Table of Contents

1. Procedures Governing Election of a Department of Entomology Chairperson
2. Election Procedure
3. Copier Policy
4. Policy for use of Department Freezer
5. Hallway Usage Policy
6. Key Policy
7. Shop Work Requests
8. Voucher Specimen Policy
9. Telephone Charge Back Policy
10. Committee Structure
11. Merit Committee Structure
12. Computer Committee
13. Rules for Use of the Computing Facility
14. Slide Maker
15. Emeritus Staff Support
16. Museum Committee
17. Space Policy for the Department of Entomology, University of Wisconsin-Madison
18. Capital Exercise Distribution
19. Insect Quarantine Facility
20. Department of Entomology Position Vacancy Process
21. Department of Entomology Policy on Role of Academic Staff in Departmental Governance
22. Departmental Research Technician Position (50%): Policy for Allocation
23. Search and Screen Process for University
24. University Faculty Policy and Procedures
25. CALS Tenure Guidelines
26. Department of Entomology Personnel/Promotions
• Post-Tenure Review Policy-Department of Entomology
• Post-Tenure Review Policy-College of Agriculture and Life Sciences
27. Procedures Governing Salary Equity Review

Open the Department Policies document in the MS Word format or as a PDF.

I. Procedures Governing Election of a Department of Entomology Chairperson

1. Election of a chairperson shall be for a four-year term, and a formal nomination and election process shall take place during the fourth year of any incumbent chair's term, or at any shorter interval if a vacancy should occur. An incumbent chair, if willing, may be renominated. There is no prescribed limit on the number of terms that may be served.
2. The results of the annual balloting taken at the direction of the Dean shall be distributed in writing to the faculty of the Department. Within two weeks after distribution, the ballots shall be returned to the department's administrative assistant, then opened and tabulated in the presence of two faculty members designated by the faculty .The administrative assistant shall then forward the ballots to the Dean.
3. A Vice-Chair shall be elected at the first staff meeting following election of a chairperson. His/Her function is not that of an assistant chair nor heir-apparent to the chair, but to serve in acting capacity during absences of the chairperson. To that end, s/he should be kept informed of timely administrative matters that might require action during an absence of the chairperson. Election of the vice-chair shall be by oral nomination and successive secret ballots until a winner is declared.

II. Election Procedure

1. Nominations will be accepted during January of the fourth year of an incumbent chairperson's term. The incumbent chairperson should issue the call for nominations sometime prior to January.
2. A nomination must be in writing and accompanied by written agreement of the nominee to serve if elected.
3. A list of nominations received up to 48 hours prior to the regular January staff meeting will be prepared and immediately distributed to the faculty. There will be a final call for nominations at the staff meeting. Any additional nominations at this time must also be in writing.
4. Voting shall be by secret mail ballot; with an interval of one week between ballots if more than one ballot is necessary. Balloting shall continue until one candidate receives a majority of the votes cast.
5. The first ballot, listing all nominees, shall be distributed to the faculty on the afternoon of the January staff meeting. They shall be due in the administrative assistant's office by noon of the 7th day following, and shall be opened and tabulated in the presence of two faculty members designated by the faculty .The nominee with the smallest number of votes shall be deleted from the next ballot as shall any nominee with three or fewer votes. The second ballot, if necessary, shall be prepared and distributed the same afternoon. As a matter of information, results of the voting on the immediately preceding ballot shall be distributed with the new ballot.
6. Procedures for subsequent ballots, if such are necessary, shall be the same as those outlined under (5) preceding.
7. In the event of a tie vote on any ballot where no candidate has a majority and no candidate has three or fewer votes, the ballot shall be repeated.
8. An absentee vote is acceptable on any ballot as long as the intent of vote is unmistakable.

Approved September 22, 1981.

III. Copier Policy

In April 1990, a copier charge back system was approved by the faculty in the Department of Entomology. This policy was initiated to cover the cost of leasing a new copy machine, paper/supplies, and periodic upgrades of equipment. All faculty, staff and students are expected to pay for personal, research and extension copying from their own funds.

Debit cards may be purchased from Steenbock Library and ordered through the fiscal clerk. These debit cards can be used on any copier on campus with a debit card system.

The department will pay for the following copies: instructional materials, grant proposals, department business (i.e., minutes, agendas, notices, items concerning the Herrling Lab and the Insect Museum), reviews, and letters of recommendations.

Approved April 27, 1990 faculty meeting.

IV. Policy for use of Department Freezer

The department maintains the walk-in freezers/coolers in the basement using the following criteria:

1. All items must be stored in solid containers (bags and loose articles will be discarded).
2. All items must be clearly marked with the professor's name on the outside of the container.
3. Date all items.
4. Materials must be placed on shelves or on the floor, not on the wood walkway.
5. The freezers need periodic maintenance. We need access to the freezing unit. Therefore any accumulation of material on the wooden walkway will be discarded.
6. The freezers will be cleaned out and updated every six (6) months on the first Wednesday of March and October.
7. REMINDER: There is to be no flammable solvents in the freezers or the cold room.
8. The freezers should not be used for storage of personal materials.
9. A $10/month charge back fee for storage of freezer will be assessed per unit per faculty member. Charges will bill annually in October. (Approved by faculty 9/28/00.)

V. Hallway Usage Policy

1. Hallway space may be used for storage under the following conditions:
2. Materials placed in hallways must be in solid containers (no loose materials or bags).
3. Cabinets placed in alcoves in hallways must be on wheels.
4. Access boxes (electrical and telephone) cannot be obstructed. Cabinets placed in front of the boxes must be on wheels.
5. The hallway must have four-foot clearance (City of Madison fire code).
6. Hallway space on floors one and two may not be used for storage.

Approved by faculty 3/30/90

VI. Key Policy

All keys issued to faculty, staff, students, and hourly employees require a deposit which will be refunded when the keys are returned.

The charges are as follows:

$5.00 per key (approved July 27, 1990, faculty meeting)
(for all keys) (approved August 31, 1990, faculty meeting)

VII. Shop Work Requests

Priorities: Each work order will be assigned one of three levels of priority according to the criteria described below. Within a category, jobs will be done in chronological order. Also, some general criteria are listed below that will affect the relative rankings of work orders WITHIN a category .The departmental administrator will receive requests, assign priority, and document time of completion. He/she will work in conjunction with the shop technician and an assigned member of the research committee to determine routine job priority designations and assure compliance with these policies. A shop request sheet must be filled out for each job. The departmental administrator will maintain a record for submitted requests and project status.

