The chancellor's State of the University is also transcribed on her blog: https://chancellor.wisc.edu/blog/state-of-the-university-address-its-time-to-reinvest-in-uw/#more-891

>> I see from the hi sign that we have a quorum, so I'm going to officially call this meeting to order. To my utter amazement, this is the first Faculty Senate I have been at where we do not have any memorial resolutions. So, we are going to launch straight into the next item on the agenda which is my State of the University report. So, I know you're all here for that. So, let me start in, and I'm going to say some things, Amy's going to say a few things, and then we'll open up for questions and comments and anything people want to talk about. Let me welcome everyone here. It is always good to see people at the beginning of new academic year. I hope that you had a good and a productive summer, and I particularly want to welcome all of the new senators who are here, if not for the first time, at least for the first time in a little while. I want to think Amy Wendt for stepping into the role of UC Chair and to Barbara Bowers and Rick Amasino who are the new members of UC, succeeding Dorothy Farrar Edwards and Beth Meyerand the outgoing Chair. Beth led the UC last year during the somewhat extraordinary year. If, what we believe was a record nine Faculty Senate Meetings. So, if you're lucky, you'll only get eight this year. And, I also, particularly want to thank the Secretary of the Faculty, Steve Smith, who's done a terrific job working on some really hard and big issues over the past year.
And, thanks to all for your willingness to be her and to serve on the senate. 

I want to note two additions to our leadership team. I don't know if they're here yet. Laurent Heller, is Laurent here? There you are. Ah. Has joined us from UC Berkeley over the summer. He is our new Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration and succeeds Michael Lehman who was the interim who stepped in after Darrell Bazzell's departure last March. And, I also want to welcome, and I'm pretty sure she's not here, the new Dean of our Nursing School, Linda Scott, who joined us from the College of Nursing at the University of Illinois in Chicago in July, and she succeeds Catherine May who stepped down after 15 years of service as Dean. And then, lastly, I want to recognize François Ortalo-Magné, Dean of the Business School for the last five years. He's leaving at the end of this academic year to become the Dean of the London Business School, and we will be in the midst of a dean search over this coming year. So, that's the news on senior changes and faces. 

Let me start with a reminder of some of the things that we have accomplished over more recent months here at the University of Wisconsin. We, this last year, kicked off the largest fundraising campaign in the history of the university. Now, you kick those things off when you're well into the campaign, but I'm, nonetheless, delighted to say that this summer, we hit the halfway point to our $3.2 billion goal which is excellent news. We launched two rounds this past year of UW2020 which is, I think, one of the more exciting research competitions I know about. We gave out about $12 million to 28 awards for real seed projects that we hope will grow into major research efforts and bring in all sorts of outside research dollars and expand the research footprint of the campus. In a year, when we had a larger than usual number of outside offers, we retained the great majority of faculty. We retained people at about our usual retention rate with outside offers. And, that's incredibly important to maintaining the quality and the momentum of this place. We have welcomed 63 new members of the faculty, many of whom, the people in this room worked very hard to recruit. So, thank you for that. And, we have just welcomed a freshman class that is the largest and one of the most diverse in history. We have 150 more students of color in this class than we did last year. We have 90 more targeted minorities in this class than we did last year in our freshman class. So, it's a strong and a good class. And, as you know, our retention, our graduation rates have been steadily rising at our all time, at least long time highs. We are among the top public universities in those statistics. And finally, over the summer, we were, again, named one of the world's top 25 universities in a ranking that looks at research as well as education, while earlier this month we were among the ten best public universities in the nation in the U.S. News and World Report. None of that would have happened without the work that you all do, and I thank you for everything you do day to day, both in the classroom and in all of your research. 

So, while there's good news to share, and I could keep going with good news for a long time, there is no question that there are also a number of challenges in front of us.Our budget has been cut in five of the last six legislative sessions under both political parties, and that has kept us from hiring new faculty as aggressively as other schools. It's lead to the loss of some really valuable top teachers and researchers. 

Nothing saps the morale of a department more than losing valued colleagues. Every one of you knows that, but I believe we can find ways to create a stronger and a more resilient university that will grow and thrive into the next 168 years by working on a whole number of fronts, and I want to talk about two of them. First, building a more stable financial base, and I'm going to talk about budgets. You've heard parts of this talk before, but it bears repeating. And, secondly, making sure that this campus is a place where outstanding people want to be. 

So, let me start with building a more stable financial base. This year is a budget year. As you know, we have a biannual budget in the state ofWisconsin. We're spending a lot of time preparing for that. Once the election is over, we are going to launch into a vigorous debate in the state about what the budget for the next two years should look like. You all know that the last state budget left the UW System with a $250 million deficit and left us here in Madison with an $86 million deficit. As a result of that, we were forced over this past year and this year to cut $50 million out of our budget. That was not easy, as many of you have been involved with those budget cuts know. The bad news is we had to cut $50 million. The good news is we only had to cut $50 million because to fill that $86 million deficit, we've been able to expand other revenues over these two years that have basically filled in the remainder of the gap. Now, those cuts continue to be felt across the university, and a number of us spoke in detail about them and about their effects at the September 14th budget forum which I know a number of you attended. For those of you who couldn't be there, if you have an extra hour free and want to watch the fascinating video, it's available at budget.wisc.edu. We have one main message that we are going out with everywhere in the state this year. It is time to reinvest in the university of Wisconsin. I've spoken very directly about the impacts of the cuts we've taken, and I plan to do that as we continue to advocate for new state dollars. The regents, at their August meeting, put in part of their request for the new state budget that includes almost $100 million in more state funding than we had in the last budget. $50 million of those are the restoration of dollars that got lapsed in the budget. They put the money in our budget and then didn't give it to us, and the Governor has already indicated he will restore that $50 million in his requested budget, and then another $42.5 in new funds that the board of regents has requested for the system as a whole. The regents are also asking for a standard capital budget which funds construction renovation and maintenance. Now, a standard capital budget sounds like business as usual, but that's not what we got last time around. Last time around, there essentially was virtually no capital budget. The request the regents put in includes authority for projects at Slichter Hall and the Walnut Street greenhouses and much needed improvements to our utility infrastructure. It also, and this is incredibly important, seeks simply basic money for maintenance and repairs. This last budget was the first budget in anyone's memory that the state put zero money into basic facilities maintenance or repairs anywhere amongst state agencies including us. That means, when a steam pipe breaks, we take the money from the educational side in order to fix it, and in this next budget, I very much hope that the state will accept its basic responsibilities for funding maintenance and repairs much less going beyond that for a further capital budget. 

Finally, the regents are also requesting some important flexibilities.
The most important of which is the ability for the system to issue its own bonds for building projects that come with a steady revenue stream. So, for instance, when we build dorms, dorms come with a revenue stream. People pay money to stay in them. That means that any private sector funder bank in the country would fund a dorm for you because they know you're going to be able to make the payments with the revenue that comes out of it. And, we would like to do what virtually every university in this country does, have the ability to issue our own bonds and self-fund and self-manage those projects. So, that's a important conversation that we're in the midst of. The outcome of a state budget debate won't wrap up until probably the middle of June. The Governor will present a budget in probably sometime in January. It will then go to the legislature for a very lively debate. The joint finance committee will make a recommendation both houses of the Senate and the Legislature, and they will both act on it and it will be done sometime. So, we're a long ways down the road from having a final budget, but we are at the beginning stages of this whole process. And, we're working hard on two fronts, a budget communication strategy as well as a financial strategy that's going to allow us to achieve greater independence from the uncertainty of state funding. 

So, let me tell you a little bit about both of these efforts, and I have to emphasize the importance of both of them. We can't simply say, look, state money is going away. Let's ignore it. State money is too important. It is the core money available for education, and it is the money that we, in turn, use to leverage so much. So, we hire faculty on state money, and it's the faculty, in turn, bring in research dollars. So, and build the reputation that brings in top students that, in turn, over time, builds alumni and attracts donors. So, we absolutely have to fight for a fair share of state dollars for higher education. But, at the same time, we have to be realistic about building other revenue streams as well. So, let me talk first about our budget communication strategy. 

For too long, I think, we have been more silent than we should, allowing those who don't understand the importance of higher education in the state to control the narrative, and we need to change that. This can't just be a conversation between the two ends of State Street, although that conversation is very important. It has to involve the citizens of the state, and last month, we launched a three-part campaign in partnership with the Wisconsin Foundation and Alumni Association to reach out to media, the public, and state policy makes with one key message. You've already heard it. It's time to reinvest in the University of Wisconsin. The first part of this is Project 72, which I hope a number of you have read about in the paper. This built around 72 news stories, one for each of the 72 counties in Wisconsin, that spotlight a few of our top alumni, research, and outreach programs that are making a difference in that county. All 72 stories are being pitched in the month of September to local, state, and national media. They're being highlighted in paid media placements including billboards. You might have seen some of these if you travel around the state. We've had a excellent response to Project 72 so far, and we hope it sparks conversations around the state about the importance of reinvesting in the university. 

