UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-EAU CLAIRE

UNIVERSITY SENATE MEETING

VOL. 40, NO. 2

 

September 23, 2003

 

 

Members Present:

 

Ken Akiba, Joey Bohl, Marcia Bollinger, Don Bredle, Jack Bushnell, Linda Carpenter, Jesse Dixon, Michael Dorsher, Margaret Dwyer, Robert Erffmeyer, Leslie Foster, Mitchell Freymiller, Warren Gallagher, Alan Gallaher, Andrea Gapko, Marc Goulet, Susan Harrison, Tim Ho, Ann Hoffman, Robert Hollon, Larry Honl, Robert Hooper, Mary Iribarren, Rose Jadack, Richard Kark, Fred Kolb, Tim Lane, Kate Lang, Gene Leisz, Barbara Lozar, Steven Majstorovic, Donald Mash, Rebecca Matter, Susan Mc Intyre, Rick Mickelson, Jane Pederson, Vicki Reed, Peter Rejto, Connie Russell, Richard Ryberg, Ronald Satz, Kathie Schneider, Roger Selin, Nick Smiar, Alex Smith, Linda Spaeth, Paula Stuettgen, Kent Syverson, Lois Taft, Dale Taylor, Roger Tlusty, Karen Welch, Sharon Westphal, Scott Whitfield, Michael Wick, Jean Wilcox, Steve Zantow

 

Members Absent:

 

Paul Butrymowicz, Terry Classen, Dan Drumm, Bruce Dybvik, Betty Hanson, Sean Hartnett, Jeremy Hein, Debra King, Barbara Mac Briar, John Melrose, Andrew Phillips, Bobby Pitts, Lorraine Smith, Todd Stephens, Rebecca Wurzer

 

Guests:

 

Robert Bolles, Mark Clark, Wilma Clark, Gina Duwe, Bernard Duyfhuizen, Meghan Fisher, Dale Johnson, Art Lyons, Kathy Sahlhoff, Andrew Soll, Donna Weber, Marty Wood

 

The regular meeting of University Senate was called to order by Chair Harrison at 3:02 p.m. on Tuesday, September 23, 2003 in the Tamarack Room of Davies Center

 

I.        Without objection, minutes of September 9, 2003 meeting of University Senate approved as distributed
Without objection, minutes of August 26, 2003 meeting of University Faculty and Academic Staff approved as distributed

 

II.      Chancellor’s Remarks – Chancellor Mash

·         At Friday morning meeting with area legislators, sponsored by Chamber of Commerce, comments all directed at budget and growing Wisconsin out of economic downturn

·         Eight or nine legislators present – all Republicans

·         They were looking forward to going back into session and coming up with own ideas about growing Wisconsin; several made positive comments about important role of university

·         Governor announced his plan two weeks ago

·         Although legislators said governor’s plan was incomplete, they were also charitable and complimentary about some things he put forward that they felt they could build on

·         Significant change in tone since complete change in leadership of Republicans and Democrats in Madison

·         May get some bipartisan attention on challenges of state – would seem to be good for university system

·         Following that session, sent letters to legislators

·         Commended them and provided with information on card just distributed to senators

·         Purpose of card is to head off additional budget reductions when deal with structural deficit by June of 2005 by pointing out disproportionality of cuts to UW-System in past

·         Other message is able to keep quality (such as US News & World Report ranking) by managing very carefully, but also by reducing capacity in public higher education system of state

·         Now even University of Wisconsin Colleges turning students away; not good for future of Wisconsin

·         Coming out of economic downturn can’t happen without more college degrees and more high-end jobs

·         Have to get back to investing in and growing capacity of UW-System

·         When introducing governor at meeting in Menomonie, had opportunity to talk about reduced capacity of UW-System and why Grow Wisconsin Plan can’t work without much healthier UW-System

·         Received well; governor made comments about UW-System before going on to his own remarks

·         Need to continue to make point as best we can – that’s what cards are for

·         By chancellors meeting Friday, Compensation Advisory Committee representatives will have given Katharine Lyall feedback on pay plan/health insurance issue

·         Response to question from floor

·         More cards available from Chancellor’s Office or News Bureau; will be distributed to all faculty and staff on campus shortly

 

III.    Chair and Faculty Representative’s Report – Chair Harrison

·         Welcome Senator Hollon, new senator from Department of Curriculum and Instruction

