Faculty Senate

                                        

April 3, 2008                                                                                                                                     Robert C. Voight Faculty Senate Chambers

Vol. 42, No. 14                                                                                                                                 325 Graff Main Hall – 3:30 p.m.

 

I.   Roll Call.

Present:  R. Ahmed, J. Anderson, S. Brokaw, S. Crutchfield, L. Dickmeyer, J. Heim, K. Hoar, K. Hunt, S. Kelly, R. Knox, A. Loh, C. Miller, P. Miller, J. Miskowski, S. Senger, S. Smith, G. Straker, R. Sullivan, B. Udermann, C. Wilson

Excused: M. Abler, V. Crank, D. Hoskins, A. Olson

 

II. The minutes of March 13, 2008 meeting were approved.

 

III. Reports.

 

            A.   Chair’s Report

SEC Activities

Bill Colclough learned a bit more about the Advantage Wisconsin plan, specifically the first action calling for a system-wide set of learning outcomes, and shared the information with SEC.  At this point, the UW Provosts are recommending faculty from each campus to serve on a committee to work on this proposal. 

 

 Jennifer Wilson updated the SEC on how the criminal background check process is working.  Thus far, Human Resources (HR) has conducted 138 background checks for new hires. In general HR receives the background check from HireRight 1 to 5 days after the request is made.  To assure the entire process is as efficient as possible, HR suggests that as soon as departments have a verbal confirmation from a candidate, the contact information for that person should be sent to HR.  HR needs to contact the candidate to get information for the background check and then send that information on to HireRight. 

 

The SEC met with Brian Udermann in his role as director of online instruction about intellectual property rights.  He will be working with a committee to draft a policy.  According to system policy, intellectual property rights are shared when the faculty/staff member has received “substantial” funding for development from the institution.  However “substantial” needs to be more clearly defined so that people know at the start of a project what to expect.

 

This week the SEC began identifying themes in the first phase of the most recent evaluation of administrative offices and is developing items for the second phase.

 

B.     Chancellor

The campus is still trying to get the financial aid part added to the Growth Quality and Access Plan.  It may be proposed as part of the State budget adjustment bill.  The time-frame for this is not known at this time.

 

The Foundation says we need to raise about 3 million for the Academic Building by August 2008 so that the banks see that we are raising the money for the project.

 

C.     Faculty Representative’s Report

Joe Heim requested that the faculty donate to the Academic Building.  The Foundation is hoping for 100% support from the faculty and staff.

 

The Action Steps for the State Growth Agenda was distributed to the Senate.

 

            D.  Student Association Representative’s Report

Student campaigns are continuing.

 

IV.  Faculty Senate General Education/University Core Ad Hoc Assessment Committee nominees

Kathryn Birkeland (CBA), Scott Cooper (SAH), Linda Dickmeyer (CLS), Kenny Hunt (SAH), Betsey Knowles (CBA), Cris Prucha (CLS)

 

There was a request to allow two faculty from CBA to serve on this committee even though the original request was for one CBA faculty member.  This gives a new faculty member a chance to serve with someone with more experience.  This would increase the membership on this committee by one member.  Some Senate members felt this gave too much representation to the CBA College.  There was also the question about having two members from the same department.  Since this is an adhoc committee, this would not go against Senate Bylaws.  A suggestion was made to add more members.

 

M\S\F

Allow the CBA members to each be given ½ of a vote.

 

M\S\P

Ask Betsey Knowles and Kathryn Birkeland to decide who will serve on this committee.

 

M\S\P

To approve the nominees above with only one of Betsey and Kathryn to be on the committee.

 

V.  Motion to oppose the hiring of an Assessment Coordinator

 

M\S the Faculty Senate supports the hiring of an assessment coordinator.

 

The relationship between an Assessment Coordinator and the General Education Assessment Committee is not clear. There was also a concern about the ability to afford a new position with budget cuts when dollars for instruction could be cut.

 

The Assessment Coordinator would work on issues far beyond those of General Education.  The Senate would need to change bylaws for the Academic Program Review (APR) committee to work with this plan.  Some department chairs liked the idea of an Assessment Coordinator.  The campus needs someone to work on the NCA report.  The NCA team recommended that the campus submit two assessment reports by January 2009.

