Faculty Senate Executive Committee Minutes

327 Graff Main Hall – 4:15 p.m.

September 30, 2008


Present:  Joe Heim, Rebecca LeDocq, Susan Crutchfield, Brian Udermann;

Visitors: Kathleen Enz Finken, Bob Hoar, Betsy Morgan


1.  Change to UW-L Bylaw 3.06

Betsy Morgan presented the following proposed bylaw change to the SEC. 


Last year Senate adopted a by-laws template that involves a “new” standard of indicating the following required language:

“The department will follow the policies regarding retention and tenure described in the Faculty Personnel Rules (UWS 3.06 - 3.11 and UWL 3.06 -3.08)

Tenure/retention decisions will be guided by the criteria established in the by-laws at the time of hire unless a candidate elects to be considered under newer guidelines. The criteria outlined in Section V. A & V. B. "Faculty Personnel Review" in these by-laws should be applied to faculty with a contract date after [insert date of departmental adoption].“


This language has been vetted and recommended by system legal.  It is slightly out of sync with 3.06 that reads as below. We are recommending a change in language to read as follows (shown in BRACKETS [and in red]). It is a clarification.


UWS 3.06 Renewal of appointments and granting of tenure.

(1)(a) General. Appointments may be granted only upon the affirmative recommendation of the appropriate academic department, or its functional equivalent, and the chancellor of an institution. When specified by the board, the institutional recommendation shall be transmitted by the president of the system with a recommendation to the board for action. Tenure appointments may be granted to any ranked faculty member who holds or will hold a half-time appointment or more. The proportion of time provided for in the appointment may not be diminished or increased without the mutual consent of the faculty member and the institution, unless the faculty member is dismissed for just cause, pursuant to s. 36.13 (5), Stats., or is terminated or laid off pursuant to s. 36.21, Stats.

(b) Criteria. Decisions relating to renewal of appointments or recommending of tenure shall be made in accordance with institutional rules and procedures which shall require an evaluation of teaching, research, and professional and public service and contribution to the institution. The relative importance of these functions in the evaluation process shall be decided by departmental, school, college, and institutional faculties in accordance with the mission and needs of the particular institution and its component parts. Written criteria for these decisions shall be developed by the appropriate institutional faculty bodies. Written criteria shall provide that if any faculty member has been in probationary status for more than 7 years because of one or more of the reasons set forth in s. UWS 3.04 (2) or (3), the faculty member shall be evaluated as if he or she had been in probationary status for 7 years.

(c) Procedures. The faculty and chancellor of each institution, after consultation with appropriate students, shall establish rules governing the procedures for renewal or probationary appointments and for recommending tenure. These rules shall provide for written notice of the departmental review to the faculty member at least 20 days prior to the date of the departmental review, and an opportunity to present information on the faculty member's behalf. The probationary faculty member shall be notified in writing within 20 days after each decision at each reviewing level. In the event that a decision is made resulting in nonrenewal, the procedures specified in s. UWS 3.07 shall be followed.


History: Cr. Register, January, 1975, No. 229, eff. 2-1-75; am. (1) (b), Register, February, 1994, No. 458, eff. 3-1-94; correction in (1) (a) made under s. 13.93 (2m) (b) 5, Stats., Register, February, 1994, No. 458.


UWL 3.06 Renewal of appointments and granting of tenure.

(1) Renewal of appointments and granting of tenure require probationary faculty to be reviewed at three levels in the following order: 1) department; 2) college dean; and 3) chancellor. The process advances as the department's decision and the dean's recommendations are forwarded, in writing, to the chancellor. The timing of the reviews is determined by the university's Personnel Schedule Deadlines.

(2) The probationary faculty member shall be notified in writing within seven days after each decision or recommendation at each reviewing level.

(3) When a negative renewal/tenure decision or recommendation is made at any reviewing level, the provisions of UWS 3.07/UWL 3.07 on reconsideration and UWS 3.08/UWL 3.08 on appeal shall apply.

