UW-Madison Faculty Senate: Transcription of recorded proceedings >> I am told that we have a quorum, so I amm going to call the meeting to order and ask the faculty to rise as you are able for the reading of the Memorial Resolutions. Let me recognize Professor Mark Schroeder present the Memorial Resolution for Professor Emeritus George L. Bush. >> George Bush, Retired Associate Professor of Anesthesiology, died July 11, 2016 at the age of 73, following a long struggle with an inherited degenerative neurological disorder. He joined the faculty in 1974, specializing in Cardiac Anesthesiology. George provided leadership in cardiac and outpatient anesthesia within the Anesthesia Department and also to local, state, and national professional organizations. A generation of medical students, myself included, fondly remembers him as Director of the Anesthesia Clerkship. They benefitted from his enthusiastic teaching, that the patient is the most important person in the room, and safety is paramount. George retired from our university in 1998. >> Thank you very much. And I'm delighted to note that Professor Bush's wife, Judy Bush, is with us along with a number of friends. Thank you for being here. [ Applause ] Let me recognize Professor Jose Pinchiero to present the Memorial Resolution for Professor Emeritus C.K. Wang. >> [Inaudible], excuse me, [inaudible] C.D. Wang, Professor Emeritus of Civil and Environmental Engineering, passed away on April 13, 2013. C.K. was a devoted teacher and scholar throughout his career. He was meticulous, very demanding, yet a beloved professor. He was the author and the co-author of more than nine book titles in Civil Engineering as the outgrowth of his lectures in his classes. To this day his textbooks are highly regarded in the area of structural engineering and continue to bring world-wide recognition to the University of Wisconsin Madison. C.K. was a kind, generous person and is greatly missed by all who had the privilege to know him. Thank you [applause]. >> Thank you very much. You may all be seated. And thank you all for coming. I have a relatively short number of notes that I just want to make before we continue with the meeting. Let me start with a little bit of good news of things that are happening around campus. As you may have seen in the news release last week, the University of Wisconsin here at Madison is ranked first among large schools on the number of Peace Corps volunteers in 2017 that we have produced. There are currently 87 Badgers serving worldwide in the Peace Corps. We've long been a major supplier of volunteers to Peace Corps. I believe it was two or three years ago we were number one. We've been number two in the years in-between. And we, over the years since the Peace Corps was founded, have had more than 3200 of our alums in the Peace Corps. It's a wonderful example of service. [ Applause ] We have also been named one of the nation's top producers of Fulbright students and scholars by the U.S. Department of State's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. Twenty-one students from UW Madison won Fulbright Awards in 2016/'17, including 12 grants for research abroad, 7 grants for English Teaching Assistantships, and 2 grants through special programs. Seven scholars from UW Madison also won Fulbright Awards for that same year, and I congratulate both all the students and faculty who have been honored with a Fulbright Award. It's a wonderful award that really is honor of the work that both people have done as well as the work they are planning to do. So, congratulations to all of you. [ Applause ] And, finally, in the good news category, last Tuesday, I'm proud to report, we had an initial launch of the Black Cultural Center in the Red Gym. It's difficult to imagine a more fitting way to close African American History Month than by opening a space that is both dedicated to our African American students as well as the way that it is in the process of being set up will reflect on the rich array of contributions of both students, staff, and faculty here at UW who are African American and their contribution to this campus and its history. We're in the midst, still, of finishing those renovations and this is a grand opening of the space anticipated in early May. So you can all come to that if you missed the soft opening last week. Let me turn to budget updates. It's all good news. [ Applause ] If the crowd wants to applaud today, that's great. We will applaud. Budget updates. You can applaud at the end of this, I don't know [laughter]. I do continue to meet with legislators to discuss our budget priorities. And as you all know, we're still in the very early stages of the budget. The Joint Finance Committee is now taking the Governor's proposals and we'll be working with them for the next two to three months to present a proposal to the Assembly and to the House, and there are a good number of things that are likely to change in that process. I am meeting with every member of the Assembly and the Senate who are on the Joint Finance Committee, as well as a variety of other leaders in both of those houses. I had the Dane County Delegation to breakfast at [inaudible] House for a very lively conversation about the budget last week. I remain optimistic that this budget is going to provide additional funding to the UW system, some of which, in turn, will come back to us. But we will continue to actively advocate for that funding and on a variety of policy issues that are present in the budget, some of which, I think, we have concerns about and very much hope to perhaps alter before they get into final form. I should also note that Governor Walker released his Capital Budget Recommendations a couple of weeks ago. This is the money that goes into facilities. Now the good news is, compared to the last biennium when we had zero maintenance funding for any state agency in the state, we have a regular amount of maintenance funding in the budget again. And that's very important for us because we actually have more facilities than any other state agency, right? The bad news is, however, that the recommended dollars for renovation and for new construction are very small, and none of our projects got enumerated. I am particularly unhappy that the program revenue projects were turned down. Now program revenue projects are projects where we are generating the revenue to pay off the bonds. So there's no cost at all to the state of moving forward with this. And it is one of the reasons why we and the system are arguing strongly that we should have our own ability to issue bonds for program revenue projects. Almost every other university in the country has that authority. We are going to work hard on getting those program revenue projects approved. But, you know, it's always an uphill battle when the first round says no. I also should note that we're going to continue to communicate with legislators about the need for the non-program revenue projects. Those of you in CALS know that the greenhouses over on, is it Walnut Street, are on the list as well as some renovations to our heating and facilities plants that are much needed, so. This week, by Chancellor Charlie Hoslet, Mike Lenn, our Federal Relations Director, and about 60 DC-based Badgers are going to be talking to the Wisconsin Congressional Delegation in DC about our priorities at the federal level. And, obviously, we're still at the very early stages of hearing budget proposals from this administration. But I know I'm not the only one who's very worried about science funding across a whole number of agencies. So we will work on that. And I will say that our U.S. Congressional Delegation, both in the Senate and the House, has been really good in terms of science funding, and we're going to try to make sure that they continue to support us in that