Faculty Senate Minutes
for April 19, 2001

The Senate was called to order at 3:35 in D137 MOLN. Members present were Baylor, Buenker, Colston, Duetsch, Feldt, Gellott, P. Goldsmith, Hansen, Hayward, Kavenik (Chair), Lenard, Lyter, McNair, Monardi, Mullen, Ostheimer, Piele, Rucker, Ruffolo, Schmidt, Sunstrom, Walasek, Wallner, Wood, and Zaibert. Also present were D. Cress, J. Gill, W. Graffin, L. Mason, J. Mielke, D. Nice, and R. Singer.

The Senate Minutes for March 27, 2001, were approved as distributed.

OLD BUSINESS

POLICY REGARDING CREDIT FOR EXPERIENCE-BASED LEARNING

The Academic Policies Committee and the Committee on Academic Planning recommended the following:

Be it RESOLVED, that the policy regarding credit for experience-based learning is approved as described in Agenda
Document 2e, effective with the beginning of the Fall semester.

Professor Kavenik announced her intention to speak directly to this proposal and yielded the Chair to Professor Gellott for the duration of the discussion.

Professor Wood introduced the proposal, saying that CAP felt it would be appropriate for departments to grant course credit to students who were able to document their attainment of equivalent learning outcomes in other settings. Professor Ruffolo asked whether there would be any limit on the number of credits students might obtain in this way. Professor
Duetsch said that we limit the number of credits we grant for other non-sponsored learning to 30 (e.g., CLEP, AP, and military coursework) and credits earned in this way seem to fall in that category.

Professor Ruffolo asked what would be gained by having this program. Professor Kavenik said we need to be responsive to students who present credible evidence that they have achieved desired learning outcomes in other settings. Professor Mullen cautioned that many courses have established learning outcomes that involve critical thinking done in collaboration with other students; it may not be possible to demonstrate these outcomes in another setting. Professor Kavenik responded that such
a determination would rest with the department. Professor Lenard asked whether this proposal was expected to increase our appeal to non-traditional students and was told that it was.

PSGA President Rucker asked whether a student would be able to meet the Diversity Requirement in this manner. Professor Buenker, a member of the Ethnic Studies Steering Committee, said it was not likely that the Steering Committee would ever grant a request for a waiver on the basis of "life experience." Professor Duetsch, however, added that a department might be persuaded by credible evidence to grant credit for a course that does meet the requirement.

Dean Cress asked for clarification of the words "Documentation reflects familiarity with theories of the academic discipline...." Provost Ostheimer responded that this was meant to suggest that the department should expect the student to demonstrate familiarity with the theoretical framework and terminology of the discipline.

Professor Ruffolo asked how the student could be expected to prepare a convincing portfolio of evidence. Provost Ostheimer said the CEBL Advisor would provide initial counseling to students to determine whether there was a reasonable likelihood that adequate documentation could be assembled and that thereafter the student would need to meet departmental stipulations. Professor Wood added that the student should be able to obtain guidance from the department chair.

Dean Cress asked whether it would be possible to obtain Honors credit in this manner but Professor Wood did not give a definitive answer.

Professor Ruffolo asked how a department could be expected to make appropriate decisions on individual requests, prompting Professor Mullen to ask whether Professor Ruffolo was concerned about inconsistency or the quality of the credit granted. When Professor Ruffolo said she had both concerns, Dean Cress said that the evaluation of learning outcomes called for in this proposal was likely to involve a higher standard than we use when we accept transfer credit from other institutions with little
knowledge of what was actually expected in particular courses.

Professor Walasek MOVED TO AMEND Agenda Document 2e by adding the following sentence at the end of the third paragraph - "A maximum of 30 credits can be awarded." MOTION SECONDED by Professor Kavenik. MOTION TO
AMEND APPROVED on a voice vote.

PSGA President Rucker asked what grade would be attached to credits obtained in this manner and was told the credits would carry no grade.

MOTION APPROVED AS AMENDED on a voice vote.

NEW BUSINESS

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE DISCUSSION - RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE INSTRUCTIONAL AND RESEARCH ACADEMIC STAFF WORKING GROUP

There was unanimous consent that the body resolve into a Committee of the Whole for the purpose of helping to develop an appropriate institutional response to the recommendations of the Working Group. [Each of the Provosts has been asked to prepare a single institutional response by mid-May.] Professor Gellott Chaired the Committee of the Whole.

Professor Graffin, a member of the Working Group, began discussion by making a brief presentation in which he noted that the recommended creation of a new instructional professor titling series has generated a good deal of controversy. He then responded to questions. Dean Cress asked whether consideration had been given to making greater use of the existing Distinguished Lecturer title and was told that little had been said about this option.

Professor Feldt spoke against the titling recommendation, saying it would create confusion about the distinct roles of faculty members and instructional academic staff members. Professor Gellott agreed with this, observing that the lateral retitling that is called for could lead to a juxtaposition of professorial titles that would suggest many academic staff members outrank most faculty members. Moreover, she continued, instructional professors may come to be seen as more "valuable" because
they have more extensive teaching responsibilities and "indulge" in less research and creative activity. Professor McNair contended that adoption of this titling mechanism could eventually compromise the quality of instruction throughout the UW System by diminishing the strong complementarity of research and creative activity with instruction.

Professor Wood asked whether new salary minima were a part of the recommendations and was told that no specific proposal for salary adjustments had been developed. He next wondered what the cost of the Working Group recommendations was expected to be and received no answer.

