Shared Governance Report

by chatmandesign

Acknowledgments

A report about academic staff governance could not be written by a small group of people. Governance evolved, and is still evolving, thanks to the work of hundreds of academic staff members and this is reflected in the authorship of this report. Many people contributed ideas during various meetings. Their names were unable to be captured but their contributions remain significant. A partial list of contributors is given below with the committee’s gratitude.

Special thanks to:

Joann Elder for helping start the debate regarding shared governance.
Joe Corry for framing the debate.
Former Senator Joe Czarneski and Staff Attorney Russ Whitesel for ending the ambiguity of the debate.

And the following academic staff contributors:

Jane Bannerman Ann Wallace Kathy Poi
Jean Buehlman Donna Lewis Mary Ray
Judy Craig Colleen McCabe Claire Rider
Gary DeClute Bob Miller Karen Schwarz
Bob Heideman David Musolf Grayson Scott
Phil Hellmuth Steve Myrah Chancellor David Ward
Bruce Hellmich Collette Niland Provost John Wiley
Rob Ibarra Jim Pavelko Bambi Wilson
Melba Jesudasen Jane Phillips The Madison Academic Staff Association (MASA)
Bjorn Karlsson Mary Beth Plane The Academic Staff Assembly (ASA)

The University of Wisconsin has a proud tradition of shared governance. Since 1848, faculty and students have worked hand-in-hand to shape and implement the administrative policy that guides the academic experience. What has emerged and continues to evolve is a partnership that uniquely defines our institutional mission as a Land-Grant university with service to the public and the needs of the state.

As the university grew and changed, so did the infrastructure necessary to carry out our mission of teaching, research, and service. As faculty duties increased, different types of employees were needed to serve in various support roles and key positions to move the overall mission forward. These employees, now called the academic staff, also have a direct stake in the governance of the institution. Recognizing and enhancing this shared responsibility has been an evolutionary process that continues today.

Concepts of shared governance can take two forms: segmented or inclusive. Segmented governance allows each group to carve out responsibility areas and develop policies and procedures to administer those areas. Inclusive governance is a broader concept that encourages partnerships and collaboration to help leaders guide the institution. We believe the University will be better served in the future by building upon the more comprehensive and integrated partnerships. The question before us is how to establish those relationships that strengthen our institutional systems of governance and guidance.

To this end, the following chapters capture the past and begin to chart the future of the academic staff at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. They include: a documentary of evolutionary developments and positioning of the academic staff as key academic and administrative partners; a system for identifying the roles and responsibilities of academic staff in the developing structures; and finally, a compendium of promising initiatives and potential linkages with students, faculty, administration, and the Board of Regents to renew and preserve the vitality of the Wisconsin Idea.

Chapter 1: Pre-governance

There is no formal beginning of “academic staff” at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. That is, as various jobs needed to be done, many employees were hired who were neither tenure track faculty nor in the state classified system. When the student population ballooned in the late 1950’s and into the 1960’s, more and more of these types of appointments were needed, especially to support student services (Admissions, Housing, Financial Aids, Registrar, Student Health) and undergraduate advising. At the same time, research projects and teaching also required added staff. Over time, most of these non-categorized employees became known simply as “specialists,” regardless of academic attainment, scope of responsibility, or duties. Specialists were employed as academic advisors, librarians, some high level administrators, and even world-renowned researchers.

The first effort to identify this group was driven by the merger of the old state university system (Chapt. 37) with the University of Wisconsin (Chapt. 36) into a single system in 1971. Before merger, many academic staff in positions of responsibility were treated as faculty. The blurred lines were drawn by spheres of influence. “Faculty Status” was bestowed on certain academic staff; however, this designation was not by any written rule. As merger was proceeding forward, it became apparent that there would have to be some uniformity in appointments across the system. As a result, the lines separating faculty and academic staff became more sharply drawn. Many persons who had played prominent roles in administration found themselves defined out of spheres of influence because they were not faculty. And academic staff who had never been included in influential roles, now became part of an identifiable group. This latter group was not only de jure excluded from university governance by state statute, but was also excluded de facto. Thus identified as an excluded category, activist academic staff began to seek ways to have a voice in issues that influenced their livelihoods and careers.

