Chairs Report for November 28, 2000
1. Important links to
agendas, minutes, Chair's Reports and other sites of interest are available
on the Senate web site: https://wwwlocal.uwec.edu/usenate
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
1. Chair Harrison noted despite discussion of problem at open forum during meeting of this committee last December, and action by administration, course availability remains a major problem during this registration period
· More seats in 100-200 level courses were available at beginning of registration this semester than last spring
· Unfortunately also more freshmen students to register
· As liberal arts institution, pride ourselves of giving students chance to explore various disciplines
· Mostly impossible for freshmen and often sophomores because of limited course availability
· Laundry list presented of required or exploratory courses closed with 465 freshmen yet to register
· Advisers now consider finding courses that count for something (anything) a success; soon will just be trying to find 12 credits to maintain full-time status for students
· Response to issue from committee and guests
· Problem very complex
· Backlog of juniors and seniors unable to get into 100- and 200-level classes as freshman now filling many seats
· Lack of large classroom space due to remodeling in Phillips Hall exacerbates problem
· Structure and complexity of baccalaureate degree, particularly GE requirements, contribute
· Position control does not allow increasing FTE, even if have money in hand
· Difficult to plan
· No pre-registration to gauge need
· Student flexibility to move in and out of classes at will
· No cost to register for many courses when intent is to drop some later
· Classes generally drop to desirable size a few weeks after classes begin
· Some disciplines do try to manage problem by restricting registration either by major or by class status
· Does not improve overall problem
· Does not work in courses out of departmental control
· Influx of people in nursing participating in four-year contract
· Committed to providing classes for them
· Definitely a retention problem
· Students begin looking for different school where can get courses they want
· Taking classes not interested in can also affect GPA
· Some students in third semester on campus cannot get into introductory course in major
· Because of limited FTE flexibility, only solution is internal
· Overloads or increased class size
· Does nothing for quality and motto of excellence
· Although is a problem, seems serving 95% of population well
· Others did not concur with that assessment
· Do not believe evidence anecdotal; most freshmen affected
· Also creates climate of fear in which have to fight for classes
· Very negative impact on educational experience
· Negative word-of-mouth advertising
· Admitting students to university implies availability of resources to take classes
· Many schools able to supply sufficient courses for students
· Part-time hires count as FTE; overloads do not
· Can have money, but if FTE unavailable, cannot hire
· Not always pool of people with PhDs in Eau Claire to hire
· Have to look at baccalaureate degree
· Proud of integrity of our program and quality of education here
· Need to balance against course availability
· Possibility that some of the students should not be here
· Maybe should be helping them to go somewhere with better fit
· What currently seeing not due to change in enrollment targets
· Next year to decrease by 50 freshmen
· Four recently-formed working groups looking at all aspects of problem
1. Certificate Programs
· Does committee see need to put philosophical discussion of certificate programs on future Senate agenda since discussion in Senate cut short?
· Was university-wide discussion prior to becoming Center of Excellence for Student/Faculty Research Collaboration
· Feel discussion now moot point - decision made when passed guidelines for those programs
· University Planning Committee now reviewing mission
· Will eventually come to University Senate
· May help in liberal arts vs. market-driven debate
· Indicates where to use resources
· Extensive APC discussion mirrored on floor of Senate
· Must place trust in departments to define certificates
· Most Senators understood approval of guidelines de facto approved existence of credit-bearing certificate programs on campus
· See these certificates as part of Wisconsin Idea
2. Solicitation on Campus
· Since discussion on issue postponed due to short Senate meeting, does committee wish to bring forward motion on whole concept of university endorsed/sponsored solicitation, or simply see if motion comes forward from floor?
· Lot of constituents talking about this issue
· No real authority to make decision, but can pass resolution to expressing position of University Senate
· Must be very careful of wording if extending position beyond scope of Boy Scouts and discrimination on basis of sexual orientation
· Concern over message sending to community if pull endorsement of umbrella organizations
· Especially at time university looking for community support
· University member of greater community; constantly raising funds
· PR problem would be unfortunate
· Believe United Way will change for next year regardless of what done here
· Believe university and Senate have more significant issues to deal with at this time
· Individuals on campus feeling strongly can fight own battles - not pledge to United Way or contact United Way personally with objections
· Still interesting that this issue struck chord and generated response on campus
· Feel important as educational community that university take leadership role on discrimination issue
· Vice Chancellor Soll indicated level of giving at university this year
· Up slightly in dollar amount
· Down slightly in number of individuals
· Neither campaign nor data complete
· United Way appropriations not yet made for next year
· Members of United Way Board of Directors visit local agencies and recommend allocations in June
Items discussed with the Senate Chair
1. Student Senate Resolution 44-R-20 in support of Creating a Campus Media Advisory Committee to enhance, enrich, promote, and maintain student opportunities through campus media.
2. Student Senate Resolution 44-R-23 in support of Service in the U.S. Armed Forces and Civilian Services Corps meeting the Service Learning Requirement. DEFEATED 12 aye 16 nay 1 abstain after 75 minutes of debate. Discussion:
§ Should not set a double standard by allowing one particular group to automatically count experiences as SL while others with experiences prior to University life cannot count their experiences. Vets can already go to an advisor and process a waiver.
§ Need to consider carefully why certain individuals get exemption. Almost everyone can come up with 30 hours of experience meeting the criteria before coming to the university.
