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.)

This report should be viewed as interim in nature. The Faculty Senate has not acted yet. The implementation committee has not yet discussed the recommendations of the Chancellor. A great deal of discussion and compromise still must occur before the plan is operational.

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

UW-Eau Claire has long enjoyed a strong tradition of student participation in university governance. The campus plans submitted in response to the interim guidelines to conform with Chapter 36.09(5) of the merger bill have received the approval of the Chancellor and the Faculty and Student Senates. The development of the plan was accomplished by the executive committees of the Student and Faculty Senates and with members of the UW-Eau Claire administration serving as consultants.

The Student Senate is the official governing body for the UW-Eau Claire students. Although other groups may at times be called upon to represent other segments, only the Student Senate can speak for the entire student body. While the plan acknowledges that proposals concerning student life may originate from several sources, it is both the expectation and practice that a large number will come from the Student Senate. The Inter-Residence Hall Council (IRHC) shall be the primary source of recommendations for residence hall matter and shall forward its recommendations through the Director of Housing. The housing area is the only major student life activity which falls primarily outside the purview of Student Senate.

Eau Claire’s plan underscores the need for effective communication in university governance, both for the purpose of allowing ample opportunity for the various constituencies of the university community to provide their input, but also the enable decisions to be made without unnecessary delay. While the separate governance organization for students and faculty appear to be quite separate without overlapping membership, there is both provision and ample precedent for student and faculty committees or commissions to hold joint meetings.

Eligible student members on administrative committees are to be appointed by the President of the Student Senate and confirmed by the Senate. The number and ratio of members varies from committee to committee but there is generally a significant range of these kinds of committees.

The Student Senate will have a plurality (other groups may include faculty, administration and community representatives) of student members on the following committees: Athletic Committee, Campus Media Board, Forensic Board, Radio and Television Committee, Bookstore Committee, Financial Aids Committee, Foreign Film Committee, Forum Committee, Recreation Committee, University Artists Committee, University Health Committee, Children’s Center Committee and any building committee for construction with student funds. In the student life areas, the plan calls for equal representation from IRHC on the Residence Hall Budget Committee. Eau Claire students have played a significant role in the review and budget recommendation process for several years. The Student Finance Committee, appointed by the Student Senate, plays a prominent but not exclusive role in the budget review and recommendation process.

In academic areas which are primarily under the jurisdiction of the faculty, students also have opportunity for participation in university governance. At the departmental level, about half of the 35 academic departments at the UW-Eau Claire have formal provision for student participation with full voting rights in departmental matter. The student representatives on department committees and at departmental meeting are either selected from the discipline-related honors society or from among the majors and minors. The remaining departments, though they have not yet formalized student participation, nevertheless encourage student input through a variety of informational means. Students are welcome at department and

committee meetings and are permitted to speak. Several of these departments have invited more formal student participation, but the students have not yet responded positively.

At the school level, four of the schools provide for voting student representatives on their curriculum committees or the equivalent. Some of the schools have student representatives on other committees.

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

Report of Student Institutional Involvement at the University of Wisconsin- Green Bay

The Report describes past and current student participation in the life of UW-Green Bay.

Since spring, 1972, the UW-Green Bay student body has chosen not to have an all university student government organization. However a wide variety of opportunities for student input and involvement in university affairs exists. The types of committees on which student serve follow.

Faculty Elective Committees

Faculty are elected to these committees from a slate of names presented by the Committee on Committees and Nominations. Students may indicate their interest in serving through the Office of Student Life. The Chancellor appoints students after consulting administrators, faculty, and students who served on committee in question during previous year. Students are appointed to the following committees (make-up of membership in parentheses):

Committee on Instructional Services (5 elected faculty, up to 3 appointed students)

Library Committee (7 elected faculty, up to 3 appointed students)

Student Conduct Policy Committee (6 elected faculty, 5 appointed students)

Faculty Appointive Standing Committees

Faculty members are appointed to these committees by the Chancellor. The Committee on Committees and Nominations submits a panel of nominees for consideration. Students are appointed by method described above.

Committee on Academic Actions (5 faculty, up to 3 students. Student involved in academic action may request that student members not sit with faculty)

Committee on Admissions, Financial Aids, and Orientation (5 faculty, up to 3 students)

Committee on Adult Education (5 faculty, up to 3 students)

Committee on Awards and Recognition (5 faculty, up to 3 students)

Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics (5 faculty, 1 non-instructional professional staff, 2 students, 1 community representative)

Committee on Lectures and Performances (5 faculty, 2 staff, up to 2 students)

Committee on Parking, Transportation, and Buildings and Grounds (5 faculty, 2 staff, up to 2 students)

Special Committees Appointed by the Chancellor

Faculty are appointed by the Chancellor to these committees, which, not being faculty elective or appointive, are not subject to their regulations. Students are appointed by method described above.

Chancellor’s Community – University Advisory Committee (9 community member, 8 UWGB faculty and staff, 4 UWGB students)

Chancellor’s Student Advisory Committee (15 students)

Computer Advisory Committee (5-6 faculty, 3 students)

Environmental Impact Board (6 faculty, 3 students)

Equal Opportunity Committee (6 faculty and staff, 3 students)

Ethnic Heritage Center Committee (6 faculty and staff, 6 minority students)

Ethnic Studies Committee (6 faculty and staff, 3 students)

Fourth Estate Advisory Committee (4 staff and faculty, 4 students)

Student Health Services Committee (6 faculty and staff, 3 community members, 3 students)

Natural Areas Committee (6 faculty, 3 students)

Physically Handicapped Committee (3 faculty, 3 staff, 3 students)

Status of Minorities Committee (6 faculty, 3 students)

Venture Fund Committee (9 faculty and staff, 3 students)

Student Formed Ad Hoc Committees

Since dissolution of student government in spring, 1972, students have formed student concentration advisory committees which enable student to have an impact on curricular offerings in which they are enrolled. Faculty seek student involvement in curriculum revision and other concentration matters.

Interested students have also formed ad hoc committees (task forces) to deal with aspects of daily life, for instance, to develop a campus-downtown Green Bay bus service, recycle textbooks through an exchange, organize current and future food service, and select site and program for future University Commons. In addition, an elected group of nine students from the Shorewood Board to oversee programming and operation of the Shorewood Club.

The Student Fee Allocation Committee has evolved this year from a previous student/staff/faculty group to an exclusively student-run committee, in line with 36.09(5). The twelve student committee this year heard from over 25 student organization requesting funds from the allocable portion of student fees.

Finally, student have informal daily opportunities for input into formulation and review of policies concerning student life, services, and interests; enrollment size and interconnected nature of the campus physical

pan enhance possibilities for informal interaction. UWGB faculty and staff have supported student involvement and input in university governance. The absence of a “traditional” student government is not indicative of interest in student participation. To date the students have not seen the necessity of organizing a campuswide student government.

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

A summary of the UW-La Crosse plan for implementation of 36.09(5) is complicated by the March 12 approval of a new student government constitution in student referendum. Approximately 80% of the students voting (about 25% of the student body voted) approved the new constitution which is slated for implementation in the Fall of 1975. The plan is further complicated by the fact that the Chancellor and Faculty Senate have not, as of this date, acted

on the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee that was appointed to develop recommendation for implementing the student section of the merger statute.

Putting the logistics of faculty and administrative ratification aside, UW-La Crosse has enjoyed a tradition of substantial student involvement in university governance. A review of existing procedures for student involvement (prior to a summary of the ad hoc committee’s recommendation) demonstrates this quite well. Student participation in governance at La Crosse has been accomplished by the direct election of students to student-faculty boards and faculty committees. Faculty members on the faculty committees are chosen by the Faculty Senate Committee on Committees and faculty members on student-faculty boards are chosen by the Chancellor. Student membership on faculty committees is one-third of the total membership whereas student membership on most student-faculty boards is either even or students are in the majority. The membership of the Apportionment Board was changed in October, 1974 to consist of eight students and four faculty. There are a total of 101 student voting positions on the various student-faculty boards and faculty committees.

The Student Coordinating Committee is the present student government organization. It consists of one elected student representative from each student-faculty board and faculty committee. The Student Coordinating Committee (SCC) was established by a referendum of the student body in 1968. The SCC is responsible for:

1. Coordinating information between various boards and committees;

2. Disseminating information to the student body; and

3. Serving as an audience for student suggestion and concerns.

In the Fall of 1974, an ad hoc committee was formed to examine the role of students and faculty in university governance for conformance with Chapter 36.09(4) and (5). The ad hoc committee consisted of five faculty members, five students and the Vice Chancellor. The committee elected James Hill, President of the Student Coordinating Committee, and chairperson of the group.

The recommendations of the ad hoc committee combined with the new student constitution provide the framework for implementing the student section of the merger bill. Significant changes provided for in the new constitution include:

1. Student government name changes from the Student Coordinating Committee to the UW-La Crosse Student Association.

2. The officers of the UW-La Crosse Student Association will be directly elected to those positions by the student body and not elected to boards and then nominated by a committee to serve as student government officers.

