UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-EAU CLAIRE

UNIVERSITY SENATE MEETING

VOL. 37, NO. 12

 

April 24, 2001

 

 

Members Present:

 

Marcia Bollinger, Dick Boyum, Jack Bushnell, Linda Carpenter, Terry Classen, Stephen Drucker, Joel Duncan, Rodd Freitag, Mitchell Freymiller, Andrea Gapko, Marc Goulet, Margaret Hallatt, Susan Harrison, Sean Hartnett, Erik Hendrickson, Tim Ho, Ann Hoffman, Larry Honl, Rose Jadack, Carol Klun, Lisa La Salle, Kate Lang, Robert Langer, Barbara Lozar, Barbara Mac Briar, Maureen Mack, Donald Mash, Joanne Mellema, Rick Mickelson, Mark Olsen, Bobby Pitts, Cleo Powers, Donna Raleigh, Lori Rowlett, Richard Ryberg, Kathleen Sahlhoff, Ronald Satz, Nola Schmitt, Kathie Schneider, Lori Snyder, Linda Spaeth, David Steele, Todd Stephens, Paula Stuettgen, Cecilia Wendler, Michael Wick, Jean Wilcox, Steve Zantow

 

Members Absent:

 

Randy Beger, Gene Decker, Jeannie Harms, Gretchen Hutterli, Debra King, Fred Kolb, Tim Lane, Tim Leutwiler, Jane Linton, Mona Majdalani, John Melrose, Jane Pederson, Vicki Reed, Robert Scott, Roger Selin, Mehdi Sheikholeslami, Nick Smiar, Kent Syverson, Jodi Thesing-Ritter, Roger Tlusty, Thomas Wagener, Karen Woodward

 

Guests:

 

Margaret Cassidy, Bernard Duyfhuizen, Joe Gustafson, Deborah Gough, Steve Kurth, Jan Morse, Andrew Phillips, Walter Reid, Sarah Schuh

 

The regular meeting of University Senate was called to order at 3:06 p.m., Tuesday, April 24, 2001 in the Tamarack Room of Davies Center.

 

1.        Minutes of April 10, 2001 meeting of University Senate approved as distributed without objection
Minutes of April 11, 2001 meeting of University Faculty approved as distributed without objection
Minutes of April 11, 2001 meeting of University Academic Staff approved as distributed without objection

2.        Chancellor’s Remarks – Chancellor Mash

·         Leader-Telegram working on story on collective bargaining and action recently taken by University Senate

·         Couple days ago, lead story was salary issue; reminded salaries are not what could be

·         Becomes a morale issue; do not want to ignore

·         Administration, both on this campus and at system, committed to improving salaries

·         Know what peer group data suggests in comparison to other Midwest universities of our type

·         Know we are not doing well when look at our system

·         Know this university’s quality and reputation for excellence tied directly to its people

·         Commitment prominent in strategic plan

·         One top priority is recruitment and retention of quality students, faculty, and academic staff

·         Salary critical in recruitment and retention

·         Important because beginning to lose large numbers of faculty and academic staff to retirement

·         Lots of reasons for where are today

·         Did not happen in couple years

·         Will not be resolved in few years

·         What doing now

·         Find best people possible for new hires and pay them as well as possibly can

·         Beginning to see results of this strategy

·         Promotion increases here now at top of comprehensives and going to stay there

·         Talking about possibility of attaching promotion-like increment to good post-tenure review

·         Would do something for those here for a while

·         These adjustments initially come out of base

·         Base is small portion (approximately 6.2%) of budget

·         Stretching to do these things because it is important

·         On record that chancellor’s discretionary amount in pay plan will go into pay plan

·         Compensation Committee also attempting to give increased attention to compression

·         Now enjoying best pay plan in long time; if get 4.2% each year of coming biennium, may have best four years ever collectively in terms of salary increases 

·         Katharine Lyall quoted as saying going to do 4.2% somehow

·         Has heard important from chancellors

·         Now need regent and legislative support

·         Reporter wanted to know what thought of collective bargaining

·         Of course, law states management must remain neutral

·         Leader-Telegram and some legislators confused about University Senate action

·         See extra step in there

·         Not voting on today, but want right to decide whether want to bargain collectively

·         Noticed in other states and locations, when salaries don’t keep pace, people turn to collective bargaining to ensure salaries will keep pace

·         Have to keep pay plan healthy and strong; that hasn’t been the history here

·         Hosting system-wide student/faculty research collaboration conference today

·         Had our research day yesterday – wonderful event

·         Proud of terrific projects not only from standpoint of what results look like

·         Whole process of teaching and learning, and students doing and demonstrating, very powerful stuff

