The following motion will be discussed at the next meeting. 

Starting in the 2008-2009 academic year, the Chair of the UW-L Faculty Senate shall also serve as the Faculty Representative consistent with the spirit of the Shared Governance Principles and Guidelines.

  

VIII.  Old Business

 

IX. New Business

 

 

X. Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 5:13 p.m.

 

Respectfully Submitted,

Susan Kelly