The second part of the communication strategy is the reinvest in UW campaign, and this is the first time we've really done a multichannel media campaign in the state. And, I will note we are using private dollars here. There's no state tax dollars or tuition dollars involved. I hope that you may have seen or heard at least some of the spots. They began this month. They're going to run through May. We're on cable TV, primarily in the Milwaukee market, statewide radio and WPR and online with various digital ads that pop up at also inconvenient times. We are expecting to receive 46 million impressions form this. In other words, 46 million eyeballs over the nine-month campaign, and, you know, this is an experiment. It's something I think we absolutely need to be doing, given where we are in the state, given the challenges we face, given the need to communicate across the state. And, we will be evaluating what the effects of this campaign is and, you know, what sort of results it produces. 

The third part of the campaign is outreach to the public and to policy makers, and one of the things there I want to highlight with some of you have already volunteered for is what we're calling The Faculty Hometown Engagement Project. We're inviting faculty who grew up in Wisconsin or who have research projects or outreach work in a Wisconsin community outside Dane County to consider going there to give a talk. We'll find a place for you to go. We'll match you with opportunities. We announced the program in late August, and we already have more than 30 faculty registered from across campus. So, if you're interested and you haven't signed up, go google Faculty Hometown Engagement Project at the University of Wisconsin. We would love to have more volunteers. Outreach to policy makers is another focus, and as they say at the capital, if you're not at the table, you're likely to find yourself on the menu. So, we're going to be spending a lot of time at the Capitol along with PROFS and ASPRO and ASM, you know, all the other groups that are doing lobbying on behalf of higher education. I'm going to be traveling around the state quite a bit this fall. I have five joint appearances, each of them in a place where there is a four-year campus, and I am the Chancellor on that campus who will be meeting with business leaders, with local press, with legislators, talking about how the budget cuts have affected our campuses together. This part of the state, these communities, and how and why we need to be reinvesting in the higher education campuses of the state. All of those are efforts focused on, I'll say it one more time, the one message. It's time to reinvest in the University of Wisconsin. That's our strategy moving forward, at least over the fall as we get, you know, we're going to have much more fine-tuned shoe leather at the capital strategy once we're past the election. 

But, let me talk about the second issue that we're spending a lot of time to work on which is financial strategy of developing multiple revenue streams. I'm not going to talk at length about this. I've talked about this in other meetings. I'd be happy to engage in a more extended conversation with you, with members of your department at any time you wanted to. The key issue is this. State dollars provide only 15% of our budget. That percentage has declined steadily over the last 20 years, and it's not likely to return to anywhere near where it was only 15 to 20 years ago. We have to entrepreneurial in developing alternative revenue streams. And, I want to be clear when I'm working on this because I, at some meeting last spring, I think it was, I was talking about what we were doing for summer, and a faculty member in the Senate, basically, said back to me, "Well, look, you're just trying to make money." And, let me be clear that making money is not my primary goal. My primary goal is paying faculty and staff salaries that are competitive in a global market for education. My goal is to offer some of the best educational programs at any public university and to support research and make sure we have the facilities and the ability to compete as a top ranked research institution. Those are the goals. Unfortunately, to achieve them, they include, at least among other things, money, and we have to have financial resources. We not only need stable revenue that is flat over time, we need growing revenue for investment in new ideas, new centers, new projects, new faculty that we want to hire. So, we're working on a variety of different fronts, and you know, our main revenue streams beyond the state are research, tuition, gift dollars, and I'm putting auxiliaries out of this because auxiliaries like dorms are money in money out. And, fourthly, and this is a revenue stream, expense control. Every dollar that we say that we don't put into expenses, we can, that are administrative expenses, we can put into program for education and research. So, we're working on all four of those. I don't need to talk about research funding. It's a third of our budget. We get more money from the federal government than the state. We are more a federally funded agency than a state funded agency, and making sure we maintain our strength there is deeply important. That's a whole topic and conversation for another day. Secondly, tuition revenue. And, here, there's multiple strategies. We have to care about in state tuition. As you know, we've been in a freeze for four years. The Governor's talked about freezing for at least one more year. We're hoping he'll have some flexibility on the second year of this next biennium, but we need to have an ongoing conversation about what type of subsidies should the state put into in state students. Everyone agrees we need to subsidize instate tuition, but the amount of that subsidy, you know, is one that can be validly debated, and I'm particularly, as you all know, not a fan of a tuition freeze. Our costs are frozen, at a minimum. Tuition ought to be increasing at least with cost because otherwise, you're basically doing budget cuts by another name. But, tuition goes well beyond instate tuition. As you all know, two years ago, year and a half ago, we got the regents to approve out of state and professional school tuition increases. Our professional school tuition, particularly, is very low. I went and asked for four years of increases. They gave me two and said come back again when two years are up. Two years are up in this current year, and I will be back again, talking about what we need to make our professional schools competitive with market based tuition. Tuition also involves the enrollment mix. Again, you've heard this before. We are guaranteeing admission to a minimum admission enrollment of a minimum of 3600 students from Wisconsin. In our current class, I think we have 3660. That is more students than we have enrolled, on average, over the last ten years. It's an incredibly strong commitment to the state of Wisconsin, and in exchange for that commitment, the regents have lifted their hard cap on the instate, out of state percentages. And, that gives us the ability to have, on the margins, a little bit of flexibility if we admit more transfers from out of state, for instance, we can, you know, we can raise additional revenues without threatening that cap. And then, the last part of tuition strategy is expanded educational programs, new ways to bring tuition revenues in. The most important piece of this strategy, in my mind, is making the summer term succeed as a major successful part of our educational enterprise, and I wrote a blog on this in the last couple of weeks. And, you can all go read it if you want to think more about summer term. But, we've been very successful this summer. We offered 71 new courses. Lots of students took, got some of their distribution requirements out of the way. Students went on focused on things that take a lot of energy. Like, I talked to a student that went and did their foreign language this year, this summer, and said, this is just great because I can just, you know, simply eat, live, and breathe the language. I talked to another student who is doing organic chem for exactly, you know, similar reasons. We ended up with a 10% increase in enrollment and a 21% increase in summer tuition revenues. 80% of that goes back to the schools and colleges to be reinvested in their educational programs. And, my goal is to keep moving the attendance and the revenues from the summer up steadily over the next five years. I want to thank this group for approving a new four-week summer session when you approved the calendar recently, and I know today's agenda approves another calendar issue that will continue to make the summer very much more viable. In addition to tuition, you know, the third revenue source here is gift revenue. We're working hard on this, as I noted. We're at the halfway point of our campaign. We brought in substantial new funding for faculty chairs, something we were way under resourced on, and every school and college has benefitted from that. We are in the midst of bringing in substantial amounts of new funding for scholarships at both the undergraduate and the graduate level, and you will, over time, be feeling the benefits of that. You know, this is, this is one that all of you, and particularly your department chairs and your deans are involved with and it's important aspect of what we need to be doing to be to be a modern university. Then, lastly, we have to control expenses. You can't just work on the revenue side, and we've done a number of things on this front. If you look at what's happened to our energy costs, you look at some of the things we've done around IT, I think we've been working steadily on this, but I want to flag something you're going to be hearing more about. One area of focus that we're going to start in on this year is to review our IT spending which is currently highly decentralized, and I must say highly at risk of security breaches which I hope you've all read about every day. We are not immune to the problems that every major big organization in this country is facing. Michael Lehman, who served as the Interim Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration after Darrell Bazzell left is now working as a special assistant to the Chancellor heading up an IT governance initiative. Mike served as CFO and Chief Information Officer of Sun Microsystems from many years. He understands big and complex organizations. He understands IT, and we expect that this initiative, which is working closely with the governance groups, is going to result in a more participative and inclusive process and help us actually oversee and align cross campus IT spending in ways that will make us a more effective organization. We aren't doing anything fast, but you're going to be hearing more at that, I suspect, and I want you to know I think this is an important priority. It's probably going to take us a couple of years to fully work through. But, the finance side is only part of what we have to focus on. We also have to have the people here that make this place a first rate, top notch, global institution. So, let me talk briefly about how we make sure UW is a place where outstanding people want to be and live and work. Compensation is number one on my list, and I suspect it's number one on your list as well. You know how poorly we look relative to some of our peers in compensation. We've not had across the board increases in pay in four budgets. That's eight years. With the exception of one budget where we got two 1% increases. The regents, I will note, will be requesting some compensation increases in December. That's the timing of that, so you'll be hearing more about across the board increases, I hope, and I do hope this is one where we do some strong lobbying on. But I will tell you, it is never popular to go to state legislators and say, you've got to make pay increases for public employees, and that's a tough sell. But, it's long past time in this state to do some of that. So, we need to work on compensation at our end. I can't do across the board compensation increases, but I can do targeted compensation increases, and several things here. First of all, we're allowing departments more flexibility in calculating the base adjustments for promoted faculty from Assistant to Associate or Associate to Full. We previously simply had a fixed dollar amount that could be assigned, and in some places that really meant junior faculty when they moved to Associate fell behind. We're now allowing either a floor up to a 10% of salary adjustment at the discretion of the department. Secondly, we're setting up a number of block grants with more money available for compensation adjustments this year than we've been able to put into compensation for a good number of years. We're going to provide $3.5 million in performance based funding for raises for faculty that is for merit, equity, market adjustments, and retention issues. And, I told the deans and directors that I hope they use some of those funds to seek out the faculty who didn't get outside offers last year and who we really want to make sure we keep and reward and let them know we want them here and they don't have to look for an outside offer to stay. We're also going to be providing $3.5 million in staff raises, and then, in addition, we're doing an experiment here. We're putting $2 million into one fund bonuses. Going to colleges to be allocated to the departments that are basically one time rewards to faculty or staff who performed above expectation, perhaps taking on extra work, covering for a colleague, doing extraordinary administrative service, working closely with mentoring students on some project. I, we want to see how that bonus program works because we're really able to do that this year a little bit better than we can do a more base funding. So, I'm hoping that will help us. Finally, in addition to compensation, we, obviously, are still in a conversation about some aspects of tenure. We went through a hard debate last year on our basic tenure statutes. I challenge any university to see their tenure statutes torn up and told to rewrite them that wouldn't have gone through a similar and very painful discussion. But, we are now at a point where we do have tenure statutes that are different from where we were before, and as I've said before, are largely comparable to our peers. The next step, and one we will start today and that I hope will be far less controversial is to revise our procedures for post tenure review. You're going to hear more about that and have a chance to talk about that in a few minutes, and I want to thank all the people who've worked on that revised document that's coming to you today for a first reading. I will close by saying a few words about diversity and campus climate. We had a number of extremely unfortunate incidences of bias on our campus last spring that were a powerful reminder that this is not yet a welcoming and inclusive community for all people. As I've told campus leadership in my various meetings this fall, I'm a little worried about campus. There are a lot of people watching what's happening out there in the world who are here on campus and feeling vulnerable and scared and angry. And, we have to be responsive to that, we have to make our community a welcoming and inclusive community, not just because these are part of our community and we want them to be, you know, to feel welcome here, but because this is a fundamental educational mandate of the 21st century. Every one of our students, our staff, and our faculty needs to know how to live in an inclusive and diverse community. If you don't, you're not ready for a 21st century career, and that, you know, that's what a lot of what we're doing is about and we can come back and talk about those initiatives. Again, I'm happy to go out to any department to discuss them. You should all have picked up our two pager on some of the new initiative that we are focused on this fall, including I might note, a request to every unit on campus to run some form of inclusiveness or diversity discussion and training in their unit for faculty and staff, and I hope all of you have seen your units start work on that. The Provost has put together three, four pages of resources around campus and around the area to use if you want some outside resources to lead that conversation. And, it is in direct response to resolutions passed by this assembly by ASM, by the our academic and university colleagues saying that they want these sorts of conversations on campus this year. So, this is going to be an ongoing conversation, and we're watching closely to see what the results are of all of these things. We're evaluating a number of them to see what their impact is and how we move forward. We're in the midst of a lot of challenges, but I don't want those challenges to let anyone lose sight of all the good things that happen here every day, things that by and large, the media don't cover. Students walk into class and discover a lifetime [inaudible]. Faculty use tenure research project pushes the boundary of knowledge in important areas. Work that we do across the state to bring knowledge and the resources of this university out to the citizens. A few weeks ago, I invited all the faculty who received the most prestigious national and international awards over to my house for a reception. These are people who received these awards over the last year. There were 73 faculty members on that list, and that was a really fun evening. Now, you know, imagine a newspaper story that say, "73 Faculty Celebrate National and International Awards at the University of Wisconsin". Those are not stories that get written very often, but they're stories that we should all know about because these are our colleagues, and they're what makes us proud and happy to be here at this university. So, I want to end where I started. Thank you for your dedication to the university. Thank you for all the things that you do here every day. Thank you for being here in the University Senate, and I look forward to a good conversation over this coming year. Let me turn things over to Amy Wendt, the chair of the UC to add her comments.

