5.        Old Business

A. Old Business: Academic Policies Committee

Continued Discussion of Amendment 37-AP-01-a1which strikes item #6 under the Standards in credit-bearing certificate programs policy reading “Certificate programs should be no less than 12 credits for undergraduate certificates (9 credits for graduate certificate programs) and not more than 18 credits.”

·         Quality of certificates would be undermined if only six credits

·         Against issue of institutional stamp on something that small

·         Could recommend anyone not meeting this requirement must go through all channels to have certificate ultimately approved by Senate

·         Worry about no minimum requirement

·         Could require certificates be no less than six credits all to be taken at UW – Eau Claire

·         Can make that amendment once vote on this one completed

·         Possible provision that those professional groups wanting six credit programs could administer them through continuing education

·         Would need rules to follow

·         Critical to have academic rigor

·         As developing unified body for continuing education on Water Street, intend to do more continuing education

·         Many groups want something to show for their work, often times in form of certificate

·         For some groups, six credits may be just perfect

Vote on Amendment 37-AP-01-a1: Motion DEFEATED by University Faculty Senators

Continued Discussion on main Motion 37-AP-01 on approving proposed policy statement on credit-bearing certificate programs:

·         List, compiled by Associate Vice Chancellor Tallant, of Credit-Bearing Certificate Programs, existing and proposed, distributed

·         Issue raised in department about APC of Senate approving these kinds of programs rather than colleges or schools

·         Review part of departmental or program review

·         Seemed reasonable Senate APC would specify general guidelines and standards, but actual approval could be done at college level

·         Original proposal included approval process comparable to current process for changes in majors or minors

·         Department to college or school curriculum committee

·         Published in University Bulletin

·         Only if timely objections not resolvable at school or college level, would proposal go to APC level

·         APC concerned about relationship of these programs to university mission and to faculty workload

·         Thought appropriate for university-wide body to look at proposed programs

·         Motion delegates authority back to APC level (from University Senate) for new certificate programs

·         Treat like international education programs

·         Senate approved guidelines; APC approves specific programs

·         Have very strong philosophical concerns about credit-bearing certificate programs

·         Precedence (list distributed) not necessarily argument about whether appropriate or valuable

·         Example of increasing professionalization of undergraduate programs around the country

·         Not in spirit of liberal education, but about professional training and answering needs of business community

·         Not much value for current students, much more value to students coming in from outside

·         Wondering if want to make providing for professionals out there large part of what we do rather than ad hoc basis already doing

·         Don’t think credit-bearing certificate programs fit liberal arts mission

·         One reason for policy is to know and have some control and regulation over what exists

·         Gives students recognition for taking cluster of courses in an area that will mean something to outside world

·         Many are degree-seeking students

·         May help them in terms of job market, but does not only relate to professional education

·         Things like leadership studies and women’s studies part of liberal arts-based education

·         Not creating two universities where one degree for certification track and another degree if not

·         Certificate recognizing additional coursework that is not quite a minor different issue than people coming on campus to take cluster of courses and walk out with certificate rather than degree

·         Issue of whether having people drop in and out of university or providing additional service for degree-seeking students

·         Often what determines who takes courses is time of day offered

·         Certificate courses would be open to anyone qualified to be registered for course (meeting university requirements)

·         Different perspective to philosophical issue about liberal education

·         Some certificates wonderful way to sell our liberal arts degrees

·         Students interested in liberal arts major, such as English, Psychology, or Sociology, often struggling with how to earn living when done here

·         If want to study English, maybe could get webmaster certification to make more practical

·         Or behavior analysis in Psychology

·         Or business communication in English

·         Enables these students to make decision to major in discipline they love

·         APC saw two distinct populations taking these programs

·         Continuing students clearly affiliated with university

·         People out in professions that have bachelor’s degree wanting further education but not second degree

·         Program array has grown over last 50 years to meet various needs of growing constituency and expanding body of knowledge

·         University has done excellent job providing learning experiences to students inside and outside of class

·         These programs provide opportunity to learn, within framework of liberal arts institution, to the level of application

·         Supports broad-based learning even in specificity

·         Entire UW-System trying to find ways to link university to community

·         May require thinking a bit differently

·         About mission of liberal arts education in current economy

·         Ways to prepare students to take place in economic locations after graduation

·         Appears this proposal in keeping with linking university to community

·         Not asking whether or not we like certificate programs; they already exist

·         Asking whether or not we want to create some minimum standards for our certificate programs

Amendment 37-AP-01-a2:

Moved by Senator Decker and seconded that Item #4 under Standards be amended to read “Certificates may be earned by degree-seeking students or by a specified audience from the community pursing education beyond the baccalaureate degree. Guidelines and standards will be identical for both groups.”