Work requests estimated to require more than 40 hours of time must receive approval first from the Research Committee and then from departmental faculty. We recommend that alternative sources of help (e.g., CALS Experiment Station, Physical Plant, outside contractors) be considered prior to requesting extensive assistance from shop personnel.

A:  High Priority

1. Safety & Health (a)
2. Experiments & Cultures IN PROGRESS threatened by equipment failure (b)
3. Experiments dependent on SEASONAL activities
4. Routine maintenance of departmental equipment

B:  Medium Priority

1. Upgrading current equipment
2. Building prototypes (c)

C:  Low Priority

1. Mass assembly
2. Woodworking (lab/office furniture)

Footnotes

a)  Safety & Health matters receive highest priority. The remaining 2 categories under (A) receive equal priority. Safety & Health matters refer to minor repairs (large projects will require dedicated funds) that cannot be addressed by the Safety Department in timely fashion.

b)  We recognize two types of threats under this category, immediate & calculated. Highest priority is given to the first category. There is an inevitable gray area between equipment upgrades (Bl) and calculated threats. Some judgment will need to be exercised in these cases, including the nature of the problem, anticipated time frame, & available options in case of equipment failure.

c)  We have identified two types of jobs within this category, the construction of a small prototype (cage, trap, etc.) that will then be turned over to the lab for mass production, and design of a major new apparatus that will form the basis of long- term research and direction. Both are important, but the latter jobs are inevitably much more time consuming. We recommend that all available sources of funding for construction by outside contractors be pursued (e.g., Graduate School).

General Criteria

Within a category, higher priorities will be given to requests that are for departmental rather than individual benefit, lab members are willing to assist, and the work is necessary to meet the obligations of a funded grant. Priority is lowered where there are alternative means of completing the job (e.g., through other centers or agencies affiliations that provide such support), outside contacting is available (1 yr. grace period for new staff), or equipment not available in the Entomology shop is required to complete the job.

In certain special cases, an exception can be made to the above system. For example, the imminent arrival of a new staff member may require special efforts to prepare his/her laboratory.

Charges

Faculty is charged at the rate of $4/hr. for shop assistance. First-year faculty and departmental projects are exempt from the charge.

Accessibility

The nature of many jobs involving equipment repair inevitably require shop personnel to be away from their office for extended periods. To facilitate communication, shop workers will leave a telephone number and/or location with the departmental administrator prior to leaving the building. Faculty may also leave messages on the shop telephone answering machine.

Faculty, staff and students are to be discouraged from "pestering" shop personnel about the status of submitted requests. The departmental administrator will maintain a record of project status.

Instruction of Laboratory Members

The departmental workload is simply too high for all routine and mass production tasks to be performed by one person. Each laboratory must assume responsibility for these activities. The campus safety office has indicated that students are allowed to use power equipment if they are certified by the department. We propose that such a certification procedure be established. This process should include: 1) Departmental regulations of shop procedures, e.g., instituting a buddy system for shop use by students, providing easily accessible and periodically inspected safety and first aid equipment, etc.; 2) A departmental training program on equipment use and safety, satisfactory completion of which is required for certification. Mere physical presence during such training will not suffice for certification, but rather competence and maturity must be demonstrated; 3) Input from the campus Safety Office with regard to the suitability of our program, liability, and related issues.

VIII. Voucher Specimen Policy

The Insect Research Collection (IRC) of the Department of Entomology, University of Wisconsin- Madison, accepts the deposition of voucher specimens by students and staff of the university (with approval of the Director/Curator and the Academic Curator, voucher specimens may sometimes be accepted from individuals not affiliated with the University of Wisconsin).

Procedure for the deposition of voucher specimens is as follows:

1. A submitted manuscript should indicate deposition of voucher specimens, typically in the Materials and Methods section with a statement such as the following: "Voucher specimens for this study have been deposited in the Insect Research Collection of the Department of Entomology, University of Wisconsin-Madison."
2. Either with submission of the manuscript or at the time of acceptance for publication, actual specimens should be deposited in the IRC as tentative voucher specimens. These should be prepared and labeled with full data by the author(s), unless the Academic Curator has specifically agreed to prepare the specimens. Twelve specimens, six of each sex, are recommended for each species. Where morphological or geographic variation suggests the need for deposition or a greater number of specimens for adequate representation, a suitable larger number can be agreed upon for acceptance. These specimens will be stored in a separate cabinet until publication of the manuscript.
3. At the time of publication, the specimens that have been held become voucher specimens. Once the author(s) have provided the IRC with a reprint or copy of the publication citing the deposition of specimens, the specimens will be formally labeled as voucher specimens with the author(s) and year of publication and incorporated into the main collection.

IX. Telephone Charge Back Policy

The department will pay for the monthly rental and monthly long distance/local phone calls for one phone per faculty member. Any additional phones for the lab will be paid from individual professors' grants. The department will also provide one phone for each emeritus faculty member.

Approved September 28,1991, faculty meeting.
Add: Department pay up to $600 lg/local calls. (9/98)

X. Committee Structure

1. These guidelines will apply to the following four committees: Academic Affairs, Computer, Extension and Applied Research, and Research.
2. Each committee will consist of five voting faculty members, including the committee chair, and one voting student representative, for a total of six voting members. (Revised)
3. The Department Chair will be a non-voting ex officio member of all four committees. Other appropriate ex officio members will be appointed by the respective committees, as either voting or non-voting members at the discretion of the committee.
4. Committee membership will be decided by the Department Chair as follows:
   a)  In October of each year, the Department Chair will ask each faculty member to list first and second preferences for committee service.
   b)  By the end of November, the Department Chair will appoint faculty to fill upcoming vacancies.
   c)  Appointments will be for two years, and will commence January 1.
   d)  Appointments will be staggered for continuity. To establish the rotation, in the first year only three appointments will be for two years and the appointments will be for one year only.
5. Each committee chair will serve for one year, and be elected by the respective committee at the first meeting of the calendar year. However, consecutive terms may be served by the same individual.
6. Each committee chair will be expected to circulate an agenda prior to each meeting. Any faculty member can request addition of items to the agenda.
7. Voting on all issues will be restricted to the formal committee members. Issues with tie votes when the entire committee (five members) is present and voting will be forwarded to the full faculty for consideration.
8. Ex Officio members will consist of the following:
   • Department chair (all committees)
   • Administrative assistant (all committees )
   • One student representative (all committees)
   • Diagnostician (EAR Committee)
   • Extension IPM Coordinators (EAR Committee)
   • Departmental technician (Res. Committee)
   • Computer technician (Computer Committee) CALS and UWEX representation (Computer Committee)
   Additional ex officio members can be appointed or removed at the discretion of the committee chairs.
9. Ad hoc subcommittees can be appointed by the committee chair. Each such subcommittee will be chaired by an elected committee member. However, the committee chair can draw subcommittee members from outside of the standing committee.
10. All meetings are open and all faculty are encouraged to attend and participate in meetings of individual interest.
    ( Approved October 1988 faculty meeting; Revised October 1990.)
11. One Extension faculty will always be a member of the Merit Committee (12/10/98)

