34th Faculty Senate

Vol. 34, No. 8

December 2, 1999

I. Roll Call.

Present: Bange, Barmore, Duquette, Grant, Heim, Hench, S. Kelly, Kraemer, R. LeDocq, Majak, Monte, L. Nelson, Nyatepe-Coo, Prucha, D. Riley, R. Sullivan, P. Taylor, VanVoorhis, Vogt, Voiku, Wingate

II. Approval of Minutes. The minutes of the November 18, 1999, meeting were approved as distributed.

III. Reports.

A. Chancellor’s Report:  There was no Chancellor's report.

B.  Provost/Vice Chancellor’s Report:  There was no Provost/Vice Chancellor's report.

C.  Chair/Faculty Representative's Report: Chair Bange distributed a tentative schedule of Senate meetings for Spring semester. The tentative meeting dates are February 3, February 17, March 2, March 23, April 13, April 27 and May 4 (including the organizational meeting of the 35th Senate). No agendas are set at this time, but the Chair will ask the chairs of the Library Committee, the Scholarships and Awards Committee and the Undergraduate Research Committee to give reports to the Senate during Spring semester.
 
IV. Approval of the December Graduation List.

M/S/P (by voice vote) to approve the list of December 1999 graduates contingent upon the successful completion of the requirements for their respective degrees.

V. Preliminary Report from the PTS Committee on Distribution of the 2000-2001 Salary Package.

Barry Clark, Chair of the Promotion, Tenure and Salary Committee, joined the Senate. He provided the Senators with the following written preliminary report on the committee's work on the compression issue:

Preliminary Report to the Faculty Senate from the PTS Committee (12/2/99)

The PTS Committee was asked to review the salary compression proposal passed by the faculty senate last May.  To that end, the Committee has met almost every week during the semester, consulted with the deans and the provost/vice-chancellor, and worked closely with John Tillman in analyzing salary data and compression models.

In approaching the issue of compression, the Committee established three criteria to guide its deliberations.  First, the proposal needs to address the problem of salary compression across the ranks at UW-L.  Currently, professors are approximately 18% below their peers at comparable institutions, while assistant professors are approximately 5% above their peers.  Second, the proposal needs to be sensitive to the effects of compression adjustments on the salaries of assistant and associate professors.  Finally, the proposal should provide a long-term solution to the problem of salary compression so that the issue does not reappear in the future.  While the Committee has agreed that no decisions are final until the entire proposal is voted on as a package, the following preliminary decisions have been made:

(1) The percentage of the increase in the pay package to be used for addressing compression should be 30%, a slightly lower figure than last year's proposal of one-third.  Given that the average increase in the pay package during the past ten years has been 2.9%, 30% of that amount would constitute slightly less than 1% of the pay package in an average year.
(2) Whereas last year's proposal contained a component for years of service in rank, the Committee has decided that compression adjustments should be distributed equally within rank.  The rationale for this decision is that more senior professors have received catch-up in the past while recently promoted professors have not.
(3) To reduce the burden on assistant and associate professors, the Committee will recommend that $125,000 of salary savings be added to the portion of the pay package set aside for compression adjustments.
(4) To offset losses imposed on assistant and associate professors, the Committee will recommend that promotion bonuses be raised to $3,000 for promotion to associate professor and $5,000 for promotion to professor.  These bonuses will result in a substantial increase in lifetime earnings despite the negative effect of compression adjustments on the salaries of assistant and associate professors.  The larger bonuses should also prevent salary compression from reappearing in the future.
(5) To maintain equity between recently promoted professors and soon-to-be promoted associate professors, the Committee will recommend that any faculty member receiving the new promotion bonuses should be ineligible for compression adjustments.
(6) Since the results of applying the compression model depend on the size of the pay package and the amount of salary savings available, the Committee will recommend a thorough review of the model during the 2002-2003 academic year.

The floor was then opened up to the senators for questions and discussion. After some initial clarification of points in the report, senators expressed several questions and concerns.
 