3. The constitution envisions executive, legislative and judicial branches of student government

4. All students automatically become members of the UW-LSA upon registration at UW-La Crosse.

5. UW-LSA will have policy-making (recommending) authority from 36.09(5) of the Wisconsin Statutes.

6. The student senate will include representation from several groups and will be elected by School or College Residence Hall Association and at large

7. The UW-LSA will have appointing authority of all students to positions on Student-Faculty Boards and Faculty Committees.

The recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee deal primarily with the Student-Faculty Boards. Under these recommendations which UW-La Crosse feels will be adopted, the composition of the boards will consist of a majority of students in nearly every case. The plans call for approximately ten student-faculty boards including the apportionment, athletic, financial aid, forensics, health, housing, intramurals and recreational activities programs, organizations, publications and the student center boards.

The Apportionment Board is responsible for the recommendations regarding the allocable portion of the student segregated fees. The revised membership of this board shall consist of eight students and four faculty. Allocable segregated fees currently fund the Student Coordinating Committee, ID cards, Lectures and Concert Committee, Organizations Board, Pom Pom Girls, Summer Social Committee, Men’s Intramurals, Women’s Athletics, Men’s Athletics, Cheerleader, student newspaper, yearbook, band, orchestra, choral activities, forensics, hockey club, and University Theatre.

The Faculty Senate By-Laws outline the various faculty committees are UW-La Crosse. While all but one of 19 of the committees have a majority of faculty membership, students are represented on all the committees—a provision which apparently pre-dates merger by several years. The Undergraduate Curriculum Committee has 12 faculty and four students and plays a major role in reviewing existing and new curricula and making recommendation on them.

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

The Madison campus response to Section 36.09(5) of the merger legislation was developed by an ad hoc committee of seven people, two of whom were student. One of the students was the President of the Wisconsin Student Association (WSA). The other five people included the Dean of Students, the Assistant Dean of Students, the Program Coordinator of Auxiliary Enterprises, an Assistant Chancellor, and a representative of the University Committee. WSA was not limited to two representatives on the ad hoc committee, but chose to

have only two people involved. However, the WSA president kept the WSA Senate informed as the ad hoc committee recommendations were developed.

The response contains three specific yet interdependent recommendations. The three recommendations include: (1) a proposed allocation of a portion of the segregated fees to WSA on the Madison Campus; (2) proposal for a (student) committee to review Madison Campus allocable segregated fee budgets; and (3) proposed interim guidelines for student participation on university committees. The committee plans to continues to meet for a least a year to monitor the progress of the plan and to assist with its implementation.

In regard to the allocation of segregated fees, the Madison campus is a special situation in the UW System. The Regent approved 1975-77 Biennial Operating Budget Paper #4.2 contains the following:

“The allocable portion shall constitute the remainder of the SUF which provides on all campuses except Madison the major support for a variety of student activities, programs and services (Madison shall be permitted to continue its practice of paying for activities such as intercollegiate athletics, concerts, etc., on a ‘item pricing’ or ‘direct user charge’ basis by actual participants. (C.3.b.)”

The Madison campus position indicates that no part of the current Madison campus segregated fee falls within the definition of allocable fees. Therefore, the committee’s first recommendation was that the Madison campus should “recommend to Central Administrations and the Regents that a one dollar per student per semester portion of segregated fees be assigned for the budgeted use of the Wisconsin Student Association for the academic year 1975-76.” If approved, this portion would constitute the allocable segregated fees on the Madison campus. The sum would go directly to WSA by name rather than to student government.

A minority report was submitted by one member of the committee raising some questions as to the legitimacy of WSA’s claim to being generally recognized as the all-University student government association for the Madison Campus because of the few students who participate in its activities. However, the committee pointed out that WSA is the only presently constituted student government association on the campus in which all students are eligible to participate. The committee maintained that is was not their intent to either presume that WSA is not a representative group or to deny the possibility of any future alternative to WSA as a recognized campus student government. To do either would be to violate the intent of 36.09(5).

The committee’s second recommendation was that a Student Allocable Segregated Fee Advisory Committee, appointed annually, should review the allocable segregated fee budgets. The committee would be composed of seven students; four students to be appointed by the WSA president with the approval of the WSA senate and one each, selected by the student members of the Union Council, Health Care Advisory Committee, and the Intramural Recreation Committee. The allocable fee would be assigned directly to WSA. The advisory committee will advise the Chancellor of its recommendations for assessment and distribution of the fees. If the committee objects to any of all of the final campus budget, it may submit alternate proposals to Central Administration and the Board.

The third proposal concerns interim guidelines for student participation on university committees. The majority of the committee held, “that the

Madison campus is now in substantial compliance with the requirement that students be active participants in University governance.” They did propose, however, that “the Faculty Senate and each of the schools, colleges, and departments and units reexamine the extent of student participation on committees in light of the merger law.” The majority of the committee did make serval recommendations. They recommended, in the case of all-campus committees, that the “present policies which make WSA the sole nominating or appointing authority for some committee’s,” be continued. “For those remaining all-campus committees where the Chancellor is the sole appointing authority for student members,” the committee’s Majority recommended, “An administrative decision that the Chancellor’s appointments of students to those committees in the fall of 1975 shall be made only form nominations submitted by WSA.” If the WSA nominations are unacceptable to the Chancellor, WSA shall retain the right to make alternative nominations.

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

The Report was prepared by the UWM Merger Guidelines Committee, consisting of five students, three faculty, and two administrators. The Faculty Senate and Chancellor will act on it in March. Until then, it should be regarded as an interim report.

General Provisions

Committee Memberships and Terms

Unless otherwise provided, the Student Association (SA) shall select student members of the following University Faculty Standing Committees for: Academic Affairs, Academic Programs and Curriculum, Archives, Awards and Recognition, Human Rights, Lectures, Library, Physical Environment, ROTC, University Relations, Admission/Record/Student Information*, Athletic Board*, Housing*, Student Financial Aid*, and Student Conduct.*

Unless otherwise provided, SA selected student members shall be appointed after: public notice, at least in a campus newspaper, two weeks before selection; SA committee preference forms (to be retained at least one year) are made available to interested students; SA President has appointed and Student Senate (SS) confirmed or SS has elected, student committee members. Department of Student Activities shall conduct mail ballot elections university-wide to fill elective committee positions. When SA or authorized organizations do not make appointments by October 15 or one month after a vacancy, the appropriate University administrator shall make the appointments. An elective committee position vacancy is filled by available nominee with next highest number of votes of appointee of SA President, confirmed of SS. Appointed position vacancies shall be filled as was original position. Unless otherwise provided, student alumni term of office shall be one year from September 15 (consecutive terms possible); faculty and staff, three year terms on staggered basis. Nomination and appointment disputes shall be resolved by committee of SA President, Student Court Chief Justice, and Dean of Students. Ex-officio members may participate by voice but not vote or hold office other than chairperson. Committees may designate non-voting consultant members.

Unless otherwise provided, committees select own chairpersons and other officers as appropriate for one-year terms. First members by alphabetical order convene first organizational meeting. A quorum of half of voting members is required to conduct business. Committees by establish sub-committees, but retain full authority and responsibility. Committees meet at least twice a semester, more at discretion of committee. One third committee may petition added meetings. Roberts’ Rules of Order, New Revised shall be parliamentary authority. Each committee shall keep minutes and file copies with Department of Student Activities, Secretary of the University, SA, and University Committee. Unless otherwise provided, proposed changes in committee structure/function or in these General Provisions should be initiated by SS, approved by Faculty Senate and Chancellor.

The UW-Milwaukee Report specifies committee membership, function, and amendment system, where applicable. Committee structure takes into account --------------* Merger Guidelines Committee is requesting that starred committees be abolishedfunction (policy vs. advisory), funding source (GPR vs. segregated fee), affected population (students only vs. students, faculty, staff, alumni) and existence of adequate governance mechanism; e.g., student membership is more extensive where department or service is segregated fee funded or exclusively students are served. SA, Student Court and Union Policy Board, existing student government groups, are maintained and assigned specific responsibilities.

Committee membership with student representation and methods for naming students to committees follow.

