CALL TO ORDER:
The Faculty Senate of the University of Wisconsin-Parkside met on Tuesday, October 3, 2006 In Molinaro Hall D 139. The meeting was called to order at 3:35 P.M. by Prof. Evelyn Zepp, Secretary of the Faculty.
Senators present were Susan Funkenstein (Art), Carmel Ruffolo (Bio Sci), Lori Allen (Chemistry), Jonathan Shailor (Communication), Stuart Hansen (Computer Science), Kiesha Warren-Gordon (Criminal Justice), Farida Khan (Economics), Walter Graffin (English), Joy Wolf (Geography), John Skalbeck (Geosciences), Laura Gellott (History), Tom Fournelle (Mathematics), Gail Gonzalez (Modern Languages), Ami Bouterse (Music), John Longeway (Philosophy), Jeff Schmidt (Physics), Terri Chi (Psychology), Seif Da'Na (Sociology/Anthropology), and Skelly Warren (Theater Arts). The Senator and Alternate from Business were excused. HPEA, Political Science and Law, and Teacher Education were not represented. Also present were University Committee members Doug DeVinny, Christine Evans, Frances Kavenik, Mary Lenard, Dennis Rome, and Anne Statham. The Provost represented the Chancellor, who was excused. The PSGA President was not present; the Academic Staff Committee Chair was excused.. Guests Associate Provost Gerald Greenfield, Dean Donald Cress, and DeAnn Possehl.
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.
Frances Kavenik was nominated by Prof. DeVinny and the nomination was seconded. There being no other nominations, nominations were closed. Prof. Kavenik was elected unanimously, and immediately took office.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of April 18, 2006 (PSF 22/2005-6) were approved as distributed. The Interim Report of the First Year Programs was distributed at the meeting and was attached to the minutes.
REPORT OF THE UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE CHAIR:
Prof. Doug DeVinny, Chair of the University Committee, reported on the Friday meeting of the Faculty representatives. President Reilly's "growth agenda" will be a big part of the new budget request. Of 100 students in the 8th grade, approximately 30 graduate with a B.A. The "growth agenda" wants to know what happened to the other 70 students. It wants to produce more B.A.s and attract more college graduates to the state. Wisconsin has fallen behind in the number of college graduates in its population. The President wants to hold tuition increases at or below the rate of inflation. He hopes to encourage donors to legislators to inform them that the UW needs more money. The single variable affecting rates of graduation is the level of state funding. There is hope for a Resolution from the Senate that we agree with this agenda.
As for the proposed UWS Chapter 7, we are behind the rest of the System. The colleges and extension unanimously rejected much of the language. The worry is the creation of a real issue with the Legislature. The Board of Regents is drafting a resolution against the marriage amendment, which should come up at the next Senate meeting.
Compensation will be tried to GPR money rather than tuition.
The Legislative Audit Bureau is still looking at sick leave. The number of hours that can be banked toward retirement may be cut in half. The Bureau will report to the Board of Regents which will have a two day turnaround in which to reply.
The "growth agenda" would add three more technical school to those currently in reciprocal agreements with the UW, as part of the "growth agenda." The colleges are the most concerned, since they are in direct competition with the technical schools.
REPORT OF THE CHANCELLOR:
Provost Rebecca Martin reported for the Chancellor.
There are not yet final figures for enrollment. There was a small increase in the first year class and in transfers. The Enrollment Management Summit held in the Fall produced the "Passport to Parkside" program, which will follow a student from initial interest until enrollment, with regular communication. Some results of this were seen in Fall enrollment, with a bigger bump expected next year. We are facing stiffer competition in our regions (Oshkosh, River Falls etc. in our local high schools). We will continue to focus on this area. The enrollment of the whole student body remained about the same. We graduated two large senior classes. Graduate enrollments are up. We are also working on the Student Success Initiatives.
The Provost stated that she and the Chancellor wanted to thank the people who took the time to do the administrator evaluations. There was valuable feedback from them and she had a productive conversation with the University Committee. What came through loud and clear was the need for more communication. They will try different things to keep people up to speed. They are renewing their efforts to have meetings with the faculty in each of the buildings. The University Committee conveyed a list of topics which faculty submitted for these meetings. They will respond to those and any other issues faculty wish to bring up. There hopefully will be time for dialog. The Provost noted that during her first Fall semester here, five Falls ago now, she asked for an invitation to meet with each Department. She is renewing that effort this Fall. There is no real agenda; she wishes only to hear from faculty.
Speaking on the Chancellor's behalf, she spoke about the effort to embark on a comprehensive campaign of fundraising; the Chancellor will be away a lot. This will be stepped up as we move into campaign mode. The first big gift will be announced on Monday: Mr. Darshan Dhaliwal’s contribution toward the expansion of Communication Arts. There are a number of other exciting prospects.
The following written question was received: "There is a new system initiative, a 'growth agenda for Wisconsin'; what role and/or benefit will Parkside pay or receive?"
