Wisconsin Policy Research Institute Report:

Renewing the University of Wisconsin System:
Creating the Capacity to Manage and Compete

By Thomas L. Fletemeyer

CONTINUED:

UWS System Structure. The UWS encompasses widely divergent institutions that differ profoundly in terms of mission, scale, funding, staff recruitment markets, and student profiles. A 2001 report from the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute authored by James H. Miller and Frank Cipriani, in the context of an analysis of the benefits of making UW-Madison a charter university, persuasively argued the unique nature and critical importance of UW-Madison to the state of Wisconsin.[i] For a comprehensive discussion of the factors that set Madison apart from the other UW institutions, see their article.

Only the Madison campus has a national stature both in terms of undergraduate and graduate education. On measures of educational quality, it is ranked 34th among all universities and 7th among public universities. The UW-Madison, with its 36,100 full-time equivalent students represents 26% of the entire UWS and has almost twice as many students as the next largest campus. Madison confers almost half of the graduate and advanced degrees in the System and 90% of the doctoral degrees (UW-Milwaukee is the only other campus offering doctoral degrees). Madison attracts 65% of all nonresident undergraduates in the UWS. The campus with the next largest nonresident enrollment, UW-Milwaukee, has 5%. Madison accounts for 83% of all nonresident graduate students compared with 7.8% for Milwaukee.

On a number of indicators, the Madison campus is among the top research universities in the world. Madison’s $49.9 million in revenues from licensing and patent activity ranked 5th in the nation in Fiscal Year 2005. Its $325.9 million in charitable contributions received in 2006 ranked 10th in the nation. No other campus generates any amounts that are significant in comparison. Its projected 2006 federal grants and contracts of $527.3 million are almost four times as much as the next highest amount for a UW campus. Madison ranks among the top six public research universities in the United States. Madison is 7th nationally among all institutions in the number of doctorates granted. UW-Milwaukee ranks 163rd.

The Madison campus accounts for 93% of research funding in the UWS and generates more than two-thirds of outside funding. Over 90% of Madison’s research funding of $857.2 million is generated from outside sources. The research budget is nineteen times larger than the next largest research budget in the UW System. From these data, it is clear than the Madison campus is the primary focus for generating the external funding and conducting the research that can be driving forces behind Wisconsin’s economic future.

The Madison campus competes with the other top national universities for faculty and leadership. Its peer group for faculty compensation includes top national universities: the other Big Ten universities, UC-Berkeley, UC-Los Angeles, and the University of Washington. Milwaukee’s peer group includes a number of urban-based institutions. The other UW campuses have state regional peers.

The issue then, is whether the performance of the Madison campus is enhanced in the current UW System. While a single UW System serves other purposes, it does not appear to be the best structure within which to advance the missions of the UW-Madison. Further, the presence of UW-Madison within a single system could be said to “overwhelm” the other institutions so that their missions and interests are also not well-served.

The Miller and Cipriani argument for charter status for UW-Madison continues to be a valid approach to address the situation in which the UW System governance structure is not well-suited for an institution with the distinct nature of the Madison campus and is a hindrance to maintaining the national and international stature of the institution. This would be even more the case were collective bargaining to be authorized for the UWS as proposed in Governor Doyle’s biennial budget. It is unlikely that UW-Madison faculty would opt for collective bargaining. It is likely that the faculty at most, if not all of the other institutions, would choose collective bargaining. The result would be a situation where the non-unionized faculty at Madison would be included within a system where most of the other faculty would be unionized.

There are compelling potential benefits from establishing a separate governing board for UW-Madison.

• A separate UW-Madison governing board could more effectively promote the distinct mission of the Madison campus and better position it to compete in its national market..
• The Board, without the distraction of governing fourteen other completely different institutions, would exercise more informed oversight of the Madison campus.
• The UW-Madison chancellor would be much more accountable in that his/her relationship to the Board would be more direct. 
• A separate board would greatly enhance the attractiveness of the campus for potential chancellors recruited entirely on the basis of their ability to provide leadership for an institution with Madison’s stature.
• The campus would be more able to respond quickly to the changing needs of the Wisconsin economy and to funding opportunities as they arise.
• The resulting more flexible administrative structure would enhance faculty recruitment and retention by allowing the campus to directly administer its affairs.
• It would not be necessary to duplicate “back room” operations such as accounting and information technology systems which could be shared between UW-Madison and the UW-System.

