Last year, I wrote extensively about efforts led by former Chancellor Biddy Martin and her administration, donors, and alumni to privatize (or at least semi-privatize) the University of Wisconsin-Madison.  That effort was partially successful, for while Martin and colleagues failed to separate Madison from the rest of the UW System, or gain authority over tuition setting, they did succeed in getting Madison the authority to redesign its human resources system.  This new “flexibility” was praised by many on campus, including staff, faculty, and students, who recognize that the current bureaucracy is not working, especially for those outside of administration.

So, this year the Human Resource Design Project has been advertised as a tremendous opportunity, hard won, and far better than the alternative — the status quo.  Perhaps.  But few reforms are without consequence, and the recommendations recently offered by the working teams in HR Design suggest this case is no exception.  In fact, the potential long-term effects of this redesign process may result in an very different university culture, one that is far less progressive than Madison has historically been known for.  Instead, the recommendations will likely aggressively speed-up Madison’s transformation (I’d say descent) into a market-driven institution focused first and foremost on serving its paying customers.

Some specifics of the recommendations have been discussed over at Sifting and Winnowing and so I direct you to read the details there.  For example, the recommendations include combining the currently unionized classified staff and academic staff into one.  As severals members of the HR working teams point out, this has significant implications for the protections held by unionized workers: “If the state legislature does not amend these statutes, the combining formerly classified staff–the custodians, the office secretaries, financial specialists–into the employee category academic staff will take away the few remaining collective bargaining rights that they have fought and bargained for about 50 years.”  Both the classified staff and the academic staff object to this recommendation.

Another recommendation focuses on the distribution of employee pay based on labor market analyses. As members of the Wisconsin University Union point out, this can mean many things– some resulting in even lower pay for UW-Madison workers.  ”There is no standard labor market for any group or individual occupations (with the exception of building trades). There are often valid arguments to be made for or against choosing one group over another. However, choice of a particular labor market as the standard will frequently determine the result.”  Crucially, the current recommendations say nothing about providing cost of living increases to all employees, nor is there any consideration of years of experience with good performance.

Furthermore, the proper implementation of these recommendations will likely grow the size of central administration — not reduce it.  National studies indicate that growth in central administrations are the source of much of the increasing costs of college attendance, so we need to pay special attention here.  According to Joel Rogers, professor of Sociology, “Done properly, the task of specifying the real human capital requirements of hundreds of UW job titles; identifying jobs with the same requirements in external labor markets; collecting all relevant data on their compensation from private employers; and doing all this continuously enough to capture relevant changes, job titles, compensation practices, and labor market boundaries and participants is a massive amount of work.”

Finally, despite promises to the contrary, these recommendations involve cuts to employee compensation.  Specifically, academic staff will see their vacation benefits reduced.  As ASEC has pointed out, “newly employed academic staff will lose nearly 52 hours of vacation/personal time under this proposal. Children attending MMSD have 16 days of vacation that do not coincide with the UW’s current holiday schedule, which means a single parent would have four days of vacation left (after caring for her/his child when local schools are not in session).”  And yet UW claims that employees will not move backwards under the Redesign?

Now, to UW’s credit, this has been a somewhat transparent process.  Many public forums have been held, and there are many ways to provide input.  The 11 working groups on this effort involved many people– however, a closer look indicates that the vast majority (perhaps 2/3) are people currently in HR in the administration– there were not many faculty or union-represented workers involved.  Participation even among those on the work groups has been reportedly hampered by meeting times occurring early in the morning (e.g. before childcare begins) and during work hours.

Moreover, there has also been a continuation of last spring’s approach to talking to campus members– with administrators telling us what is “important” and “smart” without providing hard facts about the evidence on why.  Where does this proposed structure of titles come from? Where is the data regarding the effects of this sort of market-driven approach versus alternatives?  There is very little data given anywhere to back up the contentions in the recommendations, despite the very expensive contributions made by the Huron Consulting firm, hired under Martin to assist with this work.  The rhetorical approach is led by Robert Lavigna, who speaks about the importance of ensuring that the new system can attract and retain “the best talent.”  He utilizes the language of “flexibility”, “efficiency,” “effective.”  He promises a “greater connection between compensation and performance.”  In other words he talks a  lot like Biddy Martin, and others like her who are bringing business practices to education.

