Faculty Senate Agenda
October 3, 2006
PSF 1/06-07

The Faculty Senate of the University of Wisconsin-Parkside will meet for its Early Fall session on Tuesday, October 3, 2006 at 3:30 PM in Molinaro Hall D137.

The University Committee has approved the following agenda:

Call to Order by Evelyn Zepp, 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 18, 2006

                                                                                                            Agenda Document # 1
                                                                                                                    PSF 22/2005-06

Report of the University Committee Chair – Doug DeVinny

Report of the Chancellor – John P. Keating (Unable to attend—Provost Martin will speak)

Questions – Written/Oral

The following written question was received: There is a new system initiative, "a growth agenda for Wisconsin"; what role and/or benefit will Parkside play or receive?

Annual Reports – 2005-06 - Faculty Committees

No reports were received.

Unfinished Business

Evaluations of Administrators—Summary

Agenda Document #2
(Distributed at meeting)

New Business

a) Revision to UWPF Chapter 4– University Committee

Resolved, that upon the recommendation of the University Committee, the Faculty Senate change UWPF Chapter 4 to provide terms for Academic Staff members of faculty committees (as is done for faculty members, students, and administrators):
(Change in capitals)

4.03 Term of Office for Faculty Committees
(1) The term of office shall be two years for faculty members AND ACADEMIC STAFF MEMBERS and one year for administrators and students, unless otherwise provided.
(2) Terms shall begin on August 16 and end on August 15 unless otherwise provided. This period shall be termed the "Committee Year."
(3) Terms are to be staggered so that for each committee the number of faculty members appointed or elected annually will be as nearly equal as possible.

b) Creation of the First-Year Experience Committee—University Committee

Resolved, that upon the recommendation of the University Committee, the Faculty
Senate approve the creation of the First-Year Experience governance Committee, as
described in Agenda Document # 3.

Agenda Document # 3

c) Proposed UWS Chapter 7: Joint Faculties Resolution—University Committee

Resolved, that upon the recommendation of the University Committee, the Faculty
Senate adopt the joint faculties resolution as described in Agenda Document # 4.

Agenda Document # 4

Adjournment

                                                                                                             Agenda Document #1

PSF 22/05-6
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-PARKSIDE
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE FACULTY SENATE
April 18, 2006

CALL TO ORDER:

The Faculty Senate of the University of Wisconsin-Parkside met on Tuesday, April 18, 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, Carmel Ruffolo, David Wright, Lori Allen, Stuart Hansen, John Skalbeck, Edward Schmitt, Gail Gonzalez, James Crowley, John Longeway, Anne Gurnack, Helen Rosenberg, 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, Provost Rebecca Martin and Academic Staff Committee Chair Bonnie Peterson. Guests included Dean Jay Sounderpandian, Mary Louise Edwards and Damien Evans of the First Year Council, Charlotte Short, Wendy Leeds-Hurwitz, Gerald Greenfield and Barbara Baruth from the Library.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

The corrected minutes of the meeting of March 21, 2006 were approved on a voice vote.

REPORT OF THE UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE CHAIR:

Prof. Doug DeVinny, Chair of the University Committee, reported that the System Compensation Advisory Committee will meet April 27th to discuss the 2007-09 budget. Megan Mullen is our Faculty Representative, replacing sue Norton. Information is requested of anyone involved in a failed search or in the loss of a colleague due to a more lucrative offer. Please send such information to Doug or Megan.

At the Provost's Cabinet meeting, the problem of spam on the governance list was raised. Strategies to improve efficiency and security were discussed.

REPORT OF THE CHANCELLOR:

Chancellor Keating announced that the Board of Regents held a meeting at Green Bay a week ago. Green Bay is looking to expand. The Regents will meet here a year from now. Four new Regents have been appointed by the Governor. There was discussion of our buildings--the right to name after a donor.

QUESTIONS:

There were no written questions submitted in advance and no oral questions were offered.

COMMITTEE REPORTS:

First Year Council: Prof. Ruffolo presented Agenda Document # 2, which was distributed at the meeting. A copy will be attached to these minutes. (See Attachment # 1 below). She discussed the mentoring program, for which there are now some figures. Students who participated felt the program was good, but that it would be better if more students participated (52 of 135 participated in the program). The retention rate from Fall to spring was good--85.3%. However, this is not the case for the retention of first year to second year students. The Council thus needs to look at what happens during the second semester (current data is for first semester only). Questionnaires were distributed to the students: academic expectations, Gen. Ed. requirements, declaration of majors. Most students interacted with faculty.
Prof. Leeds-Hurwitz carried out a qualitative assessment: a follow-up on 20-25 students. Highlights from the report include the need for better connections with the high schools--so entering students know what university life is about.
Damien Evans discussed the sub-committee looking at students who are successful in the move from second to third semester. There were 150 responses to the survey of students, of which 147 were usable. The lengthy report was sent out to governance.
--Prof. Statham asked about the nature of the surveys and the sample population.
--Prof. Hansen asked about training for the mentors.

