Minutes of the Promotion, Tenure, and Salary Committee
November 30, 2009
1:10 P.M. in room 432 Wimberly
Present: Achenreiner, Cashion, Cooper, Delgado, S. Krajewski, Mc Andrews, Miskowski, Rajagopal
- Minutes of October 19, 2009 meeting were approved with the deletion of line one. MSP 8-0-0.
- Reviewed the following report to the Faculty Senate:
Promotion, Tenure, Salary Committee
Report to Faculty Senate: December 3, 2009
CHARGE: Review how the nepotism policy (as stated in section B-2 of the UW-L Handbook) impacts departmental voting and other administrative review procedures in light of the UW-L Spousal/Partner Hiring Policies and Procedures. Make any appropriate recommendations to Senate.
Section B-2 of the UW-L Handbook:
Nepotism is favoritism shown or patronage granted by employees to relatives or close
In selecting persons for employment, the applicant best qualified and available to perform in the position should receive the offer of employment. No restriction is placed on hiring persons related through affinity or consanguinity. However, to avoid possible conflict of interest which may result from peer judgment or administrative review procedures, a person so related must not participate either formally or informally in decisions to hire, retain, grant tenure, promote, or determine the salary of the other person.
After some clarification from Becky LeDocq the committee understood that this charge involved examining the nepotism policy in light of the spousal/partner hiring policies and procedures and proactively determining if the nepotism policy needs to be adjusted given the fact that there will likely be more cases of spousal/partner hiring.
The committee read the Nepotism Policy and the Spousal/Partner Hiring Policies and Procedures and discussed whether or not a change in the nepotism policy, with respect to promotion, tenure, and salary decisions, is in order.
The documents can be found at the following links:
Nepotism Policy: http://www.uwlax.edu/hr/current/docs/2008_UW-L_Handbook.pdf
Spousal/Partner Hiring Policies and Procedure: http://www.uwlax.edu/hr/current/Unclassified/Spouse-HirePOL.pdf
PTS RESPONSE: The PTS committee recommends ratifying the language of the final sentence of section B-2, adding the phrase "at any point in time," so that the sentence would read: "A person so related at any point in time must not participate either formally or informally in decisions to hire, retain, grant tenure, promote, or determine the salary of the other person."
CHARGE: Closely monitor UW-L’s implementation of the UW-System Furlough Policy and make any recommendations concerning needed changes. Consider the question of whether expectations for retention, promotion and tenure need to be adjusted to reflect lost time.
PTS RESPONSE: PTS Statement regarding Adjustments in Work Expectations due to Furlough Policy: The PTS Committee recommends that adjustments to expectations for retention, promotion and tenure are not necessary due to the implementation of the UW-System Furlough Policy. The committee views the furlough policy as a reduction in pay more so than a reduction in work expectations. This recommendation is based on the temporary nature of the furlough policy (two years); difficulty of implementing adjustments due to furlough; and the clock stoppage policies that are already available. If the furlough policy is renewed for another two year period, becomes on-going or permanent, this issue should be readdressed.
CHARGE: Review the role of the Director of the School of Education in Personnel Processes (Document Attached)
PTS RESPONSE: PTS Discussed the role of the Director of the School of Education in personnel processes with Dan Duquette.
PTS understands that the director will report directly to the Provost.
· The definition of SOE faculty is clear in the document provided to PTS.
· The role of the SOE director in hiring SOE faculty is clear as stated in the document. Specifically, the SOE Director will convey DPI requirements for a position to the department and consult with department during the recruiting process. The consultation could include contributing to the position description, reviewing applicants, and/or participation in the interview process.
· The Role of the SOE Director in the Retention, Tenure, and Promotion of SOE Faculty- This section of the document should clarify that the SOE Director should review a SOE candidate’s work as a teacher and provide written comments to the department, but will not have a vote on tenure or promotion of the candidate.
· PTS recommends that the role of the SOE Director in personnel actions should be assessed periodically.
- Scott Cooper reported that he had no further information from Bob Hetzel on distribution of the Recruitment and Retention funds. Gwen had talked to the CBA Dean’s office regarding the data that we need for the next step in our analysis. It appears to be available in a form similar to what we need. A lengthy discussion followed around the Retention and Recruitment funds and our next steps. Gwen will get data set and send to Scott.
- Next meeting will be scheduled once data set is ready.
Adjourned 2:05 P.M.
Sandra Krajewski, Recorder of the day