Advisory Committee to the Department of Admissions and Records (6 faculty, 2 administrators, 6 students selected by SA, Director of Admissions and Records ex officio)

Athletic Board (8 students elected at large by student body, 3 faculty, 2 alumni, and Director of Athletics and Assistant Chancellor for Student Services ex officio)

Advisory Committee to the Bookstore (4 students selected by SA, 4 faculty, 1 administration, Director of the Bookstore ex officio)

Advisory Committee to the Office of the Dean of Students (7 students selected by SA, 3 of whom are involved in student organizations; Dean of Students ex officio)

Advisory Committee to the Day Care Service (7 students as follows; 3 parents elected by users--1 each from 12 mo-2 yr. old, 2-3½ yr. old, and 3½+ yr. old service; 3 staff members elected by current Service staff--one from each age group service; and 1 selected by SA; Day Care Coordinator and Dean of Students ex officio)

Advisory Committee to the Department of Financial Aid (6 students selected by SA, 1 faculty, Director of Financial Aid ex officio)

Advisory Committee to the Department of High School and College Relations (5 students selected by SA)

Advisory Committee to the Department of Housing (7 students comprising Executive Committee of Sandburg Hall Administrative Council, 1 student resident of married student housing facilities selected by SA, Director of Housing ex officio)

Advisory Committee to the Department of International Scholars (3 students selected by SA in consultation with Director--1 on student visa (F-1), 1 on immigrant visa (permanent resident in U.S.), and 1 full-time student who is a U.S. citizen; Director of International Scholars ex officio)

Advisory Committee to Department of Placement (7 students selected by SA, and 3 UWM alumni

Advisory Committee to UWM Police Department (2 students selected by SA, 2 faculty, 2 classified staff, 2 academic staff, Director of UWM Police Department ex officio)

Advisory Committee to Department of Psychological Services (5 students selected by SA with strong consideration of students interested in counseling an psychology fields; Director of Psychological Services ex officio)

Student Court (9 students: vacancies filled by SA President, with SS consent, from list prepared by Student Court Interview Committee; Court Advisory shall be Dean of Students.) Student Court Constitution is includent in the “Report.”

Advisory Committee to Department of Student Health (5 students selected by SA; Director of Student Health ex officio)

Advisory Committee to Department of Transportation (5 students selected by SA, 2 faculty, 1 classified staff, 1 academic staff, Director of Transportation ex officio)

Union Policy Board (as specified by Constitution and Bylaws of the UWM Union)

*** Segregated Fee Allocations Committee (SFAC) (11 students elected by student body for 1 year terms beginning June 1; Dean of Students and Director of Auxiliary Enterprises ex officio) This Committee will review requests for program support and recommend allocations of allocable portion of segregated University fee; determine specific amounts to be allocated to student organizations defined as “directly funded;” and hear appeals from organizations which requested fund from a directly funded allocating committee and consider allocation insufficient. SFAC decisions may be appealed to committee of SA President, Student Court Chief Justice, and SFAC Chairperson (convener).

Students of the various schools/colleges may establish student organizations which may elect/appoint students to internal committees or may elect delegate appointive authority to SA, which will follow University-wide committee appointive procedures.

The UWM Merger Guidelines Committee recommends certain actions to the Faculty Senate that would make possible the creation of restricting of organizations pertaining to Admissions and Records and Student Information, Athletics, Housing, Student Court and Student Financial Aid.

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

A UW-Parkside Task Force composed of one administrator, one faculty member and three students (including the student association president) was formed to develop campus plans for implementing the student section of the merger bill, 36.09(5). The Task Force has submitted its report which awaits official action affirming, altering, or rejecting essential components. Certain portions of the report affect the manner in which faculty committees would be organized. In most of those cases, the plan calls for additional (or for first-time) student representation. In addition, the plan includes a student constitution that must yet be adopted by student referendum.

While recognizing that the plan still needs several approval and implementation steps by faculty, students, and administration, it is not intended to underestimate the scope of its effort and application. The plan calls for streamlining or modifying the function and composition of several universitywide committees. It recommends areas where students should have

opportunity for enlarged representation in academic issues under the primary jurisdiction of the faculty. The proposed student constitution signifies a solid effort at examining the role and procedures of the Parkside Student Government Association, Inc.

Specific changes called for in committee/board functions include greater student representation in the committee concerned with intramural sports and the suggested elimination of the athletic board jurisdiction in intramural policies. Academic Actions Committee functions would be transferred to School and College Committees. The Admissions Policies Committee will no longer have a direct policy role. The Campus Concerns Committee would change from a faculty committee to a committee composed of equal representation between students and faculty/academic staff. The primary role of this committee would be to make recommendations on functions which are not easily categorized as primarily the concern of faculty or of students. Additional student and faculty representation is called for on the Campus Planning Committee. A request to increase the student membership on the Academic Policies Committee from two to four is included.

The proposed PSGA, Inc. constitution stipulates that each faculty divisional committee shall have one voting member who is student. The constitution specifies that the student representatives on the divisional committees shall be the student senator who is elected by the students from each of the respective academic divisions. And, the constitution further specifies that the student divisional representatives shall be voting members of the Executive Committee of the Tenure Faculty Division. The president of the PSGA, Inc. would have the authority to nominate student appointees needed for approval and shall publish such vacancies in the student newspaper. These faculty-related provisions obviously require the approval of appropriate faculty groups before implementation can occur.

The proposed student constitution also outlines the procedures for the establishment and functioning of the Allocations Committee. The committee shall be established or designated by the PSGA, Inc. for reviewing requests for program support and budget allocations of the allocable portion of the segregated university fee and all action of the committee shall be subject to the final approval of the PSGA, Inc. in conjunction with the Chancellor of the UW-Parkside.

The membership of the Allocations Committee shall consist of 11 voting members (except additional voting members may be added under the provisions of the next paragraph), 5 elected in the fall and 5 elected in the spring by the student body and the President of the Student Organizational Council (ex officio). The Assistant Chancellor for Student Affairs, the Assistant Chancellor for Administration, and the Director of Budget Planning shall sit with the Committee as non-voting members. No members may concurrently serve as a PSGA, Inc. senator of officer.

The procedures of the Allocations Committee require that the committee, upon the call of the Chancellor and the President of PSGA, Inc. shall annually prepare recommendations on the disbursal of the segregated university fee. Should the PSGA, Inc. concur in the recommendation, the President of the PSGA, Inc. shall so advise the Chancellor and the Chairperson of the Allocations Committee. Should the Chancellor concur in the PSGA, Inc. recommendations, he/she shall arrange for its implementation. Should the Chancellor not concur, the provisions under negotiations shall be used. The Senate may not amend the Allocation Committee recommendation. Rejection of the Committee’s

recommendation takes a three-fifths vote of the entire Senate. In the case of rejection by the Senate, the reasons for rejection shall be agreed to and forwarded to the Chairperson of the Allocation Committee. The Allocations Committee shall reconsider its recommendation and again forward it to the Senate.

The President and President Pro Tem of the PSGA, Inc. shall be the representatives of the PSGA, Inc. in any consultations with the Chancellor or his/her designee in dealing with the PSGA, Inc. Allocation Committee recommendations. If the PSGA, Inc. and the Chancellor cannot reconcile their differences in the allocation of the allocable portion of segregated university fees, each will submit a set of recommendations to the Board of Regents for final disposition.

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

In late October a committee consisting of nine students and six administrative staff began developing the Platteville plans to implement 36.09(5). The basic result or outcome of the committee’s efforts is the development of a committee structure outlining the composition in terms of the number of student members and the number of staff members and the responsibilities of the committees. The student senate and the faculty senate have approved the plans. The Chancellor, who served as a member of the committee, has likewise recommended adoption of the plan.

The Platteville plan contains most of the committees that are currently serving and relating to student life, service, and activities areas on that campus. The committees range from health, discipline, and interschool and intramural athletics to orientation, student financial aids, and student housing. The student/staff composition of the committees as proposed in the plan in altered in a majority of the committees--in most cases a shift to

greater representation of student of the committees. In general the changes in representation are modest increments, and do not show drastic revisions of the past composition of the committees.

The major arm of student government at UW-Platteville is the Student Senate. The plan, and past practice, calls for the Student Senate to nominate and in fact appoint student members to committees in the student life, services, and activities areas. One significant change in the proposed plan in the Student Center Advisory Committee (formerly called the Activities Board) will now be appointed by the Student Senate whereas in the past they had been appointed by the various committees which came under the jurisdiction of the Activities Board. Opportunities for student participation appear to be substantial within a structure of 36 separate committees/boards and with several committees calling for student numbers as high as 13,15, and even 20 students in one case.

The plans are not completely clear concerning the extent of opportunity for student participation in areas that are primarily faculty responsibilities. However, some of the committees certainly deal with such concerns including the library, educational media resources, improvement of learning, and environmental impact committees.

The plan assigns the responsibility for recommendations on allocable segregated fee supported areas to the Budget Committee. The Budget Committee carries the responsibility for developing recommendations on both state-funded and segregated-fee funded proposals. The Budget Committee procedures are outlined as follows:

Composition: 11 staff and 6 students. When voting upon financing from state appropriations, each faculty member shall have one vote and each student shall have ½ vote. When voting upon financing from the allocable portion of segregated fees, each student shall have one vote and each faculty member shall have ½ vote.

Their plan does not indicate whether the internal organization of the budget committee is also adjusted along with proportionate staff/student voting powers when the committee deals with allocable segregated fee recommendations as opposed to state-funded proposals. Or in other words, will a student chair the committee during allocable segregated fee deliberations or will the same leadership be maintained?