NEW BUSINESS:

a) Barbara Baruth of the Library addressed the Senate on the problem of copyright issues. As the Campus Copyright officer she finds herself caught between duplicating, which is worried about lawsuits, and faculty who use course packets, in particular. Agenda documents included a copyright statement, which the faculty member can sign. The issue is not so much what is prohibited as what is allowed. An item is copyrighted as soon as it is created--the owner has the exclusive right to copy. The exception is "fair use," a concept which is still evolving in the courts. It may take up to 6 weeks to get clearance from the copyright clearance center. Electronic reserves allow only students registered in a course to have access.

b) CAP presented a proposal for a Certificate in Program Evaluation (agenda document 4). The motion was automatically on the floor. There was no discussion so the question was called. THE MOTION PASSED ON A VOICE VOTE, WITH NO "NAYS" AND NO ABSTENTIONS.

c) The University Committee presented proposed changes to UWPF Chapter 5 and Chapter 6 to eliminate conflicts between them (agenda document 5.2 contained the proposed changes—see Attachment # 2). The motion was automatically on the floor. There was no discussion so the question was called. THE MOTION PASSED ON A VOICE VOTE WITH NO "NAYS" AND NO ABSTENTIONS.
d) Motion from the U.C. for Senate approval of graduates: THE MOTION PASSED ON A VOICE VOTE WITH NO "NAYS" AND NO ABSTENTIONS.

e) Request from the U.C. for Senate approval to plan an appointed governance committee for the First Year (said plan to return to the Senate for approval): Prof. DeVinny explained that the new committee would act as a governance conduit between committees involved and the First Year Council, to ensure efficient functioning. The committee will be planned this summer and presented to the Senate at the first Fall meeting. The motion was automatically on the floor. There was no discussion so the question was called. THE MOTION PASSED ON A VOICE VOTE WITH NO "NAYS" AND NO ABSTENTIONS.

f) The Chair read the resolutions of appreciation for retirees Walter Feldt, Donald Kummings, and Dennis Stevenson. Each resolution was met with applause.
The Chancellor reminded the Senate of the meetings Thursday at noon and 3:30 to discuss the budget.

ADJOURNMENT:

The Chair, declaring that there was no other business, declared the meeting adjourned at 4:30 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

Evelyn Zepp
Secretary of the Faculty

Attachment # 1
FIRST YEAR PROGRAMS AT UW-PARKSIDE
FACULTY SENATE 4-18-06
ASSESSMENT OF FIRST YEAR SUCCESS- MENTORING PROGRAM
MID YEAR REPORT

Brief Overview of the Program:
In fall 2005 the mentoring program First Year Success (FYS) was initiated inviting 135 first year (FY) students to participate within the program. Students were placed in 15 member cohort and were assigned a Mentoring Unit for the fall and spring semester. Each Mentoring Unit consisted of four staff members from key university groups; faculty, student services, professional advisors and senior/junior students. Together the Mentoring Unit provides support and resources that will facilitate FY students’ successful transition from high school to university. The Mentors all volunteered to be part of the program. Handbooks that outlined the goals and activities of the program were developed for both mentors and students.
Goals of the FYS program:
* Campus connections: to provide possibilities that will strengthen the student’s connection to the UW-Parkside community
* To aid first year students to make the transition from high school to University,
* To inform students of the academic and social expectations of UW-Parkside,
* To encourage students to become engaged in their academic work in such a way that they use the first year as a foundation to the rest of their undergraduate career,
* To aid in the student’s decision making process that will lead them to declaring a major and assist students in clarifying their career goals,
* To encouraging students to take part in co-curricular activities,
* To increase the number of first year students that proceed into second year,

Finally the FYS program is designed to assist first year students in achieving academic and personal success at UW-Parkside.

