>> Rebecca Blank: I'm told we have a quorum, so we're going to start fast. Just barely, no one can leave. Let me call the meeting to order and ask the faculty to rise as they are able for the reading of the Memorial Resolutions. Let me call on Professor Emeritus Jim Skiles to present the Memorial Resolution for Professor Emeritus Bur Fontaine. >> Jim Skiles: Well, thank you very much. Professor Fontaine was a man of many talents and many interests. He lived most of his life in Wisconsin, been born in Green Bay and died in Madison at age 90. After graduating from high school in 1945, he volunteered for the service, the navy. It was World War II was still going on. After graduating from high school in Green Bay, the war ended and he earned a BS in Electrical Engineering from the Madison Campus at this point. He later earned an MS and PhDs from Ohio State University. He then worked for IBM for five years in Poughkeepsie, New York. He returned to Madison after the university hired him as an assistant professor in Electrical Engineering Department. He advanced through the ranks and retired as a-- in 1989 as a full professor. Bur taught many subjects to undergraduates and graduate students. One of the courses was the most popular of all the elective courses in the College of Engineering. Students were very popular in this course. They had to use a microprocessor in their project. They had to design, built and demonstrate the measuring equipment, process controls or applications as students choosing for the-- using commercially available microprocessor. Bur also played a role in a project, research project with Professor Birkmayer in electrical engineering. It was a 200-mile microwave link between Cedar Rapids, Iowa and they use this to determine some of the winds at altitudes through which the signals passed. Bur was very active in teaching at the university and he continued being active in retirement. He was a boys scout leader and he also took courses from MATC, a baking course, machine tool operation and wine making. The Burs built a-- in addition to his house for his collection of metalworking power tools and woodworking power tools to support his interest in making furniture and making models. Bur satisfied a long a felt desire to become an airplane pilot and he took flying lessons and became a licensed airplane pilot. He became a partner with three other UW Madison faculty members in one or two airplanes. I was first one of his partners at that point. He and Mary, his wife, who he had met in Columbus, Ohio when he was a student there, he and Mary joined me and my wife in a memorable flying trip by a single engineer plane from Madison to Alaska through Northwest Canada and we visited many historic and tourist attractions and Canada's Yukon territory and in Alaska. Bur Fontaine was an avid canoeist and he participated in many canoe trips from Madison, Wisconsin rivers and lakes in Northern Minnesota and the adjacent Quetico Provincial Park in Ontario. Many of these trips were started off as male trips only and we ended up with a lot of the wives coming along on the trips, rather than doing the dishes. Bur also take things very good. He's taken this course in baking from MATC and he would bake something using a little reflector oven using a campfire as a fuel source in that case. Bur's friendships and his colleagues continued after his retirement. We have a Monday lunch every Monday at the Pizza Hut and we have the Pizza Hut on the-- off on Mineral Point Road near West Town. And we will have as many as 10 retired professors show up at that lunch and Bur was one of regulars at that lunch. We will all miss Bur. It was great to have him as a colleague and a friend. You've lost a colleague. I've lost my best friend. Thank you. Thank you. [ Applause ] >> Rebecca Blank: Let me call upon Professor Emeritus Hans Reich, who's going to present memorial resolutions for three emeritus professors from Chemistry, Stephen Nelsen, Edwin Vedejs and Howard Whitlock. >> Hans Reich: Stephen F. Nelsen, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, died at the age of 77 on September 23rd, 2017 in Madison, Wisconsin. Steve was a brilliant, an intellect and a prolific scholar maintaining an international reputation as a physical organic chemist, studying radicals, radical ions and electron transfer. He was a marvelous mentor to his students, setting high standards for scholarly accomplishment and independence and striking just the right blend of enthusiasm, encouragement and stage advise for the students to achieve these high standards. Steve was also a scholar of the mushroom and fungi native to Wisconsin. He retired from the faculty in 2012. Edwin Vedejs, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, died at the age of 76 on December 2nd, 2017 in Madison, Wisconsin. Ed joined the chemistry faculty at the University of Wisconsin in 1967. In 1999, he moved to the University of Michigan as the Moses Gomberg professor of chemistry. During 32 years as a faculty member at UW Madison, Ed built an internationally recognized program in synthetic organic chemistry and established himself as one of the preeminent scholars of his generation. He also maintained a strong connection to the chemical community in his native Latvia and received the country's National Service Award, the Order of the Three Stars for his research teaching and training contributions in Latvia. >> Rebecca Blank: May I interrupt a minute. I want to note that Professor Vedejs' wife, Pat Anderson is here and his daughter as well. Thank you both for coming. [ Applause ] >> Hans Reich: Howard W. Whitlock, Jr., Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, died at the age of 80 on January 27th, 2017 in Madison, Wisconsin. Howard possess exceptional creativity and his research contributions touched a broad spectrum of organic chemistry including alkaloid synthesis, stereochemistry and conformational analysis, organometallic chemistry, gas chemistry and molecular recognition. His interest in computers resulted in a number of publications on the use of artificial intelligence to deal with organic structures and computer algorithms to replicate the thinking of a synthetic organic chemist, computational organic synthesis. He retired from the faculty in 2009. >> Rebecca Blank: Thank you very much. [ Applause ] You are welcome to stay, but you are also welcome to go at this point as we move on to other business. Thank you for being here. Please be seated. I appreciate all of you making it through the snow. I hope the semester is going well. I always appreciate the time to give a quick update on things around campus. My time is little more limited today because there're going to be two speakers who follow me. Wayne Guthrie, our Chief Human Services Officer and Associate Vice Chancellor of the Human Resources is going to briefly update you on the Title and Total Compensation Study. And then Steve Ventura from the ad hoc-- who's on the ad hoc committee looking at governance issues associated with the transition of UW Cooperative Extension to UW Madison will tell us where we are in that process. And Steve as you know is a member of the UC. Heide Zoerb, a member of the steering committee, in charge with making sure that our integration with Cooperative Extension run smoothly is also here. So I must say that we are working closely with the governance groups in this organization and in this reintegration as I hope you will hear in the conversation. But before I turn the floor to them, one piece of good news I just want to let you know, our applications went through the roof this year and we don't have a final count yet but last year we were somewhere around 35,500, this year it looks like we're going to be somewhere around 42,000. That's a 23% increase. I think a lot of that is going on to the common app two years ago. Everyone said to us, you're going to have a bigger effect in the second year than the first and we didn't quite