It is important to note that these benefits would be jeopardized to the extent that the current overlapping governance rights of the UW-System’s internal constituencies were continued for the Madison campus. Continuation of a governance system characterized by overlapping authorities, where leadership is discouraged and focused action virtually precluded, would not be consistent with the purpose of providing a separate board for Madison: to allow the campus the flexibility to more effectively compete among the other national research universities. Clearly faculty governance should continue in the areas where it is customary in institutions of higher education and where it is a necessity for academic freedom and creativity.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Commentators have often remarked on the unchanging nature of the fundamentals of university operation.

About seventy-five institutions in the Western world established by 1520 still exist in recognizable forms, with similar functions and unbroken histories, including the Catholic church; the Parliaments of the Isle of Man, of Iceland, and of Great Britain; the governance structures of several Swiss cantons; the Bank of Sienna; and some sixty-one universities.

. . . [T]he sixty-one universities, however, are mostly still in the same locations with some of the same buildings, with professors and students doing much the same things, and with governance carried on in much the same ways. . . . [T]he eternal themes of teaching, scholarship and service, in one combination or another, continue.[ii]

The UWS is quite successful. Two common sayings come to mind: “How can one argue with success?” “If it’s not broke, don’t try to fix it.” These slogans for complacency may well pertain to critical areas of the UWS. For example, research is largely funded by non-state sources. By all indicators, UW-Madison is managing the research area quite well. Another area concerns that aspect of faculty governance related to the content of academic programs. No one would argue that role of the faculty in determining course content or the content of programs of study should be compromised. There are many other such areas where the benefits of seeking change are clearly limited. Other areas remain, however.

The primary source of funding to maintain the relevancy of UWS programs and to meet changing needs will be reallocations of funding within the UWS budget. This is actually the case today where most curriculum changes initiated at the academic department level are funded in this way. Generating funding for institutional and state-level needs will require greater attention to: systematic, comprehensive planning; fostering efficiency; monitoring faculty workloads; and potentially reallocating funding among institutions.

The current system was created out of the former University of Wisconsin System which consisted of the Madison, Milwaukee, Green Bay, and Parkside campuses together with ten freshman-sophomore centers; and, the Wisconsin State University System which included nine universities and four freshman-sophomore campuses. Many of the goals which led to merger have been realized, in part or in full, and, in some periods of time: program duplication and proliferation have been reduced; common management systems are in place; a degree of specialization among campuses has been achieved; salary disparities have been addressed; budget challenges have been met through System actions.

Major questions that can be raised today are:

1. Has the merged UWS gone as far as it can under its current practices and philosophy?
2. Has the time come to reconsider the functions of the merged system?
3. Can the System operate more effectively and efficiently?
4. Does the UWS, as it currently operates, ensure that state needs for higher education are met, as opposed to, or in addition to, the goals of the faculty and the individual campuses?
5. Can a single governing Board adequately manage such a diverse system and provide the level of accountability that the taxpayers of the state have a right to expect?

The state and the UWS are living in an environment that is very different from that of the 1970s when the current governing structures of the UWS were established. The world has moved on, but the state and the UWS have not fully adapted to what is likely to be the reality of at least the immediate future.

In 2005, the Board of Regents passed a resolution supporting UW System President Kevin Reilly’s call for a bi-partisan state commission to address fundamental questions about what the people of Wisconsin want their public university to be, and to do. The University itself, in President Reilly’s call for a commission and in its “Charting” paper acknowledging the interaction between self-help, state-help, and joint efforts, has identified the major elements necessary to move forward: internal reform plus greater management flexibility for the UWS.

What is called for is nothing less than a renewal of the “social contract” between the University of Wisconsin and the state’s citizens. To achieve this, it is necessary to conduct a comprehensive review of the structure and internal operations of the UW System and its relationship to state government such as has not occurred since merger. The review should:

1. address the UWS’s plea for greater management flexibility and autonomy from the rest of state government;
2. review the governing statutes of the UWS to eliminate obsolete language, to provide clearer lines of authority, and to modify fiscal emergency provisions to allow staffing adjustments due to reorganizations, changing academic needs, and elimination of duplication;
3. examine faculty workload and productivity; and
4. create statutory language establishing a separate governing board for the UW-Madison.