XI. Merit Committee Structure

Merit, which is used in determining salary increases for faculty, is determined annually by the Merit Committee which consists of the Department Chair and three Executive Committee members elected by the faculty. All members of the Executive Committee whose salaries are paid through the department are eligible to serve. Memberships are for three years with a new member elected in the fall of each year rotating onto the committee in January .All faculty paid through the department are eligible to vote.

Merit Evaluation Procedures

1. Each member of the faculty completes an Annual Activities Report in December of each year summarizing professional activities for the preceding calendar year.

 

2. In January, the Department Chair distributes a package of merit evaluation materials to each member of the Merit Committee which consists of the following:

   a) Annual Activity Report for the current and preceding years
   b) Teaching effort summary for all faculty for the preceding two years and projected teaching loads for the succeeding two years
   c) Teaching evaluations for the preceding two years
   d) Reprints of research publications and new extension publications in print
   e) Updated five-year salary run for all faculty
   f) County Agent evaluations of extension faculty
   g) Any other pertinent information provided by faculty or from outside sources.

3. In Feb/Mar, the Merit Committee meets and evaluates faculty in the areas of Research, Extension, Teaching and Service as appropriate.
   
   A merit score from 1 through 10 is assigned in each area by each committee member including the Chair. A rating of 10 represents a truly outstanding and unusual level of excellence while a 5 rating represents an acceptable or average performance and a 1.0 rating represents an unacceptable level of activity.
   
   A mean rating across all faculty in each are of close to 5.0 is normally achieved with appropriate distribution of scores in relation to the mean. Individual ratings are extensively discussed by the committee and may be adjusted in the event of wide discrepancy.

 

4. Merit evaluations are converted to salary adjustments by the Chairperson as follows:

   a) Merit evaluations of the four committee members are averaged in each category.
   b) A weighted average merit rating across all categories is calculated using ratios which reflect the relative responsibilities of individual faculty .The majority of departmental appointments with primary responsibility in research and secondary responsibility in teaching are weighted using a 6.5:2.5:1.0 ratio for research, teaching and service. Extension faculty use ratios which reflect individual responsibilities most closely.
   c) A two-year average merit rating is calculated using current and preceding year ratings. The two-year rating was adopted to avoid yearly fluctuations which do not represent the true level of faculty activity.
   d) Two-year merit ratings are converted to percentage salary increases by direct comparison with departmental two-year averages.
   
   Example: If 1.5% merit increase is available, departmental two-year average is 5.7% and individual two-year average for faculty member is 5.0%.
   
   % increase = (5.0 x 1.5) / 5.7 = 1.315%. The individual faculty member was below the department average and received only a 1.3% increase.

5. Individual merit scores are returned to each faculty member together with activities reports for all faculty by the end of February. Faculty wishing to dispute merit scores should outline the nature of his/her concerns in writing and request an appointment with the Chair to discuss the concerns.

 

6. A listing of the merit ratings for all faculty is forwarded to the Dean and used as a basis for distribution of the Dean's final salary adds. These adds are derived from the small percentage (usually 0.5%) of the annual salary package which is withheld by the Dean for distribution to outstanding faculty.

Merit Parameters Considered by the Committee

Each Merit Committee member is free to develop and use individual systems for assigning merit, but all members use the same range of parameters as indicators of productivity.

1. Research
   Publication record, the scope of the research program including grant activity and outside recognition of research are all considered in assessing research productivity. Committee members use the following indicators of productivity:

   a) Publication Record
   Only publications in print are credited. To be "in print," a manuscript must be assigned page numbers or have appeared in a journal in the previous calendar year. Refereed publications, book chapters, and reviews are normally considered equivalent. Reprints are available for the committee and quality is assessed.
   
   Other non-refereed publications resulting from research such as technical reports, proceedings, abstracts, etc., are used to assess publication activity but are not normally considered equivalent.
   
   Manuscripts which are submitted or accepted for publication but are not in print are considered as evidence of continuing productivities but are not credited until they are in print.
   
   Faculty are strongly encouraged to follow the reporting guidelines indicated in the Activity Report form in order to reduce the possibility for misinterpretation by the committee.

   b) Program Scope and Research Support
   Grant support is important and both existing levels of support and pending proposals are considered. Extramural funding is particularly important, but since research programs within the department vary greatly in funding needs and availability of support agencies, all funding sources are considered.
   
   Graduate students, project associates, post-doctoral fellows, technical support, visiting scientists and other professional personnel funded on grants are considered as additional indicators of program scope.

   c) Outside Recognition
   Invited seminars, symposia participation, recognition in the form of awards, etc., are utilized as appropriate.

   d) Other
   Any other indications of research strength or breadth may be used in formulating the overall research ratings. Continuing contributions to extension programs where no extension appointment exits is an example of one such area.

2. Extension
   In extension, the overall breadth of programming is assessed and excellence in extension is determined by parameters which would include, but not be limited to, the following: continuation of successful programs and their expansion; development of new programs; innovation in information dissemination; successful use of mass media techniques; development of new bulletins and/or computer programs; direct contact hours with clientele through meetings, field days, etc.; successful funding initiatives; regional and national recognition, etc., etc...
   
   The annual agent evaluations of specialists are reviewed and considered important but kept in perspective.

 

3. Teaching
   Several factors are considered in evaluation of teaching with the key factor being teaching effort Teaching effort is calculated for the previous two years using both preparation hours and contact hours in the classroom.
   
   One hour/week is credited for each contact hour and four hours of preparation time is credited for each laboratory and lecture. Total hours/week as an average hours/week for all faculty with teaching appointments to determine effort. 299, 399, 699, 799, biocore, guest lectures and other non-course teaching activities are not used in determining effort but are considered as evidence of teaching contributions outside of formal courses. Team taught courses are credited in proportion to faculty share of teaching load, and contact hour credit for lectures by other team members is only given if all lectures are attended. Short course meeting five days/week for five weeks is considered equivalent to a 1 1/2 credit course.
   
