UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MILWAUKEE FACULTY SENATE MEETING M I N U T E S Thursday, October 17, 1996; 2:30 p.m.; Curtin 175 UWM FAC. DOC. NO. I. COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS 1. Chancellor Schroeder reported that the final enrollment was 15,050 FTE, which is .4% lower than last year's enrollment. We are strong in new students, with 13.5% more new freshmen. The problems are with continuing students at the junior, senior, and master's level. The schools/colleges who have shown an increase are Business Administration (3%) and Fine Arts (4%); those with decreases are Education, Letters & Science, and Library and Information Science; the others are about equal to last year. Chancellor Schroeder also reported that he and Provost Watters had scheduled five meetings with the appropriate deans and faculty at different locations on campus to have an open discussion of the strategic plan. Two of these meetings have already been held and went well. He, then, observed that tenure is increasingly a topic of discussion and criticism. There is a huge uproar at the University of Minnesota about tenure, which he believes is counterproductive. Nothing similar to that has happened in Wisconsin, but he believes it is important to emphasize that all of us have an obligation to describe and explain the importance of tenure, noting that it is earned after many, many years of education and training and follows a long probationary period. He believes that tenure has served UWM well, but that post-tenure review is very important. Senator Schwartz asked about the UWM Foundation. Chancellor Schroeder replied that it is a stand-alone, non-profit organization. It does not set priorities for UWM; these are set by the deans, the chancellor, etc. It has been very successful in raising money for some goals, but its success has been uneven. Professor Davida asked if the meetings the Chancellor and Provost were holding were organized by the buildings on campus. Chancellor Schroeder replied that the buildings were chosen for the convenience of deans and faculty. These are meant to be open forums and have been scheduled on each day of the week so that individual faculty should be able to find a time and place convenient to attend. 2. Professor Margo Anderson, Chair of the University Committee, noted that there were three committee-of-the-whole discussions scheduled for today's meeting and are the beginning discussions of important issues. The University Committee will start bringing legislation to the senate at its December meeting. She reported that System and the Regents are talking about a 5% and 5% salary package for the 1997-99 biennium for faculty and academic staff. Such a package wold require an additional 3% increase in tuition, making their recommendation for tuition increases for 1997-99 6%/6% per year. 3. No representative of the Student Association was present. II. The dates of the Faculty Senate Rules Committee and Faculty/Senate meetings for 1996-97 were received. III. SENATE ROLL CALL Parliamentarian Michael Waller and forty-three senators were present. Senators Barry Brummett, Garry Davis, Leonard Levine, Donald Solomon, Nancy Frank, Hemant Jain, Ellen Murphy, and Lisa Bradford were recorded as absent. IV. AUTOMATIC CONSENT BUSINESS 1. The minutes of the faculty senate meeting held on September 19, 1996 were approved as distributed. 2. The 1995-96 annual reports for the following standing committees were received: Archives 2064 Division of Arts & Humanities Executive 2065 Division of Natural Sciences Executive 2066 Division of Professions Executive 2067 Division of Social Sciences Executive 2068 Faculty Senate Subcommittee on the Evaluation of 2069 Administrators Physical Environment 2070 University Relations 2071 V. CHANCELLOR'S REPORT Chancellor Schroeder reported that Fac. Doc. No. 2062 has been approved. The Chancellor's Report was received. VI. BUSINESS 1. Academic Program & Curriculum Committee and School of2072 Library & Information Science Proposal to Implement a Bachelor of Science in Information Science & Technology MOTION (Tatham/Gratz): To approve Fac. Doc. No. 2072. Senator Tatham, who is also Chairperson of the Academic Program and Curriculum Committee (APCC), said that the APCC had had a full and lengthy discussion of this proposed program. Of the three outside evaluators of the program, two were extremely enthusiastic. The third evaluator supported the program but had some reservations. He presented three concerns, which the APCC discussed, namely: 1. The title. Was it accurately descriptive? 2. Because it was believed that enrollment would be large, would the school have sufficient resources? 3. Would there be mutual support by Computer Science and Business Administrtion? Would the relationship be cordial and collegial or would there be a turf battle. This issue concerned APCC most. Dean Aman explained to APCC that the school had considered other titles, but in the final analysis, this one seemed most appropriate. He also assured APCC that administrative support would be forthcoming for the program. As for the third concern, there were two members of College of Engineering and Applied Sciences serving on the committee. This program deals with information science; it is not involved in the production of data systems, but, rather, is concerned with effective analysis and retrieval. He said that students in this program would take courses in Business Administration and other departments; there was no intention to replace those courses. Senator Tatham said that APCC was concerned that there not be overlap between this program and others, but it did not want to stifle one of the few new programs proposed. It seemed that we were now in a climate of cooperation rather than confrontation. After this thorough discussion, the two members from Engineering joined in a unanimous vote of approval of the proposed program. Senator Schwartz asked about the cost of the program. Senator Tatham replied that the APCC evaluates only on the basis of academic content and program, not finances. Assistant Vice Chancellor Sona Andrews said that the Vice Chancellor has not made any commitment and will wait for information from the faculty Academic Planning and Budget Committee. In response to another question by Senator Schwartz, Senator