1
Minutes
FACULTY SENATE MEETING
February 3, 2015
Ballroom C, STUC
2:30 – 4:30 P.M.
CHAIR: Petre Ghenciu
VICE CHAIR: Ana Vande Linde
SECRETARY: Kevin Drzakowski
PRESENT: Amanda Barnett, Lopa Basu, Amanda Brown, David Delambo, David Ding, Kevin Drzakowski, Erik
Evensen, Barb Flom, Petre (Nelu) Ghenciu, Jen Grant, Gene Gutman, Ted Harris, Anne Hoel, Glenda Jones, Anne
Kerber, Jeanette Kersten, Adam Kramschuster, Matthew Kuchta, Eun Joo Lee, Kate Maury, Brian Oenga, Marlann
Patterson, Christine Peterson, Forrest Schultz, Jeffrey Sweat, Kevin W. Tharp, Loretta Thielman, Ana Vande Linde,
Dean Wirtanen, Keith Wojciechowski, and Julie Zaloudek
ABSENT: Michael Bessert (excused), Esuvat Mollel, Brian Oenga (excused), and Cameron Weaver
GUESTS: Chancellor Meyer, Jackie Weissenburger, Doug Mell, Elizabeth Buchanan, Andreí Ghenciu, Glendalí
Rodríguez, and Cody Cegler
I. Call to Order (Chair, Nelu Ghenciu) Meeting called to order at 2:31 p.m.
II. Roll Call – Sign Attendance Sheet
III. Minutes of December 9, 2014
Motion to approve: (Brown/Thielman) moved to approve. Vote. Motion passed unanimously.
IV. Administration Reports
1. Chancellor’s Report.
 Tonight, the governor will present his proposed budget to the legislature.
 There may be a 150 million dollar base cut per year to the UW system. It is unknown what
Stout’s share of this will be. System may use reserve balances to aid system with low
reserves, including Stout.
 If the cuts went across the board, our share would be 6 million, which would be our largest
cut ever. This would take us to 1998 levels of GPR funding.
 The proposed flexibilities would be useful, although they would not take place for two
years.
 Beyond the biennium, according to the governor’s proposal, funding increases would be
tied to the CPI.
 Tenure and shared governance authority would rest with the Board of Regents. Chancellor
Meyer feels that we would be better protected on these matters with the Board of Regents
having authority.
 Employees would no longer be state employees, but would still be public employees,
meaning that we could still use the state’s benefit and retirement systems. The conversion
of sick leave benefit, though, might change in this proposal.
 It may take up to four weeks for the Fiscal Bureau to examine and interpret this budget
proposal.
 This cut would mean 14 to 15 percent of our funding would come from the state, compared
to the current 18 percent.
 The Chancellor noted efforts to get information out to the public. 71 percent of faculty who
have left, for instance, reported that they left for salary reasons.
 The Chancellor expects that the Regents will not discuss the cuts in detail until their March
meeting.
 If we would be at 1998 budget levels, we should compare our number of students then and
now. The Chancellor agreed that this should be part of our message.
2
 Data on our workload would be good to refer to as we make our case to the public.
 Has System been discussing the way that the mission of public higher education, particular
regarding access, is being damaged by declining funding?
 Has there been a study on how tuition increases would affect enrollment? No such study
exists yet that the Chancellor new of.
 The 16 members of the Joint Finance Committee are the legislators who will have the most
impact on the budget. Only two members of this committee have a UW campus in their
district.
 It is possible that revenue collection in the state may go up. If that occurs, System will
make the case to use these funds to defray the cut.
 The Chancellor was asked about his policy going forward for deciding how to allocate
funding cuts. He replied that a balance must be struck between making the university
attractive to incoming students and serving those who are already here.
 The Chancellor stated that these further shows that we need to behave like a private
university.
2. Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs’ Report/Vice Chancellor for Administrative & Student
Life Services Report.
 The Provost acknowledged that budget issues are on everyone’s mind.
 The Authorization to Implement for Mechanical Engineering was passed by AAAT.
System plan to give us permission to plan, and it is possible that the program could be
implemented for fall 2015.
 The Provost completed an initial review of searches in process, to determine which job
searches in process are essential. Those searches relatively far along in the process were
given approval. She noted that attracting highly qualified faculty remains the priority.
 Review of travel requests is also ongoing. Travel funded by external sources and required
for accreditation has been approved.
 The Provost was asked if other campuses have implemented hiring and travel freezes. She
responded that Stout is in a special case because of the low amount of reserves we have.
 Will those who have been recommended for promotion this year still receive salary
adjustments? The decision has been made to continue with the promotion process in an
effort to retain faculty.
 Offering quality programs, even in the face of budget cuts, will remain a priority.
 The Provost responded to a rumor suggesting that faculty would go to a 15 credit load; she
stated that Stout administration has no interest in this.
 Why are we implementing these holds when the cuts are for the next biennium? Phil Lyons
responded that money we save now can help offset future cuts. Spending prudently now is
especially important.
 Lyons did not anticipate the state reclaiming any funds we already have.
 System President Cross has suggested that he may distribute cuts proportionally to each
UW campus’s share of reserves.
 How are we communicating with our legislative representatives at the state level to
advocate for funds? The Chancellor has been meeting with representatives. System is
charged with the responsibility of arguing for the whole UW System, meaning flexibility is
their chief concern. At the campus level, funding is a greater concern.
 It is possible that System President Cross may seek funding to aid with the proposed
transition to a public authority model.
 Support was expressed for a shared document that we could refer to as we make the case
for funding for public higher education.
 Concern was expressed about changes to tenure and shared governance in a public
authority model. Since the Board of Regents would have authority over these matters, it
3
will become more important for campuses to have a voice in the election of the Board of
Regents.
