>> I am told we have a quorum, so I am going to call the meeting to order and I will ask all the faculty to rise as you are able for the reading of the Memorial Resolutions. Let me recognize Professor Narra Smith Cox to present the Memorial Resolution for Professor Emeritus Edward Buxton

>> Professor Emeritus Edward B. Buxton was a faculty member in the Division of Continuing Studies Department of Health and Human Issues from 1967 until his retirement in 1991. Ed passed away peacefully at his home on Tuesday, March 27, 2018, at the age of 94. Ed joined UW Extension at the University of Wisconsin Madison as an associate professor in 1967 to provide continuing education for social workers throughout Wisconsin. In addition to planning and delivering workshops on a range of topics Ed launched the Midwest Conference on child sexual abuse in 1985, a conference that grew significantly over the years, providing thousands of social workers and other human service professions with knowledge and skills to work with individuals, families, and communities on this important topic. One of his colleagues wrote, Ed lived an optimistic, productivism, and fulfilling life heightened by a continual appreciation for learning, insatiable curiosity about human nature in the world, and a never-ending compassion for those in need. We miss him.

>> And I would like to recognize that Professor Cox's wife Shirley Buxton is here and his son Eric. Thank you both for coming.

[ Applause ]

Thank you. Let me recognize Professor Nigel Cook to present the Memorial Resolution for Professor Emeritus Bill Goodger.

>> Thank you. Bill Goodger passed away March 13, 2018, age 76. Bill helped develop the Food Animal Production Medicine Unit in The School of Veterinary Medicine and had far reaching impact on students, the veterinary profession, and the dairy industry as he traveled the world with the United Nations. Those that remember Bill will recall an intense caring man of the utmost integrity, committed and passionate about education. He'll be most remembered for establishing the Dairy Teaching Herd, which allowed over 400 students to obtain practical experience with cattle and facilitated many to go on to enter and complete veterinary school.

>> Thank you, Nigel. And I also want to recognize that Professor Goodger's wife Pat is here from California at my right, and his son Tim. Thank you for coming.

[ Applause ]

Let me recognize Professor Jane Collins to present the Memorial Resolution for Professor Emeritus Arch Haller.

>> Archibald Haller was a long-time faculty member in the departments of Psychology and Rural Psychology, now known as Community and Environmental Psychology. He earned his Doctorate at the University of Wisconsin in 1954. He served, Bill [inaudible] served as his Doctoral advisor and they went on to collaborate on several major studies related to social stratification. Arch also conducted research in Brazil for several decades, and numerous Brazilian students came to Wisconsin to study with Haller. He was a fellow of the American Association of the Advancement for Science and a past president of the Rural Sociological Society. In 2007 he was awarded an Honorary Degree from Ohio State University. And Arch passed away on January 24th of this year.

>> Thank you, Jane. Let me recognize Professor Barbara Bowers to present the Memorial Resolution for Professor Emerita Marilyn McCubbin.

>> Marilyn Ann McCubbin, Professor Emeritus of The School of Nursing as an internationally renowned scholar died in Madison, Wisconsin March 3, 2018, at the age of 78. Marilyn grew up on a farm in Nebraska, earned bachelor's and master's degrees from the University of Nebraska and a PHD in Family Studies, Family Science from the university of Minnesota. Professor McCubbin was a member of the School of Nursing on the faculty from 1986 until 2001 when she accepted a position on a faculty at the University of Hawaii. During her tenure at the University of Wisconsin Professor McCubbin distinguished herself as a dedicated teacher and researcher. As a researcher she is best known for reformulating our understandings of families experiencing crises, pioneering the concepts of family resilience and family hardiness. Her work provided the foundation for clinicians working with families experiencing high levels of stress, she can be credited with shifting how many clinicians view families under stress, and how they are approached and supported in clinical settings, recognizing that this is in fact a time for improved family functioning. Professor McCubbin worked particularly on her Family Hardiness Scale, which continues to be used by researchers all over the world.

>> Let me recognize Professor Ned Kalin to present the Memorial Resolution for Professor Emeritus John Marshal.

>> Thank you. We actually lost two beloved members of our department over the last couple years, I'll read Doctor Marshall's first. Doctor John Marshall served as chair of our Department of Psychiatry from 1980 to 1989 and held several leadership positions during his 35-year tenure, including the Residency Program Director, Director of the inpatient psychiatry, Director of Clinical Services, and Director of the Anxiety Disorder Centers. Doctor Marshall was a well-regarded, also a well-regarded forensic psychiatrist, instructor, mentor, and consultant who made considerable contributions in the area of anxiety disorders and social phobias. He was a principle investigator on numerous clinical trials, had over 50 publications and authored the book Social Phobia: From Shyness to Stage Fright. He died peacefully on November 17, 2016, just 6 weeks after the death of his beloved wife Kathy. He will be dearly missed by his family.

>> Thank you. And I will now call upon you to read the Memorial Resolution for Professor Emeritus Leonard Stein.

>> Thank you. Doctor Leonard Irving Stein was a dedicated professor of psychiatry also in our department, who led a distinguished career in community psychiatry, through which he gained national recognition. His pioneering work developing comprehensive community care programs for the seriously mentally ill is now known as the Assertive Community Treatment Program, gained international recognition and revolutionized the concept of public mental healthcare. He passed away on July 17, 2018, at the age of 88, leaving behind his beloved wife Karen and three children. Doctor Stein was a rare combination of innovative research scientists, compassion in physicians, skilled instructor and mentor, and driven and persuasive leader. He too will be truly missed by his family. Thank you.

