UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON ARCHIVES
ORAL HISTORY PROJECT

Interview #1006
TORTORICE, CHARLENE “CHAR”

Tortorice, Char.  (1951- )
Graduate Student; Academic Staff

At UW: 1969-1974; 1977-2008

First Oral History
Interviewed: 2008 (9/17, 10/3, and 12/17)		
Interviewer: Troy Reeves
Length: 150 minutes 
Indexed by: Troy Reeves

Abstract: In her three-interview oral history (conducted in September, October, and December 2008) with Troy Reeves, Charlene “Char” Tortorice discussed some aspects of her life history.  Tortorice spoke of the time period between 1951 and the present and of the following topics: Madison Academic Staff Association, UW—Madison campus governance, UW—Madison Sociology Department, UW—Madison Chancellors, 1960s/1970s student protest, Middleton, Wisconsin, and Poynette (Wisconsin) School District.   Reeves conducted this interview to attempt to start a campus governance oral history project for the UW—Madison Oral History Program.

First Interview Session (September 17, 2008): 

00:00	Introduction

01:00	Reeves asked Tortorice for a brief biography of her early years.  Tortorice was born in Madison, but her mom and dad moved her to Seattle, WA after three months.  Tortorice’s father had received a job at University of Washington, leading to the move.  Tortorice lived in Seattle for the first 12 years of her life.  She noted that her mother let her and her sisters have “the run of the city.” While Tortorice had fond memories of Seattle, her mom and dad divorced.  So, her mother moved the family back to Wisconsin.  The family lived in Middleton, and Tortorice’s mother let the sisters roam both Middleton and UW—Madison.  Tortorice earned valedictorian honors at Middleton and went to UW—Milwaukee on a scholarship.  After one year there, she transferred back to be closer to her boyfriend (current husband of 37 years).  She noted that she and her boyfriend went to Madison during a tense period, the late 1960s/early 1970s.  After she graduated from UW—Madison, she stayed to get a graduate degree.  After this advanced degree, she earned a job as a guidance counselor for the Poynette School District.  While helping a fellow teacher with her resume, Tortorice not only helped her with her resume but also updated her own resume.  Both women applied for jobs, even though Tortorice was still working at Poynette.  Both women were hired, and Tortorice stayed on campus for thirty years.

06:00	Reeves asked whether Tortorice was interested in the UW—Madison job that she applied for.  She said no, but one of her favorite professor led the program.  So, she received an interview, and the director hired her at the end of the interview.  Reeves then asked about how difficult it was to leave her guidance counselor job.  Tortorice noted that she loved the job, but it was a long commute, making for long days/long nights.  After reflection Tortorice decided to take the job, so she met the superintendent to see how she could get out of her contract.  The superintendent let her out of her contract without any penalty.  Tortorice noted that she would have not “left them in the lurch,” meaning if they asked her to stay, she would have.

10:30	Reeves asked Tortorice to compare Seattle and Middleton.  Tortorice noted that both campus felt the same, but she and her sisters “felt like caged animals.” The family went to church in Madison to get into a larger congregation.  She continued to describe the family’s adjustments to Wisconsin, offering a few amusing anecdotes.  She also noted that in Middleton, unlike Seattle, all the family allowed their children to “roam free.” Tortorice then compared the educational system, noting that their Seattle education put them ahead of their Middleton cohorts.  Reeves asked about how she and her sisters would get to Madison.  She talked about walking to the bus at Hilldale or walking all the way to the Capital.  She also discussed how she dressed and what things she did in Madison during her free time.

15:30	Reeves asked if Tortorice’s first years in the Seattle school district paved the way for the good grades in the Middleton school district.  She said that “it [Seattle] put her so far ahead.” She noted that Middleton provided a great education, but that she and her sisters were so advanced.  Reeves then asked about her parents’ divorce.  Tortorice talked about this dissolution and explained how her mother applied for and received a job at Mendota Mental Health Facility, so she moved the family from Seattle to Middleton.  Tortorice described being a latch-key kid, although she stated that they never locked their houses.

18:30	Reeves asked why Tortorice first attended UW—Milwaukee.  She noted that she wanted to attend college in a bigger city, and she would have stayed if not for being in love.  She also stated that the campus excitement in Milwaukee did not compare to the energy on Madison’s campus.  Reeves asked for Tortorice’s husband’s name, then asked if she participated in any protests in UW—Milwaukee.  CT did not, but she stayed with a woman, who participated, meaning she met, albeit briefly, the movers and shakers in Milwaukee’s protest movement.

