45th Faculty Senate
September 30, 2010 – 3:30p.m.
Robert C. Voight Faculty Senate Chambers – 325 Graff Main Hall
Vol. 45, No. 3
I. Roll Call.
Present: M. Abler, C. Angell, J. Baggett, J. Bryan, D. Buffton, B. Butterfield, G. Cravins, T. Gendreau, K.
Hoar, K. Hunt, S. Jessee, E. Kraemer, D. Lake, R. LeDocq, C. Lee, M. Leonard, W. Maas, M. Rott, S.
Senger, S. Shillinger, M. Tollefson, and B. Van Voorhis
Excused: J. Holman
Guests: Michelle Tyvoll (ESL), Andy Temte (Kaplan) and Sandy Sieber (OIE)
II. Minutes of September 16 FS approved.
III. Reports:
a. Chair (Becky Ledocq):
 SEC has selected Bob Krajewski and Melissa Weege to serve as the faculty
representatives on the Campus Smoking Policy Review Committee and Heidi
Morrison to serve as the faculty representative on the Student Academic Initiatives
committee. Thank you to all of those who volunteered.
 Search and Screen Updates: Both the CIO and Asst. Dean of CLS searches are in full
swing and on track.
 Nominations for the UWL Alumni Association Awards will be due soon. There are 3
awards which recognize alums in different stages of their careers:
 Maurice O’Graff Award – graduated 20+ years ago
 Ron Rada Distinguished Alumni Award – graduated within 20 years
 Multicultural Alumni Award – for any living graduate
 Computer Science Distinguished Lecturer: Charles Thacker will be at UWL on
October 4th and will lecture at 11:00am and 5:00pm in the Cleary Center.
 McNair Scholars Night: This informational session for students, staff and faculty will be
held on Tuesday, October 12 from 4:00 to 6:00pm in the Ward room.
 Senators are encouraged to participate in the voting process. Debates will be in full
swing soon, starting next Tuesday.
b. Chancellor (Joe Gow):
 With regards to the students involved in the recent sexual assault – the incident was
self-contained and there is no pending danger to students. The accused will be
back in court on Wednesday. A program has been planned for next week
regarding sexual assault – what is it, what to do, what do we provide (details to
follow).
 Budget News: The current state budget is facing a deficit, which will equate to a $25
to 40 million deficit for UWS ($1 to 1.5 million for UWL). This means that the $550,000 in
extra tuition dollars will not be going back to the colleges, but toward the deficit. In
addition, the next biennial budget is looking at a statewide deficit of $3.1 billion.
UWS will be asking for cost to continue (funds to keep doing what we do), plus no
new furloughs, restoration of the 2% pay plan and funding for More Degrees for
Wisconsin for the next biennium.
c. Provost (Kathleen Enz Finken): No Report
d. CFO (Bob Hetzel): No Report
e. Faculty Representative (Becky Ledocq): No Report. First Faculty Reps meeting is tomorrow
(October 1) in Madison. Contact Becky with any items you would like added to the agenda
for discussion.
f. Student Association Liaison (Cate Urbos): No Report
IV. New Business.
a. Introduction to the Kaplan Global Pathways Program (Provost Enz Finken):
Kaplan would like to partner with UWL as part of its Global Pathways program. UWL would
work with Kaplan to design the program around our needs and standards – numbers of
students, admission standards, programming and curriculum, instructional staff, etc. Kaplan
would share in the tuition for those students enrolled in the Pathways program and receive a
negotiated portion of their first year tuition if they are admitted to the university as an
incoming freshman.
Discussion:
Can we recruit in areas that we would like to develop? We would develop the student profile
that Kaplan would use for recruitment – specific program areas could be part of that profile.
How would this affect work of OIE staff? Kaplan would need to have one or two staff
members on campus, but we would maintain control over the ESL institute. This would require
increased staff and funding, so would need to design the partnership so that these costs
would be covered. The Kaplan staff would work in areas such as external programming.
How is UWS involved in this partnership? How does UWS feel about split tuition? UWL has not
yet explored any budget models, but the funding would probably come as increased fees
rather than actual tuition sharing. This type of program would be new to UWS as well, so they
would need to be part of the planning process.
How many students are we talking about? We would work with Kaplan to establish a target
goal that would be acceptable to both UWL and Kaplan. UWL would need to consider
space, staffing, etc., while Kaplan would want to be sure that the number is large enough to
make the partnership cost effective.
How does Kaplan feel about UWL maintaining control over staffing through our ESL Institute?
Kaplan has not given any impression that they would not support UWL maintaining its own
teaching staff as the ESL Institute. UWL would need to expand or adjust curriculum to meet
the needs of incoming students, but we would not want to outsource it.
What sort of space requirements will be needed? New ESL staff would need office space and
the Kaplan staff member would need an office.
Does this require any UWL upfront/startup money? No. Kaplan begins the recruiting
immediately and receives the negotiated split when these students enter the Global Pathways
program.
It should be noted that the Global Pathways program is fully separate from the for-profit
university that is currently under investigation. The Pathways program is run through London as
part of their European operation, while the for-profit university is run through Ft. Lauderdale.