During the period of merger, several organizations were formed to advance the interests of academic staff. Early on, a short-lived group named the Specialist Organizing Committee (SOC) gave voice to the interests of specialists. Campus librarians, through their representative body, The Librarian’s Assembly, also promoted the professional interest of academic staff. Already established campus groups, namely United Faculty (affiliated with Wisconsin Federation of Teachers and American Federation of Teachers) and the Wisconsin University Union (an independent union) recognized the common interests of faculty and academic staff. United Faculty formally acknowledged this relationship by legally changing its name to United Faculty and Academic Staff (UFAS). In 1975, the Madison Academic Staff Association (MASA) was formed. It advertised itself, then as now, as the “academic staff’s eyes and ears” on the campus and was the only organization devoted solely to academic staff issues. Among its early missions was the education of legislators-and even regents-who had, at best, only a vague idea of the identity and contributions of the over 6,000 academic staff in the University of Wisconsin System. MASA also promoted a professional identity for academic staff on the Madison campus by publishing a newsletter, sponsoring candidate forums, and detailing issues of interest to academic staff, including the publication of several critical issues documents. Among MASA’s top priorities was the inclusion of academic staff in campus governance. At the time of merger, both students and faculty were included by state statute in the process of governance, but the academic staff were not.

The opportunity to take the first steps towards governance arose as merger required each campus to develop personnel policies for its academic staff. On the Madison campus, this charge was invested in the Academic Staff Advisory Committee, a body consisting of seven elected and four (later three) members appointed by the Chancellor. Campus administration insisted that the committee be partially appointed because it was concerned that not all appropriate voices would get representation. Moreover, although the administration supported the electoral system used to elect the seven members, it would not recognize that these elected members represented a constituency. The approximately 2800 academic staff on the Madison campus, therefore, elected seven of its members to sit on this committee but they were not “represented” by them.

The Academic Staff Advisory Committee was in existence from 1975 to 1987; however, it eventually dropped the word “advisory” from its name and became known as simply the Academic Staff Committee (ASC). Most of the early members served two two-year terms so that it had a stable membership for the first four years. During its years of service, the ASC authored the original chapters of academic staff personnel policies and procedures and helped guide them through the campus, system, and Regents levels of adoption.

While the ASC operated as a de facto governance body of Madison’s academic staff, de jure governance was not a reality until 1985. In the early 1980’s, the promotion of collective bargaining for the faculty and academic staff by some state campuses made the prospect of statutory governance for academic staff considerably more attractive to state legislators and system administrators. Senator Joe Czarneski( Milwaukee), himself a former academic staff member at UW-Milwaukee, championed the cause by introducing academic staff governance language in Senate Bill 322 in 1983. Testimony at hearings by a representative of UW System Administration recommended that governance wait until internal studies of academic titling were completed and a representative of the UW-Madison faculty’s University Committee suggested changes in wording. However, neither the faculty nor the administration went on record as opposing governance rights for academic staff. The original intent of Senator Czarneski to give academic staff governance equal to faculty was, however, altered. As indicated in the language of the statute, academic staff governance is shared but subject to the faculty as well as to the regents, president, and chancellor. Finally, on August 17, 1985, Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 36.09 (4m) was amended to include academic staff as follows:

The academic staff members of each institution, subject to the responsibilities and powers of the board, the president and the chancellor and faculty of the institution, shall be active participants in the immediate governance of and policy development for the institution. The academic staff members have primary responsibility for the formulation and review, and shall be represented in the development, of all policies and procedures concerning academic staff members, including academic staff personnel matters. The academic staff members of each institution shall have the right to organize themselves in a manner they determine, and to select their representatives to participate in institutional governance.

