Oct , 2012
To:!
!
!
!
Joe Gow, Chancellor, University of Wisconsin - La Crosse! !
!
!
Madeline Holzem, UW - La Crosse, Human Resources Director
Alan Crist, Associate Vice President, Human Resources & Workforce Diversity
Jason Beier, UWSA Human Resources & Systemwide Classified Personnel Director
From:!Steven Senger, Chair, 47th Faculty Senate
Re:!
Faculty Senate Response to Proposed Implementation Decisions Document
At its Sept 20, 2012 meeting the Faculty Senate at UW-La Crosse reviewed the recently
published Proposed Implementation Decisions Document produced by the UW-System Task
Force on New Personnel Systems. This letter details the questions and concerns raised at that
meeting. In general, the Faculty Senate is concerned that many items remain ambiguous in their
application to faculty. We had hoped that by this stage it would be obvious whether any of the
provisions of the existing UWS sections and related documents would be changed by the
proposed new personnel rules. We find that we cannot satisfactorily answer this question.
Responses are organized by decision document number.
EC1 - UW-La Crosse currently includes instructional academic staff with faculty governance as
allowed by Chapter 36. We strongly believe that campuses should retain this option.
EC 2 - We assume that individuals could only move into Academic Staff categories for which
they were otherwise qualified.
EE 5 - This item is simply unacceptable. We find that the current UWS documents, in
comparison, exercise care in defining allowed and prohibited activities. The associated decision
document presents many areas of concern. For example, in section “II Regulations - Prohibited
Conduct”, how will “false or malicious statements” (L), “failure to exercise good judgment” (O)
and “being discourteous” (O) be defined?
EE 7, EE 8, EE 9 - We understand these as only pertaining to existing classified staff that move
into the University Staff category.
COMP 1 - It is not clear if this would change the current system for faculty. Is this item intended
to extend the faculty system of merit evaluation to other categories or is some other change
imagined?
RA 1 - This item discusses “integrating current unclassified and classified recruitment policies
and practices into a single system of university employment”. Much of the discussion in the
associated document is familiar in the context of classified and academic staff hiring. What does
it mean to integrate this with unclassified (i.e. faculty) hiring? UW-La Crosse hires faculty in the
same manner that other universities hire faculty. What is the substance of the imagined
“integration”?
EC 4 - This item seems unnecessarily indirect and tentative. Are there really questions
concerning total compensation and titles that require consultants? We favor funding going to
compensation, not more consultants.
EE 6 - This item pertains to University Staff. We assume for faculty UWS 8 will remain in effect.
COMP 2 - This item discusses the “current ability of UW System institutions to fund and
implement supplemental pay plans”. It is not clear that we actually have this ability since the
recent attempt to implement such a pay plan produced a different outcome.
STAT 2 - This item implies that only two changes to Chapter 36 are envisioned. Is this correct?
EE 1, EE 2, EE3 - Again, much of what is contained in these items is familiar in the context of
classified and academic staff but the items are unclear in their intended application to faculty.
We assume that the existing methods for review of probationary faculty, promotion review,
annual reviews and merit reviews will remain. If this is the case then what do these items intend
to change?
We look forward to hearing from you about the questions that we have raised.