 

The question was raised whether this work could be fixed at APR and the department level.  The APR wanted help in evaluating department assessment plans. 

 

The question was asked whether there are long term needs for this position or could this be done as a one-year job while the NCA work needs to be done? This could be done as a way to at least introduce the position.  Instead could it be a ¼ position?  Would this person have authority or just do the paper-work? 

 

Some would like more information about this position.  It may be nice to talk to the Provost about the position description based on the new assessment task force.

 

M\S\P

Amend the motion to read

The Faculty Senate supports the hiring of an Assessment Coordinator for a maximum of three-years to transition assessment to APR and others and to work on the two NCA assessment reports.

 

M\S\P

Table the motion until Provost can talk to the Senate.

 

VI.  Academic Program Reviews (APR)

 

A.  Communication Studies

APR's Recommendations

The Department of Communication Studies should undergo its next Academic Program Review in the next regularly scheduled cycle. There are some areas than need to be addressed in the coming years. Specific recommendations include:

1.  The Department should continue its efforts in assessment, focusing on development of student learning outcomes and assessment of these outcomes, and development and implementation of an assessment plan for CST 110. 

2.  The Department should work towards providing cohesiveness among the multiple sections of CST110 to ensure a common, rich oral communication experience for all students at UW-L.

            Suggestions on how to accomplish this are:

  • Form a departmental subcommittee that regularly meets to discuss course issues and make departmental recommendations for course improvement.
  • Explore ways to facilitate better communication between course instructors, such as pre-semester course workshops, new instructor training, course resource sharing, increasing instructor connections
  • Explore increasing the authority of the CST110 coordinator by providing release time designated for the coordination task or hiring a tenure-track faculty with partial administrative responsibilities to direct CST110.

For any change that is made, the impact of that change needs to be assessed several years after implementation.

3.  Analyze the current emphasis areas offered in the Department and modify as necessary, taking into account current trends and overall program direction.   (Progress has already been made in this area.)

4.  The Department should work towards securing a technician responsible for maintenance and repair of program equipment along with a full-time ADA position to support the program.          

 

APR was impressed by the growth in majors and the senior research opportunities.

 

M\S\P

Accept the APR report.

 

B.  Nuclear Medicine Technology (NMT)

APR's Recommendations 

1.  While there are many positive indicators of high achievement, the report includes data from site directors’ surveys that recently indicates a slight downward variation from previous years’ highs.  Continue to monitor this closely in order to assess trends and respond accordingly. 

2.  In addition to pass/fail rates, continue to monitor closely comparative student rankings on National Certification Board Exams in order to assess possible trends and respond accordingly. 

3.  We support the recommendation in the NMT APR report that as part of a long-term plan it may be worthwhile to consider hiring a Certified Nuclear Medicine Technologist to administer the program.  This should allow for: 

  • greater facilitation of the necessary curricular changes which, in response to changing technology, are ongoing
  • direct accreditation of UW-L program
  • an administrator of the program to  teach courses directly relevant to the program
  • facilitate greater communication with clinical sites.   

4. There are no serious areas to address.  The Nuclear Medicine Technology Program should undergo its next Academic Program Review in the next regularly scheduled cycle.

 

M\S\P

Accept the APR report.

 

VII. SEC Motion to change requirements for Department Chair eligibility to include tenure

 

M\S\P

V.  The Selection of Department Chairpersons

            B. Eligibility Requirements for Serving as Chairperson 

                        1. All members of a department shall be eligible to serve as department chairperson provided they are:  

                                    a. Tenured and of the rank of assistant professor or above;

                                    b. On staff of this university at least three full semesters;

                                    c. Not on terminal contract or temporary appointment.

 

This will be sent to the Bylaws Committee to formally change the bylaws.

 

If necessary, a Department would need to ask the Senate to suspend these bylaws.

 

VIII. SEC nomination for UW-System Compensation Committee: Bart VanVoorhis

 

M\S\P

Accept the nomination of Bart Van Voorhis.

 

This is a three year term.

 

IX. Old Business

 

X. New Business

 

XI. Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m.

 

Respectfully Submitted,

Susan Kelly