Chair’s
Report for December 11, 2001
Senate
update
1. Important
links to agendas, minutes, Chair's Reports and other sites of interest are available
on the Senate web site: http://www.uwec.edu/Usenate.
Senate Chair’s Report will be available on this site by noon on the day of the Senate
meeting.
2. During
debates, Senators may speak only twice to any motion or amendment. Each speaking term is
limited to 10 minutes. The Chair will add names of those wishing to speak to a speaker's
list upon recognition.
Open
Forum Items from Senate Executive Committee Meeting minutes (excerpts from minutes)
1. Concern
raised over presentation of capital campaign to faculty and academic staff
·
Executive
Staff contribution rate 100%; that level of giving not expected elsewhere
·
Received
comments that personnel already feel giving out of hide, don’t want to be asked for
more
·
Feeling
that if looking for 100% participation, will be tracking of some sort
·
Awareness
of departmental development funds may make difference
·
Chancellor
Mash indicated now in quiet phase of campaign; to be announced publicly in April 2002
·
Important
part of campaign of this type is to generate support close to home first
·
Sorry
if some feeling pressured; no reason to as can chose not to contribute
2. Public
forums for discussion will be held on work/life issues; Jan Morse assigned to organize
discussion.
Other
Items from Senate Executive Committee Meetings
1. Annual
review of frozen files to determine Senate proportions. No need to make changes in number
of University Faculty and University Academic Staff senators because proportions of
university population not changed more than 5% from time Senate structure established.
Increase in size of Senate resulted from Vice Chair term expiration (continues as senator
until term of Vice Chair up) and formation of or expansion to units having four or more
academic staff members now entitled to representation.
2. Fifth
Tuesday in January set aside for open forum. Topic: General Education. Chair Harrison will
work with Chair Lozar to produce a guide with background and current status of topic to be
distributed campus wide prior to discussion.
1. In
light of upcoming Board discussion on Scholarship of Teaching, questions asked: Should
publication be the norm regardless of service, teaching, etc.? Is the understanding of
what it is to be “scholarly” the same for all disciplines? Does knowledge
advance the same in all disciplines? Have we shifted from ‘community’ contact to
‘fund raising’ contact? Research is purported to improve teaching. Has such a
causal link carefully been defined and demonstrated? Discussion: not everyone should be
evaluated on same standard; should evaluate on strengths, have flexible standards. Support
for Scholarship of Teaching must come from the top and supported at the top. What are the
‘yard sticks’ for quality of scholarship, teaching, service, etc.?
2. Discussion
of Campus Climate with Assistant VP for Academic Affairs Tess Arenas – reflecting on
Briefing Paper: Campus Climate as a Factor in Student Retention. Noted that Oshkosh will
be doing a survey on campus climate.
3. System
staff gave an overview of Faculty Retirement Flexibility. Handout “Returning to work
after retirement – Fact Sheet on ETF 10.08, WI Admin. Code” available in Senate
office. Current state rule requires a retiring employee to sever all relationships with
the institution for 30 days in order to be eligible for a pension. Thus, one cannot have
any legal contract in place for returning to work for at least 30 days after retirement.
Federal law does not require this. System staff is working to see if it is possible to
rewrite the state law. The Employee Trust Fund staff also looking at possible changes
– especially in the area of health insurance and the use of sick leave credits. As
for the policy of rehiring faculty as academic staff for lower pay - this would be a
campus policy. Faculty could be rehired as emeriti faculty with no salary constraints says
George Brooks, Assoc. VP of Human Resources. As for the 82% window (related to
administrators’ salary when returning to the classroom must be between the average
salary paid to faculty at similar ranks in the department and 82% of the
administrator’s current salary – the 9 month equivalent of the 12-month salary),
Brooks stated the campus had the ability to approve a smaller salary window. It was also
noted that a wealth of retirement information is on the System Administration website
which was revised within the last 60 days.
