University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee FACULTY SENATE MEETING M I N U T E S April 17, 1997; 2:30 p.m.; Curtin 175 UWM FAC. DOC. NO. I. COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS 1. In the Chancellor's absence, Provost Watters reported that the Governor's recommendations for capital budget funding included $6 million for remodeling Sabin Hall and planning money for refurbishing Lapham Hall in the 1999-2001 biennium. Thus, UWM got its share of System's total $30 million GPR capital budget and it expects to get its share of the $6 million for classroom refurbishing allocated to UW System. The news in the Journal Sentinel about UW-Madison receiving over $200 million for a health care facility, did not make clear that only 1/3 of that amount is GPR which may be made available in the next several years; the rest must be raised by Madison. He also reported that Title 6 grants were recently announced. UWM has had two here for a number of years and both were renewed. These are the top-ranked Latin American Studies, administered jointly with UW-Madison, and the highly ranked International Studies Program which is also jointly administered with UW-Madison, following Marquette University's withdrawal. Other good news is that UWM's School of Education was recently featured in an article in US News and World Reports and UWM's Nursing program has been highly ranked. Also, Professor Susan McRoy, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, has just received a very prestigious NSF career grant. In response to a question by Senator Skalitzky about classrooms, he replied that we are now refurbishing and also making plans for upgrading classroom technology, though funds for the latter are very small. The next issue to address is how to put a computer on each faculty member's desk. In response to a question by Senator Schwartz about where the funds are from, he responded that almost none of the money was new; it was primarily reallocated money. A question was raised about the cancellation of the special senate meeting that was to be held on April 24, 1997. Provost Watters indicated that Professor Anderson will answer that question in her remarks. 2. Professor Margo Anderson, Chairperson of the University Committee, reported that the state budget, including the university's budget, is under consideration by the joint finance committee. One of its major questions is whether to give the university system the flexibility to raise tuition above and beyond that authorized by the state legislature. Now is the time for faculty to contact one's legislators if they care to influence the decision. She explained that the Faculty Senate Rules Committee had set up the special senate meeting requested by the University Committee and the Chancellor, but that a question concerning the legality of holding the meeting in closed session was raised. P. J. Boylan, in consultation with System's senior legal counsel, John Tallman, concluded that the meeting could not be closed, since the substance of the evaluation was not to be discussed. Alternatively, the Chancellor and the University Committee has agreed to request that the Subcommittee on the Evaluation of Administrators conduct another faculty evaluation of the Chancellor in September 1998. At that time, the summary statistical results of both the 1996-97 and the September 1998 evaluations would be released to the faculty. In response to a question from Professor Collins about the Chancellor's evaluation, Professor Anderson said that President Lyall received the results of the chancellor's evaluation the same time as the University Committee. President Lyall and the University Committee have not met. Senator Schulz said she thought the meeting was to discuss the results. If not that, what was the meeting to be for? Professor Anderson said that she couldn't speak for the Chancellor, but she reminded the senate that the Chancellor had said, at the last senate meeting, that he would not distribute the results. Senator Adesso asked if he has said why he doesn't want to divulge. Professor Anderson said he has made no statement to the University Committee. Professor Collins asked what, in general terms, did the others do? Senator Frank, Chairperson of the Subcommittee on Evaluation of Administrators, said that at least two deans shared the results with their faculty, and two others did not. Professor Anderson read from the faculty legislation establishing the evaluations, noting that one of the purposes of the evaluation is to provide information to administrators for the purpose of self-evaluation and improvement of performance. One of the approved recommendations is that the evaluation summaries are distributed to the administrators evaluated, their immediate appointing officers, and to a preexisting faculty group specified and made known by the administrator. The University Committee is the faculty group designated by the Chancellor for his evaluation. Senator McBride asked what happened when students asked for the evaluations of faculty teaching. Provost/Vice Chancellor Watters replied that that hasn't happened here. Senator Mulroy asked what the special circumstances are for the repeated survey next year that has been requested by the Chancellor and the University Committee. Professor Anderson replied that all she can say at this time is that the Chancellor and the University Committee will make the request. Senator McBride asked why the Academic Staff was not in favor of the 5% faculty/academic staff pay increase proposed by Representative Wasserman. Provost Watters explained that the Academic Staff Committee felt the 5% would not be approved and urged Representative Wasserman to support 105% proposal instead. Senator Frank asked if the 105% of revenue-authority-granted proposal was for the system or campus level? Provost Watters said that it would be at the system level. In response to a question by Senator Yannay, Professor Anderson stated that the evaluation process for the Provost/Vice Chancellor had not gotten started yet. The first scheduled meeting with the Provost will occur on April 29th. Once the process has been completed, the University Committee will communicate with the Chancellor. 