>> Chancellor Blank: I'm going to call the meeting to order. I know people are still arriving but we have a long agenda and we're going to get started. Can I ask all of the faculty to rise as you were able to the reading of the Memorial Resolution? Let me recognize Professor Paul Lambert to present the Memorial Resolution for Professor Emeritus Roswell Boutwell.

>> Paul Lambert: Thank you, Chancellor. Roswell Knight Boutwell, Professor Emeritus of Oncology died on August 25, 2017 at the age of 99. Roz is pioneering research focused on defining the mechanisms of carcinogenesis as a step toward the rational designs of agents for cancer prevention and treatment. He was the first to define the initiation, promotion, and progression steps in carcinogenesis. Roz also had a significant impact in cancer policy and was a beloved mentor. An enthusiastic support of cancer research, he exemplified the spirit of collegiality and collaboration. Roz's booming voice in the hallways of McArdle, recognizable by generations McArdlelites will be forever missed. Thank you.

>> Chancellor Blank: Let me recognize Professor Dustin Cowell to present the Memorial Resolution for Professor Emerita Joan Hazel Carter.

>> Dustin Cowell: Thank you Chancellor Blank. Joan Hazel Carter, Professor Emerita of African Languages and Literature passed away at age 88 on August 03, 2016. Born and raised in England, she earned her PhD in Bantu Languages at the School of Oriental and African Studies of the University of London. After her career in its department of Africa, she was appointed a full professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1986. Shortly after having served as chair of our department for three years, she retired in 1995. Having made a great intellectual contribution for the life of our department for which she will always be fondly remembered. Thank you.

>> Chancellor Blank: Let me recognize CHS Professor Barbara Blodi to present the Memorial Resolution for Professor Emeritus Matthew Davis.

>> Barbara Blodi: Thank you Chancellor Blank. Dr. Matthew Dinsdale "Dinny" Davis passed away this spring. He established the University of Wisconsin Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Science and also established an imaging lab, the Fundus Photograph Reading Center for Ophthalmology Clinical Trials in partnership with the National Institutes of Health. Dinny leaves a legacy of accomplishment as a clinician, educator, leader, and tireless researcher at UW-Madison for more than 60 years. Dr. Davis is recognized worldwide for his work as a pioneering retina specialist who helped establish standards for analyzing diabetic retinopathy, macular degeneration, and other retinal diseases. His impact on patients in the field of ophthalmology throughout his entire faculty tenure is immeasurable. Thank you.

>> Chancellor Blank: I am told there are number of Professor Davis' family and friends here. I don't know all of their names. Raise your hand if you are amongst that group.

[ Applause ]

Thank you for coming. And I'm told there's a memorial service at 5 o'clock this evening. Let me recognize Professor Thomas Rutherford to present the Memorial Resolution for Professor Emeritus Frank Groves.

>> Thomas Rutherford: Thank you Chancellor. Francis "Frank" Groves, Professor Emeritus, Department of Agriculture and Applied Economics, died on Friday August 4th at the age of 92-- 2017. Professor Groves was recognized nationally and internationally for his work in cooperatives, dairy marketing and dairy policy, earned a BS degree in dairy industry in 1951 and a PhD in agricultural economics in 1961 both from University of Wisconsin-Madison. He joins the faculty-- the faculty as an assistant professor in the Department of Agricultural Economics now Agricultural and Applied Economics with teaching research and extension responsibilities in dairy marketing, dairy policy, and cooperatives. He's promoted to associate professor in 1965 and full professor in 1967. He's the director of the newly formed University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives in 1971. Position he held until his retirement in 1989.

>> Chancellor Blank: And all three of Thomas-- Professor Rutherford's children are here. His daughter, Anne Groves Lloyd who works in LMS, and his two sons Dick and Bill. Thank you for coming.

[ Applause ]

Let me recognize Professor Grace Boekhoff-Falk to present the Memorial Resolution for Professor Patricia Keely.

>> Grace Boekhoff-Falk: Patricia "Patty" J. Keely, PhD, professor, and founding chair of the Department of Cell and Regenerative Biology and the Jan and Kathryn Ver Hagen Chair of Translational Research lost her gallant and lengthy fight with cancer on June 24, 2017 at the age of 54. She has survived by her parents, Ruth and John Keely, her brother Pete Keely, her son David Kwong, her husband Tom Powell and countless friends. Patty leaves behind a remarkable legacy as a world class scientist, a very dedicated mentor, a strong academic leader, and an extremely kind person. She is and will be missed.

>> Chancellor Blank: It's unusual to have a Memorial Resolution for someone who's died in service. And I do want to thank her parents John and Ruth Keely for coming, son David Kwong, and her husband Tom Powell and many faculty members from Cell and Regenerative Biology I think who are in the audience. Thank you.

[ Applause ]

Let me recognize Professor Teju Olaniyan to present the Memorial Resolution for Professor Emeritus Daniel Kunene.

>> Teju Olaniyan: Thank you, Chancellor. Professor Daniel P. Kunene passed away on May 27, 2016 at 93 years old. Kunene was a specialist of Southern African Literatures and Languages. He was born and educated in South Africa where he obtained his PhD from the University of Cape Town in 1961. Committed to antiapartheid, he left South Africa on exile in 1963 and received political asylum in the US. He taught at UCLA from 1964 to 1970 and then UW-Madison. A globally renowned scholar, teacher, writer, and translator, he was also very active in the local medicine community. He hosted programs on WRT's radio literature collective and read inspirational poems at [inaudible] and published them in local newspapers.

>> Chancellor Blank: Thank you. And I want to recognize Professor Kunene's wife Marci Kunene who's here. Thank you for coming.

[ Applause ]

And let me recognize Professor Jo Ellen Fair to present the Memorial Resolution for Professor Emeritus Alexander Skinner.

>> Jo Ellen Fair: Professor Alexander Neil Skinner died March 7, 2015 at the age of 93. Professor Skinner was among the world's foremost experts of the languages of West Africa especially Hausa and Fulfulde. He had an interesting life, so interesting that he wrote not one but two memoir. Professor Skinner was born in China to English parents who sent him back to England for schooling. After assailing in Greek and Latin at the secondary level, he found his way to Trinity College, Cambridge where he achieved a first in his one and only year of study. It was 1941 and their royal artillery had recruited-- had conscripted Professor Skinner into service. And a great stroke of luck for he was supremely unsuited to military life, the colonial office obtained his file, noted his gifts with language and offered him an out service instead with the colonial office in Sokoto Northern Nigeria. He gladly went. Does it was that Neil Skinner had a long first career as a colonial officer in Nigeria and then the Middle East learning languages in every country and about the time it takes most of us to eat breakfast. His relative Madison was [inaudible]. It included sent as a radio broadcaster with the New Zealand National Broadcasting Service and a quick BA at the age of 39 from the University of London. The credential of a bachelor's degree at that time was the minimal one for an otherwise exceptional person to obtain a teaching position at a university in the United States. UW recruited him in 1966 and Professor Skinner never left us. Professor Skinner published massively an African linguistics, literature, and Pedagogy. He produced the world's first English to Hausa dictionary. Languages came so easily to him that he was one of those who could not count or say for certain how many languages he actually knew. When one would ask him, he would simply say, it depends on the definition and the tense of the verb to know, doesn't it? Much more could be said about this outstanding UW faculty member but I will leave it at this, let him be remembered as an exceptional man of his times. Thank you.

[ Applause ]

>> Chancellor Blank: And I want to recognize Professor Skinner's wife Meg Skinner who's with us in the audience.

[ Applause ]

That concludes the Memorial Resolution so I invite everyone to be seated. All of our visitors are welcome to leave at this point here. Welcome to stay if you wish. We do have a long agenda so I'm going to be relatively brief in my report on what's happening around campus. As many of you have probably seen, we have a new Vice Provost for Libraries, Lisa Carter, who will be coming here from Ohio State where she was the Associate Director for Special Collections. And we'll be starting-- When? August 1st. I know many of you are probably interested in the outcomes of the CIO search and the Vice Chancellor for Student Affair searches and we anticipate announcements later this week on both of those positions. Another key search, the Associate Vice Chancellor for Finance is in the final stages and we expect that person to be here and assisting in our budget processes as we lead up into this next budget period very soon. I announced last week that Vice Chancellor Marsha Malick will be stepping down in her role as Vice Chancellor for Research in Graduate Education. As you all know, Marsha was the first to serve in that role here at UW. She started four years ago as an interim, was named as the permanent person three years ago and has, you know, certainly in my work with her just on a superb job in that role. Norman Drinkwater who's been serving as interim since Marsha steps aside for some family reasons, since the first of the year is going to continue to serve as the Interim Vice Chancellor and we would expect to launch a search late summer early fall to look for a good replacement. I just want to thank Marsha for everything that she has done. She will be officially retiring and both for her work as vice chancellor and before that for many years as director of the Waisman Center and many, many other roles that she has played in the campus over time. So, if you see Marsha, please congratulate her and thank her for her service. Shifting gears. As many of you know, last September I commissioned a study group to review the activities of two student groups that took the name Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s. If you've not read the report of that group, I strongly recommend that you do so. It was led by Professor of History Stephen Kantrotwitz and Dr. Floyd Rose, a community member who leads a hundred black men. The reported self makes three recommendations. Its first is about recovering some of the voices in history of those whose experiences here might have been more marginalized than we sometimes tell in our regular histories. And I'm going to be providing funds for a public history project that I'm actually quite excited about. I think it's going to be both fun and very enlightening to put this together, to try to recover the experiences not just to some students who might have been here in the 10s and 20s but other groups of students over time on both to archival history and were possible to oral histories. And Steve and Christy Clark-Pujara are going to lead a small group to give some shape to how we might approach this project so that something that we can get launched this coming fall. And there were also recommendations there about faculty and student diversity and I want to note that we are in the midst-- the provost is in the midst of redesigning and strengthening our targets of opportunity hiring program. You will hear more about that in the fall when we're ready to roll that out. And I've also pledged funds so that our four ethnic studies departments can each hire a new faculty member joined with some other department around the university with the idea that this would both expand the number of faculty working on issues of recovering the experiences and studying those of different groups that are often underrepresented and will deepen our ethnic studies curriculum as well. The union council is engaged with this report. We're in the process of talking about one aspect to the report which is some name spaces and that conversation I know is going to continue over the summer and fall. I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge that on the good news side we now have, as of 11 o'clock this morning, 85 fiberglass Buckies have been unveiled all around Dane County. I'm wearing my chancellor's outfit because I had to go out on Bascom Hill and unveil graduation Bucky who is sitting at the top of the hill. You want to go to take your picture there and on all other 84. There are going to be a number around town and on campus as well. This is Bucky on parade. A partnership with the Madison Sports Commission in downtown Madison, the Buckies will be out for six months. After that they will be auctioned off and the money will go to charity primarily to the Garding Against Cancer Initiative that Coach Greg Gard runs. So, if you want to be up with the students, I challenge you as we will challenge our freshmen to go take your picture taken at every one of those 85 Buckies and send it into us. And also, it's the end of the year. I want to thank all of you for the hard work that all of you have done. Please pass those thanks along to everyone in your department, faculty, and staff. I always know this time of the year is something of a mad rush and we are aiming towards commencement that's happening on Friday night with our graduate and PhD students and on Saturday with our professional schools and our undergraduates. David Muir, the ABC News anchor is our commencement speaker on Saturday and we have three honorary degrees we'll be giving on Friday nights. So it will be a great series of parties. And if you can come, please do. Finally, let me just recognize some changes in the UC. I very much want to thank Anja Wanner from the English department who has not only served three years on the university committee but is shared over this last year and Ruth Litovsky from Communication Sciences and Disorders has also served three years. So, thanks to the two of you for your service.

