TABLE OF CONTENTS
Minutes of Biennial Budget Process—Next Steps by Vice Chancellor Steve
Wildeck……………………………………………………………………………3
Minutes of UW Colleges/UW-Extension Presentation by Interim Chancellor
Margaret Cleek………………………..……………………………….…………11
Minutes of UW Colleges Senate Meeting………..……………………….……………..16
Minutes of UW Colleges Faculty Council of Senators Meeting……………..…….……26
Minutes of UW Colleges Academic Staff Council of Senators Meeting …………....….28
Attachment 1: UW Colleges Senate Schedule and Agenda…………………………29-31
UW Colleges Faculty Council of Senators Meeting Agenda…………....32
UW Colleges Academic Staff Council of Senators Meeting Agenda…..33
Attachment 2: Senate Steering Committee Chair/UW Colleges Faculty Representative to
UW System Administration Report……………………………………...34
Attachment 3: UW Colleges Academic Staff Lead Senator Report…………………….38
Attachment 4: UW Colleges Academic Staff Representative to UW System
Administration Report…………………………………………………...39
Attachment 5: UW Colleges Senate Assessment Committee Chair Report ……………40
Attachment 6: Adoption: Proposed Revision of Institutional Policy #101 (“Associate of
Arts and Science Degree”)……………………………………………….41
Attachment 7: Adoption: Proposed Revision of Institutional Policy #104 (“Course and
Instructional Policies”)…………………………………………………..48
Attachment 8: Adoption: Proposed Revision of Institutional Policy #201 (“Admissions
Policy”)…………………………………………………………………..54
Attachment 9: Adoption: Proposed Revision of Institutional Policy #101.01
(“Interdisciplinary Studies”)………………………………….………..58
Attachment 10: Adoption: Proposed Revision of Institutional Policy #301.01,
Appendix 2 (“Administering the Student Survey of Instruction”)…….61
Attachment 11: Adoption: Proposed Revision of Institutional Policy #301.01.II
(“Administering the Student Survey of Instruction”).............................64
Attachment 12: Introduction: Addition to Senate Bylaws 7.0 (“Senate Appointed Bylaws
Committees”), “Correspondence Committee”.……………..…………..66
Attachment 13: Introduction: Proposed New Institutional Policy #106.01 (“First-Year
Seminar Courses”)……………………………………………………...67
Attachment 14: Introduction: Revision of Senate Bylaws 2.0 (“Divisional
Representation”)…………………………………………......………...71
Attachment 15: Introduction: Proposed New Institutional Policy #101.04 (“Ethnic
Studies Courses”)………………………………………………………73
Attachment 16: Introduction: Revision of Institutional Policy #301.01 (“Administering
the Student Survey of Instruction”)……………………………………77
Attachment 17: Introduction: Institutional Policy #106 (“Atypical Course Policy”) …..79
Attachment 18: Adoption: Proposed Revision of FPP #501.01 (“Promotion, Tenure, and
Third-Year Tenure Progress and Retention Review Dossier Format”)..83
Attachment 19: Adoption: Proposed Revision of FPP #501.02 (“Probationary Faculty
Retention Review Dossiers”)………………………………...….……..86
Attachment 20: Introduction: Revision of FPP #501.02.I.H (“Probationary Faculty
Retention Review Dossiers”)……………………...…………………...89
Attachment 21: Introduction: Revision of FPP #503.I.B.4.b (“Faculty Merit Policy”)…91
2
Minutes
Biennial Budget Process—Next Steps
Vice Chancellor Steve Wildeck
March 4, 2005
11:15 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.
UW-Fox Valley
Introduction
Senate Steering Committee Chair brought the gathering to order and welcomed Interim
Chancellor Margaret Cleek and Vice Chancellor/Chief Business Officer Steve Wildeck.
Seale introduced Steve Wildeck as the first presenter of the day, stating he would be
discussing the budget process.
Presentation
Vice Chancellor Wildeck thanked Chair Seale and then circulated a handout detailing the
Governor’s 2005-2007 budget recommendations as related to the UW System. Wildeck
explained that he was going to talk about what the governor did for UWS and to UWS.
The good thing, the Chief Business Officer stated, was that the Governor provided the
UW System with considerably more funding than he had in the current biennium. The
bad part, Vice Chancellor Wildeck went on, is that the System has to pay for part of it
with their own money.
Vice Chancellor Wildeck called attention to the first page of his handout, the right hand
column. This detailed UW requests for budgeting. When the Senate met at UWMarathon in October of 2004 and Wildeck discussed the budget, the total request for
funding was $212 million. As the figure on the handout is $337 million, he explained
that requests had been added later for the pay plan and so on, making the final funding
request $337 million. Wildeck then directed senators to look at the left column of the
first page, where the Governor’s recommendations for funding are listed. The Governor
is providing the UW System with about $215 million in funding for items ranging from
Cost to Continue (normal costs of operating, such as lighting), to making financial aid
close to whole, and money for other items of the Governor’s choice. The total at the
bottom of the column for funds recommended by the Governor is approximately $150
million, and Vice Chancellor Wildeck reminded the senators that he had said that the
Governor was providing us with $215 million. Attention was then drawn to the last item
on the list, $65 million in funding for the UW System provided by the UW System itself.
Vice Chancellor Wildeck then began to go through the budget recommendations
individually. He reminded the Senate that there have been significant problems over the
last several years with the state breaking its tradition of paying for fringe benefits and
utilities. Less and less of that money has been provided by the state, forcing the UW
System to make up the shortfalls in funding these items. The Governor is providing a
large amount of money in this plan for those areas, to bring these items up to where they
should have been in the past few years, to keep pace with where UWS should have been
over the last few years.
3
Ten million dollars from the Governor for Lawton and AOP financial aid programs is
close to keeping pace with statutory requirements to increase financial aid when tuition
increases. Vice Chancellor Wildeck said this amount helps restore GPR funding (state
funding), for the raid on UW System auxiliaries in the last biennium. In the current
biennium, he continued, to fund financial aid, students got a financial aid increase that the
UW System had to fund through student auxiliary funds. This recommendation for the
2005-2007 biennium provides GPR funding for that.
The Student Technology Fee is very routine, said Vice Chancellor Wildeck. Simply, a
portion of student tuition pays for student technology. The UW System asked for the
funding and they received it.
The System asked for financial aid funding to make sure that as tuition increases, the
financial aid for the neediest students goes up by the same dollar amount. Vice
Chancellor Wildeck emphasized dollar amount as being key. The statutory link referred
to earlier regarding the Lawton and AOP programs, he defined for the Senate, only
increases funding for those programs by the same percentage as tuition increases. A
percentage increase on a big number is greater than a percentage increase on a small
number, Wildeck explained, and the financial aid number is the small number in the
equation. This means that the neediest students would still have to pay more money in
increased tuition costs. The System requested money to make sure this did not happen,
but no money was allocated.
Vice Chancellor Wildeck then returned to some items on the handout that had been
skipped. He explained Operation and Maintenance of New Facilities as funding for
operating new square footage. The System asked for it and did not get it. Services for
Students with Disabilities was the next category Wildeck covered. The Vice Chancellor
stated that the Department of Vocational Rehabilitation has traditionally covered most
costs for students with disabilities; however, they have been backing off on that support,
saying that it is a University budget issue. The UW System asked the Governor for
money, but did not receive the funding. As these costs increase and the DVR pays less,
the System must pay more, and is expecting to pay over $2 million for those services next
year, for which money will have to be reallocated, said Vice Chancellor Wildeck.
Moving along to the Quality piece of the budget handout, Vice Chancellor Wildeck
pointed out that the System asked for a very large amount of money here, as it includes
the pay plan—the 5%/5% for the two years. The Governor took that part out and said
that the Joint Committee on Employee Relations will take up the pay plan in April. The
Student Success for Economic Development garnered $13 million from the Governor.
This amount includes approximately $1 million System-wide for COBE, of which the
Colleges hope to see some, and over one-half million dollars for the Rock/Platteville
Engineering program, which goes to UW-Platteville. This funding also includes 125 new
faculty positions. This funding, then, Vice Chancellor Wildeck stated, includes FTE and
about $10 million for new faculty positions, with salary and fringes included. The
System asked for money for libraries and Instructional Technologies in this Quality
piece, but received none.
4
The Governor also added some items of his own to the recommendations, with the intent
of making the University a better place, Vice Chancellor Wildeck stated. The Governor
included $5 million, $2.5 each year of the biennium, for a fund to retain high-demand
faculty. The Colleges piece of that might be around $125,000, but is currently unknown,
as the Regents still have to sign off on the distribution methodologies for the funds. The
Governor recommended $3 million to UW-Madison for research. Next on the list of
items from the Governor’s recommendations was $1 million to provide Domestic Partner
Benefits (which is being debated, and may or may not survive the state Senate and
Assembly). Debt service is a standard inclusion, Vice Chancellor Wildeck said,
explaining that when the state builds new buildings for the baccalaureates, they provide
the operating budget with the debt service payments to pay them off.
Everything adds up to $215 million so far, Vice Chancellor Wildeck pointed out.
However, the last item in the Governor’s recommendations is an order to cut $65 million
from the UW System administration. In the wake of the Legislative Audit Bureau (LAB)
audit last year, the public perception is that the System is top-heavy in administrative
positions. The Governor wants $65 million cut from administration and shifted to
instruction. Ten million dollars of that is through efficiencies, purchasing, contracts, etc.,
stated the Vice Chancellor. Twenty million dollars of that figure is one-time money.
Vice Chancellor Wildeck went on, saying that UWS is being told that this amount should
be able to be raised by selling off assets, selling rights to revenue streams, and through
other such methods—none of which the Colleges do, and so the Colleges have no place
to go for that money. The UW System has not yet determined how that $20 million cut
will be distributed across the institutions, but Vice Chancellor Wildeck stated that he has
been at the table with everyone and has made our points.
The remaining $35 million to be provided by the UW System, in the form of $15 million
the first year of the biennium and $20 million the second year of the biennium, is to be
shifted from non-instruction to instruction. Basically, Vice Chancellor Wildeck
explained, the UW System is being told that they will take a $35 million base cut in
administration—that is what the governor is referring to as non-instruction. The money
can be kept only if it is used for instruction. For the budget people, Vice Chancellor
Wildeck said that would be a shift from non-activity 2 to activity 2. There has been
discussion of how the Colleges might do that, but the issue is confused by the
administrative integration with UW-Extension. UW System President Kevin Reilly and
the Board of Regents have told the Colleges that any savings that are accrued or any
positions reduced by virtue of integration with UW-Extension (which will be limited to
operations in Madison), can be used toward the Colleges’ share of the required shift to
instruction, that is, the administrative reduction that the Colleges can use to put into
instruction. That reasoning will help, Vice Chancellor Wildeck stated, and he would like
to see what can be saved and how many positions can be reduced by virtue of that
integration. However, the two activities must occur somewhat simultaneously, and the
Central Office does not want to race too quickly to make definite plans that might impact
the campuses before there is more clarity on what is likely to happen with the Extension
administrative integration.
5
Senator McLeer raised a question about the number of faculty positions in the governor’s
budget. The positions column shows that the UWS is to be given 125 positions, but as
McLeer noted, 200 were taken away. According to her math, that means a negative
seventy-five positions.
The Vice Chancellor stated that it is indeed a negative seventy-five. That part of the shift
from non-instruction to instruction results in a net increase of a negative seventy-five.
Senator Gratz then asked if there was some sense of what the positions might be when
they filter down to the Colleges. Vice Chancellor Wildeck responded to the question by
asking that the senators turn the page and go to the second page of the handout. Vice
Chancellor Wildeck pointed out that the top chart on the second page of his handout is
basically a different look at what had just been discussed on the first page. The left
column shows the funding the UW System is receiving. The right column deals with
how the Governor intends to pay for the UW System funds: $101 million in tuition
increases for students; $65 million of administrative reductions, and $50 million in new
GPR. Wildeck then went on to the bottom of the page, where he had outlined how items
may filter down to the Colleges. Of the $65 million in administrative reductions, the
Vice Chancellor reminded the Senate that that figure is broken down into $20 million of
one-time money; $10 million in the savings of purchasing and the like; and $35 million
($15 million the first year of the biennium and $20 million the second year) in
administrative monies shifting from non-instructional to instructional funding. He
explained that if the standard algorithm the System has used is utilized to distribute these
amounts, it filters down to the Colleges as follows: three-quarters of a million dollars in
one-time money; almost $200,000 in a base cut (savings in purchasing, etc.); and about
$500,000 in the first year, increasing to $750,000 in the second year and ongoing, in the
System-wide shift from non-instruction to instruction. The Colleges’ share of the 200
position reduction, Vice Chancellor Wildeck stated, could be about seven positions.
Interim Chancellor Cleek interjected at this point, that of 7.3 positions or $730,000,
ultimately the money would be cut. Cleek stated that in discussions with the
Chancellors’ group, it has been stated that many more than 200 positions will have to be
eliminated in order to come up with the cash that the Governor wants. As is known from
the LAB report, there are very few $100,000 positions, which the Governor budgeted all
of the positions at, so Chancellor Cleek made it clear that many more positions than 200
across the System will have to be eliminated. Interim Chancellor Cleek stated that
exactly how this must be done is very unclear to all concerned, at the moment.
Vice Chancellor Wildeck continued with the statement that the position reductions must
be determined by the end of the first year of the biennium, and a report submitted to the
DOA on exactly which positions are being reduced. He said that the UW System is
trying to negotiate with the Governor to put this off until the end of the second year of the
biennium. The base reductions and the shifts are to occur in the first year, which Vice
Chancellor Wildeck stated is difficult to do at this point for 2005-2006. He related that in
talks with Interim Chancellor Cleek, they have discussed making the shift in the budget,
using this year to figure out exactly what will be happening with the UW-Extension
6
integration, and then formulating other plans for how the Colleges would deal with the
other matters. Vice Chancellor Wildeck explained that there is some flexibility with onetime money with which to deal with this.
Senator Gratz then asked what proportion of the 125 instructional positions may come to
the Colleges, and referred to the 85-position shortfall the Colleges currently has.
The Vice Chancellor stated that this is another area in which there is confusion. The
administrative integration with Extension, and the question of how to take a cut from a
negative, confuse the position question. Wildeck then explained that one of the things
that the University was finally able to gain from the Governor and from DOA was a
different way to count unclassified positions, mainly IAS, at less than 50 percent, so that
they can be taken off of the UW System’s position count. The rest of state government,
he continued, does not include in their position count, positions of less than 50 percent.
Historically, the University has always included those positions, and it would have made
the current situation much easier if they had been removed from the count five years ago,
before we had a Governor who had promised to reduce the size of state government by 18
percent. To let the UW System off the hook, so to speak, now, would cause a large
political problem, but the Governor and DOA have conceded partially. This removal of
some positions from the count will take about forty positions off of the count. When this
is applied across the System, Vice Chancellor Wildeck stated, the System feels that they
will have enough flexibility in position counts to handle the Colleges’ problem. UWS
does not want to see the most leanly-staffed institution cut instructional positions or any
positions because, for the Colleges, it would have to mean downsizing in enrollment.
System doesn’t want to do that, Vice Chancellor Wildeck reiterated. There is a kind of
verbal show of support from System administration, the Vice Chancellor said, that with
this new method of counting, it will allow System to help take care of the Colleges’
problem for a while.
Senator Zanichkowsky questioned whether the positions the Governor budgeted at
$100,000 each included fringe benefits. The Vice Chancellor responded that the figure
does include fringe benefits, which makes it not as bad. Interim Chancellor Cleek stated
that the other baccalaureates have definitely said that they are going to be cutting
positions.
UW-Fox Valley Associate Campus Dean Tom Pleger said that he assumed Extension
would have to make the same cuts. He questioned whether the Colleges and Extension
were going to be making their cuts independently or if they would be counted together.
Vice Chancellor Wildeck answered that each institution, the Colleges and Extension, will
be able to apply their share (as yet undetermined) of the savings from the administrative
integration towards their required reductions. He said that the fiscal aspect of each of the
institutions will be remaining separate. The problem UW-Extension will have, though,
Vice Chancellor Wildeck said, is that they do not have any instructional positions; they
are almost all outreach and have very little in the budget under activity 2 instruction. He
feels it will be interesting to see how the Extension is treated in the System-wide
7
distribution of these cuts. Vice Chancellor Wildeck concluded by saying that we’re a
long way from seeing where everyone will land.
Conclusion
There were no further questions for the Vice Chancellor, and noting that he had to leave
for another meeting, Senate Steering Committee Chair Seale thanked Vice Chancellor
Wildeck for his time and the information he had given to the Senate.
8
9
10
Minutes
UW Colleges/UW Extension Presentation
Interim Chancellor Margaret Cleek
March 4, 2005
11:15 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.
UW-Fox Valley
Senate Steering Committee Chair Lisa Seale introduced Interim Chancellor Margaret
Cleek, noting that she would speak on the subject the integration of the administrative
offices of UW Colleges (UWC) and UW-Extension (UWEX), and other topics she might
choose to address.
INTEGRATION OF UWC/UWEX ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES
Chancellor Cleek spoke first about the integration of the administrative offices of UWExtension (UWEX) and the UW Colleges (UWC). She explained the upcoming work of
the UWC-UWEX Administrative Integration Steering Committee, which will oversee the
activities of sub-committees that will look closely at Central Office operations across the
two institutions, including Instructional Technology, Human Resources, and other
administrative services. Chancellor Cleek noted that while there are operational
differences between the two institutions, such as the fact that UWEX does not offer
financial aid, the Integration Steering Committee will focus on operations common to the
two institutions. The first meeting of this new steering committee will take place on
March 28, when next steps will be laid out and shared with the Senate and others. SSC
Chair Seale will represent the Senate on this committee.
The interim chancellor next addressed the search process for the next chancellor of
UWEX and UWC, noting that she would be meeting on the following Monday (March 7)
with UWS President Kevin Reilly and UWEX Interim Chancellor Marv Van Kekerix to
discuss the search, which President Reilly wished to get underway. She noted that SSC
Chair Seale and others have been collecting input from UWC campuses on what kind of
characteristics they want in a chancellor. UWEX has been doing the same. President
Reilly's office has written a draft job description, which Chancellor Cleek has not yet
seen, but which she believes is fairly generic at this point. She noted that it is the search
and screen committee that will need to really see our information. No discussion yet has
been held regarding composition or size of the search committee; the chancellor
suggested that the question will be how to ensure adequate UWC representation without
the committee's becoming overly large.
TWO-YEAR/FOUR YEAR PROPOSAL
The chancellor then turned to the proposal of Representative Robin Kreibich to turn
UWC campuses into satellite campuses of the baccalaureate institutions, noting that her
time has been spent primarily in addressing this, rather than the integration of
administrative offices, because of the rather pressing nature of the issue. The deans and
the chancellor, and others on the campuses, have been devoting an enormous quantity of
11
time to this situation. This work has taken the form of fielding telephone queries by
newspaper reporters, speaking with state legislators, meeting with community members,
and appearing on radio programs, as many of the deans have done or will soon be doing.
The legislative hearing of March 2 was the next topic addressed. Chancellor Cleek named
those who represented the views of the UWS and UWC (including President Reilly, UWFox Valley Dean Jim Perry, and a Marinette county board member), who spoke to the
question of why the Kreibich proposal is not a good plan. Representative Kreibich also
addressed the legislative hearing. Chancellor Cleek noted that a serious difficulty of
responding to Representative Kreibich has been that thus far he had issued only press
releases, not a plan.
Chancellor Cleek then spoke more specifically to the related issue of Waukesha County
Executive Dan Finley's ideas for ridding Waukesha County of their budgetary
responsibility for UW-Waukesha, at the moment this taking the form of having UWMilwaukee take over that role. The chancellor summarized a meeting held on February
25 with President Reilly, County Executive Finley, Chancellor Carlos Santiago
(UW-Milwaukee), and their respective staff. County Executive Finley's approach is to
say that his concern is not with the organization of the UWS as a whole, but only with the
cost to taxpayers of Waukesha County.
Interim Chancellor Cleek further noted that she is at work with UW-Waukesha Dean
Brad Stewart, in conjunction with other deans, on various strategies for responding to Mr.
Finley. She pointed to research conducted by Dean Stewart that reveals some interesting
facts, such as that taxpayers in Waukesha pay approximately $7.50 annually in years in
which construction projects are undertaken at UW-Waukesha, and approximately $1.30
annually when there are no such projects. This is a message that will need to be
conveyed to Waukesha’s taxpayers by UWC.
President Reilly has said that even if an alternative kind of funding plan for UWWaukesha were found, it would not necessarily mean that UW-Waukesha would be
merged with UW-Milwaukee. He has instructed Chancellor Cleek to appoint someone to
work on an even level with UW-Milwaukee to come up with a business plan on how one
might be able to fund the $200,000 or so that Waukesha County spends on UWWaukesha each year. Accordingly, the chancellor has appointed Vice Chancellor/Chief
Business Officer Steve Wildeck to do so. She has agreed to do so because a $3,000,000
UW-Waukesha building project has been held up by County Executive Finley until such
a study is begun. President Reilly has also asked the interim chancellor to appoint a
representative from the Central Office to work on a marketing study of the Waukesha
area regarding the need for baccalaureate degrees.
NEXT STEPS
Chancellor Cleek summarized the ongoing work of fighting for UWC by acknowledging
that faculty and academic staff are all busy and doing our jobs, and that the work of the
Central Office staff and campus administration has been to seek control of the situation
12
so that our work may continue. In outlining next steps she and others will be taking in
the coming weeks, the chancellor spoke of her previous day (March 3)'s meeting with the
campus deans, who concurred with the following measures to be taken:
UWC Director of University Relations and Marketing Teri Venker will set aside some of
her present work to be the point person for the UWC counterattack on the
satellite campus idea in coordinating the various contacts made with legislators,
county board members, business people, newspapers, and others.

