Faculty Representative Report
April 26, 2005


The meeting opened with a discussion of how various campuses address the issue of “productivity raises” to deal with matters of compression for senior faculty. Examples from Steven’s Point, La Crosse, and Oshkosh were discussed. The issue of obtaining funds for this through means other than or in addition to “merit” funds (such as base reallocation) was addressed.

Next, there was a discussion of the ongoing budget process. Associate Vice President for Government Relations, Margaret Lewis, and Joe Heim, Faculty Representative from UW—La Crosse chaired this discussion. The UW—System budget is to be addressed in early to mid-May. UW—System continues to prioritize the pay plan. The speculated salary increases were discussed. It was noted that President Reilly asked for “market adjustment” additional funds.

I chaired the following session on open meetings. Chris Ashley provided legal council from UW—System. He informed us on state requirements. There was extensive discussion on open meetings policies for tenure meetings. It was confirmed that the faculty member can request an open meeting. If this is done, then the entire meeting is open (i.e.: there is no closed session). UW—System does not require open meetings for position renewals or promotions (i.e.: only for tenure itself). Appeals of tenure decisions, according to legal council, are not the same as an open meeting for tenure. In such meetings, committee can go into closed session.

Also, the matter of secret ballots was discussed. With the exception of the election of officers, there can be no secret ballot. In other words, the overall total vote (but not necessarily the individual’s vote) is a matter of record. And, it was pointed out that only a committee member can call for a roll call vote.

The next agenda item involved a discussion of considering some joint meetings between faculty representatives and academic staff council representatives (currently, these bodies meet separately). The general consensus was that while an occasional meeting together may be productive, generally, with the two bodies having distinct and separate issues, regularly combined meetings would be ineffective and inefficient.

Finally, there was a discussion on how the various campuses handle complaints against faculty. A variety of approaches were discussed. Generally, after a complaint is received by a chancellor, and, if a chancellor decides that the matter should be investigated further, the matter, typically, is reviewed by a human resource office and/or a personnel council. I discussed how our campus, under the leadership of Senator Cuzzo, has been working on an informal mediation process. There was strong interest in our approach.

At the close of the meeting, I was asked, along with Erika Sanders from UW—Milwaukee, to co-coordinate this year’s summer retreat for faculty representatives.


A number of faculty representatives attended the BOR meeting at UW—Stout on May 5th and 6th. I attended parts of both the Education Committee and Business and Finance Committee Meetings. Of particular note, the Regents are reviewing a variety of tuition options discussed in “Charting a New Course for the University of Wisconsin System” and “Building Our Resource Base Studies.” There was an overview of various tuition pricing options (per credit, cohort, progressive, self-supporting, tuition based on ability to pay, and single rate—for resident and nonresident). Pros and cons for each were itemized. Currently, the discussion is at an informational level.

Nicholas Sloboda
UW—Superior Faculty Representative