>> Thank you, Chancellor Blank. Good afternoon. I feel privileged to be here this afternoon as the chair of the University Committee. I'd like to start by thanking my fellow UC members and all of you who are here for your participation in shared governance. I especially would like to welcome those of you who are new Faculty Senators. Shared governance is a defining pillar of UW Madison, and it is our good fortune to work within a system that gives us all not just a voice but real authority in decision making for our campus. As the executive committee of the Faculty Senate, the University Committee pays close attention to the campus issues of the day. We communicate with our administrative leaders. We guide the development of faculty policy. We create staff and charge as needed the committees that guide, analyze, and advise on a wide array of university functions. And, we set the agenda for the Faculty Senate. The agenda for today's meeting is a good example of the breadth of topics that impact our educational and research endeavors. You will hear reports and motions related to learning management software, the administrative home for research and sponsored programs, the academic calendar, post tenure review policy, and the commitment of our campus to diversity, equity, and inclusion. This list of topics gives a glimpse of what the UC has been working on the past few months, and although we are always prepared to shift our priorities as we cannot always predict where our greatest needs will be tomorrow, themes for this year are likely to include the final steps in revision faculty policies and procedures, following changes in [inaudible] statute and board of regent policy resulting from Act 55, continuing to improve the climate on our campus through a welcoming and productive educational and work environment for all the members of our community, and the upcoming biannual state budget process. I'm proud to work at a university with meaningful shared governance and to have the opportunity to work together with the Faculty Senate. The effectiveness of the shared governance system directly depends on our collective level of engagement. So, I ask every one of you to embrace and to encourage your colleagues to embrace opportunities to gauge, engage in governance activities. As Senators, read the senate materials, discuss them with your colleagues, and participate in discussions on the senate floor, collegially please. Beyond the senate, there are opportunities to serve on the committees that are the engine of shared governance, including standing and ad hoc, topical committees as well as search committees to fill campus level positions. If you have an interest or expertise in a particular area, reach out the committee on committees or when you get an invitation to join a committee, please consider making the time. Everybody's contribution makes a difference. Finally, I have two announcements. I would like to call your attention to a couple of handouts from PROFS. This is a legislative update and some informational materials. If you haven't already, I encourage you to join PROFS so that your voice will be heard by the state legislature. And, there's information here on how to follow on Facebook and Twitter as well. And lastly, I would like to invite you to join the shared governance reception which will take place on October 11th at 2:00 PM in the varsity room at [inaudible]. Thank you very much.

>> All right. We're done talking. We are open for questions, comments, anything anyone wants to ask before we move to the next item on the agenda.

>> [inaudible] Chad Alan Goldberg District 71. I have     questions to follow up on the State of the University Report. One is about compensation, and one is about diversity and campus climate. About compensation, as you well know, Chancellor, the ability of faculty to do our jobs effectively depends on others who work here, graduate student employees, university staff, academic staff. I'm heartened to hear about a push to improve the salaries of the faculty. I did want to ask what the university's plans are in terms of improving the compensation for those other categories of employees who we work with and whose work we depend on to do our own. So, that's one question. The other question in terms of diversity and campus climate. I was a little disappointed that two important events in October fall upon the Jewish holiday of Rosh Hashanah, so the Go Big Read tickets which I'm very excited about because Matthew Desmond who got his PhD from my department. Those tickets become available to students and staff October 3rd and 4th and then to the general public on the 5th. So, this, so it's precisely during the Jewish Holiday. The UW Madison Benefits Fair is on October 4th, the second day of Rosh Hashanah. The question is, in the interest of improving diversity and campus climate, how we can avoid having that kind of overlap in the future to avoid those kinds of inconveniences for Jewish faculty and staff.

