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 proposed Hiring & Recruiting 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 activities across the University while recognizing that the detailed processes used to implement the policy are addressed through supporting procedures, forms, and administrative guidance.

Several of the recommendations included in the comments—such as documentation, justification, approval requirements, review processes, search committee guidance, conflict-of-interest considerations, and record retention—are operational in nature and are addressed through departmental standard operating procedures rather than within the policy itself. This approach allows the policy to establish institutional expectations while providing flexibility to update operational processes as business needs or regulatory requirements evolve.

In addition, service in an interim role does not create an entitlement to permanent appointment. Any noncompetitive appointment remains subject to the applicable review, documentation, and approval requirements established by the University.

 

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.

 

COMMENT #8: I don’t believe the below paragraph is necessary. DUAL-CAREER (SPOUSAL/PARTNER) EMPLOYMENT CONSIDERATIONS WNMU recognizes that dual-career considerations may arise during recruitment. When appropriate, the University may assist in identifying potential employment opportunities for a spouse or partner. All candidates must meet minimum qualifications and participate in the applicable hiring process. Assistance does not guarantee employment, and all hiring decisions remain subject to institutional need, position availability, and standard review and approval processes.

RESPONSE: Thank you for your feedback.  The Dual-Career (Spousal/Partner) Employment Considerations section was included to provide transparency regarding an area of recruitment that may occasionally arise during the hiring process. The intent is not to establish a preference or guarantee employment for spouses or partners, but rather to clarify that any assistance provided is limited to identifying potential employment opportunities. All applicants must meet the minimum qualifications for a position and participate in the applicable hiring process. Employment decisions remain subject to institutional need, position availability, and established review and approval requirements.

The proposed language was included to clearly communicate these expectations and reinforce that all hiring decisions are made through the University’s established recruitment and selection processes.

 

COMMENT #9:  I appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed Recruitment and Hiring Policy. I support opportunities for current employees to advance within the university. Internal recruitment can recognize institutional knowledge, reward employee development, and create meaningful career pathways for dedicated staff. However, internal recruitment should remain competitive, transparent, and based on qualifications, experience, and demonstrated performance. Employees should have confidence that advancement opportunities are awarded fairly and not based on personal relationships or favoritism. If no internal candidate possesses the qualifications, experience, or skills necessary for a position, the university should conduct an external search to ensure it attracts the strongest possible candidate pool. External candidates can bring new perspectives, ideas, and experiences that contribute to organizational growth and improvement.

While change can be challenging, employees are often encouraged to embrace change, and the university should be willing to apply that same principle when considering leadership and management positions. I am concerned about provisions that allow positions to be filled without a competitive search or that allow interim appointments to be converted into permanent positions without broader consideration of other qualified applicants. While there may be circumstances where exceptions are necessary, these exceptions should be narrowly defined, used sparingly, and include clear oversight and accountability measures. Other qualified employees should have the opportunity to compete for advancement opportunities. I am also concerned about the addition of dual-career (spousal/partner) employment considerations. While I understand the intent behind this provision, it may create a perception that employment opportunities are influenced by personal or family connections rather than qualifications and merit. Over time, this can contribute to a workplace culture where employees believe that who you know is more important than what you know.

Additionally, I believe the university should evaluate whether greater segregation of duties and independent oversight is needed in certain administrative areas. In some cases, a single director or administrative office appears to have significant influence over hiring, personnel matters, employee complaints, and operational decisions. Concentrating multiple functions under the same authority can create concerns regarding transparency, accountability, and impartial review when concerns are raised.

Finally, I am concerned that the Recruitment and Hiring Policy has undergone multiple revisions in a relatively short period of time, often coinciding with vacancies in leadership or management positions. Even when changes are made with good intentions, repeated revisions during active hiring periods can create a perception that hiring rules are being adjusted for specific situations rather than maintaining a consistent, fair, and transparent process for all applicants. I encourage the university to prioritize competitive recruitment whenever possible and to ensure that all qualified employees and external candidates have a fair opportunity to be considered for employment and advancement opportunities.

RESPONSE: Thank you for your thoughtful feedback review of the proposed policy. Your comments reinforce several themes that emerged during the public comment period and have been considered in both the proposed policy revisions and the responses provided to earlier comments.

The proposed Hiring & Recruiting 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 activities across the University while supporting fair, transparent, and consistent hiring practices.

Competitive recruitment remains the University’s standard practice. The policy also recognizes that limited exceptions may be appropriate under specific circumstances. Those exceptions are governed by separate policies and supporting procedures that establish eligibility criteria, documentation, review, and approval requirements. Service in an interim role does not automatically result in a permanent appointment, and any noncompetitive appointment remains subject to the applicable policy requirements and approval process.

Several of the topics identified in your comments, including search committee guidance, segregation of duties, operational oversight, complaint processes, and implementation procedures, are operational in nature and are addressed through supporting standard operating procedures, established practices, or other University policies rather than within the Hiring & Recruiting Policy itself.

We appreciate your thoughtful comments and recognize the importance of maintaining a recruitment process that supports fairness, transparency, and public confidence while balancing the operational needs of the institution.

