Agenda
FACULTY SENATE MEETING
March 10, 2015
Cedar/Maplewood Rooms, STUC
2:30 – 4:30 P.M.
I.
II.
III.
IV.
Call to Order (Chair, Nelu Ghenciu)
Roll Call – Sign Attendance Sheet
Minutes of February 3 and February 10, 2015 (Attachment 1 & 2)
Administration Reports
1. Chancellor’s Report
2. Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs’ Report
V. Announcements
1. Other
VI. Unfinished Business
1. Discussion/Decision Items
a. Miscellaneous Business
VII. New Business
1. EAC’s Update to UW-Stout Credit Hour Definition – Devin Berg (Attachment 3)
2. Response to PPC Charge of Selecting Faculty for Administrative Level Search Committees
– Marlann Patterson (Attachment 4)
3. Response to PPC Charge of Promotion FAQ’s – Marlann Patterson (Attachment 5)
4. Response to PPC Charge of Revising Due Dates for Submission of the Performance
Objectives – Marlann Patterson (Attachment 6)
5. 2014-15 Faculty/Academic Staff Salary Study & Report Appendices –Meridith Drzakowski
(Attachment 7)
6. Salary Equity Study-CUPA Code Comparison – Meridith Drzakowski (Attachment 8)
7. Policy & Resolution of Advertising, Sponsorship & Promotion of Alcohol & Tobacco
Products, #14-74 (Attachment 9)
8. Program Directors Recommendations to the Charge from the Chancellor – Libby
Smith/Renee Chandler (Attachments 10-15)
9. Policy Resolution: Identity and Publication Standard – Amy Luethmers (Attachment 16)
10. Planning and Review Committee – B.S. Retail Property Management, Self-Study,
Consultant Report and Dean’s Response – Loretta Thielman (Attachments 17-19)
11. Faculty Athletic Representative Appointments - Jo Hopp (Attachment 20)
12. Other
VIII. Information Items
1. Updates on UW System Sexual Violence & Harassment Task Force – Abel Adekola
2. FS Resolution in Response to the 2015-17 Budget Proposal (Attachment 21)
3. Diversity Leadership Team – Action Items (Attachment 22)
4. Andrew G. Schneider Professorship (Attachments 23-25)
5. Sabbatical Guidelines (Attachment 26)
6. Shared Governance & Tenure Continuation Resolution-Resolution I.6.A (Attachment 27)
7. Budget Resolution-Resolution I.6.B (Attachment 28)
8. Faculty Senate Dashboard (Attachment 29)
9. Other
IX. Adjournment
Attachment 1
1
Minutes
FACULTY SENATE MEETING
February 3, 2015
Ballroom C, STUC
2:30 – 4:30 P.M.
CHAIR: Petre Ghenciu
VICE CHAIR: Ana Vande Linde
SECRETARY: Kevin Drzakowski
PRESENT: Amanda Barnett, Lopa Basu, Amanda Brown, David Delambo, David Ding, Kevin Drzakowski, Erik
Evensen, Barb Flom, Petre (Nelu) Ghenciu, Jen Grant, Gene Gutman, Ted Harris, Anne Hoel, Glenda Jones, Anne
Kerber, Jeanette Kersten, Adam Kramschuster, Matthew Kuchta, Eun Joo Lee, Kate Maury, Brian Oenga, Marlann
Patterson, Christine Peterson, Forrest Schultz, Jeffrey Sweat, Kevin W. Tharp, Loretta Thielman, Ana Vande Linde,
Dean Wirtanen, Keith Wojciechowski, and Julie Zaloudek
ABSENT: Michael Bessert (excused), Esuvat Mollel, Brian Oenga (excused), and Cameron Weaver
GUESTS: Chancellor Meyer, Jackie Weissenburger, Doug Mell, Elizabeth Buchanan, Andreí Ghenciu, Glendalí
Rodríguez, and Cody Cegler
I. Call to Order (Chair, Nelu Ghenciu) Meeting called to order at 2:31 p.m.
II. Roll Call – Sign Attendance Sheet
III. Minutes of December 9, 2014
Motion to approve: (Brown/Thielman) moved to approve. Vote. Motion passed unanimously.
IV. Administration Reports
1. Chancellor’s Report.
 Tonight, the governor will present his proposed budget to the legislature.
 There may be a 150 million dollar base cut per year to the UW system. It is unknown what
Stout’s share of this will be. System may use reserve balances to aid system with low
reserves, including Stout.
 If the cuts went across the board, our share would be 6 million, which would be our largest
cut ever. This would take us to 1998 levels of GPR funding.
 The proposed flexibilities would be useful, although they would not take place for two
years.
 Beyond the biennium, according to the governor’s proposal, funding increases would be
tied to the CPI.
 Tenure and shared governance authority would rest with the Board of Regents. Chancellor
Meyer feels that we would be better protected on these matters with the Board of Regents
having authority.
 Employees would no longer be state employees, but would still be public employees,
meaning that we could still use the state’s benefit and retirement systems. The conversion
of sick leave benefit, though, might change in this proposal.
 It may take up to four weeks for the Fiscal Bureau to examine and interpret this budget
proposal.
 This cut would mean 14 to 15 percent of our funding would come from the state, compared
to the current 18 percent.
 The Chancellor noted efforts to get information out to the public. 71 percent of faculty who
have left, for instance, reported that they left for salary reasons.
 The Chancellor expects that the Regents will not discuss the cuts in detail until their March
meeting.
 If we would be at 1998 budget levels, we should compare our number of students then and
now. The Chancellor agreed that this should be part of our message.
2
 Data on our workload would be good to refer to as we make our case to the public.
 Has System been discussing the way that the mission of public higher education, particular
regarding access, is being damaged by declining funding?
 Has there been a study on how tuition increases would affect enrollment? No such study
exists yet that the Chancellor new of.
 The 16 members of the Joint Finance Committee are the legislators who will have the most
impact on the budget. Only two members of this committee have a UW campus in their
district.
 It is possible that revenue collection in the state may go up. If that occurs, System will
make the case to use these funds to defray the cut.
 The Chancellor was asked about his policy going forward for deciding how to allocate
funding cuts. He replied that a balance must be struck between making the university
attractive to incoming students and serving those who are already here.
 The Chancellor stated that these further shows that we need to behave like a private
university.
2. Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs’ Report/Vice Chancellor for Administrative & Student
Life Services Report.
 The Provost acknowledged that budget issues are on everyone’s mind.
 The Authorization to Implement for Mechanical Engineering was passed by AAAT.
System plan to give us permission to plan, and it is possible that the program could be
implemented for fall 2015.
 The Provost completed an initial review of searches in process, to determine which job
searches in process are essential. Those searches relatively far along in the process were
given approval. She noted that attracting highly qualified faculty remains the priority.
 Review of travel requests is also ongoing. Travel funded by external sources and required
for accreditation has been approved.
 The Provost was asked if other campuses have implemented hiring and travel freezes. She
responded that Stout is in a special case because of the low amount of reserves we have.
 Will those who have been recommended for promotion this year still receive salary
adjustments? The decision has been made to continue with the promotion process in an
effort to retain faculty.
 Offering quality programs, even in the face of budget cuts, will remain a priority.
 The Provost responded to a rumor suggesting that faculty would go to a 15 credit load; she
stated that Stout administration has no interest in this.
 Why are we implementing these holds when the cuts are for the next biennium? Phil Lyons
responded that money we save now can help offset future cuts. Spending prudently now is
especially important.
 Lyons did not anticipate the state reclaiming any funds we already have.
 System President Cross has suggested that he may distribute cuts proportionally to each
UW campus’s share of reserves.
 How are we communicating with our legislative representatives at the state level to
advocate for funds? The Chancellor has been meeting with representatives. System is
charged with the responsibility of arguing for the whole UW System, meaning flexibility is
their chief concern. At the campus level, funding is a greater concern.
 It is possible that System President Cross may seek funding to aid with the proposed
transition to a public authority model.
 Support was expressed for a shared document that we could refer to as we make the case
for funding for public higher education.
 Concern was expressed about changes to tenure and shared governance in a public
authority model. Since the Board of Regents would have authority over these matters, it
3
will become more important for campuses to have a voice in the election of the Board of
Regents.
 Additionally, there was concern that this model would force higher tuition on the students.
V. Announcements
1. Other.
 Chair Ghenciu is calling a special meeting of the Senate next Tuesday in the hopes of
passing a resolution regarding the budgetary concerns. It can be viewed as a faculty budget
forum. Senators should ask their constituents for input to bring to the meeting.
 Will we know our actual share of the cuts by Tuesday? We may not know the allocation of
the cuts among campuses, although we could prepare for a worst-case scenario.
 Nelu participated in a phone meeting led by President Cross. System is likely to embrace
the idea of the public authority model.
 Nelu announced that he would run for a second term as Senate Chair.
 Associate Provost Rodriguez reported that the Graduate Dean search is still on.
 The Polytechnic Summit has been cancelled due to the impending budget cuts.
VI. New Business
1. Updated General Education Bylaws - Jeffrey Sweat
Motion: (Brown/Thielman) Move to approve the GE bylaw revisions proposed by Sweat.
Discussion:
 The proposed changes allow for representation on the GE committee based on the
distribution of content areas in the new GE program. Representatives would be added for
the Contemporary Issues and Social Responsibility and Ethical Reasoning categories.
Another change is removing the designation of certain colleges following the content area
representatives.
 The changes also will eliminate the Well Being representative, which is no longer reflected
in the GE program.
 One representative will also be elected to represent each college.
 The Advisement Center member would become an ex officio member.
 An ex officio member from the RES/GP committee would be added.
Vote. Motion passed unanimously.
2. Spring Faculty Call for Nominations
Motion: (Peterson/Thielman) Move to approve.
Discussion:
 This call will be sent on Thursday morning.
Vote. Motion passed unanimously.
3. 1.7 Dual Level Policy Revision – Graduate Education - Renee Chandler
Motion: (Vande Linde/Flom) Move to approve.
Discussion:
 Currently, a Stout undergraduate student can apply for dual enrollment in a Master’s
program at Stout. This revision would extent that to undergraduates at other institutions.
This will aid in attracting international students.
Vote. Motion passed unanimously.
4. 2.1.3 Transfer Credit Policy Revision – Graduate Education - Renee Chandler
Motion: (Vande Linde/Peterson) Move to approve.
 This change would allow program directors to decide whether courses that are older than
seven years can be transferred into the student’s degree program.
 Students do not find out how/if their credits transfer until late in the process; this is a
separate practice that the GEC has recommended changing.
Vote. Motion passed unanimously.
5. Program Viability Taskforce Appointment of Renee Chandler
Motion: (Thielman/Basu) Move to approve Chandler’s appointment to this taskforce.
4
Vote. Motion passed unanimously.
6. Senate Evaluations of Administrators
 Attempts are being made to streamline the process and avoid multiple evaluations.
7. Perceptions of the Culture. Productivity, & Dissemination of Research at UW-Stout
Presentation by Elizabeth Buchanan/Markie Blumer
 Buchanan presented the results of a study examining perceptions of Stout as an emerging
research institution.
 The report sought to learn what kind of research takes place and how to incentivize further
research.
 Buchanan noted that the report is not intended to identify areas of the university in which
research is lacking; instead, the intent is to encourage further research from those who seek
to incorporate it.
 The report determined that we need to provide increased encouragement for crossdisciplinary research.
 The report found that those who engaged in unfunded research felt that their work was
undervalued.
 A senator suggested that finding ways to collectivize unfunded research might be a good
future step.
8. 2015-2016 Faculty Senate Meeting Schedule
Motion: (Barnett/Tharp) Move to approve.
Vote. Motion passed unanimously.
9. Potential Revisions to Faculty & Academic Staff Personnel Policies on Dismissal for Cause due
to Chancellor by April 30, 2015
 PPC is currently working on this charge from the Chancellor.
 PPC will come up with a resolution to recommend to the senate.
10. New University Policy Committee Regarding Volunteers – Volunteer Needed
 A volunteer could come from the faculty at large.
 Ted Harris volunteered.
Motion: (Basu/Oenga) moved to approve.
Vote. Motion passed unanimously.
11. ETS Testing Update Presentation by Andreí Ghenciu/Glendalí Rodríguez
 This test seeks to assess our General Education program by comparing results from our
students to those from 500 institutions serving as a benchmark.
 The test will be held on April 9th in conjunction with the Grad Fair. Only students
graduating within six months of that date will be considered seniors.
 The goal is a 50 percent participation rate. Faculty and advisors are encouraged to motivate
students to take the test. Incentives are being considered for both students and faculty who
encourage students to participate.
 System requires us to use one of four methods for such an assessment; the ETS test is the
one we have chosen.
 Rodriguez was uncertain about whether the test could be administered in classes where the
instructor volunteers.
 How was the committee put together? The deans selected representatives.
 The proctored version of the test will be taken in a classroom, while the non-proctored
version can be done online. Even the non-proctored version must be taken on that day.
 In the future, it might be possible to use one of the group exam blocks in final evaluation
week for such a test.
12. Campus Physical Development Validation Team Faculty Representative Volunteer
 A member from the faculty at large should be solicited.
 Email Nelu by Thursday with volunteers.
13. Alternative Proof of English Language Proficiency Policy Presentation by Cody Cegler
5
Motion: (Ding/Kuchta) Move to approve the new policy.
Discussion:
 The previous policy allowed students to demonstrate proof of English proficiency by
transferring in English 101 from any institution. This change would require that students
have fifteen credits from these institutions.
Vote. Motion passed unanimously.
VIII. Information Items
1. Other.
 Work on the Provost Search Committee has moved into the reference check via telephone.
IX. Adjournment. Meeting adjourned at 4:19 p.m.
Attachment 2
1
Minutes
FACULTY SENATE BUDGET MEETING
February 10, 2015
Ballroom B and C, STUC
2:30 – 4:30 P.M.
CHAIR: Petre Ghenciu
VICE CHAIR: Ana Vande Linde
SECRETARY: Kevin Drzakowski
PRESENT: Amanda Barnett, Lopa Basu, Amanda Brown, Kathleen Deery, David Ding, Kevin Drzakowski, Erik
Evensen, Barb Flom, Petre (Nelu) Ghenciu, Jen Grant, Gene Gutman, Ted Harris, Glenda Jones, Anne Kerber, Jeanette
Kersten, Adam Kramschuster, Matthew Kuchta, Virginia Lea, Eun Joo Lee, Kate Maury, Brian Oenga, Marlann
Patterson, Christine Peterson, Kevin W. Tharp, Loretta Thielman, Cameron Weaver, Dean Wirtanen, and Keith
Wojciechowski
ABSENT: Jeff Sweat (excused), Esuvat Mollel, Ana Vande Linde (excused), and Julie Zaloudek (excused)
GUESTS: Chancellor Meyer, Jackie Weissenburger, and Phil Lyons
I. Call to Order (Chair, Nelu Ghenciu) Meeting called to order at 2:31 p.m.
II. Roll Call – Sign Attendance Sheet
III. New Business
1. Discussion about the 2015-17 budget proposal.
The Chancellor, Provost and Vice Chancellor for Administrative and Student Life Services
provided updates.
We have identified Mechanical Engineering as our priority program to move forward with.
This program was presented at the Board of Regents meeting. Approval of the program is
likely to be discussed at the April Board of Regents meeting.
Some estimates from the Fiscal Bureau state that our share of the cuts would range from 5.8
million to 6 million. System is working on these numbers but has not announced how the
cuts would be distributed.
We are unsure how much of the fringe on salaries will be counted in the overall budget.
The morning of February 20th may be used for an open forum, as might February 25th and
March 4th.
The Chancellor plans to convene the SPG to review strategies for implementing the cuts
and prioritizing funding.
The budget webpage is open and accepting comments.
Chancellor Meyer met with the chancellors from River Falls and Eau Claire. Legislators
were also in attendance at the meeting. The proposed cut was the main topic of discussion.
The legislators were struck by the size of the budget cuts. They indicated that they will
advocate for a reduction of the cuts.
The Provost reiterated that this is a very challenging time. She stated that our academic
programming is the priority. If this cut comes across as originally proposed and Stout’s
share is 6 million, then it will certainly affect all of us.
Is there any sense of how dollars invested into the university translates into dollars into the
local economy? It may be as high as a five-fold return on investment. Chancellor Meyer
will send his opening remarks in a speech to the Rotary, which addresses this, to Nelu.
The magnitude of the cuts is large enough that it would be difficult to rely solely on
attrition.
It is possible that the first year of cuts could be reduced, which would allow us more time to
prepare for the larger cuts.
2
The governor’s proposed freeze on tuition applies to resident undergraduate students only.
We could enhance revenues in other ways, such as through a special course fee.
Any change to graduate tuition would have to consider the effect on enrollment. The
funding of assistantships also plays a role in graduate students’ decisions to enroll.
The Chancellor noted that it is now especially important to consider other revenue sources.
The Chancellor was asked if he had heard any response from executives at companies who
hire our graduates. Chancellor Meyer answered that the UW system has not yet tapped into
employers who could advocate for us; this is a logical place to start.
How are we communicating the impact of these cuts to students and parents? The
Chancellor believes that the first line for getting the message out should be employers.
Students can be useful, too, but risks come with asking students to advocate for our
finances.
Resources from this fiscal year can roll into the next year, so addressing these cuts now will
help us to prepare.
Saving money on things like travel will allow us to apply these savings of one-time money
to long-term budget items.
The Provost stated that no current hold on hiring is considered a permanent hold.
If there were layoffs, when would they start? Much of this would be determined by rules on
how staff can be let go and with what lead time. Attrition would be the place to start, but it
may not be able to cover everything.
Declaring a fiscal emergency does allow for some flexibility with personnel rules, but
System would not make such a declaration lightly.
The Board of Regents could consider ways to provide severance packages to encourage
early retirement.
How can we advocate for Stout? The Chancellor suggested that we continue to do what we
are currently doing. Sharing stories about the way low budgeting has impacted us is
important.
One department passed a resolution stating that it opposed the budget cuts.
2. Solicited feedback in drafting a resolution to send to UW System regarding UW-Stout’s faculty
concerns with the potential budget cuts from senators departments and constituents.
The UW-Milwaukee resolution came across as powerful. Including the trends is especially
important, as is referencing some of concerns over a public authority model.
Language about the cuts reducing access is important.
Is it strategic for us to have a resolution at this point? The positive aspects of Stout should
also be included.
The political structure may not care all that much if we have a resolution.
Who would be the audience for such a resolution?
List of priorities would include: maintaining promotion and tenure, maintaining offering
graduate assistantships and work-study positions for the students.
Ensure the general education program continues with the high integrity it currently offers.
How can we preserve academic integrity of instruction and academic programs?
Research our administrative structure. There are many layers of administration.
What size is the correct size of Stout? What is the projector of growth for Stout?
Look at cost of academic programs. What is the profit structure? Where is Stout losing
money?
Look into the ability of encouraging teachers to teach. Offering them the ability to have a
teaching track or a research track is an idea.
3. Draft Resolution
3
IX.
The draft resolution was shared with senators offering edits. The updated resolutions will
be sent electronically to all senators on February 11th. Once no new edits are provided, the
senators will vote electronically to approve the resolution.
Adjournment
Attachment 3
Proposed Update to UW‐Stout Credit Hour Definition Educational Activities Committee January 30, 2015 We propose that UW‐Stout defines a “semester credit hour” as… An amount of work represented in intended learning outcomes and verified by evidence of student achievement that reasonably approximates: 1. At least one hour750 minutes of classroom or direct faculty instruction and a minimum of two hours1500 minutes of out‐of‐class student work each week for approximately fifteen weeks for one semester hour of credit hour, or the equivalent amount of work over a different amount of time (e.g. compressed courses); or 2. At least an equivalent amount of work as required in paragraph (1) of this definition for other academic activities as established by UW‐Stout, including distance education, online, hybrid, or other indirect faculty instruction, laboratory work, internships, co‐op experiences, studio work, and other academic work leading to award of credit hours. UW‐Stout’s definition of the semester credit hour applies to all academic credit bearing activities at all levels (graduate and undergraduate). Attachment 4
Admin Search Sub-Committee Report (Lea, Basu)
1/30/15
Process for selecting faculty members to serve on high-level administrative hiring committees:
01. The Election Committee of the Faculty Senate will put out a call for nominations for faculty
to serve on administrative hiring committees for an upper level administrator, when the need
arises;
02. To ensure fair and equitable representation over time, the faculty senate election committee
will place an asterisk next to the name of the person representing the department whose
member last served on an administrative hiring committee;
03. The election ballot will explain the significance of the person with the asterisk next to her/his
name;
04. In addition, the faculty senate election committee will make every effort to meet equity
concerns by representing minority viewpoints and cultural differences (e.g. gender, LGBTTQ
status, race/ethnicity, language, etc.) in their choice of nominees;
05. The faculty senate election committee, acting in a manner that is sensitive to the time
constraints of proposed searches, will conduct elections in a timely and efficient manner, and
forward these results to the appropriate bodies.
We believe the above recommendations are an improvement on the current system because
of the following advantages:
Faculty will be elected to the administrator search committee rather than being nominated by
a Dean or Faculty Senate chair.
The process promotes equal opportunity to all departments and faculty rather than
encouraging some faculty/ departments to always have a voice in the process while others
feel they never have the opportunity to participate in these processes.
Attachment 5
Cover Page
PPC Recommended Updates to Promotion FAQ
January 2015
As the PPC chair deals with the promotion process, new questions sometimes arise and the PPC brings
forward the following recommended updates to the Promotion FAQ. The following document includes
the full Promotion FAQ plus changes (highlighted in yellow) recommended by the PPC. The changes
include a minor revision to the FAQ introduction, a minor revision to item A8, adding items B12 to B17,
and adding a new section(C) with five items regarding the synchronized promotion process.
Promotion Related Frequently Asked Questions and Answers
(Promotion FAQ)
In order to enhance the efficiency and fairness of the promotion process, this document provides answers
to questions frequently asked by promotion applicants (Section A) and promotion committees (Section B)
regarding the “old” promotion process, and questions regarding the new synchronized promotion process
(Section C). To promote the greater understanding on both sides of the process, applicants and committee
members should read both sections.
Applicants should direct questions or concerns to the Personnel Policies Committee chair. Promotion
committee members should direct questions or concerns to their Promotion Committee chair. If the chair
of their promotion committee cannot answer the question, the promotion committee chair will contact the
Personnel Policies Committee chair.
Section A. Application-related Questions and Answers
Question A1: Should I include a copy of my department’s definition of research?
Answer: Yes. If your department has a definition of research, it can be included in your application. It
should be on a separate sheet of paper attached at the end of your application. Since different departments
have different definitions it is important to include yours so that college and all-university committees can
judge your application by the appropriate standards. The page with the definition does not count in the
five-page narrative limit.
Question A2: The application indicates that I cannot include information from the current academic year
in the application. Are activities from the summer prior to application considered prior year or current
year information?
Answer: For purposes of the promotion application, the “current year” begins on the Fall semester
contract start date. Thus, any information regarding activities prior to the Fall Semester contract start date
may be included in the promotion application. For example, if you are notified in June before you apply
that you had an article accepted for publication, you are permitted to include that acceptance in your
application.
Question A3: I am a tenured faculty member applying for promotion. The application requires me to
provide performance ratings for the three prior years. Since I have not received a new performance rating
during that time, should I give the last three performance ratings irrespective of when they occurred
instead?
Answer: No. The promotion committee is evaluating your performance during a specific time period. You
should give the performance ratings for the three prior years, regardless of whether there was a new
performance evaluation or not. For example, an applicant last evaluated in 2005-06 applying for
promotion in 2009 would use the 05-06 performance rating for all three years 08-09, 07-08, and 06-07.
Question A4: I took a six-week maternity/paternity leave of absence during the relevant time period
considered for promotion. Does this mean I am short this amount of time in rank and I must either apply
by exception or wait a year to apply?
Answer: No. Federal Law requires employers to grant such requests and they are not a significant amount
of time given the overall time in rank concern. However, time in rank is lost if the leave is for a semester
or year.
Question A5: What does “other pertinent education” mean?
Answer: It refers to official accredited coursework beyond your last degree. Here are two examples. 1. An
applicant with a M.A. working on a Ph.D. can list relevant courses completed. 2. An applicant whose
profession requires continued education for licensure can list relevant courses.
Question A6: Should I use bullet point lists to indicate my accomplishments or should I describe all my
activities and accomplishments in narrative sentences and paragraphs?
Answer: You should use whatever methods best enable you to highlight your qualifications for
promotion. So, for example, just listing the ten committees you have served on under service does not
provide the committee with very helpful information. You likely do not have space to explain everything
you did on every committee, but it is advisable to explain what your most significant accomplishments or
contributions were to some of the committees that make your work worthy of promotion.
Question A7: Should I accept the invitation to appear before the committee?
Answer: You are not obligated to accept the invitation and declining it cannot be held against you.
However, if there are any aspects of your application that are out of the ordinary or otherwise may need
explanation, it is highly advisable to accept. Even if you do not have any unusual aspects, it is usually
helpful to accept the invitation just to offer committee members a chance to ask you questions about your
application.
Question A8: I am having trouble including all the information I want within the five-page limit. May I
use the Landscape page layout or small font to point size to include more information?
Answer: All applications must be typed in a minimum of Calibri or Times New Roman 11 point and use
standard one inch margins. Applications that do not meet this standard will be eliminated from
consideration. The Landscape page layout may be used, but the use of two columns is recommended for
readability.
Section B: Committee-related Questions and Answers
Question B1: Should a promotion committee vote on its recommendations in closed session?
Answer: No. Per Wisconsin Open Meeting laws, discussion of the applications should occur in closed
session, but the final recommendation and report of the committee must be voted on in open session.
Question B2: Can a promotion committee meet in open session, go into closed session, and then go back
into open session to conduct further business (such as its final vote?)
Answer: Yes. Per Wisconsin Open Meeting Laws, this is permissible so long as the agenda distributed to
the public before the meeting indicates this sequence will occur.
Question B3: May an applicant introduce additional materials or documents during the meeting with the
committee?
Answer: No. Applicants are only allowed to bring their five-page application to the meeting for reference.
See FASLAH 3-123, Promotion: Conduct of the Committee Meeting, item 4. The only exception is the
statement of an appeal. See FASLAH 3-125, Promotion: Applicant’s Response to Recommendations
(Appeals).
Question B4: May a committee communicate any information about candidates verbally or in writing to
the next level committee outside of the officially prescribed procedures and documents?
Answer: No. Communication between committees should be restricted to the FASLAH prescribed
recommendations and reports.
Question B5: What should the committee include in its reports to the next level committee?
Answer: Only the officially prescribed information indicated in FASLAH and the promotion packet, most
notably, the committee’s procedures, vote, rankings, and justifications. Minutes of open or closed session
meetings are not forwarded to the next level committee.
Question B6: What should the committee do with minutes of its open and closed sessions?
Answer: The chair and vice chair of the committee each should keep a copy in case questions or concerns
arise.
Question B7: A candidate is unable to meet with the committee during the time scheduled. Is the
committee obligated to arrange a new meeting to accommodate the candidate’s schedule?
Answer: Applicants should make every reasonable effort to attend the meeting as proposed by the
committee. At the same time, committees are expected to make reasonable accommodations for
applicants with special needs, for example, a conflict with a night class, an illness or car accident, or the
like. Any rescheduling must be completed in time for the committee to meet its deadlines.
Question B8: A committee discovers a content error (not just a typo) on the official promotion form that
materially affects the application (for example, the years in rank is understated so the applicant becomes a
candidate by exception). Should the error be overlooked or should the application be eliminated from
further consideration?
Answer: The error must be verified. If verified, the application should be eliminated from further
consideration. It is the responsibility of applicants to ensure the information contained in their application
is accurate.
Question B9: A committee discovers a content error (not just a typo) in the five-page statement by the
applicant. For example, a candidate mistakenly reports membership on a committee in 2009 when the
candidate actually served in 2008. What should the committee do?
Answer: The error must be verified. If verified, the mistaken claim should be eliminated from
consideration. If the candidate is recommended for promotion to the next level, the error should be
communicated to the next level committee.
Question B10: Are promotions by exception due to less than the minimum time in rank or terminal
degree permitted?
Answer: Yes, although they are to be rare. The Handbook specifically allows for committees to
recommend applications by exception for promotion. See FASLAH “Definition of Promotion” 3- 117118 and “Promotion: Procedures” 3-120.
Question B11: An applicant files an appeal with the next level committee chair. The chair believes the
appeal does not have merit. Should the chair pass along the appeal to the committee?
Answer: Yes. Committee chairs are not empowered to make judgments about the merits of an appeal. It is
for the committee to decide whether the appeal is successful or not and respond to the appellant as
prescribed by FASLAH. Should promotion applications be required to include information about student
evaluations of teaching?
Question B12: Should appeals include the original application with the appeal?
Answer: Yes.
Question B13: Should appeal decisions occur before other substantive committee decisions?
Answer: Yes.
Question B14: Should promotion applications be required to include information about student
evaluations of teaching?
Answer: No. Information about student evaluations should be included in promotion applications. In case
specific evaluations are missing, the application will not be rejected.
Question B15: What are the confidentiality requirements for committee members in the promotion
process?
Answer: Nothing said in an open meeting is confidential. The application, appeals, anything said in closed
meetings, communications between committees and with the PPC chair are all confidential. However, the
chair should be able to explain to the candidate specific reasons why the application was not
recommended for promotion.
Question 16: Can any type of ranking information be included in narratives passed on to higher level
committees?
Answer: No. Ranking has been eliminated. Committees should avoid any comparisons of applicants.
Question B17: Should applicants be required to include their job description with their promotion
application?
Answer: No. Applicants can choose to include it in their 5-page narrative.
Section C: Simultaneous tenure/promotion to Associate Professor
Question C1: Can I be promoted to Associate Professor and tenured at the same time?
Answer: As a general rule, faculty appointed at the Assistant Professor level are promoted to Associate
Professor simultaneously with the granting of tenure. This is only as long as they meet the minimum
degree, time in rank, and experience criteria as specified in FASLAH.
Question C2: I don’t meet the minimum degree, time in rank, and experience criteria as specified in
FASLAH but am applying for tenure. Can I still be promoted?
Answer: Yes, but you would have to apply for promotion through the regular process by exception.
Question C3: I have received tenure, but wasn’t promoted because I didn’t meet minimum degree, time
in rank, and experience criteria as specified in FASLAH at that time. However, recently I did meet these
minimum requirements for promotion. Can I still be promoted automatically?
Answer: Yes, please fill out the form, “Link to Qualtrics Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor
Application” and submit it in the time specified on the Promotion Timeline. You do not need to submit a
separate five page narrative normally associated with promotion applications. The promotion will not
take effect until all promotions are approved at the summer Board of Regents meeting.
Question C4: How and when do I apply for simultaneous promotion with tenure if I meet minimum
degree, time in rank, and experience criteria as specified in FASLAH?
Answer: Complete the “Link to Qualtrics Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor Application” and
submit these items with your tenure materials. Consult your department or functional equivalent and
FASLAH for relevant criteria for promotion. You do not need to submit a separate five page narrative
normally associated with promotion applications. The promotion will not take effect until all promotions
are approved at the summer Board of Regents meeting.
Question C5: Can I apply early for promotion before I have tenure?
Answer: All faculty members hired before August 2014 have this option using the old rules. Faculty hired
after August 2014 would have to apply for promotion by exception to be considered early.
Attachment 6
Personnel Policies Committee’s Recommendation for UW-­‐Stout Faculty Senate Regarding updates to the due date/dates for the submission of the performance objectives. In considering current UW-­‐Stout Policies regarding performance objective preparations. The subcommittee considered the following: o Faculty needs to have adequate time to reflect on previous year. o Faculty needs to have adequate data from the previous year (e.g. student/peer evaluations) to consider. o Immediate Supervisor needs to have adequate time to reflect on draft performance objectives. o Performance objectives should be approved early in academic year so faculty is aware of their expectations for the current academic year. o For ease, dates should be the same for probationary and tenured faculty members (note: tenured faculty are only required to submit objectives every 5 years) The current system: • Submission of Performance Objectives (draft) occurs by May 1 of each year. • Between May 1 and September 1, supervisor reviews draft performance objectives. • Review meetings between faculty and supervisor occur between September 1 and October 15. Disadvantages to the current system: • Submission occurs prior to the end of the second semester, before student evaluations and possibly before retention committee considerations are discussed. • Approval of final objectives can occur as late as the middle of October, nearly half-­‐
way through the first semester. • Not current compliance in some departments The subcommittee solicited feedback from the Deans and department chairs regarding this issue. Based on the feedback from PPC and deans and department chairs who provided feedback, the following are recommended changes to the performance objective timeline. • Faculty member would submit objectives to supervisor by last contractual day in May • Supervisor would review objectives between last contractual day in May and first contractual day in August. • Faculty member and supervisor will meet to discuss draft performance objectives during the first 2 contractual weeks in the fall semester. •
If changes need to be made, all changes and final approval will be made by September 20. Reasons: o Easy to evaluate academic year in close proximity to end of year o Allows inclusion of Fall Student/Peer evaluations o Allows inclusion of retention committee discussion o Remains within contractual year so faculty expected to be on campus o A defined day each year without ambiguity o Allows supervisor time to evaluate objectives o Allows supervisor 2 weeks to meet with faculty at the beginning of the year Concerns: o Depending on departmental timeline, spring student evaluations may not be complete by last contractual day, however, fall student evaluations can still be used. Further, spring evaluations can be discussed at the meeting in the fall and any necessary changes made to the objectives prior to approval. Chapter 3B: Personnel Rules for Faculty
(proposed revisions to pages 109 - 114)
All Probationary Faculty
Principles to be Followed –
Performance
Objectives/Review
(Revised 3/23/99-Faculty Senate;
Approved 5/4/99-Chancellor)
Administration – Individual
Performance
Objectives/Review for
Probationary Faculty
Principles to be Followed -­‐ Performance Evaluations/Review for Probationary Faculty Probationary Faculty Members Performance Objectives 1. Each probationary faculty member will be responsible
for developing his/her individual performance objectives
in collaboration with the immediate supervisor and
submitting them to his/her immediate supervisor in
writing by May 1 the last contractual day in May.
…
5. Between May 1 and September 1 the last contractual
day in May and first contractual day in August, the
immediate supervisor and his/her supervisor will review
the performance objectives of faculty members within
the department/unit. If the immediate supervisor or
his/her supervisor finds the performance objectives of
any faculty member inadequate, then between September
1 and October 15 during the two contractual weeks in
August, the immediate supervisor will review … Final
approval of performance objectives will occur by
September 20.
Each faculty member's immediate supervisor is
responsible for reviewing the faculty member's
performance objectives between September 1 and
October 15 the last contractual day in May and first
contractual day in August. Meetings will be conducted
with each faculty member to review whether or not the
faculty member's performance objectives and progress
are acceptable or unacceptable within the first two
contractual weeks in August. Final approval of
performance objectives will occur by September 20.
1.
…
4. Performance evaluation reviews….
1.
2. Each probationary faculty member's
immediate supervisor will review and evaluate
(May 1-September 1 last contractual day in May
- first contractual day in August) the faculty
member's performance … The probationary
faculty's immediate supervisor will conduct a
performance objective review meeting
(September 1-October 15 during the first two
contractual weeks in August) .... over the past
evaluation period. Final approval of
performance objectives will occur by September
20.
Tenured Faculty Principles to be Followed –
Performance Objectives/Review
(Revised 3/23/99-Faculty Senate;
Approved 5/4/99-Chancellor)
(See also post-tenure review policy)
Tenured Faculty Members Performance Objectives
1. … submit them to his/her
immediate supervisor in writing
by May 1 the last contractual
day of May, of the year the
individual is recommended for
tenure and every five years
thereafter. …
5. … By May 1st of the last
contractual day of May in the
fifth year, individual
performance objectives should
be submitted …
6. Between May 1 and
September 1 the last contractual
day in May and first contractual
day in August, the immediate
supervisor and his/her
supervisor will review the
performance objectives …
between September 1 and October 15 during the first
two contractual weeks in August, the immediate
supervisor will review the performance objectives
…Final approval of performance objectives will occur
by September 20.
2. At the tenured faculty member’s five-year evaluation
meeting, the immediate supervisor will review and
evaluate (between May 1 and September 1 the last
contractual day in May and the first contractual day in
August) the faculty member’s performance and assign a
performance rating. In addition, … performance
objective review meeting (between September 1 and
October 15 during the first two contractual weeks in
August) with the faculty member to review his/her
performance and assigned rating over the past evaluation
period. Final approval of performance objectives will
occur by September 20.
Attachment 7
2014-15 Faculty and
Academic Staff Salary Study
January 14, 2015
1
OFFICE OF PLANNING, ASSESSMENT, RESEARCH AND QUALITY
Inspiring Innovation. Learn more at www.uw-stout.edu
2014-15 Faculty and Academic Staff Salary Study
Prepared by:
UW-Stout Office of Planning, Assessment, Research & Quality
Prepared for:
Chancellor Meyer
Report created by:
Report distributed to:
Planning, Assessment, Research and
Quality
Chancellor’s Advisory Council
Institutional Research
Contact:
Tammy Cutsforth
Faculty Senate
Senate of Academic Staff
Chancellor Meyer
Nelu Ghenciu
Krista James
This report can be viewed on the information portal at:
https://info.uwstout.edu/Pages/Home.aspx
2014-15 FACULTY AND ACADEMIC STAFF SALARY STUDY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
UW-Stout has been conducting annual salary studies since 1990-91. Salary studies are one example of
the numerous actions UW-Stout has taken to address faculty and staff salary issues over the past two
decades. This report is divided into three sections, as shown below.
Part I: Gender and Race/Ethnicity Equity
1. All three salary models are highly predictive and have R-square values of .74 or higher for all 5
years. This means that 74% to 88% of the variation in salary is accounted for by the variables in
each model.
2. The rank variables for the faculty model show an increase in 2014-15 in the value of professor
and associate professor compared to assistant professor. This means that the coefficient or value
that the model has assigned to the professor and associate professor ranks increased in relation to
the value of assistant professor since 2013-14. The values of professor and associate in relation
to the rank of assistant are the second highest over the last 5 years.
3. Rank/title has the highest predictive value. It should be noted, however, that rank/title is an
attribute controlled by the University.
4. Gender was statistically significant for the category B staff/faculty model in 2014-15. Prior to
this year, gender was only statistically significant in the category A staff model in 2012-13.
5. The models show male coefficients ranging from $672 to $1,372 (which is the value assigned by
the model for being male or the cost of being female). The 2014-15 male coefficients for the
faculty and category B staff/faculty model are the highest in 5 years.
6. The faculty and category B staff/faculty model has a positive coefficient for minority faculty and
staff, which indicates that minorities on average at UW-Stout are paid higher than their white
counterparts. The category A model had a negative coefficient.
Gender
Race/Ethnicity
2014-15 Gender and Race/Ethnicity Results by Model
Faculty Model
Cat B Staff/Faculty Model
Category A Staff
Male/Minority
Sig.
Male/Minority
Sig.
Male/Minority
Sig
.672
.341
1,152
.040
1,372
.175
461
.630
346
.671
(1,415)
.491
7. The percentage of female faculty with residuals that are below 1 standard deviation increased by
nearly 1 percentage point compared to 2013-14 and remains 1.4 percentage points below the
benchmark year of 2004-05. There was a decrease in the percentage for the other two models
compared to the 2004-05 percentage and 2013-14 percentage.
8. The percentage of male faculty that are below 1 standard deviation increased by 3.6 percentage
points over the 1-year period but is still slightly lower than 2004-05. The category B staff/faculty
model and category A staff model percentages also increased from 2013-14 and the category B
staff/faculty model’s percentage is now higher than it was in 2004-05.
9. The percentage of females above 1 standard deviation remained unchanged for the faculty model
at 9.4%. The other models saw a decrease. The percentage of males above 1 standard deviation
increased for the faculty model only from 2013-14, with the other two models showing decreases.
3
Below and Above 1 Standard Deviation by Model and Gender
Female
Male
Above 1 Std Dev
Below 1 Std Dev
Above 1 Std Dev
Below 1 Std Dev
2014-15 Models
Faculty
Category B Staff/Faculty
Category A
2013-14 Models
Faculty
Category B Staff/Fac
Category A
2004-05 Models
Faculty
Category B Staff/Fac
Category A
9.4%
9.0%
15.2%
9.4%
8.5%
10.9%
14.6%
14.5%
16.9%
13.3%
14.0%
9.9%
9.4%
10.0%
15.3%
8.5%
8.9%
12.0%
13.3%
17.1%
18.1%
9.7%
9.2%
6.9%
10.8%
9.9%
13.6%
10.8%
12.2%
12.7%
12.7%
14.6%
16.0%
13.7%
13.5%
13.6%
Part II: Employee Classification and Department Internal Equity
1. The salary range for professors is the largest at $44,807 between the lowest and highest paid. The
associate professors have a $43,450 range and the assistants a $31,727 range. The average
residuals for all three faculty ranks ranged from $444 to $459.
2. There is $11,184 separating the average salaries for the associate lecturers and the senior
lecturers.
3. Engineering and Technology and Construction have the two highest average residuals of $3,825
and $2,466, respectively. Engineering and Technology has been in the top two multiple times in
past years. Art and Art History has the lowest average residual of -$4,984 with Speech
Communication, Foreign Languages, Theatre and Music the second lowest at -$3,312.
4. Using median residual instead of the average residual, Engineering Technology has the second
highest median residual of $2,258 with Construction the highest at $3,369. Art and Art History
had the lowest residual of -$5,005 using the median value with Speech Communication, Foreign
Languages, Theatre and Music the second lowest at -$3,519.
5. Engineering Technology and the School of Art and Design – Design Department average
residuals were higher than the median value indicating that there is at least one outlier in the
department. Both those departments and Hospitality and Tourism (the last two years) have high
standard deviations and a large variation between the minimum and maximum residual values,
which are also indicative of outliers.
6. The spread between ranks has decreased. The decrease in spread between professors and
assistants is greatest at $6,085.
Salary Spread Between Faculty Ranks
2009-10
2010-11
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
Inc/(Dec)
Prof and Assoc
14,734
13,558
9,973
10,126
10,070
(4,664)
Assoc and Asst
4,008
4,892
4,956
3,694
2,587
(1,421)
Prof and Asst
18,742
18,450
14,929
13,820
12,657
(6,085)
Note: There were no State pay plans from 2009-10 through 2012-13; data based on October payroll
4
Part III: Market Equity
The following narrative examines four external market comparison sources: 1) CUPA/MRA, 2) UW
System Comprehensives, 3) AAUP and 4) Polytechnic peers:
Employment
Category
1995-96 Avg Current Avg %
% of
of
CUPA/MRA* CUPA/MRA**
95%
81%
97%
86%
93%
80%
94%
77%
86%
79%
Current %
under 80% of
CUPA/MRA
41%
26%
35%
68%
46%
Current Avg % of
UW System
Comps***
97%
98%
98%
98%
104%
Faculty
Assistant Professor
Associate Professor
Full Professor
Instructional
Academic Staff
Associate Lecturer
n/a
86%
38%
110%
Lecturer
n/a
80%
34%
103%
Senior Lecturer
n/a
74%
86%
107%
Professional
n/a
105%
6%
101%
Academic Staff
Limited Appts
n/a
85%
31%
117%
(category C)
Limited Appts
n/a
106%
11%
104%
(category A)
Classified Staff
n/a
92%
39%
100%
*stipends not removed from base salaries prior to 2012-13, **adjusted for instructional academic staff so that 75% of CUPA
% of
Polytechnic
Peers****
71%
78%
75%
67%
79%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
equals 100% of CUPA, ***UW System HRS-EPM October Job View data (2014) – UW Comprate was used and any stipends
included in rate for Stout average and the UW Comprehensive average, ****IPEDS
1. In 2013-14 for the professor rank, UW-Stout is ranked 37th out of 43 salary peers in average
salary, associates are 35th and assistants are ranked 30th out of the 43 (includes all the UW
comprehensives).
2. According to the latest American Association of University Professors (AAUP) salary survey,
UW-Stout professors rank in the 10th percentile with associates in the 12th percentile. UW-Stout
assistant professors were also far below the median but were in the 27th percentile.
3. Institution-wide, for all instructional and non-instructional titles, UW-Stout’s salaries, as a
percentage of our polytechnic peer group ranges from the lowest in Research at 69% and highest
in Production, Transportation and Material Moving at 95%.
5
2014-15 FACULTY AND ACADEMIC STAFF SALARY STUDY
OVERVIEW
Introduction
Chancellor Sorensen initially requested a study to analyze faculty salaries for the 1990-91 academic year.
The University of Wisconsin System was revisiting the issue for all academic staff in its ongoing attempt
to address the issue of competitive and equitable academic salaries. In 1992-93 UW-UW-Stout's study
was expanded to include all instructional staff (legal faculty and category B academic staff); and in 199596 it was further expanded to include category A academic staff.
In March 1999, Chancellor Sorensen formed an ad hoc committee on faculty and academic staff equity.
The purpose was to review the university faculty and academic staff equity models and make
recommendations on changes that would improve the models. The committee issued their report on the
salary study models in February 2000, and the recommendations were implemented for the 1999-2000
study. In August of 2001, the original charge was completed so the committee was disbanded.
In June of 2001, an external salary equity consultant was hired to review the validity of the faculty and
instructional academic staff salary equity models. The consultant, Lois Haignere, Ph. D. of Haignere, Inc.
reviewed the salary study materials sent as well as telephone, e-mail and fax information. Multiple
telephone meetings were conducted to discuss questions that arose during the review and to clarify
information. In August of 2001, the report was issued and it contained recommendations and comments
to improve the salary equity model that was currently being used.
In the spring and summer of 2003, Lois Haignere of Haignere, Inc. was re-hired to perform a review, this
time of the category A Academic Staff Model. Salary study materials were sent, and other information
was faxed and e-mailed throughout the review. At the end of August, a teleconference was held with Lois
Haignere and five staff at UW-Stout to verbally communicate the recommendations on the review. The
teleconference was tape-recorded and notes were written. The notes were sent to Lois who made
revisions and eventually approved them for documentation of the review.
UW-Stout has addressed both salary inequities and salary compression through the annual unclassified
Regent pay plan process. 2013-14 was the first unclassified Regent pay plan for Stout since 2008-09.
UW System guidelines have allowed a chancellor’s discretionary amount of 10% of pay plan funds to be
used to meet special compensation needs. The 10% discretionary amount was used several times since
2001 by Chancellor Sorensen to address gender inequities and faculty salary compression. Faculty
guidelines established by the Personnel Policies Committee (PPC) of the Faculty Senate have also
included a fixed component in the merit portion of the raise process to address salary compression.
Purpose
The purpose of this study is multi-fold and involves the following:
6