>> Than you very much. Thank you, you all may be seated. And I would like to thank your guests, you're welcome to stay but we have a long agenda and I'm not sure that I would recommend it, but it's up to you. [laughter] The main presentation this morning is going to be given by Norman Drinkwater, who's going to talk about the "State of Research" at the University. But I have just a few comments that I want to make beforehand about things that are happening across campus. We are celebrating an anniversary tomorrow, on November 6, 1998, Jamie Thompson introduced the world to the first laboratory derived human embryonic stem cells, and that labs accomplishment underpins the whole world of regenerative medicine and the sorts of things that have come out of it have been used to test drugs, develop treatments for diseases, and further our understanding of basic human biology. 20 years later, we remain a world recognized leader in stem cell research, and there's a number of anniversaries and celebrations going on, I hope you've seen some of those announcements. If not, you can look at the news feed and you will find them. If you pic up a Wisconsin State Journal on November 18, we along with the Mortgage Institute have created a special edition in the newspaper about stem cells, so you'll want to grab that and read it. We have a Fall Commencement coming up in December and you may have seen the announcement that Allan "Bud" Selig, the former Major League Baseball Commissioner and the former owner of the Brewers is going to deliver the commencement address on December 16 at the Cole Center. Bud is anything but a stranger to campus. He earned his bachelor's degree here in '56 with a duel History and Political Science Major, he is one of our most involved and supportive alumni, and he's currently co-teaching the advanced level seminar; Baseball and Society Since World War ? and maintains an office in the Department of History where he also established the Allan H. Selig chair. I hear it's an absolutely great class, so, but it's very hard to get into. [laughter] Three years ago we joined more than 450 Universities from around the country to reaffirm a commitment to civic education and community development through an organization known as The Campus Compact. This was a no brainer for us given the Wisconsin idea and the many ways in which we engage with the community around us. Part of that commitment was to develop a civic action plan, and there's been a comity of 16 faculty staff and community leaders that have put that together under the agents of the Morgridge Center and that they've issued a plan that has nine recommendations. I encourage any of you who are interested to Google "civic action plan" and you can look at it on the Morgridge Center website as well. Those nine recommendations give us a variety of ways forward, and the Morgridge Center and other groups, including my own office is helping to figure out how we fund and move forward on some of those, so that's one I encourage you to look at. A couple of things that are percolating on campus, as many of you may know, a week ago on Monday there was a vigil for the victims of the Tree of Life Synagogue shooting in Pittsburgh, I was honored to be able to speak at that. What I told people there among other things is that this was an act of terrorism, as was the previous attack on the Sikh Temple in 2011, here in Wisconsin, or the attack on a black church in Charlotte in 2016. These are attacks on the ideals that this country has fought to preserve for generations. And I just wanted to let all of you know and others in your departments, if you know of staff or faculty, or students who may be experiencing particular stress of anxiety due to this event or others, please them that support is available through the university Health Services for Students and the Dean of Students Office and the Employee Assistance Office, and encourage them to do that. The other issue that is percolating out that as you know, is this discussion of whether or not the Department of Education will choose to no longer recognize transgender as a category, as an identity. And as some of you probably have read, I've written a letter to Betsy DeVos together with other University Presidents about that, a number of business leaders are writing about that. Nothing has been finalized, but that is also one that we're watching closely , and that I know is affecting a number of out students, staff, and faculty as well. Many of you are aware we're working on an expansion of our computing efforts. I touched on this last month, we have a major report that came in written by a mix of friends, alumni, faculty, giving some recommendations about how we move forward. And the major recommendation is create a new academic structure within the College of Letters and Science that would bring commuting and other key related disciplines closer together to encourage collaboration and develop an expanded curriculum. And I just want to say L and S is beginning the process of consultation and planning to shared governance with relevant departments, with faculty, staff, alumni, and students. The icicle is involved, some other departments as well as computer science is involved in this, and we'll see where all those discussions go. I hope that we might be able to come up with an enhanced plan about how to create greater visibility in information, computer science, statistics, other areas here on campus. And we are at the same time, as Norman may mention, working on creating a cross campus research center on data science as well that will bring in all of the other schools and colleges, all of which are involved with these issues. So, I look forward to seeing these plans develop as they get put together. And finally, I will simply close with a reminder incase you need it, that tomorrow's election day. We are engaging in The Big Ten Challenge where our students, whereby all Big Ten campuses have been challenged to vote and whoever votes of the highest rate among their students is going to get some sort of prize. I have no idea what it is. I want to win, even if I don't know what the prize is. [laughter] But the Morgridge Center for Public Service is leading that. We've had a lot of activity among all sorts of groups on campus [inaudible] get out to vote, and I encourage all of you as well to participate in that civic activity tomorrow. With that, I'm going to turn things over the Norman to talk about what's happening on the research side, and then we'll both open up for questions. Norman.

