Approved Minutes (2012-03-16) - University of … · He asked that everyone download the plan from the lunchtime discussion held ... Study Co-Coordinators Holly Hassel and Katie Kalish

1

Minutes of UW Colleges Senate Meeting…………………………..…….……………………....3

Minutes of UW Colleges Faculty Council of Senators Meeting………..………………….……11

Minutes of UW Colleges Academic Staff Council of Senators Meeting …………….....…..…..15

Attachment 1: UW Colleges Senate Schedule and Agenda…………………………………17-19

UW Colleges Faculty Council of Senators Meeting Agenda …………………..20

UW Colleges Academic Staff Council of Senators Meeting Agenda………......21

Attachment 2: UW Colleges Provost and Vice Chancellor Report……………………………..22

Attachment 3: UW Colleges Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs Report................28

Attachment 4: UW Colleges Associate Vice Chancellor for Student Services and

Enrollment Management Report………………………..………………….…….30

Attachment 5: Senate Steering Committee Chair/UW Colleges Faculty Representative

to UW System Administration Report…………………………………………...32

Attachment 6: UW Colleges Academic Staff Lead Senator Report………….…...…………….36

Attachment 7: UW Colleges Academic Staff Representative to UW System Administration

Report………………………………………………………….……………..…..37

Attachment 8: UW Colleges Student Governance Council President Report............…………..39

Attachment 9: UW Colleges Senate Academic Policy Committee Chair Report…………….…40

Attachment 10: UW Colleges Senate Budget Committee Chair Report……………..………….41

Attachment 11: UW Colleges Faculty Professional Standards Committee Chair Report........…42

Attachment 12: UW Colleges Senate Assessment Committee Chair Report..…………….……43

Attachment 13: UW Colleges Senate Student Survey of Instruction Working Group

Chair Report………………………………………………….…………………44

Attachment 14: Adoption: Proposed Revision of IP #106 (“Atypical Course Policy”)...............49

Attachment 15: Introduction: Proposed Revision of IP #202 (“Academic Procedures and

Regulations”)……………………………….......................................................51

Attachment 16: Introduction: Proposed Revision of IP #101 (“Associate of Arts and Science

Degree”)………………………………………………………………………...55

2

Attachment 17: Introduction: Proposed Revision of FPP #501 (“Criteria and General

Procedures for Appointment, Retention, Tenure Progress, Tenure, and

Promotion (Bylaws)”)..........................................................................................57


Degree”)………………………………………………………………………...60


Degree”)………………………………………………………………………...63

Attachment 20: Adoption: Proposed Revision of FPP #501 (“Criteria and General



Attachment 21: Adoption: Proposed Revision of FPP #501 (“Criteria and General



Attachment 22: Introduction: Proposed Revision of FPP #501 (“Criteria and General



Attachment 23: Introduction: Proposed Revision of ASPP #804 (“Non-renewal of

Fixed-Term Renewable Appointments”)……………………………………….79

Attachment 24: ASPP #704 (“Administrative Academic Staff (Category A) Promotion

Policy”)………………………………………………………………………....83

Attachment 25: UW Colleges Constitution Chapter 8-Appointments and Promotions of

Academic Staff (Category A. - Non-instructional and Category B. -

Instructional)………………………………………………………….………..85

3

UW COLLEGES

Senate Friday, March 16, 2012

UW-Fox Valley

2:25 p.m. – 4:15 p.m.

MINUTES

2011-2012 Senators Present: Dale Murray, UW-Baraboo/Sauk County; David Caithamer and

Troy Kozma, UW-Barron County; Paisley Harris, UW-Fond du Lac; Bill Gillard,

Richard Krupnow, and Marc Sackman, UW-Fox Valley; Dave Dettman, Aaron Steffen,

and Paul Whitaker, UW-Marathon County; Jeff Verona, UW-Marshfield/Wood County;

George Henze and Aharon Zorea, UW-Richland; Bob Hein, UW-Rock County; Becky

Mullane and Matt Raunio, UW-Sheboygan; Mark Peterson, UW-Washington County;

Ron Gulotta, Barb Reinhart, and Elizabeth Zanichkowsky, UW-Waukesha; Geoff

Murray, Ian Reese, and Matthew Riedel, Student Senators

2011-2012 Senators Absent: Marc Boucher, UW-Baraboo/Sauk County; Berel Lutsky, UW-

Manitowoc; Mark Klemp, UW-Marinette; Iddi Adam and Dan McCollum, UW-

Marshfield/Wood County

2011-2012 Alternates Present: Bobbie Boettcher, UW-Baraboo/Sauk County (Marc

Boucher); Mary Ann Bazile, UW-Fox Valley (Dan McCollum); Amanda Hakemian,

UW-Marshfield/Wood County (Iddi Adam)

Others Present: Rich Barnhouse, Associate Vice Chancellor for Student Services and

Enrollment Management; Dave Brigham, Director of UW Colleges Distance Education;

Ray Cross, Chancellor; Pam Dollard, Director of Human Resources; Craig Hurst,

Department Chairs’ Representative; Greg Lampe, Provost and Vice Chancellor; Harry

Muir, Deans’ Representative; Lisa Seale, Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic

Affairs; Steve Wildeck, Vice Chancellor for Administrative and Financial Services for

UW Colleges and UW-Extension; Patti Wise, Special Assistant to the Provost; Linda

Baum, Assistant to the Senate

Others Absent: Colleen Godfriaux, Assistant Vice Chancellor for Budget and Planning

1) The March 16, 2012 meeting of the UW Colleges Senate was called to order at 2:36 p.m. by

UW Colleges Senate Steering Committee (SSC) Chair Bill Gillard.

2) UW-Fox Valley Dean Martin Rudd welcomed the UW Colleges Senate to the campus, noting

that they were gathered in the very busy Baehman Theater. Noting that sets are created and

prepared there, he thought it a good place for much work to be done by the group. The dean

wished everyone safe travels back to their home campuses, and noting that spring break

started at the end of the day, cautioned that a productive meeting should be the goal first.

Dean Rudd was thanked with a round of applause.

4

3) Roll Call of 2011-2012 Senate and Introduction of Alternates. Assistant to the UW Colleges

Senate Linda Baum circulated the attendance sheet. SSC Chair Gillard introduced new

senators Troy Kozma, UW-Barron County, completing Cary Komoto’s term, and Ian Reese,

the new Student Governance Council Financial Director. Gillard next pointed out the three

alternates in attendance: Mary Ann Bazile (UW-Fox Valley Student Services) for Dan

McCollum (UW-Marshfield/Wood County), Bobbi Boettcher (UW-Baraboo/Sauk County

Student Services) for Marc Boucher (UW-Baraboo/Sauk County), and Amanda Hakemian

(UW-Marshfield/Wood County, Assistant Professor, Chemistry) for Iddi Adam (UW-

Marshfield/Wood County). Finally the guests at the Senate meeting were noted: Director of

Distance Education Dave Brigham, Director of Human Resources Pam Dollard, and Special

Assistant to the Provost Patti Wise.

4) The agenda (Attachment 1) for the March 16, 2012 UW Colleges Senate meeting was

approved by unanimous vote [Zanichkowsky/D. Murray].

5) The minutes of the January 11, 2012 meeting of the UWC Senate held at UW-

Marshfield/Wood County (found posted in Public Folders>All Public Folders>Governance>

Senate>Senate Minutes>2011-2012) were unanimously approved [Raunio/D. Murray].

6) Reports

a) Chancellor Ray Cross asked that the remarks given to the joint UWC-UWEX group prior

to the Senate meeting be considered his report. Those comments are summarized here.

The chancellor first spoke of the Legislative Task Force. He believes their work will be

completed on time, and he doubts UW-Madison will be separated from the rest of the

UW System. He does feel that there seems to be strong support for the construction of

advisory boards, and that additional flexibilities around procurement and purchasing are

likely. Chancellor Cross had addressed the task force regarding transfer credit issues.

The chancellor holds that the UW System needs to work on degree completion

agreements. He is very firm in the belief that a receiving institution must be able to say

yes or no regarding acceptance of transfer credits because it is their degree that has the

potential to be harmed, and no one should be able to force an institution to accept certain

credits.

There are many questions and rumors surrounding the budget lapse and the possibility of

another lapse. However, said Chancellor Cross, there are no credible sources currently

saying that an additional lapse is forthcoming. That is certainly subject to change. The

UW System is starting to work on the next biennium budget, and may utilize a concurrent

public message to put pressure on the legislature regarding the importance of funding the

UW System.

Chancellor Cross reminded the assembly that WiscNet provides internet services for all

public libraries in the state, many K-12 schools, local governments, hospitals and the like.

A sunset clause is set for the end of June 2013. Another recent twist is that the definition

5

has been changed to include dark fibers. The chancellor said that while other states are

loosening the regulations, Wisconsin is tightening them. One state is even arguing to

make the services available to new businesses as a benefit for a few years. Wisconsin,

the chancellor then pointed out, has over twenty companies offering these services,

whereas New York for example, has seven.

The chancellor mentioned the lag in technology between other countries and our own,

giving the example of the extreme high speed internet that South Korean homes are going

to have. Chancellor Cross used that to move into the question of how the institutions

might infuse technology into the classroom (whatever kind of classroom it might be). He

asked how to use the best tools to explain, deliver and organize information, and how

technology can be used to do what the institution does even better.

Streamlining administration is another interest Chancellor Cross addressed. He stated

that things like policy and the approval processes sometimes limit the ability to take

quick action because so much time and such a large number of people are required for

approval. The chancellor spoke of the need for the Central Offices to be able to provide

something cheaper or more effectively than campuses can do on their own, and the need

for a service culture mentality.

Chancellor Cross concluded by discussing the shift in focus from the strategic plan to the

operational plan. The operational plan is where pieces are fleshed out and specifics are

added. He asked that everyone download the plan from the lunchtime discussion held

earlier in the week, write their feedback on it, and send it to him.

b) Provost and Vice Chancellor Greg Lampe reported that he had been at UW-Sheboygan

with Chancellor Cross where a search advisory committee was charged with searching

for a new dean. Consequently, he could not be present for the update on the UW

Colleges’ reaccreditation report for the Higher Learning Commission (HLC) by the Self-

Study Co-Coordinators Holly Hassel and Katie Kalish earlier in the day. He directed

attention to his written report and (Attachment 2) announced that he and Associate Vice

Chancellor for Academic Affairs Lisa Seale had now received the drafts of chapters 1-7

for review. There will eventually be nine chapters, with the actual request for

accreditation of the Bachelor of Applied Arts and Sciences degree and reaccreditation of

the Associate of Arts and Science degree each having a short chapter. He and the

associate vice chancellor will be providing the co-coordinators with their feedback. The

HLC has appointed a chair for the UW Colleges peer review team. The chair will make a

preliminary site visit to the UW Colleges central offices in Madison in June. HLC Self-

Study Project Manager Christa James-Byrnes has developed a detailed timeline and

logistics plan for the November site visit. Mock visits to all 13 campuses and

administrative offices in Madison by unknown visitors will be held September 24-25.

James-Byrnes has shared the logistics (maps, directions, campus activities) detailing the

mock visits to campus deans. The Senate Steering Committee and senators will be

involved in the visits. The HLC Self-Study process will be discussed at the UW

Colleges’ Colloquium.

6

Next, the Provost provided a brief update on the Bachelor of Applied Arts and Sciences

(BAAS) degree. The actions the Senate took at the January 2012 meeting (adopting the

BAAS degree-related policies) were followed by Chancellor Cross approving those

policies. There has been excellent progress with developing a preliminary curriculum,

preparing the necessary documentation for the HLC accreditation visit, preliminary

planning on how to market the BAAS degree, and restructuring PRISM to accommodate

the BAAS degree.

The Academic Affairs Issues Integrated Enrollment Management (IEM) Committee met

for the last time in January 2012. The academic-related issues that had been identified

during several deans and chairs meetings were all addressed. The provost said that the

committee could be reconvened if necessary and thanked the committee members for the

difficult work that they had accomplished.

SSC Chair Gillard asked Provost Lampe if he could discuss the changes in benefit

eligibility for Instructional Academic Staff (IAS). The provost responded that the

changes apply to all employees, not just IAS. In the past, the percentage of employment

between semesters had been averaged; however, that practice was not in compliance and

will no longer be done. Now, if an employee is appointed below 50 percent employment

level for a period of more than three months, the employee will have to pay more for his

or her insurance. Senator Caithamer asked about coverage over the summer months.

Academic Staff Lead Senator Krupnow replied that it would be based on spring

appointment level if the person is projected to return; HR Director Dollard clarified that

the percentage one has in May would determine the premium rate through the summer.

Krupnow asked Dollard if annual contracts could be used instead of semester contracts.

She answered that any contract would need to reflect actual percentage worked, and the

premium is determined by payroll percentage. Lead AS Senator Krupnow also asked

whether the benefits changes would affect retirement, and HR Director Dollard said that

once someone is eligible for the retirement benefits, they remain eligible.

c) Associate Vice Chancellor Lisa Seale noted the location of her written report (Attachment

3) and began by updating the Senate on the work to create a Speakers Bureau as part of

the follow-up to the UW Colleges participation in the UWSA Task Force on Access to

Success (A2S) for Native American Students workshop. Experts are being sought from

tribal nations who are able to address UWC faculty and staff on topics such as tribal

economics and businesses, history, culturally sensitive teaching practices, and higher

education needs. The Office of Academic Affairs is receiving Curricular Change Forms

from the campuses. Associate Vice Chancellor Seale reviews these forms and presents

recommendations to the provost for his approval. She noted that some campuses have

changed the number of sections of courses offered by IAS, but added that most changes

are based on academic, rather than financial reasons. Associate Vice Chancellor Seale

said that there is a stable curriculum across the UW Colleges with a wide array of courses

being offered, as well as some new course offerings and courses being rearranged to

accommodate student needs.

d) Associate Vice Chancellor Rich Barnhouse (Attachment 4) stated that the UW Colleges’

7

enrollment numbers remain strong. The category that he particularly wanted to point out

was that of continuing students. Typically, continuing students is an issue institutions

struggle with, he said. However, the UW Colleges has seen an increase in the number of

students continuing, so he wanted to thank everyone for the role they played in keeping

students enrolled.

e) Senate Steering Committee Chair & UWC Faculty Representative Bill Gillard pointed

out the location of his written report in the Senate materials (Attachment 5). He noted the

Senate Student Survey of Instruction Working Group had finished their work and sent

their recommendations to Provost Lampe. Processes will be in place for the mandatory

semester of conducting surveys, he said, and thanked the group for their work. Director

of Distance Education Dave Brigham, in response to the requests for transparency

regarding Online policies, has set up a SharePoint site for Online policies. Though it has

limited access, documents are being added to it as they pass through the vetting process,

so it is a good start. SSC Chair Gillard thanked Aharon Zorea, Mark Klemp, and Iddi

Adam for working as the UW Colleges representatives to the co-located governance

meeting planning group. Senator Steffen related that he had very recently received his

Student Survey of Instruction forms, and the space for students to write in is about half

the size as it used to be; Steffen suggested that be reformatted. Provost Lampe stated that

he would discuss that issue with Karla Farrell, Instructional Designer for UW Colleges.

Senator Kozma asked if the comments were printed out as typed comments when they

were scanned. Gillard replied that he had been mistaken in previous statements, and that

comments were not converted to text, they were just scanned in as they were written. In

response to another question, SSC Chair Gillard replied that there was still a direction out

to a committee to look at the timing of when during the semester (such as during the last

two weeks) the surveys should be administered.

f) Academic Staff Lead Senator Richard Krupnow (Attachment 6) reported that Chancellor

Cross had rejected the hiring criteria approved by the Academic Staff Council of Senators

(ASCS) at the January meeting. The chancellor will be joining the ASCS meeting today

to discuss his reasons. Krupnow related that the University Personnel System work

group that he is part of has met frequent and had very lively discussions. Senator

Caithamer added that the Academic Staff Personnel Committee had sent a survey to IAS

about their working environment.

g) UW Colleges Academic Staff Representative Dan McCollum was not present. His

written report was noted in the binder of Senate materials (Attachment 7).

h) Student Governance Council President Geoff Murray (Attachment 8) announced that the

Shared Governance Implementation Plan passed the tenth campus earlier in the week.

SGC President Murray hopes to schedule a signing ceremony with Chancellor Cross

soon. He asked the senators to encourage interested, involved students to contact him

about becoming a part of SGC next year. Chancellor Cross complimented Murray for his

strong leadership throughout the year, and the Senate showed agreement with a round of

applause.

8

i) Senate Academic Policy Committee Chair Mark Peterson (Attachment 9) stated that the

committee had drafted some language around transfer credit appeals. The Senate

Academic Policy Committee (SAPC) would have some introductions later in the meeting.

SAPC Chair Peterson further reported that the committee plans to start reviewing IP

#301.01 to ensure that the new manner of conducting the SSI is covered correctly in the

policy.

j) Senate Budget Committee Chair Matt Raunio (Attachment 10) related that the Senate

Budget Committee (SBC) had looked at the UW Colleges budget in relation to the lapse

and suggested where more cuts might be made to alleviate those being passed along to

the campuses. The SBC also reviewed the cost effectiveness of the ESFY Program.

k) Faculty Professional Standards Committee Chair Ron Gulotta (Attachment 11) reported

that the committee has a number of items to coordinate with the Faculty Council of

Senators.

l) Senate Assessment Committee Chair Deborah Paprocki had submitted a report

(Attachment 12). It was pointed out in the written materials provided to the Senate.

m) Senate Student Survey of Instruction Working Group Chair Bill Gillard pointed out the

final report of the Senate Student Survey of Instruction Working Group (SSSIWG) in the

binder (Attachment 13). The response rates, Gillard said, were key, and the first three

pilots did not have rates high enough to give confidence in their results. Senator Dale

Murray appreciated having the individual responses from the working group members

included in the report. Senator Sackman pointed to the final recommendation that stated

the technological capacity to do the surveys online should be created, saying that only

after a good response rate has been ensured should the survey be conducted that way.

There was some question around statistically significant numbers, and manipulating the

response rate of the fourth pilot to get response rates similar to the other pilots to see if

the results were still similar. It was argued that when dealing with retention and

promotion, the more responses the better. A question was asked as to whether there

could be a combined version of paper surveys and online surveys offered for a course, so

those who couldn’t complete it in the paper form for some reason could complete it

online if they chose to do so.

7) Old Institutional Business

a) Adoption: Proposed Revision of IP #106 (“Atypical Course Policy”) [SAPC] details

mechanism for creating IS and LEC courses (Attachment 14). SAPC Chair Peterson

summarized the background of the proposed adoption. The motion passed by unanimous

vote [Zanichkowsky/Kozma].

b) Other. There was no other Old Institutional Business on the Senate agenda.

