46th Faculty Senate
September 29, 2011 – 3:30p.m.
Robert C. Voight Faculty Senate Chambers – 325 Graff Main Hall
Vol. 46, No. 3
I. Roll Call.
Present: M. Abler, C. Angell, E. Barnes, T. Blumentritt, J. Bryan, B. Butterfield, L. Dickmeyer, A. Galbraith, K.
Hoar, J, Hollenback, S. Jessee, F. Klein, E. Kraemer, D. Lake, M. Leonard, W. Maas, R. Mikat, D. Riley, K.
Rosacker, M. Rott, S. Senger, and M. Tollefson
Excused: J. Baggett and K. Hunt
II. Minutes of September 15 approved.
III. Reports:
a. Chair (Steve Senger):
 Update on Online SEIs: FS discussed the idea of online SEIs last fall and heard reports
from two departments who have piloted them. Next steps: IT will be presenting a demo
system to FS in late November. After this, FS will take some action on this issue.
b. Chancellor (Joe Gow):
 Octoberfest Update: There are several videos that do not reflect well on UWL students.
Efforts will be directed toward large group house parties.
 UWS Task Force: UWS is putting together a system-wide task force that will look at many
issues include some of the UWS personnel policies.
 Supplemental Pay Issues: There are still many questions regarding the new UWS
flexibilities and how this will affect any supplemental pay plans.
 NCUR Conference Update: Howard University has been awarded the 2013 conference.
UWL has been awarded the 2015 conference.
c. Provost (Kathleen Enz Finken):
 Search and Screen Updates: Thank you to faculty members who have agreed to serve
on SAH Dean and SoE Director searches. Those searches are in the process of getting
up and running. The IR searches are well underway and will be bringing candidates to
campus in the next few weeks. The S&S for CEE director will start soon (primary
representation will be Non-instructional Academic Staff).
d. CFO (Bob Hetzel): No Report.
e. Faculty Representative (Jeff Baggett): No Report.
IV. New Business.
a. UW-System Task Force on New University Personnel Systems:
o This task force has been formed in response to the fact that the current personnel system
does not fit with university systems. Little is known at this time about what the actual charge
will be; however, it is unlikely, due to the short timeline (scheduled to be in place July 1,
2013), that the task force will be looking at broad changes. Classified staff are likely to be
addressed due to recent changes in collective bargaining laws. The focus will be on those
areas mandated by the legislature – as those areas mandated by UWS can be changed by
UWS at any time.
o Discussion: What kinds of things in the current system don’t suit its current application? An
example of this is academic staff titles, which were developed in the mid 1980’s and are
not fully relevant today. How will the new system be applied? There will be separate
systems for UW Madison and the comprehensives/colleges. It is not known yet how UW
Milwaukee will fit, but will most likely have a separate system. How big will the task force
be? That is not known. It is know that there will be a task force and a steering committee
and that it is important to submit the maximum number of nominees in all categories –
faculty, non-instructional academic staff, instructional academic staff and classified staff.
Who ultimately approves this? It is recommended by the Board of Regents for approval by
the Department of Administration. What is the timeline/time commitment? Nominees
should be committed to at least one year (or more) of service with multiple meetings.
b. Proposal for Campus Policy on Concealed Carry:
Motion to recommend that concealed weapons be forbidden in all UW-L campus buildings and
on all campus property. Campus policy concerning concealed carry should be as restrictive as
current law allows. As required by law, signs will be posted to inform the campus community of
this policy.
Discussion: Is there any issue with our policy including “. . .and on all campus property” since the
Wisconsin law includes buildings only? Buildings and the stadium will be covered through the
state law, but parking lots are not covered. At what time does an individual need to stop and
secure their weapon? This would likely take place in the parking lot – so it is likely that individuals
will be able to possess weapons in UWL parking lots. Another question regards UWL grounds –
these are areas where specific learning is not taking place; such as the grassy area adjacent to a
dorm. Using “. . . and on all campus property” clarifies the rules. Should we add “except parking
facilities”? Since there is not complete clarity right now, the wording was chosen to be as
restrictive as the law will allow us to be.
Motion to strike “. . . and on all campus property”.
Discussion: This is implied by the rest of the wording. Would this make it sound like we are only
banning weapons from buildings?
Motion Fails.
