The Faculty of the University of Wisconsin-Parkside held its Fall 2007 meeting at 3:30 p.m., Thursday, October 25, 2007, in Molinaro Hall D137. Those attending were Lori Allen, Dirk Baldwin, Theresa Castor, Patricia Cleary, Doug DeVinny, Pat Eaton, Fred Ebeid, Chris Evans, Laura Gellott, Lee Goldesberry, Alan Goldsmsith, Gail Gonzalez, Jerry Greenfield, Stu Hansen, Dennis Kaufman, Frances Kavenik, Jack Keating, Mary Lenard, Penny Lyter, Bill Miller, Dana Oswald, J. Ubaldo Quevedo-Torrero, Jim Robinson, Dennis Rome, Bob Sasso, Bill Streeter, and Gary Wood, and Evelyn Zepp (as Secretary of the Faculty).
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chancellor Keating at 3:39 P.M.
The Minutes of the Faculty Meeting of April 3, 2007 were approved as distributed.
There was no old business.
A motion to form a Committee of the Whole was automatically on the floor. The motion was approved unanimously.
As provided under UWPF 1.04(3), the University Committee Chair, Dennis Rome, assumed the Chair.
The Chair recognized Chancellor Keating, who gave an update on the budget:
We did well on the Communication Arts addition. This will be the first real academic building to be added. The Residence Hall is approved. The Union is taking shape. We should receive $700,000+ in retention money—the first new money in ten years. We will have to give money back over the biennium--$300,000 in “lapse” money. We should receive more than we have to give back.
On salaries, there is no real information. The Board of Regents recommended 4.5% for the biennium. The governor is signing the budget in several places tomorrow.
Prof. Rome noted that the turnout for First Friday is increasing and that the spread is good.
Committee of the Whole Discussion:
TOPICS for Meetings with the Chancellor and Interim Provost
1) Space in Greenquist Hall is a problem. Office and Research spaces are maxed out. Depart-ments housed in Greenquist are not able to contribute much to growth in the student population. What can be done about this issue?
Chancellor Keating: There is a survey in right now.
Interim Provost Greenfield: Bill Streeter is doing a comprehensive space audit of current use. Lab space will be created in another building.
Chancellor Keating: The Union will be finished in January 09. There will be a huge exodus from Wyllie Hall. Art and Music will be moved to that space. There should be a softening of the space crunch.
Prof. Lyter: We have a space issue as well.
Chancellor Keating: We are planning the next addition. The Regents has a list of requests for 60 buildings in the system.
Prof. Wood: there was a space use analysis not that long ago. It is not going to work in Greenquist unless someone goes somewhere else.
I. P. Greenfield: We are using the surveys to find where there is maximum use, and where there is less. We will compare the figures.
Prof. Evans: Is there a policy on assigning the space that is available?
2) What's going on with the Provost search?
Chancellor Keating: We need permission to search—this is a system search, not a campus search. President Reilly says there should be more clarity on the situation after Thanksgiving. He will be on campus for the January convocation. The search is his, not ours. He is the Hiring Authority.
3) Many faculty have noticed the renewed emphasis on academic excellence by the administration. This is heartening, as it reflects a return to the university's core mission. What strategies are being put in place to enhance our external academic reputation, as well?
Chancellor Keating: This has always been emphasized. It was the theme for the visit to campus of the Board of Regents. The Regents saw what is going on here in the presentations made. We want to raise the visibility of the campus on the national plane. There is the example of First Year. We tell our story in a variety of places—professional conferences, talks to organizations in Kenosha and Racine, etc.
I. P. Greenfield: We have a new web page; alumni are featured on the front page. They talk about how their experiences here have led to their success. The Center for Community Partnerships is sending out forms for a survey on faculty expertise. This survey will be promoted externally. People will know us through our faculty and students. We want to have more honor societies on campus: Phi Eta Sigma for first-year students, Tom Schnaubelt is working on a Civic Honors Program. These push the sense of excellence.