[ Applause ]

And I don't know if they're here, Kirsten Wolf from the Department of German, Nordic and Slavic is going to be one of the new members of UC as is Paul Campagnola from Biomedical Engineering. So, you will see all of them come next fall. And with that, I will close. I will turn to Anja to make a few comments and then if there any quick questions we'll do that. Anja.

>> Anja Wanner: Thank you Chancellor Blank. Good afternoon. It is had to imagine the three years of UC service including one year as chair have passed, but here it is my last Senate meeting up here. I will not list all these years' accomplishments and challenges, much of that has actually played out here in this room and with your guidance. But I do want to highlight a couple of topics and give you some updates on ongoing work. One area of ongoing effort relates to the titling and compensation study currently underway. So far, the study has not really had an impact on faculty, faculty titles are pretty clear, but the faculty will take an interest in the potential broadening of the professor title. As you have heard in other updates, an ad hoc committee on instructional titles has recommended the creation of a teaching professor title and another group has recommended the creation of a research professor title. These would both be academic staff titles that would recognize one level high caliber activity teaching and research respectively at a department or unit level on a part with the teaching and research that faculty conduct. These titles which are common at few institutions will be considered along with professor practice and clinical faculty by soon to be charged group of faculty academic staff and HR administrators to see how best to fit them with other titles as well as faculty responsibilities. For example, it would have to be discussed if research professors, if such a title were approved, would automatically be qualified to service dissertation directors, a question related to a topic on today's agenda. At some point next year, recommendations on these titles will come to you for discussion and approval. A second effort for which a lot of work has been done already but which is not quite finished is the final implementation of a campus consensual relationships policy. Our specific campus policy has just undergone a review by PAGSAM, the Provost Advisory Group on Sexual Assault and Misconduct. The final policy will be brought to the Senate and other governance bodies for comment and endorsement in the fall. Until this campus policy has been approved, we fall under the general policy developed by UW system. And of course a great deal of work, unexpected work, I want to add, was done this year on the return of UW-Extension to this campus. You will hear more about that later in this meeting and you will have to make important decisions on how to integrate colleagues from UW-Extension next year. The work of the UC ranges from relatively routine things like the consideration of tenure clock extensions to much more involved policy discussions, some of which led to items you will take up today. As our campus priorities change and new challenge have to be dealt with, our governance documents must change. The UC spends quite a bit of time adopting FPP to reflect these changes or to clarify existing policies. Examples of the FTP changes related to hostile and intimidating behavior, a new shared governance committee on immigration and international issues which we'll hopefully work on today, and the clarification of existing tenure review policies which is also on the agenda for today. There are of course also FPP changes that are motivated by external forces such as changes in our post-tenure review policies. And then there is the less public and much less routine of predictable work of responding to grievances, those that do not go to the committee for faculty rights and responsibilities and resolving conflict. There's always plenty of work to do and I'm sorry to say that our incoming new UC members Kirsten Wolf and Paul Campagnola, that there is never a blank slate. Please allow me a personal note. Serving the faculty as a member of the UC has been an unexpected and amazing opportunity. And I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone I got to work with in my role as UC member, most importantly people who believe in shared governance as a practice that has served and should continue to serve this institution and the state well. In particular, I want to thank the people in this room who take on the role of faculty senators and those who support the Faculty Senate's work. And I especially want to thank my colleagues, current and former, on the university committee. They didn't sign up to be on the committee to educate me on shiny and dark corners of campus and higher education in general but they have week after week. And I'm grateful for their willingness to share their expertise and their networks to chair ad hoc groups and draft statements to serve an even more committees because it doesn't end with being on the UC, and seek out formal and informal conversations with faculty and staff, colleagues, students, administrators, and the public, you all great. Thank you Ruth, Barb, Terry, Steve and Drake, our incoming chair. It has been a privilege and real education to serve with you. And enormous things that you should insert a very flowerish [phonetic] bowl here [inaudible] to Steve Smith and his team at the office of the secretary of the faculty who willingly take on work whose effectiveness is often measured by how invisible it is. I've seen only the tip of the iceberg of what you all do in that office and that's massive. I look forward to getting my Monday afternoons back but I also look forward to see in the work that comes next. Thank you all.

[ Applause ]

>> Chancellor Blank: Are there questions for myself or for Anja?

>> Eric Sandgren: Eric Sandgren, District 114. First, thank you Anja and Ruth and all UC committee members for the incredible amount of work that you put into this, I appreciate it. I have a question about the Thompson Center. The Thompson Center when it was established was a bit controversial, partly because it had a board consisting of political appointees. And to deal with that in the document that was approved by the academic planning council committee is the statement, "To ensure that the central operates in accordance with faculty participation and shared governance, procedures on campus, the LMS dean will appoint a faculty advisory committee to advise the center director on LMS dean on center priorities, activities, and impacts." And for me and some others, that was comforting language which suggested that in fact it would-- the center would come under the sort of oversight is essential for any center on this campus. Recently-- And I recognize this is a work in progress but this is the last committee meeting-- Senate meeting of the year. Recently, I'm quoting from an article, members of the Thompson Center board, that's the political group, also declined Monday to approve funding for faculty research projects selected by the acting director Owens and the faculty advisory board. They made it clear that they want to shape the direction of research by funding work on issues with clear connections to policy initiatives. So I have no problem with clear connections to policy initiatives, shaping certainly I think is within their curfew but my concern is that it will go beyond that and in particular when funding is withheld for projects that have been approved by a faculty committee, it raises flags. So I'm raising-- I'm bringing this up now because this is the last Senate meeting. And my question really is how can interested faculty members be made aware of ongoing center issues? Who gets reports, how often, and how can the information be shared with the general faculty and other governance groups so that we can keep a [inaudible] matter and step in if we feel it's necessary?

>> Chancellor Blank: Thank you Eric. And I am-- you had sent me those questions which I saw right forthcoming in this meeting and I did send you an email response back as well. So I do not know the answer to where LMS is on appointing. I will check with the LMS office and have someone get back to on that unless there's someone from LMS who wants to respond to that. I just don't know the answer. I think that the way to get information from the center is the same as you would at any center, they are as new center putting together a listserv of faculty and students and staff who are interested in their activities and I would make sure you get on the listserv and get the information that presumably will be sent out about everything they're doing and about their reports and about how they're moving forward. And I think that's the best way to keep in touch with what's happening at the center.

>> Eric Sandgren: Thank you.

>> Chancellor Blank: Thank you.

>> Leah Horowitz: Hi there. Leah Horowitz. I represent the Nelson Institute. I'm not sure what district that is, sorry. It might be 107. I just had a quick question regarding the public history project. Just wondering how that decision was made and whether the relevant communities were consulted as to what they would want for reparation.

>> Chancellor Blank: So the recommendation was that we do a project that tries to uncover some of the voices of those who've been on campus in the past. I might have a more-- have a different experience from majority of students. I personally think that's a great idea, number of schools doing some similar things. That project has not been given shape yet. As I say, I've asked a small group of people to think about that. I know they're going to be doing a call with collecting information from other faculty as to what ideas people may have. I imagine this is a project where we'd want to hire at least a part-time if not a full-time director who can oversee it, engage graduate students, engage undergraduates, as I say involve both archival and oral history and need to put some parameters as to, you know, where you're looking and which issues and how do you prioritize the many different groups you could look at a different points in time. The other piece of it is to try to find ways in which as you gather that information, we make it publicly available to campus. I do not believe we have a public history committee. So this is in direct response to that study group's recommendation. And over the next several months there will be a real opportunity to shape how we do this. And I expect they will appointing and advisory committee as well. I talked with the study group committee that would be faculty staff, potentially students who would interact with this project as it goes forward. You know, it's something that needs to be a collaborative process involving all of campus.

>> Bruce Barrett: Chancellor, University Committee Faculty Senate, I'm Bruce Barrett, District 103, Department of Family Medicine and Community Health and I have a two and a half minute question.

>> Chancellor Blank: OK, I'm timing you.