On Monday (March 7), Teri Venker will have a strategic plan prepared that can
be shared with campuses by the deans, for specific ways that faculty, staff, and
students can work within this strategic plan.

The campus deans will meet with President Reilly on March 18. They will ask
that the president reveal any master plan he has for the future of the UWC.

UWC Legislative Liaison Mary MacKendrick is working with campus LEAD
Teams, who will be asked to work not with the governor’s budget, but on
responses to the Kreibich initiative.

Vice Chancellor/Chief Business Officer Steve Wildeck and Chief Information
Officer Dick Cleek hope to be invited to speak with the Student Governance
Association at the SGA’s upcoming meeting at UW- Fond du Lac (March 11), to
discuss what the student role might be. Chancellor Cleek will be speaking with
Stephanie Hilton, head of United Council, who has been on the UWC’s side
regarding campus nucleation.

Chancellor Cleek acknowledged the work of the campus deans, saying that all
should be very proud of their dean, as each has been working constantly on these
issues.

In closing, the chancellor noted that positive events have been happening in the
UWC’s favor, such as a resolution in support of the Colleges passed by the
Wisconsin Cities Alliance.
QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD
A question and answer period followed Chancellor Cleek’s presentation:
UW-Fox Valley Associate Dean Tom Pleger asked whether President Reilly has
expressed interest in talking with the faculty via compressed video, as former UWS
President Katharine Lyall did in the past. Chancellor Cleek responded that she was
certain that he would if asked, but that she would prefer to wait to see the outcome of the
deans’ March 18 meeting with him.
13
Associate Dean Pleger further asked whether President Reilly has made any statements to
the rest of the Chancellors as to what their responses to the Kreibich proposal should be.
Chancellor Cleek responded that after the February 22 meeting between the president,
herself, Chancellor Santiago and County Executive Finley, that no one was to state that
President Reilly approves UW-Milwaukee taking over UW-Waukesha.
Senator Kallgren posed the question of, “Why should the higher education aspirations of
the citizens of the state of Wisconsin be subverted by the political aspirations of
Representative Kreibich?” Chancellor Cleek noted that a similar question could be posed
regarding County Executive Finley: why should the aspirations of the Waukesha people
in higher education be harmed?
A discussion of historical precedents followed. Senator Reinhart asked, “Why should
merger work now when it failed miserably in 1969?” Senator Carlson suggested that
there might be other historical analogies that could be useful, such as a failed proposal to
nucleate all of the county jails and have just one incarceration system in the state of
Wisconsin some fifteen years ago.
Discussion turned to the Wisconsin Technical College System (WTCS). Senator
Piotrowski noted the importance of stressing UWC’s student success figures as compared
to that of WTCS students. In response, Chancellor Cleek noted that the point to
emphasize is that UWC students persevere and complete baccalaureate degrees at a much
higher rate than that of WTCS students and other transfer students. She further noted that
even though tuition is less for WTCS students, this is the case because the WTCS levies
money from the counties. In fact, it costs less to educate people in General Education in
the Colleges than it does in the WTCS. She noted that she would echo the concerns that
Kreibich poses: yes, we are concerned with duplication. We don’t want the WTCS
duplicating UWC. For comparison purposes, Senator Zanichkowsky pointed while it is
$7.00 a year for each Waukesha taxpayer during construction projects, and a $1.30 a year
when no construction projects are undertaken, Waukesha taxpayers lay out $300.00 each,
annually, for the Waukesha County Technical College.
Senator Zanichkowsky then asked about efforts to reach parents through the students.
Chancellor Cleek acknowledged that is was a good point, and is another area that Teri
Venker will look at. If the students aren’t taking that message home, UWC must go right
to the communities and to the parents and spouses and other relatives of those students.
A discussion of the gravity of the present situation followed. Chancellor Cleek,
responding to a question posed by Senator Kallgren as to whether it is time to tell our
communities that the sky is falling, suggested that, in fact, the campus deans are already
doing so. However, the perception of how grave the situation is varies by campus and by
community. She suggested that it would be appropriate for senators to talk about this
more specifically with their respective campuses, and how much each campus would like
to do.
14
The chancellor then offered her assessment of the situation, saying that “when all is said
and done, we're going to win this one.” However, it is imperative that all of us—faculty,
staff, students—in addition to the Central Office and the deans, take the situation
seriously: “It is not just your dean's problem or my problem; we all have to get the
message out.” She explained that Representative Kreibich plans to make his proposal an
amendment to the biennial budget, rather than propose it as a separate bill. The
chancellor does not believe that this will pass, but reiterated that UWC cannot afford to
sit by and simply hope for this outcome. She concluded: “We are going to be okay. That
is my really final message. It is serious, but we're working on it.”
Senator Ceccarelli then stated, “Margaret, no one else has said, but I want to thank you,”
which Senator Kallgren seconded with an “Amen.” There followed extended applause
by the Senate. Chancellor Cleek expressed her appreciation, and urged that any who see
any areas in which the UWC is not doing what should be done, to let her know: “It is
important to hear from you.” The presentation concluded with final remarks by
Chancellor Cleek assuring senators and their colleagues that it is equally important to
continue fighting on behalf of the UW Colleges, and suggested that while it may occur to
some of us to consider seeking other employment opportunities, that now is the time to
hang in there, so that the Colleges are intact when we emerge on the other side of this
situation. SSC Chair then thanked the chancellor for taking the time to speak with the
Senate candidly, and the presentation came to a close.
15
UW COLLEGES
Senate
UW-Fox Valley
March 4, 2005
12:30 p.m. - 2:30 p.m.
MINUTES
Senators Present: Michael Jacobs, UW-Baraboo/Sauk County; Gail Piotrowski, Linda
Tollefsrud, UW-Barron County; Sayeed Payesteh, UW-Fond du Lac; John
Beaver, Terri Gonya, and Joy Perry, UW-Fox Valley; Dave Gratz, UWManitowoc; Doug Hosler and Lisa Seale, UW-Marathon County; Michael
Ceccarelli and Dan Kallgren, UW-Marinette; John Houchens and Dan McCollum,
UW-Marshfield/Wood County; Karen McLeer, UW-Richland; Dave Carlson and
Mark Fuller, UW-Rock County; Dennis Crossley, UW-Sheboygan; Paul Price and
Jim Stevens, UW-Washington County; Kathleen Bubinas, Penny Kelsey, Barbara
Reinhart, Gail Vojta and Elizabeth Zanichkowsky, UW-Waukesha; Renat
Kirpichev, Student Senator
Senators Absent: Margaret Flamingo, Lead Student Senator; Jack Sondreal, Student
Senator
Alternates Present: David Herrick, UW-Fond du Lac, Student Governance Council Vice
President, for Jack Sondreal, UW-Barron County, Student Senator; Sarah Kurer,
UW-Fond du Lac, Executive Director for Student Governance Council, for
Margaret Flamingo, UW-Marathon County, Lead Student Senator
Others Present: Margaret Cleek, Interim Chancellor; Steve Wildeck, Vice Chancellor
and Chief Business Officer; Thomas Pleger, UW-Fox Valley Associate Campus
Dean; Dan Blankenship, Deans’ Representative; Ron Lippi, Department Chairs’
Representative; Linda Baum, Assistant to the Senate
1) The March 4 meeting of the 2004-2005 Senate was called to order by Interim
Chancellor Cleek at 1:07 p.m.
2) UW-Fox Valley Associate Dean Tom Pleger welcomed the senators, and expressed
thanks that UW-Fox Valley had been chosen to host the meeting of the Senate.
Pleger asked those new to UW-Fox Valley to come back again and visit the museum
and planetarium. Associate Campus Dean Pleger then stated his hope that the
meetings be productive, and thanked those in attendance.
3) Roll Call of 2004-2005 senators, representatives, and alternates. Senate Steering
Committee Chair Lisa Seale announced the two alternates present: Sarah Kurer from
UW-Fond du Lac, Executive Director for Student Governance Council, in place of
Lead Student Senator Maggie Flamingo; and David Herrick, also from UW-Fond du
16
Lac, Vice President of the Student Governance Council, for Student Senator Jack
Sondreal. Assistant to the Senate Linda Baum circulated a roll sheet.
4) The agenda for the March 4 Senate meeting was unanimously approved.
[Ceccarelli/Gonya] (Attachment 1)
5) The minutes of the January 19, 2005 Senate meeting held at the Pyle Center, Madison
were approved unanimously [Kallgren/McCollum]. These minutes may be found at
Public Folders/Governance/Senate/Senate Minutes/2004-2005.
6) Reports
a) Interim Chancellor Margaret Cleek. Interim Chancellor Cleek stated that her
presentation prior to the Senate meeting had covered most of what she would
report on, but she did have one additional item. She announced that three
candidates for the UWC Washington County Dean’s position will be coming
soon to spend a day on the campus and a day in the Central Office. Cleek
thanked Senator Price for chairing the search committee for the position, and
Dean Blankenship for being the Deans’ representative on the committee.
b) Senate Steering Committee Chair and UW Colleges Faculty Representative
Lisa Seale. Chair Seale directed attention to her written report (Attachment 2),
and noted that there were a few additional items that she would like to call to
the attention of the Senate.

The Senate Steering Committee would like to gather the viewpoints of the
faculty and staff regarding the Kreibich proposal. Seale asked that
senators ask their collegium to discuss the topic. Chair Seale plans to
offer some questions that senators could pose to their collegium, and asked
for input on ideas for possible questions.

Chair Seale explained that the Constitution directs that the Senate review
the numbers of faculty senators per campus every five years. Dan
McCollum has compiled numbers for the Senate Steering Committee, and
the SSC has passed a resolution stating that the numbers should remain as
they are now. Seale stated that this will come up at the April meeting for
the entire Senate to consider, and that it is hoped that the Senate will
endorse the resolution.

The third point discussed by SSC is the effort of the Senate Steering
Committee to encourage the Governor to put forward a good pay plan for
faculty and staff. It was agreed that another letter may be in order.

Senate Steering Committee Chair Seale next brought the attention of the
senators to the pages in the Senate packets composed of the
announcements for the Senate elections. Seale urged all of the senators to
17
encourage people to nominate or self-nominate, or offer to nominate
someone with an interest in serving on a committee. She then informed
the Senate that electronic balloting for the committee positions will be
held in April, after the collegium elections for senators have been held.