Examine salaries at UW-Stout by using internal salary models
Provide national comparison of UW-Stout salaries by using College and
University Professional Association for Human Resources (CUPA-HR) surveys
and other appropriate sources
Determine if gender inequity exists
Determine if race/ethnicity inequity exists
Determine if individual inequities exist
Determine if departmental inequities exist
Determine market equity using percent of CUPA and other appropriate sources
Highlight emerging issues
Actions Taken
UW-Stout has taken the following actions to address faculty and academic staff salary issues on the
campus over the past two decades.
 Developed faculty salary study in 1990-91.
 Expanded study to include category B academic staff in 1992-93.
 Included category A academic staff in salary study in 1995-96.
 Formed an ad hoc committee on faculty and academic staff equity in March 1999.
 Addressing salary inequities was identified as a university priority for 2000-01.
 Hired an external salary equity consultant to review the faculty and instructional staff models in
2001 and the category A staff model in 2003.
 Implemented salary model changes based on the recommendations of the ad hoc committee and
the external salary equity consultant.
 Participates in the CUPA-HR Salary Surveys annually and uses the results for comparative
purposes.
 Reviews salary study model results prior to determining use of the chancellor’s 10% discretionary
amount.
 Addressed gender equity and faculty pay compression through the use of the chancellor’s 10%
discretionary amount in the UW System pay plan guidelines.
 Approved the faculty senate pay plan guidelines in multiple years which included a fixed
component in the merit portion of the raise to address faculty pay compression.
 Developed UW-Stout Administrative Procedure #23 in February 2008 to address unclassified
salary adjustments outside of the normal state raise process. Human Resources completed a full
review of CUPA codes and will continue to do every 5 years.
 The study is presented annually to various groups including the CAC, Senates, college meetings,
and posted to the information portal.
 Recommendations from the 2007-08 Salary Study were completed. Specifically, PARQ
continues to provide data to go with requests for salary adjustments, a list of outliers continues to
be forwarded to the division administrators, and a list of departments with average or median
residuals of over $2,500 is provided to the division administrators.
 UW-Stout received dollars through the faculty recruitment and retention fund over a 5 year
period.
 To test the validity of the salary models a random selection of approximately 50% of the cases for
each model was used and the models were run again in SPSS.
 Submitted a quality initiative to the Higher Learning Commission to improve the quality of the
faculty/staff, which includes a significant focus on addressing compensation needs.
7