Prof. Kavenik: We have introduced an adult student honor society.
Chancellor Keating: Tom Schnaubelt and Debra Karp has a million dollar grant to work with small non-profit and faith-based groups on better ways to do philanthropy.
Prof. Rome: We need more support for the Honors program already on campus. Gary Wood needs help.
Prof. Lenard: Faculty interested in revamping Honors need released time.
Prof. Wood: We need one to three people with the time and energy.
Prof. Gellott: The Admissions Office invites guidance counselors to campus every year. We could have a mini-version of what the Regents saw.
Chancellor Keating: We housed a group of 40 on campus. Some have been very good to us. some lethal.
I. P. Greenfield: We have faced budget cuts ever since the Chancellor came here. This year, we should have a little more money than before. The negative side of released time is that we take the best people out of the classroom. Summer support is a better way. People should try to connect to the First-Year program, although the money is limited. The issue is competing projects.
4) Has any thought been given to replacing "University of Opportunity" with a tag phrase that incorporates academic excellence?
Chancellor Keating: This tag was meant to indicate a whole range of opportunity, from a National Honor Society member to a person who just got in. This has not been the way the campus perceived it; it has been skewed to one end of opportunity. A change in name can have huge ramifications. Nothing has grabbed us yet. Send ideas if you have them.
Prof. Evans returned to the question of how scarce spaces are allotted, since Mr. Streeter had joined the meeting.
V. Chancellor Streeter: We don’t have a policy; we have a campus planner. A thorough space study of Greenquist will be done in 2008. We need to accommodate new faculty; we need lab space. Years ago, there were not as many students. However, the Residence Hall and CA planning will be done first.
Chancellor Keating: The Provost’s office will call the shots on space.
5) An argument can be made that the two best reasons for a school our size to have athletics are to develop school spirit and to enhance our regional visibility. UW-Parkside fails to use athletics for either, mostly because we continue to play against schools in Kentucky and Missouri rather than schools in our region. Is there any intention of ever kicking the butts of UW-Whitewater or UW-Green Bay?
Chancellor Keating: There is a false premise—that we would “kick their butts.” Green Bay is in Division 1; we are in Division 2. Division 2 can give partial scholarships; Division 3 can’t. We have been held up as a model (for Division 2) by the NCAA; we bring the community to campus. Programs bring school kids to campus. Now, we have cheerleaders to get the student population to come. At Homecoming, we filled the arena. Basketball is a marquee sport; we have great soccer. We’d be low on the rung in Division 3, and couldn’t give scholarships. Our athletes have a better GPA than the student body as a whole. In Division 2 we have a balance of academics and athletics—we are ahead of the NCAA models. Division 2 is the only one which does it right. We have the best run Division 2 league in the country.
6) What metrics are being used to evaluate Phase 2 of orientation? When will we know the results? (This question is addressed at the 10/23 Senate meeting.)
Prof. Rome: The Senate approved the continuation of Ranger Day for another 3 years.
I. P. Greenfield: A survey is being done with students and faculty who participated. It is in fact being assessed. The number of enthusiastic faculty members who participated in the Laramie Project is a direct result of the critique of the Read from the year before. There was a survey on the academic convocation; what the students noticed and remembered was the platform party. They did listen to some of the messages; they clearly heard it is important to get involved. They didn’t hear the academic suggestions as well; this is something to address.
Prof. Wood: There was a great deal of discussion a couple of years ago; this time the Senate voted a three-year continuance without any discussion. There does need to be clarity on what is achieved, however.
Prof. Allen: APC sent to the First-Year Committee that it needs to better define what that day does. We met with the students two weeks after the day; the students did get the message on the difference between the university and high school. With the extension of three years, there will be additional development of the program.
Prof. Kavenik: We have totally discarded the idea of the students coming the week before; they couldn’t do it.
I. P. Greenfield: The SSI will pilot test a bridge to orientation.
Prof. Kavenik: One-half of the students from the sample left half way through the day. Adult and non-traditional students didn’t come at all.
