UW-Parkside Faculty Senate
Minutes for April 18, 2000
PSF 23/99-00

The Senate was called to order by Professor Kavenik at 3:35 in D137 MOLN. Other members present were Colston, Duetsch, Feldt, Gellott, A. Goldsmith, Gregory, Hansen, Keating, Kinchen, Lindner, Lyter, Mayer, McKeever, Meyer, Monardi, Mullen, Noriega, Ostheimer, Piele, Richards, Saffioti-Hughes, Schmidt, Selke, and Wallner. Also present were D. Cress, T. Fossum, M. Gee, G. Greenfield, J. Longeway, D. Nice, H. Pitts, C. Ruffalo, R. Singer, R. Stolz, and E. Zepp.

The Minutes of the Faculty Senate for March 21, 2000, were approved as distributed.

REPORT OF THE CHANCELLOR

Chancellor Keating reported on noteworthy activity at the April meeting of the Board of Regents. The Board authorized the UW institutions, with the approval of appropriate faculty bodies, to expand their articulation agreements with the State technical colleges. He hopes that UW-Parkside will be able to do this, particularly with the Gateway Technical College. Chancellor Keating said the State budget authorizes UW System funding for an additional thousand FTE students and that UW-Parkside can now expect to be funded for a targeted enrollment increase of fifty FTE in Fall 2000 over Fall 1999. Turning to other matters, he said that the Stamats Recruitment and Retention Report has been distributed to all Chairs/Directors and that anyone can obtain a copy from his office. Recommendations contained in that report are now being considered by the Enrollment Management Council. The Chancellor said he was very pleased with the turnout for the Academic Acievement Awards ceremony this past Sunday and was struck by the large number of people who were on campus for sporting events that day as well. Finally, he urged all Senators to attend the reception for retiring faculty/staff members on May 2 at 3:30 in the Galbraith Room.

Chancellor Keating then responded to the written question addressed to him by the University Committee - Why wasn't it deemed necessary to conduct a search for the newly created position of Assistant Vice Chancellor for University Relations when the newly created position of Assistant Vice Chancellor for Enrollment Management is currently the subject of an aggressive affirmative action search? The Chancellor began by saying that the latter position carries a set of newly defined responsibilities that have not been the primary concern of anyone in this institution. He expects to fill that position through external recruitment. The former position, on the other hand, carries responsibilities that have been primary for the Executive Director of University Advancement and needed to be reassigned to another adminstrator in order to allow the Executive Director to devote his full attention to fund-raising. The need to act on this internal reassignment was exacerbated by the sudden resignation of the Director of Marketing and Publications, according to the Chancellor. He said that he now understood that the appointment of Dr. Klaver to this position has in turn led to consideration of reassigning Dr. Klaver's responsibilities as HPEA department chair.

Professor Greenfield said that it appeared to him that a new position has been created in the administration and that the position has been filled internally without a search. Chancellor Keating disputed this view, saying that he has simply assigned additional duties to a person who was already reporting to him. Mr. Pitts said that, in his view, Dr. Klaver already had responsibilities for marketing and public relations as Athletic Director and would now have broader responsibilities in those areas for the entire institution. He said that creation of the new administrative title could well have led to a search - either internal or external - but added that the institution need not advertise every time a new position is created. Professor Greenfield said that he felt that an opportunity has been missed to advance affirmative action in the administration. Mr. Pitts agreed with this but said that affirmative action objectives need to be weighed against other objectives in some situations.

Professor Saffioti-Hughes asked the Chancellor whether the position would be continued if Dr. Klaver were to resign from it and was told that that could not be determined at this time. She asked the Chancellor whether the position of an Assistant Vice Chancellor was at a higher level than that of the Executive Director for University Advancement and was told that it was not. Professor Saffioti-Hughes then asked the Chancellor whether he felt that Dr. Klaver had appropriate training and experience for this position and was told that he did.

Professor Gellott concluded the exchange of views, saying that she could identify three areas of faculty concern about the Chancellor's decision to appoint Dr. Klaver to the new position - the impact on implementation of a new academic program in sport and fitness management, the appearance of a lack of commitment to affirmative action, and the seemingly arbitrary nature of the process followed. Chancellor Keating admitted that he had not consulted with Dean Cress prior to making the appointment and apologized for that.

REPORT OF THE UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE CHAIR

Professor Gellott invited the Provost to describe the range of new program development that has taken place since his arrival. Provost Ostheimer said that although he has made expansion of our program array a priority, it has been quite challenging to accomplish this without new resources. Given our circumstances, we have had to be quite innovative in fashioning new programs. We have managed to obtain approval of two new undergraduate majors, are seeking approval of two new graduate programs, and have created a variety of new concentrations, minors, and certificate programs.

OLD BUSINESS

ASSOCIATE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES DEGREE

The Academic Policies Committee recommended the following:

RESOLVED, that beginning in Fall 2000, with UW System approval, an Associate of Arts and Sciences degree will be conferred on students who complete the requirements set forth in Agenda Document 3.

Professor Zepp again introduced the proposal on behalf of the Committee, saying that approval of the degree would represent a solid reaffirmation of what we offer as a four-year public liberal arts college. Provost Ostheimer drew attention to the written responses he had prepared on behalf of the Academic Policies Committee to seven questions that had been raised about the proposal during its previous consideration by the Senate.

Professor Kolb said that she had been asked by her department chair to relay his concern that implementation of this program would have a negative effect on the recruitment of top students. She said he felt this program would refocus the institution in order to serve a small group in the community and would reward students for early completion of the general education program, even though it is often not in the student's best interest to do so. Professor Mayer said that nursing students who were planning to graduate from UW-Milwaukee would be 23-31 credits away from this degree at the time they would normally transfer and would be unlikely to stay here to complete this degree.