ATTACHMENT I - PRESS ITEMS [iii]

•      Legislature, UW System Not On Same Page; Working Relationships Are At A Low Point As Sides Tug Over Purse Strings and Principles. Megan Twohey, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, September 25, 2005.

. . . [T]o get a taste of how bad the relationship is between the Legislature and the University of Wisconsin System, Listen to Dale Schultz, Jim Doyle and John Wiley:

“There is a lot of tension,” acknowledged Schultz (R-Richland Center), majority leader of the Senate.

“The relationship is very poor,” conceded Doyle, the state’s Democratic Governor.

“I’ve been on the faculty for 30 years and in administration for 20 of those, and I don’t remember a time when it was worse than it is now’” said Wiley, Chancellor of UW-Madison.

•     UW-Whitewater Is Faulted in Audit: It Says The University Failed To Notice A Dean Was Breaking Its Rules. Ryan J. Foley, Associated Press, Wisconsin State Journal, December 6, 2005.

•     UW-Whitewater Wants Credit Charges Back: The Demoted Dean Says Audit Is A “Witch Hunt.” Dee J. Hall, Wisconsin State Journal, October 11, 2006.

•     Lawsuit Details Allegations Against Ex-Whitewater Dean. Ryan J. Foley, Associated Press, January 27, 2007.

Escalating a legal battle between University of Wisconsin-Whitewater and a former dean, state lawyers have filed a lawsuit to try to recapture money they say the dean spent for personal uses.

The countersuit against Lee Jones seeks to recoup at least $10,000 he spent during his one year as dean of graduate studies and continuing education. It comes in response to a federal lawsuit Jones filed last month alleging he was driven from campus because he is black.

The university removed Jones as dean in 2005 after an audit accused him of financial mismanagement. He left his position as a professor at the university last year.

As part of their suit, state lawyers representing the university made public its previously secret investigation that alleged Jones improperly spent school money on computers, furniture, travel and his personal consulting business.

Jones' lawyer denied the allegations and said that if his client had stolen the money, the university was irresponsible for waiting so long to try to get it back.

"If they sincerely believed that he did the things they are now alleging, why in the world would they wait until he filed suit to take action?" asked Jones' lawyer, Robert Kasieta.

The school's legal troubles may continue to grow. Kasieta said a second black UW-Whitewater dean, also demoted after an audit found he broke spending rules, is preparing to file a similar racial discrimination complaint.

Kasieta said he also would represent Howard Ross, who still works as a professor at UW-Whitewater, a school of 10,500 students 45 miles southeast of Madison.

•     UW Urged To Dump Payroll System: After 5 Years, Program Still Unusable. Aaron Nathans, The Capital Times, November 4, 2005.

•     UW System Halts New Payroll System. Wisconsin State Journal, May 4, 2006.

•      Assessments Show UW Payroll Woes. Associated Press, The Capital Times, July 29, 2006.

•     UW Keeps Regents In Dark About Snafu. Ryan J. Foley, Associated Press, The Capital Times, March 3, 2007.

University of Wisconsin System leaders never informed the Board of Regents about a troubled $28.4 million software project until they canceled it last year, a report released Friday shows.

The regents did not receive a single update on problems with the system to track payroll and benefits information, the report said, despite warnings the project was in danger as far back as 2004. Some campus officials doubted it would ever work even earlier. . . .

•     UW Reacts To Stiff Dose Of Discontent in Survey. Karen Rivedal, Wisconsin State Journal, February 25, 2006.

. . . [H]oward Cosgrove of Wood Communications on Friday said his company decided to do the poll because business interests believe that the System is one of the state’s most important economic engines.  But it also needs more support from the public, Cosgrove said, to be as successful as it could be. . . .

69 percent of Wisconsin residents: Agreed that System “campuses have more administrators than they need.”

50 percent: Agreed that system “campuses pay their faculty too much.”

62 percent: Agreed that System campuses provide health benefits to faculty and academic staff that are “more expensive and generous than the rest of us get.”

59 percent: Agreed that System “campuses don’t think they have to watch their dollars like the rest of us.”