Finally, Chair Seale reminded those who are chairs of a Senate committee
that Senate Committee reports are to be submitted no later than April 30,
2005. As the last Senate meeting is on April 29, Seale said that if reports
were in prior to then, that they would be placed in the Senate binders.
c) Academic Staff Lead Senator Dan McCollum. Senator McCollum highlighted
his written report (Attachment 3). He then added that the Academic Staff
Nomination Committee has put out a call for nominations for four seats on the
Academic Staff Council of Senators. Senator McCollum urged senators to
encourage people that they would like to have representing their campus to
submit their names.
d) UW Colleges Academic Staff Representative Gail Piotrowski. Senator
Piotrowski stated that she had submitted a written report (Attachment 4).
Piotrowski called special attention to the paragraph in her report regarding the
work of Kristine Andrews, Assistant Vice President for Federal Relations.
Senator Piotrowski recommended that this is something for all to be aware of,
and pointed out the address of their web page.
e) Lead Student Senator Maggie Flamingo. Report given by David Herrick,
Student Governance Council Vice President. Senate Alternate Herrick
reported that the Student Governance Council has just revised their
Constitution and eliminated some positions. After Representative Kreibich’s
press release regarding the nucleation of the Colleges, President of the Student
Governance Council Margaret Flamingo sent a letter to various legislators
stating students’ strong objections to the proposal, making points “on the rise
in tuition, education for financial difficulties, loss of administrative staff,” and
the loss of “the two-year experience” for newspaper, drama and athletic
teams.
f) Senate Academic Policy Committee Chair Terri Gonya. Senator Gonya
circulated a report, calling attention to the items that the committee has
prepared that were to be brought up later in the meeting. Gonya then
circulated another policy (IP #106) that the Senate Academic Policy
Committee had previously modified, and that had not been made a part of the
Senate materials already distributed.
g) Senate Budget Committee Chair Dave Gratz. Senator Gratz announced that
the Senate Budget Committee was no longer working on possible methods of
distribution of a market-driven component of the pay plan for next year, as it
appears that this is unlikely to happen, as originally discussed at the January
18
Senate meeting. Gratz stated that the Budget Committee is continuing talks
with Vice Chancellor Steve Wildeck regarding the possibility of becoming
part of the discussion of the building of the UW Colleges budget.
h) Senate Professional Standards Committee Chair Karen McLeer. Senator
McLeer first stated that the SPSC had met twice, once by WISLINE, and
again earlier in the day. She reported that work is continuing on policy related
to the Student Survey of Instruction, as practice and policy are not always in
line. McLeer announced a new website created by Juli McGuire that contains
general information about administering the Student Survey of Instruction.
Currently, the site has guidelines on what the schedule for administering the
survey is and a link to IP #103; McLeer passed along McGuire’s interest in
feedback on what else could be posted there. In response to a question about
the website, McLeer stated that the address hadn’t been widely distributed, but
that she would send the link to senators. Senator McLeer next spoke of the
ongoing work of Senate Professional Standards Committee in regards to the
retention dossier policies. Relating to this, McLeer drew attention to a fact
worthy of inclusion in the proposed Senate committee chairs handbook, to
wit, that changing one policy sometimes creates contradictions in a different
policy. She went on to state that the SPSC is trying to clean up some of these
problems by reading policy.
i) Senate Assessment Committee Chair Holly Hassel. A written report
submitted by Chair Hassel was included in the Senate materials
(Attachment 5).
7) Old Institutional Business
a) Adoption: Proposed Revision of Institutional Policy #101 (“Associate of Arts
and Science Degree”) [Senate Academic Policy Committee] (Attachment 6).
Senator Gonya moved to adopt the revised language of the policy, and, as
there was no discussion, it moved straight to a vote, whereupon it passed
unanimously [Gonya/Crossley].
b) Adoption: Proposed Revision of Institutional Policy #104 (“Course and
Instructional Policies”) [Senate Academic Policy Committee] (Attachment 7).
Senate Academic Policy Committee Chair Gonya moved to accept this
version of the policy. Chairs Chair Lippi suggested that rather than listing
“staff,” that “TBA (to be announced)” be used. As this was amenable to all, a
voice vote was taken and the measure passed unanimously [Gonya/Price].
c) Adoption: Proposed Revision of Institutional Policy #201 (“Admissions
Policy”) [Senate Academic Policy Committee] (Attachment 8). Senator
Gonya moved to accept the policy as presented, and a unanimous voice vote
was the result [Gonya/Price].
19
d) Adoption: Proposed Revision of Institutional Policy #101.01
(“Interdisciplinary Studies”) [Senate Academic Policy Committee]
(Attachment 9). After Senator Gonya moved to approve the policy, Senator
Houchens stated that his campus had taken issue with I.B.1. of this policy,
saying that it amounted to additional paperwork that was not necessarily
needed, and that more discretion should be given to the instructor of the
course. Senator McLeer stated that her campus had had a very similar
discussion, with the opinion being that faculty who are seeking approval for
an IS course are being asked to jump through additional hoops that someone
else is not. Senator Gonya went on to say that her campus had problems with
that part, as well, and also took issue with the segment that says each
department needs to approve a guest lecturer. Senator Tollefsrud stated that if
a guest lecturer is brought in to satisfy the IS requirement, the department with
the expertise in that area should have oversight over that component of the
course; otherwise, without that part of the policy, “then that part of the
curriculum is not approved by a department.” Senator Gonya said that it is a
constitutional issue, that departments must have approval over the courses and
those teaching the courses. “It’s not just that there’s guest lecturers, but that
the guest lecturers are the primary means of providing the IS component,”
said Senator Beaver. Chairs’ Chair Lippi expressed concern with whether the
policy would work in actual practice. Senator Piotrowski added that when an
instructor from one department brings in a guest lecturer who is providing
content in a different discipline in order to get the IS designation, then it
should be the other department rather than the instructor who approves the
guest lecturer. Senator Kallgren stated that this is a way in which it is shown
that the IS courses have “real academic rigor to them.” The motion to
approve the policy then went to a voice vote and passed [Gonya/Price].
e) Adoption: Proposed Revision of Institutional Policy #301.01, Appendix 2
(“Administering the Student Survey of Instruction”) [Senate Professional
Standards Committee] (Attachment 10). Senator Gonya reminded the senators
that this revision is simply to strike the second appendix, as the long code
numbers are no longer in use. The motion to adopt passed unanimously
[Gonya/Hosler].
f) Adoption: Proposed Revision of Institutional Policy #301.01.II
(“Administering the Student Survey of Instruction”) [Senate Professional
Standards Committee] (Attachment 11). Senator McLeer introduced the
proposed revision by summarizing the rationale included with the Senate
materials. In response to a query by Interim Chancellor Cleek, Chair McLeer
summarized the proposed changes of when to administer the Student Survey
of Instruction by explaining the current minimum requirement for tenure track
probationers’ inclusion of SSI results for their second-year retention review
are those collected in the first year, both fall and spring semesters, and those
collected in the fall semester of the second year. The revision proposes to
move distribution of the SSI in the second year from the fall to the spring
20
semester of that academic year. Chair McLeer noted that this policy provides
simply a minimum requirement, and that departments can add additional
requirements, as is always their prerogative. Senator Gratz observed that
there would potentially be one fewer set of SSI results to review before the
second-year retention, and that he feels it is best to have all of the possible
information available to have a meaningful review. He further stated that this
should override the problems with having student evaluations done in the
middle of the semester. Senator Zanichkowsky argued that doing so causes a
contradiction of two policies, saying “second-year people get judged on
material that they have not been able to see. They don’t have access to those
until they submit their final grades, and their retention decisions have to be
submitted before they are able to see what their student evaluations say.”
Senators Perry and Price agreed with her point, as did Chairs’ Chair Lippi.
The motion then went to a vote, and passed with one nay vote and one
abstention [McLeer/Perry].
g) Other. There was no other Old Institutional Business.
8) New Institutional Business
a) Introduction: Addition to Senate Bylaws 7.0 (“Senate Appointed Bylaws
Committees), “Correspondence Committee” [Senate Steering Committee]
(Attachment 12). Senator Zanichkowsky introduced the proposed addition
to the Senate Bylaws, summarizing the rationale accompanying the Senate
materials. She added that the idea for the new committee had been a product
of the Senate Leaders Retreat held in October 2004. Senator Hosler
questioned who would guide the committee, and Senator Ceccarelli
responded that the committee would address what it was directed to by the
Senate Steering Committee. Senator Kallgren recalled the past practice of
taking “the sense of the Senate,” and stated that “this is a way that the
Senate, with a voice, can reach out to the rest of the state community.”
Senator Zanichkowsky continued that, in a sense, the Senate talks to
collegia only, and administration talks to communities and legislators.
Now, she stated, communities and legislators are expressing an interest in
hearing from faculty and staff, as well, so this is a way of furthering the
position of the Senate and being represented more fully in the communities.
b) Introduction: Proposed New Institutional Policy #106.01 (“First-Year
Seminar Courses) [Senate Academic Policy Committee] (Attachment 13).
Senator Gonya summarized the rationale for this policy as presented in the
Senate’s written materials. She emphasized the need to write a policy that
would describe the ESFY courses and the various ways in which they can
be approved, and thus bring practice in line with the UWC Constitution,
which mandates departmental approval for courses with academic content
21
that are taught for credit. Senator Gonya also drew attention to some
changes in the policy, saying that since these are specifically First-Year
Seminar courses, that whenever the policy mentions an LEC course, the
language should read “LEC 100.” She also pointed out a correction under
II.E.3, which refers to the “guidelines listed under II.B,” saying it should be
“guidelines listed under II.” A senator pointed out that the word “should”
in II.E.3 must be changed to “shall.” Interim Chancellor Cleek called
attention to the fact that references to the “Vice Chancellor” should rather
be to “Provost.”
There was further debate relating to the eventual possibility that the Provost
will not always be the Institutional ESFY coordinator, as is currently the
case. Chair Gonya pointed out that the policy can be changed later if
changes in ESFY coordinators, institutionally or on campuses, or their
responsibilities, occur. Senator Gratz raised the point that, in the proposed
policy as presented, current LEC courses will be reviewed differently than
future classes will be, expressing concern for consistency. In response,
Senator Tollefsrud suggested that II.E.3. be rewritten to read: “Courses that
were initiated prior to December 31, 2005 shall go through the review
process specified herein and file form (XXX) before June 1, 2006.”
Senator McLeer questioned part of the approval process for a different
instructor taking over an already approved course, and Chair Gonya called
attention to the approval form mentioned in the policy (II.E.2.d.) that would
handle such cases.
Deans’ Representative Dan Blankenship questioned the role of the campus
ESFY coordinators and the approval process if a course is not approved by
a particular department. Chair Gonya responded that if one department
declined to be the home department, a second department could be
approached to consider approval, similar to the process in other atypical
courses for seeking a supporting department if no home department exists.
Dean Blankenship also questioned the process for courses taught by
someone who is not linked to a department. Chair Gonya referred senators
to I.B.3. (“If a potential LEC 100 instructor does not belong to any
academic department then the course and the instructor must gain approval
of the academic department(s) that will have jurisdiction over the content of
the course.”) and I.B.4.
Senator Jacobs referred to all LEC 100 courses at UW-Baraboo being under
the auspices of the English department, and Chair Gonya explained that if
the courses taught content other than English, the instructor and course
would have to apply to the relevant department for approval under the new
policy.
22
In conclusion, Chair Gonya thanked the Senate for the input and comments,
and then reiterated the need for the policy as the UWC Constitution is
currently being violated. Chairs’ Chair Lippi thanked the Senate Academic
Policy Committee for coming up with a good solution to something that has
been a concern of the chairs for several years, and Senator Gratz thanked
the committee for bringing the process in line with the Constitution.
c) Introduction: Revision of Senate Bylaws 2.0 (“Divisional Representation”)
[Senate Academic Policy Committee] (Attachment 14). Senator Carlson
summarized the written rationale included in the Senate packet, and then
pointed out one change to be made. In the listing of departments, under
Social Sciences, the name “Cultural Geography” was to be struck out and
replaced with the name “Geography and Geology.” It was also pointed out
that the word “Individual” had been added to the beginning of the
clarification regarding which division members of the Geography and
Geology department may choose to represent. A question concerning
inclusion of “Astronomy” in the department name of Computer Science,
Engineering, and Physics was raised and resolved (the department is in the
process of seeking the name change).
Chairs’ Representative Lippi voiced his interest in better understanding the
split into different divisions, of Cultural Geography and Physical
Geography. Chair Seale noted that Keith Montgomery, the chair of the
Geography and Geology department, stated that this has been their practice
for many years, and that they wish to continue it.
d) Introduction: Proposed New Institutional Policy #101.04 (“Ethnic Studies
Courses”) [Senate Academic Policy Committee] (Attachment 15). The
rationale and background found in the Senate materials regarding this
proposed new policy was summarized by Senator Tollefsrud. Tollefsrud
then drew attention to several changes that had been made by the SAPC at
their meeting earlier in the day. Sections I.B.2.d and I.B.3 had been
eliminated. The wording under II.A.2 should read: “Participating
department approves the content as properly representative of its discipline
and of the Ethnic Studies course designation.” Another change was to III.C,
where the wording should be “provided the instructor has department and
campus curriculum committee approval to teach the course.” Interim
Chancellor Cleek again pointed out a reference to “Vice Chancellor” that
should be read “Provost” instead, in II.C., and a senator pointed out that
“registrar” in II.C. should be capitalized. Senator Tollefsrud pointed out an
additional change to be made, saying that both uses of the word “should” in
III.D.1 must be changed to “shall.”
Senator Jacobs questioned the oversight process for the inclusion of at least
50% Ethnic Studies content. Senator Tollefsrud stated that it would be
through the syllabus and the information presented to the Senate
23
Curriculum Committee. Senator Gratz wondered why the courses were not
to be designated as having 100% Ethnic Studies content. Senator Gonya, in
her role as SAPC Chair, answered that although Renee Gralewicz had
recommended that they do so, the SAPC felt that increasing the content
from 20% to 100% would draw too much opposition and prevent the policy
from being approved. Chairs’ Representative Lippi stated that he thought
the current low standards for ES were due to the change in requirements for
the AAS degree made several years ago. He felt that the sudden need for
these ES courses at the time had caused too many things to be improperly
designated as Ethnic Studies. Chairs’ Chair Lippi and Senator Gratz both
expressed their pleasure that the standards were being raised.
A further topic of discussion regarding the proposed new policy was
brought up by Senator Kallgren, who questioned the need for individual
instructors who teach a course that has a blanket department designation of
ES to individually apply for the designation for their class. Senator Gratz
pointed out that courses have received the Ethnic Studies designation in two
ways: “some have been brought forth by departments and given a blanket
designation, and some courses have been brought forth by individual
instructors.” He suggested that language reflecting the courses brought
forth by departments be included. Senator Bubinas stated that the syllabi
for such courses often vary widely between instructors, and suggested that
there be a means to examine them to ensure that the courses are staying true
to the ES designation. Senator Bubinas agreed that the distinction between
department-generated designations and instructor-generated designations
was an important one. Senator Tollefsrud then read draft language to
address this concern: “If all sections of a course taught by a specific
department have an ES designation, then the department course guide could
be reviewed by the Senate Curriculum Committee rather than each
individual instructor pursuing ES designation. In this instance of an
established department course offering, the course is also exempt from
campus curriculum committee review.” It was agreed that this should be
placed after III.D. Senator Kallgren pointed out that III.B was going to
have to be reworked in light of the suggested change.
Chair Gonya pointed out that ES courses not meeting the standards by the
June 1 review deadline would have one year to meet them.
e) Introduction: Revision of Institutional Policy #301.01 (“Administering the
Student Survey of Instruction”) [Senate Professional Standards Committee]
(Attachment 16). Senator McLeer introduced the proposed revision of the
policy by summarizing the rationale included in the written materials
provided to the Senate.
Senator Price questioned whether a student who was not in the class period
when the Student Survey of Instruction was administered, was ineligible to
24
take it. SPSC Chair McLeer answered that this was correct. Senator Gratz
spoke to determining a process for students who feel they have been shut
out of the evaluation process, so that the Deans’ Assistants would know
what to do when approached. Senator Piotrowski suggested that wording
could be included to cover students who know in advance that they will not
be able to attend, saying that completing the Student Survey of Instruction
could be prearranged for them. When asked for a student’s opinion by
Interim Chancellor Cleek, Alternate Student Senator Herrick suggested that
exceptions be made for students who know they will miss the assessment
period ahead of time due to their participation in a UW-sponsored event,
such as a sporting event. Senator Perry stated that there are alternate ways
for students to offer input, such as with letters. Senator McCollum spoke in
favor of the sentence currently in the policy, saying: “it is not precluding a
student from assessing an instructor; there are alternate means of them
doing the assessment.” Chancellor Cleek noted that campus collegia would
undoubtedly have much to contribute to this discussion.
f) Other. Introduction: Proposed Revision of Institutional Policy #106
(“Atypical Course Policy”) [Senate Academic Policy Committee]
(Attachment 17). Senator Gonya introduced the proposed revision of the
policy, stating that it had been distributed separately earlier in the meeting,
and summarized the rationale.
Senator Crossley his having noticed in the current UWC Catalog (now
under revision), specifically in the description of LEC 100, a statement that
says the courses need to be approved by the Senate Curriculum Committee;
however, since that is not the current policy, Senator Crossley stated that
the catalog description should be changed. Chair Gonya agreed that that
what is in the catalog is not in agreement with current policy and asked if
review by the Senate Curriculum Committee should be added to the policy.
Deans’ Representative Blankenship asked if the terms “interdisciplinary”
and “multidisciplinary” were used intentionally. Chair Gonya defined the
two terms (“interdisciplinary” as referring to the presentation of the
combined perspectives of two or more disciplines; and “multidisciplinary”
as the presence of more than one discipline with no attempt to combine or
mix them). She further noted that their usage was indeed intentional.
9) Next Senate Meeting: Friday, April 29, Friedrick Center, UW-Madison. Interim
Chancellor Cleek reminded the Senate that the April 29 meeting would be the
meeting with all of the new senators, as well as the current Senate. She concluded by
wishing everyone a good Spring Break.
10) Adjournment. The meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m. [Zanichkowsky/Kallgren]
25
Minutes
UW COLLEGES
Faculty Council of Senators
UW-Fox Valley
March 4, 2005
2:30 p.m. -- 3:30 p.m.
Senators Present: Michael Jacobs, UW-Baraboo/Sauk County; Linda Tollefsrud, UWBarron County; Sayeed Payesteh, UW-Fond du Lac; John Beaver and Terri
Gonya, UW-Fox Valley; Dave Gratz, UW-Manitowoc; Doug Hosler and Lisa
Seale, UW-Marathon County; Dan Kallgren, UW-Marinette; John Houchens,
UW-Marshfield/Wood County; Karen McLeer, UW-Richland; Mark Fuller, UWRock County; Dennis Crossley, UW-Sheboygan; Paul Price, UW-Washington
County; Kathleen Bubinas, Barbara Reinhart and Elizabeth Zanichkowsky, UWWaukesha
Others Present: Ron Lippi, Department Chairs’ Representative; Linda Baum, Assistant
to the Senate
1) Call to Order. Senate Steering Committee Chair Lisa Seale called the meeting to
order at 3:11 p.m.
2) Roll Call. The attendance list was circulated. Chair Seale introduced Senator
Kathleen Bubinas from UW-Waukesha.
3) Approval of the Agenda. The agenda was approved unanimously
[Zanichkowsky/Hosler].
4) Approval of Minutes: January 19, 2005, Pyle Center, Madison (posted in Public
Folders/Governance/Senate/Senate Minutes/2004-2005). The minutes were approved
unanimously [Hosler/Price].
5) Reports
a) Chair Lisa Seale. Chair Seale called attention to her written report given to the
Senate and included in the printed Senate materials. Seale stated that a letter had
been sent on behalf of the Faculty Council of Senators to UW System President
Kevin Reilly, presenting the faculty perspective on the UW Colleges and UWExtension consolidation. Chair Seale felt that the letter had been well received,
saying that President Reilly was open to listening and very concerned with what
the faculty wanted. Chair Seale then urged Faculty Council Senators to nominate
people or encourage people to self-nominate for Senate elections for committees,
stating that their help is sincerely needed and appreciated.
b) Senate Professional Standards Committee Chair Karen McLeer. SPSC Chair
McLeer had nothing further to report.
26
6) Old business.
a) Adoption: Proposed Revision of FPP #501.01 (“Promotion, Tenure, and ThirdYear Tenure Progress and Retention Review Dossier Format”) [Senate
Professional Standards Committee] (Attachment 18). Senator Reinhart
summarized the rationale as given in the Faculty Council of Senators’ written
materials. The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote [Reinhart/McLeer].
b) Adoption: Proposed Revision of FPP #501.02 (“Probationary Faculty Retention
Review Dossiers”) [Senate Professional Standards Committee] (Attachment 19).
Senator McLeer pointed out that this was just a change to correspond with the
change made in the previous policy. A voice vote concerning the proposed
revisions unanimously passed the motion [Jacobs/Reinhart].
c) Other. There was no other old business.
7) New Business
a) Discussion of issue(s) from reports or presentations. There was no further
discussion.
b) Introduction: Revision of FPP #501.02.I.H (“Probationary Faculty Retention
Review Dossiers”) [Senate Professional Standards Committee] (Attachment 20).
Senator McLeer summarized the rationale found in the written materials regarding
the proposed revision. McLeer stated that the Provost had requested this change,
and that the Senate Professional Standards Committee felt that it was a very
meritorious idea. There was no other discussion of the proposal.
c) Introduction: Proposed Revision of FPP #503.I.B.4.b (“Faculty Merit Policy”)
[Senate Professional Standards Committee] (Attachment 21). Senator McLeer
stated that this is a very small change and explained the rationale for it. There
was no other discussion regarding the proposed revision.
d) Other. There was no other new business.
8) Adjournment. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 3:24 p.m.
[Zanichkowsky/Gonya].
27
Minutes
UW COLLEGES
Academic Staff Council of Senators
March 4, 2005
UW-Fox Valley
2:30 p.m. -- 3:30 p.m.
1. Meeting called to order at 3:05 p.m.
2. Present: Dan McCollum, chair; Dave Carlson; Mike Ceccarelli; Penny Kelsey; Gail
Piotrowski; Joy Perry; Jim Stevens; Gail Vojta.
3. Minutes from January 19, 2005, were approved. McCollum will distribute by email a
draft of minutes from the council’s February 22, 2005, WISLINE meeting.
4. Reports: McCollum and Piotrowski referred to written reports they submitted to the
Senate as Lead Senator and Academic Staff Representative, respectively. Senators on
the Academic Policy, Budget, and Professional Standards committees referred to
business conducted on the Senate floor.
5. Old Business: A draft of UW Colleges ASPP #804 (Nonrenewal of Fixed-Term
Renewable Appointments) was distributed that includes additions and corrections
made by Lyn Reigstad following the council’s February WISLINE meeting. Senators
should send any further suggestions about the document to Piotrowski ASAP.
Academic staff members throughout the UW Colleges will have 30 days to review
the policy before the council votes on it.
6. New Business: The council is in agreement that academic staff are adequately
represented on the committee studying the consolidation of administrative services in
the UW Colleges and the UW Extension. McCollum will report on the issue at the
council’s next WISLINE meeting (see below).
7. Other Business:
a. Carlson reported that the unavailability of a colleges-wide handbook for academic
staff is a concern to colleagues on his campus; the council will take up the matter
at a future meeting.
b. McCollum reported that funding is available for representatives to attend the UW
System summer leadership conference for academic staff; he will begin the
process of collecting nominations.
c. McCollum will also recirculate calls for nominations to Senate (four Academic
Staff Senator positions will be open at the end of 2004-2005).
d. The council will meet by WISLINE sometime before the Senate’s April 29, 2005,
meeting.
[Submitted by Dave Carlson]
28
Attachment 1
Draft Schedule
UW COLLEGES
Senate, Senate Committees and Council Meetings
Friday, March 4, 2005
UW-Fox Valley
10:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
10:30 a.m. – 11:15 a.m.
Senate Academic Policy Committee
Room 1345
Senate Budget Committee
Room 1346
Senate Professional Standards Committee
Room 1706
Senate Steering Committee
Emeritus Room
11: 15 a.m. – Noon
Presentations
Emeritus Room
UW Colleges/UW Extension
Interim Chancellor Margaret Cleek
Biennial Budget Process—Next Steps
Vice Chancellor Steve Wildeck
Noon – 12:30 p.m.
Box lunch
Emeritus Room
12:30 p.m. – 2:30 p.m.
UW Colleges Senate
Emeritus Room
2:30 p.m. – 3:30 p.m.
Academic Staff Council of Senators
Room 1346
Faculty Council of Senators
Emeritus Room
29
Draft Agenda
UW COLLEGES
Senate
March 4, 2005
UW-Fox Valley
12:30 p.m. - 2:30 p.m.
1. Call to Order
2. Welcome by Associate Dean Tom Pleger
3. Roll Call of 2004-2005 senators, representatives, alternates [SSC Chair]
4. Approval of Agenda
5. Approval of Minutes: January 19, 2005, Pyle Center, Madison (posted in Public
Folders/Governance/Senate/Senate Minutes/2004-2005)
6. Reports
a) Interim Chancellor Margaret Cleek
b) Senate Steering Committee Chair and UW Colleges Faculty Representative
Lisa Seale
c) Academic Staff Lead Senator Dan McCollum
d) UW Colleges Academic Staff Representative Gail Piotrowski
e) Lead Student Senator Alternate Sarah Kurer
f) Senate Academic Policy Committee Chair Terri Gonya
g) Senate Budget Committee Chair David Gratz
h) Senate Professional Standards Committee Chair Karen McLeer
i) Senate Assessment Committee Chair Holly Hassel
7. Old Institutional Business
a) Adoption: Proposed Revision of Institutional Policy #101 (“Associate of Arts
and Science Degree”) [Senate Academic Policy Committee]
b) Adoption: Proposed Revision of Institutional Policy #104 (“Course and
Instructional Policies”) [Senate Academic Policy Committee]
c) Adoption: Proposed Revision of Institutional Policy #201 (“Admissions
Policy”) [Senate Academic Policy Committee]
d) Adoption: Proposed Revision of Institutional Policy #101.01
(“Interdisciplinary Studies”) [Senate Academic Policy Committee]
e) Adoption: Proposed Revision of Institutional Policy #301.01, Appendix 2
(“Administering the Student Survey of Instruction”) [Senate Professional
Standards Committee]
30
f) Adoption: Proposed Revision of Institutional Policy #301.01.II
(“Administering the Student Survey of Instruction”) [Senate Professional
Standards Committee]
g) Other
8. New Institutional Business
a) Introduction: Addition to Senate Bylaws 7.0 (“Senate Appointed Bylaws
Committees), “Correspondence Committee” [Senate Steering Committee]
b) Introduction: Proposed New Institutional Policy #106.01 (“First-Year Seminar
Courses”) [Senate Academic Policy Committee]
c) Introduction: Revision of Senate Bylaws 2.0 (“Divisional Representation”)
[Senate Academic Policy Committee]
d) Introduction: Proposed New Institutional Policy #101.04 (“Ethnic Studies
Courses”) [Senate Academic Policy Committee]
e) Introduction: Revision of Institutional Policy #301.01 (“Administering the
Student Survey of Instruction”) [Senate Professional Standards Committee]
f) Other. Introduction: Proposed Revision of Institutional Policy #106
(“Atypical Course Policy”) [Senate Academic Policy Committee]
9. Next Senate Meeting: Friday, April 29, Friedrick Center, UW-Madison.
10. Adjournment
31
Draft Agenda
UW COLLEGES
Faculty Council of Senators
March 4, 2005
UW-Fox Valley
2:30 p.m. – 3:30 p.m.
1) Call to Order
2) Roll Call
3) Approval of Agenda
4) Approval of Minutes: January 19, 2005, Pyle Center, Madison (posted in Public
Folders/Governance/Senate/Senate Minutes/2004-2005)
5) Reports
a) Chair Lisa Seale
b) Senate Professional Standards Committee Chair Karen McLeer
6) Old Business
a) Adoption: Proposed Revision of FPP #501.01 (“Promotion, Tenure, and ThirdYear Tenure Progress and Retention Review Dossier Format”) [Senate
Professional Standards Committee]
b) Adoption: Proposed Revision of FPP #501.02 (“Probationary Faculty Retention
Review Dossiers”) [Senate Professional Standards Committee]
c) Other
7) New Business
a) Discussion of issue(s) from reports or presentations
b) Introduction: Revision of FPP #501.02.I.H (“Probationary Faculty Retention
Review Dossiers”) [Senate Professional Standards Committee]
c) Introduction: Revision of FPP #503.I.B.4.b (“Faculty Merit Policy”) [Senate
Professional Standards Committee]
d) Other
8) Adjournment
32
Draft Agenda
UW COLLEGES
Academic Staff Council of Senators
March 4, 2005
UW-Fox Valley
2:30 p.m. – 3:30 p.m.
1) Call to order
2) Roll call
3) Approval of Minutes: January 19, 2005, Pyle Center, Madison (posted in Public
Folders/Governance/Senate/Senate Minutes/2004-2005)
a) Approval of minutes from Feb. 22, 2005 WISLINE meeting
4) Reports
a) Lead Senator and Steering Committee Representative
b) Academic Staff Representatives Council
c) Academic Policy Committee
d) Budget Committee
e) Professional Standards Committee
5) Old business
a) Discuss Policy Revisions for “Non-renewal of Fixed Term Appointments”
6) New business
a) Academic Staff role on cross-institutional steering committee
7) Other business
8) Adjournment
33
Attachment 2
Senate Steering Committee Chair
UW Colleges Faculty Representative
Report to the UW Colleges Senate
March 4, 2005
Senate Steering Committee’s Work
The Senate Steering Committee (SSC) has met four times since January 19, including today.
Agendas and minutes are posted in Public Folders > Governance > Senate > Senate Steering >
Minutes > 2004-2005. Highlights of work include the following:

