Senate Approved Minutes by alicejenny

VIEWS: 7 PAGES: 96

									                                         TABLE OF CONTENTS

Minutes of Library Task Force Final Report Listening Session......................................................3

Minutes of UW Colleges Senate Meeting………………………….………..............……………6

Minutes of UW Colleges Faculty Council of Senators Meeting………………..........…….……18

Minutes of UW Colleges Academic Staff Council of Senators Meeting ……….............…..…..22

Attachment 1: UW Colleges Senate Schedule and Agenda…………………………………24-26
              UW Colleges Faculty Council of Senators Meeting Agenda …………………..27
              UW Colleges Academic Staff Council of Senators Meeting Agenda………......28

Attachment 2: UW Colleges Provost & Vice Chancellor Report………………………………29

Attachment 3: UW Colleges Interim Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs Report..35

Attachment 4: UW Colleges Interim Associate Vice Chancellor for Student Services and
              Enrollment Management Report………………………..………………….……37

Attachment 5: Senate Steering Committee Chair/UW Colleges Faculty Representative
              to UW System Administration Report…………………………………………...40

Attachment 6: UW Colleges Academic Staff Lead Senator Report………….…...…………….43

Attachment 7: UW Colleges Academic Staff Representative to UW System Administration
              Report………………………………………………………….……………..…..46

Attachment 8: UW Colleges Student Governance Council Report……………………………..48

Attachment 9: UW Colleges Senate Academic Policy Committee Chair Report…………….…49

Attachment 10: UW Colleges Senate Budget Committee Chair Report……………..………….51

Attachment 11: UW Colleges Senate Professional Standards Committee Chair Report……..…54

Attachment 12: UW Colleges Senate Assessment Committee Chair Report.......………………56

Attachment 13: Adoption: Proposed Revision of UW Colleges Senate Bylaws 5.9 (“Annual
               Elections”)………………………………………….…………………………...58

Attachment 14: Adoption: Proposed Revision of UW Colleges Senate Bylaws (“Senate
               Meeting Procedures”)…….……………………………......…………………..59
Attachment 15: Adoption: Proposed Revision of IP #202 (“Academic Procedures and
               Regulations”)………………………………………………………………..…60

Attachment 16: Adoption: Proposed Revision of IP #301.01 (“Administering the Student
               Survey of Instruction”)………..………………………………………………..62

Attachment 17: Proposed Amendment to Adoption of IP #301.01 (“Administering the Student
               Survey of Instruction”)………..………………………………………………..65

Attachment 18: Proposed Changes to IP #301.01 (“Administering the Student Survey of
               Instruction”) …………………………………………..………………………..67

Attachment 19: Introduction: Proposed Revision of IP #202 (“Academic Procedures and
               Regulations”)………………………………………………………………..…69

Attachment 20: Introduction: Proposed Revision of IP #301 (“Activity Report”)……………..71

Attachment 21: Introduction: Proposed New Institutional Policy (“Interim Policy from SSC—
               Office Hours”)………………………………………………………………….72

Attachment 22: Introduction: Proposed Revision of IP #322 (“Instructional Academic Staff
               Promotion Policy (Category B)”)………………………………………………73

Attachment 23: Introduction: Proposed Revision of IP #405 (“Senate Procedures”)…………..75

Attachment 24: Introduction: Proposed Revision of UW Colleges Senate Bylaws 5.0 (“Annual
               Elections”)………………………………………………………………………77

Attachment 25: Introduction: Proposed Revision of FPP #505 (“Process for Appointment and
               Evaluation of Chairs”)………………………………………………………….79

Attachment 26: Introduction: Proposed Revision of FPP #503 (“Faculty Merit Policy and
               Procedures”)……………………………………………………………………83

Attachment 27: Materials to Supplement Differential Salaries Task Force Report
               Discussion…...........................................................................................………87




                                                            2
                     Library Task Force Final Report: Listening Session
                                     October 23, 2009
                                      UW-Fox Valley
                                   1:05 p.m. – 1:55 p.m.

                                             Minutes

Chancellor Wilson welcomed everyone and thanked Senate Steering Committee Chair Paul Price
for placing the listening session for the Library Task Force’s final report on the schedule. He
reported that a number of listening sessions on the final report had been held across the Colleges,
and a number of resolutions had been sent to him on the topic. Listening sessions had been held
with the campus deans/CEOs, with academic department chairs, with the librarians, with this
group today, and the Chancellor added that he was working on scheduling a WisLine to gather
input from student leaders, as well. The session would first cover the process that was followed
and then the options that were put forth, said Chancellor Wilson.

Senator Dunn questioned where the $500,000 target amount came from. Chancellor Wilson
gave a brief history of the structural deficit that the Colleges have been operating under for a
number of years. He spoke of meeting with Vice Chancellor for Administrative and Financial
Services Steve Wildeck and the need to be out of that hole. The Budget Planning Work Group
was formed and eventually presented recommendations to Chancellor Wilson: Central Offices
would face a $190,000 cut towards the $1.6 million deficit; increasing course maxima would cut
$220,000 from the base; cuts to business services would eliminate $250,000; and reductions in
the library would save $500,000. Chancellor Wilson added that for the business services and
library pieces, he formed task forces so he was more informed before any changes on those
recommendations were implemented. Vice Chancellor Wildeck continued, adding that of the
$1.6 base reduction requirement, $700,000 came out of instruction. Wildeck further explained
that the Budget Planning Work Group looked at many different kinds of data; it was immediately
apparent that the bulk of the money in libraries is in the staffing. “We looked at staffing
configurations, we looked at staffing models at other institutions and other states and comparable
institutions; we considered what might be possible....We looked at how the various options
worked, and then assessed prices...the various configurations ranged in cost reduction from
$300,000 to over $800,000. So the task force looked at that array of options and came to
somewhat of an informed estimate as to what might be a reasonable level of reduction...the
$500,000.”

Senator Murray asked why there hadn’t been a task force for the instructional cuts. Chancellor
Wilson replied that Provost Lampe had started a dialogue through the Senate Steering
Committee since there was not another Senate meeting scheduled for the year. Provost and Vice
Chancellor Lampe continued, saying that the Steering Committee had met and discussed the item
several times and had taken it to their constituents. Their decision-making had even been
delayed to give them more time discussing raising course maxima with their constituents. The
Senate Steering Committee had endorsed the matter on behalf of the Senate. Senate Steering
Committee member Gillard added that Steering had had some review steps included with raising
course maxima to measure impact on retention, for example. Provost Lampe reiterated that the
increase in maxima is permanent.

                                                3
Chancellor Wilson called for comments around Option 1 of the Library Task Force. This option
“is where basically the librarians would go to a ten month appointment...an eighty-three percent
appointment...work full-time for eight months and then for four months they would work fifty
percent of the time,” he summarized. Senator Foy stated that one reason he has heard that there
is so much support for this option is that it is a known factor. The option “does not close off the
potential for transformative change in the long run,” Foy said. Senator Zorea declared, “Our
campus in particular is extremely concerned about losing a face in our local community. Not
only for local programming, but for the emphasis on local access. So if we had a regional
director or one of the other options where the library director is not in our community...then not
only will our faculty be losing something, not only will our students be losing that contact, but
our community will be losing one of their regular interfaces with our campus in the form of these
community programs. We are very strongly opposed to any measure that would undermine that
local priority.”

When asked if there was any opposition to Option 1 being heard, Senator Price answered that
there was a fear that if you place librarians on this “permanent furlough,” and “lock them in at a
lower position, [you] make it difficult to hire people in the future for a position that is designed
as a percentage of itself. You don’t really create a way to go forward to transform the library.”

Deans’ Representative Pillard said that she did not want silence from her campus interpreted as
support. However, she thinks her campus sees Option 1 “as the lesser of the evils.” Lead
Academic Staff Senator Krupnow agreed, saying that the opinion of academic staff who have
spoken to him about the matter have stated the same—“they wish that none of them had to
happen, but if something has to happen, then Option 1 is the one that is likely to cause the least
damage.”

Chancellor Wilson asked that if he were to implement Option 1, “What is your sense of what the
students would not get that they are now getting—particularly in terms of the way this option
would be implemented—that you have 50% capacity during the less peak periods on campus?
What would students not get that they are getting now in that model?” Senator Krupnow replied
that Option 1 is generally seen as having the least impact on students. Senator Zorea answered
that the Richland campus is already bare bones, and so reducing to 80% would be very traumatic.
They did not like any of the choices, but of the four options, they thought it to be the best. Dean
Pillard said that she would have to reduce the hours the library was open in the summer and
possibly during the school year in order to avoid student-only staffing.

With the record student enrollment this year, there are additional funds available to the Colleges
because of that increase. One option Chancellor Wilson is thinking about is returning some of
those funds to the campuses. If he were to do so, they would be able to use the monies as they
wished, including perhaps something in support of the libraries. Senator Zorea said that giving
some of the decision-making ability back to the campuses made the idea more palatable.
Director of Human Relations Pamela Dollard asked if the campuses would be able to hire the
library director back with the funds if one of the other options were chosen, but the Chancellor
said that there were not enough funds to spread that far.



                                                  4
Senator Hein pointed out that one of the things his collegium discussed was the “full resolution
the UW-Sheboygan campus passed. And the reason we chose a much shorter version to express
general support of Option 1 and not the full resolution, was the fact that the full resolution called
for a reduction in the $500,000 target. Our collegium felt very strongly that if we were going to
look at reducing any give back, that we need to weigh that at an institutional level and not look
just at library, but also look at instruction and all other strategic priorities that we have as an
institution....what you expressed right now would attempt to do that at a localized level.”

The Chancellor asked next if there was any support for Option 3 or for Option 4. Senator James-
Byrnes replied, “The faculty that responded to our discussion overwhelmingly supported number
3, basically because we don’t have people in the positions. We feel that of the change, Option 3
would best serve UW-Barron County. And of course, we chose 3a so the director would be on
our campus.... Of the people who didn’t support any of those, they highly supported Option 1c.
But overwhelmingly our faculty supported number 3.”

Senator Dunn expressed that there was concern that it had not been made clear why
transformational change was necessary. He said that he thought it would be helpful if we
understood the necessity. Before responding to the comment, Chancellor Wilson first thanked
Provost Lampe for dealing with this very difficult task and handling it in such a transparent
manner. Not charging the committee with the transformation piece initially and primarily was
his mistake, said Chancellor Wilson. He also wished that there had been more time for a longer
and more thorough study. Ideally, Chancellor Wilson may have started with “some general
questions, questions such as: Where are libraries going? How are the services that we are
providing on our campuses being delivered in light of where libraries are going or have
gone?...How do we put in place the appropriate kind of vehicle to basically be in the forefront of
that particular transformation?” The Chancellor said he did not give that charge because there
was not time to do so. Senator Steffen offered that the transformational component could be
given its own more detailed and thoughtful discussion at a later time and place. Chancellor
Wilson replied that he plans to make a decision on the Library Task Force options by November
15. Chancellor Wilson stated, “We’ll continue that dialogue around change and transformation
because I think that is our future.” After reiterating that he would have a decision on library
options by November 15, the Chancellor drew the listening session to a close.




                                                  5
                                      UW COLLEGES
                                         Senate
                                    Friday, October 23, 2009
                                         UW-Fox Valley
                                      2:00 p.m. – 3:45 p.m.

                                           MINUTES

2009-2010 Senators Present: Bobbie Boettcher and Dale Murray, UW-Baraboo/Sauk County;
      Christa James-Byrnes, UW-Barron; Michael Jurmu and Jackie Morgan, UW-Fond du
      Lac; Bill Gillard, Rex Hieser, Richard Krupnow and George Waller, UW-Fox Valley;
      Rick Hein, UW-Manitowoc; Scott Sargent, Aaron Steffen and Paul Whitaker, UW-
      Marathon County; Jennifer Hass and Mark Klemp, UW-Marinette; Jeff Kleiman, UW-
      Marshfield/Wood County; George Henze and Aharon Zorea, UW-Richland; Gene Biby,
      UW-Rock County; Paul Price, UW-Washington County; Tim Dunn and Joe Foy, UW-
      Waukesha; Jeff Heise, Acting SGC Vice President

2009-2010 Senators Absent: Dana Atwood-Harvey and Becky Mullane, UW-Sheboygan; Cheri
      Campbell, UW-Waukesha; Rhys Kuzdas, Acting SGC President

Others Present: Pamela Dollard, Human Resources Director for UW Colleges; Jeff Ellair, UW-
      Sheboygan Library Director; Kitty Kingston, Department Chairs’ Representative; Cary
      Komoto, Interim Director of Distance Education; Greg Lampe, Provost and Vice
      Chancellor; Diane Pillard, Deans’ Representative; Lisa Seale, Interim Associate Vice
      Chancellor for Academic Affairs; Steve Wildeck, Vice Chancellor for Administrative and
      Financial Services for UW Colleges and UW-Extension; David Wilson, Chancellor;
      Patti Wise, Interim Associate Vice Chancellor for Student Services and Enrollment
      Management; Linda Baum, Assistant to the Senate

1) The October 23, 2009 UW Colleges Senate meeting was called to order at 2:05 p.m. by
   Provost and Vice Chancellor Greg Lampe.

2) UW-Fox Valley Dean Jim Perry greeted those in attendance. While the work of the Senate
   may sometimes look pedantic, he said, it is actually institutional business and it is necessary
   to the process of change. The senators are a part of that process, and Dean Perry urged them
   to go forward and do good work.

3) Roll Call of 2009-2010 Senate and Introduction of Alternates. Since it was the first meeting
   of the academic year, all those present introduced themselves to the assembly. Linda Baum,
   Assistant to the Senate, circulated the roll sheet.

4) The agenda (Attachment 1) for the October 23, 2009 UWC Senate meeting was approved
   unanimously and without change [Zorea/Gillard].

5) The minutes of the last Senate meeting held April 24, 2009 at UW-Washington County
   (which may be found posted in Public Folders>All Public Folders>Governance>Senate>
   Senate Minutes>Historical>2008-2009) were unanimously approved [Zorea/Krupnow].
                                                6
6) Reports

   a) Chancellor David Wilson took a moment to speak somberly of the death of a student at
      UW-Richland. Chancellor Wilson stated that he had contacted the parents of the student
      and extended to them, on behalf of the entire institution, prayers and thoughts at this time.
      He also said that the thoughts of the Colleges went out to colleagues at that campus.

      Going on with his report, Chancellor Wilson first spoke of what he stated to be one of his
      top priorities over the next two years—poor salaries. The Chancellor stated that at the
      UW System level, a case has been made over the last several biennium “of the need for
      the state to invest more in a competitive compensation package for faculty and staff.”
      Several months ago, the Board of Regents had approved a pay increase of 5.76% a year;
      however, the legislature, Chancellor Wilson related, generally approves much less (0 – 2
      %). The System chancellors and President Reilly have started discussing better methods
      of making the case for increased salaries. President Reilly is planning to engage former
      UW-Green Bay Interim Chancellor David Ward to “help us conduct a study on what we
      think the state of Wisconsin should be doing to invest more heavily in our faculty and
      staff if, indeed, the faculty and staff on our twenty-six campuses and our state-wide UW-
      Extension are going to be the ones to lead this state in terms of innovation for the next
      biennium.” The hope is to have David Ward lead a discussion centering on workforce
      development and competitiveness in order to gather support, including that of the private
      sector, around the piece and move that support into the capitol. The Colleges are looking
      at opportunities for investments in salaries primarily for faculty shared Chancellor
      Wilson. He spoke of the salary compression issue and reported that a committee would
      be appointed to help think through that issue. “Administratively, we’re going to be
      looking at what types of resources we might have available of a recurring nature, where
      when this group comes back with some kind of recommendation of how we should
      approach this, we would have done our legwork and basically come forward with some
      resources that we can choose to tackle the problem,” said Chancellor Wilson.

      The Chancellor next updated the Senate on several searches that are underway. The
      search for a dean at UW-Fond du Lac is moving forward. The search and screen
      committee for a dean at UW-Richland will be charged in two weeks; similarly,
      Chancellor Wilson put out the call for nominations for the search and screen committee
      for UW-Marshfield’s dean just before the Senate meeting. Interviews for the Chief
      Diversity Officer will be held the first week of November. Chancellor Wilson
      encouraged everyone to listen in and provide feedback on the candidates.

      The State Council on Affirmative Action and the Office of State Employment Relations
      has announced that the UW Colleges and UW-Extension is the recipient of the 2009 Ann
      Lydecker Educational Diversity Award. The state, Chancellor Wilson declared, is
      recognizing the Multicultural Awareness Program. There are about three thousand
      faculty and staff within the two institutions, and over one thousand of them have
      voluntarily taken the two-day training session.



                                                7
The UW Colleges has the largest enrollment in the history of the Colleges, at 13,807
students. Chancellor Wilson thanked everyone in attendance and back on the campuses
for their hard work in reaching that number; the goal now, he avowed, is to have 15,000
students by July 1, 2011. At a chancellors’ retreat meeting in August, a report detailed
that high school graduation numbers are dropping every year—from 69,000 last year, to
just 55,000 projected eight years from now. The Chancellor feels the Colleges must
aggressively go after those students because the comprehensives certainly will. He also
urged “a respectful, honest dialogue” on the campuses around the different initiatives that
have not met with a great deal of endorsement by the faculty. The future is tied to three
different camps, Chancellor Wilson said. The first is the traditional camp, the second is
the non-traditional camp, and the third camp is one in which the instruction is taken to the
student—all three camps are going to be very important to the aggressive stance the
Colleges must make to step up and meet that 15,000 student goal.

Another reason for wanting to at least sustain the enrollment at the point where it is, is to
show the UW System that the enrollment increase is indeed a trend. This would cause
the additional tuition money to be moved into the Colleges base budget. Right now the
money that must be thought of as one-time funds; it could be anywhere from 1.5 to 3
million dollars, but must be used in a strictly one-time manner. Chancellor Wilson
stressed that the money cannot be used for salaries. There are three options for the
money that Chancellor Wilson is currently debating: return some of the money to the
campuses to use for local decisions; make additional monies available for professional
development; build a financial cushion at the institutional level similar to what Extension
has in place. At this point Chancellor Wilson called for questions on his report.

Senator Zorea asked if there was still opposition to the proposed BAAS. Chancellor
Wilson replied that the Colleges is looking at a new way to bring the BAAS forward.
The current idea is to pilot the degree program on four or five campuses, campuses that
are well away from those that will continue to refuse support of the degree.

Senator Klemp wondered if there had been any discussion at System level of
compensation packages beyond salary, specifically of tuition reimbursement for families.
The Chancellor answered that though the issue has occasionally come up, there has not
been any formal study of it.

Lead Academic Staff Senator Krupnow commented that as he had stated earlier during
the joint meeting of the Senate Steering and Budget Committees, he has “concern with
the concentration on faculty salaries. I agree that our faculty are underpaid, but so are our
academic staff.” Krupnow referenced a scheduled pay raise that had been taken away
from instructional academic staff (he mentioned that he could not remember if it was for
IAS alone or for all academic staff) and used for faculty instead. “No institution can do
everything at once, but please keep in mind that academic staff also are severely under
paid in Colleges compared to our colleagues across the state.” Chancellor Wilson
responded that he and the other chancellors are “acutely aware” of the problem, but the
thinking of the UW System varies greatly from that of the State. The UW System
budget for 09-11 had some excess tuition revenue that was going to enable an additional

                                          8
   salary increase of 1.5 to 2% in addition to the slotted 2-2-1 salary increase. However,
   when it got to the Governor, he said the money could only be distributed to tenure and
   tenure-track faculty; then the economy fell apart and the plan was lost entirely. The State
   has titles, about 400 titles within the UW System, of academic staff whom they believe
   do similar work as those who have positions at, for example, the Department of
   Transportation. Chancellor Wilson and System feel that serious work has to be done to
   correct that assumption.

b) Provost and Vice Chancellor Greg Lampe called attention to his written report in the
   Senate materials (Attachment 2). The first item Provost Lampe updated the Senate on
   was his work on the UW Colleges/UW-Extension Pandemic Task Force. Lampe spoke
   of how Chancellor Wilson had put the task force in place to work on a response plan for
   UW Colleges and UW-Extension Madison-based operations, and of how the group has
   evolved into a decision making body. The task force is in the process of developing a full
   plan and has tested it in a table top exercise. The plan has been modified to address the
   gaps that were found because of that exercise. Provost Lampe said that the task force is
   developing mechanisms for reporting H1N1 flu-related absences for employees and
   students, refining the roles of each of the Madison-based administrative offices and
   coordinating efforts, and building a comprehensive communication plan. Provost and
   Vice Chancellor Lampe stressed, “We’re preparing for the worst case scenario and
   hoping that it never happens.” He went on to say, “We can plan, we can manage our
   response, but we have no control over the spread of H1N1. If it spreads, we simply have
   to have mechanisms in place to cope with that as best we can and be prepared at both the
   Colleges administrative offices and locally at the campus level.” Lampe concluded this
   topic by saying that the “Central Administration is responsible for reporting to UW
   System, the Emergency Response Team on the UW-Madison campus, and also to the
   Chancellor on a weekly basis the status of our campuses.”

   The BAAS was the next topic that Provost Lampe updated the Senate on. He reported
   having a conversation with the Higher Learning Commission (HLC) detailing what was
   needed if the Colleges offer the program on several of the campuses. An authorization
   from the HLC would still be necessary. The Colleges would also still need to file for a
   mission change because the bachelor’s degree is beyond the scope of the current Colleges
   mission.

   The UW Online steering committee is meeting weekly, Provost Lampe announced, to
   advance this particular initiative. The web portal will be in place in early January and the
   academic online programs offered by UW System institutions will be listed. A full roll
   out should occur in mid-March. The Hiebing Group has been secured to help identify the
   brand and brand name (UW Online, Wisconsin Online), and how that brand should be
   marketed.

   The emphases were Provost Lampe’s final reporting point. On October 10, Lampe asked
   the academic department chairs to revisit their discipline-specific emphases because of
   the twenty-one approved emphases, only eight can be offered on every UWC campus
   “which is really not acceptable in terms of access.” Provost Lampe related that he asked

                                            9
the department chairs “how they might adjust those emphases so they can be offered on a
majority of our campuses.” He went on to say, “at UW-Fox Valley, where we piloted the
emphases this semester very heavily in terms of marketing, but also in terms of advising,
we’ve had incredible success. Students have been very excited about the programming,
and so we need to make the emphases more accessible to students across the Colleges.”

Senator Zorea raised a question brought to him by his campus’ student services. He said
that “there seems to have been in the way it was written [about in the catalog] a door
open to get an emphasis without the degree.” That idea had caused quite a bit of
opposition as that had not been what was originally discussed. Patti Wise, Interim
Associate Vice Chancellor for Student Services and Enrollment Management, replied that
“people anticipated that it was an enhancement to the associates degree, that this was a
way that we could build on it, use it for retention and recruitment, and that it expanded
the point of what we wanted that degree to focus on, so it is an area of concentration….
However, as it was specifically put in the catalog, it came through that you could get it
independently…because it was a parallel to our certificate program. You can get a
certificate without getting an associate degree, and so the door was left open for a student
who came to us, say they finished three semesters and got everything for an
emphasis…they could leave the Colleges and have that on their transcript. So that is
where we have the loophole.” Wise added that the issue has been sent back to the Senate
Academic Policy Committee (SAPC) to determine whether they want to close that gap.
Zorea agreed with that action, saying that the item would certainly have to go through the
Senate. Senator Jurmu, Chair of SAPC, related that the committee had discussed the item
briefly earlier in the day, and if the emphasis without a degree is to continue, it must be
introduced and made part of policy.

