Faculty Senate

                                        

March 8, 2007                                                                                                                                                         325 Graff Main Hall

Vol. 41, No. 9                                                                                                                                                          3:30 p.m.

                                       

I.       Roll Call.

      Present:  Abler, Ahmed, Brokaw, Cravins, Crutchfield, L. Dickmeyer, Galbraith, S. Grunwald, K. Hoar, Hunt, M. Jackson, S. Kelly, Knox, S. Krajewski, C. Miller, P. Miller, Olson, Senger, Shanks, S. Smith, Straker, C. Wilson

Excused:  Clow

Absent:  Choy

 

II.  Approval of Minutes.   

The minutes from February 15, 2007 were approved as distributed.

 

III.  Reports.

A.  Chair’s Report

Congratulations:  Congratulations to Dean Mason were extended on his appointment as Provost at Eastern Washington University.  Also, thanks to Bill Colclough were extended for agreeing to serve as interim Provost and to Chris Bakkum for agreeing to serve as interim Registrar and Manager of Enrollment Services.

 

Senate Nomination forms:  One nomination for the single seat in the College of Business was received, so congratulations and thank you to Stephen Brokaw for his willingness to continue to serve.  Four nominations were received for the two SAH open seats, 7 nominations for the 3 CLS open seats, and 7 nominations for the 3 open at-large seats.  In all, that is 18 nominations for 8 open seats.  Elections will begin after spring break.

 

Committee Assignment forms:  Forms are due March 9th

 

Administrative office evaluation:  The comments from the first stage of the evaluation of administrative offices have been received.  The faculty senate and its committees we included in this evaluation.  Comment themes included the following:

  • Senators are encouraged to gather information about how other faculty feel about important issues and votes.  Suggestions included holding open forums and having senators actively seek out feedback from their colleagues.
  • The senate executive committee could be more open about its business.  Some people expressed concern that the SEC has too much “power” or filters information. 

 

Senate Executive Committee business:  In the spirit of increased transparency, Wilson summarized recent SEC business.  Other than identifying the agenda items for this and upcoming meetings, during the last two weeks, the SEC has addressed the following:

·         SEC has charged the Academic Planning Committee to review the guidelines for credit and non-credit bearing certificate programs.  In September, 2002, the Faculty senate passed the current guidelines with the following stipulation:  "At the end of the two-year pilot phase, the APC in consultation with the Provost and Deans will review the approval guidelines for credit and non-credit bearing certificate programs and will make recommendations to the Faculty Senate regarding permanent procedures for approving credit and non-credit bearing certificate programs."  This two-year period has lapsed, and no review has been completed. 

·         SEC discussed a proposed new position for an on-line course director with Betsy Morgan.  The director position would serve as a point person for a faculty member who is interested in developing an online course.  The director would be knowledgeable about UW-L’s programs and maximizing student learning online rather than the technical aspects of an online course.  Part of the emphasis would be on creating summer school online courses.  This position may be self-funding in the future.  The academic deans support creation of this position.  The provost office was asking for SEC’s feedback.  SEC noted the following concerns:  What makes this particular position more important than positions that have been cut like the writing coordinator or creation of an assessment coordinator?  SEC noted the following benefits:  This position should help to improve the quality of online courses.  

·         Finally, Bill Cerbin and Carmen Wilson (in her role in assessment) have written some proposed processes for departments and APR to better incorporate assessment into academic program reviews.  The substantive changes include having departments submit assessment plans mid-cycle (i.e., 3 years prior to their review) and offering the help of an assessment consultant for departments that would like it.  SEC has sent this document to the APR committee for review. 

 

           

IV. UCC:  Approval of Microbiology minor and Microbiology Major with Business Concentration – Jeff Baggett, chair of UCC, presented these programs. 

 

M/S/P to approve the new Microbiology minor and the new Microbiology Major with Business Concentration coming forward from the UCC committee. 

 

V.  Talliores Declaration  -

 

The following motion, approved by SEC, was presented to faculty senate. 

 “The faculty senate encourages Chancellor Joe Gow to sign the Talloires Declaration so that UW-L will become a more environmentally literate and sustainable university.”

 

Voting on this motion was postponed from the 2/15/07 faculty senate meeting so that more campus feedback could be gathered. 

 

Wilson shared the following general comments she received from campus.  In general the “vote” was about 2 to 1 in favor of signing the declaration.  Several people indicated they already include environmental issues in their classes and would be willing to go further.  Concerns generally were in three areas:  1) Bugetary implications.  Most people agree that given the state of the budget we cannot commit to anything that requires resources at this time.  2) Would this require us to redefine our mission?  Would it require new general education requirements? People were not in favor of either of these.  If, we can be more gradual in our work, people were more supportive of the spirit of this declaration.  3)  These values are not necessarily shared by all.  Also, there are many other problems in the world we might want to address – e.g., poverty, health, population growth, etc. 