·         Prepares students for future

·         Pleased to host system-wide activity today

·         UW-Eau Claire has great reputation as center of excellence in faculty/student research

·         Guest speaker didn’t show – canceled at last minute, so Bill Frankenberger delivered keynote

·         Outstanding presentation about project of student/faculty research and how process benefits students, benefits faculty, benefits the university, and how it all comes together

·         Senate Executive Committee to receive revised, enhanced mission statement

·         University Planning Committee working to bring out special nature of this university and accentuate things that distinguish UW-Eau Claire

·         Faculty and staff with 20 years of service to university will be recognized in conjunction with traditional reception on May 14^th for people retiring

·         Will just start this year and hope to improve event over next several years

·         Will publicize our long-serving people in Leader-Telegram as way of thanking and congratulating them

·         Honors Week and Native American Awareness week culminate with events on Saturday

·         Response to questions from floor

·         Reporters, general public, and sometimes faculty and staff do not understand 5.2% increase in pay plan is not necessarily distributed evenly; perhaps need language that talks more informatively about that

·         Right now promotion increases and some other salary incentives come out of base

·         Once in place, they become part of aggregate salary; subsequent yearly percentage increases based on total figure

·         Salary for new hires comes out of base, not pay plan dollars (corrected by request upon listening to tape, which occurred after approval of minutes)

·         Recognition of people who have worked at university for 20 years or more includes classified staff

 

3.        Chair’s Report – Chair Harrison

·         Vice Chancellor Soll presented overview of planning process for space needs at UW-Eau Claire to students at Roundtable and to Physical Plant Planning Committee

·         Complete set of power point slides available on web; URL at bottom of Chair’s Report

·         Legislative update URL also at bottom of report

·         New legislation being proposed to provide another student spot on Board of Regents

·         This one proposed for nontraditional student

·         Again, wonder when an emeriti faculty will become member on board

·         Please complete and return pink Senator Survey

·         May 1, 2001 is deadline for committee motions to be on agenda for last University Senate meeting May 8^th

 

4.        Academic Staff Representative Report – Senator Hallatt

·         State Supreme Court decision on Act 11 (retirement plan) possible in May

·         Chancellor Mash noted if recommendations adopted, outstanding retirement plan would be improved

·         Much discussion at last Academic Staff Rep’s meeting about Instructional and Research Academic Staff Report

·         Every campus to submit written response

·         Many areas of conflict between academic staff and faculty, particularly relating to titling proposal in report

·         Will be considerable discussion before put in place

·         Not many bones of contention in integration part of  report

·         Campus input valuable

 

5.        Old Business – Clarification of Final Authority of Personnel Evaluation Motion

·         At last Senate meeting, passed department criteria for review of faculty performance

·         Stated intention in introduction, prior to vote, that criteria presented would replace existing criteria

·         Inadvertently, two sentences of original wording to be replaced left off motion

·         Item being brought to attention of body to provide complete historical record

·         Intent of committee that process under which plan developed, in consultation with department chair, dean, and provost and vice chancellor, also apply to revisions

 

6.        Committee Reports

¨       Academic Staff Personnel Committee – Senator Hallatt

• Next meeting April 26, 2001

¨       Budget Committee – No Report

¨       Compensation Committee – Senator Wick

• Subcommittee continues to meet every Monday morning
• Close to bringing pay plan integrating alternative pay plans with standard pay plan and addressing compression and equity back to main committee
• Progress slow; lots of opinions and lots of arguments
• Consensus to be brought to Senate; will not happen this semester, be prepared in fall

¨       Executive Committee – Chair Harrison

• Next meeting May 1, 2001
• Committee discussed language clarifying membership of Institutional Ethics Committee and formed ad hoc committee to develop procedures for recognizing faculty and staff organizations
• Discussions to continue at next meeting

¨       Faculty Personnel Committee – Senator Mack

• Next meeting May 1, 2001
• Discussing draft document on workload and Instructional Academic Staff (IAS) Report
• At last meeting, requested by Provost’s Office to provide input on Instructional Academic Staff Report

·         Most concerns centered on instructional professor titling changes (creating series of Assistant Instructional Professor, Associate Instructional Professor, and Instructional Professor)

·         Questions raised by committee

1)       How will title change from lecturer to instructional professor fix problem of insufficient respect for instructional academic staff?

2)       Term “professor” is academic matter, a primary concern of faculty according to Chapter 36; what protection exists to stop future administrators from hiring only non-faculty professors, and in some institutions, making faculty professors a weak minority in institutional governance?

