The chair put up an overhead transparency itemizing all of the major components of our current annual budget.  Our challenge was to assemble enough proposed cuts in specific areas to reach our target, and we were specifically asked to do this in a way that “wouldn’t hurt students.”  The presumption apparently being that there must be 8% somewhere in our budget that has nothing to do with teaching or mentoring our undergraduate or graduate students and could be jettisoned without students ever noticing.

To put this presumption into perspective, we have already had to make a variety of painful cuts over the past ten years, including a roughly 30% reduction in our faculty size as faculty retired or left faster than new searches were authorized.    And as a consequence of the reduced faculty size, we were already routinely leaving popular elective courses untaught that had previously drawn hundreds of undergraduate enrollees each year.  And it is well-known that undergraduates in L&S are already having serious trouble finding open lower-division electives that satisfy their general education requirements, let alone finding electives that they are actually interested in.

Our TA allocation also suffered significant reductions over that time, which further limited our ability to offer courses with lab sections or with writing components that satisfied Comm B requirements for L&S majors.  It also reduced our ability to offer financial support in the form of TA positions to highly qualified new graduate students,  impacting our research and graduate education missions as well as undergraduate teaching.

Clearly, budget cuts we had already absorbed over the year were already hurting students.  And now we were being asked to find more potential cuts that would not compound the hurt?

As we perused the fairly short column of figures tabulated on the overhead slide, it was glaringly apparent that there was simply no way to achieve an 8% cut without considering faculty salaries and/or office staff salaries, TA positions,  and basic services like copy machine leasing and supplies, office telephones and voicemail.

We decided we couldn’t further reduce the faculty or TA portion without devastating our ability to teach much-needed courses while also conducting the research that, not incidentally, still brings in far more outside research dollars each year than we were being asked to cut from our departmental budget!

And we had already absorbed a reduction in our small office staff fairly recently.  Any further reductions would mean that faculty would have to start taking over some clerical tasks.  Is it cost-effective for a professor with a PhD, who makes 2-3 times as much as a secretary, and who brings in hundreds of thousands of research dollars a year, to start doing clerical work instead of research? Our answer, of course, was no.

Without going into details of our discussion, suffice it to say that the atmosphere in that meeting was funereal.   At one point, the proposal was finally floated that we could achieve a significant part of our required reductions by dispensing with the yearly budget for office telephones and voicemail.   Telephones!! Yes, it was argued, everyone had personal cell phones.  We could manage.

It is indicative of how few options we felt we had that this suggestion was not rejected out of hand.  We openly wondered how many businesses in Scott Walker’s much-vaunted private sector were contemplating the elimination of conventional landline telephones to reduce “fat” in their budgets.

At this point, it still isn’t clear what we’ll do to achieve our target budget reduction.  But dispensing with office telephones and voicemail remains one of the least unattractive possibilities.   Something that is still taken for granted at home and in the private sector has now been relegated to the status of luxury at Wisconsin’s flagship university.

This is what it has come to.  All because the ideologues who have gained influence and political power in recent years would sooner take a wrecking ball to the infrastructure that once made Wisconsin one of the most prosperous, educated, well-run, and, let’s face it, civilized states in the country than unapologetically raise the revenues needed to sustain that excellence.

From: Gary Sandefur, Dean, College of Letters and Science

Date: November 13, 2009

Re:   Proposed Reorganization of the Graduate School

Cc:              Chancellor Martin, Provost DeLuca, Vice Chancellor Cadwallader, Vice Chancellor Bazzell, Vice Chancellor Sweeney, Letters and Science Faculty, Staff, and Graduate Students

I write in regard to the proposed reorganization of the Graduate School into two separate entities and the creation of a new position of Vice Chancellor for Research that is distinct from the Dean of the Graduate School.  My statement reflects what I have heard from my faculty, staff, and graduate students, and my own views about how to move forward.