>> Thank you, Chancellor. I'm really happy to have the opportunity to update the faculty senate on some of the recent activities of the Office of the Vice Chancellor Research in Graduate Education. First, I would like to introduce in the next slide two new members of our leadership team. Florencia joined us in September as the Associate Vice Chancellor for Research in the Arts and Humanities, she's from the History Department. And in addition, Cynthia Czajkowski who has served as Interim Associate Vice Chancellor for Research in the Biological Sciences joined us as the permanent holder of that position in September. She's from the Department of Neuro Science. In addition of that I'd like to remind you that there's an ongoing search for a new Vice Chancellor for Research in Graduate Education. You should have all received an email from Dorothy Farrar Edwards, she's securing that search committee recently, encouraging you to submit nominations, and I would equally encourage you to identify colleagues here and elsewhere who you think would do a great job in this position. It's a really good job you should tell people to apply for. And also, to participate next February when finalists for that position are interviewed on campus. So, today I'd like to briefly cover two topics. First, I'd like to talk a little bit about some of the grant's programs within OBCRG and some new initiatives along those lines, and secondly, I'd like to talk about some of our efforts in the last several years to reduce administrative burden related to research activities. Next slide. In terms of our grant's programs, our longest standing grants program is the Fall Research Competition that's actively underway right now, many of your colleagues are being interviewed by members of the four divisional research committees. Last year we funded 247 faculty to the tune of something slightly less than $10,000,000 to pursue research and a whole host of disciplines across the four divisions. In addition, we have for the last 3 years run a competition that we have called the UW2020 WARF Discovery Initiative and that's really intended to fluster collaborative research projects and to develop novel infrastructure related to research across the campus. Over those first four rounds we funded something like 66 projects involving nearly 440 faculty and staff investigatory, with a total investment of about $25,000,000. From the first two rounds of that, which have now completed their efforts, we actually have almost a three-fold return on investment. Round five for that grants program is currently underway, abstracts were due last month, and full proposals will be due early in December. Both of those programs draw from the full compliment of research activities across the campus. To compliment that investigator initiative activity a couple of years we started a series of strategic initiatives, which were intended to make investments in specific areas that we thought were right for new research strategies and new collaborative activities across the campus based on conversations, both among the leadership team and with our colleagues across the campus. The first of those research initiatives focused on the microbiome. Last year we had a research initiative related to data science, one of the outcomes of that research initiatives as the Chancellor mentioned, has been to impanel a committee to begin to discuss the possibility of developing a data sciences institute and we hope that that committee will complete its efforts by the beginning of next year so that we can begin to develop such an [inaudible] that we'll draw from faculty across the campus in terms of research and data. This year we have a new initiative in contemporary social problems, the abstract for that initiative are due in just a little under two weeks, with full proposals due shortly after the first of the year. That initiative really compliments the Dream Up Wisconsin activity that is a collaboration between the Institute for Research on Poverty and the College of Letters and Sciences, and the Schmidt Futures Alliance for the American Dream. Some of the research areas focused on in the next slide related to that you can see cover a pretty broad range. The goal is to promote economic prosperity, enhance social and psychological wellbeing, and improve health outcomes in the United States, which is a pretty broad brief, I think you would agree. And you can see some examples of research themes that will be considered for that initiative, including inclement wealth distribution through technology innovation related to health and psychological wellbeing, as well as policies and programs that are designed to promote socially and economically stable families and positive outcomes for children in the United States. A new initiative that we've begun this year is to support for our arts faculty in terms of their pursuit of artists and residence activities. So, we have long collaborated with the schools and colleges to support faculty receiving prestigious external fellowships, such as from the National [inaudible] for the Humanities. And in recent years, the former ABC for Arts and Humanities, Leia Jacobs, developed a series of workshops and individual and mentoring activities that have really allowed us to increase our effectiveness in competing for those external fellowships by more than two-fold over the last couple of years. [inaudible] faculty however, weren't eligible for that competition so we developed a new collab, mechanism in collaboration, with both the School of Education and the College of Letters and Sciences to allow our arts faculty to undertake prestigious artisan residence opportunities as a way of promoting both their scholarship and their careers. We intend to provide up to four opportunities across the two schools each year. The next area I wanted to briefly talk about was reducing administrative burden. We've undertaken a number of activities that have been designed to try to make it easier for people to do the research that they all want to spend all their time on doing, in spite of the fact that recent studies have shown that all of our faculty spend up to 40% of their time on administrative activities that they may wonder about the value of. So first, we have developed a new streamline process for outside activity reporting, there's been a new OAR tool that's been developed, it was rolled out last summer. You probably wont notice it until after the first of the year when you begin to report on your outside activity. But the idea there is the make it simpler for faculty to report it, and also easier for campus leadership to get information about the activities of our faculty. We've also undertaken with, in collaboration with our colleagues at Research and Sponsored Programs in effort to match both the negotiation and management of agreements to the level of risks. So, one example of that has to do with material transfer agreements. Half of you won't know what that is, but the other half of you will probably have one or more ongoing right now. We do about a thousand of these agreements a year, mainly in support of faculty getting research materials from colleagues at other institutions. The vast majority of them involve little, if any risk to the campus, and it was taking 2 or more weeks to negotiate those agreements. We've now by streamlining that activity reduced that to a single day, making it easier for faculty to do the experiments that they intended to do with that materials that they get from outside. We have also tried to better match our research policies related to industry sponsor research to faculty needs, and as a result of that change we're in the midst of negotiating three new master agreements with various industrial concerns. The last thing I want to talk about and that I'll spend the most time on has to do with our coplients related to Human Subjects Research, which is managed by the institutional review boards that deal with all protocols for Human Subjects Research on campus. That's been long a source of concern among many faculty, those participating in that kind of research across the campus. And as a result of that concern we initiated a survey of all of the faculty who participated in Human Subjects Research campus wide, and as a result of that survey have made a number of changes, both the administration of Human Subjects Research Compliance, as well as many, many enhancements to the major tool, the online tool that people use to submit those protocols. So, if I could have the next slide. So, in the Fall of 2016, Jan Granberg [assumed spelling] the ABC for Social Sciences initiated a survey of all user of our IRB's on campus. About 12,000 of PI's or their designated staff were sent surveys, half of whom responded. We received a number of suggestions in the next slide for improvements in our activities related to Human Subject Research. In particular, there were many calls to make improvements to the online tool that's used to submit such protocols, and also to make an effort to get continuing feedback from user of out IRB's by doing brief surveys following their actions related to IRB. In addition to that there was a clear call to align our responsibilities for Human Subjects with the administrative oversight of the IRB's, and the first step towards that was taken I January of this year when we moved the NSBS IRB from the College of Letters and Sciences to the Office of the Vice Chancellor Research in Graduate Education. But the most compelling argument was to establish a faculty led working group to look at the problem of the Human Subject Research in a very comprehensive way across the campus and make recommendations for improvements. We developed such a working group, and the members of which are listed on the next slide. That working group drew from faculty from across the campus in seven different schools and colleges and it was chaired by Dorothy Farrar Edwards, and the working group reported out in last February. That working group made a number of recommendations, some of which are shown on the next slide, and we've already began to take action on each of them. First, they urged us to increase faculty engagement and policy review, we've now reconstituted the Human Research Protection Program advisory committee and changed this charge so that it provides much more direct advice regarding our current policies. There was also a strong call towards a changing culture within our institutional review boards to facilitate research at the same time as protecting our human subject. We have developed a number of tools including a study in navigation service and better communication between the IRB's and the investigators during the pre-review phase. There was also a suggestion that we should illuminate fees charged to faculty for review by the IRB's, we will begin doing that in January as we transition. As I'll mention in a moment, the Health Science's IRB from the School of Medicine and Public Health to the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research in Graduate Education. And finally, again, you saw many calls for improvements to the online tool and the process by which people submit protocols per review. The last thing I want to mention is that we will be transitioning the Health Sciences IRB and the minimal risk IRB, which are currently under the authority of the School of Medicine of Public Health into our office, and the rationale behind that administrative change is really to align responsibility and operations under the institutional officer, the IO that is ultimately responsible for all Human Subjects Research on campus. That IO is, Nadine Connor is the Associate Vice Chancellor for Research Policy and Compliance. So, this will also allow us to provide a campus wide service that includes all of the IRB's, so all of the pathways for faculty to submit protocols for review under a single administrative structure, and that integration allows us to ensure that we have consistency across the campus. And finally, we will be able to eliminate fees for UW Investigator Initiative Studies. By having one team focused on reducing research [inaudible] while upholding the protection of human subjects and ensuring research accountability in compliance with federal regulations, we hope to greatly facilitate investigators ability to do Human Subject Research on this campus. I will point out that although administratively the human subject, the health science [inaudible] will be moving to our office, their location and their staff will in fact remain the same, it will just allow us a much better opportunity to insure integration across the campus and the positions that we take with respected protection of human subjects. So lastly, so I'd be happy to answer any questions.

