UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-EAU CLAIRE

UNIVERSITY SENATE MEETING

VOL. 43, NO. 7

 

January 30, 2007

 

 

Members Present:

 

Rose Battalio, Judy Blackstone, Janice Bogstad, Jacqueline Bonneville, Don Bredle, Jennifer Brockpahler, Michael Carney, Maria DaCosta, Patrick Day, Margaret Devine, Gary Don, Michael Dorsher, Jeff Erger, Leslie Foster, Jessica Franson, Mitchell Freymiller, Alan Gallaher, Andrea Gapko, Susan Harrison, Ann Hoffman, Robert Hollon, Larry Honl, Robert Hooper, Bill Jacobsen, Debra Jansen, Harry Jol, Fred Kolb, Heather Kretz, Jennifer Lee, Brian Levin-Stankevich, Tim Lippold, Bruce Lo, David Lonzarich, Barbara Lozar, Karl Markgraf, Susan Mc Intyre, Sean McAleer, Sue Moore, Mike Morrison, Jim Oberly, Jill Prushiek, Donna Raleigh, Richard Ryberg, Sherrie Serros, Earl Shoemaker, Lorraine Smith, Sheila Smith, Laurie St. Aubin-Whelihan, Jan Stirm, Kent Syverson, Lois Taft, Steve Tallant, Max Von Klein, Scott Whitfield, Michael Wick, Marty Wood, Deborah Wright

 

Members Absent:

 

Robin Baker, Marcia Bollinger, Barbara Davis, Todd Hostager, Steven Majstorovic, Tarique Niazi, Scott Robertson, Mehdi Sheikholeslami, Troy Terhark, Charles Vue, Sharon Westphal, Rebecca Wurzer

 

Guests:

 

Donald Christian, Stephanie Jamelske, Janice Morse, Andrew Phillips, Katherine Rhoades, Andrew Soll, Christopher Wagner

 

 

The regular meeting of University Senate was called to order by Chair Harrison at 3:01 p.m. on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 in the Tamarack Room of Davies Center.

 

I.         Minutes of December 12, 2006 University Senate meeting approved as distributed

                                                                   

II.       Chancellor’s Remarks – Chancellor Levin-Stankevich

·         First choice for strategic planning position did not work out

·         Hiring one of most important things we do

·         Not just filling positions; need to bring value and quality to institution for long term

·         Exploring other options with screening committee; any ideas would be appreciated

·         Hope to begin strategic planning soon at institutional level; many colleges and departments already engaged in that process

·         Discussions and dialogue we have around selection of provost will be important stimulus to planning

·         Intend to bring in different views through strategic planning open forum

·         Then use chairs council, deans and directors meetings, as well as senate, as venues to begin to broach ideas on process: how to move forward and identifying key target areas

·         Have identified diversity as concern on campus

·         Yesterday were one of five sites in state for forum on new admission criteria for UW-System

·         People in attendance primarily university people with few from secondary guidance community, some students and media

·         Discussion dominated by those in Milwaukee and Madison

·         Some of conversation laid bare why need to consider more than straight numbers in admission of students

·         Lot of work to be done in area of diversity as report numbers and look at expectations of Plan 2008

·         Will discuss at system level what follows and where to go as approach end of plan

·         Am preparing challenge to campus around diversity issue after looking at activities here and having former colleague look around campus

·         Some immediate things we might do as well as areas we might incorporate into our future planning to improve inclusivity on campus

·         Lot of background data to build on; need to approach not only as something to do, but as research agenda

·         Impressed by way campus, through external grant, addressing student alcohol abuse issues

·         Includes bridge coalition which brings together community and university folks around reducing alcohol abuse in immediate area

·         Have faculty and students engaged in collaborative research around student alcohol abuse, national surveys, national norming and other things going on

·         Need to look at inclusivity on campus and diversity in same way

·         Facilities have gotten press lately

·         Davies Center and Brewer Hall on this campus next targets for construction

·         Continue to talk to legislators about options to pursue as well as potential federal appropriations

·         If can link to community objectives and particularly around economic development contexts, can be successful

·         Almost every day hear of accolades university receives

·         Prestigious NSF award to Dr. Todd Wellnitz in biology to study river/stream maintenance and ecosystems

