Faculty Senate December 4, 2017 Transcription >> I am told we have a quorum so I am going to call the meeting to order. I want to note at the end of this meeting we have a closed session among members of the faculty senate only. We are going to try to start that by 4:45 so we are going to try to move through business at a reasonably prompt manner in order to get there. Let me ask everyone to rise as you are able for the reading of the Memorial Resolutions. And I will recognize Professor Regina Murphy to present the Memorial Resolution for Professor Emeritus Ed Lightfoot. >> OK. Edwin "Ed" Lightfoot died in Madison on October 2 at the age of 92. He was preceded in death by his wife of 67 years, Lilah, and is survived by their five children -- one of whom is here, Ted -- and one granddaughter. Ed's extraordinary academic career spanned from 1953 until his retirement in 1996. With Bob Bird and Warren Stewart he coauthored a textbook, Transport Phenomena, a text that transformed chemical engineering curricula worldwide. Ed's research in biological mass transport, bioseparations, and systems biology was world-renowned. He was a dedicated teacher and devoted mentor to his students. Ed was elected to the National Academy of Engineering and the National Academy of Sciences and was the recipient of the National Medal of Science from President Bush. Ed was a prolific reader who was able to expound on almost any topic. He spent many happy hours at his Sock County cabin with family, friends, and his much-loved dogs. He will be deeply missed. >> And I want to thank Ed's son, Ted Lightfoot, for being here today. Thank you for coming. [ Applause ] Please be seated. Let everyone get seated here who's still coming in. I am going to make a few remarks and then I'm going to turn the podium over to Marsha Mailick, the Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate Education, and then we will do questions at the end of both of those sets of comments. So there are always a number of good news happening around campus and this afternoon we had quite a bit of particularly good news. Let me start with the fact that five of our professors have earned American Association for Advancement of Science scholarships. Named to AAAS are Amy Barger, Professor of Astronomy, John Barry, Professor of Chemistry; Jack Maw, Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering; Janette Roberts, Professor of Pharmacy; and Lydia Zepida, Professor of Consumer Science. Congratulations to all of them. Scott Straus in Political Science recently was announced as the winner of the Grawemeyer Award for his book on genocide in Africa. Two of our students were finalists for the Rhodes Scholarship: Kyra Fox from Whitefish Bay is a double major in International Studies and Psychology and Russ Dalkee of Westfield, Wisconsin is double majoring in Journalism and Political Science. And just this morning we announced that Phoenix Rice Johnson is a Marshall Scholar winner. Phoenix graduated in 2016 with honors and a degree in Political Science and International Studies. Segueing from faculty and honors, I need to say a word about the athletic season. Despite a disappointing loss to Ohio State in Indianapolis on Saturday night, our Badger football team has just had an outstanding season, going undefeated up until the Big Ten championship game. And as I hope you all know we'll be playing in the Orange Bowl in Miami, Florida on December 30th. I'm particularly proud of Coach Chryst and all that he has accomplished and been named the Big Ten Coach of the Year for the second year in a row. I will also note that if you look at other schools that are competing at the same level as we are, we clearly have higher levels of academic achievement among our football team than among other top-ranked teams and that's just as important as our success on the field. So the Badger football team joins Duke, Northwestern, and Stanford as the only four football programs in Division I to earn academic public recognition awards in each of the last five years. And doing that at the same time as what they have accomplished on the field is something that I am proud of. [ Applause ] And not wanting to dwell only on football I should note that the women's volleyball team is having another great year under Coach Kelly Sheffield. They're playing Stanford on Friday night in the Sweet 16 round of the NCAA tournament. And our men's soccer team also got to the Sweet 16 round in their NCAA championship so a good fall for all of the Badger teams. Marsha will say more about this. We just recently received our rankings on research expenditures and again we came in the same as last year: sixth in the nation. Being in the top ten is a good place to be. I'd rather be in the top five which is where we had been for many years but Marsha will talk further about where we are and some of the good news around that. I think both she and I feared we might be dropping further yet this year given some of the trends over the last ten years and I think we finally got evidence we're turning some of those trends around. One of the things that I'm very pleased to announce -- I don't know if all of you have heard this yet. As you know, we are underpaying our graduate students compared to many of our peers and we are going to take an opportunity this year when we don't have budget cuts -- and again, I've said this before. We're beginning to see the returns from some of the revenue-generating strategies that we have implemented here and the result is that we -- I think this has been announced. A significant stipend increase for graduate student teaching and project assistance which is absolutely vital to our research competitiveness and to our faculty who work with these students. The increase is going to be 13.3% in current stipends. That raises the campus minimum from $16,196 to $18,350 for a nine-month, 50% appointment. And I want to thank our Provost, Bill Carpus in the Graduate School, Marsha, and Moran Heller at the VCFA for their work on this issue. And we're still not where we need to be but we have an opportunity this year to move up substantially and we need to take that opportunity so I think that's good news. [ Applause ] As you know, in its November meeting the Board of Regents voted to make UW Cooperative Extension a part of UW-Madison. I should say to make it again a part of UW-Madison. A Cooperative Extension was founded here on this campus, was part of us for I think more than 50 years before it moved into this new organization that the system then created with extension of the two-year schools. Just this morning I participated in a statewide call with Cooperative Extension employees to welcome them and I'm really quite glad to see this change happen. I think if we do it right it will be a win-win for both Cooperative Extension and for us that they can benefit with closer collaborations across our campus with all of the work that's going on here and we can benefit in terms of our outreach around the state by collaborating more with them. So I'm excited about this. The plan is almost surely we would move them in as a new unit. There are more than 600 employees in Cooperative Extension so we would basically add another -- I don't know if it would be called a school or a college or whatever and a dean would be in charge of that. And then it can work across campus and collaborate with all of the units here as well. The provost is in charge of making all this integration go smoothly and she in turn has appointed Casey Nagy who some of you will know as John Wiley's Chief of Staff from a decade or more ago to lead the transition effort. And we've also asked Heidi Zorb who has long been a part of CALS but has been over at extension doing some work in the recent past to be directly involved in the transition process. So we're setting up working groups to work on the whole set of governance, HR, IT, financial, all of those issues that are getting involved in the transition. There will be staff and faculty from extension in those groups. There will be staff and faculty from Madison in those groups and, you know, we will work as quickly as we can. I'm not sure we're going