November 15, 2007 Robert C. Voight Faculty Senate Chambers
Vol. 42, No. 6 325 Graff Main Hall - 3:30 p.m.
I. Roll Call.
Present: M. Abler, R. Ahmed, J. Anderson, S. Brokaw, V. Crank, J. Heim, K. Hoar, D. Hoskins, K. Hunt, S. Kelly, A. Loh, C. Miller, J. Miskowski, P. Miller, A. Olson, S. Smith, G. Straker, R. Sullivan, B. Udermann, C. Wilson
Excused: S. Crutchfield, L. Dickmeyer, R. Knox, S. Senger,
II. Approval of Minutes:
The minutes of October 25, 2007 were approved.
A. Chair’s Report
Administrative Offices Evaluation
The SEC has summarized results from the administrative office survey and has distributed them to the appropriate offices. Those offices will be given a chance to respond. Those survey results and possible responses will present at the November 29, 2007 Senate meeting.
Enrollment Management Committee
Interim Provost Colclough convened an Enrollment Management committee. There is value to this group if they are allowed to help guide enrollment. During the initial meeting the group discussed several points, including committee membership and the possibility of a smaller executive committee that develops proposals which the larger group would respond to. Faculty representation should be on both committees. The SEC discussed having the chair of Faculty Senate and a representative from both CAPS and JPB on this committee. The SEC has asked each of those two committees to appoint a liaison from their membership.
Reorganization Evaluation Task Force
The SEC has chosen four faculty for this committee. The SEC also has asked for representation from the College of Science & Health Deans office, Student Affairs, and Athletics. It is hoped that the list of individuals will be ready to present to Senate at it's November 29, 2007 meeting. Provost Search
The committee is in the second stage of screening. They anticipate selecting tier 1 and tier 2 candidates shortly and hope to conduct interviews on the dates of 11/27-29 and 12/3-5. Open forums are scheduled from 3:00 to 4:00 p.m. on those dates. They also hope to have time for governance groups to meet with candidates.
The UW-L Growth, Quality and Access proposal will be discussed in three weeks at the Regents meeting. The outlook is promising based on remarks that have been made. Some condition may be that all additional hires are for instructional positions and that the program is assessed in three to five years. The proposal for the increase in tuition would also be indexed to grow to cover future costs. The increase of 500 students will happen over the course of the next four years.
C. Faculty Representative’s Report
Joe Heim distributed information on the State budget and progress of the biennial pay plan.
D. Student Association Representative’s Report
The Student Senate gave its support to the UW-L Growth, Quality and Access proposal and is currently working a student survey on that issue.
Students are concerned about possible changes to the policy of segregated fees.
IV. Articles and By-Laws: (first read)
The following By-Law changes were proposed based on charges from the Senate.
A. General Education Committee
Charge: Develop by-law language for the General Education Committee to elect its chair.
Membership of the committee shall consist of nine faculty, none of whom shall have any designated administrative responsibility, and one student appointed annually by the Student Association. Consecutive appointments may be allowed for up to five years. The faculty membership shall include at least two representatives from each of the College of Liberal Studies and the College of Science and Health, and at least one representative from the College of Business Administration. One alternate shall be provided for each appointed member, and so far as possible, representation of appointed members and alternates shall be rotated with respect to departments and schools. In addition, the Director of the General Education Program shall be a member of the committee. The provost/vice chancellor, the registrar, and the academic deans shall serve as administrative consultants to the committee. The committee shall elect its chair.
B. Research & Grants Committee
Charge: Develop by-law language for the Research and Grants committee to “inform grant applicants of their award. Applicants who do not receive money shall be given reasons for their denial.”
