44th Faculty Senate
February 11, 2010 – 3:30p.m.
Robert C. Voight Faculty Senate Chambers – 325 Graff Main Hall
Vol. 44, No. 9 

I.      Roll Call.

Present:  J. Anderson (excused), C. Angell, J. Baggett, S. Brokaw, D. Buffton, V. Crank (excused), G. Cravins, T. Gendreau, J. Heim, K. Hoar, J. Holman, D. Hoskins, K. Hunt, D. Lake, R. LeDocq, A. Loh, C. Lee, R. Mikat (absent), J. Miskowski, S. Shillinger (excused), R. Smith, M. Tollefson, B. Van Voorhis and M. Wycoff-Horn


II.      Minutes of January 28, 2010 were approved.


III.      Reports.

a.       Chair’s Report.

                                                  i.      Thank you to those who attended the open and/or governance body forums for the Assessment Coordinator candidates.  There is no more news at this time.

                                                ii.      Senate elections information was sent out via email and the petitions are posted to the main FS web page.  Please encourage colleagues to run, as we have had a shortage of candidates for the last few years.  Nomination petitions are due in the FS Office by 4:00pm on Friday, February 19.

                                              iii.      The BOR approved the Academic Initiatives proposal on Friday, February 5th.

                                              iv.      The FS chair will be the UWL representative at the February 19 Faculty Reps meeting, as Joe Heim will be unable to attend.  Educational Attainment is a topic of discussion.

                                                v.      The White Privilege Conference registration information will be sent out via email tomorrow.  UWL faculty and staff costs have changed, as we cannot get the non-profit pricing.

                                              vi.      Note about the recent passing of two former UWL faculty – George Gilkey (history) and David Mewaldt (music).  George Gilkey “started faculty senate” at UWL.  He served on FS for 12 years and was FS chair for 3 years.

                                            vii.      Teri Hinds introduced Marv Notlze, the new Institutional Research Analyst

b.      Student Association Report (Erik Kahl).    UWL SA is coordinating with other student associations to mark March 3rd as Haiti:  Day of Action.  

c.       Faculty Rep’s Report.

                                                  i.      Short overview of the upcoming appellate court elections.

                                                ii.      Distributed handout of collective bargaining FAQs.  This handout has been posted to the main FS web page.

                                              iii.      Joe Heim is the sole faculty member on the Competitive University Workforce Commission – this committee is investigating higher salaries for UW faculty. 


IV.      Approval of 2011-12 Academic Calendar.

FS was originally asked to approve the 2012-13 calendar as well.  This was delayed until the end of Spring 2010 semester to allow the Ad Hoc Calendar committee time to make recommendations that could be incorporated as early as Fall 2012. 

Motion to approve the 2011-2012 Academic Calendar.   Motion Approved.


V.      SEC Nominee to replace Deb Hoskins on Committee on Committees – Kerrie Hoar.

a.       Deb Hoskins is no longer a senator; therefore, ineligible to serve on CoC.

Motion to replace Deb Hoskins on Committee on Committees with Kerrie Hoar.   Motion approved.


VI.      SEC Recommendations for Ad Hoc Calendar Committee Membership.

a.       There were a total of nine volunteers for this committee – no volunteers from CBA.

b.      If her name is forwarded, Betsy Morgan would be the convener of the committee.  Renee Redman was recommended because she teaches laboratories.  Labs are an important consideration in scheduling.

Motion to approve Betsy Morgan, Eric Kraemer and Renee Redman as Faculty Members on the Ad Hoc Calendar Committee.   Motion approved.


VII.      Response from APR on Special Charge (Sandy Grunwald).

a.       Special Charge: Review the role of the Provost in the Academic Program Review process. Consider whether the Provost, in addition to the appropriate Dean, should be able to review the proposal and provide suggestions prior to the final report being sent to APR.

b.      Background:  For academic program review, departments complete a self-study.  The next step is to invite in an external reviewer or accreditation agency to review the self-study and visit with the department.  Once complete, the report goes to the Academic Program Review committee and then to Faculty Senate.  The time lag between completion of the self-study and presentation at FS can be as much as 3 years.  The Provost is requesting access to the self-study prior to FS approval.

c.       Recommendation:  APR recommends adding the following language to both the review process for both accredited and non-accredited programs to allow the Provost to have access to APR reports after the external/accreditation agency review: APR administrative consultants or their designated representative will be granted electronic access to APR documents.   Deans review the final package and prepare a summary including recommendations.

d.      Discussion: 

                                                  i.      The Provost is responsible for the academic integrity of UWL programs; therefore, should have access to these reports at an early stage of the process to allow her to help the program overcome any challenges and to attain their program goals.