·         Ranked 65th by Kipplinger’s 100 Best Values in Public Colleges for 2007

·         Dr. Gary Schwartzhoff awarded Outstanding Church Musician by Wisconsin Choral Directors Association

·         Media coverage for Dr. Kristine Retherford and Angela Sterling-Orth for their Asperger’s Disorder program in Communication Disorders

·         Jim Oberly’s work with students and meeting with Nobel Laureate Dr. Robert Fogel

·         Recognized again by Institute of International Education

·         UW-Eau Claire Education Abroad: Removing Barriers and Extending the Reach program received honorable mention in study abroad category of Heiskell Award

·         Program seeks to remove barriers to minority, women and professional school students who do not often access overseas study

·         Visited Drs. Robert Hooper and Brian Mahoney in New Mexico as embarking on Winterim explorations in geology

·         These activities distinguish UW-Eau Claire, our faculty, students, and staff from other institutions

·         Governor’s budget leaked out; will be presented in State of State Address and Governor’s Budget message next week

·         Roughly $225 million package, including two-thirds of what President Reilly asked for Growth Agenda

·         Our pieces of Growth Agenda are NanoSTEM Initiative, improving education access for adults, and enhancing some graduate programs

·         Budget includes $9 million for system in faculty recruitment and retention – extremely valuable

·         Pay plan yet to come

·         Cost to continue fully funded

·         Lot of work went into generating public support for Growth Agenda items and cost to continue

·         Now need to do same to get letters out to legislators to meet governor’s challenge of funding and reinvesting in higher education

·         Does not appear projected 10% administrative cut will occur

·         Have personally  focused on NanoSTEM Initiative and materials science because good sell for us

·         Submitting other priorities for federal appropriations both in materials science and in nursing

·         Received letter inviting us to become part of 1-2-1 Exchange Program, as presented at senate meeting last fall

·         Would continue to expand our reach and opportunities for our students and faculty in Chinese institutions

·         Two-year colleges and extension blue-ribbon commission to issue public report on Wednesday

·         Same commission that brought forward proposal of free tuition for anyone staying in state for ten years

·         Also have report coming forward on CVTC proposal for liberal arts associate degree; may well pass

·         Arguing that liberal arts associate degree gets into baccalaureate production which is our business so we need to make decisions about who does that and quality of programs

·         Academic Affairs working closely with CVTC as local feeder institution for potential programs

·         At system level, raises questions about mission creep and creation of full-blown community college system in state

·         Fundraising going extremely well; very close to $50 million campaign goal

·         As we engage in strategic planning, will begin to identify targets for next campaign

 

III.    Chair’s Report – Chair Harrison

·         Welcome four new senators

·         Michael Carney, Chemistry

·         Jim Oberly, History

·         Richard Ryberg, Social Work

·         Sheila Smith, Adult Health Nursing  

·         This morning chair, vice chair, faculty representative, and academic staff representative met with chancellor and provost to touch base on governance issues

 

IV.    Faculty Representative’s Report – Senator Wick

·         Meet Friday; attending via teleconference

·         Primarily going over issues that will come up before Board of Regents

·         Will attend BOR meeting in Madison February 8 and 9, 2007

 

V.      Academic Staff Representative’s Report – Senator Blackstone

·         Report distributed in senate packet

·         Academic Staff Representatives next meet on February 15, 2007

 

VI.    Announcements

·         Next meeting of senate on February 13, 2007 during National Random Acts of Kindness Week

·         Be looking for exciting things campus civility group doing that week

 

VII.     Unfinished Business and General Orders

A.      Second Reading – Motion from Compensation Committee
Post-Tenure Review Salary Adjustment Section of Comprehensive Pay Plan 2007-2009


At last meeting, senate voted to divide Comprehensive Salary Plan for 2007-2009 into two parts

·         Passed first part and sent to chancellor

·         Post-tenure salary adjustment section delayed until today

·         Since now returning to body for debate after originally introduced and referred to committee, considered as amendment to original

 

Amendment 43-CP-01-a1

MOVED and seconded by Compensation Committee (5 for, 1 against) that the attached changes be made to Section 5.4.3 of the recommended 2007-2009 Comprehensive Salary Plan.