Senator Gillard raised a question about the pandemic reporting, wondering if there had
been thought to having Central handle all of the reporting instead of the campuses.
Provost Lampe replied that many reporting structures had been discussed, but local
reporting was decided on to prevent Central from being flooded with hundreds of reports.
Gillard further wondered if there was any support from Central (student workers, work-
study) to assist campuses in these reporting efforts, and Lampe replied that would be
something they could do locally. Vice Chancellor for Administrative and Financial
Services Steve Wildeck added that Central would like to hear from the campus deans if
they collectively believe that this is a real issue with quantifiable administrative costs,
and that these costs place an undue burden on them. Vice Chancellor Wildeck also said
that the reporting has to be done. “State government needs to have its finger on the pulse
of its own operations to monitor when they get to the point where they’re no longer
effectively able to function, where the University is unable to function….the Secretary of
Administration expects the System President to know at what level the System is in terms
of its absentee rates…the System President in turn expects the chancellors to know.
There really is no good way to keep our finger on the pulse of that without collecting data
weekly from campuses to enable us to monitor this.” Senator Henze asked about the
categories of reporting, and Provost Lampe answered that there is a broad category of
flulike related illness or absence. That category is meant to cover if the person is sick, or
the person stayed home to care for someone who is sick, or needs to stay home in the

                                         10
   event of a school closing. Deans’ Representative Pillard spoke to the lack of validity in
   the reporting, speaking of inflated numbers when multiple instructors all report the same
   students absent. Provost Lampe replied that UW-Madison has a fudge factor, and UW-
   Manitowoc has developed a formula to try to make the reporting more valid as well.
   Pillard replied that UW-Rock County is also developing a formula. Provost Lampe
   continued that getting a snapshot, a sense of how the institution is being impacted, is
   more important than completely accurate numbers. The task force will continue to work
   on refining the reporting process.

c) Interim Associate Vice Chancellor Lisa Seale directed attention to her report in the
   materials supplied to the Senate (Attachment 3). The first item of her report, she stated,
   was follow up to the UW Colleges Campus Climate Study (which can be found online).
   Seale stated that the campus teams and the institution-wide groups had identified items
   “that can concretely affect climate issues in a more positive way over the coming year.”
   Having more people take part in the Multicultural Awareness Training Program,
   mentioned earlier by Chancellor Wilson, was the most commonly recommended action
   item by the teams. Other common action items included initiating a Safe Spaces program
   on campuses, increasing the training for search and screen committees “ultimately to try
   to improve our retention and promotion of a more diverse faculty and staff,” and
   improving the reporting and handling of any issues related to campus climate, including a
   reviewing of related campus policy. Ron Gulotta continues to chair the UW Colleges
   Diversity Leadership Committee, so Seale urges those with questions or wishing further
   information to contact him.

   Seale then spoke of the UW Colleges and their new Inclusive Excellence initiative. The
   UW System adopted this initiative from one put forth by the American Association of
   Colleges and Universities (AAC&U). Inclusive Excellence is the “next step of the multi-
   year diversity and inclusive initiative of the UW System.” Interim Associate Vice
   Chancellor Seale stated that the UW System has been in the national forefront of looking
   at diversity and inclusiveness issues, and has now charged each chancellor with bringing
   this initiative forward in their institution. This particular initiative brings “the diversity
   and inclusiveness work away from the fringes of the institution, away from certain
   diversity offices or multicultural clubs, and into the core of the institution, looking at
   diversity as something that affects each and every one of us and what brings value to our
   work...everybody is benefitted by more diversity and a bigger understanding of
   diversity.” Seale concluded her report by saying that they are in the beginning stages of
   forming a steering committee to look at how the concept of Inclusive Excellence can be
   adapted into the way priorities are set, day-to-day operations, and the way the Colleges
   thinks about diversity and inclusiveness.

d) Interim Associate Vice Chancellor Patti Wise (Attachment 4) pointed out the location of
   her written report in the Senate materials. Wise stated that she had summarized
   highlights from the offices that she oversees: student financial aid, the
   admissions/registrar’s office, university relations and marketing, student accessibility
   services, and the new veteran’s services. She went on to report that Provost Lampe had
   asked her to convene a task force to study the schedule of sessions. Previously, Wise

                                             11
   said, faculty would request a session and it would be added to the schedule, a practice
   that caused “ramifications for student financial aid, for the registrar’s office getting them
   in PRISM... [and was causing] a lot of problems at the Central Office in order to
   accommodate primarily state and federal regulations.” The task force developed a
   standardized sessions schedule for spring and fall, so now classes must fit into one of the
   scheduled sessions. Interim Associate Vice Chancellor Wise handed out a sheet showing
   the possible summer sessions schedule. A second sessions task force has now begun
   working with the goal of looking at innovation and creativity in creating sessions in order
   to be responsive to constituents (a business creating a short course) and different target
   populations of students (fast track course or a CE for credit course). Deans’ Rep Pillard
   expressed concern over the proposed summer sessions schedule because students on her
   campus traditionally take the three-week session followed by the eight-week session, and
   it would require doubling-up with this schedule. She suggested that the summer session
   last longer instead. Interim Associate Vice Chancellor Wise replied that the task force
   had looked into that, “and the competing issues are really the end of the summer session
   and getting grades into the registrar’s office, and getting them turned around so they get
   out to students so they get their transcripts before fall. So in order to accommodate
   expanding and going into the first week of August, it will mean that the summer session
   has to be pushed back and will be shorter...the task force really fought with that and tried
   to figure out what would serve our students the best, and the group felt that this would be
   the best for the majority of students.” Pillard then suggested the possibility of flipping
   the eight-week or the seven-week session with the three-week session, and said that some
   of the people at her campus would study the possibilities and contact Wise.

e) Senate Steering Committee Chair & UWC Faculty Representative Paul Price mentioned
   the location of his written report to the Senate (Attachment 5). Price stated that he had
   nothing further to add.

f) Academic Staff Lead Senator Richard Krupnow (Attachment 6) said that the only item he
   wished to highlight was the fact that he had “volunteered the UW Colleges, particularly
   UW-Fox, to host the annual Academic Staff Conference for System. I really would
   encourage people to not think of this as an academic staff conference. This is really an
   opportunity for the UW Colleges to showcase itself to System for the first time in fifteen
   years.” Krupnow also encouraged those present to go to their campus’ foundations and
   start work on getting funding for door prizes or anything else to help the effort.

g) UW Colleges Academic Staff Representative Becky Mullane (Attachment 7) was not in
   attendance. Provost Lampe pointed out the location of her report in the binder of Senate
   materials.

h) Student Governance Council Acting President Rhys Kuzdas was not in attendance. SGC
   Acting Vice President Jeff Heise had submitted a report (Attachment 8) to Senate
   Assistant Baum and attended to deliver the report. Heise stated that the SGC has not had
   their first meeting or held elections yet. One item that SGC will be focusing on is text
   book reform—a rental program. The UW-Marathon County SGA (of which Heise is the
   president) has charged the SGC with “pursuing the interests of the students regarding

                                            12
       mental health counseling funding” sources, regarding SEG fees and state appropriated
       funding and the differences between how the two- and four-year institutions are funding
       on-campus mental health programs.

   i) Senate Academic Policy Committee Chair Mike Jurmu pointed out the location of his
      written report (Attachment 9). He stated that the committee has been very busy already
      this year as shown by the bulleted list of items either under or for their consideration.
      Jurmu stressed the need for patience with the committee and that those with questions
      should please ask.

   j) Senate Budget Committee Chair Rick Hein (Attachment 10) stated that the Budget
      Committee has been busy, as well. Hein said that the details of some of the items they
      had been working on might be found in the report.

   k) Faculty Professional Standards Committee Chair Dale Murray said that an adoption vote
      would be held on one item in his report, though several questions and concerns had risen
      related to it. Two of the introductions for later in the day were also included in his report.
      Murray concluded by referencing the location of his written report (Attachment 11).

   l) Senate Assessment Committee Chair Nancy Soma was not in attendance, but Provost
      Lampe directed attention to her report (Attachment 12) in the Senate materials. The
      Provost stated that the Colleges assessment efforts are moving forward well, particularly
      good to know as the reaccreditation visit approaches.

7) Old Institutional Business

   a) Consent Agenda on Proposed Policy Revisions [Senate Steering Committee]

       i) Adoption: Proposed Revision of UW Colleges Senate Bylaws 5.9 (“Annual
          Elections”) [Senate Steering Committee] change to SAC term (Attachment 13)

       ii) Adoption: Proposed Revision of UW Colleges Senate Bylaws (“Senate Meeting
           Procedures”) [Senate Steering Committee] (Attachment 14)

       iii) Adoption: Proposed Revision of IP #202 (“Academic Procedures and Regulations”)
            [Senate Academic Policy Committee] (Attachment 15)

          The three consent agenda items were unanimously accepted [Price/Zorea].

   b) Other

       i) Adoption: Proposed Revision of IP #301.01 (“Administering the Student Survey of
          Instruction”) [Faculty Professional Standards Committee] (Attachment 16). Faculty
          Professional Standards Committee (FPSC) Chair Murray read the rationale included
          in the written Senate materials. Senator James-Byrnes of UW-Barron County pointed
          out that she had distributed a “list of different scenarios and problems that UW-

                                                13
Barron County has with this proposal, especially items in III.D.” James-Byrnes
mentioned specifically the online instructor evaluations and multiple instructor
evaluations. Senator Zorea, past chair of FPSC, stated that there had been concern
with basing decisions of promotion on a class where the instructor is not the lead
instructor. He went on that when the issue was discussed with Online the
committee’s reaction was that there shouldn’t be faculty who are teaching that much
online who are not lead instructors. However, “this is not something that this policy
has any recommendations on...it would put the burden on the campus or the
department to rectify that situation and make sure that if they are teaching that many
Online courses that they should be lead instructors in those fields.” James-Byrnes
questioned that if a recent hire is to teach 75% Online in courses developed by others,
is that person considered a lead instructor. Zorea answered that he or she is not. How
then, James-Byrnes continued, is a decision to be made regarding whether they are
doing their job? Zorea replied that it was an interesting question, but not one that the
policy was set up to answer.

James-Byrnes stated that that was the reason for the proposed new evaluation forms
that her campus had put forth. She stated that the current policy or proposal ties the
merit committee’s hands. Zorea argued, “I’m not sure changing this policy would
address that particular problem because this policy won’t talk about the types of
forms being used.”

Senator Dunn stated that his colleagues were concerned about depriving the executive
committees of useful information about an instructor’s ability. He related that there
was discussion that department committees would know the difference between the
various types of teaching modes.

Chancellor Wilson wondered what kind of flexibility a professor teaching Online has
to modify a particular course. Interim Director of Distance Education Komoto
explained that a new course being developed for Online takes quite some time to get
there. There is probably, Komoto continued, “less freedom for an instructor Online if
they’re coming into a course that they did not build.” That is why Komoto wants the
departments to become more involved in Online courses—because if a department or
a department committee is “helping with the development of these courses, I think it
might get around some of the issues of how much freedom an individual has when
teaching a course.” There was some discussion of how much budget plays a part in
Online decisions, but Komoto downplayed that aspect. There is a budgetary part, but
there is a technological part, too. He stressed that “Online has to be a little bit
different than face-to-face.”

Krupnow took issue with the perceived narrow interpretation of “lead instructor.” He
stated, “I teach a course where I am not lead instructor, and I have a wide range of
freedom within that...throw my personality in, my interpretation in, and define things
in a certain way.” Krupnow went on to talk about making decisions regarding
assignments and how he is not locked into a teaching cage. He thinks there is a
definite misperception around the term lead instructor.

                                     14
          A voice vote was too close to call so a vote was taken by show of hands. The vote
          was tied ten in favor and ten opposed, so the motion failed [Zorea/Krupnow].

       ii) Proposed Amendment to Adoption of IP #301.01 [UW-Sheboygan County]
           (Attachment 17). This item became irrelevant when 7.b.i failed.

       iii) Proposed Changes to IP #301.01 [UW-Barron County] (Attachment 18). This item
            became irrelevant when 7.b.i failed.

8) New Institutional Business

   a) Introduction: Proposed Revision of IP #202 (“Academic Procedures and Regulations”)
      [Senate Steering Committee] changes related to mandatory furlough days (Attachment
      19). SSC Chair Price explained that this is a temporary policy created by the Senate
      Steering Committee as allowed by IP #405. However, since IP #405 was not clear on
      what should be done with the temporary policy after SSC creation, it was decided to
      bring it to the Senate. This temporary policy shortens the time in which grades can be
      turned in after finals at the end of the spring semesters for those two years, Price stated.
      It specifically ends when the furloughs end. Senator Hieser wondered if this would be
      better formed as a resolution instead of as a policy change, but Price replied that with the
      sunset clause it would not require further changes.

   b) Introduction: Proposed Revision of IP # 301 (“Activity Report”) [Senate Steering
      Committee] changes related to mandatory furlough days (Attachment 20). This item is
      also due to a temporary policy instituted by the Steering Committee, Senator Price
      explained. The Activity Reports are typically due on January 4, but that is a mandatory
      furlough date, so the due date is being changed to January 5 for the next two years.

   c) Introduction: Proposed New Institutional Policy (“Interim Policy from SSC—Office
      Hours”) [Senate Steering Committee] changes related to mandatory furlough days
      (Attachment 21). SSC Chair Price said that this item should perhaps have gone to the
      Faculty Professional Standards Committee (FPSC), but that he was introducing it to the
      Senate. The introduction is another temporary operating policy enacted by the Senate
      Steering Committee and adopted because of furloughs. The policy “essentially put office
      hours in so that IAS could take them away for furloughs.” However, it is also thought
      that a standard policy on office hours for everyone was a good idea, and so FPSC has
      been charged with creating a policy for that purpose. Human Resources Director Pamela
      Dollard disagreed with the statement in the rationale that IAS have no designated time
      which they could legitimately exercise for furlough. Dollard reported that there is time
      between the end of the semester and before the end of IAS contracts that is not used for
      instructional purposes. Deans’ Representative Pillard added that IAS contracts on her
      campus require office hours. Provost Lampe suggested that HR Director Dollard help
      FPSC with the language of the policy they are working on.

   d) Introduction: Proposed Revision of IP #322 (“Instructional Academic Staff Promotion

                                               15
   Policy (Category B)”) [AS Personnel Committee] (Attachment 22). Academic Staff Lead
   Senator Krupnow spoke for the AS Personnel Committee, reporting that the issue behind
   this introduction came up because of a challenge to promotion from the Online program.
   He summarized the written rationale found in the Senate binder. Provost Lampe asked
   that on page 54 of the written materials it be noted that “the Director of UW Colleges
   Online” is more correctly titled the “Director of Distance Education,” as that person also
   directs NODE. Chancellor Wilson spoke, “In essence, you are saying that this individual
   is a dean for the purpose of this particular policy. You’re not saying that this person
   perhaps will act in a capacity as a dean would. This is a very definitive kind of piece that
   you have here, and I am having difficulty with this because this is a decision that the
   institution itself has not made.” Senator Krupnow replied that after being involved in
   discussions with AS Personnel Committee Chair Dan McCollum and Dave Carlson (who
   actually did the wording), the idea was to handle the changes in the policy as if “for the
   purposes of promotion of instructional academic staff we’re going to recognize that the
   Online program needs to be involved within that as if they are a campus, as if they have a
   dean. That was the intent behind it, not that this policy is trying to turn Cary [Komoto,
   Interim Director of Distance Education] into a dean.” Senator Jurmu asked if having
   different terminology would be better—‘having the authority similar to a dean,’ instead
   of saying ‘considered a dean.’ Krupnow replied that one thought in dealing with the
   policy had been to add an asterisk after every occurrence of the word dean with a
   footnote that would say ‘and Director of Distance Education.’ Chancellor Wilson
   clarified that the intent, then, was to “have the Director of Distance Education play a role
   in the evaluation process of a professor who is up for promotion?” Krupnow answered
   that it was for promotion of instructional academic staff, not faculty. Why, Chancellor
   Wilson wondered, didn’t the policy say just that—“For the purposes of this policy, the
   Director of Distance Education shall have a role to play in the evaluation process.” That
   was the intention, Krupnow responded. Wording changes will be made and sent out to
   campuses to be shared with constituents.

e) Introduction: Proposed Revision of IP #405 (“Senate Procedures”) [Senate Steering
   Committee] specifying the process for interim policies (Attachment 23). SSC Chair Price
   introduced this proposed revision. Price mentioned the specific role of the chancellor in
   the process, as well as how the temporary policy should then go through the normal
   Senate approval process.

f) Introduction: Proposed Revision of UW Colleges Senate Bylaws 5.0 (“Annual
   Elections”) [Senate Steering Committee] change to beginning/end of committee terms
   (Attachment 24). Steering Chair Price apologized to the Steering Committee, as the
   committee had not gotten to this item in the meeting earlier in the day. The introduction
   is based on a survey of Senate committee chairs of when would be the best time for the
   membership to change over. The chairs felt it would be better to keep the membership in
   place over the summer in case some business had to be dealt with. The proposal also
   includes the change to the term of the Assessment Committee related to their reporting
   dates. Finally, the proposal includes an allowance for the Senate Steering Chair to
   appoint convening chairs, allowed by Robert’s Rules, which will hopefully speed the
   election of committee chairs. Senator Jurmu pointed out that a chair elected with the

                                            16
       wording as is in the proposal would be elected by the outgoing committee, rather than the
       incoming committee. Price will remove the last sentence of the proposed 5.10 so the
       convening chair is treated as a chair until a new chair is elected by the incoming
       committee.

   g) Introduction: Proposed Revision of FPP #505 (“Process for Appointment and Evaluation
      of Chairs”) [Faculty Professional Standards Committee] (Attachment 25). FPSC Chair
      Murray summarized the written rationale for the introduction.

   h) Other. There was no other New Institutional Business for the Senate to discuss.

9) Other Institutional Business

   a) Discussion of UWC Online—proposed expansion, administration, and governance. SSC
      Chair Price suggested the discussion be delayed until the next meeting of the Senate.
      There were no conflicting opinions.

   b) Other. There was no further Other Institutional Business.

10) Adjournment. The October 23, 2009 meeting of the UW Colleges Senate was adjourned at
    4:15 p.m. by acclamation.




                                              17
                                  UW COLLEGES
                              Faculty Council of Senators
                                   Friday, October 23, 2009
                                       UW-Fox Valley
                                    3:50 p.m. -- 5:00 p.m.

                                          MINUTES

Faculty Senators Present: Dale Murray, UW-Baraboo/Sauk County; Christa James-Byrnes,
       UW-Barron; Michael Jurmu, UW-Fond du Lac; Bill Gillard and Rex Hieser, UW-Fox
       Valley; Rick Hein, UW-Manitowoc; Aaron Steffen and Paul Whitaker, UW-Marathon
       County; Mark Klemp, UW-Marinette; Jeff Kleiman, UW-Marshfield/Wood County;
       Aharon Zorea, UW-Richland; Gene Biby, UW-Rock County; Paul Price, UW-
       Washington County; Tim Dunn and Joe Foy, UW-Waukesha

Faculty Senators Absent: Dana Atwood-Harvey, UW-Sheboygan; Cheri Campbell, UW-
       Waukesha

Others Present: Greg Lampe, Provost and Vice Chancellor; Diane Pillard, Deans’
      Representative; Steve Wildeck, Vice Chancellor for Administrative and Financial
      Services for UW Colleges and UW-Extension; David Wilson, Chancellor; Linda Baum,
      Assistant to the Senate

Others Not Present: Kitty Kingston, Department Chairs’ Representative;

1) Call to Order 2009-2010 Faculty Council of Senators. The meeting was called to order at
   4:24 p.m. by UWC Faculty Representative to UW System Administration Paul Price.

2) Roll Call of 2009-2010 faculty senators and alternates. Linda Baum, Assistant to the UWC
   Senate, circulated an attendance sheet.

3) Approval of Agenda. The agenda for the October 23, 2009 meeting of the UW Colleges
   Faculty Council of Senators meeting was amended to move the introduction of FPP#503
   ahead of the differential salaries discussion on a motion by Senator Dunn. It was approved
   unanimously as amended [Foy/Dunn].

4) The minutes of the April 24, 2009 meeting of the Faculty Council of Senators held at UW-
   Washington County (posted in Public Folders>All Public Folders>Governance>Senate>
   Senate Minutes>Historical>2008-2009) were unanimously approved [Zorea/Foy].

5) Reports

   a) Chair Paul Price had nothing to add to the full written report he had submitted to the
      Senate.



                                               18
   b) Faculty Professional Standards Committee Chair Dale Murray stated that he had nothing
      further to report.

6) New Business

   a) Introduction: Proposed Revision of FPP #503 (“Faculty Merit Policy and Procedures”)
      [Faculty Professional Standards Committee]. FPSC Chair Murray read the rationale
      found in the provided Faculty Council materials. Senator Jurmu questioned the meaning
      of the word “few” related to how many faculty are to receive exceptional merit. Murray
      agreed that was a point in need of clarification. Senator Hieser remembered why
      “normally” had been inserted into the policy to begin with, and Senator Zorea pointed out
      that it was now the reason for challenge rather than a way to avoid challenge.

   b) Discussion: Differential Salaries Task Force Report. Senator Dunn, who had been a
      member of Chancellor Wilson’s Differential Starting Salaries Task Force (DSSTF),
      summarized their conclusions. The task force made a recommendation to the Chancellor
      that differential salaries be offered in certain (unspecified) disciplines: Those certain
      disciplines are facing continual failed searches due to financial reasons; Those disciplines
      are essential to the mission of the UW Colleges; Higher starting salaries in those
      disciplines are essential to hiring qualified faculty in those disciplines; Therefore, it is “a
      matter of necessity that to achieve our objectives we must offer them more money in
      these disciplines.” Oversight and clear procedures are necessary for this process to work
      correctly. The task force also addressed salary compression and urged Chancellor
      Wilson to address the issue with a future task force, which Dunn pointed out is now being
      started. Senator Dunn added that the task force also “considered possible adverse
      negative effects of higher differential salaries on morale, esprit de corps....To address
      that, we recommended that the Chancellor do what he is now doing and try to introduce a
      public relations, education and persuasion kind of campaign so that people will see the
      rationale for this.”

      Following a question from Senator Jurmu on how departments would show need, Vice
      Chancellor for Administrative and Financial Services Wildeck replied with some
      information on how implementation might work. “We would administratively look at
      our history and pattern of hiring success in disciplines, specifically where we have not
      had success for multiple years in a row, that have presented a clear case...that we have a
      market problem in a particular discipline....The HR Director will look at a repeated
      pattern of failure, or the inability to hire, or retention problems of a repeated nature; and
      in addition to that, she might look, in conjunction with the Provost’s office in Academic
      Affairs, at the depth of tenure track and tenured faculty in a department as opposed to
      instructional academic staff, as that might be a particular issue where that is a
      complicating issue, but not a factor on its own.” Then a consultation with the Provost
      and the Chancellor would take place on whether the discipline or program is necessary to
      the mission of the Colleges or the particular institution. After all of that, the Chancellor
      would make a decision about whether or not to exceed the normal hiring salary for that
      particular case. Chancellor Wilson declared that this would be an option turned to
      extremely selectively. The egalitarian approach to salaries in the Colleges and the

                                                19
possible morale issues are well understood, he stated, but the integrity of the degree also
has to be upheld.

Senator Zorea first questioned if the Colleges can be competitive. The supplied materials
showed some very large gaps in offered salaries. Zorea also wondered about the timing
issue, “The appearance is we’re [giving] money that could go to solving this compression
problem, to these differential salaries. You could create a lot more opposition and
antagonism as a result of that.” Chancellor Wilson explained further that the money that
would be used for the differential salaries is recruitment and retention money, and that it
cannot be used to address compression issues. Zorea responded that if that point is made
very clear, as it was last year, as ‘we use the money this way or lose it,’ he thinks the
rationale will be seen and be more successful.

