AGENDA

UW-GREEN BAY FACULTY SENATE MEETING NO. 1

Wednesday, 15 September 2004, 3:00 p.m.

Phoenix Room C, 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.9, MAY 5, 2004 [attached]

 

3. INTRODUCTION OF SENATORS

 

4. CHANCELLOR’S REPORT

 

5. NEW BUSINESS – Presented by Gregory Davis

        a. Election of Faculty Senate Deputy Speaker for 2004-05

        b. Code change for UWGB 7.01 (first reading) - [attached]

        c. Requests for Future Senate Business

 

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

 

7. 2003-04 UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ANNUAL REPORT [attached]

Presented by Professor Clifford Abbott, 2003-04 University Committee Chair

 

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

 

9. ADJOURNMENT

 


MINUTES 2003-2004

UW-GREEN BAY FACULTY SENATE MEETING NO. 9

Wednesday, May 5, 2004

Phoenix Room C, University Union

Presiding Office: Illene Noppe (HUD-UC), Speaker

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

PRESENT: Clifford Abbott (ICS-UC), Greg Aldrete (HUS-UC), Denise Bartell (HUD), Forrest Baulieu (ICS), Derryl Block (NUR), Peter Breznay (ICS), Gregory Davis (NAS-UC), Sally Dresdow (BUA-UC), Timothy Kaufman (ED), Harvey Kaye (SCD), Anne Kok (Soc. Wk), Michael Kraft (PEA), William Lepley (BUA), Richard Logan (HUD-UC), Steven Meyer (NAS), Steve Muzatko (BUA), Tom Nesslein (URS), Illene Noppe (HUD-UC), Gilbert Null (HUS), Ellen Rosewall (COA), Bruce Shepard (Chancellor), Linda Tabers-Kwak (ED), Bryan Vescio (HUS), William Witwer (COA).

NOT PRESENT: M. Jan Bradfield (COA), Sue Hammersmith (Provost), Craig Hanke (HUB), Michael Hencheck (NAS), Jennifer Popiel (HUS), Patricia Terry (NAS).

REPRESENTATIVES: Michael Schmitt (Academic Staff Committee), Matthew Voigt (Student Government Association)

GUESTS: Dean Fritz Erickson, Associate Provost Timothy Sewall.

1. Call to Order. With a quorum present, the meeting was called to order at 3:02 p.m.

2. Approval of Minutes of UW-Green Bay Faculty Senate Meeting No. 8, April 21, 2004.

Senator Kaye observed without motion that the minutes for the section regarding code changes for approval of freestanding minors were a bit too brief to reflect the fullness of the debate. Senator Dresdow moved (with second) to amend the sentence concerning responsibilities associated with faculty status for academic staff (under continuing business b.) that read: "Abbott said the UC’s opinion is that attendance at meetings is important and that, beyond that, the unit could decide on one other to create a plausible case for faculty status" to read "Abbott said the UC’s opinion is that attendance at meetings is important and that, beyond that, the unit could decide on at least one other to create a plausible case for faculty status." Several voiced the opinion that the addition better reflected the tenor of the discussion and the UC’s intentions in presenting the proposal. The motion to amend passed 19 in favor with 2 abstentions. The minutes were approved as corrected viva voce with 2 abstentions.

3. Chancellor’s Report. Thanks to all for a great year. The budget has been balanced and end-of-year funds allowed for much needed replacement of some tattered library furnishings--but only in the public areas, not in any offices—and library collection development to help offset recent cuts that hit the development account particularly hard. Some funding that had been cut from the Studio Arts reconstruction project has also been restored to help complete some of the most pressing parts of the original plan. The campus continues to move—slowly—toward a more engaged "bottom up" budget process. Cabinet and the Strategic Budgeting Committee are meeting to develop guidelines for the next biennial budget, the first large budget effort under the new process. Following a SWOT analysis, the guidelines will go to governance groups for feedback before the end of the summer. Edward Weidner will be commencement speaker and emeritus status will be conferred upon retiring faculty John Harris, Margaret Laughlin, David Littig, and Richard Logan. Chancellor’s awards will go to the Chernick family, three generations of which have helped our campus develop; and to Betty Rose Meyer, a special friend of the university and one of its most generous supporters of scholarship programs. In her absence, the Provost asked the Chancellor to announce recent promotions. For Academic Staff: Anne Seidl, Senior

