UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-EAU CLAIRE

UNIVERSITY SENATE MEETING

VOL. 38, NO. 10

 

April 9, 2002

 

 

Members Present:

 

Ned Beach, Marcia Bollinger, Dick Boyum, Don Bredle, Jack Bushnell, Linda Carpenter, Ken De Meuse, Gene Decker, Jesse Dixon, Stephen Drucker, Kathy Finder, Rodd Freitag, Andrea Gapko, Marc Goulet, Betty Hanson, Susan Harrison, Tim Ho, Ann Hoffman, Larry Honl, Robert Hooper, Rose Jadack, Debra King, Fred Kolb, Lisa La Salle, Tim Lane, Robert Langer, Gene Leisz, Barbara Lozar, Barbara Mac Briar, Maureen Mack, Donald Mash, Joanne Mellema, Rick Mickelson, Jane Pederson, Daniel Perkins, Bobby Pitts, Cleo Powers, Vicki Reed, Connie Russell, Richard Ryberg, Ronald Satz, Nola Schmitt, Roger Selin, Mehdi Sheikholeslami, Nick Smiar, Lori Snyder, Linda Spaeth, George Stecher, Todd Stephens, Paula Stuettgen, Kent Syverson, Roger Tlusty, Karen Welch, Cecilia Wendler, Michael Wick, Jean Wilcox, Karen Woodward, Steve Zantow

 

Members Absent:

 

Randy Beger, Joey Bohl, Joel Duncan, Bruce Dybvik, Mitchell Freymiller, Jeannie Harms, Sean Hartnett, Gretchen Hutterli, Kate Lang, John Melrose, Kathie Schneider, Jodi Thesing-Ritter, Thomas Wagener, Rebecca Wurzer

 

Guests:

 

Margaret Cassidy, Gina Duwe, Bernard Duyfhuizen, Debbie Gough, Carole Halberg, Allen Keniston, David Lonzarich, Kay Magadance, Andy Phillips, Jack Pladziewicz, Katherine Rhoades, Mike Rindo, Eric Ristau, Kathy Sahlhoff, Alex Smith, Andrew Soll, Steve Tallant, Ted Wendt

 

The regular meeting of University Senate was called to order by Chair Harrison at 3:06 p.m. Tuesday, April 9, 2002 in the Council Fire Room of Davies Center. Agenda by Special Order.

 

1.        Unfinished Business

Academic Policies Committee – Second Reading – Motion #1 of General Education Requirement Revisions
Minimum Credits and Number of Subcategories Required

 

Debate Continued:

·         Amendment by Senator Syverson to strike a minimum of before 6 credits in Category I died for lack of second

·         Support flexibility of motion to help overcome difficulty of getting GEs completed in four years

·         Favor increased flexibility in motion which gets at heart of simplification

 

Amendment 38-AP-13-a1

Moved by Senator Freitag and seconded to change number of subcategories in Category III and IV from two to three

 

Debate:

·         Makes change more incremental; also what students suggested in their proposal

·         Provides better balance between breadth and depth

·         Against amendment; changing from two to three subcategories eliminates any flexibility if only taking nine credits in given category

·         Speak for amendment for variety of reasons

1)       Consistent with other proposals submitted to Academic Policies Committee

·         Student proposal

·         Arts & Sciences Curriculum Committee proposal

·         Arts & Sciences Chairs proposal

2)       Model used in decreasing subcategories to two is science model; Category III and Category IV include broad array of disciplines quite different than sciences

·         Original purpose of GE was to expose students to this broad array of areas considered essential to education

·         Update from Academic Advising shows over 70 GE courses in social sciences and over 140 in humanities; students have massive choices in these categories

3)       Motivating factor at beginning of process was seat availability, not student choice

·         Idea was if total freedom of choice, then would be more seats available

·         Does not speak to question of why categories created originally: what is an educated person, not managerial how to get students in certain classes