Senator Steffen thought that if someone with the same or lesser qualifications were to be
hired at the same position at a higher rate than someone already on board, it would be a
huge morale issue. Steffen wondered if there was something in place for those who are
currently working to be compensated if that were to happen. Senator Dunn said that the
issue of implementation had not been addressed, but Vice Chancellor Wildeck replied
that the task force had been “very well aware that that would immediately rise to the
surface and be a consideration....the Chancellor ultimately will have to decide what if any
adjustments will have to be made to incumbents in the same discipline.”

Vice Chancellor Wildeck went back to Senator Zorea’s statement about timing. He said
that ideally there would be an overall salary study completed including the topics of
compression, market, and a number of other pieces. Following that study, a strategic
progression would be followed to tackle the problems. However, this is an extreme
market issue, said Wildeck, “in at least one discipline and most likely two that simply
cannot wait if we’re going to preserve the integrity of those academic disciplines.” As to
whether the Colleges can be competitive in the market, the vice chancellor stated that the
hope is to get into the low end of the market of which we are admittedly completely out.
Chancellor Wilson expanded, saying that if the Colleges went forth with this plan, they
would not be offering UW-Madison or UW-Milwaukee salaries, but maybe something
approaching UW-Platteville salaries. Wildeck added that there is a geographic
component to the markets, and that it would be considered if the Chancellor decides to
move in that direction.

Chancellor Wilson urged the Faculty Council to go back to their campuses and discuss
this with their colleagues. The report of the task force has been posted online, so
Chancellor Wilson suggests that faculty be directed there, and advised that he brought it
to this group today for feedback and will be making his decision soon. If he decides to
go forward with differential starting salaries, town hall meetings to help further the
understanding of the faculty of why the Colleges is moving in this direction may be
employed. Senator Hein suggested that if differential salaries are implemented the matter
be brought to the Senate, whether that be Steering or Budget or the larger group.
Chancellor Wilson assured Hein that he had heard the comment.



                                         20
   c) Other. There was no Other New Business.

7) Old Business

   a) No Old Business was on the agenda.

8) Other Business

   a) There was no Other Business for the Faculty Council to discuss.

9) Adjournment. Having concluded all business on the agenda at 5:07 p.m., and hearing no
   more to be added, SSC Chair Price adjourned the meeting of the Faculty Council of Senators.




                                             21
                                 UW COLLEGES
                          Academic Staff Council of Senators
                                   Friday, October 23, 2009
                                       UW-Fox Valley
                                    3:50 p.m. -- 5:00 p.m.

                                           MINUTES

Members present: Scott Sargent, Bobbie Boettcher, Jennifer Haas, Richard Krupnow, George
Waller, George Henze, Jackie Morgan, Cary Komoto, and Pam Dollard.

Members absent: Becky Mullane

Meeting began at 4:15

Motion to approve agenda by George Waller, seconded by George Henze. Unanimously
approved.

Approval of minutes was tabled followed by introduction of members.

Senate Reports:
LEAD SENATOR: Richard Krupnow
Richard Krupnow commented on Academic Staff Conference for next summer at UW Fox and is
looking for feedback on the event, possible subcommittee and ideas for funding. Nothing to
report on I.P. 322 as it was going back for more work.

ACADEMIC POLICY: Jennifer Haas, Bobbie Boettcher, George Hense.
Jennifer Haas reported that was nothing new on I.P 322 other than work need to be done on
wording for the online program. Bobbie Boettcher and George discussed the difference
between a program and department and KLEP and AP scores.

SENATE PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE: Scott Sargent
Scott reported that I.P. 301.01 will need to be worked on as it was voted down for various
reasons. He discussed the possibility of changes in the evaluation process as the system is old
and UW Fox may no longer be involved.

BUDGET: Jackie Morgan, George Waller
The budget committee met several times via WIS line and discussed course maxima, business
service task force and salary compression (faculty vs. IAS). Engineering salaries were also
discussed.

NEW BUSINESS:
The committee discussed whether we want an AS liaison for online programs as part of the
ASCP.



                                               22
The committee discussed promotions. Who should notify campus of promotion guidelines? It
was decided the lead senator will notify campuses. More recognition of AS promotions was
needed. A vote was taken to keep the wording ASPP 704 as is. Bobbie Boettcher moved to
approve, seconded by George Waller. Motion was approved.

Motion to adjourn at 5:15




                                            23
                                        Attachment 1

                                  Draft Schedule
                                 UW COLLEGES
                  Meetings of Senate, Faculty Council of Senators,
                       Academic Staff Council of Senators,
                                 and Committees
                             Friday, October 23, 2009
                                       UW–Fox Valley
                                    9:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.


Coffee and Collegiality                                          9:00 a.m. – 9:30 a.m.
                                                                   Emeritus Room

Committee Meetings                                               9:30 a.m. – 10:45 a.m.
        Joint meeting of Senate Steering and Budget Committees     Emeritus Room
        Senate Academic Policy Committee                            Room 1706
        Faculty Professional Standards Committee                    Room 1346

Break                                                            10:45a.m. - 10:50 a.m.

Committee Meetings                                               10:50 a.m. - 12:05 p.m.
        Senate Academic Policy Committee                            Room 1706
        Senate Budget Committee                                     Room 1551
        Faculty Professional Standards Committee                    Room 1346
        Senate Steering Committee                                  Emeritus Room

Lunch                                                            12:10 p.m. - 12:55 p.m.

                                                                     Student Union

Discussion                                                       1:05 p.m. - 1:55 p.m.

        Library Task Force Final Report: Listening Session         Emeritus Room

UW Colleges Senate                                               2:00 p.m. - 3:45 p.m.
                                                                   Emeritus Room

Council Meetings                                                 3:50 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.
        Academic Staff Council of Senators                          Room 1706
        Faculty Council of Senators                                Emeritus Room

                                              24
                                      Draft Agenda
                                     UW COLLEGES
                                         Senate
                                  Friday, October 23, 2009
                                       UW-Fox Valley
                                    2:00 p.m. – 3:45 p.m.

1) Call to Order of 2009-2010 Senate

2) Welcome by UW-Fox Valley Dean Jim Perry

3) Roll Call of 2009-2010 Senate (circulated) and Introduction of Alternates

4) Approval of Agenda

5) Approval of Minutes: April 24, 2009, UW-Washington County (posted in Public Folders>All
   Public Folders>Governance>Senate>Senate Minutes>Historical>2008-2009)

6) Reports

   a)   Chancellor David Wilson
   b)   Provost and Vice Chancellor Greg Lampe
   c)   Interim Associate Vice Chancellor Lisa Seale
   d)   Interim Associate Vice Chancellor Patti Wise
   e)   Senate Steering Committee Chair & UWC Faculty Representative Paul Price
   f)   Academic Staff Lead Senator Richard Krupnow
   g)   UW Colleges Academic Staff Representative Becky Mullane
   h)   Student Governance Council Acting President Rhys Kuzdas
   i)   Senate Academic Policy Committee Chair Mike Jurmu
   j)   Senate Budget Committee Chair Rick Hein
   k)   Faculty Professional Standards Committee Chair Dale Murray
   l)   Senate Assessment Committee Chair Nancy Soma

7) Old Institutional Business

   a) Consent Agenda on Proposed Policy Revisions [Senate Steering Committee]

        i) Adoption: Proposed Revision of UW Colleges Senate Bylaws 5.9 (“Annual
           Elections”) [Senate Steering Committee] change to SAC term

        ii) Adoption: Proposed Revision of UW Colleges Senate Bylaws (“Senate Meeting
            Procedures”) [Senate Steering Committee]

        iii) Adoption: Proposed Revision of IP #202 (“Academic Procedures and Regulations”)
             [Senate Academic Policy Committee]


                                              25
   b) Other

       i) Adoption: Proposed Revision of IP #301.01 (“Administering the Student Survey of
          Instruction”) [Senate Professional Standards Committee]

       ii) Proposed Amendment to Adoption of IP #301.01 [UW-Sheboygan County]

       iii) Proposed Changes to IP #301.01 [UW-Barron County]

8) New Institutional Business

   a) Introduction: Proposed Revision of IP #202 (“Academic Procedures and Regulations”)
      [Senate Steering Committee] changes related to mandatory furlough days

   b) Introduction: Proposed Revision of IP # 301 (“Activity Report”) [Senate Steering
      Committee] changes related to mandatory furlough days

   c) Introduction: Proposed New Institutional Policy (“Interim Policy from SSC—Office
      Hours”) [Senate Steering Committee] changes related to mandatory furlough days

   d) Introduction: Proposed Revision of IP #322 (“Instructional Academic Staff Promotion
      Policy (Category B)”) [AS Personnel Committee]

   e) Introduction: Proposed Revision of IP #405 (“Senate Procedures”) [Senate Steering
      Committee] specifying the process for interim policies

   f) Introduction: Proposed Revision of UW Colleges Senate Bylaws 5.0 (“Annual
      Elections”) [Senate Steering Committee] change to beginning/end of committee terms

   g) Introduction: Proposed Revision of FPP #505 (“Process for Appointment and Evaluation
      of Chairs”) [Faculty Professional Standards Committee]

   h) Other

9) Other Institutional Business

   a) Discussion of UWC Online – proposed expansion, administration, and governance

   b) Other

10) Adjournment




                                             26
                                      Draft Agenda
                                   UW COLLEGES
                               Faculty Council of Senators
                                   Friday, October 23, 2009
                                       UW-Fox Valley
                                    3:50 p.m. -- 5:00 p.m.


1) Call to Order 2009-2010 Faculty Council of Senators

2) Roll Call of 2009-2010 faculty senators and alternates (circulated)

3) Approval of Agenda

4) Approval of Minutes: April 24, 2009, UW-Washington County (posted in Public Folders>All
   Public Folders>Governance>Senate>Senate Minutes>Historical>2008-2009)

5) Reports

   a) Chair Paul Price
   b) Faculty Professional Standards Committee Chair Dale Murray

6) New Business

   a) Discussion: Differential Salaries Task Force Report

   b) Introduction: Proposed Revision of FPP #503 (“Faculty Merit Policy and Procedures”)
      [Faculty Professional Standards Committee]

   c) Other

7) Old Business

   a) Other

8) Other Business

   a) Other

9) Adjournment




                                               27
                                  Draft Agenda
                                UW COLLEGES
                         Academic Staff Council of Senators
                                   Friday, October 23, 2009
                                       UW-Fox Valley
                                    3:50 p.m. -- 5:00 p.m.


Attendance:

Call to Order
Approval of Agenda
Approval of Minutes (April 2009)
Introductions

Reports:
       Lead Senator
       AS Rep
       AS Personnel
       Budget
       Academic Policy
       Professional Standards

New Business
  A. Online Program governance, AS representation

   B. Promotion guidelines for IAS

   C. AS Liaisons

   D. AS System Conference 2010

   E. ASPP #704


Announcements

Adjournment




                                             28
                                        Attachment 2

                          UW Colleges Provost & Vice Chancellor
                            Report to the UW Colleges Senate
                                    October 23, 2009

1. Update on UW Colleges, UW-Extension Pandemic Task Force: As you know, in late
   spring 2009, H1N1 influenza virus made international news as people across the globe began
   to contract the H1N1 flu. As the H1N1 flu virus slowly progressed towards Wisconsin,
   response planning was initiated across the UW System. Below is a brief chronology of
   events relating to how the H1N1 virus unfolded and when the UW Colleges, UW-Extension
   Pandemic Task Force was formed:

   •   On April 24th, the Wisconsin Division of Public Health learned that a novel influenza
       virus strain most closely related to swine influenza had infected people in California,
       Texas, and Mexico. From here forward, this strain will be referred to as H1N1.
   •   On April 30, 2009, Governor Jim Doyle declared a public health emergency in Wisconsin
       in response to the presence H1N1 in the state. The Governor’s declaration designated the
       Department of Health Services as the lead agency to respond to the public health
       emergency. We are still under that emergency.
   •   On June 2, 2009, Chancellor David Wilson appointed a UW Colleges, UW-Extension
       Pandemic Task Force and charged the task force with the responsibility of developing a
       pandemic influenza response plan for UW Colleges and UW-Extension Madison-based
       operations. UW Colleges Provost Greg Lampe and UW-Extension Provost Christine
       Quinn are named co-chairs of the task force.
   •   On June 11, 2009, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared that we are in Phase
       “6” with the current outbreak of H1N1. Phase 6 is a pandemic.

The Pandemic Task Force began meeting in early June. The membership of the task force is as
follows:

   •   Luis Fernandez, Facilities Management, UW-Extension
   •   Marsha Henfer, Chief Information Officer, UW Colleges, UW-Extension
   •   Vicki Keegan, Director of University Relations, UW Colleges
   •   Greg Lampe (Chair), Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, UW Colleges
   •   David Prucha, Director of Human Resources, UW Colleges, UW-Extension
   •   Christine Quinn, Provost and Vice Chancellor, UW-Extension
   •   Sue Schymanski, Associate Vice Chancellor for Administrative and Financial Services,
       UW Colleges, UW-Extension
   •   John Shutske, Academic Program Director, Cooperative Extension, UW-Extension
   •   Teri Venker, Executive Director, University Relations, UW Colleges, UW-Extension
   •   Denny Ward, Risk Management Officer, Administrative Services, UW Colleges
   •   Steve Wildeck, Vice Chancellor for Administration and Financial Services, UW
       Colleges, UW-Extension



                                              29
   •   Patti Wise, Interim Associate Vice Chancellor for Student Services and Enrollment
       Management, UW Colleges

The Pandemic Task Force began its work by first defining the scope of the pandemic influenza
response plan we were charged with developing. We also consulted existing pandemic influenza
response plans. Specifically, we closely reviewed plans from UW-Superior, UW-River Falls,
UW-Marshfield/Wood County, and UW-Madison. From June through August, the task force met
every two weeks. In early September, with numbers of confirmed cases of H1N1 influenza
increasing at an alarming rate at the UW-Madison, the task force began to meet weekly. The task
force continues to hold weekly meetings.

The first task of the task force was to draft the purpose, principles, and goals of the pandemic
influenza response plan:

Purpose: The purpose of this plan is to provide the UW Colleges and UW-Extension Madison-
based administrative offices with strategies and guidance during a pandemic influenza. In the
event that a public health emergency is declared, the UW Colleges and UW-Extension
administration in Madison will have a plan and procedures in place to contribute to the health
and safety of employees, students, guests, and visitors in its Madison-based buildings, on its
campuses, and in the counties while maintaining critical functions.

Principles: This plan is guided by the following principles:
A. Protect and support the health, safety, and welfare of employees, guests, and visitors.
B. Limit the number of illnesses and deaths.
C. Preserve continuity of essential functions and services.
D. Keep the administrative environment calm.
E. Protect the assets and property of the university.

Goals:
A. Develop a strategy to collaborate, coordinate, and cooperate with city and county health care
   providers and local government, as well as state and national governments as needed.
B. Develop a communication plan to inform employees and other groups of our actions.
C. Develop an institutional technology plan to insure continuity of critical operations.
D. Establish clear linkages between the UW Colleges, UW-Extension H1N1 Pandemic
   Influenza Response Plan and campus-based, division-based, and unit-specific plans.
E. Clarify roles and responsibilities to insure essential functions and services protecting the
   health and safety of clientele.

Once these parts of the plan were drafted, the task force created a table of contents for the
pandemic influenza plan. After the task force settled on the contents of the plan, the plan was
then built section by section. Each section was carefully reviewed by task force members, and
changes made to each draft to address concerns and comments by task force members.

In mid-August, the task force decided it had made enough progress to “test” its plan. Task force
member John Shutske facilitated a table top exercise that placed task force members into


                                                30
increasingly worsening scenarios of H1N1 flu cases. The exercise revealed several significant
gaps in our planning:

•   The task force had not yet identified essential services and people.
•   There was no command and control structure in place to direct activities should a health
    emergency be declared in the Madison area.
•   Trigger points and actions were not identified in the plan.
•   Information Technology priorities and actions were not included in the planning process.

These four areas were then addressed in September and October. I am pleased to report that all
four areas are now included in the plan and the task force’s planning processes. Essential
services and people have been identified and central Information Technology is working to equip
these people with the technology necessary to do their work from out-of-office locations. A
command and control structure is now in place and included in the plan. The Pandemic Task
Force will be the coordinating/decision-making body (in consultation with the chancellor) should
a health emergency be declared in the Madison area. Trigger points and accompanying action
steps have been developed and are part of the response plan. Information Technology has
developed a clear set of guidelines and procedures should a health emergency be declared in the
Madison area. In addition, the task force now has a communication plan/structure in place
should a health emergency be declared in Madison. We have also discussed how, when, what,
and who will communicate key messages to the institutions in a health emergency. UW
Colleges, UW-Extension University Relations has created a website for disseminating
information (www.uwex.uwc.edu/flu) that provides information about the symptoms of H1N1,
steps to take to prevent from getting the H1N1 flu, and links to websites where more information
can be found about the H1N1 influenza. In addition, D2L course shells have been created for all
instructors in the UW Colleges and training provided to prepare instructors for their use should it
become necessary. These course shells could be used in the event that an instructor is ill with the
flu or students in a class become ill with the flu. A UW Colleges Pandemic Advisory Group has
been established whose members include assistant campus deans for student services, assistant
campus deans for administrative services, deans, senate leadership, and individuals from the
central office. Their charge will be to examine the possible impact of the H1N1 pandemic flu
virus on academic policy and instruction.

Next Steps: Over the coming weeks, the Pandemic Task Force will complete the following
tasks:

•   Continue to examine linkages of the UW Colleges, UW-Extension Pandemic Influenza
    Response Plan to UW Colleges campuses and UW-Extension divisions.
•   Develop mechanisms for reporting influenza-like illnesses from UW Colleges campuses and
    UW-Extension divisions to Madison-based operations.
•   Using a table top exercise, test the UW Colleges, UW-Extension Pandemic Influenza
    Response Plan

                                                31
•   Further refine operational roles and responsibilities:
    1. Chancellor’s Office
    2. Academic Affairs
    3. Human Resources
    4. Information Technology
    5. University Relations
    6. Administrative Services

Pandemic influenza response planning is an ongoing process. The Pandemic Task Force is
closely monitoring the situation in Madison and across Wisconsin. In addition, each campus
should now have or should be currently developing its own pandemic influenza response plan.
The UW Colleges and UW-Extension Pandemic Influenza Response Plan is continuously being
updated and reviewed.

2. Update on Bachelor of Applied Arts and Sciences Degree: As you might recall, on April
   3, 2009, Chancellor David Wilson submitted to UW System administration an Entitlement to
   Plan a Bachelor of Applied Arts and Sciences (BAAS) degree. On April 9, 2009, UW
   System Office of Academic Affairs sent the revised BAAS degree Entitlement to Plan
   proposal to UW System Provosts so that they could share it with their respective campus
   constituencies for feedback. In early June, I received a letter from University of Wisconsin
   System Senior Vice President Rebecca Martin informing me that after reviewing the UW
   System Provosts’ responses to the UW Colleges Entitlement to Plan a BAAS degree
   document that the proposal would not be approved at this time. As Senior Vice President
   Rebecca Martin wrote in the letter, “My intent in writing now is to provide you with the
   opportunity to strengthen your request before making a final decision on this entitlement.”

Over the summer months, Chancellor David Wilson and I discussed several ways in which to
strengthen the BAAS degree proposal. In late June, we met with UW System President Kevin
Reilly and UW System Senior Vice President Rebecca Martin. During the meeting several
important points were made that we will need to consider as we move the proposal forward:

    •   A clear, persuasive argument establishing the need for the proposed BAAS degree will
        need to be developed;
    •   A strong link between offering the BAAS degree and serving underserved adult
        populations in Wisconsin will need to be established;
    •   A budget will need to be developed that will clearly establish how budget resources will
        be allocated to support the BAAS degree and protect the UW Colleges transfer mission.
    •   Instead of trying to offer the BAAS degree UW Colleges-wide, consider piloting the
        degree on one or more campuses.

Next Steps: In the coming months, I plan on taking the following steps:

    •   Meet with the UW Colleges liaison from the Higher Learning Commission to discuss the
        proposed BAAS degree, the bachelor degree authorization process, and the idea of
        piloting the BAAS degree on several UW Colleges campuses.

                                                 32
   •   Convene the Entitlement to Plan Working Group to brainstorm approaches to the next
       iteration of the Entitlement to Plan proposal.
   •   Convene the Faculty Task Force to gather their input on the next iteration of the
       Entitlement to Plan proposal.
   •   Meet with UW System Provosts to determine which institutions might want to
       collaborate with us to offer the degree.
   •   Begin to revise the Entitlement to Plan document.

I will keep you informed of our progress in revising the Entitlement to Plan a BAAS degree. I
am optimistic that by the end of December the UW Colleges will be prepared to submit a revised
Entitlement to Plan document to UW System.

3. UW Online Update: Interim Director of Distance Education Cary Komoto, UW-Extension
   Provost Christine Quinn, UW-Extension Dean of Continuing Education, Outreach and E-
   Learning David Schejbal, and I have been meeting weekly to continue planning for the
   launch of UW Online. On August 11 and 12, a UW System retreat was held at UW-Superior.
   All UW System institutions were represented at the meeting. The following topics were
   discussed:
       • Explore the online landscape – state and national perspective
       • Learn from past successes and failures – other universities and within Wisconsin
       • Identify what already exists across the University of Wisconsin
       • Explore possible collaboration, partnerships, and services for the future
       • Identify next steps and timelines
In addition to the topics discussed above, progress was made in defining a target audience for
UW Online and goals for UW Online:
   •   Target Audience for UW Online: Students seeking online degrees and certificates.
   •   High Level Goals for UW Online and Ideas to Explore
       o Goal: Increase access and enrollment to online courses, degrees, and certificates
         in UW System
       o Goal: Provide student-centered services: Provide rapid response to student queries,
         provide readiness assessment, pool resources, research best practices, develop FAQs,
         and redesign distance learning portal to provide student-centric portal to all UW
         online degrees/certificates, and allow searches by course and program.
       o Goal: Increase student support and success: Address the transfer question, Provide
         tech support, IT Help Desk Support (campus and UW Online), tutoring services,
         policy advocacy, and faculty engagement.
       o Goal: Expand program development: Conduct market research to identify new
         online programs, facilitate cross institutional collaboration – new programs, course
         sharing, etc., prepare for success – scalability, curriculum expansion, faculty sharing;
         focus on competency based curriculum planning, program assessment, funding to


                                               33
            support online program growth, support for program development and approval
            processes.
During the September and October UW System Provosts Meetings, UW Extension Provost
Christine Quinn and I presented a progress reports on UW Online. Although there were
concerns expressed by the Provosts, we were given the go ahead to continue our work by UW
System Senior Vice President Rebecca Martin. At the October Provosts Meeting, a Wisconsin
Online Task Force was formed. All UW System institutions will be represented on this group. I
have volunteered to serve as the UW Colleges representative. The task force will be charged
with the responsibility of reviewing UW Online planning and providing feedback on UW Online
services, revenue sharing models with campuses involved in collaborative degrees, and program
array for UW Online.

I will keep you informed of future developments with the UW Online planning process.

4. Emphases Update: I am pleased to report that excellent progress is being made in this area.
   The academic departments have responded very strongly to the call to develop areas of
   emphases in their respective disciplines. The UW Colleges currently has 21 approved areas
   of emphases. Indeed, nearly every department in the UW Colleges now has an emphasis. I
   do, however, have two concerns with the areas of emphases developed to date:
       a. Emphases vary in terms of the number of credits it takes to complete them. For
          instance, Biology requires 12 credits while Music requires 24 credits. Most areas of
          emphases fall within the 15-18 credit range. The higher the number of credits, the
          more difficult the emphases are to transfer to other institutions. Additionally, the
          higher the number of credits, the more likely that not all campuses will be able to
          provide the breadth of courses required for a student to earn an emphasis.

       b. Not all emphases can be offered on every campus. At present, only 8 of the 21
          emphases developed to date can be offered on all UW Colleges campuses. Ideally, all
          the emphases developed by the departments should be offered on every campus.

