45 Faculty Senate November 18, 2010 – 3:30p.m.

45th Faculty Senate
November 18, 2010 – 3:30p.m.
Robert C. Voight Faculty Senate Chambers – 325 Graff Main Hall
Vol. 45, No. 6
I. Roll Call.
Present: M. Abler, C. Angell, J. Baggett, D. Buffton, B. Butterfield, G. Cravins, T. Gendreau, K. Hoar, J.
Holman, K. Hunt, S. Jessee, E. Kraemer, D. Lake, R. LeDocq, C. Lee, M. Leonard, W. Maas, M. Rott, S.
Senger, S. Shillinger, and M. Tollefson
Excused: J. Bryan and B. Van Voorhis
II. Minutes of October 28 FS approved.
III. Reports.
a. Chair (Becky Ledocq): The FS chair has received a copy of a memo from the Provost to the
Department of Education Studies stating that their departmental bylaws have been
reinstated. The FS chair would like to extend thanks to the department for all of their hard
work. A report from the Office of International Education shows that UWL has maintained
leadership in the area of international education. UWL currently has the 3 rd largest
international student population (behind Madison and Milwaukee) and ranks 4th in the state
behind Madison, Milwaukee and Marquette (UWL’s international student population was 383
in 2009-10).
b. Chancellor (Joe Gow): No Report
c. Provost (Kathleen Enz Finken): No Report
d. CFO (Bob Hetzel): No Report
e. Faculty Representative (Becky Ledocq): Eau Claire and Superior reps reported that their
unions are proceeding slowly, but both now have a constitution approved. Lecture Capture
discussion: UW Stout uses the ECHO system. Stout has concerns with the fact that recordings
are held and controlled by ECHO, which causes concerns about intellectual property. SEC is
working on this issue as lecture capture will be an integral part of Centennial Hall.
f. Student Association Liaison (Cate Urbos): No Report
IV. New Business.
a. Resolution on Arizona Immigration Law (Marc Rott):
 This resolution was brought forward by a group of concerned faculty members. JMAC is
supportive of the resolution.
We, the undersigned, support introduction of the following resolution as an agenda item for the UW-L Faculty
The faculty senate of the University of Wisconsin at La Crosse (UW-L) condemns the
actions of the Arizona State Legislature and Governor to enact law(s) that marginalize,
criminalize, and profile any segment of the community, particularly the Hispanic community,
in the name of controlling our borders. Not only do Arizona SB 1070 & SB 2281ethnically profile people,
but they also censor/limit scholarship and teaching of ethnic issues at the university level.
We urge the administration, faculty, staff, and students at UW-L to carefully consider the
need for any university-related travel to Arizona until such laws are repealed.
Motion: Faculty Senate endorses this resolution.
Discussion: There are concerns with any type of student travel. Is this resolution
appropriate for FS to vote on?
o Motion to postpone indefinitely.
o Discussion: The resolution is purposefully vague and does not prohibit any travel.
Does this law censure or prohibit education/scholarship? Do we have all of the
facts before we make this decision? This action (postponing indefinitely) is different
from tabling – it would have to come back as a different or new agenda item.
o Motion failed.
Motion that Faculty Senate endorses this resolution failed.
b. Report from Academic Program Review (Linda Dickmeyer and Peggy Denton):
 The first recommendation included in the Academic Planning Committee’s report was
“(t)he Academic Program Review committee should require programs to discuss the use
and effectiveness of any replacement of face-to-face contact hours with online
APR recommends the following changes in the Self-Study Report to address this
In response to the first recommendation of the Academic Planning Committee, the APR Committee suggests two changes
to the format of the APR Self-Study Report document. The APR Committee seeks approval from Faculty Senate on the
following changes:
Change 1: The first change involves adding a bullet in the APR Self-Study Report appendices section such that
programs will include a “profile of course delivery mode within program (report on % of courses that are classroom,
classroom/laboratory, laboratory, online [> 50% online course delivery], studio, etc).” This information will not only be
useful to determine if the program contains a significant amount of online instruction, but also to gain information on
other course delivery methods commonly used in the program (i.e. laboratory, studio, etc).
Change 2: The second change involves 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 states: “If a program course
contains greater than 50% online delivery, discuss the use and effectiveness of this course. Compare any replacement of
face to face contact hours with online activities.”
Motion to approve the changes to the APR Self-Study Report as indicated above. Motion
The second recommendation included in the Academic Planning Committee’s report
considered the role of the APR in monitoring and/or notifying APC of program changes
that involve online courses. This is based on the report statement that “APC should rereview existing programs if programs change to the point that 50% or more of the courses
in the program are offered as online courses.”