Motion to strike “ that concealed weapons be forbidden in all UW-L campus buildings and on all
campus property”.
Discussion: Why are we changing it at all? At least if we put it all in, we may be told somewhere
along the line that we can’t do that – but at least we are making the point that we don’t want
weapons anywhere on campus. If we were successful in banning weapons from all campus
property – how do we inform visitors ahead of time? There would be a requirement that
sandwich boards or signs are posted stating this.
Motion of Approved
New Motion to recommend that Campus policy concerning concealed carry should be as
restrictive as current law allows. As required by law, signs will be posted to inform the campus
community of this policy. Motion Approved.
c. Proposal for Campus Smoking Policy:
Motion to recommend that smoking be prohibited 25 feet in front of any door leading into a
university building. Signs will be posted at entrances to inform the campus community of this
policy.
Discussion: Why can’t we ban it altogether? There was a smoking committee last year and the
idea of a complete ban failed. The current policy bans smoking from all buildings and all other
areas that are regulated by signs. Signage is very inconsistent across campus and on some
building entrances. If this policy passes, some sort of sign or symbol will by posted at the 25 foot
mark and urns will be placed 25 feet away from buildings.
Motion Approved.
d. Proposal for Senate Policy on Electronic Media (second read):
 This is a second read of the policy with the first part being a FS policy and the second
would be forwarded as a suggestion for a campus policy that might include this
language with the acknowledgement that any existing policies (such as those in the
Communication Studies department) would supersede. This does not apply to
research-related instances as these are already covered by other policies.
Motion to adopt the Electronic Media Policy. Motion Approved.
Motion to recommend that the campus develop a policy on the acceptable use and student
rights with regards to electronic media. Motion Approved.
e. Proposal regarding Numbering of Slash Courses (Brad Seebach & Carol Angell):
 Some concern has been raised about the number of slash courses available and the
quality of graduate instruction in those courses. The policy suggests that slash courses
should be used with care and only when necessary. Departments should take
ownership of their courses and make sure that their graduate students are receiving a
graduate-level education – not just as an add-on to undergraduate courses (such as,
simply adding a term paper to the course for grads).
 Discussion: Is this a change in the 1995 slash course policy? It is a reiteration of that
policy plus a change in the LX form. The HLC has new requirements regarding the
number of slash courses included in a graduate program. UWL has exceeded this
number in at least one program and is now working to address this. HLC is not dictating
the total number of slash courses, but the number that a particular student can take.
Where do the 300/500 courses exist? There were many in DES, but most of them have
been done away with. Why eliminate the difference in the courses on the LX form
(recommendation #4)? There should not be a difference. The expectations should be
at the level of the graduate course with undergraduate expectations raised to that
level. Much of the discussion in UCC centered on the change in the LX form. Slash
courses are still necessary – undergrads cannot simply take a bunch of low numbered
graduate courses, as there is a limit to the number of graduate courses that undergrads
can take. Recommendations #1, 2 & 3 do not reflect a change in policy, so why would
we adopt them again? This just reiterates that after 10 years, departments should look
at this issue again.
Motion to separate the motions into two parts (#1,2&3 and #4). Motion Approved.
Motion to adopt recommendation 1, 2 & 3 (with FS chair communicating this to
departments). Motion Approved.
Motion to adopt recommendation 4 (with FS chair communicating this to Records and
Registration). Motion Approved.
f.
Discussion of Senate Committees.
 These statements are part of the UCC and GCC bylaws. What do these mean?
2. Initiating, developing and recommending changes in the design of curricula for experimental
and research purposes. 3. Informing department chairpersons/program directors, in writing, of
proposals being considered that relate to experimental curricula or their programs, thus
providing adequate opportunity for departments/programs to be heard prior to committee and
senate action on such proposals.
This is an example of a bylaw that may not serve our current needs.
Motion to direct FS committees to examine their bylaws and report to FS on what parts are
being actively implemented.
This will be a supplemental charge to this year’s charges.
Motion Approved.
 Larger question, is the current committee structure fulfilling the needs and
responsibilities of FS? Are there areas of overlap (e.g., appeals go to CAPS, but Gen Ed
appeals go to Gen Ed Committee)? We will continue to discuss this as we have time on
our agenda.
V. Old Business.
VI. Adjournment at 4:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kerrie Hoar