Faculty Senate
Vol. 38, No. 16
April 29, 2004


 

 

I.  Roll Call.

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

Excused:  Beck, Heim, Wilson.

 

II.  Approval of Minutes.

The minutes of the 2-12-04 meeting were approved as distributed.

 

III.  Reports.

Chair Hoar announced that System General Counsel, Patricia Brady will be on campus May 3rd in the Cleary Center from 10:30-11:45 a.m. to respond to questions; the 39th Faculty Senate Organizational meeting is scheduled for May 6th – nomination forms have been distributed; next week’s meeting has been declared Cookie Day – Senators are encouraged to bring cookies to share; the EESHR Dean search has failed – remaining candidate withdrawn – Rick Mikat has been named interim dean.

 

Next week’s Faculty Senate agenda will include a proposal from the College of Business Administration for a UW Graduate Business Consortium MBA degree, a report from the General Education Committee, and approval of the list of Spring 2004 graduates.

 

Provost/Vice Chancellor Hitch responded to questions as to why failed the EESHR search failed.    There were four candidates, two of whom withdrew because they had accepted other positions.  Two came to interview on campus – offer made to final candidate however we could not come to an agreement on the salary issue.

 

Provost Hitch reported that she has received official notice of Bill Gresens’ retirement on June 30.  Prior to next week’s meeting, a draft position description for the Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs will be emailed across campus asking for volunteers to serve on the search/screen committee.

 

Vice Chancellor for Administration and Finance, Ron Lostetter, commented on the new ID Cards, which will be available Fall semester.  The main advantage will enable us to electronically move financial aid refunds at no cost to the institution.  More information will be forthcoming over the summer months.

 

IV.  Report from the Committee on Faculty Committees.

 

Chair Hoar reordered the agenda.

 

V.  Audit & Review for Physician Assistant Studies Program – Academic Program Review Committee.

Curt Czerwinski, Chair of the APR Committee and Mark Zellmer, Program Director of PA Studies, joined the senate.  Dr. Czerwinski stated that once again, the committee was impressed the department’s thorough review, and that it too, was submitted in a timely fashion.  The program has a clearly outlined mission and vision statement, which fits within the mission of the College of SAH and the Department of Health Sciences, and included specific points related to quality of student recruitment/selection, student education, ethics, cultural sensitivity, and research skills.  Furthermore, the program utilizes several assessment methods and program outcome measures.  The program enjoys a high graduation rate, with 100% of the students passing the Physician Assistant National Certification Examination (PANCE) on their first attempt following graduation.  (Last year’s graduates ranked in the top 5%.)

 

M/S/P to endorse the report.  (show of hands: 20-yes, 1-abstain)

 

VI.  Audit & Review Report for the College of Business Administration – Academic Program Review Committee.

 

Bruce May, Associate Dean of the College of Business Administration, joined Dr. Czerwinski and the Senate.  Dr. Czerwinski reported that this particular review was a unique challenge because the committee looked at the entire college as a whole, rather than by individual departments. 

 

The APR Committee was impressed with the thoroughness of the Self Study Report provided by the CBA and especially considering the extensive nature of the review, commends the College for providing the Self Study Report in a timely manner.  To begin with, the College has a well-defined mission statement, and extensive list of objectives for the departments within the College.  While assessment is generally the responsibility of individual departments, the College has in place several direct and indirect measures to assess, on a department-by-department basis, whether its mission and goals are being met.  The CBA believes the committee’s report is a fair analysis of the current state of the College and has already implemented procedures and strategies to address the concerns.

 

In the discussion which followed, the senate indicated a preference of reviewing individual departments rather than the total college.  Several senators voiced their concern over the recent impact of budget reductions and quality of instruction.

 

M/S/P to endorse report.  (show of hands: 14-yes, 4-no, 2-abstain)

 

IV.  Report from the Committee on Faculty Committees.

Senator Sullivan presented the report from the Committee on Faculty Committees.  As assignments were made, the committee was mindful of three primary issues: continuity, work-load, and requests.  The committee received a higher number of requests than in previous years and strived to be as fair and impartial in making assignments while at the same time being attentive to the responsibility to create strong and effective committees.

 

M/S/P to approve the report from the Committee on Faculty Committees.  (voice vote)

 

VII.  Continued Discussion of Report from the Faculty Budget Committee on Budget Related Issues.

 

Steve Senger and Billy Clow joined the senate and presented an overview of sections contained within the report.  Section I tries to summarize where budget reductions came last year.  Overestimated budget cuts by 35% last year.  Table at end of Section 1 summarized actual vs what was reported to System.  Section 2 and associated attachments (D) tries to summarize UWL’s Redbook.  Looking at detail, university saw reduction of 2.5% in total GPR budgets – academic departments 6.9%.  Section 3 summarizes EM21 plan; two components: UW-L reduce target number of students by 500, and then increase by 150 student FTE non-resident tuitions which combined results in a net decrease of 350 FTE over the 6 years of the plan.  UWL contracted with  Noel-Levitz for $100K to provide recommendations on adjusting student mix allowing for diversity and non-residents.  However, we have experienced problems with retaining non-residents due to the higher tuition rate (approx 140 short).  Section 6 tries to summarize projections re student populations.  Section 7 talks about tuition waivers.  Section 8 is about differential tuition.  Section 9 summarizes the consequences of reduction in teaching positions.  We have entered a cycle that increasingly compresses instructional resources.  Because non-resident students generate tuition revenue equal to approximately four times the revenue generated from resident students, the loss of revenue from one non-resident disproportionately reduces instructional capacity.  This decreases the ability of students to successfully register for courses and decreases the attractiveness of UW-La Crosse.  The situation EM21 was intended to improve has in fact gotten worse.  Section 10 asks the following questions:

  • Where are the resources associated with the UW-L reductions not returned to the state (35% cushion, salary savings and fringe benefit savings).  When and how will it be restored?
  • What is the projected situation for F04?
  • Is there a credible plan for meeting EM21 non-resident targets by 2006?
  • Is there a plan to develop additional financial resources that can be used to recruit the required number of non-resident students?
  • Is there a plan to coordinate the various student recruitment targets across UW-L offices?
  • Is there a plan to predict and compensate for fluctuating student FTE?
  • Will the proposal for matching differential tuition adversely affect instruction?
  • Is the proposal for matching differential tuition viable in the long term?
  • How do other campuses provide financial incentives to non-resident students?
  • Are there differences between UW-L and other system campuses in terms of the way the AFIR reports are structured?

 

M/S/P the faculty senate requests that the chancellor work with the appropriate offices to draft a response to the questions posed in the Faculty Budget Committee report.  (unanimous show of hands)

 

M/S/P the faculty senate recommends that university funds used to match differential tuition not come from instructional budgets.  This includes not reallocating faculty, academic staff, program assistants, graduate assistants, student help, and Work Study support from instructional budgets to the initiatives associated funded by differential tuition.  (unanimous show of hands)/

 

M/S/P to reaffirm recommendation #2 from the 4-3-03 faculty senate meeting, which reads:  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.  (unanimous show of hands)

 

VIII.  Adjournment.

 

The meeting adjourned at 5:45 p.m.