>> Bruce Barrett: Which is also a follow-up on previous Senate business. So, five years ago in May 2013, which is the month that carbon dioxide concentration has passed 400 parts per million, I introduced to this body a resolution to urge our endowment, the UW Foundation, to divest from fossil fuels. Mark Cook who is heading the UC then met with me afterwards and suggested that instead of calling for a floor vote on divestment, it would be better to work this through as a committee. So the ad hoc committee on climate change was created and we met numerous times that year, included Daniel Downs, Vicki Bier, Greg Nemet, Galen McKinley, Craig Benson and Margaret Mooney, as well as myself. Margaret I think is here today and os going to afterwards help collect names of people who are interested in these issues. So, our report was accepted by the Senate by uncontested voice vote on February 03, 2014 just four years and four months ago. The main recommendations were to prioritize educational initiatives on climate change, to promote interdisciplinary research on climate change, to commit our campus to significant emission reduction targets, and to promote non-fossil fuel investment opportunities. I'm quoting from that report there was clear consensus on the need to offer opportunities for donors to invest in non-fossil fuel companies. The committee strongly recommends that the faculty Senate urged the UW Foundation to create this option for donors. The committee further recommends having climate change challenges and opportunities as a central theme of the next capital campaign. So my question to you, Chancellor Blank and members of the UC, is how much progress have we made towards these goals? Have you spoken to Mike Knetter or others at UW Foundation? Where are we at on these clearly articulated consensus goals? When Margaret and I asked to meet with Mr. Knetter, he was not available. We are triaged to Chief Investment Officer Julie Van Cleave who told us that they were studying. They were looking at non-fossil fuel investment possibilities but really they wouldn't move there until the input has came from UW leadership. So in the interim, the world has passed us by. Tens of thousands of colleges, universities, state local governments, private and public entities, have now divested more than $6 trillion from fossil fuels. If we had done so then we would have saved tens of millions of dollars because the price of fossil fuel went down. As far as I know we haven't even come up with an option, a viable option for potential donors who care about the future of this planet. So my question is what have we done for the last five years and what are-- more importantly, what are we going to do for the next five years?

>> Chancellor Blank: So, the foundation is a completely separate organization and given some of the things that have been going on with the UW-Oshkosh Foundation, I assure you that I am under pretty strict advice that I do not participate in decision-making for them and they do not participate in decision-making here. So, that is a question that needs to be asked directly of them as to what they are doing. I can speak to what we're doing on campus and we are taking a number of steps around a variety of different initiatives trying to make sure that we as a campus become a more sustainable and a greener campus. That's obviously an ongoing process. I'm happy to talk about that. But that's what within my control.

>> Bruce Barrett: We have been making excellent progress in many climate change fronts.

>> Chancellor Blank: Yeah.

>> Bruce Barrett: Julie Van Cleave, the chief investment officer, specifically told me that they welcome, they want input from the faculty, the alumni, the students, the Senate, the UC, the chancellor, the provost. They want input on how they manage our endowment. So, my information is they do want our input and that we should give it to them.

>> Chancellor Blank: You should give it to them. Yes. Yeah, Noah.

>> Noah Feinstein: Noah Weeth Feinstein, Community and Environmental Sociology. There's been a study drumbeat of incidents over the course of this year and in previous years of faculty members often in particular faculty members of color being targeted for harassment online and offline in the media and in real life. In regards to positions that they have stated publicly and in social media which are proof to be unpopular among certain sections of the electorate, it is increasingly clear the faculty are poorly trained and prepared to deal with this sort of attention and that there is a need for universities and institutions to the extent that they believe in academic freedom to step up in preparing faculty and supporting them should those things arise. It's a particularly important issue for faculty to do justice-oriented work and faculty of color. I know this issue has come before the body before and there may be some more substantive update coming in the future. But as this year winds down, I-- and I know my colleagues in both of my departments would appreciate an update on the work which is being done on this issue.

>> Chancellor Blank: Yeah. You know, I appreciate that actually that issue per se in that way has not come to me. It's an interesting issue. As you know, we've been doing a series of pilot projects working with faculty about how to teach more inclusively how to respond to issues that arise in class, how to deal with a much wider and more diverse student body and are going to be rolling that out at a higher level this next year and that has been where much of our focus has been. When we have had and there have been a few cases where we've individuals for whatever set of reasons would become embroiled in one of these social media firestorms which are not any place anyone wants to find themselves, our communications office has often worked one on one with us individuals. If they're seen like they were serious threats, we've involved the police with them. But I am going to look at John Lucas, who's our director of communications, and say that this is an interesting idea to training programs that we should try to run for faculty to be interested in them. And we should think about how we do that. It's not a suggestion that's come to us in quite that way. So we will think about it and get back to you. Yeah, other comments? All right. In that case if you turn to pages 15 and 16 of your agenda, are there any additions or corrections to the minutes of April 02, 2018? If there are none, I'm going to state that the minutes are approved and distributed and let me now recognize Associate Professor Nick Hillman who will present the annual report for the Committee on Undergraduate Recruitment, Admissions, and Financial Aid known familiarly as CURAFA. Nick.

>> Nick Hillman: Thank you. And your report concludes the academic years 2014 through 2016, '17. It also includes an example of some of the work that the committee is currently active in. So if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them.

>> Chancellor Blank: I just wanted to say that I know that the admissions and finance office really appreciated working with your committee over this last year and what's been quite a collaborative process of input and advice and I just want to say thank you to all the committee members for those conversations. Yeah. All right. If you then turn to pages 26 to 29, let me recognize Professor Doug Reindl who will present the annual report for the Recreational Sports Board.

>> Doug Reindl: There's been a lot of activity in Recreational Sports if you've been looking at what's happening on campus. The committee has been really focused on the planning and execution of the master plan for their division's facilities. Just a couple of things, as projects begin to be completed at sort of exciting for the board and the staff of Rec. Sports, this is the Near West Playfield that was completed earlier this past year and the facility has enabled the division to do a lot more activities without being interrupted by inclement weather. There are about 86% of the activities that were planned for the spring they were able to do, in prior years that's been more like 40%. The main issue that they have this spring was outages due to snowfall which they typically don't have. So-- And that's what the facility looks like at night. It's a really impressive facility. The students have given it really high marks and it's really a world-class facility that Rec. Sports is excited about. And then moving on, the next thing that's on the horizon we were busy was last year planning for the closure of SERF and working on an overflow plan to move some of those facilities to other locations on call [inaudible]. That's caused the usage of those facilities to go up and the overall usage of Rec. Sports to be impacted slightly. I think the staff at Rec. Sports did a great job at trying to plan for that overflow and have equipment in there for student and faculty staff use. This is what the new surface is going to look like. If you've gone by Dayton Street and Lake Street, you'll see that demolition is complete and they're starting to get foundations in the ground. So, that's pretty exciting. It's going to be a beautiful facility and the students are very much looking forward to it. I'll fill any questions if anybody has any.

>> Chancellor Blank: Any question on Rec. Sports? Thank you very much. Let me recognize Associate Professor Steph Tai who will present the annual report for the GLBTQ people in the university committee. Steph.

[ Inaudible ]

>> Steph Tai: So this is a report of what we did from 2015 to 2017. So, the major change that happened in February 2016 is that our committee became an official Chapter Six committee, so joint governance committee. And during that process, we strengthened our language to really make sure that we are recommending and advocating policies, procedures, and programs to really encourage equity in the community that we serve which is the GLBTQ community.

>> We're going to talk about two particular subcommittees that have done work this year with the university. One was the Ad Hoc Committee on Equitable and Inclusive Healthcare of which I was a member. You all who are in Faculty Senate last year will remember that we put together a report providing recommendations for equitable and inclusive healthcare on this campus, specifically regarding sort of provision of HIV prep-drugs and also transgender healthcare that was adopted by Faculty Senate. And that committee although disbanded as an ad hoc committee, the folks on the committee have continued to move forward in terms of working with the university regarding health care. Oh, and also, well, that was in 2017. But now, in 2017, even though that's not in our report, we also had a town hall for transgender health care. And that was the first of the kind for the committee. We hope to do more town halls like that in the future in order to meet with members of the UW community in terms of assessing needs and developing approaches.

>> OK. And similar to something that's been an update since the report. So, late in 2017, we are working with the provost office and the vice chancellor for financing administration to work on setting up a task force for gender-inclusive restroom facilities. So that was something -- that was called into action in August of 2017, we had a charge for that. The task force worked through last fall. I co-chaired that with Gary Brown, the campus planner, and we put together a report which became available in February of this year and then we're looking to move ahead to phase two to look at a usage policy and a campus-wide provisional policy for major renovations and new buildings.

>> Steph Tai: That's pretty much it. I think from-- we were taking new steps in terms of trying to provide greater representation for the community by doing more end-of-the-year reports for our community members and also seeking more input into directions to move forward in the future. Thank you.

>> Chancellor Blank: Are there any questions? Thank you very much for your work over the year. Thanks. Let me recognize Professor Bret Larget who will present the annual report for the Committee on Women in the University. Bret.

>> Bret Larget: Hello. Thanks everybody. We've had a chance to read over our report. I'm just going to highlight a few items. In the last year into the-- some topics that committees worked on are increasing access to early childhood care and education, both on and off campus for UW employes and students, increasing the number of lactation spaces on campus and also doing a better job of publicizing to the community where these are. Participating with other groups on campus in an effort to educate campus leadership groups on the policies on hostile and intimidating behavior and efforts we can take to try to reduce its incidence on campus. And finally in the appendix of the report, you should be able to see a study of a number of things. One of which includes comparing tenure rates between a male and female professors and the six-year tenure rate is higher for men than women, that's largely because women are much more likely to take-- to have their clock, their tenure clock stopped. But the nine-year tenure rate across divisions is fairly even for men and women. I'm happy to take questions.

>> Chancellor Blank: Are there questions on this report? All right. Thank you very much. Let me recognize Associate Dean Sue Zaeske who will present, basically, for your information a proposal to restructure the UW-Madison linguistics Department into the Language Sciences Program. Sue.

