Faculty Senate
Vol. 38, No. 15
April 22, 2004




I.          Roll Call.

Present:  Beck, Bigel, Dixon, Gibson, Gongaware, Heim, Hoar, Kernozek, Kraemer, Maher, Majak, Poulton, Ragan, B. Riley, Shanks, Shillinger, Sullivan, Taylor, Vandenberg-Daves, Wilson, Wingate.

Excused:  Brooks, Gendreau, D. Riley.


II.         Minutes.

There were no minutes to approve.


III.       Reports.


Election results from the most recent faculty senate elections are:  Georges Cravins, Anne Galbraith, Sandra Krajewski (At-large Constituency); Cam Choy, Billy Clow (CLS); Sarah Johnston-Rodriguez (EESHR); Sandra Grunwald (SAH).  The organizational meeting for the 39th Faculty Senate is scheduled for May 6.  Nomination petitions for officer elections will be distributed next week.


Chair Hoar reported that the College of Liberal Studies has a new dean – Dr. John Mason; the College of Science & Allied Health has two new associate deans – Dr. Keith Byers, and Dr. Karen Palmer-McLean; and a candidate’s name has been forwarded to the Provost/Vice-Chancellor from the search and screen committee for the dean of the College of Education, Exercise Science, Health & Recreation.


Discussion of the Faculty Budget Committee report is being delayed until next Thursday.  There are two academic program review reports scheduled for next week’s meeting as well as the report from the Committee on Faculty Committees.


Provost/Vice-Chancellor Hitch informed the senate to the possibility of an upcoming administrative search to begin over the summer months.  The position would be in her office (Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs) and would consolidate the grants/contracts area together with graduate studies and other others not yet fully developed.  The idea is not to reduce any area rather the intent is to pull together


Vice Chancellor Lostetter commented on four items:  no new information on parity pay plan; next Thursday, April 29th two open sessions to have people comment on exterior master plan at the Cleary Center; utility issues continue to be a significant problem for UW System – may ask legislature to help fund; last week Lostetter participated in a group speaking to the County Board about Colorado TABOR and the impact TABOR will have on this institution and the regional economy.


IV.       Audit and Review Report from the Department of Recreation Management/Therapeutic Recreation – Academic Program Review Committee.


Curt Czerwinski, Chair of the Academic Program Review Committee, and George Arimond, Chair of the Department of Recreation Management/Therapeutic Recreation, joined the senate.  Dr. Czerwinski reviewed the self study indicating that the department has recently completed a very successful accreditation review and has outlined a very clear goal statement.  Assessment techniques are used and the strengths of the department are picked up within the text of the document.  The committee was impressed with the thoroughness of the document and especially appreciated that the department got the report in on time.


Dr. Arimond indicated that the report from the Academic Program Review Committee adequately reflects the status of the department.


M/S/P to endorse the report. (voice vote)


V.        Format for APR Self Study Report of Free-Standing Minors.


Curt Czerwinski, Chair of the Academic Program Review Committee, reviewed the recommendations regarding the proposed format of the self-study report of free-standing minors.  Last September, the faculty senate charged the committee to determine how and when extra-departmental courses (i.e. UWL 100, SAH 105, etc.) are to be reviewed.  The issue is if you look at the format for self-study report as it currently exists, then it is not appropriate for a minor.  The committee submitted the following report for faculty senate consideration:


Format for APR Self Study Report of Free-Standing Minors


Note:  Free-Standing Minors are those that are not ordinarily reviewed with the major programs of a department.


I.                   Purposes

a)      Provide a statement of the department minor’s overall goals and objectives.

b)      Does the minor offer a valid, smaller version of the major or does it have its own emphasis/autonomy?


II.                Curriculum

a)      How does the minor complement/augment the student’s major?

b)      Does it offer an autonomous body of knowledge sought by graduate programs or the workforce?

c)      Give a justification for the number and type of courses in the minor.

d)      Does the minor embody contemporary curricular issues as well as the major? 

e)      Is there sufficient expertise in the department, enough faculty, and adequate infrastructure to make the minor rigorous?

f)       Does the department work actively with other departments to make the minor relevant?

g)   Does the department work actively with other departments to deliver the minor in a manner that is relevant to other programs?


III.             Degree of Program Success

a)      Describe the extent to which the minor is meeting its goals and objectives.

b)      Explain what measurements are used to determine how well the goals and objectives are being met.

c)      How does the department attract students to its minor?

d)      Identify and describe the single most significant strength of the minor.

e)      Identify and describe the single area requiring the most significant improvement.  Discuss your plans for accomplishing this improvement


IV.              Previous Academic Program Review

a)      Describe the actions that were taken in response to the recommendations of the most recent previous Academic Program Review, and the results of those actions.

b)      Note any continuing concerns related to your minor’s ability to achieve its goals.