understand that, but that is surely what is happened. I think some of that is the really excellent work that our applications and admissions office is doing in terms of really doing outreach to students. And I'm pleased to say that this is preliminary numbers. Our Wisconsin applications were up to 9%, that's when the population is flat and I particularly hope that that means that this special outreach we're doing to the really top Wisconsin students, many of whom are applying out of state means they're also now applying to us and that's where at least some of that increase is coming from, but you'll get more details on this as we get final numbers. But I wanted to let you know that I guess it's good news from an institutional point of view. It's not necessarily good news from those of us who have children applying to us. But it's always good to have more choices rather than fewer, I will say as an economist. Let me turn to the topic of sexual misconduct. We've all been reading about what's happened at Michigan State University. And I want to say a little about our sexual misconduct policies in light of the thought that I know that I and the other leaders all across campus have been giving to watching the MSU situation and saying, where are we on this and how do we make sure that we don't repeat any of the mistakes that Michigan State seems to have gotten involved in. I put a blog post up on this last week and that gives you more detail on some of these issues and I encourage you to read that and to send it around to others on campus who may be interested and concerned about this issue. So, we've done several things in recent years to improve our response to sexual misconduct and I'm particularly here talking about misconduct among faculty and staff. I'm not talking about student-related charges. In 2015, we hired a full-time Title IX coordinator within the Office of Compliance, who's coordinating our response to reports of sexual misconduct. We created a campus-specific policy on sexual harassment and sexual violence that you and the staff governance groups all endorsed. Over the past year, we have created and I hope everyone of you have taken mandatory training for all faculty and staff on sexual harassment and sexual violence. Over 93% of our workforce have completed that training. We are aiming for as close to 100% as we can get, but in place as large and as complex as this to get to 93% within the space to five to six months is quite an accomplishment. And let me be quite clear, as you all know, there is some pay increases coming down the line to the state, 2% and 2% next year. No one will be eligible for those pay increases who has not completed the mandatory training. We are serious about this. Our UW Madison policy on sexual harassment and sexual violence now clearly defines which of our employees are "Title IX responsible employees" and communicates their duty to provide all reports of sexual misconduct to the Title IX coordinator. And this year, we're going to add an additional training for those employees so they know what they have to do to carry out their responsibilities. But working towards building a culture that discourages sexual misconduct and appropriately responds when allocations come forward can be accomplished by just people who are labeled Title IV responsible. Historically, this has to be all of our jobs. Now, reporting a sexual harassment when it is reported and we all know often it isn't has typically been at a very local level to supervise to department chairs. And much of the campus response to allegations has been handled at the local level through a resolution process that often allowed the complainant to remain anonymous. That's an avenue for problems to be resolved and uncovered than what otherwise go unreported. But one of the implications of handling this only at the local level means that problems often never came forward. We could not identify patterns because we didn't know if there had been multiple reports in a department or against a particular individual. This has to change. It's not an adequate excuse anymore to say, well gosh, no one told us. We didn't know. Particularly in cases where overtime, multiple individuals have come forward talking about a similar problem. In the coming months, I'm going to challenge our campus to ensure that all reports of sexual misconduct, other than those made to people who by the nature of their job are required to keep them in confidence, and there are a number of people in those sorts of jobs are reported to the office of compliance. We have to provide a straightforward way to make sure that information by these complaints are sent forward not just when we have a formal signed public complaint, but even when we have more informal type complaints, we need to know about it so we can track patterns, right. So, one informal complaint may not induce any action but after you've gotten four or five that sound very similar, we need to know that. We need to be looking to those patterns and need to be tracking them. Simply knowing about complaints of course is still not enough. We have to have the correct mechanisms for response. The Title IX coordinator and her deputies are trained in helping to identify appropriate responses to complaints. Many of our supervisors or department chairs aren't trained at this and I very much hope that they will increasingly call upon that office for assistance and advice when they're trying to figure out what is the right way to deal with this. I've also begun conversations with our shared governance bodies to identify and further address any policy changes that might assist us on gathering needed information and taking action where appropriate. I might note that the Approvals Advisory group on sexual assault and misconduct exam continues to be a very important driver, a policy and advice and program changes in this area. And I appreciate all of you and your colleagues to be a part of that group. We have to use the current moment of high awareness and concern about sexual misconduct as an opportunity to change our policies and to change our campus culture so that we deal as effectively as possible with problems of sexual assault and harassment on our campus and I know that all of you share that sentiment and I look forward to working with all of you as we move forward on this too. We're OK, in this front but we can be better and being better is what we have to be doing in the months ahead. Let me turn to a second topic which is sustainability. I want to follow up on the senate resolution on sustainability at their November meeting and report on a couple of activities that are underway. We are just posting the PDL for a new director of the office of sustainability, which will sit in FTNM, our facilities group, that's been vacant or stuffed by interim directors. It's long past time we hired someone there and that position we report to our associate vice chancellor facilities planning and management David Darling. We're also engaged in a process of putting together the information we need to move forward with participation and STARS. The STARS system is a data and measurement system but graves different campuses on how they're doing with regard to sustainability. It is a system that many, many of our peer campuses are ready participating in it's a long past overdue we did this, your resolution called upon us to work on this so, we're going to work on putting together the sets of measurements we need. It's not an easy process for a campus as complex as this, it will take a little bit of time but it's one of the goals we have to work on and something and I hope we will have done sometime over this next year, we were also continuing on the ongoing work both on the operational side and through student involvement in such things as the Green Fund that is already underway to continue to improve sustainability across campus. Finally, I have asked that we start publishing annual sustainability