8) New Institutional Business

9

a) Introduction: Proposed Revision of IP #202 (“Academic Procedures and Regulations”)

[SAPC] clarifying the repeating courses/identical material question (Attachment 15).

SAPC Chair Peterson introduced the proposed revision of IP #202, noting the rationale in

the written materials. Repeating as opposed to substituting was discussed in relation to

offering courses. An outdated title was pointed out in the second paragraph of III.F that

the SSC and Senate Assistant Linda Baum will take care of as a housekeeping matter.

b) Introduction: Proposed Revision of IP #101 (“Associate of Arts and Science Degree”)

[SAPC] removing requirement that core courses be linked to receive IS designation

(Attachment 16). Senator Peterson summarized the changes proposed for IP #101, noting

that there is no reason for core courses to be linked in order to receive IS designations.

Senator Zorea argued that “core course” is changed if some core courses are different

than other core courses because they fill a dual role. ENG 102 would be different than an

IS version of ENG 102. Peterson said that the SAPC felt that ENG 102 has specific

curricular demands which would have to be fulfilled no matter how the course is listed.

Senator Sackman said that any proposal would still need Senate Curriculum Committee

(SCC) approval. Senator Harris suggested senators refresh themselves with the IS model

before presenting the introduction to their constituents.

c) Introduction: Proposed Revision of FPP #501 (“Criteria and General Procedures for

Appointment, Retention, Tenure Progress, Tenure, and Promotion (Bylaws)”) [SOPC]

clarification of Online class visitations (Attachment 17). Senator Gillard introduced the

proposed revision on behalf of the Senate Online Program Committee (SOPC). Senator

Kozma wondered why the Director of Distance Education would get the class visitation

reports. Senator Krupnow agreed with the question, saying that the director does not

determine tenure, and Senator Dale Murray wondered about the justification for the

inclusion. Director of Distance Education Dave Brigham related that he does not

consistently get the reports now, but they are informational and can be used for instructor

and course improvement.

d) Introduction: Proposed Revision of IP #101 (“Associate of Arts and Science Degree”)

[SAPC] listing the Applied Studies program for the BAAS (Attachment 18). SAPC Chair

Peterson explained that listing a new program to house courses for the BAAS that would

not belong to any department and would thus need a home and oversight was the goal of

this piece. BAAS Degree Project Manager Patti Wise explained that there is a

conundrum as to what to do with those courses. Provost Lampe stated that the Applied

Studies program would more appropriately be listed in the BAAS degree policy. Further,

the proposal for such a program would need a much broader discussion prior to being

moved on. The provost shared that there have been preliminary conversations about

having Global Studies, Cognitive Skills, and Applied Studies programs. Provost Lampe

expressed the opinion that courses should be created, everything should be very

thoroughly discussed and organized, and then programs created if it is decided that they

are necessary. The BAAS was created in a systematic, thoughtful, and thorough manner,

so the provost encouraged the Senate to make sure that all aspects of the BAAS are

created with the same methodology. Senator Zanichkowsky pointed out that courses for

Global Studies will have oversight through departments. BAAS Degree Project Manager

10

Wise agreed that such courses could be approved under a sponsoring department.

Provost Lampe added that the HLC does not expect every aspect of the BAAS to be

completed at this point. The HLC will expect to see that the UW Colleges has the

capacity for junior and senior level courses. He suggested letting the organization of the

curriculum wait for a while. SAPC Chair Peterson said that the committee would pull the

introduction until there was a more precise direction to follow. Provost Lampe and Chair

of Chairs Craig Hurst will place the discussion on the Chairs’ Retreat agenda.

e) Introduction: Proposed Revision of IP #101 (“Associate of Arts and Science Degree”)

[SSC] clarifying language regarding proficiencies (Attachment 19). Associate Vice

Chancellor Lisa Seale introduced the proposed revision of IP #101, pointing out that the

changes were to bring the analytical skills proficiency up to date with what is in use.

Seale also noted that some formatting changes had been made.

f) Other. There was no additional New Institutional Business for the Senate to discuss.

9) Other Institutional Business

a) University Personnel System Update (Pam Dollard). Director of Human Resources Pam

Dollard distributed a packet of handouts to the assembled group. The first page she

shared was a snapshot of the University Personnel System (UPS) homepage on the UW

System web site. She encourages everyone to visit the site for further information and

details. Another page showed the UPS Project timeline. The project is currently in the

third phase, where details are being created for the proposed structure. A diagram of the

various groups working on the project, how they work together, and the flow of the work

was the next piece HR Director Dollard directed attention towards. She noted that

recommendations were due today to the project team, who will meet next week for two

days to flesh out the draft structure that will then be communicated with the various

stakeholders. Dollard noted that the packet she had distributed contained summary

reports from the various work groups, as well as the UW Colleges’ UPS Communication

Plan detailing the goals, audiences, and strategies of sharing information about the UPS

Project. Chancellor Cross asked if the new plan will conform to State Statute 36. UWC

Human Resources Director Dollard replied that Chapter 36 is not being dismantled, but

added to, and the new systems must conform. Senator Zorea asked if the classification of

classified staff would be changing. Dollard replied that since there is no longer union

representation for classified staff, their classification has been a big question. A

classified staff advisory council is being developed for the UW Colleges, as some

comprehensive campuses have already created. It was pointed out that at those

institutions the lead classified staff representative from the advisory council is sometimes

an ex-officio member of the shared governance body in order to include classified staff in

shared governance. Several arguments were made around the issue: the Colleges could

create the general form of the council but leave the council unpopulated; the entire matter

be put on hold pending approval of the Board of Regents and the State; and that the

council be created, populated, and an ex-officio member named to the Senate as soon as

their leader is chosen.

11

b) Other. There was no further Other Institutional Business for the UWC Senate.

10) Adjournment. The UW Colleges Senate reached the end of the agenda at 4:40 p.m. and was

adjourned by SSC Chair Gillard.

12

UW COLLEGES

Faculty Council of Senators Friday, March 16, 2012

UW-Fox Valley

4:20 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.

MINUTES

2011-2012 Faculty Senators Present: Dale Murray, UW-Baraboo/Sauk County; Troy Kozma,

UW-Barron County; Paisley Harris, UW-Fond du Lac; Bill Gillard, UW-Fox Valley;

Aaron Steffen and Paul Whitaker, UW-Marathon County; Aharon Zorea, UW-Richland;

Bob Hein, UW-Rock County; Matt Raunio, UW-Sheboygan; Mark Peterson, UW-

Washington County; Ron Gulotta, Barb Reinhart, and Elizabeth Zanichkowsky, UW-

Waukesha

2011-2012 Faculty Senators Absent: Marc Sackman, UW-Fox Valley; Berel Lutsky, UW-

Manitowoc; Mark Klemp, UW-Marinette; Iddi Adam, UW-Marshfield/Wood County;

2011-2012 Faculty Alternates Present: Amanda Hakemian, UW-Marshfield/Wood County

Others Present: Craig Hurst, Department Chairs’ Representative; Linda Baum, Assistant to the

Senate

1. Call to Order 2011-2012 Faculty Council of Senators. The UW Colleges Faculty Council of

Senators (FCS) was called to order at 4:53 p.m. by UW Colleges Faculty Representative to

the UW System Administration Bill Gillard.

2. The roll call of 2011-2012 faculty senators and alternates was circulated by Senate Assistant

Linda Baum.

3. The agenda for the March 16, 2012 meeting of the Faculty Council of Senators was approved

by a unanimous voice vote [Zorea/Murray].

4. The minutes of the January 11, 2012 FCS meeting held at UW-Marshfield/Wood County

(posted in Public Folders>All Public Folders>Governance>Senate>Senate Minutes>2011-

2012) were unanimously approved [Peterson/Zorea].

5. Reports

a) Chair Bill Gillard noted that he had circulated a report from the most recent meeting of

the Faculty Representatives meeting by email. He asked if the faculty senators found it

informative and helpful. Receiving a positive response, he told the assembly he would

continue the practice.

b) Faculty Professional Standards Committee Chair Ron Gulotta had nothing to add to the

report given earlier to the full Senate.

13

6. Old Business

a) Adoption: Proposed Revision of FPP #501 (“Criteria and General Procedures for

Appointment, Retention, Tenure Progress, Tenure, and Promotion (Bylaws)”) [FPSC] to

clarify the early tenure process (Attachment 20). Senator Zanichkowsky summarized the

included background and rationale. Senator Harris questioned as to whether this applied

only to those in the third and fourth years, to which Senator Zanichkowsky replied yes, as

early tenure is only possible after a successful third-year vote. The revision was passed

by a unanimous vote [Zanichkowsky/Raunio].

b) Adoption: Proposed Revision of FPP #501 (“Criteria and General Procedures for

Appointment, Retention, Tenure Progress, Tenure, and Promotion (Bylaws)”) [FPSC]

specify written communications & include HR Director (Attachment 21). Faculty

Professional Standards Committee (FPSC) Chair Gulotta explained that due to feedback

gathered following the introduction of this item at the last Senate meeting, the committee

had decided the piece should not be up for adoption. The FPSC had determined to revise

the piece and introduce it again based on that feedback. The adoption was withdrawn.

c) There was no other Old Business for the Faculty Council to discuss.

7. New Business

a) Introduction: Proposed Revision of FPP #501 (“Criteria and General Procedures for


specify unalterable communications & include HR Director (Attachment 22). FPSC

Chair Gulotta explained that the committee had checked with legal and the introduction

was specifying “unalterable” copies in written or pdf format. The correspondence would

also be sent to the HR Director and the chairperson of any appropriate campus

committee. Senator Peterson asked what exactly “personnel action correspondence”

referred to and if it should be spelled out. Senator Zanichkowsky replied that personnel

action correspondence is anything that changes your paycheck or affects your

employment status. SSC Chair Gillard mentioned that one idea former SSC Chair Paul

Price had left him was that of creating a glossary of terms similar to that employed by the

Board of Regents for their policies, and this would be an example of something that

might be defined.

b) There was no other New Business on the FCS agenda.

8. Other Business

a) Chair Gillard asked the Faculty Council if they had all submitted their midterm grades to

PRISM, as he had learned that Online is not required to do so. There followed a brief

discussion around the differences in campus requirements regarding midterm grades, as

some do not use PRISM for that purpose.

14

b) SSC Chair Gillard asked if elections for faculty senators have taken place at those

campuses where it is necessary. He reminded the faculty senators whose term is ending

to ask their campus steering committee chair to have the election as soon as possible.

The current and incoming senators are supposed to attend the April meetings of the

Senate.

c) The nomination packet created by Linda Baum with information on all of the upcoming

Senate committees vacancies was included in the binder, Senator Gillard pointed out. He

asked that everyone study it, consider nominating themselves or others, and prepare to

see a lot more of it over the next several weeks as people are found for Senate service.

d) There was no further Other Business for the Faculty Council of Senators to discuss.

9. Adjournment. The UW Colleges Faculty Council of Senators was adjourned at 5:08 p.m. by

UWC Faculty Representative Gillard.

15

UW COLLEGES

Academic Staff Council of Senators Friday, March 16, 2012

UW-Fox Valley

4:20 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.

MINUTES

Council Members Present: Bobbie Boettcher (substitute for Marc Boucher), Dave Caithamer,

Dave Dettman, George Henze, Richard Krupnow, Becky Mullane, Jeff Verona. Guests: Ray

Cross, Pam Dollard, Greg Lampe, Margaret Malay, Steve Wildeck.

Motion to Approve Agenda amended to discuss only proposed hiring criteria for IAS:

Boettcher; Henze, second. Approved.

Motion to Approve Minutes from January 11, 2012:

Mullane; Henze, second. Approved.

The Council met with Chancellor Ray Cross, Provost Greg Lampe, Director of Human

Resources Pam Dollard, and Vice Chancellor Steve Wildeck to discuss Chancellor Cross’

rejection of proposed hiring criteria for IAS.

Cross noted that the hiring criteria were no more than a seniority grid, advancement for years of

service, while they should focus on demonstrated proficiency in teaching and scholarship.

Krupnow noted his frustration over the criteria being rejected. The previous policy, ASPP #707,

required a dossier to clearly delineate demonstrated proficiency in teaching, but it was suspended

by Chancellor Cross, under recommendation, because it was too onerous. So, the AS Personnel

Committee and AS Council worked to craft language that was less prescriptive. Krupnow felt it

would be useful to come to a clear understanding of what the Chancellor was seeking, so the

Council did not waste its time and the Chancellor’s time with policies that were merely going to

be rejected.

Chancellor Cross emphasized the importance of scholarship. He noted that scholarship need not

be traditionally defined as research and publish, as it is for faculty. He suggested the Council

review the Carnegie Foundation literature on scholarship and visit the UW-Extension website to

see how it has adopted the Carnegie standards for Extension employees.

Krupnow, Caithamer, and Malay noted that based on current UPGs, IAS are not required to

engage in scholarship; and UW Colleges has traditionally used this fact as justification for

paying IAS at 80% of base salaries. Therefore, many IAS would see any attempt to add

scholarship to their required duties as additional uncompensated work and would likely oppose

16

any such recommendation without commensurate compensation. So, would administration be

willing to consider paying IAS at 100% of base salaries as part of requiring scholarship?

Wildeck cautioned that the institution would need to look very carefully at any possible fiscal

implications of changing IAS salaries.

The Chancellor charged the Council with exploring the Carnegie documents defining scholarship

and to explore ways of implementing scholarship in any future title guidelines for IAS. He also

noted his continued commitment to developing renewable contracts for long-term IAS.

Krupnow thanked the Chancellor for attending the Council meeting, noting that, to the degree

that he could verify it, Chancellor Cross was the first UW Colleges Chancellor to attend an

Academic Staff Council meeting to discuss academic staff issues. Krupnow assured the

Chancellor he would review the Carnegie documents and continue the discussion within the

Council.

Adjourned

17

Attachment 1

Draft Schedule

Joint Meetings of UW Colleges Senate, UW-Extension Faculty Senate, and

UW-Extension Academic Staff Council ::: Meetings of UWC Senate, Academic Staff

Council of Senators, Faculty Council of Senators, and Committees

Friday, March 16, 2012

UW-Fox Valley

9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Coffee and Collegiality ─ UW Colleges and UW-Extension 8:30 a.m. - 8:55 a.m.

Perry Hall Lobby

UW Colleges Committee Meetings 9:00 a.m. - 10:20 a.m.

Senate Academic Policy Committee (1352)

Senate Budget Committee (1346)

Faculty Professional Standards Committee (1706)

Senate Steering Committee (Baehman Theater)

UW Colleges Senate Presentation 10:25 a.m. - 11:25 a.m.

Baehman Theater

Update on the UW Colleges’ Reaccreditation by the Higher Learning Commission Holly Hassel & Katie Kalish, HLC Self-Study Co-Coordinators

Joint Meeting ─ UW Colleges and UW-Extension 11:30 a.m. - 12:25 p.m.

Perry Hall

A View from the Ground: Faculty and Staff from UW Colleges and UW-Extension Provide a

Glimpse into their Daily Operations UW-Extension

Barb Barker, Professor, 4-H Youth Development Agent, Waushara County

Heidi Dusek, Lecturer, Youth & Family Program Coordinator, Outagamie County

Penny Tank, Senior Lecturer, 4-H Program Assistant, Waupaca County

UW Colleges

David Demezas, Assistant Professor, Biology, UW-Fond du Lac

Aharon Zorea, Associate Professor, History, UW-Richland

Lunch ─ UW Colleges and UW-Extension 12:30 p.m. - 1:20 p.m.

Student Union

Joint Meeting ─ UW Colleges and UW-Extension 1:30 p.m. - 2:20 p.m.

Perry Hall

Address: Ray Cross, Chancellor, UW Colleges and UW-Extension

UW Colleges Senate 2:25 p.m. - 4:15 p.m.

Baehman Theater

UW Colleges Council Meetings 4:20 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.

Academic Staff Council of Senators (1706)

Faculty Council of Senators (Baehman Theater)

18

Draft Agenda

UW COLLEGES

Senate Friday, March 16, 2012

UW-Fox Valley

2:25 p.m. – 4:15 p.m.

1) Call to Order of 2011-2012 Senate

2) Welcome by UW-Fox Valley Dean Martin Rudd

3) Roll Call of 2011-2012 Senate and Introduction of Alternates

4) Approval of Agenda

5) Approval of Minutes: January 11, 2012, UW-Marshfield/Wood County (posted in Public

Folders>All Public Folders>Governance>Senate>Senate Minutes>2011-2012)

6) Reports

a) Chancellor Ray Cross

b) Provost and Vice Chancellor Greg Lampe

c) Associate Vice Chancellor Lisa Seale

d) Associate Vice Chancellor Rich Barnhouse

e) Senate Steering Committee Chair & UWC Faculty Representative Bill Gillard

f) Academic Staff Lead Senator Richard Krupnow

g) UW Colleges Academic Staff Representative Dan McCollum

h) Student Governance Council President Geoff Murray

i) Senate Academic Policy Committee Chair Mark Peterson

j) Senate Budget Committee Chair Matt Raunio

k) Faculty Professional Standards Committee Chair Ron Gulotta

l) Senate Assessment Committee Chair Deborah Paprocki

m) Senate Student Survey of Instruction Working Group Chair Bill Gillard

7) Old Institutional Business

a) Adoption: Proposed Revision of IP #106 (“Atypical Course Policy”) [SAPC] details

mechanism for creating IS and LEC courses

b) Other

8) New Institutional Business

a) Introduction: Proposed Revision of IP #202 (“Academic Procedures and Regulations”)

[SAPC] clarifying the repeating courses/identical material question

19

b) Introduction: Proposed Revision of IP #101 (“Associate of Arts and Science Degree”)

[SAPC] removing requirement that core courses be linked to receive IS designation

c) Introduction: Introduction: Proposed Revision of FPP #501 (“Criteria and General

Procedures for Appointment, Retention, Tenure Progress, Tenure, and Promotion

(Bylaws)”) [SOPC] clarification of Online class visitations

d) Introduction: Proposed Revision of IP #101 (“Associate of Arts and Science Degree”)

[SAPC] listing the Applied Studies program for the BAAS

e) Introduction: Proposed Revision of IP #101 (“Associate of Arts and Science Degree”)

[SSC] clarifying language regarding proficiencies

f) Other

9) Other Institutional Business

a) University Personnel System Update (Pam Dollard)

b) Other

10) Adjournment

20

Draft Agenda

UW COLLEGES

Faculty Council of Senators Friday, March 16, 2012

UW-Fox Valley

4:20 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.

