University Committee Meeting Minutes 2016-04-11
Minutes approved April 18, 2016
UC members present: Broman, Edwards, Litovsky, Meyerand (chair), Wanner, Wendt
Others present: S. Smith, D. Vanness, Daniels, J. Smith, McFadden, Bump
Chair Beth Meyerand called the meeting to order at 1:01 p.m. Vice Chancellor Ray Taffora and Brian Vaughan discussed Board approval of campus post-tenure review policy. Options are to follow same process as with tenure and termination or to revisit policy with the Faculty Senate. Regent policy document on PTR is substantially different than the one for termination and layoff, appearing to set a minimum of areas to be addressed and leaving more room for campus policies. However, question remains how Regents/UWS will administer/interpret. Extensive discussion, including pointed questions from audience about April Board meeting. Consensus that we need more information, that there is no need to rush this policy to the Board, and that Madison may not want to be first campus to submit PTR policy for approval. Agreement to allow some time for reevaluation, potential Senate action in fall, submission to Board later in the calendar year.
Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration Michael Lehman and Associate Vice Chancellor Tim Norris presented information on new budget model and impact on schools and colleges. New model has instructional and research redistribution components. Significant discussion, including deans’ reactions, future plans (FY16 exposure was 5%, FY17 is 10%), review plans, and potential smoothing factor to reduce vulnerability of small units. Much discussion around relation of budget model committee to new shared governance budget committee. May be good to have both.
Provost Sarah Mangelsdorf, shadowed by ACE fellow, asked about ad hoc calendar committee draft (to be discussed at a future meeting) and the joint governance committee to study family leave (recommended as working group out of provost’s office to include all shared governance groups, rather than SG committee per se). Much discussion about responses and reactions to Board meeting. Seems to be bimodal response: very upset and disappointed on one side and glad that it is over and we have a tenure policy on the other. Agreed that it is probably too early to get a good read. Retiring WI Energy Institute director will be replaced with interim in August and then a review will be conducted prior to hiring a permanent replacement (as with WID). Energy is only research center that reports to provost rather than VCRGE; bad fit in provost’s office. Mangelsdorf concluded her time indicating that a standing committee on sexual assault prevention, reporting to her, will be charged to institutionalize responses and processes stemming from survey.
Chancellor Rebecca Blank reported that admissions numbers are up again this year over last (7th year in a row), down slightly in WI, transfers a little lower, but everything else higher. Blank indicated that she will be at a large alumni campaign event on Navy Pier in Chicago later this week and at the AAU next week. She opined that the student discussion with BoR was good and that the Board announced it will appoint System committee to study this issue. All hope that the charge will be campus oriented, rather than focused on System, which has no students. Discussion about passage of amended tenure policies by Board. Need to counter erroneous narrative that there is no tenure here; simply not true. Textual analysis shows that amended policy is as strong as or stronger than many peers. Will work with communications on getting message out. Meyerand summarized earlier discussion about PTR for chancellor, who agreed there was no need to rush. Blank concluded her time calling the UC’s attention to the positive news items related to the UW2020 grant and the 2016 commencement speaker.
School of Business Dean François Ortalo-Magné and Associate Dean Russ Coff discussed School of Business faculty review procedures with the UC. In many respects, SOB is on the positive (rigorous and transparent) end of the review spectrum, with some concerns about later stages of the process. Coff explained the process in detail. Ample and lengthy discussion about mentoring, resources, connections to campus and regent policies, budget constraints, dean’s role, confidentiality, retribution and accountability, response and appeal options, service and citizenship, and data collection methods and options. UC feels this is a worthy topic of a broader campus conversation. Dean Ortalo-Magné concluded by affirming the school’s commitment to increasing transparency and is open to suggestions and pilots, as well as participating in a broader campus discussion.
Meyerand adjourned the meeting at 3:37 p.m.