INSTRUCTIONAL ACADEMIC STAFF PROMOTION COMMITTEE
2014-2015 FINAL REPORT
Committee Meetings:
Monday, November 10, 2014
Tuesday, January 13, 2015
Friday, May 15, 2015
Additional:
Informal Meetings between Chairs of IAS-PC and IAS Committees to discuss shared Charge
The IAS-PC held its 2014-2015 organizational meeting on Monday, November 10, 2014. At this meeting, officers were
elected and the committee discussed its charge as well as the timeline for reviewing IAS Promotion candidates. Kerrie
Hoar, IAS Liaison, was a guest at this meeting to answer questions about the promotion process.
The committee met again on January 13, 2015 for the IAS Promotion Discussion meeting. Bob Hoar, Associate Vice
Chancellor for Academic Affairs, was a guest at this meeting, serving as a representative from the Provost’s office. The
committee reviewed four files and forwarded its recommendations to the Provost. A follow-up meeting was held between
committee chair Linda Dickmeyer and Bob Hoar to discuss draft letters and process for delivery of letters. Bob is
interested in a streamlined re-write of the current IAS Promotion Process and Linda will work on this with Aaron Monte.
Any changes that may be proposed will go through the 2015-2016 IAS Promotion Committee and Faculty Senate.
Our final committee meeting was held on Friday, May 15. Sue Angelhart, IAS Committee Chair, was a guest. Together,
we discussed updates from both committees regarding our shared charge.
Special Charges
In addition to the committee’s normal duties, we were assigned the following special charges:
 Consider revisions to the Individual Development Plan (IDP) and the Position Description
 Investigate changes in the IAS merit review, annual review, and promotion review processes so that these
processes are streamlined and better support a desirable career progression [promotion].
Our committee’s special charges were the same as those charged to the IAS Committee and we reflect our work together
in our final reports. Some context is needed in order to explain past, current and future work related to these charges,
which are closely intertwined in intent and resolution. The information provided includes conversations with and facts
provided by representatives in HR.
What is an IDP? The IDP is a template developed with HR and past IAS committees and is intended to be part of the
IAS annual review process. The IDP has two templates to choose from, and both include a position description. The
templates are found here on the HR website.
While a yearly review of all IAS members is required, the use of the IDP template is optional. A position description is
required as part of the process, but many department use the description template rather than editing it to reflect an
individual’s position description. Clearly, the design, intent and use of the current IDP have become cumbersome,
misunderstood and obsolete. To be clear, the IDP form is not required; a yearly evaluation in some form is required and
must include a position description.
In order to assist with a timely, consistent review process for IAS members, we feel that some document, or form, must be
developed and used across campus. The form provides a “tracking device” for all IAS members and should include the
position description for each IAS member, along with critical information about IAS members’ year of service, current
title, and type of contracted position (semester, 2-year renewable, etc). Department chairs should also know the funding
source for IAS members to determine if they are eligible for promotion, Redbook, etc.
Special Charge 1: Consider revisions to the IDP and the Position Description
Our two committees spent most of our time on this charge uncovering history and clarifying information. We think a form
to encourage and streamline the yearly review process is critical and timely and suggest that our work to this end continue
into 2015-2016. We ask that the language of “IDP” in reference to IAS annual reviews be eliminated as it adds to
confusion and misunderstanding.
Recommendation 1: We encourage SEC to provide a charge (to both IAS and IAS Promotion Committees) that asks us
to develop a simple form for all IAS annual reviews. The form will include a place to upload IAS members’ position
descriptions and also list critical information about years of service, title, and contract type. The form will also be open
enough to allow for departmental bylaw requirements and review of short-term, semester, part-time and continuing IAS
members. While a deadline to draft the form for fall 2015 may be too ambitious, we hope to complete the form for
approvals and adoption in time for the 2016-2017 review cycle.
Recommendation 2: Our research has uncovered a wide variety of practices across departments regarding IAS review,
with much confusion among Chairs and IAS members in all three colleges. Since a position description is required, we
encourage some process be put into place to find, share and store the position descriptions under which current IAS
members are working. This information is required for yearly reviews, but not available to many chairs (or even IAS
members) and will be helpful in the current discussions on campus surrounding workload, service and contract type for all
IAS members.
Special Charge 2: Investigate changes in the IAS merit review, annual review, and promotion review processes so that
these processes are streamlined and better support a desirable career progression [promotion].