1. Call to Order 2011-2012 Faculty Council of Senators

2. Roll Call of faculty senators and alternates

3. Approval of Agenda

4. Approval of Minutes: January 11, 2012, UW-Marshfield/Wood County (posted in Public

Folders>All Public Folders>Governance>Senate>Senate Minutes>2011-2012)

5. Reports

a) Chair Bill Gillard

b) Faculty Professional Standards Committee Chair Ron Gulotta

6. Old Business

a) Adoption: Proposed Revision of FPP #501 (“Criteria and General Procedures for


to clarify the early tenure process

b) Adoption: Proposed Revision of FPP #501 (“Criteria and General Procedures for


specify written communications & include HR Director

c) Other

7. New Business

a) Introduction: Proposed Revision of FPP #501 (“Criteria and General Procedures for


specify unalterable communications & include HR Director

b) Other

8. Other Business

a) Other

9. Adjournment

21

Draft Agenda

UW COLLEGES

Academic Staff Council of Senators Friday, March 16, 2012

UW-Fox Valley

4:20 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.

Attendance:

Call to Order

Selection of Reporter

Acceptance of Agenda

Approval of minutes: January 11, 2012

I. Committee Reports – As needed

II. ASPP #707 - Update

III. ASPP #804

IV. ASPC Survey of IAS

V. ASPP #701

VI. ASPP #704 and UWC Constitution Chapter 8

VII. Other

Adjournment

22

Attachment 2

UW Colleges Provost & Vice Chancellor

Report to the UW Colleges Senate

March 16, 2012

Update on Higher Learning Commission Self-Study Process: I am pleased to

report that since our January 11 Senate Meeting significant progress has been made in planning

and implementing the self-study. As you know, in December 2011, the project began

transitioning from the evidence gathering phase to the evidence analysis and writing phase. Here

are the highlights of our progress since our January meeting:

On February 10, the UW Colleges Office of Academic Affairs hosted a one-day visit for our

Higher Learning Commission liaison Andy Lootens-White. During the visit, Andy met with

Chancellor Ray Cross and me, the UW Colleges self-study project team, and the Logistics

Team. At noon, Andy presented information at a UW Colleges-wide compressed video

Town Hall Meeting. During the Town Hall Meeting, we learned more about the Higher

Learning Commission, what to expect from the self-study process and the site visit, and the

future of HLC accreditation visits. The one-day visit provided many of us with an

opportunity to ask questions and to learn more about the expectations of the Higher Learning

Commission as we enter into the final phases of the self-study process. There were two

important developments during the site visit. First, our preliminary logistics plan was

endorsed by Andy and second, a ninth peer evaluator was added to the eight member peer

evaluation team. The ninth member of the team will be assigned to review our accreditation

materials for the Bachelor of Applied Arts and Science (B.A.A.S.) degree completion

program and our mission change request. Additionally, the ninth member will be making a

site visit to one or two of the UW Colleges campuses participating in the B.A.A.S. degree

program and will be visiting one of our UW System B.A.A.S. degree partner campuses.

In late February, Self-Study Co-chairs Holly Hassel and Katie Kalish provided Associate

Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs Lisa Seale and me with the first drafts of chapters 1-6

of the self-study report. To date, Lisa and I have completed our review of chapters 1-5 and

are currently reviewing chapter 6. Holly and Katie continue their work on chapter 7 and

hope to have that chapter completed shortly. They will then begin revising chapters 1

through 6.

In late February, Andy Lootens-White informed me that a chair of the UW Colleges self-

study peer reviewing team has been identified. I was able to review the person’s credentials

and provide my approval of the selection. I have had an initial conversation with the chair

and the person will be traveling to the UW Colleges for a preliminary site visit in June.

On Friday, and Saturday, March 2 and 3, Holly, Katie, and HLC Self-Study Project Manager

Christa James-Byrnes presented an update on logistic planning for the November site visit

and the issues/themes emerging from the self-study report at the Deans, Associate Deans, and

Chairs Meeting. Participants learned more about the structure of the November site visit and

what will happen when the peer evaluators visit our campuses and the Madison-based

administrative offices. Additionally, participants engaged in discussions led by Holly and

Katie about the emerging issues and themes in the self-study report. On Saturday, March 3,

Holly and Katie led discussions at the Department Chairs-only and Associate Deans-only

23

meetings. Holly, Katie, and Christa gathered valuable feedback during all of these sessions.

The feedback will be incorporated into the self-study chapters and the logistic planning

documents going forward.

Today, the Senate will be receiving an update from members of the HLC Steering Committee

on the self-study process and providing feedback on the self-study report. In April, the

criteria teams will be asked to review their respective chapters and to provide feedback. In

May, the campus deans and department chairs will receive the chapters for review and a

meeting will be convened with them to gather their feedback. At the Colloquium,

participants will have numerous opportunities to provide feedback on the self-study report.

Sessions will be held that will focus on the findings and recommendations contained within

the chapters of the report and feedback will be solicited. All of us leading the self-study

process are committed to vetting the report UW Colleges-wide and gathering feedback.

I will continue to keep you informed of the progress of our Higher Learning Commission self-

study. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to contact Holly Hassel, Katie Kalish, Christa

James-Byrnes or me.

Update on Bachelor of Applied Arts and Sciences Degree: I am excited to report

that significant progress has been made since the January 11 meeting of the Senate. Below is a

brief update of the most recent developments (my thanks to BAAS Degree Project Manager Patti

Wise for providing the details for the update below). Senate Actions:

At the January meeting, UW Colleges Senate approved the BAAS degree and related

policies, including guidelines for Prior Learning Assessment. Chancellor Ray Cross approved

the Senate policy actions in February.

A new UW Colleges Senate BAAS Curriculum Committee was created within the Senate

Bylaws. Chancellor Ray Cross approved the change in February.

Curriculum Development:

Faculty Teams have completed the development of the two new core courses and a

framework for the professional experience components and the capstone senior seminar.

The BAAS degree curriculum will be submitted to the Higher Learning Commission (HLC)

in August. To meet that target deadline, each participating campus will need to select at least

ten UW Colleges courses (30 credits) to be submitted to the Senate BAAS Curriculum

Committee and approved by the committee and the provost. Two of those courses will be the

Cognitive Skills core course, “Creativity and Problem Solving,” and the Global Studies core

course, “The World in the 21st Century.”

A course that meets the following criteria can be considered for the BAAS degree:

o An existing course as is or re-designed, or a new course

o Fulfills the degree proficiencies and fits under one of the components of the

BAAS degree

o Meets the standards and rigor of a junior/senior level course

o The course can be a stacked or slashed course

The six UWS partnering institutions will also provide at least ten courses (30 credits) towards

the degree. Of these 30 credits, 9-12 are in Global Studies, 9-12 are in Cognitive Skills, and

6-9 are electives. If faculty members at the partnering institution are not available to teach the

24

desired courses, faculty from the UW Colleges could be approved by the partnering

institution to teach them.

Recent Actions taken by the Senate BAAS Curriculum Committee:

The BAAS Course Proposal Form (SBCC-001) has been approved.

The Professional Experience Faculty Team report was endorsed.

The “course guidelines” for the two BAAS core courses focusing on Cognitive Skills and

Global Studies were approved as submitted by the faculty teams. Now a "formal" course

proposal, using SBCC-001, will be submitted to request final approval of the two new

courses.

Higher Learning Commission Accreditation Visit:

Work continues on developing the necessary documentation for the accreditation of the

BAAS degree and the approval of the mission change. Part One (of two) of the

documentation has been completed and Part Two development is underway. Part One will be

submitted to the Higher Learning Commission (HLC) later in March. A brief narrative that

will introduce the HLC self-study chapter on the accreditation of the BAAS degree and

approval of the mission change is also under development.

As stated above, a ninth reviewer, who will focus specifically on accrediting the BAAS

degree, has been added to the team of evaluators coming to the UW Colleges in November.

The UW Colleges will be expected to demonstrate that our institution has the capacity to

teach junior/senior level courses, and we will have to provide documentation that establishes

a curriculum of 60 credits (30 credits from the UW Colleges/30 credits from each of the UW

partner campuses) will be offered to students enrolled in the BAAS degree completion

program.

Professional Experience:

The BAAS degree requires 15 credits of Professional Experience provided by the UW

Colleges. This includes credits through internships, courses with a service-learning

component, and a maximum of six credits brought in through prior experiential learning.

Each campus offering the BAAS degree will have a Professional Experience Coordinator

whose responsibility will be to facilitate and develop relationships between the campus –

faculty, students, and administration – and community groups, organizations, and businesses

partnering in internship or service learning programs and projects.

Advising and Marketing:

The preliminary BAAS Curriculum will need to be approved by the SBCC by July, and

submitted to the HLC by August in preparation for the accreditation visit in November. As

soon as the curriculum is approved, advising guides will be created. Academic Advisors will

attend informational sessions in early fall in anticipation of a positive accreditation

announcement by January 2013. Advisors will then begin to advise prospective students to

enroll in accredited BAAS courses in Fall, 2013.

As soon as the results of the accreditation visit are received, we will begin a full-scale and

official marketing campaign for the UW Colleges BAAS degree. Up until that point, we can

continue to talk about the degree with prospective students and encourage them to consider

enrolling in new junior/senior level courses that will be offered in Fall, 2013.

25

Restructuring PRISM to Accommodate the B.A.A.S. Degree:

Work on restructuring PRISM to accommodate student records for the B.A.A.S. degree-

completion program continues.

In February, the BAAS degree PRISM student records program was created and work has

begun to populate the data base with the BAAS degree relevant information and policies.

Monthly meetings continue of the core team with representatives from Central IT,

campus-based Student Services, Business Services, Student Financial Aid, and the

Registrar’s Office to implement this critical re-design.

As always, Patti Wise and I will continue to keep you informed of developments as we move

toward implementing the UW Colleges revised mission statement and the B.A.A.S. degree.

Update on the Academic Affairs Issues Integrated Enrollment Management

(IEM) Committee: The January 21 meeting of the Academic Affairs Issues IEM Committee

marked the end of the committee’s work. The committee began its work in December 2010 with

the charge of addressing academic-related issues that were emerging from the implementation of

the IEM model. Below are few of the accomplishments of the committee:

The Creation of Guiding Principles: The committee’s initial task was to develop principles to

guide its actions. Among those principles were the following items:

1. We need to strive toward balancing campus, academic department, shared governance,

and institutional interests without sacrificing our institutional identity as one institution

with thirteen campuses and an online program.

2. We need to make data informed, evidence-based recommendations.

3. We need to be mindful of the financial implications of our recommendations on the

campus and institutional levels.

4. We need to consider fully the consequences of our recommendations at the department,

campus, and institutional levels.

5. We need to keep the mission of the UW Colleges at the forefront of our discussions.

The Creation of Shared Goals: The committee identified goals shared by departments and by

campuses and departments. Among those goals were the following items::

The UW Colleges liberal arts mission and overarching academic department goals

include providing a foundational core of courses on every campus.

It is vital to the UW Colleges mission that each campus has at least one tenure-track or

tenured member in each academic department to deliver the core curriculum.

Continued commitment to faculty professional development in the forms recognized by

academic departments, such as original research and creative work, is a fundamental goal

of academic departments.

Accurate assessment of student learning is a shared goal.

Departments and campuses share the goal of “utilizing” faculty fully and well, and to

have well-enrolled courses.

A shared goal is “flexibility” or being nimble in getting up course offerings.

Departments and campuses share the goal of maintaining flexibility in scheduling and

mode of delivery.

26

Committee Products:

The committee developed and the provost distributed a protocol for use by departments

and campuses, “Protocol for Addressing Low-Enrolled Courses” to address concerns

over how decisions might be made regarding low-enrolled courses within the IEM

framework.

The committee developed recommendations to the provost regarding “Tenure track

position requests (speculation for building programs).” While the committee strove to

provide flexibilities, it also identified serious institutional risks associated with

permanently allocating faculty lines to a campus. The resulting conversation pointed to

the necessity of all tenure-track position lines remaining at the institutional level and the

recommendation that the UW Colleges Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic

Affairs and the UW Colleges/UW-Extension Chancellor should ultimately control

decision-making authority over faculty tenure lines.

The committee prepared recommendations which were shared with the UW Colleges

Online program to address “Online staffing need to study impact of campus-based faculty

teaching in the UWC Online program. What is the department/campus relationship

approval process?/Online programming competing with campus-based distance

education.” These recommendations were two-fold:

1. An MOU (similar to that used in developing a course for the accelerated/blended

program) should be developed. A review of the MOU would occur on a set cycle,

such as every two years, with a one-year “out year” that would be the faculty

member’s last year in the UW Colleges Online program should the MOU not be

renegotiated.

2. Explore incorporating the UW Colleges Online program into the annual

curriculum and staffing plan process.

Both recommendations are currently being considered by the Director of Distance Education

David Brigham.

The committee considered a number of possible methods that departments could discuss,

some of which might provide greater flexibility to curriculum delivery. These ideas were

discussed with the department chairs at their March 3 Department Chairs meeting and

included the following:

1. Training faculty in as many delivery platforms as possible;

2. Rotating an expectation of teaching a fourth preparation every third year;

3. Reducing time spent in preparation and freeing up creativity for other areas, for

certain courses selected by a department, by a department’s developing common

texts/syllabi for a course that all department members could then follow when

teaching it as a fourth preparation;

4. Managing service obligations when a faculty member picked up a fourth preparation,

by other people picking up the service; and/or

5. Compensating faculty for an additional course preparation much as course overloads

are paid (at the senior lecturer rate).

These ideas will continue being discussed with the department chairs and revised as needed

moving forward.

27

I want to recognize the members of the Academic Affairs Issues IEM Committee for their

commitment to the committee’s charge and the hours of time they spent discussing, debating,

and resolving difficult issues:

Bill Gillard, Chair, Senate Steering Committee

Craig Hurst, Chair, Music Department, Chair of Chairs

Dan Kallgren, Chair, History Department

Kim Schatz, Chair, Chemistry Department

Paul Chase, Campus Executive Officer and Dean, UW-Barron County (now interim dean UW-

Sheboygan)

Andy Keogh, Campus Executive Officer and Dean, UW-Marshfield/Wood County (now retired)

Diane Pillard, Campus Executive Officer and Dean, UW-Rock County (now retired)

John Short, Campus Executive Officer and Dean, UW-Fond du Lac

Lisa Seale, Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs

Respectfully submitted,

Greg Lampe, Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs

3.12.2012

28

Attachment 3

UW Colleges Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs


March 16, 2012

Access to Success (A2S) for Native American Students

Ongoing UW Colleges Inclusive Excellence work includes the efforts of several groups of

faculty, staff, and administrators who are coordinating UW Colleges follow-up work to the

UWSA Task Force on Access to Success (A2S) for Native American Students workshop, held in

February 2011, and attended by UW Colleges participants Salah Bassiouni, Richard Eckert,

Patrick Hagen, Stephan Gilchrist, Renee Gralewicz, Matt Jurvelin, Annette Kuhlmann, Tom

Pleger, and Lisa Seale. One of the follow-up groups consists of professors Annette Kuhlmann

and Renee Gralewicz (both of the Anthropology and Sociology Department), Jen Heinert

(Director, Virtual Teaching and Learning Center, or VTLC), Steve Gilchrist (Director,

UWC/UWEX Office of Inclusion), and myself. We are organizing a Speakers Bureau that will

be housed on a SharePoint site that can be reached through a welcome page on the VTLC Web

site. A letter to tribal representatives is being sent this week, seeking experts from tribal nations

and communities who are willing to address groups of UW Colleges faculty and staff about such

topics as tribal economies and business ventures; historical relationships with the United States

and Wisconsin; culturally sensitive teaching practices; tribal health care needs, concerns, and

solutions; K-12 education; tribal judicial structures; and higher education needs among

Wisconsin Indian nations and tribes. Academic department chairs and assistant deans for student

services were polled to determine interest in this project and these topics. The purpose of the

Speakers Bureau will be to provide professional development opportunities for academic

departments, Student Services, and other interested staff in order to be more inclusive in our

courses, as well as to create more welcoming campuses for all Wisconsinites.

UW System Administration has invited three members of the UW Colleges Office of Academic

Affairs to attend the national Access to Success (A2S) Annual Meeting, May 10 -11, 2012, in

Washington, DC. Rich Barnhouse (Associate Vice Chancellor for Enrollment Management and

Student Services), Gregg Nettesheim (Institutional Researcher), and I have been asked by the

provost to attend this meeting. The meeting will be hosted by the Education Trust and Education

Delivery Institute (EDI) to will bring together system and campus leaders from institutions

around the country, to build partnerships around best practices to increase student access and

success. Four University of Wisconsin institutions have been invited to participate (costs will be

borne by the Education Trust and UW System Administration). UW Colleges has been included

because of work to its advance student completion and More Graduates for Wisconsin goals.

Annual Curriculum and Staffing Plan Process

Each year, UW Colleges campuses submit proposed curriculum and staffing plans for the

following academic year to the Office of Academic Affairs, using a template developed for this

purpose. The template includes a summary of proposed changes in the academic program from

the present year to the coming year, known as the Curricular Change Form. I review these forms

http://www.wisconsin.edu/vpacad/a2snas/index.htm

29

on behalf of the provost, then present recommendations for his approval. One of the more

interesting observations to be made this year relates to how campuses have approached their

curricular array since July 2011, when all UW Colleges campuses began operating under the

Integrated Enrollment Management (IEM) model. Because there are seven campuses that are

new to the model, with six others that have operated under it for several years, some growing

pains can be expected. Campuses that are new to the IEM model showed more changes to their

curriculum than those whose curriculum had become stabilized by having been under the model

longer. Some campuses new to the model have reduced the number of sections of courses

provided by Instructional Academic Staff, which is a difficult adjustment.

On the whole, however, entries in the change explanation column on the Curricular Change

Form indicate the wide variety of reasons for a campus making changes. Most changes are

based on academic reasons, rather than financial. The curriculum across UW Colleges is stable,

with a strong array of natural sciences and mathematics, fine arts and humanities, and social

sciences. A few examples drawn from the form’s change explanations demonstrate this. A

second-year Philosophy course, for instance, is being added at a campus “to reflect changing

values on technology.” A second-year Chinese language course is being added because the

campus “is looking to expand [the] Chinese sequence to [a] two-year sequence.” Some campuses

are reorganizing their distribution of courses in a discipline across multiple semesters or from

one semester to the next, as in this example: “The biology curriculum has been maintained,

though we are proposing that it be substantially reorganized with regard to sequencing in fall and

spring semesters. In particular, we moved Anatomy and Physiology 1 (BIO 285) from the fall

and into the spring semester in order to accommodate nursing students.”

Early in the IEM model’s existence, many of us were concerned that the curricular array on our

campuses might diminish due to financial pressures. This is a concern that the Office of

Academic Affairs takes seriously and continues to monitor.