to get everything done by July 1st. There are going to be some elements of this reorganization that will take longer but the goal is to start functionally operating with Cooperative Extension as part of UW-Madison by July 1st, the beginning of the next fiscal year. So this is going to be a big project but I think it's a project that's well worth doing and will result in good things. A word about federal taxation and the reform plans. As you know there has been tax legalisation passed in both the house and the senate. Those plans are different and they're now going into reconciliation. There are a variety of aspects in these plans which will very much impact universities. In my opinion, the most impactful is the proposal in the house to actually tax wage tuition for graduate students. That would seriously reduce the number of students who could afford to attend graduate programs around the country. This is in the house bill but it's not in the senate bill. This is one where I think everyone, and not just in this room but around the country, needs to keep commenting and keep the pressure up on this. I think we have a good chance of this not coming out of reconciliation since it's not in both bills but we have to keep messaging the cost of this one. There's a whole variety of other bills. I have communicated with our national representatives by letter. I've talked to a number of them face to face. A number of the higher education groups that we've been working with have been actively involved and I know profs and others are involved in this one as well. And it's one that we should care quite a bit about. Turning from taxation to sexual harassment -- lots of good topics today -- as everyone here knows, there's been an ongoing national conversation on sexual harassment and on gender discrimination in workplaces including here at UW-Madison and I just want to affirm the commitment of this university to an environment that is safe and free from harassment and intimidation. In 2015 we were part of an AAU survey on sexual assault and on misconduct. We asked about experiences of harassment. That's not assault. That's simply being treated differentially and in a negative way because of your gender. And half of our students reported having experienced harassment. That is something that we need to take seriously. We've taken a number of actions since then to effectively prevent and respond to harassment. Number one: created a new, full-time Title 9 coordinator position in 2015 replacing that position in the newly-created Office of Compliance. We're requiring sexual harassment and sexual assault prevention training for all graduate students. We launched that pilot in 2016. We made it mandatory in 2017. Undergraduate students have been required to take this training since 2013. And it's slightly different training for graduate students than for undergraduates. We are requiring, as you all know, sexual harassment/sexual assault prevention training for all employees, beginning last July. If any of you or anyone in your units have not completed that they will not be eligible for any of the wage adjustments that are going to be coming down the line this year or the next. So it's very important that people complete that training. As of early November, about 90% of our employees had already done so. We have created a number of policies on sexual harassment including better defining which university employees are Title 9 responsible employees. And we've adopted a new policy and grievance procedure to address hostile and intimidating behavior. You are all involved in that and you are going to be asked to confirm or support or not support the other new policy later in this meeting. And we hired two additional victim advocates in the fall of 2016 in Survivors Services. It is absolutely essential that individuals, departments, schools, colleges, and the entire university not only respond appropriately to all complaints and concerns about sexual harassment and sexual assault but work proactively to create the positive and inclusive environment for students, staff, and faculty that we all want to see. And, you know, here in Baskem Hall we don't know what's happening out there in a lot of places. The deans often don't know. And it is on people at the ground level to report things, to try to deal with them, to try to see if there are ways first within the department and if that doesn't work through a more formal procedure to address issues as they arise and everyone has it on their shoulders to be proactive about this. The university is continuing to look to ways to improve prevention and reporting here on campus and this includes launching training for all the Title 9 responsible employees -- that's employees who deal regularly with students -- developing an ongoing education and awareness campaign regarding sexual harassment and sexual violence; containing the collaboration between the Title 9 Coordinator and the Office of Human Resources to improve recordkeeping, training, and referral processes; and establishing a central reporting system and a database for sexual harassment and sexual assault reports and complaints. That is my news for today. I know that we are rushing towards final exams and many of you are probably feeling very busy right about now. Winter commencement is going to take place on Sunday, December 17th at 10:00 a.m. and I hope we'll have good faculty representation. That's always a fun event in the Cole Center. And after that I do hope that all of you have a wonderful holiday season, get a break from everything you've been doing, and come back refreshed at the beginning of the next semester. So let me now turn things over to Marsh and we'll do questions after that. Marsha? >> Good afternoon. So it's great to be here. I anticipated potentially a different beginning set of remarks if our research rankings had fallen further but they did not. So it's great to be here to report some of the things that my colleagues and I in the Research Office have been working on in order to not only increase our rankings or stabilize and then increase them in the future but also to support the research enterprise on campus which is the most important work that we do. We've been watching the trends and the data very closely and it's -- for a number of years UW-Madison has actually been dropping by many metrics. And so for the past three and a half years since the Office of Research was created we've been trying to do our best to address these issues. And I'll start out with some good news and end with some good news. But the good news that I want to share with you to begin with is that after four years where our campus research expenditures had dropped each year on an absolute level -- not our rankings, but the absolute level of research expenditures had dropped for four years in a row. This past year we actually went up by 8.3% -- an increase by 8.3% in research expenditures. So that's a good leading indicator of where we hope things are going to be moving in the future. So what I'd like to do with my time today is to tell you about some of the work that we've been doing and share with you some examples from our faculty colleagues about how they are taking advantage of some of the new resources that we have and have made available through the research office. So first and foremost our goal is to support our faculty in carrying out what I call the research projects of our dreams. We all know what that means. We all know that if we -- we have many, many ideas that we would love to carry out in research if we only had funding to begin the research or to take it to the next level and often that's the most difficult, funding, to come by, the funding in the beginning. So you've heard me talk about the UW 2020 program which we launched in 2016 and UW 2020 is funded primarily by WARF. And during the first year of UW 2020 funding we allocated about $9 million to 28 collaborative research projects. Those projects are still ongoing. They're not quite completed but although they're not completed yet the $9 million investment has already generated about $11 million in new extramural research funding. And