Faculty Senate 2016-11-07 Transcription of proceedings >> It is 3:30 and I'm told we have a quorum, so I'm going to call the meeting to order. Can I ask all of the faculty to rise as they're able for the reading of the Memorial Resolutions. And I want to recognize Professor Derrick Fish to present the Memorial Resolution for Professor Emeritus Richard Long. Derrick. >> Richard Long, for many years a professor in the Department of Art, died on the 5th of August, 2016 in the 77th year of his age. Please pray for him. >> It was his request that that be -- what was read. Please be seated. That concludes the Memorial Resolutions. Our next item of business is a long delayed report from Vice Chancellor Marsha Mailick who's going to present the State of the Research Enterprise Discussion. And for those of you who are waiting to hear from me, I assure you that I am two more items down in the agenda. So, Marsha, where are you? There you are. Ah. >> Good afternoon, everyone. So it's a real pleasure to be here to share with you some observations and a report on what we've been working on in our office, the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate Education. And I'm now in my third year in this role. Some early months were during an interim period, but it has been three years since -- actually, a little bit more than three years since the Faculty Senate voted to make organization change and establish our office. And so let me tell you what I've been focusing on during these past months and years. And the key -- first let me tell you about the key, what I see as the key missions that our office focused on. One is to put in place the people and funding needed to keep the Graduate School strong and effective to support graduate education. The second is to do the same for the research enterprise. And a third is to support faculty as they conceptualize and design innovate and cutting edge research projects. And so we've even been involved in a diverse set of activities in supporting junior faculty and encouraging interdisciplinary research projects and, in general, to facilitate research across all divisions of the university. And all of the activities that I'm going to report on fit into one of these missions. So, as we all know, and as I mentioned, this has been a time of organizational change for our part of the university with the establishment of the Graduate School as a separate organizational unit that's within the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate Education. And I'd like to acknowledge from the outset the very important role that the University Committee and ASEC has played as my partner in enacting this organizational change. And I view these governance groups as our partners in implementing Senate Document 2500 that was passed in May, 2014, which established our office. And I'm very, very grateful to this University Committee and to the prior two University Committees that have been extremely helpful in brainstorming and thinking through how you take that Senate document and make it into the living, breathing part of our university after a period of discussion that, as we all know, lasted for some time. And the same is true for ASEC. I mean, I have gone to ASEC with questions and seeking their advice, and they have been very, very forthcoming and supportive. So I want to acknowledge that. So I would want to say that one of the most important accomplishments that we've made in the context of this organizational change was the search for a new Dean of the Graduate School. And Dean Bill Karpus joined us about 15 months ago. He came here from Northwestern University. And he's been a great partner. He's brought deep commitment. He has deep experience in graduate education. And he has been a wonderful partner with me. And we have a linked leadership model that he and I work very closely together. And I'm extremely fortunate to work with an exceptionally strong leadership team within the Office of VCRGE. And let me just tell you who those people are. And they include four Divisional Associate Vice Chancellors -- Steve Ackerman for the Physical Sciences, Norm Drinkwater for the Biological Sciences, Jan Greenberg for the Social Studies Division, Leah Jacobs for the Arts and Humanities. And in addition to the Divisional Associate Vice Chancellors our team includes Petra Schroeder who's the Associate Vice Chancellor for Administration and two Associate Vice Chancellors for Research Policy. We've done some work in that area in terms of reorganization. Brian Fox has responsibility for Research Policy and Integrity. And Nadine Conner has just been appointed as an Interim Associate Vice Chancellor for Research Policy and Compliance. And I'd be happy to talk a bit about their -- that respective responsibilities if that would be helpful. So I'll post it on our website. Andy Richards is our Chief of Staff. And we work hard to maintain and enhance the excellence of the Research Enterprise at UW Madison. As a result of the Senate vote in September, RSP will be moving to our office. And so, Kim Moreland will join our Leadership Team at that time. I think that will happen around January 1st officially. So we welcome RSP and we look forward to working with them together. I think that this will be a very useful rounding out of the research leadership. So, I also wanted to talk a bit about WARF. And I have the privilege of working closely with WARF. And several years ago, it would be -- WARF announced that it would be increasing its allocation of funding to UW Madison. And in the year before I began, which is FY '14, I began service as VCRGE, the WARF allocation for Research and Graduate Education totaled around $47 million annually, of which about 10 million was graduate student support, and about 37 million for various faculty and research programs, including recruitment and retention contributions to start up packages or retention packages. So that was 47 million in FY '14. And in the current year, which is FY '17, our annual allocation has increased by 16 million, the annual allocation from WARF. And that's all spent on supporting graduate students and various faculty research programs that I'll mention and talk a little bit more about in a few minutes. And has been our tradition, these allocations are made based on competitions. They're merit-based allocations based on competitions. And the selections are made by faculty committees either within the Graduate School or within our office. And, of course, we continue to support the fall competition via the traditional four divisional research committees. And it's important that the WARF allocation is never used for ongoing university operations. It's exclusively used to support graduate students and research funding. So one use of the increase in the WARF funding has been additional support for graduate students when we've gone up from about 10 million a year the year before I started as UCRG, and we're now supporting graduate students to the level of $13 million a year. So that's been a nice percentage increase. An additional use of the increased allocation from WARF was for our new program that we launched last year that's called UW 2020, the WARF Discovery Initiative that you may know about. And it's goal, the goal of UW 2020 is to support ambitious early-stage research ideas and research infrastructure in an effort to jumpstart innovative interdisciplinary collaborative research. And so last year, which was the first year of this program, we asked for applications from faculty. And we received 252 proposals and they involved 872 faculty researchers -- mainly faculty, some academic staff as well. So there's a lot of people on campus who were involved in that. And the proposals were reviewed by 87 faculty reviewers. So we were very busy trying to coordinate all of that. And the final selections were made by the US 2020 Council which was a 17-person committee of faculty members. And they select -- they were from all four divisions. And they selected 28 proposals for funding at an average level of about $350,000 over a two-year period. So this is real money. And the ideas are just very, very inspiring that came forth in those proposals. Not just the 28 that were selected, but that -- into so many of the ideas that came forward. Of the 28 that were selected, 10 were for major infrastructure or core services. And these -- the idea there was that the new research infrastructure would be used by faculty all over campus and could potentiate new research projects. And the other 18 awards were for collaborative research projects that we believe have a high probability of securing extra [inaudible] funding in years to come. So these are two-year awards. And actually, although WARF allocated $5 million for this program, we were able to make awards that were almost double that amount because campus partners came forward and added to the pot. And so the Graduate School, the Comprehensive Cancer Center, the Morgridge Institute, other units that, if we have individuals who could be supported through UW 2020, we'll pick up the tab for that. And so it was wonderful to be able to stretch the dollars that way. And we're hoping that in this year's allocation we'll be able to do that again. Our goal, our hope, is that each of the selected projects can ultimately transform a field or solve a long-standing problem or contribute to new social policy or launch a new technology. And we just begun the cycle for this year's UW 2020 Competition, and the proposals are due on December 5th. So we'll be doing it again soon. So we also developed a new program to support scholarship in the Humanities and the Qualitative Social Sciences where these are fields where publishing a book is the norm. So following policy recommendations from the Association of American Universities and the Association of University Libraries, we developed a subvention program for monographs that are written by UW Madison faculty and being published by university presses. And these allocations are based on the publishing costs and we are able to make higher allocations for heavily illustrated or open access books. And so this is -- we started with making these allocations to junior faculty in the Humanities and Qualitative Social Sciences. And we ended it to all ranks of faculty. So that's turned out to be a very exciting new program for us. So we've also instituted a process and a five-year schedule for reviewing the interdisciplinary research centers that are part of our office. There are 17 of them. So that keeps us busy as well. If you divide that by five, you know how many we're doing each year. The process involves a self-study by the Center, followed by a reviewed chaired by a faculty member in a related area who is not part of the Center. And our goal is to identify ways to optimize the success of these centers and to make sure that they're in the best possible position for future research accomplishments. Last year we completed [inaudible] of the Arboretum, the Aquatic Sciences Center, and the Wisconsin Institute for Discovery. Two of these research center, the Arboretum and WID are led by interim directors. And the results of the center reviews are guiding the search for the permanent directors. In the current year, we are reviewing D2P, the Biotron, the Biotechnology Center, and the Waisman Center. And these center review procedures are well underway and may -- the approach we're taking may have campus-wide impact. For example, at the request of our Provost, Steve Ackerman is leading a review of the Wisconsin Energy Institute. So there's a lot of reviews going on this year keeping us busy. Faculty recruitment and retention at UW Madison, of course, has been in the news. And our office has made a significant effort in partnership with the Chancellor and the Provost and Associate Provost, Michael Bernard-Donals, and the schools and colleges to support faculty recruitment and retentions. And in addition to providing funding for recruitment and retention, our efforts to optimize campus research infrastructure and resources are geared to make UW Madison the place where faculty wants to continue their careers or to come here to begin their careers, to train their students and their graduate students and their post-docs, and to continue to make important contributions to knowledge and to society. When our office was established we worked with the University Committee to define and appoint an ad hoc University Research Council, the URC. And you may remember that the URC was designated as a new governance group for our office because we lacked a governance group when we were established. So the -- we have met with an ad hoc URC every semester, about twice a semester, and they have been extremely important in providing consultation and guidance on a variety of projects including the development of UW 2020, the Center Review Process that I mentioned, and they have also helped conceptualize and analyze the sources and types of extramural funding that we receive on our campus, and to think about strategies for shoring up, improving the research enterprise at our campus. And we're very, very grateful to the ad hoc URC because they have been willing to devote a considerable amount of time to the development of governance for our office. And now we will be transitioning to the permanent iteration of URC structure in the spring with elections. And we look forward to continuing to work collaboratively with them. So I don't want to take up much more time, but I just want to mention a few other initiatives that I'd like you to know about. One of them is that we established a new office, the Office of Campus Research Cores. And this is being led by Isabelle Gerard, and she began in -- on September 1st. And the goal of this Office is to assemble readily accessible information about shared research services on this campus, so in a central web portal, so that research facilities are utilized to their maximum, so that access policies are fair and transparent. and to keep these resources cutting-edge and reduce the duplication that we have in some areas. and to identify gaps so that we can make investments in research that research -- resources that we don't have yet. And also to assemble and disseminate best practices for research core services to -- across the campus, and to support scientific synergy through collaboration. So since September 1st, Isabelle has visited 60 core facilities on campus. She's just been very busy. And she's hoping to have the website go live at the end of the academic year. I mentioned that we reorganized our distribution of our approach to research compliance, aligning subject matter expertise and compliance responsibilities across our entire leadership team. A couple of other things. Associate Vice Chancellor Leah Jacobs and Lee Conrad from the General Library Service guided the development of a strategy to comply with the new requirements for public access to publications. That will go into effect on January 1st, 2017. This is a mandate that comes from the White House and we have been following these practices for NIH and related areas of funding for -- since 2008. But many other Federal agencies that have not developed open access methodology are going live on January 1st, which is like tomorrow. And so we're busy making this -- readying our campus to meet this challenge. Steve Ackerman and Jan Greenberg and our CIO, Nick Tinture [assumed spelling], are working closely with Mike Lehman and Rafi Lazimy on research computing with a goal of incorporating research computing into the IT infrastructure of our campus. And these and a number of other initiatives that I'm not going to go into will keep us busy in the months to come. So I would just like to end by mentioning some of the worries that keep me awake at night because I have them. And I do worry about the impact of budget cuts that our campus has experienced. Although state budget cuts are not directly -- the state budget doesn't directly fund research, it will have an impact on research for all the reasons that you know. I worry that our wonderful faculty will be tempted to move to other universities because we know that many other universities are trying to lure them away with higher salaries and lucrative start-up packages. And so, if they do this, they will take their research programs with them. And so we are doing everything we can to sustain them here. We hope that the efforts we're making to strengthen our research infrastructure and our research funding will have their intended positive effects now and well into the future. At the same time that I'm worrying about these things, I'm also buoyed by the highly enthusiastic response to some of our new programs -- UW 2020, the Subvention Program. I'm inspired by the wonderful research of our faculty and the brilliance of our graduate students, and the impact that our research on campus has on our state and our nation and beyond. So I thank you for the opportunity to serve as the Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate Education, and to report to you today. Thank you. [ Applause ] >> Are there questions for Marsha? You know where to find her if you have follow-up questions. Good. Thank you very much. Let me recognize Gary Brown, the Director of Campus Planning who's going to present information on the Campus Master Plan. This is really cool stuff. Gary. >> Thank you, Chancellor. I think many of you have hopefully been involved in Master Plan process over the last 20 months or so. And as we developed our final draft and are now working our way through the city approval processes, I wanted to spend just a few minutes today bring you up to speed of where we're at and what the next steps will be. So overall -- again, our scope of this year's Master Plan is updating or -- our Facilities Master Plan from 2005. Also updating Utility Master Plan and the Long-Range Transportation Plan. But for the first time we're going to have a Landscape Master Plan and what we're calling a Green Infrastructure or Storm Water Management Plan for the campus. This is our overall schedule. You see we're honing in on the last few months here. Hopefully we can get it done in the first quarter of January, 2017. But I said, as we begin the city review process, they've already started throwing higher hurdles at me, and it may take just a few more weeks to get through that process. So just to give you a sense of what we have been doing over the last 20 months -- we'd have over 250 meetings on the overall Campus Master Plan process. One-hundred-and-twenty-two of those have been campus organizations, departments, and units. We've had 20 different neighborhood association meetings, 23 meetings with the City of Madison staff and community organizations, 12 different open houses, and a series of 75 project meetings with our consultant team. You can see a little bit of metrics down at the bottom of the slide here that shows how interaction has been happening over the last 20 months. And there's typically a bump at the beginning of the month as we release our newsletters and people go out to our website and access more information about the Master Plan. I'll have a link to that Master Plan website at the end so you can take a look at more of the information and all of the presentations that we've been doing. Again, I share with you the focus areas. Our goals, of course, are to support the University's mission, manage our physical, fiscal, and cultural resources, preserve and celebrate our natural lakeside setting, make travel easy on campus, vitalize and expand our memorable outdoor spaces. And down in the red there is, of course, Be Good Neighbors. And, of course, our neighborhoods and our city and municipalities that we deal with are very insistent that we be good neighbors to them. So what we have resulted in the Master Plan process is what we call a Capacity Plan. How much should we be building on this some 936 acres we have here, of which, really only 636 are developable. There's 300 acres off the top that are in the Lakeshore Nature Preserve, so Picnic Point, Muir Woods, Frautschi Point, all of those areas. There's 300 acres taken right off the table that are not developable for facilities on campus. So we have a series of proposed building opportunities. And, again, I'd like to emphasize those are opportunities for development. That's doesn't say we're actually going to do them. It just gives us the potential for doing development if and when we have a program need that suggests we need a new facility or/and of course we have the funding for such a facility. So we have probably about I think a little over 4 million, 4.7 million gross square feet of potential growth on our campus. Back in 2005 we had a little over 7 million gross square feet, so do the math. We've done some development as you've probably seen over the last 10 years on the campus. So there's a whole list of major building initiatives that are already underway. I won't go through these in any kind of detail. But, obviously, we continue to do development of -- on the West Campus for the Health Sciences. We're doing a major initiative right now with Rex Sports and are in design for the Surf Redevelopment Project. We'll be starting a feasibility study for the Natatorium Redevelopment this fall. We have a series of buildings in the Engineering Campus. We're going to be doing some feasibility studies there as well. We have a whole set of, of course, Utility Initiatives. And if you've been on campus the last 10 to 15 years, you've lived through many of those as well, from the Central Campus to the East Campus and West Campus Utilities. We have one more that we're going to be starting here in the next two to four years, and that's on Bascom Hills, so you may want to stay away from Bascom as we start digging up the steam lines and [inaudible] water lines that run right up the middle of Bascom Hill. So, no