Implemented phase one of a supplemental compensation program effective January 1, 2013 for
classified staff, academic staff and faculty funded through internal reallocation of approximately
$650,000.
Implemented phase two of a supplemental compensation program effective July 1, 2014 for
classified staff, academic staff and faculty funded through internal reallocation of approximately
$500,000 in GPR funds.
A market compensation study was completed in 2014 that allowed UW-Stout to obtain external
market comparison data for most classified staff and academic staff.
METHOD
The statistical procedure of multiple regression was used to analyze the data for the population groups.
Initial guidelines for inclusion of variables and the methodology itself were obtained from literature on
the subject and from suggestions made by Mary Gray. Dr. Gray, a professor of mathematics and statistics
at The American University in Washington, D.C., is considered an authority on gender equity studies.
The initial models that were developed were later modified to include the recommendations by the ad hoc
committee on faculty and academic staff equity and the salary equity consultant. The faculty/academic
staff models, which were revised in 2001 by the consultant, resulted in a few changes to the models
including: 1) removing CUPA as a variable in the model, 2) developing separate dummy variables for
each discipline, 3) using only the all staff model and the male model and eliminating the female model,
and 4) including category B academic staff in the faculty model. The recommendations for the category
A academic staff model include: 1) discontinuing the use of the male model, 2) including a dummy
variable for part-time staff, and 3) combining grades 1 and 2 in the model and using grade 6 for the
control or default grade. The variables used in the models are described in Appendix A.
In the models, after variables were selected all data values were reviewed as being reasonable for the
individual. Any data values that fell outside the range of “reasonable” were verified or corrected by the
Human Resource Office. Spot-checking was done to ensure that the logic of creating the dummy
variables and the salary conversions was correct. After the data were deemed to be reasonably correct,
regression models were run against the population as a whole. Due to the change in gathering salary data
from the past (change from Datatel to UW System HRS), the PARQ office cannot guarantee the accuracy,
completeness or reliability of the data used in the Salary Study.
As recommended by the salary equity consultant, the faculty model used includes separate dummy
variables for each discipline; this allows the regression equation to assign the appropriate value to each
discipline. This methodology had been used in the past by UW-Stout and was referred to as Model 1 for
faculty. Tables 1, 2 and 3 in Appendix B give the detail of the model results.
To determine if gender and race bias exists, the model was run on the population as a whole for all the
variables including those that shouldn’t determine an individual’s salary such as gender and race. The
results generated from this model were used to determine the residuals for each individual although an
additional step was needed to adjust the predicted salaries for the amounts that the model determined were
gender and race related.
8
CUPA-HR conducts a National Faculty Salary Survey for Four-Year Institutions that UW-Stout uses as a
source for market equity. UW-Stout average salaries are computed by discipline and rank and are
compared to the CUPA salary averages by discipline and rank to determine individual, as well as,
department market equity.
Historically, Stout has used the published CUPA-HR survey reports and the national comparison groups
that are available in those reports. With the availability of CUPA-HR’s Data on Demand it is now
possible to select other comparison groups that are not provided in the standard reports. The PARQ office
is currently in the process of exploring appropriate comparison groups for all faculty and staff.
Mean salaries by rank within discipline were calculated for UW-Stout faculty. First, a table was
constructed to compare the average salaries of UW-Stout faculty by rank within discipline with the
average salaries developed by CUPA. (The table appears in Appendix D). The percentages of CUPA
calculated for department equity analysis were also used for market analysis.
CUPA codes are assigned by the department chairs or unit directors at the time faculty or academic staff
are hired. A full review was completed in the fall of 2000; deans and department chairs were asked to
review CUPA codes assigned to faculty in their college and or department. The result of the review
increased the number of CUPA disciplines used on campus from 31 to 45. Human Resources, as a
recommendation from the 2007-08 study, completed another full review of CUPA codes in 2008 and is
currently doing a review as of the writing of this report and will continue to do so every 5 years.
Deans/directors can also request changes to CUPA codes for individual faculty and staff via email to the
Human Resources office.
The coefficients resulting from multiple regression analyses are used to generate an equation that predicts
the salary of an individual based on the demographic information for the individual. Appendix C contains
the regression formula derived for the faculty model as an example.
To test the validity of the salary models a random selection of approximately 50% of the cases for each
model was used and the models were run again in SPSS. All three models had similar results to when the
full population was used. The model summary results are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Model Summary Comparison
R-square
Adjusted R-square
Standard Deviation
Model
All Cases
Half Cases
All Cases
Half Cases
All Cases
Half Cases
Faculty
.745
.782
.718
.733
5,002
5,019
Category A Staff
.872
.853
.863
.831
6,820
7,715
Category B
Staff/Faculty
.846
.879
.834
.861
4,984
4,497
9
The results of the salary study will be presented in three parts:



