The Faculty Senate Minutes
for March 21, 2006
PSF 16/05-06
CALL TO ORDER:
The Faculty Senate of the University of Wisconsin-Parkside met on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 in Molinaro Hall D 132. The meeting was called to order at 3:35 P.M. by Frances Kavenik, Chair.
Senators present were David Holmes, Rob Barber, David Wright, Lori Allen, Farida Khan, Walter Graffin, John Skalbeck, Kristi Schoepfer, Edward Schmitt, James Crowley, Leo Zaibert, Jeff Schmidt, Patrick Goldsmith, Martin Eigenberger, and Skelly Warren. Also present were University Committee members Doug DeVinny, Dennis Rome, Mary Lenard, Anne Statham, and Christine Evans, as well as Chancellor Keating and Provost Rebecca Martin. Guests included Prof. Emeritus Walter Feldt, Interim Secretary of the Faculty/ Consultant, Dean Donald Cress, Dean Jay Sounderpandian, Mary Louise Edwards of the First Year Council, Mary Power, Charlotte Short, Richard Cummings, Gary Wood, John Longeway, Wendy Leeds-Hurwitz, Christine Tutlewski, Greg Mayer, and Regent Mike Spector.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
The minutes of the meeting of February 14, 2006 were approved on a voice vote.
REPORT OF THE UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE CHAIR:
Prof. Doug DeVinny, Chair of the University Committee, reported that Faculty Representatives met with Regent Mike Spector March 3rd. Discussion was focused on the proposed UWS Ch. 7, draft # 8 in progress. Issues of due process, self-incrimination, and serious misconduct were discussed. Also discussed were salary compression and faculty compensation and effects of budget cuts on recruiting and retention. The Student Bill of Rights is dead on arrival, as is collective bargaining. The Taxpayer Protection Amendment (TPA), if approved in the legislature, will go to the voters. Unlike the Colorado version, this bill would control revenue and not expenditures. It would be extremely detrimental to the University System. Two documents are available: System President Kevin Reilly's letter to Rep. Wood and Sen. Grothman and Prof. Andrew Reschovsky's preliminary analysis of the Taxpayer Protection Amendment.
REPORT OF THE CHANCELLOR:
Chancellor Keating announced that the Board of Regents would hold a special meeting on Thursday to discuss the Taxpayer Protection Amendment, and would likely produce a resolution on the subject.
Chancellor Keating then introduced guest Mike Spector, Regent since June 2005 and expert on legal issues relative to education.
Regent Spector then addressed the Senate:
There were a few cases of faculty members convicted of serious criminal offenses who were still drawing salaries. The public needed a response.
We are looking at it as a unique, narrowly defined problem, which is not an assault on faculty or on tenure. These were real problems undermining the public's respect and support for the university system, with the potential of harming what we do. The problem had to be dealt with.
Regent Spector declared he was not here to defend Ch. 7, to argue right or wrong, but to listen to our opinions. After the comments of all the Faculty Senates have been gathered and after the sub-committee has met with the faculty representatives, the sub-committee will meet in mid-April, revise the document, and send it on to the full Board of Regents (the goal is May). The Regents will send the document to the Legislature as a proposed rule. The Legislature has 30 days to work on it, and then the Legislature decides whether to adopt it as a final rule.
Prof. Wood asked who gets to decide how "impaired" the "public trust" is, and whether "efficiency" is the appropriate word for determining how much it will take to get colleagues to want to set the process in motion.
Regent Spector replied that they have heard from the meeting with the faculty representatives that "efficiency" is not the right word for describing the lack of willingness to work with someone because of criminal behavior. He noted the example of the Madison professor accused of the sexual assault of a minor.
Prof. Lenard asked about the case of someone who teaches a book or a film that the public might find offensive.
Regent Spector replied that section 7.02 discriminates between conduct and beliefs. Academic freedom cannot be determined to be criminal conduct.
Prof. Mayer raised the issue of Wisconsin Statutes protection against discrimination against someone because of prior acts, unless there is a substantial relationship between the criminal act and the job. In this light, the proposed Ch. 7 seems illegal and hopelessly subjective.
Regent Spector noted that there is recognition that that statute must be followed, but that a narrower interpretation is needed. The crime must be a felony, but some of the crimes, involving sexual acts with children, are difficult to deal with. The Legislature has even introduced a bill to exempt the university from the arrest and conviction law.