>> Are there questions for either Norman for the University Committee or for myself?

>> Mark Etzel, District 11. I had a question about the $100,000,000 Foxconn gift that was announced by the University. One time I brought in a small amount of money from 3M, it was only like $100,000, and I had to pay $32,000 of that in overhead and $68,000 actually came for my research. And that included IP licenses, it included publication restrictions, and things like that. So, my understanding about a gift is that you get nothing of value in return. The Foxconn with this $100,000,000 gift has no overhead is paid, the IP licensing was already preordained, it requires a 50/50 match from other donors to get the money, it uses University land and University utilities, and the building that they propose has no classrooms or public space. So, I was wondering why that's called a gift and why do I have to pay overhead when I bring in money, but Foxconn doesn't have to pay overhead when they give money?

>> So, we talked about this a little bit at the faculty senate a month ago but let me repeat some of the things I said there. So, there is a difference between research support, which does require overhead and expenses and a gift. This is a gift because the money is coming in to be spent on things that are not direct research activities, but that are support for that in the same way that gifts from a donor provides support. The building that is going to be built is a building that's been on the engineering masterplan for a number of years. This is going to give them the ability to move that forward faster than they would otherwise. The agreement with regard to that building is that Foxconn would give 50% of the cost and we would raise the other 50%, which is quite standard quite honestly for many lead building gifts. It's the sort of arrangement we've had for any building actually, that is entirely gift funded, which we hope this will be, that that primary donor needs to give at least 50%. That 50% is &75,000,000, and then engineering will be on track to raise the other 75. It is the building in terms of what's in there has not been set. I actually expect there will be student activity in that building, there will some public space, there will be a variety of research labs and equipment, but we're in the midst of scoping out exactly what that building contains. So, if someone has told you there are no students in the building or something, that's just, we just aren't at that point yet, I don't think that's going to be true. We don't even know quite where the location is, we're looking at a couple of different locations, and then going to be setting a price, so that uses up 75 of the $100,000,000 gift. The other $25,000,000 will be negotiated and will be some combination of support, such as faculty chairs, student scholarships, which again, the sorts of things we get gifts from for donors all the time, in the area of Computer Science, in the area of Health and Wellness, and in the area of engineering. And exactly how that will get used is to be negotiated as different proposals come forward. But this is, actually looks a lot like the other gifts that we get from other individuals and is going to be spent in much the same way. It's not the same as the research funds that you got for a specific research project. We are engaged at this point in four or five research projects with Foxconn, those are separate agreements, separately funded, dealt with as research agreements, they are not gifts, they are similar to your GE Dollars.

>> And I would point out that for those research agreements, Foxconn has agreed to pay the current federal indirect costs for all of those funds.

>> Chad Alan Goldberg, District 71. I wanted to address a different matter. Chancellor Blank, you mentioned in your remarks the EW Community Vigil for Pittsburgh and I was very pleased you there, and I thanked you that night. I also wanted to thank you again, publicly for attending that and for speaking. I think it was very important, and certainly lifted my spirits and I think many other people's spirits. I feel that at moments like this the antidefamation league described the attack in Pittsburgh as the deadliest attack on Jews in American history. I feel that it is vitally important for our leaders to remind the public conscience about how horrific and how odious this kind of crime is, and to reaffirm our communities commitment to democracy and to an open society to use the language that you used that night, which I thought was very fitting, and to do that, to do that publicly to reaffirm that our commitment to those things is unchanged. I feel that this is a kind of moral leadership and I don't think it's a trifling matter. I feel that this kind of moral leadership has been sadly lacking at the national level, but it's not lacking here, and you've shown that, you've shown this kind of moral leadership here. And I just want to say that, I think I speak for many when I say that I'm deeply appreciative for your presence there and for your words there. [applause]

>> Thank you, Chad.

[ Applause ]

I will just say that we've got a lot of members of our community who are I think feeling stressed for a variety of different reasons, not just our Jewish students but certainly them. And you know, these are things that affect not just particular groups, they affect all of us, and I do hope that we will all look out for each other because we need to act as a community in the midst of some of these things.

>> [inaudible], District 117. I recall like one year ago we spoke about ways to reduce administrative burden in the faculty, and I recall that Chancellor said that she's having a meeting with the national level to try to do something about this. And as of this moment, I don't see anything happening, and you definitely [inaudible] to admit to use that in a sense of burden and [inaudible] burden. And faculty, especially in biological division, I'm not sure about other divisions in campus here, but this is a real issue for us and we hope that we can do something about it.

>> So, I'm sorry. I missed the, what type of faculty? I'm sorry.

>> Administrative and [inaudible] burden is that we go through UW in my division.

