Faculty Senate Meeting, May 2, 2016 Recording transcription >> Chancellor: I am told we have a quorum, and it is 3:30, so I'm going to call the meeting to order and ask anyone who's coming in late to just come on in and find a seat. Can I ask all of the faculty to rise as they're able for the reading of the Memorial Resolutions. And let me recognize Professor Emeritus Kent Peterson to present the Memorial Resolution for Professor Emeritus Paul Bredeson. Kent. >> Professor Emeritus Kent Peterson: Ah. Paul V. Bredeson, Emeritus Professor of Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis, exceptional leader, exceptional teacher, prolific researcher, and exemplary mentor, passed away on February 9, 2016 at the age of 69, after 52 years with his beloved Mary [clearing throat]. Excuse me. Paul had the distinguished career as a teacher, school principal, and Professor of Educational Leadership. He earned his PhD from the University of Wisconsin Madison, and after teaching at several other institutions returned here where he served for more than two decades in leadership positions as a professor and researcher. He published extensively on school leadership and professional learning, research that is still cited and used in major educational leadership programs worldwide. In all his roles he brought his intellect [clearing throat], excuse me, collaborative spirit, strong work ethic, and deep commitment to quality and service to others. He will be sorely missed by colleagues, friends, and family. Thank you. >> Chancellor: Thank you, Kent. And I want to recognize Paul's wife, Mary, and his daughter, Erica, who are with us today. Thank you for coming. [ Applause ] Let me recognize Professor Jan Greenberg to present the Memorial Resolution for Professor Emeritus Alfred Kadushin. >> Professor Jan Greenberg: Al Kadushin, the Julia C. Lathrop Distinguished Professor of Social Work, died on February 5, 2014, at the age of 97. He was an internationally renowned scholar in child welfare, social work practice, and social work education. Professor Kadushin was the author of six social work textbooks that have become classics in the field. The fifth edition of his textbook, The Social Work Interview , was published in 2013 when Al was 96. The National Association of Social Workers call Professor Kadushin a social work giant. Generations of social work students remember Al walking into the classroom lugging two large briefcases full of books and articles. He was always ready to back up his classroom teaching with the latest literature and research. A much beloved teacher, father, and husband. To this day we all recall his sharp intellect, his rigor, and sense of humor with great fondness. >> Chancellor: Let me call upon Professor John Rudolph to present the Memorial Resolution for Professor Emeritus Herbert Kliebard. >> Professor John Rudolph: Herbert M. Kliebard was the leading historian of the American curriculum. After receiving his doctorate at Teachers College Columbia University he joined our faculty in 1963 and taught his entire career in the Departments of Curriculum and Instruction and Educational Policy Studies. He was a premier scholar and inspiring mentor. Students flocked to his courses in Curriculum Planning and to his seminars on John Dewey. He was the author of numerous field [inaudible] books and dozens of articles. His most famous was The Struggle for the American Curriculum, 1893 to 1958 , which is still the best-seller in the field. >> Chancellor: Thank you. And let me recognize Professor Andreas Friedl to present the Memorial Resolution for Professor Emeritus Terry Oberley. >> Professor Andreas Friedl: Terry DeWayne Oberley, MD, PhD, was a member of the faculty of the Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine from 1977 until his death on October 15, 2013 at the age of 67. He earned Bachelor of Arts, MD, and PhD degrees at Northwestern University. Dr. Oberley directed the Renal Pathology Service and the Electron Microscopy Laboratory at UW and VA hospitals for many years, briefly served as Interim Chair of the Pathology Department, and later as Vice Chair for Research. He was a well-respected scientist whose productive research career focused on reactive oxygen species and [inaudible] cancer. >> Chancellor: Thank you very much. That concludes the Memorial Resolutions. You may be seated. And you're welcome to stay but you do not need to. If everyone is seated, we have an unusually large crowd today. I can't imagine why. I'm going to recognize Chad Goldberg who looks like he wants to speak. >> Chad Goldberg: Thank you, Chancellor. I'd like to move to -- >> Chancellor: Please identify yourself formally. >> Chad Goldberg: Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you for reminding me. Chad Alan Goldberg, District 71. I'd like to move to suspend the orders of the day and immediately take up Items 10, 11, and 12, in succession, on the agenda. >> Chancellor: This is not debatable. Does it need a second? I need a second for this. All right. So the proposal is to take up Items 11 and 12, and I will tell you already that -- >> It's 10, 11 -- >> Chancellor: Ten, 11. >> Chad Goldberg: It's 10, 11, and 12. >> Chancellor: All right. And I will tell you already that Item 11 has been withdrawn and is going to be brought to the October meeting. So we're essentially be taking up Items 10 and 12 immediately rather than at their point in the agenda. Everyone understands that this is not a debatable motion. We vote and we need a two-thirds vote to move these items forward in the agenda. All right? All those in favor of the motion to move those items forward indicate by saying aye. >> Aye. >> Any opposed? >> No. >> That carries with a two-thirds majority. All right. That brings us then immediately to Agenda Item 10 which can be found on page 29. This is a resolution and I think I'm looking for Professor Chris Walker to present that. >> Professor Chris Walker: Good afternoon. Chris Walker, District 33. I move Faculty Senate Document 2628 to Resolution on Cultural Competency. >> Chancellor: Is there a second? >> Second. >> Chancellor: A second. Do you want to speak to the motion? >> Professor Chris Walker: This motion is in response to a shifting campus. As the University of Wisconsin Madison campus becomes more diversified both in our faculty, in our staff, in our students, and, of course, in our thinking, what we've seen over the last couple of years are challenges to sharing space and negotiating space that presents itself in awful, sometimes hateful, acts. What this resolution is attempting to do is to level the playing field so that we are all, I like to say, tooled with the resources to be able to engage each other moving our scholarship forward as we've been known to do. >> Chancellor: Very good. Is there discussion of this item? >> John Sharpless, District 60. I'm an alternate and I don't know if my person is here. I guess he is not, so maybe I'm allowed to speak. >> Chancellor: Well, you'd be allowed to speak anyway. But you can speak -- >> Well, thank you very much. >> Chancellor: -- as a member of the Senate without [laughter]. >> I'd like to express some reservations about this resolution, not in its overall purpose which is, of course, laudatory. No one should feel that they come to this campus at risk or feels uncomfortable on a regular basis. That would be completely inappropriate at the University of Wisconsin or any campus. Over the past 20 years the faculty has by and large voted against mandatory diversity training. And they have so for a variety of reasons. It has a lot to do with the way in which such programs are run. I'm a bit surprised that this is being passed without looking at a curriculum while looking at the kind of training that will go for the people who will run it and the actual cost to the university. Thank you very much. >> Chancellor: Is there other discussion? >> I'd like to respond if I may. Already the Schools of Engineering, the College of Letter of Sciences, School of Human Ecology, School of Education, and School of Nursing are engaged in processes from the faculty, from the ground up. I'm talking about cultural competency. So what we're looking at and what we're hoping to do is to leverage the resources that already exist on our campus. If we say this is school we want to be as a campus, we can do it. And we do that through legislating activities. We do that through mandating activities that we all have to participate in. This isn't coming from top down even though it's brought to the Senate. But there's a groundswell of faculty support from various schools. >> Chancellor: Thank you. >> Hi. Christy Clarke Pujara, District 73, African American Studies. I'm speaking on behalf of my colleagues who wanted to know about the enforcement of this. The question was raised -- well, not the question. But the point was raised that those who probably are in need of this training the most would be the least likely to participate, and what we could do to encourage those people to participate. Is there a way to tie diversity training to promotion? >> Dan Vimont, Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, District 64. I am speaking in support of this motion. I think for a couple of reasons. First of all, I think as educators that we all, in our daily basis, learn about how we can be better educators and fulfill the mission of this university. This is another tool that will provide us that opportunity to do so. Perhaps most importantly the intent of the resolution is clear. But the way that it is being enacted I think is important here. As a faculty we are stepping up and saying we think this is important. This is not something that is being mandated to us. It's something that we are stepping forward and saying this is important to us, and we are committed to making a culture on this campus that is inclusive and supportive of all of our students. So I'm arguing in support of this resolution. >> Chancellor: Thank you. Is there any other discussion? >> Tu Yu, District 55, English Department. I am strongly in support of this resolution. I definitely believe that, and I want to thank Professor Walker for introducing it. I do just want to make sure though that our discussion about cultural competency on the campus does go beyond professional training and does think much more broadly about the curriculum and incorporating issues of diversity in thinking about race and racial inequality into the curriculum. So not just for faculty but for students as well, such as considering some of the discussed proposals that have been made to expand Ethnic Studies and strengthen Ethnic Studies on the campus. I think that can make a significant contribution to building cultural competency on the campus. Thank you. >> Chancellor: Yes. Anyone else? If we're ready vote -- no [inaudible]? >> Hello. Lisa Everett, District 67. One point that was brought up about questions of this resolution in my department was in regards to the support of it at the campus level. So does this require extra layers of administrative resources or deans or things of that type? And how is that going to be funded? I think it was spoken to before and I understand about the ground up, but I think that part of it, instead of committing to something which is not particularly well-defined at the moment, maybe the only thing that might be giving some people pause and, therefore, it was something I thought to bring up again that maybe sharpening that would just make everything feel more comfortable. >> Professor Sims, are you here? Yes. I want to speak to the activities that are already happening [inaudible], already happening in schools and colleges, and that it is important for this to happen that we are looking at what we're already doing. We're looking at what can happen in our courses naturally. We're looking at creative ways of making sure that this is