Duties and responsibilities of the committee shall include:
1. Establishing written guidelines and screening and selection procedures for research proposals.
2. Establishing written procedures for evaluating and ranking research proposals.
3. Receiving and evaluating research proposals from members of the faculty.
4. Apportioning institutional funds for research and informing grant recipients of their awards.
5. Providing applicants who did not receive grant money reasons for denial.
6. Advising the coordinator of gifts and grants in the solicitation of grant monies.
7. Providing the UW-L Foundation with a list of committee faculty members from which it may select advisory members for its Grants and Review Committee.
Membership of the committee shall consist of the provost/vice chancellor (or his/her designated representative) and nine faculty members. Members of the faculty who submit research proposals during a given year shall not be members of the committee during that year. The coordinator of gifts and grants shall serve as an administrative consultant to the committee for grants advisory purposes. The committee shall elect its chair.
C. Joint Promotion Committee
Charge: Update the Joint Promotion Committee bylaws to accurately reflect how information about the promotion process is disseminated. This recommendation was prompted by the following considerations:
1. UW-L no longer has an Employee Handbook and information about promotion in A Guide to Faculty Promotions and Portfolio Development at UW-La Crosse, which is located on the HR website.
2. The JPC no longer publicizes its procedures in the Campus Connection, rather they are in the aforementioned guide on the HR website.
3. The JPC should be obliged to publicize its informational meeting in the Campus Connection.
The Joint Promotion Committee
Duties and responsibilities of the committee shall include reviewing promotion files subject to the following rules of operation:
1. The committee members shall use the general performance and achievement criteria that are described in “A Guide to Faculty Promotions and Portfolio Development at UW-La Crosse” (the most current version of which is posted on the HR website http://www.uwlax.edu/hr/promo-resources.htm). Criteria include teaching, research, professional and public service, and contributions to the university. The committee shall provide guidelines for the submission of departmental criteria and other data supporting candidacy for promotion. Following the establishment of rules and procedures and prior to submission of candidate application, the Joint Promotion Committee shall hold a meeting for eligible candidates to describe the promotion process. The Joint Promotion Committee shall publicize this meeting in the Campus Connection.
V. General Education Committee
A. Revision LX 140 Curriculum Form – General Education New or Revised Course
B. Recommendations about General Education Assessment Task Force proposal
The position for an assessment director was discussed. About 15 years ago the campus created a half-time position for an assessment coordinator. Before we recreate such a position, we need to know what happened to the former position. Would this position be eliminated if the document creates a new position? Currently we have no one doing these assessment duties. If we approve this position, how can we guarantee it will not be lost in the future as the past position was.
The proposed assessment committee was also discussed. The work load this document discusses would need more people hours than the General Education Committee could handle; it may help to have an assessment committee. No committee of faculty can be completely independent of General Education. We would need a clear chain of command for reporting. Would such a committee be a Faculty Senate Committee? The work load in the summer may be a reason for not being a Faculty Senate committee, or for paying committee members some extra stipend. The committee members may also need a certain level of expertise. It was suggested that we may wish to start with an advisory committee.
Departments might more formally address the assessment that is already being done within departments. This may help distribute the work more fully and lighten the load of any one committee or person.
M/S/P to table with the charge that the SEC decides what should be the next step.
The question was asked by the General Education Committee (GEC) chair on what should be done next. How should the GEC proceed with assessment? One may still want to proceed with the department roles in the assessment. We need to also realize that many senators felt this was too much work for the General Education Committee.
VI. Discussion of Faculty Senate Evaluation Results
The statement “Faculty senators effectively represent their constituents.” did not get majority support. One can represent by voting as one's constituents would or by voting one's conscience. It may be more common for Senators to speak to constituents in their own departments than to faculty at large. Another problem is that faculty often respond after a vote rather than prior to a decision. A Senate Blog was suggested as one way to encourage more communication between senators and other faculty.
There was some mixed support for career limits for the SEC.
VII. Approval of Academic Calendar
M/S/P to approve the 2009-2010 academic year calendar.
VIII. Old Business.
IX. New Business.
The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
Susan Kelly, Secretary