Assessment of the Program:
Overall outcomes of the program:
1: Students will begin to develop a comprehensive perspective on higher education.
2: Students will experience a safe, supportive, and positive university learning environment.
3: Students will begin to develop knowledge of their abilities, skills, and life demands to facilitate achievement of their academic goals.
4: Students will understand range of UW-Parkside resources and services and make use of these to support learning and campus connectedness.
5: Students will progress to second year of university with good academic standing.
To measure the success level of outcomes one through four, a questionnaire was given to FYS students to complete. In addition, FYS students will be asked the same NSSE questions (that are pertinent to these outcomes) that our first year students were asked two years ago. To measure outcome number five, retention rates of the students who participated in FYS will be compared to FY students who did not participate in the program. FY retention rates from 2005-2006 will also be compared to those of 2004-2005. In addition, the overall GPA of the participating FYS students will to FY students not in the program and to the 2004-2005 student cohort. Finally, qualitative assessment of the FYS program was carried out by Dr. Wendy Leeds-Hurwitz and her Communication 209, Research Methods class (fall 2005). To date students have completed the questionnaire and we have mid-year (semester) data on GPA and retention of the 2005-2006 FYS students.

Mid year assessment (fall 2005):
**The FYS pilot invited approximately 135 students, of these 52 participated in the program, those who did not participate did so from the beginning of the semester.
**Overall:
A: A major problem that was faced by the program was a lack of participation of FY students in the FYS program. It needs to be noted that the FYS program was not a required activity and students attended on a volunteer basis.
B: FYS Students who did participate did value their experience, but also added that having more students attending would have strengthened the FYS program.

FYS mid-year assessment of GPA and Retention rate:
* Overall the semester GPA of students that participated in the FYS program was higher (statistically significant P=<0.07), when compared to FY students not enrolled in the program (the rest of the FY population). FYS students GPA was also and those that were invited to take part in the FYS program, but did not participate throughout the fall 2005 semester (statistically significant P=<0.025).
*GPA of participating FYS 2.41
*GPA of the rest of FY population. 2.19
*GPA of non-participating FYS 2.05
* When comparing the three groups (participating FYS, non participating FYS and the rest of the FY population), overall retention rate of the FYS participating students was higher. Although the increase was not as statistically significant as we would have hoped, it is still in the direction of an increase in retention.
*Retention rate of participating FYS 88.5%
* Retention rate of the rest of FY population. 85%
*Retention rate of non-participating FYS 82.2%
Overall retention rate for all UW-Parkside FY fall 2005 to spring 2006: 85.3%

FYS mid-year assessment via Questionnaire:
* All participating FYS students were asked to fill out a questionnaire, 29% responded. Overall observations from the students:
*Academic experience: 57% of instructors take class attendance; 93% of instructors handed out detailed syllabus; 86% of the students knew about the Gen. Ed requirements and approximately 57% of students had already declared a major.
*University experience: most students were able to meet and interact with faculty this fall, 86% “got to know” other students, 87% knew who to contact in cases of health and personal problems, 93% understood the course catalo0067 and 71% participated in extra-curricular activities.
*Specific to FYS: participating students strongly suggested more scheduled meeting between mentors and mentee, 86% believed that all FY students should participate in the FYS program and most appreciated the fact that the program allowed them to have a person they could contact in case of need.

FYS mid-year Qualitative assessment:
* A qualitative assessment of the FYS program was carried out by Dr. Wendy Leeds-Hurwitz and her Communication 209, Research Methods class (fall 2005). The following are the main recommendations from the Com. 209 students.
o UWP should make more connection to the high schools to ensure that FY students are better prepared.
o Need to better publicize pre-college programs offered at UW-Parkside.
o Need to inform students about financial aid. “If our students could work fewer hours, they would have more time to devote to courses”.
o Faculty and staff should clearly inform students in academic skills classes that they need to take classes for their benefit and to allow the to succeed
o Instructors should increase the student involvement and class participation-student engagement
o UWP should require a study hall for all students on academic probation
o Need to strongly encourage faculty to give more feed back to the students, especially by giving mid semester grades.
o Improve ways to involve FY students in co-curricular activities, possibly start this at the high school level.

** The future implementation of the FYS program is currently being discussed and is being developed by the current mentors (including student mentors) and a FYP subcommittee.

Attachment # 2
(Changes are in bold)

UWPF Chapter Five: Personnel Review Committee
5.01 Membership and Eligibility
5.02 Election and Terms
5.03 Chair
5.04 Functions
5.05 Procedures

KEEP 5.01, 5.02, 5.03, AND 5.04 AS THEY ARE.

5.05 Procedures

(1) The Committee shall adopt procedures and a timetable for handling matters brought forth for its consideration and shall forward these to the Faculty Senate for its information.

