25 March 1975
TO: Administrative Council
FROM: Chancellor Robert Birnbaum
SUBJECT: Report of the UWO Merger Implementation Committee
I have received the final report of the UWO Merger Implementation Committee
which was charged with recommending procedures for the implementation of
section 36.09(5) Students of the merger statues. The committee included seven
students selected by USRH, Union Board, OSA and the Allocations Committee;
three faculty selected by the Faculty Senate; and Assistant Chancellor Smith,
chairperson. The report of the committee is attached for your information.
I am taking the following action related to each portion of the report.
DEFINITION OF “PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY”
I am approving the definition of “primary responsibility” recommended
in the report, with one amendment which seeks to clarify it without
substantive change, as follows:
Primary responsibility means that the service faculty (or academic
staff) and chancellor will give great weight to student initiated
recommendations, and will accept them in designated areas, unless
substantial professional judgement dictates otherwise. In such cases,
the basis for changing or denying recommendation shall be communicated
to the recommending student agency.
I those areas where students have primary responsibility,
administrators and faculty shall, after consultation with appropriate
students, make all personnel decisions. Procedures will be developed
for regular student participation in personnel matters.
STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS
I am recognizing Union Board, USRH and OSA as student organizations to
be directly involved in university governance, as representing the manner in
which students have chosen to organize themselves.
AREAS OF PRIMARY STUDENT RESPONSIBILITY
Existing Committees – The report indicates five existing committees now
functioning in areas of primary student concern. I concur in principle that
these committees should have the membership recommended in the report.
However, since four of these committees are now committees of the Faculty
Senate, I am transmitting these recommendations to the Senate for review and
further recommendation to me. In view of the new composition of these
committees, as well as the nature of their concerns, I am also asking the
Senate to consider whether these specific committees should be reconstituted
as university committees rather than Senate committees, whose members would
be selected by the Senate and OSA, and which would repost directly to
administrative officers.
I also support the recommendation that student representatives to the intercollegiate athletic committee be evenly divided between men and women, and
that students appointed to the publications committee include a student from
the Advance-Titan and a student from the Wisconsin Review.
New Committees – I am approving the formation of the six committees
recommended in this section with the membership as indicated, and charging
the assistant chancellor or assistant vice chancellor responsible for each
area to coordinate the formation of each group with OSA and the Faculty
Senate.
AREAS OF CONCERN
Faculty Senate Committees – The report indicates six existing
committees which, while not involved in matter of primary student
responsibility, deal with matters of student concern. I concur in principle
that these committees, as well as the university promotions committee which
is listed under “administrative areas” should have the membership recommended
in the report. However, since all seven of these are now committees of the
Faculty Senate, I am transmitting these recommendations to the Senate for
review and further recommendation to me. In view of the new composition of
these committees, as well as their areas of concern, I am also asking the
Senate to consider whether:
(a) the university development committee should continue to exist;
(b) the public relations, campus planning and university promotions
committees should be made university committees rather than Senate
committees, whose member would be selected by the Senate and OSA, and which
would report directly to administrative officers;
(c) the current and projected size of the university promotions
committee justifies the addition of three students.
Administrative Areas
I concur in the recommendation that student membership in the
university budget committee, administrative council and IUAPC be maintained
at present levels. Should the planning program of the university eventually
result in an alternative to IUAPC, student representation should be no less
under the new structure than it is at present.
While I concur in principle with student membership on the university faculty
consultative committee, the right to select the constitution of that group is
a faculty prerogative under the faculty personnel rules. I am, therefore,
transmitting the committee recommendation to the Senate for review and
further recommendation to me.
Pending a review of the future status of the termination committee, I am
taking no action concerning possible student membership on it.
Although I concur in principle with the desirability for student
participation in university-wide committees, I cannot endorse the general
policy that “any future university-level committees should have at least 20%
student participation” since I believe this to be overly broad and not
reflective of the differing mechanisms by which committees dealing with
university-wide matters may be constituted. I therefore approve in its place
the following statement of policy:
It is generally expected that student will participate in committees
formed to examine problems or make recommendations on matters of
university-wide concern. The proportion of student representation on
such committees shall depend upon the relationship of the issue being
examined to student interests, as well as the competence of students to
fully participate in such committees.
Where such committees are established by the chancellor, are
university-wide, and have members selected or nominated by constituent
groups, representation by students of approximately 20% of the
membership shall be normative. Where the composition deviates from the
20% level, the chancellor shall consult with appropriate groups to
discuss the basis for such deviation.
Where university-wide committees are established by the Faculty Senate,
the matter of student membership shall be discussed by appropriate
student (OSA, USRH, or Union Board) and faculty groups. Student
participation shall normally be expected, although the status of
student participants (particularly concerning their right to vote)
shall be a matter for consolation and discussion in each specific case.
Since this last paragraph deals with faculty governance, a matter of primary
faculty concern, I am transmitting it to the Senate for review and further
recommendation to me.
Academic Areas
The report recommends that “student
and college committees, both standing and
a minimum of twenty percent (20%) student
have full membership except voting rights
they may file written opinions.”
representation on all departmental
ad hoc, shall reflect the policy of
participation. Student members will
in personnel matter, in which cases
I cannot approve of this recommendation in its entirety, since I believe that
the use of the word all in the first sentence is overly broad and does not
take full cognizance of the myriad departmental committees existing to cover
a wide variety of matter, relatively few of which are of concern to students
as such.
I believe that the intent of this section was to give students participation
in those committees which dramatically affect the educational program. I
therefore concur in principle with the following amended revision of the
recommendation:
Students shall participate as voting members of department and college
curriculum committees and budget committees (or on committees which
have responsibility for these matters), and shall have a minimum of
approximately 20% of their membership.
Students shall participate as non-voting members of departmental and
college committees dealing with personnel actions, but with the right
to include written opinions to be reviewed at higher levels. They shall
have a minimum of 20% of the membership of such committees.
Student membership on other departmental and college committees shall
be a matter for discussion by students and faculty at the appropriate
level.
Since this last paragraph deals with faculty governance, a matter of primary
faculty concern, I am transmitting it to the Senate for review and further
recommendation to me.
The second section of this recommendation states “student representatives
will be selected according to procedures adopted by OSA in consultation with
appropriate faculty and administrators.”
I cannot endorse this recommendation since it does not reflect the functions
of different kinds of committees, nor does it fully protect the interests of
students at other than the university level. These needs are more fully met
by the processes now employed by the faculty in selecting their
representatives which, for example, give to departmental faculty the right to
elect their own representatives through local selection processes. TO protect
the spirit of the committee report, I am approving the following policy:
The selection or nomination of persons to university, college or
departmental committees will follow the same processes through student
government and administrative offices when selecting students as are
followed by faculty when selecting or nominating faculty members to
such committees.
May 8, 1978
To: Chancellors and Chief Student Personnel Administrators
From: Donald K. Smith
Subject: Chapter 36.09(5) Implementation
Two and one-half years ago, I requested a report from you on the status
of the implementation of Chapter 36.09(5) at your institution. Since that
time a number of changes have occurred in student and faulty governance
structures and organization, committee organization, definition of areas in
which students have primary responsibility, and the degree of participation
students have in the governance of institutions.
We have had a number of signals indicating that the issue of 36.09(5)
is likely to surface again in the Legislature in the biennial session, and
possibly earlier. The signals range from the announced intention of United
Council leaders to seek amendments which will “clarify” and thus strengthen
student powers, to questions from legislators seeking information pursuant to
an intention to prepare legislation and hold hearings.
I need as soon as possible the best current information on the
implementation of 36.09(5) at your institution. I want to give only current
and reliable information and evaluation to legislators and staff who inquire.
Could you provide me by June 1, 1978, the following:
1. An updated report on implementation of 36.09(5). This should
include, if at all possible, any faculty rules, policies, or bylaws defining
student committee memberships, and the ways and means by which they become
members; and any student government or association constitutions or bylaws
defining the structure of student committees.
2. Some terse responses to the following questions:
a. Has the level of student participation in governance
increased, decreased or remained about the same since 1975? How do you
substantiate this evaluation?
b. Are there any current, unresolved issues at your institution
about the powers of students? If so, what are they?
c. If 36.09(5) were to be amended, what “clarifications” would
you consider to be of highest importance?
If either the meaning of this request, or the timing of the response is
a problem for you, please call me.
Summary of Campus Plans to Implement 36.09(5), UW-Oshkosh
The recommendations for the implementation of Section 36.09(5) was
developed by a committee composed of seven students selected by United
Students in Residence Halls, Union Board, and the Oshkosh Student
Association; three faculty selected by the Faculty Senate; and the assistant
chancellor for student programs and services, who acted as chairperson.
The proposal developed by the committee involves the restructuring of
many of the existing committees because policy development is currently the
responsibility of Faculty Senate, college and departmental, and University
level committees. The report recommends student majorities on six of the
standing Faculty Senate committees. The proposal also recommends a percentage
of student membership on all other committees.
The report itself is “divided into two sections: (1) those areas of
student life, services and interests for which students have primary
responsibility under the merger statute, and (2) those areas for which
faculty or other persons have primary responsibility, but which are of
significant concern to students and in which they should be active
participants. “ The committee defined student primary responsibility as
follows:
Primary responsibility means that the service faculty (or
academic
staff)
and
Chancellor
will
accept
student
initiated
recommendations in designated areas, unless substantial professional
judgment dictates otherwise. In such cases, the bases for changing or
denying recommendation shall be communicated to the recommending
student agency.
All personnel decision shall, after consultation with appropriate students,
be made by faculty or administrators. (The Chancellor has proposed that this
definition be amended.
Three student organizations were selected as those that shall be
directly involved in the governance process of the University. Union Board
shall review and formulate policies concerning the union, union bookstore,
and all food service operators in the union. The board shall share equally
with United Students in Residence Halls membership on the University Food
Committee. United Students in Residence Halls shall review and formulate
policies concerning the Housing Program and the Food Service in University
Commons. The Oshkosh Student Association, the constitutionally recognized
voice of the student body in all general University policies, shall make all
student appointments to University and Faculty Senate committees as well as
committees not delegated to the Union Board or United Students in Residence
Halls. (The Chancellor has recognized these three student organizations as
the ones to be involved in university governance.)
In the areas of primary student responsibility the committee indicated
five
existing
committees:
Intercollegiate
Athletics,
Publications,
Allocations, Scholarship and Awards and Multicultural Educational Center. The
first four are Faculty Senate committees. The committee recommended changing
the student minorities to majorities on all five committees. (The Chancellor
has asked the Faculty Senate to review the proposed changes and make
recommendations to him. He has also suggested reconstituting the committees
as University committees instead of Senate committees.) The committee also
recommended the creation of six new committees: Admission, Records,
Registration and Registrar; Intramural Sports; Student Support Services;
Veterans Affairs; University Health Service; and Counseling Center. Each of
these committees will have a majority of student members. (The Chancellor has
accepted this recommendation.)
In the areas of concern to student the committee broke its report into
three sections: Faculty Senate Committees, Administrative Areas, and Academic
Areas. In regard to the six Faculty Senate Committees, Public Relations,
University Development, Improvement of Instruction, Campus Planning, TARPS,
and Working Conditions, the committee recommended increasing the number of
student on the first committee and adding for the first time student to the
remainder. In all cases students will constitute a minority. (Since these are
Faculty Senate committees, the Chancellor has forwarded the recommendations
to that body for review and recommendation.) In the administrative area, the
committee recommended that all future University level committees should
include at least 20 percent student participation and that existing
University level committees should approximate this level. (The Chancellor
has refused to accept the 20 percent provision and has made a counter
recommendation. In addition he has asked the Faculty Senate to review the
recommendations.) In the academic area the committee recommended 20 percent
student participation on all departmental and college committees, both
standing
and
ad
hoc.
(The
Chancellor
has
refused
to
accept
this
recommendation and put forth a counter recommendation. He has also asked the
Faculty Senate to review the matter.)
This report should be viewed as interim in nature. The Faculty Senate
has not acted yet. The implementation committee has not yet discussed the
recommendations of the Chancellor. A great deal of discussion and compromise
still must occur before the plan is operational.
Summary of Campus Plans to Implement 36.09(5), UW-Eau Claire
UW-Eau Claire has long enjoyed a strong tradition of student
participation in university governance. The campus plans submitted in
response to the interim guidelines to conform with Chapter 36.09(5) of the
merger bill have received the approval of the Chancellor and the Faculty and
Student Senates. The development of the plan was accomplished by the
executive committees of the Student and Faculty Senates and with members of
the UW-Eau Claire administration serving as consultants.
The Student Senate is the official governing body for the UW-Eau Claire
students. Although other groups may at times be called upon to represent
other segments, only the Student Senate can speak for the entire student
body. While the plan acknowledges that proposals concerning student life may
originate from several sources, it is both the expectation and practice that
a large number will come from the Student Senate. The Inter-Residence Hall
Council (IRHC) shall be the primary source of recommendations for residence
hall matter and shall forward its recommendations through the Director of
Housing. The housing area is the only major student life activity which falls
primarily outside the purview of Student Senate.
Eau Claire’s plan underscores the need for effective communication in
university governance, both for the purpose of allowing ample opportunity for
the various constituencies of the university community to provide their
input, but also the enable decisions to be made without unnecessary delay.
While the separate governance organization for students and faculty appear to
be quite separate without overlapping membership, there is both provision and
ample precedent for student and faculty committees or commissions to hold
joint meetings.
Eligible student members on administrative committees are to be
appointed by the President of the Student Senate and confirmed by the Senate.
The number and ratio of members varies from committee to committee but there
is generally a significant range of these kinds of committees.
The Student Senate will have a plurality (other groups may include
faculty, administration and community representatives) of student members on
the following committees: Athletic Committee, Campus Media Board, Forensic
Board, Radio and Television Committee, Bookstore Committee, Financial Aids
Committee, Foreign Film Committee, Forum Committee, Recreation Committee,
University Artists Committee, University Health Committee, Children’s Center
Committee and any building committee for construction with student funds. In
the student life areas, the plan calls for equal representation from IRHC on
the Residence Hall Budget Committee. Eau Claire students have played a
significant role in the review and budget recommendation process for several
years. The Student Finance Committee, appointed by the Student Senate, plays
a prominent but not exclusive role in the budget review and recommendation
process.
In academic areas which are primarily under the jurisdiction of the
faculty, students also have opportunity for participation in university
governance. At the departmental level, about half of the 35 academic
departments at the UW-Eau Claire have formal provision for student
participation with full voting rights in departmental matter. The student
representatives on department committees and at departmental meeting are
either selected from the discipline-related honors society or from among the
majors and minors. The remaining departments, though they have not yet
formalized student participation, nevertheless encourage student input
through a variety of informational means. Students are welcome at department
and committee meetings and are permitted to speak. Several of these
departments have invited more formal student participation, but the students
have not yet responded positively.
At the school level, four of the schools provide for voting student
representatives on their curriculum committees or the equivalent. Some of the
schools have student representatives on other committees.
Summary of Campus Plans to Implement 36.09(5), UW-Green Bay
Report of Student Institutional Involvement at the University of WisconsinGreen Bay
The Report describes past and current student participation in the life
of UW-Green Bay.
Since spring, 1972, the UW-Green Bay student body has chosen not to
have an all university student government organization. However a wide
variety of opportunities for student input and involvement in university
affairs exists. The types of committees on which student serve follow.
Faculty Elective Committees
Faculty are elected to these committees from a slate of names presented
by the Committee on Committees and Nominations. Students may indicate their
interest in serving through the Office of Student Life. The Chancellor
appoints students after consulting administrators, faculty, and students who
served on committee in question during previous year. Students are appointed
to the following committees (make-up of membership in parentheses):

