UW-GREEN BAY FACULTY SENATE MEETING NO. 9
Wednesday, 17 April 2002, 3:00 p.m.
PHOENIX ROOM C, University Union
Presiding Officer: John Lyon, Speaker
Parliamentarian: Professor Jerrold C. Rodesch
1. Minutes of UW-Green Bay Faculty Senate Meeting No. 8, March 13, 2002 (attached)
1. Resolution on Granting Degrees (attached)
1. Faculty Status for Instructional Academic Staff (attached). Presented by Professor David Littig
2. Report of the Provost. Presented by Interim Provost Carol Pollis
3. University Committee Report. Presented by Professor David Littig, Chair
UW-GREEN BAY FACULTY SENATE MEETING NO. 8
Wednesday, March 13, 2002
Niagara Room BC, University Union, 3:00 p.m.
Presiding Office: John Lyon, Speaker
Parliamentarian: Jerrold Rodesch, Secretary of the Faculty and Academic Staff
NOT PRESENT: Jennifer Mokren and Bruce Shepard
REPRESENTATIVES: Nick Kohn, Student Government Association, and Robert Skorczewski, Academic Staff Committee
GUESTS: Interim Deans Cheryl Grosso and Jane Muhl, Associate Provost Timothy Sewall, Professors Anne Kok and Terence O’Grady, and Director of Marketing and Media Relations Scott Hildebrand
1. Approval of Minutes of UW-Green Bay Faculty Senate Meeting No. 7, February 13, 2002
The minutes were approved without change.
1. Tenure and Due Process Resolution
Presented by Professor David Littig who summarized the resolution, emphasizing its opposition to the "Safransky rule," which applied a very loose construction of "tenure" from a non-academic setting (where it meant simply to have completed a six-month period of probationary service) to the University System. The Board of Regents should instead have used established due process under Chapter 4 of the Rules of the Board of Regents (Wisconsin Administrative Code) for dismissal of tenured faculty members. Senator Galt moved and Senator Null seconded adoption of the University Committee resolution. Senator Kersten asked if the resolution was similar to those adopted at other campuses. Yes, said Littig. At least nine campuses have already acted and others have it in process. Senator Nagy asked if UW System will respond to the resolutions or simply file them. Littig said that the Regents have not yet responded, but a group of UW-Madison faculty members, using the argument of the resolutions, has filed an amicus curiae brief in the Marder case. The resolution was adopted by a vote of 21 in favor, none opposed, with one abstention.
2. Designation of B.A. and B.S. Degrees for Majors of Academic Programs
Presented by Professor David Littig. He announced the actions of several units recommending degree designations that should be added to the list previously distributed. He noted that a question had been raised at the previous Senate meeting about the Bachelor of Business Administration (BBA) degree. It is a common degree used by other institutions in the UW System. It does not imply any changes in the program nor does it have any accreditation implications. Senator Nagy added that the BBA is especially common at institutions that do not offer specific programs in fields like Marketing, Finance or Management. Senator Kubsch moved and Senator Conley seconded approval of the list of degrees as recommended. Senator Heuer expressed continuing discomfort with the BBA degree. Provost Pollis said that it was a normal one offered, e.g., at Madison, Milwaukee and Eau Claire. Senator Galt wondered if there is a correlation between the existence of separate Business Schools and the offering of a BBA. If it implies this we shouldn’t do it. Pollis said that a BBA does not imply a separate Business School. Although it involves no substantive change, it does provide a positive signal to the business community. Senator Aldrete commented that the symbolic difference was important: the BBA suggests a difference between professional studies and the rest of the university. Kubsch noted that there are other specialized degree designations, e.g., Nursing and Social Work. These do not require separate schools. Pollis pointed out that the Business faculty voted unanimously to adopt the BBA. We should trust that action. Senator Merkel agreed. The Senate voted 23 in favor, none opposed, with three abstentions, to adopt the resolution.
