Minutes: November 12, 2007
Present: Richter, Leahy, Brunk, Dodge, Heyer, Vahala, Van Roosenbeek, Lo, Robinson, Weiland
Guests: Knudson, Gow, McGarry
Meeting called to order at 1:17pm
I. Parent Notification Policy
Dean Knudson came to speak to the council about the policy and was hoping for a decision of support, support with suggested changes or disagreement with the proposed policy. The draft of the notification policy philosophy proposes the possibility of notification in the event of the violated for a federal, state or local law or the UW-L code of conduct when relating to alcohol or other controlled substances or if their behavior poses a risk to themselves and/or others. Parental contact is increasing. We would like to have the policy regarding parental contact be the same across campus, from department to department. Dean Knudson also distributed some literature on the Family Educational Right and Privacy Act (FERPA). FERPA allows for communication with parents in specific circumstances.
Is there any way for individual staff members to find out what they can disclose to parents without contacting Records and Registration or another office? Don’t believe it’s possible to find out exactly what can be disclosed without contacting Registration. Can give general information.
If there is a concern with a student, the staff/faculty should make a contact with Counseling and Testing to make an appointment instead of leaving it up to the student to make srue that they get on the radar screen.
Can or do we do notification to parents’ whose child is over the age of 21? We can do it if we think it is helpful. As long as the student is not incapacitated in some way, we try to encourage them to call the parents.
If there is a dangerous situation on the campus, we do have a lockdown procedure. We are in the process of reviewing what happens in a variety of emergency situations. Encouraging departments to have calling trees and succession plans.
RHAC and Faculty Senate have approved it. Student Senate has had a discussion but has not voted on it.
II. Growth, Quality and Access
Chancellor Gow came to discuss the next proposal. The Faculty and Student Senate have voted in support of the plan. He gave a quick review of the plan. Since the budget was decided, we started talking to the legislators about what the problem was. They were uncomfortable with explicitly saying that tuition money would be used to fund financial aid. If we have a differential tuition proposal for the Regents, we can do it that way. All of the differential tuition would go towards hiring new faculty and academic staff. The money which we received in the current budget would help to fund financial aid. It looks like there is much more support for the next plan than Growth and Access. Brent Smith has been very supportive of the plan.
How is staff defined in the new plan? The positions have not been laid out. Will likely need new positions in Financial Aid, Registration, Advising and Admissions. Other than that, am unsure. It will be discussed at a later point.
How will the numbers be figured out? With the current circumstances of many interim positions higher up, would like to consult with those who are working with students day to day.
Some faculty seem to think ‘staff’ will and/or should be instructional academic staff, which of a concern to NIAS. Chancellor Gow responded in his mind ‘staff’ was non-instructional academic staff.
The Chancellor expressed a desire to see a representation of Academic Staff Council at the Board of Regents meeting in December when the plan will be proposed to the Regents.
Council members expressed a desire for us to not only focus on recruitment but also on retention. Need to make sure that students of color and other minority students want to stay on the campus and have the necessary support. Also need to make sure that diverse staff members feel comfortable on this campus and in the community.
Council members also expressed a desire to make good connections with the community in order to have a more positive relationship between campus and the community?
What will be the most challenging aspect of the meeting in December?
- Why wasn’t a student referendum done on the issue?
- Cost; increase of tuition
Would it help to discuss how the REC center was funded?
Started to charge for it 10 years before it was built. It will help because the students who would be paying for it will benefit from it.
Has there been any opposition from other UW chancellors? Have not talked to all of them yet. Other campuses are interested in doing the same thing.
What do the legislators/regents thinking about taking care of the facilities?
Seem to have other things they are focusing on and many don’t take it into consideration.
Is there a possibility of moving the new academic building over to prevent taking down Baird? Has not heard that proposal before and don’t know what the implications would be on the plans.
Vote on supporting the Growth, Quality and Access Plan. First: Heyer, Second: Leahy and Robinson. APPROVED unanimously.
The Council would like to send a representative to the Regent’s meeting. It is Thursday, December 6th – when committees meet. This will be taken up by one of the committees so it is likely that the presentation will be that afternoon. On Friday, December 7th, the full Board meets and the committee gives a report. The Thursday meeting should probably be the priority. They are public meetings and can be watched on MediaSite. The Council will contact Nancy Sedbrook to let the Chancellor know which Academic Staff member(s) will be attending. Could carpool down with other governance representatives.
III. Parental Notification Policy
Concern of notifying parents when that may be detrimental to the student. Would like to vote on it at the next meeting in order to give it proper consideration.
Need to correct spelling of Shilling. Motion to approve: First, Brunk, Second, Robinson. APPROVED.
V. Academic Calendar 2009-2010
Motion to approve the calendar as is: First, Heyer, Second, Brunk. APPROVED.
VI. Spousal Partner Hiring Policy
Sent questions and received responses from Karen Palmer McLean and Betsy Morgan. Responses did not seem to address all concerns. Don’t believe this would change how anything is done on campus, just want to have a set policy in place.
Motion to support the Spousal Partner Hiring Policy: First, Dodge, Second, Leahy. Vote: 4 support
The co-chairs will communicate with Betsy Morgan and Karen Palmer Mclean that the motion failed and try to arrange someone to come to an Academic Staff Council meeting.
VII. AS Reps
Meeting this week in Madison.
VIII. Upcoming meetings
Next execs meeting: December 2nd
Next Full Council meeting: November 26th
Bob Hetzel would like to attend our next meeting.
Meeting adjourned at 2:55pm.