46th Faculty Senate
February 16, 2012 – 3:30p.m.
Robert C. Voight Faculty Senate Chambers – 325 Graff Main Hall
Vol. 46, No. 9
I. Roll Call.
Present: M. Abler, C. Angell, J. Baggett, E. Barnes, J. Bryan, B. Butterfield, L. Caya, L. Dickmeyer, A.
Galbraith, K. Hoar, J, Hollenback, K. Hunt, F. Klein, E. Kraemer, M. Leonard, W. Maas, R. Mikat, D. Riley, K.
Rosacker, M. Rott, S. Senger, and M. Tollefson
Excused: T. Blumentritt, D. Lake
II. Minutes of December 15 and January 26 approved.
III. Reports:
a. Chair (Steve Senger):
 FS nominating petitions are due tomorrow, February 17.
 Provost: Please provide feedback on the Provost candidates. Online feedback forms
can be found at the Provost website, along with video recordings of all four candidates’
open forums.
 Searches for a new Director of Admissions and an Affirmative Action Officer will begin
soon. FS provides two members for each of these committees. An email call for
volunteers will go out and membership will be approved at the next FS meeting.
 New FS Actions Webpage: To better track the work of FS, the FS office is working on a
new FS webpage that lists all FS actions. This page now lists all actions of the current FS
and previous actions will be added over time. The page also contains a simple search
tool.
 Digital Measures Update: DM is changing the way that uploaded documents are
stored. Currently all of our documents are stored on UWL servers, but this will change so
that all documents will be stored on DM servers. UWL will take the option of storing
duplicates on our own mirrored server where we can set access controls and scan
documents for any confidential information such as social security numbers. For now, all
reports will reference links to documents on our server. In order to complete the upload,
we must turn the ability to list directory information back on for DM’s account. Why are
we doing this? Since DM holds the link to the documents, they would like a complete
copy of all documents.
b. Chancellor (Joe Gow):
 The Chancellor will be meeting with the Provost S&S committee on Monday to discuss
the candidates.
 UWL has officially gotten NCUR for 2013. We are the first UWS school to host NCUR twice
and UW Whitewater is the only other school to have ever hosted NCUR.
 Centennial Hall has been selected as the Division of State Facilities Best Capital Project
for 2011.
 Drake Hall Fire Update: All students have been settled into new accommodations for
the semester and were awarded housing refunds or rebates. Thank you to Nick
Nicklaus, to Jim Jorstad and to everyone who helped out with Move Out Days. While
the fire has been an inconvenience, we are thankful that there were no injuries.
c. Interim Provost (Betsy Morgan):
 Applications have been received for the Faculty Assistant to the Provost, Director of
Graduate Studies and Director of Sponsored Research. All positions will report directly
to the Interim Vice Chancellor and will start on July 1.
 The SOE Director S&S committee has chosen two finalists (a third dropped out) who will
be visiting campus February 28 and March 3. CVs and itineraries will be posted to the
Provost’s website soon. The Continuing Ed Director ad has been placed.
 The HLC Project will be titled Firm Footing: Foundations for Students Success. This is the
combined project suggested by FS – McNair, Murphy Library, 050, etc. Transfer and
International students will be added as areas that still need to be addressed. Sandy
Grunwald will be the HLC liaison for the project and the following individuals will be
attending the HLC conference in March: Natalie Solverson, Patrick Barlow, Jennifer
Kosiak, Maggie McHugh and Virginia Crank.
 The recently approved summer pay plan will be implemented for Summer 2012. What
about J Term? Unlike summer, we get no extra funding for J Term. We will probably
wait until summer session is over and see how the system worked. The stipend will most
likely be a set stipend (regardless of rank) and will be modeled on the $80/credit system
– although it has not been determined yet if there is enough funding for this.
d. CFO (Bob Hetzel):
 Parking Ramp: We have received approval from UWS and the BOR for the parking
ramp project. This project will lay the foundation for two other UWL building projects –
Cowley and a new student union. The ramp will be built on the gravel lots just west of
Cleary Center and will house a new police station and 600 stalls. This frees up the
Cowley lot for the new science building and the Wimberly lot for a new student union.
 Cowley Hall: The UWS Capital Planning Committee is encouraging UWL to request
phase 1 and phase 2 of the new science building at the same time. This would be a
$136 million project that would begin in the 13-15 biennium and take 6 years to design
and complete. This is a significant project, as no other capital planning project has
exceeded $40 million. The Process: UWL will ask for enumeration from the State Building
Commission in the middle of 2013. The BOR will recommend enumeration of phase 1
and advanced enumeration of phase 2. This is a critical step for the project. Phase 1 is
an $80 million building that will be about the size of Centennial Hall and phase 2 would
be a $55 million building, just a little smaller than Centennial Hall. Phase 2 requires the
demolition of Cowley Hall. If students vote for a new SU, then we would repurpose
Cartwright Center for temporary Cowley faculty offices. The Chancellor and FS
thanked Bob Hetzel and Matt Lewis for their hard work on this project.