   In addition to teaching effort, teaching quality is determined from student evaluations.
   
   The committee also recognizes that certain service oriented introductory courses (301, 302, 351, etc.) are of great value to the department in terms of increasing enrollment and highlighting Entomology. Additional credit is given to faculty teaching these courses.

 

4. Service
   All faculty are rated on service. Departmental contributions are evaluated in terms of committee work, student advising, student examination and other functions which aid in departmental operations. It is also considered important that faculty provide service outside of the department, and service at the college, university , community, state and national levels are all considered since these contributions bring recognition to both the university and the department.
   
   The committee does not expect absolute bookkeeping on the time spent in various service activities but some reasonable estimate should be provided to allow the committee to evaluate the effort involved.

End of document as I found it in the files...Joe Grant, 9 Feb 89.

XII. Computer Committee

The Computer Committee was accepted as a permanent standing committee in the Department of Entomology at the October 27, 1989, faculty meeting. The committee will be comprised of four faculty members, two graduate students, one department office representative, the department administrator, and the Herrling Lab coordinator.

Specific responsibilities of the Computer Committee will include:

1. Oversee the departmental computing facility (Herrling Lab).
2. Seek out and make available information on hardware and software of general interest as appropriate.
3. Evaluate word processing equipment and software options for the main office as needed.
4. Pursue funding opportunities for new hardware and software for the departmental computing facility.

XIII. Rules for Use of the Computing Facility

1. Introduction - The departmental computing facility is housed in room 436 Russell Lab. Equipment available includes three IBM PC-AT work stations, one PS2 Model 50, two Proprinters, one IBM Plotter (6 pens), one IBM Color Jetprinter, one LaserJet Plus printer, one slide maker, and one Macintosh PC. There are also a variety of IBM software packages loaded on AT' s and PS/2 available for use.
2. Eligible Users - Use of this facility is strictly limited to faculty, students, and staff of the Departments of Entomology and Plant Pathology and to students in entomology courses that make use of the computers.
3. Supplies - Paper and ribbons or toner cartridges for the printers will be purchased through the department as needed. Supplies for the plotter (paper and pens) will be purchased by the individual users.

Rules to Remember

1. Close the door when you leave the facility, never leave the facility unattended.
2. Report equipment failure to Dave Hogg or Stuart Baker.
3. When you log off, return the machine to the C drive and turn off the monitor screen. DO NOT TURN OFF THE COMPUTER.
4. Never attempt to reformat the hard disk (C drive).
5. The laser printer is to be used only for final drafts of documents. The dot matrix printer should be used for intermediate drafts. The color printer will not be generally available, but it will be made available upon request.
6. Space is available for file storage on the hard disks of the computers; however, storage space should be used sparingly. The Computer Committee reserves the right to delete with notice if space becomes limiting. Individual users should establish their own directories on the hard disk for file storage; do not store individual files in the root directory or applications directories.
7. Work quietly, loud conversation is disruptive to people in adjoining offices.

XIV. Slide Maker

Chargeback Policies for Use of Slide Maker

Rationale:

The slide maker and peripherals have been purchased and maintained for the purpose of facilitating presentation-quality graphics by Departments of Entomology and Plant Pathology students, staff and faculty. Although the primary purpose of the equipment/facility is not to generate revenue, sufficient funds must be recovered to cover costs of maintenance, software, and eventual replacement of the equipment. To that end, the following policies have been established.

Policies:

1. The charge per slide is $1.50, including film but excluding developing. Record all uses on the Herrling Lab Slide-Maker ledger sheet.
2. Slides made for teaching or extension purposes will be charged to Instruction or Extension, respectively.
3. Testing of new software for slide quality/composition will be charged to Instruction. Such testing must be approved in advance by the Computer Committee, or by the Committee chairperson if an immediate decision is required. The coordinator of the Herrling Lab should be notified by the Committee chairperson about waiver of charges. All test slides should be returned to the Herrling Lab for future demonstration purposes.
4. Slides that are unacceptable (e.g., disappearing text, poor color result) not due to operator error will be charged for the cost of film only. (See rate schedule.)
5. Slides that are unacceptable (e.g., misspelled words, data errors) due to operator error will be charged at the full rate.
6. In instances where less than the requested amount of rolled film is actually shot, users will be charged for the cost of the unused (unshot) film. (See rate schedule.)
7. Users who themselves load Herrling Lab film will be charged for the cost of the film regardless of results. (See rate schedule.)
8. Users will not be charged for problems due to mechanical breakdown, film failure or Herrling Lab personnel mistakes.

Calculating charges for film only:

Charges for film only must be made in terms of "slide equivalents" (one slide equivalent = $2.30) according to the rates below:

Questions or comments should be made to the Chair of the Computer Committee.

Approved Feb. 23, 1994

XV. Emeritus Staff Support

The committee recommended the following policy for assigning emeritus faculty space.

1. Upon retirement, a faculty member relinquishes all claim/control to their current office and laboratory space.
2. Emeritus faculty should be provided desk space and use of a phone.
3. Emeritus faculty will be given a $280 postage allotment for postage a year and clerical support which will be prioritized as follows: one day on typed copy and two/three days on handwritten copy (except during grant writing and year end report periods. This policy was implemented by the Long Range Planning Committee on October 15, 1991.) This allotment increases if an emeritus faculty takes on department service responsibilities.
4. Emeritus faculty will have access to assignable space in the annual request cycle.

Recommendation passed fall 1993.

XVI. Museum Committee

The Department of Entomology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, maintains an active and expanding collection of insects and related arthropods for research, teaching, and extension purposes. The focus is as a regional collection with emphasis on the Midwestern fauna, but including selected specialty collections. Type specimens, voucher specimens, and general holdings are made available not only to the worldwide scientific community, but also to the people of the State of Wisconsin, as appropriate.

In August 1989, the Entomology Department approved the creation of the Museum Committee as a full standing committee within the department. The committee will consist of three permanent members: The Museum Director, the Museum Curator, and Dr. Young; three appointed faculty; and one student representative.

The initial charge to the committee is as follows:

a)  Review the Museum Committee report for integration of recommendations into the department.
b)  Prioritize the recommendations based on immediate needs as well as the long-range goals of the department.
c)  Develop a broader base of funding at all levels (NSF grants, etc.)