Part I: Gender and Race/Ethnicity Equity
Part II: Employee Classification and Department Internal Equity
Part III: Market Equity
RESULTS
Part I: Gender and Race/Ethnicity Equity
Regression Model Summary
The regression results by model are summarized in Appendix B. All three models have R-square values
of .74 or higher for all 5 years. This means that 74% to 88% of the variation in salary is accounted for by
the variables in the model. The category A staff model has the highest R-square of .87 in 2014-15. All
three models are highly predictive and explain most of the variation in salaries.
The standard deviation, which is a measure of dispersion around the mean, varies from $5,002 for the
faculty model to $6,820 for the category A staff model. The faculty and category B staff/faculty models
stayed the same or saw a decrease in the standard deviation in 2014-15 after increasing in 2012-13
whereas the category A staff model saw an increase of $425 this year.
Variable Significance and Value
The rank variables for the faculty model show an increase in 2014-15 in the value of professor and
associate professor compared to assistant professor. This means that the coefficient or value that the
model has assigned to the professor and associate professor ranks increased in relation to the value of
assistant professor since 2013-14. The values of professor and associate in relation to the rank of assistant
are the second highest over the last 5 years.
In the models, rank/title has the highest predictive value (< .001 significance). It should be noted,
however, that rank/title is an attribute controlled by the University. Experts agree that regression models
using rank will most likely underestimate the effect of discrimination on salary whereas models omitting
rank may overestimate any inequity.
Years in rank is also a variable in the model that has a high predictive value for the faculty and category B
staff/faculty models; with a value of $781 (up from $667 in 13-14) for each year in rank for the faculty
model and $365 (up from $277 in 13-14) for the category B staff/faculty model. Consistent with past
years, it does not have a high predictive value for the category A staff model.
Non-Stout experience was not a statistically significant variable in the faculty and category B staff/faculty
model but was statistically significant in the category A staff model. Furthermore, years at Stout was
10
found to be statistically significant in the faculty and category A staff model but not in the category B
staff/faculty model.
Significance of Gender
Gender was statistically significant for the category B staff/faculty model in 2014-15 (see Table 2). Prior
to this year, gender was only statistically significant in the category A staff model in 2012-13. Even
though male was not statistically significant in the other two salary models, the coefficient was nearly
$1,400 in the category A staff model and $672 in the faculty model. The category B staff/faculty model
male coefficient has varied from $626 to $1,152.
The male coefficient is the value assigned by the model for being male or the cost of being female. The
value of male, although not statistically significant in two of the three models, is still high in all of the
2014-15 models and so should not be dismissed as contributing to the explanation of salary. Haignere
indicates that “the absence of statistical significance should not be viewed as proof of the absence of
bias.”
Significance of Race/Ethnicity
Table 2. Gender Results by Model
Faculty Model
Male
Significance Level
Category A Staff Model
Male
Significance Level
Category B Staff/Faculty Model
Male
Significance Level
2009-10
2010-11
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
497
.499
457
.524
505
.499
520
.444
672
.341
1,293
.193
1,092
.263
1,856
.047
1,504
.120
1,372
.175
718
.251
1,035
.098
626
.307
895
.132
1,152
.040
In 2014-15, all models show that race/ethnicity is not statistically significant (see Table 3).
Race/ethnicity was statistically significant in the 2007-08 and 2008-09 faculty model and category B
staff/faculty model. A value of .05 or less indicates significance and is not attributable to chance. The
faculty and category B staff/faculty model has a positive coefficient for minority faculty and staff, which
indicates that minorities, on average, at UW-Stout are paid higher than their white counterparts. The
category A model had a negative coefficient, which was different from last year when it had been
positive.
11
For category A staff, the average staff residual was $1,368 lower for minorities than it was for white staff
in 2014-15 but the median staff residual for minorities was $250 lower than the median residual for white
staff.
The minority coefficient varied from as low as $(1,415) for the category A model to $461 for the faculty
model for 2014-15.
Table 3. Race/Ethnicity Results by Model
Faculty Model
Minority
Significance Level
Category A Staff Model
Minority
Significance Level
Category B Staff/Faculty Model
Minority
Significance Level
2009-10
2010-11
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
1,418
.141
1,041
.272
695
.483
(343)
.706
461
.630
(2,310)
.202
(845)
.587
(370)
.806
927
.587
(1,415)
.491
1,031
.228
622
.481
595
.513
(91)
.919
346
.671
Faculty/Staff Below and Above 1 Standard Deviation
For the salary models, we expect that there will be faculty/staff outliers or those that are below or above 1
standard deviation from the mean. It is important to look at the outliers to see if there are differences by
gender in the percentage that are outliers and how that has changed since the benchmark year.
The percentage of female faculty with residuals that are below 1 standard deviation increased by nearly 1
percentage point compared to 2013-14 and remains 1.4 percentage points below the benchmark year of
2004-05 (see Table 4). There was a decrease in the percentage for the other two models compared to the
2004-05 percentage and 2013-14 percentage.
The percentage of male faculty that are below 1 standard deviation increased by 3.6 percentage points
over the 1-year period but is still slightly lower than 2004-05. The category B staff/faculty model and
category A staff model percentages also increased from 2013-14 and the category B staff/faculty model’s
percentage is now higher than it was in 2004-05.
The percentage of females above 1 standard deviation remained unchanged for the faculty model at 9.4%.
The other models saw a decrease. The percentage of males above 1 standard deviation increased for the
12
faculty model only from 2013-14, with the other two models showing decreases. The percentage
difference between males and females above 1 standard deviation is greatest for the category B
staff/faculty model, with the percentage of males 5.5 percentage points higher than the females.
Table 4. Below and Above 1 Standard Deviation by Model and Gender
Female
Male
Above 1 Std Dev
Below 1 Std Dev
Above 1 Std Dev
Below 1 Std Dev
2014-15 Models
Faculty
9.4%
9.4%
14.6%
13.3%
Category B
9.0%
8.5%
14.5%
14.0%
Staff/Faculty
Category A
15.2%
10.9%
16.9%
9.9%
2013-14 Models
Faculty
Category B
Staff/Faculty
Category A
2012-13 Models
Faculty
Category B
Staff/Faculty
Category A
2004-05 Models
Faculty
Category B
Staff/Faculty
Category A
9.4%
8.5%
13.3%
9.7%
10.0%
15.3%
8.9%
12.0%
17.1%
18.1%
9.2%
6.9%
8.8%
6.1%
15.5%
8.7%
11.2%
16.8%
7.9%
13.1%
14.3%
19.7%
9.0%
4.2%
10.8%
9.9%
10.8%
12.2%
12.7%
14.6%
13.7%
13.5%
13.6%
12.7%
16.0%
13.6%
Remedy – Group Level Approach
When regression results indicate that there is disparity between gender and race/ethnicity it was
recommended that UW-Stout use a group or class remedy approach. Lois Haignere, the principal author
of “Paychecks” and prior consultant recommends the group approach. Haignere states that, “The
institutional approach assumes that the effect of gender and race on salaries is systemic, affecting all those
in a given gender and race category. In other words, the undervaluing of workers based on gender and
race affects the “superstars,” the “duds,” and the average performers. Why should the highly productive
females have actual salaries that are lower on average than the highly productive males? Similarly, why
should the substandard women be paid less, on average, than the substandard men? Gray (1990) states
13
that “Discrimination affects the salaries of the best, the poorest, and the average woman faculty member.”
Any remedy should address the entire class.
UW-Stout used the group remedy approach to address gender equity for faculty women during pay plan
years 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2006-07. Half of the Chancellor’s discretionary 10% of the pay plan was
used to fund the fixed amount for all faculty women.
Part II: Employee Classification and Department Internal Equity
Individual Statistics
The salary range for professors is the largest at $44,807 between the lowest and highest paid (see Table
5). The associate professors have a $43,450 range and the assistants a $31,727 range. Assistant
professors have the highest average residual at $459, and the average residual for associates and
professors are within $15.
Table 5. Faculty Statistics
Rank
Average Salary
Professor
Associate
Assistant
71,256
61,186
58,599
Minimum
63,084
48,815
47,053
Maximum
Average
Residual
107,891
92,301
78,780
Number
444
447
459
77
96
101
Note: Includes outliers
The category A staff titles have UW System defined grades or ranges for each title. The salaries for those
titles have to be within the minimum and maximum established ranges. Table 6 shows the grade statistics
for salary and average residual. All grades have a positive residual and grade 8 and 9 has the highest
residual at $615.
Table 6. Category A Staff Statistics
Grade
Average Salary
Minimum
1 and 2
36,714
28,011
3
42,043
36,790
4
48,039
42,000
5
56,520
48,333
6
64,533
55,406
7
78,752
63,514
8 and 9
93,957
74,639
Maximum
46,444
55,184
65,000
71,407
83,691
95,073
115,420
Average Residual
278
264
455
412
75
455
615
Number
49
36
48
30
35
18
20
Note: Includes outliers
Grades 1 and 2 and grades 8 and 9 are combined due to low number of staff in grades 1 and 9.
With the category B staff, the average salaries between ranks are close with $11,184 separating the
associate lecturers from the senior lecturers (see Table 7). The majority of staff are lecturers (87) with 28
14
senior lecturers and 16 associate lecturers. All ranks have a positive average residual with associate
lecturers having the lowest at $497 and the lecturers the highest at $703.
Table 7. Category B Staff Statistics
Rank
Average
Salary
Senior Lecturer
51,035
Lecturer
44,347
Associate Lecturer
39,851
Minimum
46,632
37,305
33,003
Maximum
70,044
69,551
47,105
Average
Residual
588
703
497
Number
28
87
16
Note: Includes outliers
All part-time staff with less than .50 FTE are excluded.
Appendix J shows Stout average salaries over time for faculty, category B staff (IAS), category A staff
and classified staff.
 Professors had the lowest percentage increase in salaries since 2004-05 with a 7% increase.
Assistants had the highest at 27% and associates had close to a 14% increase.
 Senior lecturers saw just over a 20% increase in average salary since 2004-05 with lecturers
seeing a lower percentage at 12%. The number of associate lecturers in prior years was too small
to report.
 The average salary increase since 2004-05 varied by Category A staff grade from a low of 8% for
grade 4 to nearly 20% for grades 1 and 2 combined. Grade 8 was second highest at 17%.
 Classified average salary has increased by 25% since 2004-05.
Departmental Statistics
Table 8 details the faculty salary statistics by academic department. Approximately 55% (11) of the
departments have a positive average residual (excludes Health & Physical Ed). Engineering and
Technology and Construction have the two highest average residuals of $3,825 and $2,466, respectively.
Engineering and Technology has been in the top two multiple times in past years. Art and Art History
has the lowest average residual of -$4,984 with Speech Communication, Foreign Languages, Theatre and
Music the second lowest at -$3,312.
If you take the median residual instead of the average residual, Engineering Technology has the second
highest median residual of $2,258 with Construction the highest at $3,369. Art and Art History had the
lowest residual (second lowest in 13-14) of -$5,005 using the median value with Speech Communication,
Foreign Languages, Theatre and Music the second lowest at -$3,519.
Engineering Technology and the School of Art and Design – Design Department average residuals were
higher than the median value indicating that there is at least one outlier in the department. Both those
departments and Hospitality and Tourism (the last two years) have high standard deviations and a large
variation between the minimum and maximum residual values, which are also indicative of outliers. In
departments such as these it makes sense to analyze the results using the median residual instead of the
average residual.
15
Table 8. Department Statistics for Faculty
Academic
Average
Median
Department
Residual
Residual
Apparel & Comm
1,524
1,948
Tech
School of Art and
-4,984
-5,005
Design - Art & Art
History Department
Biology
350
-766
Business
-228
-1,041
Chemistry
2,166
1,805
Construction
2,466
3,369
English &
90
552
Philosophy
Engineering & Tech
3,825
2,258
Food & Nutrition
Hospitality &
Tourism
Human
Development &
Family Studies
Math, Stats &
Computer
Science
Operations &
Management
Physics
Psychology
Rehab & Counseling
School of Art and
Design – Design
Dept
School of Education
Social Science
Speech Comm, For.
Lang, Theatre &
Music
Minimum
Maximum
Number
6,397
Standard
Deviation
4,774
-12,614
-6,673
-2,948
1,383
5
-4,029
-8,228
447
-6,018
-7,361
11,686
8,822
5,221
9,774
4,590
4,857
4,500
1,610
6,023
3,026
9
18
6
7
20
-6,939
19,538
6,203
21
13
-474
-254
-351
-742
-12,411
-8,582
4,690
20,432
5,560
7,691
8
12
-1,034
-596
-7,118
3,548
3,431
11
1,147
1,885
-3,697
9,216
3,576
21
-2,151
-870
-11,631
6,885
5,670
14
-1,228
906
-449
2,280
-1,232
89
-935
1,303
-2,651
-810
-2,991
-7,587
334
3,040
2,595
19,106
1,018
1,517
2,168
6,179
6
11
9
26
155
554
-3,312
-283
-893
-3,519
-6,255
5,142
-8,393
12,023
7,904
1,484
3,321
4,080
3,604
31
15
10
Note: Includes outliers and excludes the Health & Physical Education Department due to just 1 faculty.
16
Faculty Rank Compression
Faculty rank compression has been an increasing issue of concern for faculty and administrators at UWStout. With assistant professors being hired at higher salaries due to demand and competition it becomes
a challenge to ensure that compression between ranks is addressed. To address compression in past years,
when there was a Regent pay plan, faculty pay plan guidelines have been written and approved with a
compression component included. A portion of the chancellor’s 10% discretionary amount has also been
used to address compression by giving professors an additional fixed amount. Even with these corrective
actions, compression is still evident at UW-Stout.
A long history of inadequate or no pay plan packages also made it difficult to manage compression
between faculty ranks. With multiple years of pay plan packages of 2% or less, System approved raises
across-the-board (ATB) leaving insufficient funds to allow institutions to address compression through
pay plan funds. Operating under increasingly reduced budgets has also made it difficult to find and
allocate funds to address compression.
Table 9 shows the spread between faculty ranks since 2009-10. The spread between ranks has decreased.
The decrease in spread between professors and assistants is greatest at $6,085. From 2009-10 through
2012-13 there were no general wage adjustments. Compression was previously addressed in both 200607 and 2008-09 with professors receiving more fixed dollars. With no pay plan for four years until 201314, the spread between professor and assistant decreased from 2009-10 by $6,085 and by over $4,660
between professor and associate. There was also a $1,421 decrease between associate and assistant.
Table 9. Salary Spread Between Faculty Ranks
2009-10
2010-11
2012-13
(October
(October
(October
payroll)
payroll)
payroll)
Prof and Assoc
14,734
13,558
9,973
Assoc and Asst
Prof and Asst
2013-14
(October
payroll)
10,126
2014-15
(October
payroll)
10,070
Inc/(Dec)
since
2009-10
(4,664)
4,008
4,892
4,956
3,694
2,587
(1,421)
18,742
18,450
14,929
13,820
12,657
(6,085)
Note: There were no State pay plans from 2009-10 through 2012-13.
Normal Distribution
When using multiple regression analyses to determine salary equity, one goal is to get the majority of
individuals within one standard deviation of the average salary of all individuals with the same
demographic attributes. In a normal distribution, however, many individuals will legitimately appear
outside of the one-standard-deviation limit. A normal distribution is shown below in Figure A.
17
Figure A. Normal Distribution
One standard deviation away from the mean in either direction on the horizontal axis (the red area on the
above graph) accounts for around 68 percent of the people in this group. Two standard deviations away
from the mean (the red and green areas) account for roughly 95 percent of the people. And three standard
deviations (the red, green and blue areas) account for about 99 percent of the people.
Shown in Table 10 are the three salary models and the number and percentage of faculty/staff outside 1
standard deviation and 2 standard deviations. The category B staff/faculty model had the lowest
percentage of people outside 1 standard deviation at 22.2% and the faculty model had the lowest
percentage outside of 2 standard deviations with 13 faculty or 4.7% (4 faculty were below). The category
A staff model had the greatest percentage of staff outside 1 standard deviations at 26.3%. Outside 2
standard deviations the category B staff/faculty model was the highest at 6.4%.
For all models, the bell shape curve would be steep as 74% to nearly 78% of the people are within the one
standard deviation away from the mean, which is higher than the typical normal distribution of 68%.
Table 10. Number and Percentage of Faculty/Staff Outside 1 Standard Deviation and 2
Standard Deviations
Model
# Outside 1
% Outside 1
# Outside 2
% Outside 2
Standard
Standard
Standard
Standard
Deviation
Deviation
Deviations
Deviations
Faculty
66
24.1%
13
4.7%
Category A Staff
62
26.3%
14
5.9%
Category B
Staff/Faculty
90
22.2%
26
6.4%
18
Outliers
Outliers were identified in each of the models and a summary is shown in Table 11. Outliers were
defined as faculty/staff outside (above or below) 2 standard deviations for the model. Seventy-five
percent of the outliers were above 2 standard deviations from the mean for the model and 68% were male.
For the faculty model 1 out of the 10 that were above held a current administrative position. All but 1 of
the 10 faculty were earning at least $73,000 a year with 4 of the faculty being at Stout for 3 years or less.
Eight faculty were from the following 3 departments: Engineering Technology, School of Art & Design –
Design Department and Hospitality and Tourism.
For the category B staff/faculty model 11 of 26 outliers were outliers in the faculty model also. The
above category B staff outliers were mainly lecturers and were from 4 different departments including
Engineering & Technology, Apparel & Communications Tech, and Operations Management.
For the category A staff model, there were 14 total outliers. The 4 staff that were below 2 standard
deviations were in grades 7 and 8 and held an assistant director or higher position. Regarding the 9 staff
that were above, 5 staff had 4 years or less in rank.
Table 11. Outliers
Model
Faculty
Category B/Faculty
Category A
Total
Total Number
Male Female
11
2
21
5
5
9
37
16
# above 2 std deviations
Male
Female
7
2
17
4
3
7
27
13
# below 2 std deviations
Male
Female
4
0
4
1
2
2
10
3
Part III: Market Equity
This section examines how Stout employee classifications compare to external market comparison
sources. Table 12 summarizes the results of the three external market comparison sources: 1)
CUPA/MRA, 2) UW System Comprehensives, and 3) Polytechnic peers:
Table 12. Market Comparison Sources
Employment
1995-96 Avg Current Avg %
Category
% of
of
CUPA/MRA* CUPA/MRA**
Faculty
95%
81%
Assistant Professor
97%
86%
Associate Professor
93%
80%
Full Professor
94%
77%
Current %
under 80% of
CUPA/MRA
41%
26%
35%
68%
Current Avg % of
UW System
Comps***
97%
98%
98%
98%
% of
Polytechnic
Peers****
71%
78%
75%
67%
19
Employment
Category
1995-96 Avg Current Avg %
% of
of
CUPA/MRA* CUPA/MRA**
86%
79%
Current %
under 80% of
CUPA/MRA
46%
Current Avg % of
UW System
Comps***
104%
Instructional
Academic Staff
Associate Lecturer
n/a
86%
38%
110%
Lecturer
n/a
80%
34%
103%
Senior Lecturer
n/a
74%
86%
107%
Professional
n/a
105%
6%
101%
Academic Staff
Limited Appts
n/a
85%
31%
117%
(category C)
Limited Appts
n/a
106%
11%
104%
(category A)
Classified Staff
n/a
92%
39%
100%
*stipends not removed from base salaries prior to 2012-13, **adjusted for instructional academic staff so that 75% of CUPA
% of
Polytechnic
Peers****
79%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
equals 100% of CUPA, ***UW System HRS-EPM October Job View data (2014) – UW Comprate was used and any stipends
included in rate for Stout average and the UW Comprehensive average, ****IPEDS
Table 13 lists the current CUPA comparison groups for each employee classification at Stout.
Table 13. CUPA Comparisons by Employee Classification
Employee Classification
Current Comparison Group
Faculty
National, 4-year Public Universities using Average Salary by faculty rank
Instructional Academic
Staff (IAS)
National, 4-year Public Universities using 75% of Average faculty salary by rank
Non-Instructional
Academic Staff
National, Master Institutions using Median salary by position
Limited Appointments
National, Master Institutions using Median salary by position
Classified
National, Master Institutions using Median salary by position
Note: Not all non-IAS have an assigned CUPA code due to inability to find a good position match and only certain classified
staff have a CUPA code match.
CUPA Average by Discipline and Rank
The average salary as a percent of the CUPA average for UW-Stout faculty remained unchanged in 201415 after a long history of decline. It went from 95% in 1995-96 to 88% in 2002-03 to 80% in 2012-13
(81% in 10-11) but now has remained at 81% in both 2013-14 and 2014-15. Stipends were not removed
20
from base salaries to calculate percent of CUPA prior to 2012-13. The decrease in percent of CUPA can
be largely attributed to the small or no salary increases that have been awarded over the past several years
and perhaps in some part to the retirements of more highly-paid faculty.
UW-Stout’s long-term goal is to bring the faculty to 100% of CUPA, to bring the academic staff to 75%
of the faculty CUPA values and to bring classified staff to 100% of CUPA/MRA values. The percent of
CUPA for 2013-14 varied from 52% to 110%.
The average percent of CUPA is highest at the assistant professor level with an average of 86%.
Professors and associate professors have a percent of CUPA of 77% and 80%, respectively. This supports
the previously mentioned issue of faculty rank compression.
Faculty at UW-Stout have been categorized into 81 different CUPA categories (see Appendix D). Of
those 81 categories, UW-Stout currently has 24 categories with faculty at all three ranks. Out of the 24,
there are 22 discipline categories that are below the market average for all three ranks. No disciplines are
at or above the market average for all three ranks.
Ten of the 81 CUPA categories have at least one rank with the percent of CUPA within 95% of the
CUPA average. No disciplines have all ranks within 95% of the CUPA average. One discipline has two
ranks within 95% (Work and Family Studies).
In contrast, in 1994-95 (the last year of the quality reinvestment), 25 of the 32 CUPA disciplines had at
least one rank with the percent of adjusted CUPA within 95% of the CUPA average. Of those 25
categories, 12 had all ranks within 95%, 6 had two ranks within 95 % and 7 had one rank within 95%.
The average salary as a percent of the CUPA average for the category B staff was 79% in 2014-15 (80%
in 13-14) using 75% of the CUPA salary averages for faculty by rank. The percent of CUPA is highest at
the associate lecturer level with an average of 86%. Lecturers were next highest at 80% and senior
lecturers had the lowest average at 74%.
Unclassified Non-Instructional Staff CUPA Results
Category A staff and category C staff make up the non-instructional unclassified staff for Stout. Both
categories contain limited staff with the majority being classified as academic staff appointments. The
majority of unclassified staff (about 80%) have assigned CUPA codes but job matches could not be found
for approximately 20% of the non-instructional unclassified staff. The CUPA comparison group for the
non-instructional staff is all 4-year Public Master Institutions using the median salary.
There are a total of 47 limited staff. Thirty are category A staff and 17 are category C staff. The category
C staff are comprised of the chancellor, vice chancellor, associate and assistant chancellors, deans and
associate deans. The average percent of CUPA for the category C Limited staff alone is 85%. If all
limited staff are included the percent of CUPA is 102%. Seven or 15% of limited staff have a percent of
CUPA that is less than 80%.
21
The percent of CUPA for all academic staff is 102%. Of the 250 staff, 188 have assigned CUPA codes.
The percent of CUPA ranged from a low of 59% to a high of 215%. Twelve or 6% of academic staff
have a percent of CUPA that is less than 80%.
Classified Compensation Market Study
In late fall of 2013, a request was approved to proceed with a study that would allow UW-Stout to obtain
external market comparison data for all classified staff and academic staff. UW-Stout then contracted
with a firm (MRA) in the spring of 2014 that specialized in compensation studies and has access to both
regional and national salary survey data. CUPA codes would be used for all staff that have a CUPA code
match and for those without a match their job titles and descriptions were submitted to obtain the external
market data comparison. See Appendix K for the 2013-14 Classified Staff Market Compensation Study
Results.
An update to the market comparison was completed using October 2014 payroll data to compare to the
2014 MRA median market index and the 2013-14 CUPA data for Stout classified staff.

Across all classified staff with comparative data, the median market index (CUPA and MRA)
average was 92.

The market median index ranged from a low of 52 to a high of 167.

There were 40 job titles out of the 84 (48%) that were below the 92 average. Twenty-one (25%)
of those job titles were below 80 — see list below.
1. Graphic Designer Series - Senior
2. Automotive/ Equipment Technician - Senior
3. Payroll & Benefits Specialist - Advanced
4. Facilities Maintenance Specialist Advanced
5. Marketing Specialist
6. Information Systems (IS) Comprehensive Support Technician-Senior
7. Groundskeeper
8. Custodian Lead
9. Facilities Repair Worker-Advanced
10. Facilities Maintenance Specialist
11. Payroll & Benefits Specialist
12. Engr Spec Adv 1
22
13. University Services Associate 2
14. Information Systems (IS) Network Support Technician-Senior
15. Inventory Control Coordinator
16. Shipping & Mailing Associate
17. Custodian
18. Office Operations Associate
19. Custodial Services Supervisor
20. Information Systems Systems Development Services-Professional
21. Shipping & Mailing Associate – Advanced

There were 11 job titles that had a median market index of 120 or greater.
UW System Classified Salary Comparison
During the process to find external salary comparison data for classified staff, UW System salary data
was obtained to determine how UW-Stout’s classified staff compared to both the UW Comprehensive
average and median by job title and how they compared to the overall UW System average and median by
job title. October payroll data was obtained off HRS (Human Resource System) and used for this
comparison. See Appendix D for the detailed comparison by job title.
There are 397 permanent and project classified employees at UW-Stout as of the October 2014 Job View
on HRS-EPM and 106 individual job codes. The average hourly wage is $23.09. Custodians represent
the largest number within a job code or title with 53 and university services program associates are the
second largest job code group with 31. The majority of job codes have only 1 or 2 staff at UW-Stout.
The average hourly classified wage at UW-Stout of $23.09 is nearly the same as the UW comprehensive
average of $23.13 (using only those job codes at Stout) but when compared to the UW System average
hourly wage it is $.69 lower. There is greater variation when looking at each individual job code. There
are 59 of the 106 (or 56%) job codes that are below the comprehensive average and 67 (63%) below the
System average. Comparing Stout’s average hourly wage to the median for the comprehensives it drops
to 51 job codes below the median and compared to the median for System the number below the median
is 56. The majority (55% to 61%) of Stout jobs that were below the median were between $.50 and $4.00
per hour below the comprehensive and System comparative groups.
The following 5 job titles at UW-Stout had the lowest hourly wage compared to both the comprehensive
and System comparative groups median wage.
23