During the Department Chairs Meeting on October 10, I asked department chairs to have their
departments review and re-evaluate the emphases they have developed for their respective
disciplines to determine ways to make the emphases more accessible UW Colleges-wide. This
might mean, for example, creating more options within the core requirements of an emphasis so
that students on the smaller campuses might be able to complete an emphasis on their campus. It
might also mean decreasing the number of credits needed to earn an emphasis and being mindful
that not all courses in the catalog are offered on every UW Colleges campus.

Respectfully submitted,

Greg Lampe, Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs

10.19.09


                                              34
                                          Attachment 3

           UW Colleges Interim Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs
                           Report to the UW Colleges Senate
                                   October 23, 2009

Action Plans Grow Out of UW Colleges Campus Climate Study

The UW Colleges Campus Climate Study continues to bear fruit. Ron Gulotta, who chairs the
UW Colleges Diversity Leadership Committee, and I recently sent a summary of UW Colleges
Campus Climate Study action reports to campus and institutional leaders. An excerpt follows:
       It is the season of new beginnings and the making of plans for the new academic year and
       the futures of our institutions. Goals set forward by our various leaders and leadership
       groups provide guidance in our planning. By now all have seen the many posters around
       campuses promoting the IDEAS goals set forth by Chancellor Wilson and the UW
       Colleges leadership. The “D” places a high focus on improving Diversity across the UW
       Colleges. A major component of our UW Colleges' efforts to focus on and improve
       diversity within our institutions will be the ongoing work with the Campus Climate
       Survey results and the action plans which campuses and other Colleges groups developed
       last spring. The Colleges' Diversity Leadership Committee will continue to help
       coordinate these efforts.

This excerpt from Professor Gulotta’s excellent report, found on the Campus Climate Study Web
site, provides a summary of proposed campus climate action items:
               Just as there are common themes to the team analyses, there are common action
       plans. Most often recommended was to greatly improve the number of faculty and staff
       having completed Multicultural Awareness Training. Along with this, it was often
       recommended that a campus initiate a Safe Spaces program to allow students and staff to
       have good places and trained staffers for those wishing to deal with matters of harassment
       and other climate issues. A second frequently listed action plan focused on increasing
       training for faculty and staff involved in hiring processes to help avoid problems of bias,
       inappropriate questioning, and other problems possibly affecting hiring, and eventually
       retention and promotion of a more diverse faculty and staff. The third most common
       action plan centered on the formation and promotion of a more clear set of campus
       climate and harassment policies. These would be policies for the reporting and handling
       of any and all incidences which negatively affect one’s sense of comfort on campus.
       Providing meaningful recognition awards for staff and publicly recognizing recipients of
       awards like Kaplan Awards were two other suggestions offered by a few of the campus
       teams, responses to a concern raised by many of the campus teams. There were several
       other action plans offered by individual campus teams, like the exploration of offering
       ESL and ELL services for students in need of language assistance and the consideration
       of offering family-friendly facilities on campus.
For more information about the UW Colleges Campus Climate Study, please contact Ron
Gulotta (ron.gulotta@uwc.edu) or me (lisa.seale@uwc.edu).


                                               35
UW Colleges and Inclusive Excellence

The American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) initiative called Making
Excellence Inclusive has been adopted and adapted by a new University of Wisconsin System
effort called Inclusive Excellence. By way of background, the AAC&U concept of diversity and
inclusion as central to the university moves diversity efforts away from five-year plans or being
erroneously conceived as a primary responsibility or sole province of various constituency
groups:

       The Making Excellence Inclusive initiative is designed to help colleges and universities
       fully integrate their diversity and educational quality efforts and embed them into the
       core of academic mission and institutional functioning. Through this initiative, AAC&U
       re-envisions diversity and inclusion as a multi-layered process through which we achieve
       excellence in learning; research and teaching; student development; institutional
       functioning; local and global community engagement; workforce development; and more.

Inclusive Excellence in the University of Wisconsin System “holds that UW System colleges and
universities need to intentionally integrate their diversity efforts into the core aspects of their
institutions—such as their academic priorities, leadership, quality improvement initiatives,
decision-making, day-to-day operations, and organizational cultures—in order to maximize their
success.”

Each institution in the University of Wisconsin System has been charged with the responsibility
of moving Inclusive Excellence forward in ways best adapted to its particular strengths and
challenges. The UW Colleges is in the preliminary stages of this work, having joined System-
wide meetings over the summer for institutional and constituency-group leaders, then conducting
informational meetings for UW Colleges leadership in Madison on September 30, and academic
department chairs at UW-Fond du Lac on October 10. Following this, a Colleges-wide Inclusive
Excellence Committee will be named shortly, with broad representation from across the
institution, ranging from students, academic department chairs, to faculty and IAS, academic and
classified staff, deans, and others. The committee’s work will be informed by that of the Equity
Scorecard Project, the Campus Climate Study, and an excellent body of national research. Please
watch for more information coming soon!


Respectfully submitted,

Lisa Seale
October 14, 2009




                                                36
                                             Attachment 4

                        UW Colleges Interim Associate Vice Chancellor for
                         Student Services and Enrollment Management
                                      Report to the Senate
                                        October 23, 2009

I would like to summarize activity and program highlights from the various departments in the Office
of Student Services and Enrollment Management:

Student Financial Aid

President Obama in his 2010 budget has proposed that the subsidies that are currently set by
Congress and paid to private lenders in the government-guaranteed student loan program be
eliminated and that, in the future, all student loans be originated in the government run direct lending
program. There are still conflicting reports about the amount of federal money that may or may not
be saved by removing private lenders from the guaranteed student loan business. What we do know
is that this action is the single greatest change to financial aid since its inception in 1965 with the
creation of the National Direct Student Loan program.

Assuming that this component in President Obama’s budget proposal is approved by both the House
and Senate, what will the change to direct government lending mean for UW Colleges students?

    Ø Students will no longer have the option of selecting a lender or, it could be stated, that
       students will no longer have to evaluate and compare the multitude of variances in private
       lender benefits and “hope” that they select the lender which gives them “the best deal”. We
       know that students were very confused in their understanding of lender benefits. All student
       loans will now have the same benefits. There will no longer be a choice in lender. While this
       simplifies the student loan process significantly, it also eliminates the basic right to choose a
       lender.
    Ø All current students who have guaranteed student loans will need to re-do their promissory
       notes and re-do loan counseling. Administratively, the promissory notes will be more
       difficult to manage than the loan counseling but we are confident that with an effective
       communication plan we can accomplish both.
    Ø New students will have a simplified process for applying for a student loan. Students will no
       longer need to “consolidate” the student loans they may have received from multiple lenders
       over the course of their college careers.

Admissions/ Registrar’s Office

•   The procedures for the Guaranteed Transfer process are being improved to provide student
    information in a comprehensive report from the Central Office whenever the four-year
    institutions request it rather than the current process of completing and mailing a piece of paper
    for each student.
•   The data in the Transfer Information System (TIS) is being updated. All PED designations are
    being changed to HES; older, questionable courses are being reviewed to confirm that
    equivalents are still accurate, and faculty input is being solicited on tech courses and equivalents.
•   The Transfer Working Group has been focusing on transfer issues, brochures, and ad hoc reports
    from System on missing equivalents or transfer issues from the technical colleges.

                                                   37
University Relations/ Marketing

•   The 2009-11 Viewbooks were re-designed, printed and delivered to campuses in September.
    These publications are used as a primary recruitment tool for students.
•   Website work is continuing with the UWCX IT web team. The BRN and MAN campus websites
    have been redesigned and MTH, RCK, and WSH are in the process. Other web projects include:
    the branding and re-design of department websites, Institutional Research, Library Support
    Services, and the Institutional Review Board (IRB).
•   A marketing plan to support recruitment is being developed based on the spring 2009 high school
    senior market research. Implementation will begin in January 2010.

Student Accessibility Services

•   The Student Accessibility Services Faculty & Staff Handbook was updated and distributed this
    semester.
•   Recording for the Blind and Dyslexic’s new audio textbook download format is now available to
    UW Colleges students with print-related disabilities who have the appropriate personal
    equipment.
•   Brian Schultz completed a faculty/staff training video titled: “Universal Design in an Educational
    Setting.” In the video, students with disabilities describe their access needs and instructors
    present several easy-to-implement strategies for making courses accessible, which eventually
    benefits all students.
•   Fall semester has brought an increased enrollment of students with disabilities who have more
    complex accommodation needs, i.e., the need for sign language interpreters/captioning; course
    integration assistance for students with Asperger’s Syndrome; transcription of course materials
    in-house for students without financial resources, and accommodations for returning veterans
    with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Veterans Services

With the activation of the new Post-9/11 GI Bill, the number of veterans attending college across the
nation this fall is expected to jump 30 percent from last year to nearly half a million. For the past
month, the UW Colleges has been seeing increased numbers of veterans coming to campus and
enrolling in classes. The Post-9/11 GI Bill is the most comprehensive education benefit package
since the original GI Bill was signed into law in 1944. The Post-9/11 GI Bill includes both tuition
support and a housing stipend, and veterans may be able to transfer Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to
dependents. The University of Wisconsin Colleges is fully approved for the certification of
educational benefits for veterans and veterans' dependents under both federal and state veterans
administration programs.

Respectfully submitted,
Patti Wise
Interim Associate Vice Chancellor for
Student Services and Enrollment Management




                                                 38
                                                   Proposed Summer Sessions Table – Summer 2010


        Week          2W1          2W3      2W6   3W1   3W2 3W3   4W1   4W2 4W3   4W4   4W5   5W1 5W2   6W1 6W2   6W3 6W4 7W1   8W1 8W2
5/26	
  -­‐	
  5/28
6/1	
  -­‐	
  6/4
6/7	
  -­‐	
  6/11
6/14	
  -­‐	
  6/18
6/21	
  -­‐	
  6/25
6/28	
  -­‐	
  7/2
7/5	
  -­‐	
  7/9
7/12	
  -­‐	
  7/16
7/19	
  -­‐	
  7/23
7/26	
  -­‐	
  7/30
8/2	
  -­‐	
  8/6


        2W1           5/26	
  -­‐	
  6/4
        2W3           6/7	
  -­‐	
  6/18
        2W6           6/21	
  -­‐	
  7/2
        3W1           5/26	
  -­‐	
  6/16
        3W2           6/21	
  -­‐	
  7/9
        3W3           7/12	
  -­‐	
  7/30
        4W1           6/7	
  -­‐	
  7/2
        4W2           6/14	
  -­‐	
  7/9
        4W3           6/21	
  -­‐	
  7/16
        4W4           6/28	
  -­‐	
  7/23
        4W5           7/5	
  -­‐	
  7/30
        5W1           5/26	
  -­‐	
  6/25
        5W2           6/28	
  -­‐	
  7/30
        6W1           5/26	
  -­‐	
  7/7
        6W2           6/7	
  -­‐	
  7/16
        6W3           6/14	
  -­‐	
  7/23
        6W4           6/21	
  -­‐	
  7/30
        7W1           6/14	
  -­‐	
  7/30
        8W1           5/26	
  -­‐	
  7/21
        8W2           6/7	
  -­‐	
  7/30




                                                                                  39
                                       Attachment 5

                        Senate Steering Committee Chair
         UW Colleges Faculty Representative to UW System Administration
                        Report to the UW Colleges Senate
                                October 23, 2009

1. Faculty Rep meeting

    a. We had a short discussion of collective bargaining, the chair of the faculty
       representatives and UW System provided some resources for other campuses to
       contact.
    b. The faculty representatives want to see system measure the impact of furloughs.

2. Senate Steering

    a. Administrative Drop Dates. Waukesha suggested improving retention by changing
         the administrative drop date and allowing for drops after a longer number of classes.
         Given the ramifications of such a change, possible problems with the existing policy
         as written, and the need for hard data, I plan on recommending to Steering that we
         route this to SAPC but ask for extensive feedback from administration.

    b. Collegium election dates vs. Senate Needs. Steering asked Collegia to schedule
         elections early enough that the Senate knows the next year’s membership two weeks
         prior to the final Senate meeting of the year.

    c. Correspondence Committee. I a draft of the Senate Leaders Handbook with
         extensive changes in Chapter 4. I want a final version ready by October 23.

    d. Dean’s List. Apparently the USC folks who ran the Equity Scorecard understood
         there to be some agreement about changing the rules for the Dean’s List so that it did
         not discriminate against part-time students. Brett Barker was considering a proposal.
         I have heard nothing as of October 6, 2009.

    e. Early Tenure. Margaret Hankenson requests that the Senate reexamine the early
         tenure portion of 501. She would like to see a more precise timetable for (a) when a
         probationer is nominated for early tenure, (b) when a campus responds to a
         department, (c) when the probationer is contacted and who informs the probationer,
         (d) when is central notified and who at central is notified, and (e) should there be a
         more formal process.

    f.   Evaluations for Lab and Lecture. Jennifer Flatt sent an email noting IAS observed
         a tendency for students to use lab evaluations to comment on the instructor of the
         lecture of the same course. She asked for new language in the instructions to correct
         this. There is also a problem with IAS who only teach labs and whose evaluations
         must then be ignored because they are part of a two-instructor course. I suggest we
         send this to SAPC to resolve.

                                             40
g. Faculty Senators. Answered the question “Does a faculty senator have to be
   faculty?” The Constitution, though it makes it absolutely clear that only faculty or
   those with faculty status can vote for the faculty Senator, it does not absolutely
   define that only faculty may serve as faculty senator. By comparison, the definition
   of academic staff senator clearly states that only academic staff may serve. However,
   given that the faculty senators is called a ‘faculty’ senator and because we have on
   treated the position as one in which a faculty member or staff with faculty status can
   occupy (within my memory), I said that only a faculty member can occupy the spot.

h. Furlough related items. Because the wording of the three furlough related items
   (202.II.G, #301, and Office hours) evolved after the motions were accepted
   September 9, I placed them on the September 23 agenda. I put them on the consent
   agenda since the wording changed, but the meaning did not. After we adopt these as
   interim policies per IP 405.H they must come back to the Senate for normal
   consideration.

i. IP #405 Modifications. IP 405 allows Senate Steering to approve interim policies
   but does not explain how the roles of the Senate or the Chancellor in making an
   interim policy permanent. I rewrote the policy to make the role of the Chancellor and
   the Senate more explicit and submitted the amendment to Steering.

j. Merit question and request. At Washington County, a faculty member questioned
   the necessity of the merit exercise. He suggested that since there was no money
   available and since, in the past, merit ratings from years when there was no money
   were not used, there was no point. Furthermore, merit takes time that better spent
   elsewhere, especially if the results are not used. I said I would bring it to Steering.

k. Online and Merit. Albert Bugaj, chair of Psychology, sent an email about Shirley
   Hensch. In the future, Shirley will return to teaching full-time, but she will do so
   online. Psychology is concerned how she will determine campus merit. One fix
   would be put her on a campus and integrate her into campus committee service. The
   other would be to create a structure whereby Online essentially becomes a campus
   and has the Collegium and the campus committees that would be required. This is no
   simple topic, but it is one that I would like to begin by addressing in Steering and at
   the Senate Leaders Retreat.

l. Professional development proposal from Washington County. Steve Wildeck
   answered my question about the source of campus funds by stating that campus
   professional development comes from S&E and each campus determines how much
   they use for PD. S&E is determined by a formula at central. My recommendation is
   that we not address this issue until the Colleges settles what happens with the
   enrollment pilots. Diane Pillard added that she would oppose decreasing campus PD
   because faculty from a particular campus might not receive any. I’m still waiting to
   hear from the committee.




                                        41
       m. Senate Curriculum Committee and IS course for UW Fond du Lac. There was
          frustration with the introduction of an IS course at Fond du Lac that originated at
          UWWC. The course was an IS to be taught by the same two instructors as taught it
          at UWWC – an unusual situation. I believe that time constraints and
          misunderstanding of the existing policy led to frustration and conflict. I suggested a
          resolution based on existing policy but suggested future changes that I will pass to
          Steering. Was everyone happy? Meh.

       n. Streamlining. I sent a plan to Greg Lampe and how to find and implement
          streamlining through Senate Steering. We have sent the request out to various
          groups. I will follow-up on this often. My main goal with the short timeline was to
          get something for the October Senate to work on. I sent a follow-up at the beginning
          of Fall semester after consulting Steering. I will send another soon.

       o. Student Representation: I spoke with Karley Adney, SGS sponsor. She has had no
          contact with the SGC President since last May. However, Kuzdas (SGC Vice
          President) is constant contact and should be able to represent SGC.

       p. UWC Copyright Committee. One faculty member left the committee. On the
          advice of the remaining faculty member, Bill Gillard, I recommend we allow the
          committee to continue without replacing the faculty member. Steering concurred.

       q. UWC pandemic response advisory group. Greg has informed me that he plans to
          form an advisory group of which I would be a part as a way of bringing governance
          input. I am supposed to attend a meeting sometime soon.

       r. UWS 17 and 18. There was discussion between Central, members of the Marathon
          campus, and me about the implementation of the new requirements for UWS 17 and
          18. Patti Wise clarified the process the Colleges will use to implement the new
          requirements. The details are in the addendum.

       s. Visitations. I was involved in a conversation with Komoto, Kingston, and Ryback
          about Online visitations. As it turns out, there is no separate policy on visitations,
          much less online visitations. And while I think we need flexibility, we should
          probably have a minimum definition of visitation somewhere in our policies.
          Especially since we use the term extensively in tenure policies. At the moment, I
          asked Kitty to gather more information about what Departments policies before I
          suggest action.

Respectfully submitted,
Alan Paul Price
UW Colleges Senate Steering Chair




                                               42
                                         Attachment 6

                          UW Colleges Academic Staff Lead Senator
                             Report to the UW Colleges Senate
                                     October 23, 2009

New Senators

Two new Academic Staff Senators have been appointed to serve on the Academic Staff Council
of Senators. The ASCS would like to take the opportunity to introduce Jennifer Haas, who is
replacing Colleen Harkins, and will be serving on the Academic Staff Personnel Committee and
the Senate Academic Policy Committee; and Becky Mullane, who is replacing Amy Castelic and
will be serving as Academic Staff Representative to UW System and on the Senate Steering
Committee. The ASCS thanks them for their willingness to step up to the plate when needed and
for their service to the ASCS and UW Colleges Senate.

The ASCS also wishes to officially thank both Colleen Harkins and Amy Castelic for their
admirable service to the ASCS and the UW Colleges Senate.

Personnel Policy Actions

The Academic Staff Council of Senators charged the Academic Staff Personnel Committee with
reviewing two policies:

ASPP #704:
To review and recommend action concerning wording directing the Office of Academic Affairs
to provide written notification to the Academic Staff Council of Senators and Academic Staff
Liaisons annually of all academic staff promotions within the year. The ASPC completed the
review and made its recommendation to the ASCS, which will discuss and vote on the
recommendation at its October 23, 2009 meeting.

IP #322:
To review and recommend to the ASCS wording that would include the Online Program in the
promotion process for Instructional Academic Staff teaching either exclusively online or as part
of a split appointment between a campus and the Online Program. The ASPC completed the
review and recommended revision to IP #322, which the ASCS voted to support and recommend
to the full senate as an Introduction at the October 23, 2009 meeting of the UW Colleges senate.

The ASPC was also charged with reviewing the draft of a uniform policy for IAS promotion
procedures for inclusion of the Online Program in those procedures. As of October 2, 2009, the
ASPC had not recommended changes.

Academic Staff Liaisons

UW Colleges campuses that do not have an Academic Staff Senator serving on the Academic
Staff Council of Senators are assigned an AS Liaison. Liaisons are appointed by the AS Lead

                                               43
Senator from a list of volunteers. However, there is no existing Academic Staff policy noting
either the need for the existence of AS Liaisons or the process by which liaisons should be
selected.

Therefore, the ASCS charged the Academic Staff Nominations and Elections Committee to
review and recommend to the Council concerning the following:

   •   Is the AS Liaison position antiquated, from a time prior to widely accessible
       dissemination of information through electronic medium, and therefore should be
       discontinued?
   •   Should the position of AS Liaisons be retained? If so, develop official policies noting the
       need for AS Liaisons and the mechanism by which they should be selected, for example:
       appointed by the AS Lead Senator or by local campus elections.
   •   Should the AS Liaison position be discontinued and election of an AS Senator for each
       campus and the Online Program be instituted with the larger AS Council of Senators
       electing from its ranks eight senators to serve on the UW Colleges per constitutional
       guidelines?

As of the date of this report, the AS N&EC is in discussions about the proposed options but has
not finalized those deliberations.

UW Colleges Library Task Force

The ASCS sought feedback from UW Colleges academic staff concerning the recommendations
made to Chancellor Wilson by the Library Task Force, so the Council might better represent the
concerns and opinions of academic staff in discussions about the recommendations during the
October 23, 2009 senate meeting.

Overwhelmingly, academic staff responding to the call for feedback expressed concern that
cutting our library budgets would harm students and campus functions, and suggested cost
savings should be sought elsewhere. For example, one instructional academic staff noted: “If
Library services and resources are cut, our students suffer. If administration salaries are cut to
make up the shortfall, the students do not suffer. The Library resources and services to students
are direct and immediate.”

Another academic staff noted that for many campuses, including his home campus of Marathon
County, the library directors also serve as IT Directors. He forwarded to the Council a concern
he had shared with the task force: “My question is this – has any though[t] been given to who
would take on the IT/supervision responsibilities for said campuses if either a reduction or
elimination of the director positions happens? According to the report the library director
responsibilities would be taken over by either a regional or central director, would the same
person take on the IT responsibilities as well? Or would that shift to someone else on the
campus – and if so, who?”



                                                44
Still another academic staff member from Waukesha noted, “Our libraries are basic to all our
academic goals and I believe that they have made a good faith effort to achieve the institutional
goals established by the Chancellor.

“Option #1 is our best opportunity to continue excellence in our library system.”

Other responses received, both written and oral, are similar in spirit to the above noted comments
with one notable addition: several academic staff, librarians and academic staff who are not
librarians, expressed concern that the Budget Planning Work Group recommendations
concerning library restructuring, and Options 2 and 3 from the Library Task Force were based on
faulty data.

Further, the AS Lead Senator has been asked to present as part of any senate discussion
concerning the recommendations from the task force acknowledgement of the many activities
Colleges librarians engage in, not only as employees of UW Colleges but as integral members of
the communities in which they work as representatives for their local UW Colleges campuses;
and to please correct misperceptions that Option 1 recommendations are merely an attempt by
librarians to deflect budgetary harm away from themselves.

Finally, the Academic Staff Council of Senators is in discussions about whether or not to
formulate a resolution in harmony with the feedback it has received from academic staff and in
harmony with campus resolutions already passed for presentation on October 23, 2009.
Discussion of a possible resolution, however, has not concluded as of the date of this report.

Respectfully Submitted
October 9, 2009
Richard Krupnow




                                                45
                                           Attachment 7

        UW Colleges Academic Staff Representative to UW System Administration
                         Report to the UW Colleges Senate
                                   October 23, 2009


AS Development/Leadership Conference 2010

The UW-Colleges will be hosting the AS Development/Leadership Conference in summer 2010.
This is the first time the conference has been hosted by the UW-Colleges since 1994, according
to the UW-System website. The conference will take place on the UW-Fox campus, however,
senators should go back to their respective campuses and communicate the perspective that this
is a Colleges-wide event, a chance for all Colleges campuses to participate by soliciting door
prizes with their campuses' logos, by offering suggestions for programming, talking to their
campuses' foundations to see if they can contribute money for door prizes, entertainment, etc.