Shared governance could now become a reality.

Chapter 2: The early years 1986-1992

The spirit of participation in university affairs by all interested groups has a long and honored history, but formal statutory recognition of governance rights for the academic staff was necessary to institutionalize participation and the process of integrating into that spirit continues down to this day. The goal of governance, like the goal of the University itself, is the promotion of excellence in the academic endeavor. The formal recognition of governance rights was a mandate to the University to involve the talent of all its students and employees in the service of progress, growth and change.

In a system where most recommendations and many decisions are made by committees, until 1985, academic staff participation on committees was neither mandated nor regularized. As a result, membership was inconsistent and substantive participation was uneven. The academic staff’s role in governance was often obscured, and contributions as well as academic staff interests were easily overlooked. Perhaps more importantly, staff perceived a status differential that was inhibiting and unacceptable. From 1975 to 1987 the governance prerogatives of the academic staff were vested in the Academic Staff Committee (ASC). As a body that was partially elected, partially appointed and only advisory in nature, the Academic Staff Committee was uncertain of its mandate, had no effective way of communicating with the academic staff or with the rest of the University community, and was often challenged as to its right and ability to speak for the academic staff.

The addition to the statutes of 36.09(4m) resolved the question of whether or not the academic staff was entitled to democratic representation in University governance. The approval of the Academic Staff Articles of Organization and the election of the Academic Staff Assembly cast away any doubt that governance was not only shared, it was representative. During the period from 1985 to the first meeting of the Academic Staff Assembly in 1987, the Academic Staff Committee became the transition governance organization and took the initiative to make representative participation for academic staff a reality by drafting the Academic Staff Articles of Organization. These articles, adopted in January of 1987, established a mechanism (the Academic Staff Assembly and the Academic Staff Executive Committee) for working out participation to the fullest extent possible. The Bylaws of the Academic Staff Assembly were enacted during its first full session in the fall of 1987 and provided the basic framework for governance. In August of 1987, the position of the Secretary of the Academic Staff was created, along with space and minimal support staff. This position succeeded a position created in 1986 to staff the effort to create the Academic Staff Articles of Organization. A staff associate spent six months giving the Articles form as well as substance. The newly created position of the Secretary of the Academic Staff assured that there would be continuity and consistency of participation. The Committee on Redistricting and Restructuring, a subcommittee of the Academic Staff Committee, assured that the Articles would receive the broadest possible review from academic staff and administration. The Madison Academic Staff Association organized hearings all across campus. The academic staff was now poised to put the “share” in shared governance.

The Academic Staff Articles of Organization listed four areas of concern that the old Academic Staff Committee predicted that the Academic Staff Assembly would need to pursue. The first concern had to do with determining the policies and procedures for operating the mechanisms of academic staff governance and was relatively noncontroversial in that the issues were self-contained within the academic staff and its governance bodies.

The second concern involved the role of the academic staff on university-wide policy-making committees. As early as July, 1986, the Academic Staff Committee began reviewing all campus committees to ensure that academic staff were properly represented. Although many academic staff members were serving on committees, their membership was not required and their role was, at times, unclear. In some cases, academic staff were represented non-voting, ex-officio. In other cases the line between ex-officio and voting member had been blurred and de facto equality was already in place. In still other examples, faculty had conceded committee initiative to academic staff because of time constraints or lack of interest, especially where the issues were the everyday responsibilities of staff and academic staff administrators. Still, several important committees were targeted for new or increased academic staff participation: the Athletic Board, the Campus Planning Committee, and the Campus Transportation Committee, to name a few. The ad hoc Academic Staff Committee on Committees became an early force in the move to give substance to shared governance at its very heart, the committee system. Among the most important committees to receive new participation from academic staff were the high-level administrative search and screen committees. In December of 1987, upon recommendation of the then UW System President Kenneth Shaw, the Board of Regents approved language adding academic staff to search committees for chancellors, executive vice presidents and vice chancellors, vice chancellors, and vice presidents. In the fall of 1986, the UW Faculty Senate approved language authorizing released time for academic staff to participate in governance activities. In February, 1987, the Faculty Senate went one step further and removed the term “whenever possible” from the resolution on academic staff participation, thereby adding one more level of acceptance for shared governance.