(2) General
Copies of written correspondence concerning the status of a personnel case shall be provided to the candidate, the chair of the appropriate departmental executive committee, and the dean of the school. In cases involving promotion and tenure, copies shall be provided to the chair of the Personnel Review Committee and, as appropriate, the chair of the ad hoc committee under UWPF 6.10 (4).

(3) Actions resulting in favorable recommendations or negative advice on probationary faculty or candidates for promotion to Full Professor shall follow the procedures presented in UWPF Chapter Six.

(4) Full Professor Subcommittee [unchanged]

UWPF Chapter Six: Faculty Personnel
6.01 Criteria for Personnel Decisions
6.02 Initial Appointments
6.03 Special Considerations Applying to Initial Probationary Appointments
6.04 Periodic Review and Salary Recommendations
6.05 Procedures for Considering Renewal of Appointments
6.06 Notice of Non-Renewal
6.07 Reconsideration of a Non-Renewal Decision
6.08 Appeal of a Non-Renewal Decision
6.09 Tenure
6.10 Post-Tenure Reviews
6.11 Special Considerations Governing Promotion to Full Professor
6.12 Leave of Absence
6.13 Layoff and Termination for Reasons of Financial Exigency
KEEP 6.01, 6.02, 6.03 and 6.04 AS THEY ARE.

6.05 Procedures for Considering Renewal of Appointments

(4) The recommendation of the department shall be transmitted to the dean of the appropriate school. The recommendation shall be accompanied by a statement of reasons, and a record of ayes, nays, and abstentions, but not the identity of the voters.
(a) Positive recommendations shall be accompanied by a statement setting forth the
evaluations in the areas of teaching, creative activity, service, and programmatic
considerations. [from 5]: If the recommendation for renewal is positive, the dean
shall notify the faculty member concerned within 20 days after final approval at
the unit level. The dean's notification of renewal letter shall specify the period of
the renewal (beginning and ending dates).
(b) [replacing 5] If, during the unit review, a positive recommendation is denied, the
procedures set forth in UWPF 6.08 shall be followed.

(5) new 5--taken from Ch 5.05 (3): Negative advice on Probationary Faculty not in their Final Year
If the Personnel Review Committee advises against a personnel recommendation which concerns a probationary faculty member who is not in the sixth year of credited probationary service, the Personnel Review Committee shall forward its advice to the dean of the appropriate school within seven days of taking the action. The Personnel Review Committee shall not grant reconsideration in such cases.

KEEP 6.06, 6.07, 6.08, 6.09, and 6.10 AS THEY ARE.

6.11 Special Procedures Governing Promotion to Full Professor

Add new (1) [from Criteria for Promotion to Professor PSF 10/03-4]

(1) --> (2)

(2) --> (3) [Make it conform as nearly as possible to 6.07 Reconsideration of a Non-renewal Decision]

(3) In cases of a negative recommendation for promotion to full professor, upon the written request of the faculty member concerned within 20 days of the receipt of the recommendation, the reasons shall be provided in writing to the faculty member by the chair of the departmental executive committee (as constituted for purposes of promotion to full professor), the chair of the Full Professor Subcommittee of the Personnel Review Committee, the dean of the school, the vice chancellor, or the chancellor, depending upon the level at which the recommendation was reached.

(3) --> (4) [Make it conform as nearly as possible to 6.07 ...]
(4) Every faculty member for whom a negative recommendation is made shall have the right of reconsideration upon the written request of the faculty member within 15 days/6.07 20 days of receipt of the statement of written reasons.
(a) The reconsideration review shall be held within 20 days of the written request of reconsideration. The faculty member concerned shall be given at least 10 days notice of the reconsideration.
(b)
(c) [Move from a] The reconsideration shall be conducted by the committee or officer responsible for the negative recommendation. The faculty member concerned shall be afforded an opportunity to respond to the written statement of reasons, and to present any relevant written or oral evidence or arguments.
(d) The faculty member concerned shall be notified in writing of the decision of the reviewing committee or officer within 10 days after the reconsideration is held, with a copy to all levels of review within UW-Parkside.

