University Committee Meeting Minutes 2015-10-05
University Committee Meeting Minutes
approved October 12, 2015
October 5, 2015
UC members present: Broman, Edwards, Litovsky, Meyerand (chair), Wanner, Wendt
Others present: S. Smith, Felber, Richard, J. Smith, Laning, Franco-Morales, O’Meara, McFadden
1. Meeting called to order: 1:00 PM.
2. Minutes of the meeting of September 28, 2015, approved.
3. Legislative update (PROFS)
a. O’Meara updated the UC on legislative strategy group on fetal tissue bill and meetings with legislative leadership.
b. Edwards updated the UC on upcoming testimony at task force on dementia.
c. Regent meeting (Madison host) end of week; PROFS steering committee next week.
d. Meyerand will include PROFS prominently in Senate remarks.
4. Update on presentation of Chapter 10 proposal at Senate: Edwards reviewed how proposal and input gathered thus far will be presented. Review of materials to be projected. Senate is de facto fourth listening session and input will be incorporated by UC into proposal for discussion and vote at November Senate meeting. Ample discussion.
5. 1:29 PM: Litovsky arrived.
6. VCRGE update (Marsha Mailick)
a. Mailick and UC discussed recommendations for configuring URC as governance group, with UAPC as model. Discussion of whether to include graduate students concluded that the appropriate place for that input is GFEC rather than the URC, as the latter does not have responsibilities for graduate education as the former does.
b. Discussion of methods of appointment. Mailick recognizes this is a UC and Senate decision, bur recommends that names be solicited by UC, ASEC, and USEC from multiple campus groups. Goal is that URC comprise campus research leaders; election process may not be best way to achieve that. Litovsky provided CoC feedback to the contrary and Broman strongly argued that the issue is too important to leave to an appointed group. Broman suggested possibly a mix of appointed and elected seats. Mailick pointed out that the UAPC is purely appointed and that a mix might lead to divisions. Edwards added that appointments would be made by elected bodies. Litovsky suggested possibility of divisional committee representation (they are elected) along with other appointees.
c. AS and US slots would be filled by their governance groups (not UC).
d. Consensus that this should be discussed further by UC and not presented to the Senate in November to allow time for careful consideration. During this time, UC will also look at charge, terms, and other issues prior to proposing language for FPP.
e. Ample discussion.
7. Provost update (Sarah Mangelsdorf)
a. Mangelsdorf and the UC reviewed material for the senate meeting. Ample, somewhat chaotic discussion.
b. Mangelsdorf previewed soon-to-be-released retention report. Last year’s outside offers (100) were within 5-year average, while the number of successful retentions (77) was above that mark (73%). Most important factor in outside offers is salary, with the median offer being 30% higher. Discussion, including how UW compares to peers (CIC report from last week), differences in how benefits are measured, and lack of consideration for cost-of-living.
i. On a related note, Mangelsdorf highlighted that word needs to get out that during this year’s open enrollment, every employee will have to take action to keep dental coverage.
ii. Mangelsdorf will send the report to the UC and reiterated that it does contain some much-needed good news.
8. Chancellor update (Rebecca Blank)
a. Blank discussed tuition proposal that will go to Regents. Policy would guarantee at least 3500 WI residents in each class (plus transfers) and temporarily remove cap on out-of-state students. (Reciprocity students unaffected by this plan.) Blank explained policy not just revenue generating, but also good for state economy and necessary given decline in high school graduation in state. She believes this is a win-win that would be discussed eventually regardless of budget. Very strongly committed to do more to attract top students in order to maintain quality of pool in face of demographic change. Ample discussion and then some. Litovsky asked how this proposal fit with shared governance process, specifically CURAFA. Blank pointed to the 2013 CURAFA report and subsequent 2014 ad hoc committee report, which included this plan among its options. Blank believes this plan concords with spirit of CURAFA and other discussions. Edwards and Meyerand pointed out that UC reviewed this input via a participatory process that included input from a number of groups. Blank acknowledged that not all recommendations in the report were followed, as some were impractical and others were contradictory, but reiterated that this plan was one of the options. Broman pointed out that the budgetary situation now is substantially different than it was just a few years ago. Blank added that the current budget situation means either more cuts or increased revenues.
b. Blank pointed to the fund balances report as another big item for the Board meetings. Fund balances are down and remaining monies are important savings, targeted for specific needs.The issue, although nonsensical, continues to fester.
c. Campus will experiment with a different approach to parent visitation weekend this year. Used to hold events on the Friday of a football weekend, before many parents could get here. This year programming will be on a non-football Saturday.
d. Another new parent-related initiative is the launching of a parent giving program, including an Olin House reception by invitation.
e. Ample discussion throughout. Concluding conversation about Senate meeting.
9. Meeting adjourned: 2:47 PM.