a cultural shift and not an activity that is put in one time and you leave it behind. And so I do not know that I have the answer that will make every individual comfortable. What I do know is that we did not build it before they came. And what I do know is that we have an opportunity. You, I, and everybody in this room are in a particular position of privilege to be able to now put in the infrastructure to build it. What I do know is that Professor Sims' office exists as a space on campus that will be responsible for bringing together that research, to leverage the research on this campus. All of those reservations should be in the plans going forward. I'm a part of group that the Chancellor has just convened that is reviewing the diversity proposals submitted. A lot of those proposals have great creative ideas about saving dollars as well. So it's looking at this broad spectrum of ideas and finding what would best work for this UW Madison. Thank you. >> I'll just add -- thank you. >> Chancellor: Can you identify yourself. >> Patrick Sims, Faculty Member, Theater and Drama Vice Provost, Chief Diversity Officer. Much of what Chris has already communicated was what I was hoping to share with you. This will be a collaborative process, so the extent to which you will have something coming down from on high dictating an approach that does not have faculty support or buy-in is not the way we get the groundswell that we've already seen around this effort. My office will work very closely with an ad hoc advisory committee to identify what that intervention or that experience will look like. We will take into consideration many of the proposals that have come through the campus climate website. We'll also capitalize on the fact that we have tremendous scholarship in this area already here on our campus. So colleagues that are here, Professor Jerlando Jackson, Marcus Brauer, Trish Devine. I can name a whole host of other folks whose scholarship would be great tools and resources for us to look to, to build something that is meaningful for all faculty, that creates the kind of experience that we want our students to have in the classroom. There are a number of ideas that I think would generate, I hope, support. And to the extent that we're really needing to sort of put our money where our mouth is, and in terms of our faculty, our most precious resource, our time, this isn't to be viewed as an add-on. We're hoping to bake this into processes that are already in place. We're wanting to walk the walk of excellence in such a way that we embed this activity in more meaningful spaces that capitalize on our spheres of influence. So that's what we're hoping. And we will be in collaboration with faculty on that process. So, thank you. >> Chancellor: If I can just say a word about this. I didn't see this resolution until this weekend, so I'm not, you know, was not involved in putting this together. But we've obviously had discussions about training resources. And one thing I believe the Provost is doing this summer is looking to hire someone to really look at what are the range of programs out there being used in this university, what are the range of programs some of our nearby similar universities are using, and put together a set of resources. I personally would be very opposed to a one-size-fits-all mandatory training which I think most evaluations suggest is not very effective, even in a much more uniform culture than this one. But I hope that we will by the end of the summer have resources that schools, colleges, departments can take and choose among and then we need to evaluate and see how those work and collect feedback and continue to tweak and move forward. But I'm also waiting to see what comes out of these proposals so, you know, before we actually move we want to see what the suggestions are coming from faculty and staff. So that's what we're working on, on a parallel track while Chris was working on this resolution. Are there other comments? John. >> John Rudolph: Just a clarification. So you're recommending we postpone this until fall after we've seen the [inaudible] -- >> Chancellor: Oh, I wasn't recommending that at all. I was just letting you know what we're working on in the Provost's office, in Patrick's office. And I, you know, I think the proposal is to have an intention, intentional statement out there and I don't want to speak to that. That is the -- >> John Rudolph: But we will know more in the fall. >> Chancellor: I can't speak to that. I would not bring a resolution to this body that would be coming from someone here. Anyone else who wants to speak? If you are ready to vote, this is a majority vote. Everyone in favor of the resolution as you see it up in front of you, indicate by saying aye. >> Aye. >> Anyone opposed? I'm going to say that the ayes carry that one. And the next item on the agenda is item 11. And I should note that the faculty members behind this agenda item have decided they'd like to withdraw it and introduce it at a later Senate session, so unless there's an objection we'll move on to item 12. All right. Item 12, Chad Goldberg. >> Chad Goldberg: Chad Alan Goldberg, District 71. So I would like to move faculty -- the adoption of Faculty Document 2630-Revised and that's the document that's being displayed up there. And I can highlight for all of you the important changes from the document that was originally included in the packet for Senators at the appropriate time. >> Chancellor: Is there a second? >> I'd like to second the motion. >> Chancellor: Okay. Would you like to speak to it, Chad? >> Chad Goldberg: Sure. So the resolution is different in the following ways. The revised version is different in the following ways. Some of the whereas clauses have been moved up or down, which I don't think really makes a big difference. The most important changes are at the end. So, let's see. The last four clauses are, you know, new or changed. So the clause that begins, "Whereas affordable tuition, adequate budget, strong tenure, and shared governance" -- that's new. The clause immediately following that, "Whereas the erosion of active shared governance" -- that's new. The first Resolved clause, that has been changed. The wording is a little bit different now. The wording is changed to emphasize the actions of UW system President Ray Cross and the Board of Regents and their commitment or lack of commitment. And then the final Resolve clause, that is entirely new. That was not in the document that was originally provided in the packet for Faculty Senators. So those are the most important changes. >> Chancellor: Can everyone read these changes or do we need to read them aloud to people? I don't know how well people can see the screen in the back of the room. >> They have it. >> They have it. >> Chancellor: Everybody's got a copy of the revised resolution. All right. Good. All right. >> Chad Goldberg: Can I speak in favor of the resolution? >> Chancellor: Yes. >> Chad Goldberg: All right. So colleagues, I realize that this is a controversial motion and a controversial resolution. And I realize that there's going to be some disagreement in this room. I would just urge all of us to conduct our debate with mutual respect. Let me lay out to you the reasons why I think we should adopt this resolution. A world-class university depends on the free exchange of ideas. And the free exchange of ideas must include the possibility of criticizing university administrators and, yes, even the regents when we think they are doing harm to the university's academic and educational mission, when they are weakening the institutions that we need to do our jobs to serve our students and the people of this state effectively. Indeed, as the custodians of this university's academic and educational activities, the faculty have a responsibility to speak out under these circumstances to educate the public about the damage being done and to try to preserve and protect the quality of the education we strive to provide for our students and the people of this state. You've been warned that this resolution will damage our relationship with President Ray Cross and the Regents. In fact, that relationship is already damaged. It was damaged by their failure to substantially reduce budget cuts and to adequately protect academic due process and shared governance. Indeed, over the past year they have actively contributed to the erosion of academic due process and shared governance. As you may have heard, the threat of a no confidence vote has already induced President Cross to offer possible pay hikes. Ray Cross just doesn't get it. This isn't about pay. Not for the faculty at any rate. There's not a single line about salaries in this resolution. If Ray Cross wants to raise pay, great. He should start with the university's lowest-paid employees. This resolution is about protecting academic due process, shared governance, and adequate funding. The institutional pillars that are indispensable for a world-class education and a world-class university. You've been warned that this resolution will provoke a political backlash. In fact, we are already the target of political hostility. We have been for a long time. And this hostility is very likely to continue with or without the resolution because our actions are not what is primarily driving this hostility. Colleagues, if fear of political reprisal or retaliation prevents us from simply speaking our minds, then our academic freedom's already lost. This resolution was not prepared hastily or lightly. It was prepared reluctantly. It reflects input from many colleagues. It is the culmination of mounting frustration with a long series of events in which we have tried to work with the System President and the Regents, only to be rebuffed. And some of those events are detailed in the resolution itself. Adlai Stevenson once said that the Wisconsin tradition means more than a simple belief in the people. It also means a faith in the application of intelligence and a reason to the problems of society. It means a deep conviction that the role of government is not to stumble along like a drunkard in the dark, but to light its way by the best torches of knowledge and understanding it can find. Others out of hostility or fecklessness, I believe, are dimming the light of this great state university. I do not know whether we can reverse that course, but we should try. But I ask you, "Do not go gentle into that good night." [ Applause ] >> Judith Briston, District 48. So I'd like to speak specifically to the actions of this Senate at our last meeting where we specifically supported a policy that we had written with respect to layoff of tenured faculty and non-tenured faculty. And we requested that the Regents either adopt our policy as written or send it back to us for modification if they felt that it did not meet their requirements. And, in fact, what they did was something very different actually from what I think anyone might have expected. Not only did they modify our policy themselves, but they reached into parts of our Faculty Policies and Procedures that we had neither presented them with nor asked for their comment on. And they superseded those policies with their actions. And these policies relate to the discontinuation of academic programs. So the Regents have, for the first time that I know of in the history of the university, reached in and directly modified our Faculty Policies and Procedures. I am supremely uncomfortable with that action and I -- in that because of that I support this particular motion. [ Applause ] >> Chancellor: Bill, I think you had the microphone first. >> Okay. Thank you. Bill Tracy, District 4. Friends, I strongly support the resolution. I'm not going to be able to say it as eloquently as Chad, but I do have a few remarks. I know many of you, and I've heard a lot. I talked to a lot of people. I know many