FACULTY SENATE 2005-06

MEETING MINUTES

November 15, 2005

RSC 111, 2:30p

PRESENT: Chip Beal, Dave Carroll, Orv Clark, Maria Cuzzo, Martha Einerson, Matt Faerber, Cindy Graham, Laura Jacobs, Marshall Johnson, David Kroll, Susan Loonsk, Chuck Reichert, Cecilia Schrenker, Chad Scott, Ralph Seelke, Nicholas Sloboda, Julius Erlenbach, Art Bumgardner, Terri Kronzer, Glenn Carlson

EXCUSED: Peter Nordgren

ABSENT: Tim Cummings, James Holter, George Wright

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

October 18, 2005 - Sloboda/Clark. Unanimously approved.

Receive Executive Meeting Minutes: November 1, 2005

REPORT OF THE CHANCELLOR

The Board of Regents met this past week. The Board has adopted a no back-up position policy, which will effect a number of positions in our institution. For example, Jan Hanson and Jill Schoer have non-academic appointments. The new policy will not effect the Provost position, as that person comes with academic credentials. Sometimes the dog does wag the tail.

Achieving Excellence report for campus projected 2250 FTE, and we came in at 2257. Not too far above our goal, just up a bit. This is good news.

Increasing diversity--substantial increases from 1998 to 2005 in ALL categories (Asian-American 100%, African American 59%, and American Indian 81%). Second year retention has increased from 65% for 2003 to 71% in 2004, but not quite to target (75%). The same is true for 6-yr graduation rate. We are close to our target of 64%. Good indications in progress toward student success.

No action has been taken on the budget. There is no indication that a mid-year correction will be necessary. This is good. Any additional meeting that goes by and we don’t hear, is a good indicator that we will be fairly stable with current budget.

Carroll, seeking clarification on back-up appointments, asked if given your report, can you be more clear or certain? The Chancellor responds that the way the policy reads, the system staff says those positions will not be effected when they have academic credentials. Sloboda stated that Faculty Reps will speak strongly against this, and asked if the Chancellors expressed strong concern, and were the Regents strongly unified? The Chancellor responded that he's not sure if BOR is unified, however the vote, he believes, was unanimous. Sloboda responds that yes, but we have to do something, and something will be areas that are problematic. Did the Board enter into the disciplinary procedures matter? Chancellor stated there is no outcome yet. There should be faculty representation on this. Beal asked what was different about the new direction on back-up appointments then before? Chancellor responded that yes, they did and they could-- now they can’t. We had a history of providing that kind of offer for more attractive recruiting opportunities. Chancellor doesn’t know if there will be a serious negative effect, but this is possible. We’ll know when we fall into a position that can’t have a back-up offer.

Carroll asked about the additional funding for our liberal arts mission. The Chancellor talked with Vice Chancellor of Finance for System at a preliminary meeting, and one staffer, Ron Singer, was asked to secure additional information. He told the Vice Chancellor we could provide additional information if necessary. In the not too distant future, System will offer a response. This issue is not dead and they are taking it seriously.

REPORT OF THE PROVOST

The Provost, after the October meeting, took a strong stand with the Board and spoke in favor of keeping back-up positions.

The campus Strategic Planning process has been moving along. Last Thursday, Julie Furst-Bowe, UW-Stout, led us through a preliminary session on strategic planning and what goes into it, the process at Stout, and gave us a model for planning. After session, audience examined model, which goes to SPBC this Thursday. We’ve already accomplished the first three steps of the model, and are ready to go to step four. He will propose to SPBC to move to Step 4, look for who to be involved, and may call on Furst-Bowe again for advice.

Summer College '06 is moving forward, and 13 CORE courses will be guaranteed, with all other courses offered on contingency with instructor being offered lower pay.

The Provost also addressed the SESLI program. Faith Hensrud reported that this program has been losing money, and her intention is to discontinue the program. Options include instead of running the full program, we simply offer an ESL course on this campus each year to serve International students. He will look into this and see if it is viable. He will work for a solution to operate 2-3 years, and then re-evaluate. He's not saying ESL is dead on campus, and we will be looking into offering something. Sloboda asked where the ESL course would be housed? The Provost responded that it could be covered in 102 funding, or offered through Foreign Language or Continuing Ed.

Scott asked about Summer College--if the package departments proposed was profitable overall, could the lower-profit offerings still be offered? The Provost responded yes, that will still be considered.

REPORTS

Chair of the Faculty

Carroll reported on the Provost search and screen. We are currently doing phone interviews this week with candidates. The committee will meet Friday, Nov 18 to recommend a list of finalists to bring for on-campus interviews. The committee has been working hard all semester and are still on deadline target, so it is still quite possible that someone would be on board by February, 2006.