>> This was in part what Norman was talking about with administrative burdens with regard to research. The Vice Chancellor for Finance Administration, Lauren Heller, has had several conversations with the deans. They have laid out an agenda around some of the administrative areas that they find particularly burdensome and with time and cost is occurring, and some of those we can do somethings about, and some of them we can. And we are working out, you know, time frames and strategies for how do we go after some of the things that are particularly burdensome where we do have some control. I mean, the procurement process is one of these and we've been working with system because a lot of this is set by system. To try to simplify that we've won a few battles, we haven't won some others, none of that has been announced yet. Travel becomes one that many people are very worried about, that is unfortunately set by system, but there's some things there that I think we make it worse for ourselves in the way we implement it. So, I mean I assure you that there is, you know, as Normans presentation noted, ongoing attention to some of this. I wish I could say, look, there's an easy win, look what happened. You know, in 3 months we did this. Unfortunately, many of these things do involve systems changes that take time, but you know, I can promise you, it's on everyone's scope, if that's helpful.

>> Thank you.

>> Yeah. Thank you, Norman. All right, if you now turn to page 11 in your packet, there are the minutes from the last meeting, October 1, 2018. Are there any additions or corrections to those minutes? If not, they are approved as distributed. Let me now recognize Professor Anja Wanner, who's going to present the annual report for the University Academic Planning Committee. Anja.

>> Good afternoon. The UAPC advises the provost who cannot be here today on major academic program decisions. You have a 12-page report in your packet, which I am now going to read out. No. [laughter] So, the summary of the report reminded me that we approved over 100 actions related to changes in the status of academic programs. They're really just numerous and effect all corners of the canvas. I'm happy to take questions and I'm also very glad that the Vise Provost for Academic Affairs and Director of Academic Planning Jocelyn Milner's in the room because she will be the best person to answer your questions.

>> Are there questions for Anja on the report? All right. Thank you very much for your work on that, I know there's a lot of work that UAPC does. Let me recognize Professor Tim Smeeding, who's going to present the annual report for the University Lectures Committee. Tim.

>> Thanks, Becky. As most of you know the University Lectures Committee sponsors speakers who are invited from eligible university groups, including students, faculty organizations. There's the process you through, you file, we look, thanks to Jamie, Ed, [inaudible], and Steve, we follow the rules. We spent 42,000 bucks, put 55 people in here, had a good attendance. We very eagerly continued to look for co-sponsors. Sometimes you get the feeling that, you know, the lecture was last week, or the lecture is next week, and you just what we call, economists call physical constitution, we were paying something someone else would, so we like those sponsorships. The big issue that we have is something called the William K. Fitts Fund, which has hundreds of thousands of dollars in it, and it's available to bring Madison prominent business people to give lectures in the American Free Enterprise System. You could have two people dueling lectures, whatever, we had one business man, Curt Colber [assumed spelling] last year. This year we've had Ashoka Mody, who was the research director in the International Monetary Fund to talk about Euro crisis. There's another application in the wings, but it's far too low, so please, think about using this. Invite somebody, have a debate, we'd really appreciate it. I guess that's it. If you have any other questions feel free to ask them and I'll see if I can answer them, and if I can't, Steve can.

>> Any questions for the lectures committee? Thank you for your work.

>> Thanks boss.

>> [inaudible] there too. Thank you Tim. Let me recognize Professor Emeritus Bruce Thomadsen, who going to present the annual report for the Commission on Faculty Compensation and Economic Benefits. Bruce.

>> Thank you. And it is my pleasure to present this report from a group, a committee that's worked very diligently with intelligent and insightful members that its been a pleasure to work with. And given the title of the committee, I did not think I would ever get a chance to say that. I will just read about eight sentences here and there from our two summaries, I guess we felt we should say it twice. From the report, the commission focused on it, focused its efforts on assessing the current state of compensation benefits for tenuit [inaudible] faculty and considered some alternate compensation tools. The commission concluded that tenuit and tenuit track faculty salaries continued to remain significantly below those who have comparable institutions as a result of the inadequate funding provided by the, to the University as the state legislatures for prize. The lack of funds causes salary compression between the associate in full professor levels equating to a loyalty penalty of salaries falling farther behind those of our peer institutions, so longer one works at the University. This negatively effects the faculty moral, and perhaps more importantly, costs the University more money to execute reactive retention packages verses instituting a program of proactive regular salary increases based on well deserved merit criteria. The responsible solution for achieving faculty salary parody is through state legislature action. Without such funding the university will be subject to continue decrease in prominence due to the faculty departing to institutions offering higher salaries. The university is an economic generator for the state of Wisconsin, and the Universities success rides on the ability to achieve, of the achievement of the faculties. Our University has from its inception provided students with access to brilliant scholars and teachers, and our graduates have there upon gone on to achieve great things themselves. That is our report. We gathered data from comparable institutions, we've looked at the data from each and everyone of you, and we've compared department to department, we've used surveys, and all data that's possible. And I'll just end on a personal note, due to my retirement this is the last time I will have any opportunity to address the faculty senate, and while it's often used in the pejorative, my work with the university committees and the commission in particular have allowed me to work with great members, along with my work with the union, and particularly this faculty senate, which has been one of the most rewarding things in my career. Thank you.

[ Applause ]

>> I want to say just a word, both a thank you to you, and to this committee, if you've not read this report you should. The board of regions will be presenting their request for compensation in the next 2-year budget in December and the Governor will be in turn acting on their, his recommendation some time in early February, so watch that space carefully. As many of you know, we are not allowed to give across the board salary increases, that must come through the state legislature. The only thing we can do is put money on the table for equity and merit increases, and we have tried to do that at a substantial level every year for the last several years, but it is not a replacement for across the board increase, so thank you for your work. Are there questions? Are there comments on this?

>> Thank you.

>> Thank you for you and you committee. Let me recognize Professor Ivy Corfis, who will present the annual report for the University Curriculum Committee.