72 percent: Agreed that System “campuses spend too much money on things they don’t need instead of concentrating on educating students.”

74 percent: Agreed they couldn’t afford to send their child to a System campus without financial aid.

60 percent: Agreed the value of a System education compared to the cost is good or excellent.

79 percent: Agreed the System is doing an excellent job of providing a good education.

19 percent: Agreed they cannot afford to give their children a System education at all.

65 percent: Agreed the System could manage itself more effectively to overcome budget cuts.

•     Audit Finds 40 Felons In UW Employ: The Audit Reported The System Was Unaware Of Many Of The Felons, 27 Of Whom Were at UW-Madison. Ryan J. Foley, Associated Press, Wisconsin State Journal, March 1, 2006.

•     New UW Rules Would Speed Up Firing of Felons. Ryan J. Foley, Associated Press, The Capital Times, February 9, 2006.

University of Wisconsin System Professors convicted of felonies could be immediately suspended without pay under proposed rules meant to quickly remove criminals from the system’s payroll.

•     UW Felon Still Working On Campus. Madison Channel 27 News, September 19, 2005.

27 News has uncovered UW-Madison literature professor Lewis Cohen, a convicted sex offender, works on campus as part of a state work release program and has access to student records.

"To give this person, who's been convicted of a serious crime against children, access to student records, simply doesn't make sense," Rep. Scott Suder (R-Abbotsford) told 27 News.

•     UW Staffer Has Theft Conviction: List Shows 40 Felons On System Payroll As Of Last Fall. Ryan J. Foley, Associated Press, Wisconsin State Journal, March 6, 2006.

A UW-Madison employee who has handled donations, grants and credit card transactions was convicted last year on charges she embezzled more than $30,000 from a previous employer, court records show.

The Legislative Audit Bureau identified Jennifer K. Joas, a financial specialist in the university's agronomy department, as one of 40 felons on the UW System payroll as of last fall in a list obtained by The Associated Press.

•     A Faculty Committee Has Been Swamped After Three Professors Were Fired After Committing Felonies. Karen Rivedal, Wisconsin State Journal, December 11, 2005.

Internal appeals of firing decisions are nearly finished for two of the three UW-Madison professors convicted of felonies in recent months, while the process for the third—jailed stalker Steven Clark—is just getting under way, university officials confirmed last week.

UW-Madison's administration had moved to fire all three by mid-September, but they remain officially employed pending internal appeals, an option they are entitled to under state and university rules.

One of the three, registered sex offender Lewis K. Cohen, is still drawing his $73,000 salary; the committee expects to make a decision in his case by early January.

"We made a very serious effort to try to do all three cases in this semester," said professor James Donnelly, who leads the nine-member appeals committee that hears faculty disciplinary cases. "But we just couldn't find enough time."

•     UW Probe Uncovers Fraudulent Research. Professor Resigned in March After Questions Were Raised. David Wahlberg, Wisconsin State Journal, June 1, 2006.

•     UW Fertility Clinic Doctors Can’t Get Along. David Wahlberg, Wisconsin State Journal, March 31, 2006.

Escalating tensions among the three doctors at the UW fertility clinics, including charges of sexual harassment and poor care, led to the announcement last week that the clinic will close by June a university official said Thursday.

•     Fertility Clinic Closing Stirs Furor: Patients Worry About Break in Care; UW Decision Firm. Anita Weier, The Capital Times, March 17, 2006.

University Hospital’s decision to close its fertility clinic on June 30 has produced a furor among the clinic’s current and former patients.

•     Lawton, Falk Pushed Shift On Fertility Clinic. David Callendar, The Capital Times, April 7, 2006.

In a little more than a week, a hastily assembled coalition of state and local officials, women’s health advocates and consumers convinced UW Hospital officials to reverse their decision to close the hospital’s fertility clinic.

•     UW Student Affairs Chief Is Stepping Down. Karen Rivedal, Wisconsin State Journal, November 5, 2004.

A top leader at UW-Madison is stepping down to deal with personal issues, university officials said Thursday.

•     Barrows Tries to Rebut Allegations. Aaron Nathans, The Capital Times, April 11, 2006.

