UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON ARCHIVES
ORAL HISTORY PROJECT

Interview #946
STEFFENHAGEN, WILLIAM

STEFFENHAGEN, William (1945-)
Undergraduate student in Animal Science, Graduate student in Veterinary Science, Research Specialist in Veterinary Science, Assistant Dean for the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, Program Manager Department of Diary Science
At UW: 1964-1968; 1972-2008

First Oral History Session			

Interviewed: April 21, 2009	
Interviewer: Valli Warren   
Series: Campus Governance (Academic Staff)
Length: 49 minutes      

Abstract: During his interview with Valli Warren on April 21, 2009, William Steffenhagen discussed his years after becoming an academic staff member at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He grew-up on a farm outside of Arlington, Wisconsin and attended UW–Madison, receiving Bachelor of Science degree in Animal Science in 1968. He was drafted into the military, spending a little over a year in Vietnam. He came back to the University in 1972 to study for a Master of Science degree in Veterinary Science working in Oliver Ginther's lab as a research specialist/graduate student. While pursuing his Master’s degree and working with Dean Bernard Easterday, Steffenhagen became the administrative assistant to the Chair of Veterinary Science. This interview was conducted for inclusion into the UW-Madison Archives’ oral history collection, under the series Campus Governance (Academic Staff).
[There was a second interview file for this first session, of which the audio was inaudible.]
Second Oral History Session 
Interviewed: September 25, 2015	
Interviewer: Troy Reeves, and Amy Rettammel   
Series: Campus Governance (Academic Staff)  
Length: 55 minutes 

Abstract: During the second interview with William Steffenhagen, he discussed his work with academic staff governance and his involvement with Academic Staff Public Representation Organization (ASPRO). His notable accomplishments are establishing academic staff policy and procedures, and eliminating the process (the letter) of annual reappointment. He also discussed his work and interactions with for the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (CALS), and Veterinary and Diary Sciences. 

First Oral History Session (2009)

[3:40] Neal First was my advisor in animal science, so upon my return from the military I gave him a call to see what work opportunities might be available on campus – he was aware that Oly Ginther was looking for a graduate student to work in the lab. Continued in the lab as a graduate student for a couple of years then Oly Ginther hired Bill as a research specialist. First experience of being an Academic Staff member. Also, continuing with research. 

Bernie Easterday, current chair of veterinary science at the time, later becoming the first Dean of School of Veterinary Medicine, when it was established, he was looking for an assistant to the take over some of the administrative day-to-day activities (some of the things that the chair did) so that he could concentrate on faculty issues and those sorts of things . . . I was on soft-money at the time, so it wasn’t a hard decision to make because it was a hard funded position.

a.	What did you perceive to be the expectations of the job when you started here? 
[5:56] It was absolutely new, there was only one other person in the college at the time, Judy Peterson, she was the first person in that role. Evolved. Overtime, more responsibilities were laid onto the position. When the Lookout Farm at Arlington – which at that time Veterinary Science was in CALS – we lost Reader Farm and Google Farm to the Research Park on Mineral Point Rd. so we picked up Lookout Farm. The Dean at the time gave us $25,000. Doesn’t seem like a lot of money but back in the 1970’s you could actually do something with that. Worked with carpenter crew – it was a project that we did and it was fun.

b.	Did you need to move to Madison for your original academic staff position? No
c.	 What was UW–Madison like when you began working here as academic staff? 
[7:20] As I look back, it was more personal, smaller. At that time, the funding from the State to the University was on the “plus” side. Institution was getting additional resources. Dean was always in a position to provide funds for a new position, that sort of thing. From an attitudinal point of view, there were a lot of positives because there were funds available to make things happen. Everything was smaller. As a point in history, that was pre-merger of UWSA, so that was pre-merger politics.

II.	Your role as an academic staff member 
a.	What was your immediate work place like in the beginning? 
[8:47] It was absolutely fun. Oly Ginther was the type of person (lab of 4-6 graduate students) research-workaholic. Spent hours out at the farms doing the research.  But the group also knew how to enjoy the process and to enjoy each other outside of the work environment. Played hard and then the rest of the week we worked hard.

b.	What were your responsibilities? How much freedom and flexibility did you have to develop ways of meeting these responsibilities (i.e., developing your own courses, solutions, processes)?
[10:00] Working as a Research Specialist with Oly, just running his laboratory, working with the other people, Post-Docs and other students, set up experiments and keep things going. Working with the farm crew. 