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

The student governing body at UW-River Falls is “The Student Senate of the UW-River Falls.” A strong, active organization, the Senate has a long tradition of participation in the governance of the campus. The campus plan for the implementation of Section 36.09(5) of the merger bill was developed by two committees. Their reports, “Merger Implementation Interim Guidelines Analysis of Student Life Policy Development,” “Process of Policy Formulation and Review,” “Agency Data Document,” and “Merger Implementation Analysis-Budget Process and Procedures,” were adopted by the Senate; and the Internal Operations Committee was instructed to take the steps necessary to adjust the Senate’s Constitution and By-Laws to reflect the policies and procedures set forth in the reports. This was done as an ongoing procedure. Since there were no major changes, it was not felt necessary to have any kind of total student body ratification procedure. The Senate is the governing body and apparently all concerned believed it has the power to act.

The plan was developed by two committees. The Auxiliary Services/Student Life Concerns Committee has 9 students and 6 faculty members. It developed a model regarding the process of policy formulation and review and an agency data document which provides information vital to membership, purpose and scope of student agencies and committees, the meeting schedule, and parliamentary authorization which will be involved in the plan.

Thirteen student agencies were identified to be authorized and involved in policy development: Student Senate, Hagestad Union Board, Inter-Residence Hall Council, Joint Food Service Committee, Joint Housing Committee, Bookstore Committee, Multi-Purpose Arena Committee, Off-Campus Housing Committee, Statutory Advisory Committee, and Residence Hall Recreation Committee. Students have a majority or equal representation on all but the Financial Aids Advisory Committee, Orientation Committee, and Multi-Purpose Arena Committee. Committee membership and selection vary from committee to committee depending mainly on the scope of the committee. In various ways, the student members are picked by other students, not by the administration. The model developed by the committee has a detailed plan for policy formulation and review with numerous opportunities for appeal and review.

The Budget-Allocable Segregated Fees Committee has three students and three faculty members. It developed flow chats for the handling of segregated fees for student activities during the academic year and summer session and for program activities in the student center. During the academic year the student senate budget committee (5 student senate appointed members and nonvoting, ex officio members, Assistant Chancellor for Business and Finance, and Administrative Assistant for Student Affairs) receives budget recommendations to the full senate for approval. Minor changes ($300 or less) are allowed, but if major problems develop, the entire budget is returned to the committee. If reconcilable differences between the committee and the full senate occur, the recommendation of the committees will prevail and be sent to the Chancellor for review and approval. His recommendation and the senate’s recommendation are then forwarded to Central Administration for final Board approval.

The summer session budget for student activities is developed by the Summer Session Director, Student Center Activities Director, and Assistant Chancellor for Business and Finance. It is then sent to the Chancellor for review and approval before sending it to Central Administration for Board approval.

A third component is the budget for student center program activities. This budget originates in the Hagestad Union Board (HUB) which is composes of 17 voting directors (12 students, 5 faculty and staff). The Director of Auxiliary Services determines the allocable portion of the student center budget and notifies the HUB. HUB recommends a budget and transmits it to the Chancellor, who either approves or disapproves it and forwards the budget to Central Administration for Board approval.

Students are members of the following faculty standing committees: academic policy and program (6 of 15 voting members); academic standards (6 of 12); alumni relations (2 of 6); athletic (6 of 12); campus planning (6 of 12); computer guidance (2 of 7); concerts and lectures (11 of 17); curriculum (5 of 14); faculty salary (2 of 9); faculty welfare and personnel policies (2 of 9); human relations (5 of 9); instructional improvement (4 of 11); international study (3 of 7); library (2 of 8); public relations (3 of 7). Students are not represented on the termination, nominations and elections, institutional

studies, research and grants, and the faculty hearing, grievance, and appeals committees, abut are seeking representation on these committees. Students on each faculty committee are appointed by student government.

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

There is a long history of shared government at UW-Stevens Point as this relates to both students and faculty. For a minimum of ten years, a student subcommittee of student government has reviewed the segregated fee budgets and programs. During this same period of time, this subcommittee has been administering the allocable portion as well as some nonallocable portions of the segregated fee budgets. Thus the implementation of 36.09(5) is simply the continuation of existing procedures rather than the adoption of new ones. Thus, there was no new student or faculty involvement or review.

The committee of student government responsible for allocations is the Student Program Budgeting and Analysis Committee (SPBAC). It is composed of the Student Director of Program Budget and Analysis and one Senate member appointed by the President and one Assembly member appointed by the Vice President. Each of the three members shall appoint two students from the student body at large. These selections must be ratified by a 2/3 vote of Senate and Assembly. In addition, there are two, nonvoting faculty staff advisors, the student government advisor, and a budget analyst. For 1975-76,

the budget has been divided into five categories which encompass all student activities: fine arts, athletics, communications, activities and entertainment, and student government activities. The SPBAC reviews all budget requests from various student groups, hears the various proposals, and makes recommendations to the student government. The student government reviews each request, questions the chairperson of SPBAC on any specific points and then votes the level of appropriation for each activity.

The president of student government, student budget director, and student controller meet with the Chancellor and his staff for review. Differences between the Chancellor and students are negotiated. If differences are nonnegotiable, the matter is taken to the Board for resolution.

Budget control is maintained by the student activity administration (student budget director and student controller) whose basic function is to monitor spending in order to comply with University regulations and to make sure activities don’t spend more than they are allocated. The two students work closely with the University budget analyst and controller.

In the area of student life, services and interests, policy development, four areas have been identified: financial aids, student health, housing, and University Center. Review committees have been operating in the first two areas for three years. New charters are now being developed for all four areas.

Students and faculty have established parallel committees for: academic affairs, business affairs, faculty affairs, student affairs, and community relations. The student committees make recommendations to student government and the Assistant Chancellor for University Services. Students have voting membership privileges on all standing faculty committees including the parallel committees.

Because the charters for the four policy development areas are not yet in final form, the plan should be regarded as in an advanced interim stage (draft copies of the charters were submitted).

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

The policy was written by a committee of eight students and ten faculty and administrators; the Dean of Students provided the leadership. It has received general campus acceptance and represents little change of previous policies.

Student Participation in Governance: Organization and Procedures

As a continuing part of the governance structure of UW-Stout, students have the responsibility to select representatives to governing agencies of the university. The Student Senate monitors student participation in governance. Means of students participation include Stout Student Association; Inter-Residence Hall Association; Academic School, Department and/or Program Student Advisory Committee; and informal student participation.

I. Stout Student Association (SSA)

All student belong and may participate in university governance through SSA. The University Student Senate (USS) is legislative and grants recognition

to affiliated student organizations. Elected executive officers and representatives from interest and/or living groups constitute USS. USS Standing Committees, composed of USS Senators appointed by the SSA President, have varying powers on issues such as segregated fees, committee, appointments, university organizations, and academic and instructional matters. University Activities Assembly is composed of executive officers, student body representatives, and a representative from each associated organization or group; associated organization provide campus-wide programming and activities. University Court, with an equal representation of USS student appointees and faculty, is the judicial branch of the SSA. USS appoints students to be voting representatives, in varying numbers, on all standing committees which assist in governance (e.g. campus planning, curriculum, etc.) and to be members of task forces on specific timely issues, in numbers requested.

II. Inter-Residence Hall Association

All residence hall student are members. The Inter-residence Hall Council is the elective legislative branch of the Association, taking action on resident life and food contract service matter. Inter-residence Hall Association standing committees have a representative from each residence hall and have varying powers on such issues as residence hall facility improvement, food service programs, and residence hall social and educational activities. Each residence hall has an elective Hall Council responsible for hall procedures, policies and programming.

III. Academic School, Department and/or Program Advisory Committee

Students representatives are elected, or if election is not feasible, appointed by faculty, in varying numbers to school, department and program committees. Committee responsibilities vary but curriculum and quality of instruction are their concern.

IV. Informal Student Participation

Students also contribute informally to University governance through the agency of accessibility of administrators, ad hoc and scheduled informal session with administrators on various topics, and orientation groups with administrators, faculty and students.

Primary governance procedures are outlined above but other possibilities are also available.

Procedures for the Distribution of the Segregated University Fee-Activities

The allocable portion of Segregated University Fee (SUF) designated for programmatic activities shall be allocated to the SSA and administered by USS, allocation committee for students, to participating organizations. USS is composed of five student executives, 22 student senators, and tow faculty advisors.

The non-allocable portion of SUF will cover existing debt service, other fixed costs, and a reserve for an initial down-payment on a SUF-supported facility. The allocable portion, the remainder of SUF, will provide major support for various student activities, programs and services.

No later than February 1, the Chancellor shall establish the allocable portion of SUG which the SSA. Under supervision of the Dean of Students, will recommend for distribution to student organizations, for the coming fiscal year. Adjustments due to enrollments will be made in fall. Part will be a contingency fund.