XVII. Space Policy for the Department of Entomology, University of Wisconsin-Madison

The Department of Entomology recognizes two types of space within the Department for Research Programs of individual faculty: 1) annually assignable space and 2) long-term space.

I.  Annually assignable space

The current annually assignable space includes designated rooms within Russell Labs, greenhouse space and any other Entomology holds such as parts of the Stock Pavilion.

A.  Annually assignable space requests will be sent by the Research Committee to the faculty during the month of May for September 1 occupancy.

B.  Individual faculty will have approximately two weeks to request in writing renewal of their space assignments. All new requests for annually assignable space require a fully reasoned justification.

C.  In cases where previous assignments are contested, the current user(s) will be contacted by the Research Committee Chair to provide a full written justification for their needs.

D.  Recommendations for annual space assignments will then be made by the Research Committee. Contested cases will be decided by simple majority of the voting members of the Committee on the basis of the written justifications.

E.  Committee recommendations will be brought before the Department at a monthly staff meeting for discussion and approval.

II.  Long-term Space

Long-term space includes all laboratories and offices in Russell Labs assigned to the Department of Entomology.

A.  All Faculty members are entitled to an office and those individuals with a research component to their academic appointment are entitled to a minimum of 600 sq. ft of laboratory space.

B.  The initial assignment of long-term space to new, incoming faculty will be determined by the current faculty. Criteria for assignment will include the incoming faculty member's area of research and availability of facilities.

C.  The Research Committee will solicit and review long-term space assignments every five years. The Chair is expected to attend and participate in this meeting.

D.  At this time, individual faculty must provide a written justification for their permanent space needs for the next five years. This submission would include their currently assigned laboratory space as well as any request for additional permanent space.

E.  Requests for additional long-term space will be evaluated and when justified long-term space for reassignment will be identified. Faculty members whose current assignments are considered for modification will be contacted and solicited for additional justification of space needs.

F.  Conflicts in long-term space needs will be resolved by simple majority of the voting members of the Committee. Committee recommendations will be based on several factors including the nature of the research, personnel and equipment requirements, the faculty member's merit evaluations in research and written justification statements of future needs.

G.  Committee recommendations will be brought before the Department a minimum of one week prior to a monthly staff meeting for discussion and approval. A quorum of the faculty is required for this meeting and any changes in long-term space assignments must be approved by a 2/3 majority.

Approved 5/25/94

XVIII. Capital Exercise Distribution

The capital exercise will be allocated on a rotation basis by discipline group (physiology, ecology, and applied). The main office and the computing needs of the department would be viewed independently from these groups and would be allowed to compete with the individuals for the smaller portion of the dollars. The committee further recommended that 60 percent of the capital dollars be allocated to the distribution of the groups and that 40 percent be allocated to the distribution of individual requests. In the event the department is required to contribute money toward a start-up package, the rotation system would be interrupted for the year. Any group wishing to defer their rotation for a year may exchange with another group if everyone is agreeable. The rotation was established by a draw and will be as follows: Extension/Applied, Ecology, and Physiology.

Approved Nov. 1992

XIX. Insect Quarantine Facility

The Insect Quarantine Facility (B81J, B81L) is designed for year-round use for quarantine insects. Because quarantine requirements vary for different insect species, users must ensure that the facility is approved by the appropriate regulatory agencies prior to importing insects. Currently, the facility is approved for rearing of gypsy moth, Lymantria dispar. Permit No. 932043.

The Department of Entomology Chairperson serves as the official administrator for the facility. Documentation of regulatory agency approval and permit number must be forwarded to the Entomology Chairperson, with a copy to the Research Committee Chair, before quarantine facility use is approved for a particular species.

Space within the facility will be assigned by the Research Committee during its annual allocation of assignable space. Use of unassigned space may be requested at any time during the year. At present, the facility houses both departmental and individually owned growth chambers. Faculty who has moved personal growth chambers to the facility will have priority use of those chambers. When not in use by owners, however, chambers will be available to other users.

Approved 10/28/94.

XX. Department of Entomology Position Vacancy Process

1. Position request to CALS (using criteria)
   • preparation by ad hoc committee
2. Position approval from Dean
3. Prepare Position Description
   • preparation by Search Committee
   • approval by Faculty
4. Fill out PVL and send to Affirmative Action
5. Prepare and submit position announcement to:
   • ESA
   • Science
   • Entomology Departments
   • ESA convention (if applicable)
6. Set up file for candidates in office
7. Send letter of acknowledgement and letter of file completion
   • departmental administrator maintains files
8. Establish criteria/rating for evaluating applicant folders
   • Search Committee responsibility
9. Make first cut of applicants
10. Notify candidates of status when final list is established-close files of nonfinalists
11. Bring final list of applicants to faculty for input. Set up interviews
12. Prepare interview format
13. After interviews, bring candidates' names before full department meeting to vote on. Vote for first choice. If no one has a majority of votes, eliminate lowest vote getter and vote again. Continue process until a majority is received by one person. Repeat process to select second and third choice.
    
    All faculty shall be allowed to vote-assistant, associate, full.
    
    A paper ballot will be used. Voting members will be asked to vote for one candidate.
    
    Absentee faculty will be sent final applicants' curriculum vitas and allowed to indicate their first preference prior to the full faculty meeting. This ballot will be valid for as long as it is applicable.
    
    Majority vote of all faculty whether present or not.
    
    Students will have representation on the committee and will be allowed to vote for the final candidates recommended to the faculty.
14. Notify candidates of outcome and send letter of rejection to all applicants.

Approved by faculty 12/89
Amended by faculty 3/90

XXI. Department of Entomology Policy on Role of Academic Staff in Departmental Governance

Adopted February 22, 2001

The Department of Entomology has an informal policy of inviting selected academic staff to participate in departmental governance. The purpose of this document is to formalize and potentially expand the role of academic staff members in governance.

New policy:

The Academic Staff Association of the Department of Entomology can nominate one representative to serve and have voting privileges on every departmental committee except the Executive Committee, the Merit Committee, and at-large representation on the Long Range Planning Committee. Also, the chair, in consultation with the faculty can appoint additional academic staff members to serve on selected committees, including the Long Range Planning Committee but excluding the Executive and Merit Committees.

XXII. Departmental Research Technician Position (50%): Policy for Allocation

Use of the 50% research technician position should be broadly flexible, with the primary purpose to support the research mission of the Department of Entomology. The term of service (each time allocated) will be two years, beginning July 1 and ending June 30, consistent with the University fiscal calendar.

