H 58°, L 46° | Tomorrow: 
H 62°, L 51°
In what began with quiet disagreement and evolved into polarized debate, the Faculty Senate voted to support public authority status for the University of Wisconsin Monday after representatives emphasized the necessity for the body to take a definitive stance on the proposal.
Members of the Faculty Senate fiercely deliberated whether the body should support the plan proposed by Gov. Scott Walker and supported by Chancellor Biddy Martin.
The debate quickly divided the group between those in favor of financial and political separation from the UW System and those who wish to retain membership as part of the network of public institutions.
Proponents of the resolution said the UW System unfairly reaps financial benefits from UW that it then funnels down to the smaller schools instead of sending back to the top.
Provost Paul DeLuca said while the UW System does help bring more secondary education to native Wisconsinites, it does little to benefit the Madison campus. DeLuca said keeping UW a part of the UW System incorrectly links it to the other schools.
“In no way are we a large [UW-Green Bay] or a more complex [UW-La Crosse],” Deluca said. “We are unique from other UW (System) schools in our professors, our students and our mission.”
Supporters of the proposal also argued continuing to be a part of the System could jeopardize the national and international prestige of the campus.
Others faculty contended a separation from the System stemmed not from a desire to keep UW-Madison academically strong, but rather from a perception of elitism over other System campuses.
“This elitist belief that UW is better than the whole System is part of the reason we’re having these issues,” agronomy professor Shawn Conley said.
Members opposed to the measure also maintained public authority status could mean competition for top students and the state’s waning funding for higher education.
At the meeting, the University Committee presented a plan to neither support nor oppose the controversial proposed legislation, which was met with strong disapproval, as many faculty argued their concerns would not be heard at the Capitol if they remained neutral on the contentious issue.
Faculty members voted to adopt the resolution in support of the public authority proposal through a majority vote, despite lingering discontentment of the measure among critics.
Update: A former version of the article incorrectly attributed information and several quotes to political science professor John Coleman. We regret the error.
IP hash: af50a168
It’s really too bad UW has suffered so much in the last 40 years since its shackling (longer with Milwaukee, Green Bay and Parkside). Maybe if UW gets spun off it could FINALLY add a building to its campus, nab a Nobel prize winner, get a patent or go to a Rose Bowl. It’s been a rough 40 years UW, but there is a light at the end of the tunnel.
IP hash: 9c50e2c4
Pre-merger UW was never “shackled” to Green Bay, Parkside, or Milwaukee. It deliberately built those campuses as an empire-building exercise, to compete with the growing WSU system.
IP hash: c60cb9b6
vote tally?
IP hash: 9a739c59
From “Land Grant” to “Land-Grab” with Scott Walker and Biddy Martin, or “ How I learned to love the UW Madison Grand de-Merger”
I read with great interest the article by Tom Still on the reforms proposed by Biddy Martin and Governor Scott Walker for the University of Wisconsin System. The basic proposal is to remove the heart of our Higher Education System. UW Madison would become a separate quasi-private entity.
The rationale for this “Grand de Merger” idea is all over the map because none of rationale are relevant, but the ideas can basically be broken down to the following “less than meaningful concepts” all of which do not have enough weight to break UW Madison out of the system.
-The tuition students pay. -Be able to prioritize building projects. -Manage Construction Projects -Maintain authority to invest university funds. -Would have authority to purchase separately from the current system. -Would have authority on autos and travel versus current system. -Would be authorized to enter purchasing agreements with other institutions. -Would maintain authority to prioritize building projects. -Would set uniform pay plan outside of state limits. -Would set job classes for all staff. -Would set all collective bargaining agreements. -Would establish policies regarding compensation, and exceptions.
The New Board of Regents, for UW Madison exclusively, with 11 of the 21 Regents appointed by Governor Walker, without complete legislative approval, would manage all of the above. If this sounds like a bunch of “malarkey” you’d be correct!
I would remind the readers and Mr. Still that the University of Wisconsin is a land-grant university. So just what is a land-grant university?
“A land-grant college or university is an institution that has been designated by its state legislature or Congress to receive the benefits of the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890. The original mission of these institutions, as set forth in the first Morrill Act, was to teach agriculture, military tactics, and the mechanic arts as well as classical studies so that members of the working classes could obtain a liberal, practical education. Land was granted to the states from federal or state ownership to the universities or colleges”.
The benefits of the Morrill acts were to grant public land to get the University established. It must be remembered that these institutions were the property of the state itself, or in other words, the people of the state own the institution.
The reforms that Scott Walker and Biddy Martin are attempting to institute, with very well orchestrated public relations mind you, including Tom Still’s column, are essentially a take-over of the institution by corporate interests. All of which to be managed by the Governor, who as we all know, via the faux twenty-two minute Koch conversation, is corruptible.
Tom Still is the “President of the Wisconsin Technology Council” which is nothing more than a lobbying group that would like nothing more than to abscond totally with your University for private purposes at taxpayer expense. This effort equates to the 2008 financial crisis where we as a nation have essentially privatized profit and socialized losses.
The proponents of this “Grand de-Merger” speak to cuts in budgets for the University and its’ need to become more “flexible” to “compete with the other top 40 research Universities in the United States”.
One just might be able to support the concept if it would truly make the UW Madison more “competitive”. It has taken the state and it’s hard working citizens over 160 years to get UW Madison to the position it is in having spent billions of hard-earned taxpayer dollars on the effort.
Why would we as the owners of the institution, permit it to be given away, to be used by special interests for their research versus serving the people of Wisconsin and its’ original and existing mission?
We, as taxpayers, have a role in this discussion. Bureaucracies are often a little bit like egocentric five year olds; they will go as far as you permit them to go. But as a responsible parent, we rein them in once they go over the top in behavior. This is exactly where we are on the “Grand de Merger”.
All the new responsibilities that Governor Walker and the Regents will assume are already being administered very well via a singular Board of Regents with legislative oversight.
As you probably have already surmised, the real issue is money. Walker wants to sell UW Madison to the highest bidders or best friends (aka major contributors to the Walker campaign). All this to compensate Madison staff better, particularly Biddy Martin, as our tax base evaporates due to cumulative effects of awful policy decisions and post election strife.
Selling, giving or sacrificing Wisconsin’s prized asset away to special interests is a very cowardly means to an end that I do not believe the Governor really understands.
Research and discovery can be pure and/or applied. Wisconsin needs to do both well. Major problems arise when you organize, as a university, to do only one.
By making the choice to only focus on one, you ultimately will lose your ability to do either effectively.
I must say to suggest increased payroll will get a “better professor” in the middle of the great recession is frankly absurd. The greatest professors that I ever had, had income driven by textbook sales, royalties on inventions, consulting and paid lectures.
In my day, they may have gone hungry if they relied solely on their base salary and perhaps there was a degree of “intellectual motivation” in the past compensation practices.
We want these very talented people to be motivated and totally immersed in research and teaching and sharing it with the state and the nation. Not to mention the student body!
I am a product of the UW at Madison and have a BA in Economics and an MBA. I love the University and everything it does in teaching and research. But it does not need to be cheaply “sold out” to continue to exist.
I would submit that the entire staff at UW Madison can do better without the “Grand de Merger”, and they can strive to be number one in both research and production of the very best graduates for the State of Wisconsin and the nation.
My fear is we may not be challenging UW Madison to a high enough level.
That, my fellow citizens, is a “management problem” we need to address immediately.
Michael D Muoio BA 1974, MBA 1976 Appleton, Wisconsin