>> Sue Zaeske: I'm delighted to present a proposal for restructuring the Department of Linguistics into a Language Sciences Program. The idea for this new interdisciplinary program was generated by faculty from multiple departments including linguistics, psychology, communication sciences and disorders, Spanish and Portuguese and others. They have been honing this proposal for more than two years and it has generated tremendous enthusiasm both in terms of research potential and curricular potential. It has been approved unanimously by the College of Letters and Science Academic Planning Council and also the University Academic Planning Council. And I've also discussed it with the University Committee. I'd like to thank the chair of linguistics and professor of English Eric Raimy, for his vision and leadership in the development of this proposal and the bringing together of stellar teaching and research faculty to create this exciting new program proposal and to move it through governance processes. There are a few aspects that will happen in a sequence after approval should there be-- should this move forward. Well, this informational. But there will-- these are a no doubt of importance to the Faculty Senate. First, with the Language Sciences Program starting, the Linguistics Department will take a vote on closing the Linguistics Department. And consequently with linguistics closing the 3.5 FTE in linguistics, the four faculty members will have tenure homes in this new department. They will transfer tenure homes there and this unit will be governed by an executive committee of 17 tenured faculty member who have tenure homes for the most part in other departments. I'm happy to address any questions you may have and Professor Raimy is also here.

>> Chancellor Blank: Are there questions on this? I appreciate the care you took to get this to everyone and the unanimity with which it's gone through.

>> Sue Zaeske: Thank you, Chancellor.

>> Chancellor Blank: Thank you. All right, you should now be on page 46 of your agenda. And we're going to recognize Professor Steve Ventura who will present for discussion the report of the tenure working group of the Madison-Extension Governance Integration Committee. And let me know that Steve is presenting this for conversation and, well, I suspect it'd be more worked on over the summer and this will come back for decision making in the fall. So this is a preliminary conversation for your input in conversation. Steve.

>> Steve Ventura: Thank you, Chancellor. I will start off by noting that this is one tier in a very large and complex process of joining UW-Extension with UW-Madison. There are committees at the UW System level. There is a group working at the Madison-Extension level that has nine different working groups I think. KC Nagel who is leading that up for this said there's over 200 people involved in this process of figuring out how to bring these institutions together. And what I'm reporting on is one piece of the puzzle and that is how to deal with the tenure status of UW-Extension employees. We had a working group of four UW-Madison faculty and four UW-Extension faculty that met together several times the spring and put together the report that you have in your docket with the recommendation that you act-- Extension faculty should retain the tenure and rank that they've earned and that wasn't recognized by the Board of Regents. This faculty will henceforth once the merger process is completed all of UW-Madison policies and procedures or reviews and promotions and in the future, Extension tenure track faculty will have to earn tenure using UW-Madison procedures. So tenure track faculty will come into faculty policies and procedures of this institution. The document provides some background and introduction essentially to what Extension faculty do and their roles and responsibilities, how are those similar and different to Madison faculty. Their tenure evaluation processes, post-tenure review processes that will all need to be reconciled in some way. The document also notes that at least the working model at this point is that cooperative extension will be incorporated as a component part of UW-Madison. This is, again, at least in the current conception, will be a new division, the equivalent of a school or a college. And that is not to suggest and will not be a new divisional committee for tenure purposes. We will still have the same four divisional committees that we've come to know and loved. This is an institutional level designation as a division. The final name of course remains to be worked out. The committee recommended this because-- is recommending this because it is the only option-- we discussed four or five different options, this is the only option that does not lead to a tenured employee of the UW System losing tenure are remaining in their position. And there was very specific language in the board of resolution or the Board of Regents Resolution, language in the restructuring resolutions said Extension employees who become employees of UW System campus shall continue to enjoy job security rights and shared governance rights consistent with their current appointment. And committee interpreted that to mean that they will not be de-tenured. So, I think this is important for us to consider and important to the protection of faculty tenure rights in general throughout the UW System, that we make some effort to make sure that that tenure process is protected. So again, this is for information only at this point and there will be specific language probably at our first fall meeting that moves this concept forward. And we would very much appreciate your comments and reactions and suggestions on this topic as we go forward. So, happy to hear your comments and reactions.

>> Chad Alan Goldberg: Chad Alan Goldberg, District 71. I want to say thank you Steve and thank you to the committee for doing this important work. I am broadly in agreement with the proposal that's outlined here for the reasons that Steve laid out and I support the general thrust of this. I did, in terms of comments, want to take issue with a couple of things in that report. One, under the discussion of what is tenure, the report says an [inaudible] tenure is a guarantee of a continued academic position. And I would actually take issue with that definition. Tenure I would maintain is not a guarantee of any position. It's a right to do process. It means that a tenured faculty member cannot be fired without just cause evidence of incompetence or malfeasance or serious financial difficulty. And it seems to me that ignoramuses at the other end of State Street who want to insist that tenure is a guarantee lifetime job. We should not-- We should not have bet to that misinformation. I would also take issue with the one that the change in 2016 which remove state statute provisions for tenure that with that changed the Board of Regents used essentially the same language as previously embodied in statute. Again, I would maintain that there were significant and substantial changes. I won't go through all of them but they were laid out among other places and an article published in a Wisconsin state journal that may not leaving the burrow when I coauthored, in March 2016, there was quite a bit of controversy about that and discussion and debate here and for the Faculty Senate. The last thing-- I want to underscore actually one thing that the report says which I do strongly agree with. On page 4, the report says after joining UW-Madison former UW-Ex faculty will go through UW-Madison's existing PTR procedures and structure with department level criteria appropriate-- appropriate to their unit. Just as all other Madison faculty, I think that that is a very important point that the committee has made and that stress on the appropriateness of the criteria is important to bear in mind as we go forward. So again, thank you for your work.

>> Thanks.

>> Noah Feinstein: Noah Weeth Feinstein, Community and Environmental Sociology. Steve, my concern on reading this document was for faculty who have not-- UW-Ex faculty who have not yet received tenure but may have acted in their careers with the expectation they will be going for the tenure process under Extension norms and rules. Obviously some provisions will need to be made for them and extend with their tenure clocks or similar procedures. I'm wondering if you've done some of the thinking about that and you can tell us what conclusions you have come to.

>> Steve Ventura: Yes. So my understanding is that Extension has essentially a moratorium on hiring tenure faculty for the last couple of years and a number of tenured track faculty have been asked to essentially complete the process pronto. There may be as few as two remaining tenure track faculty and certainly those people will need very careful consideration to accommodate for the exact reasons you specify.

>> Chancellor Blank: I encourage all of you to be in touch with Steve as you think about this. So if you have comments as this group is going over the summer and be shaping a final report to come to you. Let me recognize Professor Anja Wanner who move adoption of revisions to the policy on academic staff serving as advisors, page 51.

>> Anja Wanner: I move adoption of Faculty Document 2700, which is intended to clarify the language of FPP 3.05.H. regarding eligibility of academic staff to serve as major or sole advisors of graduate students. The simple version of this policy is this: if a department determines that certain academic staff should be able to serve as sole advisor, then they have the right to do that, as long as they, the department, specify the criteria by which that responsibility is assigned and the steps taken to ensure that those academic staff have the tools necessary to the role. Three things I'd like to make clear. First, if a department already has such a policy, and we have heard from a number of departments that do, it does not need to be recreated or subjected to additional approvals. That department should only submit that policy to the graduate school so that the graduate school is aware of it. Second, this policy does not change the ability of academic staff to participate in training programs in any way. And finally, there have been discussions about new titles, I alluded to that early on, such as that of Research Professor, which may automatically include this element, and then the need for departments to create policies to allow it would not exist. The policy in front of you does not apply to not-yet-existent titles. If and when such titles become reality, this policy will be adapted if needed.

>> Chancellor Blank: So this is coming from the UC for a vote. You have had previous conversations on it, at some length and some past meetings and no second is needed. So, if there is discussion from the floor, I need-- You made a formal motion to accept this. Yes, good. Is there a conversation?

>> Kurt Paulson: Kurt Paulson, District 76. I just have a question, sorry. If a department has policies they think allow a academic staff member service a major advisor and the graduate school or ever other body says no, because it says exemptions may be granted by the dean of the graduate school. If the dean of the graduate school says no, what's the next step? Is there an appeals process?

>> Anja Wanner: We think that essentially this is in the hand of departments. So if the departments specify their policy, we could just-- we didn't anticipate such a case. We think that if a department allows this for good reason and has a policy, then we expect it to be a good and working policy. I must say we didn't anticipate any conflicts or--

>> Chancellor Blank: Am I not right that the policy says that they have to file such policies? It does not say the graduate school has to approve or disapprove them.

>> Anja Wanner: Well, the default case is that academic staff would not service sole advisor. So the graduate school would have to grant permission that this would be different in that department. But my understanding is if the department files the policy, then the graduate school would basically just do that.

>> Kurt Paulson: So just to follow up. It's-- It may be nitpicky and under the current administration is not a worry but I think there is a general sense of seeding what may appear to be a department authority to administration with the word may, or what kind of-- always aware of these given the unspoken.

>> Chancellor Blank: Will carries different modality, will, better than may.

>> Kurt Paulson: Will you accept that as a friendly amendment?

>> Chancellor Blank: I think we would.

>> Kurt Paulson: Exceptions will be granted by the dean of the graduate school.

>> Chancellor Blank: So, let me be clear. We are in the third paragraph which is titled clarification with markup. I'm actually looking [inaudible] where it currently reads exemptions may be granted by the dean of the graduate school the departments with written policies but instead would see exemptions will be granted by the dean of the graduate schools departments with written policies. That's a proposed amendment.

>> Kurt Paulson: Your [inaudible] is going to tell you there is no such thing as a friendly amendment. So I'm going to have to make it on the record, right?

>> Chancellor Blank: Yeah. I mean, if there are now objections I can treat this as a consent item but if anyone here has an objection to that, then we will deal with this as a formal amendment. Do I hear any objections from anyone? In that case then we treat this as a consent amendment and the word is changed. That's it. Yup.