Requests for use of the position will be made to the Research Committee. The Research Committee will issue a call for requests in January of even-numbered years. Evaluation of requests will be made by members of the committee, according to the following criteria. (These criteria are not prioritized.)

1. Past productivity and track record of research of faculty member submitting request.
2. Fit with department's research mission.
3. Availability of support to supplement the position.
4. Use as "matching funds" for new research initiative proposed to a funding agency ("leveraging").
5. Prior history of receipt of the position.

Recommendations of the Research Committee will be submitted for approval by department faculty.

Approved 5/25/00.

XXIII. Search and Screen Process for University

http://www.ohr.wisc.edu/polproced/srchbk/sbkmain.html

XXIV. University Faculty Policy and Procedures

http://wiscinfo.doit.wisc.edu/secfac/governance/FPP/Table_of_Contents.htm

XXV. CALS Tenure Guidelines

http://www.secfac.wisc.edu/divcomm/biological/
Adobe Acrobat Reader software must be installed on your computer to read this file. It is free and can be downloaded from Adobe's website at http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.

XXVI. PERSONNEL/PROMOTIONS

The University of Wisconsin recognizes three levels of professorship; assistant professor, associate professor and full professor. The guidelines for promotion from assistant professor to associate professor are clearly presented in the Faculty and Staff Handbook; however, guidelines for promotion from associate professor to full professor are not spelled out, thus making promotion the responsibility of the department. Promotion to the full professor rank implies that the individual is making significant contributions in his/her academic field. Those granting the promotion must be sure that the individual has the appropriate post-tenure credentials.

I. Guidelines For Promotion to Full Professor

1. Except under exceptional circumstances, a candidate will not be considered for promotion to full professor in less than 3 years after promotion with tenure. During this time period, the candidate is expected to submit her/his annual activities reports to the Senior Executive Committee. This report must be submitted to the Chair no later than March 1. The early reviews will provide the candidate with a running analysis of her/his progress.
2. At the beginning of the third academic year, the candidate may choose an individual from the Senior Executive Committee to act as a resource at the Executive meeting. This point is not a requirement, but an individual with detailed knowledge of the candidate's progress would be helpful to the committee.
3. The Executive Committee will meet in March to discuss the progress of the candidate based on the annual reports. The Chair will be expected to be thoroughly apprised of the candidate's progress and will be expected to convey the feelings of the Executive Committee back to the candidate.
4. The Chair will summarize these comments in a letter to be sent to all Senior Executive Committee members, to the candidate, and be filed in the departmental office no later than two weeks after the review.
5. This progress review process will continue from year three on an annual basis until promotion to full professor occurs.
6. When the candidate feels promotion is warranted, he/she will meet with the Chair to discuss the issue. This should occur no later than January .A promotion packet should then be developed and submitted to the Executive Committee no later than March 1. This will give committee members sufficient time to examine the packet for the March Senior Executive Committee meeting. The promotion packet will be available in the departmental office for examination no later than the first working day in March. The candidate will be encouraged to speak with the colloquium committee about arranging a date for a departmental seminar .The seminar would be given prior to the Senior Executive Committee's meeting in March.
7. Following discussion of the candidate's credentials, the Senior Executive Committee will then vote on promotion.
8. Voting shall be by paper ballot The departmental administrator will distribute ballots to all Senior Executive Committee members and instruct them to return the identified ballots to the office within one week. Members on leave will vote by mail or FAX.
9. The ballot shall have two categories:
   Yes - for promotion
   No - against promotion
   
   Ballots will be counted immediately after the close of the voting period. Late ballots will not be accepted.
10. A two-thirds majority of affirmative votes from those voting will be required for promotion.
11. The candidate will be immediately informed of the results by the Chair via letter. The chair will send the recommendation for promotion to the Dean within a week for processing.

II. Development of The Promotion Packet

The annual report and the promotion packet are significantly different in scope and should not be considered synonymous.

1. The promotion packet can, in part, be considered a series of annual reports; however, additional information must be present.

   a. The packet shall include a 2 to 3 page essay on the directions of the candidate's research, teaching or extension duties. This narrative would begin no later than the tenure promotion, but could go as far back as needed. This would include past efforts or discoveries, present work and future directions. The candidate should explain how his/her work during the post-tenure period has attained a world-class stature or has contributed significantly to regional growth, health etc.

   b. The completed promotion packet may include a seminar to the department elaborating on Section a. This seminar would be a part of the colloquium series and should be attended by all Executive Committee members.

   c. The candidate shall submit the. names of 5 outside reviewers who would be able to evaluate the candidate's progress and status. The Senior Executive Committee may request letters from at least two of these individuals.

   d. For those whose primary appointment is research, the packet will include: (1) a listing of all publications broken into categories of refereed, nonrefereed, book chapters, books, technical notes, software and patents and a copy of each paper or manuscript; (2) a list of proposals funded and if desired a list of those submitted and proposals funded; (3) a list of seminars presented by the candidate. The packet will also include: (4) a description of the candidates teaching responsibilities; (5) teaching evaluations made during the post-tenure period; (6) a list of graduate and postdoctoral students that have worked in the candidate's laboratory and their current position. Undergraduate honors students as well as visiting scholars should also be included. (A visiting scholar could be defined as an individual coming to the lab for a short period of time; for example, to learn a technique developed in the candidate's lab ).

   e. For those whose primary appointment is extension, the packet will include: (1) a complete C.V. and a copy of each paper and manuscript. Research and extension .material should be separated, with the extension publications grouped in two categories for single print publications (a) those not intended to be revised and (b) those reissued periodically). (2) a listing of funding proposals submitted and proposals funded; (3) a list of seminars, extension presentations (media development, computer software developed, satellite programs, workshops, seminars, short courses and individualized instruction) and a statement as to the kind of role the candidate played in each of these activities; (4) clientele served; (5) continuing evidence of a leadership role in independent and joint programming efforts; (6) evaluation of impact; (7) continuing evidence of leadership in campus, state, regional and national extension issues. The packet will also include: (1) a description of the candidate's extension programming areas; (2) teaching evaluations of extension and resident instruction (where applicable) activities; (3) a list of graduate and postdoctoral students in the candidate's extension and/or research program. Utilization of the format given in the Biological Sciences Divisional Guidelines for Promotion or Appointment to Tenure Rank is suggested. Additionally, the Department Senior Executive Committee will also consider annual performance evaluations by County Extension Agents and other cooperating departments.

   f. For those whose primary appointment is resident instruction, the packet will include: (1) a chronological listing of courses taught, including credits, numbers of students enrolled, and numbers of lab sections taught (if appropriate), (2) documentation of teaching effectiveness (to include, but not restricted to student evaluations), (3) a summary of significant instructional support materials such as textbooks, lab manuals, J or videotapes, that have been developed by the candidate, (4) participation in and, especially, leadership of instructional improvement opportunities such as workshops, conferences, and training grants, (5) publications on instructional innovations, and (6) service (such as CALS, University or ESA committee assignments) that relates specifically to instruction. The balance of the packet should reflect (1) areas of the secondary appointment (research or extension as outlined in the previous sections). Utilization of the format of the tenure document is recommended.