USS finance committee (student Vice President for Financial Affairs (VPFA), 3 student senators, Dean of Students as vice chair and voting member) will hold open hearings and make recommendations for action to USS. The USS organizational allocation recommendations will be reviewed by the Chancellor, Dean of Students, Administrative Services Office (ASO) representative, and SSA VPSA, then acted on by the Chancellor. SSA will announce allocations to funded organizations. Dean of Students will report allocation, including names of faculty advisers and treasurers for all groups to ASO. ASO will report monthly on all SSA funded accounts to the Dean of Students and SSA VPSA. Information on SUF not transmitted through Chancellor will be dispensed through the Dean of Students or his appointed representative. Any changes in budget method shall be announced through Dean of Students Office with notices to ASO and SSA VPSA. All changes in SSA allocations, after Chancellor approval shall be transacted through SSA VPSA who will notify ASO and Dean of Students office.

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

The Superior guidelines were developed by an Ad Hoc Drafting Committee composed of four students, two faculty and one administrator. The Student Affairs Council, the Senate of the Superior Student Association, the University Senate and the Chancellor have all approved the plan.

Student Involvement in University Governance

The Superior Student Association (SSA) is recognized in the plan as the official representative of the students at UW-Superior. As such, the SSA, in consultation with the University Senate Committee on Committees, has appointive authority for all student members of standing committees and councils, except for the Rothwell Student Center Policy Board and the Inter-Hall Council. The plan also calls for student voting membership on all standing committees and council at the college and university levesl concerned with programming, planning, and budgeting both in academic and nonacademic areas. A resolution passed by the Senate of the SSA charges the SSA to “...invite each duly constituted student organization to nominate students from their membership to serve as voting members of the Student Affairs

Council...and that SSA shall insure that its appointments reflect the broad spectrum of student concerns and interests.”

Effective at the beginning of the 1975-76 academic year the Student Affairs Council of the University Senate shall be composed of a majority of students. The council will be chaired by the Assistant Chancellor for Student Affairs and will also be composed of six teaching faculty and/or/ administrative/academic staff appointed by the University Committee on Committees, and eight students appointed by the SSA.

UW-Superior has a longstanding tradition of student involvement in university governance. For some time there has been a student membership on the University Senate. There are currently six student senators. Subject to the revision of the Charter of the University Senate, the President of SSA shall become a voting member of the Executive Committee of the University Senate.

As a matter of principle and pending development of comprehensive recruitment procedures for the University community, students shall be represented in appropriate numbers on committees that recommend the hiring of all administrative staff. A proportionately greater number of students shall serve on recruitment committees for Student Affairs staff than on other recruitment committees.

The SSA shall, in consultation with the Chancellor or his designee, develop student disciplinary procedures in accordance with Board of Regents’ policy.

An Auxiliary Enterprises Review Committee (AERC) shall be established as a committee of the SSA. AERC will be composed of an equal number of students appointed by the SSA and of faculty and/or academic staff appointed by the University Senate Committee on Committees. The functions of AERC shall be the review of the operations and budgets of the auxiliary enterprise areas and to make recommendations to or to consult with the appropriate committees and/administrators. The committee shall be afforded full access to budgets and other information necessary for the accomplishment of its tasks.

Disposition of Allocable Segregated University Fees

The SSA shall create, as a regular standing committee, the Segregated University Fees Allocation Committee (SUFAC). SUFAC shall have primary responsibility for the development and preparation of recommendations regarding the disposition of allocable segregated university fees, in accordance with state and university statutory and regulatory requirements, and in consultation with the Chancellor. SUFAC recommendations are subject to the approval of the Senate of the SSA and the Board of Regents.

The composition of SUFAC shall consist of 13 voting members and one or more non-voting members: 9 voting students appointed by the Senate of SSA, 4 voting faculty or staff members appointed by the Committee on Committees of the University Senate, and as non-voting members (ex officio), the Chancellor of the University and others selected by SUFAC.

SUFAC procedures shall include but not be limited to: providing a budgetary request form to all organizations/activities which are eligible for allocable segregated fees in ample time prior to hearings; a draft of SUFAC’s recommended allocations will be transmitted to the Chancellor of the

University and to the SSA Senate; members of SUFAC shall meet with the Chancellor to discuss their budget recommendations--with the Chancellor’s comments and concerns being reviewed by SUFAC prior to the formulation of its final recommendations; final recommendations shall be submitted to the SSA Senate for consideration and action and will then be submitted to the Chancellor; should the Chancellor find himself unable to endorse the final allocations, he should then prepare and submit to the Board of Regents, through Central Administration, an alternative allocation plan, along with the SSA allocation recommendations.

********************

It does not appear that there are any plans to hold a student referendum or plebiscite to test the student support or lack of support for the plans. It is generally accepted that the SSA will continue the carry out already existing practices for student involvement in the governance of UW-Superior.

Summary of Campus Plans to Implement 36.09(5)

The plan submitted by UW-Whitewater does not contain much information beyond the bear essentials, so background information was secured verbally from the Chancellor, president of student government, and Dean of Students. In addition, both the student and faculty governance structures are being revised.

The submission contains three parts: a membership list for the UW-Whitewater allocations committee structure, a description of the allocation of segregated fees process, and a look at student participation in university governance. The parts were apparently written by an ad hoc committee composed chiefly of the Dean of Students, the past student government president, and the present student government president. The drafts were then approved by the student senate and forwarded by the Chancellor to Central Administration.

The allocations committee is composed of nine students, two faculty members, and tow nonvoting administrative budget officers appointed by the Chancellor. Two students are elected by the senate, two by the Residence Hall Federation, and one each by the four Deans’ Advisory Councils. One student is

appointed by the student government president. The faculty are elected by the Faculty Senate.

Procedures for the operation of the Allocations Committee have not yet been established. All allocations made by the committees shall be formally approved by the student senate. When the proposed allocations are presented to the senate, there is an opportunity for appeal by those groups who feel the allocations are not equitable. After approval of all allocations, the president of student government and the Chancellor will review the allocation. “Any changes requested by the Chancellor must be approved by the Student Senate.” If agreement cannot be reached, the matter will go to Central Administration and the Board of Regents for final resolution.

The third section of the submission deals with student participation in university governance. Students are represented through student government and through membership on: faculty committees, Faculty Senate committees, Deans’ Advisory Councils, University Student Affairs Committee, and University Administrative committees. Unfortunately, no breakdown is given as to how many student members there are on the various committees. To promote communication and accountability, a student representative council is proposed to exchange information about what is occurring at meetings of the various committees concerning student life, services or interests. The plan does not “define with particularity student life, services and interests.” There is no listing of existing procedures which assure opportunities for student participation in the campus agencies charged with policy development. Students are seeking representation on the University Curriculum Committee and departmental academic governance committees.

Example A

UWC-BARABOO/SAUK COUNTY

(1) The University of Wisconsin Baraboo-Sauk County Student Association and its legislative arm, the Student Senate, were chartered and approved in June, 1970. Through its membership on th4e various Collegium committees, students are active participants in the immediate governance of and policy developments for Baraboo. There are six student members of the Baraboo Collegium – three freshman and three sophomores -- as nominated by the Student Association. The Center Collegium nominates and elects members to the Baraboo Collegium Steering Committee, which includes one student. Other committees having student representation include: a) the Evaluation Committee (two students); b) the Curriculum Course Improvement Committee (two student); c) an Appointments Committee (two students); d) the Academic Actions and Admissions Committee (two students); e) a Lecture and Fine Arts Committee (two students); f) a Building and Grounds Committee (two students); and g) a Publications Committee (four students).

All student representatives are recommended by the Baraboo Senate and appointed by the Dean.

(2) The Student Senate, through its budgeting power and its standing committees, has primary responsibility for the formulation and review of policies concerning student life, services, and interests. In addition to the above-mentioned committees, and Ad Hoc Appeals Board may be created to resolve grievances of faculty students, and support personnel. The students are represented on that Board.

(3) The disposition of segregated fees and approval of the several 128 budgets receiving segregated fee support is decided jointly by the campus Steering Committee and the entire Student Senate. As the Charter reads: “Subject to the approval of the Dean, the Student Senate...shall recommend the allocation of the student activities portion of the 128 funds consistent with University and Center System guidelines.”

(4) The student right to organize and select their representatives is set forth in the Baraboo Charter: “The Student Senate, as main student governance body, shall carry on required political activities, and shall be responsible for recommending to the Dean the names of students to serve on non-elective faculty and student committees.” Three points are noted: a) freshman/sophomore balance is mandated by the Charter; b) two committees mandate sophomore student representation; and c) there is no direct committee placement of student representatives by the SGA; rather, a nomination process leads to student designation.