Lisa Seale

March 12, 2012

30

Attachment 4

UW Colleges Associate Vice Chancellor for

Student Services and Enrollment Management


March 16, 2012

Enrollment Management

The development of the Strategic Enrollment Management plan continues to move forward. The

core-team, charged with developing a framework and vision, has been meeting throughout the

Fall and Spring semesters. Two additional and significant meetings have been scheduled for

March 21, 2012 and May 21, 2012. During the March meeting, all Assistant Campus Deans for

Student Services (ADSS) will be in attendance and will begin to add action items and action

plans to the newly created framework. During the May meeting, in addition to the ADSS

participants, all University Relation Directors will be present, along with Craig Hurst. During

this meeting the plan will be critically reviewed and adjusted into a draft form. We are pleased

that Craig will be with us to represent both the faculty and the departmental perspectives.

Below is a snapshot of our Spring enrollments:

2009 2010 2011 2012

Headcount 12322 13352 13677 13674

FTE 8231 8730 8881 8742

New

Freshmen

551 664 601 517

Continuing 9649 10335 10764 10787

Hobsons

As you are aware, Hobsons is the replacement for Recruitment PLUS. The Hobsons software

allows institutions to maximize recruitment efforts through an integrated, technology-supported

approach to building and managing relationships with prospective students. The system permits

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

2009 2010 2011 2012

Headcount

FTE

NewFreshmen

Continuing

31

an institution to drive enrollment success through the centralization of data, multiple

communication and outreach options, as well as detailed reporting metrics. These features are

delivered in a platform that is intuitive and accessible to technical and non-technical users, which

helps drive quick adoption by student services offices. Finally, Hobsons also minimizes IT

involvement in the project process by delivering software as a service model, which eliminates

hosting, upgrades, and maintenance issues.

Margaret Millspaw has accepted my offer to serve as the Hobsons Project Manager for the UW

Colleges. This is a two year, full-time position responsible for the full implementation and

maintenance of the Hobsons software system in relation to specifications set by Hobsons and the

UW Colleges. Margaret is also responsible for developing and implementing a robust training

and user support program designed to meet the needs of all 13 campuses and the online program.

Margaret will provide campuses with technical support in the design, development, testing and

implementation of Hobsons.

Margaret brings comprehensive experience through her work in student recruitment along with

her broad understanding of Recruitment PLUS and Hobsons CRM systems. Margaret has served

as the Coordinator of Recruitment and Outreach at UW-Waukesha since 2008 and has a

background in student services and enrollment management. Margaret will be located at 780

Regent Street in Madison and will begin in her new role with the UW Colleges on Monday,

March 5th

.

Spring Student Services Conference

On March 9, 2012 the UW Colleges will host the Spring Student Services conference at UW-

Marathon County. The Office of Student Services and Enrollment Management hosts both a Fall

and Spring conference for all academic student services staff members in the institution. The

Spring meeting will include topics regarding International Education, Financial Aid, CEOEL

Collaborative Programs, UW Colleges Online program, Enrollment Management and area

specific topics. It is anticipated that 70-80 student services staff members will be present.


Rich Barnhouse

Associate Vice Chancellor,

Student Services and Enrollment Management

3.1.12

32

Attachment 5

Senate Steering Committee Chair

UW Colleges Faculty Representative to UW System Administration


March 16, 2012

a. Gillard will inform the SSSIWG that their work is complete, and that they are being

disbanded. DONE

b. Gillard will steer IP #301.01 to SAPC to make any necessary changes in regards to

implementation with the new system (including length of time to keep the forms as

mentioned by Lampe). DONE

c. Gillard will steer IP #301.01 to FPSC to look at general content, questions, and results.

DONE d. Gillard will inform the necessary personnel at UW-Waukesha and the Office of

Academic Affairs of the decision that unreadable results on the SSI be ignored. DONE

e. Gillard will check with Karla Farrell regarding the possibility of having the images of

written comments as well as the comments converted to text included in all survey

results. DONE

f. Gillard will ask SAPC to consider adding directions to students (write clearly and

legibly and fill in the dots completely) in their update of IP #301.01. DONE

g. Gillard will steer the SCC New Course Form to SAPC for review and feedback to the

SCC.

h. Baum will post the approved minutes of SSC #9-12 in Public Folders. DONE

i. Gillard will periodically send SSC minutes and chair report to senators and campus

steering chairs. DONE

j. Gillard will steer FPP #501 to FPSC, asking them to look at dean’s input in second-year

faculty retention. FPP #501 III.B.3 DONE

k. Gillard will inform interested parties that though it has been an unfortunate situation,

FPP #603 stands, and it has been suggested to administration that an increased level of

communication with campus administrations regarding options in these situations is

necessary. DONE

l. Gillard will inform the UW-Extension contacts that Aharon Zorea, Iddi Adam, and

Mark Klemp will join the March 16 joint planning team. DONE

m. Gillard will steer the initial questions regarding Online (synchronous meetings) to

SOPC. The Senate Online Policy Committee will also be asked to consider the issue of

Online policy location/access and submit a proposal regarding them to the SSC. DONE

n. Lampe will speak with Brigham regarding the Online discussion, gather Online

policies, and have an update for the March 16 SSC meeting. DONE

o. Gillard will ask the SSSIWG to consider adding a confidential question to the survey

regarding whether a respondent is taking the class for credit or auditing. DONE

p. Gillard will place the recommendations of the Cognitive Skills Core Course faculty

team on the next SSC agenda. DONE

q. Baum will work with the others planning the March 16 meeting to see if a midday

presentation can be fit into the schedule. DONE

r. Gillard will steer the question of defining “program” to SAPC. DONE

33

s. Gillard will have SAPC work with SBCC to create the BAAS Applied Studies Program

(similar to the existing Women’s Studies Program). Working…

t. Baum will post the “Travel Instructions for Senators” on the Senate web site. DONE

u. Lampe will determine how the Handbook update process shall be arranged and who

shall take lead on the project. Working…

v. Gillard will send the background information on linking core courses to SAPC. DONE

w. Gillard will inform interested parties that though it has been an unfortunate situation,

FPP #603 stands, and it has been suggested to administration that an increased level of

communication with campus administrations regarding options in these situations is

necessary. DONE

x. Gillard will inform Ahrenhoerster of his appointment to SAC; Baum will ensure his

inclusion on all appropriate listings. DONE

y. Gillard will steer Online visitation guidelines to FPSC. DONE

z. Lampe will look at young non-trad student enrollment issue with idea of turning

campus policies into UWCAP. DONE

aa. Gillard will ask FPSC to study original case in question of having an LTE grade. FPSC

will be asked if there should be Senate policy around the issue. DONE

bb. Gillard will officially inform provost of endorsement of SSSIWG final report. DONE

Admitting and Enrolling Students Well Under 18 Years Old

Here is some follow-up information from Provost Lampe on an issue that the Senate Steering

Committee brought to him at our last meeting: As per our discussion at our Steering Committee meeting on Monday, I am working with Registrar

Larry Graves on gathering information about admissions policies regarding admitting and enrolling

students who are well under 18 years old. What follows is summary of what Larry and I have

discussed.

Larry and I agree that the UW Colleges should not create a policy to specifically address this

situation. Because an 11 year old student wants to be degree-seeking, the UWS Freshman

Admissions Policy ultimately drives the process for admission (regardless of the student’s age) and

the UW Colleges admission policy is based on that. (You can find the UW System Freshman

Admissions Policy at: http://www.wisconsin.edu/bor/policies/rpd/rpd7-3.htm).

Larry would like to see the UW Colleges adopt the UW-Washington County proposal as an

institutional guideline (not as a policy) for our campuses to use in the future. Larry and I agree that

since the proposal from UW-Washington County goes beyond admissions it reads more like

guidelines.

Larry shared with me that he intends to lead a discussion on this topic at the March Student Services

Council Meeting and he asks that the Senate Steering Committee not move on this matter until his

Assistant Campus Dean for Student Services colleagues have had a chance to discuss it. Since

admission decisions are made at the campuses, Larry and I agree that it is important that he get their

feedback. He will share the outcome of their discussion with me in March and I will summarize the

discussion for you.

I have requested that Larry ask other UW System institutions whether or not they have a policy that

addresses this situation. He plans to put this question on the admissions listserv and forward me a

summary of the responses he receives.

That’s all for now. Please let me know if you have any questions.

http://www.wisconsin.edu/bor/policies/rpd/rpd7-3.htm

34

Sincerely,

Greg

Student Survey of Instruction

One of my first acts as Steering chair back in fall 2010 was to help get this working group off the

group to solve the thorny problem of how we administer the student survey of instruction. When

Cary Komoto left the Colleges, I took over for him as chair to help finish the work of the group. The

final report was presented to the Senate Steering Committee on February 20. It recommends retaining

current senate policy and administering the SSI on paper to face to face classes and processing the

paper sheets centrally using the new Class Climate software. The Provost has adopted all of the

short-term recommendations of the Senate Student Survey of Instruction Working Group, as

endorsed by the Senate Steering Committee. These include the plan to administer the survey this

spring (a mandatory semester) on paper forms generated on each campus. The forms will be

processed centrally (at UW-Waukesha where the scanner is currently located and the software is

installed and running perfectly) using that Class Climate software that we already own. During the

summer, the scanner will be moved to Madison where it will remain as the central processing

location for the forseeable future. It looks as if we have a manageable plan in place to continue to

gather reliable and useful student survey data. The Senate Steering Committee thanks the Senate

Student Survey of Instruction Working Group for its work and for finding a solution for all of us. The

SSSIWG has been released from its charge.

Sharepoint Site for Online Program Policies

We recently received the news that the Online Program has established a SharePoint site for all

online policies and guidelines. This is a fine start. The Senate Online Program Committee, in

addition to the Senate Steering Committee, has been given access to the site because they are the

most expert senate body in these matters. Getting the policies that govern the online program vetted

and public has been a long process, but it looks like we are making strong progress. Here is an

excerpt from an email Dave Brigham sent to the Senate Steering Committee and others:

The SOPC was the first group I gave access to. The next groups (later this week) will be the

deans, associate deans, and department chairs. I will be adding documents once they have gone

through a vetting process (review by appropriate groups and approved by the provost). For

example, this morning the SOPC reviewed the Course Development Standards and Guidelines

and I have incorporated their feedback. On Saturday the department chairs will review this

document, and I will also incorporate their feedback. Then I’ll submit for provost review and

approval and post it to the SharePoint site. Then I’ll go on to the next document in a similar

manner. When I have a couple more documents that have gone through the process, I'll post

them and open it up to online instructors, possibly more broadly to others as well. Some areas

will be restricted such as the course schedules (until they are final). These would be restricted to

deans, associate deans, department chairs, and others on a need to know basis. Eventually, we’ll

have a robust site making all this information visible to stakeholders.

TAM, HRS, and Faculty Searches (oh, my!)

I have been hearing a lot from all corners about the new demands for documentation by faculty

search committees. Many folks across the Colleges are not happy to have this added—and widely

perceived to be less-than-essential—work required of them. I spoke with HR Director Pam Dollard

and HR staff member Chee Pluster about this and they assured me that the process was thoroughly

vetted with deans and department chairs. Moreover, these changes represent the bare minimum we

need to do to comply with Federal and state regulations around hiring. Pam and Chee plan to visit

each campus to explain the changes brought about by our compliance and the new Talent Acquisition

35

Module (TAM) that is part of the new Human Resources System (HRS). Nevertheless, these

changes, specifically the requirement that search committees fill out a detailed form for every

candidate who applies, is perceived as onerous and wasteful. There will be more developments soon

on this, but, for now, I hope the greater communication and transparency will allay fears and make

the process seem more worthwhile.

March Co-Located Governance Meeting

Thanks to UWC faculty members Aharon Zorea, Mark Klemp, and Iddi Adam for taking a lead role

in planning this co-located meeting with UW-Extension.

Travel Instructions for Senators

An easy-to-use guide for getting reimbursed for senate travel is now in Public Folders and is on the

way to our website. These guidelines were developed in concert with the UWC Administrative and

Financial Services.

Senate Assessment Committee: Chairs Rep.

Christa James-Byrnes, the faculty member who seems to be on every committee and leads every

working group, needs to back away from her commitment as chairs’ rep. to the Senate Assessment

Committee. English Department chair Greg Ahrenhoerster has agreed to finish out her term. Thanks,

Greg!

UW System Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs Search Committee

I was appointed to this group largely because of my governance leadership in the Colleges and am

happy to serve. As faculty rep for the Colleges, I worked with Rebecca Martin in the past and

continue to work with the interim VPAA, Mark Nook. We have met several times so far and hope to

have a slate of finalists to recommend to UW System president Kevin Reilly by early April.

Senate Steering Committee Chair 2012-13

I continue to tell everyone I meet how enjoyable it is serving my faculty, staff, and student colleagues

in this capacity (sincerely!) and I hope that folks with some experience in the senate consider putting

their name forward in nomination for chair of the Senate Steering Committee. I would definitely

continue if the rules allowed it, but my term-limited two years will be up in May of this year. If you

are interested in finding out more about the best opportunity for service in the Colleges, bar none,

please ask me. Time is short…

Final Tenure Dossier

Senate policy 501.01.E mandates that the campus dean’s office is required to create a single hard

copy of the final tenure dossier to deliver to the provost. Campuses are not happy with this policy, I

know, but senate policy clearly states who has responsibility. Perhaps as electronic documents

become more and more easy to read and manage, the single hard copy of the tenure dossier at the end

of the process will no longer be necessary. For now, however, please be advised that the creation of

the single hard copy of the tenure dossier is a dean’s responsibility and not a faculty member’s.

Questions, questions, questions…

The Senate Steering Committee chair continues to be in the loop on many matters large and small.

Self-governance is alive and well in the Colleges. From my perspective as faculty rep to the UW

System, I see that we have it much better than other UW campuses. Good job, Colleges!

Respectfully Submitted,

Bill Gillard, Chair

36

Attachment 6

UW Colleges Academic Staff Lead Senator


March 16, 2012

Personnel Policy Actions

Academic Staff Council of Senators approved revisions to ASPP #707, Hiring Criteria for

Instructional Academic Staff, and forwarded the policy to Chancellor Cross. At last word from

Chancellor Cross, in response to my inquiry about where we stand with the policy, he is giving

the recommended changes careful consideration.

A question about academic staff promotions arose at UW Fox Valley concerning language in

Academic Staff Personnel Policies that reference a document that neither the staff member nor

the Chair of Fox’s Steering Committee could locate. The Chair, Pam Massey, contacted me for

clarification. I worked with Pam Dollard to see if we could locate the document, and we learned

the document was developed in the 1980s and is no longer in use. As a result I will be bringing

to the issue to the Council and the Senate Steering Committee: in the case of the former, to seek

approval to strike reference to the document from ASPPs; in the case of the latter, to seek advice

on how to proceed with having reference to the same antiquated document removed from UW

Colleges Constitution, Chapter 8.

I was contacted, as Lead Academic Staff Senator, with requests for UW Colleges academic staff

to participate in two surveys. The first was generated by UW System Academic Staff

Representatives, and though the link to the survey was distributed by me, per request, I want to

note that UW Colleges Academic Staff Representative, Dan McCollum, was central to bringing

that survey to UW Colleges. The system-wide survey is intended to gather information about the

effects of budget cuts on UW institutions academic staff and their daily job-related tasks.

Similarly, though I was contacted by the Chair of the Academic Staff Personnel Committee,

Dave Caithamer, it was the Academic Staff Personnel Committee, under Dave’s leadership, that

took the initiative to develop and distribute a survey seeking feedback about IAS contracts across

Colleges and the employment environment experienced by IAS across Colleges campuses.

Respectfully Submitted

December 26, 2011

Richard Krupnow

37

Attachment 7

UW Colleges Academic Staff Representative to UW System Administration


March 16, 2012

Following is a report of the meeting of the Academic Staff Representatives in Madison on

February 3, 2012.

The joint session of the meeting of Academic Staff Representatives and Faculty Representatives

began with Al Crist, Associate Vice President for Human Resources & Workforce Diversity

summarizing HR issues. Al began with an update on the Personnel Systems and Committees.

He apologized for how quickly this process has moved forward, but the Joint Committee on

Employment Relations (JCOER) needs to approve the two new Personnel Systems a year from

now and the UW System needs to start working with them now and also talk to the Board of

Regents. Al handed out a timeline for this process. He encouraged academic staff and faculty

representatives to connect to this process at their institutions through their HR offices; they are

most aware of the process and form the steering committee. Each institution has developed a

communications plan. The issue of separating instructional academic staff from research and

other academic staff was raised, and Al Crist note that there is likely to be differences between

UW-Madison and the rest of the UW System in their Personnel Systems. Further information on

the University Personnel Systems Development can be found at

http://web.uwsa.edu/personnelsystems/

On May Multiples, Al Crist noted that the HRS Project Manager is very confident that they will

be able to spread the costs out over two or three months this year. They should know more on

this in the beginning of March. On 9/12, they will know more as HRS stabilizes.

Dave Giroux, Executive Director of Communications & External Relations provided a legislative

update. The UW System plan to address the Budget Lapse was submitted to the Joint Committee

on Finance. The Chancellors continue to be in contact with legislators regarding the high

percentage of the lapse that is paid by the UW System.

There are also bills proposed on the following issues:

Extend the deadline for the UW System to withdraw from WiscNet until July 1, 2014,

allowing more time for UW officials to review findings from an LAB audit that is

expected in January 2013.

Lift the cap on differential tuition for the four UW System institutions that don’t have it

(Parkside, Colleges, Stevens Point, and Green Bay)

Optional Retirement Plan - allowing a portable retirement plan for new employees

The Legislative Task Force meets again on February 8. Agenda items include Governance

Structure and Tuition Flexibility. Chancellors Ward and Lovell are scheduled to speak.

President Reilly’s remarks from the last meeting were shared earlier with Academic Staff and

Faculty Reps.

38

Other Updates:

New Web Site on Voter ID rules

Report on UW Mental Health Centers in the news

Mark Nook, Interim Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs, next provided an update on

Academic Affairs issues. At the February Board of Regents meeting, there will be a presentation

on Cost Containment and Educational Attainment. The presentation will analyze State

appropriations and tuition over the years. In addition, the presentation will look at where dollars

have been spent – more is going into Instruction and less into Operations. Finally, the

presentation will include specific campus programs to control both institutional and student

costs.

Mark Nook also provided an update on the Growth Agenda for Wisconsin grant program. UW

System Administration collapsed ten grant programs into two grants:

Institutional Change Grants

Conference and Professional Development Grants

The Review Process Committee has completed its work to develop a rubric for the review

process and proposals are due February 20.

Stephen Kolison, Associate Vice President for Academic, Faculty, & Global Programs then

provided an update on the Program Planning and Review Working Group. Stephen and Julie

Furst-Bowe, Provost at UW-Stout, co-chair the Working Group, which has been charged to

streamline the process and get System Administration out of quality review. Significant work

has been done by the Working Group which includes a Faculty Representative. The goal is to

have the work done by May and send a report to the Board of Regents in June. Stephen

encouraged input from governance groups and others. Concern was raised that the process will

move responsibility to the institutions while faculty workload continues to increase. Mark Nook

stated that they are not interested in moving workload to campuses unless it is a better way of

doing things.