way. We are also all going to be out there for the men's Big 10 Basketball Tournament while we're there. Just by chance, we're doing this all at the same time. So that should be fun as well. Finally, I do want to note, as many of you know, we have been hosting candidates for our new Business Dean on campus. Our third candidate came through today. We'll be collecting information and comments and any of you who interviewed those candidates or of new people in your departments who did, please ask them to get their comments in promptly because this is one we actually need to move on. I think we're in competition with a few other business schools that are also hiring new deans. So we want a good choice here. And, finally, I'm going to end by acknowledging the retirement announcements of three long-time and very important members of our campus community. Wisconsin Alumni Association President Paula Bonner announced that she will be retiring early this summer. Chazen Museum of Art Director Russell Panchenko announced his retirement, and Assistant UW Police Chief Brian Bridges, who'd also served as the Interim Chief immediately after Hugh Rizen [assumed spelling] left. Between this group, they have devoted more than 95 years to this university. And every one of them has just had a transformative effect on the areas in which they have worked. And I particularly want to call out Russell Panchenko and the transformation of the Chazen. It wasn't the Chazen when he came. The expansion of their collections. The work that Paula has done, which will lead up to a grand opening of Alumni Park in-between The Union. And, of course, the work of Brian Bridges as well, which is perhaps a little less seen on a day-to-day basis, but nonetheless important for our campus. So I think that is my [inaudible] announcements [applause]. Katie, do you have anything? I'm open for questions in this case. >> Mark [inaudible] District 11. So last meeting you talked about the initiative that you started to provide free tuition to -- >> Badger Promise, yeah. >> Badger Promise, yes. Thank you for that. And I asked you about the funding for that in a very sort of general way. But today I'd like to ask you about how many students do you think would be eligible for the Badger Promise and how much money would that cost for you to deliver a full benefit to every eligible student? And when do you -- where does that money come from? >> So, as I made clear then, we're not going to be -- make a final decision on this until we know that we actually have new money from the state. If things end up like they did four years ago when everyone gets mad at the University and ends up cutting all of our funds, I don't have the funds to do this. But if we do get new funds from the state, this money will come from those funds as well as from money that's raised through all the other efforts we're working on, such as expanding this summer or, you know, some expansion in out-of-state tuition. We are expecting some new revenues this year, and I hope I can fund this out of those new revenues. This will be [inaudible] repeat what this is. It is a promise that anyone who comes through a two-year school as a Wisconsin resident, one of the two-year colleges, and completes our transfer agreement, which is an agreement that essentially if they do a certain number of things and achieve a certain grade-point average, they have automatic admission into UW Madison. So that's the transfer agreement we have with both the two-year schools as well as the big technical colleges. What this says is, if you do all of that and you are a first generation student, we will guarantee you your first year here on campus as being tuition-free. Now you still would have to pay your living expenses here. If you are also Pell-eligible, which means you have very low income, we will give you two years free here on campus. Estimate of the number of students who come in who fit this category -- I'm looking for Matt. I should know these numbers off the top of my head. What's the number [laughter]? He'll look it up. I mean it's -- we -- many of these students already receive financial aid given who they are. So what we're essentially going to be doing is topping it off to guarantee a -- so it's -- the cost of this is basically the cost of topping up to the full year of free tuition, and we estimate that to be somewhere a little bit over a million dollars. Okay? And I should say, one of the things that we did is we looked at our transfer students, first generation transfer students coming in in the fall of 2015. And I've been told that every one of those transfer students had some degree of unmet need. So, you know, this is a group that is low income on average and, you know, by selecting this group in part, you're selecting a group of students to whom you want to give additional support if possible. Matt, got a number? [Inaudible], good. Yeah. Mm-hmm. >> So what I hear you saying is it's one year for, for most students, free tuition. And then two years if they're Pell-eligible. >> Pell-eligible. For first gen, transfer students. >> First generation. And that it might cost about a million dollars per year -- >> Mm-hmm. >> -- to fully fund the program. >> Mm-hmm. >> And then I hear 300 students total might be involved with this. >> Well, of course, it's 300 each year. And so some of those students -- >> Each year. >> -- you're funding across two years. >> I think that's awesome. I hope that [inaudible]. >> I hope so, too. >> Thank you very much. >> Yeah. No. It's this type of thing we need to be doing. It's what's access to this university should be about, and it's a group of students who we particularly can identify easily as needing this assistance. Any other questions, issues, things people want to raise? In that case, I'm going to move us along to the minutes which are found on page five of your packet. Are there any additions or corrections to the minutes of February 6? If not, I'm going to approve the minutes as they are distributed. Let me then recognize Professor Amy Wendt who is going to present the annual report of the Kemper K. Knapp Bequest Committee. And I should note, Amy is presenting this as head of the U.C. The chair of that committee, Alberta Gloria, had a family emergency and couldn't be here which is why she is not present. Amy. >> Good afternoon. You have in your materials the annual report of the Kemper K. Knapp Bequest Committee for 2016/'17. The Knapp Bequest Committee favors projects that cross department lines and have an impact on the educational and cultural life of the university community, particularly projects that benefit undergraduate students in keeping with the spirit of the will of Kemper K. Knapp which states, "In general, it is my wish that such funds be used for purposes outside the regular curriculum of the university to cultivate in the student body ideals of honesty, sincerity, earnestness, tolerance, and social and political obligations." The committees allocate the major share of the bequest fund to enhance scholarship opportunities at UW Madison. In addition to these large on-going commitments, the committee makes other grants for one-time projects, typically in the range of 500- to $5000. In 2016/'17, the committee approved eight on-going commitments and 16 projects, totaling 1000 or $1,306,015. This year the committee also took on extra incentive to confirm that awardees reach out to underserved student groups and students in underfunded programs. The committee chair regrets that she was unable to be here today due to a family emergency. If you have any questions or comments, I will happily forward them to the committee. >> Are there any comments of questions? Thank you, Amy. Let me recognize Professor Steph Tai who's going to present for informational purposes the final report of the ad