UWC-Baraboo/Sauk Collegium40 members 5 students

Collegium Committees: Total# Students#Steering Committee 6 1Evaluation Committee 7 2Appointments Committee 7 2Curriculum Committee 7 2Lecture & Fine Arts Committee 12 3

Example BUWC-BARRON COUNTY

(1) Students are active participants in the governance of and policy development for this Center campus. The Barron Collegium includes four students (two freshmen, two sophomores) who are elected to that body by the Student Senate. The Center Collegium Steering Committee includes one student. The Faculty Merit Committee, the Teacher Evaluation Committee, and the Ideas Committee have student representation. Standing Committees consist of at least one student member of, and elected by, the Center Collegium. The Curriculum and Course Improvement Committee would include four students selected by the Center Steering Committee from a list of at least twelve students submitted by the Student Senate.

(2) “Great weight” is given to student voice concerning areas of student life, service, and interests through student participation in essential campus committees.

(3) The Student Senate Constitution at the present time does not define the involvement of the students in the budgeting process of the 128 funds. This reality has been communicated to the Student Body President and is being remedied through a provision designed to enumerate Senate duties and functions in the budgeting and allocation of 128 dollars.

In absence of a revised Constitution, a formal procedure has been worked out whereby:

(a) The chairperson of the budgetary committee would be the treasurer of the Student Senate.

(b) The committee would be made up by student assigned by the Student Senate Executive Committee.

(c) The various organizations, using previous budgets and expenses as models, will be asked to submit budget to this committee.

(d) The student committee will formulate and submit this total budget to the Dean for his approval.

(e) The Dean will forward the final budget document to the Chancellor indicating any discrepancies not resolved between the student committee and the Dean.

(4) Students have the right to organize themselves, and they operate a student government association. The CCIC student representatives are chosen by the Steering Committee from twelve names submitted by the Student Senate; each of the four is to be “typical” of students in each academic division.

UWC-Barron County CollegiumAll persons who are non-classified and teach 50% or more are members of

the Collegium, plus three students.

Collegium Committees: Total# Student#Steering Committee 6 1Promotion, Retention & Tenure Committee 5 0Faculty Merit Committee 6 1Teacher Evaluation Committee 4 1Faculty Grants & Awards Committee 3 0Appointments Committee 3 0Nominating Committee 3 0Ideas Committee 7 1Media Committee (Ad Hoc) 5 0

Example CUWC-MARSHFIELD/WOOD COUNTY

(1) Students are defined as all persons registered for credit at the Center; further, students shall be active participants in the immediate governance and policy developments of the Center. Membership in the Campus Collegium is made up of two freshmen and two sophomores, with the selection process determined by the Campus Collegium. Student members are also present on the Steering Committee and on the Curriculum and Course Improvement Committee, both of which are standing committees of the Collegium. Students are not represented on the Promotion, Evaluation, Retention and Tenure Committee or on the Appointments Committee. Input, however, is used, prior to action. Students are represented on the following ad hoc committees of the Collegium: a) Academic Actions Committee, (1 student); b) Library Committee, (2 students); c) Student Financial Aids Committee, (3 students); and d) Student Housing Committee, (2 students).

(2) Students have majority membership on three additional ad hoc committees related to student life, services, and interests: a) the Athletic and

Recreation Board, (6 students); b) Student Activity Fund Committee, (6 students); and c) Lecture-Fine Arts Committee, (6 students). This majority assures students of primary responsibility for the formulation and review of policies concerning student life, services, and interests.

(3) The three ad hoc committees described above are responsible for determining budget recommendations for the activity of their respective committees. As such, students determine the disposition of student fees which do constitute to substantial support for their activities. Since the support for the activities of the above-mentioned three committees is also generated by revenue from the campus food service and the campus bookstore, there is student involvement in the disposition of funds which are not student fees but which are generated by student traffic in the food service and bookstore.

(4) Since 1964, students of Marshfield have had the right to organize themselves in a self-determined manner. Their organization is named the University of Wisconsin, Marshfield/Wood County Campus Student Self-Governing Association. The Student Self-Government Association selects the four student representatives to the Collegium, which mandates only a freshman-sophomore division of student membership. Whereas in the past the Collegium’s Steering Committee had asked for recommendations to committees, currently such representation is selected by the students through the Student Self-Government Association.

UWC-MARSHFIELD/WOOD COUNTY

Collegium Ad Hoc Committee Total # Student #

Academic Actions Committee 8 1House Management Committee 8 0Library Committee 7 2Student Financial Aids Com. 8 3Student Housing Committee 7 2

Ad Hoc Committee concerned with128 funds

Athletic & Recreation Board 12 6Student Activity Fund 10 6Lecture-Fine Arts 6 6

Collegium Standing Committee

Appointments Committee 3 0Curriculum 8 2Promotion, Evaluation, Retention 5 0

and Tenure CommitteeSteering Committee 7 1

Example DUWC-WAUKESHA COUNTY

(1) The charter of Waukesha indicates that students shall be active participants in the immediate governance of and policy development of Waukesha County Campus through their elected representative to the Campus Collegium. Student voting representation is on all but two of the committees (Building and Grounds; Field Station); and a campus study has recommended that student representation be extended to these committees.

(2) Five committees dealing with student life and interests have been created at Waukesha: a) Student Services (1 student); (b) Student Activities (5 students, majority): c) Athletic Board (3 students); d) Scholarship and Financial Aids (2 students); e) Lecture and Fine Arts (1 student). The student service committee functions as the parent committee. Each of the sub-committees dealing with matters considered to by of primary interest to student has greater student representation than other campus committees. A

campus proposal would increase to four the number of students on the Lecture and Fine Arts Committee.

(3) The Student Service Committee compiles the budgets from the Student Activities Committee, the Athletic Board, and the Lecture and Fine Arts Committee. It reviews the total budget in terms of budget requests, anticipated revenues, etc. As a part of the budget review, the committee will develop recommendations on the segregated fee. Since the activity budget is prepared by a committee having majority student representation, students do have primary responsibility for this expenditure area. It has been suggested that campus recommendations be made permitting the total budget to be submitted by the Student Service Committee to the Student Government Legislature for comment and approval.

(4) The Student Government does have the right to organize in a self-determined manner. The following guidelines are followed: a) the Center Collegium requires 4 freshmen and 4 sophomore student representatives; b) nominations for student reps are sought from ALL FACULTY and students (according to the charter); c) It is mandated when the election of students shall occur, and that student nominees have a 2.0 GPA; the election, however, is supervised by the Student Government. Steering, Appointments, Evaluation Committees require a sophomore level student, the Academic Actions, Community Services, Lecture & Fine Arts, and Library Committees have students appointed by the Steering Committee (in consultation with Student Government).

UWC-WAUKESHA COUNTYTotal # Student #

Collegium Committee 11 8

Collegium Standing Committees

Steering Committee 7 1Evaluation of Professional

Personnel 7 1Appointment of Professional

Personnel 7 1Curriculum & Course Improvement 7 1Community Services 7 1Nominations & Elections 6 1Student Services 11 2

Faculty Committees

Academic Actions 8 2Library 5 1Lectures & Fine Arts 6 1Athletic Board 8 3Field Station 5 0Appeals 4 0Charter Revision 6 1Student Activities 14 7Scholarship 7 2Technology 6 1Building & Grounds 5 0Convocation 7 2

April 1, 1975

TO: BOARD OF REGENTS

FROM: Donald K. Smith

SUBJECT: Summary and Recommendations of Campus Plans to Implement the Student Section of the Merger Implementation Law, 36.09(5)

Last October the Board of Regents adopted Interim Guidelines for the implementation of the student section of the Merger Implementation Law, 36.09(5). The specific language of this section of the Merger Implementation Law follows:

“The students of each institution or campus subject to the responsibilities and powers of the board, the president, the chancellor, and the faculty shall be active participants in the immediate governance of and policy development for such institutions. As such, students shall have primary responsibility for the formulation and review of policies concerning student life, services, and interests. Students in consultation with the chancellor and subject to the final confirmation of the board shall have the responsibility for the disposition of those student fees which constitute substantial support for campus student activities. The students of each institution or campus shall have the right to organize themselves in a manner they determine and to select their representatives to participate in institutional governance.”

The Interim Guidelines called for the development of campus plans to implement the student section of the merger bill. For the most part, the Interim Guidelines did not specify structural or substantive directions which the plans should follow in order to comply with the law. However, the guidelines stressed the need to account for certain procedural guarantees such as student involvement in the development of the plan, primary student role in the development of the recommendations on use of the allocable portion of segregated university fee budgets, and the right of appeal to Central Administration and the Board of Regents.

Central Administration has received reports from the several institutions on the progress made in developing campus plans for implementing Section 36.09(5) of the merger statute. These have been reviewed with primary attention to the nature of student participation in the development of each plan, and to the fact of progress toward those modifications in campus structures and procedures where these were indicated by the plan.

We have enclosed for your information a summary of each institutional plan. These summaries were reviewed in draft form with student government leaders and campus administrators, and we believe represent a fair statement of the way in which each institution is proceeding with implementation. We have also asked that chief student affairs administrators and student government leaders publicize the opportunity available to bring appeals related to the plans before the Board of Regents at their April meeting.

