Governance





Faculty Senate Agenda
October 4, 2005
PSF 1/05-06

The University Committee has approved the following agenda:

The Faculty Senate of the University of Wisconsin-Parkside will meet for its Early Fall session on Tuesday, October 4, 2005 at 3:30 PM in Molinaro Hall D137.

The University Committee has approved the following agenda:

Call to Order by Walter Feldt, Interim Secretary of the Faculty.

Election of a Chair

Under UWPF 1.07(1)(a), the first order of business at the first Senate meeting of the Committee Year is the election of the Chair of the Senate. The Secretary of the Faculty presides during that election. The elected Chair takes office immediately.

Approval of Minutes

Minutes of the Meeting of April 20, 2004

Agenda Document # 1

(Planned 10-04 AM E-Delivery)

Report of the University Committee Chair – Doug DeVinny

Report of the Chancellor – John P. Keating

Questions – Written/Oral

The following written question was submitted – for Computer and Network Services

“I understand that a spam filter for incoming e-mail can be useful, but why is our outgoing mail also filtered and who decides which words are allowed to leave campus or to go from one faculty member to another?”

Annual Reports – 2004-05 - Faculty Committees

 The following report has been received and will be filed.

 Academic Policies Committee – Prof Laura Gellott, Chair

Agenda Document #2

Faculty Rights and Responsibilities Committee – Prof Greg Mayer, Chair

Agenda Document #3

 New Business

 Sabbatical Guidelines and Deadlines for 2006-07 Proposals – University Committee

 Late last spring, after a controversy developed over the procedures used for 2005-06 proposals, the University Committee, after consulting other faculty, developed a set of procedures that have been used to handle the early stages of the review of proposals for 2006-07 sabbaticals. The Senate is asked to approve the complete set presented, including the upcoming stages that will lead to proposals for sabbaticals being forwarded to UW System.

Agenda Document #4

Adjournment

   

Agenda Document #2

Annual Report of the Academic Policies Committee
University of Wisconsin-Parkside
2004-2005

The Academic Policies Committee met six times during the 2004-05 academic year:

October 20, 2004
November 10, 2004
February 4, 2005
February 18, 2005
March 10, 2005
March 25, 2005

Members of the committee during the 2004-05 year were:

Chair, Laura Gellott
Faculty members: David Beach, Stuart Hansen, Megan Mullen, Sue Norton.
Academic Staff: Bryan Lewis
Ex Officio: Richard Lott (replaced by Matt Jensen), Enrollment Management; Mary Power, Advising Center.
Student: Michael Duchac


I. APC brought the following items to the Faculty Senate in 2004-05:

1. UWS/WTCS transfer agreements. Senate meeting of November 20, 2004.

Transfer courses/credits from the Wisconsin Technical College System that transfer as part of a formal articulation agreement would count for transfer and credit even if the student did not enroll continue in the same program.

2. A revision of the Academic Calendar for 2005-06. Senate meeting of November 30, 2004.

Of several changes proposed, including attempting to avoid scheduling finals as late as December 23 in the fall semester, and attempting to lengthen the instruction period of Winterim, only the designation of Tuesday, Sept. 4 as a “Phase II” orientation day for all new freshmen was approved. This was a one-time approval at that, and will need to be re-approved by the Senate during the coming year.

3. A proposal that students who place into ACSK 083 or 085 much successfully (grade of C or better complete the appropriate course within the first 12 credits of enrollment at UW-Parkside. Senate meeting of April 19, 2005. Withdrawn on the floor of the Senate after a statement by Learning Assistance staff that it would be better to await the results of an ongoing review of LAC courses before acting on this.

II. The APC devoted much time to discussing the activity hour (MWF 12-1) where no classes are scheduled. There is concern at administrative levels about how this impacts efficient use of classroom space in prime time, and the resultant ratios reported to System. On the other hand, there is strong feeling that this time for club activities and meeting provides fills an important role on a commuter campus.

No decisions were reached. The outgoing committee recommends that, in further consideration of this issue, efforts at UW-Green Bay to create a time during the day for the fostering of a campus community atmosphere be studied. Information is available at www.uwgb.edu, under the link to "Campus Climate Committee."