Committee on Instructional Services (5 elected faculty, up to 3
appointed students)

Library Committee (7 elected faculty, up to 3 appointed students)

Student Conduct Policy Committee (6 elected faculty, 5 appointed
students)
Faculty Appointive Standing Committees
Faculty members are appointed to these committees by the Chancellor.
The Committee on Committees and Nominations submits a panel of nominees for
consideration. Students are appointed by method described above.

Committee on Academic Actions (5 faculty, up to 3 students.
Student involved in academic action may request that student
members not sit with faculty)

Committee on Admissions,
faculty, up to 3 students)

Committee on Adult Education (5 faculty, up to 3 students)

Committee on Awards and Recognition (5 faculty, up to 3 students)

Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics (5 faculty, 1 noninstructional
professional
staff,
2
students,
1
community
representative)

Committee on Lectures and Performances (5 faculty, 2 staff, up to
2 students)
Financial
Aids,
and
Orientation
(5

Committee on Parking, Transportation, and Buildings and Grounds
(5 faculty, 2 staff, up to 2 students)
Special Committees Appointed by the Chancellor
Faculty are appointed by the Chancellor to these committees, which, not
being faculty elective or appointive, are not subject to their regulations.
Students are appointed by method described above.

Chancellor’s
Community
–
University
Advisory
Committee
community member, 8 UWGB faculty and staff, 4 UWGB students)

Chancellor’s Student Advisory Committee (15 students)

Computer Advisory Committee (5-6 faculty, 3 students)

Environmental Impact Board (6 faculty, 3 students)

Equal Opportunity Committee (6 faculty and staff, 3 students)

Ethnic Heritage Center Committee (6 faculty and staff, 6 minority
students)

Ethnic Studies Committee (6 faculty and staff, 3 students)

Fourth Estate
students)

Student Health Services Committee
community members, 3 students)

Natural Areas Committee (6 faculty, 3 students)

Physically Handicapped Committee (3 faculty, 3 staff, 3 students)

Status of Minorities Committee (6 faculty, 3 students)

