Minutes of the Faculty Senate
for April 21, 1998
PSF 27/97-98

The Faculty Senate of the University of Wisconsin-Parkside met at 3:30 PM on Tuesday, April 21, 1998, in Molinaro Hall D137. Members present were Bell, Buenker, Canary, Colston, Feldt, Fossum, Goldsmith, Kavenik, Khan, Kinchen, Lichtman, Lyter, Mandley, McArthur, Meyer, Murin, New, Ostheimer, Richards, Shailor, Stathatos, Van Dyke, and Wright. The meeting was called to order at 3:35 PM by Professor Fossum (Computer Science and Engineering). The chair called the attention of the senate to the extensive agenda before it and observed that failure to more quickly through it could lead to the need for another meeting.

Approval of Minutes

The senate approved without objection the minutes of its meeting of March 31, 1998.

New Business

Resolutions of Appreciation

The senate passed various resolutions of appreciation and congratulation, including:

• Resolution of Appreciation and Congratulation: Chancellor Search and Screen Committee
• Resolution of Appreciation and Congratulation: Dean of Arts and Sciences Search and Screen Committee
• Resolution of Appreciation: Interim Dean Duetsch
• Resolution of Appreciation: Stephen Meyer, University Committee Chair
• Resolution of Congratulation: Alan Shucard, Educator
• Resolution of Appreciation: Robert Canary, Secretary of the Faculty
• Resolution of Appreciation Honoring John F. Elmore on His Retirement
• Resolution of Appreciation Honoring Morris Firebaugh on His Retirement
• Resolution of Appreciation Honoring Alan Shucard on His Retirement
• Resolution of Appreciation Honoring Akkinapalli Subbarao on His Retirement

  Campus Vision Statement

  The University Committee had recommended the following resolution:

  RESOLVED, that the faculty senate endorses the campus vision statement as found in the attached agenda documents.

  Professor Kornetsky (Dramatic Arts), chair of the committee which drafted the statement, said that the committee had tried to respond to concerns raised when an earlier draft had been discussed in senate.

  MOTION PASSED on a voice vote. [See PSF 38/97-98]

  Revisions to UWPF 6.01

  The University had recommended that the senate endorse a revision of UWPF 6.01 on criteria for personnel decisions.

  Professor Meyer (History), the University Committee Chair, said that the proposed revision carried out steps called for in the strategic plan and was an effort to put forward a broader view of campus citizenship. Initial discussion focussed on proposed new language on the evaluation of teaching:

  The evaluation of teaching should be based primarily on measures of student learning, such as samples of student work, videos of student presentations, and performance in subsequent classes. Measures of student response must include student course evaluations and other forms of evidence, such as enrollment patterns, letters from former students, and peer observations. Evidence of support for student learning should include syllabi, sample tests, and grade distributions. Other teaching-related activities should also be documented including efforts to improve teaching (for example, incorporating new technology or other teaching innovations) and any external recognition.

  Professor Khan (Economics) noted that this suggested new kinds of evidence which instructors and departments would have to keep. Professor Meyer said that only student evaluations were specifically mandated--that "such as" meant that most of the items listed were provided as examples of what minds of measures might be included. Professor Feldt (Computer Science and Engineering) said that we already required multiple measures of teaching. Professor Kinchen (Music) said that the language was meant as another step away from excessive reliance of student evaluation forms. Professor McArthur (Business) said that the previous language was all devoted to input measures, and that the revision put more emphasis on output measures. Professor Wright (Business) said he favored multiple measures of teaching and the use of teaching portfolios; he thought the existing language captured this. He particularly objected to the word suggesting that "primarily" in the phrase "should be based primarily on measures of student learning" he noted that this would require a change in the way his department did business.

  In looking at the section on creative and scholarly activity, Professor Khan was troubled by a sentence reading "In cases of tenure or of promotion to full professor, it is desirable that the quality of the work be judged by qualified external evaluators as well as by department colleagues." She read this as giving too much stress to the department, which might make it hard on individuals doing interdisciplinary work. Professor Feldt said that the outside evaluators could then be interdisciplinary and that the language simply acknowledge that the department was inevitably involved, since they made the final decision. Professor Buenker (History) asked whether "external" evaluators meant those outside the university or those in the university but outside the department. Professor Meyer said the language could cover either and that he thought the requirement really would help with the kind of interdisciplinary work Professor Khan was worried about.

  Mr. Mandley (PSGA) asked about the next sentence, which read "In departments where this is appropriate, special consideration should be given to collaborative work with students and to work which benefits the region." He wondered whether the term "collaborative work" implied that students would be involved in the review process. The answer was that it referred to research done in collaboration with students; the review would still be done by faculty.

