34th Faculty Senate

Vol. 34, No. 16

May 4, 2000


I. Roll Call.

Present: Bange, Barmore, Grant, Heim, Hench, S. Kelly, Kraemer, R. LeDocq, Majak, Monte, Nyatepe-Coo, Prucha, Riley, Vogt, Voiku, Wingate

Excused: Duquette, L. Nelson, P. Taylor, VanVoorhis

II. Approval of Minutes. The minutes of the April 13, and  the April 27, 2000, meetings were approved as distributed.

III. Reports.

A. Chancellor’s Report: There was no Chancellor's report.

B.   Provost/Vice Chancellor’s Report: There was no Provost/Vice Chancellor’s Report.

C.   Chair/Faculty Representative's Report: Chair Bange shared one item from the latest Faculty Representatives meeting. The faculty representatives did meet informally with Regent Jay Smith. Regent Smith indicated that he thought it was a good idea for the Regents to meet more frequently with faculty. He indicated that he feels there are too many layers between the Regents and the faculty, and he is in favor of a once a month meeting of a Regent and the faculty representatives. Chair Bange indicated that the Regents will be meeting here at UW-LaCrosse next October and they will try to set up a meeting with faculty.

IV.    Bylaw change for the Faculty Development Committee – Second Reading.

M/S/P (by voice vote) to approve the bylaw change as given below:

I. The Faculty Development Committee

Duties and responsibilities of the committee shall include the following, with the exception of faculty sabbatical leave proposals:

1. Initiating, developing, and implementing programs concerned with improvement of instruction and faculty development.

2. Establishing priorities for faculty development and improvement of instruction programs.

3. Establishing written screening and selection procedures, and providing guidelines for proposals related to improvement of instruction and faculty development.

4. Reviewing, screening, and selecting for funding, proposals which are related to improvement of instruction and faculty development.

5. Providing the UW-L Foundation …   (remainder unchanged)

V. Report of the Joint Budget Committee.

Ken Winter, chair of the Joint Budget Committee joined the Senate. Ken thanked the committee for all of their hard work this year. Ken stated that the role of the Joint Budget Committee is to find funding sources. The responsibility of determining what projects to fund rests with other bodies, including the Faculty Senate. He stated that he feels this division of duties makes sense and hopes it will continue. Ken told the Senate that institutional reallocation will be a major source of possible funding, but recommendations need to be made or the reallocations won't occur. Also, since there are currently no free positions, any recommendation involving a position is a major issue. It must be determined where the position will come from.

It was noted that there are real discrepancies in the priorities of the three governing bodies (Faculty Senate, Academic Staff Council and Student Senate).

M/S/P (by voice vote) the Faculty Senate reaffirms their original recommendations.

VI. Recommendations from the Academic Program Review Committee.

Glenn Knowles, chair of the Academic Program Review Committee joined the Senate. Chair Bange publicly commended the committee for all of its work this past year. Glenn made a few brief introductory comments. He pointed out that the main changes in the committee's recommendation for the program review process include the following: 1) If there is no external accreditation review, then an external consultant is required. 2) The length of the review cycle has been increased. 3) The dean is brought into the process much earlier.

The floor was then opened up for questions/comments. The discussion focused on the concern about requiring the use of an external consultant. The recommendations also allow for the use of multiple consultants if the dean feels there is a need. The guidelines only require one external consultant. The committee recommended making the use of an external consultant mandatory with the hope that this would improve the quality of the reports. It was mentioned that it can be good to have an outside person's voice. On the other hand, the consultant could cause problems within the department. There was also a concern about the cost of the consultants. It was mentioned that making the use of the consultant optional allows flexibility. There was some discussion on how to change the wording of the document to allow this flexibility.

M/S/P (by show of hands) to amend the recommendations to make the use of an external consultant an option.

M/S/P (by show of hands) that the wording of the document be changed as follows. The introductory section of the Guidelines for External Consultant, beginning with the fifth sentence, should be changed to read " To formalize this valuable activity, an external consultant may be a part of the periodic review of those academic programs that do not undergo an external
accreditation review. The dean overseeing a department to be reviewed shall determine in consultation with the department whether to require an external reviewer. The intention of…."

M/S/P (by voice vote) to approve the Academic Program Review guidelines as amended.

The audit and review report for the Marketing Department was then considered.

M/S/P (by voice vote) to endorse the audit and review of the Marketing Department.

VII. Proposal to Reorganize the School of Education.

Interim Dean, Sandy Price and Greg Wegner joined the Senate. Dean Price indicated that she had been asked to lead the discussion on reorganizing the School of Education from two departments to one department. The vote on this proposal in the School of Education was tied at 13/13. She indicated that they are currently interviewing for an Associate Dean, and the candidates they have seen so far are very supportive of the proposal to reorganize into a single department.

Greg Wegner spoke in favor of having a single department. Greg indicated that he has been here since they have had multiple departments in the School of Education and it doesn't work. He stated that he believes changing to a single department would improve communication within the School of Education. He also indicated that the timing is good for such a change since they will be hiring a new Director of Teacher Education.

The floor was then opened up for comments/questions. There was no one in the audience who had voted against the reorganization to voice their arguments. The discussion included the following comments/questions.
· It was asked whether the recent accreditation report for the School of Education stated anything concerning the issue of a single department versus multiple departments. It was indicated that the report had not mentioned this issue.
· There was a question as to whether the people who voted against the reoganization were concentrated in one department. In response, it was indicated that the votes against were split between the departments.
· It was stated that if there were a single department, there would be a Director of Teacher Education and then a chair of the department. The concern was that these positions would be redundant. In response, it was indicated that the responsibilities of the Director of Education are campus wide, not just within the School of Education. The Director would deal with teacher education programs in all departments.
· Although there was no one in the audience who had voted against the reorganization, it was indicated that one of their arguments was that it would look bad in the community. They went from a College of Education to a School of Education, and this proposal would now make them a Department of Education.
· It was mentioned that the people in the department don't seem to have the confidence to make changes. Ten years ago they voted to move from a single department to multiple departments. The faculty had the confidence to make a change and see what happened. The fact that the faculty now are not willing to do this shows how far things have fallen.
· It was stated that we need to streamline the bureaucracy and eliminate the rumor mill in Morris Hall. The faculty are divided. They are concerned with how colleagues outside of education view them.
· It was mentioned that perhaps what the School of Education needs is to find an expert in conflict resolution.

M/S/P (by show of hands 9/1/6) to endorse the reorganization of the School of Education into a single department.

VIII. Proposal for a University Honors Program.

Dr. Diane Cannon, Director of the General Honors Program, and Dr. Kimberly Vogt, Chair of the Honors Program Committee reviewed the proposal to revise the General Honors Program curriculum.  Using the 1998 report from the ad hoc Honors Program Committee together with input from the General Education Committee, the current Honors Program Committee is seeking feedback regarding the proposed revision of the honors program before coming forward with specific details such as courses to be included in the curriculum.  Several key issues surfaced through the process such as whether or not the Honors Program Committee should be eliminated; creating a General Education component whereby the General Honors curriculum satisfies the requirements for general education; and the commitment of resources.

In the discussion that followed, the senators expressed keen interest in providing a cohesive, well-defined and energized general honors curriculum.  However, the senate was reluctant to endorse Table 2. in the proposal until courses are more fully developed, especially within the skills component.

M/S/P (voice vote) to table discussion until the first meeting of the 2000-01 academic year.

IX Old Business.

X. New Business.

XI. Adjournment.  The meeting adjourned at approximately 6:00 p.m.
 

Rebecca Lewin LeDocq, Secretary