University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
College of Letters and Science
2000-2001
Letters and Science Faculty
Meeting: Thursday, February 8, 2001, 3:30 p.m.
BUS N140
Minutes No. 2
- Call to Order - Interim Dean Richard Meadows call the meeting to order at 3:33 p.m. in BUS N140.
- Announcements - Dean Meadows announced that Ellie Miller will serve as the interim associate dean for the social sciences, beginning on Monday.
- Question Period - Dean Meadows read the following question that Dave Petering submitted in advance of the meeting:
In the Question period, I would like the interim Dean to address his perspective on the Action Team process as it relates to the L&S goals. Various faculty in L&S that I have spoken with have expressed concern based on analysis of the Action Team funding allocations, L&S related funding initiatives, and membership of the teams that L&S may be slighted in this process and that projected resources are flowing away from the College. Does the College Leadership share this view and if so, what should be done about it.
Dean Meadows indicated that the College leadership is concerned. This concern seems to be shared by other faculties well. In the original process, L&S aggregated its requests; the other units did not. As a result, the documentation on the individual proposals was sketchy. Dean Goodman had protested the assignment of the original $8M. College leadership found the assignments to action teams surprising. Additionally, teams were given little information on how to proceed, and we expressed concerns about this process. The action team reports will come out soon, but the Provost indicated that this will not be the only chance for discussion of the recommendations. Finally, there is concern that no money will be coming in after all. Dean Meadows stated that he did not have a particular strategy in mind at this time, but that he will develop his strategy when we see the reports.
Dave Petering noted that the action teams were weighted toward the professional schools. L&S has 50% of the faculty, but we made up only 30% of the team membership. The focus of the recommendations does not seem to be on research. Dean Meadows responded that it is his impression that the Chancellor felt the need to tilt toward service in the first round.
Agenda |
L&S Faculty
Doc. No. |
- Automatic Consent Business
| A. |
Minutes #1 (November 2, 2000) were amended to show that the proposal for the certificate program in digital arts and culture was approved; the minutes were approved as amended.
|
|
|
- Old Business
| A. |
Recommendation to Create a Uniform Departmental Grievance/Grade Appeal Procedure
It was moved, seconded, and approved to bring this Item from the table. Gerry Bergtrom then moved a substitute motion, Fac Doc No 579 (revised). The motion was seconded and approved. The was no discussion. The substitute motion was approved unanimously. |
|
579 |
- New Business
| A. |
Recommendation to Revise the L&S Approval Matrix -
It was moved, seconded, and approved unanimously to accept the recommendation to revise the approval matrix.
|
|
580 |
| B. |
Recommendation to Accept the Biochemistry Implementation Plan -
It was moved, seconded, and approved unanimously to endorse the recommendation to accept the biochemistry implementation plan. |
|
581 |
| C. |
Recommendation to Reduce the Faculty Meeting Quorum -
It was moved, seconded, and approved with one abstention to accept the recommendation to reduce the faculty meeting quorum. |
|
582 |
| D. |
Resolution Endorsing the Global Sullivan Principles -
It was moved and seconded to accept the resolution endorsing the Global Sullivan Principles.
Dean Meadows requested approval of the body to permit an outside speaker to address the meeting. There was no objection. Dean Meadows introduced Stanley Battle, who currently holds the "Sullivan-Spaights Chair," to speak to the purpose of the motion.
Professor Battle noted that Dr. Sullivan is a Baptist minister who, in the 1970's, started a series of Opportunity Industrialization Centers, designed for employment training in the cities. Currently, there are 78 such centers nationwide, as well as 33 international centers in 18 different countries. The original Sullivan Principles were developed with the aim of breaking down apartheid in South Africa. In 1999, these principles were amended to become the Global Sullivan Principles. They have been endorsed by numerous corporations, but so far no university has endorsed them. UWM was the first institution of higher learning to put in place the "Sullivan Chair," which, except for a seven-year gap following the death of Ernest Spaights, the former holder of the Chair, has been in existence for 22 years. A year ago, 16 schools met in Ohio to consider these principles; two university presidents indicated on the spot that their institutions would endorse them. This group of schools will meet again soon in New York. They hope to attract 50 schools to that meeting which are prepared to endorse the principles. The following year, they are hoping a meeting in Nigeria will attract 100 schools. Professor Battle then asked if there were questions he could answer.
