Indefinite appointments are a recognition of consistent, meritorious service by a member of the academic staff, and an expression of confidence that the need for the contributions of the staff member will continue indefinitely. The University of Wisconsin-Madison is committed to the concept of the indefinite appointment. For L&S and its departments to be unreasonably hesitant in using this concept is to be unfair and unwise in their treatment of many capable and devoted employees. For L&S and its departments to make indefinite appointments without proper caution and foresight is to jeopardize the soundness and solvency of future programs. Nevertheless, decisions on faculty recruitment and promotion to tenure are made in the context of expected future usefulness and likely future resources, allowing for the possibility of shifts in program or enrollment or of fiscal stringency; and we continue to make such decisions yearly despite the uncertainties. Decisions on indefinite appointments have to be made the same way: cautiously, skillfully, one by one on their merits, and always in context.

The following principles should guide departmental consideration of indefinite status for an academic staff member:

1. No academic staff position carries assurance that the incumbent will, if sufficiently experienced and qualified, automatically be given an indefinite appointment. Likewise, no academic staff position (other than temporary positions) is of such nature the incumbent is, even when highly qualified, automatically barred from receiving an indefinite appointment. Each request for an indefinite appointment should be considered on its merits, and in context.
2. Judgments of an academic staff member's ability, usefulness, and productivity should be made with great care at the department level, and are subject to review (on the basis of careful documentation) by the Dean, the appropriate Academic Staff Area Review Committee, and the Chancellor or the Chancellor's delegate. Such judgments, particularly at the department level, should be firmly based not only on past performance and present expertise but especially on the employee's observed ability to learn new skills, to grow in knowledge and ability, and to be flexible in meeting changing needs and conditions, and also on the likelihood of such qualities continuing to be observed in the future.
3. Departments should ask themselves the following questions, and be prepared to discuss and defend their answers with the Dean:

	Are the functions presently performed by the employee important to the program and mission of the department or other operational area and likely to remain so even in the event of program or enrollment shifts or fiscal stringency?
	Are the present functions of the employee unsuitable, impractical, or undesirable to be performed by faculty, and likely to remain so even in the event of program or enrollment shifts or fiscal stringency?
	If the employee has substantial teaching functions, are those functions sufficiently distinguishable from those normally or suitably performed by faculty as to make performance by faculty impractical or undesirable even in the event of program or enrollment shifts or fiscal stringency?
	If the proposed indefinite status is to be a back-up appointment for an employee now holding a limited appointment, are the qualities and expertise of the employee such that it is likely the employee would still be useful and productive in some other position within the stated operational area if the limited appointment is terminated?
	Will the budget commitment represented by an indefinite appointment conflict unreasonably, now or in the future, with the need for the department to maintain the ability to hire new faculty, even in the event of marked shifts in program or enrollment or of severe fiscal stringency?