>> Good afternoon. I understand that we have quorum and it's 3:30, I would like to call this meeting to order. For those of you who don't me I'm Provost Sarah Mangelsdorf subbing for the Chancellor Blank who could not be here today. I'd ask all of you to rise as you are able for the reading of the memorial resolutions. First I'd like to recognize Professor Stephen Lucas to present the memorial resolution for Professor Emeritus Lloyd Bitzer. I'd also like to acknowledge Lloyd's daughter, Jo Bitzer and son, Evan who are with us today. Thank you for coming. >> Thank you. Lloyd Bitzer, Professor Emeritus of Communication Arts at the University of Wisconsin died October 13, 2016 at his family home in Verona. He earned his PhD from the University of Iowa and came to Wisconsin in 1961, where he taught until his retirement in 1994. His scholarship was marked by a series of influential works. Above all these was seminal essay titled "The Rhetorical Situation". Reprinted innumerable times it occupies a central place in the intellectual history of rhetorical studies, composition studies, and philosophy. Lloyd served as President of the National Communication Association, Chair of the Department of Communication Arts and on major campus-wide committees throughout his career, including the University Committee and serving for several years -- more than several years, many years as parliamentarian for the faculty senate. Seven times he received grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities to lead summer seminars on rhetorical theory for teachers of rhetoric across the United States. Many people, in many contexts have echoed Isaac Newton's observation that later generations stand on the shoulders of giants. Lloyd Bitzer is one of those giants upon whose shoulders contemporary scholars of rhetoric and communication stand. Thank you. [ Applause ] >> Next I'd like to recognize Professor Emeritus Donald Novotney to present the memorial resolution for Professor Emeritus Norbert Schmitz. >> Thank you. Dr. Norbert Schmitz, "Norb" as he was known, Professor Emeritus of electric and computer engineering died on April 3, 2017 at age 95. He jointed the Department of Electric Engineering in 1951 as an Assistant Professor and retired as Professor Emeritus in 1983. Norb led the department's activities in electric machines. He was one of the first academics to research the use of power electronic devices for machine control, a technology that now dominates the field. He cofounded the Industrial Consortium called WEMPEC, the Wisconsin Electric Machines and Power Electronics Consortium that has led to Wisconsin's World Leadership Role in education and research in this technical area. The photo up reminds me that Norb was also a very active conservationist and a skilled sailor. Norb and wife, Ruth, spent 18 summers in their beloved 30-foot sloop, "Spray" sailing the Great Lakes. In 2003, "Spray" was donated to the U.W. Hoofers Sailing Club where she sails on as a teaching craft for aspiring sailors. Thank you. [ Applause ] >> And I'm sorry I failed to mention that Professor Schmitz's son Larry is also with us here today. Thank you for coming. [ Applause ] Please me seated. In keeping with Chancellor Blank's tradition of opening this meeting with some good news, I want to touch on several high points since we last met. We had a wonderful homecoming weekend. We -- the weather was amazing and we opened our beautiful Alumni Park. And also the renovated Memorial Union had it's opening. We are also grateful to Ted and Mary Kellner for a $25 million donation for the Always Forward Campaign that was announced during Homecoming. In our Student Outcomes, in case you missed our recent announcement every year in the fall we report on graduation rates, time to degree, retention, and so on. Our six-year graduation rate was up to 87 percent for students who entered in Fall 2011. This is up from 85 percent from last year and compares well with our peer schools. This is the highest number that we have had on record at UW Madison. So our average time to degree is 4.03 laps calendar years. That means not just academic years, taking some in summer, and that number has fallen significantly in recent years. That's something we've been working on because of course if you spend less time in school it costs less. So in other good news our undergraduate retention rates, the freshman who have returned for their sophomore year remains high at 95 percent ranking as one of the best retention rates among public universities and very similar to some elite private universities. So thanks for everything all of you do to support our student's success. For our Winter Commencement we're pleased to announce that two young alumnus, Edward Kitsis and Adam Horowitz, writers and producers of several hit TV shows including "Lost" and "Once Upon a Time" will be back to be our winter commencement speakers. Since they're both our speakers I'll be interested to see if whether they do a tag-team gig or whatever. But we're looking forward to having them on campus in December. Several awards of note, Professor Richie Davidson has been elected a member of the National Academy of Medicine, the premier authority dedicated to the health and medical sciences. English Professor Russ Castronovo has been recognized by the UW system in Alliant Energy Foundation with Underkofler Award for Excellence in Teaching. We have four graduate students who have been selected at recipients of the Fulbright-Hays Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad Awards for 2017 from the U.S. Department of Education. And as you may have seen in the papers or heard on the news, this Thursday, the Board of Regence will be discussing and voting on some changes to the organization of UW extension in colleges and I know there are lots and lots of questions