Chair's Report, 9-9-97

 

Budget

Recommendations of the Secretary of the Department of Employment Relations for 1997-99 Pay Plan as of August 13 1997 for Faculty and Academic Staff:

 

1997-98

3.0%

General Pay Plan*

1998-99

3.0%

General Pay Plan*

 

1.0%

Unfunded Merit (spend up to)

 

0.5%

Merit

 

 

 

 

1.0%

Unfunded Merit (spend up-to)

*increases in both years to be used for merit, retention, across-the-board as determined by the Board of Regents. At this time, the general pay plan may not be fully funded by the compensation reserve.

President Katharine Lyall's testimony to the Joint Committee on Employment Relations (JCOER) on August 27, 1997.

The proposed 4% and 4.5% pay plan increases for the biennium are badly needed by the UW System to help us reward and retain our most valuable resource: the people who teach, conduct research, and provide service to students and the State. Following one and two percent increases in 1995-97, this plan will enable us to stay in the competitive ball park-although it will still leave our faculty salaries below the average of our peers. ...

Because of the complexities in the '97-99 budget, I want to be very clear about our situation. The additional tuition authority provided in the Joint Finance bill is absolutely critical to our ability to implement a 4% / 4.5% pay plan for our unclassified staff.

As best as we understand it, the Secretary's pay plan recommendation will be partially funded by the state's compensation reserve at about 2% per year. Without the ability to use the tuition flexibility revenues to supplement this amount, we could face an unintended base reallocation of up to $42.6 million biennially. This is larger than the $33 million budget cut we faced in the last biennium. To avoid this unintended outcome, I would ask the JCOER's resolution on the Secretary's proposal specifically recognize our authority to supplement the pay plan for unclassified staff up to 4% / 4.5% from tuition revenues, GPR, or other funding sources. ...

As appreciative as we are of the proposed increases, however, I must note that requiring the University to fund perhaps as much as half of these increases from base reallocation is not a viable solution to our compensation needs. It appears to us at this point that the University would be required to reallocate $6.8 million biennially for the unfunded portion of the classified pay plan and up to a total of $42.6 million for classified and unclassified faculty and academic staff if just 2% of the pay plan is funded each year by the compensation reserve. Reallocating for pay plan simply robs one part of our instructional budget to increase another-it does not move us forward either in educational quality or service to students. ...

I would urgently hope that the Legislature would make it a top priority to fully fund the unfunded portion of the Secretary's proposed increases for 1997-99 as a "first claim" on any new or additional revenues that might be projected when November revenue estimates are completed.

 

In her presentation at the Faculty Reps meeting August 28, 1997:

Realistically, we will probably get the dollars to pay for the unclassified, but will still need to reallocate about $ 7 million for the classified pay plan. ... We need to keep a consistent message to the legislature that funding pay plans from reallocations in a base budget is not the way to do it.

If the budget gets to the Governor by mid October, we may see the results on the November 1st check, but don't be surprised if it isn't seen until December 1st. Pay increases will be retroactive to the beginning of the 1997-98 contracts.

Parking

In the original plan, there were four goals:

  1. increase spaces - increased Bollinger field about 100 spaces, add 300 more to upper campus next year
  2. increase fines - fully implemented; positive comments from students and faculty
  3. create a differential pricing structure - fully implemented pilot project, review not later than 2 years; as of Monday, September 8th: all 91 Guaranteed places have been sold (reduced from 117) 3 on waiting list: 29 faculty, 29 academic staff, 20 classified, 7 contract food service, and 6 administrators.
  4. create a transit system - fully implemented pilot project, review in 2 years; about 450-500 rode last Friday, includes faculty and staff. Note: Drivers with S or F decals can park in E-Economy lot and ride bus if necessary.

On Wednesday, lot analysis and vacancy counts begin. Please note some warnings were issued accidentally to those with last year's red decals. Last year's decals are still valid until Sept. 15 as printed.

Upcoming Issues:

Planning for Diversity
The current system-wide Plan for Diversity expires April, 1998. The System committee will be asking in February and March for feedback on their draft plan that will help guide the system through 2008. Hopefully, a final plan will be presented at the April Board of Regent's meeting for adoption. Only Washington, New Jersey, and Wisconsin have state-wide plans for Diversity.

In-house Issues:

Search & Screen Process for Chancellor
In Katharine Lyall's presentation at the Faculty Reps meeting August 28, 1997: The leadership of the Chancellor in fund-raising and community outreach is so important. We must find the very best people we can. Concern: get the right people and get the right assignment; we must be up front and gain an understanding of what their role is in the community and on campus. Since we cannot pay market value, we must make it exciting, challenging, interesting... can they have fun, be fairly evaluated, position themselves for the next step in their career. Search committees must be exceptionally thoughtful in the mandate give to the individual and how they will be evaluated on those mandates. We also need to emphasize that we are the only state in the Union that has shared governance written into the State Statues.

Members for Special Regent Committee for UWEC Chancellor Search

Regent Patrick G. Boyle (chair), member of Education Committee, Student Discipline and Other Student Appeals Committee, 21st Century Subcommittee

Regent Toby E. Marcovich, member of Business and Finance Committee, Audit Subcommittee

Regent Ruth Marcene James, member Physical Planning and Funding Committee, Personnel Matters Review Committee

Regent Grant E. Staszak, Student Regent, member Education Committee

 

Summary of Board of Regent policy 88-2 on Search and Screen Procedures for Chancellors

  1. Special Regent Committee confers with the President of the System and advises the President of any special qualifications for the position which it believes should be considered. The Committee and the President will work to produce a brief job description taking into account the special characteristics of the institution at which the Chancellor would serve.
  2. The System President shall appoint a Search and Screen Committee, the majority of which shall be faculty, comprised of:
    1. faculty selected after consultation with appropriate faculty representatives (usually 8 faculty; Lyall will be meeting with the Senate Executive Committee on September 23rd. She will be asking for a list of 16 faculty names.)
    2. Academic Staff selected after consultation with appropriate academic staff representatives (usually 2);
    3. students selected by the recognized institutional student government (usually 2);
    4. administrators representing institutions and the System Administration (usually 1 local, 1 outside); and
    5. at the option of the System President, one community representative (usually 1)

    A Chairperson is appointed from among the faculty members of the Committee.

    Interviews of candidates will be within the discretion of the Search and Screen Committee.

  3. At a joint meeting of the S&S, the System President, and the Special Regent Committee, the S&S shall provide a list recommending at least five individuals that it believes are qualified, in unranked order, along with an alphabetical list of all persons considered and provide an oral presentation on each of the candidates recommended.
  4. The System President and Special Regents Committee shall review all recommended candidates and conduct interviews. The System President may recommend a candidate to the Special Regent Committee which shall make its recommendation to the Board of Regents. Final approval shall be made by the Board.