The third concern had to do with policies and procedures that affected the academic staff member as an employee. The results of the 1986-7 Hayes-Hill study on salary and titles were just being implemented as academic staff governance was evolving into its new statutory existence. In fact, the proximity of these two major events in the life of the academic staff and the effort required by academic staff leadership accounted, in part, for the length of the transition period. Not only salary and titling, but job security, comparable worth, pay equity, and equal opportunity all received some attention during this period. It is to the credit of those involved that academic staff were able to focus on the highly personal conditions of employment issues without distancing themselves from overiding concerns of the shared issues.

The fourth concern was for the level of academic staff involvement in all other areas of institutional policy development. One of the continuing challenges for academic staff governance is to integrate it with faculty and student governance in an institution that has long had one of the most fully developed faculty governance roles among American universities. The next chapter highlights many of the steps taken to ensure that shared governance is the way the university defines “business as usual.”

Chapter 3: Maturation/stabilization 1993-1998

While the first five years of academic staff governance rights reflect the birth and formative stages of academic staff governance, whereby academic staff began asserting independence, gaining recognition and establishing a foothold in the governance process, the subsequent years have been ones of maturation. They are characterized by increased recognition of academic staff as a full partner in governance and institutional initiatives, more formalized rights and responsibilities for the individual academic staff member, and an improved infrastructure to support the operations of the Academic Staff Executive Committee (ASEC) and the Academic Staff Assembly (ASA).

By the early 1990’s, faculty and academic staff had begun to forge a more collaborative approach to issues. Both the Academic Staff Executive Committee and the University Committee designated liaisons between the groups to ensure a link for continual, open communication. Faculty were included in annual academic staff planning sessions, and academic staff were seated on more campus and administrative committees. Dialogue between academic staff and Deans, Directors and campus administrators regarding academic staff and institutional issues increased and became a routine order of business for the Academic Staff Executive Committee and the Academic Staff Assembly. This close working relationship between academic staff and the administration has had a very positive impact that is not necessarily present at other similar institutions. An instructional academic staff member may be nominated by the campus to serve on the UW System Undergraduate Teaching Improvement Council (UTIC) in place of a faculty member. Expanded academic staff representation on various UW-Madison and UW System groups and committees, from the now- permanent UW System Compensation Advisory Committee to the more recent Board of Regents 21st Century Study committees to the Campus Planning Committee, the University Academic Planning Council, the Committee on Women in the University and the Equity and Diversity Resource Center Advisory Committee, is evidence of the more collaborative environment of the campus which exists and continues to expand. Inroads were also made with representation on the School/College Academic Planning Councils and the recent creation of School/College Academic Staff Issues Committees. These closer ties and collaboration on joint issues of concern enable both the faculty and academic staff governance bodies to more effectively influence institutional policies, the UW System, and state legislation.

Academic staff began to play a significant role in various institutional initiatives. An example of this is the Academic Staff Gender Equity Study, where academic staff leaders were influential in determining the project’s direction and scope, and designing policies and procedures to address inequities.

Increased attention was given to the rights of academic staff, including job security, through on-going review of Chapters 1-14 of the “Policies and Procedures Governing Academic Staff Appointments,” subsequently re-titled “Academic Staff Policies and Procedures” (ASPP). Changes in those chapters formalized academic staff representation on certain committees, established procedures for more equitable treatment regarding layoff and nonrenewal of appointments, and brought in more up-to-date policies that affected employment conditions. The impact on academic staff ranged from approved emeritus status and its parallel benefits for those deserving such recognition (a status previously reserved only for faculty), to more active monitoring of academic staff for possible rolling horizon and indefinite appointments, and to a higher threshold of time that academic staff can devote in pursuit of doctoral degrees concurrent with full-time employment.