about this. For our part if this were to pass, our campus would take on the conference centers and cooperative extension, which are both a really natural fit for us, of course things like the Pyle and Global Center are here on our physical campus. And in the case of cooperative extension, we're pretty thrilled and welcome them back to UW Madison. They were created as a division of UW Madison in 1906 and then became a separate unit combined with UW colleges with a separate chancellor after the system was created in 1970s. And of course the work of extension is a wonderful example of the Wisconsin idea at work. And we have extension offices in all 72 counties of Wisconsin and it will give us wonderful opportunities to better engage with the people of this state. So we're very excited, but the devil is in the details and there are a lot of details. So after the vote, if it passes as we think it will, we'll be forming an implementation team, which will -- we'll have faculty and staff from both UW Madison and from UW Extension working on all different aspects of this transition. The timeline that is given to us at least as it appears in the proposed region resolution would be that this transition would take effect as of July 1st, 2018. That's a pretty swift timeline. So we'll have to see to what extent we can get done the most critical things we need to get done first. I also wanted to mention to you and some of you may have seen this in the paper, we finally were releasing the results, our first ever study of campus climate. This was a student climate survey. Now lots of our schools and colleges and departments have done campus climate surveys, but this is specific to all students across our campus. And the general results are that most students feel positively about the climate at UW Madison. However, this isn't true for everyone. Students from historically under represented and disadvantaged groups consistently reported a less favorable climate. For instance students of color, LGBTQ students. and students with disabilities reported not feeling as safe, respected, and welcome as majority students. And they were less likely to feel a sense of belonging on campus. Our results closely mirrored those from the University of Michigan. In fact there was a pretty interesting article in the chronicle today about two Flagship Universities surveyed campus climate and here is what they found. Our results kind of mirrored those unfortunately. Although, their students overall seemed less happy than our students, of all students. They used a different survey. And going forward I'm really hoping that we can join forces with some of peer institutions to develop a common survey instrument to be used across campuses much as we did with AU Campus Climate Survey on sexual assault and sexual misconduct because that can help you better identify which are the things that are significant problems on your -- on each individual campus that are worse than the problems faced across all campuses. So generally about four out of five students report feeling very extremely sage, welcome, and respected. And four out of five students indicated that they greatly value diversity and it's important to their future success. Students generally feel that their comments and questions are respected by instructors in their classrooms and students of variety of different religious and political beliefs were significantly likely all to feel respected, welcome, and like they belonged. So really what it does seem with particularly our students of color, and our LGBT students, and our students with disabilities who feel less welcome. About one in ten students reports personally having experience hostile, harassing, or intimidating behavior while at UW Madison. So what's being done about all this? We had a task force that studied the findings. They began work last summer and have offered numerous recommendations that track with some of the efforts that are all ready underway as part of our real change framework for diversity equity inclusion, which includes promoting instructional best practices, increasing the number of students, faculty, and staff from underrepresented groups. I think that's pretty key. That was one of the things in the open-ended part of the survey where you say, what could you do to change campus climate? That was one of the most common responses. Hire more faculty and staff of color. We also want to increase the capacity of students, faculty, and staff to respond effectively to hostile, harassing, and intimidating behavior. Tomorrow and Wednesday is our diversity forum and we'll be discussing the survey results during the lunch session tomorrow. I also wanted to mention that we have a number of searches for administrative positions around the campus. We are currently searching for a new director of our University Health Services. Just today I charged the search committee for the Vice Provost for Libraries. Shortly, we'll be charging committee for the CIO, Chief Information Officer Search, and shortly thereafter the Morgridge Center of Public Service we'll be looking for a new director of that, however will be a internal search. Now I'll open the floor up if anyone has any questions for me. If you don't that's fine, but if you do I'm happy to take them. >> Hi, I'm Mark Etzel, District 11. I had a question for you related to the University of Wisconsin Superior Campus. So recently the UW System announced that they were going to suspend, I think it was a dozen? Two dozen? Two dozen academic programs. And the faculty were totally blindsided by this. Some of the department chairs and faculty were like, "Where did this come from?" Well, it came from the UW system as a directive. And what I'm worried about is that I always thought that faculty were in charge of faculty matters like academic scheduling and