Discussion:

·         Number of these certificate programs might help connect with constituency actively seeking

• Specifically associate-degree prepared nurses
• Often mature professionals with years of experience beyond associate degree but not familiar with our offerings

·         Need to remain as broad minded as possible

·         Question whether all students in current offerings already hold degree

• Entrée into university could easily be certificate program either at undergraduate or graduate level

·         Current Computer Science certificate programs mostly for own students completing baccalaureate degree

·         Many other institutions have certificate programs in place

• Some call these milestone programs
• Small step to get students who have taken coursework, relocated, may be employed back into university and thinking about degree

·         Part of mission of university to provide service to community

• Continuing education part of that service
• Liberal arts education goes beyond baccalaureate degree students already here
• Departments can put in prerequisites for these programs to set standards for enrolled students

·         Hurts us to limit certificate programs to certain audiences

Vote on Amendment 37-AP-01-a2: Motion DEFEATED by University Faculty Senators

Continued Discussion on Main Motion:

·         Want to refer back to committee to come forth with preceding motion to decide as a body whether or not we support certificate programs before vote on process

·         Motion from APC may cover question because puts forth standards for such programs which infers recognition of such programs

Motion 37-US-10:

Moved by Senator MacBriar and seconded to table the motion until we have decided whether or not credit-bearing certificate programs are wanted at UW-Eau Claire

Vote on Motion 37-US-10: Motion DEFEATED by University Faculty Senators

Continued Discussion on Main Motion:

·         Whole question not thoroughly developed and outlined

• Throwing too much into motion about issue not well defined

·         What is a certificate?

·         What audiences?

·         What markets are we going to serve?

• In favor of certificate programs, maybe intent is to have flexibility to just charge ahead

·         Question whether voting on creation of standards for certificate programs or on creation of certificate programs and setting standards at same time

• Actual motion would be standards used for development of future programs and review of existing programs
• Working under policy that certificate programs being utilized here, but sounds like there is no policy

·         Provost concerned because number of units thinking about developing these programs

• Trying to put some general university-wide parameters in hands of departments
• Not trying to answer every single question
• Recommend asking APC to come back in year and with update about what happening
• If uncomfortable can revise it then

·         Going to create guidelines for certificate programs without having understood and agreed on where university and system going with certificate programming

• What will we do?
• What do we want?
• What are our goals?
• What are we seeking to do?

·         Motion includes following provisions

• Approval of certificate programs must not impinge on the quality of regular programs and opportunities for degree-seeking students
• Certificate program proposals should originate at the department level

·         Not a mandate from above

• Just makes sure we have uniform policy for covering them and everybody playing by same set of rules
• Committee has already done its work

·         Continue to speak against motion

• Precedent not necessarily argument in favor
• Creeping professionalization and marketing paradigm in higher education not acceptable

·         Continuing education and linking ourselves to community sound like wonderful phrases

·         Unless really mean, what can we do for business community to take care of their people

·         Continuing education offering variety of courses as chance to carry on life-long learning not same as people coming in for certificates for a raise, promotion, or better job

• Key question of whether voting on policy or on certificates

·         Setting policy amounts to endorsing certificates

• Huge issue of whether imbedded in baccalaureate or people from outside coming in, getting a few credits, and getting out
• Departments create certificate programs but can be pressured by

·         Administration

·         Business community

·         External groups

·         Shared governance issue

• List of what exists on campus has not yet passed through this body
• This is body responsible for curricular functioning of university
• First issue is whether or not we want certificate programming on this campus
• Others include issue of workload and use of resources

Vote on Motion 37-AP-01: Motion PASSED by University Faculty Senators

B. Old Business: Compensation Committee

Report on Salary Increase Resolution – Senator Wick

·         Ed Muzik requested University Senate endorse TAUWP resolution

·         Taken to Executive Committee

·         Sent to Compensation Committee since compensation issue

·         Committee took pieces could support and brought forward as motion

·         Questions on content

·         Data certainly support more than 6% and 8% increase, so substantive data on which to justify the 6% and 8% increase request is not provided