I. P. Greenfield: We don’t have data on who attended orientation.
7) I would like the rationale for the new computers forced on us. I have gone from a fine computer that was only one year old to a lesser model with fewer features. So far the computer folks have spent at least five hours trying to get this one functioning properly.
8) There are two questions that I felt were either raised or left unanswered in the Faculty Senate meeting. They are related questions.
a) First, from where does the perception come (which was mentioned by Jerry in the Senate meeting) that faculty are resistant to change and that that attitude was central to the ill feelings generated by the computing snafus? It seems to me that faculty are quite anxious to keep up with the technology in the areas related to their scholarly expertise and pedagogical needs. What many of us are resistant to is having folks with more technical skills than we might possess determine what our computing needs might be. I posit that those technical skills should be applied to supporting the academic aims of the institution, rather than dictating what sorts of hardware and software faculty should be using.
b) Second, a comment. Again it seems to me that lack of communication and miscommunication were central to the computer problems. I understand that all of this happened fast, during the summer, but I posit that we would all have been much better served by allowing more time, both for the technology people to assess individual needs and for communication with faculty, (sometime other than during the summer when many are absent) about the process. In a note to the above, I remember filling out a couple of surveys about my computing needs, but I see no evidence that my response to the survey in any way affected the decision about what hardware and software was installed in my office.
I would like to hear the provost and/or chancellor address these questions/comments.
9) I would like to add my $.02 to the technology issue--that topic definitely should be addressed in these meetings. The chancellor, specifically, needs to understand how unhappy many people are with the way that the changes (both with e-mail, hardware, and software) have been
handled. It's almost like certain people have been deliberately trying to create inconvenience and ill will.
For example, unlike many people, I WAS around this summer, so I took the trouble to back up my files on a jump drive (only to find out later that an operating system incompatibility made many of these saved files inaccessible). However, I assumed that the installers would make at least
a cursory effort to copy my files onto my new computer, because that is what has always happened in the past when my hardware has been upgraded. All of my files were in two folders. I even had a post-it note taped on my computer saying so. The installer did not copy ANY of my files, or even some of my programs, onto my new computer, so if I had not backed everything up, I would have lost almost 10 years worth of work in this change. Since then, I have had to make repeated phone calls to the help desk to retrieve programs and files from my old computer, so the tech support staff has had to waste a lot of time making up for mistakes that were made in the initial changeover back in August.
I also agree with the already submitted question on the lack of communication/miscommuni-cation. The memos and announcements have also been unclear. I printed out the memo on password synchronization, but the instructions make absolutely no sense on my actual office computer.
Prof. Rome: What has happened as a result of computing concern?
I. P. Greenfield: The rational for the replacement of computers was to upgrade the array of computers on campus in as brief a time as possible. There were machines unable to run current software. We have always had a computer replacement committee, which was involved in the basic discussion. Leasing was a deployment strategy, which came to the Chancellor’s Cabinet.
Ms. Eaton: I convened the committee; there was representation from across the campus. The goal of the committee was to consider the various proposals; the consensus of the committee was to go with leasing.
Dean Ebeid: There were three extensive meetings on this. We looked first at needs—which were extensive, and then how best to cover those leads. Leasing was the alternative which was cheaper over time to provide everyone on campus with a brand-new computer (over three years). The committee looked at the long-time benefit to the campus, which seemed to outweigh the inconvenience which would not doubt occur. Considerable discussion was held on that; we decided to move forward.
Chancellor Keating: The Chancellor’s Cabinet had long conversations. We were concerned with equity to the whole campus. Leasing was the cheaper way to provide for everyone. We can do the leasing without the budget.
Dean Ebeid: Leasing will free up the CTS people.
Prof. Goldsmith: Were there faculty on the committee?
Ms. Eaton: The faculty were represented by the Deans.
