SUBJECT: Report of the UWO Merger Implementation Committee

25 March 1975

TO: Administrative Council

FROM: Chancellor Robert Birnbaum

SUBJECT: Report of the UWO Merger Implementation Committee

I have received the final report of the UWO Merger Implementation Committee which was charged with recommending procedures for the implementation of section 36.09(5) Students of the merger statues. The committee included seven students selected by USRH, Union Board, OSA and the Allocations Committee; three faculty selected by the Faculty Senate; and Assistant Chancellor Smith, chairperson. The report of the committee is attached for your information.

I am taking the following action related to each portion of the report.

DEFINITION OF “PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY”

I am approving the definition of “primary responsibility” recommended in the report, with one amendment which seeks to clarify it without substantive change, as follows:

Primary responsibility means that the service faculty (or academic staff) and chancellor will give great weight to student initiated recommendations, and will accept them in designated areas, unless substantial professional judgement dictates otherwise. In such cases, the basis for changing or denying recommendation shall be communicated to the recommending student agency.

I those areas where students have primary responsibility, administrators and faculty shall, after consultation with appropriate students, make all personnel decisions. Procedures will be developed for regular student participation in personnel matters.

STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS

I am recognizing Union Board, USRH and OSA as student organizations to be directly involved in university governance, as representing the manner in which students have chosen to organize themselves.

AREAS OF PRIMARY STUDENT RESPONSIBILITY

Existing Committees – The report indicates five existing committees now functioning in areas of primary student concern. I concur in principle that these committees should have the membership recommended in the report. However, since four of these committees are now committees of the Faculty Senate, I am transmitting these recommendations to the Senate for review and further recommendation to me. In view of the new composition of these committees, as well as the nature of their concerns, I am also asking the Senate to consider whether these specific committees should be reconstituted as university committees rather than Senate committees, whose members would be selected by the Senate and OSA, and which would repost directly to administrative officers.

I also support the recommendation that student representatives to the inter-collegiate athletic committee be evenly divided between men and women, and that students appointed to the publications committee include a student from the Advance-Titan and a student from the Wisconsin Review.

New Committees – I am approving the formation of the six committees recommended in this section with the membership as indicated, and charging the assistant chancellor or assistant vice chancellor responsible for each area to coordinate the formation of each group with OSA and the Faculty Senate.

AREAS OF CONCERN

Faculty Senate Committees – The report indicates six existing committees which, while not involved in matter of primary student responsibility, deal with matters of student concern. I concur in principle that these committees, as well as the university promotions committee which is listed under “administrative areas” should have the membership recommended in the report. However, since all seven of these are now committees of the Faculty Senate, I am transmitting these recommendations to the Senate for review and further recommendation to me. In view of the new composition of these committees, as well as their areas of concern, I am also asking the Senate to consider whether:

(a) the university development committee should continue to exist;

(b) the public relations, campus planning and university promotions committees should be made university committees rather than Senate committees, whose member would be selected by the Senate and OSA, and which would report directly to administrative officers;

(c) the current and projected size of the university promotions committee justifies the addition of three students.

Administrative Areas

I concur in the recommendation that student membership in the university budget committee, administrative council and IUAPC be maintained at present levels. Should the planning program of the university eventually result in an alternative to IUAPC, student representation should be no less under the new structure than it is at present.

While I concur in principle with student membership on the university faculty consultative committee, the right to select the constitution of that group is a faculty prerogative under the faculty personnel rules. I am, therefore, transmitting the committee recommendation to the Senate for review and further recommendation to me.

Pending a review of the future status of the termination committee, I am taking no action concerning possible student membership on it.

Although I concur in principle with the desirability for student participation in university-wide committees, I cannot endorse the general policy that “any future university-level committees should have at least 20% student participation” since I believe this to be overly broad and not reflective of the differing mechanisms by which committees dealing with university-wide matters may be constituted. I therefore approve in its place the following statement of policy:

It is generally expected that student will participate in committees formed to examine problems or make recommendations on matters of university-wide concern. The proportion of student representation on such committees shall depend upon the relationship of the issue being examined to student interests, as well as the competence of students to fully participate in such committees.

