Faculty Senate
Vol. 37, No. 14
April 3, 2003


I.  Roll Call.

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

Excused:  Beck, Majak, Nelson, Vandenberg-Daves.

II. Approval of Minutes.

The minutes of the February 27, and March 13, 2003 meetings were approved as distributed.

III. Reports.

Chair Senger reported that there will be a special meeting of the Joint Legislative and Regent Relations Committee at 2:00 p.m. April 4th, in the Cleary Center.  Area Legislators including Mark Meyer, Jennifer Shilling, and Mike Huebsch are expected to attend the forum on budget issues.  Senators are encouraged to attend this important meeting.

PVC Hitch announced that at this time, she has made the decision to pull the proposed College of HPERTE reorganization plan.  She has met with a variety of people on this particular issue and has heard clearly their request for more time to consider the reorganization.  She is not abandoning the idea, rather taking a few weeks to reflect what to do next and will report back to the Senate.

Comments:

  • Leadership in HPERTE is precarious – is everything in limbo?  Concerns about leadership – she will spend the next few weeks thinking about it.
  • Think there were some good ideas in the reorganization plan.  Hope P/VC will continue to engage faculty in process with respect to curriculum.  P/VC responded that this is not her normal modus operandi – really respects the process.
  • Given the level of emotion some comments were not expressed last week.

 

Chair Senger discussed the three motions relating to the reorganization proposal prepared by the SEC. Motions 1 and 3 are no longer pertinent.  Senators desiring to present additional motions relating to the reorganization proposal should present them to the SEC for inclusion on a future agenda.

Chair Senger presented SEC motion #2  to amend Item #3 of the Policy on University Reorganization (insert between e and f) for consideration by the senate.

M/S/P Reorganization proposals that require or can be expected to require curricular changes, which would normally be reviewed by faculty committees, should contain complete curricular reorganization plans developed by the faculty of the affected departments.  (show of hands:  yes -19 , no–0, abstain–1)

IV.  Biennial Budget Reductions.

Chair Senger began the discussion of the proposed budget reductions with a few background remarks.

The Faculty Senate first looked at the Governor’s proposed budget reductions at its Feb. 27th meeting. At this meeting, in anticipation of the March 5th meeting of the University Planning & Budget (UPB) committee and in order to provide guidance to the faculty representatives on that committee, the senate passed a motion that instruction should be protected as much as possible.

At its March 4th meeting the SEC heard a brief verbal summary of the proposed budget reductions. The description started with the Governor’s budget, UW-L’s share, split evenly between instruction and non-instruction, loan from university reserve account and increased by ~35% to account for legislative uncertainty. Bottom line was ~$750K in instruction, ~$850K in non-instruction. The impact was described as being distributed fairly evenly and close to 5% for each unit.

UPB received a presentation of the reductions and budget spreadsheets at its March 5th meeting. UPB was informed of an additional $800K base reduction required to deal with a shortfall from the non-resident target of 80 student FTE. UPB then met again on March 7th, 12th and the 26th. The results of their consideration were distributed to you last week.

At one of the Chancellor’s Monday morning sessions I met Stan Davis, a former UW-L Student, now Deputy Chief of Staff and Chief Legal Counsel to Gov. Doyle.  He contacted me after this meeting and we have talked a couple of time since then. I have asked him how the Governor sees these budget reductions affecting the university system and how he thinks the reductions should be performed. Stan said that "the Gov has stated publicly on several occasions that while he knows there will be some classroom effect, every effort should be made to minimize the instructional impact while exploring administrative options in cuts to the fullest possible extent."

We will proceed today by working through the details of the proposed reductions and then considering a series of motions prepared by the SEC.

Chair Senger then invited Vice-Chancellor Lostetter to join the senate and began to discuss several documents that were distributed to the senators.  These included the Budget Reduction Proposal spreadsheets [7] as presented to the University Planning & Budget Committee, a memo [6] from UPB to the senate listing several concerns and suggestions, and a packet of information prepared by the SEC [1-4].  Chair Senger began with an overview spreadsheet [1] showing the effect of the proposed GPR reduction and offsetting tuition increase as a percent in each year of the biennium. The spreadsheet also showed the target reduction amounts for instruction and non-instruction including $800K return to UW-System connected with a shortfall in the non-resident student target.

Comments:

Senator Hollenbeck asked why we do not just admit more students to raise additional revenue.

Chair Senger indicted that starting in mid March the university began looking into admitting additional students to avoid returning even more base budget to system. Chair Senger asked Vice-Chancellor Lostetter to discuss the next two pages [2] which summarize student admissions targets.

Lostetter referenced the 95% exercise that the UW System asked us to hold enrollments until we received the budget from the Governor.  If we proceeded with 95% figure we would be short $750K.  The benchmark for EM21 was Fall 2000.  Current 8075 enrollment is final EM21 figure – Admissions is looking at adding 244 well-qualified students.

Are there implications in reaching our 6-yr goal in 3 yrs?  Yes, we will retain the revenue that would have retained.  If state budget remains the same it will help us in maintaining enrollment.  Should help in looking at mix of students – all students. 

When the Deans were asked to come up with cuts last Fall, they were assuming a reduction in access (5%). The increase in students (244) now changes the numbers that the Deans were using, will the increase in student numbers change the way the units make their cuts—will they be given an opportunity to do so?

