Faculty Senate

4:05 p.m. – May 7, 2009

Robert C. Voight Faculty Senate Chambers

 

 

I. Roll Call.

Present: M. Abler, R. Ahmed, J. Anderson, S. Brokaw, D. Buffton, V. Crank, G. Cravins, S. Crutchfield, L. Dickmeyer, T. Gendreau, J. Heim, D. Hoskins, R. LeDocq, A. Loh, C. Miller, P. Miller, J. Miskowski, A. Olson, B. Riley, S. Shillinger, B. Udermann, B. Van Voorhis

Excused: J. Holman, D. Sullivan

 

II. Minutes of the Senate meeting of April 23, 2009 were approved.

 

III. Reports.

 

                        A. Chair’s Report

            The Senate will meet next week.  No Senate committee reports have been submitted to SEC as of yet.  APR has not been meeting this year, and thus APR reports will not be available this year. 

            There is an additional 1.5 billion dollar shortfall for next year in WI.  The governor’s budget will furlough all state employees for 16 days over the next two years.  400 state employees will be laid off, and the promised 2% pay increase for all non-represented employees will be taken back. 

           

                        B. Provost/Vice-Chancellor’s Report

            No Report.

 

C. Faculty Representative’s Report

            1/3 of the Auxilliary Funds cut has been rescinded by the state Joint Finance Committee, saving UW-L about $2 million.  A resolution from Stout’s faculty senate was forwarded to the Senate; the resolution decries Pres. Reilly’s lack of advocacy for faculty in the area of salaries.

            The UW System Textbook Rental Policy has come out.  Collective Bargaining was discussed. 

 

                        D. Student Representative’s Report

            No Report.

 

IV.  Approval of Spring 2009 Graduates.

 

Motion approved.

 

V. Elimination of the Graduate Reading Programs.

The Academic Program Committee approved the elimination of this program.  If the department wants the program to be reinstated, it would have to come back to Senate for approval.  The program would also need to seek DPI approval.  There was a question about whether the program would have to be approved by System for reinstatement if it weren’t offered for a long time.

 

Motion on the floor from the GCC:  To support the recommendation to close the Graduate Reading Program while also recommending that the “entitlement to offer” be retained, with reinstatement of this program requiring Faculty Senate approval.

 

Motion approved with two abstentions.

 

VI. Report from PTS Committee.

The committee reported on its 2008-09 charges and other activities.

 

A.  Recruitment & Retention Fund Recommendations

The PTS Committee recommended changes to the following document:

 

UW La Crosse Fy 2009-2010 Budget - Faculty Recruitment and Retention Funding Plan

Approved at Deans’ Council on 4/7/2009

The following plan is based on the 2009-2010 UW-System guidelines on the use of the

recruitment and retention funds.

 

1. Those involved in the distribution decision-making process.

The Provost and Chief Business Officer (CBO), with participation by the deans of UW-L’s three

academic colleges (Business Administration, Liberal Studies, and Science and Health) and the

Director of Murphy Library, determine the distribution of the Faculty Retention Funding. The

Deans and Director will consult with the Chairs of the academic departments to develop funding

requests.

 

2. The distribution methodology used.

The Provost requires the deans of all three academic colleges and the Director of Murphy Library

to identify the most pressing retention and recruitment needs for faculty and Instructional

Academic Staff in high-demand and/or mission-critical academic disciplines engaged in

instructional activities within their respective colleges. The Provost, in consultation with the CBO,

makes the decisions on which of the requests to fund. A portion of the funds, as determined by

the Provost, may be held in a pool to support recruitment/retention efforts in the coming year.

Faculty and Instructional Academic Staff (IAS) salary adjustments should be no less than $1000

and are based upon which requests are deemed most critical to the university. No funding will be

distributed in an across-the-board methodology. This funding may not be used to address

widespread compression issues. The use of these funds is limited to salary dollars and may not

include non-salary recruitment needs. Deans, or any individual who has a working title of dean,

are not eligible to receive this funding. Requests may be submitted for the following

retention/recruitment needs:

• Salary adjustment for a faculty/IAS member to match an offer from another institution.

• Proactive salary adjustment for a faculty/IAS member who has not yet received an offer

but who is being actively sought by another institution to apply for a position and where

the faculty member’s salary is below comparative market salaries.

• Proactive salary adjustment for a faculty/IAS member who is below comparative market

salaries, and is in a high-demand discipline, or who is identified as critical to a

department or college.

• Adjustment to augment an existing salary line where the salary offered to recruit a

faculty/IAS member is not competitive to hire an individual in a high-demand discipline.

• A lump-sum summer stipend to help to retain or to recruit faculty/IAS. The lump sum is

paid out on a one-time basis. The base allocation dollars remain available for use in

retention/recruitment efforts during the next year.