Former top University of Wisconsin-Madison Administrator Paul Barrows today sought to rebut allegations that he was a womanizer, calling witnesses as part of an appeals process.

•     Barrows Case Shows UW Flaws: ‘System Should be Overhauled.’ Aaron Nathans, The Capital Times, May 9, 2006.

The Paul Barrrows case has exposed problems with how the University of Wisconsin handles disciplinary matters, several educators and state leaders say.

An appeals committee on Monday slammed the UW-Madison for its handling of sexual harassment and sick leave abuse allegations against the former vice chancellor for student affairs.

James Klauser, who was a member of the Board of Regents, until 2003, said in an interview today that the Barrows case has turned into an “imbroglio” that shows the university has no competent system for handling charges of misconduct.

Klauser said he has seen numerous personnel matters that end up in an endless spiral of confusion.

•     Wisconsin Instructor’s 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Ill-Serve Students. The Anti-Defamation League, Press Release, Chicago, IL, October 11, 2006.

University of Wisconsin instructor Kevin Barrett’s use of 9/11 conspiracy theories and choice of a textbook that equates President George W. Bush with Adolf Hitler and bashes Israel raise serious questions bout whether he has crossed the line into political advocacy, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) said today.

•     Green, Nass Renew Call to UW to Fire 9/11 Conspiracy Professor: Upcoming Talk is Impetus. The Capital Times, September 27, 2006.

•     Lecturer Says Taxes Go to Kill U.S. Troops. Megan Twohey, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, November 11, 2006.

“Your tax dollars are paying for the killing of American soldiers in Iraq. The CIA is paying for resistance in Iraq.”

•     UW Faculty Not Taking Sick Leave. Ryan J. Foley, Associated Press, Wisconsin State Journal, October 14, 2006.

University of Wisconsin Faculty members report far fewer sick days than other state employees and as a result earn hundreds of thousands of dollars more for health insurance when they retire, according to an audit released Friday.

. . . The disparity results in a lucrative retirement benefit: UW faculty who retired last year converted an average of $222,000 worth of unused sick leave into health insurance credits—three times as much as the average state employee, the audit said.

•     UW Curriculum Constantly Evolving, Adjusting: No Harvard-like Overhaul Expected. Anita Weier, The Capital Times, December 23, 2006.

Harvard University is considering revising its curriculum to make it "more relevant" to the real world, but University of Wisconsin-Madison Provost Pat Farrell said no major changes are planned for the UW, which evaluates courses all the time.

"The whole notion of assessing everything we do in as many ways as we can, learning from those assessments, and changing curriculum as needed to achieve the goals we seek for ourselves and our students, is ongoing," Farrell said.

But curriculum change usually comes from departments, instead of taking a campus-wide approach.

"We expect departments and programs are always looking at the impact of what they do. We also are looking on a campus-wide level at how what we do impacts what students learn and what they are prepared to do when they leave."

A student survey is done via the Internet every other year, in which students comment on their perception of the quality of the education they are receiving. They are also asked whether needed courses are available, if faculty is accessible, what is the quality level of teaching assistants, is the campus environment safe and welcoming, and whether discrimination is an issue.

Officials also look carefully at grades.

"This is done on a program basis," Farrell said. "To the extent that grades are an accurate indicator of learning, they are going to see whether grades have changed substantially and are there things students seem to be missing."

For instance, he said, if students who are expected to do well in math are not doing so, it would be time to explore whether they are not as qualified as thought, if they are not working hard enough or whether math instruction is not adequate.

"Overall, we look at large-scale things like graduation rates and times until graduation," Farrell said. "That is a good indicator of whether students can get courses they want and the majors they wish to get into. It is also a fairly loose indicator of student success. That is not largely an issue; the quality of students we get is terrific." . . .

ATTACHMENT II - CHARTING A NEW COURSE FOR THE UW SYSTEM - RECOMMENDATIONS

Self-Help Recommendations

• Meet Wisconsin workforce needs by piloting a program at UW-Platteville that targets out-of-state student recruitment;
• Re-examine tuition charged to nonresident undergraduate students to identify more competitive rates, so the subsidy these students provide Wisconsin resident students is increased rather than lost;
• Evaluate alternative tuition models that positively affect student behavior;
• Help students more efficiently earn college credits and degrees;
• Further streamline administrative services;
• Promote collaboration across the System to attract more federal research funding and to assist Wisconsin businesses and local governments;
• Adopt a systematic planning process;
• Continue to participate in the Wisconsin Campus Compact to encourage service-learning and student citizenship through volunteer activities; and
• Examine options for increasing the number of nursing students to address the shortfall in Wisconsin.