3)       If dollars there to hire individuals with terminal degrees as instructional professors, why not use same dollars to hire perhaps even same individuals as tenure track faculty?  Study showed percentage of tenure-track instructors down from 85% in 1987 to 77% by 1997; IAS up from 15% in 1987 to 23% in 1997; also over 50% of IAS female

4)       Would one think instructional professor must logically care more about quality instruction than professor? Would one think assistant or associate professors are helper to instructional professor?

5)       What role do members of Department Personnel Committees play? Are roles assigned at appointment? Who handles promotions of IAS?

·         Because of degree of concern expressed by Faculty Personnel Committee members and others providing input, committee voted unanimously to return issue to Senate floor for further discussion and consideration

·         Concur that report offered very good suggestions and comments about integration of academic staff on campuses

·         Responses to provost’s request due May 1^st 

• Senator Wick prepared to make motion to reconsider under miscellaneous business today

¨       Nominating Committee – Senator Bushnell

• Filling out pink survey sheet would aid Nominating Committee in fall

¨       Physical Plant Planning Committee – Senator Stuettgen

• Concluded review of space management draft
• Also reviewed changes to UW-Eau Claire Policy 5:16 on facilities use

¨       Academic Policies Committee – Senator Lozar

• Next meeting May 1, 2001
• Continue review of computer science, geography, political science, and music and theatre arts departments

 

Report on Assessment Procedures – Senator Lozar

• Plan for assessment of student outcomes in baccalaureate degree approved in 1995
• Two parts to determine whether or not we do what we claim to do

·         Assess attainment of 11 goals of baccalaureate

·         Assess attainment of goals in individual majors

• Plan provided for several forms of assessment

·         Exit interviews for graduating seniors

·         Student satisfaction questionnaires

·         Surveys of alumni

·         Portfolios of papers and other work measuring attainment of goals in baccalaureate

• University Assessment Committee established; in beginning conducted small scale pilot assessment projects and developed scoring methods for portfolios

·         Very difficult to get participation

·         Few agreed to exit interviews

·         Collection of papers started in English 110, but very little follow-up

·         In end, sample very small

• Committee proposes procedure to increase participation and get respectable sample

·         Course syllabi to indicate which goals of the baccalaureate the course help students to attain

·         Done already to certain extent

·         Notifying students that required papers meet such and such goals

·         Asking faculty to save work and provide samples

·         Requiring students in capstone courses/experiences to participate in assessment activities

·         Portfolio and collection of works scored during summer by a scoring committee

 

Motion 37-AP-06

Moved and seconded by Academic Policies Committee (8-0-0) that the University Senate approve the proposed procedures for the assessment of student outcomes in the baccalaureate degree

 

Discussion

·         Very few instances in proposal where something required, but presenting portfolio documenting students’ work related to goals of baccalaureate in capstone course/experience is one instance

• What happens if they don’t have portfolios; what happens to those collected; how are they evaluated; are they graded?

·         Proposal asks department faculty in capstone courses and alternative capstone experiences to make inclusion of portfolio part of grade; does not mean will fail course if do not complete

·         Personally opposed to almost entire proposal

• Being told what to give for assignments in courses is dangerous path to start down
• Concerned about standardization of exit interviews and surveys
• Concerned that with limited resources will be doing more things of limited value that may take away from other things we find of value
• Concerned that committee of 12 people to look at materials from varied disciplines and decide whether particular goals are met when people in those disciplines can best tell whether those goals have been met by particular course content
• Document deserves considerably more discussion than time left in this meeting

 

Motion 37-US-25

Moved by Senator Wick and seconded to postpone this motion and all remaining business to the next meeting

 

Vote on Motion 37-US-25: Motion PASSED

 

·         Confirmed by Jan Morse that results of Senate discussion at meeting on May 8^th on Instructional Academic Staff Titling could be included in response to system

 

6.        Miscellaneous Business – Moved to Old Business at next Senate meeting as per Motion 37-US-25

 

7.        Announcements – None

 

8.        Open Discussion on Baccalaureate Degree Service Learning Requirement

·         Jack Hoggatt, Chair of Provost’s Working Group on Service Learning

·         Committee represented wide variety of interests including students and administrator of program

·         Robert Burns, Service Learning Director

·         David Gordon, Communication & Journalism

·         Marc Goulet, Mathematics

·         Justin Hentges, Past President, Student Senate

·         Ann Lapp, Dean of Students

·         Andrew Oettinger, President, Student Senate

·         Sheila Smith, Adult Health Nursing

·         Identified concerns and recommendations coming out of work group previously distributed to Senators

·         Charge to committee not whether service learning should or should not continue, but to make recommendations as to how service learning component could be improved,