UW La Crosse Fy 2009-2010 Budget - Faculty Recruitment and Retention Funding Plan

 

3. The rationale and/or mission-critical nature of the decision.

Funding decisions are based upon requests to address the most critical recruitment and retention

needs for high-demand faculty/IAS or mission-critical academic disciplines. The following factors

are among those most heavily considered in making the decisions:

▪ Is the faculty/IAS member a well established academic leader or does s/he demonstrate

significant potential to become a future leader of the program, department, college,

and/or university?

▪ Does the faculty/IAS member play a critical role in an academic program/department that

would be very difficult to replace, perhaps as identified by an external academic program

reviewer?

▪ Does the faculty/IAS member have significant potential to be recruited to another

institution or to seek employment at another institution?

▪ Is there evidence that comparable faculty/IAS members have been lost to other

institutions because of below-market salaries?

 

PTS made the following recommendations as part of their report, :

To provide a more accurate description of the sequence of steps involved in these procedures the PTS Committee recommends changing the paragraph in section 1. “Those involved in the distribution decision-making process.” to read as follows:

     Chairs of the academic departments will submit funding requests to their respective Dean or Director.  The Provost, with participation by the deans of UW-L’s three academic colleges (Business Administration, Liberal Studies, and Science and Health) and the Director of Murphy Library in consultation with the CBO will determine the distribution of the Faculty Retention Funding.

     With regard to the five bullet categories of retention/recruitment needs displayed in section 2. “The distribution methodology used.”, PTS recommends the following:

     Move the third bullet category providing for a “Proactive salary adjustment for . . .” to the top of the list to recognize this as the highest priority need.

     Unless there is convincing justification and a more complete explanation for the fifth bullet category of providing a “lump sum summer stipend . . . paid out on a one-time basis.” this category of need should be struck from the document.

     In section 3. “The rationale and/or mission-critical nature of the decision.”  PTS suggests replacing the word “that” in the second bullet category by the word “who”.

 

Discussion ensued.  Regarding bullet #5 in Section 2 on the original, the one-time lump sum summer payment could be used to recruit people by providing a stipend for a new hire to arrive early and work on grant writing.  This is a one-time expense.  Also, this money would need to go into a permanent salary the following year, so it could be used to recruit at higher salary the following year.  This happened this year for a hire in WGSS. 

Some discussion of the logic behind bullet #3 on the original:  what would be an argument for this proactive adjustment that doesn’t involve salary compression (as the document says it must not)?

Who verifies that an external offer has been made?  This should be done by the department chairs before recommendations to the dean. 

Are the funds’ recipients published?  It is public information.

Should we have such a fund at all given the lack of raises across the board?  The use of the fund is creating divisiveness. 

 

1.  Motion:  To provide a more accurate description of the sequence of steps involved in these procedures the PTS Committee recommends changing the paragraph in section 1. “Those involved in the distribution decision-making process.” to read as follows:

     Chairs of the academic departments will submit funding requests to their respective Dean or Director.  The Provost, with participation by the deans of UW-L’s three academic colleges (Business Administration, Liberal Studies, and Science and Health) and the Director of Murphy Library in consultation with the CBO will determine the distribution of the Faculty Retention Funding.

Motion passed (16/1/4).

 

 

2.  Motion:  Move the third bullet category providing for a “Proactive salary adjustment for . . .” to the top of the list to recognize this as the highest priority need.

Motion passed (10/9/2).

 

3.  Motion to leave the fifth bullet item as is.

            Discussion:  should it be altered to limit the lump sums paid out only for recruitment purposes?  At the PTS committee this was discussed with the decision to keep both statuses.

 

Motion passed (14/ 3/ 4).

 

 

4.  Motion:  In section 3, “The rationale and/or mission-critical nature of the decision,”  replace the word “that” in the second bullet category with the word “who”.

 

Motion passed.

 

 

B.  Presentation on Salary Compression.

G. Achenreiner presented a PowerPoint presentation, “Salary Compression: Is It a Problem?” Data studied show that “Salary compression is a very real and difficult problem facing all UW-L colleges.”

 

VII. Revision of the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee Extent of Majors Policy.

The intention of the following proposal is not that programs already past this limit will have to come to UCC for approval; rather, it is to provide a process whereby programs who want/need to raise their required credits above 40 can seek approval at UCC.

 

Motion from the UCC to adopt the following language:

 

Extent of Majors Policy

 

"No department may require more than 40 semester credits in one major unless it becomes necessary to do so in order to meet external requirements for certification or accreditation as prescribed by an external agency or accrediting group or unless it is approved by the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee in exceptional cases."

 

Motion passed.

 

 

VIII. Report from the Committee on Faculty Committees.

           

Motion:  to accept the 2009-2010 Faculty Committee Assignments as presented by the Committee on Faculty Committees.

 

Motion passed.

 

IX. Old Business.

 

X. New Business.

 

XI. Adjournment at 5:25 p.m.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Susan Crutchfield