To incorporate academic staff into the campus environment more fully, an Academic Staff Mentoring Program has recently been launched. Newly hired academic staff rely on longer-term academic staff for information about the University and its organization, policies, and procedures, while long- term academic staff can explore a myriad of goals. These relationships benefit both the mentor and the mentee. Professional development programs, from writing grants to improving job skills, are offered with greater frequency and are complemented by a newly formed Career Paths Committee. Great strides have been made in the areas affecting the work environment, professional development, and job security for academic staff.

The Academic Staff Executive Committee has changed considerably through evaluation of its own strengths and weaknesses. Influenced by the infusion on campus of continuous improvement principles, the Academic Staff Executive Committee identified its mission and vision, and set goals and measures of success. Many processes were reviewed and improved to utilize the limited time and energy of Academic Staff Executive Committee members more effectively. Of significant help was the campus administration’s endorsement of partial release time for the ASEC chair, to minimize the impact of the individual’s absence on the employing unit.

The Academic Staff Executive Committee, in keeping with technological advances, began to utilize new technology to communicate better with all academic staff. Communication links between Academic Staff Assembly representatives and their constituents has provided more effective avenues for monitoring trends and receiving input.

The Academic Staff Executive Committee has also undergone a gradual reorganization, from serving as both an internal and external relations body to a group focusing primarily on non-legislative issues. Until a few years ago, contact with parties regarding legislative matters affecting academic staff was handled by Academic Staff Executive Committee members and other interested academic staff. To concentrate more effectively on legislative issues affecting academic staff, the Academic Staff Public Representation Organization (ASPRO) Board of Directors was created by the Academic Staff Assembly. Originally the Board was made up entirely of Academic Staff Executive Committee members, but in 1994 the composition was changed to be more broadly representative. The ASPRO Board is now separate from the Academic Staff Executive Committee, but works in partnership with that body and the Academic Staff Assembly as a whole. UW-Madison academic staff are also represented on the System-wide Academic Staff Public Representation Organization, which has its own by-laws, membership from all campuses, and a lobbyist to garner support for and influence legislation about issues of concern to academic staff throughout the state.

Academic staff governance has promoted increased inclusion of staff in major campus initiatives, policy-making committees, and campus and UW System legislative activities. The partnerships and collaboration with faculty, students and the administration have strengthened the academic staff which helps keep the quality of UW-Madison at a superior level.

Chapter 4: Building an inclusive academic staff community 1998-2003

When the Wisconsin Legislature granted academic staff the right to actively participate in policy development and the decision-making process, it enabled the academic staff to establish a formal structure for representative governance on the Madison campus. Since that time much progress has been made towards the definition of governance, the means to accomplish governance, and the concept of shared governance between faculty, academic staff, and students. Included at the end of this chapter is an organizational chart of the major academic staff governance structures as they currently exist. These structures have served the academic staff well but must remain open to continual evolution. As noted earlier, shared governance can be defined two ways: 1)segmented governance where each group has a part allotted to it, or 2)inclusive governance that fosters joint responsibility for the whole by partnering and linking with faculty and students (groups legislated governance authority for the University). The vision for academic staff governance has always leaned toward the latter definition of shared governance and its ideal sense of community, understanding that some aspects of academic staff governance can only be addressed by the academic staff members themselves. What lies before us is the challenge to see this original vision become an effective reality.

Many academic staff members helped create this report by responding to the challenge to think about how governance could be strengthened in the next 5-10 years. Rather than present one or two models of governance, this chapter raises issues and presents ideas. Some of the issues are new, but most have been considered by governance structures in the past. Good ideas never die. They remain out there, waiting to come forth and be developed. As academic staff governance continues to evolve, the proper time for some of these ideas will emerge. It will be up to the Academic Staff Assembly and the Academic Staff Executive Committee to bring forward these ideas as circumstances dictate. The ideas fall into three categories:

1. those that foster the professional development of the individual staff member

2. those that strengthen and expand the existing academic staff governance structures, and

3. those that reframe the role of academic staff governance in helping build an inclusive academic community.