A. Stone: Procedurally, what does it take for UWM to endorse these principles?
S. Battle: The Senate will vote on the principles. Individual schools and colleges are being asked for feedback, to get a sense of how the various campus groups will respond.
G. McBride: To clarify, the Faculty Senate is the final voice on endorsement.
S. Battle: Yes.
M. Carlin: My concern is that this is not the proper venue, that the L&S faculty should not be debating this.
S. Battle: That is your prerogative.
T. O'Bryan: Is this more than a symbolic action; that is, is there a reporting mechanism build into endorsing these principles?
S. Battle: There is no reporting mechanism.
C. Schuster: These principles have been formulated for corporations. Should they be refigured to address the university?
S. Battle: There is no plan to do so.
C. Tatham: The Faculty Senate has the same concern as that expressed by Chuck Schuster. The Senate may endorse with changes in the language.
B. Fetter: This is where I got on the bus thirty years ago. It's good to see a renewal of interest at the university in human rights. I hope this motion will pass.
G. McBride: Will the resolution be taken forward to System?
S. Battle: Yes.
G. McBride: Is a parallel effort to this being conducted with the other schools and colleges? Is the idea that you would like to go into the Senate meeting with the support of the largest school? Is it the case that this matter will not be coming back to us?
S. Battle: Those statements are correct.
C. Schuster: Endorsing these principles is awkward; calling the university a corporation is uncomfortable.
S. Battle: The intent is not to see the university as a corporation.
D. Van Wynsberghe: Have any other universities done this?
S. Battle: Not as yet, but two institutions at the Ohio conference indicated on the spot that they would endorse the principles.
G. McBride: I move that the resolution be amended to add the following phrase at the end: “and to the extent that they do apply to a university setting.”
The motion to amend was seconded and approved.
G. Jay: I don't believe there is any objection to the principles. I think we should call the question and move on.
M. Carlin: I move that the resolution be tabled.
There was a second. The motion failed on a voice vote.
There was no further discussion. The Dean called for the vote. The motion was approved with two abstentions.
|
|
583 |
- Committee-of-the-Whole Discussion - It was moved, seconded, and approved unanimously to go into committee-of-the-whole to discuss the qualifications to seek in a new dean.
Mark Schwartz gave some background concerning the Academic Planning Committee's discussion of this issue and its development of a set of questions aimed at stimulating faculty discussion. He stated that the Committee was interested primarily in addressing big ideas.
Mickey Noonan asked for clarification of the notion of big ideas. He stated that some faculty members feel the new dean should have chaired a department. Is this appropriate input, or should the issues be more philosophical.
Mark Schwartz was asked to read the six points that had been circulated to the faculty via email. The are:
- How can the College improve the undergraduate educational experience to make UWM a preferred choice of most applicants?
- How can the College strengthen its graduate programs and research activities to elevate UWM's standing as a research institution?
- What directions should the College take for the continued development of innovative programs to enhance education and research?
- What leadership and administrative style is best in relation to campus and system administration and the faculty governance structure?
- How should we approach our links and cooperative arrangements with other units at UWM?
- What strategy should the College take in expanding faculty and staff to take advantage of new opportunities?
An unidentified speaker indicated that these points should be put to the candidates for their response. Greg Jay suggested that the list include the following: How can the College enhance the diversity of its undergraduate and graduate bodies as well as its faculty and staff? He indicated that we should look for a dean with experience and accomplishments in this area and whose heart is committed to diversity.