  There was no discussion of the sections dealing with service or programmatic activity. Looking at the document as a whole, Professor Murin (Political Science) was worried that items that were listed as options in the text before the senate could wind up as de facto requirements by the time PRC got through with them; he favored tabling the document until it could be clearer on such points. Professor Wright said that the proposal represented a change and that he agreed with the idea of tabling it. Professor Meyer said that change was needed. Professor McArthur said the revision brought our criteria in line with our mission and objectives. Professor Feldt noted that the "primary" in the teaching section was a sticking point.

  MOVED by Professor Richards (Geography), SECONDED by Professor Wright to TABLE. MOTION PASSED on a vote of 13 yes, 5 no.

  Professor Kinchen asked that those with concerns pass them on to the University Committee. In response to a question from the floor, the secretary of the faculty said that under the rulebooks followed by the senate the motion would need to be taken from the table at the next session or it would be dead.

  Representation of Students on Faculty Search Committees

  The University Committee recommended the following resolution:

  RESOLVED, that the faculty senate urges that department executive committees take steps to see that students are actively involved in searches for faculty and instructional academic staff appointments. This involvement could include appointment to search committees or other formal involvement in the screening process and should normally include solicitation of student input on presentations made during campus visits.

  The chair noted that the Parkside Student Government Association had actually requested that the inclusion of two students on all faculty search committees be mandated. He recognized Mr. Mandley, the PSGA president, who MOVED, SECONDED by Professor Kavenik (English), to substitute the following:

  RESOLVED, that in appointing search committees for faculty and instructional academic staff positions, department executive committees must include one student member named by the Parkside Student Government Association.

  Mr. Mandley noted that he was requesting only one student to accomodate concerns that two would be excessive on small search committees. Professor McArthur (Business) asked why the students should be appointed by PSGA. Mr. Mandley said that the student government had the responsibility for appointing students to campus committees, just as the University Committee did for faculty members. Professor Kinchen (Music) said that the faculty were often asked for names without naming the specific individuals.

  The discussion had two main themes. The first was concern about the qualifications of students appointed. Professor Richards (Geography) said he would want a geography major. Professor Khan (Economics) said that students from the major might be intimidated by faculty members of the committee and thought even the current language too departmentally oriented. Professors Kinchen and Van Dyke testified to the useful role of students with expertise. Professor Lyter (Physical Education) said that students on committees often failed to attend. Professor Lichtman (Mathematics) said that in some departments, like the sciences, students were not advanced enough as undergraduates to be able to judge credentials, and he noted that junior faculty and academic staff members of a department were not guaranteed participation in the search process. Mr. Mandley and Ms. Cochran, another student government representative, said that PSGA was committed to securing students who were both qualified and motivated to work hard on committees. They expressed a willingness to work with departments in selecting names.

  A second theme was that mandating student members represented a major change. Professor Meyer said that it needed further study and suggested that the senate defeat the substitute, pass the original motion, and ask the University Committee to strike a committee to consider the matter further. Professor Murin (Political Science) said that different departments had different traditions; he would prefer a modified version of the original motion. Mr. Mandley said that he thought student involvement would improve communication.

  MOVED by Professor Richards (Geography), SECONDED by Professor Meyer, to REFER TO UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE the entire issue.

  Professor Goldsmith (Art) asked why we couldn't deal with this question today. Professor Feldt suggested that it might be worth checking any legal requirements affecting whether PSGA had to be the naming body. Associate Vice Chancellor Singer said that the campus should do something to move in the direction of greater student involvement.

  MOTION TO REFER TO COMMITTEE FAILED on a vote of 1 yes, 12 no.

  Professor McArthur asked whether the language of the substitute didn't imply that if one was searching at a time when one was unable to secure a student member one couldn't have a search. Mr. Mandley said that the students would work hard to find students to serve.

  MOVED by Professor Kinchen (Music), SECONDED by Mr. Mandley and Professor Kavenik, to AMEND the substitute motion to read:

  RESOLVED, that in appointing search committees for faculty and instructional academic staff positions, department executive committees must include a student member named in collaboration by the department and the Parkside Student Government Association.

  The secretary of the faculty suggested that this could be regarded as a friendly amendment, since it was seconded by the original mover and seconder and since it made no substantive change in the meaning of the original, which already required collaboration by giving the power to "appoint" to the department and the power to "name" those appointed to PSGA. The chair ruled that the language was sufficiently different to call for a vote.

