1. Call to Order - Dean Marshall Goodman called the meeting of the Letters and Science Faculty to order at 3:30 p.m. in BUS N146.
   1. Announcements - Dean Goodman stated that there were two issues of which faculty members should be aware. They are:
      
      • Research clusters -- a plan for hiring research faculty in cluster areas defined by administration is circulating. The science department chairs have identified problems with this plan and have produced a statement in opposition. L&S administration favors the notion of clusters if they are faculty driven and linked with graduate education. They must be built on a long-term plan of improving education for our students.
        
      • 101-4 funding -- this funding was granted by the State many years ago to support research, defined broadly at that time to include scholarship. A sense has developed among some campus constituencies that these funds should be used solely to support funded research. A proposal to remove 101-4 funds from current recipients is being discussed.

   2. Question Period
      M. Anderson: Could the dean put all the documents to which he referred on the web?
      Goodman: I don't have access to all of them. Some have been circulated narrowly and are being discussed, but they have not been distributed for general access.
      Verdier: The University Committee saw some documents, but they were passed around and then collected. The Research Policy Committee has been asked to work on the Research 2006 plan.
      Anderson: Who is the chair of the RPC?
      Goodman: Michael Reddy
      Schultz: Some of the planning documents are on the CBAC web site. I will try to send out that information to the faculty.
      Anderson: Are we still planning to hire faculty for BAGS?
      Goodman: Yes, but we don't have a firm plan yet. Business moved ahead quickly to meet accreditation standards. I have asked P. Petro to draft a statement of process that might allow us to have hires as soon as this year. Linking to the Milwaukee Idea is important because part of the campus's proposal for these State funds was a campus match.

2. Automatic Consent Business
   1. There were no objections or amendments to Faculty Meeting Minutes #1 (October 1, 1999); they stand approved.
      
   2. There were no objections to Fac. Doc. No. 522, Recommendation for Consideration of Candidates for Degrees and Honors for December, 1999; it stands approved.
      
   3. There were no objections to Fac. Docs. Nos. 523-527, 1998-1999 annual reports from:
      
      • Committee on Committees
      • Academic Planning Committee;
      • Academic Policy and Appeals Committee;
      • Graduate Programs Committee;
      • Premedical Studies Certificate Program Committee Annual Report.
        These documents stand approved.

3. Old Business
   
   1. It was moved, seconded, and approved to recommend to the Dean approval of Fac. Doc. No. 528

4. New Business
   
   1. It was moved, seconded, and approved to recommend to the Dean approval of Fac. Doc. No. 529, a recommendation to change the name of the "Center for Latin America" to the "Center for Latin American and Caribbean Studies."
   2. It was moved, seconded, and approved to recommend to the Dean approval of Fac. Doc. No. 530, a recommendation to rename the "Biological Aspects of Conservation" major to "Conservation and Environmental Studies."
   3. It was moved, seconded, and approved to recommend to the Dean approval of Fac. Doc. No. 531, a recommendation to revise the College's "High School Special Students Admission Requirements."
   4. It was moved, seconded, and approved to recommend to the Dean approval of Fac. Doc. No. 532, a recommendation to revise policies relating to the "Concentrated Study in Two Departments (or Curricular Areas)."
   5. It was moved and seconded to recommend to the Dean approval of Fac. Doc. No. 533, a recommendation from the Department of Geosciences to Eliminate the Ph.D. in Geosciences Program. N. Lasca moved and A. Brooks seconded the following substitute motion:
      That the Ph.D. Program in the Geosciences be maintained in an inactive status pending review of the effects of the Carnegie Classification on UWM and the Milwaukee Idea, and its Freshwater Initiative, as they relate to the geosciences.