Motion to generally support further development of this program with expectation of seeing a
full proposal at a later date. Motion passed.
b. Update on Work of IT Task Force:
An external review of ITS was conducted in 2008-9 and the report was drafted in April 2009.
The IT Task Force was then put together to act on the recommendations in the report. The
faculty representatives on the Task Force are Dave Riley and Todd Will. The following is a list of
those recommendations and an example of how each has been addressed.
1. Better Communication: This continues to be a work in progress; however, the way
that Eagle Apps was chosen (via campus input, surveys, open forums) is an example
of how ITS is changing its communication methods.
2. Structural Needs: ITS is no longer in Academic Affairs, but is now in Administration
and Finance.
3. Teaching and Learning: See Academic Technology Services below.
4. Website: A new web unit was proposed by the Task Force and will be housed in
University Relations. A search is underway for a coordinator. The unit will also house
a web designer and a content manager.
5. Faculty and Staff Support and Training: There has been an increase in ITS staffing –
moving from 1 to 4 desktop support people and more telephone support people.
6. Human Resources: Areas were evaluated and staff were re-distributed where
necessary.
7. Financial Resources for ITS: ITS is currently going through a zero base budget exercise
in which each unit must request every dollar and justify the need for it. A new
budget will then be built from the ground up. It was decided to end some programs
such as passport photos.
8. Hardware and Software Needs: Needs are being assessed and cost saving
measures are being researched (such as system-wide software licensing).
9. Governance: The original governance body was the Joint IT Committee. It was
temporarily replaced by the IT Task Force during the transition period. The last order
of business for the IT Task Force will be to create a new governance body (with
faculty representation) and will then disband. This should take place by the end of
the calendar year.
10. Organizational Dynamics within IT: The new CIO will deal with this issue.
Academic Technology Services (Jim Jorstad): ATS is a new unit within ITS. ATS is
combining parts of Educational Technologies, Technical Support Services, D2L and Digital
Measures to create this new unit. It is currently in the transitional phase and it is expected
to take some time.
 Focusing on services – lecture capture; emerging technology; D2L & DM; rich
media & video; academic web applications; distance ed; digital imaging; LTDC
and grants; computer labs; classrooms; software; technology pilots and testing;
faculty consultations; research
 Advocate for faculty in the effective integration of technology into teaching and
learning process.
 Future Directions: Enhanced communications; lecture capture; learning space
project contract; digital signage; academic building integration and deployment;
software downloads; online project status report; faculty tech resources; DAM
(digital asset management); CGA Labs – getting away from acronyms & techno
jargon
 Student Involvement: increasing IE
 October 7 & 8 – UWS LTDC meeting
o October 7 – Apple corporation presenting “iPads in Education” at noon in
Port o’ Call (brown bag lunch)
 What are your needs? Jim is visiting departments and units to find out what faculty
and staff needs are.
c. Recommendations from 09-10 Research and Grants Committee Final Report (Jeff Bryan):
1. Committee Review of Proposals: Alter the language in the Call for Proposals in such
a way that gives the Committee the right to decide about alternative methods for
reviewing the grant proposals that includes not hearing an oral presentation from
each proposer. This will give future committees flexibility in the case that there are
many proposals.
“The Research and Grants Committee may or may not decide to hear oral proposals
by each individual grant proposer. This will be decided on an annual basis by the
incoming committee and announced at some point in the Fall semester after the
proposals have been submitted.”
DISCUSSION: This would make it a two-step process and applicants would need to
pass the first step to move on to the oral presentation step.
Recommendation goes back to the committee for rewording.
2. Student Help: It is the Committee’s recommendation that there be a standard wage
paid to students and a maximum amount of requestable hours for student help.
Committee members assume that the standard minimum wage will be paid to
students. If an additional wage is to be garnered, the narrative must explain.
Second, while this is an excellent spillover benefit of faculty research, this is not an
explicit goal of the faculty research grants.
DISCUSSION: There was a wide variation in the hourly rate paid last year and it
seemed inherently unfair to the committee members. The committee would like to
make this more consistent in the future with this new standardized rate. Those
requesting additional funds would be asked to provide justification.
Motion Passed.
3. Stipend in Lieu of 1/9th of Salary: The Committee recommends that the annual
stipend be increased by a cost of living adjustment to meet the rate of inflation on
an annual basis.
This recommendation will not be discussed, but will come back to FS at a later date.
4. “Three Awards in Five Years” Language Amendment: The Committee recommends
that the language concerning the “three awards in five years” policy be amended
to the following
“Researchers may be funded twice in a three (3) year period (as of the beginning of
the academic year 2006-2007).”
DISCUSSION: Is this simply a way to increase the opportunity to submit proposals?
How many requests are submitted each year? How many faculty members actually
receive back-to-back funding? How many are fully funded? Would this
recommendation provide for more grants to be funded, but at a lesser amount?
Recommendation goes back to the committee for further research and discussion.
V. Old Business.
VI. Adjournment at 5:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kerrie Hoar