 Additionally, there was concern that this model would force higher tuition on the students.
V. Announcements
1. Other.
 Chair Ghenciu is calling a special meeting of the Senate next Tuesday in the hopes of
passing a resolution regarding the budgetary concerns. It can be viewed as a faculty budget
forum. Senators should ask their constituents for input to bring to the meeting.
 Will we know our actual share of the cuts by Tuesday? We may not know the allocation of
the cuts among campuses, although we could prepare for a worst-case scenario.
 Nelu participated in a phone meeting led by President Cross. System is likely to embrace
the idea of the public authority model.
 Nelu announced that he would run for a second term as Senate Chair.
 Associate Provost Rodriguez reported that the Graduate Dean search is still on.
 The Polytechnic Summit has been cancelled due to the impending budget cuts.
VI. New Business
1. Updated General Education Bylaws - Jeffrey Sweat
Motion: (Brown/Thielman) Move to approve the GE bylaw revisions proposed by Sweat.
Discussion:
 The proposed changes allow for representation on the GE committee based on the
distribution of content areas in the new GE program. Representatives would be added for
the Contemporary Issues and Social Responsibility and Ethical Reasoning categories.
Another change is removing the designation of certain colleges following the content area
representatives.
 The changes also will eliminate the Well Being representative, which is no longer reflected
in the GE program.
 One representative will also be elected to represent each college.
 The Advisement Center member would become an ex officio member.
 An ex officio member from the RES/GP committee would be added.
Vote. Motion passed unanimously.
2. Spring Faculty Call for Nominations
Motion: (Peterson/Thielman) Move to approve.
Discussion:
 This call will be sent on Thursday morning.
Vote. Motion passed unanimously.
3. 1.7 Dual Level Policy Revision – Graduate Education - Renee Chandler
Motion: (Vande Linde/Flom) Move to approve.
Discussion:
 Currently, a Stout undergraduate student can apply for dual enrollment in a Master’s
program at Stout. This revision would extent that to undergraduates at other institutions.
This will aid in attracting international students.
Vote. Motion passed unanimously.
4. 2.1.3 Transfer Credit Policy Revision – Graduate Education - Renee Chandler
Motion: (Vande Linde/Peterson) Move to approve.
 This change would allow program directors to decide whether courses that are older than
seven years can be transferred into the student’s degree program.
 Students do not find out how/if their credits transfer until late in the process; this is a
separate practice that the GEC has recommended changing.
Vote. Motion passed unanimously.
5. Program Viability Taskforce Appointment of Renee Chandler
Motion: (Thielman/Basu) Move to approve Chandler’s appointment to this taskforce.
4
Vote. Motion passed unanimously.
6. Senate Evaluations of Administrators
 Attempts are being made to streamline the process and avoid multiple evaluations.
7. Perceptions of the Culture. Productivity, & Dissemination of Research at UW-Stout
Presentation by Elizabeth Buchanan/Markie Blumer
 Buchanan presented the results of a study examining perceptions of Stout as an emerging
research institution.
 The report sought to learn what kind of research takes place and how to incentivize further
research.
 Buchanan noted that the report is not intended to identify areas of the university in which
research is lacking; instead, the intent is to encourage further research from those who seek
to incorporate it.
 The report determined that we need to provide increased encouragement for crossdisciplinary research.
 The report found that those who engaged in unfunded research felt that their work was
undervalued.
 A senator suggested that finding ways to collectivize unfunded research might be a good
future step.
8. 2015-2016 Faculty Senate Meeting Schedule
Motion: (Barnett/Tharp) Move to approve.
Vote. Motion passed unanimously.
9. Potential Revisions to Faculty & Academic Staff Personnel Policies on Dismissal for Cause due
to Chancellor by April 30, 2015
 PPC is currently working on this charge from the Chancellor.
 PPC will come up with a resolution to recommend to the senate.
10. New University Policy Committee Regarding Volunteers – Volunteer Needed
 A volunteer could come from the faculty at large.
 Ted Harris volunteered.
Motion: (Basu/Oenga) moved to approve.
Vote. Motion passed unanimously.
11. ETS Testing Update Presentation by Andreí Ghenciu/Glendalí Rodríguez
 This test seeks to assess our General Education program by comparing results from our
students to those from 500 institutions serving as a benchmark.
 The test will be held on April 9th in conjunction with the Grad Fair. Only students
graduating within six months of that date will be considered seniors.
 The goal is a 50 percent participation rate. Faculty and advisors are encouraged to motivate
students to take the test. Incentives are being considered for both students and faculty who
encourage students to participate.
 System requires us to use one of four methods for such an assessment; the ETS test is the
one we have chosen.
 Rodriguez was uncertain about whether the test could be administered in classes where the
instructor volunteers.
 How was the committee put together? The deans selected representatives.
 The proctored version of the test will be taken in a classroom, while the non-proctored
version can be done online. Even the non-proctored version must be taken on that day.
 In the future, it might be possible to use one of the group exam blocks in final evaluation
week for such a test.
12. Campus Physical Development Validation Team Faculty Representative Volunteer
 A member from the faculty at large should be solicited.
 Email Nelu by Thursday with volunteers.
13. Alternative Proof of English Language Proficiency Policy Presentation by Cody Cegler
5
Motion: (Ding/Kuchta) Move to approve the new policy.
Discussion:
 The previous policy allowed students to demonstrate proof of English proficiency by
transferring in English 101 from any institution. This change would require that students
have fifteen credits from these institutions.
Vote. Motion passed unanimously.
VIII. Information Items
1. Other.
 Work on the Provost Search Committee has moved into the reference check via telephone.
IX. Adjournment. Meeting adjourned at 4:19 p.m.