Members Present:

Members Absent:

Guests:

The regular meeting of the University Senate was called to order by Chair Harrison at 3:04 p.m., Tuesday, February 10, 1998 in the Tamarack Room of Davies Center.

1. The minutes of the January 27, 1998 meeting were approved as distributed.

2. Remarks of Interim Chancellor Smelstor:

• Responsiveness
• Significant change in the attitude on part of Board of Regents and UW-System administration in regard to new programs
• Great encouragement for new programs or new initiatives
• Particularly those responsive to specific targeted needs
• Last fall group brainstormed new programs, majors, or minors appropriate for UW-Eau Claire
• One page proposals submitted at request of System for new programs
• $500,000 technology partnership proposal to expand the computational science effort and provide opportunities for faculty/staff and students to work with businesses and high tech companies within the Chippewa Valley
• $200,000 to increase efforts in international education
• Will need institutional conversations about how to proceed if either or both are approved
• New server for email ordered and to be delivered and installed during spring break in response to current delay in email
• Money
• $500,000 to be used for scholarships from trust fund established by the Rath Foundation
• Will receive more in subsequent years
• Column in Pioneer Press by William Wineke about happy Lutherans and dark Lutherans
• Happy Lutherans need reminding that all is not well
• Dark Lutherans need to be reminded that much is well

3. Report of the University Senate Chair and Faculty Representative - Susan Harrison

• Chancellor Search and Screen Committee update
• Currently 15 applicants and 35 nominations
• Review of applicants to begin March 1, 1998
• Nominations welcome
• Open forum concern that need to refurbish existing labs as well as build new labs addressed by Interim Vice Chancellor Miller, remarks in Chair's Report
• Ad Hoc Committee to be established on the Recognition for Service of Senators as recommended by the University Senate Self-Study Committee; if interested in participating on committee contact Senate Office
• All standing and ad hoc committees are responsible to the University Senate and recommendations on matters of policy become effective only after receiving approval from University Senate
• University Senate Executive Committee has confirmed the need for complete reports to accompany motions
• Committee chairs are reminded to submit copies of approved minutes to Senate Office as soon as possible
• Request to offer NTU graduate level courses at UWEC discussed with Graduate Faculty at regular meeting prior to proceeding
• Concerns about "F" parking in Phillips lot to be passed on to Senate Physical Plant Planning Committee for review
• Compliance rates for course evaluations last semester were well below 100%; participation is necessary for fair review next year
• Web address for Learning Innovation Center provided for concerns about copyright and intellectual property rights
• Senate Bill 31 passed Wisconsin Legislature, now in effect, reduces the age of elibigility for death benefits for a beneficiary to match the minimum retirement ages
• Joint Finance Committee has released the $12,872,000 appropriated for BadgerNet and Faculty Technology Initiatives
• Board of Regents has proposed the strategic goals and initiatives for race/ethnic diversity for the next decade. Our campus has about 60 days to respond to the draft and establish our particular approach. Provide comments and suggestions directly to System using email address provided in the Chair's Report.
• Responses to draft report on the status and use of Instructional Academic Staff to be directed to Vice Chancellor's Office. Report available through Senate Office.
• Faculty representatives to be consulted about how System to proceed legislating for first-day pickup of insurance; some proposed funding for major medical only from first day of hire since full funding unavailable
• Vote to take place at next Board of Regents meeting on proposed revisions for the Wisconsin Administrative Code for Conduct on University Lands, allowing citations for violations to eliminate the need for criminal prosecution for minor violations

4. Report of the Senate Faculty Personnel Committee - Douglas Hallatt

• Determination about particular person's qualifications done by whomever makes decision to hire according to requirements in the Faculty Handbook, process originates with the department
• Faculty status is just for governance rights, personnel rights remain in academic staff

5. Report of the Academic Policies Committee - Barbara Lozar

• Departments developed a standard minor to replace the numerous proposals for topical minors in Environmental Science over the years
• Any publications concerning this minor will make a clear distinction that minor is not intended to draw students away from the Environmental and Public Health program

6. Report of the Compensation Committee - Michael Wick

• Exclusive category in pay plan for addressing compression in the faculty ranks
• Category for non-teaching academic staff called performance merit to serve the same role as the outstanding teaching category
• Unused dollars from the equity and compression categories need to be transferred to the extra merit and outstanding teaching categories to meet the System1/3, 1/3, 1/3 rule
• No more money so still going to be underpaid
• In 1997-98, extra merit went to approximately 43% of faculty and teaching academic staff, outstanding teaching to 30% of faculty and teaching academic staff, with 14% overlap; 47% of non-teaching academic staff received extra merit

• Giving more money to everybody based on a flat dollar amount will be encouraging compression
• Plan is for one year, not the rest of our life, 4.5% increase by legislature is window of opportunity that should be used in fair and appropriate way
• People take extra merit/outstanding teaching seriously; to find out this is the year that it's dropped to $400 will not be good for spirit
• Amendment would change the number of faculty that would receive the extra merit designation

• Would have to be careful because compression is judged as the ratio of associate to assistant and full to assistant, and judging assistant to assistant doesn't make any sense so we would have to come up with another way to judge compression
• Relatively few people who would be a non-tenured associate professor, and also relatively few who would be a tenured assistant professor, but there are some of each

• Pay plan talks of median salary, national median comparable figures not available; expect faculty would believe you are in the spirit of the policy if you use the average

7. Discussion of the method of representation for University Senate

• Handout of four methods distributed at last Senate meeting
• Current is method A
• Suggestion of Self-Study committee in 1995 is method B
• Response of Senate Executive Committee to charge to develop plan for Senate consisting of approximately 40-50 members is method C
• Method D is plan developed by Senate Exec using proportional representation
• Timetable to make any change this year presented
• Concern that entire faculty has not had enough time to examine and respond to this critically important issue
• Executive Committee has been meeting and working on this and has done a lot of studying on this problem
• Announced on Senate Exec agenda for last few months with no response from the faculty and academic staff
• Impossible to work on committee structure until Senate size is determined
• Discussion of this issue been going on for years

• Proportional representation means approximately one senator for every 10 people; with 45 faculty senators representing 450 faculty on campus, and 24 academic staff senators representing about 235 academic staff people
• Review of proportionality would not necessarily take place on an annual basis, perhaps every 3 to 5 years
• Possible solution might be that committee members would not have to be members of the Senate
• Should not committees responding to Senate be made up of senators
• Amendment had been passed in 1995 to have only senators on the committees, but main motion it was attached to failed
• With reduced number of faculty senators, it would be difficult to staff committees requiring representation from the various schools

• Senate would then be at 71

• Takes away the proportionality of the Senate
• Proportionality ignores the fact that many issues coming before this body are more important as departmental issues than as personal issues to us as senators

• Senate would remain at 69
• Reasoning for 3 from Arts & Sciences not consistent with removing additional Senators from large departments

• Only consensus from department was an urge to have a smaller Senate
• Everyone wants a smaller Senate, nobody wants to give up representation
• Committee assignments would become critical
• Need to have a size of Senate that is reasonable for the work that needs to be done
• About 40 people voting today from a Senate of 70, with a smaller Senate, how few would be making these decisions for us
• Why academic staff should keep two representatives for large units, while large academic departments would get only one

8. New Business

• Currently difficult to know where athletics fit; this name change makes that clear