The meeting ended following further discussion among Academic Staff Representatives,

including informal discussions with Mark Nook and Stephen Kolison.


Dan McCollum

39

Attachment 8

Student Governance Council President


March 16, 2012

The Student Governance Council has been hard at work this last month. We have spent a

significant amount of time and effort trying to get the Shared Governance Implementation Plan

passed through the campus student governments. We have been visiting campuses and continue

to do so moving forward. Generally the issues have been centered around simple education of the

student governments on what it means and why it is important. We have passed it through 9 of

the 13 campuses as of March 9th and UW-Fox Valley will be considering it on the 14th of this

month. So hopefully I will be able to announce at the meeting that we have passed it at the

required 2/3 of campuses and will be moving forward signing the document with Chancellor

Cross.

The second large item of business we have been discussing is the new proposed funding model

for SGC. Currently we are still in the drafting documents phase of the process, but we hope to

have that finished before Spring Break so that we have the second half of the semester to pass it

too through the campuses.

We have been working on the SUFAC report since the SGC SUFAC Summit back in November

and are finally collecting the final documents that will allow us to put the finishing touches on

that.

SGC is also working hard on a comprehensive revision of our constitution to make our

organization a bit more streamlined and responsive to the needs of students in the institution.

I also visited the Student Services meeting at UW-Marathon on March 9th to chat with the

advisors to campus student governments to make sure they were well aware of what SGC was up

to and to attempt to quell any animosity that may have existed there toward SGC.

And finally I would just like to repeat my plea that if you have competent students who may be

interested in getting involved in governance either on campus or with SGC please encourage

them to do so and put them in touch with their campus student governance organization or with

me and SGC. Thank you again!


M. Geoffrey Murray

Student Governance Council President

40

Attachment 9

Senate Academic Policy Committee Chair


March 16, 2012

The Senate Academic Policy Committee (SAPC) met at the full Senate meeting on 11 January

2011 at UW-Marshfield. The following items were discussed and/or acted on:

1) Cary Komoto resigned as committee chair. Mark Peterson was elected.

2) Drafted language for transfer credit appeals policy in the case of a student who wants

to challenge an AAS designation of transfer credits, the campus’ Academic Actions

Committee (or equivalent) will be the appropriate conduit to hear the appeal and will

consult with the academic department to come to a resolution.

3) Policy Revision Introductions:

The committee introduced revisions to IP #106 which allow campus curriculum

committees, as well as academic departments, to request the addition of

interdisciplinary studies and lecture forum courses to the curriculum.

The committee also introduced an amendment to IP #101 that make ENG 102, MAT

108, and MAT 110 eligible for IS status using the full range of IS course options

(rather than via the linked course model only).

The committee finalized language for a revision to IP #202 Academic Procedures and

Regulations concerning repeating of courses.

Remaining agenda items for the SAPC include reviewing IP #301.01 so that we can make sure it

accommodates our new method of conducting the SSI and, in particular, further work around the

question of establishing course maxima.


Mark C.E. Peterson

Chair of Senate Academic Policy Committee

March 2, 2012

41

Attachment 10

Senate Budget Committee Chair


March 16, 2012

The last regular meeting of the Senate Budget Committee (SBC) was at the January 11, 2011

Senate meeting. The following issues were discussed.

Impact of 2011-2013 Biennial Budget on UWC

At a state wide lapse of $174 million the UW Colleges share would be $2.5 million. It is

proposed to cover $1 million of this with reserve funds, leaving $1.5 million to be cut from UW

Colleges divisions based on budgeted expenses.

The SBC agreed with the use of $1 million of reserve funds to deal with the lapse. However the

committee felt the Colleges-wide division of the budget should be analyzed for a larger share of

the cuts. This would reduce the direct impact on the individual campuses.

Changes were made in the Colleges-wide division increasing its share of the lapse by just over

$80,000. The majority of this amount came from cuts or delays in computer upgrades, grants

and construction support. These funds were used to eliminate cuts to governance and library

support services and to reduce the lapse amount for all campuses.

ESFY Overview

Lisa Seale was invited by the committee to review the UW Colleges Engaging Students in the

First Year (ESFY) Program. Lisa discussed the history of the program, how it supports

institutional goals and the responsible stewardship of institutional resources. The committee

discovered that the participation level varies significantly between campuses. The gross cost of

the program is approximately $250,000 and the net cost (less tuition) is less. Lisa emphasized

that the ESFY staff continually reviews the program and attempts to implement best practices

across the Colleges. The committee had several questions for Lisa and thanked her for her

presentation.

Ongoing issues

The continuing implementation of Integrated Enrollment Management (IEM), the BAAS degree,

salary compression, differential salaries, IAS compensation and the role of the SBC in UWC

governance are still major issues.


Matthew Raunio

Chair, Senate Budget Committee

March 12, 2012

42

Attachment 11

Faculty Professional Standards Committee Chair


March 16, 2012

The Faculty Professional Standards Committee has one item up for approval at today’s meetings,

a revision to FPP #501 – revisions of Early Tenure Procedures. A second revision of a section of

FP #501, clarifying language regarding the reporting of all personnel actions, introduced at the

January meeting, has been withdrawn so as to fix language. The improved revision will be

submitted to the senate at the March meeting. We continue to work on a draft policy establishing

guidelines for merit procedures and for peer evaluations for online instructors. We also have

begun review of policies covering the administration of the student survey of instruction, in light

of recent decisions by the Provost, based on recommendations stemming from the pilot studies

conducted last fall.

1. Revisions of FPP#501 “Early Tenure Procedures.”

The early tenure policy guidelines and timeline need to be clarified and simplified, and the

probationer must be given an opportunity to decline the nomination for early tenure. This policy

revision is intended to clarify who may initiate an early tenure review and clarify the procedures

for conducting such an early tenure review and decision.

2. Revision of FPP#501 “Reporting Personnel Actions.”

This introduction is designed to clarify language regarding notification letters of personnel

actions, promotions, tenure decisions, and more. The withdrawal to re-submit was conducted so

that language allowing the use of pdf format electronic correspondences could be added to the

policy.

3. Merit Procedures for Online Instructors

This is a major project for the committee for this year. We currently have a draft of the policy,

and the FPSC will work closely with department chairs and the Senate Online Program

Committee to make any final adjustments. The FPSC is especially grateful to Nancy Chick for

her substantial work on this policy.

4. Other Issues

The FPSC also needs to continue to work with a variety of parties to update policies to keep up

with changes to portfolio and dossier submissions. We have begun work on reviewing policies

governing the administration of student surveys of instruction.


Ron Gulotta

Chair, Faculty Professional Standards Committee

43

Attachment 12

Senate Assessment Committee Chair


March 16, 2012

Since the last SAC report to the Senate in December 2011 the committee met several times via

Wisline and held a meeting at UW Marshfield on January 13 at which they were joined by the

DACs (Department Assessment Coordinators) and the CACs (Campus Assessment

Coordinators).

The committee met via Wisline October 19 with the Inclusive Excellence Working Group

(comprised of some of the Department Assessment Coordinators) to continue discussion of a set

of Institutional Proficiencies which could be utilized in assessing an Inclusive Excellence

Component in the future. The resulting Draft Proficiencies were then reviewed and discussed by

the committee, the DACs and the CACs at the January 13 meeting.

The committee held a Wisline meeting on January 3 to prepare for the January 13 meeting in

Marshfield. Items for the agenda were discussed and the agenda was set.

January 13 meeting in Marshfield There were twenty attendees at the daylong meeting comprised of SAC members, DACs, CACs

and guest presenters.

The morning session opened with a presentation by Laura Lee updating the work of the

HLC Self-Study committee. She also presented information from the Spring 2010 Assessment

Summit with HLC reps, deans and chairs. This meeting included discussion of increasing

connections between departments and campuses in the assessment process and how assessment

relates to strategic planning.

Assessment of High Impact Practices was the next focus of the January 13 meeting. Five

speakers provided information about the following practices: Service Learning, ESFY

Activities, Lesson Study, Development of Reading and Writing, and Study Abroad.

During the afternoon the DACs and the CACs met in separate sessions. Both groups

spent some time discussing the assessment of Inclusive Excellence in the UW Colleges. The

Working Group presented their Draft Proficiencies to the DACs and further changes were

suggested by those present, resulting in a new version which will be discussed further at the June

and August DAC/SAC meetings. The CACs also discussed the Assessment Cycle/Rotation and

the merits of having a common institution wide assessment theme/topic.

SAC met at the end of the January 13 meeting to discuss the day’s activities and review

the next steps for the committee for Spring and Summer.

Submitted by

Deborah Paprocki

SAC Chair

March 2, 2012

44

Attachment 13

Senate Student Survey of Instruction Working Group Chair


March 16, 2012

February 7, 2012

Senate Steering Committee:

In fall, 2010, the Senate Steering Committee seated and charged the Senate Student Survey of

Instruction Working Group with the following tasks:

1. act immediately to find a new way to carry out the SSI that insures the integrity and

validity of the data collected and responds to other concerns that might come up during

the process;

2. design and implement various pilots (campus, department, etc.) for the Course Climate

system and evaluate the results. These pilots should vary procedurally so that the results

will offer bases for comparison;

3. recommend to the Senate a way forward that is cost-effective and does at least as good a

job as the previous instrument in insuring the validity and security of the SSI data;

4. work with the Senate Academic Policy Committee to redraft Senate policy (specifically

IPP #301.01) to account for the proposed changes and introduce the amendments to

policy to the Senate;

5. report status to Senate Steering on the 1st and 15

th of each month until charge is complete.

This is the final report of the working group.

1. The Four Pilots

The working group designed and implemented four pilots:

Pilot 1: Online SSI, for Online courses only, and voluntary

Pilot 2: Online SSI with varying student incentive

Pilot 3: Online SSI, mandatory (using various methods) with opt out option

Pilot 4: Paper and pencil SSI administered according to current Senate policy

The pilots yielded the following response rates:

Pilot 1 Pilot 2 Pilot 3 Pilot 4

Average Response Rate 23% 39% 44% 80%

Total Number of Forms 747 252 250 276

see appendix for complete pilot results

45

Pilot 1 The response rates for the online course are too low to trust in retention and promotion

decisions (23% average). This seems on the surface to be a different problem than for face to

face classes, but one that requires a solution, too. This pilot does not solve the SSI issue for face

to face courses, but it does point out another problem we need to solve.

Pilot 2 The “electronic response with student incentive” pilot yielded no response rates greater

than 73% and an average of 39%, so this seems like the least promising option at the moment.

Finding a way to require student incentive for every class across the board presents a formidable

senate policy hurdle, as well.

Pilot 3 The working group asked the two instructors who had the best response rates for the

“mandatory electronic response” pilot how they did it. One reports that he explained the process

to his students and then let them out of class five minute early with the understanding that they

would go to the computer lab then and complete the survey or opt out. His response rates were

ranged from 50%-74%. The other instructor reports that close relationships with students, strong

rapport, and consistent reminders worked well for her. Overall, the average for this pilot was

44%, which is not high enough to proceed without rethinking how to make these truly mandatory

and administering another pilot. Gillard spoke with Marsha Henfer and Walt Bublitz about the

possibility of linking Class Climate to PRISM so that if a student does not complete or opt out of

the SSI, an automatic hold would be placed on that student’s course grade in PRISM. Both

Henfer and Bublitz agreed that this automatic system was not currently possible and to design

and implement it cannot happen in the short term. Entering and removing holds manually would

fall to student services staff, which is not a productive use of their time.

Pilot 4 80% response rate, no section under 64%. All agree that these rates of response are

acceptable to departments and campuses and are a reasonable basis upon which to make

important personnel decisions. Current Senate policy supports this method of administration, as

well.

2. Perspectives of Individual Members of the Working Group

Greg Ahrenhoerster

I think our end goal should be to move these online and make them mandatory to save resources

(both time and money), but I agree that we may not be able to do that on the short-term.

Unfortunately, this means that we are really just kicking this stone further down the road to be

dealt with at some future time.

However, I agree with Bill recommendation about f2f classes and SSIs.

We still need to address the problem of online classes and SSIs, and we also have some other SSI

policy issues that should be addressed. One such issue is that there is nothing in policy that says

at what point in the semester SSIs should be administered, so there have been cases of SSIs being

done in week 9 or 10 of a 15-week class. I would suggest we should have a policy that SSIs must

be conducted in the last two weeks of a course.

Bill Gillard

- the difference in response rates for the pilots is stark, and only face to face, paper

administration yields what I think of as consistently acceptable results

46

- the value of the controlled and consistent setting for administration of the SSI is high

- senate policy will not stand in the way at all if we recommend paper administration; it

already creates a successful and time-tested process for gathering the data that way

- Class Climate can process data collected on paper just as well as data collected

electronically; once the forms are scanned, we can use the full capabilities of Class

Climate

- there is currently no way to link the completion of an SSI to the release of grades; to

accomplish this would require somebody in Student services to run reports on Class

Climate to determine which students did not complete an SSI and then to enter grade

holds individually; the hold would also need to be removed manually; an electronic

solution, if possible, would take a long time, according to Marsha Henfer

- we will need to purchase a scanner to process the paper forms, but these are readily

available

- we need a solution now or very, very soon

I think we should recommend a paper administration of the SSI by:

- creating forms for each class by individual campuses using Class Climate

- paper collection of data under familiar circumstances and governed by existing Senate

policy

- processing the forms centrally (perhaps at Waukesha) using Class Climate

- continuing to work in the longer term toward a wholly electronic administration of the

SSI, perhaps by asking the Senate Steering Committee to refer this matter to the Senate

Academic Policy Committee for their study

Jen Heinert

In general, as my previous emails indicated, I agree with the recommendations you [Gillard] and

others have outlined. I think, however, the goal of moving data collection online is a good one

that will save time and money, but we don’t yet have a way to do that that gets us to a

meaningful response rate. I’d like to see a way for this to be a mandatory opt in/opt out process

once we have the technology in place. Because we don’t, the issues George and Christa raise

prevent us from moving everything online, in my opinion, unless we are to divorce SSI from

retention, promotion, and merit altogether. And I don’t want to see that happen. Though it was

only my first year on a departmental executive committee, the voices of the students are so

important in making those decisions. Students may not realize they are disenfranchising

themselves by opting out of the online evaluations or ignoring them altogether, but I can’t

imagine understanding my success as a teacher without their collective voice reflecting the

teaching and learning that happened in a given semester, and I don’t want to assess my peers

without it, either.

Christa James-Byrnes

I agree with your [Gillard’s] suggestions. As a chair (as I am sure Greg will attest), I do not

think it is fair to use the SSI results from a course that has on average about a 40% response rate,

for retention decisions. I don’t know at what percentage the results are valid, but I am sure that

is I more than 39% and 44%. I would agree with Bill, I would say purchase a scanner, hire an

LTE that only does the scanning, etc. and continue to work to find methods that will help

increase our response rate. I think that there would be enough people to volunteer their courses

to see if we could get the response rates higher.

This is all predicated that the 39% and 44% response rates are not acceptable, but I am one voice.

47

Judy Konkel

I believe that these recommendations make the most sense:

- creating forms for each class by individual campuses using Class Climate

- paper collection of data under familiar circumstances and governed by existing Senate

policy

- processing the forms centrally

- asking the Senate Steering Committee to refer this matter to the Senate Academic

Policy Committee for their study

Paul Price

I agree with the recommendation [Gillard’s] below. However, I do think that we (by we, I mean

the Colleges) should still continue to look into ways of getting students to answer online (or on

their phones – that they might do!) because of the savings in time, labor, materials etc.

George Waller

I have held off commentary because, as many may already know, I was not at all in favor of

proceeding to an online administration of the SSI from the very beginning. My principal concern

was that any online administration would seriously jeopardize the reliability and validity of

survey results because there would likely be a significant reduction in response rates. Since key

merit, retention, and even promotion decisions by both departments and campuses are made with

regard to results of the SSI, any situation which would compromise the reliability and validity of

those results would be especially problematic (and maybe even subject to appeal and even legal

action). I agreed to be part of the SSSI working group and to suspend my concerns about a

potential move to an all-online administration until after the various pilots were concluded. Now

that the results of those pilots have been released I have reached my conclusion. I am in total

agreement with the recommendations you outline below! They are, in my view, the only way to

insure reliable and valid SSI results that come from the high response rates we have been

accustomed to in the Colleges. Thanks to all who worked on this issue and I look forward to a

final decision about SSI in the very near future.

3. Final Recommendations of the Working Group

We advocate the following for immediate implementation by the UW Colleges Senate and the

Office of Academic Affairs:

1. the purchase of a Class Climate-compatible scanner to be located centrally

2. the creation of paper SSI forms for each class by individual campuses using the Class

Climate software

3. the paper collection of SSI data in face-to-face courses under familiar circumstances that

are governed by existing Senate policy

4. processing the forms centrally using Class Climate software and the new scanner

5. continued work in the longer term toward a wholly electronic administration of the SSI,

perhaps by asking the Senate Steering Committee to refer this matter to the Senate

Academic Policy Committee for their study

We further advocate the following policy and other changes:

48

1. do whatever it takes to assure that online courses generate SSI response rates that match

much more closely response rates for face-to-face sections

2. create a policy that requires SSIs be administered during the final two weeks of a term

3. create the technological capacity to make online administration of the SSI mandatory

(perhaps by automatically withholding grades in PRISM for non-responders) and modify

senate policy to support this.


The Senate Student Survey of Instruction Working Group

Iddi Adam

Greg Ahrenhoerster

Debbra Boettcher

David Brigham

Timothy Dunn

Bill Gillard (chair)

Jennifer Heinert

Shirley Hensch

Christa James-Byrnes

Judy Konkel

Dan McCollum

Paul Price

George Waller

49

Attachment 14

UW Colleges Senate

Adoption: March 16, 2012

Proposed Revision Institutional Curricular Policy #106

(“Atypical Course Policy”)

Background and Rationale

The proposed revision in V.A. concerns the mechanism for creation of IS and lecture forum

courses and aligns this policy with that of IP #101.02. SCC noted that requests for IS and LEC

courses – “other than LEC 100”s – should be able to originate in the departments and campus

curriculum committees, rather than merely departments and the Senate Curriculum committee.

Proposed revisions are in bold, red, italicized, underlined font.

