46th Faculty Senate
December 1, 2011 – 3:30p.m.
Robert C. Voight Faculty Senate Chambers – 325 Graff Main Hall
Vol. 46, No. 6
I. Roll Call.
Present: M. Abler, C. Angell, J. Baggett, E. Barnes, T. Blumentritt, L. Dickmeyer, D. Lake, A. Galbraith, K.
Hoar, J, Hollenback, K. Hunt, S. Jessee, F. Klein, E. Kraemer, M. Leonard, W. Maas, R. Mikat, D. Riley, K.
Rosacker, M. Rott, S. Senger, and M. Tollefson
Excused: J. Bryan, B. Butterfield
II. Minutes of November 10 approved.
III. Reports:
a. Chair (Steve Senger): No Report.
b. Chancellor (Joe Gow):
 Provost update: Betsy Morgan will be serving as Interim. The search committee has
posted the ad.
 Budget Update: The lapse will be $1.9 to $3.2 million. The 13-15 biennial budget is not
known yet. When will we know what the final lapse figure is? The Legislative Fiscal
Bureau will give an update in January – we should know more at that time.
 Winter Commencement will be held on Dec. 18 at the LAX Center.
 UWL is leading UW System’s enrollment targets - while Madison and Milwaukee are
down in enrollment.
c. Provost (Kathleen Enz Finken): No Report
d. CFO (Bob Hetzel): Report on New Student Union: The committee met today (16 members on
committee – 8 students) and has identified which groups want to be in the Union. The building
will be 162,000 sq. ft. (Centennial Hall is 186,000 sq. ft.). The group is just beginning to discuss
financing and whether to renovate Cartwright Center for $26 million or build new for $56 million.
There will be a student referendum in April to decide on new construction versus renovation.
e. Faculty Representative (Jeff Baggett): No Report.
IV. New Business.
a. Approval of Proposal for New BFA in Art (John Ready & Jennifer Terpstra):
Motion to approve a new BFA in Studio Art.
Discussion: The Art faculty are very dedicated to growth in the program. Students are also very
supportive. The Art Major is now 48 credits and has received UCC approval for this credit level.
The BFA will be 69 and has also received UCC approval. Is there a way out of the BFA program if
a student starts and wants to go back to BS/BA? Yes. Could a student finish in 4 years? Since
there is no minor and, assuming they begin the core curriculum in their freshman year, then yes, it
is possible. Resources? A need was mentioned in the original proposal; Dean Benson has said
she can’t give them the entire amount requested. Can the department proceed without
additional resources? Yes. Dean Benson stated that Art has gotten 2 FTE in department since the
original proposal was written, so they do have sufficient FTE to support the program.
Motion Approved.
b. Discussion of SEC Proposal Regarding TEGC/SoE – First Reading:
 TEGC was first proposed in 2004 and is unique in that the Director of the School of Ed is a
voting member and is in charge of appointing 3 community members. The committee
bylaws are also unique in that the committee serves in an advisory role to the SoE
Director.



In 2009, PTS brought a recommendation to FS that the SoE Director serve as an advisor
and not as a voting member. This was approved, but was never enacted.
The Current proposal has two main actions – to dissolve TEGS as a faculty committee
and move it into SoE and detail the role of the SoE Director in hiring, retention, tenure
and promotion of SoE faculty. This would be a new FS policy and a change to the FS
bylaws; therefore, requires two readings and a 2/3 majority vote for approval.
Discussion: Who would TEGC report to? School of Ed; SoE curriculum would go
through department, SoE and then UCC; Would non-faculty members have a vote on
SoE faculty? No – voting occurs in the home department of each faculty member. The
SoE Director would provide advisory information, but would not have a vote.
Departments would need to communicate directly with the SoE Director as to when an
advisory letter is needed – the 7 days listed in the policy is a minimum. What would
trigger a department chair to request a letter from the SoE Director? How does
someone know that they are SoE faculty? Does this apply to retention/tenure of all SoE
faculty or just new hires? Are there SoE faculty who don’t know it? If so, then chairs and
deans need to discuss this and get it straightened out. What about older SoE faculty –
there is no mention of SoE Director input in departmental bylaws. Do faculty know that
the SoE Director has input? How does a department use this input? More clarification?
– DPI wants the SoE Director to have input on retention/tenure/promotion of SoE faculty.