more ESP on game day I guess. So we'll figure that out. But just to say that we're always trying to think ahead from a utilities standpoint to make sure that as we build new facilities we can basically just plug them in when they go on line, and we have the capacity from a chill water or steam standpoint, electrical or telecommunications. You name it. All of the utilities are actually planned out ahead of each of the potential future development projects. We have a whole series of landscape initiatives that's tied to our Landscape Master Plan. Again, I encourage you to go out to our Master Plan website and take a look at some of those details. But the general idea is to try and make sure we protect the existing landscapes that we have, but also create new open spaces in landscapes as we develop new buildings on the campus, especially in what we call the South Campus, south of University Avenue, which we know is prime for future development, but also some of the highesly dense built areas of the campus, and where we really need greenspace. A lot of times people say that that area south of campus doesn't feel like campus. It doesn't look like campus. And it really is part of the University Campus. And we want it really to feel and function like part of the overall campus. So this is a good example of that, the South Campus Quad. You can see some of the existing buildings here. University Avenue is about three-quarters of the way up, and you come down. We're looking north towards the lake here. So with the future developments that are being proposed, and especially in the area south of Grainger hall, we have a major new facility being proposed in that block. But you can also see the major greenspace that we're including with that as we do development of that block. And also some blue here. That's actually storm water management or green infrastructure for us to try and capture storm water before it gets into the lake. We're lucky enough that right down Brook Street is a major storm water pipe that runs down into the city system. And if we can capture that and collect that water and reuse it, that's a way for us to try and mitigate some of the impacts we have on the entire Yahara Lake system. Here's just a close-up of that -- the South Campus Quad, future building here, like we will include some parking as well. I'm sure that makes a few people happy. But we will spend some time looking at a feasibility study for that block here later this fall as well. Here's Dayton Street. One of the initiatives on the green infrastructure is to talk about green streets and how can we capture storm water that's actually running on the streets. And you see here on the right-hand side where we're trying to activate those terraces, capture storm water coming off the street systems, and working with the City of Madison because, in fact, they own those terraces. But, of course, it's we're the adjacent landowners. We're expected to maintain them and provide facilities for them. So we're going to be working with the city. And you can see on the left here that South Quad block with the new building in the background. This is a view of Observatory Hill looking back towards campus from the lake. Again, you can see a major storm water facility down here at the bottom of the hill, right before it gets to the lake. If anybody parks in Lot 34, yes, that goes away. That parking lot though is consolidated in a new parking facility in the center part of campus where we know most of the people parking in Lot 34 are actually going to. So we have people that work in Sterling, in Ingraham, in Bascom, that park down at the bottom of the hill and have to make their way up the hill, especially in the middle of the winter, which can be a little bit difficult. So that is to consolidated that parking into the center of campus and then provide a major new wetlands storm water facility that already have faculty and Civil Engineering and Landscape Architecture, Botany, Entomology lining up to do research projects in that part of the campus. Just another quick view of that. What it might look like, a cross section from the observatory down to the lake. A whole set, again, of green infrastructure initiatives. Willow Creek is obviously a key part of that. Willow Creek drains a 19-acre watershed that reaches all the way back to Nakoma Drive and Nakoma Golf Course. Absolutely astounding if you were -- looked at it on a city map. But, of course, that all comes down and ends up in an eight-foot pipe coming out under Campus Drive, dumping into Willow Creek, and then to University Bay. And if any of you had been out in University Bay, you know that we're actually creating islands out there with the salt and sediment that's coming in through that system. The city is actually in construction right now of a major storm water facility at the mouth of that eight-foot pipe to help capture that sediment and grab that and take it out of the system so we're not creating further islands. And they will continue to work on renovating Willow Creek and eventually University Bay to get that back to, hopefully, a decent facility. Here's just a quick image of beautiful Willow Creek today and what it might look like. Another important part of renovating Willow Creed is actually to activate it for research and for relaxation and for student amenities. As we look at the Natatorium off to the right here, that's a new facility that we're working with Rex Sports on. And the idea of trying to maybe come up with additional rental facilities for water craft, for canoes and kayaks, where students can actually interact with the lake as well. So that's all part of our overall understanding of that part of the campus. We have a full Transportation Plan and I could, obviously, spend 20 minutes talking about the Transportation Plan of the campus, but the main point is that the Master Plan is trying to provide an additional 2000 visitor parking spaces on campus. That's in a timeline of probably 20 to 30 years. We want to make sure we're monitoring that over time. But it is specifically set aside for visitor parking. We know that's where we're having one of the major demands on campus. People are having a hard time finding parking when they come to campus just for a campus visit. So we're spending time looking at that. I would say the city if having some consternations about that, and we're already trying to negotiate with them on that. Not specifically the number, but the fact that we want to add parking on campus. I'm pretty confident we're going to be able to get that through their process. The neighborhoods actually have been very supportive with that. But the Traffic Engineers obviously are having some concerns about the impacts of that on the local street system. We'll help them through that. We'll do traffic engineering studies when we get to that point. But I still want them to approve this idea of adding 2000 spaces to the campus parking inventory. Well, again, there's a whole list of transportation initiatives. I think I probably shared with you some ideas about the intersection of Charter and Linden for any of you who have tried to get through that on a class change time. The idea is to put a bridge over that and connect half-way up the hill. We may have an opportunity to start thinking about that in more details as we look at an addition to Ingraham Hall and the redevelopment of that space. So here's what it looks like on a nice busy Wednesday probably at maybe 1:15 or so. And here's what it could look like with an overhead bridge in that part of the campus. We're hoping we can get about 50% of the people up and out of the intersection unless they're moving from Bascom and Ingraham and Sterling and those major classrooms in that area across and over the intersection to Van Hise and Ogg Hall and the Nicholas Hall. [Inaudible] Avenue is another area of transportation which deserves looking at consolidating the bike lanes onto the south side of the street. I think we've showed that in the past. We have a series of documents that provide information on the Master Plan. This is some 1500 pages if you're really interested in reading or can't sleep at night. It's a great document. But there's a series of informational appendices that go with that. So just as we start to think about trying to wrap all of this up, we are in the city review process. We've submitted our first draft to the city and we'll be scheduling a meeting with the Planning Commission, the Urban Design Commission, the Ped Bike, Motor Vehicle, Board of Public Works. You name it. Everything, soup to nuts, is out there. We will go through that process and, hopefully, in January, maybe February, we'll be finished and through the Planning Commission and the Common Council. We'll be presenting the Master Plan to the Board of Regents at their February meeting as we host the Board of Regents here on campus. We typically, we share with them an overall status report on where we are on the Master Plan. They don't approve the Master Plan. They only approve boundary changes to the Master Plan. But it's good for them to understand where we're headed in the future as we develop the campus. So again the -- if you want more information, take a look at some of the presentations and all of the draft documents, they're out on our website at masterplan [inaudible]. If you've got your phone handy, you can go ahead and grab that little icon up there, and it will shoot you right to it. At that time I can take any questions. >> Thank you, Gary. Thank you for all your work on this. We have a long agenda and I suspect we could talk about this for the next hour-and-a-half. But I am going to suggest that people go here or be in touch with Gary's office if you or your colleagues want to learn more about how this is going to affect your end of campus. It's a really interesting plan and well worth looking at. So, thank you, Gary. >> Sure. >> Appreciate it. [ Applause ] All right. We do have a very full agenda today so in my remarks I'm going to dispense with my usual five to 10 minutes of all the good things happening around campus that I do try to include. I'm going to focus on two issues that are very concerning to me and to, I know, a lot of people across campus. I want you to understand how I view them and how the University is responding. So let me start with the October 29th, this incident in Camp Randall. I am personally very sorry for the hurt that this incident and that our response to it has caused. I have heard from students, faculty, and community members who are dissatisfied with our response and I understand why. A noose is a symbol of some of the worst forms of racial hatred and intimidation in our country's history. We understand this and we should have communicated that more forcefully from the very beginning. A noose displayed in this fashion has no place in Camp Randall. I understand the deeply hurtful impact this particularly has on our students and communities