University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee FACULTY SENATE MEETING M I N U T E S Tuesday, May 6, 1997; 2:30 p.m.; Curtin 175 UWM FAC. DOC. NO. I. COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS 1. Chancellor Schroeder reported that: i) indicators show new freshmen enrollment is 15% ahead of last year, and last year it was up 13% over previous year. Transfers are also ahead of last year, and the residence halls are filled. ii) Both of UWM's capital budget projects that had been recommended by the regents and the governor also made it through the state building commission. Planning money to renovate the old wing of Lapham was also approved. iii) The operating budget has not yet been scheduled for review by the Joint Finance Committee. It will probably be during the next week; one usually hears about it 48-72 hours ahead. Just this morning, the paper noted that the state has a $230 million surplus. This is very good news. System will now press to get those items that had not been approved and will ask for full funding for the faculty and academic staff salary package. Now is the time for faculty members to contact their legislators; especially those serving on the Joint Finance Committee. In response to a comment by Senator McBride, Chancellor Schroeder said that state Senator Burke is a strong UWM supporter. iv) With respect to Fac. Doc. No 2090, which is on today's agenda, the current procedure for dealing with complaints is completely legal according to the information he receives from system legal counsel, John Tallman. His goal has been to resolve the differences between his and legal counsel's interpretation and that of Professor Luce by changing the legislation. The "administrative" route for dealing with complaints originated due to a very serious problem with allegations of discrimination and sexual harassment, at about the time he became Chancellor. Different agencies became involved and UWM was audited by OFCPP, which reported serious difficulties with our complaint process. He wanted a campus environment that was free of complaints and free of harassment. To achieve this, he worked with faculty members, some of whom are at the meeting today, and worked out the so-called administrative procedure. This procedure is only used for discrimination and harassment complaints, not for academic complaints. He had hoped that the Codification Committee would rewrite the relevant legislation, but it has not. In UW System's opinion, the procedures he uses are entirely consistent with legislation. Contrary to what has been said, he does not impose discipline before a hearing is offered. In most cases, negotiations occur and a hearing is not requested by the respondent. There was an allegation made at the last senate meeting that there was, in March 1993, an instance when a hearing was not offered. He has asked Provost/Vice Chancellor Watters to speak to this issue since, during the case referred to, he (the Chancellor) was having surgery for prostate cancer. Provost Watters stated that he does not question the belief of the respondents; however, there apparently was mis- communication and misunderstanding. The respondent's attorney denied administration direct access to the respondents, but administration told the attorney that the respondents were entitled to request a hearing. Administration believed that the respondents knew a hearing was available, had always expected a request for one, and was surprised when no such request came. Provost Watters read from relevant correspondence and depositions in support of his statements. Senator Van Horne rose with a point of personal privilege. He noted that this was the last senate meeting for Interim Secretary of the University and Professor Emerita Marilyn Miller, who has served the senate long and well, and asked the senate to rise to a standing ovation, which it did. Professor Miller was touched and grateful for the senate's kind regard. In response to a question by Professor Petering about the Chancellor's evaluation, the Chancellor replied that he had written a letter to the faculty on this topic and had it delivered to every senator. Professor Petering, noting that in the Chancellor's letter he indicated that he had asked that another evaluation be conducted in 1998, asked what steps had been taken. Chancellor Schroeder replied that a report from an additional survey taken in 1998 will be made public. In 1993, a different process was approved by this body, and he has and will continue to abide by that process for his first evaluation. 2. Professor Margo Anderson, Chairperson of the University Committee, reported the following: i) The University Committee has set up, on its home page, an electronic forum called uc-forum. ii) A copy of the results of the Faculty Needs survey is available to senators at the back of the room (a copy is on file with the minutes in the Secretary of the University's office.) iii) She agrees with the Chancellor; now is the time to contact legislators; iv) She said that she was disappointed at the approach taken by the Chancellor regarding the controversy between the three respondents in the 1993 case and the Chancellor. After the last senate meeting, she contacted both Senator Pope and Chancellor Schroeder and asked for documentation from each side in the hope that the University Committee could provide a resolution to the senate in connection with the forthcoming discussion of Fac. Doc. No. 2090. She had received documentation from Senator Pope; the senate heard from the Chancellor today. In response to a question by Senator Hossein, Chancellor Schroeder said that the list of names of the Milwaukee members of the Joint Finance Committee that was distributed to the senate by Sandra Hoeh-Lyon was available to all faculty. 