Faculty Senate Minutes
for March 10, 2009
PSF 29/08-9

Call to Order:

The Faculty Senate of the University of Wisconsin-Parkside met on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 in Molinaro Hall room D132.  The meeting was called to order at 3:35 p.m. by Greg Mayer, Chair.  Senators present were David Holmes (ART), Scott Thomson (BIOS), David Wright (BUS), Tsun-Mei Chang (CHEM), Adrienne Viramontes (COMM), Susan Lincke (CSCI), Michael Seredcyz (CRMJ), Marcelo Milan (ECON), Patricia Cleary (GEOS), Laura Gellott (HIST), Alexander McNair (MODL), Bill Murin (POLS), Terry Chi (PSYC), Kathleen Gillogly (SOCA), Linda Crafton (TEDU) and Jamie Cheatham (THEA).  ENGL, GEOG, HESM, MATH, MUS, PHIL, and PHYS were not represented.  Other Senate members in attendance were University Committee members Dennis Rome, Chris Evans, Peggy James, Herb Colston and Farida Khan, Secretary of the Faculty Gary Wood, PSGA President Theodore Ruffalo, Academic Staff Committee Chair Luellen Breed, Interim Provost Jerry Greenfield and Interim Chancellor Lane Earns.  Guests included Doug DeVinny, John Skalbeck, Susan Takata, Dave Higgs, Tracy Lee, Suresh Chalasani, Megan Mullen, Vanaja Menon, Dennis Kaufman, Fred Ebeid and Matt Bieser. 

Approval of Minutes

Minutes of the meeting of February 3, 2009 were approved as distributed.  The approved minutes become PSF 26/08-09. 

Report of the University Committee Chair - Dennis Rome

Professor Rome announced that the regular spring meeting of the University Faculty will be held on April 2 and that the annual Personnel Review Committee workshop on promotion and tenure policies and procedures will be held on April 3. 

Report of the Chancellor – Lane Earns

The Chancellor reported that he will be holding budget forums on March 25 at 3:00 and March 26 at 12:30.  The first stage of budget cuts will be announced then.  The first stage will include a 1% across the board cut and part of the cut to operating costs.  The second stage will deal with the rest of the cuts to operating costs and auxiliary funds and will not be completed until later in April. The budget reduction task force meets again on Thursday and will have real numbers to work with.

Professor Higgs asked if all departments should assume a 1% cut to their budgets.  The Chancellor replied that they should assume a larger cut.  He added that the 1% cut will not be literally across the board and that some areas would be protected.  With regard to a “raid” on auxiliary funds he noted that unlike some other campuses, UW-Parkside does not have a large amount of cash in auxiliary funds.  Unfortunately, much of what is in auxiliary funds is student money related to Residence Life and the Student Center.  Students should not have to shoulder an unfair share of this burden.  Still, it is good news that much of the overall budget reduction will be a cash give-back and not a reduction of the base budget.

Professor Evans asked what areas would be protected.  The Chancellor replied that there has been some direction from UW-System in this matter and that the classroom would be protected as much as possible.  He does not foresee cuts in faculty positions and we should be able to do some searches for new faculty. 

Questions – Written/Oral

No written questions were received. 

Committee Reports

No reports were received.

 

Old Business

 

              There was no old or unfinished business.

 

 

New Business

1.  Informational Item – Fred Ebeid, Dean, School of Business and Technology

 

The Dean reported on his recent trip to China and commented on the opportunities for exchange programs with Chinese universities and for recruiting degree-seeking students from China.  Given the limited number of spots in Chinese universities, a large number of Chinese students seek to study abroad and the U.S. is a popular destination.  The Chinese government sponsors 10,000 of these students annually.  The group from UW-Parkside (which also included Interim Provost Jerry Greenfield and Department of Business Professor Jamie Wang) visited two universities, the Chinese Service Center for Scholarly Exchange and the U.S. Embassy.  These visits were intended to provide information about opportunities at UW-Parkside and to make known our interest in recruiting Chinese students.  Presentations by the UW-Parkside group were well attended by students from a number of disciplinary areas.  An exchange agreement was signed with one of the universities.  They also attended an international education exhibition and noted that only one school from Wisconsin, UW-Stevens Point, was represented. 

Professor James noted her concern over the lack of an efficient system for dealing with foreign student credit transfer and advising issues.

Professor Khan expressed surprise that UW-Stevens Point could afford to recruit in this manner and stated that perhaps the UW-System could help fund such an effort across campuses.

Chancellor Earns said that this is something that has been discussed at the system level for a number of years, but the system lost its international programs coordinator in the last round of budget cuts.

2.  Revision to the Academic Forgiveness Policy – Academic Policies Committee

 

RESOLVED, that section 1.b. of the academic forgiveness policy (PSF 3/03-04) is revised as follows.

b. have at least a 2.5 grade point average and a minimum of twelve (12) credits attempted at UW-Parkside.

is changed to

b. have at least a 2.5 cumulative grade point average and a minimum of twelve (12) credits completed at UW-Parkside.

 

Professor Gellott, Chair of the Academic Policies Committee, explained the change.  Professor Gillogly asked about the policy in general and its purpose.  Professor Gellott explained that it recognizes that a student who had a poor start to his or her college career and then returns some time later may have changed a great deal and may be much more successful on the second try.  These students may use the policy to expunge poor grades from the past without retaking the courses.

The resolution passed on a unanimous voice vote.

The revised policy becomes PSF 30/08-09. 

 

3.  Revision to Suspension Policy – Academic Policies Committee

 

RESOLVED, that the suspension policy (PSF 11/90-91) be revised to include the following language.

Students who feel that exceptional circumstances justify a waiver of suspension
may appeal their suspension to the Academic Actions Committee by the date specified in the suspension notification letter.  If the student does not appeal by the date specified, the earliest opportunity that the student would be eligible for readmission would be the following semester.  However, the student may initiate the appeal process during the time in which they begin serving their suspension.  Information regarding the appeal process is available at the Advising and Career Center.  Readmission to the university following the serving of a suspension is not automatic. Students must both request readmission from the Academic Actions Committee and apply for readmission through the Admissions Office.

Professor Gellott explained the major change in the policy is the inclusion of the phrase “by the date specified”.  It is intended to prevent students from making late appeals; for example, it prevents them from appealing for readmission for a semester which is about to begin or has already begun.  The revised policy does allow students to appeal for readmission during their suspension.

The resolution passed on a unanimous voice vote.

The revised policy becomes PSF 31/08-09. 

 

4.  Revisions to the Communication Major – Committee on Academic Planning

 

RESOLVED, that the following new programs in the Communication Department are approved.

Concentration in Contemporary Media

Concentration in Human Interaction

Concentration in Organizational Communication

Concentration in Public Relations

Student-Designed Concentration

Minor in Human Interaction

Minor in Organizational Communication

Minor in Public Relations

Certificate in Media Literacy

Professor Mullen explained that these changes were made in response to a program review.  The proposal reshapes the existing curriculum into several different concentrations that make the various career tracks more clear to students.  It makes use of existing courses and personnel and better defines the areas of possible new hires.

Professor Khan asked why there is not a concentration in journalism.  Professor Mullen replied that the department is working on that, but journalism programs require accreditation and the department as no faculty with expertise in this area.

Professor Rome asked about the relationships between the concentrations and the minors with the same names.  Professor Mullen replied that the concentrations are intended for Communication majors and the minors for non-majors.

Professor Kaufman asked about the use of the word “sequences” in the proposal.  Professor Mullen explained that she had discussed this with the Registrar and that in the catalog they will be referred to as “concentrations”.

The resolution passed on a unanimous voice vote.

Approval of these programmatic changes becomes PSF 32/08-09.

 

5.  Request for Authorization to Implement a New Major in Sustainable Management – Committee on Academic Planning

 

RESOLVED, that the authorization to implement a new collaborative, online Bachelor of Science degree completion program in Sustainable Management is approved.

Professor Skalbeck recalled his informational presentation on this program from a fall senate meeting.  The program has now been finalized, all 21 new courses have been approved by all participating campuses, and all of the details regarding admission, financial aid, etc. have been worked out.  Participating faculty have met with UW-Extension course development teams.  The entitlement to plan was approved by UW-System.

Professor Khan asked about traditional courses (not on-line) from other departments that are substantially similar to Sustainable Management (SMGT) courses and whether they may be applied to the SMGT major.  Professor Skalbeck replied that, at least initially, no.  The SMGT courses were all developed specifically for this program and it is unlikely that similar courses exist outside of the program.  This issue may be revisited later.

Professor James asked about the academic home of this program.  The proposal states that it is housed in the Environmental Studies (ENVS) program, but the relationship between the ENVS Steering Committee, the ENVS Director and the Campus Director of the SMGT major is unclear.  Professor Gellott noted that it is preferable to have major housed in a department or center or program rather than just associated with an individual. 

