approved December 15, 2014
a. Budget update: Situation parallels that of four years ago. Situation will be exacerbated by several spending and revenue items. Discussion.
b. Update and discussion of UW System announcement of cost-saving plan.
c. Travel policy update: UW-Madison recommends use of Concur/Fox while UW System requires it. Utilization has increased significantly. System is still pressuring for mandatory usage, but there are significant barriers. Bazzell suggested bringing in UW System personnel to discuss.
d. 9 over 12 update: Will be implemented by next fall. May not include faculty on research grants due to effort reporting complexities, tax ramifications, and contract year limitations. Bigger issue on other campuses than at Madison.
e. UC asked about the possibility of a 2nd round of research funding. There has been no decision yet and nothing is forthcoming imminently.
a. SMPH has three tracks of “faculty” – tenure, CHS, and CT. (The latter would be “clinical” most places; they are physicians practicing all over the state and are vitally important.) Golden explained SMPH concern that non-promoted tenure track have to leave the university and take their patients with them, creating losses and competition issues for UW Hospital. Not a common occurrence, but is a serious issue when physicians with strong integration in the community do not get promoted (often in part because of heavy clinical duties) and go to competitors.
i. Golden proposed crafting a process narrowly defined to these situations. One possibility would be for “up or out” to not be applicable to CT track and to allow for those not promoted in other tracks to transfer to CT track. Could attach limitations (one-year contract, for ex.). This solution would not undermine other units since CT is unique to medicine.
ii. Track changing is easy in first 3 years. Afterwards have to make case that workload changed.
iii. UC recommended crafting internal systems in SMPH to encourage track changes before candidates go up for tenure. This would cover approximately 80% of cases.
iv. For remaining 20% (decreasing each year), problem arises when department thinks candidate deserves promotion and divisional denies. Suggestion of a possible separate appeal process for this group. This would not be an appeal of tenure, but of whether individuals could continue in CT track. Appeal could be to UC/Provost as rules waiver.
v. Consensus that more clinical tenured faculty are needed on divisional committees who understand these issues.
vi. Golden will draft new policy and submit for comment in next few months.
b. Broader issue: While campus has done a brilliant job of linking post-tenure review with equity compression tools, there is still a need for a way to reduce salary of those who are flaunting tenure and underperforming. Those who do not perform at expected levels create financial pressures and morale problems. Discussion.
a. Discussion of WSJ story on Cross’s press release and related issues. What is proposed is not a major change to the way we do business fundamentally.
b. Update on compliance: clear need for more centralized attention across all issues campuswide. Likely that this coordinating position will go in Legal Affairs, where HIPAA is already located. Coordinator position will be posted early in 2015 and filled by spring, following campus meetings.
c. Discussion of executive compensation.
d. Discussion of UVA evolving story and dangers of publicness of debate.
e. Update on budget.
f. Discussion of system engineering proposals.