III. Department Guidelines for Mentors

Each assistant professor will be assigned two mentors, who will remain in this capacity (or replaced if circumstances warrant) for the duration of the probationary period.

The role of the mentors is to:

1. Serve as a resource for communicating the candidate's record to the Executive and Divisional Committees. This may include such functions as critiquing the format of the tenure packet and providing advice based on previous cases. However, it is entirely the responsibility of the candidate to develop the record of accomplishment upon which the decision to promote is based.
2. Serve as a liaison between the candidate and the Executive Committee. This should include communicating the candidate's performance to the Executive Committee and being prepared to answer their questions, communicating the Executive Committee critiques to the candidate, and providing advice as to timing of application for promotion.
   
   To fulfill these responsibilities, the mentors are expected to: 1) meet formally with the candidate at least once a year to discus progress, 2) present the candidate's current CV to the Executive Committee once a year, and 3) be available on an ongoing basis as a resource and source of counsel to the assistant professor. However, a mentor is not necessarily an advocate, and is free to vote accordingly in all decision.

Approved 2/22/91

Addendum I

The Department Chair will act as an ex officio member of each mentor committee. The Chair will facilitate meetings of the committees and will assist them in advising the faculty on the progress of the assistant professors. Additionally, minutes shall be taken during these meetings and will be distributed to the Department Executive Committee during the annual review process.

Approved 4/26/91

Post-Tenure Review Policy, Department of Entomology
(5/23/94)

Entomology faculty members will be reviewed every five years, in accordance with UW-Madison Faculty Document 1001b and College of Agricultural and Life Sciences guidelines. Because the Department Chair is expected to serve 4-5 years, s/he will be reviewed by College Administration during that time, based on annual input from Department of Entomology faculty.

Post-tenure review in the Department of Entomology will be conducted by the Department Merit Review Committee, which is composed of three elected members from the Department Executive Committee, and the Department Chair. Each of the elected members serves a three-year term with one member rotating off the committee on an annual basis. The committee will now have two responsibilities; conduct of the annual merit review exercise and review of post-tenure performance. If one member of the Merit Review Committee is scheduled for post-tenure review, the review will be conducted by the remaining two members and the Chair. Faculty who have most recently rotated off the committee will be asked to serve during the review process if more than one of the current members is scheduled for review.

Reviewing two-three faculty members each year will allow the committee to complete the review cycle within a five-year period. This activity will begin during 1994, starting with our most senior faculty. Review will be delayed if a scheduled faculty member is on leave or if his or her promotion to Full Professor is anticipated for the following year. In the case of faculty whose review falls during the year in which a CSRS Review of the department occurs, documentation prepared for the review will be a part of the post-tenure review packet. Faculty anticipating retirement within 18 months will not be reviewed.

To meet campus and college requirements, qualitative and quantitative information submitted should include current curriculum vitae, annual activity reports, teaching evaluations or summaries of evaluations, and other materials providing evidence of the faculty member's accomplishments and contributions. Faculty members will consult college guidelines (Wyse memorandum 22 March 1994) for suggestions, and will provide plans/objectives for the next five years and how these relate to college/department missions and program areas. In the case of faculty with Extension appointments, the Department Chair will make available a five-year summary of County Extension Agent evaluations. Extension faculty will provide copies of their multi-year plan, annual plans of work, and annual accomplishments reports. In addition to the examples of post-tenure responsibilities outlined in college guideline, Extension faculty are encouraged to include evidence of service to commodity groups and other agencies, service and leadership on Extension committees, Extension grants, and activities in professional Extension societies.

Faculty scheduled for post-tenure review will submit the packets to :he Department Chair not later than March 1. Faculty scheduled for review during 1994 will submit their packets by March 1, 1995; those scheduled for review during 1995 will submit their packets by February 1, 1996. This cycle will continue at a pace that assures all post-tenure faculty are reviewed at least once every five years.

The Merit Review Committee will use Section III.C. of Faculty Document 1001b (5 April 1993) and college guidelines (Wyse memo, 22 March 1994) as guides for conduct of the review. Upon completion of the March review, the Department Chair will provide a written summary of the review and meet with reviewed faculty members not later than May 1 to discuss results. If a reviewed faculty member requests a meeting of the entire committee, the chair will set the date for such a meeting not later than June 1. To insure accountability, the department will follow the guidelines set forth in Section IV. Accountability, in Faculty Document 1001b (5 April 1993).

Post- Tenure Review Policy, College of Agricultural and Life Sciences
University of Wisconsin-Madison

The College of Agricultural and Life Sciences requires academic departments to review the work of all tenured faculty members once each five years in accordance with Faculty Document l00lb. The purpose of this review is to help faculty members grow and develop.

The review should be based on a current curriculum vita, annual activity reports, teaching evaluations and other evidence of the faculty member's accomplishments and contributions that the department or the faculty member deem appropriate.

The Executive Committee of each department is responsible for reviewing the faculty members designated to be reviewed in a given year.¹ The work of each designee will be reviewed in detail by at least two members of the committee. These reviewers will draft a brief report describing and evaluating the performance of the designee. The attached table provides a list of responsibilities that may serve as a guideline for the review.

The report will include professional accomplishments and recommendations for growth and development If deficiencies are noted, the report should include specific recommendations on ways of improving performance.² After review and approval by the full committee, the report will be given to the designee for comment The comments of the designee will be considered by the committee and a final draft of the report, together with the comments of the designee, will be forwarded to the Dean of the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences.

_______________________

¹Departments may determine the appropriate schedule to assure that all tenured faculty members are reviewed during one of the fiscal years 1994 through 1998 and are reviewed every five years after their first review. Faculty members being promoted from Associate to Full Professor may be included in the group being reviewed and the promotion process may be substituted for this review process.

