Open Forum
UW-Stout College Restructuring Proposals
Feedback/Forum Notes
October 28, 2015- 9:05-10:30 a.m., MSC Ballrooms
 The proposals may incorporate additional feedback and final tweaking.
 The future configuration of the associate deans and directors is not finalized. There is an
opportunity to group departments, but not necessarily an administrator of a school. Continued
discussion will occur regarding equitable workload of associate deans. Will continue to look at
department support staff workload equity.
 We are open to additional feedback for the associate deans with the three colleges.
 We are looking at workload revisions to address future funding reductions.
 There is confusion with the COM departments to be split in the proposals.
 Future/new department bylaws for promotion and tenure may be different, will current tenuretrack faculty be protected? The future planning will aim at protecting the faculty which will
include the promotion and tenure track faculty.
 Program Advisory Committees are providing input as well.
 Aligning with programs and departments are hoping for the optimum future, and we welcome
comments.
 Were other polytechnic campuses researched? Strong competitors have a college of
management, business & science and technology together. This alignment could make a
difference. Yes, Poly-peers were researched. Our proposals included this research and
campus-feedback for the options. UW-Stout does have differences from other polytechnic
universities.
 UW-Stout is unique with programs not assigned to departments. UW-Stout operates as a
matrix structure. The investment in the program director model is unique. Confident that the
reduction of four colleges to three will be workable and future students will benefit.
 UW-Stout has opportunities of creating a structure of internal strength. There may be an
opportunity for creating future schools.
 Faculty appreciate teaching along the same lines as programs. Will there be a mechanism of
individuals and programs to align with a college which meets their expertise? We are soliciting
feedback right now.
 Advocate for proposal two, college 3, maintaining programs intact and future mergers in the
planning stages. Keeping synergies together and looking at different management structures
may be advantageous.
 Prefer proposal one – with the collaboration of the School of Art and Design.
 There is interest in changing department structure. Some logical sense may be considered.
Changes will depend on feedback received regarding department structure.
 The intent was to make the funding of the colleges as equitable as possible.
 Hearing more positive feedback for Option one. Proposal two may be disparity of FTE. Once
colleges are restructured, hoping departments may have future synergies with other
departments and/or colleges.
 Programs can consider future collaboration with other programs.
 Option 2, for Apparel Design and Development (ADD) - review program objectives – continuing
to move forward with inclusion in the STEM focus would be advantageous.
 ADD advisory board feedback is to be aligned with the STEM focus.
 Proposal of College 2 is not aligned well in Option one, but Option 2 makes sense. Is there a
possibility to revisit what the three colleges looked like prior to 2007?
Page 1 of 3
 Looking at how to fundraise. Option two, will allow us to raise funds. Looking to attract
additional donors in the future.
 What is the function of a school? To bring together disciplines, programs which make sense
together and then develop a structure. May be able to brand areas by schools.
 The difference between a college and a school – will include the oversight of college
management – schools can be a branding opportunity – for donors and fundraising.
 Fundraising will be important in the future.
 For accreditation – Business Administration + Management – possible include Operations and
Management and Business – will align better with Option 2.
 How will current students be affected? Will the students’ voices be heard? All students were
able to provide feedback online. A presentation will be had at the SSA meeting, November
10th. The programs and students should not be directly affected. Hopeful with minimal change
and reducing negative consequences and improving the positive changes.
 Encouraging increasing of class size to reduce costs and reduce the impact on students.
Change can be mindful and intelligent. Department chairs will be considering the classes
which would allow increased sizes.
 Appreciate the opportunity for conversations and feedback.
 Enjoy seeing Option one. Brings areas of visual language together.
 Option two – STEM and art and design – two of the most expensive units with labs, etc. – If
combined – how would this be handled/sustained?
 Considering budget and structure – recognize concern of programs which include higher costs
of labs. Soliciting feedback to consider this.
 Having to reduce 300,000 in lab mod was difficult. Will take this message to the Governor as
well as staff salary.
 Stout has very talented faculty, will rally around the solution – and will look at the challenges
with the budget.
 Will continue to work on fundraising. State funding has decreased significantly over the past
35-40 years.
 Will be mindful on allocation and creative in raising funding and revenue.
