AGENDA

UW-GREEN BAY FACULTY SENATE MEETING NO. 3

Wednesday, 17 November 2004, 3:00 p.m.

Alumni Room AB, University Union

Presiding Officer: Sally Dresdow, Speaker

Parliamentarian: Professor Kenneth J. Fleurant

 

1.   CALL TO ORDER

2.   APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF FACULTY SENATE MEETING NO. 2, OCTOBER 20, 2004 [attached]

3.   CHANCELLOR’S REPORT

4.   CONTINUING BUSINESS

         a. Implementing a Physical Education Executive Committee (attached) – Presented by Gregory Davis

5.   NEW BUSINESS –

         a. Resolution on the Granting of Degrees (attached)

         b. Resolution in Opposition to the Proposed Constitutional Amendment Regarding the Definition of Marriage (attached)

         c. Requests for Future Senate Business

6.   PROVOST’S REPORT - Presented by Provost Sue K. Hammersmith

7.   UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE REPORT - Presented by Professor Gregory Davis, Chair

8.   OPEN FORUM: Faculty Development

9.   ADJOURNMENT


MINUTES 2004-2005

UW-GREEN BAY FACULTY SENATE MEETING NO. 2

Wednesday, October 20, 2004

Phoenix Room C, University Union

Presiding Office: Sally Dresdow (BUA-UC), Speaker

Parliamentarian: Kenneth J. Fleurant, Secretary of the Faculty and Academic Staff

PRESENT:, Greg Aldrete (HUS-UC), Scott Ashman (ED), Denise Bartell (HUD), Angela Bauer (HUB), Forrest Baulieu (ICS), Joy Benson (BUA), Peter Breznay (ICS), Gregory Davis (NAS-UC), Michael Draney (NAS), Sally Dresdow (BUA-UC), Scott Furlong ( PEA-UC), Regan Gurung (HUD-UC), Sue Hammersmith (Provost, ex officio), Derek Jeffreys (HUS), Timothy Kaufman (ED), Harvey Kaye (SCD), Michael Kraft (PEA), Mimi Kubsch (NUR), Steven Meyer (NAS), Steve Muzatko (BUA), Tom Nesslein (URS), Tara Reed (NAS), Bruce Shepard (Chancellor, ex officio), Rebecca Tout (COA), Bryan Vescio (HUS), David Voelker (HUS), William Witwer (COA).

NOT PRESENT: Andrew Fiala (HUS), Judith Martin (Soc. Wk), Debra Pearson (HUB), Ellen Rosewall (COA), Christine Style (COA-UC).

REPRESENTATIVES: Rachel Abhold (Student Government Association).

GUESTS: Dean Fritz Erickson, Michael Herrity, Registrar, David Prestby, Interim Director of Assessment Services, Interim Dean Fergus Hughes, Michael Schmitt (Academic Staff Committee)

1. Call to Order. With a quorum present, Speaker Dresdow called the Senate to order at 3:03 p.m.

2. Approval of Minutes of UW-Green Bay Faculty Senate Meeting No. 1, September 15, 2004.

The minutes were approved without change by voice vote.

3. Chancellor’s Report. Three items to share: 1) Thanks for supporting the Phuture Phoenix program even through the inevitable disruptions. There is an ongoing need to reach out to our youth and help raise their aspirations, and the program does a marvelous job of that. In addition, as a side benefit, it helps 250 of our own students who are involved in the program to better understand their own aspirations as they give something back to the community. 2) Regarding the legislative fiscal audit. One table (36) in particular is cause for concern and requires response and understanding. By dividing total operating costs by student FTE the auditors came up with a cost per FTE student of $16,069 for our campus. Since a large portion of the total operating costs has nothing to do with instruction (e.g. Weidner Center, residence halls, and other cost-recovery campus business) this is inaccurate. The report was submitted to the Legislature implying areas for potential savings. What they really need to look at is the cost of instruction. When looked at that way [Chancellor’s own table as he presented the case to the Regents] our cost per student is $8,544, almost $500 less than the average for the comprehensive campuses. There is a correlation between campus size and instructional cost. The larger the campus, the greater the instructional cost. When you adjust for size, our campus is under funded by almost $1000 per student ($4.64 million for the campus). It is clear that we can not tolerate further cuts and we must continue to make these arguments as forcefully as possible. 3) One area of concern as Chancellor: not having yet found a way to more fully engage faculty in the academic life of the campus beyond the unit and program levels. A document written in a challenging, even provocative spirit is forthcoming.