Venture Fund Committee (9 faculty and staff, 3 students)
Advisory
Committee
(4
(6
staff
and
faculty
faculty,
and
staff,
(9
4
3
Student Formed Ad Hoc Committees
Since dissolution of student government in spring, 1972, students have
formed student concentration advisory committees which enable student to have
an impact on curricular offerings in which they are enrolled. Faculty seek
student involvement in curriculum revision and other concentration matters.
Interested students have also formed ad hoc committees (task forces) to
deal with aspects of daily life, for instance, to develop a campus-downtown
Green Bay bus service, recycle textbooks through an exchange, organize
current and future food service, and select site and program for future
University Commons. In addition, an elected group of nine students from the
Shorewood Board to oversee programming and operation of the Shorewood Club.
The Student Fee Allocation Committee has evolved this year from a
previous student/staff/faculty group to an exclusively student-run committee,
in line with 36.09(5). The twelve student committee this year heard from over
25 student organization requesting funds from the allocable portion of
student fees.
Finally, student have informal daily opportunities for input into
formulation and review of policies concerning student life, services, and
interests; enrollment size and interconnected nature of the campus physical
pan enhance possibilities for informal interaction. UWGB faculty and staff
have supported student involvement and input in university governance. The
absence of a “traditional” student government is not indicative of interest
in student participation. To date the students have not seen the necessity of
organizing a campuswide student government.
Summary of Campus Plans to Implement 36.09(5), UW-La Crosse
A summary of the UW-La Crosse plan for implementation of 36.09(5) is
complicated by the March 12 approval of a new student government constitution
in student referendum. Approximately 80% of the students voting (about 25% of
the student body voted) approved the new constitution which is slated for
implementation in the Fall of 1975. The plan is further complicated by the
fact that the Chancellor and Faculty Senate have not, as of this date, acted
on the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee that was appointed to develop
recommendation for implementing the student section of the merger statute.
Putting the logistics of faculty and administrative ratification aside,
UW-La Crosse has enjoyed a tradition of substantial student involvement in
university
governance.
A
review
of
existing
procedures
for
student
involvement (prior to a summary of the ad hoc committee’s recommendation)
demonstrates this quite well. Student participation in governance at La
Crosse has been accomplished by the direct election of students to studentfaculty boards and faculty committees. Faculty members on the faculty
committees are chosen by the Faculty Senate Committee on Committees and
faculty members on student-faculty boards are chosen by the Chancellor.
Student membership on faculty committees is one-third of the total membership
whereas student membership on most student-faculty boards is either even or
students are in the majority. The membership of the Apportionment Board was
changed in October, 1974 to consist of eight students and four faculty. There
are a total of 101 student voting positions on the various student-faculty
boards and faculty committees.
The Student Coordinating Committee is the present student government
organization. It consists of one elected student representative from each
student-faculty board and faculty committee. The Student Coordinating
Committee (SCC) was established by a referendum of the student body in 1968.
The SCC is responsible for:
1. Coordinating information between various boards and committees;
2. Disseminating information to the student body; and
3. Serving as an audience for student suggestion and concerns.
In the Fall of 1974, an ad hoc committee was formed to examine the role
of students and faculty in university governance for conformance with Chapter
36.09(4) and (5). The ad hoc committee consisted of five faculty members,
five students and the Vice Chancellor. The committee elected James Hill,
President of the Student Coordinating Committee, and chairperson of the
group.
The recommendations of the ad hoc committee combined with the new
student constitution provide the framework for implementing the student
section of the merger bill. Significant changes provided for in the new
constitution include:
1. Student government name changes from the Student
Committee to the UW-La Crosse Student Association.
Coordinating
2. The officers of the UW-La Crosse Student Association will be
directly elected to those positions by the student body and not elected
to boards and then
government officers.
nominated
by
a
committee
3. The constitution envisions
branches of student government
executive,
4. All students automatically
registration at UW-La Crosse.
become
5. UW-LSA will have policy-making
36.09(5) of the Wisconsin Statutes.
to
serve
legislative
members
of
(recommending)
the
as
and
student
judicial
UW-LSA
upon
authority
from
6. The student senate will include representation from several groups
and will be elected by School or College Residence Hall Association and
at large
7. The UW-LSA will have appointing authority of all students
positions on Student-Faculty Boards and Faculty Committees.
to
The recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee deal primarily with the
Student-Faculty Boards. Under these recommendations which UW-La Crosse feels
will be adopted, the composition of the boards will consist of a majority of
students in nearly every case. The plans call for approximately ten studentfaculty boards including the apportionment, athletic, financial aid,
forensics, health, housing, intramurals and recreational activities programs,
organizations, publications and the student center boards.
The Apportionment Board is responsible for the recommendations
regarding the allocable portion of the student segregated fees. The revised
membership of this board shall consist of eight students and four faculty.
Allocable segregated fees currently fund the Student Coordinating Committee,
ID cards, Lectures and Concert Committee, Organizations Board, Pom Pom Girls,
Summer Social Committee, Men’s Intramurals, Women’s Athletics, Men’s
Athletics, Cheerleader, student newspaper, yearbook, band, orchestra, choral
activities, forensics, hockey club, and University Theatre.
The Faculty Senate By-Laws outline the various faculty committees are
UW-La Crosse. While all but one of 19 of the committees have a majority of
faculty membership, students are represented on all the committees—a
provision
which
apparently
pre-dates
merger
by
several
years.
The
Undergraduate Curriculum Committee has 12 faculty and four students and plays
a
major
role
in
reviewing
existing
and
new
curricula
and
making
recommendation on them.
Summary of Campus Plans to Implement 36.09(5), UW-Madison
The Madison campus response to Section 36.09(5) of the merger
legislation was developed by an ad hoc committee of seven people, two of whom
were student. One of the students was the President of the Wisconsin Student
Association (WSA). The other five people included the Dean of Students, the
Assistant Dean of Students, the Program Coordinator of Auxiliary Enterprises,
an Assistant Chancellor, and a representative of the University Committee.
WSA was not limited to two representatives on the ad hoc committee, but chose
to have only two people involved. However, the WSA president kept the WSA
Senate informed as the ad hoc committee recommendations were developed.
The
response
contains
three
specific
yet
interdependent
recommendations. The three recommendations include: (1) a proposed allocation
of a portion of the segregated fees to WSA on the Madison Campus; (2)
proposal for a (student) committee to review Madison Campus allocable
segregated fee budgets; and (3) proposed interim guidelines for student
participation on university committees. The committee plans to continues to
meet for a least a year to monitor the progress of the plan and to assist
with its implementation.
In regard to the allocation of segregated fees, the Madison campus is a
special situation in the UW System. The Regent approved 1975-77 Biennial
Operating Budget Paper #4.2 contains the following:
“The allocable portion shall constitute the remainder of the SUF which
provides on all campuses except Madison the major support for a variety
of student activities, programs and services (Madison shall be
permitted to continue its practice of paying for activities such as
intercollegiate athletics, concerts, etc., on a ‘item pricing’ or
‘direct user charge’ basis by actual participants. (C.3.b.)”
The Madison campus position indicates that no part of the current
Madison campus segregated fee falls within the definition of allocable fees.
Therefore, the committee’s first recommendation was that the Madison campus
should “recommend to Central Administrations and the Regents that a one
dollar per student per semester portion of segregated fees be assigned for
the budgeted use of the Wisconsin Student Association for the academic year
1975-76.” If approved, this portion would constitute the allocable segregated
fees on the Madison campus. The sum would go directly to WSA by name rather
than to student government.
A minority report was submitted by one member of the committee raising
some questions as to the legitimacy of WSA’s claim to being generally
recognized as the all-University student government association for the
Madison Campus because of the few students who participate in its activities.
However, the committee pointed out that WSA is the only presently constituted
student government association on the campus in which all students are
eligible to participate. The committee maintained that is was not their
intent to either presume that WSA is not a representative group or to deny
the possibility of any future alternative to WSA as a recognized campus
student government. To do either would be to violate the intent of 36.09(5).
The committee’s second recommendation was that a Student Allocable
Segregated Fee Advisory Committee, appointed annually, should review the
allocable segregated fee budgets. The committee would be composed of seven
students; four students to be appointed by the WSA president with the
approval of the WSA senate and one each, selected by the student members of
the Union Council, Health Care Advisory Committee, and the Intramural
Recreation Committee. The allocable fee would be assigned directly to WSA.
The advisory committee will advise the Chancellor of its recommendations for
assessment and distribution of the fees. If the committee objects to any of
all of the final campus budget, it may submit alternate proposals to Central
Administration and the Board.
The
third
proposal
concerns
interim
guidelines
for
student
participation on university committees. The majority of the committee held,
“that the Madison campus is now in substantial compliance with the
requirement that students be active participants in University governance.”
They did propose, however, that “the Faculty Senate and each of the schools,
colleges, and departments and units reexamine the extent of student
participation on committees in light of the merger law.” The majority of the
committee did make serval recommendations. They recommended, in the case of
all-campus committees, that the “present policies which make WSA the sole
nominating or appointing authority for some committee’s,” be continued. “For
those remaining all-campus committees where the Chancellor is the sole
appointing
authority
for
student
members,”
the
committee’s
Majority
recommended, “An administrative decision that the Chancellor’s appointments
of students to those committees in the fall of 1975 shall be made only form
nominations submitted by WSA.” If the WSA nominations are unacceptable to the
Chancellor, WSA shall retain the right to make alternative nominations.
Summary of Campus Plans to Implement 36.09(5), UW-Milwaukee
The Report was prepared by the UWM Merger Guidelines Committee,
consisting of five students, three faculty, and two administrators. The
Faculty Senate and Chancellor will act on it in March. Until then, it should
be regarded as an interim report.
General Provisions
Committee Memberships and Terms
Unless otherwise provided, the Student Association (SA) shall select
student members of the following University Faculty Standing Committees for:
Academic Affairs, Academic Programs and Curriculum, Archives, Awards and
Recognition, Human Rights, Lectures, Library, Physical Environment, ROTC,
University Relations, Admission/Record/Student Information*, Athletic Board*,
Housing*, Student Financial Aid*, and Student Conduct.*
Unless otherwise provided, SA selected student members shall be
appointed after: public notice, at least in a campus newspaper, two weeks
before selection; SA committee preference forms (to be retained at least one
year) are made available to interested students; SA President has appointed
and Student Senate (SS) confirmed or SS has elected, student committee
members. Department of Student Activities shall conduct mail ballot elections
university-wide to fill elective committee positions. When SA or authorized
organizations do not make appointments by October 15 or one month after a
vacancy,
the
appropriate
University
administrator
shall
make
the
appointments. An elective committee position vacancy is filled by available
nominee with next highest number of votes of appointee of SA President,
confirmed of SS. Appointed position vacancies shall be filled as was original
position. Unless otherwise provided, student alumni term of office shall be
one year from September 15 (consecutive terms possible); faculty and staff,
three year terms on staggered basis. Nomination and appointment disputes
shall be resolved by committee of SA President, Student Court Chief Justice,
and Dean of Students. Ex-officio members may participate by voice but not
vote or hold office other than chairperson. Committees may designate nonvoting consultant members.
Unless otherwise provided, committees select own chairpersons and other
officers as appropriate for one-year terms. First members by alphabetical
order convene first organizational meeting. A quorum of half of voting
members is required to conduct business. Committees by establish subcommittees, but retain full authority and responsibility. Committees meet at
least twice a semester, more at discretion of committee. One third committee
may petition added meetings. Roberts’ Rules of Order, New Revised shall be
parliamentary authority. Each committee shall keep minutes and file copies
with Department of Student Activities, Secretary of the University, SA, and
University Committee. Unless otherwise provided, proposed changes in
committee structure/function or in these General Provisions should be
initiated by SS, approved by Faculty Senate and Chancellor.
The UW-Milwaukee Report specifies committee membership, function, and
amendment system, where applicable. Committee structure takes into account
--------------
* Merger Guidelines Committee is requesting that starred committees be
abolished
function (policy vs. advisory), funding source (GPR vs. segregated fee),
affected population (students only vs. students, faculty, staff, alumni) and
existence of adequate governance mechanism; e.g., student membership is more
extensive where department or service is segregated fee funded or exclusively
students are served. SA, Student Court and Union Policy Board, existing
student
government
groups,
are
maintained
and
assigned
specific
responsibilities.
Committee membership with student representation and methods for naming
students to committees follow.

Advisory Committee to the Department of Admissions and Records
faculty, 2 administrators, 6 students selected by SA, Director
Admissions and Records ex officio)

Athletic Board (8 students elected at large by student body, 3 faculty,
2 alumni, and Director of Athletics and Assistant Chancellor for
Student Services ex officio)

Advisory Committee to the Bookstore (4 students selected by
faculty, 1 administration, Director of the Bookstore ex officio)

Advisory Committee to the Office of the Dean of Students (7 students
selected by SA, 3 of whom are involved in student organizations; Dean
of Students ex officio)

Advisory Committee to the Day Care Service (7 students as follows; 3
parents elected by users--1 each from 12 mo-2 yr. old, 2-3½ yr. old,
and 3½+ yr. old service; 3 staff members elected by current Service
staff--one from each age group service; and 1 selected by SA; Day Care
Coordinator and Dean of Students ex officio)

Advisory Committee to the Department of Financial Aid (6 students
selected by SA, 1 faculty, Director of Financial Aid ex officio)

Advisory Committee to the Department
Relations (5 students selected by SA)

Advisory Committee to the Department of Housing (7 students comprising
Executive Committee of Sandburg Hall Administrative Council, 1 student
resident of married student housing facilities selected by SA, Director
of Housing ex officio)

Advisory Committee to the Department of International Scholars (3
students selected by SA in consultation with Director--1 on student
visa (F-1), 1 on immigrant visa (permanent resident in U.S.), and 1
full-time student who is a U.S. citizen; Director of International
Scholars ex officio)

Advisory Committee to Department of Placement (7 students selected by
SA, and 3 UWM alumni
of
High
School
and
SA,
(6
of
4
College
***

Advisory Committee to UWM Police Department (2 students selected by SA,
2 faculty, 2 classified staff, 2 academic staff, Director of UWM Police
Department ex officio)

Advisory Committee to Department of Psychological Services (5 students
selected by SA with strong consideration of students interested in
counseling an psychology fields; Director of Psychological Services ex
officio)

Student Court (9 students: vacancies filled by SA President, with SS
consent, from list prepared by Student Court Interview Committee; Court
Advisory shall be Dean of Students.) Student Court Constitution is
includent in the “Report.”