Prof. Graffin noted that "seriously impairs" the public trust is very subjective.
Regent Spector commented that the lawyers have come up with examples, and that it is his own belief that this really will not happen much at all. Unfortunately, there was a "perfect storm" this year--three crimes at once (criminal stalking, Internet solicitation of a minor, and sexual assault on children).
Prof. DeVinny asked if the Provost should be assigned the responsibility for a lot of this. UWS Ch. 4 is assigns all responsibility to the Chancellor.
Regent Spector replied that if the Provost works with investigators, the Chancellor is in a position to make other judgments. The Chancellor is left with less personal knowledge and more due process over time. The Chancellor is affected by facts at the right time.
Prof. Wood asked if the Provost is being placed in the position of having to determine criminal conduct before someone is convicted.
Regent Spector replied that there has been a clarification in the conviction part--applies where there is suspension without pay. Ch. 7.06 (a) clarifies that someone must be charged by a district attorney, a U.S. attorney, or someone else authorized by the legal system to make charges. "Charged or convicted" was deliberately not used since behavior related to the university is in questions. Someone might never be charged or convicted due to a plea bargain; there would be a way around the determination of felonious behavior.
Prof. Mayer declared that if the district attorney agreed to a plea to a misdemeanor, then this is not felonious behavior. It would not be appropriate for the Provost to have to decide that something is a felony even if it has only been declared a misdemeanor. The three cases in question are all very clear cases; why is the rest of the subjective, vague material ("efficiency," "impairs public trust") needed?
Regent Spector noted that if the felonies were listed, then the Legislature might keep adding to the list and control of ways to deal with the problem would be lost.
Prof. Schoepfer asked about the time between a charge and the adjudication of the charge, and the suspension of pay.
Regent Spector replied that the situation described caused the greatest problem with the Legislature. Someone suspended without pay due to a charge might have a right to back pay if the charge were found to be without merit, but the standard may not be the same in the university context. The university is policing itself. The Provost or Chancellor would decide if back pay would be appropriate. This is the practice in K-12.
QUESTIONS:
There were no written questions submitted in advance and no oral questions were offered.
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
Prof. Ruffolo is quite ill and asked that the First Year Council report be postponed. Prof. Warren moved, seconded by Prof. Rome, that the report be tabled. The motion was approved on a voice vote.
NEW BUSINESS:
Revision to Late Add Policy--Academic Policies Committee
Resolved, that upon the recommendation of the Academic Policies Committee, the Faculty Senate approves the following policy on the late addition of courses:
Effective Fall 2006: On or after the 11th day of classes, a student cannot add a course without written permission of the instructor, the department chair, and the dean.
Prof. Longeway, Chair, Academic Policies presented the resolution.
Chair Kavenik stated that the motion is automatically on the floor.
Prof. Statham asked that the resolution be read.
The Chair read the resolution.
--Prof. Mayer asked whether the standard exceptions for courses which don't follow the semester pattern would be made.
--Ms. Power replied that APC had planned comparable deadlines for classes that do not run for the full semester.
--Prof. DeVinny asked if there would be a final cut-off time.
--Ms. Power stated that the signature process would be good until the end of the semester.
--Dean Cress noted that there have been unusual cases when a student added a class well after the semester was over.
--Prof. Longeway stated that if it was reasonable to do so, the policy would not rule out such a situation.
--Ms. Power noted that a student can be in class for a whole semester and not realize that he/she is not officially enrolled, particularly if instructors are not accessing class rosters on-line.
--Prof. Schoepfer asked whether the Registrar could deny a late add with all three signatures on it.
--The answer was "no."
--Prof. Wood asked whether this would open a back door around the late drop (i.e. a student would attend class, wait until the 15th week, see how he/she was doing, and then decide to late add).
--Prof. Longeway noted that it is impossible to set up a law so no one can take advantage of it, that we rely on the good judgment of those who sign the forms.
--Prof. Allen asked whether this was more of a problem for first year students.
--Ms. Power noted that it is a problem across the board. There were about 15 for the semester, which were all legitimate situations.
--Prof. Statham noted the complicated lives led by our students, and that we do not wish to hurt innocent people.
--Prof. Longeway replied that any system that cannot be taken advantage of is too harsh.
--Prof. Khan asked if departments could enact their own rules on the add/drop policy.
--Prof. Longeway noted that there in nothing in the rule that forces the instructor, Chair, or Dean to sign anything.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called the question.