hoc committee on equitable and inclusive healthcare. And this starts on page eight in your packet [inaudible]. >> Thank you. I'm just going to read, so I'm not that long-winded law person. Thanks for this opportunity to present the final report which you have, the final report on policy recommendations of the ad hoc faculty committee on equitable and inclusive healthcare. Margie Rosenberg, the chair of this committee, gives her regret that she couldn't attend. So as another member of the committee and also the liaison between this committee and the UW committee on GLBTQ people in the university, I'm presenting in her place. So let me first give some background. As some of you might know, this committee was formed when the UW committee for LGBTQ people in the university asked the university committee to convene an ad hoc committee to examine two issues. Here are the two issues. First is a higher payment tier for 120 prescription medications, the Level Four medications, of which 49, the largest group in that payment tier, are PrEP medications, standing for Pre-exposure Prophylaxis. And I'm just going to call it that because it's easier. The other issue is medical needs of the transgender community members of UW Madison where employer-sponsored healthcare plans at the time the LGBTQ Committee made the request specifically excluded coverage for care related to gender reassignment including hormonal, surgical, and counselling treatments. The committee began to meet in the fall. This is where it gets a little complicated because a number of intervening events happened during the time that we were meeting which he had to respond to. I'm going to try to quickly go through them without too much legalese. So the first thing that happened was the agency in charge of the state insurance plans, that's our employee trust funds or ETF, initially rescinded the transgender healthcare exclusion partly due to threats of lawsuits and partly due to an Obama Administration guidance that was issued on this matter. This coverage applied during January of 2017. After the election, and in light of the position that the state of Wisconsin is taking in another lawsuit, ETF rescinded the coverage, meaning that the exclusion was put back in place of February of 2017. Lots of other stuff is also currently happening to make the landscape ever-shifting. That is, today the Supreme Court, this is just today, based on current federal political administration changes, just sent back the transgender bathroom case that it was scheduled to hear this term for future consideration by the Fourth Circuit. And that's relevant because there's sort of underlying Title Nine considerations that are present in both of these things. We, on the ad hoc committee, however, were charged with putting together this report by January 31, 2017. So here's what we did in putting together the report. We surveyed health insurance literature on the coverage of these issues, both PrEP medication coverage and transgender health coverage. I hope you can see that in the report. We compared this to other sort of peer schools. And we conducted our own initial calculations on how much coverage for UW Madison would entail, looking at both conservative estimates and less conservative estimates. And those range of costs are also presented in the report. And, finally, we examined our university's stated commitments --equity and inclusivity. Based on those studies we made the following recommendations that are summarized in the report. That UW advocate that ETF restore Tier Two prescription coverage for PrEP medication, thus bringing them back down to a level that is affordable. That UW support and advocate for health insurance guidelines that are supportive of the full range of medical needs of transgender individuals. That UW go on record as opposing the reintroduction of the transgender exclusion into the Wisconsin healthcare plans under ETF, which has happened by the way. That UW support steps to remove all gender binary assumptions in health insurance payments for medical procedures. And, finally, given the state of current ETF coverage, that is, the reinstatement of the prior exclusions, that UW adopt a plan for supplementing state health insurance with a rider with costs to be shared by all university employees to cover transgender care. And as you'll see in the report, the cost estimates are not that significant. Some additional things. Because our report was due on January 31st, but events kept happening for which we didn't have time to fully adapt, the language of our recommendations is somewhat ambiguous in terms of whether or not it covers family members. We did intend for it to include family members, but we got asked a question about it afterwards, to I just wanted to state that that was the way we tried to write it. And we did study the costs of that, so that's reflected in the cost estimates as well. And the report, by necessity, is very general at the moment because, again, of ongoing events. It's now been handed to the LGBTQ committee which is working with the University committee right now in HR to evaluate potential next steps. These next steps include an examination of legally-available options given our sort of presence as state employees. [Inaudible] this support should be taken merely as -- or more as recommendations to guide the development of these future action steps. So that's it. Thank you. >> Any questions? >> Yes, I'm Dean Moser from 97. And that report really -- I was amazed by the analysis of the costs. And I'd just like to point out this -- that's it. There's a letter in the paper that we're going to be a part of a big single payer system. And I think, as health consumers, this is the type of analysis we're going to need to make decisions for ourselves as to what healthcare we want to fund. So I would really congratulate the committee. >> Great. Thank you so much. >> Hi. Ellen Samuels, District 116, Gender and Women's Studies. I also want to thank the committee and all the hard work I know that you've put in, Steph, and the other members of the committee. I wanted to highlight a couple of things in support of the recommendations made in this report, which is the urgency with which I urge the Senate and the University administration to act upon these recommendations as swiftly as possible. Just today, reports have been surfacing and I don't know a lot about it, that ETF has moved to retroactively remove the gender identities of some transgender employees in the UW System, such that they're being required, after having lived for many years in their actual gender, they're being reverted in the system to their previous gender and asked to provide a lot of -- they're caught in a loop in which you have to have a court order of change of gender to make this change. But to access that court order, you have to have had surgery in the state of Wisconsin, that the surgery is not covered by our insurance. I'll note also that we have graduate students who are transgender who, although they're covered under, as employees, under the employee health insurance plan, have to pay an additional multiple thousands of dollars to enroll in the student health plan which does cover transgender care. And that I'm currently involved in hiring and trying to recruit transgender faculty that we're trying to hire here who we want very much. And the fact that we don't have this coverage is a huge issue. I urge everyone in the room to support us, acting very swiftly on the recommendations of the committee. Thank you. >> Thank you. And I should add that the current, I guess, how would you call it, gender logging thing that you mentioned is a result of an ETF policy change in January, 2017. Only at the time of that policy change, it didn't state that it would apply retroactively. And I think that's the part that's