·         In proposed program, students could earn baccalaureate degree from liberal arts institution without any art, music, theatre, philosophy, or history

·         Support amendment – measured, thoughtful move in direction of more flexibility, but not giving up idea of diversity

·         Can move further in such direction subsequently if problem remains

·         Believe amendment wise – current program blamed for things not guilty of

·         Problem of students graduating with 140 credits may be due to additions to GE requirements by individual colleges, schools, and departments, transferring, or changing majors numerous times

·         Don’t have data to say number of subcategories causes problem

·         Speak in favor of keeping what Academic Policies Committee recommended by large margin after much discussion

1)       Two subcategories increases student choice; are positive benefits to increasing choice in general education program

·         Students will have more meaningful discussions with advisers about most fulfilling experiences and be able to build on those

·         Students with successful general education experience at lower division level may take courses with prerequisites

·         Thus entering smaller courses that require more extensive communication and more personal contact with instructors, resulting in more intellectually rewarding general education experience

2)       Disheartening for advisors to have to say, you already have one of those courses, I wouldn’t recommend you enroll in another course in same area because it won’t add much toward your graduation

3)       Is course availability component here also

·         Better able to select courses meeting career goals

·         Easier to tailor undergraduate experience to meet specific needs

·         Is possibility for less breadth, but should make those determinations with advisor based on what best for student

·         Is possible student will continue to take three or four subcategories for general education requirements

4)       Another advantage will come when dealing with transfer students

·         Speak against amendment; is headache to deal with transfer students and make sense out of four subcategories

·         Question is, do we promote diversity and breadth, or shove it down their throats?

·         Not forcing them to take second course in same discipline, but offering choice of doing so

·         Currently not necessarily being educated broadly, just meeting degree requirements

·         Speak for amendment

·         Advisees don’t need to see advisers after 60 credits; most juniors and seniors do not come in until ready to graduate to double check degree audit

·         In comprehensive major, helpful to have some breadth because not getting in major and minor

·         Favor amendment – see necessity for breadth, but also gives students more flexibility to get into small upper division courses

·         Against amendment – based on conversations with colleagues in chemistry, seems to go in right way to right extent

·         Reducing categories so many areas could be passed by creates larger problem

·         Institutions directly competing with us have general education that has been more thoughtfully structured

·         We have simple cafeteria of selection; they have what people need for living in 21st century

·         Putting reputation of UW-Eau Claire as liberal arts institution at risk

·         Can have extra credits to take to get to 120 after satisfied major/minor, GE, and foreign language requirements

·         If efficient and don’t stumble around too much, will have some extra credits to use for choice

 

Moved by Senator Tlusty and seconded to move the previous question. Motion PASSED. 

 

Immediate Vote on Amendment 38-AP-13-a1: Motion DEFEATED by vote 15 for, 19 against

 

Vote on Motion 38-AP-13: Motion PASSED by vote of University Faculty Senators

 

Report on Establish GE Category V – Senator Lozar

·         Motion is result of wish on part of professional schools to be represented in general studies under own prefixes – currently at least two courses in GE using IDIS prefix

·         Category V would establish area where courses could be part of GE under own prefixes

·         Response to question from floor on report

·         Courses currently from professional schools with IDIS designation can keep designation

 

Motion 38-AP-14

Moved and seconded by Academic Policies Committee (7-2) that a fifth General Education Category be established, as defined below:

A.      GE V Category is to be entitled “University Wide General Education”

                B.    Students may take up to six credits of GE Category V courses

C.      Courses which cross GE categories and courses offered by the College of Professional Studies and College of Business (except courses with the IDIS prefix) will be listed under the General Education V Category

 

Debate

·         Working group comprised of members of all colleges, and Academic Advising

·         Against motion – purpose of changing GEs was to simplify; this complicates

·         This category can’t be labeled like other four, more complicated to explain to new advisees

·         Other categories seem to have rationale and fit together; this one doesn’t

