UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN - MILWAUKEE
FACULTY SENATE MEETING
M I N U T E S
Thursday, November 19,1998; 2:30 p.m.; Enderis Hall 189
UWM. FAC.
DOC. NO.
 
I. COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS 
 
1. Chancellor Zimpher introduced Mark Zoromski of the Mass Communications Department who reported on the student produced weekly campus TV newscast. He showed a short video of segments from the news cast, contrasting it with a clip of UW Madison's student newscast. The newscast can be seen on the cable HEC channel. 

The Chancellor reviewed her past month's activities representing UWM off campus and listed many successful events.

Chancellor Zimpher reported that she had reorganized her staff, expanding it to a "cabinet" with full representation from the campus community. The Chairs of the Academic Staff Committee, the University Committee, the Student Association, and a representative of the classified staff, and others will serve on the Chancellor's Cabinet.

 
Question: There appears to be some movement in method of evaluating academic units. What is the situation?
Answer: The System is shifting to revenue based budgeting. This will mean going from student credit hours to other accountability indicators. 
 
2. R. Ryder stated that budgeting is changing to revenue based budgeting and the University Committee is starting discussions with the faculty Academic Planning and Budget Committee on the academic repercussions. He stated that the University Committee was very concerned.
 
Question: J. Sweetland asked when the new process would start.
Answer: Provost Watters replied that we would start revenue targeting this summer and revenue based budgeting would be a future step.
Question:  I. Harris asked what would be the change.
Answer:  Provost Watters replied that we would count dollars rather than heads. Revenue would be based on tuition returns. 
 
Concern was raised as to what this would mean to faculty work loads especially in small units.
 
R. Ryder summarized the status of procedures for faculty discipline. The University Committee had drafted proposed legislation last year but Chancellor Schroeder was in disagreement with some of the specifics. The University Committee is revising the proposed legislation and hopes to bring the legislation to the senate in the near future.
The University Committee is soliciting departmental comment on the Milwaukee Commitment document. A committee including significant faculty representation is being set up to rewrite the document.
President Lyall has asked for a pay package of 5.2% in each year of the next biennium. Conventional wisdom is saying that we will be lucky to get 2.5% to 3% from the legislature. Some other System campuses are asking for a resolution requesting 6% to8%. This would appear to be a mistimed effort and contact with legislatures with reference to President Lyall's request would appear to be in order.
The University Committee has discussed establishing a System wide committee to devise a mechanism to bring faculty salaries up to the medium salaries for peer institutions and maintain them at that level. 
The UW System auditors are looking at sick leave usage on several campuses (not UWM). For the purposes of sick leave accounting they are defining a 7:45 to 4:30 work day and a 40 hour work week. Since this definition bears little relevance to faculty work day or work week, there is a need to establish a mechanism for realistic reporting of faculty workload and a working definition of colleague coverage.
 
Question: W. Van Horne asked if this meant that a faculty member's obligation was restricted to 40 hours a week. 
Answer: No, the 40 hours a week relates only to sick leave accumulation and does not refer to an actual work week.
 
3. D. Petering, Chairperson of the faculty Academic Planning and Budget Committee, gave a brief summary of the status of the Program Array Review. He posed and answered three questions.
 
a. Is the document available to the senate? 
Answer: The document was sent to the department chairs for access to all faculty.
b. Will their be an evaluation of the PAR process?
Answer: Yes, probably next semester or in the fall.
c. Will there be a PAR type review of administrative units?
Answer: It is anticipated that the administration will conduct such a review next year.
 
D. Petering reported that there is a one time amount of funds and a base allocation in the budget for use in response to the PAR. Proposals will be coming from the units. The Provost will decide on where the funds should go in consultation with the fAPBC.
 
Question: M. Schwartz asked the identity of who will review the PAR.
Answer: The fAPBC will organize the review.
Question: C. Lee asked the source of the funds coming.
Answer: From internal sources, not from outside.
Question: Can't we get new monies to carry out the PAR recommendations?
Answer: It is hoped that the funds will have a multiplier effect and result in some new funds from outside.
Question: B. Schwartz asked if the evaluation would summarize which recommendations were implemented and which were not.
Answer: It is expected that it will.
Question: I. Harris asked if the PAR process will replace the APCC cycle of reviews.
Answer: Provost Watters said that the PAR is different and would not replace the review cycle of individual programs.
 