Executive Chef
Human Resource Assistant Advanced
Pay & Benefit Specialist Advanced
Risk Management Specialist
IS Business Automation Specialist
Distance from The Peer Group Median
Each year, UW System prepares a report showing how the UW institutions by rank and American
Association of University Professors or AAUP salary averages compare to their salary peers. The
difference in average salary is defined as the distance from the peer group median. UW-Stout is
combined with the 10 other comprehensive institutions for this report.
In 2013-14 for the professor rank, UW-Stout is ranked 37th out of 43 salary peers in average salary,
associates are 35th and assistants are ranked 30th out of the 43 (includes all the UW comprehensives). The
distance from the median is shown in Table 14 and the full reports are in Appendix E. Professors at UWStout have the largest distance from their peers at $24,500 with assistants the least at $6,500. UWStout’s distance from the peer group median is close to the comprehensive distance for all ranks with
UW-Stout being further from the peer group median for all ranks except associates.
Table 14. 2013-14 UW-Cluster Compared to the Peer Group Median Salary Averages
Professor
Associate
Assistant
Peer Group Median (Excluding UW Comprehensives)
UW-Stout
UW Comprehensives
96,400
71,900
73,700
75,200
62,000
61,900
64,300
57,800
57,900
UW-Stout’s Average Minus Median
Percentage Increase to Reach Median
(24,500)
34.08%
(13,200)
21.29%
(6,500)
11.25%
UW Comprehensives' Average Minus Median
Percentage Increase to Reach Median
(22,700)
30.80%
(13,300)
21.49%
(6,400)
11.05%
Source: UW System
Note: Salaries have been adjusted for cost of living based on the Economic Research Institute Cost of Living indices.
2013-14 AAUP Faculty Salary Survey
UW-Stout Professors are far below the median salary of master’s institutions according to the latest
American Association of University Professors or AAUP salary survey. UW-Stout professors rank in the
10th percentile with associates in the 12th percentile (these are the same percentiles as 12-13). UW-Stout
assistant professors were also far below the median but were in the 27th percentile (21st in 12-13).
24
Table 15 lists each of the UW institution’s average salaries by rank and percentile for each rank. UWStout professors and associates had the 5th lowest percentile out of the 11 UW comprehensives with
assistants being tied for the 6th lowest.
Table 15. 2013-14 AAUP Faculty Salary Survey – UW Comparison
UW Institution
Professor
Average Salary
(Percentile)
Associate Professor
Average Salary
(Percentile)
Assistant Professor
Average Salary
(Percentile)
UW-Eau Claire
UW-Green Bay
UW-La Crosse
UW-Oshkosh
UW-Parkside
UW-Platteville
UW-River Falls
UW-Stevens Point
UW-Stout
UW-Superior
UW-Whitewater
UW Comp Average
$74,900 (14th)
$70,700 (9th)
$78,700 (22nd)
$76,500 (18th)
$74,400 (13th)
$69,900 (7th)
$71,600 (11th)
$68,500 (6th)
$71,200 (10th)
$67,600 (5th)
$79,500 (26th)
$73,045
$62,300 (15th)
$58,800 (7th)
$63,300 (19th)
$61,900 (13th)
$63,700 (20th)
$56,400 (4th)
$66,400 (30th)
$58,600 (6th)
$61,40 (12th)
$56,500 (4th)
$65,200 (25th)
$61,318
$59,900 (39th)
$57,400 (29th)
$58,200 (32nd)
$57,300 (28th)
$55,700 (21st)
$54,900 (17th)
$56,400 (22nd)
$53,200 (13th)
$57,200 (27th)
$54,700 (16th)
$65,700 (67th)
$57,327
UW-Madison
UW-Milwaukee
$123,500 (50th)
$101,700 (14th)
$93,300 (66th)
$75,200 (12th)
$81,600 (66th)
$70,700 (30th)
Source: The Chronicle of Higher Education – 2013-14 AAUP Faculty Salary Survey
Note: Percentile is based on master’s institutions in the survey. UW-Madison and UW-Milwaukee
percentiles are based on doctoral institutions in the survey.
2014 IPEDS Data Feedback Report –UW-Stout to Polytechnic Peers
The 2014 IPEDS Data Feedback Report shows that UW-Stout’s average salary for all instructional ranks
is $58,536, which is just over $23,550 (nearly $25,500 in 12-13) lower than the average salary of $82,094
for the 20 institutions included in the comparison polytechnic peer group (see Figure B). At the professor
rank the difference was $35,366 compared to $20,219 for associate professors and $16,169 for assistant
professors, and $12,321 for instructional academic staff.
25
Figure B. Average salaries of full-time instructional staff equated to
9-month contracts, by academic rank: Academic year 2013-14
Institution-wide, for all instructional and non-instructional titles, UW-Stout’s salaries, as a percentage of
our polytechnic peer group ranges from the lowest in Research at 69% and highest in Production
Transportation and Material Moving at 95%.
Figure C. Stout Salaries Compared to Polytechnic Peers
26
2010 Compensation Comparisons – System to Peers
Table 16 provides the total compensation comparisons for the UW Comprehensive institutions
and their respective peer institutions for faculty (category D) and academic staff/limited
appointees (category A). For the purposes of this comparison the defined total compensation is
salary and employer contributions to retirement and employer cost of health insurance benefits.
The UW System generally has a competitive advantage with health care benefits. Wisconsin
recently overcame one longstanding disadvantage, relative to peers, by winning the ability to
offer full health benefits coverage for domestic partners. However, UW institutions continue to
face one significant disadvantage, with relatively modest tuition assistance benefits for
employees, and no benefits available for spouses/partners and children of employees. Other
universities and colleges typically provide much richer benefits in this area.
For all faculty ranks the total compensation is lower for the UW Comprehensives than the peer
group with the difference greatest for the full professors at -$14,200 (15.3%). Comparing
academic staff/limited appointee’s total compensation for the UW Comprehensive institutions,
there is an 8.71% disadvantage when compared to their peers.
Table 16. UW Comprehensives Compensation Comparisons
UW Comprehensives
UW Comprehensives
Peer Group
Difference
Full Professor (Adjusted for Cost of Living)
Salary
Employer Retirement
Contribution
Employer Cost of
Health Insurance
Total Compensation
73,000
87,600
-14,600
6,300
8,600
-2,300
13,300
10,600
2,700
92,600
106,800
-14,200
59,300
69,600
-10,300
6,300
8,600
-2,300
13,300
10,600
2,700
78,900
88,800
-9,900
Associate Professor (Adjusted for Cost of Living)
Salary
Employer Retirement
Contribution
Employer Cost of
Health Insurance
Total Compensation
27
UW Comprehensives
Peer Group
Difference
54,000
59,700
-5,700
6,300
8,600
-2,300
13,300
10,600
2,700
73,600
78,900
-5,300
UW Comprehensives
Assistant Professor (Adjusted for Cost of Living)
Salary
Employer Retirement
Contribution
Employer Cost of
Health Insurance
Total Compensation
Academic Staff/Limited Appointees Comparison (Not Adjusted for Cost of Living)
Salary
Employer Retirement
Contribution
Employer Cost of
Health Insurance
Total Compensation
51,200
58,400
-7,200
6,500
8,200
-1,700
13,500
10,800
2,700
71,200
77,400
-6,200
National Salary Compensation Surveys
For this study we used CUPA-HR surveys as the source for our comparison of UW-Stout faculty/staff
salaries to national salaries. CUPA-HR’s Faculty in Higher Education Salary Survey for Four-Year
Colleges and Universities collects salary data for full-time faculty at private and public institutions
nationwide by discipline and rank. Institutions can report salaries by rank in any of 345 four-digit CIP
codes or in any of the 1,333 6-digit CIP codes defined by the U.S. Department of Education. The survey
collects both institution-specific and discipline-specific data. For non-instructional staff, Stout uses
CUPA-HR’s the Administrators in Higher Education Salary Survey and Professionals in Higher
Education Salary Survey.
There are other organizations that publish national salary or compensation data including the AAUP,
which the UW System uses to compare faculty salaries by rank. The AAUP lists average faculty salaries
"arranged by academic rank at 1,250 colleges, universities, and multi-campus systems." There are also
discipline-specific surveys like the American Psychological Association (APA) which reports faculty
salaries in graduate departments of psychology.
Emerging Issues
This section contains short summaries of recent national articles, studies or books that relate to salaries,
competition for faculty, tenure and gender equity. These articles are not specific to UW-Stout but are the
28
types of issues that are currently impacting UW-Stout and its faculty and staff. See Appendix F for a
copy or web link to the full articles and reports.
There Is a Gender Pay Gap in Academe, but It May Not Be the Gap That Matters
Data provided by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) illustrate gaps in academe
in regards to gender. Gender gaps not only lie within wage issues, but also a larger gender representation
gap in academe. Arguably, wage gaps are only but a piece of gender equality gaps in academe.
AAUP data shows the further down rank of faculty, women’s positions overturn men’s positions such as
instructor, and lecturer. When ranks reach higher titles, such as assistant and associate professors, gender
representation gaps increase. The largest difference exists at the full professor position. Comparisons of
pay at Doctoral Institutions, AAUP data shows women in full professor positions ($127,858) make 90
percent of men ($141,883) who hold full professor positions. Across Doctoral Universities, full women
professors comprise only 8.4 percent of full-time faculty. In comparison, where full-time faculty hold
men at 26 percent.
The representation gap is argued to be related to a lower attendance of women in higher paying fields
such as the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. Engineering, a male
dominated STEM field, pays on average 20 percent more for professor positions than a female dominated
field, such as psychology, a non-STEM field. Women are also more likely to drop from academic rank
increases due to discrimination within the workplace, parenting decisions. Women also hold more
positions at lower ranked Universities such as two-year or non-research based institutions.
Needs in equal pay and promotion are needed to be influenced systematically to close these gaps, with
attention to policy changes. Mentoring programs for STEM field positions, policy changes, and continued
data collection will aid in the closure of these gender differences. These suggestions provide a hopeful
mindfulness of these gaps, while opening doors for gender equality.
Fixing a Gender Pay Gap Can Lead to Faculty Discord
Institutions that discover widespread pay disparities by gender, with female professors earning less than
their male counterparts, and then try to remedy the gap can find themselves mired in a process that is
fraught with tension and results in faculty discord.
Western Michigan University’s Provost was censured by the institution’s faculty union when there was a
delay in 300 tenured female professors receiving a promised pay increase that was to put them on more
equal footing with their male counterparts. A lack of communication about the issue and the delay were
the problem. The adjustments were initially slated for women but later included some men. When they
looked closer at faculty salaries (such as discipline, rank, years at institution and years in rank) they found
disparities regardless of gender. The process was more complicated than they originally thought.
29
The University of Texas at Austin has not had the discord but a lack of funds to address the pay
disparities have hurt efforts, although the pay gap has narrowed since a 2008 report on gender inequity
from 6 percent to 4 percent in 2011 for full professors.
At the University of Minnesota, each college will have a salary-equity review committee that will use a
set of newly developed rubrics to look at faculty salaries. Gender is still key but the focus will be broader
and include factors such as discipline, years since degree, years on the job and merit. Data from 2011
indicates that men were paid, on average, 2.4 percent more than women were across all ranks. Plans are
to make salary adjustment in fiscal year 2015.
Negotiating Tactics for Women
In today’s academic job market negotiating wages can be a difficult thing to do, especially for women. It
is important that women identify what common mistakes they are making in negotiations, fix these
mistakes through informed research and build negotiating tactics that will allow them a better chance of
receiving a satisfying wage.
A common mistake among women is that they tend to ask for too little when negotiating. Women should
take time to research what men are receiving for the same job as well as any possible constraints the
institution may have prior to negotiating. Along with that, it is a good idea to wait to negotiate until after
a formal offer has been made. Once that has happened women should discuss their goals and possible
constraints that may influence the institution to provide a better negotiated wage.
Because negotiating can be stressful, it is suggested that women role-play with another person and play
out a negotiating situation. This is a good time to practice steering the discussion in a positive way while
trouble-shooting any conflicts that may arise.
Faculty Salary Increases at Public Colleges Trails Those at Private Ones
The College and University Professional Association for Human Resources (CUPA-HR) indicates that
while overall faculty salaries are up, there is a widening salary gap between private and public faculty.
For the 2012 fiscal year private college faculty salaries increased by 2.3%, while public college faculty
salaries increased by only 1.1%. This article discusses the need for public school leaders to be aware of
such trend as this issue could potentially pose negative consequences such as reduced recruitment and
retention rates among faculty in public institutions. As of right now those professors in law, engineering
and business related fields are among the highest salary earners overall, while English language and
literature on average are the lowest. President of CUPA-HR reports “that if the economy continues to
stabilize and improve, public institutions will continue to find ways to reward faculty and staff.”
Uncertain Times
During periods of economic decline faculty salaries do not increase as quickly and may fall while
enrollments increase. Public colleges are faced with serving more students with fewer resources. New
30
faculty are hired to meet the increased need but they may also depress the average faculty salary during
these growth periods.
This article examines 10-year trends (1996-97 to 2007-08) of faculty salaries, state appropriations for
public universities, number of full-time equivalent (FTE) students and total number of full-time faculty.
Some major points from the article are listed below.
1. The majority of faculty salary gains was realized by 2003-04 (4.1 percent over 1996-97). When
averaged over the decade, the annual increase was less than 0.5 percent.
2. Faculty salaries mirrored the changes in state and local appropriations.
3. By the end of the 10-year period, state and local tax support per FTE student had decreased by
4.6% as enrollment increased by 33.2%.
4. The number of full-time faculty increased by 25.3% and the number of part-time faculty
increased by 37.5% over 1996-97.
5. Changes in public university faculty salaries often lag changes in public support.
Gap Persists Between Faculty Salaries at Public and Private Institutions
The gap between private and public institutions continues to widen according to the AAUP, therefore
making it increasingly difficult for public colleges and universities to retain and recruit the best and most
productive faculty. The average salary for a full professor at a public doctoral institution is $109,569
compared to the average salary for a professor at a private doctoral institution of $144,256. The gap is
less among institutions granting master’s degrees. Failure of support for public education across the
states and over a long period of time is noted in the article as the problem.
“Another gap in faculty pay that continues is that along gender lines. At every sort of higher-education
institution, men continue to make more money on average than women who hold the same positions. At
the full-professorship level, the gap remains at a hefty 12.1 percent, with men making an average of
$106,195 to $93,349 for women.”
Regardless of Educational Attainment, Women Earn Less
April 22nd is National Pay Equity Day, or the day “which symbolizes how far into the year a woman must
work, on average, to earn as much as a man earned the previous year.” Wisconsin women typically earn
only about 78 cents on the dollar compared to men according to a report released by the Center on
Wisconsin Strategy (COWS) and the Wisconsin Women’s Council (WWC).
This pay gap exists for younger women as well and is not only a problem of the past. Despite women
making up more than half of the Wisconsin graduates, “equal pay continues to elude women –
irrespective of race, age, or level of education.”
31
Starting Salaries
Some of the pay difference between men and women exist just because of gender differences in
negotiating starting salary at the time of hire. The book, “Women Don’t Ask, Negotiation and the Gender
Divide” by Linda Babcock and Sara Laschever, identifies the dramatic difference between men and
women in their inclination to negotiate for what they want. It tells women how to ask, and why they
should. Listed below are some statistics from the book.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
In surveys, 2.5 times more women than men said they feel "a great deal of apprehension" about
negotiating.
Men initiate negotiations about four times as often as women.
When asked to pick metaphors for the process of negotiating, men picked "winning a ballgame"
and a "wrestling match," while women picked "going to the dentist."
Women are more pessimistic about how much is available when they do negotiate and so they
typically ask for and get less when they do negotiate—on average, 30 percent less than men.
Twenty percent of adult women (22 million people) say they never negotiate at all, even though
they often recognize negotiation as appropriate and even necessary.
By not negotiating a first salary, an individual stands to lose more than $500,000 by age 60—and
men are more than four times as likely as women to negotiate a first salary.
In one study, eight times as many men as women graduating with a master's degrees from
Carnegie Mellon negotiated their salaries. The men who negotiated were able to increase their
starting salaries by an average of 7.4 percent, or about $4,000. In the same study, men's starting
salaries were about $4,000 higher than the women's on average, suggesting that the gender gap
between men and women might have been closed if more of the women had negotiated their
starting salaries.
Another study calculated that women who consistently negotiate their salary increases earn at
least $1 million more during their careers than women who don't.
Many women are so grateful to be offered a job that they accept what they are offered and don't
negotiate their salaries.
Women often don't know the market value of their work: Women report salary expectations
between 3 and 32 percent lower than those of men for the same jobs; men expect to earn 13
percent more than women during their first year of full-time work and 32 percent more at their
career peaks.
32
Appendices