of you are concerned about backlash. And while this resolution has nothing to do with the legislature or the governor, your concerns are primarily about backlash, so let me address that first. The current legislature and state administration are not only are budget each [inaudible] but they have prevented tuition increases. The total cuts to the UW system during the Walker years have been $795 million. Who can imagine a cut that size without tuition increases? Who can image the effects of a cut that size without tuition increases on access, affordability, and quality? In my opinion they have deliberately managed the budget so that every biennium we have a deficit and education needs to be cut. Please note that our state's current economic indicators predict the next budget cycle will be the same or worse compared to Minnesota and what's going on there. As a matter of fact, I know at least three faculty members who are going to Minnesota from -- are leaving here. Also note that the headline in yesterday's State Journal announcing that income taxes have saved Wisconsin taxpayers $424 million. Remember, these cut to the entire UW system last biennium or this biennium was 250 million. According to the State Journal an average tax-filer making $50,000 per year saw an average cut of $160. Surely that's worth dismantling the UW system. There are many in current state government who do not believe in public education let alone public higher education, and they do not need to find an excuse to continue cutting. They will already have the excuse because the budget deficits will force their hand. They clearly don't care about quality scholarship and developing an educated and critical-thinking citizenry prepared to participate in democracy. Recall what happened in the last budget when the governor removed in proving the human condition from our mission and replaced it with work force development. If public education must exist it needs to train low-paid workers as recently articulated by an assemblyman, I believe it was just last week, who said that our students, system students, expect to make too much money and they're too entitled. Apparently, according to him, UW Madison is not training enough middle manufacturing professionals. I believe the majority of the Regents have been picked because they agree with the above philosophy. I have no choice because all their actions have confirmed this belief. What of the motion before us? What will it mean if the Senate votes down the motion of no confidence? It clearly means that the faculty of the University of Wisconsin Madison has confidence in the way the system has been managed by the President and the Regents. We, the faculty, are fine with punitive budget cuts, an unwillingness to make clear to the public the damage that those cuts have incurred. We're fine with them gutting governance, weakening tenure. We're fine with draining our reserves which have numerous severe consequences that the public will never know. We're fine with President Cross telling our Chancellor that Madison could make its own rules and then throwing her under the bus by denying us the ability that he promised. And we're fine with our Madison faculty representatives on April 7th being forced to say they were okay with the changes proposed by the Regents even though they did not have time to consider them. Yes, this really happened. Honestly, I'm not okay with any of this and I'll be surprised if you are. We're the stewards, as Chad said, we're the stewards of this university. It is our responsibility to defend it and tell the Regents and the public that serious damage has been done. Have you followed the downward trend in our rankings over the last five years? This is what our resolution does, is basically tells people that there's an enormous problem. We have been fighting the active and deliberate dismantling of public higher education since 2011. And this vote won't end it. But I think it's time for all supporters of the university to stop thinking that meek acquiescence is a winning strategy. Finally recognizing that this is a representative democracy and that you've been talking to your constituents, and I don't think because your constituents aren't here, they're not hearing the debate, so they may not be as well informed. What I want to remind you of is in 2001, if Russ Feingold polled his constituents in this state and asked them whether they were in favor of the Patriot Act, I'm sure 75% or more would have said yes. But he was the only Senator that voted no. And he'll go down in history for that act of courage. I ask you to do the same. [ Applause ] >> So I'm Michael Kissick, District 88, and I'm speaking in favor of the resolution. For me the tenure issue was really just the final straw so I spend a few hours this afternoon listening to transcripts and watching video of the Board of Regents meeting in March. And some things really struck me, and let me tell you what they are. For one thing, we don't make widgets here. What we make is the theory behind why all widgets work. And in doing so we generate tens of billions of dollars in economic activity for the state. We don't cost the state money. We generate wealth for the state. Yet the Board seems to treat us as though we're costing the state money. So our leadership is in essence letting us sway with the political winds of the day. And this is totally in opposition to -- really what we are is intellectual infrastructure for the state. It's not just teaching and training students to go out and get a job. We are creators, stewards, and disseminators of knowledge. And that's seems to have been completely lost on this Board of Regents. And finally, when I hear Regent Behling say flexibility, flexibility, flexibility, you know in my mind what I hear is short-term thinking, short-term thinking, short-term thinking. This is not going to make the UW healthy. This is really important that we vote no confidence. Our leadership is screwing up. [ Applause ] >> David Bart, District 7, Landscape Architecture. It's not that I actually fear reprisal. I really don't fear reprisal. Those who think I would don't know me. It's not that I'm against -- that I have confidence in the Board of Regents or in Cross. I don't. but I think right now when we vote on this as worded right now, the problem is, is that we're not actually going to tell the people of Wisconsin exactly what we do for them. It sounds like we're complaining about our situation without actually getting across to the people of Wisconsin exactly what is at stake for them. Now I'm happy with some of the amendments that have gone into this, but I wish those would be put forward more central. That the idea that it will impact education, it will impact our ability to instruct and to teach people how to be the innovators that the economy will need later. So I'm not against this but I think that maybe if we were to play our cards right, a differently worded one, perhaps we could actually do more than just express that we're angry and actually go out there and tell the people of Wisconsin exactly what this means. [ Applause ] >> I'm [inaudible], District 52. So we had eloquent representation from the people who support this motion to the degree of how the Regents are evaluating the process, the tenure, the language, and so on. And they made a case. But that's not what we are voting today. We are voting no confidence to the Regents and the question is to what end? What we are trying to achieve by this specific no confidence. There are many, many other alternatives to present our disagreement with the way the Regents are pursuing this particular process. And no confidence is a very extreme way to go where we put a belligerent face of saying we are fighting, we are fighting forward. We are not the labor union of the faculty. There is no labor union for the faculty. Some of us in the last two years repeatedly presented opinions to us that sounded like the primary care of the Senate is the welfare of the faculty. The primary care of the Senate is to devote its energy and dedication to the mission and the vision of this university, to the excellent, to the retaining of faculty, to the developing and bringing new faculty. Bringing new faculty where the headlines are is that we are fighting our Board of Regents, that we are presenting no confidence instead of engaging in whatever discussion we can. I think that the motion of no confidence, not the substance behind this motion, but the motion itself of no confidence does not serve the needs of this university and it's not the choice between [inaudible] and fear like one faculty who spend out e-mail last week proclaimed. Is the choice between doing things that are contrary to the interest of our university and doing the common sense. And I urge the faculty to vote against this motion. [ Applause ] >> Amy Wendt, District 36, and a member of the University Committee. I would like to make a motion or - >> Chancellor: Concerning an amendment? >> I would like to propose an amendment. >> Chancellor: All right. >> And the text may come up here. So I -- this is - would be a Whereas to add at the end of the Whereases. Whereas a primary function of the University to aid our students in the development of the critical thinking skills they will bring to bear on their personal experiences and the challenges faced by human society is impaired when the authority for the educational direction of the University may be wielded to suppress instruction in areas that are deemed risky or controversial. >> Chancellor: All right. We have an amendment on the floor and the discussion will be on the amendment only until that is voted on. Are there comments on the amendment? >> Can I -- >> Chancellor: Yeh, why don't you -- >> -- speak to the -- >> Chancellor: You want to? Yeh. >> Okay. This has been an extraordinary year. The actions of the Wisconsin Legislature and the UW Board of Regents affecting our tenure policies are unprecedented. And the process has been heavy-handed. I understand the concerns about the process expressed in this resolution. But I would like now to speak to the substance of the changes in FPMP adopted by the Board of Regents last month. As a member of the University Committee I've had the opportunity over the last months to speak one-on-one with faculty, administrators, legal counsel, and members of the Board of Regents. From those discussions I have concluded, pursue verses consider notwithstanding, that the most substantive impact of the new policies is the erosion of the role of faculty in establishing the academic programs that define the educational opportunities we provide our students. Specifically, the new policy allows for faculty layoffs in the case of program closure due to financial or educational considerations. We have heard the desire that the University play a greater role in job training in the state, that we need more workers with STEM skills. As an engineer, I'm an advocate for STEM literacy not just for future STEM workers, but for everyone because of the prominent role of technology in today's society. However, our world is a complex place. We need much more than STEM skills to ensure quality of life and dignity for all the inhabitants of this planet. Our strengths are both in the depth and the breadth of our disciplines. And as a diverse body of scholars it is the faculty who are best suited to guide the creation or closure of academic programs at the University. I worry that, as it stands, the resolution will reinforce the perception that faculty are arrogant elitists who resist workplace accountability. The more accurate description of our role here is that we are stewards seeking to preserve an institution created to seek solutions to the challenges faced by humanity. Thank you. [ Applause ] >> Chancellor: We have an amendment on the floor. Is there anyone who would like to