of color. As I hope you know, we are reviewing our carry-in policies and our ticketing policies at Camp Randall and other sports venues, together with what our tickets and other information say about acceptable conduct in the stadium. We're also reviewing the facilities' use documents and other policies that clarify the rules at all of our sports facilities. Changes in the carry-in policy and the ticket policies will be announced prior to the next football game this Saturday and later this week. Other policy review of things like our facilities' use policy is going to require broader campus input. We're going to proceed with that. That's won't be done by the Homecoming Game, but we will have interim changes in the campus use policy in place and let that other review continue and hopefully finish up by the end of the year. Certainly I'm limited in how much I can say today, but I can announce that we have definitely revoked the season tickets of a pair of individuals related to this event. We took this action because the person using the tickets brought a prohibited item into the stadium and failed to follow the directions of our Event Staff. And, again, you will be learning more about that I'm sure in the days ahead. We are also in touch with a number of different groups around the community. I am meeting with my Community Advisors Committee on Monday. Next week I'm meeting with representatives from the NAACP. There are a number of other groups, including student groups, who want to meet. And we're scheduling those meetings. We have, as I hope you know, launched many new initiatives on the past year in an effort to improve our campus climate situation. Many of you are involved with them. That is work in progress. We continue to be a long way from where we want to be. With your advice, with the input of governance, we have invested time and energy into things like the Our Wisconsin Program aimed at incoming freshmen, a bias reporting system, a review of our Ethnic Studies Curriculum, a Black Cultural Center, and many more. We will learn from this incident and we will do better the next time. Let me segue from that into the second issue of sexual assault. The safety of our students with regard to sexual assault is absolutely paramount. And the recent case of an individual charged with multiple sexual assaults, I must say, is deeply troubling. It makes me heartsick to read the story of the women and equally heartsick to know that they did not feel that they could come forward to our staff or to the police. Many of you have heard about this case since we last met. The student suspect has been arrested on multiple charges. Upon notice of his arrest we acted immediately to place the student under emergency suspension as a student, and we banned him from being on campus. We shared this information widely because of our concern for the safety of our community and their own sense of safety. The Division of Student Life and other campus units are assisting the Madison Police Department and the UWPD in this investigation. We take every report we receive of a sexual assault seriously and we are committed to building a campus as free from sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking as is possible. We encourage reporting to the police. But there are many ways to receive help and counseling, including confidential reporting options via our Title IX Coordinator or the Dean of Students Office. In addition to responding to reports and helping survivors, we continue to work with campus and community partners to prevent sexual assault and there are a number of things happening on this campus over this last year which I think have made significant progress. And you'll be hearing more about these as this year progresses, in fact. We need to hold those who are named and who are responsible accountable. We're trying to be transparent in our communication around this case and around other cases that come to our attention. So, let me quit on those comments and I am open to any questions. Am I right that the UC has nothing they want to report? So if there are questions or comments for me before we move on to the rest of the agenda, I invite them. >> Hi. Darren Berchall African Culture Studies. Just a quick question and I just -- I won't say a lot about the incident, although I have a lot to say. But just on the points that you raise. If I understand your correctly, what you're -- you're saying that part of the response is to have greater security around the kinds of items that are allowed into facilities. >> Yes. >> So to me -- so as a person of color, I'm less concerned with the, you know, the -- more directly. Rather than ramping up the security about what people can bring in and out -- I mean, having a mask, having a rope, these are kinds of difficult things to regulate. I'm more concerned with, and I think that lots of people are more concerned with the lack of consequences for the individual rather than saying, well, in the future we're going to regulate how the kinds of things that people can have on campus. I'm not sure if that's an adequate solution. >> So I'm expecting that our policy will both address the Carry-In Policy as well as the policies around behavior in the stadium -- >> Yeah. >> -- and what the effects are for a broader range of behaviors than is currently in the policy. And as I noted again, I can't say a lot about this in terms of details. We will be noting that there are going to be some season-ticket-holders who are going to lose their season tickets -- >> Okay, yeah. >> -- as a result of this incident. >> It just -- it wasn't clear, it wasn't clear if -- when you talked about -- >> Yeah. >> -- the season-ticket-holders who may not -- you talking about the things that they brought in. And so I guess my concern, and I'll just leave it [inaudible] -- >> And what they did when they were there, yeah. >> Right. That's -- exactly, exactly. That's more of the concern -- >> Yeah, yeah. No. And both of those will be addressed in the policy change as I understand what they're currently talking about. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. Any other comments? All right. >> Just one more thing. >> Yeah. >> [Inaudible], sorry. Thank you for that report, that statement. >> You've got to state who you are. >> Sorry. Chris Walker, 33. And more importantly, thank you for the apology as -- of what was felt. I'm in my own body across the campus with my colleagues, with my students, that we were kind of left out, alone, in terms of the University's response. I'm speaking here today about it in the Senate because I stood in this room last year and this Senate voted on our response to sexual assault and those behaviors in our campus. And some of the testimonies that came out spoke to our ability to create the environment that we want to see, and to create a campus that we want to be proud of. I was also in the Senate last semester when we dealt with the, or attempted, started to deal with the issues that were impacting our students' ability to be successful on this campus, climate issues. And this fall we voted on a statement. I have not been silent in feeling like and expressing that I felt like the official response was 180 degrees turn from that statement in terms of what that statement said and the official response. So, I'm recognizing those misdirections was important for you to say, and I thank you for articulating that here. I wanted to say to this room, and this is something I said at the Diversity Forum last week, that while we continue to do this work, last spring the Chancellor called together a group to review proposals. A lot of those proposals are underway right now. A lot of those plans are underway. We could be and may very well be leading in terms of [inaudible] response diverted, diversity, but the official response sought to undermine that nominal work that is actually happening underground on our campus because it did not take into account a lot of what we experience. And so I wanted to just put that out there that the way we use words, and the way we respond to these things, sometimes our immediate response is how to we protect the institution? But the institution is made up of the individuals who are a part of it. And if our immediate response is this is how we see ourselves and this is the culture in community we're trying to create, then every individual is responsible for that response, too. And so one of the things that has been coming out is when you look at that photograph, that there wasn't more outrage. >> Mm-hmm. >> And how do we perform then physically in the moment? How do we confront and how do we interrupt what is going on that does not speak to these values that we vote on in these spaces and champion and feel so great about what often don't champion in the face of oppression? >> Mm-hmm. >> So, thank you for that statement, and I know you said there's more coming out, so I'm looking forward to that in public so our students and other faculty members who weren't in this space to hear it can be like they're being supported. >> Thank you. [ Applause ] >> Hi. I'm Ellen Samuels from District 116. But I'm not really speaking on behalf of my department at the moment. I'm getting up just briefly to speak as one of the authors of an open letter to Chancellor Blank and the Athletic Director that we're posting tonight. I wasn't planning to say something, but then I decided I really should just get up and say that right now close to 200 faculty, staff, and alums have signed on to this letter, and we welcome any of you, too, and to echo what my colleague was just saying. But one of the things we call on and we commit ourselves to responding to is not only those two individuals, and I'm very happy to hear and thank you for letting us know that there's consequences for them, but the really appalling site of all the UW fans around them not responding. And how do we make it clear that they are not us? And I'm just going to read the last short paragraph of our letter. "This is not only about the UW Administration or official policies, although, of course, those are important, and thank you. We also and urgently call up all members of the UW community to speak up and to act. It's up to us to counter the image of all those people standing silently by in the bleachers in the face of a hateful racist act. Those of us" and I include myself here, " who are not personally targeted by racism bear a great responsibility. We can no longer look away or be silent even if it's uncomfortable or even frightening. We need to do more. We need to speak up. We need to get up and walk away as the other football fans could have done last Saturday. In every case, in every way we can, we need to lift our voices and say that racism will not be tolerated here at the UW." And I want to especially say that the signers of this letter are both in solidarity with black and brown students, staff, townspeople, and faculty. And those of us who