Website Updates

The AS reps worked over the summer and into the beginning of the semester to develop
PowerPoint presentations, accessible to all academic staff via the Rep's website, explaining key
elements of collective bargaining and unit clarification. This information is available at
http://www.uwsa.edu/acss/asreps/index.htm.

Academic Staff Representatives Meeting Highlights: September 25, 2009

Unit Clarification

The UW-Stout representative reported that his campus has drafted a resolution against any sort
of unit clarification.

David Carlson, president of ASPRO (Academic Staff Professionals Representation
Organization), suggested that Peter Davis at WERC (Wisconsin Employment Relations
Commission) could be contacted to ask whether any collective bargaining units have filed
petitions for unit clarification.

Al Crist, System Associate Vice President for Human Resources and Workforce Diversity,
reported that at least three UW institutions have had open records requests for information that
could be used in unit clarification. Institutions have been instructed to forward any such requests
to UW System, which will deal with them.

Collective Bargaining

Before the formal meeting with UW System management, the representatives made some
observations about collective bargaining:



                                                46
   •   With no pay increases for academic staff and faculty, ASPRO has—maybe only
       temporarily—lost its issue of trying to prevent decoupling for compensation. ASPRO
       should maintain its profile by actively educating academic staff about employment issues.
       Carlson said that he would look into an ASPRO-hosted WisLine Web conference.
   •   Until recently, academic staff have been so focused on preventing decoupling that we
       haven’t seriously investigated the possible advantages of an all-academic-staff bargaining
       unit.
   •   ASPRO is considering whether it should become a bargaining organization for academic
       staff. (Currently, it is a lobbying organization.)
   •   Because UW System no longer opposes collective bargaining, it has lost motivation to try
       to distinguish academic staff positions from classified staff positions.

Later, in the formal meeting, Crist said that UW System has issued a request for quote to hire a
consultant to educate UW System personnel about the nuances of collective bargaining in a
university setting. The consultant would have to be strictly neutral. Asked why System doesn’t
seek advice from the School for Workers, Crist said that it would be a conflict of interest for staff
who could ultimately be represented by a bargaining unit to give advice about collective
bargaining.

Multiyear Appointments

The UW-Oshkosh representative reported that the campus is now offering multiyear
appointments to instructional academic staff with more than seven years’ experience—as a result
of academic staff representatives raising the issue. Representatives argue that in a budget climate
with no pay increases and reduced pay as a result of furloughs, multiyear appointments are a way
for management to make people happy that doesn’t cost anything—no increase in salary or
benefits.

Telling Our Story

After the formal meeting, the representatives talked about better presenting to the Board of
Regents and System the value of what academic staff do. More academic staff should attend
Regents meetings. When the Regents and System launch a new initiative, we should break it
down into parts and communicate to the Regents and System which functions will be handled by
academic staff. Many initiatives require more academic staff than faculty effort to implement.


Respectfully submitted,
Becky Mullane
AS Rep




                                                 47
                                         Attachment 8

                          UW Colleges Student Governance Council
                            Report to the UW Colleges Senate
                                     October 23, 2009


We are focusing on elections; our first meeting will be an informative one, as we do not have
enough members for quorum. We hope to have elections within the next two weeks. SGC has
been charged by UWMC's SGA to pursue the interests of the students regarding Mental Health
Counseling funding (see below). Besides Mental Health Counseling funding, SGC's other main
focus is text book reform (a rental program).


The charge from UWMC's SGA to SGC:

Whereas the UW System's Mental Health Committee has recommended mental health programs
be mandated on every UW campus; and
Whereas the primary funding sources for such programs (it has been recommended) not be
student segregated fees; and
Whereas the two year campuses have considerably less funding for such programs than do four
year institutions; and
Whereas the four-year institutions are set to receive state appropriated funds,
Therefore be it resolved, we request that SGC represent the students of the two-year campuses in
pursuing state appropriated funding for this state mandated program; because state appropriated
funds would ease the funding requirements from student-segregated fees.


Respectfully submitted,
Jeff Heise,
UWMC SGA President




                                               48
                                          Attachment 9

                          Senate Academic Policy Committee Chair
                             Report to the UW Colleges Senate
                                     October 23, 2009


At the last Senate meeting of the 2008-09 academic year, SAPC met and discussed various
agenda items including the following;

   •   Revision to IP#101.01 - The phrase “…and program” was suggested by Senate Steering
       to be included in the SAPC’s policy introduction for the Senate meeting. Although this
       was amended, there appears to be more work needed on the issue of what actually
       constitutes an academic program. The SPAC will need to continue working on
       policy/guidelines regarding this matter.
   •   Honors at Graduation – The committee agreed with the proposed adoption to the policy
       to included graduation honors, and agreed to the names and GPA ranges for each.
   •   Discussion on Modifications to Degree w/ Emphasis Policy Response – Senate Steering
       had communicated to the SAPC that they had some suggested modifications to these types
       of Degrees. After discussion of each point, the committee determined that in some cases
       only a clarification was needed, while others did not seem appropriate to make at this
       time. Specifically, a local degree with emphasis was suggested making these degrees more
       applicable to each community. Even if the degree was more local, they would still need to
       be discipline-specific. Therefore a local degree with emphasis could be created but it
       would need a sponsoring department, and get approved with the current policy.
   •   Cross-Listing – The committee was asked to develop policy outlining how courses are
       Cross-Listed. Although currently being done (such as in Women’s Studies), no formal
       procedures exist. The SAPC has begun discussion and investigations into creating such
       policy.
   •   LEA policy – Similar to the above item, SAPC will be working to develop a policy to
       guide the creation, approval, and various other aspects of these courses.

The following are other items currently on the SAPC agenda. A brief description of the item is
given to save space! If further information is desired, please contact the SAPC Chair.

   •   Procedures for the Same IS Course Taught on a New Campus – The process to get the
       same IS course taught on a different campus with the same instructor and syllabus will
       need to be reviewed and clarified where needed.
   •   ENG102 Exemption Revision – A revision to the scores students need to be exempt from
       ENG102 has been modified by the English Department and SAPC will need to discuss
       this revision and introduce revisions to policy.
   •   IS Designation for Lab/Studio Courses – Current policy indicates a 20% minimum of
       “class” instruction from a different perspective. Some 3-credit courses have contact hours
       beyond the typical 3-credit lecture course. Therefore the SAPC will need to determine
       how much time is need from a different instructor(s) to meet the minimum requirement
       for IS approval.

                                               49
   •   AP IB CLEP Scores – There seems to be some confusion on how these scores apply to
       the AA&S Degree along with perhaps some outdated scores and consistency of
       application across some disciplines. SAPC has been requested to try and clarify the
       application of the scores or modify policy to reflect more current practice.
   •   Study Abroad/Internship Course Number – To aid in tracking and consistency, the
       SAPC will need to determine if standard course numbers can be used for these types of
       courses. Also, should there be procedures described in policy to guide those requesting
       approval of the courses.
   •   Academic Program Development – As mentioned previously, several UWC documents
       note that programs exist but apparently there are no procedures on how an Academic
       Program is created (or eliminated), nor the approval or evaluation process needed for such
       groups. The SAPC has been asked to begin the development of those procedures,
       including how a program can be “Inherently IS.”
   •   Final Exam Period for Online, Winterim, & Summer courses – Currently policy does
       not specifically address issues relating to the Final Exam Period for these types of courses
       as it does for traditional face-to-face. The SAPC will review and proposed revisions to the
       policy to include more atypical course delivery methods. The committee will also need to
       address the “Study Day” before final exams begin.
   •   Reorganizing IP 101.02.IV. – Senate Steering has requested the SAPC review and
       propose a revision to clarify this policy.
   •   Faculty-Initiated Dropping of Students – The SAPC has been asked to investigate if a
       policy could be created to allow each campus the ability to initiate the dropping of a
       student who has “disappeared” during the semester before they receive an “F”. There are
       many issues involved with this and the SAPC will investigate what the ramifications are
       for such a policy.
   •   Dean’s List – Current requirements for being included on the Dean’s List differs between
       Full and Part-Time students. After further information is gathered, the SAPC will
       determine if adjustments need to be made regarding this policy.
   •   Streamlining Policies – If the committee has any free time left over, it will begin a
       review and discuss on how to streamline our policies and procedures to better serve the
       UWC community!


Respectfully submitted,
Dr. Michael C. Jurmu
Chair of Senate Academic Policy Committee
October 9, 2009




                                                50
                                          Attachment 10

                               Senate Budget Committee Chair
                               Report to the UW Colleges Senate
                                       October 23, 2009

The Senate Budget Committee (SBC) last met in person at the April 6, 2009 Senate meeting.
We have also met twice via teleconference on September 4 and 25, 2009. The following issues
were discussed.

UW Colleges Underfunding Task Force: The report was completed, submitted to the chancellor,
and is available on the chancellor’s website under the reports and articles heading.

UW Colleges Budget Planning Workgroup base recommendations.
Last spring, a Budget Planning Work Group (BPWG) was formed to address potential cuts to the
UW Colleges budget. At that time it was estimated that we would face a $1.6 million base
reduction (ongoing) and a $2.09 million lapse (one-time giveback during this biennium). The
base recommendations were discussed during the September 25 meeting after careful review by
SBC members. These recommendations are available at the chancellor’s budget impacts
website.
Discussion
The SBC expressed a strong general, but not unanimous, support for the base recommendations.
Members appreciate the data driven approach that was taken to make the difficult
recommendations. They also felt that the recommendations represent a prudent fiscal approach
in difficult economic times and are hopeful that strong advocacy for increased funding will
increase our base budget in the very near future. Although the base reductions were made in a
way to reduce impacts on the institution, the magnitude of the reductions will have an impact on
our daily operations and mission. There is concern that we made cuts to areas that will adversely
affect students and campuses, especially as we work toward the pilot project model. The SBC
recommends that the impacts of these decisions be carefully tracked and adjusted as necessary.

UW Colleges Budget Planning Workgroup lapse recommendations.
Last spring when the BPWG was formed it was estimated that we would face a $1.6 million base
reduction (ongoing) and a $2.09 million lapse (one-time giveback during this biennium).
Although the base reduction materialized, the lapse amount was reduced for all UW institutions,
including the UW-Colleges. This happened for a variety of reasons, including a tuition increase
that offset the lapse, the elimination of a 2% pay increase for non-classified employees, and the
approximately 3% reduction in pay due to the state-mandated furloughs. The salary reductions
freed money to reduce the lapse since our salaries are funded about 50% by the state and 50% by
tuition money, and the state’s intention was to reclaim only the state-funded savings; the tuition-
funded savings can be used to reduce the lapse requirement. Ultimately our lapse was reduced to
$551,000 for 2009-2010. Although the lapse for 2010-2011 is not known at this time, it is
expected to be between $0 and $551,000. If state or national economic conditions require a mid-
biennium state budget repair, however, it could result in an additional lapse to the UW Colleges.




                                                51
On August 25 the BPWG met to reconsider the $2.09 million lapse recommendation they made
in March, 2009. The group made the recommendation that the original $2.09 million lapse plan
be implemented, that the BPWG reconvene in April, 2010 to reassess how to handle any lapse
funds remaining in the institutional reserve, and that restoration of laboratory and classroom
modernization funding be given top priority should funds be available.
Discussion
There was strong consensus among the SBC that the Reduced Lapse Recommendation made by
the BPWG was sound and fiscally responsible in uncertain budget times. The committee fully
supports it. Three additional ideas were raised and discussed:
    1. Can we use any lapse savings to reimburse employees for part of the salary loss due to
         the furloughs? Simply, the UW Colleges does not have the authority to do this since the
         furloughs were state mandated.
    2. Can we use any lapse savings to backfill faculty courses when they are on furlough? This
         is a new idea that needs further thought and reflection. Chancellor Wilson is taking this
         under advisement.
    3. Can we use any lapse savings to reduce the need for business services or library
         reorganization (being addressed by their respective task forces)? Since any lapse savings
         would be one-time money, they could not be used to reduce the need for reorganization.
         They could be used to ease the transition for affected employees. Chancellor Wilson is
         taking this under advisement.
The SBC also specifically discussed the recommendation that laboratory and classroom
modernization funding be given top priority should funds be available. The committee
unanimously agreed with this recommendation because this program has direct benefits to
students, faculty, and staff on the campuses, that all campuses benefit from these funds, and that
this is a priority need on the campuses.

Business Services Task Force recommendations.
One recommendation of the BPWG was to reduce the institution-wide business services base
budget by $250,000. The Business Services Task Force was created to make recommendations
as to how to implement this reduction. The SBC discussed these recommendations after careful
review.
Discussion
The SBC expressed unanimous support for the recommendations. Members again appreciate the
data driven approach that was taken to make the difficult recommendations. There were some
concerns over recommendation #4, which shifts responsibility for Instructional Academic Staff
(IAS) budget management on smaller campuses from the Associate Dean (AD) to the Assistant
Dean for Administrative Services (ADAS) and reduces the AD appointments to 25%. If the ADs
are currently not handling the IAS budget, this recommendation will not reduce their workload
but will reduce their release time (compensation). Further, it may prove difficult to fill the AD
position at ¼ release time. The SBC recommends that the responsibilities of the ADs at these
campuses be carefully reviewed and adjusted if necessary so that they match the compensation.
There was also some feeling that we should implement recommendation #6 immediately. This
recommendation would discontinue routine word processing and photocopying services for
faculty (but not other faculty support services) since self-service is convenient and cost-efficient.

Salary compression issues.

                                                 52
Over the last few years, the UW Colleges has been committed to increasing starting salaries for
tenure-track faculty by $500 each year. Continuing faculty will usually exceed the higher
starting salaries due to routine pay plan increases. This year the starting salaries were increased
to $43,000 when it was anticipated that continuing faculty would receive a 2% increase in May
and around 2% for the first year of the biennium. Due to the state budget problems, neither of
these pay plans materialized so currently 2nd and 3rd year returning faculty are making less
($42,500) than the new starting salary. When this has happened occasionally in the past, we
have historically increased the salary of continuing faculty up to or just above new hires.
Discussion
The SBC expressed unanimous and strong support for increasing continuing faculty salaries up
to or slightly exceeding new hires. Although this will only exacerbate existing salary
compression issues, it is important to do to avoid hurting morale (by promoting fairness) and to
retain quality faculty. We feel that these issues outweigh the problems that might be caused by
these being the only pay increases given this year. The SBC and UW Colleges administration
see salary compression as a priority issue that needs to be addressed in the near future.

Respectfully submitted,

Rick Hein
Chair, Senate Budget Committee




                                                 53
                                         Attachment 11

                      Faculty Professional Standards Committee Chair
                             Report to the UW Colleges Senate
                                      October 23, 2009

The FPSC discussed several issues during their April meeting, some of which required policy
interpretations. One issue involved proposal for policy change to be voted on during the October
Senate meeting.

    I. The FPSC continues to be active in the ePortfolio pilot program. 08-09 FPSC chair
       Aharon Zorea noted that Pat Fellows is setting up the ePortfolio system on D2L creating
       a “dummy” portfolio to test. Philosophy, Political Science, and Geography among the
       three departments that are part of the pilot program. There will be a training program for
       dossier submitters and opportunities for them to provide feedback. The language in #501
       concerning dossier submission should be fine for now, but will need to be revisited in
       Spring 2010 (especially language concerning use of D2L site for dossier submission).

   II. The FPSC review of Proposed Resolution Re IP #301 [exceptions to student evaluations
       sent to Department or Campus RTP Committees]: The committee discussed language
       from SAP including accelerated learning program. Overall, the changes do not change the
       spirit of the proposal – the idea is that data from courses for which faculty are not fully
       responsible oughtn’t be used for the purposes of tenure, promotion, retention or merit
       decisions.

  III. The FPSC discussed a question raised by a department pertaining to FPP #503 (relating
       to merit exception). This related to two questions:
           a. Should the Colleges grant exception to the imposed limit on the number of Highly
              and Exceptionally Meritorious faculty? The Committee determined that policy
              does not and should not allow for merit exceptions. The Committee also
              determined that adding exceptions for merit would erode the meaning of
              meritorious. The Committee did note that there is language in #503 that could
              potentially allow for merit exceptions (e.g.,the use of the word “normally” in I. b.
              2. open the door for possible exceptions). However, the committee decided that
              considering the differences between the content and methodology of different
              disciplines, there is no way to determine whether some departments have
              performed much more exceptionally than others. Additionally, the Committee
              thought that to warrant such an exception assumes that some departments are
              much more meritorious than other departments (and this is especially difficult to
              imagine since the primary criterion for merit is teaching effectiveness). The
              Committee found it difficult to conceive of a situation where a department could
              be isolated enough to distinguish itself in such an exceptional manner. The
              recommendation of the committee is to simply strike the term “normally” from
              the policy.




                                               54
          b. If the Colleges should grant such exceptions, what rubrics should the Colleges use
              for determining them? Since the Committee didn’t determine that merit
              exceptions should be made, the second question was deemed to be moot.
  IV. The FPSC was asked to make sure that FPP #501 language is consistent throughout the
      policy. The Committee concluded that it is.

   V. The FPSC discussed whether IPP #301.01 needs to be changed to deal with the
      evaluation of faculty during professional or sabbatical leave. The Committee decided
      after thoroughly investigating and discussing this issues FPSC concluded that is
      impossible to evaluate classes that do not exist and thus didn’t see the need to modify
      current policy.

  VI. The FPSC was asked to address storage options for #501.01. The Committee decided to
      make a list of relevant considerations for #501.01 following the successfully completion
      of the ePortfolio pilot program.

 VII. The Committee considered whether there need to be any changes to FPP #505. There
      were three issues. 1) The form and policy seem to distinguish between department
      members and IAS suggesting that they are not the same. 2) The policy suggests that the
      department may include people outside the department in evaluating the chair without
      specifying who makes this decision or under what circumstances the department would
      want to ask others to review the chair. 3) There is no place on the form for vice-associate
      chair. There is also concern that the policy needs to be reorganized. The Committee
      determined that the IAS category from the form should be eliminated and add the phrase
      “professional status” under component “c.” With respect to the issue of who makes the
      decision of whether others outside of the department should be asked to review the chair
      and under what conditions, the Committee concluded that this should be left up to the
      departmental executive committee. With respect to the 3rd issue, the FPSC recommends
      that no action is necessary, preferring instead to allow the departments to address the role
      of the vice chair.

VIII. During the October meeting, the FPSC will also consider:
         a. Update on the ePortfolio program.
         b. Questions from the campuses regarding IP #301.
         c. Introduction of language change to FPP #503.
         d. Introduction of non-substantive language change and re-organization of FPP
             #505.
         e. Appropriate results of these considerations will be presented orally to the Senate
             floor.


Respectfully submitted,
Dale Murray
Chair, Faculty Professional Standards Committee




                                               55
                                         Attachment 12

                             Senate Assessment Committee Chair
                              Report to the UW Colleges Senate
                                      October 23, 2009

Summary: Since our last report in April 2009, the Senate Assessment Committee (SAC) met
with our Department Assessment Coordinators (DACs) and completed the cycle of assessment
for Quantitative and Communication Skills. 2009-2010 Assessment activities will focus on
Analytical and Aesthetic Skills. The 2008-2009 Campus Assessment Cycle was also completed.
Campuses used a variety of tools, including town hall meetings, focus groups and surveys, to
assess a variety of activities including use of campus space, students’ reading and writing habits
and campus strategic plans. Some campuses will continue their current focus while others will
move on to new areas. The action plans for DACS and CACs for the 2009 – 2010 cycle are
outlined below. SAC members and several DACs continue planning for the Assessment Summit
in March, 2010. The goals of the Summit are to incorporate Institutional planning into our
Assessment process, involving administrators in the discussion of the assessment results.

Action Plan for Measuring Student Achievement of General Education Skills
(Institution Level) for 2009 - 2010

Focus
   1. Analytical and/or Aesthetic Skills.
   2. Continued emphasis will be placed on assessment of a representative sample of on-line
      classes.
   3. Documentation that assessment results are being used as the basis for implementing
      changes in teaching and curriculum (i.e. closing the loop).
   4. Emphasis on teaching students how best to select and apply scientific and other
      appropriate methodologies for solving problems (performance indicator A4). Instructors
      are encouraged to emphasize teaching this skill even if their department has not chosen
      the A4 performance indicator for assessment.

Action Plan for Department and Discipline-Specific Assessment for 2009-2010

Focus
   1. Continuing to move toward the goals of reliable instruments and objective grading, in
      2009-2010 we ask that departments continue to focus on creating valid assessment
      measurement tools and rubrics. Some departments have moved toward blind evaluations,
      at least with a few instructors. Other departments have created standard department
      tools.
   2. Closing the loop is more critical now that more performance indicators would have been
      assessed in multiple years. We need to see evidence of how assessment data is used to
      inform decision-making around curriculum issues and department goals.
   3. As some departments have been assessing the same department-level learning indicators
      for several years, we encourage departments to expand on the number of learning


                                               56
       indicators developed and used. In addition, we would like to see at least some of these
       learning indicators move away from replicating the institutional performance indicators.

- The Senate Assessment Committee is considering a suggestion to revise our proficiencies to
  include Cultural Diversity/Awareness Skills as a fifth proficiency. A task force has been
  formed to review this and to make recommendations for further action.

- Department Assessment plans, including planning for both institutional and departmental
  assessment, are due to SAC on October 15.


Action Plan for Campus Assessment for 2009-2010

Focus
   1. For campuses in the middle of an assessment project, continue on this path in order to
      “close the loop.”
   2. For campuses that completed an assessment project in 2008-2009, choose a new topic
      that will be useful and of interest. Some examples of activities and issues recently
      assessed by other campuses are listed below. Please note that since each campus has an
      Engaging Students in the First Year (ESFY) Coordinator, the Campus Assessment
      Coordinator (CAC) should not be engaged in assessing ESFY activities.

       •   Assessment of the effectiveness of selected campus activities in achieving the goals
           of the campus or UW Colleges strategic plans.
       •   Assessment of a campus common reading or of the campus “reading across the
           curriculum” program
       •   Assessment of a campus common theme, including the campus’s goals for selecting
           the theme and the effectiveness of activities in achieving those goals.
       •   Assessment of the effectiveness of campus practices in helping students master the
           core skills of quantitative literacy and proficiency in writing.

The campuses and departments continue to work to improve and strengthen assessment and
create an environment of improvement of student learning and success. SAC committee
members are satisfied and pleased with the performance of DACs and CACs and thank them,
along with our faculty and staff for all of their effort. We hope to expand our culture of
assessment to the administration and incorporate institutional planning into the process.

Respectfully submitted by
Nancy Soma
Chair, Senate Assessment Committee




                                               57
                                          Attachment 13

                                      UW Colleges Senate
                                  Adoption: October 23, 2009
                       Proposed Revision of UW Colleges Senate Bylaws 5.9
                           (“Annual Elections – change to SAC term”)


Background and Rationale
The assessment cycle for department assessment coordinators runs from October 1 through
October 1. It is important for the SAC term to correspond with the assessment cycle, because
SAC members are responsible for reading and providing feedback for all plans and for the draft
final plan (due July 15) and the final plan (due September 15). It makes no sense for new SAC
members to start their term just as draft plans are being submitted.

Proposed changes are in bold, red, italicized and underlined font.
UW Colleges Senate Bylaws
==================================================
Established 11/12/94                  Revised 4/29/05
Revised 3/18/95                       Revised 10/19/07
Revised 1/11/96                       Revised 1/16/08
Revised 5/4/96                        Revised by the Senate 3-7-08
Revised 3/8/97                        Revised by the Senate 1-14-09
Revised 4/23/99
Revised 3/14/03
Revised 5/02/03
Revised 1/21/04
Revised 5/7/04


                                                 […]

5.0      Annual Elections

                                                 […]

      5.9 The terms of office of all newly elected Senators, and Senate committee members, and
          Senate committee chairs shall commence on June 1 except for the non-student
          members of the Senate Assessment Committee. Non-student members of the Senate
          assessment committee shall commence their term on October 1, serve for two years,
          and end their terms on September 30.