Dean Cress expressed great concern about the confusion that would result from use of the proposed research professor titling series for academic staff members at Madison and Milwaukee, saying this would not be in the best interest of the UW System. Professor Graffin noted that such titling is used elsewhere in the Big 10 (aka 11), and Professor Ruffolo argued that confusing titling is less likely to hurt the image of a flagship institution. Professor McNair agreed with the Dean, again arguing that this sort of confusion in titling gives a dangerous cue to people who do not know the UW institutions well.

Professor Lenard, having previously served as a Lecturer, said that the instructional academic staff primarily needs/deserves better salaries - new titles are not an important issue. Professor Graffin agreed, adding that they also need a form or sabbatical that might be termed study leave. Dean Cress observed that study leaves, like faculty sabbaticals, could be justified on pedagogical grounds.

At this point, there was general agreement that the Committee of the Whole should rise and report. Without objection, Professor Gellott declared the consensus of the body to be in opposition to the creation of an instructional professorial titling series, but supportive of other measures to ameliorate the plight of instructional academic staff.

Professor Gellott thanked Professor Graffin for his presentation and Professor Kavenik resumed her role as Chair of the Faculty Senate.

POLICY REGARDING UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ELECTION TIMETABLE

The University Committee recommended the following:

Be it RESOLVED, that amendments to the University Committee Election Timetable are approved as described in Agenda Document 4.

Professor Duetsch explained that this proposal would bring the established policy in line with recent practice. MOTION APPROVED on a voice vote.

RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION

The University Committee recommended the following:

WHEREAS John M. Ostheimer has served the University of Wisconsin - Parkside as Provost/Vice Chancellor since 1995 and has provided leadership during times of budget stringency and administrative transition;

AND WHEREAS John's leadership and interaction with faculty and staff have always been highly principled, honest, and forthright;

AND WHEREAS John has worked tirelessly to develop new academic programs, especially those aimed at meeting the needs of non-traditional students;

AND WHEREAS John has been steadfast in his support of this institution through enthusiastic participation in athletic and
cultural events;

AND WHEREAS Nancy Ostheimer has also been a valued contributor to many campus programs, especially the Women's Studies Community Advisory Board and the Adventures in Life-Long Learning series;

BE IT RESOLVED, that the Faculty Senate of the University of Wisconsin - Parkside expresses appreciation for John and Nancy Ostheimer's unstinting efforts on behalf of this institution and proffers best wishes for many happy years of retirement.

When Professor Gellott finished reading the resolution to the body, it was APPROVED BY ACCLAMATION. To warm applause, Professor Gellott presented a very nicely framed copy of the resolution to Provost Ostheimer, who expressed his appreciation.

REPORT OF THE CHANCELLOR

There was no report of the Chancellor.

REPORT OF THE UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE CHAIR

Professor Gellott introduced Laura Mason and John Mielke of University Relations, who together described the development of the UW-Parkside Marketing Plan, a work in progress.

The Plan seeks to develop a marketing strategy that will help build the UW-P student base. The challenge lies in identifying desirable characteristics of our future - 2005 - student population and image that we can realistically hope to achieve, given our current institutional characteristics. The Plan will be based on market research that draws from ACT, Stamats, UW System, and internal documents. Elements of the Plan will be communicated throughout the institution as they are developed in the months ahead.

UW-P appears to have the most diverse student population in the UW System. This is primarily a reflection of the fact that 75 percent of our students are drawn from Kenosha and Racine counties. Although 75 percent of our students are now in the 18-25 age group, they have many non-traditional student characteristics in that they frequently have significant personal commitments other than education.

UW-P graduates are generally pleased with the quality of the programs we provide, and express appreciation for the small size of classes and the personal attention they got from faculty members. Because our incoming students do not seem to recognize these advantages, a greater number of testimonials will be used in our marketing. To guide our marketing effort, we need to be clearer about the geographic region we plan to serve and the program strengths we expect to maintain.

Professor Ruffolo said that (realistically) we may not be able to persuade more local students to choose us; we probably need to target NE Illinois and outlying Wisconsin residents. Dean Cress said our slogan - A University of Opportunity - is thought to refer to open admissions rather than to the sound preparation for lifelong success that our alumni attest to.

Professor Gellott thanked Ms. Mason and Mr. Mielke for their presentation.

Professor Gellott concluded by expressing appreciation for the opportunity to serve as Chair of the University Committee and as the UW System Faculty Representative for the past two years. She noted that, with a Ph.D. from UW-Madison and 19 years as a faculty member at UW-Parkside, she has a great deal (personally and professionally) invested in the UW System.
She deplored the meager growth in higher education appropriations in Wisconsin during the past 5 years in comparison to surrounding states. The number of State-funded UW positions has actually declined while the number of State-funded positions in corrections has grown by nearly 5000.

While the natural reaction to the evidence concerning fiscal priorities would be discouragement, Professor Gellott urged instead that faculty become better informed and more active by following developments in the State Legislature and interacting with elected representatives on behalf of the UW System in regard to all funding initiatives about which faculty should be concerned. She urged also that the faculty take seriously the mandate of Chapter 36 for shared governance, reminding them that the quid
pro quo for the authority they have been granted is active citizenship and involvement in campus committees.

The Senators recognized Professor Gellott's fine service during the past two years with warm applause.

As Professor Kavenik adjourned the meeting at 5:05, she too was applauded for two years of service as Chair of the Senate.