 

Finally, Chancellor Gow asked that his thoughts be shared.  He is concerned that this is an inopportune time to sign the Declaration because our resource situation is so uncertain at the moment. However, once the Legislature acts on our Growth and Access Agenda proposal we'll know much more about future resources--and possibilities. This should happen early this summer. At that point we'll be in a much better position to know whether we'll have the ability to live up to the terms of the Talloires Declaration.

 

General discussion included the question of what changes were made at other universities that have signed this declaration.  It was noted that this seems to vary quite a bit between institutions.  There was discussion on how far UWL should take the points in the declaration.  It was noted that if done right, actions in response to the declaration could save money in the long run (i.e. energy utilization).  The La Crosse city council and local businesses are also currently looking at the issue of sustainability. 

 

The discussion then focused on the need for a Task Force to be developed to identify what UWL is already doing in regards to items in the declaration and which points of the declaration we would address in the next several years and how to address them.  It was noted that we need to be serious about this issue if we are going to recommend to Chancellor Gow to sign the declaration and would like to see a plan in place as to what the implications would be in signing this declaration. 

 

M/S to amend the motion to read “The faculty senate encourages Chancellor Joe Gow to sign the Talloires Declaration so that UW-L will become a more environmentally literate and sustainable university and to establish a steering committee as stated in the declaration.”

 

Discussion on the amendment included that in signing the declaration establishment of such a committee would automatically happen, as this is one of the points in the declaration. 

 

Amendment failed. 

 

M/S/P to table the original motion. 

 

M/S/P that encourages the faculty senate to establish a task force to establish an action plan on how to implement the Tallories Declaration. 

 

VI.  Motion from the Science and Health College Committee regarding General Education

 

M/S for faculty senate to charge the General Education Committee to assess the current program and stop their work on developing a new program.

 

Eric Kraemer, chair of the general education committee, was present to answer questions and updated senate on the current state of discussion regarding changes to the general education program structure. 

 

General discussion for the motion included that proposed changes to the program are not being predicated on assessment data that has been collected.  Furthermore, assessment data that has been generated in the past ten years has only recently been summarized and distributed for campus view. 

 

General discussion against the motion included that it is not the right time to stop all work on changes to the general education program.  Furthermore, it is not the purview of faculty senate to know better than the committee regarding this issue. 

 

There was overall consensus by faculty senate members that an assessment plan needs to be developed that outlines how assessment will be done on the general education program

 

Motion fails 6-15.

 

 

M/S/P that the faculty senate requests a timeline be submitted by the General Education Committee on a comprehensive and systematic assessment plan by April 9, 2007. 

 

 

VII.  Report:  Research and Grants  - Galadriel Chilton, Research and Grants Committee chair, responded on their charge to “develop a method to gather final reports from grant winners, and create a survey to be given to existing grant-winners in order to track publications and other research products”.  There is no method in place to enforce the current guidelines which state that a grant recipient must submit a final to the Office of the Provost no later than September 15 following the end of the fiscal year in which research activities and spending took place and that an individual failing to fulfill this obligation will be ineligible for further research funds until such a report is submitted and accepted by the Committee.

The following recommendations are highlighted in the Research and Grants Committee Report report (posted on the faculty senate website). 

To encourage compliance and tracking the committee recommends that:

1. The Campus Connection announcement regarding the faculty stipend for the current year’s applicants should also include a reminder for the previous year’s recipients to submit a final report.

2.  The impact survey (see page 4) will include a reminder of the final report deadline.

3.  Modification to the final report form to clarify that the report need not be lengthy (see page 3).

4. The Office of Sponsored Research, Scholarly and Creative Activity should consider implementing a simple procedure for tracking report receipts. For example, adding a “final report” column to the recipient spreadsheet, and sending an e-mail reminder to recipients that have not submitted reports by September 15.

To address the second part of the committee charge the following recommendations regarding a survey to track publication and other research products of grant winners are being made by the Research and Grants Committee.

 

Recommendations:

1.  A short survey (see page 4) be sent to the grant winners for three years after receipt of research and grants monies in order to provide the committee and the Office of Sponsored Research, Scholarly and Creative Activity a cumulative snapshot of research products.

For example, faculty receiving funds for the 2007/2008 fiscal year, would receive the survey in 2008/2009, 2009/2010, and 2010/2011.

2. The Office of Sponsored Research, Scholarly and Creative Activity would manage survey distribution and data collection.

3. The committee also recommends that the following question be added to the final report form:  Did receiving this funding result in external grant proposals and/or funding? If yes, please explain.

 

Discussion on these recommendations included that grant recipients should be sent a survey for five years after receiving their grant instead of three years.  Furthermore the committee may want to consider sending a pilot survey to people who have received grants about 3 years ago. 

 

 M/S/P to vote on all recommendations at once.

 

M/S/P to support the recommendations from the Research and Grants Committee. 

 

VIII.   Adjournment.

The meeting adjourned at 5:24 p.m.

 

Respectfully Submitted,

Sandy Grunwald, Secretary