 

Debate

·         Proposed $32,000 to fund salary adjustments to protect level of funding in event pay plan too small to fund that amount

·         If pay plan of sufficient size (over 2%), will be enough to fund; if pay plan not of sufficient size, have commitment from chancellor to find funds outside pay plan

·         Certain percentage of pay plan funds go to equity/compression pool which funds these salary increases

·         Funded same way last year’s post-tenure review salary adjustments funded

 

Without objection, MOTION by Senator McAleer that all instances of staff member, meaning faculty member, be changed to faculty member for clarity seconded and approved.

 

Continued Discussion on Amendment

·         Without definitions, categories of exemplary, outstanding, meritorious and less than meritorious seem too subjective

·         Reasoning was that definitions before thought to be too proscriptive

·         Committee tried to come up with definitions, but got nowhere

·         So settled on categories containing certain percentages and letting administration look at cohort to determine top 15% of people

·         Last year department chairs generated all threes and fours – need to communicate better up and down levels of recommendations as to anticipated distribution and stick with that across years

·         Performance rating of 1.0 or higher for tenured faculty to be eligible for compression salary adjustment refers to standard salary recommendation

·         Funds labeled compression for faculty are being distributed under post-tenure review salary adjustment process

 

Amendment 43-CP-01-a1-a1

MOVED by Senator Hooper and seconded that on line 90 and student evaluations of instruction be added after post-tenure review.

 

Debate

·         So some evidence going forward to support recommendation

·         Friendly amendment to add if applicable before student evaluations accepted by mover and seconder

·         Favor amendment; might be difficult to compare departments since each uses own form of evaluation

·         Standard form might help

·         Students supply data that is evaluated; do not consider students qualified to evaluate instruction

·         Really looking for evaluation of teaching  

·         Could be peer evaluation

·         Support amendment; point of sending forward student evaluations is so at every administrative level, decision could be made about teaching ability of candidates under review

·         Person evaluating faculty teaching uses student evaluations as argument, not as evaluation itself

·         Favor amendment as matter of consistency; student evaluations used by chairs to make salary recommendations, should not be different here

·         Support amendment – rules say periodic review of faculty members will include student evaluations when applicable; cannot imagine scenario when wouldn’t send them forward

·         Dean Christian receives student evaluations and other documentation of teaching performance across 18 departments; more valuable if come with assessment by promotion subcommittees and department chairs

·         Suggest revision of language to including assessment of student evaluation or other evidence of teaching performance

·         Would support dean’s suggestion

·         Does not seem necessary to state: Why do a post-tenure review if you are not going to evaluate teaching?

·         Discussion of student evaluations and response would be part of normal thorough review by any DPC and chair

·         Teaching evaluation should be part of this, and student evaluations are part of that

·         But is lot of discussion over just what student evaluations mean

·         Speaking for concept of amendment; however, are no minimum standards across university for anything

·         Many institutions worldwide have minimum standards for faculty and staff to meet; lots of models out there

·         Would suggest committee take a look at those to help make these decisions

·         In favor of saying student evaluation of instruction – should be part of it; would assume it would include reviewers assessment of that data

 

Amendment to amendment by Senator Lo to change student evaluation of instruction to and teaching evaluation died for lack of second.

 

Vote on Amendment 43-CP-01-a1-a1: Amendment PASSED.

 

Continued Debate on Amendment 43-CP-01-a1 as Amended

·         With 15% and 40% categories in chart, people in 45-50 percentile would be getting outstanding rating raise

·         Committee started out with $32,000 and typically 25 people in cohort; set amount of awards so high enough percentages at each level so differentiation between performance levels not as large

·         If increase any of dollar amounts, would change percentages to match that

·         One thing found problematic, as debated in December, was that initial salary increase ranges were so large you could be just below one of lines and difference in salary adjustment would be huge

·         Amendment presents flatter system philosophy

·         Have not heard anyone address whether this is indeed merit based as written

·         In spirit more or less happy with this; but not sure dean and provost will be able to use vague terms for evaluation

·         Deans not making decisions in isolation, have recommendations to support