4. Continuing Business

a. Code change for UWGB 7.01 (second reading). Presented by UC Chair Davis who summarized that this proposal is meant to bring us into compliance with System code by striking the words "full time" from 7.01. This will not change any campus policies regarding distribution of outside funding reports. Senator Baulieu moved acceptance as proposed (with second). There was no further discussion. The proposal was accepted unanimously.

5. New Business

a. Student-led Course Approval Form. Presented by Gregory Davis. Last year the Senate discussed student-led courses but never discussed the form students use to propose such courses. The current form requires a unit chair signature, but there is no place for a Dean’s approval. The proposal is to add a line for the Dean’s signature following unit sign-off. It is unclear to the UC whether this was implicit in earlier discussion or whether it requires a separate motion. (Speaker Dresdow pointed out that the obvious typos resulted from a scan to Word format, and they will all be cleaned up.) The Provost suggested that the Senate doesn’t need to spend time on forms that can be updated as a policy item. The speaker read from the guidelines approved at the April 2004, Senate meeting: II. C. The sponsoring unit will review a course proposal prior to approving a student-led course and will provide information copies of the proposal (as approved) to the Dean. Given that guideline, changing the form would appear to be a policy change. Senator Furlong moved (with second) to amend the guideline II. C so as to read: The sponsoring unit will review a course proposal prior to approving a student-led course and will provide information copies of the proposal (as approved) to the Dean for approval. There was no further discussion and the amendment passed 24-0-1.

b. Implementing a Physical Education Executive Committee. UC Chair Davis explained that one of the items the UC has been discussing is oversight of Physical Education Courses. In 1978 an advisory executive committee for Physical education was created, but never implemented. The current proposal is to update the original action, remove the term "advisory" and see that an executive committee is established. Senator Baulieu asked what the rationale was for including Public and Environmental Affairs as one of the three instructional units guaranteed a place on the committee. Senator Furlong said it stemmed from discussions indicating that PEA had mutual interests. Speaker Dresdow explained that the UC was recommending removal of the word "advisory" since it is not clear to them what that would mean. There was not much discussion and the chair asked whether the Senate was ready for a motion. Senator Baulieu requested time to reflect and the Speaker determined that the item would return to the Senate next month.

c. Faculty Representative for the Student Senate. The Speaker noted that historically the faculty representative has come from the Senate. Senator Kaye volunteered and was thanked by the Speaker.

d. Request for Future Senate Business. Senator Breznay requested that the UC consider the question of uncivil comments on class evaluation forms to see whether it would be possible to either remove such uncivil comments or to promulgate guidelines for minimal expectations for behavior.

6. Provost’s Report. Provost Hammersmith previously distributed her written report. She introduced our new Registrar, Mike Herrity, and David Prestby, the Interim coordinator of Assessment, replacing Lucy Arendt who has moved to the Business Faculty. The Provost also shared copies of several documents including:

a. Highlights of the Legislative Audit Bureau report. There really seems to be a belief among legislators that the UW System has extraneous administrative expenses. It is not yet clear how potential budget reductions might impact our campus.

b. An analysis of how well transfer students from the Technical and UW Colleges do at UW campuses. Our own data show no red flags, and suggest that those students coming here are prepared for our courses and do well. These tables are available on the Provost’s website.

c. Information on ideas being discussed by COBE (Committee on Baccalaureate Expansion), including transfer issues. A legislative committee may be formed to look into some of the transfer issues. Technical Colleges appear interested in working with UW campuses to meet our expectations for their students.