      Discussion:
      N. Lasca: In light of developments since the original PAR studies, we should not be hasty in moving to eliminate a Ph.D. program without reconsidering it in light of these new developments, particularly the proposed changes in the Carnegie classifications and initiatives that incorporate the geosciences that have grown out of the Milwaukee Idea.
      A. Brooks: The PAR process rated programs based on how they did in a climate of shrinking faculties and student demand. We should be looking ahead and building the geosciences program.
      D. Cherkauer: The Geosceinces Ph.D. program was singled out for elimination because it showed low productivity. The department agreed to make the recommendation to eliminate the Ph.D. program because they believed, had they not done so, that hires critical to the undergraduate program would have been held up. The Carnegie plan is only a draft at this stage. Who is to say whether or not the final version will require 15 Ph.D. programs for Research I status? The number could be 17 or 18.
      G. McBride: Concerning the substitute motion, we don't know if Carnegie will hold it against us that we have an inactive Ph.D. program. Perhaps we should defeat the substitute motion and table the original motion.
      M. Harris: We need to realize that the Geosciences Ph.D. program already is considered to be written off and has been "sold" that way, as evidence to Kathryn Lyall that we have made tough decisions. It was indentified as the most pronounced negative outlier based on its productivity. Like it or not, we are dealing with the results of the PAR process coming back to haunt us.
      N. Lasca: The PAR started under the prior administration. The new administration has new initiatives that require us to take a different view of our programs. The Milwaukee Idea's fresh water initiatives were unimagined when the PAR recommendations were made.
      P. Petro: This is a changed situation from a year ago, and it is not just as it relates to the Milwaukee Idea. The proposed Carnegie rankings are dramatically different. Dean Kuelks once said "NEVER lose a Ph.D; it is too hard to get one back."
      V. Cronin: The Geosciences Ph.D. was not identified as a negative outlier solely on the basis of productivity. There also were quality issues such as low external funding and low national ranking. This is not a "water" Ph.D. program; it was interdisciplinary between solid earth geosciences and atmospheric sciences, but atmospheric sciences now has move out.
      T.Ehlinger: We need to keep this program active to train our graduate students by hiring in "water" faculty.
      T. Grundl: The department agreed to vote to eliminate the Ph.D. program on the assumption that the faculty members could continue to participate in the education of Ph.D. students. This assurance hasn't panned out. One cannot bring in Ph.D. students for the Interdisciplinary Ph.D. unless they first enter under an existing Ph.D. program.
      G. McBride: Prior to the PAR process, the president of the System said that we needed to cut back the number of our Ph.D. programs. She based that directive on data that have been shown since that time to be flawed.
      M. Anderson: As a principle, one never should eliminate a program. We should figure out a mechanism to keep the Geosciences Ph.D. on the books for now and develop it in a direction that is in harmony with the campus's new initiatives. The paperwork involved in getting a new program is monumental. In reality, we have more Ph.D. programs on this campus than show up in the count. For example, within the English Ph.D. program, we house various programs as tracks that really are entirely separate programs. And we do this in order to activate new initiatives more quickly than the lengthy process of approvals for new programs permits.
      N. Lasca: The Geosciences Ph.D. program goes back twenty years. In that time, it has not been redirected to respond to new initiatives. This should be part of the rebuilding.
      M. Anderson: Could Norm explain practically what his (substitute) motion means?
      N. Lasca: We should keep the program inactive until we can review and rebuild it in the spirit of the Milwaukee Idea and other campus initiatives.
      A. Brooks: We should speak against both the substitute and the original motions so that there is no ambiguity about the Faculty's position on this matter.
      D. Pritchard: I support the amendment rather than the original motion. I don't feel I have all the information that the PAR reviewers had at their disposal that led them to the recommendation they made. I don't wish to second guess their actions. But in light of changes since that time, I could support retaining the program in inactive status until there was a reconsideration.
      K. Riggs: What is the difference between Geography and Geosciences that the result the review of the PAR recommendations was different?
      M. Goodman: The two programs are similar, but different. Both ended up in the positions they were in because they suffered severe faculty losses. Geography, however, had a more cohesive plan as a department; the lack of cohesion in Geosciences hurt that unit.
      M. Anderson: If we vote for the substitute motion, it moves on. If we vote against the original motion, the entire issue stops.
      N. Lasca: I'd like to ask Connie if that is the correct procedure.
      C. Jo: I would have to check Robert's Rules of Order, but I believe Margo is correct. If the faculty approves the substitute motion, it is passing on to Marshall its recommendation concerning this program. If it defeats the original motion, there is no faculty-supported recommendation to pass to Marshall. Whether the original department motion then stands as a recommendation to Marshall, I am not certain. That is what I will have to check.
      D. Pienkos: Has the department's position changed from the original 4-3-1 vote in light of new developments?
      M. Harris: The department has not discussed the matter since the original vote.
      W. Holahan: PAR is backward-looking; we need to be forward-looking. We should kill both the substitute and the original motions and send the strongest possible statement to the chancellor and provost.
      T. Ehlinger: What does it take to reactivate a program that is inactive?
      M. Goodman: There is no defined policy. We would need to see the department speak as a unified department. We would want to bring in an external reviewer; develop a strong strategic plan for the department, and get a commitment from the entire College to support it.
      T. Ehlinger: Can we get a commitment of that support from you (Marshall) now?
      M. Goodman: I could not make that commitment without a commitment from the chair, speaking for the department, to take the necessary steps to make the program successful.
      N. Lasca: In response to D. Pienkos' question, I was gone during the vote. Had I been here, the vote would have been 4-4-1, and it would have failed. Marshall, may I ask what you would want done at this stage?
      M. Goodman: As chair, it is inappropriate for me to speak on these issues.

      At this point, Tom O'Bryan was asked to assume the chair.

      M. Goodman: My personal bias is to agree with Dean Keulks--one should not let a program be eliminated; it is too difficult to get programs approved. But, on the specific question of the Geosciences Ph.D., I am neutral. I have not heard from the department whether or not the faculty members could work effectively with an outside reviewer and with one another to support development of a viable program. I would need that kind of assurance before I could consider supporting an alternative proposal.
      T. Grundl: The department needs to discuss its position on this matter again. The original vote was mixed, taken under the cloud of a concern that the Vice Chancellor would not approve any new positions. The department should revisit its vote, and consider it in light of new developments and issues discussed at this meeting.

      A discussion of the implications of voting for the substitute or the original motion ensued. There were questions about whether the original motion could be forwarded without a positive vote from the faculty. A number of individuals expressed the opinion that the faculty as a whole should not presume to take a vote on the matter until it had a clear sense of the department's current thinking about the proposal in light of new developments and the discussion at this meeting.

      N. Lasca asked that his substitute motion be withdrawn, and the seconder, A. Brooks, agreed. Discussion returned to the original motion.

      D. Pienkos moved that the proposal be returned to the department. An unidentified individual seconded the motion. C. Jo raised a point of order—what does a motion to "return to the department" mean? Is the issue tabled? Is it defeated and returned?

      At this point of the meeting, Dean Goodman resumed the chair.

      G. McBride moved to table the original motion to allow the department to reconsider its vote in light of the issues raised at this meeting. The motion was seconded by an unidentified person and passed unanimously.

   6. It was moved, seconded, and approved to recommend to the Dean approval of Fac. Doc. No. 534, a recommendation for revisions in the Master's in Public Administration program.

5. Adjournment - The meeting was adjourned at 4:43 p.m.
   

Respectfully submitted,


Connie Jo
Special Assistant to the Dean
Secretary to the L&S Faculty