>> Lisa Everett: Hi. Lisa Everett, Physics. I forget the district number. The question maybe it's a little bit alleviated from this previous comment about the fact that there will be accepted to if a department chooses. But the question is suppose you're in a department where people are already serving in this role, is there some sort of-- if we vote on this today where it has to be sort of this procedure where the default is no unless departments submit some policies to some particular channel, what happens in some interim period before which maybe a department never had such a policy because they already assumed by defaults that you could have, you know, at [inaudible] advisors. It will be bad but can you give us a little bit more clarification about what needs to be done so that we don't have people actually in limbo situation, in particular graduate students?

>> Anja Wanner: Yes. So, my understanding is that you will still-- that departments has to file it with the graduate school because otherwise the dean of the graduate school just doesn't know whose graduate faculty and not and they don't know what to put on the warrant. There are also departments that do not want this to be the default case, that academic staff be sole advisors so we could not make it that way. So, the default case would be that unless you file a policy and I think we all in agreement that we absolutely want that policy and support of academic staff to function in that role. Unless you do that, then these people could not be serving in that role.

>> Chancellor Blank: Are there other questions or comments? If you are ready to vote, we will vote on the proposal to approve the policy to clarify faculty policies and procedures regarding the policy on academic staff as advisors. All in favor of making this change indicate by saying aye.

>> [Simultaneously] Aye.

>> Chancellor Blank: Any opposed? The motion carries. Let me now recognize Professor Anja Wanner who will move creation of the Immigration and International Issues Committee.

>> Anja Wanner: I move adoption of Faculty Document 2732, which creates a new Chapter 6 shared governance committee focused on immigration and international issues. This committee grew out of a resolution passed by this body in December 2016 in support of UW-Madison's undocumented students and represents the incorporation into FPP of an advisory committee convened by the chancellor to address concerns surrounding immigration and international issues in general and DACA in particular. In this time of increased uncertainty with regards to immigration and international issues, it is important to make sure that we are addressing the needs of all members of our campus community, especially our most vulnerable members and I encourage you to vote in favor. I should say, we did not receive any comments or any request to change the original document.

>> Chancellor Blank: This also does not require a second. Is there any conversation, comments, discussion? If not, all of those in favor of the motion to create this committee indicate by saying aye.

>> [Simultaneously] Aye.

>> Chancellor Blank: Any opposed? Motion carries. Let me recognize Professor Anja Wanner who will present clarifications and changes to FPP and throwing out of recommendations from the ad hoc committee on seventh year reviews. And this is the second reading of this. So, we will take a vote at the end of the discussion.

>> Anja Wanner: This is my last one. It's long. I move adoption of Faculty Document 2741, which recommends changes to FPP based on the report of the Ad Hoc Committee on seventh year reviews. I will refer to them as buffer year reviews. That report's clear conclusion one with which that UC, the office of the secretary of the faculty, the divisional committees, OHR, and legal affairs all agree is that there is no such thing as a seventh year review. Or put another way, all reviews for promotion with tenure must commence before the mandatory review date, hence mandatory review date, which marks the end of the six-clock year. I'm not talking about tenure clock extensions here. There has been a great deal of discussion about this in some departments over the last couple of days, much of which appears to be based on misunderstandings about terminology. So I want to make sure that we're getting this right at this time. The document you have before you puts into writing what has always been our policy and disregard. All reviews for promotion to associate professor must start before the end of the six-clock year. A date indicated in every appointment letter that goes out and specified in HRS as the mandatory review date. The seventh probationary year, sometimes called the notice year, the buffer year, or the terminal year, is not part of the review clock, but rather, is a separate legally required post non-renewal year. Neither assistant professors nor departments can opt to move the initial promotion review into this seven year has been conveyed to us that this is practice, we haven't really found that this is actually happening but it was suggested to us that some departments might advise the faculty member not to go up in their sixth year but in their seventh year instead because they might have a richer record, this is not possible because it is after the mandatory review date. Reconsiderations and appeals can spill over into that seventh year but the case must either none-- must either be non-renewed or recommended for promotion with tenure prior to that year. Aside from that point about mandatory review dates, there are few other things we've also addressed and there were concerns that came from last month's first reading and they had to do with a time window that we specified for getting the documents together. And I'd like to thank those of you who send your comments to us so that we could address them in the proposal that you have before you. One is you raised that the first reading was whether there were sufficient time in a 90-day window, that's what the document initially said, that extends into the summer for department to vote on whether it wanted to request reconsideration or not. We have addressed this concern by basically not counting summer months in the 90 days. So, now we were saying that if you want to-- if you seek reconsideration, you'll have to file in time for the division committee in November, so that's division committees have different deadlines. Concern was also raised about the potential confusion between reconsideration and the second vote already permitted by FPP. This has been addressed by clarifying that the vote and the reconsideration are one and the same. So the second vote is the reconsideration. Finally, we receive some questions on what might constitute new information that might be admissible under the terms of this section. This is an issue that the Ad Hoc Committee itself also discussed at length both during its initial deliberations and during its review of these materials in preparation for Senate action. The intent of this language is to prohibit under most circumstances any completely new lines of inquiry. So completely new would not mean hearing from the journal to which you submitted an article six months ago. That's not a new line of inquiries. So if that information comes through, that is permissible information in an appeal situation. Additional information about existing work or developments of existing work would be perfectly acceptable. The language here does include several caveats that allow for exceptions to be made. But anything like journal acceptances of work already submitted, late letters of recommendation grounds approved or acted on would not be considered new work and would therefore be admissible. The bottom line here is that there are plenty or protections in this language for unusual cases, which in general is intended to prevent manipulation of reconsideration in order to extend the probationary period inappropriately and also to protect junior faculties so that they don't ask for something that they are not allowed to ask for.

>> Chancellor Blank: This too requires no second, so I open for conversation and discussion.

>> Eric Sandgren: Eric Sandgren, District 113. My departmental group agrees with all of this except one thing. So, the understanding that we have had about re-reviews that occur in the seventh year where that if say publications were seen as a weakness, then if publications come out in that year, they could be counted. But that could also include something that was submitted past of the seventh year or in the beginning of the seventh year, similarly for a grant application if it was sent in the beginning of the seventh year and was approved by the end of the seventh year, our department thought that those were things that could be considered. So I can't vote for this in its current form. I'd like to offer an amendment to delete the sentence that is it's the third sentence in the 7.15.C is generally expected that except under extraordinary circumstances completely new information will not be considered as part of any divisional committee reconsideration. I--

>> Chancellor Blank: Can you be clear about exactly where in the document you are?

>> Eric Sandgren: Yeah, 7.15.C. Third sentence.

>> Chancellor Blank: The third sentence.

>> Eric Sandgren: This may be something that could come up for additional discussion in the future but it caught our department off-guard and we felt that it wasn't appropriate to limit it at all unless we had further discussion. So that's my--

>> Anja Wanner: May I just ask, Eric, what would be the grounds for appeal as--

>> Chancellor Blank: I've got it. We did a motion on this one [inaudible]. OK. So I have a motion. Is there a second to this motion? I see a second? So now we are going to discuss this motion only to remove the third sentence under 7.15.C. I just noted up here. Anja, do you want to engage in the conversation?

>> Anja Wanner: I wanted to respond to Eric. Eric, you're giving a scenario where somebody undergoes a six-year review, the outcome is negative and the person appeals and then there's new information that would make the record stronger in the seventh year. What exactly are the grounds for appealing a decision that is made at the end of the sixth year base on the publications that person has produced?

>> Eric Sandgren: The understanding that we had in the department was that there was a six-year fixed period of time during which review could occur and the decision would be made about adequacy, tut that the seventh year would be available to make up some of the deficiencies that were identified. That was our impression of how the process was supposed to work.

>> Anja Wanner: I'm asking about the divisional committee level. So, if case-- So you are talking about the departmental levels. So departmental review is negative, the department would then entertain an appeal based on--

>> Eric Sandgren: Yeah. I would also be talking about the divisional committee. Our department thought that the divisional committee would consider things that were even initiated during the seventh year if they referred back to the deficiencies that were identified and use these reasons not to support. That--

>> Chancellor Blank: Is there somebody here from the division committee in your division? So I served on another division of committee and that would definitely not happen in that division committee. Does the provost want to respond to this [inaudible]?

>> The provost might be able to answer. The divisional committees when they consider have three options. They can recommend to promote, they can defer which might the question you're talking about but I'll get back to that in a second, or they can recommend not to promote. There is no remediation period. So even under the deferral thing, they may defer for technical reasons where they would send it back for something to be corrected and ask for it to be resubmitted. There is no remediation period or chance for catchup. And similarly at the departmental level, the vote is either to renew with promotion or to not renew. There's no intermediary recommendation.

>> Eric Sandgren: I agree. That's correct. However, I do know a number of individuals on campus who were not granted tenure by the divisional committee went back on and appeal or request for reconsideration and then were granted tenure. So I know that it can happen and really that's the kind of issue I'm addressing here.

>> Chancellor Blank: So, did you want to do address this because you're in touch with all the division committees pretty regularly as well?

>> I think the differences is it's absolutely true that people who've first been denied tenure can sometimes get tenure on appeal. But it wouldn't be that you come back you would have then-- after you've [inaudible] tenure submit some new things and you get an extra year to sort of make the [inaudible] stronger. That's not what happens in the appeal process. Instead, there may be some concerns laid out and then the department chair and with perhaps another representative in the department can come in and answer the questions as best they can. But it's not a whole another year to get more publication, so then you get a second chance at it. At least that's not the way I understand it. Noah.

>> Noah Feinstein: Noah Feinstein, district-- Community and Environmental Sociology. My concern with this language has to do with a number of qualifying words here. It is generally expected that except under extraordinary circumstances, completely new information. I guess it just feels a little bit like you're setting the divisional committees up a little bit to have some very tough discussions and contingent discussions about what constitutes general expectations, extraordinary circumstances, and completely new information. And for this reason I support the striking of this language until a clearer policy can be figured out because I feel like this is-- they're going to have hard conversations about new information and this sentence actually doesn't do a lot to clarify that and it may make it worse.