>> I will take those back. That is not, I had not heard that those were scheduled on those days, and I'll make sure that we go back and look at them and see if we've got any flexibility. Thank you. Can I just say something about the compensation issue? So, you know, there's different answers to every different group here. At the graduate student level, we all know that much of our graduate student compensation, particularly humanities and social sciences are graduate stipends and lower than they should be. They have improved a little over time as we've gotten more money from WARF to substantially increase the number of them, but we have not been able to improve the levels as much as I would like. It's one of the things that I'm working with Bill Corpus [assumed spelling] on. It's one of the things that I think you're going to see coming out of the current fundraising campaign around the Nicholas match that a substantial number of departments have been successful at generating money for graduate student fellowships which would increase our funding at a rather substantial level for those, but it's one that we continue to be very aware of. So, I, you know, we can come back and talk about undergraduates as well, but, yeah. Yeah, I mean, the staff are getting three and a half million for adjustments, and my expectation, to be honest, is the majority of the bonus money is going to go to staff. Yeah. So, I'm sorry. I thought you were asking about students not, yeah. Yeah. Both. No, I, I'm very aware that our staff, like our faculty have not seen across the board raises for a number of years, and it's one reason we're putting more money into both staff and faculty as well as money into bonuses that we simply, than we've been able to do in past years. Yeah.

>> Eric Hoyt, District 49. I've a question about how the new summer session will impact our faculty contracts which, if I'm remembering right, the faculty contract ends on May 30th, but the new summer session starts May 15th.

>> So, one of the long-term challenges here is to figure out how we really create 12 year, like virtually every university country. That's not easy to do. It's a difficult transition. You know, it's not something that's going to happen fast, though, it's something we're just looking at. Say, what would we have to do? Right now, summer terms are overages for faculty and not part of the standard teaching load, and that's just the way we have to handle it because of the restrictions for under under reaching policy. If, you know, even more specific questions, come talk to me afterwards. Yeah.

[ Inaudible Speaker ]

Yeah. Yeah. The academic calendar discussion, in part, addresses those date issues. Yeah.

>> Hi. Keith Woodward. What's our district? Department of Geography. I'm sorry. I've been gone [inaudible].

>> We can look it up.

>> Okay. Thank you. I was wondering if you could tell us, give us a little bit more information, and again, apologies. I was gone last years, so maybe I missed this, but about the proposal to start releasing our own bonds. As I understand it, the way that bonding currently works that it's run through the state and it's bundled with other bonds that the state is involved in through a number of different, sort of, areas. All the bonding for the university is kind of gets bundled with the other bonds, and it's very complicated. And, as you said, that's a little bit unusual because most state institutions do their own bonding now. The problem, it seems to me, is that that is contributing to an enormous debt bubble around higher education in the United States right now that if we start releasing our own, we would be contributing to. Not that we're not contributing to it a little bit with the state guaranteed bonds now, but if there was another financial crisis, the difference would be that we would be left holding the bag for that. And there's one other, sorry, there's one other little bit of that question and that is this. With bonding, the other problem, of course, is that the folks who invest in those bonds, bonding is debt. That's what it is. We're selling, we're taking on loans. It's another word for loans. So, if we are selling our own bonds and increasing the number of bonds that we're selling, those folks who are buying those bonds, those folks who are lending us money, are going to expect that the value of those bonds is going to increase over time. Correct? Otherwise, I can't imagine why anyone would want to buy bonds. Which means that there's kind of a guarantee that things like tuition will increase, that we, and are expecting in the future that somehow more money will be coming into the institution. So, I'm wondering to what degree are we going to be contributing to a rapidly growing debt bubble around higher ed, and where the decision making structure or what the decision making structure is in the institution for deciding if and how we are going to transition over to releasing our own bonds.

>> So.

>> Sorry for the long question.

>> Yeah, no. So, revenue bonding has been around for 150 years, and taking on debt per se is not a problem as long as you have a stable way to finance it. Let me be clear. This is a proposal from the system for the system to do bonding on projects where there's a steady revenue stream. Okay? So, it's projects like the dorms. As I said, where, you know, you know the people are going to be regularly paying for dorms, so any private bank in the country will issue a bond for a dorm because it's a pretty sure guaranteed return that the money's going to come back to you. And, I'm not sure this is going to fly. It's controversial among some people. I think it's an incredibly important for us to have. Like I say, virtually every other university has some of the ability to issue their own bonds, and it would give us some freedom from the state around certain decisions on places where we have guaranteed revenue streams. But, the specifics of the proposal, if one comes through, are going to have to be worked out in great detail between the system and the legislators, probably on the finance committee.

>> So, this isn't a, this isn't really something that this particular institution had much say in.

>> No.

>> It's [inaudible] system.

>> No. No. Yeah.

>> Thank you.

>> Yeah.

>> Peter Nichol. I'm from the Department of Surgery, and I'm a new Senator. I don't remember my district. I apologize. I wanted to make a comment and as you a question about this outreach. So, I'm a pediatric surgeon, and I do a lot of outreach throughout the state. And, I actually started my own foundation, have my own board on which I'm probably the only non-Republican. And, I was wondering about, with regards to your media push, you mentioned Wisconsin Public Radio. It's only going to hit a portion of the state, and it's not reaching out to the entirety of the state. I'm wondering what other, are you going to use, like for example, the FOX News Channels and stuff like this for your media push?

>> Charlie, do you want to respond to that? Charlie is our Vice Chancellor for University Relations and is the person in charge of this media strategy. I know, for instance, that one of the things we're doing is a variety of ads on during sports events which is not WPR at all. I'll let you respond.

>> Hello. Yes, we have a multi-faceted campaign plan that, in terms of radio is at Wisconsin Public Radio. But, digital ads and other things are turning up on the internet and on social media that are going to capture a wide variety of audiences. Similarly, the TV ads that the Chancellor referenced that'll be in the Milwaukee market are on a variety of different programs to hit a variety of audiences.

>> I don't think there's anything here just focused on WPR alone. We have a long agenda, and not seeing anyone else moving towards the mic, I'm going to move on to the next agenda item. Thank you all very much. If you turn to the minutes, the minutes are actually at the back of your packet. Don't ask why. And, we have minutes from both the meeting of May 2nd and minutes to the special meeting of May 17th. Are there any additions or corrections to either of those two sets of minutes? If not, I'm going to take them as approved as distributed. Let me, next, call your attention to Faculty Document 2633 which is on page two of your agenda called Highlights of Faculty Legislation and recognize Professor Rafi Lazimy the Chair of Information Technology Committee and Professor Steve Cramer, Vice Provost for Teaching and Learning to talk about the Canvas learning system and all that goes with it.

>> Thank you. So, I'm pleased to be here as Chair of the ITC and also a Senator, and I'd like to briefly discuss or present five main issues with respect to his decision. So, first, the ITC calls for adoption of Canvas as the only fully integrated and centrally supported learning management at UW Madison. This means that once transition is completed, UW Madison will not provide central support for non-Canvas learning management systems. UW Madison will not cease to support Moodle and Desire2Learn and [inaudible] adequate functionality in Canvas is provided. Number two, the ITC considered these resolution for several months and had input from faculty, students, instructional technologies, the Vice Provost for Learning and Teaching, and others. The feedback from faculty instruction support staff and students, we used Canvas in several pilot studies indicated the core functionality of Canvas, accommodates the teaching and learning needs of the majority of courses offered at the UW Madison. Canvas has clear advantages in key areas which I will not list because they are the resolution in your packets. Canvas hold particular promise for learning analytics and for the sharing, discovery, and integration of digital content from disparate systems. These possibilities are in turn enhanced by UW Madison's membership in the Unizin, Unizin consortium and many other members of this consortium have already adopted Canvas. Three, ITC calls for a well-managed transition process that meets the pedagogical needs of colleges, schools, and departments. The resolution emphasizes the need to provide full support for the transition to a new LMS in a way that ensures the continued quality of all courses, and Steve Cramer will talk much more about the migration and implementation plan. Number four, the ITC recognizes the existence of gaps and other deficiencies in the current functionality of Canvas. Existing and future gaps, deficiencies, and functionality enhancement needs should be addressed effectively and in a timely manner before, during and after the implementation. Last, the ITC calls on the administrative sponsors to develop a clear plan for governance around Canvas that ensures that UW Madison is provided with an effective, well-managed, and reliable service. And, I'll stop there. Questions?

>> Chad Alan Goldberg, District 71. I have one question about, oh, I'm sorry.

>> So, let me give you a little bit of background on our switch of learning management systems. Of course, we have three on campus right now. We have Moodle. We have Desire2Learn, and we have Canvas. And, the move to Canvas is really part of a larger strategy. It's about assuming control of our own data and our teaching and learning tools, not getting stuck in one proprietary stack of a tool. It's about tools that adhere to standards, inoperability with other tools you might want to use. It satisfies a strong student desire for one learning management system. We just simply can't continue with three and supporting three. And, you know, I don't list it up here, but I think you're going to find it makes your job easier. We're not the only ones that have gone through this examination of learning management systems. Many universities have recently, and some that have switched in the last 30 months to Canvas include UC Berkeley, Northwestern, UT Austin, Carnegie Mellon, many of our peers. Ohio State and so on. University of Michigan. [inaudible] So, we began piloting Canvas in the spring of 2015. Those pilots were positive. We got good campus feedback. Then, after consultation with a wide variety of governance groups about far more details of this switch than I can go into today, the plan was announced in the spring of 2016 to adopt Canvas as a single, centrally supported LMS. Many of our peer institutions are trying to switch in a year. Of course, you save cost when you can get to one management system in a year. We thought that a two-year transition was more prudent. We have some users that are pretty deeply embedded into some of our existing learning management systems. There are some gaps we need to fill, and we need time for that transition to occur. But, the intention would be that we would discontinue to provide campus support for D2L and Moodle by 2018. By the D2L contract actually ended in June but was extended for another year, and I think it'll be extended for another year. Next slide. So, currently, all credit based courses are available in Canvas. They're accessible through your Learn at UW Course Dashboard. We have 650 credit based courses published and actively using Canvas as, actually was 655 as of this morning. That's about 18,950 of our students, and those are unique students. 742 faculty. Next slide. So, you know, as we work through this and have planned the transition, we've been working through the Associate Deans in the UC Triple A. We've worked extensively with the instructional technology point people from all the schools and colleges. We ran a needs assessment which was unique to every school and college, and some of those folks may have contacted you on what it's going to take to make the switch. So, we're currently estimated the effort to support those conversions kind of separating courses into low medium and high complexity. We have some faculty here, and it's a good thing, that make extensive use of sophisticated features in our learning management systems. Next slide. So, the resources that are available to you in brief, there's in person and online training. There's online knowledges bases. There's user guides. There's consultations. So, there's quite a variety of resources available to you as you consider this transition. And then, finally, if you haven't looked, canvasinfo.wisc.edu is the place to go for more information and for updates. Certainly, there's going to be some bumps. I'm one of the 600 and, 742 faculty who are using Canvas. I used it last fall, and I'm using it again. There's going to be some bumps as you make the switch. We realize that's an imposition on you, but it's really intended to get you to a better place to, us to a better place to be able to do more creative things with our students. Thank you.

>> Yeah. This is not an item for vote. This is an item of information, but if anyone has questions that they need answered and would like to at least have addressed in some way. Chad?

>> Chad Alan Goldberg, District 71. So, I just have one question, and I appreciate the presentation. And, I did read the documents carefully in the packet that the university printed and made available. So, as I understand it, Instructure is the educational tech company that developed Canvas, and they, presumably, stand to make a significant profit from our adoption of Canvas. That's not anything new, I think. But I am interested in learning, hearing more about the economic dimension of this, whether, what the cost of adopting this new system is compared to staying with the systems that we have now and the reasoning about if the costs are, indeed, greater to us as a public institution how the calculation was made that these advantages are worth the extra cost to us.

>> Yeah. There's a lot there, and a lot of detail that we could go into. I'll try to give you kind of the high level answer is the licensing cost of Canvas is less than the licensing cost we're paying for Desire2Learn as of right now. We're part of the Unizin Consortium. That consortium now has 700,000 students of bargaining power. We have one of the best deals with Canvas nationally available. So, that's a snippet of the economics. We've looked at some of that. I mean, the real difficulty right now is we're paying for three, and we really need to try to get to one and one that will sustain us at least for some time going into the future and not lock us in. We've been with Desire2Learn for more than a decade, and as you know, technology's changing rapidly.

>> Are there any other questions on this topic?

>> Hi. Damon Sajnani, District 78. Just a follow up on that exchange there. I appreciate this last comment about not being locked in, and I'm not so clear. I read about this consortium. I'm not so clear what the mandate is and what's involved. But, I'm wondering if there is any effort or any long term thinking about developing some kind of publicly shared and university owned LMS. Right. So, why isn't this, in terms of cost, wouldn't it be much more cost effective to have sort of an open source LMS that is developed using the resources and the knowledge that exists in the university?

>> Yeah. You know, that's an interesting question. For the most part, though, the cost of internal development and maintenance of systems is high. It's very high. So, with this consortium, we're trying to strike that balance between the efficiency of private enterprise and companies, and yet retaining some control and direction and, you know, where's our student learning data going. And, are they going to sell that back to us, or is it ours? You know, and those are issues that the consortium is addressing. So, your question's a great one, and it's a question, I think, of balance to try to get that freedom as much as possible, but yet have affordability.

>> All right. Thank you both very much. Let me recognize Professor Amy Wendt who's going to present a proposal to relocate the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs. That is the pages seven and eight in your agenda.

>> I move adoption of Faculty Document 2635 which endorses the return of the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs to the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate Education.

>> Let me note that since this is presented by the University Committee, it does not require a second. I'm going to ask Amy to make whatever comments she wants to make about the proposal, and then we'll open up for conversation and, hopefully, for a vote. If the proposal stands as it is. Okay? Speaks for itself. Does anyone else want to speak for it? Judith.

>> Judith Burstyn, District 48 Chemistry. So, I just am curious to hear from the University Committee. Quite a number of years ago, we very deliberately moved the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs out of the Office of the Vice, what was then the Graduate School and over to where it is currently. And, the reason for that was because in an era when federal regulations were changing with extraordinary rapidity and the, I guess, requirements were getting ever more complex, it appeared as though insufficient attention was being paid to the, giving the RSP enough money to function. And so, there was a feeling that moving it to the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Administration gave, put it closer to the money, and therefore made it more effective. And, I'm curious about how that has changed and sort of the rationale for going back the other direction.

>> So, I'll be honest. I was very surprised when I arrived and learned that this was sitting in the Vice Chancellor of Finance and Administration. It might have moved it closer to the money, but it moved it further away from the researchers who this office is supposed to be serving. And, I'll be blunt. From what I know and from what I've been told, this hasn't worked all that well as a result of that. You don't locate places, you know, you should always be able to make the money flow to the right place, and the Vice Chancellor for Graduate Education and Research and I have talked at length about the resources that this group needs. We need to make sure it gets those resources, but it needs to be located in the right place, and the right place is with the research and the Graduate School. And, I, you know, I think there's, sort of a, I haven't talked to anyone who seems to disagree with that. That, you know, this would just function more effectively and includes the person who actually runs RSP. I don't know if there's anyone here who wants to address that further who is on this committee, but there was a committee report of faculty that underlies this recommendation. I guess not. As they say, it speaks for itself. [laughs] Are there any other questions or issues? If not, I'm going to call for a vote. All those in favor of the resolution as stated to move RSP into the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate Education indicate by saying aye.

>> [multiple speakers] Aye.

>> Any opposed? All right. Thank you. The motion carries. Let me turn to Professor Amy Wendt, who's going to present a proposal to modify the academic calendar and related policies. And, let me be clear, you've got three documents in your packet. They're long. One of them is particularly long. The document on which you are voting is Document 2636 on page nine and ten which lays out the calendar. The document after that, 2636a gives you context and background, and I hope you've all read that. And, the document behind that, 2632, which is very long, is the one that people talked about last May. And, we've condensed this all into a much shorter resolution, but you see starting on page nine. So, Amy, I will call on you.

>> So, I move the approval of Faculty Document 2636 which implements the recommendations of the ad hoc committee on the academic calendar. Many of you are new to the Senate since the first reading and discussion on this topic in May. Faculty Document 2636a in your materials lays out how we have gotten to this point in some detail. And, this has a lot of moving parts, so I'm going to give a little overview of the highlights. In short, a number of factors have been identified with the academic calendar over the last couple of years that prompted a thorough review. These include something you heard about earlier, the addition of a four-week summer session between the end of spring semester and the start of the eight-week summer session and the move of undergraduate commencement to a single ceremony. The new summer session, as implemented by the Senate in October of 2015 created an overlap with the nine-month contract that would mean that faculty and instructional academic staff could not be paid to teach in both the spring semester and the four-week session. In addition, starting classes or holding other mandatory student activities before a long holiday weekend at the beginning of fall semester raised concerns about student safety. Yet another problem is that our fall and spring semesters are currently, consistently of different lengths. The changes proposed today address the problems with the current system and are the result of the work of two different groups which closely examine the web of interconnected issues. The different aspects of these recommendation, recommended changes, setting the semesters at equal lengths of 69 instructional days, shortening the exam period by one day, moving the four-week session and the faculty contract and shortening the grade submission period. All work together to address the various different problems.

>> Again, there is no second needed for this. I do want to tell people that for sure a 69-day semester puts us at a longer semester than the vast majority of our colleagues. So, we're not short changing students relative to what they would get anywhere else. In fact, it would get less at most other schools. So.

>> Tom Broman, University Committee. It's going to sound like the University Committee is ridden with dissention. It's not that exciting. On behalf of the University Committee, I want to move that the, that the academic calendar as proposed in 2636 be amended to set the fall semester commencement exercise to always be on Sunday during the summary period or on the Sunday immediately following the summary period. That is the exam period. When the summary period ends on a Friday or Saturday. This is a sort of technical change. If you look at the calendar as proposed, commencement falls within the exam period on 2017-2018 but was scheduled in that document to fall outside of exam period in 2019-2020, and we want to just regularize that procedure. So, this is a small amendment. Hopefully, not a big deal.

>> We do not need a second to that amendment since it was made by the University Committee. Let me note that if it passes, the calendar will be adjusted so that the following will always be true. There will always be six exam days in the fall, and there will be no exams on the day of commencement. But, it gets rid of the oddity in 2019 and 2020 whereby we actually started the semester sooner than in other years but ended it later than in other years. And, it simply means that we're consistent with where commencement falls. But, we have an amendment on the table and the discussion, first, has to be about that amendment. Is there any discussion of that amendment itself? If not, I will take a vote on the amendment. All in favor, indicate by saying aye.

>> [multiple speakers] Aye.

>> Any opposed? All right, the amendment passes. We're now back to discuss the proposal of the changes in the academic calendar. Yeah.

>> Betsy Stovall from District 63 Mathematics. I would like to propose an amendment that we go back to the, a six-day grading period. The old grading, the old period to submit grades. To specifically in item six.

>> So, so, they said no amendment is necessary to change the status quo, you simply vote against the resolution.

>> No, no. But this is the only change I'm proposing to the resolution.

>> She wants to just change this one piece of it. Okay.

>> Okay, so specifically, I propose that item six should read that course grades must be completed by each instructor and submitted to the Office of the Registrar within six calendar days or 144 hours from the date and hour of the two-hour block scheduled during the summary period. The rationale for this that under, under the current proposal, let me give you an example. So, every spring semester in this proposal, the last day of exams in on a Friday. Faculty would, then, be expected to submit their final grades on the Monday following that Friday which for faculty who have open ended questions on their exams, for faculty who have significant caregiving responsibilities, in particular is a major hardship. And, I also want to point out to my fellow Senators that many faculty with significant caregiving responsibilities are less likely to be on the Senate. And so, I encourage you to particularly keep them in mind.

>> So, I want to be clear about what it is you're proposing.

>> I'm sorry. I talked way to long before [inaudible].

>> Yeah.

>> Yeah. Okay. So, I'm proposing that we go back to the old rule that it's six days after the time of the exam and it requires some changes to the academic calendar, and I've written these down if that's helpful.

>> So, you want to be at six days after the last final exam day which means everyone has.

>> No. Six days after the two-hour summary. Six days after the scheduled exam, which is the current policy.

>> Which was. Why don't you explicitly say what today's policy is.

>> So, you're proposing that we not change anything and that we eliminate what apparently is item number six in your packets and item number four in mine.

>> Item 6 on page 11.

>> Item 6 on page 11, faculty legislation ii105 currently has six things listed. You're recommending not changing number six and leaving it as it currently is which is course grades must be completed by each instructor and submitted to the Office of the registrar within six calendar days, 144 hours from the date and hour of the two-hour block scheduled during the summary period.

>> That's correct. And then, there are other changes. So, there are changes to the calendar that accommodate.

>> Does anyone, so we have an amendment on the table. Is there a second to that amendment? We have a discussion now on the amendment only, if anyone wants to address that. Yeah.

>> Hi. Ellen Samuels, District 116. I think I was on sabbatical for a year, so I forgot my district number. I just have a clarifying question related. I'm not necessarily speaking for or against the amendment. So, the official policy up until now was 144 hours or 6 days after your specific scheduled exam. But, in practice it was, and is in the rationale, it says the current practice interpreted this as 144 hours after the last final exam day. So, my experience here as faculty has been that I get an email saying your grades are due on this day, and that we all turn our grades in. We don't say, "Oh, my final was scheduled on this day, so I have six." Do you see what I'm saying? There's a difference between six days or 144 hours for when your final for your class was and the last day. And so, I'm wondering which the amender wants us to return to. What was on paper or what we were actually doing.

[ Laughter ]

Because that, because my understanding from the rationale is that if we're all doing our grades six days after the last day of finals, it was causing administrative problems, and I don't think any of us wants to cause administrative problems. And, none of us, of course, really want to be turn, grading right up until the edge of the day on which we either celebrate Christmas or of Chinese food and a movie, but we still, I also want to really echo the amender's concern. That that's, and being in the humanities where our finals are often long, long, long essay questions, that three days is a really short time to do our grading and especially for those with caregiving responsibilities at that time. Thank you.

>> Provost, do you want to respond to the question about how we enforce this [inaudible]?

>> Well, it turns out that what the rule is on paper and what we're actually doing were two different things which is sometimes the case. And so, the rule, formally, is that your grades are supposed to be turned in 100, within 144 hours of when you gave your exam. At the very least, we would need to enforce that because the problem has become, people not interpret it as 144 days from the last day in which exams are given. And the problem with that is there are people in, who work in our Registrar's Office who have to do audits of how students have performed and their various criteria by which you might be put on probation or might be suspended. And, their financial aid decisions that have to be made that are based on you have to maintain a GPA of such and such in order to get your financial aid continued. And, to not be able to start that work until, you know, 144 hours after December 22nd is a problem. And so, the average, and we did a search on this. On the average duration at other institutions is 72 hours after your exam is given. Some schools have it shorter than that, believe it or not. And, whether we want to go that way, that's up for discussion.

>> Yep.

>> Damon Sajnani, District 78. I just wanted to add or to clarify, to ask a question of whether or not this, to ask whether it could be amended or could be changed to exclude weekends. So, if the language could be x number of hours during the work week. Yeah. Yeah.

>> So, are you proposing an amendment to the amendment?

>> I am proposing an amendment to the amendment, if my colleague agrees, that this, that this would address that caregiver issue.

>> So, I actually think that we can't do this because the current amendment proposal is we simply strike item six, and you're proposing instead to amend item six. And I think we have to vote on this amendment before we can take, you know, you're not amending the amendment. You're proposing something quite different.

>> Yeah. Okay.

>> Okay.

>> Okay.

>> So, I think we're going to have to deal with this amendment first.

>> Okay.

>> We want to strike item six entirely, and then can decide whether we want to go back. If that's a fair statement. So, I'm going to rule you out of order for the moment and continue discussion on the amendment. Yeah. Why don't you go to the mic and.

>> Okay.

>> After I call on. Yeah.

>> Eric Sandgren, District 113. For the reasons given, I want to speak strongly in favor of this change to eliminate that item.

>> I'd just like to make a few clarifications. First of all, the proposal in the original motion calls for the exam deadline, or the grade deadline to be 72 hours after the last exam. So, for those giving exams early in the exam period, this actually gives a longer period for submitting your grades. Second of all, I'd like to point out that our practice of allowing 144 hours is unambiguously long compared to our peers, and the Secretary of Faculties Office has collected data on a number of our peer institutions. If we move to 72 hours after the last exam, we'll still be on the long end compared to our peers. And, one last clarification is that my understanding is that in the event of hardship, whether it's childcare or some other constraint, exemptions can be granted. So, if you need [inaudible] you can ask for it and get it.

>> All right. We're discussing the amendment to strike item six. Is there any other comments on that amendment? Yeah.

>> I would like to. Sorry. It's [inaudible]. I want to say that.

>> I think you've got to identify yourself.

>> Okay. Betsy Stovall, District 63. So, I think there are, unless there's something explicit in this policy about the availability of exemptions, and in particular that exemptions will routinely be granted. I mean, who knows, you know, in ten years from now, if this is the policy that's on paper and we have an unwritten policy that's governing the exemptions, then who knows how those exemptions will be offered and how they'll be enforced. And, my second point is, I mean, there is data that faculty asking for exemptions for caregiving responsibilities, not faculty specifically, but employees asking for exemptions to policies for caregiving responsibilities are sometimes penalized in the workplace. And so, there may be hesitancy among, you know, many of our faculty members to ask for the exceptions that they need.

>> So, I'm going to ask our Registrar to speak to this because he has some comments on it.

>> Thank you, Chancellor Blank. Scott Owczarek, University Registrar. The, there's three components of why that the proposal was made to reduce the time. The first is that the student information system doesn't actually have the technical capabilities to honor the actual policy. That's why we interpreted the practice to be 144 hours from the last exam. Secondly, the Office of the Registrar does an algorithm that actually ensures that a faculty member would never have the last sessions. They never. We try very hardly to make sure faculty members don't have an exam on the last day in more than consecutive terms. So, we actually rotate how classes get their final exam schedule outside of the group exams. The last component of it is, and you'll look in the proposed language, is that there needs to be time for all of the end of term processing and the exception processes for students who may be working with their dean's offices to go through probation appeals, etc. If you don't allow for the 72, and we go back to the 144, that, there's almost no time for a student to be able to appeal their status as far as their academic standing. So, it's the interconnectedness as it was described that's really putting that constraint there.

