University Committee Meeting Minutes 2015-11-09
approved November 16, 2015
November 9, 2015
UC members present: Broman, Edwards, Litovsky, Meyerand (chair), Wanner, Wendt
Others: Smith, Felber, Richard, Radomski, McFadden, Daniel, Franco-Morales
1. Meeting called to order: 1:01 PM.
2. Women’s Faculty Mentoring Program update (Wendy Crone, Lindsey Stoddard Cameron)
a. Crone updated the UC on WFMP programming and activities. Caitlin Allen (Director) currently on sabbatical. This includes: mentoring matches (mostly probationary faculty, at least 47 current), peer mentoring groups (currently 3 active), Doris Schlesinger award for excellence in mentoring (call went out 11/4), Women’s Philanthropy Council (endowment almost fully funded, will fund DS next 6 years along with award for male mentors), program events (annual lunch, reception 12/9, conversations, and cosponsor campus events and visits), advisory committee, and periodic visitors.
b. UC impressed with breadth of activities.
c. Broman asked what percentage of assistant professors participate. Stoddard Cameron said historically about a third.
d. Wanner asked about reviews and Crone indicated that both formal and mini-assessments are regularly conducted.
e. Wanner asked about mid-career mentoring. Crone replied that they try to have at least one event per year for mid-career faculty. Impression of WFMP is that it deals with assistant faculty because of the highly visible mentoring program, but in fact the program works broadly across all faculty levels.
f. Ample discussion, including differences across divisions, need for parental leave policy, and whether women ask for clock extensions more frequently. Edwards suggested it would be worthwhile to look at TCE numbers by gender and department, as there are departments that actively discourage waiver requests.
3. Minutes of the meeting of November 2, 2015, approved.
4. Legislative update (PROFS)
a. O’Meara indicated that fall legislative floor period ended without fetal tissue passed or concealed carry even really taken up. But either may return next session.
b. Parking bill supported by UW did pass, along with other non-campus-related bills.
c. Discussion about likelihood of campus carry and fetal tissue next session.
d. O’Meara and Litovsky updated the UC on meeting with Dane Co delegation. Appears to be a need for reinvigorated outreach from campus. Ample discussion.
5. Discussion: Campus climate survey input
UC members will review the last survey and bring suggestions to future meeting.
6. Discussion: URC member appointment process
a. Ample discussion of pros and cons of elected versus appointed URC. Goal is to ensure committee is populated with high profile researchers with broad knowledge who can address sensitive issues and appropriately and respectfully guide the research enterprise. In addition to divisional and other breadth considerations, UC recognizes importance of scale and that both larger and smaller research endeavors should be represented. Divisional committee selection and vetting of slates suggested to meet needs for transparency, representation, inclusion, and balance.
b. Litovsky moved proposing the following URC membership to Senate: each divisional committee will create slates for two seats each, two Academic Staff, one University Staff, one UC representative, VCRGE chair, ex officio members. Seconded. Unanimously passed.
c. Smith will draft language (including transition plan from current URC) to be discussed with VCRGE and proposed to Senate.
7. Discussion: Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)
a. Broman has been collecting data and individuals have approached other UC members, in part as ripple effect of data collection. Question to be resolved by UC is whether there is need for a committee and, if so, what its mandate would be and how it would function. IRBs themselves are administrative responsibility in OVCRGE. Discussion.
b. Litovsky suggested campuswide information gathering and large campus meeting involving all stakeholders. Edwards pointed out that one of the issues under discussion is figuring out who stakeholders even are. Some faculty feel there is too much oversight, others that there is not enough. Need for a common conversation as opposed to separate discussions. UC needs to make a recommendation to move things forward.
c. Substantial time will be dedicated to this issue next week.
8. Admissions update (Sarah Mangelsdorf, Steve Hahn, Adele Brumfield)
a. Mangelsdorf started the discussion by explaining context of this visit and need for greater transparency on gamut of enrollment issues and multiple voices.
b. Ample, wide-ranging discussion on commitment to in-state students, increased % of WI grads, complaints about admissions process from outside (perception issue), merit-based vs need-based aid, students of color and diversity issues, achievement gap, competition with other WI institutions, shared governance (CURAFA) role, and effects of change to out-of-state cap.
c. UC consensus that admissions representatives should come back and that UC needs to look at ways to make CURAFA more of a partner.
9. Edwards moved and Wendt 2nd to convene in closed session pursuant to Wis. Stats. 19.85(1)(c) and (f) to discuss personnel matters. Motion passed: 2:40 PM.
10. The UC reviewed and considered two tenure clock extensions. One was provisionally approved (by unanimous vote), pending receipt of missing letter from mentor/guidance committee. The other was returned for additional materials and resubmission.
11. The UC nominated individuals to the following committees: Retirement Issues, Access and Accommodation, and Disabilities. OSOF will contact.
12. The UC elected not to fill vacancies on the Memorial Library committee as that will be folded into the University Library committee.
13. Broman moved to reconvene in open session. Seconded. Passed unanimously: 3:10 PM.
14. Meeting adjourned: 3:10 PM.