a surprise. >> Wow. That's -- Curt Balsam, District 76. I thank -- is this on? I thank the committee for their hard work and also very supportive. My question is just more technical. We supposedly have HR flexibility in the UW Madison. Is that what would be the source of our ability to provide supplemental benefits to that which provided by ETF? >> Yeah. That's the part that we're still exploring right now because it turns out some of the legal codes are kind of convolutedly written. I'm actually an administrative law person, but I don't usually do health, so part of it is immersing myself in a new area. >> [Inaudible] So, our HR flexibility is just not -- largely deal with benefits. This would be -- it's not clear to me that we would have the ability to do anything on benefits because we're part of the state benefit package and that's just simply one that we've got to look at. >> There's an ETF thing that [inaudible]. >> I just want to make clear to everyone that ETF is not us. >> Right. >> ETF is the state benefits plan, right, which is established and this is, you know, moving forward on much of this is going to take quite a concerted lobbying effort that needs to join with state employees from all the different state agencies and schools as well. >> Just to follow up. I think one of the things that led many of us to tentatively support the idea of HR flexibility a couple of years ago was this idea at the time that we could provide the type of benefits that are obviously warranted to the transgender or same sex couples that were not being provided by the state. So that would seem to me that, right, that's one reason to support HR flexibility, is to provide the benefits that should be provided that the state currently doesn't provide. >> I just can't respond because it's not one that's come up and I have little [inaudible] before Friday. But it's clearly one that we're going to be looking at. >> Yeah. We identified some provisions that may be available, but that's part of what we're still looking at moving forward. >> Other comments. All right. Thanks very much. [Inaudible] committee. >> Thank you. >> [Inaudible] we did. [ Applause ] Let me recognize Professor Ivy Corfis who's going to present an update to the Committee on Committees annual report on nominations for elected committees. >> I do. >> Good afternoon. Are the -- yep, the slide's up. We're technology ready. The Committee of Committees presented to this body on the February meeting the slate for the nominees for the ballots for four faculty elected committees. Two of those committees were still yet to be finished and to be -- the ballots finalized. We now have all the ballots finalized and ready to go. You saw all of the faculty committee ballots rotating on the slides before the meeting. You have here on the slide in back of us the two committees which weren't filled in February but are now filled and completed. That material's also on pages 27 and 28 of your agenda packet. So these are the slates for the University Committee and the Commission on Faculty Compensation and Economic Benefits, and they are now complete. Also a reminder that the election for these committees will open on April the 3rd and close on midnight, April the 16th. This is a election open to all faculties, so please vote and encourage your colleagues to vote. And more information on the voting and the process for the voting will be distributed to everyone prior to the April 3rd date, so that will be forthcoming for you. So, just one update from the Committee on Committees. >> Thank you. Are there any questions for clarification anyone has on the voting process? All right. Let me again recognize Professor Amy Wendt who's going to move approval of incorporating the Healthcare Advisory Committee into FP&P. >> I move adoption of faculty document 2672 which moves the existing Healthcare Advisory Committee into FP&P. This committee has been around and active since at least 1970 and provides valuable advice and guidance to university health services. This action regularizes it as a formal shared governance committee and adds university staff to the membership. We have discussed this change with the Director of UHS and the current Chair of the Committee, and they are fully support. >> So this does not require a second, but I open the floor to comments and questions. Judith. >> Judith Briston, District 48. Just a minor detail. The -- it doesn't state how this is -- this committee is appointed or elected in the change. Is that normally listed or is it in a particular region of the -- so is it an appointed committee? >> The answer was it's an appointed committee by the Committee on Committees for those of you who hear it. Any other questions? If not, if you are ready to vote, all those in favor of the motion of moving the Healthcare Advisory Committee into FP&P, indicate by saying aye. >> Aye. >> Any opposed? The motion carries. All right. Let me recognize Professor Wendt again who's going to move adoption of a change to the name of the Social Studies Division to the Social Sciences Division, with also related updates to faculty policies and procedures. >> I move adoption of Faculty Document 2673 which changes the name of the Social Studies Division to the Social Sciences Division. This change has been requested for some time, and reflects majority usage on campus. The current Social Studies Divisional Committee and the chairs of the departments in that division have all been consulted on this name change. Not only have there been no objections, but the responses have all been supportive. In particular, we note that the current chair of the Divisional Committee who is unable to be here today is strongly supportive of this change. >> Again, this requires no second. Is there discussion? I call on -- someone in the UC who told me earlier when they did a comparison with other schools that they could not find another school that used our current usage [inaudible] yeah, yeah. It makes it special or not. Yeah. If people are ready to vote, all those in favor of the motion that would change the name of Social Studies Division to Social Sciences Division indicate by saying aye. >> Aye. >> Are there any opposed? The motion carries. All right. Let me then recognize Professor Wendt -- we're really flying through the agenda -- who's going to present a revised post-tenure review policy for vote. Amy. >> This one will slow down things [laughter]. I move adoption of Faculty Document 2639-Revised with changes to FP&P Chapters 7.17, Post-Tenure Review Policy. Approval of a policy at this meeting will enable submission in time for consideration at the April Board of Regents meeting. This policy is in response to changes in Regents' policy, most recently revised in December of 2016. If this seems like déjà vu, this is actually the sixth Senate discussion on the revised policy in about the past year. And so I thank you for your patience. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the many people who contributed to the document in a variety of ways. We have made an effort to make this process as inclusive as possible. I would also like to acknowledge the frustration with the unprecedented level of involvement by UW System and Board of Regents into policy development at the campus level. Senator Mark Edsel spoke eloquently about this at the February Senate meeting. And I think many of us share the sentiments he so clearly conveyed. As Chair of the University Committee, however, I feel compelled to take a pragmatic approach and seek a policy that is both in compliance with the Regents' policy and that serves the best interest of our faculty. One positive outcome of the many iterations of the policy is that some aspects have been improved so that the policy that you will vote on today is better than the one that this body approved in November of last year. For those of you who may not have been able to attend the Senate meeting in February, I will very briefly summarize the reasons for the vote on a revised version today. At their December meeting, the Board of Regents approved two relevant documents. One was a revision of the system level post-tenure review policy which established a greater role for administrators in post-tenure review decisions. The second was their own interim campus policy to be implemented at any UW campus that does not have a policy approved by the Regents at or before the Regents' April, 2017 meeting. So since the February Senate meeting, there have been two changes to the document. In the Senate materials there's a marked-up copy and there's a clean copy. The marked-up copy shows areas with single underline and single strike-through. Those are additions and deletions that were present in the February version. The text added since the February Senate meeting has a double underline and deleted text has a double strike-through. And I'll just tell you what those two are. In Section C.1, the words "significant life event have been added to the list of reasons for which a review may be deferred with approval of the Provost." This suggestion was raised by a Senator at the February meeting. The second is in Section C.7B, and this was -- let's see, the second change was that "Extension of research-related remediation periods by one semester must be approved by the Chancellor." We had previously had "Provost" and that turned out to be not in compliance with the Regents' policy and so we just changed "Provost" to "Chancellor" in that spot. One last thing. A few weeks ago, the UC was informed by a Senator about concerns about the potential for loss of faculty contract rights as a result of passage of the post-tenure review policy by the Faculty Senate. In response, the UC made a request to Vice Chancellor Ray Taffora for comment on this concern. And he and Senior University Legal Counsel Brian Vaughn responded with a memo containing a legal analysis of both faculty terms of employment and associated administrative rules and the implications of PTR changes on faculty rights. They conclude that the proposed changes in PTR policy will have no effect on faculty contract rights and Ray Taffora's here to answer questions on that if anybody has any. And with that, I'd like to open the floor for discussion [inaudible]. What? I did that at the beginning already. >> All right. No second is required. Comments? Discussion? >> Thomas O'Guinn, District 24. I would like to move to make an amendment to the PTR. This comes -- the language comes from the Association of Government Boards and Universities and Colleges and the AAUP joint statement on government colleges and universities. >> Where do you want to add the amendment? >> To C7A. >> C7A? >> Yes. >> Mm-hmm. >> The Dean and Provost should, on questions of post-tenure review, as in any other matters where the faculty have primary responsibility, concur with the faculty judgment except in rare instances, and for compelling reasons, which should be stated in detail. >> Is there a second to the proposal? >> I can second it. >> All right. That means our next set of discussion will be on the amendment only. And we will deal with the amendment before returning to the larger document. Is there discussion or commentary on the proposed amendment? >> Chad Owen Goldberg, District 71. I'd like to speak in support of the proposed amendment. As my colleague Tom McGuinn mentioned, this language is borrowed in slightly modified form from the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges and American Association of University Professors joint statement on government of colleges and universities. I don't believe it would pose any practical problems. It doesn't contravene, as far as I can tell, the requirement that is being imposed upon us by the Board of Regents. It is, I would say, aspirational. It doesn't actually bind the Dean and Provost, but it states explicitly what our expectations are. And I think there are good reasons to make those expectations explicit. >> Okay. >> I just -- this is Amy Wendt from the University Committee. And I just wanted to make a couple of comments. First, the version of the policy that's in the Senate materials has been reviewed by system representatives, and has received a favorable indication. So there are signals that it will be acceptable to the Regents. And I think that the amendment as written is consistent with the spirit of the authors who crafted the document. I think there is some concern of risk that by adding a statement like this it will draw attention from the system and the Board of Regents and a possible negative reaction given that the intent of the Regents' policy changes was to assert the authority of administrators. However, I've been reassured that the system and the Regents respect the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, and will likely -- that will work in favor of their endorsement. >> Kurt Paulsen, District 76. Just in response to Professor Wendt's discussion. And maybe this is a question for Council again. If System Council determines that this amendment is inconsistent with the policies -- you talked about the risk. I think we all are aware of the risk that the interim policy would be imposed upon us. Would they just strike this amendment or would they use that as an opportunity to strike the whole policy? And it does not seem reasonable to strike a previously approved or tentatively approved policy based on one amendment. They could just strike this amendment. Again, we're speculating on what System Council [inaudible]. >> You're speculating, but I will say, given the unhappiness that occurred when they changed language in our last document, they have indicated to me that they will take the document in totality and vote it up or down, and not try to do amendments. >> So we're kind of in a bind because we want to -- I support the amendment but there's this risk factor. >> Do you want to respond to that [inaudible]? >> Yeah. I agree with the Chancellor. We don't know as a matter of fact, but our sense is that it's going to be an up or down proposition from the Regents. >> I will echo what Professor Wendt say, that the fact that this is language that as I understand is suggested by the American Association of Governing Boards should be helpful. But there are, you know -- >> Eric Sandrin [assumed spelling], District 113. I'm going to speak in favor of the amendment. I'd like to give the Board of Regents and System Administration the benefit of the doubt. They have stated that this change in policy is specifically designed to increase accountability. Accountability is, in most cases, a good thing if it's managed right. As it's been noted, the wording there does not in any way change who is accountable in this case. So if, in fact, they are trying to hold us accountable, this should pass easily. If there is some other agenda, then maybe it would be voted down. But I would like to give them the benefit of the doubt and state that this actually clarifies what we feel should be the overall tenure of these types of decisions. >> Judith Burstyn, District 38. I would also point out that this is consistent with the procedures that we use with respect to overturning a divisional committee decision with respect to tenure where the Dean provides information back to the divisional committees as to why that happens. >> Tom O'Guinn, 24. If you read that, I -- and I know the Regents aren't here to answer this, but hearing, I suppose, that a take-it-or-leave-it attitude, this is a pretty -- I think it was described as aspirational. It's a pretty innocuous statement. I mean, what in there is so objectionable? Primary responsibility except in rare instances. This