Student Nurse; Julie Fricke, Academic Librarian; Bonnie Laundrie, Senior Information Processing Consultant; Carmen Leuthner, Outreach Program Manager; Mona Christensen, Outreach Program Manager II; Karen Lacey, Senior Lecturer; Lucy Arendt, Research Program Manager II; Dan McIver, Assistant Athletic Director; Dan Murphy, Student Services Manager II; Paul Pinkston, Senior Facilities Planning Specialist. Faculty promoted with tenure: Peter Breznay, Kevin Fermanich, Derek Jeffreys, John Katers, Tim Kaufman, Bill Lepley, Debra Pearson, and Tara Reed. Finally, with applause from around the room, the Chancellor offered thanks and recognition to Speaker Noppe and UC Chair Abbott for their superb leadership during the year and presented them with tokens of the University’s appreciation.

4. Continuing Business:

a. Code Change for Defining Unit Membership, second reading. Presented by Clifford Abbott. The proposal returned from the last meeting without change. Abbott recapped the intent of the motion—to make clear that administrators without regular, contractual teaching assignments in an academic unit do not participate in academic unit or program governance, and, consequently, are not included in quorum or membership counts at meetings of those units. Senator Logan moved (with second) acceptance of the proposal. There was no discussion, and the motion passed 22 in favor, none opposed, with no abstentions.

b. Code Change for Approval of Freestanding Minors, second reading. Presented by Clifford Abbott who explained that the language of the proposal has changed in response to opposition to the term "freestanding" at the April Senate meeting. The Senate’s jurisdiction in the establishment, merger and discontinuance of majors is clear in 52.02, but it is not clear in the case of minors. This proposal is to make clear that the establishment, merger and discontinuance of "minors without an existing major" will require Senate approval. Minors that are created within approved majors are not affected by this legislation. Senator Baulieu moved (with second) to add the language "or minors without an existing major" to 52.02. Discussion: Senator Kaye said his unit supports the proposed change on the condition that language be added stating that budgetary units immediately affected will have the right to consultation on approval regarding such minors. This would help assure that units seriously affected by the creation of new minors will share authority over their creation. Senator Kraft suggested that nothing in the current proposal prohibits units from objecting before the Senate. Kaye did not feel that the right to object was the same as having authority in the decision process. Kraft noted that the section of code under consideration only deals with the role of the Senate in the approval process. The role of units in the approval process should be addressed elsewhere. Senator Logan agreed, adding that it would not be easy to determine the immediate effect of a new minor on a program. Senator Kaye asked where else in code basic guidelines for establishment of new programs can be found. Senator Dresdow responded that the process of codified programmatic approval has not yet been fully addressed and remains to be formalized. It is in that process that Professor Kaye’s unit’s concerns could be addressed. Senator Kaye appreciated that and, reaffirming how seriously his unit takes this matter, he said he would not make a motion to amend the current proposal. Senator Abbott said that many areas of code pertain to these issues, but, if further resolution is called for in that regard, it should not come as part of the current proposal which only addresses the Senate’s role. Senator Logan requested that the Speaker call for a vote. There being no further discussion, the chair did so and the motion passed 22-0-0.

5. New Business

a. Election of Faculty Senate Speaker for 2004-05. The Speaker called for nominations. Senator Aldrete nominated Senator Sally Dresdow. After a short pause, Senator Logan moved that nominations be closed and Senator Dresdow was decisively approved by voice vote and applause.

b. Requests for Future Senate Business. These were no requests.

6. Provost’s Report. Provost Hammersmith was called out of town for a family emergency and there was no report.

7. University Committee Report. Presented by UC Chair Abbott:

a. Over the summer, the UC will be considering issues presented to it by various committees. Because of a significant turnover in the UC, incoming members have been invited to meet with the committee this summer.

b. The curriculum review process will be studied with the goal of establishing a set of written guidelines.

d. Abbott acknowledged his colleagues on the UC. They have helped him see the complexity in issues he thought were simple and to see the simplicity in issue he thought were incredibly complex. They are a committed and determined group of colleagues.

e. Senator Greg Davis has been elected next year’s chair of the University Committee.

Senator Dresdow and Abbott thanked Senator Logan who is retiring this year after having served on the Senate under four different Chancellors in each of the last four decades. Senator Logan returned the expression of gratitude to Senator Abbot for his thoughtful, reflective and organized leadership over the past year.