UW Colleges Senate Policy

Institutional Curricular Policy #106

Atypical Course Policy ======================================================== Revision Adopted by the Senate - November 14, 1992, p.3

Revision Adopted by the Senate - Mary 15-16, 1981, p.5, app. 8

Ratified by the Senate - May 16, 1987, p. 5, app. 5

Ratified by the Senate - May 14, 1988, p. 12-13, app. 13

Adopted by the Senate - January 24, 1998, p. 6, app. 8

Reorganized and Renumbered March 15, 2002

Revised by the Senate - April 29, 2005

Revised by the Senate – April 28, 2006

Revised by the Senate April 27, 2007

Revised by the Senate (SAPC) March 11, 2011

[…]

V. Interdisciplinary Studies and Lecture Forum Courses Ratified by the Senate, September 13, 1986, p. 5, Appendix 5


A. Interdisciplinary and lecture forum courses other than LEC 100 may be added

to a the UW Colleges curriculum by request of either an academic department

or a UW Colleges Senate Curriculum Committee Campus Curriculum

Committee in accordance with IP #101.02.

All faculty and teaching academic staff participating in the design and/or

teaching of an INT or LEC course shall secure approval of their respective

academic department (as required by UW Colleges Constitution 4.03) as well

as the local Campus Curriculum Committee. All interdisciplinary or lecture

forum courses shall receive elective credit unless they receive approval for

other degree designations from the Senate Curriculum Committee.

50

B. If the course content is multidisciplinary (bridges more than one academic

department), falls outside of the instructor’s home department, or if the

potential instructor does not belong to any academic department, then the

participating faculty/instructional academic staff/potential instructor shall

secure from one department an agreement to serve as official sponsor of the

proposed course. It shall be the sponsoring department's responsibility to:

1. Secure from participating faculty/instructional academic staff a brief

course description, list of course objectives, and course syllabus.

2. Approve the course description for the timetable.

3. Secure a written evaluation/summary of the course at the conclusion of

the initial offering. This report should, if possible, include a course

evaluation by students.

4. Include this course in its schedule of required student evaluation, class

visitations, and assessment activities.

C. If the course content is multidisciplinary, then the course and instructor must

gain initial approval from all academic departments that are involved in the

proposed course as stipulated by IP #101.01.

[End]

51

Attachment 15

UW Colleges Senate

Introduction: March 16, 2012

Proposed Revision Institutional Policy #202

(“Academic Procedures and Regulations”)

Rationale:

Some courses in the UW Colleges catalog cover essentially the same content area (eg. some

courses in Computer Science). SAPC was asked to clarify the options for repeating a course by

substituting other courses which contain the same content. A clarifying paragraph has been

added to section III.F.

Proposed changes are in bold, red, underlined italics.

UW Colleges Senate

Institutional Policy Regarding Students #202

Academic Procedures and Regulations =============================================================== Ratified by the Senate - February 2, 1980: pages 2-3, Appendix 3

Amended, November 13, 1982, p.6; September 17, 1983, p.5

Amended, November 12, 1983, p.5

Amended, January 9, 1985, p.5

Amended, March 15, 1986, p.8

Amended, May 14, 1988, p.13, App.14

Revision Adopted by the Senate, May 14, 1989, p.14, App.21

Revision Ratified by the Senate, Oct. 7, 1989, p.8, App.16

Revision Adopted by the Senate, Jan. 17, 1992, p.4.

Revision Initiated by the Senate, May 7, 1994, p.8, App.11 and 12

Revision Adopted by the Senate, Oct. 1, 1994, p.8; see May 7, 1994, p. 8, App.11 and 12

Revision Adopted by the Senate, Mar. 18, 1995, p.4; att.2

Revision Adopted by the Senate, Mar. 7, 1998, pages 1,3,6,7, Att.2

Revision Adopted by the Senate, May 2, 1998, p.6

Revision Adopted by the Senate, April 23, 1999, p.5

Revision Adopted by the Senate, January 14, 2000, p.8, App. 7

Revision Adopted by the Senate, January 16, 2002, p._, App. __


Revised by the Senate, March 3, 2006


Revised by the Senate October 23, 2009

Revised by the Senate January 13, 2010

Revised by the Senate (SAPC) April 29, 2011

[…]

III. Registration

A. Calendar Week. The beginning of the calendar week to which certain academic

regulations refer is determined by the day of the week upon which first classes begin.

B. Adding Courses. A student may add a course(s) by completing the appropriate Change

of Program (Add/Drop) form during the first two weeks of a semester, the first week of

an eight-week course, and during a proportionate time for shorter courses. A campus may

52

require the student to obtain advisor and/or instructor signatures to make such a change

official. The completed Change of Program form must be returned to the appropriate

campus office.

A course may be added after the second week of classes of a semester if the change of

program is necessitated by dropping a course and substituting a lower-level course in the

same discipline.

Exceptions to the time limit may be made only with the written consent of the instructor

concerned.

C. Late registration. The student may register late under the same regulations as for adding

courses, subject to any fine for late registration which is in effect under Regent policy.

D. Dropping Courses. A student may drop a course(s) by completing the Change of

Program (Add/Drop) form during the first ten weeks of a semester-long course, during

the first five weeks of an eight-week-course, and proportionate time for shorter courses.

A UW Colleges campus may require the student to obtain advisor and/or instructor

signatures. Merely discontinuing attendance in a course or courses may result in an

official grade of F being recorded for that course(s).

An appeal to withdraw from a course after the reporting of final grades requires the

approval of the campus academic actions committee. Any such appeal should be

approved only for cases in which the course instructor was consulted (when reasonably

possible), and it was substantiated that the failure to drop the course was beyond the

student's control.

A grade of W (Withdraw) will be recorded for courses officially dropped (as described

above) after the end of the second week of classes for a semester course and after the end

of the first week for courses less than 12 weeks in length, but prior to the deadline for

dropping the courses.

Refund of student tuition is governed by the Regent Fee Schedule which is issued on an

annual basis. The date upon which a student returns the completed Change of Program

form to the appropriate UW Colleges office is the date used to determine any applicable

refund of fees.

UW Colleges may establish procedures for administratively dropping students who do

not attend 1 or more of the first class sessions in a semester. The number of class sessions

missed before the implementation of an administrative drop is at the discretion of the

campus. UW Colleges choosing to implement this administrative drop policy must

provide students with adequate notice of the policy.

E. Complete Withdrawals. Students may completely and officially withdraw from school

by completing the Withdrawal form during the first ten weeks of a semester or the first

five weeks of an eight-week session or the proportionate time for shorter sessions.

53

The Withdrawal form must be signed by the student and other appropriate persons as

determined by each UW Colleges campus, and returned to the appropriate campus office.

Students who do not complete the Withdrawal form during the first ten weeks (or

proportionate time for shorter sessions) and obtain the required signatures may receive

grades of F in all courses for which they are registered.

Refund of student tuition is governed by the Regent Fee Schedule which is issued on an

annual basis. The date upon which a student returns the completed Withdrawal form to

the appropriate campus office is the date used to determine any applicable refund of

tuition.

Any student who withdraws from two consecutive semesters will not be eligible to enroll

without seeking readmission. (This does not affect students who enroll for an original

credit load of less than 6 credits in each of the two consecutive semesters.) Students

should be aware that any semester in which a withdrawal is made after the end of the

time allowed for adding courses will count as a semester of enrollment for academic

progress standards and may result in a probation action. If a student can provide evidence

that a withdrawal is necessary due to unforeseeable, extenuating circumstances, he/she

may be allowed to withdraw without a probation action if such evidence is provided at

the time of withdrawal. A student who believes he/she may have extenuating

circumstances should consult the Office of Student Services.

F. Repeating Courses. A previous course may be repeated by reenrolling in either (a)

the exact same course, (b) a different course OR COURSES that has replaced the

previous course in the current catalog, or (c) if neither of the previous options is

available, then a course or courses that the department specifically identifies as

covering all of the required content of the previous course. Any other exceptions must

be approved by both the department chair and the registrar.

A student may not repeat a course after having completed a succeeding course in the

discipline. A "succeeding course" is one that lists the course the student wishes to repeat

as a prerequisite. Exceptions to the policy may be granted by the Director of Student

Services.

There is no limit to the number of times that a course may be repeated; all attempted

courses and all grades earned will appear on the record or transcript, including all times

that a repeated course was taken. Students should be aware that some institutions will

average the grades of all courses attempted when computing a G.P.A. for admission

purposes.

If a student, upon registering, indicates that a course is a repeat then only the most recent

credits attempted and grade earned will be used in computing the grade point average in the

Colleges. If a student does not indicate that the course is a repeat, then all credits attempted

and grades earned will be used in determining the Colleges grade point average. Courses

repeated at institutions other than the UW Colleges will not affect a student's UW

Colleges grade point average.

54

Ordinarily, courses will not be counted twice toward the number of credits required for

the Associate Degree. For example, if a student takes History 101 twice for 3 credits each

time, that student will have earned only 3 credits toward a degree. There are a few

courses such as chorus and orchestra which students may take more than one time and

count all credits earned in those courses.

Students planning to repeat a course, especially those receiving benefits from the

Veteran’s Administration or Social Security, should consult with the Office of Student

Services.

G. Concurrent Registration. Students may enroll in courses at more than one University of

Wisconsin campus.

Students should consult with the UW Colleges Office of Student Services and Business

Office for information on concurrent registration.

A student may take a course by correspondence through University Extension. Students

who have paid full-time fees may take such a course at no additional cost except for fees

for text materials purchased through Extension and the registration fee assessed by UW

Extension. Students should contact the Office of Student Services for a list of such

courses and the appropriate form. Registration for such a course should take place no

later than the first week of classes. At present, this may be done during the regular

academic year but not as a part of the summer session.

H. Student Classification. Freshman Standing: 0 - 29 degree credits.

Sophomore Standing: 30 or more degree credits.

I. Auditing a Course. A student may wish to audit a course to gain whatever knowledge

and understanding is available by sitting in on a class. A student who wishes to audit a

course must have the consent of the instructor concerned. Auditors will not be required to

take examinations nor to have any course work evaluated by an instructor.

Audited courses carry no degree credit and are not counted in the student's grade point

average. Audited courses do not count toward full-time attendance for purposes such as

certification of full-time attendance for Social Security or Veterans Administration

benefits.

Students may change from audit to credit status during the same time period as that

allowed for adding a course and may change from credit to audit status during the period

allowed for dropping a course.

A course which has been audited may be repeated for credit at a later time.

[…]

[End]

55

Attachment 16

UW Colleges Senate



(“Associate of Arts and Science Degree”)

Rationale: SSC asked SAPC whether the restriction granting IS status to “core courses” only when they

follow a linked-course model for the IS designation is still useful. The question concerned ENG

102. In discussion, SAPC members found no reason to limit “core courses” to the IS linking

model when the numerous other options (see 101.01 I.B.2) seem to offer flexibility without

compromising curricular quality. The same could be said for the other Core Requirements. A

simple strike out accomplishes this flexibility.

Proposed revisions are in bold, red, italicized, underlined font.



Associate of Arts and Science Degree Resolution approved by the Senate, January 24, 1998, p. 4, app. 5

Amended by the Senate, November 13, 1998, p. 3

Amended by the Senate, March 3, 2000, p. 3, 4


Amended by the Senate, May 2, 2003

Revision Adopted by the Senate, March 4, 2005


Revision Adopted by the Senate March 7, 2008


Revised by the Senate (SAPC/Eng Dept) March 5, 2010

Revised by the Senate (SSC/Eng Dept) March 11, 2011

Revised by the Senate (SSC/SAC) April 29, 2011

Revised by the SSC (BIO Dept) 2011-10-21

The Associate of Arts and Science Degree

[…]

IV General Education Requirements Revised by the Senate March 7, 2008

A. Core Requirements

Grade of C or better in or exemption from the following:

WRITING - ENG 102

MATHEMATICS - MAT 108 or MAT 110

Courses used to satisfy the writing and mathematics requirements and their

prerequisites may not be used to satisfy a breadth requirement except that:

1. A core course or its prerequisite will be eligible for IS credit when it is linked

with another course and meets the criteria and procedures specified in

Institutional Policy 101.01 for Interdisciplinary Studies.

56

2. A student who earns credit in MAT 108 and MAT 110 with a grade of C or

better in at least one of those courses may use the other course to satisfy part

of the MS/NS breadth requirement.

3. A student who earns a C or better in MAT 124 or in both MAT 110 and MAT

113 may use the course(s) to satisfy part of the MS/NS breadth requirement.

[…]

[End]

57

Attachment 17

UW Colleges Senate


Proposed Revision of Faculty Personnel Policy #501

(“Criteria and General Procedures for Appointment, Retention, Tenure Progress, Tenure,

and Promotion (Bylaws)"

Rationale:

Current policy for class visitations does not acknowledge the Online program. These two

proposed changes incorporate Online visitation and the distribution on visitations reports to the

Online program.



Faculty Personnel Policy #501

Criteria and General Procedures for Appointment, Retention, Tenure

Progress, Tenure, and Promotion (Bylaws)

========================================================== Revision Ratified by the Senate, October 8, 1988, p. 9, Appendix 13

Revision Adopted by the Senate, May 13, 1989, p. 6, Appendix 11

Revision Ratified by the Senate, October 7, 1989, p. 5, Appendix 11

Revision Initiated by the Senate, May 9, 1992, p. 5, Appendix 11

Revision Adopted by the Senate, January 15, 1993, p. 6, Appendix 9

Revision Adopted by the Senate, October 1, 1994, p. 7; see May 7, 1994 minutes, Appendix 19

Revision Adopted by the Senate, May 6, 1995, p. 7

Revision Adopted by the Senate, March 9, 1996, p. 4

Revision Initiated by the Senate, November 16, 1996, p. 6-7

Revision Adopted by the Senate, January 25, 1997, p. 8



Revision Adopted by the Senate, March 2, 2001, p. 36, Appendix 2

Revision Adopted by the Senate, January 16, 2002, p. 37, Attachment 2


Revised by the Senate, May 7, 2004


Revised by the Senate, April 28, 2006


Revised by the Senate (FPSC) March 5, 2010

Revised by the Senate (FPSC) April 23, 2010

Revised by the Senate (FPSC) 2010-10-22

Revised by the SSC (2010-11-15)

Procedures specified in the following documents must be followed:

1. Wis. Stats. Chapter 19, Subchapter IV (Open Meeting Law)

2. Wis. Stats. Chapter 36

3. Wis. Administrative Code

4. UW System Faculty Personnel Rules

5. UW Colleges Faculty Handbook

6. UW Colleges Constitution (See especially Chapter 5.00, Definitions of Tenure Appointment

and Probationary Appointment; Chapter 6.00, Written Notice of Non-Renewal; Chapter 6.01,

Reconsideration of Non-Renewal; Chapter 6.02, Appeals Against Non-Renewal.)

58

7. UW Colleges Senate Policies (including but not limited to the following):

IP #321 Counting Ad Hoc Experience for Probationary Appointments

FPP #510: Institutional Need and Tenure Positions

FPP #509: Faculty Affiliation for Deans

* All timeline provisions refer to working days.

I. Introduction – General Criteria Procedures Revised by the Senate October 17, 2008—Items F & G

A. Effective Date. This document is effective, beginning with the fall 1993 semester and

applies to continuing tenured faculty and new faculty appointed for the Fall, 1993

semester. All probationary faculty hired before the effective date shall have the option of

being considered for tenure under either the criteria prevailing before the effective date of

this document or the criteria specified in this document.

B. Deliberations and Votes. Materials used in the deliberations for retention, tenure, and

promotion shall be the same for both department and campus. Evaluation procedures for

retention, tenure, and promotion shall include a recorded vote, except in cases of secondary

department or secondary campus deliberations. An affirmative vote requires a majority of

yes votes from those present who have the right to vote. No person shall vote on or

participate in deliberations at more than one level of any personnel action. The vote for

tenure and promotion to associate professor shall be a single vote, except in extenuating

circumstances. The provost, in consultation with the department chair, shall determine

when a split vote would be appropriate.

C. Class Visitations. The department chair shall coordinate online and/or in-person class

visitations with the faculty member. Visitation reports shall be sent to the department chair

with copies to the faculty member visited, the campus dean, the Director of Distance

Education (for online course visitation only), and the appropriate campus committee(s).

D. Disagreement Between Campus and Department on Professional Development.

Whenever a campus committee fails to support a candidate for retention, promotion, or

tenure based on a judgment of inadequate professional development, in spite of an

affirmative recommendation from the department, the department shall be consulted for a

full and substantive explanation of its decision before the initial vote is transmitted to the

campus dean. Following this consultation, the local committee may reconsider its initial

vote.

E. Appointments Split Between Departments and/or Campuses. The following order of

deliberations shall occur in the case of appointments split between “home” and

“secondary” departments and/or campuses:

1. For third-year retention/tenure progress review, tenure, and promotion cases in

which an appointment is split between a home department and a secondary

department, the secondary department shall forward to the home department a formal

recommendation for personnel action. Both departments shall consider the same set

59

of materials submitted by the probationary candidate. The home department shall

consider the secondary department’s recommendation in its deliberations on the

personnel action. Whenever a secondary department fails to support a probationary

candidate for tenure progress review/third-year retention, tenure, or promotion, the

secondary department shall be consulted for a full and substantive explanation of its

decision before the home department’s vote is taken. In the deliberations of the

home and secondary departments, only the home department’s deliberations shall

include a recorded vote.

2. For third-year retention/tenure progress review, tenure, and promotion cases in

which an appointment is split between a home campus and a secondary campus, the

secondary campus shall forward to the home campus a formal recommendation for

personnel action after the secondary campus has received the department’s vote on

the personnel action. Both campuses shall consider the same set of materials

forwarded by the department. The home campus shall consider the secondary

campus’s recommendation in its deliberations on the personnel action. Whenever a

secondary campus fails to support a probationary candidate for tenure progress

review/third-year retention, tenure, or promotion, the secondary campus shall be

consulted for a full and substantive explanation of its decision before the home

campus’s vote is taken. In the deliberations of the home campus and secondary

campus, only the home campus’s deliberations shall include a recorded vote.

F. Requesting Reasons for Non-Renewal. When a faculty member receives notice of

non-renewal of a probationary appointment from the provost, he/she has the right to

request and receive written specific reasons for the decision if he/she makes the request

within 10 working days. Such reasons shall be provided within 10 working days of the

request and become a part of the personnel file of the individual. The provost will notify

the candidate if non-renewal is affirmed after reconsideration. See Chapter 6.00.

G. Requesting Reasons for Nonsupport of a Promotion. Whenever a department, campus

committee or the provost fails to support a candidate for promotion, the provost will notify

the candidate, and the candidate has the right to request and receive written specific

reasons for the decision if the candidate makes the request within 15 working days. Such

reasons shall be provided within 10 working days of the request and become a part of the

personnel file of the individual. The provost will notify the candidate if non-support is

affirmed after reconsideration.

H. Copies of Personnel Action Correspondence. Copies of all personnel action

correspondence, with respect to this document, shall be sent to the faculty member

involved and to the provost, the appropriate campus dean(s), the appropriate department

chairperson(s), and the appropriate campus committee(s).

