Faculty Senate
October 1, 2015 – 3:30 p.m.
Robert C. Voight Faculty Senate Chambers – 325 GMH
Vol. 50, No. 3
I. Roll Call.
A. Present: J. Anderson, B. Bennie, G. Cravins, T. Docan-Morgan, S. Foley, R. Fowler, A.
Galbraith, T. Gendreau, K. Hunt, H. Jones, S. Kelly, T. King-Heiden, J. Kirsch, K. Kortenkamp,
A. Loh, J. Longhurst, W. Maas, M. Moeller, J. Nunley, M. Rott, B. Seebach, K. Terpstra
B. Excused: Carol Angell
II. Approval of minutes.
A. Minutes from the 5-7-15, 49th senate were approved.
B. Minutes from the 9-17-15 meeting were approved.
III. Reports
A. Chancellor (Joe Gow):
1. General: Meeting today with alumni for Oktoberfest to receive large donation.
2. Strategic planning: Discussions with planning & budget is on-going; looking to Madison
groups for consulting as to how we should approach.
3. Student numbers: Entering class (first year and transfer students) hit enrollment goals, but
overall enrollment of international students is down. Our 4-6 yr graduation rate is doing
great, but that also leads to low enrollment. There is general concern about lack of exposure
of our students to other cultures given low international student enrollment.
4. General enrollment issues have created an overall budget shortfall of $1.2 million. This has
prompted reorganization plan (to be presented by Dr. Morgan) and recruiting to focus on
international students.
B. Provost (Betsy Morgan):
1. In the news: John Nunley was interviewed on NPR today!
2. Update from Deans Council: Identified that there are various mechanisms for allocating noninstructional assignment time (reassignment due to grants, UWL service etc) across and
within college. This has prompted the need to look for equity across departments; Aaron
Monte looking for way to do this in WINGS.
3. Advising summit: Advising loads across faculty, academic advising, college office,
OMSS/ACCESSS etc are highly variable. Therefore, looking for solutions to address equity
across departments, colleges and academic advising center.
4. Sabbatical: Faculty in library and DES (for example) do not have funding for sabbatical since
funding typically comes from the college. Therefore, looking for solutions to make more
equitable.
5. Summer school: Still is not free standing; PTS may look at this year; not likely to change
faculty salary until find a way to better fund.
6. Promotion: looking to address inconsistent web locations for materials related to IAS
promotion
7. HLC is coming!
C. CFO (Bob Hetzel):
1. Building updates: New Cowley to break ground late spring; Business building in planning;
Parking and student center on budget.
D. Faculty Representative (George Cravins)
1. Submitted Faculty Representatives report in writing.
2. General discussions within BOR have focused on “before and after” implications of
removing Chapter 36 language from state statutes. Legal roles of faculty very different.
3. Major concerns: decision-making process for discontinuing programs (and associate staff and
tenured faculty) and selection process for Chancellors now have committee with BOR chair
and faculty are not majority.
E. Student Senate Liaison (Molly Davies)
1. Students have tabled resolution to reconsider option of how to use funds so that they can
make best informed decision.
F. Faculty Senate Chair (Brad Seebach)
1. Reminder that closure of feedback for HLC assurance argument on Provost website is
imminent.
IV. SEC nominations to Articles & By-laws Committee
A. Unanimously approved
V. APR Reports
A. History
1. APR felt that the history department had no serious issues to address, but would benefit from
additional marketing and could work with the UWL Foundation and Alumni to better track
graduates. It was also suggested that the department address the number of credits associated
with the Social Studies Ed major, and continue to work with the Dean’s office regarding
space needs.
2. Report was discussed and accepted, unanimous.
B. Communication Studies
1. APR felt that the department needed to address some assessment issues, and needed a better
strategic plan regarding the emphases of Broadcast and Digital Media and Argumentation and
Communications Criticism. They should submit a short update/progress report to the Faculty
Senate in three years.
2. Report was discussed and accepted, unanimous.
VI. PTS Committee recommendations
A. Phase 2 market adjustment (restricted to 102 funds): Goal was to address inversion/compression
as well as address market adjustments not met with Phase 1 monies.
1. $50,000 allocated to Deans and Provost as Discretionary funds to be distributed as needed,
with recommendation to address inequities within rank (within departments.) and retention.
2. $2000 to Full professors less than 90% CUPA median.
3. Remaining funds to Assistant and Associate at less than 90% CUPA median in rank less than
10 years and full professors who earn less than 90% CUPA and in rank more than five years.
B. Phase 1 monies: Given that the phase 2 market adjustment can only be used to address faculty on
102 funding lines, would like to amend previous pay plan with respect to distribution of $5544
131 funds.
1. Previous: distribute equally across faculty.
2. New Recommendation: equally to 131 faculty below 90% CUPA and did not reach $2000
max allocation.
C. Following discussion, PTS plan was approved (one abstention).
VII.
Proposed Academic Affairs Reorganization
A. SEC was concerned that faculty have not had the necessary time to review proposed revision of
Academic Affairs (as per faculty governance) and therefore requested that Provost Morgan
present the plan to Faculty Senate.