Motion to approve the APR recommendation.   Motion approved.


VIII.      Response from UCC/GCC on Special Charge (Cynthia Berlin and Carol Angell).

a.       Special Charge:

                                                  i.      UCC:  (1) Review existing policies to determine whether they are sufficient for the review of courses with an online component.  (2) As stated on the Records and Registration webpage, the LX 138C Form is “used to make any change to a course including description, prerequisite(s), credits, title, grading pattern, instructional pattern, course number.”  This would seem to indicate that UCC/GCC approval is required for a change in course format, in particular a shift to offering a course as a hybrid or online course.  Discuss the question of what changes should require UCC/GCC approval and, if needed, develop policies to re-review existing courses undergoing such changes.  Make any appropriate recommendations to Senate.

                                                ii.      GCC:  (1) Review existing policies to determine whether they are sufficient for the review of courses with an online component.  (2) Discuss the question of what types of changes to a course (e.g., change in course format – shift to hybrid/online, lab to lecture) should require GCC approval and, if needed, develop policies to re-review existing courses undergoing such changes.  Make any appropriate recommendations to Senate.

b.      After extensive discussions, UCC put together an ad hoc committee to investigate the issue.  They looked primarily at whether an existing course, planning to go online, should go to UCC for re-review.  Both UCC and GCC recommend that existing face-to-face courses not be required to be re-reviewed in the event that the course moves to an online format.  This is the purview of departments.  UCC is also working with Chris Bakkum to determine what changes to courses should require submitting LX forms.  The same recommendations apply to hybrid courses.  All new courses, however, are required to go through UCC/GCC regardless of instructional pattern.

c.       Recommendations:

                                                  i.      UCC: Existing courses that are already taught online or have an online component should not be required to return to UCC for re-review.  In addition, existing courses that are converted to online format also should not be required to return to UCC for re-review.  Instead, these course changes should be noted by the registrar and sent to the UCC as an informational item.  The decision to place a course online should be made by the department, since they are best suited to judge the appropriateness of the course material for online instruction. 


New courses proposed to UCC that will be taught online or have an online component as a hybrid course should have “online format” included on the LX form (as a checked box) and include appropriate documentation.

Motion to approve UCC recommendations.   Motion approved.


                                                ii.      GCC:  The existing policies are sufficient for the review of all university courses regardless of delivery format.  The delivery method (online, hybrid, face-to-face) is the duty of the academic department and should not change the course content and objectives put forward on the LX form.  Review of course components is consistent across delivery method(s) selected on the LX form. GCC does not recommend any change to the existing course review policy


The current LX form and proposed LX form, not yet shared campus-wide, contains checkboxes at the top indicating the types of changes being made to a course. Each of these changes when proposed must come before GCC for consideration and approval.  Currently, all changes indicated on the LX form are brought forward for committee consideration and approval.  GCC does not recommend re-review of existing university course LXs when the mode of delivery is changed.  GCC recommends that when the new LX form is released for use that departments check all modes of delivery that may be used to deliver course content.

Motion to approve GCC recommendations.   Motion approved.



IX.      Discussion of Online Handbook (Brian Udermann & Kristin Koepke).

a.       SEC discussed endorsement of the Policies only.  The Guidelines are best practices and FS does not need to approve this section.  Brian and Kristin would like to have the handbook endorsed as a unit.

b.      This handbook came about through discussions with departments who are considering developing such a document for their department.

c.       Addressing the SEC Concerns:

                                                  i.      Online Instructor Training Requirement:  Anyone teaching an online course for the first time at UWL would need to complete this training.  It will be required of all online education grant recipients in order to receive the second stipend.  Currently, if an instructor has had similar training or certification, he/she can request to have this requirement waived.  The Online Advisory Group has not discussed a waivor in the event that an instructor has online course experience, but not training.

                                                ii.      Policies for Online Education  **This section is appropriate for Online courses that are also offered facetoface. Fully online programs need to contact program directors to determine appropriateness of the policies for the program:  This statement was added to address fully online programs that have different start/end dates, etc.  Suggesting re-wording would be:  There may be exceptions to this policy in fully online programs.

