Agenda
FACULTY SENATE MEETING
November 18, 2014
Ballroom A, MSC
2:30 – 4:30 P.M.
I.
II.
III.
IV.
Call to Order (Chair, Nelu Ghenciu)
Roll Call – Sign Attendance Sheet
Minutes of October 28, 2014 (Attachment 1)
Administration Reports
1. Chancellor’s Report
2. Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs’ Report
V. Announcements
1. Other
VI. Unfinished Business
1. Miscellaneous Business
VII. New Business
1. FOCUS 2020 Feedback for Goal Statements (Attachment 2 and 3 [2 of them])
2. Banking Relationship Evaluation Committee Member (Attachment 4)
3. UW-Stout Online Accreditation Results by Doug Stevens
4. CEHHS Position Statement on Graduate School Leadership (Attachment 5)
5. Discussion/Decision Items
a. Other
VIII. Information Items
1. Faculty Senate Dashboard (Attachment 11)
2. Other
IX. Adjournment
1
Attachment 1
Agenda
FACULTY SENATE MEETING
October 28, 2014
Ballroom C, MSC
2:30 – 4:30 P.M.
CHAIR: Petre Ghenciu
VICE CHAIR: Ana Vande Linde
SECRETARY: Kevin Drzakowski
PRESENT: Amanda Barnett, Lopa Basu, Michael Bessert, Amanda Brown, David Delambo, David Ding, Kevin
Drzakowski, Barb Flom, Bert Fraher, Petre (Nelu) Ghenciu, Gene Gutman, Ted Harris, Glenda Jones, Matthew Kuchta,
Virginia Lea, Eun Joo Lee, Colleen Murphy, Brian Oenga, Marlann Patterson, Christine Peterson, Forrest Schultz, John
Schultz, Steve Terry, Kevin W. Tharp, Loretta Thielman, Ana Vande Linde, Keith Wojciechowski, Julie Zaloudek and
Bob Zeidel
ABSENT: Bryan Beamer, Kathleen Deery (excused), Bert Fraher (excused), Anne Kerber, Adam Kramschuster
(excused), Kate Maury, Esuvat Mollel, Jeffrey Sweat (excused), Cameron Weaver, and Dean Wirtanen
GUESTS: Chancellor Bob Meyer, Jackie Weissenburger, Phil Lyons, Meridith Drzakowski, Glendali Rodriguez, Amy
Gillett and Tom Lacksonen
I.
II.
III.
IV.
Call to Order (Chair, Nelu Ghenciu) The meeting was called to order at 2:32 p.m.
Roll Call – Sign Attendance Sheet
Minutes of September 30, 2014
Motion to approve: (Vande Linde/Brown) Discussion: HRS should say UPS on first page.
Motion passed with one abstention.
Administration Reports
1. Chancellor’s Report.
o The Cabot Executives in Residence Event begins tonight – starting with honoring past
award recipients. Notable Stout alumni are coming in for the dedication of a Wall of
Fame in honoring 30 years of the Cabot Executive in Residence program. Events will
take place tomorrow as well.
o Strategic planning has begun on the Focus 2020 goals. There will be two open forums
for discussion. The first one is scheduled for November 3rd, 12:20 p.m. in Ballroom B,
and the second will be on December 2nd at 11:15 in the Great Hall.
o A booklet has been published detailing the accomplishments for the 2015 goals. This
is also available on the Web.
o The Chancellor sent a memo detailing HR changes. Deb Gehrke will take on the role
of Title IX coordinator and also serve as a point person for receiving complaints. Kristi
Krimpelbein will serve as interim HR director. Krimpelbein asked Chancellor Meyer
to share with the senates that policies in FASLA will not be impacted.
o UW System’s report on the need for engineering programs recommended no additional
engineering programs on UW campuses. Administration at Stout disputes the
recommendation, noting that the data from the report actually substantiates the need for
engineering programs. The Board of Regents will discuss this report at their November
meeting. At their December meeting, the Regents will meet with industry experts from
Wisconsin; Mark Tyler is speaking from our region. Mark is a proponent of
engineering at Stout.
o The Chancellor was asked if we will have an Affirmative Action officer. Deb will
serve in this role during the transition.
