FACULTY SENATE 2005-06

MEETING MINUTES

SPECIAL MEETING FOR NCA REPORT REVIEW

March 14, 2006

RSC 111, 2:30p

                                        

PRESENT: Chip Beal, Dave Carroll, Orv Clark, Maria Cuzzo, Martha Einerson, Matt Faerber, James Holter,  Laura Jacobs, Marshall Johnson, Susan Loonsk, Deb Nordgren, Chuck Reichert, Cecilia Schrenker, Chad Scott, Ralph Seelke, Nick Sloboda, Gloria Toivola, Michael Waxman 

Deborah Schlacks, Tammi Fanning, Nancy Minahan, Joel Sipress, Priscilla Starratt, Stewart Platner, Christopher Markwood, Cynthia Graham, Jim Miller, Julius Erlenbach

 

ABSENT:  

EXCUSED:  Peter Nordgren

 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

March 2, 2006. Toivola/Schrenker moved to approve.  Unanimously approved. 

 

OLD BUSINESS

I.  UW-System Proposed Dismissal Policy - moved to March 28th meeting, due to change of BOR deadline of April 6th or 8th. 

 

II.  NCA FYE Report - Nancy Minahan

Carroll thanked this group for all their hard work and introduced Tammi Fanning to present her Executive Summary. 

Fanning expressed her enthusiasm and excitement about presenting.  The proposal is a package of many recommendations (approx. 50).  We have been intentional and purposeful in making it comprehensive and holistic.  She then introduced Nancy Minahan who then presented the summary of their report. ASKU Success Model is another name for their report.  Minahan then went on to summarize some of the research they reviewed in preparing their report, and generally characterizing the freshman year experience.  They do not intend that their proposal be set in concrete, rather continual assessment and revision of goals occur throughout the process (ongoing).  This idea has been around for a long time, and this group believes the time for a coherent, structured freshman year experience has come. 

Fanning distributed two supporting documents.

Minahan briefly discussed the budget of their proposal, and summarized the key proposed expenditures. 

Carroll asked Cindy Graham to briefly summarize AACÕs review of this proposal, including strengths and weaknesses.  She also encouraged, as a faculty member, Senate to consider the entire package. 

Cuzzo/Faerber, moved to adopt the FYE as recommended, provided that we receive additional GPR base funding and FTE positions through DIN funding request or other request. 

Toivola is interested in First Year Experience, though voiced concerns about the freshman seminar, particularly whether would faculty be teaching these courses.  She voiced a second concern that based on this model, students would not be taking any major courses during their entire first year.  She also asked about the decision to replace some of the faculty and not all of them.  SheÕs concerned about who would make these choices.  The concerns sheÕs heard expressed are that too small, even an exclusive group was involved in past freshman year seminars.  She wants assurances that the opportunities to teach will be open to all faculty.

Carroll stated that during the last Executive Committee there was a great deal of concern expressed about the freshman seminar, and requested that someone move to split the question.

Toivola/Einerson moved to divide the question and separate out the freshman year  seminar.  Discussion ensued.  Johnson is willing to discuss the separation, though he doesnÕt think thatÕs the best way to go.  He prefers to discuss as a whole.  Einerson mentioned her rationale for wanting to split the freshman year seminars out of the proposal.  Minahan voiced concern about splitting out the seminars.

Michael Waxman supported the idea to separate out the discussion. 

Cuzzo stated that three of ToivolaÕs points are covered, one that is not is the freshman year curriculum. 

A vote was taken on the motion to divide.  Unanimous approval of motion.

    

Beal/Cuzzo moved to approve Freshman Year Seminar as recommended, provided that we receive additional GPR base funding and FTE positions through DIN funding request or other request. 

Discussion ensued.  Waxman was concerned that so few ad hocs were funded in the proposal.  Also, he would like to see more incentives to faculty members available to teach special seminars.  Minahan mentioned that this would increase their proposed budget. 

Johnson also stated that the 4-8 stipends were separate from the pilot study which was carried out over two years.  We discussed problems associated with an unfunded pilot project.  Those departments that cannot afford to participate would be offered the ad hoc funding.  There is a $500.00 stipend built into a summer workshop. 

 

Johnson/Seelke moved to amend, so that the release time funding be earmarked for those departments who have not participated in the past, and for the next 3 years.

Toivola and Beal asked why we wouldn't ask for the most we can get.  Sloboda stated that English supports this proposal, and questioned who gets funding and how that decision is made.  We should be fair minded. 

Carroll believes the question is when you examine previous first year seminars, few were involved, and when you look this past fall the same departments are involved.  He believes only four departments have been involved, and he knows not many people have been interested in offering these courses or even being involved.

Schrenker stated that she has concerns about how to encourage everyone to participate in the FYE.  Seelke stated that Biology is maxed out, and their lab-based courses make for an even more strange workload.  Sipress stated that there is no problem in the DIN asking for full replacement sections. 

Waxman asked to consider a two-fold amendment. 

We can vote this down and start fresh, or amend the amendment. 

Johnson/Seelke removed their amendment above. 

