October 9, 2008
Robert C. Voight Faculty Senate Chambers
3:30 p.m. – 325 Graff Main Hall
I. Roll Call.
Present: M. Abler, R. Ahmed, J. Anderson, S. Brokaw, D. Buffton, V. Crank, G. Cravins, S. Crutchfield, L. Dickmeyer, T. Gendreau, J. Heim, J. Holman, R. LeDocq, C. Miller, P. Miller, J. Miskowski, A. Olson, B. Riley, D. Sullivan, B. Udermann, B. Van Voorhis
Excused: D. Hoskins, A. Loh, S. Shillinger
II. The minutes of September 11, 2008 and Sept. 25, 2008 were approved.
A. Chair’s Report
Upcoming business: The Senate should consider whether we want to evaluate administrative offices this year. The General Education Committee’s proposal regarding the GEC director position was tabled last year. The Provost will talk to the GEC about whether they want to proceed and how.
The Chair encouraged members to attend the upcoming Tuesday evening debates between electoral candidates.
B. Chancellor’s Report
There have been concerns about graffiti defacing political flyers on campus. Regarding the upcoming elections: our State Representatives do have an effect on
The Chancellor reported on some campus climate activities. On October 8 he had a conversation with a group of people interested in the Office of Multicultural Student Services, and earlier that day campus climate expert Dr. Rankin talked about the UW-L Campus Climate Survey. UW-L should generally feel good about its climate, though sexual assault is a concern, particularly for students in the residence halls. Also, incivility within our groups (faculty, staff, etc) is of concern, and we will be talking about how to work on this.
C. Provost’s Report
The Provost is working on personnel, programming, CATL, and other confidential issues. There is nothing in particular to report.
D. Faculty Representative’s Report
E. Student Representative’s Report
Eric Fuhrman asked that the Student Senate be informed if there were any concerns about student members on faculty committees. The students’ voter registration drive has been successful in residence halls.
At their last senate meeting, the students discussed the Amethyst Initiative, a national campaign, spearheaded by a group of college presidents, that questions the effectiveness of the 21-year drinking age. Chancellor Gow explained that he would sign such an initiative as a representative of the University if the Student Senate votes to adopt such a resolution, but he is skeptical that legislators would agree to lower the drinking age. The Students Senate will vote on a resolution soon.
IV. Incomplete Grade Policy – CAPS.
As last year’s CAPS Chair, Becky LeDocq introduced the following proposal, which came as a motion from CAPS.
The motion was approved.
10/9/08 Incomplete Grade Policy
(from CAPS minutes 11 April 2008)
Chris Bakkum, interim registrar, presented information to the committee regarding review of the current undergraduate incomplete policy. The current policy states:
“An Incomplete must be removed and a final grade recorded in the Records and Registration Office no later than midterm of the second semester in residence, following the term in which the incomplete was incurred. …”
This wording can be problematic if a student leaves the university prior to the time when the incomplete must be removed. Thus, C. Bakkum recommends that CAPS consider revising the policy as was recently done by Graduate Council for graduate courses.
M/S/P in CAPS (7/0/0) Revise the Removal of Incomplete policy to read “… no later than one calendar year (12 months), following the term in which the incomplete was incurred. …”
V. Budgetary Update – Bob Hetzel
Highlights of budget overview: UW-L must cover $485,000 of the UW-System’s $25 million budget lapse. We will cover this through one-time funds carried over from fiscal 08 to fiscal 09 due to robust enrollments. PeopleSoft will cost $175,000 for the next seven years. We have established a central salary reserve for promotion and career progression and equity adjustments. We have new base funding for our educational systems program, a policy grounded in Regent policy #25. We have made minor base adjustments with DRS; and another to shore up common systems--we had to increase that budget by about $200,000.
Summary of budget deficits: Overall, GPR (General Purpose Revenue) deficits grew between 2001-06. However, these reductions weren’t always taken, so we incurred structural deficits, leaving minus items at just over $1.5 million. We’ve been able to eliminate these deficits as of fiscal year 2009. About 14% of the UW-L accounts were not managed well. We should expect at best a level budget for the 2009-11 biennium. We are now well positioned for budget planning in the new biennium.
Departmental impact: Within individual departments, we need to clean up the fundamentals—the titles of budget designees, the funds’ titles, and so on. We have to have our red book in order by mid-March. There probably will not be any major allocations right now, but perhaps some shifting within units.
Discussion continued, hitting on the following: GQA’s firm funding; the UW-L 2009-11 DIN (Decision Item Narrative: a new budget request on top of the budget and costs to continue) for financial aid; the 2009-10 pay plan; budget and planning for technology in the new academic building.