I. P. Greenfield: On question 8), I was not the person who said: “Faculty are resistant to change.” The faculty does not like CTS determining what hardware and software they are to be using, but that is CTS’s job, what they are supposed to be doing. The L.A. Dean of Illinois State wrote on the ethics of technology that computers on campuses are not the private property of individuals. We need to be careful with our e-mail; it is not private. All are public; these are publicly funded computers. “My computer” and “my office”—they really aren’t. CTS is doing what it is supposed to be doing.
Prof. Rome: New faculty ask for specific software; it is part of recruiting—we want them to be comfortable, at least for the first year. CTS says it can’t do that.
Ms. Eaton: Our system can’t support it.
Chancellor Keating: We can’t expect CTS to support it.
Prof. Goldsmith: If we have a new proposal for a program which requires new software, we have to get permission.
Mr. Goldesberry: The question is funding for softward.
Chancellor Keating: Department can provide the money to buy the software.
Prof. Evans: We had a hardware request; a new person who needed a computer with a certain hard drive. We were told no; that the person could only have a computer with one-half of what was needed. We finally got the person an external hard drive.
Mr. Goldesberry: We are trying to establish a standard on campus. We have 60 some images. We don’t try to dictate the kind of equipment; we are trying to reduce to overhead. There are limits to what a very small staff can do.
Prof. Evans: It is still not clear to me why we could not get a 160 hard drive.
Mr. Goldesberry: It would be one additional image which would have to be maintained. Each one of these images has to be supplied to Dell. Fifteen different models and fifteen rebuilt—this all takes “people time.” There is only one person doing the images. It takes time to maintain all this.
Prof. Wood: Other things are involved, which affect curriculum and instruction. There needs to be an awareness of what we want to be able to do and then how we proceed with that.
I. P. Greenfield: I have acknowledged in multiple settings that there have been communication issues. Faculty have not had the kind of information needed. The reactions have been frustrating to CTS. We are all understaffed; they are trying to do a good job. People need to have the information to realize how we have enhanced the flow of information. Something should have been done—perhaps by me—to explain to the campus as a whole why we were doing this and its benefits. Our system is a few years behind those at other UWs. The rise in e-mail use from 2005-7 has been overwhelming. From week to week in 2005-6, it was doubling. In 2007, sometimes it was three times as much; sometimes 50% more. This has placed an enormous load on the system. Thus, the student accounts were migrated. People need to delete sent mail. We are doing this in an environment of no money. There is a mountain we need to climb; when we get there, it will be easier to stand all of the hassles. It would be nice for the climate to shift. Group decisions are being made; other people will be brought in. The student e-mail migration was done with PSGA and the Dean of Students. There was a pledge to graduating students that they would have storage units. I have data; we all have limits.
10) A number of departments have raised issues of legality in the functioning of Equity and Diversity in certain stages of searches. There have also been issues of complaints against faculty members, and even departments, in which the exact nature of the complaints has not been made available to the person/department involved, and in which a timely resolution has not been forth-coming. Did the “Hiring Committee” make any progress on the first question, and is there something that can be done to give equal protection to faculty/departments in the second question?
The guidelines and other materials provided to search committees are very useful. My only concerns are with materials dealing with the Deliberations & Final Offer. These concerns don't particularly affect equity and diversity issues, but because these guidelines may be used by faculty and administrators relatively unfamiliar with our shared
governance system, I think they should be clarified to bring them in line with Regent-approved portions of UWPF 6 and with the Chapter 36 assignment of the primary role in personnel decisions to the faculty. The potential conflicts are with the opening sentence of UWPF 6.02, which, in turn, reflects long-standing UW policy: "Initial faculty appointments may be granted only upon the affirmative recommendation of departmental executive committees, their delegated representative, or the ad hoc committee under 6.08(4), and the Chancellor of UW-Parkside." It would be desirable to incorporate this in the guidelines to avoid potential conflicts.