isn't locking anybody into anything. If they object to this, that's pretty diagnostic to me. >> I see no one else moving toward the microphone. Oop, now, now, people are moving towards the microphone. Oh, okay. Anya. >> Anya Wanner, University Committee. I am less included to give the Board of Regents the benefits of the doubt. I would rather go by what we've seen before and we submitted something that was in compliance and it was not accepted. So I would rather not take the risk for something that doesn't give us a substantial benefit. >> Tom Broman, University Committee. I'll just follow on Anya. I've been going to Board of Regents meetings for two years and going to Ed Committee meetings, and the -- who can object to the reasonable tone of this amendment? I certainly don't object to its tone. I fear, however, it could be read as unduly restricting a Dean's freedom of action. And since the intent of all of the -- remember what happened in November, that we were forced to pull our PTR from the December agenda of the Board of Regions because there was this additional requirement for Deans' action that was then beginning to roll through. It first came through orally, delivered by the System President to the Chancellors, and then finally, at the insistence of a lot of campuses, this was put into a revised Regent Policy Document. All of that was intended to get the Deans to be more proactive in actively reviewing these PRTs. That being the case, that being the intents of this last round of agony, this could be read as unduly restricting the Deans' freedom of action. And I want to remind you that the design of our policy is -- it doesn't matter -- it wasn't really that important. Anyway, the -- let's remember that our policy is designed to include a review by the Provost to make sure that the Dean has acted fairly. So, I think our policy is designed well enough to provide the protection. And my fear is that this will be seen as unduly restricting the Deans' action. I'll just add one other thing. As soon as we pass our policy we're going to be, I think -- I'm sending it over to System for their review -- and they're -- we don't meet -- obviously, I haven't seen the amendments so they haven't reviewed this yet. Their review makes a great deal of difference on the Regents' action. Thanks. >> Chad Own Goldberg, District 71. So it seems to me that my colleagues on the University Committee are right, that there is some risk involved in this motion to amend. However, it seems to me that the risk is not that great. As far as I understand the process, the worst case scenario is that this amendment would make our post-tenure review policy unacceptable to the Regents, and in April we would have to revise it yet again to make it acceptable to them. >> Right. I mean, yeah. >> And the interim policy would be in place for a month. So there is some -- Isn't it called an interim policy? Isn't it called an interim policy in the Regents' documents? That's my recollection. >> I'm going to let Ray loose onto this one. >> Yeah. Senator Goldberg, it's -- I think it's unclear ultimately. I mean, I think the, certainly the tenor of the Regent document suggests that for some indefinite period the backup policy would be our post-tenure review policy. Obviously the Regents can always amend that at any point should they choose to do so. But my understanding is that if they don't accept a policy that we propose, the backup policy becomes our post-tenure review policy subject to further action by the Board. >> So I understand that. The question is whether this is the one and only opportunity that we have to propose our own policy. And I've read the Regents' Policy Document. My reading is that it's not the case. At least it's not clear that this is the case, that we have to have a campus specific policy approved for the April Board Meeting or else we're stuck permanently with the interim policy. So my reading of the policy, of the Board of Regents' Policy Document is a little bit different. I would say that, in my view, in my opinion, the risk is worth taking. I think it's worthwhile to push the Board of Regents to clarify exactly how far they want to go in terms of imposing this requirement on us and how far they want to insist that an administrative review be independent of faculty judgment. >> Kurt Sandler, District 113. This is a question that I need just clarified because I hadn't been on the Senate all that long. This is part of FP&P and it would seem that we can at any time modify any part of FP&P that we want to. I'm startled to hear that there might be a policy put in place that we then can't change. Isn't our option to -- >> Let me just try to say this. And you tell me if I say it wrong. Any actions that we take are always subject to the Board of Regents which is our policy setting board, so that they in most cases cede us the ability to write and revise and operate FP&P. In this particular case, they have asked for approval on what we put in FP&P in these issues, right. So we are, therefore, in this topic, subject to their approval at their request. >> Right. So then, if this is approved and if they don't [inaudible], the interim policy would go into effect. But then, again, it would seem to me that we can send in as often as we want to modifications, obviously, for their approval. >> Oh, sure, yeah. What we're trying to do is read a little bit between the lines. That the fact that we may have the opportunity to propose additional amendments doesn't mean the Board of Regents has to accede to those amendments, right? I mean, that's really the question here, which is we're sort of sensing that the Board wants to take this up and in the event that our policy is not approved, a back-up policy will be imposed on us subject to further action by the Board of Regents. The tenor of all this is, you may suggest other changes, but that will be enough for them as we are reading the tea leaves here. So there's a theoretical possibility. But we're worried about the fact that the temporary policy, or the interim policy, would become the policy for some extended period of time. >> I guess in response to that I understand why we might want to be careful. I also see lots of reasons why we might want to go ahead with this. And, in particular, I'd like to know what they think. I would like to have something that is diagnostic. I think that's actually to our benefit at this point. >> Yeah, unfortunately timing is such that we cannot wait until the April meeting to approve this because it has to be in the Board of Regents before then. Yeah. >> Judith Burstyn, District 48. I just want to point out that last year we went through a process whereby we approved a policy, and the Regents, for the first time that I could find any record, actually changed our policy, which they have the authority to do. And I'm of mixed minds about the amendment of this particular policy. My feeling is that the University Committee and the committees that worked on this did a very good job and that it would be at least pragmatic of us to adopt the one they gave us, that the Regents have seen. >> Curt Balsam, District 76. On page 200 of the Regent's December meeting -- I'm just going to read. It clarifies nothing, but just so we're all on the same page. "If any UW institution does not have a Board-approved policy by April 7, 2017, then an interim policy would be in place at that institution." That's all it says. So we don't [inaudible]. At least we're all on the same page of non-clarity [laughter]. >> My name is [inaudible], District 78. I'd like to speak strongly in favor of the amendments. I am not convinced by the arguments that have been presented that this -- that the risk is as substantive as it's being claimed. I think -- and I also am very convinced by those who are saying that the additional