·         Concerned that creating grab bag category of both courses from professional schools and courses that cross category boundaries

·         Favor – title may not be eloquent, but reflects idea presented in APC and in work group

·         Is sustentative knowledge developed in professional schools meeting general education and liberal arts mission

·         Example is History, Philosophy and Legal Foundations of Education; not interdisciplinary, not cross-disciplinary, but different disciplines addressing development of education

·         Whole university community should be intimately involved in thinking about what it takes to be generally educated

·         Talking about only six credits here; is very justifiable

·         Urge colleagues to vote against motion

·         Know what other categories represent in subject matter

·         No clue about Category V because no criteria for catch-all category

·         Have logistical concern about possible shift in faculty and staff as result of this change

·         Next proposal clearly calls for university-wide committee composed of faculty from all colleges, with preponderance of membership from Arts and Sciences, to prepare and propose criteria for this category

·         Elected to put university ahead of our departments; hope will do what is good for students

·         Difficult to pass this motion if chance might vote against next motion; seems backward; ought to establish criteria first before create category

·         Arts & Sciences Curriculum Committee responsible for development of criteria and content of general education courses

·         If motion #3 not enacted, that committee would determine criteria for items approved in this motion

·         If motion #3 approved, would be University-Wide General Education Committee

 

Amendment 38-AP-14-a1

Moved by Senator Tlusty and seconded that text of Motion #3 be appended to Motion #2

 

Debate

·         Because this motion and motion #3 so connected, debating as one package might address some concerns

·         Two separate questions

·         If this passes, question in #3 is who approves courses for Category V

·         Could be that some prefer Arts & Sciences Curriculum Committee make those decisions

·         Against merger of motions, see motion #3 coming first

·         Seems clear colleagues from around university, including all colleges, should have something to say about general education program; seems committee overseeing general education would necessarily consist of entire university community

·         Addition of fifth category includes other issues

 

Vote on Amendment 38-AP-14-a1: Motion DEFEATED by vote of University Faculty Senators

 

Continued Debate on Main Motion

·         Working group did not feel categories as distinct as some would like to believe

·         Great debate in field of history whether it is social science or humanities

·         So, challenge notion that know exactly what first four categories involve

·         If categories flexible, should use existing four categories for courses from professional schools

·         One change available by creation of Category V is part C

·         Currently think in terms of what can offer in department; too many administrative barriers associated with trying to offer courses that cut across boundaries

·         Part C gives area to build new interdisciplinary cross-boundary general education courses

·         Looking forward to some of those proposals

·         Dispute implication that clearly defined discreet categories reflected in all courses identified within those categories

·         Against motion because see chipping away at foundation and seriously undermining liberal arts education at UW-Eau Claire

·         Motion adds category of general education courses not grounded in people professionally trained in liberal arts

·         Clearly changing meaning of general education; separating general education from liberal education

·         Get trivial and superficial courses in general education when people assigned to teach outside real knowledge base

·         Across country, state legislators mandating teaching of certain courses in public schools

·         Debate has been going on in higher education for 150 years – idea that broadly educated person must only take courses housed in College of Arts & Sciences very narrow

·         Professional schools teach courses for which well educated and trained to teach; expose students to things inside and outside discipline

·         View that people in College of Professional Studies and College of Business do not have anything to offer general education very short-sighted and antiquated

·         Concerned with perception skills and knowledge only housed in people with training in certain areas; we all share responsibility to prepare people liberally

·         That is heart of issue – need to decide whether professional schools and courses have anything to offer by way of general education and possibly liberal arts education – delighted to hear open discussion

·         United States Health Care System: A Policy Perspective taught by allied health and political science fits with other courses in Category III

·          Structure of proposal allows careful evaluation of courses proposed for inclusion in Category V; trash won’t be included

·         Many in professional studies educated at doctoral level in other disciplines

 

38-AP-14-SR – Moved by Senator Wick and seconded that rules be suspended to allow item to be voted on today – rules suspension PASSED by 2/3 vote