Bruce Fetter asked if this discussion with be made moot by future restructuring of the College. He asked what plans currently are afoot to remove elements of the College as it currently stands and questioned if we will start out seeking a dean appropriate to the current College structure and end up hiring one to run a very different College. Dean Meadows indicated that he was not sure how this issue could be fit into a set of criteria. Dave Petering asked for clarification of the issue Bruce had raised. Dean Meadows reported that other deans at UWM had expressed their belief to Provost Wanat that the College should be broken up and that this is a good time to do so. The Provost has assured Dean Meadows that he does not think this is a good idea, but he feels perhaps that parts of the College that have a more universal function should be moved out. Examples include certain centers, the radio station, the Center for International Education, and the Honors Program. Bruce stated that these plans must be discussed openly, and the College faculty should express its views.
Terry Nardin stated that the new dean should be someone of intellectual stature, perhaps not the kind of person who would appeal to a professional search firm. The individual should have an appreciation of the collegial nature of the faculty and should be concerned about the increasing application of a managerial model to the administration of the university.
Stacey Oliker stated that the dean should be someone with the ability to give a non-PR, deep explanation of how L&S scholarship fits into the more practical applications of the Milwaukee Idea.
Genni McBride expressed concern that the candidates have experience with the examination of governance and structural issues within the College. S/he should be a dean who could encourage more participation in governance.
Howard Handelman would like to see the faculty take a stand against the use of a head hunter firm. He said we need a dean committed to research as well as outreach. Julio Rodriguez-Luis supported the idea of taking a stand against using a head hunter. Dave Petering noted that scholarship drives both outreach and engagement, not vice versa; we need a dean that recognizes this relationship.
Dave Petering stated that there is not really a problem with using a search firm; this gives the search committee a larger pool of candidates to consider. The committee needs to be strong in using its own judgment to make recommendations. Julio Rodriguez-Luis stated that subtle pressures to accept their candidate(s) come from search firms; their livelihood depends on their success. Pat Gray asked who appoints the search committee members from within L&S. Dean Meadows responded that this all is done from outside the College. Terry Nardin asked if the committee has been appointed and if its composition is public. Swarnjit Arora reported that six faculty members were selected from a pool of names submitted by the University Committee. Genni McBride asked that Connie Jo circulate the committee's membership to the L&S Faculty, noting that the majority of members must be faculty. Dean Meadows added that the chair must be a faculty member from outside the College and that Corliss Phillabaum had been appointed as chair.
Mark Harris stated that the College's undergraduate programs now are very strong, and that the increased profile of these programs throughout Wisconsin is all to the good. He added that we now need to put more emphasis on our scholarship to make us more visible nationally and internationally.
Ellie Miller said that she agreed with all the previous comments, particularly the emphasis on scholarship. She added that the candidates also should have a history of ethical behavior, good grammar, an ability to represent the College well to the public, and the personal qualities of collegiality and kindness.
Jeff Hayes spoke in favor of candidates who are able to represent all three of the divisions within the College with equal fervor, regardless of her/his own background. Andrea Stone indicated that she agreed this was important. Bill Holahan said that no one can be equally well versed in all three areas, but that the individual must recognize that we need to strengthen our basic disciplines before we can promote interdisciplinarity. He suggested that we give all candidates a copy of our investment plan, which addresses our fundamental goals and shows how teaching, research, and service all fit together.
It was moved, seconded, and approved unanimously to rise from the committee of the whole. There was brief discussion about whether the faculty should make a formal motion to communicate the issues outlined in the committee of the whole discussion to the search committee. Dave Schultz and Katherine Dindia indicated that they are members of the search committee, and they will carry this message to the entire search committee membership.
- Adjournment - The meeting was adjourned at 4:48 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Connie Jo
Special Assistant to the Dean
Secretary to the L&S Faculty
C:/Comm/Fac/minutes #2
cc: L&S Faculty (via committee web site)
Secretary of the University
Dr. Stanley Battle
|
·