Observations by Central Administration

1. The plans for implementation vary from institution to institution in many particulars. This is consistent with the expectation underlying the adoption of the Interim Guidelines on Implementation. Since the agencies and forms of shared governance vary from institution to institution, while reflecting a common philosophy, we should expect similar variance in the ways in which student participation in governance is assured. Variables including campus traditions, size, age, student initiative, and other factors combine to determine both the means and extent of student involvement.

2. We are satisfied that all institutions have proceeded in good spirit with the task of implementing Section 36.09(5). Plans have been developed. Implementation of plans will require in most instances a continuing process of adjustment and modification, including actions by faculty senates, student governments and student constituencies, and campus administrators.

3. We do not believe that formal approval of campus plans by the Regents is a desirable procedure, particularly in view of the continuing processes of modification in campus governance rules and procedures which has been set in motion. Rather we would propose that the Regents receive the plans, and recommend continuing attention by the institutions to developing those rules and procedures which will express fully the letter and intention of Section 36.09(5).

4. Eight or nine campuses will be in the process of acting on various aspects of the proposed plans yet this spring. For this reason, we are recommending that the Regents ask for a further report on campus implementation of the plans at the November, 1975 meeting. It is expected that the various constituent groups at the campuses who still need to review and act on the plans will have taken action by that time.

5. Explicit action by the Regents concerning any plan should follow from action on appeals made to the Board by any student association. We believe this opportunity for appeal should be maintained in 1975-76, and appeals received at the November, 1975 meeting.

Recommendation

Central Administration’s recommendation is placed in the attached resolution

cc: Chief Student Affairs OfficersStudent Government Leaders

Summary of Campus Plans to Implement 36.09(5), UW Center System

Status Report

The Center System report is a review of the status of a plan for effecting measures designed to insure institutionwide compliance with 36.09(5). The implementation plan was developed with all Deans, students, faculty, Assistant Chancellor VanEyck, and Administrative Intern Thornton Liechty.

As mandated in the interim guidelines, the report on the plan includes a comprehensively defined identification of those agencies which have been given the responsibility of policy development. Highlight is given to actions on specific campuses as a means of insuring movement toward compliance, pending local charter revision as designated to accommodate statute mandates.

Each individual campus has submitted a report. The format to be followed: 1) will view the Center System as a functioning unit; 2) will review the Collegium structure as it relates to student involvement in the participatory decision-making process; and 3) will detail briefly the position of each center campus with respect to 36.09(5).

Recommendation

In concert with the Central mandate, the following recommendations are cited regarding procedural changes which should be made:

1. If, on the basis of legal clarification, it becomes evident that guidelines, locally developed, restricting which students may participate in a given governance committee, are an indication of noncompliance. . . .

(a) Local charters will have to be amended to abrogate such restrictions

(b) Interim procedures will have to be effected immediately, to insure --prior to local charter revision--the elimination of said restrictions.

(c) The System Internal Review Charter will be asked to insert in its System Amendments, a broad statement stipulating the necessity of local charter reference to compliance sections identified in 36.09(5).

2. If student nominees for a particular representation are ultimately selected from such a pool by administration, local charter (and interim designated procedures) will have to reflect a direct student selection of student membership on the appropriate committees.

3. A review will be made of the primary responsibility role which students play in the disposition of 128 budgets. Efforts will be effected to insure the inclusion of students in those deliberations which determine the level of student segregated fees--aside from their current involvement in actual 128 budget determinations.

4. In concert with the System’s External Charter Review proposal that a standing committee on Student Life Services and Interest be created--a monitoring device will be requested by the Chancellor, whereby, on the basis of campus-by-campus input, the overall status of student participation in the institutional governance structure be devised in an ongoing manner.

5. Procedures will be devised, subject to student, faculty, Deanship approval, whereby those few centers which have not included student representation on evaluation, tenure, appointments committee--will develop alternative mechanisms for student input. (The affected centers have already initiated the latter.)

Addendum

In the reorganization of the Center System’s internal governance procedures during the past three years, a Center System collegium was created which includes representatives of the faculty, administration and students.

The numbers of students involved on the collegium and four of its committees that deal primarily with academic issues follows:

UW Center System Collegium 1974-75

21 members 4 are students

Collegium CommitteesTotal # Student #

Steering Committee 7 1Curriculum Committee 7 2Professional Standards 8 1Academic Standards 7 1

Of the five students serving on the above committees, three are designated as “to be appointed by Student Presidents.”

All of the Centers submitted plans. Enclosed as examples of the general kinds of efforts being made to involve students in the governance of the Centers are the plans of four of the Center, including Baraboo/Sauk County, Barron County, Marshfield/Wood County, and Waukesha County.

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-OSHKOSH

PROGRESS REPORT ON

SECTION 36.09(5) OF

WISCONSIN STATE STATUTES

May 30, 1978Submitted by

Edwin B. SmithAssistant Chancellor-

Student Programs & Services

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-OSHKOSH

MERGER COMMITTEE REPORT

March 1975

STUDENT MEMBERSThomas Albers, USRHMark Dolenshek, USRHPatricia Keuk, Union BoardGerald Bloesl, Union Board

Daniel Manning, OSAMark Mitchell, OSAMark Russert, Allocations Committee

FACULTY MEMBERSChristie Berner, NursingPaul Taylor, EducationAlbert Ritsema, Student Services

CHAIRPERSONEdwin B. Smith Assistant Chancellor for Student

Programs and Services

Section 36.09(5) of the Merger Statute:

“The students of each institution or campus subject to the responsibilities and powers of the board, the president, the chancellor and the faculty shall be active participants in the immediate governance of and policy development for such institutions. As such, students shall have primary responsibility for the formulation and review of policies concerning student life, services and interests. Students in consultation with the chancellor and subject to the final confirmation of the board shall have the responsibility for the disposition of those student fees which constitute substantial support for campus student activities. The students of each institution or campus shall have the right to organize themselves in a manner they determine and to select their representatives to participate in institutional governance.

Introduction

This report is divided into two section: (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. For purposes of this report, the Merger Implementation Committee has defined “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 judgement dictates otherwise. In such cases, the

basis for changing or denying recommendations shall be communicated to the recommending student agency.

In 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.

The following student organizations are those that shall be directly involved in the governance process of the University. They represent the manner in which students have chosen to organize themselves.

Union Board shall have primary responsibility for the formulation and reviewof policies concerning Reeve Memorial Union, the Reeve Union Bookstore (textbook, supply), and all Food Service operations within Reeve Memorial Union. In addition, the Union Board, in conjunction with United Students in Residence Halls, shall determine the number of members on the University Food Committee, and in a manner of their choosing, appoint or elect one-half of those members.

United Students in Residence Halls shall have primary responsibility for theformulation and review of policies concerning the Housing Program and the Food Service in University Commons. In addition, United Students in Residence Halls, in conjunction with Union Board, shall determine the number of member on the University Food Committee, and in a manner of their choosing, appoint or elect one-half of those members.

The Oshkosh Student Association is the constitutionally recognized voice ofthe student body in all general University policies. The Oshkosh Student Association shall be the appointing agency for all students to University and Faculty Senate Committees, as well as all other committees regarding areas not specifically delegated to the Union Board or United Students in Residence Halls.

Experience with student participation in University governance over the past three years has upheld the confidence of the original merger report that the principle is sound and workable. In those areas where merger has been implemented, the University has benefitted by the spirit of cooperation and greater understanding which stems from the committee-structured discussion of differing viewpoints. The experience has also revealed, however, persistent problems which have inhibited full implementation of merger and may indeed be insidious: the apparent reluctance of the faculty to share traditional prerogatives with students, and the haphazard manner in which the Oshkosh Student Association (OSA) performs its responsibility in filling student vacancies on committees. Beyond the specific committees mentioned below, neither the Faculty Senate nor OSA has formulated any general rules or policies which define student committee memberships or committee structures.

Faculty Senate Committees:

The merger report of 1975 recommended student majority membership on six faculty committees and minority representation on the remaining eleven. To this date, membership on these committees has been changed as follows:

A. Two committee were allowed a student majority: The Allocations Committee (five students, 4 faculty), and Scholarships and Awards Committee (five students, four faculty).

The Allocations Committee, which disburses the allocable portion of segregated university fees (currently about $350,000), is a good example of an effective and responsible student-majority committee. They have conducted their business in a manner that has gained the respect of the university community. During the past year, when OSA made the Allocations Committee one of its standing committees and required that all allocations recommendations be passed by the OSA Senate, a referendum of the student body gave a vote of confidence to the Allocations Committee by vetoing the OSA action.

B. Minority student membership is maintained on the other four committees: Intercollegiate Athletics (nine faculty, three students), Health and Safety (five faculty, 3 students), Publications (six members, two students), and Public Relations, (twelve members, two students). The additional faculty committees were also allowed minority student membership: Campus Physical Facilities Planning (five faculty, two administrators, and two students), and Library (ten members, one student).