speak to the amendment and to the amendment only? >> Judith Briston, District 48. I would like to support this amendment as being very much in keeping with what I was saying earlier about the -- each of the Regents into our FPMP. >> Chancellor: Others. >> David Bart, District 7, Landscape Architecture. I support the amendment. >> Chancellor: Raise the microphone so people can [inaudible]. >> I support the amendment and actually would like to see that [inaudible]. Right up front, right up top as the first thing. >> Chancellor: So anyone else who wants to speak to the amendment? >> Paul Milenkovic, District 36, Electrical and Computer Engineering. I would want to put into the record that one of the -- not the sole, but an important stakeholder in the role of the University in terms of critical thinking, non-STEM critical thinking, is the one institution in our country charged with our national safety, the Armed Forces. I have men and women in uniform in my classroom. I'm an engineer. But it is an important part of officer training, not just to train their officers in higher education, disciplines as engineers, but in liberal studies, social studies, and that watering down our dealing with critical thinking and controversial subject matter will have a negative impact on our national defense. >> Chancellor: Is there anyone else who wants to speak to the amendment? If not, if you are ready to vote -- oh, yeh. Go ahead. >> Hi, my name is Laura Schwendinger and I'm from District 65, the School of Music. And I'm wondering if we can add one more word to the amendment. Is that a possibility? >> Chancellor: Amend the amendment which will then require another second. Okay. Go ahead. >> Well, I worry about the areas that are deemed risky or controversial and I worry that they do not include those that are considered -- I hate to say this word, but frivolous, such as liberal arts, music, literature, those areas that are considered non-technical. But I can tell you as a composer they're highly technical. They just don't make machines. We make machines that are -- >> Chancellor: Can you tell us what your amendment is first? >> Well -- >> Chancellor: What are you adding? >> Risky, controversial, or frivolous? No? >> Undervalued? >> Undervalued, perhaps? Unpopular? Non-remunerative someone just said here [laughter]. >> Unpopular. [ Inaudible Speakers ] Deemed not necessary. I think actually not necessary might -- >> Chancellor: That probably [inaudible]. >> -- be the wrong way to go. [ Inaudible Speaker ] Without short-term deliverables? [ Laughter ] >> Chancellor: We have to have an amendment on the floor. Do you want to propose the specific word? >> I'm going to suggest that one, without non short-term deliverables. >> Chancellor: Is there a second to that? >> It's not beautiful but. >> Chancellor: I hear a second. Is there any discussion on that? This is the amendment to the amendment which we were discussing only the addition of those four words. >> Chancellor: Yeh, Bill. >> Tangible values. Tangible value. >> Chancellor: We cannot amend an amendment further, okay? So we're going to have to vote on this change and then move forward. Yeh, so, comments on this change. >> Economic before deliverables. I get all kinds of short-term deliverables. >> Chancellor: Okay. So let me clear. We can't amend an amendment another time. So you're going to have to vote of these words which have been made and seconded. Then if someone wants to produce another amendment we can do that. But we have to work -- vote on these words at this point in time. Are there comments on this? >> Dan Vimont, District 64 -- >> Chancellor: Yeh. >> -- Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences. It's my impression that risky or controversial -- that the topics that you're bringing up can be seen by some people as risky or controversial. And while I support the intent, I don't support the amendment. >> Chancellor: All right. Anyone want to speak further to these four words? >> I'm Claude Woods, District 48. I'd like to speak against the amendment to the amendment because I think the amendment itself was very carefully worded and is a very important thing. And it shouldn't be changed without thinking through the consequences of the change. I support all of the music instruction and sound. I just don't believe that we need to wordsmith this in this way. I would say we vote down the amendment to the amendment and then vote on the amendment which I'm [inaudible]. >> Chancellor: Any other discussion on these four words? The amendment to the amendment? If not, are you ready to vote? All those in favor of adding these four words to the amendment indicate by saying aye. All those opposed to adding these four words, indicate by saying no. >> No. >> Chancellor: All right. The amendment fails. The amendment to the amendment fails, and we're back to the original addition here, which is the original amendment. Are there further comments on this amendment? >> I'm Anthony Ahora [assumed spelling], District 151, and I was going to propose to add after "personal experiences, "their future careers." >> Chancellor: So this is a proposed amendment to add "or their future careers." Is there a second to that? I'm not getting a second. If there's no second, the proposal will fail. All right. We're back at the original amendment again. Would anyone like to speak to that? Are you ready to vote on this amendment as written and covered in blue here? It's going to be a yes vote if you support adding it to the document, a no vote if you don't. All right. All those in favor of adding the amendment to the document signify by saying aye. >> Aye. >> Chancellor: Are there any opposed? In that case, the amendment is added. And we're now back to the full and original document, to have discussion of that. Yes. >> Claude Woods, District 48. I would like to speak in support of the document, the motion. I, first of all, would like to give you the slight history of mine that I have been here -- I have one difference from some of you. I've been here 49 years. In a week or so I will finish off 49 years on the faculty. And so I actually remember a time when there was no Faculty Senate. Of course, several years that I was here we had faculty meetings which were boisterous affairs, sometimes with more than 2000 people in attendance filling up the University Union Theater and overflowing into the great hall of the Memorial Union. We were discussing things like the Vietnam War, the National Guard troops with bayonets on campus, the TAA strike, and many other things. It was messy and we had long debates. Sometimes -- we usually met on Friday afternoons. Sometimes we went into the night until 9 o'clock. We had meetings on Saturday morning. >> Chancellor: I'm going to ask you to get to your statement about this amendment if you can. >> We voted. And when we voted that was it. That was the way the University policy went forward. The thing that happened when we did form the Faculty Senate, it became quite gentile and the motions worded so carefully, and there's little opportunity for changing them and it sort of became a debating society. And I don't think the faculty governance has ever been as strong since we had the Faculty Senate as it was before. In those days the faculty really did run this place. Also, it was very controversial. People didn't like what we were doing. The people that were at the other ends of State Street and out in the communities, they said that we were radicals and that we were making trouble and didn't understand the great -- the silent majority at the time. All that. So this has all been there before. What we have seen in the last seven years is the damage done to the University is more than in the other 42 years put together. And so the University has taken it on the chin over and over and over again in the last seven years. And I think, in general, I would say that the Faculty Senate has been not as responsive to that as they should have been. I think, while I agree with this motion, I don't think the whole problem goes down to President Cross and the Regents. I think we need to look at ourselves a little bit. I for one am glad that we're finally, maybe if we pass this resolution, getting back to where we actually say what we think and we make a strong statement and we explain to the people of this state, for instance, why we are making this motion and why it's so darn important. And I think the real core of that is academic freedom. I think if you think we're just making slight procedural changes and that we're a little annoyed at [inaudible] them, you'd miss the point. The people that are pressing for these changes in the tenure policy, they are the budget crisis. They have caused the budget crisis. And they are going to keep causing it. And if you're doing research like me, which is in molecules in outer space, they probably don't care what you're doing and your academic freedom is not in peril. If you're studying global warming or gun control or the necessity for abortion or any other controversial thing that they don't like, then you might be in trouble. You may be a couple of steps ahead of the passenger pigeon. So I think it is a very serious attack on our academic freedom to be in favor of controversial things, to speak out on controversy. >> Chancellor: So we have a lot of people waiting. And I want to ask you to wrap it up. >> I'm saying I would just like to say we really need to vote on this and approve it. >> Thank you. [ Applause ] I cannot impose time limits on speakers but I will encourage speakers to understand we do have a lot of people waiting to talk. Yeh. >> I'm Eric Sandgren, Faculty Member from the School of Veterinary Medicine. Some of you will know me for better or worse as the Former Director of Research, Animal Resources Center. And I have to admit that I had concerns about the initial resolution as it was presented. Some was shared with you early-on. It seemed that a no confidence vote was a dead end. But the changes, I think, are precisely what we need and precisely address that problem. Right now the no confidence is in the actions of a series of individuals. It's not in those people themselves. And, in fact, the next resolved describes how we would like those individuals to work with us to move forward to reverse the damage and to strengthen the system. And one of the things that I learned as Director at RARC was that by finding common ground very often you can make progress on controversial issues. And I think in this case the common ground is a love of the University of Wisconsin system, and I think that's shared by most people around the state, and one way or another I think it's shared by many members of the Board and the Legislature. And I think we need to stress that, move forward with that, and that's what this resolution does. So I speaking for -- in favor of it. [ Applause ] >> Chris Wells, District 61, Journalism/ Mass Communication. I move to amend. And, Steve, we've offered some language. But let me begin by saying my co-Senator and I consulted with our department and we found broad support for the measure. But also concerns about likely sort of strategic implications along the lines of what the Chancellor has expressed in the present elsewhere. Nonetheless we did feel that if the Faculty Senate is going to produce this piece of communication that's going to be shared with the people of the state, as a previous speaker said, we really felt that it needs to be more closely tied to what this University provides to the state of Wisconsin. This is not only about the conditions under which we work, although that is certainly the case. The importance of tenure and shared governance are first and foremost important because of what they offer to our students and to the state of Wisconsin. So for that reason we propose to amend the resolution by adding only the first four