benefit, in addition to this just being better policy -- I think that this argument that this is diagnostic is also very useful to us. There was just that last exchange that said okay, but that, you know, we don't know what they think until we see this. But, the point is, giving this, if they reject it, that tells us something unambiguously that they are lying about their agenda. So let's call that bluff because what our Counsellor just told us in terms of reading the tea leaves -- here's my concern with that reading the tea leaves argument. Is that -- the one thing we're not unclear about is that the Regents have a different idea of what tenure means or whether or not there should be tenure relative to us. That's clear, okay? And they -- and we are also clear that, you know, that the kinds of impositions that they want are different, the kinds of policy they want is different than the policy that we want. So if we're going to write our policy to cater as much as we possibly can to what their interests are, then it seems to me we may as well accept their document. And I think that there -- and I think that writing something that you know is going to be approved by them is giving legitimacy -- is giving more -- I think there's a greater risk of legitimizing our own loss of protections than have that loss of protections imposed on us. So, I think that the imposition of that interim, and it is called an interim policy, so I think it's pretty clear. Of course they can reject it just like they can reject this. So what's the greater risk? And we propose this and they they impose their interim thing and we continue to propose stuff. They can reject it just like they can reject this. But I see no actual substantive risk in approving this amendment. And I think it's good. >> One point I'd like to clarify. >> Identify yourself for the -- >> Oh. Amy Wendt, University Committee. One point I'd like to clarify about the Regents' interim policy for those of you who may not have read it closely. But in the interim policy the Dean has the final say in assigning a rating of "Does not meet expectations, Meet expectations, or Exceed expectations" for each faculty member under review in their school or college. So the buck stops with the Dean in the interim policy. So, I just wanted -- as you decide how you're going to vote, I want to be sure that everybody is aware of what the choice is should the Regents not accept our policy. And, second, being an engineer and problem-solver, I want to just suggest an alternative route which would be we could approve the policy without the amendment and then come back to the Regents later with an amended version. That way the interim policy would be our policy, not their policy. [ Inaudible Speaker ] >> Claude Woods, District 48. I have more or less a question. My understanding is that these outstanding reviews happen in an academic year. Presumably there'd been some already this year. And there will be some next year. My question is, would this new policy go into effect immediately for ones that are in the process this year? Or would it start next year? In which case we don't just have one month to obtain a new policy. We have quite a [inaudible] >> I think, yeah, reviews that are under, in way, are largely close to completion in many cases. So I can't imagine this policy would go into effect until next fall for the new set of reviews. >> So the reviews that we're talking about won't really be happening for quite a few months. >> That's right. >> Right now. Okay. >> Ruth Litovsky from the University Committee. I wanted to make two points. One is about raising red flags with the Board of Regents. The other is about best practices on our campus. So in my opinion, in the spirit of the post-tenure review document, it's certain inarguably intended to drive tenure decisions from within the faculty. And while we wish to have language inserted that emphasizes that point, I think there's a high likelihood that it would not be well-received by the Board of Regents. I also think it's likely that it will be rejected and will raise red flags moving forward. And I think we risk some other future negotiations with them as well. But more important, I think the culture here is such that administrators respect faculty decision, including tenure decisions. And I believe that this culture will persist. And it's up to us to continue to work in that capacity to ensure that that's our best practice model. So I'm not in favor of the amendment. Thank you. >> Bruce Barrett, Family Medicine and Community Health, 103. Well, I actually went to the future and checked out a couple of alternatives. And one of them was my preference which was a committee voted on by the faculty that would have to have a majority vote in order to agree with the [inaudible] and then Provosts' decision. But the -- in that future, the Regents did not approve it. But I think that I'm speaking in favor of this amendment. It doesn't give any more actual political power and it makes us feel like we've saved a little bit more of faculty shared governments which is the one thing that makes the University of Wisconsin a place that I want to stay for the rest of my career. Thank you. >> Tom McGuinn, 24. A couple of things. First, just to go back to the 40,000-foot view of why we're here and even debating this at all, and that is the degree of comfort some of us have, or discomfort, with the Dean being the final and final arbiter with some level of consultation with faculty. Maybe some, maybe not. I don't know. In my three-and-a-half decades in academia, I don't know, I've met some autocratic wrong-headed deans. I don't see anything wrong with putting a word or two that says we would like -- the faculty would like to have a voice. But, that's why we're here. At least I'm here. Professor Wendt's suggestion of perhaps coming back to this might be a good idea. And although I think the road to Hell is typically paved with pragmatism, I will withdraw my motion. >> Does the seconder withdraw the second? >> Yeah. >> All right. The motion has been withdrawn. So we have no amendment on the floor, and we're back to discussion of the total proposal unamended. Is there discussion of that? I'm going to call on Judith who was waiting when last we moved to an amendment. >> So this may have already been covered. But I just wanted to ask the question for clarity. This document, as it exists at this moment, has actually seen the system. And was there an indication that this document would be acceptable seeing as how they turned down our last one? >> Ken. >> I belong to [inaudible], so maybe you want to go first. >> I'll be brief. Tom Moynihan, 109. I was on the ad hoc committee that devised or revised policies. Two things I will say in favor of the new policy. One is that we looked at policies that the Regents had passed as models to adopt. And they were consistent with the UW Madison approach. And in particular we looked at what Milwaukee had adopted because I believe it will be very difficult for Regents in good faith to turn around to UW Madison having passed a very similarly-worded policy that they did for Milwaukee. So I think as long as the policy remains roughly similar to what we have, it could be very difficult for them to ignore their prior actions. The second item I would recommend about policy is that it gives power to the divisional committees, takes power away from deans. Ultimately the Provost has the final say upon the advice of a committee appointed by divisional committee. That is essentially the same standard we have for tenure, and this is, I think, an improvement on the prior policy in that it allows faculty who elect members of the Divisional Committee to have some say in the process. Thank you. >> Hi. Irwin Goldman, District 13. I would also like to speak in favor of the proposed