I hosted one Town Hall meeting in Science Hall and co-hosted another in the Humanities Building.  I also discussed these issues with my Associate Deans, with the L&S Academic Planning Council, with the L&S Council on Academic Staff Issues, and with the L&S Faculty Senate.  In addition I have participated in discussions of these issues at the Chancellor’s Cabinet and in the Deans’ Council.  I thank Provost DeLuca and Chancellor Martin for encouraging open discussion of these issues by the Deans and for providing us with several opportunities to do so.  I have also had a number of one-on-one conversations with faculty and staff.

Almost everyone with whom I talked in the College was concerned that the creation of a new position seemed to be on a very fast track.  Most of the people with whom I talked expressed a preference for the track we are now on, where there is extensive campus discussion culminating in reports from the Faculty and Academic Staff Ad Hoc Committees to the Chancellor and the Provost.  I express my thanks to our Chancellor and Provost for their responsiveness to concerns voiced by many faculty and staff.

An issue of general agreement is that the world of research has become increasingly complicated.  Part of this has to do with regulations.  New regulations involving conflict of interest, effort reporting, institutional review boards, compliance, and allowable expenditures with federal grant money have created headaches for researchers and research administrative staff.  Another major change is the growth in multi-investigator and sometimes multi-institutional awards and the opportunities for pursuing these awards.  These new sorts of opportunities require a different sort of approach than grants involving one or two principal investigators.  I also heard general support for more resources in research and sponsored programs and compliance, including laboratory safety.

As one would expect there is no one view from within the College of Letters and Science on how to address these issues and whether the proposed reorganization is the way to go.  The current discussion has provided an opportunity for people to reflect on how the University might address these issues.  Some people have expressed support for the proposed reorganization, pointing to the fact that most of our peer institutions have separate research and graduate education entities.  Others expressed openness to the idea but wanted to hear more information about 1) what would remain in the Graduate School and what would be part of the new office; 2) how would this address the issues that have been previously identified with Research and Sponsored Programs, contracts with private industry, laboratory safety, and other compliance issues; 3) how much would this cost; and, 4) how would the costs be paid?  Still others expressed the view that we have not had to pay any major fines, as have some institutions with a separate graduate school and research enterprise, and we are among the leaders in research and development spending, so why do we need to contemplate a major change?  Should we not be focusing just on reorganizing problematic areas and putting resources and personnel into under-funded parts of our research administrative infrastructure?

A concern that I heard frequently was the fear that the reorganization of the Graduate School and the research enterprise was being driven by needs and concerns in the biomedical research community.  This concern was expressed not only by members of the arts, humanities, and social sciences but also by faculty and staff in the biological and physical sciences.  The fear is that focusing exclusively on the needs of the biomedical research community in any reorganization may unintentionally disadvantage researchers in other fields.

Another concern was that the current organization allows for a major role of shared governance in the research enterprise, and that moving the research enterprise to a Vice Chancellor position would not be conducive to this.  Still another concern was that much of the discussion focused on research, and only passing attention was given to graduate education.

My own views about all of this are as follows.  I think it is good to ask ourselves why most of our peers now have a structure that differs from ours.  Most of them have separate graduate school and research enterprises.  Perhaps we have a good deal to gain from doing this.  On the other hand, it could be that our situation is such that our system works better for us than what most of our peers do.  To resolve this question would seem to require some conversations with our peers about the costs and benefits of their system relative to ours.

I do think it is time to reexamine our graduate education and research enterprises and ask ourselves how we can best position ourselves for future success.  Both research and graduate education have changed significantly in recent times.  I do not claim to know what the best structure is.  However, we should examine the changes that have occurred and develop some proposals for adapting to these changes.

One could imagine a separate Vice Chancellor for Research, or a Vice Provost for Research, or a position for research that reported to the Dean of the Graduate School.  I do not think it is a good idea to create such a position and then charge that person with the task of reorganizing our research enterprise with no budget, no staff with whom to work, and no well-defined process for moving forward with reorganization.  I think that is too much to ask.  Instead I think a committee or task force appointed by the Chancellor, the University Committee, and ASEC should examine our problems and our opportunities and suggest a set of alternatives from which the Chancellor and Provost can choose.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input into the discussion.