                                                 […]

                                                [End]




                                                  58
                                                 Attachment 14

                                       UW Colleges Senate
                                    Adoption: October 23, 2009
                          Proposed Revision of UW Colleges Senate Bylaws
                                  (“Senate Meeting Procedures”)

Background and Rationale
This revision insures that the policy that we have unofficially followed for years is actually made
official. The purpose of the deadline is to give the Assistant to the Senate sufficient time to
prepare and replicate documents for the Senate meeting.

Proposed changes are in bold, red, italicized and underlined font.
UW Colleges Senate Bylaws
==================================================
Established 11/12/94                         Revised 4/29/05
Revised 3/18/95                              Revised 10/19/07
Revised 1/11/96                              Revised 1/16/08
Revised 5/4/96                               Revised by the Senate 3-7-08
Revised 3/8/97                               Revised by the Senate 1-14-09
Revised 4/23/99
Revised 3/14/03
Revised 5/02/03
Revised 1/21/04
Revised 5/7/04


                                                        […]

8.0      Senate Meeting Procedures
         Added by the Senate XXXXXXX


         To be assured of inclusion in the official Senate Meeting agenda, all materials must be
         submitted to the Assistant to the Senate no later than ten working days prior to the
         scheduled date of the Senate meeting to which they pertain.

8.09.0 Procedure for Amending these Bylaws
         Added by the Senate March 7, 2008

                                                        […]

                                                       [End]




                                                         59
                                                    Attachment 15

                                      UW Colleges Senate
                                  Adoption: October 23, 2009
                Proposed Revision to Institutional Policy Regarding Students #202
                          (“Academic Procedures and Regulations”)

Background and Rationale
The SAPC was asked by the Student Services Council, the Office of Academic Affairs, and the
Senate Steering Committee to review a proposal to recognize students at graduation who had
achieved high grade point averages while at the UW Colleges. The committee agreed with the
proposal and has revised the policy to reflect such an honors award (see II.J.).The original
request mimicked the existing Dean’s List terminology and values. The SAPC thought it would
be more appropriate to use standard academic terminology for graduation honors. The values
do mirror those currently in use for our Dean’s List except for the highest honor which is for a
4.00 GPA. For students to be awarded the highest graduation honors (Summa Cum Laude), their
GPA must be between 3.90 and 4.00. The values proposed are also consistent with those used at
several other UWS institutions.

Proposed changes are in bold, red, italicized and underlined font.
UW Colleges Senate
Institutional Policy Regarding Students #202
Academic Procedures and Regulations
===============================================================
Ratified by the Senate - February 2, 1980: pages 2-3, Appendix 3
Amended, November 13, 1982, p.6; September 17, 1983, p.5
Amended, November 12, 1983, p.5
Amended, January 9, 1985, p.5
Amended, March 15, 1986, p.8
Amended, May 14, 1988, p.13, App.14
Revision Adopted by the Senate, May 14, 1989, p.14, App.21
Revision Ratified by the Senate, Oct. 7, 1989, p.8, App.16
Revision Adopted by the Senate, Jan. 17, 1992, p.4.
Revision Initiated by the Senate, May 7, 1994, p.8, App.11 and 12
Revision Adopted by the Senate, Oct. 1, 1994, p.8; see May 7, 1994, p. 8, App.11 and 12
Revision Adopted by the Senate, Mar. 18, 1995, p.4; att.2
Revision Adopted by the Senate, Mar. 7, 1998, pages 1,3,6,7, Att.2
Revision Adopted by the Senate, May 2, 1998, p.6
Revision Adopted by the Senate, April 23, 1999, p.5
Revision Adopted by the Senate, January 14, 2000, p.8, App. 7
Revision Adopted by the Senate, January 16, 2002, p._, App. __
Reorganized and Renumbered March 15, 2002
Revised by the Senate, March 3, 2006


                                                          […]

II. Grading System
     Revision adopted by the Senate, January 14, 2000

                                                          […]


                                                           60
I.   Honors or Dean’s List. Each UW Colleges campus may publish one or more Dean's
     Lists each semester to honor students with high grade point averages. If part-time
     students are to be included on a Dean's List, the designation as part-time students
     should be indicated. Students may request that their names be deleted from the Dean's
     List.

     FULL-TIME STUDENTS. Honors will be awarded to students carrying a minimum of
     12 semester credits which are used in determining grade point average, as detailed
     below. Honors will be awarded to full-time students carrying fewer than 12 semester
     GPA credits who meet the conditions described for part-time students below.

     PART-TIME STUDENTS. Honors will be awarded to students who have earned at
     least 15 GPA credits with an average of 3.5 and who carry a minimum of 3 semester
     credits which are used in determining grade point average, and earn a semester grade
     point average, as detailed below.

     HONORS: Grade point average of 3.5 through 3.74

     HIGH HONORS: Grade point average of 3.75 through 3.99

     HIGHEST HONORS: Grade point average of 4.00

J.   Graduation Honors. Each UW Colleges campus may award graduation honors to
     those students who are eligible to graduate with a UW Colleges’ degree. The honor
     is awarded for the total cumulative GPA for courses earned through the UW
     Colleges. The honors distinction is as follows;

     CUM LAUDE: Grade point average of 3.50 through 3.74

     MAGNA CUM LAUDE: Grade point average of 3.75 through 3.89

     SUMMA CUM LAUDE: Grade point average of 3.90 through 4.00


                                        […]

                                        [End]




                                         61
                                                    Attachment 16

                                        UW Colleges Senate
                                    Adoption: October 23, 2009
                     Proposed Revision to Institutional Curricular Policy #301.01
                        (“Administering the Student Survey of Instruction”)

 Background and Rationale
 In January, Senate Steering requested the Professional Standards Committee to analyze the
 rationale for why student evaluations in LEC100 are not included in the statistical summaries
 used by campus and department committees for promotion, tenure, and retention. During this
 process, the SPSC noticed that the student evaluations for multiple-instructor courses were not
 included in the statistical summaries, while the evaluations for online courses where the faculty
 member is not the lead instructor are only exempted for the first semester. Both the “multiple
 instructor” and “non-lead instructor” exceptions are based on the premise that promotion,
 tenure, and retention decisions should be based on evaluations of courses where the faculty are
 entirely responsible for the course content.
         The Steering Committee Chair, Department Chairs, SAP Committee, and representatives
 from Distance Education, and Non-Online Distance Education programs provided input on the
 resulting language. These proposed revisions are intended to: 1) stipulate that all student
 evaluations be sent to relevant individuals and committees on campuses and departments, with
 some specific exceptions; 2) clarify the particular exceptions by specific category of courses;
 and 3) stipulate periodic review of the policy by the Professional Standards Committee to insure
 that the specific exceptions remain current and relevant.

 The proposed changes are in bold, red, italicized and underlined font.
 UW Colleges Senate Policy
 Institutional Personnel Policy Affecting Faculty and Academic Staff #301.01
 Administering the Student Survey of Instruction
 ===============================================================
 Revision Ratified by the Senate, March 15, 1986, p. 12 (corrected by Senate Minutes, May 16-17, 1986, p. 4)
 Revision Ratified by the Senate, May 17, 1986, p. 4, 6
 Ratified by the Senate, March 15, 1986, p. 7, 10-12 att. 9
 Revision ratified by Senate Oct. 8, 1999, p. 5, att. 9
 Revision ratified by Senate April 27, 2001, p. 8, att. 8
 Revision ratified by Senate May 3, 2002, p.__, att. __
 Reorganized and Renumbered March 15, 2002
 Amended by the Senate May 2, 2003
 Revised by the Senate May 7, 2004
 Revised by the Senate, March 4, 2005
 Revised by the Senate, April 29, 2005
 Revised by the Senate, March 3, 2006


I.   For Faculty
     A. The Student Survey of Instruction form approved by the UW Colleges shall be
        administered for all faculty classes every third semester (e.g. fall 1998, spring 2000, fall
        2001, etc.). Additional student surveys will be administered in the fall and spring
        semesters of classes taught by first-year probationary faculty and in the spring semester
        of classes taught by second-year probationary faculty and in the fall semester of classes

                                                            62
          taught by fifth-year probationary faculty.

       B. Administration of the form shall be a campus responsibility. Campuses should contact
          central administration early enough to assure sufficient forms are available to meet all
          deadlines. Forms shall be made available to the faculty at least three full weeks before
          the end of the course.

       C. Materials related to the implementation of the Student Survey of Instruction, including
          the Student Survey of Instruction form; instructions to students; instructions for
          identifying class and instructor on the Student Survey of Instruction Course Section
          sheet; and statistical data summary to be reported to campuses, departments, and faculty,
          are located in IP Personnel Policy #301.01, Appendix 2.

       D. In addition, instructors, departments, or campuses may request occasional student
          evaluations of personnel in unscheduled semesters. If departments require additional
          evaluations, the department chairs shall inform central administration and the campuses
          in a timely manner of the need to set up administration.

       E. Departments and/or individual faculty can include up to ten additional evaluation
          questions; the numbering for the additional questions will start at number 21. The
          questions should be printed on a separate sheet with the department and class clearly
          identified, and should be distributed at the same time as the standard form. One copy of
          the additional questions should be sent to the campus and department, and the processing
          center.

 II.   For Instructional Academic Staff, including Returning Retired Faculty
       A. For retention and merit purposes, the Student Survey of Instruction shall be administered
          in the classes of instructional academic staff in accordance with the schedule in
          Institutional Personnel Policy #320. Administration of the form shall be a campus
          responsibility. Campuses should contact central administration early enough to assure
          sufficient forms are available to meet all deadlines. Forms shall be made available to the
          instructional academic staff at least three full weeks before the end of the course.

III.   For Distance Education, Interdisciplinary Studies, or Other Special Courses
       A. Additional questions can be added using the procedures outlined in I.E.

       B. Courses with multiple instructors shall have one form for the class.

       C. The statistical analysis and comments for all courses will be referred to the respective
       departments, campuses, and instructors involved. However, the results of multiple-
       instructor, or other special courses (e.g. freshman seminar, one-credit Interdisciplinary
       Studies linking seminar), shall be separate from and not included in the statistical summary
       for the instructor.

       C. Except for those courses noted in III D. below, the statistical analysis and comments
          for all courses will be referred to the respective departments, campuses, and instructors

                                                   63
   involved.

D. Results for Distance Education courses in the first semester taught in a mode that is new
to the instructor shall not be used in personnel decisions. Results shall be separate from and
not included in the statistical summary for the instructor for that semester only.

D. Certain courses are exempt from inclusion in statistical summaries and may not be
   used for merit, retention, or promotion. When these courses are evaluated, only the
   instructor will receive the results. These courses include

   i)      Courses with more than one instructor,

   ii)     Online courses where the instructor is not designated as “Lead Instructor”,

   iii)    Special courses, such as first-year seminar, and one-credit linking seminars for
           Interdisciplinary Studies or Honors,

   iv)     The first semester of courses where instructors are using a new mode of
           instruction for the first time, such as: accelerated learning program, blended,
           point-to-point (P2P), online and non-online distance education (NODE)
           courses including compressed video (CV) and Wisline Web (WLW).

E. The Senate Professional Standards Committee will review this policy every five years to
   ensure current validity of the exceptions noted in III D (iv).

                                           […]

                                          [End]




                                            64
                                                      Attachment 17

                                   UW Colleges Senate
                               Adoption: October 23, 2009
            AMENDMENT TO Proposed Revision to Institutional Curricular Policy #301.01
                    (“Administering the Student Survey of Instruction”)


       Rationale:
       The Senate Professional Standards Committee was under the impression that the term “lead
       instructor” for the online program meant that an instructor was fully responsible for the
       development and implementation of a course. However, it came to our attention that the online
       program currently uses the label “lead instructor” for instructors who may not have necessarily
       developed the course. Specifically, the program has referred to an instructor as a “lead
       instructor” when they simply took on the care of another’s course and is unable to change the
       course content such as text, lectures, and assignments at the current time.

       The proposed changes are in bold, red, italicized, underlined and capitalized font.
   UW Colleges Senate Policy
   Institutional Personnel Policy Affecting Faculty and Academic Staff #301.01
   Administering the Student Survey of Instruction
   ===============================================================
   Revision Ratified by the Senate, March 15, 1986, p. 12 (corrected by Senate Minutes, May 16-17, 1986, p. 4)
   Revision Ratified by the Senate, May 17, 1986, p. 4, 6
   Ratified by the Senate, March 15, 1986, p. 7, 10-12 att. 9
   Revision ratified by Senate Oct. 8, 1999, p. 5, att. 9
   Revision ratified by Senate April 27, 2001, p. 8, att. 8
   Revision ratified by Senate May 3, 2002, p.__, att. __
   Reorganized and Renumbered March 15, 2002
   Amended by the Senate May 2, 2003
   Revised by the Senate May 7, 2004
   Revised by the Senate, March 4, 2005
   Revised by the Senate, April 29, 2005
   Revised by the Senate, March 3, 2006



                                                             […]


III.      For Distance Education, Interdisciplinary Studies, or Other Special Courses
          A. Additional questions can be added using the procedures outlined in I.E.

          B. Courses with multiple instructors shall have one form for the class.

          C. The statistical analysis and comments for all courses will be referred to the respective
          departments, campuses, and instructors involved. However, the results of multiple-
          instructor, or other special courses (e.g. freshman seminar, one-credit Interdisciplinary
          Studies linking seminar), shall be separate from and not included in the statistical summary
          for the instructor.

                                                              65
C. Except for those courses noted in III D. below, the statistical analysis and comments
   for all courses will be referred to the respective departments, campuses, and instructors
   involved.

D. Results for Distance Education courses in the first semester taught in a mode that is new
to the instructor shall not be used in personnel decisions. Results shall be separate from and
not included in the statistical summary for the instructor for that semester only.

D. Certain courses are exempt from inclusion in statistical summaries and may not be
   used for merit, retention, or promotion. When these courses are evaluated, only the
   instructor will receive the results. These courses include

   i)      Courses with more than one instructor,

   ii)     Online courses where the instructor is not designated as “Lead
           Instructor”RESPONSIBLE FOR COURSE CONTENT,

   iii)    Special courses, such as first-year seminar, and one-credit linking seminars for
           Interdisciplinary Studies or Honors,

   iv)     The first semester of courses where instructors are using a new mode of
           instruction for the first time, such as: accelerated learning program, blended,
           point-to-point (P2P), online and non-online distance education (NODE)
           courses including compressed video (CV) and Wisline Web (WLW).

E. The Senate Professional Standards Committee will review this policy every five years to
   ensure current validity of the exceptions noted in III D (iv).

                                           […]

                                          [End]




                                            66
                                     Attachment 18

                             UW Colleges Senate
                               October 23, 2009
           Proposed Changes to Institutional Curricular Policy #301.01
              (“Administering the Student Survey of Instruction”)



I.    Background III C
      a. 1st Note – the current senate policy states that results of multiple instructors, shall
         be separate from and not included in the statistical summary for the instructor.
              i. Proposed Changes
                     1. That these results for multiple instructors may not be used for
                         merit, retention, or promotion and ONLY the instructor will
                         receive the results.
      b. 2nd Note – the current policy does not address the evaluation of online instructors.
              i. Proposed Changes
                     1. Only the online courses where the instructor is not designated as
                         “Lead Instructor” these courses will not be evaluated or used
                         towards merit, retention, or promotion and ONLY the instructor
                         will receive the results.
          rd
      c. 3 Note – the Department Chair for Physical Education and the UW-Barron
         County Athletic Director would like to include in the listing of special courses the
         PED 190 courses. These courses are 1 credit special courses and are Athletic
         Courses for Credit. These courses are specifically designed for students who are
         going to become Physical Education teachers.

II.   Problems as articulated by faculty members from UW-Barron County

      We have several tenure track faculty that have split appointments. Therefore, many
      possible problems may arise from this revision. Below are five possible scenarios,
      two illustrating the concern over the multiple instructor issue, two highlighting the
      non-lead instructor issue, and the final one highlighting possible IAS problems.
               i. Scenario 1 – there is a faculty member with a split appointment and is
                  being evaluated by the department of record. The two courses that the
                  faculty is teaching in the department of record are both IS courses with
                  multiple instructors. Therefore, on the departmental evaluation year, the
                  department will only have evaluations for courses that the faculty member
                  teaches in another department.
              ii. Scenario II – there are tenure track faculty members with a 50/50 split
                  between online and face to face offerings. This person may be tenure
                  track and the online courses this person may not be the lead instructor.
                  Therefore, will not be evaluated, then this person could possibly be
                  teaching one or maybe even two IS courses for the campus. Therefore, in
                  any given evaluation the department or the campus may end up with only


                                            67
                    a single course evaluation or maybe even none for this tenure track faculty
                    member.
               iii. Scenario III – we will be hiring a 75/25 online faculty position in
                    engineering. This person will walk into a new job and teach three online
                    courses that were developed by another person. They will be the lead
                    instructor, but will be evaluated on a course that they did not create and
                    may have no ability to do any major revision for three years. The new hire
                    may disagree with the course readings, the flow of the course, the HW
                    selection or even the schedule. All of these factors influence the course
                    and therefore, influence the instructor on how he/she teaches the course. It
                    does not seem fair to evaluate an instructor on a course that they did not
                    design in the online environment, even if they are the lead instructor.
               iv. Scenario IV – if a person was hired with a 75/25 ONL appointment and
                    was teaching three online courses where they were not the lead instructor,
                    they would only be evaluated on a single face-to-face course even though
                    75% of their load is in the online environment.
                v. Scenario V – if a person is hired as an IAS and working on a ONL course
                    as the non-lead instructor, under the proposed revision they would not be
                    evaluated for retention.


There should be a mechanism by which a person who is not the lead instructor, or who is
teaching a course with multiple instructors still be evaluated and those results should play into
the persons merit, retention, and promotion consideration.

III.    Proposed Solution:
        a. Develop the following new evaluation instruments. The results of evaluation
           shall not be included in the statistical summary. The results of the evaluation may
           be used towards merit, retention, and promotion consideration.
                i. A multiple instructor evaluation form for up to 3 people teaching a course.
                   The basis for the 3 instructor threshold is that if each person taught 1/3 of
                   a 3 credit class that is comparable to teaching a one credit course and we
                   do evaluate 1 credit courses. Any more than three instructors, the
                   instructor is teaching less than 1 credit worth of content.
               ii. Online Evaluation Forms - various forms depending on the course:
                       1. Form 1 – if the person developed the course and is the lead
                           instructor.
                       2. Form 2 – if the person did not develop the course, but is the lead
                           instructor.
                       3. Form 3 – if the person is not the lead instructor
        b. Include in the listing of special courses “Athletic for Credit courses”.



                                            [End]


                                              68
                                                    Attachment 19

                                      UW Colleges Senate
                                Introduction: October 23, 2009
                Proposed Revision to Institutional Policy Regarding Students #202
                          (“Academic Procedures and Regulations”)

Rationale:
In order to accommodate the mandatory furlough day (May 24) at the end of the spring
semesters for 2010 and 2011, the following temporary language has been added to IP 202.II.G:
“In Spring 2010 and 2011, instructors whose exams fall on the last scheduled day of final exams
must report final grades no later than May 25th.”

The proposed changes are in bold, red, italicized and underlined font.
UW Colleges Senate
Institutional Policy Regarding Students #202
Academic Procedures and Regulations
===============================================================
Ratified by the Senate - February 2, 1980: pages 2-3, Appendix 3
Amended, November 13, 1982, p.6; September 17, 1983, p.5
Amended, November 12, 1983, p.5
Amended, January 9, 1985, p.5
Amended, March 15, 1986, p.8
Amended, May 14, 1988, p.13, App.14
Revision Adopted by the Senate, May 14, 1989, p.14, App.21
Revision Ratified by the Senate, Oct. 7, 1989, p.8, App.16
Revision Adopted by the Senate, Jan. 17, 1992, p.4.
Revision Initiated by the Senate, May 7, 1994, p.8, App.11 and 12
Revision Adopted by the Senate, Oct. 1, 1994, p.8; see May 7, 1994, p. 8, App.11 and 12
Revision Adopted by the Senate, Mar. 18, 1995, p.4; att.2
Revision Adopted by the Senate, Mar. 7, 1998, pages 1,3,6,7, Att.2
Revision Adopted by the Senate, May 2, 1998, p.6
Revision Adopted by the Senate, April 23, 1999, p.5
Revision Adopted by the Senate, January 14, 2000, p.8, App. 7
Revision Adopted by the Senate, January 16, 2002, p._, App. __
Reorganized and Renumbered March 15, 2002
Revised by the Senate, March 3, 2006
Revised by the Senate April 24, 2009


                                                          […]

II. Grading System
     Revision adopted by the Senate, January 14, 2000
     Revised 4-24-09


                                                          […]


    G. Mid-term and Final Grades. Instructors shall submit grades reflecting students'
       progress in each course through such a portion of the semester that students can be
       formally notified by the end of the ninth week of the regular semester. The specific

                                                           69
mechanisms for collecting and distributing midterm grades should be determined at each
UW Colleges campus.

Final grades must be reported by the instructor within four working days after the final
examination with two exceptions. In Spring 2010 and 2011, instructors whose exams
fall on the last scheduled day of final exams must report final grades no later than May
25th.

Final grade reports are mailed to students at the end of each semester and at the end of the
summer session. Notification of any probationary or suspension action will be on the
grade report.


                                        […]


                                       [End]




                                        70
                                                     Attachment 20
                                              UW Colleges Senate
                                         Introduction: October 23, 2009
    Proposed Revision to Institutional Personnel Policy Affecting Faculty & Academic Staff #301
                                         (“Activity Report”)
Rationale:
In order to accommodate the mandatory furlough day (January 4) during the winterim period in
2010 and 2011, the following temporary language has been added to the informational preamble
explaining the Activity Report form for Faculty and Academic Staff in IP 301: “Each year,
faculty and instructional academic staff shall electronically submit one copy of this form to the
campus and one copy to the department by January 5. In 2012, the due date will revert to
January 4.”
The proposed changes are in bold, red, italicized and underlined font.
UW Colleges Senate Policy
Institutional Personnel Policy Affecting Faculty & Academic Staff #301
Activity Report
===============================================================
Ratified by the Senate, March 14, 1975: pages 8-9
Initiated by the Senate, January 13, 1994, pg. 7, app. 10c
Adopted by the Senate, March 12, 1994, pg. 9, app. 7
Adopted by the Senate, April 27, 2001
Reorganized and Renumbered, March 15, 2002
Revised by the Senate, October 15, 2004
Revised by the Senate, October 28, 2005
Revised by the Senate, January 18, 2006
Revised by the Senate, March 3, 2006

TO ALL UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN COLLEGES TEACHING FACULTY AND
INSTRUCTIONAL ACADEMIC STAFF MEMBERS
The attached annual Activity Report Form represents a faculty or instructional academic staff
member’s current situation, as a supplement to a standard ‘vita’ and other supporting documents
that are to be a part of his/her personnel file.
Special evaluation questions and procedures by particular departments and campuses are not
precluded by this UW Colleges form. Rather, this form is to be understood as providing a core
of information of common significance for all faculty and instructional academic staff members
in the UW Colleges.
Each year, faculty and instructional academic staff shall electronically submit one copy of this
form to the campus and one copy to the department by January 45. In 2012, the due date will
revert to January 4.
It is the campus responsibility each fall to insure that instructions for submitting the Activity
Report are distributed to all faculty and to all instructional academic staff members who taught in
the calendar year.
                                                             […]

                                                             End
                                                             71
                                          Attachment 21

                                  UW Colleges Senate
                             Introduction: October 23, 2009
     Proposed New Institutional Personnel Policy Affecting Faculty & Academic Staff
                                    (“Office Hours”)

Interim Policy from Senate Steering - Office Hours

Rationale

   1. Faculty and IAS members are not allowed to take furloughs during instructional periods.
      Because IAS appointments do not require them to hold office hours or provide university,
      campus, or system service, they have no designated period of time which they can
      legitimately excise for furloughs.