State-Help-Needed Recommendations

• Stabilize state GPR support for higher education opportunity;
• Increase student financial aid to ensure access for students of all income levels and create a “hold harmless” program, providing grants to lowest-income students to cover increased costs;
• Streamline the capital building program process by modernizing statutes and procedures to match accepted national practices;
• Provide flexibility in the state procurement process, permitting more efficient purchasing of university goods and services through higher educational discounts;
• Provide UW System authority for university cash management and investment responsibilities currently performed by the Wisconsin Department of Administration;
• Provide UW System authority to retain and reinvest the proceeds from the sale of buildings or lands built or acquired with program revenue or gift funds (not state tax dollars);
• Expand UW System’s ability to create and abolish positions to include remaining program revenue operations;
• Adequately support UW library and technology needs; and
• Address campus infrastructure needs related to research space and funding to retain top researchers.

Joint Efforts Recommendations

• Expand diversity initiatives, with more emphasis on K–12 pre-college programs and a focus on Milwaukee schools and their students;
• Establish a Wisconsin Research Opportunities Fund to increase federal grants by matching funds for federal and/or business partnerships;
• Partner with the Wisconsin Technical College System to expand post-secondary opportunity for adult students and enhance credit transfers;
• Create educational quality grants to promote fundamental changes in teaching, student learning, and organizational systems;
• Continue an extensive examination of the UW Risk Management program;
• Establish a Systemwide incentive fund to encourage faculty and staff collaboration across campuses; and
• Continue UW System commitment to growing the Wisconsin economy.

ATTACHMENT III - GROWTH AGENDA FOR THE STATE OF WISCONSIN

As noted, the Board of Regents and the Governor have identified access to higher education for all Wisconsin residents as a priority for the 2007-09 biennial budget. The Governor also prioritized the need to attract more federal dollars. The University of Wisconsin System has been, and will continue to be, a key player in meeting these goals. The GPR/Fee operating budget request focuses on Access, Growth and Affordability, with a particular emphasis on helping to grow the Wisconsin economy through expanded research and technology transfer initiatives.

Wisconsin Covenant

One of the cornerstones of the Growth Agenda is improving affordability through the Wisconsin Covenant. The Board is committed to increasing access to the UW System for low income students. The Wisconsin Covenant, while not included in the UW System’s biennial budget request, is a top priority for the Board of Regents. The Governor announced the Wisconsin Covenant in his State of the State address in January, 2006. It would provide funding for tuition and fees for Wisconsin students who pledge to maintain good grades and demonstrate good citizenship. The Wisconsin Covenant has been listed as a top state priority for the 2007-09 biennium and is expected to be introduced as a Governor’s initiative this Fall.

The Wisconsin Covenant would provide funding for students attending a UW System, Wisconsin Technical College System or Wisconsin Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (WAICU) institution. The UW System Board of Regents passed a resolution in support of the Wisconsin Covenant in June, 2006 and, at its August, 2006 meeting, will consider a resolution in support of a Hold Harmless Tuition Grant proposal that would serve as the foundation for the Wisconsin Covenant. The Hold Harmless Tuition Grant proposal would cover funding for tuition and fees as a last grant during the 2007-09 biennium, and allow the state to begin setting aside resources for the full Wisconsin Covenant program under which the first cohort of students would enter college in the 2011-12 fiscal year.

Tuition and Financial Aid

Affordability for low to middle income families is expected to be maintained through increased funding for the Wisconsin Higher Education Grant for UW Students (WHEG-UW), which is statutorily required to increase by the same percentage as tuition increases for UW institutions and through increased tax credits included in the 2005-07 biennial budget. The Wisconsin Covenant is also expected to include mechanisms to improve affordability for all Wisconsin families with demonstrated financial need.