2
Chancellor Meyer was asked about Kristi Krimpelbein’s qualifications for leading HR.
Chair Ghenciu shared some of Kristi’s resume, including her M.S. degree in Training
and Development.
o Chancellor Meyer was asked if Deb will be able to function in a neutral role after
having served in HR. The Chancellor was uncertain but urged us to try this role.
o UW System is ramping up its efforts to advocate for funds. System President Cross has
made an effort to explain how the system’s reserves work. Speaker Robin Voss is
interested in the topic of workload in the UW system. System is emphasizing UW’s
role as an economic engine.
2. Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs’ Report.
o The Provost shared data on Stout students’ demographics. 54% come from within 100
miles. Senators suggested excluding the DE students from the data and asked if the
demographics could be separated into programs, i.e., only engineering students.
o A team will develop proposals for reducing the need for remedial education courses.
The Provost was asked about the logic for reducing the number of these courses.
Remedial courses do not count toward degree completion, which can increase the
financial burden for these students. The Board of Regents feel this should be solved at
the PK-12 level. Our proposals seek to work with high school partners.
o The Provost was asked about working with community colleges and technical colleges
in eliminating the need for remedial classes at UW-Stout. The Provost noted that
nontraditional students tend to encounter difficulties in math. Modules instead of
coursework, or as supplements to coursework, could help address the skills deficit.
System is seeking a reduction by one third of students taking remedial courses.
o The Provost was asked if campuses might collaborate with each other in providing
modules and other supplementary remedial education. Each campus has its own
standards for placing students in and beyond remedial classes. System would like to
see more standardization of benchmarks.
o Other Notices of Intent recently approved at the Board of Regents were B.S. in Web
Technology and the BFA in Game Design and Development. Chancellor Meyer
expressed appreciation for Kevin W. Tharp’s efforts in developing and promoting the
Notice of Intent B.S. in Web Technology.
o Vice Chancellor Lyons stated that campuses are working on the third and final phase of
the budget cuts.
Unfinished Business
1. Graduate Commencement Recommendation
Motion to approve: (Tharp/Peterson) Discussion: Moving the graduate commencement to
Saturday evening will avoid having a ceremony on Sunday/Mothers’ Day.
Motion passed unanimously. This will take effect this May.
2. Campus Climate Survey Status Update Highlights by Meridith Drzakowski:
o The Diversity Leadership Team (DLT) has been soliciting feedback for possible action
items. Surveys were sent to many groups on campus, referencing data specific to that
unit.
o A feedback form was placed online so everybody had an avenue to submit feedback
confidentially.
o The DLT will meet on November 12th to review all feedback received.
o After the DLT reaches consensus, action items will be forwarded to the Strategic
Planning Group for their meeting in February to discuss.
o One department was concerned about the sixty-day limit on complaints and the
ramification this has on bullying-related issues.
o We do not have a campus definition of bullying.
o
V.
3
Desire was expressed for some structure within the university serving as a central point
or possible center for issues of diversity, inclusivity, and climate.
3. Discussion/Decision Items
a. Miscellaneous Business. Deb Gehrke held an open forum/brown bag lunch last week
explaining the changes coming to the UPS system. Most of the changes will have
limited impact on faculty. Watch for additional surveys and/or feedback which may
affect faculty in the future.
VII. New Business
1. Graduate School Dean/Director Options - by Glendali Rodriguez:
o In the last three years, different consultant reports have made suggestions about
changing the leadership structure for the Graduate School.
o Rodriguez is interested in knowing what the Graduate School could be doing
differently. Amy Gillette has served in the position for two years and is willing to offer
her perspective before retiring.
o Rodriguez was asked the following questions. What is wrong with the current
structure? What will the financial gain be? What offices will move under the authority
of the Graduate School?
o Many other campuses have high-level administrators, associate vice chancellors in
some cases, who are in charge of graduate education.
o The Provost noted that she would prefer a dean at the head of the Graduate School, as it
would give them more of a voice. The will of the campus at large will be considered,
though.
o Might we have a graduate leadership structure within the colleges? With whatever
model we use, graduate program directors will still communicate with the head of the
Graduate School.
o Amy Gillette was asked about the health of the Graduate School. She noted that
enrollment is at an all-time high. She stated she believes a dean position would be
effective and that the graduate school leader needs to have a voice at the table.
