46th Faculty Senate
January 26, 2012 – 3:30p.m.
Robert C. Voight Faculty Senate Chambers – 325 Graff Main Hall
Vol. 46, No. 8
I. Roll Call.
Present: M. Abler, C. Angell, J. Baggett, E. Barnes, T. Blumentritt, J. Bryan, B. Butterfield, L. Caya, D. Lake, 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: L. Dickmeyer
II. Minutes of December 15 will be approved at the next FS meeting.
III. Reports:
a. Chair (Steve Senger): No Report.
b. Chancellor (Joe Gow):
 Admissions are up by 400 to 500 applications. Freshman registration is set at 1950
students for Fall. Kathy Keiffer has announced her retirement, so we will be searching for
a new Admissions Director.
 The latest news on the UWS budget lapse is $174 million (UWL’s share will be $1.9
million). The main concern is with 2013-15 bienniel budget. We need to get message
out that we can’t continue to sustain cuts without out cuts to programs and services.
 Graduation went well at the La Crosse Center. They will be adding more seating for
subsequent ceremonies.
c. Interim Provost (Betsy Morgan):
 Summer school compensation plan update: discussions should be taking place at the
department level about implications of the new plan and how it may affect offerings.
Plans for Winter term pay are in the works.
 IR Update: IR should be back to full run in a couple of weeks - a new Director and a
new Institutional Researcher have been hired and the search for a new compliance
officer is nearing completion.
 Foundation scholarships are now online. Approx. 9 are still requesting letter of
recommendation. This is an automatic upload.
d. CFO (Bob Hetzel): No Report.
e. Faculty Representative (Jeff Baggett): No Report.
IV. New Business.
a. UWS Personnel System Task Force Update (Joy Gutknecht): The HR website now has link to
Personnel Systems Task Force Updates. The link contains a list of informational events the HR will
hold at UWL. HR has met with UWL work group members and will continue to meet weekly to
share information. HR is also working with FS, ASC and Student Council to make sure that
information is getting out to campus. The Personnel Systems groups consist of an Overseeing Task
Force, UWS (colleges, comprehensives & Milwaukee) and Madison Work Groups plus an HR
Director Steering Group.
b. Discussion of English APR Report (Rob Dixon & James Longhurst):
Motion to Receive English Department APR Report. Motion approved.
c. Discussion of ESS: Exercise Science APR Report (Rob Dixon & james Longhurst):
ESS, formerly the Fitness program, is in great demand among students, - which puts stress on the
program. APR Recommendations: 1) formal strategic plan, 2) increased demand for
undergraduate research, 3) APR report format recommendations and 4) some website revisions.
Motion to Receive ESS: Exercise Science APR Report.
Questions: With the high number of students in the Biomechanics labs (currently 45 students in
the lab) and the need for new sections, would you have people to teach these additional
sections? Yes, through current searches and combining sections of other courses to increase
number of faculty available to teach these additional lab sections. What are the UGR
challenges? The program could easily double its numbers within a year – turning away lots of
students now. As the number of faculty and staff increase in the department, the ability to
become engaged in UGR will become easier.
Motion approved.
d. Discussion of ESS: Human Performance APR Report (Rob Dixon & james Longhurst):
Motion to Receive ESS: Human performance APR Report.
Motion Approved.
e. Discussion of Updated APR Documents (James Longhurst):
APR is attempting to align documentation with actual process to make the entire process more
clear.
Motion to Approve APR Documents.
f.
Motion Approved.
Discussion of HLC Project Planning Discussion:
We need to choose an Improvement Process project as we are on an abbreviated timeline. The
Chancellor’s cabinet has identified the top three as likely candidates.
Discussion:
 We need a project that is already in the works and something we can easily quantify (identify
outcomes for) AND it must meet the HLC criteria.
 Does our potential project have to be approved by HLC? Yes, but we are still working with
very little information on the whole process.
 If they don’t like the project, do we lose our accreditation? No, they would most likely just
recommend a new project.
 When do we submit the project proposal? The Interim Provost is planning to submit this as
soon as it is approved by Chancellor’s Cabinet.
 To fill in the ?? on the Summer School Transition Impact: General – this will relieve some of the
pressures on courses in which we currently cannot satisfy student demand. Academic Core –
We would be expanding the offerings that we do have. Faculty may be able to offer courses
that students cannot fit into their normal teaching load, but could take them during summer
session.
 Any advantage to choosing a topic that would be the easiest to articulate? We want
campus interest in the project – both Academic and Student Affairs. Also, we want to
choose areas where the people most involved are able to give time to the project.
 STEP Program: It is interesting and it is a stretch project. Criticism? It affects only students in
education. Outcomes? Measured by competency in classroom once you become a
teacher – something that will be difficult to measure in 4 years.
 Inclusive Excellence: Can our project be a system-wide project or does it have to be a
campus initiative? Either – as long as it is measured on campus. What measure have been
identified? There are dorm measures, colleges & departments are reporting on certain parts
and individual classes are reporting on certain measures. We would need to pick a couple of
measures and report on those.
 Murphy Learning Center: Measures? Grades before/after; student satisfaction? – these are
difficult things to measure. Increasing demand for the service?