Thus, one key thing that the HR Redesign highlights is that the neoliberal politics embodied in Biddy Martin are not hers alone, and that she is indicative of a broader market-driven culture amongst those who surrounded and hired her, which continues to prevail in today’s UW-Madison (and indeed globally).  This recommendations were issued, and are being systematically advanced, despite her departure.  That is something we all must pay close attention to, as these political maneuverings will likely continue to shape the next stages in Madison’s development- especially the upcoming chancellor search.  Who will be in charge there? What “facts” will we be provided? What role will faculty, staff, and students play, relative to the roles played by WARF, donors, alumni, and administrators?

A thoughtful approach to considering the desirability of the marketization of Madison requires our community think about (1) What are the full set of alternative options under consideration? (2) What evidence is being presented about the likely intended and unintended consequences of each option? and (3) Who exactly stands to benefit, and in what ways, from each option?

Notably, these are not the kinds of questions Huron (our highly-paid consultant) is known for asking and answering. Instead, Huron emphasizes a one-directional model in which administration directs the activities of faculty and staff.  Laura Yaeger, VP at Huron, has said that “universities are getting a better understanding of what activities add value to students and stakeholders while  providing clearer guidelines for staff and faculty about which programs and activities should be supported.”   Does that sound like shared governance to you?  Who are those stakeholders?

We are told that once again, this is our only choice. Don’t listen.  This Redesign is neoliberalism at its finest, justifying marketization as a form of self-defense, redefining all interactions within the educational institution as essentially business relationships. We, the faculty and staff and our traditional protections, are being identified as the obstacle to market-based efficiencies.  The goal is to make UW-Madison less dependent on us.  This gives private investors greater opportunities to profit from state expenditure, while influencing the form and content of education. And it makes business and university administrators the main partnership, redefining student-professor relations.

It is imperative that educators across UW-Madison begin to understand and draw attention to how funding priorities, public-private partnerships, tuition and fees, cost-benefit analysis, performance indicators, curriculum changes, and new technologies change the content of academic work and learning, and how they collectively arise from global efforts to discipline academic labor for capital. The changes to Madison’s human resources system, and to its operations more broadly, are intimately linked to employment opportunities in Dane County and elsewhere, and to the kinds of education and services we deliver to the state.  If we are going to be market-driven in how we educate and serve Wisconsin, what we provide will be undoubtedly more unequally distributed.  Everyone should have something to say about that. As Lavigna has said “This system will affect everyone on this campus.”  He’s serious. You need to pay attention.

PLEASE: Send your feedback on HR Design to hrdesign@news.wisc.edu

Sara Goldrick-Rab
Associate Professor,
Educational Policy Studies

The Human Resource (HR) Design Project has completed the first phase of its process. The initial work team draft recommendations can be found here. Many of the reports are lengthy and discuss very detailed issues related to personnel policies and have a fairly limited effect on the careers of most employees. The most notable exception is the report of the compensation work team. If the recommendations of this work team were enacted, every employee on campus would be affected.

For this reason, the Wisconsin University Union (WUU) prepared this analysis. We are interested in your comments on the work team recommendations and our review. We can be reached at wiununion@gmail.com, www.wuu.info and on Facebook.

Review of Primary Recommendations

A.   Determining Compensation through Analysis of Labor Markets

The compensation work team recommends that labor market analyses form the basis of the UW compensation plan. Defining the labor market of an occupation, however, can for all practical purposes merely give the desired result. Some examples:

A food service worker  can be compared to similar positions in a range of other labor markets, such as: 1) Big Ten Schools, 2) other large campuses, 3) local public employers, 4) local large corporations, and 5) all local employers-small and large, public and private. If 4 and 5 are chosen as the labor market for comparison, the analysis would most likely show that the compensation (the sum of pay and benefits) of UW employees is greater than the compensation within that other labor market. This is despite the fact that UW is institutionally different than a small restaurant with different needs, resources, and purposes. Alternately, comparison with employees within labor markets 1, 2 and #3, would likely indicate largely equivalent levels of compensation.

UW faculty had established a set of 11 comparable peer institutions as the basis for determining its relative compensation (Gov. Commission on Faculty Compensation, 1984). However, a recent legislative analysis used a different set of peer institutions that yielded reduced inequities between the UW and other universities (Compensation for faculty and academic staff. LFB, 2011). Similarly, a 2012 UW System report on compensation systems used three universities as a comparison group (Personnel Issues for Reorganization Taskforce, 2012)

A research specialist performing complex laboratory activities can also be compared to the same five labor markets. Unlike in the case of the food service worker, there are more likely to be large differences within each market. For example, local employers may have substantially different pay practices (profit sharing, stock options or alternately high pay and few benefits). However, there may be fewer differences between the groups, such as overall compensation between Big Ten schools and local large corporations.