THE RESOLUTION WAS APPROVED ON A VOICE VOTE.
Academic Skills 083 Completion Policy--Academic Policies Committee
Resolved, that upon the recommendation of the Academic Policies Committee, the Faculty Senate approves the following policy concerning Academic Skills 083:
Effective Fall 2006: Students who place into ACSK 083 are required to complete this course within their first 30 credits with a C or better. Those students who do not meet this requirement will not be allowed to enroll in other courses until this requirement is met. Students have a right to appeal decisions made under this rule to the Academic Actions Committee.
Ms. Tutlewski presented the resolution. Students are advised well to take the course when they place into it; nevertheless, there are still a number of students who do not take the course, although they really need it in order to succeed in college. The course's study skills prepare them for college course work.
--Prof. Graffin noted that a lot of students don't take 15 credits in a semester for the first two semesters and wondered why the resolution had been worded "required to complete this course within their first 30 credits."
--Ms. Power stated that the resolution could have gone either way, but that there was a need for a hard and fast number of credits.
--Prof. Graffin noted that a student could go for three semesters without taking the course.
--Ms. Tutlewski noted that we have a lot of part-time students.
Prof. Graffin moved to amend the resolution by changing "their first 30 credits" to "their first two semesters." The amendment was seconded by Prof. Lenard.
--Prof. Statham asked what the situation would be for a student taking only 6 credits.
--Ms. Tutlewski replied that the course would be one of the courses making up the 6 credits. She added that there is such a basic need for this course--they cannot succeed in anything else; they need it right away.
--Prof. Schoepfer asked if the number of sections of the course would have to be increased.
--Provost Martin replied that the administration has been waiting to see what the Senate would decide, but that planning has begun.
--Ms. Tutlewski noted that advising on the matter has been great; that most students have listened. There is still a number of students who have not enrolled.
--Dean Cress supported Prof. Graffin's point. The 083 courses addresses students reading at a 9th grade or lower level. They need the course before they have completed 30 credits. It would be less awkward to say "two semesters" vs. "30 hours."
--Ms. Short noted that the course has not been offered in the summer because it has not been a requirement, but that now the option of taking it in the summer should be considered.
--Prof. Graffin asked whether summer would count as one of the two semesters.
--Ms. Power answered that all other policies do not count summer as a semester and she advised that this policy should not do so as well.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called the question on the proposed amendment.
THE AMENDMENT TO THE RESOLUTION WAS APPROVED ON A VOICE VOTE.
The Chair noted that the amended version of the resolution was still on the floor.
--Prof. Wood asked how using ACT scores (vs. placement testing) would affect the policy.
--Ms. Tutlewski thought that this would still encompass students who needed the course before.
--Prof. Wood asked how the regulation would be enforced.
--Ms. Short replied that this is in process.
--Prof. Allen asked how many students are in question.
--Ms. Short replied that 6 sections were run last Fall. There were about 2 sections worth of students who placed into the course but did not take it, with each section including 25 students. Eight sections are planned for Fall 2006.
--Prof. Lenard asked what percentage of students place into 083.
--Ms. Short replied that it is about 21%.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called the question.
THE AMENDED RESOLUTION WAS APPROVED ON A VOICE VOTE.
Bachelors Program in Liberal Arts for Teachers--Implementation--Committee on Academic Planning
Resolved, that upon the recommendation of the Committee on Academic Planning, the Faculty Senate recommends that the Bachelors Program in Liberal Arts for Teachers be implemented, effective Fall 2006.
Prof. Barber, Chair of the sub-committee on Teacher Preparation, presented the resolution. He noted that the goal was to enhance teacher education with a new major which would give students more breadth in the various disciplines they are called up to teach [in elementary education]. The new program hits all the DPI requirements. There is a 17 credit requirement in upper-division courses and 3 new courses have been created along the SENCER (Science Education for New Civic Engagements and Responsibility) model. The sub-committee has met with 40-50 local educators, who have been most supportive of this model. Their feedback was incorporated into this plan, and led to better inclusion of classroom management (with young children).
--Prof. Khan inquired about the composition of the lower-level curriculum and stated that the upper-division requirements almost look like Environmental Studies.
--Prof. Barber answered that all the lower-level courses address education requirements. The upper-level courses are combinations of Science, Social Studies, and Literature, tied into the SENCER model. DPI wants to link science and the environment to civic engagement.