of these Whereas clauses which we intend to serve as a broader introduction, a preamble, that sets the tone for the document. As it is, the document is quite heavily focused on some of the -- somewhat narrow language around what tenure means and what has happened to tenure. And that is important. But as scholars of communication, we're also concerned about the first Whereas clause. Starting with tenure, this document for many people is going to be about tenure. It's not about tenure. It's about what the University means and what the principles of the University have provided for the University for years. >> Chancellor: So let me be clear on what your amendment is. You're proposing to add four clauses and replace all the Whereases, or just add these to the front of the Whereases? >> Add these to the front of the statement. >> Chancellor: So we're adding four Whereases at the front of the statement, and the rest of the statement remains as it is. That is the proposed amendment. Is there a second for that amendment? >> Second. >> All right. We're now having discussion on that amendment only. Are there comments on that amendment? I'm not seeing any. Are you ready to vote on the amendment? Yeh, Bill. >> Well, there are a few things that I -- Bill Tracy, District 4. There are few things that I dread more than wordsmithing in the Faculty Senate. I really like this. And I really like Amy's. And I think it's a better document. >> Chancellor: Are there any other comments on this amendment? Well. >> Dean Moser, 97. It seems to me that in that fourth one, it should have "by their actions" if we're going to make it succinct with what we have added in -- I mean the amendment [inaudible] earlier. >> Chancellor: So I'm sorry. Are you [inaudible]. >> Okay. So I'm proposing that we amend this amendment to put "by their actions" have [inaudible] weakening of these traditions. Okay. Because we say "by their actions" at the -- later on in this motion or -- >> Chancellor: So this is the addition of three words in the fourth Whereas. Is there a second to that? >> Second. >> Chancellor: All right. We're now discussing the amendment to the amendment. We're discussing the three words that have just been added, "by their actions." Is there any comment on that? >> It's as much inaction as action [laughter]. >> Chancellor: Any other comments? Are you ready to vote on the amendment to the amendment? So we're voting on the addition of those three words. All those in favor of adding those three words to the amendment, indicate by saying yes. >> Yes. >> Chancellor: Any opposed? I'm going to say the yeses carry that one. We now are back to the amendment which is the addition of these four Whereases at the front of the document. Is that any further discussion of that amendment? >> Michael Kissick, District 88. I think it's important to have something in front of the way it starts right now. This would be a good choice. It was also suggested that Amy wants Whereas would go to the front as well. But something should start this off more than tenure because I don't think tenure is necessarily the focus of us here. It's not mine. >> Chancellor: Any other comments on this amendment? All right. If you vote yes, you will add these four Whereases to the front of the document leaving the rest of the document intact. All those in favor indicate by saying aye. >> Aye. >> Chancellor: Any opposed? The amendment carries and we're now back to the full document as amended. Is there discussion on the full document as amended? >> Chad Goldberg: Chad Alan Goldberg, District 71. I'll keep my remarks as brief as possible. I just want to respond to two things that I've heard colleagues say that I must respectfully disagree with. The first thing that I heard is that there is no labor union for the faculty. I'm sorry, but that's not correct. There is a labor union for the faculty. It's United Faculty and Academic Staff, AFT Local 223. I'm a proud member. I've been a member for years. [ Applause ] The second point. I've heard concerns that this resolution, if it passes, will make it harder to attract and retain faculty. I think it's actually just the opposite. If I was beginning my career, if I was an assistant professor and I was thinking about coming to the University of Wisconsin, what would make me want to come to this University is to see that my future colleagues are standing up for the things that make this University great. This would be a selling point for me, not something that would discourage me from coming here. [ Applause ] >> Ryan Mayhew, District 24, School of Business. I want to raise two points and then make a proposed amendment that will get us somewhere. First of all, in the School of Business, very few faculty support -- in fact, none that have talked to me -- the idea of no confidence. Many of the other concerns raised today, nearly all they would support 100%. We raised two other issues that are implied by the actions of the Board of Regents and the President. The weakening of tenure increases risk to faculty. We know in our Finance Department that when you increase risk you must also increase return. That is nearly an ironclad rule. What that means in very practical sense is that when we are attacked by other schools trying to pick off our faculty, we will have to pay them more to keep them. And when we go out to recruit new faculty we will have to pay them more to recruit them. That is a real and tangible cost. I heard on the radio this morning, those who argue against the -- argue for these standards that will save us money. It will most certainly not. And I want to make sure that's clear on the record. Secondly, very much in the spirit of collaborative governance, when a group of leaders makes decisions and doesn't talk to its people that these decisions apply to, they're most likely going to make poor decisions. Again, I confirmed with the head of our Management Department today. We don't teach that in Management. We teach talk to your employees, get their input, and do the best you can. You can't always make them a hundred percent happy, but to ignore them as it has been implied, and I believe the resolution on this point, is bad management. So in the end though, I'd like to try to move us forward. I think the real issue here is the words no confidence. I personally am against including those words in this statement. Again I believe I'm representing my faculty in the School of Business on this. I think tomorrow morning, if those words are in there, that's what will be the headline. And I know my friends and family living out in the sticks of Wisconsin will view that as us being whiney and crabby and hurt that our tenure's been hurt. And that's not what we mean. I know it isn't. I'm here every month. I hear what we talk about. We care about this University. So many of the things in here are very positive and speak well of how we can engage with the Regents even if they won't engage with us. So with that in mind, I'd like to propose removing the paragraph -- to do this right, you have to leave "It's hereby resolved," and then cut it to "It's further resolved." And then you have the last paragraph as our resolution. >> Chancellor: So you are amending the document by proposing to remove the first "Resolved," and leave only the second "Resolved" in place. >> Yes. >> Chancellor: Is that correct? >> That's correct. >> Chancellor: Is there a second to that? >> I second it. >> Chancellor: All right. Discussion on that amendment. I see John coming to the mic. >> John Sharpless, District 60. You guys won't have to put up with me. I'm retiring soon. Okay. I really like this amendment. My concern is not irritating President Cross. All of what's in here has troubled me as much as it's troubled anybody in this room. I do think, by the way, we should acknowledge at some point that the Regents did pass a declaration, a very broad declaration, on academic freedom. That hasn't been recognized either in this document or from this community. I am concerned about the way in which this will be greeted across the state. And I full agree that that phrase will be in the headline. We may have a complaint against Cross and the Regents, but we can't seem as if we're indifferent to many constituents out there who believe that the University is frivolous with their money or not, that they think that, who think we're spoiled little brats who are looking after ourselves and not after our purpose for the state. That's not true, but that's the growing image in the state. So I think removing this phrase would make an enormous difference on sending a very positive message. It would be negated by that final section. Thank you. [ Applause ] >> Chancellor: Further comments on the amendment? >> I oppose this amendment. Bill Tracy, District 4. I oppose this amendment. While I've heard people being afraid of backlash, I've heard people being annoyed by the emphasis on tenure in the document. I've heard people complain about the document in general, different pieces. Most people love the last paragraph though. But I have not heard anybody tell me they have confidence in the President or the Board of Regents. Not one person has said that to me. And I haven't heard anybody say it here. I've said we don't want to make people mad. I mean, that's what I've heard people say. They haven't said that they have confidence in these folks. [ Applause ] >> Chancellor: Further comments on the amendment. >> Anya Vanna, District 55 I believe. I'm here speaking as a member of the University Committee. It turns out that I'm speaking to the amendment. I compared this version to the original version. I think this version is just so much better. I think I understand. And this will be about the amendment. This version shifts the focus. And I understand the rhetorical -- I understand the rhetorical difference between, I think, saying that the Senate has no confidence, shifting the focus from no confidence to protect tenure in shared government to no confidence in the commitment to defending the Wisconsin idea. That's a rhetorical difference. I totally understand. And I understand that adding this second paragraph, the second resolution, shifts the focus from just what was and what is to what could be. The one thing I don't understand rhetorically is how you can say I have no confidence in you but please continue to work with us. To me, rhetorically, that just doesn't sound right, so that's why I would support the amendment, all right? [ Applause ] >> Comments on the amendment. >> Betsy Stovall, District 63. I also support the amendments and I'm concerned about what happens if we have a no confidence resolution. >> Chancellor: Can you get closer to the -- >> [Giggle] I'm concerned -- So Betsy Stovall, District 63. I'm concerned that it seems that there's a lot of division among the faculty about whether to support the no confidence resolution or not. And I don't think that something so serious should be -- we should vote in favor of something so serious when there is such severe -- sorry. I don't think we should vote on a no confidence resolution which is quite serious when there seems to be a lot of division among the faculty. >> Michael Kissick, District 88. I'm against this amendment to the amendment. A couple of things to say is I think Dave Sislevich [assumed spelling] made a good point in his op-ed for the Isthmus days ago when he talked about the risks really aren't such risks. And keep in mind, this is a non-binding resolution we're trying to pass here. So if we get rid of the no confidence then we'll have a non-binding resolution that says let's be friends. And, you know, really, that's what we've been trying that for a year. So I think we should have some courage and do what we really think, be honest like Dave says. [ Applause ] >> Chancellor: Comments on the amendment. >> Yes. Claude Woods, District 48. I would be opposed to the