Faculty Senate Meeting
Minutes from February 13, 2001

The Senate was called to order at 3:35 in D137 MOLN. Members present were Barber, Baylor, Buenker, Colston, Duetsch, Feldt, Gellott, Goldsmith, Gregory, Hansen, Kavenik (Chair), Keating, Lenard, Li, Lyter, Mayer, McNair, Monardi, Mullen, New, Ostheimer, Piele, Schmidt, Sunstrom, White, Wright, and Zaibert. Also present were D. Cress, E. Conrad, A. Crist, D.
Davidson, M. Power, and R. Singer.

The Senate Minutes for November 28, 2000, were approved as distributed.

REPORT OF THE UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE CHAIR

Professor Gellott reported that President Lyall recently told UW System Faculty Representatives that she has already met with Governor McCallum several times and has found him to be quite interested in visiting the campuses. At the same time, the President noted that the Governor is making a priority of balancing the budget and exercising fiscal restraint, policies which may have a negative impact on the University's budget requests.

Professor Gellott also said that the UW System task force that is examining the role of instructional academic staff is about to issue its report. She plans to ask Walter Graffin, a member of the task force, to present highlights of the report at the next Senate meeting.

Professor Gellott deferred to the Chancellor to make his report before she would introduce Provost Ostheimer to make a presentation.

REPORT OF THE CHANCELLOR

Chancellor Keating noted that the UW System pay plan request - which is not a part of the UW System budget request - is expected to go to the Legislature in April. The pay plan request will be for 4.2 percent in each year of the biennium. Pending approval of the request, the Board of Regents has again authorized the Chancellors to exercise discretion in distributing 10 percent of the pay plan (i.e., 0.42 percent, if the request is approved as submitted). The balance of the pay plan (3.78 percent) is to be distributed according to established guidelines - one-third (essentially) across-the-board and two-thirds on the basis of
merit. The Chancellor went on to emphasize the importance of advancing the interests of the institution by recognizing performance differentials through the merit process.

Chancellor Keating said that he will retain central control of the money over which he has been given discretionary authority. He plans to distribute that pool in a manner that rewards performance and also addresses documented salary inequities such as those associated with salary compression between ranks in a discipline. In regard to compression, he added that salaries are often not related to length of service in a linear manner for good reason - past performance. Finally, he noted that promotion increases are funded separately - not out of the pay plan - and asked Associate Vice Chancellor Singer to describe the process that is followed in distributing the pay plan.

Associate Vice Chancellor Singer said that, after the Chancellor's discretionary fund has been set aside, each academic department generates its own merit pool on the basis of its current payroll. In accord with Regent guidelines, one third of the pool is distributed as an equal percentage of salary to all faculty and academic staff members whose performance is deemed "satisfactory." In practice, this third is awarded to nearly everyone.

The remaining two-thirds of the pool is distributed on the basis of departmentally generated merit ratings. Executive committees may choose to prepare these ratings on either an annual or biennial basis. Given these ratings, the practice on this campus for many years has been to distribute half of the departmental merit pool by awarding the same amount of money to people with the same rating, and to distribute the other half by awarding the same percentage of salary to people with the same rating. This approach strikes a compromise between the respective interests of those at opposite ends of the salary distribution. None of this money would be awarded to someone whose rating was 1 on a 5-point scale and the average increase would go to someone whose rating was 3 on that scale.

In closing, the Associate Vice Chancellor said that, in his opinion, it would be difficult to appeal for a discretionary award from the
Chancellor for someone in a department that had rated everyone equally.

With the conclusion of the Chancellor's report, Professor Gellott resumed the floor to introduce Provost Ostheimer for the purpose of making a presentation concerning our need for new student development. The Provost said that UW-P needs to grow; we need to serve a larger proportion of the region's citizens. We continue to suffer from a problem of (too-small) scale in many departments.

With the exception of Kenosha County, there is no prospect for growth in the traditional student market in Wisconsin. In the foreseeable future, the other UW comprehensives can be expected to compete strongly for traditional-age Kenosha students. We can only expect to sustain growth by serving a higher proportion of non-traditional students in our area than we have in recent years. Greater success in this regard could ease our financial constraints since the UW System now allows institutions to
retain three-quarters of the tuition fee revenue from non-traditional students that is in excess of targets; only one quarter of the excess revenue from traditional-age students can be retained.

