Faculty Senate
Vol. 37, No. 13
March 27, 2003


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

II.  Minutes.
There were no minutes to approve.

III.  Reports.

Chair Senger reminded Senators that ballots for election to the Faculty Senate are due Friday, April 4th.  The University Planning & Budget Committee had its final meeting on the proposed budget reduction yesterday.  Copies of the budget reduction proposal were distributed along with a list of advantages, concerns and suggestions generated by the committee.  Senger announced that consideration of the proposed budget reductions will be delayed until next Thursday.

Associate Vice Chancellor, Ron Lostetter distributed news related to the 2003-05 capital projects.   Included in the summary is the construction of new 350-bed apartment style residence hall, and a multi-campus utilities upgrade, which includes an additional chiller for campus. 

IV.  Proposed College of HPERTE Reorganization.

Chair Senger prefaced the discussion with a few preparatory remarks by way of explanation. 

You are aware that the Search & Screen Committees for the Dean of HPERTE and Assoc Dean of SAH were suspended last fall. At that time planning began for a possible reorganization of the College of HPERTE. This plan has been refined by the Provost over several months and has become connected with the budget reduction process.  On March 4th the SEC discussed the reorganization plan with the Provost. Labeled draft #3/#4, the proposed organization chart, described in the Campus Connection on March 10th would have created a School of Education and moved the departments of HPER into SAH.

The SEC agreed to present the proposal to the Senate for review and recommendation subject to the UW-L “Policy on University Reorganization”, a copy of which is before you. You also have a copy of the report of the Strategic Planning Core Committee from 1993. The reorganization policy is the result of work by that committee and Senate action with modifications by Chancellor Kuipers. You will notice that this group recommended against joining education and the college of HPER.

This reorganization policy was developed in 1993 around the time that the split of the College of Arts, Letters & Sciences and the elimination of the College of Education were under discussion. You may recall that last fall, during the discussion of the move of athletics to Student Services, I provided you with excerpts of the senate minutes from those meetings, which were extensive. Under this policy the Faculty Senate reviews reorganization proposals and makes recommendations to the Chancellor.

I have now been at this institution for 20 years; I have chosen not just to make my livelihood here but to work to build a professional career and to become a member of the faculty of this institution. It is remarkable to me the extent to which problems, opinions and solutions discussed in 1993 are still with us. In many respects we are a better and stronger institution than when I came here in 1983. It is my belief that this can be attributed to the dedication and tireless work of the faculty who preceded me, who responsibly carried out their obligation to build and strengthen their programs. Our ability to attract outstanding young faculty and students is the result of history of dedication.

It is important to reflect on those actions taken years ago, on those principles that have served to guide us and have resulted in the institution we are today. University faculty are frequently caricatured as being resistant to change.  I do not accept this criticism. An institution and its students are well served by a faculty that take a long view and carefully weigh choices that affect the programs we have worked long to build and continually strive to improve.

We are a university. Our value to society goes beyond the immediate – we preserve, contribute to and pass on learning developed over the ages. Wherever we find opportunity to improve our disciplines and programs we should spare no effort in doing so. But we are obligated to submit our plans to close inspection and that is our purpose here today. On principle, I would rather consider the reorganization proposal on its merits independent of its relation to the pending budget reductions but this luxury has not been afforded us.


Provost-Vice Chancellor Hitch expressed appreciation for the considerate nature of comments she has received regarding the proposed reorganization.  Furthermore, she has a deep respect and appreciation for the role of faculty in shaping the institution.  P/VC Hitch reviewed the history of the development of the proposed reorganization.  In December she prepared a draft outline that was presented to Chairs and Program Directors of both SAH and HPERTE.  In February, a second outline was distributed to Department Chairs in both SAH and HPERTE, as well as appearing in the Campus Connection.  This draft was also presented to the University Planning & Budget Committee.  After receiving feedback from HPERTE Program Directors, SAH College Committee, affected departments from both colleges, as well as informal feedback from students, this third draft of the reorganization plan was prepared and is presented for consideration.  Provost Hitch met with the student senate last night and stressed the importance of taking the long view – consider where we have been as well as looking toward future.

