Faculty Senate Minutes
for March 20, 2007
PSF 29 06/7

CALL TO ORDER:

The Faculty Senate of the University of Wisconsin-Parkside met on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 In Molinaro Hall D 132. The meeting was called to order at 3:40 P.M. by Prof. Frances Kavenik, Chair.

Senators present were Susan Funkenstein (Art), Carmel Ruffolo (Bio Sci), Tsun-Mei Chang (Chemistry), Jonathan Shailor (Communication), Stuart Hansen (Comp Sci), Susan Takata (CRMJ), Zhaohui (George) Li (GEOS), William Miller (HPEA), Laura Gellott (History), Gail Gonzalez (Modern Languages), Amy Bourterse (Music), John Longeway (Philosophy), Seif Da'Na (Sociology/Anthropology), and Skelly Warren (Theater Arts). Business, Economics, English (excused), Geography, Mathematics, Physics, Political Science, Psychology, and Teacher Education were not represented. Also present were University Committee members Christine Evans, Frances Kavenik, Gregory Mayer, Dennis Rome and Anne Statham. Mary Lenard was excused. The Chancellor was present, as were the Interim Provost and Interim Associate Provost. Bonnie Peterson (Academic Staff Committee Chair) was present. The PSGA President was absent. Evelyn Zepp was present as Secretary of the Faculty. Guests were Bill Blanchard, Pat Goldsmith, and Rhonda Holland-Kimmel.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of February 13, 2007 (PSF # 21/2006-7) were
approved as submitted.

REPORT OF THE UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE CHAIR:

Prof. Rome reported that several faculty members had approached him about why the Regents were not visiting with Parkside faculty. He noted that he had been informed that the Regents were having their regular meeting and that the purpose of their visit was not to visit with Parkside community members. On the sick leave issue, there are now two separate forms: balance and usage. We will have feedback on the notion of colleague coverage by Oct. 31st. We should all contact our Senate representatives on the issue of domestic partners. The Secretary of the Faculty sent out the talking points. More than one hundred companies have such a policy and the schools in Milwaukee have it.

REPORT OF THE CHANCELLOR:

The Chancellor reported that the Board of Regents control their agenda and we don’t normally meet with them. Their meeting on campus was a huge success—they noted what a friendly campus we were. The students were fantastic; their research presentations prompted the Regents to note that we should “give them tenure now.” They have heard enough about our problems—they have grasped them. Our theme of academic excellence was terrifically organized—we are still getting e-mails about it from the Regents. The Regents met with students for an hour to an hour and one-half, at breakfast. The Faculty presentations were shut out because of the time factor. The display on campus was terrific. For most of the Regents, this is the only time they will see our campus in action. This is important—they make the decisions on the budget.
The Building Commission met yesterday and approved the CA addition and the addition of a dormitory. The subcommittee pulled the Parkside and Superior proposals—
the only two campuses with private money, but the full committee supported them. We should send thanks to our local representatives. The next step will be the Joint Finance
Committee, the House and Senate.
Sick leave and Criminal Background Checks are all in process.
There will be no new money next year—all the money will come in the second year of the biennium. We will not know the budget until July

QUESTIONS:

No written questions were submitted and there were no oral questions.

ANNUAL REPORTS--2005-6 FACULTY COMMITTEES:

No further reports were submitted.