[10:33] As a research specialist I had a lot of flexibility. Obviously, you had to make sure things worked. That was one of the things I enjoyed. I enjoy working with people and I enjoy getting things done – facilitating getting things done. It was fun – we all got along real well. 

c.	How closely aligned was your graduate work with what you were doing as an academic staff member? 
[11:02] The first couple of years as a research specialist that was my research, so it was aligned. When Bernie Easterday offered me the assistant to the chairperson, that was literally a new position which was developed on the fly and evolved overtime and it depended on the person in the position how it evolved. 
The facility we did at Arlington, that was responsibility there . . . toward the end of my tenure there we had 2 experimental farms, we had approx. 17 classified staff, farm/animal care-takers. Glassware washing facility, our animal care in the building – I was in charge of it all. 

[12:12] The chairs in Veterinary Science were very much into research, and, some also into a fair amount of teaching. And basically they never, when they became chair, they continued to do their research, write their grants, keep their labs going, and I guess that’s probably why I had so much “author-” well, was pretty much left to run the department, because the chairs took care of faculty business and their research labs. And the normal tenure of a chair in Veterinary Science was 4 to 5 years. I think I served 8 or 9 chairs. 

d.	How long have you been here as an academic staff member? 1972 – 2008. 
e.	What is your sense of the existing relationship between academic staff and faculty?
[13:39] Prior to governance (80’s) there was a very collegial relationship – weren’t playing power games. With the advent of merger of the system in the early 70’s and then creation of Chapter 36 of the State Statutes in 1974, governance rights were granted to faculty in that statute and to students in that statute. This was after merger – UWSA. And what happened there at the Wisconsin State University System you had faculty, tenured and non-tenured faculty. So, academic staff at those institutions were non-tenured faculty. In the University of Wisconsin System you had faculty and academic staff. When they merged the two systems they took the UW model. Once governance rights were granted by statute to the faculty and to the students in the original chapter (1974), academic staff were not granted governance rights. Collegiality of working together that had exist prior to merger started to erode. Because faculty said they had certain rights and we didn’t have any, collegiality began to deteriorate after merger.

[16:00] The MASA came into existence in 1975 after merger. One of the reasons it came into existence was because AS were feeling disenfranchised under the new governance regime created by Chapter 36. And so there was an effort – as a matter of fact you have a lot of activist, people who were really involved in the university and how it worked, who were being sidelined over the years and they became very irritated. To the point where they were either pushing for collective bargaining at the state level, to have a voice, or some other means. And what happened in 1985 because of that, the UW System did not oppose adding academic staff governance section to Chapter 36, which is Chapter 36.09.4m. Since we got governance rights then the Assembly, ASEC, and all the other things were created.

[17:31] Char’s friend and advisor in Education ?
Joanne Elder – brought Char Tortorice into governance. She was one of the leaders of MASA at that time, that group.

i.	Attitudes toward academic staff in general?
ii.	More specifically, how were you treated? 
[20:25] I think at the Dept. level, in the day-to-day job, the collegiality was always there. It wasn’t academic staff /faculty governance related you were just doing your job. Where the tension grew is when the governance issues . . . and at the beginning of governance there were a lot of faculty committees that had no academic staff representative on them. And the early ASEC, one of the driving things that they tried to do was to get AS membership on faculty committees. And that was a tough sell – because the faculty, rightfully or wrongly, had the attitude that they ran the institution. Early ASEC people after there were times of confrontation with the University Committee and others, and it was a hard slog but they got membership on some committees and overtime, now today, I think, we have membership on virtually all chapter 6 faculty committees except those that are specifically related to faculty personnel issues and some academic stuff. So overall it has been a +.

f.	How has the academic staff/faculty relationship changed over time?

How did you become involved in governance?