reports. Our first such report will be published at the end of this next semester at the end of the fiscal year. As we have a new director sustainability in place, it's an excellent opportunity for that individual once they come in to get themselves up to speed and to be in charge of publishing a report that will say, what have we been doing, where have we been and what are our goals for the next year. So I look forward to making that available over the summer and as everyone comes back to campus this next fall. Thirdly, we often talk about problems going in the state legislature and legislation we aren't happy with. Let me talk about two things I'm quite happy with that look somewhat likely to pass. One is a bill, AB 675 relating to facilities which makes some changes around rules on building projects and increases the threshold for which state building projects require approval from the state building commission on the legislation. That's really good for moving some things along faster. Second piece of legislation, AB 758, relates to faculty entrepreneurs and has become known as the Mark Cook Bill, in honor of his commitment of making sure we foster the entrepreneurial spirit and that basically helps our faculty entrepreneurs by reducing administrative burdens in a number of ways that the state had been requiring. Final note, UW Madison is officially hosting the Systems Board of Regents on Thursday and Friday of this week in Varsity Hall at Union South. I'm going to be speaking to the regents about some of the pressing issues on campus on early Thursday afternoon, probably about 1:30. I know you'll all want to tune in. My main theme is why it really matters to Wisconsin that there is a top-rated research university in our state. There are also going to be important updates about our campus at all of the committee meetings that mornings. So, if you want something to do in your Thursday, I encourage you to stop by the board of regents meeting. That is my set of updates and I am going to now turn it over to each of the next two individuals who're going to speak and then we'll open up for questions. Wayne Guthrie, our person in charge of human resources is going to give us an update on titling and compensation. >> Wayne Guthrie: Thank you Chancellor. I'm glad I have this opportunity to update you on this and I also have my colleague here with me, Mark Walters. And so when we get to the Q&A portion, we'll tag team that together. So, when we started the process HR design, it really opened the door to creating our own personnel system. And one of the key recommendations of HR design if you remember, was to create a title and perform a title on title comp study. Why are we doing this? Basically, we're looking at titles and pay ranges for academic and university staff and doing this study will provide us with relevant and market informed titles and pay ranges. Another big piece of the study which I'm going to talk about in just a few minutes is an in depth review of our benefits, leave and work-life programs. So, I think the most important thing to talk about here is this how impacts faculty and really, as I mentioned before, we're going to do an employee benefits work-life leave review, which includes a thorough assessment on our benefits and maybe some proposed changes and a lot of you have talked with us about family leave and how we're going to handle that and this will be a part of that study. Also, as we redesign titles and pay structures which really includes academic staff and university staff, it will impact you as you work with direct reports and updating of their job descriptions, their titles and their pay grades. This rather busy slide is a look at our proposed job framework. This framework applies to UW Madison and UW system institutions. Basically, the crux of this slide is the framework includes job families, sub-families and career path. And there's a dual track career path both for managerial positions and organizational contributors and they have levels and titles. So, there-- before we get started on this slide, I want to clarify something on this slide because it's not presented in the best light. So if you look at the first bullet point where it talks about creation of instruction research and clinical titles. The instructional academic staff, that is just part of the instruction. It certainly isn't part of research and clinical titles. As I mentioned before, we're going to do a thorough assessment of benefits and proposed changes particularly as it relates to family leave. And then why it's really important to do this study and get relevant titles and market informed base pay is that's the best way to attract top talent, such as researchers. As the study progresses, if there are any changes or folks think there need to be changes to employment categories, that's really not a part of the title and title comp study. That would be handled in a different way such as creating a task force or the like. Let's talk a little bit about the benefit value analysis or the BVA. It just shows how we are in terms of our benefits with our peers. So who are our peer groups? We have two peers groups for faculty positions. We have our official peers that were adopted in 1984 by Executive Order 27 and we also have a peer group of private institutions. We're fairly methodical about how we came up with that list. They're primary institutions where we've lost-- to which we've lost faculty between fiscal '17 and starting at fiscal '08. We're going to get this data from Mercer probably in May of this year, no later than May but maybe a little bit earlier. Finally, a little bit about the study timeline, this is a two-year project. We started in February 2017 and we expect to end in March of 2019. We're currently in phase two. As we move towards phase three, we're going take the market data we received and we're going to attach it to the job framework and develop pay ranges. We will also update the salary administration guidelines so that we can help promulgate some of these pay changes. Phase four runs concurrently wit phase two and phase three, and as a review of our benefit and work-life structures. I want to talk about our appreciation for two faculty members who have been incredibly helpful. First would be Chad Goldberg, who is seated in the front and also Sue Babcock, who are in key committees of this project. And they really have given us a lot of very good constructive feedback and have been great for this project. Thank you. [ Applause ] >> Rebecca Blank: It's long past time, we had a set of titles for our staff that actually reflected what we do rather than what the state gave us 150 years ago and much less the salaries that match the right titles. Next, I'm turning things to Steve Ventura, who's going to talk about our Cooperative Extension reintegration. >> Steve Ventura: Thank you Chancellor. In some respects, this is the biggest change to the university in the last 50 years. We are going to welcome more than 700 new employees, over 200 faculty to the University of Wisconsin Madison. As I suspect most of you know, this was an idea last October put forward by President Ray Cross and approved by the Board of Regents in November and I call it an idea because it was not a fleshed out plan. It was a mandate to bring together was it 7-- or excuse me, 13 two-year campuses assigned to seven of the four-year universities and to integrate parts of Cooperative Extension with UW Madison. Other parts of extension, fate unknown at this point, possibly part of Madison, possibly part of UW system. Starting from the top, UW system has set up a restructure steering committee. Each of the affected campuses has one representative on this committee. Our representative is Casey Nagy. That name may be familiar to you because he was John Wiley's chief of staff and worked in legal services for a number of years. Working with him is Heidi Zoerb over here. Heidi has been succonded from