Specifically, the proposal

  • Eliminates the College of Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Teacher Education.
  • Creates a School of Health Professions (SHP) within the College of Science and Health (SAH).  The new School will be headed by an Associate Dean of SAH who will also serve as Director of the School of Health Professions.  One of the two existing SAH Associate Dean positions will be the administrative line used in creating this position.  The following departments will be included in the School of Health Professions:

Department of Health Professions (combined department proposed in the SAH reorganization plan, previously submitted to the Faculty Senate, which includes the Occupational Therapy, Physician Assistant, Physical Therapy and Radiation Therapy programs).  Note: the College will change the proposed name of this department if a School of Health Professions is established.

Department of Exercise and Sport Science (to include the graduate programs of Adult Fitness/Cardiac Rehabilitation and Human Performance as well as the two undergraduate programs in Athletic Training and Fitness.

Department of Health Promotion and Therapeutic Recreation (to include the Health Promotion unit of the current Health Education and Health Promotion department and the Therapeutic Recreation unit of the current Recreation Management and Therapeutic Recreation department). 

  • Maintains the School of Education with a Department of Educational Studies.  The reorganization converts the existing position of Associate Dean/Director of the School of Education to the Director of Teacher Education (national search to be conducted for this position).  The Director will report directly to the Provost.
  • Creates an additional department, Physical and Health Education, in the School of Education.  This new department would include the current Exercise and Sport Science faculty involved in Physical Education teacher preparation and the Health Education programs from the current Department of Health Education and Health Promotion.
  • Relocates the College Student Development and Administration program (presently in HPERTE) to the School of Education; Program Coordinator will report to the Director of Teacher Education.
  • Creates a new Department of Sport and Recreation Management (including faculty from Recreation Management, Sport Management and Sport Administration) in CBA.
  • Maintains the Director of University Graduate Studies as a ½ time position that reports directly to the Provost.

Staffing/Conditions of Employment changes (with a result in savings of $167,615)

Elimination of HPERTE Dean position
Elimination of Associate Dean position; half-time Director of Graduate Studies remains
Director of School of Ed/Assoc Dean position becomes Director of Teacher Education
SAH Assoc Dean becomes Assoc Dean, SAH, & Director, School of Health Professions
Assistant to Dean of HPERTE is retained, but may be assigned duties split between colleges/schools if necessary (advising position)
PA positions (6 in total) reduced to 4.5 (Graduate Studies PA position is retained)

Phil Esten, faculty member in the Department of Exercise & Sport Science, presented a Reaction to Current Proposal for Reorganization of the College of HPERTE.