Departments need to get a letter from the Director since departments are the body
making such decisions. The Director will only contribute comments on those areas that
pertain to DPI standards/expectations of teacher education faculty. All SoE faculty
members have a home department and dean who can clarify situations where
individuals are at variance with the SoE faculty definition in the policy.
Motion to amend the motion: This policy will become effective Fall 2012 for all SoE faculty. Motion
Approved.
Motion to adopt policy with amendment that it will become effective Fall 2012 for all SoE faculty.
Motion to make the following change: E. Depending on the nature of the curricular change the
consultation may be resolved by the Director of the School of Education or by a fuller an expanded
review within the School of Education. Motion Approved.
c. Discussion of Digital Measures (Mohamed Elhindi):
 The DM feature that allows one to obtain the entire directory tree has been turned off
and all information is password protected. Those documents uploaded by department
chairs have always been password protected. Access will continue to be password
protected unless a department releases a report with complete links included.
 SEC conducted a short survey:
1. Do you want an eportfolio system? 31% - Yes and 69% No
2. If we use a password protected system – what is the level of access you would
prefer:
a. ability to list directories – 6%
b. turn directories off unless a person knows the full URL – 4%
c. define memberships (department, JPC, etc.) and control access
dependent on membership – 61%
d. owner of documents determines access on a per document/per user basis
– 29%
 over 90% of survey takers want more security than what we provide now.
 Comments on the survey included: Concerns about confidentiality and control of
access; Improvement of usability; and Please go back to paper. Please don’t make us
go back to paper.
 FS is not taking any specific action at this time, but we do need to have a discussion to
determine how to move forward.
 Discussion: Do we really need two separate systems to provide what faculty want from
the system?; Anything that can be done to make the entire issue more clear to faculty
would be appreciated; There has been feedback to senators requesting that we just


get ride of DM altogether; Did any social security #’s get out onto the internet? A total
of 3 #’s did get out. These were uploaded by accident as they were hidden within
uploaded documents. In two cases, individuals uploaded their own SS# and in the third
case, a student’s SS# was included on grant documents that were uploaded. It does
not look like anyone accessed those #’s and all individuals involved have been notified.
All documents have now been removed from all browser caches. What is an
eportfolio? This is an online CV that could be linked to documents. Those who would
like an eportfolio system, could easily upload this information to their own websites and
everything else kept on a secure server that would only allow access to UWL users. Why
not just stick with paper? How much do we pay for DM? $8 to $12 for a multi-year
contract. Is there better software out there? D2L has an eportfolio system, but it is
geared towards students; however, D2L would be easier to secure than DM.
What questions should be brought to the faculty?
 Would you like IT to continue to use DM, but do whatever is possible to control
access?
 Would you like to pursue other systems?
 Is the current system acceptable, or would you prefer a system that allows for
more individual structure and development?
SEC will continue to discuss the issue.
d. Demo of Online SEI:
 Dave Robaczewski was charged with developing an SEI tool that would work like the
current paper system.
 Reports will be pdf documents and will report everything that they currently report.
Department chairs and ADAs will have access to their reports and can either email
them or print copies for their faculty.
 Students will receive an email stating they have evaluations available with link to the
site with all SEIs. Student will get first email in week 13 with 2 reminders (over a 10 day
period).
 Each department will create their own SEI templates. The Six Standard questions will be
mandatory (can’t be modified or deleted), with ability for departments to add more
questions. There will be a pool of common questions or departments can write their
own.
 Discussion: How will we reach students who don’t check their email? A statement will
be placed on syllabi and instructors should also remind students of the procedure. Does
this affect our ability to keep SEIs from becoming open to the public? State law requires
that teachers be evaluated, but each institution determines how this is done. There is
precedence in Wisconsin for not providing this type of information. Regardless of how
the data is collected (scantron versus online), all data is stored on computers. Courses
such as internships, etc., which are not usually evaluated can be removed by
department chairs or ADAs from the list of courses being evaluated. SEIs are optional. If
a student decides not to complete an SEI, there should be an action for them to take so
that they do not keep getting email reminders to fill out the SEI. Courses with multiple
instructors can be evaluated - as long as all instructors are listed in WINGS, SEIs will be
built for all instructors. Will response rates go down once all courses go live? We will not
know the answer until we go live.
 What is the next step? Will all departments go to online SEIs for spring? FS will discuss this
at a future meeting.
 The powerpoint presentation will be added to the FS website for ease of review by all
departments.
V. Old Business.
VI. Adjournment at 4:58 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kerrie Hoar