3. Master of Social Work Degree
Presented by Interim Dean Jane Muhl who read from an assessment of the proposal by an external reviewer from the La Follette Institute, UW-Madison. It was highly favorable. The regional need for the program is demonstrated, the proposal is well thought out, and it has clear objectives. The organizational arrangements between UW-Oshkosh and UW-Green Bay are thorough, and the curriculum matches the program objective. The projected revenues are adequate. The proposal meets the standards of the national accrediting agency.
Senator Noppe was interested in how the program can help prepare MSW psychotherapists. Senator Roeder said that the program would emphasize preparation for administration and supervision of non-profit organizations and advanced practice with children and families, but that psychotherapy training would be a possibility for students who sought it. Professor Kok summarized specific requirements for certification of Clinical Social Workers.
Noppe also asked about the impact of current budget uncertainty on resources needed for the program. Muhl acknowledged that the budget picture is complicated. The collaborative character of the program involves resource commitments from two institutions. We need 6 FTE positions, three from Oshkosh, three from Green Bay. Of the three UW-Green Bay needs to fund, one will come from GPR in the next biennium. The DIN for 2003-05 has been favorably received in UW System. There is, of course, uncertainty about the next budget. Planning in the next year of the current biennium (2001-03) will be supported by reallocation from outside the Academic Affairs area. If we meet enrollment targets revenue will be generated. Two positions can be funded from grants received by the Social Work program. Soft money can also support S & E. Senator Littig said that in the past the Board of Regents has approved new programs without additional funding for new positions. What would happen in this case if we got no new money? Muhl said that there would be internal reallocations from outside Academic Affairs.
Other undergraduate and graduate programs would not be harmed. Littig noted that tenure track positions cannot be funded with soft money. Muhl agreed, and said that accreditation standards also required GPR funding. Senator Heuer asked how the soft money Muhl had referred to could support two tenure-track positions. Muhl said that soft money could be used to partially fund positions. Senator Null asked where the GPR money outside of Academic Affairs was to be found. Provost Pollis said the areas to look at would include administrative services, information services, student services, business and finance, advancement, athletics, and others. Null noted that we are living in an attrition economy with unclear constraints and opportunities.
Senator Carleton reported on the Academic Affairs Council discussion of the proposal. There is no doubt that in the future some hard choices may be necessary. Developing this program may mean loss of positions in other academic areas. As an institution we need to weigh this against the benefits of the program. Reallocations within Academic Affairs? asked Heuer. Maybe, said Muhl. Noppe said that we shouldn’t use such budget speculations to discount a valuable new program. The program is needed in our region. Anything we do creates budgetary risks. Null thought the salary costs seemed high. Why is the MSW program so expensive? Professor Kok noted that the projected $60,000 salaries for the positions were below market (although above what we pay to current faculty). Senator Aldrete said that we are trying to balance potential long-term rewards with potential short-term costs. There are too many contingencies: if we continue to get soft money, if we hit enrollment targets, if we get new GPR, then we can continue. If we don’t get what we plan for, can the program be sustained? Muhl replied that we have Title IV funding that has brought in $100,000 per year for about ten years. We expect that to continue indefinitely. The DIN and enrollment targets will give us benchmarks along the way to help determine the adequacy of resources.
Senator Carleton asked how disputes between UW-Oshkosh and UW-Green Bay will be resolved. What will be the mechanism? The Chair-Coordinator of the program would be responsible for doing this, said Dean Muhl. Professor Martin will probably be the first Chair-Coordinator. The campuses will take turns filling the position thereafter.
Senator Furlong asked for clarification on faculty commitments to undergraduate and graduate programs and how the allocation of faculty time would not take resources from the undergraduate program. The numbers don’t appear to add up. Professor Kok said that there would eventually be six new FTE faculty positions but only one new FTE position at UW-Green Bay funded with GPR. The new positions will allow us to meet all accrediting standards.
Senator Katers raised a question about the calculation of money generated by student fees. It appears that a 15-credit load is projected for each student. Normally full-time graduate students would only take 9-12 credits. Kok said that field practica would produce the additional credit hours.
Senator Abbott moved and Senator Kubsch seconded approval of the authorization to implement a new academic program: Master of Social Work.
