Chair’s Report for February 11, 2003
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.
1. Upcoming Budget cuts. Comments included: Would like to see opportunity for faculty and
academic staff to have input on approaching budget cuts in order to preserve
quality; Would also assist staff in bracing for cuts; Would prefer not to wait
to react, but be involved from beginning; Would like to see possibly smaller,
leaner, meaner university, but just as good or better; If faculty and staff knew
up front what might happen if additional cuts, eventual news would not create
panic; Still hope to develop consensus if cuts are deep – will be complicated
process; Would like to plan and act rather than react; Need to put together
program with minimum impact on students; Legislators back on campus on February
17th at invitation of District Nurses Association to discuss health
care issues.
2. Classified Staff concern. Some classified staff concerned supervisors were
alerted by email not only of possible work stoppage job actions, but also asked
to report anything they hear in way of union activity, and advised to deny
vacations during certain times; Chancellor Mash indicated he heard and
appreciated classified staff frustration, but noted campuses were advised by
Madison to send out notice to supervisors; Governor apparently prepared to sign
negotiated contracts with number of state unions; some legislators saying no;
University administration limited in support can give on union matters; must be
worded carefully; Do appreciate and value work of classified staff; Morale
beginning to be affected; memo added to frustration; Showing appreciation for
work no longer sufficient for classified staff falling further and further
behind economically.
Faculty
Reps Meeting, January 31
1. The
Faculty Reps began the meeting discussing the tenure. A subcommittee of reps
presented findings.
Tenure Issues Identified: variation in standards between different
departments on campus; variation in specificity of institutional policies;
standards for tenure changing from when faculty are hired and when they apply
for tenure; criteria are out of date or do not reflect reality; and variation
in review criteria between Department & Provost/Chancellor. Reps began to
discuss the inconsistencies between faculty, division leaders, deans, and
provost criteria. Stout noted that when Personnel Rules were written for that
campus, only the involvement of the faculty member and Chancellor were
mentioned (those specifically mentioned in Chap. 36). If the Chancellor wanted
to designate responsibility to Provost and Dean, he/she had the right to do
so. Legal Council stressed the need for
consistency between annual reviews and the final tenure decision.
Suggestions to Improve
the Tenure Review Process: Institutional process and department
criteria for tenure should be defined; while institutional tenure criteria may
change, for individual probationary tenure track faculty the criteria in place
at the time of hire should apply to their tenure decision; and departments
should review tenure criteria regularly, probably as often as every five years.
Informing the Board
about Tenure: Apparently a major reason for looking at
tenure is the assumption that tenure prevents faculty from accountability.
Explain the several ways that faculty are regularly reviewed. Emphasize the
importance of tenure and peer review on standard criteria for the different
stakeholders. Link tenure to the quality of teaching and student success; to
the quality of research on a wide range of issues of importance to citizens,
businesses and non-profits throughout the state; and to the quality of service
provided to these stakeholders.
2. Other
campuses commented on the benefits of tenure – protecting academic freedom;
sense of respect; ownership; providing an incentive to attain a terminal
degree; something that can be done without adding much cost; and the ability of
committed tenure faculty to enhance the curriculum and programs.
3. Campuses
shared created ways to address the budget cuts. Most campuses have been working
on ways to involve faculty in the discussions. Degree of faculty involvement
varied greatly.
4. George
Brooks from Human Resources shared how the University Insurance mandatory
program was changing underwriters. Current Regent policy identifies this as
condition of employment, but if the premiums jump when the company changes,
this may be reconsidered. Brooks also noted how employees were suffering from
the way DER was negotiating contracts. In addition he stated that no decision
has been made as to when a proposed 03-05 pay plan is going forward. Every
indication shows that the legislature will not look at increases fro
03-05.
5.