3. There was no representative from the Student Association present. II. ROLL CALL Parliamentarian George Baker and thirty-nine senators were present. Senators Richard Graham, David Mulroy, Jane Nardin, James Sappenfield, Gunol Kojasoy, Mark McBride, Ronald Perez, Rhonda Jeffries, Vincent Adesso, and Judith Kenny were recorded as absent. III. AUTOMATIC CONSENT BUSINESS 1. The minutes of the senate meeting held on April 17, 1997 were corrected. The first sentence in the third paragraph of Business VI. 1. on page 4, should be changed to read "Information from Peter Watson-Boone, Director of the Library, was read." The minutes were approved as corrected. 2. The 1995-96 annual report of the Library Committee 2092 was received. 3. The 1996-97 annual reports from the following committees were received Extension Policy Committee 2093 Senate Subcommittee on the Evaluation of 2094 Administrators IV. CHANCELLOR'S REPORT The Chancellor reported that Item #7 (Fac. Doc. No. 2072, Revised) has been approved by UWM Administration and will be forwarded to system and that Item #8 (Fac. Doc. No. 2091, Amended) has been received and is being worked on. The Chancellor's report was received. V. SPECIAL ORDERS OF BUSINESS 1. Election to Fill Four Vacancies on the Senate Subcommittee on the Evaluation of Administrators The following nominations for the Senate Subcommittee on the Evaluation of Administrators were received: Robert Schwartz, Philosophy; Virginia Stoffel, Health Sciences; and Winston Van Horne, Africology. In the absence of objection, these three were declared elected. The University Committee will be asked to appoint a senator to fill the remaining vacancy. [All of the newly-elected members will have three- year terms.] 2. Election on the 1997-98 Faculty Senate Rules Committee The following nominations were received: A&H: Kristie Hamilton, English David Mulroy, Languages, Literatures, and Linguistics PRO: Genevieve McBride, Mass Communication Anne Teeter, Educational Psychology Winston Van Horne, Africology NS: Donald Solomon, Math Sciences SS: Susan Lima, Psychology The nominations were closed. President pro tem O'Bryan pointed out that Anne Teeter was the only nominee who was eligible to serve as Chair and President pro tem, since all other nominees were members of the College of Letters & Science and were not eligible this year. Ballots were distributed and the election proceeded. VI. BUSINESS 1. Recommendation of the Department of Languages, 2095 Literatures, and Linguistics To Change Its Name to the Department of Foreign Languages and Linguistics Professor Ward, Chairperson of the Department of Languages, Literatures, and Linguistics, presented the proposal, noting that the first name was chosen in somewhat of a hurry. The department has now had time to consider, and recommends the change. MOTION (Van Horne/seconded): To approve Fac. Doc. No. 2095. The motion to change the department's name was approved on a voice vote. 2. Final report of the Academic Planning and Budget 2084 Committee on the Design and Mechanism of Academic 2nd Rev Program Reviews It was pointed out, that although this document is referred to as a work in progress on the agenda, it is actually the APBC's final report, which is presented now for approval. MOTION (Anderson/Teeter): To approve Fac. Doc. No. 2084, 2nd Revision. Professor Petering, Chairperson of the APBC, presented the report. Senator Teeter thanked the committee for being responsive to the concerns expressed by the senate at previous meetings and noted that she could now support the proposal. Senator Schwartz asked if the $1 million allocated "to invigorate the program array review" would be new money or old money? Professor Petering replied that that was a little indefinite. He understands that it may come from the enrollment contingency fund. Senator Mbalia, while agreeing with the responsiveness of the committee, said that she still had fundamental reservations about programs being compared to one another, even though not comparable. Professor Petering responded that on page 6, #3, the programs will be grouped by general area. Senator Frank said that she thinks that the Academic Program and Curriculum Committee (APCC) and the Committee on Review (COR) can compare similar programs. Senator O'Bryan asked again where the money would come from. Professor Petering replied that, according to the Vice Chancellor, it would come from the enrollment contingency fund. His own view is that it should be funded by new money obtained from the state's windfall. Senator McBride noted that Chancellor Schroeder had said that the program array reviews could be used for soliciting money. The Chancellor agreed that he had said, in the UWM Report, that it would help to guide and identify new funding sources. Senator Van Horne asked if this document came to the senate as a zero sum, zero dollars project? Professor Petering replied that $1 million will be available in 1998-99. If it comes from enrollment contingency funds, it's still a zero- sum game; if from outside funds, not zero sum anymore. Senator Schwartz asked what the data would look like? Would it tell which departments need help? Professor Petering and Chancellor Schroeder agreed that it would not necessarily tell the ten best departments, but that the data could be used by a department to get help. Senator Anderson noted that the usefulness of the $1 million is that it would provide incentive to bid for and accountability to look at when the process is done. Where the money came from, where it was spent could be determined. It's a dare--a good one to take. Dare to find more millions to do what we need with money we should have. Senator Arora said that after the review process, some of the departments will have been shown to be weak. How is it decided whether a department is terminally ill versus a department that needs an