[18:30] By the time the middle 80’s came rolling around, the statute was there in ’87 and governance really got kicked off when they organized the assembly and that sort of thing. First ASEC election, Paul Jelle, Asst. Dean in CALS...helped organize governance back then and when they were looking for names he gave me a call and asked, “Would you run for ASEC.” Nobody knew me – but I agreed to run, but was not elected. Paul Jelle/ASEC then asked if I was interested in either running for or Personnel Policies and Procedures Comm. (PPPC) Compensation and Economic Benefits Committee. I guess I should back-up, I had been AS member for over 10 years – at that point a change that he felt it was time to get involved in.

III.	Academic staff governance
a.	What academic staff activities have you been involved in? 
MASA (Pres., Board, Advisory Comm.), [22:22] ASPRO which was created by the Academic Staff Assembly (ASA) which is the lobbying group, started in Madison added Milwaukee now system-wide, I think I’ve been on the board of that almost from the very beginning of that (VP, Pres., Board), 

[22:58] Governance groups: served on PPPC for close to 6 years, chaired it for 2. Served on Compensation and Economic Benefits Committee for 6 years, chaired it for 2. Served on ASEC. First two elected by ASA. ASEC is elected by AS at-large. Elected for 2 3-year terms ASEC (6 yrs – Chair for 2 of those). Break in service. Served ASEC for two additional years before retirement. 

b.	How did academic staff governance come into being? 

[24: 07] When Chp. 36 was created with the merger of the two university systems, the merger eliminated the Coordinating Council on Higher Education which was sort of the overall body that brought the two systems together and created the Board of Regents, which we have today.

[24:35]AS in the State University System were non-tenured faculty and here at Madison and the rest of the University of Wisconsin system were academic staff. Once the statute was created in 1975 – statutory governance rights were established for faculty and for students but not for academic staff. They were left out. As I mentioned earlier, the relationship between faculty and academic staff, in the classroom and various things like that, where there was a lot of collegiality, the faculty started utilizing their rights and over time, AS working with the faculty there was a boundary put there. And the MASA started in 1975, the activists there were upset that they lost their influence in academia that they had before. And they pressed for action in the legislature to either have collective bargaining, to have a voice, [26:00] 
and as an alternative they worked with a legislator in Milwaukee, who worked with MASA to draft the 36.09.4m language.  Which then Chapter 36 was amended in 1985, to give governance rights to academic staff. And UW System did not oppose it, so it went through. And once AS had that in 1987, I think it was in that timeframe, Articles of Organization were ratified and created the ASEC in 1987 as well as the Compensation and Economic Benefits Committee, PPPC, and Nominating Committee.[27:00] And so the Assembly was formed – and everything is history after that.

i.	Your role, if any, in the creation of academic staff governance? 
No. It was primarily the movers and shakers on MASA at the time, who did the articles, who put it together: what the assembly would look like, what ASEC would look like, what the various committees [would look like]. [27:34] I got involved after all that hard work was done by former colleagues and when we’re doing elections to put people on committees.

ii.	How did that process work? 
iii.	Did the selection process bring in a variety of academic staff constituents to participate in the process? 
c.	How did you get interested in academic staff governance? What was your first impression of the process?

[27:50] Well, I give Paul Jelle, Asst. Dean in CALS, credit. He was one of the group working on creating governance. He was on the first nominating committee and he thought of me as a possible candidate. We’d worked together, me being a department administrator, assistant to the chair, and he being assistant dean, we had worked together a lot. 

It was kind of fun to get involved, because it provided a formal mechanism for the voice of academic staff to be heard in the institutional governance. We didn’t have that before. You could make your views known and the people who had governance right could say, “thank you – bye-bye.” 

d.	During your participation in academic staff governance, what were some of the issues you dealt with?
[29:15]The first big thing, and probably the biggest project, was when I ran for ASEC and wasn’t elected because nobody knew who I was, then I was elected to the PPPC, which Ann Wallace was chair of for close to 6 years, and we had ...And the interesting thing about these first committees, you had the core people who really cared about governance, and wanted it to work, the people who had actually put in a lot of sweat and tears to get it done. And so when these people were elected to the various committees a lot of things happened. Prior to governance, the old policy and procedures for AS were hammered out by a earlier governance group that was put together by the Chancellor, but had no real authority. It was very much, I think, it was a Madison version of the UWS rules that affect AS and basically there were no rights, no protections. You had annual reappointments, all AS had to be reappointed every year. So people got concerned if they didn’t get a letter, concerned whether they were going to have a job, there were a lot of not so positive employment relations things that were left over prior to governance.