[…]

[End]

60

Attachment 18

UW Colleges Senate




Rationale: The Cognitive Skills Core Course Committee has made the following recommendation, which

has since been endorsed by Patti Wise, the BAAS administrator. “In order to maintain an

essential interdisciplinary character of the BAAS curriculum as well as to have an overseeing

body, we recommend that a program of studies be created on the model of the UW Colleges'

Women Studies Program. Giving it the provisional name of BAAS Applied Studies Program, we

recommend that this BAAS ASP house the core courses being currently developed and oversee

the designation of proposed courses, with the chair of the program serving on the UWC Senate

BAAS Curriculum Committee.” This is just the first step in establishing the program. What

follows is the real heavy lifting (building a cadre of instructors, crafting bylaws, the appointment

of a director, etc.). But first we need to establish the program’s existence, and that is what this

revision of IP #101 is intended to do.

Proposed changes are in bold, red, italicized, and underlined font.

















[…]

VIII. Departments and Disciplines Revised by the Senate March 11, 2011

Revised by the Senate 2011-04-29

Revised by the SSC 2011-10-21

The following list includes all departments and the disciplines included within each

department.

61

Anthropology and Sociology

Anthropology, Sociology

Art

Art

Biological Sciences

Biology

Business and Economics

Business, Economics

Chemistry

Chemistry

Communication and Theatre Arts

Communication, Theatre

Computer Science, Engineering, Physics and Astronomy

Astronomy, Computer Science, Engineering, Engineering Graphics, Engineering

Mechanics, Physics

Engineering, Engineering Graphics, and Engineering Mechanics count as the

same discipline for the AAS degree requirement.

English

English, Learning Resources (LEA) (non-degree credit classes)

Geography and Geology

Geography, Geology, Meteorology

Geography and Meteorology count as the same discipline for the AAS degree

requirement.

Health, Exercise Science and Athletics

Exercise Science, Health, Physical Education

History

History

Mathematics

Mathematics

Music

Music, Music Applied

62

Philosophy

Philosophy, Religious Studies

Political Science

American Indian Studies, Political Science

Psychology

Education, Psychology

World Languages

French, German, Spanish, Chinese, Italian

Other Programs and Courses

Applied Studies (APS)

Interdisciplinary Studies (INT)

Lecture Forum (LEC)

Women’s Studies (WOM)

[…]

[End]

63

Attachment 19

UW Colleges Senate




Rationale: At its April 29, 2011 meeting, the Senate voted to adopt a proposed revision of IP #101

(Associate of Arts and Science Degree) in order to update the list of departments and disciplines

found there, as well as to revise the list of institutional assessment proficiencies as approved by

the Senate Assessment Committee in 2007. In the course of discussion on the Senate floor, it was

noted that an error in the first of the four institutional proficiencies had gone unnoticed. In

order to correct the list of departments and disciplines in time for the biannual revision of the

UW Colleges Catalog, the then proposed revisions to IP #101 were approved. The introduction

today seeks to correct the error noted on the Senate floor last April, by revising the section on

the Analytical Skills proficiency with language approved by the Senate Assessment Committee.

Minor formatting changes have also been made (changing from bullets to numbers to match

institutional assessment practice, capitalizing initial letters, and removing closing punctuation

marks).

Proposed changes are in bold, red, italicized, and underlined font.

















[…]

II. Degree Proficiencies Revised by the Senate 2011-04-29

To fulfill its mission, the UW Colleges has identified the following areas of proficiency to be

of primary importance in the education of our students. Assessment methods to determine

64

student acquisition of proficiencies at the course level have been developed. Students may be

required to participate in course assessment.

A. Analytical Skills

Students must be able to:

1. Iinterpret and synthesize information and ideas,

2. Aanalyze and evaluate arguments,

3. Cconstruct hypotheses and support arguments, an argument in support of

a conclusion 4. Sselect and apply scientific and other appropriate methodologies,

5. Iintegrate knowledge and experience to arrive at creative solutions,

6. Ggather and assess information from printed sources, electronic sources,

and observation.

7. Cconstruct and support hypotheses.

B. Quantitative Skills


1. Ssolve quantitative and mathematical problems,

2. Iinterpret graphs, tables, and diagrams,

3. Uuse statistics appropriately and accurately.

C. Communication Skills


1. Rread, observe, and listen with comprehension and critical perception,

2. Ccommunicate clearly, precisely, and in a well-organized manner,

3. Ddemonstrate a large and varied vocabulary,

4. Rrecognize and use a variety of communication forms and styles,

5. Uuse computer technologies for communication.

D. Aesthetic Skills


1. Ccreate or perform a work of art,

2. Ccritically reflect upon a work of art.

[…]

[End]

65

Attachment 20

UW Colleges Faculty Council of Senators






The Senate Professional Standards Committee was asked to review the policy on early tenure in

order to clarify and simplify it. This policy needed to conform to existing policy on tenure, and

the probationer must be given an opportunity to decline the nomination before it goes forward.

The committee wanted to clarify the primary role of the department in initiating an early tenure

nomination, while providing an avenue for deans to seek a recommendation in the interests of

their campuses, where appropriate. The committee felt that a nomination for early tenure could

be tied to the timetable for notice of retention for probationary faculty in their third and fourth

years of probation.
































66













[…]

III. Criteria and Procedures for Retention of Probationary Tenure-track Faculty

A. Criteria for Retention of Probationary Tenure-Track Faculty

1. The individual has made appropriate progress toward meeting the criteria for tenure

as described in IV.

2. The individual has either made progress toward or received an appropriate degree or

has made progress toward the academic preparation as indicated in the letter of

appointment.

Additional Consideration. The requirement for an appropriate degree may be waived

in cases of outstanding professional accomplishment widely recognized in the

discipline.

B. Procedures for Retention of Probationary Tenure-Track Faculty Revised by the Senate March 5, 2010

Revised 4-23-10

1. General Retention Procedures

a. September 1. By September 1, of each academic year the provost shall

provide appropriate department chairs, campus committee chairs, and campus

deans with a complete roster of probationary faculty. Information regarding

prior years of service granted, number of years on UW Colleges tenure track,

leaves of absence, and other pertinent information shall be included.

b. Department's Role in Retention Decisions. The department executive

committee is the first body to make retention decisions regarding probationary

67

faculty. If a decision is negative, the process stops and the faculty member is

notified of his/her non-retention by the provost as described in sections 2-5

below.

c. Campus' Role in Retention Decisions. If the department's recommendation is

positive, it is forwarded to the campus committee for retention which, in turn,

forwards both its and the department's recommendations to the campus dean.

d. Campus Dean's Role in Retention Decisions. If the department's

recommendation is positive and the campus committee’s recommendation is

negative, the campus dean shall notify the provost who shall notify the faculty

member as described in sections 2-5 below. If the recommendations of both

the department and campus committee for retention are affirmative and the

campus dean concurs, he/she, after notifying the provost, shall notify the

probationary faculty member of retention decision. If the campus dean does

not concur with the affirmative recommendations, he/she shall consult the

department and the campus committee for retention. If, following

consultation, the dean still does not concur, he/she shall advise the department

and campus committee for retention in writing of his/her continuing

non-concurrence and forward all recommendations to the provost, who shall

then make the final decision and notify the faculty member.

2. Procedures for Retention of First-Year Probationary Faculty (Note: timelines subject

to change on notification from the provost).

a. November 30. By November 30, class visitations shall be conducted by at

least two different members of the appropriate department.

b. January 4. The probationary faculty member shall submit the retention

dossier to the department.

c. February 1. By February 1, the department executive committee shall forward

its recommendation to the campus committee for retention. For affirmative

recommendations, reasons for continuing the appointment shall be provided.

If the recommendation is negative, no further action shall be taken by the

campus committee and the department executive committee shall also notify

the provost who shall notify the faculty member of the non-renewal for the

next academic year.

d. February 15. By February 15, the campus committee for retention shall

forward to the campus dean both its and the department's recommendations.

For affirmative recommendations, reasons for continuing the appointment shall

be provided.

e. March 1. By March 1, notification of either retention or non-retention shall be

given to the faculty member. If the recommendation is affirmative, the campus

68

dean shall inform the faculty member of his/her retention. If the

recommendation of the campus committee is negative, the campus dean shall

notify the provost, who shall notify the probationary faculty member of the

non-renewal for the next academic year.

f. In cases of initial probationary appointments for fractional years, the first year

retention process shall be waived without prejudice. The retention decision

shall be considered positive.

3. Procedures for Retention of Second-Year Probationary Faculty (Note: timelines

subject to change on notification from the provost).

The rationale for the earlier timeline of the Procedures for the Retention of Second-

Year Probationary faculty is to be in compliance with UWS 3.09.

a. November 1. By November 1, class visitations shall be conducted by at least

two different members of the appropriate department.

b. November 7. The probationary faculty member shall submit the retention

dossier to the department.

c. December 1. By December 1, the department executive committee shall

forward its recommendation to the campus committee for retention. For

affirmative recommendations, reasons for continuing the appointment shall be

provided. If the recommendation is negative, no further action shall be taken

by the campus committee, and the department executive committee shall also

notify the provost who shall notify the faculty member of the non-renewal for

the next academic year.

d. December 10. By December 10, the campus committee for retention shall

forward to the campus dean both its and the department's recommendations.

For affirmative recommendations, reasons for continuing the appointment shall

be provided.

e. December 15. By December 15, notification of either retention or

non-retention shall be given to the faculty member. If the recommendation is

affirmative, the campus dean shall inform the faculty member of his/her

retention. If the recommendation of the campus committee is negative, the

campus dean shall notify the provost, who shall notify the probationary faculty

member of the non-renewal for the next academic year.

4. Procedures for Tenure Progress Review and Retention of Third-Year Probationary

Faculty (Note: timelines subject to change on notification from the provost).

A special tenure progress review shall be conducted in the third year of the

candidate's probationary appointment. Criteria and Procedures for the Third-Year

69

Tenure Progress Review shall conform as closely as possible to the "Criteria and

Procedures for Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor," included in Section

IV of this document.

Tenure Progress reviews provide an opportunity for both department and campus to

inform The candidate of progress toward tenure. The absence of concerns, or the

indication of Satisfactory progress toward tenure, should not be construed as a

commitment to make a positive recommendation at the time of the tenure decision.

a. November 30. By November 30, class visitations shall be conducted by at

least two different members of the appropriate department.

b. January 4. Probationary faculty member shall submit retention and tenure-

review dossier to the department.

c. April 3. In the case of an appointment split between a home department and a

secondary department, by April 3 of the faculty member’s third year of

probationary appointment, the secondary department shall forward to the home

department its recommendation in the personnel case.

d. April 15. By April 15 of the faculty member's third year of probationary

appointment the department executive committee shall evaluate the candidate's

general progress toward tenure and toward meeting the particular conditions

noted in the letter of appointment. If the results of the tenure progress review

justify retention, the department shall forward to the campus committee for

retention its recommendation for continuing the appointment the next

academic year along with reasons why the appointment should be continued.

At the same time, the department shall forward a copy of its tenure progress

review, including recommendations for improvement, to the appropriate

campus dean(s).

If the results of the tenure progress review do not justify retention, the

department shall notify the campus retention committee of its decision not to

retain and no further action shall be taken by the campus committee. The

department shall also notify the provost who shall notify the faculty member

that the next academic year will be his/her terminal appointment year.

e. April 22. In the case of an appointment split between a home and a secondary

campus, the secondary campus’s committee for retention shall receive the

same documentation regarding the department’s decision as the home campus,

and shall forward to the home campus its recommendation in the personnel

case by April 22.

f. May 1. By May 1, the campus committee for retention shall forward to the

campus dean both its and the department's recommendations. For affirmative


70

The committee shall also forward a copy of its tenure progress review,

including recommendations for improvement, to the appropriate campus

dean(s).

g. May 15. By May 15, notification of either retention or non-retention shall be

given to the faculty member. If the recommendation is affirmative, the dean

shall include with the notification of retention copies of the department and

campus tenure progress reviews along with his/her evaluation of the

candidate's general progress toward tenure, based upon information contained

in the tenure progress reviews. The dean shall also send copies of his/her

evaluation to the department chair and the chair of the campus committee for

retention.

If the recommendation of the campus committee is negative, the campus dean

shall notify the provost who shall notify the probationary faculty member of

the non-retention decision and that the next academic year will be his/her

terminal appointment year.

5. Procedures for Retention of Fourth-Year and Fifth-Year Probationary Faculty (Note:

timelines subject to change on notification from the provost).

a. The deadline for submission of the retention dossier for fourth- and fifth-year

probationary faculty shall be at the discretion of the department chair, but no

earlier than January 4 and no later than April 1.

b. April 1. By April 1, class visitations may, at the discretion of the department,

be conducted by one or more members of the department.

c. April 15. By April 15, the department executive committee shall forward its

recommendation to the campus committee for retention. This recommendation

shall include a nomination for early tenure where applicable (see Section

IV.C). For affirmative recommendations, reasons for continuing the

appointment shall be provided. If the recommendation is negative no further

action shall be taken by the campus committee, and the department executive

committee shall also notify the provost who shall notify the faculty member

that the next academic year will be his/her terminal appointment year.

d. May 1. By May 1, the campus committee for retention shall forward to the

campus dean both its and the department's recommendations. For affirmative


e. May 15. By May 15, notification of either retention or non-retention shall be

given to the faculty member. If the recommendation is affirmative, the campus

dean shall inform the faculty member of his/her retention. If the faculty

member is nominated for early tenure and accepts the nomination, the

process of collecting letters and other tenure processes can start on this date.

71

If the recommendation of the campus committee is negative, the campus dean

shall notify the provost, who shall notify the probationary faculty member of

the non-retention decision and that the next academic year will be his/her

terminal appointment year.

IV. Criteria and Procedures for Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor (3/9/96-section IV added)

A tenure/promotion decision for each full or part-time probationary tenure-track faculty

member must be made within seven years of the date of the initial appointment. A leave of

absence, sabbatical leave, or faculty development assignment shall not constitute a break in

continuous service nor shall it be included in the probationary period.

Additional circumstances that do not constitute a break in continuous service and that shall

not be included in the seven year period include responsibilities with respect to childbirth or

adoption, significant responsibilities with respect to elder or dependent care obligations,

disability or chronic illness, or circumstances beyond the control of the faculty member,

when those circumstances significantly impede the faculty member's progress toward

achieving tenure. It shall be presumed that a request made under this section because of

responsibilities with respect to childbirth or adoption shall be approved. A request shall be

made before a tenure review commences.

A request for additional time because of family or disability reasons here indicated shall be

submitted to the provost who shall consult with the faculty member's department chair and

campus dean. The provost shall specify the length of time for which the request is granted.

A denial of a request shall be made in writing and shall be based upon clear and convincing

reasons. More than one request may be granted. However, the total, aggregate length of

time granted to a faculty member for all requests, except for a request with respect to

childbirth or adoption, is not expected to exceed one year.

A. Criteria for Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor

1. The individual has compiled a record of teaching effectiveness and has skillfully

fulfilled teaching responsibilities for preparation and presentation of information in

the discipline. Consideration will include, but not be limited to, lecture and

laboratory preparation and presentation; resourcefulness, imagination, and

competence in teaching; evidence of course improvement where the need was

indicated by self- or external evaluation; and evidence that students have been

provided with a sound background in the discipline.

2. The individual has demonstrated evidence of professional development through any

of the following: research, including research on teaching methods; professional

contributions to the discipline through scholarly publication; presentations of papers

at state, regional, or national meetings of professional associations; art exhibits and

performances involving outside peer review; active participation in professional

meetings or associations beyond attendance; or other professional contributions

recognized by one's professional peers external to the UW Colleges.

72

3. The individual has demonstrated significant achievement in one or both of the

following:

a. University service through contributions at the campus, department, UW

Colleges-wide or all-university level.

b. Public service to the community in areas related to his/her academic expertise

or professional competence. This could include courses and other professional

community service activities provided through Continuing Education

Extension.

4. The individual has received an appropriate degree or the academic preparation as

indicated in the letter of appointment.

Additional Consideration. The requirement for an appropriate degree may be waived

in cases of outstanding professional accomplishment widely recognized in the

discipline or in cases where, at the time of hiring, it was not specified as a

requirement for promotion.

B. Procedures for Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor (Note: timelines subject

to change on notification from the provost). Revised by the Senate March 5, 2010

1. April 1. By April 1 of the fifth probationary year, the Office of Academic Affairs

shall provide the department chair a random selection of 100 names of the faculty

member's former students enrolled through the fall semester of the fifth year of the

probationary period. Criteria for the selection of students shall include a final grade

of C or better; the department may determine further criteria.

2. July 1. By July 1 the department chair shall send students letters requesting an

evaluation. Distinction shall be maintained between department and

candidate-generated letters from former students.

3. October 1. By October 1 departments shall notify candidates for tenure of the

upcoming tenure consideration and that January 4 (or an earlier date set at the

discretion of the department) is the deadline for completion of their personnel file.

4. November 30. By November 30, two class visitations conducted by at least two

different department members must be completed.

5. January 4. By January 4 (or an earlier date at the discretion of the department) all

materials must be received by the department chair; any materials received late shall

not be considered, unless the provost approves their inclusion. In cases of split

appointments, a copy of the candidate’s dossier must also be received by the

secondary department by January 4.

73

6. January 12. In the case of an appointment split between a home department and a

secondary department, the secondary department shall forward its recommendation

in the personnel case to the home department by January 12.

7. January 25. By January 25 the department executive committee shall forward

its affirmative recommendation, including complete documentation, to the campus

committee for tenure. A negative department recommendation shall also be sent to

the campus committee, and no further action shall be taken. The department chair

shall also notify the dean, who shall notify the faculty member that the next

academic year will be his/her terminal appointment. This notification constitutes

official notification for the purposes of appeal. The department chair shall also

inform the provost of the department's negative recommendation.

8. January 30. In the case of an appointment split between a home campus and a

secondary campus, the secondary campus shall receive the same documentation

regarding the department’s decision as the home campus, and shall forward its

recommendation in the personnel case to the home campus by January 30.

9. February 15. By February 15, if both the department and the campus

recommendations are affirmative, the campus committee for tenure shall submit both

recommendations to the campus dean, along with specific reasons for arriving at an

affirmative recommendation. If the campus does not concur with the department's

affirmative recommendation, it will advise the department of its reasons.

10. March 1. By March 1, if the campus decision is negative, an effort shall be made to

resolve campus committee and department differences (see I.D). If the campus and

department differences cannot be resolved, the committee chair shall notify the dean,

who shall notify the faculty member that the next academic year will be his/her

terminal appointment. This notification constitutes official notification for the

purposes of appeal. The committee chair shall also inform the provost of the

committee's negative recommendation.

