Minutes of the Faculty Senate
for November 27, 2001
PSF 7/01-02

The Senate was called to order at 3:33 in D137 MOLN by its Chair, Professor Feldt. Other Senators present were Baylor, Duetsch,
Eigenberger, Gellott, P. Goldsmith, Gregory, Haller, Hansen, James, Kinchen, Kummings, Lenard, Lyter, McNair, Mayer, Monardi, Mullen, Piele, Rucker, Ruffolo, Schmidt, Sunstrom, Walasek, White, Wright, Zaibert, and Zanowski. G. Li was excused. Also present were W. Adams, F. Akindes, S. Akindes, R. Barber, T. Castor, K. Connelly, D. Cress, A. Crist, M. Day, T. Fossum, E. Goodman, A. Gurnack, S. Meyer, M. Power, R. Rajan, W. Streeter, C. Tebben, M. Thompson, and G. Wood.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The Minutes of the Senate for October 2, 2001, were approved without objection.

REPORT OF THE UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE CHAIR

Professor James reported that faculty members have expressed a great deal of concern about the recently announced intention of Interim Associate Vice Chancellor Goodman to more closely scrutinize individual teaching loads. She said that the University Committee is anxious to ensure that appropriate standards are used to determine whether individual workloads are equitable, given that a 21-hour teaching load is expected. Although the matter is still under discussion, the Committee may appoint a special
committee to advise the administration on workload issues.

Turning to Chancellor Keating's initiative regarding the transformation of our teacher certification process, Professor James read the following prepared statement on behalf of the University Committee.

Citing regional needs for more school teachers and what he feels to be the university's inability to produce enough teachers
rapidly enough to meet these regional needs, the Chancellor has announced our institution's intent to "transform" our teacher
preparation program. To this end, a proposal was written on behalf of the university and funded by S.C. Johnson in the amount
of $338,000 to plan for "The Transformation of the Education of Educators" on our campus. The Chancellor has recently appointed a
campus committee to engage in this planning process. The institution is taking steps to fulfill its regional commitments in the area of teacher preparation. The Chancellor obviously has the prerogative to ask this "how can we/shall we transform teacher education" question and any other such questions he deems important to the institution. And he has the authority to appoint committees to respond to his queries. Still, the University Committee does have concerns relative to the specifics of this initiative and issues that are potentially larger than teacher certification here at UW-Parkside.

It concerns us greatly that an administrative thrust such as this to "transform" an academic program is unparalled and unprecedented in the history of our institution. The weight of administrative interest in bringing about this kind of change, change that has until now been the domain of faculty, is most uncomfortably felt. We are deeply concerned that, while the administration may see itself as seeking to "fix a problem," precedents may well be set that will bode ill for the values of faculty governance that are a
cherished and time-honored part of our institutional heritage. Specifically, if an administration can "transform" an established
and functioning academic program that it views as inadequate, the precedent is set for it to do so with any other program that it
deems insufficient. Today it is teacher education. Tomorrow it could be some other academic program. This prospect causes us
grave concern and ought to be of grave concern to the entire faculty.

We are not unaware of the political and personal issues that attend the institutional relationship with the teacher education
program and faculty. We are profoundly concerned for the potential of the negative dynamics of this history to push this
"transformation" initiative in directions that are ill-advised, possibly punitive, and ultimately unhealthy for the institution. Wrongly motivated change can be dangerous.

We urge the administration to proceed with caution and care in this initiative. We strongly urge the administration to act with
the highest integrity and to consider what will best serve the institution -- and region -- in the long term. While we understand that there is broad institutional interest in a strong, vital teacher preparation program, an interest that is shared across many departments and disciplines, we believe that the most effective strengthening of our teacher education program must necessarily involve the full participation of that faculty at every step of such a process. We call on the Chancellor to ensure such participation by fully including the teacher education faculty in this process. A program's faculty ought to at least have a hand in its own "transformation." We call on the appointed members of the "Transformation Committee" to work earnestly, honestly, and independently at its study, and to inform the University Committee of its work as that work progresses. We remind the committee and administration that one of the great and necessary strengths of our teacher education curriculum has been its preparation of teachers to work in the urban, multicultural settings that increasingly comprise our region. And while some have chaffed at the "inconvenience" of fulfilling some of the course requirements that have sought to achieve this competency, this must remain an essential focus, if we truly desire to serve a diverse region that is bound to become even more diverse. Finally, we remind the committee and administration that
governance must be respected and involved at every necessary step. Academics at this institution are the vested concern of faculty.
Any academic "transformation" must ultimately be a faculty matter.

When Professor James finished, Professor Mayer inquired whether the statement represented the considered opinion of the University Committee. Professor James assured him that it did, since there had been general discussion of the statement in the most recent University Committee meeting and the draft had been circulated to Committee members several days earlier, followed by a request for comments. Professor Mayer then said that he thought further discussion was called for.

REPORT OF THE CHANCELLOR

Chancellor Keating was not present and had not designated anyone to speak on his behalf.

QUESTIONS

Chancellor Keating was not present and had not sent a written response to either of the written questions directed to him on the agenda. (These questions will be carried over to the next meeting of the Senate.)

INFORMATIONAL ITEM

The Annual Report of the Awards and Ceremonies Committee was accepted and filed.