[31:13] The PPPC, the first big task that they took on was to write what we know today as ASPP. 10 chapters which cover everything from definition, to appointments, to non-renewals, to lay-offs, to discipline for cause, you name it, those rules were written by the first PPPC, which I was privileged to serve on. …It took us 6 years to write ASPP. The reason it took so long is because when you are writing personnel rules and you write a rule to address an issue, whether it is dismissal for cause, appeals right, virtually you’d put down an idea and then you try to think of every possible variation and scenario to hit that.  Ann Wallace was chair for the first 2 years and I think we met biweekly and it took us 6 years to write it. Ann Wallace chaired it for 4 years, then she got a new dean that didn’t think much of his staff serving on governance so Ann had to step aside as chair but still served on the committee. At that point, I was elected chair, and I gave my charge to the committee was to get ASPP out the door. We finished the document and we wanted to make sure that it wouldn’t be against any existing UW System rules [33:24]. John Talman, who was the legal counsel at UWS, we got him involved. He went through the whole thing and where he found issues that the Regents may have a concern with because they aren’t consistent with UWS. We resolved all of those and the bottom line for Ann Wallace and I were… I wanted to get rid of the annual reappointment letter. And UWS was moot on that, they said you had to have an appointment letter. So, we were able to change requiring everybody having to get a renewal letter to have a job for the next year, to a notice period, to be notified if your job’s going to be eliminated. Notice period was on a scale based on years of service. [34:21] So, once the ASPP was implemented we were able to get rid of, eliminate, the annual renewal letter. 

It’s interesting because I have also served on the UWS AS Reps and to this day, there are institutions, we hear complaints, that have annual renewal letters . . . with no expectation of renewal. And some of them have been at their institutions for 10 – 15 years. They get the same letter every year.

•	Fixed term renewable – appointed for one year and it is renewable. You don’t have to receive a form of renewal. It is automatically renewed unless you are notified to the contrary.

•	Rolling horizon – UWS – i.e., 2 yr rolling horizon. On July 1st you have a 2 yr. rolling horizon. When June 30 rolls around you have 1 year and 1 day appointment. On July 1you have 2 year appointment again. UW-Madison = clock ticks daily – so if you have a 2 yr Rolling Horizon every day until notified. Madison, I think, is the only campus that has that. And that is academic staff governance in action.

e.	How effectively has academic staff governance responded to issues that matter to you? 
[37:00] To me! I’ve been involved in AS governance, in one way or another, since its inception, I don’t see it personally at all. When we wrote ASPP and tried to make those changes we were looking at how it would benefit the academic staff in the trenches. We always kept . . . that in front of us. Every committee I’ve served on, whether it be ASEC or whatever it is, I don’t look at anything personally. I look at everything for academic staff as a whole. And what we can do for them. And if we accomplish something, I just feel good. I don’t take personal pride in anything. When I was chair of ASEC, I would have an idea of what I would try to accomplish. But I think the sign of a good leader is you have an idea of what you want to accomplish but then you involve everybody. And you develop that idea. I found that at the end of the process you probably got something that is far superior to what you may have put on the table to spearhead to begin with. I think that is what makes AS so great. We are so diverse in everything we do. Whether its teaching, research, in the lab, being a scientist or a lab bench person. Everybody brings a lot to the table. That is a strength, actually.
 
f.	Is participation in academic staff governance well-regarded/supported?  
[39:07] I think in the beginning, you had the movers and shakers, primarily from the MASA organization and others, that got involved, who were looking to make a difference. And I think, by and large, a difference was made. I think that in anything when you get something new, you work hard at it, a lot of people do a lot of things. I think now we have sort of lost some of that zest, some of that desire, some of that push. It’s become almost, “Oh, I’ve got to serve on a committee?” My concern is that we don’t lose the things that we’ve gained. Quite frankly I think over the last 10 years, my concern is, the movers and shakers aren’t there anymore. And that’s why I think mentoring and developing and getting a new mind set or new group of movers and shakers coming through the system is important.