 

Continued Debate on Motion

·         After being at university 12 years, didn’t realize until today was second class citizen incapable of teaching students at UW-Eau Claire because not in general education major

·         Talking about people with advanced degrees who have gone through rigorous hiring process

·         Real issue is whether we should include content outside so-called liberal arts classification

·         Point is not what would help departments, or colleges, but what would help students land jobs and be successful in careers

·         Have structure now allowing colleagues in Colleges of Professional Studies and Business to teach general education classes – criteria by which categories defined not discipline specific

·         Work is to define general education and bring that general education to our students

 

Motion 38-US-17

Moved by Senator Goulet and seconded to table motion 38-AP-14 until this body votes on motion #3 of GE Revisions

 

Vote on Motion 38-US-17: Motion DEFEATED by University Faculty Senators

 

Continued Debate on Main Motion

·         Philosophical question here is whether general education is something we have thought of traditionally as liberal arts or whether in process of redefining general education to mean something else

·         Liberal arts is learning for its own sake, not learning to prepare for a profession, not learning to get a job

·         General education is the part of students’ education that is not about preparing them for a job – it is about giving them breadth and giving them opportunities to learn stuff they might not otherwise have a chance to learn

·         If we start to think GE is about preparing for a job, then we are increasing professionalizaton in undergraduate programs

·         Seems rushing to get everything done by end of semester without giving time to think about philosophical questions

·         Agree general education should not be about further professionalization

·         Students can choose general education because it will forward their career plans, but should also be giving students breadth of knowledge they will take into life

·         If were trying to slip professional courses into GE in guise of general education, would oppose this

·         Professional schools do have coursework that does fit definition of general education

·         Can put together body that can evaluate proposed courses in sensible way to ensure courses, like those from Arts & Sciences for general education, are appropriate for general education program

·         Not sure all terms – liberal arts education, liberal education, liberal arts based education – mean same thing

·         Pleased discussion placed on philosophical level

·         May need broad-based discussion to come to agreement so discussion can continue but not divide us

·         Distinction of liberal arts education is that teaches people to think critically and problem solve – professional schools doing that

·         Is place in general education core for array of ways of thinking about things

·         Fifth category, representing way professional schools approach problems, offers something to students beyond traditional categories

·         Support establishing this category not for courses related to getting a job, but more toward life skills and general ways of thinking

·         Cannot support motion because only 90% complete

·         No problem with idea of potential within professional studies to deliver courses that belong in general education

·         Missing list of classes as good examples; want to know what is out there before opening door

·         Examples of possible courses would be School of Nursing electives of Men’s Health Course and Women’s Health Course

·         If this motion passes, and nothing else happens, Arts & Sciences Curriculum Committee would still have to see proposals and vote on them

·         Next motion would create different committee with representatives from all colleges that would have to approve proposals

·         One of good things is opportunity for new ideas, interdisciplinary and multi-disciplinary proposals

·         Most exciting things occur when disciplines cross

·         This proposal closest to anything we have ever seen to accomplish that

·         Idea that professional programs dilute and pollute general education and liberal arts reminds of one drop theory

·         Have opportunity to trust one another to do something that would distinguish us among universities

·         Regardless of what happens here, have come a long way in last few years

 

Motion 38-US-18

Moved by Senator Pitts and seconded to table motion until next meeting so do not end meeting before first reading of motion from the Compensation Committee

 

Vote on Motion 38-US-18: Motion PASSED by vote of 22 for, 16 against by University Faculty Senators

 

2.        Without objection, minutes of March 12, 2002 meeting of University Senate approved as distributed

 

3.        Chancellor’s Remarks – Chancellor Mash

·         Not much to add about budget situation

·         Will join Senate Budget Committee on April 19th for briefing

·         Have talked to Senate Chair about how to incorporate budget discussion late in semester at one of these meetings when should know more about budget resolution