>> Good afternoon. And it's a pleasure to represent the University Curriculum Committee to present to you the report, which you have had to read and it's in your materials. I will just outline a couple of very brief things. First of all, as you see in the function and, of the committee it's not only to approve the courses, sometimes we are told we cause you all kinds of problems, but it's really not that. We do try to do the best we can to get the most information and do the best. We're approving the courses and reviewing course offerings, and also to give advice on policy. So, you'll see from the report that we have been active in both of those areas. The number of course proposals that we've reviewed for changes for new courses, as well as very few discontinuations is high, but that's also because of some reorganization of some departments. But we do a lot of work, and I would like to at this point, acknowledge the great work that Michelle Young does for our committee from APIR to keep us on track, to make sure we get those proposals in a fairly good state before we see them. And it is because of her great work that we've been able to go through that number of proposals, and also look at some policy items, which you also have in the report. I'll just list a few. We worked on this course learning outcomes, which is, you know, are a very important part of the syllabus, the disciplinary boundaries, the kind of stay in your lane issues for courses that are coming in to various departments, and trying to address those issues, and yet keep interdisciplinary really a vital part. Some topics course guidelines, as well as working with different initiatives. The syllabus project, the obsolete course policy, as well as the course requisites cleanup project that's been going on, as well as many other things dealing with course attributes and on and on. So, you have the reports, you've read it, it's a pleasure working with this committee and we do a lot of excellent work. And I also want to thank all the faculty that do the great job of also working with those courses and providing us with a great curriculum. If you have any questions, I would be happy to address them.

>> Questions for Ivy, for the committee? Thank you and your committee.

>> Thank you very much. I know you do lots of work.

>> Let me recognize Professor Rick Amasino, the Chair of the UC, who will present a resolution to endorse the UW-Madison policy on consensual relationships. I will remind all of you, we had the first discussion of this last month, so this is the second time this is coming back and following our discussion we will vote on the resolution.

>> Thank you. I move adoption of Faculty Document 2764, which expresses the Faculty Senate's support of the new UW-Madison policy on consensual relationships. The main tenet of this policy is that instructors may not enter into romantic or sexual relationships with their students or with anyone they reasonably expect to become their students. The primary element of out campus policy that is not in the broader System policy is a blanket discouragement of romantic or sexual relationships between all instructors and all undergraduates. As the Chancellor mentioned at last months Senate meeting, this resolution had a first reading and there were no changes suggested to it. So, now before you is the same, it's in the same form as last month's faculty Senate.

>> Don't go to far here Rick. There is no second required on this since it comes from the UC. Is there discussion, commentary? Seeing no one moving towards the microphone, let me call for a vote. All those in favor of adopting the endorsement if the UW-Madison policy on consensual relationships as stated, indicate by saying "I".

>> I.

>> All those opposed. The motion carries. All right. Let me recognize Steve Ventura , who will present a resolution on the tenure of the UW Extension faculty, and again this is the second time this has come to you, so this one we will vote on as well.

>> Thank you, Chancellor. I move adoption of Faculty Document 2763 on the transfer of tenure of Extension faculty to UW-Madison. You will note that accompanying the resolution is an updated version of the tenure working group document to reflect comments that were provided both of the last times that this was heard. This is the first step in a long process, for legal and ethical reasons to support the transfer of tenure, including reaffirming tenants of our own governance. For many around the state extension is the University of Wisconsin and the merger brings all of us closer to front lines where the Wisconsin idea is in action. As previously noted, this process won't be easy, it's the merger of different cultures with different rules and norms, and many unresolved questions that we'll have to deal with in the next several months. This campus professes to welcome diversity, and it can and should accommodate differences in cultures and norms. I'm going to foreshadow one of several vexing questions that are going to come to this and other governance bodies in the next several months, and I ask that you help support fair and swift solutions to some of the issues. A simple version is that extension will need an institutional home here. The operating assumption is that this will be a new unit, it will have a dean, and faculty, and departments, and so forth. And incase you're wondering, yes, I believe full vetting and approvals through faculty policies and procedures Chapters 3 and 5 will be needed and on up the food chain. The vexing part is that this is the third time in 4 years that there's been a major reorganization of extension, and in each of the two previous reorganizations, the independence and authority of the faculty of extension was substantially eroded. The decision-making processes became more top down and higher article. That structure can't be ported into UW-Madison or replicated here, so I'm going to encourage you to help support a process of bringing in those extension faculty and helping the assert their rights and responsibilities in the governance systems of UW-Madison and their own unit within it. So, I will encourage an option of this resolution and stay tuned because we will have more discussions about this process. Questions?

>> No second required for this motion. Is there, are there comments?

>> Hi, Brett Payseur, District Genetics. I'm a big fan of extension, I'm excited about the merger, but I want to ask a question about the difference in cultures that you mentioned. As I understand it from reading the report form the committee the, or the awarding of tenure for Extension faculty has traditionally not involved arm's length reviewers, whereas that is an important part of awarding tenure on campus at UW-Madison. I just wanted to raise the question to you and this body about whether that should be something we're concerned about.

>> I would say only that what we're talking about narrowly in the resolution is tenure that has already been granted. I don't think that there is any reason that we would revisit those decisions as part of this merger process.

>> Can I say something, that the expectation moving forward is that tenure, five year reviews and further tenure decisions will take place in one of the four divisional committees that exist here at Madison, and different Extension faculty may well fit into different committees, but we would expect that the process would be the same for them as it is for other faculty here on this campus moving forward.

>> Chad Alan Goldberg, District 71. I spoke at the last faculty Senate meeting in favor of this resolution. I again want to reiterate my strong support for this resolution. I think it is, it's really crucial that we prove it. Everybody in this room knows that tenure has been undermined and weakened in recent years, we should not be complicit in the process and the moment that we do become complicit in that process, even for colleagues in extension, that will backfire on us. And so, for that very reason we need to be firm in protecting the institution of tenure and I believe this resolution does it.

>> Seeing no other comments or questions, if you are ready to vote, all those in favor of the resolution indicate by saying "I".

>> I.

>> All those opposed. Motion carries. Thank you. Let me recognize Professor Rick Amasino, who will present a resolution on graduate assistant support. Rick.