Provost Martin responded:
The growth agenda is related to our request for funding the Foundation for Success, whose goal is to retain more students, and to get more resources to do this. The Chancellor and I pitched this to President Reilly. We have the students he wants to see succeed--lower income, students of color, etc. He linked it together with proposals from other campuses, under the umbrella of the "growth initiative." The Foundation for Success will have $1.5 million in our base for a whole array of programs: advising, lecturers, faculty, etc. --wherever students are facing barriers. The goal is to improve retention and graduation rates. We did not want to see this put off--another generation being lost. So we got a $200,000 grant at the end of Spring, which was put into Student Success initiatives--better diagnostic testing tools, peer advisors, etc. Most of the money went into the curricular initiatives grants (to redesign courses), with a rolling set of deadlines. The last one is Oct. 15th. Fourteen proposals have been funded, from a wide variety of disciplines and with a wide variety of approaches. We will build from there.
Prof. DeVinny: Lots of other UWs are recruiting down here. Are we taking up any special initiatives to really attract these people?
Provost Martin: We are working to establish an environment where these students can be successful and to be known for that. There is no reason to believe other campuses would have any more success than we have in retaining these students. Many return here. We are working on proposals for new academic programs: especially destination majors--students come to Parkside for these particular programs. We are investing in Theater Arts--visibility and quality. We are looking at other opportunities with the programs we have now.
Prof. Graffin: How many proposals were you able to fund.
Provost Martin: We have funded 14 so far, from $2000 to $30,000. We hope to be able to do another 5-7.
1) Prof. DeVinny asked about the criminal background check that every campus will have to do.
Provost Martin: Every campus has a plan; the Board of Regents will vote on a policy in December. Checks must be done for all new employees. We are not including this information in our job ads; it could have a chilling effect on recruitment, although we have seen it in ads in the Chronicle. When we invite someone for an interview, we will send them a letter telling them a final offer is contingent on a background check.
Prof. Statham: If they have ever had a conviction...?
Provost Martin: Criminal background must be looked at in the context of the position. There must be a clear link between the conviction and the job. If that link cannot be made, it is illegal to consider the conviction. This is only for new hires, not for current employees.
2) Prof. Statham asked about the e-mail situation for governance mailing.
Provost Martin : The new governance list is ready to be used; there are no limits on size. For the J-drive, Mac users should call the help desk. Off campus access remains problematic.
ANNUAL REPORTS--2005-6 FACULTY COMMITTEES:
None were received.
Evaluations of administrators:
Prof. DeVinny gave a summary. People who have been here a while know that this was not a new process. It was dormant for a couple of years, then went to a two-year rotation. The evaluations were done in November 2005; participation did not yield the numbers that would have been more satisfying for us and the administrators. Anne Statham and Dennis Rome synthesized the reports: copies are available to be picked up at the meeting. We want to keep this as an on-going thing. The Provost found the review helpful to her and to a sense of academic community on campus. The next time the review comes around, hopefully people will be more active in it. There has been a group of faculty and academic staff established to set up the review process for other administrators this year.
Prof. Hansen: How many people could have responded?
Prof. DeVinny: There are 127 faculty and about 175 academic staff.
Prof. Statham: We decided it was more appropriate to summarize the comments, since they tended to be more negative and didn't fit the numbers.
Copies of the summaries were available at the meeting (Agenda Document # 2).
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.
The motion was approved unanimously.
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.
Prof. DeVinny: This was done as a collaboration; we asked for permission to plan a committee at the last Spring Senate meeting and worked on it over the summer. The committee is balanced, with a majority of faculty representatives, as mandated, and with academic staff and students.
Prof. Khan asked when the changeover would take place.
Prof. Allen stated she hoped it could be as timely as possible.
Prof. DeVinny noted that the appointment of people and the wait for responses will take some time. It will be on the agenda for the next U.C. meeting.
Prof. Gellott noted that the U.C. should perhaps talk with some Dept. Chairs who have younger faculty in their Departments. These faculty have been willing to serve on committees, but have not been elected.
Prof. Warren called the question.
The motion was approved unanimously.
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
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]
Prof. DeVinny gave a brief history of the genesis of the proposed Chapter 7: three Madison faculty members who were still on the payroll after being charged with very serious crimes upset the Legislature. They wanted to see the lengthy process of UWS Chapter 4 expedited. There have been nine drafts of the document drafted; concerns expressed last Spring were included in some of the changes. Most of the remaining concerns have to do with the language: “charged with,” vs. “pleading guilty or no contest or being convicted of” and with the “seriously impairs public trust.” Denial of compensation while being charged was also an issue. Actions taken by other campuses were reported as well. These resolutions have been pretty consistent: reaffirm the need for the document, but express concern over these issues. It was also noted that Chapter 11 for Academic Staff is virtually the same document.
After some other discussion the question was called on the motion on the floor.
The resolution was unanimously opposed.
After further discussion, Prof. Lenard moved to adopt the Green Bay Senate resolution:
The University of Wisconsin - Green Bay Faculty Senate, along with faculties at other UW
campuses, recognizes the need to terminate the employment of those convicted of certain serious
criminal offenses. However, we are concerned with the apparent absence of due process and
possible unconstitutionality of the proposed UWS 7, particularly subsections .02 and .06. We
welcome an alternative proposal which addresses our concerns.
The motion to amend the original motion to “endorse the Green Bay Senate resolution” was approved unanimously.
The amended motion was approved unanimously.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 P.M.
Submitted by Evelyn Zepp, Secretary of the Faculty