These ideas are presented in Appendices A-C in no specific priority order.

The University is beginning to transform and adapt to the growing forces of change on teaching, research, and service. These changes foster new academic values, systems, and associated infrastructures that are now starting to emerge. As value systems in our economy shift from production to information, the impact is changing the allocation of financial support in higher education. The advent of new technology and internet communication is restructuring the traditional campus into new “universities without walls.” These unprecedented changes nationwide have the potential to recast our academic missions, to alter our institutional cultures, and to redesign our current infrastructures that could permanently change the roles of the faculty and the academic staff on this campus. Even a modicum of structural and cultural alteration within a research institution of this magnitude would generate new, increasingly more diverse opportunities for the academic staff, while traditional boundaries between faculty, academic and administrative responsibilities could become more diffused. The current systems for governing and guidance become a primary concern and could be compromised without adequate pre-planning and building for an inclusive academic community.

A true academic community is based on citizens who work together as a team to implement the mission of the institution. It is vital that academic staff feel connected to the University of Wisconsin-Madison and are active partners in both planning and implementing the mission. The diversity of the academic staff provides a pool of expertise that must be nurtured and valued. An expanded role in governance both at the department/unit level and at the campus level can provide mechanisms to accomplish that. In addition, personnel policies and procedures that enhance the professional development of each individual academic staff member while also providing institutional accountability, must continue to evolve. Many academic staff are not aware of their responsibility in governance issues and are unable to participate in governance because of the nature of their job duties. It is important to inform the campus community that the governance function of academic staff is vital, encouraged, and expected by the campus administration. It is also important to develop processes that continually monitor the effectiveness of governance structures so that changes can be made as the institution continues to grow and evolve.

Good communication is at the heart of all relationships and is a fundamental principle of democratic government. The Academic Staff Assembly and the Academic Staff Executive Committee have done much to improve communication and representation of all academic staff; still, more work needs to be done to integrate fully all academic staff into the campus community. Academic staff representatives to the Academic Staff Assembly need to improve their communication to the staff they represent. Democratic governance relies on communication with constituents. The current Academic Staff Assembly representation is by districts organized by job title/function to facilitate understanding of job-related issues. The lack of geographic proximity in some districts can make communication more difficult. Communication structures need to be strengthened and expanded.

Academic staff are well aware of the changing nature of the campus community. Technology, distance learning, and inter-institutional cooperation have changed the way the university does business. More academic staff are part of the instructional staff of the campus, and this trend is going to continue. Academic staff also carry a large share of the research capability of UW-Madison and the majority of student service delivery. Because of the diversity, size, and unique perspectives of the academic staff, it is of increasing importance for the Faculty Senate and University Committee to work in tandem with the Academic Staff Assembly and Academic Staff Executive Committee to involve more staff in the total life of the institution. Greater academic staff involvement in decision-making at all levels can only strengthen the institution by bringing in rich sources of expertise. Shared governance needs to provide structures that promote this community building. As we look ahead for the next decade, it is clear that the definition of community will expand and change as well. The Wisconsin Idea, a tradition held since 1848, that the boundaries of the university are the boundaries of the state, has already evolved into a much greater concept. Distance learning, consortial relationships with other institutions, like the Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC), governmental agencies, and the private sector make the boundaries of the university infinite. Academic staff have a large role to play in making these partnerships effective.

Governance structures must be flexible and fluid to adjust to changes while honoring practices that have served to define the nature of the University of Wisconsin-Madison. By building partnerships, we capitalize on everyone’s expertise and truly make governance a vision shared and a tradition strengthened.