The Provost observed that we also face a great deal of competition for non-traditional students. Our program array is probably sufficient to meet that competition. Most often the competitors offer greater convenience. We need to consider what we can do to offer convenience and yet ensure that our desired learning outcomes are achieved. The Provost concluded by expressing the hope that discussion of the underlying issues would continue in the days and weeks ahead.

Professor Lenard asked whether our child care services could be considered sufficient to meet the needs of a larger number of non-traditional students. Chancellor Keating said that he has been trying to respond to the child care report that was prepared last year. He expects a follow-up report on this very soon from Vice Chancellor Streeter. It seems the present building is inadequate for an expanded program but financing for a building expansion would require user fees that may be prohibitive. Another study may be needed to resolve this dilemma and move forward.

NEW BUSINESS

POLICY REGARDING GRADES OF INCOMPLETE

The University Committee recommended the following:

Be it RESOLVED that the policy regarding Incompletes is approved as described in Agenda Document 3b, effective with the beginning of the Fall semester.
Professor Gellott introduced the resolution, explaining that instructors give 300-350 Incompletes each semester and a reporting form is needed to create a record of the work students have yet to complete. Without a record, a variety of difficulties have subsequently been encountered.

Dean Cress said he supported this proposal but wondered who would notify the student if the instructor initiated the Incomplete. Professor Gellott said the Registrar's office would handle notification. Chancellor Keating wondered whether the student could eventually get a grade other than F if the remaining work was never completed. He was told that instructors are always able to report a change of grade if they have a reason to do so. Professor Colston wondered why the reporting form requires the Chair's
signature and was told that the Chair is simply attesting to the adequacy of the record regarding the work due. Professor Mayer noted that the Chair is not being asked to approve the instructor's decision to give an Incomplete.

MOTION APPROVED on a voice vote.

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE: STUDENT ACADEMIC SUSPENSIONS

It was MOVED (Professor Gellott) and SECONDED (Professor Buenker) that the Senate resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole for the purpose of hearing a presentation by Professor Conrad, our Academic Actions Officer, regarding the causes and consequences of student academic suspensions. MOTION APPROVED on a voice vote. Professor Kavenik called upon Professor Gellott to Chair the Committee of the Whole.

Professor Conrad said that about 55 percent of the students who are suspended never register again. The number of suspensions (and the number of appeals for readmission) has been rising during the two years he has held this position. According to his records, about half of the students who are readmitted perform in a satisfactory manner thereafter. He has sought to prescribe conditions for readmission that make successful reentry more likely, but even earlier intervention seems to be called for.

Before it results in suspension, unsatisfactory academic performance causes students to be placed on probation and/or strict probation. The number of students currently on probation or strict probation is very large (in the hundreds) and Professor Conrad suggested that consideration be given to earlier forms of intervention that would reduce the likelihood of eventual suspension. Measures that could significantly improve student performance/retention may be much less costly than recruitment of new
students.

Professor Kavenik asked whether we still have prescriptive advising and was told we do not. Chancellor Keating said he appreciates the diligence of the Academic Actions Committee in guiding students appropriately and said that all students we admit deserve our best guidance and adequate support services. Compared to the other UW institutions, our retention rates appear to be poor.

Professor Lenard drew attention to the extensive list of campus resources Professor Conrad had provided and asked whether students were ignoring these resources. Professor Conrad said they may not be; he has just begun to send this list to students who are placed on probation or strict probation.

Professor Kavenik said that we admit many poorly prepared students and need to offer them assistance. A large proportion of these students have basic skills deficiencies. Professors Buenker and Gellott said we no longer insist that students complete their Collegiate Skills requirement in their first 45 credits because enforcement became impractical.

Professor Feldt asked whether our admissions policy has changed and was told that it has not. Chancellor Keating asked what the ACT scores have been for suspended students and was told that they vary a great deal; suspension seems to be more closely associated with behavioral problems than with preparation. Professor Conrad reiterated his belief that we need to do more to correct behavioral problems.

With the time of adjournment at hand, Professor Gellott said that the University Committee would bring concerns expressed during this discussion to the attention of appropriate standing committees.

The Committee of the Whole rose and the meeting adjourned at 5:05.