the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences to work on this project and has very recently come back from extension, so she knows at least Cooperative Extension very well. The elements of coop extension being transferred or transitioned to UW Madison as I mentioned about 700 total employees, 215 faculty, perhaps only 40% or so of those work here in Madison. The bulk of extension is cooperation with counties around the state working on youth and family, agriculture, natural resources, community development, health, nutritional assistance, 4H, number of specific programs like Master Gardener, the Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey. And they are entering their third year of a massive reorganization that took place before this transition. So this is a group of people that have undergone some change and will continue to undergo some change. So I think it's important to figure out how we can make this work in everyone's best interest. Specifically for the Madison Coop Extension Integration, Casey and Heidi have commissioned a steering team. These are the worker bees that have to figure out how to make all this fit together. There are specific working groups in communications, information technology, facilities, human resources, finance, auxiliary services and volunteer management. These working groups have been meeting already, and by the end of this month, hope to have documents that identify the major issues that they need to grapple with in order to accomplish as much as can be accomplished by July 1st. I think that at this point, there is recognition that not everything is going to be done by July 1. There are some major issues out there, decisions on what the entity looks like when it comes in to Madison. Is it a unit? Is it a college? Is it integrated into existing programs and so forth? There will be issues of county relations, issues of operational status for those facets that haven't been transitioned by July 1. And there are a number of governance issues, which is part of the reason that I'm here. We have set up a joint governance committee that has representatives of all of the governance bodies of Madison and our counterparts in extension. They also have a faculty senate and a university staff assembly and an academic staff assembly. And this group met for the first time last week and identified a number of issues that will need to be resolved and agreed upon by the governance groups. Of course, one of the big issues will be how we deal with tenure. Extension has its own tenure system and we need to figure out how we bring that into UW Madison. There will be issues of titles, compensation, how we merge the governance groups, what kind of performance reviews will merge out of this and what kind of academic programming can be brought together? So we have a very significant challenge and I hope that you will join me in welcoming our brothers and sisters from extension. This is going to be something that requires lots of discussion and probably some compromise as we go along. And in the process, I think that it's going to make both institutions stronger. We will have boots on the ground in 72 counties around the state and hopefully, rekindle some of the spirit of those thoughts and idea. We don't have very many answers right now, but stay tuned because there's going to be lots and lots of discussion between now and July 1 and probably for quite some time thereafter. Thanks. [ Applause ] >> Rebecca Blank: I just want to echo that I'm really enthusiastic about the idea of bringing Cooperative Extension back into the flagship university, which in my opinion, is where it should've been all along. And of course we, started Cooperative Extension back more than 100 years ago. We were the first state long before the federal government funded this to fund Cooperative Extension agents and it's really good to think about how we reintegrate our activities. Let me now, last person, recognize Anja Wanner who has a few remarks she wants to make, and updating what's happening and what the UC committee is doing >> Anja Wanner: Thank you, Chancellor Blank. I would like to take just a few minutes to follow up on Steve's comments about the merger and also to update you all on the UC's activities in a more general way. With regards to the merger, as Steve mentioned, one of the first governance topics to be taken up will be tenure. There are about 100 tenured faculty at Cooperative Extension who will transition to UW Madison and Extension's criteria for tenure and post-tenure review are different from our own. We expect that the Shared Governance Advisory Committee that Steve Ventura spoke about will soon either create or ask the UCs of the two institutions to create a task force on tenure. We would like to ensure broad representation of our faculty on this task force, so if you are interested in serving on this task force or if you know someone who would be a good fit, please let Steve Ventura or me know after this meeting. More broadly, I want to highlight some of the items the UC has been working on this year. One of the main functions of the UC is to consider and advise on questions that concern the educational interests or politics of the university as well as any decision-making that concerns the faculty. This year, we've spent a good deal of time on topics that have also come before you, such as the new sexual harassment and sexual violence policy, changes to FPMP. You may recall the new wording for the summer session and there are changes to Chapter 4 you will consider later today, and of course the Extension merger. In addition, this year as every year, we have worked on a couple of faculty grievances, for example in cases where a faculty member feels that they were subjected to discipline for no just cause. In addition to addressing the specific issues in these grievances, we have found commonalities across some of them and are working to identify institutional and leadership changes we deem necessary. Also this year as every year, we have received recommendations and reports from standing and ad hoc committees, including the recommendation from the ad hoc committee on instructional titles to create a teaching professor title, clearly a topic that will be brought to the faculty senate in the near future. The University Committee serves as the Board of Directors of PROFS and continually works with PROFS and the vice chancellor for University Relations to get our campus's voice heard at the state capitol. PROFS President Dorothy Farrar-Edwards gave an overview of the activities of PROFS to the Faculty Senate in December and you have a recent update in your materials. And of course, we continue to accompany and advise the work of campus leadership of all sorts, whether administration, faculty and staff, or students. Among the many items we've recently discussed with these groups are the new pay plan, the Title and Compensation Study and the merger. We have also worked to ensure that faculty have input into leadership hiring, including this semester the searches for a chief information officer, a director of libraries, and a vice chancellor for student affairs. Among the issues we will be working on with faculty and administrators in the coming weeks are the library master plan and the Campus Consensual Relationships Policy, which is in the works. The UC is the executive committee of this body. It is here for the faculty. If there are issues that you believe need to be addressed or if you feel that certain voices are not being heard or are not being adequately represented, please get in touch with me or the Secretary of the Faculty or any members of the committee. We weekly and most of our time is spent in open discussions with guests. This includes individual faculty and whatever concern they may have. The UC also has the ability to establish working groups or task forces to study issues in more depth. For example earlier this year, the Madison Advisory Committee