8. Adjournment. After adding her own thanks to UC Chair Abbott and sincere words of praise (in lieu of a gold watch) for Senator Logan who "knows no equal on this campus in his commitment to faculty governance," the speaker determined that there was no further business for the day, and the Senate adjourned at 3:36 p.m. The meeting ended with yet one more round of applause for Speaker Noppe’s excellent stewardship of the Senate this past year.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Kenneth Fleurant, Secretary of the Faculty and Academic Staff

 


Faculty Senate New Business (b), 9/15/04

 

OUTSIDE ACTIVITIES AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST

UWGB 7.01

 

Codification Change

UWGB 7.01 Basic Policy

Every faculty member, at the time of appointment, makes a personal commitment to professional honesty and integrity, to seek knowledge and to share that knowledge freely with others. It is a violation of this commitment for faculty members to pursue outside interests or to seek financial gain for themselves, their immediate families, or organizations with which they are associated through activities that conflict with their responsibilities as full-time employees of the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay. Thus, the rules and procedures governing outside activities are designed to ensure devotion to teaching, research, and all normal faculty responsibilities, while permitting participation by faculty in public service or other endeavors, including activities related to their fields of academic interest.

 


Faculty Senate 9/15/04

Annual Report of the University Committee

2003-2004

The University Committee members - Clifford Abbott (chair), Illene Noppe, Greg Aldrete, Greg Davis, Sally Dresdow, and Richard Logan - met weekly. Most meetings were attended by a representative from student government (Matthew Voigt) and one from the academic staff (John Landrum). A part of most meetings was held exchanging information with the Provost. There were frequent meetings with the Secretary of the Faculty and Academic Staff, a few meetings with the deans, a meeting with the Chief Information Officer, one with the Athletic Director, and several with various faculty members. During the summer the UC continued its practice of inviting incoming members (Christine Style, Scott Furlong, and Regan Gurung) to join in its deliberations.

If there is a theme to the discussions and actions of the UC this past year, it might be the weakening of institutional memory as a guide for routine action. The UC's response was to pay attention to written policies, to routine procedures, and to planning as guides for action.

The attention to written policy led to several changes in our codification in order to clarify the following issues:

1. faculty status for lecturers

2. representation on the Personnel Council

3. representation on the Faculty Senate with alternates

4. open meetings for personnel reviews (to align with state law)

5. definitions of quorums and memberships

6. approval process for minors without majors.

Attention to procedures led to the following:

1. adoption of house rules for Faculty Senate procedures

2. use of open forums in Faculty Senate meetings

3. increased channels of communication between the UC and other faculty governance committees (UC members acting as liaison with specific committees)

4. meeting with student and academic staff governance groups

5. continuing work on approval processes for curricular actions.

The UC was also involved in several planning efforts, somewhat modestly in facilities planning, a bit distantly in strategic budgeting, and more actively in campus climate where a committee was created to report to the Faculty Senate next spring.

The UC began its year with great resolve to be proactive and brainstormed a set of agenda items, including issues such as workload and definitions of interdisciplinarity. It found, however, plenty of issues to react to. Some of these came from the state: health care premiums, pay package, the proposed Taxpayers' Bill of Rights, and relationships with the Technical Colleges. Others were part of the UC's regular personnel responsibilities in making appointments or recommendations for appointments. Still others, mostly from the Provost, had the UC playing the role of traffic cop in referring issues to the appropriate committees for action. On a few occasions the UC found it worthwhile to create ad hoc committees to deal with issues. This worked well with a review of student-led courses and is continuing with issues of campus climate. The UC also grappled with the issue of evaluating administrators. There was no formal instrument for collecting evaluation in a widespread or systematic way, but there was plenty of discussion and some influence in getting concerns heard.

Faculty governance does not happen automatically. It depends on the commitments and actions of many people. It is the same with the University Committee. I wish to thank my colleagues on the UC for spirited discussions, dedicated work, and fine secretarial skills; all of the people in the SOFAS office for their efficiency, attention to detail, and gentle guidance; all of the faculty who kept the UC informed of their concerns and answered the call to serve governance groups of all sorts; our colleagues in administration for their respect for shared governance; and for the staff at UW-Green Bay for their cooperation and forbearance.

-submitted by Cliff Abbott, chair