Advisory Committee to Department of Student Health (5 students selected
by SA; Director of Student Health ex officio)

Advisory Committee to Department of Transportation (5 students selected
by SA, 2 faculty, 1 classified staff, 1 academic staff, Director of
Transportation ex officio)

Union Policy Board (as specified by Constitution and Bylaws of the UWM
Union)
Segregated Fee Allocations Committee (SFAC) (11 students elected by
student body for 1 year terms beginning June 1; Dean of Students and
Director of Auxiliary Enterprises ex officio) This Committee will
review requests for program support and recommend allocations of
allocable portion of segregated University fee; determine specific
amounts to be allocated to student organizations defined as “directly
funded;” and hear appeals from organizations which requested fund from
a directly funded allocating committee and consider allocation
insufficient. SFAC decisions may be appealed to committee of SA
President,
Student
Court
Chief
Justice,
and
SFAC
Chairperson
(convener).
Students of the various schools/colleges may establish student
organizations which may elect/appoint students to internal committees or may
elect delegate appointive authority to SA, which will follow University-wide
committee appointive procedures.
The UWM Merger Guidelines Committee recommends certain actions to the
Faculty Senate that would make possible the creation of restricting of
organizations pertaining to Admissions and Records and Student Information,
Athletics, Housing, Student Court and Student Financial Aid.
Summary of Campus Plans to Implement 36.09(5), UW-Parkside
A UW-Parkside Task Force composed of one administrator, one faculty
member and three students (including the student association president) was
formed to develop campus plans for implementing the student section of the
merger bill, 36.09(5). The Task Force has submitted its report which awaits
official action affirming, altering, or rejecting essential components.
Certain portions of the report affect the manner in which faculty committees
would be organized. In most of those cases, the plan calls for additional (or
for first-time) student representation. In addition, the plan includes a
student constitution that must yet be adopted by student referendum.
While recognizing that the plan still needs several approval and
implementation steps by faculty, students, and administration, it is not
intended to underestimate the scope of its effort and application. The plan
calls for streamlining or modifying the function and composition of several
universitywide committees. It recommends areas where students should have
opportunity for enlarged representation in academic issues under the primary
jurisdiction of the faculty. The proposed student constitution signifies a
solid effort at examining the role and procedures of the Parkside Student
Government Association, Inc.
Specific changes called for in committee/board functions include
greater student representation in the committee concerned with intramural
sports and the suggested elimination of the athletic board jurisdiction in
intramural
policies.
Academic
Actions
Committee
functions
would
be
transferred to School and College Committees. The Admissions Policies
Committee will no longer have a direct policy role. The Campus Concerns
Committee would change from a faculty committee to a committee composed of
equal representation between students and faculty/academic staff. The primary
role of this committee would be to make recommendations on functions which
are not easily categorized as primarily the concern of faculty or of
students. Additional student and faculty representation is called for on the
Campus Planning Committee. A request to increase the student membership on
the Academic Policies Committee from two to four is included.
The proposed PSGA, Inc. constitution stipulates that each faculty
divisional committee shall have one voting member who is student. The
constitution specifies that the student representatives on the divisional
committees shall be the student senator who is elected by the students from
each of the respective academic divisions. And, the constitution further
specifies that the student divisional representatives shall be voting members
of the Executive Committee of the Tenure Faculty Division. The president of
the PSGA, Inc. would have the authority to nominate student appointees needed
for approval and shall publish such vacancies in the student newspaper. These
faculty-related provisions obviously require the approval of appropriate
faculty groups before implementation can occur.
The proposed student constitution also outlines the procedures for the
establishment and functioning of the Allocations Committee. The committee
shall be established or designated by the PSGA, Inc. for reviewing requests
for program support and budget allocations of the allocable portion of the
segregated university fee and all action of the committee shall be subject to
the final approval of the PSGA, Inc. in conjunction with the Chancellor of
the UW-Parkside.
The membership of the Allocations Committee shall consist of 11 voting
members (except additional voting members may be added under the provisions
of the next paragraph), 5 elected in the fall and 5 elected in the spring by
the student body and the President of the Student Organizational Council (ex
officio). The Assistant Chancellor for Student Affairs, the Assistant
Chancellor for Administration, and the Director of Budget Planning shall sit
with the Committee as non-voting members. No members may concurrently serve
as a PSGA, Inc. senator of officer.
The procedures of the Allocations Committee require that the committee,
upon the call of the Chancellor and the President of PSGA, Inc. shall
annually prepare recommendations on the disbursal of the segregated
university fee. Should the PSGA, Inc. concur in the recommendation, the
President of the PSGA, Inc. shall so advise the Chancellor and the
Chairperson of the Allocations Committee. Should the Chancellor concur in the
PSGA, Inc. recommendations, he/she shall arrange for its implementation.
Should the Chancellor not concur, the provisions under negotiations shall be
used. The Senate may not amend the Allocation Committee recommendation.
Rejection of the Committee’s recommendation takes a three-fifths vote of the
entire Senate. In the case of rejection by the Senate, the reasons for
rejection shall be agreed to and forwarded to the Chairperson of the
Allocation Committee. The Allocations Committee shall reconsider its
recommendation and again forward it to the Senate.
The President and President Pro Tem of the PSGA, Inc. shall be the
representatives of the PSGA, Inc. in any consultations with the Chancellor or
his/her designee in dealing with the PSGA, Inc. Allocation Committee
recommendations. If the PSGA, Inc. and the Chancellor cannot reconcile their
differences in the allocation of the allocable portion of segregated
university fees, each will submit a set of recommendations to the Board of
Regents for final disposition.
Summary of Campus Plans to Implement 36.09(5), UW-Platteville
In late October a committee consisting of nine students and six
administrative staff began developing the Platteville plans to implement
36.09(5). The basic result or outcome of the committee’s efforts is the
development of a committee structure outlining the composition in terms of
the number of student members and the number of staff members and the
responsibilities of the committees. The student senate and the faculty senate
have approved the plans. The Chancellor, who served as a member of the
committee, has likewise recommended adoption of the plan.
The Platteville plan contains most of the committees that are currently
serving and relating to student life, service, and activities areas on that
campus. The committees range from health, discipline, and interschool and
intramural athletics to orientation, student financial aids, and student
housing. The student/staff composition of the committees as proposed in the
plan in altered in a majority of the committees--in most cases a shift to
greater representation of student of the committees. In general the changes
in representation are modest increments, and do not show drastic revisions of
the past composition of the committees.
The major arm of student government at UW-Platteville is the Student
Senate. The plan, and past practice, calls for the Student Senate to nominate
and in fact appoint student members to committees in the student life,
services, and activities areas. One significant change in the proposed plan
in the Student Center Advisory Committee (formerly called the Activities
Board) will now be appointed by the Student Senate whereas in the past they
had been appointed by the various committees which came under the
jurisdiction of the Activities Board. Opportunities for student participation
appear to be substantial within a structure of 36 separate committees/boards
and with several committees calling for student numbers as high as 13,15, and
even 20 students in one case.
The plans are not completely clear concerning
for
student
participation
in
areas
that
responsibilities. However, some of the committees
concerns including the library, educational media
learning, and environmental impact committees.
the extent of opportunity
are
primarily
faculty
certainly deal with such
resources, improvement of
The plan assigns the responsibility for recommendations on allocable
segregated fee supported areas to the Budget Committee. The Budget Committee
carries the responsibility for developing recommendations on both statefunded and segregated-fee funded proposals. The Budget Committee procedures
are outlined as follows:
Composition: 11 staff and 6 students. When voting upon financing from
state appropriations, each faculty member shall have one vote and each
student shall have ½ vote. When voting upon financing from the
allocable portion of segregated fees, each student shall have one vote
and each faculty member shall have ½ vote.
Their plan does not indicate whether the internal organization of the budget
committee is also adjusted along with proportionate staff/student voting
powers when the committee deals with allocable segregated fee recommendations
as opposed to state-funded proposals. Or in other words, will a student chair
the committee during allocable segregated fee deliberations or will the same
leadership be maintained?
Summary of Campus Plans to Implement 36.09(5), UW-River Falls
The student governing body at UW-River Falls is “The Student Senate of
the UW-River Falls.” A strong, active organization, the Senate has a long
tradition of participation in the governance of the campus. The campus plan
for the implementation of Section 36.09(5) of the merger bill was developed
by two committees. Their reports, “Merger Implementation Interim Guidelines
Analysis of Student Life Policy Development,” “Process of Policy Formulation
and Review,” “Agency Data Document,” and “Merger Implementation AnalysisBudget Process and Procedures,” were adopted by the Senate; and the Internal
Operations Committee was instructed to take the steps necessary to adjust the
Senate’s Constitution and By-Laws to reflect the policies and procedures set
forth in the reports. This was done as an ongoing procedure. Since there were
no major changes, it was not felt necessary to have any kind of total student
body ratification procedure. The Senate is the governing body and apparently
all concerned believed it has the power to act.
The
plan
was
developed
by
two
committees.
The
Auxiliary
Services/Student Life Concerns Committee has 9 students and 6 faculty
members. It developed a model regarding the process of policy formulation and
review and an agency data document which provides information vital to
membership, purpose and scope of student agencies and committees, the meeting
schedule, and parliamentary authorization which will be involved in the plan.
Thirteen student agencies were identified to be authorized and involved
in policy development: Student Senate, Hagestad Union Board, Inter-Residence
Hall Council, Joint Food Service Committee, Joint Housing Committee,
Bookstore Committee, Multi-Purpose Arena Committee, Off-Campus Housing
Committee, Statutory Advisory Committee, and Residence Hall Recreation
Committee. Students have a majority or equal representation on all but the
Financial Aids Advisory Committee, Orientation Committee, and Multi-Purpose
Arena Committee. Committee membership and selection vary from committee to
committee depending mainly on the scope of the committee. In various ways,
the student members are picked by other students, not by the administration.
The model developed by the committee has a detailed plan for policy
formulation and review with numerous opportunities for appeal and review.
The Budget-Allocable Segregated Fees Committee has three students and
three faculty members. It developed flow chats for the handling of segregated
fees for student activities during the academic year and summer session and
for program activities in the student center. During the academic year the
student senate budget committee (5 student senate appointed members and
nonvoting, ex officio members, Assistant Chancellor for Business and Finance,
and
Administrative
Assistant
for
Student
Affairs)
receives
budget
recommendations to the full senate for approval. Minor changes ($300 or less)
are allowed, but if major problems develop, the entire budget is returned to
the committee. If reconcilable differences between the committee and the full
senate occur, the recommendation of the committees will prevail and be sent
to the Chancellor for review and approval. His recommendation and the
senate’s recommendation are then forwarded to Central Administration for
final Board approval.
The summer session budget for student activities is developed by the
Summer Session Director, Student Center Activities Director, and Assistant
Chancellor for Business and Finance. It is then sent to the Chancellor for
review and approval before sending it to Central Administration for Board
approval.
A third component is the budget for student center program activities.
This budget originates in the Hagestad Union Board (HUB) which is composes of