To further improve affordability, the Governor and the Board of Regents have indicated their commitment to keeping tuition increases as a part of their 2007-09 biennial budget request at rates no higher than the rate of inflation. The Consumer Price Index for 2005 (the last full year recorded) increased 3.1%. In accordance with the Governor’s request, and the Board’s own concerns about affordability, the recommended request for the UW System includes revenue increases that would raise tuition by 3.0% in 2007-08 and 1.96% in 2008-09, for an average increase of less than 2.5% for the biennium.

Meeting State Needs

The initiatives included in the 2007-09 Biennial Budget request would allow the UW System to grow enrollments by 2,025 full-time equivalent students, to address statewide needs for more teachers in high-demand areas like math and science, and to increase the number of nurse educators in the state to meet Wisconsin’s need for nursing professionals. The initiatives target adult non-traditional students, who are more likely to remain in the state following graduation, using directions outlined by the Committee on Baccalaureate Expansion (COBE). The UW Colleges and UW-Extension, in particular, seek to increase adult student participation by developing seven (7) additional accessible degrees a year, including online courses, and working collaboratively with UW System four-year institutions. In addition, UW System institutions have worked, and will continue to work, collaboratively with the Wisconsin Technical College System to improve transfer opportunities.  In 2005-06 alone, UW-Madison established three new transfer contracts with WTCS institutions, and UW-Stevens Point created a new collaborative agreement as well.

Veterans

During the 2005-07 and 2007-09 biennia, the UW System plans to increase outreach to veterans and certain dependents of veterans. That outreach will include informing veterans about benefits available to them through the Veterans’ Tuition Grants, which allow Wisconsin veterans to attend UW and WTCS institutions while paying only half of the cost of tuition and fees in the 2005-07 biennium, up to 128 credits. In 2007-09, Wisconsin veterans will not need to pay any tuition or fees for up to 128 credits within either system. Spouses and dependents of veterans who died or suffered a 30% disability are eligible to attend without paying tuition and fees in the current (2005-07) biennium.  These benefits were generously provided by the Legislature and the Governor to recognize the sacrifice that Wisconsin veterans and their families have made to ensure the safety of all Wisconsin residents.  The Higher Educational Aids Board is expected to request funding to support the Veterans’ Tuition Grant for both UW System and WTCS institutions. A resolution in support of the Veterans’ Tuition Grant is expected to be acted upon at the August, 2006 Board of Regents meeting.

Student Success

The budget request includes initiatives that would address the need to increase retention and graduation rates at four UW System institutions: UW-Parkside, UW-River Falls, UW-Superior and UW-Whitewater. These initiatives would improve productivity through the use of best practices and increase the number of baccalaureate degrees in the state without increasing the number of students enrolled on the campuses.These productivity increases would build upon previous gains in the UW System. The UW System was recently ranked by the National Center for Higher Education Management (NCHEMS) as fourth most productive nationally in the public research sector (UW-Madison and UW-Milwaukee) and fifth most productive nationally in the public comprehensive sector (the eleven four-year UW Comprehensive Universities) relative to resources.

The UW System has also demonstrated its productivity by increasing student enrollment by 3,182 students over the past 6 years while absorbing base budget reductions of $225 million and reducing state funded positions by 1,020 full-time equivalent positions. The UW System is committed to searching for ways to improve productivity.  However, to maintain the quality of a UW degree, further increases in enrollment need to be matched with increases in state resources.

Building Research Capacity

The final component of the UW System’s budget request seeks to increase the university’s research capacity.  The “Powering Southeastern Wisconsin’s Knowledge Economy” initiative addresses business needs in the seven-county area surrounding Milwaukee, and expands the Research Growth Initiative to permit UW-Milwaukee to compete more successfully for federal and other extramural funds. It also enhances the level of graduate and undergraduate education, research support and training at the UW’s second largest public research institution. The request also seeks to increase NanoSTEM capacity in the Chippewa Valley (UW-Eau Claire and UW-Stout working in cooperation with the Chippewa Valley Technical College), and to match funding provided by WiSys to increase funding for Applied Research.

Statutory Language Changes

Statutory Language Changes (Section B, Page B-27) include proposals that would enable the UW to use resources more efficiently, streamline procedures, eliminate costly duplication, and make technical corrections. With these increased efficiency measures, the UW System would be better equipped to manage resources effectively in an era of limited state resources.