Where such committees are established by the chancellor, are university-wide, and have members selected or nominated by constituent groups, representation by students of approximately 20% of the membership shall be normative. Where the composition deviates from the 20% level, the chancellor shall consult with appropriate groups to discuss the basis for such deviation.

Where university-wide committees are established by the Faculty Senate, the matter of student membership shall be discussed by appropriate student (OSA, USRH, or Union Board) and faculty groups. Student participation shall normally be expected, although the status of student participants (particularly concerning their right to vote) shall be a matter for consolation and discussion in each specific case.

Since this last paragraph deals with faculty governance, a matter of primary faculty concern, I am transmitting it to the Senate for review and further recommendation to me.

Academic Areas

The report recommends that “student representation on all departmental and college committees, both standing and ad hoc, shall reflect the policy of a minimum of twenty percent (20%) student participation. Student members will have full membership except voting rights in personnel matter, in which cases they may file written opinions.”

I cannot approve of this recommendation in its entirety, since I believe that the use of the word all in the first sentence is overly broad and does not take full cognizance of the myriad departmental committees existing to cover a wide variety of matter, relatively few of which are of concern to students as such.

I believe that the intent of this section was to give students participation in those committees which dramatically affect the educational program. I therefore concur in principle with the following amended revision of the recommendation:

Students shall participate as voting members of department and college curriculum committees and budget committees (or on committees which have responsibility for these matters), and shall have a minimum of approximately 20% of their membership.

Students shall participate as non-voting members of departmental and college committees dealing with personnel actions, but with the right to include written opinions to be reviewed at higher levels. They shall have a minimum of 20% of the membership of such committees.

Student membership on other departmental and college committees shall be a matter for discussion by students and faculty at the appropriate level.

Since this last paragraph deals with faculty governance, a matter of primary faculty concern, I am transmitting it to the Senate for review and further recommendation to me.

The second section of this recommendation states “student representatives will be selected according to procedures adopted by OSA in consultation with appropriate faculty and administrators.”

I cannot endorse this recommendation since it does not reflect the functions of different kinds of committees, nor does it fully protect the interests of students at other than the university level. These needs are more fully met by the processes now employed by the faculty in selecting their representatives which, for example, give to departmental faculty the right to elect their own representatives through local selection processes. TO protect the spirit of the committee report, I am approving the following policy:

The selection or nomination of persons to university, college or departmental committees will follow the same processes through student government and administrative offices when selecting students as are followed by faculty when selecting or nominating faculty members to such committees.

May 8, 1978

To: Chancellors and Chief Student Personnel Administrators

From: Donald K. Smith

Subject: Chapter 36.09(5) Implementation

Two and one-half years ago, I requested a report from you on the status of the implementation of Chapter 36.09(5) at your institution. Since that time a number of changes have occurred in student and faulty governance structures and organization, committee organization, definition of areas in which students have primary responsibility, and the degree of participation students have in the governance of institutions.

We have had a number of signals indicating that the issue of 36.09(5) is likely to surface again in the Legislature in the biennial session, and possibly earlier. The signals range from the announced intention of United Council leaders to seek amendments which will “clarify” and thus strengthen student powers, to questions from legislators seeking information pursuant to an intention to prepare legislation and hold hearings.

I need as soon as possible the best current information on the implementation of 36.09(5) at your institution. I want to give only current and reliable information and evaluation to legislators and staff who inquire.

Could you provide me by June 1, 1978, the following:

1. An updated report on implementation of 36.09(5). This should include, if at all possible, any faculty rules, policies, or bylaws defining student committee memberships, and the ways and means by which they become members; and any student government or association constitutions or bylaws defining the structure of student committees.

