Faculty Senate
Vol. 38, No. 12
March 11, 2004


I.          Roll Call.

Present:  Beck, Dixon, Gendreau, Gongaware, Heim, Hoar, Kernozek, Kraemer, Maher, Poulton, Ragan, B. Riley, D. Riley, Sullivan, Taylor, Vandenberg-Daves, Wilson, Wingate.

Excused:  Bigel, Brooks, Gibson, Majak, Shanks, Shillinger.


II.         Approval of Minutes – there were no minutes to approve.


III.       Reports.


Joe Heim is one of two faculty members who has been appointed to the 18 member Search and Screen Committee for the President of the University of Wisconsin System.  The committee is looking at a July 1st time frame to complete the process.


Chair Hoar reminded Senators that Committee Preference Forms are due back in the senate office by close of business tomorrow.  Ballots for election to next year’s senate will be distributed by campus mail the Monday following Spring Break.


The Provost/Vice Chancellor is convening a committee to review the faculty recruitment process, as specified in Part 4 of the faculty hiring guidelines.  The SEC has forwarded the names of three department chairs:  Pat DiRocco, Betsy Morgan, and Gubbi Sudhakaran


Chair Hoar provided updates on administrative search and screens:

CLS: Currently the CLS Dean Search and Screen committee is waiting for approval from the Provost to bring candidates on campus. She said she would be able to give us an answer next week (she is currently out of town). Upon approval, our hope is to start on campus interviews the week we return from spring break. Once I get the Provost's approval, I can give you more details. (Received March 5th from Ronda Knox.)

EESHR: We have completed the initial screening and are now calling references for the candidates moved forward. We are currently still planning to meet this week to narrow the pool. (This is dependent on being able to reach references by phone.) Best case scenario is still to bring finalists in soon after spring break. We are still looking for a decision by mid-April. (Received March 9th from Mandi Anderson.)

SAH: The closing date for both associate dean positions was March 1 (3 days ago as I write this note). We have reviewed applicant files for both positions, but it is too early to make definitive statements about timelines for either position. It is possible that some on-campus interviewing might start the week after spring break, but we are not far enough along for me to be more precise about our schedule. (Received March 4th from Rob Tyser.)  

Approval of the Certificate in French Studies will be postponed until the next meeting – March 25.


Chancellor’s Report – None.


Provost/Vice-Chancellor’s Report – None except for extending congratulations to Senator Heim for being selected to serve on the Search and Screen Committee for the President of the UW System.


Chief Financial Officer’s Report – None..


Faculty Representative’s Report.  Senator Heim attended the February 22 meeting where discussions included the creation of a joint committee, Co-chaired by Brent Smith from La Crosse, between UW System and the Technical Colleges to implement/facilitate a greater number of bachelor degrees; some campuses are reorganizing their general education offerings – and there was some discussion with the Regents about having the same general education program for every campus.  Other topics discussed included a process to evaluate administrators;  movement between institutions; accountability report; BOR study about who we are serving and who we are not serving regarding financial aid.  A disturbing part of the report is that the upper income category growing in percentage of total number of students – we are serving fewer of the lower income students across the state.


IV.       Graduate Faculty Membership Policy.

Garth Tymeson, Director of University Graduate Studies, and Mike Winfrey presented the following proposal to amend the Graduate Faculty Membership Policy, which would allow for an exception in the current membership description/activities:


Fall 2003 UW-La Crosse Graduate Council

Exception” to Graduate Faculty Membership Policy (for Adjunct and Clinical Faculty)



Current Affiliate Graduate Faculty Membership Policy: 

Affiliate membership may be extended only to individuals external to UW-L who will contribute to the University’s graduate programs through internship/preceptorship supervision, specialized instruction, contribution of professional expertise and knowledge to a graduate program, and/or serving as members of theses, seminar papers, and graduate projects, or comprehensive graduate examination committees.


Current Affiliate Graduate Faculty Membership Description/Activities:

Affiliate members have the opportunity to engage in the following responsibilities:  a) specialized instruction (course or components of a course; b) serve as a member of thesis, graduate project, seminar paper, or comprehensive examination committee; and c) supervise internships/preceptorships.  Affiliate membership is extended only to individuals external to UW-L.  Membership shall be granted for a period of 3 years, and may be renewable.