planning and things like that. But this is a top down decree that came with no input from the faculty that eliminated 12 -- I think it's 24 different academic programs. What's going on with this? And why wouldn't that happen at Madison? Why couldn't the Ray Cross say, I'm going to get rid of 24 programs at UW Madison. And I know this is in FPP supposed to be a faulty issue but I'm just doing it. So I'm just wondering what your thoughts are on what happened at Superior? Could that happen here? >> Well first of all I don't -- I don't think that the decision to close the programs that they did was made by system. I could be wrong but I saw in all the press releases about the provost there, Jackie Weisberger was quoted that they looked at what they -- they looked at their budgets, and they looked at their enrollments, and these were the decisions they made and I don't really know the -- they weren't mandated by system to do that, they probably were mandated by system to balance their budget in some way. And they've been having a lot of fiscal problems at UW Superior and dwindling enrollments. And I think their campus is very, very different than ours and I wouldn't read anything particular into what happened there to what might happen here. I really -- I mean a couple of people wrote to me after that came out and said, are we -- or is UW system going tell us to close programs that are low enrollment? Well, in fact we provide a report to system every year about the programs that are low enrollment, which is really a program that doesn't -- you have to graduate at least one student a year every year for five years or five students in a major over five. You know, it could be one a year or five in one year. So it's a pretty low bar and we only have a few programs that don't make that bar. And the exception that you'll report to this if you're only the only one offering it. So for example we have a Poultry Science program in callus is quite low enrollments but we are the only university in the state that offers that and so we are allowed to keep it on the books. But we actually do a better job of sort of keeping track of our low enrollment programs and taking things off the books if it's really not a program that people are enrolling in. So I don't see us facing any of that. >> Chad Alan Goldberg, District 71. Just a follow-up on my colleague Mark Etzel's question. I think the thrust of his concern was that these closures are being made in a top down and unilateral way without any input or consultation with faculty. With no input or consultation from students and it seems to me that it would be comforting an reassuring to hear that administration here at UW Madison would not contemplate such a move. >> We absolutely wouldn't. And I'm not sure though and I will talk to my friend Jackie Weisberger whose interim provost at Superior that they didn't engage faculty. But I don't know for sure I wasn't on the campus. But we certainly in all our discussions of closing or mergers or everything has to come through a school or college APC and then to our University Academic Planning Council and they're all -- all these things are discussed and voted on. That's our process. >> Chad Alan Goldberg, District 71. I'm very glad to hear that, thank you. I will say that colleagues at UW Superior that I have heard from and that were quoted in the press said that they were not consulted. >> OK. Any other questions or comments about anything? If not, we'll move along. To begin with we will review the minutes of our meeting from October 2nd. Are there any corrections or additions to the minutes? If there are none, the minutes are approved as distributed. I'd now like to recognize Professor Tim Smeeding who will present the annual report of the University Lectures Committee. Either way. Wherever you'd like to stand, Tim. >> I've never been in the senate before. Hi, I'm Tim. I'm the head of the -- I'm a Professor in La Follette School and Head of the University Lectures Committee and we help departments in students and groups bring people in to give lectures. And we have a really good process and thanks to Steve and particularly Jamie [inaudible] it works well. Excuse me sir? Is that all right? All right. If I break it I bought it, I know. We have one item though that I've sent department heads emails about. We have a particular fund, the William K. Fitch Fund, which is designed for business people to come to campus and to talk about business. And the funds have been growing and we like to spend some of the money. This is open to all perspectives, all types of businesses, debates of two sides of a particular issue would be welcome. It's not subject to the usual rules. We can raise or vary them a little bit if it's a reasonable expense we consider it. And this is where the money is dedicated and so this the way it is. It was specified for businessmen, but we managed to decide that business women were welcome too, so. But that's -- that's all I have. The rest is all in the report. It's not terribly exciting and I know you have other big issues but if you want to talk about it, let's talk about it. I didn't break it either. >> So if they have any questions? If they think of someone they like to invite? >> We, Jamie, Steve, and I are ready to talk to them. There's a -- it says Fitch Fund and you go on there and I mean you don't bring a whole group of people here for a month and a half for $20,000 but if you want to bring somebody in to discuss an issue and there are two sides to lots of business issues, that would be just great I think. So let us know. Thank you. Next I'd like to recognize Professor Doug Wiegmann who will present the annual report of the University Curriculum Committee. >> Good afternoon. First I'd like to start by thanking Leslie Smith who is the chair of the University Curriculum Committee