·         TAUWP calling for each institution in UW-System to pass those two numbers to send forward unified picture expecting at least this level of support

·         Resolution covers pay plan increase which includes academic staff

Motion 37-CP-01

Moved and seconded by Compensation Committee (6-0-0) that a resolution be passed to recommend salary increases of not less than 6% and 8% for the 2001-2003 biennium and that a plan be developed to reach the median of the national peer group not later than 2005 

·         Friendly amendment accepted to forward resolution to President Katharine Lyall of UW-System and President Jay Smith of the Board of Regents in addition to Chancellor Mash at UW-Eau Claire

·         Senates of at least three UW-System institutions have passed some form of this resolution

·         Six percent would be for first year of biennium; 8% would be for second year

• Committee believed numbers picked to be seen as reasonable
• Does not mean will get this
• Data may support larger numbers; this compromise position

·         President Lyall mentioned to faculty representatives during last biennium that such resolutions from institutions gave her leverage to ask for 5.2%

·         Friendly amendment to insert (2001-2002) after 6% and (2002-2003) after 8%

·         Although governor has put forth suggestions to various bodies in state for very small percentage increases, Chair Harrison indicated has only heard it looks pretty positive

Vote on Motion 37-CP-01: Motion PASSED as amended

TEXT OF MOTION:

That the following be approved by the University Senate and forwarded to the Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin – Eau Claire, President Lyall of the University of Wisconsin System and President Smith of the Board of Regents

WHEREAS, salary levels for the UW Comprehensive Universities are very low compared to their peer groups, and

WHEREAS, AAUP and CUPA data show the need for large salary increases for the UW Comprehensive Universities, and

WHEREAS, competition has intensified throughout the United States to hire and retain faculty and academic staff,

BE IT RESOLVED, that the University Senate at the University of Wisconsin Eau Claire urges the Regents to recommend salary increases not less than 6% (2001-2002) and 8% (2002-2003) for the 2001-2003 biennium, and that they develop a plan to reach the median of our national peer group not later than 2005.

C. Old Business: Special Report on United Way Participation – Vice Chancellor Soll

·         Senate discussion on university involvement in United Way campaign included three areas of primary concern

1) Amount university spending to support involvement in United Way campaign

·         Direct expenses - $850

• $150 for photocopying, printing, etc.
• $700 labor directly attributed to effort

·         Student workers folding, stuffing, preparing for circulation through campus mail

·         Staff time processing pledges when returned and making entries into payroll database for payroll deduction actions

·         Not included would be time people volunteer to serve on advisory committee or work booth in Davies Center

·         People volunteered to take on as service to campus and community

·         Not direct expense attributable to campaign

2) Appropriateness of using university (state) funds to support United Way campaign

·         Difficult investigation looking at statutes and administrative correspondence from state

• State statute authorizes use of payroll deduction for state employees for payments to umbrella organizations

·         Organizations representing collection of not-for-profit charitable organizations

·         United Way one of several umbrella organizations specifically recognized by Department of Administration

·         Appears to be sanctioning payroll deduction and therefore administrative activities necessary to implement payroll deduction for donations to United Way

3) How long has university been involved and how did we get involved in United Way Campaign?

·         Tested memories of former chancellors, employees here at university for 30+ years, and every file or other source could think of

·         Not able definitively to find origin of involvement, simply been around for longer than anyone can remember and trace back

·         Response to questions from floor

·         Believe half-page ads running in Spectator covered by non-state funds available to chancellor

·         Part of dollar figure given would be attributable to SECC

·         Concern about appropriateness of using any state funds to support United Way given its support of Boy Scouts and Boy Scouts blatant discrimination on basis of sexual orientation different array of issues

• Court ruling allowing Boy Scouts to continue their policy came very late in campaign and university commitment to participate
• Valid question of what message Senate or university might want to send to local United Way
• Understand they are prepared to hear message that might affect plans for future campaigns

·         Apparently too late for this particular campaign although Dunn County United Way did withdraw support from Boy Scout organization

·         Establishment of umbrella organization as agent for which payroll deductions possible done by Department of Administrative at state level

• Which of those umbrella organizations become involved with for campus-wide campaign is campus-level decision

·         General discussion on this issue

·         Request from Chair Harrison in interest of time that actual motions be put on agenda for December 12^th University Senate meeting

·         Believe as educational institution should take leadership role in not supporting this kind of discrimination 