on Academic Hiring that we appointed responded to sweeping hiring policy changes adopted by the regents. Each semester, we also review dozens of requests for tenure clock extensions, leaves of absences, and dual role waivers. Those are requests for members of the academic staff to take on a second dual role in addition to their regular duties in teaching or research for a limited time. We also appoint faculty or send representatives to a number of shared governance committees such as the committee on committees and the University Academic Planning Council. Additionally, a UC member serves as the faculty representative to UW System and attends all Board of Regents meetings. This is all important and very interesting work, work that makes us truly appreciate the dedication and excellence that faculty demonstrate all across campus. We cannot do this work without your input. In order to improve communication between the faculty senate and departments, which ideally should not be a one-way street, senators and alternates are now receiving recaps of all senate meetings from the Secretary of the Faculty. So thank you Steve for that and many other things. You can also find minutes of all University Committee meetings and a whole lot more on the Secretary of the Faculty's website. We will continue to make these resources available to you, but most importantly we want to make sure that you know we welcome and encourage your input and perspectives in any way that you would like to make them. Thank you. [ Applause ] >> Rebecca Blank: That is a longer than usual and very wide ranging set of issues. Are there any questions or comments from my self, for Wayne, for Steve, or for Anja? >> Chad Owen Goldberg: Chad Owen Goldberg, District 71. Chancellor Blank, I wanted to raise a couple of questions about the merger plan. Many faculty and myself included, were disturbed that we first learned about this plan from the Milwaukee General Sentinel. The Wisconsin Public Radio reported that you described during process the merger plan as an open secret at the state capitol before faculty, staff and students learned about the plan. And so respectfully, I would like to ask you when you were priced about the plan and when you briefed shared governance leaders at this campus and in addition, I would also like to ask you respectfully to distance yourself from break crosses comments about shared governance which I found to be disdainful and contemptuous. >> Rebecca Blank: So I was told about this before it went public. I had to be so I can call the chancellors had to-- we had to do some preparation. But this was a Board of Regents action. It was their decision to announce or not announce. It was not certain until right before I think action was taken, exactly how we were going to move forward and it was under those circumstances not mine to announce or to discuss. So I did not discuss it until it became officially voted on by the Board of Regents and something for us all to discuss. I will notice I hope you heard very clearly in the presentation that the part of the merger and reintegrations that we're involved with, which is with Cooperative Extension at this point, is trying very closely to work with all of the governance groups both on our campus as well as there which I think is the appropriate way to move forward with this. Other comment? >> Amos Ron: Amos Ron, District 52, Computer Science. I have a question about you regarding your presentation of the sexual misconduct and harassment on campus. There cannot be ambiguity in our perception and of ejection and dying to eradicate this. But I read recently a memo that was sent out by a chair over department concerning a campus policy on romantic relationship among employees, so like two employees of our university and the language presented in that memo was bold enough to prompt you to ask questions. Do we have a policy of what we consider appropriate and what we discourage and how do we balance between the interest of our campus to prevent a precursor of sexual harassment, and balance it with the freedom of the individual to make choices in their life. >> Rebecca Blank: I want to call on the provost to answer this because this is an active discussion about a policy that is not yet in place. >> The UW Regents did pass a consensual-- >> Amos Ron: Would you raise a little bit? >> Yes. The regents did pass a consensual relationships policy, which we could send you the link to, and we are currently, our committee, the provost-- I can't remember their acronym, Provost's Advisory Group for-- PAGSAM, I met with them for an hour and a half on Friday, where we're discussing the consensual relationships policy and what our campus policy should or should not say. And once that policy is drafted, it will of course come to this body for review and discussion and hopefully ultimately for approval. But it hasn't been written yet. And the regent policy exists. >> Rebecca Blank: Yeah, let me be clear. When the regents pass a policy, that becomes by mandate, all of our policies. But many times the regent policies are quite general and don't address many of the issues that come up particularly on the Madison Campus with its complexity so, just as we all adopted much more detailed and specific policies around sexual harassment and misconduct earlier this fall, so we are now drafting a campus-specific policy, which will be consistent with regent policy as it is in place around consensual relationships. But that's a conversation I invite you to join if you're interested. >> Amos Ron: Thank you. >> Rebecca Blank: Yeah. Other questions or issues? In that case, I'm going to move on with the agenda. The minutes are on page 10 of your packet, are there any additions or corrections to the minutes of December 4? If there are none, the minutes are approved as distributed. And let me recognize then Professor Alberta Gloria who's going to present the annual report of the Kemper K. Knapp Bequest Committee. >> Alberta Gloria: Thank you Chancellor. Good afternoon. It's my pleasure to present on behalf of the Kemper K. Knapp Bequest Committee, which focuses on funds that are used for the purposes outside of the regular curriculum of the university to cultivate in the student body ideals of honesty, sincerity, earnestness, tolerance, social and political obligations. Our committee funded for this upcoming year a total of 24 programs that were both ongoing and grants for one time projects. The committee also took an extra initiative to confirm that the awardees reached out to undeserved and underrepresented students on campus to be able to enrich the intellectual environment of the university through the use of these funds. The committee strives to encourage increased interest in the development of campus activities in order to fulfill the donor's request in the undergraduate experience. Submitted for your review are the ongoing and one-time awards for the 2018 and 2019 academic year. >> Rebecca Blank: Are there any questions? Thank you very much. I appreciate the work of your committee. Let me recognize Professor Noah Feinstein who will present the annual report of the Committee on Committees, which is also the slates for the faculty-elected committees and will report on the nominations for the election of member of the Committee on Committees. Noah >> Noah Feinstein: Hello. Do we have slides showing slates? Well if we do not, the slates are in your attached faculty documents. And I'm pleased to report that many of the slates are now complete and you can see them in the attachments, you may have seen media coverage of the rise and enthusiasm for participation in elections for office nationwide. I regret that this enthusiasm has not trickled down to self-nominations for faculty-elected committees. However, I wish to applaud all of those who chose to stand for election. Please note that the slates for the divisional executive committee and GFEC, the Grand Faculty Executive Committee are