>> Thank you. I move adoption of Faculty Document 2775, which is a resolution endorsing continued support of graduate assistants. As those of you who were here last session will remember, there was a resolution on this same topic under discussion in May when we lost quorum and had to adjourn. That resolution was prompted in part by a potential change to the timing of payments of segregated fees by graduate students. Historically, these fees have been due after graduate assistants receive their third paycheck of the academic year. Last spring it looked like that might change, but the Board of Regents, UW System, and our own Bursar's Office have agreed to not change this payment timing. So that impetus for the May resolution no longer exists. However, the discussion in May also involved graduate assistant support in general and the issue of the segregated fees specifically. The resolution before you today is intended to address these issues, recognizing a concerted effort by administration to increase support for graduate assistants and calling on those efforts to continue and remanding the specific issue of segregated fees to the shared governance Budget Committee. As you know, there are multiple elements to the issue of segregated fees, including legalities, fairness, financial hardships, and transfer of burden among others. The Budget Committee, which includes student, staff, and faculty representation as well as ex officio Finance & Administration members, is uniquely positioned to consider all of these different elements, disentangle them, and come up with a recommendation for our consideration and discussion at the April Faculty Senate meeting. I look forward to your input and encourage you to vote in favor of this resolution.

>> Please, no second required for this, so we are open for conversation.

>> Chad Alan Goldberg, District 71. So, I had a hand in drafting the original version of this resolution that previously came before this body. The version that's currently before has, deviates in some significant respects from that original version. Some of those changes as Rick Amasino said, there are good reasons for, some other changes I'm less certain about. I have had some preliminary conversations with leaders of the TAA and with grad students in my own department and my feeling about this is that it's maybe premature to vote on this today. I would like to make a motion, I would like to move that we postpone this item until next months faculty Senate meeting. If the motion is seconded, I'll be happy to explain why.

>> So, there is a resolution to table until next, is postponed until next month that needs a second. With the second there, we are now discussing the motion to postpone until next month, not the content of the original motion. Are there comments on the motion to postpone to next month? Seeing no, do you want to speak to it?

>> Chad Alan Goldberg, District 71. So, the reason that I have made this motion, again in consultation with the leadership of the TAA and with graduate students in my department they do, I know that they do have concerns about this version of the resolution. Some of the TAA leaders and members are present here in the room because they have those concerns and I feel that it's important to give senators in the room an opportunity to consult with graduate students in their departments about how this resolution with the current wording would effect graduate students and graduate students feelings about that, to be sure we represent faculty here, not graduate students. But I think in voting on this we want to make an informed vote that is informed among other things, by conversations with the graduate students in our respective departments. That's the reason for the motion.

>> Are there other comments on the motion to postpone? If not, we will vote on the motion to postpone this until next month. All those in favor of that motion, indicate by saying "I".

>> I.

>> All those opposed. I think the "I's" carry that, so the motion is postponed until next month. That makes that a little faster than I thought it would be. Let me recognize Professor Irwin Goldman, who is going to present two related resolutions for a first reading. Irwin.

>> One at a time?

>> We do them one at a time, yep. Yeah, one at a time.

>> Great, thank you. I present for a first reading a resolution in support of professor titles for Instructional Academic Staff. And as you may know, the faculty senate resolved in 2001 that the word Professor should not be used in a title without approval of the faculty Senate. That [inaudible] committee on instructional titles was charged in the Fall of 2017 and they produced a final report in early January 2018 that was sent to the University committee. And this report recommended the creation of two new titles, Teaching Professor and Professor of Practice, as well as modification of the lecture title series and renaming the faculty associate title series. Part of the rational for the recommendation is that current titles for instructional academic staff don't really reflect the qualifications and duties of these individuals, and they also may be associated with a lack of permanence of their positions and possibly lead to perceptions that our instructors are less than qualified. In addition, many if not most of our peer institutions have such titles, placing our instructional academic staff possibly in a less competitive position. It's important for me to note though with this resolution, that the only thing the senate really needs to decide here today is whether the use, or at least this is a first reading, so your decision isn't today, but perhaps to be thinking, begin thinking about, is whether the use of the word professor is acceptable in these titles. The rest of the details on the titles themselves is up to the title, titling and compensation study and the other relevant HR units on our campus. And finally, I'll say that it's important to note that this resolution is offered with the statement that the senate strongly opposes the use of these titles as a substitute for tenure track faculty appointments.

>> Don't go too far, Irwin. I need a second on this motion, is there a second? I'm sorry? Oh, it's first reading, I'm sorry. Discussion.

>> Kurt Feigl, District 58. I'm concerned about how, the job description for Professors needs to be adding does not include participation in the peer review process. If I understand correctly, it doesn't count in effort certification. So, when I spend time reviewing either a grant proposal or a manuscript in a peer review journal it's off the books. And so, I would like to offer an amendment that in a whereas statement we include the line, participates in peer review process, both for journal manuscripts and grant proposals.

>> And so, do you have a specific place where, do you just want to add a separate "whereas"?

>> Under the, with "the basic responsibilities as follows".

>> Which is which "whereas"?

>> It's the, sorry, it's the "therefore be it resolved".

>> oh, so say again what it is you want to add under responsibilities.

>> Participates in peer review process, both for journal manuscripts and grant proposals.

>> And you want to add this to both the Professor of Practice and the Teaching Professor? Those are quite different things.

>> I want to add that to Research Professor.

>> All right, we're not talking about Research Professor, we're talking about the first resolution, which is only for instructional staff for Professor or Practice and Teaching Professor, we'll get to that one next.

>> I'll sit down and come back.

>> Okay, hold that, hold that thought. Yeah.

>> Doug Reindl, District 42. My comment is directed at the revisions, not the new titles, the revisions to the existing titles, specifically renaming and revising the faculty associate. So currently, the description that we have for faculty associate in that title series, those are instructional staff. In the revised description diminishes that significantly, these are mostly support for none teaching functions. So, my concern is, what do we do with the faculty associates that are teaching? This seems to strand that, everybody in that title series as teaching.

>> Can I respond to that?

>> Please.