  1. Thank you for giving us this opportunity to address our concerns about this proposal.
  2. In 1965 I was a proud graduate from UW-L with degrees in Physical Education and Health Education.  I’m 100% confident that my upcoming statements are supported by thousands of graduates before and since my 1965 graduation.
  3. I am not a department chair, program director or an administrator in the college of HPERTE.  I am a full-time professor in Exercise and Sport Science and the former men’s cross country and assistant track & field coach.  I have been asked by my colleagues to speak to you about our concerns of the shocking news we received last Friday regarding the 3rd proposal for Reorganization of our college since January of 2003.
  4. We feel that you know what we do in Mitchell and Wittich Halls and what our products, hundreds of students, do in this community, state, country and around the world.  We would be happy to share the details of our programs and the positions of our graduates with you but time may not permit that at the present.
  5. We understand there appears to be a need to consolidate the number of our colleges on this campus to three instead of four.  We also understand that this has some dollar savings implications.  We have been willing to think ‘outside the box’ and be a player in this process.  However, we need much more time to discuss, plan and ensure that our many nationally and internationally recognized programs are not weakened or worse, eliminated by this crucial reorganization process.
  6. Next, I would like to lay out the history (of which we are aware) of this whole reorganization proposal process.  In October of 2002, our chairs were told there will be some discussions on reorganization.  In January of 2003 some of our people on campus, over break, got a glimpse of the 1st proposal.  Without going into discussion what this proposal spelled out, I’d like to say that it appeared very different than what we were led to believe from the discussions of last October.  Most of us were very concerned about proposal #1.  In February, I believe, we were presented with another proposal, proposal #2, and this proposal looked liked something we may be able to work with.  Last Friday, proposal #3, the 17-page document in front of you was given to us for the first time.  No one, not our acting Dean, department chairs or program directors knew this was coming.  We have serious concerns about this current proposal and that is why we are here.
  7. Our number one concern is CURRICULUM.  According to this proposal our three very-very successful departments (HPER) will be pulled apart.  Nothing in all the many discussions about this has shown us how reorganization is going to help us.  We are not separate (stand alone) programs but are departments that depend fully on sharing one and others skills to present strong programs.  This may be the biggest myth of this whole proposal.  We have functioned extremely well for decades with integrated programs.  Because this plan is coming down on us so quickly we foresee lots of opportunity for failure.
  8. One of our questions is “Why not start with transition teams first and do a serious long-range strategic plan for 3-5 years.”  If our campus cannot support all the programs and or departments on campus it makes more sense to us to sit down and identify which programs should go to save money.
  9. We fear that with this proposal our programs, because of curriculum shortcomings, will lose accreditation and eventually not be strong enough to survive.
  10. We collectively contribute to the student credit hours, services and scholarship on this campus – by being split up we won’t be able to do this any more.
  11. We haven’t even looked at budgets yet.  Do we know we are going to be o.k?
  12. This text (ESS 115) is used in our ESS department’s orientation course.  It is not written by a UW-La Crosse alum and it spells out exactly the many programs we offer in our department.
  13. The three of our departments share a lot on this campus.  All three of our accreditations come through our national association, AAHPERD.  (AALR, NASPE and AAHE).  We also have a very fine Wall of Excellence, which honors prestigious alums, and on campus professors for their career contributions.
  14. Two examples of our reputations:  (1) Mike Durnin – U. of Puget Sound  (2) Cha Chin Yu – Taiwan
  15. To my knowledge, we have been the only college of HPER in the state of Wisconsin for years if not ever.  Why?  Decades ago, probably at inception in 1909, we were deeded these programs as the marquee programs in the state.  I think the Wisconsin State Board of Regents have a responsibility to see that these programs are never threatened to be weakened or eliminated.  Please read along with me the statement on page two, taken from the Bylaws of the Wisconsin State Board of Regents.  You can go to their web site if you wish.

36.09 Responsibilities.  (1) The Board of Regents.  (a) The primary responsibility for governance of the system shall be vested in the board which shall enact policies and promulgate rules for governing the system, plan for the future needs of the state for university education, ensure the diversity of quality undergraduate programs while preserving the strength of the state’s graduate training and research centers and promote the widest degree of institutional autonomy within the controlling limits of system-wide policies and priorities established by the board.

16.   39 of the last 44 years I have either been a student or a teacher at this university.  In all those years I have never
       witnessed a threat to our existence as this proposal is presenting – I see in the eyes of many of my colleagues deep
       concern and maybe the question “what did we do wrong to deserve this?”  I have concern for staff morale.

  1. Our chancellor never came to us and said, “we have a problem and need to fix it.”  As our former dean and a long time physical educator, we thought this might happen and many of us have been waiting for him to address us.  If you don’t think this can happen in your college or department, remember, this is happening to a college of which our chancellor came from.
  2. It is clear this 3rd proposal was written without assistance by people from our college.  An example:  Sport and recreation management (looks like same department and this is not even close).
  3. In conclusion, we are requesting your consideration of an adequate delay to action of this proposal.  If we were to draft a statement that was to outline the events of our concerns in so far as maintaining the quality of our curriculum in our college’s undergraduate and graduate programs we could not offer a better statement than that which I’ve given you which is codified by the Wisconsin Statute and contained within the public record.
  4. If you have questions I’d like to ask Dr. George Arimond and Dr. Pat DiRocco to assist me, as they are department chairs of two of our programs.  Thank you for listening to this long but important concern.