Professor Kinchen asked why the institution should offer this degree if only 6-10 students per year are expected to seek it. Dean Cress speculated that completion of the degree might create a decision point at which students would choose to transfer out rather than continue. Professor Mayer said that he had imagined this degree would become a consolation prize for students who had given up hope of obtaining a bachelor's degree but noticed that the requirements for matriculation into the program wouldn't permit this. Professor Zepp said the requirements for matriculation could be changed and reiterated her belief that we need to encourage students to complete their general education requirements through a program such as this.

MOTION DEFEATED on a show of hands (6 for, 8 against, 4 abstentions).

NEW BUSINESS

EVALUATION OF PROGRESS TOWARD TENURE

The University Committee recommended the following:

RESOLVED, that the following addition to UWPF 6.04 is approved for implementation in Fall 2000:

UWPF 6.04 (4) Each probationary faculty appointee shall receive an annual written evaluation of her/his progress toward the achievement of tenure. Each departmental executive committee shall establish procedures that ensure that this annual evaluation is prepared in a timely manner. Responsibility for preparation of he evaluation may not be delegated under UWPF 3.05 (2). Each written evaluation shall be reviewed by the department chair with the probationary faculty appointee shortly after it has been prepared. Evaluations shall be delivered to the faculty appointee with a copy to the dean no later than May 15 of each year.

Professor Gellott introduced the proposal on behalf of the Committee, giving credit for the idea to Dean Cress. Professor Selke asked whether this evaluation would be separate from the merit evaluation that is already required for each person and was told that it would be.

Professor Gregory MOVED TO AMEND the proposal by stipuating that these written evaluations were not to be part of the file that is eventually transmitted to the Personnel Review Committee. MOTION FAILED for lack of a second. Professor Gellott expressed relief, saying that she did not want the institution to keep "Star Chamber" files.

Chancellor Keating supported passage of the proposal, saying that it is important that the assessments made of individuals are completely candid. Professor Mayer said that he strongly supported this proposal because of his recent experience in going through the tenure process. Professor Ruffalo asked what the format of these evaluations would be and Professor Gellott responded that the evaluations should compare the individual's performance to departmental standards in the three traditional areas - teaching, research and/or creative activity, and service. Professor Ruffalo wondered if the format used should be standardized in some way and Professor Gellott suggested that the format used should be appropriate to the departmental culture.

Professor Noriega said that it is his understanding that probationary appointees need to "fit" into deparmental programmatic plans and asked whether the annual evaluation should provide an assessment of that "fit." If the evaluation is to do that, he suggested that its elements should correspond closely to the responsibilities that were advertised when the person was hired. Dean Cress said that the evaluation should certainly address each of the traditional criteria for tenure and speculated that this written evaluation would be especially helpful in small departments with augmented executive committees. Professor McKeever agreed, as did Professor Greenfield, who argued against the establishment of detailed guidelines for the evaluation and in favor of a cooperative approach to determination of the appointee's programmatic "fit."

Professor Kinchen described the proposal as being "progressive, fair, reasonable, and the right thing to do." Professor Gregory, on the other hand, said that new appointees should be given clear information about departmental tenure standards and expressed concern that annual written evaluations will create "bad blood, depression, and hostility."

Professor Goldsmith asked whether there would be any way in which the appointee could respond to the evaluation as part of the written record. Professor Gellott suggested that the appointee place a written response into her/his file. Professor Mullen also supported this approach, saying that it would produce a clearer, more thoughtful record of the appointee's development as a faculty member.

Professor Ruffalo felt that appointees should hear criticism as soon as possible and wondered if the entire executive committee should be expected to review the evaluation with the appointee. Professor Selke said that because informal one-on-one conversation about an appointee's tenure prospects could give a misleading impression, she favored the notion that the written evaluation should be developed jointly by the members of the executive committee and conveyed on their behalf. Professor Greenfield suggested that the appointee be asked to indicate that s/he understands the nature of the evaluation.

Professor Meyer said that the role the chair is called upon to perform is appropriate and that the appointee should always have a right to respond for the record. Professor Meyer MOVED TO AMEND by adding the following sentence at the end of the proposal: "The probationary faculty appointee shall have the right to prepare a written response for the record." SECONDED by Professor Richards. MOTION TO AMEND APPROVED on a voice vote.

MOTION APPROVED on a voice vote.

DELAY OF ADJOURNMENT

With the hour of adjournment at hand, Professor Gellott MOVED that the length of the meeting be extended by ten minutes. SECONDED by Professor Richards. MOTION APPROVED on a voice vote.

MEMBERSHIP OF GENERAL EDUCATION COMMITTEE

The University Committee recommended the following:

RESOLVED, that beginning in Fall 2000 the membershipp of the General Education Committee shall be expanded to include the Director of General Education, ex officio.

Professor Gellott introduced the proposal on behalf of the Committee, saying that it corrected an unfortunate oversight. MOTION APPROVED on a voice vote.

DECLARATION OF MAJOR

The Committee on Advising recommended the following:

RESOLVED, that prior to declaring a major, a student must demonstrate aptitude by successfully completing two courses in the major at a grade to be determined by the program faculty.

Professor Longeway introduced the proposal on behalf of the Committee, saying that until students have demonstrated an appropriate aptitude, the Committee felt they should be advised by someone who is able to help them identify an appropriate major. Professor McKeever said that departments should be free to develop and manage their own admission standards. Professor Mayer said the proposal might make student recruitment more difficult and suggested that action not be taken without further consideration of the implications. Professor Richards MOVED TO TABLE the proposal. SECONDED by Professor Mayer. MOTION TO TABLE APPROVED on a voice vote.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:10.