>> And you tell me if I get this right. So, the resolution is only about the titles Teaching Professor and Professor of Practice. The committee report includes recommendations about the Lecturer and the Faculty Associate but does not bring them to this body. Those are going to be discussed as a part of the process with the titling and compensation survey where we're going to be comparing our titles with other Universities. So, Faculty Associate is not a title used on any other university that I know of, so it is likely that there are going to be some shifts to which, you know, who sits in what title and how those get used, but that is not part of this resolution, though it is something that's left to us for consideration in the underlying report.

>> Okay, thanks for the clarification. So, will you, if we have comments on those that are outside of the resolution can I submit those?

>> You should send those to Mark Walters, is Mark here? Who is the head of HR, who is in charge of our titling [inaudible]. Is that right or do you want to?

>> Yeah, [inaudible].

>> Okay.

>> Yeah, Mark Walters, look him up online. Yep, head of HR. other comments on this whereas it's a first reading?

>> Amy Stambach, I'm not sure the District, it's Anthropology. Does this retitling mean that we can employ our master's degree students to lecture in our classes? Should they receive a terminal masters and title them Professors of Teaching?

>> I'm not sure of the answer to that question because I think the titling details would need to be taken up by the titling and total compensations senate. Catherine DeRubeis who knows a lot more about this than I do may be able to answer your question directly.

>> Okay.

>> But, a lot of those details are probably yet to be determined.

>> Because of course, my concern is that that does in fact undermine the graduate teaching that we do and the research informed graduate programing that we do. Thank you.

>> So, can I take a stab at this, which is that, so the Professor of Practice, clearly that just would not apply to any, you know, that someone who's been out and has substantial experience in some other field, right? The Teaching Professor, I believe as this is written would be someone who has some extensive experience and might have been a lecturer for some period of time but who one wants to bring into a more permanent relationship and give a little bit more. No, that is typically not a current student, right? This, you know, I think the lecture title is not going away, it would be used for people and only after some period of time, I would think would almost any department want to think about using something like a Teaching Professor title. Do you want to speak to that too? That is the way I read the resolution.

>> Well, specifically in the qualifications for the Teaching Professor a terminal degree in the field is required to hold that title, so again, a lecturer might be considered for the situation mentioned, but it would not be appropriate for a Teaching Professor unless they have a terminal degree.

>> [inaudible], Family Medicine and Community Health. The ideas actually a very old one, and for those of you in the medical school you already know we have hundreds and hundreds of colleagues who are assistant, associate in full. Clinical health science Professors who don't get their promotion based entirely based on their scholarly output but on many other criteria. Although they have to have scholarly output too, so this is kind of extending a concept that's been around for a long time. Just a comment, thank you.

>> I'm not seeing anyone else move to the microphone. Are you moving? All right.

>> Curt Paulson, District 76. We're in the Department of Planning and Landscape Architecture, and for a lot of these professionally oriented graduate programs having a Professor of Practice is an awesome thing to be able to give that title to a senior experienced professional, so our department is strongly in support of this resolution.

>> Lisa Everett, Physics. My question is about the Professor of Practice and I'm curious, I can see how in Landscape Architecture it would be very much a good thing to have, but in a number of other departments that role is not exactly obvious to be me what it means. And in the description, it says things like advice students, etc., and I'm wondering if there could be, maybe the next time we have a reading or discussion, a little bit more context or examples provided for those of us who are very unfamiliar with this set of titles.

>> We can certainly send that on. I will say that it is primarily the professional schools that are interested in this title, but there's clearly other departments as well. Yeah. All right, I now see no one moving towards the microphone. If you have comments and I do hope you will take this back to your departments, they need to go into the UC in time for the UC to draft the final resolution that will come to you at the December meeting, all right? Irwin, next resolution.

>> Okay. So, this is a similar resolution but on the research side, and it is a first reading of a resolution in support of Research Professor titles for academic staff. And again, the faculty Senate in 2001 determined that that title, that word, excuse me, Professor, should not be used in a title without the approval of the senate. So, that is why it is before you today. Similarly, to the instructional titles and [inaudible] committee studied this since the fall of 2017 and they produced a report in February of this year that went to the University committee, and that report recommended the creation of a Research Professor title with several different prefixes. It would include a number of things and you can read that in the documentation, including permanent PI status will come along with the Research Professor title. Importantly, this is an academic staff title, but it would be culturally integrated into the University in terms of faculty duties. And part of the rational for the recommendation is that we do lag behind our peers in implementing a Research Professor title. Many units on campus believe that the title will enhance a research mission and make us more competitive in lots of different ways, including funding. Because many of our peer institutions have this title our research academic staff are in a less competitive position. So again, it's important to note that the Senate is really only asking about the use of the word Professor here, the details of the title will be taken up by the titling and total composition study and other relevant units. And again, this resolution comes with a statement at the bottom that the Senate strongly opposes the use of these titles as a substitute for tenure track faculty appointments.

>> This is again, a first reading so there no vote. There was the suggestion here, and again this is because this is a first reading, there will not be a formal amendment process, but why don't you stand up and make your comment and we will write this down and look at it as a protrusive revised version.

>> Kurt Feigl, District 58. The amendment I'm offering is in the last part of the "therefore be it resolved" list, participates in peer review process, both for journal manuscripts and grant proposals.

>> Do you have that, or someone has that here?

>> Yes.

>> All right, so that could be added under the principled point, and they will take that suggestion back. Other comments on this?

>> Kurt Paulson, District 76. This is just a question and I should know the answer, but I don't. Instructional academic staff or research academic staff will then be granted titles either Professor of Practice or Research Professor. Can the members of the graduate faculty and therefore serve on PHD and masters committees, is that correct? But they can already, right?

>> Yes, they can serve as co-advisors, they can't be sole major Professors.

>> Right.

>> But according, if this were to pass, they would be able to have those rights.

>> But they currently have those rights as well?

>> That's correct.

>> Okay.

>> That's correct.

>> Other questions or comments? Again, I very much hope you will take this back to your, I know there's some groups that very much want to see this happen. And bring any suggestions or revisions back to the UC within the next several weeks and it will come back to you, both of these will come back to you at the December meeting for a final vote. I think we are at the end of my agenda. We are. I therefore announce the meeting adjourned, thank you all for coming.