The ad hoc committee under 6.08(4) is relevant only in tenure cases. Under UWPF 6.02(1)(b) and UWPF 3.05(2), the "delegated representative" must be delegated that responsibility by a specific annual vote of the executive committee. That should be made clear in the guidelines, and language referring to the Search Committee and its chair presenting material to the provost should be revised to include the possibility that
a department executive committee will not choose to delegate that portion of the search process to a committee. The mere creation of such a committee is clearly insufficient to serve as such delegation.
The use of unranked lists in such cases is a relatively recent and rather dubious importation from the procedures for limited appointments, where search committees really are purely advisory. The references to how candidates deemed unacceptable are to be dealt with, here and in the FAQ sheet distributed with the guidelines, are excessively vague and could be read as allowing the provost to appoint individuals who had not received an affirmative recommendation from the executive committee or its delegated representative, although such appointments are not allowed under UWPF 6.02.
If the provost should wish to appoint someone who has not received such an affirmative recommendation, they are certainly free to tell a department that they would be willing to make such an appointment and no other. As a past chairperson of our campus Affirmative Action Committee, I have been involved in cases where we successfully urged that sort of action when we felt that departments were turning down highly qualified minority candidates simply because they preferred another on departmental grounds. However, I would prefer that such actions be done in accordance with accepted procedures. The guidelines should therefore make it clear that as a matter of shared governance, both department and the provost must agree on a candidate.
Prof. Rome: The recommendations made for the Faculty Senate are on the J: drive, and people should also attend the Chancellor-Provost building chats.
Prof. Lenard stated that she would like to move to question 12) Safety.
Prof. Castor: I move to discuss Safety in front of Hiring. The motion was seconded.
Chancellor Keating: The Hiring Committee reported to me. Current searches need new instructions as much as they can be finalized. Everything begins and ends with the Provost. Bob Canary’s concerns are included with the Provost. The Executive Committee has the chance to tell the Provost what they think of the list of finalists, and the Provost can state what he thinks. The Office of Equity and Diversity is not involved with that process at the end.
Prof. Rome: Some of the same problems have resurfaced.
Chancellor Keating: Search and Screen committees have been instructed with the new principles. There is not a final draft yet.
Prof. Rome: Let’s move on to Safety Issues.
12) For faculty, staff, or students who feel threatened (i.e. inappropriate comments, stalking, etc.), what steps can/will be taken to assure the physical safety of such persons? What plans are being made for alerting the campus should a campus invasion or any such general threat to the safety of the members of the campus community occur?
Chancellor Keating: Since Virginia Tech, a lot has been happening on campuses. The Police Chief at Madison has sent out recommendations. We are much better off than many campuses in the size of our police force. We have carried out two table top exercises on the process to follow. No one can be 100% ready for an invasion. Virginia Tech notified the whole campus. There are the FERPA laws: no information on the student can go to parents. Stalking is a matter for the police department, which is more empowered to act today. Our police are trained by the police academy. There is a report to Chairs and the Provost on the appropriate action to be taken. Since 9/11, the emphasis has been on communication. We are looking at multiple uses of cell phones. The speaker system has been fixed; we can communicate to the whole campus.
Prof. Oswald: There is not a protocol in place for the immediate removal of a student from the classroom and for action after that. Prevention has been discussed, but this needs to be done on the institutional level.
Chancellor Keating: The Dean of Students is working on preparing a protocol.
Prof. Lenard: There needs to be a way to get the student out of the classroom.
Prof. DeVinny: System is revising UWS 14 and 17. These System policies inform our campus processes. Steve McLaughlin is working on this.
Chancellor Keating: He showed me various ways of dismissing someone with a protocol. There needs to be an overall campus conversation.
Prof. Lenard: The student code of conduct is being worked on. There needs to be teeth in it; behavior escalates.
Chancellor Keating: That is possible to do; there will be a campus conversation before the end of the semester, in the first week of December.
Prof. Allen: It would be appropriate for Mr. McLaughlin to have a report.
Chancellor Keating: There is more that can be done in the post Virginia Tech era.
The Committee of the Whole rose without report.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:05 P.M.
Secretary of the Faculty