Tatham said that the program was presented as being interdisciplinary; courses in other departments were incorporated as part of the program. Senator Kritek asked if there were discussions with Business Administration and Engineering, other than those that took place in APCC? Senator Tatham said that was not clear. The APCC was told that discussions had been held and that the controversial items had been clarified. He was not aware that there were still objections. Senator Schneider asked if there was a mapping of the curriculum; i.e., are schools explicitly included by courses? Senator Tatham replied that he believed that the specific courses taken in other schools. colleges, or departments would depend upon the student, but some specific outside courses may be mandated. Professor Anderson, in reference to the documentation for the proposed program, said that there were specific courses with specific course numbers in Psychology, English, etc. required. Dean Aman was recognized. He stated that the program was meant to be flexible. For example, some students might have better computer skills and wouldn't need additional courses in this area, while others would. He added that the School of Library and Information Science (SLIS) has a long and distinguished history of cooperativeness. It is not interested in duplicating courses or program resources; its record is good; it should be trusted. Professor Yannay asked how the reallocation of funds to pay for the proposed program would work, adding that most of us have the impression that there is no money for new programs. Chancellor Schroeder said that is important that departments continue to develop new disciplines and that we continue to see the university as a dynamic unit. All programs are responsible for growing and updating on a continuous basis. The sources of funds for new programs must come from reallocation within the unit, reallocation within the campus, or outside funds. It was noted that SLIS does not now have a bachelor's program, but does offer a certificate. MOTION (Davida/Schwartz): To refer the proposed program back to APCC. Professor Davida distributed copies of a memorandum from Professor Haseman, School of Business Administration, addressed to the senate, which indicated that the concerns expressed, in writing, by the Management Information Systems and the Computer Science faculty a year and one-half ago had not been addressed, there had been no discussion, and these concerns were not transmitted to APCC. In his memorandum, Professor Haseman urged that the proposal be sent back to the APCC for further consideration. (A copy of Professor Haseman's memo is on file with the minutes in the Office of the Secretary of the University.) Professor Vairavan, Chairperson of the Computer Science program, was recognized and he corroborated the content of Professor Haseman's letter. Professor Ramamurthy, School of Business Administration, after being recognized, did likewise. Both indicated their surprise on hearing that the proposal had been sent to the APCC. Senator Tatham observed that deans and department chairs receive copies of the APCC agenda, yet no one showed up for the meeting to voice objections. Senator Skalitzky said that it seemed clear that there was objectionable overlap. She asked if APCC was supposed to get a sign-off where there is potential overlap? A faculty member, identifying himself as a member of the APCC, said that Dean Aman had told the APCC that all objections had been resolved; therefore, the concerns now being expressed come as a surprise to him. Senator Greene stated that how much money the program will cost and where it is going to come from should also be considered by APCC. At 3:25 p.m., Senator Van Horne moved, and it was seconded, to extend debate on this item by 10 minutes. The motion to extend was approved by a two-thirds majority: 31 YES, 2 NO. Senator Van Horne made the following points: 1) the senate has never rejected a recommendation by the APCC; 2) APCC sends out a calendar weeks in advance of its meeting. Faculty have the responsibility to attend and raise objections; 3) according to Chapter 36, the senate votes on the intellectual content of the program, the Chancellor should be concerned with the resources; and 4) he urges the senate not to reject this proposal; he would prefer that it be sent back to APCC. Senator Arora, speaking against the proposal, said courses are too full now and have long waiting lists. Professor Gratz asked if there had been a sign-off on overlap. Senator Tatham replied that Course Action Request (CAR) forms have a sign-off, but programs do not. What concerns him, is what APCC is to do if the proposal is returned. They have already discussed the issues raised here in the senate. He suggested that the time to object is when new courses (CAR forms) come before APCC for approval. Senator Schwartz said that he did know who was to blame, but given what he has heard here, he would vote against the proposal now if a vote were taken. Senator Kritek spoke in favor of referring the proposal back to APCC and urged the committee to have a meeting of all parties. Dean Aman was recognized. He said that the responses from Engineering and Business Administration were shared. No one said that the issues were all settled; he only said that the issues had been discussed. The motion to refer the proposal to the APCC was approved on a voice vote. VII. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE At 3:35 p.m., a motion to move into committee of the whole was made, seconded and approved on a voice vote. Professor Anderson, Chair of the University Committee, presided. 1. Discussion of the Office of the Secretary of the University. At 3:45 p.m., Senator Van Horne moved to extend the discussion by 10 minutes. The motion to extend was seconded and approved on a voice vote. 2. Strategic Planning At 3:55 p.m., a motion to extend the discussion of Item #2 by 10 minutes was made, seconded, and approved on voice vote. 3. Revitalizing Faculty Governance (4:15 p.m.) A motion to rise from committee of the whole was made, seconded, and approved on a voice vote. VIII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. IX. GENERAL GOOD AND WELFARE Nothing. The meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m. Marilyn E. Miller Secretary of the University