  • Increasing the promotion raises is likely to increase compression within ranks.  Dr. Clark responded to this by indicating that the committee was charged with addressing compression across ranks, and the proposal is only meant to alleviate this type of compression.
  • Concerning the ineligibility for compression adjustments of faculty members receiving the new promotion raises, it was asked whether this is a permanent ineligibility. Clark indicated that it is impossible to predict how quickly compression will be corrected. The committee's idea was to use this process for 2 years. The following year, the PTS Committee should be charged with reviewing the process. At this time, such faculty members may become eligible for compression adjustments.
  • It was noted that distributing the compression adjustments equally within rank makes sense at an institution which links tenure and promotion. However, here it drastically affects those for whom promotion follows tenure. There is a real loss to people who have been here a long time in rank. There is also nothing in the plan to compensate those who were recently promoted. Barry responded that no model will ever address every person's situation.
  • There have only been two catchups in recent years. They are not a regular occurrence on this campus. This raised a concern over a system that ignores time in rank. It was pointed out that the CUPA data does not include years in rank, so there is nothing to compare our campus to in that respect. Currently, full professors are 18% below the CUPA mean, but there is no way to knowwhat part of the 18% is due to people who have been here many years, and what part is due to newer full professors.
  • It was asked what is likely to happen to the 18% after two years of this system. Clark indicated that John Tillman is working on some simulations to answer this question, but the committee has not yet received the results. However, his feeling is that compression will be nearly gone in 5 years.
  • It was recommended that the language of any proposal be such that it is clear that the proposal is only addressing compression across ranks. This is only one type of compression, and we shouldn't say that we are simply eliminating compression.
  • A concern was then expressed that this proposal will compress the assistant and associate ranks in order to alleviate compression at the rank of full professor. It was commented that in the past, the incentive for deans was to put all additional dollars into the salaries of new hires. The full professor "aren't going anywhere," whereas the new faculty might be tempted to leave. Also, this proposal does hurt the assistant and associate ranks in the short term, but they should eventually be full professors and the process will then be to their benefit. It was pointed out that in simulations done on the effects of the losses, it was shown that with this proposal, lifetime income increases dramatically despite the initial losses at the lower ranks. Also, the lower ranks will receive the higher promotion raises that current full professors did not receive.
Chair Bange thanked Dr. Clark for addressing the Senate. Barry indicated that his committee will have a report to the Senate in early February.

VI. Planning and Budgeting Initiatives: Final Recommendations.

M/S     Proposals  02-01-01 Librarian Technician for Web/Public Computer Access and
04-01-03 Information System Manager for Records and Registration be given a Priority 1 ranking.

The rationale given for this motion is that we cannot afford to have students, parents, etc. unhappy because things are not working in Records and Registration. They need someone on site to help with the migration to PeopleSoft and to support the software later. Concerning proposal 02-01-01, it was pointed out that the library has always been understaffed. The amount of technology has been increasing without them receiving additional staff.

A concern was then mentioned that although we do need technicians in both areas, it is perhaps more important to have someone to maintain the ETC carts used in classrooms. There is currently no one to maintain this technology, and it is getting older. The library has done a good job with the resources that it has. When classroom technology fails to work, class time is lost. Concerning the position in Records and Registration, it was mentioned that they used to have a half-time position.  There was a reorganization and now that position is gone. Also, there has been a sum of $400,000 per year set aside to help with the migration to PeopleSoft. It seems that some of these dollars should be used for this position rather than funds from the central budget.

In response, it was mentioned that faculty should be prepared to present material in different ways if the technology fails. Also, it was pointed out that in all of the discussion in the Joint Budget Committee on alternative sources for funding, no one brought up the $400,000 per year for the PeopleSoft Migration.

There was a request to split the question.

It was pointed out that currently, the library has been told that they cannot install any new computers because they have no one to do it. They have had a half-time position to handle technology in the library since 1988, and the amount of technology has increased dramatically since then.

The Motion that Proposal  02-01-01 Librarian Technician for Web/Public Computer Access receive a priority 1 ranking was approved.  (show of hands: 13/5/3)

It was then mentioned that the person holding the half-time position discussed previously in Records and Registration resigned. That position was then used to address other immediate needs. The idea was that they knew they would need a full-time position in that area. They were not aware of the $400,000 available for the PeopleSoft migration, but they will also need this position after the migration is complete.

The motion that Proposal 04-01-03 Information System Manager for Records and Registration be given a priority 1 ranking failed.  (show of hands: 0/16/5)

M/S  Proposals 08-01-02 International Business and 08-01-03 Health Care Administration be given a priority 1 ranking.

A request was made to split the question.

The motion that Proposal 08-01-02 International Business be given a priority 1 ranking was approved.  (show of hands: 19/0/2)

Discussion then turned to proposal 08-01-03. A question was asked concerning the possible relationship between this proposal and an initiative in the Political Science/Public Administration Department to work in Health Care Administration. Rex Fuller, Dean of the College of Business Administration, responded that their program addresses more of the management issues in Health Care Administration. There may be ways to combine the two areas, but nothing has developed at this point. The College of Business Administration has in the past hired faculty with an interest in Health Care Administration.

It was then noted that we are not really qualified to judge whether or not a faculty position is needed in another area. We need to trust the deans to know where the positions are needed. In general, we need more faculty.

The motion that Proposal 08-01-03 Health Care Administration be given a priority 1 ranking was approved.  (show of hands: 18/0/3)

Discussion then turned to Proposal 01-01-01 Plan 2008 and Diversity Strategic Plan. Senators received a copy of a memo from the Affirmative Action and Diversity Council in which the council endorsed this proposal as well as two others (04-01-04 Staffing for Disability Resource Center and 28-01-2 Women's Resource Center). It was noted that the memo states that a campus trainer is needed to coordinate the vast array of legal requirements from various laws. The question is then who is doing this now? Also, it seems that they assumed a problem exists before really identifying the problem.