 New Student Union: This is a student driven project and there are a large number of
students on the planning committee. Ideas for the new student union can be viewed in
the glass case next to the Chancellor’s office. What would happen to Cartwright
Center? It would be turned into green space. Original plans had it become parking
space; however, the new parking ramp has space for adding up to 400 more spaces if
needed in the future. The students will vote on a referendum in April whether to build a
new student union (which would add $300 to the current $1000/year SAG fees) or to
repair and update Cartwright Center (which would add $200 to $240 to SAG fees).
 Classroom/Lab Renovation Proposals: Four projects will be submitted to UWS for funding
consideration for the 11-13 biennium: 1) $1.3 million renovation of Graff Main Hall
auditorium, 2) $960,000 renovation of the Human Performance Lab in Mitchell Hall, 3)
$840,000 renovation of the Athletic Training facility in Mitchell Hall and 4) $800,000
renovation of the Strength and Conditioning Lab in Mitchell Hall. We will not get
funding for all 4 projects, but are hoping to fund two of them. We are competing
against all of the comprehensives for funding and will find out if we get funding at the
April BOR meeting.
 Centennial Hall Updates: There have been concerns made about screens overlapping
whiteboards so that both cannot be used at the same time and about the lack of
Smart boards in the building. We will be collecting feedback about any other issues in
the building and would like to address these during summer 2013.
 GQA Faculty Office Space: There are currently projects planned for adding office
space in Cowley, Wimberly and Morris Halls for new faculty.
e. Faculty Representative (Jeff Baggett): A report on the February 3 Faculty Reps meeting included:
 University Personnel System Working Groups – Many (most?) campuses complained that
there was little or no faculty/staff input into formation of the working groups. Al Crist
(UWS HR Director) explained that UPS is on a very fast time line driven by the legislature.
 Payroll deductions and 12 month pay: We are on track to have this year’s multiple May
deductions spread out over 2 or 3 months. The option of 12 paychecks for 9-month
employees has been put on hold until the current HR system is stable.
 There are general concerns on some campuses about administrative response to




budget problems – from limiting release time to forced curricular decisions by trimming
AS and pressures to remove classes from Gen Ed.
There are currently bills in the legislature the at would give all campuses the ability to
add differential tuition, extend the deadline to withdraw from Wiscnet by one year and
give new employees the option of opting out of WRS.
A committee is being formed to review UWS Grants that will include faculty/staff from
campuses. The committee will make recommendations to Mark Nook, VP Academic
Affairs. (Bob Hoar helped design the application and review process.)
National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) is suing the BOR for access to syllabi in
Teacher Education programs. Who owns syllabi?
Since 1980, the total 102 funding per student in UWS (including state and tuition
contributions) tracks inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index, but it is behind
the Higher Education Price Index.
IV. New Business.
a. Proposed By-laws for Academic Technology Committee (First Reading): The ATC has been an ad
hoc committee and the adoption of their bylaws (which have been approved by A&B) would
make this a standing FS committee. Adoption of the bylaws requires a first and second reading.
Motion to adopt the bylaws. A second reading will take place at the March 1 FS meeting.
b. Discussion of Digital Measures:
SEC sent out a survey to faculty last fall following the DM security issues. There was strong support
(2/3 of responders) for an alternative to DM. SEC is discussing how to proceed and is bringing the
issue to FS for further discussion. DM is currently used for annual, promotion and retention reports
and produces a CV-like report and links to other pertinent items, such as a promotion narrative.
Reports are generated by individuals and forwarded to chairs and supervisors and finally on to
deans and committees in pdf format. It is clear that an electronic process needs to be
maintained, but is DM the best tool for our purposes? The survey that SEC is asking for feedback
on includes four options: Option 1 would have no database and individuals would be free to
develop portfolios and appendices. Option 2 would again have no database, but reports would
follow a template. Option 3 would be a more coarse-grained database tool – for example,
individuals would input full citations into a single field versus the very detailed and numerous fields
used in DM. Option 4 would be DM.
Discussion:
 Once annual activity reports are forwarded to chairs/deans, what are they used for? They
are generally under-used, but are often the only way to see what is happening across
campus or within units. The reports could be an information gathering system to make
decisions and write reports or even to create awareness of activities.
 Why does the new survey lack any mention of security and confidentiality? The last survey
was specifically about this issue, so SEC has a clear idea of what the faculty want done about
this issue. We now need to gather feedback on other aspects of the system.
 DM is used intensely by CBA for accreditation reports, annual college and alumni reports and
assessment study.
 A database is a crucial part of program review. External reviewers ask for data for writing
their reports.
 Individuals access the database for various reports (promotion, merit, etc.)
 We can change DM to be more coarse grained if that is what faculty want. I would prefer to
work with DM to make the system what we want it to be rather than walk away from it.
 Just because the tool is fine grained doesn’t mean that everyone need to use every part of it.
 The work of inputting the data falls on the individual and if it is not putting out a useful
product, then it is not working.
 Queries and report types are limited and are a nightmare to generate. If we had in in-house
database, we could design it to meet our purposes better.


