21:00	Reeves asked about memorable protests on UW—Madison campus.  CT discussed watching the Dow Riot; she skipped high school to attend it.  When she attended UW—Madison, CT always dressed well, so the campus police always made sure she was shielded from the violence.  CT offered at least two examples of having police protection to help to get into or out of a building.  She noted that her boyfriend (now husband) was rarely treated with TLC.  CT then described how she would protest, would go to class, then would rejoin her “attentive protester,” her boyfriend.  CT would enter the buildings from non-central locations, avoiding the picket lines.

25:00	Reeves asked where CT worked during her undergraduate (graduate?) days.  She worked at the new West Towne Mall; she described what she did and what that part of town looked like in the late 1960s/early 1970s.  CT rode the bus from campus to work to her apartment in Madison.  Reeves then asked CT about when she and Dan became husband and wife.  They were married in May during her junior year.  Reeves asked if CT or Dan knew the student protesters by name; she noted that they knew them by sight.  But they both worked and lived off campus, so they did not “plot the revolution” with the other protesters.

28:45	Reeves asked CT’s memories of the Sterling Hall Bombing.  CT noted that it woke her up, even though she lived miles away.  She noted that her then boyfriend lived closer and thought his furnace had exploded.  CT offered her opinions about the aftermath of the event and her knowledge of Fassnacht’s wife and child.  CT thought the bombing changed the campus climate and explained why she felt as such.  Reeves and CT discussed the types of violent protest that people tolerated, such as rock throwing, and protest that people rebelled against, such as bombing building or people.  After Sterling Hall CT felt that revolution should come through more peaceful means, such as voting.

32:45	Reeves asked about Tortorice’s favorite professors.  CT felt lucky because she took classes from a number of great professors.  CT noted that some turned out to be good friends.  She never felt lost as an undergraduate and explained why.  She focused on two UW—Madison’s folks, Joe and Joanne Elder, that have become great friends.  Reeves then asked CT about memorable campus spots.  CT mentioned the entire Memorial Union experience, specifically the Terrace and the main Union lounge.  CT then described what campus looked like in the 1970s; she said that she came to Stock Pavilion for registration but other than that Van Hise was the farthest west she would go.  As a staff person, she proctored tests at Agriculture Hall, but even as a staff person she spent most of her around East Campus.

38:45	Reeves asked when Tortorice knew she would attend graduate school.  She said that graduate school was always on her mind.  Being around campuses growing up helped foster the idea that her education would not stop at undergrad.  When asked if she applied at places other than UW—Madison, she applied and was accepted at Harvard.  But when Harvard’s leadership cancelled the program she intended to go into, she stayed at UW—Madison.  Reeves then asked the different between a school counselor and psychologist.  CT wanted to be a counselor because she wanted to work with students in detail, and she knew the counseling job would give her that opportunity.

43:00	Reeves asked the difference between undergraduate and graduate education at UW—Madison.  Graduate school gave her a cohort of 30 men and women, which then cleaved into smaller groups.  She mentioned the three people that she comprised her small group.  The small group created an intense collegiality, because they all took the same class and, they knew, would end up assisting each other once they got into the field.  Reeves asked about some of the logistics of the program, including if she became involved in the Teaching Assistant’s Association.  This question led CT to discuss in detail why she never backed any TAA strike or any teacher’s strike for that matter.  She supported the teachers in other ways, but this type of strike hurt students more than helped TAs or teachers.

49:30	Reeves asked if her graduate degree prepared her for high school counseling.  She said yes; she noted that Ph.Ds in this field went into the academy.  When she came back as a staff person, she went into the Ph.D program, but she never finished.  Reeves then asked about how she got her job at Poynette; CT noted that she got a few offers and probably would have received more. She explained why she chose the job in Poynette and why the training in Madison prepared her for this middle school counseling job.  Tortorice detailed the innovations applied while at that job.

53:00	Reeves asked if the commute from Madison to Poynette and back affected her personal life.  She basically saw little of her husband during her years in Poynette, due to her job and her union responsibilities.  Reeves then asked about her involvement in the union (WEAC); Tortorice said that she paid her dues, so she felt she should be involved.  Reeves then concluded with a question about how she became involved in governance/employment activities here.  CT said she went looking for the WEAC chapter on campus but did not find it.  She went to Joanne Elder, who had started MASA a few years previously.  Within three days CT joined MASA and had been involved ever since.