17 voting directors (12 students, 5 faculty and staff). The Director of
Auxiliary Services determines the allocable portion of the student center
budget and notifies the HUB. HUB recommends a budget and transmits it to the
Chancellor, who either approves or disapproves it and forwards the budget to
Central Administration for Board approval.
Students are members of the following faculty standing committees:
academic policy and program (6 of 15 voting members); academic standards (6
of 12); alumni relations (2 of 6); athletic (6 of 12); campus planning (6 of
12); computer guidance (2 of 7); concerts and lectures (11 of 17); curriculum
(5 of 14); faculty salary (2 of 9); faculty welfare and personnel policies (2
of 9); human relations (5 of 9); instructional improvement (4 of 11);
international study (3 of 7); library (2 of 8); public relations (3 of 7).
Students are not represented on the termination, nominations and elections,
institutional studies, research and grants, and the faculty hearing,
grievance, and appeals committees, abut are seeking representation on these
committees. Students on each faculty committee are appointed by student
government.
Summary of Campus Plans to Implement 36.09(5), UW-Stevens Point
There is a long history of shared government at UW-Stevens Point as
this relates to both students and faculty. For a minimum of ten years, a
student subcommittee of student government has reviewed the segregated fee
budgets and programs. During this same period of time, this subcommittee has
been administering the allocable portion as well as some nonallocable
portions of the segregated fee budgets. Thus the implementation of 36.09(5)
is simply the continuation of existing procedures rather than the adoption of
new ones. Thus, there was no new student or faculty involvement or review.
The committee of student government responsible for allocations is the
Student Program Budgeting and Analysis Committee (SPBAC). It is composed of
the Student Director of Program Budget and Analysis and one Senate member
appointed by the President and one Assembly member appointed by the Vice
President. Each of the three members shall appoint two students from the
student body at large. These selections must be ratified by a 2/3 vote of
Senate and Assembly. In addition, there are two, nonvoting faculty staff
advisors, the student government advisor, and a budget analyst. For 1975-76,
the budget has been divided into five categories which encompass all student
activities: fine arts, athletics, communications, activities and
entertainment, and student government activities. The SPBAC reviews all
budget requests from various student groups, hears the various proposals, and
makes recommendations to the student government. The student government
reviews each request, questions the chairperson of SPBAC on any specific
points and then votes the level of appropriation for each activity.
The president of student government, student budget director, and
student controller meet with the Chancellor and his staff for review.
Differences between the Chancellor and students are negotiated. If
differences are nonnegotiable, the matter is taken to the Board for
resolution.
Budget control is maintained by the student activity administration
(student budget director and student controller) whose basic function is to
monitor spending in order to comply with University regulations and to make
sure activities don’t spend more than they are allocated. The two students
work closely with the University budget analyst and controller.
In the area of student life, services and interests, policy
development, four areas have been identified: financial aids, student health,
housing, and University Center. Review committees have been operating in the
first two areas for three years. New charters are now being developed for all
four areas.
Students and faculty have established parallel committees for: academic
affairs, business affairs, faculty affairs, student affairs, and community
relations. The student committees make recommendations to student government
and the Assistant Chancellor for University Services. Students have voting
membership privileges on all standing faculty committees including the
parallel committees.
Because the charters for the four policy development areas are not yet
in final form, the plan should be regarded as in an advanced interim stage
(draft copies of the charters were submitted).
Summary of Campus Plans to Implement 36.09(5), UW-Stout
The policy was written by a committee of eight students and ten faculty
and administrators; the Dean of Students provided the leadership. It has
received general campus acceptance and represents little change of previous
policies.
Student Participation in Governance: Organization and Procedures
As a continuing part of the governance structure of UW-Stout, students
have the responsibility to select representatives to governing agencies of
the university. The Student Senate monitors student participation in
governance.
Means
of
students
participation
include
Stout
Student
Association; Inter-Residence Hall Association; Academic School, Department
and/or
Program
Student
Advisory
Committee;
and
informal
student
participation.
I.
Stout Student Association (SSA)
All student belong and may participate in university governance through
SSA. The University Student Senate (USS) is legislative and grants
recognition to affiliated student organizations. Elected executive officers
and representatives from interest and/or living groups constitute USS. USS
Standing Committees, composed of USS Senators appointed by the SSA President,
have varying powers on issues such as segregated fees, committee,
appointments, university organizations, and academic and instructional
matters. University Activities Assembly is composed of executive officers,
student body representatives, and a representative from each associated
organization
or
group;
associated
organization
provide
campus-wide
programming and activities. University Court, with an equal representation of
USS student appointees and faculty, is the judicial branch of the SSA. USS
appoints students to be voting representatives, in varying numbers, on all
standing committees which assist in governance (e.g. campus planning,
curriculum, etc.) and to be members of task forces on specific timely issues,
in numbers requested.
II.
Inter-Residence Hall Association
All residence hall student are members. The Inter-residence Hall
Council is the elective legislative branch of the Association, taking action
on resident life and food contract service matter. Inter-residence Hall
Association standing committees have a representative from each residence
hall and have varying powers on such issues as residence hall facility
improvement, food service programs, and residence hall social and educational
activities. Each residence hall has an elective Hall Council responsible for
hall procedures, policies and programming.
III.
Academic School, Department and/or Program Advisory Committee
Students representatives are elected, or if election is not feasible,
appointed by faculty, in varying numbers to school, department and program
committees. Committee responsibilities vary but curriculum and quality of
instruction are their concern.
IV.
Informal Student Participation
Students also contribute informally to University governance through
the agency of accessibility of administrators, ad hoc and scheduled informal
session with administrators on various topics, and orientation groups with
administrators, faculty and students.
Primary
governance
procedures
possibilities are also available.
are
outlined
above
but
other
Procedures for the Distribution of the Segregated University Fee-Activities
The allocable portion of Segregated University Fee (SUF) designated for
programmatic activities shall be allocated to the SSA and administered by
USS, allocation committee for students, to participating organizations. USS
is composed of five student executives, 22 student senators, and tow faculty
advisors.
The non-allocable portion of SUF will cover existing debt service,
other fixed costs, and a reserve for an initial down-payment on a SUFsupported facility. The allocable portion, the remainder of SUF, will provide
major support for various student activities, programs and services.
No later than February 1, the Chancellor shall establish the allocable
portion of SUG which the SSA. Under supervision of the Dean of Students, will
recommend for distribution to student organizations, for the coming fiscal
year. Adjustments due to enrollments will be made in fall. Part will be a
contingency fund.
USS finance committee (student Vice President for Financial Affairs
(VPFA), 3 student senators, Dean of Students as vice chair and voting member)
will hold open hearings and make recommendations for action to USS. The USS
organizational allocation recommendations will be reviewed by the Chancellor,
Dean of Students, Administrative Services Office (ASO) representative, and
SSA VPSA, then acted on by the Chancellor. SSA will announce allocations to
funded organizations. Dean of Students will report allocation, including
names of faculty advisers and treasurers for all groups to ASO. ASO will
report monthly on all SSA funded accounts to the Dean of Students and SSA
VPSA. Information on SUF not transmitted through Chancellor will be dispensed
through the Dean of Students or his appointed representative. Any changes in
budget method shall be announced through Dean of Students Office with notices
to ASO and SSA VPSA. All changes in SSA allocations, after Chancellor
approval shall be transacted through SSA VPSA who will notify ASO and Dean of
Students office.
Summary of Campus Plans to Implement 36.09(5), UW-Superior
The Superior guidelines were developed by an Ad Hoc Drafting Committee
composed of four students, two faculty and one administrator. The Student
Affairs Council, the Senate of the Superior Student Association, the
University Senate and the Chancellor have all approved the plan.
Student Involvement in University Governance
The Superior Student Association (SSA) is recognized in the plan as the
official representative of the students at UW-Superior. As such, the SSA, in
consultation with the University Senate Committee on Committees, has
appointive authority for all student members of standing committees and
councils, except for the Rothwell Student Center Policy Board and the InterHall Council. The plan also calls for student voting membership on all
standing committees and council at the college and university levesl
concerned with programming, planning, and budgeting both in academic and
nonacademic areas. A resolution passed by the Senate of the SSA charges the
SSA to “...invite each duly constituted student organization to nominate
students from their membership to serve as voting members of the Student
Affairs Council...and that SSA shall insure that its appointments reflect the
broad spectrum of student concerns and interests.”
Effective at the beginning of the 1975-76 academic year the Student
Affairs Council of the University Senate shall be composed of a majority of
students. The council will be chaired by the Assistant Chancellor for Student
Affairs and will also be composed of six teaching faculty and/or/
administrative/academic staff appointed by the University Committee on
Committees, and eight students appointed by the SSA.
UW-Superior has a longstanding tradition of student involvement in
university governance. For some time there has been a student membership on
the University Senate. There are currently six student senators. Subject to
the revision of the Charter of the University Senate, the President of SSA
shall become a voting member of the Executive Committee of the University
Senate.
As a matter of principle and pending development of comprehensive
recruitment procedures for the University community, students shall be
represented in appropriate numbers on committees that recommend the hiring of
all administrative staff. A proportionately greater number of students shall
serve on recruitment committees for Student Affairs staff than on other
recruitment committees.
The SSA shall, in consultation with the Chancellor or his designee,
develop student disciplinary procedures in accordance with Board of Regents’
policy.
An Auxiliary Enterprises Review Committee (AERC) shall be established
as a committee of the SSA. AERC will be composed of an equal number of
students appointed by the SSA and of faculty and/or academic staff appointed
by the University Senate Committee on Committees. The functions of AERC shall
be the review of the operations and budgets of the auxiliary enterprise areas
and to make recommendations to or to consult with the appropriate committees
and/administrators. The committee shall be afforded full access to budgets
and other information necessary for the accomplishment of its tasks.
Disposition of Allocable Segregated University Fees
The SSA shall create, as a regular standing committee, the Segregated
University Fees Allocation Committee (SUFAC). SUFAC shall have primary
responsibility for the development and preparation of recommendations
regarding the disposition of allocable segregated university fees, in
accordance with state and university statutory and regulatory requirements,
and in consultation with the Chancellor. SUFAC recommendations are subject to
the approval of the Senate of the SSA and the Board of Regents.
The composition of SUFAC shall consist of 13 voting members and one or
more non-voting members: 9 voting students appointed by the Senate of SSA, 4
voting faculty or staff members appointed by the Committee on Committees of
the University Senate, and as non-voting members (ex officio), the Chancellor
of the University and others selected by SUFAC.
SUFAC procedures shall include but not be limited to: providing a
budgetary request form to all organizations/activities which are eligible for
allocable segregated fees in ample time prior to hearings; a draft of SUFAC’s
recommended allocations will be transmitted to the Chancellor of the
University and to the SSA Senate; members of SUFAC shall meet with the
Chancellor to discuss their budget recommendations--with the Chancellor’s
comments and concerns being reviewed by SUFAC prior to the formulation of its
final recommendations; final recommendations shall be submitted to the SSA