APPENDIX A – Ideas to promote professional development of Academic Staff

  • Develop an orientation program for new academic staff members that includes the role of shared governance at UW-Madison
  • Expand the Academic Staff Mentoring Program to reach all interested academic staff
  • Establish mentoring committees in each School/College to provide a “getting started” mentor
  • Develop on-going training for new supervisors of academic staff on the basic principles of team building, management, and interpersonal communications
  • Promote increased communications between academic staff and their supervisors by encouraging departmental, team, or group meetings, individual performance evaluations or other one-on-one meetings with the purpose of improving job effectiveness, accountability, and career development
  • Increase the use of rolling horizon, multiple-year fixed term, and indefinite appointments to enhance job security
  • Provide a campus-wide “bridge fund” for academic staff between soft money positions
  • Encourage cross-training, retraining, job swapping and shadowing programs to enhance career opportunities and campus communications
  • Eliminate the 175% rule for academic staff who are also students so they are treated the same as other fully employed students
  • Allow academic staff to enroll in university classes that have open slots after the add/drop deadline with no fees or tuition
  • Explore ways to increase the Principal Investigator (PI) designation for academic staff
  • Encourage all departments and units to use 5% of their budget for professional development
  • Promote the work of the Committee on Retirement Issues to enhance opportunities for retired academic staff to stay involved with the university
  • Continue to honor outstanding staff with institutional awards and professional development grants
  • Support membership in organizations that contribute to the professional life of academic staff like the Madison Academic Staff Association, the Latina/Latino Academic Staff Association, the Student Personnel Association, etc.

APPENDIX B – Ideas to increase the effectiveness of current governance structures

  • Design ways to ensure that governance structures are truly representative of the academic staff as a whole
  • Develop a process to review governance structures on an on-going basis to make sure they evolve as necessary to meet the needs of the academic staff
  • Continue to educate the campus community that academic staff governance is a legitimate and expected activity to make it easier for all staff to participate
  • Determine appropriate ways to document time spent on governance activities for grant-funded positions
  • Appoint an ad hoc committee to study the communication needs of the Academic Staff Assembly and the standing committees, establish priorities and recommend a plan to implement the priorities
  • Increase the staff and computer resources in the office of the Secretary of the Academic Staff so additional support is available to the Academic Staff Assembly committees, the Academic Staff Executive Committee, and Assembly representatives
  • Develop standard procedures for filing, retrieving, and archiving documents submitted to and generated by the Secretary of the Academic Staff’s Office
  • Improve the communication with the faculty by formalizing Academic Staff Executive Committee/University Committee linkages; continue the informal linkages like luncheons
  • Work with the Secretary of the Faculty’s Office on the appointment and operation of joint governance committees
  • Increase the number of academic staff on various joint governance committees, as appropriate
  • Devise more formal mechanisms for joint governance committees to report to the Academic Staff Assembly
  • Develop a Voter’s Guide to acquaint academic staff with Academic Staff Executive Committee candidates
  • Improve the current districting website to make it more user friendly and expand it to include more specific information on academic staff members; explore developing an academic staff chat room
  • Develop webmaster capability in the Secretary of the Academic Staff’s Office to make sure all websites dealing with academic staff are kept current and linked
  • Raise the visibility of academic staff on campus by publishing Academic Staff Executive Committee and Academic Staff Assembly meeting summaries in Wisconsin Week and making a concerted effort to publicize more academic staff achievements and accomplishments in the Madison newspapers as well as Wisconsin Week
  • Support current efforts and develop enhanced strategies to recruit and retain academic staff of color
  • Establish School/College councils or sub-committees that meet with the Dean and perhaps Academic Planning Councils to discuss issues concerning academic staff
  • Keep good communications between the Public Representation Organization of the Faculty Senate (PROFS) , the Academic Staff Public Representation Organization (ASPRO), and student lobbying groups on matters of importance to faculty, students, academic staff, and the institution at large
  • Continue to promote stronger collaboration with the UW-Madison administration, the University of Wisconsin System and the Board of Regents

