Senators,

The campus has held its open sessions on the University Personnel System policy recommendation documents. Feedback on these Recommendations will be accepted through Friday, October 19. I would like the Faculty Senate to have a discussion of the recommendations on record; the UPS policies will guide our working lives. I realize that the full set of recommendations (available at http://web.uwsa.edu/assets/sites/personnel_structures/docs/proposed%20implementation%20docs/Table%20of%20Proposed%20Implementation%20Decisions%20by%20Category%209-5-12.pdf ; click on the “Decision Document Number” in the left column to see the specific recommendations ) is quite large and may be difficult to approach given the limited background context. However, I have read through all of them and, as a faculty member, have strong responses to only two items.

One, Section RA1, concerns Recruitment of new hires. My concern here is that faculty seem to be barely mentioned; we need to be sure that the Recruitment process and expectations recommended here acknowledge Faculty as well.

The second, Section EE5 on Employee Environment, has created strong reactions across the state. I urge you to read this section in particular. In relation to this section and at their request, I met with the chairs and a few members of the Academic Staff Senate and the Classified Staff Advisory Committee on October 1, 2012. Below is a draft of concerns from that meeting; the Academic Staff Senate and Classified Staff Advisory Committee both intended to share the concerns at their next meetings and decide whether they wanted to provide feedback on the policy recommendations as a body.

(Other sections that, in my opinion, would be of greatest interest to Faculty include COMP1 Merit Pay, EMI Employee Movement, EC4 Compensation, EC5 Job Families, EE6 Code of Ethics, COMP2 Supplemental Pay, EE3 Yearly Evaluation, and EE2 New Employee Programs. Check them out if you are interested; I personally was often pleased and not concerned with what I saw here.)

I look forward to your thoughts on the policy recommendations and whether or not we want to provide feedback on them as a Faculty Senate.

Wendy

UPS Draft – Section EE5 concerns – 10/1/2012 draft

1. We note concerns with the “guiding principles”:

·  They seem more specific to faculty/academic instructional staff.

·  “Academic freedom” means what, to non-teaching folks?

·  It is difficult to have an overarching set of rules and policies given that the three work categories have different workplace needs and expectations.

2. We support changing negative wording to positive wording of broad guidelines for all institutions to take into account, in the spirit of establishing a positive and productive workplace environment.

We believe that all employees value:

·  Responsible, safe workplace behaviors

·  Completion of assigned duties as per the contractual and/or position description

·  Respectful interactions with, towards, and about others

·  Productive workday timeframes

·  Adherence to confidentiality regulations

·  Supportive participation in a collegial, cooperative, encouraging atmosphere

·  Use of best intentions for positive outcomes with students, colleagues, and the public

·  Following the laws, rules, and regulations of the state of Wisconsin

3. We acknowledge that individual institutions and campus entities are in the best position to determine the specifics of behaviors and interactions that are appropriate to the employees’ working ethics and environment.

4. Similarly, we recognize that employee evaluation contributes to effective productivity and that ineffective behaviors need to be addressed through progressive disciplinary actions. Individual institutions and campus entities are in the best position to determine the specifics of progressive disciplinary actions that are appropriate to the working environment.

To this end, we support identifying particular disciplinary actions that could be adopted by an institution or entity in accordance with the institution’s or entity’s best workplace perspective:

·  Need to maintain checks and balances with the determining/punishing body – disciplinary review board representing diversity of employees at the institution

·  Appropriate review process for institution and entity

·  Appropriate progressive disciplinary actions for institution and entity