amendment. I think it basically guts the intent of the original motion. Plus it makes it very hard for anybody outside of this room to really understand what we're saying. I think you will make it clear to people what we're saying if you leave that in. If you take it out it becomes muddled like everything else we've said this year and I would not like that. [ Applause ] >> Chad Alan Goldberg, District 71, I'm strongly opposed to this amendment. I think the only reason that you should vote for this amendment is if you have confidence in Ray Cross and the Board of Regents. If you have confidence in them and their actions, yes -- you should vote for this amendment. Otherwise, you should vote "No." And if you're considering this amendment, let me ask you, "After everything we've been through this year and more than this year, what would it take to get you to vote "No Confidence" in their actions? What would it take, if this isn't enough, what would it take?" Ask yourself that. The last thing I would say, I understand the concern that the two resolved causes were contradictory. We crafted this language carefully to avoid any such contradiction. If you read the two resolutions carefully, the first one says, "We have no confidence in their commitment to defending the Wisconsin idea, extending the benefits of the university to every citizen of the state. The next clause says we ask them to recommit themselves. They don't have the commitment now. We're asking them to recommit themselves -- I don't see a contradiction there. [ Applause ] >> Terry Warfield: Terry Warfield, District 24, School of Business. I want to follow up on my colleague. We've had a lot of discussion in the school and no one in our school that we've heard from anyway, supports a no confidence language. I'm very happy with the additions we've made to this and I don't think there's any question, if you read all the "Whereas's" and the important prefaces that have been added, that there's any question that the faculty has concerns with respect to the job that President Cross and the Regents are doing on behalf of the university. Again, to put this no confidence in there, is that we have no confidence. That's saying -- that's zero, no confidence and I think what we were saying in this second part which I think is a very powerful resolution that we want to work forward because at the end of the day, we're -- everybody's angry. And I know everybody in this room wakes up somedays when you hear another legislator make a comment that is misinformed or misunderstands what's going on here, wonder about whether you ought to just take that offer that you got or just retire early. And the last resolution says, "We want to go forward to make this better." So, I support this amendment, I would -- at a minimum, I would -- we should say something like that the Faculty Senate has great doubts about the commitment of the Regents. And the -- but to say "no confidence" and then to say you want to work with them -- well, forget about it. You know, that's not going to do us any good and it will create all the negative reaction, not in the legislature, but by the people in the State of Wisconsin. And we've done some good things in this resolution to reach out and to communicate with the people in the State of Wisconsin. So, I strongly -- I support this amendment to eliminate the no confidence clause. [ Applause ] >> Thomas O'Guinn: Thomas O'Guinn, that's O-apostrophe-G-U-I-N-N, just so Mr. Cross spells it correctly when he's looking for me. So, here's the deal. I'm the Business School, District 24. I've never spoken before. I don't know who you talked to in school, but I know several people in the school who support that. So, I guess we're just talking to different people. I am strongly opposed to this resolution. It's faceless, it's gutless. Again, what exactly does it take to get -- excuse me -- opposed to the amendment [laughter], excuse me. What does it take to get some indignity about this, rather the task is petulant children who are angry at something being taken away with it? Yeah, these people out here, a lot of them care about principle, it's not just the principle about the University of Wisconsin. It's about a fundamental democratic institution. If the light goes out in it, it's not coming back. We're the tip of the spear, we're talked about by the national press. If it happens at Wisconsin, it can happen anywhere. So, every now and then, it's okay to take a risk for principle. [ Applause ] >> Bruce Barrett: Bruce Barrett, District 103, I have not talked to all of the 750 people in the Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, but a dozen or so that I did poll were unanimous in lacking confidence in the Board of Regents. I speak against the amendment and I think we should drop it and we should move onto the resolution which is extremely important. My parents met at this university, my grandparents, two of them went here. I've been a -- a Master's, my PhD, my MD have all been here. This is one of the most important institutions on the planet. I've brought in more than $10 million of grants, I hope to double that or triple that as soon as I can. And when I get called about every month, an email comes in asking me to move to another place or starting a conversation to hire me away from here. Despite the fact that all of those jobs would pay more than here, the reason I stay is because of Freedom of Speech read academic freedom and democracy, read faired governance, and we have to stand up and do the right thing now. So, let's drop this amendment and move on and pass the resolution. [ Applause ] >> Anna Haley-Lock: I'm against the amendment although it's a little confusing, it essentially -- >> Chancellor: Identify yourself. >> Anna Haley-Lock: Sorry, Anna Haley-Lock, School of Social Work. In the amendment essentially voting against the original motion [inaudible], you know, kind of arbitrary thing. Yeah, I share others' comments; I don't truly know what it would take for us to not have confidence in these leadership entities, beyond what we've already experienced. With respect to the issue of coming off as "whiney", it is in fact none other than the President of the system who has directly called us and our Chancellors that. By bringing that dime store button to this presentation, the rehearsal for talking about the budget cut impacts and pushing it where it said, "Whiney" when the Chancellors were attempting to convey the impact of the extreme budget cut, the latest extreme budget cut in our institutions. That's what our own leadership is doing to us and for us and not speaking out on behalf of not only faculty and their quality of job and their meaningful participation in this university and system the leadership and also on behalf of students and the citizens who cherish this system as a point of access for higher education. So, I -- after the budget cuts and shared governance and tenure being essentially a shell of what they previously had been, I'm not really sure at what it would take for us, you know, to not have confidence. And I think that is a terribly important time for us as a group collectively institutionally to speak up. My own personal lack of confidence was to move on and so, I have come here to retire hopefully from this institution one day and that will not be the case and I find that to be a personal tragedy. But I would certainly hope this institution can help right itself as soon as possible by taking this kind of scary but really important step. They can't do much more to us, frankly, at this point. [ Applause ] >> Sigurd Angenent: Sigurd Angenent, 63 -- Mathematics. I've been here almost 30 years. I am a green card holder and in my home country, [inaudible] of labor, I just wanted to put that out there. I was really unhappy with the resolution until [inaudible]. I don't know anybody who has confidence in Ray Cross. I don't think that's the issue. The issue is what this is going to achieve. It is really -- I've heard a lot of arguments that make sense within these four walls; if you go outside of this building, you go to the people who vote. They will not understand this; they will hear no confidence. They will hear the whining, you know, which -- we're not whining. If you want me to whine, I can talk about the number of [inaudible] in the department over the last three years. I don't think this is going to achieve anything. When politicians talk, you know, put us down, they're not talking to us. They're talking to the people who vote for them and it works. So, let's not help them [applause]. I'm in support of this amendment. >> Michael Kissick: Michael Kissick, District 88, if we take out the no confidence as suggested by the amendment, then it will mean even less. This is our -- what can we accomplish from all of this? Well, what we can accomplish is we can start studying the narrative. We should stop apologizing for being professors for crying out loud. We generate wealth for the state, we publish -- we have hundreds of patents a year. I mean, this is crazy that we should be apologizing for anything. We're doing a great job and if we get no confidence in the newspaper, we can start saying the narrative instead of the leadership which hasn't done a very good job setting the narrative. [ Applause ] >> Chancellor: Anyone else who wants to speak to the amendment? >> Urvank District 31, I'm -- I want to speak against this amendment for the reasons that are indicated already. But I want to make it very brief. You know, the plaque on the outside of the building, it talks about "Sifting and Winnowing." But it talks about fearless sifting and winnowing and I'd like to remind us as a collective body that enough is enough. You know, we need to take a strong stance for democratic principles and academic freedom. [ Applause ] >> [Inaudible] from District 97, it strikes me that with the language that we've been presented with by the Regents, we need a strong Chancellor who's going to back us up and we need to back up our Chancellor. When that plaque went up, the President was Charles Kindle Adams. I read about that because he was from my hometown in Vermont, believe it or not. And he, by working with the legislature trying to [inaudible] situation around and gave us, I think, the academic freedom. I imagine there was that faculty group of thousands meeting at that time. So, it means a lot to me that our Chancellor thinks that we really need to look hard at this resolution and if no confidence would make it easier for her to negotiate, I would like to get it out. I have complete confidence in our Chancellor. [ Applause ] >> Dawnene Hassett: Dawnene Hassett, Curriculum Instruction, I move that we ask the question. >> Chancellor: Question has been moved and seconded. That calls for an immediate vote. The vote here is, "Do you want to call a vote?" Okay? So, we're voting on the question and we're voting on whether you're ready to vote on the amendment. We're not voting on the amendment, we're voting on whether you're ready to call the question, be ready to vote. Okay? All those in favor of voting at this point in time, indicate by saying, "Aye." >> Aye. >> Chancellor: Any opposed? All right, we are now ready to vote on the amendment that removes the first resolved and leaves only the second resolved in the document. Is everyone clear? Everyone in favor of that amendment, indicate by saying, "Aye." >> Aye. >> Chancellor: Any opposed? >> Nay. >> Chancellor: I think we should do a count on this given the importance of it. Yeah, division okay, so all of those in favor of this amendment, are you going to pass out -- we're just going to take a count by hand? Yeah, raise your hand and keep it up there and you can only vote if you're a Senator. >> In favor of -- >> Chancellor: In favor of the amendment, you want to make this amendment which is to remove the first part. Keep your hand up