How did we miss the target? Had something to do with the change in fee – increase in non-resident fee had full impact last fall.  BOR froze admission for international students, and out-of-state tuition increased $16K compared to resident tuition increase of $3000.

Chair Senger asked for a better understanding of how EM21 proposed to improve UW-L’s funding per student ratio and the connection between increased out-of-state tuition and our inability to realize this goal of EM21.

Chair Senger explained that the next 2 pgs [3] present summary budget information that was pertinent to the proposed college reorganization.

Chair Senger asked Bob to explain the next two pages [4] which are pages 1 & 2 from the UW-System Red Book.

Given the reorganization proposal withdrawal where do we go from here?  We are out of balance to the tune of $167K – will put in a provisional amount.  There is some cushion because we are moving toward April 15th deadline – will do the best we can if pushed will use provisional amount.

The Senate considered the following SEC motions pertaining to the proposed budget reduction:

Recommendation #1

The Faculty Senate finds that the proposed budget reductions have not involved timely and substantive faculty participation of the kind required by the tradition of shared governance.

Comments

There have been two problems with the process – not a lot of openness to debate and justify the cuts that were made – would accept input but not debate choices.  Give and take about setting priorities, cutting budgets.  Multiple scenarios would have been included in open process.  College committees were involved – should have been a more open forum – a series of hearings.  This is especially critical when a course is proposed to be removed from the general education program.

M/S/P to approve recommendation #1.  (show of hands: 18-yes, 0-no, 2-abstain)

Recommendation #2

The Faculty Senate finds that the instructional reductions do not represent academic priorities but rather are largely based upon opportunities and should therefore not be viewed as a plan for permanent budget reductions.  The Faculty Senate insists that any instructional budget reductions above those required be restored and that this process be directed through the appropriate committee structure.

Comments

Total budget – vast majority is housing, food, fed grants, financial aid – most of the money is not flexible.  We need to go back to drawing board and think about long-term implications of what we are doing.  Faculty positions have numbers associated with people.  Budget replacement on average – $60K leaving professor – replace with $40K – difference goes into central pool – where is the difference going.  First thing that money will be used for will be promotions, next thing it will do is payback institutional loan – then what is left over will be split 1/3 to colleges and 2/3 for institutional priorities.

M/S/P to approve recommendation #2.  (show of hands:  yes- 20, no-0, abstain-0)

Recommendation #3

The Faculty Senate recommends that the number of associate deans be reduced to 1-1.5 per college.

and Recommendation #4

The Faculty Senate recommends that the administration consider sharing associate deans where system generated workload for colleges can be handled through a combined effort.

Comments

It is hard to know what associate deans do.  They make our lives easier – especially at the departmental level where paperwork has increased by 5-fold.  Associate deans do teach, write grants, and in SAH involved with the partnerships.  There is a bump-down effect if eliminate associate deans.  In CBA the associate dean is considered the internal dean while the dean is an external figure

M/S/F recommendation #3.  (show of hands: 8-yes, 11-no, 1-abstain)

M/S/P recommendation #4 (show of hands: 10-yes, 9-no, 1-abstain)

Recommendation #5

The Faculty Senate recommends that the faculty intern position in the Provost’s office be eliminated.

Comments

It was noted that while these recommendations are under discussion – faculty cuts were not.

M/S/F recommendation #5.  (show of hands:  9-yes, 9-no, 2-abstain)

Recommendation #6

The Faculty Senate recommends that reductions be shifted from instruction to non-instruction until all non-instructional reductions remaining on the 7.5% and 10% scenario lists, represent higher priorities to the campus than the proposed instructional reductions.

M/S/P recommendation #6.  (show of hands: 17-yes,  0-no, 3-abstain)

Recommendation #7

The Faculty Senate recommends that the administration investigate all opportunities to move GPR funded non-instructional positions to other resources.

M/S/P recommendation #7.  (show of hands: 19-yes, 0-no, 1-abstain)

Recommendation #8

The Faculty Senate recommends that instructional cuts be balanced between positions and non-positions in order that the reduction in instructional capacity more closely matches the reduction in budget and student access.

M/S/P recommendation #8.  (show of hands: 18-yes, 0-no, 2-abstain)

Comment

Could we consider that administrative positions move from 12 month contracts to 10 months – staggered for continuity for work?

Senator Hoar distributed an Alternative UW-La Crosse Budget Reduction sheet [5]

M/S/P the Faculty Senate recommends that the university reserve account “Loans” be removed from the calculation of the reduction targets, that the “Difference with Best Case” be returned to academic units and that university reserve “Loans” be used to deal with any shortfall if the final budget reductions exceed the Best Case.  (show of hands: 18-yes, 0-no, 2-abstain) 

V.  Adjournment.

The meeting adjourned at 5:55 p.m.

 

Submitted by

Robert Hoar, Secretary

 

Attachments to the minutes:

[1]  Spreadsheets (1 page)
[2]  Student admissions targets (2 pages)
[3]  S
ummary budget information pertinent to the proposed college reorganization (2 pages)
[4]  UW System Redbook pages 1 & 2
[5]  Alternative UW-La Crosse Budget Reductions
[6]  University Planning & Budget Committee comments
[7]  Budget Reduction Proposal as presented to University Planning & Budget (2 pages
)