Faculty Senate
Vol. 37, No. 12
March 13, 2003

I.  Roll Call.

Present:  Barmore, Barnd, Bigel, Brooks, Cravins, Dixon, Gendreau, Gibson, Hoar, Hollenback, Kernozek, Krajewski, Majak, Nelson, Poulton, Ragan, Senger, Taylor, Tyser, Vandenberg-Daves, Wilson, Wingate, Zellmer.

Excused:  Beck

II.  Approval of Minutes.

The minutes from the February 13, 2002 meeting were approved as distributed.

III.  Reports.

Chair Senger reported that he has sat in on all three meetings when the Planning & Budget Committee has reviewed proposed budget reduction documents.  That committee’s recommendations will be on the March 27th Faculty Senate agenda as well as the reorganizational proposal for HPERTE.

Chancellor Hastad stated that the budget remains very fluid.  People are working very hard here and within the La Crosse community.  He is hopeful that the governor’s proposal is the one we go with.  His best guess is that budget cuts for the university will fall at about 6% in the GPR budget.

Provost/Vice-Chancellor Hitch was asked about academic staff rolling contracts.  She replied that the current thinking is that they are being reverted to fixed term.  Fixed terms can be one, two or three years.

Assistant Chancellor Lostetter distributed additional budget documents – showing the Total UWL Economic Contribution to Wisconsin by Senate District, UWL’s Distribution of Proposed FTE GPR Position Reductions FY03-05, and UWL’s FY03-05 Biennial Budget Reductions and Proposed Reductions by Division.  Brooks asked a question related to the 35% buffer that was built into the budget reduction proposal.  He asked “what will happen to the dollars if we cut more then necessary”?  Ron described that the administration included a loan into the proposal and that the loan would be dealt with first, any additional dollars would be directed to institutional priorities and that faculty would be play a role in setting the priorities.

Faculty Representative Georges Cravins attended a February 28th meeting in Madison, convened by Dr. Cora Marrett, the UW System’s Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs. The day’s discussion was dominated by the Wisconsin State Budget Crisis and issues related to the “Crisis.”  The meeting was held just as chief financial officers from all the campuses were completing an extended set of meetings in Madison to discuss unprecedented budget cuts.

IV.  Consideration of Faculty Committee Size.

Chair Senger explained committee-staffing problems.  Over the past few years it has become increasingly difficult to assign faculty to the numerous positions available on various faculty, student, and joint committees.  This problem is exacerbated when too few faculty volunteer for committees which require college representation.  Last fall, the SEC charged the Articles & By-laws Committee to review the size of standing faculty committees and propose reductions where appropriate to improve the productivity of the committee and the Committee on Faculty Committees’ ability to appoint members.  Cynthia Berlin, Chair of the Articles & By-laws Committee, reported that her committee discussed the issue and had mixed reactions.  Additionally, in a poll conducted by Articles & By-laws, many committee chairs don’t see a compelling reason to reduce committee size, citing workload and a desire for diversity of people from colleges and programs as reasons to keep the committees at their current size and structure.

Given a certain reduction in faculty FTE, the senate discussed possible solutions including reducing committee size, blending committee work, and/or eliminating committees.

M/S to charge the Articles & Bylaws Committee to bring recommendations to the faculty senate on which of the faculty committees could have reduced membership, which of the faculty committees could be combined or otherwise restructured, and how we might improve faculty participation.

M/S/P to amend to receive the recommendations by May 1, 2003.

Main motion, as amended, passed. (unanimous voice vote)

V.  Proposed UCC Course Review Guidelines.

Andy Matchett, Chair of the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee reviewed the following draft Criteria for Evaluation of Proposals, Undergraduate Curriculum Committee:

There are four hierarchies of criteria, numbered 1 to 4 below, in decreasing order of importance.

1.   Needs of Students and Society

      (a)  The new or revised course should not duplicate curriculum already available in the department.

(b)  If the new or revised course overlaps substantially with courses in other departments, those departments should be consulted as to enrollment restrictions and the feasibility of cross listing, and the UCC shall mediate as needed. 

         (c)  The new course or program should satisfy an identifiable need demonstrably within the mission of the University.

         (d)  What will be the clientele of the new program or course, and how many students is it projected to serve?

      (e)   Is the proposed course to be a requirement in major or minor programs?

      (f)     Is the course endorsed or required by other departments?

2.   Quality

(a)  The new or revised course or program should be well conceived and well organized.

(b)  The new or revised course or program should be current and up to date.

(c)  The level of rigor should meet current standards for a university course or program.

(d)  The new or revised course should have appropriate prerequisites.

3.   Ability of the Department and College to meet resource needs

   (a) The department must have sufficient expertise for the new course or program or to make the proposed changes in an existing course or program. 

(b)  Are there enough faculty in the department to support the new course or program?

4.   Record Keeping

(a)  Are credit numbers correct?

(b)  The course or program description should be clear and accurate, and programs should not have hidden requirements.

(c)  The instruction pattern should be appropriate and accurately described.

(d)  A course number should be consistent with the level of work required in the course.

The Senate discussion covered a variety of topics, including the need for a full and careful review of course proposals; the fact that UCC rarely disapproves a proposal reflects the careful attention departments give to developing proposals; and, the need to publish and follow a set of review guidelines such as the draft currently under committee review.

M/S/P to ask that UCC prepare a document that details which aspects of a course will be subject to review depending on the proposed course changes.  (voice vote)

VI.  Proposed Admission Guidelines for New Freshmen Entering Fall 2004 – CAPS.

Tim Lewis, admissions director, told the senate that in order to achieve our enrollment goals while maintaining quality, it is imperative that we increase the requirements again.  The Fall 2003 freshmen class is the smallest (1450) at UWL since 1966.  We want to set admission standards high enough that we won’t get all our students in Priority I and will be forced to go to wait list.  90% of freshmen we enroll come from Priority I.   All populations are getting hit.  Our proposed standards will allow for the needed flexibility to accommodate the social and cultural diversity essential to a comprehensive campus.  Out of the 6300 applications received, 3100-3200 will be admitted, with a target enrollment of 1450.

M/S/P to approve the Fall 2004 admission requirements.  (voice vote)

VII.  Adjournment.

The meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m.

Submitted by
Robert Hoar, Secretary


Handout:  Fall 2004 Admission Guidelines