NEW BUSINESS

RESOLUTION REGARDING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING LEGISLATION

The University Committee recommended the following:

Whereas a recent poll of the 137 members of the UW-Parkside faculty found that 65 of 84 respondents feel that University of
Wisconsin faculty members should be granted the right to engage in collective bargaining if they wish to do so; and whereas the same poll found that just 24 of 67 respondents feel that Senate Bill 145 addresses the collective bargaining rights of UW faculty members in a satisfactory manner, be it RESOLVED that the UW-Parkside Faculty Senate opposes Senate Bill 145 and calls for
the introduction of enabling legislation that would preserve the tradition of shared governance in the UW System.

The MOTION was APPROVED on a voice vote, without dissent.

RESOLUTION REGARDING HEALTH INSURANCE

Pursuant to UWPF 1.07(7), ten members of the faculty petitioned for approval of the following:

Whereas the UW-Parkside Faculty Senate is presently the principal institution for the faculty to voice its views on important issues
and concerns of the faculty; and whereas the recent choices for faculty health insurance are clearly inadequate for the
Southeastern Wisconsin region; and whereas the current health insurance choices offered will disrupt the health care plans of
about half of the UW-Parkside faculty and staff; and whereas these choices will result in either significantly worse health-care
options or will take a significant amount of additional out-of-pocket salary dollars; be it RESOLVED that the UW-Parkside
Faculty Senate expresses its outrage and deplores the very limited set of health insurance choices; and be it further RESOLVED that the UW-Parkside Faculty Senate strongly urges the University of Wisconsin System Administration, the Department of Employee Trust Funds, and other governmental officials to correct this egregious situation.

After a brief introductory statement by Professor Meyer, the MOTION was APPROVED on a voice vote, without dissent.

REQUEST FOR DEPARTMENTAL NAME CHANGE

The Committee on Academic Planning recommended the following:

Be it RESOLVED that the request to change the name of the Department of Dramatic Arts to the Department of Theatre Arts is
approved, as described in agenda document 3.

Professor Wood introduced the resolution, confirming that the Committee had found the request to be well justified. The MOTION was APPROVED on a voice vote, without dissent.

REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO IMPLEMENT A NEW ACADEMIC PROGRAM

The Graduate Studies Committee and the Committee on Academic Planning recommended the following:

Be it RESOLVED that the request for authorization to implement a Master of Public Administration degree is approved, as described in agenda document 4.

Professor Thompson introduced the proposal on behalf of the Graduate Studies Committee, saying that the administrative structure of the program and the proposed budget had concerned his Committee. The Committee was eventually persuaded that the proposed administrative structure was adequate but deferred to the Committee on Academic Planning in matters pertaining to the budget.

Professor Wood spoke for the Committee on Academic Planning, saying that implementation of the program would certainly require some budget reallocation within the College of Arts and Sciences. Moreover, a new faculty/staff position will be needed and at this point it is unclear how that new position is to be funded. Professor Gurnack said that the program might employ an academic staff member (rather than a faculty member) as a coordinator. Professor Wood pointed out that appointment of an academic staff member would allow greater flexibility if enrollment in the program does not meet expectations. He added that new UW System funding arrangements appear to allow the campus to keep all tuition revenue derived from non-traditional graduate students - the bulk of
expected enrollment in this program - and this may allow the program to be self-supporting.

Professor Gurnack forecast a total steady-state enrollment of about 35 students. Professor Ruffolo asked whether a first-year enrollment of 20 was realistic, and was told that the estimate was based on a recent market survey.

Professor Mayer asked whether the program would draw resources from the Political Science program. Professor Gurnack said that the Political Science department would contribute staff time but would not be able to bear the cost of the program. She indicated that the Sociology department is expected to contribute a substantial amount of staff time as well. Professor Wood added that any position request would have to be evaluated on its own merits.

Mary Power (Director of Advising) asked who will make admissions decisions for the program and Professor Gurnack said this had not yet been determined.

Interim Associate Vice Chancellor Goodman said the proposal still needs an administrative commitment of resources before approval can be requested from the Board of Regents. Professor James asked him if this meant the proposal will not be sent to the Board until sometime during the Spring semester and was told it probably will not.

Professor Ruffolo asked how we could fund this proposal in the present budgetary climate. Professor Gurnack responded, saying that the program could be started (but not be continued) without any hiring.

Professor Gellott asked what it would take to show an administrative commitment to the program and was told that a clear statement of assurance from the administration would be sufficient. She asked whether the proposal could be sent to the Board without approval of a new position by the Committee on Academic Planning and was told that it could. Professor James noted that approval of a position might not be obtained this Spring.

Professor Gurnack introduced three graduates of our previous MPA program who were attending the Senate meeting to indicate their support for this proposal. Bill Adams, Director of Human Services for Racine County, said that he was speaking for the County Executive, Jean Jacobson, and the Racine County Board in expressing support for the proposal. It is expected that in the next five years there will be turnover in 40 percent of the administrative positions in Racine County government, generating a substantial demand for people with MPA credentials. Kerry Connelly, Administrator of the Second Judicial District of the Wisconsin Supreme
Court, said that an increasing number of people working in the field need MPA coursework. He called for approval of the proposal, and was joined in this regard by Mary Day, Director of UW-P Pre-College Programs.

There being no further discussion, the MOTION was APPROVED on a voice vote, without dissent.

ADDENDUM

Just before adjournment, Professor Gellott expressed her concern that Chancellor Keating had neither attended the meeting nor prepared a written response to the two written questions directed to him five weeks earlier. She said the Senate deserves a greater measure of respect.

Finally, Professor Meyer sought assurance that the statement that had been read by Professor James would be included in the minutes of the meeting and was told that it would.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:40.