policy, revised policy. And I polled a number of my colleagues and talked to people in my own district and outside of my district. And while I think the general sentiment was that people were frustrated that we had to continue to do this, work with the Regents in this particular way, the Drafting Committee, I think, did a very careful and actually clever job of making this a better policy. And I think, Amy, you said this. But a better policy than the one that we actually passed because of the way it brings in a more consultative approach. So I would like to speak in favor of it. And thank you for the work you did on it. >> Right. I'm Roz Anderson, Department of Medicine. I think that's 89 but I'm not sure. So, could you put the text back up? I just want to say -- the first thing is that I think it's a smart move to make sure we get our own policy in place and not something that's been handed to us by the Board of Regents as a first [inaudible]. But I also want to make a remark on, you know, what we want to do moving forward. So the thing with the underlining there. It says two things. One, you should really agree with us, is the first part of it. And the second one is, and when you don't agree with us, tell us why you didn't. And I'm not sure that's really going far enough to address our concerns. And I think in the rare instances where they don't agree us, they need to provide evidence that we can agree is reasonable and right before that decision is final. So I don't think that we want to include this comment. But I do think we want to discuss a little bit more about how much we want to get power back in the hands of the faculty of the home department when can -- and the final decision is made on post-tenure review. >> Chad. >> Go ahead. I'll [inaudible]. >> Tom Broman, University Committee. I just wanted to step up to respond to Judith's question more explicitly than a nodding of the head. Amy and Steve Smith and I were at a meeting with Jim Henderson, the Vice President for Academic Affairs, and Tom Stafford who's the Chief Legal Counsel for UW System. And they approved of the version we showed them. And their approval is not the same as the Regents approving it. But my experience, and you will hear this from everyone who deals with system, that if Tom Stafford recommends the passage of something, that is -- it is very, very likely to pass the Education Committee and, therefore, the Board. So we should take a lot of confidence that this will be approved. >> Chad Owen Goldberg, District 71. I would like to take a moment today to express some of the frustration that Professor Wendt acknowledged in her remarks. And I would have done this in February but I was not able to attend the February Senate meeting, so I hope you will bear with me. And I think what I have to say will probably echo what Mark Edsel said in February. The Regents' requirements that the post-tenure review process shall include an independent substantive administrative review means, in principle, that a faculty member can be judged by his or her peers to meet or even exceed professional standards, but then be declared deficient by an administrator, thus triggering remediation and possible eventual dismissal. This requirement vests authority in administrators who will in most cases lack the specific disciplinary competence and expertise to conduct a substantive review, thus depriving it of any sound or legitimate basis. This is especially troubling in light of paragraph 16 in Regent Policy Document 20-9 which states that post-tenure reviews and remediation plans are not subject to the grievance process set forth in chapter UWS6.02, Wisconsin Administrative Code. The downgrading of faculty's role from primary to advisory, the prohibition of grievance, and the lack of final review by the Board in cases where the faculty and administrative recommendations conflict, violate AGB, AAUP Standards of Shared Governance as well as academic due process. This diminishment of academic freedom is especially troubling in the current political context wherein state legislators have repeatedly threatened faculty, some of whom are in this room, and/or university funding over controversial research findings and course offerings. And some -- the requirement for an independent substantive administrative review concentrates power in the hands of administrators. It diminishes the ability of the faculty to define their own work and standards of performance. It requires tenured faculty recurrently to satisfy administrative officers rather than the basic standards of their profession. And it, thus, substitutes managerial accountability for professional responsibility. And all of that inherently diminishes academic freedom. This is Plato's Theory of Guardianship with administrators in the role of guardians. So what is to be done? Faculty Document 2639 was carefully designed by an ad hoc faculty committee to limit and mitigate as much as possible the harm done by the Regents. Many people have made that point already. I commend the committee for its work and I believe adoption of this policy is the best option of UW Madison faculty. There is, after all, no way to avoid the Regents' requirement. If the Senate votes no to Faculty Document 2639 we will be stuck with the interim policy as others have pointed out which includes the requirement and is worse than any policy that we would design for ourselves. So for these reasons I do not wish to prevent adoption of Faculty Document 2639. However, I cannot in good conscience bring myself to vote to incorporate into FP&P a harmful change that the Board of Regents is imposing upon us no matter how much the faculty document mitigates the harm done by that change. And, therefore, when the Senate votes on this agenda item, on Faculty Document 2639, I will abstain. I ask the Chancellor to ask for abstentions when the vote is taken. And I encourage you, my fellow Senators, to abstain with me as a symbolic protest. I have conferred with the Senate's Parliamentarian, Jake Smith, who assures me that a large number of abstentions will not prevent adoption of Faculty Document 2639 so long as the yes votes outweigh the no votes. In conclusion, an abstention will allow you to register your opposition to an independent substantive administrative review without jeopardizing adoption of Faculty Document 2639 and I invite you to abstain with me. [ Applause ] >> Are there any other comments? >> Yeah, Jed McKigh [assumed spelling], District 66. I'm sympathetic to that but there's a bit of a collective action problem that we don't have it be zero/zero. So is the assumption that just the University Committee is going to vote yes or -- >> Yes. >> Okay. Okay. >> Are we ready for a vote? We'll do this by voice vote, and if we need to take a hand count, we will. All those in favor of the motion as it is in front of us, please indicate by saying aye. >> Aye. >> All those opposed. All those abstaining. I think the ayes have it. And I'm going to vote us in favor of the motion. Do we need to -- I don't think we need to count the abstentions. You know, if anyone wants to call for a count I will do the -- we will do the count, but -- got a call for the count? All right, all those in favor of the motion, please indicate by raising your hand, keeping it up, and -- Does everyone have their count of the ayes? All right. Are you -- All right. All those voting against the motion, raise your hand. The -- bad count? All those abstaining, raise your hand. All right. We have 51 -- no, we have 77 yes votes, two no votes, and 51 abstentions. And the motion carries. All right. I personally hope not to come back to that in this academic year. But perhaps in a future year we will have an amendment. I have no other business. And I declare the meeting adjourned as a result. Thank you all very much.