2. Some terse responses to the following questions:

a. Has the level of student participation in governance increased, decreased or remained about the same since 1975? How do you substantiate this evaluation?

b. Are there any current, unresolved issues at your institution about the powers of students? If so, what are they?

c. If 36.09(5) were to be amended, what “clarifications” would you consider to be of highest importance?

If either the meaning of this request, or the timing of the response is a problem for you, please call me.

Summary of Campus Plans to Implement 36.09(5), UW-Oshkosh

The recommendations for the implementation of Section 36.09(5) was developed by a committee composed of seven students selected by United Students in Residence Halls, Union Board, and the Oshkosh Student Association; three faculty selected by the Faculty Senate; and the assistant chancellor for student programs and services, who acted as chairperson.

The proposal developed by the committee involves the restructuring of many of the existing committees because policy development is currently the responsibility of Faculty Senate, college and departmental, and University level committees. The report recommends student majorities on six of the standing Faculty Senate committees. The proposal also recommends a percentage of student membership on all other committees.

The report itself is “divided into two sections: (1) those areas of student life, services and interests for which students have primary responsibility under the merger statute, and (2) those areas for which faculty or other persons have primary responsibility, but which are of significant concern to students and in which they should be active participants. “ The committee defined student primary responsibility as follows:

Primary responsibility means that the service faculty (or academic staff) and Chancellor will accept student initiated recommendations in designated areas, unless substantial professional judgment dictates otherwise. In such cases, the bases for changing or denying recommendation shall be communicated to the recommending student agency.

All personnel decision shall, after consultation with appropriate students, be made by faculty or administrators. (The Chancellor has proposed that this definition be amended.

Three student organizations were selected as those that shall be directly involved in the governance process of the University. Union Board shall review and formulate policies concerning the union, union bookstore, and all food service operators in the union. The board shall share equally with United Students in Residence Halls membership on the University Food Committee. United Students in Residence Halls shall review and formulate policies concerning the Housing Program and the Food Service in University Commons. The Oshkosh Student Association, the constitutionally recognized voice of the student body in all general University policies, shall make all student appointments to University and Faculty Senate committees as well as committees not delegated to the Union Board or United Students in Residence Halls. (The Chancellor has recognized these three student organizations as the ones to be involved in university governance.)

In the areas of primary student responsibility the committee indicated five existing committees: Intercollegiate Athletics, Publications, Allocations, Scholarship and Awards and Multicultural Educational Center. The first four are Faculty Senate committees. The committee recommended changing the student minorities to majorities on all five committees. (The Chancellor has asked the Faculty Senate to review the proposed changes and make recommendations to him. He has also suggested reconstituting the committees as University committees instead of Senate committees.) The committee also recommended the creation of six new committees: Admission, Records, Registration and Registrar; Intramural Sports; Student Support Services; Veterans Affairs; University Health Service; and Counseling Center. Each of these committees will have a majority of student members. (The Chancellor has accepted this recommendation.)

In the areas of concern to student the committee broke its report into three sections: Faculty Senate Committees, Administrative Areas, and Academic Areas. In regard to the six Faculty Senate Committees, Public Relations, University Development, Improvement of Instruction, Campus Planning, TARPS, and Working Conditions, the committee recommended increasing the number of student on the first committee and adding for the first time student to the remainder. In all cases students will constitute a minority. (Since these are Faculty Senate committees, the Chancellor has forwarded the recommendations to that body for review and recommendation.) In the administrative area, the committee recommended that all future University level committees should include at least 20 percent student participation and that existing University level committees should approximate this level. (The Chancellor has refused to accept the 20 percent provision and has made a counter recommendation. In addition he has asked the Faculty Senate to review the recommendations.) In the academic area the committee recommended 20 percent student participation on all departmental and college committees, both standing and ad hoc. (The Chancellor has refused to accept this recommendation and put forth a counter recommendation. He has also asked the Faculty Senate to review the matter.)