are white are committing ourselves that this is our work, too. And it doesn't just fall to our colleagues and our students of color to do the work to change this. Thank you. >> Thank you. [ Applause ] Anyone else? All right. We return to the next item on our agenda which starts on page four, which are the minutes from the meeting April 4th and September 26th. Are there any changes to those minutes that anyone wants to suggest? If there are none, I will consider the minutes approved as distributed. We now have a number of reports to go through that I'm hopeful we can go through relatively quickly. If there are things we need to discuss, we can, but I know that somebody was coming on the agenda that will require more discussion. So let me start by recognizing Provost Sarah Mangelsdorf who will present the Annual Report of the University Academic Planning Council and the Campus Planning Committee. These are pages 22 to 27. Sarah. >> I was told when I first got here that my predecessor, Paul De Luca used to just stand up and say here's the report. Do you have any questions? And I'm sort of tempted to do that because we don't have a lot of time. But the University Academic Planning Council, as you know, probably know -- for those of you who are new Senators may not know -- is the Governance Committee that meets the third Thursday of every month during the academic year and into June. And we review all new degree programs, closures of programs, mergers of programs, renaming of academic programs, naming of new departments, closure of departments, and so on. We also monitor general educational requirements, time to degree, and so forth. It's quite a fruitful committee. We tend to get quite a bit done. And I've learned a tremendous amount about the University by chairing it. The other committee, the Campus Planning Committee, sets the priorities for capital projects for this campus. And also was the nucleus for the Campus Master Plan that Gary reported on. We also review all proposals to name buildings and also the placement of all new plaques on this campus. You know, the various historic plaques. And those have to be reviewed as well. And the biggest work of the Committee is to set the priorities that we want to put forth to the system that will then go to the state for capital projects to prioritize because, of course, we have many needs and we can't ask for all of them all at once. So if anyone has any questions about the work of either of these committees and what we accomplished last year, please let me know. >> The absence of anyone at the microphone, so I will take -- assumes there are not questions. Let me move to Professor Bret Larget who's going to present the Annual Report of the Committee on Women in the University. Brett? Yeah. >> Hi. I'm Bret Larget. I am the current Faculty Co-Chair here for the Committee on Women in the University. Last year's Co-Chairs were Natalia de Leon, Rebecca Scheller, and Kate O'Connor. Kate's a University staff member. She's also a Co-Chair with me this year. The Committee on Women in the University is a large diverse group. We've got six faculty members, six academic staff, six University staff, a graduate student and an undergraduate student, a post-doc, several other offices have non-voting members. We've got three primary functions. Our primary functions are to make recommendations to campus leaders and other governance bodies on changes that would improve the status of women on campus, to collaborate with campus leaders and governance bodies, to support gender equity, diversity, and inclusive in respect to culture, and to evaluate and monitor the status of women on campus. The report is included. I just want to highlight three pieces of the report very quickly of things that we accomplished last year. We had a work group that collaborated with the University Childcare Committee to examine issues related to childcare and early childhood education on campus. We recognize the importance of these programs for the research, teaching, and service mission of the University. Very, very important programs for parent employees on campus among faculty and staff. Just a couple of ideas of some of the issues that are related. There's currently on campus, there's space for just under 500 students. The waiting list is longer than that. The cost for infants to be on campus for a year is substantially more than tuition for an undergraduate in-state student. It's nearly $20,000 a year. So there's big issues in terms of accessibility and affordability. And we've asked in a letter for the Chancellor and Provost and other leaders on campus to join with us to help recognize the importance of these programs and to include them as part of the Strategic Plan. Currently all the childcare facilities are sort of maintained and operated by different units. There's not a cohesive Strategic Plan for those. And we need that for the University to be improved. A second area is in response to the disturbing results of the Sexual Assault Survey Task Force. The committee of women was -- took a big part in kind of shaping the resolution of how to implement the recommendations of that task force [inaudible]. And we're very concerned about the, as we heard earlier, the issue of sexual assault on campus. Finally, the Committee regularly looks at data from women in the campus workforce. And we have a three-year cycle where we kind of look at -- an in-depth look at faculty, economic staff, and university staff. Last year was the deep look at economic staff. This current year we're looking at university staff. Faculty will come later. The appendices of the report have a lot of details about the -- about if you want to [inaudible]. Finally, I just want to give you a little bit of what we're working on this current year. We've got three broad themes of area that we're very interested in. One is campus climate. There's obviously a lot of interest in that all around campus. Another is support for parents on campus. And a third is equity employment, looking at perhaps, for example, faculty retention. Is that affecting men and women differently? And looking at equity -- equality -- or gender equality in compensation. And we'll find specific areas within these broad themes to work on this year. I'm willing to take any questions. >> Any questions or comment? You can find Bret and other members of the Committee [inaudible]. Thank you very much, Bret. Let me recognize Professor Emeritus Charles Snowden who will present the annual report for the Ombuds and Employee Assistance offices. It's on page 36 of your agenda. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Because there's some confusion about the two offices of Ombuds and Employee Assistance, I'm going to take a few minutes to point out the similarities and the differences, and talk about some issues that have arisen in our work over the past year. We both have similar goals, which is to support employees in managing challenges and conflicts in the workplace. We both provide free services. We both try to facilitate communication between employees and others they work with. We both provide confidentiality and maintain no formal records. We both are not authorized to accept any claims against the University. We both offer informal processes to address conflict in communication. We differ in that the Ombuds Office is staffed by retired faculty and staff member. Collectively we have a century-and-a-half of experience with this University at all areas of it. And whereas the Employees Assistance staff are professional counselors with skills and organizational development and leadership who work full time. Ombuds and EAO both serve all University employees, including student employees. But the Office of the Educational -- the Employee Assistance Office can also help family members and significant others as well. Our reports indicate also some similarities and differences. The Employee Assistance Office reports job-related stress and workplace conflict, take up about half of their concerns. And the other half have to do with psychological, emotional, and relationship issues that people are experiencing that may or may not be directly related to their work here. The Ombuds Office reports that evaluative relationships, peer, and colleageial relationships, and career progression and development are the major concerns that we'd see. The Ombuds Office has been keeping track of hostile intimidating behavior. And one-sixth of our cases last year involved reports of hostile and intimidating behavior. We have seen an increase of 90% in our visitor contacts over the past year. About half of that increase is due to the fact that we have now taken on serving the Medical School which we did not do before. But the other half represents the rest of campus. So that is a significant increase. Employee Assistance has reported an increase of about 14% in overall contacts, but a 41% increase in personal issues reported. These increases and visits to both offices may reflect increased levels of stress on campus or increase in improved communication by both of our offices or, perhaps, both. Visitors is to the Ombuds Office are in proportion to their proportion of faculty, academic staff, and student employees. But we have many fewer University staff coming to us than we would expect based on their proportion in the University population. In contrast, visitors to the Employee Assistance Office are in proportion to the -- to academic staff and University staff, but have many fewer faculty members report to them to seek their services. So we're serving a slightly different set of audiences. For the current academic year both offices plan to do increased outreach to make sure that as many employees as possible become aware of our services and make use of them. The Ombuds Office is paying specific attention to hostile and intimidating behavior as we did last year. We're also tracking cases of perceived gender, age, and ethic discrimination, as well as both academic and workplace concerns of students, especially graduate students. The Employee Assistance Office has many requests for training for respect in the workplace and creating a positive climate in the workplace, which we think is very good. But due to the volume of requests there may be need for expertise that is better met by other offices on campus. This year the Employee Assistance Program is going to begin providing evidence-based suicide prevention programs which I think will be a very valuable thing. In conclusion, both of our offices want to emphasize that coming to us early, as early as possible when a conflict develops, allows us to be much more useful than if someone comes to us at the point of termination or something much more serious. So we'd like to encourage you to pass on to the people that you work with and to staff members that you work with, that the Employee Assistance Office and the Ombuds Office are available to provide counselling, support, and help to work through conflicts in the workplace. And we'd like to get involved with you as soon as possible. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Any comments? If not, we will move on to Professor Linda Oakley who will present the annual report of the Campus Diversity and Climate Committee, page 38 in your agenda. >> The Campus Diversity and Climate Committee report you received covers three years. I'll highlight that those three years essentially demonstrate the transition of that Committee from a Planning Committee to a team member for the Vice Provost to becoming a full Chapter Six Committee. And the Chapter Six Committee part of this is a huge leap and jump. A lot of people worked very hard over many years to get us to this point. If you look at the concerns, most of the concerns that we have identified in our report identify making that transition. Our -- currently right now, our emphasis is on looking at our functions. Our function that the Committee is focusing on is number seven, which is to make policy recommendations. It's very difficult for this group, this committee, which has served many, many purposes and lifted a lot of campus weight so to speak to make that transition from back when it was the Plan 2008 to helping to make sure the Diversity Office and the committees were up and running. So you're really becoming a Chapter Six Committee. And that means that to impact policy we'll be reaching out to the campus. We have a lot of stakeholders. We have students, staff, faculty, and the represented groups on campus that attend these meetings. There are 16 elected appointed members. And we very much want to live up to our ability to create ideas and we'd meet regularly with the Chancellor and the Provost to communicate those. But to also communicate them with deans and leadership in the units. We see ourselves as an opportunity to have a stakeholder voice in that process. And that's where we're at right now. Thank you very much. Any comments or questions? Suggestions, recommendations? Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Linda. Let me recognize Professor Rafi Lazimy who will present the annual report of the Information Technology Committee. Come on down, Michael. You're next. >> So the report is in the package and I'm going only to highlight some of the items and say just a few words about them. So this report covers the activities of ITC for the academic year '14/'15 and '15/'16. Again, some of the highlights, and by the way, the labels there correspond to the labels in the report. Teaching and learning the Unizin Consortium. So Unizin is a consortium of higher education institutions that have joined together to create a standard-based ecosystem in support of teaching and learning. The ITC passed a resolution in September of "14 in support of the UW Medicine joining Unizin and endorsing moving forward with Unizin as a framework for digital infrastructure and education. This will be really very important for us to create the student digital ecosystem. Canvas LMS. The ITC voted in favor of adopting Canvas as the only full integrated and centrally supported LMS 2W of medicine. And, in fact, I presented that resolution in the Senate meeting on October. Research computing administration -- we had several discussions in ITC on research computing and research administration including the services that the Center for High Throughput Computing provides and the advanced computing initiative ACI group provides. Cybersecurity in infrastructure. The first cybersecurity is a main concern. The ITC was engaged in numerous discussions on that Cybersecurity Strategic Plan. A roadmap to establish risk management framework for the campus and extend opportunities to the UW system. As a result of risk assessment, the campus made a 6.9 million investment with follow out on networks and Cisco in May, 2016, to upgrade the campus firewall, and end endpoint security. These issues are obviously ongoing. The Data Center infrastructure. The campus has quite a severe issue of capacity in terms of Data Center. The ITC considered various options to address that issue, and especially to meet the requirements of new Federal research grants. Administration in operation excellence. The ITC monitored the roll-out of Office 365 for e-mail and calendaring. The ITC -- the IT Spending Study. Interim DCFA, Michael Lehman, commissioned a report in early spring 2016 to examine the level of IT spending across campus. In July, 2016, the Committee reported that approximately 175 million was spent on IT in Fiscal Year '14/'15 across the campus. Cloud computing. ITC [inaudible] an overview of the current state of cloud computing in campus. Data governance and management. The ITC considered the privacy protection policies and procedures. This proposal was presented and discussed in the last ITC meeting of the 2015/'16 academic year. It focuses on protecting the privacy of, quote, individually identifiable data and information, end quote, while allowing for the effective and efficient conduct of normal university operations. The ITC will continue to consider that. And eventually will bring the policy to the UC and to the Senate. We had a meeting with the Provost exactly a year ago in the November meeting. And the Provost emphasized the need to establish organizational and operational priorities including determining the effective balance between IT services that are best done centrally and those that are best provided locally. That work will continue as part of our service catalog initiative. We also met several times with the UC and gave them updates. I also met with the UC and with the COC with respect to increasing the involvement of faculty in the ITC work. And the Interim VCFA and the ITC Chair met with the UC several times during the summer of 2016 to discuss restructuring of IT governance and management in UW Medicine. And let me just [inaudible] a few words about that. And then Mike will continue. So we face a number of opportunities and challenges. >> Can you speak into the mike. >> Yes. We face a number of challenges as well as opportunities in IT. Major challenge is that highly fragmented IT governance, management, and decision making. And under the leadership of Mike Lehman, who is now Special Advisor to the Chancellor, the Provost, other faculty, other governance leaders, and the UC, we are now implementing a new IT governance and management structure. It provides us with great opportunities for achieving effectiveness and efficiencies in delivering IT services. And Mike will talk much more about that. >> So I'm going to run through these presentations and then we can take questions on the whole thing if we will. Let me recognize Michael Lehman, Special Advisor to the Chancellor, who's going to present information on campus IT governance and structure. Mike. >> Okay. So you're going to see a wonderful chart in front of you. Don't get overwhelmed. I know you've all read it. And I've got it in the pre-read. What I'm going to talk a bit about is the why. This is the what and the how. Rafi alluded to it. And, again, my background, as most of you know, I was the Interim Vice Chancellor of Finance for -- from March until August until we talked Laurent into coming on campus. And during that time -- again, I was a former CFO of a large multinational public company. I was also the Chief Information Officer of that same company, and helped put in the IT infrastructure for a couple of other smaller, now very public, high-tech companies. So I know quite a bit about that topic and how to effectively, if you will, manage IT. So in my first couple of weeks on the Interim VCFA role I asked a few fairly simply questions. How much do we spend on IT on campus? What do we spend it on? And is that spending effective? And, frankly, those answers to those questions were, we don't know, we've never looked at it that way and, therefore, we can't answer the last question because we don't know how much we spend and we don't know what we spend it on. So that's a big of a bug for an organization this big. We did commission a study and it took about five months. And the group finally figured out that in the fiscal year ended June 30, '15, we spent in the neighborhood of $175- to $200 million on IT, as defined. And, again, in that fiscal year, total campus spending was about $2.7 billion. So, a not insignificant number, and one that we ought to know a bit more about. So fast forward to what are we trying to accomplish. What we're really trying to understand is, again, what do we spend it on, is that spending effective, and where is that spent? Is it proper that it's done in such a distributed fashion? And the best way to find that out is to get more data. So that's what this structure is going to do. Don't get obsessed with the boxes and who does what to whom. There's really four working committees that you see there. The core Infrastructure Services Group, the Research, Technology Advisory Committee, the Divisional Technology one in the middle, and the Teaching and Learning one on the side. The basic message here is that these committees will be comprised largely of faculty and what I call business people on campus, augmented by IT people. We don't want the IT strategy to be driven by IT, but by campus, by leadership people that do and perform the core missions of the University. So we're sort of inverting the way that's been done in the past. These committees are now being formed. Steve Kramer's running the Teaching and Learning. We had a meeting today. Marshal will run the Research one. We'll have a meeting Friday. The divisional one is [inaudible] ready. So those committees are being populated with volunteers, if you will, from faculty and other parts on campus. So you have a way to be involved through those. We have spoken to the UC a couple of times. The ITC will continue to be involved. And, basically, the message is, this will be very participative, collaborative, and we're just going to try to make sure that when we spend money on IT that it's done consciously, collaboratively, and that, you know, we're doing the right thing with the money. So there will be benchmarking involved. How do other great institutions do this? So, I'm trying to go through this quickly because I know there's a lot on the agenda. But be confident that this is a good structure and it will be evolving over time. And you will be heavily involved as we go forward. And I'll leave it at that. >> Are there comments or questions on this? This is one that you really do want to take back and make sure your departments and your schools and colleges -- that they should be absolutely aware this is going on. But make sure of that. And that you've got the right people in the conversation as we're putting these different groups together. Let me recognize Professor Amy Wendt who's going to present a proposal to modify the membership of the Information Technology Committee. >> I move adoption of