Chia-Chen Yu, Director of Sport Management and a native of Taiwan, spoke of the international reputation of the Physical Education program, and the departments of HPER at UW-La Crosse.

Mark Kelley, Chair of the Health Education & Health Promotion Department, addressed the senate.  We strongly believe HEHP needs to remain together because:

  • Student impact – no proposed benefits to our students and many clear risks
  • The reality of integrated functioning.
  • The sum is greater than the total of the parts.
  • Backward professional evolution.
  • Collaborative efforts are based on relationships not on hierarchal structure.
  • HEHP recognition facilitates student employment.
  • Faculty recruitment.

Additionally we strongly believe that HEHP needs to retain current connections with HPER because:

·     College recognition facilitates student employment.

  • HPER structure magnet for external funding, quality faculty recruitment, and quality student recruitment.
  • Complementary but are distinctly different missions.

 

Gary Gilmore, Director of Community Health Programs, asked to go on record to say Members of the Faculty Senate and the University community: In the spirit of informed deliberation regarding the proposed reorganization plan, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to participate in this discussion and to share three perspectives with you:

First, I am concerned about the context within which this reorganization proposal has emerged.  Based on previous discussions, it appears to have received its impetus from several circumstances, to include the timing of current College of HPERTE not having a permanent Dean in place, along with the current statewide fiscal constraints.  While these are notable issues which need to be addressed, we must have time to do so in a planned, deliberate manner.  Quite frankly, I feel that the process is being rushed along, resulting in form leaping ahead of the function we should be addressing at the outset.  I get the distinct sense that the organizational chart is driving the reorganizational imperatives.  One major question I would raise in this context has to do with: What academic goals are driving this reorganization proposal?  In the proposal, I note goals which appear more tactical than strategic in nature, and more so focused on structure.  Within the University we do have an emerging strategic plan before us, and I would ask if it has been factored into the current proposal.  For reference, I am attaching just one page of a more recent iteration of our draft University Strategic Plan which details an academic vision and a few of the proposed academic goals.  I would suggest that we need time to return to a review and refinement of that strategic effort in order to enable it to guide the development of the most appropriate academic structure for our University.  In brief, we need to have form following well-planned and deliberated function.

Secondly, I have a concern about the impact of the reorganization proposal on our ability to deliver (with the current degree of efficiency and effectiveness) the quality programs which already are in place within the College of HPERTE.  As just one example, the proposal calls for the split of the Department of Health Education and Health Promotion so that School Health Education would become a part of the proposed Department of Physical and Health Education in the School of Education, and Community Health Education programs would become aligned with Therapeutic Recreation to form yet another proposed department, designated the Department of Health Promotion and Therapeutic Recreation.  The courses which are incorporated into the undergraduate and graduate programs are in alignment with national standards, such as the National Health Educator Entry-Level and Advanced-Level Competencies.  In addition, our nationally accredited Master of Public Health program, must address five Public Health Core Areas.  Over time, in order to address these standards and competencies through core and elective courses offered by the Department of Health Education and Health Promotion, it has taken the concerted efforts of our full faculty contingent.  We have achieved a stable balance of quality course offerings in alignment with program and external review requirements and standards.  Such a departmental split might actually necessitate more resources in order to maintain the current quality level of program delivery.  As a pertinent reminder at this point, our University is the only one within the University of Wisconsin System authorized to offer majors at the undergraduate and graduate levels in Community Health Education and School Health Education.

Thirdly, I would suggest that if any change occur in the short-term, we could consider a realignment change which already appears to have support by those parties who would be most affected.  The Provost, the Director of the School of Education, Chair of the Department of Educational Studies, and certain faculty appear to be supportive of the realignment of the currently configured School of Education with the Office of the Provost.  It is possible that our internal and external stakeholders could be served best if such a realignment was determined to be goal aligned and mission driven.