·         Next faculty rep’s meeting is teleconference on Friday, October 3, 2003

·         Next Board of Regents meeting in Oshkosh on October 9th and 10th

·         Any member of Faculty Personnel Committee, Academic Staff Personnel Committee or Executive Committee not having copy of Faculty and Academic Staff Handbook, let Senate Office know

 

IV.    Academic Staff Representative’s Report – Senator Wilcox

·         Met last Thursday

·         Louise Root-Robbins told us of UW-System Sloan Project for Academic Career Advancement

·         UW-System received $500,000 to look at effect of changing demographics (more women, more minorities) on academic community and how to deal with changes

·         Looking at workplace issues such as equity, flexibility and career options

·         George Brooks continued to talk about idea of increased contributions for health insurance premiums to partially fund pay plan

·         Reps realized idea not dead in water yet and grilled Brooks about plan

·         Reps drafted issue statement regarding academic staff and budget cutbacks

·         Now being looked at by Academic Staff Personnel Committee here

·         When talking about budget of UW-System, given message to say enough is enough, legislators need to get message this is painful; interesting that does not trickle down to individuals employed by System as got message it is not good for UW-System for us to talk about our pain, meaning 0% raises

 

V.      Unfinished Business - None

 

VI.    Elections to Fill University-Wide Vacancies on Academic Staff Personnel Committee

·         Person elected to hold office until next regular election

·         Additional nominee since nominees were published, so will take additional nominations from floor today with election being held at next Senate meeting

 

Report of University Academic Staff Nominating Committee – Chair Leisz

·         Nominations for Academic Staff Personnel Committee

·         Joey Bohl from Admissions

·         Jacqueline Bonneville from Advising, Testing, and Orientation

·         Norm Card from TLTDC

·         No additional nominations from floor

 

VII.  Reports of Committees

¨       Executive Committee – Chair Harrison

  • At last meeting, set following topics for Open Discussion held here next week at 3:00 p.m.

·         Further updates on health insurance premiums and pay plan

·         Overview of proposed changes in English competency and Foreign Language/Foreign Culture requirements

·         Revisions to Academic Program Review Process

·         Topics of Attendees Choice

  • Next meeting October 7, 2003 to discuss

·         Membership requirements for various Senate Committees

·         Potential guidelines for constructing academic calendar in less than ideal years

¨       Faculty Personnel Committee – Senator Wick

  • Meet Tuesday, September 30, 2003 for updates from subcommittees

¨       Academic Staff Personnel Committee – Senator Wilcox

  • First meeting September 25, 2003 to

·         Elect chair

·         Look at issue statement from academic staff representatives

·         Consider changes in election of Academic Staff Representative and other handbook changes

¨       Academic Policies Committee – Senator Syverson

  • Meet again September 30, 2003
  • Talking about

·         Proposed revision of foreign language/foreign culture requirement

·         Proposed change to department program review policies – encourage early input on issue

¨       Physical Plant Planning Committee – No Report

¨       Budget Committee – Senator Dwyer

·         Organizational meeting set for October 1, 2003

¨       Compensation Committee – Vice Chair Gapko

  • Reached consensus at last meeting that if were to receive 2% pay increase, would temporarily suspend merit/market model and go with across-the-board percentage increase
  • Also agreed if George Brooks proposal to pay higher amount for health benefits for pay increases approved

·         Would recommend increase in January be flat dollar amount

·         Second increase in July be percentage increase

  • Committee discussed, but did not reach consensus, on whether to support pay plan already approved for nonrepresented classified staff (0% first year, 1% second year) or George Brooks’ proposal

¨       Nominating Committee – No Report

¨       Technology Committee – Senator Dwyer

·         Next meeting October 2, 2003 to elect chair and set agenda for semester

 

VIII.   Special Reports – Health Insurance Update – Vice Chancellor Soll

·          UW-System proposal brought to Compensation Advisory Committee to gather reaction from faculty and academic staff

·          By October 10th, Regents to make decision on pay plan recommendations to be sent forward – need reactions and comments down to System by tomorrow afternoon

·          Faculty/Academic Staff Pay Plan and Health Insurance for 2003-05 Biennium Power Point Presentation – handout distributed (see attached for details)