 

COMMENT #10:  Is this policy being created to try to mitigate current liability or future liability in WNMU’s hiring processes? It appears that this policy seems it may cause more liability and risk, harming the work place and allowing for nepotism, favoritism and possibly even a hostile work environment. In addition, I believe it could also lead to discriminatory claims against the university these practices especially outlined only in reference to BA455_Noncompetitive Selection Policy (link).

RESPONSE:  Thank you for your feedback. The proposed Hiring & Recruiting Policy was developed to establish a consistent framework for recruitment and hiring activities across the University. In developing the policy, existing practices, related policies, operational needs, and applicable legal considerations were reviewed to help ensure the policy supports fair, transparent, and compliant hiring practices.

The concerns expressed regarding potential liability, favoritism, nepotism, discrimination, or a hostile work environment are not the intended purpose or effect of the proposed policy. Employment decisions remain subject to applicable federal and state law, University policy, and established review and approval processes.  The Noncompetitive Selection Policy referenced in your comment applies only to limited circumstances and includes defined eligibility criteria, documentation, and approval requirements. Competitive recruitment remains the University’s standard practice, and any exception to that process must comply with the applicable policy and supporting procedures.

 

COMMENT #11:  I believe that the section regarding that in exceptional circumstances the president with approval of the board can override the hiring process. With our recent history of what can happen with the university president and the board working together in unethical ways, I think this should NOT be part of the policy. With this statement, this gives free reign for the hiring process to be overridden for any university position, but especially for those in leadership. This is completely unethical and is a slap in the face to the departments who go through the hiring process.

RESPONSE: Thank you for your feedback. The proposed Executive Exception Authority is intended to provide a limited mechanism for addressing rare and exceptional institutional circumstances and is not intended to replace or circumvent the University’s standard hiring process. Competitive recruitment remains the University’s preferred method for filling positions.

Any use of Executive Exception Authority remains subject to applicable review and approval requirements, including Board of Regents approval where appropriate. In addition, any noncompetitive appointment must comply with the University’s Noncompetitive Selection Policy and supporting procedures, including applicable documentation and approval requirements. Service in an interim role does not automatically result in a permanent appointment.

 

COMMENT #12:  The current proposed changes are unnecessary. A preliminary review of WNMU’s budget indicates that Institutional Support, the budget category that accounts for administrative spending, has grown by 122% from FY 2020 to FY 2025 while the entirety of instructional spending has grown by 57%, the latter being a category that covers a significant number of personnel who have not been under contract since submission of Spring grades and may not be in a position to respond in the lead up to a major holiday weekend. WNMU currently spends 14.3% of its annual budget on Institutional Support while the national average remains 8.1%. WNMU’s administration has thus proven quite adept at recruiting for and compensating executive positions and an exception to make this process even easier is unnecessary.

RESPONSE:  Thank you for your feedback. The proposed Hiring & Recruiting Policy was developed to establish a consistent framework for recruitment and hiring activities across the University. In developing the policy, existing practices, related policies, operational needs, and applicable legal considerations were reviewed to help ensure the proposed policy supports fair, transparent, and compliant hiring practices.

Competitive recruitment remains the University’s standard practice. The Executive Exception Authority is intended only for rare and exceptional institutional circumstances and is not intended to replace or circumvent the University’s standard hiring process. Any use of this authority remains subject to the applicable policy requirements, documentation, review, and approval processes established by the University.

The University also recognizes the feedback received regarding the timing of this policy review. While the review followed the University’s current policy review process, the comments received during this review have highlighted the importance of considering the academic calendar when scheduling future policy reviews. The Policy Office will continue to evaluate the timing of future reviews to encourage broad participation while balancing institutional and operational needs.

COMMENT #13:  I would like to document my agreement with and support for the comment made by our faculty union on behalf of the WNMU union regarding this policy and the timing of the comment period.

RESPONSE:  Thank you for your comment. Your support for the previously submitted comments regarding the proposed Hiring & Recruiting Policy and the timing of the public comment period has been noted and considered as part of the overall policy review process. As reflected in other responses, the University recognizes the feedback received regarding the timing of this review and will continue to evaluate the policy review process.

COMMENT #14:  The Noncompetitive Selection policy is flawed, as evidenced by the poor appointment decisions that precipitated a successful malware attack and instability/confusion in HR. Indeed, the practice of appointing managers and directors on a noncompetitive basis existed prior to codification of the policy last AY. The Executive Exception Authority merely extends the flawed policy higher up the chain of command. Moreover, the timing of the comment period is problematic, given that many faculty are currently not on contract. In light of the gravity of the proposed policy, meaningful shared governance should be a priority. Accordingly, the comment period for any proposed policy ought to coincide with the academic year when all have an opportunity to engage fully.

RESPONSE: Thank you for your feedback. As outlined in the policy, competitive recruitment remains the University’s standard practice. The Executive Exception Authority is intended only for rare and exceptional institutional circumstances and is not intended to replace or circumvent the University’s standard hiring process. Any use of this authority remains subject to the applicable review, documentation, and approval requirements established by the University, including the Noncompetitive Selection Policy where applicable.

The University also recognizes the feedback received regarding the timing of this policy review. While the review followed the University’s current policy review process, the comments received during this review have highlighted the importance of considering the academic calendar when scheduling future policy reviews. The Policy Office will continue to evaluate the timing of future reviews to encourage broad participation while balancing institutional and operational needs.