§ Is the Armed Service experience any more valid than experiences of others here at the U? No. Believe everyone should have some SL experiences while here at the U. Encourage people not to support this resolution feel better ways to address this.
§ Are already allowing groups besides military groups to get SL credit already. There are channels already for vets to use but must submit the paperwork while at U.
§ Here we are asking to allow past and present groups to be allowed to receive SL recognition without possibility of their request for experience to count as SL being turned down.
§ When talking SL, we are talking about help to the community feel they [the vets] have already done this. If opposed this is just adding another 30 hours on.
§ Is a specific problem being addressed? Yes, the students need to take a stand before it goes to the Univ. Senate.
§ What does this solve? Would eliminate the inconvenience and paperwork for students who have served.
§ Agree military service is admirable, but dont think system should be streamlined just for certain groups doing SL through a particular method. Doesnt address problem of SL as a whole.
§ SL is not required at most public Universities. As a public U, we should stand behind our public servants.
§ Really dont agree with SL. Think it is a forced internship. Can obtain college credit for courses in high school, why cant people go to the military and get college credit for something they have done.
§ On what criteria are we basing the distinction of military and national organization vs. local organization? See piece of legislation trying to repair something - like putting a band-aid over a major wound.
§ Maybe want to restructure SL as a whole! Try to create a policy consistent with itself rather than using a band-aid to fix a problem.
§ This legislation is discriminatory because disabled students cannot take part in military service nor can lesbian, gays, and bisexuals openly serve in the military. Unwise to have an opportunity for only some.
§ Request for definition of service organization no one could provide definition.
§ It is clear that persons taking part in these military service options have put in great thought about serving not done on a whim.
§ Service in the armed forces is tremendous. Problem is with experience being before college.
§ If I spent two years working at a soup kitchen prior to University work, why should I be required to fill out paperwork to have my experiences validated while those in military service are just granted SL credit without validation required? To me that is discriminatory. If we are going to do this, we need clear cut guidelines. If this passes at the University Senate and is implemented, I think it is discriminatory.
§ Dont feel that this legislation says that military experience is any better, it just makes it easier [to get SL credit] with this legislation.
§ In another U, I could get 4 credits for Kinesiology for vet experience. Dont see where the vets ask for very much not a big deal. These guys have given much for their country. Other universities have given lee ways to the vets. We dont do that here. How many of you are on 24/7 duty and have been called away at a moments notice? I have. It never ends with military service can be called away to age 35. Many universities recognize the military and give the guys a benefit. People here are trying to read more into this legislation than there really is. Feel the vets should be given the benefit.
§ The big deal is we are establishing a two-tier system. In terms of breaks, etc. we do give breaks [for Physical Activity credit] for those having served 6 months. Also members of the military are compensated and have access to financial aid packages while here.
§ We have a choice we can pass this and then next week we will hear from a plethora of individuals who have had other prior experiences.
§ We are looking at legislation that says we support nationally recognized service organizations but we cant define them!
§ We need to address the problem. We need to get active and address the issue [of SL] as a whole.
§ We are debating policy within service learning, not the merits of service learning.
§ This resolution would not affect people currently in the armed forces.
§ Everyone regardless of who they are can do 30 hours in 4 years. That is only 8 hours per year.
§ Students who have done this prior to enrollment can petition to have it count.
§ This resolution allows the Director or SL to decide what is SL. Feel the Director can also decide what are service organizations. This allows military service to be pre-determined as service learning.
§ Key issue is the time spent during the university experience. Many have done a lot in high school. We grow continually. Issue is that one should do SL while at the University and relate it to the knowledge gained while at the U.
§ Completely respect work by military, but this is a two-tier system. This discriminates by saying certain people will have met SL while others must do something different.
§ What is service? Dont know everything done in Peace Corp, etc. not everyone knows everything that is involved.
§ If we pass this we are giving University Senate and the administration a vague idea of what service is we are looking at a very vague concept of what a nationally recognized service corp is. Frightening that we are giving the reins over to administration and University Senate to decide for us.
§ Not saying military cant get credit for it, just say must go through same paperwork process as everyone else.
§ This legislation is not discriminatory LGBT can use civil service corps.
§ We are not waiving paperwork we are just expediting it. We are making the decision saying the office of SL will not have the opportunity to turn a request down from the military. We are saying the work will be accepted. Has been said will be open to the interpretation of the SL director all our requests now are open to the Directors interpretation [of the published SL guidelines].
§ In response to giving breaks is not a value judgment whether or not they deserve it, but if they fulfilled the requirements. We give AP credit for HS work analogous to using armed service credit for Kins.
§ Director of SL has stated that all individuals making requests to have military service be accepted have been approved.
§ Why are Americorps and Peace Corps included as examples in the legislation when both require a college degree for participation? To allow this legislation to be consistent with that coming before the Univ. Senate.
§ See real reason for this legislation is to expedite the system for a minority of students. Should develop legislation to benefit majority of students, not a minority.
§ We have had specific questions about definitions in the language of this legislation, but cannot answer them.
§ This gives too much control to administration.
§ Problem of SL is a lot bigger than this. This legislation with undefined terms muddles the water.
§ I think if this legislation helps any students it is good.
§ Cant be that much paperwork involved.
§ Important we are here to help all students minority or majority.