o Adding a dean would not eliminate the need for managerial responsibilities. Someone
will still have to take on those duties. A dean role would be a new position with new
duties. Concern was expressed about adding administrative positions without
bolstering staff that have direct contact with students.
o Program directors that have split assignments as directors of both undergraduate and
graduate programs had concerns about multiple reporting lines.
o Our Graduate Education Committee could provide a recommendation to the FS.
o There is support among departments for more focused leadership at the graduate
director level, but there is concern about having a top-heavy leadership structure.
o Colleges control the staffing of the courses for graduate classes. A dean would benefit
from having control over the classes.
o Combining positions could help eliminate the need for new administrative positions.
o Keeping authority as much as possible with the programs and program directors was
stressed as important, since students come looking for specific programs.
o Administrators at higher levels aren’t always aware of accreditation standards within
specific disciplines.
o Associate Vice Chancellor Rodriguez can provide the names of faculty on the task
force if others want to provide feedback.
2. Higher Learning Commission (HLC) Visit, March, 2016 by Meridith Drzakowski/Glendali
Rodriguez Highlights include:
o The HLC conducts a site visit every ten years.
o We have prepared an assurance argument and a federal compliance packet. These
demonstrate how the university is meeting the requirements of accreditation.
o
4
Teams will be formed to address specific topics, including credit hour definition,
the student complaint process, verifying student identity in online courses, and the
making the student handbook accessible via one link.
o Meridith expects the HLC to be interested in examining compressed courses.
o Stout has to submit a quality initiative. We will link this to initiatives from our
planning process.
o The HLC would like one access point to review instructors’ academic credentials.
This is one of the reasons for the initiative to have current instructor websites.
Department chairs have been given contact information for students who can assist
with webpage updates.
o COM is using software that will help with keeping track of faculty credentials and
activities. Administration will work with COM on developing best practices for
the use of this.
o Special course fees need to be available to communicate to students when they are
able to register for classes. We want to avoid all hidden costs incurred to students.
NSSE Survey Results by Meridith Drzakowski. Highlights include:
o This report is available on the information portal. Presentations can be made by
PARQ to specific units. Contact Meridith if your department or unit is interested.
o Highlights from the report are available in an executive summary also available on
the information portal.
o The response rate was approximately 24%, which is approximately 10% lower than
other UW-Stout student survey responses.
o There have been significant changes to questions and themes this year.
o Data can be broken down by the college level upon request. Due to the low
response rates, data may not be able to be provided by programs or departments.
Contact Meridith for requests.
Provost/Vice Chancellor Search & Screen Committee –
Chair Ghenciu had emailed the senate a brief bio on the four individuals interested in
serving on the Provost Search and Screen Committee. Ballots listing all four candidates
were distributed. Senators were asked to circle the individual they chose, and to initial the
back of the ballot. Chair Ghenciu and Secretary Drzakowski tallied the ballots. There was
a first place tie. The senate agreed to vote again choosing one of the two finalists. Chair
Ghenciu and Secretary Drzakowski tallied the ballots.
Motion: (Basu/Tharp) To nominate Ana Vande Linde as the faculty representative.
Motion passed unanimously.
Banking Relationship Evaluation Committee Member. Chair Ghenciu asked for a
volunteer. Since no senators volunteered to be on this committee, chair Ghenciu asked the
senators to request a volunteer from their constituents and email him the names for the next
Faculty Senate meeting.
Committee Approvals
a. CIC Bylaws. Tom Lacksonen reported CIC had not updated their bylaws in quite some
time. The CIC updated bylaws were updated under the membership, job titles, duties
of the chair and support person and updated to reflect that materials are no longer
collected in hard copy, but submitted electronically.
Motion: (Vande Linde/Harris) Move to approve the CIC Updated Bylaws. Motion
passed unanimously.
b. PPC – 2015-16 Promotion Timeline, Sabbatical Timeline and Tenure Timeline.
Motion: (Terry/Jones) Move to approve the 2015-16 Timelines. Discussion: The
only edits were to include language for the synchronization of tenure with the associate
professor application and changed the dates. One link may not be working. Borofka
will look into it.
o
3.
4.
5.
7.