Senator Davis asked whether UW campuses would need to make cuts if TABOR (Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights) were passed. The Chancellor cited Oregon as an example of how such a proposal can go wrong and hurt education. Many jump on the bandwagon, however, without reflecting on the consequences for education. The effect of such bills depends on what is limited. The original version applied only to state GP revenues (problematic enough). The last version aimed at cutting all revenues which would mean, e.g., cutting something on campus if we added something like the downtown center even though the new endeavor is on a cost recovery basis. That makes no sense. The Chancellor’s instincts are that some form of TABOR will happen. It is important to work for the best possible deal for the UW System to reduce the negative impact on education in the state as much as possible.

7. Open Forum. Inadvertently taken out of order, the open forum was on the summer session. The Speaker offered a summary of proposed changes: There would continue to be some regularly funded (1/9 salary) summer classes but an option would be added to teach additional classes based on the number of students (with a guaranteed minimum salary of $1000 /cr). This would allow those with large enrollments to earn up to 1/7th of salary while guaranteeing that small enrollment classes would not be cancelled. Dean Erickson spoke of how this could increase opportunities for both faculty wanting to teach and students in need of courses. Currently the deans divide the GPR allocation and figure out the number of courses that will be possible. There is no capacity for expanding course offering. The two tier system will allow us to continue offering a block of courses while creating the opportunity for more faculty to teach by using tuition revenue to fund classes with smaller enrollments that might not otherwise be offered.

Speaker Dresdow: adding more courses could increase the number of summer students from other campuses choosing to study here while home for the summer. If students know that courses will definitely be offered there is greater incentive to enroll. Senator Kubsch asked about numbers to keep in mind while scheduling new courses. Dean Erickson suggested that the magic number tends to be around 20-25. To get to the $3000/course floor about 8 students are needed. Senator Bartell asked how courses on the cost recovery (131 fund) model would be selected. That is yet to be determined but, added Dean Hughes, no one will be on 131 funding unless they wish to be. Last year there were 31 courses in LAS. The projection under this year’s experiment is for 49. This will allow us to create a more balanced summer curriculum closer to a mini version of the curriculum. This is an interesting experiment in free enterprise. Aggressive marketing in other campus papers is planned. New students will be offered the chance to jump start their college education in the summer. Senator Davis expressed the concern that this system fails to recognize that it takes just as much work to develop and teach a low enrollment course as a large one. Dean Hughes reaffirmed the need for a better course array and the willingness to take some calculated risks to do so. The experiment will be assessed after this year to see what readjustments might be made to fine tune the system. Senator Davis suggested that it might be possible to move the minimum closer to a ninth of salary by using a contingency fund. Dean Erickson said we might find we are not that far from that possibility. Dean Hughes agreed that if we had a contingency fund it would be easier to take risks with low enrollment courses.

8. University Committee Report. Not completely forgotten, only momentarily overlooked, UC Chair Davis took the podium for the monthly report. Recent UC issues include questions about priority registration for certain students; the curriculum change process (which will soon be ready to present to the Senate); responding to questions from Senate Planning and Budget subcommittee about the role of that committee vis-à-vis the SBC; the role of the Senate Legislative Committee for this year. Senator Gurung asked what others thought about priority registration. Is it an issue the UC should be concerned with at this point? Senators wanted to know who received priority. The Speaker explained that priority is given to athletes and Bellin Nursing students. Problems arose as lower class registrants began to push seniors out of classes they needed. The Chancellor said he made the decision to allow priority registration for athletes to accommodate practice times in insufficient facilities and was unaware of any controversy. Part of the problem might be addressed by adding junior standing as a course prerequisite. Senator Gurung feels that will not take care of the problem since junior athletes would still be able to take senior spots. Some programs need every senior spot possible. Student representative Abhold said that students felt broadsided by the priority registration system. It was difficult even for juniors and seniors to get classes they needed.