>> Ellen Samuels, District 116 again. I'd like to ask the Registrar a clarifying question. I'm so sorry. I didn't speak quickly enough for you. If we rejected this amendment, but took up the proposal to exempt weekends, would that address the issues that you have in terms of needing time for students who are on probation?

>> Yeah. I'd have to look at that. If I think about just the plain math, that would add two days, two business days, and I can't remember exactly off the proposed versus the current where that would put us up with our dean's offices and the time in place that it takes us to do grade changes at, you know, the academic probation, academic standing, dismissal, and then the appeal processes for your schools and colleges. That's the real [inaudible] of the problem. I don't have enough knowledge right now to do the math for all tenures that you have to look at to make sure that we have that timeframe.

>> Okay. Thank you. I would like to now speak against this amendment because I'm hearing that it's not workable from the Registrar's perspective, and yet speak strongly in favor of some new policy that addresses the issues that were raised. So, that is my statement.

>> Okay. Eric.

>> Eric Sandgren, District 113. Clearly, there are logistical issues, and I recognize that's important. Clearly, the fact that most other institutions have 72 hours indicates that it's very possible to conduct your business that way. Clearly, though, also thinking about 72 days versus 144 days, or hours, 72. Whoa. This is not another amendment. 72 hours versus 144 hours, even for me under conditions where, at this point, my kids are older and I don't have that sort of issue. And, maybe I can just drink coffee for 144 hours straight, it would clearly change the kind of examinations that I could give if I had more than one course and had to grade them so I could do it within 72 hours. I hate to restrict that flexibility. Some courses, I think, should have long essay examinations, and I think it's to the credit of the instructor to take the time to evaluate those in an effective way. So, again, I speak in favor of this resolution.

>> Dan Vimont, Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences. I'm sorry. I never know my district. I'm in support of the amendment as it is because of the hardship it might place on faculty with childgiving or child rearing. I'm one of those, so I should probably know the terminology. But, and the other, the other issue here is that this is not set in stone. We can amend this particular document to address this particular issue sometime later. The rest of this document is a complex document. It's gone through a lot of thought, and I think this one issue could probably be addressed separately. So, I'm going to vote yes in for the amendment.

>> John Sharpless, History Department, District 60. I think the easy way out of this just give everybody A's.

[ Laughter ]

Seriously, the burden for changing this is going to, in big lecture courses, is going to fall on our poorly paid, overworked TAs. That's who it's going to fall on, and I think we have to think of that.

>> Are there other comments on the amendment? If you are ready to vote, we will take a vote. The vote is on the amendment to strike item six from the faculty legislation changing the calendar. This is item 6 on page 11. All those in favor of this amendment, indicate by saying aye.

>> [multiple speakers] Aye.

>> All those opposed.

>> [multiple speakers] No.

>> I'm going to want to rule that the ayes have it, or you want to take a vote? I think we should vote, make it [inaudible]. We will divide the paper [inaudible]. Okay. Everyone who wishes to support the amendment and remove item six, raise your hand and keep it high. You know. The ayes have it. I don't think we need to, we need to count for that. You guys just didn't speak loud enough. I'm going to rule for the ayes on this one. Clearly, this is one that if the University Committee and the group that put this calendar together wishes to come back with an alternative proposal, they could do so at some point later during the year. So, we're now back to the amended proposal which is as it was with the exception of item six. Is there discussion of the larger proposal?

>> Judith Burstyn, District 48, Chemistry. So, I do understand the layout and the attempt to keep things very, very even between semesters, and I appreciate that because I'm aware of the difference. The one thing that becomes a problem, especially for departments like mine that are now running laboratories, basically, from 7:00 in the morning until 9:45 at night every single day of the week to try to get our students through. And, where student's schedules are very variable, the fact that one semester starts on a Tuesday and the other starts on a Wednesday results in a layout problem for us with respect to the layouts of when our labs meet. And, I realize that including another Tuesday in the fall would increase the number of Tuesday class days, but for us, we need as many hours in a week as possible. This would preclude us starting lab the first week of class in the fall only, and that would cause us a problem.

>> I can speak to the reason as to why the fall starts on a Wednesday which is that we have a whole variety of pre-events and one of the most important ones is convocation. Convocation now occurs four days before school starts, and the desire is to have it the day before which is why we want an open day followed by, you know, that basically allows us to do move in and bring students in, and you don't end up with two to three days there where students are essentially partying, to be blunt. That's the reason for starting on a Wednesday rather than starting on that Tuesday.

>> So, then, couldn't one start the spring semester also on a Wednesday? [laughs] I mean, no matter how we look at this, this is going to cut, we're going to have to reexamine our laboratory schedules very, very carefully. But the fact that it's unequal between the two semesters actually causes us almost more of a problem than anything else. Thanksgiving causes a terrible problem. We can't have lab that week.

>> Eliminating [inaudible].

>> But, one of the, so it looks even except that we can't run labs. We have to do a change over. We can't run labs on a schedule that starts midweek because we have to run the labs constantly, and we have our switchovers on Monday and on Friday. And, we've considered whether we can switch over midweek because that would help us with the November issue, but it really is hard to do. Either that or give us fewer students.

>> Other comments on the calendar.

>> Ellen Samuels, District 116. Sorry I keep coming up here. I spent a lot of time looking at this, apparently. I'm curious why the faculty contract here in the proposed calendar starts a week earlier in August. It's not addressed in the rationale, and I know that, that's, I'm not sure what impact that has on us, but I'm curious why that change was made.

>> The change in the faculty contract is a shift of one week, and that was introduced primarily to eliminate the conflict between the academic year faculty contract and the new four-week summer session that goes between the end of spring semester and the start of the eight-week summer session. Those were overlapping so that it wasn't possible to pay faculty for the summer session separately because they were still on their academic year contract. Shifting the faculty contract eliminates that problem, and it makes the faculty contract start a little bit earlier in August. And, there's some benefits of starting it earlier for departments who are bringing in new faculty, it gives them a little bit more time to get set up and oriented.

>> So, does that.

>> Shifting everything up one week.

>> Does that imply, then, an expectation that faculty are present and available for things like meetings a week earlier in August?

>> Entirely up to the department as to what their expectations are of faculty.

>> Okay. Thank you.

>> Yeah. On nonteaching weeks. Any other conversation around the calendar? Are we ready to vote on the amended motion? All those in favor indicate by saying aye.

>> [multiple speakers] Aye.

>> All those opposed. The ayes have it, and as they say, these things can always be changed again. Thank you to all the people who have done work on this. We're now moving along. We're on page 31 of your agenda, and I'm going to recognize Professor Amy Wendt who's going to present a motion to modify FPP regarding the selection of Senate alternates.

>> I move adoption of Faculty Document 2637 which increases flexibility regarding Senate alternates. The current language in FPP 2.04 is quite restrictive making quorum more difficult to achieve and reducing the breadth of faculty representation at Senate meeting.

>> This one, I think comes with some pretty, again, not heard anyone who seems to oppose to this one. It gives you a lot more flexibility if you can't come to appoint someone else. Is there any discussion on this? If not, I will assume you are ready to vote. All those in favor of the proposal indicate by saying aye.

>> [multiple speakers] Aye.

>> Any opposed? All right. We are now on page 32, and I'm going to ask Professor Ruth Litovsky who's going to speak in her role as a professor, not as a member of the UC to present a proposal to endorse the campus statement on commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion.

>> I move Senate endorsement of the institutional statement on the campus commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion. Faculty Document 2638 on page 32.

>> So, we've never had a diversity statement, at least that I know. I need a second on the motion. All right. All right. Now, you can [inaudible].

>> Thank you. So, the process of adopting institutional statement on diversity for UW Madison began six months ago when the Vice Provost and Chief Diversity Officer Patrick Sims convened an ad hoc committee, and this consisted of representatives from the university's four shared governance groups. And, the idea was to set down in writing, for really the first time ever in UW Madison's longstanding commitment to diversity. The goal is to establish singular vision that galvanizes our collective efforts related to diversity, equity, and inclusion. The ad hoc committee wrote a draft statement which was, then, shared and vetted by representatives from all shared governance groups. There were subcommittees from the campus diversity and climate committee. There were chairs of the equity diversity committees, the Provost Executive Group, and the Chancellor and the Provost Offices. So, what resulted was this iteration of a statement, and it reflects what we think is the carefully negotiated process that captures and balances the varying perspectives that help to craft the statement. And, we think it's now ready to seek endorsement by the governance groups. So, please note that what this means is that you will not be voting on the language of the statement itself, but rather on whether to endorse it. Thank you.