DISCLAIMER:  The letter from L&S (and therefore this post) is intended strictly as a convenient guide to the contract changes and presumably has no binding authority.  Please refer to the actual collective bargaining agreement for authoritative information. Sifting and Winnowing is not responsible for any inaccuracies or omissions either in the original letter from L&S or in our reproduction of that letter.

Summary of Changes in the 2007-09 to TA Contract

Wages, Benefits and other Cost Items

Article X, Section 1:    Wage Adjustments

• General Wage Adjustments:
  • Year 1:      2%
  • Year 2:     1% effective Semester I; 2% effective nearest pay period to 6/7/09

Paid as lump sum (minus the amount of increased health insurance premiums owed by employees) to all bargaining unit members (except hourly PAs and Reader/Graders) in pay status on April, 2009 payroll. The amount is $623.62 Note: the amount will be reduced by the amount of

• $95 lump sum to all TAs and PAs (including hourly PAs, excluding Readers/Graders) in pay status on the April 2009 payroll. This represents the 08-09 cost to the university if we had eliminated the lowest TA level beginning Semester I of 08-09.

• This is not in the Wage Adjustments document, but has been agreed to by OSER, UW and the TAA.

• • TAs and PAs on the October, 2009 payroll will receive retroactive pay as if the new rates were in effect on July 1, 2009 for PAs (all of whom are A-basis) and on August 24, 2009 for TAs (all of whom are C-basis).  This pay is though the October payroll month. The difference in the monthly employee health insurance premiums will be deducted from the pay for that period.

• • TAs and PAs will be paid the new rates on the regular payroll cycles beginning with the November payroll month.

This table shows the anticipated pay dates for all of the wage adjustments.

Article X, Section 2:  Experience/Training Levels

• Allows K-8 teaching experience to count as experience.

• Eliminates language requiring diversity issues training to qualify for the experienced rate.  Instead requires completion of the diversity issues training in order to be reappointed for more than one semester.

• Eliminates the “Regular TA” level beginning 09-10; changes the name of the “Experienced TA” to “Standard TA.”  There are now only two levels of TA.

2008-09 Titles and Rates – to be used until the 2009-10 contract is negotiated

Article XI, Section 1:            Health Insurance

• Increases TA/PA health insurance monthly premiums for Tier 1 plans by $2 for Single and $5 for family coverage beginning January, 2009

Negotiating Note #3:            Child Care

• Increases the Employer’s 2007-09 set aside for TA/PA child care expense assistance from $150,000 to $157,500.

LANGUAGE

Article II, Section 11:            Union Orientation

• We agreed on include TAA membership card with “Membership information” already provided to new TAs and PAs.
• We added language stating that departments may agree to allow the TAA at least 15 minutes to make a presentation at orientation sessions.

Article V, Section 6:            Appointments

• We agreed on requiring open PA appointments to be posted on the web (Student Job Center) unless the position is reserved for guarantees of support or recruiting offers, reappointments or those that have to be filled within 7 days for emergency purposes.

Article V, Section 9:            Work Surroundings

• We agreed on providing an internet accessible computer with printing capability when it is determined by the employer to be necessary for performing assigned duties.

Article VI, Section 1:            Orientation and Training

• We changed EDRC to OED
• We agreed to add language that allows OED to approve alternative diversity workshops to the standards workshops.

Article VII, Section 1:                        Discrimination

• We agreed on adding language to cover gender identification and expression as a protected status.
• We agreed on adding language stating that employees should not be subjected to “discriminatory behavior that precludes, distracts or otherwise encumbers the employee from performing the duties of his or her job.”

Article VIII, Section 13:            Lactation Rooms

• We agreed on language requiring the employer to have at least three lactation rooms on campus; the employer needs to consult with the Campus Childcare Committee on the location of and specifications for such rooms.