Johnson/Toivola moved to request a full amount to replace ad hocs, and if full funding is not available, that release time funding be earmarked for those departments who have not participated in freshman year seminar in the past.  Starratt discussed the formula for replacing instructors in order to teach the seminars.  Einerson stated that Communicating Arts already teaches a freshman year seminar called COMM 110.  Carroll stated the DIN is to put in for full funding, and if we do not get the DIN, then we figure how to partially fund this. 

A vote was taken on the amendment.  Unanimous approval.  Motion passed. 

 

Toivola asked who would decide who would teach these seminars.  Erlenbach stated that the Provost was very willing to coordinate the freshman year seminar.  Carroll stated again that he is concerned that there isnÕt interest to teach the courses, and there is no doubt folks were solicited, they just werenÕt interested.  Schrenker asks that the assessment budget be increased, and that there be intensive assessment in the seminar in a variety of ways.  Schrenker/Clark moved that the assessment budget be increased to $10,000.00, with special attention to the assessment of freshman year seminar in a variety of ways for its improvement. 

One of the problems with assessment is unclear goal statement, and we need to be very clear as to what the goals are and freshman retention must be clearly documented.  Johnson said $10,000 would be helpful in measuring the success. 

Motion was voted.  Unanimous approval.

Toivola moved an amendment that a primary goal in the FYE is to increase freshman retention.  Toivola withdrew her amendment.  Holter restated his view that the coordinator position salary is higher than faculty salaries, therefore he cannot support the proposal. 

Vote on freshman year seminar motion (moved to divide the question and separate out the freshman year seminar.) (14 yes, 1 no, 2 abstentions

 

Back to entire report motion (FYE).  Faerber voiced concerns from Music about the absence of major coursework possible because so many music courses are required of freshman music majors.  Waxman stated that Chemistry could not support for the same reasons. 

Toivola/Waxman moved that we delete the first semester general elective, and leave open a slot for a major course.  If there is a department that cannot adhere to the suggested schedule, then they will go to Academic Affairs.   

Toivola/Waxman withdrew their motion. 

 

Toivola/Reichert moved that we include a goal in the report to improve freshman retention. 

A vote was taken on the motion, unanimous approval.

 

Motion to consider First Year Experience (to approve First Year Experience report as recommended, provided that we receive additional GPR base funding and FTE positions through DIN funding request or other request.)  carries with (12 voting yes, one voting no, and one abstention.) 

 

Joel Sipress expressed his understanding of the SenateÕs wishes and will make that part of the DIN request.  For direction on the DIN, Sipress needs to know how Senate views the salary issue of the coordinator.  Scott believes the level of pay must be at a level that would insure filling the position.  Fanning stated there should be a range. 

Toivola asked that on a future agenda we discuss faculty salaries in the future (March 28th). 

 

III. NCA Global Awareness Report - Priscilla Starratt

Priscilla Starratt presented the Global Awareness Report, and noted that this committee included members who are very interested in internationalizing the curriculum and institution.  Their recommendations came after being approved unanimously within the group--no recommendation went forward without unanimous support.  She summarized the report, including highlighting their primary recommendations. 

Schrenker asked about one class in general education, yet the report talked about 50%.  Starratt said this was a mistake, and it should read that one international course should include 50% international content. 

Clark/Beal moved to adopt the Global Awareness as recommended, provided that we receive additional GPR base funding and FTE requests through DIN funding or other funding. 

Sloboda stated that the current Language and Literature department supports this proposal.  Carroll stated that he attended the foreign language forum last fall, and it became clear that there is unanimous support.  Reichert asked if the Economic Develop position would be housed in the PLJ department? He asked if DBE would have any input, since they would teaching one of their courses?  The DBE representative on the group said the department would likely welcome the opportunity.  Starratt stated that itÕs currently not a priority for DBE, and it is a priority for this Implementation Group.  Sipress asked Senate how to incorporate this into the DIN, and prioritize for the DIN.  Waxman stated that the faculty hires in Chinese and Arabic are luxuries.  Einerson stated that the International programs seemed a high priority.  Carroll reminded us that we should aim as high as we possibly can for all the proposals.  Clark called the question and requested a vote to call the question. 

A vote to call the question failed with 6 voting yes, and 7 voting no.  Motion failed. 

 

Schrenker noted that we are requesting this funding and the Chancellor will know what to emphasize, and we should request the full amount at this point.  Beal pointed out that our campus is woefully inadequate on international programs, and this proposal gives a solid start on a great program.  Waxman asked for clarification on the DIN funding.  The Chancellor answered that when System reviews all the proposals, they might reduce the proposal as we set forth, and then the Governor could reduce it even further.  Finally, the legislature could ultimately decide in their support (or not) of the Governor.  He believes SchrenkerÕs statement "that we should go for it all" is the correct way to proceed.

 

A vote was taken on Clark/Beal's motion, which carries with 8 voting yes, 1 voting no, and 1 abstention. 

 

ADJOURNMENT

Adjourned, at 4:19p.m.

 

Respectfully submitted this 20th day of March, 2006.    

Martha J. Einerson, Faculty Secretary