Internationalization: Advantages? Outcomes are easy to measure (students going abroad,
relationships with other universities), but who would take lead and it is not really a stretch
project anymore (we are on the tail end of this project).
Could the STEP project be broadened to a new Collaborative Academic Project?
Sense of the Senate:












Inclusive Excellence: (Inclusive employs a dual focus in diversity efforts, concentrating on
both increasing compositional diversity, and creating learning environments in which students
of all backgrounds can thrive.) Supporters – 12
Murphy Learning Center: (The MLC is a place where all UWL studetns can receive free
tutoring services in a variety of courses.) In spite of difficulties of measuring outcomes, it is a
good one to consider. How many departments participate? It is difficult to get an accurate
count since the Writing center works with all departments. Tutoring includes Biology, Math,
Chemistry, Microbiology and Physics. Business is also interested. These are Gen Ed level
courses, so the students come from all over campus. Is this new money or a new initiative? It
is now much more organized – we have a director and tutor training, so the quality of the
work has imporved. From a budget perspective, students added much more money to
support MLC through academic initiatives funding. MLC is also tied to other tutoring
programs on campus. Supporters – 17.
STEP Program: (A collaborative program leading to licensure in Early AdolescenceAdolescence. Teacher candidates earn a bachelor’s degree in an appropriate content
major combined with professional education coursework and multiple field experiences.
Supporters – 7
Expanded STEP Program: Supporters – 19
What else would fit in this project? Dual degree programs; bio-math & bio-stats, the statistical
consulting center, dean’s summer fellowship program, early childhood (STEP II – PreK-12).
What is our base? Start with where we were 3 years ago and look at the number of
students/faculty who can be involved in collaborative projects/research. This project could
give us the opportunity to talk about faculty from different departments/disciplines teaching
courses (bioinformatics, UWL 100) or becoming involved in research in other
departments/colleges (getting away from the academic silo)
Internationalization: (Partnerships, curricular transformation, study tours) Supporters – 4
GQ&A: (Increased tuition associated with increased hiring and graduates.) Isn’t this
complete? We do have to re-up and one of the pieces that was not approved – increasing
access and financial aid – could fit this project. This would have been a great project 4
years ago. Supporters – 0
Academic Program Review: (Involvement of college level review & external review & dean
& APR) Supporters – 0
050 Preparation for Future Courses: (Moving to the option of the summer before and
potentially on-line) We need to do this whether or not we choose this as project - students
that need remedial math have restrictions on courses in their major and, until they take math
courses, they are being delayed up to 2 to 3 years in graduation. This could be folded into
the Murphy Learning Center project. Maggie McHugh and Bob Hoar are working on
remediation of 050. Similarly, students are coming to UWL with very poor English and writing
skills and the Writing Center is unable to give them the depth of help that is needed. We
have an obligation to help all of these students be successful. Supporters – 13
Gen Ed Assessment: (Several year effort of assessing SLO’s with a standard method for
reporting) We are already doing this. Supporters – 0
Online Learning: (Increased individual offerings and programs/quality assurance) The idea
represents such a small portion of our current curriculum that it would not make a successful
project. Supporters– 0
Graduate Studies: (Efforts to increase the profile of Graduate Studies at UWL and graduate
student enrollment) This is something that we need to do regardless of whether it is chosen –
but it does only affect a certain portion of campus (a little too narrow for an HLC project).
Supporters – 0
Workload: (Review workload assignment with an eye to reduce inequities) Supporters – 6




Summer School Transition: (Centralized funding, new compensation plan, marketing/admin
switching to Cont. Ed.) Supporters – 0
Fundraising: (Effort to have the capital campaign more closely align with Academic Affairs
initiatives) This is not novel and is not under our control. Supporters – 0
Undergraduate Research: (Increase participation in UG research across disciplines) We are
too far along in this for it to be a stretch project. Supporters – 0
Sustainability: (Efforts to increase campus awareness and practice of methods that do not
deplete or permanently damage natural resources) This is cool, but what does it have to do
with accreditation? Supporters – 0
If we go with the Murphy Library Center, we would like to fold in 050 and English remedial projects
that hold students back from being successful at UWL.
Motion that FS would support either the Murphy Learning Center (including 050 ideas) or the new
idea of an Expanded STEP Program as our HLC Project. Motion Approved.
g. Discussion of Part-time Faculty Appointment Policy: This was approved in 2007; however, SEC has
discussed it and feel that it is not a FS policy. Rather, it is a campus implementation process for
an employment option already mandated by UWS. SEC is looking for concurrence that FS does
not consider this to be a FS policy.
Motion to concur that the Part-time Faculty Appointment Policy is NOT a FS Policy.
If this is not a policy, then departments will need to review their bylaws to make them consistent.
Motion approved.
h. Discussion of Guidelines for Recruitment and Hiring of Faculty. Given the implication of UWS &
UWL 3, FS does not need an additional policy – although this is still a very important document.
Motion to concur that the Guidelines for Recruitment and Hiring of Faculty is NOT a FS policy.
Discussion: In terms of the mechanics of the process, some of the information in these guidelines
are outdated. The copy that is linked off of the HR website does include references to People
Admin, but this document is still referred to as the policy.
Motion Approved.
V. Old Business.
VI. Adjournment at 4:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kerrie Hoar