Graduate Council-Approved Exception to Graduate Faculty Membership Policy

Although the Affiliate Graduate Faculty membership category was established as the primary means by which professionals external to the University could receive appropriate recognition for contributions to graduate studies at UW-L, there is an exception to this policy.  Specifically, individuals whose primary professional involvement (and employment) are external to the University, but whose involvement in, and contributions to, UW-L graduate programs are nearly the same as that of UW-L faculty, have the opportunity to apply for Full Graduate Faculty membership (these persons would need to meet all criteria for Full membership, including the doctorate or other appropriate terminal degree).  Examples of such individuals include adjunct faculty whose organization is a recognized formal partner in a UW-L graduate program, are involved in planning and delivering the curriculum, who advise graduate students, and who maintain an active program of peer-reviewed scholarship that includes research with UW-L students and faculty.  In addition to meeting all current criteria for Full Graduate Faculty membership, the applicant must have successfully mentored a UW-L graduate student through the entire graduate process as a co-major advisor or co-director (of a thesis, seminar paper, or graduate project), and have the support of the department(s) in which the program is housed.  Departments should carefully review the credentials, roles, and contributions to UW-L graduate programs of professionals external to the University prior to pursuing this exception.  Use of this “exception” should be carefully applied by departments/programs, and compelling evidence for Full Graduate Faculty membership must be presented.


Passed by the UW-L Graduate Council December 12, 2003



M/S to approve the proposed amendment.


Considerable discussion ensued regarding the process.


M/S/P to amend to read:  …must have successfully mentored two graduate students… (voice vote)


The main motion as amended passed.  (show of hands:  14-yes, 2-no, 2-abstentions)



V.        Student Academic Initiatives Proposal.

Luke Naegele, President of the Student Association joined the senate.  He thanked the faculty senate and members of the senate ad hoc committee for their hard work.  Student senate president joined senate.  Since the senate last discussed the proposal, the ad hoc committee has prepared a new report.  Senator Maher said that report was based on original suggestions, and then additional suggestions were forwarded by Emily Johnson from feedback received in larger group.  Students did a good job addressing initial concerns – new concerns also came up.  Revised plan incorporated concerns – main concern is if all students are required to attend. 


Luke said attendance would be required for all students – not stated for whole college career, but starting there and moving to faculty advisor within a department after declaring major.  It is not clear that both are allowed especially for programs that recruit students, who have invested a great deal of time and money.  Luke responded that students don’t want to let students fall through the cracks – want to prepare students about advisors.  He cited statistics that students change their majors an average of three times during college career.  The advising center will give students a home base.


Questions/concerns from senators included:  What is relationship between advising center staff and faculty – am still having a hard time understanding what kind of advising will go on.  What is plan for training people, how will they be brought up to speed on changes in major/minors?  What is the roll of department in advising?  There will be four professional advisors – but still concerned about curricular issues, pattern of courses, etc.


Dean Nelson congratulates students for taking this on.  Concern he has most is that the advising center adds another bureaucratic layer.  It appears to him that we are using the total intake model.  Nation-wide only about 5% of universities use this type of model.  Where these models are successful the advisors are in undergraduate areas.  He recommends that one of the advisors is attached to each of the four academic colleges.  Would like to see reporting line attached to a Dean  – right now reporting line goes to the Provost/Vice Chancellor.


Provost/vice Chancellor Hitch – we already have assistants to the deans that have a strong base – advising center is where undeclared students go – students who really don’t know.  Seems like a large number of students cross over between colleges.


Are we talking about a career advising center?  Academic advising?  Counseling advising?   What is new here?  Is it the undeclared piece?


Sharie Brunk, Director of the Academic Discovery Lab, said that her office sees 250-300 students monthly.  She and her staff meet with students on a variety of issues: developmental issues – don’t get along with roommate; maybe I have a disability; exploring careers; we serve as a referral hub.  However, one of the things missing in this type of advising is that we don’t help with choosing classes.  It is intimidating for new freshmen to go see advisor.


It is critical that students who come to university knowing what they want to do gets matched up with the right person in the discipline.  What do you do with a student who knows what they want to do.  Would you require both? 


Do we have any evidence that a center of this type would speed up graduation rate?  No, but would have a higher retention rate.  The advising center would also be open at non-traditional hours.  Private liberal arts schools do advising well – doing something right to help students get through in a timely fashion.  Incorporates what we call career services, counseling/testing.  All carefully coordinated with departments – yet not engaged in academic advising.  Model seems to work.


It is not the intention to academically advise students who are undecided.  We just want to make initial contact – never our intention.


The ad hoc committee has logistical questions that don’t need to be addressed right now, however the major concern is that academic advising remain with the academics.  Additional concerns are facility issues, additional resources, training and resources for training.  There is a sizable S&E line for training and travel.  Reporting lines is a huge issue.   Reporting line – facility, redesign, training, hiring – there is a pool of start up dollars. 


Students are paying for half the cost of this advising center.  Would feel more comfortable supporting the initiative if there is a very specific sunset clause with respect to assessment.  There is a sunset clause in the contract for 5 years – demonstrate that students are receiving good advising.  Currently 65% of students are satisfied with advising – would expect it to go up significantly.


Will continue discussion at next meeting.


VI.       Adjournment.


The meeting adjourned at 5:35 p.m.



Submitted by


Eric R. Kraemer, Secretary