Faculty Senate Minutes
for February 16, 1999
PSF 18/98-99

The meeting was called to order by the Chair, Professor Fossum, at 3:35 PM in D137 Molinaro Hall. Senators present were Chen, Colston, Duetsch, Feldt, Fossum, Fournelle, Gellott, Goldsmith, Gregory, Kavenik, Kinchen, Lindner, Lyter, Mandley, McKeever, Meyer, Moy, Mullen, New, J. Olsen, Ostheimer, R. Rosenberg, Saffioti-Hughes, Schmidt, Wang, Wallner, Warren, Wright, and Zepp. Also present were D. Cress, A. Dudycha, J. Redford, M. Schleiter, R. Singer, R. Stolz, and K. Thorne.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The minutes of the Senate for December 1, 1998, were approved without objection.

REPORT OF THE CHANCELLOR

In the absence of Chancellor Keating, Associate Vice Chancellor Singer reported on the work of the six recruitment/retention task forces that the Chancellor formed last Fall. Each task force presented recommendations to the University Planning Council during January and their combined recommendations will be prioritized by early March.

REPORT OF THE UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE CHAIR

Professor Kavenik asked the Senators to remind their colleagues of the Faculty meeting on February 18. She also announced that Professors Feldt and Van Dyke were elected to three-year terms on the University Committee.

QUESTIONS

There were no written or oral questions.

OLD BUSINESS

REVISION OF UWPF 6.08

The University Committee recommended the following:

RESOLVED, that UWPF 6.08 be revised, effective Fall 1999, as described in Agenda Document 1.

Professor Duetsch introduced the proposal.

MOTION APPROVED by a voice vote.

REVISION OF ACADEMIC FORGIVENESS POICY

The Academic Policies Committee recommended the following

RESOLVED, that the Academic Forgiveness Policy be revised, effective Fall 1999, as described in Agenda Document 2.

Professor Zepp introduced the proposal, saying it represented a significant improvement over the current poicy. Professor McKeever asked whether a student who did not qualify under the current policy could be granted forgiveness under the proposed policy. Professor Duetsch said yes, the language of the proposal seemed unambiguous in this regard.

MOTION APPROVED by a voice vote.

REVISION OF GRADE APPEALS PROCEDURE

The Academic Policies Committee recommended the following:

RESOLVED, that the Grade Appeals Procedure be revised, effective Fall 1999, as described in Agenda Document 3.

Mr. Redford questioned whether the review committee should be appointed by the department chair. Professor Fournelle pleaded that the appeal responsibility not be given to the Academic Actions Committee in Step 8. He argued that the Committee has an excessive workload and lacks expertise in cases such as this.

Professor McKeever MOVED TO AMEND by deleting Step 8 (seconded by Professor Lindner). Dean Cress argued for a right to appeal beyond the department in the interest ot fairness, with support from Professor Warren. Mr. Mandley called for expanded student representation on any appeals committee. Professor Meyer suggested that the Academic Actions Committee appoint appeals committee members. Professor Saffioti-Hughes saw a conflict of interest for Academic Actions Committee members. Professor Gregory questioned whether the appeals committee would be competent to make judgements regarding academic content and called for protection of the instructor. Professor Gellott suggested that the panel of people who are called upon for student disciplinary hearings could be called upon for appeals. Professor Schmidt felt that any appeal should not go beyond the department. Professor Saffioti-Hughes suggested that denial of an appeal beyond the department would be perceived as unfair, whether that was accurate or not. Mr. Redford reported that students have felt cheated when told there is no appeal beyond the department. Professor Schmidt suggested using people from other campuses who are in the same department. Professor Singer suggested that appeal beyond the department be limited to procedural matters. Professor Rosenberg felt that the process should only ensure uniform treatmemt of all students. Professor Lindner asked whether the conflict resolution center could be used for the most difficult cases. Professor Feldt argued for reliance on a more formal appeals body. Professor Zepp suggested that Step 6 may obviate the need for any appeals body. Professor Schmidt observed that other review procedures call for the use of outside evaluators. Professor Duetsch suggested the the Faculty Rights and Responsibilities Committee may be the most suitable appeals body. Professor Kavenik expressed support for use of a student disciplinary panel to handle appeals. Professor Gregory suggested that outside evaluators may not be even-handed. Mr. Redford joined Professor Kavenik in supporting reliance on a student disciplinary panel. Professor Feldt asked whether an appeals process was necessary.

MOTION TO AMEND FAILED, 9-9.

Professor Gellott MOVED TO REFER the matter to the Academic Policies Committee with instructions to re-examine Step 8 (seconded by Professor Meyer).

MOTION TO REFER approved by a show of hands.

NEW BUSINESS

CREATION OF WOMEN'S STUDIES CONCENTRATION

The Committee on Academic Planning recommended the following:

RESOLVED, that the Women's Studies Comcentration within the Interdisciplinary Studies major is approved, effective immediately, as described in Agenda Document 4.

Professor Dudycha introduced the proposal.

MOTION APPROVED by a voice vote.

FACULTY SALARY RESOLUTION

Nineteen members of the faculty, including seven Senators, recommended the following:

RESOLVED, that the statement found in Agenda Document 5 is approved and should be sent to President Lyall and members of the Board of Regents by the Secretary of the Faculty.

Professor Meyer introduced the proposal. Professor Lindner MOVED TO CLOSE DEBATE (seconded by Professor Meyer).

MOTION TO CLOSE DEBATE APPROVED, 18-4.

MOTION APPROVED by a show of hands.

The meeting adjourned at 4:35.