COMMITTEE REPORT-Equity Scorecard second report on “Retention”
Prof. Goldsmith gave a power point presentation on the data on race and ethnicity related to retention and what changes would be needed for success.
The framework is ACCESS, RETENTION, EXCELLENCE, AND INSTITUTIONAL RECEPTIVITY. Last semester the group reported on ACCESS. Diversity at Parkside is representative of our feeder high schools, but not of the community.
For retention, he presented several charts:
1) the diversity of entering freshman compared to their graduation rate in 6 years. We lose diversity in our graduates.
2) Second and fourth year retention rates of groups—there is more disparity by racial group in the fourth year.
3) Sixth year graduation rate by race and ethnicity—none of the percentages are good, but are not atypical of our kind of institution (low income, commuter, part-time, non-traditional, first generation).
4) Sixth year graduation rate by race/ethnicity and gender—females do better in every group.
5) Factors predicting retention and graduation: percentages missing first-term GPA, mean first-term GPA, mean first-term college credits, mean first-term remedial credits, mean high school percentile, class rank.
--Retention and graduation rates for American Indians/Alaskan Natives and African Americans are considerably lower than those of all other students. Latinos and Southeast Asians have difficulty graduating despite high retention rates.
6) Suspension and Probation
7) Causes—academic preparation? Faculty expectations? Lack of institutional support/orientation? Larger social/economic conditions? Other factors?
8) Questions and actions to pursue (institutional conditional/interventions)—
--what conditions affect students who leave in first semester of first term
--how to more effectively support part-time students
--how to more effectively support students with low grade point averages in their first semester
--Latino students have relatively high retention rates but low graduation rates—why
--Black/African American students are lost at a higher rate than their peers—why
--American Indian/Alaska Natives—there are not many and not many graduate

--Southeast Asian males have a relatively high retention rate and a relatively low graduation rate—why
--identify and develop potential areas of collaboration with feeder high schools to improve academic preparation for college
9) Students say they need—
Reinforce new-student orientation commitment and emphasis on academics and social expectations of students
Improve access to resources
Look at ways to teach with diverse populations
The next steps will involve Plan 2008, the ES team—data on excellence and institutional receptivity.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS:

There was no old business.

NEW BUSINESS:

a) May Commencement—Chancellor Keating
Discussion: Change May commencement from Sunday to Saturday.
Rationale—Sunday commencement falls on Mother’s Day.
Prof. Ruffolo moved and Prof. Warren seconded:
Resolved, that May commencement be moved from Sunday to Saturday in 2008 and
subsequently.
The motion was APPROVED on a voice vote, with no nays and no abstentions.

b) Faculty members-- request to discuss “governance” e-mail.
Discussion:
Prof. Shailor asked if there is a way to restore the free-market place of ideas.
Prof. Funkenstein stated that she is overwhelmed by the enormous amount of e-mail received.
Ms. Peterson reported that the Academic Staff are having tremendous difficulty with the e-mail, with just getting information out.
Prof. Mayer noted that the original governance list was an opt-in list. Some governance
communications now have been held up, for whatever reasons. The point of the governance list is to get messages out to governance.
Prof. Greenfield noted that the volume of e-mail exceeds the capacity of the system, which is
antiquated. Some things are held until times of less volume, so the system does not crash. He thought it would be helpful to have a conversation of these issues, and suggested Ms. Durso be invited to the Senate.
Ms. Peterson moved that Ms. Durso be invited to the next Senate meeting. The motion was
APPROVED on a voice vote, with no nays and no abstentions.

c) Completion of course work for graduation—APC
Resolved, that the catalog be amended on the current p. 28 to read:
Students must complete all course work to be counted toward graduation by the end of the semester in which they graduate.

Prof. Longeway, Chair of APC noted that students may walk at graduation ceremonies before they receive their degree, but that they will not receive the degree until the semester in which they complete it.

Ms. Holland-Kimmel noted that students have the misconception that if they walk in May and take courses in August they have a May degree. This is simply a way to clearly state their situation.
Prof. Mayer asked if this doesn’t contradict standing practice (i.e. defense of a thesis might not occur until after the graduation date.
Ms. Holland-Kimmel replied that the ending date on a course is definitive; there may be one or two weeks out there, as long as it does not look like the student is taking the course in summer.
Prof. Warren called the question.
The motion was APPROVED on a voice vote, with all ayes, except for 1 nay and 1 abstention.

d) Double Majors—APC
Resolved, that the catalog be amended on the current p. 34 to read:
New Copy:
Students earning a double major in programs taken concurrently must complete the course requirements for both major areas and all other standard degree requirements. Students wanting to earn two or more majors that lead to different degrees (bachelor of arts and bachelor of science) normally earn only one degree. Students choose which degree they wish to earn at the time they file their Application to Graduate/Degree Summary request form. Students wishing to earn dual degrees, please refer to the dual degree policy below.