last year and Michelle Young from Academic Planning and Institutional Research who were instrumental in putting this report together. The report was circulated with the agenda, so I won't take up the Senate's time reading it but I'm more than happy to field any questions that anybody might have. Hearing none, I will take my leave. Thank you. >> Next I'd like to recognize Dean Bill Karpus who will present the annual report of the Graduate Faculty Executive Committee. >> Good afternoon I'm pleased to report on the actions of the Graduate Faculty Executive Committee for academic year 2016-17. First of all I wanted to thank the Graduate Faculty Members who served on GFEC this past academic year for their engaged leadership and commitment to ensuring UW Madison has outstanding graduate programs. The quality of the graduate programs is one of the factors that makes us an international research leader. So I'm going to briefly summarize the report. You have it in your agenda items if you want to read through the line items. The report is broken down into three areas -- approvals, reviews, and policy changes. So under approvals, GFEC approved the creation of one new PhD program, one Doctoral minor, 11 named options and two Capstone certificates. Additionally four programs and one names option were renamed and one program was restructured. GFEC approved admission suspensions for two programs, two named options, one graduate certificate, and one Capstone certificate. Two programs, ten doctoral minors and one named option were discontinued. That is the vote of the faculty, yes. Under reviews, GFEC conducted nine, three-year program check-ins. These are not full reviews but an abbreviated version to check in on new program. And GFEC also conducted 39 program reviews and review updates. I think it's important to note that the workload for GFEC has risen and we meet 10 months out of the year now. Under policy changes number four of ten recommended policies brought forward to GFEC for approval. The ten recommended policies brought forward were a result of an ad hoc committee led by Daniel Kleinman when he was here and had wide input from faculty on all levels. The policy changes were co-advisor co-chair role was formalized so that there is actually a real co-advisor in SIS now. A minimum number of members serving on doctoral committees was reduced from five to four. And a number of dissertation readers was formalized at three. In a fourth policy change was that of requiring graduate students to provide written acknowledgement contributions on their dissertation where they received help from others in a variety of areas including coauthoring work that appears in the dissertation, help in designing research, help in executing the research, assistance in analyzing and interpreting the data or providing proofreading or copy editing the manuscript. These were changes that were brought forth on a national level on many institutions and many of our peer institutions had all ready implemented these changes. So I want to end by again thanking the faculty for serving on this committee and for their input and for their care in our graduate education programs on campus. I can take any questions. Great thank you. >> I'd now like to recognize Professor Kurt Paulsen who will present the Resolution calling for the creation and implementation of a campus-wide climate action plan. >> I understand I have to make a motion first though. I move adoption of Faculty Document 2699 as revised. >> Can I have a second? Thank you. >> So I'm going to just talk briefly about what this resolution does. And as you see it's revised, so if you're counting there "where ases [phonetic]" which obviously we all do, the sixth where as was added after comments from Bruce Bartlett of the Medical School. And it just says that we accepted a report, Faculty Document 2472 from the ad hoc committee on fossil fuel use and climate change. So what this resolution does -- on and first in terms of process, it is my understanding that the academic staff assembly will be voting on a newly identical resolution next Monday the 13th. A copy of this resolution has been making it's way through the ASM process for the students and it's their intention to bring something like this up for vote when they get organized enough to do that. So what this resolution does is it first says that the faculty commit ourselves to the goal that UW Madison should become carbon neutral by 2050 or sooner. The resolution encourages the administration, which is within our peer view and shared governance laws, to also adopt that goal. And then it encourages the administration to quote "fund, create, and implement" a campus wide climate action plan with specific and measurable targets and implementation actions. The rest of the resolution is focused on what that plan could include. It doesn't preordain that that plan would have to come to any necessary process or outcomes, although we suggest that as a starting point it begins with the framework all ready adopted by the city of Madison and Dane County -- or soon to be adopted by Dane County and that it contain some mechanism for us to report results and be publically accountable for those results as over 5- or 600 universities across the country are currently doing. So what the resolution says is either we can use the reporting framework from the American College and University President to Climate Commitment or the AASHE, which is the American Association for Sustainability and Higher Education. And I think Paul Robbins of Nelson has all read begun the process of gathering the data for that. And the other thing, the resolution suggests the plan should do is adaptation and resilience of our facilities. And the final where-as I just need to explain why we're encouraging the chancellor to sign this climate commitment