Summary: There is no standard labor market for any group or individual occupations (with the exception of building trades). There are often valid arguments to be made for or against choosing one group over another. However, choice of a particular labor market as the standard will frequently determine the result.

B.    Labor Markets and Discrimination

To better understand some of the problems in simply adopting labor markets as a single guide think back to 40 years ago. Women were largely locked out of the labor market. When they did work, their options were limited: clerical, education, food service, nursing, etc. Women who held jobs that required higher education were paid only a fraction of what men made in similar jobs (nurses vs. engineers). African-American and Hispanic workers were also segregated into very limited occupations, which were largely unskilled and were paid at lower rates than similar occupations held by whites.

While there have been improvements in the labor market in terms of race and sex integration, most occupational fields are still largely segregated. Women make on average about 80% of the salaries of men. Men are overwhelmingly employed in skilled trades, women in health care, and black men are unemployed at three times the rate of the overall population. Discrimination and job segregation always results in lower wages and worse working conditions for the group subject to the bias.

Summary: There is no “natural” or market-based reason why nurses are paid less than plumbers or teachers are paid less than computer operators. These are the effects of long-term discrimination and job segregation. Thus, when the “labor market” is used as the basis for establishing wages and benefits, the discriminatory patterns of compensation in other institutions may be copied into our own.

C.    “Segmented” Labor Markets

As noted above there are many forms of labor markets for a specific occupation. One type has large employers, is usually unionized, and has higher pay and benefits and better working conditions. Another type is composed of small employers, is non-union, and tends toward unstable employment. In addition to these two traditional markets, there is a large labor market for self-employment for some occupations.

Many studies have shown that the three labor markets operate fairly separately. Employees who work for small employers with lower pay tend to stay in these jobs and do not move into large employment situation or self-employment. It also means that changes in compensation in one market has little effect on other labor markets located in the same geographic area.

Summary: Owners of an oil change station opening on University Avenue would not ask UW OHR for the pay/benefits for techs as a means of setting up their pay plan. They would ask a similarly-sized business to determine a comparable wage. UW should not base its pay plan on other institutions solely because they both employ similar occupations. The size, resources, and purpose (such as public or private) of organizations are critical factors in determining employee compensation.

D.   Performance Evaluation

UW-Madison has an inconsistent track record in regard to the use of job performance evaluations. Some units in the University use it as a means of awarding merit pay and others make only the most pro forma use of it or not at all.

The recommendations propose the use of performance evaluation to “adjust” pay on a periodic basis after an initial rate is established through examination of the labor market. In the use of the word “adjust,” the committee is recommending that pay can be lowered as a result of the performance evaluation. This is a highly unusual practice in most employing organizations; even more so in public institutions.

A number of questions present themselves in regard to this proposal:  How would the standards or metrics for evaluation be established? How often would evaluations be conducted that might affect employee pay? What safeguards would be instituted to reduce discrimination, favoritism and bias? What procedures would be in place to dispute an evaluation that affects an employee’s pay status?

Summary: There are neither the trained staff nor job-related evaluation instruments necessary to implement such a complex and potentially, highly contentious operation. Nor is there an institutional tradition that is ready to embrace the use of these processes for the purpose of “adjusting” (potentially lowering) compensation. As such, it is likely to be unpopular both among supervisors and subordinates.

Defining Total Compensation:

What factors should be taken in consideration when calculating compensation? Should we use the start rate or the maximum rate? Or, should we use the average or median wage of all people in a classification? Should we compare health insurance costs by premiums co-pays or the total costs paid by the employer? How do we calculate various levels of deductibles and co-pays? How many vacation days on average do employees in a particular classification earn? Some jobs have more people with fewer years of service than others which often results in fewer benefits.

Summary: There are over 500 titles in the unclassified service. There are hundreds more in for classified employees. Even if a sample of benchmark employee classes are used, the tasks of comparing jobs with similar qualifications and duties and accurately determining total compensation is a very complex undertaking which can result in the exclusion of important factors.