C. The remaining nine faculty committees have no student representation: Committee on Committees, Alumni, Faculty Relations, Improvement of Instruction, Promotions, TARPS, University Development, Budge, and Working Conditions.

Administrative Areas

Student membership has remained constant on the Commission for Academic Affairs and its standing committees (about 20%), the Academic Advisory Council for Continuing Education (20%), Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action (10%), University Budget Committee (OSA President and Vice President), and the Graduate Council and its standing committees (25%)

Students are also represented on other University Committees: Parking (50%), Energy Conservation (40%), Planning Steering (20%), and Safety (30%).

Departments and Colleges

Student voting membership of 20% or higher are maintain on many departmental and college curriculum committees and budget committees. Since the Faculty Senate has not yet formulated its policy concerning personnel rules for faculty, the question of student participation and voting rights on all committees which deal with personnel matters remains unanswered.

OSA Appointments to Faculty and University Committees:

The efficiency of OSA, the body which appoints student members, varies yearly with each elected administration; and often appointments are put off,

sometimes until midyear. One student-majority committee, Intramurals, did no function during the past year because OSA failed to appoint members. In some cases waning interest, feelings of inadequate knowledge, being ignored, or impatience with the committee system will cause student members to miss meeting or simply drop out. As a possible means of removing these hindrances, it has been recommended that OSA establish an appointment committee. The current OSA officers made an election campaign promise to give high priority to student participation in University governance and have begun to carry through with that promise.

Brief responses to the following questions were requested:

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 power of students? If so, what are they?

1. The major unresolved issue concerns the appointment of student members to committees. Who makes the appointments? The most recent dispute, over the selection of students to the Chancellor’s Search and Screen Committee resulted in legal action by the students against President Young and the Board of Regents.

The court decided against the students, but the OSA Senate voted to appeal the decision in the new appellate court. One the advice of United Council, however, the current OSA president is inclined to drop the matter. The rationale is that the question will be pursued elsewhere by United Council

2. The colleges are uncertain about where students fit into faculty grievance committees at the department level, since these deal with what might be considered personnel matter. Should they be on committees? Should they have a vote?

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

A clear and precise system-wide definition of “primary responsibility” should be of highest importance. We have had less difficulty than some campuses with this issue, because of our campus definition. However, it still becomes an occasional concern in the absence of a system-wide definition.

UW-Oshkosh definition:

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 judgment dictates otherwise. In such cases, the basis for changing or denying recommendations shall be communicated to the recommending student agency.

In 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.

SECTION TWO:

AREAS OF CONCERN

I. FACULTY SENATE COMMITTEES

A. Public Relations Committee

1. Membership

a. Existing: Twelve faculty and 2 students and 2 ex-officio (Executive Director of Communications Services and Dean of College of Continuing Education).

b. Amended: Twelve faculty and 3 students and 2 ex-officio (Executive Director of Communication Services and Dean of College of Continuing Education).

2. Purpose: Studies and makes recommendations regarding the large development of harmonious campus-community relationships in an era of accelerated growth; seeks additional methods for improving communication between all groups within and without the university.

B. University Development Committee

1. Membership

a. Existing: Twelve faculty

b. Amended: Addition of 3 students

2. Purpose: Identifies and researches problems in institutional growth; formulates proposals for the action programs for referral to the Faculty Senate.

C. Improvement of Instruction Committee

1. Membership

a. Existing: Fifteen faculty

b. Amended: Addition of 3 students

2. Purpose: Studies a multitude of problems directly affecting instructional efficacy at the university; establishes subcommittees to study separate proposals; cooperates with other committees in making joint reports to Faculty Senate.

D. Campus Planning Committee

1. Membership

a. Existing: Five faculty, 2 administrators, and representatives of Student Servicesb. Amended: Addition of 2 students.

D. Multicultural Educational Center

1. Membership

a. Existing: Nine students and 1 ex-officio (Director of the Multicultural Center)

b. Amended: Eight student (two from each group housed in the Center) and 2 from OSA and 1 ex-officio(Director of the Multicultural Center)

2. Purpose: Formulation and review of policies concerning the Multicultural Educational Center

E. Scholarship and Awards Committee*

1. Membership

a. Existing: Nine faculty and 3 students and 3 ex-officio (Assistant Chancellor for Student Programs and Service, Director of Financial Aids, Assistant Dean of Students).

b. Amended: Four faculty and 5 students and 1 ex-officio (Assistant Chancellor for Student Programs and Services or designate)

2. Purpose: Supervises the establishment of all-campus and divisional honor societies; recommends policy on scholarships and financial assistance to students; studies possibilities for developing sources of financial aids; and organizes annual Honors Day.

II. NEW COMMITTEES

A. Admissions, Records, Registration, and Registrar Committee

1. Membership: Five students and 3 faculty and 1 ex-officio (Assistant Vice-Chancellor for Educational Systems or designate).

2. Purpose: Formulation and review of policies concerning the offices of Admission, Records, Registration and Registrar.

B. Intramural Sports Committee

1. Membership: Six students and 2 ex-officio(The co-directors of Intramurals – men and women).

2. Purpose: Formulation and review of policies concerning Intramural Sports

C. Student Support Service Committee

1. Membership: Three students and 2 faculty and 3 ex-officio(Directors of Reading/Study Center, Testing and Research Center, and Placement Office).

2. Purpose: Formulation and review of policies concerning the Reading/Study Center, Testing and Research Center, and Placement

--------(*) Currently Faculty Senate Committee

UW-O MERGER COMMITTEERECOMMENDATIONS

I. TO THE CHANCELLOR

We recommend that the existing Health and Safety Committee be concerned solely with campus safety problems and policies and that the University Health Service Committee be charged with responsibility for the University Health Service, as described in the UW-O Merger Committee Report.

II. TO THE FACULTY SENATE

We recommend that the definitions of purpose or function of all Faculty Senate Committees be revised regarding their aptness of description and current applicability.

We recommend that consolidation occur regarding the Calendar Public Relations Committee, the University Public Relations Committee and the Faculty Senate Public Relations Committee.

We recommend that any future committees dealing with areas of concern to students should reflect a minimum of 20% student participation.

III. TO THE OSHKOSH STUDENT ASSOCIATION, REEVEN UNION BOARD, AND UNITED STUDENTS IN RESIDENCE HALLS

We recommend that the Executive Board of the Oshkosh Student Association be increased to include the Chairperson of the Union Executive Board or his/her designee (ex-officio without vote) and the President of United Students in Residence Halls or his/her designee (ex-officio without vote).

We recommend that the Executive Board of the Reeve Union Board be increased to include the President of United Students in Residence Halls or his/her designee (ex-officio without vote) and the President of United Students in Residence Halls or his/her designee (ex-officio without vote).

We recommend that the Executive Board of United Students in Residence Halls be increased to include the Chairperson of the Reeve Union Board or his/her designee (ex-officio without vote) and the President of the Oshkosh Student Association or his/her designee (ex-officio without vote).

We recommend that the student representatives to the Intercollegiate Athletic Committee be evenly divided between men and women.

We recommend that, in regard to the Publications Committee, one student be appointed from the staff of the Advance-Titan and one student be appointed from the staff of the Wisconsin Review.

We recommend that the student representatives to the Intramural Sports Committee be evenly divided between men and women.

We recommend that at least one student member of the Veterans Affairs Committee be a veteran.

GLOSSARY

Active participants in immediate governance: Students shall have formal representation in all areas of institutional decision-making including but not limited to academic and non-academic planning, programming, budgeting and review as provided for in this document.

Disposition of student fees: The allocation/distribution through budget preparation and development, of the Student Segregated Fee, in accordance with Regent rules and State Statutes.

Ex-Officio: Non-voting membership

In consultation with: The provision for timely and substantive mutual discussion between parties prior to formal decision-making or action by the decision-making group.

Primary Responsibility: 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 basis for changing or denying recommendations shall be communicated to the recommending student agency.

Student: A person registered for study at UW-Oshkosh for the current academic period; the Oshkosh Student Association, United Students in Residence Halls, and Reeve Memorial Union Board shall be responsible for the immediate governance and/or primary responsibility of those areas so designated in this document.

Substantial Support: Those student fees or student-generated revenues without which recipient programs, organizations, activities, etc., would be significantly impaired, curtailed or eliminated.

May 31, 1978

Dr. Donald SmithSr. Vice PresidentCentral AdministrationUniversity of Wisconsin SystemVan Hise HallMadison, Wis. 53706

Dear Dr. Smith:

Chancellor Birnbaum has asked that I send the enclosed report directly to you. Please let me know if there are any further questions regarding our implementation of 36.09(5).

Sincerely,

Edwin B. SmithAssistant ChancellorStudent Programs & Services

EBS/bhEnc.

DOCUMENT STATUS:

This document was taken from original PDF form and re-typed with the sole purpose of creating a digital format of the document. This document was re-typed and is as close to the original as possible in regards to formatting, font, grammatical aphorisms and spelling.

02/04/2016 Graham D. Sparks, Vice President of OSA