V.                 Personnel 

Please describe professional development opportunities and any special expectations for faculty members teaching in the minor.


VI.              Support for Achieving Academic Goals

Describe the impact each of the following has on your ability to achieve program goals.

a)      Physical facilities

b)      Supplies and equipment

c)      Personnel

d)      External funding

e)      Library resources


VII.           Appendices

a)      Unit Data sheets(provided by UWL Institutional Research Office)

b)      Most recent previous Academic Program Review Committee report on the minor

c)      Department’s Annual Report from each of the previous three years

d)      Assessment instruments, surveys, plans, etc.(particularly those cited in section III of this self study report

e)      Any other important departmental documents cited in earlier sections of this self study report.


M/S/P to accept the format for the APR Self Study Report of Free-Standing Minors.  (voice vote)


The committee is concerned that there are no repercussions for programs that don’t complete an academic program review.  The perception is that the Academic Program Review Committee is adversarial.  Perhaps the APR could be asked to look at the calendar for self-study reports.  The senate agreed that next year’s SEC should meet with the committee.


VI.       Recommendations for APR Review of Extra-departmental Courses. 

Curt Czerwinski, Chair of the Academic Program Review Committee reviewed the following recommendations from the committee.  He noted that the committee did not take a vote on the recommendations, rather they represent the best suggestions:



Academic Program Review Committee

Recommendations for APR Review of Extra-departmental Courses


The APR Committee offers the following five suggestions for how and when to review extra-departmental courses:

1.      Departments involved in teaching an interdepartmental course should consult and develop a unit of faculty members who would be assigned to review the course.


2.      As part of its standard 7-year APR review, each department would include an additional section in the APR Format for Self-Study reports if any member of their department has taught an interdepartmental course since the last APR review.  A separate question would be added to the document used for preparing a department’s self-study that asks, “Since the last APR review, have any faculty members in the department been involved in teaching an interdepartmental course?  If yes, describe how this activity fits into the goals and mission of the department.”


3.      The responsibility for review of an interdepartmental course should cycle between departments involved in teaching that course.


4.      Add to the master APR Review Calendar another program entitled “Interdisciplinary Courses.”  The APR Committee would be charged with developing an appropriate document for APR review of such courses, similar to the format used for majors.


5.      During UCC’s approval process for proposed interdepartmental, UCC should determine which department would be responsible for the course (and would require that a department be identified before the course is approved).  APR review of the course would then be the responsibility of that department, which could consult with other departments that are involved in teaching the course.  The APR Committee suggests a “sunset clause” for this option that automatically expires after seven years, unless a department moves to "adopt" the course and offer it as a regular offering.  This would encourage such adoptions and also make it clear that review/justification would have to be done on a regular basis.


M/S/P recommendations be forwarded to next year’s Undergraduate Curriculum Committee and Academic Program Review Committee to come back to the faculty senate with a policy for review.  (voice vote)


VII.      Proposal to Implement a Masters of Science Degree Program in Occupational Therapy.


Peggy Denton, Director of the Occupational Therapy Program, and Karen Palmer-McLean, Associate Dean of SAH, joined the senate.  Dr. Denton, reviewed the history of the OT program which was established at UWL in 1998.  Since that time a total of 79 occupational therapists have graduated with a BS degree from La Crosse.  The program was fully accredited in 2000 with no deficiencies and is scheduled for another accreditation on-site visit during the 2006-07 academic year.


Denton explained that the profession of occupational therapy has mandated moving entry into the profession to the post-baccalaureate level.  Thus, as of 2007, only post-baccalaureate occupational therapy programs will be accredited.  Students who graduate from a non-accredited occupational therapy program will not be permitted to obtain a license to practice.  Thus the OT program at UWL must move to the graduate level to remain accredited and viable.  This professional Masters program is similar to the Physician Assistant Program and the Physical Therapy Program.  Details of the program include:


Credits: 90

Length: 2.5 years full-time (8 semesters – longer if the thesis option is chosen)

Size: 24 students per cohort admitted each year

Faculty:  5 full-time OT faculty (a search/screen is currently in program for one vacant position)

(4 PT faculty will teach courses in the program)

Admission Requirements:  Earned undergraduate degree in related field; overall GPA of 3.0; completion of pre-requisite coursework (Anatomy & Physiology, Physics, Statistics, & Life-Span development); 6+ hours job shadowing and volunteer work in occupational therapy; completion of admission process (application, references, personal narrative, interview)


M/S/P to approve the program (unanimous show of hands)


VIII.     Adjournment.

The meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m.


Submitted by

Eric R. Kraemer, Secretary