57:00	End of first interview session

Second Interview Session (October 3, 2008): 

00:00	Introduction

00:45	Reeves asked about how Tortorice learned about MASA.  Tortorice talked about seeing a flyer about MASA, asking her supervisor if she could go, and going.  CT saw Joanne Elder at the first meeting, and CT re-introduced herself to Elder.  (Elder advised Tortorice during her undergraduate period.)  Tortorice offered an overview of academic staff governance in the years after Merger to her hiring as an academic staff in 1977.  She stated that due to the changes from Merger academic staff was not eligible to participate in committees and other governance groups.  She also noted that academic staff job titles ended in the term specialist and that some job titles did not fit into the academic staff bailiwick.  Tortorice then described what MASA tried to do from 1977-1985, trying to get governance rights and collective bargaining tools.  She felt that academic staff earned more rights easier on other campuses.

08:00	Reeves asked Tortorice about changing a specific chapter (36) under the new charter, created with Merger, to include academic staff in the governance language.  The administration offered reasons as to why the academic staff should not try to meddle with chapter 36, but the academic staff felt they could get a narrowly-focused bill passed.  CT said that academic staff thought that they could educate the faculty and administration about the benefits of including academic staff in governance; CT offered reasons why that education did not flow smoothly.  Academic staff leadership truly thought they could get a clean, straightforward bill through the legislature.  They hired a lobbyist, a former Milwaukee priest, who argued that they should put this bill into a budget bill, which would assure its passage.  MASA balked at that idea until 1985 when a legislator and UW—Milwaukee academic staffer convinced them to have him insert it into the end of session budget bill.

14:15	Reeves asked Tortorice why it took eight years to get academic staff governance.  Tortorice started with the idea that it took them a few years to realize they needed a lobbyist to educate the legislature and to help them write the bill.  Tortorice offered examples about how legislators did not realize why/how academic staff necessarily differed from classified staff/faculty.  So, hiring a lobbyist allowed one person to explain the academic staff nuances.  Once they hired a lobbyist and put forth a bill, it took a few years because they would table the bill, because they knew it would lose.  So, by 1985 they realized they needed to include it in a budget bill to get it passed.  Tortorice then concluded by noting that some campus academic staff groups have flourished with increased governance and some campus academic staff have not.  Reeves asked if getting the legislation passed served as an example of pragmatic politics; CT agreed, adding that the bill’s passage was supposed to lead to cleaning up the personnel issues.  CT said that the new governance, in terms of personnel, has become more convoluted.  CT went on to offer examples of the convolution, such as academic staff jobs falling into category A, B, or C.  CT built on this section, noting the problem with hiring outside folks into administrative positions (category C), because outside faculty/staff do not want to take this type of job because these are “serve at the pleasure of” position.  This situation, unique in Wisconsin academia, does give an outside candidate pause because of the lack of job security.  CT and Reeves noted that Wisconsin will continue to be unique in this regard as long as the legislature continues to have fiscal/personnel control over campuses.

26:30	Reeves then asked Tortorice to discuss Joanne Elder’s role in academic staff governance.  CT offered an overview of Elder’s background, marriage, and family, which gave her the willingness to serve and to fight for justice.  CT stated that Elder’s husband, Joe, offered Joanne support, which greatly assisted this effort; CT noted that other faculty with staff spouses did not give their partner that type of assistance.  CT then gave examples of Elder’s feistiness, including taking on faculty and administration.  Elder’s department, Sociology, would not fire Joanne, because not only her status but her husband Joe’s status.

32:15	Reeves asked CT to list folks who became involved during the 1975-1985 period of academic staff governance.  CT noted the following men and women (including giving some background on each): Karen Carlson, Steve Saffian, Steve Myrah, Dick West, Alistair McCormick, Anne Wallace, Hank Lufler, and Ross Reinhart (check spelling of names).  CT noted that she never met Reinhart, but his name became legend, due to his firing.  CT used this anecdote to state that job security had grown to be a substantial issue along with governance.

36:30	Reeves asked Tortorice about “day to day” activities in regard to academic staff governance.  CT noted that academic staff put together a committee to study committees; she detailed the importance of this committee on committees.  Academic staff served on committee on an ad hoc basis but greatly benefitted the group, which allowed academic staff to push the argument that academic staff governance would aid the university.  CT offered a present-day anecdote about faculty and academic staff butting heads in regards to committee co-chair status (or lack of status for academic staff).  Tortorice talked about “chapter 6” committees, which are groups that faculty do oversee and faculty must chair, according to the laws.  CT then offered her opinions on what could happen as more and more long-time academic staff retire, both regarding the push to get academic staff to officially co-chair committees and the idea to decouple academic staff and faculty, letting each work its own salaries and benefits.  CT felt that if faculty could work on its own that academic staff would suffer, particularly in wages, and she noted that young academic staff have seemed uninterested in salary and benefits issues.  
47:30	Reeves asked CT about supportive faculty during the 1975-85 governance debate.  CT stated that most faculty did not support academic staff efforts.  She then mentioned those who did, such as Jim Donnelly, Bill Reznikoff, and Jack Ledinsky (check spelling of names).  Reeves then asked why students supported academic staff governance.  CT talked about why students support academic staff, including the TAA’s support and the idea that students liked to be asked to be involved or to be supportive.  Tortorice could not recall names of specific student supporters.