The Chancellor asked if establishing priority by class would address the problem. Senator Bartell sees problems convincing a commuting student with two children that an athlete even in the same year should have priority. The Chancellor said he hadn’t thought of the equity issues here and he thinks priority registration by class would take care of many of them. Another equity issue for the Chancellor given the fact that we do have a Division I program is whether we are treating our student athletes equitably by comparison with others in the conference. Senator Draney suggested priority registration based on GPA so that priority would go to top scholars. The Chancellor opined that priority registration should go to freshmen, followed by seniors, juniors and sophomores. Senator Breznay wishes to ask the athletic director about implications of removing priority. He did meet with the UC and explained the challenges of scheduling practices for multiple teams at registration time. The Provost hopes the new summer school plans will help alleviate some of the pressure for registration.

Senator Gurung asked the Chancellor for clarification of his position on trying priority registration by class. The Chancellor said it made good sense to him. Senator Furlong mentioned that we have on a couple occasions in the past tried priority registration by class and that, although it helped, it did not solve the problem. Athletics asked for a return to full priority. We are limited in class seats and in athletic facilities and that is a bad combination. To get a sense of proportion, we have about 220 athletes involved in priority registration. The Chancellor was grateful for the discussion and asked whether it would help if all seniors had first priority regardless, after which there would be an opportunity for student athletes. Speaker Dresdow thought it could help but that not enough information is available.

9. Adjournment. As this second mini forum generated by the UC report concluded, the body voted to adjourn at 4:37 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Kenneth Fleurant, Secretary of the Faculty and Academic Staff

 


Faculty Senate Continuing Business (4a), 11/17/04

COPY OF A DOCUMENT REGARDING PHYSICAL EDUCATION POLICY

                                                                                                                                        AUG 03 2004

                                                                                                                                            Office of the

MEMORANDUM                                                                                                 Dean of Liberal Arts and Sciences

 

Following is information on the current Phy Ed Policy at UW Green Bay, which according to 4/21/78 minutes from the AAC, was approved by the Faculty Senate in May 1978. The AAC minutes listed the following policy:

"That Physical Education be recognized as an instructional unit with a service mission.

That an Advisory Executive Committee for the Physical Education Program (PEP) be established in accordance with the UWGB faculty code and that this Committee include at least one individual from each of the following instructional units where mutual interest has been identified: Regional Analysis (Leisure Science), Education (Coaching Certification). College of Human Biology, Communication-Action (Dance-Theatre).

That a staffing mode be adopted that provides for tenure-track appointments as the Physical Education Unit develops.

That authenticating credit for Physical Education courses be expedited according to the following guidelines, effective at the beginning of Semester I, 1977-78.

Each Concentration or Professional Program may authorize a student to use physical education credits to fulfill requirements of the student completes degree requirements in that Concentration or Program.

Physical Education courses, as all other courses, must be approved by the regular curriculum review procedures."

PE issues

negative: credits held in escrow – affects semester honors talc

negative: students with 3 one credit courses who then complete a two or three credit course; the first four courses, up to four credits, count toward the degree and gpa

negative: if we eliminate the four credit maximum, a student could enroll in a full load of PE courses

an initial search of records in the Office of the Secretary of the Faculty did not find any Senate action.

The AAC minutes appear to be a verbatim copy of Senate action (or discussion?), but there's no mention of a 4 credit limit toward the 120 (then 124) credits required for graduation

General information

Fall 2000-Spring 2000 — offered 20 PE courses (Swimming I/II, First Aid, Personal Cond, Trng w/Weights, Conditioning thru running, Golf, Karate I/II, Tennis, Racquetball, Water Safety, Scuba, Lifeguarding, Nautilus Trng, and 400 level courses.)