Secretary

No Report

Faculty Representative

There is a new, neater format in his electronic report. Reps have been pushing hard to get faculty representation on the new BOR Task Force on Disciplinary Procedures.

There is an issue regarding the new travel policy and the reps are pleased with the revisions to the travel policy, which are listed in his report. Sloboda encouraged faculty to write the President of Regents individually with a list of how this travel program is not effective. Sloboda also stated that the Board of Regents is over-reacting regarding the Audit Bureau investigation of the administrators who are in legal trouble, and feels they are over-reaching. He would appreciate any feedback from Senate members.

Planning Budgeting, and Review Council

HHP response to PBRC review of 10.31.05.

PBRC reviewed the HHP Dept, and Senate asked for a departmental response by October 31. Glenn Carlson was asked to attend today to field questions. One question Glenn addressed from Carroll is if HHP is entitled from system for the Physical Education major, now called Exercise Science. HHP now has a comprehensive major in community health promotion. They are looking across campus to see if majors being offered in HHP are related to other currently entitled majors. Exercise Science is the umbrella for the Health Education minor. HHP changed the language from "Major" to "Concentration," and have not added any classes or staff. Thirteen years ago it was called Corporate Community Health Major, and when the campus downsized majors, this major resulted. Carroll asked if Community Health Promotion is now a major? Carlson said, Community Health Promotion is a Concentration. Physical Ed includes teaching, folks will work in community health programs, prepare for physical therapy school, and graduate school. Johnson, suggested that this goes to PBRC to see if questions were answered. Johnson/Beal moved to send HHP response to PBRC.

Sloboda supported this motion. Beal suggested that the request for the departmental mission be more closely linked to the university mission. Currently, he doesn’t see how the departmental mission is linked, especially in terms of diversity. He would like to see that more definitive in the wording, especially the second part of the mission statement. Carlson stated they chose “all students” rather than diversity, and Beal stated that was too vague from his perspective. Carlson stated, “let’s be fair here.” Carroll clarified that Senate is not well equipped to address the success of the response, without PBRC representation present. In general, Senate takes his request seriously. Schrenker suggested that with turnover on PBRC, we must be careful that additional requests are not piled on and changed over the course of review of response. Further, Schrenker likes the idea of presenting to Senate and has no problem sending back to the PBRC, as long as some action or conclusion is taken. Carroll responded that yes, some members have rotated off and PBRC can decide if they wish to bring former members back for advice, however, the issues in front of the Senate on this will be the issues originally raised by PBRC. Cuzzo asked what the function of Senate is in their review of the responses? Carroll responded that Senate’s responsibility is to make certain the original issues raised by PBRC are addressed. We are asking PBRC to report on the departmental response, and then Senate, at a later point, may accept the PBRC response. Schrenker asked that we don’t overburden PBRC, and that PBRC agrees with Senate’s responses. Johnson suggested that yes, PBRC would like a chance to review and respond to the response. Carroll clarified that the response to the response by PBRC is not a full-fledged review. Carroll said we are embarking on a new adventure in our relationship with PBRC, and what we consider at this point will become the standard practice.

Clark amended the Johnson/Beal motion, asking "that PBRC determine if the response is responsive, and are the concerns in the report addressed?" Johnson offered rephrasing the motion to read "PBRC shall determine if the departmental response addresses PBRC's concerns." Motion with amendment and rephrasing passed with unanimous approval. (Notify PBRC)