4. Student Association Report: The students gave a power point presentation on their concerns and activities. 
Their number one priority is improved advising. Needed are more and better trained advisors as well as more full time professional advisors. 
With respect to diversity, the students support a multi cultural resource center.
A third priority is increased financial aid. Tuition is raising faster than state funding resulting in problems with retention with special impact on minorities. Requested is a cap on tuition with tuition rising slower than the cost of living.
 
Question: Would a tuition freeze have an effect on minority enrollment? 
Answer: Definitely.
 
II. SENATE ROLL CALL
 
The Parliamentarian and 39 senators were present. Senators J. Bowers, F. Eckman, W. Laufer, A. Martin, J. Wolf, Y. Yannay, D. Barlow, K. Baugrud, J. Fisher, R. Gratz, B. Hart, and G. Schneider, were listed as absent.
 
III. AUTOMATIC CONSENT BUSINESS
 
 
4.  A memorial Resolution for Professor Emerita Ruth McGaffey, Department of Communication was read by Assistant Professor Lisa Bradford, Department Communication. 

The Senate rose for a moment of silent tribute.

 
IV. CHANCELLOR'S REPORT
The Chancellor's report was received.
 
V. REPORT
 
1. Chancellor Zimpher gave a report on the developments Re: The Milwaukee Idea.
The Center for Urban Initiatives and Research is providing an organizational home with staffing for the effort. The affinity groups are organized and convening. Each affinity group has a reflector and it is planned to set up chat groups across all affinities. The next Plenary will be on December 9, 1998. Subsequent ones will be in January and February with the final product brought forth on March 6, at the Chancellor's inauguration.
 
R. Ryder posed two questions that re concerning faculty:
 
Question: There is concern relative to the distribution of resources. What will be left on campus for development after all the off campus promises?
Answer: Of course there will be costs involved. The intent is to develop partnership initiatives. These will help in the major capital campaign that is contemplated. We will have to look for venture capital sources, including new external funding sources. There will be some reallocation possible depending on the strength and viability of ideas.
 
Question: 

Answer:

Will the Milwaukee Idea replace the strategic plan? Will the final document come to the Faculty Senate for consideration?

No, the Milwaukee Idea doesn't replace the Strategic Plan. The Milwaukee Idea will present ways to build on the commitments made in the Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan and also the PAR are consistent with the Milwaukee Idea. 

 
P. Teeter commented that the discussions must emphasize the understanding of independent research. Whatever we highlight we must maintain our independence and not become an arm of those with an agenda. Chancellor Zimpher responded that the robust quality of the research will remain. Some will be redirected as happens at present.
P. Teeter commented that the charter school decision was a political decision with no faculty interaction, and no deliberation in the senate. The Chancellor replied that this was a political decision handed to us from outside the campus and that we must build research quality into public policy. We must respond to the community but must not compromise the quality of our research in doing so.
M. Hossain commented we must have the resources to continue what we are doing. We must not decrease our resources by increasing community activities. Chancellor Zimpher replied that we are looking for ways to increase our funding. We have a six figure development goal that must depend on community based partnership goals. We must crystalize common objectives to gain resources. Currently we are not focused, not interdisciplinary, and fail to make an impact. Making explicit what we do might be a lightning rod to attract new resources.
 
VI. BUSINESS
 
1. Motion by the University Committee regarding the change in membership of the PEC (UWM Policies and Procedures, A3.6) in which the Chancellor will become an ex-officio member of the committee and a faculty member is elected chairperson. 

Motion ( J. Moore/ L. Glass) to approve Faculty Document # 2167.

Motion passed by a voice vote.

2167 
 
VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None
 
VIII. GENERAL GOOD AND WELFARE
Nothing

There being no further business, the Senate adjourned at 4:08 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,
George S. Baker
Secretary of the University