11. March 15. If both the department and the campus recommendations are affirmative,

by March 15, the campus dean shall forward both recommendations, his/her own

recommendation, and complete documentation to the provost. If the campus dean

does not concur with the affirmative recommendations, he/she shall consult both the

department and the campus committee for tenure. If, following consultation, the

dean still does not concur, he/she shall advise the department and campus committee

for promotion in writing of his/her continuing non-concurrence and forward all

recommendations to the provost.

12. May 15. The provost shall review the recommendations.

C. Procedure for Early Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor (Rewritten and adopted by the Senate April 28, 2006)

Revised and Renumbered by the Senate 2010-10-22

74

1. Early tenure may be granted in the exceptional case where a probationer has clearly

exceeded normal expectations in the areas relevant to the annual progress review.

Tenure-track faculty may be nominated for early tenure, except that:

a. No consideration of early tenure shall be given to probationers who received one

or more years of credit towards tenure upon their original faculty appointment.

b. No consideration of early tenure shall be given to probationers who have not yet

received a positive vote for their third year retention and progress-towards-tenure

decision.

2. Nominations shall be made by two tenured members of the member's department(s)

or by the campus committee that handles tenure decisions. Nominations must be

made no earlier than May 1 April 15 of the probationer’s third year and no later than

May 1 April 15 of the probationer’s fourth year. If a campus dean wants an early

tenure decision for a faculty member, he or she shall ask the chair of the

candidate's department(s) to consider a departmental nomination for early tenure.

3. The academic department's executive committee shall be the first to decide whether

or not to proceed on the nomination for tenure prior to the sixth year of probation, and

shall then consult with the appropriate campus committee on whether or not to

proceed. This shall occur prior to the end of May at the time of the 3rd

-year or the

4th-year retention decision, April 15th

in the academic year before the year for which

a tenure decision has been requested. If the probationer’s campus retention

committee supports the nomination, the chair of the campus committee shall notify

the probationer’s executive committee no later than June 15th

May 1st. The executive

committee must then notify the probationer no later than July 1st May 15th

of the

same year. The probationer will have two weeks to accept or to decline the

nomination for early tenure. If the probationer receives an affirmative vote for early

tenure from both the department and the campus retention committee, the remaining

procedures shall be the same as in Faculty Personnel Policy #501 IV.B.

4. If the early tenure process goes ahead and the probationer receives a negative vote for

early tenure, a vote shall be taken for retention, applying the standard appropriate to

the candidate's year in the tenure process.

5. The option of early tenure may be invoked only once during an individual's

probationary period.

[…]

[End]

75

Attachment 21







Given the new efforts to utilize electronic communications to increase efficiencies, it has become

necessary to specify when correspondences must be in hard copy and in unalterable forms.

These proposed changes are designed to encourage the use of electronic communications for

their advantages of speed and ease of storage and management, yet to assure that the electronic

form used is secure and unalterable. The Faculty Professional Standards Committee, at the

request of the faculty senate Steering Committee, recommends that personnel action letters be

specified in policy to be delivered in both hard copy and unalterable PDF forms, and that the list

of recipients of such written personnel action letters include the director of the office of Human

Resources.































76














[…]

H. Copies of Personnel Action Correspondence. Copies of All personnel action

correspondences, with respect to this document, shall be sent as both hard copy and

electronic PDF copy, to the faculty member involved. In addition to the faculty member,

these personnel action correspondences shall be copied in hard copy and PDF copy and

to the provost, the director of the UW Colleges’ Department of Human Resources, the

appropriate campus dean(s), the appropriate department chairperson(s), and the

chairperson(s) of appropriate campus committee(s).

[…]

[End]

77

Attachment 22






Rationale:

Given the new efforts to utilize electronic communications to increase efficiencies, it has become

necessary to specify when correspondences must be in unalterable form. The Faculty

Professional Standards Committee, at the request of the faculty senate Steering Committee,

recommends that personnel action letters be specified in policy to be delivered in written form,

and that the list of recipients of such written personnel action letters include the director of the

office of Human Resources.


































78











[…]

H. Copies of Personnel Action Correspondence. Unalterable copies, either written or in

pdf electronic format, of all personnel action correspondence, with respect to this

document, shall be sent to the faculty member involved and to the provost, the director of

the UW Colleges’ Department of Human Resources, the appropriate campus dean(s), the

appropriate department chairperson(s), and the chairperson(s) of appropriate campus

committee(s).

[…]

[End]

79

Attachment 23

UW Colleges Academic Staff Council of Senators


Proposed Revision of Academic Staff Personnel Policy #804

(“Non-renewal of Fixed-Term Renewable Appointments”)

Rationale:

This revision further clarifies the steps of the appeal process.

The proposed changes are in bold, red, underlined italics.

UW Colleges Academic Staff Personnel Policy

General Institutional Policy #804

Non-renewal of Fixed-Term Renewable Appointments

==========================================================

Adopted: April 29, 2005

Reference: UW Colleges Constitution Chapter 8

Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapter 10

0.00 Grounds for Non-renewal

A member of the academic staff holding a fixed-term renewable appointment may be non-

renewed at the end of the appointment because of

· a funding loss,

· a budget or program decision that requires a program to be discontinued, curtailed,

modified or redirected, or

· unsatisfactory performance.

Termination during an initial period of evaluation is not a non-renewal and is not subject to these

provisions.

0.10 Employer’s Consideration in Cases of Non-renewal for Funding Loss or a Budget or

Program Decision

Whenever a non-renewal decision will result in reduction of the academic staff work force in an

operational area, such non-renewal shall normally be implemented on the basis of years of

service, except as follows. The presumption in favor of years of service shall not apply in cases

where program needs dictate other considerations such as the need to maintain specific expertise,

responsibility levels, or productivity levels within a program or operational area.

0.20 Employer’s Responsibility in Cases of Non-renewal for Performance

80

An employer (immediate supervisor, department chair or unit head) is responsible for clearly

communicating to each employee under his or her supervision what the employee’s duties are

and how the performance of those duties will be evaluated. Before nonrenewal for unsatisfactory

performance, the employer must inform the employee in writing about areas of performance

deficiency and must make efforts to work with the employee to improve performance to a

satisfactory level (see ASPP #703, Annual Evaluation). Some examples of unsatisfactory

performance include insufficiently productive or timely output, insufficient creative effort, or

failure to communicate effectively with individuals or groups important to the work processes.

Lapses in performance may also result from a disability or personal problem. If the employer

knows, or has reason to know, that either of these is or could be a factor affecting the employee’s

performance, the employer shall consult with the Office of Human Resources (in case of

disabilities) or the Employee Assistance Office (in case of personal problems) before proceeding.

0.30 Notice Prior to issuing a non-renewal notice, the employing unit must obtain the approval of the dean,

director, or designee. Prior to the expiration of the current appointment, and in accord with the

table below, the employee shall be given a written notice of non-renewal, including a statement

of the reasons, notification of his or her right to appeal, and a copy of UWC Constitution Chapter

8 (Appointments and Promotion of Academic Staff). At the same time, copies of this non-

renewal notice shall be sent to the department chair or unit head, the dean or director, and the

Office of Human Resources. If proper notice in advance of the expiration date is not given, either

the appointment shall be extended to provide the requisite non-renewal notice in accord with

UWS Chapter 10.05(2) or a layoff decision shall be made in accord with ASPP #802.

Minimum Notice Period for

Non-renewal of Fixed-Term Renewable Appointments

Years of UW Colleges Service Minimum Notice

Academic Staff Service* Period in Months

Fewer than 2 years 3 months At least 2 years but fewer than 6 years 6 months Greater than 6 years 12 months

NOTE: Rolling-horizon appointments require additional action and may require additional

notice (see ASPP #702).

*Academic staff service is defined as continuous years of paid UW Colleges academic staff

employment without regard to percent of appointment. For purposes of determining the

required notice periods, an appointment of one or both semesters of an academic year shall

count as one year of service. A leave of absence of any length or a break in academic staff

service of three years or less shall not result in loss of prior years’ employment credit.

0.40 Referral Priority for Long-Term Staff

81

Referral priority entitles a non-renewed academic staff member to be considered, prior to open

recruitment, for academic staff positions for which he or she is qualified. Fixed-term academic

staff members with six or more years of academic staff employment at the University of

Wisconsin Colleges within the prior seven years and who are non-renewed for funding loss,

budget, or program reasons shall be eligible for referral priority from notification of non-renewal

until the end of the appointment. At the discretion of the department or unit responsible for the

open position, an academic staff member with referral priority may be hired without open

recruitment.

To initiate and maintain referral priority, the non-renewed academic staff member must register

with the Office of Human Resources and notify that office of changes of address or employment

status. Referral priority ends automatically when a staff member accepts an alternative

appointment that is not intended to be temporary, fails to accept an appropriate alternative

appointment with any employer when offered, resigns, or fails to notify the Office of Human

Resources of changes of address or employment status. The primary test in the determination of

appropriate alternative appointment is not salary level but the comparability of the qualifications

necessary and skill level required.

0.50 Right of Appeal

Non-renewal decisions may be appealed when non-renewal is alleged to be arbitrary, capricious,

for reasons prohibited by law, or in violation of ASPP when the alleged violation influences the

decision under review. An arbitrary or capricious non-renewal decision is one that was made

without a basis in fact or for inconsequential or unsubstantial reasons. In carrying out its mission

and goals, the university retains the right to determine the direction and scope of its programs—

including the right to reduce staff levels through non-renewal because of a funding loss or a

budget or program decision that requires a program to be discontinued, curtailed, modified or

redirected.

The academic staff member has the right to appeal when the staff member believes that his or her

performance was satisfactory or that the non-renewal is not actually because of a budget or

program decision or when he or she believes that another academic staff member should have

been non-renewed instead. An academic staff member does not otherwise have the right to

appeal the substance of a budget or program decision. A pending appeal of the non-renewal

decision does not in and of itself extend the appointment.

0.60 Appeal Process

1. Review by the Dean or Director. To be entitled to a review, the academic staff member must

submit a written request to the dean, director or designee within 20 working days of receipt

of the non-renewal notice. A written statement of facts and circumstances supporting the

appeal must be presented by the academic staff member as a part of the request for review.

The academic staff member is entitled to request a meeting with the dean, director or

designee, who shall meet with the academic staff member, if requested to do so, and shall

conduct an objective review of all pertinent facts and circumstances. The academic staff

member, the department or unit, and the Office of Human Resources shall be notified of the

82

decision (whether to reverse the non-renewal) in writing within 15 working days of receipt of

the written request for review. If there is no response by the dean or director to the written

request for a review within the designated time period, the employee can appeal to the

Academic Staff Appeals and Grievance Committee within 15 working days of the expiration

of the designated period.

2. Review by the Academic Staff Appeals and Grievance Committee. The academic staff

member shall have 15 working days from receipt of the dean or director’s decision to file an

appeal with the Office of Human Resources, which will forward the files to the Academic

Staff Appeals and Grievance Committee within five working days and at the same time the

Office of Human Resources shall notify the dean or director of the appeal. The Academic

Staff Appeals and Grievance Committee shall conduct a review in accordance with UWC

Constitution Chapter 9 (Academic Staff Grievance and Complaint).

3. Access to the Evidence. Upon receipt of the appeal, the Chair of the Academic Staff

Appeals and Grievance Committee shall request additional evidence from the academic

staff member and the employer and shall include the date by which the evidence must be

received. An academic staff member who files an appeal shall have the right to review all

evidence the employer used to make the non-renewal decision. All additional information the

employer uses or plans to use to support the decision shall also be provided to the appellant

in a reasonable time prior to a review. Likewise, the employer shall have the right to review

all materials to be presented by the appellant. The exchange shall take place within a

reasonable time prior to a review, and shall be coordinated by the Chair of the Academic

Staff Appeals and Grievance Committee.

4. Burden. The employee has the burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the

non-renewal is arbitrary, capricious, for reasons prohibited by law, or in violation of ASPP

when the alleged violation influences the decision under review.

5. Notification and Disposition. Within ten working days of the receipt of the appeal, tThe

Academic Staff Appeals and Grievance Committee shall forward its findings of fact with a

recommendation to the chancellor or designee and shall send a copy to the employee, the

department chair or unit head, the dean or director, and the Office of Human Resources.

Within 30 working days of receipt of the Committee’s recommendation, the chancellor or

designee shall implement the recommendation or give the appellant and the Committee

written reasons for any decision to modify the recommendation. The employee, the

department chair or unit head, the dean or director, and the Committee shall be notified of the

decision of the chancellor or designee, which is final. If the decision of the chancellor or

designee has not been issued within 30 working days, the recommendation of the Academic

Staff Appeals and Grievance Committee becomes final.

6. Time Limits. Steps in the appeal process must be initiated and completed within the

designated time periods except when modified by mutual consent. If the employee fails to

initiate the next step in the appeal process within the designated time period, the appeal will

be considered resolved by the decision at the last completed step.

7. Representation. The presence of a representative or other third party is permitted at any stage

during the appeal process.

[End]

83

Attachment 24

UW Colleges Academic Staff Personnel Policy

Hiring, Promotion, Merit, and Review Policy #704

Administrative Academic Staff (Category A) Promotion Policy

====================================================== Policy effective July 1, 1990

Amended September 21, 1996


This policy provides promotional opportunities for administrative academic staff in recognition

of sustained high levels of performance, experience, and/or education. Basic information about

position titles and title administration appears in the UW Colleges Title Administration

Guidelines for academic staff.

01 Promotion within a Professional Title1

Administrative academic staff on a campus or at the Central Office may be promoted

within a professional title from associate to no prefix or from no prefix to senior. These

titles are found in the UWC Unclassified Title Guidelines.

02 Criteria for Promotion

The following criteria must be reviewed before recommending a promotion:

A. Highest degree held,

B. Consistently superior performance evaluations, and

C. Level of experience in current and related positions.

03 Procedures for Promotion

Annually, the Office of Academic Affairs and the central Business Office will establish a

timetable for promotions within the budget cycle and will notify deans, the Academic

Staff Council of Senators, and academic staff liaisons. The following steps must be

observed:

A. Immediate supervisor advises academic staff member on the appropriate content of

review file which is prepared by the academic staff member. (Consult the Academic

Staff Annual Evaluation and Activity Report for information on materials, which may

be appropriate to include in the file.)

B. Follow procedures outlined in UWC Title Administration Guidelines, applying

criteria listed above.

C. The dean accepts or rejects the recommendation or requests further information from

the supervisor.

1 These procedures do not apply to the program manager titles (Outreach, Administrative and Student Services). There is no

promotional route among the three levels of appointment in this series (I, II, or III).

84

D. The dean forwards accepted recommendation to the Office of Academic Affairs to

review within the budget cycle.

E. The Office of Academic Affairs accepts or rejects the recommendation or requests

further information from the dean and forwards accepted recommendation to the

Chancellor.

F. The Chancellor accepts or rejects the recommendation or requests further information

from the Office of Academic Affairs. Accepted recommendation appears in the

annual budget. The academic staff member is notified of the promotion in the annual

compensation letter.

04 Budget Implications

The salary will be adjusted to at least the minimum of the range for the title. Increases

above the minimum of the range require the approval of the Office of Academic Affairs.

If the promotion is from associate to no prefix, the adjusted salary is usually $500 greater

than the former 100 percent rate. If the promotion is from no prefix to senior, the adjusted

salary usually is $1,000 greater than the former 100 percent rate.

05 Appeal Procedures

An administrative academic staff member who is denied a promotion may appeal to the

Academic Staff Appeals and Grievance Committee, beginning with the procedures

outlined in UWC Constitution chapter 9.01.

85

Attachment 25

UW Colleges Constitution

Chapter 8 - Appointments and Promotions of Academic Staff

(Category A. - Non-instructional and Category B. - Instructional)

====================================================== Approved by the UW Board of Regents 9/10/93

Revision adopted by the Senate 5/4/96

8.00 Appointments

A. "Fixed-term" Appointments ...

... are specified in the letter of appointment, renewable solely at the option of the

institution, and carry no expectation of reemployment beyond the stated term,

regardless of how many times renewed. (UWS 10.03; ASPP 5.03)

B. "Rolling horizon" Appointments...

I. ... are multiple-year contracts to ensure continued employment for Category A

academic staff who are performing satisfactorily in positions where there is an ongoing

programmatic need and the necessary budget support. Staff employed in programs

funded by federal grants may receive a contract for the length of the grant period, if

they meet the criteria for a rolling horizon appointment.

8.01 Procedure for Appointments

A. Non-instructional Academic Staff Candidates (Category A) ...

... shall be identified by the campus dean in consultation with the appropriate campus

committee and be recommended by the dean to the chancellor. Guidelines and criteria

for appointment shall be developed in consultation with campus deans.

B. Instructional Academic Staff Candidates (Category B)...

... shall be identified by the campus dean in consultation with the academic department

chair and must be recommended by each to the chancellor. Guidelines and criteria for

appointment shall be developed in consultation with campus deans and department

chairs.

8.02 Nonrenewal

Written notice will be provided when a fixed-term academic staff appointment will not be

renewed in advance of the expiration of the appointment as follows:

A. Fixed-term Appointments (without rolling horizon)

86

At least three (3) months before the end of the appointment in the first two (2) years; at

least six (6) months before the end of the appointment until the end of the sixth year of

continuous service; and at least twelve months thereafter

B. Rolling Horizon Appointments

Written notice that a rolling horizon appointment will be stopped is given during the

annual evaluation process. The employee then has whatever term is left on the rolling

horizon appointment.

Procedures for reconsideration of nonreappointment are specified in ASPP 5.

8.03 Promotions

Promotional opportunities are provided for professional and instructional academic staff.

Promotion may occur within a professional title, or by appointment to a vacant, higher level

position for non-instructional academic staff and instructional academic staff.

A. Promotion Within a Professional Title - Category A/Non-instructional Academic

Staff

Academic staff on a campus or at the central office may be promoted within a professional title

from associate to no prefix, from no prefix to senior, or from senior to distinguished. [See ASPP

#704]

B. Promotion Within an Instructional Title - Category B/Instructional Academic

Staff

Movement from associate to no prefix and from no prefix to senior in an instructional title is a

promotion.

[See IP #322]

8.04 Criteria for Promotion for Category A and Category B Academic Staff

General promotion criteria may be found in the UW Colleges Unclassified Title Guidelines and

in the Academic Staff Promotion Policy and Procedures Document. The following criteria must

be met before a promotion is mended: highest degree held, consistently superior performance

evaluations, and level of experience in current and related positions.

8.05 Appeal Procedures for Category A and Category B Academic Staff

An academic staff member denied a promotion may appeal through the Academic Staff Appeals

and Grievances Committee.

8.06 Source Documents for Academic Staff Policies

87

Refer to the UW Colleges Unclassified Title Guidelines for general information on titles

(including function, prefix, and scope). This document also contains related personnel policies

(promotions, rolling horizons) for academic staff.