SSC extended a call to campus steering committee chairs, senators, department chairs, and
student governance seeking broad-based input on attributes we want in the next chancellor to
head a consolidated central administration of the UW Colleges and UW-Extension (sent 218). Please encourage responses by March 18.

SSC sent a letter to Senator Sheila Harsdorf and members of the two committees involved in
the March 2 joint legislative hearing to consider, among other topics, two plans to restructure
the University of Wisconsin (Representative Kreibich’s proposal to disaggregate the UW
Colleges, parceling out our campuses among UW’s comprehensive campuses; and UWS
President Kevin Reilly’s plan, already underway, to consolidate the central administrations of
UW Colleges and UW-Extension). The letter speaks in favor of Reilly’s plan and lays out the
reasons for opposition to the Kreibich proposal (sent 2-22). As noted in an email forwarding
the letter to the Faculty Council of Senators, “The rationale behind the letter is to give those
on the committees who do not support Kreibich the opportunity and impetus to ask some
tough questions at the hearing and ultimately to not support Kreibich's proposal to dismantle
the Colleges. While the case made in the letter for our support of the UW Colleges/UWExtension plan is a somewhat bitter pill to swallow, it seems as if we have little choice but to
fight for what is the least objectionable of the two.” The letter was also circulated among the
Academic Staff Council of Senators.

Two members of SSC (Lead Academic Staff Senator Dan McCollum and Lead Faculty
Senator Lisa Seale) attended a joint UW Colleges/UW-Extension meeting with UWS
President Kevin Reilly to discuss issues raised in Faculty Council of Senators letter (sent 126) expressing concerns about Reilly’s proposal (met 2-3):
o
Present from UW Colleges (UWC): Interim Chancellor Margaret Cleek, Academic Staff
Council of Senators Chair Dan McCollum, Faculty Council of Senators Chair Lisa Seale;
present from UW-Extension (UWEX): Interim Chancellor Marv Van Kekerix, University
Committee Chair Holly Breitkreutz, Academic Staff representative Mary Jane Ederer;
also present: Bob Anderson (Assistant to Kevin Reilly). Meeting took place in Kevin
Reilly’s office, Van Hise Hall, Madison, 10:30 a.m.-noon.
o
Topics covered (in addition to five concerns listed in letter regarding future governance
structures; loss of key administrators; institutional identity and location of central office;
reasons for choosing UWC/UWEX in first place; and reasons for moving ahead without
further study): (A) What President Reilly’s proposal is not: not a merger of governance
groups, nor of faculty personnel policies or tenure, nor of UWC/UWEX institutional
facilities beyond Madison offices. (B) Ways to present Reilly’s proposal publicly: urged
Reilly to articulate a fuller vision of UWC/UWEX potential to serve State of Wisconsin
34
by leading implementation of COBE and/or offering selected baccalaureate degrees (our
own or delivering those of a four-year UW). (C) Methods for implementing changes if
BOR approved Reilly’s proposal: immediately setting up a steering committee of
UWC/UWEX administrative and governance leaders to shape new, consolidated Madison
central office structure and new chancellor’s position description (proposed by
chancellors Cleek & Kekerix).

Following regent approval of President Reilly’s proposal (on 2-10), a new UWC-UWEX
Administrative Integration Steering Committee was formed with representation by various
UW Colleges and UW-Extension administrators and faculty/academic staff representatives.
I’ve been appointed to this committee in my role as SSC chair, and will attend its first
meeting on March 24. I will keep SSC and the Senate regularly posted on the committee’s
activities and recommendations.

SSC calls your attention to two features of today’s agenda and binder materials, as follows:

o
SSC has moved forward with the October 2004 Senate Leaders Retreat suggestion that a
Senate Committee of Correspondence be formed; a related revision of the Senate Bylaws
is thus on today’s agenda.
o
Senators are encouraged to circulate the 2005-2006 Senate election materials among their
constituencies and to seek nominations from those interested in serving, in advance of
several Senate bylaw committee elections to be held electronically in April, as well as
appointments by SSC to Senate appointed bylaw committees in the same month, and
elections/appointments by the Faculty Council of Senators and the Academic Staff
Council of Senators. Thanks in advance for your help!
Please let me remind the chairs of this year’s Senate committees of Senate Bylaws 1.0
(Committee Minutes and Annual Reports): “All Senate committees, except the appeals and
grievances committee, shall post their minutes in a timely manner in Public Folders. Each
Senate committee shall submit an annual report to the Senate Steering Committee
Chair as requested by the Chair prior to the last Senate meeting of the academic year,
typically no later than April 30. These annual reports shall be published as appendices of
the Senate minutes of the last meeting of the academic year” [emphasis added]. Please
submit your annual report by April 30 or before for inclusion in the April 29 Senate meeting
materials (those holding meetings after this time may submit a revised report, as necessary).
UW System News
The major news is, of course, UW Board of Regents approval of the central administrations’
consolidation of UW Colleges and UW-Extension at the February BOR meeting. A summary of
Regent action regarding UWC/UWEX can be found at:
http://www.wisconsin.edu/news/2005/r050210a.htm and in Chancellor Cleek’s 2-10-05 email.
Details of the Feb. 10-11 Board of Regents meetings follow.

In his presentation of the resolution to authorize a search for one chancellor for
UWC/UWEX, President Reilly referred to “a glimmer of things” faculty, staff, and
governance leaders at each institution have thought about as ideas for a “more thoroughgoing integration.” He noted, by way of example, some very provisional ways that the move
could strengthen the university’s service capacity to local communities and the state as a
whole. These included expanding access to the Associate’s degree to move more people
forward to Bachelor’s degrees; enhancing civic life through public forums, action-oriented
35
applied research, and greater use of the Wisconsin Humanities Council (drawing on Dean Jim
Veninga’s experience with the Texas Humanities Council); and using UW-Extension’s
County Co-op Extension offices as information and intake centers for the UW Colleges.

Both Chancellor Kekerix and Cleek addressed the Regents, outlining their respective
consultations with their institutions (Chancellor Cleek listed meetings with the SSC, Senate,
Deans, Chairs, Central Office, and communication via Central Stuff, and campus visits with
faculty, staff and students) and presenting their plan to set up a Steering Committee (with an
Executive subcommittee to set goals and a timeline, and working groups) and a
Communication Committee to keep faculty, staff, students, and communities up to date and
to, in turn, have a voice. They will also consider bringing in an outside facilitator.

President Reilly quoted Mark Twain (“I’m all in favor of progress; it’s change I can’t stand”)
and another famous saying, “Change is good—you go first,” before thanking chancellors
Cleek and Van Kekerix for going first in restructuring. He acknowledged the two
institutions’ concerns over loss of identity and said they will need to be addressed.

President Reilly went on to say that other ideas that exist for restructuring the System are
ideas only, not concrete plans or proposals. He went on to say that his proposal “will not
preclude consideration of other ideas.” He gave as an example a discussion he had had with
Representative Kreibich, who is happy to include the Reilly proposal in his March 2
legislative committee hearing. Reilly stated that the hearing and the fact that other ideas exist
does not mean UWS and the BOR should not go forward and build on already developing
momentum. He said that faculty and staff governance leadership are “by and large” eager to
move forward and UWS and the BOR ought to let us do that while remaining open to any
other outside-the-box ideas that are out there.

Various regents expressed appreciation for the UW Colleges and UW-Extension’s
willingness to take on this change:
o
o
o
o
o
Regent Gottschalk called for any savings that should be accrued accounted for and
returned to UWC/UWEX to boost the morale of the troops.
Regent Olivieri noted that he had received many letters on this subject, and he asked for
and received President Reilly’s assurance that this resolution would not result in the
removal of any UW Colleges campus deans, and that UW Colleges Foundations can
continue raising funds in support of enhancing the quality of work at the UW Colleges
campuses.
Regent Olivieri also stated he would like to encourage the two institutions to be creative
and to feel free to work together, appreciating that this is not the end of the discussion
and that we should be open to new ideas.
Regent Salas asked for clarification about whether Reilly’s proposal is the best (as
compared to Representative Kreibich’s), and whether the UWS is serious about
restructuring. Reilly replied that remaining open-minded to other restructuring ideas by
legislators is important, and that UWS and BOR should give the March 2 hearing a
chance. By then, he said, the BOR can see whether any of the other ideas are realistic.
He noted that legislative leadership would have to spend some political capital to make
any statutory changes.
Regent Bradley praised the resolution as very limited in scope and reaching toward the
goal of operational efficiency. He lauded the fact that the next steps to be taken are
sound: leading with governance groups and interim chancellors to find additional
efficiencies to deliver a better product.
36
o
Regent Connolly-Keesler asked whether President Reilly had any concerns about this
being a huge job for one chancellor. President Reilly acknowledged that if the wrong
structure is created beneath such a chancellor, the change could go disastrously wrong.
He reiterated his belief that it can be done right, to strengthen both institutions. He
acknowledged that if the State were shoveling dollars at UWS, he would not be doing
this. He acknowledged that change is difficult and stated he has received many letters on
the subject.

In other actions taken, the regents also approved the addition of the phrase “gender identity or
expression” to BOR policy on non-discrimination and agreed to institute a system-wide
Diversity Award, comparable to the Regents Teaching Excellence Award.

UWS response to the governor’s proposed budget was also outlined:
o
President Reilly emphasized that the next step (“the bigger gorilla”) will be to seek
support from our legislators for the university’s proposed pay plan, stating that the need
for nationally competitive pay is in the interest of quality for our students. (JOCER must
make its recommendations in April before any actual pay plan figures can make their way
into the governor’s budget.)
o
President Reilly also urged communication on the part of regents, chancellors, students,
faculty and staff in identifying the best parts and the challenges of the budget to our
respective legislators, newspapers, and neighbors. He noted that strong bipartisan
support is needed in the Joint Committee on Finance, where the governor’s budget goes
next. He suggested a focus on what the UW offers the state in the form of new jobs and
revenue.
Faculty Council of Representatives
One meeting has been held since my last report (met 2-4, Madison). Minutes are not kept, but the
minutes of the SSC Meeting #10, posted in Public Folders > Governance > Senate > Senate
Steering > Minutes > 2004-2005, offer my impressions of the discussion topics; highlights
follow:

A Conversation with President Reilly. President Reilly attended the meeting for one-half
hour, during which he announced UWS administrative restructuring (including UW-EC
Chancellor Don Mash’s move to UWS as Executive Senior Vice President) and referred to
the UWC/UWEX meeting with him the day before as productive. He also noted that his
proposal does not preclude UWS from remaining open-minded about other restructuring
proposals, such as Representative Kreibich’s, at whose March 2 committee hearing he
expects to appear.

I led a discussion of the UWS Inclusivity Initiative’s role on campuses, in particular how UW
institutions are incorporating LGBT issues into diversity efforts, by reviewing several best
practices guidelines regarding recruitment & retention of faculty & staff, domestic partner
benefits, restroom facilities, student housing, inclusive language in classrooms, student
services orientations, and safe spaces. (I’ll be happy to share these best practices guidelines
with anyone who would like a copy.)

Heard two UWS presentations, one on Plan 2008 Phase II Institutional Plans, led by Marilyn
Rhodes, the other on OPAR (Office of Policy Analysis and Research), led by Sharon
Wilhelm. OPAR’s web site contains a wealth of institutional information:
http://www.uwsa.edu/opar/, as does The Education Trust’s new college peer tool:
http://www.collegeresults.org/
37
Attachment 3
UW Colleges Academic Staff Lead Senator
Report to the UW Colleges Senate #3
March 4, 2005
2004-05 Academic Staff Senators:
Dave Carlson (RCK, 2004-06, Academic Policy Committee)
Michael Ceccarelli (MNT, 2004-06, Steering Committee Rep)
Penny Kelsey (WAK, 2004-06, Budget Committee Rep)
Dan McCollum (MSF, 2003-05, Lead Academic Senator, Academic Staff Appeals and
Grievance, Academic Staff Nominations and Elections)
Joy Perry (FOX, 2003-05, Professional Standards Committee Rep)
Gail Piotrowski (BRN, 2003-05, Academic Staff Executive Committee Rep, Academic
Staff Personnel)
Jim Stevens (WSH, 2003-05, Budget Committee Rep, Academic Staff Appeals and
Grievance)
Gail Vojta (WAK, 2004-06, Academic Policy Committee)
The Academic Staff Council scheduled a WISLINE meeting for February as a means of dealing
with issues from previous agendas that have not been addressed due to limited meeting time at
Senate meetings. The primary area of concern discussed at the February 22 meeting was working
with Lyn Reigstad to resolve discrepancies that exist in the policy related to termination for
Academic Staff with fixed-term renewable appointments. After discussion, the Council was
comfortable with the new policy structure and will refer a final draft to the AS Personnel
committee for approval. There was additional dialogue about the role Academic Staff can play in
the proposed consolidation of administrative functions for the Colleges and UW Extension and in
working with the cross-institutional steering committee.
On February 3, Lisa Seale and I met with President Reilly and representatives from the
governance committees at UW Extension, as well as the interim Chancellors from both
institutions, to discuss the proposed consolidation of administrative functions. The meeting
provided an opportunity for representatives from both governance groups to ask questions and
begin a dialogue related to the proposed consolidation. The Council is continuing to work with
other academic staff to encourage communication to the Governor and Legislature regarding the
role of academic staff in ensuring positive educational environments, the “shape” of the Colleges,
and communicating our feelings related to the several proposals for reorganization of the
Colleges. The Academic Staff Council plans on being an active partner in the search for a new
Chancellor and contributing to the discussions related to cost and operational effectiveness.
I also worked with the Steering Committee on projects related to determining whether current
faculty senate representation from each of the campuses was appropriate, and development of a
short survey of new non-tenured faculty, related to transfer between campuses.
Respectfully Submitted
Daniel R. McCollum
February 22, 2005
38
Attachment 4
UW Colleges Academic Staff Representative to UW System Administration
Report to the UW Colleges Senate
March 4, 2005
The UW System Academic Staff Representative Council (ASRC) has had several
meetings since the January Senate meeting. Minutes and related materials are
(or will soon be) available at
http://www.uwsa.edu/srvpadm/asreps/agendaminutes.htm.
President Riley has proposed (and the BOR has approved) that the business
functions of UW Colleges be combined with those of UW Extension. The first
step will be to seek a combined chancellor for institutions.
Kristine Andrews, Assistant Vice President for Federal Relations described some
of the goals of her office, to increase Wisconsin’s visibility in Washington, to build
partnerships with our congressional delegation, and to assist campuses for
effective engagement in federal relations. One tool that her staff uses in
communicating with our congressional delegation is the Federal Relation Binder,
an example of which is located at http://www.uwsa.edu/univ_rel/govrel/federalpriorities/. This tool has been used to communicate key funding priorities of the
UW System such as Pell Grants, TRIO programs, NSF funding and the like.
Andrews encourages all UW System staff to locate potential funding
opportunities and communicate them to her at [email protected].
There are several areas of concern with the budget that Governor Doyle has
proposed. We need to be especially watchful regarding the need to self-fund
programs; attempts to shift UW System assets to other agencies by monetizing
them; insistence on procurement savings while retaining DOA requirements that
prevent identified efficiencies; and a proposed “star” fund instead of an adequate
pay plan. We need to prioritize what we fight for, focusing on instruction,
access, and support for student success, rather than “wedge” issues such as
domestic partner benefits. We need to continue to impress on legislators (and
joint finance committee members) the importance of the talking points available
at http://www.uwsa.edu/srvpadm/asreps/agendaminutes.htm.
We might be wise to remember that ¾ of the state’s represented employees,
including most UW System represented employees, remain without a contract. It
is expected that this will complicate matters, and may affect our eventual pay
plan.
Respectfully submitted,
Gail Piotrowski
Academic Staff Rep
39
Attachment 5
Senate Assessment Committee Chair
Report to the UW Colleges Senate
March 4, 2005


The Senate Assessment Committee will be receiving and reviewing Department
Plan and Report forms for Spring 2005. The date they are due is March, 15.
The SAC is planning a two-day meeting in June to discuss the rotation cycle and
revisions to the analytical skills rubrics. This will be the first meeting we plan to
include Campus Assessment Coordinators along with DAC’s.
40
Attachment 6
For UW Colleges Senate
Adoption Vote
Proposed Revision of
Institutional Policy #101 (“Associate of Arts and Science Degree”)
March 4, 2005
Background and Rationale:
This revision was introduced at the January 19 Senate meeting with the following
rationale. An adoption vote will take place on March 4.
First, the assessment-related changes in the following proposed revision originated in
suggestions made by a subcommittee of the2003-2004 Senate Steering Committee. The
UW Colleges assessment plan is now prominently featured in this policy with a
description of the four major degree proficiencies. Second, the 2004-2005 Senate
Steering Committee directed the Senate Academic Policy Committee to address requests
for changes in several UW Colleges programs as well as modifications in the new UW
Colleges catalog. Three specific changes in department names and discipline affiliations
have been made and will appear in the UW Colleges catalog—these modifications to
IP#101 were necessary to be consistent with the department and discipline listings for the
AAS degree described in the catalog. The first department-discipline modification occurs
for the (former) Foreign Languages Department. The department requested a name
change to World Languages Department and offers the following rationale for this
change: “The change reflects a state and national movement toward this nomenclature. The
department wishes to keep current with changes in their profession, and also in our society.
Spanish is by far our largest language in the UW Colleges and it is no longer ‘foreign’ in the
U.S. Furthermore, the term ‘foreign’ reflects an ethnocentric point of view on the part of English
speakers, suggesting that other languages do not belong, or are alien or strange. The languages
that we currently offer (French, German, and Spanish) are also heavily Eurocentric, and we wish
to move beyond that in the future by offering such important world languages as Chinese or
Arabic. The name change will encourage a broadening of the department and will increase its
relevance to today’s world.” The second department-discipline modification occurs in the
Department of Computer Science, Engineering and Physics. Classes in Physics and
Astronomy will now be considered two distinct disciplines, which will have positive
consequences for the completion of the Associate of Arts and Sciences degree. This
decision was approved by SAPC during the 2003 -2004 Senate year, but IP#101 was not
modified to reflect that change. The third department-discipline modification occurs in
the department of Philosophy, which will serve as the home department for the Religious
Studies discipline, a new academic program. These modifications are indicated by red,
bold, underlined italicized font.
UW Colleges Senate Policy
Institutional Curricular Policy #101
Associate of Arts and Science Degree
============================================
Resolution approved by the Senate, January 24, 1998, p. 4, app. 5
Amended by the Senate, November 13, 1998, p. 3
Amended by the Senate, March 3, 2000, p. 3, 4
41
Reorganized and Renumbered March 15, 2002
Amended by the Senate, May 2, 2003
The Associate of Arts and Science Degree
I. Degree Description
To fulfill the UWC mission, the degree requires that core requirements in writing and
mathematics be completed as well as a distribution of credits in breadth of knowledge
categories.
The breadth categories in the degree are defined as follows:
A. Fine Arts and Humanities
Students must acquire knowledge of ideas, beliefs, and abiding concerns pertaining to the
human condition as represented in literature, philosophy and cultural history. They must
acquire a level of aesthetic appreciation of the human imagination as expressed in the fine
arts, and appreciation of the impact of the arts upon the quality and character of human
life.
B. Mathematical and Natural Sciences
Students must know of the nature and workings of the physical universe. They must
understand scientific method, the functions of numerical data and the solving of problems
through mathematical and statistical computations, as well as the application of the
scientific method in laboratory and experimental work. For this, an appropriate level of
computer literacy is required. Students must also be aware of environmental conditions
and challenges, the interrelationships of life forms and ecosystems, and the impact of
human activities upon natural environments.
C. Social Sciences
Students must understand the nature and dynamics of human social systems and how and
why people organize their lives and resources. In doing so, students will learn about both
their own and diverse cultures to acquire a historical perspective on long-term
characteristics and consequences of social change and an informed understanding of the
variety of human conditions and the interrelationships of nations, regions, peoples and
individuals.
D. Application and Performance
Students must demonstrate an understanding of concepts, theory and knowledge through
the application of their skills and understanding to specific problems and activities.
E. Ethnic Studies
Students must become aware of and sensitive to diversity issues and problems. Courses
fulfilling this requirement will have a substantial emphasis on cultural diversity issues
within the United States and examine these issues from at least one of the following
perspectives: African American, Hispanic/Latino, Asian American, and American Indian
topics.
F. Interdisciplinary Studies
Students must acquire an appreciation for the multiple dimensions of any given subject
by applying the content, methods and assumptions of two or more disciplines. Students
will learn to integrate knowledge from across the curriculum. A course is an
42
interdisciplinary studies course if instructors from two or more disciplines teach the
course.
II.
Degree Proficiencies
To fulfill its mission, the UW Colleges has identified the following areas of proficiency
to be of primary importance in the education of our students. Assessment methods to
determine student acquisition of proficiencies at the course level have been developed.
Students may be required to participate in course assessment.
A. Analytical Skills
Students must be able to:
 interpret and synthesize information and ideas,
 analyze and evaluate arguments,
 construct hypotheses and support arguments,
 select and apply scientific and other appropriate methodologies,
 integrate knowledge and experience to arrive at creative solutions,
 gather and assess information from printed sources, electronic sources, and
observation.
B. Quantitative Skills
Students must be able to:
 solve quantitative and mathematical problems,
 interpret graphs, tables, and diagrams,
 use statistics appropriately and accurately.
C. Communication Skills
Students must be able to:
 read, observe, and listen with comprehension and critical perception,
 communicate clearly, precisely, and in a well-organized manner,
 demonstrate a large and varied vocabulary,
 recognize and use a variety of communication forms and styles,
 use computer technologies for communication.
D. Aesthetic Skills
Students must be able to:
 Engage with and critically reflect on a work of creative expression.
 Discuss their engagement with and critical reflection on a work of creative
expression.
II.III. Degree Requirements
A. A minimum of 60 credits is required.
B. The UWC General Education Requirements must be fulfilled.
C. 1) At least 24 of the 60 credits must be completed within the UWC,
or 2) at least 12 of the last 24 credits must be earned within the UWC.
D. A student must have a cumulative grade point average (GPA) of 2.0 earned
the UW Colleges and 2.0 overall GPA in credits applied to the Associate of
Arts and Science degree.
43
E. Students must be enrolled at a UW Colleges campus during the semester in which
the degree requirements are completed or have earned 60 degree credits prior to
transferring from the UW Colleges to a baccalaureate degree-granting institution.
A. A minimum of 60 credits is required.
1. At least 24 of the 60 credits (or 12 of the last 24) must be earned within the
UW Colleges.
2. Students must be enrolled at a UW Colleges campus during the semester in
which the degree requirements are completed or have earned 60 degree credits
prior to transferring from the UW Colleges to a baccalaureate degree-granting
institution.
B. A student must have a cumulative grade point average (GPA) of 2.0 earned at
the UW Colleges and a 2.0 overall GPA in credits applied to the Associate of
Arts and Science degree.
C. The UW Colleges General Education Requirements must be fulfilled.
III. IV. General Education Requirements
A. Core Requirements
Grade of C or better in or exemption from the following:
WRITING - ENG 102
MATHEMATICS - MAT 108 or MAT 110
The writing and mathematics requirements and their prerequisites may not be
used to satisfy a breadth requirement when used to satisfy a core requirement
except that a core course will be eligible for IS credit when it is linked with
another course(s) and meets the criteria and procedures specified in Institutional
Curricular Policy 101.01 for IS studies.
B. Breadth Categories
Courses within disciplines can have different degree designations. It is
important to use the specific degree designation for a course for academic
planning and advising. These courses can be found in a variety of disciplines.
1. Fine Arts (FA) and Humanities (HU)
A student must earn a minimum of nine credits in these categories in this
category with at least one course designated as Fine Arts and at least one
course designated as Humanities.
2. Mathematical (MS) and Natural Sciences (NS)
A student must earn a minimum of 11 credits in these categories in this
category. A minimum of eight of these credits must be in at least two
disciplines of the Natural Sciences and must include one laboratory science
(LS) course.
44
3. Social Sciences (SS)
A student must earn a minimum of nine credits in these categories in this
category. These Social Sciences courses must be selected from at least two
disciplines.
4. Application and Performance (AP)
A student must earn a minimum of three credits in courses designated as
Application and Performance.
5. Ethnic Studies (ES)
A student must earn a minimum of three credits in courses designated as Ethnic
Studies. Ethnic Studies courses may also be counted toward another breadth
category. Courses with degree designations of ES include courses listed in
many disciplines and may vary on different UW Colleges campuses.
6. Interdisciplinary Studies (IS)
A student must earn a minimum of three credits in courses designated as
Interdisciplinary Studies. Interdisciplinary Studies courses may also be
counted toward another breadth category.
IV. V Electives (EL)
A student who has met the core requirements and the other breadth category
minimums may complete the 60 credit minimum requirement with courses in this
category or any other breadth category.
V. VI Exemption from ENG 102
Students may be exempted from ENG 102 based on an English Placement Test score of
655 545 or better and demonstrated competence in the writing of a research paper.
Each request for exemption is to be treated individually and the campus English
department representative will either review a paper employing documented support,
written less than one year before the review, or will assign a relatively short (4-6
pages) paper which utilizes a minimum of four sources. The department
representative is to inform the campus student services office and the department
chair of each exemption granted and the chair will then inform the office of the
registrar. The department representative is also to inform the chair of each
circumstance in which a request for exemption is denied. If you Students who
receive an exemption from ENG 102 and are planning to transfer to another
institution, should consult with your prospective that institution regarding its
composition requirements.
VI. VIIExemption from Mathematics Core Requirement
A student is exempted from the Mathematics Core Requirement by obtaining a grade
of C- or better in either Mat 124, or in both Mat 110 and 113, or in any 200 level
mathematics course of three or more credits, or mathematics placement into a 200
level course on the mathematics placement exam.
45
VII. Disciplines:
Anthropology
Geography
Art
Biological Sciences
Business
Chemistry
Communication Arts
Computer Science
Economics
Education
Engineering
English
Geology
History
Mathematics
Music
Philosophy
Physical Education & Athletics
Physics/Astronomy
Political Science
Psychology
Sociology
Women’s Studies
VIII Departments and Disciplines
The following list includes all departments and the disciplines included within each
department.
Anthropology and Sociology
Anthropology, Sociology
Art
Art
Biological Sciences
Bacteriology, Biology, Botany, Forestry, Natural Resources, Physiology, Wildlife,
Zoology
All biological sciences count as the same NS discipline for the AAS degree
requirement.
Business and Economics
Business, Economics
Chemistry
Chemistry
Communication and Theatre Arts
Communication, Theatre
Computer Science, Engineering and Physics
Astronomy, Computer Science, Engineering, Engineering Graphics, Engineering
Mechanics, Physics
Engineering, Engineering Graphics and Engineering Mechanics count as the same
discipline for the AAS degree requirement.
English
English
46
Geography and Geology
Geography, Geology, Meteorology
Geography and Meteorology count as the same discipline for the AAS degree
requirement.
History
History
Mathematics
Mathematics
Music
Music, Music Applied
Philosophy
Philosophy, Religious Studies
Physical Education and Athletics
Physical Education
Political Science
American Indian Studies, Political Science
Psychology
Education, Psychology
World Languages
French, German, Spanish
Other Programs and Courses
Interdisciplinary Studies (INT)
Learning Resources (LEA)(non-degree credit classes)
Lecture Forum (LEC)
Women’s Studies(WOM)
VIII. IX Course Degree Designations
A. Each degree credit course may have only one of the degree breadth designations
FA, HU, NS, MS, SS, or AP.
B. A course may also be designated as ES or IS or both.
C. A NS course may also have the designation LS.
[End]
47
Attachment 7
For UW Colleges Senate
Adoption Vote
Proposed Revision of
Institutional Policy #104 (Course and Instructional Policies)
March 4, 2005
Background and Rationale
This revision was introduced at the January 19 Senate meeting with the following
rationale. An adoption vote will take place on March 4.
In April 2004, the UW Colleges Timetable Work Group was formed at the request of the
Senate Information and Instructional Technology Committee (SIITC). The SIITC made a
recommendation to the Chancellor and to the Senate Steering Committee “that a task
force be formed and charged to review the content of the campus timetables – to change
policies as needed, to remove content better presented on-line, to add new content to
market new programs and initiatives, and to change distribution patterns to eliminate
inefficient distribution and expand distribution to new and potentially fruitful populations
– to seek input from faculty, staff, and administration, and to make appropriate
recommendations to the administration, business units, and the senate regarding relevant
policy changes.” The specific task directed to Senate Academic Policy Committee
(SAPC) included an examination of specific requirements that are described in IP #104
but are given inconsistent interpretations in different campus timetables:
#1 Final Exam Schedule: “Section IV. B. (IP#104) states that “Final examination
schedules shall be published in the campus timetable.” Campuses have different
interpretations of this statement and the working group would like to see a consistent
publication of exam dates in all timetables.
#2 Activities that occur outside of class: Section III. A. states that when a field trip is a
required part of a course, “This information shall appear in the timetable.” The working
group has suggested that this requirement should be extended to other activities held
outside of regularly scheduled class times.
#3 The working group also requested clarification as to whether it is necessary to
designate the status of the instructor of a course and the mode of course delivery in a
consistent manner in all campus timetables.
SAPC offers the following changes indicated in bold, red italicized, underlined font.
UW Colleges Senate Policy
Institutional Curricular Policy#104
Course and Instructional Policies
===============================================================
48
Reorganized and Renumbered March 15, 2002
Revised by the Senate, October 15, 2004
I. Class Attendance
Revision Adopted by the Senate, April 23, 1999, p.5
Instructors may establish reasonable class attendance policies that make allowances
for legitimate absences and which comply with legal mandates such as Wis. Admin.
Code Chapter UWS 22 Accommodation of Religious Beliefs and the Americans With
Disabilities Act (ADA). If an instructor determines that a specific certain number of
absences will affect the student's grade, the attendance policy should state that this
refers to unexcused absences. In these cases, the instructor should identify a
mechanism to verify excused absences. Notice of a Any class attendance policy must
be announced in the syllabus.
Students are responsible for completing all work missed because of any absences
from class. If students plan to will be absent from class because of a field trips or any
extracurricular activityies sponsored by the UW Colleges, the instructor or other staff
member in charge of the activity shall provide such information to the other confirm
this for any instructors whose classes students will miss. will be missed.
II. Course Syllabi us Policy
Adopted by the Senate, 1/14/2000
Revised by the Senate, October 15, 2004
A. The purpose of a syllabus is to:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Give an overview of the course.
Help students know what is expected in the course.
Provide a reference about the course for transfer issues.
Aid in UW Colleges assessment procedures.
The syllabus is not a binding agreement and is subject to change. Students should
be notified if changes are made to the syllabus.
B. Departments within the UW Colleges will require that at At the beginning of the
term all faculty and instructional academic staff will provide written syllabi for to
students enrolled in their courses. Every course syllabus will contain the
following information:
1. The course title, number, section (if applicable), number of credits of for the
course, semester, and year.
2. Information about the instructor (e.g., the instructor’s name, office number,
office hours, office telephone number, and e-mail address).
3. Course description and/or course overview.
4. A statement about grading procedures.
5. A statement about activities outside regularly scheduled classes class time
(field trips, exams, etc.) if they are a required component of the course.
49
6. A statement about course attendance requirements if attendance is considered
in the grading structure.
7. A list of learning resources (e.g., required texts, recommended readings).
8. A description of major course components (e.g., topics, objectives, identified
course proficiencies, requirements, activities and/or assignments).
9. A tentative schedule including the number of exams or evaluations.
10. A statement of Colleges-wide and/or department-specific assessment goals
and procedures for courses that are part of assessment for the semester.
C. At the start of each semester syllabi will be submitted to the instructor's campus
dean and filed in an accessible location to be determined by the dean.
III. Student Field Trips Activities that Occur Outside of Regularly-Scheduled Class
Time
Adopted by the Senate, March 3, 1990, pp. 9, app. 15
Ratified by the Senate, May 12, 1990, pp. 3, app. 10
When a field trip, is a required part of a course:
A. This information shall appear in the timetable.
When field trips, exams, or other class activities are required that take place
outside of regularly-scheduled class times:
A. This information shall be printed as part of the course description in the
campus Course Schedule.
B. Funding for the field trip such activities shall be determined when the schedule
of courses is being developed.
1. Special course fees may be assigned to cover field trip transportation costs.
Procedures to be followed are detailed in UW Colleges Administration
Policy on Special Course Fees.
2. GPR funds may be used with advance approval by the campus d Dean after
consultation with the campus curriculum or budget committees. The
decision to use GPR funds shall be part of the campus annual budget
process.
C. Field trips Such activities should be scheduled scheduling shall strive for
minimal disruption of the participants’ class schedule.
IV. Final Exams Policy
Ratified by the Senate - September 13,1980: page 3, App. 6 and 8
Revision ratified by the Senate - May 13, 1989; page 3, App. 6
Revision ratified by the Senate- May 3, 1991; page 3
Revision adopted by the Senate - March 16, 1995; page 4, App. 8
50
A. Each UW Colleges academic department shall have a written statement of its
final examination policy. Such policies shall include a stipulation of the courses
for which final examinations are mandatory, permissible methods of testing,
coverage material that may be covered, and any other guidelines which will
assist faculty in conforming to departmental expectations about final
examination practices. These policy statements shall also indicate the procedure
by which a faculty member may request an exemption.
B. Final examination schedules shall be published in the campus timetable Course
Schedule to show the exact date and time of all regularly-scheduled final
examinations.
C. Final examinations in courses offered for two or more credits shall be given at
the time indicated in the published schedule, unless the faculty member has
received permission for an alternative time from the campus D dean, and shall
not exceed two hours in length. An exception to this policy is a take-home final
examination, which may be given only if departmental policy permits and then
must be due at the time of the regularly scheduled final examination. Final
examinations in courses offered for two or more credits may not be given
during a regular class period. This policy does not preclude an instructor's
making special arrangements for individual students.
D.
Final examinations in one-credit courses offered for less than a full semester
may be given either prior to or during the final examination period.
E.
If a student has Students who have more than two examinations on one day or
two examinations scheduled for the same time, he/she must make arrangements
at least one week in advance with one of the instructors concerned to take one of
the examinations at an alternate time. When an informal arrangement cannot be
made, the instructor of the course of lowest enrollment shall provide an alternate
examination time. Examinations in studio or recital courses shall not conflict
with regularly scheduled final examinations.
F.
When an instructor does not return the final examination, students will have the
opportunity to review their final examination or discuss their final evaluations it
with the instructor up to one semester after the course is completed.
G. No major activities, events, or organizational meetings which involve students
may be scheduled at a UW Colleges campus between 4:00 p.m. of the last day of
classes and the end of the exam period. Any exceptions to this policy must be
approved by the campus dean, in consultation with the campus collegium
steering committee.
51
V. Recommendations for Campus Administrators
The following recommendations for administrators are made to provide consistent
information concerning class scheduling and class instruction to all students
within the UW Colleges.
A. Campus administrators shall be responsible for creating final exam schedules.
the scheduling of final exams and for making the exam schedule(s) available to
students.
B. Local Campus administrators should act promptly to accommodate any
reasonable request for variance in the scheduling of final exams, as recommended
by department chairmen chairs.
C. It shall be the responsibility of local campus administrators to see that final exam
variances do not affect students adversely.
D. The course instructor should be identified in the Course Schedule whenever
feasible. The generic “staff” listing should be used only if the instructor has
not been identified when the Course Schedule is published.
E. The mode of delivery should be clearly listed for non-traditional classes such as
DE, hybrid, or other alternative course delivery formats.
VI. Information for Students
A. Students should expect a final examination or some other appropriate form of
final evaluation in each course. Normally, an instructor's final exam policy is
outlined in the course syllabus distributed early in the semester.
B. Final examinations in courses offered for two or more credits will be given during
the final examination period designated on the campus Academic Calendar.
Exams in one-credit courses or courses of less than a semester’s duration may be
given prior to or during examination week, depending on the instructor and nature
of the course.
C. Examinations given during the final exam period shall not exceed two hours
duration. Take-home final exams will be due at the time of with the regularly
scheduled examinations.
D. If students have more than two examinations on one day or two examinations
scheduled for the same time, they may arrange with one of the instructors
concerned to take one of the examinations at an alternate time. If such
arrangements cannot be made, the instructor of the course of lower enrollment
shall provide an alternate examination time. These arrangements must be made at
least one week prior to the final exam period.
52
E. Physically handicapped students who require special aids or equipment for taking
final exams should consult with course instructors at least one week prior to the
scheduled exam so that special arrangements can be made.
F. Students are expected to be in attendance at the scheduled final examination of
each of their courses. Failure to attend an examination may result in failure in that
course.
G. No variation, other than those mentioned in this policy, from the scheduled time
of examinations is permissible to students unless the course instructor agrees that
circumstances warrant such variation.
H. When the instructor does not return the exam, students will have the opportunity to
review their final exams or discuss their final evaluations with the instructor up to
one semester after the course is completed.
[End]
53
Attachment 8
For UW Colleges Senate
Adoption Vote
Proposed Revision of
Institutional Policy #201 (Admissions Policy)
March 4, 2005
Background and Rationale
This revision was introduced at the January 19 Senate meeting with the following
rationale. An adoption vote will take place on March 4.
The following revision of IP #201 is proposed by the Senate Academic Policy Committee.
A request for parts of this revision came to SAPC from the Senate Steering Committee as
a result of a review of the policy by the UW Colleges Academic Affairs Office, when
examination of the UW Colleges admissions policy revealed a discrepancy with UW
System policy (UW System 72-11 "Freshman Admissions Policy"). Accordingly, section
I.C has been modified to include language from the UW System Freshman Admissions
Policy.
Two further proposed revisions, in the sections on Transfer Students (IV) and Reentry
Students (V) are the result of consultation with the Interim Associate Chancellor for
Academic Affairs, who is in the process of updating the UW Colleges catalog. The UW
Colleges Registrar’s actual practice, based upon UW System-wide enrollment
management practices, is reflected in these changes.
Errors in the numbering pattern within the policy, as well as a position title change, have
also been corrected. Changes are indicated in red, bold, italicized and underlined font.
UW Colleges Senate Policy
Institutional Policy Regarding Students #201
Admissions Policy
==================================================================
Ratified by the Senate - Nov. 7, 1987, p. 8, App. 13
Amended, May 14, 1988, p. 11-12, App. 12
Revisions Adopted by the Senate, May 13, 1989, p. 13-14, App. 18
Revisions Ratified by the Senate, Oct. 7, 1989, p. 7, App. 6
Revision adopted by the Senate, January 17, 1992, p. 4
Revisions adopted by the Senate, May 7-8, 1993, p. 4, App. 3
Revisions adopted by the Senate, March 2, 2001
Reorganized and Renumbered March 15, 2002
The UW Colleges provides freshman and sophomore university course work. Anyone
who may benefit from college study is considered for admission to a UW Colleges
campus. Applicants with skill and knowledge weaknesses as indicated by class work,
placement test scores or other measure will participate in special programs aimed at
54
remedying these difficulties and increasing the likelihood of success in college.
Admission is subject to enrollment limits established by the UW Board of Regents. To
aid in enrollment management, individual campuses may extend admissions restrictions
to new freshmen applicants based on factors which may include, but are not limited to,
high school grade point average or class rank, breadth and rigor of high school courses
selected, standardized test scores, and/or other indicators of academic achievement.
I. Admissions Criteria
To be admitted to the UW Colleges an applicant must:
A. Have graduated from a recognized high school, have a GED/HSED, or
present other evidence of ability to begin college level work.
B. Meet the 17-college preparatory credit distribution. Thirteen of the 17 credits
will be distributed as follows:
English
4 credits
Social Science
3 credits
Mathematics
3 credits
Natural Science
3 credits
The three mathematics credits must include at least one credit of algebra and
the equivalent of one credit of geometry. The remaining 4 credits will be from the
above areas, foreign languages, fine arts, computer science, and other academic
areas.
C. Have taken the ACT or the SAT I if at the time of their application they are
age 21 or under. The ACT is preferred. Students will not be advantaged in
the admission process by taking one test rather than the other. The ACT/SAT
I scores must be received by a UW Colleges Office of Student Services
before the student will be permitted to register for classes.
Applicants who do not meet these requirements may appeal to the Director of
Assistant Campus Dean for Student Services at a UW Colleges campus for an
exemption. Particular consideration will be given to minority applicants and
applicants who have been out of school for two or more years or who have served at
least 180 days active duty in the armed services.
Particular consideration in admission will be given to: (1) applicants who have
been out of school for two or more years, (2) service veterans, as defined by state
and federal policies, and to (3) students who have been disadvantaged as a result
of substandard education, family income level, or ethnic background
The student services director Assistant Campus Dean for Student Services (or
his/her designee) shall be responsible for reviewing high school courses and
determining their acceptance toward satisfying the new freshman college
preparatory credit admission requirements. In cases where the course does not fall
under customary guidelines, the director Assistant Campus Dean for Student
Services shall consult with the registrar.
55
II.C. High Risk Admissions Categories
A. Applicants with any of the following characteristics will be identified during the
admission process and required to participate in special programming:
1.A High school class rank in lowest quartile
2.B GED/HSED
3.C High school academic course deficiencies
4.D. Entering as a transfer students entering on probation
B Special programming for students so identified will include:
1. Mandatory advising prior to initial registration and prior to registration
every semester until the student achieves a cumulative G.P.A. of 2.0 with 12 or
more credits.
A. Mandatory advising prior to registration
2.B. At discretion of advisor and campus:
a.1.Course load and course selection restrictions, guided by placement test
scores.
b.2. Regular meetings with an advisor throughout the semester or session.
c.3. Enrollment in appropriate basic skills courses and/or tutoring as available
through the UW Colleges or local technical college.
The student will be required to see an advisor prior to each registration until the
student achieves a cumulative G.P.A. of 2.0 with 12 or more credits.
C. Students who do not wish to register under such conditions may appeal for an
exemption to the appropriate committee at the campus.
III. Placement Testing
Prior to registration, entering freshmen will be required to take English and
Mathematics Placement tests in order to aid program advisors. Students whose
scores on the English or Mathematics Placement Test fall below departmentally
designated cutoff scores will be considered high risk students and required to
participate in the special programming described above.
IV. Transfer Students
Students wishing to transfer to a UW Colleges campus who apply by the published
application deadline and have maintained a C average or better (2.00 semester and
cumulative G.P.A. on a 4.00 scale) at previous colleges are likely to be admitted in
good standing. UW Colleges academic regulations (such as probation or
suspension standards) will be used to determine the probation status of students
who are admitted with less than a 2.0 semester or cumulative GPA. will be admitted
to the UW Colleges in good standing. Admission is on a space available basis.
Transfer applicants with less than a 2.0 semester or cumulative G.P.A. may be placed
on a waiting list and will be reviewed according to the UW Colleges academic
regulations to determine their acceptance and probation status. A transfer student’s
application will not be considered complete until official transcripts of all prior
college work have been received and evaluated. In the event of temporary
56
unavailability of transcripts, other materials, such as grade reports, may be submitted;
however, admission based on such data is tentative and may be revoked. Students
who have been suspended from another institution will not be admissible to a UW
Colleges campus until the period of suspension elapses.
V. Re-entry Returning Students
A student who wishes to re-enter the UW Colleges and was not enrolled the
previous semester (excluding summer session) must file a UW System Application
for Undergraduate Admission and submit official transcripts of any non-UWC
college work attempted since last enrolling in the UW Colleges. Students who have
maintained a C average or better (2.00 semester and cumulative G.P.A. on a 4.00
scale) are likely to be admitted in good standing. Students who were dropped or
suspended at the end of their last semester of enrollment at the UW Colleges and/or
those with less than a 2.00 semester or cumulative G.P.A. may be placed on a
waiting list and will be reviewed according to the UW Colleges academic
regulations to determine their acceptance and probationary status. Students
returning after an absence of four or more consecutive semesters must meet the
degree requirements of the catalog in effect upon their return or of a subsequent
catalog.
Students wishing to reenter a UW Colleges campus who have maintained a C average
or better (2.00 semester and cumulative G.P.A. on a 4.00 scale) will be admitted to
the UW Colleges on good standing. Reentry applicants with less than a 2.00 semester
or cumulative G.P.A. may be placed on a waiting list and will be reviewed according
to the UW Colleges academic regulations to determine their acceptance and probation
status. Applicants returning after an absence of four or more consecutive semesters
must meet the degree requirements of the catalog in effect upon their return or of a
subsequent catalog.
[End]
57
Attachment 9
For UW Colleges Senate
Adoption Vote
Proposed Revision of
IP#101.01 Interdisciplinary Studies Policy
March 4, 2005
Background and Rationale
This revision was introduced at the January 19 Senate meeting with the following
rationale. An adoption vote will take place on March 4.
The following revisions of IP #101.01 originated in a query sent to the Senate
Steering Committee, and are proposed by the Senate Academic Policy Committee.
The query was prompted by specific course proposals reviewed by the Senate
Curriculum Committee which were not described by the current policy, such as IS
courses taught on more than one campus. For example, IP#101.01 does not
specifically require campus curriculum committee approval even though the
curriculum approval form (SCC006) does. The policy also does not specifically
outline the department approval needed for all the different IS course formats.
These discrepancies are confusing to the instructors who propose courses, and
can also lead to inconsistent interpretation of the policy by the Senate Curriculum
Committee. Recent problems have also arisen with courses submitted for IS
approval without a campus “home,” such as courses offered by Distance
Education(DE)-Online and Continuing Education (CE) and Extended Services
Divisions of UW Colleges. The proposed changes are designed to clean up the
language and intention of IP#101.01 so that the policy will be used and applied
consistently for all IS course proposals. Proposed changes occur in bold, red
italicized, underlined font.
UW Colleges Senate Policy
Institutional Curricular Policy #101.01
Interdisciplinary Studies Policy
Adopted by the Senate, April 27, 2001
Reorganized and Renumbered March 15, 2002
Amended by the Senate, May 2, 2003
I. Definition and Criteria
A. Definition
Interdisciplinary Studies courses aim to foster appreciation of the multiple dimensions of
a given subject by integrating the content, methods, and assumptions of two or more
disciplines.
B. Criteria
1. An IS course or course combination must have the approval of each the
participating academic departments If guest lecturers who are not UW
Colleges faculty or staff are the primary means of providing the IS
58
component of the course, such lecturers must be approved by the relevant
academic department(s).
2. The following course or course combinations could be considered
interdisciplinary and fulfill the interdisciplinary studies requirement for the
Associate Degree.
a. A course or course combination where in which more than one instructor
is present at least 20% of the class meeting time;
b. A learning community in which a student takes two or more courses
from a designated cluster of courses plus an accompanying one credit
integrating seminar in which multiple instructors are present;
c. A course taught by one instructor approved by the participating
academic department(s) to offer the perspectives of their disciplines;
d. The introductory course of a recognized UW Colleges
interdisciplinary program taught by an instructor approved to teach that
course by that program;
e. A pair of courses from different disciplines where the instructors have
thoroughly integrated the syllabi and daily class sessions with regards to
readings and assignments to draw upon the content, methods, and
assumptions of the two disciplines, and where students are enrolled
simultaneously.
3. In cases that do not fit clearly into one of these categories, the UW-Colleges
Curriculum Committee may request more information about the
interdisciplinarity of the proposal from the proposer(s) and/or refer the issue
to the Academic Policy Committee for resolution.
II. Guidelines for Approval
A. Proposals are initially submitted to the campus curriculum committee and all participating
academic departments for their approval. In the case of courses offered to more than one
campus (such as Distance Education-online courses or Continuing Education credit courses),
the director of the relevant program office will substitute for the campus curriculum
committee. Since some study abroad courses are institution-wide rather than campus-based,
the director of Continuing Education, in consultation with the Vice Chancellor for Academic
Affairs, will serve as the “home campus” for all study abroad IS course requests prior to
submitting them to the Senate Curriculum Committee for action.
1. Proposals will include the following information:
a. Course rationale including a statement focusing on what makes the course
interdisciplinary and a specific list of instructors and the percentage of time
they will participate)
b. Brief course description
c. List of course objectives
d. Course syllabus
59
2. Each participating department approves the content as properly representative of
their its discipline and of the particular course designated.
3. The campus curriculum committee must also approve the course for the home
campus and forward its approval to the Senate Curriculum Committee.
B. The campus curriculum committee, or the DE or CE director, and the participating
departments forward the proposal with their approvals and academic department
approval to the UW Colleges Senate Curriculum Committee (SCC) for approval.
C. The Colleges Senate Curriculum Committee informs the academic departments, campus
curriculum committee, Vice-Chancellor and UW Colleges Registrar of approved IS
designations.
III.
Continuing IS Designation
A. Once the IS designation is approved for a course or a course combination, the proposing
instructor(s) need not seek approval again for the same course or cluster of courses.
B. The same course or cluster of courses can be taught at another campus without a new
formal application, as long as the instructor(s) is(are) approved by the participating
departments and the course is taught with a similar syllabus and course content. Form
SCC006 Modified should be used to report this change to the Senate Curriculum
Committee.
[End]
60
Attachment 10
For UW Colleges Senate
Adoption Vote
Proposed Revision of
IP #301.01, Appendix 2 (“Administering the Student Survey of Instruction”)
March 4, 2005
Background and Rationale
This revision was introduced at the January 19 Senate meeting with the following
rationale. An adoption vote will be held on March 4.
The Student Survey of Instruction includes a space on the form to identify each course.
Prior to PRISM, that identification was made using a 9 or 10 digit number, and Appendix
2 of IP #301.01 explained that system. There is now a 4-digit course number used for
these forms, so Appendix 2 is obsolete. We recommend deleting the Appendix and
renumbering within the policy. Changes are indicated by red strike-through or bold,
underlined, and italicized font.
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
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
fall semester of classes taught by second- and 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 3 2. [ . . . ] [proposal continues on next two pages]
61
Appendix 1: Notes to Student:
1. The only attachments accompanying the student forms will be the section sheet
identifying the class and, where applicable, a sheet listing additional questions.
2. Under no circumstances may instructors see the survey forms until after the
grades have been turned in. The forms should be delivered to the drop off
location by the student.
3. Instructors who bring the forms to class and students who circulate them
should make only those remarks about the forms which are pertinent to the task
of gathering student reactions.
Appendix 2: Instructions for Identifying Class and Instructor
The required unique Course ID Number is to be written into the rectangles, with
corresponding bubbles filled in on the Student Survey of Instruction Course Section
Sheet. This nine-digit number identifies the course in the following manner: The first two
digits represent the campus (see CAMPUS ID, below); the next two digits represent the
department/discipline (see DISCIPLINE, below); the next three digits represent the
course number (see COURSE NUMBER, below); and the last two digits represent the
section number (see SECTION NUMBER, below). Each Course ID Number entered must
be unique among all courses for the entire UW Colleges that semester. If you have any
questions regarding your Course ID Number, view your campus timetable or consult
your campus dean’s office.
Please note: there is a 10th space on the Course Section Sheet in the Course ID Number
field. The 10th bubble MUST REMAIN BLANK. You may use the corresponding
rectangle above the 10th bubble to indicate if a course requires special treatment as
defined in IP Personnel Policy #301.01. The number that you write in this rectangle is a
cue to those handling and processing the forms that the course(s) so marked are not to
have their results included in the main pool for standard courses. If you have any
questions about whether your course requires this special treatment, please consult your
discipline’s department chair, and communicate any resulting expectations regarding the
handling of your course evaluations with your campus dean’s office and the scanning
personnel.
CAMPUS
ID
(2 digits)
DISCIPLINE
(2 digits)
COURSE
NUMBER
(3 digits)
ADM
BRB
BRN
01
03
05
Anthropology
Art
Astronomy
FDL
07
Bacteriological Sciences 08
MAN 11
Biology
02
04
06
SECTION
NUMBER
(2 digits)
IS or 1-credit
0 = reg course
1= 1 cr.
2-8= # IS
faculty
9=DE, 1
faculty
10
62
MTH
MNT
MSF
RLN
RCK
SHB
WSH
WAK
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
Botany
12
Business
14
Chemistry
16
Communication Arts
18
Computer Science
20
Economics
22
Engineering
26, 28, 30
English
32
French
36
Geography
38
History
44
Lecture- Forum
50, 26
Mathematics
52
Music
58
Music applied
60
Philosophy
66
Physical Education
64
Physics
68
Political Science
72
Psychology
74
Sociology
76
Spanish
78
Zoology
84
Appendix 3 2: Statistical data to be reported to Campus, Department, and Faculty
For each item:
 Frequency distribution
 Mean
 Standard Deviation
 Correlation Matrix (to be sent to Instructor)
Summary data shall not include distance education, Interdisciplinary Studies or onecredit courses offered outside of regular departments, such as Freshman Seminar. Such
courses are identified in the tenth column on the section sheet. Departmental and campus
merit committees can request extraction of the “global instructor” (q. 17) or other small
set of responses for each faculty member under review. Compilation does not include
summation.
[End]
63
Attachment 11
For UW Colleges Senate
Adoption Vote
Proposed Revision of
IP #301.01.II (“Administering the Student Survey of Instruction”)
March 4, 2005
Background and Rationale
This revision, for which an adoption vote will take place on March 4, was introduced at
the January 19 Senate meeting with the following rationale: Because second-year
probationary faculty are required to submit their dossier in early November, they are
also encouraged to administer the Student Survey of Instruction midway through their
courses that semester. Those results can be available to the department executive
committee, but, in compliance with the language in this policy, are not made available to
the faculty member until after grades are submitted at the end of the semester. In
essence, the executive committee can see materials that the faculty member has not seen.
Although this Student Survey of Instruction is only a small part of the overall dossier, it
does raise questions. How accurately are students able to assess a course or instructor
at the midpoint in the semester? Is it fair for the results to be part of the retention
decision? Why are three sets of student evaluations needed for the second year (new
faculty are evaluated in both the fall and spring semesters of their first year)? Since the
current practice raises so many issues, and potentially necessitates administering the
Student Survey of Instruction much earlier than this policy recommends (last 3 weeks of
the semester) we recommend that the second-year tenure-track faculty be required to
administer the Student Survey of Instruction during the spring semester of their second
year. This will still ensure that new faculty are evaluated frequently during their first two
years, but will eliminate the conflicts with the current schedule. As stated within the
policy, departments are free to require additional evaluations if they desire. Changes are
indicated by red, bold, underlined, italicized font.
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
64
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 fall spring semester of classes taught by second-year probationary
faculty and in the fall semester of classes taught by fifth-year probationary
faculty.
[End]
65
Attachment 12
UW Colleges Senate
Introduction
Proposed New Committee
Senate Bylaws 7.0 (“Appointed Senate Bylaws Committees”)
March 4, 2005
Background and Rationale
In order to present a full and accurate picture of the professional environment and
activities of the UW Colleges, to articulate the positions of faculty and academic staff,
and to support the administration in communicating our needs and interests to our
constituencies, including local communities and the state legislature, the UW Colleges
Senate proposes to form a Correspondence Committee, with membership drawn from the
standing committees of the Senate and one senator member-at-large.
UW Colleges Senate Bylaws
=====================================================
Established 11/12/94
Revised 3/18/95
Revised 1/11/96
Revised 5/4/96
Revised 3/8/97
Revised 4/23/99
Revised 3/14/03
Revised 5/02/03
Revised 1/21/04
Revised 5/7/04
[...]
7.0
Appointed Senate Bylaws Committees
4) Senate Correspondence Committee
The Correspondence Committee’s responsibilities shall include writing and
maintaining regular Senate correspondence as directed by the Chair of
Senate Steering and with the approval of the Senate Steering Committee.
Each year, the Senate Steering Committee shall appoint a Senate
Correspondence Committee composed of one member from each of the
UWC Senate standing committees who shall serve for a term of one year
each, and one senator who shall serve as a member-at-large for a term of one
year. The committee shall have a majority of faculty senators.
[End]
66
Attachment 13
UW Colleges Senate
Introduction
Proposed New Institutional Policy #106.01 (First-Year Seminar Courses)
March 4, 2005
Background and Rationale
Senate Steering Committee requested that Senate Academic Policy Committee (SAPC)
design a policy that would describe courses and the course approval process for FirstYear Seminar (FYS) courses when it became clear that such courses were going to
become part of curricular planning within the UW Colleges. The courses were initially
introduced during the 2001-2002 academic year as an academic experiment and there
was no formal approval process. Because these courses are niche courses that cover
many different pedagogies and academic disciplines, and because the FYS curriculum
design is now embedded in the UW Colleges institution, it is important to have a uniform
process for approving this type of curricula so that both the spirit of FYS and the
academic rigor of our curriculum is maintained. Maintaining an academic standard in
innovating curriculum will also assist the process of transfer for those students who
enroll in FYS classes.
The proposal was first introduced and discussed at the January 21, 2004 Senate meeting
(under a different number). The proposal was modified several times prior to its
withdrawal at the request of SAPC at the May 2, 2004 UWC Senate meeting due to the
inability of administration and faculty to agree on the course approval criteria for LEC
courses that do not have an academic department home. Because all credit courses must
have academic department approval (as required by UW Colleges Constitution 4.03),
SAPC has tried to address the concerns about who may teach the FYS courses, and how
the instructor and course will be approved within this revised policy. SAPC has worked
closely with the Institutional ESFY Coordinators (Greg Lampe and Christel Taylor) to
develop a policy that will honor the goals of FYS described in the FYS course guide, and
encourage the development of courses that will serve the needs of our first year students.
In addition, we feel that LEC 100 courses are specific lecture forum courses that fall
under the jurisdiction of IP #106 (Atypical course policy) rather than IP#101 curriculum
policies, which specifically describe courses for the AAS degree.
UW Colleges Senate Policy
Institutional Policy#106.01
Course and Instructional Policies
===============================================================
I.
First Year Seminar Courses (LEC 100)
Effective Date: This document is effective beginning with Spring 2006 classes
and applies to all LEC 100 courses which will be proposed and taught after
December 31, 2005.
67
A. Definition
First-Year Seminar courses are designed specifically for newly entering students.
Such courses will be offered only under LEC 100 designation. LEC 100 courses
are designed to combine academic content with strategies for academic success as
described in the FYS initiative course guide: “The First-Year Seminar will help
students develop a sense of responsibility for their own education and learning,
introduce students to the skills necessary for academic and life success, provide
students with an understanding of their membership in an academic community,
and instill in students an appreciation for a liberal arts education and a joy for
learning. Because these achievements are best realized within an intellectually
substantive context, each seminar instructor will incorporate a subject of inquiry
of his or her choice for students to explore as they develop strategies for academic
success.”
Included in this definition are first-year experience courses, introduction to
college courses, extended orientation courses and all other courses designed with
the intention of enhancing the first-year college experience. LEC 100 courses
will receive elective credit unless they receive approval for other degree
designations from the Senate Curriculum Committee.
B. Criteria
Because all for-credit courses and instructors must be approved by an academic
department (UW Colleges Constitution 4.03) and because the special nature of
LEC 100 courses invites the participation of instructors who may not belong to
regular academic departments, the following criteria will be used for approval of
courses.
1. A LEC course must have the approval of the participating academic
department(s).
2. If the course content bridges more than one academic department then the
course and instructor must gain approval from all academic departments
that are involved in the proposed course. One department must be
designated the home department for purposes of course evaluation and
assessment.
3. If a potential LEC instructor does not belong to any academic department
then the course and the instructor must gain approval of the academic
department(s) that will have jurisdiction over the content of the course.
4. If a potential LEC instructor does not belong to any academic department
and if no department or discipline claims jurisdiction over the content of a
potential course, then the instructor must find an academic department
willing to sponsor the course and provide its approval.
68
II.
Guidelines for Approval
A. Proposals are submitted to the chair of the proposing instructor’s department
and subsequently to the campus Curriculum Committee. Course approval will be
granted if both campus and department agree on the approval.
1. If the proposing instructor is not a member of a recognized academic
department then the instructor should submit curriculum approval forms to
the campus Curriculum Committee and the department which has
jurisdiction over the course content.
2. If there is no department with clear jurisdiction over the proposed course
content, then the instructor and campus curriculum committee should seek
a department which will sponsor the course and instructor as described in
IP#106.
B. Proposals will include the following information:
1. Course rationale including a statement focusing on how the course
meets the institutional goals for FYS courses:
Goal #1: To promote active learning as well as student
involvement and responsibility in the learning process.
Goal #2: To assist students with learning how to learn.
Goal #3: To assist students in the development of life management
skills.
Goal #4: To engage students on the campus.
2. Brief course description including the subject of inquiry for the course.
3. List of course objectives
4. Course syllabus
C. The campus curriculum committee and the department(s) forward the
proposal and approval forms to the Senate Curriculum Committee.
D. The Senate Curriculum Committee reviews the proposal and then forwards the
proposal to the Vice-Chancellor for final approval.
E. Continuing Designation
1. Once the LEC 100 course is approved, the proposing instructor need
not seek approval again for the same course.
2. The same course can be taught at another campus without submitting a
new course proposal if the following criteria are met:
a. The instructor is approved by the department of record
69
b. The course is taught with a similar syllabus and content outline
c. The campus curriculum committee of the new instructor
approves the course.
d. SCC form (XXX) is submitted to the Senate Curriculum
Committee to be reviewed and forwarded to the ViceChancellor for final approval.
3. Courses that were initiated prior to December 31, 2005 should be
reviewed by the Institutional ESFY coordinator. The instructors for
such courses should follow the guidelines listed under IIB and file
form (XXX) with the Institutional ESFY coordinator before June 1,
2006.
[End]
70
Attachment 14
UW Colleges Senate
Introduction
Proposed Revision: UW Colleges Senate Bylaws 2.0
March 4, 2005
Background and Rationale
The Senate Academic Policy Committee introduced changes to Institutional Curriculum
Policy #101 (Associates of Arts and Sciences Degree) at the January 19, 2005 Senate
meeting. That policy revision included a change in department name from Foreign
Languages to World Languages and necessitated a modification of Senate Bylaws 2.0 to
reflect the new department name. During the examination of department listings we
found other discrepancies with current department names and have suggested
corrections for those listings. The current changes are consistent with department listings
in IP#101, as well as the current department names used in the Colleges. Review of the
Bylaws also revealed the double listing of Geography and Geology in both Social
Sciences and Natural and Mathematical Sciences divisions for representation on
standing committees. SAPC feels this could unfairly bias representation of one
department on the same standing committee, and we suggest a clarification to the bylaws
to ensure that this does not happen. Changes are indicated in red, bold, italicized,
underlined font.
UW Colleges Senate Bylaws
=====================================================
Established 11/12/94
Revised 3/18/95
Revised 1/11/96
Revised 5/4/96
Revised 3/8/97
Revised 4/23/99
Revised 3/14/03
Revised 5/02/03
Revised 1/21/04
Revised 5/7/04
1.0
Committee Minutes and Annual Reports
All Senate committees, except the appeals and grievances committee, shall post their
minutes in a timely manner in Public Folders. Each Senate committee shall submit an
annual report to the Senate Steering Committee Chair as requested by the Chair prior to
the last Senate meeting of the academic year, typically no later than April 30. These
annual reports shall be published as appendices of the Senate minutes of the last meeting
of the academic year.
71
2.0
Divisional Representation
In cases where representation on standing committees of the Senate is to be reflective of
divisional points of view, the faculty shall be divided into the following three divisions:
Natural Sciences and Mathematics
Biology Biological Sciences, Chemistry, Computer Science/Engineering/Physics,
Computer Science, Engineering, Geology, Mathematics, Physical Education and
Athletics, Geography and Geology, Physics
Humanities
Art, Communication and Theatre Arts, English, Foreign Language, Music, Philosophy,
and World Languages,
Social Sciences
Anthropology and Sociology, Business and Economics Administration, Cultural
Geography, Economics, History, Political Science, Psychology, Sociology
Members of the Geography and Geology department may choose to represent
either Social Sciences or Natural Sciences and Mathematics division, but not
both. A single governance committee may not have two faculty instructors from
the same department representing both SS and NS/MS divisional perspectives.
[...]
[End]
72
Attachment 15
UW Colleges Senate
Introduction
Proposed New Institutional Policy #101.04 (Ethnic Studies)
March 4, 2005
Background and Rationale
The request to examine the process of approval for ES courses was initiated by previous
SCC members and was supported by a research project that examined institutional ES
policy and ES courses throughout the UW System. This study was made available to all
UWC personnel in August, 2004 and at that time a copy was sent to SAPC for evaluation
by the author of the report. There are no concrete policy guidelines regarding ES course
approval besides the description of the ethnic studies requirement in IP#101 (Associates
of Arts and Sciences Degree). SCC asked SAPC to examine the process of ES
designation within the framework of current UW System policy which requires
completion of ES course work, as well as the content of ES course experience in our
UWC curriculum. The report, prepared by Renee Gralewicz, confirms that our standards
for course approval are the lowest of any in UW System (20% ethnic content).
The ES requirement came into being in fall, 1990 when every UW System student was
required to complete one 3-credit ES course. In 1998, this plan was updated following
the publication of the UW System Plan 2008: Educational Quality Through Racial and
Ethnic Diversity. At that time, the report focused on four racial minority groups which
are the most prevalent in American culture. The current policy reflects the changes
initiated in 1998. In agreement with the 1998 report, the UW Colleges catalog stated that
“Students must become aware of and sensitive to diversity issues and problems. Courses
fulfilling this requirement will have a substantial emphasis on cultural diversity within
the US and examine these issues from at least one of the following perspectives: African
American, Hispanic/Latino, Asian American, and American Indian topics.” The question
faced by past Senate Curriculum committees was the definition of “significant emphasis.”
Each SCC can technically decide the meaning of ‘significant’ and this might result in
courses that are not consistent with the intent of the ethnic studies requirement. Currently
all UW institutions of higher education require at least three credits of ethnic studies as
part of their degree requirements. The UW Colleges is the only UW institution that does
not require 100% ethnic studies course content in their ES courses (in principal, Madison
has a 25% content requirement, but all the courses evaluated are 100% ethnic studies
content courses).
Because UW Colleges requirements for ES course approval are not clearly outlined in
any institutional policy, and because the current practice of 20% ethnic studies coverage
may be inadequate to address the educational goals of the ethnic studies AAS
requirement, SAPC has constructed a new policy that describes the ES approval process.
Changes have been suggested to bring UWC Ethnic Studies courses closer to the goals
reported in the UW System Institutional report. We also suggest that a review of all ES
courses currently taught in UW Colleges be completed in a timely manner to assure that
we maintain the spirit of the ES course requirement.
73
SAPC has determined that there have not been any transfer problems with UW Colleges
ES courses. However, the fact that a UWC student could earn an AAS degree with less
than 20% of one 3-credit course discussing ethnic diversity seems far too inadequate to
meet the goals of educating our students to embrace diversity, or at least open their minds
to consider other ethnic population interactions in our society. SAPC has been assisted
by Renee Gralewicz and Dan Van de Yacht in the process of writing this policy.
UW Colleges Senate Policy
Institutional Curricular Policy #101.04
Ethnic Studies
Effective Date: This document is effective, beginning with Spring, 2006 classes and
applies to all courses which will be proposed and taught as Ethnic Studies emphasis after
December 31, 2005.
I. Definition and Criteria
A. Definition
Ethnic Studies courses aim to foster appreciation of the attitudes and
relationships, and interactions of four specific non-Caucasian populations in
American Culture. These four populations include Native American, African
American, Hispanic, and Asian American populations. Any subject area
which incorporates an investigation of one or more of these cultural
perspectives can earn an Ethnic Studies degree designation.
B. Criteria
1. An ES course or course combination must have the approval of the
participating academic departments.
2. The following course or course combinations could be considered ethnic
studies and fulfill the Ethnic studies requirement for the Associate Degree:
a. A course or course combination where more than 50% of the course
content is presented that reflects the perspective or condition of one of
the four target population groups listed above: Native American, Asian
American, Hispanic or African American.
b. A course or course combination where more than 50% of the class
content is presented with an integration of at least two of the targeted
population groups listed in I.A.
74
c. The introductory course of a recognized UW Colleges ethnic studies
program taught by an instructor approved to teach that course by that
program.
d. A pair of courses from different disciplines where the instructors have
thoroughly integrated the syllabi and daily class sessions with regards
to readings and assignments to draw upon the content, methods, and
assumptions of more than one of the targeted populations, and students
are required to enroll in both classes. The combined coverage of the
target ethnic population should be at least 50% of the combined class
content.
3. In cases that do not fit clearly into one of these categories, the UW
Colleges Curriculum Committee may request more information about the
integration of the ethnic perspective into the course proposal from the
proposer(s) and/or refer the issue to the Academic Policy Committee for
resolution.
II. Guidelines for Approval
A. Proposals are initially submitted to the participating academic departments for
their approval.
1. Proposals will include the following information:
a. Course rationale including a statement focusing on what makes the
course ethnic studies. Include a specific list of topics to be covered in
the course as well as a description of how the course integrates a
discussion of one or more targeted populations.
b. Brief course description
c. List of course objectives
d. Course syllabus
2. Participating department approves the content as properly representative
of their discipline and of the particular course designated.
B. Proposal should be submitted to Campus Curriculum Committee for
discussion and approval. Approval of course is forwarded to Senate Curriculum
committee.
C. The Senate Curriculum Committee informs the academic departments,
campus curriculum committee, Vice-Chancellor and UW Colleges registrar of
approved ES designations.
75
III. Continuing ES Designation
A. Once the ES designation is approved for a course or a course combination, the
proposing instructor need not seek approval again for the same course or cluster
of courses.
1. Periodic review of course syllabi may be requested by SCC in order to
assure that content remains germane to changing demographics.
2. A course may be reviewed at the request of a department, campus, or
Senate curriculum committee.
B. ES designation is given to an individual course proposed by an individual
instructor on one specific campus.
C. An instructor on a different campus can teach the ES course if the same
syllabus is used and the same content is covered, provided the instructor has
department approval to teach the course. Instructor should notify the SCC by
completing form (SCCXXX).
D. Courses that were initiated prior to December 31, 2005 should be reviewed by
the Senate Curriculum Committee. The instructors for such courses should follow
the guidelines listed under II.A.1, and file form (XXX) with the SCC before June
1, 2006.
1. If a course review indicates the current course content does not comply
with the new policy then the instructor will have one year to bring the
course into compliance with the current ES policy.
[End]
76
Attachment 16
UW Colleges Senate
Introduction
Proposed Revision of
IP #301.01 (“Administering the Student Survey of Instruction”)
March 4, 2005
Background and Rationale:
Since Student Survey of Instruction forms were administered last semester, questions
arose which resulted in a review of this policy. The first revision, under IV.B,
Procedures, examines who is responsible for informing campuses that everyone will be
administering evaluations (in other words, when is the magic “3rd semester”). Current
policy states that the Senate Professional Standards Committee shall have that
responsibility. Under current practice, that information is given to department chairs
and Dean’s Assistants from Juli McGuire, whose campus is responsible for processing
the forms. Considering that SPSC membership (including Chair) does not necessarily
have continuity for three semesters (as was the case this year) and considering that the
current practice is efficient, we propose changing policy to reflect practice. The second
revision, under IV.E, Procedures, addresses problems that arose when students who
missed class when an evaluation was administered requested to complete those
evaluations at a later time. In examining the policy, this appears to be a misreading of
what it means to have the SSI “administered” (i.e. a student reads the instructions,
distributes one form to each student, collects the forms in the envelope). To clarify the
point, we suggest adding a statement explaining that evaluations should be completed
during the allotted class time.
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
[...]
IV.
Procedures
A. Packets of survey and section forms shall be made available to all scheduled
instructors at least three full weeks before the end of the course. (In special
circumstances, departments may request or approve of administration earlier
in the semester.)
77
B. In the interest of efficient processing, no later than the fifth week of classes
for the semester in which all classes are scheduled to be evaluated, the
Professional Standards Committee shall circulate information guiding
campuses and faculty to the Processing campus shall circulate information
guiding campuses, departments, faculty and instructional academic staff to
the materials related to the implementation of the Student Survey of
Instruction located in IP Personnel Policy #301.01.
C. The campus dean shall: i) provide for a secure drop-off point and temporary
storage for completed forms; ii) for transmission of forms to the processing
location; and iii) for making two copies of the reverse (written comment)
pages and their distribution to respective departments chairs and, after final
grades have been submitted, to individual faculty. The original forms,
following processing, will be returned to the campus, and shall be retained on
the campus for seven years. The statistical results shall be maintained in a
permanent personnel file for each instructor.
D. The instructor shall inform the students at least two days or one class period
before the evaluation is to be done. The instructor shall not schedule the
evaluation the day a major exam is given or returned or a major assignment is
returned. The instructor can request review of the course syllabus prior to the
evaluation, and in multiple-instructor courses can inform students that only
one form will apply to the course and that comments on individual instructors
can be written in the spaces provided.
E. Each faculty member shall complete the identifying section sheet prior to the
administration of evaluations. The instructor shall write the course
identification number on the board, and designate a student from each class to
administer the forms and return the forms to the drop off point. The instructor
will not be present during the administration of the evaluation, although a
colleague may be. At least ten minutes shall be allowed for completion of the
forms. Evaluations shall only be completed during the class time in which
they are distributed. Under no circumstances shall the instructor collect or
handle the completed forms until after final grades have been submitted, nor
shall the instructor lobby students by word or deed for higher ratings.
[End]
78
Attachment 17
UW Colleges Senate
Introduction
Proposed Revision of
Institutional Curricular Policy #106 (“Atypical Course Policy”)
March 4, 2005
Background and Rationale
The Senate Curriculum Committee requested that SAPC examine the current atypical
course policy as a result of an increased number of course proposals that have been
submitted to the committee that meet the definition of “atypical”. These courses include
both Interdisciplinary (INT) courses as well as lecture forum (LEC) courses. Because of
the interest in developing INT courses connecting Learning Community classes and
course clusters, SCC has had to consider many proposals without specific policy to
guide its decisions. In addition, the current atypical policy is vague on the process of
reapproval of lecture forum and interdisciplinary courses. The current policy appears to
give SCC the responsibility to decide if a course has met its goals and should be offered
again. This is a clear violation of the UWC Constitution 4.03. This modification of
IP#106 is an attempt to address these concerns that have come before the SCC and to
provide a policy to guide curriculum decision for current and future atypical courses.
Changes are indicated in red, bold, italicized, underlined font.
UW Colleges Senate Policy
Institutional Curricular Policy #106
Atypical Course Policy
======================================================
Revision Adopted by the Senate - November 14, 1992, p.3
Revision Adopted by the Senate - Mary 15-16, 1981, p.5, app. 8
Ratified by the Senate - May 16, 1987, p. 5, app. 5
Ratified by the Senate - May 14, 1988, p. 12-13, app. 13
Adopted by the Senate - January 24, 1998, p. 6, app. 8
Reorganized and Renumbered March 15, 2002
I. Non-Degree Credit and Zero Credit Courses
Ratified by the Senate - May 15-16, 1981: page 5, Appendix 8
A. Non-degree credit and zero credit courses listed in the catalogue may be
offered at an individual UW Colleges at the discretion of the local
Curriculum Committee and dean in accordance with the curriculum
guidelines described in SEN#25.
B. Non-degree credit and zero credit courses not specifically listed in the
catalogue should follow the policies for the addition of courses to the
curriculum at UW Colleges as outlined in SEN#25.
79
C. Faculty and teaching academic staff require departmental approval to teach
a non-degree credit or zero credit course in the same manner as for teaching
credit courses.
II. Courses Split Across Two Semesters
Ratified by the Senate - May 16, 1987, p. 5, App. 5
A. For some students, the contact hours required of certain courses, if taken in
the traditional semester timeframe, create a hardship. In order to meet the
needs of these students better, a department may offer a one-semester
course over two semesters. A department may accomplish this in one of
two methods:
1. The department may develop separate courses. If this option is
followed, the usual procedures for the approval of new courses must be
followed. Special attention must be paid to assuring the transferability
of such courses. Scheduling in this manner entails a commitment to
offer both separate courses in consecutive semesters.
2. In exceptional cases, indicate in the catalog description that the course
may be divided into two modules designated Module A and Module B.
Students will receive credit for each module. Ordinarily a course with
an even number of credits will have half the credits assigned to each
module. Courses with an odd number of credits will have the greatest
number of credits assigned to the
second semester. Prior to each offering of a course in modules the UW
Colleges will secure the approval of the academic department and the
Vice Chancellor's Office. Scheduling a two module sequence entails a
commitment to offer both modules in consecutive semesters.
The credits for each module shall be designated in the catalog. The catalog
and timetable descriptions must contain this statement: "It is expected that
students will complete both modules. If only Module A is completed,
elective credit for it will be granted. The student will need to consult with
the transfer institution regarding the acceptance of single module credit."
Requests to split courses across two semesters utilizing other methods must
be approved by both the department and the Vice Chancellor's Office.
III. Special Topics, Independent Reading and Other 'Open-ended' Courses
Ratified by the Senate - May 14, 1988, p. 12-13, App. 13
A. Each department shall establish a procedure for review and approval of
proposals for special topics and other such open-ended courses.
Departmental approval must be obtained prior to each offering of a special
topics course. The department chair shall inform the UW Colleges
Curriculum Committee of department action on a proposed special topics
course.
80
B. A special or current topics course will automatically be an elective unless
the UW Colleges Curriculum Committee assigns an associate degree
designation to the course before the semester in which the course is to be
offered. To request such a designation, the department will submit the
appropriate form to the UW Colleges Curriculum Committee. After the
UW Colleges Curriculum Committee has assigned the designation, the
Office of Academic Affairs will inform the department, the UW Colleges
Curriculum Committee, the UW Colleges Director of Student Services, and
the Registrar.
C. Independent reading courses require departmental approval on a course by
course basis. For each offering of an independent reading course and by
the end of the second week of the semester, a form shall be filed both with
the department and with the UW Colleges Curriculum Committee, with a
copy to the Student Services Office and the student. The department, in
timely fashion, shall send the signed form indicating approval or notice of
non-approval to the other three parties. A standard form shall be used
unless a department develops its own form. The form used must include the
names of the department, a course title and course number, brief description
of the course of study, specific requirements such as readings and papers,
name of both instructor and student, and places for the signatures of the
student, instructor and department chair.
An independent reading course number (usually 299) should not be used
for course content covered by a regularly numbered course in the
curriculum of a department. In this case the regular course number should
be used. Departments should develop policies and procedures for approval
of regular courses offered on an independent study basis.
IV. Interdisciplinary Studies and Lecture Forum Courses
Ratified by the Senate, September 13, 1986, p. 5, Appendix 5.
A. Interdisciplinary and lecture forum courses may be added to a UW
Colleges curriculum by request of either an academic department or a UW
Colleges Curriculum Committee. (First-Year Seminar courses are
designed specifically for newly entering students. Such courses will be
offered only under LEC 100 designation and are described separately.)
All faculty and teaching academic staff participating in the design and/or
teaching of an INT or LEC course shall secure approval of their respective
academic department (as required by UW Colleges Constitution 4.03) as
well as the local Campus Curriculum Committee.
All interdisciplinary or lecture forum courses will receive elective credit
unless they receive approval for other degree designations from the
Senate Curriculum Committee.
81
B. If the course content is multidisciplinary, falls outside of the instructor’s
home department , or if the potential instructor does not belong to any
academic department, then the The participating faculty/teaching
instructional academic staff/potential instructor shall secure from one
department an agreement to serve as official sponsor of the proposed
course. It shall be the sponsoring department's responsibility to:
1. Secure from participating faculty/teaching instructional academic staff
a course outline including objectives and a definition of responsibility
in teaching the course. brief course description, list of course
objectives, and course syllabus.
2. Approve the course description for the timetable.
3. Secure a written evaluation/summary of the course at it’s the
conclusion of the initial offering.. This report should, if possible,
include a course evaluation by students.
4. Include this course in its schedule of required student evaluation,
class visitations, and assessment activities.
C. Faculty participating in teaching the course shall be responsible for
submitting the Senate Curriculum Committee written evidence of
departmental approval and sponsorship as well as course outlines and
descriptions prior to listing the course in any UW Colleges timetable.
In addition, participating faculty/teaching academic staff shall submit a
copy of the final course summary/evaluation to the Senate Curriculum
Committee at the conclusion of the course.
C. If the course content is multidisciplinary (bridges more than one
academic department), then the course and instructor must gain initial
approval from all academic departments that are involved in the
proposed course.
[End]
82
Attachment 18
UW Colleges Faculty Council of Senators
Adoption Vote
Proposed Revision of
FPP #501.01 (“Promotion Tenure Dossier Format”)
March 4, 2005
Background and Rationale
This proposal was introduced at the January 19 meeting of the Faculty Council of
Senators and will be up for an adoption vote on March 4. It is offered by the Senate
Professional Standards Committee. There are two separate kinds of changes here, each
explained in more detail below.
First, citing numerous problems with the phrase “quantitative and/or qualitative
summaries” found in section III.A.2.b. and noting the change in the evaluation form’s
title to “Student Survey of Instruction,” the committee has sought to find more specific
language to explain how to include this information in dossiers. In doing so, there
remains the problem of burdening the candidate with “busy-work” and yet ensuring that
the student comments are accurately represented in the dossier. (This requires a
corresponding change to FPP #501.02, to be acted upon separately).
Second, the new section III.E. was proposed but not acted upon at the October meeting.
Currently, this policy does not include a statement requiring retention letters as a part of
the dossier. This is inconsistent with common practice and inconsistent with the dossier
formats listed in FPP #501.02. We suggest placing these in a separate section at the end
of the dossier.
Changes are indicated by red, bold, underlined, and italicized font.
UW Colleges Senate Policy
Faculty Personnel Policy #501.01
Promotion, Tenure, and Third-Year Tenure Progress and Retention
Review Dossier Format
====================================================
Implementation: September 1994
Revision: March 1, 1998
Reorganized and Renumbered: March 15, 2002
Revised by the Senate: May 7, 2004
TENURE AND PROMOTION REVIEW DOSSIERS AND THIRD-YEAR
TENURE PROGRESS AND RETENTION REVIEW DOSSIERS:
PREPARATION, PROCESS AND FUNDING
83
III. Documentation Appendices
Please include the documentation described below and any other documentation you believe
pertinent to your self-assessment.
A. Teaching
1. Lists (may include a brief annotation that assesses the relationship and value
of the activity to your teaching effectiveness)
a. Summary of courses taught and enrollments
b. Grading/assessment procedures and results
c. New course preparations
2. Evaluations
a. Evaluations of teaching by former students when mandated by FPP #501
for promotion to tenure
b. Quantitative and/or qualitative summaries only of in-class evaluations by
current students
From the most recent two semesters available: 1) Student Survey of Instruction
Reports as received from the UWC Office of Student Affairs and 2) Copies or
transcriptions of written comment sections from Student Survey of Instruction
(per Senate policy; originals should be available if a committee requests during
the process)
c. Results of colleague visitations
3. Materials
a. Selected samples of course syllabi, examinations, and course materials (two
currently taught courses)
b. Selected samples of innovations in course development and/or teaching
practices
c. Other
B. Scholarship and Professional Development
1. Lists (may include a brief annotation of the significance of the items listed; e.g.,
published in refereed journal.)
a. Publications
b. Professional presentations
c. Fine Arts creations (as appropriate)
d. Grants submitted/received
e. Professional meetings attended
f. Consultations
g. Other: additional credit coursework and/or degrees earned.
2. Materials
a. Submit copies of materials as requested by department unless duplicated
elsewhere in the dossier.
C. University Service
1. Lists (annotate briefly to reflect significance of service and/or accomplishment on
committee)
a. Committee assignments
(Department, Campus, Colleges-wide, System-wide)
b. Special assignments
84
D. Community Service
1. Lists (annotate briefly to reflect significance of service and/or
accomplishment)
a. Professional presentations
b. Special projects
c. Consultations
E. Retention Letters (both departmental and campus) from all prior retention
decisions.
[End]
85
Attachment 19
UW Colleges Faculty Council of Senators
Adoption Vote
Proposed Revision of
FPP #501.02 (Probationary Faculty Retention Review Dossiers”)
March 4, 2005
Background and Rationale:
This proposal was introduced at the January 19 meeting of the Faculty Council of
Senators and will be up for an adoption vote on March 4. It is offered by the Senate
Professional Standards Committee. There are two separate issues addressed by the
revisions of this proposal, each explained in more detail below.
The first set of changes corresponds to the changes proposed for FPP #501.01 (changes
to FPP #501.01 are being acted upon separately). Please refer to the rationale in FPP
#501.0l, related to the change in the student evaluation form’s title to “Student Survey of
Instruction” and SAPC’s intention to provide more specific language to explain how to
include this information in dossiers.
The issue addressed in this revision involves the concluding phrase of II.B.3, “and, if time
allows, of the first semester of the second year.” Second-year probationary faculty are
evaluated “early” (materials are due by November 7th) and therefore must complete their
dossier prior to the end of the semester. Currently, FPP #501.02 states that faculty
should, “if time allows” include the results of the Student Survey of Instruction for that
fall semester in their dossier. This request is in violation of IP 301.01, which states that
the form “will become a public document that [the] instructor will not have access to
until the semester is over and [the] final course grade is recorded.” To avoid this
contradiction, SAPC recommends deleting that item from the dossier materials.
Changes are indicated by red, bold, underlined, and italicized font.
UW Colleges Senate Policy
Faculty Personnel Policy #501.02
Probationary Faculty Retention Review Dossiers
============================================================
Implementation: January 21, 2004
Revised by the Senate: May 7, 2004
PROBATIONARY FACULTY RETENTION REVIEW DOSSIERS
[...]
86
II. Materials
A. First-year probationary faculty shall include the following in the retention dossier:
1. A copy of the candidate’s Activity Report;
2. Copies of the candidate’s Faculty Visitation Reports;
3. Copies of statistical summaries and comment sections from Fall
semester student evaluations From Fall semester: 1) Student Survey
of Instruction Reports as received from the UWC Office of Student
Affairs and 2) Copies or transcriptions of written comment sections
from Student Survey of Instruction;
4. Any additional materials that may be requested by individual
departments. It is the responsibility of the department chair to inform
probationary faculty of any additional departmental requirements.
B. Second-year probationary faculty shall include the following in the retention
dossier:
1. Copies of the candidate’s Activity Report for the first and second year
(though the second year report must be prepared earlier than usual);
2. Copies of the candidate’s Faculty Visitation Reports for the first and
second years;
3. Statistical summaries and copies of comment sections from all student
evaluations from the first year, and, if time allows, of the first semester
of the second year; From the first year: 1) Student Survey of
Instruction Reports as received from the UWC Office of Student
Affairs and 2) Copies or transcriptions of written comment sections
from Student Survey of Instruction;
4. Copies of first year retention letters (both campus and departmental);
5. Any additional materials that may be requested by individual
departments. It is the responsibility of the department chair to inform
probationary faculty of any additional departmental requirements.
C. Third-year probationary faculty shall prepare a dossier in accordance with Faculty
Personnel Policy #501.01.
D. Fourth-year probationary faculty shall include the following in the retention
dossier:
1. Copies of the candidate’s Activity Reports from the third and fourth
years;
2. Copies of the candidate’s Faculty Visitation Reports from the third and
fourth years;
3. Statistical summaries and copies of comment sections of student
evaluations from the most recent semester available From the most
recent semester available: 1) Student Survey of Instruction Reports
as received from the UWC Office of Student Affairs and 2) Copies or
transcriptions of written comment sections from Student Survey of
Instruction;
87
4. Copies of all retention letters (both campus and departmental) from the
first, second, and third years;
5. Any additional materials that may be requested by individual
departments. It is the responsibility of the department chair to inform
probationary faculty of any additional departmental requirements.
E. Fifth-year probationary faculty shall include the following in the retention dossier:
1. Copies of the candidate’s Activity Reports from the fourth and fifth
years;
2. Copies of the candidate’s Faculty Visitation Reports from the fourth
and fifth years;
3. Statistical summaries and copies of comment sections of student
evaluations from the most recent semester available From the most
recent semester available: 1) Student Survey of Instruction Reports
as received from the UWC Office of Student Affairs and 2) Copies or
transcriptions of written comment sections from Student Survey of
Instruction;
4. Copies of all retention letters (both campus and departmental) from the
first, second, third and fourth years;
5. Any additional materials that may be requested by individual
departments. It is the responsibility of the department chair to inform
probationary faculty of any additional departmental requirements.
[End]
88
Attachment 20
UW Colleges Faculty Council of Senators
Introduction
Proposed Revision of
FPP# 501.02 “Probationary Faculty Retention Review Dossiers”
March 4, 2005
Background and Rationale:
At the request of SSC and the Provost’s Office, the Senate Professional Standards
Committee reviewed I.H, which directs that a copy of the dossier be sent to the Provost’s
Office. The Provost cited the fact that most campuses are not following this practice and
yet the retention review process is working well. Letters from departments, campuses
and deans are serving to inform the Provost’s office in this case. Also, there are storage
concerns. Central has space available for tenure dossiers, but would not be able to
accommodate the additional binders of retention dossiers. SPSC concurs that this
additional step in the process is not necessary, and recommends deleting the language
from I.H.
UW Colleges Senate Policy
Faculty Personnel Policy #501.02
Probationary Faculty Retention Review Dossiers
============================================================
Implementation: January 21, 2004
Revised by the Senate: May 7, 2004
PROBATIONARY FACULTY RETENTION REVIEW DOSSIERS
I.
Preparation and Funding
A. The candidate has full responsibility for constructing the dossier in accordance
with the established guidelines, which follow.
B. The campus will assist the candidate with reproducing all materials which
have been gathered by the candidate for the requirements of the dossier,
including those non-paper materials added by individual department
guidelines, and with distributing those materials to the departmental
evaluation committee. Departments will keep the required non-paper
materials to a minimum, to allow economical accumulation and distribution.
C. The candidate will limit the number of copies to the minimum requested by
the department for efficient distribution, up to a maximum of nine, excluding
the original.
D. The cost of copying will be handled on the campus as an institutional expense.
Campus business managers should submit a budget transfer request to the
central office comptroller. The request should identify the candidate and the
89
copying and mailing costs to be reimbursed to the campus. The cost of using
commercial services for duplicating or reimbursement to individuals will not
be covered by the university without prior approval from the Assistant
Chancellor for Administrative Services.
E. Department evaluation committee members from the same campus shall be
expected to share a single copy.
F. Candidates shall submit the retention dossiers to the department according to
the following timetable:
1. First-year probationary faculty by January 4.
2.
Second-year probationary faculty by November 7.
3. Third-year probationary faculty by January 4.
4. The deadline for submission of the retention dossier for fourth- and fifthyear probationary faculty shall be at the discretion of the department chair
but no earlier than January 4 and no later than April 1.
G. Dossiers received by the department for consideration of first year
probationary faculty, except for the departmental file copy, will be forwarded
to the campus evaluation committee by January 25. For consideration of
second-year probationary faculty, except for the departmental file copy, will
be forwarded to the campus evaluation committee by December 1. For
consideration of fourth- and fifth-year probationary faculty, except for the
departmental file copy, will be forwarded to the campus evaluation committee
by April 15. In the case of a negative decision, the copies will be returned
directly to the candidate, except for the departmental copy.
H. The campus evaluation committee will forward two copies one copy to the
campus dean, one to place in the candidate’s campus file and one to send to
the Vice Chancellor in support of department/campus/dean recommendations.
[...]
[End]
90
Attachment 21
UW Colleges Faculty Council of Senators
Introduction
Proposed Revision of
FPP #503 “Faculty Merit Policy and Procedures”
March 4, 2005
Background and Rationale:
Thanks to individuals within the colleges who pay attention to details, SPSC has
discovered that the due date for the Activity Report is listed as January 5 in this policy,
but as January 4 in IP #301. Since January 4th is a common “due date” for many other
retention documents, we recommend that date be included here (I.B.4.b). Also, this
policy has now been updated to describe the report as an “AR” rather than as a “FAR.”
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
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 Faculty 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 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.
91
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 Faculty Activity Report covering the
preceding two years. Faculty shall submit their reports to the relevant
committee each year by January 5 4; any faculty not submitting an Faculty
Activity Report shall not be eligible for merit consideration.
[End]
92