we're very, very pleased about that. And even though grants awarded and research dollars in grant budgets are not the most important metric -- obviously it's the knowledge generated from these research projects -- I just thought that this early outcome of success bears mentioning and sharing with you, the Faculty Senate. So let me share with you one example of a UW 2020 project from that first round of funding that has already met with success and I think is quite inspiring. It's the group that Zoology Professor Monica Turner leads along with her collaborators Tony Ives, Steve Carpenter, Chris Kucharek, and Jack Williams from Zoology, Limnology, Agronomy, and Geography. Their project, their UW 2020 project, has been titled, "Anticipating Abrupt Ecological Change in the 21st Century." And what they do is they and each of them has recruited a postdoc to work together to co-teach a seminar and to collaborate on research that's focused on specific ecological hazards such as harmful algal blooms that occur in over-fertilized lakes or collapsing tree populations or the like. And in addition to developing this new seminar which has been launched they also already have obtained three new NSF grants totaling $1.8 million and they have expectations for additional funding in the pipeline. So time doesn't permit me to tell you more stories about UW 2020 projects but I wish I could because they are just very inspiring, creative ideas that our faculty have brought to us. Each one of them is described on our website so I encourage you to go to the website and take a look at these if you're interested and I guarantee that this would be good reading for you. We are about to begin the fourth round of UW 2020 funding in the next month or so and so we'll have new results to report from that round of funding. The second strategy we've been pursuing to address our falling research enterprise is to advocate for increasing the size of our faculty. At the same time when our peer institutions are increasing their faculty and they're doing that in part by hiring our faculty, as we know, we have remained more or less flat in terms of the number of faculty that we have here at UW-Madison. And we have fallen behind particularly hiring new faculty. And if you compare 2016 to 2008 -- which is some years in the Data Digest that were handy -- on my shelf we brought in 25% fewer faculty in 2016 than in 2008. And as we all know we've lost some truly outstanding faculty to other universities. So working collaboratively with the Chancellor, the Provost, and the Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration, my office has been advocating for restarting our cluster hiring initiative which was so exciting when it was first rolled out here at UW-Madison 20 years ago. And some of us remember that. I do. And I feel -- ooh, sorry. There's a visitor here. Now it's not. [Laughing] >> He's gone. >> [Laughing] Now he's gone. [Laughing] Things happen. Right? So I know that the cluster hiring program has undergone some careful evaluation research and it turns out to be one of the most successful strategies we've used in the past in terms of hiring really exciting faculty members in new areas for our campus. So I'm very grateful to the Chancellor and other members of the campus leadership for making the commitment to invest in cluster hiring again. So I thought I would bring a couple of examples from 20 years ago to bring to you today because as we move toward selecting new clusters for funding I think that this sets some standards for what we would be looking for to replicate again and to exceed. So one example of a successful cluster that's near and dear to my heart is the Translational Neuroscience Cluster which is led by Su-Zhan Zang, Chyong Chung, and Chin Yu Zhao at the Departments of Neuroscience, Neurology, and Genetics and they all have affiliations with the Wasten Center. So the goal of this cluster is to advance basic research on neurological diseases and to translate those basic science results into new stem cell approaches to drug discovery and treatments. So just to give you a sense of their broad stroke accomplishments, for the past 16 years they've worked very closely together. They've trained several generations of graduate students and postdocs. They've created new core facilities which many of us in this room utilize as well as many faculty and students across the campus. They've generated $27 million in extramural research funding, $6.3 million in donor funds, 17 patients, and one startup company. So it's a nice record. But they're not alone in generating this amount of success and I thought another good example to use in illustrating the range of research that can be supported by the cluster program is another cluster that was started 16 years ago and that's the poverty cluster. There are three current members of the cluster: Katherine Magnuson from Social Work, Tim Smeeding from LaFollette, Lydia Ashton from Consumer Science, and a fourth faculty member Jeff Smith will be joining the cluster in January. And they have collectively also trained several hundred PhD students in the past 16 years and the great majority of those students are now tenure track faculty members working in the area of poverty research at our peer institutions. These cluster faculty have been the recipients of major extramural research awards -- sorry, major university research awards including a Romanus for Katherine Magnuson and a Wharf named Professorship for Tim Smeeding. And their total extramural grants total 16 million as well as another 15 million for the successfully funded, renewed core grant for the Poverty Institute. And they've published eight books and well over 100 articles in the top journals of their field. So two very different areas of research yielding significant impacts on graduate education, on research, and on our campus broadly speaking. So I don't have sufficient time to go on and on but I could. But I would encourage you to read the 2008 evaluation report of the cluster hiring initiative that's posted on the provost website because it really lays out some of the hopes and successes of the cluster program in the past. A recently appointed faculty committee led by Vice Provost for Faculty and Staff Michael Bernard Donals and his colleague Moe Bisha is currently in the process of reviewing the 48 cluster proposals that were submitted on November 3rd. So stay tuned for the outcome of this review and also for the second round of cluster hiring planned for the spring semester. A third strategy that we've been pursuing in the Research Office to support and expand UW-Madison's research program is to take stock of our, quote-unquote, inventory of shared research resources and make this inventory available to the research community. Isabelle Gerard on my staff has created a wonderful new website. The Chancellor and I blogged about this website. It's called Resources for Researchers and it lists at this point nearly 800 shared resources on campus that can be accessed by researchers, graduate students, postdocs in our community. And thus far since it was launched -- which it was launched in June -- thus far over 3,000 unique users have come to the site and have had to in order to learn about materials and resources that they can access. An average of between 25 and 35 new users each day, so it's really taken off. So what's on this website? So usually when we think about resources for researchers we think about microscopes or MRI scanners or databases but what Isabelle has taken on is creating a website that goes across the entire campus for resources for researchers in the arts and humanities as well as in the social, biological, and physical sciences. So for example Assistant Professor Daniel Graboy has listed his electroacoustic music facility on the Resources for Researchers website. It's a space within the School of Music with state-of-the-art tools for the production and recording of electroacoustic music and it was funded by one of our UW 2020 awards and it's intended to dramatically improve the opportunities for our faculty to record their music which is the point of the realm in music