·         Response to comment from floor that chancellor’s letter on opinion page of Leader-Telegram nicely described what university position needs to be in terms of budget situation

·         Appreciate hearing that

·         Wrote much same thing to Senator Moen, one of Democrats readying budget, with copies to all area legislators

·         Trying to stay consistent with message that already lean to begin with and there is limit to what can do without students and services suffering

 

4.        Chair and Faculty Representative Report – Chair Harrison

·         Reception to celebrate Senator Schneider winning UW-System Academic Staff Award for Excellence on April 17, 2002 

 

5.        Academic Staff Representative Report – Senator Wilcox

·         Included in Chair’s Report

 

6.        Announcements

·         Hold April 30th at 3:00 p.m. open

·         Depending how debates go on all items before us, may need to hold additional Senate meeting instead of open discussion

·         Please return Senate survey forms

·         Professor Roger Tlusty and Assistant Professor Kate Lang just received word from National Endowment for the Humanities that their grant proposal for a history project with middle schools, State Historical Society and Chippewa Valley Museum has been funded for $100,000

 

7.        Reports of Committees

·         Included in Chair’s Report

¨       Nominating Committee – Senator Wendler

·         Every Senator contacted

·         Only nomination for chair-elect: Susan Harrison

·         No additional nominations from floor

 

Motion 38-US-19

Moved by Senator Wick and seconded that rules be suspended, nominations be closed, and the ballot allowed to stand as the election

 

Vote on Motion 38-US-19: Motion PASSED

 

Elected as Senate Chair-Elect: Susan Harrison

·         Chair Harrison commented she enjoys job, appreciates support; sees job as facilitating process, not running own agenda, so let her know if she steps over that line

 

8.        Special Reports – None

 

9.        Miscellaneous Business

 

Compensation Committee

Report on Salary Plan for 2003-2004 – Senator Wick

·         For past two years, Compensation Committee promised to bring forward comprehensive salary plan to modify current standard plan and integrate in existing alternative pay plans

·         Conducted surveys and held open forums to identify issues

·         Complexity of plan

·         Compression in salary ranks not addressed enough

·         No consistency of policy between alternative pay plans and standard pay plan

·         Can’t recognize recipients of extra-awards – merits, extra-merits, outstanding teaching

·         Slim policies governing equity distribution funds

·         Distance between work done and salary decision too great

·         Lack of accountability and feedback as recommendations move up administrative ladder

·         Fixed size of awards limits number of people who can be recognized, as opposed to number of people being recognized dictating amount of award

·         Inability of some members of institution to receive advertised percentage increase based on merit because of salary and flat dollar distributions

·         Attempted through deliberation to come up with plan addressing as many of those issues as possible; complex task

·         Motion front of you represents outcome

·         Salient features – proposing two different ways

·         For faculty and instructional academic staff

·         90% of funds of pay plan increase generated by salaries in departments and units distributed by immediate supervisor within those units – final authority on that 90%

·         Up to 5% distributed for equity (pretty much as in past)

·         Anywhere from 5 to 10% distributed for compression and/or longevity depending on category

·         67% of pay plan dollars distributed based on solid performance (as already do in standard plan)

·         23% distributed based on meritorious performance evaluation as determined by immediate supervisor

·         Multiple models – based on fixed dollar, flat dollar, percentage, or combination

·         For administrative and professional academic staff

·         Continue with model currently use under standard plan

·         67% distributed by solid performance in recommendation-based system where final authority rests with Vice Chancellor

·         23% distributed based on performance – awards fixed at $400 increments

 

Motion 38-CP-03

Moved and seconded by Compensation Committee (6-0-0) that the proposed Comprehensive Salary Plan be submitted to the Chancellor as the recommended 2003-2004 Salary Plan

 

Without objection, will move full debate of that motion to next meeting

 