--Dean Cress stated that the committee looked at the work day of an elementary teacher and the variety of subjects which he/she must teach. The committee did not want a lot of "ors” [in the course requirements] because a cafeteria approach does not ensure exposure to content. Rather, there is a foundation of several courses [which all students take]. He also noted that there is a standard examination which all elementary teachers have to take, and that students must meet the Wisconsin Standards (4th, 8th and 10th grade).
Appendix 6 addresses outcomes. The curriculum is General Education supercharged, since it is the requirement for a B.A. Science literacy is a major concern, since many teachers have not felt comfortable with science and students come away with a negative attitude toward science because of this. We need to prepare teachers who are comfortable with science and math--who see them as a tool for dealing with contemporary problems and who are not intimidated by them. The committee could have picked any number of courses; it could have addressed the question of Science and aging. The proposal is not absolutely fixed for all time--with our resources and personnel, the environmental focus made sense.
The upper-division courses aim to integrate content knowledge, to pair Science and Social Science. The capstone course weds content with pedagogy, preparing students to be able to develop curricular modules and lesson plans.
The committee chose this wedding of content and pedagogy vs. approaching disciplines separately, as though they have nothing to do with each other. Liberal Arts for Teachers at other universities have a cafeteria approach to upper-division courses and the committee wanted to avoid that. This plan is distinct.
--Prof. Khan stated that the lower-division list appears to be an extensive General Education program and that she found it to be a very non-integrated approach--that there is not an integration, a meshing, of disciplines as found in Criminal Justice or other programs. The upper-division focuses on the environment.
--Prof. Barber stated that it also addresses multiculturalism.
--Prof. Khan stated that there could be 2 or 3 concentrations vs. 1 choice. The 100 level is not that easy for students with the emphasis on science and math.
--Prof. Wood noted that it resembles the General Education list--to make sure it meets all General Education requirements. The courses reflect what an elementary teacher has to do; he/she must pass exams in those areas. The integration is to be done at the upper-level. We have a model that will work, but it doesn't have to be that model. This was deliberate--to change a mind-set. This is a professional program. It was deliberately made more challenging; teachers are most uncomfortable teaching science.
--Prof. Barber stated that there are programs where completing biology and certification takes 180 credits.
--Prof. Statham stated that she shares some of the same concerns about the curriculum: why is Sociology not one of the Social Sciences?
--Prof. Barber explained that there was a choice between Psych 101 or SocAn101; people felt that Psychology was more important.
--Prof. Statham added that there is a need to analyze groups as well as individuals. How much conversation was there with departments? This seems to be such a rush. Another strand of diversity could come out of Ethnic Studies. There seem to be a lot of competencies to come up with as far as assessment.
--Provost Martin stated that we have been working on a new model for Teacher preparation for all of the four years she has been here. We have not been preparing elementary teachers well; they need to teach across the disciplines. At the System level, we talked them into doing this here on a fast track. We want to put this in place in Fall, and that can only happen if the Senate acts. DPI requires a program which clearly articulates its standards--we have done this in the focus on environmental studies. There is nothing to stop us from developing a parallel strand in the future.
--Prof. Leeds-Hurwitz, Chair of CAP stated that she was on the new program subcommittee through the middle of the Fall. We have been working on this for a while. We needed to do something different and to focus on math and science. A lot of Departments will have courses which Education students no longer take, such as Public Speaking. But the need to have a reasonable number of credits meant that a lot had to be cut out. The message from teachers has been to hurry up and give us something in this direction.
--Prof. Goldsmith stated that the program seems weak in the multi-cultural areas, especially in contrast to its mission statement, although the addition of Spanish classes is nice. There are large gaps in achievement between racial and ethnic groups.
--Prof. Lenard found that the upper-division program blows off Humanities.
--Prof. Khan asked whether this program will compete with existing programs, and whether the name "Liberal Arts" in the degree program should be something else given the emphasis on math and environmental studies.
--Prof. Statham noted that we need to do this right, that she shares Prof. Goldsmith's concerns about diversity. Some of these matters might be resolved in a better way.
--Prof. Evans responded that the campus wanted to see it done right. The subcommittee found that we could do a very good job working hard and quickly. The subcommittee wanted this to be the best program for elementary teachers in the region and the state. There was no lack of thought or concern about doing it right.
--Prof. Eigenberger stated that Teacher Education should not be the only department with a multi-cultural focus. There is no reason multi-cultural content cannot be infused in any department.