g.	What do you feel was the longest lasting or most significant issue you were involved in? 
[40:42] On the PPPC, getting the ASPP out the door. And that was a joint effort with everybody on the committee. There was no one person there that was responsible for that. It was a yeoman’s effort. And we had worked with Steve Lund on a regular basis. He was very instrumental in that. So that’s a BIGGY. On ASEC when I was chair...when any group goes through a growing period, as chair I experienced competition with our standing committees. The Nomination committee nominates academic staff for committees. And ASEC appoints them. The Nominating Committee chair, at the time, had determined that since they were the nominating committee they should be the appointing committee. So, there was a rough period while I was chair, where he stood up before the assembly and basically said that the nominating committee should be given the authority to make appointments, and can we really trust ASEC to make these appointments. And I had to sit there and be nice. But I have to admit the Assembly formed a committee, took the bull by the horns. And the committee reported back that the nominating committee should stay within its role of nominating and that ASEC should make the appointments. So it all worked out. 

I could speak to [the issue] but I couldn’t take him on. I met with the gentleman I think privately about the role of governance and the role of the committee. When I got out of the meeting with him I had a feeling that we had communicated, and the next time he was right back where he started. The Assembly committee told him, “That’s your role and that’s it.” The other thing – that’s the governance structure itself, the other thing that I think is important, I felt that we had achieved a lot at the campus level, we had ASEC, we had standing committees. They were working well with the Chancellor and the Provost, and with the University Committee, as well. But we hadn’t made any progress below that level. And so I brought to ASEC the idea that we create committees on academic staff issues at the school, college, and division level. And basically I fashioned it out from the faculty’s version of UAPC(?), they did a lot of things nice so why not steal it. But the interesting thing to me, was when we put this together and brought it to ASEC, the first reaction I got was “whoa, do we want to do this and do we want create this?” And finally I convinced ASEC it was the right thing to do. We fashioned it and changed it. Then we took it to the Assembly and they said, “Whoa, isn’t that going to eat in to our authority, do we really want to do this?” Then we had a long discussion and the Assembly finally passed it. And now we have Committees on Academic Staff Issues (CASI) active. The School of Education was probably the first one to crank up and go. It took us, again, a period of 5, 6 or more years to get all the units to buy in. As chair of ASEC, I was asked to be invited to the Dean’s Council so that I could just inform them of the creation of the legislation and ask if they could help with them. [45:24] I’ll tell you what, that was a most interesting experience because I just briefly got up and introduced it. The AS has passed this legislation to create these committees and just asked for their cooperation. It was advisory to the Deans, to bring academic staff issues to the Dean. The first reaction, a Dean sitting to my left looked at me, “You mean that AS can pass legislation without approval of the faculty?” And I looked at him and I said, “Yes.” The dean of the graduate school, Virginia Hinshaw, said, “Another committee, I have been trying to get rid of committees.” And that was the response I had at the Dean’s Council. That was the last time I went and visited them. But we got committees set-up over time. We basically waited. The School of Ed. pounced, got right on it and got theirs up and running. We used peer pressure. We said, “Hey, they’ve got it over there why don’t you have it over here?” [47:00] And some of the deans were receptive and they would say it’s working okay over here you probably should set it up. So we used that kind of [approach]... and we would also send out a letter these are the units that have theirs set up when will you have yours set up? But I think we all know that if a Dean sticks their foot in the sand and says I am not going there it is very hard to make him or her go there. [CASI’s] bringing issues that the dean may not receive any other way.

h.	What accomplishments are you most proud of? 
[47:54] Well, I think, CASI. Being involved with ASPP. And I think ASPRO, the lobbying organization which has worked downtown and kept our pay plans together with the faculty every time the legislature tried to pull them apart. I think those have been most enjoyable.