The meeting concluded with Institutional
Reports: Stevens Point – Foundation in financial problems, already put
in some GPR dollars to help foundation keep going, Senate voted to not add any
more GPR into the Foundation, Director resigned; working on student evaluations
of faculty. Parkside – trying to incorporate Teacher Education into
other departments. Oshkosh – calendar issues; teaching load (Academic
Staff 5 classes with Master, 4 with PhD, Faculty 3 if productive scholarship). Milwaukee
– Student Association spent $10K for Pick-a-Prof.com, initially faculty had no
access online, are comments are screened and must follow guidelines, not open
to public; holding discussions on tuition proposals, looking at per credit and
differential tuition by Schools; discussing merit process. Colleges –
passes revision of Mission; IAS looking at how the faculty voice has been
diminished; move to creating focused tenure review guidelines, limiting
submissions to one 3” binder and specifying what must be included. LaCrosse
– asking for Provost’s vision, separately from Dean’s; looking at reorganizing
from 4 to 3 schools; talking about grade inflation; finishing strategic plan. Platteville
– closed admissions because increased retention and increase in Business Ed;
assessment; concern for remodeling projects. Green Bay – GE revisions
shot down; Advising committee went into hiding, FYE working group as well; talk
of new budgeting process to include F/AS in process; technology problems. Stout
– budgeting system was highly participatory for all areas, not trying to extend
that process to budget reduction with reps from all areas – deans, chairs,
faculty, staff, classified, students, etc. to come up with guidelines,
discussing what is sheltered as well; working at cutting number of credits from
124 to 120 and cutting number needed for GE; will be creating School of
Education. River Falls – asking what is the criteria for tenure for
administrators when hired on campus; differential tuition; panic on budget;
passed calendar. Whitewater – hope to build new technology building. Superior
– looking at rules for student evaluations in terms of when required.
Board
of Regents Meeting, February 6 & 7
The following is a
brief summary of the Board of Regents meeting. Details can be obtained online
at: http://www.wisconsin.edu/news/2003/
1. Gov. Jim Doyle addressed the Board of Regents,
Thursday (Feb. 6). "This state is
in a very difficult situation. If we don't handle it correctly, it imperils the
University of Wisconsin, and ultimately, the people of this state. If we slash
education, we undermine what makes our state so attractive." …"That's
why education should be our top priority, and it will be as long as I'm
governor," Doyle said. "We must protect it, we must improve upon it
and we must celebrate it." Doyle was very careful not to make the
University any promises during his remarks. He did say that the “process will
be a painful one:, “simply have to do more with less”, “only way to get through
is by shared sacrifice”, and “crucial we understand that we can not get through
this with ‘politics as usual’.”
2. During the regular portion of the Thursday
meeting,
-
Four new Regents
were introduced
-
American Council of Education President David
Ward shared his insights on the Higher Education Reauthorization Act stating as
Congress prepares to reauthorize the spending bill, which provides federal
funding for postsecondary education, his job is to serve as an
"alliance-builder," bringing a unified message to Congress on behalf
of the 3,000 public and private colleges and universities ACE represents. Ward said student financial aid is among the
most important issues Congress will consider in the reauthorization act. The UW
System submitted several recommendations regarding the reauthorization act to
Congress this week, including calls for expanded financial aid, increased
funding for improving teacher quality and additional resources for online
learning.
-
Key findings of the
Accountability Report were shared showing that graduation and
retention rates continue to increase, and that one out of every three Wisconsin
high school graduates immediately enrolls in the UW System, one of the highest
access rates in the nation. Some board members expressed concern about certain
targets in the report where results are mixed, such as the availability of academic
advising and the access gap for students of color. Others said the
campus-specific reports need more uniformity in the data they report,
particularly related to minority students. Prepared by the UW System Office of
Policy Analysis and Research, the report is available online at http://www.uwsa.edu/opar/. This year's
report also contains 15 institution-specific accountability reports, which were
first included last year. [Hard copy of the report is available in the Senate
office.]
-
The Education
Committee discussed three questions: what do the members of
the Education Committee consider the most effective indicators of quality; what
will be the consequences of budget reductions on those measures of quality; and
how can the UW System and the Board of Regents most effectively communicate the
university's quality measures to the public and to political decision-makers?