--Prof. Evans added that the environmental practice component definitely includes a multi-cultural component.
--Prof. Khan added that she would like to see more interdisciplinary courses in International Studies, and that a program in "liberal arts" studies in not appropriate given the definition of the program.
The Chair noted that the motion was on the floor and called the question.
THE RESOLUTION PASSED 15 FOR, 3 AGAINST, 0 ABSTENTIONS.
Reaction to Proposed UWS Ch 7--Procedures for Dismissal of Faculty Members in Certain Situations--University Committe
The Board of Regents is currently considering a draft of a Proposed Chapter UWS 7, Wisconsin Administrative Code, Procedures for Dismissal of Faculty in Special Cases.
Agenda Document 3.1
Resolved, that upon the recommendation of the University Committee, the Faculty Senate approves the attached statement concerning the proposed UWS 7 for forwarding to the Board of Regents.
Agenda Document 3.2
Be it further resolved, that the Faculty Senate respectfully suggests that the attached proposal be considered by the Board of Regents as a substitute for the current draft.
Agenda Document 3.3
An additional background document is also included.
Agenda Document 3.4
Prof. DeVinny stated that System has asked for a survey of the various Faculty Senates on the draft of UWS Ch 7. Greg Mayer has prepared a discussion on the document as it stands at this point. Prof. DeVinny expressed appreciation for Prof. Mayer's effort. He questioned why the Provost is defined as the "point person" in the suggested Ch 7, when normally the Chancellor would be in that place.
Prof. DeVinny moved, seconded by Prof. Allen, that the resolution be amended to read "Chancellor or Provost" where it now reads "Provost."
Prof. Mayer added that in UWS Ch 4 and UWPF Ch 6, discipline of faculty is vested in the hands of the Chancellor or his/her delegated authority. The cross-references of these with the proposed Ch 7 would be contradictory.
The Chancellor already has wide powers of delegation; this would be consistent with other provisions.
The set hour of adjournment having been reached, the Chair asked the Senate for a motion to continue the meeting for a 10 minute period. Prof. Rome so moved, seconded by Prof. Holmes. THE MOTION WAS APPROVED BY VOICE VOTE.
Prof. DeVinny noted that he would hate to see the proposed Ch 7 scrapped and attention then turned to UWS Ch 4.
THE AMENDMENT TO THE RESOLUTION WAS APPROVED BY VOICE VOTE.
Prof. Lenard asked Regent Spector if the Board of Regents believe that if we accept this, the Legislature's hearts will be softened toward the university.
Regent Spector replied that the Regents very seriously view this as a draft and welcome suggestions; however, rejecting everything would not help us with the Legislature.
Prof. Wood expressed worry that the Legislature could make this worse.
THE RESOLUTION (CONSISTING OF BOTH THE FACULTY SENATE RESOLUTION AND THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE DRAFT OF UWS CH 7--AGENDA ITEMS 3.2 AND 3.3) WAS APPROVED ON A VOICE VOTE.
The Senate expressed its appreciation for the work done by Prof. Mayer.
ADJOURNMENT:
The Chair, declaring that there was no other business, declared the meeting adjourned at 5:06 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Evelyn Zepp
Secretary of the Faculty
Agenda Document # 3.2
RESOLUTION CONCERNING PROPOSED UWS CHAPTER 7
Procedures for Dismissal in Special Cases
Whereas the faculty of the University of Wisconsin are responsible for advancing the University’s mission of teaching, research, and service; and
Whereas a faculty member engaging in serious criminal activity that poses a substantial risk to the safety of the University community or that seriously impairs the faculty member’s fitness or ability to fulfill his or her duties can be a serious impediment to the carrying out of the University’s mission; and
Whereas the presumption of innocence, the right not to be compelled to testify against oneself, and the right to due process prior to the forfeiture of life, liberty, or property are fundamental principles of American law; and
Whereas Wisconsin Statutes 111.321-2 and 111.335 bar employment discrimination on the basis of a person’s record of arrest or conviction unless the charges are substantially related to the circumstances of the particular job; and
Whereas the administrative officers and standing faculty committees of the University of Wisconsin are not competent by training or experience to investigate or adjudicate criminal charges;
And whereas the current draft of proposed UWS Chapter 7 is not entirely consistent with the above principles, laws, and facts; therefore
Be it resolved, that the Faculty Senate of the University of Wisconsin-Parkside:
Endorses the efforts of the Board of Regents to provide for prompt disciplinary action when a faculty member has been convicted of serious criminal activity that poses a substantial risk to the safety of the University community or that seriously impairs the faculty member’s fitness or ability to fulfill his or her duties;
Reaffirms its endorsement of the principles of academic freedom, and the protection of conduct, expressions, or beliefs, the rights to which are secured by the Constitution;
Endorses the presumption of innocence, the right not to be compelled to testify against oneself, and the right to due process prior to the forfeiture of life, liberty, or property;
Urges the Board of Regents to adopt rules that are fully consistent with the above mentioned academic and legal principles;
And especially urges that University disciplinary proceedings must follow, not anticipate, legal proceedings, because the University is in no position to conduct criminal investigations, or adjudicate the results thereof, in a manner that is consistent with fundamental principles of due process, fairness, and justice.