In response to the second recommendation of the Academic Planning Committee, the
APR committee members felt that the APR is not the avenue to monitor such activity. As
self-studies occur every seven years, the reports would not be timely enough for this
information to be utilized. The APR Committee suggests that monitoring and/or notifying
APC of the amount of online coursework within programs should come from other sources
on a regular basis, such as from the Director of Online Education.
c. Proposed transition of General Education Assessment Committee to a standing faculty
 The General Education Assessment Committee (GEAC) was created as an ad hoc
committee with a three-year lifespan, in 2008-2009. Thus this the third and final year of its
existence as it currently stands. The GEAC has done a tremendous amount of work
creating and implementing a process for assessing general education courses. In the
reaccreditation process through the Higher Learning Commission (HLC), UW-L continues to
have issues related to assessment in all its forms. The need for continued assessment of
general education courses, as well as the general education program as a whole, is not
going away. After discussion with Anne Galbraith, chair of the General Education
Committee, and Scoot Cooper, Chair of the GEAC, Patrick Barlow, the Assessment
Coordinator, as well as several others interested in assessment, it was decided that we
should consider making the GEAC a standing Faculty Senate Committee.
 The first move in this direction was to create a draft of the possible standing charges for
the committee and the committee makeup. Members of the GEAC, in consultation with
the SEC, created this initial draft. The SEC is asking the Senate to approve the idea of
transitioning the ad hoc GEAC to a standing Faculty Senate Committee. If approved, the
draft of charges would be forwarded to the Articles and Bylaws committee for translation
into proper language for bylaws. This language would then be brought back to the
Senate. Since this would be a Senate bylaw change, two readings are required on the
Senate floor. If approved after the second reading, the bylaw change then goes to the full
faculty for a vote. So, as you can see, this is just the initial step in the process.
Motion to begin the formal process of making GEAC a FS standing committee. Motion
d. Proposed addition to Unclassified Personnel Rules, UW-L Chapter 8:
SEC asks that the Faculty Senate consider an important issue regarding academic freedom
that has arisen in the wake of a 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Garcetti v. Ceballos. The
issue has gained national attention, and many academic freedom organizations have called
for appropriate remedial action. The issue pertains to the right of faculty members to criticize
or question policies and actions undertaken by their respective institutions. Our intention is to
amend Faculty Policies and Procedures in order to address this problem.
(1) Members of the faculty individually enjoy and exercise all rights secured to them by the Constitutions of the United
States and the State of Wisconsin, and by the principles of academic freedom as they are generally understood in higher
education, including professional behavior standards and the expectation of academic due process and just cause, as
well as rights specifically granted to them by: regent action, University of Wisconsin System rules, these policies and
procedures, and relevant practices or established custom of their colleges or schools and departments.
(2) Academic freedom is the freedom to discuss and present scholarly opinions and conclusions regarding all relevant
matters in the classroom, to explore all avenues of scholarship, research, and creative expression, and to reach
conclusions according to one’s scholarly discernment. It also includes the right to speak or write—as a private citizen
or within the context of one's activities as an employee of the university—without institutional discipline or restraint
on matters of public concern as well as on matters related to professional duties, the functioning of the university, and
university positions and policies. Academic responsibility implies the faithful performance of professional duties and
obligations, the recognition of the demands of the scholarly enterprise, and the candor to make it clear that when one
is speaking on matters of public interest or concern, one is speaking on behalf of oneself, not the institution.
(3) In any consideration of matters of tenure and academic freedom, the following statement of policy is relevant. It
was enunciated at the time of the previous codification of the Laws and Regulations of the University of Wisconsin by
the Regents of the University of Wisconsin on January 10, 1964. “In adopting this codification of the rules and
regulations of the University of Wisconsin relating to tenure, the Regents reaffirm their historic commitment to security
of professorial tenure and to the academic freedom it is designed to protect. These rules and regulations are
promulgated in the conviction that in serving a free society the scholar must himself be free. Only thus can he seek the
truth, develop wisdom and contribute to society those expressions of the intellect that ennoble mankind. The security of
the scholar protects him not only against those who would enslave the mind but also against anxieties, which divert him
from his role as scholar and teacher. The concept of intellectual freedom is based upon confidence in man's capacity for
growth in comprehending the universe and on faith in unshackled intelligence. The university is not partisan to any party
or ideology, but it is devoted to the discovery of truth and to understanding the world in which we live. The Regents take
this opportunity to rededicate themselves to maintaining in this university those conditions which are indispensable for
the flowering of the human mind.”
Motion to approve the addition of the proposed language to UWL 8.
Discussion: The language is the same language that UW Madison is requesting BOR approval
for addition to their Chapter 8. This issue was a focal point at a recent conference on shared
governance that the FS chair attended. This language expands on what is already written in
UWS 4 specifically relating to academic freedom.
Motion approved.
V. Old Business.
VI. Adjournment at 4:37 p.m. Next meeting on December 2.
Respectfully submitted,
Kerrie Hoar