Always been an individual who wanted to get something done. I don’t like to be on committees that sit and talk, and do nothing. And fortunately, the committees I have participated on have been doers not talkers

End of First Oral History 

Appendix:
History of Academic Staff Governance Interview Outline

I.	Education and/or Work Experience prior to joining the University of Wisconsin–Madison
a.	Graduate School(s) and/or Professional School(s)
i.	Where and why – Grew-up on a farm outside of Arlington, WI. Attended UW–Madison, receiving BS in Animal Science in 1968. Was drafted, spending a little over a year in VietNam. Came back to the University to study for a MS degree in Veterinary Science working with Oly Ginther.
ii.	Masters and/or PhD  - Received MS in 1976, after he had started working in 1972 in Oly Ginther’s lab as a research specialist/graduate student.
iii.	Teaching experience 
iv.	Prelims and thesis subject 
v.	Completion of thesis; published, additional research interests – reproductive system of equine mares. There was a research publication, a couple of abstracts, and one formal paper that came out of it. I worked in the laboratory but did not continue from it on PhD work.
b.	Activity post-graduate school and pre–Madison 
i.	Military service
Drafted to serve in Vietnam 
ii.	Other positions, teaching, industry, business or otherwise; describe 
Returned to UW-Madison in 1972 and became a Research Specialist working with Dean Bernie Easterday. Bill was pursuing his Master’s degree in Vet. Sci. (1976) under the tutelage of Oliver Ginther
iii.	Decision to pursue a position at UW–Madison, how and why? 
While pursuing his Master’s degree and working with Dean Easterday, Bill 
became the administrative assistant to the Chair
iv.	Interview process 
II.	Job offer from UW–Madison/Getting Started 
a.	Who made the offer; your reaction 

Second Interview Session (2015)

00:00:00	Start of Interview/Interviewer’s Introduction

00:01:00	Question: How did you find out about academic staff? Answer: formation of the assembly and the first academic staff Executive Committee during the mid to late 1980s. Steffenhagen (WS) was elected for the Personal Policies Procedures Committee.

00:02:50	Question: At that point, were you working for vet science? Answer: Yes [what was your title?], Assistant to the Chair person in the Department of Veterinary Science. Responsible for coordinating department office, glasswork kitchen and farms

00:03:55	Question: Describe a little bit about your work, at one point you were the assistant dean at CALS (College of Agriculture and Life Sciences)? Answer: Neal Gargen was acting dean and told WS to apply for the Assistant Dean for Research. There for five years and enjoyed working with faculty and staff. Wasn’t responsible for writing grants, but signed off on them and ensured human and animal protocol was followed.   

00:05:51	Question: Was that a big change from what you were doing at Vet Science?
	Answer: He describes his administrative role in Vet Science. Took care of experimental farms and worked with Glen Moole (farm supervisor) if he had any issues with the farm. Had a reader and google farm at mineral point and Whitney. Lost those two farms and was replaced with a book-out farm in Arlington. Dean gave $25,000 to build a service building with an autoclave where they can do surgeries. 

00:07:37	Question: When you first mentioned the farm was that the one on campus?
	Answer: Shartimay farm also belonged to Vet Science, but was developed into a research park. Integration of Veterinary Science Department with the School of Veterinary Medicine, which included the master and Ph.D. programs after WS left. It remained as a reputable program. 

00:10:15	Question: So when you were at Veterinary Science [Department] how did you balance your work and your academic support staff stuff? Answer: Describes his office support staff. Judy Peterson from bacteriology was Assistant to the Chair of the Academic Support Staff. Describes the duties and responsibilities for the Department Chair, “Dean.” 

00:12:00	Question: You mentioned the office staff? Answer: WS became in charge of the office when the department secretary left. There was also a high turn-over of staff and WS hired people that could work well and independently. 

00:14:08	Question: What was your interactions with (Barney) Easterday? Answer: Describes Barney hiring process while WS was a graduate student and how he became Assistant to the Chair (Assistant Dean). 

00:17:05	Question: What’s a typical day as an Assistant to the Chair? Answer: WS would walk around the department drinking coffee in the morning and occasionally talk with faculty. Then describes the atmosphere of the faculty within the department. Went to the experimental farms once or twice a week in regards to their modeling projects whether it’s painting the building or bringing it up to code. Describes how the extra department money would go into purchasing new equipment in the laboratories and for research. Repaired equipment and building maintenance (air conditioning). WS was involved with campus activities

00:19:49	Question: What building was your department located? Answer: building that faced Lindon drive with animal science building behind it. Renamed as the Robert Hanson Hall.