>> So, this is an up and down vote on endorsement. You can't amend the statement. That's what she meant. Is there comments, discussion on this? If not, are you ready to vote? All those in favor of the resolution that endorses this campus statement indicate by saying aye.

>> [multiple speakers] Aye.

>> Any opposed? The motion carries. All right. We have one last item of business, and it is an important one. And, I call on Professor Amy Wendt who will present revisions to our post tenure review policy for a first reading. So, this is discussion only. It will come back to you at the next Faculty Senate Meeting for a vote. And, you can find this on page 33 of your packet.

>> Thank you. I've got a whole pile of supporting materials with me here. And, we have some materials to project. So, you have in your materials Faculty Document 2639 which is a revised version of the post tenure review policy that was passed by the Senate in late 2015. So, those of you who were Senators last year, if you're feeling déjà vu, it's because we have already voted on a post tenure review policy. So, let me explain. Document 2639 includes both a marked up version with new language underlying, deleted language crossed out and footnotes explaining the need for each change. The marked up version is followed by a clean version with all of the changes. You also have in your materials, Faculty Document 2639a, pages 42 to 44 which is the Board of Regents policy on post tenure review. So, as many of you will recall, our existing policy was the result of work of an ad hoc faculty committee, several listening sessions, and much debate in this room. And, remember that policy was approved in late 2015, and that was followed in March of 2016 by the Board of Regents passing their own overarching policy. The Regent policy requires that campus policies be submitted for approval by the end of this calendar year. Therefore, the revisions you have before you for FP&P chapter seven are the result of a review of our existing policy, the one that was approved a year ago, in light of the new Regent policy. We believe that these revisions are necessary to put our policy into compliance with the broader system policy. You will notice that there are footnotes in the markup version of this document that indicate why each change was made. We believe that these revisions keep intact the developmental focus of our policy. I'm sure that you've noticed that we were required to remove the grievance provisions from our policy. We had no choice about this, but I point out that faculty still maintain all of their existing grievance and appeal rights and moreover, the ability to request a second review is still included in the post tenure review policy. Overall, this revised policy, while changed in some ways, is still developmentally focused and allows for ample and meaningful input from the faculty members being reviewed. We look forward to your input on this first reading. And, let me point out here, so there's, they have two slides that diagram the process. So, the main element of the post tenure review is every five years after tenure, each faculty member will be reviewed, and this shows the flow of that process, that review process. And, in the event that, that significant deficiencies are identified in that review process, then there's a second process that kicks in that's on the next slide. And, in this part of the process, the faculty member, first of all, has the opportunity to request a second peer review, and they have the opportunity to develop in conjunction with their chair a remediation plan. And, this diagram outlines the process that's laid out in the document that you have for that second stage of the process in the event of, in the event that deficiencies are found in the initial review. And, at this point, this document is open for discussion, but it's not up for a vote at this meeting.

>> Comments.

>> Kurt Paulsen, District 76. This may be for the council. Two quick questions. This proposal eliminates the appeal under the theory that the Regent policy document says that this is not a grievable incident. Is there a difference between an appeal and a grievance? My understand, a grievance is a formal employment procedure where you allege that someone has violated your rights, but an appeal, the right to appeal to the Commission of Faculty Rights and Responsibilities is not grievance as such. So, I'm wondering why we need to specify that there's really no right of appeal of a decision or a finding. Should I ask my second question because it's related?

>> Sure.

>> Section nine of the old document that's eliminated says we have the right to challenge the findings of reviews. That is eliminated. Section old 11 now new 10 says "faculty member retains all rights regarding disciplinary action." And then, old 11, new nine says standard for discipline or dismissal". Is a finding of substantial deficiencies a disciplinary action?

>> No.

>> Let me introduce Ray Taffora, who's the General Counsel of the university for those of you [inaudible].

>> Sorry. No. The, that would not be considered discipline for purposes of this particular policy. It's a form. It's a form of the post tenure review for which the grievance process is not applicable. And, the Regent policy document talks in terms of specifics about the grievance process not being applicable to the post tenure review process. Doesn't say anything about appeals.

>> Because it's not a disciplinary action.

>> Correct.

>> So, I'm wondering, and if we can ask the UC. Could we have clarifying language because it's included in the section on disciplinary actions, to make it clear that a substantial deficiency, what is it, a decision, a finding? Is not a disciplinary action, and if it's not a disciplinary action that can be grieved, then why isn't there a procedure for a review outside of seeing two new peers but to be able to appeal to the Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities? Since the Regent policy out, doesn't allow us to grieve it, we can still appeal it. Am I splitting hairs?

>> Yeah. I think you might be. I wouldn't think so much in terms of the, and get caught up too much in the term appeal. What's important for these purposes is that any form of discipline still has, can still be contested under the chapter, the FPP chapter nine process, but in terms of the Regent policy document, again, speaks only to the grievability of any of the decisions that are involved in the PTR process and nothing more.

>> What I think, what the faculty want is some ability to challenge and overturn a finding of substantial deficiency, particularly because we know of cases where the finding of substantial deficiency may be based on impermissible factors, to use the language from the Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities.

>> I believe that's, that's the purpose of the allowance for a second review. So, this allows the dean to appoint a new committee, peer review committee, to review the materials and come up [inaudible].

>> And I think a question a lot of us have is whether that we believe that is adequate relative to existing protections.

>> Chad Alan Goldberg, District 71. So, I, last year I commended the University Committee on putting together what I thought was a really very good and strong policy working with the UW Madison chapter of American Association of University Professors. And, I, again, want to commend the University Committee for trying to preserve as much of that as possible within the constraints that the Regents have imposed upon us. I think that the most objectionable features of this policy are not the fault of the University Committee but are things that have been hoisted upon us by the Regents. I could go into detail about what I think those features are, but I don't think that would be very productive. I did want to raise a question for the consideration of the University Committee. So, in the revised policy, there are definitions for exceptionally good, substantial deficiencies, and so on. The Regents' policy uses this phrase "expected level of accomplishment" without, I believe, defining what that means. So, I think leaving the door open for us to define what we want to mean by that, and I'm wondering if there might be, if it might be a good idea to try to expand our definitions to make clear that what the Regents call "expected level of accomplishment" is not merely unsatisfactory, that falling below that means not merely unsatisfactory performance or even falling below current standards for the award of tenure because standards for tenure change over time. But, to really make clear that substantial deficiencies for us mean and can only mean failure to discharge conscientiously and with professional competence the duties appropriately associated with one's position. So, in other words, to make it clear that substantial deficiencies, it's the same standard as adequate cause. I'm wondering if that is something worth making explicit in our document. I suggest that for your consideration.

>> Don't take that into consideration now. Thank you.

>> Jeanne Swack, District 65. I was wondering how this might be effected by people who have had substantial life issues but in a five-year period, say medical issues, surgeries, or things that might have slowed them down a little bit compared to their normal level of productivity. How is that taken into account given what could happen in any particular five-year period, and especially as people are getting older?

>> Well, I would, I would comment that the tone of the document is intended to be developmental and supportive in nature, and, and I would be hopeful, although I don't know how to codify that.

>> There's a clear provision here, I think. But there's [inaudible].

>> Yeah. Ah.

>> I'm sorry. Sorry to keep cutting in here. There's a provision, actually, that allows the Provost to alter the five-year period and prescribe another period just for the sorts of circumstances, extraordinary circumstances that you raise.

>> As we do for the tenure clock, I would note. Yeah.

>> Christa Olson, District 55. I'm looking at section five, the confidentiality of the report. Required language from the Board of Regents document is "unless otherwise required by business necessity or law." Business necessity strikes me as something that could mean almost anything so far as the university needed it to. I'm wondering if it's possible for us to define business necessity or if because it's in the Regents document, we can't define it.

>> Where are you in the document? What page?

>> On page three, number five. It's footnote 11.

>> Ah.

>> The short answer is that we always retain the ability to further legislate unless the board has precluded us from doing so. So, here, the short answer is we could, but we couldn't to the extent that it defeats the definition, the meaning, undefined, of the Board of Regents term.

>> So, they can, can tell us that that didn't.

>> Right. The hazards are you try, they veto, comes back.

>> Might be worth considering, though, since business necessity is an incredibly broad reason to break confidentiality.

>> Yeah. Any other comments on this? You have until the first Monday in November to read through this. Just probably before then to send comments to the UC. They will be rewriting this subject to the comments that they receive and bring it back to you for a vote at the next meeting. Anything further? I have nothing further on my agenda, and I will declare this meeting at an end. Thank you all for being here.