Sally Mancoske   10/30/2001

 


Faculty Senate Continuing Business (4a), 11/17/04

 

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF AN

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE FOR PHYSICAL EDUCATION

 

That Physical Education be recognized as an instructional unit with a service mission.

That an Executive Committee for the Physical Education Program (PEP) be established in accordance with the UWGB faculty code and that this Committee include at least one individual from each of the following instructional units where mutual interest has been identified: Education, Human Biology, Communication and the Arts, and Public and Environmental Affairs.

 


Faculty Senate New Business (5a), 11/17/04

 

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 fall 2004 Commencement.

 


Faculty Senate New Business (5b), 11/17/04

 

RESOLUTION IN OPPOSITION TO

THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

REGARDING THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE

 

Whereas, both branches of the state of Wisconsin Legislature, the assembly and the senate, have approved a joint resolution to amend the state’s constitution by creating a new section 13 of article XIII with the following language:

Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state.

And, whereas such legislation would further intolerance and thus have significant and far-reaching societal consequences,

And, whereas current federal, state, and university legislation broadly and specifically prohibit both harassment and discrimination,

And, whereas the recruitment and retention of high-quality faculty and staff is predicated on an inclusive climate that supports all individuals,

And, whereas such legislation is inconsistent with the faculty’s values and commitment to provide a broad and contemporary education to its students,

Be it therefore resolved that

The University of Wisconsin-Green Bay Faculty Senate stands in opposition to the recently passed Wisconsin Legislature’s joint resolution supporting the above quoted constitutional amendment in that by narrowly defining marriage and denying "legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals" in the state, the joint resolution represents a significant and dangerous erosion of harassment and discrimination protections.


Report to the Faculty Senate

November 17, 2004

 

Submitted by Sue K. Hammersmith, Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs

University of Wisconsin-Green Bay

 

 

I.  LEARNING OUTSIDE THE CLASSROOM

 

In 2003-04, UWGB’s Student Affairs Committee looked in depth at our students’ opportunities and experiences in learning outside the classroom (e.g., through internships, service learning, research projects, etc.).  They note a positive correlation between such engagement and students’ grades and academic skill development, as well as a number of obstacles students and community members face in pursuing such engagement.  Considering both the benefits and challenges of learning outside the classroom, the Committee offers a number of specific recommendations.  The complete report is attached.

 

II.  NATIONAL SURVEY OF STUDENT ENGAGEMENT BENCHMARK REPORT

 

UWGB’s November 2004 “Institutional Benchmark Report” (attached) includes information about how UWGB freshmen and seniors rate their college experience, compared with other UW campuses and with Master’s-degree-granting institutions nationally, on five key dimensions. 

Compared with other students in the UW System, UWGB freshmen and seniors rate our campus environment as more supportive of their success, and seniors report a higher level of academic challenge.  UWGB students give us lower ratings than their peers at other institutions, however, with respect to:

o        active and collaborative learning.

o        student-faculty interaction.

o        enriching educational experiences (including diversity).

 The attached report gives the specific questions asked for each of these dimensions. 

 

III.  HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE (HERI) FACULTY SURVEY

 

The Provost’s Office and Campus Climate Committee are jointly sponsoring the administration of the HERI survey to all faculty and instructional academic staff.  This is a national paper-and-pencil survey instrument that looks at faculty’s satisfaction, engagement, and experience with campus climate.  This first time around, we will get benchmark data for our own faculty.  The survey will be anonymous.  It will be administered by Debbie Furlong (Institutional Research) and analyzed by David Prestby (Assessment Services).  A comparable survey has been developed for academic staff and will be administered this semester as well.

 

IV.  UPDATES ON ACADEMIC MATTERS

 

 

 

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Sue H.

 

Sue K. Hammersmith, Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs