University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Faculty Senate Meeting

Thursday, March 15, 2001
2:30 p.m.; Bolton Hall, Room 150

Chancellor Zimpher called the meeting to order at 2:35 p.m.
I. Comments and Questions
A. Chancellor Zimpher addressed the senate on several issues.
1. NCAA Women's basketball team are on the road to the final four and are playing Duke on Saturday, March 17 at 12:30 p.m. Everyone is invited to the Gasthaus to view the game and cheer them on.
2. Report on the Governor's budget address with reference to spending caps, tax reduction, and "rainy day fund". Items specifically referencing Milwaukee in the budget address included Techstar, Milwaukee Idea and an Academy of Excellence at UWM (to be separate from but compatible with our current honors program). 
The good news - Milwaukee Idea is a designated plank in the budget indicating Governor's recognition; in a tight budget, did get 11.8 (same as MSN) of 24 requested millions. 
The less than good news: it's not $24 million and it's not all new GPR - 3.4 GPR and 8.4 "fees" aka tuition - a departure from our total GPR no tuition request.
Now begins the exhausting process of shepherding through the legislature. Strategies in place include endless rounds of meetings with the legislature, briefings of constituents. It is way too early to talk about what we're not going to do - still working to get the full amount.
B. Professor James Sappenfield reported on the University Committee activities of the last month including a report on merit salary guidelines and salary compression on the Academic Affairs web site. He also reported on a joint meeting of the University Committee and the Academic Staff Committee addressing parking concerns and recommendations and The Academic Staff Titling and Compensation committee and a joint response to the proposal.
C. The report of the Student Association was presented by the Secretary, Talia Shank. She reported on a recent national legislative conference of Student Associations and the goal to increase the maximum amount of a Pell grant by $600 as well as to fight the federal tax cut legislation. She also addressed the need for faculty, students and academic staff to work together to fight the proposed tuition increases stating that the increases make higher education out of reach of those students the Milwaukee Idea is trying to attract.
D. Report from the Senate Ad Hoc PAR Review Committee presented by Mike Allen, Chair. 
1. Procedural recommendations of the committee included
a. opening the process 
b. instituting some form of an appeal process to make corrections to any errors in the PAR
c. To plan for implementation of funds and the PAR objectives to make the end result more clear.
d. PAR process be a long term not short term process
2. Substantive recommendations included:
a. coordinate the PAR with other reviews (merit, graduate and undergraduate program reviews) currently done on campus
b. address interaction of departments with other departments and programs inside and outside their schools/colleges and the contributions of many departments to the degrees of other programs. The process did not capture one departments contribution to curricula in other programs
c. review departments and faculty in relation to the national peer data, rather than comparing across departments
d. acknowledgment of the fact that some programs, due to certification and licensing requirements, have a higher cost than others
e. Inclusion of new programs and interdisciplinary programs in the PAR.
3. Summary recommendation that the PAR, with suitable revisions and planning can play an important and helpful role but that in its current form the committee cannot recommend it be continued.
II. Senate Roll Call
Secretary Murphy called the roll. There were 42 senators and Parliamentarian R. Krueger present.
III. Automatic Consent Business
The minutes of the February 15, 2001 minutes were approved as distributed.
IV. Chancellor's Report
Chancellor Zimpher announced that the status of the faculty documents passed during the last three senate meetings was listed under the Chancellor's Report in the Senate Meeting Calendar.
V. Business
A. Faculty Document 2237 - A motion by the University Committee to approve the proposed changes to the Academic Approval Matrix as distributed.
Paul Haubrich, member of the University Committee presented the rationale for the changes which would make consultation with the APBC a part of the process and clarified that the footnote (e) designation was additional to, not a replacement for, the Ys and Is on the matrix. After discussion, the motion passed by unanimous voice vote.
B. Faculty Document 2272 - A motion by the Faculty Senate Rules Committee to amend Faculty Document 2272, previously adopted on February 15, 2001 by striking "and academic staff" in paragraphs 1,3 and 5 as distributed in the agenda.
Paul Haubrich, Chair of the Faculty Senate Rules Committee presented the rationale for the amendment and discussed the Senate's options regarding the document.
It was moved and seconded to reconsider Faculty Document 2272. Consultation with the Parliamentarian determined that the motion was out of order.
It was moved and seconded to refer Fac. Doc. 2272 to the University Committee for a more comprehensive discussion plan. Some senators noted the substantial but undiscussed ramifications of such a position and the lack of discussion at the February 15 Senate meeting prior to passage of Faculty Document 2272 as worded at that time. Others clarified that in adopting Faculty Document 2272, the Senate is not saying we wish to bargain collectively, only that the right to do so be available to "future generations." Discussion of the appropriateness of the faculty senate advocacy on behalf of the academic staff included reference to the recently adopted Sullivan principles as a broad position for advocacy on behalf of others. In response to a question from a Senator about the position of the academic staff, Secretary Murphy responded that she had advised the ASC that the Senate had included academic staff in the original Faculty Document 2272 and had received verbal response that the ASC did not want to make a position on enabling collective bargaining one of their issues. Roll call vote: yes 12 no 25 abstain
It was moved and seconded to extend the time of discussion. (passed)
The motion to amend previously adopted Faculty Document 2272 was approved by voice vote.
VI. Special Order of Business
Mark Harris, Chair of the Nominations Committee presented the report of the Nominations Committee and took nominations from the floor for the 2001-2002 faculty standing committees and the Faculty Senate.
VII. Committee-of-the-Whole Discussion
At 3:48 p.m., it was moved and seconded to move into Committee-of-the-Whole for discussion of the Disciplinary Policy. (passed)
James Sappenfield, member of the University Committee, presented proposed revisions to the Disciplinary Policy for purposes of discussion.
Concerns and questions raised during the discussion included:
1. Could the policy be changed to have the Vice Chancellor (VC) in conjunction with the Faculty Rights and Responsibilities Committee (FRRC) determine timeliness/prima facie?
2. Concern regarding policy that once VC determines prima facie, FRRC must investigate.
3. Concern that one person (VC) would make the determination of prima facie and timeliness instead of being considered by a committee of peers.
4. Could policy be written so that if the VC forwards a complaint to the FRRC, it can then find no merit in the complaint and dismiss?
5. Concern regarding loss of FRRC control and responsibility over the initial phase of the complaint/disciplinary process. (erosion of faculty governance)
6. Concern regarding the time it takes for faculty members of FRRC to do the initial complaint investigation to determine timeliness/prima facie in addition to their other responsibilities (teaching, research, service) when additional resources of VC office could address in a more timely manner.
7. Concern regarding removal of the University Committee (UC) from the process. Previously UC took initial complaints and determined type of misconduct, if any, and referred to the appropriate disciplinary body. Concern that this would now be done by VC.
8. Question raised regarding vagueness of causes for discipline/dismissal.
At 4:22 p.m., it was moved and seconded to rise from the Committee-of-the-Whole.
VIII. Good & Welfare: None.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:23 p.m.