(4) --> (5)

(5) --> (6)

(6) --> (7)

KEEP 6.12 AND 6.13 AS THEY ARE

                                                                                                             Agenda Document #2

Attached are evaluations of Chancellor Keating, Provost Martin, and Dean Cress completed by faculty and academic staff in November of 2005. Provided are frequencies for responses to the main questions asked and summaries of the few comments that were made. The University Committee has met with all three administrators and discussed the results. As you can see, the response rate was low. The U.C. believes that with an increased response rate, these evaluative processes would carry more weight. (To be distributed at Senate meeting)

                                                                                                             Agenda Document #3

X.XX First-Year Experience Committee

(1) Membership
The Committee shall consist of:
(a) The two Co-Directors (faculty and staff), ex-officio, voting.
(b) First-Year Coordinator, ex-officio, voting.
(c) Six faculty, appointed by the University Committee.
Appointed members should broadly represent the divisional structure, but must have significant contact with first-year students.
(d) Three academic staff, appointed by the Academic Staff Committee.
Appointed members must have significant contact with first-year students, with consideration given to people with experience on OMSA, in the Advising Center, or with ESS.
(e) Two Students, selected by PSGA, with the recommendation that they come from Tutoring or be an active RA.

(2) Term of Office
Members of the Committee shall serve three-year terms. Staggered terms of two and three years would be appropriate for the first incarnation of the Committee.

(3) Chair
The Chair shall be elected from among the faculty members of the Committee.

(4) Purpose
The purpose of the Committee shall be to assist the Faculty and Staff, in cooperation with the Administration and appropriate governance committees, in organizing, reviewing, evaluating and improving the first-year experience of Parkside students.

(5) Functions
The Committee shall be charged with developing a comprehensive and consistent program for first-year students. The Committee shall guide, coordinate, implement and evaluate all facets (policies and programs) related to students’ First Year Experience at Parkside, including:
a) Orientation, particularly Phase 2 Orientation.
b) Mentoring programs, including Tutoring.
c) Actions to increase collaboration among all members of the Parkside community to improve the first-year experience.
d) Work with Learning Assistance to improve learning and performance of first-year students in developmental courses.
e) Work with the General Education Committee and the Departments to improve learning and performance of first-year students in their academic coursework.
f) Work with the Advising Center to improve learning and performance of first-year students in their academic coursework.
g) Establishment of programs for exceptional first-year students.
h) Recommendations for improving these programs on the basis of the Committee's ongoing assessment.
i) Seeking and administering institutional and non-institutional funds for the support of its activities.
j) Advice to the Administration and Faculty Senate on actions related to this charge.

(6) Procedures
In carrying out its responsibilities and functions, the Committee shall conduct studies and reviews, make recommendations, consult with other committees, and consult with and advise the Faculty and Administration.

                                                                                                           Agenda Document #4

Draft Resolution of the Several Faculties of the University of Wisconsin System

Whereas, s. 36.13 (3), Wisconsin Statutes, provides:

RULES. The board and its several faculties after consultation with appropriate students shall promulgate rules for tenure and probationary appointments, for the review of faculty performance and for the nonretention and dismissal of faculty members. Such rules shall be promulgated under ch. 227 [Wisconsin Statutes]; and,

Whereas, s. 36.13(5), Wisconsin Statutes, provides:

PROCEDURAL GUARANTEES. Any person having tenure may be dismissed only for just cause and only after due notice and hearing. Any person having a probationary appointment may be dismissed prior to the end of the person’s contract term only for just cause and only after due notice and hearing. The action and decision of the board in such matters shall be final, subject to judicial review under ch. 227 [Wisconsin Statutes]. The board and its several faculties shall develop procedures for the notice and hearing which shall be promulgated by rule under ch. 227[Wisconsin Statutes]; and,

Whereas, the board and the several faculties of the University of Wisconsin System affirm the importance and necessity of working together to develop rules relating to faculty dismissal; and

Whereas, the board and the several faculties of the University of Wisconsin System endorse the importance and necessity of rules that will deal effectively with those infrequent cases when faculty members are involved in serious criminal activity that substantially impairs the safety, operation, or integrity of the university; and,

Whereas, the board and the several faculties agree that prompt and expedited attention to such cases of serious criminal activity best serves the state, its citizens, the university, the faculty, and the faculty member concerned; and

Whereas, the board and the several faculties believe that in cases involving serious criminal activity the proposed UWS 7 is appropriate in, among other things, specifying just cause for dismissal, ensuring due process, and protecting academic freedom;

Therefore, be it resolved that the faculty of the University of Wisconsin-______ joins with the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System to endorse and approve the promulgation of rules in ch. UWS 7, Wisconsin Administrative Code, as proposed by the board at its June 9, 2006 meeting (a copy of the proposed board order follows), and including such non-material amendments as may result through the process under ch. 227, Wisconsin Statutes, (Administrative Procedure and Review).

[texts of UWS 7 and UWS 11]