Agenda Document # 3.3
Proposed Changes to the Proposed Chapter UWS 7
Wisconsin Administrative Code
Procedures for Dismissal of Faculty in Special Cases
UWS 7.01 Declaration of policy. University faculty members are responsible for advancing the university's missions of teaching, research and public service. The fulfillment of these missions requires public trust in the integrity of the institution and in all members of the university community. The university's effectiveness and credibility are undermined by criminal activity that poses a substantial risk to the safety of others, that seriously impairs the public trust in the university or the university's ability to fulfill its missions, or seriously impairs the faculty member's fitness or ability to fulfill his or her duties. Situations involving such serious criminal misconduct by faculty members must be addressed and resolved promptly to ensure that public trust is maintained and that the university is able to advance its missions. The board of regents therefore adopts the procedures in this chapter for identifying and responding to those instances in which a faculty member has engaged in serious criminal misconduct.
UWS 7.02 Serious criminal misconduct. (1) In this chapter, "Serious Criminal Misconduct" means engaging in behavior that constitutes the commission being convicted of a felony which , and that:
(a) Clearly poses a substantial risk to the safety of members of the university community or others; or
(b) Seriously impairs the public trust in the university and the university's ability to fulfill its teaching, research or public service missions; or
(bc) Seriously impairs:1. Tthe faculty member's fitness or ability to fulfill the duties of his or her position; or
2. The efficiency of the colleagues and students with whom he or she works.
(2) Conduct, expressions, or beliefs which are constitutionally protected, or protected by the principles of academic freedom, shall not constitute Serious Criminal Misconduct.
(3) Except as otherwise expressly provided, a A faculty member who has engaged in behavior that constitutes Serious Criminal Misconduct shall be subject to the procedures set forth in ss. UWS 7.03-7.06.
UWS 7.03 Dismissal for cause. (1) Any faculty member having tenure may be dismissed only by the board and only for just cause and only after due notice and hearing. Any faculty member having a probationary appointment may be dismissed prior to the end of his or her term of appointment only by the board and only for just cause and only after due notice and hearing.
(2) Just cause for dismissal includes, but is not limited to, Serious Criminal Misconduct, as defined in s. UWS 7.02.
UWS 7.04 Reporting responsibility. Any faculty member who engages in Serious Criminal Misconduct shall immediately report that fact to the chancellor provost.
UWS 7.05 Expedited process. (1) Whenever the chancellor provost of an institution within the university of Wisconsin system receives a report under s. UWS 7.04 or other credible information that a faculty member has engaged in Serious Criminal Misconduct, or where the chancellor provost has determined to impose a suspension without pay pending the final decision as to dismissal under s. UWS 7.06, the chancellor provost shall:
(a) Within three working days of receipt of the report or information, inform the faculty member of its receipt and, after consultation with appropriate institutional governance representatives, appoint an investigator to investigate the report or information;
(b) Upon appointing an investigator, afford the faculty member three working days in which to request that the investigator be disqualified on grounds of lack of impartiality. In the event that the chancellor provost determines that a request for disqualification should be granted, the chancellor provost shall, within two working days of the determination, appoint a different investigator.
(2) The investigation shall be completed and a report filed with the chancellor provost not later than ten working days following the time allowed for the faculty member to request an investigator's disqualification, or the naming of a different investigator, whichever is later.
(3) Within three working days of receipt of the investigator's report, the chancellor provost shall consult with appropriate institutional governance representatives and decide whether to seek dismissal of the faculty member pursuant to this chapter, to seek dismissal of the faculty member pursuant to ch. UWS 4, to seek an alternative disciplinary sanction, or to discontinue the proceedings.