infusion of money? Professor Petering replied that the Academic Program and Curriculum Committee and the Committee on Reviews will review and make decisions. They have been given their charge on page 8 of the document. So, your fellow faculty will be involved in the review and decision. Professor Ryder noted that as he reads the document, it could stand as policy even if the faculty voted it down. Professor Petering agreed. Vice Chancellor/Provost Watters replied that administration is not technically bound to use this; however, it is a good procedure, so they will probably use this or a slightly modified version of it. MOTION TO AMEND (Schwartz/Davida): In the 3rd line on page 9, insert the words "new money" between "$1,000,000" and "in 1998-99..." Senator Harris asked if this were feasible? Senator Schwartz replied that, given a $230 million surplus, it should be possible. Chancellor Schroeder asked what is meant by new money. If enrollment goes up, UWM would get more money. Is that new? Senator Schwartz said that he thought Professor Petering was talking about new money when this report first came forward. Professor Petering replied that he thinks the APBC will understand what is meant by new money when it considers the budget next year. Dean Goodman was recognized. He pointed out that $1 million was barely enough to fund one new position. Professor Petering said that he still thinks that we should go to the state for money; the state highly favors program array review. Senator O'Bryan asked why then the committee's report didn't say "the system" rather than "the campus" will allocate? Professor Yannay asked if the report means that if a department gets any of the $1 million, it would be a permanent base reallocation? Senator Frank said that she would vote against the amendment. Reallocation isn't always bad and we wouldn't want to handcuff ourselves. Van Horne spoke for the amendment, Senator McBride against. Senator Kritek suggested that we leave it as is with the understanding that if there is new money, OK; otherwise reallocate. On a show-of-hands vote, the motion to amend failed: 9 YES, 24 NO. MOTION TO AMEND (Van Horne/Schwartz): On page 5 in the last line of Section C, change "every 5 years." to "every 10 years." Senator Van Horne noted that we would have trouble getting people to serve on review committees. Professor Petering said that the committee thought 10 years was a bit too long, and that 5 years would be reasonable. They hoped to coordinate with reviews by COR and APCC as well. Senator Teeter agreed that 10 years was too long and that 5 years was not uncommon. Senator Van Horne noted that the Academic Program and Curriculum Committee can't get people for its reviews. Senator Aborampah called the senate's attention to page 9, second paragraph, second line from the bottom of the report. MOTION TO AMEND THE AMENDMENT (Aborampah/seconded): To change "every 5 years" to "every 5 to 10 years." On a show of hands, the motion to amend the amendment failed: 15 YES, 17 NO. On a show of hands, the motion to amend failed: 12 YES, 19 NO. MOTION TO AMEND (Van Horne/seconded): On page 6, #3, delete the word "Initially". The motion to amend was approved on a voice vote. On a voice vote, Fac. Doc. No. 2084, Second Revision, was approved as amended. V. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS (Continued) 3. Election of Chair for Faculty Senate Rules Committee It was announced that the following senators had been elected to the Faculty Senate Rules Committee: Kristie Hamilton, Susan Lima, Genevieve McBride, Donald Solomon, and Anne Teeter. It was noted that as the only eligible member, Senator Teeter was automatically declared the chair and president pro tem. VI. BUSINESS (Continued) 3. Recommendation by the Codification Committee That 2090 the Faculty Senate of UWM 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 Chancellor Schroeder asked President pro tem O'Bryan to assume the chair. Senator Solomon, a member of the Codification Committee, noted that Fac. Doc. No. 2090 should read that "The Codification Committee makes the following recommendation to the Faculty Senate", rather than to the University Committee. MOTION (Solomon/Schwartz): That Fac. Doc. No 2090 be approved. Professor Luce was recognized. He said that the Chancellor had scolded the Codification Committee for not proposing legislation to reconcile the two points of view; however, in conversation with the Chancellor, he had pointed out that no legislation was needed if the Office of University/ Compliance conducted the investigation and submitted it to the Faculty Rights and Responsibilities Committee. MOTION TO AMEND (Kritek/seconded): To add the following Whereas, nothing in this resolution is intended to interfere with the chancellor's responsibility to act in an emergency; Senator Hossein asked what he meant by "emergency". Senator Kritek replied that an emergency would necessitate the chancellor to act quickly, before a committee could be convened. He added that Professor Luce has said that this resolution would not preclude the chair or chancellor from acting in an emergency, and he is just trying to codify that. The motion to amend was approved on a voice vote. MOTION TO AMEND (Van Horne/Frank): To amend the "Therefore be it Resolved" section as follows Replace (1) with "to make use of the administrative route only in those rare cases in which immediate action is essential for the good of the institution"; The original (3) becomes (2); A new (3) "to entertain the advice of the Faculty Rights and Responsibilities Committee prior to any final decision in administering discipline"; The current (2) becomes (4). Senator Van Horne said that this seems to satisfy the concerns that have been raised and also, importantly, brings the FRRC into the loop. Senator McBride indicated