is that the rules of this climate commitment is that only a chancellor can sign on behalf of a university. And that eight of our fellow UW System School Chancellors have all ready signed and are reporting on their progress towards this goal. I don't think I have to give a motivational speech but this is becoming both a moral and a financial imperative for institutions of higher education. >> People have any questions or comments? Quiet bunch today. >> [Inaudible] District 13. My question is, I'm actually I'm in support of this motion and definitely about going this direction. I'm just wondering, do we know the financial aspects of this motion? What do we -- if we go this way, how much are we going to be saving? How much are we going to be losing? >> Kurt Paulsen, District 76. The short answer is, No. In fact that I think is -- if there's any objection, it's the idea that this will cost money. But we know that the university is going to spend millions of dollars on facilities and energy costs over the next 25, 30 years anyway. So, I don't have a ballpark estimate of what the planning process would require. I know that there is all ready action within David Darling's Office in Facilities and Office of Sustainability. But the short answer, and this I'm putting on my Economist hat is that most investments in clean energy have reasonably decent payback period. Obviously as we've seen that the university has all ready invested $63 million in energy efficiency and has had a 27 percent per square foot cost. So that's part of one of things that the plan would do, is the feasibility of how much it would cost for various sorts of strategies. >> I would love to see this study because definitely, even if it's going to cost money, I think it's still right move. >> Right. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions or comments on this resolution? I guess we're ready for a vote. All those in favor with resolution? >> [Group] "I" >> Any opposed? All right, resolution passes. The next item that was to be on our agenda, which was the policy on Academic Staff as Advisors. It turns out we need to further revise the document associated with this item, so we'll not be taking it up today. But we hope to bring it to you in a future senate meeting. I'd now like to recognize Professor Anja Wanner, chair of the UC who will present updates to FPP Chapters 1 and 2. >> Hello everyone, this is the really exciting stuff for FPP fans. I move adoption of Faculty Document 2706, which updates language in FPP that has become outdated. Over the next several months, the UC will bring a number of these FPP housekeeping updates to you for approval. Because the changes are straightforward, and we believe, non-controversial, we are bringing these directly for a vote rather than a first reading. Some of you may remember that about a year ago, the UC brought forwards a number of these "FPP cleanup" changes for discussion, but as they covered all of FPP, they were too lengthy and diverse to be appropriately considered. Thus, we have broken them up into a chapter two at a time. In front of you today you have recommendations for changes to Chapters 1 and 2, which include things like -- Which addition of Robert's Rules in Order we apply? We will say, just the most recent one. We will remove this specific number 251 from the majority required to pass faculty legislation, and we just replace it with 10 percent, which is where the number 251 came from in the first place. And we will also have more relaxed language on the election of senators because this is very differently handled in different departments. So the details are in your package and we just ask for your approval. >> So I have a question -- I'm sorry, Judith Burstyn, District 48, Chemistry. So I have a question about that which is on page 25 of the document, in which there's a change to the structure of the question period. I have no issue with the changing of who is presiding during that period, but the very last item, "At the conclusion of the question period it shall be in order for members of the senate or any other member of the faculty present to address questions to the chair of the executing committee." I would like to understand why that has been removed and state my disagreement with that choice. >> Anja. >> With help from Steve, we very discreetly pointed out that this is now covered in A. It says, "That after the 20 minutes then the senate member may address questions to the chancellor or executive committee." So it's just a redundancy to have it in G. So the questions can still be asked. >> OK, so it's a change where it's been moved from G to A? >> That's correct. >> Thanks for catching that. >> Can I have you as my editor, Julie? >> Chad? >> Chad Alan Goldberg, District 71. I think that some of the changes proposed to Chapter 2 may be more controversial than has been suggested, at least to my mind, therefore I move that the question be divided such that there's vote on the changes to Chapter 1 and a vote to the Changes on Chapter 2 separately. >> What do others think about that? Separating 1 and 2? >> I believe that motion is not debatable. >> So all in favor of separating 1 and 2 vote "I". >> [Group] "I". >> Any opposed? OK. All right. So, let me go back to -- should we take a vote on 1 or the changes to 1 or are there any more comments or questions? If not, all those in favor of the changes to Chapter 1 say "I". >> [Group] "I". >> Any opposed? OK, now we move on to Chapter 2. Proposed changes to Chapter 2 in FPP. >> Chad Alan Goldberg, District 71, I'm going to speak in opposition to the proposed changes although I'm open to persuasion. I'm concerned that some of the proposed changes actually eliminate rights of faculty members or members of this body and I'll point to a couple of instances where I'm -- I have concerns. So in Section 