Current Copy:
Double Major. Students who complete two or more majors that normally lead to different degrees (bachelor of arts and bachelor of science) earn only one degree. Students must choose which degree they will earn at the time they file their degree summary request.

Prof. Longeway stated that the real change is in the policy on dual degrees which follows. This will allow a student to earn dual degrees without having to drop out and re-enroll, as long as the student finishes the extra thirty credits.
Prof. Warren asked if one rationale for this was that the student could continue to get financial aid, etc. [Yes.]
Prof. Mayer asked if this meant on B.S. and one B.A, not two of the same. [Yes.]
Prof. Hansen said that he was bothered by the double major part. Math and Computer Science is a double major—still 92 credits, but does not count as two.
Ms. Holland-Kimmel replied that in that case the double major is spelled out. She cited the example of a student with a major in nursing and a major in German. She had completed the requirements for both but had to determine which degree she wanted to earn. She opted for the B.S. vs. the B.A.
Prof. Hansen asked whether they would have to change their double major. [No.]
Prof. Warren called the question.
The motion was APPROVED on a voice vote, with no nays and no abstentions.

e) Dual Degree—APC
Resolved, that the catalog be amended on the current p. 34 to read:
New Copy:
Dual Degree. A student may earn both a bachelor of arts and a bachelor of science degree by completing the graduation requirements for both degrees, including a major appropriate to each degree. The student must, in meeting these requirements, complete an additional 30 credits for the second degree (for a minimum of 150 credits).

Prof. Longeway explained that the student cannot earn two degrees with only 120 credits. The student must earn a minimum of 150 credits. However, the student would not have to quit and reenter.
Ms. Holland-Kimmel stated that the content of the second degree policy is the same; the difference is only that the student does not have to graduate and then reenter. The majors are in very different areas. Financial aid can be maintained.
Prof. Mayer asked is this would lower our graduation rate.
Ms. Holland-Kimmel replied that there are not a lot of people flocking to do this.
Prof. Warren called the question.
The motion was APPROVED on a voice vote, with no nays and no abstentions.

f) Failures or Incompletes in the Major—APC
Resolved, that the academic policy regarding failures or incompletes in the major be changed as follows:

New Copy:
Failures or Incompletes in the Major: Students who fail required courses in their majors must retake those courses. If they wish to do so through credit obtained elsewhere, written approval from the chair of their major department must be obtained [comma deleted as editorial change] prior to enrollment off campus in order to guarantee appropriate transfer.

Current Copy: Failures or Incompletes in the Major: Students who fail required courses in
their majors must retake those courses. If they wish to do so through credit obtained
elsewhere, written approval from the chair of their major department must be obtained,
preferably before enrollment off campus.

Prof. Longeway noted that this change makes the policy specific and open—if a student has a failure in the major and wants to retake the course off campus, the students must clear this with the Department first. It is a question of clarity; “preferably” is taken out of the policy.
Prof. Hansen noted that with NTIS there are classes that are already recognized as equivalent.
Ms. Holland-Kimmel replied that this is so; however, if a student has failed a course in a major here, that department has the right to say where the student can retake it.
Prof. Gellott noted that the 15 credit rule [final 15 credits in the major must be taken at UWP] could apply.
Prof. Mayer noted that if the course is offered by another UW campus, it can’t be turned down.
Ms. Holland-Kimmel agreed that the course could not be turned down and, if the course would be one of the last courses taken by the student, an Executive Action would be needed to waive the last 15 credit rule. Without a waiver, the Registrar’s office would not be able to clear the student.
Prof. Warren called the question.
The motion was APPROVED on a voice vote, with 1 nay and 0 abstentions.

ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 4:47 p.m.

Submitted by Evelyn Zepp, Secretary of the Faculty