>> Chancellor Blank: You have this one?

>> Anja Wanner: I would be happy to strike this. In the end the divisional committees will have to specify this in their own policy. So, this was mostly to kind of sketch the expectation but I agree it is not at the level of clarity that the individual faculty member needs. But that needs to be in the division committee guidelines.

>> Chancellor Blank: So we're still discussing the amendment only?

>> Christa Olsen: Christa Olsen, District 55. I kept on disagreeing with Noah Weeth Feinstein. But I actually would suggest that in line with what's often the case in tenure documents that that wiggle room could be essential. For divisional committees and for the faculty to determine what that means in order to do what's best in a specific case, and I think, you know, there are reasons why at least for English it doesn't say that you absolutely must have a book in six articles because there are scholars who don't have that. They have won fabulous article. We want them on faculty. And I would say that something similar to this gives that space by division and also by faculty member to determine what should be included if there is a reconsideration in year seven.

>> Anja Wanner: Other discussion on this amendment? Go ahead.

>> Lisa Everett: Lisa Everett, Physics. Id like-- I also agree that I think the language is not helpful. And the reason being that it seems to me if you're going to reconsider of tenure case that's being denied and general new information has to come to light at some sort and here it says it won't be considered unless under extraordinary circumstances. That information I'm not saying is necessarily the fact that somebody then wrote a new grant in some time in between but it could be the revealing of maybe something that happened within the department some grievance, et cetera, and I think that to me if I was reading this I would be concerned as to whether those kind of information could come to light.

>> Chancellor Blank: Do you want to speak again, Eric?

>> Eric Sandgren: Yes, I'd like to add a comment that--

>> Chancellor Blank: Identification for the faculty.

>> Eric Sandgren: Oh, OK. Eric Sandgren, District 1-13. I thought there was sort of a grandfathering but sorry. OK. [Inaudible]. Yes. So, here's a situation where some people have a clear idea that this is always been the policy. And in about a dozen tenured faculty member in my department think, well, that's not then the policy. Also there have been concerns about how it's worded. I don't have a problem readdressing this issue but I don't think we really have the sort of consensus right now where we should go make this a policy. I would rather see it as I suggested we get it and then maybe raise again next year.

>> Chancellor Blank: So we have a proposed amendment on the table. I do not see anyone else waiting to speak to this amendment. All right, are you speaking to the amendment? OK.

>> Anita Mukherjee: I guess we have this and with the broader issues. So I'm Anita Mukherjee from District 24. And so in my department there has been significant discussion around this and specifically about this particular issue as well about new information not being considered should somebody be denied tenure. And more generally about this, it seems like people have-- like there's an understanding that of course you cannot extend the tenure clock and just choose to go up in your seventh year but it seems that there have been cases in the past where the department might put somebody up in their seventh year knowing that there's no renewal afterward. And so it seems that such a policy might take away that flexibility that the department at least wanted to have more discussion about the specific wording around these given that it has happened before.

>> Anja Wanner: I-- We had similar comments by email, it seems. And then I wrote back and said, can you give me specific cases because this really should not happen, and then we were not given any specific cases. Same thing with the divisional committee, I would be very worried if what Eric just said is happening to that divisional committee because the people that we talk to and that the people who wrote the report talk too said that this is the policy. So we're not rewriting the policy to make it new, we want-- our goal is to make it clearer. I'm not sure that we have totally achieved that but it seems to be great need for that.

>> Anita Mukherjee: Just on behalf of my department, again, then I'll have--

>> Chancellor Blank: Identification again.

>> Anita Mukherjee: I'm sorry. So, Anita Mukherjee, District 24. Since I don't know those names either but I imagine my department chair does, maybe more time would be helpful to sort out on these questions.

>> Chancellor Blank: We have an amendment on the table. If you are ready to vote on the amendment, voting yes means that you remove this language from the document that's in yellow, voting no will means that it'll remains. All those in favor moving the language indicate by saying aye.

>> [Simultaneously] Aye.

>> Chancellor Blank: Any opposed?

>> [Simultaneously] No.

>> Chancellor Blank: I think I'm going to call for a ballot vote on that-- or hand vote here. Everyone who is in favor of adopting the amendment and removing the language, please raise your hand and keep them up. We've got a count. Although, put your hands down. All of those who are against the amendment and want to retain the language raise your hand and keep it up. Make sure [inaudible], right? Check them out. Put your hands down. The amendment fails. The numbers? [Inaudible]. Fifty-four to 56. It's a close one. Yeah, I was asking what happens if it's a tie vote [laughter]. Is there other discussion on this proposal? Yeah, come on to the microphone. I will say that given this conversation, I think if [inaudible] divisional committees discuss this issue and be clear with all the departments and make sure that that happens, yeah.

>> Lauren Trepanier: Lauren Trepanier, Department of Medical Sciences. I don't know if I can do this but I would propose a rewording rather than elimination. Can we go back to--

>> Chancellor Blank: Are you allowed to amend the same document? [Inaudible]. No, we [inaudible]. All right. All right. So, what is your proposal?

>> Lauren Trepanier: So it is generally expected except under extraordinary circumstances accomplishments that were generated after the date of first consideration will not be allowed or something like that.

>> Chancellor Blank: So it clarifies that we're talking about accomplishments relating to the person's work and not other new information that might come forward about process and procedure?

>> Lauren Trepanier: Yes.

>> Chancellor Blank: Is that your intent?

>> Lauren Trepanier: Yes.

>> Chancellor Blank: Generated. You want to use the word generated there?

>> Lauren Trepanier: I am not sure what the right word is there.

>> Chancellor Blank: Do you want to initiate it or generate it? Let's just-- Before I take your amendment, let's--

>> Lauren Trepanier: Accomplishments that were generated-- Completed. Accomplishments that were completed.

>> Chancellor Blank: Yeah. Because that then does say that it's something that's-- that is very different than current policy.

>> Lauren Trepanier: Well, I just think the point is that new information is very different like if there's extenuating circumstances or something going on in the department that wasn't reflected in the document versus giving someone credit for academic accomplishments that happened after the data first consideration.

>> Chancellor Blank: OK. I'm going to take-- This is clear. This is the language you want. I'm going to take this. Is there a second to that amendment? All right, that amendment is not going forward. Other comments? If you are ready to vote, we will vote on the policy as presented in front of you. It has not been amended. It is as written. All those in favor indicate by saying aye.

>> [Simultaneously] Aye.

>> Chancellor Blank: Any opposed? I'm going to take that as passage and the proposal is approved. If you now turn to page 57 in your agenda, the last page, I'm going to recognize Kurt Paulson. Is that right?

>> Kurt Paulson: Yup.

>> Chancellor Blank: Who is going to present this resolution.

>> Kurt Paulson: Kurt Paulson, District 76. I think I have to move this first, don't I? Sorry, the hour is late the room is warm, so we're going to get into it. I move adoption of Faculty Document 2756.

>> Chancellor Blank: This is the resolution on payment of mandatory fees by graduate students. Is there a second?

>> Kurt Paulson: Second.

>> Chancellor Blank: The motion has been made and seconded. Is there discussion?

>> Kurt Paulson: Yes. So, Chad Alan Goldberg wrote this. He is our UFAS union president and worked in consultation with many of the leaders of TAA of which I'm an alum, and you see many participants here today. Chad had to go accept a Distinguished Teaching Award. So we congratulate him on that. So I'm subbing for him. Just the one update that I have been made aware off is that apparently we do have the administration's verbal commitment that the policy requiring payment of fees on the-- in September is no longer-- that we're going to stick with the existing status quo and require mandatory fees only after the third paycheck.

>> Chancellor Blank: Can I be clear about this? This is a policy from the system, from-- and the Board of Regents. If I'm going to say this accurately-- correct me if I'm inaccurate-- has agreed that they will take this up at their next meeting and correct it so that that problem of having to pay fees before your first paycheck will go away. Is that an accurate statement, Lauren?

>> Lauren Trepanier: Yeah.

>> Chancellor Blank: And we have a verbal commitment they will take this up the next meeting. It is obviously not yet done.

>> Kurt Paulson: OK. So then I think the spirit of resolution is both that the Faculty Senate is plotting the ongoing efforts to resolve this issue and also statement of our concern that we hope and are kind of stating on the record that we expect that graduate workers will not have to pay mandatory fees until after they received the third paycheck. This resolution as you see also includes three other elements. Some may say it's conflating it, but for the graduate workers who are wanting to speak to you today, I think they're all part of the same issue. The first is that the process of determining payment of fees did not involve significant consultation with the graduate workers. The third is that it would-- resolution would commit our Senate to advising the chancellor to take steps toward a policy, that's not endorsing a policy, that's recommending taking steps towards a policy of full remission or coverage of mandatory fees for all graduate workers and then I just request that we'd be updated on this process. So we do have a number of TAA students who would like to speak. So I'm going to ask unanimous consent of the Senate that a limited number of the graduate students be allowed to address this body.

>> Chancellor Blank: So I've got someone at the microphone here and I think I need to take him first. And then I believe that anyone-- I need approval. Do I do that before or after [inaudible]?

>> Kurt Paulson: I'll yield the floor to--

>> Chancellor Blank: Why don't we let Terry and then we can come back to these graduates to speak.

>> Terry Warfield: Terry Warfield, District 24. I'd like to move to postpone this resolution until the October meeting.

>> Chancellor Blank: Is there a second to that? Would you like to speak to that?

