Faculty Senate

                                        

October 25, 2007                                                                                                                                       Robert C. Voight Senate Chambers

Vol. 42, No. 5                                                                                                                                           325 Graff Main Hall – 3:30 p.m.           

                                       

I.   Roll Call.

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

Excused:  R. Ahmed, J. Miskowski, S. Smith

 

II.   Approval of Minutes

The minutes of September 27, 2007 and October 11, 2007 were approved.

 

III.   Reports.

            A.   Chair’s Report

Administrative Offices Evaluation

The data from the administrative offices evaluation has been summarized and the results have been sent to the respective offices.  The SEC has posted the results for the Faculty Senate on the Senate web page.  In general, most respondents agree that:

  • Faculty Senate involved the entire campus on important issues
  • Faculty Senate should implement listening sessions on important issues
  • Faculty Senate has an effective relationship with campus administration
  • They have discussions with senators regarding campus issues
  • Service on faculty senate committees is valued on campus.

Alternatively, a minority of respondents agree that Faculty Senators effectively represent their constituents, and that Faculty Senate should set career limits for SEC (although the means were just above the “neutral” rating).

 

General Education Survey

The SEC has closed the general education survey; 130 people responded.  The General Education Committee will be discussing the results at their meeting on Monday, October 29, 2007.  A majority of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they “support the current program”, however, faculty and staff in the CSAH were less likely to support the current program than faculty in CBA and CLS.  A minority of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they

  • Support the proposed university core as described in the executive summary
  • Support the continued investigation of a core III component. 

Complete results will be posted on the Faculty Senate website. 

 

Listening session November 8

The next Faculty Senate listening session is scheduled for November 8.  We hope to discuss general education, including both the survey results as well as the assessment task force proposal. 

 

Academic Initiatives Oversight Committee

Paula Knudson asked that the SEC to appoint a faculty member to sit on the Academic Initiatives Oversight Committee. The SEC appointed Gwyn Straker (vice-chair) to that committee.  In her role as vice-chair, Gwyn serves on the JPB committee in addition to SEC and will be able to keep both groups informed about the activities of the oversight committee.

 

 

 

Committee on Committee Bylaws

On September 27, 2007, the Senate passed a motion to revise the Committee on Committee (COC) bylaws to limit the number of members on committees from a single department.  In speaking with the Articles and Bylaws committee, procedural activities, such as this, are not appropriate for the bylaws, but rather are better placed in the policies.  Current and past members of the COC are meeting October 26, 2007 to discuss other matters raised during our discussion at the last meeting.  They will work on wording to include membership limits in the policies. 

 

B.     Chancellor

The Chancellor thanks everyone for the great inauguration ceremony.

 

The new State budget gave us a $901,000 of new funds ($664,000 is GPR funds) for Growth and Access, but there is a cut of $1,055,000 cut over the next four years.  Key people are looking at a proposal to address the harm the budget is doing to UW-L.  The proposal will be made to the Regents.  Differential tuition may be a way to deal with lost revenue due to the new State budget.  It is planned to have this proposal on the Regents agenda in two weeks.

 

The Chancellor distributed a draft of the Differential Tuition Proposal:  Growth, Quality and Access proposal.  The proposal seeks to (1) grow our total enrollment by at least 500 additional students over the next three to five years, (2) hire at least 75 additional faculty and 20 additional staff over the five next years, and (3) provide increased financial aid to students from our neediest families.  To fund this plan we propose instituting a $500-per-year differential tuition charge for all new UW-L students beginning in the fall semester of 2008.  This charge will be increased by $500 for the 2009-2010 academic year to complete phasing in a $1000 total differential tuition charge.  To soften the impact of the differential tuition charge for our neediest families UW-L will propose using all the $664,800 in new GPR that UW-L was awarded in the new State budget as need-based financial aid.

 

Growth would begin in the fall of 2009, so there is a chance to build up faculty first.  Each of five years we may try to increase by 100 students, but we need campus discussion on this first.  We need campus priorities discussed before we begin increasing entering class enrollments.  The campus will need to help ensure that freshmen get classes they need if they are paying more to get into their classes.

 

M/S/P (unanimously approved)

Faculty Senate supports the draft of the Differential Tuition Proposal:  Growth, Quality and Access proposal. 

 

C.     Faculty Representative’s Report

Joe Heim briefed the Senate on key points of the new State budget that would impact the UW System: 

The State budget went up 6.6%, while the UW System went up only about 3%, 

Five campuses went up in funds, while three campuses, including UW-L, went down in funding.

Financial aid was increased,

Star funds were funded,

Our retirement and health benefits remain as before,

Partner benefits were not included,

Collective bargaining is still out for faculty,

Salaries for this biennium have still not been determined.

            D.   Student Association Representative’s Report

No report. 

IV.   Second read Recruitment and Retention Task Force

The System holds funds for fridge benefits.  This external constraint may affect the implementation of this policy.  Benefit issues are a State issue that the campus cannot change. Typically few people use this policy.

 

This policy may be a retention tool. The campus should collect data so that we can reexamine this issue if problems arise in the future.  Part-time positions would likely have a greater impact on small departments and thus deans and the provost need to take that into consideration.

 

M/S/P (19-1-0)

The documents University of Wisconsin-La Crosse Proposed University-Wide Part-Time Faculty Appointment Policies  and Recommendations to Facilitate Implementation of Part-Time Faculty Appointments Proposal by Recruitment and Retention Task Force were approved.

 

V.   IAS Career Progression Procedures

The JPC guidelines were modified for IAS.  Unlike faculty, outside of teaching, IAS need only excel in either service or professional development/creative activity/scholarship. 

Changes: 

Bullet #3 of Section 4 should read "joining UW-L instead of joining the faculty at UW-L".

In Section 5, the first line should read that the Department committee (rather than the IAS promotion committee).

 

M/S/P

A Guide to Instructional Academic Staff (IAS) Career Progression and Portfolio Development at UW-La Crosse document was approved.

 

VI.   Student Evaluation of Instruction Items and Administration and Reporting Procedures

The wording was strengthened to stress what must be done.

Question #1 was reworded following a suggestion during the first reading of the document.

 

In Classroom Administration Guidelines, the sentence reading “As such we ask you to treat the process professionally, seriously, sensitively, and collegially.”  was changed to “As such we ask you to treat the process professionally, seriously and sensitively.”

 

M/S/P (11/7)

The line “SEI scores will not be compared across instructors.” will be removed. 

 

M/S/P

Question #1 will be changed from “I was looking forward to taking this class.” to “I was looking forward to taking this course.”

 

M/S/P

The Student Evaluation of Instruction Items and Administration and Reporting Procedures were approved.

 

VII.   Old Business.

VIII.   New Business

IX.  Adjournment.  The meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m.

 

Respectfully Submitted,

Susan Kelly, Secretary