Senate for consideration and action and will then be submitted to the
Chancellor; should the Chancellor find himself unable to endorse the final
allocations, he should then prepare and submit to the Board of Regents,
through Central Administration, an alternative allocation plan, along with
the SSA allocation recommendations.
********************
It does not appear that there are any plans to hold a student
referendum or plebiscite to test the student support or lack of support for
the plans. It is generally accepted that the SSA will continue the carry out
already existing practices for student involvement in the governance of UWSuperior.
Summary of Campus Plans to Implement 36.09(5)
The plan submitted by UW-Whitewater does not contain much information
beyond the bear essentials, so background information was secured verbally
from the Chancellor, president of student government, and Dean of Students.
In addition, both the student and faculty governance structures are being
revised.
The submission contains three parts: a membership list for the UWWhitewater allocations committee structure, a description of the allocation
of segregated fees process, and a look at student participation in university
governance. The parts were apparently written by an ad hoc committee composed
chiefly of the Dean of Students, the past student government president, and
the present student government president. The drafts were then approved by
the student senate and forwarded by the Chancellor to Central Administration.
The allocations committee is composed of nine students, two faculty
members, and tow nonvoting administrative budget officers appointed by the
Chancellor. Two students are elected by the senate, two by the Residence Hall
Federation, and one each by the four Deans’ Advisory Councils. One student is
appointed by the student government president. The faculty are elected by the
Faculty Senate.
Procedures for the operation of the Allocations Committee have not yet
been established. All allocations made by the committees shall be formally
approved by the student senate. When the proposed allocations are presented
to the senate, there is an opportunity for appeal by those groups who feel
the allocations are not equitable. After approval of all allocations, the
president of student government and the Chancellor will review the
allocation. “Any changes requested by the Chancellor must be approved by the
Student Senate.” If agreement cannot be reached, the matter will go to
Central Administration and the Board of Regents for final resolution.
The third section of the submission deals with student participation in
university governance. Students are represented through student government
and through membership on: faculty committees, Faculty Senate committees,
Deans’
Advisory
Councils,
University
Student
Affairs
Committee,
and
University Administrative committees. Unfortunately, no breakdown is given as
to how many student members there are on the various committees. To promote
communication and accountability, a student representative council is
proposed to exchange information about what is occurring at meetings of the
various committees concerning student life, services or interests. The plan
does not “define with particularity student life, services and interests.”
There is no listing of existing procedures which assure opportunities for
student participation in the campus agencies charged with policy development.
Students are seeking representation on the University Curriculum Committee
and departmental academic governance committees.
Example A
UWC-BARABOO/SAUK COUNTY
(1) The University of Wisconsin Baraboo-Sauk County Student Association and
its legislative arm, the Student Senate, were chartered and approved in June,
1970. Through its membership on th4e various Collegium committees, students
are active participants in the immediate governance of and policy
developments for Baraboo. There are six student members of the Baraboo
Collegium – three freshman and three sophomores -- as nominated by the
Student Association. The Center Collegium nominates and elects members to the
Baraboo Collegium Steering Committee, which includes one student. Other
committees having student representation include: a) the Evaluation Committee
(two students); b) the Curriculum Course Improvement Committee (two student);
c) an Appointments Committee (two students); d) the Academic Actions and
Admissions Committee (two students); e) a Lecture and Fine Arts Committee
(two students); f) a Building and Grounds Committee (two students); and g) a
Publications Committee (four students).
All student representatives
appointed by the Dean.
are
recommended
by
the
Baraboo
Senate
and
(2) The Student Senate, through its budgeting power and its standing
committees, has primary responsibility for the formulation and review of
policies concerning student life, services, and interests. In addition to the
above-mentioned committees, and Ad Hoc Appeals Board may be created to
resolve grievances of faculty students, and support personnel. The students
are represented on that Board.
(3) The disposition of segregated fees and approval of the several 128
budgets receiving segregated fee support is decided jointly by the campus
Steering Committee and the entire Student Senate. As the Charter reads:
“Subject to the approval of the Dean, the Student Senate...shall recommend
the allocation of the student activities portion of the 128 funds consistent
with University and Center System guidelines.”
(4) The student right to organize and select their representatives is set
forth in the Baraboo Charter: “The Student Senate, as main student governance
body, shall carry on required political activities, and shall be responsible
for recommending to the Dean the names of students to serve on non-elective
faculty
and
student
committees.”
Three
points
are
noted:
a)
freshman/sophomore balance is mandated by the Charter; b) two committees
mandate sophomore student representation; and c) there is no direct committee
placement of student representatives by the SGA; rather, a nomination process
leads to student designation.
UWC-Baraboo/Sauk Collegium
40 members
5 students
Collegium Committees:
Steering Committee
Evaluation Committee
Appointments Committee
Curriculum Committee
Lecture & Fine Arts Committee
Total#
6
7
7
7
12
Students#
1
2
2
2
3
Example B
UWC-BARRON COUNTY
(1) Students are active participants in the governance of and policy
development for this Center campus. The Barron Collegium includes four
students (two freshmen, two sophomores) who are elected to that body by the
Student Senate. The Center Collegium Steering Committee includes one student.
The Faculty Merit Committee, the Teacher Evaluation Committee, and the Ideas
Committee have student representation. Standing Committees consist of at
least one student member of, and elected by, the Center Collegium. The
Curriculum and Course Improvement Committee would include four students
selected by the Center Steering Committee from a list of at least twelve
students submitted by the Student Senate.
(2) “Great weight” is given to student voice concerning areas of student
life, service, and interests through student participation in essential
campus committees.
(3) The Student Senate Constitution at the present time does not define the
involvement of the students in the budgeting process of the 128 funds. This
reality has been communicated to the Student Body President and is being
remedied through a provision designed to enumerate Senate duties and
functions in the budgeting and allocation of 128 dollars.
In absence of a revised Constitution, a formal procedure has been worked out
whereby:
(a) The chairperson of the budgetary committee would be the treasurer
of the Student Senate.
(b) The committee would be made up by student assigned by the Student
Senate Executive Committee.
(c) The various organizations, using previous budgets and expenses as
models, will be asked to submit budget to this committee.
(d) The student committee will formulate and submit this total budget
to the Dean for his approval.
(e) The Dean will forward the final budget document to the Chancellor
indicating any discrepancies not resolved between the student committee
and the Dean.
(4) Students have the right to organize themselves, and they operate a
student government association. The CCIC student representatives are chosen
by the Steering Committee from twelve names submitted by the Student Senate;
each of the four is to be “typical” of students in each academic division.
UWC-Barron County Collegium
All persons who are non-classified and teach 50% or more are members of
the Collegium, plus three students.
Collegium Committees:
Steering Committee
Promotion, Retention & Tenure Committee
Faculty Merit Committee
Teacher Evaluation Committee
Faculty Grants & Awards Committee
Appointments Committee
Nominating Committee
Ideas Committee
Media Committee (Ad Hoc)
Total#
6
5
6
4
3
3
3
7
5
Student#
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
Example C
UWC-MARSHFIELD/WOOD COUNTY
(1) Students are defined as all persons registered for credit at the Center;
further, students shall be active participants in the immediate governance
and policy developments of the Center. Membership in the Campus Collegium is
made up of two freshmen and two sophomores, with the selection process
determined by the Campus Collegium. Student members are also present on the
Steering Committee and on the Curriculum and Course Improvement Committee,
both of which are standing committees of the Collegium. Students are not
represented on the Promotion, Evaluation, Retention and Tenure Committee or
on the Appointments Committee. Input, however, is used, prior to action.
Students are represented on the following ad hoc committees of the Collegium:
a) Academic Actions Committee, (1 student); b) Library Committee, (2
students); c) Student Financial Aids Committee, (3 students); and d) Student
Housing Committee, (2 students).
(2) Students have majority membership on three additional ad hoc committees
related to student life, services, and interests: a) the Athletic and
Recreation Board, (6 students); b) Student Activity Fund Committee, (6
students); and c) Lecture-Fine Arts Committee, (6 students). This majority
assures students of primary responsibility for the formulation and review of
policies concerning student life, services, and interests.
(3) The three ad hoc committees described above are responsible for
determining budget recommendations for the activity of their respective
committees. As such, students determine the disposition of student fees which
do constitute to substantial support for their activities. Since the support
for the activities of the above-mentioned three committees is also generated
by revenue from the campus food service and the campus bookstore, there is
student involvement in the disposition of funds which are not student fees
but which are generated by student traffic in the food service and bookstore.
(4) Since 1964, students of Marshfield have had the right to organize
themselves in a self-determined manner. Their organization is named the
University of Wisconsin, Marshfield/Wood County Campus Student Self-Governing
Association. The Student Self-Government Association selects the four student
representatives to the Collegium, which mandates only a freshman-sophomore
division of student membership. Whereas in the past the Collegium’s Steering
Committee had asked for recommendations to committees, currently such
representation is selected by the students through the Student SelfGovernment Association.
UWC-MARSHFIELD/WOOD COUNTY
Collegium Ad Hoc Committee
Academic Actions Committee
House Management Committee
Library Committee
Student Financial Aids Com.
Student Housing Committee
Total #
Student #
8
8
7
8
7
1
0
2
3
2
12
10
6
6
6
6
3
8
5
0
2
0
7
1
Ad Hoc Committee concerned with
128 funds
Athletic & Recreation Board
Student Activity Fund
Lecture-Fine Arts
Collegium Standing Committee
Appointments Committee
Curriculum
Promotion, Evaluation, Retention
and Tenure Committee
Steering Committee
Example D
UWC-WAUKESHA COUNTY
(1) The charter of Waukesha indicates that students shall be active
participants in the immediate governance of and policy development of
Waukesha County Campus through their elected representative to the Campus
Collegium. Student voting representation is on all but two of the committees
(Building and Grounds; Field Station); and a campus study has recommended
that student representation be extended to these committees.
(2) Five committees dealing with student life and interests have been created
at Waukesha: a) Student Services (1 student); (b) Student Activities (5
students, majority): c) Athletic Board (3 students); d) Scholarship and
Financial Aids (2 students); e) Lecture and Fine Arts (1 student). The
student service committee functions as the parent committee. Each of the subcommittees dealing with matters considered to by of primary interest to
student has greater student representation than other campus committees. A
campus proposal would increase to four the number of students on the Lecture
and Fine Arts Committee.
(3) The Student Service Committee compiles the budgets from the Student
Activities Committee, the Athletic Board, and the Lecture and Fine Arts
Committee. It reviews the total budget in terms of budget requests,
anticipated revenues, etc. As a part of the budget review, the committee will
develop recommendations on the segregated fee. Since the activity budget is
prepared by a committee having majority student representation, students do
have primary responsibility for this expenditure area. It has been suggested
that campus recommendations be made permitting the total budget to be
submitted by the Student Service Committee to the Student Government
Legislature for comment and approval.
(4) The Student Government does have the right to organize in a selfdetermined manner. The following guidelines are followed: a) the Center
Collegium requires 4 freshmen and 4 sophomore student representatives; b)
nominations for student reps are sought from ALL FACULTY and students
(according to the charter); c) It is mandated when the election of students
shall occur, and that student nominees have a 2.0 GPA; the election, however,