Professor Gee asked about overlap between the SMGT courses and existing courses and wondered if people with expertise in some of the SMGT areas will be given an opportunity to teach in the program.  Professor Skalbeck answered yes, as the program grows new sections of the courses will need to be added.

Professor Gillogly asked about the Environment and Society course.  UW-Parkside has such a course in the SOCA Department.  Professor Skalbeck explained that this course was first assigned to UW-Eau Claire.  When that campus pulled out of the program it was given to UW-Parkside where it was assigned to the GOEG Department.  Professor Gillogly pointed out that omitting Sociology from the program is a mistake.  Professor Gellott added that she hopes the SOCA department will be asked for input.  Provost Greenfield noted that interdisciplinary programs do change over time.

Mr. Ruffolo asked who is eligible to take these courses.   Professor Skalbek replied that the target audience is associate degree holders.  They will have priority enrollment but any student can enroll in SMGT courses that do not fill.

Returning to the question of the UW-Parkside “home” for this program, Professor Khan said that there is a substantial difference between this and other interdisciplinary programs.  This one will be under the direction of a multi-campus committee, leaving us with the question of who is in charge.

Professor Skalbeck pointed out that there are several instructors and a Campus Director on each campus.  The Campus Directors will meet periodically to review the program and there is money in the budget for course revisions.  There is also money from a workforce development grant to convene a sustainable management advisory board.

Professor James asked if it could be written that there will be a formal linkage between the ENVS program and the SMGT program.  Such a statement could specify that the SMGT Campus Director will be a member of the ENVS Steering Committee.  Chair Mayer recommended making that as a separate motion and not as an amendment to the implementation document and asked for unanimous consent to table the current resolution so that a separate motion could be taken up.  Mr. Ruffalo objected.

Professor James moved to table the current resolution so that a separate motion could be taken up.  The motion was seconded by Professor Murin.  The motion failed on a vote of 7 aye, 12 no.

Professor Gellott called the question.

The resolution passed on a voice vote with 0 no and 1 abstention.

Approval of this program implementation becomes PSF 33/08-09.

 

6.  Revisions to the Guidelines for Review of Sabbatical Proposals – University Committee

 

RESOLVED, that the revised guidelines for review of sabbatical proposals be approved and adopted.

 

Professor Rome explained how the new policy modifies the existing one.  A lengthy discussion ensued.  The main points raised included the following.

Will all six electoral divisions always be represented on the review committee?

Can priority be given to applicants who have not previously had a sabbatical?  Yes, in fact, UW-System guidelines include this provision.  The Deans or Provost could apply this criterion.

At the end of the process, who should provide feedback to all of the applicants?  This should probably be worked out between the Deans and the Provost.

Does the review process recognize the tight link between research and teaching so that research-based proposals are not disadvantaged?

Why was criterion #7 from the old document removed?  Professor Wood explained that the guidelines from the Board of Regents change periodically and so were not included as specific criteria.  Links to the most recent guidelines will be included in the policy.

After the members of the Sabbatical Proposal Review Committee are appointed they should meet with the University Committee to discuss the policies, procedures and system guidelines.

Most of the discussion was related to what happens when more than one proposal comes from a single department.  The recent practice of the review committee has been to not recommend more than one sabbatical from any department.  Faculty in large departments feel they are disadvantaged by this practice.  Why are departments required to rank proposals?  Some departments can cover more than one sabbatical leave per year.

Chair Mayer noted the time was nearing 5:00 p.m. and asked for a motion to extend the meeting.  Mr. Ruffalo moved to extend the discussion for up to 10 min.  Professor Cleary seconded the motion.  The motion passed on a unanimous voice vote. 

Mr. Ruffalo moved to strike the following sentence from the proposal.

“If more than on proposal is submitted by a department they must be ranked by the departmental executive committee.”

The motion was seconded by Professor Rome.  More discussion followed.  There seemed to be much concern from larger departments that departmental ranking of sabbatical proposals disadvantages all but the top-ranked proposal.  It was pointed out that although they may not always be comfortable doing so, department members are in the best position to rank proposals from their own departmental colleagues.  The discussion did not resolve the issue of departmental rankings.

The motion to amend the main resolution failed on a voice vote.

Professor Wright asked who appoints the members of the review committee.  Professor Wood replied that the University Committee makes the appointments.

The resolution passed on a unanimous voice vote.

The revised guidelines for evaluation of sabbatical proposals becomes PSF 34/08-09. 

Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 5:10 p.m.

Submitted by,

Gary M. Wood

Secretary of the Faculty