while they count, don't put it down. Keep your hands up, they're still counting. You have that count? All right. All of those who oppose the amendment and is a Senator, raise your hands. The amendment fails, we're back to the original resolution. All of you who want to speak to or against the original resolution, this is your last chance, I hope, unless we have more amendments. >> Bret Larget: I'm Bret Larget, Department of Botony, District 47. Do I have confidence in Ray Cross? No. Do I have confidence in the Board of Regents or their actions? No, I don't for reasons that have been made clear already. Nevertheless, the situation here is that a vote -- we were recently put in the situation where it's a lose-lose with this vote. If we vote in favor of it, the message that's going to be heard outside these walls is going to be a negatively pitting faculty standing up for their own interests versus the public. Short-term, it's going to feel very good to express outrage that I care; long-term, the only way we're going to solve anything is by getting the voters of Wisconsin to recognize the peril that our current government has put the state in and to make changes. This is a long-term goal. If we vote for it or vote against it, we are not helping the goal of getting the state to support us and what I'm asking you to do -- well, I stood up a half an hour ago, hoping that this would be a little bit different, but the motion I'm putting forward is to table this motion. >> Chancellor: We have a motion to table and a second. So, are you asking to postpone this until October? >> Bret Larget: I'm not asking to postpone because this Senate will not meet again this year. I'm asking to table the motion. >> Chancellor: Okay. So, tabling the motion essentially says it would have to be taken up by a new Senate. Is that correct? Let me just make sure I understand what -- You want to postpone indefinitely? Is that the -- >> Bret Larget: Postpone indefinitely. >> Chancellor: All right, so your motion is to postpone indefinitely. Is that a second for that? Okay, so now we're going to discuss the motion to postpone indefinitely. All those who want to discuss that motion, come to the microphones. [ Inaudible Speaker ] We have a call on the question to postpone indefinitely that will -- we'll call the question on that. So, we have to vote immediately as to whether we're going to vote on postponing it indefinitely or not. So, we're voting on whether to vote on this postponement motion. All right? [ Inaudible Speaker ] It's a majority vote for postponing indefinitely. Okay? >> Is that just a calling? [ Inaudible Speaker ] >> Chancellor: Oh, for calling the question. Its two-thirds for calling the question, yes. So, we need two-thirds vote to call the question. All those in favor of voting at this time on the indefinite proposal amendment, indicate by saying, "Aye." >> Aye. >> Chancellor: Any opposed? I'm going to make that a two-thirds vote. All right. So, we're now ready to vote. The person who called the question needs to identify themselves. Okay. So, now we're ready to vote on the proposal, immediately we'll vote on this as to whether we should postpone indefinitely. All in favor of postponing it indefinitely, indicate by saying, "Aye." >> Aye. >> Chancellor: All those who oppose postponing it indefinitely, indicate by saying, "Nay." >> Nay. >> Chancellor: I think the "Nays" have it. All right, further discussion on the full resolution. You've been waiting a long time and then I'll go to the other mic. Yes? >> Bret Shaw: My name is Bret Shaw, I'm with District Three and I consulted with all of our faculty because we're not a very big department. And I just wanted to express a statement that we also do not feel that Ray Cross is acting in the best interest of faculty, students, and citizens of Wisconsin and are disappointed that he has failed to deliver on verbal commitments. But we're not comfortable with some of the characterizations and language in the resolution and don't feel that its tone contributes to a productive conversation with different stakeholders in this state. >> Chancellor: Thank you. [ Inaudible Speaker ] [ Applause ] >> [Inaudible Speaker], let me tell you a little bit about my [inaudible] of my thinking about this. When I first read the agenda, I surveyed my faculty and we talked about this and it was almost 50-50 that this voting again with all resolution. I was prepared coming here to basically say, "No," to the resolution based on information from my faculty. But after going through this and seeing that there is a new draft, it's really well balanced and I guess all of the questions. And I'm really sticking up to the point that really make -- this resolution needs to mean something; you cannot just say no confidence and stop there or we cannot just say that we want to work with you, but say no confidence. You have a problem with the system. So, we really should not let others define us; we really should stick up for our belief and support this resolution. Thank you. [ Inaudible Speaker ] >> Some of us have not had an opportunity to speak are waiting in line. >> Chancellor: All right, we've had someone call the question. We need a two-thirds vote to decide whether we're going to vote or not. Obviously, the people at the mics, so you can decide whether you want to give them a chance to speak or vote now. That's your call. So, we're going to vote on whether or not to close off discussion and move to a vote. All those in favor, indicate by saying, "Aye." >> Aye. >> Chancellor: All those opposed? >> Nay. >> Chancellor: That's definitely not two-thirds. We needed a two-thirds vote. So, we'll go back to the microphones. >> Robert Asen: Robert Asen, Communication Arts. I wish to speak in favor of the resolution. I have two points. The first is there's been a lot of speculation this afternoon about what people around the state may think of an expression of sentiment by this Faculty Senate. Here's a fact, and this was a quick Google: On April 23rd, 2015, Wisconsin Public Radio published the results of a Saint Norbert poll that said 64% -- 64% of Wisconsin residents opposed the cuts to the UW system. Now, that was the $300 million cut. Perhaps the majority switched at 250 but I expect that wasn't the case. And the legislature imposed the cuts anyway. So, let me suggest that perhaps we're going about this the wrong way. Perhaps rather than worrying about whether we appear as whiners to the residents of the State of Wisconsin, perhaps we should follow their lead, the lead of two-thirds of the residents of the State of Wisconsin who opposed these cuts, recognizing that would bring harm to the UW system. Perhaps they're not thinking of us as whiners, and instead, perhaps they're waiting for us to say something, to express something publicly [applause] about the damage that these cuts -- one of the things that we think of ourselves as academics is that we mentor. We instruct; perhaps even, we lead. Maybe the residents of the State of Wisconsin are waiting for us to say something as teachers, as instructors, and perhaps even as leaders. My second point is this: so far, I have heard no one, no one, in the room today and I suspect no one on campus has been satisfied with the direction of the UW system in terms of region policy and state policy over the past six years. So, why a public statement? Will it change the legislature's opinion? Will it affect positively the next budget? It will not. We will not persuade legislators who wish to impose more cuts on the university or change their mind. Will it persuade the Governor's office to increase the university's budget over the next bi annium? It will not. So, why this public statement? It seems to have no purpose; it will not affect change. Let me again suggest another way of looking at this. All of us have found ourselves in situations where we witness something, where we hear something that we find objectionable, where we witness something, where we hear something that troubles us. And I suspect that all of us in particular sitautions have remained silent. We have all done it. Maybe sometimes we've spoken out, but there have been times where we have remained silent. So, what will this resolution do if it will not persuade the Governor, if it will not persuade the legislature? It will be a collective statement of the faculty that we no longer will remain silent, that we will speak out and we will say publicly that the legislature, that the President, that the Regents have damaged the university. We recognize that damage and we seek to say publicly that this leads us to have no confidence. [ Applause ] >> Dan Vimont: Dan Vimont, 64. I've made this comment before in the Senate and I'd like to make it again. I've heard on a number of occasions here, people arguing that this will make us look like whiners, that this makes us look like it's an issue about academic freedom, that we're just complaining about our tenure. And I want to reiterate that there's another plaque in the front of Bascombe, it's the "Wisconsin Idea," and that together, these two plaques are much more important than anyone independently. We have had a social contract in the state between the Wisconsin Idea and tenure. Tenure allows us to enact the Wisconsin Idea because we think that's -- because we believe in the Wisconsin Idea. It's not the Alabama Idea, it's not the Washington Idea. The Wisconsin Idea is what makes us special, that we have a social contract with the state. We have both of these issues. When one is weakened, it ruins our ability to enact to the other. When tenure is weakened, it ruins -- it destroys our ability to enact the Wisconsin Idea. That's what this -- as I read it and the amendments I've seen in the last week, that's what I see this as being about. It's more than just us whining about tenure; it's not that at all. It's about what makes Wisconsin special? What makes the University of Wisconsin special? In our -- what makes this state special? When that is being broken, we have to stand up against it. [ Applause ] >> Tim Yu: Tim Yu, District 55, English Department. I am speaking at surprisingly reluctantly in favor of this motion. This is not because I disagree with any of the substance of it. In fact, I think the resolution now does an even better job of describing the damage the Regents and President Cross have visited upon the system through action or through inaction. My reason for being reluctant about this motion initially was because I was very uncomfortable with the idea of a no confidence vote. I polled the members, my colleagues in English, and I found that we were about equally divided between people who supported the motion, people who were opposed to it, and people who felt ambivalent or uncomfortable about it. And I think that actually represents what I see some of in this room. We've seen several close votes on whether or not we should include the no confidence language. For various reasons, I was not -- I think that a no confidence vote is an imperfect vehicle for us to voice this disapproval in part because I think it has somewhat divided the faculty. And I -- that was one of my main concerns in opposing it. I have come to conclude that this is the vehicle that we have in front of us to express what we want to express and that I think that it is something that we should support. But with that said, I do think that the most important question before us in terms of whether we will be able to protect and defend the system is whether we'll be able to work collectively and to gather as a faculty in a united way. So, whatever the outcome of this vote is, I hope that we will use this to unify and organize the faculty more effectively to work on behalf of the system. Thank you. [ Applause ] >> Matt Herndon: Matt Herndon, District 67. So, as many people have expressed, I don't feel I have absolutely no confidence in