• Look more critically in future at impact of our support and what says about what we believe and support as institution

·         No solicitation policy posted around campus relates to individuals, companies, or organizations coming on campus and soliciting without any approval or authorization to do so

• Lot of solicitations outside United Way on campus, such as collecting canned goods for a food drive or books for used book sale
• Difference is United Way and SECC recognized umbrella organizations allowing payroll deduction and tradition of decades of support

·         Believe university representative on the United Way Council is Chancellor Mash

• Will be proposing motion that he take our concerns to next meeting
• Motion on agenda for December 12^th meeting would allow all concerns to be voiced

6.        Special Report from UWEC Commission on the Status of Women – Commission Chair Kate Lang

·         Purpose of open discussion to provide additional ideas and comments on draft response to System Report on Status of Women

·         Barb Stevens, Special Assistant to Chancellor for Affirmative Action, charged with writing response

·         Commission, convened by chancellor, charged with soliciting input to this draft

·         Louise Root-Robbins, Women’s Issues Coordinator from System, indicated this to be progress report

·         System looking for where we are, where we would like to go

·         Suggestions from floor

·         Most of concerns heard in focus group came from classified staff

·         Response was classified staff issues focused primarily on DER civil services rules, etc.; nothing they could do

·         However, LTEs (limited-term employees) are under institutional control

·         Question whether many such positions should be LTE, especially long-term ones

·         Many of these positions held by women

·         Paid less with fewer benefits

·         Way for State of Wisconsin to help would be provide position flexibility

·         LTEs hired because don’t require FTE

·         Can have money, but if no FTE cannot hire permanent employees

·         Under Goal #4 on page 9 - provide conditions that allow for balancing work and personal life

·         Happy with quality of care at Children’s Center

·         Difficulty arises in 5:00 p.m. closing time

·         Extension of hours of center would increase flexibility for staff and students alike

·         Add women with disabilities to list of minorities in Goal #3

·         Expand on item #2 on page 9 to include infants as well as one-year olds 

·         Goal #3 – Legitimate women’s study program getting strong support would help attract and retain women students

·         “Grow Your Own” program in item #2 on page 5 good in concept

·         Given teaching load at this university may be setting some women up for failure by hiring with master’s degrees, expecting them to teach full-time, and complete their PhD

·         Can do with tremendous mentoring in department

·         Need statement recognizing and rewarding mentors

·         This university has track record of “growing own” in 1970s

·         Surprised to see status report without any numbers

·         Seems numbers would be appropriate for goals such as #2 - increase hiring, promotion and retention of women

·         Are women being hired?

·         Are they leaving or not pursuing tenure more often than men?

·         Are they getting extra merit raises in a proportional ratio?

·         What are their salaries at different ranks?

·         Best practices without numbers demonstrating is problematic

·         Commission Chair Lang responded

·         System took salary off the table in terms of this response

·         Affirmative Action Office does keep such records

·         Barb Stevens confident campus is fine in that regard

·         Gender map of campus in progress by commission; hope to complete in time to include in report

·         Would be very positive to have opening Women’s Resource Center mentioned in report

·         Also Women in Humanities or Education Centers (similar to Women in Science Center at Oshkosh)

·         Not only women’s studies but women’s issues in general

·         Recommendations on first page of draft response came from data gathered from all campuses by System

·         May or may not apply specifically to Eau Claire

·         Example of equity of workload between male and female assistant professors not necessarily something going to be looking at here

·         Louise Root-Robbins very impressed with campus data on participation of women in various grant programs listed on page 4

·         Ought to be included in best practices

·         Please send any other comments to Commission Chair Lang

7.        Committee Reports

¨       Academic Staff Personnel Committee – No Report

¨       Budget Committee – Senator Carpenter

• Met October 31, 2000
• Dave Gessner presented overview of university budget process highlighting committee’s role
• Committee recommended allocation option establishing planning reserve at about $787,000

·         Approximately 1.5% of total budget

• Committee to meet in February to review recommendations and forward

¨       Compensation Committee – Senator Wick

• Continuing to meet in preparation of bringing forward recommended 2001-2002 pay plan

¨       Executive Committee – Chair Harrison

·         Next meeting November 21, 2000

·         Discuss 2002-2003 calendar and forward to Senate

¨       Faculty Personnel Committee – Senator Mack

• Meet November 21, 2000
• Issues

·         Faculty workload

·         Motion on final authority on department personnel plans referred back by Senate