·         Ed Young of Business Communication Department addressed committee and students in an advanced business writing course administered surveys to get feel for climate of service learning on campus 

·         Survey results from students in Winterim 2001 and faculty during spring semester 2001 distributed

·         Five hundred seven students responded to student survey

·         Two hundred eight faculty members responded to faculty survey

·         Neutral category taken out of faculty questionnaire so had to indicate preference

·         Interesting difference of opinion among various colleges

·         All recommendations involve additional resources; further stretches limited resources

·         Provost Satz updated issue for discussion

·         Reports of all four working groups, including one on service learning, reviewed at three-hour all-chairs meeting April 12^th

·         Memo forwarded April 23, 2001 to Barbara Lozar, Chair of the Academic Policies Committee, with copies to committee members, department chairs, academic affairs directors, deans, chancellor, and members of chancellor’s executive and administrative staff

·         Forwarded number of recommendations for APC consideration, requesting serious discussion and action in the best interest of university

·         Recommendations on general education and upper divisions credits

·         Review of drop/add policy recommending no policy changes

·         Recommendations on service learning

·         Service learning recommendations also forwarded for action to new Service Learning Steering Committee established with encouragement from deans and department chairs

·         Steering Committee to review recommendations and work with provost to improve administration of service learning requirement

·         Will also consider appropriateness of university-wide service learning requirement

·         All recommendations from committee deliberations will be forwarded to APC for information or action as appropriate

·         Unofficial notes from all-chairs meeting attached to memo to help in understanding major issues raised in regard to various recommendations included following comments

·         Need shared vision of what service learning is

·         Roles of faculty, staff, students, and community partners need to be defined

·         Should release time be available?

·         Need clarification and consistent interpretation and application of standards across campus

·         Need campus-wide discussion of best way to proceed; more information opportunities shared

·         Need to include course sections that may be appropriate in course bulletins

·         Need formalized and ongoing assessment procedures

·         UW-System mission statement talks about need to do service and methods in place to handle

·         Two approaches to talking about issue

·         Work group focused on ways to fix service learning – came out of charge to committee

·         Other track asking philosophical questions whether service learning requirement appropriate for institution like UW-Eau Claire

·         Whether service learning funded or unfunded mandate; is significant amount of differential tuition supporting program

·         How service learning working within individual departments; perhaps student committee to play role

·         Looking at origin of service learning, intention and implications for impact on university vs. reality of what occurred

·         Concluding comments from meeting

·         Whether recommended fixes were administrative in nature, whether some committee ought to be involved, and role of governance bodies

·         Recommended steering committee composed of representatives from all colleges named in consultation with Executive Committee of University Senate

·         Steering committee to look at recommendations and at same time initiate discussion about appropriateness of service learning as university-wide requirements and bring discussion back through appropriate governance structures

·         Formally request APC take up various recommendations individually as soon as possible in accommodations sufficient for larger than usual group of visitors

·         Open discussion

·         Believe College of Professional Studies more in support of service learning, according to survey, because many programs have service learning imbedded – nothing additional required to implement 

·         Letter from Senator Syverson read because unable to attend meeting included following points from perspective of advocate and participant in service activities since high school, and belief that service helps society function well, and all persons can benefit from serving others

1)      Strongly oppose service learning as mandatory degree requirement

·         Tends to mask efforts of students who truly want to serve vs. those being forced to serve (a distinction that many employers would find very important)

·         Not to say some students could not benefit from forced service

·         Would also benefit from forced voting requirement, forced no-smoking requirement, etc.

·         Some students forced to serve may view post-graduation service as “requirement” already fulfilled

2)       Support optional service learning plan allowing interested students to complete service activities with university recognition

3)       Service learning created as time overload for faculty without reduction in duties, or overtime pay, etc.

·         Takes time away from family

4)       Strongly opposed to reallocating precious university resources to service learning

5)       Opposed to making service learning a for-credit activity; seems credits devoted to service learning would simply be taken from other areas

6)       If student cannot find faculty for service learning activity involving aid to American Nazi Party (or other group considered repulsive), could that lead to lawsuit involving freedom of speech concerns?