not yet complete, and will be presented in the March senate meeting nominations including self-nominations are welcome. So, please commend your colleagues for choosing to run for those positions. As for the rest of you, the committee on committees is considering an opt out policy, where all of you will be automatically nominated for important governance committees and will have not-- not really, I wish. Are they any questions about the nominations? Elections will be held from the 2nd to the 15th of April, please vote. >> Rebecca Blank: Yes, and you need to them report on the members of the Committee on Committees. >> Noah Feinstein: I do. The following faculty members are nominated for election by the faculty senate from the faculty senate. They fill a vacancy on the Committee On Committees in Biological Sciences Division for a four-year term. In addition to this four-year term, they will assume the solemn responsibilities of the committees which include enduring the endless teasing of their peers and the nature repeatedly why Committee On Committees is both important and necessary for the function of the university. These are Lisa Forest, Professor of Veterinary Medicine Surgical Sciences, District 114 and Christine Seroogy, Associate Professor at the School of Medicine and Public Health and Pediatrics, District 96. That election will also be April 2nd to 15th. Thank you. >> Rebecca Blank: Any questions? Thank you Noah. Let me now recognize Professor Anja Wanner who will present the proposal to establish the Divisional Committee Review Council. >> Anja Wanner: I move adoption of Faculty Document 2715, creating the Divisional Committee Review Council, DCRC, as necessitated by our post-ternure review policy. Following the first reading of this at the December senate meeting, we received some questions about the role of the DCRC in the regular tenure and promotion process. So I'd just like to clarify, the only formal role this body, the DCRC has, is in the post-tenure review process, where it provides faculty input to the provost in cases of disagreement about performance between a department and a dean. You might recall that these two reviews are necessary now and in the case that they don't lead the same result, the case goes on to the provost and the provost will consult with the DCRC. Other than that, the DCRC is purely a way for the provost to get faculty input on tenure matters and it does not add any steps to or otherwise impact the promotion process in general. >> Rebecca Blank: There is no second required on this and this was discussed at our earlier meetings, so this is the second discussion. Following which, we will take a vote. Is there discussion or commentary on this? >> Betsy Stovall: Betsy Stovall, District 63, Mathematics. Sorry. So I am a little-- I'm concerned about the breadth of the functions of the committees so specifically that in all of the-- yes. OK, so I'm concerned about the breadth of the functions as described in the committee. So as you say, the committee is-- it's a consultative resource to the provost, and then-- but the committee can consult on all matters relating to tenure including the promotion process in addition to post-tenure review. And this is particularly worrisome to me because of committee created by the faculty senate in the faculty policies and procedures. Consultations from them would seem to have the-- some implementer of the faculty is this-- if there's not a formal role, is there-- why should this not be a concern I guess is the-- >> Rebecca Blank: We wrote this informal role into the description because we think it gives more faculty input where otherwise there might not be any. So when the provost makes a decision, she is sometimes in a position to want input from some people and this would be a group of people who might be good people to consult with or perhaps. Do you want to speak to that? >> I actually ask whether this committee could come into existence because a new post-tenure review policy states that if there's a dispute between what the department thinks and what the dean thinks is up to the provost to decide. Do I want to do this by myself? Don't I want advice from smart people from across the university, people who served in the divisional committee and know about what it means to be a productive scholar in these different areas of scholarship. And so justice in a Chapter 9 disciplinary case when there's been an investigation and I get a report, I sit down with the former chairs of CFRR and former chairs of the UC to get consultation and advice about what appropriate discipline would be, given the findings of an investigation? I don't want to make those decisions on my own without the guidance of the faculty, so that's what this committee is designed to do. >> Betsy Stovall: So I'd like to ask a followup question. So when I was trying to determine what a consultative resource was. I looked up the description of other committees and it seems that consultation from the faculty can carry quite a lot of weight. So instance, if this is the faculty have it right here, the consultative committee on financial emergency and also the divisional, committees also they have an advisory role purely. So one of these committees, the Committee on Financial Emergency is exempted from 6.12 but the divisional committees for instance are not, and so I don't quite understand the rationale behind exempting this particular committee from the appeal in 6.12. Yes? >> Rebecca Blank: It is on this list because my understanding is this committee doesn't make any decisions. So, it has to be on this list because its decisions are not binding. If we advise the provost, the provost is still free not to accept that advice. >> Betsy Stovall: So-- But what's the difference with the divisional committees, which are also advisory and they're not exempted. >> Rebecca Blank: Yeah, some of their decisions are binding. >> Betsy Stovall: So then this would only have-- so this exemption from 6.12 would only have an impact if later on, there were a formal procedure in the faculty policies and procedure that called on consultation with the Divisional Committee Review Council or would it have to be something not described as consultation? >> Rebecca Blank: I'm not sure I fully understand the question. I think this is really only included here as a reflection of the, I would say, not as essential role for this committee. [Inaudible] Yeah. So post-tenure review cannot be appealed. That is part of the process. We-- That is our policy that we already voted on. So the decision then of this committee is not appealable because the result of post-tenure review stands. That wasn't necessarily our choice, but we voted on it anyway. Because we had to. >> Betsy Stovall: So what I'm hearing is that it's exempted from 6.12 largely because we can't-- that's necessary because we can't appeal PTR. >> Rebecca Blank: Yeah, and it's an advisory committee. >> Betsy Stovall: So, I'd like to propose an amendment. And so, the amendment would be to change section B, the functions to state that the Divisional Committee Review Council serves as a consultative resource to the provost on post-tenure review cases under Section 7.17.C7. >> Rebecca Blank: Absolutely. >> There are other cases where a dean may disagree with the decision of the Divisional Committee and I would love the guidance of this committee in some of those cases as well. So I think that's why they included that. So, there have been a couple of cases where Divisional Committee has voted no, but the dean still wants the tenure and so we have to consult. So it would be helpful to get input on some of those cases as well. >> Betsy Stovall: So may I speak in favor the amendment or shall I wait for a second. >> Rebecca Blank: Can you restate the amendment, please. Exactly where-- your under-- functions, under the first item. >> Betsy Stovall: So under functions, this is part B. >> Rebecca Blank: The first sentence of that