1. Plan became public Tuesday 9/29/15 which allowed Faculty Senate only two days to review
and discuss with constituents.
2. There were some major concerns (e.g., movement of graduate studies) that faculty would like
to provide feedback on.
3. Motion from SEC: “The Faculty Senate request a delay in implementation of the Academic
Affairs Reorganization Plan until effective consultation occurs and a well-informed
B.
C.
D.
E.
VIII.
A.
recommendation from Faculty Senate can be made in a timely manner (2 weeks), in
compliance with existing university policy”.
Provost Morgan presentation of plan: Several factors contributed to the need for revision of
Academic Affairs; some of which are time-sensitive which was why implementation of the plan
was on a shorter time-line and prior to review by Faculty Senate.
1. BOR audit of IEE lead to requirement that IEE should report directly to Provost. There will
be a new position of a Director for the Office of International Education that will report
directly to the Provost and CFO.
2. This, in conjunction with financial crisis from lack of tuition revenue (~150 students; half
international) lead to decision to discontinue position of the Associate Vice Chancellor of
Enrollment Management (AVCEM).
3. Since several groups reported to the AVCEM, this required reorganization of multiple groups
in a way that considered work load while maintaining Enrollment Services as a unit.
4. After meeting with SEC, and prior to meeting with Faculty Senate, Provost Morgan consulted
with several faculty members, and has reconsidered the placement of Graduate Studies under
SOE Dean.
5. The Provost commented that reorganization related to #1-2 needed to be done in a timely
manner (October 5th), necessitating changes associated with #3 also in a timely manner. This
was why these changes were not brought to Faculty Senate first.
Chancellor Gow’s comments:
1. Personnel and legal issues may preclude from a full delay of the proposed changes.
2. Stated that he was not consulted/aware of the AVCEM position when created, and that he
was not particularly enthusiastic about it; with current budgetary constraints, he does not wish
to grow administration.
The plan and the motion to delay implementation of the plan were discussed at great length. The
primary concerns raised by faculty (senators and guests) along with responses from
administration (Gow, Morgan, and Hetzel) are listed in no particular order.
1. Does elimination of the AVCEM position address budget shortfall?
a) Response: not entirely, but will constitute a substantial step towards addressing the
budget shortfall.
2. Implementation of this plan without faculty input does not follow faculty governance;
particularly with respect to areas such as the graduate program.
a) Response: given the nature of personnel issues, certain aspects of the reorganization plan
cannot be discussed at large. Because a position was eliminated, certain aspects of the
plan are time sensitive and therefore could not wait for faculty input.
b) Response: administration contends that they did not violate any faculty governance
protocols, and that the reorganization plan is under administrative purview.
3. Two days is insufficient time for faculty to provide meaningful and thoughtful feedback on
how the reorganization plan may impact faculty and student learning on campus.
a) A timeline of two weeks was agreed upon to allow time for feedback, while keeping
within an appropriate timeline for administration.
Motion from SEC amended with a two week deadline passed (2 dissent, 0 abstentions)
1. Provost Morgan would provide the revised plan to Faculty Senate for review and consultation
with faculty across campus.
Change of Title for the Director of the School of Education
SEC and several faculty whom have contacted SEC are of the opinion that the retitling of a
Director position to a Dean position does not follow our interpretation of UWL policy regarding
due process for Administrative Appointments at the level of a Dean. SEC brought the discussion
to Faculty Senate with the desire to find a resolution to the communication issues that have lead
to this title change from Director to Dean.
B. Questions related to the title change of Director to Dean of the School of Education were
discussed at great length. The primary concerns raised by faculty (senators and guests) along
with responses from administration (Gow, Morgan, and Hetzel) are listed in no particular order.
1. Applicants for a Director position are likely to be different than applicants for a Dean
position. Why was this not an Interim Dean position followed by a national search?
a) Administration felt that since the current Director of SOE was hired through a national
search, that another national search was not necessary.
b) Administration saw this as a promotion/title change similar to those of other
administrative positions.
2. Why was faculty input not sought?
a) Administration was under the impression that faculty input had been sought through
Faculty Senate; miscommunication from previous Provost.
b) The SOE Transition Team had come to the conclusion that a title of Dean was required vs
Director.
c) Joe Gow welcomed a new policy regarding title changes from Director to Dean positions.
3. Why is a Dean position necessary? Why is Director not sufficient?
a) Job duties required by DPI are more in line with those associated with a Dean position at
UWL.
b) Promotion was made as reward for excellent service and to retain current Director.
4. Concerns regarding structural and communication issues associated with a change in title
from Director to Dean were also discussed. Do STEP (Secondary Teacher Education
Program) faculty answer to two Deans? How do we address already difficult process of
workload allocation within departments and for SOE? Who will be the Dean of record for
promotion?
a) These are things that the Provost will address
C. No real recommendation to resolve faculty concerns was made; however, further conversations
were welcomed; faculty and administration are committed to maintaining lines of communication
and to discuss these difficult topics.
IX. Old business
X. New business
XI. Adjournment at 6:05 pm
Submitted by T. King-Heiden