NOTE: UW-Madison currently has 7 lactation rooms on campus.

• We agreed on minimum standards for at least three of the lactation rooms:
  • is at least 70 sq ft
  • cannot be a bathroom
  • has a curtain or door for privacy
  • has accessible electrical outlets
  • has a couch or chair
  • has a trash can
  • has a table or counter space
  • is on the same floor as a bathroom
  • has two pro-lactation posters, and
  • has a means of indicating that the room is occupied or vacant.

NOTE: UW-Madison currently has three rooms that need only the posters to meet these standards.

Article XI, Section 5:            Sick Leave Credit Bank

• Allows sick leave to be used in increments of ½ days instead of the previous one full day.  This will increase the effective amount of sick leave available.

Memo from UW to TAA re:             Catastrophic Leave

• We agreed on this memo to document options available to a TA or PA with a catastrophic illness during the semester.  It does not create any new benefits or practices.  It covers three areas of concern.

• • Impact on employee’s stipend
  • Impact on tuition remission
  • Impact on health insurance coverage

Negotiating Note #9:            PA Academic Basis Appointments

• Creates a C-basis PA appointment in addition to A-basis appointments; requested by UW.

Note:  Current PAs should not be converted to C basis until July 1, 2010 or later.  New PA appointments may be made on a C-basis immediately.

OHR         11/4/09

The meeting was well-attended, primarily by folks from Letters and Sciences this time since L&S was the nominal sponsor of this particular event.

Provost Paul DeLuca built his pitch around the following contentions:  (1) our “research structure is broken,” and, therefore,  (2) only the creation of a new administrative hierarchy, headed by a Vice Chancellor for Research who reports directly to the Chancellor, can save the University from the threat of a major meltdown.

His presentation was low-key, measured, and reassuring in tone.  In particular, he said all of the right words concerning shared governance, the importance of integrating the graduate education and research missions of the University, and the need to preserve the benefits already available under the current system (e.g., WARF funds for the Fall competition and graduate fellowships, and so on).  It seemed clear that the talking points had been fine-tuned at least in part in response to feedback already received.

But as important to the audience as the things that were said were the things that were not said and the questions that were not directly answered.   Without exception, audience comments and questions were skeptical, often sharply so.  These included the following (paraphrased):

• Apart from the specific examples offered by the Provost (e.g., biosafety violations, AAALAC accreditation concerns, and federal grant compliance management problems),  what evidence is there that the research structure as a whole is broken?
• What is the specific evidence that the proposed restructuring would fix the problems?
• If the problem is simply one of resources, why does it make a difference whether the resources are allocated within our existing framework or allocated to a whole new bureaucracy?
• Given that resources are tight, what will it cost in resources to reorganize?
• If the purpose is to ensure that one individual can focus his/her managerial skills on the complex problem of research management, why not simply create separate administrator positions for research and for graduate education, but both reporting to the Dean of the Graduate School?

In addition, it was noted by several from the humanities that most of the crises cited by Provost DeLuca were specific to the hard sciences.  Where would humanities and social sciences research and graduate education  fit into the new research structure, and would they be marginalized?  Where would centers go that have natural ties to graduate education, outreach, and research?  No one I spoke to after the meeting felt that this question had been adequately answered.

Interestingly, even some of us in the physical sciences felt that he had emphasized problems that seemingly concerned the bioscience and medical research infrastructure.  Were we being asked to accept major disruptions and risks for reasons that had little to do with us?

If the audience’s skepticism could be summarized in just two questions, it would be these:   Even if we acknowledge that there are some serious issues that need to be addressed with more resources and (undoubtedly) better management, where is the evidence that this proposal is the only solution worth entertaining, and how can we be certain that it would have the intended effect without unintended consequences for research and/or graduate education?

One question was not explicitly asked that perhaps should have been:   What will be the precise mechanism for the formal participation of the faculty and staff, according to the principle of shared governance,  in such a far reaching decision?

Merely being granted the opportunity to vent at a town hall meeting does not count.

- GP