section. >> Betsy Stovall: Yeah, so completely-- so this would be-- sorry, I have to-- >> Rebecca Blank: I need exact language. Yeah. >> Betsy Stovall: Yes. So it's only-- so part-- Section B under functions is only one sentence. >> Rebecca Blank: Yeah. >> Betsy Stovall: And I propose to modify that to the DCRC serves as a consultative resource to the provost on post-tenure review cases under Section 7.17.C.7. >> Rebecca Blank: So you want to take out relating to tenure including promotion review? >> Betsy Stovall: Yes. It to change post-tenure review to post-tenure review cases. >> Rebecca Blank: Yeah. >> I second. >> Rebecca Blank: There's a second to the motion here. The motion has been made and seconded and we're now have discussion on this motion only. Anja, do you want to speak to this? >> Anja Wanner: I would like to speak against the motion because this informal consulting in complex cases is happening anyway. This just gives more guidance as to whom the provost would consult with. >> Lisa Everett: Lisa Everett, District I think 67, Physics. I'd like to speak in favor of the amendment. If you would like to have this particular committee have broader her responsibilities than just post-tenure review, then the entire document should be written to reflect that as a post having one sentence near the end where this phrase is tucked in. >> Rebecca Blank: Are there other comments? We're speaking only to the amendment at this point. >> The amendment has been seconded. >> Rebecca Blank: OK. The amendment is now up there, so you can see proposed change. >> Betsy Stovall: I would like to provide some additional clarification-- sorry, Betsy Stovall, District 63, Mathematics. I would like to provide some additional clarification to my fellow senators. So, Section 7.17.C7 which is the specific section you see there refers only to post-tenure review and not other functions that the DCRC might have. In the case of post-tenure review cases, there are specific guidelines laid out that the DCRC has to follow including what happens in cases of conflicts of interests and other concerns. And I think that we should clarify this. The second is that, later on, this as written if it passes with the amendment, it can be revised and more specific language can be added if that's needed. >> Rebecca Blank: Other comments? >> Chris Olsen: Chris Olsen, District 55. I speak in-- or oppose the amendment rather. I think as Anja commented, in any situation where a person with a hard decision to make is trying to make that decision they inevitably, unless there are matters of privacy, generally speak to people they trust to make that decision. I would hope that our provost will always have faculty members who they know and trust and consult with. But there's no guarantee of that. And so I appreciate the idea that the provost would have a group of people who while not mandated would certainly be available to them to speak through, a group of faculty who would have experience and be a resource. So I would say that this amendment could actually hurt rather than help the upholding of a system of tenure that we have been struggling to manage since recent legislator action. Thank you. >> Chad Owen Goldberg: Chad Owen Goldberg, District 71. Point of affirmation, question for Provost Mangelsdorf. So, Provost, who do you currently consult on matters relating tenure including promotion review and who would you presumably continue to consult if this amendment passes? >> Rebecca Blank: Come up to the mic, Sarah. >> Sarah Mangelsdorf: Right now, I consult with the chair of the divisional committee that the case went to and the dean. And sometimes I bring them bought together to talk about why they each have-- why they have a difference of opinion about the tenure case. >> Chad Owen Goldberg: OK. >> Rebecca Blank: Are you there other comments or are you ready to vote? All right, we're going to vote on this amendment, all of those voting aye will be voting in favor of the amendment. All those voting no will be voting in favor of the original wording. OK? All those in favor of the amendment indicate by saying aye >> [Simultaneously] Aye. >> Rebecca Blank: All those oppose? >> [Simultaneously] No. >> Rebecca Blank: I'm going to say that the nos have that. All right, we are back to the larger proposal to create the Divisional Committee Review Council. Are there any other comments on this that we need to discuss? >> Valentin Picasso: Valentin Picasso, District 4, Agronomy. Just a quick question, how do you know the nos and the yes? When? >> Rebecca Blank: I heard a louder "no" vote. But I'm happy to take a paper ballot if people think that's necessary. >> For clarity? >> Rebecca Blank: OK. For clarity, let's do a paper ballot on that vote. Yeah. >> We do hands. >> Rebecca Blank: Oh we hands. Sorry, we're doing hands, not a paper ballot. All right. Let's do it again, all of those who are in favor of this amendment indicate by raising your hand. And you folks will help count here. Keep your hands up until the count is done. All right. All of those voting no indicate by raising your hand. Yeah. I think the nos have it, but-- Keep your hands up until the vote is complete. No. All right, other conversation about this, or are you ready to vote on the full motion? >> Amos Ron: Amos Ron, District 52, that's computer science. So once the amendments fails, we go and read the language of the original wording and the language says as we read them, one is also presented on the screen, it says, on post-tenure matters, including tenure and promotion, would the university and specifically the University Committee consider promotion to tenure as a part of post-tenure process? I think that's what the language indicates. It's not what we guide and what we ask the provost to do and how the provost is going to handle her duties. But it's what's the official language that appeals at the university document states. >> Rebecca Blank: I'm not sure I fully understand how this concern is different? >> Amos Ron: Well, the post-tenure was not in the original language. So this was directly on tenure promotion and so on, so I was the one with a comment because I saw the language once the amendment is adopted and I didn't read correctly the original language. OK. >> Rebecca Blank: All right, so you're happy with? >> Amos Ron: Yes. >> Rebecca Blank: All right. Any other comments? If not, I'm going to the motion-- vote on the motion to adopt this proposal and create the Divisional Committee Review Council, all right? All those in favor of the motion indicate by saying aye. >> [Simultaneously] Aye. >> Rebecca Blank: All those opposed? >> [Simultaneously] No. >> Rebecca Blank: I think the ayes have that one. All right, thank you very much. Let me now recognize again Professor Wanner, who's going to present the proposal to merge the functions of the Research, Safety, and Compliance Oversight Committee into the University Research Council. >> Anja Wanner: Thank you. This is another matter for which we had a first reading in December. I move adoption of Faculty Document 2716, which will retire the Research, Safety, and Compliance Oversight Committee and merge its functions into the University Research Council. I also need to know the minor correction to the document which will be the first of the new charges, number 2 under functions, should read, "Advises and consults with the Office of Research Compliance, the Office of Research Policy and Integrity, the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs, and other safety and compliance units." This change reflects the fact that the Office of Research Policy that is currently mentioned in the language no longer exists. So that should not be on there. and the Office of Research Policy has been replaced by two office. That should be listed there. So they should be the Office of Research Compliance and the Office Research Policy and Integrity. So we need to tweak that. I hope that wasn't too complicated. >> Rebecca