research. Another example that I thought was particularly unique was information on the website that was posted by Professor Gary Diffy and his colleagues in the Department of Kinesiology in the School of Nursing on a human exercise core facility. And it was also launched by a UW 2020 award. So anyone on campus who's interested in conducting research on exercise capacity, exercise metabolism, muscle function, and body composition can turn to the website to learn about the resources that are available in this core facility. But it also makes the offer that anybody interested in carrying out this area of research, especially people who are new to this research, it will provide training for faculty and graduate students -- how to access the equipment within the core facility. So in addition to all of that we're completing this fall's round of the fall competition. And in addition to that, with Dean Carpus we have allocated more funding for graduate students. As you know we also provide matching funds for significant extramural grant applications. We work with the schools and colleges on startup and recruitment packages and offer bridge funding for those programs that meet certain criteria but have fallen to a period between grant funding. All of these and other strategies that we use in the Research Office are listed on the VCRG website and I encourage you to take a look at that. I'll say one more -- I'll report on one more area of progress and then I'll finish up and that area of progress is in the research compliance area. So our goal in that area is to reduce the administrative burdens of research and increase the support that we can provide for our research community. We've been busy benchmarking our peer institutions and are in the process of trying to implement some streamlined approaches in the research compliance area. With support and encouragement from the Chancellor and other campus leaders, this past September we transitioned the Education and Social and Behavioral Sciences IRB Institutional Review Board charged with overseeing human subjects research to the Research Office. This move aligned implementation of our human subjects research program with the responsibility for this important area of compliance and that responsibility rests with the Associate Vice Chancellor for Research Policy and Compliance, Nadine Conner. She is euphemistically referred to as the go to jail person [laughing] in case there's a violation. But she is also now the person who is responsible for organizing the most effective human subjects research program. And we are planning to do the same with the Health Sciences IRB. By making these changes we're hoping to make research more easy to carry out for our faculty members while at the same time that we are upholding the highest ethical standards of the protection of human subjects who are participating in research, eliminating a layer of bureaucracy and more directly implementing increased flexibilities in human subjects research that are in use by our peer institutions and are permitted by the federal government. So we're hard at work in trying to make things work better that way. So last year at my report to the Faculty Senate, I reported to you that our office had formally established a new governance committee and that's called the University Research Council. And the URC, the University Research Council, consists of a mixture of elected faculty, faculty who are appointed by the university committee, academic staff members and university staff member. And the University Research Council's function is to advise the Research Office on all aspects of the research enterprise. Later in today's senate meeting, a proposal will be introduced by the University Committee to retire a chapter six committee that has been inactive for a number of years and that committee was named the Research Safety and Compliance Oversight Committee. The proposal presented to you will be to merge the functions of that committee that has been inactive into the functions of the University Research Council. The URC discussed this proposal at a meeting earlier this fall and there was a unanimous vote in favor of absorbing the functions of that committee into those of the URC. So this is a heads up for another item in today's senate agenda that you'll be thinking about. So let me end with a few other positive notes to give us, all optimism about where perhaps we are heading in terms of our research program and I wanted to end on this positive note because there's good news on the horizon. So since 2013, Wharf has increased its allocation in support to my office in support of research and graduate education by 52%. Since 2015 we've seen a 24% increase in the budgets of submitted research proposals for extramural funding and as we all know submissions are the leading indicator of awards. If you can't submit them, you can't get them. And as I mentioned earlier, we've seen an 8.3% which translates into $88.6 million -- that's an increase in the absolute amount of research expenditures that we made in 2016 over the previous year and that ends, as I mentioned, a four-year steady decline in research expenditures. So these are indications that things are moving in a good direction. It may be because of some of the new programs that we've started. It's certainly because of all of our colleagues on campus -- our faculty colleagues and the hard work of our graduate students and postdocs and research staff as a collective community and it's really wonderful to be able to end on a note of optimism after last year which was not a note of optimism. So thank you very much and I'd be happy to answer any questions. [ Applause ] >> Any questions for either Marsh or myself? >> Hi. I'm Noah Weeth Feinstein Community Environmental Sociology. I have a comment and a question, or a request and a question. The request is because much of the ongoing efforts to improve our university climate with regard to sexual harassment and sexual violence will take place at the level of smaller units, much of that work will necessarily take place at those levels. As lessons become clearer about best practices at the departmental level, could there be a mechanism for disseminating information about what departments and smaller units should do? I know that that would be appreciated in the units of which I am part of. >> I think that's a great idea and let's work through the deans and with our compliance officers to try to set that up. Thank you. >> Fantastic. The question is in regards to the possible taxation changes or the threat of those changes. I just want some reassurance that someone in some office somewhere is coming up with some contingency strategies. >> So I had a faculty member who wrote me saying, "what are we going to do in case, say, graduate school tuition starts to actually get taxed?" and let me be quite clear that this is the wrong time to be discussing that. Right now they're in the midst of writing a tax law and it is probably not smart to stand up and say, "well, if you write that law, here's how I'm going to avoid it" because that probably guarantees that you won't be able to do that avoidance. They'll rewrite the law. You know, now is the time I think to be focused on trying to get the best tax rule possible through the house and this senate. And then depending on what comes through, then we need to focus on how we respond. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. Any other questions? I want to really thank Marsha for all the work she has done over the last few years and I suspect all of you noticed that she is going to take a family leave for six months due to some family illness issues and that Norman Drinkwater is going to fill in for the interim Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate Education. Norman was here a minute ago. Is he still here or did he leave? >> He had another meeting to go to. But from the 1st of January through the end of June? End of May. 1st of June Norman will be the person that you see in these meetings. And thank you very much, Marsha. >> Thank you. >> Alright. [ Applause ] If you turn in your packet to the minutes of November 6, are there any additions or corrections? If there are not, I'm going to approve the minutes as distributed and we'll turn to the next item and recognize Professor Peter Miller who will present the annual report from the athletic board. Pete? >> Thanks, Chancellor Blank. We're going to just talk briefly about some key parts of last year's academic year with regard to the activity of the Athletic Board. I had started as chair of the Athletic Board this past summer. So the board is made up of 23 members, 23 voting members. Diverse parts of campus on the board. Most of the work of the board operates through these committees. So we have a Personnel Committee; a Finance Facilities and Operations Committee; an Equity, Diversity, and Student Welfare Committee; and an Academics and Compliance Committee. So I'll talk briefly about those items here today. A couple of the main points. You know, as the Athletic Board we focus mostly on the academics and kind of the integrity issues associated with athletics. So when it comes to academics, you know, we look at how our students are performing relative to the past, how our students have done over the years, and then also how they're doing relative to our peers in our conference and throughout the country. Last year our data around those areas looked pretty good. So just -- it's hard to see those things on the bottom there but the cumulative GPA of all student athletes at UW, which is over 800 of them, was 3.07 at the end of the Spring 2017 semester. 331 student athletes on the Dean's list, Dean's honor list, or Dean's high honor list. One issue that we find and we've heard about in other institutions is academic clustering where student athletes are kind of pushed into certain majors and not afforded opportunities to go into others. So at this institution it's promising to see that we have student athletes in 90 different academic majors which is a really kind of encouraging thing to say, to see. We have certain areas that are most common but we have 72 majors that have ten or fewer student athletes. So it's just to show that we have quite a distribution within those that compete in athletics and what they're studying. As Chancellor Blank shared about the academic achievements of our football team in the top five nationally for five straight years in terms of their academics, we also have a number of other teams that have performed really high in that regards. So in the top 10% of all Division I teams, all of these teams did that. They achieved that highly. So that's promising. So as a board one of the things we're really trying to keep an eye on is how are the students performing academically. So this is data that we worked closely with the Academic Services in learning about. The other area that we spend a lot of time as a board -- and we have a lot of board members here -- is to make sure around compliance matters and kind of institutional and integrity matters. There are all kinds of violations. The NCAA rulebook is over 300 pages and there's a lot of rules from level one to level four. So last year our department, our athletic program had 21 we could call very minor violations. And those are like really, really kind of nitpicky things that are -- it's some of them surprising that they're even violations. But the more encouraging number is we have zero big violations. So there are no kind of major what the NCAA would call kind of major scandals which is, as a board, something we're especially concerned about. This is a chart that's hard to see but we showed something like this last year. It's the annual review. There's a bunch of schools below. The x-axis -- this is from the Wall Street Journal. The x-axis shows, you know, how strong you are in competition. So if you're farther to the right you're, you know, really doing well, winning games. The y-axis shows what they call admirability and on the bottom is called the embarrassing scale. So if you see, there's only one school that's slightly off the admirability chart and that's Wisconsin. So as a board we're very, you know, very proud to see this [inaudible]. [ Applause ] So along with student welfare issues these are some of the other things we look at, just kind of the day-to-day wellness of our student athletes as students to make sure that they have a well-rounded college experience and they're able to do things other than just be training. We want them to be able to spend time in class. We want them to be able to have a holistic college experience. And we learn about these things with the Athletic Department staff. Looking forward, what are the big things on our horizon? We want to continue to focus on academics and student welfare of those 800 students. We also want to -- you know, outside of Wisconsin there's a kind of a lot of change possibly pending in college athletics in terms of how it's governed, how it's overseen. We want to make sure we kind of monitor that horizon and we're ready for any changes that might come. So that's the brief report for the Athletic Board. And it's a wonderful group to work with. A number of us are here and so thank you for your service. And do we have time for questions? >> Are there any questions? >> Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. Alright. Yeah. >> You told them everything they wanted to know. Thank you, Pete. Thanks to the whole Athletic Board and the work they do. [ Applause ] You're now on page 10 of your booklet and I'm now going to recognize Professor David Marcouiller who is going to present the annual report of the campus transportation committee. >> Thank you, Chancellor Blank. I'll keep this very, very brief. I refer you to faculty document 2712 which is our 2016-2017 annual report of the campus transportation committee. The highlight of this is our continuing interest in trying to match demand with operating costs for parking. We're moving from three to two permit rates. And those of you who do have parking permits have noticed that. It's a six-year effort to try to bring these two in closer alignment with the amount of money we pay for parking. This is in addition to transportation management issues that we've been taking on. So with that, I guess I'll open it up for any questions. >> Chad Allen Goldberg, District 71. I was interested to see in the report that at the March 10th meeting Peter van Kan expressed concerns about a 50% increase in the cost of the employee bus pass and noted that that was a much higher percentage than previous increases. And he also felt that that might discourage employees to use the bus and might have a greater impact on lower-paid employees. I have to say that I share all of those concerns. And so my question is how does the committee plan to address those concerns? >> Good question. We have increased bus passes on an annual basis to $36 and I guess I'll just point out that a monthly bus pass, it's highly subsidized, right? So a monthly bus pass is $65. An annual bus pass is $780 so this is still a good bargain. What we were trying to do as a committee was to try to reduce the aspect of it being free. And people would in the past get a free bus pass and not use it. So charging $36 a year seemed to be a reasonable increase to a highly subsidized program. >> Chad Allen Goldberg, District 71. I understand that. I appreciate that. I don't think it really answered my question. I am wondering whether there will be any attempt to address those concerns. I'm also curious. Peter van Kan made a motion to amend the program changes which was voted down and I'm curious what the content of that amendment would have been. >> Good question. I can't really recall this. I'm sorry. I can't answer your question. >> What if you check that information and got back to Chad? >> Sure. How about if I do that? >> Yeah. Good. Anyone else? Thank you very much. >> Yeah. >> Thanks for you and your committee for your work. Let me recognize Professor Dorothy Edwards who's going to present the PROFS annual report found on page 15 of your materials. >> Thank you, Chancellor. I'm here to present just a brief overview of the PROFS report which is included in your documents for today's meeting. I want to remind you