For the benefit of those who could not attend, we are now belatedly posting (courtesy of CAPE) a link to the complete video record (157 MB) of the presentations by the three distinguished speakers: Noel Radomski, director of the Wisconsin Center for the Advancement of Postsecondary Education (WISCAPE); Andrew Reschovsky, professor at the La Follette School of Public Affairs;  and Kevin Reilly, President of the University of Wisconsin System.

All three presentations made clear that the budget problems facing the state of Wisconsin, and therefore the University, will be with us for some time to come and will require difficult choices.

Planning for the second forum in the series, which will likely take place in early Fall 2010, is now underway.

[T]his is the overarching policy issue of the decade (century?) and we need all members of the university community, as well as those in the wider public, to understand the inexorable trends that are driving the university’s future and what it can expect to do for the state in the future.

Three separate campus organizations — PROFS, UFAS, and CAPE — have come together to jointly sponsor the first of a planned series of public forums on the subject, to be held Tuesday, February 23, 4:00-5:30 pm at the Memorial Union (check Today in the Union to confirm the room location; tentatively the Wisconsin Inn).

The press release from PROFS can be viewed here.

Distinguished panelists include Kevin Reilly, President of the University of Wisconsin System; Andrew Reschovsky, professor at the La Follette School of Public Affairs; and Noel Radomski, director of the Wisconsin Center for the Advancement of Postsecondary Education (WISCAPE).

From the press release:

Financing of higher education has changed significantly over the past several decades. Shrinking state support and sharply increased costs have forced campuses to chart new courses for survival. Are our only alternatives hyper-inflationary tuition increases and bigger classes?

“The financing of public higher education has changed dramatically and continues to change. How great universities – UW-Madison, in particular – continue to respond to those changes is among the most important issues we face on campus and nationally,” says Joe Salmons, president of PROFS. “This forum will launch an important conversation for faculty, the university community and our state.”

According to Prof. Salmons, this first forum, which will concentrate on  identifying and explaining the current fiscal challenges, will consist of approximately 15 minute presentations by each of the three panelists, with additional time for questions by the audience.  Future planned forums in the series will dissect proposed solutions.

The campus community and Wisconsin citizens alike have an enormous stake in sustaining the educational, outreach, and research missions of the University, all of which are major drivers of long-term economic stability and prosperity in the state.

We urge everyone to attend this forum.

- the Editors

Generally speaking, we’re finding that the PROFS website is an excellent source of information and commentary about campus issues.  Not only do we recommend bookmarking the site, but we strongly encourage faculty who are not that familiar with PROFS to read more about PROFS here and consider joining.

- the Editors

We encourage S&W readers to become familiar with the “Smart Furlough Bill” and to post comments here.   In addition, those on the faculty should communicate their views on the resolution to their Faculty Senator(s).

The full text of the resolution is reproduced here:

RESOLUTION FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS
REGARDING FURLOUGHS OF NON-STATE-FUNDED EMPLOYEES

Background

(1) Research programs at UW-Madison cover a wide range of fundamental and applied problems including energy-environmental challenges, national security concerns, and health issues facing our country and human society in general. For example, UW-Madison researchers are studying the H1N1 virus which poses a near-term threat of a deadly pandemic. Federal taxpayers have a right to expect a timely best effort from funded UW-Madison research teams.

(2) Furloughs of research personnel violate the spirit of more than a thousand Federal grants and contracts providing hundreds of millions of dollars of research funding. Research staff, faculty, and especially principal investigators committed to a best effort when these funds were accepted by UW-Madison. Furthermore, research funding is very competitive. Research funding decisions are based in part on the past performance of researchers.

(3) The University of California, in a state with worse budget problems than Wisconsin, exempted federally funded university employees from furloughs.

(4) Wisconsin state taxpayers will need to make up the lost revenue from income taxes that will not be collected due to furloughs of federally funded employees. This makes little sense in a time of economic distress.

(5) The Smart Furlough Bill proposed by Rep. Kelda Helen Roys would exempt from furloughs those positions (or portions thereof) that are not funded by state dollars.

Resolution

WHEREAS furloughs of federally funded university employees exacerbate the state budget problems through a reduction in state income tax revenue; and
WHEREAS furloughs of federally funded university employees unnecessarily harm the university’s research and service missions and damage the university’s reputation;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Faculty Senate strongly supports the Smart Furlough Bill currently pending in the Wisconsin legislature.

