Academic Staff Executive Committee Minutes 05-02-13
Approved May 9, 2013
2:00-4:30 p.m. Thursday, May 2, 2013
Members present: Marwa Bassiouni, Heather Daniels, Past-Chair; Denny Hackel, Robin Kurtz, Heather McFadden, Vice-Chair; Robert Newsom, Jeff Shokler, Chair; Erin Silva.
Member absent: Jim Maynard.
Guests: Deb Brauer, PPPC; Jenny Dahlberg, CEBC; Russell Dimond, CCF Work Group; Steve Hahn, Administrative Excellence; Trish Iaccarino, ASEC Member-Elect; Steve Lund, APO; Britt Moes, ASM; Sean McNally, ASM; Kevin Niemi, ASEC Member-Elect; Clarissa Steel, CCF Work Group, Margaret Harrigan, CCF Work Group, Dang Chonwerawong, CCF Work Group; Nola Walker, CCF Work Group; Tom Zinner.
The meeting was called to order by Jeff Shokler, Chair at 2:05 p.m.
The ASEC minutes for Thursday, April 25, 2013 were approved with minor corrections.
- Scheduling of ASEC meetings for 2013-2014: ASEC will meet from 1:45-4:15 on Thursday afternoons but will not meet the Thursday following the monthly Assembly meeting.
- Review PPPC changes to ASPP chapters 2, 7, 12, and 14: Deb Brauer reviewed the proposed PPPC agenda items to be presented to the Assembly on May 13. ASEC inquired about the changes in working days and the intuitiveness of the change in the statement regarding the Conflict of Interest Policies. The changes in chapter 7 are being proposed to clarify the process used for informal resolution and grievance procedure by rearranging sections, use consistent terminology and revise the timelines. ASEC suggested that a statutory citation be added to the process. ASEC asked when PPPC will be adding the appeal to the Board of Regents to ASPP, Deb responded that PPPC will be looking at this for their next round of edits. ASEC asked about the potential of adding links within the document.
- Approve May 13 Assembly Agenda: ASEC asked that the agenda be revised to include time for information on Transportation Services changes for fall 2013.
- Review preliminary Critical Compensation Fund (CCF) report: The overview and communication work group reported that the requirement that individuals have a current position description was a hindrance as well as an opportunity. Managers reported that more specific examples and instructions would have been useful. Although CCF was effective for recipients it resulted in a drop in morale for others.
- The Case Study group identified the efforts and implementation within the School of Education and the Wisconsin Center for Education Research as a strong model. Their business offices helped with identifying eligible employees and with preparing justifications. The WCER director also met with supervisors. The data analysis shows massive variations between departments in number of awards. Minorities seem to be less likely to get CCF award, but there appear to beno differences in distribution by gender and age. Middle quintiles received the most awards, those at the bottom received larger awards. CCF seemed to have increased the gap between faculty and academic staff salaries.
- All of these results highlight the need for a compensation strategy that goes beyond CCF. With the new HR design it should be possible for UW to set own compensation strategy that is communicated and gives predictability for budgeting purposes. University needs to prepare more analytics as part of new HR design. ASEC congratulated the CCF work group on an excellent work and provided a sincere thank you to all members.
- Jeff Shokler, ASEC Chair: Jeff announced that Chancellor-Designate Blank is already engaged with the university. Jeff will not be able to serve as ASEC chair next year.
- Jo Ann Carr, Interim Secretary of the Academic Staff: PD grants are still being reviewed. Nomination Committee ballots close this week. The new Districting and Representation site is up.
- Heather Daniels & Denny Hackel, HR Design Advisory Committee: Heather reviewed the role of the committee which will be reviewing many documents in a short time frame because of the July 1 deadline for implementation.
- Heather McFadden: Heather announced that the Administrative Excellence Advisory Committee will be succeeded by committees on Enterprise Decision Making for IT and Space Utilization Committee and possibly a resource allocation committee.
Provost Update: Eden Inoway-Ronnie updated ASEC on the College of the Arts proposal. The L&S APC will vote on the proposal on May 6 as the School of Music has not voted in favor of this reorganization. Joanne Berg has announced that she will be retiring as Associate Vice Chancellor for Enrollment Management. ASEC asked about the impact of the reports of the U.W. System surplus and the need for better communication about the plans for the unexpended funds.
Guest: Steve Hahn, Future State of IT Decision Making: Steve led an AE team to look at a future model of IT decision making on campus. The future state team was charged to develop 3-4 different models for IT decision making. The team identified four models: ad hoc, uniform process, executive CIO and domain focused. Recommendations for future are, that independent of model, IT Decision Making should: 1) provide multiple paths to decision making to carve out a level of freedom for research projects and low hanging projects that don’t have campus impact; 2) provide that all projects that purport to be for campus goes through a project initiation stage at the campus level that requires the identification of other partners; 3) assign responsibility to an individual to make certain that decisions are being made at the right level. The group is proposing that IT have an Executive Board (Chancellor, VP, Some Deans, chair of ITC, Provost, CIO); a planning board (Deans, select dept chairs, and CIO); and service management board (divisional CIO’s and directors). Planning Board needs to have formal meetings with defined agendas. The Planning Group and Service Management Layer would intersect with existing campus groups for Research Computing, Instructional Technology, and Administrative Technology. ASEC asked about the inclusion of the VC for enrollment management within the structure, what will be the main points of resistance; and the reporting structure for the decision support function. The timeline for this project is being adapted to allow for the involvement of the new Chancellor.
Guest: Steve Lund: Steve asked about the role of the shared governance committee vis-à-vis ASEC. Steve also asked for ASEC advice on a pay plan distribution policy. ASEC emphasized the need to continue to consider faculty and academic staff needs in tandem.
Guest: Britt Moes, past ASM Shared Governance Chair and Sean McNally, newly-elected ASM Shared Governance Chair. Britt reviewed the ASM shared governance structure and commented on the effectiveness of their work with other governance groups. Major issues for ASM are the campus transportation plan and the future development of the Diversity Plan. Sean noted that his goal for the next year is to continue working with the other governance groups and work with the new Chancellor. ASEC stressed their interest in taking full advantage of the shared governance role. ASM also asked about the future of the HR Design plan. ASM also asked if voting and other political related issues are a concern to academic staff governance and ASEC indicated that this is an area in which they would like to work with ASM. ASM also inquired about the change in email address being proposed by the Office 365 project.
Other: Tom Zinnen suggested that Shared Governance committee reports be presented to the Academic Staff Assembly.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:36 p.m.
Submitted by Jo Ann Carr, Interim Secretary of the Academic Staff