Faculty Senate
Meeting of April 10, 2014
Robert C. Voight Faculty Senate Chambers – 325 Graff Main Hall
Vol. 48, No. 12
I.
Roll Call – Present: M. Allen, J. Anderson, C. Angell, E. Barnes, K. Beyer, L. Caya, M.
Current, L. Dickmeyer, N. Eschenbaum, A. Galbraith, P. Haried, D. Hart, K. Hoar, J.
Hollenback, J. Kirsch, R. McKelley, D. Riley, K. Rosacker, B. Seebach, J. Shanks, K.
Terpstra.
Excused: G. Cravins, F. Klein, B. Shrestha
II.
Approval of Minutes – the minutes of the March 27, 2014 meeting were approved as
distributed.|
III.
Reports:
A. Senate Chair:
1. Please emphasize in your classrooms, the importance of students’ voting on
April 15th in their elections and on two referenda.
2. The Legislators will be on campus May 9, 2014.
3. UAPUL-L and Faculty Senate will hold an Academic Freedom forum on April
17, 2014.
IV. 3-year replacement of IDAC:
A. Motion to approve David Howard – M/S/P.
V. Online Advisory Group:
A. Motion to accept definitions as amended – M/S/P.
In person: Course in which content delivery, course activities, and assessments take place in a
physical classroom.
Blended: Course in which content delivery, course activities and assessments take place in a
physical classroom and also online, which may reduce time in the classroom.
Online: Course in which all content delivery and course activities, and assessments take place
online. No face-to-face class meetings are required, but some exams and assignments may take
place at authorized locations established by the instructor.
VI. PTS Committee:
A. Recommendations for change in promotion on Faculty Senate.
Under 4.3 Promotion Criteria: Descriptions, Expectations and Evaluation
3. Candidates should provide evidence in all three areas for their time at UW-L. JPC
focuses on accomplishments made since the date of hire at UW-L. Activity conducted by
the candidate prior to joining the faculty at UW-L may or may not be given weight by the
committee.
Motion to accept recommendation as distributed and described – M/S/P.
B. Report on Salary Goals and Equity Plans.
Institutional Salary Goals
Based on results of a survey of faculty and IAS, a majority of respondents agreed with
the following statements about faculty and IAS salaries at UW-L. Therefore, the PTS
Committee recommends these as our institutional salary goals.
1. Salaries should be comparable to salaries at our peer institutions according to
CUPA data.
2. Salaries should reflect individual merit.
3. Salaries should be higher for individuals at higher ranks (within departments).
4. Salaries should be higher for individuals with more years in rank (within ranks
and departments)
5. Salaries should be negotiable at any time during one’s career, including at time of
hire or if one has a competing offer. However, funds may not be available or
allowed to be used for this purpose.
Guiding Principles for Future Salary Equity Plans
Based on the strengths, weaknesses, and general differences in the previously implemented
salary equity plans (see Attachment B), PTS asked survey respondents to prioritize different
criteria for developing future salary equity plans. The following guiding principles reflect
the majority of responses regarding these priorities as well as the salary goals stated above.
They are not listed in order of importance, but are generally arranged according to the level
of agreement with each principle.
1. Future salary equity plans should be primarily developed by faculty senate committees, in
consultation with UW-L administrators.
2. Future salary equity plans should primarily target individuals with salary equity issues
rather than groups.
3. Future salary equity plans should prioritize addressing issues of inversion and
compression.
4. Future salary equity plans should consider merit when determining salary equity issues if
merit considerations are allowable under the statutes pertaining to use of equity funds.
5. Future salary equity plans should consider years in rank when determining salary equity
issues.
6. Future salary equity plans should prioritize raising salaries that are low relative to CUPA
rather than salaries that are low in absolute terms.
7. Future salary equity plans should primarily be based on a formula but also include some
funds that are distributed using individual decisions by deans and chairs.
8. Future salary equity plans should give about equal priority to distributing greater amounts
of money to targeted individuals dealing with the most extreme salary equity issues as
well as lesser amounts of money to as many people as possible who are below their
CUPA targets.
9. Future salary equity plans should err on the side of reducing differences in salary that
currently exist between individuals in the same department, rank, and year in rank, as
those differences may be due to factors other than merit, unless it is known that the
differences are due to merit.
Motion to accept report as distributed and described – M/S/P.
VII. Academic Program Review Reports:
A. Mathematics.
1. Motion to accept report as distributed and described– M/S/P.
VIII. Discussion of SoE representative on Faculty Senate:
A. Motion to have a SoE representation on Faculty Senate.
1. Motion carries: 11-yes, 8-no, 2-abstain
B. Motion to limit the number of ways a SoE faculty member gain a seat on Faculty
Senate and vote.
1. Motion failed.
IX. Old Business
X. New Business
XI. Adjournment
A. Meeting Adjourned at 4.45 PM.
B. Respectfully submitted, Kirsten (Kris) Rosacker.