As identified in section IIIB of faculty document l00lb, for a faculty member with appointments in more than one department, the department chair of the affected departments shall agree on procedures for conduct of the review.

²If a faculty member is performing unsatisfactorily in the judgment of the Executive Committee, he/she will be reviewed annually until he/she performs satisfactorily.

_______________________

³The nature and relative weighting of responsibilities for individual faculty varies according to disciplinary area, career stage and relative role played in fulfilling the mission of the employing unit, College and University.

XXVII.  Procedures Governing Salary Equity Review

1. Upon notification of a salary equity review request, or at the times specified in the Provost’s letter dated October 3rd, 2003 (see below), the Chair will convene the Merit Committee to review the inquiry and will proceed with a Salary Equity Review. If the faculty member who is being reviewed is a member of the Merit Committee, he/she will be excused from the committee and the Chair can appoint another member of the Executive Committee to serve on the Merit Committee if desired.
2. Included in the Salary Equity Review are a post tenure review (see Post-Tenure Review Policy this section), department merit history review, salary history review of three comparable peers and review of other pertinent information. The department will provide written justification for any salary differences between the individual being reviewed and the three comparable peers. University guidelines are included in the attachments listed below.
3. Based on the results of the post tenure review, a review of the merit and salary history, and any other pertinent facts the Chair, based on the Merit Committee’s decision, will forward its recommendation to the Dean’s office. The Dean will review all department salary equity review decisions (whether or not an adjustment is recommended) to determine whether they are fair and are supported by adequate documentation.
4. A copy of all documentation will be kept in the faculty member’s file.

The following letter dated October 3rd, 2002 explains the Provost’s position regarding Equity in Faculty Salaries and applicable procedures.

http://www.provost.wisc.edu/salaryequitypolicy.html

DATE: October 3, 2002
TO: Faculty, Deans, Directors, and Department Chairs
FROM: Peter D. Spear, Provost
RE: Equity in Faculty Salaries

I.  Purpose: Reaffirming the Merit Basis of Faculty Pay

It is long-standing campus policy, and a matter of fairness and equity, that faculty salaries must be based on merit. Nevertheless, many factors may lead to inequities in salaries so that they are not directly related to merit. For example, as recent experience on our campus has shown, salary inequities may occur that are related to gender. In addition, inadvertent salary inequities may occur for any individual for a wide variety of reasons. Therefore, it is important to evaluate salaries periodically to ensure that they are equitable and based on merit. This should be done for all faculty as a regular part of our salary process, not simply in response to campus studies or individual grievances. A successful proactive program to promote salary equity for all our faculty will improve campus climate and will positively affect our ability to recruit and retain outstanding faculty. In short, ensuring salary equity will help make us a better university.

What follows is a set of procedures to be followed by all campus units to evaluate individual faculty members’ salaries for merit at specific times in their careers. These procedures were developed in consultation with the University Committee, the EDRC Advisory Committee, the Faculty Compensation and Economic Benefits Commission, the Committee on Women in the University, and the school and college deans. The goal of the procedures is to assess whether an individual faculty member’s salary is appropriately and equitably related to career merit in comparison with peers at UW-Madison and to make merit-based salary-equity adjustments if appropriate. The procedures use existing campus policies and procedures for making salary decisions, and they are to be carried out at times when we normally evaluate career merit for individual faculty. Therefore, these procedures involve little or no added effort or bureaucracy.

II.  Timing of Salary Equity Evaluation

Each faculty member’s salary will be evaluated for equity relative to career merit at the following times:

• At the time of each major faculty review and evaluation:
  • promotion to associate professor
  • promotion to full professor
• each five-year post-tenure review;
  • In the third year of the probationary period
  • In response to a request from a faculty member

III.  Conducting the Salary Equity Evaluation

A.  Initial Salary Equity Evaluation

The tenure-home department will conduct the salary equity evaluation using departmental processes and committees that already exist for the establishment and review of salaries, as specified by Faculty Policies and Procedures.

To conduct the evaluation, departments will use an analysis similar to those set forth in the Guidelines for Implementing the 2000-2001 Faculty Gender Pay Equity Review. (See http://www.wisc.edu/provost/GEFSguide.html.) The only difference is that the gender pay equity review involved comparing the faculty member being reviewed with three comparable males, whereas the new Salary Equity Evaluation will compare the individual with three comparable faculty members regardless of gender. The departments will provide a written justification for any salary differences between the individual being reviewed and the three comparable peers.

Any salary adjustment will be made during the normal annual salary exercise (see below). It should be kept in mind that the three comparable faculty will receive annual merit increases in the same salary exercise. Therefore, the salary adjustment for the individual being reviewed should establish salary equity as of the beginning of the next academic year, after all four faculty (the individual being reviewed and the three comparable faculty) have received their annual raise.

B.  Appeals within the Department

The faculty member reviewed may appeal using existing departmental appeal procedures.

C.  Dean Review of Salary Equity Evaluations

The Dean will review all salary equity decisions (whether or not an adjustment is recommended) to determine whether they are fair and are supported by adequate documentation.

IV.  Funding of Equity Pay Adjustments

No special campus-level funding is available for equity pay adjustments. If adjustments are considered appropriate, they will be funded using existing funding sources:

• From the annual merit pool (which comes from campus funds)
• Via the regular promotion base adjustment (which comes from the unit’s continuing base budget)
• As a base adjustment for “individual inequity” under existing rules (which comes from the unit’s continuing base budget)

Of course, a combination of these three may be used.

V.  Data Available from the Provost’s Office

By December lst of each year, the Provost’s Office will provide to all department chairs and deans:

• A current faculty salary list based on November 1 salaries;
  
• Scatter plots, based on November 1 salaries, showing salary vs. years since the terminal degree for all faculty in the unit. These scatter plots will distinguish between male and female faculty members;
  
• Salary data from peer institutions, where available. These data may be relevant to the evaluation of starting and retention salaries.

VI.  For further information, questions may be directed to appropriate deans and department chairs or to the Associate Vice Chancellor for Faculty and Staff Programs.

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment A
UW Madison Unclassified Personnel Policies and Procedures 10.001- Unclassified Rate and/or Title Change

Attachment B
The Merit Compensation Plan Requirements. Chapter 5, 2002-2003 Annual Budget Instructions

Attachment C
The UW Madison Guidelines for Implementing the 2000-2001 Gender Pay Equity Review