1) CALL TO ORDER

              The meeting was called to order at 12:08 P.M. by Dennis Rome, Chair.  Also attending were members Chris Evans, Fran Kavenik, Mary Lenard, Greg Mayer (12:21 P.M.), and Ann Statham (12:19 P.M.).  Guests were Dennis Kaufman, Chair, Information Resources Committee, Ann Marie Durso, and Deans Donald Cress and Fred Ebeid.  Evelyn Zepp was present as Secretary of the Faculty.

In order to accommodate the guests, the Committee voted unanimously to suspend the agenda order.

4) UNFINISHED BUSINESS

   a) Follow up to Senate meeting on e-mail

              Members noted that the U.C. would like to be kept informed on changes in the e-mail situation.

              Prof. Kaufman noted that the IRC has only met once this year.  Prof. Kavenik stated she would like to see it meet more often.  Prof. Kaufman stated that the Technology Advisory Committee has a broader constituency than the IRC, which focuses on the library and bookstore.  Prof. Zepp noted that the TAC is an Administrative Committee, while the IRC is a faculty governance committee.

              Prof. Statham noted that neither committee has been consulted when the student e-mail was changed three weeks before the end of the semester.  Ms. Durso explained that the intent was to carry out the change last November, but that problems had arisen with Microsoft.  The goal was to complete the change before the end of the semester so that graduating students could keep their e-mail for life.

              Prof. Kavenik noted that the timing was appalling, that students were screaming at instructors and each other, and were unable to get each other's papers.  The end users must be taken into consideration; this cannot happen again--it was devastating for students.  Ms. Durso explained that the staff had not anticipated problems, that today's technology is more complex and extremely difficult to manage.  So much is inadequate and obsolete.  Prof. Lenard noted that the desire to have graduating seniors keep their accounts should have been weighed against the disruption of the entire campus.

              Prof. Rome brought up concerns with the governance list.  Prof. Statham asked if the governance list could function outside of the system.  Ms. Durso said yes.  She also explained that three administrators approve three mass groups: the Provost--all faculty, Mr. Streeter--all staff, Mr. McLaughlin --all students.  Attachments are limited in size to 500 K or below.  With the mass lists, the entire message and attachments are stored in every single mailbox.  Instead of an attachment, people should put a link.  The problems of network storage from anywhere are being solved--everyone on campus will have remote access.

              Prof. Mayer said he had tried to send important messages to system legal and they did not go through.  He had had to use Yahoo.  He also said the opaqueness of the lists prevents people from knowing to whom they are sending messages.  Ms. Durso said every list name has to be unique.  There is a standard logic, a naming convention to these lists.  Prof. Kaufman said that when you receive an e-mail, you can't see who else is in the list.  Ms. Durso said that there is anonymity in the group lists on purpose.  Prof. Mayer asked if there is a way to send general announcements to the campus.  Ms. Durso noted that she has to follow Policy # 75; people were feeling spammed.  We can identify people on campus to get a blanket approval.

              Prof. Kavenik suggested holding information sessions.  Ms. Durso said they had organized information sessions and demonstrations, but many groups were unable to meet with them.

              Prof. Statham noted the strong faculty governance tradition in Wisconsin and that the issue of being able to communicate is very important.  The easy access of the Secretary of the Faculty to the faculty is important.  Ms. Durso noted that there are a lot of challenges with our technology.  She noted that we lost the network for a full day and that if the phone system failed tomorrow, it could not be brought back up.  She stated she was truly sorry for the frustrations.

     Ms. Durso and Prof. Kaufman left the meeting at 12:50 P.M.

              Members stated that they thought the Information Resources Committee should meet more often and perhaps revisit their charge.  Technology is essential to teaching.

6) MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS

   a) Deans Cress and Ebeid asked to speak with the Committee.

              Dean Cress said that UWPF 3.07, which describes the duties of Chairs, does not capture a lot of what Chairs do.  He also said that the standard method of reporting a Chair's activities (summarizing under Service) on the Annual Summary downplays the significance of the Chair.  He noted that the merit average for all staff and faculty is 4.18, while it is 4.25 for Chairs.  The .07 reward Departments give to Chairs is insufficient.  He and Dean Ebeid wanted to seek permission to work over the summer on how Chairs can be fairly evaluated at the department level and how they are compensated.  Dean Ebeid agreed and added that he sees a disconnect between the role of Chairs, how they are viewed, and the evaluations.  He was surprised at the little value placed on some of the work.

              Prof. Kavenik asked for an example.  Dean Cress noted that there are operational and communicative issues--the three most important are personnel, budget and program.

              Prof. Mayer noted that many powers and responsibilities lie with the Executive Committee, although they may be delegated to the Chair.  This is why they are not mentioned in 3.07.  Nevertheless, he noted that Chairs do a lot of work which is not rewarded.

              Prof. Kavenik suggested that the Deans could have a better role in designating rewards for Chairs outside of the Departments, since they have a better perspective on what the Chairs are doing to benefit the Department as a whole.  Prof. Statham agreed that as "supervisor" the Dean has a better perspective than the E.C.

              Prof. Kavenik said that Chairs take on the job for the benefit of colleagues and not for money or power.  Dean Cress stated that a department does not advance if it does not have a strong Chair.  The structure does not empower the Chair, who cannot be as entrepreneurial as possible.  Prof. Mayer noted that is the Chair or Department controlled money, they would be stronger.  Dean Ebeid said that he has yet to find a Chair for the largest Department in the university--it is a thankless task.  The monetary reward is in not being Chair

              The U.C. members agreed that the Deans should look at the question.
              The Deans left the meeting at 1:15 P.M.

The Committee returned to the Agenda.

2) MINUTES

              The minutes of the meeting of April 27, 2007 were approved as revised by e-mail.

3) ANNOUNCEMENTS

              There is a telephone interview with the four finalists for Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs on Monday and Tuesday 1:15-3:30, including with Rebecca Martin.  Prof. Evans agreed to go.

              There has been further discussion on family leave.  It is in a sub-committee now.

4) UNFINISHED BUSINESS

   b) Honors Program--no news

   c) Student Code of Conduct--no news

   d) Family Leave issues--covered.

   e) Conflicts between UWP Administrative Policies and UWPF Ch 7 and UWS

              Prof. Evans met Monday with the Affirmative Action Council, which was very receptive.  They have already made some changes in Administrative Policy 54.  The faculty sections and academic staff sections are now parallel.

              Prof. Kavenik noted that there should be time guidelines for the investigation of complaints against faculty.  Prof. Mayer noted that the limit is 14 days in UWPA, which may be too short.  He suggested the new U.C. should refer the issue to FRRC, to parallel the wording of UWPA.  Chapter 7 says a "reasonable timeline." 
 
   f) The members suggested an alternate name for the person who has not responded to the appointment to the Graduate Studies Committee. Prof. Kavenik left the meeting.

   g) The issue was addressed in an e-mail from Prof. Allen.

   h) Administrator Evaluations

              There needs to be a way to code the scantrons, so they are not mixed up.  The distribution of the evaluations needs to be postponed to Fall--the end of Sept.  The cost will be $450-500.

   i) "Hiring Committee"--discussed

   j) "Council"--People of Color Retreat—discussed

              Mr. Fujimoto was unable to attend.

              There was some discussion of the Equity and Diversity Report.

5) NEW BUSINESS

              There was no new business.

6) MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS

              b) The Committee thanked Anne, Mary and Greg for their service.

7) ADJOURNMENT

              The meeting was adjourned at 2:10 P.M.

 

Submitted by Evelyn Zepp, Secretary of the Faculty