45th Faculty Senate
May 5, 2011 – 3:50 p.m.
Robert C. Voight Faculty Senate Chambers – 325 Graff Main Hall
Vol. 45, No. 13
I. Roll Call.
Present: M. Abler, C. Angell, J, Baggett, J. Bryan, B. Butterfield, G. Cravins, T. Gendreau, K. Hoar, J.
Holman, K. Hunt, S. Jessee, D. Lake, R. LeDocq, M. Leonard, W. Maas, R. Mikat, S. Senger, S. Shillinger,
and B. Van Voorhis
Excused: D. Buffton, C. Lee, M. Rott and M. Tollefson
Absent: E. Kraemer
II. Minutes of April 28 FS approved (as amended).
III. Reports.
a. Chair: The outgoing chair thanked senators, SEC and Sibbie and acknowledged other
outgoing senators.
b. Chancellor (Joe Gow): The budget cut to UWL will not result in program cuts or job loss. The
Badger Partnership proposal should be voted on in the next few weeks.
c. Provost (Kathleen Enz Finken): No Report
d. CFO (Bob Hetzel): No Report
e. Faculty Representative (Becky Ledocq): No Report.
f. Student Association Liaison (Cate Urbos): No Report
IV. New Business.
a. Committee on Committees Report
 Motion to accept the Committee on Committees Report. Motion Approved
b. May Graduation List:
 Motion to approve the List of May Graduates. Motion Approved.
c. Recommendation from the Smoking Policy Review Committee (Melissa Weege & Bob
Krajewski):
 Background: The committee began meeting in October to discuss how the new
smoking law would affect UWL’s current smoking policy. The committee sent out a
survey to the campus (20% response rate) and held three open forums. The general
theme was that people would like to see UWL become smoke free eventually. The
committee recommends designating three smoking areas on campus.
 Motion to approve recommendation.
 Discussion:
1. Why not just go smoke-free? There were concerns about UWL neighbors that
border campus; also safety hazards with students crossing La Crosse Street to
smoke.
2. What is wrong with the current policy? People do not pat attention to the
required distance from building entrances. The campus police do not have
the time to enforce the policy at every entrance at every building, but could
better enforce the policy in three designated areas. However, the committee
was charged with bringing forward a recommendation – now the determining
if or how it would be enforced.
3. Will the urns around campus be removed? Yes. Would this then result in
increased litter around campus?
4. What is the general feeling of students? The SA president reported that SA
voted last week not to support the recommendation. They feel that littering
would increase and do not see a problem with the current policy.

5. Are there UW campuses that are smoke free? Yes, UW Stout is smoke free and
UW Milwaukee is transitioning.
6. Has the committee had any input from the community? No.
7. Cost of implementation? Installation of cement pads, benches and smoking
urns for all three sites would cost approximately $10,000.
Motion fails.
d. APR Response to Special Charge Concerning Assessment (Linda Dickmeyer) :
 APR discussed this charge and could not find any policy which states that APR will
take on this extra assessment piece. Given that the APR report already includes an
Assessment Section and that each department is currently required to file a biennial
report that includes an assessment report, APR does not see a need for additional
assessment reports.

Recommendations:
1. Inclusion of WIMP Assessment in APR Self Study Guidelines
Proposed Change: The APR Committee does recommend adding a bullet to Section
III of the APR Self-Study Report that deals with Assessment of Student Learning &
Degree of Program Success. The new bulleted item would state:
“If applicable, comment on Writing in the Major Program (WIMP) assessment (e.g.
writing-Motion to approve. Why single this out? Is it already in the self study report? It is
not fully addressed – usually due to the fact that there is not trigger for this.
Motion to approve. Motion approved
2. 3-Year APR Progress Reports
In April 2006 the APR self study report format was changed to include 3
recommendation options: 1) No serious areas to address – review in 7 years, 2) Some
areas to address – review in 7 years, and 3) Some areas to address – department
should submit short report on progress to Fac Senate/Provost’s Office in 3 years.
Since then the 3-year progress report option has been used several times, specifically
in cases in which programs were found to be deficient in program assessment. In the
past year many of these 3 year progress reports have come due; however, there are no
guidelines for writing these 3 year reports and this has led to confusion by program
directors on what exactly needs to be reported and how.
Proposed Change: The APR Committee recommends to Faculty Senate that the
following Three Year Progress Report Guidelines be adapted. These guidelines state
the general format for such reports and the possible actions that the APR committee
would provide after reviewing these reports.
Motion to approve the new 3-year report form.
If a 3-year report is found unacceptable, what does that mean? Provost will be
working with APR over summer to determine this.
Motion approved
e. APR Report – Microbiology (Linda Dickmeyer & S N Rajagopal.):
 Motion to accept. Motion approved
f.
First Reading of Electronic Media Policy (Dave Riley):
 The ad hoc Academic Technology committee was charged with investigating the
issues brought by lecture capture technology and write a policy. The policy simply
reaffirms what is already written.
 Discussion: Is it the faculty member’s responsibility to pursue misuse of materials?
Example of a student copying a podcast and posting it on YouTube would fall under
the same pirating laws that apply to any material. Faculty members have the
choice of whether or not to use Lecture Capture in Centennial Hall. The default is

not to use it, so faculty must request its use.) There are only a couple of LC units
available in other buildings across campus.
Ad hoc committee to address lecture capture issues. Policy just reaffirms what is
already written (copy write, etc.); When it falls within your regular duties, no question
that you own the rights – but when it is extraordinary circumstances – gray area –
should be a separate agreement. Student rights -
g. Proposal for Creation of the Institute for Professional Studies in Education (Pat Markos):
 This program was developed in Continuing Ed in 1997 as an academic. The program
is completely self-funded (receives no 102 dollars).
 Motion to approve.
 What is the difference between an Institute and a Department? The program has no
tenure track faculty and has no plans to hire any; therefore, they do not fit the model
of a department. An institute would report directly to the dean, rather than going
through another department. They would remain within the School of Education, but
no longer within the Department of Education Studies.
 Motion approved.
h. Change in IELTS Score Requirements (Michelle Tyvoll):
 This recommendation comes from CAPS and calls for a change in how the English
language requirement is satisfied for acceptance at UWL. Currently, two different
tests are accepted. This recommendation affects only the IELTS, not the TOFOL.
Recommendation to insert the language “with no subscore less than 5.5” into
statements on the IELTS policy as appropriate.



Motion to approve.
Why? This is a newer test, so there is not a lot of data; however, the data does
suggest that an average score of 6 allows subscores that are insufficient for the
student to be successful. (e.g., Speaking score of 7 combined with reading score of
4 yield an average of 6). Of 13 who had scores similar to the example, 10 were not
successful and most were ineligible to return to UWL.
Motion approved.
V. Old Business.
VI. Adjournment at 4:35 p.m. No more meetings for this academic year.
Respectfully submitted,
Kerrie Hoar