that PROFS is a voluntary membership organization created by this body and we represent the faculty of this university on a number of different issues. The university committee is the Board of Directors and we have a steering committee. And at this point it's really important for me to recognize the former President of the steering committee. Everyone knows Judith Burston. If you don't, you haven't been on campus very long. But I want to say that Judith worked tirelessly for our faculty members through PROFS and we can't do enough to thank her. I didn't realize how much she did until I stepped into this job [laughing]. [ Applause ] I want to say that even though she stepped out of the position as President and stepped into the role of Chair of the Chemistry Department, which is a very demanding position, she is always available. She doesn't miss a meeting. She's available and she's just an incredible supporter. And so what does PROFS do? It's really important that you understand that PROFS is your legislative arm. We are currently monitoring and tracking 13 different bills. Jack O'Mara, who is in the back of the room, is our representative. I want to thank every faculty member who's taken the time and the effort to go up and speak to legislators. It's really, really important that we have a presence in the capital and that we are not always talking about the budget. I think the legislators are surprised to hear from faculty members about the research that they're doing and the perspectives we have on really important things going on in the state. So we're trying actually to increase our presence in the capital and particularly in an off budget year it's particularly important. So if we call you and ask you, I hope you'll make the time to go because it's really important. There are four different pieces of legislation I just want to briefly mention. A number of faculty and Dean Golden went up and did testimony on the Fetal Tissue Bill which fortunately was not introduced. We were able to help head that off. The Campus Free Speech Bill, important to all of us, has attracted a lot of attention. We had faculty members speaking about that. We have a bill making its way and hopefully to the floor, fondly known as the Mark Cook Bill by us but may be also known as the Mark Cook Bill in the legislature and that's to really free us from some of the current restrictions on entrepreneurial activity. And there was legislative discussion on self-insurance which fortunately was defeated by the joint finance committee. So I want to encourage you if you don't belong to please join; if you're asked to come and speak, please speak; and to otherwise support our activities. Thank you. >> Are there questions for Dorothy? [ Applause ] Thank you very much. Let me recognize Professor John Baldacchino, Director of the Arts Institute. He's going to report on proposed changes to the Institute for Informational Purposes. Let me note these changes have been approved by the UAPC and the final step to finalize them is a report to the senate on the changes. You don't get to vote but you do have to listen to the report. John? >> Thank you, Chancellor. I refer to the document 2714 that you have been sent. And I would like to read a paragraph from that which is very succinct. It's best put actually than however I would put it myself. So these proposed changes stem from the conviction that the division of the arts should possess the authority, visibility, autonomy, and resources commensurate with the role as the chief unit within the Office of the Provost responsible for connecting the arts within a vital and vibrant research university. In line with other divisions in the Provost's office, the Arts Institute will be renamed the University of Wisconsin-Madison's Division of the Arts. The name also reflects the division's centrality as a coordinator or sponsor of art research, collaborative and interdisciplinary teaching and learning, and outreach service on campus and on the national and global scale. The other little detail is that we are often confused with the Arts Institute in Chicago. And as you know, the Arts Institute in Chicago is a very different kind of thing. Now, just to give you a notion of what we do here so that you can understand why actually this move is very important for us, I just want to give you some reasons information. For example, we have a 20-year ongoing interdisciplinary arts program which is a residence program that actually attracted and recruited some of our finest faculty in the university. This spring we have Sharon Ray who is a British American artist. She comes from the Caribbean. She has specialized in I would say African aesthetics and she is a performer of international caliber. In the fall we'll have Stuart Flack who is based in Chicago. He is going to be working with the Bolts Institute which is actually as you know very much involved in entrepreneurial arts and arts administration. And then in the spring [inaudible] will have Rashad Newson who is actually an African American artist of high repute and international standing. We have also been developing, especially since I came here and this is one of my kind of parts of my vision for the institute or the division is that we have developed a lot of work in arts research. This Thursday we have our first Arts [inaudible] which is the arts research forum which is going to present five artists but one of them actually is a group of students who are working from across the disciplines on comics and the visualization of art and arts research. We also have become members of ELIA which is the European Alliance for the Arts. I'm sorry -- European League for the Institute of the Arts. And we presented in London just last summer. And we were highly noted and the fact actually -- I'm going to meet ELIA's president -- she's based in Rotterdam -- this holiday. We also are members of the Alliance for the Arts which is [inaudible] and we play a very vital role in that. And we are also members of ICFAD which is the International Conference for Arts Deans. Again, we play a central role in that in their presentation of the arts. We also have an arts awards which we administer, you know, on behalf of the university donors I should say -- not ours. And that actually distributes up to $90,000 to our faculty. We have just hired a grants administrator intended to help us develop and also identify external sources of funding and help also our faculty to get together across the arts and across the disciplines to go for these grants. I should remind you that the film festival, which is a very important event, generates over $1.3 million for the community in terms of community business. But more importantly, and I'm very proud of this, we do sponsor The Studio, which is a freshman's program in works and residency. And also it is very centrally focused on the issue of diversity. It's one of the most diverse groups that we have in the university. And I would say that the Arts Institute actually, or their vision, is very much on the forefront of expanding and developing the notion of diversity through the arts. That's just a little kind of taster of what we do. Our yearly report is out there now. It's online. And so if you have any questions, please let me know. >> Any questions for John? Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> We now have a -- thank you, John. [ Applause ] We now have a number of proposed changes to different parts of FPP. And let me call upon Professor Anja Wanner who's going to present proposed changes to chapter four for our first reading. So no vote, just conversation. >> Thank you, Chancellor. Good afternoon. So the first of these several items, as the Chancellor said, is just for first reading. You have in your materials packet document 2715 which is a proposal to create a new FPP section about the Divisional Committee Review Council, or DCRC. This was necessitated by our post-tenure review policy which makes reference to this DCRC which doesn't exist yet. The DCRC is intended to provide faculty input on post-tenure review cases where the departmental review and the Dean's review are in disagreement. In those cases, the Provost must decide whether remediation is in order. Prior to making that determination, she must confer with the DCRC. That's what our post-tenure review policy says. The DCRC would consist of four faculty members, one from each faculty division selected by divisional committees. And people who would serve on the DCRC would be faculty members who previously served on divisional committees. Professor [inaudible] has indicated that this body may be able to provide her counsel on other tenure-related matters. So this proposed new FPP section 4.40 has been written more broadly than just for post-tenure review. You will also note that this change will require a small change to chapter six. Given that the DCRC provides a recommendation to the provost, its decisions do not stand alone and thus are not subject to appeal or review. I look forward to your input on this first reading. >> Comments now, or as you read through this and you or any of your colleagues have comments you should obviously send them into UC between now and our next meeting for the second reading. Alright? Let me recognize Professor Anja Wanner who is going to present a proposed change to FPP chapter six for a first reading. This is on page 22. >> This is about a topic that Vice Chancellor Marrett talked about earlier. You have the materials faculty document 2716, a proposal to roll the functions of the research safety and compliance oversight committee into the University Research Council. The former committee defined in FPP 658 has been idle for some time and even when it was more active it was difficult to keep it staffed. More to the point it had a hard time executing its charge because it was always peripheral to the units involved. Now that we have a strong shared governance presence directly related to research in the form of the University Research Council, which has nine faculty members on it, we have an opportunity to ensure that the advice, oversight, and review functions envisioned in the charge of the earlier committee are taken seriously and issues are dealt with appropriately and expeditiously. This is a first reading and I look forward to your input to this first reading. >> Are there questions? >> Eric Sandgren, District 113. My department chair, Chuck Sebrinsky, was Chair of this committee before and agrees that it was very difficult to accomplish anything because there really was no authority granted to it. He has looked at this and is fully in agreement with this change. He did express some surprise that this was the first that he has heard about it. And I would just suggest to remember to discuss with all stakeholders when decisions like this are made. >> Point taken but I'm glad he's in support. >> Again, if you or any of your colleagues have comments on this before the next faculty senate meeting, please send them into Anja and to the UC. Let me now recognize Professor Anja Wanner who is going to present proposed changes to chapter 11. This is the second time these changes have come to you so we will be voting on these at the end of the conversation. >> I move adopt in our faculty document 2707 which updates chapter 11 of FPP. That includes a title change. As explained by Dean Jeff Russell last month, these changes replace a decades-old document that bore little resemblance to how some instruction happens on this campus. These changes explain some [inaudible] administration, compensation, and appointments, and change the title from Summer Session to Summer Term. In addition to the changes laid out by Dean Russell last month, we have made two further changes based on your input during last month's first reading. First, at the very beginning of 1104 there's a new sentence indicating that any work performed during the summer by nine-month faculty or staff must be voluntary. And second, section A of 1104 has been changed from "an employee may be asked to perform" to "an employee may agree to perform." >> Are there any questions on this document or are you ready to vote? Chad? >> Chad Allen Goldberg, District 71. I should have asked this at our last meeting but it escaped my attention. Point of information. Why is the option for deferral of summer session compensation being eliminated? Why not keep that in the revised version? >> Can you point me to where exactly that is? >> It's here at the bottom of page -- >> The old 11.04. >> It's entirely eliminated. You need Jeff on there. >> Jeff is here. Yeah. Is this -- because you crafted most of this document. >> So I've been the Summer Dean for campus for the last seven years and we've not utilized this particular provision. This came, I think, a long time ago at one time we did this but we don't carry over or we don't have a practice of carrying over funding for courses that are taught in the summer. Now if a school or college chooses to do that, that's up to them. But as a general practice on campus we have not done that. >> So Chad Allen Goldberg, District 71. Point of information. So is that because people aren't aware of the possibility or the option and they don't request that? Or is that because there is no mechanism to allow people to do that even if they would request them? >> Well, let me -- I see Mark Walters in the back. It's my understanding that one has to align the compensation when the effort is expanded. Mark, am I correct? So the notion of us being able to stockpile money to be drawn upon later, at least as a general policy, is not something that we've seen done on campus. But Mark, I think I'm right. Right? >> Sorry. Chad Allen Goldberg, District 71. Point of information. But is that a university policy that was somehow put in place after this portion of FPP was written? Or is that, is there a legal basis for that? That's what I'm trying to understand. >> Mark? >> This was clearly written somewhere in the 1960s because I refers to 1961 and 1968 as key issues, but yeah. >> It is generally -- this is Mark Walters. It's generally a university policy. It is a university policy that when you perform the work you need to be paid the compensation. So as far as socking it away, that's not what we've been doing. >> So one last question. So does that mean that a university policy was put into place that was in violation of FPP? >> I'm not aware of that circumstance. >> That's how it appears. Thank you. >> Are there any other questions or comments? If not, if you are ready to vote, we need a majority vote on this. All those in favor of approving the changes to chapter 11 as indicated in your documents indicate by saying ay. >> Ay. >> Any opposed, no. Any abstentions? The document carries. Let me now recognize Professor Anja Wanner who will present a motion to endorse the new campus sexual harassment and sexual violence policy on page 27 in your documents. >> This is where things get a little bit complicated. So this is specifically about the endorsement. So that is just a one-page document. That faculty document 2709 which is an endorsement of the UW-Madison policy on sexual harassment and sexual violence. So we would just vote to endorse. >> And why don't you say what you're going to do next? >> Next thing, then, is depending on how this goes, we will then -- the policy itself will not be voted on but we currently have faculty legislation that puts together regulations for harassment and regulations for freedom of speech in the classroom in one chapter and we would separate that out. So we would then remove the portions about sexual harassment for which we would then have a separate policy out of that chapter so that that chapter would only deal with freedom of speech in the classroom so that we don't combine two things that necessarily would not have to be in the same piece of legislation. >> So we first are going to have a discussion and a vote on whether you endorse the policy. And depending on how that vote comes out, we will then discuss this next round of changes to faculty legalisation 2303. Alright? So this conversation is about the policy laid out on page 27. Is there anyone who has any comments on it? I think everyone here should have seen this. Yeah. Judith. >> Judith Burston, District 48. So I just have one