·         All would have to use same terminology and be accountable

·         Very fine distinction between exemplary, outstanding, and meritorious

·         Less than meritorious category would accommodate range of someone to fire tomorrow to someone doing okay

·         Committee, particularly faculty members in attendance, felt based on last year’s outcome, criteria were so specific it tied people’s hands

·         Felt as this system works way up through chairs and deans, categories could gain some clarity

·         Flatness of system came about because people wanted more faculty to be recognized; to recognize more, have to give each less money

·         Bothers me to have anticipated percentages without criteria

·         Confident that can turn evaluations over to all levels of administration to place people into one of these four categories

·         Deans already doing that for department chairs, whether musicians or biologists, by giving them each a number that has no meaning

·         Effort to get definitions went on and on, so decided to leave it up to our leaders to lead

·         Could argue about definitions all day – not that important

·         Lines 99 through 101 lay it out – Each administrator may raise or lower the recommendation based on a cumulative comparative analysis of all submitted recommendations. Each administrator may attach additional information as necessary to support his/her recommendations

·         Can compare to grading papers, even if they are very different – some are clearly top level papers, some have fine distinctions between them, and some have big gaps

·         Administrators have experience comparing different fields with different evaluation instruments and criteria; they have flexibility with guidance of approximate targets of 15% and 40%

·         If big gap between the 15% and 40%, will be easy call; if subtle gap, will be more difficult

·         Let them make the decisions and move on without having to worry about technical definition of exemplary vs. outstanding

·         In spirit of shared governance, suggest DPCs come up with criteria in DEPs

·         Not all faculty in annual cohort will have same criteria, nor value scholarship of discovery as particular departments or colleges do

·         Vagueness of language provides opportunity for those of us in cohorts to come up with definitions of what we mean by excellence

·         Deans meet regularly; if they need or want to, can discuss post-tenure review recommendations as a group before forwarding to provost

·         Biggest problem for provost would be huge variance between what submitted and corresponding rating

·         Has not happened in past; has been consistency at department level

·         If that were to happen, would ask dean as well as someone from department to discuss and review that material

·         Last year was problematic because criteria were too specific and put provost in corner

·         Have some concern this is not specific enough, but would recommend we try it this year

·         Feel comfortable working with this and seeing what comes out

·         Need to trust administrators to make judgments

·         Part of our discomfort last year resulted in narrowing difference between salary adjustment levels

·         Does not matter as much which category someone is in because no longer a $2000 difference

·         Support that we pass this and give it a try

·         Can vote on today because this is second reading of motion split last meeting; can always make motion to postpone vote to next meeting if so desire

 

Vote on Amendment 43-CP-01: Amendment as amended PASSED without dissention.

 

Further Debate on Section 5.4.3 as Amended

·         None

 

Vote on Motion 43-CP-01, Section 5.4.3: Motion PASSED without dissention.

 

B.    University Senate Elections

        1.     Election for TWO Vacancies on Executive Committee; one must be from College of Business

                Nominees:             Meg Devine, Accounting and Finance
                                                Scott Robertson, Art & Design

·         No additional nominations from floor

 

MOTION by Senator Gallaher to suspend the rules to allow one nominee to stand from College of Business seconded and PASSED without dissention.

 

·         Additional nomination from any area – Janice Bogstad, Library

 

Elected to the University Senate Executive Committee: Meg Devine and Scott Robertson

        2.     Election for Vacancy on Faculty Personnel Committee

                Nominees:             Michael Carney, Chemistry
                                                Richard Ryberg, Social Work

·         No additional nominations from floor

 

Elected to the University Senate Faculty Personnel Committee: Richard Ryberg

 

        3.     Election for Vacancy on Academic Policies Committee

                Nominees:             Barbara Lozar, Psychology
                                                Mike Morrison, Computer Science
                                                Richard Ryberg, Social Work
                                                Kent Syverson, Geology

·         No additional nominations from floor

 

Elected to the University Senate Academic Policies Committee: Barbara Lozar

 

        4.     Election for Vacancy on Budget Committee

                Nominees:             Barbara Davis, Family Health Nursing
                                                Debra Jansen, Adult Health Nursing