Faculty Document 2648 which adds an ex-officio member to the Information Technology Committee and creates the positions of Co-Chairs. >> There is no second required on this, so we are open for discussion. Do you want to say something about why these should change? >> This change will add the Executive Director of IT Planning and Strategy to the Committee to enhance communication. And the Co-Chairs will be that person and a faculty member of the Committee. >> Discussion? If not, if you're ready to vote, all those in favor of the motion proposed by Professor Wendt indicate by saying aye. >> Aye. >> Any opposed? The motion carries. Thank you very much. And thanks to Rafi and to Michael and to others all around campus for working on this. Let me now recognize Professor Any Wendt who's going to present a proposal to modify FPP with regard to filling vacancies on elected committees. >> I move approval of the changes to FPP 6.06.H indicated in Item 14 of your agenda. As currently written, the University Committee fill vacancies on elected committees only until the next election, and then the Committee on Committee finds candidates to stand for election for any remainder of the term. In some cases this means that two candidates have to be found to fill a seat for one year. The proposed change will enable the University Committee to fill the entirety of the unfinished term, avoiding the need to run candidates for short terms and maintaining the staggering of terms. >> Again, no second is required. Is there any discussion on this? It's basically cleaning up these rules around committee appointments. If you're ready to vote, all those in favor of the proposal indicate by saying aye. >> Aye. >> Any opposed? All right. I'm going to recognize Professor Amy Wendt again who will move to confirm appointments to elected committees. >> I move to confirm the appointment of Eric Sandgren to serve on the Commission on Faculty Compensation and Economic Benefits for one year replacing Julie Allan who resigned from the Committee. >> Are there any questions or need for further discussion? If not, all those in favor of the motion indicate by saying aye. >> Aye. >> Any opposed? The motion carries. >> Apologies in advance on pronunciation here. I move to confirm the appointment of Aparna Lakkaraju to serve on the Commission on Faculty Compensation and Economic Benefits for two years replacing Carolyn Kelley who resigned from the Committee. >> Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion indicate by saying aye. >> Aye. >> Any opposed? Next. >> I move to confirm the appointment of Asli Gocmen to serve on the Commission on Faculty Compensation and Economic Benefits for two years replacing Laura McClure who resigned from the Committee. >> Any discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye. >> Aye. >> Any opposed? All right. Let me now recognize Professor Amy Wendt who's going to present a proposed change to the membership of the Retirement Issues Committee, page 57 in your agenda. >> I move approval of Faculty Document 2649 which reduce the size of the Retirement Issues Committee. The current size of this Committee has proven unwieldly, making appointment of members and scheduling of meetings exceedingly difficult. >> And the size of the new committee will be? Twenty-three as opposed to? That seems reasonable. But [laughter] if any of you want to protest that. All those in favor of this proposed change indicate by saying aye. >> Aye. >> Any opposed? All right. Let me recognize Professor Krystin Masters who's going to present proposed changes to the Committee on Undergraduate Recruitment, Admissions, and Financial Aid. Krystin. >> Hi. I am Chair of the Committee on Undergraduate Recruitment, Admissions, and Financial Aid, and I move to approve changes to FPP 6.51 related to this Committee as noted in Faculty Document 2650. >> There is no second required. Do you want to say something about the nature of the changes? Oh, I do need a second. Sorry. Because you're not on the UC. Is there a second? Thank you, Sandy. All right [inaudible]. >> All right. So CURAFA met over last year to sort of restructure itself because its membership was not necessarily representative of all the stakeholders, as well as our functions as written in the previous IPP&P, did not really integrate us in the appropriate campus divisions and committees that we need to be advising and working with to initiate new policies for [inaudible] undergraduate recruitment, admissions, and financial aid. >> Is there discussion of this proposed change? >> Judith Bristin [assumed spelling], District 48. I just have one question about this change because I note that one of its effects is to reduce the number of faculties which removes faculty majority from this committee. >> It does. So it is a shared governance committee and so we still have more faculty than we do any other type of member on the committee. And so we thought that it gave us a little bit better representation of all the stakeholders related to CURAFA's mission. [Inaudible] it's been-- admittedly it -- from a logistical standpoint, really challenging to fill all the faculty stock. >> Any other questions? All those in favor of this motion indicate by saying aye. >> Aye. >> Any opposed? Nod. Thank you very much [inaudible]. Let me recognize Associate Dean Sue Zaeske who will present for informational purposes the merger of the Department of History and the Department of the History of Science. I take it Sue Zaeske is not here. Dean Karl Scholz standing in for Sue Zaeske. >> I am not Sue Zaeske. I believe you have the information on this proposed merger in your faculty documents. Let me say that we at the College are excited about this. There's both push factors and pull factors. So the pull factors is this is an exciting collaboration between History and History of Science. We can have curricular innovations as well as research synergies from the joining together. One pitfall is that we have a very great History of Science Graduate Program recognized around the world for its greatness. We are taking pains to preserve that Graduate Program. The push factors are that History of Science is a very small department. And so for governance issues it's useful to have a larger number of faculty who can serve as Chair and mentor young professors. And so that provided some impetus for this joining together. I'm happy to answer any questions. >> Since informational purposes, are there any comments or questions? All right. Thank you very much Karl. All right. Now we're to a [inaudible] item. Let me recognize Professor Amy Wendt who will present revisions to our Post Tenure Review Policy for discussion and vote. Amy. >> Thank you. You have in your materials Faculty Document 2639 which is a revised version of the Post Tenure Policy passed in late 2015 incorporating changes based on the Senate first reading this past September. Document 2639 includes both the marked-up version with the new language underlined, deleted language crossed out, and footnotes explaining the need for each change. And I should say the marks are relative to our existing document which was approved last December. This is followed by a clean version with all the changes included. You have in your materials also Faculty Document 2639-A on pages 71 to 73 which is the Board of Regents Policy Document on Post Tenure Review. As I'm sure many of you recall our existing policy was the result of the work of an ad hoc faculty committee, several listening sessions, and much debate in this room. Following its approval in March, 2016, the Board of Regents passed their overarching policy. UW system has instructed campuses to submit their policies for Board of Regent review or approval by November 15th. The revisions of FP&P Chapter Seven you have before you are the result of a review of our existing policy, the one we approved last December in light of the Regent policy. We believe that these revisions are necessary to put our policy into compliance with the broader system policy. We also believe that these revisions keep intact the developmental focus of our policy. As discussed at your last meeting, we were required to remove the Grievance Provisions from our policy. We had no choice about this. But I point out that faculty still maintain all their existing grievance and appeal rights. Moreover, the ability to request a second review is still included. Overall, this revised policy, while weakened in some ways, is still developmentally focused and allows for ample and meaningful input from the faculty members being reviewed. And I'd like to then point out exactly what changes have been made since the September Senate reading at -- the first reading at the September Senate meeting. And those changes are -- if you go to Section Bi, which is the Definitions Section, Number Five, Five C. There's a second sentence added. That second sentence reads, "Discharging conscientiously and with professional competence the duties appropriately associated with the faculty member's position shall service the standard or expected level of accomplishment as described in the Regent's Policy Document." Next item down, B5B. This is an added item that reads, "For schools and colleges that are not officially divided into departments., all reference to department or chair in this policy shall be understood to revert -- refer to the equivalent unit and its corresponding chair equivalent." Number Three. Now moving on to the Procedures Section, C-1. There's a slight wording change to clarify the second sentence. The second sentence now reads, "These reviews may include the Annual Merit Review or be combined with promotion, retention, salary, or other reviews, including but not limited to nominations for named chairs and professorships." I think the word "named" was just shifted a little bit. Number Four. Under C5 there's an added second sentence that reads, "A copy shall be, also be provided to the appropriate Dean for sufficiency review and to the Provost and Chancellor or designate." And Number Five, the final change, C-7. There's a wording change in the third sentence. So it now reads, "As part of the Dean's review, the faculty member may request a second review." And then in parentheses, peer review. >> Amy, I'm told you did not actually place the motion in, place the motion. Can you do that? >> If I can get the wording right here. I move approval of Faculty Document 2639. >> There is not a second required. You've heard the discussion. We are open for your comments. >> Hi. Chet Owen Goldberg, District 71. I want to, first of all, thank the University Committee and all the faculty who were involved in putting together this document. I think they've done a marvelous job. I want to thank, of course, Amy Wendt in particular for meeting with me last week to address some concerns I raised at the previous Senate meeting. But being the nudnik that I am, I'm going to propose two amendments. And I'll do them