question but I think, I mean I believe I know the answer. But I am led to understand from this new change which is much clearer that the policy in question is a policy that is campuswide and is legally necessary and required essentially by federal legislation. And therefore, moving this out of FPP completely which is what will happen, all we're doing is endorsing the university policy that's legally required. And then it's being removed. Then the second part of the proposal is to remove anything about sexual harassment from FPP because it's now legally mandated through other frameworks. >> That is my understanding and the only addition I would like to make is that it's not just federal compliance but we were handed a template by system that we have to comply with also. So there are so many non-movable parts in this policy and also so many people worked on this policy to combine the non-movable parts with how we would like to handle things on campus that we would like to keep that intact. So we would currently just vote on endorsing that policy that we would then move out of II203. >> Thanks. John McKai, District 66. My question is sort of related to that one. So I noticed that the proposed policy states in section 8A -- this is at the top of page five -- that when the respondent is a student the university will use the investigatory and disciplinary procedures set forth in chapter 17 of the University of Wisconsin administrative code which in turn states at section, where am I? OK. I didn't bring up the right page. But anyway, what it says, it says -- I can summarize if that's OK -- that there are ten possible punishments listed for a disciplinary hearing in general, not just one on sexual misconduct, increasing in levels of severity. And what it states is that the standard of evidence required shall be -- there are three clauses. One it says the standard of evidence should be the preponderance of evidence if the punishment is one of the seven less severe ones and that the standard of evidence shall be clear and convincing evidence if the punishment is one of the three most severe, including suspension from a course and expulsion. But then there's a third clause as it currently stands stating that the standard of evidence in cases of sexual misconduct shall be just the preponderance of evidence regardless of what the punishment issued is. Is that all correct? >> That is correct. >> OK. >> We have been required under federal guidelines to use preponderance of evidence on all sexual violence and assault cases. As of a month ago we were given discretion to potentially think about changing that to clear and convincing. We are not going to make any changes in the middle of the year because we already have cases in place. You cannot use one disciplinary standard for part of the year and another disciplinary standard for another part of the year. We are almost surely going to have to engage a conversation around this. At this point that conversation has not started. We have no alternative guidance. All we've been told is we could make alternative decisions and virtually every university I know has said at this point at time they're staying with their current procedures and we'll talk about this on a longer term basis. But I will tell you, just we cannot make changes in the middle of the year when you've got ongoing cases. That would be extremely difficult and open us to all sorts of legal problems. >> OK. Thank you. I'm just wondering -- John McKai, District 66. Could you be a little bit more specific about what you mean by we need to have a conversation? Are you intending that this question will be brought before some administrative body in the future and do we know whether the regents are considering addressing this? >> I'm going to let our General Counsel Ray Tuforra answer that. >> Hi. One of the problems with changing it is that as you read from the code the system would have to change it because that's all in the code. So any changes we'd make would have to go through system processes. >> So let me be clear that the reference in the document you're working on simply says the disciplinary processes have to follow the University of Wisconsin administrative code. The University of Wisconsin administrative code is a system-level code. We do not have our own authority to set this. So this is a conversation that would have to be engaged systemwide. At this point they have not started that conversation. There is some conversation about whether or not they're going to start the conversation. I don't know quite where this is going to go but we do have some leeway that we did not have before. >> John McKai, District 66. Just a point of information -- could you clarify what would happen if we did not endorse this policy at this time? What would be the consequence of that? >> Because we are legally required to follow this, the policy will go into place in any case but you would be on record as not approving it. >> OK. Thanks. >> With that said, are there any other questions? Alright. Let me call for a vote. Again, I believe we need a majority vote on this one. All of those in favor of endorsing the UW-Madison policy on sexual harassment and sexual violence indicate by saying aye. >> Aye. >> All those opposed. >> No. >> Any abstentions? The endorsement carries and I will now recognize Professor Anja Wanner to present a motion to modify faculty legislation 2303. >> So this is the second part now. Now that we have accepted or endorsed the policy we will remove that language from faculty legislation II303. I move adoption of faculty document 2708 with the following change. The second sentence of document 2708 should read, "on a directive from the UW Board of Regents, the UW-Madison Provost's Advisory Group on Sexual Assault and Misconduct, PAGSAM, constructed the policy contained in faculty document 2709." The changes contained in faculty document 2708 are needed to reflect the fact that you have now endorsed the broader and more detailed policy covering the same material, some of this piece in faculty legislation. As I noted before, these two documents were combined for the first reading last month. With the new policy separated out, this document relates solely to the existing faculty legislation. The motion now on the floor would remove the parts of II303 relating to sexual misconduct, leaving only the parts related to expression, which in fact constituted the bulk of the original document and we haven't changed any of that wording. So it's really just about moving out that part that we now don't need anymore. >> Alright. So this is basically going to make this faculty legislation consistent with the endorsed policy that you've just endorsed that is now part of the whole policy. Any comments, questions on this motion? If not, I will call for a vote. All those in favor of the proposed changes to faculty legislation 2303 indicate by saying aye. >> Aye. >> Any opposed? Alright. That carries. At this point I think we are done with the regular order and I'm going to ask everyone in the Faculty Senate to stay for a closed session and everyone who is not in the Faculty Senate to please leave. And I'd like a motion to move into closed session pursuant to Wisconsin statutes 19.85 (1)(c) and (f) to consider the recommendation of the committee on Honorary Degrees. Is there a motion? A motion from here? And a second from Judith? We need the names. The Senate will now consider the confidential report of the committee on Honorary Degrees pursuant to Wisconsin statute 19.85 (1)(c) and (f) and under faculty policies and procedures the report will be heard and considered in executive session. I have now said what I have to say and as soon as everyone has cleared the room we will move into conversation. Can I have a motion to reconvene in open session? Do I have a second? I need the names and -- these two? Alright. Do I have to vote on this? Yeah, I need a vote to reconvene an open session. All in favor indicate by saying aye. >> Aye. >> Any opposed? Alright. In that case the meeting is back in open session and I declare it adjourned. Please do not leave until you have issued your vote and turned it in.