>> Terry Warfield: I would. First of all I'd like thank Chad and other folks who participated in developing this resolution and consulting with university committee in its development. And we had- we've had a couple of discussions with Chad and then some of the graduate students came for a meeting as well. And we were able to find some feedback with respect to the resolution, since the last Senate meeting and since this over the last two UC meetings. And the basis for this recommendation has been addressed already. There are two things being addressed in the resolution, one is this early payment of these seg fees for graduate students which is being addressed. And I think it's on path to get resolved. Number two, the second part is a general call for better support for graduate students and better level support. And that could come either by giving back to seg fees or giving remission of the seg fees or increasing stipends. And actually we've checked into that, the UC has gotten some information from the administration. Actually, over the last four years, stipends have gone up in the range of 4 to $5,000 over the last five years, well, in excess of the increases in the seg fees over that period. And so, again, this is being worked on UC supports, better financial aid for our graduate students either as PA or RA stipends and we think a better way forward is to continue to work on that. And that is being worked on. And the last fees with respect of some pause about maybe advancing a resolution at this time, whether you increase support by remitting the seg fees or whether you increase support by growing stipends, there are a number of administration issues around that including taxability. And that's being explored too. And so, I think we should let that process play out and then we can come back and see where we stand in the fall.

>> So I have a proposal with a second on the floor to table this until the October meeting. We will have discussion only on the tabling motion at this point. It is like an amendment, OK?

>> Kurt Paulson: Kurt Paulson, District 76. I want to speak against tabling the motion. Not least of which is I think that activism of the graduate students around this issue led to certain urgency to it. I appreciate the understanding that there are issues that are being explored. Can I ask who's exploring these and where they're being explored? Can I ask--

>> Chancellor Blank: Can I ask Laurent to respond to that? Do you want to answer that question?

>> Laurent Heller: Yeah, happy to. Laurent Heller, Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration. I just want to say we have had numerous meetings with our colleagues in the TAA over the course of this year and indeed throughout my tenure here. And we've been exploring a particular and with particular urgency the issues around the new due dates for segregated fees because that was going to have an impact, you know, right away in September. So, as the chancellor reported, we had-- do have progress on that. As you reported, we do have progress on that which I think is good news. On the issue of overall seg fees and the like, we've been gathering data at the TAA's request about the total dollars involved, you know, who actually is paying these things now, et cetera and, you know, so this is work that I think needs to continue over the summer, you know, we need to continue engaging with the TAA but also human resources legal budget. It is a complex issue and the dollars we're talking about in total was seg fees are really significant. So 50 million bucks, roughly speaking. It'll be a smaller subset for these fees, you know? And I've got a bunch of fun data I could share with you but in the interest of limiting myself to this particular motion, that's what I got.

>> Kurt Paulson: So, just to finish up, I would-- I appreciate those comments. I would like to at least have an opportunity to hear for some of the leaders of the TAA. So can I--

>> Chancellor Blank: So we have to deal with the tabling motion before we can go back--

>> Kurt Paulson: I think they would like to speak to the tabling motion.

>> Chancellor Blank: All right. On the tabling motion only, they cannot speak to anything other than that.

>> Kurt Paulson: They can explain why--

>> Chancellor Blank: Just want to be clear.

>> Kurt Paulson: Do you think we should ask-- We should not table the resolution. So can I ask unanimous consent that members of the TAA and graduate students can address this body?

>> Chancellor Blank: Yup. All right, I need unanimous consent to allow anyone from the TAA who's not faculty member to address the Senate. Do I have that? All right. In that case --

>> Kurt Paulson: You can just come to the microphone and then wait your turn and--

>> Chancellor Blank: Can I allow Noah to speak first since he got the microphone before him.

>> Noah Feinstein: Although-- Noah Feinstein, Community and Environmental Sociology. Although I understand that the issues involved are complex and ongoing, I believe that the sentiments expressing this resolution cannot be expressed often enough by this body. I am the chair of my department student awards committee. It is the responsibility in which I'm most aware of the power of departments to save students from what often appears to be financial ruin. I am humbled by the circumstances that our students endure in order to study at this institution. Although stipends have increased, they have not increased to a point where graduate study is in any respect reasonable or affordable as a choice for students to make. I believe wholeheartedly that these issues need to be advocated by this body--

>> Chancellor Blank: I'm going to ask you to speak to the tabling motion right now, OK, not to the general motion.

>> Noah Feinstein: So in general I would say-- to the tabling motion, I think that we must absolutely make this statement now regardless of the issues being complex and ongoing and that if it's necessary we should make it repeatedly.

>> Chancellor Blank: All right [applause]. Please introduce yourself or I'm going to ask you to speak the tabling motion only because that is where we are right now on all of these.

>> Sure, I'll try to do that. Hi, everyone. My name is Wendy. I'm a first year in the sociology program. I'm a PhD student. I'd like to thank everyone for having us here today and hearing us speak about our experiences with the mandatory fees. So just to get used some of the facts and I think this is relevant to the tabling motion, mandatory fees includes $630 per semester, a segregated fees and then an additional 100 per semester for international students. That revenue adds up to about one-fifth of 1% of the UW-Madison budget. And if you think about how much graduate students are paid, about $18,000. If you're teaching assistant or a project assistant that's $1,300 out of an $18,000 paycheck. And that's not even including all the money that we pay in taxes, which adds up to almost $3,000 a year in federal and state combined. So if you subtract all of that from $18,000 we make about $14,000, $13,000 year. And just to give you some more information about these fees, our peer institutions almost always-- some of them completely-- or almost completely remit the fees. So, Penn State, Michigan State University remit these fees 100%, UC Berkley 96%, Purdue 86%. This is something that is possible and as a current fellow, I am lucky to have my fees remitted but as a teaching assistant next year I won't have that privilege. So I think that this is something--

>> Chancellor Blank: I'm really sorry to be heavy here but, you know, in terms of the agenda, we have to speak to the tabling motion about now versus next October.

>> Sure. And I think now is very important because this is a matter of financial stability for many of our-- for any of my peers and for myself. I'm going to give it to Daniel, one of my peers.

>> Daniel Hast: Hello, my name is Daniel Hast. Thank you all for being here and for giving us the opportunity to speak and to speak in particular about the urgency of this issue, and so why I strongly urge you not to table this motion. So I'm a PhD student and a graduate worker in the Department of Mathematics. I've been both a teaching assistant and a research assistant at various times. And I think we can all agree that mathematics is generally concerted like a fairly well-funded department. But even within mathematics, I know people who had, you know, serious financial difficulty as a result of seg fees especially as you know first years after just moving and the three month, the three paychecks has been really important but still having to pay that amount of money it's still a serious financial burden even with that three months to save what little we can. And keep in mind, also, this is at a 50% appointment and Wendy's numbers were also, so at a 33% appointment it's really even more severe burden. And so, just really emphasize sort of the urgency of this issue and why I think it would be a mistake to table this motion and delay until later, until after the summer, I want to read a few stories that the TAA collected from the graduate workers about the--

>> Chancellor Blank: I'm going to rule that out of order. That is not related to the immediate tabling motion. If we go back to the-- Calling the question cannot interrupt a statement that is currently underway.

>> Daniel Hast: I believe this is germane because it explains why this issue is urgent and shouldn't be tabled. I am speaking to the issue of not tabling the motion.

>> Chancellor Blank: I will allow you to read one of these. But if it's about the general state of this problem that would be pertained in October as well as now, I'm going to stop you from reading the others because then that will have to come back when we get to the whole motion and when we're done with tabling.

>> Daniel Hast: So I'll read one of the stories then and I hope you would allow me to read more than one but I'll start by reading one. So, this is from a graduate worker here on campus. The segregated fees take away money for food every semester. I budget, live in a small studio in order to save and still never able to make it to the end of the month. I have to go to the churches and other charity places to get food. I'm ashamed to say I'm a doctoral candidate and instructor that work preparing classes, grading and giving feedback on essays who is not able to put food on the table. So I believe this speaks to the urgency and may I be allowed to--

>> Chancellor Blank: So, if we do not table, I will promise to allow you to come back and read the rest of those, all right? Is that clear?

>> Daniel Hast: Thank you. I appreciate that.

>> Chancellor Blank: Is that-- then they can speak to the full motion of remitting them.

>> Daniel Hast: All right. I don't plan to go too long, so I'll stop there, yeah.

>> Chancellor Blank: So you have to go to the mic to do that and I have someone else with the mic so you could to the mic and I will call on you next.

>> So I have a longer statement but I'll keep this one brief since I know some folks in the room have to leave. I think that it's incredibly important for you to not table this motion and vote on it here. Thank you very much. My name is Rob Timberlake, I'm a third year graduate student in the Department of Educational Policy Studies and I'm the co-president of the Teaching Assistants Associated, AFT local 3220. So once again, as representative of gradual labor on campus, I think that it is imperative that you vote on this resolution today as a way of standing on solidarity with the graduate assistance who do much of the research, who do much of the teaching on this campus. We've been working on this issue for years. We've been in conversations as vice Chancellor Heller mentioned throughout the course of this year to figure out how was it that we can better provide for graduate students, gradual workers on campus. Just as a demonstration, over the course of March we worked for two weeks and we gathered over a thousand signatures on a petition to call for the full remission of these segregated and mandatory fees. We brought these to the vice chancellor to the controller, to the bursar, to the dean of the graduate school. In April we held a work in two Thursdays ago within Bascom Hall. We had over 300 graduate workers and allies who came and attended who were teaching classes right outside of the chancellor's office who were waiting in the rotunda to address any of the administrators about questions about this particular issue. It is imperative that we act now as we heard during a listening session with the vice chancellor, with the bursar, with the controller where doesn't graduate students shared stories of their own personal hardship, their material hardship because of these fees. They're graduate students who have to go into collections in order to pay their medical bills because they cannot continue to work here, they cannot register for classes to work here in order to maintain their health benefits. There are graduate students who cannot go home. International students who are restricted from working outside campus who cannot pay to go home more than once a year. We're asking you to stand in solidarity with these thousands of graduate students who have already called the administration to make these changes. We think that the summer time will provide lengthy time for you too and administration to come up with a plan and consultation with graduate workers on how to address these fees. The resolution that we should vote on today is simply calling for that to happen as soon as possible. Thank you [applause].