Senator Furlong requested a report on the review conducted by the Academic Affairs Council. Senator Carleton responded, stating that the AAC had found the proposal to be thoughtful and well documented. He pointed out that this was in notable contrast to the Masters in Applied Leadership presented by the Education program several years ago, which was approved hastily
and without adequate information. The proposal before the Senate now is a model in comparison. The AAC believed that it had full information and determined that even if other programs might lose resources the need for an MSW and the benefits of such a new program outweighed this. Routine periodic program reviews should give faculty governance bodies sufficient opportunity to identify problems after implementation has begun.
Another concern that Carleton identified was the possible overlap between the MSW program’s emphasis on management of non-profit enterprises and the Management program, now housed in Business, previously called Administrative Science and housed in Public and Environmental Administration. Administration of non-profit and governmental organization had been the clear emphasis of that program. Perhaps the Business program will reduce the graduate-level emphasis on non-profits.
Senator Null asked if the current hiring freeze will affect implementation of the program. Provost Pollis said the implementation plan could be affected, depending on how severe the eventual budget reduction is. Null thought that we might well postpone our decision until we knew our resource base. This is not prudent. Why not wait a month? Senator Kubsch pleaded that the budget issue should be kept separate. The Senate should base its judgment based on the value of the program. Senator Littig said that the clear message Faculty Representatives had received in Madison was to focus on programs that respond to identifiable state needs. Yes, Pollis said, UW System Academic Affairs was excited by the MSW proposal as a pioneer and model of institutional collaboration. This is why the DIN was so well received. Senator Galt expressed his agreement. This is a terrific program addressing real needs. Senator Heuer agreed. He supports the proposal, but he is concerned that the handsome resources provided to this program illustrate the disparate levels of funding in the university. We need to do something about resource inequities. Senator Howe also spoke in favor of the program and noted that the federal funds the Social Work program brings to the campus indirectly support other programs as well. But the reallocation implications of this program are serious. Senator Roeder said that the Social Work faculty shared Howe’s concerns. They do not want to raid other units and have tried to minimize such impacts. Senator Abbott spoke for the resolution, declaring his admiration for the proposal and the care that had gone into preparing it. Senator Littig agreed. He emphasized that we will benefit by being a leader in developing collaborative programs. Howe asked about employment prospects for graduates. Very good, Professor Kok said.
The resolution passed unanimously.
1. Report of the Provost
Provost Pollis conveyed the Chancellor’s regrets at his absence. He enjoys the Senate. She also noted that the Chancellor recently made a very successful presentation to the Board of Regents on the value of the liberal arts.
She summarized the budget situation. UW-Green Bay conducted a planning exercise on how to handle the Governor’s proposed cut, about $600,000 for this campus. Since then, the Joint Finance Committee and Assembly have proposed more extensive reductions, totaling more than $1 million for us. We don’t know yet what the Senate budget plan will look like. The politics are intense. Given this general uncertainty and the size of the Assembly cuts, the Board of
Regents imposed an admissions freeze, and UW System ordered a hiring freeze, excepting only "critical" positions. This means we must set criteria to review hiring decisions. Travel restrictions have also been instituted. There is a great deal of uncertainty at the moment. Faculty searches that are underway should continue; guidelines for hiring and for travel approvals will be put in place soon.
Senator Abbott repeated Senator Heuer’s point about funding inequities on campus, in particular S&E differences. Pollis agreed that there were significant funding differences among units. There are also different funding needs among programs. The budget numbers can be misleading. For example, in the Education program the Teacher-in-Residence is salaried through S&E. Individual S&E budgets are complicated and not always comparable from unit to unit.
2. University Committee Report
Committee Chair Littig summarized current Committee news:
·The Chancellor has advised the Committee that he will allocate salary funds assigned to him to address compression, making allocations to Full Professors based on merit evaluations. The Committee applauds this decision.
·Planning is underway for the Installation of the Chancellor which will take place on Friday, September 20, 2002. There will be a series of activities over the preceding week.
·The Committee is developing a proposal to clarify the criteria for conferring faculty status on members of the Instructional Academic Staff. The Senate should receive this in April.