• Of students completing survey 144 had completed service learning requirement, 307 had not

·         Have seen response to service learning change over time; often feel take more from experience than give

• Issue of defining service learning

·         Working in computer lab on campus vs. with disadvantaged people in community

·         In agreement with Student Senate that should not be able to complete service learning requirement on campus

• Think should find way to get rid of service learning as campus-wide requirement; could make college-specific requirement
• Hate to see us throw additional resources at service learning
• See limited benefit to service learning director evaluating whether content of course appropriate or not
• Very intriguing idea to have service as an option to gain recognition; disagree with forcing people into it
• Many years ago got rid of in loco parentis

·         Now telling kids to do service learning because it is good for them

·         Should see as adults and let them decide

·         Need to encourage through example and in classes where worthwhile, not mandatory

• Assessment process discussed earlier may give more formal data to assess service learning
• Chancellor Mash noted service learning requirement in place is unusual requirement for regional public higher education institution, although several private liberal arts colleges require

·         Requirement says something about qualities students should have when leave institution and kind of people attempting to help shape and mold

·         Students surveyed about substantial general education requirement may not support it

·         More and more students come to us every year with notion of what want to do and be, know courses that lead to that, and attitude of don’t bother me with much of anything else

·         Questions directed at service learning during my time here seem to have lot to do with how program administered

·         Young program has maturing to do

·         Even though may not be doing it right, it might be the right thing to do

·         Trying to create a little balance on issue, as we seem to be looking at possibility of scraping a program other universities in country are moving toward

·         People, even business people, very, very impressed we have service learning requirement

• Sometimes difficulty in finding enough worthwhile projects appropriate for particular students
• Student input is good, but students liking something not justification for program in and of itself

·         Thought most valuable component of service learning at inception was infusion of diversity into students’ experience

·         That aspect completely lost in current definition of service learning

·         Arguing for modifying something that doesn’t work into maybe something that could work

·         At computer science industrial advisory committee, forced service learning not seen as business of university

• APC would be place to send idea of optional design for service learning

·         Steering committee also sending comments there

• What is cost of service learning? Not just dollars, but also time and effort; reasonable to ask what we and what students gain
• Not against idea, am against forcing volunteerism
• Twelve years ago, did do survey of general education; students rated it lower than service learning
• Students forced into service learning often grateful that required; allows experiences otherwise would miss

·         Other pluses include possibility of external funding, potential for faculty/student research projects, and development of leadership

• Partially put into effect to fit goal of educating citizens

·         Higher Education Research Institute found students involved in service learning

·         Are significantly more involved in their community

·         Are more likely to run for public office

·         Also give more to their institution of higher education

• Favor service learning

·         Force student to do lots of things, like general education courses, math, and English

·         To imply that because forced to do something, don’t grow and learn is a mistake

• Have seen students grow and have very positive experiences from volunteering they do

·         Shouldn’t do away with service learning; should be integral part of liberal arts education

• When service learning used by student early in academic career, can be very strong stepping stone into major and also ideal stepping stone into internship
• Of over 300+ companies who interview here on campus, about one-third look very positively on service learning
• Provost Satz added comment from all-chairs meeting that failed to mention earlier

·         Might service learning become something seen as distinctive at UW-Eau Claire, like faculty/student research collaboration

·         Not required, but infused across university and considered part of UW-Eau Claire, part of image, part of what we believe even though not every student does it

• Students who have participated in service learning indicate it is something they would not do if not required

·         Gave them introduction to using what learning in classroom in setting and way may not have previously envisioned

·         For them, it was part of personal growth; adds breadth to education not anticipated

• On business advisory committee, many employers felt value of service learning diminished because required
• Respect comments made about service learning, does need fixing, problems with administration and adds to workload, certainly would hate to see it thrown out

·         Very often when preparing students for job search, they light up when reflecting on service learning

·         That is something looking to do for students

• Difficult to manage four-part agreement between student, person receiving service, faculty, and service learning director

·         May spend time planning something that does not meet requirements

·         Then hear some students fulfill by picking up garbage in local neighborhoods

·         Wonder if this should be worth consideration by students and recognizable by employers

• Service Learning Director Burns confirmed are students doing environmental projects, such as riverbank and park projects, which sometimes involve picking up garbage as part of larger project
• Concerned service learning becoming job-related and internship-oriented

·         Service to use things you know very different than doing something to train yourself for a profession

·         Need to define service

• Not opposed to service learning; opposed to service learning as university graduation requirement

·         Opposed to several other university graduation requirements as well

·         Think ought to concentrate at this institution on our motto – excellence

·         Would champion program providing every student with an excellent service learning project competently handled by dedicated faculty with academic rigor involved

·         Don’t think we can with limited resources

·         Concerned about quality of general education program, quality of courses we provide to all students, quality of several other graduation requirements

·         Really ought to concentrate on providing students with the very best experience we can with limited resources available

·         For some students, service learning is going to be that experience, but for other students probably not

 

Meeting adjourned at 4:54 p.m. without objection.

 

Respectfully submitted by,

 

 

Wanda Schulner

Secretary to the University Senate