It was noted that this is a rapidly growing legal area and we may not be in compliance with the laws in this area. This is the most critical area in the short term. A concern was then expressed that we don't really need a permanent, full-time position to accomplish this. Hiring an outside person to come in for a fixed amount of time is perhaps a better solution.

It was the noted that System Administration ought to be able to help us with these legal issues. Perhaps System could do this for all the campuses.

Finally, it was mentioned that we probably wouldn't be able to hire someone with the proper training for $40,000. We would simply end up with someone giving workshops with very little impact.

M/S/P  Proposal 01-01-01 Plan 2008 and Diversity Strategic Plan receive a priority 5 ranking.  (show of hands: 16/3/1)

M/S/P  Proposal 28-01-03 German Studies Major receive a priority 1 ranking.  (show of hands: 18/0/1)

M/S/P  Proposal 28-01-01 Revitalized Honors Program receive a priority 1 ranking.  (show of hands: 18/0/1)

It was noted that without some funding, we will not have a new Honors Program. They currently have no budget.

M/S  that the first four items in Proposal 01-01-03 UW-L Undergraduate Research Program (Undergraduate Research Grants Fund - $40,000; UW-L Journal of Undergraduate Research Fund -$6,000; UW-L Student Research Day Fund -$2,500; UW-System Symposium Fund - $3,000) be given a priority 1 ranking.

It was stated that the rest of the money should come from student funds, but the faculty need to show support for the initiative. Currently, half of the funding for the initiative comes from the deans, and the other half from the Chancellor and Provost's federal overhead dollars.

M/S/P to amend the motion to provide $20,000 for the Undergraduate Research Grants Fund with the remaining $20,000 being matching funds from the deans. (show of hands: 10/7/2)

The main motion, as amended,  PASSED.  (show of hands: 19/0/1)

M/S/P  Proposal 36-01-02 Academically Talented High School Students be given a priority ranking of 5.  (show of hands: 19/0/1)

It was noted that there are lots of dollars set aside in Plan 2008 for Pre-College programs. Perhaps this project could be funded through this source. We need to support our current students.

M/S   Proposal 04-01-01 Career Advisor Position receive a priority ranking of 5.

It was explicitly stated that this does not mean that we do not feel that career advising is a bad idea, only that it should be funded from alternative sources. The rationale behind this motion is that according to discussions held in the Joint Budget Committee, it is very likely that the Advising DIN can be used to fund this position, at least in part.

M/S/F  to amend the motion to give Proposal 04-01-01 Career Advisor Position a priority 1 ranking contingent on the funds coming from an alternate source.  (show of hands: 0/16/2)

Back to the original motion that Proposal #04-01-01 Career Advisor Position receive a priority ranking of 5 was approved.  (show of hands:15/2/1)

M/S/P  Proposal 20-01-01 Nutrition Specialist, Registered Dietician, PhD be given a priority 3 ranking providing it becomes a faculty position.  (show of hands: 9/8/2)

It was noted that it is important for our campus to have such a position. However, it was indicated that the focus of this position seems to be primarily athletics. Given the limited number of dollars that we have to allocate, it may be more appropriate to use athletics dollars to fund this position. At a previous Senate meeting, it was indicated that this was a faculty position, but the proposal does not make it sound like a faculty position.

Discussion then turned to Proposal 28-01-02 Women's Resource Center. It was noted that this request is for one-time funding only. The Center has been operating for some time and has shown its usefulness. They've never received funding and have gotten their office furniture, etc by grabbing whatever is left over. It was mentioned that perhaps the supplies and expenses should come from the college rather than the central budget. In response it was indicated that this is a university-wide center and is not connected with any college.

M/S/P  Proposal 28-01-02 Women's Resource Center be given a priority 1 ranking.  (show of hands: 12/5/2)

M/S/P  Proposal 03-01-01 Police Officer receive a priority 4 ranking.  (show of hands: 13/2/3)

M/S/P  the Faculty Senate gives the remaining proposals a priority ranking 3.  (show of hands: 15/1/3)

It was mentioned that the Assistant Chancellor for Affirmative Action & Diversity might be willing to consider replacing the 5 graduate assistant positions called for in the Plan 2008 proposals with one full-time position for diversity. This was brought up to bring the idea to the floor and perhaps have some later discussion on the idea.

VII. Old Business.   There was no old business.

VIII. New Business.   There was no new business.

IX. Adjournment.  The meeting adjourned at approximately 5:00 p.m.

Rebecca Lewin LeDocq, Secretary