The full text is reproduced below for the convenience of S&W readers.  While we have not had time to digest the details, our impression at first reading is that the problems facing the SUNY system are very comparable to those facing us here at UW and that similar dramatic action and creative leadership are urgently needed.  As always, reader comments are invited.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
January 15, 2010

GOVERNOR PATERSON PROPOSES MOST SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION REFORMS IN A GENERATION

Sweeping Reform Package Would Provide SUNY and CUNY the Flexibility Needed to Become Centers of Job Creation
Measures Would Rationalize Tuition Policy; End Overregulation; Improve Accountability
Governor Paterson: ‘Strengthening the Public Education System Critical to the New Economy’

Governor David A. Paterson today announced that his 2010-11 Executive Budget will include the most significant reforms to the State’s system of public higher education in a generation. The Public Higher Education Empowerment and Innovation Act will provide the State University of New York (SUNY) and the City University of New York (CUNY) the flexibility needed to become centers of job creation. The proposed reforms would enable New York’s public higher education system to become the new model of excellence that better prepares students for the jobs of the future, while also developing the jobs of today. In addition, the measures would foster the type of innovative public-private research and development partnerships that will drive New York’s future prosperity.

“Currently, Albany micromanages everything from the chalk campuses purchase to the cost of tuition that students pay. This burdensome overregulation threatens the ability of our public higher education systems to promote economic development and successfully adapt to changing educational and fiscal circumstances,” Governor Paterson said. “We must provide our institutions of public higher education with the freedom and flexibility they need to drive development both on campus and off, preparing our students for the New Economy jobs that will propel New York forward.”

Governor Paterson’s proposal would take politics out of tuition setting and institute a rational policy that makes the cost of public higher education more equitable and predictable for students and families. The reforms would also provide SUNY and CUNY with greater operational independence consistent with their mission so that they can adapt and thrive in an ever-changing innovation economy. The measures would eliminate numerous overregulations on contracting, procurement, land use, and other areas, while still maintaining appropriate accountability and State oversight.

These reforms would create more than 2,200 faculty positions, 7,000 staff positions, 43,000 construction jobs on SUNY university and medical centers, according to SUNY estimate. They will also expand access to higher education by allowing campuses to accommodate an additional 20,000 students above planned targets.

SUNY Chancellor Nancy L. Zimpher said: “I commend Governor Paterson for his leadership in bringing forward the Public Higher Education Empowerment and Innovation Act. This legislation harnesses high-impact, zero-cost solutions that will create jobs, build the foundation for tomorrow’s economy and strengthen public higher education – while saving millions of taxpayer dollars.

“With the unprecedented cooperation and energetic partnership of SUNY and CUNY, we have taken a major step in unleashing the public university sector to achieve the promise of economic growth through top quality education, from community college to research center. This will positively impact every community in the state with the creation of tens of thousands of new jobs and through billions of dollars in local investment.”

CUNY Chancellor Matthew Goldstein said: “We commend Governor Paterson for his exemplary efforts to address flexibility in the financing of public higher education. CUNY is experiencing record student enrollments as we now serve over 260,000 degree-seeking students–the highest level in CUNY’s history and a 7 percent increase over the past year. In addition, 2010 Spring enrollments are up 14 percent. Freshman applications for Fall 2010 are up 10 percent. In these difficult fiscal times, budget flexibility will enable the University to strengthen its responsiveness to the changing needs of students and to the changing economy. In order for New York State to compete effectively nationally and in the global marketplace of careers and ideas, its public higher education systems must have the necessary flexibility and investment to carry out their educational mission. We are pleased to continue working with the Governor and the State Legislature to accomplish that vital goal.”

Rational Tuition Policy – Ending Tuition Roulette

Currently, SUNY and CUNY tuition rates are determined by the State budget process. This has created a system in which tuition increases occur almost exclusively to close State budget gaps and offset General Fund support during periods of economic distress – a time when students and their families are least able to afford additional costs.

Moreover, these long periods between tuition rate increases result in some students completing their degree programs without experiencing a tuition increase, while those attending college during fiscal downturns experience significant tuition hikes. This is an unfair system that many independent experts have derided as “tuition roulette” and makes the cost of education unpredictable for students and families.

Governor Paterson’s Public Higher Education Empowerment and Innovation Act addresses these issues by instituting a rational tuition policy that:

• Moves tuition outside the State budget process, allowing SUNY and CUNY to receive and disburse revenues from tuition and self-supporting program activities without an appropriation.
• Authorizes the boards of trustees for SUNY and CUNY to implement a fair, equitable and responsible tuition policy that would provide the universities with the discretion to raise tuition incrementally up to an annual cap of two and one half times the five-year rolling average of the Higher Education Price Index (HEPI), making it easier for students and families to anticipate and plan for the true cost of attendance over the course of a degree program.
• Authorizes the SUNY and CUNY trustees to implement differential tuition rates for programs and campuses within their systems to enhance academic quality, based on the recommendation of the college president and in accordance with specific guidelines promulgated by the trustees.