Report on Salary Plan Handbook Language Revisions – Senator Wick

·         Since recommending comprehensive salary plan that subsumes current alternative pay plans, also recommending revisions of handbook language

·         Eliminates alternative pay plans with grandparent clause for existing plans already approved and consistent with System policy and UWEC policy

·         Removes annual salary plan language so don’t have to keep modifying each year

 

Motion 38-CP-04

Moved and seconded by Compensation Committee (6-0-0) that the proposed changes be made to the Salary Recommendation sections (p. 5.19 and 5.42) of the UW-Eau Claire Faculty and Academic Staff Handbook

 

Debate

·         Does away with alternative pay plans for future; is grandparent clause for those already in place

 

Without objection, debate on this motion postponed until next meeting

 

Academic Policies Committee

Report on Sport Pedagogy Emphasis – Senator Lozar

·         Came from Department of Kinesiology and Athletics

·         Emphasis in major designed for students not qualifying for our School of Education

·         Gives option to finish Kinesiology major here, then transfer to another school where could qualify for teaching certification or get master’s degree that would also qualify to teach

 

Motion 38-AP-15

Moved and seconded by Academic Policies Committee (10-0) that the University Senate approve the proposed emphasis in Sport Pedagogy within the Kinesiology Comprehensive major

 

Without objection, conclusion of debate on motion will occur at next Senate meeting

 

Report on HMNG Prefix – Senator Lozar

·         Recommended so university can offer Hmong language courses

 

Motion 38-AP-16

Moved and seconded by Academic Policies Committee (9-0) that the University Senate approve the establishment of a new prefix: HMNG (Hmong)

 

Without objection, conclusion of debate on that motion will be postponed until next Senate meeting

 

Without objection, will reorder so unfinished business occurs first at next meeting

 

Report on University-Wide GE Committee – Senator Lozar

·         Committee being proposed so oversight of general education program comes from entire university community, not just College of Arts & Sciences

 

Motion 38-AP-17 (Motion #3 of the GE Revisions)

Moved and seconded by Academic Policies Committee (7-3) that oversight of the General Education Program be changed as shown below:

A University-Wide Committee is to be established to develop criteria for General Education courses and to approve courses for inclusion in the General Education Program. The criteria will be forwarded to the University Senate Academic Policies Committee and the University Senate for approval.  The Committee will consist of six members of the Arts & Sciences Curriculum Committee, two members of the College of Business Curriculum Committee, and one member from each of the three School curricular review committees in the College of Professional Studies. 

 

Without objection, discussion will be moved to next meeting

 

Report on Department, School & College Requirements – Senator Lozar

·         Follows upon principle guiding other proposals: simplifying requirements

·         Recommends departments, schools, and colleges currently requiring different general education programs for students review those requirements with aim of as much uniformity across university as possible 

 

Motion 38-AP-18

Moved and seconded by Academic Policies Committee (10-0) that the Senate recommend that all departments, Schools, and Colleges review and revise their General Education requirements so that they adhere to the recommendations concerning simplifying the three existing GE categories  (II-IV) and reducing the number of upper division credits.  Very little, if any, benefits will be gained from the proposed changes if departments, Schools, and Colleges require “additional” and/or more specific General Education requirements.

 

Without objection, debate moved to next Senate meeting

 

Report on Evaluate Impact of GE Changes – Senator Lozar

·         Last motion asks all departments, schools, and colleges to report on course availability changes or concerns arising out of GE changes

 

Motion 38-AP-19

Moved and seconded by Academic Policies Committee (10-0) that all departments, Schools, and Colleges evaluate the impact on course availability for their students of any General Education changes resulting from Recommendations 1 and 2 and changes made at the department, School, and College level.  We recommend that this evaluation be included as part of the annual report.

 

Without objection, debate moved to next Senate meeting

 

General understanding that will finish general education discussion and then continue on to compensation issues

 

Meeting adjourned at 5:04 p.m. without objection

 

 

 

Wanda Schulner

Secretary to the University Senate