                                              iii.      Drop Procedure:  Chris Bakkum distributed a handout with a revised policy.

Draft Procedure for Dropping Online Courses

This policy applies only to online courses dropped during the normal drop/add period for the course.

1.       Online students can drop an online course by emailing the instructor during the normal drop/add period for the course (in which instructor or advisor signature is required to drop).

2.       Second, the instructor forwards the student’s email to the Records Office (records@uwlax.edu) from the

instructor’s UWL email account so the Records Office can process the drop. The drop will be dated with the day the student originally emailed the instructor.

3.       Third, the Records Office will print and file this email with the other drop slips in the Records Office. The student and the instructor will receive a confirmation of the drop from the Records Office once the drop is processed.

If the course is the only course a student is registered for, a withdrawal from the university will be required and the student will be referred to the Office of Student Life to initiate the withdrawal process.


Another Process to consider:

Procedure for Dropping Online Courses

All UW-L policies related to schedule changes, withdrawal from classes, and withdrawal from the university also apply to online courses. However, since online students may not be able to come to campus to withdraw from a class, the following procedure has been developed to facilitate this process electronically (applies only to online courses dropped during the normal withdrawal from classes period for the course).

1.       Instructors of online courses using D2L should set up a Drop Box in the course named “Request to Withdraw” and should notify students in the class that should they wish to withdraw from the course, they will need to send a request to this Drop Box prior to the deadline for withdrawing from the class. (Note: Any student may drop the class using WINGS during the normal drop/add “schedule change” period – usually the first 5 days of the semester for full semester courses; pro-rated for shorter courses and summer courses, so the Drop Box would not need to be active until after that period). This Drop Box should be inactivated once the deadline to withdraw from the course has been reached. Instructors should not delete the contents of the Drop Box.

2.       Students wishing to withdraw during the first half of the course should submit the request to the Request to Withdraw Drop Box.

3.       Instructors should monitor the Request to Withdraw Drop Box and respond immediately to any requests from students to withdraw. This allows the instructor a chance to communicate with the student to find out why they wish to withdraw and to advise them on the decision.

4.       To withdraw a student from the course following the request  from the student, the instructor must immediately e-mail the Registrar’s Office to complete the withdrawal from the class for the student. The e-mail must include the student’s name, ID number, class information (ie: SPA 101, section 1), and date the student requested the withdrawal. The e-mail should be sent to Records@uwlax.edu. UW-L policy does not allow an instructor to withdraw a student from a class without the student’s permission (exception to this can be found under “Class Drops at the Discretion of an Instructor, pg. 45 UW-L Catalog).

5.       Online students who are able to complete the withdrawal process in person should be encouraged to do that.

6.       The Records Office will print and file the instructor’s email with the other drop slips archived in the Records Office. The student and the instructor will receive a confirmation of the drop from the Records Office once the drop is processed.

If the course is the only course a student is registered for, a withdrawal from the university will be required and the student will be referred to the Office of Student Life to initiate the withdrawal process.


d.      Discussion:

                                                  i.      Do we really need a separate set of policies for online courses?  Most appear to be the same as those for face-to-face courses.  Why not just say that all of the current policies apply to online courses with the exception of. . . (e.g., drop procedure, sole ownership, required courses must also be offered as face-to-face, etc.)

                                                ii.      Who enforces these policies? 

                                              iii.      Should the training be required?  There is a training requirement to teach writing emphasis courses.

                                              iv.      Should we be requiring a specific software package?  What happens if we change software packages.

e.       An Ad Hoc Faculty Senate committee should be formed to investigate this issue and bring recommendations to FS.


X.      Discussion of Educational Attainment:

a.       It is very important that faculty speak up and be involved in the discussion of this proposal; however, the timeline is not allowing this.  The template is due on February 17.  This is two days before the Faculty Reps meet to discuss the proposal and a week before the next UWL Faculty Senate meeting. 

b.      A draft response could be shared with other institutions at the February 19 Faculty Reps meeting.  This response will require an email approval from senators if FS wishes to forward it to UWS prior to our next FS meeting on February 25.

Sense of the FS:  Does the FS wish to draft a response to this initiative?  Yes (unanimous)


XI.      Adjournment at 4:52 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Kerrie Hoar