APPENDIX C – Ideas that reframe the shared governance experience

  • Focus more attention in the Academic Staff Assembly on campus-wide issues (e.g., class attendance policies, diversity plans)
  • Develop links with Academic Staff Assembly and Faculty Senate representatives to discuss issues of common concern
  • Involve more academic staff in university and school/college strategic planning and decision-making
  • Promote greater involvement by instructional staff in departmental curricular issues
  • Promote greater involvement by academic staff in inter-institutional collaboration

APPENDIX D – Academic Staff governance involvement 1986-98

1986-87 Academic Staff Committee Elected by Academic St
Sarah Aslakson
Lois Brick
Curt Johnson
Jane Phillips
Steve Saffian, chair
Carol Tarr
Gwen Wachal
Appointed by Chancellor:
Judy Craig
Sally Davis
Eileen Smith
Jeff Wasserman

1987-88 Academic Staff Committee
Same composition as 1986-87

1988-89 Academic Staff Executive Committee ( Elected by Academic Staff)
Karen Carlson
Phil Hellmuth, chair
Karen Jankowski
Lisa Munro
Steve Myrah
Judy Peterson
Grayson Scott
Steve Saffian
Jan Wheaton, vice chair

1989-1990 Academic Staff Committee
Same composition as 1986-87

1990-91 Academic Staff Executive Committee
Bonnie Albright
Phil Hellmuth
Karen Jankowski
Larry Lockwood
Lisa Munro, co-vice chair
Steve Myrah, co-vice chair
Judy Peterson
Grayson Scott
Jan Wheaton, chair

1991-92 Academic Staff Executive Committee
Bonnie Albright, vice chair
Phil Hellmuth
Karen Jankowski
Larry Lockwood
Lisa Munro
Steve Myrah, chair
Judy Peterson
Grayson Scott
Jan Wheaton

1992-93 Academic Staff Executive Committee
Phil Hellmuth
Larry Lockwood, vice chair
Cathy Middlecamp
Esther Olson
Colleen McCabe Paul
Judy Peterson
Grayson Scott
Char Tortorice
Jan Wheaton, chair

1993-94 Academic Staff Executive Committee
Bob Dye
Phil Hellmuth
Larry Lockwood, chair
Henry Lufler
Cathy Middlecamp
Grayson Scott
Char Tortorice, vice chair
Sharon Vinson
Jan Wheaton

1994-95 Academic Staff Executive Committee
Bob Dye, vice chair
Larry Lockwood
Cathy Middlecamp
Wilt Sanders
Grayson Scott
Bill Steffenhagen
Char Tortorice, chair
Sharon Vinson
Kathy Zweifel

1996-97 Academic Staff Executive Committee
Bob Dye
Pat Fessenden
Carole McGuire
Esther Olson
Barry Robinson
Mary Ruedinger
Wilt Sanders
Bill Steffenhagen, chair
Kathy Zweifel, vice chair

1997-98 Academic Staff Executive Committee
Same composition as 1996-97

APPENDIX E – UW-Madison Academic Staff governance organizational chart


APPENDIX F – ASEC mission statement

The Academic Staff Executive Committee (ASEC) provides leadershop in matters of statutory shared governance an dpolicy development for academic staff and thier elected represetnatives in the Academic Staff Assembly through interaction with administration, faculty and student governance.

ASEC vision statement

The Academic Staff Executive Committee (ASEC) will be a full participant in the governance of and policy development for the University of Wisconsin-Madison to advance the interests of academic staff in the university community. This will be accomplished through:

demonstrated leadership at the campus level independently and jointly with faculty and student governance groups; effective communication and thoughtful interaction with regents, System and Madison campus administration, faculty/student governance, and state government; and fostering a collegial environment conducive to strong professional growth for academic staff at all levels (departments, school/college and institution).