is supervised by the Student Government. Steering, Appointments, Evaluation
Committees require a sophomore level student, the Academic Actions, Community
Services, Lecture & Fine Arts, and Library Committees have students appointed
by the Steering Committee (in consultation with Student Government).
UWC-WAUKESHA COUNTY
Collegium Committee
Total #
11
Student #
8
Collegium Standing Committees
Steering Committee
Evaluation of Professional
Personnel
Appointment of Professional
Personnel
Curriculum & Course Improvement
Community Services
Nominations & Elections
Student Services
7
1
7
1
7
7
7
6
11
1
1
1
1
2
8
5
6
8
5
4
6
14
7
6
5
7
2
1
1
3
0
0
1
7
2
1
0
2
Faculty Committees
Academic Actions
Library
Lectures & Fine Arts
Athletic Board
Field Station
Appeals
Charter Revision
Student Activities
Scholarship
Technology
Building & Grounds
Convocation
April 1, 1975
TO:
BOARD OF REGENTS
FROM:
Donald K. Smith
SUBJECT:
Summary and Recommendations of Campus Plans to Implement the
Student Section of the Merger Implementation Law, 36.09(5)
Last October the Board of Regents adopted Interim Guidelines for the
implementation of the student section of the Merger Implementation Law,
36.09(5). The specific language of this section of the Merger Implementation
Law follows:
“The students of each institution or campus subject to the
responsibilities and powers of the board, the president, the
chancellor, and the faculty shall be active participants in the
immediate governance of and policy development for such institutions.
As such, students shall have primary responsibility for the formulation
and review of policies concerning student life, services, and
interests. Students in consultation with the chancellor and subject to
the final confirmation of the board shall have the responsibility for
the disposition of those student fees which constitute substantial
support for campus student activities. The students of each institution
or campus shall have the right to organize themselves in a manner they
determine and to select their representatives to participate in
institutional governance.”
The Interim Guidelines called for the development of campus plans to
implement the student section of the merger bill. For the most part, the
Interim Guidelines did not specify structural or substantive directions which
the plans should follow in order to comply with the law. However, the
guidelines stressed the need to account for certain procedural guarantees
such as student involvement in the development of the plan, primary student
role in the development of the recommendations on use of the allocable
portion of segregated university fee budgets, and the right of appeal to
Central Administration and the Board of Regents.
Central Administration has received reports from the several
institutions on the progress made in developing campus plans for implementing
Section 36.09(5) of the merger statute. These have been reviewed with primary
attention to the nature of student participation in the development of each
plan, and to the fact of progress toward those modifications in campus
structures and procedures where these were indicated by the plan.
We have enclosed for your information a summary of each institutional
plan. These summaries were reviewed in draft form with student government
leaders and campus administrators, and we believe represent a fair statement
of the way in which each institution is proceeding with implementation. We
have also asked that chief student affairs administrators and student
government leaders publicize the opportunity available to bring appeals
related to the plans before the Board of Regents at their April meeting.
Observations by Central Administration
1. The plans for implementation vary from institution to institution in
many particulars. This is consistent with the expectation underlying the
adoption of the Interim Guidelines on Implementation. Since the agencies and
forms of shared governance vary from institution to institution, while
reflecting a common philosophy, we should expect similar variance in the ways
in which student participation in governance is assured. Variables including
campus traditions, size, age, student initiative, and other factors combine
to determine both the means and extent of student involvement.
2. We are satisfied that all institutions have proceeded in good spirit
with the task of implementing Section 36.09(5). Plans have been developed.
Implementation of plans will require in most instances a continuing process
of adjustment and modification, including actions by faculty senates, student
governments and student constituencies, and campus administrators.
3. We do not believe that formal approval of campus plans by the
Regents is a desirable procedure, particularly in view of the continuing
processes of modification in campus governance rules and procedures which has
been set in motion. Rather we would propose that the Regents receive the
plans, and recommend continuing attention by the institutions to developing
those rules and procedures which will express fully the letter and intention
of Section 36.09(5).
4. Eight or nine campuses will be in the process of acting on various
aspects of the proposed plans yet this spring. For this reason, we are
recommending that the Regents ask for a further report on campus
implementation of the plans at the November, 1975 meeting. It is expected
that the various constituent groups at the campuses who still need to review
and act on the plans will have taken action by that time.
5. Explicit action by the Regents concerning any plan should follow
from action on appeals made to the Board by any student association. We
believe this opportunity for appeal should be maintained in 1975-76, and
appeals received at the November, 1975 meeting.
Recommendation
Central Administration’s recommendation is placed in the attached
resolution
cc:
Chief Student Affairs Officers
Student Government Leaders
Summary of Campus Plans to Implement 36.09(5), UW Center System
Status Report
The Center System report is a review of the status of a plan for
effecting measures designed to insure institutionwide compliance with
36.09(5). The implementation plan was developed with all Deans, students,
faculty, Assistant Chancellor VanEyck, and Administrative Intern Thornton
Liechty.
As mandated in the interim guidelines, the report on the plan includes
a comprehensively defined identification of those agencies which have been
given the responsibility of policy development. Highlight is given to actions
on specific campuses as a means of insuring movement toward compliance,
pending local charter revision as designated to accommodate statute mandates.
Each individual campus has submitted a report. The format to be
followed: 1) will view the Center System as a functioning unit; 2) will
review the Collegium structure as it relates to student involvement in the
participatory decision-making process; and 3) will detail briefly the
position of each center campus with respect to 36.09(5).
Recommendation
In concert with the Central mandate, the following recommendations are
cited regarding procedural changes which should be made:
1. If, on the basis of legal clarification, it becomes evident that
guidelines,
locally
developed,
restricting
which
students
may
participate in a given governance committee, are an indication of
noncompliance. . . .
(a) Local charters
restrictions
will
have
to
be
amended
to
abrogate
such
(b) Interim procedures will have to be effected immediately, to
insure --prior to local charter revision--the elimination of said
restrictions.
(c) The System Internal Review Charter will be asked to insert in
its System Amendments, a broad statement stipulating the
necessity of local charter reference to compliance sections
identified in 36.09(5).
2. If student nominees for a particular representation are ultimately
selected from such a pool by administration, local charter (and interim
designated procedures) will have to reflect a direct student selection
of student membership on the appropriate committees.
3. A review will be made of the primary responsibility role which
students play in the disposition of 128 budgets. Efforts will be
effected to insure the inclusion of students in those deliberations
which determine the level of student segregated fees--aside from their
current involvement in actual 128 budget determinations.
4. In concert with the System’s External Charter Review proposal that a
standing committee on Student Life Services and Interest be created--a
monitoring device will be requested by the Chancellor, whereby, on the
basis of campus-by-campus input, the overall status of student
participation in the institutional governance structure be devised in
an ongoing manner.
5. Procedures will be devised, subject to student, faculty, Deanship
approval, whereby those few centers which have not included student
representation on evaluation, tenure, appointments committee--will
develop alternative mechanisms for student input. (The affected centers
have already initiated the latter.)
Addendum
In the reorganization of the Center System’s internal governance
procedures during the past three years, a Center System collegium was created
which includes representatives of the faculty, administration and students.
The numbers of students involved on the collegium and four of its committees
that deal primarily with academic issues follows:
UW Center System Collegium 1974-75
21 members
4 are students
Collegium Committees
Steering Committee
Curriculum Committee
Professional Standards
Academic Standards
Total #
7
7
8
7
Student #
1
2
1
1
Of the five students serving on the above committees,
designated as “to be appointed by Student Presidents.”
three
are
All of the Centers submitted plans. Enclosed as examples of the general
kinds of efforts being made to involve students in the governance of the
Centers are the plans of four of the Center, including Baraboo/Sauk County,
Barron County, Marshfield/Wood County, and Waukesha County.
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-OSHKOSH
PROGRESS REPORT ON
SECTION 36.09(5) OF
WISCONSIN STATE STATUTES
May 30, 1978
Submitted by
Edwin B. Smith
Assistant ChancellorStudent Programs & Services
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-OSHKOSH
MERGER COMMITTEE REPORT
March 1975
STUDENT MEMBERS
Thomas Albers, USRH
Mark Dolenshek, USRH
Patricia Keuk, Union Board
Gerald Bloesl, Union Board
Daniel Manning, OSA
Mark Mitchell, OSA
Mark Russert, Allocations Committee
FACULTY MEMBERS
Christie Berner, Nursing
Paul Taylor, Education
Albert Ritsema, Student Services
CHAIRPERSON
Edwin B. Smith
Assistant Chancellor for Student
Programs and Services
Section 36.09(5) of the Merger Statute:
“The students of each institution or campus subject to the
responsibilities and powers of the board, the president, the
chancellor and the faculty shall be active participants in the
immediate governance of and policy development for such
institutions. As such, students shall have primary responsibility
for the formulation and review of policies concerning student
life, services and interests. Students in consultation with the
chancellor and subject to the final confirmation of the board
shall have the responsibility for the disposition of those
student fees which constitute substantial support for campus
student activities. The students of each institution or campus
shall have the right to organize themselves in a manner they
determine and to select their representatives to participate in
institutional governance.
Introduction
This report is divided into two section: (1) those areas of student
life, services, and interests for which students have primary responsibility
under the Merger Statute, and (2) those areas for which faculty or other
persons have primary responsibility, but which are of significant concern to
students and in which they should be active participants. For purposes of
this report, the Merger Implementation Committee has defined “primary
responsibility” as follows:
Primary responsibility means that the service faculty (or
academic staff) and chancellor will accept student-initiated
recommendations in designated areas, unless substantial
professional judgement dictates otherwise. In such cases, the
basis for changing or denying recommendations shall be
communicated to the recommending student agency.
In those areas where students have primary responsibility,
administrators and faculty shall, after consultation with appropriate
students, make all personnel decisions. Procedures will be developed for
regular student participation in personnel matters.
The following student organizations are those that shall be directly
involved in the governance process of the University. They represent
the manner in which students have chosen to organize themselves.
Union Board shall have primary responsibility for the formulation and review
of policies concerning Reeve Memorial Union, the Reeve Union Bookstore
(textbook, supply), and all Food Service operations within Reeve
Memorial Union. In addition, the Union Board, in conjunction with
United Students in Residence Halls, shall determine the number of
members on the University Food Committee, and in a manner of their
choosing, appoint or elect one-half of those members.
United Students in Residence Halls shall have primary responsibility for the
formulation and review of policies concerning the Housing Program and
the Food Service in University Commons. In addition, United Students in
Residence Halls, in conjunction with Union Board, shall determine the
number of member on the University Food Committee, and in a manner of
their choosing, appoint or elect one-half of those members.
The Oshkosh Student Association is the constitutionally recognized voice of
the student body in all general University policies. The Oshkosh
Student Association shall be the appointing agency for all students to
University and Faculty Senate Committees, as well as all other
committees regarding areas not specifically delegated to the Union
Board or United Students in Residence Halls.
Experience with student participation in University governance over the
past three years has upheld the confidence of the original merger report that
the principle is sound and workable. In those areas where merger has been