  MOTION TO AMEND THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED on a vote of 8 yes, 8 no.

  SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED on a vote of 2 yes, 13 no.

  MOVED by Professor Murin (Political Science), SECONDED by Professor Buenker (History), to eliminate the 2nd sentence of the main motion.

  AMENDMENT FAILED on a vote of 6 yes, 8 no.

  Professor Richards then MOVED THE QUESTION, SECONDED by Professor Stathatos (Modern Languages).

  MOTION TO CLOSE DEBATE PASSED on a vote of 12 yes, 5 no.

  MAIN MOTION PASSED on a vote of 15 yes, 3 no. [See PSF 39/97-98]

  Campus Gun Policy

  Professor Kinchen presented a petition signed by six senators and urging the following resolution:

  WHEREAS, the University of Wisconsin-Parkside Faculty Senate resolved in its March 3, 1998 meeting the following:

  RESOLVED that the Faculty Senate of the University of Wisconsin-Parkside hereby expresses concern about the aborted governance involvement in this most significant decision which affects the entire campus community, and does hereby strongly urge the administration to reconsider this decision, to open appropriate campus discussion on this matter, and to involve the necessary governance bodies in this discussion.

  WHEREAS, while acknowledging that "the change of weapons-carry policy for the University Police from partial- to full-carry continues to be opposed by some faculty, staff, and students" and that "some members of the university community are strongly opposed to the new policy", the administration has not reconsidered its decision;

  WHEREAS, the administration has to date neither appropriately involved governance bodies in this decision nor has it taken leadership in opening campus discussion on this matter;

  AND WHEREAS, the administration has "decided that the full-carry policy should remain in place until June 30, 1999", meanwhile leaving in place a controversial policy that was not arrived at in the first place through consensus or adequate governance and campus involvement;

  RESOLVED, that University of Wisconsin-Parkside Faculty Senate strongly urges the administration to submit this issue to the Committee on Health, Safety, and Physical Environment for its study and recommendation; that the administration actively structure forums, discussions, and other such appropriate public meetings to seek and gather university community sentiment and opinion about the new full-time weapons carry policy; that such input and information gathering forums should include presenting to the campus community for its consideration facts concerning the need for officers to be armed full-time as well as the practices and policies of other system institutions and the contexts in which these policies exist; that the administration seek and receive advice on this policy from the Faculty Senate and other appropriate university governance bodies; and that a reconsideration of this policy be taken and reported to the university community no later than December 1, 1998.

  The chair noted that it was nearly five p.m. MOVED by Professor Stathatos (Modern Languages), SECONDED by Professor Kinchen, to suspend the rules to extend debate till 5:20 pm. MOTION PASSED on a voice vote.

  Professor Kinchen said that the administrative response had failed to exercise the kind of leadership that would produce consensus on this thorny issue, that it delayed resolution of the questions too long. He had strong feelings on the issue itself, but the resolution was more about efforts to promote dialogue. Professor New (Teacher Education) asked why the consent of the senate had not been sought before this decision was taken. Professor Richards (Geography) pointed out that it was an administrative matter in which faculty consent was not required.

  Professor Kinchen said that the University Committee itself, though consulted, had not favored action but had recommended further study. Professor Meyer said that he might have delayed transmitting the committee's recommendation. The secretary of the faculty said that he could not swear that he had posted the relevant minutes before the Christmas break. Professor Kinchen said that they had been in his email. The interim chancellor said that the Gordon Lamb and William Streeter, who had been the adminstrators dealing with the issue, had not seen those recommendations.

  Professor Richards asked whether PSGA had taken a position. Mr. Mandley said that neither the Black Student Union nor PSGA had taken a stand as yet, though there was some concern among the BSU students and he shared that concern himself. They would have Chief Deane speak with the new senate and officers before taking any stand. Professor Kinchen asked for and received an invitation to come speak as well.

  Professor New said that she favored the resolution, which could reduce faculty-administration hostility. She herself did not believe that guns would solve the problems in our dorms and she favored greater participation in discussion of the issue. Professor Shailor (Communication) said that the level of concern expressed in the senate was itself an argument for the resolution.

  MOTION PASSED on a vote of 13 yes, 0 no.

  Other

  Reports

  Report of the Chancellor
  The Interim Chancellor glanced at the clock and said he had no report.

  Report of the University Committee
  The University Committee chair followed this admirable example.

  Questions

  Written.
  No written questions received.

  Oral
  The chair did not seek oral questions in light of the hour.

  Adjournment
  The senate adjourned at approximately 5:15 PM.