II. Features that should be Included in Recommendations

A.   Cost-of-living increase

The compensation work team does not recommend that compensation be adjusted due to changes in the cost-of-living. Until 2008-09, when UW employees stopped receiving pay increases, an annual across-the-board pay increase was, by an overwhelming measure, the means by which employees received pay raises. Without a cost-of-living increase, inflation will erode the real value of the wages of most employees. Inflation increased 4% in 2008, 2% in 2010, 3% in 2011, and about 1% thus far this year. Thus, in addition to the losses due to the changes in WRS and insurance, UW employees lost 10% in real income as a result of the lack of a cost-of-living increase in the last four years.

Summary: A cost-of-living increase in compensation for all employees is a basic principle of compensation management. It is unlikely that the University will allocate as much funds for “merit” and adjustments due to labor market corrections as they would in an across-the-board increase. Failure to use the cost-of-living adjustment as the basis of a pay plan will increase inequities and reduce job satisfaction.

1. Collective bargaining:

Until July 2012, the compensation package of most UW and state employees was determined through negotiations between equal parties- the state and employee unions. The compensation of employees that were not directly covered by the labor agreements were heavily affected by the negotiated agreements. These agreements were voluntarily entered into and democratically ratified by both parties. This process is opposite from the top-down, “scientific” method recommended by the Compensation Committee. Compensation plans that do not have the support or “buy-in” from the affected employees will result in job dissatisfaction.

Neither UW-Madison nor UW-System supported the repeal collectively bargain rights. The Work Group Principles adopted as underlying this process stressed that, as much as possible, the existing collective bargaining agreements should be integrated into this process. The work team recommendations do not reflect the position of UW or the precedent advisory groups in understanding the importance of this process for the last forty years.

III.  Administrative Additions to Implement work team’s recommendations

As noted above, there are over 500 titles in use in the unclassified staff. There are hundreds more classified titles. To implement the recommendations of the compensation work team, at a minimum, the following operations must be implemented:

1. Review all classification titles of the 15,000 job incumbents to ascertain if the title and position description are correct. OHR staff would conduct a statistically significant sample of job analyses within all large and selected benchmark classes to determine congruity of incumbent to class.
2. Organize and train teams to develop job related performance evaluation instruments. Develop or contract to build internal capacity for training, development and evaluation of instruments including metrics. Instruments should be subject to tests of reliability and validity.
3. Create a Center for Labor Market Analysis within OHR. Hire labor economists and compensation analysts to organize and maintain analytic system. Collect data from cohorts of empirically identified similarly-sized institutions on total compensation of all major occupational groups. Annually update data of selected groups and all classes in three-year cycles.
4. Create an Office of Performance Evaluation within OHR. Hire job analysts, training specialists and survey research specialist to oversee program. Develop and implement training program in performance evaluation for all supervisors. This is an initial intensive training and followed by periodic reviews. The Office will oversee quality assurance program in areas such as studies of discriminatory impact and other statistical analyses of evaluations for anomalies. The Office will serve as the initial “step” in disputes related to validity of instruments and individual reviews.
5. All supervisors with responsibility for performance reviews will participate and successfully complete training program in use of performance evaluation instruments. Performance evaluation will be conducted quarterly with an annual comprehensive review that is linked to pay.

Truth be told — and I doubt that many of the commission members would disagree, many of the options cited in the report are more or less analogous to those available to shipwreck survivors stranded in a lifeboat far out at sea:

• “As shown by the Greek philosopher Zeno,  scarce rations may be extended indefinitely by distributing exactly half of what remains on each successive day.”
• “Consumption of leather articles such as belts, wallets, and shoes  provides a welcome, if temporary, relief from the physical sensations of starvation.”
• “Even when drinking water has run out, under no circumstances should survivors succumb to the temptation to drink seawater or urine.  Those who disregard this advice may partially mask the flavor by mixing in a tablespoon of  Crystal Light Raspberry Ice Tea mix.”
• “When rescue remains an unlikely prospect even as morale and physical well-being continue to plummet, take a discreet look around you and identify the fellow survivors least likely to be in any condition to put up a spirited fight.  As a rough guide, one such individual will adequately feed ten for several days, or up to a week in cooler weather.”
• “Sleep with one eye open.”

Please note:  these were not actual commission recommendations.

One actual commission recommendation in particular, however, stands out as providing more than just superficial and temporary relief.  Indeed it was precisely this recommendation that was singled out by “On Campus” reporter Deborah Ziff at the Wisconsin State Journal.  Paraphrased, it goes like this:

• “Increasing the percentage of out-of-state students admitted to the University can significantly increase total tuition revenue without the need for politically untenable increases in tuition rates.”