VI. Old Business.
VII. New Business.
Proposal to Revise UWL Bylaws 3.05 and 3.06—PTS Committee
Dave Koster presented a motion from the PTS Committee to adopt the following changes to the UWL bylaws. There was discussion of how this would affect current needs to update departmental bylaws to match new UW-L 2-year review of probationary faculty, and of how and when new faculty would make the decision to use the new bylaws. This proposal would have to be approved by the BOR before going into effect.
The motion was approved.
UWS 3.05 Periodic review.
The faculty and chancellor of each institution, after consultation with appropriate students, shall establish rules providing for periodic review of faculty performance.
UWL 3.05 Periodic Review.
(1) Requirement for evaluation. Performance of all faculty members shall be reviewed annually. The areas of review shall include teaching, scholarship, and service (professional and university). Departments shall establish written bylaws specifying the review procedures. The bylaws shall include the criteria used in the review, how the criteria are applied, the occasions and methods of review, and any appellate procedures. The review procedures shall also provide faculty members with the opportunity to document their performance in the review areas for the time period under review. These bylaws shall be filed with the appropriate academic dean for the purpose of ensuring compliance with UWS and UWL personnel rules and faculty policies.
The results of the review shall be used in making recommendations for salary adjustments, retention, tenure, promotion, tenured faculty review and development, and for other considerations as needed. The review criteria used for making these different recommendations need not be identical; departments may conduct separate reviews as needed. The results of reviews for a faculty member over a period of several consecutive years shall be part of the basis for making retention, tenure, promotion, and tenured faculty review and development recommendations for the faculty member. Any changes to departmental bylaws affecting the review procedures must have been adopted and placed on file with the appropriate academic dean at least six months prior to the review. However, reviews for the purpose of making recommendations on retention or tenure of a probationary faculty member shall be conducted using the departmental bylaws in place at the time of hire of the probationary faculty member unless the faculty member elects to be reviewed under more recently adopted departmental bylaws.
(2) Methods of Review
(a) Teaching. The methods used to review teaching shall include both peer and student evaluation. These methods may also include self-evaluation.
1. Student evaluation of instruction shall be governed by regulations established by the Board of Regents. Additional regulations may be established by the Chancellor, the UW-La Crosse Faculty Senate, and departments after consultation with students where appropriate. Departments shall design the instruments used to obtain student evaluation of instruction data.
2. Peer and self-evaluation shall be governed by regulations established by the Board of Regents, the Chancellor, the UW-La Crosse Faculty Senate, and departments. Departmental bylaws shall govern the collection and use of the peer evaluation data.
(b) Scholarship and Service. Peer evaluation shall be used to review scholarship and service. Departmental bylaws shall govern the interpretation of the peer evaluation data.
(a) At least 20 days prior to a review, the department chairperson shall notify each faculty member of the date of the review and provide each faculty member with the appropriate form to be used to report the member's performance in the review areas for the time period under review. The department chairperson shall inform each faculty member of the date by which these forms should be completed and submitted. Faculty members are responsible for completing their own evaluation form.
(b) Within 14 days after completion of the review of a faculty member, a written report of the results of the review shall be given to the faculty member. Results shall be reported for each of the review areas.
UWS 3.06 Renewal of appointments and granting of tenure.
(1)(a) General. Appointments may be granted only upon the affirmative recommendation of the appropriate academic department, or its functional equivalent, and the chancellor of an institution. When specified by the board, the institutional recommendation shall be transmitted by the president of the system with a recommendation to the board for action. Tenure appointments may be granted to any ranked faculty member who holds or will hold a half-time appointment or more. The proportion of time provided for in the appointment may not be diminished or increased without the mutual consent of the faculty member and the institution, unless the faculty member is dismissed for just cause, pursuant to s. 36.13 (5), Stats., or is terminated or laid off pursuant to s. 36.21, Stats.
(b) Criteria. Decisions relating to renewal of appointments or recommending of tenure shall be made in accordance with institutional rules and procedures which shall require an evaluation of teaching, research, and professional and public service and contribution to the institution. The relative importance of these functions in the evaluation process shall be decided by departmental, school, college, and institutional faculties in accordance with the mission and needs of the particular institution and its component parts. Written criteria for these decisions shall be developed by the appropriate institutional faculty bodies. Written criteria shall provide that if any faculty member has been in probationary status for more than 7 years because of one or more of the reasons set forth in s. UWS 3.04 (2) or (3), the faculty member shall be evaluated as if he or she had been in probationary status for 7 years.
(c) Procedures. The faculty and chancellor of each institution, after consultation with appropriate students, shall establish rules governing the procedures for renewal or probationary appointments and for recommending tenure. These rules shall provide for written notice of the departmental review to the faculty member at least 20 days prior to the date of the departmental review, and an opportunity to present information on the faculty member's behalf. The probationary faculty member shall be notified in writing within 20 days after each decision at each reviewing level. In the event that a decision is made resulting in non-renewal, the procedures specified in s. UWS 3.07 shall be followed.