(a) If the chancellor provost decides to seek dismissal of the faculty member pursuant to this chapter, the chancellor provost shall file charges within two working days of reaching the decision.
(b) If the chancellor provost decides to seek dismissal of the faculty member pursuant to ch. UWS 4, the chancellor provost shall file charges and proceed in accordance with the provisions of that chapter and implementing institutional policies.
(c) If the chancellor provost decides to seek an alternative disciplinary sanction, the procedures under ch. UWS 6, and implementing institutional policies, shall be followed.
(4) If charges seeking dismissal are filed under par. (3)(a), the faculty member shall be afforded a hearing before the institutional standing committee charged with hearing dismissal cases and making recommendations under s. UWS 4.03. The hearing shall provide the procedural guarantees enumerated under s. UWS 4.05-4.06, except that the hearing must be concluded, and written findings and a recommendation to the chancellor must be prepared, within 15 working days of the filing of charges.
(5) Upon receipt of the findings and recommendation of the committee under par. (4), the chancellor shall, within three working days, prepare a written recommendation on the matter.
(a) If the chancellor's recommendation is for dismissal, the recommendation shall be transmitted to the board of regents for review.
(b) Disciplinary action other than dismissal may be taken by the chancellor, whose decision shall be final, unless the board at its option grants a review on the record at the request of the faculty member.
(6) Upon receipt of the chancellor's recommendation, the full board shall review the record before the institutional hearing committee, and may offer an opportunity for filing exceptions to the recommendation, or for oral argument. The full board shall issue its decision on the matter within 15 working days of receipt of the chancellor's recommendation.
(7) If a faculty member whose dismissal is sought under par. (3)(a) does not request a hearing, the board shall take appropriate action within 10 working days of receipt of the statement of charges and the recommendation of the chancellor.
(8) The burden of proof shall be a preponderance of the evidence on the administration or its representatives.
(9) (a) The time limits set forth in this section may be enlarged if the parties are unable to obtain, in a timely manner, relevant and material testimony, physical evidence or records, or where due process otherwise requires.
(b) Enlargements of time under this section may be granted by the chair of the faculty hearing body, subject to the approval of the provost .
UWS 7.06 Temporary suspension from duties. (1) The chancellor provost, after consultation with appropriate faculty governance representatives, may suspend a faculty member from duties without pay pending the final decision as to his or her dismissal where:
(a) The faculty member has been charged with a felony and the provost finds, in addition, that one or more of the elements of serious criminal misconduct listed in s. UWS 7.01(a)-(c) are present, and that there is a substantial likelihood that the faculty member has engaged in the conduct as alleged; or
(ab) The faculty member is unable to report for work due to incarceration, conditions of bail or similar cause; or
(bc) The faculty member has been convicted of serious criminal misconduct.
(2) Before imposing a suspension without pay, the chancellor provost shall evaluate the available information to determine whether the conditions specified in par. (1) are present. If the chancellor provost finds that the conditions in par. (1) are present, he or she shall immediately notify the faculty member, in writing, of the intent to impose a suspension without pay, and shall, within two working days, provide the faculty member with an opportunity to be heard with regard to the matter. The faculty member may be represented by counsel or another at this meeting.
(3) If, after affording the faculty member the opportunity to be heard, the chancellor provost determines to suspend without pay, the chancellor provost shall inform the faculty member of the suspension, in writing. The chancellor’s provost’s decision to suspend without pay under this section shall be final, except that:
(a) If the chancellor later determines that the faculty member should not be terminated, the chancellor may discontinue the proceedings, or may recommend a lesser penalty to the board, or may order the payment of back pay, as appropriate;
(b) If the board later determines that the faculty member should not be terminated, the board may order a lesser penalty and/or the payment of back pay.
(4) If, after affording the faculty member the opportunity to be heard, the chancellor provost determines that the conditions in par. (1) are not present or that a suspension without pay is otherwise not warranted, the provisions of s. UWS 4.09 shall apply.
UWS 7.07 Initial Applicability. The provisions of this chapter shall first be applicable to conduct occurring on or after the effective date.
© University of Wisconsin-Parkside • 900 Wood Road • PO Box 2000 Kenosha, WI 53141-2000
262-595-2345 • Questions or Comments? Contact UW-Parkside