On a table in the office of University of Wisconsin Chancellor Biddy Martin is a little white Badgers-themed piggybank. Interim Provost Julie Underwood gave Martin the piggy bank Wednesday morning as a way to help UW survive the state’s budget troubles.
Martin laughs after she says this, since she has a different thing in mind for raising money — a plan to increase tuition that will either succeed or die Thursday, when the Madison Initiative for Undergraduates is scheduled to go before the UW System Board of Regents.
At the end of her first year leading UW, Martin is busy going from event to event, stopping briefly to speak to The Badger Herald Wednesday between scooping out “Strawbiddy Swirl” to students and attending the grand opening of UW’s Art Lofts facility.
She says she thinks she has another event to attend as well, but she does not remember what it is.
At this point, she has lost track.
Sense of urgency needed
Introduced in March, the Madison Initiative has been the most significant project undertaken by the chancellor to date and has consumed much of her attention.
She has held multiple forums to get feedback, lobbied the Associated Students of Madison and even hosted a dinner at her home for student leaders. Now, after less than two months, the initiative will be voted on by the ultimate authority in the UW System.
On Wednesday, Rep. Steve Nass, R-Whitewater, released a statement calling on the regents to delay approval of the tuition hike. He said not enough information about the initiative is known and he would like all non-academic spending eliminated before the board passes the initiative.
Martin, on the other hand, disagrees with any delay.
“I think it’s urgent,” Martin said. “Especially with the more information I get about maybe an even bigger budget [shortfall], there’s no way we can afford to wait.”
Even before receiving the job as chancellor, Martin talked about the need for faculty recruitment and retention, a main focus of her administration.
Now that she has introduced her plan, she can only hope the Board of Regents agrees with her, or it is back to the drawing board after much effort.
“There’s a real need for more faculty, staff and financial aid very soon,” Martin said. “I’m not implying it’s a disaster … but it adds up to significant quality issues.”
At a crazy pace
Martin says the hectic year has not changed her sense of priorities for the job, but it has flushed out the details and given her a more complete picture of what is needed, compared to last summer.
She will not, however, have a full idea of how her expectations have changed until she gets more quiet time this summer.
“The pace is crazy,” Martin laughs. “It’s a real whirlwind kind of a 24/7 job, getting to know the needs of all the constituencies. Everyone wants something different.”
Martin has taken a different approach to the state government than former UW Chancellor John Wiley, who was criticized for being confrontational with the Legislature and slamming the Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce group for polarizing the Capitol.
Martin’s staff told her she has spent between 75 and 85 hours with legislators and the governor’s office, even reaching out to the WMC, trying to build working relationships.
The chancellor has also taken care of issues from early in her “freshman” year in a way she is comfortable with despite criticism, like the issues of hazing allegations within the UW Marching Band and the allegations of intimidation on the Athletic Board.
Martin said she anticipates being at UW for a while, at least “as long as I’m able to be effective.”
She even joked about possibly waiting to leave until she gets a statue dedicated to her on campus.
Sounds like she may be here a long while.


IP hash: 09b6b958
She has done a horrible job in my opinion. Tuition is high enough, why raise it?
IP hash: 46c26aa9
Her work is widely considered questionable at best, reprehensible at worst.
IP hash: 46c26aa9
“…retention, a main focus of her administration.” And yet she booted Wiley’s staff? Way to retain them.
IP hash: 4089035a
Um, tuition is not “high enough.” We have one of the lowest tuition rates in the Big 10. Want want want, everybody wants and nobody wants to pay for it.
You go, Biddy!
IP hash: 92f48156
raising tuition when we’re wasting it giving it to groups on campus like that quidditch club… maybe she needs to reevaluate the way the money is being distributed instead of just raising tuition.
IP hash: d66bd1ec
@5:27: The only campus groups that get money “given” to them are the GSSF groups, the quidditch group isn’t one of them. List of GSSF groups here: http://www.asm.wisc.edu/gssf-funded-groups.html
As accountant to a GSSF group, I wouldn’t even call it “giving” because it’s so heavily regulated that getting anything done is a damn mess. There’s an initial eligibility hearing (repeated biannually), a budget presentation where the function and usefulness of EVERY DIME is justified and scrutinized, periodic accountability reports during and after the fiscal year (all of this is repeated annually), all while minding the plethora of rules that fill a 160-page manual. By saying that anyone is “given” anything, you reveal your ignorance.
The finance manual that GSSF groups are guided by: https://mywebspace.wisc.edu/xythoswfs/webui/xy-206806181-t_oJfwPF3J
Please don’t criticize a system you don’t understand.
IP hash: 8983217b
@12:47 I may not know your regulations for GSSF, but I do understand that the money has to come from somewhere. In the article that I read about the group, http://www.madison.com/wsj/topstories/448200 it says that the quidditch club is an official club on campus, that receives $600 in funding from the university. So unless that money is being minted right on campus, it’s going to have to come from one of the university’s revenue streams. I’m not criticizing your system for allocating money to GSSF groups, but I’m just saying maybe that money is better spent elsewhere, like giving a scholarship to a student who needs it, rather than to fund people running around playing an imaginary sport.
IP hash: 7df66c3c
@11:13: Use context.
$600/group * 900 non-GSSF groups = $540,000. That’s much less than MCSC + WSUM, assuming that every group gets $600 (I’ve never heard of that before, so I’m assuming not) and there’s still 15-20 other GSSF groups. And all GSSF groups put together are just 6% of seg fees, which are separate from tuition and aren’t what anyone’s talking about when referring to while discussing “tuition.” Considering that’s the foundation of your entire disagreement, your point remains invalid.
-12:47
IP hash: 37148e16
yea, not every group gets $600, in fact most don’t…
IP hash: 0e92cc4b
Biddy conned everyone regarding the tuition hike, but they will still take a 2 percent cut and reduction. Biddy will go up in smoke along with that other clown at Whitewater