III. Additional Unfinished Business:

1. The grade FN (failure for non-attendance) option needs to be more widely publicized. Additionally, Mary Power and others addressed some of the problems of ambiguity

surrounding the FN grade (at what point in the semester is a student considered to be non-attending, as opposed to earning an F, etc.). Mary Power also addressed the fact that the FN is an internal grade only; it shows up as an F on transcripts. In her experience, other schools report an FN grade as a legitimate grade; this is helpful to her in evaluating transfer students' transcripts. We may wish to consider making the FN grade an external, legitimate grade as well.

2. Continued monitoring of Winterim. Winterim was originally intended to be a venue for offering special courses (theater trips, etc.,) not a venue for teaching Gen Ed courses or other more traditional offerings. APC should look at Institutional Research/Bill Blanchard's survey of students and faculty evaluations on Winterim.

 

Agenda Document #3

Informational Report
Faculty Rights and Responsibilities Committee
2004-2005

The members of the Committee for academic year 2004-2005 were Profs. L. Allen, L. Gellott, D. Holmes, J. Longeway, G. Mayer (chair), S. Norton, J. Shailor, D. Walter, and E. Zepp. Profs. Gellott, Shailor, and Walter recused themselves for a hearing under UWS 4.04. Following UWS 4.06(1)(d) and the applicable portion of UWPF 7.01(5)(c), the University Committee appointed Profs. S. Christoph, D. Kaufman, and D. Rome as members for this case.

Between 22 September 2004 and 3 June 2005, the Committee held 11 meetings and a two-day hearing. During this time the Committee discussed an appeal of a non-renewal decision case carried over from the previous year, received a grievance, and a request for a hearing under UWS 4.04.

With respect to the appeal of a non-renewal decision from the previous year, the Committee found that no further action by the Committee was required. The tenure and promotion case associated with the non-renewal decision proceeded as prescribed by UWPF 6.08.

With respect to the grievance, the Committee declined to accept it for consideration.

With respect to the hearing requested under UWS 4.04 into disciplinary charges by the Chancellor potentially leading to dismissal, the Committee held a two-day hearing during which testimony was heard and documents were received. For this case, the Committee received assistance from Ms. Robin Van Harpen, Esq., Interim Director and Senior Legal Counsel in the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Office of Legal Affairs. Following three deliberative meetings, the Committee issued a report with recommendations to the parties.  

Agenda Document #4

 University of Wisconsin-Parkside Faculty Sabbatical Program 2006-07
Deadlines

(Specific dates will vary depending on year. The Committee in italics needs authorization.)

Departments should keep a 5-7 year plan regarding the likely sequencing of sabbatical proposals among their faculty . Among other things, this planning should help departments to avoid the submission of more than one application in a given year.

March : The Chancellor or Provost will send out a formal call for sabbatical proposals for the academic year 18 months hence (UW-System ACPS-3.3).

April : The University Committee shall appoint six faculty members to the Sabbatical Proposal Review Committee. Two members shall come from the Committee on Teaching and Learning, two from the Committee on Research and Creative Activity, and two from the pool of faculty who recently received sabbatical leaves. At least four of the six electoral divisions shall be represented.

May : The Sabbatical Proposal Review Committee will conduct a workshop for faculty who plan to submit proposals in the fall.

June-July : Faculty who plan to submit proposals in the fall must hold a discussion with the Grants and Contracts office.

September 12, 2005 : Faculty submit proposals to department chairs for review by the department executive committee.

September 26, 2005 : Department chairs recommend approval or disapproval and forward proposals to the Dean of the appropriate school. Materials submitted by chairs must include:

● The application materials submitted by each candidate.

● The departmental executive committee’s recommendations regarding the sabbatical proposals received by that department, including the executive committee's assessment of each proposal.

● A statement regarding the programmatic implications of each proposed leave, including:
---the effect on the pattern of course offerings within the program,
---options for colleague coverage, schedule modification, replacement of faculty, and the costs attendant upon each option

● If more than one proposal comes from any given department, a ranked list must accompany the proposals.

October 10, 2005 : The Deans shall forward completed proposals, departmental recommendations and their own recommendations for approval or disapproval to the Sabbatical Proposal Review Committee. In recommending approval, the dean must assure acceptable arrangements for coverage of the applicant’s faculty responsibilities during the sabbatical period.

October 24, 2005: The Sabbatical Proposal Review Committee shall apply the UW-Parkside Guidelines for the Evaluation of Sabbatical Proposals and provide the Provost with a ranked list of all proposals.