¨       Nominating Committee – No Report

¨       Physical Plant Planning Committee – No Report

¨       Technology Committee

• Meet December 5, 2000
• Discussing web-based counseling

¨       Academic Policies Committee – Senator Lozar

• Meet November 21, 2000
• Discussing difference between lower and upper division credits

Report on Final Exam Policy – Senator Lozar

• Item came to Senate by way of Dean Wendt of College of Arts & Sciences to Executive Committee; referred to Academic Policies Committee
• Concern was lack of enforcement of current final examination policy
• 
  
• Last section of final exam policy, Change of Schedule by Student Request, part with apparent problems

·         Student requests change of time of final exam

·         Approved by faculty member, then denied by deans’ office, but faculty member goes ahead and allows student time change

·         Or negotiations between faculty member and student without proceeding up channels

Motion 37-AP-02

Moved and seconded by committee (6-1-1) to recommend the proposed changes to the section titled “Change of Schedule by Student Request” of the final examination policy

Discussion:

·         Liberates final exam policy

·         Leaves it to faculty member

·         To determine appropriateness of students’ reason for change in time

·         Written record of student request

·         Written response to that request

·         Any appeal of denials go up regular channels through department chair to dean

·         Editorial change Class Schedule Bulletin accepted

·         Reasons now listed (serious illness, death in the family, conflict with military obligation, three or more final examinations scheduled in one day, or other extraordinary circumstances) also main reasons to be considered if appealed

·         Having to change exam to after scheduled exam not in changed policy

·         Restriction remains only with common exams where concern for security

·         Was really nice to point students to dean’s office

·         Stopped a lot of requests because dean’s office seen as serious

·         Biology Department opposes motion

·         Current policy allows to send up chain of command where lot better at saying no

·         Felt students would use any excuse to get exam scheduled earlier

·         Especially those scheduled for exams on last session of last day

·         Inconsistency puts undue burden on instructors

·         If inconsistency with deans, will really be inconsistency with faculty

·         In revising this policy, APC not saying want inconsistency

·         Have inconsistency now because deans are not doing all of it

·         Do not know what changes made without going to deans

·         Did discuss in committee whether opening floodgates

·         Did not know because don’t know how many time changes there are now

·         Know only ones where paperwork completed

·         Choice before us

·         Enforce it strictly as currently written (which apparently people are not)

·         Or put responsibility on faculty member who knows student better, even though opens up to possible inconsistency

·         Because of concerns, recommending this policy be reviewed in three years

·         Would be looking at written requests granted to see reasons actually given

·         Current policy with some wording changes would be adequate

·         Concerned about common exam students asking permission to take exam at another time

·         Don’t have access to all information that administrator does

·         Some consistency in policy as stands

·         Clear rule being violated by some not necessarily good reason for overturning rule

·         Message ought to be let’s follow the rules

·         If think rule no longer prudent, then look at changing 

·         Current rule that can take exam later than established exam time greatly reduced frivolous attempts to change

·         Attempted to follow rules here

·         Not happy others who don’t follow rules are about to cause a change making more confusing and difficult

·         Makes it very awkward for faculty in certain positions, especially those teaching big sections

·         One faculty member may be able to give more leeway

·         Puts onus on faculty member to change position when may be different reasons for saying yes or no

·         New faculty member may allow more changes because want good student evaluations

Amendment 37-AP-02-a1

Moved by Senator Goulet and seconded that any changes of an individual examination must have the written approval of the instructor, department chair, and dean of the college in which the student is enrolled

Discussion

·         Dean of the college in which the course is offered accepted as friendly amendment

·         Chair is part of procedure now

·         Same policy as now, but wording better in this format

Vote on Amendment 37-AP-02-a1: Amendment PASSED by University Faculty Senators

Continued Discussion on Main Motion

·         Reworded a little, but kept authority line same

·         Would go into effect immediately

Quorum of Faculty Called: Twenty-five University Faculty Senators present constituting a quorum

Continued Discussion:

·         Key missing is this allows moving an exam earlier

·         Could amend motion but just going to vote against it

Vote on Motion 37-AP-02: Motion DEFEATED by University Faculty Senators by vote of 8 for, 16 against

8.        New Business - None

9.        Announcements

• Next meeting November 28, 2000

Meeting adjourned at 5:08 p.m. without objection.

Respectfully submitted by,

Wanda Schulner

Secretary to the University Senate