April 27, 2006 325 Graff Main Hall
Vol. 40, No. 16 3:30 p.m.
I. Roll Call.
Present: Choy, Clow, Galbraith, Gongaware, S. Grunwald, Heim, K. Hoar, Hunt, Johnston-Rodriguez, Knox, S. Krajewski, B. Riley, D. Riley, Senger, Shanks, S. Smith, Straker, R. Sullivan, C. Wilson.
Excused: S. Kelly, Cravins
- Chair’s Report – Chair Wilson updated senate on the following items.
May 4th senate meeting: Wilson reminded senators that we will be celebrating the naming of the senate chambers after Dr. Voight next week – Carl Wimberly, Ms. Voight, and Dave Riley will say a few words. Also, remember that it is cookie day – please bring your favorite cookie!
NCA – Wilson thanked everyone who helped make the visit a success by meeting with the team members, rearranging schedules, providing information, and many words of encouragement. The NCA visit concluded with an exit interview during which the team chair, Celestino Fernández, shared observations and recommendations of the team. Dr. Fernández noted the team appreciated all the people who participated in the meetings and that people were extremely forthcoming. The recommendations are preliminary; we will receive a draft of the report within 6 weeks, and have 2 weeks to correct factual inaccuracies. Also, the recommendations were general – we do not have details yet. But, they noted strengths and challenges of the university. The team is recommending that:
- our next comprehensive visit occur in 10 years (the maximum time allowed)
- the Doctor of Physical Therapy degree be approved (since this is our first doctoral level degree, we needed to get approval to offer that level of degree)
Our main strength is our faculty – students consistently reported that faculty deeply care about students and do everything they can to be accessible. The main concerns are identical to what was identified in the self-study and included general education, assessment, and diversity. They were especially concerned that these were concerns 10 years ago and believe we have not made adequate progress in these areas – they did not operationalize “progress.” We will need to wait for the report to learn more.
Dean of SAH – Wilson updated senate on the status of the Dean of SAH search. The committee made their recommendations to the Provost approximately two week ago. The Provost then requested a meeting on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 with the search and screen committee to ask them to discuss their recommendations with her. The chair of the committee, Bob Hoar, asked Wilson to attend to represent the shared governance body of the Senate. Wilson was concerned that the committee might be asked to deviate from established policy. The meeting went into closed session and Wilson left the meeting confident that the committee would honor the proper process. Wilson again thanked the committee for their diligence and excellent work they have done.
B. Faculty Representative’s Report – Joe Heim distributed a release from President Reilly that summarized the Joint Committee on Employment Relations approval of salary pay plans.
III. Academic Program Review for International Studies Minor – Curt Czerwinski, APR committee, reviewed the APR recommendations/concerns for the International Studies minor, which is a stand alone minor. This is the first minor that is being reviewed under the new minor guidelines. Czerwinski noted that the report should state March 2006 as the date of completion of the APR report. One general question from the senate was the number of students graduating with this minor per year. Dean Stroud, interim chair of the international studies program, reported that number to be about 5 students per year but strongly feels that this number could be increased with better advertisement of the availability of this minor to students.
M/S/P to accept the academic program review of the International Studies Minor Program.
IV. Discussion of Chancellor Position – Wilson led a discussion of what we would like to see in a chancellor. This feedback will be provided to the Search and Screen committee. Several questions that were posed to start discussion were: where do we see the campus community in the next 5 years, what leadership style would suit a chancellor here, what should a chancellor know and able to do? Wilson assured the senate that there will be other campus forums in May where such feedback will be obtained. These sessions will occur before the position description is finalized.
A summary of the general characteristics discussed for our future chancellor is as follows:
· An ability to openly and effectively communicate with the campus community.
· Ability to consult with campus on issues.
· Valuing of shared governance (i.e. faculty, academic staff and student governance).
· Want to see the process this person uses to get to a vision. Is it a collective or individual process, micromanagement or not.
· Ability to network with legislators, community and UW System.
· Has a vision of what diversity looks like with students, faculty and has a plan for how to integrate diversity.
· Needs to be academic, someone who understands the mission of the university as an academic one.
· Understands academia but has good managerial skills.
· Student centered.
· Honors and values the academic tradition.
· Honors the voice of faculty
· Incredibly creative and not hierarchical.
· Solid academic credentials.
· Understands budget, knowledge and experience to know what to do with money, doing smart things with resources that support the mission of the university.
· Has to be good at securing resources for the university.
· Has to provide a hopeful mood for campus, someone who can give this university hope again.
· Someone who creates an inclusive and supportive university community.
· Open and clear skills of communication.
Senate then also discussed the pros and cons of using a search firm for this search. Wilson provided background on what a search firm does in the search process.
The meeting adjourned at 4:38 p.m.
Sandy Grunwald, Secretary