Instructional Academic Staff Committee

of the Faculty Senate


Final Report

May 26, 2006



Committee Members:


                   Kerrie Hoar (chair), IAS in Biology

                   Suzanne Anglehart, IAS in Microbiology

                   Phillip Bice, IAS in Accountancy

                   Bonnie Bratina, Faculty in Microbiology

                   Kathleen Dailey, IAS in ESL Institute

                   Peggy Denton, Faculty and Chair of Health Professions

                   Michael Durnin, IAS in Exercise & Sport Science and Athletics

                   Sandra Koster, IAS in Chemistry

                   Don Socha, Faculty and Chair in Modern Languages





            In May 2005, the Faculty Senate approved (with one exception) the recommendations brought forward by the Instructional Academic Staff Task Force.  As a result, the Instructional Academic Staff (IAS) Committee was established as a new Faculty Senate standing committee in Fall 2005 to address the many and varied issues that concern IAS on campus.  The committee was charged with:


  • considering and recommending policies affecting the academic staff status, salary, appointment types, titling, career progression, workload and working conditions.
  • considering and recommending the practices and procedures for implementing those policies.
  • monitoring Human Resources’ progress in collection and disseminating information on these policies and procedures.


Committee History:


The Instructional Academic Staff Committee (IAS) recognizes Instructional Academic Staff as a viable career option in which an IAS colleague is a valued member of the campus community and should be rewarded for his/her accomplishments.  Throughout all of its discussions, the IAS Committee operated under its guiding principle that any IAS policy should not benefit one sector of IAS, while disadvantaging another. 


The IAS Committee began working on IAS issues in October 2005, with biweekly meetings throughout the academic year.  The first task of the committee was to prioritize IAS issues by order of importance. IAS policies from other UW System schools were examined. The committee recognized a variety of issues, but titling seemed to be the logical place to start.  The adoption, description and implementation of a consistent set of titles would be necessary before any other recommendations regarding IAS could be made.


In December 2005, the Provost’s office presented the committee with a proposal to address a variety of IAS issues.  As per the Provost’s request, the IAS Committee worked in conjunction with the Provost and Human Resources to develop recommendations for titling, career progression and workload. 


Titling and Career Progression:


The committee was able to make use of the extensive titling and career progression research done by the College of Science and Allied Health IAS Task Force in 2003-04.  Our committee modified that report to develop title descriptions and career progression criteria that we believe are sufficiently broad enough to encompass the vast majority of IAS on campus.  The recommendations for titling and career progression were based on the idea that IAS titles and career progression options should:


·        be equitable for IAS in all departments in the university

·        recognize and reward the unique contributions of IAS to our programs/departments without being overly prescriptive

·        provide a viable career ladder

·        be acceptable to IAS and faculty alike

·        require IAS participation in the promotion process

·        ensure that the process is rigorous, yet achievable

·        provide flexibility for departments to customize as they desire.


As a result of collaborative efforts between the Provost’s office, the IAS Committee and Human Resources, all parties were in agreement with the following recommendations:


  1. Titling: 
    1. The IAS Committee recommends the adoption and use of both the Lecturer and the Clinical Professor title series.  The IAS Committee unanimously agreed on the title rank descriptions shown in Attachment A of the March 11, 2006, IAS Report.   These title rank descriptions are based on the UWS title series outlined in UPG #1.   Approved by Faculty Senate on March 23, 2006.


    1. The IAS Committee recommends that this new titling system be implemented immediately in order to be accurately reflected on the 2006-07 AY contracts for both new hires and current IAS.  Current IAS will meet with their department chair to determine which title series and rank best fits that individual.  When necessary, salary would be adjusted so that the IAS meets the minimum salary for the new title (see UPG 4.04 Attach. 3).  When the current salary exceeds the minimum salary for the new title, no adjustment in salary will be necessary.   Approved by Faculty Senate on March 23, 2006.


  1. Career Progression:
    1.  The IAS Committee unanimously agreed on and recommends the adoption of the General Policies and Criteria for career progression outlined in Attachment B of the March 11, 2006, IAS Report.  Approved by Faculty Senate on March 23, 2006. 


    1. The IAS Committee further recommends that all details for career progression be in place for career progression applications beginning in Fall 2007.  The current Committee would request that the members of the 2006-07 IAS Committee be charged with working on the details of IAS career progression (e.g., timeline, required forms, CP committee membership, etc.).   Approved by Faculty Senate on March 23, 2006.


All four recommendations were forwarded to Chancellor Hastad for approval.  To date, no action has been taken on the part of the Chancellor.




In addition to Titling and Career Progression, the Provost also requested that the IAS Committee develop a  universal Workload policy that could be applied across all three colleges.  After much discussion and study, the IAS Committee, the Provost and Human Resources agreed on a preliminary draft of such a workload policy.  On February 23, 2006, the committee presented this policy at an Open Forum.  The discussion at this forum was spirited and raised many issues, questions and concerns (See Attachment D of March 11, 2006, IAS Report).   As a result, the committee decided that the workload policy needed more study before presenting it as a recommendation to Faculty Senate.


            In addition to requesting feedback from across campus, the Committee also requested a meeting with the Deans of all three colleges.  On April 25, 2006, four members of the IAS Committee attended the Deans Council to discuss the workload policy draft.  Feedback received during this meeting made it obvious that the workload policy could not be implemented in the spirit with which it was written and that a significant number of IAS would be disadvantaged by the policy in its current form.


            At the IAS Committee meeting on May 2, 2006, the following motion was made with regards to the current working draft of a universal workload policy for IAS:


The IAS Committee believed that it had developed a workable draft of a universal workload policy for Instructional Academic Staff.  It is obvious after meetings with the college deans and the Provost that this workload policy cannot be implemented in the spirit with which it was written and that a significant number of IAS will be disadvantaged by the workload policy in its current form.  The IAS committee attempted to negotiate with the Provost to arrive at a universal workload policy, but cannot endorse it in its current form.  Therefore, the IAS committee would like to withdraw the workload policy draft at this time and continue to study this issue next year.  


The motion passed unanimously (8/0/0).


Follow-up actions:


  1. The Senate Executive Committee (SEC) drafted a letter to inform the Provost of the IAS Committee’s motion regarding the workload policy and inviting her to continue to work with the IAS committee on this and other IAS issues next year.
  2. The SEC also sent a letter to Chancellor Hastad requesting that he de-couple Workload from Titling/Career Progression and asked for his approval of the Titling and Career Progression “documents” that were previously approved by the IAS Committee, the Provost, Human Resources and Faculty Senate.
  3. An update of IAS Committee activities was sent via email to all faculty and IAS across campus and posted in the Campus Connection.  This report included a request for individuals to send additional letters to the Chancellor asking for positive action on the IAS policies (Titling and Career Progression).


2006-7 Agenda:


            The IAS Committee plans to address the process of Career Progression next year.  Items yet to be determined include make-up of CP committee, timeline for submission of materials, contents of CP portfolio, etc.  The Committee also feels that contracts need to be addressed as well – with regards to length of contract, wording, type of contract, etc.  Finally, a Mentoring program for IAS would be very beneficial for new and continuing IAS.  The Committee also plans to continue to work in conjunction with Human Resources to update IAS about any new policies/procedures.


Respectfully submitted,


Kerrie Hoar, chair of IAS committee