the Board of Regents or Ray Cross. In fact, I'm hopeful that the second resolve clause might actually have some effect and therefore, I'm going to propose an amendment [laughter]. I would change the first resolve clause to be a "whereas" clause and to simply state that actions of President Ray Cross and the Board of Regents demonstrate that they have no commitment to the pending Wisconsin Idea. Thank you. >> So the amendment is to change the first resolve into the last "whereas" and leave the final paragraph as the only resolve? Is that right? Is there a second to that? >> The part about the senate having no confidence and simply state -- >> Is there a second to proposal? All right. So we've got amendment on the floor that's been proposed and seconded. Discussion on that amendment -- okay. I -- yeah. Tell me if this is wrong. I thought the amend was simply to turn the first resolve clause into a whereas clause. No but then you also have a -- tell us. >> Which would state whereas the actions of President Ray Cross and the Board of Regents demonstrate that they have no commitment to defending the Wisconsin Idea. >> Okay. Okay. >> Does everyone see that? And there's a second to this. Yes? Whoever seconded it, it seconds this change. Yeah. Okay. So we've got an amendment with the second. The changes through first clause somewhat from a resolved into a "whereas" with some wording changes. Is there discussion of that amendment? Tom? >> Hi. Tom Broman, district 82 and I'm on the [inaudible] committee. I'm also the faculty representative to UW system and The Board of Regents. And so, over the past year I've had more consistent interactions with both the board and the system than most of the people in this room. And that has given me some very mixed feelings about both the events in the last year, as well as the resolution in front of us. In my opinion I believe the criticism of the system president is misdirected and I'm not going to propose a further amendment. One has to ask -- and my reasoning is essentially similar to the chancellor's in her most recent blog about this. One has to ask exactly what the system president was supposed to do in face with these cuts. He could have resigned, but that of course made him completely ineffective in opposing them. And I think what he did was try to play the inside game. Arguing in the legislator, building relationships in the legislator to try to mitigate them. Now, that doesn't mean that I do not share the criticism that the president has in some ways acted inconsistently. But I also think that given his position, given that he has to try to herd a lot of cats with no built in constituency as a chancellor does. I think that one has to try to be somewhat understanding of someone in the position he's in. For that reason I want to speak against this amendment, because I think it sharpens a criticism which I already think begins being unjustified to an unreasonable degree. >> Are there other comments on the amendment? >> Chad [Inaudible] district 71. So I think I disagree with most of what Tom said. But actually agree at -- we're agreed that we're opposed to this amendment. I would ask all of you to - well, I can't put this in a nice way; stop trying to kill this resolution through amendments. If you want to vote against it vote against it, but otherwise we'll be here all day. [ Applause ] >> Are there others who want to speak for or against the amendment? Are you ready to vote on the amendment? All right. All those in favor of the amendment? This is written up here, it turns the first resolve into a "whereas." Indicate by saying aye. All opposed? The nays have it, we're back to the original resolution. We've now been debating for an hour and a half and I would encourage people to speak only if they have something new to say to add to the argument. Go ahead. >> I am not a faculty senator so I request the permission of the assembly to speak. >> You are able to speak. >> Thank you very much. My name is Cynthia Burnson. I'm a graduate student in the school of human ecology and I'm also the co-president of the Teaching Assistants Association. The executive board of the Teaching Assistants Association has unanimously voted in favor of the No Confidence Resolution brought before you today. We are the oldest graduate worker union in the country, founded in 1966, and as graduate workers we have a hand in nearly everything that this university does. We take and teach classes, we create and consume research, we assist in and are served by administrative functions. On a daily basis we work closely with faculty, staff, undergraduates and administrators. It is from this vantage point that I offer our perspective on the No Confidence Resolution. When we sat down to compile our reasons for supporting this resolution we talked about most of what has already been spoken about today. The starving of the UW System felt acutely by graduate workers, many of whom currently make less than $16,000 a year. We would need a raise of over 13% just to get back to our 2002 take home levels. We also talked about the critical importance of strong tenure protections for the academic excellence of this university and the steady erosion of meaningful shared governance. We talked about the Board of Regents continued attack on the academic protections that empower faculty and graduate students to pursue rigorous meaningful research that will better our communities. We talked about the inability or unwillingness of President Cross and the Board of Regents to protect and advocate for UW system. And I believe these are facts, these facts are plain. It occurred to me however, that my time would be better spent approaching the issue from a different angle. First of all, by bringing this motion to the faculty senate there's already been a victory. And what that victory is, is faculty talking amongst themselves about what they are going to do about this issue here before you today. There's been conversations all over this campus, all over this university, and all over the state about when is enough, enough? When are we going to sit down and do something about this? Tactics are always up for debate, but all the evidence points to the glaring fact that President Cross and the Board of Regents have failed us. It's time to do something differently, and it's time to do something. Secondly let's be clear about the options available to you today. The options are not between a No Confidence Resolution and nothing. The options are between a No Confidence Resolution or opposing a No Confidence Resolution. The headlines will not either read, No Confidence or there will be no headline. The headlines will either read, No Confidence, or they will read, Not No Confidence; otherwise known as confidence. [ Applause ] Thank you. Both of these outcomes think that there's -- so both of these outcomes have consequences. No Confidence Resolution sends a message that this university is hurting and that it's no longer possible to absorb the cuts quietly. It sends a message to Wisconsin families like mine that the quality of their children's education is imperiled. It sends a message the faculty will stand together to protect this university when it's Board of Regents and president won't. In my view, voting down this resolution is far more risky than voting for it. It would send the message that faculty are divided and worse, unable or unwilling to mount any real resistance to the degradation of the University of Wisconsin. We can take courage from the words of Fredrick Douglas who said, power conceives nothing without a demand, it never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them. Faculty governance bodies are across the state are watching. Green Bay is watching, Eau Claire is watching, Superior is watching, Milwaukee's watching. The time has passed for quiet submission, the time has come to be fearless and united. Thank you. [ Applause ] >> Anyone with new things to say on the resolution? >> David Bart, District 7. I'm a landscape architecture. I'm afraid I'm not going to speak as eloquently as that. I want to speak to what Professor Asin -- [assumed spelling] Asin? >> Yeah. >> Had to say. It is true. Everyone is waiting for us to speak up, but speak up for who? And the original resolution as it was written only spoke up for ourselves. It didn't speak up for people across the state who really will be impacted by this. That being said, even though it's not perfect, with the new amendments I'm happier with this. I think that it is something that really could drive the point home that we are not just speaking up for ourselves. [ Applause ] >> Chad Bezena District 111. I have to say that the changes have been an improvement. As I pulled the keyword across the original resolution. Faculty was mentioned 16 times, the state of Wisconsin was mentioned twice, and students were mentioned three times. The focus was on faculty, not on students, not on the state of Wisconsin, not on the Wisconsin idea. That's who we serve, not us. I would also like to say, what is our political plan? What is our business plan here? If we pass this, then what? Right now we're dangling a bare hook and we're catching the small fish that's going to bite on it. And that might be satisfying but that's not going to feed us. The change that we're looking for is with the people in the state of Wisconsin. If we can sway them in our direction we'll have a much bigger hook to catch a much bigger fish, which is the direction we want to go in. And I'd like to think about what can we do to advocate for ourselves beyond the room here and more across the state of Wisconsin, that really should be our focus. And I -- most of these conversations have been focused on the faculty. I think that's misdirected. >> Bill Tracy, District 4. Very quickly; there are people who are actively forming plans. There are people who are organizing, there are people who are going to get stuff done and would be happy to have you join us. A UP, [inaudible]. There are people out there that are working on this. [ Applause ] >> Rob Asin, [inaudible] arts. Again, very quickly, with respect to reaching out to the people of Wisconsin. Again, last year April 23, 2015, Saint Norbert Pole, 64% of the residents of the state of Wisconsin opposed the cuts. Now is the time to show solidarity, now is the time to speak out. Now, is the time to take that support and demonstrate that we are concerned that we recognize the jeopardy to this institution we're prepared to act. >> I have someone who's called the question. Requires a two third vote [inaudible] second to that. All right. Everyone who is ready to vote on the full resolution will vote yes on this. If you're not ready to vote on the full resolution, you'll vote no. We need a two thirds vote of yes to move forward. All in favor of calling the question indicate by saying aye. >> Aye. >> And the opposed. I think this time we've called the question. All right. We are ready to vote on the resolution. By my count we have 21 whereas's and two resolves. And all of those in favor of this resolution indicate by saying aye. All those opposed? The ayes have it and the resolution passes. [ Applause ] We have a full agenda and the proposal is that what -- I'm not sure what the words are. That we postpone everything and a second meeting will be called probably in two weeks to complete the agenda for the faculty senate for this year. This is work that has to be done, I'm afraid if we try to do it now we don't get very far. Do I need a vote on that? I probably should. All right. [Laughter] I'm not even going to ask for a motion. All those in favor of postponing the remainder of this week -- this meeting until a further meeting to be called? They'll decide, but it's probably in two weeks. Indicate by saying aye. >> Aye. >> Are there any opposed to that? All right. I will see you very soon in that case, thank you.