Blank: Right so you have moved the motion. I move adoption of the-- >> Anja Wanner: Yes. >> Rebecca Blank: Of the full motion? >> Anja Wanner: Of the full motion, yeah. >> Rebecca Blank: As amended. This does not require a second. Are there comments on this motion? >> Lisa Everett: Hello, Lisa Everett, District 67, Physics. I apologize I wasn't here in December for the first discussion, I might be repeating something that was brought up before, but I would like to state that just seeing this again recently, I would like to say that I do no think it's a good idea to merge a committee that oversee something as important as safety and compliance into some other body that has many other duties. The reason why is that most of the time, it is true, probably, it would be easier and more streamlined, but part of the thing about safety and compliance is that when terrible things happened that can be catastrophic. It can be a matter of life and death and this has happened with other campuses and I can't say of course whether having a separate tiny committee would've made a big difference in those cases. But it seems to me that it can hurt. And so therefore, I'd like you to consider this statement. Thank you. >> Rebecca Blank: I think this got raised in the earlier conversation, do you want to respond? Or who's the right person to respond to this? >> Ruth Litovsky: Ruth Litovsky, University Committee. I think we totally understand the issue. So this is an oversight committee so it's not that the function is integrated, and so there is a level of independence and reporting, you know, that's outside of that realm. It's not as if they're employed by and working within that unit. But if you have another solution, you know, to consider that you think would improve the functionality of the way the compliance happens on this campus, be great to hear, you know, other options. >> Rebecca Blank: I'm going to ask whether Norman Drinkwater, who's our acting vice chancellor for Research and Graduate Education, do you wan to address the questions? Well, it's a serious question and requires a serious answer. >> Normal Drinkwater: So the University of Research Council is the governance body for the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate Education. And they are-- One of their responsibilities is to provide input to the OVCRGE regarding concerns raised by faculty across a variety of issues that are related to the research infrastructure and research activity on campus. There are in fact a quite a number of compliance-oriented committees that deal with insuring the safety and appropriate operation of all of our-- all the aspects of our research enterprises, so these include the Biological Safety Committee, the Institutional Review Boards, the Animal Care and Youth Committees, all of those have a direct responsibility for evaluating the safety of research going on, on campus and its compliance with federal and other standards. >> Rebecca Blank: Are there other comments or concerns that people want to raise? If not, if you're ready to vote, we will take a vote on the proposal to retire the Research, Safety and Compliance Oversight Committee and merge its functions into the University Research Council. All those in favor of that motion indicate by saying aye. >> [Simultaneouly] Aye. >> Rebecca Blank: All those opposed? The ayes have it. all right, one more time, I'm going to recognize Professor Anja Wanner for a first reading of proposed changes to FPP Chapter 4. So this is for discussion only, not for vote. >> Anja Wanner: Everyone's favorite, FPP changes. You have in your materials Faculty Document 2723, which proposes changes to several sections of Chapter 4. These changes are intended to clarify and simplify divisional membership and bring FPMP in line with practice on some points, and modify practice on other points. The specific changes are explained in the bulleted list on the first page of Faculty Document 2723. That must be around pages 18 to 20 in greater details, but in-- to sum it up here. Sections 4.02 and 03 as written provided for a process whereby departments were assigned to divisions and then individuals selected from their department's divisional affiliation to determine their own divisional affiliation. So it was department first and faculty could select from that. Our practice for the last several years has been the opposite, individuals select the division that best fits their scholarly work and then departments automatically belong to all the divisions to which their faculty belong. So it's a faculty-centered process. One set of changes to 4.10.A. is intended to make it easier to constitute divisional committees, especially in our smallest division, Arts and Humanities. In the materials, you will see that Arts and Humanities has 35 departments compared to Physical Science with 28. But the Physical Science Departments are more uniform and the numbers more stable. In Arts and Humanities, the number of departments is declining due to mergers and closures. Moreover, although there are approximately 35 departments with at least one Arts and Humanities member in them, there are only about 20 departments with more than five. The pool to select from if you want 12 members for divisional committee is just smaller and we have had the divisional committees that had to make do with fewer than 12 members. So we want 12 members in the committee, so relaxing the rules about how many members we allow from a committee may be the way to go. The other set of changes to 4.10.A. allows committee members who fill out partial terms to run for reelection. If somebody is willing to run for election, we don't want to stop that person. Changes to 4.10.E. reflect the fact, A, that some of our divisional committees have co-chairs and that seems to work well. And B, that our divisional committee chairs have not reported out to their divisions. So that's why we have a change here from shall to may. And finally, the change to 4.30. is simply to reflect the fact that we no longer distribute paper copies of agendas and materials. So I look forward to your input on this first reading. >> Rebecca Blank: Comments here are welcome . I trust all of you will take this back to your member groups and ask for comments and get them into the UC as well. >> Chad Owen Goldberg: Chad Owen Goldberg, District 71. This is a point of information more than anything. Under 4.10A, first there's a-- it says-- repeated twice here that's easily corrected. No more than two members of each committee subcommittee shall have tenure in the same department. My other point of information, I don't understand the line, the total tenure appointments and members from a single department shall not exceed 250%. Could somebody from the University Committee explain that? I don't understand what that means. >> Rebecca Blank: That is essentially about FTE allocations. So, some faculty members have partial affiliations or have 50% appointment. So by saying 250% appointment it means that you could have three faculty members, two would have 100% appointment and one might have 50% appointment. If I'm not mistaken, the current number is 150% and it is stated in that awkward way in FPMP as well. Other comments or questions? Think about this one. This will come back to you next month for a formal vote and the UC is more than willing to take any comments or discussion or suggested changes in mind as they prepare for that last vote. We do have a last item on the agenda which is the academic calendar for far future years and given we were just in the first full year of this calendar, and the way in which it's been rearranged and there'd been a number of questions that have come forward, I am with you or [inaudible] is going to pull this item for a discussion at a future meeting. So, if no one objects to that, we are at the end of the agenda. Anything else, I will declare the meeting adjourned. Thank you all for coming. And see you in another month.