   2. There is no consistent Colleges-wide policy on office hours for faculty or IAS. In many
      cases, IAS are not required to have any form of out-of-class contact.

   3. Given the stated circumstances, Steering adopted an interim policy mandating a lower
      limit to office hours so that

       a. IAS may use them for furloughs,
       b. So as to establish a Colleges-wide policy,
       c. And to maintain quality of instruction for the benefit of our students.

Interim Policy (effective 9-23-2009)

       All instructors must have a minimum of one office hour per 3-5cr class per week
       including finals week. The office hours may be held in an actual office, on the phone,
       by email, or virtually through the web. This policy is in effect only until the Faculty
       Professional Standards committee creates an institutional policy that is accepted by the
       Senate.

Instruction to Faculty Professional Standards Committee

   1. Office hours affect instructional quality. That includes faculty as well as IAS. We need a
      policy requiring all instructors to hold some form of office hours.

   2. Though a consistent policy is desirable, it should also be flexible. There are times we hire
      IAS who cannot physically be present at a campus outside the assigned course times. For
      that reason, a new policy should allow for out-of-class contact by means other than
      meeting in an office on campus.


                                              [End]

                                                72
                                            Attachment 22

                                        UW Colleges Senate
                                   Introduction: October 23, 2009
 Proposed Revision to Institutional Personnel Policy Affecting Faculty & Academic Staff #322
               (“Instructional Academic Staff Promotion Policy (Category B)”)

Rationale:
The Online Program is not included in promotion procedures for IAS because 1) the Online
Program is not a campus, 2) does not have a Dean, and 3) has no official representation in UW
Colleges Senate comparable to campus representation. However, UW Colleges Online Program
pays IAS out of its operational budget. Further, the Online Program continues to grow and part
of the Chancellor’s plan for UW Colleges is to expand the Online Program. This increases the
likelihood that IAS will teach either split-appointments between a campus and the Online
Program, or exclusively for the Online Program. The proposed wording change to IP #322,
recommended by the Academic Staff Personnel Committee and approved by the Academic Staff
Council of Senators, recognizes the Online Program in promotion procedures and, further,
establishes procedures for promotion when an IAS has an appointment with more than one
physical campus.

The proposed changes are in bold, red, italicized and underlined font.
UW Colleges Academic Staff Policy
Institutional Personnel Policy Affecting Faculty & Academic Staff #322
Instructional Academic Staff Promotion Policy (Category B)
======================================================
Policy effective July 1, 1990
Amended September 21, 1996
Reorganized and Renumbered March 15, 2002


This policy provides promotional opportunities for instructional academic staff in recognition of
sustained high levels of performance, experience, and/or completion of a higher degree. Basic
information about position titles and title administration appears in the UW Colleges Title
Administration Guidelines for Academic Staff.

01 Promotion within an Instructional Title

Movement from associate to no prefix or from no prefix to senior in an instructional academic
staff title is a promotion.

02 Criteria for Promotion

The following criteria must be reviewed before recommending a promotion:

     1. Highest degree held,
     2. Consistently superior performance evaluations, and
     3. Level of experience in current and related positions.


                                                 73
03 Procedures for Promotion

Annually, the Office of Academic Affairs and the central Business Office will establish a
timetable for promotions within the budget cycle and will notify deans, the Academic Staff
Council of Senators and academic staff liaisons. For purposes of this policy, the Director of
UW Colleges Online shall be considered a dean, and UW Colleges Online a campus. The
following steps must be observed:

    1.       The department chair and the dean confer and advise the academic staff member on
             the appropriate content of the review file. If, at the time of submitting a review file
             an academic staff member has a teaching appointment with more than one
             campus, the dean of the campus with which the academic staff member has a
             greater appointment, as measured by FTE, will assume the role assigned in this
             policy to the dean. The academic staff member prepares the file, including
             documentation of degree completion and evaluation of performance. (The
             Academic Staff Annual Evaluation and Activity Report includes information on
             materials, which may be appropriate to include in the file.)

    2.       The dean confers with the department chair and with deans of all other campuses
             with which the academic staff member has at any time had a teaching
             appointment, and accepts or rejects the recommendation(s) or requests further
             information from the academic staff member.

    3.       The dean forwards accepted recommendation to the Office of Academic Affairs to
             review within the budget cycle.

    4.       The Office of Academic Affairs accepts or rejects the recommendation or requests
             further information from the dean and forwards accepted recommendation to the
             Chancellor.

The Chancellor acknowledges the recommendation and the accepted recommendation appears in
the annual budget. The academic staff member is notified of the promotion in the annual
compensation letter.

04 Budget Implications

Salary level is determined by course load and title, in accordance with the UW Colleges
Instructional Academic Staff Salary Schedule.

05 Appeal Procedures

An instructional academic staff member who is denied a promotion may appeal to the Academic
Staff Appeals and Grievance Committee, beginning with the procedures outlined in UWC
Constitution chapter 9.01.

                                              [End]

                                                74
                                                Attachment 23

                                      UW Colleges Senate
                                Introduction: October 23, 2009
                      Proposed Revision to General Institutional Policy #405
                                     (“Senate Procedures”)

Rationale:
Given an emergency, the current policy allows Senate Steering to adopt an interim policy
between Senate meetings. But it does not specify the role of the Senate or the Chancellor in
approving a final policy. This amendment makes approval of the Chancellor a part of the
process of approving a temporary policy and it makes it explicit that the Senate must eventually
rule on any interim policy.

The proposed changes are in bold, red, italicized and underlined font.
UW Colleges Senate Policy
General Institutional Policy #405
Senate Procedures

                                                       […]

F. Adoption of Senate Policies
   Ratified by the Senate -March 12, 1988, p.6, app. 10
   Amendment ratified by the Senate - September 28, 1991 p.3, app. 8
   Revision adopted by the Senate, November 15, 1997, p.4, app. 3
   Revision adopted by the Senate, January 21, 2004
   Revision adopted by the Senate March 6, 2009


   Policies are defined as actions of the Senate which when approved by the Chancellor will be
   used on a continuing basis to direct the actions of faculty and academic staff. All actions of
   the Senate that create policies or revise existing policies must use the following procedure.

   1. A written proposal must be introduced and discussed at a full Senate meeting.

   2. If changes are made in the written proposal as a result of the initial Senate meeting, a
      revised version must be provided to all constituents for their consideration and it must be
      circulated with the minutes.

   3. After introduction, all Senators must bring the proposal to their constituents for their
      response.

   4. If Senators submit substantive amendments, such amendments must be available to all
      Senators no later than two weeks prior to the Senate meeting at which an adoption vote is
      planned. All Senators must present proposed amendments to their constituents for their
      response.

   5. A proposal may be adopted no earlier than the first full Senate meeting after the meeting

                                                        75
       where the proposal was introduced. If changes or amendments offered at the adoption
       meeting are substantive and deemed by the Senate to require further campus
       consideration, adoption may be postponed until the following meeting while Senators
       consult with their constituents.

   6. Upon adoption of the policy or the policy revision, the Senate Steering chair in
      consultation with the author or authors will send a clean copy of the document to the
      Chancellor for approval.

   7. The Chancellor will communicate acceptance or rejection to the Senate Steering chair in
      a timely manner. The Senate Steering chair will notify others as necessary.

   8. Once the policy is accepted, the Senate Steering chair is responsible for its inclusion in
      the appropriate files. The policy will include the date of the Senate meeting at which
      adoption or revision occurred and the names of the committees or individuals
      responsible.

   9. [Moved from IP 405.H below and modified] All Senate policiesy developed by standing
      committees of the Senate will be subject to the Adoption Policy in IP #405 F this
      procedure unless an emergency arises.

   10. In an emergency situations, policies developed during the summer or between Senate
       meetings during the academic year may be approved by the Senate Steering Committee
       as interim policies subject to the Chancellors approval. Once approved by the
       Chancellor, interim policies must be subjected to the standard system of introduction
       and adoption outlined above.

                                                         […]

H. Approval of Policies and Procedures of Standing Committees of the Senate Committee
   Procedures
   Senate Minutes, January 16, 1990, p.5, app. 9
   Revision ratified by the Senate, May 3, 2002, p. __


   All newly created or revised procedures of the standing committees of the a Senate
   committee must be sent to the Senate Steering Committee for their consideration and action,
   after consultation with any appropriate committees or offices. The Steering Committee will
   report their action to the Senate.

   [Moved to new section IP 405.F.10 above and modified] All policies developed by standing
   committees of the Senate will be subject to the Adoption Policy in IP #405 F. In emergency
   situations, policies developed during the summer or between Senate meetings during the
   academic year may be approved by the Senate Steering Committee as interim policies.

                                                         [End]



                                                          76
                                           Attachment 24

                                       UW Colleges Senate
                                 Introduction: October 23, 2009
                       Proposed Revision of UW Colleges Senate Bylaws 5.0
                                      (“Annual Elections”)

Rationale:
After consulting with the chairs of all the Senate committees and after discussion in Steering,
Steering was convinced that it would be better for the continuity of committee operations to have
the newly elected committee (except for Assessment) take over at the beginning of the academic
year. In this way, an experienced committee would be in place to handle any business in summer
should it arise. The second change makes explicit in the bylaws what Robert’s Rules of Order
already allows. The Steering chair can appoint convening chairs so that there is one person in a
newly elected committee responsible for the first meeting at which the new chair is elected.

The proposed changes are in bold, red, italicized, and underlined font.
UW Colleges Senate Bylaws
=====================================================
Established 11/12/94                   Revised 4/29/05
Revised 3/18/95                        Revised 10/19/07
Revised 1/11/96                        Revised 1/16/08
Revised 5/4/96                         Revised by the Senate 3-7-08
Revised 3/8/97                         Revised by the Senate 1-14-09
Revised 4/23/99                        Revised by the Senate 4-24-09
Revised 3/14/03
Revised 5/02/03
Revised 1/21/04
Revised 5/7/04


                                                  […]

5.0      Annual Elections

      5.1 The annual election for Senate Steering Committee Chair, the standing committees of
          the Senate, and the elected bylaws committees shall take place at the last Senate
          meeting of the academic year.

         5.2 Only faculty and academic staff senators who have been elected to serve in the
             coming academic year or their designated alternates are eligible to vote in the annual
             election. In the case of the student senators the two newly elected student senators
             and one of the outgoing student senators designated by the Student Governance
             Council, or their designated alternates, shall vote.

         5.3 The first election is that of Senate Steering Committee Chair. The Senate Steering
             Chair must be elected by a majority of those voting.

         5.4 The order of standing and bylaw committee elections shall be determined by the

                                                   77
     Senate Steering Committee.

5.5 Members of the Senate shall elect faculty and staff to standing committees of the
    Senate from a preference sheet prepared by the Senate Steering Committee Chair.

5.6 Senators, department chairs, campus steering chairs, and the faculty and staff at
    large shall be requested to recruit candidates for the elected bylaws committees, or
    nominate themselves.

5.7 The Senate Steering Committee Chair shall receive the nominations, prepare a slate
    of faculty and academic staff candidates for elected bylaw committees and present it
    to the Senate for their election. The UW Colleges Student Governance Council
    shall provide student members of the elected bylaws committees.

5.8 The Senate Steering Committee shall make appointments of faculty and academic
    staff to the appointed bylaw committees of the Senate by the time of the last Senate
    meeting of the academic year.

5.9 The terms of office of all newly elected Senators and shall commence on the first
    contract day of the coming academic year. The terms of office for all Senate
    committee members except for the Senate Assessment Committee shall commence
    on June 1 the first contract day of the coming academic year. The terms of office
    for the Senate Assessment Committee will commence on October 1 of the coming
    academic year. All elected and appointed committee chairs must be elected by June
    1.

5.10 The Senate Steering Chair shall appoint convening chairs for all Senate
     committees. The convening chairs are responsible for convening their committee
     to elect a permanent chair by the first day of classes.


                                       […]

                                      [End]




                                        78
                                          Attachment 25

                                     UW Colleges Senate
                                Introduction: October 23, 2009
                      Proposed Revision to Faculty Personnel Policy #505
                    (“Process for Appointment and Evaluation of Chairs”)

Rationale:
The FPSC was asked to consider non-substantive changes to clarify the organization and
language of FPP #505. Upon examination of the policy, the FPSC decided that it should be re-
organized to make clearer the distinction between the process for the appointment of department
chairs and the evaluation of chairs. This is accomplished simply by adding some section
numbers to the policy and renumbering others. There is also a non-substantive change made to
the evaluation form. The intention of this change is to clarify that IAS asked to evaluate the chair
are also departmental members.

The proposed changes are in bold, red, italicized and underlined font.
UW Colleges Administrative Policy
Faculty Personnel Policy #505
Process for Appointment and Evaluation of Chairs
=====================================================================
Implemented: March 1, 1998
Modified to Include Evaluation Process: November 22, 1999
Reorganized and Renumbered March 15, 2002

I.     PROCESS FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF DEPARTMENT CHAIRS

During their term of appointment, Department Chairs are expected to be both academic leaders
and administrative managers of the department. As such, the chairs work closely with the
department members and committees and the Vice Chancellor to facilitate the actions and
outcomes of the department plan. Each chair will be guided by the departmental action plan for
the 3-year term.

The plan is intended to give the incoming chair an opportunity to work with the department over
a three-year period to accomplish its goals. When the department sets expectations for the focus
of the chairs’ work there is opportunity to draw all department faculty into making their
contributions to the success of the chair and the department. A plan should be the basis for
annual department budget requests, and provide links to other faculty and staff support systems,
such as internal and external grants, professional development activities, and the administrative
development of the chair.

Since the department is responsible for the evaluation of the chair’s performance, the plan will
facilitate a focused evaluation. The chair will complete a focused self-evaluation after the
second year and the Vice Chancellor can complete an assessment of the department’s progress
toward its goals.


                                                79
A. Process
   1. The department Executive Committee will submit a request to appoint a new chair to the
      Chancellor no later than April 30.

   2. The chair-elect will work with the department faculty (or appropriate committee) to
      articulate department priorities and plans for a three-year period. Activities should
      include maintenance of ongoing goals and activities and new initiatives.

       Areas of focus should include:
       a. developing, revising or maintaining the department plan.
       b. curriculum development and changes, including transfer issues/concerns.
       c. personnel issues; new and/or changed positions, retirements, promotions, tenure,
           post-tenure review, instructional academic staff review.
       d. professional development issues – individuals and department.
       e. the use of technology to support teaching and learning, the department/campus
           distance education program and departmental administration.
       f. assessment of student learning (in conjunction with the department assessment
           coordinator).
       g. other department specific issues or planning.

   3. The chair-elect will meet previous to the appointment, but no later than May 31, with the
      Chancellor/Vice Chancellor to discuss the department plan and the chair’s duties and
      responsibilities.

   4. After the meeting the Chancellor will appoint the chair for a three-year term, specifying
      any additional conditions of appointment, or ask the department to submit another
      recommendation. Appointments will be made for June 1.

   5. There will be a formal evaluation at the end of year two of the appointment in accordance
      with the policy on administrative review. This evaluation is intended primarily for
      developmental purposes and will be a factor in renewal for additional terms.

   6. A chair, once appointed, can resign or be removed at any time during the three-year term
      by a recommendation to the Chancellor from the department.




                                               80
                               Department Chairs Evaluation

II.   EVALUATION OF DEPARTMENT CHAIRS
      A. Evaluation
      A.1. The evaluation of chairs will take place in the spring of the year. Chairs will be
         evaluated on their administrative responsibilities as defined in the policy on the roles
         and responsibilities of chairs and on the outcomes of the goals in the 3-year plan
         approved by the Vice Chancellor upon appointment.

      B.2. The evaluation will not be part of the faculty merit exercise, unless the department
         agrees to do so.

      C.3.Evaluation of chairs will provide feedback on improvement of performance and can
         be used for decisions on continuance of the appointment and/or reappointment to the
         position.

      B. Components
      A.1. Self-assessment – a personal narrative related to accomplishment of the goals of the
         plan.

      B.2. UW Colleges Evaluation Form for Department Chairs.

      C.3. All department faculty members will participate and input may be solicited from
         Central/UW System staff, deans, other chairs, or appropriate persons knowledgeable
         about the chair’s performance.

      C. Timelines
      A.1. Full assessment (a & b components 1 & 2) in the spring of the second year of
         appointment.

      B. 2. Chairs may solicit informal assessment during the first year, especially on the
          outcomes of the plan.

      D. Process
      A.1. The Vice Chancellor’s Office will notify those chairs scheduled for evaluation in
         the fall of the designated academic year.

      B.2. The department executive committee (or a designated department member or
         committee) will distribute, collect and summarize the forms and send a copy of the
         summary to the chair and the Vice Chancellor by May 31 of the evaluation year. The
         evaluation forms must be retained in the department file for 3 years, after which only
         the summary must be on file.

      C.3. The executive committee should meet and discuss the evaluation summary with the
         chair, no later than the beginning of the next academic year, with the intention of
         using the results for performance improvement.

                                               81
   D.4. The Vice Chancellor shall meet, no later than the beginning of the next academic
      year, with the chair to discuss the evaluation and the progress of the outcomes of the
      plan.




                            University of Wisconsin Colleges
                           Department Chair Evaluation Form

Name of Chair:

Professional Status (Primary Role)

________Dean
________Central Administration
________Department Member
________Instructional Academic Staff
________Non-Instructional Academic Staff
________Other (please specify)




                                          […]

                                         [End]




                                           82
                                                    Attachment 26

                              UW Colleges Faculty Council of Senators
                                   Introduction: October 23, 2009
                          Proposed Revision to Faculty Personnel Policy #503
                              (“Faculty Merit Policy and Procedures”)

Rationale:
The FPSC was asked whether the Colleges should grant exceptions to the limits on the number of
Highly and Exceptionally Meritorious faculty in a department or on a campus. The FPSC did
note that the word “normally” in section I. B. 2. does open the door for possible merit
exceptions. However, the FPSC believes that there should not be merit exceptions for a number
of reasons. First of all, adding exceptions for merit would erode the meaning of meritorious.
Second, when considering the differences between the content and methodology of different
disciplines there is no way to determine whether some departments have performed much more
exceptionally than others. Third, the FPSC thought that to warrant such an exception assumes
that some departments are much more meritorious than other departments (and this is especially
difficult to imagine since the primary criterion for merit is teaching effectiveness). The FPSC
found it difficult to conceive of a situation where a department could be isolated enough to
distinguish itself in such an exceptional manner. The recommendation of the committee is to
simply strike the term “normally” from the policy.

The proposed change is signified by a strikethrough.
UW Colleges Senate Policy
Faculty Personnel Policy #503
Faculty Merit Policy and Procedures
============================================================
Adopted by the Senate, May 9, 1992, p.4. app. 7
Revision adopted by the Senate, November 13, 1993, p.6, app. 5
Revision adopted by the Senate, March 9, 1996, p.4; att. 5
Revision adopted by the Senate, January 14, 2000, p. 9
Revision adopted by the Senate, January 10, 2001, p. 26
Revision adopted by the Senate, March 2, 2001, p. 37
Reorganized and Renumbered, March 15, 2002
Revised by the Senate, October 15, 2004
Revised by the Senate, April 29, 2005


The performance of every continuing faculty member will be reviewed annually by a committee of
peers. This review will be based on evidence of teaching effectiveness, professional development,
and professional service to the university and/or wider community. As a result of this review, each
faculty member will be assigned to a merit category for the purpose of determining salary
adjustments and provided with a brief written performance evaluation.

I. General Procedures
   A. Merit evaluations will be done by academic departments and campuses in alternate years,
        with each committee reviewing Activity Reports, student evaluations, and any other
        evidence of achievement, over a two-year period. The campus dean must be included in
        the discussion of campus merit evaluations, but will be excused prior to final

                                                           83
     deliberations. The department chair will serve ex officio on the department merit
     committee.

B. Merit Determination
    1. Each year, the relevant committee will commence by determining whether each
        faculty member is satisfactorily meeting the basic expectations for the position.
        Individuals who receive an unsatisfactory rating shall not receive either across-the-
        board or merit salary increases.

     2. All faculty performing satisfactorily will then be separated into three categories: the
        majority will be in a group considered Meritorious; a smaller number will be judged
        to be Highly Meritorious; and a few may be judged to have earned Exceptional Merit
        for the two year period. The latter two groups together will normally include no more
        than 40% nor less than 25% of the faculty in the campus or department.

     3. Individual Performance Evaluation
        Each faculty member will be provided with a written individual performance
        evaluation, indicating areas of achievement as well as areas of possible concern, and
        including suggestions for improvement or further development if relevant.

         a. In departmental years, the written evaluation will be provided by the department
            chair, in consultation with the department merit evaluation committee.

         b. In campus years, the written evaluation may be provided by the dean or the merit
            committee, as the campus merit committee determines.

         c. The written evaluation shall include a statement that a follow-up meeting,
            conducted either via telephone or in person, may occur at the request of either the
            faculty member or the chair of the committee which provided the written
            evaluation. When a follow-up meeting occurs, the committee chair shall prepare a
            written summary of the meeting, to be signed also by the faculty member, and
            provide signed copies of the summary to the faculty member and to the personnel
            files of the department, the campus, and the vice chancellor's office. If the faculty
            member declines to sign the chair's summary, the faculty member will provide
            her/his own written summary of the meeting to the committee chair and to the
            personnel files of the department, the campus, and the vice chancellor's office.

     4. Evidence
        a. Committees shall consider the results of any student evaluations required during
           the two-year period. Student evaluations for merit purposes will be scheduled in
           all UW Colleges classes at least every third semester.

         b. Committees shall also consider an Activity Report covering the preceding two
            years. Faculty shall submit their reports to the relevant committee each year by
            January 4; any faculty not submitting an Activity Report shall not be eligible for
            merit consideration.

                                            84
            c. The committees may, in the course of their evaluations, seek or use other
               information, including the results of class visitations when available.

        5. Criteria
           All department chairs and campus deans shall provide copies of their unit's criteria for
           merit evaluation to all department or campus members. Campus or departmental
           policies must adhere to the following general guidelines, although they may include
           additional specific criteria.

            a. Teaching effectiveness shall be given primary consideration. Student evaluations
               shall be considered as part of the evaluation process, in addition to peer reviews
               where available and other information provided by the faculty members.
               Participation in Colleges-wide and department assessment activities will be
               expected. Note: Data from assessment activities may not be used when
               considering merit or promotion.

            b. Other areas to be considered include:
               1. Professional growth, such as active participation in professional societies,
                  progress toward or attainment of a terminal degree, scholarly or professional
                  publication or research, course development, discipline related performance, or
                  other types of professional creativity;

               2. Non-teaching University service at the campus, department, UW Colleges, or
                  UW System levels;

               3. Public service to the community in areas related to the faculty member's
                  academic expertise or professional competence.

        6. Special Circumstances
             (Revisions adopted by the Senate 1/14/00 and 1/10/01)

           a. In the case of split appointments, the home campus or home department will be
              responsible for the evaluation, after consultation with the other departments or
              campuses involved.

           b. Faculty members on professional leave will be evaluated by the relevant merit
              committees based on available information. Faculty on full leave for personal
              reasons will not be part of the merit process. (Determination of the nature of leave
              or other details of implementation shall rest with the Vice Chancellor, on the
              recommendation of the department chair and in consultation with the dean.)

           c. First year faculty appointees will be given a salary increase commensurate with a
              meritorious merit rating provided that their retention decisions are positive. This
              policy applies to initial probationary appointees who have served fractional years.