October 31, 2005 : The Provost will consider the advice of the Deans and of the Sabbatical Proposal Review Committee and make recommendations to the Chancellor, who will make final determinations regarding sabbatical awards, subject to approval by the Board of Regents. Sabbatical awards will be announced following the December meeting of the Board of Regents.
 

University of Wisconsin-Parkside Faculty Sabbatical Program 2006-07  
Guidelines for the Evaluation of Sabbatical Proposals

 PREAMBLE . Given the increase in the number of faculty applying for sabbaticals it can no longer be assumed that all applications will be approved. Under these new and more competitive conditions, it is absolutely necessary that the UW-Parkside sabbatical review process include (1) more careful, long-term planning; and (2) greater transparency in the process of evaluation and selection. This set of revised guidelines and deadlines is a response to these needs. They were developed by this year’s Sabbatical Proposal Review Committee in consultation with the Chair of the University Committee, the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, the Provost , and those members of the campus community who responded to a call for comments and suggestions.

 All previous guidelines regarding faculty eligibility, length of sabbatical leave, proposal criteria, and other conditions shall remain in effect

(see http://oldweb.uwp.edu/admin/academic.affairs/sabannouncement.cfm):

The Sabbatical Proposal Review Committee shall use the following criteria to evaluate and rank each proposal . Before the review of proposals, the committee will meet to discuss these criteria, and their process of deliberation. Copies of all proposals must be submitted to each committee member at least one week prior to deliberation. Each committee member should come to the deliberative meeting with preliminary rankings and comments for each proposal. The committee chair is responsible for establishing a process by which final rankings and comments are arrived at (by majority vote, consensus, or in some other way). The report to the Provost shall include both numerical rankings and narrative commentary.

(Note: The University Committee was skeptical about using a strict point system. An alternative method would be to use these same criteria with the understanding that criterion #1, overall quality, will be the most important and criteria #2 - #7 will be weighted essentially equally.)

1. Overall quality (25 points). How well-conceived is the proposal? Considerations should include clarity, thoroughness, and organization. Are the goals clearly stated and are they understandable by a general audience? Is this a substantial project meriting the release time requested? Is the methodology clear, precise and well-planned? Does the author make explicit connections to appropriate scholarship? Is there consistency between the project focus, goals, methodology and scholarship?

2. Relationship of the proposed activity to the plans and/or goals of the departments, the university, and the system (12.5 points). Does the proposal make explicit, relevant and demonstrable connections to the plans and goals of the department, the university, and the UW-System?

The UW-Parkside mission and goals may be found at http://www.uwp.edu/mission.cfm.

The Board of Regents for the University of Wisconsin-System has established the following priorities for sabbatical awards in the 2005-07 biennium. Preference shall be given to proposals that promote the scholarship of teaching and learning, that support the mission of the institution, and that reflect one or more of the following emphases:

3. Significance (12.5 points). How significant are the potential contributions of the project to the candidate’s discipline, in terms of (a) the development of teaching and student learning; (b) contributions to scholarship; (c) contributions to service? The proposal should make explicit, relevant, and demonstrable connections to area (a). (Note: This criterion does not rule out proposals that focus on issues other than teaching. Proposals that address research in the applicant's area of expertise are encouraged, however, a connection between the applicant's research interests and teaching responsibilities must be established.)

4. Potential of the project to enhance the applicant’s overall effectiveness as a teacher/scholar (12.5 points). How well do the proposed activities mesh with the applicant’s long-term professional plans and accomplishments? How well do the proposed activities mesh with the applicant’s ongoing contributions to teaching and student learning?

5. Feasibility (12.5 points). Does the applicant have the background and expertise necessary to carry out the proposed activity within the time lines indicated in the proposal? How do the final reports of any previous sabbatical leaves by the applicant match with the proposals for those sabbatical leaves?

6. Candidate’s contributions to teaching over the past 5 years (12.5 points). The Regent’s statement on sabbatical awards indicates that “preference shall be given to those making significant contributions to teaching…” The candidate’s proposal and the department’s letter of support must include an explicit and evidence-based statement on the quality of the candidate’s teaching over the past five years. To what degree has the candidate demonstrated excellence in teaching, and with what level of consistency?

7. Candidate's contributions in other areas (12.5 points). In addition to the candidate's record in the area of teaching, significant accomplishments and contributions in research and service should also be considered.

 

 

<estremità>