The meeting was convened by Cora Marrett, the UW System’s Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs. The main agenda items were tenure and the (Wisconsin) State budget deficit.
1. Personnel Changes on the UW Board of Regents.
2. Tenure. The discussion of tenure was led by
Vice-President Cora Marrett and Christine Saulnier and focused on (among other
things):
The perception of tenure by the both the public-at-large and university
communities.
The need to systematically and professionally evaluate probationary track
faculty.
The need to develop fair, open and timely processes for giving probationary
faculty feedback on their performance.
Efforts were made by the participants in the meeting to address negative or
erroneous views about tenure held by the general public. It is critically
important that both faculty and System Administration hold views of tenure that
are consistent with logic. The most common argument in favor of tenure is that
it ensures academic freedom. One of the most tenable arguments supporting tenure
is that faculty with guaranteed employment have the potential for greatly
stabilizing the university. While there tends to be increasing “turnover”
among top administrators at all branches of the UW System, the tenured faculty
increasingly becomes the collective memory of the university on a whole range of
issues, both academic and non-academic. Finally, tenure gives the average
faculty a sense of “belonging” or “ownership” with respect to their
university.
Ideas for Supporting Tenure-Track Faculty:
At the beginning on the one’s employment within UW institutions, departments should clearly outline short-term and long-term expectations.
The department or its
representative should meet with probationary faculty at least once a year to
assess performance and review progress toward specific goals.
The role of each review “layer” (Department, Dean, and Provost) within the
institution should be quite clear, both to the campus community, and to the
faculty being reviewed.
3. The Budget.
A. Selected comments on current processes to reduce budgets:
A “top down” process with
little faculty input.
Inconsistent criteria for determining “what” and “how” to cut.
Final programmatic effects of cut not entirely clear.
B. Prospects, Problems and Ideas
Cuts to the UW System over the next two-three years could be as high as
$300,000,000.
A substantial tuition increase is needed, although Governor Doyle and major
politicians are hamstrung by campaign promises.
The DER (Department of Revenue) has negotiated large increases for some State
workers. If the these contracts are honored, many institutions will face
additional revenue shortfalls.
Submitted Georges G. Cravins
February 13, 2003