implemented, the University has benefitted by the spirit of cooperation and
greater understanding which stems from the committee-structured discussion of
differing viewpoints. The experience has also revealed, however, persistent
problems which have inhibited full implementation of merger and may indeed be
insidious: the apparent reluctance of the faculty to share traditional
prerogatives with students, and the haphazard manner in which the Oshkosh
Student Association (OSA) performs its responsibility in filling student
vacancies on committees. Beyond the specific committees mentioned below,
neither the Faculty Senate nor OSA has formulated any general rules or
policies which define student committee memberships or committee structures.
Faculty Senate Committees:
The merger report of 1975 recommended student majority membership on
six faculty committees and minority representation on the remaining eleven.
To this date, membership on these committees has been changed as follows:
A. Two committee were allowed a student majority: The Allocations
Committee (five students, 4 faculty), and Scholarships and Awards
Committee (five students, four faculty).
The Allocations Committee, which disburses the allocable portion of
segregated university fees (currently about $350,000), is a good
example of an effective and responsible student-majority committee.
They have conducted their business in a manner that has gained the
respect of the university community. During the past year, when OSA
made the Allocations Committee one of its standing committees and
required that all allocations recommendations be passed by the OSA
Senate, a referendum of the student body gave a vote of confidence to
the Allocations Committee by vetoing the OSA action.
B. Minority student membership is maintained on the other four
committees: Intercollegiate Athletics (nine faculty, three students),
Health and Safety (five faculty, 3 students), Publications (six
members, two students), and Public Relations, (twelve members, two
students). The additional faculty committees were also allowed minority
student membership: Campus Physical Facilities Planning (five faculty,
two administrators, and two students), and Library (ten members, one
student).
C. The remaining nine faculty committees have no student
representation: Committee on Committees, Alumni, Faculty Relations,
Improvement of Instruction, Promotions, TARPS, University Development,
Budge, and Working Conditions.
Administrative Areas
Student membership has remained constant on the Commission for Academic
Affairs and its standing committees (about 20%), the Academic Advisory
Council for Continuing Education (20%), Equal Opportunity and Affirmative
Action (10%), University Budget Committee (OSA President and Vice President),
and the Graduate Council and its standing committees (25%)
Students are also represented on other University Committees: Parking
(50%), Energy Conservation (40%), Planning Steering (20%), and Safety (30%).
Departments and Colleges
Student voting membership of 20% or higher are maintain on many
departmental and college curriculum committees and budget committees. Since
the Faculty Senate has not yet formulated its policy concerning personnel
rules for faculty, the question of student participation and voting rights on
all committees which deal with personnel matters remains unanswered.
OSA Appointments to Faculty and University Committees:
The efficiency of OSA, the body which appoints student members, varies
yearly with each elected administration; and often appointments are put off,
sometimes until midyear. One student-majority committee, Intramurals, did no
function during the past year because OSA failed to appoint members. In some
cases waning interest, feelings of inadequate knowledge, being ignored, or
impatience with the committee system will cause student members to miss
meeting or simply drop out. As a possible means of removing these hindrances,
it has been recommended that OSA establish an appointment committee. The
current OSA officers made an election campaign promise to give high priority
to student participation in University governance and have begun to carry
through with that promise.
Brief responses to the following questions were requested:
A. Has the level of student participation in governance increased, decreased,
or remained about the same since 1975? How do you substantiate this
evaluation?
B. Are there any current, unresolved issues at your institution about the
power of students? If so, what are they?
1. The major unresolved issue concerns the appointment of student
members to committees. Who makes the appointments? The most recent
dispute, over the selection of students to the Chancellor’s Search and
Screen Committee resulted in legal action by the students against
President Young and the Board of Regents.
The court decided against the students, but the OSA Senate voted to
appeal the decision in the new appellate court. One the advice of
United Council, however, the current OSA president is inclined to drop
the matter. The rationale is that the question will be pursued
elsewhere by United Council
2. The colleges are uncertain about where students fit into faculty
grievance committees at the department level, since these deal with
what might be considered personnel matter. Should they be on
committees? Should they have a vote?
C. If 36.09(5) were to be amended, what clarifications would you consider to
be of highest importance?
A clear and precise system-wide definition of “primary responsibility”
should be of highest importance. We have had less difficulty than some
campuses with this issue, because of our campus definition. However, it
still becomes an occasional concern in the absence of a system-wide
definition.
UW-Oshkosh definition:
Primary responsibility means that the service faculty (or
academic staff) and chancellor will give great weight to student
initiated recommendations, and will accept them in designated
areas, unless substantial professional judgment dictates
otherwise. In such cases, the basis for changing or denying
recommendations shall be communicated to the recommending student
agency.
In those areas where students have primary responsibility,
administrators and faculty shall, after consultation with
appropriate students, make all personnel decisions. Procedures
will be developed for regular student participation in personnel
matters.
SECTION TWO:
AREAS OF CONCERN
I. FACULTY SENATE COMMITTEES
A. Public Relations Committee
1. Membership
a. Existing: Twelve faculty and 2 students and 2 ex-officio
(Executive Director of Communications Services and Dean of
College of Continuing Education).
b. Amended: Twelve faculty and 3 students and 2 ex-officio
(Executive Director of Communication Services and Dean of
College of Continuing Education).
2. Purpose: Studies and makes recommendations regarding the large
development of harmonious campus-community
relationships in an era of accelerated growth; seeks
additional methods for improving communication
between all groups within and without the university.
B. University Development Committee
1. Membership
a. Existing: Twelve faculty
b. Amended: Addition of 3 students
2. Purpose: Identifies and researches problems in institutional
growth; formulates proposals for the action programs
for referral to the Faculty Senate.
C. Improvement of Instruction Committee
1. Membership
a. Existing: Fifteen faculty
b. Amended: Addition of 3 students
2. Purpose: Studies a multitude of problems directly affecting
instructional efficacy at the university; establishes
subcommittees to study separate proposals; cooperates
with other committees in making joint reports to
Faculty Senate.
D. Campus Planning Committee
1. Membership
a. Existing: Five faculty, 2 administrators, and
representatives of Student Services
b. Amended: Addition of 2 students.
D. Multicultural Educational Center
1. Membership
a. Existing: Nine students and 1 ex-officio (Director of
the Multicultural Center)
b. Amended: Eight student (two from each group housed in
the Center) and 2 from OSA and 1 ex-officio
(Director of the Multicultural Center)
2. Purpose: Formulation and review of policies concerning the
Multicultural Educational Center
E. Scholarship and Awards Committee*
1. Membership
a. Existing: Nine faculty and 3 students and 3 ex-officio
(Assistant Chancellor for Student Programs and Service,
Director of Financial Aids, Assistant Dean of Students).
b. Amended: Four faculty and 5 students and 1 ex-officio
(Assistant Chancellor for Student Programs and Services or
designate)
2. Purpose: Supervises the establishment of all-campus and
divisional honor societies; recommends policy on
scholarships and financial assistance to students;
studies possibilities for developing sources of
financial aids; and organizes annual Honors Day.
II. NEW COMMITTEES
A. Admissions, Records, Registration, and Registrar Committee
1. Membership: Five students and 3 faculty and 1 ex-officio
(Assistant Vice-Chancellor for Educational Systems or designate).
2. Purpose: Formulation and review of policies concerning the
offices of Admission, Records, Registration and Registrar.
B. Intramural Sports Committee
1. Membership: Six students and 2 ex-officio
(The co-directors of Intramurals – men and women).
2. Purpose: Formulation and review of policies concerning
Intramural Sports
C. Student Support Service Committee
1. Membership: Three students and 2 faculty and 3 ex-officio
(Directors of Reading/Study Center, Testing and Research Center,
and Placement Office).
2. Purpose: Formulation and review of policies concerning the
Reading/Study Center, Testing and Research Center, and Placement
-------(*) Currently Faculty Senate Committee
UW-O MERGER COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDATIONS
I.
TO THE CHANCELLOR
We recommend that the existing Health and Safety Committee be concerned
solely with campus safety problems and policies and that the University
Health Service Committee be charged with responsibility for the
University Health Service, as described in the UW-O Merger Committee
Report.
II.
TO THE FACULTY SENATE
We recommend that the definitions of purpose or function of all Faculty
Senate Committees be revised regarding their aptness of description and
current applicability.
We recommend that consolidation occur regarding the Calendar Public
Relations Committee, the University Public Relations Committee and the
Faculty Senate Public Relations Committee.
We recommend that any future committees dealing with areas of concern
to students should reflect a minimum of 20% student participation.
III.
TO THE OSHKOSH STUDENT ASSOCIATION,
STUDENTS IN RESIDENCE HALLS
REEVEN
UNION
BOARD,
AND
UNITED
We recommend that the Executive Board of the Oshkosh Student
Association be increased to include the Chairperson of the Union
Executive Board or his/her designee (ex-officio without vote) and the
President of United Students in Residence Halls or his/her designee
(ex-officio without vote).
We recommend that the Executive Board of the Reeve Union Board be
increased to include the President of United Students in Residence
Halls or his/her designee (ex-officio without vote) and the President
of United Students in Residence Halls or his/her designee (ex-officio
without vote).
We recommend that the Executive Board of United Students in Residence
Halls be increased to include the Chairperson of the Reeve Union Board
or his/her designee (ex-officio without vote) and the President of the
Oshkosh Student Association or his/her designee (ex-officio without
vote).
We recommend that the student representatives to the Intercollegiate
Athletic Committee be evenly divided between men and women.
We recommend that, in regard to the Publications Committee, one student
be appointed from the staff of the Advance-Titan and one student be
appointed from the staff of the Wisconsin Review.
We recommend that the student representatives to the Intramural Sports
Committee be evenly divided between men and women.
We recommend that at least one student member of the Veterans Affairs
Committee be a veteran.
GLOSSARY
Active
participants in immediate governance: Students shall have formal
representation in all areas of institutional decision-making including
but not limited to academic and non-academic planning, programming,
budgeting and review as provided for in this document.
Disposition of student fees: The allocation/distribution through budget
preparation and development, of the Student Segregated Fee, in
accordance with Regent rules and State Statutes.
Ex-Officio: Non-voting membership
In
consultation with: The provision for timely and substantive mutual
discussion between parties prior to formal decision-making or action by
the decision-making group.
Primary Responsibility: Primary responsibility means that the service faculty
(or academic staff) and chancellor will accept student-initiated
recommendations in designated areas, unless substantial professional
judgment dictates otherwise. In such cases, the basis for changing or
denying recommendations shall be communicated to the recommending
student agency.
Student: A person registered for study at UW-Oshkosh for the current academic
period; the Oshkosh Student Association, United Students in Residence
Halls, and Reeve Memorial Union Board shall be responsible for the
immediate governance and/or primary responsibility of those areas so
designated in this document.
Substantial Support: Those student fees or student-generated revenues without
which recipient programs, organizations, activities, etc., would be
significantly impaired, curtailed or eliminated.
May 31, 1978
Dr. Donald Smith
Sr. Vice President
Central Administration
University of Wisconsin System
Van Hise Hall
Madison, Wis. 53706
Dear Dr. Smith:
Chancellor Birnbaum has asked that I send the enclosed report directly
to you. Please let me know if there are any further questions regarding our
implementation of 36.09(5).
Sincerely,
Edwin B. Smith
Assistant Chancellor
Student Programs & Services
EBS/bh
Enc.
DOCUMENT STATUS:
This document was taken from original PDF form and re-typed with the sole
purpose of creating a digital format of the document. This document was retyped and is as close to the original as possible in regards to formatting,
font, grammatical aphorisms and spelling.
02/04/2016
Graham D. Sparks, Vice President of OSA