·          Faculty/Academic Staff Pay Plan

·          Health Insurance Programs and Premium Contribution Structure

·          Major Changes in Health Insurance Programs 2003-05 Biennium

·          New Standard Plan

·          Pharmacy Benefit Manager Program

·          Premium Contribution Structure

·          105% Model

·          80% Model

·          3-Tier Model

·          Alternative 3-Tier Model – UWS Alternative Compensation Plan

·          Advantages

·          Disadvantages

·          Next Steps in Pay Plan Process

·          Details not included in handout

·          Three categories of state employees that JCOER deals with – two directly, one indirectly

·          Represented classified employees pay plan determined by collective bargaining

·          Bargaining process also used to determine health insurance contributions

·          For faculty/academic staff, regents send proposal to Office of Employee Relations in Department of Administration, then to JCOER

·          Nonrepresented classified employees, not part of bargaining process, pay plan set by JCOER

·          Usually first to be set; establishes baseline for unions and university

·          Come January, may be three different contribution structures; level of complexity not dealt with before

·          System-wide about 77% of employees use plans that fall in Tier 1; at UW-Eau Claire, nearly two-thirds of employees participate in plans in Tier 2

·          Alternative Compensation Plan

·          For Group Insurance Board proposal, multiplier from single to family is 2.5; for alternative plan, multiplier is four

·          Plan would require use of one-time source of money in second year of biennium to make it work

·          Unclear where money will come from in future – serious disadvantage

·          No way to predict timeframe for pay plan process

·          Will be more opportunities to hear about insurance plans

·          Responses to Questions and Comments from Floor

·          At this point, have not heard any discussion of separating faculty from academic staff

·          UW-System Alternate Plan 2% increase would be to base, but be implemented in January of 2004

·          Non-formulary drugs did not apply to maximum this year

·          Tiers determined based on efficiency of plans, not on cost alone

·          Population served taken into consideration

·          Tier 1 most efficient

·          Have not seen actual documentation; part of reasoning was to encourage plans to increase efficiency

·          State-wide only four HMOs in Tier 2; two in Eau Claire County

·          System has been told by DOA Office of Employee Relations, if employee contribution not at least equal to three tier plan, proposal will not be approved

·          Tier 3 plan contributions considerably less than current because standard plan no longer the same; now total premium significantly lower

·          All HMOs cost more than under old 105% plan

·          Consistent with getting all employees to contribute something

·          Rate structure for alternate plan similar to that in other states and necessary to generate enough dollars to cover pay plan

·          Seems unless salary around $70,000, will pay more because 2% raise would not compensate for added insurance cost

·          If in Tier 1, would be money ahead

·          Have to take into consideration impact of higher salaries over years; can’t just look at premiums

·          Should point out to System how this looks in relation to item just discussed about work/life issues

·          System factored into equation that many may change to Tier 1 plans; did not factor in people moving from family to single plan

·          Don’t see avoiding getting 0% raises as good thing

·          Trying to make point that we are not being treated well; we got 0%, that is reality should let world know

·          Trying to pretend we didn’t get 0% so System can say they are taking care of us, does not change reality

·          One of George Brooks’ points is never trade salary for benefits

·          Salary increase advantageous in long run

·          Also other political considerations

·          Experience of 0% pay plan about a decade ago illustrated results of year of not advancing at all; why System more anxious now to avoid that

·          Employee contributions should have no impact on total premium for various plans – not giving more money to HMOs or Blue Cross

·          Hopefully plans will seek placement in Tier 1 by becoming more competitive

·          Alternative pay plan only applies to unclassified staff in UW-System, not all state employees, so limited potential to affect total premiums

·          One of risks of plan is state might just take extra contributions

·          Plan also puts more pressure on bargaining unions because this state group willing to pay bigger amount

·          Retirees pay full premium, not just employee share, so does not impact them

·          Contribution increases not only money being used to fund pay plan

·          About $22 million, from paying current premiums instead of two months in advance, also in plan

·          George Brooks believes at end of biennium, state would pick up this amount

·          In that case, would come out ahead

·          If support UW-System recommendation and live in Eau Claire, Dunn, or Chippewa County, will be funding larger share of system-wide pay raises because probably in Tier 2 plan

·          System response would be, with uniform benefits, move to Tier 1 program; is personal decision of how important current plan is relative to lower cost plans