·         No additional nominations from floor

 

Elected to the University Senate Budget Committee: Debra Jansen

        5.     Election for Vacancy on Technology Committee

                Nominees:             Mike Morrison, Computer Science

·         Additional nomination from floor - Michael Dorsher, Communication and Journalism

 

Elected to the University Senate Technology Committee: Mike Morrison

 

VIII.   Reportable Items from Committees

¨       Executive Committee –  Chair Harrison

  • Received update from provost on Department of Public Health Professions 
  • Heard concern about poor attendance of senators at committee meetings
  • Processed University General Education Committee request before senate today
  • Discussed request to consider using an existing committee as Institutional Ethics Committee

 

IX.    Special Reports

A.      Report on Provost Search and Screen Committee – Co-Chair Jim Oberly

·         Committee now in screening process

·         By January 10, 2007, received 46 nominations and applications; about same number as other searches around country getting

·         Met over Winterim to do initial screening to produce short list

·         Short list pool very strong and very diverse with two-thirds being women and minorities

·         Will meet candidates on short list next weekend in confidence

·         After that, committee will do background checks on people on short list and make recommendations for finalists to chancellor within next four weeks

·         That means committee would be pleased to accept any one of finalists as next provost and vice chancellor

·         Chancellor will name finalists and go public by end of February

·         Will invite those finalists to campus March 1st to March 15th  - will be public forum and also meetings with parts of senate or executive committee

 

B.       Report on the Higher Learning Commission Self Study – Associate Vice Chancellor Phillips

·         Target date of late April for campus-wide, community-wide survey

·         Multiple versions of survey for faculty, students, community

·         Electronic web-based 20-minute survey; hoping to get significant response rate

·         May request your help in broadcasting this to departments to encourage people to return survey

·         Would like to have data collected for self study chairs and group members to analyze over summer or early fall

·         Will be doing pilot test of survey in mid to late March – small group of people to road test questions

·         Invited by handful of campus groups to come and talk about accreditation project

·         Groups interested in participating, providing input, and helping out

·         Happy to do that, as is any other member of steering committee

·         Study Group 9, Reactions since 1999 Accreditation, in process of writing first draft for review

·         Hope in next month to have assessment of how things unfolded since last accreditation

·         Comments and suggestions always welcome

·         Response to question from floor

·         No particular date for additional focus groups

·         Meet with group chairs shortly; will discuss their plans for hosting focus groups in next few months

 

X.      Miscellaneous Business

Discussion of Request from University General Education Committee to freeze current UGEC membership for three years

·         Summary of request presented by UGEC to facilitate review of GE program and findings of chair on constitutionality of such request included in senate packet

·         Is constitutional committee; cannot suspend rules of constitution, would require constitutional amendment with referendum in spring and then repeat three years later to unfreeze

·         Other suggestions listed

·         Floor open to respond to request

·         Support idea of having committee pursue this kind of review

·         Really good people in group have invested energy in reviewing courses and thinking about big picture

·         Cannot imagine better group of people to tackle review

·         Problem is might be other people on campus with interest in participating in review of this sort

·         Because membership on committee entailed reviewing courses and developing criteria for inclusion in GE, not for reviewing GE itself, some people who might be interested might not have put name in

·         Now that focus changing, might be nice to open this up for other people to participate as well

·         Mostly agree; support keeping these folks serving in way they clearly enjoy

·         To change constitution is quite an undertaking; concerned about doing it for this purpose

·         Delighted at notion of freezing membership now and then vote not to undo freeze later

·         Must be better way this can be accomplished

·         Provost Tallant proposed creating task force for three year period charged with looking at GE and open that up to anybody willing to serve

·         Applaud that plan – while on that committee, several times newly elected people would want to rehash everything that had been rehashed for previous two years

·         At one point encouraged to examine structure of GE which is not necessarily a function of that committee

·         Should be addressed; like this alternative way to do it

 

Without objection, ask provost to charge task force to review GE program using UGEC outline and open it up to members of UGEC as well as others that might wish to join.

 

 

Without objection, meeting adjourned at 4:33 p.m.

 

Submitted by,

 

Wanda Schulner

Secretary to the University Senate