The Academic Staff Council has reviewed the October 10, 2005 document from the ad hoc Program Array Review Committee of the Faculty Senate.  The initial motivation for the formation of this committee was to respond to potential program cuts because of the state budget crisis.  However, the decision to review all UW La Crosse programs /activities on both quality and cost is beyond the purview of the Faculty Senate.

 

Specifically, the decision that the Faculty Senate will review all UW-L programs is not in keeping with the principles of shared governance.  Chapter 36.09 (4m) specifically states that the academic staff members shall be active participants in the immediate governance of and policy development for the institution.

 

The Academic Staff Council is committed to working together with campus governance groups on these issues, either by developing a parallel process for the evaluation of service programs by a committee of Academic Staff members or by the participation in a joint, university wide committee which will allow input of all groups involved.

 

Sick Leave Response

At the Board of Regents meeting on September 9, 2005, an eight-point resolution regarding employment polices and practices within the University of Wisconsin System was passed.  This is the response of the UW-La Crosse Academic Staff to resolution one and six.

In review of Resolution 1.2c, the Academic Staff of UW-La Crosse agrees with the two stated principles that:

1)  No one will be paid for not working

2)  People will be paid at a rate commensurate with their current job, not any prior one.

 Point 1: Back up Appointments:

The Academic Staff of UW –La Crosse are of the opinion that the current personnel policies are sound and if followed and enforced by each institution will achieve the two principles noted above.  In addition, adherence to the current policies will aid in employee recruitment, retention and job security.  While there has been some variability in interpretation and enforcement of these policies with resultant negative publicity for the University System, we think it is unwise to change the current policy in response to one or two high profile situations that have been negatively portrayed in the media.

We suggest that efforts be made to educate faculty, staff and supervisory personnel regarding what the policy means and how enforcement should be handled. Communication to the general public that these policies are sound and that enforcement is uniform amongst the campuses is another important aspect of this issue which will restore public confidence in the University System.

 

 Point 6:  Revised Sick Leave Policy:

While it appears that ten days is not an unreasonable time for required certification from a health care professional, this change raises many questions that will need to be addressed prior to institution of this policy.  Some of these questions are as follows:

ü      What constitutes a written certification from a health care professional?

ü      How does this requirement fit in with HIPPA guidelines which protect the privacy of an employee?

ü      Who is going to fund the visit necessary to obtain the health care certification? Will paying for this visit fall on the employer, employee or to health insurance?  Payment for these visits will have a role in raising health care costs which are already increasing at an alarming rate.

ü      Who will enforce this policy?  This policy may create an administrative nightmare for each of the campuses.

ü      What is a medical certification?  It is often unclear to health care providers how the current illness affects one’s ability to perform his or her duties.  For example. a broken foot may not impede a librarian’s ability to do his job but may have a huge impact on a staff member who provides child care services.

The Academic Staff at UW-La Crosse think that prior to making these changes additional research needs to be done in consultation with administrative personnel, faculty and staff in order to develop clearly written guidelines.   In addition, we believe that changing existing policies based on one or two individual cases often results in creating rules that are not workable.  We suggest further study on both of these points with particular attention to how these changes will impact the majority of the staff.  This will enable the University System to be proactive rather than reactionary.

Respectfully,

 

Patricia Karpinsky, Chair

Academic Staff Council