51:15	Tortorice began her conclusion with this fact: She was allowed, by her supervisor, to be active.  Her supervisor told her that she needed to find an on campus but non-work passion.  She chose academic staff governance, and she mentioned that being a young woman only helped her in her activism.  She also noted that her next supervisor allowed her to continue to be involved.  Reeves then concluded with the question about how long it took CT to understand the intricacies of governance.  CT said that she still cannot wrap her mind around them.

55:45	  End of second interview session 

Third Interview Session (December 17, 2008):

00:00	Introduction

00:45	As a follow-up question to a previous interview, Reeves asked Tortorice where she lived in Madison as an undergrad (before she married her husband).  She said she lived on Fiedler Lane in south Madison.  She lived there the day of the Sterling Hall bombing; she compared that part of Madison in the late 1960s/early 1970s and today.

05:00	After CT married, she and her husband lived on the Isthmus for almost two decades, including living in apartments and buying their first home in that part of town.  She discussed the sense of community while they lived in the Isthmus.

06:30  	In a previous interview, CT could not recall the name of a woman in her graduate program.  She recalled her name later in this interview (around 32 minutes): Mary Jo Wilkinson.

07:45	Reeves asked CT if there were other ways then she mentioned in previous interview that MASA lobbied to get shared governance.  CT mentioned the chancellor’s academic staff advisory committee, noting it was helpful to meet with upper-level administration.  That way those people could see that academic staff could showcase their pluses.  In a follow-up question, Reeves asked if faculty/administration fears about academic staff could be linked to the student protest movement.  CT argued for a link, although she said that faculty/administration would never admit to that.  She also mentioned the possible fear of faculty/administration that if academic staff could share governance their numbers would overwhelm the faculty.  When asked if there was a link between the TAA and faculty/administration fear of academic staff, CT did not think so at all, because the TAA became its own player through their union.  CT talked about how academic staff narrowly voted against forming a union in the 1970s or 1980s; now, MASA does argue that they should be kept with faculty in terms of bargaining for raises and benefits.

16:45	Reeves asked what is academic staff and is it necessary.  CT noted that a campus did not need the specific name academic staff, but each campus does need professional staff to maintain infrastructure to allow faculty to teach, research, and outreach.  This led CT to explain the early discussion between Chancellor Martin and academic staff, which has led to a DVD, describing what academic staff’s function within UW—Madison.  CT clarified that the DVD’s creation responded to Chancellor Martin’s question: what is academic staff?  CT also detailed the three categories of academic staff and the successes and challenges of those three categories.

23:15	Reeves asked CT of academic staff’s goals after the legislation passed to create shared governance.  CT felt that academic staff has done a good job getting academic staff onto committee and creating a robust academic staff assembly.  She did note, however, that getting governance at the college, department, and unit levels (particularly department) has been spotty at best.  CT talked about how part-time academic staff has been great for the individual person but has been problematic for increasing shared governance.

27:00	CT spent twelve years on MASA’s nominating committee in two different six-year terms, so she helped shaped who served on those committee.  She told a story about conversing with then Provost Ward about MASA’s nomination of two people for the University Library Committee.  Ward challenged these nominations, but he later told CT that those specific nominations turned out great.

30:15	When asked why CT has stayed involved, she said (while laughing) she did not trust anyone else to do it right.  She noted why she has continued to be involved even in retirement.  CT briefly offered her opinions about the first semester of Chancellor Martin’s tenure.

32:15	CT remembered the name of the female graduate student she worked with in the same graduate school cohort.  (See above summary at 06:30.)  CT then discussed the benefits and challenges in assisting academic staff, particularly new staff people.  She provided examples in both the campus jewels and mentoring program.  CT has felt frustrated by academic staff not taking control of his or her career.

36:30	Reeves concluded with the question: Is there shared governance?  CT offered a comment she heard in the past: “Faculty govern, academic staff share.”  CT felt mad when she heard that comment, but she does agree with it.  

38:00	End of Interview Session 3
	End of Oral History 1006