Yes!  This is self-evidently true, and in recognition of its potential importance for the future of the university, I wish this option had been as prominent in the actual commission report as it was in Ms. Ziff’s very short article.  I therefore would like to take this opportunity to propose the following refinement:

1. To be more in line with our national peer universities, the University of Wisconsin-Madison and  the University of Minnesota should agree to terminate their unusual tuition reciprocity arrangement and to charge full out-of-state tuition to each other’s residents.
2. The above reciprocity arrangement should then be replaced by a new one in which the two universities each agree to reject their own in-state applicants while giving preference to those from the other state.

The logical result of this arrangement will be that UW-Madison’s student body will soon be made up entirely of Minnesota residents and other out-of-state students, all paying $25,421 tuition per year rather than the $9,671 paid by in-state students, while Wisconsin students will all go to Minnesota and elsewhere.

If we conservatively estimate that 25,000 in-state students currently on the UW-Madison campus would soon be replaced by out-of-state students paying $15,750 per head more, that represents $394M in new revenue to the University of Wisconsin-Madison.  All without raising tuition rates.

The logic and spirit of this proposal are completely consistent both with recent trends in  state support for our university and with reason 3 in the very first paragraph of this official explanation of UW-Madison admission policies.  I cannot imagine why it would not be universally embraced by politicians and administrators alike as an innovative and far-reaching solution to the university’s current budget woes.

In this political climate, the Faculty Senate, Academic Staff Assembly, and Associated Students of Madison Student Council have all passed resolutions support a new social compact between UW-Madison and the state of Wisconsin. The new social compact endorses a renewed financial commitment to funding UW System from the state in exchange for the fulfillment of UW System and UW-Madison’s mission to provide a quality, accessible education for all Wisconsinites. In passing this legislation, the three shared governance bodies have voiced vehement concern about the fiscal crisis that UW-Madison and UW System now face and have asked to be part of the solution.

In the Academic Staff Assembly, one member raised the quintessential question whenever a deliberative body takes a stance on an issue over which they have no direct power: what does passage of this resolution actually do? Why should we pass this value-driven resolution if we lack the teeth to enforce it?

My answer to the gentleman who spoke at the Academic Staff Assembly is simple: give the new social compact some teeth. The power of lofty resolutions such as the new social compact derives from its ability to be shared. As students, staff, faculty, and community members of the great institutions of UW System, we can empower these ideals of access to quality higher education and enrichment of communities across Wisconsin by infusing our stories of why UW-Madison matters to us. To make these resolutions relevant and powerful, we must share our stories with state legislators and encourage our neighbors to do the same.

Students are doing just this. On March 6, join the United Council of UW Students for the statewide lobby day. United Council will begin the statewide lobby day with a press conference to advocate for the Wisconsin student agenda, one major component of the social compact that all members of the UW-Madison community now officially support.

-BPH

Today one of our core values is at stake—something that should concern all of us who are committed to the future of our college, UW–Madison and Wisconsin. I am talking about declining state support for postsecondary education and its devastating effect on our young people and their opportunities.

Undergraduate education at UW–Madison is paid for by a combination of general program revenue (GPR)—derived from state taxes—and tuition, paid by students and families. In 2001, GPR funding for UW-Madison was $370 million and tuition revenue was $277 million. Ten years later, GPR has fallen to just $279 million, while tuition revenue increased to $400 million (all figures adjusted to 2010 dollars). As a result, tuition increased from $5044 per year in 2001 (2010 dollars) to $8987 in 2010. (These numbers do not include the $47.5 million cut imposed in the 2011 budget.) The state also gives UW money for special purposes, but these funds cannot be used directly in providing undergraduate education.

When the state fails to support the university, the university gets the needed revenue by charging students and their families more. This is a pretty straightforward relationship, but I am not sure that the implications are always clear. When the state cuts the budget and tuition increases, fewer students from middle-class and financially pressed families can afford to attend UW–Madison.

Here at CALS, we are especially aware of the effects on Wisconsin’s rural families. Rural per capita income is 20 percent less than in metropolitan areas, and 40 percent of CALS students demonstrate significant financial need. What is the future for CALS if a greater proportion of kids interested in careers in agriculture and natural resources cannot afford to come to Madison? Indeed, what is the future of Wisconsin’s rural communities?