5
Motion passed unanimously.
VIII. Information Items
1. Chancellor Memo of Definition of Academic Rigor
2. Draft UW-Stout Policy on Advertising, Sponsorship and Promotion of Alcohol and
Tobacco Products. The final version of the policy will come to FS for approval at a later
date.
3. Faculty Senate Dashboard (Attachment 11)
IX. Adjournment. Meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m.
Attachment 2
FOCUS 2020 Goal Statements
DRAFT AS OF 10/27/2014
Instructional Models:
•
•
Create a supportive environment that encourages, promotes and incentivizes the use of
innovative, high-impact, evidence-based instructional models and practices.
To increase student learning, retention and completion rates, enrollment of non-traditional and
diverse students, high placement rates, participation in applied learning, and student
engagement.
Applied Learning:
•
•
All undergraduate majors, as part of graduation requirements, will identify at least one applied
learning experience, one applied research experience, and one curriculum-based experience
that develops intercultural competencies.
To increase students intercultural competency, the number of students with an education
abroad experience, placement rates, retention and completion rates, student engagement,
participation in high impact practices, and preparation for success in the workplace.
Relationships:
•
•
Develop centralized systems that provide opportunities to support, increase and sustain
external partnerships.
To expand funding array, increase experiential learning opportunities, increase engagement,
grow relationships with external constituencies and solve current and future societal problems.
Attachment 3
FOCUS 2020 Goal Statements
Feedback Session
Background
• UW-Stout currently has 5 year strategic plans.
• The first year of the process is spent developing
the strategic plan, which includes goal statements
and performance indicators (metrics).
• The next three to four years are spent identifying
initiatives to achieve the strategic plan.
• The final year is spent closing out the initiatives.
Process to Date
July 2014
Stakeholder
Visioning
Session
Result:
• Identification of themes to
guide our thinking for the
next 5-7 years
• Draft goal statements
developed for discussion
at Engagement Session
Process to Date
July 2014
Stakeholder
Visioning
Session
August 2014
Engagement
Session
Result:
Feedback
received on
proposed FOCUS
2020 goal
statements
Process to Date
July 2014
Stakeholder
Visioning
Session
September 2014
• SPG reviews feedback
• Subcommittees
formed on goal devt
and on performance
indicators
August 2014
Engagement
Session
Result:
Initial suggestions made for
revisions to goal statements
Process to Date
July 2014
Stakeholder
Visioning
Session
September 2014
• SPG reviews feedback
• Subcommittees
formed on goal devt
and on performance
indicators
August 2014
Engagement
Session
October 2014
Goal devt
subcommittee
makes changes to
goal statements
Process to Date
July 2014
Stakeholder
Visioning
Session
September 2014
• SPG reviews feedback
• Subcommittees
formed on goal devt
and on performance
indicators
August 2014
Engagement
Session
November 2014
• Goal devt
subcommittee holds
13 feedback sessions
• Feedback form
available
October 2014
Goal devt
subcommittee
makes changes to
goal statements
Proposed Goal Statement #1
• Create a supportive environment that
encourages, promotes and incentivizes the
use of innovative, high-impact, evidencebased instructional models and practices.
• To increase student learning, retention and
completion rates, enrollment of nontraditional and diverse students, high
placement rates, participation in applied
learning, and student engagement.
Proposed Goal Statement #2
• All undergraduate majors, as part of
graduation requirements, will identify at least
one applied learning experience, one applied
research experience, and one curriculumbased experience that develops intercultural
competencies.
• To increase students intercultural
competency, the number of students with an
education abroad experience, placement
rates, retention and completion rates, student
engagement, participation in high impact
practices, and preparation for success in the
workplace.
Proposed Goal Statement #3
• Develop centralized systems that
provide opportunities to support,
increase and sustain external
partnerships.
• To expand funding array, increase
experiential learning
opportunities, increase
engagement, grow relationships
with external constituencies and
solve current and future societal
problems.
Proposed Goal Statement #4
?
