UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN - MILWAUKEE FACULTY SENATE MEETING M I N U T E S Thursday, February 19, 1998; 2:30 p.m.; CURTIN 175 UWM. FAC. DOC. NO. I. COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS 1. Chancellor Schroeder reported that the change in the calendar moving the spring semester of 1999 to one week later to accommodate an intersession has impacted the commencement ceremony. The arena is booked on the time specified by the calendar (May 23 ) and our choices are limited: May 16, early in finals; Saturday morning May 22 at 9:00 or 10:00 a.m. (subsequently found not to be viable); or Friday evening May 21. He will ask the University Committee to discuss the problem and refer it to an appropriate committee. In the last few years there have been base cuts due to low enrollment. It appears that the efforts increasing enrollments are paying off in the budget. The base budget give back scheduled this year ($354,000) is canceled and, if increases in enrollment continue, it is likely that there won't be enrollment driven give backs in the future. Chancellor Schroeder gave a review of the parking situation. He indicated that it was imperative that the governmental processes proceed to its conclusion. To do nothing would make the situation worse this fall. The Waukesha bus program would lapse and the faculty/staff U-Pass would not be funded. In response to a question the chancellor stated that the campus could not budget for cancellation of the enrollment driven base budget cuts until the enrollment target had been exceeded for two years in a row. The campus is currently 500 FTE below target. 2. Professor E. Murphy gave a report on the Chancellor Search and Screen Committee progress. The DER report on chancellor's salaries has gone to the Governor and his position should become clear soon. There are more than 50 active candidates on file. The committee is on schedule and expects an appointment in May. The names of finalists will become public when Lyall gives the list to the Regents. It is expected that candidates will appear on campus for an informational exchange and there will be an opportunity for comments to be conveyed to Lyall. 3. Professor Anderson (University Committee) reported that visits by candidates would take a week or so. At Parkside they took two weeks. The University Committee is considering questions concerning faculty work load and intersession. The University Committee is recommending names for a Search and Screen Committee for Dean of Allied Health Professions. The Chair must be from outside the school. Faculty may send suggestions to the University Committee by e-mail. Two reports have been received from UW System with a request for review and response: a) Instructional Academic Staff Study b) Quality Through Diversity Plan These will be on the agenda for the March Faculty Senate meeting as discussion items. A question was raised as to how faculty in schools and colleges have an opportunity for input into the list of suggested DINs or new initiatives sent to System as part of the budget process. Provost Watters replied that the major input was through the annual planning documents of the departments and schools/colleges. This year System asked for one page papers on each DIN. The administration put together seven DINs from inputs from the units which fit System expressed priorities. One priority specified by System was a proposal for technical investment. The criteria used by the administration were the campus strengths, needs, and opportunities. 5. Jessica Angus, President of the Student Association, reminded the senate that only the Student Association has the authority to appoint student members of faculty committees. She also reported that there were problems with procedures and security at the last late night event. Students felt that they were insulted and treated badly. Some were turned away. Chancellor Schroeder replied that students can have events and that students can use the Union 24 hours a day. There is a need to avoid problems on campus and in the neighborhood and non student use must be regulated. II. SENATE ROLL CALL The Parliamentarian and 41 senators were present. Senators J. Bowers, S. Emmons, R. Fox, L. Glass, B. Hart, R. Hutz, G.McBride, R. Steinpreis, B. Wishne were listed as absent. III. AUTOMATIC CONSENT BUSINESS 1. Minutes of the Faculty Senate meetings of December 18, 1997 and January 22, 1998 were approved as submitted. IV. BUSINESS 1. Motion from the Economic Benefits Committee that the 2132 Senate request that the Chancellor delay any action on any proposal to increase parking fees until such time that the campus community, under the auspices of the Senate of the Academic Staff and the Faculty Senate, has an opportunity to discuss the issue throughly. Michael Gordon presented the proposal. He stated that there was no desire to stop the process of shared governance, but that the process must go in the right direction and the current direction was not acceptable. He stated that some viewed the level of the increase proposed as punitive. The necessary time line for a decision was requested. The answer was that the base budget had to be established near April 1 in order to go to the Regents for their action in June. R. Schwartz asked for an explanation of what specifically the motion was requesting. M. Gordon replied that the motion stands as read. The level of anger means that the discussion must continue. M. L. Collins reported that the Transportation Subcommittee had met in the morning. The subcommittee felt that the central issue was the magnitude of the steep increase in fees. It was suggested that a more incremental approach to the increase would be more appropriate. A 25% increase would retain the pluses without such a high increase. A major problem is the lack of data to allow modeling the effect of an increase. An incremental approach would give data points for modeling. B. Brummett stated that the motion did not correspond to the rational. R. Skalitzky asked for the status of the W. Holahan proposal. M. Anderson said that W. Holahan was encouraged that some of the parts of his proposal were now folded into the administration's proposal. The Chancellor stated that W. Holahan was working closely with the parking office to provide a technically viable proposal. The motion was made and seconded to approve Faculty Document #2132 A roll call vote was conducted. Senators Agada, Anderson, Arnold, Berkman, Cross, Davida, Drago, Eckman, Gordon, Hall, Hossain, Jeffries, Kritek, Lee, Lima, Mbalia, Pope, Ryder, Schneider, R. Schwartz, Skalitzky, Solomon, Stoffel, Tatham, Teeter, V‚lez, Verdier and Yannay voted positively. Senators Aborampah, Bradford, Brummett, Day, Dunning, Harris, M. Schwartz, M. McBride, McRoy, Mulroy and Saemann voted negatively. Senator Van Horne abstained. Motion passed: 28 yes, 11 no, 1 abstain. 2. Report from the Faculty Academic Planning & Budget Committee on the Program Array Reviews: D. Petering gave a summary and explanation of the origin of and the methodology followed in the reviews. Those programs determined to need attention due to deficiencies have been asked to write a response. A final report and list will be sent to the Provost. Drago asked if there was a difference from the numerical results provided by Institutional Research and the review results. Petering replied that there were differences. The committee looked at the numerical indicators but interpreted their meaning and made judgements based on the narratives and rebuttals. There was some overlap but also differences. A motion was made, seconded and passed to extend the discussion by 10 minutes. D. Schultz stated that he believed the process to be seriously flawed. a. The reviewers should have met with the department and discussed the conclusions. b. Comparisons should have been with peer programs at the national level rather than with dissimilar programs on campus. c. There were errors of fact in the report. d. Petering replied that the program rebuttals solved many of the problems. Since all data was normalized to FTE faculty, absolute program size was not a factor. Y.Yannay asked for the time line of recommendations from the committee and how we would know a year from now if the process made a difference. D. Petering replied that a final report would go to the Provost by the end of the semester and the fAPBC will keep track of the process to make sure issues are dealt with. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Nothing VI. GENERAL GOOD AND WELFARE Nothing There being no further business, the Senate adjourned at 4:05 p.m.