 On Monday, Chancellor Meyer will have an opportunity to have a discussion with Governor
Walker. Will discuss these concerns with him personally.
 Will there be new names with the three colleges. They have not worked on this.
 Will the deans remain? It will depend on the final college structure (see power point).
 There is uneasiness amongst the faculty & staff – but education in general is changing. The
model of education is changing. UW-Stout is uniquely positioned with the polytechnic
designation. Industry partners, etc. are positive.
 We can’t control the legislature, but we can control the future of UW-Stout. Look at this
positively for the future. Do the best we can with what we have and this will be positive down
the road.
 Appreciate all of the positive attitudes for the future.
 Great opportunity to rebrand UW-Stout. Communication Technologies is better aligned with
the STEM disciplines.
 Choosing between Option one and Option two – aligning with programs with business (ACT)
but Construction aligns with Oper. & Management. Not uncommon to have ICT with Business.
 Moving to three colleges would have the opportunity to have schools. No additional resources
to fund a school, but may acquire donors for the school. May allow synergies for programs.
 Possibilities may arise with large donors for future schools.
 Reducing sabbaticals, but hoping to have future donors to increase sabbaticals.
 School of Art and Design staff are leaning toward Proposal one. Will need additional time to
define curriculum if part of STEAM. In proposal one, College 1 – STEM – is there room for
Page 2 of 3
























growth with engineering growing in the future? Possibly consider shifting a couple of
departments for logistical location and departments/programs.
Educating students for the future will include collaboration – will want all students working
across disciplines. Will be defined by educating the students for the future – including “blurred
lines” across disciplines.
There are opportunities for changes.
Will the final recommendations be made after all shared governance group feedback? Yes –
will have opportunity for feedback at all the senate meetings (see timeline document).
Proposal 2, College 2 – look at the Eng. & Phil and Social Science move into College 3.
Creating a college of STEAM – may be very large, but is not including all of the art areas.
Equitable workload among deans – may not be feasible as outlined.
Future growth – with additional engineering programs – proposal two creates the largest
college now – will this be feasible for the future?
We can still work at creating STEAM by working amongst the disciplines.
Schools are great for fundraising. Colleges may not be that easy.
Articulating the future of schools – will be great for the future.
Will continue working across the disciplines regardless of the restructuring.
When the models were considered, a reflection of the CI programs. Are they included? Or
just 102 dollars? CI positions require a lot of attention. CI was not completely ignored, but
considering the importance of resources and workload is important.
CI is a differential tuition model – which allows for additional flexibilities – and we will continue
discussions.
Need to move ahead with the decision and we will work together.
Go to three schools for the identity, within three colleges. Working only at the program or
discipline level, may not have the synergies.
Learning a lot by these forums. May not be a perfect model, but this decision needs to happen
because of the financial situation. Protecting faculty is vital. Strategic planning for the future
may include another restructuring model. What happens today should be revisited in the
future.
Will work on maintaining relationships from one college to another. There may be a little
“pain”, but the long-term gain will be positive and we will grow from this.
Appreciate discussion at this forum with the professionalism and courtesy.
Look at student gender profiles which may be around departments. Some colleges may have
better student gender balance. Can we move toward a better gender balance among
colleges?
Will the college restructuring consider programs with low enrollment rates? We are currently
looking at program viability – as a way of taking inventory of our resources. Looking at our
budgets over the last 10 years, shows how we are able to restructure with various areas. Will
be mindful of programs, enrollment trends and resources. Will be out in the open and paying
attention to the information. The program viability process may not lead to a lot of change, but
will showcase our resources. This process will allow for growth and improvements.
Faculty and staff will continue to be involved in the process.
When an accountant looks at the budget, it may be different view. Looking at the growing
need for a program may not showcase the financial resources. Will consider many factors –
qualitative and quantitative factors are included. Strategic sense and financial sense are
included. The heritage of UW-Stout is also considered.
Program viability is in the review process - collecting feedback from governance groups on
campus.
Will today’s notes be available online? Yes - on the Provost’s Office website.
Appreciate participation and feedback.
Page 3 of 3