Appendix A – Regression Variables…………………………………………………… page 34

Appendix B – Regression Results by Model……………………………………………page 38

Appendix C – Regression Formula……………………………………………………...page 41

Appendix D – Comparison of UW-Stout Salary Rates………………………………….page 42

Appendix E – UW System Distance from the Peer Group Median……………………..page 53

Appendix F – Emerging Issues Articles…………………………………………………page 54

Appendix G – Regression Definitions………………………………………………….. page 55

Appendix H – Individual Results……………………………………not for general distribution

Appendix I – High Need Salary Adjustment List……………………………………….page 56

Appendix J – Average Salaries…………………………………………………………...page 57

Appendix K – Classified Market Compensation Study…………………………………..page 58
S:\Staff\Tammy\Equity\Equity 14-15
33
Attachment 8
Salary Equity Study: External Market Comparisons for Professional Academic Staff at
UW-Stout and the Identification of Appropriate CUPA Comparison Groups Proposal
1/12/2015
Request:
Recently, concerns have arisen regarding whether CUPA is an appropriate source for market data
for professional academic staff and whether the CUPA comparison groups that are currently
being used for all employee classifications are most appropriate. This is to request approval to
proceed with a study to do two things: 1) make recommendations regarding the appropriate
CUPA comparison groups for UW-Stout for faculty, instructional academic staff, professional
academic staff, classified staff, and limited appointments, and 2) identify appropriate market
comparison data for all professional academic staff titles using CUPA data and other sources
MRA deems appropriate.
About MRA:
MRA is a nonprofit employers association in the Midwest that specializes in compensation
studies. MRA has access to both regional salary surveys and national salary survey data (Towers
Watson, Mercer, and others).
Rationale and Background:
In August 2011, Chancellor Sorensen announced that achieving more competitive salaries for
UW-Stout faculty and staff was his highest priority. Subsequently, UW-Stout submitted a
quality initiative to the Higher Learning Commission that included a component focused on
salaries.
UW-Stout utilizes primarily two sources of data to evaluate salaries: 1) external market
comparison data and 2) internal equity data. CUPA is currently used as the source for external
market comparison data for faculty, instructional academic staff, most professional academic
staff and some classified staff. In 2013-14, a study was conducted to identify appropriate market
comparison data for titles not represented by CUPA. As a result, some classified staff titles
utilize CUPA for their market comparison data and some utilize MRA comparisons.
Currently, approximately 80% of professional academic staff have been assigned a CUPA code.
Concerns have arisen that these titles are too broad and do not provide appropriate market
comparison data for many of these positions. In addition, approximately 20% of professional
academic staff have no CUPA code assigned to them. Without appropriate market comparative
data for professional academic staff, it is not possible to determine if the salaries for these
employee groups are better, worse, or the same as those groups with market comparative data.
In addition, currently, the CUPA comparison groups that we use vary by employment
classification:
Employee Classification
Current Comparison Group
Faculty
Instructional Academic
Staff (IAS)
National, 4-year Public Universities using Average Salary by faculty rank
National, 4-year Public Universities using 75% of Average faculty salary by rank
Page 1 of 2
Non-Instructional
Academic Staff
Limited Appointments
Classified
National, Master Institutions using Median salary by position
National, Master Institutions using Median salary by position
National, Master Institutions using Median salary by position
The reason for the different groups is that when the groups were originally selected, there were
limited options for available comparison groups. Today, many more options are available,
therefore we believe it is a good opportunity to review our comparison groups to determine if
they are appropriate.
We propose hiring the same firm (MRA) to conduct a new study to provide guidance on these
questions.
Timeline:
The following next steps are proposed:
• Review the proposal with appropriate groups and obtain input from the CAC, and other
groups as appropriate, for example, the Senates and Classified Advisory Development
Council. Revise as appropriate and secure funding to conduct the study.
• Confirm with purchasing office the process we need to follow for getting the contract
• April- begin the study
• August - finish the study
• September- share the results of the study with the campus
• Utilize the data starting in 2015-16 in the following ways: add to the annual salary study
report, and utilize for modeling of future phases of supplemental compensation programs
• Repeat the study every other year
Page 2 of 2
Attachment 9
Attachment 10
Attachment 11
Chancellor’s Program Director Charge
Timeline
Committee Members: Renee Chandler, Wendy Dittmann, Gene Gutman, Kathryn Hamilton, Jill Klefstad,
Carol Mooney, Gindy Neidermyer, Robert Nelson, Ann Parsons, Shelley Pecha, Julie Peterson, Libby
Smith, Elbert Sorrell
1. Develop an updated job description
a. Initial Draft completed May 23, 2014
2. Present draft of updated job description to campus Program Directors
a. University Wide Program Director Meeting, October 28, 2014
3. Present job description to Strategic Planning Group and discuss measureable objectives, goals,
and evaluation metrics
a. November 3, 2014
4. Address charge of: Develop measureable objectives, goals, and evaluation metrics
a. November 2014
5. Address charge of: Explore and recommend a way of rewarding and incentivizing programs as
appropriate
a. November 2014
6. Review of the current Matrix model
a. December 2014
7. Presentation of draft documents to Faculty Senate
a. March 10, 2015
8. Presentation to Strategic Planning Group
a. April 6, 2015
12/12/2014
Chancellor’s Program Director Charge Committee
Attachment 12
Primary Functions of the Program Director
The program director is a faculty/staff with professional expertise who is assigned a partial leadership role charged
with all aspects of a program curriculum. They have significant responsibility in the recruitment and retention of
students, student advisement, and the development and maintenance of internal and external partnerships. The
program director is the point-of-contact for the academic degree they are assigned to lead. The program director
reports directly to the Dean of the College in which the program is housed.
The role of the program director is dynamic, cyclical and fluid.
A. Leadership
1. Advocate for overall program.
Tasks may include:
• Program strategic planning
• Continuous improvement program
• Attendance at alumni gathering and graduation
• Organization of program events and field trips
• Develop and manage relationships with internal and external stakeholders including alumni,
business/industry and education partners.
• Orchestrate formal and informal experiences that encourage socialization and enculturation
into the profession.
2. Lead coordination of total university services for program.
Such as:
• Registration and Records
• Admissions
• Financial Aid
• Career Services
• Advisement Center
• Discovery Center/NWMOC
• IRS
• Library Resource Center
3. Collaborate with Department Chair.
Topics may include:
• Scheduling and staffing
recommendations
• Textbooks
• Faculty/Staff expertise and
course assignment
• Faculty/Staff search/retention
activities
• Laboratory modification
• Capital expenditures
• Facilities
•
•
•
•
•
Foundation Office
Alumni Office
Office of International Education
School/college administrative
council
Stout Online
B. Curriculum Management and Coordination
1. Lead in the development, evaluation, and revision of the curriculum for the program.
Tasks may include:
• Program advisory committee coordination
• Consultation with the program faculty/staff
• Consultation with the college dean, associate dean and school director
• Mapping program objectives to college/university objectives, individual courses and
curriculum
• Competitive analysis of other institutions
• Monitoring industry trends
• Continuous improvement of program
• Cohort/customized instruction
• Develop and maintain articulation agreements
2. Identify, meet and monitor certification and accreditation requirements.
Tasks may include:
• Accreditation report/materials
• Accreditation orientation/training
sessions
• Program curriculum revision to
meet accreditation requirements
• Yearly response to assessment of
learning outcomes
• Self-study report
•
•
•
•
•
Consultation with university
administration
Student learning outcome assessment
Identify and organize samples of
student work
Accreditation site visits
Response to accreditation findings
3. Implement requirements and changes mandated by campus policy into the program.
Such as:
For undergraduate degrees:
•
•
•
•
•
Requirement of 120 credits
Three-year programs
Experiential learning
E-text directive
Emerging research directive
•
•
General education restructuring
Management of customized
instruction program guidelines
(if appropriate)
For graduate degrees:
•
•
Graduate education policies
Management of customized instruction program guidelines (if appropriate)
12/12/2014
Chancellor’s Program Director Charge Committee
2
C. Coordinate Program Assessment
1. Develop and implement assessment plan for the major.
Components may include:
• Assessment in the Major report
• PRC report
• Coordination with PARQ in follow-up studies of graduates
• Program-specific survey
• Other activities deemed necessary by program advisory committee, dean, accrediting bodies,
etc.
D. Marketing, Recruitment & Admissions
1. Develop and implement program-specific marketing plans that include recruitment activities and materials
in collaboration with the Admissions Office, Advisement Center, University Marketing, and/or Graduate
School.
Such as:
• Campus tours
• Individual meetings
• Preview Days
• Transfer Tuesdays
• First Year Registration &
Orientation
• Development of effective
articulation agreements
•
•
•
•
•
Student contact lists
Develop and maintain customer
relationship management (CRM) i.e.
Hobsons
School/Grad school fairs
Professional conferences
Scholarship opportunity promotion
2. Monitor admissions and enrollment and recommend adjustments to course offerings.
In addition, Graduate Program Directors shall:
• Review and coordinate graduate application process
• Conduct new student orientation
• Facilitate assignment of graduate assistant positions
3. Develop marketing materials and events
Such as:
• Videos
• Program glossies
• Website
•
•
Social media
News releases
By collaborating with:
• University Marketing
• Admissions
• Office of International Education
•
•
•
Graduate School
Stout Online
University Communications
12/12/2014
Chancellor’s Program Director Charge Committee
3
E. Partnership Development
1. Develop connections with education/industrial/professional contacts, associations, and alumni.
In order to collaborate on:
• Co-ops and Field Experiences
and/or Student Teaching and
Clinical Experiences
• Student experiential learning
•
•
•
Funding for program development
Scholarships
Graduate employment
•
•
•
•
Class visits
Panel discussions
Project presentations
Student outcome assessment
2. Coordinate interactions with Program Advisory Committee.
Such as:
• Recruitment
• Retention
• Training
• Bi-Annual Meetings
• Strategic plan for the committee
F. Academic Advisement and Student Retention
1. Oversee all student advisement.
Tasks may include:
• Collaboration with Advisement Center on 1st year advisement
• Collaboration with department chair on faculty/staff advising assignments
• Follow-up with individual students
• Advisement meetings
• Communication (e.g. email blasts, newsletters, etc.)
Topics include:
•
•
•
•
Program plans
3 & 4 year plans
Co-Ops and Field Experiences
Substitutions and Waivers
•
•
•
•
Graduation Auditing
Financial Aid
Scholarships
Study Abroad
2. Advise current and prospective students.
• Individual appointments
• Email and social media
3. Coordinate and oversee individual transfer student advisement.
Tasks may include:
• Assessment of incoming credits
• Development of degree completion plans
• Pre and Post transfer communication
In addition, Graduate Program Directors shall:
•
Assist in determining investigation advisor for thesis/graduate research
12/12/2014
Chancellor’s Program Director Charge Committee
4
Attachment 13
University of Wisconsin-Stout
SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Program Director
Name __________________________
College ________________________
Program ________________________
Percent assigned to this position ___________
The following rating is given based on performance for the period __________ to __________.
_____ Above
Performance is judged to be above that described in the range acceptable for this
position.
_____ Within Performance is judged to be well within the range described as acceptable for this
position.
_____ Below Performance is judged to be below that described in the range acceptable for this
position.
Data was collected from the following sources and used in the composite evaluation.
___ Supervisory ratings
___ Program committee
___ Students
___ Established Goals*
members
___ Alumni
___ Peer evaluations
___ Advisory board
Supervisor’s summary of performance (required if a rating of above or below is given).
Text box provided
Rating assigned by: ________________________________________________ Date _________
I have read the above statement: _____________________________________ Date _________
Rating ___ Approved
OR
___ Modified by ___________________________________ Date ______
I have seen the modified rating: ______________________________________ Date _________
Summary of basis for modification (only if a modification is made by next level supervisor).
Text box provided
12/12/2014
Chancellor’s Program Director Charge Committee
Suggested Goal Form and Report
Not to be included as a requirement of the Summary of the Performance Evaluation
The expectations of the role of the program director are cyclical and fluid. The Dean and Program
Director must meet periodically to prioritize goals that align with the university, college, and program
needs.
Goal
Alignment to University, College and
Program Priorities
Date in which goals were initially discussed: _________________
Goals may be listed here or, if listed in other official
documentation, reference it here.
12/12/2014
Chancellor’s Program Director Charge Committee
Progress Made
Date in which progress was
assessed: _______________
Progress made, can be
described on a separate sheet
or, if in other official
documentation, reference that
documentation here.
Attachment 14
Program Director Charge Committee
Strategies for Rewards and Incentives
Committee Members: Renee Chandler, Wendy Dittmann, Gene Gutman, Kathryn Hamilton, Jill
Klefstad, Carol Mooney, Gindy Neidermyer, Robert Nelson, Ann Parsons, Shelley Pecha, Julie
Peterson, Libby Smith, Elbert Sorrell
1. The servant leadership role of the Program Director goes beyond the academic calendar. As
such, the following changes should be further explored:
a. Align compensation of program directors to expectations.
b. Increase stipend at same percentage of salary increase as available
c. Increase stipend after a certain number of years
d. Stipend becomes a part of base after a certain number of years.
e. Release time should flex to align with program goals
2. Streamline the administrative role of the position to reduce redundancies. Convene a work
group to explore:
a. Combining the AIM Report & PRC Reports
b. Honor Program Director authority regarding the approval of substitutions and
waivers; eliminate approval redundancies.
c. Centralizing the development of marketing & promotional materials.
d. Eliminating Admissions & Advisement redundancies.
3. Establish voting rights for Program Directors regarding new processes or procedures that
effect the Program Director role/job description.
a. Present new policy/procedures for vote at all campus Program Director meetings.
4. Charge Faculty Senate to create a process for Program Direction be included and valued in
the promotion and tenure process.
a. Develop updated documents to include the role, such as creating a Leadership
category in addition to Teaching, Research, and Service.
b. Include revised PD Job Description as addendum with Research definition in required
materials
5. Institute a Program Director Day that includes a luncheon with Deans, Chancellor, etc.
6. Administrators, including Provost, Deans, and Associate Chancellor’s, should educate the
campus regarding use and effectiveness of the Matrix Model, in order to build respect for the
Program Director position.
Add program director representative to the Chancellor’s Advisory Committee.
1/09/2015
Chancellor’s Program Director Charge Committee
Attachment 15
Program Director Charge Committee
Review of the Matrix Model
Committee Members: Renee Chandler, Wendy Dittmann, Gene Gutman, Kathryn Hamilton, Jill
Klefstad, Carol Mooney, Gindy Neidermyer, Robert Nelson, Ann Parsons, Shelley Pecha, Julie
Peterson, Libby Smith, Elbert Sorrell
Program Directors carry out the mission of the university and ensure quality of services
to students by completing the tasks outlined in the job description.
We support the matrix model and recognize that programs are housed in colleges and
program directors report to the Dean.
We believe this model supports the Polytechnic vision by creating cross-disciplinary,
cross college efficiencies and innovation.
The leadership provided by program directors at UW-Stout contributes to continuous
quality process improvement.
Attachment 16
Attachment 17
1
Program Director Self-Study Report
For Program: Real Estate Property Management
Submitted by Frederick W. Prassas, CPM, MBA
Year: 2014
Planning and Review Committee
1.
UW-STOUT’S STRATEGIC PLAN
1.1 UW-Stout's Strategic Plan – Respond to the following:
1.1.1 Describe early and ongoing experiential learning opportunities to students
within the program.
The Real Estate Property Management program (previously Property Management)
held its first classes as a major in 2009 after over 25 years as a minor in the Hotel,
Restaurant and Tourism program. As such, this program has continued the tradition
of the HRTM program and UW-Stout of providing numerous experiential learning
opportunities.
Throughout the program, experiential learning opportunities are presented including
the following: Marketing comparison grids, marketing plans, rent surveys, lease
abstracts, brokerage sales packages, website development for property management
firms, oral arguments on appellate real estate law cases, oral presentations on real
estate development projects, development of shopping center tenant handbooks,
industry specific software simulations, development of long term and routine
maintenance plans for a property.
The premier courses that provide such opportunities are the capstone course, and coop. Capstone is a field experience program in which students analyze an
underachieving apartment community and make recommendations for improving is
success over a defined holding period. Numerous co-op employers are competing for
access to our students on a regular basis. At least one co-op is required for
graduation.
The program also has a student club dedicated to property management.
Participating students have the opportunity to attend local and national meetings,
participate in focus groups, and learn directly from experienced practitioners
throughout the year about various issues and techniques of property management.
1.1.2 Describe program initiatives employed to support and/or increase student
enrollment, retention and graduation rates?
2
The number of majors in the program has nearly doubled since 2009, unofficially at 47
students. Industry literature consistently asserts that this profession has never been a
career of choice, but rather a career of chance – persons first find a job in the industry (or
it finds them) then, over time they become educated through professional organizations.
Hence, it is no surprise that students entering college have not likely considered this career
until after they arrive on campus and are exposed to its lucrative opportunities.
While there are no funds available for external marketing, significant efforts are expended
internally aimed at recruiting Property Management as a second major. A significant
factor that will increase enrollment is the completion of the Weidner Center for Residential
Property Management. The Center is the result of a grant of $1,000,000 from Dean
Weidner, a Seattle businessman which includes $12,000 of scholarships annually. The
expendable portion of endowment has been used almost exclusively for classroom
improvement, and will continue to be used mostly for that purpose through 2016. Then
funds will be considered for external marketing.
Students have, and continue to participate in the marketing program. The student club
engages in outreach programs to the real estate community informing them of the
program. The program has enjoyed a 100% employment rate, all being employed in jobs
relating to their major.
One issue that must be addressed is the resource investment necessary to grow the
program. Most classes are at or over capacity indicating the potential for more sections
and instructors. Since most students choosing this educational path do so when they are
Juniors or Seniors, there is a bottleneck from courses offered only one time per year.
Expanding the offerings of existing courses, and implementation of two new courses, will
help alleviate this issue and allow students to graduate within a shorter time frame.
1.1.3
Describe, provide examples and explain how the program intentionally
integrates diversity efforts, functions and contributes to the program in support
of Inclusive Excellence: “UW-Stout’s plan to intentionally integrate diversity
efforts into the core aspects of everything we do. Diversity is broadly defined
and includes, but is not limited to, race/ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation,
age and disability status.”
Diversity issues are infused across the curriculum and are especially focused upon in the
intro, ethics and marketing and leasing courses. Students are exposed to, and many
subscribe to, the Code of Ethics of the Institute of Real Estate Management in which
diversity is a cornerstone.
Two courses specifically address diversity issues: Ethical Decision in Property
Management employs a course licensed from the National Apartment Association in which
students participate in case analysis of diversity issues, and Principles of Property
Management (PM-381) in which students discuss diversity issues through a webinar on fair
housing from a leading industry expert.
3
Three faculty members, including the program director for REPM, within the School of
Hospitality Leadership worked on a campus wide grant project through the Nakatani
Teaching and Learning Center called, “Infusing Diversity across the Curriculum”.
1.1.4 Describe environmental sustainability initiatives embedded and supported by
the program: “UW-Stout’s attempt to make students, faculty, and staff more
aware of the importance of sustaining our environment through energy
conservation, waste reduction, and other measures that will not bring harm to
the environment, and to provide students with innovative research
opportunities in these areas.”
Environmental sustainability is not only a guiding principal of property management, it is
also good business. Similar to diversity, sustainability is infused in all aspects of the
curriculum. The issues are especially evident in the facilities, development and ethics
courses. The development course (PM-371) specifically covers LEED certification.
Students learn firsthand the industry’s commitment to environmental sustainability
through their internships, the capstone course and ongoing review of industry literature.
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROGRAM
2.1 Curriculum Design – Respond to the following:
2.1.1
State the approved program objectives.
The B.S. degree in Property Management program will provide a comprehensive and
challenging academic experience that will prepare graduates to be leaders in the property
management profession by meeting the following program objectives and learning
outcomes:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Analyze major trends in managing both residential and commercial properties
including multi-family, office, retail and industrial buildings.
Apply accounting, human resource (including both gender and diversity issues),
marketing, and leasing skills to meet the objectives of property owners in
preserving and adding value to their properties.
Develop and apply strategies for attracting new tenants and retaining existing
tenants of properties under management.
Prepare and analyze budgets and financial statements to meet the needs of
property owners in how best to handle their real estate portfolios.
Apply the principles of property maintenance and risk management (including
environmental concerns connected with the ownership of real property) to
preserve and enhance the value of owners’ properties.
4
6.
7.
Develop and enforce property operating procedures to insure owners’ properties
are achieving maximum net operating income all while acting in an ethical
manor.
Integrate the knowledge and skills obtained in the courses in the property
management curriculum through practical experiences in the property
management industry.
2.1.2
Describe processes and initiatives employed in determining the need for
program revision?
The program has an active and engaged advisory board consisting of practitioners,
academics and association executives. It is apparent that the board members have a strong
and positive attitude about the program and appreciate the faculty’s willingness to respond
quickly. Course and instructor evaluations provide additional input into the planning
process.
An Assessment in the Major (AIM) report is submitted every year which considers input
from various sources including students and graduates. Finally, the faculty are very
engaged with industry through ongoing contact with current industry practitioners,
business experience, personal investments and consultation.
2.1.3
Check all that apply regarding the program:
_X__Traditional, on campus program
___Offsite location
___Online program
2.1.4
Briefly describe the components of your program where students participate in
scholarly activity such as: research, scholarship, experiential learning and
creative endeavor. “programs are presented through an approach to learning
which involves combining theory, practice and experimentation” (UW-Stout’s
Mission Statement)
All courses integrate at least one element of scholarly activity. In the co-op component
students participate in research and experiential learning. Virtually all courses in the
program incorporate scholarly activities as noted earlier in 1.1.1 above.
2.1.5
Does your program currently have an accreditation or certification agency that
reviews the program? If so, which agency and to what extent does it influence
the structure of the curriculum?
There is no accreditation agency relating to this program area, however the curriculum is
reviewed by the Institute of Real Estate Management, Chicago, Illinois to confirm that it
meets industry educational content leading to certification. To the extent possible, the
instructors collaborate with professors at other universities that offer similar program
5
components. UW-Stout, however, is the only institution in the country that includes
commercial and retail property management in its curriculum.
UW-Stout is the only university that has been given authority to administer two industry
certification exams: The Certified Property Manager (CPM) and the Accredited
Residential Manager (ARM). Upon completion of the B.S. degree program students (upon
payment of a testing fee for the capstone project and successful completion) will have met
all educational requirements of the certifications. Some additional field experience is
needed to complete the certification process.
2.2 Faculty/Academic Staff Expertise – Respond to the following:
2.2.1
List key instructors in the program. A key instructor is one who teaches at least
one required professional course in your program (this should be the combined
faculty of Key A and Key B who were surveyed by the PRC).
Douglas Kennedy, JD, SPHR; Frederick W. Prassas, MBA, CPM
2.2.2
What additional faculty/academic staff expertise is needed?
Additional faculty will be necessary to cover increased sections and new courses planned
for the future.
2.3
Facilities – Respond to the following:
2.3.1
Describe facilities and or capital equipment currently used and how it supports
or strengthens the program? What program specific facilities (unique
classrooms, labs, additional space involving minor construction) have been
requested and provided?
The program is housed in the School of Hospitality Leadership with the HRTM and Golf
Enterprise Management programs (traditional on ground, and online). In summer, 2014
construction began on a real estate property management lab: The Weidner Center for
Residential Property Management. A full year of planning and research came to partial
fruition in fall, 2014 as the Center was able to host its first classes.
This lab is a learning center that incorporates a friendly collaborative environment with
interactive technology such as Smart boards and wired internet service. The Center will
host all REPM classes and also will be available for student open lab time to work on
various software activities club projects and other professional endeavors. The room
features round tables with electronics, comfortable seating and a white board for every
table. Two of the boards use “Smart” technology. A video camera is also wall mounted to
permit video recording and remote sessions from guest speakers who may not be able to or
desire visiting campus.
6
HERH 419 – Weidner Center (lab) for Residential Property Management
2.3.2
What added facilities needs (if any) such as unique classrooms, labs, additional
space involving minor construction exist in the program?