Ending Overregulation, Ensuring Accountability

Under the current system, overregulation stifles both SUNY and CUNY’s ability to innovate and compete with peer institutions in other states. Governor Paterson’s proposed reforms would provide SUNY and CUNY with greater operational flexibility regarding the procurement of goods and contractual services; the procurement and financing of construction services; and the lease of campus property. The Public Higher Education Empowerment and Innovation Act would also:

• Authorize the lease of real property under the jurisdiction of SUNY to other entities in support of its educational purpose, and the participation in public/private partnerships that would benefit SUNY’s mission, and diversify its revenue streams, subject to approval of a newly created State University Asset Maximization Review Board. This will help encourage greater business opportunities and innovative research partnerships, since many potential private companies are unwilling or unable to wait the months or years it takes for a project to wind its way through the legislative and political process.
• Remove provisions of law subjecting SUNY and CUNY to pre-approval of contracts by the Office of the State Comptroller (OSC) in order to streamline the procurement of goods and services, while maintaining provisions requiring the post-audit of such contracts by OSC.
• Allow post-audit in lieu of pre-audit requirements for Attorney General approval of leases between SUNY and its alumni associations in support of dormitory projects.
• Prescribe specific semi-annual reporting requirements on revenues and expenditures at a campus-specific level to ensure continued transparency and accountability.

“These are significant measures, but if we are to make New York the center for job creation, research and development in the New Economy, it is critical that we strengthen our public education system,” Governor Paterson added.

Today, however, the state side of the partnership is failing. State support of public universities, on a per student basis, has been declining for over two decades. Even before the current economic crisis, it was at the lowest level in 25 years. As the global recession has deepened, lower tax revenues have driven state after state to further reduce appropriations, with cuts ranging as high as 20 percent to 30 percent threatening to cripple many leading public universities and erode their world-class quality.

…

The declining priority that states have given to public higher education makes sense for them but is a disaster for the nation. The growing mismatch between state priorities and national needs suggests that it’s time once again to realign responsibilities between the state and the nation for higher education and provide adequate resources to sustain American leadership.

Here is a taste of the solution proposed by the author of the article:

Once more, it is time for the federal government to step in and provide the support necessary to keep our crucial graduate programs among the best in the world. Educating scientists and engineers, physicians and teachers, business leaders and entrepreneurs is vital to developing the human capital that is now key to national prosperity and security in the global, knowledge-driven economy. It cannot be left dependent on shifting state priorities and declining state support.

We are certain that the future financing of the UW system will be hotly discussed during the coming months in view of larger-than-expected shortfalls in state revenues. Now is the time to begin considering a range of proposed solutions from privatization to federal funding and to anticipate the intended and unintended consequences of each.

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

Luckily, UW-Madison faculty have real power and we don’t have to stay silent. Unlike other universities, our university administration does not pick departmental chairs, and it is the faculty who are responsible for faculty hiring, and decisions on merit pay and promotion. Our system of shared governance guarantees us a role in decision making and shields us from abuses by university leadership.

UW-Madison operates so well, in part, because of shared decision making, but this only works if people participate in governance. It is the faculty’s right to question any proposed reorganization plan. Further, it is our responsibility to oppose any plans that are poorly thought out or which seem likely to harm our great university. The Provost’s proposal, unfortunately, meets both these criteria, and so he should be facing a torrent of questions and criticisms from the faculty, not a trickle.

- CK Adams

Professors of the World, Unite?

We are posting the link here not because the editors of this forum take sides (yet) on whether faculty should unionize but rather to promote awareness of the issue and to invite comment, both pro and con, from readers.  In particular, comment is invited on (a) whether the op-ed piece is factually accurate, and (b) whether unionization is desirable for UW-Madison faculty.

- the Editors

There are stories within stories here, and most readers are blissfully unaware of how a very few individuals on both sides of the issue played a disproportionate role in shaping the outcome, especially for UW RAs, who came within a hair’s breadth of being absorbed into an existing union without their knowledge or consent.  These are stories for another time.

The important point is that every affected group now has the choice (a) whether to unionize and (b) if so, who should represent them. The decision to unionize is not unlike the decision to get a tattoo — once it has been made, it is very difficult to revoke. I urge readers to pay extremely close attention to this issue and to look out not only for their own best interests but also the interests of future faculty, staff, and students (all students, not just RAs) at UW.

That said, it is probably fair to say that academics tend to be suspicious of the push to unionize. I believe there are three major reasons for this:

• It is not at all obvious that the 19th-century model of labor-management relations that apparently still serves as the raison d’etre for most traditional unions is even applicable to academia.
• The tactics of many prominent unions have sometimes, even recently, come across as decidedly undemocratic, depending on backroom deals and shrewd legal maneuvering for success rather than on the informed participation of those they purport to represent.
• Rightly or wrongly, the leadership of at least some unions is perceived as driven more by ideology and/or self-aggrandizement than by the true interests of the rank-and-file workers.

For most academics, I daresay, the principle of enlightened self-determination trumps any purported benefits of unionization.  Therefore, if unions are to have any hope of gaining traction at UW in the months or years to come, they will have to persuade their audience that

1. what they offer has provable benefits not only to individual faculty and staff but to the whole enterprise of scholarship and education at UW, and
2. they are prepared to let the outcome be determined by the evidence and an informed debate and not by pressure tactics, sloganeering, subterfuge, or backroom maneuvering.

As we move into the next chapter of the collective bargaining story, I hope that this forum will be able to play host to informed opinions on all sides of the issue.

- GWP