(4) The initial review of probationary faculty shall be conducted by the tenured faculty of the appropriate department in a manner determined by the tenured members. If there are no 

tenured members in the department, the appropriate supervisor who is tenured shall make the determination. Department procedures for review, criteria for retention and tenure, and the weighting of criteria shall be documented and on file in the appropriate dean's office. Any changes to department procedures, criteria, and their weighting during the six month period preceding the review shall not be applicable to the review.[ Tenure/retention decisions will be guided by the criteria established in the by-laws at the time of hire unless a candidate elects to be considered under newer guidelines.  Changes to other personnel-related procedures must be in place for six months preceding the review.]


It was decided to forward this proposal to the PTS Committee for immediate action and recommendation to the Senate.  The SEC supports the proposed change.


2. CAPS Revision to the Incomplete Policy

CAPS approved a change to the incomplete policy at the end of last year.  The SEC supports the change, and it will come before the Senate for a vote at the next meeting.


3. Policy on Senate Meeting Materials  

There was some concern that Senators be provided information about actionable items prior to, rather than during, Senate meetings.  The SEC decided that any materials for consideration by the Senate must be provided for posting on the Senate website at least 48 hours prior to the Senate meeting in question.   Failure to do so will result in the item being removed from that meeting’s agenda.


4.  Space Concerns in Graff Main Hall

There is a space crunch in Main Hall that will become more acute as other campus buildings are torn down in preparation for construction of the new academic building.  The Chair has communicated to Bob Hetzel that the SEC meeting room is so frequently used by Senate committees that it cannot be reallocated for office spaces.  The Provost is concerned that inability to use the SEC room will cause unfortunate changes in other spaces in Main Hall.  The Chair is concerned that if Senate allows the “temporary” use of this space for offices, the space will never be reclaimed.


5.  Online Education

A.  SEIs

As Director of Online Education, Brian Udermann raised questions about how best to administer SEIs for online courses.  It was decided that he should take this question to the Online Advisory Group for its recommendation.

B. Online Education and Faculty Governance

There was some discussion of how online education should be integrated into the existing Faculty Governance structures.  Does adapting a classroom course to an online course require a new LX form?  No, as per a UCC decision.  Should the online curriculum be overseen by existing committees, such as UCC and GCC, or should a new committee be formed?  Would the current Online Advisory Group consider becoming a Faculty Senate committee with some statutory members?  Udermann will take these questions to the Online Advisory Group for its recommendation.


6.  GEC Director Position

When the Provost and Bob Hoar met with the GEC to discuss the proposal to centralize CATL units, they also discussed the GEC Director position.  The Provost thinks it most sensible to have one person at the head of the GCC, rather than splitting the job between a Chair and a Director.  There was some discussion about the GEC’s April 21, 2008 proposal of a 0.25 re-assignment for GE chair for both semesters and 1/9 salary stipend for the summer.   Have the duties of the GEC Chair been unusually heavy due to the GE revision process and the assessment initiative?  Is the GEC Chair job under normal circumstances more time consuming than other Senate committee Chair jobs?  As described in the bylaws, the position is no more demanding than other Senate committee chair positions.  The Provost suggested we consider what we need a GEC Chair to do—what more than the current bylaw description—and then consider what we need in release time, if any.  

            It was decided to confer with the GEC Chair to learn that committee’s current opinion on its proposal of last year.  The SEC agreed that there should be no double Chair/Director positions, but rather one Chair position.


7.  CLS and SAH Deans Searches

The Provost reported that these Deans searches will be advertised at the Council of Colleges of Arts and Sciences conference this fall. 


8.  Advertising Non-Faculty Positions

Bob Hetzel would like SEC support for more online advertising of non-faculty positions.  The SEC supports this.


9.  The meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m.


Respectfully Submitted,

Susan Crutchfield