Personnel Council

Ad hoc Grievance Committee Process

Graham, Chair of Personnel Council, spoke to the proposal. On the first page and top of the second page, is a proposal to make the procedure clear, which we've never had before on hearing grievances. Personnel Council thought it would be helpful to have a way to create a list for ad hoc committee formation, without stacking the committee. Currently, there is no formal process in place. This is a way to frame the process, so everyone would be clear and faculty would know they have a responsibility to serve if they are called. She is asking for Faculty Senate support on this process. Schrenker/Seelke moved to approve the entire document. Schrenker found a correction, and asked if these changes would need to go to the Board of Regents for approval. Graham said yes, that’s her understanding, and this would also go down with full faculty handbook revisions later in the year. Faerber asked if with each complaint, will there be a new committee, without holdovers, and will there be someone there for continuity? Graham responded that a member of Personnel will serve on the Ad hoc hearing committee, and there is potential for that person changing within Personnel. The continuity would be the Personnel Council member who is serving, and that may or may not be the same, dependent on how many complaints and the length of time between complaints. Carroll asked how selections will be made, alphabetically? If something came forward, Secretary of Personnel will ask Kathy Krause for list of faculty members in alphabetical order, and Personnel will take 3-5 faculty members per grievance. Terri Kronzer has concern about privacy rights of parties in complaint. While there may be a conflict of interest from the Personnel Council’s point of view, that may not be transparent to all involved. Terri has a problem with investigating if there is a conflict of interest and violating privacy by sharing information when it is not necessarily needed, in order to determine the relationship of parties involved. Seelke asked if the very nature of grievance is private, and Kronzer said it depends on the grievance. New rules regarding privacy are currently under review at System. Seelke asked if contacting the complaintant to see if there is a conflict on the list of names on the Ad hoc committee, would be a reasonable alternative to asking each member of the Ad hoc group? Beal is concerned that if there are multiple complaints, a standing committee would be overburdened. Carroll asked for clarification that Kronzer is suggesting one ad hoc committee be appointed for one semester or one year to hear all complaints. Schrenker suggested that if one ad-hoc was constructed, no single committee would hear more than two (2) complaints per year. Graham reported that Personnel handled three (3) complaints last year, and it took up an undue amount of time, and they need some way to tap into other campus resources. Scott stated that whether the committee is ad hoc per grievance or ad hoc per year, the issue is that no one be overburdened, and he supports Personnel’s proposal for ad hoc per grievance, and what needs to be clarified is the process by which someone is recused for conflict of interest. Carroll suggests combining suggestions, by having an ad hoc committee in place to deal with complaints as they come up, per complaint. Graham stated that process of having a primary and backup ad hoc committee is fine. Carroll suggested that the point of a value of an ad hoc group would be to free the Council to deal with policy matters. We could send this back to Council to best determine HOW an ad hoc committee is formed. Reichert stated the term should be one grievance only, and the committee be formed in advance and be in place prior to any grievance. Clark suggested the Ad Hoc group be limited to three (3) members. Schrenker/Seelke moved to table previous motion, and this passed unanimously.

Undergraduate Academic Affairs Council

Group Absences

The minor changes in the current policy is, as follows (in bold):

"Students are expected to attend all classes. Individual absences from class may be excused only by the instructor. Consult the course syllabus for proper procedures for notifying the instructor in case of emergency. Group absences for both off- and on-campus activities, such as field trips, music clinics, and athletic trips, must be cleared with the appropriate administrator and a list of students participating be made available for publication. The list of students should be posted on the University website or sent by e-mail, one time only, to the campus community by the sponsoring authority. Students absent for University-approved activities will be excused from class and allowed to make up the missed course work. Instructors may require students to complete a supplementary assignment in lieu of class attendance. It is the student's responsibility to directly notify the instructors prior to the absence."

Seelke/Reichert moved to approve. Carroll reminded Senate that he sought feedback from faculty and this comes down to us not following our own, current policy. This is responsive, and Steve Nelson is more than willing to talk to his staff to follow proposed policy. We should publicize the current policy to STEVE NELSON, and OTHERS that send out group absence notices. Faerber pointed out that e-mail notification is still the problem. Graham pointed out that it is a little different in that a master list would be posted and require faculty to only check one time, and will still require individual students to notify instructors. Faculty voted unanimously in favor of the motion.

Credits toward Core Requirements

Graham summarized proposal, and noted that research indicates students who complete core requirements earlier than later are more successful. Schrenker asked about transfer students and asked about general education requirements other than CORE. This is not a part of this proposal. According to Sloboda, the Language and Literature Department believes that this is not sufficient, and asks that Senate reconsider the 45-credit limit. Graham reported there was remarkable disagreement on anything less than 60 credits, from departmental reps on Academic Affairs Council. The challenge comes when we consider for example, MATH, who offers a small number of courses, and students cannot get into classes for four (4) semesters. Seelke noted that Biology has similar problems. Sloboda again suggested that going to 45 needs a broader discussion. Faerber pointed out that due to major requirements in his department, he would be very hesitant to go below 45 credits. Graham clarified that the Board of Regents has a policy regarding remedial courses be completed within 30 credits. Schrenker/Clark moved to approve proposal. Provost Bumgardner clarified that technically, student’s will complete 60 credits before completion of CORE, so in effect, students have until 75 credits to complete the CORE, and under 75-credit rule, students are actually not completing until 90 credits. The signal could occur two (2) semesters before with advisor notification. Faerber had a concern with transfer students, no differentiation between 2^nd and 3^rd semester transfers from 3-yr transfers. Graham responded that this is only about the CORE, not all general education. Clark/Johnson amended original motion so that students receive a warning after 45-credits, telling them they will have a hold placed at 60 credits to complete their CORE. Unanimous approval for original motion with amendment.

Graduate Council

No report

Student Senate

No report

Academic Staff Senate

No report

OLD BUSINESS

Senate Constitution Review

Defer until December meeting.

NEW BUSINESS

ADJOURNMENT

Clark/Einerson moved to adjourn, at 4:01 pm. Motion approved.

Respectfully submitted this 4^th day of December, 2005.

Martha J. Einerson, Faculty Secretary