·The Committee is examining the code dealing with tenure, the advice given by units to untenured faculty and the role of the Personnel Council in granting tenure.
·Professor Joyce Salisbury has been elected to the Committee to fill the unexpired term of Professor Mannino.
Senator Galt asked why the tenure process was being studied. Is there a problem? Littig said that Provost Pollis raised the issue because of concern about criteria for early tenure decisions and because the code was written in 1985 and may no longer adequately reflect our practice or policies. Pollis added that the UWGB document on tenure should be made as clear as possible to communicate our expectations to untenured faculty members.
There being no new business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:36 p.m.
Secretary of the Faculty and Academic Staff
Faculty Senate Document #01-09, Approved 13 March 2002
Designation of B.A. or B.S. Degree for Majors of Academic Programs
Human Biology B.S.
Natural & Applied Science
Earth Science B.S.
Environmental Science B.S.
Communication and the Arts
Music B.A. or B.M.
Communication Arts B.A.
Environmental Design B.S.
Humanistic Studies B.A.
Modern Languages B.A.
Information and Computing Science
Information Sciences B.S.
Computer Science B.S.
Communication Processes B.A. or B.S.
Human Development B.S.
Public & Environmental Affairs
Environ. Policy & Planning B.S.
Public Administration B.S.
Political Science B.A.
Social Change & Development B.A., with the option for B.S. upon student request.
Urban and Regional Studies B.A.
Business Administration B.B.A.
Social Work B.S.W.
Faculty Senate Action Item #1, 17 April 2002
RECOMMENDATION ON THE GRANTING OF DEGREES
(Implemented as a Faculty Senate Document #89-6, March 21, 1990--action to be taken in advance of each commencement exercise and in the following language--dated as appropriate):
Be it resolved that the Faculty Senate of the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, on behalf of the Faculty, recommends to the Chancellor and the Vice Chancellor of the University that the students certified by the Registrar of the University as having completed the requirements of their respective programs be granted their degrees at the spring 2002 Commencement.
Faculty Senate Information Item #1, 17 April 2002
Proposed Code Changes for Faculty Status
Following are the relevant sections of UW-Green Bay codification with strike-through passages proposed to be deleted and bold-faced passages to be added to current code. Following the sections from UW-Green Bay's code are relevant sections taken from UW-System's guidelines for unclassified personnel, which form a context for the proposed changes.
50.01 University of Wisconsin-Green Bay Faculty Defined. The University of Wisconsin-Green Bay Faculty (hereafter in this chapter called Faculty) consists of professors, associate professors, assistant professors, instructors, and such other persons as may be designated as having University faculty status. Faculty status for academic staff members with training, experience and responsibilities comparable to those in the professorial ranks may be granted by the Provost/Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, on recommendation of the interdisciplinary unit executive committee, and with the approval of the University Committee, for a definite term and may be renewed.
50.02 Voting Members of the Faculty. All members of the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay Faculty holding the rank of professor, associate professor, assistant professor, or instructor and academic staff with faculty status are voting members of the Faculty.
A. Faculty appointments carry the following titles: professor, associate professor, assistant professor and instructor.
B. Temporary teaching appointments carry the following titles:
associate lecturer, lecturer, senior lecturer, laboratory teaching specialist, teaching specialist, athletic specialist, community lecturer, teaching assistant and those that carry visiting, adjunct, and clinical titles.
51.10 Temporary Teaching Appointments or Special Non-Tenure Track Appointments
A. Lecturers and Laboratory Teaching Specialists. Associate lecturer, lecturer, senior lecturer, and laboratory teaching specialist are titles for persons who possess qualifications appropriate for carrying out independent instructional responsibilities in the academic program of UWGB but for whom a tenured or probationary appointment is inappropriate. The individual may hold a full or part-time appointment on an annual, academic, or shorter term basis, or, in special circumstances, two or three years. These titles carry no tenure or probationary implications. Lecturers and laboratory teaching specialists are appointed by the appropriate Dean(s) on the affirmative recommendation of the appropriate interdisciplinary unit executive committee.
