Policies Under Review

As part of WNMU’s commitment to shared governance, employees (Faculty, Staff, & Students, where applicable) will have the opportunity to review and provide input on new policies and proposed changes to existing policies. This collaborative process ensures that diverse perspectives are considered, fostering a more inclusive and effective governance framework.

The policy review window will remain open for 15-30 days (depending on review cycle) once it’s posted.  Please review the following policies and provide any feedback/comments/questions by clicking on the Policy Feedback Form below.  All comments will be reviewed by the Policy Owner for consideration.

Click on the buttons to expand!

Your feedback matters. All comments submitted during the public review period are compiled, shared with the policy owner, and carefully considered before the policy moves forward through the University’s approval process. Comments are posted anonymously, along with responses from the policy owner, to promote transparency and help the University community understand how feedback is evaluated and incorporated into the policy development process.

Public comments and associated responses are provided to the appropriate review and approval bodies as the policy advances through the University’s review and approval process.

We thank all of you that have taken the time to respond.

 

BA438 – Recruitment & Hiring Comments & Responses

COMMENT #1: Great news: “All process documentation and forms are available on the Business Affairs Canvas/Human Resources course.”

RESPONSE:  Thank you for your response

 

COMMENT #2: The proposed Executive Exception Authority is overly broad and creates governance, fairness, and transparency concerns. While the policy states that competitive recruitment is WNMU’s standard practice, this section appears to allow interim employees—particularly those in high-level roles—to be converted to permanent appointments without a search.

The language does not define key terms such as “rare and exceptional circumstances,” “compelling institutional need,” or “exceptional performance.” It is also unclear who determines whether interim performance is exemplary, what criteria are used, whether HR or the Board independently reviews the decision, and how conflicts of interest are managed.

This is very concerning during a presidential transition period. The provision could allow current interim leaders to be made permanent before a new president has the opportunity to evaluate the interim leadership structure and build his/her own team. This could reduce public trust in the hiring process.

The phrase “executive-level roles and some outside of executive-level roles” should be removed and the roles clearly articulated. As worded, any position is possible, effectively sidestepping a competitive search. Any noncompetitive appointment should require clear written justification, HR review, EEO and salary-equity review, Board approval for senior roles, and documentation showing why a competitive search is not feasible or in the University’s best interest.

I recommend revising this section to make clear that interim service does not create entitlement to permanent appointment, that noncompetitive appointments remain subject to the Noncompetitive Selection Policy, and that no Cabinet-level or presidential direct-report interim role may be converted to a permanent position for at least 1 year following a presidential transition.

In addition to concerns about noncompetitive permanent appointments, the policy would benefit from substantial cleanup and clarification. It contains inconsistent treatment of staff and faculty searches, vague standards for internal-only recruitment, broad athletics and executive exceptions, and limited guidance on search committee composition (these guidelines do exist), conflicts of interest, documentation, record retention, and complaint procedures. The policy should clearly distinguish formal policy from procedure, identify who has decision-making authority at each stage, require written justification for any restricted or alternative search, and ensure that all exceptions remain subject to HR, EEO, conflict-of-interest, and documentation review.
Policies should be publicly accessible, not just posted and/ir updated in Canvas.

A six-business-day posting period is too short for attracting a broad, qualified pool, even for internal hires. The policy could distinguish between minimum posting periods for temporary/internal roles and longer periods for permanent or senior roles.

Many sections of this policy are vague and even contradictory.

RESPONSE: Thank you for your thoughtful feedback and detailed review of the proposed policy. The comments address several important topics, including Executive Exception Authority, noncompetitive appointments, governance, transparency, posting periods, and the distinction between policy requirements and operational procedures.

The proposed policy was developed following a review of existing practices, related policies, operational needs, and applicable legal considerations. Its purpose is to establish a consistent framework for recruitment and hiring while recognizing that supporting procedures, forms, and administrative processes provide the detailed guidance needed for implementation.