>> [Inaudible], District 52. That's computer science which is now by now the largest major on campus. So, I think that we are all in solidarity with the graduate students who has problems with their stipends and so on but on the table is not an express of-- like of solidarity with the graduate students to the contrary. We want to find a thoughtful solution that would deal with the problems in a financially feasible and in financially acceptable ways that will take into the fact that the university has resources and prioritize these resources and should put some priority into the needs of the graduate students and leaders in our university are coming forward and they are saying we are cognizant of that. We are supportive of that. We need time, we need thoughts, we need pauses in order to [inaudible], this is what the motion is about. The motion is not saying we do not support our graduate students. We do support you but we would like to have sometime in order to [inaudible] and we need a few more months. I didn't hear the voice that says that during the summer, the graduate students are going to collapse because of the need to wait until the resolution in October. And I don't see why waiting until October and passing the correct resolution would solve the problem and the best possible way is detrimental to the present life of the graduate student. And for that reason, I second the motion and I would like you to vote positively of the motion. Positively on the motion is for our graduate student and not against our graduate student. Our graduate student are rushing out to rush and to vote with our heart instead of with our brain and we need to express logic. And not to say we are emotional about it and we are so supportive of that and we will unconditionally I'm going to support everything that you say without thinking about whether we are helping in this way our graduate students.

>> Chancellor Blank: She is waiting for you if I can-- Yeah.

>> Sami Schalk: Hi. I'm Sami Schalk on Gender and Women Studies. I don't know my district. Just a clarifying question, so you said that there are folks who are working on adjusting the fee structure and they're going to be meeting in the near future?

>> Chancellor Blank: I think the issue-- if I heard of Vice Chancellor Heller correctly-- is that people are looking at the variety of ways to increase funding for graduate students. That may involve seg fees that may involve stipends, we've been working on the stipend front and, you know, obviously all of those things involve increases in funding for graduate students. So, I think the issue is not what's happening right now, it's not a sole focus on stipends, it's a focus on increasing funding for graduate students so the expendable funds go up. Is that an accurate statement, Laurent, from what I heard you say?

>> Sami Schalk: And in terms of the moving of the date of when they're paying, that is something that's still going to be voted on soon?

>> Chancellor Blank: In terms of the date of when they're paying that, we have a commitment from the Board of Regents to adopt a policy that solves that problem-- their June board meeting. Now that has not happened yet but we do have their commitment to do that.

>> Sami Schalk: OK. So given in that that meeting is in June, to me it makes sense that we would not table this and address this resolution now so that we are on record as faculty as supporting that before their meeting in June [applause].

>> Chancellor Blank: On the tabling motion.

>> I'm calling this question.

>> Chancellor Blank: All right. The question is called. Is there a second? We are now going to vote on whether we're going to call the question or not. And for that we need a two-thirds vote, all right? All those in favor of voting immediately on the motion to table indicate by saying aye.

>> [Simultaneously] Aye.

>> Chancellor Blank: Any opposed? I'm going to take that as a two-thirds vote. We now move to the motion to table and must vote on that immediately. All those in favor of tabling this discussion until October, indicate by saying aye.

>> [Simultaneously] Aye.

>> Chancellor Blank: All those opposed?

>> [Simultaneously] Nay.

>> Chancellor Blank: And nos have it and we do not table the motion. We're now back to discussing the motion that was on the table originally.

>> Kathryn McGarr: Kathryn McGarr, School of Journalism and Mass Communication. So, our department took this up at our meeting and we unanimously voted to support spirit of the resolution and points 1 and 2.3 where it says we want to go towards the policy of full remission of mandatory fees. The department was concerned that this is a more general attack on seg fees and fees that help supports a community that we all appreciate and that also specifying the ways in which the money can be raised is also limiting because they were thinking that if these seg fees are going to go away, it might be the departments who end up, you know, being a part of the bill and just that three is potentially working against the graduate students and if they want to be strategic about it, my department at least and the 12 faculty who voted unanimously, would like to cross out three and four.

>> Chancellor Blank: Are you making--

>> Kathryn McGarr: May I-- Can I make an amendment.

>> Chancellor Blank: Yeah. So the amendment is to remove--

>> Kathryn McGarr: Three and four.

>> Chancellor Blank: Three and four, under the second [inaudible].

>> Kathryn McGarr: Yeah.

>> Chancellor Blank: All right. Is there a second to that amendment?

>> There's a second here.

>> Chancellor Blank: In this case we are now discussing this amendment again to remove items three and four from these two and deal only with the resolutions to item two. Is there a discussion of that proposal?

>> Kurt Paulson, District 76. I would oppose striking items numbers three and four for the following reasons. First of all, number three, it doesn't-- I think it's part of the solidarity expressed by this faculty that we want-- we're advising the chancellor to take steps toward a policy of full remission. That doesn't guarantee what the outcome is. It's suggestive of a process toward full remission of all fees and would certainly be open to mandatory language. But the idea is that that funding would have to come from another source and not be put on the back of the undergraduates. It was a big concern. And I think that was a kind of concession already to articulate this idea that the source of these funds should not be on the back of undergraduates. So I would have--

>> Chancellor Blank: From somewhere. It got to come from somewhere.

>> Kurt Paulson: I recognize that there's not a magic pot of money but--

>> Chancellor Blank: Yeah. OK, discussions on the amendment only. I'm not going to let you read more until we get back to the full conversation.

>> Yeah. It's hard to remain to the amendment because they're addressing the difficulties that graduate workers faced even under the previous policy was three months. Live remission is important not just the remainder of it.

>> Chancellor Blank: I would prefer that this stay until we're discussing the full resolution again if I can. I will promise to let you come back to that. Laurent?

>> Laurent Heller: Laurent Heller, Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration. I just want to offer for consideration for the Senate that I do think this language is very particular and prescriptive about budget in a way that may not be fully implementable for us. We've got some feedback from legal counsel here on campus and also from system that fee remission as described is actually not legal for us to do. That doesn't mean that we can't find ways to make this work but in general I think the super prescriptive nature of point three there does create problems for us in administration, so I would be supportive of some sort of tweak to that that would make it easier for us to work on the issue.

>> Kurt Paulson: Kurt Paulson, District 76. Would the-- Can we make a friendly amendment to the amendment? Sorry. Simply to strike the phrase with the university funding and said remission without raising mandatory fees. So keep in number three, take step towards the policy of full remission and mandatory fees for all graduate workers at UW-Madison as soon as practical stop and then number four. So that we're just deleting the recommendation about the mandatory where the fees are coming from.

>> Chancellor Blank: I think that is more than an amendment to the amendment. I think we have to discuss this amendment. And then if you want to make that as the next amendment, we can do so. I think we're both [inaudible]. That's a major change, not a minor change. OK, we're on the amendment, still, as proposed up here with eliminating three and four.

>> Anja Wanner: Anja Wanner, Department of English. I want to speak in favor and support of the amendment to strike three and four. I think we all want to support our graduate students and want to see their financial situation to be more stable. This is just too narrow for me so I don't want to direct anyone to do especially this instead of something else that isn't listed here so that this would have priority over other options that we might explore. So if we come back in October or you come back in October and discuss this, then I would hope that a full array of options would be on the table and that we would make a more informed decision. So I'm in favor of the amendment.

>> Chancellor Blank: All right. On the amendment.

>> Rob Timberlake: On the amendment. Once again, Rob Timberlake, Ed Policy, Graduate Worker TAA. I'm speaking against the amendment to strike sections three and four from the final resolution. I think it's imperative that this organization supports gradual workers who are coming to you today to ask for steps towards full remission and also that the administration report back to you what those steps are. This is asked of the graduate workers to the faculty to stand with us on these two particular issues.

>> Chancellor Blank: Is there any other discussion of the amendment to strike items 3 and 4 in this [inaudible]? If not we will take a vote on that amendment. All in favor of the amendment to strike this language indicate by saying aye.

>> [Simultaneously] Aye.

>> Chancellor Blank: Any opposed? I think the ayes have that one. We should take-- I hate to say that but let's be clear. All right, the ayes, those who are in favor of striking this language, raise your hands and keep them up. And the-- Put your hands down. And the nos, raise your hand. All right. You can put your hands down. We no longer have a quorum. That settles the issue that we cannot decide. Anything? This evening? I am as a point of order, so I think we have to move this whole thing off the table. I would at your request I'm going to do something that's probably out of order. But this gentleman has gone to the effort of bringing a number of voices here and I would like to ask him to read the rest of his statements before we close our discussion of this because he is clearly prepared to come and I think we should listen to his voices. Yeah? [Inaudible]. Yeah. I'm going to let him read them. We do not have a quorum at this point but at the end of this we will adjourn.

>> Daniel Hast: Hi. Thank you for the generous opportunity to speak very briefly here at the end. So, I hope very much that something to the effect of point three and four this resolution will be passed once this body convenes again in October. So-- And so, I just want to read these stories to emphasize the need for full remission and-- or something equivalent to, you know, covering these mandatory fees rather than simply allowing three paychecks to pay them. So, one graduate worker said, segregated fees pushed me closer to the edge of poverty. After working odd jobs all summer, I don't receive a paycheck from UW until October 1st and then I must pay segregate fees which are one-third of the first paycheck. This financial hardship weights on my mind and makes it harder for me to concentrate on writing my dissertation and teaching my classes. Teaching assistants deserve better than this in the University of Wisconsin-Madison. And another graduate worker said, I'm an international student with no support from my family or friends. I'm unable to work extra hours off campus in the US due to visa restriction. Because of seg fees I was unable to afford rent and was almost evicted from my home. I had to get an emergency loan and have not been able to pay it off yet. I'm very worried about how seg fees will affect me in the future. So, I don't-- I want to respect your time and not go on any further but I hope you understand the urgency of-- and the importance to all of us graduate workers of full remission. So thank you for your time.

>> Chancellor Blank: Thank you. I have no doubt.

[ Applause ]

I have no doubt we will return to this topic again. Thank you very much. And I will see you all in October if I don't see you at graduation. We're adjourned.