After a lively discussion by committee members and chancellors, it was
generally agreed that quality definitions are derived from the individual
mission and character of the campuses, and that the variety the UW System
offers is one of its strengths. The regents also discussed measures including
student access to classes, percent of faculty that teach courses and retention
and graduation rates.
-
An Update on the Program Moratorium – Criteria
for Bringing New Programs Forward – was given. “Despite the uncertain state of
the budget and future GPR funding, we indicated planning and implementation of
certain programs should continue. We
identified the following exceptions to the general moratorium.
Programs responsive to a demonstrated critical
state need, e.g. health care, special education, etc.
Programs where delay in implementation would place at risk unique, time
sensitive funding and/or collaboration opportunities.
Programs with a revenue and cost structure that will result in the
enhancement of resources for the institution.
In
each of these cases, the program must of course meet all of requirements for
new academic programs. In addition,
these exceptions by no means signal a change in the scope of our responsibility
to assure a wide array of accessible academic programs that meet the needs of
students and the state. However during
this time of fiscal emergency, our attention must shift to the task of
maintaining quality with less state support, and new program planning must be
narrowly targeted to address immediate compelling needs. Campus program planning liaisons should
consult with our office regarding any program planning contemplated that may
fall within these exceptions to the general moratorium.
-
Business and Finance Committee discussed how to
engage in longer-range planning when evaluating programs and priorities to
manage potential budget cuts. Two chancellors addressed how past budget
reductions have affected hiring instructional staff, loss of matching funds and
differential tuition.
3. During the Friday meeting, President Lyall
address the Board. She outlined cuts that have already been made – reducing GPR
travel by about 50%; restricting printed matter & publications; eliminating
most advertising except for job notices that are legally required and public
events information serving the community; and selective replacement of
vacancies to maintain instructional capacity. She then outlined principles to
which the UW System will adhere as campuses and administrators react to future
cuts over the next biennium:
-
will first look to cut administrative expenses
most removed from serving students, meeting legal requirements and generating
revenues apart from state funding - likely resulting in slower services and
longer wait times for students, parents and legislators
-
will look to eliminate or merge academic
programs and majors with low enrollments or with parallel programs elsewhere
being careful to ensure the same majors are not removed across the system
(certain coursework may be limited to a few campuses; some students may need to
apply out-of-state for highly specialized programs)
-
will support tuition increases that would place
UW campuses close to the midpoint when compared to peer institutions, coupled
with matching need-based financial aid. "State subsidy dollars should be
removed first from those who can afford to pay and last from those least able
to pay,"
-
after steps have been taken to cut
administrative costs, eliminate programs, and move tuition to the midpoint, if
further position/personnel reductions are necessary, may need to review and
adjust enrollment targets to reflect the elimination of additional faculty and
staff from the budget. (Lyall noted that positions and personnel will be lost
as the system looks for cost savings.) "I want to stress that adjusting
our enrollments is the fourth, not the first, step in this process," Lyall
said. "It is driven only by necessary reductions in faculty and staff that
eliminate the ability to provide the sections, labs, and other educational
services that students need to graduate."
Legislative
Update
1. The
Joint Committee on Audit voted this week to forward plans to audit UW System
administrative expenditures. These include an examination of the campus
administration, including the Dean level and below, as well as the UW System
Administration. The intent of the auditor is to visit or obtain information
from each campus.
2. The
Joint Finance Committee will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, Feb. 11, on Gov.
Jim Doyle's bill to reduce state spending in the current fiscal year (FY
2002-03, ending June 30) by $81 million. DOA Secretary Marc Marotta has been
invited to testify at the hearing. Executive action may be taken on the
proposal prior to the next floor session, scheduled for Feb. 19, 2003.
3. Gov.
Doyle will deliver his budget address to a joint session of the Legislature on
Feb.18, 2003. Legislative action on the special session bill could come later
that week.
4. Information
on the Web
UW System Government
Relations Web Site: http://www.uwsa.edu/univ_rel/govrel/index.htm
Wisconsin Legislature
on the Web: http://www.legis.state.wi.us/