00:21:28	Question: Where did your office move when you got the job for cows?
	Answer: 136 Ag (Agriculture) hall that was primarily a research division area. Described his support staff. At that time WS was just a member of ASEC (Academic Staff Executive Committee). Was involved with the Search and Screen Committee and selected the secretary for the academic staff, Coleen McKaya, and worked with Steve Myra who was the previous secretary of the academic support staff. The search and screen process essentially took place in WS’s office that included all the deliberations and possibly the interviews

00:24:01	Question: What is ASPRO? Answer: Academic Staff Public Representation Organization, and at one time they changed public to “professional.” It was created by academic staff assembly and was in response to faculty not having any influence on their pay and benefits that was happening “on the other side of State Street.” It was an organization with membership and dues. Originally there was an attempt to separate faculty from academic support staff compensations, which ASPRO stopped. Their lobbyist was Janette Swansby and Kathy Killgore. The academic support staff made a conscious effort to represent themselves by ensuring that at least one member was present during the Joint Finance Committee budget meetings. Also made a point that the president of the academic support staff and lobbyists would meet with each member of the Joint Finance Committee. 

00:28:17	Question: So were you active with ASPRO throughout your time here?
	Answer: Was a board member from 1998 to 2008 that met once a month, and was the president from August 2004 to 2008. Academic staff at UW-Milwaukee joined ASPRO. Changed to UW-System ASPRO and met with academic support staff governance groups throughout the UW-System. Describes the difficulty with dealing with congress and their high-turnover rate, and describing their profession to congress. 

00:34:09	Question: At what point did you transition from Assistant Dean to Outreach Program Manager? Answer: describes the role of assistant deanship. After he was dropped from the Assistant Dean position he was able to keep his indefinite appointment and worked in “Ag Hall” for the accreditation for animal care units, but worked for the same person as when he was the Assistant Dean. Eventually they found an administrative position in Diary Science under Armen Tano until he retired. Discusses plans for retirement, but he discusses some of the benefits such as working with students from South America while working in Diary Science 

00:38:09	Question: What was the difference between working at CALS versus in Diary Science? Answer: Work at Diary Science was restricted to administration because they had additional academic staff that worked in other areas. It involved less outreach and visits to the farms as compared to Vet Science. WS was therefore able to continue working for the Academic Support Staff because it involved less work. 

00:39:24	Question: What would you like to be remembered for in relation to your time spent here at UW-Madison? Answer: Academic staff policy and procedures, and explained its expansion from the original manual. Served on the committee for six years and describes the group dynamic in creating the manual. Steve Lund joined the committee discussions and wanted changes in the personnel system. Ann Wallace chaired the committee for four year until the new dean disapproved support staff being involved in committees

00:41:33	WS was elected as chair for the next two years and was committed to completing the ASPP, which had to be viewed by the Board of Regents. WS and Ann Wallace met with John Tallman to discuss the ASPP, but to also review the annual letter of reappointment for academic support staff. Changed it to a system where the academic support staff could keep their appointment (job position) until otherwise notified. Removing the stress for the reoccurring annual appointment was considered as his biggest accomplishment. 

00:44:29	Question: If someone was interested in academic support staff, what would you say to them? Answer: WS would encourage them, but make them aware about the limitations of the job. Describe the interaction with administration and the academic support staff for labs. Describes his (informal?) position as a scribe for the committee and wanted to make sure that the rules were clear and concise enough to understand. 

00:47:23	Question: What kind of support did you get when you were running into troubles in CALS? Answer: His indefinite appointment helped, but the personnel office couldn’t have helped that much during that time. WS didn’t even ask for the indefinite appointment, it was recommended by one of the department chairs and then signed by the dean.

00:49:18	Question: The discussion with ASPRO and making the academic support staff and faculty pay plans together had an impact on HR. Do you think there will be an internal shift to keep those pay plans together? Answer: Governance and tenure considerations are reviewed by the Board of Regents. Discusses the how money from the state goes to the university. Emphasizes the importance of meeting with the Board of Regents to ensure money is equally dispersed. 

00:52:26	Question: How much involvement did you have with mentoring with any of the academic staff? Answer: He wasn’t mentored, but was involved with the program. Met with two other academic support staff and asked what they needed; no formal set agenda. He was recommended by friends. The “Mentoring Committee” tried to pair mentors.  

00:54:45	Conclusion

End of Second Oral History

End of Oral History #946