Next Steps
December 2014
Goal devt subcommittee
makes additional revisions
to goal statements based on
feedback
Next Steps
December 2014
Goal devt subcommittee
makes additional revisions
to goal statements based on
feedback
January 2015
Updated goal statements
shared with the campus
at You Said…We Did
Session
Next Steps
December 2014
Goal devt subcommittee
makes additional revisions
to goal statements based on
feedback
Spring 2015
FOCUS 2020 goal
statements reviewed
and approved by SPG
January 2015
Updated goal statements
shared with the campus
at You Said…We Did
Session
Next Steps
December 2014
Goal devt subcommittee
makes additional revisions
to goal statements based on
feedback
Spring 2015
FOCUS 2020 goal
statements reviewed
and approved by SPG
January 2015
Updated goal statements
shared with the campus
at You Said…We Did
Session
Spring 2015
FOCUS 2020 goal
statements reviewed
and approved by the
Chancellor
Next Steps
December 2014
Goal devt subcommittee
makes additional revisions
to goal statements based on
feedback
Spring 2015
FOCUS 2020 goal
statements reviewed
and approved by SPG
January 2015
Updated goal statements
shared with the campus
at You Said…We Did
Session
July 2015
Action items
begin to be
developed to
achieve FOCUS
2020 goals
Spring 2015
FOCUS 2020 goal
statements reviewed
and approved by the
Chancellor
To Provide Input
• Submit comments on the feedback form by December 5:
https://uwstout.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_86yvU6V6Qc
co377
• Attend the open forums:
• Monday, November 3rd: 12:20-1:15 p.m., in Ballroom
B, MSC
• Tuesday, December 2nd: 11:15 a.m. to 12:10 p.m. in
Great Hall AB, MSC
Attachment 4
CEHHS Statement in Response to the Insight Report and
Proposed Position Description for the Director/Dean of Graduate Studies
The College of Education, Health and Human Sciences (CEHHS) Council consists of the Dean and
Associate Dean, Chairs, and Program Directors (PDs). We appreciate this opportunity to provide input
regarding potential changes to the Director of Graduate Studies position and feedback on the Insight
Report:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We believe that Graduate Studies at UW-Stout would benefit from a stronger leadership role
definition, potentially as designated by an executive director or dean position. The person in
this position should have an opportunity to participate in meetings and conversations among
administrative leadership that impact how graduate studies functions across campus.
We believe that there is opportunity to utilize University infrastructure to support the
recruitment, marketing, admissions and registration and records in the quest for efficient and
effective use of the leader’s role as a director/dean of graduate studies.
We question the notion of splitting PD assignments in order to achieve the intended goals for
leadership of graduate studies. Split assignments tend to add layers of administration, which
often works against efficiency, and we worry that the result may actually have negative impact
on program function, in the pursuit of an alternative goal. We are not clear on why split PD
assignments are integral to achieving goals related to the leadership role and function.
We are totally opposed to any model that gives the graduate school dean or director
supervisory role over graduate program directors.
We are totally opposed to any model that grants or assigns funding authority over customized
instruction tuition streams.
We question the general content of the Insight Report, specifically as to the nature of what
data was used to draw conclusions and commentary. There does not seem to be consideration
in the report for the variable nature of the programs offered at Stout (traditional, part-time,
distance delivery, etc.). Many of the report recommendations appeared to be applicable
exclusively to more traditionally delivered programs. Some of the comparisons made as
benchmarks do not appear to be equitable, and there is a question as to what specific
individuals were interviewed on campus for the report, as the vast majority of Chairs and PDs
from CEHHS were not consulted. Program directors and deans would like a more open
discussion specifically focused on a spirit of shared governance and program directors having a
stronger voice in the final decision on the proposed model(s).
While fully understanding that these proposals are offered as tentative considerations, we
question the applicability of migrating Stout Online and/or Research Services under the
auspices of Graduate Studies. Both of these function as service units that play a role for
undergraduate as well as graduate programming, and do not seem like a “natural fit” with
Graduate Studies.
Adequate input was not sought in the development of the four options presented and we
believe that other options need to be considered and discussed.
In summary, we endorse the idea of strengthening the leadership role for Graduate Studies. We believe
there are more creative or efficient ideas that could be considered to achieve this goal, such as better
alignment of Graduate Studies with existing service centers such as Enrollment Services and University
Marketing. We would welcome an opportunity to share our thoughts regarding this important topic in
more detail, and appreciate your hard work on this potential shift to Graduate Studies.