2.04 D, the stricken language provides that eligible voters be notified of the election date and now to make nominations, that notification be made in writing, that it be made at least three weeks in advance of the election, and that no district members shall be entitled to more than one vote. It seems to me those are important to retain in FPP. I'm also troubled by the change to 2.07 A, so, the stricken language eliminates the right of every faculty member to specifically request senate materials. I don't understand the reason for restricting access to information. I'm very concerned about the change to 2.08 A, the last sentence which is stricken. A matter not on the agenda of a meeting may be added to the agenda of the meeting by a two-thirds vote of the senators present at voting. It seems to me that is the elimination of an important right of the member of this body. I also had concerns about the point that Judith Burstyn raised. I understand that that has simply been moved up to A. So I don't have a concern about that specifically but I am troubled in other places where it seems to me that rights are being taken away. If I'm mistaken or in error, I would appreciate being enlightened. >> Again with help from Steve, 204-D is not -- the way it's phrased here and stricken out is not how it's currently handled. So we wanted to bring this in line with the variety that departments use for selecting their senators. The other one 208, the sentence that is stricken, a matter not the agenda, I'm told that this is -- having this in FPP would not be in line with open-meetings law, state law. So that's not a choice. >> Was there a third -- no you had a third -- there were three concerns. >> 2.07 A. >> They don't need to request the materials because they automatically are available to all faculty. Isn't that this one? See, where it says, "Must request." >> Yeah. >> We thought it automatically went to everybody. >> Yeah. Yeah, so the intent was to reflect the current practice, which is that all materials go to all faculty automatically, they don't need to request them. >> You see, some of the FPP dates back to the days before computers. And so people would get hard copies of meeting materials sent to them if they requested them. But now, the [inaudible], we can just send notification -- meeting notifications with links to all the agenda items to all faculty. And we'll see that with some of the -- when we talk about the changes in this section about summer school as well. Some of it dates back -- there are some things in there that talk about going to the Bursar's Office to pick up your check for summer school. There are things that date back to different times. So I think in that case it's not like we're trying to withhold the agendas, it's that everybody gets them ready. >> May have the floor? >> You may. >> Chad Alan Goldberg, District 71. So thank you for that clarification, I appreciate that. To be honest I'm still not entirely satisfied. I am troubled. I understand that there's a desire to change the election process to what's consistent with current practice, but it seems to me what's in FPP lays out valuable rights, specific rights for faculty members. I understand the need to -- or the desire to want to give district some autonomy in determining their own procedures, but I think there should be limitations and constraints to what can be done. And I would like to see some of these rights restored or rather preserved in FPP if consistent -- if current practice is not consistent with these rights, perhaps the current practice needs to be revisited. The 2.08 A, this is the one that concerns me the most. And I know that this has been a matter of controversy in this body before. There's been a -- there's been a controversy and debate about the interpretation of the Open Meetings Law. I do remember at least one previous faculty senate meeting where an item was placed on the agenda at the meeting despite the advice of university lawyers and the chancellor. And I think since this remains a matter of controversy, this should remain in FPP. I will not vote to remove this and urge others not to vote to remove this. >> Any other questions or comments or concerns about changes to Chapter 2 in FPP? Opposed changes? If not, I think we're ready to vote. All those in favor of the proposed changes to Chapter 2 of FPP say "I" >> [Group] "I". >> All those opposed? >> [Group] "Nay". >> Do you need a count of the "Nay's"? >> Could we have a raise? >> Please raise your hand if you're opposing the changes so we can count the votes. Yes, please raise your hand if you voted against the proposed -- I have to start with the yea's, we have to do all the exact counting, OK. So all those in favor of the proposed changes, please raise your hand. OK, all those opposed to the proposed changes. Opposed. Motion passes. I'd like to recognize Anja Wanner again. We'll present updates to FPP regarding the summer term. This is for a first reading. >> You have in your materials Faculty Document 2707, which is an almost complete overhaul and rewrite of FPP Chapter 11. This is the shortest and likely least read chapter of FPP, the current version of this Chapter refers to policies and procedures relating to summer term that haven't been -- many of them haven't been applicable for decades. The provost just said things like picking up your check from the Bursars. Most of this rewrite was drafted by Jeff Russell and his summer term team and I'd like to ask Jeff to come up and offer some overview and context on summer and why we are trying to update the policies. And after that we look forward to your comments and thoughts on this first reading, again no vote today. >> Well thank you very much. It's nice to think of summer actually today as we hit some colder temperatures. Well as many of you know, summer has a been