separately, not together, for the sake of clarity and convenience. So I move to amend the documents as follows. So, in Section C7, the last line in C7, where it says," At the conclusion of the remediation period, the Dean shall review the faculty member's performance and determine." The amendment is to include the words "to determine in consultation with the faculty member's Department Chair." And I can speak to my rationale for that amendment if I get a second. >> Is there a second? Second. All right. You want to speak to the -- yeah. >> So the rationale for that is really twofold. One, if you read up the Department Chair is involved in the development of the remediation plans. It only seems fitting that the Department Chair should be consulted when the Dean is determining whether the remediation plan has addressed the deficiencies that have been identified through the review process. This just makes it consistent with what is earlier in the C7. The other reason for doing this, which is a sort of deeper and philosophical reason. As many of you know, the American Association of University Professors warns that with post-tenure review policies, it's very important not to substitute managerial accountability for professional responsibility in a way that would infringe on the ability of the faculty to define our own work and standards of performance. Now, unfortunately because of the requirements that the Regents have imposed on us, we cannot craft a policy that's consistent with AAUP standards in this matter. This amendment would not solve that problem, but my hope is that it will, at least in a small way, mitigate or ameliorate that problem here by keeping the faculty involved in the process. >> So we have an amendment on the floor. And we will now be discussing that amendment only. If people have comments on the amendment, or discussion of it -- I don't know if the UC has any comments on this. No? Any others? In that case, we will vote on the amendment, which is the addition of the words "The Dean shall review the faculty member's performance and determine in consultation with the faculty member's Chair whether the remediation plan and criteria have been satisfied." All right. You all understand the amendment? [ Inaudible Speaker ] Faculty member's Department Chair. All right. Okay. Faculty member's Department Chair. We'll take that as a -- [ Inaudible Speaker ] I think the whole document there's a phrase that says, "in those cases you deal with the entire [inaudible]," yeah. All right. If people are ready to vote on this amendment. All those in favor indicate by saying aye. >> Aye. >> Any opposed? Okay. We're back to discussion on the full document. Chad. >> Chad Owen Goldberg, District 71. Let me propose my second amendment which may or may not be more controversial. So in Section C8, the sentence that says, "then the Administration must convene an ad hoc committee of faculty to review proposed sanctions consistent with FP&P." I move to amend that so that -- to substitute, "The University Committee must appoint," in place of, "The Administration must convene." And, again, I'll explain my rationale if I get a second. >> Is there a second? All right. >> The rationale is very simply again this goes to the philosophical concern I raised a moment ago about trying to avoid a substitution of managerial accountability for professional responsibility. And I would like to avoid a situation in which this committee is hand-picked by the Administration. No offense. And I think the faculty should be the ones who -- if the committee's going to be handpicked, the faculty should be the ones who handpick it. And it would be an elected committee which the University Committee is. >> Does the drafters of the document have any comments on this? Does this create any problems for us with regard to Regent Policy? No. All right. Any comments on that amendment? If you are ready to vote, the amendment basically substitutes for "The Administration convening an ad hoc committee to review proposed sanctions," to "The UC appointing an ad hoc committee." All right. You understand what you're voting on? All those in favor of that amendment indicate by saying aye. >> Aye. >> Any opposed? That amendment carries. We're now back to a discussion of the full document. >> Sorry. Kirk Paulson, District 76. Sorry for the late hour. I did not coordinate with Chad. But I also have two amendments. >> Mm-hmm. >> So let me move the first one that I e-mailed Steve. In Section B, Criteria, five definitions. Add a definition, sub-E. And I propose this. "A review indicating substantial deficiencies shall not constitute a disciplinary action under FPP9." >> Do you have that? Let's make sure. Wait until he gets it up so everyone can see it. >> I'll just -- >> Why don't you read it again. >> "A review indicating substantial deficiencies shall not constitute a disciplinary action under FPP9." And if I can get a second -- >> Right. >> -- I can -- >> Is there a second to this? >> I'll second it. >> Why don't you explain. >> So the justification of this is that the language can be somewhat ambiguous because after a finding of substantial deficiency, if after multiple revisions, multiple reviews later on in the document, then the disciplinary procedures are triggered. But we wanted to make clear on this basis -- this results from my discussion with Counsel at last Senate meeting, that -- just clarifying the language existing. That a finding of no -- of deficiency is not actually a disciplinary action. >> So I just want to make sure I understand it. What you want to say is that the initial review itself would not trigger any disciplinary action. It's only after everything else has occurred -- >> Right. >> -- a disciplinary would be triggered. >> This just clarifies that. >> Yeah. And do you want to say [inaudible]. >> Some way to appease the -- >> A review. >> -- the concern of some faculty that this -- just to clarify that this is not a disciplinary procedure. >> Mm-hmm. Go ahead, Tom. >> Tom Broman, University Committee. I'd like to actually personally speak in support of the amendment. And in doing so, I want to clarify something that might have been a little unclear in Amy's comments. And also in the entire discussion. What the Regents did was prevent us from initiating any kind of formal appeal -- >> Right. >> -- or grievance procedure in the remediation part of the process itself. However, if the whole thing moves from remediation to Chapter Nine Discipline, that goes through all the appeals and grievances that we are otherwise entitle to. And that needs to be specified very clearly for all faculty members. So let me say that again. What the Regents prevented us from doing was initiating formal appeals during the whole remediation part of the thing. However, if indeed it then moves on from remediation to Chapter Nine Discipline, that is completely governed by existing procedures in Chapter Nine including Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities, as well as other mechanisms that are available to us. So I think -- although I think there's -- it's already implicit that a discipline -- that the remediation is not a discipline action, it seems to me this is not a bad way to make that clear. >> I'm quite concerned the Regents are not going to understand this unless you include the word "initial." Do you have -- does anyone else have that concern? That they're going to read this as if we're saying you never initiated disciplinary procedure [inaudible]. >> Only one. >> In an initial review? >> Can I amend my -- >> Is that -- yeah.. >> Yes, true. An initial review. >> All right. I'll take that as a friendly amendment. I'm sure we're doing this out of order, but I just want to make sure we don't get in trouble. But it's clear what we're saying and why. Are there other comments or concerns about this? Yeah [inaudible]. >> Anna [inaudible] University Committee. I just have a semantic question here. So the initial review is not a disciplinary action. But I heard people talking about the initial review does not set in motion any disciplinary actions. I mean, those two would be very different. So I just want to make sure that's what we see there is what is actually intended. Personally, I'm not a big fan of saying what something is not because it just isn't. But mostly I'm just concerned that we all are on the same page with regarding to the wording of this. >> Anyone want to respond to that? Are you -- Okay. Any other comments on this amendment? You don't have any concerns, Mr. General Counsel? Okay. All right. If you're ready to vote, all those in favor of adding Item E under Point Five under B, "An initial review indicating substantial deficiencies shall not constitute a disciplinary action under FPP9." Maybe you have to go through the whole mediation process before you get there. All right? All those in favor of this amendment indicate by saying aye. >> Aye. >> Are there any opposed? All right. We are now back to the discussion of the entire document. >> [Inaudible] Kirk Paulson, District 76. Just a, I think a technical clarifying amendment to make it consistent with statutes. So I propose in Section A, Purpose, last sentence, to delete the last phrase, "For program modification or direction, redirection." And include the -- well, the four horsemen of -- on this budget -- so that it would read, "Or for decisions regarding program discontinuance, curtailment, modification, or redirection." And that is the language directly from Wisconsin Statutes 36.22. >> Is there a second to that amendment? You want to say anything more about it? >> So it's just to clarify since those are the four elements of the statutes that gave most of us pause when we first read them, to make it clear that the post-tenure reviews are not supposed to be used -- because as it reads right now, it just says modification or redirection. But I think many people are concerned for program discontinuance or curtailment. >> All right. >> So just to be clear. >> Is there other discussion of that? Is there any concern on the part of the drafters or the General Counsel on this one? Are there comments? So the proposal is to modify the last sentence in under Item A, Purpose, to read, "Department Schools and Colleges may not use post-tenure reviews as the basis for budgetary decisions or for decisions regarding program discontinuance, curtailment, modification, or redirection." If you're ready to vote on that amendment, all in favor indicate by saying aye. >> Aye. >> Any opposed? That amendment carries. We're now back to a discussion of the entire document. Are there any further comments? If you're ready to vote on the entire document, all of those in favor of adopting the Post-Tenure Review Policy as proposed and amended here, indicate by saying aye. >> Aye. >> Any opposed? The document carries. That is the last item on our agenda. And I will therefore call this meeting to a close. Thank you all very much for your attendance.