History: Cr. Register, January, 1975, No. 229, eff. 2-1-75; am. (1) (b), Register, February, 1994, No. 458, eff. 3-1-94; correction in (1) (a) made under s. 13.93 (2m) (b) 5, Stats., Register, February, 1994, No. 458.
UWL 3.06 Renewal of appointments and granting of tenure.
(1) Renewal of appointments and granting of tenure require probationary faculty to be reviewed at three levels in the following order: 1) department; 2) college dean; and 3) chancellor. The process advances as the department's decision and the dean's recommendations are forwarded, in writing, to the chancellor. The timing of the reviews is determined by the university's Personnel Schedule Deadlines.
(2) The probationary faculty member shall be notified in writing within seven days after each decision or recommendation at each reviewing level.
(4) The initial review of probationary
faculty shall be conducted by the tenured faculty of the appropriate department
in a manner determined by the tenured members. If there are no tenured members
in the department, the appropriate supervisor who is tenured shall make the
determination. Department procedures for review, criteria for retention and
tenure, and the weighting of criteria shall be documented and on file in the
appropriate dean's office in accordance with UWL 3.05 which also specifies
that reviews for the purpose of making recommendations on retention or tenure of
a probationary faculty member shall be conducted using the departmental bylaws
in place at the time of hire of the probationary faculty member unless the
faculty member elects to be reviewed under more recently adopted departmental
. Any changes to department procedures, criteria,
and their weighting during the six month period preceding the review shall not
be applicable to the review.
(5) The department chair shall give written notice of the department review to the probationary faculty member at least 20 days prior to the date of the review. The probationary faculty member may present written and oral support for renewal. The requirements of sub chapter IV of Chapter 19, Wisconsin Statutes concerning open meeting of governmental bodies shall apply.
(6) An affirmative decision by the department or a successful reconsideration by the department that reverses an earlier non-renewal decision is required for renewal and tenure.
(7) The department shall forward the decision and the vote results to the appropriate dean (or other administrative officer). The dean shall submit to the chancellor a written recommendation either affirming or not affirming the department decision. The dean's criteria for renewal and tenure shall be consistent with department criteria. Further, the dean shall take the magnitude of the faculty vote into account when making the recommendation.
(8) Following a non-renewal decision at the department level, and reconsideration and appeal that do not reverse the decision, the department's decision and the vote results shall be forwarded to the appropriate dean (or other administrative officer). The dean shall submit to the chancellor a recommendation either affirming or not affirming the department decision. The dean's criteria for renewal and tenure shall be consistent with department criteria. Further, the dean shall take the magnitude of the faculty vote into account when making the recommendation.
(9) Following an affirmative decision at the department level, but a non-renewal recommendation at the dean level and reconsideration and appeal that do not reverse the recommendation, the process advances to the chancellor.
(10) If the department's decision and the dean's recommendations are both positive the chancellor's decision should be positive unless there are compelling reasons for a negative decision. A faculty member who is denied renewal/tenure at this stage may request the reasons in writing within 10 days. Written reasons shall be provided to the faculty member within 10 days of the receipt of the request. The reasons then become part of the official file of the faculty member.
UWL 3.06 was revised and approved by the Faculty Senate, approved by Chancellor Kuipers on April 15, 1998 and approved by the Board Of Regents on June 5, 1998.
UWS 3.07 Non-renewal of probationary appointments.
(1) (a) Rules and procedures. The faculty and chancellor of each institution, after consultation with appropriate students, shall establish rules and procedures for dealing with instances in which probationary faculty appointments are not renewed. These rules and procedures shall provide that, upon the timely written request of the faculty member concerned, the department or administrative officer making the decision shall, within a reasonable time, give him or her written reasons for non-renewal. Such reasons shall become a part of the personnel file of the individual. Further, the rules and procedures shall provide for reconsideration of the initial non-renewal decision upon timely written request.
(b) Reconsideration. The purpose of reconsideration of a non-renewal decision shall be to provide an opportunity to a fair and full reconsideration of the non-renewal decision, and to insure that all relevant material is considered.
1. Such reconsideration shall be undertaken by the individual or body making the non-renewal decision and shall include, but not be limited to, adequate notice of the time of reconsideration of the decision, an opportunity to respond to the written reasons and to present any written or oral evidence or arguments relevant to the decision, and written notification of the decision resulting from the reconsideration.
2. Reconsideration is not a hearing or an appeal, and shall be non-adversary in nature.
3. In the event that a reconsideration affirms the non-renewal decision, the procedures specified in s. UWS 3.08 shall be followed.
The meeting was adjourned at 5 p.m.