a key priority on campus in the last several years, your school's colleges and faculty have worked very hard in thinking about the curriculum, and thinking about the courses that we're offering for students. And as was indicated, the rationale on why we're looking at this is because we've had more engagement and more involvement. Other issues have come up that we just need to update this and upgrade it to fit really the modern time in terms of what we're confronted with. How we did it was we originally, the summer term team worked to originally draft some recommendations. We have a summer dean committee that every school and college has a representative on. They vetted that and reviewed that. And then we had other colleagues like from the Office of Human Resources, I see Mark Waters in the back and others played a key role in reviewing some of the compensation related things. So that's how we did it. Just quickly in terms of the overview. To be consistent as we think about fall and spring term, we went from summer sessions to summer terms, so you'll see some of that language on the front end. And then when you get in to some of the core things, when you look at the administration, you'll see that it's not the chancellor but in fact the provost and the chief academic officer that appoints the summer dean. And then every school in college appoints then someone to serve as their summer dean to help in the planning and the curriculum development. So that's what you'll see in Section 11.02. And then it's ultimately up to the academic departments to determine the curriculum and then work with their dean and then get the appropriate folks payroll to make that work. So those are the changes on Section 11.02. 11.03, 11 03, is summer term compensation. And we just updated that just to be more consistent with what we're doing now. We're not paying people one month's salary for four weeks of instruction, or at least that's not very typical across the campus. So we just updated that to fit more consistent with what we're doing on the HR side. Section 11.04 is one of my favorite -- Deferral of summer session compensation. I didn't realize that at one time we had a summer sessions deposits of the university trust fund. So I don't think the provost is interested in me or other -- or Lauren Heller and others me working on a trust fund for deferred compensation. So we're -- that striking Section 11 -- 11.04. And then on Section 11.04, we've replaced that with summer term appointments. And as I mentioned as we've engaged various folks in this process, we've had a chance -- the feedback that we've gotten have been really two-fold in this context. There are some people on a 12-month appointment that are on a -- that are faculty that would like to teach but need to be compensated because they have other roles. So the overload provides one provision to make that more clear on how that could be done. The other is we had a lot of feedback from those of you in schools and colleges that have a lot of research staff that might be suitable to offer a very important unique course or course offering. And that typically -- that flexibility is not made available. There's still checks and balances in that. We work with Heather and her team in the Academic Staff Executive Committees. So that flexibility here for the summer term, for those that are on a research appointment is reflected on that. And then on the last Section 11.05, it's just the typical leave reporting that has to be done. So that's the quick summary version of the changes. Do you want to take any questions or just -- yeah, if there's any quick questions we'll be glad to try to -- >> [inaudible] Feinstein, Community Environmental Sociology. References to current practice put us as the faculty at a bit of a disadvantage because most of us are aware of the practices within our departments but not across campus. And that creates an awkward dynamic where we're forced to trust that practices are indeed changing around campus in places that we can't see. Now that is a little bit of a strange place to be when you're trying to approve and update in policy on the basis of changes that you can't see around campus. So this is a request about changes in FPP from this point forward that when you make claims about changes being based in shifts and practice that you substantiate that. Showing us how those changes play out across campus, so that what's being presented to us as a new status quo is information. >> OK. >> Kurt Paulsen, District 76. I have two questions which are related, which may just be that I'm misreading it. But both of them are areas where the language seems to be silent on something. So first on 11.04.A Overload. Presumably it's referring to 12-month of employees, not 9-month. And it says, "An employee may be asked to perform duties outside of their normal work assignments." As a general rule that phrase really troubles me because it seems to suggest that a lack of voluntary teaching on behalf of 12-month employees. So anytime we enter a new law a phrase that employee may be asked to perform duties outside of the normal work assignments, the union member in me gets really nervous about giving too much power to administrators to determine that someone shall teach. I realize that the rest of the phrase is talking about if adequate compensation can be found, but we want to avoid a situation where someone feels obligated to teach summer school. >> So do you have a suggested change? >> I'm just seeing this now so I'll have to -- >> What about if an employee chooses to or requests to teach -- >> Right. >> Because clearly -- >> I don't want to wordsmith something on the top of my head without thinking about it. OK, and the other question actually is similar with regard to faculty. I mean it obviously it implies that 9-month faculty may teach