3. No representative from the Student Association was present. In the absence of Chancellor Schroeder, President pro tem Thomas O'Bryan presided over the senate meeting. II. ROLL CALL Parliamentarian George Baker and forty senators were present. Senators Brummett, Sappenfield, Perez, Gratz, Harris, Murphy, Aborampah, Greene, and Kenny were recorded as absent. III. AUTOMATIC CONSENT BUSINESS 1. Professor Mabry asked that the minutes of the senate meeting held on March 20, 1997 be corrected as follows: On page 2, section 2, add to the end of the second paragraph "Professor Mabry asked if the Chancellor would make the statistical results of his evaluation available to the faculty. The Chancellor said that he would not, noting that as they were part of a confidential personnel review, they would not be made public." Professor David Schulz asked that, on the top line on page 4 be reworded to read (additions in brackets) "...and no increase [from the state] in [the library acquisitions] budget since 1989,..." The corrected minutes were approved. IV. CHANCELLOR'S REPORT The Chancellor's report was received. V. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (Professor Margo Anderson presiding) 1. Recommendation by the Codification Committee That the 2090 Faculty Senate of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Call Upon Chancellor Schroeder (1) To Cease and Desist From Invoking His "Administrative Route" in Administering Discipline, (2) To Abide by the Regents' Rules in the Handling of the Complaints Against Faculty, and (3) To Recognize and Adhere to the Principles of Due Process MOTION (McBride/Verdier): To convene into committee of the whole. The motion was approved on a voice vote. Professor David Luce, Chairperson of the Codification Committee, presented the resolution and answered questions. At 3:40 p.m., a motion was made, seconded, and approved on a voice vote to rise from committee of the whole. VI. BUSINESS 1. Resolution by Senator Victor Greene to Request 2091 Administration to Devise a Strategy for Increasing the Library Acquisitions Budget and to Report Back to the Senate by the End of the Fall Semester, 1997 Senator McBride presented the motion on behalf of Senator Greene. MOTION (McBride/seconded): To approve Fac. Doc. No. 2091. Peter Watson-Boone, Director of the Library, was recognized. He reported that, on March 31, the Provost had committed $40,000 to the library this year and $100,000 next year. He believes that the Chancellor and Provost are doing what they can and does not wish the motion to cast them in a bad light. It is a national problem, really. Following a brief discussion about how helpful $1 million would be, an amendment was suggested. MOTION TO AMEND (Schwartz/seconded): To change the second sentence of the motion as follows: "...increase the acquisitions budget by (the following words were struck out) "as much as" (the following words were added) "at least" $1,000,000." The motion to amend was approved on a voice vote. The motion, as amended, was approved on a voice vote. 2. Academic Program & Curriculum Committee and School 2072 of Library and Information Science Recommendation to Revised Implement a Bachelor of Science in Information Resources MOTION (Tatham/seconded): To approve Fac. Doc. No. 2072 (Rev.). Senator Campbell Tatham, Chairperson of the APCC, reported that all previous objections had been clarified and he commended members of SLIS for their willingness to compromise. Professor Anderson raised questions about the budget and the budget approval process. Senator Tatham said that the APCC only addresses the issue of academic soundness of a program. The proposal next goes to the Provost who will determine the budget which will then be reviewed by the Academic Planning and Budget Committee (APBC). Senator Davida asked where the students for the new program would come from? Senator Tatham said the APCC did not deal with that question. His own feeling is that the SLIS program would not appeal to the same students that were interested in the Management Information Systems (MIS) program or the Computer Science (CS) program. Senator Verdier, noting that reallocation is of some concern, asked if the Provost could speak to that issue. Provost Watters replied that ideally new programs could be initiated with new money, but none has been forthcoming for the past several years. Nevertheless, we must consider students' needs and continue to offer new programs. Senator Mulroy asked how the SLIS program is different from the MIS and CS programs. Senator Tatham said the new program will serve students' needs by emphasizing the use of information and the access to information sources. The question was raised as to whether the new name "Information Resources" accurately reflects the substance of the degree, as opposed to "Information Science". Senator Berkman asked if the difference between the SLIS program and the others could be characterized as utilization versus production. Senator Tatham replied that that's a fair distinction. Senator Van Horne observed that in all his years at UWM, no proposal with the unanimous approval of the APCC has ever been questioned as closely as this. He is worried about the change in name of the degree. Does information resources' really mean the same as information science'? Dean Aman was recognized. He said that no one discipline can now cover the very broad field of information science. There is room for everybody and all must work cooperatively. SLIS is prepared to do so and has a long history of cooperative programs. Senator Nardin said that she was going to vote against the proposal because it sounded awfully applied to her. At 3:20 p.m., MOTION (Tatham/seconded): To extend discussion by 5 minutes. The motion was approved on a voice vote, with no negative votes heard. Senator Kohli moved to amend the motion by changing the proposed name from Bachelor of Information Resources to Bachelor of Science in Information Resource Sciences. The motion to amend died for lack of a second. In response to Senator Nardin's objection, it was noted that students in the program will be taking many courses in Communication and other Letters & Science departments. Senator Berkman said he had no problem with students learning applications. The motion to approve Fac. Doc. No. 2072 (Revised) was passed on a voice vote. There being no further business, the senate meeting adjourned at 4:24 p.m. Marilyn E. Miller Interim Secretary of the University