UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MILWAUKEE
FACULTY SENATE MEETING
Thursday, April 19, 2001; 2:30 p.m.; Bolton Hall, Room 150
A. Nancy Zimpher, Chancellor of the University, introduced UW-System President Katharine Lyall. President Lyall addressed the Senators on the budget. Specific points of the address included:
· A background on UW-System. UW-System is now 30 years old. UWM is a key part of UW-System with the Global Studies Program, Minority Information Center, e-Learning efforts, etc. The success of November’s Economic Summit has led to plans for a 2nd Economic Summit.
· The Board of Regents requested a 3.7% increase to allow for the Enrollment Management 21 Plan. The Governor’s budget only allowed for a 1.6% increase and a $12 million base budget cut for the University.
· The breakdown of the budget is as follows:
- 11.8……..Milwaukee Idea
- 8.8……..Fee Monies
· UW-System’s goal is to increase the GPR amount.
· Whereas the budget provides funding for ‘cost to continue’ expenses including, debt funding and utilities, it lacks an economic development agenda.
· There are only 2 new positions allotted for in the entire UW-System.
· There is no financial aid component in the budget. Financial aid needs to match the tuition increase.
· The pay plan is unknown. A 4.2% increase was requested by the Board of Regents.
· The state needs to look at its priorities. The Economic Stimulus Package is critical to the future of the state.
· Goals include the Plan 2008, Madison Plan, Milwaukee Idea, establishing 2+2 programs with tech colleges, financial aid, and library restoration.
President Lyall concluded her remarks and answered questions from the floor. Points included:
· Timeline on the legislature to get the work done?
- Hopefully by July 1, but not surprised if the budget is late.
· Hopes for UWM to take a leading role in Arts and Humanities.
· Unclassified staff and their request for financial support to legislatures?
- President Lyall said she remains more optimistic than the projections
- Classified Compensation Fund.
· Status of Graduate Programs at UWM?
- President Lyall said that research is growing and that of the 10 new programs at UWM, 7 are to be Graduate Programs.
- UWM needs to prioritize these programs.
President Lyall thanked the senators. Chancellor Zimpher thanked President Lyall for her continued support of UWM.
[Chancellor Zimpher called for a 10 minute break]
B. Chancellor Zimpher deferred her report in lieu of President Lyall’s comprehensive remarks.
C. Professor Jay Moore, Chair of the University Committee, updated the Senators on the work of the University Committee over the past month. Professor Moore thanked President Lyall for her support to UWM. The UC has been working on several items including:
· Capital Campaign. Foundation accounts less than $10,000 will be pooled together and be balanced at the school/college level.
· IRAS. Striving toward more integration of Academic Staff into the ‘life’ of the University through allocation of resources, mentoring programs, etc. Possibility of a new titling track for Academic Staff, using the term ‘Professor’.
· Parking. Professor Moore reported many forums have taken place, but no solution yet. The UC and the Academic Staff support a more comprehensive solution rather than a year-by-year temporary solution. During the remodeling of the Klotsche Center, the parking spaces currently available there, will become unavailable for the duration of the remodeling.
· Pay plan. The 2nd component to the Annual Merit Exercise will be compression adjustment.
D. Student Association Secretary, Talia Shank, addressed the Senators on behalf of Student Association President, Ajita Talwalker. Chancellor Zimpher informed the Senators that Secretary Shank, is now President-Elect Shank. The Senators congratulated the new President-Elect.
· The Student Association is still rounding out their work on the budget, particular removal of the tuition component.
The Secretary called the roll. There were 32 Senators and parliamentarian R. Krueger present.
The March 15, 2001, Faculty Senate minutes were approved.
Chancellor Zimpher referred Senators to the agenda section which included status of Faculty Documents.
VI. COMMITTEE-OF-THE-WHOLE DISCUSSION
It was moved and seconded to move into Committee-of-the-Whole for discussion of the Disciplinary and Sabbatical Policies. (Passed)
Professor Jay Moore, chair of the University Committee, presented proposed revisions to the Disciplinary Policy for purposes of discussion.
Concerns and questions raised during the discussion included:
1. What are the advantages of a Vice-Chancellor review?
- a reviewing body of more than one faculty member, might slow the process of review due to the scarcity of meetings
2. Having the University Committee act as a triage worked well. Some Senators had issues with administration being designated the primary route.
3. The proposed legislation accommodates complaints and recognizes where complaints do start.
4. What is the FRRC stance?
- Concerns arose as to whether the FRRC should be involved in determining prima facie and timeliness of complaints.
5. Could the Vice-Chancellor be replaced with the University Committee?
- The practicality is difficult as the University Committee only meets once a week. The Vice-Chancellor has staff and can review the complaint in a timelier fashion than a body of individuals.
6. Where would the Vice-Chancellor obtain the needed resources?
- Resources would come from the Provost’s office in Academic Affairs.
7. FRRC cannot meet the requirements of judging prima facie and timeliness. The review needs to be handled by a person who can review the complaint immediately, instead of waiting for a meeting.
8. Could there be a liaison between the Vice-Chancellor and FRRC?
- Perhaps the chair of the FRRC.
9. Perhaps the University Committee is the liaison.
Professor Jay Moore, chair of the University Committee, presented proposed revisions to the Sabbatical Policy for purposes of discussion.
Concerns and questions raised during the discussion included:
1. Are there problems with the current procedures?
- All schools have review mechanisms at the college level.
- Deans need to meet with their Departments and talk about the sabbatical proposals.
- There has been some uneasiness in the past. The proposed policy would remove the uneasiness.
2. Ranking of proposals?
- Department must rank the proposals.
- Dean must rank proposals.
- A Dean could forward 50 proposals and rank one at 50 knowing that one would not get approved.
3. Removal of the APC and have a dialogue with the department?
- Perhaps the APC reviews the ranking of the proposals.
VII. GENERAL GOOD AND WELFARE – None
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:35 p.m.