4. System
Legal Council Brady reported why it was not wise to rank order candidates before final
hiring. She stated that there are many ways to make intentions concerning candidates known
to the person in charge of hiring. Some reps were adamant that the State Statutes say the
faculty have the primary responsibility for hiring faculty and that deans should not be
given the authority to make decisions of hiring over the faculty decision. [Ex: faculty
select candidate to hire as new faculty member, Dean overrides choice, selects another not
wanted by the faculty.] Reps from campuses that have the main decision in the hands of the
faculty (with consultation with the administrators) suggested other campuses consider
rewriting the personnel rules if this was a problem on their campus.
5. Some
updates from various campuses: Madison working out where and when IAS can vote on faculty
concerns (such as curriculum, selection of department chair, etc.); Stout looking into
possibility of new pay options – every two weeks rather than once a month; LaCrosse
established memorial for Sept. 11th victims and looking at method for
evaluating administrators; Milwaukee discussing local publication of administrator
evaluations – have determined raw data is confidential, but summary is not and should
be available; River Falls passed new constitution combining Faculty and Academic Staff
Senates; Green Bay and Platteville looking at administrator evaluations; Oshkosh working
on ‘salary ladder’ concept; almost all campuses have passed Collective
Bargaining resolution.
6. Reps
met with Regent Boyle to discuss the Teaching – Learning process. One should be
looking at the accountability reports to see if something else can be used to describe
excellence. Boyle stressed the importance of the concept of engagement and the need to
work with faculty to determine how we can better demonstrate that students who have the
‘experience’ come out of the university with something that students who
weren’t engaged don’t have. Some suggested the need to use better terminology to
capture the idea of the learning environment and discovery rather than
“learning/teaching”.
7. Senior
VP Marrett requested topics that Faculty were interested in the Regents reviewing. Please
submit suggestions.
Board
of Regents Meeting, December 6-7, 2001
1. Four
presentations involving all Regents: (1) The Pros and Cons of Cohort Tuition (setting
tuition rates differently for specific groups of students); (2) The Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning; (3) Improving Retention and Graduation; and (4) Tuition Options
Overview.
2. Professor
William Cerbin in his presentation on the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning stated
“Most of us have not been trained to understand how students can understand the
discipline… unless student learning becomes a serious focus of teaching, we will
remain stuck, not prepared for teaching for understanding.”
3. Distinguished
University Professor Vincent Tinto talked about Improving Retention and Graduation.
“Student retention reflects student education. Institutions must focus on student
education … and it is everyone’s business – especially the faculty…
must focus on the first year and those conditions that foster student education in that
year. Increased retention will follow.” The institution must: expect excellence
(raise the bar), ensure preparation, provide academic and social support, provide frequent
and early feedback, and promote involvement.
4. Education
Committee: Discussion of the previous presentations. Referring to Student Retention,
Regent Olivieri suggested several ideas, including using accountability indicators;
presenting an array of choices to the institutions that they might adopt; requiring annual
reports by each campus on its retention goals and whether they are being met. Tinto
responded that student persistence beyond the first year of college is the best indicator
of eventual graduation. Therefore, the biggest investment should be made in the first year
with institutional incentive programs such as grants for institutions to enhance the first
year as they choose and then report back. Faculty and staff development is crucial as
well. Regent Mohs asked how we track high-risk students. Tinto cautioned that we should
think of all our students as at-risk, especially first-year students. Regent Boyle asked
what an ideal faculty development program would look like. Tinto responded that we need to
identify what pedagogy and assessment skills faculty should have, especially given the
lack of teaching training in graduate school.
5. Discussion
on Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. It was noted that there is some great activity in
the development of teaching and learning on campuses, but that resources are limited.
Tinto proposed a Board initiative on “Teaching First-Year Students Well.” Senior
VP Marrett inquired as to the set of attributes necessary for good teaching. Regent
Olivieri suggested that the Board could convey their support of a movement like the
scholarship of teaching and learning to the faculty who are making tenure decisions: that
the scholarship of teaching is to be evaluated and rewarded as traditional research has
always been. A chancellor noted how comfortable universities are with their matrix for
measuring traditional research, but wondered what a similar matrix for teaching might be.
Another advocated faculty be given the resources (such as time) to develop such measures.