Overall, it appears that during the short-term, one key realignment of a School could represent a prudent next step for our University.  Reorganization, however, should proceed in an organized, highly planned fashion, guided by mutually agreed upon goals.  To accomplish this, we will need time and a collective agreement on purpose.  Sometimes one only needs to fine-tune a quality instrument, rather than submit it to a complete overhaul in the early stages of change.  I would submit that such is the case during this important phase in the evolution of our outstanding University.

Pat Dirocco, Chair of the Exercise & Sport Science Department, spoke against the reorganization plan.  He stressed that ESS is not a collection of programs – rather a department.  He reiterated the need to take time for self-study.  The faculty would certainly be willing to discuss changes, however we have a responsibility to make sure this is done right.  It should be organized on how best to deliver curriculum.

Delores Heiden, Chair of the Educational Studies Department, addressed the portion of plan which most directly affects education.  In the beginning there was teacher education – we are still here and we are still strong and we still produce outstanding teachers.  In fact, school districts across the state will hire our graduates prior to graduation.  In the past 11 years, the education departments have been in three different colleges.  We recognize that teacher education is an all-university function and favor the reorganization plan as long as the department maintains the right to elect its own chairperson.

George Arimond, Chair of the Department of Recreation Management & Therapeutic Recreation, commented that the departments within HPER have had a 50-year marriage, forming intricate webs and relationships.  This past year his department has undergone an accreditation process and it has been the best yet.   He remarked that both he and the Chancellor came to UWL about 15 years ago, and that at that time then Dean Hastad said that the most important thing about our college was our uniqueness.  Question is what has happened?  Has the Chancellor changed his mind?  Is it worth it to save $167K?

Ron Rochon, Interim Director of the School of Education, stated that he had lobbied Provost Hitch to see education as a separate entity.  The college is still referred to as HPER and education is not seen as a strong unit within the college.  Intention is to see we produce healthy productive teachers, and we are looking for assistance as a school to continue to do work.

Mark Zmudy, an ad hoc faculty member from the Department of Exercise & Sport Science, spoke on behalf of the students, a spirited group of people who feel a connectedness within the department.  Students are asking what is happening and why.  He asked for a way for students to become involved in the process.

Considerable discussion followed:

  • There is no way to do this quickly – we need to spend time to answer questions.
  • How do the folks in physical education feel?  By their calculations they felt they would be 5.5 FTE short.
  • What is reason for time line?  Truthfully are there savings we can realize other than the $167K?
  • What happens if the Faculty Senate votes it down?  Chancellor’s decision.
  • It can’t be about the money – only $167K – there must be other underlying rationale.
  • Could an improved leadership address concerns?
  • How can we cut $167K in administrative costs?  I believe the deans could come up with suggestions/alternatives.

·         The accuracy of the paragraph in the proposal listing HPER fears/concerns was questioned.

Additional speakers addressed the senate:

A graduate student in Exercise & Sport Science/Concentration in Strength/Fitness stated that splitting up college would destroy why we are here.

Mike Nelson, Dean of SAH, reported that the staff in his office/chairs/faculty committed to make it work – would welcome with open arms colleagues in HPER.  Emotional issue – don’t have all the answers – pretty much of an optimist.

Dean May – Associate Dean in the CBA reviewed reorganization, spoke with faculty, student advisory council, business advisory council, deans, and chairs of affected departments (Rec Mgmt only) – we are excited about the opportunity.  Looked at possible scenarios – if it does take place we are committed to making it work.

Continued discussion:

We are feeling totally rushed today – presentations are important, strategic planning, budget planning.

M/S the faculty senate recommends to the chancellor to reject the reorganization plan.

M/S/P to amend except for the creation of a stand-alone School of Education.  (voice vote)

M/S/P to table.  (voice vote)

V.  Adjournment.

The meeting adjourned at 5:35 p.m.

Submitted by

Robert Hoar, Secretary