II. Allocation of Faculty Pay Plan Money

                                                       85
   A. The Chancellor shall set aside an amount necessary to bring faculty to rank minimum
      from the merit increment dollar pool.

   B. The merit increment pool shall be allocated to meritorious faculty in the following
      manner:
                  70% as a Percentage of Current Salary
                  30% as Fixed Awards

   C. The 70% to percentage merit shall be applied as a percentage of current salary to all
      continuing faculty, judged at least meritorious.

   D. The 30% fixed awards to meritorious faculty shall be awarded as a fixed dollar amount to
      all continuing faculty, judged at least meritorious. Ten percent of the merit increment
      pool shall be allocated to Highly and Exceptionally Meritorious faculty. The fixed award
      for exceptionally meritorious faculty shall be 50% larger than the fixed award for highly
      meritorious faculty. The amount allocated and the fixed awards shall be determined in
      accordance with current Senate Budget Committee procedures.

III. Dissemination and Implementation
    A. Upon adoption by the Senate, a copy of this policy shall be sent to all faculty presently
        subject to merit evaluation. Subsequently, copies shall be distributed by campus deans to
        all new faculty at the time of appointment.

   B. Each year the Vice Chancellor shall provide campus deans or department chairs with a
      detailed set of instructions, including deadlines, implementation details, and a complete list
      of faculty in the department or campus merit pool.

   C. Merit recommendations shall be forwarded to the Chancellor by the department or campus
      dean in the appropriate year.



                                              [End]




                                                86
                                          Attachment 27

                           UW Colleges Faculty Council of Senators
                              Discussion Item: October 23, 2009
                            Differential Salaries Task Force Report

       DRAFT OF THE DIFFERENTIAL STARTING SALARIES TASK FORCE’S
                    REPORT TO CHANCELLOR WILSON

        In the fall of 2008, Chancellor Wilson called for the formation of a Differential Starting
Salaries Task Force (DSSTF) to examine the starting salary structure at the UW-Colleges. The
members of the Task Force (Bill Bultman, CSEPA; Timothy Dunn, PHI; Carol Fischer,
BUS/ECO; Elizabeth Hayes, BIO; Andy Keogh, UW-Marshfield/Wood Dean; Mark Klemp,
CHE; Cary Komoto, GEO/GLG; Ken Grant, ENG; Tom Peneski, MAT; Abbas Taheri,
BUS/ECO; Elizabeth Zanichkowsky, ENG) represented a cross section of departments,
campuses, and stakeholder positions. Greg Lampe, Interim Provost and Vice Chancellor for
Academic Affairs; Steve Wildeck, Vice Chancellor for Administrative and Financial Services;
and David Prucha, Director of Human Services provided institutional staff support to the Task
Force.

    Currently, newly hired faculty receive the same starting salary regardless of discipline, with
the exception that a foreign national receives a starting salary in line with that discipline’s
prevailing wage in the region. Repeated failed searches in certain disciplines have prompted a
re-examination of the starting salary structure. In particular, Chancellor Wilson asked the Task
Force to answer five questions:

   1. Should the Colleges continue its practice of giving the same starting salaries to all
      incoming tenure track faulty, regardless of discipline?
   2. Should the Colleges move to a more market-driven approach, with beginning faculty in
      higher demand disciplines being awarded starting salaries beyond that of faculty in other
      disciplines?
   3. If the Colleges move to a more market-driven approach, how can we implement the
      change in a way that would preserve the esprit de corps that has been built in the Colleges
      over the years?
   4. What would be the long term effect on the quality of the academic program if the
      Colleges continue to experience failed searches?
   5. If we are unable to compete for outstanding tenure-track faculty, should we move more
      toward an IAS model?

       The Differential Starting Salaries Task Force held three face-to-face meetings:
   November 22, 2008; January 23, 2009; and March 23, 2009. At its first meeting, the DSSTF
   received its charge from the Chancellor and began an exploration of the issues raised in the
   Chancellor’s five questions. In addition, the group requested supporting materials needed to
   address the charge. At its second meeting, the DSSTF reviewed the supporting materials
   requested at the November 22, 2008 meeting. These included the following:
          • A History of Faculty Salaries in the UW Colleges

                                                87
            • 2008-09 UW System Assistant Professor Starting Salary Rates
            • Failed Faculty Searches from 2004-2008
            • Faculty Separations from 2004-2008 by Department
            • Faculty Separations from 2004-2008 by Campus
            • CUPA Four-Year Public Institutions Salary Averages
            • CUPA Community Colleges Salary Averages
            • IAS Staffing since 2005 by Campus and Department
After a review of the materials, the DSSTF engaged in a discussion of arguments for and against
differential salaries based on a draft document crafted by Tim Dunn summarizing arguments for
and against the issue. At the end of its second meeting, the DSSTF once again reviewed the
Chancellor’s charge and assigned Tim Dunn to draft a DSSTF response to questions 1, 2, and 4;
they assigned Ken Grant to lead an e-mail discussion of questions 3 and 5; and Bill Bultman,
Carol Fischer, Tom Peneski, and Abbas Taheri to explore a master teacher model or some
variation that might be acceptable to meet question 5.

         At its final face-to-face meeting on March 23, 2009, the DSSTF discussed each of the
Chancellor’s five questions and sought to reach consensus on them. It is important to know that
many members of the committee struggled reaching the recommendations this report makes to
the Chancellor. Every member of the DSSTF will acknowledge the difficulty of the charge and
the passion members brought to the work. Every member was focused on solving a problem that
has made it extremely difficult for some campuses to offer effective academic programs in all
disciplines. The recommendations listed below were arrived at by focusing on the UW Colleges’
ability to continue to deliver its course array and meet its mission. The DSSTF considered what
it felt was a complete range of solutions to the problem of hiring in certain disciplines, including
the dissolution of certain departments. It was the conclusion of the group that all the academic
departments as currently configured are necessary for the UW Colleges to meet the needs of its
students. Coming from a variety of campuses, departments, and ideological positions, the
DSSTF was able to reach consensus on its response to the Chancellor’s charge.

The following report summarizes our recommendations regarding each of the five questions.

Question 1: Should the UW-Colleges continue offering the same starting salaries in all
disciplines?

         After considerable discussion and debate, we recommend that the Chancellor strongly
consider increasing the starting salary in those disciplines that, primarily for financial reasons,
continue to experience failed searches. The primary argument in support of this recommendation
is as follows. First, offering a variety of high quality educational programs is an essential part of
the UW-Colleges’ mission. Second, the current starting salary may be too low to hire qualified
faculty in certain disciplines. Third, if the UW-Colleges cannot hire qualified faculty in certain
disciplines, it cannot adequately fulfill its mission. If these premises are accepted, the need for
differential starting salaries becomes apparent.
          We recognize the potential impact of such a significant change in policy. However, we
believe that impact could be significantly reduced if the following caveats were observed.



                                                 88
1. Changes in the starting salary structure should depart from the status quo only to the extent
   necessary to fulfill the mission of the Colleges. In other words, only those departments that
   cannot hire qualified faculty at the existing salary should be allowed to hire new faculty at an
   increased salary, and the increase in starting salary should be limited to the minimum amount
   necessary to hire qualified faculty.
2. Departments wishing to hire faculty at an increased rate should be required to demonstrate
   that their new faculty searches fail primarily for financial reasons. In other words, to receive
   permission to offer an increased starting salary to new hires, departments must demonstrate a
   clear need. In practice, we expect that only a few departments will meet this condition. This
   will limit the budgetary impact of the increase in starting salaries.
3. Faculty receiving higher starting salaries should be treated in all other respects the same as
   faculty in other disciplines. They should be expected to carry the same workload, receive the
   same kind of merit pay increases and promotion bonuses, and so on. This would help to
   reinforce the idea that they are paid more purely out of necessity.
4. For a variety of reasons, a more systematic and comprehensive review of the Colleges’ salary
   and merit pay structure may be needed, but the Task Force considers those issues to be
   outside the scope of our mandate.

Question 2: Should the UW-Colleges change to a market-driven approach?

         Our rationale for supporting differential starting salaries is primarily market-based: some
departments simply cannot hire qualified faculty at the existing rate. We assume that the primary
reason for this is that there is an insufficient supply of qualified candidates in certain disciplines
who are willing to work for the amount we offer. This is most likely due at least in part to the
much more lucrative opportunities offered by the private sector in certain disciplines. Of course,
faculty in many disciplines could receive greater compensation elsewhere, but the UW-Colleges
does not consistently face failed searches in most disciplines (if it did, we would have a case for
increasing salaries across the board). Accordingly, we think that, to some extent at least, market-
based incentives are appropriate at our institution.
         Many institutions allow market-driven considerations to play a significant role in
determining faculty salaries, resulting in wide discrepancies in starting salaries among the
various disciplines. We believe that a strong case could be made for differential salaries in a few
disciplines. However, we believe that, for most disciplines, the mission of the Colleges is
currently well served by our existing salary structure. Whether a more dramatic change in the
salary structure is warranted or desirable is not something that we addressed directly. We see a
shift to differential starting salaries not as a change in philosophies but as a practical concession
to market realities.


Question 3: If the Colleges move to a more market-driven approach, how can we
implement the change in a way that would preserve the esprit de corps that has been built
in the Colleges over the years?

       We quickly discovered that “fairness” often involves paradox in that what some faculty
believe is equitable salary administration may be perceived as inequitable by others in a market
driven department. Our single starting salary does not match the pattern of salary administration

                                                 89
at the comprehensive campuses. The attached bar chart, “2008-2009 Assistant Professor Starting
Rates” clearly shows that the UW Colleges starting salary is roughly $7,000 below the average
starting salary at the comprehensive campuses.

        If the UW Colleges must selectively employ differential salaries in some market-driven
disciplines, it absolutely must address the larger problem of low starting salaries in the rest of its
departments. If the Chancellor chooses to establish differential starting salaries without
simultaneously developing a plan to address the lagging starting salaries for faculty across the
disciplines, the institution’s esprit de corps will suffer.
        A starting salary that reflects the current market is only one component that affects esprit
de corps on a campus; other considerations including the quality of campus and community life
are important as well. All of these items help reassure faculty that they are valued. We hope that
the Employee Assistance Program staff may be engaged to help manage change should the
Chancellor accept our recommendations.


Question 4: What would be the long-term effect on the academic program if the Colleges
continue to experience failed searches?

         We begin by noting that it is unlikely that the market will improve on its own. There is
little reason to think, for example, that the market for MBAs willing to accept a starting salary of
$45,000 is likely to improve, at least in the long run. We therefore assume that unless something
is done, the Colleges can continue to expect failed searches in certain disciplines.
         We regard the deleterious effects of failed searches on the mission of the Colleges as
unacceptable; that is why we recommend offering differential starting salaries. Granted, there
are other ways of dealing with this problem: we could, for example, lower the necessary
qualifications for new faculty or, even more drastically, scrap certain departments and programs
altogether. But having examined various alternatives carefully, we believe that offering
differential salaries is the least harmful way of dealing with an unacceptable problem. Offering a
variety of programs is an essential aspect of our mission, and failed searches should be seen as a
failure to support that mission. A consistent failure to hire qualified faculty deprives students of
the opportunity to take courses they need, adversely affects recruitment and retention efforts, and
hurts the reputation of our institution and its members. We regard these consequences as
unacceptable.
         As for the potential harmful effects of introducing differential starting salaries, at least
some of these effects are addressed elsewhere in this document.


Question 5: If we are unable to compete for outstanding tenure-track faculty, should we
move more toward an IAS model?

        The DSSTF considered two options: one in which a faculty member has oversight of IAS
(currently in place in larger departments and on larger campuses where there is often a faculty
member overseeing multiple IAS in one discipline); the other in which a statewide course
coordinator develops course materials (much like the Master Teacher model currently used in the
online program.) The DSSTF is absolutely confident that the UW Colleges can compete for

                                                 90
outstanding, qualified faculty and that hiring faculty to meet program need is a priority at the
institutional level. Further, the DSSTF recommends that the chancellor encourage the hiring of
IAS when faculty cannot be hired. Not considering IAS would be a detriment to the institution.

        If the Chancellor accepts these recommendations, the DSSTF feels strongly that a
comprehensive communication plan should be developed and implemented. Brown bag lunches,
compressed video town hall meetings, articles in institutional publications such as the
Chancellor’s newsletter will help educate the faculty on the necessity for differential starting
salaries.
        In addition, we hope the Chancellor will begin a conversation with governance groups
and stakeholders as well, including the Senate, academic department chairs, and the campus
executive officers and deans.




                                               91
CUPA Fo ur-year Public Institutio ns
Salary Averages

                                 New Asst   Asst      Asso c    Pro f
UW Colleges                        42,500    45,867    53,526    65,513
Liberal Arts, Sci., Humanities     44,976    49,427    60,863    78,748
Music                              46,447    47,432    56,756    72,161
For Lang                           46,494    48,503    57,806    75,900
English                            47,066    47,611    56,862    74,596
History                            47,084    47,741    57,987    77,397
Communication                      48,404    49,623    59,509    77,277
Philosophy                         49,195    49,322    58,888    79,257
Sociology                          49,590    49,758    59,258    78,260
Physical Ed                        50,048    50,287    59,629    75,685
Pol Sci                            50,053    49,894    60,873    79,760
Education                          50,550    50,984    60,209    78,385
Anthropology                       50,739    50,631    60,854    80,475
Psychology                         50,877    51,193    60,029    79,505
Biology                            51,175    51,404    59,840    78,799
Mathematics                        52,107    52,078    61,126    78,553
Engineering                        62,566    64,078    73,917    98,082
Economics                          68,951    66,489    73,312    91,830
Comp Sci                           71,337    70,364    77,862    94,140
Business                           86,345    72,848    81,769   101,368




10/19/2009




                                            92
93
                                                                                                     UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SYSTEM
                                                                                      DISTANCE FROM THE PEER GROUP MEDIAN (EXCLUDING WISCONSIN)
                                                                                                       CLUSTER ANALYSIS PEER GROUP
                                                                                  BASED ON 2005-06 UW AVERAGES AND THE MEDIAN OF PEER GROUP AVERAGES

                                                                                                                                                            DISTANCE FROM THE PEER
                                                        2005-06 UW AAUP AVERAGES                              2005-06 PEER GROUP MEDIAN                          GROUP MEDIAN

                                                         ASSOCIATE  ASSISTANT                                        ASSOCIATE  ASSISTANT                          ASSOCIATE  ASSISTANT
                                             PROFESSORS PROFESSORS PROFESSORS                            PROFESSORS PROFESSORS PROFESSORS              PROFESSORS PROFESSORS PROFESSORS

     MADISON                                          $100,500                      $76,500    $64,300       $112,600      $75,600     $67,000             $12,100      ($900)       $2,700

     MILWAUKEE                                          $86,400                     $66,200    $56,200       $100,500      $71,900     $60,100             $14,100     $5,700        $3,900

     COMPREHENSIVE UNIVERSITIES
            EAU CLAIRE                                  $67,600                     $55,300    $49,100        $76,000      $61,800     $52,100              $8,400     $6,500         $3,000
            GREEN BAY                                   $65,900                     $54,200    $47,400        $76,000      $61,800     $52,100             $10,100     $7,600         $4,700
            LA CROSSE                                   $73,000                     $56,522    $48,600        $76,000      $61,800     $52,100              $3,000     $5,278         $3,500
            OSHKOSH                                     $68,500                     $58,200    $49,400        $76,000      $61,800     $52,100              $7,500     $3,600         $2,700
            PARKSIDE                                    $71,300                     $59,200    $53,900        $76,000      $61,800     $52,100              $4,700     $2,600        ($1,800)




94
            PLATTEVILLE                                 $67,600                     $54,800    $47,700        $76,000      $61,800     $52,100              $8,400     $7,000         $4,400
            RIVER FALLS                                 $63,200                     $55,800    $49,500        $76,000      $61,800     $52,100             $12,800     $6,000         $2,600
            STEVENS POINT                               $67,800                     $53,700    $45,300        $76,000      $61,800     $52,100              $8,200     $8,100         $6,800
            STOUT                                       $68,400                     $55,200    $47,300        $76,000      $61,800     $52,100              $7,600     $6,600         $4,800
            SUPERIOR                                    $63,500                     $52,700    $49,700        $76,000      $61,800     $52,100             $12,500     $9,100         $2,400
            WHITEWATER                                  $70,600                     $57,400    $52,900        $76,000      $61,800     $52,100              $5,400     $4,400          ($800)
             CLUSTER                                    $68,100                     $56,100    $48,900        $76,000      $61,800     $52,100              $7,900     $5,700         $3,200

     UW-COLLEGES                                        $62,600                     $51,300    $41,700        $76,000      $61,800     $52,100             $13,400    $10,500    $10,400
                                                                                                                                                             17.6%      17.0%      20.0%

     UNIVERSITY EXTENSION                             $100,500                      $76,500    $64,300       $112,600      $75,600     $67,000             $12,100      ($900)       $2,700




                SOURCES
               * OPAR's UW PEER GROUP ANALYSIS
                ( Madison, Milwaukee and Comprehensives) Average Faculty Salary by Rank.
               * AAUP/IPEDS Questionnaires (Miscellaneous section).
                            U W -Ma dison Compa re d to the Pe e r Group Me dia n Sa la ry Ave ra ge s
                                             Ave ra ge Fa culty Sa la ry by R a nk
                                                          2005-2006

                                                              Professor           Associate Professor        Assistant Professor
Institutions                                               Salary     Rank         Salary       Rank         Salary        Rank
University of California - Los Angeles                     $128,400      1           $82,000      2           $67,000        6
University of California - Berkeley                         126,200      2            81,900      3            74,100        1
University of Michigan - Ann Arbor                          125,600      3            83,700      1            72,800        2
University of Illinois - Urbana                             116,600      4            77,600      4            69,600        4
University of Texas - Austin                                115,700      5            72,900      9            70,700        3
Ohio State University                                       112,600      6            74,200      8            65,800        7
University of Minnesota - Twin Cities                       110,300      7            75,600      7            65,400        8
Michigan State University                                   105,900      8            76,400      6            60,200        12
Indiana University - Bloomington                            104,900      9            72,800     12            62,600        11
Purdue University                                           104,300     10            72,900      9            65,300        9
University of Washington - Seattle                          102,100     11            72,900      9            67,200        5
U nive rsity of W isconsin - Ma dison                      100,500      12           76,500       5           64,300        10



Peer Group Median (Excluding UW - Madison)                   112,600                   75,600                   67,000
UW Madison's Average Minus Median                            (12,100)                     900                   (2,700)
Percentage Increase to Reach Median                           12.04%                     none                    4.20%




                          U W -Milwa uke e Compa re d to the Pe e r Group Me dia n Sa la ry Ave ra ge s
                                             Ave ra ge Fa culty Sa la ry by R a nk
                                                          2005-2006

                                                              Professor           Associate Professor        Assistant Professor
Institutions                                               Salary     Rank         Salary       Rank         Salary        Rank
Rutgers University - Newark                                $118,800      1           $86,500      1           $71,300        2
Temple University                                           113,000      2            81,800      3            66,900        4
Georgia State University                                    111,800      3            68,900      9            60,100        7
SUNY at Buffalo                                             111,600      4            76,900      4            63,700        5
University of Texas - Dallas                                109,700      5            83,500      2            82,400        1
University of Illinois - Chicago                            106,100      6            75,400      6            67,000        3
Wayne State University                                      100,500      7            76,300      5            61,700        6
University of Missouri - Kansas City                         96,300      8            67,400     10            55,700        10
University of Louisville                                     95,000      9            71,900      7            54,200        12
University of Cincinnati                                     94,000     10            69,000      8            54,700        11
Cleveland State University                                   90,100     11            66,000     12            52,300        13
University of Toledo                                         89,300     12            65,200     13            57,500        8
U W - Milwa uke e                                           86,400      13           66,200      11           56,200         9
University of Akron                                          81,800     14            59,800     14            51,300        14

Peer Group Median (Excluding UW - Milwaukee)                 100,500                   71,900                   60,100
UW Milwaukee's Average Minus Median                          (14,100)                  (5,700)                  (3,900)
Percentage Increase to Reach Median                           16.32%                    8.61%                    6.94%

* Note: The University of New Orleans is no longer included in Milwaukee's peer group since they no longer report salary
information to AAUP. The last year they did so was in 2002-2003.




                                                                95
                             U W -Cluste r Compa re d to the Pe e r Group Me dia n Sa la ry Ave ra ge s
                                              Ave ra ge Fa culty Sa la ry by R a nk
                                                            2005-2006

                                                              Professor            Associate Professor        Assistant Professor
Institutions                                               Salary     Rank          Salary       Rank         Salary        Rank
Western Michigan University                                 $89,800      1            $68,100      2           $53,700        9
Wright State University                                      88,300      2             66,300      4            53,100        11
University of Michigan - Dearborn                            87,100      3             67,900      3            63,100        1
Oakland University                                           86,300      4             66,300      4            57,700        3
Michigan Technological University                            84,400      5             66,000      6            61,800        2
Central Michigan University                                  84,100      6             64,900      7            52,300        15
University of Illinois - Springfield                         83,200      7             64,000     11            52,600        14
University of Minnesota - Duluth                             83,000      8             68,200      1            53,800        8
University of Northern Iowa                                  81,100      9             63,200     13            53,000        12
Grand Valley State University                                80,200     10             61,600     17            48,300        28
Southern Illinois University - Edwardsville                  80,000     11             64,400      9            51,700        18
Youngstown State University                                  80,000     11             63,900     12            53,300        10
Eastern Michigan University                                  79,900     13             64,300     10            55,900        4
Western Illinois University                                  79,900     13             61,000     20            48,800        27
Indiana University at South Bend                             78,000     15             56,300     25            49,600        23
Ferris State University                                      76,000     16             61,300     18            53,000        12
Minnesota State University - Mankato                         76,000     16             61,100     19            52,100        16
Purdue University - Calumet                                  76,000     16             58,200     22            48,900        25
Chicago State University                                     75,300     19             61,800     16            54,700        7
University of Michigan - Flint                               75,000     20             61,900     14            55,300        6
Eastern Illinois University                                  74,600     21             60,700     21            51,000        20
Winona State University                                      74,400     22             56,200     27            49,500        24
St. Cloud State University                                   72,900     23             58,000     23            52,100        16
Indiana University - Northwest                               72,800     24             64,900      7            47,600        29
Indiana University - Southeast                               72,800     24             61,900     15            55,400        5
Northern Michigan University                                 72,800     24             56,200     27            47,100        31
University of Southern Indiana                               72,700     27             56,000     30            50,300        21
Minnesota State University - Moorhead                        72,500     28             56,000     30            49,700        22
Bemidji State University                                     72,000     29             56,300     25            47,300        30
Indiana Purdue University - Fort Wayne                       71,300     30             57,600     24            51,100        19
U W - Compre he nsive s                                     68,100      31            56,100      29           48,900        25
University of Akron - Wayne                                  64,500     32             55,700     32            42,500        32


Peer Group Median (Excluding UW - Comprehensives)             76,000                    61,800                   52,100
UW Comprehensives' Average Minus Median                        (7,900)                   (5,700)                 (3,200)
Percentage Increase to Reach Median                           11.60%                    10.16%                    6.54%

* Note: Saginaw Valley College and Northeastern Illinois University are no longer included in the Comprehensives' peer group
since they no longer report salary information to AAUP. The last year they did so was in 1999-2000 and 2003-2004, respectively.




                                                              [End]




                                                                96

								
To top