We are asking DM to do things that it was not intended to do. It was not intended to
produce promotion reports, it was designed for eportfolios. We have modified it to do these
things, but it is not meant for this.
Do we need a database? Yes. Is DM the best option? I don’t know, I have never been
given an option.
Would option 3 work for administrative needs? It would be much faster and easier for
individuals.
Should Option 1 be pulled from the survey if it is not a viable alternative? If left in, the survey
would then include a full spectrum of choices.
DM has a huge learning curve. It produces ugly reports and we spend a lot of time trying to
fix them.
A suggestion to make the wording of Option 3 more clear by clarifying that “by hand” means
through Word, etc.
DM was developed for the purpose it is used for. DM has always known exactly what UWL is
using it for.
Betsy spent 3 year working on getting the interface to work for our purposes and is concerned
about the implications of the survey.
What happens to the information that has already been uploaded to DM? CBA was using
Sedona prior to DM. There was no way to transfer data directly – everything moved into
service and had to be moved to correct fields by hand.
Transition to any option would be problematic. Option 3 does not indicate who would
develop the database and how.
The DM committee was made up of members from across campus and, given the needs of
the campus at the time, DM was the product that best suited those needs. I would really like
to see us work with Cari Mathwig and DM to make DM what we want it to be.
Please remember that the whole idea of DM was to make it possible for faculty to only have
to enter information once.
Betsy worked with every department on campus to design DM to work for everyone’s needs.
Option 3 would not be as easy as the survey makes it sound. There are only two products –
DM and Sedona. DM is the only one that allows customers to make their own data fields and
to add attachments to reports. Sedona will not allow us to add fields and has only added the
attachment feature in the last year.
DM is used by 2000 colleges in 25 countries.
We should think about the magnitude of a change.
It does not reduce faculty work. If I keep all of my data in a Word document, then I have to
cut and paste everything into DM.
All of my information is in DM. Now that it is uploaded and I know how to work the database,
I do not want to learn a new system and re-load all of my data.
This survey will not choose the system. Once we know what the faculty prefer, the next step
would be to identify an alternative system and study the costs and benefits, etc.
Would this be an appropriate time and way to ask faculty about features that they would like
to see changed in DM.
Would it be helpful to have an open-ended item for a person to elaborate? Yes, this was
planned.
Is it possible to modify DM to solve the problems that faculty have with it? We don’t know.
We need to know where we are on the spectrum of desires of faculty.
We could add a free response area for “What are the things in DM that you would most want
to change if we were to keep DM?”
The main thing keeping me from applying for promotion is that I don’t want to have to go
back and add all of my previous information. For promotion, it is only necessary to upload
information back to previous promotion, 6 semesters for teaching and a CV for the rest.
It would be helpful to give more information about what the alternatives to DM are (in option
3). For example, Sedona would not be a viable alternative for the Arts since it will not allow
for added fields for narratives, but instead makes bulleted lists.
I would move to add an open-ended question about what would you like to change if we
choose to keep DM.

There is still an issue of security. Any alternative database would have to meet our security
needs. The survey should include a comment that we are aware of security concerns and
that any alternative would need to address those concerns.
c. Discussion of Recent Technology Issues: SEC has been contacted about IT issues and would like
to give FS an opportunity to voice any concerns. SEC will meet with IT and report back to FS.
 I am concerned about veiled threats about losing internet access and not getting
replacement equipment because the deans don’t have an inventory.
 Individuals rely extensively on technology and like to understand the rationale for
changes and how changes will affect them. IT is not communicating effectively to
faculty.
 It would be useful to have an FAQ instruction booklet in all technology classrooms. It
would increase effective use of technology.
 PeopleAdmin: Candidates need to have numbers and need to keep the same number
throughout the process so we can track when new files are added.
 IT has been using a heavy-handed and one size fits all corporate approach. E.g., There
is not flexibility for research hardware and software. Some equipment and software
require an outdated OS to run. IT reformats a computer and faculty have to wipe disc
and reformat in order to run required software or equipment – but this affects network
connectivity.
 One size fits all mentality. Some equipment can’t run with Windows 7, so one size won’t
fit all.
 Classroom and lab computers may be running equipment/software that won’t run with
the latest OS. Unless we can continually purchase all new equipment, computers and
software, we need flexibility.
 Cost comparisons: Often the IT estimate is twice that of local retailers. Huge concern,
especially with grants.
 Many of the changes fall into the realm of addressing security issues. What are the
security risks?
 Network Printer Issues: Concerns for confidentiality. Department chairs should have
their own printer. Confidentiality is a general concern for all faculty with network
printers. What about waste? If I put in a piece of letterhead to print a letter and go
back to my office to print, I run the risk of someone printing an exam, etc. on that
letterhead while I am in route. Network printers do save money over time.
Any further concerns can be emailed to SEC members.
d. Continued Discussion of Senate Committees:
 There are clauses in UCC and GCC bylaws talking about experimental curriculum. If
there are no objections, these will be forwarded to A&B for removal. Are there any
other concerns so that we can wrap up this discussion?
V. Old Business.
VI. Adjournment at 5:03 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kerrie Hoar