In order to complete the vision for the Weidner Lab, five additional “Smart” boards or
“Brightlink” projectors are needed along with a switching mechanism that will permit
multi-screen projections. Other minor improvement plans include new LED lighting and
some cosmetic updates to the exterior.
Finally, the lab needs a Director that is able to further the goals of the donor and advisory
board for marketing and continued enhancement of the program.
2.4
Resources for the Program – Respond to the following:
2.4.1 Evaluate the quality, relevance, and quantity of the library resources to support
the program. Include a brief statement as to how these needs have been met by
the library.
The library staff has been responsive to all requests for resources. In addition, the staff has
created and trained students in the use of course guides, a research tool customized for the
research needs of each course.
2.4.2 List any special resources used to meet program and/or student needs such as:
Learning Technology Services for curriculum materials development, ASPIRE,
Research Services, Advisement Center, Disability Services, Multicultural
7
Student Services, etc.
Learning Technology Services worked closely with the program staff to design and
implement the learning environment created by the Weidner Center. Ongoing assistance
will be sought from LTS for faculty training on new technologies as they develop, and on
best practices in teaching methods to fully utilize the lab’s potential
2.4.3
Describe other resources (if any) needed to meet the program objectives?
The major resource needed is funds for external marketing. This program has received the
attention of key players in the industry who have commented that it is the best kept secret
in real estate. The program would benefit greatly from targeted marketing efforts
informing potential students of the benefits this program has to offer especially the
numerous and varied employment opportunities.
A second major resource needed is access to quality data on this program. Most of the data
provided from university sources – including direct surveys – does not use a representative
sample of students in the program.
For example, current statistics from the fact sheet indicate the program has 29 majors
enrolled with a total of 415 student credit hours. Taking into consideration double majors,
the actual number of students enrolled as majors is 46 with 618 student credit hours. The
FTE is therefore 41.20 rather than 27.67 as reported on the fact sheet. The program also
generates student credit hours through minors and concentrations in other majors.
The recent PRC survey of alumni sampled a total of 6 graduates from 2012 and only 1 in
2010. Earlier, when seeking statistics from Career Services in 2011, it was reported that
the program had graduated only 3 students.
The data is apparently provided by the Office of Policy Analysis and Research (OPAR) an
office of UW System created to provide financial accountability to the legislature. Data is
supplied to UW-Stout for further analysis by PARQ. The data provided to OPAR is
supplied from university records, but only after editing to meet OPAR’s criteria.
Unfortunately that criteria strips the double major students from consideration thus
understating the impact of the program
3.
Quality of the graduates of the program – Respond to the following:
3.1 Describe program graduate demand and/or anticipated changes or trends impacting the
future demand.
At the time this program was first proposed, CNN stated that property management was
one of the top ten jobs in America. Industry estimates have proven this true, and demand
8
may be increasing at a greater rate than projected earlier. Social trends of the millennial
generation are focused on sustainability, flexibility, social space and technology. These
trends will likely create a shift in lifestyles for both housing and commercial development.
Further new buildings are becoming more sophisticated in technology and design, while
older buildings are retrofitting to compete with the demand features of newer buildings.
All of these trends indicate a very positive future demand for students having the expertise
offered in this program.
3.2 Interpret the data provided by the Planning, Assessment, Research and Quality
(PARQ) office of the alumni follow-up surveys.
3.3 Interpret program specific surveys (students, faculty and advisory committee)
conducted by the Planning and Review Committee.
Graduates --Subject to the constraints indicated in 2.4.3, the alumni follow-up surveys
indicate a very positive perception of the program, and the career path taken by the
graduates.
– – students The student surveys of juniors and seniors yielded a 44% response rate Perhaps the most relevant Likert scale data can be found in questions 17 and 18 in which students were asked about the overall quality of the program and whether they would choose this major again the results of these hold of these questions scored4.9 out of 5 on the Likert scale. there was some constructive criticism about course content in the text comments generally the students indicated a high degree of satisfaction with the program Instructors – – Attitudes of instructors were similarly positive about the program. The concerns expressed about the facility have been reduced given the opening and partial completion of the Weidner Center. 4.
Program evidence of continuous improvement – Respond to the following:
4.1 Describe program strengths distinguishing it from similar programs. Describe and
explain program weaknesses?
There are only four traditional on ground programs of this nature in the U.S.
The program at UW-Stout is the only B.S. degree program that incorporates all disciplines
(multi-family, homeowners associations, industrial, office and retail) into its curriculum.
9
As such the program has aligned itself with the Institute of Real Estate Management, a
professional organization of real estate managers that also promote and educate members
in all aspects of the industry. This organization, and affiliate of the National Association of
Realtors, is dedicated to advancement of the entire industry and has adopted college
students into its national meetings and programs. This is the only program in the U.S. at
this time that has authority to administer exams for professional certification from IREM.
The capstone course is the only college course that meets the final educational requirement
of the institute for certification.
While similar university programs are housed in real estate or business departments, this
program has the distinct benefit of being housed in the School of Hospitality Leadership.
The commitment to service that is infused within the school gives this program’s students a
perspective that is recognized and much wanted by employers.
The major weaknesses for the program are constraints on increasing enrollment, and lack
of meaningful data. The program needs to grow. In order for that to happen, additional
sections must be added to the existing offerings, enabling double majors to graduate with a
minimal added commitment of time. Until external marketing funds and retention of a
Center director can be accomplished, the program must continue recruiting from within
the campus. This means accommodating double majors as a significant tool of recruiting.
The program has two full time faculty members as noted in 2.2.1 above. In 2014 an
adjunct was added for one semester only to prevent a faculty overload. There are no
immediate plans to have adjuncts in the reasonably near future. Further, students would
benefit from perspectives beyond those offered by the two existing faculty, and that is why
numerous guest speakers are brought in to classes.
Finally, the program intends to work with the College of Management in compiling more
meaningful data. As noted in 2.4.3, the methodology used in collecting data for this
program does not provide a complete picture of the program’s impact and creates
restraints on future planning.
4.2 Submit evidence of program response to the concerns and recommendations from
previous program review.
None, this is the first program review
4.3 In the next seven years, what major improvements or changes are planned for
implementation to improve program quality?
Program revisions are being considered for 2015 which will fill gaps in the program both in
real estate and property management. A real estate appraisal course is planned for fall,
2015 which will fulfill the basic needs of students wishing to become Wisconsin real estate
practitioners. A multi-family issues course is also planned. Further, program revisions are
being considered to align the program courses more closely to other programs in the School
of Hospitality Leadership facilitating opportunities for students wishing to pursue double
10
majors.
5.
Attachments - Include electronic links to the following:
5.1 Links of specific program information to be included:
 Current assessment in the major
 Program plan sheet
 Current assessment in the major
 Individual program facts
 Current program advisory committee
 Other items that may be helpful to PRC
 Other items requested by the consultant
CollegeofManagement
RealEstateProperty
Management
AssessmentReport
2014
UniversityofWisconsin‐Stout
Frederick W. Prassas, CPM 10/13/2014 2014 Assessment in the Major Assessment in the Major (Real Estate Property Management) Annual Update 1. PROGRAM OBJECTIVES Please list your program’s objectives or desired student learning outcomes below. The B.S. in Property Management program will provide a comprehensive and challenging academic experience that will prepare graduates to be leaders in the property management profession by meeting the following program objectives and learning outcomes: 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Analyze major trends in managing both residential and commercial properties including multi‐family, office, retail and industrial buildings. Apply accounting, human resource (including both gender and diversity issues), marketing, and leasing skills to meet the objectives of property owners in preserving and adding value to their properties. Develop and apply strategies for attracting new tenants and retaining existing tenants of properties under management. Prepare and analyze budgets and financial statements to meet the needs of property owners in how best to handle their real estate portfolios. Apply the principles of property maintenance and risk management (including environmental concerns connected with the ownership of real property) to preserve and enhance the value of owners’ properties. Develop and enforce property operating procedures to insure owners’ properties are achieving maximum net operating income all while acting in an ethical manor. Integrate the knowledge and skills obtained in the courses in the property management curriculum through practical experiences in the property management industry. DESCRIPTION OF METHODS Indirect Assessment Methods Several commonly‐used indirect assessment methods are listed in the table below. Put an “X” in the 2nd column (Used in Program) for the assessment methods used in your program. Space has been provided for you to write in other indirect assessment methods not already listed. In the 3rd column, please identify which program objectives are assessed with each method. Indirect Assessment Method Used in Program Program Objective Assessed 2 2014 Assessment in the Major Office of Career Services Annual Placement Report PRC Student Surveys PRC Faculty Surveys PRC Advisory Board Surveys PARQ Alumni Follow‐Up Survey (general) PARQ Alumni Follow‐Up Survey (program specific) PARQ Alumni Follow‐Up Survey (employer) PARQ National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) PARQ Student Satisfaction Survey Co‐op/Internship Self‐
Assessments Retention rates (program facts) Enrollment by Segmented Groups (program facts) Graduation rates (program facts) GPA (program facts) Embedded course evaluations Retention, graduation rates Embedded review of common course BUACT 206 No Yes No Yes 1,2,3,4,5,6 1,2,3,4,5,6 No No No No No Yes 2,7 Yes 7 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 7 7 7 Yes 2 Please explain how these methods align with/measure student attainment of program objectives: Direct Assessment Methods Several commonly‐used direct assessment methods are listed in the table below. Put an “X” in the 2nd column (Used in Program) for the assessment methods used in your program. Space has been provided for you to write in other direct assessment methods not already listed. In the 3rd column, please identify which program objectives are assessed with each method. Direct Assessment Method Used in Program Program Objective Assessed ETS Proficiency Profile Standardized tests Locally designed quizzes, tests, and inventories Portfolio artifacts 3 2014 Assessment in the Major Capstone projects (research papers, presentations, theses, dissertations, oral Yes 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 defenses, exhibitions, or performances) Team/group projects and presentations No Oral examinations No Internships, clinical experiences, practica, student teaching, or other professional/ content‐related experiences engaging students in hands‐
Yes 2,3,4,5,6,7 on experiences in their respective fields of study (accompanied by ratings or evaluation forms from field/clinical supervisors) Service‐learning projects or experiences Authentic and performance‐based projects or experiences engaging students in opportunities to apply their knowledge to the larger community (accompanied by ratings, scoring rubrics or performance checklists from project/experience coordinator or supervisor) Formative and Summative Coop Student Yes 7 Evaluations by Employers Online course D2L discussions analyzed by class instructors ARM Certification exam Yes 2,5 CPM Certification exam Yes 2,5 Please explain how these direct methods align with/measure student attainment of program objectives: RESULTS INDIRECT ASSESSMENT 1. Job placement has been 100% for all students since the inception of the major. Wages reported by employers range from $36,000 to $42,000 depending on region in which the graduate was employed. This aligns directly with wage scales reported by IREM for a person with the ARM accreditation and one year of experience. This is an especially positive factor given the graduates have only their co‐op behind them for actual experience. 4 2014 Assessment in the Major 2. College of Management: All students enrolled in the Business Accounting (BUACT‐206) course are asked to complete a national assessment test to assess group performance regarding this common core course. The results of the study in 2013 indicate students in the REPM major. The overall mean scores of REPM students (67)were comparable to those of all COM students (67.77) 3. PRC Surveys: The program advisory board members indicate a high level of satisfaction with the program, and energetically provide input on future improvements. The Likert and text responses clearly show a board that is actively engaged with the program and feels their input is being heard and acted upon. Similarly, students indicate a high level of satisfaction with the program. Again, text responses show the high degree of engagement the students have with the program and the profession even after graduation. Note: See foregoing notes in the ‘Program Facts’ section for comments regarding the sample size for graduates surveyed. DIRECT ASSESSMENT 1. In the fall semester of 2013 eleven seniors were given the Certified Property Manager (CPM) exam developed by the Institute of Real Estate Management (IREM) an industry certification organization. (See Attachment 1 for more background on IREM). This exam was taken in conjunction with the capstone course (see below for major project of capstone). 70 % is a passing grade and 9/11 or 81 % achieved that standard in 2013. 5 2014 Assessment in the Major CPM Exam
Passed
Failed
The average score for all students taking the exam was 73.9%. The emphasis of this tool is on the commercial side of the industry. The exam measures professional competency in the following areas: Financial operations and asset management Human resources Legal and risk management Maintenance and operations Marketing and leasing 2. At the same time 11 seniors were given the Accredited Residential Manager (ARM) exam also developed by IREM. Again, 70% is a passing score and 11/11 or 100% of those taking the exam passed with an average score of 82.00%. 6 2014 Assessment in the Major ARM Exam
Passed
The emphasis of this tool is on the residential side of the industry. The exam measures professional competency in the following areas: Ethics Human resources Financial operations Legal and risk management Maintenance and operations Marketing and leasing The raw data for the exams in included as Attachment 2 3. Capstone Project Performance The capstone course (PM‐470) as its major project requires students to write a business plan assessing an existing multi‐family property. The business plan (called a management plan within the industry) explores all aspects of an investment property resulting in a professional opinion of the opportunities, challenges and recommended course of action for the subject property. The management plan is a document generally 60 to 100 pages in length and is known internationally as the signature work product of the Certified Property Manager (CPM). For a fee, students have the option of 7 2014 Assessment in the Major having this report graded by a certified IREM grader. A passing grade from IREM will count towards one of the educational requirements of the CPM certification. This project measures competency in the analysis of data in the following areas: Quantifying owner investment goals Regional market data Neighborhood (competing properties) market data Financial operating data Valuation of property and owner equity Comparable rent analysis Physical condition of property Analysis of improved competing properties Cost analysis of improvements Impact of possible improvements on rent and operating expenses Pro‐forma operating statements to analyze financial performance with a variety of capital improvements Recommended course of action and proposed revised operating plan The report is graded for the course on a scale of 500 points. 70% is passing (see scoring sheet included). In fall semester, 2013 eleven students submitted a management plan in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the capstone course. Grades ranged from 39.00 percent to 98.00 percent. 10 of the eleven students or 91 percent passed the project. 3. All students who complete internships are given a final performance appraisal by their internship employer. The rating scale is based on a 1‐5 ranking, with 5 being outstanding. Here are the results from the last three years: Fall 2013 – Summer 2014 4.68 (12 students) Fall 2012 – Summer 2013 4.55 (15 students) 8 2014 Assessment in the Major Fall 2011 – Summer 2012 4.50 (6 students) 4.25 (6 students) Fall 2010 – Summer 2011 4.8
4.7
4.6
4.5
2011
4.4
2012
4.3
2013
2014
4.2
4.1
4
Intern Rating
INTERPRETATION This assessment is being done on the fifth year of the existence of the major. Prior to this, different metrics were used. However, the ability to use industry certification exams with our students only became possible in the spring of 2012 and represents a far superior metric. The initial results are very satisfactory with a large majority of students passing the certification exams that were taken. With a lower average score for the CPM exam v. the ARM exam, more emphasis can be placed on the commercial side of the industry going forward. However, it needs to be kept in mind that this is the more complex side of property management as compared to residential. Both the internship and placement results continue in a very positive direction. Similarly, the capstone results are indicative of the students’ improving level of sophistication and ability to demonstrate critical thinking put into action. Our students do well in hands on settings. 9 2014 Assessment in the Major DISSEMINATION Not only will these results be shared with the faculty in the program but our advisory board as well will have the results shared with them at our next meeting in the spring of 2014. In addition, since offering the industry certification exams is a pilot project, the overall results will be shared nationwide through the Institute’s college outreach programs. IMPROVEMENTS IMPLEMENTED THIS YEAR In summer, 2014 construction began on a real estate property management lab: The Weidner Center for Residential Property Management. A full year of planning and research came to partial fruition in fall, 2014 as the Center was able to host its first classes. This lab is a learning center that incorporates a friendly collaborative environment with interactive technology such as Smart boards and wired internet service. The Center will host all REPM classes and also will be available for student open lab time to work on various software activities and other professional endeavors. This lab was funded by a donation from Dean Weidner, a Seattle businessman as part of a $1,000,000 endowment that includes $12,000 of scholarships for students in the program. The program added its first adjunct instructor in spring, 2014. The program curricula meets the requirements established by the Wisconsin Real Estate Examining Board for pre‐license education. This means a student who has completed the required credits may sit for the salesperson exam without further education. In spring, 2014, through the efforts of the student club, a pre‐exam review session was held that was attended by 12 students. 4 students took and passed the exam and were able to utilize their new licenses in their summer employment. The remaining students indicated they plan to sit for the exam in the near future. PLANS FOR IMPROVEMENT Program revisions are being considered for 2015 which will fill gaps in the program both in real estate and property management. A real estate appraisal course is planned for fall, 2015 which will fulfill the basic needs of students wishing to become Wisconsin real estate practitioners. A multi‐family issues course is also planned. Further, program revisions are being considered to align the program courses more closely to other programs in the School of Hospitality Leadership facilitating opportunities for students wishing to pursue double majors. Classes in the program are now at near full capacity. A decision will need to be made within the College of Management if it is worthwhile to invest in expansion of the program through creation of additional sections of core courses such as the introduction and capstone courses. 10 2014 Assessment in the Major The program has nearly doubled in size since its introduction in 2009, and with the new lab and curriculum, is well positioned for strong future growth. PROGRAM FACTS The program fact sheet is included in this report along with relevant exhibits. Reviewers should note that the program fact sheet does not represent the enrollment or student credit hours of the program. In fact, most of the data provided from university sources – including direct surveys – does not use a representative sample of students in the program. For example, current statistics from the fact sheet indicate the program has 29 majors enrolled with a total of 415 student credit hours. Taking into consideration double majors, the actual number of students enrolled as majors is 46 with 618 student credit hours. The FTE is therefore 41.20 rather than 27.67 as reported on the fact sheet. Also, a recent survey of alumni sampled a total of 6 graduates from 2012 and only 1 in 2010. Earlier, when seeking statistics from Career Services in 2011 it was reported that the program had graduated 3 students. The data is apparently provided by the Office of Policy Analysis and Research (OPAR) a body formed to provide accountability information to the Wisconsin legislature and this data is supplied to UW‐Stout for further analysis by PARQ. The data provided to OPAR is supplied from university records, but only after editing to meet OPAR’s criteria. Unfortunately that criteria strips the double major students from consideration. In the future this program will seek assistance from the College of Management in obtaining meaningful data that will assist the School of Hospitality Leadership and the program in planning its curriculum and student loads. 11 2014 Assessment in the Major EXHIBITS About IREM: The Institute of Real Estate Management (IREM®) is an international community of real estate managers across all property types dedicated to ethical business practices and maximizing the value of investment real estate. An affiliate of the National Association of Realtors®, IREM has been a trusted source for knowledge, advocacy and networking for the real estate management community for more than 77 years. IREM is the only professional real estate management association serving both the multi‐family and commercial real estate sectors and has 80 U.S. chapters, 13 international chapters, and several other partnerships around the globe. Worldwide membership includes nearly 18,000 individual members and over 535 corporate members. IREM promotes ethical real estate management practices through its credentialed membership programs, including the Certified Property Manager® (CPM®) designation, the Accredited Residential Manager® (ARM®) certification, the Accredited Commercial Manager (ACoM) certification, and the Accredited Management Organization® (AMO®) accreditation. These esteemed credentials certify competence and professionalism for those engaged in real estate management. IREM also offers CPM® Candidate, Associate, Student, and Academic memberships. All members are bound by the strictly enforced IREM® Code of Professional Ethics. Collectively, CPM® Members in the United States manage nearly $2 trillion in real estate assets, including 11.4 million residential units and 10.4 billion net square feet of commercial space. 12 Attachment 18
CONSULTANT RECOMMENDATION REPORT
Planning and Review Committee
Consultant Recommendation
I.
Degree: BS Real Estate Property Management
Date of Review: 2014/15
Program Director: Frederick Prassas
PRC Consultant(s): Georgios Loizides and Heidi Rabeneck
Purpose of the Review: The review was conducted to assess the quality of the BS in Real
Estate Property Management degree program as part of the ongoing cycle of every UW-Stout
academic program.
Committee Findings: The PRC recommends that the Real Estate Property Management
program continue to be one of UW-Stout’s degree programs for the ongoing seven year cycle
(2021-22) and that recommendations made by the committee be implemented.
Abstract: This is the first PRC review of the BS Real Estate Property Management (REPM)
program. The program offered its first classes in 2009, after being a minor in the Hotel,
Restaurant and Tourism program for more than 25 years. The program has nearly doubled in
size since its introduction and currently has 46 students. Classes in the program are now near
full capacity.
In summer, 2014 construction began on a real estate property management lab: The Weidner
Center for Residential Property Management. A full year of planning and research came to
partial fruition in fall, 2014, as the Center was able to host its first classes. This lab will host the
REPM classes and will be available for student open lab time to work on various software
activities and other professional endeavors. This lab was funded by a donation from Dean
Weidner as part of a $1,000,000 endowment that includes $12,000 of scholarships for students
in the program.
The program curricula meet the requirements established by the Wisconsin Real Estate
Examining Board for pre-license education. Program revisions are being considered for 2015,
which will fill gaps in the program both in real estate and property management. A real estate
appraisal course is planned for fall, 2015, which will fulfill the basic needs of students wishing
to become Wisconsin real estate practitioners. A multi-family issues course is also planned for
future offering.
II.
Process Followed for Current Review:
The PRC consultants met with the Program Director to review the procedures and offer
assistance in the review process. Data regarding several aspects of the program were collected
from students, key instructors within and outside the department, program committee members,
and program graduates through surveys.
1
Student data were obtained via online survey. A total of 11 out of the 25 surveyed students
responded, providing a 44% response rate. The total number of students surveyed is
underreported due to the many double major students in this program. Survey recipients appear
to be first major students and graduates.
The data was analyzed and returned to the Program Director and PRC members. The Program
Director completed the self-study report and presented it to the PRC. The consultants then
wrote the recommendation report. The report was edited and approved by PRC, then forwarded
to the Dean for a response.
III.
Previous Review Year N/A
The BS Real Estate Property Management degree program was first delivered as a self-standing
program in 2009. The 2014-15 review is the first in this program’s review cycle.
IV.
Current Year Program Review:
Program Strengths- Source Indicated:
1. Unique: This is one of only four similar programs in the United States, and the only BS
program that incorporates all related disciplines into its curriculum (PD self-study;
Student survey; Advisory Committee).
2. Industry competencies: The program is aligned with the Institute of Real Estate
Management (IREM). As such, it is currently the only program in the United States
with the authority to administer exams for professional certification for IREM. The
capstone course of the program is the only college course that meets the final
educational requirement of the institute for certification (PD self-study; Advisory
Committee).
3. The Program is responsive to the needs of industry: While similar college programs
are typically housed in Real Estate or Business departments, this program has the
“distinct benefit” of being housed in the School of Hospitality Leadership. This gives
students a “commitment of service” perspective that is desirable to employers (PD selfstudy).
4. Excellent Program leadership: UW-Stout is getting strong exposure and recognition