her concern with the statement "for the good of the university" and suggested that it be struck. Senator Van Horne had no objection. Senator Teeter said that she was concerned that someone may not want the complaint to go to the FRRC. Senator Harris observed that the current (2) already calls for the complaint to go to the FRRC, so isn't the new amended (3) redundant? Senator Schwartz said that he would like to hear Professor Luce's reaction to Senator Van Horne's amendment. Professor Luce was recognized and said that Senator Van Horne's amendments would not do. Fact finding must be completed before anything goes to the chancellor. Professor Anderson urged the senate to vote on the original motion--either up or down, then new language can be written to clarify procedures. The amendment was defeated on a voice vote. Tory Boswell, Chairperson of the Academic Staff Committee, was recognized. She said that the ASC believes that the resolution, as written, infringes on the rights of academic staff, will have a chilling effect on students and academic staff filing complaints, and speaks only to one component of governance. Senator Schneider, speaking from her experience as acting dean, said that some complaints that went to the FRRC were tied up for two or three years; administration needs the ability to intervene. At 4:30 p.m., it was announced that the time for this item was up; therefore, it was postponed to Unfinished Business. 4. Economic Benefits Committee Recommendation that an 2096 Ad Hoc Committee Consider the Desirability and Viability of Establishing a "University Club" for Faculty and Staff at UWM and Report Back to the Senate by Spring 1998 MOTION (Ryder/Gratz): To approve Fac. Doc. No. 2096. The motion was approved on a voice vote. 5. Recommendation by the Department of Anthropology 2097 and Divisional Executive Committees of Arts & Humanities and Social Sciences to Recommend that the Department of Anthropology Have Dual Affiliation in the Divisions of Arts & Humanities and in Social Sciences MOTION (Anderson/Van Horne): To approve Fac. Doc. No. 2097. Professor Trudy Turner, Chairperson of the Department of Anthropology, presented the motion. The motion was approved on a voice vote. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Discussion of Faculty Document No. 2090 continued. Senator Schwartz said that the Kritek amendment allays any fears that the chancellor cannot act in an emergency; our procedures as now written were approved by the faculty, the then chancellor, system and the regents; and they were written to preserve due process. Discussion continued. Senator Murphy said that she was sympathetic to the fact that a student may not bring a complaint against a faculty member if it was to be judged by a faculty committee without intervening neutral examination. Professor Luce said that assistance by an investigating officer would be both welcome and helpful. Professor Blau was recognized. He spoke in favor of the resolution, saying that he believed that the Office of Diversity/Compliance needs faculty oversight. Senator Schwartz said there is no evidence that students are better off with that office. Senator Van Horne said that he now sees this resolution as an attack on the Office of Diversity/Compliance, which he finds to be extremely troublesome. A motion was made and seconded to extend the discussion until 5 p.m. The motion was approved with one dissenting vote. Professor Anderson said that this was a difficult issue. She will vote for the resolution, but would not fault anyone voting against it. She would like the senate to vote, however, so that the University Committee knows how to proceed. Senator Berkman said that this issue is about due process. Senator Tatham asked Professor Anderson what a vote means. She responded that the University Committee needs guidance and needs the sense of the faculty. If the resolution fails, the University Committee will rewrite UWM's policies and procedures to better explicate the administrative route. If the resolution passes, the University Committee will bring various alternatives to the senate for its consideration in the fall. Senator McBride was assured any such legislation would come before the senate. SUBSTITUTE MOTION (Frank/Van Horne): Directs the University Committee to revise policy and procedures relating to complaints against faculty members and bring forward to the senate. Professor Anderson said that the issue is that the University Committee does not have the sense of this body. She doesn't know if the faculty is satisfied with the administrative route or not. Senator Schneider said that we may want some compromise, rather than having to choose between this or that. Senator Schwartz said that if we want to amend our policies and procedures, we can do it, but in the meantime we have policies and procedures that are not being followed. This resolution says that until we have new rules, the current rules must be followed. Senator Van Horne observed that even if the resolution is approved, the Chancellor will ignore it. The substitute motion failed on a show of hands: 7 YES, 23 NO. A motion to extend the meeting for 5 minutes was approved on a voice vote with one dissenting vote. Senator Hamilton expressed her concern that the concerns of the academic staff are not taken seriously. She would like that issue taken up. Senator Greene requested a signed paper ballot. Ballots were distributed, collected and counted Fac. Doc. No. 2090, as amended, was approved: 22 YES, 5 NO, 3 Abstentions. VIII. GENERAL GOOD AND WELFARE President pro tem O'Bryan was thanked for his work. Senator McBride thanked David Luce for his extraordinary effort in bringing this issue to the senate. There being no further business, the senate adjourned at 5:07 p.m. Marilyn E. Miller Interim Secretary of the University