Several of the areas identified in the comments—including documentation, justification, approval requirements, and review processes associated with noncompetitive selections—are addressed through those supporting procedures and administrative processes rather than within the policy itself. In addition, service in an interim role does not automatically result in a permanent appointment. Any noncompetitive appointment remains subject to the applicable review, documentation, and approval requirements outlined in University procedures.

 

COMMENT #3:  I like the the verbiage however I think we all know that hiring internally is all about who you know and who likes you at this university.

RESPONSE:  Thank you for your feedback. The proposed Hiring & Recruiting Policy is intended to promote consistency, transparency, and equitable hiring practices across the University while supporting fair and job-related recruitment and selection processes.

 

COMMENT #4:  I belive that Westerns mission should have been and always be to hire THE MOST QUALIFIED PERSON FOR THE POSITION. Especially for salary management positions. We currently have quite a few that are NOT qualified to hold the position. I know there were far more experienced and qualified candidates who did not even get a interview and are currently still here working with the university. I belive there should be a audit on all salary and management positions where high qualifications were not met for the positions. Also I have seen when people apply the positions get taken down and qualifications are adjusted to the point where previous candidates who meet the requirements no longer did meet said requirements cause they were “adjusted ” I have seen very questionable hiring done here and feel there needs to be a audit on those currently holding salary positions to meet these new requirements in this revision of the policy. There should always be competitive hiring for these positions.

RESPONSE:  Thank you for your feedback. The proposed Hiring & Recruiting Policy is intended to establish a consistent framework for recruitment and selection activities across the University.  The comments appear to reference specific hiring decisions or recruitment activities. The focus of this review is the proposed policy itself and whether it provides an appropriate framework to support consistent, fair, and effective hiring practices across the University.

 

COMMENT #5:  Looks fine; I can’t think of anything that needs revision.

RESPONSE:  Thank you for your feedback and review of the proposed policy.

 

COMMENT #6:  All staff positions (internal or external) shall be posted for a minimum of six (6) business days. Positions remaining open beyond three (3) months will be reviewed by Human Resources in consultation with the hiring manager to determine whether to extend, update, or close the posting. • Faculty postings will follow the hiring/recruitment processes that are currently in place; for Faculty postings open longer than six (6) months, the HR Specialist will consult with the Dean/Associate Dean/Department Chair and VPAA to determine whether to extend, update, or close the posting. With regard to the section above…3 months is far too short of a time period to leave staff positions open before reconsidering the posting, particularly if it is a position that requires credentials not common in the local area. Additionally — and most importantly — the HR department should NOT be involved in making the decision of whether or not to leave positions open. That should be up to the hiring manager and the VP who approved the posting in the first place.

RESPONSE:  Thank you for your feedback. The intent of this provision is not for Human Resources to independently determine whether a position remains open or is closed. Rather, the hiring manager, in consultation with Human Resources, will review postings that have remained open for an extended period to determine whether it is appropriate to extend, update, or close the posting based on current hiring needs, applicant activity, and recruitment strategy.

The three-month review period is intended to serve as a checkpoint to ensure postings remain current and effective, particularly when hiring needs or market conditions may have changed. Positions requiring specialized credentials or those experiencing recruitment challenges may remain open longer when appropriate.

Based on this feedback, the policy language will be revised to more clearly reflect that the hiring manager, in consultation with Human Resources, is responsible for making this determination.

 

COMMENT #7:  Wait on new or changed policy until the fall term. It looks like you’re trying to sneak something by faculty.

RESPONSE:  Thank you for your comment. The proposed policy has been reviewed through the University’s established policy development and review process and was made available for public comment to all members of the University community. The comment period is intended to provide faculty, staff, students, and other stakeholders an opportunity to review the proposed policy, ask questions, and share feedback before it moves forward through the University’s approval process.

The timing of this review is consistent with our current policy review schedule. We recognize that the timing of policy reviews is an important consideration and will continue to evaluate the review process as the Policy Office evolves and university needs are assessed.