Although the previous charge is specific to required IAS annual reviews, the review is one of three processes that new
(and seasoned) chairs and IAS members must navigate. Special charge 2 reveals the need for clear messaging across
campus, clarity of terms, and partnership with HR at UWL, as reflected in the recommendations.
Recommendation 3: While beyond our purview to find, use, craft or define terms here, we would like to see the
similarities and differences among the terms below somehow clarified for the greater campus community. Our description
includes notes on how we attempt to talk about and distinguish the terms within our committees.
IAS and NIAS – our committee work is exclusively with IAS positions. The two groups of UWL employees could be and
have been confused, including in our correspondence with HR. In actuality, the policies and governance are different, with
IAS-related issues more reflective of policies and processes found with faculty members.
Annual Review – a required part of holding a position; an attempt to ensure an employee is meeting or exceeding the
requirements of one’s job description. The annual review may be tied to contract renewals (providing evidence to renew
or not renew). The annual review is currently a part of an IAS member’s promotion file (and at this time, inconsistently
provided by chairs).
Promotion – recognition for excellent work at the title one wants to achieve; promotion should not be confused with “time
in title” or “years of service.” While time or years are part of promotion eligibility, time alone does not equate to
promotion.
Merit – annual review of excellence within departments; could be tied to promotion but promotion and merit are not the
same thing.
Equity adjustments – an equity adjustment is not the same as merit pay or a promotion increase. Helping departmental
members understand money as it pertains to positions is critical to understanding the requirements and reasoning that
surround review, merit and promotion processes.
Recommendation 4: We recommend that with the support of Faculty Senate, Human Resources send a clear and
consistent message about the requirement for and importance of IAS annual reviews for ALL IAS members at UW-La
Crosse, no matter the type and length of appointment. Further, a timeline for IAS review processes should be developed,
with clear deadlines for IAS members, Chairs, Deans, and final submission to HR. The timeline could mirror the review
schedule provided for Faculty members and reviews should be completed within the academic year.
We would like to make it clear that the specific process for IAS annual review will depend on individual department
bylaws. This is important so departments can review IAS members as part of their merit process, and/or in the fall, and/or
in the spring, according to what is most strategic for overall personnel processes within that department.
Recommendation 5: We recommend that with the support of Faculty Senate, Human Resources provide a clear message
to Chairs about when contract decisions should be made and how that aligns with contract delivery. We recognize that
College Deans may need to be part of this recommended timeline. The contract decision dates are helpful to Chairs who
wish to complete a review prior to contract renewals. The transparent dates for contract decisions and contract delivery
could easily become part of the timeline suggested in recommendation 4.
Recommendation 6: We recommend that with the support of Faculty Senate, Human Resources provide a document for
departments that shows information about IAS members’ year of hire, continuing or non-continuing years of service,
contract type, contract change, and promotion record. The IAS Committee asked for this over ten years ago and HR
correspondence this summer suggests the request remains in progress. In many cases, departments do not have Personnel
files or records to allow for this information-seeking; logically, HR would have access to all contracts for all departments.
In turn, this documentation would allow HR to send a promotion schedule/eligibility to all Chairs and IAS members each
fall, in the same way faculty promotion schedules and eligibility are provided. Missing in the loop is a clear timeline from
HR, and because IAS members are not currently tracked, the eligibility for promotion is not automatically triggered.
Recommendation 7: We recommend that IAS members are included in departmental merit processes. In cases where
departments do not have a merit review in place, a bylaw should be written and implemented as soon as possible.
According to information received about merit and discretionary merit funding, IAS members are not eligible for meritrelated funding when and if such monies become available. We highly encourage merit review to be part of the annual
review for IAS members, which clearly streamlines these two processes.
Final Thoughts
Our committee work to streamline IAS personnel processes must be proceeded by clear and direct messages about the
requirements, timing and format of these processes. We remain dedicated to advocating for IAS members as they are
reviewed for annual performance, for merit, and in preparation for promotion when eligible and ready. We will work to
improve confusing and inconsistent messages as found in UWL documents and on websites and welcome similar charges
for our committees’ work next year.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda Dickmeyer, Chair of IAS Promotion Committee
Kathleen (Kay) Dailey
Audrey Elegbede
Francine Klein
Sandra Koster
Laurie Miller, Secretary
Karyn Quinn