Within the guidelies from UW-System, the hiring interdisciplinary unit executive committee sets the distinctions among the ranks of lecturers and specifies responsibilities at the time of (re)appointment. The distinctions will include that: associate lecturers do not have faculty status; lecturers (no-prefix) do have faculty status; and senior lecturers have both faculty status and sufficient experience at UW-Green Bay to establish a record of high quality.
Note: The following paragraph from the Academic Staff Governance
Handbook 2.02(2)(b) applies to Lecturers:
Appointment as a lecturer on a one-half (50%) time or greater basis. Lecturers will receive a one-year appointment through the fourth year of employment. Beginning no later than the fifth year of consecutive appointment, they will receive a two-year appointment; beginning no later than the eleventh year of consecutive employment, they will receive a three-year appointment. All appointments will be fixed-term appointments and will be subject to all provisions (including notification periods) governing fixed-term appointments. This provision for multiple-year appointments will hold only for persons on 102 or predictable funding.
Note: the following notice periods apply to lecturers:
1 year appointment (1st & 2nd years) 3 months notice
1 year appointment (3rd & 4th years) 6 months notice
2 year appointment (5th through 10th years) 1 year notice
3 year appointment (begins 11th year) 1 year notice
All notice deadlines are prior to the ending date of the appointment. If an employee is notified earlier than the notice date, he or she still remains employed until the end of the appointment.
51.12 Faculty Status. Members of the academic staff teaching fifty percent or
more (14 or more credits per year or its equivalent)
will normally be
may be granted "Faculty Status" by the Provost/Vice Chancellor,
usually during the first year of an appointment as a
condition of an appointment to the rank of lecturer (no-prefix) or senior
lecturer. The designation is initiated as a recommendation from the
appropriate interdisciplinary unit executive committee to the appropriate Dean(s),
who recommends to the Provost/Vice Chancellor, who then must seek the approval
of the University Committee. Faculty status is conferred for the duration of the
lecturer's appointment. Faculty Status will continue with any renewal of the
initial appointment, so long as the conditions of appointment remain the same.
However, both the reappointment recommendation to the appropriate Dean(s) and
the Dean's reappointment letter will stipulate any continuation of Faculty
Status. Any substantive change in the conditions of the lecturer's reappointment
will require a full-process reconsideration of Faculty Status. Members of the
academic staff who have been given faculty status have employment rights under
the rules and policies concerning academic staff. In addition, they shall be
counted in Faculty voting districts, and have the right to vote for and serve on
faculty committees, including the Faculty Senate, when not excluded by the
non-tenured nature of their appointments. The job expectations of Faculty
Status are determined by the interdisciplinary unit executive committee by the
time of appointment.
UW-System Unclassified Personnel Guidelines
Provides formal classroom or laboratory instruction in an academic discipline, either independently or under the general supervision of a faculty member. Effective delivery of instructional material, testing and grading are the primary duties of a lecturer. However, the degree of involvement in course and curriculum development, course scheduling, advising and subject matter expertise differs significantly depending on the prefix.
Associate Lecturer: An Associate Lecturer is one who independently teaches a course(s) subject to broad guidelines describing the scope of the subject matter to be taught and the topics to be covered. Effective classroom delivery, testing and grading are the primary duties expected of lecturers at this level.
Lecturer (No prefix): A Lecturer at this level has the experience and academic qualifications needed to develop and teach a course(s) subject to broad guidelines describing the scope of the subject matter to be covered. However, the specific topics to be covered and the degree of topic emphasis is left to the independent judgment of the Lecturer. At this level, a lecturer may be involved in various instructional related activities. These may include undergraduate advising, assisting in developing lab safety protocols, course scheduling, curriculum development, participating in departmental outreach programs or their instructional activities.
Senior Lecturer: A Senior Lecturer has extensive teaching experience and subject matter expertise in an academic discipline. A lecturer at this level has gained a reputation among his or her peers for demonstrably sustained superior contributions to teaching within a department or division. At this level, the independent selection, organization and development of course contents and instructional materials approaches used are expected. Involvement with committees engaged in supporting this development is typical. However, the direct delivery of instruction is the primary responsibility of this title.