in the industry (IREM, internships, Weidner donation, etc.). Students are being
connected with the corporate world and have excellent support from Program Director
and faculty. (Advisory Committee; Student survey).
Areas of Concern- Source Indicated:
1. Enrollment. The program seems to have a strong growth/recruitment potential.
However, in order for this growth to happen there is a need for additional sections of
required classes. External marketing funds and the retention of a Center Director must
be accomplished for growth to become practically possible (PD self-study; Key
Instructor survey).
2
2. Size of Faculty. Related to enrollment, in order for the program to fulfill its growth
potential, additional resources, i.e. faculty, should be allocated to the program.
Currently the program has only two full-time faculty and one adjunct that was hired for
only one semester to prevent a faculty overload (PD self-study; Key Instructor Survey).
3. Lack of Meaningful Data. Although not a problem with the program itself, the
program needs (and intends) to work with the College of Management and PARQ in
compiling more meaningful data. The current methodology used in collecting data for
the program does not provide a complete picture of the program’s impact and creates
restraints on future planning. Data currently only shows students who have declared
Real Estate Property Management as a first major (PD self-study).
Recommendations to Program Director:
1. Work with School Director/Department Chair to analyze the number of sections needed
to allow for program growth.
2. Work with School Director/Department Chair and College Dean to examine the
possibility of increasing the number of program faculty to allow for program growth.
3. Collaborate with School Director/Department Chair and College Dean to secure
external marketing funds and the retention of a Center Director (Weidner Center for
Residential Property Management) to facilitate program growth.
Recommendations to Director, School of Hospitality Leadership/Department Chair:
1. Work with Program Director to analyze the number of sections needed to allow for
program growth.
2. Work with Program Director and College Dean to examine the possibility of increasing
the number of program faculty to allow for program growth.
3. Collaborate with College Dean to secure external marketing funds and the retention of a
Center Director (Weidner Center for Residential Property Management) to facilitate
program growth.
Recommendations to Dean, College of Management:
1. Support Program Director and School Director/Department Chair analysis of the
number of sections needed to allow for program growth.
2. Work with Program Director and School Director/Department Chair to examine the
possibility of increasing the number of program faculty to allow for program growth
3. Collaborate with School Director/Department Chair to secure external marketing funds
and the retention of a Center Director (Weidner Center for Residential Property
Management) to facilitate program growth.
4. Work with administration to obtain accurate program numbers, to include first and
second major students and graduates.
3
Attachment 19
DEAN’S RESPONSE
Planning and Review Committee
Program: BS Real Estate Property Management
College: College of Management (COM)
Year: 2014/15
Recommendations for the Program Director:
Issue/Concern: Enrollment. How can enrollment be increased? What courses would most likely need
additional sections and when? What additional marketing will help improve enrollment?
Response from Program Director:
The program is near capacity given the current resources. Most classes are filled at or near capacity. Given
the recent increases in enrollment the program will continue to increase at a slow pace if additional sections
of key courses are available. For more sustained growth an investment in marketing would be appropriate.
At a minimum one additional section of PM-100 (Introduction to Property Management) offered in spring,
and a section of the capstone course (PM-470), offered in spring This will permit more students to enter the
program immediately after the fall career conference and will allow them to complete graduation in spring.
Additional marketing efforts will be in conjunction with the overall marketing initiatives of the School of
Hospitality Leadership and will continue to expand as private sources of funding become available.
Recommendations for the Department Chair:
Issue/Concern: Enrollment increase and capacity. If enrollment increases, how will subsequent increases in
course sections and faculty/academic staff be accommodated? What is the potential for an increase in budget
for marketing?
Response from Department Chair:
The Chair for the School of Hospitality Leadership will work closely with the Program
Director to ensure the recommendation of the Planning and Review Committee are met. The
school will support the progress and growth of this program. The Chair and Program Director will
work with the Director for the School to investigate potential outside funding sources to help with
marketing. The three program directors within the School of Hospitality Leadership will work with
the Chair to collaborate marketing efforts for all programs to a wider market.
Recommendations for the Dean:
Issue/Concern: Enrollment increase and capacity. How can the program be better supported to increase
capacity for more course sections and faculty/academic staff to provide additional instruction for the course
sections. How can an increase in the marketing budget be accommodated?
Response from Dean:
As additional course sections are identified, adjunct academic staff may be hired to provide additional
instruction. There is also a possibility of overloads for existing staff, to a certain limit. Overloads may be
needed while the growth is occurring and until the capacity reaches the point for adding additional sections.
Combining COM program marketing dollars for a collaborated effort will help enable an increase in
marketing for this program, until such time that marketing funding can be increased.
Attachment 20
Senate Office
Attachment 21
University of Wisconsin-Stout
P.O. Box 790
Menomonie, WI 54751-0790
715-232-1789
Email: borofkal@uwstout.edu
Faculty Senate Resolution Regarding 2015-2017 Budget Proposal
The University of Wisconsin-Stout is dedicated to serving the people of Wisconsin. We are
committed to the Wisconsin Idea, and we want to work together with the governor and the
legislators to see it thrive. The faculty of UW-Stout fosters the creation and dissemination of
critical knowledge that contributes to the development of a strong, diverse work force,
producing graduates who promote the economy of the state and the well-being of all its
people. As a polytechnic university with a special mission, we are uniquely positioned to
serve the needs of the state in the twenty-first century.
Our state has a strong heritage of supporting high quality education, the cornerstone of a
successful democracy. The proposed 300 million dollar cut to the UW System would have
an adverse effect on its ability to provide an affordable, high-quality education for its
students. The cuts would lead to an even higher attrition of skilled faculty who are already
paid salaries well below market value. Growth of new programs will be slowed, and the
operations of existing programs will suffer.
Further, the governor’s proposal to convert the UW System into a public authority
represents a significant departure from the current model and should not be adopted without
careful evaluation. Input from a broad range of constituents, including students, faculty,
staff, and community stakeholders is necessary to maintain transparency and contribute to
an informed decision-making process. It is essential that structures be retained to ensure that
shared governance, autonomy, and commitment to the Wisconsin Idea are preserved.
We are gravely concerned about the weakening of our public education system through a
continued decrease in state investment. Access to quality education is a value that has
served Wisconsin well, and we believe that continued access for all eligible individuals is in
the best interest of our communities, state, and nation.
The legislature of the State of Wisconsin has the authority and responsibility to approve a
budget that provides for the public good and long-term economic health of the state. The
Wisconsin State Legislature can mitigate the impact of these proposed cuts, which are the
highest in a single biennium ever faced by the UW System.
Therefore, the Faculty Senate of UW-Stout calls upon the Wisconsin Legislature to
substantially reduce the cuts to the University of Wisconsin system that have been proposed in
the 2015-2017 biennium budget.
Attachment 22
UW-Stout Diversity Leadership Team
Campus Climate Survey 2014
subcommittee: Joan Thomas, Pam Holsinger-Fuchs, Scott Griesbach and Sally Dresdow
Recommended Actionable Items
1. Charge a taskforce to identify individual(s) or point(s) of contact to address a broad range of
employee-related concerns.
2. Charge a taskforce to create a campus policy or statement defining bullying, a clear and wellpublicized procedure outlining how to report instances of bullying, and a plan for campus-wide
education.
3. Charge the Diversity Leadership Team to take the lead on continuing to engage faculty, staff and
students in understanding and utilizing the Intercultural Development Inventory framework.
4. Create a taskforce to review the protocols for internal hiring of current faculty and staff into campus
positions, and determine areas for improved transparency when those appointments occur outside of
a formal process, and address concerns raised regarding unfair promotion practices outside of the
formal faculty promotion process.
5. Charge the Dean of Students and the Title IX coordinator to identify and implement a training
program for all staff and new undergraduate students that includes information about sexual
misconduct and bystander intervention.
6. Charge the HLC Assurance Team to review the student complaint process to make it clearer and
easier to express concerns.
Attachment 23
Attachment 24
FACULTY & ACADEMIC STAFF
SENATE
Named Professorship Timeline
FACULTY SENATE
UW-Stout
Andrew G. Schneider Professorship Timeline
2015
Date
Description
February 20
Upon Chancellor’s approval, Faculty Senate puts application
materials online, announces in Daily Email, presents at Provost’s
Council, and sends email to Deans’ offices.
March 13
Applications due to department chairs or designee by 4:00 p.m.
March 27
Department committees’ recommendations due to college
governance committees by 4:00 p.m.
April 13
College governance committees’ recommendations due to Faculty
Senate Office by 4:00 p.m.
March 23
Faculty Senate distributes applications to University Level Named
Professorship Committee.
April 27 –
May 4
Named Professorship Committee meets to determine professorships.
May 7
University Level Named Professorship Committee recommendations
due to the Chancellor by 4:00 p.m.
May 18
Notification of the Chancellor’s Approvals
DOCUMENT NO: FS-213
EFFECTIVE: 02/20/2015
APPROVAL: Faculty Senate Chair
SUPERSEDES: NEW
1 of 1
The user is responsible for ensuring this is the current revision. Thank you!
Attachment 25
FACULTY & ACADEMIC STAFF
SENATE
Andrew G. Schneider Application Information
FACULTY SENATE
2015 – 2017 SCHNEIDER PROFESSORSHIP APPLICATION INFORMATION
The Schneider Professorships are in honor of Andrew G. Schneider who was a member of the Advisory Board of
the Foundation and left a substantial bequest to the Foundation in his will to purchase the land which houses the
Stout Technology Park. Following are conditions of selection of such professors and purpose and use of the
awards.
PURPOSE: Schneider Professorship(s) are awarded in recognition of outstanding ability and promise and provide
support for the recipient's professional activities.
TITLE: Each person named shall carry the title of Andrew Schneider Professor for the duration of the appointment.
ELIGIBILITY: Tenured members of the University of Wisconsin-Stout faculty are eligible. Faculty members on
sabbatical leave are eligible for this award.
LENGTH OF APPOINTMENT: Each Schneider Professor shall be appointed for a two-year period. Consecutive
appointments will not be made.
EMPHASIS: In any given year, the Chancellor may announce an emphasis to be encouraged in keeping with UWStout's mission. Check the Faculty Senate website to determine if there is an emphasis for the current year.
SELECTION: The procedural steps can be found on the Faculty Senate website.
CHANGE OF PROCEDURES: The Chancellor, with advice from appropriate organizations or individuals, may modify
the emphasis and the number and size of the awards.
TIMELINE FOR USING THE FUNDS: Funds are awarded for a 24-month time period. Funds may be carried over for
6 months past the end date with approval through Research Services. Research Services will secure approval from
the Foundation Office. See the Senate Office website for more details about the process.
AVAILABILITY: One Schneider Professorship for $11,000 is available for July 1, 2015 - June 30, 2017.
APPLICATION INFORMATION:
1. A brief application of NO MORE THAN TWO PAGES will be accepted. The application is to reflect
both past contributions and intended contributions in teaching, research and scholarship, and
professional services as defined in the Faculty/Academic Staff/Limited Appointees Handbook.
2. Emphasis should be placed on intended use and outcome of the professorship in alignment with
the mission of UW-Stout.
3. Within the TWO PAGE APPLICATION should be a statement of the plan for the professorship that
identifies intentions for professional development, a brief budget detail and a condensed vita.
4. Please attach the Schneider Cover Sheet (printed on blue) to your application. The cover sheet
can be found on the Faculty Senate website.
DOCUMENT NO: FS-607
EFFECTIVE: 3/15/2015
APPROVAL: Faculty Senate Chair
1 of 1
The user is responsible for ensuring this is the current revision. Thank you!
Attachment 26
February 5, 2015
Agenda Item I.1.e
SABBATICAL GUIDELINES
FOR ACADEMIC YEARS 2016-18
THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SYSTEM
BACKGROUND
The purpose of the UW System Faculty Sabbatical Program is to provide in-depth study
opportunities for faculty members. Sabbaticals offer opportunities for faculty in all disciplines to
acquire and/or develop new knowledge in their fields and incorporate them into their classroom
activities. Section 36.11(17) (c), Wis. Stats., describes the purposes for granting a sabbatical as
follows:
(c) Sabbatical leave shall be granted for the purposes of enhancing teaching, course and
curriculum development or conducting research or any other scholarly activities related
to instructional programs within the field of expertise of the faculty member taking such
leave.
In 2012-13, 4.1% and in 2013-14, 3.9% of the UW System faculty received sabbaticals.
At its December 4, 2012, meeting, the Education Committee last reviewed the Sabbatical
Guidelines but did not instruct UW System Administration to change the guidelines. Therefore
the recommendations from the 2012-14 guidelines were retained.
In preparation for the February meeting of the Education Committee, Regents and
Provosts were invited to share their recommendations and updates for the 2016-18 Sabbatical
Guidelines. The purpose of reviewing the guidelines is to enable the Board to issue guidance to
institutions without continually revising the sabbatical policy contained in Academic Planning
Statement #3.3 (ACPS 3.3), The Faculty Sabbatical Program.
On December 17, 2014, the Senior Vice President of Academic and Student Affairs
forwarded to the Board of Regents the Sabbatical assignments for 2015-16 as submitted by the
Chancellors to UW System Administration. Of the 292 assigned sabbaticals 128 were assigned
in the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) area.
Engineering
Chemistry
Mathematics
Biological Sciences
Natural and Applied Sciences
Technology
Computer Sciences
Physics
Medical Sciences and Other Sciences
Total
20
10
19
15
2
4
5
6
26
128
REQUESTED ACTION
Review of the Sabbatical Guidelines.
SABBATICAL GUIDELINES
For Sabbaticals covering the years 2016-18, the Board of Regents issues the following
guidance to UW institutions:
•
UW institutions should continue to give consideration to sabbatical projects that
support the mission of the institution and faculty members’ research and teaching
expertise.
•
The following areas of emphasis may help faculty to prepare sabbatical proposals
that serve their own professional development as well as progress towards
institutional and UW System strategic goals in the following areas: Diversity and
Inclusive Excellence; Interdisciplinary activities; The Scholarship of Teaching
and Learning (SoTL); Collaborative program activities; International education
Curricular reform related to the UW System Shared Learning Goals (available at:
https://www.wisconsin.edu/liberal-education/systemwide-leap-work/); The
Application of instructional technologies; and scholarship and research on
economic and workforce development and technology transfer.
Accountability
• The Provost at each institution takes responsibility for ensuring that the guidelines
are observed as part of the institutional approval process, while also supporting
the efforts of faculty members to pursue and develop their individual areas of
research and teaching expertise.
•
The Provost develops procedures by which it is determined that the goals and
outcomes of the sabbatical leave were met.
RELATED REGENT POLICIES
University of Wisconsin System Academic Planning Statement #3.3: The Faculty
Sabbatical Program.
2
Attachment 27
Adopted 3/5/2015
Planned Actions
Regarding Shared Governance
and Tenure
BOARD OF REGENTS
Resolution I.6.A.
WHEREAS the Governor’s biennial budget proposal calls for the deletion of statutory
provisions regarding shared governance and tenure; and
WHEREAS the Board of Regents supports addressing shared governance and tenure in
Board of Regents policy; and
WHEREAS the President of the Board of Regents has directed the creation of two highpriority task forces, each to be chaired by a member of the Board, to make
recommendations for new Board of Regents policies on shared governance and tenure;
and
WHEREAS the two committees are expected to make policy recommendations in time
for the Board of Regents to adopt policies on shared governance and tenure in spring
2016, prior to the July 1, 2016 effective date of the Governor’s proposal;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that in the event that the Wisconsin State Legislature
adopts the Governor’s proposal to remove shared governance and tenure from the
statutes, it include specific authority to the Board of Regents to establish policies of
shared governance and tenure; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event that the Wisconsin State Legislature
adopts the Governor’s proposal to remove shared governance and tenure from the statutes
with an effective date of earlier than July 1, 2016, the Board of Regents will, prior to the
effective date of the legislation, adopt policies on shared governance and tenure that
reflect the exact language of current statutory law. If this occurs, these policies will be
replaced once the task forces complete their work and the Board of Regents adopts the
resulting policies.
March 5, 2015
Agenda Item I.6.
Attachment 28
Adopted 3/5/2015
Response to Governor’s
2015-17 Biennial
Budget Proposal
BOARD OF REGENTS
Resolution I.6.B.
WHEREAS the Governor’s biennial budget proposal calls for a substantial base cut to
GPR funding; and
WHEREAS previous budget reductions in base funding, in conjunction with the current
proposal and the continuation of a tuition freeze limit the ability of the System to
effectively manage our institutions; and
WHEREAS the UW System has long sought additional flexibilities to distinguish the
System from other state agencies and to provide a greater ability to manage business
enterprises in a more efficient and effective manner;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the University of Wisconsin System Board of
Regents hereby requests that the Wisconsin State Legislature substantially reduce the
base funding cuts recommended in the Governor’s budget; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Regents hereby requests that the
Wisconsin State Legislature grant the flexibilities sought by the System either through an
agreed-upon public authority or appropriate amendments to state statutes, including a
dedicated funding stream for state-supported UW operations and appropriate technical
changes to the proposed budget to allow the System to more effectively and efficiently
implement these flexibilities, manage operations, and serve the students and taxpayers of
Wisconsin.
March 5, 2015
Agenda Item I.6.
FACULTY SENATE DASHBOARD FOR 2014-2015
Status Indicator Colors: Green (Good) , Yellow (Minor Issues), Red (Major Issues), Gray (Complete), no color (not yet started)
Charges/Other
Staff Responsible
Charge Requested
Campus Climate Survey Review
Advertising by Establishments that Serve Alcohol (new
process)
Staff Responsible
Policy Requested
Greg Bard
8/1/2013
Advanced Deposits for Intnl. Students Policy #8337 (Policy Elimination Review Committee
Representative)
Identity & Publication Standard Policy #90-52
All University Policy on Volunteers
Results or
Recommendation
Presented to FS
Final
Recommendation
Approved by FS
Recommendation
Approved by
Chancellor
Recommendation
Implemented
Draft or
Recommendation
Presented to FS
Final
Recommendation
Approved by FS
Recommendation
Approved by
Chancellor
Policy Added to Website
Results or
Recommendation
Final
Recommendation
Recommendation
Approved by
Recommendation
Implemented
DUE 3/10/2015
Due 05/30/2015
Results or
Recommendation
Presented to FS
Final
Recommendation
Approved by FS
Recommendation
Approved by
Chancellor
Recommendation
Implemented
10/21/2014
DUE 4/13/2015
Senate Evaluations of Administrators
All University Policies
Request Approved by
FS
Attachment 29
David Ding is the
representative
Nagesh Shinde
Ted Harris
Request Approved by
FS
Final Due 3/27/15
12/9/2014
Submitted Nagesh
Shinde - 9/23/14
DUE 3/27/15
Appoint one
member by
2/6/2015 to Kristi
Krimpelbein
DUE 4/30/15
Non-All-University Policies
Standing Committee Work
Update Credit Hour Policy
Professorships Recommendations
PPC Charge - Alternate Perf. Object. Due Date
PPC Charge - Ed Prep Code
PPC Charge Guidelines for Membership of Admin.
Search Committees
Proposed Revisions of Chapters UWS 4, 7 & 11
Potential Revisions to Faculty & Academic Staff
Personnel Policies on Dismissal for Cause
Program Viability Representative
University Committee Work
Engagement Session - Emerging Research Institution changed to "Applied Research Institution"
Budget Model Review Committee (102 allocation model)
- Phil Lyons
Budget Response SubCommittee
University of Wisconsin - Stout Confidential
Staff Responsible
Task Start
Request Approved by
FS
EAC
Dalton Schneider?
Apps due-Recem. From
committee Due Date
PPC
PPC
9/30/2014
9/30/2014
DUE 3/10/15
DUE 3/10/15
PPC
9/30/2014
DUE 3/10/15
Response due to Jackie
Weissenburger Prior to
March 6, 2015
Response due to
Chancellor by
4/30/2015
Renee Chandler
Final due 5/15/15
Staff Responsible
Task Start
Request Approved by
FS
Charged to Provost
Forrest Schultz &
Stephen Salm
Marlann Patterson
DUE 5/16/2014
10/18/2013
12/9/2014
2/25/2014
DUE 3/23/15
3/10/2015
Page 1
FACULTY SENATE DASHBOARD FOR 2014-2015
Status Indicator Colors: Green (Good) , Yellow (Minor Issues), Red (Major Issues), Gray (Complete), no color (not yet started)
Elections
Spring Elections - Senators, Standing Committees,
University Committees
Confirm Elections
Communicate
Call for Nominations
Needed - Request list
Upcoming Elections
from HR
12/16/2014
2/5/2015
Submit 2/5/2015 Finalized on 2/20/2015
Distribute Ballots
Collect Ballots
Count Ballots
Send Congratulations
Letters
3/9/2015
DUE 3/27/2015
DUE 4/3/2015
DUE 4/6/2015
NOTES/LEGEND:
(1) Request dates are typically during FS Executive Meetings, otherwise on regular FS Meeting dates or closest date
(2) Status Indicator Colors: Green (Good), Yellow (Minor Issues), Red (Major Issues), Gray (Complete), no color (not yet started)
(3) Approved All-University policies – policies that either already exist as university policies (on this website: http://www.uwstout.edu/parq/policies-sequential-index.cfm) or policies that the Chancellor has indicated
University of Wisconsin - Stout Confidential
3/10/2015
Page 2
COMPLETED ITEMS - FACULTY SENATE DASHBOARD FOR 2014-2015
Status Indicator Colors: Green (Good), Yellow (Minor Issues), Red (Major Issues), Gray (Complete), no color (not yet started)
Charges/Other
Staff
Responsible
Charge
Requested
Request
Approved by
FS
Results or
Recommendation
Presented to FS
Final
Recommendation
Approved by FS
Recommendation
Approved by
Chancellor
Recommendation
Implemented
Policies
Staff
Responsible
Policy
Requested
Request
Approved by
FS
Draft or
Recommendation
Presented to FS
Final
Recommendation
Approved by FS
Recommendation
Approved by
Chancellor
Policy Added to
Handbook
Administrative Procedures
Staff
Responsible
Task Start
Request
Approved by
FS
Results or
Recommendation
Presented to FS
Final
Recommendation
Approved by FS
Recommendation
Approved by
Chancellor
Standing Committee Work
Staff
Responsible
Task Start
Request
Approved by
FS
12/9/2014
Results or
Recommendation
Presented to FS
Final
Recommendation
Approved by FS
Recommendation
Approved by
Chancellor
Academic Calendar 2016-2017
Professorships Timeline, Application,
Marketing Plan
Update Credit Hour Policy
Academic Calendar 2014-2015 & 20152016
EAC
Sabbatical Recommendations for 201516
Sabb.Leave.R
ev.
Sabbatical Application Review
Sabbatical Recommendations for 201516
Professorships Recommendations
Recommendation
Implemented
Recommendation
Implemented
10/15/2014
EAC
EAC
Bryan
Beamer, PPC
Sabb.Leave.R
ev.
University of Wisconsin - Stout Confidential
Due 05/30/2015
Graduate
ceremony on
Friday night?
Started
10/28/2014
Deadline for
app. Is
9/26/14
Started
3/10/2015
3
COMPLETED ITEMS - FACULTY SENATE DASHBOARD FOR 2014-2015
Status Indicator Colors: Green (Good), Yellow (Minor Issues), Red (Major Issues), Gray (Complete), no color (not yet started)
Promotion Timeline 2015-2016
Sabbatical Timeline 2014-2015 for
2015-2016
Tenure Timeline 2015-2016
Faculty Senate Pilot Research Fellows
Selection Committee
2016-2017 Academic Calendar
University Committee Work
New All-University Policy on
Volunteers
Campus Physical Development
Validation Team
Program Viability Taskforce
Representative
Bryan
Beamer, PPC
10/17/2014
10/28/2014
Bryan
Beamer, PPC
10/17/2014
10/28/2014
Bryan
Beamer, PPC
10/14/2014
10/28/2014
10/15/2014
List of
awardees due
to Chancellor
by 11/19 Submitted
Daniel Kelsey,
EAC
12/9/2014
Staff
Responsible
Task Start
Request
Approved by
FS
Ted Harris
Submit
representative
to Kristi
Krimpelbein
by 2/06/2015
2/3/2015
Submit
representative
Nelu Ghenciu
to Tom Dye by
2/6/2015
Submit
representative
Renee
to Jackie
Chandler
Weissenburger
by 2/4/15
Elections
University of Wisconsin - Stout Confidential
Confirm
Elections
Needed
Awards approved by Chancellor due 11/21 - Completed - final letters to awardees
Results or
Recommendation
Presented to FS
Final
Recommendation
Approved by FS
Recommendation
Approved by
Chancellor
Recommendation
Implemented
Distribute Ballots
Collect Ballots
Count Ballots
Send Congratulations
Letters
2/3/2015
2/3/2015
Communicate
Call for
Upcoming
Nominations
Elections
3/10/2015
4
COMPLETED ITEMS - FACULTY SENATE DASHBOARD FOR 2014-2015
Status Indicator Colors: Green (Good), Yellow (Minor Issues), Red (Major Issues), Gray (Complete), no color (not yet started)
All University Promotion Committee
Fall Elections - Professorship, Senators,
Standing Committees & University
Committees
8/1/2014
8/12/2014
Done
9/10/2014
Due
10/1/2014
Representative for Inauguration
Event
Petre (Nelu)
Ghenciu is
the
representativ
e
DONE
8/27/2014
Done 9/5/2014
Done 9/9/2014
Sent 9/11/14
Sent 10/20/2014
Done - 10/31
Done - 11/3/2014
Done 11/5/2014
12/9/2014
NOTES/LEGEND:
(1) Request dates are typically during FS Executive Meetings, otherwise on regular FS Meeting dates or closest date
(2) Status Indicator Colors: Green (Good), Yellow (Minor Issues), Red (Major Issues), Gray (Complete), no color (not yet started)
policies that the Chancellor has indicated via a memo requesting that the policy review team be appointed (for example, service animals policy and non-discrimination for
University of Wisconsin - Stout Confidential
3/10/2015
5
COMPLETED ITEMS - FACULTY SENATE DASHBOARD FOR 2014-2015
Status Indicator Colors: Green (Good), Yellow (Minor Issues), Red (Major Issues), Gray (Complete), no color (not yet started)
University of Wisconsin - Stout Confidential
3/10/2015
6
COMPLETED ITEMS - FACULTY SENATE DASHBOARD FOR 2014-2015
Status Indicator Colors: Green (Good), Yellow (Minor Issues), Red (Major Issues), Gray (Complete), no color (not yet started)
sent 12/2/14
University of Wisconsin - Stout Confidential
3/10/2015
7
Charges/Other
Staff
Responsible
Charge
Requested
Results or
Request
Recommendat
Approved by
ion Presented
FS
to FS
John Kirk
9/20/2011
11/15/2011
May, 2012
Robin Muza,
CIC
N/A
N/A
3/6/2012
Ruth Nyland, PPC
11/1/2011
11/15/2011
3/6/2012
Barb Flom, EAC
10/2/2012
Preliminary
Report
2/19/2013
Loretta Thielman,
Ad hoc
Committee
Diane Olson, Bob
Atwell
4/9/2013
Program/Course Review
Procedure
Action for Any GE
Category Course
Emeritus Perks
E-Textbook
Subcommittee - Progress
Report
Course Evaluations
School vs Dept. Bylaw,
Article II.2
Sexual Harassment Policy
91-53
Engagement Session Admission Requirements
(new charge issued
5/28/2014 by Chancellor)
10/18/2011
Progress
Report DUE to
SPG January
2015
4/9/2013
Appt. by FS
Chair
DUE May 22,
2015
5/7/2013
12/13/2011
Final Recommendation
Approved by FS
Recommendation
Approved by
Chancellor
Recommendation
Implemented
4/11/2012
There was a recent policy
change that needs to be
updated in the
handbook.
Talked to John Kirk on
03/29/2013 and he said
it is not being worked
on and can be removed
from dashboard.
no action taken
4/3/2012
3/6/2012
Continue to work on in the
fall.
12/13/2011
sent to Pete Schlosser
06/13/2013
Rescinded by Chancellor
RESCINDED VIA CHANCELLOR MEMO DATED 10/152014