summer school, but given trends that we've talked about earlier, we can imagine a world where a dean or department chair needs to make a summer course work for budgetary reasons and puts pressure on a faculty member to "voluntarily", in quotes, teach summer school. So I think some clarifying language that any work performed teaching summer term is voluntary and must be subject to the employee agreeing. Just as kind of thinking long-term about those issues. >> Sure, sure. >> Hi, Lisa Everett, District 67. And since there was discussion in this document about summer administration, summer deans being appointed etcetera. I'm personally a little confused and I'm sorry if it's clear to everybody else about what do departments do they have any special administrative appointments they have to make to oversee the summer term as well? Or are these just duties of the department chair? If you're changing chairs for the next year, is it the one that's outgoing over the summer that takes over or is this something we decide by department? Because it's just not clear to me at all and especially since there's language in here saying something at a campus level, it seems like it would be useful to have guidance if there's any to give, thank you. >> It's my understanding it's handled at the school college and then every department will structure and do that differently. >> Mark Etzel, District 11. I move that we postpone a vote on this to the next faculty meeting. >> This is the first reading. >> Oh this is the first reading, OK sorry. My mistake. >> Go ahead anything else? Good, well thank you for your comments. We'll go ahead and integrate those in. >> Thank you, Jeff. All right. Now, Anja it's your turn again. I'd like to recognize Professor Anja Wanner who will present updates to Faculty Legislation related to the new Sexual Harassment and Sexual Violence Prevention Policy for a first reading. >> You also have in your materials Faculty Document 2708, which includes the most recent draft of our new campus policy on sexual harassment and sexual violence. This policy is much broader and much more detailed than the extant and outdated faculty legislation on the same topic, II-303. The materials you have in your packets, provided for a first reading and discussion, again no vote today, recommend removing the parts of the old policy that deal with sexual misconduct and renaming the remaining parts in that policy and endorsing the new campus policy. A few words about this new campus policy -- UW System provided a policy template that each campus is to use as a guide for their campus policy on sexual harassment and sexual violence. The Provost's Advisory Committee on Sexual Misconduct, PAGSAM, which is co-chaired by Kathy Trueba Director the Office of Compliance and Lori Berquam, Dean of Students who are both here, reviewed the template and provided this policy that we have here to the provost this summer. Much of what's in the policy is required by federal law and or the UW system template including the requirement for all students and employees to receive primary prevention training. While many content elements in the training are required, the format, length, and accountability measures for completing training is up to the campus. UW-Madison elected to build a custom training module, which I'm sure you have seen, to meet the needs of our campus. PAGSAM also recommended, and the Provost endorsed, linking training completion to eligibility for merit and compensation increases. Training completion rates for campus as of late October was approximately 88 percent. This includes the delivery of training online and in group sessions held in multiple languages and at convenient times for our 2nd and 3rd shift workers and employees who do not have access to a computer as part of their employment. UW-Madison also determined who would be designated as a "Responsible Employee" under Title 9 for reporting purposes. Additional training will be required of these employees. Several members of PAGSAM including the two co-chairs are here and of course the provost herself if you have specific questions about the policy. We look forward to your comments and thoughts. Again, this is a first reading. >> Is there a question, I'm sure there are? >> Introduce yourself. >> Good afternoon, I'm Kathy Trueba, I'm the Director of the Office of Compliance and the Campus ADA coordinator. >> Lori Berquam, Dean of Students Vice Provost Student Life. >> I'm Patrick Sheehan, Office of Human Resources and a Deputy Title 9 Coordinator. >> Lauren Hasselbacher, the Campus Title 9 Coordinator and I'll be in charge of enforcing this policy. >> Does anyone have any questions or comments? Anything to discuss? >> Dan Vimont, I never know my district, Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences. So in reading through this I'm seeing -- can you just clarify, I'm seeing very little new language. OK, so this is not a -- I'm sorry, I thought it was just presented as a major overhaul of -- and I'll I'm seeing are corrections for like chapters. No, I know, I went down to the very end and there's -- >> Oh do you want to speak that -- >> If you notice in your documents there is correction to II-303, which is not -- I mean it is -- there's nothing new there, but there's 20 pages of the new policy, which are numbered separately in some of the packets and not underlined, yeah. That's the new policy. >> So no one has any questions, comments? >> Just to -- Christa Olson, District 55 just to clarify follow up on that. So are we creating two different policies? So there's a policy on a large speech -- whatever the expression. And then there's a policy on sexual harassment and they're going to be completely separated? >> Different. >> No other questions? Well, if there are no other questions, we're adjourned. Thank you all for coming.