We also can’t pretend that the quality of undergraduate education won’t suffer. Less revenue means fewer degree programs, especially in production agriculture, and fewer courses dedicated to agriculture. The time it takes to finish a degree will lengthen. And it will be harder for people with moderate incomes to afford to come here.

Supporting our agricultural communities means supporting public higher education in Wisconsin. The UW System is the provider of affordable, accessible opportunities to earn bachelor’s degrees, and we at CALS are the provider of the specialized knowledge needed to excel in careers in agriculture, natural resources and the life sciences. When state cuts make it harder for rural kids to attend CALS, the economic vitality of our rural communities is diminished.

How we fund a college education at UW is up to the people of Wisconsin—and in any policy debate it’s important to have all facts on the table. My hope is that, as we move forward, undergraduate education gets the attention and resources that our young people and our state deserve.

Thanks to all of you for your support of our college.

On Wisconsin.

William F. Tracy
Interim Dean
College of Agricultural and Life Sciences

Reprinted with permission from WALSAA Express December 2011

Rise in Sticker Price at Public Colleges Outpaces That at Private Colleges for 5th Year in a Row, by Beckie Supiano, October 26, 2011

The average price for tuition and fees at public four-year colleges was $8,244 for in-state students in 2011-12, up from $7,613 in 2010-11, an 8.3-percent increase. That percentage change drops to 7.0 percent if California—which had a 21-percent increase in tuition in that one-year period—is excluded.

Here in Wisconsin, in-state tuition and fees for the University of Wisconsin-Madison for the fall 2011 semester totaled $4,832.50, compared with $4,491.60 for the fall 2010 semester; in-state tuition and fees for UW-Milwaukee for the fall 2011 semester totaled $4,337.70, compared with $4,075.63 for the fall 2010 semester.   In percentage terms, the increases are 7.6% and 6.4%, respectively.

The basic message in this is that UW-Madison’s in-state tuition is still well below the national average, but the percentage increase is comparable to that experienced elsewhere.  In short, like elsewhere, the investment by the state of Wisconsin in making higher education affordable for all of its citizens is being dialed back.

We already knew this, of course.  But the latest massive hits to the UW-System budget, not reflected in the above figures,  are virtually certain to sharply accelerate the cost increases.    In fact,  if current trends continue, we can expect to see the distinction between private and public institutions become almost meaningless.

Is this really what the citizens of Wisconsin want?

To recap, news accounts in all major media initially stated that the UW-System would be subject to about $65 million in cuts over the biennium as a part of an overall state budget reduction of $174 million. (UW-Madison’s share of the reduction would be $24.6 million.) The Dept of Administration, which apportions the cuts, did not explain why UW would shoulder 37% of the reduction despite the fact that it constitutes only 7% of the state budget.

Today, the other shoe dropped. The other shoe in this instance is the probable loss of $111 million over the biennium; our share of an overall budget reduction of $300 million. Madison’s loss would be $42.6 million. This loss alone could not be “made up” if tuition for every student was increased $1000/ year. This is, of course, in addition to the $250 million loss to the System (and Madison) in the budget passed last summer. In contrast, aid to local government ($1.9 billion) is only nicked ($3 million) as is aid to K-12 education, the biggest item in the budget. Under the “$300 million scenario”, the UWS would still lose a disproportionate share of its state funding at a ratio of 5:1.

While the budget reduction of $300 million has not been ordered, agencies have been told to prepare for the loss. The reduction will be ordered if tax revenues do not increase in the next few months.

Under the $300 million reduction scenario, the Dept of Corrections would reduce its budget by $23 million or 1.4%. This would result in the UW receiving 6.7% of the state budget and the Dept of Corrections receiving 6.8%. The trend lines have crossed.

DMA

With the announcement of the new round of budget cuts ($65 million for the System, $13 million for Corrections), I reviewed LFB publications to see if indeed the UW is still #1 in the purse, if not the hearts, of Wisconsin.

I found (see table below) that although UWS funding will be $48M greater than that of Corrections (after the cuts), they are not only in the same ballpark, they are almost on the same base. UWS receives 7% of the total share of state funding while Corrections receives 6.8%. The budgetary trend lines of the two agencies have nearly merged because the budget reduction of UW is four times greater (as a percent of their budget) than that imposed on Corrections.

With additional inequitable budget reductions probable due to inflated revenue estimates, will Badger fans yell, “We’re Number Two! We’re Number Two!”

DMA