6. During
the review of sabbatical leaves for faculty, Regent Olivieri asked if the Board had the
right to ‘favor’ sabbaticals that are focused on the enhancement of teaching or
that support Economic Development. Marrett responded that one can look and see that the
sabbaticals focus on the priorities of the institution and focus on the Regent’s
priorities. Chancellor Wells suggested the idea of a “mini” sabbatical as a way
to expand the program.
7. In
discussion of the Annual Program Planning and Review report, Regent Boyle asked if new
programs were analyzed for their impact on economic development. Assoc. VP Singer
indicated that although new programs are analyzed, established programs have not undergone
such an analysis and that it could be initiated. Regent Boyle asked about the lag time
between authorization for implementation and actual implementation. Marrett responded that
it is usually rather short, but System is considering saying if a campus leaves the
program lie for some time, the authorization will be considered mute.
Information
LINKS
1. Economic
Summit II ( www.wisconsin.edu/summit
)-- Transcripts of President Lyall’s comments (www.uwsa.edu/univ_rel/govrel/lupdate/2001/lyallclosing.doc)
and Regent President Jay Smith’s comments (www.uwsa.edu/univ_rel/govrel/lupdate/2001/smithclosing.doc)
are available as Word documents. Also available is a document that details the commitments
(www.uwsa.edu/univ_rel/govrel/lupdate/2001/uwcommittments.doc
)
the UW system has made to foster economic growth. [Yes – the URL includes a double
“t” in “uwcommittments.doc” ]
Legislative
Update
1. Governor
McCallum ordered state agencies to cut their budgets by 3.5 percent, which is
estimated to save $60 million over the two-year budget cycle. Although UW System
instructional and research programs are exempt, the central administration is not. This
action, in addition to a state hiring freeze and 6.5% agency cuts already in effect, is
part of an effort to limit the projected $1.3 billion budget gap.
2. Assembly
Personal Privacy Committee meeting
was held on Tuesday, December 4, 2001. The committee's agenda included AB 621, an omnibus privacy
bill that creates various prohibitions and restrictions concerning issues of personal
privacy. Prohibits using social security numbers on insurance identification cards;
prohibits prisoners working on data entry from having access to an individual's date of
birth; prohibits person who receives a patient's health care record from using identifying
information in that record to market a service or product; and prohibits telephone
solicitors from using a blocking service. It includes a requirement that UW system
institutions have a written policy on who may enter a locker room to interview any person.
The policy must reflect the privacy interests of the members of the teams representing the
school.
3. Assembly
Labor and Workforce Development Committee
met on Wednesday, December 5, 2001 to discuss AB 498. This bill makes
changes to the contribution rates under the Wisconsin Retirement System.
4. The
Senate Committee on Universities, Housing, and Government Operations will hold a
public hearing on SB 145,
the right to choose collective bargaining bill, along with other bills and appointments on
Wednesday, December 12, 2001, beginning at 10:00 a.m. in room 411 South, State
Capitol, Madison, Wisconsin.
You
may want to contact Senator Zien at Sen.Zien@legis.state.wi.us or call 715-720-2300 to urge him to support the
UW-Eau Claire Senate action regarding the right to choose collective bargaining. Remember
on April 10, 2001 the University Senate of the University of Wisconsin – Eau Claire
passed the following resolution without dissention. (The Bill under discussion during the
last session was 132, the Senate Bill currently under discussion this Session is # 145).
WHEREAS the faculty and academic staff of the University of Wisconsin
System currently do not enjoy, under state statute, the right to engage in collective
bargaining; and
WHEREAS that right is enjoyed by other professional employees of the
State of Wisconsin; and
WHEREAS a bill before the state legislature, known as Senate Bill 132,
would give the faculty and academic staff at the various campuses of the University of
Wisconsin System the right to engage in collective bargaining;
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the University Senate of the University
of Wisconsin - Eau Claire, while it does not endorse or oppose Senate Bill 132, requests
that the Senate and General Assembly of
the State of Wisconsin enact legislation that will grant to the faculty and academic staff
of the campuses of the University of Wisconsin System the right to engage in collective
bargaining; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of this resolution be forwarded to
the Regents and President of the University of Wisconsin System, to the Office of the
Governor of the State of Wisconsin, and to
the members of the Senate and General Assembly of the State of Wisconsin.