·          Can’t predict how many employees would switch to Tier 1 plan; System did factor in some movement

·          Will continue to be enough providers to handle people that switch because HMOs don’t have own clinics and physicians; so change plans, but not necessarily providers

·          Even though health insurance is prepaid, when you leave state employment, you pay full premium

·          Contribution structure in effect for two years even if health insurance premiums rise in second year

·          Also now 2% closer to medium salary, so less likely to get pay raise next biennium

·          Base salary increase this year to come from compensation reserve; continuation of 2% increase would come from health insurance contributions and premium holiday

·          If salaries increased 2%, probably won’t be lowered later; UW-System would simply have to find way to fund meaning reduced support and decreased new hires

·          Choices not decreased, costs just changed

·          Increases in premiums down road may erode pay increases, although premium probably will go up in all plans

·          Old 105% model gone either way

·          Will get paid next week

·          People who pay single premium come out even better

·          Faculty can influence plan – why System floated idea

·          Contact Compensation Advisory Committee with input by noon tomorrow

·          Are other ideas still being considered for feasibility

·          Would like to see assumptions laid out – major assumptions of alternate plan problematic

 

IX.    Miscellaneous Business

 

Chair Harrison outlined options for getting to essential business of English Competency Exam considering open forum scheduled for next week (exam scheduled for October 11, 2003; next Senate meeting on October 14, 2003)

·         Give exam as scheduled and move forward with motion before next scheduled exam

·         Meet next Tuesday, prior to open forum, to handle motion

 

MOTION by Senator Gapko to continue this meeting next Tuesday at 3:00 p.m. in Tamarack Room for the English Competency Exam motion and shorten the forum seconded

 

Discussion

·         Favor eliminating exam, but can’t remember treating an issue this way in terms of scheduling; concerned standards being dropped

·         On urgent issues in past have suspended rules to vote at first reading; first reading of this motion was scheduled for today

·         Would have that option today if not for long health insurance/pay plan presentation

·         Could also continue now; typically many senators need to leave at 5:00 p.m.

·         Tried to propose in spring, but agendas full at that time

·         Wanted to save students from having to take exam that now feel is indefensible

·         Students already know elimination being proposed; dilemma whether to sign up now or wait and see

·         Affects ability to apply to School of Education

·         Proposal to do first reading of issue right now and meet again next week for second reading accepted as friendly amendment

 

MOTION passed without dissention

 

Academic Policies Committee – First Reading

Report on Removal of English Competency Exam from Graduation Requirements – Senator Syverson

·         Department of English brought issue forth because believe exam outdated based on way most students now write

·         For English Competency Exam, students sit down and write on paper; typically in English 110, use computer technology with rough draft and edits in iterative process

·         Propose English Competency Exam be dropped and a grade of C or better in English 110 satisfy university writing competency

·         Now most people have to take English 110 (or Honors 101, or English 112) and take this competency exam; if they pass English 110 or equivalent, but fail competency exam, then have not met writing competency requirement at UW-Eau Claire

 

Motion 40-AP-01

Moved and seconded by the Academic Policies Committee (9-0) that UW-Eau Claire no longer require an English competency exam for graduation.  Instead, a grade of C or better will be required in English 110 or 112, Honors 101, or a transfer equivalent to fulfill the University graduation requirement for writing competency.  Students who have earned credit in English 110 by means of the Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate examinations or have tested out of English 110 at UW-Eau Claire will have met the University requirement for writing competency.

 

We recommend the following procedure for making these changes:

 

Beginning in fall 2003

·         To eliminate the backlog, exempt from the exam all current students who, by the end of spring 2004, have earned a C or better in English 110 or 112, Honors 101, or a transfer equivalent. (Students who have not earned a C in one of those courses will need to pass the CLEP, a computer-based essay exam.)

 

Beginning in fall 2004

  • Remove the English competency exam from University graduation requirements

and

Require a grade of C or better in English 110 or 112, Honors 101, or a transfer equivalent to fulfill the University graduation requirement for writing competency.

 

Debate

·         Editorial change from word exam to examination in first line accepted without objection

 

Second reading and vote on this motion to take place on September 30, 2003

 

Meeting adjourned at 5:12 p.m. without objection

 

 

 

Wanda Schulner

Secretary to the University Senate